Trademark infringement case against Open Stories Foundation

[SeekingUnderstanding]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

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)?

I think links to Mormon stories dot com are automatically screened. This is YouTube. Channel name is not in link. I think it provides helpful context directly from the subject of the thread even if that individual has a pretty poor track record. As always, I happily submit to moderator judgment, and whatever punishments they may deem worthy.

[Calm]

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think links to Mormon stories dot com are automatically screened. This is YouTube. Channel name is not in link. I think it provides helpful context directly from the subject of the thread even if that individual has a pretty poor track record. As always, I happily submit to moderator judgment, and whatever punishments they may deem worthy.

I don’t think a punishment applies when it’s not intentional, will be interesting to see if they let it stand or not.  I agree context is important, which is why I quote transcripts at times and give a reference rather than a link when it will be blocked.  But I suspect in this case that would be a massive amount of work (haven’t looked at the video, I have never been able to watch him along with the majority of podcasters no matter what the subject is for some reason, though speeding up videos sometimes helps).

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t think a punishment applies when it’s not intentional, will be interesting to see if they let it stand or not.  I agree context is important, which is why I quote transcripts at times and give a reference rather than a link when it will be blocked.  But I suspect in this case that would be a massive amount of work (haven’t looked at the video, I have never been able to watch him along with the majority of podcasters no matter what the subject is for some reason, though speeding up videos sometimes helps).

It’s less than three minutes long just FYI. With the gist of it being available in the first minute.

[webbles]

55 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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. 

 

I'm a little confused by that.  He both says that the church asked him to never use the word Mormon and then also says that the church asked him to name the podcast Ex-Mormon or Post-Mormon.  Maybe the "no Mormon" was in the initial start of mediation and then it changed to using "ex-mormon"?  I do think that the initial ask was to stop using Mormon.  The original letter sent to him (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.163775/gov.uscourts.utd.163775.1.5.pdf) does say "For these reasons, we ask you to agree that you will remove and discontinue use of the Church’s trademarks and copyrighted materials on your platforms." and "Mormon" is trademarked by the church.  And through the mediation, the two sides gave up ground.  But, mediation fell apart (probably because Open Stories used a copyrighted image after promising not to do it and the church demanding something like "ex-mormon" rename) and so the lawsuit was filed.

I think his mentioning the "light rays" is incorrect.  The church is talking about specific "light rays".  The "light rays" that MormonStories used to use is different enough that it would not trigger any trademark issue.  But they then switched to a different "light ray" which is really similar to the church's.

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It’s less than three minutes long just FYI. With the gist of it being available in the first minute.

Dehlin doing a three minute video.  I am shocked!  

[Kenngo1969]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

Dehlin doing a three minute video.  I am shocked!  

Takes him three minutes just to clear his throat, doesn't it?   

[Tacenda]

On 4/25/2026 at 9:15 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

Takes him three minutes just to clear his throat, doesn't it?   

That may well be, but it takes about that amount of time asking for donations!

 

[Kenngo1969]

On 4/25/2026 at 9:15 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

Takes him three minutes just to clear his throat, doesn't it?   

 

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

That may well be, but it takes about that amount of time asking for donations!

 

Clearing his throat and asking for donations ... We're up to six minutes already!  No wonder his videos are so long!    

[juliann]

On 4/24/2026 at 1:17 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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. 

 

 

If he wanted people to know what the church is asking for he would read the complaint, as was posted here. He’s an idiot to publicly ramble on during a high stakes lawsuit. 

[Calm]

On 4/24/2026 at 2:07 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It’s less than three minutes long just FYI. With the gist of it being available in the first minute.

I finally watched it.  I am not impressed. I wonder why he just went off of memory rather than notes or documents.  I don’t trust my own memory, I know how it works.  He is coming across as intense, ranting even (most of the time I have watched him he’s very mellow, I am assuming that is his usual demeanor, which makes this feel like a rant to me).  For most (many?) people that is a red flag someone isn’t going to be that accurate (might even be unintentional).  He contradicts himself by claiming they were demanding he never use Mormon again in any way and then later says they would be okay with ExMormon or Post Mormon.  Now the ‘no using “Mormon”’ request may have been the starting point (makes sense if it was because it’s foolish to start at what you will accept in a negotiation unless the purpose is to show no compromise will work) and the ex or post Mormon the negotiated version, but he present the list iirc as the reasons they turned the Church down because they were unreasonable  and if Mormon was not being restricted as long as it was qualified, then it wouldn’t be on the ‘what they were unreasonable about’ list.

As far as rays go, my guess is OSF used the rays from heaven as evocative of the First Vision pictures, so while they may have been the first to use them in a logo (I have no idea), the rays imagery is very familiar to Saints and adds to the confusion, imo, that this is a devout, believing, proFirst Vision actually occurring site.  Throw in more Church related imagery and it gets confused with the Church.

Edited May 3 by Calm

[why me]

it seems to me  that podcasters are all about getting more  clicks and subscribers. It is all about the money. I am sure that John maybe making money from all this. On a side note if the money was taking away from most podcasters, they would fold like a house of cards. It would not be worth the time spent.  He was interviewed by an anti Mormon podcaster for quite a long time. I can hear the clicks and donations on their patreon link. More subscribers. 

[Tacenda]

10 hours ago, why me said:

it seems to me  that podcasters are all about getting more  clicks and subscribers. It is all about the money. I am sure that John maybe making money from all this. On a side note if the money was taking away from most podcasters, they would fold like a house of cards. It would not be worth the time spent.  He was interviewed by an anti Mormon podcaster for quite a long time. I can hear the clicks and donations on their patreon link. More subscribers. 

Good to see a lot of you long time members showing up! 

[Rain]

On 5/17/2026 at 11:33 PM, why me said:

it seems to me  that podcasters are all about getting more  clicks and subscribers. It is all about the money. I am sure that John maybe making money from all this. On a side note if the money was taking away from most podcasters, they would fold like a house of cards. It would not be worth the time spent.

Couldn't you say the same about any job or side hustle? 

On 5/17/2026 at 11:33 PM, why me said:

 He was interviewed by an anti Mormon podcaster for quite a long time. I can hear the clicks and donations on their patreon link. More subscribers. 

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Couldn't you say the same about any job or side hustle? 

 

I think you could say the same about a few jobs, but I don't think you could for most or any job or side hustle.

Making money being anti-something (whether it's a religion or Mary Kay or capitalism or whatever) means the person is tied to other people's perceptions of that 'thing'.  It's the same for anyone making money solely for being pro-something too.  That's different than working at jiffy lube on the weekends.  If the jiffy lube goes under, your skill set isn't tied to jiffy lube, or to people's opinions about jiffy lube.  Your skill set retains its monetary value regardless of what is going on with jiffy lube, and you can go do it somewhere else without being connected to jiffy lube in any way.   

Being opposed to (or for) something isn't really a skill set though.  It's an ideology.  Unlike most jobs or side hustles, full time ideological podcasters and influencers are completely dependent upon whatever they are opposing and people's opinions about what they are opposing.  If the donations stopped (either direct donations or time/view donations that other companies like youtube convert into money), then most full time ideologically based podcasters would probably stop creating content fairly quickly.  Lose the donors and the ideology ceases to have monetary value, and therefore the podcaster/influencer ceases to have marketable value as well.  There's no taking the skill set somewhere else because it wasn't a skill set that was making them money. 

Making money solely (and only) off of the popularity of their opinions (either pro or against something) means that fulltime ideological podcasters and influencers are highly highly motivated to cater to their audiences.  Nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but it's a big bias, and one that is helpful for viewers and listeners to keep in mind (which is the point that I thought Why Me was trying to make, but I easily could have misunderstood him on that).

 

[Rain]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think you could say the same about a few jobs, but I don't think you could for most or any job or side hustle.

Making money being anti-something (whether it's a religion or Mary Kay or capitalism or whatever) means the person is tied to other people's perceptions of that 'thing'.  It's the same for anyone making money solely for being pro-something too.  That's different than working at jiffy lube on the weekends.  If the jiffy lube goes under, your skill set isn't tied to jiffy lube, or to people's opinions about jiffy lube.  Your skill set retains its monetary value regardless of what is going on with jiffy lube, and you can go do it somewhere else without being connected to jiffy lube in any way.   

Being opposed to (or for) something isn't really a skill set though.  It's an ideology.  Unlike most jobs or side hustles, full time ideological podcasters and influencers are completely dependent upon whatever they are opposing and people's opinions about what they are opposing.  If the donations stopped (either direct donations or time/view donations that other companies like youtube convert into money), then most full time ideologically based podcasters would probably stop creating content fairly quickly.  Lose the donors and the ideology ceases to have monetary value, and therefore the podcaster/influencer ceases to have marketable value as well.  There's no taking the skill set somewhere else because it wasn't a skill set that was making them money. 

Making money solely (and only) off of the popularity of their opinions (either pro or against something) means that fulltime ideological podcasters and influencers are highly highly motivated to cater to their audiences.  Nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but it's a big bias, and one that is helpful for viewers and listeners to keep in mind (which is the point that I thought Why Me was trying to make, but I easily could have misunderstood him on that).

 

I should have been more clear.  I was not talking about John, but the parts around the part with John:

"it seems to me that podcasters are all about getting more clicks and subscribers. It is all about the money. I am sure that John maybe making money from all this. On a side note if the money was taking away from most podcasters, they would fold like a house of cards. It would not be worth the time spent."

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, Rain said:

I should have been more clear.  I was not talking about John, but the parts around the part with John:

"it seems to me that podcasters are all about getting more clicks and subscribers. It is all about the money. I am sure that John maybe making money from all this. On a side note if the money was taking away from most podcasters, they would fold like a house of cards. It would not be worth the time spent."

Yes, that was the part I thought you were talking about. So we are understanding each other there.  😊

[why me]

On 5/19/2026 at 5:11 PM, Rain said:

Couldn't you say the same about any job or side hustle? 

 

Perhaps. But I think that the blogs or podcasts are different. In this case, the clicks and subscribers matter most. The more outlandish, the more clicks is all that matters. In the antimormon space, we eee some carrying on for 20 years repeating the same questions, going over the sane topics over and over again. They know the answer they will get even before they ask the question. However, it is about new subs and clicks to keep the money coming in. What I have noticed ia that they are becoming more extreme in their contents and in their responses. More shock value and more hits.  And more money coming in. 

[why me]

On 5/18/2026 at 8:21 PM, Tacenda said:

Good to see a lot of you long time members showing up! 

Thanks. Glad to see that you are still here too. 

[california boy]

8 hours ago, why me said:

Perhaps. But I think that the blogs or podcasts are different. In this case, the clicks and subscribers matter most. The more outlandish, the more clicks is all that matters. In the antimormon space, we eee some carrying on for 20 years repeating the same questions, going over the sane topics over and over again. They know the answer they will get even before they ask the question. However, it is about new subs and clicks to keep the money coming in. What I have noticed ia that they are becoming more extreme in their contents and in their responses. More shock value and more hits.  And more money coming in. 

I don't follow Mormon Stories, so not quite sure what you are accusing them of doing.  What are the untrue things they advertise that are outlandishly false or misleading.  

Doesn't the church also go over the same topics over and over again with things they believe?  Do you have a problem with the church doing that?

Love to better understand why you have a problem with this.

[smac97]

On 4/24/2026 at 1:17 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

John Dehlin has issued a response on his social channels detailing specific demands made by your church.

I just watched the video.  He apparently takes exception to this portion of the Church's statement:

Quote

Why was mediation unsuccessful?

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

He states: "This claim that 'a simple solution' was proposed: 'a brief disclaimer that the podcast is not affiliated with' the Church.  What I want to address is what some of the things that they actually asked for in mediation or before mediation."  Goes on to provide a list according to his recollection:

Remove the name "Mormon" from his organization's name, Internet domains and social media handles.  (This was apparently a pre-mediation request.)

• Agree to not use "Mormon" in future Internet projects.  (This was a mediation request.)
• Agree to "renounce" any rights to trademarks for "Mormon Stories," "Mormon Stories Podcasts," and to "never file for trademarks" (involving "Mormon"?).  (This was a mediation request.)
• Agree to not challenge the Church's trademarks.  (This was a mediation request.)
• Agree that the Church owns "all the rights to the word 'Mormon.'"  (This was mediation request.)
• Agree to remove certain color schemes and "rays" from the MS logos.  (This was a mediation request.)
• Agree to change the name to "Ex-Mormon Stories Podcast With Dr. John Dehlin" or "Post-Mormon Stories Podcast With Dr. John Dehlin."  Same font size for all words.  (This was a mediation request.)

Having recited the foregoing, he goes on to state: "When they write in their press release that the solution that they requested was 'simple,' 'a brief disclaimer,' they are grossly, in my opinion, misstating and understating what their actual asks of us were."

I think Dr. Dehlin is not sufficiently taking into consideration a few things.  The reference to the "simple solution" in the Church's statement appears to pertain to one particular issue, namely: "The primary issue is ongoing confusion about whether 'Mormon Stories' is affiliated with the Church. To address that, the Church proposed a simple solution: a brief disclaimer that the podcast is not affiliated with or endorsed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."  (Emphasis added.)  The Church apparently has a number of legal "issues" with Dr. Dehlin, with this being the "primary" one.  Dr. Dehlin, however, countered by itemizing other legal issues that the Church has and sought to resolve in mediation, including use of the word "Mormon" and associated trademark issues, elements of their logos, and so on.

Further, he seems to be overlooking this earlier portion of the Church's statement:

Quote

What happened?

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

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

The Church here references "several options" which it presented prior to filing suit, likely in an attempt to resolve most or all of the disputed issues, rather than just the "primary" one ("ongoing confusion about whether 'Mormon Stories' is affiliated with the Church"), for which the Church apparently did propose a "simple solution," namely, "a brief disclaimer that the podcast is not affiliated with or endorsed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

What are your thoughts here?  Am I misreading the situation?  Is it possible that Dr. Dehlin is conflating things that might be better of being addressed separately?

On 4/24/2026 at 1:17 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

His litany of demands bears little resemblance to the newsroom PR piece but is very similar to the lawsuit filed.

It seems that the "litany of demands" were intended to address all disputed issues between the parties, whereas the "simple solution" referenced in the Church's news release pertained to just one of them.

On 4/24/2026 at 1:17 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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 can understand your suspicion as to the Church's statements in the 1830s-1840s regarding polygamy.  While there were extenuating circumstances in play, it's hard to justify some/most of the "obfuscation" you are alluding to here.

That said, I think the Church has, for many decades now, been considerably more clear and forthright in its statements.  While the Church does not disclose as much as its critics would like, I think its public statements are generally accurate.

On 4/24/2026 at 1:17 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I eagerly wait (sarcastically) for the legal action against Mormon Housewives next. 

That's an interesting thought.  Do you think the Church would actually pursue such an action?  Or about about the "Book of Mormon" musical?

From a legal standpoint, I see substantial differences between Dehlin's use of "Mormon" and these other uses.  Dehlin's use appears to be creating actual "ongoing confusion about whether 'Mormon Stories' is affiliated with the Church," whereas the musical is clearly a parody, and SLOMW is reality TV show using "Mormon" descriptively for a lifestyle/cultural phenomenon.  Trademark law is much weaker against descriptive or generic uses in entertainment.

The Church can (and does) enforce trademarks against organizations that appear to mimic official branding in ways that cause confusion. But they generally avoid high-profile entertainment properties where parody, free speech, and lack of actual confusion provide strong defenses. The Dehlin case is, I think, more winnable for them because of the specific branding similarities and the religious/educational category overlap.

I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on these matters.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 5/19/2026 at 10:31 AM, bluebell said:

I think you could say the same about a few jobs, but I don't think you could for most or any job or side hustle.

Making money being anti-something (whether it's a religion or Mary Kay or capitalism or whatever) means the person is tied to other people's perceptions of that 'thing'.  It's the same for anyone making money solely for being pro-something too.  That's different than working at jiffy lube on the weekends.  If the jiffy lube goes under, your skill set isn't tied to jiffy lube, or to people's opinions about jiffy lube.  Your skill set retains its monetary value regardless of what is going on with jiffy lube, and you can go do it somewhere else without being connected to jiffy lube in any way.  

Being opposed to (or for) something isn't really a skill set though.  It's an ideology.  Unlike most jobs or side hustles, full time ideological podcasters and influencers are completely dependent upon whatever they are opposing and people's opinions about what they are opposing.  If the donations stopped (either direct donations or time/view donations that other companies like youtube convert into money), then most full time ideologically based podcasters would probably stop creating content fairly quickly.  Lose the donors and the ideology ceases to have monetary value, and therefore the podcaster/influencer ceases to have marketable value as well.  There's no taking the skill set somewhere else because it wasn't a skill set that was making them money. 

Making money solely (and only) off of the popularity of their opinions (either pro or against something) means that fulltime ideological podcasters and influencers are highly highly motivated to cater to their audiences.  Nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but it's a big bias, and one that is helpful for viewers and listeners to keep in mind (which is the point that I thought Why Me was trying to make, but I easily could have misunderstood him on that).

You raise some good points here.  Not only is this stuff an "ideology," it is often geared toward activism in that ideology.  These folks are often not content to just be bystanders and commentate/observe.  They are there to change things.  

The challenge with activism of this sort is threefold:

First: Money.  Ideologically-driven activism must still be monetized to perpetuate itself.  Monetizing activism can warp perspectives and motives and behaviors because the pursuit of money clouds pursuit of the original intended purpose of the ideological activism, or even supplants it.

Second: Perverse Incentives.  Money tends to corrupt ideological activism.  Consider, for example, the "homeless" industry in California.  Activists are incentivized to not solve the problem they profess to be working to address.  If they solve the problem, they lose their job and/or raison d'être.  So there arise perverse incentives to make "homelessness" into an intractable and neverending issue to be managed, not resolved.  Same goes for racism (witness the recent disclosures about what SPLC has been doing) and a variety of other activist ideologies (or is it ideological activism?).

Third: Mission Creep.  What happens if and when the thing that a person/group is against dissipates and largely resolves (again, the SPLC)?  Or what happens when the thing about which the person/group is "pro" actually materializes (like the discovery of the polio vaccine and the March of Dimes)?  Activists don't fold up their tents and go home.  They pivot to some other cause.

This article was, to me, quite illuminating: 

The March of Dimes Syndrome
The better things get, the more desperately activists struggle to stay in business.

Would be interested in anyone's thoughts on this stuff.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 22 by smac97

[Devobah]

John recently appeared on Holy Koolaid to tell his side of the story about the lawsuit. Holy Koolaid has a large audience (perhaps one of the largest audiences) of people who have deconstructed from religion as a whole. 
I haven’t watched it, but did have time to read through some of the comments. Those few that are faithful are pointing out what’s already been said here; that John is not being sued for using the term “Mormon”, but for using copyrighted images and attempting to look like a Church podcast. Those that are with John focus on the Church being a bully and how the Church is trying to silence him. There is also advertisement for John’s defense fund. 
Personally, I know too little about these kinds of things to really have a say. As Seeking pointed out a while ago, John plays fast and loose with facts (history of his podcast, why he was excommunicated, etc.) and the Church has curated its history in a way that makes it feel whitewashed in a lot of areas (polygamy, BoM translation, Priesthood restoration, etc.). 
It’s a lose lose situation in the public eye for the Church. John wins? Antagonists to the Church will have a field day and will likely never let go of it. John will be hailed as a hero. The Church wins? Well they had more money and they have a hit out for John because they've been trying to silence him for years.

I just hate this whole ordeal. 

[why me]

15 hours ago, california boy said:

I don't follow Mormon Stories, so not quite sure what you are accusing them of doing.  What are the untrue things they advertise that are outlandishly false or misleading.  

Doesn't the church also go over the same topics over and over again with things they believe?  Do you have a problem with the church doing that?

Love to better understand why you have a problem with this.

I have a problem with social media in general. I never mentioned mormon stores but there many others who operate on clicks. It seems that people who now are critical of the church can make a fortune if they have charisma and say what there audience wants to hear. It's all about the money. Now if their podcast is not monetised. I would perhaps give it some respect. I guess I am yearning for the good old days when being critical was not for clicks but for good discussion. When I viewed John's podcast again after many years he asked the same questions that he asked years ago....just a different person and different audience.  It was deja vu. A part in the film Ground Hog Day. Life is a business perhaps

[california boy]

11 hours ago, why me said:

I have a problem with social media in general. I never mentioned mormon stores but there many others who operate on clicks. It seems that people who now are critical of the church can make a fortune if they have charisma and say what there audience wants to hear. It's all about the money. Now if their podcast is not monetised. I would perhaps give it some respect. I guess I am yearning for the good old days when being critical was not for clicks but for good discussion. When I viewed John's podcast again after many years he asked the same questions that he asked years ago....just a different person and different audience.  It was deja vu. A part in the film Ground Hog Day. Life is a business perhaps

Hard to say others talking about the church is all about the money.  Many of them would say LDS Inc. has similar motives for spreading their brand of the gospel.  The church also believes it needs donations to continue its cause.  And the Church also repeats over and over again its own points of view.  When you see one General Conference you have seen them all.

Honestly if you have problems with what one group is doing, you should also have problems with what the other group is doing.  The difference being is that you feel what the church does is a noble cause and what critics do is not.  But I think they also view their cause as being noble as well and needs the money to operate.

[Calm]

20 hours ago, Devobah said:

Antagonists to the Church will have a field day and will likely never let go of it.

And how is this different from what happens now?