Wikimedia Foundation Receives Copyright Infringement Claim

[_christopher]

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.

I think it is more along the lines of the "special inclusion into the club" mentality. Just like the temple itself, if you think you have special knowledge or limited information that not all are privy to, then your emotional attachment and feelings of worth/inclusion to the group are greater.

I served in a couple of bishoprics before leaving the church and had copies of both books. I returned them upon my releases. If someone had a question, I was instructed to certainly allow them to look at the passage, but they could not borrow the books. I think what struck me most about them was that there seemed to be a rule for every little thing. For a church that relies on the spirit to answer some questions, why not on all these other things? Don't ask some guy with a book if you can have a vasectomy or masturbate with your wife.

Chris <><

[_KimberlyAnn]

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.

It's still not aimed at wikileaks itself - just to those who link to it. I want to see if they can manage to get to wikileaks. The last one to try withdrew the lawsuit when they couldn't get an injunction to stick.

Yeah, I'd like to see them go after Wikileaks, too, for the sheer amusement factor.

I wonder how many tithe-payer dollars they might waste? And, it's my bet they'd be wasted. Wikileaks hasn't backed down from large off-shore banks or Scientology. I doubt they'll budge for the Mormons.

KA

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

Hmm, now that you mention it, that is quite bizarre.

Could it be that Intellectual Reserve, Inc. knows that Chapel Mormons wouldn't dare read a website containing the temple ceremony, whereas such Mormons don't have any conditioning against reading the CHI?

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.

It is really boring and most of it is no big deal. Oh there are some interesting things on policies about things like birth control, vasectomy, surrogates, etc. And one might find the DC section interesting. Maybe some of the sealing policies too. But really it is pretty mundane.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

[...]
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.

You are correct, but another section in the CHI (discussing baptism of converts) states than an MP must authorize the baptism if the convert "[i]s considering or has undergone an elective transsexual operation." This part references the section you cite, which states that "[p]ersons who are considering an elective transsexual operation should not be baptized." It doesn't say "cannot."

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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

Details?

Some examples:

1. MP must authorize the baptism of a convert who "[h]as committed a homosexual transgression." No such requirement for a convert who has committed a "heterosexual transgression."

2. For prospective missionaries, one who has participated in homosexual acts during or after his/her last 3 teenage years will not be considered for a full-time mission unless his/her bishop or SP sees strong evidence of lasting repentance and reformation, with at least one year free of transgression. No such policy for one who has engaged in heterosexual acts.

3. A member who is disciplined for "repeated homosexual activities (by adults)" will have his/her membership record "automatically annotated" (if the bishop or SP submits a Report of Church Disciplinary Action showing this as basis for discipline); the annotation can only be removed by FP. No such policy for discipline due to "repeated heterosexual activities (by adults)."

4. "Homosexual Behavior" gets its own section among "Policies on Moral Issues," whereas heterosexual fornication gets lumped in with other sexual sins (including homosexuality and lesbianism, as well as adultery and oral sex) in the more general "Chastity and Fidelity" catch-all section.

5. And, of course, there is the section strictly forbidding any effort to legalize same-sex marriage.

[_Dr. Shades]

5. And, of course, there is the section strictly forbidding any effort to legalize same-sex marriage.

Does it spell out a penalty for a member who campaigns on behalf of the legalization of same-sex marriage? If so, what is it?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

5. And, of course, there is the section strictly forbidding any effort to legalize same-sex marriage.

Does it spell out a penalty for a member who campaigns on behalf of the legalization of same-sex marriage? If so, what is it?

No penalty set out, just that the Church "opposes" the legalization of same-sex marriage and "encourages" members to contact their gov't representatives to reject any such effort. However, I imagine a member who is too vocal in opposing this Church policy could qualify under this very broad definition of "apostasy": "Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or is leaders." Apostasy, of course, is grounds for excommunication.

[_Trevor]

I just find it odd that they are so concerned about protecting a document that is out of date as proprietary intellectual property.

[_moksha]

If made public knowledge, would this document prove a great deal of public embarrassment to the Church?

[_Trevor]

If made public knowledge, would this document prove a great deal of public embarrassment to the Church?

How could anything in there possibly embarrass them more than the people they proudly paraded before the world?