ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/gdm/archive/gdm.199912

Internet Message Format | 1999-12-11 | 42KB

From: "Perry L. Porter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ---> Passive Aggression and the Believer
Date: 01 Dec 1999 21:59:19 -0700

http://bioag.byu.edu/zoology/bioethics/passiveagg.htm


Passive Aggression and the Believer
K-Lynn Paul

Dialogue, Vol.10, No.4, p.86

A Priesthood group of six was contemplating an activity proposed by the
group leader. One member objected, but the remaining five supported the
proposal so enthusiastically that it was scheduled for the following
Saturday. When the day arrived, the objector was the only one to attend.
Why do people give lip service to Church principles, practices and
programs, but by their actions disavow them? Why do people accept callings
or responsibilities in the Church and then make only token attempts to
fulfill them-- or fail to fulfill them altogether?

Many reasons have been suggested, but to my knowledge one fundamental
explanation has been overlooked: "Passive- aggression," a psychiatric
term, defined as the use of such means as obstructionism, pouting,
procrastination, intentional inefficiency, or stubbornness to reflect the
disagreement or hostility one dares not express openly. Often directed
toward individuals or institutions upon which a person is over- dependent,
it is one of the more widespread phenomena observed by mental health
professionals.

Typical examples include the alcoholic, who when angry at boss or spouse
does not speak up, but who retaliates indirectly by getting drunk; the
wife whose anger at her husband takes the form of indifference; the
husband who refuses to discuss mutual problems with his wife; the wife who
becomes "sick" the day her husband had planned to go fishing; and the
husband who, unhappy with his family relationships, pursues a hobby to
their neglect. These passive means really communicate the same message as
open active disagreement or conflict. But unlike open disagreement, these
methods cannot solve problems because the problems are not brought into
the open.

Most well-adjusted people use passive-aggression occasionally, for
example, in social settings where one may act "politely" interested, with
no intention of following up a suggestion. However, those who use
passive-aggression extensively are considered to have a chronically
maladaptive and self- defeating "personality disorder."

Among church members passive-aggression affects such areas as marriage and
parent-child relationships as well as member- church and leader-follower
relationships. In marriage passive- aggression can be particularly
devastating when spouses react against each other rather than discuss and
work out differences. When parents treat each other passive-aggressively,
their children too learn this method for handling family problems. The
tendency may learn be passed on from generation to generation.

In the family a small child may dawdle when his parents are in a hurry,
keep his room messy when his parents are perfectionistic housecleaners, or
"forget" what he is continually told to do. A teenager may patiently
listen to his parents, nod in agreement and mumble, "Sure, Dad," and then
go out and do exactly the opposite. He may have learned by experience that
it is useless to try to communicate or that an attempt will be made to
dissuade him from his true feelings. In some families where the policy is
to avoid confrontation at all costs, passive- aggression is the only
recourse. Individuals with this background often conceive of anger only in
terms of top-blowing like a volcanic eruption, and are unaware that anger
can be expressed in such useful ways as self-assertion or in the defense
of one's rights.

Within the Church, a person may accept a position and then fail to fulfill
it, or he may agree to attend a function and then fail to do so--without
notifying anyone--often rationalizing his absence by minor medical
complaints. Of course failure to attend a function after agreeing to come
does not automatically imply passive-aggression. A person can have a
legitimate excuse or he may simply be living such a chaotic life, that he
does not know from day to day what he will be able to do. But when
passive- aggression is present, it can be dealt with directly only when it
is recognized by leaders. For example, if a church member states that he
feels certain meetings are unnecessary and that his only purpose in
attending them is for the "body count," he may be viewed as hostile to the
Church. If, however, he says, "I'll be there," and then when questioned
later about his absence reports, "I just couldn't make it," the leader may
think he needs to be lectured on the importance of the particular meeting.
After hearing the lecture he returns good standing by saying, "I'll try
harder next time." But next time may never come. Or he may actually go to
the meeting in question but slack off somewhere else.

Why is it necessary to be passive-aggressive if one does not wish to
attend some function or hold a certain job? Having heard such axioms as,
"One should never turn down a church calling," members in many cases do
not feel that they have the option to say, "No." One sister finally
accepted a position she did not want as the Friend representative because
she was told, "You have to have a church job." When she made no effort to
sell subscriptions, she was told she would "be happy and get blessings" if
she did. Therefore she went through the motions, but passive-aggressively
undermined what she was doing with the statement, "I really don't think
it's as good as another children's magazine I know of." If members could
say no without being considered bad people or without having to carry a
burden of guilt, church leaders could honestly work out with each member
what is expected of him and what he will do.

Members who have testimonies, but who do not fully accept a specific
church policy or procedure, often eventually resort to passive-aggression.
The person who speaks out with constructive criticism frequently finds
himself lumped in the category of "fault-finder," "backbiter" or
"nonbeliever." Some church leaders are prone to view all criticism as a
threat. They often appear unable or unwilling to differentiate between the
person who offers a constructive criticism in the hope that the Church can
better fulfill its purpose, and the chronic complainer who finds fault
with everything his Bishop or the Church says or does. When an individual
does find his constructive criticism viewed as a threat and hears himself
denounced or otherwise put down, he may feel that he has no recourse but
to speak only to sympathetic soulmates or to resist passively. The local
authority, in his self-perceived role of exhorter and encourager, may view
such a person as someone who needs to be "worked with." In cases of true
need, however, encouragement helps. But if the person is passively
resisting, this response may only solidify his resistance.

A particular problem occurs when a husband or a wife has such a demanding
church job that the spouse becomes frustrated because the partner is gone
from home so much. He or she cannot speak to the brethren because they
were the ones who made the call and are probably so overworked themselves
that the complainer would feel guilty. He or she cannot speak directly to
the partner as this would not be supporting the calling. At this point
some spouses may become unconsciously hostile, with the hostility cropping
out in little ways--subtle nagging about unrelated topics, greater
irritability with the children or even lack of affection. Others may
simply become too frustrated to handle all of the added responsibilities
without support from the absent mate.

How prevalent is passive-aggression among church members? While it will
vary according to circumstance and locality, some examples may give some
idea of the extent to which it pervades the Church. In Sunday School a
teacher may ask, "And what happened to Joseph Smith in 1820?" A question
like this one may be appropriate for the investigator class or the Junior
Sunday School, but not for the regular teenage or adult classes. Does
anyone say, "Look, don't ask us such obvious questions"? No, people
respond passively with a long period of silence, until someone finally
recites the answer so the class can move on. Perhaps courtesy is coupled
with passive-aggression in this example. However, in similar classes,
youth may sit with glazed eyes, tuning out what is said, or occasionally
regurgitating a stock answer--and then go out and live as though the
Gospel has no part in their lives.

Home teachers procrastinate to the end of the month in spite of all
encouragement to the contrary. Members never quite get to their genealogy.
Occasionally a non-member or an inactive husband becomes
passive-aggressive. Knowing that, more than anything else, his wife would
like to have him active in the Church, he may resist as a
passive-aggressive way of getting back at her-- perhaps because of some
unrelated grievance or problem in the marriage.

In the mission field missionaries used to be instructed to pressure their
contacts with such questions as, "Now Mr. Brown, is there any good reason
you can't be in Church next Sunday?" Questions were worded so that people
could not easily say no. Missionaries found people making appointments for
discussions and then leaving home rather than feeling free to state openly
that they were not interested in the Gospel. Baptism dates were supposed
to be set on the first discussion, regardless of whether it was
appropriate for the particular contact involved, with the result that many
members were afraid to refer their friends to the missionaries.
Missionaries could not disagree with these instructions from above and so
either had to follow them or resist passively.

Believing as we do in inspired leaders, it still can be difficult to tell
where Gospel principles end and leaders' personal views begin,
particularly when the latter are preached from the pulpit. Often I think
it is hard for the leaders themselves to distinguish which is which.
Leaders are prone to view a disagreement with their personal views as a
rebellious attack upon the Church. So members keep their own counsel and
do as they think best. Nowhere is this more prevalent than on the subject
of birth control. More members practice birth control than publicly
advocate it. It is instructive to observe the transition in attitude which
occurs in the young couple, first loudly promulgating the view expressed
by some authorities, and then moderating their view as they have four,
five or six children in as many years. Suddenly the couple stops having
children, even though the wife has ten to fifteen reproductive years left!

Just why is passive-aggression a problem to the Church and its members?
First, the strength of the organization is sapped when leaders never know
when they can count on people to fulfill their responsibilities. The
quality of a church function is lowered when a teacher does not appear and
some unprepared person must pinch-hit. The enthusiasm of members is sapped
when they feel self-expression is futile.

Second, and perhaps even more important, is that the strength of character
of individuals within the Church is jeopardized. Passive-aggressive
individuals seldom live up to their potential when they are
passive-aggressive from their upbringing or when they become that way as a
result of conditions within the Church. It is ironic that the very
qualities of character which led people out of their former religions into
the light of the Gospel--such qualities as willingness to express
dissatisfaction, to question authority and refusal to accept doctrines
that appear unreasonable--are felt to be suspect if they are manifested in
the members. And yet it does seem at times that some would prefer to
prevent the probing, analyzing, questioning and discussing that are for
many the means to the understanding of Gospel principles.

What are some of the causes of passive-aggression in the Church? Excessive
authoritarianism is one. As Joseph Smith recorded, "We have learned by sad
experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as
soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will
immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. Hence many are called,
but few are chosen,"--in other words, maintenance of power and influence
"by virtue of the priesthood," rather than by "persuasion, by long-
suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned." (D&C 121:
39-41)

A second cause is insecurity. Basically a rigid or authoritarian person
under threat or stress becomes even more so. Thus under the "threat" of a
member questioning a church policy, an authority may hold the line even
more strongly, and feel compelled to refute the member or to set him
straight.

A third cause can be attributed to members, not leaders. Many people have
a desire for instructions spelled out in precise detail rather than
general guidelines. These members try to pressure church leaders into
pronouncing "the final word" on every issue--fostering both increased
authoritarianism, and its concomitant--passive-aggression.

The fourth cause, mentioned before, is family upbringing. An
interrelationship exists between church culture and family rearing
practices, with each affecting the other.

What should be done about passive-aggression in the Church? Should it be
eliminated? Can it be eliminated? Is it ever justified? There are
institutional changes which if undertaken would make passive-aggression
unnecessary. And there are individual steps to be taken if the
institutional changes are not forthcoming. I feel that the Church can
develop an atmosphere where questions can be raised and then--can be left
as questions. It should be emphasized in terms that can be understood by
all that a person's loyalty and integrity and devotion to the Gospel are
not to be doubted solely because he raises a question or expresses a
dissenting opinion. As a corollary, members should be permitted to decline
acceptance of positions without having to feel that they are "bad" people.

In social science and family relations classes, the principle of
passive-aggression needs to be discussed, including the fact that it is as
potentially serious as active aggression. Child rearing particularly needs
to be discussed since passive- aggressive behavior patterns resulting from
upbringing often persist even in situations where they are inappropriate
or self- defeating. In a similar vein, the Church, through its programs,
could encourage marriage partners to air and work out their differences
rather than silently reacting against each other. As a former Bishop of
mine said, "If two partners in a marriage always agree on every issue,
it's a sign that at least one of them has stopped thinking."

But what should we do if the Church as an institution or our local
leadership cannot or will not tolerate more freedom of expression? What if
the authorized channel for problems, grievances or suggestions is the
problem? When we as individuals feel trapped in such a situation and
wonder if dissent is possible, I would recommend the following steps: (1)
Examine ourselves and our motives. Do we really disagree with what has
been stated or just with the way it was stated? When someone presents an
idea in an offensive manner, let us have the charity to accept the
principle for its own merits, perhaps saying, "I agree with what you say,
but you say it so dogmatically that I want to turn you off," and thereby
also give him valuable feedback. (2) Try speaking out. To remain silent
would be to prejudge or write off our leaders and our fellow members as
unwilling or incapable of listening to us. Even if we think it won't do
any good, or that the group has closed minds, let us make the attempt. We
may even find allies who had previously kept silent. If what we say is
accepted, we have accomplished our goal. If we are ignored or put down,
the responsibility must be on the shoulders of others. (3) Finally, after
repeated attempts, if we find that speaking out is futile or that it may
result in an unacceptable loss of status or position in the congregation,
there is always passive-aggression.



http://bioag.byu.edu/zoology/bioethics/passiveagg.htm


[This says so much, that it needs no commentary]



Perry     <[e-mail]>    http://pobox.com/~plporter

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Perry L. Porter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ---> no man to heaven
Date: 03 Dec 1999 14:16:07 -0700


http://bioag.byu.edu/zoology/bioethics/1945.htm

A 1945 Perspective
This 1945 ward teachers' message on the obedience apparently required of
Church members, the response it sparked from a concerned Salt Lake City
Unitarian minister, and the response of Church President George Albert
Smith to both documents are below. Typographical errors have been
corrected in brackets. All italics appear as underlining in the original.
The Cope and Smith letters are in Special Collections, Marriott Library,
University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah--the J. Raymond Cope Collection
(Association no. 691) and the George A. Smith Papers (Manuscript no. 36,
Box 63-8A), respectively.



Ward Teachers' Message for June, 1945
"Sustaining the General Authorities of the Church"

No Latter-day Saint is compelled to sustain the General Authorities of the
Church. When given the opportunity to vote on the proposition in any of
the several conferences held throughout the Church, he may indicate his
willingness to sustain them by raising his right hand; he may manifest his
opposition in like manner; or he may ignore the opportunity entirely.
There is no element of coercion or force in this or any other Church
procedure.

However, there is the principle of honor involved in the member's choice.
When a person raises his hand to sustain Church leaders as "prophets,
seers, and revelators," it is the same as a promise and a covenant to
follow their leadership and to abide by their counsel as the living
oracles of God. Consequently, any subsequent act or word of mouth which is
at variance with the will of the Lord as taught by the leaders of the
Church places the sincerity of such person in serious doubt. One could
scarcely have claim upon complete integrity, if he raises his hand to
sustain the Authorities of the Church and then proceeds in opposition to
their counsel.

Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or opposes, whether actively or
otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the "prophets, seers, and
revelators" of the Church is cultivating the spirit of apostasy. One
cannot speak evil of the Lord's anointed and retain the Holy Spirit in his
heart.

It should be remembered that Lucifer has a very cunning way of convincing
unsuspecting souls that the General Authorities of the Church are as
likely to be wrong as they are to be right. This sort of game is Satan's
favorite pastime, and he has practiced it on believing souls since Adam.
He wins a great victory when he can get members of the Church to speak out
against their leaders and to "do their own thinking." He specializes in
suggesting that our leaders are in error while he plays the blinding rays
of apostasy in the eyes of those whom he thus beguiles. What cunning! And
to think that some of our members are deceived by this trickery.

The following words of the Prophet Joseph Smith should be memorized by
every Latter-day Saint and repeated often enough to insure their never
being forgotten:

I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an
eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man
who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that
they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know
assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does
not repent, will apostatize, as God lives (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph
Smith, pp. 156-57).

When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a
plan--it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which
is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy.
God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate
repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave
him a stranger to the kingdom of God.

--Improvement Era, June 1945, p. 354.



Letter of Reverend J. Raymond Cope
First Unitarian Society

13th East at Sixth South Street

Salt Lake City 2, Utah

J. Raymond Cope, Ph.D.

Minister

November 16, 1945

President George Albert Smith

Church of Jesus Christ of L.D.S.,

Office of the President,

Salt Lake City.



Dear President Smith:

It has been one of the great privilege[s] of my life to have lived for the
past four years in Salt Lake City, and to have become personally
acquainted with many of the leaders of the L.D.S. Church. From them I have
learned many things, and the spirit of friendliness which is found in our
relationships is a source of unending delight to me. It is because I have
found you and the other leaders so very charitable and sympathetic that I
make so bold as to write you this letter.

May I first assure you of my good will; that there is not one note of
hostility in attitude. I am confident that you will understand why I
write, and that we have a common interest in the problem.

Last June there was delivered to my door a short religious editorial,
prepared by one of your leaders, entitled "Sustaining the General
Authorities of the Church." Its message amazed me a great deal, and with
the passing of weeks my distur[b]ance became very acute. It might have
passed, except that several members of your Church have come to me to
discuss the subject. The most recent was a prominent doctor, who, because
of this tract, he affirms, is losting [sic] his religious faith. He is a
large man, and I became impressed with his deep sincerity as he broke down
and wept like a boy. I am convinced that he is undergoing a very dangerous
experience.

Permit me to quote the passages which seem to be brought most in question:

"He (Lucifer) wins a great victory when he can get members of the Church
to speak against their leaders and to 'do their own thinking[.]'"

"When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a
plan--it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which
is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of
controversy...."

I do not know who is responsible for this statement, but I am sure it is
doing inestimable harm to many who have no other reason to question the
integrity of the Church leaders. Many people are suffering because of
this. My reply to each of those who have spoken to me is "please do not
become distrubed [sic], for this cannot be the position of the true
leaders. And, from my knowledge of the early writings of your leaders, I
must assume this to be non-representitive [sic].

Several years ago, when I first became acquainted with the L.D.S. Church,
I read extensively in the texts, and there are many passages which may be
used to give a better expression to the vision and genius of your Faith. I
cite but one, although there are many others which are familiar to you.

Quoting from the Discourses of Brigham Young, as Selected and Arranged by
John A. Widtsoe, in the Chapter on "The Priesthood":

"I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their
leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are
led by him. I am fearful that they settle down in a state of blind
self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their
leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwa[r]t the
purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could
give their leaders did they know for themselves, by the revelations of
Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know,
by the whisperings of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their
leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not."

This quotation from Brigham Young is a wonderful passage, and it has been
on the basis of such freedom that persons like myself have grown to have a
deep feeling of kinship with the L.D.S. Church. It is in keeping with the
high traditions of my Unitarian background that the gains made by my
fellow workers are seen as gains for us all. It is a source of regret to
all of us when one stone is discovered to bar the way to deeper faith
within any soul.

With an assurance of my continued good-will and friendliness,

Most cordially yours,

J. Raymond Cope. [typed]


-----

Letter of President George Albert Smith
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Office of the First Presidency

Salt Lake City, Utah

December 7, 1945

Dr. J. Raymond Cope

First Unitarian Society

13th East at 6th South Street

Salt Lake City, Utah



My dear Dr. Cope:

I have read with interest and deep concern your letter of November 16,
1945, in which you make special comment on "a short religious editorial
prepared by one of your (our) leaders entitled "Sustaining the General
Authorities of the Church'". You say that you read the message with
amazement, and that you have since been disturbed because of its effect
upon members of the Church.

I am gratified with the spirit of friendliness that pervades your letter,
and thank you for having taken the time to write to me.

The leaflet to which you refer, and from which you quote in your letter,
was not "prepared" by "one of our leaders." However, one or more of them
inadvertently permitted the paragraph to pass uncensored. By their so
doing, not a few members of the Church have been upset in their feelings,
and General Authorities have been embarrassed.

I am pleased to assure you that you are right in your attitude that the
passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church. Even to
imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is
grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church, which is that every
individual must obtain for himself a testimony of the truth of the Gospel,
must, through the redemption of Jesus Christ, work out his own salvation,
and is personally responsible to His Maker for his individual acts. The
Lord Himself does not attempt coercion in His desire and effort to give
peace and salvation to His children. He gives the principles of life and
true progress, but leaves every person free to choose or to reject His
teachings. This plan the Authorities of the Church try to follow.

The Prophet Joseph Smith once said: "I want liberty of thinking and
believing as I please." This liberty he and his successors in the
leadership of the Church have granted to every other member thereof.

On one occasion in answer to the question by a prominent visitor how he
governed his people, the Prophet answered: "I teach them correct
principles, and they govern themselves."

Again, as recorded in the History of the Church (Volume 5, page 498 [499]
Joseph Smith said further: "If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I
bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I
cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any
man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut
its own way."

I cite these few quotations, from many that might be given, merely to
confirm your good and true opinion that the Church gives to every man his
free agency, and admonishes him always to use the reason and good judgment
with which God has blessed him.

In the advocacy of this principle leaders of the Church not only join
congregations in singing but quote frequently the following:

"Know this, that every soul is free

To choose his life and what he'll be,

For this eternal truth is given

That God will force no man to heaven."

Again I thank you for your manifest friendliness and for your expressed
willingness to cooperate in every way to establish good will and harmony
among the people with whom we are jointly laboring to bring brotherhood
and tolerance.

Faithfully yours,

Geo. Albert Smith [signed]


http://bioag.byu.edu/zoology/bioethics/1945.htm



[It is to bad that George Albert Smith didn't feel strong enough about
what he said to name, names, or publish his letter in the next Improvment
Era!!!!]




Perry     <[e-mail]>    http://pobox.com/~plporter

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Perry L. Porter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ---> CHI
Date: 10 Dec 1999 23:33:01 -0700



By CARL S. KAPLAN

Copyright Decision Threatens Freedom to Link

n a ruling that could undermine the freedom to create links on the Web, a
federal judge in Utah has temporarily barred two critics of the Mormon
Church from posting on their Web site the Internet addresses of other
sites featuring pirated copies of a Mormon text.

In issuing a preliminary injunction on Monday, Judge Tena Campbell of the
United States District Court in Salt Lake City said it was likely that the
critics, Sandra and Jerald Tanner, had engaged in contributory copyright
infringement when they posted the addresses of three Web sites that they
knew, or should have known, contained the copies. The copyrighted material
was the text of the Church Handbook of Instructions, a
limited-distribution book that enables lay clergy to administer the
affairs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Lawyers for Intellectual Reserve Inc., a corporation that holds the
intellectual property assets of the Mormon Church, praised Judge
Campbell's decision. The temporary order will stay in effect until the
case is tried or settled.

"We are certainly pleased the court is upholding copyright law," said
Berne S. Broadbent, copyright lawyer for IRI.

But other lawyers found the court's decision disturbing and, if it stands,
a possibly dangerous precedent that could inhibit one of the most
fundamental features of the Web -- the ability to direct viewers from one
Web site to another. Although the Tanners' case revolves around the
posting of Internet addresses or URLs, and not actual linking, the
copyright issues are similar, lawyers said.

"If that decision ultimately holds up, then linking is definitely dead,"
said Jeffrey R. Kuester, a copyright lawyer who practices cyberspace law
at Thomas, Kayden, Horstemeyer & Risley in Atlanta. "If you can't post an
address without running into copyright infringement, how can you link?"

"The Web is all about links," Kuester said. "Without linking, there is no
Web."

The Tanners, a married couple who are long-time critics of the Mormon
Church, are founders of the Utah Lighthouse Ministry, which operates a Web
site with commentary about the Mormons and other information.

In July, the Tanners posted on their Web site the tenth chapter of the
Church Handbook of Instructions, along with portions of two other chapters
-- a total of 17 pages of the 160-page book. Brian M. Barnard, a lawyer
for the Tanners, said in an interview that the couple posted the excerpts
in an effort to help people who had inquired about Church activities. The
Tanners received a copy of the book in electronic form from an anonymous
source, he said.

In October, the church, acting through its IRI arm, filed a lawsuit
against the Tanners in United States District Court for the Central
Division of Utah, claiming that the posting of the book's 17 pages
amounted to copyright infringement. Later, Judge Campbell issued an
initial, temporary restraining order banning the direct posting of the
book's contents.

In early November, according to legal papers, the Tanners posted on their
site an e-mail from a reader that said: "Church Handbook of Instructions
is back online!" The e-mail went on to list three Internet addresses at
which copies of the entire Handbook or portions of it could be obtained.

Claiming that the Tanners were improperly pointing viewers to sites that
contained illegal copies of the handbook, lawyers for the Mormon Church
succeeded in getting Judge Campbell to issue an expanded restraining
order. This week, she also issued a formal preliminary injunction, which
prohibits the Tanners from directly posting the contents of the handbook
or posting on their site "addresses to Web sites that defendants know, or
have reason to know, contain the material alleged to infringe plaintiff's
copyright."

In reaching her decision, Judge Campbell made two key conclusions.

First, she reasoned that anyone who went to a Web site and viewed a
pirated copy of the handbook was probably engaging in direct copyright
infringement, because that viewer's browser automatically makes a local
copy of the text.

In addition, Judge Campbell reckoned that by posting the addresses to the
pirate sites after they were ordered to take down the handbook, and by
otherwise assisting people who wished to locate the pirate sites, the
Tanners were liable under a theory of contributory copyright infringement.
By their actions, the Tanners "actively encouraged" browsers to directly
infringe the church's copyright, Judge Campbell wrote.

What makes Judge Campbell's 10-page opinion significant, lawyers said, is
that there are few other instances where a court has ruled on the practice
of knowingly linking to or posting addresses for sites with infringing
material.

Sandra Tanner said she and her husband are considering an appeal of Judge
Campbell's order to the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th
Circuit. Otherwise, the case will proceed to trial.

"I don't believe it is illegal to tell someone where to go to read the
handbook," Tanner said.

Broadbent, the lawyer for IRI, claimed the court's order was a
straightforward application of the law of contributory infringement. "We
regard what the Tanners did as an end-run around the initial order," he
said.

Broadbent added that IRI recently contacted the operator of Prestige Elite
Communications in Australia, as well as half a dozen other sites which, he
claimed, had posted portions of the handbook, requesting that they stop
directly infringing church copyrights. He said that with one exception,
all the sites IRI contacted have taken down the material. David Gerard,
the operator of the Prestige site, did not immediately respond to an
e-mail request for an interview.

Jessica Litman, a law professor at Wayne State University in Detroit and
an expert on intellectual property, said she believes the court was wrong
to issue a preliminary injunction.

Pointing out that there can be no contributory infringement without direct
infringement, she said it was clear to her that when members of the public
used the addresses provided by the Tanners and visited a site to look at
the handbook, any copies their browsers made were permissible and
protected by the concept of fair use.

In any case, Litman asserted, the mere posting of a Web address could not
amount to actively encouraging someone else's infringement. "If I give a
footnote in a law review article for a plagiarized book, that seems to be
just telling people where the book is, not materially facilitating their
infringement," she said. "This decision is like saying that providing
footnotes to illegal material is illegal."

The upshot, said Litman, is that the decision could discourage people from
giving addresses of Web sites or linking to them out of concern for
copyright liability.

Jessica R. Friedman, a copyright lawyer with Reboul, MacMurray, Hewitt,
Maynard & Kristol, a New York firm, said she also believed that the court
went too far in issuing a preliminary injunction. But she said the case
was a "close call" given the letter of copyright law.

"It's not an unreasonable decision, but it is a little scary," she said.

CYBER LAW JOURNAL is published weekly, on Fridays. Click here for a list
of links to other columns in the series.



Related Sites These sites are not part of The New York Times on the Web,
and The Times has no control over their content or availability.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Utah Lighthouse Ministry

Utah Lighthouse Ministry's news page on lawsuit, Intellectual Reserve Inc.
v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry Inc.

Prestige Elite Communications

Prestige Elite Communications' page on Mormon dispute

Carl S. Kaplan at [e-mail] welcomes your comments and
suggestions.




Home | Site Index | Site Search | Forums | Archives | Marketplace

Quick News | Page One Plus | International | National/N.Y. | Business |
Technology | Science | Sports | Weather | Editorial | Op-Ed | Arts |
Automobiles | Books | Diversions | Job Market | Real Estate | Travel

Help/Feedback | Classifieds | Services | New York Today

Copyright 1999 The New York Times Company

=================================

[Now for the commentary that was directed to the writer of the article
above:


[e-mail]

http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/12/cyber/cyberlaw/10law.html

In your article you have the following link:

 Prestige Elite Communications' page on Mormon dispute

http://www.xenu.netizen.com.au/lds/

at the bottom of that past are links to places that have the copy
protected CHI.

1.http://truth2k.tripod.com/
2.http://truth2k1.tripod.com/
3.kolob.bizland.com
4.http://www.home.ch/~spaw1736/sciento-vs-internet/AA.htm,
http://www.home.ch/~spaw1736/sciento-vs-internet/AB.zip (WinZip of .htm
file),
http://www.home.ch/~spaw1736/sciento-vs-internet/AC.zip (folio .nfo)


Are you not doing what the Tanners are being sued for?

Aren't you worried that this multi-Billion dollar organization is going to
sue YOU?

Also why do they say that by looking at a site you gain a copy?

Are they talking about the cashed copy?

If they don't save or if they don't click and save the FTPed file,  As
soon as they close Netscape they have NOTHING!

Most people don't know how to retrieve things from their cash.]




Perry     <[e-mail]>    http://pobox.com/~plporter

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Perry L. Porter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ---> More CHI on the web controversy
Date: 12 Dec 1999 12:21:30 -0700

[The last post relating to the CHI, very much relates to what I found on a
web site]

http://www.xs4all.nl/~oracle/chi/

That web pages reproduced below.

-------------------------


The Book on Name Removal and some relevant links


It seems that the LDS church has just picked a fight about the circulation
of the documents on this site. Taking the example of the so-called
"church" of scientology, the LDS church is claiming the exclusive rights
to the documents, based on copyright.

By their nature, religious documents and documents pertaining to the
practice of a religion can never be subject to exclusive use. Freedom of
religion, i.e. the freedom to practice one's religion without interference
and without the obligation to belong to and/or pay any particular church,
is protected in the constitutions of most countries and takes precedence
over copyright. This is particularly true in cases where copyright is not
used to promote the spreading of the religious scriptures in question, but
to suppress it instead.

Furthermore, the religious and other practices of any church are a public
matter; they are everybody's business and everybody has the right to know
and debate them. This is not only the natural consequence of the respect
that religion enjoys in our Western democracies, but also a pre-requisite
to it. Only if a church is open to public scrutiny can it claim the right
to practise its faith undisturbed and - yet more - to proselityse. The
freedom to operate that churches are granted in our democracies is not
God-given, and it is rather disturbing to see that one church after
another try to have it their way both ways. That's called "eating the pie
and having it" and works very seldom. These considerations, together with
the fact that the LDS church is trying to suppress the publication of the
following documents is the reason that they are published here. Complaints
(and compliments) can be directed to


Zenon Panoussis
2e van Swindenstraat 188
1093 XA Amsterdam
The Netherlands

-----

For a more information about this book and the controversy around it, see
Mirele's and David's pages.

-----

The book in HTML format, divided in chapters.

The book in HTML format, all in one file.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~oracle/chi/chi00.htm


Index in HTML format, but not linking back to the text.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~oracle/chi/chi99.htm

The book in Folio Infobase format, all in one file.
[this link is bad at the moment and actually points at the previous link.]

This entire site, including this page, in ZIP format.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~oracle/chi/chiall.zip

Download and peruse as you may need. Also, if you have the possibility to
mirror this site, do so by downloading the ZIP file and unzipping it in
one directory. The more mirrors there are around, the more difficult it
will be for anyone to suppress this publication.

[Commentary, the cat is out of the bag, or in church parlance, the pillow
has been burst open and the feathers have been blown about from the top of
a hill and can not (all) be gathered back.

The church needs to release it's  strangle hold on this information and
just PUBLISH it from their own web page, like responsible adults should
and let ALL members at their leisure know all the rules by which the game
is being played!]





Perry     <[e-mail]>    http://pobox.com/~plporter

-