The Church has begun enforcing their trademark, "Mormon". Anti-LDS Websites Targeted.

[Stargazer]

As a subscriber with David Alexander, a recent convert from evangelical Christianity with a prolific pro-LDS YouTube channel, I noticed today his response to an article that appeared in The Salt Lake Tribune, discussing the Church's effort to enforce the "Mormon" trademark. The targets include "Mormon Stories" and "Radio Free Mormon".  Here's the link to the Trib article: https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2025/12/08/lds-church-pressures-mormon/  Of course, the Trib's website won't let you read the article without being a subscriber (i.e. there's a paywall), and not being willing to pay for it, I haven't read it myself.

But Alexander does discuss the issue in this YouTube video: HOORAY! CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS PRESSURES "MORMON STORIES" TYPES TO "REBRAND"! As usual, the comment section of the video is quite interesting.

From what little I've seen, John Dehlin is resisting the rebrand, but Bill Reel seems to be intending to comply. 

Apparently, the Church's intellectual property department is also talking to pro- or neutral-sources about their use of "Mormon." A commenter in the David Alexander video writes that they listen to a pro-LDS podcast that also received a letter. The comment is:

Quote

@beckischreyer: I listen to a pro LDS podcast that had a very kind letter from the church headquarters asking her to kindly change the symbol she was using since it approximates the churches use of the symbol.  They said they were happy with what she was doing, she just needed to make sure it didn’t appear as it was coming straight from the church.  She was more than happy to comply with that.

So John Dehlin can cry all he wants.  But the church isn’t doing anything that targets him over any other podcasts… INCLUDING… those that support the church.

 So will Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Forum have to change its name? A question for @Nemesis.

 

 

[Nemesis]

🤫

[The Nehor]

There is probably something behind this. Reportedly sometime in 2026 or 2027 the Church has to renew their trademark.

They may have a bit of a problem since they have actively been renaming or retiring a lot of the initiatives and uses of the word “Mormon” they used in previous renewals. You can’t claim copyright if you aren’t actively using the trademark. Another bit of evidence is that you are actively protecting your trademark.

My guess is that this is why the Church is doing this. To prove they are defending it.

[bluebell]

Just now, The Nehor said:

There is probably something behind this. Reportedly sometime in 2026 or 2027 the Church has to renew their trademark.

They may have a bit of a problem since they have actively been renaming or retiring a lot of the initiatives and uses of the word “Mormon” they used in previous renewals. You can’t claim copyright if you aren’t actively using the trademark. Another bit of evidence is that you are actively protecting your trademark.

My guess is that this is why the Church is doing this. To prove they are defending it.

Probably 

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

There is probably something behind this. Reportedly sometime in 2026 or 2027 the Church has to renew their trademark.

They may have a bit of a problem since they have actively been renaming or retiring a lot of the initiatives and uses of the word “Mormon” they used in previous renewals. You can’t claim copyright if you aren’t actively using the trademark. Another bit of evidence is that you are actively protecting your trademark.

My guess is that this is why the Church is doing this. To prove they are defending it.

Community of Christ has been successfully preventing the Restoration Branches use of old RLDS names/images/etc... that they haven't actively used in decades.

[The Nehor]

23 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Community of Christ has been successfully preventing the Restoration Branches use of old RLDS names/images/etc... that they haven't actively used in decades.

True, but I don’t think that will always universally work.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

course, the Trib's website won't let you read the article without being a subscriber (i.e. there's a paywall), and not being willing to pay for it, I haven't read it myself.

Click on the reader option in the little page icon.  They have had 5 or 10 years to change it, as long as they have had the paywall, so they must not care for some reason….at least not enough to do the additional coding or whatever it takes to remove the option like other sites do.  If it was a small site, I might think it was the cost, but it seems unlikely for the Trib.
 

 

Quote

From what little I've seen, John Dehlin is resisting the rebrand, but Bill Reel seems to be intending to comply. 

I think the brand is more useful for Dehlin than Reel, it’s a better name for Dehlin’s purposes.  It is, imo, a great name for a podcast.  He has already had a lawyer volunteer iirc as well.  I doubt Reel is making as much money and is much less well known (haven’t seen him in the news that I remember except a few articles on his excommunication), so less likely to be worth it for a lawyer to do pro bono for him.

Quote

Apparently, the Church's intellectual property department is also talking to pro- or neutral-sources about their use of "Mormon."

It would be hard to argue against the antis using it if they allowed pro or neutral, I believe.  They have to be consistent.

Edited December 11, 2025 by Calm

[webbles]

The article mentions that Bill Reel was looking at trademarking "Radio Free Mormon" and "Mormon Discussion" and the church sent a letter that they would oppose it:

Quote

Nonetheless, Bill Reel, executive director and co-host, received an email from Intellectual Reserve Inc. last month informing him the church “is prepared to oppose” his applications to trademark both names. (Reality TV star Heather Gay famously hit a similar snag when trying to trademark the name of her 2023 memoir, “Bad Mormon”.)

I tracked down the status of "Bad Mormon" and she abandoned the application in January 2024 - https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91281170&pty=OPP&eno=29.

 

And the "Mormon" trademark can be renewed starting May 2026 - https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=78977858&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch

 

[marineland]

On 12/10/2025 at 1:04 PM, Stargazer said:

The comment is:

 So will Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Forum have to change its name? A question for @Nemesis.

BookOfMormonDialogue.org ?

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, marineland said:

BookOfMormonDialogue.org ?

Probably not. Maybe MembersOfTheChurchOfJesusChristOfLatterDaySaintsDialogueAndDiscussionBoard.org -- a bit long, but...

I checked, and MDDB.org is taken, but not being used. Some domain squatter owns it, and no doubt hopes to make some cheddar on it.

 

[Nofear]

On 12/10/2025 at 12:04 PM, Stargazer said:

 So will Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Forum have to change its name? A question for @Nemesis.

I personally doubt it. I'll have to recheck this Sunday, but if memory serves me, mormondialogue.org is blocked by the Church's Liahona wifi at meeting houses.

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, Nofear said:

I personally doubt it.

It’s a historic place name, like the Mormon trail. 😛   
 

Anything like this that is still around in the same basic form after 20 years on the internet definitely qualifies historic in my view.  And urls are addresses.

[Devobah]

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

I personally doubt it. I'll have to recheck this Sunday, but if memory serves me, mormondialogue.org is blocked by the Church's Liahona wifi at meeting houses.

As someone whose guilty pleasure it is to peruse this board when I’m at church, I can confirm it still is.