LDS Church and "Mormon"

[Kishkumen]

I have been aware of the LDS Church's most recent efforts to attack John Dehlin's Mormon Stories for some weeks now, but I have frankly not had the energy to post about this stupid, bullying effort until today. Mormon is used to refer to a wide array of things springing from the Smith-Rigdon Restoration Movement. That is where I see Mormon Stories operating. Mormon Stories is devoted to the stories and experiences of people who engage with Mormonism in some way. It discusses issues of interest to such people. It never sought to present itself as an official organ of the LDS Church. I hope that the LDS Church's efforts to attack Mormon Stories fail utterly. I consider their suit an attack on free speech. I worry that they will succeed because our country is no longer a land of civil rights so much as a land of corporate power. Corporations and plutocrats use their wealth and power to push the rest of us around for their own benefit. Even though I do not believe the LDS Church approaches the suit from the same place as, say, Microsoft or Elon Musk, their methods and aims still work against the freedom of individuals and smaller organizations to express themselves with generous, salutary latitude. I can't support that, and I will not remain silent on the issue.

[Fence Sitter]

I wonder if the Mormon church will also pursue legal action against the Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board?

[Kishkumen]

I wonder if the Mormon church will also pursue legal action against the Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board?

Well, exactly! Where does it end? Anyone who uses the term Mormon Fundamentalist can look forward to Kirton McConkie letters?

It is so transparently stupid and mean-spirited.

[drumdude]

Getting It Right: Clarifying Trademark and Branding Concerns

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has filed a trademark and copyright complaint involving Open Stories Foundation and its “Mormon Stories” podcast. The issue is not the podcast’s viewpoint. It is the use of Church-protected names, images, and design elements in ways that are causing confusion about whether the content is official or affiliated with the Church.

What happened?

In November 2025, the Church contacted Open Stories Foundation privately about concerns with its branding. The goal was to resolve the matter privately and amicably.

The Church then engaged in good-faith mediation and proposed several options to reduce confusion while minimizing disruption. When those efforts did not result in resolution, the Church filed a complaint in federal court to protect its intellectual property.

Why does this matter?

The Church holds registered trademarks and copyrights so people can clearly identify what is and is not official Church communication. Names, logos, and visual design elements help people know when content represents the Church.

This case concerns branding choices that incorporate Church-protected names and design elements in ways that may lead people to believe the podcast is produced by or affiliated with the Church when it is not.

Why was mediation unsuccessful?

The primary issue is ongoing confusion about whether “Mormon Stories” is affiliated with the Church. To address that, the Church proposed a simple solution: a brief disclaimer that the podcast is not affiliated with or endorsed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is a common and straightforward way to help audiences understand the source of content. That step was not adopted. As a result, the likelihood of confusion remains, and the Church moved forward to protect its trademarks.

Is the Church trying to silence criticism?

No. People are free to express support for or criticism of the Church and its teachings. This case does not concern the content of the podcast. It concerns preventing confusion about source and affiliation.

Does the Church enforce trademarks consistently?

Yes. The Church reviews hundreds of potential trademark issues each year, including matters involving Church members and supportive creators. The first step is almost always private outreach. Most situations are resolved amicably. The same standards apply here.

Why now?

Public questions and ongoing confusion about whether “Mormon Stories” is official Church content made it necessary to act.

What about the term “Mormon”?

The Church holds trademarks covering certain uses of the term “Mormon,” including in connection with educational services. Not every use of the word requires permission. But when it is used as part of organizational branding in ways that create confusion about affiliation, the Church has a responsibility to address it.

The Church’s goal is simple: ensure people can clearly distinguish official Church materials from independent commentary

[msnobody]

All one would have to do is read the “About” section on the website, and if a latter-day saint had even a smidgen of an IQ, they could readily discern that this is not a church sponsored or sanctioned site.

It seems to me the church is being petty and spiteful.

[msnobody]

If you think about it, the church doesn’t even need members. They’ve amassed so much wealth, the corporation could certainly thrive without members.

[Rivendale]

All one would have to do is read the “About” section on the website, and if a latter-day saint had even a smidgen of an IQ, they could readily discern that this is not a church sponsored or sanctioned site.

It seems to me the church is being petty and spiteful.

Dehlin has been a rock in the church’s shoe for decades. His effectiveness and longevity make him target number one.

[I Have Questions]

Why now?

Public questions and ongoing confusion about whether “Mormon Stories” is official Church content made it necessary to act.

I think that’s a load of baloney. Where is the evidence of people being confused and asking public questions about whether “Mormon Stories” is official Church content?

[drumdude]

Why now?

Public questions and ongoing confusion about whether “Mormon Stories” is official Church content made it necessary to act.

I think that’s a load of baloney. Where is the evidence of people being confused and asking public questions about whether “Mormon Stories” is official Church content?

They’re just going to steamroll John Dehlin. Doesn’t matter that their thinly veiled excuse doesn’t hold water.

[malkie]

I think that’s a load of baloney. Where is the evidence of people being confused and asking public questions about whether “Mormon Stories” is official Church content?

They’re just going to steamroll John Dehlin. Doesn’t matter that their thinly veiled excuse doesn’t hold water.

Do they not have to demonstrate "damage" of some sort?