Calm

I assume most commandments about death are in consideration of mortal feelings. Possibly most commandments about anything. I don’t think we would require so many layers of instruction if we were capable of seeing things in an eternal, godly sense. It would be rather straightforward. “Love one another as I have loved you.” After all the “one” includes God. If we could see the consequences of our behaviour before we acted, we could see what the ultimate acts of love we could perform would be….and everything just falls in line.

It was mentioned in the Trib article from last year I posted earlier.

I wanted to mention the whole confusion thing is real and problematic for more than just thinking critical sites are friendly towards the Church when they are not. When FAIR owned this website, we had people condemning the Church for allowing such unChristlike behaviour (arguments between critics and members). Anytime FAIR pushes the envelope and often when it doesn’t, we get condemnation of the Church as if it’s the puppet master controlling our strings, vetting all our content (they don’t)….from both members and nonmembers. Plus when I worked at a non affiliated LDS bookstore in Canada (Beehive Books in Calgary, associated with Cardston Books), I lost track of people coming in saying “the Church has vetted all this, right?”. We had nonChurch related books like Harry Potter and Judy Blume on our shelves, so that always made me smile. We did sell some stuff from Church Distribution and Deseretbooks, but there are nonChurch ownrd LDScentric publishers out there. We even had one or two church critical books on the shelves, possibly by mistake because when I pointed out one to the manager, though she did nothing right away, it was gone next time I came into work. People assumed we had oversight just like Church Distribution, it was as good as church published if in our store. In and out of the Church, there seems to be many who assume the Church puts a lot more effort into overseeing and making sure members conform than they do. It is more honor system than Big Brother in my experience.

Shocker! PS: just in case it comes across that way, not saying the Church would refuse permission to nonaffiliated prochurch member sites for everything they don’t want on nonmember sites. I think there is likely a difference, just makes sense. I don’t know about the specifics of getting permission and what was required for licensing, haven’t seen the letters, etc. I do know FAIR chooses to abide by the Church’s direction if they ever bother to give it to us (I do know we have wanted it at times and not gotten it, I assume the reverse is probably true as well ) as not upper management (my only official roles besides volunteering with email questions have been with the bookstore for a bit and then membership clerk). I do know that avoiding confusion is one of the reasons given by the Church for trademark compliance to prochurch sites as well as critical ones.

So I decided I had to go view a YouTube episode and noticed the Spotify and other options. As far as I can see there is no disclaimer on their Spotify page. You have to open the description to see the one liner disclaimer with the trademark on YouTube, not in the video anywhere that I saw or heard (just watched the beginning and ending). Not seeing a disclaimer anywhere on the Apple podcast version either.

While the Trib represented the request to avoid confusion as a requirement to drop the name, it doesn’t look like that is what the letter actually said (and it wasn’t only Dehlin who received the letter). There is another letter that addresses “Mormon” for another website, but also does not say the only remedy is to drop it…though I suspect it would be the preferred one. https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2025/12/08/lds-church-pressures-mormon/ Looks like Dehlin changed the color of the site from ‘Mormon blue’ (my own label) to orange, so that would likely be added to the existence of a disclaimer at the bottom of each page as claiming it’s sufficient for not confusing readers. According to this article, Deseret can be added to Mormon and LDS as trademarks the Church is willing to protect.

Chat says Dehlin/OSF has 21 days to respond and if he listens to his lawyer, his only public response till then will be “we will respond in court”. I wonder if he has the self discipline for that. I anticipate some posting and deleting from him beyond the simple announcement of being sued based on past behaviour, especially if this doesn’t get much attention. When was the last time his name was in mainstream news?

Iirc, he has been asking for donations due to lower levels of it. If so, this will benefit him….especially if he doesn’t have to pay for it. This is, imo, the most likely reason the Church has delayed going after him. As for why now, wasn’t it here someone speculated the Church was needing to renew the trademark soon? If so, it’s may be a choice of losing the trademark (I have no clue of the legal ramification if this happens or if it’s even a possibility, hopefully Smac or someone else with legal expertise in this will help out) or giving him the attention he dreams about.

They do have a minimal disclaimer as Duncan pointed out, but if they use that as sufficient to avoid confusion with the Church, I suspect the Church has plenty of evidence it is not. I assume people write them with concerns much more than they write FAIR with them.

Why sue when a website puts on the disclaimer and/or alters the appearance as requested? They are not being selective, they are going after the guy who refused their request for an appropriate disclaimer that would remove the confusion…or most of it at least. (Given the Church uses different colors than Mormon blue, I don’t see needing a disclaimer on the podcast itself as unusual or unreasonable). That demonstrates it is not the use of “Mormon” or “LDS” (because they put out the same requests for that), but the association with the Church they are concerned about. FAIR and other websites supporting the Church, but not affiliated with it had to jump through the same hoops as Dehlin is being asked as far as I am aware (assuming there were no additional requests not publicized, I have just seen Dehlin reporting he is being sued). That you require every single site no matter the level of impact confusion might cause is unreasonable*** and based on your own assumptions rather than rational conclusions….why spend time and money once one has done enough to establish a legal claim to a trademark to go after everyone, whether or not there has been demonstrated confusion of that website over affiliation with the Church. FAIR has been confused with the Church. There was very good reason to require us to put up a disclaimer (I do not remember if we were proactive about it or the Church requested it). We have done our best to avoid that confusion, including placing disclaimers in our responses to anyone writing in (if we don’t, we get scolded). We had to buy a license to use “Mormon” as well. I know of other prochurch websites who have done the same for both “Mormon” and “LDS”, including only after receiving a cease and desist letter. It is a pretty simple request to fulfill in my understanding. ***it would be costly and time consuming tracking all of them as new ones pop up all the time and it would be unreasonable for small personal sites to have to buy a license for use

You continue to state as a fact something that isn’t clear. The stated explanation of needed to avoid confusion with the Church is otoh clearly sensible, given the result of confusion is at least a headache for the Church when others think they are putting out stuff they aren’t and often the loss of faith of good members who get blindsided by stuff they aren’t prepared for. If someone encounters new information that they then rationally process and come to a decision that they want to leave the faith, I don’t have a problem with that. I feel very bad for those who get overwhelmed unexpectedly and therefore have more of an emotional reaction, often a sense of betrayal which is so strong even if one resolves their issues, they can’t make a step back into their faith. I have seen this happen over and over. Mormonstories has been the most common source of reported confusion in my experience (thinking it was proLDS, being massively confused and overwhelmed by the information, unaware of how to address it, only seeking out help much later once the damage was set in and the ability to trust eroded). As someone who has always been interested in criticism of the Church, I don’t want people to avoid it, but being flooded by info one is not familiar with is not the best way to acquire useful and accurate knowledge. I feel the same way about missionary work. It shouldn’t ride the emotions, people should be given a chance to breathe, to step back, to talk to others, to study/research and most important to think about what it means to them. I know this doesn’t always happen, maybe it’s even rare. I hope not though. I hope in the future now we are better organized with our history, such will be included in missionary lessons.

Thank you for taking the time to explain this. I am going to read this a few more times before asking any clarifying questions, but wanted to be sure you knew my appreciation for your effort immediately.

He has been popular for a long time. I have been surprised they haven’t gone after him before. Since they make the same demand of devout members posting support of the Church and he has been doing significant damage to the Church for decades and was much more visible in the past imo, I doubt “hate” and him getting attention was the driver. It would have happened years ago if it was.

I expect what they want is for Dehlin to say it on the podcast itself as many people just listen to podcasts and don’t scroll to the bottom of the page to read fine print.

They aren’t saying no one else can use it. I know of cases where they have allowed it if a disclaimer of not being a Church website was used. They were members btw, pro church sites that the Church did the same thing to they have done to OSF in requesting a disclaimer (assuming there isn’t a clear disclaimer), so it’s not ‘personal’. FairMormon put up the disclaimer and licensed our own use. I know they ask for the same thing with “LDS”. I assume they will do the same for “Latter-day Saint” or anything else associated in this way with the Church where confusion may occur. I do not know how they (they meaning the legal team for this area) determine this, but I would not be surprised if it’s based on actual reports of confusion and/or the size of a site. Based on personal experience, I don’t think they (meaning the department over the internet/information) invest much in patrolling the internet for critical or otherwise material, at least not in the past. Maybe news sites. I wonder if my nephew in law who is rather highly placed in this area would tell me if I asked, lol. I need to write up a list of questions for next time I see him so I remember this time, but I have had bad luck for hitting family reunions in the past few years. He did answer several questions I had on how things worked 15, 20? (time flies and all that) years or so ago when I first found out that was the department he worked in. They want the disclaimer on the podcast itself, I believe. I would think other places where confusion occurs (saw one person state he was confused by the billboards, but I don’t know if they are that picky about ensuring no confusion. If there already is a disclaimer, perhaps the issue is it’s not thorough enough or not placed in a way that draws notice? Where is that disclaimer as far as you can remember?

On another note, anyone know how to tell when a story has been published on the newsroom. I feel like I must be blind and somewhere there is a date.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/getting-it-right-clarifying-trademark-branding-concerns If they weren’t requiring Mormonstories to change its name and only wanted a disclaimer, I find it odd that OSF didn’t go for it. Wonder why? I believe there were some offering pro bono services, but that was when the rumor was they were going to be required to change the name.

And you know this how? I am not in the least telling you that you have not experienced emotional abuse and a lot of it, but if you are saying that every man experiences emotional abuse in their marriages, I would like to know how you are defining “emotional abuse” and how you support the claim that it is married men’s typical experience. Serious questions. I am just curious, not challenging…at least at this point.

Whether I feel comfortable giving you a point depends on what you mean by “concede” and “challenge”

I didn’t go that deep. I was thinking of the most common day to day experiences and how mismatched in appearances would affect that. Is it appropriate to add complications, even risk of detainment for the vast majority of those who would be using nonbiological ID if Nehor is accurate (if they won’t switch bathrooms in most cases until they won’t draw attention, seems likely they won’t change ID till then as well) for the few that are placed in jail or need medical care? There is a lot of medical info probably more important than biological sex that isn’t listed on passports, etc. Why not require those if this is an actual purpose of passports? (Best to carry a medical information card for that necessity). This feels like an ad-hoc reasoning. Allergies to medication are most likely to cause issues I am guessing, more so than sex linked care in emergencies and those aren’t listed on a passport. Heart attacks are the most likely most important sex linked treatment, but are complications due to wrong sex more common than allergic responses to medicines? Other more likely more prominent issues in emergency treatment besides allergies to meds, current meds taking, chronic conditions (diabetes should be listed on passports if we are using them as a medical resource), pacemakers and other devices, blood type…. Not saying treating women medically the same as men is not dangerous, the medical establishment has been doing so for centuries and millions of women have likely died because of it. That it has only really recently been made into a major issue such that doing research now requires women as well as men shows it isn’t as high as of medical priority as some issues though, so while this may be a side benefit of passports, doesn’t seem like it should be rated highest priority when it comes to safety. There is potential for danger when people are identified as transgender individuals. Whether this is enough to justify IDs allowing for identity gender matching appearance rather than biology, I don’t know. I do believe it should be determined credibly that it is relatively safe, they won’t be targeted more than say women are currently targeted before insisting the IDs be solely biological sex. As far as jail… Aren’t people typically searched (pat down if not stripped?) thoroughly before being placed in detention? If not fully transitioned, it would be quickly known it seems (no experience here, so happy to be correct with documentation, not speculation). If fully transitioned so even a search doesn’t throw up a red flag, at this point I want to see documentation showing safety of the other inmates goes down around fully transitioned individuals being placed in jail with those they look like. Logically putting someone who looks like a man and has musculature like men in with women because of being biologically female seems problematic to me, but I don’t know the stats for violence, including sexual assault. And I believe putting someone who looks like a woman in with men has already been demonstrated to result in high rates of violence. Someone who is not transitioned, who is biologically male and also looks male when in typical male clothes should, imo, go into the male side of prisons if they don’t have a separate transgendered facility. Do you think it is appropriate to put transitioned transgender women (biological men) in jail with csi gender men? added: adults should have the choice on whether or not to share medical information publicly. For those transgender individuals who are concerned about emergency situations just like diabetics, people with life threatening allergies, people with pacemakers, people needing certain medications and not wanting others, etc all are…include a medical information card either in the wallet or inside the passport if the main ID. Why should they be forced to share medical information when others are not?

This is how I perceive it, but putting probability numbers to it seems to suggest being able to measure actual precise probability rather than just broad categories the way you describe it. I don’t understand how the seemingly precise numbers are arrived at scientifically. Not challenging, trying to understand the conversation where I haven’t yet. I get the appeal when Joseph is pointed to as an outlier to show just how much of an outlier he would have to be….but I seem to be missing some of the steps of how this is done, why/how are the numbers used to calculate the probabilities chosen? Seems like it would be arbitrary unless someone had deeply studied behaviors of changing word choice of broad numbers of people overtime. I feel it’s physics being apply to language and I can’t figure out what and where the “constants” in the formula are. I can usually see broad pictures and most assumptions of arguments enough so I know where to research to fill gaps, but not sure if I am even asking the right questions at the moment.

So why require biological sex as opposed to actual gender appearance? Wouldn’t that be more appropriate in proving identity? If the passport says male and they look female or it says female and they look male, what steps will be taken to ensure they are who they claim to be on the passport? Won’t they need to provide more information and not less if these cases?

Currently, I’m not up on the more recent releases as well actual academic reports (evidence based science/medicine) as opposed to news, so my opinion isn’t that relevant for now imo. One of these days I will do a deep dive again. But since you asked…. As far as I can tell, the current state of evidence suggests improvements may be less, but still there. The recent studies I am aware of are being criticized, need to study those and anything else out the last year or so. If the criticism is accurate, medical necessity for adults would likely still apply in most cases that were so defined before imo. Added: As someone who currently has a severe disorder most likely because doctors didn’t take me seriously in my teens and 20s, wouldn’t listen to me and therefore misdiagnosed me in my 30s and 40, and then when I finally found what was wrong with me beyond all doubt refused to agree that the expert recommended medical treatment was medically necessary for me and so instead gave me drugs known for years by the experts to make things worse (and I knew it too, but since I couldn’t sleep without them didn’t exactly have a choice to refuse them), as someone who therefore is totally screwed up because doctors didn’t do what was medically necessary because it wasn’t mainstream at the time, I tend to have a cautious view on telling patients what they see as medically necessary isn’t. My daughter went through the same thing, refused the best treatment for juvenile diabetes (the pump) because it wasn’t seen as medically necessary (she was not able to go to school because her sugars were consistently so high she was sick half the time, once she was on the pump her sugars dropped to healthy levels, but the damage was done and she never got back to regular schooling due to anxiety) and then not mainstream (doctor gave her anxiety meds contraindicated for RLS because “he didn’t treat RLS” and since he was the only pediatric psychiatrist around, I gave in like an idiot as he assured me it would get her back in school…instead her RLS screwed up so bad even if her anxiety was controlled…it wasn’t…she would be asleep till school was almost out). I am very pro patient driven care, though I insist the science be there as well. But our doctors wouldn’t even look at the research I printed up and brought in both cases because it wasn’t the usual, wasn’t covered by insurance, was discouraged by the government. Now the treatments are mainstream and seen as medically necessary. Though it is still a major fight to get insurance to pay for the more expensive drugs even after decades of use showing effectiveness. Legislatures and insurance getting involved in the medical discussion determining what is and isn’t medically necessary is highly problematic, imo. Malpractice as well (should be limits) is a disaster, imo. Can you tell I just had another crisis due to insurance?

When it comes to healthcare for most people, yes, especially the more expensive variety.