Mormon Church Goes After WikiLeaks

An anonymous reader writes "The Mormon Church has instructed its lawyers to gag the Internet over WikiLeaks' release of the 1968 and 1999 versions of its confidential handbook for Church leaders. Apart from attacking WikiLeaks, legal demands were sent to Jimmy Wales of the WikiMedia foundation for a WikiNews article merely linking to the material, and scribd.com has also been censored. WikiLeaks has (of course) refused to remove the documents."

"Gag the Internet"

[Finallyjoined!!! (1158431)]

That would be as easy as pushing water uphill with a sharp stick :-)

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[Rob the Bold (788862)]

That would be as easy as pushing water uphill with a sharp stick :-)

"Dum, dum, dum, dum, DUM!"

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[Dahamma (304068)]

My favorite analogy comes from Joe Rogan on News Radio:

"Dude, you can't take something off the Internet.. that's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool."

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[Woundweavr (37873)]

I think you might think that because you are a Mormon. Hate to tell you... The Church of LDS is weird. Portraying NA as a lost tribe of Israel, the Garden of Eden and the new Jerusalem in Jackson County Missouri, history of polygamy in Western society as a central tenet of faith (followed by denouncing that practice), the tiering of the "Celestial Kingdom" and the structure and demands of the church is weird.

Weird is not inherently good or bad. This isn't an attack on Mormonism. But realistically LDS is a church that formed as what was considered then (and would be now) a cult with frankly bizarre practices and beliefs that retreated from developed areas of America and formed its own isolated community. The fact that some of the stranger pieces of theology have been disavowed or deemphasized and that the membership has increased greatly doesn't change that its a weird church.

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[Woundweavr (37873)]

First, again weird != wrong || bad.

Second, if three dudes and two chicks or five chicks and dude or two dudes and a transvestite want to shack up, more power to them. Polygamy as a recognized civil marriage/union is only problematic in that it allows chaining and isn't very scalable.

ie
If Jim wants to marry Jane, everything is cool (and eventually Jim and Joe will be cool outside my home state)
If Jim wants to marry Mary then, does Jane have to marry Mary, or can he be married to two people who have no official relationship? The problem becomes apparent when one realizes the traditional special privileges involved with the marital bond (in terms of testimony, economic rights, etc). Having the mafia all "married" to each other would certainly cause some issues.

There's also the connection between communities of polygamists and child abuse but on an individual family scale one would think this wouldn't be an issue.

Third, allowing polygamy wouldn't make it unweird. After all, Furries are allowed to exist.

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[davolfman (1245316)]

There are a great many people out there who think the entire picture of a religion should be visible to the public. Thus when a faith tries to have hidden knowledge it appears as having one face to the public, and another face to the initiates. If the LDS church didn't have these practices Lighthouse and company wouldn't even exist.

It's pretty much the same reason by which people fight Scientology as well. There's simply a drastic difference in magnitude, with Scientology making much scarier threats, and having the vast portion of their entire religion be hidden knowledge.

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[Nethead (1563)]

Sikh men wear "funny underwear" too. Kaccha is a pair of shorts. This is special, slightly longer type of underwear and is symbolic of continence and a high moral character. Like breeches, Kaccha can be worn on their own without causing embarrassment. Thus it is quite useful in hot weather, swimming and sports activities. It also reminds the Sikh of the need for self-restrain over passions and desires. They are worn with a knotted string that takes a few moments to untie. This gives the Sikh a moment to reflect on why he is taking his pants off. Google the term "Kakkar" for more information.

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[theStorminMormon (883615)]

You don't think magical underwear is weired?

IAAM. I don't think they are weird. I do think it is weird that people so credulously believe any rumor they hear about them. I enjoy learning more about other religions and faith traditions, and I think Stendahl's Rules are a good guide.

(1) When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.

(2) Don't compare your best to their worst.

(3) Leave room for "holy envy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krister_Stendahl [wikipedia.org]

This is a pretty clear violation of rule #1. I don't get the impression you particularly care to know much about Mormonism, but it certainly strikes me as ignorant to combine apathy and ignorance and pass it off as having an opinion.

It never ceases to amaze me how stupid people are.

Stendahl (above) is not a Mormon. Daniel Peterson is. He added a 4th rule to Stendahl's Rules:

So the principle that came to me on this was that if you are looking at a religious tradition that has a large number of adherents...then there must be something in it that appeals to different people.

Mormonism, for example, has clearly lasted long enough and has clearly appealed to a wide enough cross section of people that you don't have to concede that it's true to say there must be something there that appeals to people; bright people, practical people, highly educated people, uneducated people; all sorts of people in all sorts of cultures have found something appealing in this movement. The same is true of Hinduism, Islam and Christianity.

http://www.fairlds.org/Anti-Mormons/Critics_of_the_LDS_Faith.html [fairlds.org]

Then again, you may be one of those folks that think all religions are stupid. It's not always obvious whether an anti-Mormon is a belligerent atheist or a belligerent evangelical, but most of them break down into one or the other. (With a smaller category for angry ex-Mormons, I suppose.)

Some piece of clothes all of a sudden have magic meaning.

I know. It's so stupid. Like the way we just pretend that all of a sudden patterns of black lines on a white background have meaning and call them letters and numbers. What could be dumber?

It's so absurd it's beyond comprehension.

Which means either:
1. All 11 million Mormons (say 5 or 6 million if you want to just talk about practicing Mormons) are retarded.

or

2. Your perception of their beliefs is not accurate.

I don't think anyone could seriously believe #1, but it makes a nice insult if that's your goal.

If you think religious clothing is a must, you have some serious mental issues.

What if you don't think it's a "must". What if you choose to believe that it's merely a symbol of personal commitment and wear it for that reason?

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[sm62704 (957197)]

That would be as easy as pushing water uphill with a sharp stick :-)

John Lennon said it:

Like trying to shovel smoke
with a pitchfork
in the wind

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[Fishead (658061)]

My Dad used to always say "Poking butter up a wildcat's ass"

I find it gives a good mental picture of difficult, and not worth trying.

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[sm62704 (957197)]

Sounds like time isn't all he had on his hands!

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[thisissilly (676875)]

Step 1: Place stick in water. Leave enough to hold on to with both hands poking out.
Step 2: Freeze the water.
Step 3: Push the frozen water uphill with the stick.

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[gehrehmee (16338)]

"Gag the Internet" I had no idea Mormons were so kinky.

Re:"Gag the Internet"

[KnightMB (823876)]

That would be as easy as pushing water uphill with a sharp stick :-)

Especially since I just made a torrent for the file in question :-) Get the torrent here: http://torrents.thepiratebay.org/4187865/Mormon_Church_Handbook_of_Instructions_(1999).4187865.TPB.torrent [thepiratebay.org]

Mormons Still Practice Plural Marriage

[Jizzbug (101250)]

Also, most Mormons (myself included) believe that the practice of plural marriage will be re-instituted prior to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ (some suspect it will be re-instituted after the collapse of the U.S. economy, when the Saints are called to gather in Zion: Jackson County, Missouri [Kansas City]).

How come nobody ever learns from this?

[Reality Master 201 (578873)]

You'd think after the Swiss bank debacle it'd be pretty well known that trying to suppress this kind of information (particularly when it's distributed by an international organization), just guarantees that it will be more widely disseminated than it'd otherwise have been.

Someone circulate a memo about the Steisand effect to the lawyers of the US.

Re:How come nobody ever learns from this?

[sm62704 (957197)]

See, the thing is, everyone thinks money=intelligence. "If you're so damned smart, why ain't you rich?"

But there is no real correlation between intelligence and wealth. The wealthy can afford better schools, but education != intelligence.

These people are used to getting their own way, they're used to the law ALWAYS working for THEM and can't imagine that there's the slightest possibililty that they, spoiled brats that they are, can't have things exactly as they want them to be.

To quote Mr. T: "I pity the foo's".

Re:How come nobody ever learns from this?

[dissy (172727)]

Everyone is trying to limit information on an unlimited information supply. They can't understand what the word unlimited really means.

You mean they all work at comcast?

Re:How come nobody ever learns from this?

[Calmiche (531074)]

Yah, but what is so sad is that the LDS church has a HUGE online presence, uses the internet on a frequent basis to distribute media and is an early adopter of a lot of technology.

Secondly, these books aren't secret. Any member can walk into any LDS distribution center and pick up a copy. I've got a copy. 95% of the book is on how meetings run, proper activities for youth, how to distribute tithing and how to put in requisition forms for repairs.

However, there are sections on church doctrine and rules. These are more solid rules than what is generally liked in the church. It gives hard and fast examples of improper conduct and what the church response is to them.

The basic idea is that people should govern themselves. If you give them a hard and fast rule, some types of people will see how close they can get to that rule without breaking it. Not a good way to live a christian life.

As a lifelong member of the LDS church, I'm extremely disappointed in how church lawyers and officials are handling this. It's not SECRET. It's PRIVATE. There's a big difference that some church members just don't seem to get.

Re:How come nobody ever learns from this?

[DarkSarin (651985)]

As another LDS-born (for non-LDS, that simply means my parents were LDS, and I was baptized at age 8--I've since done a LOT of personal searching to make my own decisions about the church, thank you very much), I've read some of the older versions of the Handbook.

My guess is that the real reason is that this is simply a copyrighted document and that its more about that than anything. I've never really understood the church's policy on keeping the GHI out of general circulation, but I don't really care. Book One (which is what this is) doesn't have anything major in it. I'd wager that there are a LOT of the LDS sladshdotters that have had a chance to read it for one reason or another. Generally speaking, any LDS member that wants a peek at it can ask their bishop if they can read what the handbook says about a specific subject, and generally most bishops will say yes.

The reason its private? I have not idea, but I've never really cared. Is wikiLeaks doing the 'right thing' here? I don't really care. Is the LDS church doing the 'right thing' here? Who knows. I have a suspicion that this is one of those areas where its the lawyers that the church hires making a decision, rather than the President of the church. That's just how it goes.

The standard tactic

[InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837)]

When heretics try to disperse reading material that the religious deem unsuitable for the public to read, the only choice that comes to mind is to burn and censor.

Silly Lawyers...

[by Anonymous Coward]

As a lifelong Mormon and legal professional, I would just like to note how disappointed I am in the "business arm" of the Church, including its lawyers. This is an unnecessary stab at keeping "secrets" that haven't been secret for decades. When you have a lay clergy, there's always someone willing to discuss ostensibly "proprietary" information about church administration.

These handbooks contain nothing more "damaging" than can be found all over the Internet, in most bookstores, et cetera. I hope the Church's spiritual leadership is swift to address what was likely a foolish bureaucratic decision.

Re:Silly Lawyers...

[pipatron (966506)]

1. * Religious
2. * Lawyer
3. * Rational and reasonable

Something is very wrong with you!

Re:Silly Lawyers...

[Peter La Casse (3992)]

Great Scott! It's almost as if the religious == irrational meme is not 100% accurate.

Re:Silly Lawyers...

[pipatron (966506)]

I goto FOSS church every Sunday

Heathen! Thou shall not GOTO anywhere!

Re:Silly Lawyers...

[zrq (794138)]

Unless they actually wanted 1000's of unconverted heathens to download and read the document in the hope that a few might be converted.

A weird kind of inverse spam :

• Church : "We don't want you to read this"
• Wikileaks : "Hey everybody, they don't want us to read this"
• Geeks : "Gotta get a copy of that"

What else would cause 1000's of geeks and nerds to actively seek out and read a church document.

Where is wikileaks?

[cryfreedomlove (929828)]

Is wikileaks run outside the USA? How are they able to withstand legal injunctions based on USA copyright law?

Don't get me wrong. I love wikileaks. I'm just wondering how it is set up to withstand the long haul of attacks that will keep coming from powerful people and organizations who get their nose bloodied by documents there.

Re:Where is wikileaks?

[pipatron (966506)]

From wikipedia:

Wikileaks is hosted by PRQ, an internet service provider in Sweden.

FYI, PRQ is run by the guys behind The Pirate Bay. They're not likely to cave in that easily. :)

Order of the Arrow

[Ottair (1270536)]

I'm no fan of the LDS, either as an institution or as a theocracy, but they have as much right to privacy as any other group or individual. Another organization often under attack by the societal, self-elected correctness monitoring crowd is Scouting USA which sponsors an organization known as the Order of the Arrow. OA also has self published, private material that it wishes remain so. There is also an article on Wikipedia about the Order in which editors have come to a consensus about not publishing those private details in accordance with that groups request, which is within their rights. I suggest the same courtesy be extended to the LDS, it's an issue of fundamental importance to anyone who values freedom of expression in all its forms, internet or otherwise.

Please explain

[jopet (538074)]

This is just a normal case of copyright infringement. Somebody holds the copyright and does not want somebody else to publish the book. Whether it is this book or a bestselling novel does not matter.
I wonder how those who talk about "gagging" here would actually want copyright laws to work? Abandon them alltogether and let anyone publish whatever they like? Or just allow the publishing of something when some group decides it is "evil"?

Of course, news media should have the right to publish excerpts from anything that is news or relevant and in most countries this is legal (i do not know about the US). So if you want to report about some weird/dangerous,/ridiculous issues in this book, provide a write-up (your own words of what is in there: legal) and support it with facsimiles of excerpts of the original (small parts: legal).

What would be the problem with that?

Religious texts should not have copyright

[ianare (1132971)]

In 'The Gallic Wars' by Julius Caesar, book 6 chapter 14 [ucl.ac.be], there is a description of Gallic religious practices. The druids would not permit their texts to be written down, they had to be memorized. One reason being that as soon as a text was written it would pass into a sort of 'public domain' where non-druids could read it.

This sounds like something that should be in place today. Make all religious texts public domain, no exceptions. Religions are not for profit (well in theory) and they are tax-exempt, so they have no reason to have copyright. And they use copyright law to harass and bully their detractors. So take that power away from them.

Oh, Your religion wants hide something? Fine, memorize it.

Manual's Content

[Daimaou (97573)]

I have three physical copies of the LDS Church's handbooks. One is from the 80s, and two are the most current.

All they contain are instructions for people who are asked to be leaders in their church, so they'll know what to do. Unlike other religions, the LDS Church doesn't have paid clergy, so people don't go to years of school to learn how to be a minister. Instead, they are provided with these manuals and they can reference them when they have questions.

If you're looking for some hidden secret about the LDS Church to make you go all jiggy inside, you're not going to find anything here. If you're up for a dry read though, knock yourself out at WikiLeaks.

Finally, the LDS Church does own the copyrights to these manuals. The law does offer them protection against violators, so I don't see anything wrong with them demanding that protection.

Re:Cult.

[dc29A (636871)]

If you even have a "confidential handbook", you're a cult, not a religion...or maybe a good old fashioned pyramid scheme.

There is no difference between a religion and a cult. Well, a minor one: religion is a popular cult.

Egypt

[flyingfsck (986395)]

Interesting, I never thought of the old Egyption religions as pyramid schemes, but I suppose they were the first too.

Re:Cult.

[Jason Levine (196982)]

Not really. Most of the major religions will allow you to leave their churches/temples without any problem. You can even convert to another religion with minimum fuss. For example, I'm Jewish. There's nothing to stop me from leaving my temple and joining another. (My wife and I have even discussed this very subject recently.) There's also nothing to stop me from leaving my temple, becoming Christian, and joining a church. (Beyond the fact that the Church's religious beliefs don't match with my own, of course.)

In a cult, leaving the church is unthinkable and anyone who expresses a desire to do so is forcibly kept from doing so. Were I a member of a cult, expressing a desire to leave the group would likely result in my detention for "re-education" or perhaps in my "disappearance."

You are kind of right about religions being popular cults, though. Most religions start out as cults and the either die out or ease up on the cult-like behaviors and merge more into society. Christianity was a cult when it first started, but over the years it integrated more into society to the point that it isn't considered a cult now.

Re:Cult.

[Ngarrang (1023425)]

I dunno. To some extent, I believe any corporation (church, business, whatever) has the right to some privacy about its inner workings. The Masons protect the privacy of their rituals. Businesses keep private how a product is made. And though I don't even consider it a church, the Church of Scientology even has the right to of privacy with their documents. Not everything has to be transparent and openly available. Even in a church. Those documents are accessible to members of the church, but not outsiders.

Re:Cult.

[Rob the Bold (788862)]

I believe any corporation (church, business, whatever) has the right to some privacy about its inner workings

Not being persons, they have no such inherent right, only the rights that we the people choose to bestow on them. Since you've voted "for some", I'll register my vote as "for considerably less than persons".

Re:Cult.

[LWATCDR (28044)]

As far as transgender operations one of the basic beliefs has to do with gender identity. I was shocked more by the fact that someone that had the operation could be baptized. So if you are undecided about your gender you must wait until you decide before you are baptized.
Parenthood and children and families are very important in the church doctrine so I can understand the the surrogate parenting thing as well. Adoption is HIGHLY encouraged. Voluntary sterilization? Last time I checked that was changed. I believe that Bishops are now instructed that it is between the husband and wife. I could be wrong but even under the old manual it is just a recommendation. If you get a vasectomy that is really up to you.
To be honest I am a member and I have not been a Bishop. I know several of them in my ward. Most wards will have several members that have been bishop so this isn't some secret. That book isn't a big secret and everything listed was stuff I knew except one.
I didn't know that the church would allow someone that had a sex change be baptized. I feel that is a good thing.
As far these ideas being backward or strange? Well some of our ideas are rather old. Like sending 10,000 people to help with the clean up after Katrina. Here is some of what they have been doing lately.
http://www.lds.org/ldsfoundation/welfare/welcome/0,7133,1325-1-9,00.html [lds.org]

Re:Inevitably..

[Kamokazi (1080091)]

The funny thing is, from a quick look at the Wikileaks summary (I didn't read the handbook itself), the handbook doesn't even seem that bad. Pretty standard Christian stuff, the Catholic church generally sticks to the same standards.

Re:Inevitably..

[smilindog2000 (907665)]

I concur. The manual seems fairly well thought out, and doesn't have any really good secret stuff I was hoping to read. I don't know why LDS wants it concealed. In fact, I'd argue that manual is strong evidence to the rest of the Christian world that LDS is not an out-there weird cult.

Perhaps LDS wants it publicized? Threatening Wikileaks is the perfect way to do it!

Re:Inevitably..

[Alpha830RulZ (939527)]

Joseph Smith's background is pretty well documented. See this [amazon.com] for a good writeup. He was a con man and a thief, who (one can reasonably conjecture from the documented history) came up with a polygamist philosophy because he was also one randy goat.

Re:Inevitably..

[Alpha830RulZ (939527)]

Hm-m-m. Responds to cited source with ad hominum attack. Persuasive? I think not.

How about Helen Mar Kimball's accounts?

[roystgnr (4015)]

She's the 14 year old girl who Joseph Smith bullied into marrying him by claiming that it would ensure the salvation of her family. There's plenty of more examples of fraud, but as long as the topic is El Dorado that one seems to be the most poignant. Todd Compton's book has references to primary sources for her and about thirty others of Smith's wives, if you'd like to check that out. Be aware that Compton is still a believing Mormon and so some bias shows through; for example when he quotes Helen's sorrow at finding out that her marriage wasn't just "for eternity", he suggests that that must just mean that Smith wasn't letting her date, rather than that Smith was using her for what his "revelation" on polygamy [lds.org] said his "plural wives" were for.

You're right that the FLDS Mormons aren't the same religion as the LDS Mormons, but that's because the FLDS sect is the one that still believes in the doctrines that the LDS were smart enough to back away from.

Re:Inevitably..

[Courageous (228506)]

Being a Christian (and pretty well educated about the origin of the LDS) I very much commend them for the work they do, but pity them for the screwed up nature of their beliefs.

Kindof like the pot calling the kettle black, dontcha think?

I mean really. A man chases a bunch of pigs off a cliff and says "they're demons." Today, we lock him up in a psychiatric ward. But you, you call 'im god. Weird, eh.

I'm not trying to flame or troll.

Why is it that about 95% of the time, statements like this are just outright lies?

C//

Re:Inevitably..

[feijai (898706)]

Make no mistake, LDS/Mormans are not Christians.

Why? Because you've come up with your own special definition of the term?

Jesus would hardly recognize Protestant sects. They're conservative, hypocritical, moneygrubbing, warmongering cults which believe in a crazy greek Gnostic invention called the "Trinity" which has no basis in Judiasm or early Christianity and was used to wipe out competing sects at the Council of Nicea. You're all going to hell.

Re:Inevitably..

[Azar (56604)]

"Mormons" (more correctly Latter-day Saints, at times abbreviated "LDS") practiced polygamy in the 1800's. The practice was outlawed by the LDS church in order for Utah to achieve statehood, which it did some years later in 1896. There are no Mormon polygamists anymore because any practicing polygamists are excommunicated. The nutjobs in Arizona / Texas are Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints (or "FLDS") church members.

FLDS != LDS

It is similar in name only, because given this free country, the founders of the FLDS church were free to do so when naming it. Which just leads to a common source of confusion. It's very likely you were just trolling, but it's worth pointing out for those who genuinely confuse FLDS with LDS.

Re:Inevitably..

[Gamdang (1044048)]

You're right that the Church Handbook of Instructions isn't very "bad." I'm a Mormon, and I've read it while serving in leadership positions in the church. It describes standard church procedures and policies, but focuses on the spiritual principles that motivate said policies, citing lots of scriptural sources along the way. If leaders who have the books would apply all the ideas in the handbook (e.g. about delegation, and helping others become more self-reliant) the church would be much more responsive to individual and organizational needs, and the leaders wouldn't have to work nearly so hard. I have to agree that I can't see why the church is so secretive about it. One reason might be that they don't want members to use it in order to criticize their leaders when they see that they aren't following the handbook perfectly (I've certainly seen members that would do this, but most people like this are _quite_ capable of doing so without help from the handbook). Bios_Hakr makes a good point that the church may not like people comparing the two versions (see http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=552624&cid=23401796 [slashdot.org] ), and I'm sure some of the leadership don't want the general public (members or not) reading the chapter on church discipline (which is not as juicy as one might expect). I think their attempts at secrecy are a bit silly and, ultimately, unnecessary.

Re:Inevitably..

[Kamokazi (1080091)]

Funny you mention that, as the first excerpt from the Wikileaks summary covers elective transsexual surgery, and it's actually somewhat forgiving:

"Persons Who Are Considering or Have Undergone a Transsexual Operation

Persons who are considering an elective transsexual operation should not be baptized. Persons who have already undergone an elective transsexual operation may be baptized if they are otherwise found worthy in an interview with the mission president or a priesthood leader he assigns. Such persons may not receive the priesthood or a temple recommend."

Re:Inevitably..

[fahrbot-bot (874524)]

Persons who are considering an elective transsexual operation should not be baptized.

As opposed to "non-elective" transsexual surgery?

• Nurse: Doctor! He's going into cardiac arrest.
• Doctor: Let's get that penis off - stat!

Re:Inevitably..

[EMeta (860558)]

...Which makes you wonder if they wanted it to Streisand. When was the last time you think they got so many non-Mormons reading about them. Another poster said it is rather innocuous. On the heels of the FLDS blowup, I think lots of people reading stuff that shows your church in a good light is a great plan.

Well played, sirs.