If the LDS church is true, as it's members are always saying, then only a twisted little mind would think it needs to create or maintain a brand or image, like Budweiser. God's work does not need branding. It seems Mr. Cannon needs to go back and do some praying and listening to the Voice of the Holy Spirit. I've already heard from one person who was on the verge of joining the LDS Church but has been severely "turned off" by this editorial.

I take exception to the LDS Church being compared to General Electric. I don't think Jesus Christ would agree with His church being compared to a corporation.

Bro. Cannon, do you get this worked up about the differences between Sunni and Shia? Especially when John McCain mistakenly implies that Iran is a Sunni nation, rather than Shia?

I'm guessing not. Because to you, they're all just Muslims.

That's how the rest of the world feels about Mormons.

The LDS/FLDS's are not the only ones who have ever practiced Polygamy. There are "evangelical" christian polygamous groups. I am a convert to the LDS Church and think frankly that its ridiculous the way Modern Members bend over backwards to distance themselves in an attempt to pacify hostile parties in mainstream Christian groups. Get over it, we don't practice but that doesn't mean we don't believe in the doctrine. Why else would widowers be able to be sealed more than once? The FLDS have insulated themselves because of the unconstitutional laws, government persecution and religious battery. This has allowed for the horrid practices to creep up in secret and for them not to trust outsiders help in good faith. Frankly, if people would get off their high horses, maybe life would improve for the women in that sect. We can no more deny them, than we can deny our past. I may not agree with their teachings about a woman's place in the whole scheme of things, but I can certainly sympathize with their plight. I for one am proud to be LDS, and I refuse to pander to others beliefs because they disagree with mine.

Equality,

It was a different time. It was okay to marry that young then. I look at my non-Mormon VERY Protestant family and I have first cousins married, people in their early teens...

The problem I have with Warren Jeffs is forced marriages and the inevitable kicking out of the competition in the form of ex-Communicating the boys.

Birth-rates are 51/49 worldwide for boy/girl births. Therefore, Polygamy is only for situations where more of the Male population has died than the female population. In modern times, this die off is less. If they were "just" practicing Polygamy down there, I would support their religious freedom. But when they are dumping 15 year old boys in the desert and forcing 16 year old girls to get married to much older men, then I have a problem.

I am completely okay with consenting adults participating in something done in many places around the world. It leaves the realm of religion when the children suffer abandonment by their parents so dirty old men can have young virgins.

Joseph Smith never excommunicated young boys to make room for more wives, none of the early Prophets did. That is my problem with Warren Jeffs.

I'm a member of the LDS Church in Brazil for almost a half century and reading this article I realize some important things:
1) Not only non members have mistunderstoods about relations between LDS and FLDS church. For us, in Brazil, we feel, in common sense, that FLDS are clearly a brand of the church
2) We don't have aditional information about the poligamy in the church in the past: reasons, practice, etc. And we don't know exactly what hapened to the families who was polygamists when it stopped. Has the priesthood holders, patriarchs in that families, just gone out from his homes? What happened with the childs and how they felt about the changes?
I think if we have more official information, in our language, about what really hapened, some mistakes could not take place.

Excellent article. It saddens me that people, by association, have the ability to ruin the good name and reputation of others.

I understand that the Fundamentalists have chosen to break from the church they claim their ancestors supposedly belonged to, but it is unfortunate they can not do it without choosing to try and drag the LDS church with them. I wonder if this common saying might fit here, "you can leave the Church, but you can't leave it alone."

The Protestants, Baptists, Anglicans, etc. decided to break from the Catholic church but they chose to take on different names--I applaud them for their decision, thus helping to avoid confusion for either church. I find it disconcerting that some members of the media continue to be-smudge the LDS church by linking the LDS church with another church that claims common ties; this is akin to people always referring to the Baptist church as a Catholic splinter group. I hope those who continue to link the two churches together will carefully look at their motives and see if they don't perhaps less than honorable reasons for tying the two churches together.

I'am a LDs member here in Phils.A member for only 4 years.As I've read those comments listed in the beggining of this site.i agree with Mr.Canoon he was rigth,Why does this group using a term of MORMON if they could'nt really a "MORMON" in standard,and practicing a law of mormon,?as I've read in the History of the church that its true that a LDS member "BEFORE" practicing polygamy!but it was before a century after now.Late prophets like Pres.Hinkley,Pres.tylor,and the other presedent next to brigham young teach and prophicies to stopped polygamy,I proud to be a member of this church,the Doctrine really help me.The holy ghost guide me in my everyday work!!

The article raises some great points. So, is the LDS church going to sue the FLDS church to get them to stop stepping on - and tarnishing - their "brand"?

Oh my goodness!

The FLDS, as they like to be called, have in fact got a different name. Yearning For Zion, (YFZ). I mean, yes, they accept some of our teachings but they broke away from us when we stopped Polygamy.

I followed this article in The Times (I'm in England) and I think, as do many Latter-Day Saints in the United Kingdom that they should not be referred to as the Fundamental Latter-Day Saints, but simply as the Yearning For Zion people. If everyone starts using the correct name for this break away sect, there should be much less confusion

Thank You!!! The FLDS church is wrong. They are NOT members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and therefore, should not try and associate themselves with the Church by simply adding the name "Fundamentalist" in front of it. Bottom line, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints officially ended polygamy in 1890, and anyone continuing it beyond that point was excommunicated. Consequently, any organization choosing to practice polygamy no longer has any claim to the name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (regardless of their orgins) . Legal action should be taken against the FLDS church and force them to rename themselves. Beyond that, all anyone really needs to do is look into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for themselves, pray about the Book of Mormon, and find out if it truly is a companion to the Holy Bible and in fact another testament of Jesus Christ and His teachings to the people living in the Americas. That's it.

Hi, When I read about this FLDS practising polygamy I was surprised and think all about the teachings of the church that their was no such teachings nor practice of the members. I know the truth and will never doubt about the church where I belong.. THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIS OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS. This is the only true church upon the face of the earth. And these news breaks about FLSD mormons, I know they are not of our faith. But those of not of our faith though or even confused about that sect. Well I will hold firm to what I know is true. People around are just trying to distroy the good name of MORMONS.