Comments:Mormon church warns Wikileaks over documents

The Morman Church's historical record of putting its political nose where it does not belong should have taught it a lesson by now. Evidentily not. I don't see why a religious organisation would be so interested in protecting its alleged copywrite. which most lawyers will admit has a very narrow and unsupported history. Those who disagree should post here the opinions of appellate courts which they claim to be authoritative and supportive. THEY WONT BECAUSE SUCH CASES DO NOT EXIST!! And while I believe the church has an ABSOLUTE, UNFETTERED RIGHT TO SPEAK ITS RELIGIOUS MIND, THAT DOES NOT GIVE IT THE ABILITY TO MAKE POLITICAL STATEMENTS WHICH PURPORT TO BE RELIGIOUS. DEMAND THAT THEY PUBLISH - THEY WONT BECAUSE THEY CANT. AS AN ATTORNEY FOR 46 YEARS FIGHTIHG FOR RELIGIOUS FRREEDOM UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT WHICH MS Palin had better learn if she intends to sound Presidentially qualified, freedopm of religion is a two way steert/ In excxhange for the Governments' promises to not unterfere ion the free exercisew of religion, we the People promise to not create pseudo-=religious political views into the marketplace of protected religious ideas. This is a straight forward, easily understood quid pro quo. All we need do, is observe the rules. I will not interfere with Mormons nor will I attempt to copyright their Book of MORMON, AND THEY SHOULD LEAVE MY OLD TESTAMENT, NEW Testament and Quran alone. Easy enough, yes? Go forth and multiply folks. You have demonstratsd you do it so very well. This is a perfect time of the year for people of all faiths to get together and show we can live together peaceably.For we are about to be tested as never before, by rogues who pretend to speak in Allah's voice. They don't but voices of Muslim authority had better tell these men the facts and the law. before Islamic blood begins to run in American streets.

it to have the full ability to speak oits religtiopous message  and Surely, it is in their interest for their message to reach as many people as posible? I completely agree. Imagine the Christian Church suing someone for selling the bible without a license. Anonymous101 (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the publishers of more recent translations of the Bible can sue (or send cease and desist notices) for unauthorised publication of these translations - since they are copyright works, which I understand they have licenced from the original translators. That's why, for instance, there are no legal and free online copies of the New International Version. Notmyopinion (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're quite correct. All religions that openly and honestly believe what they preach have a natural desire to spread their teachings.  It's typically cults that try to hide their teachings from outsiders.  --on WP as User:Kasreyn 167.127.107.8 19:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They are doing the same thing the "Church" of Scientology has done in the past. No religion should have the ability to claim that their beleifs are controlled material and should only be accessable to who they decide.  That's what cults do.  RJM (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not about Mormon teachings, which they quite strenuously publish. It's about the practices and procedures of the organisation, which they do not necessarily want to receive the same publicity. Notmyopinion (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actuality this is about copyrights, they would do the same thing if you published their hymns, as I am sure the Baptists or Catholics or anyone else would do. 71.32.198.10 19:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

News Update : Jan 6, 2010
Major news agencies report that WikiLinks has gone offline - citing it being overwelmed by the fiscal cost of some 100 plus lawsuits and that also its servers were being overwelmed by users uploading massive document files related to bank frauds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MainTour (talk • contribs) 01:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "Mormons, money, morality, and ..."
Mormons, money, morality, and meglomania &mdash;173.188.196.69 (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)