From: Moroni <moroni@scranton.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 03:57:53 +0800
To: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Utah as a Religious Police State [RANT]
In-Reply-To: <324FD588.3FF2@gte.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.960930103159.21149B-100000@user1.scranton.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


    Dale I wouldn't worry about the mountain and what is under it. It is
only genealogical stuff. Salt lake has to wait 100 years or 99 (i Forget)
in order to be able to make the records public. The SSA makes death info
available as soon as the body is cold. And that is on cd rom. Most banks
have contingency plans for having intact records in case of nuclear or
civil disturbance. Again it is under the mountains . 
   As for costs ,the full amount of the custodial costs are born by
members. Originally it was by donations of money and I think now it is
taken from the tithe. That is a sum in excess of 1 billion dollars by the
members.                                                                       
 
On Mon, 30 Sep 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:

> On the below: Gentiles (and Jews) are *very* afraid of Mormons.  Maybe 
> it has something to do with the World's Largest Database (on non-Mormons 
> especially) they keep under that mountain near SLC Utah.
> 
> Moroni wrote:
> > I never cease to be surprised by the interest that gentiles show  in
> > working mormon communities while totally neglecting their own failing
> > areas.
> 
> > On Sun, 29 Sep 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
> > > (I received this message, with "cypherpunks@sybase.com" as well as
> > > "tcmay@sybase.com" (???) cc:ed, so I assume this message was intended for
> > > the Cypherpunks list, with some sybase domain name weirdness, or reflector,
> > > going on.)
> 
> > > At 12:30 PM -0400 9/29/96, Ryan Russell/SYBASE wrote:
> > > >I guess that depends on your definition of liberty.  The Mormons
> > > >originally moved there to have a place to practice their religion,
> > > >and have freedom from persecution.  I suppose one could extend that
> > > >to wanting a place to have the freedom to have a set of rules consistant
> > > >with their beliefs.  Should that include freedom from interferance from
> > > >folks such as yourself who want to change their rules, even though
> > > >you're not presently effected?
> > >
> > > Well, if Utah can rig a way to _secede_ from the Union, your arguments
> > > would make more sense. But so long as they are part of these United States,
> > > their religious beliefs about when children should be at home cannot
> > > supersede basic liberties.
> 
> [additional text deleted]
>