DiscussMormonism.com

Because Mormons might think that Mormon Stories is affiliated with the Mormon church.

What changes are they seeking?

msnobody wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 24, 2025 4:12 am

What changes are they seeking?

Probably not "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints Stories". Though, that would make a hell of a lot more sense.

Can't wait to see the letters they send to the Mormon Wives franchise. Or, what about the Called to Surf store? If Mr. Mac has a promotion for Mormon missionaries, is that infringement?

The Church is wrong on this one. Very wrong. A podcast for Mormons can sure as hell say so.

Does anybody on the planet think “Mormon Stories” is a subsidiary of the SLC LDS Church?

Given that this indicates a swing back towards the term “Mormon” no longer being a forbidden devil term, this is a further example that we’ve had a decade or so of Nelsonism, not Mormonism, and now we are experiencing a period of Oakism, not Mormonism. There's Bishop Roulette at a local level, and there is also President Roulette at the top level.

I Have Questions wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 24, 2025 7:56 am

Does anybody on the planet think “Mormon Stories” is a subsidiary of the SLC LDS Church?

Given that this indicates a swing back towards the term “Mormon” no longer being a forbidden devil term, this is a further example that we’ve had a decade or so of Nelsonism, not Mormonism, and now we are experiencing a period of Oakism, not Mormonism. There's Bishop Roulette at a local level, and there is also President Roulette at the top level.

The church has a tough legal road ahead of them if they really want to pursue this. The United States Patent and Trademark Office rejected the church's efforts to trademark the term "Mormon." The reason was that the term "Mormon" was considered too generic.

This coupled with the church's explicit disavowing and distancing itself of the term "Mormon" since 2018 further shoots their case in the head. The church would have to successfully prove that people are confusing the Mormon Stories website with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Not an easy task.

Everybody Wang Chung wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 24, 2025 3:57 pm

I Have Questions wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 24, 2025 7:56 am

Does anybody on the planet think “Mormon Stories” is a subsidiary of the SLC LDS Church?

Given that this indicates a swing back towards the term “Mormon” no longer being a forbidden devil term, this is a further example that we’ve had a decade or so of Nelsonism, not Mormonism, and now we are experiencing a period of Oakism, not Mormonism. There's Bishop Roulette at a local level, and there is also President Roulette at the top level.

The church has a tough legal road ahead of them if they really want to pursue this. The United States Patent and Trademark Office rejected the church's efforts to trademark the term "Mormon." The reason was that the term "Mormon" was considered too generic.

This coupled with the church's explicit disavowing and distancing itself of the term "Mormon" since 2018 further shoots their case in the head. The church would have to successfully prove that people are confusing the Mormon Stories website with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Not an easy task.

So the Church doesn't have a legal leg to stand on when insisting Mormon Stories change its name, and use of the term "trademark infringement" is a lie? (on the basis you cannot infringe a trademark that isn't a legally recognised trademark).

I Have Questions wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 24, 2025 3:59 pm

Everybody Wang Chung wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 24, 2025 3:57 pm

The church has a tough legal road ahead of them if they really want to pursue this. The United States Patent and Trademark Office rejected the church's efforts to trademark the term "Mormon." The reason was that the term "Mormon" was considered too generic.

This coupled with the church's explicit disavowing and distancing itself of the term "Mormon" since 2018 further shoots their case in the head. The church would have to successfully prove that people are confusing the Mormon Stories website with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Not an easy task.

So the Church doesn't have a legal leg to stand on when insisting Mormon Stories change its name, and use of the term "trademark infringement" is a lie? (on the basis you cannot infringe a trademark that isn't a legally recognised trademark).

Well, the church's application for the standalone term "Mormon" was rejected, but the church does own trademarks for the word "Mormon" when it is combined with other terms, such as Book of Mormon and Mormon Tabernacle Choir (before the name change to The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square). Yes, it would be VERY difficult for the church to prevail.

Years ago, we once helped Grindael fight to keep his website "Mormonite Musings." The church sent an almost identical letter giving Grindael 21 days to remove and/or rename his website. We sent the church a letter with some case law and politely agreed to accept service of any lawsuit they wished to file. We never heard back from the church and Grindael's website still stands.

This coming from someone who listened to many if not most of Dehlin's podcasts in his first four, five, or six years (can't remember now)...he' a wolf in sheep's clothing.

That simple. I don't need to write an essay as to why I say this. It just is. I have my reasons for why I give this simple statement.

And that's all I'll say. I realize opinions will vary.

I will say this, however. He, along with anyone else...including you and me...comes at life with his/her own presuppositions, inclinations, traits, etc., that lead in certain directions. That being the case I will have to give him the benefit of a doubt that he believes that he is doing 'good'.

Regards,
MG

MG 2.0 wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 24, 2025 6:23 pm

This coming from someone who listened to many if not most of Dehlin's podcasts in his first four, five, or six years (can't remember now)...he' a wolf in sheep's clothing.

What has that got to do with the Church trying to impose a trademark on a name it sought to disassociate from under Nelson?

That simple. I don't need to write an essay as to why I say this. It just is. I have my reasons for why I give this simple statement.

And that's all I'll say. I realize opinions will vary.

Ah, the L. Tom Perry briefcase routine.

I will say this, however. He, along with anyone else...including you and me...comes at life with his/her own presuppositions, inclinations, traits, etc., that lead in certain directions. That being the case I will have to give him the benefit of a doubt that he believes that he is doing 'good'.

Regards,
MG

How is that relevant to the topic of the Church trying to impose a trademark on a name it sought to disassociate from under Nelson?

MG 2.0 wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 24, 2025 6:23 pm

This coming from someone who listened to many if not most of Dehlin's podcasts in his first four, five, or six years (can't remember now)...he' a wolf in sheep's clothing.

That simple. I don't need to write an essay as to why I say this. It just is. I have my reasons for why I give this simple statement.

And that's all I'll say. I realize opinions will vary.

I will say this, however. He, along with anyone else...including you and me...comes at life with his/her own presuppositions, inclinations, traits, etc., that lead in certain directions. That being the case I will have to give him the benefit of a doubt that he believes that he is doing 'good'.

Regards,
MG

It’s not illegal for him to portray himself as Mormon. As sunstone says, there is more than one way to be Mormon. (Maybe they will be the next to be sued under Oaks.)

I’ve never heard an episode where he says that he represents the church. In fact almost every episode he says the exact opposite.