SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) is notoriously secretive about the inner workings of its ruling hierarchy, the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve Apostles. With an estimated annual income in the billions and assets in the tens of billions, the church does not release financial statements to its members or the general public. The meetings and decision-making processes of the Mormon leaders are similarly undisclosed.
That changed Sunday when a group called Mormon Leaks posted more than a dozen videos to YouTube, containing briefing sessions with the hierarchy. The briefings were apparently recorded "live" and include candid comments and discussion from the apostles in attendance. The leak appeared to be timed to coincide with the church's semi-annual conference that took place over the weekend.
Ironically, one of the briefings discusses WikiLeaks and the possibility of a similar leak targeting the church, but the apostles shown in the video appear to more concerned about Chelsea (nee Bradley) Manning's sexuality than they are about threats to their own secrets.
One briefing that is particularly troubling was given by a former U.S. senator from Oregon, Gordon H. Smith. Smith, a member of the church, admits that he values obedience to the hierarchy and loyalty to the church more than he does his office. He also describes using his office and staff to gain political favors for the church, and justifies the Iraq War by claiming that it will allow Mormon missionaries access to Middle Eastern nations. At one point (around the 26 minute mark), Smith possibly reveals classified information to the group, or at least his willingness to do so.
The videos appear to come from the same whistle blower who leaked a trove of church documents on-line about a week ago. Those documents are here and the leaker has announced that many more are coming.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by lcall on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:08PM
Thanks: I think you have well-described a common misconception. I think we agree that blindly following anything would be extremely risky, and a time when it would be a good idea is hard to think of. Faith, in my experience, doesn't mean that at all. It means that based on repeatable personal experiences, I can prove things true for myself, but not necessarily in a way I can transfer to you. You have to perform the test yourself, and may then act accordingly. The "act accordingly" part sometimes means following through on the lessons learned in the test, even though we don't know *everything* yet. For example, based on experience, someone could convince me that it is worth studying a new subject, trying an unfamiliar dish, or learning a new skill, even though I haven't learned it yet -- they can't give me the skill or the experience, I have to do it myself, based on some reason for confidence that it leads to something worthwhile. But I can still try it for myself and see. Having gained that small piece of experience for myself, I can determine if that was a good thing and if it is worth proceeding -- ie, acting on what I have learned to that point. That "acting on what I have learned" part is often called faith, but it really means something like confidence. There are very, very many witnesses of the things I'm saying, but they can't give it to you, you have to find out for yourself. The last chapter of the Book of Mormon (among others) describes the exact details. It's available free online.