Reader comments
LDS Church emphasizes 'Mormon' distinctions

Methinks thou doth protest too much

Does this never end??? The LDS Church does not own the Mormon name anymore than anyone else does. When the early "Mormon" Churches separated, who is to say which one became the REAL Mormons, after all they all claim the truth. LDS folk simply have an internal view of themselves being entitled to this name. When I hear of the word Mormon I think about people who believe in the Book of Mormon, nothing more nothing less. Wouldnt the LDS Curch be better spending its time and resources helping those in need??? Plus not long ago they stated that they didnt want to be known as Mormons anyway. Yes, like this story, it has all be heard before, unfortunately!!

Ah, the irony is so delicious.

Sounds like the LDS Church continues to beat this dead horse. Get over it and move on. Anon | 1:02 a.m. ~ couldn't agree more.

FLDS and LDS have much more in common than they have differences. Get used to the public confusion.

Why is the Church then not referring to itself as "Mormon Church", loud and clear, instead of "LDS Church"? The full name is too long, a shorter term is unavoidable. But for years the Church asked to avoid the adjective "Mormon", and now it scrambles to claim it as a unique trademark. Start using "Mormon Church" as much or more than "LDS Church". The world at large will better understand and identify what is meant.

Very interesting. What do you think will happen if the LDS church just ignores comments?

The term "Mormon" should apply to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Just as the term "Catholic" should apply to members of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Both groups are the "originals". Both have had splinter groups leave the "mother" church for numerous reasons. Most, if not all, of these splinter groups, take issue with the policies, teachings, or positions of their respective mother churches. Many state to be a more "correct" version of the mother church, as they claim to following the original teachings of the faith, maintaining that the mother church has departed from those teachings. However, to use the same name as the mother church has one primary purpose. To establish and/or to maintain their identity. A small group can quickly lose its' identity, and acceptance in the general public, if they start from scratch with a new name. Also, in the case of the name "Mormon", none of these groups would continue to use that name if they didn't believe it was positive for them. They would call themselves something else, as do Methodists, Lutherans, etc., so as to ensure a proper distinction from the mother church.

For the polygamists to try to commandeer the name "Mormon" is identity theft. They have a right to believe whatever they want, but they have no right to misappropriate the name of a well-established Church and the original user of the name.

These groups chose to leave the Church many years ago and they need to accept that, as apostates from the LDS Church, they no longer have the right to use the name "Mormon."

Again, they have a right to believe anything they want and to practice anything they want (within the law, of course), but they need to stop pretending to be Mormons.

Ironic that the Church gets upset that other Christians don't consider Mormons to be Christian, and yet denies the FLDS, et al, the right to call themselves Mormon.

I understand that it's awkward and embarrassing to be linked to these little sects, but they share a common history, scriptures, and a good deal of doctrine and that's not going to go away. Better to just move on instead of complaining about it constantly.

We are allowed to use the terms Mormon temple, Mormon missionaries or the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.
We are not allowed to use the expression Mormon fundamentalist.
Must we use the term Anabrus simplex, or can we use Mormon cricket?

The Mormon can jump through hoops but the history is there and that the leaders have shown much tolerance to polygamists over the years leaves a big question. Also, the LDS religion does practicse polygamy today in the spriritual sense and in the temple. Men today can be sealed to multiple women but a woman can only be sealed to one man. Polygamy is alive and well only in a different format for the Mormon faith

Show me the money. The church practically owns the state, certainly its' administration. If they really want to run away from their FLDS brethern, let's see some prosecutions. This stuff is going on down there at the border on their watch. Inaction is tacit approval.

Why not stop using the term altogether (except in reference to the book) and continue demanding that the press refer to the church by its actual name? "Mormon" has always been a derogatory nickname for the church and as we can see causes no small amount of confusion.

Could somebody please tell me what the difference is between the "fundamentalists" and the Mormon Church when the comparison is made in 1890.
You can paint a brick gold but it's still a brick.

Methinks Anonymous doth make too many negative comments

Huh? Quoting Shakespeare adds nothing. Are you implying that mainstream LDS currently engage in Polygamy? Or that teenage girls are married off to older men? Or that young men are routinely told to leave the group? Why do you think that we protest too much?

to 1:02 a.m.

Methinks thou dost remain too Anonymous.

The parties to the debate use their own names, and give reasons for their positions.

It's been less than twenty years since the polygamists illegally incorporated their name.

Could I start a business today such as;
"The Fundamental Home Depot" or
"The Original Burger King", or maybe
"My Village Inn".
Or perhaps "Mountainland McDonalds", and sell hamburgers?

You would have lawyers from these Corporations on you in a nanosecond and would be ordered to stop using that name, immediately.

It is high time, (it should have been done at the time, the Church attorneys must have been asleep at the switch), to take this to court and have them ordered to stop using this name.

The LDS Church incorporated their name in 1838. Adding one word to a long establised brand is not legal. They should be held accountable for copyright infringement, Now! Their deception is intentional and they are trading on someone elses good works,.
Enough is enough!

Why is it that we in the Church are sooooo sensitive to the perceptions of others? It's as though we have to appear squeaky clean on every issue. It gotten to the point that we feel that our image, not our message, is the most important thing in the world.

This is not only related to the "fundamentalist" debate, but to the gay marriage debate; white shirts at church debate; and we could go on and on. For heaven's sake, let's get over ourselves and just live the gospel.