Jason Bourne wrote:Yea but I am an anonymous hypocritical NOM Fringer. But it will be interesting to see if the Church tries to make them take it down.
I think the church will try, quietly. I think if the move becomes a PR problem, they'll back off. I don't see why the church would have any more clout than the Scientologists do, as far as international law is concerned, and their stuff is still up.
skippy the dead wrote:I think that the latest is 2006 - that's the one I'd like to see. There are some changes with respect to grounds for church discipline.
And yeah, the church leaders aren't going to be happy about that one.
2006 is most recent and I do not think there are any changes in Church discipline.
This big change in the 2006 version was that membership in another church is grounds for LDS Church discipline, whereas in the 1998 version it was explicitly not.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Jason Bourne wrote: And women have their own copy of book two.
But not book one.
What else can be expected of such a misogynistic religion?
I'd like for a woman from this board to ask her bishop if she can borrow the CHI. I'd like to see how "reasonable" the bishop would be about it.
KA
I wonder what's in book one that is so all-fired important, women can't see it? And I wonder if men outside of the leadership circle can see it?
It's all about power and control, harmony. I know in the past when I've cited things from the CHI to my LDS family members, they've trounced all over the fact that I "shouldn't have access to it" (as a non-member), and that somehow quoting things from it, even if correct, embarrasses the church.
Nonsense. The LDS Church ought to be hosting the darn thing online themselves, just like they host stake and ward directories. If they want to make only certain parts accessible by certain people in positions of leadership, that's fine. But much of it applies to general membership, and there's no reason not to have it publicly accessible to the members.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
I don't think they're going to make it disappear from Wikileaks!
The Church of Scientology is threatening Wikileaks due to their publishing of formerly unreleased Scientology manuals. Wikileaks isn't backing down at all. I think, at least for now, they're fairly untouchable.
Care to make a wager on it?
Oh this is going to be good
Jason, I bet they can't get it off the site. what are you putting up? How bout a skeptical talk in HPG?
If I lose you want me to bring up a skeptic's position in High Priest's Group? What will you give if you lose and what it the time frame?
Jason Bourne wrote:Yea but I am an anonymous hypocritical NOM Fringer. But it will be interesting to see if the Church tries to make them take it down.
I think the church will try, quietly. I think if the move becomes a PR problem, they'll back off. I don't see why the church would have any more clout than the Scientologists do, as far as international law is concerned, and their stuff is still up.
skippy the dead wrote:I think that the latest is 2006 - that's the one I'd like to see. There are some changes with respect to grounds for church discipline.
And yeah, the church leaders aren't going to be happy about that one.
2006 is most recent and I do not think there are any changes in Church discipline.
This big change in the 2006 version was that membership in another church is grounds for LDS Church discipline, whereas in the 1998 version it was explicitly not.