DiscussMormonism.com

In one of the more bizarre attempts at Mopologetic spin in recent memory, our dear friend "Scotty Dog" Lloyd if proffering up a very odd means of trying to separate associations between the LDS Church and the FLDS Church:

Scott Lloyd wrote:Here's and opinion piece in Sunday's Deseret News by editor Joseph Cannon, who looks at the FLDS name from a marketing perspective and suggests that appropriation of the name "Latter-day Saints" by the FLDS group is similar to brand stealing.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,51 ... 88,00.html

Comments?

Ah, right. It will be helpful to the Mopologetic cause to view the LDS Church as a brand---i.e., as a product that is being sold to the masses. (Which, in a sense, I guess it is, but do Mopologists really want to go down this path?)

Later, after being challenged by Tarski, "Scotty Dog" comes dangerously close to outright dishonesty:

Scott Lloyd wrote:

Tarski wrote:It seems to me that the name FLDS is quite descriptive of what the group really is. Fighting it out in court would be sure to bring up the defensible position that the FLDS have practices and doctrine closer to the Brighamite branch of the early Mormon movement.

As Cannon points out in his piece, unlike The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, FLDS is an insular group with no desire to share a message of Christianity with the outside world, and its version of the faith is foreign to what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught.

*Thinking about the church in terms of a "brand" is interesting and not inconsistant with my view of organized religion in general.*

Cannon defines what his intended comparison is; he is not saying "LDS" and "Mormon" are brands in the commercial sense, but they do reflect the reputation, identity and teachings of the Church. Misappropriation of a name causes confusion among the public, the very reason businesses spend thousands of dollars to defend their trademarks against infringement. It's a proper consideration.

(emphasis added)

Does this mean that we will someday see a "TM" after "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"?

But old S. Lloyd would be outraged no doubt if the Mason's tried to trademark the compass and square...

Gadianton wrote:But old S. Lloyd would be outraged no doubt if the Mason's tried to trademark the compass and square...

Amen

Guys please read this post on MAD that I made last year.

It concerns the trademark registration by the LDS Church of the term "Book of Mormon". The contestability period for this trademark will run out in 2009. I've been thinking very strongly that I should get off my duff and send some paperwork in to the patent and trademark office to contest the validity of this mark.

It's absurd that the LDS Church could obtain a legal monopoly on use of the term "Book of Mormon". For one thing, just a search of Deseret Book returned a great many products containing the term "Book of Mormon", for sale, that are not owned by the LDS Church. Likewise, there are other churches who believe in the Book of Mormon. There is no way I can think of to justify, legally, why the LDS Church deserves to own this term as a trademark.

Someone needs to contest it. If nobody does, there may come a time where websites not by the church with "Book of Mormon" in the titles could be given takedown orders backed by the Lanham Act, or anti-Mormon works with "Book of Mormon" in the title could be suppressed by the Church on trademark violation grounds, etc.

Not to mention what do you do if you're Community of Christ and wish to sell your own printings of the "Book of Mormon", except the LDS Church has a trademark on that title. What if the FLDS tried to publish written works on the Book of Mormon? Or what if Warren Jeffs published, from prison, "Book of Mormon Studies", his masterpiece tome. I'm sure you all see the problem here.

Perhaps they should trademark FNMormons lest those polygamists claim that as their own too.

I'm thinking that if a case ever went to count and lawyers had to determine which Mormon church is the one started by Joseph Smith, the FLDS would be the clear winners.

It would be an interesting trial~

;-)

~dancer~

Scott Lloyd wrote:its {FLDS} version of the faith is foreign to what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught.

Yeah, so is the modern day LDS church - but even more so. What's the point here (In other words, whatever happened to continuing revelation)?

truth dancer wrote:I'm thinking that if a case ever went to count and lawyers had to determine which Mormon church is the one started by Joseph Smith, the FLDS would be the clear winners.

It would be an interesting trial~

;-)

~dancer~

Did you know there was such a trial, but between LDS and RLDS? As I recall the churches were fighting over some property. Polygamy was a huge issue--polygamy wasn't publically admitted to until Joseph had been resting for 8 years. Adam-God doctrines were an issue too. To prove that Joseph really was a polygamist, several of his wives testified about their marriages. On cross examination, they were asked why they lied about it earlier. "Because Joseph told us to." So why are you now telling us you were married? "Because Brigham told us too."

The judge ruled in favor of RLDS--even if Joseph was a secret polygamist, the church itself was anti-polygamy, and the RLDS resembled Joseph's church more than Brigham's did.

Now, if there were a trial about whether or not the FLDS is the continuation of the church started by Brigham Young...

Who Knows wrote:

Scott Lloyd wrote:its {FLDS} version of the faith is foreign to what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught.

Yeah, so is the modern day LDS church - but even more so. What's the point here (In other words, whatever happened to continuing revelation)?

Wow, is Lloyd being disingenuous or what?

So what is up with Scratch choosing a psychopathic killer for an avatar?