Lawsuit against FAIR

[smac97]

> Whether you agree with the Tanners or not, it is most obvious that those who are attempting to register the "Lighthouse brand" names, with apparently no purpose to use them, have concluded that the Tanners' work and/or ministries are very effective.

==I'm not sure about that. To the contrary, I think LDS apologists view the Tanners more and more as marginalized amateurs. They simply don't get much attention anymore.

> I don't think there is any other "reasonable" conclusion one can reach than that such actions are either to "profit" from a "brand recognition" build-up that the Tanners' have created, or to somehow try and dilute the effectiveness of the Tanners' work.

==This despite the several alternative motives, having nothing to do with profit, that have been posulated in this very thread. I guess nobody is "reasonable" but you.

> Either motivation is, I suppose, the right of these FAIR supporters.

==You are incorrect. A profit motive is not allowed under the law. An other-than-profit motive, however, is.

> The legalities of such actions will, apparently, be decided by the courts and not this message board.

==To paraphrase Han Solo, "The legalities will be decided by the courts and not this message board? I'm glad you're here to tell us these things! Chewie, take the professor in the back and plug him into the hyperdrive!"

-Smac

[rongo]

. . . if you are aware of separate writings or speeches by BY about God having visited JS in person, then, although not rising to the level of a lie, the failure of the Tanners to address that material on their fact sheet, in my opinion, would render the Tanners' work at best incomplete, and at worst misleading. Do you have any such evidence? If the First Vision was part of LDS doctrine prior to BY's death, then I would expect that BY commented on it on many occassions.

Brigham Young referred to the First Vision a number of times. Here are just a few references from Journal of Discourses:

President Brigham Young, Salt Lake City, March 3, 1861. Journal of Discourses 8:354

The Lord chose Joseph Smith, called upon him at fourteen years of age, gave him visions, and led him along, guided and directed him in his obscurity until he brought forth the plates and translated them, and Martin Harris was prevailed upon to sustain the printing of the Book of Mormon.

President Brigham Young, Salt Lake City, August 31, 1862. Journal of Discourses 9:366

This whole people were cast out for believing that God spake to Joseph Smith and chose him to be his messenger---his Apostle---to this generation . . . Joseph Smith testified that he had received revelations from God, that holy angels had administered to him, that he had seen the heavens opened, had seen Jesus Christ and knew that he lived, and that all the people must acknowledge him to be the Christ, the Saviour of the world, and to obtain salvation through him must obey his ordinances, keep inviolate their covenants with him and with each other, and try with all their might to restore the covenants broken by the fathers, that the celestial gates leading to the presence of God may be opened to all believers.

President Brigham Young, Salt Lake City, June 4, 1864. Journal of Discourses 10:303

The Lord had not spoken to the inhabitants of this earth for a long time, until He spoke to Joseph Smith, committed to him the plates on which the Book of Mormon was engraved, and gave him a Urim and Thummim to translate a portion of them, and told him to print the Book of Mormon, which he did, and sent it to the world, according to the word of the Lord.

President Brigham Young, Great Salt Lake City, June 23rd, 1867. Journal of Discourses 12:67

When the Lord called upon Joseph he was but a boy---a child, only about fourteen years of age. He was not filled with traditions; his mind was not made up to this, that, or the other. I very well recollect the reformation which took place in the country among the various denominations of Christians---the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, and others---when Joseph was a boy. Joseph's mother, one of his brothers, and one, if not two, of his sisters were members of the Presbyterian Church, and on this account the Presbyterians hung to the family with great tenacity.

President Brigham Young, Salt Lake City, September 1, 1859. Journal of Discourses 7:243

I have flattered myself, if I am as faithful as I know how to be to my God, and my brethren, and to all my covenants, and faithful in the discharge of my duty, when I have lived to be as old as was Moses when the Lord appeared to him, that perhaps I then may hold communion with the Lord, as did Moses. I am not now in that position, though I know much more than I did twenty, ten, or five years ago. But have I yet lived to the state of perfection that I can commune in person with the Father and the Son at my will and pleasure? No,---though I hold myself in readiness that he can wield me at his will and pleasure. If I am faithful until I am eighty years of age, perhaps the Lord will appear to me and personally dictate me in the management of his Church and people. A little over twenty years, and if I am faithful, perhaps I will obtain that favour with my Father and God.

I am not to obtain this privilege at once or in a moment. True, Joseph Smith in his youth had revelations from God. He saw and understood for himself. Are you acquainted with his life? You can read the history of it. I was acquainted with him during many years. He had heavenly visions; angels administered to him. The vision of his mind was opened to see and understand heavenly things. He revealed the will of the Lord to the people, and yet but few were really acquainted with brother Joseph.

President Brigham Young, Salt Lake City, June 3, 1860. Journal of Discourses 8:66

The Lord has led this people from the beginning. From the day that Joseph obtained the plates, and previous to that time, the Lord dictated him. He directed him day by day and hour by hour.

President Brigham Young, Salt Lake City, July 15, 1860. Journal of Discourses 8:122

A man, though he has not received authority from heaven, but is convinced by the light he has received that the nations have wandered far from God, and that his associates---members of the same professions or community---are not walking according to the revelations given in the New Testament, rises up and declares that he feels bound in his faith and conscience to go forth and raise up a pure church unto Christ. He goes forth and preaches to the people, calling upon them to be Saints of the Most High. He calls upon the people to return to the Lord with all their hearts---to become truly the children of God by faith---teaches many good and wholesome principles, many of the commandments of the Lord, and the revelations given in the New Testament, knowing nothing further. Revival after revival and seceder after seceder follow in the footsteps of the reformer. He professes to teach purer and holier doctrine than has been taught; and the question arises, Who is under obligation to obey that man's mandate? The Lord has not called him; Jesus has not appeared to him; Peter, James, and John have not met with him and conferred upon him the keys of the holy Priesthood; he has no communication with the heavens, only through the spirit of conviction.

President Young's fellow apostles, especially George A. Smith and Orson Pratt, were even more direct during this same period:

Elder Orson Pratt, Salt Lake City, August 14, 1859. Journal of Discourses 7:220

When, where, and how were you, Joseph Smith, first called? How old were you? and what were you qualifications? I was between fourteen and fifteen years of age. Had you been to college? No. Had you studied in any seminary of learning? No. Did you know how to read? Yes. How to write? Yes. Did you understand much about arithmetic? No. About grammar? No. Did you understand all the branches of education which are generally taught in our common schools? No. But yet you say the Lord called you when you were but fourteen or fifteen years of age? How did he call you? I will give you a brief history as it came from his own mouth. I have often heard him relate it.

He was wrought upon by the Spirit of God, and felt the necessity of repenting of his sins and serving God. He retired from his father's house a little way, and bowed himself down in the wilderness, and called upon the name of the Lord. He was inexperienced, and in great anxiety and trouble of mind in regard to what church he should join. He had been solicited by many churches to join with them, and he was in great anxiety to know which was right. He pleaded with the Lord to give him wisdom on the subject; and while he was thus praying, he beheld a vision, and saw a light approaching him from the heavens; and as it came down and rested on the tops of the trees, it became more glorious; and as it surrounded him, his mind was immediately caught away from beholding surrounding objects. In this cloud of light he saw two glorious personages; and one, pointing to the other, said, "Behold my beloved son! hear ye him." Then he was instructed and informed in regard to many things pertaining to his own welfare, and commanded not to unite himself to any of those churches. He was also informed that at some future time the fulness of the Gospel should be made manifest to him, and he should be an instrument in the hands of God of laying the foundation of the kingdom of God.

Elder John Taylor, Salt Lake City, October 7, 1859. Journal of Discourses 7:322

What could the Lord do with such a pack of ignorant fools as we were? There was one man that had a little good sense and a spark of faith in the promises of God, and that was Joseph Smith---a backwoods man. He believed a certain portion of Scripture which said---"If any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not." He was fool enough in the eyes of the world, and wise enough in the eyes of God and angels and all true intelligence, to go into a secret place to ask God for wisdom, believing that God would hear him. The Lord did hear him, and told him what to do.

Elder George A. Smith, Ogden City, November 15, 1864. Journal of Discourses 11:1

When the Lord appeared to Joseph Smith and manifested unto him a knowledge pertaining to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and the work of the last days, Satan came also with his power and tempted Joseph . . . In the very commencement of this Work, the Prophet Joseph Smith was called upon to contend face to face with the powers of darkness by spiritual manifestations, and open visions, as well as with men in the flesh, stirred up by the same spirit of the adversary to edge up his way and destroy him from the earth, and annihilate the work which he was about to commence. He thus describes the incident . . . (then follows a verbatim excerpt from the 1838 account in today's Pearl of Great Price)

Orson Pratt, Salt Lake City, February 24th, 1869. Journal of Discourses 12:354

When did the Lord first manifest Himself to this man? Read our history if you wish to understand all the particulars; on this occasion I shall barely refer you to the early history of this Church, in print. The Lord revealed Himself to that person, not in his manhood, but in his youth. We have heard much said, by those who know nothing of the matter, about "old Joe Smith." How old was Joseph Smith when the Lord first manifested Himself to him? He was about fourteen years and four months old . . . What were the circumstances that enabled him to have manifestations from Heaven at that early period of his life?. . . When he was about fourteen years old there was what is called a religious revival or reformation in the neighborhood in which he lived . . . First one and then another of the different persuasions would come and converse with him and try to influence him to join his lot with them; and seeing so much confusion, each sect claiming that they were the true people of God, he became at a loss what to do. He occasionally devoted an hour, when his labors on the farm would permit, to reading the Bible, and while doing so his eyes happened to fall on a certain passage of scripture, recorded in the epistle of James, which says that if any man lack wisdom let him ask of God who giveth liberally to all men and upbraideth not. Now this youth, this "old Joe Smith," that we have heard so much about, was just simple enough to believe that that passage really meant what it said. He went out into a little grove near his father's house, in the town of Manchester, Ontario County, State of New York, and there he knelt down in all the simplicity of a child and prayed to the Father in the name of Jesus that He would show him which, among all the churches, was the true one. Said he, "show me, Father, who are in possession of the truth, let me know, O Lord, the right way, and I will walk therein

[Joey]

I'm not sure about that. To the contrary, I think LDS apologists view the Tanners more and more as marginalized amateurs. They simply don't get much attention anymore.

I suppose "beauty will always be in the eye of the beholder", but the irony in your statement is just dripping. Those who are atttempting to register such names obviously think the names have a recognized "value", or why do it. Also if the Tanners don't get much attention anymore, why is it you have been able to post links to all the articles mentioning their names and mission!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!? (kind of like the ol "vatican vs salt lake" attention and recognition, eh?)

You are incorrect. A profit motive is not allowed under the law. An other-than-profit motive, however, is.

smac, you may want to re-think that one given the "capitalistic society" our constitution has embraced. Also, one can "profit" in many ways that do not include monetary results, although I think that could be a factor here. Alternatively, perhaps the spelling of the word is also at play here: "profit" or "prophet" may be interchangable in this case.

But why not just let those who are creating the stir speak for themself. (If they have, my apologies as I do not have the luxory of spending much time here.)

[mnn727]

You know, the really funny thing is, that if it were not for LDS Apoligists, the Tanners would not be known outside the Salt Lake Valley. Ask your average person on the streets of Dallas, Denver, Atlanta, etc what the Tanners are famous for and they'll say "Who?"

[smac97]

> I suppose "beauty will always be in the eye of the beholder", but the irony in your statement is just dripping. Those who are atttempting to register such names obviously think the names have a recognized "value", or why do it.

==I'm not sure I see the irony. First, we only have one guy, Allan Wyatt, buying the domain names. My comment related to "LDS apologists" in general. Second, even if Wyatt does view the Tanners as some sort of threat, his opinion is not necessarily indicative of "LDS apologists in general."

==I've been following LDS apologetics for some years now. The Tanners just don't get much attention any more.

> Also if the Tanners don't get much attention anymore, why is it you have been able to post links to all the articles mentioning their names and mission!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?

==Because I do a google search every morning for LDS-related news items. As I was participating in this thread, I thought it would be useful to post the few articles that have come up on the subject. So far I've seen two Utah papers, one Arizona paper and one Idaho paper mention the suit. That's not much "attention," IMHO.

==And let's keep in mind that what is garnering attention here is not the Tanners' work on Mormonism, but their lawsuit. But for this lawsuit, there would not have been any attention paid.

>> You are incorrect. A profit motive is not allowed under the law. An other-than-profit motive, however, is.

> smac, you may want to re-think that one given the "capitalistic society" our constitution has embraced.

==I'm quite willing to be educated. Please tell me how my analysis of the statute I cited earlier is incorrect.

> Also, one can "profit" in many ways that do not include monetary results, although I think that could be a factor here.

==I really doubt that will fly in court. "Profit," I think, will be interpreted as financial gain. In fact, I would be surprised if the Tanners' attorney even tried such an argument. It sounds contrived, even a wee bit desperate.

==However, if you can come up with some authority to support this proposition, I'm all ears.

-Smac

[Joey]

You know, the really funny thing is, that if it were not for LDS Apoligists, the Tanners would not be known outside the Salt Lake Valley. Ask your average person on the streets of Dallas, Denver, Atlanta, etc what the Tanners are famous for and they'll say "Who?"

While I'm not sure it would be received with the same "funny thing" appeal, this is exactly the same situation with Gordon Hinkley, I know because I've tried it. Outside of Utah and perhaps a few adjacent areas, no one knows who he is? People will inevitably ask "Who is he" and when you respond with "the mormon church prophet", the next follow up question/statement will very likely have to do with polygamy.

[Confidential Informant]

SMac,

Check your email and contact me ASAP!

C.I.

[Dale]

Hi,

Dunamis I feel the Tanners cite things out of context. FARMS has documented how they misuses Richard Anderson's book on the Book of Mormon witnesses. I know of other examples quotes with related material left out. I take full legal responsibility & exonerate FAIR for anything I say. I am not demonizing or bad mouthing Jerald & Sandra Tanner, or Utah Lighthouse Ministry when I suggest they have produced problem scholarship.

I saw Sandra Tanner in a couple of anti-Mormon films & her anti-Mormon talking points are repeated over & over again.

I am angry that they feel a need to sue FAIR. I have to see FAIR as making an impact, or they wouldn't have looked for a reason to sue. I hope FAIR win's.

I still hope you will not close this post down. I didn't see anything wrong with what I read. You are the moderator & I am not so it's your call. I support what you are trying to do. You are always free to delete my posts if you feel I am out of line.

In fact I personally prefer you move to temporary suspensions of a post rather than permanent closing. This would give you time to remove the most offensive messages. And if you have a particular trouble maker, or trouble makers ban them from that post.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Calm]

==And let's keep in mind that what is garnering attention here is not the Tanners' work on Mormonism, but their lawsuit. But for this lawsuit, there would not have been any attention paid.

And that may indeed be the sole purpose of the lawsuit.

It boggles the mind that if all they wanted was to get the names back, that it didn't occur to them to even ask the guy before they went to the lawyers.

[Confidential Informant]

==And let's keep in mind that what is garnering attention here is not the Tanners' work on Mormonism, but their lawsuit.  But for this lawsuit, there would not have been any attention paid.

And that may indeed be the sole purpose of the lawsuit.

It boggles the mind that if all they wanted was to get the names back, that it didn't occur to them to even ask the guy before they went to the lawyers.

It boggles the mind that if all they wanted was to get the names back, that it didn't occur to them to even ask the guy before they went to the lawyers.

It's likely to boggle the judge's mind also. Judges don't like people who bring suit first without trying to settle the issue before hand.

C.I.

P.S. I wonder how the Tanners feel about the case being assigned to Judge Kimball? He's the same judge who dismissed the ACLU's main street lawsuit.

ci

[SlackTime]

It's likely to boggle the judge's mind also.  Judges don't like people who bring suit first without trying to settle the issue before hand.

P.S. I wonder how the Tanners feel about the case being assigned to Judge Kimball?  He's the same judge who dismissed the ACLU's main street lawsuit.

It will be all for the better to them if they lose or even if they get the addresses and don't get damages. They'll be able to scream how mormon biased the courts in Utah are. Thus generating far more publicity than if they actually asked for the URLs and were given them.

Ed

[Bsix]

I remember back when someone was cybersquatting on mormon.com. The owner/s used the site to publish pornography.

Funny thing is...I don't recall hearing a single complaint from the critics of Mormonism about THAT case of cybersquatting.

I suppose that just how evil cybersquatting is viewed is in the subjective eye of the beholder.

Regards,

Six

[Scott Lloyd]

I remember back when someone was cybersquatting on mormon.com. The owner/s used the site to publish pornography.

Funny thing is...I don't recall hearing a single complaint from the critics of Mormonism about THAT case of cybersquatting.

The ones on this thread have had plenty of opportunity to do so here and now, but so far I haven't seen it.

[TheRyeGuy]

Correct.....

[Scott Lloyd]

Correct.....

[Outshined]

What if the Tanners' registered some variant of Fairlds? Would you say that they were justified in their actions? I highly doubt it.

Actually, an Evangelical group did have a variation of the FAIR URL with an anti-Mormon web site attached for some time.

[Avatar4321]

It will be all for the better to them if they lose or even if they get the addresses and don't get damages. They'll be able to scream how mormon biased the courts in Utah are. Thus generating far more publicity than if they actually asked for the URLs and were given them.

Ed

Well they are the ones that brought the suit in Utah. I'm sure if their lawyers were creative they could have found another forum with jurisdiction to bring it in. So if they are worried about mormon judges bring the suit somewhere else. seems rather silly to me.

[TheRyeGuy]

What if the Tanners' registered some variant of Fairlds?  Would you say that they were justified in their actions?  I highly doubt it. 

Actually, an Evangelical group did have a variation of the FAIR URL with an anti-Mormon web site attached for some time.

And...

How do you come out on that?

[Outshined]

What if the Tanners' registered some variant of Fairlds?

[Paul Osborne]

The Tanners are a couple of crying babies.

Booooo hoooo boooo hooo.

FAIR is a lot smarter than UTLM. Does anyone have some milk for the babies to sip in their little lighthouse?

This is America!

Paul

[Moksha]

I imagine this law suit will need to wend its way to Denver to finally be resolved.

[Calm]

What happens if the judge dismisses the suit (can he?) as a nuisance suit or whatever the legal term is?

[Blink]

I imagine this law suit will need to wend its way to Denver to finally be resolved.

What happens in Denver?

[Moksha]

I imagine this law suit will need to wend its way to Denver to finally be resolved.

What happens in Denver?

They have major league football and they are the next level of appeal after Utah. If a case has problems due to religious issues, it can get sorted out here on its merits.

After I wrote that, I started to rethink it. There really is no reason they can not come to a pre-trial settlement.

[TELSTAR409]

What happens if the judge dismisses the suit (can he?) as a nuisance suit or whatever the legal term is?

IMHO that is exactly what should happen. If ever there was a mountain made out of the proverbial molehill...this is it.

After reading their complaint...I find it laughable that the Tanner's would even think to sue Alan Wyatt over something like this. Much less FAIR.

They had the opportunity to register the names.

They didn't take it.

Their mistake.

Not one of the sites mentioned claimed to BE the Tanner's property nor did they claim to be pro-Tanner.

They simply directed those who might be interested in reading about the Tanner's work somewhere where they could get an alternate viewpoint on it. There was nothing dishonest about it at all. In fact, I found it highly amusing.

When I first came on the internet nearly ten years ago almost every site typed in that had anything at all to do with Mormons or LDS was an anti-Mormon site. Some of which DID deceitfully lead readers to believe...at least on the first half of the home page... that they were pro-LDS. I didn't know enough to check then...but it would be interesting to know how many of those sites connected to the Tanner's site.

To me it seems very evident that FAIR has been an annoying itch for the Tanner's for some time now...and they've just finally found a way to scratch it.

It's no surprise that they did not even seek to resolve the matter by going to the Wyatt's and requesting the opportunity to purchase the domain names. There would have been no publicity in doing the right thing. To the Tanner's this publicity is nothing more than free advertising. They should be writing Alan a check instead of asking for monetary damages.

The bottom line here is that even if they felt justified in filing suit against Alan...which IMHO they were not...there was absolutely NO reason to add FAIR to the suit.

FAIR would be justified in countersuing for a number of reasons IMHO.