Please keep it copyrighted and under wraps so no one else has to read it.
Why should the rules of the church be copyrighted?Seems to me like
the church would be proud of their rules. Seems to me like the church would be
on the rooftops making everything known, how good it all is, get out there and
advertise it...get those member numbers UP!Not hiding it behind some
copyright law.Does the Tab choir pay the owners of the songs they
Most of you people are just jabbering, not understanding copyright laws. The
contents of a book, or a song, are protected from theift differently from
protecting your car from theift, but simular at the same time.If
your book is copyrighted, it's like having your car insured against theift. If
you see your stolen car being drived by someone, what do you do? You report it
in order to get your car back in your possesion.Its simular with
copyrighted stuff, with one major exception. That is that one MUST complain
against the one who has "stolen" their work or after a period of time without a
complaint, it becomes "public domain" and the owner, in effect looses his
"ownership" of it.That's why the LDS Church goes after those who
make major copyright infringements, not because any supposed plots pertaining to
secrecy, but rather to conform to laws that are established to guarantee
that they will retain ownership of the material.Sorry, no big
secrets or plots. Just simple complience to the copyright laws.
@Paul in MD: Thanks for the feedback. I re-read the quote bearing in mind what
you had written and see where you are coming from.@To AJ | 10:02
a.m. May 16, 2008: Obviously you had a bad day, hope that things are going
better for you now.
It is a copyrighted document, so you can't post it without permission. It is
also illegal to buy an e-book of a NYT Bestseller and then post it freely
online. It is not an issue of secret, sacred or anything other than copyright
ownership. GET OVER IT.
The LA Times article is definitly not "flattering". It portrays Scientology and
the LDS Church as "agressively repressing information".
Just because you read something about copyright law on the internet doesn't mean
that you know what you are talking about. You obviously don't. If they have a
copyright on it, then it is obviously something that can get copyrighted. Then again, I am sure you know way more than the actual lawyers. Just
like all of the Mormon-haters think they know more about the religion than
actual members of the church.
While I am not an attorney, when I was in business our attorney told us that we
MUST VIGOROUSLY defend our copyrights or risk loosing not one but others. I
understand THAT IS THE LAW !If I write a little poem or a song,
there may be nothing secret, I may even want to share it, but under our laws I
am allowed the continued ownership of it and that is protected by copyright if I
desire.I believe there are tons of copyright lawyers who will
confirm this and certainly the Congress has even in recent years.
Where is the PDF of the book? Why won't the Deseret News link a PDF of this
book? If it was a non-LDS book they sure would have one up.
Theres nothing secret about the handbook, I was asking a member of the Stake
Presidency a question about the church and he pulled out the handbook and let me
read for myself what it said. Just plain and simple copyright protection by the
Just to let the folks at Deseret News know, Wikinews and the Wikimedia
Foundation has NO association with Wikileaks, which is run by a separate
organization called Sunshine Press.
"Just wondering" why you don't worry about yourselves and stop worrying about
what members of the LDS church are doing. "Just wondering" why you even take the
time to comment on articles like this.
To Rabbi - I've been a Ward Clerk, and I've been asked before to order copies
for individuals. The Church's policy is not to keep the information in the
handbooks from people, just to avoid the expense of printing and shipping for
folks who really don't need it.The Church doesn't make money on
manuals or handbooks. I think these items are subsidized, and since they are
trying to be good stewards over donated funds, they only want to spend money to
provide handbooks for people who need them.I've read the handbook
(again, I was a Ward Clerk and had access to it), and there's nothing secret,
dark, sacred, embarrassing, or in any way worth hiding in there. I don't see
any reason why a bishop wouldn't let a member sit down in the clerk's office and
read it, other than it really is a waste of time unless you need to find out
about a process or policy that affects you. 99% of those are in sources other
than the general handbook.
You are wrong. As someone stated earlier. If the Church doesn't
protect the copyright, they lose that copyright and maybe others associated with
it. Simple as that. The Church is protecting their right to simply
say... this is material printed and copyrighted by the LDS Church. So there is
no confusion for people who want information about the LDS from the LDS, as
apposed to an anti publishing material made to look like the LDS Church's to
deceive.Let me say again... If the LDS Church does not protect the
copyright, they will lose it. That is how copyrights work. Has nothing to do
with secrecy or most other reasons posted on this thread.
To AJ - I think you mistinterpreted your own research. The copyright doesn't
extend to the process or idea. That doesn't mean that the text describing it
can't be copyrighted in whole. I believe what the law you quoted was intended
to convey is that if I read this manual, and I like some of the ideas or
processes, I can incorporate them in my own organization. I can even write my
own manual describing the same ideas and processes. What I can't do, by
copyright law, is make copies of the original manual to distribute to my
organization, or lift sections to put into my own manual unless I get written
permission from the original author.
The Handbook restriction applies to "distribution." It is not distributed to the
members. If you want to read the Handbook, you may. Go to your stake president
and request such (do not demand).You will have to set aside time
(make an appointment) to read it in his or the stake clerk's office. You will
not be allowed to remove the Handbook or take it home, or anywhere else.It's that simple.
To tjgibbs. If you are not LDS why do you have stored copies of the handbook.
to you have similar data on other religions???
How many of the people here defending the church's right to get upset over the
misuse of copyright material have also patronized Clean Flix or other such
businesses? Just wondering...
What kind of paranoid and delusional people are you? Why would anyone other than
the Church want to publish the LDS Church Handbook of Instructions? That makes
no sense. Even if someone wanted to make a "derivative" work out of something
the LDS Church had a copyright on, what kind of derivative work would anyone
make based on the Handbook of Instructions? Do you honestly think someone would
modify the CHI and re-publish it? To whom would they re-publish it? Who would
WANT to read it? No active LDS members would pay any attention to any source
other than the Church, and those who have animosity toward the Church will do so
regardless. Only innocent and naive "investigators" could be the possible
targets, but they are going to get exposed to so much more and so much worse
than the CHI anyway, it is a mute issue. There is NO REASON for the LDS Church
to take these actions to restrict access to the CHI. None. Zilch. Nada.
There out to get us I just know it. Maybe some people don't like being lied to,
maybe some people like to see how big of lie they can tell and get away with it,
hay it beats looking for the truth,that's way to hard. Something for something
that's worth less then nothing. All this just might make somebody angry, that's
why I don't do it. Any body want fallow me, I hope not.
As a recently released Bishop, I can assure you there are no "secrets" in either
volume of the Church Handbook of Instructions. The Church must
defend against copyright infringement, otherwise it can eventually lose the
right to protect the work in question and it could be modified and republished
by anyone. Finally, if ANY of the numerous Church publications that
are FREE on the Church web site (e.g. Ensign magazine), are published by other
organizations, the Church would go after them in the same manner as this.
Just been doing some research on copyright law and came across the following:Copyright Law of the United States of Americaand Related Laws
Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code - 102 b:"In no case does
copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea,
procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or
discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained,
illustrated, or embodied in such work."As I read this, the Church
Handbook cannot be copyrighted since it is a list of procedures and methods of
operation. Any other insights are welcome.
A clarification:Wikimedia (Wikipedia and Wikinews) did not publish the
Handbook, a site called Wikileak did. Wikinews had a link to the Wikileak
article, but that has been removed. Wikileak still has the Handbook up for
download, and from what I am reading, it is unlikely that the Church can get
them to stop.I would also like to point out that other sites have
had it up for years in at least HTML format (the Wikileak version is a PDF one).
These people who criticize the LDS Church for taking action against people, who
post its copy righted material on the internet, probably have gigabytes of copy
righted material on their hard drives in the form of DVD's, Music, Software,
Games and anything else they can get for free. What would they know about copy
It is restricted; members generally are not allowed access to it. Several times
I have asked for a copy and was denied access. They did read some selected
paragraphs to me; I guess I couldn't be trusted to read and browse a copy.IT IS RESTRICTED BOTH TO MEMBERS AND NON MEMBERS.
Again we have the power of darkness at work to capture the lightmindedness
individuals/groups and to try to satisfy the curiosity of the mind.There
is no hidden agenda of the handbook which are only access to church leaders but
to direct the affairs of the church as directed by the lord and stay within the
boundaries with the law of the land, as members of the LDS church we need to be
mindful that we dont get caught up in this hype that cause us to question the
church policies and procedures,people that releaseses this information has
broken the copyright laws...end of story!!.
I'm pretty sure "Wikipedia" and "Wikimedia" are two different entities, kind of
like FLDS and LDS are.
To Nonsense 10:27 - I'm LDS and I agree that editing movies to make them more
family friendly is not only illegal, but flat out stupid.Why? One
reason is, you're still handing your money over to the people who made those
movies.The main thing that worries me about Wikipedia's decision to
post the handbook isn't the handbook itself. If Wikipedia is able to legally do
this, no book would be safe. People's private papers and journals would be fair
game. If an author wrote a book, he or she could have it legally printed all
over the net, and they wouldn't get a dime for it.There's a reason
why we have copyright laws in this country. And if Wikipedia's trend continues,
it will spell DOOM for literary entertainment, business, religious and political
publications, and perhaps even people's own private writings.
There is also a very scathing piece in the Las Vegas Review-Journal concerning
this. The article is very offensive to Latter-Day Saints.
If this has to do with people changing the manual and then distributing it, the
best way to counter it would be to publish an official version on the official
website.Copyright was instituted to encourage distribution so that
literary works would not be lost and to enlarge the public domain. Initially
Copyright had to be applied for, and could be denied. Now-a-days their is a
blanket copyright for all works created and publicly distributed, though the
State reserves the right to deny copyright moving your work into the Public
Domain immediately instead of after so many years.Since the Handbook
does not fall into the publicly distributed domain, the question is whether
copyright is appropriate. Since the Church does not want it publicly distributed
the Church Handbook is better protected under Trade Secrets law instead.
"LA Times has a very interesting article on this topic today. It is not very
flattering to the LDS Church."And this is news? Consider
the source. Just because some hack at a newspaper writes a biased, biggoted
hatchet job, doesn't make it so.
In response to "Do the numerous positive statements in it get as much air time
as the cherry-picked controversial ones? Why do you suppose that is?" I would
say perhaps they get more "air time" because they need to be "aired."Items that are "questionable" or "just plain wrong" are the ones that need to
be talked about and possibly changed.
I was going to post regarding this story and all the but then I read this post
by Comanche which expresses it well I believe, here are some excerpts: "Comanche | 8:12 p.m. May 14, 2008The problem isn't the secrecy, and
it's clearly not making money. The issue also isn't control (that is,
"unrighteous dominion" as alluded to in one of the opinions above). The issue is
that the Church is regularly excoriated by individuals who have an ax to grind
and do so by taking things out of context to prove their point.I
happen to have a "legal" copy and I find things in it to be logical, carefully
worded, Christ-like (that is, showing loving concern for members and others),
and gospel-centered. But then, I'm not digging for dirt.You would
have to be trying to take offense to be offended by things in it if they were
understood. The problem is, will the things in it get a fair and balanced airing
if it's just "out there"? ...Ask yourself this: Do the numerous positive
statements in it get as much air time as the cherry-picked controversial ones?
Why do you suppose that is?"
LA Times has a very interesting article on this topic today. It is not very
flattering to the LDS Church.
Profit has nothing to do with copywrite law, this is a common misconception. It
is illegal to copy copywrited material for any purpose even if there is no money
or personal gain involved. I have seen many instances of church members
unwittingly breaking the law in this way. Usually all it takes in a phone call
to get permission and be legal.
The handbook, not the replies about the story I mean....good analogy
to a personnel manual in a business actually... just establishing orderly
direction and process for remotely situated units, same as remote offices in a
business setting...If you own a copyright, it's yours to control -
for profit or not. Everyone should be respecting them, BYU groups included...
Several posters have hit on what I think is the real reason the Church has
concern. The Handbook contents could be intentionally and maliciously changed,
re-written, edited, fabricated, "plain and precious" parts left out etc. etc.
and then pawned off as the "official" Handbook and the "official" position of
the LDS Church. It could be confusing or harmful for those who are unknowing or
A lot of hooplah over nothing. Letters like this sent to sites demanding
copyright compliance are sent every single second.
Of course the copyright should be respected. Just like all those edited movies
that you Utah mormons bought against the wishes of the artists who created
them.Oh, I forgot, that was all about morality. Go on with your
The Handbook of Instruction contains information to help church leaders
uniformly deal with a variety of situations. In some respects, it is similar to
a personnel handbook. It isn't inspired scripture.Let's say that you
enter a room in which personnel matters are being discussed. You don't have any
context surrounding these conversations, you don't know all of the details that
have transpired before, nor do you necessarily understand what is trying to be
accomplished on behalf of sometimes troubled individuals. Can you really expect
to suddenly participate in that discussion in a meaningful way? And would you
be surprised if those already in the room don't welcome you with open arms. And
how would you expect the DuPont company to react to having its personnel manual
published?Church leaders are constantly reminded to seek inspiration
from Heavenly Father in determining how to deal with complex and difficult
situations. The Handbook of Instructions attempts to help leaders to deal
effectively and lovingly with such situations. If you aspire to being a bishop
or stake president in the LDS Church, maybe your time would be well spent
studying the handbook. Otherwise, there may be more productive objects for your
This is in reply to tjtibbs who stated:"In reality, it's there for us to read,
archive, poke fun with, e-mail to friends, etc. The copyright has nothing to do
with those of us who already have it...I've had the Handbook for several years,
and so have those friends to whom I sent it."I'm sure those who
wrote and published the Handbook had many ideas of how it would be used. I'm
sure that it's uses as a source of internet entertainment never entered their
minds. I guess we should just be grateful this is the type of "internet
entertainment" you have chosen.
There isn't anything "secret" about it at all, and it baffles me that actual
members think that it is. I'm not in the Bishopbric and have read the handbook
(not the whole thing, just what I was wondering about) several times. Not once
was I told, "oh, no, you can't see that!" Why is it that people get all bent
out of shape when our church actually stands up and says, "what you've posted
online is against the law"??? That's not "business" that's just saying, "look,
this is ours, not yours, get permission first." If it was the Catholic church,
Lutheran, Baptist, whatever, no one would be making a big deal out of it.
There is a difference between licenses and copyrighted material. Learn the difference before posting on here. You come across as living in the
twilight zone. To Ted:Nothing, why do you ask? Copying is
copying. Otherwise why have copyright laws. Duh!This isn't scrutiny,
this is bald faced, in your face, bigots doing anything they please. Let them
learn the hard way.
HA, haven't heard the Tanners' name in a while. Isn't it about time for them to
come up with some ridiculous statement and get back in the news?
This is typical. The story talks about a Web site getting a request from the
church to take down a link to copyrighted material, and folks crawl out of the
woodwork shouting "stop hiding your past; stop hiding the truth!"I've been LDS for over 30 years. I don't claim to know everything about LDS
church history, or every detail of every past and present leader's life. I do
know that people make mistakes, some pretty big. It doesn't matter what
position they hold or what they profess to believe. We're all human.I have never heard anyone honestly proclaim that we members of the LDS church
are perfect. Quite the contrary - we're not, we know it, and we readily admit
it. We do, however, believe that the teachings in the scriptures are perfect,
and the guidance from inspired leaders is perfect.Judge us however
you choose. But let that judgment be guided by an honest desire to find the
truth, not a desire to prove us wrong. God doesn't work that way, and won't
guide you in that.
There are plenty of reasons to want to control a document other than "having
something to hide."One simple reason is to make sure the document keeps its
integrity. If the Church were to say, "hey, no problem, knock yourself out with
spreading the handbook around," how many different versions of the handbook
would we end up with floating around? How could you verify that one hadn't been
altered?By attempting to maintain authorship and ownership of the
document, the Church does what it can to make sure people look to the Church for
the official document, rather than assuming that one found casually on the
internet is good enough.
As LDS, I've wanted to read the Church's handbook and bring myself up to date
with present policy but have been denied a copy because it is "secret".Members in good standing should know what the policies of the church are and
have a copy of them and be given updates as they occur.
I hope the Church will sue the FLDS for trademark infrindgment. The Church
needs to be agressive to protect its good name.
Hiding is not the point. The LDS Church is expected to follow copyright laws;
they should expect that others using their materials will be subject to the same
laws. The purpose is to protect what they have written from being taken out of
context, or being twisted to serve the purpose of whatever idiot is out there
with a web site.I don't understand why some of you think the LDS Church
should be soft on enforcing their copyrights just because they are a church. The
LDS Church leadership has made it extremely, painfully clear that members should
strictly obey copyright laws. In fact, The Handbook of Instructions is very
clear on this even to the point of saying that you do not show a copyrighted
movie to a church group without permission. I wonder if the Wikimedia people
bothered to read a legal copy of the handbook.
It's not an issue of secret, it is an issue of sacred. The church believes that
some doctrine and ordinances are meant to be sacred and holy, not to be dragged
through muddy cesspool that is the media for those that don't understand to
ridicule.Why is it so hard for people to accept that everything has
it's place. These things are all available to anyone who wants to know and has
an honest intent and purpose for the knowledge. I am sure that everyone has
things in their life that are not illegal, immoral or indecent that they would
not want dragged out for public mockery. They are not necessarily secret, but
they are personal and sacred. Is it really so hard to understand.
I'm constantly amazed at the narrow minded bigotry of some of the LDS haters. If
the church didn't try and protect it's copyright you know (not think but know)
for a surety that these same people would condemn and castigate the church. The
only way copyright works is if those who own it protect it. If they didn't then
there's nothing stopping people copying anything. The CHI is not
secret, there's nothing in it that isn't common knowledge within the church.
It's a reference manual that's all. BUT it is copyright material and as many
others have said we all know that evil and designing men are more than willing
to take the truth and change a word here and there to make it say something else
and use this modified book to attack the church. One of the most famous bibles
ever printed missed one word from it's translation - the word "not" in the
commandment about adultery. Changes the whole meaning of the bible, doesn't
Disney, Boy Scouts of America, RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft... all protect their
copyrights. It has nothing to do with secrecy, but protection of their
intellectual and physical property. Makes sense that the LDS Church would want
to do the same.Believe me, I've read the book(books actually, there
are two) cover to cover. There ain't nothing in there that is secret!
Bottom line! If you break the law, you are a CRIMINAL. It is not a question of
secrecy or hiding. It is a question of honesty and abiding by the law. If a
person or business desires to print copy-write material, they should either
follow the law or they should be willing to suffer the consequences.
There are many reasons to copyright materials. It may be copyrighted for
financial reasons. It might be copyrighted to prevent is from being used to
harm your organization.Mormon haters will take materials out of
context, twist them, etc. The only reason the Tanners would publish excerts
from the handbook is to harm the LDS faith.Any written work is
automatically copyrighted as soon as it is written.Recent trade
secrets law forbids the use of information that the owner made a resonable
effort to keep secret. If the marketing manager of a company is given the
marketing plan of a competitor, he can go to jail if he uses it.If
the information is handled in a careless manner (employees discuss the
information in a public place like a restaurant, and the company does not
discipline the employees) it becomes difficult to defend in court. If the
employees are disciplined, where possible, and the materials are protected even
if leaks occur.The general handbook of instructions is both
copyrighted and protected by the trade secrets law for at least two reasons 1)
to prevent abuse 2) prevent meddling. The church has the right to make
decisions without busybodies interfering.
Hey, Another chance for Mormophobes to take pot shots at their favorite target!
Let's line up and start shooting!Seriously if you can't understand
why the Church wants to protect its intellectual properties, you're blinded by
your bigotry.The handbook contains no secrets. I read it and found
it to be yet another testament of Jesus Christ. Even when dealing with rather
controversial subjects, such as whether loved ones should pull the plug on a
brain-dead relative, I found myself saying , "Yes, that's right. This is the
truth. This is what Christ would want." I felt that the policies of the church
were truly inspired of God. The church teaches tolerance, patience,
love, kindness and respect. Its members are not perfect and, hence, don't
always display those virtues. We're all human. But we should not criticize
that which is good and virtuous.
All of you haters that think that the Church has become to engulfed in the
modern day legal system or think that the issue is about secrecy, then you're
wrong. The simple issue is that it is a copy right infringment. The church is
always willing to share what they can. The church has an obligation to protect
what is right. You can't run a 13 milliion membership without being responsible.
The Church is True!
I think it's a good thing The Church went after the copyright infringers. Not
doing so could create a precedent of not defending themselves against copyright
infringement and that could probably be used against them in court. Let's say
that an article from the Ensign was posted on a website and it was used out of
context to harm The Church. If this copyright infringer refused to remove it
and it went to court, the defendant could say, "The Church hasn't cared in the
past about their copyrights, so why should they go after me now? They'r just
harrassing me." See what I mean? They've got to defend themselves against the
small stuff if they want to defend themselves against the bigger stuff in the
future. Also, I really liked the comments from Please Stand. I
think you hit it right on the head. None of us (I don't think) can truly
empathize with The Church as none of us are walking in its shoes. None of us
face in our daily lives the kinds of things/responsibilities the Church does
every day of its existence. Your post was well-reasoned.
What does the Church have to hide?
Anyone arguing that the LDS doesn't have the right to protect it's copyrighted
materials either doesn't understand copyright law or is simply using this as
another unfair, bigotted excuse to criticize the church.In either
case, their arguments demonstrate nothing more than ignorance.
Why is there no interest in the Methodist handbook of instructions? The
Catholic, Jehovah Witness, or the Church of what's happening now? People will
line up to see what the LDS are doing and thinking. In the end, all of the
churches will line up against one and you will all know which one it will be.
I think that if a person breaks the law should pay for their crimes right? I've
sure had to pay for mine. Who's above the law?It seems so many people are
so consumed by the L.D.S. faith they go to bed thinking about it and wakeup
thinking about it I'm glad your so intrigued. That's good!
It doesn't matter if it is the Church of latter day saints, the girl scouts, or
the rotary club. If you own the rights to copyrighted material, anyone else who
uses that material for any reason, without your consent, is in violation of the
law. Put any kind of spin you want to on it, but those are the facts!
Owners of copyrights are required by law to enforce the copyright and pursue
legal action against those who infringe. If they don't, they lose the
copyright.The person who said that Mormons (and Maybe Baptists) are
the only people that feel outrage in defense of their religion should perhaps
read a news article or two about something besides the LDS church.Interesting that so many people come to the Deseret News with the sole
intention to criticize. They're saying way more about themselves than they can
possibly say about Mormons.
Everyone who has commented on this board who fits into all of these categories,
please stand:1) You lead an organization of 13 million people,
worldwide2) Nearly every decision you make becomes public3) You have
enemies (yes, enemies, not just casual opposition) that criticize and fault find
through any possible avenueIf you fit all three, you likely have
insight into perhaps how this could have been handled better. If you don't,
continue to criticize and hide behind your computer screen with your silly
comments because you definitely have authority on the matter, or on the
management of it.
Every time I watch a DVD or VHS tape I see this large introductory FBI WARNING
reminding people that copyrighted material is protected by U. S. Copyright laws
and those who copy such documents without authority are subject to prosecution.
Copyrighted material is the property of those who created it, to
unlawfully copy it is to steal it. It is an issue of honesty, integrity and
character, something that so many of the above detractors and whiners obviously
lack. I suggest they try their arguments on the Hollywood and music
industry lawyers who decry and threaten copyright infringers in China, Mexico
and actually sue those in the U. S.
Wikileaks is NOT part of the Wikimedia Foundation. Can't Carrie Moore even do
some rudimentary research on the relationship between the entities involved?
OK, I am going to try to state my opinion, and I am sure all the humble people
who have no ax to grind against the church will be very receptive to it. First, the church has two separate entities, one is totally church,
non-profit. They also have a tax paying business side also, I worked for the
church, so did my husband, all of that is taxed. Second, a copy
right is just that, if you want to copy it, you have to ask for the right to do
it, if you do not, then you can be prosecuted. If you look in the LDS hymn
book, you will find that a large majority of those songs do not have copy rights
on them, but the church does have things that do not need to be shared with
everyone and they have a right to have those things protected. One of those
things is member information, would people want the church to share phone
numbers and addresses? Our ward choir did a number, we didn't have enough
music, everyone very strongly said, we can't copy it, even just for one time,
respect the laws for all reasons.
Obviously the churches motivation is not to hide the information, else they
wouldn't draw publicity. I believe the motivation is to protect the
information, preventing someone from using it like in a law suit. I am not a
lawyer but this is a guess.
Somehow I just don't think other religions get as "outraged" as Latter-day
Saints. Most of them seem to have a more laid back "live and let live"
attitude. (Well, except for the Baptists)
You don't need to tamper with documents to make LDS doctrine questionable. You
just need to look outside the box. It's understandable why the LDS
Church longs to return when they controlled their story. Events like the FLDS
come up. People Google LDS or Mormon. The Tanners get the same billing as
LDS.org. The person doing the text search is off reading about
polygamy, blood of atonement, DNA and the BOM and on and on.This is
a attempt to close the door on a barn with without horse one. It's kind of
pitiful really. They ran off carrying the meat and the milk has gone sour.
There are copies of the Church Handbook in the BYU library special collections.
Anyone can access this to read it. It is not a secret. It is also not
something that the Church distributes to the general public because it is
written for church leaders to give them guidance in leading their congregations.
Imagine the outrage if some of the Catholic Church leadership
materials were posted on the internet without permission or a Jewish or Muslim
handbook were posted?
Sort of like taking history and manually editing it so it is faith promoting?
Like the story of the Nauvoo Expositor...
Why should the LDS church be able to claim a religeous fair use copyright
exception and also be able to sue others for copyright use? They can freely
infringe others copyrights, but sue for their own.
Another VERY important thing.What if someone takes a manual and
edits it to look like the same valid manual but with small twists meant to trick
people and confuse others into hating the Church even more?This is a
common thing in LDS history. It's a waste of time to cut another religion down
as it only destroys. I have no right to cut a Muslims beliefs down if they do
not hurt anyone. If I edited the Qur'an to say that 'you will die if you make
friends with Christians' this would be wrong.Not only would this be
wrong but imagine the worlds reaction. If I made it public enough that I was
purposefully trying to get people to hate Muslims more people would be outraged.
Do LDS members 'Mormons' not deserve this same right?People have
tampered with LDS documents and will continue to do so. The church has every
right to prevent this, legally and morally.I'm sure many will get
upset and argue about this. I only intend on simply proving that the Church is
doing something which is good and that there is no argument against it. People
should move on.
The problem isn't the secrecy, and it's clearly not making money. The issue also
isn't control (that is, "unrighteous dominion" as alluded to in one of the
opinions above). The issue is that the Church is regularly excoriated by
individuals who have an ax to grind and do so by taking things out of context to
prove their point. I happen to have a "legal" copy and I find things
in it to be logical, carefully worded, Christ-like (that is, showing loving
concern for members and others), and gospel-centered. But then, I'm not digging
for dirt. You would have to be trying to take offense to be offended
by things in it if they were understood. The problem is, will the things in it
get a fair and balanced airing if it's just "out there"? Given the behavior of
the press and others recently (e.g., Romney candidacy, FLDS, etc.), I'd say,
probably not. If I were in the Church's position, I'd go after the copyright
violators, too.Ask yourself this: Do the numerous positive
statements in it get as much air time as the cherry-picked controversial ones?
Why do you suppose that is? 'nuff said.
Anyone who considers reading that manual a source of entertainment needs to get
Did you know that a photographer has the legal rights to the photograph and not
the person IN the photograph? I have seen my personal property posted on the
internet by those who have purchased a copy of my print but not the copyright.
People steal others property all the time and it is NOT RIGHT! Music? Movies?
ALL belong to someone and we are stealing if we are not paying for it. What a
bunch of theifs!
A belife of the LDS church is that its members should uphold the laws of the
land. Does it make the church controlling just because they expect the same
respect in return? The LDS church owns the copyrights to the handbook plain and
simple. Is it now to much to ask that citizens of this country respect the laws
of the land? I have a hard time understanding why so many people are so quick
to defend disrespectful and illegal behavior.
Whether it is an LDS handbook or anyone elses, it was a copyrighted document.
Websites like Wikipedia and its affiliates must use good judgement and obey law
when it comes to these things. For "whats the big secret..", if you want to know
the policies, take the time to sit down with a bishop or stake president. They
should be more then happy to share what they can.
Copyright, I think, doesn't work once hundreds and maybe thousands already have
access to it. In reality, it's there for us to read, archive, poke fun with,
e-mail to friends, etc. The copyright has nothing to do with those of us who
already have it. Unless, of course, we try to sell it. I've had the Handbook for
several years, and so have those friends to whom I sent it.Content:
I find it amusing and, a bit, sorrowful. Such an admission of control. And, in
my view, that's what the Mormon church is about: control.
Yawn!!!! And the problem is??? This is just another instance of the LDS Churchs
need to control every aspect of not only its members but also what others may
want to see. If I were investigating the Church, in any aspect, then I would be
very interested to know what the Churchs policies and procedures were. And why
not???In my mind I think that the Church should be very happy to let the
world know all about its operations, opinions and beliefs!
I think that the Church has every right to privacy and to keep outsiders from
knowing about their religious policies. It's called freedom of religion!
Doesn't this type of publicity usually backfire, by drawing more attention and
interest to something that most people wouldn't really care about reading?
Why the secrecy? Does it really matter if people know what's in the book?
Isn't it just a book of guidelines on how to handle various situations?Also, I thought copyrights were to protect a person's right to make money from
their product. The handbook isn't a "moneymaker" is it?Why get so
worked up about something that many claim is available on the internet already
from several other sources?
This is looking more and more like a business and less and less like the
restoration of the gospel. My goodness why can't we share are texts, I think
that is what Jesus would do. The church is too caught up in the modern day and
has lost most perspective on this front and business actions like this will
further distance the little credibility we still have with the larger community.
Just sad and not an action taken at a good time as the church is already in
Just like the BYU choir should have done before they sang Disney songs, right?
It's not so much what is being posted as it is a matter of copyrighted material.
Those wishing to use the material no doubt just need to get permission just
like with any other copyrighted material.
My dear Mormon brothers and sisters.Since you insist in going mainstream
-Get used to the scrutiny and expose.
What's the point? Do a Google and you can find tons of Handbook sites. I got
several complete handbooks stored in my computer. And, I'm not an LDS bishop.
Not even LDS.