Trademark infringement case against Open Stories Foundation

[The Nehor]

I have personal knowledge of an attempted trademark take down. A relative of a friend created a “Mormon” dating site and got hit by a threat of a lawsuit for using the term Mormon and possibly other trademark infringements. I am not certain of how good the Church’s case was. On the other hand the guy was very sleazy and ran a lot of scams targeting Church members so I suspect this site also was scummy as hell. From what I heard he sold the site before the case went anywhere so no idea if it went anywhere. The Church does target other sites but no idea how credible their claims usually are.

[Kenngo1969]

On 4/18/2026 at 10:10 AM, Notatbm said:

It’s all about getting John dehlin. They hate that guy.  ...

Nah!  I'm sure the Brethren reserve their hatred for people who really deserve it: Anyone who doesn't like "funeral potatoes," people who fall asleep in church ... "Yewt" fans ...    

Sincerely,

Kenngo1969, proud graduate of  The Devil's School , fka "University of Deseret," nka "University of Utah"

Edited April 19 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

In fairness to @Notatbm (though I'm sure most everyone here knows this already: "Thank you, Captain Obvious!" ) leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints haven't always been consistent in their stance on the use of the term "Mormon."

Consider, for example, this: 

https://keepapitchinin.org/2013/09/10/i-am-a-mormon-boy-girl/  (RIP, Sister Ardis Parshall.  Gone too soon! )

And this:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1990/10/mormon-should-mean-more-good?lang=eng

Examples could, of course, be multiplied, but for me, these will suffice.

Does [or should] any of this have a bearing on the Trademark claim of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the term "Mormon"?   I'll leave that question to those who are more erudite than I am [read, "practically anyone" ].

 

[Notatbm]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

In fairness to @Notatbm (though I'm sure most everyone here knows this already: "Thank you, Captain Obvious!" ) leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints haven't always been consistent in their stance on the use of the term "Mormon."

Consider, for example, this: 

https://keepapitchinin.org/2013/09/10/i-am-a-mormon-boy-girl/  (RIP, Sister Ardis Parshall.  Gone too soon! )

And this:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1990/10/mormon-should-mean-more-good?lang=eng

Examples could, of course, be multiplied, but for me, these will suffice.

Does [or should] any of this have a bearing on the Trademark claim of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the term "Mormon"?   I'll leave that question to those who are more erudite than I am [read, "practically anyone" ].

 

Yep everyone knows the prophets  have been inconsistent. That is a symptom of not actually following Jesus' guidance if they get any at all. He is not wishy washy. That is why this whole issue of the church trying to protect its right to use the term mormon (which the most recently deceased prophet declared a major victory for satan) is stupid. Makes the church look like a bully....kinda like the fake steeple height controversy.

[webbles]

7 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

Yep everyone knows the prophets  have been inconsistent. That is a symptom of not actually following Jesus' guidance if they get any at all. He is not wishy washy. That is why this whole issue of the church trying to protect its right to use the term mormon (which the most recently deceased prophet declared a major victory for satan) is stupid. Makes the church look like a bully....kinda like the fake steeple height controversy.

I get really tired of people saying that President Nelson said that using 'mormon' is a victory for satan.  He was specifically talking about replacing the Lord's name with Mormon in the name of the church:

Quote

What’s in a name or, in this case, a nickname? When it comes to nicknames of the Church, such as the “LDS Church,” the “Mormon Church,” or the “Church of the Latter-day Saints,” the most important thing in those names is the absence of the Savior’s name. To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s Church is a major victory for Satan. When we discard the Savior’s name, we are subtly disregarding all that Jesus Christ did for us—even His Atonement.

You'll notice that 'LDS Church' and 'Church of the Latter-day Saints' are also a "major victory for Satan".  It is not the word "Mormon" that is a major victory.

[Notatbm]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

You continue to state as a fact something that isn’t clear.

I'm much more clear on my stance than the church is on whether or not they want to be on satan's side or Jesus'.

19 hours ago, Calm said:

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). 

It is only confusing because the church does not believe in informed consent. . One only has to listen to a few episodes to see that he isnt lying, making stuff up etc. Has real guests who use real names etc to share their experiences in the church both good and bad. I can use just one of many examples in my life...first time through temple. I went to temple prep and learned nothing. My first time through was a 100% ambush. I hated it and I only went back through when I could not get out of it. 

The church has created the informed consent monster all on its own. Instead of owning it, they sick lawyers on people who expose it.

19 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

The history can be included in the missionary discussions. How can they possibly dunk an investigator after just a few discussions if they have to spend all this time teaching the craziness in the church? That is an oft used excuse why the down and dirty cant be taught to our own lifelong members...not enough time with it being taken up with CFM or some other program. A church rep has admitted the essays were slow rolled in order to... Ill let him explain:

https://www.Mormon*******.***/elder-steven-e-snow-lds-gospel-topics-essays-not-advertisex/#:~:text=BONUS: Elder Steven E.,share them with your friends.

 

 

 

 

[Notatbm]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

 

***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 cant possibly believe the church cannot afford to police up the web of all the people using their precious "mormon" victory for the Devil. The church has a few hundred billion dollars that are used to pay off child molest victims, buy hundred million $$ resorts, high end houseing developments etc. Why not put the money to work for something Jesus would do and that is use lawyers to chase down everyone on the web not representative of the church who use the term "mormon" somewhere in their name...or uses the same color of blue?

I have an idea.....Missionaries can do it or better yet make it a calling for some tech dude in a ward to dedicate ten hours a week looking for people and orgs to for the church to sue? He/she can use fake names and social media accounts to infiltrate anti-mormon sites and orgs. I mean it isnt like the church has not done that before.

[Notatbm]

17 minutes ago, webbles said:

I get really tired of people saying that President Nelson said that using 'mormon' is a victory for satan.  He was specifically talking about replacing the Lord's name with Mormon in the name of the church:

You'll notice that 'LDS Church' and 'Church of the Latter-day Saints' are also a "major victory for Satan".  It is not the word "Mormon" that is a major victory.

Sure, but the discussion is about the word "Mormon." Church leaders lying to the world and its members is also a major victory for satan, but we cant criticize them for that... well good mormons cant.

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Yep everyone knows the prophets  have been inconsistent. That is a symptom of not actually following Jesus' guidance if they get any at all. He is not wishy washy. That is why this whole issue of the church trying to protect its right to use the term mormon (which the most recently deceased prophet declared a major victory for satan) is stupid. Makes the church look like a bully....kinda like the fake steeple height controversy.

I was attempting to extend an olive branch to you, for what little I now realize that was worth.  I should have known that you'd simply beat me about the head with it.  Lesson learned!  Thanks very much! 

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Sure, but the discussion is about the word "Mormon." Church leaders lying to the world and its members is also a major victory for satan, but we cant criticize them for that... well good mormons cant.

But the lawsuit against Open Stories/Mormon Stories has nothing to do with the word "Mormon".  That was an initial thought people had when learning about this lawsuit but now that we can actually read the document, it shows that it is about the logo and copyright images.  And those really make it look like Mormon Stories is trying very hard to look like the Church to cause confusion.  They knew that it would cause the confusion because people talked about it on the channel (the filing has screenshots of these discussions).

And even if we were actually talking about the word "Mormon", President Nelson never said that word was a "major victory for satan".  When I hear people say that, it makes me think that they don't really care about the facts and just want sound bites.

And I'm fine with criticizing Church leaders for lying.  I don't see why "good mormons can't".  But I'm not sure what that has to do with this discussion.  I don't recall anyone saying that the leaders are lying.  What does lying have to do with a copyright/trademark infringement case?

[webbles]

The church's trademark for "Mormon" is renewing this year - https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=78977858&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch.  So that could be part of the reason they are engaging in this behavior.

I also noticed that Mormon Discussions created a trademark last year - https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=99193313&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch.  They have voluntarily rescinded it this year and I wonder if that is because of some interaction with the Church.  It is interesting that the Trademark Office gave them the trademark for Mormon Discussions.

For this specific lawsuit, the Church included an Exhibit that lists all of the copyrighted items that they say Mormon Stories infringed.  It is a 172 page pdf - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.163775/gov.uscourts.utd.163775.1.3.pdf.  It looks like each item is 3-4 pages long, so that is ~45 infringements.

[Notatbm]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I was attempting to extend an olive branch to you, for what little I now realize that was worth.  I should have known that you'd simply beat me about the head with it.  Lesson learned!  Thanks very much! 

Olive branch? Since when have we been sparring about anything? I guess if in your mind you need to seek out peace with me perhaps you are the one with the problem. Persecution complex much? 
 

sorry but I don’t see where you and I needed to make any kind of peace. There was no contention. 

[Notatbm]

50 minutes ago, webbles said:

And I'm fine with criticizing Church leaders for lying.  I don't see why "good mormons can't".  But I'm not sure what that has to do with this discussion.  I don't recall anyone saying that the leaders are lying.  What does lying have to do with a copyright/trademark infringement case?

Pres oaks has stated very plainly that leaders in the church are not to be criticized… even if the criticism is true, but you knew that already. 
 

has nothing to do with the trademark thing other than the leaders are ok with not acting Christlike ( aka giving Satan a victory).. just depends on who is doing it and it is NEVER them. 

Edited April 19 by Notatbm

[Pyreaux]

8 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Yep everyone knows the prophets  have been inconsistent. That is a symptom of not actually following Jesus' guidance if they get any at all. He is not wishy washy. That is why this whole issue of the church trying to protect its right to use the term mormon (which the most recently deceased prophet declared a major victory for satan) is stupid. Makes the church look like a bully....kinda like the fake steeple height controversy.

Critics are loaded with assumptions. Like, why do you assume Jesus isn't wishy washy? Why can’t Jesus have whimsy? It's an apostate human obsession to be so intolerant of new revelation, which is always, by definition, a change of some sort. Since when has revelation ever been static or predictable? Why can't Jesus decide that the term "Mormon" served a purpose in 2010 and be over it by 2018?

Why do you assume its wishy washy at all? Looks like a long game from a legal and strategic standpoint. In trademark law, you often have to show that you are the primary user of a mark to defend it. By spending millions on the "I'm a Mormon" campaign and owning mormon.org, the Church effectively occupied that word. They flooded the zone, making the word "Mormon" legally and culturally synonymous with the Church. Once they established dominance over the term, they retire it. Now, when a critic makes use of it, the Church can claim trademark dilution or infringement, arguing that the public still associates that word with them. From now on, every time a headline bleeds "Mormon" or a show is named something like Secret Lives of Mormon Wives they will finally get sued for damages. 

Y'all going to be sad when your boy John goes bankrupt once he can't trick people anymore? Mormon Stories is predatory branding and the legal complaint is the "likelihood of confusion." The podcast is clearly designed to lead people to believe the podcast is an official Church resource. The top of search results for "Mormon" while using Church aesthetics effectively traps those looking for faithful resources. Their refusal to adopt a specific disclaimer is a primary reason the matter moved to federal court. He's going to lose.

Open Stories Foundation was already hemorrhaging support before this. Now all their ill-gotten gain from exploiting a federal trademark is going to a defense, after he loses for deceptive branding to solicit will result in damages on top of losing all their built-in Search Engine Optimization. If "Mormon Stories" has to become "Open Stories Podcast," they vanish from the top of Google overnight. I'd think that alone will lead to insolvency.

The Church has requested a trial by jury, which will likely focus on whether an "average consumer" would be tricked into thinking the podcast was an official product of the Church. They are going to win.

RIP Mormon Stories

Edited April 20 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, webbles said:

They have voluntarily rescinded it this year and I wonder if that is because of some interaction with the Church.

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

Quote

To date, the church has not put pressure on the church-critical podcasts “Radio Free Mormon” and “Mormon Discussion,” or their parent nonprofit, “Mormon Discussions,” to excise the M-word from their products. 

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 Gayfamously hit a similar snag when trying to trademark the name of her 2023 memoir, “Bad Mormon”.)

 

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Notatbm said:

Pres oaks has stated very plainly that leaders in the church are not to be criticized… even if the criticism is true, but you knew that already. 
 

has nothing to do with the trademark thing other than the leaders are ok with not acting Christlike ( aka giving Satan a victory).. just depends on who is doing it and it is NEVER them. 

I'm assuming you are talking about his talk "Criticism" from 1986 as recorded in the February 1987 Ensign - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1987/02/criticism?lang=eng

You might want to actually read the article instead of repeating the soundbite.  He is pretty explicit that he is talking about one specific meaning of criticism.

Quote

I do not refer to the kind of criticism the dictionary defines as “the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything.” (Random House Dictionary, unabridged ed., s.v. “criticism.”) That kind of criticism is inherent in the exercise of agency and freedom. In the political world, critical evaluation inevitably accompanies any knowledgeable exercise of the cherished freedoms of speech and of the press. In the private world, we have a right to expect critical evaluation of anything that is put into the marketplace or the public domain. Sports writers, reviewers of books and music, scholars, investment analysts, and those who test products and services must be free to exercise their critical faculties and to inform the public accordingly. This kind of criticism is usually directed toward issues, and it is usually constructive.

My cautions against criticism refer to another of its meanings, which the dictionary defines as “the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding.” (Ibid., s.v. “criticism.”) Faultfinding is “the act of pointing out faults, especially faults of a petty nature.” (Ibid., s.v. “faultfinding.”) It is related to “backbiting,” which means “to attack the character or reputation of [a person who is not present].” (Ibid., s.v. “backbite.”) This kind of criticism is generally directed toward persons, and it is generally destructive.

He also even talks about his counsel to not criticize doesn't include allowing lies:

Quote

However, this caution to constrain the use of truth provides no justification for lying. The principles of love, unity, righteousness, and mercy do not condone falsehood. The Lord commanded, “Thou shalt not bear false witness” (Ex. 20:16), and he has not revoked that command.

I don't see a problem with the counsel he gave.  He did not "state very plainly that leaders in the church are not to be criticized".  He is talking about a specific type of criticism, in specific situations.  And I agree with that because we shouldn't really criticize anyone like that, not just church leaders.

[Notatbm]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

I'm assuming you are talking about his talk "Criticism" from 1986 as recorded in the February 1987 Ensign - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1987/02/criticism?lang=eng

You might want to actually read the article instead of repeating the soundbite.  He is pretty explicit that he is talking about one specific meaning of criticism.

He also even talks about his counsel to not criticize doesn't include allowing lies:

I don't see a problem with the counsel he gave.  He did not "state very plainly that leaders in the church are not to be criticized".  He is talking about a specific type of criticism, in specific situations.  And I agree with that because we shouldn't really criticize anyone like that, not just church leaders.

I’m pretty sure bill reel was ex’d over his public calling out of holland for lying. So yea the q15 had a problem with it. 

[InCognitus]

On 4/18/2026 at 1:50 PM, Duncan said:

© 2005-2026 Open Stories Foundation. All rights reserved. Mormon Stories is not affiliated with, endorsed or sponsored by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

at the bottom

That's a recent change to the website in an attempt to comply with the requests made of him in mediation.  Check the website in the Wayback Machine (I'll let you supply the link).  I just checked the January 31 2026 capture in the Wayback Machine, and it only says this at the bottom of the webpage:

"© Copyright 2005 - 2026 | Mormon Stories. All rights reserved."

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Notatbm said:

I’m pretty sure bill reel was ex’d over his public calling out of holland for lying. So yea the q15 had a problem with it. 

Some of those lies were not lies (the Book of Mormon one is definitely not a lie).  Some of them had nuances.  And some of them were not intentional lies from President Holland and he retracted them when he learned he had been misled.

I would think that publicly calling out someone for lying when they didn't actually lie would be the second type of criticism.  Especially if you don't retract your statements after people point out that the accusation is false.

[Notatbm]

14 minutes ago, webbles said:

Some of those lies were not lies (the Book of Mormon one is definitely not a lie).  Some of them had nuances.  And some of them were not intentional lies from President Holland and he retracted them when he learned he had been misled.

I would think that publicly calling out someone for lying when they didn't actually lie would be the second type of criticism.  Especially if you don't retract your statements after people point out that the accusation is false.

The double digit stakes comment was definitely not true… and he was in a position to know the exact numbers so yes he is a liar. 
 

also the bbc interview he lied about Romney and the temple penalties. 

Edited April 20 by Notatbm

[Calm]

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2026/04/19/lds-church-sues-mormon-stories/#:~:text=LDS Church sues 'Mormon Stories,that name for 20 years.
 

Quote

“The complaint came as a surprise,” he wrote, “given how cooperative we have been.”

The church, however, says in its filing that Dehlin and his nonprofit “ultimately would not agree to take basic actions necessary” to lessen alleged confusion. It also says Dehlin “refused” to include a disclaimer at the start of each episode and does not address the one Dehlin added to the episode descriptions.

Because it’s so cooperative to commit to not using copyright images only to go ahead and do so….kind of like promising one wasn’t going to record a private meeting or publish it and then doing so.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, InCognitus said:

That's a recent change to the website in an attempt to comply with the requests made of him in mediation.  Check the website in the Wayback Machine (I'll let you supply the link).  I just checked the January 31 2026 capture in the Wayback Machine, and it only says this at the bottom of the webpage:

"© Copyright 2005 - 2026 | Mormon Stories. All rights reserved."

Looks like it happened between Feb 15 (not there) and 27 (there)

[webbles]

10 hours ago, Notatbm said:

The double digit stakes comment was definitely not true… and he was in a position to know the exact numbers so yes he is a liar. 
 

also the bbc interview he lied about Romney and the temple penalties. 

Those 2 are in the nuances category and I don't believe they are lies or "definitely not true".

Let's start with Romney and the BBC Interview.  Here's the transcript of the part in question:

Quote

Sweeney: Let’s talk about Mitt Romney. (OK). The man who may well become the most powerful man on Earth. (Uh huh). As a Mormon, in the Temple, I’ve been told, he would have sworn an oath to say that he would not pass on what happens in the Temple, lest he slit his throat. Is that true?

Holland: That’s not true. That’s not true. We do not have penalties in the Temple.

Sweeney: You used to?

Holland: We used to.

Sweeney: Therefore, he swore an oath saying, ‘I will not tell anyone about the secrets here lest I slit my throat.’

Holland: Well, the, the, the vow that was made, was regarding the ordinance, the ordinance of the Temple.

Sweeney: It sounds masonic, sir. It sounds masonic.

Holland: Well, it’s comparable, similar to a, a masonic, uh, relationship.

Sweeney: The most, potentially, the most powerful man in the world has sworn an oath, which he meant at the time, whatever it is now, that he must not tell anyone about what he seen lest he slit his throat.

Holland: That he would not tell anyone about his personal pledge to the Lord. I am assuming that any religious candidate: an evangelical a Roman Catholic – Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Osama…I mean, (nervous chuckle), President Obama. Uh, I’m assuming that anybody
who has a relationship to God has made a pledge of some kind to God. There’d be some kind of loyalty to God, or what kind of God is that?

Elder Holland doesn't deny there were penalties.  But the answer to the first question "he would have sworn an oath ..." is "no".  Elder Holland didn't lie there.  I can see why members might think that Elder Holland lied there.  But the penalties were about revealing a specific thing in the temple.  It was not about "what happens in the Temple".  Some members have understood them to encompass the entire temple ceremony but there are other members who don't understand it that way.  I'm in that second bucket.  So if you asked me that question, I would say that the statement isn't true because I made no oath like that.

The third statement ("Therefore, he swore an oauth") is different from the first since it is now talking more about "the secrets" and the answer is closer to a yes.  And notice that Elder Holland doesn't say no there but tries to give context.

So no, Elder Holland did not lie in the BBC interview.  I would have truthfully answered the same thing.

 

The double digit stakes is also nuanced.  He was not talking about stake creations that are announced.  He is talking about the Thursday meeting where they discuss and approve stake creations.  The time between approval of stakes and the actual creation is not mentioned.  Based on the actual number of stakes that were created in 2016 (when he made the statement), it looks like it took several weeks or even months for some of those approved stakes.  The most stakes actually organized in a single day was 6.  Elder Holland also mentioned that the stake creations fluctuate frequently.

https://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/2016/04/10-new-stakes-to-be-created-each-week.html has a decent rundown of what was said.  So, no, I don't think he said something "definitely not true".  For those 2 weeks that he mentions, the church could have approved double digit stake creations.  And it would have excited Elder Holland to feel like it could happen much more frequently ("every week")

[Notatbm]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

Those 2 are in the nuances category and I don't believe they are lies or "definitely not true".

Let's start with Romney and the BBC Interview.  Here's the transcript of the part in question:

Elder Holland doesn't deny there were penalties.  But the answer to the first question "he would have sworn an oath ..." is "no".  Elder Holland didn't lie there.  I can see why members might think that Elder Holland lied there.  But the penalties were about revealing a specific thing in the temple.  It was not about "what happens in the Temple".  Some members have understood them to encompass the entire temple ceremony but there are other members who don't understand it that way.  I'm in that second bucket.  So if you asked me that question, I would say that the statement isn't true because I made no oath like that.

The third statement ("Therefore, he swore an oauth") is different from the first since it is now talking more about "the secrets" and the answer is closer to a yes.  And notice that Elder Holland doesn't say no there but tries to give context.

So no, Elder Holland did not lie in the BBC interview.  I would have truthfully answered the same thing.

 

The double digit stakes is also nuanced.  He was not talking about stake creations that are announced.  He is talking about the Thursday meeting where they discuss and approve stake creations.  The time between approval of stakes and the actual creation is not mentioned.  Based on the actual number of stakes that were created in 2016 (when he made the statement), it looks like it took several weeks or even months for some of those approved stakes.  The most stakes actually organized in a single day was 6.  Elder Holland also mentioned that the stake creations fluctuate frequently.

https://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/2016/04/10-new-stakes-to-be-created-each-week.html has a decent rundown of what was said.  So, no, I don't think he said something "definitely not true".  For those 2 weeks that he mentions, the church could have approved double digit stake creations.  And it would have excited Elder Holland to feel like it could happen much more frequently ("every week")

The first response from holland was the lie. He knows darn well there were penalties when Romney went through he and mitt are only seven years apart in age. That was his answer and he knew what the reporter was asking.  He only explained it because the reporter pressed him and showed him he knew the answer was bs. Heck the church didn’t even explain the process to its own members who were going through the first time much less tell it to all to the world. I never was told jack squat till I went through and that was with temple prep class. I got totally ambushed in there not unlike pretty much everyone else I know who went through at the time. 

I just watched the video again.. he def lied. The transcript doesn’t do it justice. His buddy lied about the scmc too lol these guys. 

as for the double digit stake creation… double digits is at least 10. Multiply X 52 weeks is 520 and that wasn’t even close to happening. He lied. You posted an article where someone else explains it… the author explains that already that year the church had created 27 new stakes… that’s in four months which averages 1.6 ish per week. Holland needs (ed) to learn to keep his mouth shut. He has been an apostle long enough to know everything he says gets analyzed. Why say something that definitely isn’t true. 

Edited April 20 by Notatbm

[Pyreaux]

3 hours ago, Notatbm said:

The first response from holland was the lie. He knows darn well there were penalties when Romney went through he and mitt are only seven years apart in age. That was his answer and he knew what the reporter was asking.  He only explained it because the reporter pressed him and showed him he knew the answer was bs. Heck the church didn’t even explain the process to its own members who were going through the first time much less tell it to all to the world. I never was told jack squat till I went through and that was with temple prep class. I got totally ambushed in there not unlike pretty much everyone else I know who went through at the time. 

Wrong all day long. When Holland says, "We do not have penalties in the Temple," he used the present tense. Thus, Sweeney then asks, "You used to?" and Holland immediately replies, "We used to." Holland is being precise. The words describing the consequences were removed in 1990.

Sweeney is trying to get Holland to admit that Mitt Romney is currently under a literal, physical death threat. Holland is refusing to validate that interpretation because such a "penalty" doesn't literally exist, your standard symbolic "blood oath" is just a sacrament. When Holland says "That's not true," he is rejecting Sweeney's characterization of the ritual as a "death threat" there are "no such penalties". There never were, he is 100% correct in a modern legal and literal sense. There is no hit squad and no one is being instructed to harm oneself. In Israel, you didn't delete yourself, you went to the Tabernacle and offered a substitute animal. Put that knife down Notatbm, just repent.

Edited April 20 by Pyreaux