Reader comments
Adoption of FLDS name is akin to identity theft

*** While not strictly speaking identity theft, the adoption of FLDS by this group at best is confusing and at worst undermines the credibility of the Latter-day Saints and tarnishes the LDS "brand." ***

Well it's not a brand, Mr. Cannon - it's a religion, and religions have long histories of spinoff and mutation and parting ways.

Many people, for example, would argue that Mormonism is not Christian. While there are valid reasons both for and against that line of argument, nevertheless you could argue that the LDS Church, by calling itself a Christian faith, is "tarnishing" the reputation of Christianity.

Other people would argue that this newspaper, which is often referred to as conservative, and perhaps refers to itself that way, is tarnishing the brand of "conservatism." I would argue that, in fact.

The FLDS Church has as much right to the name as the larger Salt Lake City church does. It's members aren't just random people. They are descended from some of the earliest members of the LDS faith and have split in favor of continuing a doctrine practiced by the Church's early leaders - Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Heber C Kimball, ad infinitum.

I agree that there's a world of difference between the LDS Church and the FLDS. However, according to the Universal Declation of Human Rights, a person's religion is what they say it is. The FLDS and some other polygamist groups consider themselves Mormon. The LDS Church should respect the right of those who call themselves Mormon Fundamentalists to define their own religion -- that is their right. To do otherwise is no different than if the Southern Baptist Convention were to say that only they can call themselves Christians (and it is possible that, if they could, many Southern Baptists would in fact deny Mormons the right to be considered Christian).

Spin, Spin, Spin.

They are a religious group, they can call themselves whatever they like, and a pouting editorial like this just makes us look like idiots.

Joe, you'd get a failing grade in any legal or writing class for this little screed. It's ridiculous, poorly written and very badly thought out with a reliance on faulty logic. The FLDS arose, like most Mormon polygamist groups, out of the ferment of the 1920's and '30's when the LDS church actually started enforcing the prohibition on polygamy. After all, who founded Short Creek? Mormon settlers who practiced polygamy.

The LDS church could spent it's time better spending less time securing the trademark status of 'Mormon' and more on service to separate themselves from their poor, apostate offspring.

We also need a source on your assertion that the FLDS started using that name a century after polygamy ended. This is a bizzare and disingenuous assertion. While the legal entity of the FLDS church, the appellation 'Fundamentalist' and their belief that they are Latter-day Saints gives them all the right in the world to use the name.

You know, I can see why this confusion is annoying to members of both churches who are probably annoyed at the confusion.

At the same time the LDS church can't have their cake and eat it. A couple of years ago they were desperate not to be called mormons at all, preferring the term LDS. Now that the word mormon is being used to describe an odd offshoot cult the LDS church suddenly wants to reassert ownership of the mormon moniker.

Of course, Mr. Cannon is correct that there are differences between the LDS and the FLDS. It is, however, unreasonable to claim that the two churches are "utterly" different.

The difference between the LDS and the FLDS Church is that the former accepts the sovereignty of the American people and therefore remains accountable to the rule of law. That results in an entirely different way of life.

In terms of theology, however, there are considerable similarities. Both groups believe into the same scriptures, latter-day prophesy, priesthood authority, patriarchy and lay claim to the same heritage.

Sometimes, small differences have tremendous effects.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Joe, Joe, Joe. Did you get an assignment as an apologetic? The FLDS Church is more in line with the Church of Joseph Smith than the LDS Church is today. Perhaps it is they who should be writing this editorial.

I'm sure the FLDS lay as much claim to the Salt Lake temple as the LDS do to the Kirtland temple. But I don't hear the RLDS screaming like babies when the Kirtland temple is used in a picture relating to a description about the LDS.

the only difference is that FLDS are true to the original teachings, just like Orthodox Christians are to those of Christianity.

And perhaps giving us a view of things to come as the LDS Church protects its copyrights and other intellectual property. The LDS Church is organized as a corporation and has all the legal rights to ownership of its property, intellectual and physical, as any other corporation. Being a non-profit does not dilute those rights. Nor does not actively using a copyrighted name. However, they do run the risk of losing the claim of uniqueness by not defending the name - see kleenex - so we may see more vigorous defense in the future. Not by choice but out of necessity to maintain their identity. Which is the whole point of having a name in the first place.

"Utterly different"? Let's examine that claim. Both religions believe:
1. Joseph Smith was a prophet who translated a gold book conveyed to him by an angel;
2. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and John Taylor were prophets who practiced plural marriage as commanded by God;
3. The Book of Mormon is scripture;
4. The plan of salvation requires faith in Jesus Christ, repentance from sin, and the saving ordinances of baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost;
5. The priesthood--only true authority from God to administer such ordinances and the ordinances of the temple--were restored through Joseph Smith and are handed down by the laying on of hands of those who have received the authority in a chain gong back to Joseph Smith;
6. Families are forever;
7. Modesty is an important virtue;
8. Chastity (no sex outside of marriage) is emphasized strongly;
9. The law of consecration is a revelation from God;
10. Jesus will return and usher in a millennial reign after cleansing the earth of the wicked (i.e., "those who reject this glad message.").

I could go on. There are more similarities than differences.

"Sometimes damage to a brand or a trademark has been called attempted identity theft at the corporate level"

I love this Cannon! We have been saying that its a business all along! Referencing youtube, that is funny too!

Thanks for the laughs- so gland I'm not religious!

Joseph. For crying out loud!

A person would have to LIVE UNDER A ROCK to "not know" BY NOW - that LDS and FLDS are two different religions.

Those folks acting like they're "still confused" are messing with you.

PLEASE Mr. Cannon (and other mainstream, modern Mormons STILL in a dither about this):

GET OVER YOURSELVES!

Hey? Reality check? Wake up!

Four hundred and sixty-four children have been scooped up okay???????

There are FAR MORE SERIOUS ISSUES at stake here than this ongoing "identity crisis" some (not all) Mormon folks are having.

Everyone KNOWS you're another religion!

OKAY? WE KNOW!

If you quit being so touchy - folks will quit teasing you.

Toughen up.

Besides, seems to me it would be better to risk being thought polygamous - than BE KNOWN as callous and hardened of heart - impassive - even to the terror and weeping of children.

Mr. Cannon? Folks lost all their babies and children and you are worried about your "brand"?

Trust me I will definitely remember THIS "brand".

But heck, I'm an old woman - knowing nothing of doctrines, political stuff and such . .

I keep reading about how different LDS are from FLDS. Seems to me to be a lot more similarities than differences.
LDS as a brand name trade mark... Maybe that will happen once they build the new mall.

Just for kicks, go through and replace "Mormon" with "Christian" and "FLDS" with "LDS".

Doesn't it read just like the article written by conservative Catholics and Protestants denying the title of "Christian" to Mormons?

Which one is it, Joe? Are you willing to give up the title "Christian" in order to score rhetorical points against your polygamous cousins?

Too bad Pres. Hinckley isn't around--your slogan is pretty catchy--"Stand for the Brand"!

I agree with the previous comments. A religious group has the right to call itself whatever it wants. If they think they are the true "Mormons", then they have the right to call themselves Mormons. Just as I have the right to call myself "Christian" if I believe I follow Christ.

I agree that it causes confusion, but that's life. They could just as easily argue that the mainstream LDS church should stop calling themselves Mormons. They wouldn't want our single-wife-having men to tarnish their image.

What does it say about Joe Cannon and his religious beliefs that he looks at his religion as if it were a corporate brand?

The truth is that the FLDS Church is far closer to the LDS Church than the LDS Church is to standard Christianity. Perhaps they should be forced to drop the words "Jesus Christ" and "Church" (church by definition means Christian) from their title.

And Christians? Well most Christians don't pursue changes in public policy for the purposes of cheapening the cost of labor to enrich themselves, as Cannon and Ivory are doing with their policy of open borders. Those Christians who do favor open borders at least would counter that with much higher taxes on the rich, unlike Ivory and Cannon.

So please, Cannon and Ivory, stop referring to yourselves as Christian.

Joe it doesn't matter since your brand makes more money than its Mormon cousins. That way they can make sure their "brand" comes up first in a Google search.

By the way, the internet and the information age will end all of these peculiar religions.

It's about rampant child abuse and statutory rape, not polygamy.

It's not about any "brand name" issues. And it's not about the right to freely practice religion. I'd bet that if the FLDS wanted to start a compound and only marry multiple adult women, nobody would've done anything. It's raping 13-year-olds that's the problem.

Due to the LDS church's choice of editor for its newspaper I would have to conclude that they are A) Not concerned about their brand, or B) the brand is one of ignorant back door Republican tyrany.