Reader comments
Joe Cannon: Adoption of FLDS name is akin to identity theft
62 comments | Read story
Scotty | 3:33 a.m. May 11, 2008
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).
Brett Williams | 5:56 a.m. May 11, 2008
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.
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.
Comments continue below
averageUKjoe | 6:15 a.m. May 11, 2008
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.
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.
Yockel | 6:34 a.m. May 11, 2008
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 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.
Frank Musgrave | 6:53 a.m. May 11, 2008
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
orion | 7:25 a.m. May 11, 2008
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.
Anonymous | 7:51 a.m. May 11, 2008
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.
Vuk Jeremic | 8:27 a.m. May 11, 2008
the only difference is that FLDS are true to the original teachings, just like
Orthodox Christians are to those of Christianity.
Joe is correct... | 9:52 a.m. May 11, 2008
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.
Equality | 9:54 a.m. May 11, 2008
"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.
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.
Anonymous | 10:01 a.m. May 11, 2008
"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!
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!
my2cents | 10:33 a.m. May 11, 2008
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 . .
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 . .
Chris Plummer | 10:41 a.m. May 11, 2008
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.
LDS as a brand name trade mark... Maybe that will happen once they build the new mall.
Capt Jack | 10:58 a.m. May 11, 2008
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"!
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"!
Mike | 11:12 a.m. May 11, 2008
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.
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.
Anonymous | 11:20 a.m. May 11, 2008
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.
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.
Anonymous | 11:35 a.m. May 11, 2008
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.
By the way, the internet and the information age will end all of these peculiar religions.
Wrong Issue | 11:40 a.m. May 11, 2008
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.
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.
Anonymous | 11:50 a.m. May 11, 2008
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.
Anonymous | 11:50 a.m. May 11, 2008
*** "A religious group has the right to call itself whatever it
wants." ***
I'm not so sure about that. If the FLDS Church was just a bunch of people with no historical or doctrinal ties to the LDS Church who just called themselves FLDS because they wanted to practice polygamy then the answer would be "no."
But these aren't those people. These people are descended from the earliest LDS Church members, probably even some of the early leaders, and they split over a legitimate doctrinal dispute.
Welfare fraud, statutory rape, child abandonment - I think the adults should all be carted off to jail. But they should go to jail calling their church FLDS and themselves Mormons, if they so choose. They certainly have as much right to call themselves "Mormon" as some guy in Ghana who got baptized yesterday does.
I'm not so sure about that. If the FLDS Church was just a bunch of people with no historical or doctrinal ties to the LDS Church who just called themselves FLDS because they wanted to practice polygamy then the answer would be "no."
But these aren't those people. These people are descended from the earliest LDS Church members, probably even some of the early leaders, and they split over a legitimate doctrinal dispute.
Welfare fraud, statutory rape, child abandonment - I think the adults should all be carted off to jail. But they should go to jail calling their church FLDS and themselves Mormons, if they so choose. They certainly have as much right to call themselves "Mormon" as some guy in Ghana who got baptized yesterday does.
Religion | 12:09 p.m. May 11, 2008
The LDS and FLDS have the same roots but so do the Catholic and Protestant
churches, the Catholic and the Jewish religions. Everytime God puts something
on the earth, man bends it various ways and God changes what he puts down too,
depending on the state of mankind that is recieving the message.
Thomas | 12:21 p.m. May 11, 2008
I understand your concern about being confused with a polygamous group because
of your desire to be a pillar of the right-wing establishment. What is
outrageuous is your lack of concern about the Nazi like violation of civil
liberties now taking place in Texas. Of course the FLDS could say they are the
true Mormans because they follow the original word handed down by Joseph Smith
which you abandoned when it became convenient.
KingM | 12:29 p.m. May 11, 2008
I'm just disappointed that so many church members are so anxious not to be
associated with the FLDS that they lose sight of the opportunity to help fellow
humans in need. When a certain stake in Texas was asked to house women and
children from the FLDS compound, they didn't think, "wow, what a great
chance for service," or even, "what a wonderful missionary
opportunity," they cried, "What?! We're not associated with these
people!"
It reminds me of the story of the Good Samaritan and the priest who crossed the road so as not to be associated with so tawdry as the victim of a highway robbery.
It reminds me of the story of the Good Samaritan and the priest who crossed the road so as not to be associated with so tawdry as the victim of a highway robbery.
Anonymous | 12:56 p.m. May 11, 2008
*** "What is outrageuous is your lack of concern about the Nazi like
violation of civil liberties now taking place in Texas." ***
I don't know that there are any civil liberties violations taking place, and I'm certain there's nothing Nazi-like about what's going on. But I do wonder whether our government is capable of dealing with large scale criminal actions like this polygamous group or illegal immigration within the bounds of the Constitution. If we can't then I'm all in favor of "stretching" those bounds to allow us to deal with them. Society cannot long survive when large groups of people are able to get away with practically anything due to their sheer numbers. It creates perverse incentives and rewards.
If we are going to let some groups get away with welfare fraud, statutory rape, and child abandonment because of its size then lets redefine those crimes for everyone. Why should one mafia-like group get away with lawbreaking while everyone else has to face the law on unequal terms?
I don't know that there are any civil liberties violations taking place, and I'm certain there's nothing Nazi-like about what's going on. But I do wonder whether our government is capable of dealing with large scale criminal actions like this polygamous group or illegal immigration within the bounds of the Constitution. If we can't then I'm all in favor of "stretching" those bounds to allow us to deal with them. Society cannot long survive when large groups of people are able to get away with practically anything due to their sheer numbers. It creates perverse incentives and rewards.
If we are going to let some groups get away with welfare fraud, statutory rape, and child abandonment because of its size then lets redefine those crimes for everyone. Why should one mafia-like group get away with lawbreaking while everyone else has to face the law on unequal terms?
To KingM | 1:06 p.m. May 11, 2008
From the LDS view of things, the FLDS is an abusive cult that should be
prosecuted.
But you got your facts wrong. Texas authorities did not ask an LDS stake to house the FLDS women and children, a judge asked LDS to provide "ministers" to pray with them. The judge made the error thinking that the two groups could provide "sacraments" for one another.
The LDS Church has made it very clear that it has nothing to do with the FLDS Church.
Further, while the FLDS church accepts the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and covenants as scripture, they have rejected the Word of Wisdom, and nearly all of other prophetic counsel from Joseph Smith forward EXCEPT for the practice of polygamy. Polygamy is the ONLY thing they have retained. Further they added other things to this practice: (I list a few things here)
* Rejecting the priesthood keys of the 1st Presidency and Quorum of the 12 from the 1920s
Spiritual wivery (without official marriages)
* Reassigning families to different men if the first men didn't obey
* Lowering the marrying age to 13
* Banning "red" from their congregations
* Requiring blind obedience
But you got your facts wrong. Texas authorities did not ask an LDS stake to house the FLDS women and children, a judge asked LDS to provide "ministers" to pray with them. The judge made the error thinking that the two groups could provide "sacraments" for one another.
The LDS Church has made it very clear that it has nothing to do with the FLDS Church.
Further, while the FLDS church accepts the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and covenants as scripture, they have rejected the Word of Wisdom, and nearly all of other prophetic counsel from Joseph Smith forward EXCEPT for the practice of polygamy. Polygamy is the ONLY thing they have retained. Further they added other things to this practice: (I list a few things here)
* Rejecting the priesthood keys of the 1st Presidency and Quorum of the 12 from the 1920s
Spiritual wivery (without official marriages)
* Reassigning families to different men if the first men didn't obey
* Lowering the marrying age to 13
* Banning "red" from their congregations
* Requiring blind obedience
Yockel | 1:22 p.m. May 11, 2008
11:06 pm: I am not sure that non-Mormons would be impressed with this list of
differences. To most non-Mormons, the FLDS would be the Mormons with a
traditional life style.
Anonymous | 1:26 p.m. May 11, 2008
*** "To most non-Mormons, the FLDS would be the Mormons with a traditional
life style." ***
Amish Mormons. Now that name would upset two groups.
Amish Mormons. Now that name would upset two groups.
Anonymous | 1:35 p.m. May 11, 2008
--- The LDS and FLDS have the same roots but so do the Catholic and Protestant
churches ---
Yes, and both call themselves "Christian." That is the point. The FLDS are not alone. There are multiple denominations referring to themselves as "Baptist," "Lutheran," "Methodist," "Presbyterian" and so on. Which of each is the original group and which should be forced to invent an entirely new name? Mormons don't like the confusion? Oh, well.
If it's public perception Joe is worried about then I got news for him: other Christians are worried about more things with regards to Mormons than polygamy, and new converts in the First World to the Church are practically non-existent. This was all before the FLDS issue came up. I've met dozens of guys who went on First World missions, and I don't think I've ever met one who baptized more than one or two people in his entire two years.
Yes, and both call themselves "Christian." That is the point. The FLDS are not alone. There are multiple denominations referring to themselves as "Baptist," "Lutheran," "Methodist," "Presbyterian" and so on. Which of each is the original group and which should be forced to invent an entirely new name? Mormons don't like the confusion? Oh, well.
If it's public perception Joe is worried about then I got news for him: other Christians are worried about more things with regards to Mormons than polygamy, and new converts in the First World to the Church are practically non-existent. This was all before the FLDS issue came up. I've met dozens of guys who went on First World missions, and I don't think I've ever met one who baptized more than one or two people in his entire two years.
Anonymous | 1:54 p.m. May 11, 2008
Wikipedia lists these denominations which call themselves Presbyterian:
Presbyterian Church (USA), Presbyterian Church in America, the Orthodox
Presbyterian Church, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, the Reformed
Presbyterian Church, the Bible Presbyterian Church, the Associate Reformed
Presbyterian Church (ARP Synod), the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, and the
Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States (RPCUS).
There are many others. I could post similarly lengthy lists for Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, and others.
Don't like that more than one group calls itself "Mormon" or "Latter-day Saint"? Get used to it.
There are many others. I could post similarly lengthy lists for Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, and others.
Don't like that more than one group calls itself "Mormon" or "Latter-day Saint"? Get used to it.
DeLaval Milker | 2:21 p.m. May 11, 2008
When Utah mormons prosecute those guilty of building these religious prisons
within their realm (Hildale, for example) then I'll believe the gap is
there. Otherwise, with a wink and a nudge....
Fedup | 2:25 p.m. May 11, 2008
It's ironic that the same editor who constantly pens editorials favoring
illegal aliens who are true identity thieves would come up with this opinion.
Like Mr. Cannon, I can trace my family lineage to pioneer families who lived in Utah in the late 1800s. All of those ancestors went to their graves believing that in order to be saved, they had to follow the principle of polygamy.
While the LDS church caved to political pressure and renounced the policy, the FLDS have continued to live this practice. Seeing the present day FLDS today is akin to going back in time and seeing what life was like in Utah in the late 1800s, or even the days of Nauvoo in the 1840s.
To deny this is not being very honest..
Like Mr. Cannon, I can trace my family lineage to pioneer families who lived in Utah in the late 1800s. All of those ancestors went to their graves believing that in order to be saved, they had to follow the principle of polygamy.
While the LDS church caved to political pressure and renounced the policy, the FLDS have continued to live this practice. Seeing the present day FLDS today is akin to going back in time and seeing what life was like in Utah in the late 1800s, or even the days of Nauvoo in the 1840s.
To deny this is not being very honest..
Prof. Kat | 2:36 p.m. May 11, 2008
What Mr. Cannon fails to remember is that the FLDS is a breakaway faith from the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While the religions are today very
different from one another this is not the case in a historical context. The
mainstream church once practiced polygamy as the FLDS still do, the beginnings
of the FLDS church stem from the polygamy ban and its cultural/spiritual
aftermath in the early 20th century. It is ludicrous to assert that the
"official" church has the sole right to use the term
'Mormon' or 'Latter-day Saint' just because it has made
efforts to legally trademark them. This is akin to trying to trademark the term
'Christian' or 'Muslim' which I'm sure Mr. Cannon
realizes is intellectual folly. These terms are cultural and religious
identifiers and to argue that they are legally entitled to only one group of
religious practitioners, especially using corporate language to address a
social/cultural issue, ignores good sense and the whole of history.
gal50 | 3:42 p.m. May 11, 2008
Looking in from the outside, I can understand that the LDS is upset with the
FLDS just like Jimmy Carter must have been bothered by Billy and Bill Clinton
must have been embarrassed by Roger.
The FLDS elected to stick with the ways of the Mormon church when the LDS went with political expediency and renounced polygamy.
While I agree that the FLDS in theory is closely tied to the LDS church when it comes to stated beliefs, in practice it is nothing like the LDS church.
My guess is that fifty LDS members could be put in a room and grilled on the Bible and the book of Mormon and they'd provide reasonable answers. I don't get the feeling that FLDS members are even in possession of a Bible.
It was clear in the televised tours of the compound, that the members worship Warren Jeffs. The church board has been replaced by one individual. It seems he has full control over the people and that he establishes new beliefs regularly. The emphasis on Jesus and Joseph Smith has been replaced by an emphasis on Warren Jeffs. The FLDS now appears to have more in common with other cults.
The FLDS elected to stick with the ways of the Mormon church when the LDS went with political expediency and renounced polygamy.
While I agree that the FLDS in theory is closely tied to the LDS church when it comes to stated beliefs, in practice it is nothing like the LDS church.
My guess is that fifty LDS members could be put in a room and grilled on the Bible and the book of Mormon and they'd provide reasonable answers. I don't get the feeling that FLDS members are even in possession of a Bible.
It was clear in the televised tours of the compound, that the members worship Warren Jeffs. The church board has been replaced by one individual. It seems he has full control over the people and that he establishes new beliefs regularly. The emphasis on Jesus and Joseph Smith has been replaced by an emphasis on Warren Jeffs. The FLDS now appears to have more in common with other cults.
Just thinkin | 4:02 p.m. May 11, 2008
cough cough. Ahem. What? "this polygamous group?"
"repugnant?" Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black?
..er...dark?
Simmone | 4:58 p.m. May 11, 2008
Dear Joe,
I am not Mormon. I do know the difference between the LDS and the FLDS.
They are different branches, growing on the same tree. With the exact same roots.
Why not just acknowledge that and embrace it?
Or am I wrong?
I am not Mormon. I do know the difference between the LDS and the FLDS.
They are different branches, growing on the same tree. With the exact same roots.
Why not just acknowledge that and embrace it?
Or am I wrong?
Thomas | 5:01 p.m. May 11, 2008
Dear Anonymous: The authorites launched a heavily armed invasion against a
defensless people. They siezed every last child base soley on the fact that a
mere handful of these young women appeared to be underage. Please lay aside your
prejudices and make your judgements on the evidence. One way to commit genocide
is to take away all the children. Due Process does not exist in a Texas
courtroom.
Can't Have It Both Ways | 5:38 p.m. May 11, 2008
The LDS Church tried for years to abandon the use of the term "Mormon"
- Now we are trying to monopolize its use? Read the words of the General
Authorities on the subject. Go to the LDS website and search for these
talks:
Ensign May 1990 - Russell M. Nelson "Thus Shall My Church be Called"
Ensign April 1998 - Boyd K. Packer "The Peaceable Followers of Christ"
Liahona June 1984 - "Questions and Answers"
We can't have it both ways!
Ensign May 1990 - Russell M. Nelson "Thus Shall My Church be Called"
Ensign April 1998 - Boyd K. Packer "The Peaceable Followers of Christ"
Liahona June 1984 - "Questions and Answers"
We can't have it both ways!
Ekim | 5:56 p.m. May 11, 2008
to Thomas
You don't know anything about Texas courtrooms. So zip your button-hole.
Go Texas. Finally, some action against child abusers.
You don't know anything about Texas courtrooms. So zip your button-hole.
Go Texas. Finally, some action against child abusers.
Anonymous | 6:05 p.m. May 11, 2008
One at a time, Thomas:
*** The authorites launched a heavily armed invasion against a defensless people. ***
It's called making an arrest. When a group is as large (and onviously insane) as the FLDS, heavily armed is the manner in which you must do things.
*** They siezed every last child base soley on the fact that a mere handful of these young women appeared to be underage. ***
Yes, and 31 of 53 girls underage are mothers or pregnant. That's not a handful.
*** Please lay aside your prejudices and make your judgements on the evidence. ***
Child abandonment, statutory rape, welfare fraud, incest. The evidence is abundant.
*** One way to commit genocide is to take away all the children. ***
The children aren't dead, and aren't being killed.
These people are abusing the law by using their numbers and their emotional hold on their children, who are kept from having any contact with outside society, to shield them from the law. Some authorities in Utah have tried to prosecute them for child abandonment, but their abandoned underaged sons won't testify against them.
We can act now or wait until the problem is 10 or 100x bigger.
*** The authorites launched a heavily armed invasion against a defensless people. ***
It's called making an arrest. When a group is as large (and onviously insane) as the FLDS, heavily armed is the manner in which you must do things.
*** They siezed every last child base soley on the fact that a mere handful of these young women appeared to be underage. ***
Yes, and 31 of 53 girls underage are mothers or pregnant. That's not a handful.
*** Please lay aside your prejudices and make your judgements on the evidence. ***
Child abandonment, statutory rape, welfare fraud, incest. The evidence is abundant.
*** One way to commit genocide is to take away all the children. ***
The children aren't dead, and aren't being killed.
These people are abusing the law by using their numbers and their emotional hold on their children, who are kept from having any contact with outside society, to shield them from the law. Some authorities in Utah have tried to prosecute them for child abandonment, but their abandoned underaged sons won't testify against them.
We can act now or wait until the problem is 10 or 100x bigger.
jim | 8:44 p.m. May 11, 2008
The FLDS church believes in breaking laws of the land. The members of the LDS
church do not.
What??? | 9:00 p.m. May 11, 2008
"can't take their cake and eat it too"??? You are talking in
circles. There's no cake, there's no eating. It's a clear form
of people lying, trying to lump a legitimate church in the same group as crazy
sect. You are the people trying to "have your cake and eat it too."
Kryptoss | 9:07 p.m. May 11, 2008
I am a Fundamentalist Baptist.
Astarte | 9:34 p.m. May 11, 2008
While all this whining is going on...
Why isn't anyone pointing out the fact that the FLDS people routinely cast out defenseless teen boys age 13-17, for "sins" like becoming interested in girls their own age and being perceived as a possible future threat to the older men when choosing their next "wife" (read: victim, since no legal marriage occurred, and parents cannot legally consent to allow their teenage daughter to have sex with a man 30+ older than her).
The FLDS call themselves "Mormons" in the same spirit and tone that the LDS called themselves "Mormons" back in 1840's. And they were PROUD to differentiate themselves from mere Christians at the time. They (the LDS) considered themselves better than the Christians. That name became known as separate and distinct from Christians, and now they want it to mean something different, now that the name "Mormon" has become synonymous with polygamy, child molestation, abandonment of teen boys, and cult behavior.
Call a spade a spade,is what I say.
Why isn't anyone pointing out the fact that the FLDS people routinely cast out defenseless teen boys age 13-17, for "sins" like becoming interested in girls their own age and being perceived as a possible future threat to the older men when choosing their next "wife" (read: victim, since no legal marriage occurred, and parents cannot legally consent to allow their teenage daughter to have sex with a man 30+ older than her).
The FLDS call themselves "Mormons" in the same spirit and tone that the LDS called themselves "Mormons" back in 1840's. And they were PROUD to differentiate themselves from mere Christians at the time. They (the LDS) considered themselves better than the Christians. That name became known as separate and distinct from Christians, and now they want it to mean something different, now that the name "Mormon" has become synonymous with polygamy, child molestation, abandonment of teen boys, and cult behavior.
Call a spade a spade,is what I say.
Anonymous | 10:18 p.m. May 11, 2008
What should be noted is that not a single commenter on this story appears to
agree with Cannon that use of the terms "Mormon" and "FLDS"
is somehow wrong. Everyone seems to have pretty much acknowledged that they have
as much right to use of the names as the larger church does.
Mom | 10:39 p.m. May 11, 2008
I wish you all could read the articles in the Arizona Republic today about the
FLDS group under Warren Jeffs and you would see the enormous difference. 2
articles- one written by a man who was kicked out on Jeff's whims and had
his family taken away from him and given to others- he has not seen them in 6
years even though they just live a half mile down the road. Then there is the
article written about a women who escaped with her 8 children- one with cancer
and the mother was told it was caused by her own wickedness. As a mother, I was
horrified to read how children are treated and perceived in this small closed
society. They are not allowed to show their own children affection, because all
the children belong to Warren Jeffs and he is the only one allowed to do that!!
I sort of was in the camp of "leave them alone and let them practice their
religion the way they want". No more!!! Warren Jeff's reinstated the
practice of marrying off girls as young as 13- he's right where he should
be. More need to be in the same place!
Wild Bill | 11:14 p.m. May 11, 2008
I guess that as a memeber of the Church your concern
is centered about a tarnised image rather than a people that have been wronged and have little support from the general public. I say to you Sir.
that the early church was just as much a victim and
guilty of these accusations as today. The early church had underage women marrying older men who could support them.
The narrow view that somehow the church is tarnished by the FLDS is very self centered and self serving.
Although it is fact that somehow most people relate
the FLDS with the LDS is really a no brainer.
Just like it is a no brainer that all LDS members
should be up in arms against this blantant disregard
of persaonl rights by Texas. Two reasons 1. it is wrong 2. They have a common bond and ties to our Church, however perverse that may seem.
Growing up in the church and also being a victim of the foster care system allows a double perspective
of this outrage. If I had millions of dollars I would pay the best attorneys in the country to defend these people. However it turns out just pray.
is centered about a tarnised image rather than a people that have been wronged and have little support from the general public. I say to you Sir.
that the early church was just as much a victim and
guilty of these accusations as today. The early church had underage women marrying older men who could support them.
The narrow view that somehow the church is tarnished by the FLDS is very self centered and self serving.
Although it is fact that somehow most people relate
the FLDS with the LDS is really a no brainer.
Just like it is a no brainer that all LDS members
should be up in arms against this blantant disregard
of persaonl rights by Texas. Two reasons 1. it is wrong 2. They have a common bond and ties to our Church, however perverse that may seem.
Growing up in the church and also being a victim of the foster care system allows a double perspective
of this outrage. If I had millions of dollars I would pay the best attorneys in the country to defend these people. However it turns out just pray.
observer | 2:12 a.m. May 12, 2008
Mr Cannon seems a bit over sensitive.
I don't see the identity theft thing at all. The confusion is really a matter of public ignorance outside the LDS and FLDS communities. If anything the FLDS could make the same claim for their side, and I think it would be just as valid.
I don't see the identity theft thing at all. The confusion is really a matter of public ignorance outside the LDS and FLDS communities. If anything the FLDS could make the same claim for their side, and I think it would be just as valid.
Adam12 | 6:23 a.m. May 12, 2008
Sort of like how gay marriage threatens another Mormon brand: The FamilyÂ
Pat Hewitt | 9:18 a.m. May 12, 2008
Dear Anonymous,
You are so much fun.
Christian churches/people didn't wait for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to begin "tarnishing" the reputation of Christianity, they started right up with that almost day 1!! What opinion was held of that little sect at the beginning? Why was Saul/Paul running around with papers from his established religion arresting 'Christians' What has made the news recently? That would be �recently� since the Crusades or so..
You are so much fun.
Christian churches/people didn't wait for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to begin "tarnishing" the reputation of Christianity, they started right up with that almost day 1!! What opinion was held of that little sect at the beginning? Why was Saul/Paul running around with papers from his established religion arresting 'Christians' What has made the news recently? That would be �recently� since the Crusades or so..
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Drywall investigation expands 9:47 p.m.
- Provo star leads Bulldogs to win 9:24 p.m.
- Syracuse woman gets 1 year in jail 9:21 p.m.
- Hagman has 2 goals in Toronto win 9:15 p.m.
- Elias scores, Devils beat Senators 9:14 p.m.
- Cave rescue crews must start over 9:13 p.m.
- Bobcats cream Raptors 116-81 9:12 p.m.
- Salvation Army now credit ready 9:08 p.m.
- AIG settles dispute with ex-chairman 9:07 p.m.
- Fed offers credit tips at movies 9:07 p.m.
- Donny and Kym dance to victory
- Howard made the rivalry a rivalry
- Cave rescue crews must start over
- Cougars cruise past Southern
- Loyal to Cougarettes, Crimson Line
- Twitterati to BCS: 'We hate you.'
- Y. focused on 10-win season
- BYU has slim shot at BCS
- Thunder rolls by Jazz
- Witness describes '99 killing
- BYU would like friendlier rivalry
258 - Glenn Beck to enter politics?227
- Protests against Phoenix LDS temple207
- RSL wins MLS Cup on penalty kicks202
- Bronco, Kyle rubber match139
- BYU records with win133
- Letters: Rushing to judge Palin129
- Boys basketball rankings107
- Hall, Johnson matchup key102
- Thunder rolls by Jazz102
Latest comments
If SOS only is relevant with similar records then why did Utah get a 5 seed...
I wish the game was on Thanksgiving Day. At least there would be a decent...
Out coached bunch of resonably good players...except Boozer. If the lanes are...
What a waste of taxpayer money. I hope this guy is made to pay for all the...
Equipment failure my eye! Someone did not do their job and the rest of the...
Go Jazz!
All a review is is one person's opinion, nothing more, nothing less. A good...
I was invited to go there about 11 years ago. I remember someone telling me...
Did ANY Utah player have on Hall last year? The answer is 0? Dude, the...
Really sad to see Seitz go. He is a great keeper and I wish he could have...
Advertisements
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.