Comments:Copy of handbook for leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints obtained by Wikinews

This is news exactly how?!? The Church Handbook of Instructions has been available on the internet since 1998. There was even a notable 1999 lawsuit over it; the decision on that case established case law in the US regarding deep linking and contributory infringement of copyright. Must be a slow news day, as Wikinews has seemingly succumbed to silly season style reporting. What's next, experiments with Yellow journalism? -- 63.224.135.113 16:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

So basically you guys got a copy of the handbook thinking that the Church of JC & LDS is like the Church of Scientology and were sorely disappointed to find out that it is, in fact, a non-secretive religion. But then, for some reason, you decided to post your "finding" anyway - this isn't news, it's information that's widely known (well, I knew it, and I don't know much about the LDS). 210.9.137.20 —Preceding comment was added at 04:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the others. This is not news. 75.15.204.227 08:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is supposed to be news because it sounds like the FLDS, then I have to remind you all that the Mormon Church and the Fundamentalist sect that's been all over the news lately are not affiliated. They just have similar roots. The Mormon Church really doesn't have any current scandals, has not for a while. If you want something juicy, dig into the FLDS's closet (if there's anything not already told). For the record, ingestion of caffeine is also a big no-no in the LDS. - 67.142.130.35 14:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the first three above. Of course, it's known, but CHI as released on Wikileaks is the starting point for eventual disclosure of internal documents (not public information; such internal documents include memos, financial and suppressed historical documents belonging to LDS headquarter in Salt Lake City). LDS Church is still a secretive American religion focused on the management of its membership (this include sending "home teachers to discuss faith and the scriptures [indoctrination] with the members who voluntarily agree to invite the visiting home teachers, active or inactive, to assure continuous church-going and tithing offerings), for aforementioned reasons referring to the internal documents. Two reasons for the disclosure despite its being previously known somewhere else is to propagate the information on the popular Wikileaks whereas before then it was obscure and to counter LDS Church's past attempt to suppress the unofficial release of CHI as an intellectual property. More information can be read titled "LDS CHURCH SUES MINISTRY" published in February 2001 "Salt Lake City Messenger" newsletter. Cyberdogg - (talk) 07:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Cyberdogg, if it's such a "secretive religion", how come everything in this news report is already information readily available from normal LDS sources? Where's the big secret?  What's the big story here?  Regardless of your own particular biases (which you seem keen to air), you have not at all demonstrated how this story is newsworthy.  All you have done is shown how you have an axe to grind here.  Now, if this book said something about church leadership practicing polygamy, lying about something, or acting in a hostile fashion towards the church's detractors (etc.), then we'd have a story.  As it is, we have a few boring, moderately well-known facts contained in a generally unavailable handbook.  And that doesn't really strike me as news.  75.15.204.227 07:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's your prerogative. Why the absence of "big secret" and "big story"? In absence of 'sensational' news, you complain about "boring, moderately well-known facts" in the particular handbook not available to the public at large, only select church officers. I find the subsection on the treatment of transsexuals interesting, among other things. The purpose of the leak is reading inside the structure of a religious organization for entertainment and analysis (it's certainly of interest to some who consider LDS a cult/sect, whichever word they use to describe the organized religion), though not as "damning" as Church of Scientology (the latter dry in thousands of pages; the same can be said for the thoroughly detailed procedures in LDS handbook). Some church officers may not be at liberty to discuss the specific topics already featured in the handbook for secrecy reason or none at all. You're right about my biases, but it's your judgment call that CHI documents aren't noteworthy as news, the detail of CHI can be read at Wikipedia, release of 1998 CHI manual considered "public information" and thus may not warrant further exposure...and you can motion a vote to delete Wikinews entry on Wikileaks' publication of CHI. And what ax do I have to grind? Nothing, because truth is a valuable commodity despite your opposing view. -- Cyberdogg - (talk) 09:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As an IP, I actually cannot motion to delete. If I made an account simply to motion to delete, it could also be rejected.  And I value truth very much, thank you very much, more than I value my own personal prejudices ('sa pity you do not feel the same?)  What in this handbook isn't readily available elsewhere?  If there's any story here, it's the story of a non-story:  A headline along the lines of "'secret' Church handbook published online: Says nothing not found elsewhere in published Church sources".  The articles on unexplained Youtube Accounts Suspensions, the Student Getting Arrested because of Wikipedia contributions, and the actions of a group of Chinese hackers are, IMO, newsworthy because they are things one generally would not already be familiar with.  But if I were to go and write a Wikinews article saying that L. Ron Hubbard died some time ago, or the Book of Mormon was published well over 150 years ago, or that Catholics believe they are truly drinking Christ's blood during the Eucharist, I wouldn't really have a news story, because there'd be nothing new about it.  75.15.204.227 07:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair argument. Why don't you contact Wikinews admin to check the article for judgment whether it satisfy Wikinews' policy in allowing articles based on facts and not bias & "old verified news"? Then they will decide whether deletion of Wikinews is a necessity according to your logic. -- Cyberdogg - (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with everything thats been said, this isnt really news, but in absense of something better there is no need to delete it.--82.35.192.193 04:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Polygamy and the afterlife
I would be interested to see what it says about the afterlife and polygamy. It is rumored that these doctrines are only made clear to the elders and the enlightened. I am wondering if they laid it all out in their handbook for leaders. ~sabriel26~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.15.151 (talk) 05:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering that this is an administrative procedural manual of guidelines, you are going to be very disappointed as there is nothing in the manual instructing the bishop or stake president what meetings they should be holding in the afterlife, or the procedure for bank deposits from afterlife donors. The only entries on polygamy deal with procedures for excommunicating those who practice it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.47.225 (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The Church of the Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
What exactly are they? --Nohawkson - (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC) srry just confused i guess its cool that this site has found this. --Nohawkson - (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Mormons --Brian McNeil / talk 08:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ty --Nohawkson - (talk) 08:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What's the big deal? If you want ANY literature from the LDS church, go to thier website and get it. The LDS church isn't hiding anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.20.80.222 (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If anyone goes searching after the handbook to find out what dirty secrets the Mormon leaders are hiding will be really disappointed. Ask any church leader who has one what the handbook says about something and they'll tell you flat out, often even show you right in the manual. Think of the thousands and thousands of normal UNPAID people who have been in various positions to read and have a copy of the manual. Should there be anything unsavory or scandulous, it would've been common knowledge a long time ago.

Probably the biggest reason the church doesn't distribute the manuals widely is because they are nothing but administrative policies and guidance suggestions for the lay leaders. They are changing all the time, and should they be distributed along with the Bible or Book of Mormon, too many people would cling to these policies as some sort of pronouncement of doctrine. Simple as that.

If the juiciest details that Wikileaks or wikinews can come up with to expose the Mormon church's policies is euthanasia and cremation, is it worth dealing with a copyright infringement lawsuit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.192.244 (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Mormon repression
This is just another example of repression and censorship by the American Taliban, also known as the Mormon church -- an institution devoted to sexism, homophobia, racism and extreme right-wing looney-tunes political views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utahstudmuffin2 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, this is simple enforcement of copyright. The Church is within its legal prerogative to determine how its copyrighted material is and is not distributed, just as any other copyright holder is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.47.225 (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting that a site, such as wikinews would publish something COPYRIGHTED as it says, IN BOLD LETTERS below this very box that I'm typing in, "Do not submit copyrighted work without permission." Hmm, I wonder what that makes them... Anyway, the issue here is that the "Genreal Handbook of Instructions" is a copyrighted book. Wikinews and anyone else needs the express permission of the copyright holder to publish it. I don't really understand the problem here. This country was founded on people obeying the laws set by their appointed representatives. Have we lost site of that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.33.94 (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

For the Admins of this Site, The FLDS Church has nothing to do with the "Mormon" church, the info box on the right-hand side of the screen contains a link to the "401 children..." this is an FLDS news item, NOT a Mormon or LDS news item, and it should be removed, thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.117.33.94 (talk • contribs)
 * The infobox highlights recent stories having to do with the larger topic of Mormonism, of which both the LDS and FLDS Church are subtopics within the larger topic. Cirt (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Is WikiNews PURPOSELY misleading It's Viewers?
If I may, let us examine a trend by Wikinews.

When you look at the following webpage (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Copy_of_handbook_for_leaders_of_the_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints_obtained_by_Wikinews)you can see Wikinews 'Related Stories' section yet if you clearly examine these items you can see that the link about the '401 children...' are NOT in fact members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints but members of the FUNDAMENTAL Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Different church following different beliefs.

I have searched other pages on Wikinews which point out this very fact but does Wikinews correct such errors?

What is Wikinews intent?

I have two other posts regarding the 'LDS' General Handbook of Instructions. Psoting by bashers or 'con' viewpoints are many and easy to spot but I have to wonder the validity of a web-based 'news' organization when it such things occur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.59.236 (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The infobox highlights recent stories having to do with the larger topic of Mormonism, of which both the LDS and FLDS Church are subtopics within the larger topic. Cirt (talk) 04:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this article meets a level of public interest to be revealing, except of course for the publicity you are recieving for publishing their copyrighted material. I thought your articles are to specifically reveal information unknown to the general public and are somehow related to corruption or secrecy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.197.56 (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Laughing Out Loud
I am so sorry to have to tell you this, but wikinews is apparently the most gullible news agency I've ever seen. The "secret" (LOL!) handbook for leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "leaked" (LOL again!) by wikileak has been available to anyone I might care to show it to since I've been a member (going on 35 years now). Any man OR WOMAN who has any type of leadership calling whatsoever (we have a lay ministry) is given all or parts of the handbook pertaining to the specific calling. I am a woman and I've had dozens of callings, like almost all the men and women who are active members. My husband has had the entire handbook many times and I could read anything in it I'd want to, and I have.

There is nothing in there that the majority of the members don't already know! And I don't care if the world knows it, too. The sample pieces of "leaked information" you provided in your article are nothing spectacular - what's the big deal?

I suppose that those who know nothing about us might misunderstand some things, but it's easy to explain if anyone bothers to just ask. And as for the groups/people that provided the handbook to wikileak, they have an axe to grind, for whatever reasons are beyond me. The rest of us are happy to tell anyone and everyone ALL about our church. We'd like them to know what we REALLY believe and how we REALLY do things, and not the half-truths these groups spread around. Did you even talk to any faithful members of the Church? You certainly didn't quote any, if you did. What kind of news reporting is that?

I'll be watching to see if you dare print this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.27.105 (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

FLDS Church and LDS Church ARE NOT THE SAME
Why are there references to the FLDS church in the same area as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saint's (LDS Church) information? The two churches are not related in any way and are not the same faith. You should do more study so you know what you are referring to on your web site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.8.229.171 (talk) 02:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "What guided the selection of i..."
What guided the selection of items from the handbook? Was it an attempt to shock the readers? This represents less than 0.3% of the entire handbook, but if this is the most controversial items you could find, I don't see the point in quoting them. They are not the most important matters in this handbook, by far. What about quoting sections that discuss how leaders should always serve others and love them? Why weren't these quoted as well?

Definitely not a neutral point of view, and very poor journalism. &mdash;220.253.161.238 (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)