It has been my experience that many people who get disenchanted with the Gospel
and subsequently with the Church have gotten distracted by things that in the
eternal scheme of things have little or no value. I am not saying we should not
have questions, discuss them, and ask one another and the Lord about them, but
whether the Church is transparent about its finances or not has absolutely
nothing to do with its leader holding the priesthood keys to direct all saving
ordinances. The core question (at least here) is, do you believe /
have faith that President Thomas S. Monson is a prophet, seer, and revelation,
president of the high priesthood, and the only person on the earth with the
authority to officiate and authorize all priesthood keys? If we don't
believe that then transparency matters much more than when we do believe. In a way, the Church not being transparent leaves its members with less
to get distracted about, leaving them to focus on the Savior. Thoughts?
"Ryan McKnight has now made himself a public figure and is benefiting
monetarily from his mission of transparency. Why isn't he being
transparent?"Not true and clearly Ad hominem. if you have proof
otherwise, tell all of us how Ryan is benefiting monetarily! This is the typical
reply to all people who in some way criticize or are depicted as attacking the
LDS church and it hurts the LDS church to attempt to only attack the messenger
and not the issue itself.
Ryan McKnight has now made himself a public figure and is benefiting monetarily
from his mission of transparency. Why isn't he being transparent? Why
hasn't he published his tax/income records? Do we know if he's an
ethical person? Does he vote and if so what does his voting history say about
him? Has he broken any laws in the past or does he have a criminal record? What
do his internet search habits look like?Now that he's made
himself a public figure shouldn't the public have a right to know these
things? Where's his transparency? Shouldn't sauce for the
goose also be sauce for the gander?
If they have broken a non-disclosure agreement or have broken the law to obtain
the information to send to us, that is their problem, not mine. If we receive
something we think should be part of the public record, we will publish
it."--------------Isn't it against the law to
receive stolen property?
haha....that's hilarious! A guy who preaches transparency that won't
be transparent himself! OK, we now see he's just another angry ex-mormon
with an axe to grind and there's nothing noble in his effort. First he says
he won't release who his sources are then he says he doesn't know who
they are. Really? Which is it? If you really don't know who they are then
why not say that up front? Where's the transparency???As for
his "noble" mission of transparency: "He admits he is a
church critic. But as a trained accountant in the age of WikiLeaks, he said
broad transparency is his single motivation."We only want
transparency," McKnight said. "The end goal is simple; it's
transparency from the church.", I wonder how much money
he's making off of his website. I didn't see that he posted any
information on how much he makes. Hmmm...so much for transparency. He's a
lot like Pres Trump, transparency is good for others but not for himself.
It's like liberals and tax increases, "yes I think the Pres should
raise taxes, but Oh no, don't raise my taxes, raise the taxes of someone
As a (I hope) "faithful" member of the LDS church, something no one has
mentioned as far as "transparency" is that each year the church issues
an audit statement as part of general conference. I didn't pay attention
either until studying a little accounting and realizing exactly why they stress
"independent" and "generally accepted accounting principles (gap).
In other words to a believer that is another assurance that tithes and offerings
are spent as the Lord would have them spent and if you're not that's
not going to matter anyway.
Skeptic posted:=It is ironic that so many who consider themselves
religious good Mormons who=claim to be true and honest followers of Jesus
and Joseph Smith are objecting=to disclosure and access to knowledge,
information and truth. What is it about=being aboveboard, honest,
transparent and revealing that frightens these=people.Skeptic,
what exactly is your salary? How much money do you have in your checking
account? In your savings account? What's your PIN code for your debit card?
What's your Facebook username, and what's your password? Do you have
children? If so, what are the names and ages of your children, and what schools
do they attend?Do you still think that there's no reason to be
afraid of "being aboveboard, honest, transparent and revealing"?Maybe you do; maybe you're perfectly willing to share all the above
information with everyone on the Internet. But I think there are a lot of people
who would rather that other people not know these things about them.
It is ironic that so many who consider themselves religious good Mormons who
claim to be true and honest followers of Jesus and Joseph Smith are objecting to
disclosure and access to knowledge, information and truth. What is it about
being aboveboard, honest, transparent and revealing that frightens these people.
While I don't know whether these leaks are true or not, it shows the
relatively frugal nature of church leaders. We already know Bishops & Stake
presidents are lay ministers. How many business executives of similar size
corporations make only $116,400 to $120,000? This only reinforces
qualifications and experience only show they want serve the Lord and the members
they preside over.At the same time, this information is not near as
important as how we live our lives, raise our children, and treat those around
us. Following the prophet helps us do just that.
Article quote: "Transparency is the declared Siren song of MormonLeaks
founder Ryan McKnight, whose team has built a secure website as a platform for
those who want to leak documents or videos anonymously from inside The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The former Mormon's stated mission has
raised robust questions among ethicists, journalists, scholars and others, who
say there are good leaks and bad leaks. If McKnight believes transparency is a
top, or the only, priority, should he be more transparent?"So
this man, McKnight, claims he wants "transparency" so "honesty"
can reign everywhere the Church touches, yet he does not care where the
information he leaks comes from or what the motivations are of those who give
him the information to put out on the internet. However, motivation is a huge,
huge part of judging things correctly, or in other words, in achieving
"honesty", yet this man refuses to give the honesty he claims he so
desperately wants to receive.That is called "hypocrisy".He is rapidly bringing down his own destruction. Yes, really.
RE: summarizerer -The Biblical practice of a paid ministry was continued in the
N.T.: "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour,
especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the scripture saith,
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is
worthy of his reward." (1 Tim 5:17-18) Paul wrote that he had
the right to ask for support from the Christians. "Have we not power to lead
about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the
Lord, and Cephas? Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear
working?" (1 Cor 9:5-6) "If we have sown unto you spiritual
things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?... Even so hath
the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the
gospel." (1 Cor 9. 11, 14 )RE; Transparency, VS edits
,. “It is customary to read the two prayers over the emblems,
lest the officer, forgetting the words or changing them, break the spirit of the
meeting. For convenience we quote them from Doctrine and Covenants 17:22-23?
@Middle of the road Mormon“Too often we have told our non-LDS
friends, co-workers, and neighbors that our leaders are not paid..."quoting Dan Peterson.."Let’s think about
this...There are roughly 4000 stakes and districts in the Church,
and somewhat more than 30,000 wards and branches. Let’s not even count
the counselors. Let’s not count area authority seventies or scoutmasters
or high councilors or Relief Society presidents or any of the other unpaid
workers in the Church....There are currently, by my count, 108
General Authorities. That’s 0.00317647058 of the number of local unit
leaders (bishops and stake, district, and branch presidents) in the
it changes ones perception that was
previously taught that these men gave up so much to perform their
calling.”How many people do you hear giving up $500,000 or
more for a $120,000 living expense? It sure sounds like you are highly
unfamiliar with the leadership of the Church because I would wager at least few
of them easily could have made that in the private sector.
.RE: Buddyroe “MormonWikiLeaks. “One of the better known examples
of this are confessions made to priests.”"The only principle
upon which they judge me is by comparing my acts with the foolish traditions of
their fathers and nonsensical teachings of hireling priests, whose object and
aim were to keep the people in ignorance for the sake of filthy lucre; or as the
prophet says, to feed themselves, not the flock." (Teachings of the Prophet
Joseph Smith, p. 315)Yet,“ And the bishop, also, shall receive
his support, or a just remuneration for all his services in the church.
(Doctrine and Covenants, Sec. 42:71-73)
@Strider303“I do not wish to know what is done with the
monies, nor where they are expended. I feel it is none of my business, as it is
no longer my money.”You’ve stated my feelings on this
subject as well.@mhenshaw“The Church is plenty
forthright with the truth; for example, it's availing itself of new
technologies to release large tranches of original historical documents,
unredacted in high resolution detail, for all the world to see. But
for Church critics, such actions count for nothing. Having convinced themselves
that the Church is at best mismanaged or at worst a dishonest organization, they
want to see information that feeds their confirmation bias. If the Church
isn't admitting to mismanagement or dishonesty, if the MormonLeaks
documents aren't sufficiently embarrassing, then, they say, the Church not
being transparent and open. It's impossible to satisfy such
people.”It is often the case that critics are myopic with
their assessments of the Church and have cognitive dissonance that they
themselves like to always pin on members.
@USAALLTHEWAY! "It really doesn't shake my faith and trust in my
leaders, but there is a great sifting happening which will separate the wheat
from the tares. Those too weak to stand upright in the midst of the storm will
be swept away. As an old friend used to say, "if you can't stand the
heat, bid out of the kitchen"This comes across as very insulting
to the least among us of our brothers and sisters. Why are you assuming that
you are the wheat and not one of the tares that is "too weak to stand
Upright in the midst of a storm"? Could you be able to get out of bed in
the morning if you found out your religious leaders were wrong entirely about
their religion and you could not trust them because of their mistakes? I believe a perfect God would not give us trials that we were "too weak to
stand upright in the midst of the storm" and be "swept away" with,
so I disagree with your entire premise!
Too often we have told our non-LDS friends, co-workers, and neighbors that our
leaders are not paid. We often believe these things.When it is
revealed that they receive reimbursement of up to $120,000 per year for living
expenses it changes ones perception that was previously taught that these men
gave up so much to perform their calling.I don't see any
problem with the Church reimbursing money spent for living expenses for those
that do the work full time. The problem so many of with it is that so many are
led to believe that they are doing more by spending their own money when this is
not in fact happening.When the Church decides to take a stance on an
issue or candidate I have no problem with that, but to pretend to be neutral
when in fact you are not - why? So I applaud the Church for some of the more
public stances it has taken - even those I find troubling from time to time. At
least when they do that, they are being more transparent.
My Momma taught me that if you did nothing wrong you have nothing to fear. And
if you are being deceitful it will always catch up to you. Welcome to the real
My opinion is somewhat flipped from that of Wasatch Rebel. I see way too much
classified information in government, way to much secrecy. If you are doing the
public's business, it should be public. The church? It is a private
organization. It should be entitled to more privacy. Public things are public.
Private things are private. And, I wonder if there really is a great
deluge of leaks in the Trump Administration. Someone revealed that the director
of national security had met with a Russian? Is that really information that
should not have been revealed as it could endanger national security? From all
that I know of the situation, I find no fault with that being "leaked."
Let us know what is going on, for it is our government.
As I have pondered on my comments posted yesterday, I realized that it should
come as no surprise that this type of behavior is expected to be prevalent and
part of the "norm" that is the reality of the world in which we live.
As a true "believer", as many are out there are, we should
recognize that the "signs of the times" are all around us. It really
doesn't shake my faith and trust in my leaders, but there is a great
sifting happening which will separate the wheat from the tares. Those too weak to stand upright in the midst of the storm will be swept away.
As an old friend used to say, "if you can't stand the heat, bid out of
For context, please understand I am not LDS.Just before Christmas I
received a Facebook link to Mormon Wiki Leaks, I opened it and was not
impressed. Banality is indeed the bulk of their reporting and puerile
pretentiousness seems to be their culture. This is evidenced by the photo
display of their official T-shirt that reads: Elder _________
One of us is a Confirmed homosexualMormonWikiLeaksChurches of all sorts hold confidential meetings as
a necessary order of business. Often individuals avail themselves of counseling
trusting that their communications are private. One of the better known
examples of this are confessions made to priests.LDS order of
business may be of interest to outsiders and of course gossipers. Acquiring
such information by illegal or unethical means is simply not acceptable, such
reports deserve being ignored
The point I was trying to make is this: everything is not everybody's
business. Politicians can expect to live in a bubble and anything they say to
anyone, barring national security, is fair game. But individuals are entitled
to some privacy as are organizations. When I was doing public utilities
economics I would sign non-disclosure contracts to protect trade secrets.
Churches are also entitled to some privacy. Our world today requires consumers
of information to be fair and discrete.
McKnight is not being honest. MormonLeaks is not about "being
transparent" or forcing transparency. It is about a bitter man with a chip
on his shoulder. That's all. Way to "kick against the pricks."
"McKnight oversaw the unauthorized release of 15 videos that showed LDS
leaders receiving briefings in private meetings between 2007 and 2012."So here's how I dealt with this incident. I listened to the
remarks made by the politicians as they are or were public officers, and what
they say is my business. The rest I did not listen to, thinking such was none
of my business.
Super heavy bias here.
People believe what they choose to believe. Some see evil in the most benevolent
acts of kindness, while others, due to their own weakness, seek to lash out and
harm those who would help them. We all know that things will
continue to grow ever more turbulent as the Savior's return approaches. If we speak the truth, avoid commenting out of ignorance, and live
according to the gospel and revealed word of God, then we have nothing to fear.
When someone breaks Temple Covenants, Satan takes control of their lives. The
rule then for the rest of us is to never trust anything from those who have
broken their covenants because Satan is the real force behind what they do.
There is no reason to question what they reveal because we know the real intent.
Its that simple. Only those who "are not ashamed
that wait for me (the Lord)" will be blessed to inherit the promises given
and be spared the wrath of God that will be poured out upon mankind in the last
days (2 NE 6:6-18).
Those who cry foul where no foul exists sadly miss the mark. They mistake the
mark of integrity for the mark of disaffection or retribution. While
whistleblowers serve as important checks, leaks can be subversively intentional.
There are proper channels for the airing of grievances. But if those channels
are ineffective or corrupted, is there always a way to get the word out to the
proper recipients and remain in integrity?This article and its
approach is a very welcome departure from the norm. It does not seem to be aimed
at the common denominator but at a more intellectually mature audience. I hope
it is as a sign of things to come.What if the DN was to tackle
important issues head-on as independent journalists strive to do? What if the DN
was to combine the best attributes of the Ben Swanns, the Joel Skousens, and the
James Corbetts, among many others, and rise above the world, the establishment
media, in reporting and analyzing issues?
It's ok to leak information that helps to destroy belief in your political
opponent.It's not ok to leak information that helps to destroy
belief in your favorite religion.C'est la vie.
Funny how those with an ax to grind seem to find ways to grind their ax. These
boards are prima facie evidence of this.
Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
recognizes freedom of expression as a right that includes seeking, receiving and
imparting information ... through any... media of choice". Article 19 also
states that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and
responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain
restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation
of others" or "the protection of national security, public order...
health... or morals." Based on John Stuart Mill's "harm
principle," freedom of speech and expression are not absolute but may be
limited in cases of libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition,
incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade
secrets, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, the right to be
forgotten, public security, and perjury. ( see Wikipedia). It seems
people love their rights but abhor responsibilities such as "work of you
can" and "keep your mouth shut when you should." I think the time
for accountability has arrived.
"Independent Mormon scholar" = someone who blogs on the Internet on
their own time, because no one will pay them to do it professionally
The major problem with leaks is the lack of context. You may say something to
your friends or associates which, outside of the context of your personality of
previous conversations, may be misunderstood by the outsider. The leaked
information needs to be examined in context, but the leaker only gives us the
"raw data".The second problem is that it trivializes the
sacred. Let's say that they leak the budget for the temple films == how
much the actors are paid, and other details of the production. As we go to the
temple we then start paying attention to the actors, the sets, special effects
rather than the message. The leaker has been successful in making a sacred
experience into something ordinary.
"Transparency" is just a cover for trashy voyeurism, the stealing of
private information, and the goal of destroying a person or organisation. I
have long suspected sites such as Wikileaks of making half their stuff up or
encouraging others to produce fake information for them to publish. The fact
that Mormon Leaks has a stated, non neutral goal pretty much destroys its
credibility. We might as well believe the National Enquirer's articles,
The Church, being on the earth, has one purpose, among many: to humble the
rich and educated. And to help communities be one in caring for each other.
Is your life building others up or tearing them down? Some people are against
institutions. A few are against team work and community and positive momentum.
So many hobbies out there from tennis to hiking to swimming, and they all
come from the heavens.
It occurs to me that when one insists upon :"transparency" they have
abandoned their "trust" formerly placed in the Church's leadership.
That's pretty clear when former members have so much to say who, in THEIR
opinion, ought to run the Church, what the doctrine's ought to be, how the
funds should be spent, and what is important that The Brethren somehow just
don't grasp. Either you affirm your support of those who have been chosen
to lead the Kingdom or you don't; pretty simple concept. There isn't
any need for ethics revival or introspection if you support the leaders and if
you don't it won't matter anyway. The enemies of the Church have
always found a way to be a monkey wrench in the works and they always will but
the Kingdom rolls forth in spite of their efforts to bring it down. The late
Elder Maxwell said he was amazed at "how people could leave the Church but
they couldn't leave it alone." This is yet another chapter in the Book
of Apostasy that these folks are writing and want to make certain they have a
contribution attributed to them.
Ernest T. Bass:You're right, the Church has hidden these
things, like the multiple First Vision accounts, for years - by publishing them
in the Ensign for all not to read!
Ryan McKnight said that his motivation for releasing documents was to provide
transparency. He might actually believe that and that is how he sleeps at night.
His justification that the responsibility of accepting ill-gotten documents is
on those providing them tells a different story. He is getting publicity, the
illusion of power over the LDS church, and that he is doing something noble.
I'm certain, as an admitted critic, he desires to do damage. But he
won't do damage, and there is nothing noble in what he is doing.
Any intelligent person needs to ask themselves what purpose is served by
exposing someone's personal, private and confidential information to a
public that should have no interest in such matters to be held up to ridicule
and derision. Disgruntled former employees of a business or other organization
always have an axe to grind or a personal agenda to "get even" or
"make them pay" for their grievances. I refer to the shootings which
happen in schools, churches, workplaces etc. A former employee who worked
at Old Tucson, a wonderful historical section of the city, set a fire and
destroyed over half of the site. He was fired from his job and he was angry.
There isn't much difference because both are malicious acts. I fear that
we, as a nation, have lost much in the way of civility.
Several years ago (before becoming LDS), I left the Unitarian Church, mainly
because of their liberal-left wing political advocacy and open support of
violent radical student groups. It never occurred to me to expose their inner
affairs and dealings, or to publicly leak their finances. Rather, I just went
my way and left them alone.
So where does this all end? Given the quotes on freedom, 1st, 4th etc. Does that
mean all is fair game, turn-around is fair play when the democrats return to the
White House? Can we now leak the names of those who inform the press or go after
the private lives of those that foment these practices themselves (Ryan)? Can we
find video images of you and your lovers? Arguments with your spouse etc.? What
private things can we find on you that would be fun to expose? You can buy
anything in this world for money. Be careful what you wish for, for it may also
be used against you too. O' what a slippery slope we are going down.
A well written article. We are in the middle of a tech-information revolution
and it is difficult to assess the outcome. But as we muddle through it, these
sorts of contemplative articles help us through the thinking process.
>>If the church were more forthright with the truth, there would be no
need for transparency.The Church is plenty forthright with the
truth; for example, it's availing itself of new technologies to release
large tranches of original historical documents, unredacted in high resolution
detail, for all the world to see. But for Church critics, such
actions count for nothing. Having convinced themselves that the Church is at
best mismanaged or at worst a dishonest organization, they want to see
information that feeds their confirmation bias. If the Church isn't
admitting to mismanagement or dishonesty, if the MormonLeaks documents
aren't sufficiently embarrassing, then, they say, the Church not being
transparent and open. It's impossible to satisfy such people.
My comment centers on the Church maintaining security regarding finances. When
I make a donation, I relinquish all rights to the monies. I freely give the
amount I wish to give with no strings attached.I do not wish to know
what is done with the monies, nor where they are expended. I feel it is none
of my business, asit is no longer my money.Those who express
interest in knowing where and how their donations are expended may be under the
impression that the Church is some form of democracy where the members have some
standing in the financial direction of the budget. I am under the impression it
is a kingdom willingly entered and authority comes from the top down. Therefore
control over the budget is not my business nor my worry.
Perhaps we've all lost the ability to understand basic english words. Does
anyone doubt what "on line" means. When you put something something on
the line, it's apt to be seen like red unions on a windy day. I guess
I'm profoundly impressed that LDS Church leaders would leave very
successful private lives, take a cut in pay and have to put up with these
things. What great sacrifices. It's an honor to be lead by such men.
I feel sad (and irritated) that with the number of good honest faithful LDS
who need a job --that there are those employed by the Church who are abusing
their positions and the good luck they have to have employment with the Church
(where it was assumed they would exhibit integrity and fidelity.) But they will get their comeuppance some day.Joseph Smith: "
'Fret not thyself because of evildoers'. God will see to it."
Ryan McKnight stated that he won't publish personal information. I
don't believe him. I've seen too many times when someone starts
something like this, soon it isn't enough.
I find it troubling that the LDS Church operates in secrecy. I get having
"sacred" things they'd like for only some to see (e.g., the temple
ceremony). However, finances should be in the open. I understand, for example,
in the guidelines they give to mission presidents, they have a different
definition of tithing than they have for the general membership. Those kinds of
things, they should be disclosed.
If the church were more forthright with the truth, there would be no need for
From the article: "I'm not sure the president completely understands
that the First Amendment was created specifically to engineer leaks....It was
banking on the idea that people would be motivated to hold political authority
in check."There is more to this story than the 1st Amendment. What
about the 4th and the right to privacy? Or the 5th? Doesn't the use of an
individual's personal rights to privacy indirectly use one's words or
records to convict--at least in the public eye?We must also consider the
"fish bowl" argument. Those who obtain substantive public notoriety give
up much of their right to privacy--life in a fishbowl, for all to observe.Surely there's a balance somewhere--certain areas where the public's
right to know has no business intruding.Axes to grind, gossip, kingdom
building--by leakers and targets alike--are a few of the behaviors that need
some form of governance. Given the current unreliability of some of our courts,
not much hope for satisfaction there. Think Charles Dicken's "Bleak
House."Seems like we could use a little old fashioned "mind your
own business" now and again.
I enjoyed the story but found it difficult to take counsel from "journalists
and scholars," as though they could teach us anything about sources and
verification.Reporters can deceive us simply by the way they tell
the story. We've seen a great deal of that in recent years.Typical stories today quote unnamed sources.At the extreme,
remember the Pulitzer Prize given to Janet Cooke for the "story"
published by the Washington Post?As for scholars, they have not
cornered the market on truth. Journalists can choose from a variety of
"experts" to quote...depending on their story. Scholars also take
sides.New media provides an opportunity to tell things that no one
wanted to publish. I had the personal experience years ago of trying to expose
the false information being told by an incumbent during a reelection campaign.
He was misrepresenting his record and no media outlet wanted to publish it, or
even ask the candidate to explain himself.Today we have a way to get
the info out there, though you can't make people read it or believe it.So, we are left at square one; gather info and decide for ourselves what
I agree with many of the comments here. This excellent article was way more
than the typical "information dump" laced with an obvious bias or an ax
to grind. It was thoughtful, extremely well-written, and encouraged honest
consideration of both sides of the argument. One nugget worthy of thought, made
salient in the article, is what some might call the cowardice of many whistle
blowers (i.e. Ryan McKnight) who claim "transparency" as their
motivation for leaking, but who refuse to be transparent themselves.
What's good for the goose apparently isn't for the gander.
I've been trying to think what I would do if I had a website that made
public information that organizations were trying to keep private. Organizations
own this information, and I respect their ownership of the information. In the
publishing of such information, I am attempting to transfer ownership of the
information from the organization to the general public. Do I have the right to
do this?All organizations have goals that are publicly disseminated.
Those organizations may keep private certain information that is in opposition
to those goals. I would ask myself, why are organizations keeping certain
information private? Is society being helped if that information is made
public?In my opinion, transparency is not a sufficient reason for
leaked information. The information has to relate in some way to the goals of
the organization, and I think that that relationship must be made public when
the leaked information is made public. I realize that some individuals posting
private information may do so to provide transparency, and that they leave to
others justification of the leaking. That is fine. We just have different
opinions about this matter.
You can't claim a "transparency" until you open the books to see
every penny coming in and every penny going out. That's what it all comes
down to is the money.As for other forms of transparency, that didn't
happen until the real history became readily available online and in
publications. There was a large scale cover-up until their hand was forced by
I look forward to the Mormon Leaks leaks.
It does make me a little sad to think that someone even though they have left
the church simply wants to harm and embarrass. What could be the motivation of
releasing president eyring personal financial information other than to
embarrass him. I am sad that a person feels like that is the proper thing to do.
"Leaking" information with the intent of esposing criminal acts or
comspiracies is one thing, but to publish false information in order to
embarrass or defame someone is libel. At best, organizations like MormonLeaks
do not serve any useful purpose and at worst they push the envelope of libel, in
my opinion, because there is no conspiracy or criminal behavior to expose and
their organizers know it. Their purpose is to embarrass or defame and it is
usually driven by vengefulness over some perceived wrong. Thankfully, most of
the American public seems smart enough to put that sort of leaked information
where it belongs: in the trash.
It should be noted that leaks from U.S. governmental agencies have a much
greater potential to be harmful to the well-being of its citizens, than a leak
of LDS information has to be detrimental to members. It isn't an equal
playing field--one verges on espionage, undermining a nation. The other reveals
the inner workings of a religious organization.
"Transparency for thee, but not for me". What happens when
someone leaks information that you submit to WikiLeaks or MormonLeaks? Is their
responsibility of trust any greater than yours? The same goes for
posting interesting or astounding things on social media. Is the source of that
information really accurate?
Good article; thanks for publishing it. I halfway expected an impassioned
defense of the LDS Church's need for privacy (owing to its ownership of
this newspaper), but the writing was impartial and open, with an exploration of
both sides of the issue.
Good article that shows both sides of the issue. Transparency would be really
Even in the age of the internet, voyeurism is still voyeurism. As the old
saying goes, "The more things change, the more they stay the same."
If church financial records, including tithes and offerings, were made public
perhaps even the records of significant contributors would need to be disclosed.
That might be embarrassing to certain people. Total truthfulness
of mankind might mean there are no secrets whatsoever even if many private ideas
would hurt many people. How would people react if they knew exactly other
peoples opinion of them?
Interesting, well written, well considered article. I enjoy reading articles
like this. And so often I see poorly written articles that are disorganized and
lacking cohesiveness. But this was informative, thought-provoking, and just very
well put together. Kudos. And thank you.
" Should news outlets or leaks websites be egging them on, as the New York
Times now does?"Seriously? After a summer of Wikileaks which were,
even then, strongly suspected as coming from a hostile foreign government.
Knowing, as any bad high school student would, that they were available only
because they would, to some extent, harm one of the campaigns in our last
election. And the times wasn't the only paper to publish them, were
they? "I LOVE Wikileaks" - Donald Trump.