Morality of Mormonleaks

[Fether]

Thoughts on viewing articles from Mormonleaks? 

 

[Jane_Doe]

Any Leaks sight is by definition stealing and using secret combinations.  

[Backroads]

People who get their panties in a twist if you don't read the links.

[Grunt]

I don't see a problem with a "leaks" site that leaks issues and problems.  I do have issues with people leaking private things (like Masonic rituals) for no reason other than to be a jerk.  Personally, I don't go on Mormon Leaks because I don't particularly care for the negativity and find little there of value that I wouldn't read in the news.

I did go there to read the transcript from the MTC case after I saw it on another source.  

[Rob Osborn]

8 hours ago, Fether said:

Thoughts on viewing articles from Mormonleaks? 

 

Hum...its kind of like getting your news from PBS or CNN. 

[Guest]

1) Don't spread around copyrighted information.
2) Don't lie or mischaracterize or in any way mislead.

As long as you follow these rules, people do what they do.  Some people have a chip on their shoulder and make something good into something evil even when there was nothing evil about it (audio of the meeting with experts in the field to become more educated about certain issues that the Church might want to help out with).

[NeuroTypical]

19 hours ago, Fether said:

Thoughts on viewing articles from Mormonleaks? 

Well, a "leak", by definition, is an unauthorized making-public of something that the owners wish to not make public.  Basically, it involves theft.  So it starts out on the wrong foot.  That said, the vast majority of the leaks I've encountered (with the possible exception of this latest one if it is ever confirmed Elder Asay knew), have only been evidence that the church is what it claims to be, and is peopled by good folks trying their best to do what's right.   

Learning that apostles of this global church, who hold enough power to occasionally make a global impact, are paid about the same as a midwest pastor over a small-medium size congregation?  Heart warming insight into genuinely honest and dedicated men.  Even my anarchist facebook arguing buddy had to crowbar a few slivers of praise out of himself over the news.

Listening to the brethren getting practical advice from experts on this or that topic, as they research and pray and formulate opinions which eventually go into general conference talks and church policy?  Confidence building.  

Hearing the secret details about the church's food storage and emergency preparedness activities, and noting the complete lack of melodramatic apocalyptic callout nonsense?  Priceless.

And yeah, the latest MTC president leak where an old guy admits to sinning and doing bad?  We learned the church heard about the activities a quarter of a century later, and immediately called the cops and told them everything.  The news is tragic and I can't really rejoice much because of the subject matter, but I'm left scratching my head and trying to find out what the church could have done better, or different, or more. 

So, I'm torn.  Don't steal stuff that's not yours.  But when I look at the stolen stuff, I see additional evidence that I'm in the right church.

Good juicy leaks involve drugs or hookers or political dealmaking, or power brokering, or at least something nefarious.  Or at the barest minimum, embarrassing. Haven't seen any of that from mormonleaks.

Edited March 26, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[anatess2]

Morality of Mormonleaks is like asking for the morality of guns or knives or frying pans.  The morality is not in the tool, it's in how the tool is wielded.

For example, I'm on the side of Snowden.  

[NightSG]

9 hours ago, Carborendum said:

1) Don't spread around copyrighted information.

The BoM is copyrighted.  Better go stop those bigmouth missionaries.

[mordorbund]

On 3/26/2018 at 11:11 AM, NeuroTypical said:

Well, a "leak", by definition, is an unauthorized making-public of something that the owners wish to not make public.  Basically, it involves theft.  So it starts out on the wrong foot.  That said, the vast majority of the leaks I've encountered (with the possible exception of this latest one if it is ever confirmed Elder Asay knew), have only been evidence that the church is what it claims to be, and is peopled by good folks trying their best to do what's right.   

Learning that apostles of this global church, who hold enough power to occasionally make a global impact, are paid about the same as a midwest pastor over a small-medium size congregation?  Heart warming insight into genuinely honest and dedicated men.  Even my anarchist facebook arguing buddy had to crowbar a few slivers of praise out of himself over the news.

Listening to the brethren getting practical advice from experts on this or that topic, as they research and pray and formulate opinions which eventually go into general conference talks and church policy?  Confidence building.  

Hearing the secret details about the church's food storage and emergency preparedness activities, and noting the complete lack of melodramatic apocalyptic callout nonsense?  Priceless.

And yeah, the latest MTC president leak where an old guy admits to sinning and doing bad?  We learned the church heard about the activities a quarter of a century later, and immediately called the cops and told them everything.  The news is tragic and I can't really rejoice much because of the subject matter, but I'm left scratching my head and trying to find out what the church could have done better, or different, or more. 

So, I'm torn.  Don't steal stuff that's not yours.  But when I look at the stolen stuff, I see additional evidence that I'm in the right church.

Good juicy leaks involve drugs or hookers or political dealmaking, or power brokering, or at least something nefarious.  Or at the barest minimum, embarrassing. Haven't seen any of that from mormonleaks.

I've had similar thoughts, and that's led me to wonder if we're dealing with a sheep in wolf's clothing.

[NeuroTypical]

That's an interesting phrase. Sheep: Good and innocent.  Wolf: Nefarious and dangerous.  By definition, stealing stuff is neither good nor innocent.  But what if the ultimate goal is?

I know there's a kind of person out there who believes information should be free and readily available to everyone.  "Can't stop the signal" for the fans of Firefly.  To these folks, the content of the info is less important than making it accessible.  These folks are zealous about "give people the right to see everything and make up their own minds".   In their minds, the ethical component is more along the lines of Make it available: Good.  Keep it private: Nefarious.  They don't care what "it" actually is.  (Or, at least the impact of the content is of secondary importance.)

These folks are foundationally different from folks with an agenda, who seek to use information to forward that agenda, either by spreading it around or keeping it private.

I only can guess at the motivations of the mormon leaks people.  I am guessing they are trying to expose the church and show everyone the dark parts, the stains, the hypocrisy and double-standards and nefarious parts of the church.  I am guessing they believe stuff like: 
- Apostles getting briefings = revelation isn't a thing and there is no God and the church is a lie.
- Hiding details on paychecks = church leaders are in it for the money and power.
- Info about the church's assets and how they're used = proof they are an evil corporate empire.

Thing is, I watch all that stuff, and see it as evidence leading to the exact opposite conclusion. 

Edited March 27, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[JohnsonJones]

I think the people at Mormonleaks are excessively Anti-Mormon.  They normally seek to publish anything they can that they HOPE will reflect badly on the LDS church.

They have done this via various means, in some arenas via individuals at Church headquarters or other locations who are breaking the law in giving out paperwork.  Mormonleaks has tried to stay legal (by blacking out personal information and other items) I think, but it's a precarious line they travel.

Morally, I suppose it depends on whether you think wikileaks is moral or not.

However, have no mistakes, those individuals in charge of Mormonleaks, from all I can tell are out to try to destroy the LDS church and thus they DO have an agenda and what they publish or "leak" is related to that agenda in some way or fashion which they hope will bring down the LDS church.

[mordorbund]

On 3/27/2018 at 11:43 AM, NeuroTypical said:

That's an interesting phrase. Sheep: Good and innocent.  Wolf: Nefarious and dangerous.  By definition, stealing stuff is neither good nor innocent.  But what if the ultimate goal is?

They're not white hats, because if they were their information would remain confidential. I don't view them as black hats because the stuff they're publishing (as you noted) aren't really scandals. Sure, the headlines are (Mormon leader salaries exposed! Contents of secret meetings leaked! etc, ETC!!!), but the content isn't (it's really quite modest, they're getting experts to keep them up to date on world and social events, etc). Which means either they're clever enough to get the content but not smart enough to recognize them as non-issues not worthy of publishing if the intent is to tear down the Church**.

So currently I view them as gray hats. They're Robin Hooding Church documents for "the benefit of the church". If publishing documents that aren't yours is akin to pirating music on your computer, then it's harmless. If, on the other hand, publishing documents that aren't yours is akin to pirating musing on your computer, then it's morally wrong and should not be supported.

**Then again, I've heard enough podcasts and read enough sites that labor to build a ponderous case about non-issues, so I suppose they could fall in that group.

[NeuroTypical]

Whatever else they are, they have a sense of humor.  They issued a press release on April 1st, publishing the lost 116 pages of the Book of Mormon.   

Site rules dictate I don't link to Mormonleaks.  However, the link they provide to the lost 116 pages is appropriate.  Here it is. 

[JohnsonJones]

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Whatever else they are, they have a sense of humor.  They issued a press release on April 1st, publishing the lost 116 pages of the Book of Mormon.   

Site rules dictate I don't link to Mormonleaks.  However, the link they provide to the lost 116 pages is appropriate.  Here it is. 

Did you just Rick Roll us?

 

Well, then have some more Rick...with a Mormon message???

 

[NeuroTypical]

42 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Did you just Rick Roll us?

No, MormonLeaks did.   With a real press release on April 1.

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

No, MormonLeaks did.   With a real press release on April 1.

Say what you want about them, but that was funny. 

[Guest]

One thing I never understood about the Rick Roll. Is his song supposed to be good or bad?  Or nothing to do with the song.  Or it just happened to be the song that was picked.

Yes, I'm trying to analyze the cultural phenomenon known as the "Rick Roll."

[Guest MormonGator]

20 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

 Is his song supposed to be good or bad? 

It's @mirkwoods favorite song, so it's inherently awful.

[zil]

12 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It's @mirkwoods favorite song, so it's inherently awful.

I thought "Together Forever" was his favorite.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, zil said:

I thought "Together Forever" was his favorite.

That you know two songs by Rick whatsisname is incredibly disturbing @zil 

[zil]

5 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

That you know two songs by Rick whatsisname is incredibly disturbing @zil 

  Well, I could try to defend myself by pointing out that NT's "rick rolling" bit pointed at "Never Gonna Give You Up" (and, for the first time, I looked up the definition of that term, which I've seen, but never in context, so I never knew this song was involved), and that JJ then posted a link to "Together Forever".  So it wasn't a challenge to name two of his songs.  I could also try to defend myself by truthfully pointing out that I couldn't name any more of his songs to save my life.

Of course, it could have something to do with the fact that I was a teenager when these songs came out.

Regardless, I respect your right to be disturbed.

[Guest MormonGator]

35 minutes ago, zil said:

  Well, I could try to defend myself by pointing out that NT's "rick rolling" bit pointed at "Never Gonna Give You Up" (and, for the first time, I looked up the definition of that term, which I've seen, but never in context, so I never knew this song was involved), and that JJ then posted a link to "Together Forever".  So it wasn't a challenge to name two of his songs.  I could also try to defend myself by truthfully pointing out that I couldn't name any more of his songs to save my life.

Of course, it could have something to do with the fact that I was a teenager when these songs came out.

Regardless, I respect your right to be disturbed.

Eh, it's better than the music you blast in the compound, so...

[zil]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

Eh, it's better than the music you blast in the compound, so...

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, zil said:

I see a demotion in your immediate future young lady!