Comments on: Your (not) Monday poll #20

By: California Condor

California Condor — Sun, 18 May 2008 15:09:33 +0000

I think the church should just put the CHI on lds.org. From the illicit Internet copy I scanned, it seems pretty mundane.

Starfoxy (15)

Your husband’s suggestion is hysterical.

By: Kari

Kari — Fri, 16 May 2008 20:29:19 +0000

Steve (#2) – I’ve had leaders who wouldn’t let anyone “not authorized” to read the CHI. They would look up the information and quote it, but would never actually let the person handle the book. The majority of leaders, however, would as you state, allow a member to read it, if only in the Bishop’s office.

JT (#38) – One of the reasons, in my very humble (and probably wrong) opinion, the church doesn’t disseminate the CHI is that if members don’t know what’s in it, then “the unwritten order of things” can be promulgated. I live in a ward, no joke, that doesn’t allow women to open sacrament meeting with prayer, only allows the young men to bless/pass the sacrament if they are in white shirts, and doesn’t allow any fund-raising activities for camp. All of which the CHI would indicate, implicitly or explicitly, are not the order of things. Maybe that’s just my pessimistic way of agreeing that if the CHI was widely disseminated then “every member a bishop.”

Now, on the other hand, maybe the information should be more widely disseminated. I have a friend who didn’t know, as Ronan mentioned, that the CHI contains a statement against vasectomies. My friend, who found out about the statement only after he had his, was quite remorseful and told me he wouldn’t have had it had he known what the CHI said.

By: Steve Evans

Steve Evans — Fri, 16 May 2008 19:03:14 +0000

mondo cool, you’re not quite right about how to obtain a copyright. No registration with the government is required for copyright to attach to materials, although you can register (and there are certain benefits to registration).

But you are generally correct that the CHI doesn’t really have anything of remark in it.

By: mondo cool

mondo cool — Fri, 16 May 2008 18:47:26 +0000

Somebody help me here, please. To obtain a copyright, don’t you have to submit a copy to some government agency or something which determines that you are truly the originator of the work? If I’m correct, then all this crapola about the CHI being “secret” is just a bunch of huff-n-puff by those who want to make a stink. I’ve read the CHI Book 1 when I was in a Bishopric, and I don’t recall anything that I haven’t read elsewhere in Church publications.
I think one of the things the Church objected to in the Tanner case was that they were making money off of using material copyrighted by the Church to attack the Church. To me, that’s akin to thinking it’s okay for someone to teach your kids to hate you because they hate you.
What, should the Church only copyright the stuff that everybody else says it’s okay for us to copyright?

By: Tiny g

Tiny g — Fri, 16 May 2008 18:40:38 +0000

#37 – I’m a recording engineer . . it’s hard.

By: JT

JT — Fri, 16 May 2008 18:06:45 +0000

Ronan’s first comment gives four reasons for the church to not pursue enforcement of the copyrights. If there is already a fairly big stink in the news about it, does it make the first three PR-related reasons a moot point? Or do you think it could get worse?

By: JT

JT — Fri, 16 May 2008 17:53:07 +0000

What do you (referring to anyone reading this) suppose is/are the church’s reason(s) for trying to keep handbooks only in the hands of those whose positions require them to use it? And for having the handbooks destroyed when a new one comes out? The only one I’ve heard postulated here is the “every member a bishop” idea, which I think is probably part of it, but I have to think that there is more to it. While priesthood leaders are welcome to teach and share from it, the church has always been careful about who possesses it. Are the reasons similar to why a corporation’s management handbook is not available to the staff? If so, what are those reasons?

By: dug

dug — Fri, 16 May 2008 17:36:25 +0000

#36, How’s that music industry battle working out for you?

By: Tiny g

Tiny g — Fri, 16 May 2008 16:41:36 +0000

As someone who works it the music industry I am completely for the rights of a company, person, or church to control is copyrights. In this day of “free music” and “everything can be found on the web” we’re losing any value for our intellectual property.

It doesn’t matter what the material contains, the owner should have to right to control how, when, and where it’s distributed.

I don’t care if ignorant people say “look, the crazy Mormon’s are hiding their crazy cult book”. It’s not about us, or them, or Scientology, or anything other than a copyright violation that should be enforced.

By: Steve Evans

Steve Evans — Fri, 16 May 2008 14:53:23 +0000

Er, anon (#30), care to tell me what my position is? Mark D.’s right.