Posted on 05/13/2008 11:47:01 PM PDT by Zakeet
The Wikimedia Foundation has received a copyright infringement claim from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as the Mormon Church. The infringement claim is in reference to a URL used as a source in a Wikinews article about Mormon Church documents leaked to the website Wikileaks, titled "Copy of handbook for leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints obtained by Wikinews". The URL was originally cited as a link in the sources subsection of the article. The Wikimedia Foundation is a donor-supported non-profit organization which runs Wikipedia and Wikinews. This is the first time that the Wikimedia Foundation has received a copyright infringement claim regarding an article published by Wikinews.
The Wikinews article, originally published on April 19, described material in the Church Handbook of Instructions. The work is a two-volume book of policies and is a guide for leaders of the Mormon Church. Wikinews obtained the Church Handbook of Instructions from Wikileaks, a whistleblower website which publishes anonymous submissions of sensitive documents while preserving the anonymity of its contributors. Wikileaks describes the material as significant because "...the book is strictly confidential among the Mormon (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, aka LDS in short form) bishops and stake presidents and it reveal [sic] the procedure of handling confidential matters related to tithing payment, excommunication, baptism and doctrine teaching (indoctrination)."
The LDS Church joins the the Church of Scientology's Religious Technology Center and the Swiss Bank Julius Baer, and the Chinese government attempts to censor every website with the word "wikileaks" in the web page address.
More information about the lawsuit is available HERE.
Ping to follow the thread
Pretty odd to not wnat to have your church writings published for the whole world to see.
I noticed that Wikinews said the link was removed but not the citation. I wonder if it’s still out there.
What lengths will the Mormon Church go to in order to SUPRESS information?
Apparently, they are willing to spend substantial amounts of tithepayer money to hire lawyers to push and stretch intellectual property law to the maximum limits conceivable and beyond into the realm of absurdity.
And for what?
To supress information.
To keep people from knowing the content of the internal policy guidelines by which their organization is operated.
It’s a church, not a national security intelligence bureau. Why all the secrecy?
Linking to a URL is the Internet equivalent of a newspaper or journal article citing the name, publisher and author of a referenced book. Is LDS, Inc. now claiming that copyright law can now be used to prevent journalists and authors from making references to any copyrighted publications from which they obtained information?
FR should be very interested in this particular battle since we link to URLs all the time.
Tracer. Still banned, thank goodness.
My guess is that word will come down from the owners of this site that we are not to link to any LDS.org site.
Of course we’ll be given ample availability to the apologetics sites like fair.lds.org
Makes me ill. Would Christ play any part in this type of secrecy? Ridiculous.
Ping to the FIP
This was found and the end of the full article here: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_receives_copyright_infringement_claim_from_Mormon_Church
... WikiLeaks will not remove the handbooks, which are of substantial interest to current and former mormons. WikiLeaks will remain a place were people from around the world can safely reveal the truth. ...
—Wikileaks
This article also links the LDS inc with these organizations:
Wikileaks has received copyright infringement claims from organizations including the Church of Scientology’s Religious Technology Center and the Swiss Bank Julius Baer, and the Chinese government attempts to censor every website with the word “wikileaks” in the web page address.
bingo
I wonder if they'll sue for providing links?
...as far as it’s translated correctly...
That would be toobad, for then we'd have to C&P everything!
Yea!!!!
I am FAMOUS!
Have you been WARNED before; GENTILE??
Our Temple Rites® are NOT secret - they are SACRED!!! (pbut)
If you do NOT believe me; just post them here on FR and just SEE how long they last!!!
--MormonDude(Thank you mods, for censoring, oops, editting, RATS! - following our wishes.)
As businessmen, they have become quite P.R. savvy. Hence, I don my "Captain Obvious" hat when I mention their massive P.R. crusade. Greyfoxx39 posted an article excerpt on a lengthy thread recently citing a Mormon congressman (Cannon) who was going on & on about "Mormon" being the church's own "brand."
All this to say that this issue internally is a P.R. tug-o-war for the church with the P.R. proponents on both sides. On the one hand, you've got some who might say "We don't want to be associated with Scientology as a suppressor of information. After all, we believe in a Scriptural Jesus who tells us, 'What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs.'" (Matthew 10:27)
On the other side of the vantage point, some of the information is downright embarrassing to the church to be out there. Information about deceased women being sealed to multiple husbands for eternal polyandry. In the past the church has objected to its statement on abortion for bishops' being accessible to those beyond the bishops.
The P.R. specialists are in a major quandry over this.
He doesn’t allow surfers using internet explorer.
“You were landed on this page because you are using Microsoft Internet Explorer. Nothing wrong with that, really, except that this particular browser is not welcome on this particular server. Webmaster’s whim, if you want the easy explanation. The more complex explanation has to do with Microsoft’s monopolistic ambitions and the simple measures that people like you and I can take against the arrogant rhino from Redmond.
If the information you were trying to access is worth your trouble, you can install Mozilla or Firefox, Opera, Netscape, or any other browser and then come back. If, on the other hand, you feel that’s too much hassle, then obviously you can live just as happily without the information you were trying to access. In that case, off you go to the next site.
This approach is known as “Microsoft manners” and works very well, as Microsoft itself is proving.
Note: if you use Netscape 8, you must set it to Firefox mode, not Internet Explorer mode. See here how to do that.
The webmaster.”
Because it impedes the LDS Church's practice of LYING FOR THE LORD
What's a few hundred thousand dollar$....when you have billion$?
Besides they are probably getting a mormon jacoby to do it pro bono.
Really? You think that’s odd? No other church has confidential documents? Are you sure about that?
Your link doesn’t work!
There is a difference between confidential documents of a personal, financial or otherwise sensitive nature and a HANDBOOK that is PUBLISHED for use by certain members.
I once posted the Congressional testimony of Brevet Maj Carrolton, regarding Mountain Meadows, adding no personal comment, and the thread was immediately deleted
Works for me. Try Firefox.
Um, I don’t know what that is.
Never mind, I see I would have to download something. That would take all day as I have dialup.
Can you post it here? I’m sure no one would notice....
:-)
[No other church has confidential documents? ]
They all have confidential documents. MOST do not attempt the degree of exclusion from the inner workings. Most are happy to give you access to their inner workings. Temple Recommends are exclusionary. Excommunication is exclusionary.
At my Protestant Christian church, we protect the names of donors along with the amounts of their tithes and offerings, pastoral counseling, and information which must not be disclosed as a matter of law (e.g. medical information, suspected child abuse, etc.).
Everything else, including budgets and amounts spent, is considered open records and may be inspected by any church member during normal business hours.
I'm pretty sure that Jesus does not approve of secret documents being copyrighted and guarded in his name, as well as the threats issued after they are exposed.
Yes, but don’t you realize that what happened at Mountain Meadows has been falsely reported?
Here is what really happened:
Seventeen young children, lead by the great-great-great-grandparents of Dick Cheney and Karl Rove decided to kill their families and those they were travelling with. Then they blamed the whole thing on the Mormons even though everyone should have known that the Mormons were really just peaceful people who wanted to be left alone.
144 years later (12 x 12 has signifance for conspirators as everyone knows), the descendants of these children would pick the VERY SAME day, September 11th, for YET ANOTHER MASSACRE that they would once again blame on peace lovers.
That is interesting. I never knew that.
:)
Secrecy and the Mormon Faith.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4tQpk4m6gI&feature=related
By Helen Whitney who produced the PBS documentary; The Mormons
Firefox bring up different site.
LOL, channeling someone, I guess. Firefox brings up a site that doesn’t have the subject matter.
‘__7__
(_____)>!
I agree. Scripture admonishes us about secrecy.
Doubtful. The only thing the Admin Moderator told you to stop was the daily FLDS threads. They haven't stopped the posting of articles about the FLDS.
Actually, I do know of several that have been pulled, at least one of which for the same reason as the dailies—that it might upset members who are LDS.
I don’t think blaming Jim while he is so ill is very fair.
I don’t believe things would be going this way if he had his hands fully on the reins. Just because some zealots are trying to take over the site and spam mormon doctrine all over it , doesn’t mean Jim would approve.
That's interesting. I see them and comment on them pretty frequently. I just must never have tried to access one after it has been pulled.
I am not blaming Jim.
But if FreeRepublic stands to be sued by this multi-BILLION dollar organization, it would be in the owner’s best interest.
Why would you jump to the conclusion that I blame JimRob?
SOMEONE surely is representing the interests of the owners of the site. And I didn't see that post as blaming JR, but as pointing out that the site would likely be legally forced to censor any opposition to the mormon proselytizing currently going on.
That certainly is well within the actions now taking place as described in the thread article. It is also telling that this move has taken place at a time when JR is so ill.
Just ignore me. I got confused. I need caffeine. g:p
Dang!
So do WE!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.