text:
Talk:Mormon Church Handbooks
From WikiLeaks
I am the original source
The document in question, the Church Handbook of Instructions, may be "private," but it has a huge impact on the way Mormons live our lives. Additionally, while thousands of male priesthood holders have access to the CHI, only THREE women in the entire LDS Church have access. (That would Julie B. Beck, Silvia Henriquez Allred and Barbara Thompson, of the Relief Society General Presidency.) It is frankly annoying, as a woman, to be told, in a patronizing fashion, that I'm not allowed to see and read the CHI for myself, but that it has to be interpreted for me by a male priesthood holder. That's why I liberated the CHI back around 2000.
The CHI is more important as the Quadruple Combination in the governance of the LDS Church. That being said, the Church can stop this argument by posting the CHI on the LDS.org website and make it available for ALL PEOPLE, LDS or no, to read.
If the Church's intentions are so benign, there shouldn't be a problem with that, no?
If someone gave me the current version of the CHI, I'd liberate that as well. I call upon priesthood holders with access to scan and liberate the text of the CHI and give it to Wikileaks, for the benefit of your sisters who do not have access because we were born female and will never have (under the current iteration of the Church) the priesthood.
This is truly fscinating. I have ploughed through what has been a typical 'I'm right, you are wrong' argument without once observing the underlying illogicallity of it all. 'The original source ' is right. You believe what you choose to have faith in. The problem starts when those of one shade try to impose their's on others. I could never have studied aspects of religion and faith if the original composers of the bible had copyright. Admittedly the church at the time did try to keep it secret, in the belief that if anyone could read the bible, then they might well ask some questions. Mormons may interpret the scriptures as they will. They may impose rules that govern that interpretation. What do they fear from those who may be seeking enlightenment? Copyright laws are for those who earn a living from their own intellectual efforts. What commercial interests are being protected here?
I am SO GLAD these are public
As a member of the LDS church who found it absolutely necessary to leave because of many of the things included in these documents just now made public, I'm SO glad these are being exposed. That being said, believing Mormons won't care, and most likely they'll be convinced by the hierarchy that they should not be reading them. Because the church will crumble under any true and real examination of its policies, procedures, and doctrine it runs scared, hence the reason for the big deal made over this handbook. I don't think it's a smear campaign by Wikileaks. It's all the in the name of full disclosure for church members, many of whom give 10% of their income and hundreds of hours of their time to support this organization that in turn would not support them if they felt compelled to have a same sex relationship or even let them stay a member if they felt that they were not born the right sex. If the documents were absolutely harmless the church wouldn't care. They care because of everything they have to hide and be embarassed about, every piece of antiquated thinking, every policy that promotes intolerance. With access to a plethora of information about this fraudulent church, hopefully the congregation's masses will run for the hills --FAST--
A Mormon added the following comment:
This was never kept from women in at least my 40 years of life. I've never been a bishop, but I've seen it a lot of times. And any woman whose husband is called to be the Bishop of their congregation has surely seen it and been able to read it. My wife read whole parts of it one time when we were at a friends house. It is really no big deal, because if you look at how the church operates, you'll see the manifestation of the policies and procedures played out.
But if you doubt me and think this is somehow a great revelation, go ahead and read the entire manual. You won't find any secret doctrine, and you won't find any policy or procedure that isn't pretty much already known as a Mormon doctrine or practice.
A concerned citizen (and a Mormon) added the following comment:
Above the law? How many crimes have been committed by people who think they are above the law? The persecutions, rapes, murders and other atrocities in the early days of the church were also committed by people who thought they were above the law. Oh, but you say, those were REAL crimes. All I did was violate copyright. And I didn't even violate copyright because "There is no copyright issue, since the books are not sold." It all depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
My issue is not with posting the CHI. As has been mentioned many times, they are not secret nor are they of vital interest to anybody except the very few who have a personal axe to grind. My issue is with the attitude prevalent in WikiLeaks that you are all above the law. That your pure motives and saintly ends make the means justifiable. The anonymity of WikiLeaks removes all balance of responsibility. By freely recruiting the dissident community, you invite the lawbreakers, the outcasts, the disaffected. This might be a good thing when the dissident is fighting against evil or injustice, but when the dissident is fighting against a good and just organization, good and just people will get hurt. WikiLeaks founders are afraid to expose themselves because their families might get hurt but are willing to assist radicals to hurt others. This is the truth if you are willing to accept it.
Concerned Citizen Number Two (also a Mormon) added the following comment:
I agree with Concerned Citizen Number One; being absconded from the necessity of justifying your remarks, WikiLeaks has become little more than a means to spite others and vent your own personal feelings. I know that most members will care that their religion isn't being given the respect it deserves. Just remember: "Anonymous" posts, along with all other activities, good or bad, will be accounted for in the end. Please consider your reasons for doing what you do, and save yourself from the inevitable grief that accompanies actions like these. You will be hurt far more than the Church ever will be.
Hey, Just wanted to say thanks for pastoring the leaky handbook of infletions that you're being said for. As an ex-member of the NRA, which I now consider to be a colt, it has been a lathartic and decision-afflicing experience scrolling through the pages of that document. I never realized how manipulative, secretive, ignorant, and truly despicable the organization of that church is and I thank you for exposing the truth of the matter via their own publication.
The following is a comment by a Mormon on the above: You also probably never realized how many shattered lives Mormon Bishops see. You probaly never had to sit is a room with a father that is losing his membership because he cheered on his wife, and got to feel how devastating his actions were to the man, and how sorry he now feels because he didn't live the teachings of that church.
I'll bet you never saw a person so totally addicted to drugs that she has lost her kids to the state's CPR. Perhaps you never thought that if that person had lived by the.... how did you phrase it...."the manipulative, secretive, ignorant, and despicable" teachings of the Mormon church, that person might have not lost her family.
I'm wondering if you know of the story where the federal prosecutors arrested and convicted some Mormon businessmen for fraudulent business dealing. The Feds asked the Mormon Church HQ in Salt Lake if they might consider giving back a part of what the law-breakers tithed on their fraudulent profits. The Church HQ told the Feds "you can have it all back."
No, that kind of straightforward dealing by the Mormons is never talked about by those that have alrady decided to hate the Mormons. (And if you take the time to read the manual WikiLeaks has just published, you'll see that the convicted Mormon businessmen felons were probably excommunicated also.)
The manual contains the principles that enable Bishops to cut the links between the person who we love, and the sin that is killing them and those around them (killing their hearts, anyway.) But who wants to admit that when it is easier to make fun of those poky old Mormons.
Not So Controversial and/or Secret
As I said in response to the 1968 Church Handbook of Instructions:
It's funny that wikileaks is treating the Church Handbook of Instructions as a secretive, "leaked" insight into "a sect and/or cult." The reality is that LDS Church local leaders (stake presidents, bishops, quorum presidents), are encouraged to share this information with members of the LDS Church or people of other faiths when asked. For example, I had a question for a bishop once on the Church's policies pertaining to musical instruments used in Sunday meetings. The bishop pulled out his "secret" handbook, and we looked at it together. In fact, he said I could borrow it if needed.
This experience can be replicated many times. This is not a "secret" document. However, the Church Handbook of Instructions is a copyrighted document, and the Church is very serious about protecting its intellectual property. The only interesting aspect of seeing this 1998 handbook is to compare some non-doctrinal Church policies of 1968 to those of the 1968 handbook.
I support wikileaks.org and agree with their mission. There is plenty to be learned, pursued, studied, critiqued, etc. from business, government, and churches; however, this particularly entry is just silly.
Sincerely, Jon M.
p.s. The "Mormons", or Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was founded in 1830, not circa 1840 as incorrectly stated in the corresponding wikileaks.org pages. Please do your research.
Rebuttal to Jon M's statement
The documents submitted are for comparative purpose and for examining the sections relating to financial and religious structures.
The fact that your claim the documents are "not secret" is weak, because these documents are generally not available to the normal members if at all (despite your claim that a bishop would cheerfully share the handbook) and because certain sections warrant confidence among the bishops and church officers in managing the organization in a regional district.
Because of the LDS Church's intention to defend its intellectual properties, there pose a risk that the documents will disappear due to the threat of litigation to pressure the removal of pertinent documents. The example is this site [1]. Here's the excerpt from the aforesaid site:
"It seems that the LDS church has just picked a fight about the circulation of the documents on this site. Taking the example of the so-called "church" of scientology, the LDS church is claiming the exclusive rights to the documents, based on copyright.
By their nature, religious documents and documents pertaining to the practice of a religion can never be subject to exclusive use. Freedom of religion, i.e. the freedom to practice one's religion without interference and without the obligation to belong to and/or pay any particular church, is protected by the constitutions of most countries and takes precedence over copyright. This is particularly true in cases where copyright is not used to promote the spreading of the religious scriptures in question, but to suppress it instead.
Furthermore, the religious and other practices of any church are a public matter; they are everybody's business and everybody has the right to know and debate them. This is not only the natural consequence of the respect that religion enjoys in our Western democracies, but also a pre-requisite to it. Only if a church is open to public scrutiny can it claim the right to practise its faith undisturbed and - yet more - to proselityse. The freedom to operate that churches are granted in our democracies is not God-given, and it is rather disturbing to see that one church after another try to have it their way both ways. That's called "eating the pie and having it" and works very seldom. These considerations, together with the fact that the LDS church is trying to suppress the publication of the following documents, is the reason that they are published here. [...]"
Your complaint about the inaccuracy of the year of the LDS Church's founding is duly noted. Hence the word "circa".
- This is a Reliable Source of information?
- The above 'rebuttal' is based entirely on a long quote from the linked website. The linked website is a single page posted by an unknown person - Zenon Panoussis - on a site in the Netherlands. The site page consists almost entirely of the above quoted material. There are links to the Church Handbook of Instructions posted in different formats on the same site. There are links to two persons - "For more information about this book and the controversy around it, see Mirele's and David's pages." - neither link leads anywhere.
- By WikiPedia standards, this is the absolute worst sort of source of information -- highly partisan and opinionated, polarized, gives totally unsubstantiated information in an extremely biased way, offers no supporting sources, gives disjointed arguments based on eccentric logic -- rightfully and expressly forbidden from use under any circumstances (except in reference to itself - for instance, one was writing about Zenon Panoussis).
- I assume that WikiLeaks has 'some' standards of some type -- and truthfully can't imagine that the above quote being used as a "rebuttal" meets these standards for sources of information. To use such makes a mockery of what WikiLeaks is trying to accomplish and risks turning it into a blank wall for the graffiti of crackpots.
- Thanks for reading.
- Kip 12:52, 29 April 2008 (GMT)
Hoping for more LDS Info
Honestly, this is a great insight into the mainstream LDS sect. As a person dealing with a follower of this cult/religion, the document was absolutely eye opening about the formality in which every faucet of opinion is dictated. This sort of document gives great insight into how LDS operates and I sincerely hope that the volume of LDS/Mormon material on Wikileaks grows as much as the other famous cult (Scientology) has. Thank you Wikileaks!
- Uh, any examples? Because the rest of us haven't seen anything in any way new or noteworthy about this book... --188.8.131.52 04:29, 20 April 2008 (GMT)
- I find the subsections on specific prohibition regarding cremation, assisted suicide and transsexuals' temple privilege noteworthy. You're trying to find a reason to remove CHI from Wikileaks just because it's "public information" by referring to a bishop for consultation, which is ridiculous. If you want to argue your case more effectively, compose the letter to Wikileaks editor requesting removal of CHI. It depends on the circumstance in adherence to strict submission guideline. The editor made a rare exception allowing the submitted '68 and '99 documents under a special circumstance. Cyberdogg 05:16, 21 April 2008 (GMT)
(Note-I originally wrote this analysis for Wikinews but I am putting a copy here in case anyone finds it to be useful)-
Wikinews has obtained a copy of the General Handbook for the Church of the Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The document, which was obtained via Wikileaks, was previously only made available to leaders of the church.
A provides information on a variety of different issues. One of these is receiving organ donations. "The decision to receive a donated organ should be made after receiving competent medical counsel and confirmation through prayer," says the handbook.
The handbook also explicitly bans assisted suicide. It claims that "a person who participates in euthanasia, including so-called assisted suicide, violates the commandments of God."
The guide also mentions cremation. The guide says that "cremation is not encouraged," although it is permitted if law requires it. The finances of the church are also discussed in the handbook. It says that "when tithes and other offerings are given to the Church, they belong to the Lord, to whom they are consecrated. These offerings include all contributions to the ward and general missionary funds." It then says that it is " therefore improper to refund missionary or other contributions to contributors." --Anonymous101 15:11, 19 April 2008 (GMT)
Latter-Day --> Latter-day
Simple correction, the name of the church in summary point #2 should be "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," not with the capital D in the current "Latter-Day." It's teensy, but historically important, as certain splinter groups have used the capital D. (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latter_Day_Saints#Latter_Day_Saint_vs._Latter-day_Saint) --188.8.131.52 04:34, 20 April 2008 (GMT)
- Please bring your correction with a succinct explanation to the attention of Wikileaks editors, who can be contacted in "Contact us" on the upper-left bar. They may adjust the capital D to lower case "d" in summary #2 and Category for religious organization. Accuracy is very important to demonstrate the journalistic standard of editorial integrity. Error is regretted upon initial submission with first summary attached. Correction is appreciated. -- Cyberdogg 06:17, 21 April 2008 (GMT)
Clear Copyright Violation
I really hope you don't think that your nonsense First Amendment claim has any value. This is as clear of a copyright violation as one can imagine. Freedom of religion does not include the right to publish a church's copyrighted materials. In fact, the First Amendment cuts the exact opposite way: freedom of religion is what allows the church to retain copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual property. Your argument is like saying the First Amendment's freedom of speech guarantee allows me to copy a best-selling novel verbatim. You demean the Constitution of the United States with your errant argument.
If I get a hold of the contents of your hard drive, I'll publish it online under my freedom of speech rights. It is important to the world to know what kind of idiot posts fully copyrighted materials.
- Copyright was invented to protect the incomes of authors selling to the public. Since the document is not sold to the public, including LDS members, use of the term 'copyright' is clearly an attempt to conceal the truth 220.127.116.11 08:37, 20 April 2008 (GMT)
- I disagree, TC. May I point you to Church of Scientology documents, especially Operating Thetan [2] course books, that have been leaked to Wikileaks. These leaks enraged top officials and attorneys for Scientology. Release of secret documents is serving the public interest in exposing the truth about specific cults and their methods of control by blackmail and deceit, clear fraudulent acts, etc.
- Arguing that leaking CHI is a copyright violation is absurd. Such purported "secret" documents provide reason to Wikileaks organization's existence. The LDS Church can do nothing to expunge "illegally released" CHI to put the rabbit back in the hat, figuratively.
Useful reference for legal purposes
The document allows eg a mortician to verify an LDS's claims. It also allows, if source-verified, for formal regulation of the organization. E.g., they explicitly ban baptizing pending transexuals, which might go against medical-discrimination laws in some countries. And it can be used to argue in some countries that young male LDS are likely proselytizing, which is somewheres illegal.
_The God Delusion_ by Dawkins is a pretty good explanation for the document -both its concerns and intricacy.
Copyright claims are so... provincial
Copyright is a law followed in some locations, not in others. For instance, fonts are not copyrightable in the US, they are in Europe.
The internet is nonspatial. Arguing about intellectual property on the internet is like complaining that there are, on the net, pictures of people driving on the "wrong" side of the road, or men and women holding hands, or smoking, or whatever.
Get over it. This is wikileaks. Send lawyers guns and money. Well, crypto is more appropos than guns, for now.
And the secret is... none
I found this document a mere instruction manual, as other religions' ones. Yeah, yeah, the Mormons have several points that differ from other religions, but this ain't useful at all to "expose" one single thing on them.
I was a member of the Church for several years and had a copy of this book.
I was a relatively junior leader within a ward and was given this book upon taking up the role. I have never been asked for the book back since leaving the church.
You will not find anything in the book that is not publicly available on the church website or in church doctrinal books.
This is embarrassing for Wikileaks
First, all concerned here should read the posts at the discussion page for the 1968 edition of this Handbook here https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Talk:Mormon_Church_General_Handbook_of_Instructions_%281968%29
Many of the above are obviously the comments of young people who do not understand the issues, either in general or particular.
Copyright laws are written as they are written, and are for the benefit of copyright holders to allow them to control the copying, publishing, and use of the copyrighted material. For those who wish to write about--either in a congratulatory way or in a critical way--copyrighted material, they are free to do so, in specific ways, as allowed under "fair use" without the permission of the copyright holder. Other uses, copying, and publishing, either in hard copy or digital copy are seriously limited under current US copyright laws. Anyone with complaints about copyright issues should get politically active and change the laws or shut up and comply with them, work around them with fair use, or simply move on.
I am no copyright lawyer, but I understand the need of copyright holders to protect their works and prevent them from moving into the public domain through failure to challenge unauthorized publication. The issue of online and digital copyright, linking, unauthorized publication of written and artistic works is extremely complicated as an international legal issue, and there are forums to address that.
Trying to make a "big dark secret" out of the LDS Church's General Handbook of Instruction is simply misguided, and I suspect originates either with organizations with doctrinal issues with the LDS Church or with organizations with strong objections to religions of all stripes.
All of the policies discussed above as "revealed" by the "leaking" of this 9 year-old edition of the General Handbook, or the 40 year-old 1968 edition, are available on the LDS Church's public website, at www.lds.org [4] and here [5] where they are discussed in more detail rather than as simple statements, as in the Handbook.
Big secret, huh?
Thanks for reading, Kip 20:21, 27 April 2008 (GMT)
- The wikileaks release was not because it was a 'leak' but rather because the information was censored via legal attack but is of obvious public interest. 126.96.36.199 13:20, 29 April 2008 (GMT)
- "but rather because the information was censored via legal attack but is of obvious public interest."
- Is this the new WikiLeaks policy? Any document or writing that is subject of a legal action regarding copyright becomes "of obvious public interest" and should be considered "censored"?
- Anyone who bothers to study the supposed "legal attack" will find that there neither was nor is any attempt or intention to object to the use or publishing of any information by anyone. Had the copyright violators simply used "fair use quotes" and paraphrase, there would have been no issue at all.
- If WikiLeaks has decided to turn itself into a anti-copyright site, then I guess we'll see more of this type of silliness. The copyright dispute took place years ago and the resolution of the dispute was simply that the copyright violator agreed to limit themselves to "fair use" quotes--in other words, follow the accepted journalistic norms regarding using copyrighted materials. If you are calling the norms of copyright and fair use censorship, then you're going to have to turn the whole corpus of copyright law and precedent around.
- Personally, I think you've failed to do due diligence research on this one and thus you've made yourselves look foolish.
- Thanks for reading.
- Kip 00:06, 30 April 2008 (GMT)
- Your rephrasing is not acceptable. There is no copyright issue, since the books are not sold. The 'copyright' in this case is just a method of preventing public understanding and break away lds sects. While you may go on about "fair use", one must have the original document to use. It has always been the policy of wikileaks to 'uncensor' documents that are of significant public interest and have been removed from public view.
- Kip 00:06, 30 April 2008 (GMT)
- "There is no copyright issue..."
- Well, I can see that you are going to stick to your own contrary-to-common-understanding version of 'copyright' (which, as should be apparent to all others, is entirely contrary to existing US copyright law) under which it is "impossible" for any circumstance to be a matter of copyright protection - and with the reality disallowed by your rather eccentric and self-referential definition - any objection to copyright violation becomes an attempt to "censor" information.
- I would suggest that you go over to any of the university libraries in Salt Lake and look up basic copyright law - a little education would go a long way.
- Thanks for reading.
- 22.214.171.124 11:14, 1 May 2008 (GMT)
- US copyright law isn't terribly relevant to an international organization that is not based in the US, is it? I'm an American, but I tire greatly of people assuming that US law or the US Constitution applies everywhere. 22.214.171.124 13:04, 14 May 2008 (GMT)
Copyright laws, whatever the nation, are meant to allow the creator to protect their intellectual property, whether or not they decide to sell the creation or attempt to make a profit from them. My wife, for example, has written songs to use when teaching her college students to help them better understand math and algebra concepts. Even if she never charged any other teacher to use those songs, she still has the right to determine whether the songs can be copied and used by others.
Of course, there's also the whole non-issue of secrecy. Most non-members probably don't realize that the people that are supposed to have access to these manuals do not have a career as a minister. They're volunteers asked to serve for a fairly short period of time (usually 3-6 years at most), and are then replaced by someone else from the congregation.
And finally, there's the content itself. Anyone expecting a 'doctrinal exposé' will be extremely disappointed. The closest analogue in non-religious life you will find would be a book detailing, say, FASB accounting standards, or perhaps a company's manual detailing business and HR operating procedures.
Do your homework before claiming conspiracy
Ok the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints is probably the most open chuch I have come across. First off, the bishops are not paid, they are church members that rotate avery 4 or 5 years and so this book sees many bishops' hands. Second you can find almost all current documents at LDS.org under supporting materials. Most of these are free to download. The LDS church also provides downloadable and streaming broadcasts of its major general conferences that are all publicily accessible. Grouping the LDS church in with the church of scientology is ridiculous. To my knowlesge, none of the LDS church materials printed are sold for profit. As I understand it the church of scientology makes a profit off all of its church "self-help" materials. From my perspective the LDS church wants everyone to know god, the church of scientology wants you to pay to know god. It is in poor taste to sensationalize this to get readers to your site.
- Rebuttal to the comments (above and Kip's)
- I disagree all at once. Both of you have your bias as active church members of the particular religion trying your best to debunk the documents as unworthy of Wikileaks' "high standard of journalistic integrity".
- I try not to let my personal bias affect my judgment in the submission process. I did the six-point summary in fair and balanced explanation, plus the link to the Tanners' newsletter on the lawsuit filed against them that eventually forced them to make bargain and become legally bound not to utter a word about the whereabouts of obtaining CHI again. Their assistant confirmed this on my visit to the place of business.
- It is Wikileaks' general policy to allow certain documents of significant ethical, political and historical value (even if it's less than fifty percent in veracity). If you're so concerned about the inherently worthless value of CHI -- at least on Wikileaks -- I suggest you submit your appeal to Wikileaks editors with vetted sources proving it's an otherwise publicly available document and see how they will respond in agreeing to the removal because such document is not compatible with the policy and it may tarnish Wikileaks' esteemed reputation as a serious online organization devoted to the truthfulness and confidentiality of leaked documents in reception.
- Do us a favor and present your case to Wikileaks editors by snail mail letter or email. Expounding further arguments in length on the questionable validity of CHI documents that may contravene and tarnish Wikileaks' policy and stand, respectively, on perceived truth-telling is a waste of time of ours and yours. - Cyberdogg 06:44, 1 May 2008 (GMT)
- Another rebutal to the above. In particular, the comment, "Ok the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints is probably the most open chuch I have come across." In fact, the LDS church is one of the more secretive church's/cults in the U.S. Entrance to LDS Temples is restricted to only certain of the "most worthy" members and revealing certain ceremonies, handshakes and such is strictly forbidden. Members are told to not even discuss the rituals outside of the temples. Non member parents and member parents who do not carry recommends are unable to attend even the temple wedding ceremonies of their children being married. That is not open. A particularly disgusting part of these rituals, only until more recently, the temple ceremonies and rituals included references to punishment of death by disembowelment and throat slitting for revealing these ceremonies to the outside world. These cermonies were in place for over a century and the references were tamed over time to remove the language but leave in the hand signals and motions of death by disembowelment etc., and rather than state aloud the penalty and method of death, the participants were intstructed to use the language "I would rather lose my life" than reveal the secret portion of the ceremony. Perhaps around ten years ago, both the hand signals and the verbiage were removed, this after earlier leaders declared the ceremonies and rituals correct and unchangeable. Although there is ultimate secrecy surrounding the ceremonies, it's noteable that many of the things in the ceremony including secret handshakes were taken from Masonic ceremonies by the founder Joseph Smith, himself a Mason. Also, the LDS church has been caught holding LDS leader-only backdoor meetings with Utah legislators that excluded other religions on topics of public interest or legislation that should be open to all. The church has a massive collection of historical documents some of which were written by early LDS leaders including the founder of the church Joseph Smith. The documents are housed in a large granite vault and although in earlier years members and researchers had access to these documents, as the embarassment over polygamy which was instituted by LDS church founder Joseph Smith increased over the years and after a number of embarrasing publications, a great percentage of documents were sealed to the public. For years many members didn't even know that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy nor are many still aware the certain leaders into the 1900's continued practicing polygamy in secret after promising the government the practice was abandoned and illegal. Joseph Smith secretly was married to close to a couple dozen wives when he died, all the while denying to the world and even his own church members that he praticed it and proclaiming it wrong. Some of his wives were legally married to other mormon men. These documents contain not only embarassing statements made by leaders, they also include testimony of other members on the less than flattering activities of it's leaders...including the mountain meadows massacre, one of the largest massacres committed on American soil. The massacre was carried out by mormon men and a noted church leader John Lee who once provided personal security for president Brigham Young and also carried the title of godson given to him by Brigham Young. Many historians believe the massacre was carried out under direct order of Brigham Young, others believe that even though Young may not have ordered the massacre, he either ordered or was complicit in a coverup. Candidate Mitt Romney last year had campaign representatives meet secretly with an official BYU sponsored Alumni association for the purpose of raising campaign funds. The move was illegal and initially the campaign representatives denied the meetings then later recanted after documents were displayed to the media showing they had in fact met with members of the Alumni Association. BYU is a wholy funded and owned University belonging to the LDS Church and it proclaims that it doesn't endorse political candidates. There have been numerous other secrecies invlolving Church leadership. An FBI investigator for the Mark Hoffman bombings complained that he was repeatedly denied access to then Apostle and later President of the church Gordon B. Hinckley by Church security for the purposes of investigation of arranging or influencing loans to Mark Hoffman indirectly through Zion's bank for the purpose of his aquiring and finding historical documents later found to be forged. Hoffman later went on to murder several people. Although the Church once owned Zions, it's notable that Hinckley refused to be interviewed on such a tragic case involving murder. And one of the most telling points of secrecy is that the LDS church requires 10% of each worthy member's (including children) income or "increase" as they call it yet refuses to give any financial accounting to it's own members. This is but a drop in the bucket of this so called "open" church. I can't prove it but I would say the Church is possibly the most secretive church in the United States and beyond. It's own stated purpose is to convert the world to it's beliefs and make a member of every individual, in every nation and of very tongue. Once could suppose that it's purpose goes beyond saving souls...you could also make a case for that policy being an attempt to rule the world. Something that would support that theory is contained in the Church Handbook where they discourage members of other nations from immigrating to the United States just as they have publicly asked members in the US to not make it a point to move to Utah simply because their church headquarters is located here. Utah already has a member majority that runs the legislature, the governership, and in fact most county and city officials and by instruction of church leaders to be active and vote, members have a much higher than average number of people who show up to the polls. Politicians don't need a majority of citizens to be elected, they need a majority of citizen votes. Total membership isn't needed to control a country. With woeful voter turnout, a slender enough LDS minority could actually decide elections. Countries of democracy can be controlled if enough of it's citizens are LDS church members. The LDS connection to politics is demonstrated in it's roots where founder and Prophet Joseph Smith actually once ran for U.S. President. Utah is a perfect example of what I would personally call a "church owned state." The vast majority of it's legistlators are LDS who often hobnob with church leaders. Although too many backdoor meetings with politicians influencing policy aren't uncovered, they don't actually need to tell politicians what to do if the policy is sitting there in black and white in the church handbook do they? For this reason alone, having the handbook made available to the public is extremely useful. I might point out that one of the front runners of 2007 republican campaign for President was Mitt Romney. As a firm believer and member of the LDS church, so much so that he carries the status of "most worthy," able to enter the LDS Temples with their secret rituals, it's not hard to see how he might influence certain policy or appoint particular members to the supreme court based on the beliefs listed in the handbook. I believe Americans are entitled to "get to know their candidates thoroughly," especially considering one of their candidates ran the state of Massachusets and went on to be a front runner Republican candidate for President of the United States, the most powerful country in the world. Not to mention that another "most worthy" member of the LDS church is Harry Reid who is now Senate Majority leader. He has great power to influence the senate and determine the agenda before it. While the Church maintains it's member politicians are free to choose and vote their conscience you will find that while they very occasionally cast a vote on issues that might go contrary to church policy, by far and wide their voting records predominantly mirror the instructions given straight out of the church handbooks. I'd say that's worthy of a place for the handbook on wikileaks now isn't it?
- Cyberdogg - himself an anti-Mormon activist?
- Above "cyberdogg" admits to visiting the "place of business" of the Tanners (the copyright violators whose dispute with the Church is the apparent basis for the "censored" claims) in Salt Lake City. The Tanners operate a anti-Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "ministry". So much for "fair and balanced explanation"....just another activist hiding under a Wiki-admin mantle-of-righteousness.
- All those reading here can draw their own conclusions.
- Wikipedia finally cleaned up their policy on Biographies of Living Persons which put an end to activist-admins smearing intellectual opponents in the opponent's Biographies. I can see that Wikileaks, if it is to gain/maintain any semblance of journalist respect will have to tighten up its standards of appointing admins/analysts, require strict disclosure of personal involvement, set some standards for "reliable sources of information", and maybe set up a review board to prevent some admin/analyst from injecting all his own personal hobbyhorses into WikiLeaks.
- And finally, only this person "cyberdogg" has ever said anything on this discussion page about removing the questioned copyrighted document from WikiLeaks. All others have just pointed out how inappropriate is it and how silly or meaningless or useless the exercise is -- as all the information is easily and readily available on the Church's public websites, with even more detail -- or tried to supply correct factual information about the alleged "legal attack" and the non-existent "attempt to censor" information.
- Thanks for reading. Kip 188.8.131.52 11:39, 1 May 2008 (GMT)
Fair Use
I have edited all the above to correct my use of the term "free use" - the correct term is "FAIR USE". I took my own advice and checked copyright law at http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/ .
Kip 10:45, 2 May 2008 (GMT)
The controversy isn't about the contents, it's the legal tactics
The controversy surrounding this document is not so much it's 'smoking gun' status but the unique tack that the LDS church took to suppress it's distribution. The lawsuit against the Utah Lighthouse Ministry, in 2001, which was settled out of court through arbitration, attempted to attach copyright to the mere fact of linking. No wrong doing was admitted by UTLM, and they simply agreed to stop posting links to the document.
For the Tanners side of the story, here's a link to their website. [6]
Another download link that can be added to the page
I've created a torrent for the file in question. The download links were either not working or very slow. This may speed up the download of the file in question since this is making it's rounds in the media.
Find the torrent file here: http://torrents.thepiratebay.org/4187865/Mormon_Church_Handbook_of_Instructions_(1999).4187865.TPB.torrent
Where in-document links point to.
C:/Documents and Settings/Brett/Desktop/Mormon/Main Utah Church/Official/Primary Source Documents/20th Century/Church Handbook of Instructions/chi99.htm#13
It's HARDLY A Secret!
If this is what you call "whistleblowing", you people seriously need to get a life! I was married to a Mormon for over 10 years. He was a member of the bishopric (lay leadership in the local congregation), and when we split up (my idea, not his), he LEFT without taking the CHI. Nobody has ever asked for it back. I've read it. Big woop. Lightning bolts did not come down and strike me. There is nothing in there I didn't know, even as a "non member". So some ideas are strange to people who don't belong. Same with the beliefs of Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc. to their nonbelievers.
Individuals and organizations have a right to copyright protection. I'd be surprised if the Mormon Church, JK Rowling, or ANYBODY who put effort into publishing a work didn't get upset when their copyright was violated, whether they got paid for it or not. It's THEIR work! If you want to bash the Mormons or anybody else for that matter, go right ahead. But be honest about it. This just sounds like you're Woodward and Bernstein wannabees....and not even coming close.
Out of date.
This is the old version, which is temporarily on line when first released. Nothing particularly interesting or noteworthy here. It would be significantly more meaningful if you could get a copy of the current handbook.
Sense the Mormon Church has a lay clergy and anyone of us can be called to be a Bishop this handbook is not secret. Everyone knows about it, if there is a problem then the question will be asked "well, what does the handbook say?"
I've also had a Bishop say, 'guide lines are guide lines not commandments. I'm suppose to guide this ward according to the Spirit." He was a good Bishop too and is now a Stake President.
My son needed advise on having a Vasectomy, his wife's life could be in danger if she were to have another baby. This would answer his concerns and his bishop would pull out the handbook to read it to him. No big deal.
What is the ultimate outcome of this article? Good or Bad?
I respectfully disagree with the existence and purpose of this article. Why? Because it chooses to sensationalize key topics to get people to come to this website. But what are their motivations?
To explain my motivations to respond to this article I'd like to give you this brief biography:
- My dad left when we were at church (10 years old).
- My parents divorced shortly there after.
- I stopped going to church (15 years old).
- Years later I found out my dad was gay.
- He kiled himself, with no note of explanination as to why.
- I got married to a woman I consider my soulmate.
- I was fired from my job in Utah and found a job that moved us to Florida.
- We started attending church so we could feel part of the community.
- I now serve in the Young Men's organization and my wife 2nd Councilor in the Relief Society.
- We plan to be sealed in the Salt Lake Temple in November of 2008.
Why do I choose be Mormon? When I have for so long railed against it? It's not like I don't have enough obstacles to overcome.
Only one of which is that according to my chosen religion there are negative eternal repercussions to my father's homosexuality AND his suicide... I have to reconcile that with my new found faith and desire to be a member of the church. I loved him deeply. I didn't say it to him enough.
Also, my 1st sister has a rare condition where she has already gone through menopause, even though she is only in her late twenties, she has produced all her eggs. Yet her womb is fully functional and could conceivably carry an egg from my 2nd sister's body to term.
This hand book is meant to be a guideline for many topics, most of which are basic and completely void of controversy. But this site chooses specifically to summarize key topics that are more controversial like: trans sexual operations, surrogate mothers, vasectomies.
If my 1st sister and her husband went to a Bishop and asked for his permission to carry my 2nd sister's egg in her body do you think they would honestly turn her down? Of course not. More over, since she's never heard of this book or what it says about surrogate motherhood, she'd never have even thought to go to a Bishop for "permission". It's not like we all have to ask our Bishops before we do anything in life.
One of the primary doctrines of the church is that we all have free will. But as Plato surmised in the The Republic (I'm paraphrasing here) "Would a truly free man choose to live a just life or a life according to his wildest desires?" Ultimately we all choose to live by the law because there are consequences to everything we do.
As to my motivation to discuss this article? It is to turn the tables back on the people who have created this website. And when I ran into this site I had to ask myself, "What is the ultimate outcome of this article?"
If the outcome is positive, then I'd welcome it. I already feel better for myself, trying to stand up for the church I choose to believe in. That's my choice. As it is every individuals right and choice by law in this great country to feel free to choose their religion. Free speech is also a right, which I respect.
If the outcome is negative, then I'd ask the purveyors of this site to look into the real motivations they have for running a website like this. If they would like to make their point to me I'd be very interested in learning it. Especially since they place "truth" above all else, no matter who gets hurt along the way.
I just now read the about us page for this site. And I'm confused as to why WikiLeaks would want to put the Mormon church on the same level as "oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East".
It seems to me they've just given the person who originally submitted the document a platform from which they can soap-box their agenda of "I've been hurt by the church in some way..." I'm sorry the church hurt you. I'm sorry the church isn't more tolerant of "alternate" lifestyles. I personally don't see how being trans sexual, homosexual, auto sexual or bi-sexual ... any of it, makes a real difference to God, but that's not for me to decide. I guess I lucked out being a straight, white male in America. Yet as I've outlined above, I still have people who are VERY important to me who might not fit directly into "the mold". And I'm not worried.
I just want to raise my family to try and be good people and help others when they can. We're all struggling through this life together, I prefer to understand rather than to "be right."
My email is tyler dot bird at gmail dot com if any of the creators of this site would like to open a discussion with me.
How reliable is this, anyway?
A few comments to make. Just to be clear, I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, often lazily or mistakenly referred to as the Mormon Church.
Nothing in the Church is secret. All of the blessings and ordinances and information may be made available to anyone willing to live by its precepts. Simple as that. The Church has a problem with the decisions made by some people. What is wrong with a church saying, in effect, "if you have had a voluntary sex change, we don't think that it is appropriate for you to enter our temples"? Nothing. We have standards. If you disagree with them and we can't come to an agreement, then I guess you will probably feel more comfortable attending another church or none at all. If you think that we have high standards for outsiders, you should see how high they are for members! We don't get any breaks. Do you think that donating 10% of my income as tithing and more for separate offerings is a small matter? No it's not, but I do it because I believe in this faith and am willing to follow its practices. I said that nothing in the Church is secret, but I did not finish my sentence. There are many things which are SACRED. Sacred does not mean that you can't find out about it, but that you can only learn it under special, limited circumstances.
I would also like to call into question the reliability of this document. Did anyone else notice that it was an OCR version of a document, and not an actual scan? IE-a scanner scanned it, and then the text was read and interpreted by a computer. When you do this, you can also edit the text, as there are often many errors by the computer. Who's to say that the one submitting it did not make alterations?
-Jerry Aulenbach
Not So Controversial and/or Secret
It's funny that wikileaks is treating the Church Handbook of Instructions as a secretive, "leaked" insight into "a sect and/or cult." The reality is that LDS Church local leaders (stake presidents, bishops, quorum presidents), are encouraged to share this information with members of the LDS Church or people of other faiths when asked. For example, I had a question for a bishop once on the Church's policies pertaining to musical instruments used in Sunday meetings. The bishop pulled out his "secret" handbook, and we looked at it together. In fact, he said I could borrow it if needed.
This experience can be replicated many times. This is not a "secret" document. However, the Church Handbook of Instructions is a copyrighted document, and the Church is very serious about protecting its intellectual property. The only interesting aspect of seeing this 1968 handbook is to compare some non-doctrinal Church policies of 1968 to those of the 1998 handbook.
I support wikileaks.org and agree with their mission. There is plenty to be learned, pursued, studied, critiqued, etc. from business, government, and churches; however, this particularly entry is just silly.
Sincerely, Jon M.
p.s. The "Mormon Church," or Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was founded in 1830, not circa 1840 as is incorrectly stated in the wikileaks.org corresponding pages. Do your research.
Rebuttal to Jon M's statement
The documents submitted are for comparative purpose and for examining the sections relating to financial and religious structures.
The fact that your claim the documents are "not secret" is weak, because these documents are generally not available to the normal members if at all (despite your claim that a bishop would cheerfully share the handbook) and because certain sections warrant confidence among the bishops and church officers in managing the organization in a regional district.
Because of the LDS Church's intention to defend its intellectual properties, there pose a risk that the documents will disappear due to the threat of litigation to pressure the removal of pertinent documents. The example is this site [7]. Here's the excerpt from the aforesaid site:
"It seems that the LDS church has just picked a fight about the circulation of the documents on this site. Taking the example of the so-called "church" of scientology, the LDS church is claiming the exclusive rights to the documents, based on copyright.
By their nature, religious documents and documents pertaining to the practice of a religion can never be subject to exclusive use. Freedom of religion, i.e. the freedom to practice one's religion without interference and without the obligation to belong to and/or pay any particular church, is protected by the constitutions of most countries and takes precedence over copyright. This is particularly true in cases where copyright is not used to promote the spreading of the religious scriptures in question, but to suppress it instead.
Furthermore, the religious and other practices of any church are a public matter; they are everybody's business and everybody has the right to know and debate them. This is not only the natural consequence of the respect that religion enjoys in our Western democracies, but also a pre-requisite to it. Only if a church is open to public scrutiny can it claim the right to practise its faith undisturbed and - yet more - to proselityse. The freedom to operate that churches are granted in our democracies is not God-given, and it is rather disturbing to see that one church after another try to have it their way both ways. That's called "eating the pie and having it" and works very seldom. These considerations, together with the fact that the LDS church is trying to suppress the publication of the following documents, is the reason that they are published here. [...]"
Your complaint about the inaccuracy of the year of the LDS Church's founding is duly noted. Hence the word "circa".
- Response to the above: All of the information contained within the document is public information. 80% of the information contained within the document can be discovered by an individual by simply spending an hour during a standard Sunday meeting. The remaining 20% deals largely with activities outside of the Sunday meetings. Again, this is nothing private. Argubably the only "private" thing listed within would the process of readmitting an excommunicated member to the faith. Even given that, the only reason it could even remotely be considered private is simply due such things not being common place, not due to it being "for members' eyes only."
- This is a Reliable Source of information?
- The above 'rebuttal' is based entirely on a long quote from the linked website. The linked website is a single page posted by an unknown person - Zenon Panoussis - on a site in the Netherlands. The site page consists almost entirely of the above quoted material. There are links to the Church Handbook of Instructions posted in different formats on the same site. There are links to two persons - "For more information about this book and the controversy around it, see Mirele's and David's pages." - neither link leads anywhere.
- By WikiPedia standards, this is the absolute worst sort of source of information -- highly partisan and opinionated, polarized, gives totally unsubstantiated information in an extremely biased way, offers no supporting sources, gives disjointed arguments based on eccentric logic -- rightfully and expressly forbidden from use under any circumstances (except in reference to itself - for instance, one was writing about Zenon Panoussis).
- I assume that WikiLeaks has 'some' standards of some type -- and truthfully can't imagine that the above quote being used as a "rebuttal" meets these standards for sources of information. To use such makes a mockery of what WikiLeaks is trying to accomplish and risks turning it into a blank wall for the graffiti of crackpots.
- Thanks for reading.
- 188.8.131.52 13:05, 29 April 2008 (GMT)
- ==Additional Follow-up to the "rebuttal"== Having joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at the age of 35 and having been a member now for some 25 years, I am afraid that I, like Jon M., think this is a silly exercise. I must have half a dozen General Handbooks Book 1 and Book 2, as well as dozens of the sectional handbooks printed for leaders of auxiliary organizations, such as Boy Scouts, the Young Women's organization, etc. Never have I heard this Handbook being referred to as "confidential", no less secret. In fact, a great deal of effort is made to help members and non-members understand the Church's policies on various issues.
- The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is operated almost entirely by their lay ministry. Local leaders are all called out of their own congregations and asked to become the local Bishop (minister of a local congregation), teach in the Sunday School or Primary, or to head up the Young Men's organization, or literally dozens of other administration positions necessary to the running of a modern Church congregation. The General Handbook of Instructions exists to make sure that all of these men and women (none of whom have ever attended ministerial colleges such as protestant ministers attend) can quickly and easily find the relevant Church policies on any particular issue - be it "Which local leaders should be invited to a Stake Council meeting?" or "Can we put candles on the tables at the Valentines Day "Sweetheart Dinner"? -- and that all Church units are operating on the same agreed upon policies -- hardly the stuff of controversy.
- The attempt to create the illusion of "secret document" out of the copyright issue brought up by the original poster and in the above is simply a "red herring" or "straw man" argument -- based on some strangely garbled Alice-in-Wonderland version of the idea of Freedom of Religion. First, they try to tar brush the LDS Church by comparing it to the Scientologists - a blatantly transparent attempt although it true that both have objected to violations online of copyright laws. Second, if one has disagreements with US Copyright laws, one should take these up with their federal congressman or senator. If one bothers to investigate, one would find the courts agreed with the LDS complaint and the offenders agreed to a settlement. The ULM case was resolved when the Tanners agreed to limit posting to their anti-Mormon website what is universally recognized as "Fair Use" quotes - in this case limited to 50 words of direct quote from any particular chapter of the General Handbook. Of course, they are free to paraphrase and discuss and blither happily along as much as they like - but not to violate US copyright laws. Reading their version of the lawsuit is an interesting exercise in "distorted view". Somehow, the Tanners apparently, at the end of it all, still believed that the LDS Church wished to suppress access to the 'information' or policies in the Handbook, which never was true and still isn't -- silly really.
- Tongue in cheek, if the Tanners or anyone wishes to see how seriously people can take copyright issues, I would suggest that they might try posting copies or sections of a Harry Potter novel and see how long it takes Warner Brothers and JK Rowling to appear on their doorstep with a bevy of lawyers.
- Anyone with questions about Church policies on various issues can look them up on the Church website, at LDS.org[8] . Those interested in Church policies on controversial subjects -- abortion, same-gender attraction, euthanasia, stem cell research, can visit the newsroom [9] where these policies are clearly stated and discussed at length. There is a Contact Us link on that page where one can request answers to questions. A call to the general Church phone number in Salt Lake City (sorry, you'll have to look that up on the website, I don't have it to hand) can get any concerned journalist connected to someone who can answer their questions or send them more information than they could ever want.
- And finally, for those just itching to hear the gory 'secretest' of all "secret policies of the Mormon's" -- you can not have candles on the tables at the Sweetheart Dinner and Dance. I refer to General Handbook of Instructions - Book 1 (2006 edition) "Fires and Candles - Open flames and lighted candles may not be used in Church buildings."
- Thanks for reading.
- Kip 18:54, 27 April 2008 (GMT)
Second Rebuttal to the response on "public information" claim
Rebuttal to the response (third post down) above
Your assertion may hold validity in truth. However, considering the age of the document (1968) - in truncated and censored form - the document is released for posterity for comparison to previous and later editions if and when disclosed. The 1968 document may need the eventual update with substantial portions or in complete form to replace the truncated version. The significant portions can be read in the Church Handbook of Instructions 1998 (1999) edition referenced in the 1968 version article.
The 1998 edition of CHI (abbreviation for Church Handbook of Instructions) states the following how Book 1 (first of two volumes of 1998 ed.) is handled (PDF, page 3, bold text as emphasis):
- Distribution of Book 1
- Book 1: Stake Presidencies and Bishoprics should be distributed as follows:
- General Authorities, Area Authority Seventies, general Church department heads, general auxiliary presidencies, directors for temporal affairs (1 copy each)
- Temple presidency (4 copies)
- Stake presidency (5 copies)
- Bishopric (4 copies)
- Mission presidency (3 copies)
- District presidency (5 copies)
- Branch presidency (3 copies)
- Book 1 has been prepared solely for use by general and local Church officers to administer the affairs of the Church. The entire book should not be duplicated. However, the stake president or bishop may authorize portions to be duplicated for high councilors and others as needed.
- When Church officers who have a copy of Book 1 are released, they should give the copy promptly to their successor or to their presiding authority.
We may come to the agreeable conclusion that 1968 edition is obsolete and may contain public information simply by voluntarily participating in the sacrament meeting.
However, because the document was "exclusive" to the Church officers at the duration of usage period and because of its significant historical & political value on the operation of the LDS Church as an organized religion, it is exhibited for research and posterity.
Cyberdogg 08:33, 18 April 2008 (GMT)
- Just a Quick Note The LDS Church currently has approximately 27,500 individual congregations, and publishes its curriculum (including the General Handbook, either in full or in part) in 178 languages. I appreciate the quote above (which remains unchanged in the 2006 edition) as it clarifies several issues and helps to dispel the intended allusion of some sinister intent:
- First, a rough quick calculation shows that there must be in the general area of 250,000 of the "secret" manuals published, in more languages than I'm ever going to learn to read, anyway. The numbers for distribution, at least in the congregations where I have been active in the local leadership, are meant to limit the expense of printing and distributing these handbooks. Every leader in every organization doesn't need his very own copy, he or she can ask a member of the Bishopric to show him/her his copy. It is simply a practical matter - Sending just one extra copy to each congregation would mean printing an additional 27,500 handbooks, each about 200 pages in length (Book 1 only - twice that if we had to send extra copies of Book 2 as well).
- Second, the Handbook's intention is clearly stated -- "solely for use by general and local Church officers to administer the affairs of the Church." In other words, this handbook isn't meant to be a review of Church doctrine or an exhaustive explanation of Church policy on various issues. Materials of that nature are available elsewhere.
- Third, local leaders are discouraged from photocopying the "entire handbook" for distribution to local leaders who may need only a section of it, which is allowed. Anyone who has been an office manager can tell you how much money is wasted through unnecessary photocopier use. In practice, if more entire handbooks are needed, they only need be requested from Church Distribution (which distributes all Church Sunday School, Primary, and administrative printed materials, amongst other things).
- And fourth, based on the same practical common-sense approach to these matters, when a Church member is replaced in his Church position, he passes his copy of the Handbook on the guy or gal replacing him (if not being replaced immediately, he passes his handbook copy in to be issued to the eventual replacement).
- I have got to say, I am surprised by the tenacity (and seeming intentional thickheadedness) of those trying to make these simple and commonsense issues into something sinister.
- Thanks for reading.
- Kip 19:33, 27 April 2008 (GMT)
- Maybe now they can save even more in reproduction costs by emailing a link to the Wikileaks page.
Rebuttal to Kip's statements
I disagree all at once. You have your bias as an active church member of the particular religion trying your best to debunk the documents as unworthy of Wikileaks' "high standard of journalistic integrity".
I try not to let my personal bias affect my judgment in the submission process. I did the six-point summary in fair and balanced explanation, plus the link to the Tanners' newsletter on the lawsuit filed against them that eventually forced them to make bargain and become legally bound not to utter a word about the whereabouts of obtaining CHI again. Their assistant confirmed this on my visit to the place of business.
It is Wikileaks' general policy to allow certain documents of significant ethical, political and historical value (even if it's less than fifty percent in veracity). If you're so concerned about the inherently worthless value of CHI -- at least on Wikileaks -- I suggest you submit your appeal to Wikileaks editors with vetted sources proving it's an otherwise publicly available document and see how they will respond in agreeing to the removal because such document is not compatible with the policy and it may tarnish Wikileaks' esteemed reputation as a serious online organization devoted to the truthfulness and confidentiality of leaked documents in reception.
Do us a favor and present your case to Wikileaks editors by snail mail letter or email. Expounding further arguments in length on the questionable validity of CHI documents that may contravene and tarnish Wikileaks' policy and stand, respectively, on perceived truth-telling is a waste of time of ours and yours. -- Cyberdogg 06:50, 1 May 2008 (GMT)
- Cyberdogg - himself an anti-Mormon activist?
- Above "cyberdogg" admits to visiting the "place of business" of the Tanners (the copyright violators whose dispute with the Church is the apparent basis for the "censored" claims) in Salt Lake City. The Tanners operate a anti-Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "ministry". So much for "fair and balanced explanation"....just another activist hiding under a Wiki-admin mantle-of-righteousness.
- All those reading here can draw their own conclusions.
- Wikipedia finally cleaned up their policy on Biographies of Living Persons which put an end to activist-admins smearing intellectual opponents in the opponent's Biographies. I can see that Wikileaks, if it is to gain/maintain any semblance of journalist respect will have to tighten up its standards of appointing admins/analysts, require strict disclosure of personal involvement, set some standards for "reliable sources of information", and maybe set up a review board to prevent some admin/analyst from injecting all his own personal hobbyhorses into WikiLeaks.
- And finally, only this person "cyberdogg" has ever said anything on this discussion page about removing the questioned copyrighted document from WikiLeaks. All others have just pointed out how inappropriate is it and how silly or meaningless or useless the exercise is -- as all the information is easily and readily available on the Church's public websites, with even more detail -- or tried to supply correct factual information about the alleged "legal attack" and the non-existent "attempt to censor" information.
- Thanks for reading. Kip22.214.171.124 11:52, 1 May 2008 (GMT)
' It is Wikileaks' general policy to allow certain documents of significant ethical, political and historical value '
Just out of curiosity, what are the exact ethical, political, and/or historical values that require you to keep the CHI available on the Internet? Considering that it is extremely unethical to post copyrighted material without the owner's express permission, I highly doubt the first can truly apply. As for political value, the LDS Church goes out of its way to keep out of the political arena, so again I don't see how it would apply.
As for historical value... I'm sure that the LDS archives still have a number of these manuals in storage, in microfilm/microfiche format if not as printed copies. And while there might be some historical value if there were actual changes to procedures, it's very difficult to do so when your file has only 10 random pages from the manual itself (including the cover), and doesn't even have a portion of the Table of Contents.
Fair Use
I have edited all the above to correct my use of the term "free use" - the correct term is "FAIR USE". I took my own advice and checked copyright law at http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/ .
Kip 10:50, 2 May 2008 (GMT)
Did you see this?.
Did you miss the section at the top titled "Websites: Five Ways to Stay Out of Trouble" on the Stanford site?
First is "1. Assume It's Protected. As a general rule, it is wise to operate under the assumption that all works are protected by either copyright or trademark law unless conclusive information indicates otherwise."
Another relevant portion is "3. Remove Unauthorized Material. If someone complains about an unauthorized use at a website, the offending material should be removed immediately. ... This is not to imply that you should cave in to every complaint. However, the material should be removed during the period during which you investigate the claim and, if necessary, consult with an attorney. ..."
It would be wise to remove the material while you consult with an attorney. When your attorney indicates there isn't a clear copyright violation, you should notify the Church in writing and put it back up. Easy.
Harry Potter
This article has excellent content but a misleading headline. The LDS Church is not attempting to "gag Internet" but to enforce their copyright. Changing the headline to a less inflammatory, more accurate statement would lend credibility to the article.
Could Wikileaks also post the latest Harry Potter book? I would like to be able to download the book rather than going to the store and buying a copy.
- Harry Potter is not tax-exempt -- it is a for-profit publication.
Too bad you don't have Book Two.
Book Two seems to be the book with all the juicy secrets.
I wonder why you don't try to post older versions such as one from 1910ish? This would have historical significance and be out of copyright.
- Actually, Book Two doesn't have anything "juicy" and is typically given to any member who has even a small position of leadership. It pretty much covers responsibilities of people who are called to various positions such as leaders of the Relief Society (which is the women's organization), Sunday School Presidents, etc. etc. If you think that's juicy... well... you need to get out more.
Too bad the law is not on your side
Wikileaks is useful in revealing corruption by publishing secret memos and such. Simply publishing whole copyrighted books that are accessible through the proper channels is a blatant form of robbery of intellectual property. Sorry, Wikileaks, the law, common sense, and ethics are against you in this case.
- The material is not available to the general public. Wikileaks 19:31, 14 May 2008 (GMT)
- I beg to differ, it is available to the general public at http://www.ldscatalog.com I don't know where you get your information.
- The catalog confirms that only book 2 is available. Wikileaks has only posted book 1. Wikileaks 19:25, 15 May 2008 (GMT)
- I beg to differ, it is available to the general public at http://www.ldscatalog.com I don't know where you get your information.
Mountain Measow Massacre
-> I'll point out that this link above has absolutely nothing to do with the article in question, and such I am deleting it.
Considering that the Mormon church owns the copyright, and that the handbook is their legal property, how can it be anything but right that they defend their own property? Neither does Wikileaks have the right to infringe that copyright, and then claim that the right to publish someone else's legal work without permission.
This headline is silly. I'm an LDS church member and church handbooks are always available to church members or others to see anytime they want.
J.J. Smith
What would the world be like if everyone thought like you Wikileaks??? And thought they were above the LAW
This is simple... you are breaking copyright law. Stop it.
Title is Flame bait,
As far as I know you cannot simply republish copyrighted works. Hence the take down notice. And there is noting in the handbook that would even hint towards 'dark secrets' its simply a pratical guide for uniformly run vast religious organization of volunteers and lay clergy.
But if you are intent on destroying wikileaks by simply publishing copyrighted material, you could publish the the "Boy Scout Handbook", The teachers handbook for 10th grade physics, "The DiVanci Code", "The Secrets of Wealth: The Beginner's Guide to Financial Freedom", or maybe you could post a nice Hi-Def copy of the new Ironman Movie.
Wikileaks, I'm not convinced this is just about the LDS church. This is about copyright law. I would not want you putting my corporations secrets out on the internet. Nor would I as an author, have you putting any of my books out on the internet, without express permission. I appreciate and understand what you are trying to do. But please get permission, or at least operate within the bounds of law, and not lawlessness.
Has WikiLeaks jumped the shark?
If I had to put this article in a nutshell:
"If I was going to gag the Internet, I would start small. I would start by asserting the copyrights I possess, and go after people who violate those commonly accepted laws and regulations that protect intellectual property. If that goes well, then I'd get into things like rootkits, firewalls and DNS manipulation. Clearly, that's what those Mormons are up to. After all, they have secrets! They are different from the rest of us, too, so they must be up to no good!"
Give me a break and get down from your mighty, white steed of justice, and stop pretending to save the world from secrets that aren't. I used to respect WikiLeaks and its mission, but now I'm wondering if you've just jumped the shark with this one. The issue is not whether the contents of the book are a secret that the world at large has some right to know. This isn't the issue because the contents are not a secret. The issue is that the book's copyright was violated.
If this was about keeping the Handbook of Instructions a secret, then the Church-owned media outlets [10] would not have broadcast a story about it [11]. Despite what you may think, they aren't stupid.
Besides, the church quotes that book over the pulpit and in news articles all the time. Its existence is no secret. Nothing in there is a secret, or a big surprise for that matter. There are no instructions in the book itself pertaining to keeping it a secret. There is a standard copyright disclaimer, but no threat of excommunication or hellfire and damnation if you show it to unclean eyes.
To suggest that the fact that the book is in limited circulation simply to protect the secrets of the mysterious Mormon faith is asinine at best. Go leak some document that shows that the church knowingly caused harm to some people and then tried to cover it up. That would be something. This leak is much ado over nothing.
There is another idiotic argument being floated around, and it goes something like this: 'The church isn't making money from the sale of the handbook; therefore, the copyright enforcement is simply to protect their secrets.'
Copyrights exist to protect creators' rights. All of them, not just the right to make money. I can't cut-and-paste content from some unknown emo kid's blog into my own any more than I can use images of Ronald McDonald in my restaurant's advertising campaign.
Just because the sad emo kid isn't making any money from the blog doesn't mean that he has no right to control how his works are used. If you believe otherwise, go read up on some of Lawrence Lessig's essays and books. Then tell us that things like open-source software and the Creative Commons licenses are a bunch of crap.
The Church's Handbook of Instructions is merely an instruction book for leaders in the church, and is intended for that audience only. If anyone has a question about some church policy that a search on lds.org [12] can't answer, they are welcome to ask a Bishop or Stake President about it.
I think it would be cool to own a policeman's handbook. I imagine I could avoid a lot of traffic tickets if I was versed in its contents. But I'm not a policeman, and am not therefore entitled one. And just because the state doesn't print one for me doesn't mean that I have some right to steal one from the internet.
And it also doesn't mean that traffic laws are purposefully made to be as esoteric as possible and hidden from the public to keep ticket revenue rolling in. I can just ask a cop if I have a question about rolling stops.
In summary, go back to leaking actual secrets.
I have to admit that I'm not surprised about the request, nor about the refusal of Wikileaks to remove it. The Mormons are one of the few religions that actually abide by the law. I believe one of their articles of beliefs says something to that affect [which one?] <That would be the twelfth Article of Faith.>[13]. That being said, when a company or organization violates the law by illegally distributing copyrighted material, any law-abiding organization would fight it [separation of religion and state means your documents are NOT covered by the law!] <So breaking windows at churches is okay, then? Is protection of that property covered by the law?>.
I understand that wikileaks propagates itself as being the portal to truth, but I'd be more impressived if they were a portal to truth, but did it legally. When people decide that they are above the law, I lose respect for them, and they lose credibility.
WAIT A SECOND! When some group, whether legal or religious, keeps secrets, and expects its followers to blindly believe what they are being told, that is ignorance. REPORTING THE TRUTH, REGARDLESS OF THE "LAW" (which changes frequently mind you), IS MORE GODLY THAN TRYING TO COVER IT UP WITH LIES (SINS).
"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
Stop, think, and wake the fuck up. If there is a God, he would be ashamed that people try to cover up the truth. GO WIKILEAKS!! YOU ARE INDEED MORE HOLY THAN THOSE YOU EXPOSE!
WikiLeaks sucks
So you've got yourselves a copy of the Church Handbook. Do you want a medal for investigative journalism? This article has completely nullified any credibility that WikiLeaks has. It is now nothing more than the internet equivalent of a trashy gossip magazine. Or did the work experience kid write up this article?
- Stings, doesn't it?
You wish!
Not confidential
I'm sure the person who posted this probably believed otherwise, however this information is not in any way confidential.
The posting of this manual is in violation of the spirit of wikileaks for three reasons. First, the information in this manual is not confidential: In fact the manual is available through the Church itself, like almost all church materials it's yours just for the asking. Second, no public interest is being served by the publication of this material, i.e. This Is NOT A Leak. Third, this manual is in essence no different from any congregational instruction manual for any religion. If wikileaks publishes the instructional manual for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, why not also post the copyrighted instructional material of Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, or Jews?
This manual is a book of instructions to leaders of congregations on how to deal with situations dealing in confidential information, such as marital problems, sexual identity issues and even tithing. In short, it tells them how to lead their congregations in a Christ like manner.
Nothing contained in here would be news to anyone who had even considered joining this church. The book can be found at any LDS Church distribution center, of which there are many worldwide, quite likely even one in your town (click link to find one nearby you http://www.ldscatalog.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/LDSDomestic?storeId=10151&catalogId=10151&langId=-1 ), or even online at ldscatalog.com (Just search for the title 'Church Handbook of Instructions')
If there is any limited distribution of this manual, it is because the information contained in it is only applicable to leaders of LDS congregations.
You should realize that the LDS Church doesn't have paid clergy. Therefore any member of an LDS congregation could become a leader and would be given the Church Handbook of Instructions, relevant to their calling, i.e. Bishop, Relief Society, etc.
I've said all I can on this, but if you plan on keeping it up, at least get the title correct. It is 'Church Handbook of Instructions of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' not 'Mormon Handbook of Instructions.' To title it otherwise shows a distinct lack of respect on the part of the poster and smacks of bigotry.
Please exercise good judgment and remove the manual. Keep with the original spirit of wikileaks, which was to provide a safe place to be a whistleblower and expose things of public interest. Not simply violate copyright for the purpose of persecution and perpetuation of bigotry.
Jennifer Morrey
- It is simply not true that the material is not confidential. Wikileaks released book 1. Only book 2 is available from ldscatalog. book 1 is not available and has never been available, for instance, to any mormon woman. 184.108.40.206 10:15, 16 May 2008 (GMT)
Women are not permitted copies of the handook
That's correct. Women are not permitted access to the handbook. It has been my experience that most women who are in the church don't even know the handbook exists. Part of what's frustrating about the way the LDS church views women is that the women aren't even made aware of how differently they are treated compared with the men. It's like if they don't tell them they're being disenfranchised, it's not happening.
That's why I'm so glad the handbook was posted. Even though they deny it, the church as a whole is very sensitive to ridicule and they have made concessions in the past on other issues. Anything that draws attention to embarrassing practices and doctrines adds to the likelihood of change.
Get a grip
This is absolutely ridiculous.
- Women in the LDS Church hold positions in women, young women and children organizations. Those women who preside at these organizations receive a copy of the Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 2.
- Bishops and Stake Presidents both serve for a limited time and in my current ward there are 11 different men who have served as either bishops or stake presidents. Counsellors in the bishopric and the stake presidency also receive a copy of both Book 1 and Book 2 of the Church Handbook of Instructions.
- Anyone who wishes to consult the CHI may do so, having only to ask the bishop.
The Church Handbook of Instructions is not a secret book and does not contain any secrets. It is a policy book. It contains instructions on how to administer a local unit of the Church and on how to minister to its members.
I think that anyone who reads the CHI with an unbiased mind will actually realize that not only there are no secrets there, but the Church places great importance on blessing the lives of its members in light of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Is there anything in the CHI that goes against the teachings of Christ as you find them in the Bible?
Having said that, there is still the copyright infringement, and laws don't exist just so we can break them. If one may decide when a copyright may be infringed, who will trace the line where a lae must be upheld? And if it is "alright" to infringe on the law in this case, just because the owner of the copyright is a religious institution, wouldn't this be discrimination? What if religious people and websites decide that atheists are not entitled to copyright their creations? Why are we even discussing this? If you don't agree with the law, change it. Until it is changed, live by it.
Latter-Day Saint - GHI
What I find interesting is the reaction to what amounts to a dated book of instructions that local leaders of a particular faith follow. I have read the entire document and find nothing offensive nor anything that does not follow Christian values.
Many of the previous posts are clearly anti-Mormon and don't care to hide it. Others appear to anti-Christ so that explains their views. My feeling is - I think it is great! A careful review of such a document in the light of day shows noting ominous but in fact a clear and concise document giving local leaders instructions to follow in particular situations. If I remember correctly, this is an all volunteer religion were even the local leaders receive NO pay for all their time. As I see it, such a document would be very helpful to them.
I am also looking forward to seeing WikiLeaks lose the copyright infringement lawsuit as they should.
I am a Christian and harbor no ill will towards Latter-Day Saints but I find that those that are 'anti-' anything use such sites for their selfish purposes.
Hoping for more LDS Info – Rebuttal
I am enjoying this. As I have read more comments – I just had to comment on the above posting which I believe is # 6. Has this person thought to check the internet? After doing a simple search of 'mormon' or 'Latter-Day Saint' I was able to find many pro and con sites. The sites by the Latter-Day Saint church are clear about their faith, state their religious beliefs and make no bones about it – and conversely so do the con sites. I went to the Latter-Day Saint website (www.lds.org) and was able to download an entire book. My point to this person is, have you done ANY research?
A link would be helpful, I didn't see one anywhere for this book?
Start with the "Gospel Library" on the main church site. [14] There are *dozens* of full books on there, including every teaching manual from the 18-month-old kids to the adult men and women. Go for it!
Please sign your posts
It would be helpful if all users here would sign their posts so all can tell who is "speaking" -- right now this page is like a "tele-conference call" in which many "speakers" fail to introduce themselves when they start talking - very confusing. (Thank you to those who already do so.)
- How to sign your posts
- If you are signed in as a user, you need only end your post with 4 tildes in a row ~ ~ ~ ~ (without the spaces). If I do it, it would look like this
- Kip 11:40, 20 May 2008 (GMT)
- If you are not signed in as a user, and you use the tildes, it signs you like this
- 126.96.36.199 12:35, 14 May 2008 (GMT) [with the date and time of the post]
- (Note that ALL unsigned-in users using the four tildes will be given the same IP "18.104.22.168", an artifact of the "IP anonymizer" function associated with this site, which makes this not useful for carrying on conversations.)
- There may be some of you who wish to or need to remain even more anonymous than the "fictitious user" method used on this site - all user information is fictitious and has no relationship to actual personal identity - in which case you may simply invent for yourself a "handle" to use on this (or any other) discussion page and consistently sign you posts with that - like "Stan in Iran", "You Can Call Me Al", "Mormon-hater in Vegas" or even "Oh...ah...gee, groovy man".
Thank you for reading,
Kip 11:40, 20 May 2008 (GMT)
Defensiveness of LDS Church members
I've found that it is not uncommon for LDS members to flock to articles or comments on the internet that go contrary to their beliefs. They seem to view the world only from their own "box" and often exclude the right of non-members to differ in opinion and often take huge personal offense at opinions that don't mirror their own. For example there are many member naysayers who claim that the handbook is not secret. Not secretive to whom? Yourselves? That is an opinion expressed by some on the inside of the church and it doesn't apply to those outside. You are a minority in America, not a majority and where a majority is not given access there is certainly a valid claim of secrecy. A non-member requesting this book is not able to obtain a copy of the book via the church website even if they wish to purchase. You can claim that it's the religion's perogative to give access to those in the faith that they choose but that means nothing to the non-member who is unable to obtain it. I could claim the same of some documents in government agencies. So yes, there is value in placing this book on wikileaks for the vast majority of the world population that is not mormon. It provides valuable insight, especially to prospective new members. The policies in this handbook are rarely given in missionary discussions to potential converts, not to mention the fact that the young missionaries themselves are often unfamiliar with policies such as the one on vasectomies. It is only until after being a member for a while that new members discover some of these policies go contrary to their personal beliefs. And that's a fact.
LDS church members are certainly privy to their own opinions, but while they claim that assertions of sinister goings on by non-members are ludicrous, I would argue that the average member's claims that nothing sinister is going on are just as speculative. The truth is the common member obtain access to behind the door meetings with the apostles and prophet. Although they may "believe," it does not preclude the possibility of something a bit sinister occuring at higher levels and although they are explained away to members there are incidents of behavior throughout history at higher levels that I would call on the sinister side. Members are not given a full or open accounting of their donations to the church, there is a firm grip on what is done with their contributions. Why the fear in releasing that information? Going back to the origins of the church even it's own founding prophet vigorously and adamently denied to not only the world but the general membership that he practiced and believed in polygamy when in fact he had close to two dozen wives while giving the denials and rebuttals that it was an unholy reprehensible practice. This is a historical fact that even the leadership of the church has given up on defending against. Throughout the history of the church you will find similar things in historical documents, and many of these documents and writings have been snatched up and obtained either directly or inderectly (donations by members) by the church and locked away from public view of both members and the general public. Fortunately, there were several historians decades ago that were permitted access to some of this history and they are available to the public because of that. The general membership is told to not even view such contrary material and simply rely on "faith" that the church is true.
While many who have come to the defense of the LDS church here find "laughable" the assertions of those who aren't members, I would say it's just as laughable for you to claim you know all the goings on in church heirarchy, even the lay ministry is not privy to much information and goings on at the higher echelons. Your beliefs based on faith or personal experiences do not qualify or quantify every situation in the church. I know of many members and former members who feel repressed and hurt by policies of the church. In fact, it's not commonly known (but is commonly explained away and ignored by the faithful followers) are the fact that Utah, which the vast majority of it's population is Mormon is the number one State in the nation for not only teen suicide, but the leading cause of death among males age 15 to 48 is suicide. It is number 1 in the nation for antidepressant use, number 1 for internet crimes against children such as child predators soliciting children and child pornography (reported by ICAC branch of law enforcement), has been for years running and until recently the number one state in the nation for bankruptcy, number 5 in known child abuse, number 17 I believe in rape, top in the nation for certain forms of fraud, and dead last in the nation on public spending for a child's education. While it claims to be a family state I would argue that these figures contradict those facts. These are but of few of the less known facts about the state. While many members whittle their lives away defending the church and refuting these unflattering figures, perhaps that time would be better spent pondering the reasons behind these societal problems. While I won't bother posting the sources for these figures I will state that some of these figures were released by the Dept. of Health and Human Services headed up by none other than former Utah Governor and member in good standing of the LDS Church, Mike Leavitt. Yes, there is more than meets the eye with the mormon religion and I believe wikileaks is more than justified in releasing information on what I consider strongly to be a cult. Actually it is the member's fervent objections themselves and the swift and harsh harsh punishments of excommunication by the church of vocal dissenters and questioners that points to a cult mentality and many researchers of cults feel the religion easily meets the criteria for being called a cult. For those who come to it's defense I would say that rather than spend time defending the religion, perhaps some of that time might be in your best interests to spend questioning and investigating. If you weren't aware of the above figures I would think that would be reason enough to pique your interest. I grant you your rights to your beliefs, but I am not bound by those beliefs and celebrate any citizen's right to know more about this organization. Surely truth is housed in more than just "faith" alone. While I would personally agree with some LDS policies and teachings (many are found in other religions) I would say that some faith is required, but absolute faith in every leader and every policy or doctrine I think over time has proven to be a harmful mentality to hold. And just because a person is an ex-member does not automatically make them "wrong" or a hostile foe. In fact, many former members have taken the time to investigate the organization and some of the more odd or interesting things about the church. Many are actually more knowledgeable than many of the members themselves who are told to "look away." To discount all former members summarily based on the fact they no longer agree with you alone is as persecutive as your own claims of past persecution. They have valid experiences just as you do. Thanks, M
Thank you, M
Thanks to M for:
1) Signing his post and 2) Admitting outright that he is what would be called an "anti-Mormon" who is certainly active enough as such to post this long opinion piece here. It is, however, unclear from his post exactly what his objections are, other than he "consider(s)" it "strongly to be a cult" and 3) For at least writing rationally and not ranting.
This post has many vague but unsupported ominous accusations -- a marvelous work, really, to fit in so many in such a small space. And, of course, like all such works, this piece, as with many of the others above, simply airs these vague unsubstantiated complaints and totally avoids the issue which is at case here....the issue of whether copyright law shall mean what it says, and whether WikiLeaks, or anyone else for that matter, should be bound by such law -- regardless of whether you do or do not 'like' or 'approve of' or 'support the aims of' or 'support the doctrines or the historical actions of' the copyright holder.
This discussion page should be about the article to which it is attached -- which is primarily about the ongoing issue of copyright protection in the internet age and the facts of this particular episode in that continuing controversy.
Instead, urged on by users like 'cyberdogg' who originally uploaded the handbooks and wrote the "analysis" (and who 'outted' himself far above as an anti-Mormon activist masquerading as a fair and unbiased WikiLeaks admin) and 'wikileaks' (who purportedly is the/one-of-the principal editors of this site - and who may actually be the same person as 'cyberdogg'), is simply an ongoing "why I/we don't like the Mormons and you shouldn't either" tirade, interspersed with some rants sounding like they were written by 'internet-addicted glue-sniffing euro-techno-teens' (with apologies to perfectly normal euro-techno-teens) plus a few interesting comments and viewpoints.
It seems that the principal editors...
- Well, elsewhere we might call them editors, but in a Wiki, we, the people posting here are supposed to be the editors. But on WikiLeaks, we, the editors, are not allowed to actually edit anything, only to post to the discussion pages, which never, or almost never, actually results in any correction or change to the article being discussed. Neat huh?
...have the weird idea that "separation of religion and state means your documents are NOT covered by the law!" and that not-for-profit organizations can not own or expect enforcement of copyright and/or that works not sold for a profit can't be copyrighted.
- None of these ideas will be found to exist in US copyright law, as thoroughly discussed and explained at the Stanford University Libraries' web site at this link http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/[15].
With this degree of disconnect from the real world, we can expect to see some interesting activities here on WikiLeaks!
It will be interesting to see how much damage this misguided action -- apparently based on eccentric interpretations and strange misunderstandings of copyright law -- does to WikiLeaks once-promising potential as a valid, respectable and trustworthy international journalistic effort.
Thanks for reading,
Kip 01:05, 21 May 2008 (GMT)
- Hey Kip. As usual, thanks for sharing lengthy half-information misconceptions with everyone out there, which according to your own ratio, oppossed to M, makes you what, a Mormon propagandist?
- A few comments.
- Talk pages on this wiki are used for discussion on documents or an analysis posted. The document pages contain vital information on the document itself, where to find it, its background, information by the submitter etc. There is no reason why any information on these pages should be altered. Summaries are accepted from people contributing them, which is happening via the Talk pages and is quite regular.
- The second basic nature of a page is an analysis and this has a Talk page also. And again. This page was created by someone analyzing a document for instance, so why would you want to alter that article. This is someones research and work flowing into a common piece of information, for you open to comment on. Not sure how that happens in Utah or where ever, but we luckily do not redact journalist's works to modify history yet.
- Also, inserting "comment-like" postings into your own agenda doesn't really do your credibility any good.
- Get your facts straight Kip and stop intermixing terms like Editors, Admins and whatnot for mere confusion. This is not the first time you are doing this. And again, your claims have no grounds.
- Keep it going Wikileaks, I dont really give anything about all those religious nutters, but I really have an agenda with all those damn lobbyists trying to create confusion and misconcetion. -- Tom
Thanks to "Tom" for checking in
I'm sorry you don't like me including my "asides" as pull quotes...they certainly were not meant to give any other impression or meaning than their content carries.
I can't really see how they could be construed as anything other than my own words, as every contributor (heaven forbid I use the terms used on other Wikis, like editor, admin, user and risk being again accused of doing so "for mere confusion" -- I'm sure the reality here can speak for itself -- you see, I just resisted the urge to differentiate this bit avoiding use of the pull-quote format, just for you) follows the Wiki-world ethic of clearly signing everything they write and none would ever think of inserting "comment-like postings" in the writing of others without signing them.
Tom, if you had read the entire discussion page, and had been following the discussion on the two related pages, you would have found that I joined this discussion by introducing myself as a 25-year-plus member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, having converted to the Church as an adult. See, then you wouldn't have had any question about my relationship to the Church and could have concentrated in the issues being discussed. That's what's so nice about being up-front about one's relationships. Others in these discussions, including the original 'submitter' of the Church Handbooks to WikiLeaks, have not been so transparent in revealing their personal associations and personal agendas -- which does not make for good journalism.
Really, Tom, I am posting to the discussion page of this http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Mormon_Church_attempts_to_gag_Internet_over_handbook page, which is titled "Mormon Church attempts to gag Internet over handbook".
The 'article' is not what would be called on WikiPedia, for instance, in keeping with the policy of NPOV - no point of view. It not only appears seriously biased, but contains objectively incorrect, fact-checkable, information. When real journalists make factual errors, and they are pointed out, they correct them - usually with apologies - and try harder next time to get the facts straight. They do not, for instance, consider having factual information corrected, either before publication by their editors, or in post-publication corrections - as "redact[ing] journalist's works to modify history". Real journalists prefer to correct their errors and thus keep pristine their journalistic reputation.
You ask why someone would want to alter articles. The most obvious reason would be that the articles contain information that is factually incorrect. The second would be when an article is so seriously biased that, as a whole, it presents an false (not factual) picture of the issue being presented.
The article I am discussing is presented as "news" - which implies factual reporting of an event. This kind of factual news reporting is expected to follow the principles of journalism - including being free of the personal viewpoints of the journalist, presented a clear true view of what has taken place, giving both sides of a controversy as clearly as possible, including only verified facts, identifying opinions as such and giving their source... one can actually take university courses in journalism where they teach these things.
It is my opinion, Tom, which is why I write it here in this discussion page, that the "news articles" and "analyzes" fail to meet even the barest minimum standards of good journalism - which I feel is a shame, because I support the original stated goals and aims of WikiLeaks, and had hopes for it becoming a journalistic force in the world. This kind of ideological yellow journalism will not earn you respect, only scorn.
It seems obvious to me, and I invite other opinions on this, that ONLY submissions agreeing with the obvious biases (repeatedly publicly stated in this discussion and equally overtly on other discussion pages on other topics) and personal opinions of the (here I'm stuck for a word, Tom, as you object to both "admins" and "editors") 'those who accept submissions' on WikiLeaks will be published either as a submission, addendum to a submission, or an analysis.
I am more than happy to repeat, for the ump-teenth time if necessary, this is no way to run a Wiki, on any topic, but is contrary to the very idea of a Wiki, and results in a product that is the opinions of the few who control permission to publish.
We are treated instead to the opinions of the defenders of WikiLeaks 'right' to violate copyright laws because, so states the poster "wikileaks", because the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has the effrontery to ask the Wikimedia Foundation (and nine years ago, Jerald and Sandra Tanner) to comply with US Copyright Law and that churches somehow are not entitled to have copyrights. Imagine that! These defenders also share their other outstanding opinions -- such as referring to Latter-day Saints as "religious nutters".
No one seems to care to discuss the issue -- which is copyright and the internet. At least the highly biased and factually inaccurate "news article" was about the copyright issue, even if almost none of the discussion is.
The article ends with a representative (unnamed) of WikiLeaks stating "WikiLeaks will remain a place where people from around the world can safely reveal the truth."
Personally, I had fervently hoped that this would be the case. Sadly, it is not.
Apparently what he meant was: "WikiLeaks will remain a place where people who hold our opinions and biases from around the world can safely reveal our version of the truth."
- You misunderstand the article. The "Description (original submitter)" field is never changed, by WL editors or anyone else, since it is the direct statement of the source (to WL) and as such is an historical document. It does not imply that WL agrees with the statement. The "concensus" position is the "Summary". Jay 126.96.36.199 10:56, 22 May 2008 (GMT)
- Jay - I admit there seems to be some confusion, though I would point out that it is more general. Please see my post on this issue on my own talk page https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/User_talk:Kip . Thanks for reading, Kip 15:29, 22 May 2008 (GMT)
- Kip, Tom again. I actually have read this Talk page, so I am quite aware of your position in respect to the mormon belief. I was referring to your permanent claims of people here being biased, pointing out you are biased yourself. Sorry if that did not come through properly.
- Re all those comments on untruths being posted here, I dont see your point again. Is the document discussed forged?
- And whats the problem with me referring to "religious nutters"? I agree, it might not be the politest term, yet I dont see why I need to be that polite. I was not referring to the mormons specifically, but more any religious group present by now on this portal or even throughout the world. To me there is not much a difference between what you folks, or Scientology or the catholic church is trying to accomplish. I agree there is a slight difference in detail and carry-out, but basically you all are in the same business: trying to sell people on ideas so retarded (please be aware of the true meaning of this word, it rarely is applied as precise as in this context), it makes me sad to even think about it. And I can only imagine how much nuts one must be to follow any those doctrines apparently as outdated and disrespecting towards certain groups in society.
- As you have stated quite correctly a couple of times throughout this portal, these pages here are for discussion. So stop talking about journalism on these very pages, this is a public discussion, nothing more, nothing less. All journalistic work on this portal is clearly marked, no one is hiding and your accusations are without any basis. -- Tom
- "WikiLeaks will remain a place where people who hold our opinions and biases from around the world can safely reveal our version of the truth." It's interesting their "their version of the truth" would be a copy of your manual.
I publically call on the principal founders of this website, and the members of their Board of Advisors, to establish and enforce policies that will instill here Basic Principals of Good Journalism, to really make WikiLeaks stand for Truth, Accuracy in Reporting, Fairness, and Revealing Unethical Behavior in Governments and Corporations and to Revise the Operations of WikiLeaks so that it is is accordance with the accepted spirit of Wiki - anyone can edit!
Thank you for reading, (with apologies for length)
Kip 04:04, 22 May 2008 (GMT)
Rebuttal to Kip's argument
Again, Kip...you're on a tirade distorting the facts to shift the blame on those you perceive as against your religion, like me. This is borderline paranoia in seeking vengeance trying to rebut and request the motion to expunge the documents you consider frivolous in accordance to Wikileaks' submission policy.
You're neither clever or subtle in lambasting those you see as "[anti-Mormon jihadists (to use the expression loosely)] rants sounding like they were written by 'internet-addicted glue-sniffing euro-techno-teens.'" Wikileaks serves as a source for disclosure of documents of interest and, considering your vitriol, Wikileaks editorialship likely do not care about your inane opinion that you have repeatedly expounded to no effect, only being a nuisance as a complainant in valiant effort to defend your faith by demanding Wikileaks retract the documents on grounds of biased personal agenda.
There is no significant, intellectually productive effort in your contribution to the discussion, just repeat complaints. Kindly re-consider your position, because you have failed to persuade Wikileaks editors with complaint, threat of withholding donations, et cetera.
Add to the fact that because of LDS Church's attempt to expunge CHI from Wikileaks through legal attack (against Wikinews/Wikimedia, which has nothing to do with Wikileaks, owing to the knee-jerk stupidity of church division Intellectual Reserve management), the documents successfully propagated through the Internet in Streisand effect [16], thereby rendering LDS Church's attempt a failure in backfire. This resulting publicity has joined Scientology and Bank Julius Baer in counterproductive PR.
The resulting publicity has strengthened Wikileaks' resolve to stand by itself in refusal to remove "copyright legal objectionable" documents.
I have stated my position why and how the documents were submitted. You work as an antagonist and it does not work well. "M" laid out in a lengthy rationale above and I find his explanation sound.
Your counterarguments consisting of ad hominem attacks fail spectacularly on reason alone.
Kindly close up shop, Kip. -- Cyberdogg 04:39, 22 May 2008 (GMT)
- ==Thank you, Cyberdogg==
- You could not have demonstrated my points for me any better had you actually been on my side of the argument.
- To the rest of the world and to the Principal Founders of WikiLeaks and Members of the Board of Advisors -- Take note of this perfect example of what needs to be fixed here if WikiLeaks is to be of any value.
- Thank you for reading,
- Kip 15:19, 22 May 2008 (GMT)
- =="Kip, when you're in a hole, stop digging!"==
- Your persistence is typical of staunch faith defenders and you possess preening arrogance in challenging Wikileaks editorialship (and call out on me whom you designate "anti-Mormon") which you think is of lesser value just because Wikileaks post CHI documents that, truth be told, are pretty dry to read.
- Like I said, the very fact Mormon Church chose to err (ignoring the example of Scientology and Bank Julius Baer in PR blowback) in attacking Wikileaks with legal threats resulted in wide publicity on the Net, in the newspapers and on television news broadcast. This provided a strong reason for Wikileaks to keep the documents online.
- Therefore, your argument demanding Wikileaks editors' retraction is self-defeating.
- It's better for you to step down and simmer attitude, because righteous arrogance is typical of devout Mormons vigorously defending their faith as the long list of complaints prove above.
- The more you argue, the more likely it fall on the deaf ear. Who cares about your opinion that Wikileaks is of less or no value to you just because you thought CHI publication is frivolous which somehow offend your faith, legal and otherwise?
Wikileaks is treading thin ice. They think they are real rocket surgeons. They are caught between a rock and a needle in a haystack on this one.
The Mormon General Handbook of Instructions instructs Mormon Bishops to discipline & excommunicate any member who speaks their own mind. A key element of freedom & democracy & science is being able to speak out for one's beliefs. To stand for what you believe in. To advocate a position. To be skeptical. But the Mormon Church shows, through it's General Handbook given to their Bishops & other leaders, that they are a mind controlling cult. The leaders do not want their decrees questioned. One is to not think for one's self in Mormonism.
If we are kicked out of groups for speaking our mind, then those groups are enemies to freedom & democracy & science!
[Excerpts being from Church Handbook of Instructions Book 1]
From page 67, regarding the purity test Mormons must go through to get a Mormon Temple entrance permit...
"...Members Whose Close Relatives Belong to Apostate Groups
Bishops and their counselors must take exceptional care when issuing recommends to members whose parents or other close relatives belong to or sympathize with apostate groups. Such members must demonstrate clearly that they repudiate these apostate religious teachings before they may be issued a recommend. ..."
Comment: Only a mind controlling cult would require that it's members jump though such hoops. Purity, purity of mind in Mormonism means not speaking out, not thinking for yourself.
As a Mormon a virtual iron fist is held around your neck. If you speak out, the totalitarian leaders begin to squeeze, until your spiritual life in Mormonism is dead. We must fight such evil practices, and evil people doing evil things to so many people! Freedom will prevail. We MUST & WILL fight to make it so!
From pages 89-90:
"...10. Church Discipline...
...Purposes of Church Discipline ...
The purposes of Church discipline are (1) to save the souls of transgressors, (2) to protect the innocent, and (3) to safeguard the purity, integrity, and good name of the Church. These purposes are accomplished through private counsel and caution, informal probation, formal probation, disfellowshipment, and excommunication (see pages 93-95). ...
...Protect the Innocent
The second purpose of Church discipline is to protect the innocent. With inspiration, a priesthood leader should act to protect Church members when a transgressor poses a physical or spiritual threat to them, such as by physical harm, sexual abuse, drug misuse, fraud, or apostasy (see Alma 5:59-60). ..."
Comment: Notice how apostasy is mentioned next to "physical harm, sexual abuse, drug misuse, and fraud?"
To the Mormon Church apostasy is the same as murder, rape, stealing, and drug abuse. As Mormon Church Bishops, Stake Presidents, and other leaders enter politics they will be driven to make such an equivalence toward people who aren't Mormons, and especially toward ex-Mormons, and people Mormons call "anti."
Would such actions be in line with freedom & democracy? No. All one need do for verification is to go to Utah, a state with a 70% Mormon population, and ask the non-Mormons & ex-Mormons there if they think Utah is a state which allows them to be free adult humans, or if they feel Utah is a controlling "one party state." Ask them if they think that democracy & freedom prevails in Utah? They will answer: No! The reason why? Mormonism.
What the Mormon Church leaders do not realize is that at the heart of "apostasy" is skeptical thinking, and skeptical thinking is at the heart of democracy, science, and freedom.
Excerpts from pages 94-95, which discuss when a council of local Mormon leaders is to be formed to discipline a Mormon Church member.
"...Disciplinary Councils
Because formal Church discipline is ecclesiastical, not civil or criminal, court procedures of the state or nation do not apply. However, procedures in a Church disciplinary council must be fair and considerate of the feelings of all who participate.
When a Disciplinary Council Is Mandatory
A disciplinary council must be held when evidence suggests that a member may have committed any of the following transgressions.
As used here, murder refers to the deliberate and unjustified taking of human life. It requires excommunication. Abortion is not defined as murder for this purpose. If death was caused by carelessness or by defense of self or others, or if mitigating circumstances prevail (such as deficient mental capacity or wartime conditions), the taking of a human life might not be defined as murder. Bishops refer questions on specific cases to the stake president. He may direct questions to the Office of the First Presidency if necessary
As used here, incest refers to sexual relations between a parent and a natural, adopted, or foster child or stepchild. A grandparent is considered the same as a parent. Incest also refers to sexual relations between brothers and sisters. It almost always requires excommunication. Bishops refer questions on specific cases to the stake president. He may direct questions to the Office of the First Presidency if necessary.
Child Abuse
As used here, child abuse refers to a sexual offense against or serious physical abuse of a child. If priesthood leaders learn of or suspect child abuse, they should follow the instructions on pages 157-58.
As used here, apostasy refers to members who:
1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.
2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishops or higher authority
3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or higher authority.
In such cases, excommunication may be necessary if repentance is not evident after counseling and encouragement. ..."
Comment: The above section is an expansion on what the evil Mormon leaders put on pages 89-90.
Notice how the handbook states "...Because formal Church discipline is ecclesiastical, not civil or criminal, court procedures of the state or nation do not apply..." They actually have to go to the trouble to mention that a Mormon Church disciplinary council is not a civil one? And notice they then go on with a litany of things which a civil/criminal court would act on: Murder, incest, child abuse?
To Mormon Church leaders being an apostate is tantamount to being a murderer, or a sex abuser, or a child abuser. Think about how such thinking translates into every day life for Mormons. In the back of their minds they would just assume kill apostates (the traditional penalty for murder)!
How do churches which are freedom loving operate? They embrace democracy. They embrace debate. They know the value of such things. They know that strength comes from diversity. But a cult acts to keep you from thinking, from speaking your mind. The act of speaking is directly linked to our ability to think & reason. If we cannot speak (or write), then our ability to think is quelled.
Are you thinking of joining the Mormon Church? Maybe you better think again. Do you think there is value in thinking for yourself and speaking out about your opinion? Or are you the type of person who just sits back and lets the person at the front of the room do your thinking for you? Would you prefer to live in a totalitarian state where freedom is oppressed, or would you rather fight for freedom like Thomas Jefferson did? It's up to you. You can support freedom by leaving Mormonism, or by not becoming a Mormon yourself, and by helping to keep all your friends & neighbors away from Mormonism!
member perspective
As an active member of the LDS church I can say there is nothing the religion has to hide and there are no "secrets" contained in the handbooks, simply because there are no "secrets" within the religion. I will finish this with saying that there are things in the religion that are not openly discussed because they are considered "sacred." This is a matter of respect, and this is why things are not openly discussed, but there is nothing to hide. Even those things which are sacred may be spoken of if those that are interested show the appropriate respect through their actions and lives by living according to the teachings of Jesus Christ. The church has standpoints on certain topics that others simply disagree with such as homosexuality among others, if one does not share the same views than they can leave the religion and are not forced to remain a member, just as those that are not members should simply respect the beliefs of others when they are not trying to force them upon anybody. But as to the handbooks, there is nothing to hide within these, you'll find as much "secret" and "revealing" material that you would find in a Cub Scout Handbook. From reading the comments of those that cannot manage to show any respect for those things which others consider sacred, shows how the world has lost touch with the idea of respect in general.
Forum for Anti-LDS / Anti-Religion Views
I thought it would be nice to check back to see if there were any remarks regarding my posts (this is Paul) but alas there were none BUT I have to laugh at the bashers (those ant-LDS / anti-religion) that keep making an ass of themselves (my apologies to any that are offended by my choice of words.
I have to agree with those that call on Wikipedia, WikiLeaks to live up to their so-called journalistic standards. I am of the opinion that you have failed in this.
As to the those bashers, again, let me state that I am not LDS but am Christian. Your viewpoints lack charity (for those that profess to be Christian but anti-LDS) or logic (for those that are anti-religion.
As I said in my earlier posts, go READ the entire handbook. There is NOTHING secretive in it nor anti-Christian (at least from what I follow in the Bible).
Your obvious behavior shows your bias.
PaulInsert non-formatted text here
- Perhaps the lack of response is evidence that your comment was not worth further discussion. "Your viewpoints lack charity (for those that profess to be Christian but anti-LDS) or logic (for those that are anti-religion.[sic]" and you complain about bias. - Cog
Last Post
I wonder where my last post went to? I posted yesterday but alas it is not there. Paul
- I can see a post from you right above. Try refreshing the website, I believe its SHIFT + CTRL + R. might be a caching problem? -- Tom
reasons why
in reviewing this, I see some outdated policies. perhaps this is one reason it is "held so closely" - because policies change regularly? Letters are sent out to those who recieve copies saying that informattion in the letters replaces information in the book. Pretty anti-climatic for most. but then again, i may be missing the juicy stuff.
"Book of Mormon" was plagiarized!
How ironic it is that a "religion" based on the stolen and then plagiarized manuscript detailing the journey West and back of one of my ancestors, is whining about the actual text of a book that is fully attributed to it is being read. Joseph Smith was a salesman who stole the manuscript from the home of the author after reading parts of it. Later, he embellished it and passed it off as his own revelation, building a "religion" from it and gaining much wealth. While the only proof I have is the story that has been passed down by true Christian ministers in my family, I would like to see some proof that this cult's founding document and founder are not frauds. All of the rules, rituals, etc. were developed to mask the truth from the followers. Smith was nothing more than a snake-oil salesman. _______________________
LMAO...Your "proof" is "the story that has been passed down by true Christian ministers in my family". Great proof!! I am now convinced. You have solidified my stance against the Mormons. As someone who has been surrounded by Mormons for most of my adult life and even looked into their teachings, I find your statement truly lacking. I did not join the Mormons but while looking into it, I had no problems finding information on Joe Smith, both pro and con. Your claim of "much wealth" alone leads me to believe that you have done no research yourself on this matter. Shame on you! Oh, and your "true Christian ministers" claim, research, research, research. You may want to try it sometime. As you can easily find with a little of effort, people have strong beliefs with what a religion is and should be. Just because someone does not fit into YOUR definition, does not make you right and does not make Mormons non-christian. Of course I have no doubt that you will reject this logic, which is your right to do, but don't expect anyone to accept yours...with such great "PROOF".
Defense plan
If the so-called church of scientology and lds want to fight wikileaks over this, the feds might like to get involved, since the information you have posted should be available to any government agency for tax-exemption determination and would therefore be available to anyone via the Freedom of Information Act. If they are "religions," then their documents outlining the business of the church should be available to anyone who is a member or is contemplating membership. It appears from these documents that there is rampant discrimination in both organizations that should preclude them from any type of tax exemption or federal recognition as non-profit entities. Maybe Uncle Sam can start collecting back taxes. Go get 'em!
I am with you all the way. The Church claims it is not for profit. Taking 10% every month of every member and additional gratuities and in certain situations allowing people to leave their estates to the church is crap.How is this not for profit? It is a positive income from members monthly disguised as a charitable contribution. It is indeed for profit and if you do your research the church used to own the store ZCMI and I as well have heard claims that they had stock in Coca-Cola ( amazing isn't it for a church who's fabulous words of wisdom tells members to steer clear of caffinated beverages.) Nevertheless, I will be doing research on what the "Church" is now vested in and I will let it be known. They seem to be doing quite well for not making a profit but I guess this is what Tithe is all about. You have to get to the highest level of heaven and that version of god must want you to put your money where your mouth is. I have never heard such junk before that money in turn becomes charity in turn will help you get to heaven or ultimately the Celestial Kingdom. Afterall no tithing and no fast offerings (which they prefer money donations they apparently don't need the food) will bound you from getting into the temple. This equals no highest level of heaven. Scare Tactics in the world of money making and people actually fall for it . Amazing.TAX em.
Some things should be left alone...
I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. There, now you know where I am coming from. Having said that, I think my comments can apply to any religious document that is posted for public display. I think that Wikileaks blatant disregard for religious documents is just a testament as to the direction that our world and this generation are heading to as a whole. There is very little that is left sacred in this world anymore. We have grown so paranoid as a society, that we think that anything that can be labeled "secret" or "not known to the public at large" is somehow a cover-up, a lie, a conspiracy, or an infringement on people's entitlement to know something they think they should know. Your self-proclaimed spokesman, Julian Assange, is the embodiment of these misguided ideas. In reference to the Church's handbook, Assange is quoted as saying, "The document is not available to the public or to women in the Mormon church. In fact, a number of Mormon women wrote us describing how happy they were to see this information listed." I am a male member of the Church, I believe to be in relatively good standing, and I don't have access to this document either. The fact that he singles out that it is not given to women is just trying to put a sexist spin on the Church, and attempts to justify Wikileaks illegal actions. The information is copyrighted. The Church has legal rights too, which just happen to be protected under the same amendments that you are cowarding behind. Moreover, it contains nothing that is inconsistent with what the Church has declared or acted upon historically. It truly contains guidelines for the leaders of our Church to help them do their job. These men are lay-ministry. They are not paid for what they do. I have known many leaders who devote 30-40 hours of volunteer work per week. And that is on top of their full time job which they do have, to sustain themselves and their families. They sacrifice so much of their time and their families' time to helping people. They do everything from accounting to family counseling. The book is to remind them what the Church's policies are. It's information that is used on a needs-to-know basis only. Wikileaks has posted it, and no doubt has read through it. Fine, you've seen it. What do you want now? A medal? There is nothing secret about it. It's information that is used for our Church leaders to do their job. And as for the women who claimed they were "Mormon" who said "they were happy to see it," I seriously doubt that. Because any man or woman who is a practicing member of the Church should know better. Now, you've made your point, there are few documents which can escape your intrusive eye. Good for you. Now, just take down the religious documents, LDS and those of other faiths. There are very few things that are left in the world which are sacred for us to hold on to and not have the world trample under their feet.
- Some things may be worth trampling.
Wiki- - Sorry, but you are really hurting your credibility on this one. Church Handbooks have never been "secret" and there are many of them in addition to this handbook for bishops/stake presidents. The fact that there are so many attests to the fact that the church provides balanced, standardized guidance to leaders/members throughout the world. This is not surprising and is very necessary for a church of 13 million + members. Anyone who is or has been an active member knows this. I really have to question those who claim otherwise as whether they are or ever have been active members and what their status is in the church. I have never been a bishop, stake president or the like and I have had ready access to the hand book at any time just by asking...in fact I have even had it loaned to me before for weeks at a time. It's a reference manual for leaders. All big organizations have like documents that outline policies and procedures. Frankly, the content is pretty boring for the most part. Yes…it deals with tough issues such as excommunication and the like. No big surprise here. All organizations have policies to govern their organizations, what did you expect. You can lose membership in the boy scouts too if you don't follow the established rules of the organization. No surprise there either. Where as there may be organizations or groups that need to be exposed in some way, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not one of them. As a convert of 30+ years I have to say that the opposite is true...the Church goes out of its way to readily make information available to its members. You do have to make an effort to ask questions or look it up in the readily available material, not surprisingly, you can't expect someone to spoon feed you everything. Using the Tanners or the like as creditable sources is pretty ignorant and poor reporting/journalism by any standard. It cannot be considered as fair reporting from such a biased source. If I were writing a college paper I would expect and deserve an "F" for using them as a source. They are well known for their mission to try and defame the church in any way they can and have dedicated their lives to this. They are extreme and their material is not credible. For the most part it is founded in half truths and such. Bottom-line Wiki -- Reporting like this really, really hurts your credibility and just gives a forum for anti-Mormons to rave.
Haters Hate the TRUTH
This website is juvenile. Wiki leaks is nothing more than any other paparazzi website or grocery store magazine at the check out. The ignorance shown here in these postings should be obvious to the educated. The truth is those who attack religion so vigorously are offensive to those of all faiths.
John N
- Anything you fear is offensive.
Get a life - this isn't even news. And it certainly wasn't ever seceret
I read on Fox New's website that this Manual is highly secret and that women can't even see it. I laughed so hard my 7-up almost came out of my nose. "Women can't see it!" What a misstatement and, frankly, a joke.
First of all, because the Mormon church is totally a lay-ministry church, this manual is what they hand a new Bishop when he is called. The Mormon church calls Bishops from the individual congregations (there are now about 24,000 of them), and they are normal members with regular jobs who agree to serve, usually for a period of about 5 years. They keep their jobs and serve as a Bishop in their spare time.
Because the person called to be a Bishop may have at most 1 week notice of the call, then they are totally on their own after that, the manual is published and given to them to be a source and guide book to help them out. Over the years it has grown to include a lot of answers to the full range issues that the Bishop might face.
But here's the point - I've never been a bishop, but I've seen it a lot of times. And any woman whose husband is called to be the Bishop of their congregation has surely seen it and been able to read it. My wife read whole parts of it one time when we were at a friends house. It is really no big deal, because if you look at how the church operates, you'll see the manifestation of the policies and procedures played out.
But if you doubt me and think this is somehow a great revelation, go ahead and read the entire manual. You won't find any secret doctrine, and you won't find any policy or procedure that isn't pretty much already known as a Mormon doctrine or practice.
I would urge all of you over hyping and under informed people to get a life.
First of all this is not brave journalism. The quality of this message ranks up there with the Enquirer, Geraldo, and any movie with Will Ferrell in it. If there is one thing important here it is that the LDS Church takes seriously their Article of Faith that they... "believe in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."
As an LDS Bishop I have read the book. There is nothing in there that the large majority of church members (male and female) are not already familiar with. The fact that we have a lay clergy means most members will have opportunities sometime in their life to read these handbooks, and there is nowhere in there that it suggests I may not divulge any of the principles with my spouse or another member of the church, or even the public for that matter.
I would respectfully ask you to respect our copyrights and those of others. This is not about secret doctrines, it is about the right of the Church to communicate its doctrines from an unsullied source.
- Just a quote from a posting above for your consideration: "I am a male member of the Church, I believe to be in relatively good standing, and I don't have access to this document either."
- Leaves to wonder how many of your church's policies are not end-to-end and interpreted/handled differently in different parts of the church, depending on person in charge and personal gusto. Which also would fit in with the comment made below (Mormon Church Handbook of Instructions comment) by RZ.
- So it seems that posting this manual will provide even grounds for members within your own organization. Which in return proves again how much an organization hurts itself when keeping information secret from its members, opening doors for misunderstandings and abuse. Doesn't sound too "unsullied" to me what is going on there.
Keep up the good work!
The reactions from LDS members range from: "Thanks for sharing. The average Mormon has seen it, and doesn't care that it is on line. We've long ago stopped caring what the laughers and scorners say or do to try to provoke us. In fact, I'd personally like to urge everyone to read the manual as it may even help them live a better life if they lived by the policies and principles contained therein." to what can only be described as complete outrage. Which is it to be? I personally regard Mormonism as a bizarre cult. Even a relatively brief perusal of Mormon theology would lead any unbiased person to this conclusion. For those who are not in the picture, Wikipedia has good potted summaries of Mormon beliefs. To me, such cults are very dangerous, and need to be exposed at every turn. Keep up the good work, WikiLeaks!
Mormon Church Handbook of Instructions comment
Could you send me the email address of the regional rep. for rose canyon 3rd ward , my son is coming close to age for baptism and I am in need of regional representatives email.
email SENT 3/23/2008
The handbooks needs to be made public ... I can only speak for myself - in my situation it has been approx 9 years of constant lies and mistreatment of religion, property damage, violation of protective order, laws of the land with regard to polygamy, work, alienation of affection, and The right to privacy.
We have been had to endure -
Our tithing being raised from 120 to 600 per month/ we were told we need to provide taxes to prove we are not lying
Our temple recommends have been denied at the request of our bishop Because of an ex-husband of at least 12 years whom has a protective order against him for damaging garage door and threats, but according to our bishop the ex husband is telling him my wife is unworthy of a temple recommend and that I should pay 600 now or I will can not be able to go to temple My wife is disabled due to childhood kidnapping at gun point and various abuses from previous marriage and a pregnancy lawsuit she filed and proved in Utah
You can read about the lawsuit by typing my wife's name Jodi Zisumbo under any web search engine, it is the one about pregnancy
She is the sole custodial parent and without her permission all records have been moved from her children
We have had law enforcement officers and district attorneys throw out cases and evidence even though we have video admission of damage to property.
It has taken us more than five years to be sealed in the temple because the bishop admitted to us he lied about submitting paperwork
While being sealed in temple my wife was asked are you sure you do not want to be the ex-husbands daughter in-law we had been married legally for at least five years when we finally were able to be sealed in temple
My son has had threats against him it is in the protective order
My wife's sisters family had their house burn down in the California fires and her mother came to see us from California, we wanted to go to temple to place her sisters families name in temple and pray for them, my wife's mother came to Utah from California just for this purpose and we were denied again not by the bishop but this time by the steak president
At this point we have left that ward and are going to a different ward for the last year approx it will soon be time for my son to be baptized but we are at this point wandering not really being allowed to belong.
The steak president has told me my son is illegitimate and can be sealed to us later.
I have recording and emails to prove what has been said but in the end all the above is small.
My wife is extremely incredible and wonderful so all the above does not matter if you could see my wife's smile and my son's incredible existence you would understand that all the above are just little things.
My reason for writing is to say thank you because it has helped to read the handbook and understand the truth verses the mistruths with the manipulation that has been happening.
Respectfully RZ
I call "baloney" on this one.
" We have been had to endure -
Our tithing being raised from 120 to 600 per month/ we were told we need to provide taxes to prove we are not lying "
It's baloney because that's not how the Mormons do tithing. Whether or how much you donate is strictly voluntary, you don't get billed or audited, and at the end of the calendar year the bishop asks you if your tithing represents a "full tithe" or a "part tithe". Your answer to that question is kept confidential.
Mormon bishops don't jack up your tithing like RZ alleges, and they definitely don't require documentation from you to justify the amount you're paying. If a bishop were really doing this, then any member who knew about it could report him to the next level in the hierarchy, or even to HQ in Salt Lake City, and they would investigate it immediately. In Book 1 of the Handbook which is the real topic of this discussion, you can read that if a bishop is caught messing around with tithing, he is excommunicated from the church faster than he can say "oops".
Occam's Razor just doesn't support RZ's allegation.
Just looking for Headlines
Seems this Wikileaks is just looking for headlines. Attentionseekers.
Ultimately, the book is a copyrighted document, and copyright is important to any writer or owner of material they don't want produced. In this case, Wikileaks is using the document for their own form of "profit". They are using it to draw people to the website. I hope the Church wipes the floor with you folks.
But the humor is exactly what most have said. These aren't documents that are hard to get ahold of. Anyone can get a calling that requires access to these books, and the book is simply handed to that person.
SHOCK - no signing of special scary contracts or citing of special oaths that demand that these be kept secret. They just hand you the book. Shock! Extreme liberal Mormons have gotten these books too.
This is such a non-issue it ain't funny!
The Truth is Out There....
WikiLeaks or X-Files? I can't quite tell the difference. Oh, and I think WikiLeaks should post all the information about it's donors because it truly is in the public's interest. After all, inquiring minds want to know.
Funny Stuff.
There are two major arguments here and only one is relevant(Copyright Law.) The simple fact is that without it someone could sell it and profit thereby or worse they could manipulate the words and meaning into whatever they want it to say and publish it under the same title.
The other argument is a family feud of sorts.
You have devote Mormons who believe that God and Jesus Christ are leading the church through revelation whoever happens to be the prophet.
You have devote Mormons who want to believe that the Church is directed by God but aren't sure. These people can be very defensive at times because though they aren't sure, they see it as part of themselves. An attack on the Church is perceived to be an attack of the most personal nature. Thus, as in other responses to personal or perceived personal attacks, you will read name calling, accusations (sometimes false or unsubstantiated), or genuine pleas to cease and desist.
You have ex-Mormons who do not believe that the church is divinely run and view it as a group conspiring men who aim to keep them down. They feel it their duty to expose the error to as many as possible, often making this mission a major part of their life. Either because they feel like they were duped, something offended them, or a rule was making them feel guilty or hindered and so in rejecting the church they believe they have obtained freedom. This freedom is demonstrated by the countless hours they dedicate to something they believe is not true instead of focusing on the things they believe to be true.
You have current Mormons who don't believe that the church is divinely directed and want to see the organization that they belong to keep up with the political correctness of the United States. Limiting God to collective societal view of the United States or even this whole planet would reveal a truly weak God indeed.
We also have rational unbiased commentators that look at the copyright argument for what it is and then are either disgusted or chuckle to themselves about this petty feud they are reading.
And for most others, this material is (due to their current lack of information and knowledge) is like a freak show, it's entertaining and titillating. In a nutshell, yellow journalism. This group is in the spectator role. They don't care for the background story or the facts as long as there is action.
Myself, I am a Mormon. I question, research, and am encouraged to do these things. Religion is an interesting business. The God of the Bible, the one I believe in has said "my ways are not your ways." Basically, God's actions and what he tells his prophets will never quite make sense to man. If it weren't so there would be hardly any reason for what we call faith. I look at Moses. In one light a murderer, a rebel, a traitor. David an adulterer and an accomplice to murder. Solomon, a well known polygamist. Elisha was being made fun of by some kids so 2 bears came and attacked them. Jonah was all wishy washy and at one point wanted God to destroy the people while he watched. Peter had a temper, there were some tense feelings between the first disciples of Jesus. My point is that according to Jewish and Christian history we have imperfect men from all walks of life that are called to act in God's name even with their obvious flaws.
The other thing I love is that people want to always change a religion to fit their views. Why don't they attempt to create their own religion if they believe that all that is needed is a belief system.
I hope to have illustrated the difference between the cut and dry argument of copyright law and that of the feuding factions.
Thank goodness someone is protecting us from the big scary Mormons and their insidious document that promotes honest living, being charitable and forgiving, living a life of integrity and community service, and paying a tithe (it's in the bible folks) to help support the church's many charitable and philanthropic activities.
To whomever "leaked" this document. You are are a criminal, but I guess the ends justify the means. To Wikileaks, who think they're doing something noble and great and wonderful, get over yourselves. You're pompous and arrogant if you think that by releasing an operations manual, you've somehow made the world a better place.
If I give you the user's manual to Vista, will you "leak" that too, so we can all sleep better at night?
What a joke.
An otherwise noteworthy idea has lost all credibility as a consequence. Have you ever heard of the vetting process? Maybe if you reviewed what gets leaked to you, to see if there is truly something insidious therein, you might retain an air of credibility. As it is, you're a joke, and not even a very good one at that.
- I'm guessing you are a member of the second group?
To whoever wrote this: I've been a member of the LDS Church a long time and your group descriptions seem pretty accurate. I am confident the Church is directed by Jesus Christ through our living prophet so I guess that puts me in the category "A".
Why take it down?
If this is truly what Mormons believe and practice,why should you take it down? It is informative. It should not be secret . The Mormon church is kooky. One comment said that it helped her daughter and son in law to make the proper decision on getting the snip and childbirth issues.Why should a church have to tell you what to do in your own life circumstance? This is not a just in case manual this is a way to live completeley and they know it. Just keep paying that ten percent and giving generously and let someone else tell you what to do in every single aspect of your life. How can people be blinded by this so bad to NOT think its a cult? Come on people open your eyes. (Weird indeed!) Thank You for exposing this idiocracy called religion. I look foward to additional posts.
- Please examine the "history" to see if your posted was delated. If so, you should be able to cut and paste it back again. Wikileaks 17:55, 4 September 2008 (GMT)
Wow, talk about making something out of nothing...
The Mormons do not have a paid ministry the people are called from all walks of life. Direction is provided in simple to read and use operational handbooks. These are not secret. The Church positions are not contradicted by the handbooks rather the handbooks are instruction tools for people who are called to serve. Through out life the opinion of folks will vary based on their personal circumstances. This does not mean they are wrong, however it does require consideration and determination based on your circumstance. This does not involve a leak of information but rather information that is part of the organizational operation and position which is available to everyone in leadership positions. If you doubt it ask those nicely dressed folks we have serving as missionaries to come over and they will share all kinds of inside valuable and important information that you can decide for your self how it applies to your circumstance. Women have total and complete access to all the written material, they are writers, editors, speakers, instructors and in no way, shape, or form do gender exclusive discussion or publications exist. Anything less indicates nothing other than a personal problem based on a limited frame of reference or circumstance.
Happy Mormon Glad for It
Disclosure: I am a lifelong Mormon, in the "real" LDS Church.
Here is what others don't understand about religious freedom, and free speech, and copyright law. It is fair use to cite/copy/publish religious text, especially when ONE religious institution uses copyright law as a method to silence critics, dissenters, or even those who want to practice on their own. Scientology is a great example of this. Unfortunately so is my Church.
To argue that the handbook doesn't contain religious material is wrong. This handbook contains all sorts of religious material that would be crucially important to those who believed in Mormonism but wished to form their own free religious assembly. To argue its simply administrative and boring is false. It contains information that is NOT readily available through other church publications.
These sorts of principles I've outlined are vitally important to promoting free speech and free religious assembly, in America and any other nation. If a religious entity could just copyright any religious ideas, it would stifle that free speech and religious freedom by copyrighting the ones it teaches as most vital and important to its members.
How could the protestant reformation have happened if the Catholic church was forever able to claim exclusive copyright on the bible, apologist texts, commentary, and so on? A Catholic might see no problem with that; but Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Reformed Dutchists, and Mormons might have a problem with that! Luckily the current strange post-industrial-era concept of copyright law did not exist back then. God obviously saw this and formed the true Church nearly right before the development of how copyright law is practiced today.
As Mormons, I feel we should not have to resort to the same punishing practices employed by Scientology and The Disney Corporation. If someone wants to dissent, fine. Our leaders can decide what to do with them on a Church level. Wouldn't it be disappointing if the famous saying became "dissenters can leave the Church but the Church won't leave them alone?"
Women and CHI
The contents of the CHI is sacred and should remain so. Women and non-ecclesiastical leaders of the church have no business looking at or reading this manual of church governance. The church from the time of Abraham has always been a patriarchal system. When you let the manual into the hands of a woman this is what you get... blabbed all over the internet, casting our pearls before swine. Now you can see the reason why the priesthood should never be given to women in the church and never will be. I am disgusted with how low some people will go. WikiLeaks, I think the honorable thing to do is to take down these links to the CHI, all of them. Two wrongs don't make a right.
The typical LDS tithe is 10%, and THERE IS an audit at the end of the year. A meeting to confirm you have paid a full tithe to continue to be a temple recommend holder. So, if it's not secret what's the big deal? Seems to me (someome who is not mormon BUT did attend mormon church and participate full for two years)that if it's not secret and doesn't contain any damning evidence of anything, what's the big deal if it's on here or not.
I hardly see how a handbook can be considered "sacred". A sacred handbook? I also understand the need to be respectful of others beliefs and all that that includes. However, the act of simply making some knowledge available to others (in the same text as it is available to members) does not necessarily make that act disrespectful. Rather it is respectively presented to others. From the outside looking in I don't see any misrepresentation of what is already in print. I do see how personal opinions on why it is or is not presented the public has led to certain misconceptions.
But, from a knowledge only point of view, I do not see any first hand harm from the handbook being made readily accesable to the public.
Thanks, OE
Sincerely looking for Truth? If yes, please read. If not, don't bother.
Look, I'm LDS. I was a Mormon missionary for 2 years and loved it. After that, I married a great gal. We now have 4 wonderful sons. I am now 34. My family & I are happy. We are at peace. We love life. All that is good in our life is due to the teachings of the restored gospel found in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If you are someone who is sincerely looking for truth, then please read the whole Book of Mormon with an OPEN mind and heart and ask God if the book is true. If you do so with a "sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost." (Book of Mormon, Moroni 10:4-5). Having your own answer from Heavenly Father is the only way to progress towards finding truth.
Note 1: There may be some clever, witty, persuasive comments against my post above. This is my first time here and probably won't be back (too busy) so I won't be posting responses. If you are sincerely seeking truth, there will be lots of very persuasive arguments & apparent evidence for and against the Church but getting your own answer (per above paragraph) is the only way to find spiritual truth.
Note 2: I know this post is not about copyright but in reading through all of the other posts, a large percentage were about whether the Church is false or true…making this post relevant.
Warmest Regards, Nat 12July2009 U.S. Expat - Nigeria
Re: "Mormon Church attempts to gag Internet over handbook"
Comparing the Mormons to China and Scientology in this article is a vastly biased and exaggerated insinuation. Not every copyright lawsuit is a case of censorship, oppression, and restriction of free speech. As other posters have noted, the content is not particularly sensitive, secretive, or even controversial - a less than spectacular 'leak.' The LDS Church is not trying to shut down a hostile website or chunk of the Web for being critical; they are asserting their intellectual property rights in accordance with U.S. law. It's obviously a simple case of the church owning the content that the website was hosting illegally. If a website was hosting the full text of the Harry Potter series, J. K. Rowling would be fully justified in demanding the site take it down and suing the proprietors if they didn't.
Simultaneous Church Memberships
In the 1999 edition of the CHI, under "Apostasy", it reads: "Total inactivity in the Church or attending or holding membership in another Church does not constitute apostasy."
In the 2006 edition of the CHI, under "Apostasy", it reads: "Total inactivity in the Church or attending another church does not constitute apostasy. However, if a member formally joins another church, excommunication or name removal may be necessary if formal membership [in the other church] is not ended after counseling and encouragement" (p. 110).
Case #1. A 20-year-old man, who was baptized and blessed in the Catholic Church as a baby, now is baptized into the LDS Church. Must he formally go to the Catholic Church and have his membership there revoked or annulled in order for his LDS membership to take effect? If not, he is "formally" still a member of both the Catholic and the LDS Churches. Does this constitute "apostasy"?
Case #2. A 20-year-old man, who was baptized LDS at the age of 8 and is "active" in the LDS Church, decides to also join a Baptist church in the year 2000, when the 1999 edition of the CHI is in effect. According to that edition, what he has done is not apostasy nor grounds for excommunication from the LDS Church. But after the 2006 edition comes out, is he now an apostate?
Case #2 is not hypothetical. The 20-year-old in question was myself, and I joined the other church while on my mission for the LDS Church, as part of an "exchange" - I made a deal that if an investigator would join the LDS Church, I would join his church. I made this arrangement under full knowledge of the CHI (I was serving as a Branch President at the time) and with the knowledge and approval of the mission president. I do not ever intend to renounce or abandon my "other church" membership. I do not feel under any obligation to even bring it up. I am "active" in my LDS Ward and Stake, hold an LDS Temple Recommend, and attend my "other church" on special occasions throughout the year.
Many in the Church will say I am an apostate and should be excommunicated. Others will tell me if I am not going to submit to the new policies of the Church, then I really am an apostate who just needs to leave the Church. If you are born and raised in the Church, you know full well there are too much family and social ramifications to make that a realistic option.
You should publish the whole books. It is unknown even to us mormon members.