Another Scientology-like Web war? Mormon Church documents put online

Wikileaks has posted a confidential document from the Church of Latter-day Saints called the Church Handbook of Instructions, which is a guide for the church's lay leadership and is not available either to parishioners or to the public. The LDS, following in the questionable steps of the Church of Scientology, has now issued multiple copyright infringement notices in an effort to get the information taken down. As we know, this strategy is unlikely to do anything but win the Mormons a share of the online community's unsympathetic attention, a quantity that until now Scientology has been enjoying alone.

It's well-known by now that Scientology's secret documents contain many indecipherable dictates and fantastical histories, like the following passage from the L. Ron Hubbard-authored document describing the "Gorilla Goals":

This same pattern, but given in an amusement park with a single tunnel, a roller coaster and a Ferris wheel, was used between about 319 trillion years ago to about 256 trillion trillion years ago, a long span.

So in comparison, the information in the LDS Handbook, now available for all to see, can feel rather bland and grown-up. The document covers disciplinary actions like "disfellowshipment" and its more serious consequent, excommunication. It also details the repercussions members face for apostasy ("clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders"), abortion, and transsexual operations.  But the majority of the text is humdrum procedural information, surely nothing you would classify as embarrassing, rife with "trade secrets," or necessary to keep under wraps for the good of the parishioners. So then why is LDS making an attention-drawing stink about its publication?

Organizations have long had control over which part of their inner workings they want public and which they don't.  But now that the Internet is getting better at sniffing out documents that people don't want public, we're getting a nice picture of how much of this secret information was secret for its own sake.  In other words, you have to wonder if there's any reason for LDS to want to keep its boring bylaws in a vault other than, simply, because it has always done so.

The same holds true for Scientology and no doubt for every other organization, religious or secular, that has arrogated to itself the default right to keep its membership in the dark.  This is certainly a privacy issue, but if you're like me, you don't think large organizations should have the same right to privacy that an individual does--especially those that claim to be devoted to the best interests of their membership. Actually, scratch that--the ones that don't care about anyone's well-being should have an even tougher time keeping secrets.

(Hat tip Ars Technica)

Comments

[Bob]

Placing private material in an open forum appears, at first thought, to be a good thing. But with consideration and an understanding of humankind over the centuries, it is clear that doing so weakens the rights of individuals and organizations in the long run. Today it is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Tomorrow it will be you. It has been proven time and time again, that freedoms, once relinquished, for whatever reason, are extremely difficult to take back once given up. Usually these freedoms must be reestablished through the the loss of life through bloody battles. This is usually how the freedoms became available in the first place.

The rights that Wikki uses to publish this content are being eroded by the very actions Wikki imprudently presses forward with. Wikki, in the name of truth, is like the man hosing off the driveway of his sand castle, oblivious to the effects it is having on him. Wikki, by continuing this course of action, chillingly becomes that antithesis of it's stated goals and objectives.

All freedom loving people should be outraged by this blatant display of disrespect that has been masked in the name of truth. You don't have to be a Mormon, Catholic, Protestant, Scientologist, Satanist, Jew, Agnostic, Atheist, Black, White, Hispanic or any any other labeled group to see what is really going on here. This is an attack on freedom of speech by those who do not understand it and who have never had to give their life to obtain it. This behavior ultimately prevents people from speaking and publishing free thought, beliefs, and important private documents for internal use because it leads to intellectual terrorism.

As Pogo, the inventor of the Pogo Stick, so clearly stated, "We admit the enemy, and we is they!" Wikki is becoming it's own worst enemy.

[jbh001]

To try and paint this as anything more that copyright enforcement is dishonest journalism. Copyright: enforce it, or lose it to public domain.

[VM]

I find the logic of this article to be a bit flawed, and somewhat frightening. While I agree that the church's efforts here may only drive additional interest to the documents and the controversy for now, your seem to claim that copyright laws don't, and shouldn't apply to religious organizations or churches simply because they are churches? Where does this end? To borrow the phrase, "is NOTHING sacred?" To my thinking, the church is right to make a principled stand on the right of law. Otherwise, no church anywhere has any right to any internal document...what a ridiculous thought.

Based on another document recently posted at Wikileaks regarding the LDS church, it is clear that these are not mere "leaks", but could be viewed as a smear campaign by Wikileaks against the church, and you seem to imply that the church has no right nor interest whatsoever in fighting back against such attacks.

As you so accureately report, there are no hidden "dark secrets" in these internal documents of the LDS church, but they are, as you say, simple and straightforward instructions to lay leaders of the church. Practically all of the information is contained already in other documents already made public and available by the church. Why copyright laws apply to everyone but churches, I do not understand for it only enables critics of churches unfettered ability to conduct smear campaigns.

[Russell Stevenson]

Frankly, this is a horrific article. As a member of the Church, I know about the mistakes committed in the past in the realm of free inquiry. But whoever wrote it is remarkably behind the curve in terms of recent developments. The entirety of the JOseph Smith papers collection is being published with the stamp of the NHPRC's approval. And furthermore, I've read this supposedly secret document...and it's largely a bore...things like leaving the definition of fully-paid tithing up to the discretion of the member, like the refusal to take a stance on birth control. Scandalous and authoritarian...I know (?!)

You need to get your journalistic game on...as a Latter Day Saint, I could have talked about stickier stuff than this...and I am even a believer!

[Snoware]

Religions are different than any other type organization due to the ability to control their adherents. Because of this I do believe that there should be no hidden documents inside a religious institution. What could they possibly have to hide? Also any organization that gets its income from donations should be 100% transparent.

[Janon]

I am not sure why Mormon top secrete info was released.... but i hope it does not damage them.

They are a REAL religion, though more traditional, but still a religion.

This can not really be compared to Scientology info being released, as they are a cult.

[Anonymous for a very good reason]

I am the original source of the 1998 Church Handbook of Instructions that is now found on the web. After 17 pages of the document were suppressed in the USA, I passed a copy of the document to someone outside the USA who agreed to put it up on a non-USA web server.

The CHI gives all sorts of instructions to bishops and stake presidents, that is, priesthood leaders. Some of these instructions impact women, but there is no position in the LDS Church that allows women to view or possess a copy of the CHI. Yes, of course you can go and maybe get information from your priesthood leader--if he chooses to give that information to you. I thought that was insulting and paternalistic and I thought the CHI should be available to all members of the LDS Church who seek it out. We women are compentent on our own and should be able to read an instruction book that impacts our social and spiritual lives within the LDS Church without the intermediary of a priesthood leader.

I am unrepentant. If someone were to pass me a copy of the most current (2006) edition of the CHI, I'd make that public as well. Information wants to be free. I call on the LDS Church leadership to put the Church Handbook of Instructions on LDS.org and stop this charade.

[Jacob]

Does an organization not have the right to protect its intellectual property? If Wikileaks posted the archives of the Los Angeles Times online for free, would the Times have a right to ask them to take it down? This isn't a scandal as many want it to be, it is protection of copyright: not complicated but simple.

Why should the content of the copyrighted material justify the violation of copyright law? Persons and organizations (perhaps even the government) have the right to control the unauthorized publication of their copyrighted governing documents.

[Jacob]

In response to Snoware who said "Religions are different" because of their "ability tontrol their adherents," I would have to disagree. I choose to participate in my religion, and at any time I can decide to no longer participate. In contrast, it would be quite a bit more difficult with much stronger negative consequences for me to decide to no longer participate in my workplace, citizenship, or family, even though my employer, country, and family are all far from 100% transparent.

[Doug LeDuc]

I've seen web sites pretend to post exact duplicates of confidential documents, which I know have been modified to misrepresent church policy and doctrine. Suing for copyright infringement can be an effective way to counter that.

This isn't the first time the Handbook of Instructions has been posted on the web and the poster has been slapped with a lawsuit in a case that received no small amount of national publicity. Strange that wasn't mentioned in the story. It would not have taken long to check.

[Terrie Lynn Bittner]

I am an author. If someone put the entire contents of my book online, I would protest. I have a right to decide where my writings appear. If someone put my personal journals online, I would also protest--they are mine and only I can decide where they appear.

Why are churches different? No one is forced at gunpoint to be a member of the church. Anyone who joins the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is doing so because they've decided to do so. They've taken lessons and been interviewed to make sure they've chosen. I know because I chose and at the time I chose, it was harder to become a member than it is now--I had to take months of lessons first and then demonstrate I knew what I was signing up for. The lessons are shorter now, but you still have to show you understand what you're getting into.

I am a woman in the church. If the church isn't treating me well, I'll know it because I'm there, participating. I don't need a handbook to tell me how I'm treated. I'm an intelligent human being and capable of figuring that out on my own. I have seen large portions of the handbook, because anyone who has a job that requires that person to know the rules of their job gets that portion. This is true of both men and women. The person who stole the material--and theft is what it is--misunderstands. Men can't see it either unless they have a job that requires them to know something. It's no secret, though. If I want to know a policy, I can ask, and most of it is already online.

There is never an excuse for theft of the hard work of others. The person posting this material did so to become famous or "important." Greed can never be disguised as righteousness. Righteous people respect the rights of others.

[VM]

To "Anonymous" who claims to have posted the original documents, it appears that the underlying problem you have is not so much this handbook itself, but that you, allegedly as a woman, do not have free access to it. The Handbook actually consists of two books, Book 1 and Book 2. Book 2 is for leaders of all organizations in the church including those whose leaders are women. WHy did you not also post Book 2? Your local Relief Society President, a woman, would have access to copy of Book 2 ---at least those parts of it that impact her organization---and yet she is under no obligation to show it to you. Don't her actions impact your social life as well?

I think the best way to soothe your selfish temper tantrum and hurt feelings would be for you to just go start your own church, where only women can be leaders, and then you'd be free to post (or not) your own instructional book on the web for alll to see.

[Bob A-lu]

This article really boggles my mind. I thought this article was going to be about the Mormons. Somehow the writer managed to turn this mostly into being about Scientology, Quite frankly I am tired of hearing about Scientology. Something about some other group would have been refreshing.

[Muldoon]

Oh please LA Times. You make this sound so scandalous. There is nothing secret about these documents. Every organization has a right to protect its IP. This is such a non-story.

The LA Times writer here is obviously bought into the idea of Wikileaks so perhaps we should expect that he has been leaking LA Times internal documents, manuals and memos on that website. Should be interesting to read those!

[exmormongirl]

As a member of the LDS church who found it absolutely necessary to leave because of many of the things included in these documents just now made public, I'm SO glad these are being exposed. That being said, believing Mormons won't care, and most likely they'll be convinced by the hierarchy that they should not be reading them. Because the church will crumble under any true and real examination of its policies, procedures, and doctrine it runs scared, hence the reason for the big deal made over this handbook. I don't think it's a smear campaign by Wikileaks. It's all the in the name of full disclosure for church members, many of whom give 10% of their income and hundreds of hours of their time to support this organization that in turn would not support them if they felt compelled to have a same sex relationship or even let them stay a member if they felt that they were not born the right sex. If the documents were absolutely harmless the church wouldn't care. They care because of everything they have to hide and be embarassed about, every piece of antiquated thinking, every policy that promotes intolerance. With access to a plethora of information about this fraudulent church, hopefully the congregation's masses will run for the hills --FAST--

[Lyla]

Welcome to the internetz!
Church's or organizations that have nothing to hide, don't care what is exposed--Those same organizations that reap the benefits of having tax free status should get no protection from copyright laws.
Isn't that for businesses? What's so bad about knowing what your "Church" is all about anyway?
People have a right to know what they are donating to, and what's REALLY behind the teachings. Don't like it? Don't look. No one is forcing you to read those documents.
Thanks for visiting the internetz! Let the information flow!!!

[Iconoclast]

Too bad the LA Times doesn't have editors. If they did, they would have noticed that L. Ron Hubbard's name was misspelled. Actually, the misspelling gives you an early clue to the intellectual level of the whole article.

[Kevin]

EXMORMONGIRL-
Could you cite a few of the "many of the things included in these documents" that were not public and caused you to leave?

[Inscrutabledrum]

People's independence is sacred. A church bent on giving its members "worthiness" reviews appears to be a church that is afraid of losing power and control over its members. Why don't the members need to know? Maybe because they will have questions about the validity of these policies, in turn knocking down the nonsense that pens them into a secret society full of character spies. What is the church leadership so afraid of? If their ideas are holy and fool proof, they should have no fear of outsiders who try to put the ideas in full view. Guaranteed, the leaders are nervous because they are used to operating in secret; this allows them all the room in the world to pass out "divinely inspired" directives straight from "god." It does not matter if there are different interpretations, because any "faulty" or "independent" reviews are quickly squashed by the massive Mormon bureaucracy. Think of Bush with his liberal interpretation of data used to "prove" there were WMDs in Iraq. Same idea. Anyone who disagreed was labeled Unamerican and a traitor. Same goes for so called "apostates" who want to be rid of the suffocating hold of humans with God complexes. Anyone who thinks differently is persecuted and excommunicated. What makes you think your HUMAN interpretation is an exact replication of "God's Truth?" The more you close up, the more thinking people want to rip your system wide open. LDS has asked for this. I think it is a fine thing that we can choose to be controlled. Some people want this. However, we should call it like the evidence says it is. I say print it all. And as the mormons shuffle off this mortal coil, it is unlikely that their words will mean anything, except to preserve the power structure.

[Shaun]

I'm a Priesthood leader in the LDS Church. That the material has something against women is a joke. Frankly I say, if you think it will be interesting, read it. I haven't even read it all. Would to God that all people were effective Priesthood leaders! My guess is the Church wants to draw the line somewhere, so how about case #1. Which Church wouldn't/doesn't?

Also, what is the twist at the end of the article supposed to mean? Is that directed at the LDS Church? Wow.

[Vince]

I would support a law saying that for an organization to qualify as a tax-free religion in the US they can not have any secret documents about beliefs or how the organization is run. I think the mainstream religions would not really have a problem with this, including the Mormons. However, it would help break Scientology, which is why I think it would be a good law.

As for the idea that lawsuits can remove documents all over the Internet, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

[justme]

A good article.

I think to inform people on the dark truth and also the richness of humorous nonsense found in Scientology is very important.

A good idea if someone wanted to know more about Scientology would probably be to take a look at three websites:

www.xenu.net
www.exscientologykids.com
www.unchain.gr/seizeddocs

Of course one should contrast this with www.scientology.org to get the official point of view.

Shaun, I'm pretty sure that this final twist is directed at Scientology, because by and large it does apply to it.

[Believer]

In response to: "I would support a law saying that for an organization to qualify as a tax-free religion in the US they can not have any secret documents about beliefs or how the organization is run." Would this not run in direct conflict with separation of church and state. I have been involved with more than one organization with secret material and for people to believe that the material is secret for nefarious reasons is in my opinion only an excuse for abusing the internet to get their laughs (LULZ) from getting people to react. This would include recruiting people to protest. In my opinoin they aren't interested in any kind of constructive results, rather they are only interested in getting reactions for the LULZ. This can easily be confirmed by looking at previous actitivities of Anonymous. I would ask "does anybody really believe the people behind these actions have decided to reform?" I would also put the South Park producers in practically the same category although in their case along with many gossip purveyors they also interested in capital exploitation. But this would be in contrast with the anti-religion sites who publish misinformation for their own unique goals whatever those may be.

[Anonymous]

A church has the right to control the use of its copyrighted material. It appears that WikiLeaks violated the law in posting the church manuals and links. Whether The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints actually cares about the release of the material in the manual or not I don't know. They may only care about upholding their copyrights now and in the future. Maybe we need a WikiLeaks-Leaks website that monitors WikiLeaks and posts a story every time WikiLeaks breaks the law by infringing copyrights or breaks laws by other means in posting their "leaks".

Anyway, isn't WikiLeaks' main goal to monitor governments and corporations for corruption? I didn't find much material on many of the corporations that I am pretty sure are corrupt. Maybe they should focus more in that arena.

[JT]

A couple of comments:

1. The article mentions in the last paragraph the "right to privacy." I am assuming that this has no reference to the constitutional doctrine of "right to privacy," a specific doctrine drawn by the Supreme Court from principles found in the amendments of the Constitution. I am assuming that, rather, this is referring to privacy interests. The case here is about copyright infringement. There are many policy reasons for copyright laws, and I would classify privacy interests as a minor one. While the church may have an interest in privacy in this case, there are many other reasons as well.

2. Individuals that disagree with the church's decision to enforce its copyrights are aiming their indignation at the wrong target. Those who disagree should direct their ire toward the laws of the United States of America and at their neighbors who vote in the nation's lawmakers. Under current law, the church has every right to enforce it's copyrights. Indeed, if the church did not enforce its copyrights, copyright law would be completely useless.

3. LIke Kevin, I would be very interested to hear from exmormongirl about what material within the handbook made it "absolutely necessary" for her to leave. I've read through it several times, and there really isn't much of anything controversial in it. It certainly doesn't contain any "secret doctrines" as some have alleged. Unfortunately, this is all verifiable right now, as anyone can see for themselves.

4. As mentioned by VM, Book 2 of the Church Handbook of Instructions (CHI) is available to women serving in various leadership positions. And I would be very surprised if Book 1 was not available to the general auxiliary presidencies presided over by women (the General Relief Society, Young Women, and Primary presidencies).