The Mormon Church/Wikileaks Fiasco (or not-so-fiasco), A Mormon’s Perspective
Hi - you seem to be new here. If you like what you see, please give back by subscribing to my RSS feed!
You can check me out on Twitter, Facebook, or FriendFeed to see what I'm up to. Thanks for visiting!
Note that I’m not going to provide any links to the mentioned content here - you can go research yourself. Unlike Wikileaks, I respect others’ copyright.
One thing you may notice on this blog is that while I rarely pipe in with religious thoughts and my own personal religious beliefs (although I used to quite often), I will not hesitate to step in when a Social Media-related religious event occurs. An interesting Groundswell is happening today between the Headquarters of my Faith, and the controversial anonymous sharing site, Wikileaks. However, I don’t think it’s occurring in the way people think it is.
This morning on Slashdot you may have seen an article about the Mormon Church (or “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints“, which is the Official name of the Church) sending a Cease and Desist to Wikileaks for posting links to a Copyrighted, yet old version (1999) of the Church’s “General Handbook of Instructions” for others to freely download.
I don’t understand why this is news. Having been in LDS Bishoprics before as a Clerk and Executive Secretary, I am very familiar with this manual. It is simply a guide for leaders of the Church to know how to council and guide members of the Church, and according to my understanding, NOT (fully) DOCTRINE. It is simply a Policy manual, and while Bishops and other Leaders of the church may follow its council, in the end they are left up to their own judgement (encouraged by the Church “to follow the promptings of the Spirit”) to decide how to handle matters in the Church. The Church considers the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Perl of Great Price to be the Official Doctrine of the Church.
The Mormon Church is simply requesting Wikileaks remove the content because it is their own IP, not Wikileaks, and they are removing it as they would any other Church-owned and copyrighted document. Wikileaks and other sites are also portraying the contents of the manual as though it is doctrine for the general membership of the Mormon church, when in reality it was only intended as a guide for Leaders in the first place. The Mormon church has to protect the dissemination of false information as well.
In Charlene Li’s and Josh Bernoff’s book, Groundswell, she starts out with an example that happened last year on Digg.com where a user shared a blog post about how the HD-DVD Encryption standard had been broken. AACS LA quickly sent a cease and desist to Digg.com and the Digg.com founders promptly removed the link. Before Digg knew it, their own users began to backlash against them, occupying the entire front page of Digg with copies of the HD DVD encryption algorithm. Digg had a Groundswell of its own between its own users and it knew it had to do something. What did they do? They listened to their users and put the link back up, stating they would go down fighting rather than ignore their users.
I think with the post on SlashDot this morning some people may be thinking (and some hoping) a similar Groundswell is going to occur with the Mormon Church. Those that think so will be pleasantly surprised - there’s a difference between a Groundswell of your own members and those outside of your membership talking about you. How do you handle a Groundswell of people outside of your customer-base/user-base/member-base? You get in the conversation!
I want to share with you a video from Elder Russell M. Ballard, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Quorum of 12 Apostles - religious or not, I’d like to encourage you to read this not just from a religious perspective, but also a business perspective and how you can disseminate correct information about your business:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is getting in the Groundswell through its own members. They encourage their members to blog, Twitter, get on Facebook, and clarify misconceptions. The Mormon Church will overcome this Groundswell (if you can even call it one) via its own membership, correcting misinformation Socially rather than through news releases and other means and letting the general media and blogosphere say what it believes. They have a Youtube channel here. They are on Twitter. They have a Facebook Page.
I encourage other churches and even businesses to take this response - there is a lot that can be applied from a religious, or even non-religious perspective from this. When you get your own followers of any business, brand, or religion to spread correct information about your brand it can overcome any misinformation spread about it.
Wikileaks is wrong in this case - they are sharing copyrighted information, not owned by themselves, and without the permission of the owner. The LDS Church isn’t going after them because the shared links are “secret”, but rather it is copyrighted material, and Wikileaks does not have permission to share it! As a book author and software developer I don’t want people using my content without my permission (which I’m generally pretty relaxed on in my personally owned content). Why would I want Wikileaks sharing the content I personally own on their site let alone others?
Add New Comment
Viewing 21 Comments
Thanks. Your comment is awaiting approval by a moderator.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Ars did, to a small extent, but most other's will not.
Good, succinct post. Random unrelated thing, I got my mission call to the Philippines about 2 weeks ago.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
The Church wouldn't be pursuing this if they were afraid of secrecy. It is
simply a copyright issue, and WikiLeaks is breaking the law and stealing
someone else's property.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
another viewpoint (although I doubt they'll post it - they have been pretty
anti-mormon lately).
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Not nice, but not illegal either. At least it doesn't seem so to me.
The site actually hosting the handbook, on the other hand, is definitely in violation. One of the two sites that had hosted the book has already taken it down.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
of instructions" on wikileaks and you'll see the linked document - there is
one hosted right on Wikileaks servers, along with excerpts from the
document. Wikileaks is contributing to the copyright infringement, and they
know it.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
By the way, the handbook has a section on the use of the Logotype. The image at the top of your post violates the trademark policies. ;-)
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
section - am I not supposed to be using the Logo at all?
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
I'm not trying to be inflammatory, btw. I'm just trying to see the entire picture. At the very least, you have to admit that the situation raises interesting questions.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
donors in the event of disaster and need. They also have one of the largest
welfare programs in the world. With their worldwide presence and strong
understanding of foreign languages they have a unique opportunity to get
money places it normally wouldn't be accepted. Every penny, even the
"widows mite" is accounted for, and audited carefully, and tracked with
great care. I don't get how you can come to my blog, offend my religion,
and say my Church "extracts money from people at their lowest" without any
supporting facts or knowledge. Your knee-jerk reaction is the same response
the likes of WikiLeaks and others are giving to this whole situation.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
version on their site though.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
I think you're right. Technically this is an infringement of copyright but it is not just a legal issue. The LDS Church is wishy-washy, at best, about copyright enforcement. There's copyrighted material all over the net being looked-over.
In this case, the manual is very widely distributed. The post about it on wikileak seems to err on the side of informational. The Church is not impacted financially. And the Church, unless it is embarrassed about the content, should view its publication as innocuous and harmless from an image point of view.
If they are embarrassed by it, they should say so and change their policies.
So the question then becomes, what really are they trying to protect themselves from?
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Another reason is that there are many situations that members should meet with their leaders for counsel. I am sure that many would be tempted to try to resolve or rationalize decisions by simply reading the guidelines in the handbook when they should be seeking counsel from their leaders.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
this is necessary, but only beneficial to those it was written for. It
wasn't written for the general membership, nor is it intended to be doctrine
for them - it is intended to be simply a guide for Leaders, and the
discussion going on here is the exact reason they don't want it
disseminated. When it gets into the public hands it gets taken as doctrine
and scripture when it wasn't intended to be so in the first place. It says
so straight in the first paragraph of the manual that Leaders are to take
the counsel within prayerfully - that means in the end it is up to the
judgement of the leaders, using the book only as a guide. The Guide is not
doctrine, nor was it intended to be so and Wikileaks is making it appear to
be as scripture, intended for the public comsumption.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
In reference to use of the logo there's a discussion on tech.lds.org including an official response from the Church. In particular:
http://tech.lds.org/forum/showthread.php?t=384&...
In short, if you want to use the logo you need to ask permission first. Not being able to find a legal version on the site might have clued you in that they don't want you to use it.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
unaware of their policy until now.
Jesse
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Thanks for this great post! You are right!