X-Message-Number: 16329
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 21:41:44 +0000 ()
From: Louis Epstein <>
Subject: Copyrights,Atheists/LDS

[more catchup]

On 13 May 2001, CryoNet wrote:

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Message #16264 Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 11:00:37 -0500
> From: Steve Jackson <>
> Subject: Re: CryoNet #16257 - #16261
> An anonymous poster signing itself "fair4us" wrote . . .
> >In Cryonet #16256, Paul Wakfer quoted a number of excerpts from private
> >email of Mr. Desrosier. . . what of the ethical issue of posting private
> >email to a public >forum?
> There is no issue here.
> Without taking any sides in the actual dispute . . . there is nothing
> unethical about reposting either the public statements of an individual, or
> the mail they send you. Mail belongs to the receiver; the sender has no
> right to complain if it's reposted. If you don't want your views made
> public, you can certainly *ask* recipients to keep them private. Unless
> they *agree* to that request, they have NO obligation not to publish their
> own correspondence.

I believe the copyright laws are exactly the opposite.
You are not allowed to publish letters you receive without
the consent of the author,who owns the copyright of the

The recipient owns *the physical letter*,and can also
prevent its publication,but it is the intellectual
property of the sender.Just like buying a manuscript
doesn't make you the owner of the copyright.
>           The heck with PGP keys; finger for Geek Code. Fnord.

What about Fsud,Fest,and Fouest?

Why should only one Ffrench Fcompass direction get all the press?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Message #16266 Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 13:08:46 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Doug Skrecky <>
> Subject: Wakfer vs. Desrosier
> In Message #16259 fair4us <> wrote:
> > And what of the ethical issue of posting private email to a public
> > forum, or was Mr. Desrosier's permission first obtained?
> >
> I have this concern as well, and agree everything should be done to
> discourage this practice.

As noted above,I believe the law is on your side.
Though I shrink from a law-enforcement as opposed
to etiquette approach to these matters.

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Message #16268 From: "john grigg" <>
> Subject: a letter to the LDS church
> Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 22:26:07 
> Hello everyone,
> A fellow mormon friend of mine posted this to the extro list.  I thought 
> some of you would find it interesting.  I am rooting for Brent though I
> am  not an atheist like he is.

I confess to bafflement as to why an atheist would seek
to enroll the LDS Church as a supporting organization.

> -------------------------------------
> From: Brent Allsop ()
>         Also, as you know, most of my family and friends are LDS. It
> seems to be a popular belief in the LDS church that "Once the prophet
> has spoken, the thinking has been done."

But LDS prophets from time to time change the stands taken by
previous LDS prophets.Has Gordon B. Hinckley expressed any
views on cryonics?

(I might note that I have studied the Mormon gerontocracy with
interest since childhood.The strictly seniority-based succession
to the Church presidency produces a system where a man born in
1876 became church president in 1970 on the death of a man born
in 1873,and the church is led now in the 21st century by a man
who remembers when his father replaced the family horse wagon
with a Model T.As lifespans lengthen,such institutions may be
seen as leading indicators).

> There is also a "Suspension Endangerment Contacts" section. Here is
> the description from the form for that section:
> ) Suspension Endangerment Contacts.
> ) In case of large financial expenditures being required to fight
> ) legal attacks on your suspension, general financial or legal
> ) set-backs which threaten the suspensions of all Members in
> ) suspension, or the dissolution of Alcor it may be necessary for
> ) Alcor to convert the suspension from Whole Body Suspension to
> ) Neurosuspension or to terminate the suspension.

The former could be a step Alcor,with its bias toward 
decapitation,may take rather too enthusiastically.

> > As a safety measure, you may designate certain individuals(s),
> > organization(s), and/or institution(s) as Suspension Endangerment
> > Contacts. Such a designation does not create a contract with the Suspension
> ) Endangerment Contacts on the part of either the Member or Alcor.
>         What I am asking is: would it be appropriate for me to ask the
> LDS church to be one of these Contacting organizations? To me, such
> would be an indicator as to whether the church is hostile to people
> seeking after eternal life, or would the church be supportive and not
> try to interfere with members seeking after such?

That would put the LDS church in the position of supporting,
not merely not being hostile,to cryonics.They don't seem a 
good bet for such a contact,and why should they put themselves
in such a position for an atheist?

(I note that I personally find both atheism AND LDS theology

>         In addition, could I inform my Home Teachers of my desires,
> and can I ask them if it is OK to add them, as official Home Teachers
> of the LDS church, to the "Contacts" list on this form, and keep the
> form updated with whoever my current Home Teachers, and Bishop are?

(Why is Brent,as an atheist,relying on the organization so much
rather than hoping to be out of it when the time comes that he
may need cryosuspension?)
>         As it says on the form, there is no contract, whatsoever,
> committing anyone on such lists to do anything on my or Alcor's behalf
> when the time comes. For me, it would simply be a critically
> important explicit show of an indication that, even if you do not
> happen to believe in cryonics, that you will not try to take action
> to prevent this from occurring..

I don't think that's what the contact is for.There's a difference
between not taking any preventative action yourself,and being inclined
to resist others' efforts at such action.

>         It's hard to imagine all possible eventualities that might
> become relevant in the future. But for example, being autopsied is a
> big danger to extropians.

Does the ward bishop know what an "extropian" is?

>         As you know, I've been a member of the LDS church my entire
> life. Though I don't believe in all the teachings and practices of
> the church, I do all I can to support my family in the Church. I've
> been a full tithe payer my entire life, held multiple church jobs most
> of my life, I served a mission, primarily because of my
> parents... and so on and so forth. It is my desire to continue this
> support of my family, for as long as is required and as long as this
> is their choice.

He is here not confessing the atheism that John has attributed to
him,so he is not being completely honest with the bishop.On the
other hand he is committing to living a life of religious
hypocrisy,which though I know Heinlein supported it I find
highly unethical.

(A rather strange missionary he must have made..."Believe,
and don't notice that I don't!")

> But my question is, is it within the church's teachings to behave
> similarly in return? I know many LDS do not think to highly of Cryonic
> Preservation. But, will they try to make efforts to frustrate my will?
> Or does the church really teach things
> like: "Let them worship how where and what they may"?

How can ANY religion treat disbelief as of equal validity to
belief,and remain true to its beliefs for the propagation of
which it exists??
Is Brent a "them" or an "us" to the Church?

>         As you know, I am also a member of the UU church. Many UU
> members are "green" people. Some of their beliefs are that the world
> would be much better if humans would just go away and stop polluting
> nature. Some of them believe that people seeking after eternal life
> would be a bad thing. Non the less, most of them support people
> having their own will. They will do anything to try to help their
> will be fulfilled. I've talked to my UU minister, Mark Salkin, about
> this same issue and have made this same request. The UU church is all
> for having Mark Salkin, as a representative of the UU church, being
> listed as a "Suspension Endangerment Contact". This simple fact gives
> me great comfort and peace of mind, for this has indicated to me that
> this is one less thing that I must worry about and try to put effort
> towards anticipating.

I consider the UUs rather wacky as well...from a sensible credo of
a unitary and non-damning God they have become a faith in no faith, 
morality of no morality.

I think that Brent's effort to be a member of two contradictory
faiths would not be very effective at the time he needed suspension.
Imagine the legal people facing representatives from different
people about the same person.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16329