Wikimedia Foundation Receives Copyright Infringement Claim

[_Doctor Steuss]

[...]To see how the Pirate Bay has responded, and for your own general amusement with Swedish law, see: http://thepiratebay.org/legal[...]

I remember the first time I read some of these. Good stuff.

Please also note that I'm not currently out of toilet paper, so you may
wait a while before sending legal papers.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Anyhow, just what about the CHI is so damning that they're trying this hard to keep it away from the flock? From what I understand, it's mostly pretty boring matters of procedure anyway.

There are some weird things in there. Some that come to mind:

1. Continuing policy and practice of spiritual polygamy (the express policy states a living man (civilly divorced or widowed) can be sealed to a second wife, while a living woman in the same situation cannot).

2. Policy stating that any children born to a woman (who was previously sealed to another man and never cancelled) and her second husband (to whom she cannot be sealed because of Rule #1 above), necessarily go with their mother to the 1st husband in the hereafter.

3. Draconian disciplinary policies (including policies to "encourage" confessions by one to give up the dirt on another).

4. Treating homosexuals differently than heterosexuals concerning the violation of the Law of Chastity.

5. Forever tagging the membership record of a transsexual (one policy also states a known trannsexual cannot be baptized).

Those are the ones I can think of at the moment, but the CHI does expose some of the more odd practices of the Church. It's no wonder they'd like to keep it from prying eyes.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Thanks, RT. I wasn't aware those policies were spelled out in the CHI.

[_skippy the dead]

Also, never post any more than 50 words (as deemed by the Fair Use Act on copyrighted material).

Show me where there's a 50 word limit.

There isn't a specific 50 world limit. Where does "Fair Use" of any copyrighted work cross the line?

The 50 word specific limit was included in the settlement against the Tanners.

Ah. I suspected it was a wild-ass number. Then it really doesn't mean anything. Quantity is only one of several factors in determining fair use. If even a brief snippet contains the "heart" of a work, then it could be too much. In other cases, almost an entire work can be included in another work, and still be considered fair use. There is no bright line determination. Be careful in providing advice that is unfounded.

[_Infymus]

Also, never post any more than 50 words (as deemed by the Fair Use Act on copyrighted material).

Show me where there's a 50 word limit.

There isn't a specific 50 world limit. Where does "Fair Use" of any copyrighted work cross the line?

The 50 word specific limit was included in the settlement against the Tanners.

Ah. I suspected it was a wild-ass number. Then it really doesn't mean anything. Quantity is only one of several factors in determining fair use. If even a brief snippet contains the "heart" of a work, then it could be too much. In other cases, almost an entire work can be included in another work, and still be considered fair use. There is no bright line determination. Be careful in providing advice that is unfounded.

In the world of Mormonism, if you quote a copyrighted work, and you do it pro-Mormon, you'll be fine. As soon as you quote it as a critic, they will attempt to silence you.

I would think that most Mormons don't even know that the CHI exists.

[_Doctor Steuss]

[...]
5. Forever tagging the membership record of a transsexual (one policy also states a known trannsexual cannot be baptized).
[...]

The policy is that a known transsexual can be baptised if they are "otherwise found worhty." A person who is considering operation cannot. Although someone who has already undergone surgery can be baptised, they cannot, however, receive the priesthood or temple recommend.

[_Infymus]

Interesting turn of events on this. Slashdot has now picked up the article:

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/05/14/125244.shtml

I like this comment from one Mormon:

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.

I'm pretty doubtful that just any Mormon could walk into LDSDC and pick up a copy, let alone a non-member. Of course, he ignores the polygamy aspects, interrogative interviews, how to tattle-tell on other members and so forth.

And another perfect example of how LDS Inc. trying to go after Wikileaks will only lead to more people getting their hands on the forbidden book:

* 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"

This is wonderful. You couldn't ask for more attention to be drawn to the secret Mormon Cult handbook than this.

[_asbestosman]

4. Treating homosexuals differently than heterosexuals concerning the violation of the Law of Chastity.

Details?

[_Sethbag]

I am amazed at the lengths to which the Brethren go to to keep that damn CHI from the public (and even most LDS members). They almost treat it on par with the temple secrets.

On par? I am unaware of any litigation to shut down the websites that publish the temple ceremony. It seems the CHI is more important to them.

It's possible that they don't go after the sites containing the temple ceremony because, by doing so, they'd be admitting that that's really what's in the temple ceremony, whereas just ignoring them can keep the sights under a cloud of uncertainty and doubt.

I really don't understand why they're so adamant about keeping the CHI secret. I've read it, and I didn't find it to be all that embarassing for the church, except, I suppose, for the parts about the church being against vasectomies, and maybe one or two other little cranky things like that.

edit: didn't read RT's post before posting this, and yeah, cranky things like what he posted...

[_Jason Bourne]

Hey jason, this is how the church will litigate against the publishing of the document at wikileaks.

This is a tanners Vs LDS Inc redux.

I told you this would happen. You would have lost our bet.