Trademark infringement case against Open Stories Foundation

[Notatbm]

22 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Wrong all day long. When Holland says, "We do not have penalties in the Temple," he is 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

Holland was asked about when Romney went through, not what is currently the ordinance. Holland tried slipping it by Sweeney hoping he had not done his research. Holland lied and got caught. Jesus wasn’t helping him out any that day. 

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, Notatbm said:

Holland was asked about when Romney went through, not what is currently the ordinance. Holland tried slipping it by Sweeney hoping he had not done his research. Holland lied and got caught. Jesus wasn’t helping him out any that day. 

Sweeney was asking if Romney swore to literally 'slit his throat.' That’s like asking if a Catholic eats human flesh weekly. If a Priest says 'No,' is he lying?

Also, it seems you lied. Swearing "to have my throat cut" ended in 1927. From 1927–1990 people swore, "I would suffer my life to be taken". You and Mitt Romney did not say you would slit your throat. Holland says, "That's not true," to the claim that Romney swore to "slit his throat," he is being factually accurate. "We used to" before 1927.

Edited April 20 by Pyreaux

[webbles]

2 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. 

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. 

I'm sorry, but the answer to the first question is "No".  I don't believe that anyone pre-1990 ever swore an oath to "not pass on what happens in the Temple, lest he slit his throat".  I also don't believe that anyone post 1990 ever swore a similar oath without the penalties.  The important part is the "what happens in the Temple".  I have not sworn an oath to "not pass on what happens in the Temple".  I have sworn an oath about some very specific parts in the ceremony but not about the entire ceremony.  I understand that you might have understood the temple oaths differently from me, but your understanding doesn't mean it is the correct understanding.  I don't know which is the correct understanding, but it seems like Elder Holland falls more on my side than on your side.

You apparently didn't understand what I was talking about with the double digit stake creation growth.  Elder Holland said there were 2 Thursday meetings where they approved double digit stakes.  Do you have insider knowledge to know that those 2 meetings didn't approve double digit stakes?  If not, then how can you call him a liar?  They approved 27 stakes in 2 meetings.  That's an impressive feat.  That doesn't mean that those stakes would all be created in the same weekend.  Stake creation takes time after approval.  There were 100 stakes created in all of 2016.  That easily includes the 27 that they approved in those 2 weeks.

[Notatbm]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Sweeney was asking if Romney swore to literally 'slit his throat.' That’s like asking if a Catholic eats human flesh weekly. If a Priest says 'No,' is he lying?

Sounds like sweeney had a better understanding of what went on in the temple than I did when I went through the first time. Also he never said "literally." That is a way to weasel out of it if someone wants to lie....oh yea he didntt word it exactly right so i just BS this dude and its cool. Nope it is a lie, Sweeney asked about when romney went through, not what is going on post 1990. Also I had a clear understanding of that the throat slit thing was even though I  just agreed to have my life taken and they didnt say it word for word. everyone knows that that gesture means. If sweeney didnt follow up holland would have let that one lie where it was...leaving the questioner with a distorted view of reality is still lying according to the church definition of lying.

"We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

The Lord is not pleased with such dishonesty,"

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-31-honesty?lang=eng

Jeff is a liar...he should have just said "we dont talk about what goes on in the temple in public" just like we did to our own members back then. He would have been fine, but no he had to spar with this reporter and he lost big time.

 

 

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Also, you lied. Swearing "to have my throat cut" ended in 1927. From 1927–1990 people swore, "I would suffer my life to be taken". You and Mitt Romney did not say you would slit your throat. Holland says, "That's not true," to the claim that Romney swore to "slit his throat," he is being factually accurate. "We used to" before 1927.

 

At the 2 min mark. Everyone knows that that means, nothing needs to be said

 

Edited April 20 by Notatbm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

have not sworn an oath to "not pass on what happens in the Temple".

One of our stake Patriarchs practically commanded us to “pass on what happens in the Temple” to our children.  Said we weren’t preparing them enough and it was our duty to overcome our reluctance.  He stated only the very specific things that were identified were the only things that were restricted.  We should feel comfortable sharing anything else in a respectful manner in a respectful setting.  He suggested a great time would be when we were preparing temple clothing to go to the temple, packing or ironing and kids were hanging around.  FHE as well.  Our children were his focus but respectful neighbours and friends were fine to answer their questions as well.

He might have even labeled our cultural tradition of not saying anything as Pharisaical, way too big of a hedge.  He did say it was harmful and not respectful in the right way as we should be embracing our chances to show our joy and commitment by sharing what we can rather than feeling awkward and worried.

Fantastic presentation (it was a Sunday evening fireside, room was packed)

Edited April 20 by Calm

[Notatbm]

6 hours ago, webbles said:

I'm sorry, but the answer to the first question is "No".  I don't believe that anyone pre-1990 ever swore an oath to "not pass on what happens in the Temple, lest he slit his throat".  I also don't believe that anyone post 1990 ever swore a similar oath without the penalties.  The important part is the "what happens in the Temple".  I have not sworn an oath to "not pass on what happens in the Temple".  I have sworn an oath about some very specific parts in the ceremony but not about the entire ceremony.  I understand that you might have understood the temple oaths differently from me, but your understanding doesn't mean it is the correct understanding.  I don't know which is the correct understanding, but it seems like Elder Holland falls more on my side than on your side.

Not verbatim temple quote where there is no penalty: …even at the peril of your life, …		http://www.ldsendowment.org/images/spacer.gif
		http://www.ldsendowment.org/images/spacer.gif

6 hours ago, webbles said:

You apparently didn't understand what I was talking about with the double digit stake creation growth.  Elder Holland said there were 2 Thursday meetings where they approved double digit stakes.  Do you have insider knowledge to know that those 2 meetings didn't approve double digit stakes?  If not, then how can you call him a liar?  They approved 27 stakes in 2 meetings.  That's an impressive feat.  That doesn't mean that those stakes would all be created in the same weekend.  Stake creation takes time after approval.  There were 100 stakes created in all of 2016.  That easily includes the 27 that they approved in those 2 weeks.

You can make all the excuses for Holland you want. He said what he said to an audience and didnt explain any nuances. He said double digit stake growth every week of our lives

• 2015: 3,174 stakes
• 2016: 3,266 stakes
• 2017: 3,341 stakes

Net stake growth 92 stakes in 2016....that is a far cry from double digit stake growth every week. Perhaps Holland should have learned to just shut up sometimes. He loved to be the center of attention. Like I mentioned previously, my family has hosted him on our home numerous times while I was growing up. He always ran his mouth like this. People loved hearing him talk and I admit he is charismatic and all, but yea an apostle should know when to just keep some things to himself.

This clip from africa he makes three different moronic statements to the audience in less than 4 minutes. Prime example of  how he was in private too. Couldn't stop running his mouth:

 

 

Edited April 21 by Notatbm

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Sounds like sweeney had a better understanding of what went on in the temple than I did when I went through the first time. Also he never said "literally." That is a way to weasel out of it if someone wants to lie....oh yea he didntt word it exactly right so i just BS this dude and its cool. Nope it is a lie, Sweeney asked about when romney went through, not what is going on post 1990. Also I had a clear understanding of that the throat slit thing was even though I  just agreed to have my life taken and they didnt say it word for word. everyone knows that that gesture means. If sweeney didnt follow up holland would have let that one lie where it was...leaving the questioner with a distorted view of reality is still lying according to the church definition of lying.

You admit Romney did not "say" that. You claim Holland misled Sweeney by not explaining it immediately, but he does explain 3 seconds later. You guess that Holland would say nothing if the interview had ended there. That isn't a logical argument. Argue what Holland actually did, not what you imagine he would have done.

In any high-stakes interview, a subject waits for the full question. Naturally the reporter will followed up, "You used to?", because the reporter knew Holland was being accurate, and he didn't hesitate to say, "We used to."

Holland didn't lie. He corrected a false quote, the 'slit throat' line Romney never said. He explicitly confirmed the line existed when asked. It's not Holland's job to do the reporter's job and answer follow-up questions he was not asked yet.

[Notatbm]

6 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

You admit Romney did not "say" that. You claim Holland misled Sweeney by not explaining it immediately, but he does explain 3 seconds later. You guess that Holland would say nothing if the interview had ended there. That isn't a logical argument. Argue what Holland actually did, not what you imagine he would have done.

nobody attributed any statement to Romney and neither did I. The reporter asked about the penalty Romney likely would have  covenanted to and holland answered by denying by saying there are no penalties in the temple now. Holland answered a question that was not even asked. 

[Pyreaux]

24 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

nobody attributed any statement to Romney and neither did I. The reporter asked about the penalty Romney likely would have  covenanted to and holland answered by denying by saying there are no penalties in the temple now. Holland answered a question that was not even asked. 

Well, cross my heart and hope to die, there never was a real penalty. You are aware this wasn't a friendly chat, it was a confrontational interview described as an ambush. In that high-pressure environment, if someone asks you, "Do you have a policy of execution?", you get to say "No" and you are telling the truth. The "penalties" never existed in any legal or physical reality or time. If you really care about leading people to believe something that is not true, then you should care more about what Mormon Stories is getting sued for.

[Notatbm]

55 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Well, cross my heart and hope to die, there never was a real penalty. 

If it wasnt real CFR for First Presidency statement Pre 1990 that states none of the penalties in the temple are to be taken seriously and are fake....good luck

 

 

"You are aware this wasn't a friendly chat, it was a confrontational interview described as an ambush. In that high-pressure environment, if someone asks you, "Do you have a policy of execution?", you get to say "No" and you are telling the truth."

Of course I know it wasnt a friendly chat. Holland knew that as well. He just got outsmarted and Jesus didnt bail him out. His first instinct was to lie and that is exactly what he did.

 

 

"The "penalties" never existed in any legal or physical reality or time."

Again CFR for First Presidency Statement pre-1990 that the penalties are fake. It would be real nice if you could find a temple prep class manual that says that.

"If you really care about leading people to believe something that is not true, then you should care more about what Mormon Stories is getting sued for."

I dont really care if Mormon Stories is getting sued, I just think its a dumb lawsuit. Mormon church fighting to keep its identity with satan lol. Bunch of dingdongs. Their effort in this just shows that Mormonstories is a threat. 

 

This comment on a reddit post is pretty spot on about what happened and how Holland should have handled it:

 

"The appropriate communication practice would be to assume charity on the misunderstanding of people's semantics and seek to understand what they are asking, then respond to it. By intentionally catching someone's question in a technicality of how they worded something that they arguably are ignorant of, is poor communication.

In this context, Holland knew that Sweeney likely didn't have a full understanding of the temple ordinances past and present and really had no way to understand it as fully as Holland should. But the general understanding of what Sweeney was asking was clear. It wasn't a technical question, it was a loose question coming from partial ignorance, (which sweeney admits by saying that it's "I've been told...") which is asking for clarification and/or confirmation.

The only fair thing for Holland to do was to have intellectual charity for any miswording on Sweeney's part and to answer the obvious question. There isn't a person alive that knows about the history of the LDS endowment and the penalties that doesn't intuitively know that the REAL answer to Sweeney's question is that YES, ROMNEY SWORE AN OATH TO THAT EFFECT. Period.

That's the only honest answer. Anything not the honest answer is by default a lie or obfuscation."

 

 

[webbles]

4 hours ago, Notatbm said:

You can make all the excuses for Holland you want. He said what he said to an audience and didnt explain any nuances. He said double digit stake growth every week of our lives

• 2015: 3,174 stakes
• 2016: 3,266 stakes
• 2017: 3,341 stakes

Net stake growth 92 stakes in 2016....that is a far cry from double digit stake growth every week. Perhaps Holland should have learned to just shut up sometimes. He loved to be the center of attention. Like I mentioned previously, my family has hosted him on our home numerous times while I was growing up. He always ran his mouth like this. People loved hearing him talk and I admit he is charismatic and all, but yea an apostle should know when to just keep some things to himself.

This clip from africa he makes three different moronic statements to the audience in less than 4 minutes. Prime example of  how he was in private too. Couldn't stop running his mouth:

 

You should remove the temple content.  Posting verbatim temple content is a really hard rule in this forum.  But that doesn't win your case.  You didn't have to post it since I have copies of it myself.  I know what was said in pre-1990 (I even know what was said back in pre-1940s when the penalties were much, much more explicit).  And it proves my point.  When I read/hear that and then compare what Elder Holland answered, I do not see a lie.  Because the question is talking about general temple content and not that specific oath and what it contains.  You see it different.  And that is why it is more nuanced.  I do not see a lie because of how I understand what happened in the temple.

Could Elder Holland have explained it instead of just saying "No"?  He probably could have.  And the interviewer did give him the chance to do that.  But I don't see that being obfuscation or lying.  He was telling the truth.  Romney did not make an oath to that affect.  He (and everyone else who went through the temple) made a different oath.

[Notatbm]

11 minutes ago, webbles said:

You should remove the temple content.  Posting verbatim temple content is a really hard rule in this forum.  But that doesn't win your case.  You didn't have to post it since I have copies of it myself.  I know what was said in pre-1990 (I even know what was said back in pre-1940s when the penalties were much, much more explicit).  And it proves my point.  When I read/hear that and then compare what Elder Holland answered, I do not see a lie.  Because the question is talking about general temple content and not that specific oath and what it contains.  You see it different.  And that is why it is more nuanced.  I do not see a lie because of how I understand what happened in the temple.

Could Elder Holland have explained it instead of just saying "No"?  He probably could have.  And the interviewer did give him the chance to do that.  But I don't see that being obfuscation or lying.  He was telling the truth.  Romney did not make an oath to that affect.  He (and everyone else who went through the temple) made a different oath.

Is it the temple endowment verbatim?  Holland himself said there are no penalties and my post does have a penalty. Anyone sitting in an endowment right now at this moment is not going to hear what I posted....there are no penalties etc. Must be fake

Edited April 21 by Notatbm

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, Notatbm said:

If it wasnt real CFR for First Presidency statement Pre 1990 that states none of the penalties in the temple are to be taken seriously and are fake....good luck

 

 

"You are aware this wasn't a friendly chat, it was a confrontational interview described as an ambush. In that high-pressure environment, if someone asks you, "Do you have a policy of execution?", you get to say "No" and you are telling the truth."

Of course I know it wasnt a friendly chat. Holland knew that as well. He just got outsmarted and Jesus didnt bail him out. His first instinct was to lie and that is exactly what he did.

 

 

"The "penalties" never existed in any legal or physical reality or time."

Again CFR for First Presidency Statement pre-1990 that the penalties are fake. It would be real nice if you could find a temple prep class manual that says that.

"If you really care about leading people to believe something that is not true, then you should care more about what Mormon Stories is getting sued for."

I dont really care if Mormon Stories is getting sued, I just think its a dumb lawsuit. Mormon church fighting to keep its identity with satan lol. Bunch of dingdongs. Their effort in this just shows that Mormonstories is a threat. 

 

This comment on a reddit post is pretty spot on about what happened and how Holland should have handled it:

 

"The appropriate communication practice would be to assume charity on the misunderstanding of people's semantics and seek to understand what they are asking, then respond to it. By intentionally catching someone's question in a technicality of how they worded something that they arguably are ignorant of, is poor communication.

In this context, Holland knew that Sweeney likely didn't have a full understanding of the temple ordinances past and present and really had no way to understand it as fully as Holland should. But the general understanding of what Sweeney was asking was clear. It wasn't a technical question, it was a loose question coming from partial ignorance, (which sweeney admits by saying that it's "I've been told...") which is asking for clarification and/or confirmation.

The only fair thing for Holland to do was to have intellectual charity for any miswording on Sweeney's part and to answer the obvious question. There isn't a person alive that knows about the history of the LDS endowment and the penalties that doesn't intuitively know that the REAL answer to Sweeney's question is that YES, ROMNEY SWORE AN OATH TO THAT EFFECT. Period.

That's the only honest answer. Anything not the honest answer is by default a lie or obfuscation."

 

 

CFR? You mean prove a negative? Here, in the 180+ year history of the Church, there isn't a single documented case of the Church executing someone for breaking a temple oath. That is my proof. If I'm wrong, wouldn't there be a paper trail from law enforcement? Instead, we find the exact opposite. Ex-members leaving, speaking out, and even publishing the rituals without any physical retaliation from the institution. Still alive. That is proof.

Elder Holland can absolutely say "That's not true" when asked if Romney swore to have his throats slit, because he didn't say those words. To describe his life vow as a real threat is a distortion of the truth. You want me to find a very specific, unlikely-to-exist document with a transcript to validate the reality of a historical change that is already fairly well-documented, though unofficially? The penalties were neither "fake" or "real" in a legal sense, it's a ritual, a well-established ancient ritual, which is super awesome, by the way. 

As the Reddit comment noted, everyone involved including Holland knew exactly what Sweeney was asking. He was asking if Romney had ever stood in a room and promised to slit his throat as a penalty for revealing secrets. He did not say that, nor is that a real penalty anyone suffered. If I'm lying, CFR. You are just trying to shut down the conversation.

Edited April 21 by Pyreaux

[webbles]

7 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

Is it the temple endowment verbatim?  Holland himself said there are no penalties and my post does have a penalty. Anyone sitting in an endowment right now at this moment is not going to hear what I posted....there are no penalties etc. Must be fake

You can take it up with the mods on whether or not you posted temple content.  I'm pretty sure they will disagree with you.

[Notatbm]

40 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

CFR? You mean prove a negative? Here, in the 180+ year history of the Church, there isn't a single documented case of the Church executing someone for breaking a temple oath. That is my proof. If I'm wrong, wouldn't there be a paper trail from law enforcement? Instead, we find the exact opposite. Ex-members leaving, speaking out, and even publishing the rituals without any physical retaliation from the institution. Still alive. That is proof.

Elder Holland can absolutely say "That's not true" when asked if Romney swore to have his throats slit, because he didn't say those words. To describe his life vow as a real threat is a distortion of the truth. You want me to find a very specific, unlikely-to-exist document with a transcript to validate the reality of a historical change that is already fairly well-documented, though unofficially? The penalties were neither "fake" or "real" in a legal sense, it's a ritual, a well-established ancient ritual, which is super awesome, by the way. 

As the Reddit comment noted, everyone involved including Holland knew exactly what Sweeney was asking. He was asking if Romney had ever stood in a room and promised to slit his throat as a penalty for revealing secrets. He did not say that, nor is that a real penalty anyone suffered. If I'm lying, CFR. You are just trying to shut down the conversation.

I didnt ask for a statement proving executions. I asked for one where the church leadership said to not take the penalties seriously... dont make up stuff I didnt say. You really enjoy lying about what I say here. You do it all the time. You mister are a liar yourself.

As for romney making that covenant with the throat slitting penalty?? He sure did and Holland eventually said he did. 

Edited April 21 by Notatbm

[Pyreaux]

4 hours ago, Notatbm said:

I didnt ask for a statement proving executions. I asked for one where the church leadership said to not take the penalties seriously... dont make up stuff I didnt say. You really enjoy lying about what I say here. You do it all the time. You mister are a liar yourself.

As for romney making that covenant with the throat slitting penalty?? He sure did and Holland eventually said he did. 

And the peer-reviewed academics at FAIR are just liars too I suppose? 

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_Why_were_"penalties"_removed_from_the_Endowment%3F

Their contributors are often professional historians, archivists, and scholars who have direct access to the Official Church Archives, the 1877 Master Script when Brigham Young first had the temple ceremony written down and subsequent official revisions in 1927 and 1990 to confirm exactly when words changed.

The Church did take them seriously, as covenants, not death threats. When you take a wedding vow "until death do us part" doesn't mean your spouse is then authorized to kill you if you leave them. That's stupid. I'm not saying the Church told people to not take them seriously. A personal pledge is not the same as agreeing to a literal execution. The fact that there are zero executions in 180 years in fact IS the Church's 'statement' that the vow had no teeth.

History proves those words were removed decades before Romney was born. If you can't distinguish between the versions, you aren't doing the research, you're just repeating what a blog told you. Holland corrected the reporter’s wording because the reporter was wrong. Accuracy isn't a lie.

Romney never said 'slit my throat.' (Fact)

Holland admitted members used to say that but not Romney. There are no physical penalties and never have been (Facts)

No one has ever been executed by the Church for telling secrets. (Fact)

Edited April 21 by Pyreaux

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Notatbm said:

Is it the temple endowment verbatim?  Holland himself said there are no penalties and my post does have a penalty. Anyone sitting in an endowment right now at this moment is not going to hear what I posted....there are no penalties etc. Must be fake

It's against board rules and the penalty for breaking that rule could be being banned.

[rodheadlee]

It's amazing John and Bill are still making a buck dissin' the church.

[Calm]

Lawyers or others familiar with the process, your input is being requested…

This is the “Prayer for Relief” section below.  What are the implications of this?  Is it likely besides requiring removal of any copyright and insisting on a disclaimer or removal of anything that looks similar that damages would be given?

Quote

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, based on Defendants’ conduct complained of herein, Plaintiffs ask this

Court for the following relief against Defendants:

A. Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and other

persons who are in active concert or participation with any of them, be permanently enjoined and

restrained from using Defendants’ Marks, and any other mark, name, domain name, social media

handle, or design that is confusingly similar to Plaintiffs’ Marks, and from any attempt to retain

any part of the goodwill misappropriated from Plaintiffs;

B. Defendants, as well as their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys,

and other persons who are in active concert or participation with any of them, be permanently

29Case 2:26-cv-00321-JCB Document 1 Filed 04/17/26 PageID.30 Page 30 of 30

enjoined and restrained from reproducing, distributing, or publicly displaying any copyrighted

works of Plaintiffs, or derivatives thereof, including those in Exhibit 2, when advertising or

promoting their business or content;

C. Any and all relief provided by 15 U.S.C. §§ 1116 and 1117, 17 U.S.C. §§ 504 and

505, and Utah Code Ann. § 13-5a-103; and

D. Any and all other relief the Court may deem just and proper

From webbles’ link, I can repost it if wanted.

Edited April 21 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

8 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

It's amazing John and Bill are still making a buck dissin' the church.

Welp, everybody has to make a livin' ... somehow!  

[Kenngo1969]

Previously posted by @Calm:

Quote

 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, based on Defendants’ conduct complained of herein, Plaintiffs ask this

Court for the following relief against Defendants:

A. Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and other

persons who are in active concert or participation with any of them, be permanently enjoined and

restrained from using Defendants’ Marks, and any other mark, name, domain name, social media

handle, or design that is confusingly similar to Plaintiffs’ Marks, and from any attempt to retain

any part of the goodwill misappropriated from Plaintiffs;

B. Defendants, as well as their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys,

and other persons who are in active concert or participation with any of them, be permanently

29Case 2:26-cv-00321-JCB Document 1 Filed 04/17/26 PageID.30 Page 30 of 30

enjoined and restrained from reproducing, distributing, or publicly displaying any copyrighted

works of Plaintiffs, or derivatives thereof, including those in Exhibit 2, when advertising or

promoting their business or content;

C. Any and all relief provided by 15 U.S.C. §§ 1116 and 1117, 17 U.S.C. §§ 504 and

505, and Utah Code Ann. § 13-5a-103; and

D. Any and all other relief the Court may deem just and proper

 

For what it's worth, I asked our friend, Google Gemini, specifically, what relief the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is seeking in appealing to these legal provisions.  My question/prompt appears immediately below, followed by Gemini's response [of course, I make absolutely no claim that Gemini's assessment of the legalities here is correct, but, for a relatively straightforward query ("What's in each of these legal provisions ... ?") I have no reason to doubt it]:

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has filed a trademark infringement claim against John Dehlin and Mr. Dehlin's Open Stories Foundation. In the Prayer for Relief in the Church's Civil Complaint, it prays the Court for relief under the following provisions of law: 15 U.S.C. §§ 1116 and 1117, 17 U.S.C. §§ 504 and 505, and Utah Code Ann. § 13-5a-103. Please break down each of these legal provisions. Specifically, what relief is the Church requesting?

 

Quote

 

It’s certainly a high-stakes legal move when a major organization pivots from public discourse to federal court. By citing these specific statutes in the Prayer for Relief, the Church is essentially asking the court to "make them whole" and to stop the alleged infringement immediately.

Here is a breakdown of what each of those legal provisions entails and what the Church is specifically asking the court to grant.

---

1. Trademark Relief (The Lanham Act)

The citations under 15 U.S.C. refer to the federal Lanham Act, which governs trademarks in the United States.

15 U.S.C. § 1116: Injunctive Relief

This is the "stop it" provision. The Church is asking the court for a permanent injunction.

• What it means: If granted, the court would issue a formal order requiring John Dehlin and the Open Stories Foundation to immediately cease using the contested trademarks (likely names, logos, or symbols).

• The Goal: To prevent further "likelihood of confusion" among the public.

15 U.S.C. § 1117: Recovery for Violation

This is the "pay up" provision. It allows a plaintiff to recover financial damages. The Church is likely asking for:

• Profits: Any money the Open Stories Foundation made as a result of the alleged infringement.

• Damages: Compensation for any financial loss the Church sustained.

• Costs: The legal costs of bringing the suit.

• Attorney Fees: In "exceptional cases," the court can order the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s lawyers.

---

2. Copyright Relief

The citations under 17 U.S.C. shift the focus from branding (trademarks) to specific creative content (copyrights), such as handbooks, videos, or written materials.

17 U.S.C. § 504: Damages and Profits

This section outlines how much money a defendant owes for copyright infringement. The Church can choose between two paths:

• Actual Damages and Profits: The actual money lost plus any profits the infringer made.

• Statutory Damages: A set dollar amount per work infringed (ranging from $750 to $30,000, or up to $150,000 if the court finds the infringement was "willful"). This is often preferred because it doesn't require proving exactly how much money was lost.

17 U.S.C. § 505: Costs and Attorney's Fees

In copyright cases, the law allows the judge to award the "full costs" of the litigation to the prevailing party. This means if the Church wins, they want Dehlin/Open Stories to reimburse them for their legal fees.

---

3. Utah State Law

The Church is also bringing a claim under state-level consumer protection laws.

Utah Code Ann. § 13-5a-103: The Unfair Advertising Act

This Utah statute deals with deceptive or unfair business practices.

• The Relief: Similar to the federal claims, this allows for injunctive relief (stopping the behavior) and actual damages.

• The Nuance: Under this specific Utah code, a person or entity that is harmed by "unfair advertising" can seek an injunction even if they can't prove they lost specific amounts of money yet. It’s a way to protect the "goodwill" of the Church's reputation in its home state.

---

Summary of the "Prayer for Relief"

In plain English, the Church is asking the Court to:

1. Halt: Order the defendants to stop using the intellectual property immediately.

2. Collect: Force the defendants to turn over any profits made from the use of that property.

3. Compensate: Pay statutory or actual damages for the "theft" of the content/brand.

4. Reimburse: Cover the Church’s potentially massive legal bills.

 

1.  

[Kenngo1969]

In Meridian Magazine, Steve Densley, an attorney, has commentary that is very helpful regarding the [attempted] interaction between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, on the one hand; and John Dehlin/Open Stories Foundation/Etc., on the other.  It discusses the whole "victory for Satan" allegation and attempts to provide context for when the Church of Jesus Christ and its leaders might find the use of the word "Mormon" objectionable and when they likely will not (e.g., the "I'm a Mormon" campaign sponsored by the Church of Jesus Christ itself).

Brother Densley recaps what leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ, including later-President Russell M. Nelson, who had been speaking on the subject since at least 1990, themselves have had to say on the topic, since at least 1979.  President Gordon B. Hinckley cited then-Elder Nelson's address from April 1990 approvingly in his address from October of that year, "'Mormon' Should Mean 'More Good.'"

Brother Densley's article supplies much needed context, I think.  I commend it to anyone who is sincerely interested in the topic.

https://latterdaysaintmag.com/protecting-the-symbols-of-christs-church-how-a-trademark-lawsuit-aligns-with-prophetic-guidance/

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 4/18/2026 at 2:28 AM, Calm said:

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.

John Dehlin has issued a response on his social channels detailing specific demands made by your church. His litany of demands bears little resemblance to the newsroom PR piece but is very similar to the lawsuit filed. I (genuinely)wonder who is telling the truth? On the one hand, John Dehlin often plays fast and loose with the facts. On the other hand, your church has a storied history of obfuscation and carefully worded denails going back to its founding. I eagerly wait (sarcastically) for the legal action against Mormon Housewives next. 

 

 

Edited April 24 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

I am surprised the link works, didn’t the board used to block all his stuff as antimormon, which they don’t do free advertising for (can’t remember if they stated this or I inferred it)?

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

On the one hand, John Dehlin often plays fast and loose with the facts. On the other hand, your church has a storied history of obfuscation and carefully worded [denials] going back to its founding. 

Knowing Dehlin’s history of publishing what others see as confidential and using anything he can get to publicize himself, I would think they would be very careful with him.  I agree that the Church doesn’t tend to share info it doesn’t have to in a lot of areas, though I think in the scholarship area they are doing good in getting documents, etc out there.  Press releases and announcements are typically brief rather than detailed, imo, and focus on positive things for the Church…which is understandable, if frustrating sometimes (I don’t like filling in gaps as too often wrong).

added:  I would very much understand if they are reluctant to publicize everything they asked someone to do and don’t do about trademarks, etc rather than just what they see as the most necessary info because if they put all the details out there in public, it makes it easier for someone to find a work around and then they can protest they were following the rules of the Church itself even as they misuse the Church’s materials.  By not having everything out there or addressing only some of them with different individuals, it becomes harder for someone of ill intent to figure out where the line is or what they need to do to break the spirit of the ‘law’ while keeping the letter, so to speak (I hope that makes sense, basically it’s smart not to expose your cards all at once imo).

Edited April 24 by Calm