Allegedly secret LDS Church documents leaked

[ALarson]

http://fox13now.com/2016/09/22/allegedly-secret-lds-church-documents-leaked/

I guess that so far, this person who supposedly works on the "inside" has leaked over 50 documents, some marked classified or confidential.

I have not read any of them, but from the discussions on other forums, there may be a few things of interest and then mostly just standard things that any corporation would produce.  

He's stated that he's saving the best docs for last and still has many to post, we'll see.

Here is a link to the docs (I hope it's ok to post this link, if not, I'll delete it mods):

https://www.reddit.com/user/mormondocuments/submitted/

.

Edited September 23, 2016 by ALarson

[Jeanne]

46 minutes ago, ALarson said:

http://fox13now.com/2016/09/22/allegedly-secret-lds-church-documents-leaked/

I guess that so far, this person who supposedly works on the "inside" has leaked over 50 documents, some marked classified or confidential.

I have not read any of them, but from the discussions on other forums, there may be a few things of interest and then mostly just standard things that any corporation would produce.  

He's stated that he's saving the best docs for last and still has many to post, we'll see.

Here is a link to the docs (I hope it's ok to post this link, if not, I'll delete it mods):

https://www.reddit.com/user/mormondocuments/submitted/

.

I read them all yesterday.  Some of them not so interesting and some were very interesting...It confirms an operation of any corporation but $$$$ are amazing and their plans for web sites and how to do them and how to interview people were heartbreaking.  In any case nothing real serious ..these documents are from 2013 and 2014.  But I must say, the church should not be to pleased with some of this.  One in particular is marked..secret.

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I read them all yesterday.  Some of them not so interesting and some were very interesting...It confirms an operation of any corporation but $$$$ are amazing and their plans for web sites and how to do them and how to interview people were heartbreaking.  In any case nothing real serious ..these documents are from 2013 and 2014.  But I must say, the church should not be to pleased with some of this.  One in particular is marked..secret.

Thanks for the summary.

I guess he's still releasing more this morning.  The last one released was within the last hour ("Guidelines for UN  Government Relations Couple in Geneva") and I read through that one.  I wasn't aware there was a couple called to do this and it's interesting.

Here's one person's take on it (comments are below the document):

Quote

Out of all the things in the leaks, this is one thing that we certainly did not know. I never saw anybody mention that the church had a senior couple in Geneva trying to influence the UN. This is a pretty solid revelation.

 

Edited September 23, 2016 by ALarson

[Duncan]

Just now, ALarson said:

Thanks for the summary.

I guess he's still releasing more this morning.  The last one released was within the last hour ("Guidelines for UN  Government Relations Couple in Geneva") and I read through that one.  I wasn't aware there was a couple called to do this and it's interesting.

Here's one person's take on it (comments are below the document):

 

I think........I read a blog about a couple who did that a few years ago. I don't know if I would use the word influence as more of a Church representative. Correction looks like a Church rep. for the EU

[HappyJackWagon]

The biggest potential bombshell I've seen mentioned (I'm skeptical it will really be a bomb) is the A-D ranking of members according to faithfulness. I saw docs that differentiated between these different groups but the groups weren't defined so I'm not sure how why they were supposed to be a categorization of faithfulness.

Time will tell. I'll be keeping an eye on it but so far I don't think there's anything very noteworthy.

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Time will tell. I'll be keeping an eye on it but so far I don't think there's anything very noteworthy.

I agree and will be doing the same.

There is definitely some financial information that many will find interesting (I guess).  

 

[halconero]

25 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The biggest potential bombshell I've seen mentioned (I'm skeptical it will really be a bomb) is the A-D ranking of members according to faithfulness. I saw docs that differentiated between these different groups but the groups weren't defined so I'm not sure how why they were supposed to be a categorization of faithfulness.

Time will tell. I'll be keeping an eye on it but so far I don't think there's anything very noteworthy.

Even that bombshell I saw pretty reasonable. It didn't actually criticize people in different categories, and was basically a "how can we reach out" in different ways to these people.

To be frank, the whole experience has turned into something of a joke on reddit. The fact that the guy tried to pass off a 1963 CIA Manual as an LDS Security Interrogation Manual, and then pulled stock footage from a security company's website and tried to portray that as the Church's secret nefarious monitoring system undermines the endeavor. Not to mention repeatedly asking for donations in bitcoins.

The reaction on the /r/atheism thread generally centers around non-member Atheists asking about the relevance of these, and desperate /r/exmormon posters trying to convince them that it's the biggest news ever. Even a good portion (I suspect the majority) of /r/exmormon posters are disappointed with the banality of the documents, while /r/latterdaysaints is having a field day making fun of the whole thing.

It seems that every single time a "bomshell" or "surprise" is revealed the only splash it makes is how disappointing it turns out to be for most of those opposed to the Church.

Edited September 23, 2016 by halconero

[Tacenda]

And I agree with one reddit comment. It's not cool to expose people's names on the documents. Just like people usually don't like their actual names exposed on discussion boards. Kind of sad and definitely underhanded to me.

[ALarson]

Just now, Tacenda said:

And I agree with one reddit comment. It's not cool to expose people's names on the documents. Just like people usually don't like their actual names exposed on discussion boards. Kind of sad and definitely underhanded to me.

It looks like he's redacting the personal information now, which is a good thing.

.

Edited September 23, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

I just read this one: "Financial Standard 6230:  Accessing and Securing Financial Information".  It is interesting to learn that there are only 7 people who have full access to the financial data of the church (The First Presidency, the Presiding Bishop, and the Finance and Records Managing Director / Church Controller).

It also states that members of the seventy and area presidencies are allowed to access "Financial records/amounts for an individual member" if in the process of selecting ecclesiastical leaders.

That may support something that was asked here on the forum lately (whether or not they look at a person's tithing records when selecting a SP).  

.

 

Edited September 23, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, halconero said:

To be frank, the whole experience has turned into something of a joke on reddit. The fact that the guy tried to pass off a 1963 CIA Manual as an LDS Security Interrogation Manual, and then pulled stock footage from a security company's website and tried to portray that as the Church's secret nefarious monitoring system undermines the endeavor. Not to mention repeatedly asking for donations in bitcoins.

I think that was clarified and he wasn't passing that off as a church doc, but was only copying what was in the files of the church (which included parts of that manual).

I don't think this is a joke and most over there don't see it that way (of course there are always those who mock anything).  This guy seems a bit crazed, but is releasing what appear to be real church documents.  If they interest you, fine, if not, that's fine too.  

I just don't see much to get worked up over with what he's released so far.  He's still at it and we'll see.  

.

Edited September 23, 2016 by ALarson

[Duncan]

27 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I just read this one: "Financial Standard 6230:  Accessing and Securing Financial Information".  It is interesting to learn that there are only 7 people who have full access to the financial data of the church (The First Presidency, the Presiding Bishop, and the Finance and Records Managing Director / Church Controller).

It also states that members of the seventy and area presidencies are allowed to access "Financial records/amounts for an individual member" if in the process of selecting ecclesiastical leaders.

That may support something that was asked here on the forum lately (whether or not they look at a person's tithing records when selecting a SP).  

.

 

I can see tithing records maybe but we got a new SP 18 months ago and he wasn't the wealthiest man on the interview list, he's probably the most sane guy they picked though!

From Pres. Hinckley, April 1982 GC

"While we are speaking of financial matters, I wish to touch on another thing. In the last little while I have received two letters, the import of which was to complain that eligibility to serve in responsible office in the Church is equated with financial success, that in order for one to qualify to serve as a bishop or stake president it is necessary to demonstrate a capacity to gather and husband wealth, and that men of modest means and humble vocations never seem to qualify. If that is the perception, I am sorry, because it is a false perception. Out of the experience of nearly a quarter of a century in organizing and reorganizing scores of stakes, I can say that the financial worth of a man was the least of all considerations in selecting a stake president. One of the most loved and able presidents I know, in whose humble home I have stayed, is a carpenter by trade who earns his living with his tools. He presided over a stake in which lived many men of affluence who looked to him with love and respect as their leader. Within the past month I have been with another stake president who is a carpenter who earns his living with his hands. He too is deeply loved and respected as the spiritual leader of his people. The stake president of course must be the spiritual anchor. He also must be able to manage the complex affairs of the stake, and therefore he must have administrative ability or at least the capacity to learn. On occasion, he stands as a judge of the people and must be a man of wisdom and discernment. But wealth and financial success are not criteria for Church service. I think I speak for all of my brethren when I say that in selecting a man to preside over a stake of Zion there is much of prayer with much of seeking the will of the Lord, and only when that will is recognized is action taken."

Edited September 23, 2016 by Duncan

[halconero]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think that was clarified and he wasn't passing that off as a church doc, but was only copying what was in the files of the church (which included parts of that manual).

I don't think this is a joke and most over there don't see it that way (of course there are always those who mock anything).  This guy seems a bit crazed, but is releasing what appear to be real church documents.  If they interest you, fine, if not, that's fine too.  

I just don't see much to get worked up over with what he's released so far.  He's still at it and we'll see.  

.

I should clarify. I don't mean that it's a joke as in fake, but a joke in the sense that, as you said, some people are getting more excited about them than it really warrants.

With regards to the CIA Doc and the Security one, I don't buy it. The time stamp on those ones came out around the same time he started asking for bitcoin, and his (now deleted posts) insisting it was all real and he had seen it. Also, the CIA Doc is pretty publicly posted on archives, and his insistence that the photo was part of some Security Center indicate that this was an attempt on his part to stir up controversy when he realized the banal reaction these were getting.

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I can see tithing records maybe but we got a new SP 18 months ago and he wasn't the wealthiest man on the interview list, he's probably the most sane guy they picked though!

I doubt it would be total donations that would be looked at, but consistency in paying tithes and offerings. 

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, halconero said:

I should clarify. I don't mean that it's a joke as in fake, but a joke in the sense that, as you said, some people are getting more excited about them than it really warrants.

With regards to the CIA Doc and the Security one, I don't buy it. The time stamp on those ones came out around the same time he started asking for bitcoin, and his (now deleted posts) insisting it was all real and he had seen it. Also, the CIA Doc is pretty publicly posted on archives, and his insistence that the photo was part of some Security Center indicate that this was an attempt on his part to stir up controversy when he realized the banal reaction these were getting.

I've seen the explanations since.  I have to doubt he'd think people would believe the doc was written by the church as that is fairly obvious.  I'm glad it's been clarified for those who wondered though.

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I doubt it would be total donations that would be looked at, but consistency in paying tithes and offerings. 

Read the doc.  Here's what it states they will have access to: "Tithing donations", "Fast offering donations", and "Financial records / amounts for an individual member" and are "Only to be used in the process of selecting ecclesiastical leaders".

That seems pretty straight forward and clear to me.

.

Edited September 23, 2016 by ALarson

[halconero]

This is my favourite conversation piece about the leaks so far, on the /r/latterdaysaints (the faithful subreddit) thread on the subject:

Edited September 23, 2016 by halconero

[halconero]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I've seen the explanations since.  I have to doubt he'd think people would believe the doc was written by the church as that is fairly obvious.  I'm glad it's been clarified for those who wondered though.

I'm not so sure. From his personal post and comments since then, the guy doesn't seem to be quite in a right place. Throwing around ideas that he's a revolutionary hero, begging for food and donations, claiming that he's both unemployed, but also taking a day off from work to post these. Most of these have been deleted a few hours after originally posted, but it smacks of someone going through some desperate and hard times, and striving to be taken seriously. I feel sorry for him to be honest. 

[Jeanne]

49 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And I agree with one reddit comment. It's not cool to expose people's names on the documents. Just like people usually don't like their actual names exposed on discussion boards. Kind of sad and definitely underhanded to me.

I agree.  I understand the guy is very angry..but he is going to get sued..I just know it.

[Jeanne]

6 minutes ago, halconero said:

I'm not so sure. From his personal post and comments since then, the guy doesn't seem to be quite in a right place. Throwing around ideas that he's a revolutionary hero, begging for food and donations, claiming that he's both unemployed, but also taking a day off from work to post these. Most of these have been deleted a few hours after originally posted, but it smacks of someone going through some desperate and hard times, and striving to be taken seriously. I feel sorry for him to be honest. 

I feel sorry for him too.  In actuality, it is hard to lose family and friends..but we have all been through it and dealt with it differently.  In a month..or even less, he will be hanging his head low for losing his cool;,.

 

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I agree.  I understand the guy is very angry..but he is going to get sued..I just know it.

Yeah, I think once they figure out who he is (I'd imagine the leaders already know), he'll be hearing from an attorney.  I am glad he has redacted the personal info now.

His personal message was pretty crazy and full of bitterness and anger.  

[cdowis]

7 minutes ago, halconero said:

I'm not so sure. From his personal post and comments since then, the guy doesn't seem to be quite in a right place. Throwing around ideas that he's a revolutionary hero, begging for food and donations, claiming that he's both unemployed, but also taking a day off from work to post these. Most of these have been deleted a few hours after originally posted, but it smacks of someone going through some desperate and hard times, and striving to be taken seriously. I feel sorry for him to be honest. 

Now he's got his bragging rights, his 15 minutes of fame.  His next bid for attention is to sue the church for.... deceptive paperwork, spelling errors, direct involvement with the CIA, NSA, and the Forest Service.

[ksfisher]

38 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Read the doc.  Here's what it states they will have access to: "Tithing donations", "Fast offering donations", and "Financial records / amounts for an individual member" and are "Only to be used in the process of selecting ecclesiastical leaders".

That seems pretty straight forward and clear to me.

.

Amounts could either refer to the total amount on a donation summary report or the line by line amounts on a detail report.

[Jeanne]

17 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Amounts could either refer to the total amount on a donation summary report or the line by line amounts on a detail report.

And why would any of this matter if leaders are revealed by God???  In another document one will note books purchased from Deseret Book.  One of them is a LeGrande Richards book.  It is purchased for the Temple librairies??  In any case, They buy these and then it takes tithe money and makes it for profit money..Huh...I am finding this more interesting than I thought.  They are wise and clever I must say.

Edited September 23, 2016 by Jeanne
oney

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Amounts could either refer to the total amount on a donation summary report or the line by line amounts on a detail report.

It states that they have access to the "financial records and amounts for an individual member" to be "used in the process of selecting an ecclesiastical leader".

Did you even look at the doc?  (I'll see if I can link directly to that one doc, if you're interested in reading it.)