Lawsuit against FAIR

[simply_disappear]

I understand what you are saying, but at the same time has anyone heard whether the Tanners ever tried asking, just simply asking, for those names, or offering to buy them, or whatever?

You are right, since they are their names, they should have the first pick, or whatever you want to call it, but since they did not think of it is it really that big of a deal? Once they found out about these websites (parodies by the way are permissible under the law - if they were not, then there would be no comedians allowed and Jay Leno would be shut down overnight) they could have asked for them, but it does not look like they did that (at least no mention of it is in the article). What do you think?

I think your father did something that was not illegal but something that has sparked anger and ill feelings that need not be there even if he didn't know it would be like this. Try to be objective. I'm certainly not attacking your father in any way, I hope you know that.

I think the Tanners are using it as a means to gain the limelight as you say but in the end----the Tanners should be able to have their names for themselves. Whether they purchase them from your father or whatever happens.

[PD1]

Correct.....  Multiple Businesses, Corporations, and Individuals "buy up" thousands of domain names (for which there are "existing" named entities) for the future potential of making money, acting as redirector's to other websites, or for future business.

No, lee, that not what people do anymore, because it's illegal. Besides, this has nothing to do with FAIR making money. It has to do with FAIR's inability to deal with what the Tanner's have to offer in regard to refuting Mormonism.

Allen did nothing wrong.  I'm sure if they made him an offer he might be interesting in selling them.  This is Capitalism folks.

Oh, brother. Allen sets up multiple websites to deceive people, and you call it Capitalism?

Ever been to your local grocery store "Cereal" isle?  There are LOT's of copy's and knockoffs, which use another major brand in some form to sell or market their cereal, from name, to box design, to the taste of the cereal, and it's all legal.  Allen did nothing different.

lee, Allen's sites were not copies. They were mean-spirited attempts to lead people astray, and you, him, and FAIR ought to be ashamed, not gloating.

Also, the Tanners are moron's.  Allen purchased the domains as a private individual, not as an agent of FAIR.  So them even involving FAIR shows their level of intelligence.

And you just showed yours.

By the way, can someone find that past thread where this stuff was already discussed ad-nausem?

It couldn't have been discussed ad nauseum, given that the news article from the SL Tribune is dated today.

[PD1]

I understand what you are saying, but at the same time has anyone heard whether the Tanners ever tried asking, just simply asking, for those names, or offering to buy them, or whatever?

You're right there in the Wyatt home. So, why don't you tell us. And when you're done giving a yea or nay, why don't you share with us why the Tanners should offer to buy that which your father had no business setting up in the first place?

You are right, since they are their names, they should have the first pick, or whatever you want to call it, but since they did not think of it is it really that big of a deal? Once they found out about these websites (parodies by the way are permissible under the law - if they were not, then there would be no comedians allowed and Jay Leno would be shut down overnight) they could have asked for them, but it does not look like they did that (at least no mention of it is in the article). What do you think?

I think you need to live up to what you claim to be, and quit trying to make excuses for your dad's unethical (and illegal?) behavior.

[lwyatt]

I agree. I don't really think that my father was doing anything with the intent of harming anyone. At the same time, I firmly believe that if they had simply asked (not even offered any money) for the websites, my father would have turned them over. It's not like he was doing this to make any money or anything.

You are right, namesakes do have first call to their names, I don't think my father was doing anything malicious.

Thank you to those who have supported him (at least by saying that you don't think that he did it with the intent to harm). I will tell everyone now that my father is the best man that I know. He has never done anything malicious in his life, and is one of the nicest people in the world.

S.D., I would like you to know that I do not think that you were attacking him. I have actually enjoyed your discourse in this matter, it has been among the more adult and clear headed that I have seen stated here. Thank you for your input.

[Jaybear]

mnn727: I hope you are writing your letter of protest to lds-mormon.com then also

JB: I think that is a good analolgy. If lds-mormon.com is an "anti" sight, then I find it equally offensive tactic to lure visitors who have other interests.

Again, I don't see any reason why the underlying view of the parties has any relevance to the issue. That would be a poor approach to a policy issue that should be important to everyone.

[lwyatt]

I understand what you are saying, but at the same time has anyone heard whether the Tanners ever tried asking, just simply asking, for those names, or offering to buy them, or whatever?

You're right there in the Wyatt home. So, why don't you tell us. And when you're done giving a yea or nay, why don't you share with us why the Tanners should offer to buy that which your father had no business setting up in the first place?

You are right, since they are their names, they should have the first pick, or whatever you want to call it, but since they did not think of it is it really that big of a deal? Once they found out about these websites (parodies by the way are permissible under the law - if they were not, then there would be no comedians allowed and Jay Leno would be shut down overnight) they could have asked for them, but it does not look like they did that (at least no mention of it is in the article). What do you think?

I think you need to live up to what you claim to be, and quit trying to make excuses for your dad's unethical (and illegal?) behavior.

If you actually took the time to do a little research into what you are saying, you might actually learn something. Take a look at what my personal profile says, I do not live in Mesa with my Father, I live in Colorado Springs.

As for any unethical behavior concerns that you may have, why is it that you question my father's behavior, but yet seem to think that the Tanners are such Paragon's of virtue and honesty? Did you not look at the link from wenglund about some of the things that they have said?

The Tanners have been proven wrong time and time again. They have been proven to have lied, cheated, stole, etc.

I will tell you now, that my Father has never lied in his life.

The only thing that I can really say about this PD is that you are wrong. Grow up.

[PD1]

How is Fair unfair? By pointing out the truth? In what way if Fair affiliated in anyway (other than by my Father being an administrator for Fair) with this lawsuit? Personally, I think that the Tanners are just going after everyone that they can think of to try and grab either publicity or money.

Oh, that's good. In a previous post you're asking why the Tanners didn't contact your dad to possible buy the websites/names from him, and we had "Capitalist" leeuniverse intimating the same thing, and now it's the Tanners that asking to "show me the money?" Unbelievable.

The only question that I have is that why they do not go against AOL, Yahoo!, and others for offering these websites - or at the very least allowing them to be set up if there was an infringement.

Because AOL, Yahoo! does not have the same vendetta against the Tanners that your dad and FAIR do, that's why. Plus, I seriously doubt that AOL, Yahoo! are even aware of the antipathy that exists between the two parties either.

I think that they do not do that because they are afraid of doing that because they know that what my Father did was not illegal, or an infringement in anyway. They are just trying to gain the limelight again, and possibly make money at the same time.

LOL. We'll see about illegalities. And like I said, who was it that was describing this act of fraud as an opportunity to engage in "capitalism?" It wasn't the Tanners.

[lwyatt]

Allen did nothing wrong.

[lwyatt]

How is Fair unfair? By pointing out the truth? In what way if Fair affiliated in anyway (other than by my Father being an administrator for Fair) with this lawsuit? Personally, I think that the Tanners are just going after everyone that they can think of to try and grab either publicity or money.

Oh, that's good. In a previous post you're asking why the Tanners didn't contact your dad to possible buy the websites/names from him, and we had "Capitalist" leeuniverse intimating the same thing, and now it's the Tanners that asking to "show me the money?" Unbelievable.

The only question that I have is that why they do not go against AOL, Yahoo!, and others for offering these websites - or at the very least allowing them to be set up if there was an infringement.

Because AOL, Yahoo! does not have the same vendetta against the Tanners that your dad and FAIR do, that's why. Plus, I seriously doubt that AOL, Yahoo! are even aware of the antipathy that exists between the two parties either.

I think that they do not do that because they are afraid of doing that because they know that what my Father did was not illegal, or an infringement in anyway. They are just trying to gain the limelight again, and possibly make money at the same time.

LOL. We'll see about illegalities. And like I said, who was it that was describing this act of fraud as an opportunity to engage in "capitalism?" It wasn't the Tanners.

What vendetta?

All that my dad has ever done is refute logically, point by point, time and again how the Tanners have lied, and misrepresented the Church. They have not once ever told anything but the faintest glimmer of the truth.

Try doing some actual research. Independent of the Tanners. To me it sounds like you are the one that has a problem with my father. You sound like the one who has a vendetta against someone. I am just trying to point out what type of person my father is.

You are the one that has been attacking both FAIR and my Father. If you don't like either so much, what are you doing here?

[lwyatt]

To everyone,

I hope that I have not offended anyone by saying what I did to PD1. Everyone has the right to post here what (within FAIR rules) they will. I just have a little trouble with someone attacking my father's honesty or moral charachter.

I apologize most humbly and deeply to anyone that I have offended. At the same time, I will not sit back and just let someone lambast my father when it is so blatantly untrue.

To all who are here in an effort to learn more about the Church, and about what we beleive, please forgive my outburst. To those that are here to attack and lie, I feel sorry for you.

- Lee Wyatt

[simply_disappear]

S.D., I would like you to know that I do not think that you were attacking him. I have actually enjoyed your discourse in this matter, it has been among the more adult and clear headed that I have seen stated here. Thank you for your input.

I hope your family gets through this matter with heads held high, lwyatt. Your father is fortunate to have a child who would dare come on such a venue and defend his integrity as you have chosen to do. All fathers should be so fortunate.

Now I'll sit and watch your work. Get to it.

[Confidential Informant]

Who's plaintiffs' counsel?

Sorry, I just saw this. The Complaint lists the law firm of Morriss O'Bryant Campagni, P.C. as Attorneys for Plaintiff.

C.I.

[Del March]

To everyone,

I hope that I have not offended anyone by saying what I did to PD1. Everyone has the right to post here what (within FAIR rules) they will. I just have a little trouble with someone attacking my father's honesty or moral charachter.

I guess it won't be of much comfort to you, but PD1 casually attacks the integrity of pretty much anyone who doesn't agree with him anyway.

In short: don't lose your time and your nerve with him. Ignore him. He's in only for insulting and denigrating everything LDS.

Del

[rameumptom]

The reality of it all, is that this is an issue that has affected FAIR. Anti-Mormon groups have registered several sites similar to FAIR's. At one time, the main website was www.fair-lds.org. However, some antis appropriated the name www.fair-lds.com, made it look very much like the FAIR site, and then used it to preach against the Church to unsuspecting people.

Because of this, FAIR was forced to register a new website: fairlds.org, and .com, in order to protect itself from the Antis.

Since they use unfair tactics in their efforts to destroy the LDS Church, why is it so terrible if we use the same tactics in order to defend the Church? There wouldn't be any issue at all, if the Tanners and other Antis were to make money by building up an organization that enlightened people, rather than create an organization that only tears down that which they have rejected.

I find it amazing that so many of you insist that Mormons fight on a higher level than antis themselves do. The majority of the Antis claim to be good Christians, yet find no problem in using "dirty tactics" to accomplish their goals. Why should Mormons be held to a different standard than other Christians? If you are to condemn us for legally registering website names, defending our Church's good name, and defend it from outright lies; then why isn't there an equally big cry against the tactics of Anti-Mormons?

How many of you go to GrokUtah and complain to Grok and Kebecer1 about their unChristian cheap shots? Or how about the many who attack incessantly at Mormon-L, etc? How many times must we hear about Boyd "KKK" Packer, as he is so "affectionately" called by many antis? Or the slurs against us because of so many other issues?

All those guilty of a double standard, please step forward. At least Lee was Christian enough to apologize for statements made. Let's see some true Christianity from the antis, eh?

[Flock of (mormon)Seagulls]

All that my dad has ever done is refute logically, point by point, time and again how the Tanners have lied, and misrepresented the Church. They have not once ever told anything but the faintest glimmer of the truth.

Are you sure about that? Not even once have the Tanners told anything but the faintest glimmer of the truth? That's quite a charge. I'm not a huge fan of the Tanners, but a quick visit to their website shows they have a TON of documents dealing with mormon history. I have a hard time believing it is all a bunch of lies, expecially since most of it comes directly from church sources. I am curious to see your father's point-by-point rebuttal of all the Tanner's lies and misrepresentations. I'm not aware of any outright lies that come to mind. I know they are trying to sell their version of christianity, but I'm not aware of any outright lies about mormonism. Is your father's critique of the Tanners available on-line?

[Jaybear]

I would be interested is seeming a choice example of a Tanner lie. SIne they are allegd by many here to be consumate liars, I would hope that someone could present one of the more egregous lies of the Tanners.

Given the serious nature of the allegation, I would expect there must be some real whoopers to chose from.

[Jigglysaint]

Can I get special permission to say somthing nasty about the Tanners? I've got a great zinger, but I'm afraid it might be modded.

[Zakuska]

I would be interested is seeming a choice example of a Tanner lie. SIne they are allegd by many here to be consumate liars, I would hope that someone could present one of the more egregous lies of the Tanners.

Given the serious nature of the allegation, I would expect there must be some real whoopers to chose from.

The Tanners work is very well documented here:

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai188.html

[Jaybear]

Since there have been many many statements critical of the Tanners, without a signle one offerring any substance, none of which censured, I would simply assume that they fall within some special exception to normal rules of civility.

[simply_disappear]

Can I get special permission to say somthing nasty about the Tanners? I've got a great zinger, but I'm afraid it might be modded.

I had to go over my few posts here and take out what would be a zinger or two myself for the same fear you mention.

It's all good, they'll get theirs----one day!

[Jigglysaint]

Since there have been many many statements critical of the Tanners, without a signle one offerring any substance, none of which censured, I would simply assume that they fall within some special exception to normal rules of civility.

Trust me, this one would blow all those other comments away.

[Flock of (mormon)Seagulls]

I  would be interested is seeming a choice example of  a Tanner lie.  SIne they are allegd by many here to be consumate liars, I would hope that someone could present one of the more egregous lies of the Tanners. 

Given the serious nature of the allegation, I would expect there must be some real whoopers to chose from.

I just double checked their website, and found this picture alleging to be Brigham Young's wives. They look remarkably like Jerald Tanner in drag. Very suspicious.

[Confidential Informant]

Having now read through the Tanner's complaint, you will be glad to know that it contains no...elipses, OR EXTENSIVE USE OF BOLDED UNDERLINED CAPITALS.......

C.I.

[simply_disappear]

Since there  have been many many statements critical of the Tanners, without a signle one offerring any substance, none of which censured, I would simply assume that they fall within some special exception to normal rules of  civility.

Trust me, this one would blow all those other comments away.

Okay, I'll play devil's advocate----spill the beans!

[rongo]

I  would be interested in seeing a choice example of  a Tanner lie.  Since they are alleged by many here to be consumate liars, I would hope that someone could present one of the more egregious lies of the Tanners. 

Given the serious nature of the allegation, I would expect there must be some real whoppers to choose from.

How's this one?

"It has recently been discovered that the teaching that God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820 was not a part of early church doctrine until after the death of Brigham Young.  Instead, the leaders of the church taught that it was only angels that appeared to him in 1820.  Brigham Young said, "The Lord did not come . . . But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith jun., . . . and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong . . ." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, p. 171)  The apostle Orson Hyde said, "Some one may say, 'If this work of the last days be true, why did not the Savior come himself to communicate this intelleligence to the world?'  Because to the angels was committed the power of reaping the earth, and it was committed to none else." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 335)

One excuse that has been offered for these statements by the early church leaders is that they simply did not understand Joseph Smith's story . . ."

("Joseph Smith Speaks on the First Vision," a typed legal-sized sheet that "was widely circulated in the mail in Utah during the third week of February, 1961"[Hugh Nibley, "Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass," p. 89].  Underlining and ellipses in the original.    I have a photocopy of this Tanner mailer in my files (I copied it at BYU Special Collections)

This is a Tanners Greatest Hit for a number of reasons.

1. Their date for the change in the First Vision narrative of 1877 (Brigham Young's death) is mind-boggling. I'm not sure where they got this date, because in their writings they promote the view that Joseph Smith and Co. "invented" the First Vision story as it now stands between 1838 and 1842. The Mormon "party-line" version is in the Pearl of Great Price and was undisputably written between 1838 and 1842, as evidenced by documents. Hundreds of references can be cited in Journal of Discourses and elsewhere decades before the 1870's where the standard Mormon version of the First Vision is given (Orson Pratt's "Remarkable Visions" in 1842 stands out). In their zeal to shock with the extreme they painted themselves into an absurd corner from the beginning.

2. Compare the text of their quotation (JoD 2:171) with their version above:

But as it was in the days of our Savior, so was it in the advent of this new dispensation. It was not in accordance with the notions, traditions, and pre-conceived ideas of the American people. The messenger did not come to an eminent divine of any of the so-called orthodoxy, he did not adopt their interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory, nor send His messengers panoplied with aught else than the truth of heaven, to communicate to the meek the lowly, the youth of humble origin, the sincere enquirer after the knowledge of God. But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith Jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong; that they were following the precepts of men instead of the Lord Jesus; that He had a work for him to perform, inasmuch as he should prove faithful before Him.

Note that through the blatant use of ellipses (. . .), they cut out important portions and destroy vital context in an effort to make it appear that President Young was saying that the Lord did not come to Joseph Smith at all (which is absurd given that President Young and the other Church leaders had to have assimilated the Mormon "party line" by 1855, the date of this talk). President Young said that the Lord did not come in glory to the established ministers of Christian orthodoxy. He indicates that the Lord did "communicate to the meek the lowly, the youth of humble origin" AND "send His angel to this same obscure person . . . AND informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong . . ." (emphasis in this case mine). In other words, it was the Lord who told him not to join any of the other churches, not the angel (grammatically, "and," not "who").

Likewise, through their trademark underlining technique, they try to make it look like Elder Hyde said that the Lord did not come, only angels. What he said was that the Lord didn't come TO COMMUNICATE THIS INTELLIGENCE TO THE WORLD.

3. What believing member have EVER said that "early church leaders . . . simply did not understand Joseph Smith's story?"

This is the Tanner technique that we Mormons complain about. This is not an isolated, "youthful indescretion," it is their modus operandi. It's how they build their case in their writings, and why Mormons make fun of the screaming, all-capitals, boldprint, underlining technique. Using that, I can provide a scripture from Alma, chapter 30 that positively demonstrates the atheism REALLY taught in the Book of Mormon (but which the missionaries will hide from you! ):

"Alma 30 says '. . .that there should be no Christ . . .' "

That's why such statements as have appeared in this thread are almost unbelievable (FAIR's desparate, the Tanners provide lots of documentation, etc.). They provide the appearance of documentation, but they tamper with and abuse their sources to promote their anti-Mormon agenda.

A whole thread could be dedicated to other "Tanners' Greatest Hits."