LDS Church and "Mormon"

[Kishkumen]

Maybe Dehlin should consider simply re-incorporating in a state with favorable Anti-SLAPP laws.

[I Have Questions]

I guess having to litigate against someone using the term Mormon shows just how successful President Nelson’s campaign against the word has been. If members are struggling to differentiate between Mormon Stories and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then perhaps the First Presidency and Quorum of 12 Apostles may wish to consider that they might need to improve their own performance, rather than litigating against a one man and his dog operation for being more memorable.

Threatening to sue a town, now a blogger. It’s a great look for Jesus. I wonder who will be next...

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, alongside Evangelical, Baptist, and Jewish religious organizations, has filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, taking a stance against the government affording transgender people legal protections.

This is the Church seeking to impose its views and beliefs on non members.

[msnobody]

It seems to me that some former church members still consider themselves Mormons in a cultural sense.

[I Have Questions]

Dehlin’s strongest argument might be that you can’t fully “own” a word that’s become generic. And I think it can be demonstrated that “Mormon” has become as generic a term as “Christian” say. If Dehlin operated the “Christian Stories Foundation” could the Catholic Church sue him? Probably not. In fact, I’d argue the biggest problem in all of this was the Church being allowed to trademark a generic cultural term “Mormon” in the first place. That should never have been allowed.

Were Dehlin operating the “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Open Stories Foundation” I think the Church would certainly be within their rights to ask him to change that.

[I Have Questions]

It seems to me that some former church members still consider themselves Mormons in a cultural sense.

I wonder how those people would feel if the Church sued them in to stopping using the descriptor “Mormon” unless or until they were active in the Church. The Church looks bad when a self declared “Mormon” starts promoting coffee…

[msnobody]

It seems to me that some former church members still consider themselves Mormons in a cultural sense.

I wonder how those people would feel if the Church sued them in to stopping using the descriptor “Mormon” unless or until they were active in the Church. The Church looks bad when a self declared “Mormon” starts promoting coffee…

in my opinion, Mormon Stories is aptly named, as these are the stories of Mormons. I’m sure if he chose to drop the name the church would trademark (or whatever the correct term would be) in a hot minute.

[Kishkumen]

It seems to me that some former church members still consider themselves Mormons in a cultural sense.

Indeed they do! It is not an uncommon phenomenon.

[Kishkumen]

Dehlin’s strongest argument might be that you can’t fully “own” a word that’s become generic. And I think it can be demonstrated that “Mormon” has become as generic a term as “Christian” say. If Dehlin operated the “Christian Stories Foundation” could the Catholic Church sue him? Probably not. In fact, I’d argue the biggest problem in all of this was the Church being allowed to trademark a generic cultural term “Mormon” in the first place. That should never have been allowed.

Were Dehlin operating the “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Open Stories Foundation” I think the Church would certainly be within their rights to ask him to change that.

Exactly. The LDS Church KNOWS this. They are being pricks and aiming to engage Dehlin in a legal fight that is incredibly expensive and time-consuming.

It is a SLAPP suit. Pure and simple.

SLAPP suit
Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP suit) refers to lawsuits brought by individuals and entities to dissuade their critics from continuing to produce negative publicity. By definition, SLAPP suits do not have any true legal claims against the critics. People bring SLAPP suits because they can either temporarily prevent their critics from making public statements against them or more commonly to make critics spend all of their time and resources defending the SLAPP suits. Given their ability to stop individuals from exercising their right to free speech, over 30 states have adopted Anti-SLAPP statutes that make it easier for defendants in SLAPP lawsuits to have the case dismissed at the outset, before spending lots of money on attorney fees. In egregious SLAPP cases, an Anti-SLAPP statute may even require the plaintiff to pay the legal fees of the defendant.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/slapp_suit

[MsJack]

I swear Kirton McConkie is basically the Wolfram & Hart of religion.

[Kishkumen]

I swear Kirton McConkie is basically the Wolfram & Hart of religion.

Nice Buffy reference!