Wikimedia Foundation Receives Copyright Infringement Claim

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Mercury
_Emeritus
Posts: 5545
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:14 pm

Post by _Mercury »

Jason Bourne wrote:
Mercury wrote: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.


It has not been removed yet and I still assert that it never will be.
And crawling on the planet's face
Some insects called the human race
Lost in time
And lost in space...and meaning
_ludwigm
_Emeritus
Posts: 10158
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:07 am

some news

Post by _ludwigm »

- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco
- To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Post by _Gadianton »

You know, if the modern leadership could get a revelation or something people wouldn't be so fascinated with the CHI. The only intrigue there for members and critics alike is that's it's the closest thing the church currently has to doctrine. You can't fault people for wanting to know what their church believes.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Receives Copyright Infringement Cla

Post by _harmony »

Rollo Tomasi wrote:
Dr. Shades wrote:
Rollo Tomasi wrote: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.


rpcman comes to mind.
Post Reply