Jump to content

Polygamist Group Banned From Calling Themselvws Mormon


Avatar4321

Recommended Posts

They were a part of the FLDS church but broke away when Warrens' started to get a little crazy.  The last time i saw anything about them they were in Canada still living relatively close to members who were still loyal to Warrens and the two groups were not on friendly term, but that was a few years ago.

Link to comment

Well, I fully agree that they shouldn't be allowed to use the name of the Church or the term LDS.  But I personally draw the line at "Mormon".

 

I think that was a ridiculous inclusion.

Link to comment

Well, I fully agree that they shouldn't be allowed to use the name of the Church or the term LDS.  But I personally draw the line at "Mormon".

 

I think that was a ridiculous inclusion.

You must remember that this is a decision of the British Columbia Supreme court. They have experience with strange religions. Research Doukhobors.

Link to comment

I disagree. The definition of Mormon is a member of the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints. The church has a clearly defined entrance and clearly defined exits. Expanding the definition to include apostate groups would change the definition and create confusion.

 

I disagree.

 

Mormon is a believer in the Restored gospel and Book of Mormon, just as Christian is a believer in Christ as their redeemer.

 

They are as much Mormons as we are Christians.

Link to comment

I agree with JLHPROF.  I don't like being confused with polygamists, but it is absurd for our church to deny the title of "Mormon" for another group who embraces the Book of Mormon as scripture.  The court would not have ruled on anything if our church had not filed a lawsuit.  By this logic, the Catholic church could make a case that they are the original Christians and none of the rest of us can call ourselves Christians.

Link to comment

I think that technically the definition of a mormon is someone who believes in the book of mormon.  That's where the term comes from anyway.

then technically no polygamist group could be Mormon. Because they claim polygamy is essential to salvation to the point of ignoring many of the basics of the gospel. Yet the Book of Mormon is clear that it's not always commanded. In fact, it's only allowed when the Lord commands it. Otherwise he command is against polygamy.

Link to comment

then technically no polygamist group could be Mormon. Because they claim polygamy is essential to salvation to the point of ignoring many of the basics of the gospel. Yet the Book of Mormon is clear that it's not always commanded. In fact, it's only allowed when the Lord commands it. Otherwise he command is against polygamy.

 

Isn't this the same argument that some Christians use against mormons to explain why we aren't Christian?  They say that we don't believe the right things about the bible so we obviously aren't Christian because actual Christians believe the bible in a very specific way.

 

I'm not comfortable doing that to other people, because i don't agree with it when it's done to me.

Link to comment

So we can't go by the definition of Mormon and we can't look at their actual beliefs. We need to just let them call themselves whatever they want and have our good names slandered from their actions?

I'm comfortable going by the definition-those groups which believe in the Book of Mormon as scripture.

They don't have to agree with my interpretation of every BOM verse for that to apply.

Link to comment

then technically no polygamist group could be Mormon. Because they claim polygamy is essential to salvation to the point of ignoring many of the basics of the gospel. Yet the Book of Mormon is clear that it's not always commanded. In fact, it's only allowed when the Lord commands it. Otherwise he command is against polygamy.

They believe in the teachings of the early prophets too I guess.
Link to comment

In some countries, Mormon and some phrases including the term are registered trademarks owned by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. (a holding company for the LDS Church's intellectual property).[20] In the United States, the LDS Church has applied for a trademark on "Mormon" as applied to religious services; however, the United States Patent and Trademark Office rejected the application, stating that the term "Mormon" was too generic, and is popularly understood as referring to a particular kind of church, similar to "Presbyterian" or "Methodist", rather than a service mark.[21] The application was abandoned as of August 22, 2007.[22] In all, the Intellectual Reserve, Inc. owns more than 60 trademarks related to the term Mormon.

Link to comment

So we can't go by the definition of Mormon and we can't look at their actual beliefs. We need to just let them call themselves whatever they want and have our good names slandered from their actions?

 

Do you know how much you sound like an Evangelical forbidding an LDS member from calling themselves Christian because our beliefs are a little different?

 

I'm sorry but FLDS, LDS, CoC, AUB, and all the other offshoots are just subsets of Mormonism.

It's EXACTLY the same as saying Catholic, Baptist, Orthodox, Lutheran, Methodists etc are subsets of Christianity.

 

But, no, we have to put on our high and mighty evangelicalism and claim that we are the one and only Mormons, just like we are always told we aren't Christians.  Total double standard on our part.

Link to comment

Just an FYI to everyone. I'm from Creston, BC of which Bountiful is a sub-community. One of the issues with Winston (who I've met on several occasions, and more than just in a "how you do" sort of way) using any of those titles, including Mormon, is that he was receiving finances earmarked for the Church using the title "Mormon." I'm not exactly clear why this article omitted that, but such is the case, and was brought up in the trial.

Link to comment

Just an FYI to everyone. I'm from Creston, BC of which Bountiful is a sub-community. One of the issues with Winston (who I've met on several occasions, and more than just in a "how you do" sort of way) using any of those titles, including Mormon, is that he was receiving finances earmarked for the Church using the title "Mormon." I'm not exactly clear why this article omitted that, but such is the case, and was brought up in the trial.

Thanks for the added info!
Link to comment

I fully understand not being allowed to use the formal title of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." But NOT prohibition of the use of the term "Mormon."

I haven't seen any evidence that demonstrates that checks were inappropriately cashed because some bank got confused by the name "Mormon." The argument sounds entirely specious to me. That's like telling one Baptist sect they can't call themselves Baptist since someone wrote a check that inadvertently got cashed because the other congregation was also called Baptist. Ridiculous. Even so, that sounds like either bad or misinformed book-keeping or gullibility on the part of the donor---not a reason to prohibit freedom of religion from equally accessing the perfectly appropriate name "Mormon" among Mormons sects. But I'm open to reading any evidence to support that claim.

Link to comment

Just an FYI to everyone. I'm from Creston, BC of which Bountiful is a sub-community. One of the issues with Winston (who I've met on several occasions, and more than just in a "how you do" sort of way) using any of those titles, including Mormon, is that he was receiving finances earmarked for the Church using the title "Mormon." I'm not exactly clear why this article omitted that, but such is the case, and was brought up in the trial.

Interesting.  Thank you for adding that.

Link to comment

I fully understand not being allowed to use the formal title of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." But NOT prohibition of the use of the term "Mormon."

I haven't seen any evidence that demonstrates that checks were inappropriately cashed because some bank got confused by the name "Mormon." The argument sounds entirely specious to me. That's like telling one Baptist sect they can't call themselves Baptist since someone wrote a check that inadvertently got cashed because the other congregation was also called Baptist. Ridiculous. Even so, that sounds like either bad or misinformed book-keeping or gullibility on the part of the donor---not a reason to prohibit freedom of religion from equally accessing the perfectly appropriate name "Mormon" among Mormons sects. But I'm open to reading any evidence to support that claim.

given what halconero said and that a Court decided to ban them from using Mormon, sufficient evidence must have been presented to the Court. Whilst I would generally agree that prohibiting others from the use of Mormon is too far, I also accept the Court's verdict because it is based on evidence and trust that it was the right decision in this case or it will be overturned if the defendants appeal.
Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...