Should the LDS church SUE Mormon Stories Podcast?
Source: Should the LDS church SUE Mormon Stories Podcast? Channel: Mormonism with the Murph Published: April 25, 2026 | Archived: May 24, 2026
Video: Should the LDS church SUE Mormon Stories Podcast?
Channel: Mormonism with the Murph
Published: April 25, 2026
Duration: 1:34:41
Views: 12,339
Category: People & Blogs
Video ID: Jv1v-stcKh4
Description
#mormonstories #ldschurch #mormon #churchofjesuschristoflatterdaysaints #mormonstorieslawsuit #jesuschrist #branding #copyright #trademark
Should the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints be suing Mormon Stories? In this panel I have Jim Bennet, Steve Pynakker, Kolby Reddish and Leo Winegar to discuss the recent Lawsuit.
We discuss is there legitimate branding confusion? Should the church demand the name of the podcast to change the word Mormon if the church had distanced itself from the word Mormon? Was John deceptive in his marketing and branding? Has John broken the law and what will the outcome in court possibly be? Will this be bad PR for the church and not give a good image? We discuss this and more
Check out the church’s official statement https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/getting-it-right-clarifying-trademark-branding-concerns
Check out John’s video giving his side https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFepk2ZoJtQ
Check out my first video on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXmDtG1cYRY
Check out Jasmine Rapplye’s video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x5EXeZ2_Ig
Timecodes 00:00 Intro 02:46 Everyone’s initial thoughts on the Mormon Stories Lawsuit 26:34 Is there brand confusion? 41:54 Could a verbal disclaimer be a compromise? 48:20 Has John deceptively & intentionally created misleading branding? 1:00:30 Has John Dehlin broken the law? 1:07:22 What legally would happen if this goes to court? 1:13:04 Final thoughts and the church’s image on this lawsuit
Don’t forget to like, comment, share and subscribe to my channel! You can visit my other platforms. I mostly post on my MormonismwiththeMurph facebook profile!
Check out my website https://mormonism-with-the-murph.co.uk
Check out my facebook page https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100083199047600
Facebook profile https://www.facebook.com/MormonismwiththeMurph
The podcast on Spotify https://open.spotify.com/show/0wZVNBA1g3aMa254eosRIj
Follow me on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/mormonismwiththemurph/
Donations are appreciated to help keep the channel going, and to pay for software, eitin You can donate to support at my donor box https://donorbox.org/org_admin/campaigns/757124/donation_form/edit?data=amounts
You can donate to go fund me at my go fund me here https://www.gofundme.com/manage/to-grow-the-channel-and-upgrade-my-studio-equipment
You can donate through the website https://www.mormonism-with-the-murph.co.uk/donate/
You can send one off donations via PayPal https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/smy1996?country.x=GB&locale.x=en_GB
You can donate to my Patreon
https://www.patreon.com/Mormonismwiththemurph
Tags
mormon stories lds church branding trademark church of jesus christ of latter day saints
Transcript — YouTube panel (human-authored)
0:00 There are some parts of the church’s case that are reasonable and there are some parts of the church’s case that I think are very unreasonable. Um, the use of copyrighted materials, unless those fall within the scope of fair use, that [clears throat] is the strongest part of the church’s case. Period. I feel like this this lawsuit, this case is all about branding confusion. So, that should be the focus. And if the church is being consistent, they should apply these CMS standard because I I I really and the idea that this doesn’t have anything to do with John’s messaging. Really, it just doesn’t pass the smell test under the context of the law. Initial brand confusion can be tolerable even when we’re and that’s before we’re even talking about the first amendment protected context here.
0:42 I think the church has a a a duty uh just as being a large large organization to protect their branding. If they didn’t, it creates an even worse scenario. I’m quite frankly surprised that John didn’t put a disclaimer almost like early days because it for me it made sense to have a disclaimer in there to make it very clear that I am not associated with the church because so I felt very comfortable. I felt like I needed to do that. Remember this is about branding confusion. This isn’t about, you know, going after John Dyn because he’s the biggest, you know, critic or anti-ormon out there. Even you may hold that opinion, but I feel like it’s a bit of a red herring when it comes to the case, which is brand confusion. Mormonism with the Murf, [music] where Lar explores church history and the church’s truth claims.
1:29 [music] Hello everyone. Welcome back to my channel, Mormonism with the Murf, where LA explores the church’s history and truth claims. And we have really fun panel discussion today. I’m joined by Jim Leo Colby and my good friend Steve Pinecker of Moren Brook Reviews. and we’re going to be having a panel and discussion about the recent lawsuit the church has filed against the Mormon Stories podcast and the Open Stories Foundation and to get everyone’s different views and perspectives on this. Uh so just a brief summary of what’s going on for any people that don’t know. So the church has filed a federal lawsuit against uh John the Open Stories Foundation in April 2026. This lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the District of Utah focuses on alleged trademark and copyright infringement. Trademark infringement.
2:18 So, the church argues that the podcast use of the name Mormon and specific branding elements such as the blue logo and the light ray design is confusingly similar to official church logos. And the church also claims this has led listeners to mistakenly believe in the podcast is affiliated or endorsed by the church. So, I thought it’d be fun to begin. We we won’t do intros because you’ve all been on my podcast several times. What was everyone’s initial thoughts when they first heard about the cease and desist uh by the church, the email sent to to Mormon stories, the mediation, and then when you first heard about the lawsuit, like before we dive into the specifics and the details, what was everyone’s first impressions of this? Let’s see. Jim, why don’t we go with you?
3:03 Uh, sure. Um I um puzzlement I guess is my first reaction. I don’t know what the church is hoping to accomplish with this. Uh I think from what I have looked at I think I’m not a lawyer. We’ve got lawyers here. Uh but uh I’m not a lawyer, but I I think that they could probably and probably will win the case. I I think they’ve got a strong case. Uh uh but it’s it’s very much the sort of Jurassic Park principle. You you spent so much time thinking whether you could do this and you didn’t stop to wonder whether you should do this.
3:42 Uh I I see this as creating a massive striand effect uh where John Delin’s latest podcast episode or latest Mormon stories YouTube had 70,000 views. The previous one had 30,000 views. He’s raising truckloads of money. His profile is being raised as a result of this. Uh if the church thinks that this is going to shut John Delin down, uh I think that’s extraordinarily naive and silly. Even if they they’re able to somehow bankrupt him, uh which may be the strategy here is that they’re just going to bury him in legal fees. Um he’ll he’ll be able to dig out. He’s got enough donors, got enough support that they’re they’re they’re creating a martyr. I mean, this this is the problem, I think, with a lot of the high-profile excommunications. When you excommunicate somebody, you create a martyr, and martyrs uh have a higher profile. Martyrs I they’re radicalizing a lot of John Delin’s supporters here.
4:51 So I I I just look at it and go, is is the end result here worth it? Is this so important that uh that it’s it’s worth sort of expanding the platform of the church’s most prominent critic as widely as I think they’re going to expand it. And it’s, you know, and as I’ve talked about it online, I get this contradictory response. One of which is oh the church has to protect its intellectual property and John Delin has been deceiving people for a very long time and everybody thinks that this is affiliated with the church when it isn’t and John Delin is just had a terrible impact on that and my response is well first of all I don’t really think that’s true I think most people can figure out within about five minutes that John Delin is not affiliated with the church and even So, is the solution then to uh double his audience? You know, you can’t at one point say he’s really really destructive with how he’s deceiving all these people and then say but a doubling of his audience isn’t a big deal.
6:04 Those are too contradictory. And certainly this lawsuit, it’s a it’s attracting a lot of media attention, you know, in the news. Uh, I just saw he was on Alyssa Granfelt’s podcast YouTube channel. It got over I think it’s already got over a 100,000 views. There’s a lot in the apologetic and in the critical sphere. So, this is going to attract a lot more attention to Mormon stories.
6:28 I just, you know, and one of the people pushed back and said, “Hey, the church is really smart. Uh, and they wouldn’t be doing this if if it weren’t necessary and weren’t going to be good.” And I said, you know, I would have agreed with you in a pre-Proposition 8 world, uh, but Prop 8 was an absolute debacle for the church, and I would hope the church would have learned that high-profile legal cases uh, can blow up in your face. And I I just I don’t see an outcome to this where John Delin doesn’t come out of it uh with a bigger audience, with a larger following uh and with more influence to criticize the church. So So I I set aside I mean because because I’ve read the complaint and I thought, “Yeah, I think these are legitimate complaints. Uh, and I think that they can probably win this and they’ve got enough money to to have all the lawyers in the world do this. And I I think the church will win the legal case, but I think they’re going to lose uh the battle for public opinion.
7:45 Right. Okay. So, without diving too deeply, like initial thoughts, Steve, what was your initial thoughts of this whole thing? I know we chatted about this even a few months ago with the cease and desist letters and you’re good friends with with John. What was just your initial thoughts of the whole situation? I I was very perplexed, you know, because of course Mormon’s in the name of my channel and some could argue that I’m using church colors in my logo as well. Uh but I also think like in the broader sense of it, we have the church of Jesus Christ which are the bigger tonightites. Um, they have their title of their church. You have the uh in your neck of the woods, Matthew Gil, who originally the name of his church was the Latter-day Church of Jesus Christ.
8:30 Um, if he had started that church in the United States, he probably could get away with that, but they don’t have a First Amendment in England. So, I think this these these terminologies about names and who owns like the term Mormon. Now, one of the things I did, John reached out to me this week and I just kind of gave him a history of the use of the term Mormon from different um expressions of the restoration, including fundamentalists who’ve always used the term Mormon from the Strangites. Uh I pointed out to John that John Hayichek grew up on Mormon Road in Burlington, Wisconsin when his family converted to the Strangite Church. And if you look at Rad Mcnal maps as far as I know to this day, Beaver Island in Michigan on Lake on Lake Michigan uh has a little thing uh historical reference Mormon print shop referring to the Strangites. Um we also uh know that Denver Snuffer wrote an article this past weekend talking about this whole use of the term Mormon. And he ends his article with I am a Mormon.
9:39 Denver, of course, being a lawyer himself, and he thinks that this this lawsuit’s pretty ridiculous. So, this idea that only the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which by the way is the same name that the Straits have, um, has the right to use the term Mormon or owns the copyright or the trademark to the term Mormon. I think it’s ridiculous because historically other groups have used the term Mormon. And although historically the RLDS church does not refer to themselves as Mormons, I guarantee you there are 19th century members of the RLDS church that called themselves Mormon as well. So I just think at this point it trying to control the word Mormon. It’s it’s it’s not uh I don’t think it’s realistic. Now, I think from a legalistic standpoint, it’s kind of what I thought they were going to do with the Fair View Temple case was because they have a Supreme Court that’s much more sympathetic to religious organizations probably in the history of
10:34 this country that maybe they felt like, well, we have a Supreme Court that might be more willing to give us more leeway and more uh and maybe even look, this Supreme Court overturned Row versus Wade. So the fact is is that anything could happen. So even with the term in 2002 where you couldn’t copyright the the the the court said you couldn’t copyright the term Mormon. Maybe that’s what they’re going for. Maybe they want that to be reversed. So there’s a lot of really interesting things going here both from a historical context to also the fact that other groups have historically used the term Mormon and also of course we we do realize the church spent tens of millions of dollars in their I am a Mormon campaign, right?
11:17 and then later would say that the use of the term Mormon is a victory for Satan and they want and they’ve done everything to walk away from the term Mormon. And again, I I I haven’t talked to Benjamin Park, but has Mormon History Association received a letter to quit using the term Mormon? I mean, this this just opens just it’s a it’s it to me it’s I I I’m saddened to see this because I don’t think the church looks good. And of course, I’m I being a friend of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints in many ways is very friendly to them. And so when I offer critiques, it’s not done out of like I want to burn the whole thing down. It’s because I love the church and I would love to see it maybe um present itself a little differently than they do here because they do kind of look like bullies here. That’s just my So I guess it’s a long answer, but that’s kind of how my thoughts over the last week on this whole thing.
12:05 No, I appreciate that. And you’ll need to change the blue MBR soon. [laughter] Yeah, Leo, let’s go to you next. What were your initial thoughts on when you first heard about the cease and desist, uh, the mediation, and then even the lawsuit? Initial thoughts before we dive into specifics? Okay. Yeah. Hi everybody. Um, send my love from Dallas. It’s good to see you guys. Um, just Steve, before we begin, I you you labeled me as a Mormon apologist and uh I I know it’s done out of um probably love, but I but I don’t take that label, just to be clear. Um, some people might label me that way just because of my history. I’ve I’ve debated people and stuff and been very present online, but I don’t consider myself an apologist. I just I’m I try to see myself as a truth seeker and try to be balanced in what everything that I do.
12:56 So, um, no offense, Steve, just letting you know and anybody that watches this, I’m not I don’t want to take that role as like because I am faithful. I do go to church. Um, please don’t see me as the Mormon apologist here on the panel. I don’t see myself that way. And by the way, Leo, I’ll just interject that I people sometimes frame me as being an apologist. I’m not offended by it because in some ways I do engage in apologetics and defending the faith while also striving to be, you know, fair and and seeking after truth. So, I feel like those ways, no one’s ever called me an apologist, guys. Just for the record.
13:30 Yeah, it’s a dirty term. It’s a dirty term. I don’t like it. [laughter] Um, I don’t like labels. So anyway, um, okay. So, my initial reaction was one of curiosity. I went to AI to to put feed stuff there. I I use a lot of AI. Um, I went to a a friend, family member who is a trademark lawyer. I’m a partner in a large law firm and asked for opinion from an expert. And um you know uh the the analogy was what if Nike had had someone that was starting to use a term you know maybe a new logo called Nike stories and had very similar branding look and feel. um they may have a very different, you know, story to tell, a different approach to uh the Nike brand in their podcast, but that initial imp impression, anybody that’s familiar with graphic design um and branding and logo design, I’ve designed some logos myself, um you know that the first impression matters. And so for a a an organization as large as the church to not take action, um it creates something called acquiescence.
14:43 and a leg. It’s a legal term that my my trademark attorney friend asked me to look up and that can lead to a case of estoppel which means that the church becomes liable and uh passive and and liable because they can end up being sued by um someone or stopped from moving forward to protect their trademark and they’re and they’re a different mark that they have. So in the case of this um with uh the plaintiff um and the defendant that we have John Dyn and the plaintiff being the church I think the church has a a a duty uh just as being a large large organization to protect their branding. If they didn’t it creates an even worse scenario. Um, and I was just going to say if you look at Thoughtful Faith, Jacob Hansen’s podcast, that’s probably the most similar uh logo that I’ve seen outside of Mormon stories, both of them are very close to that dark blue, the the lettering even. I mean, Jacob even has the the temple in his logo. And and you know, if we’re going to compare apples
15:49 to apples, this is a pretty similar comparison. And I and I would say the church needs to go after people like Jacob Hansen. They need to go after anybody that’s adopting their branding and creating any kind of brand confusion even to be consistent because it’s it needs to be consistent and and there’s a a zero to five uh year time frame when trademark becomes when you this this period of of freedom to file a complaint because after 5 years then you enter this this state of acquiescence where if you do issue a complaint move forward with the lawsuit the the defendant has an stoppple right they can actually go in and and say no you’ve you’ve accepted this through acquiescence over time you’ve not defended your brand you knew about this and they become liable for you know further brand confusion from other organizations so I I don’t see this as being nice I don’t care about John Dyn getting money you know that none of that matters to the church if you ask the brethren um you know hey do you guys
16:52 care if John has three million 20 million, five billion subscribers. They [clears throat] don’t care. They don’t care how much money he makes. They care about protecting the brand and avoiding confusion. So, um, you know, I and I don’t p I personally, you know, John’s asked for money. He’s asked he’s set up a a big fund to ask for a lot of money from this. That was the first thing he said when he came out with his video. He talked about Jasmine and he went straight to the ask for donations. And so, and I’m like, John, that you know, better for you. If you make more money from this, can hire more people, good on you. But don’t create, he’s broken the law. He had uh branding that was very very similar. He uses copyrighted material. And instead, and it’s I’m disappointed with John to be honest. I I I wanted him to come out and initially say, you know what everybody, I need to be honest. in 2022, we created some
17:48 branding that was very similar to the church and I need to take responsibility for that and I and I and I and I fess up to that. He didn’t and I and I’m disappointed in John for not doing that. So that’s my initial thoughts. Okay, I definitely want to come back to that point when we talk about branding confusion. But Colby, we’ll go to you next. Uh your initial thoughts on the cease and desist and and the lawsuit.
18:11 Yeah. So, my overall thoughts are there are some parts of the church’s case that are reasonable and there are some parts of the church’s case that I think are very unreasonable. Um, the use of copyrighted materials unless those fall within the scope of fair use, that [clears throat] is the strongest part of the church’s case, period. Um, they can enforce, you know, protecting that level of intellectual property. And I don’t even think that poses an issue for John, if I remember correctly, in mediation.
18:38 And since mediation, he’s basically remediated all of that by not using the church’s copyrighted images. I think [clears throat] where it gets a lot more complicated is, you know, in the church’s press release that they released the same time the lawsuit was filed, they had a question. It was like an FAQ. They had a question that said, “Why was mediation unsuccessful?” And this is where they say, “This is what the primary issue that caused this litigation to happen is about.” They say the primary issue is about 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 endor 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
19:28 likelihood of confusion remains and the church moved forward to protect its trademarks. So that sounds very reasonable to lay people. The issue is that there is no general legal duty to include these types of disclaimers in fair use like where fair use and trademark infringement cases kind of collide. So that’s been decided by the Supreme Court going back 20 years. There’s a case called uh KP permanent makeup versus lasting impressions from 2004. And like Steve said, you know, the current Supreme Court has no qualms about throwing out decades long precedent. So, who’s to say that that would hold up? But I think that I just have seen a lot of narratives online about how John did or didn’t include disclaimers. Um, one of the things that’s interesting is that John actually did include disclaimers on his website, I think, in episode descriptions on YouTube. So, he did include the exact written disclaimer that the church had
20:21 asked for in mediation. Um, because the statement is a little ambiguous on if it’s talking about written disclaimers. The complaint even says that the defendants did not adopt written disclaimers, which is just, I think, incorrect. Um, when you look at, you know, the changes that John had made as a result of the mediation. Um, but I think requiring audio disclaimers is way way too much of an overreach on the church’s part. I I also feel some of the tension that Jim was talking about because the church says repeatedly this is not about controlling messaging, but if you’re going to require audio disclaimers at certain points in every podcast episode on Mormon stories, I don’t think you can say those two things at the same time. If you want to have the audio disclaimers or demand the audio disclaimers, I guess you can do that. Um, but you [clears throat] can’t then turn around and say, but it’s not about controlling messaging or controlling viewpoint. I think to Leo’s points about thoughtful faith and some
21:13 thought uh some faithful podcasts um I don’t see the church taking any enforcement actions against any of those individuals and that’s where it is very difficult for me to believe that this is just about protecting intellectual property. I think it primarily is about trying to I I do think it is about trying to control use of discussion from Mormon stories platform. Um, I I just think it it pretty clearly is um when they’ve only brought a case against one podcast. And for what it’s worth on the use of the brand logo, it’s worth noting that Mormon Stories has had light rays going back in its logo design going back to its original 2005 logo before it used blue. So, I can see the similarity there. But I just think I think there is a lot of overstating of certain elements of the strength of the church’s case on the faithful side. I think there’s a lot of under representing of the strength of
22:09 parts of the church’s case on the ex Mormon side. I think in reality the idea that the church is going to win control of the word Mormon and discord like the the right to control through trademark and intellectual property law the right to control any discussion around the word Mormon. I think that is a bridge too far. I don’t even see this Supreme Court giving them that. So, that’s kind of my overall kind of starting thoughts.
22:33 I do agree with Jim that regardless of how legally interesting the case is, I think any victory the church wins, even if the church were to get everything it asked for in this prayer for relief, I think it will end up being a pirick victory and yes, demonstrates that they do not understand the Strazand effect at all. Right. really good initial thoughts and a lot of what everyone said are going to be main points we’re going to hopefully have more discussion on and dive a little bit deeper into it. I think my very first initial thought whenever I first saw the cease and desist letter I had a couple of thoughts. one was why now after you know over 20 years of Mormon stories podcast you know being around and I couldn’t help but think that there was an interesting connection and correlation between uh the new president and prophet of the church being President Oaks who was a former lawyer and judge and then two months after the passing of President Nelson
23:23 now all of a sudden you know they’ve written the cease and desist letter uh regarding the logo and the name of the podcast so that was my first thought And I also thought like this would have made maybe a little bit more sense around 10 years ago, like right after John was excommunicated during the height of the I’m a Mormon campaign, the church was using the word Mormon a lot more in its media, Mormon.org, Mormon Tabernacle Choir. So, it would have made a little bit more sense than the brand confusion.
23:50 But I I feel that ever since President Nelson’s talk in 2018 about him declaring, you know, the word Mormon a major victory for Satan, um saying that we need to emphasize and use the correct and full name of the church. You saw in a lot of the church’s media, you know, the the tabernacle choir, what’s the name of the tabernacle choir now, Jim? What’s his name? Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square, right? So that changed. Mormon.org changed so many faithful platforms like Fair Mormon, Saints Unscripted, even Midnight Mormons going to Ward Radio. So there was a lot of platforms that changed that moved away from the word Mormon to show that this is more faithful. So I find it strange that 7 8 years after that talk, now all of a sudden they’re going after Mormon stories for it. Now we’ll dive into specifics. I can with you, Colby, I can kind of see some of the arguments from the church when it gets to some of the
24:44 the logo and the branding and those sorts of things, but when it when it comes to the word Mormon, I I I don’t understand it. And I feel like if the church is going to be fair and consistent, shouldn’t it be going after other podcasts or other channels with the name Mormon in it? Even, you know, Steve, I love you, but if they’re being consistent, they should be going after Mormon book reviews, Nemo of the Mormon, Mormon discussions if they’re going after the name Mormon. So those are sort of my initial thoughts like why now and especially after the church has distanced itself from the word Mormon. Um and the church has even said in its official statement that this isn’t about silencing critics or going after the critics. They say people are free to express support or criticism of the church and its teachings. This case does not concern the content of the podcast. It concerns preventing confusion about source and affiliation.
25:36 And one of the things I noticed as soon as I did a post and a video about this is pretty much all the people who have, you know, left the church or who are fans of Mormon stories or ex Mormons are pretty much on John’s side. And then the vast majority of the believers or apologists of the people who are members of the church are on the church side, which is kind of unsurprising. So I was just trying to be as fair and as unbiased as I can be, you know, looking at this. But the church is saying that like this is not about the stance or the tone of the podcast. This is about like marketing. This is about copyright and trademark. And so really whether or not you view John Delin as the biggest critic or anti- Mormon or you’re in favor of Mormon stories, really the church is saying this is about brand confusion. So I feel like as we analyze this, we should be coming more from the lens of is the is there actually brand
26:29 confusion? So unless anyone has any comments of that, maybe we could get into what do you think about the church’s case about, okay, it’s not necessarily about the word Mormon, where that’s a critical podcast, but they’re arguing that the branding of Mormon stories, the the the blue uh logo, the the light rays, the Christa statue, the copyrighted images uh and not having a disclaimer was causing confusion that some people were stumbling across the podcast thinking that this could have been in some way related to or church supported or church affiliated. Uh what’s your thoughts on on that?
27:07 Yeah, it’s the cumulative effect of all of the different components of this uh Mormon stories, Book of Mormon stories, very similar. The blue the light rays did change, right? So the light rays and the brown gold logo came down from above very different. the the most recent blue logo that that John was using had like the same kind of like background light rays down below that was like basically the light rays that the church used but not put underneath. So, we have to not confuse light rays from the past with the 2022 light rays and the blue logo, the the the font, all of that in the in the, you know, his thumbnails, the copyrighted imaging, all of that stuff is a cumulative effect that the church finally said, “Okay, this is enough.”
27:55 And we have five years from the 2022 date. Remember that. That’s that’s the time frame that when you when you look at a trademark case, trademark infringement, you have up to five years typically to be able to file a complaint because if you don’t after 5 years, then you then you’re guilty of acquiescence. So, I think the church probably waited as long as they could um and went to mediation. I mean, think about Nike. If Nike had the same thing happen to them, Nike stories, would they go to mediation? Probably not. They would just file a letter and say, “Cease and desist. Stop right now because you’re we’re going to take you to court and sue you for money.” The church isn’t suing John for money. The church is asking for him to comply to get out of the brand confusion.
28:41 And so, we have to not confuse these things. They’re not going to they’re not going to bankrupt him. He’s going to get a lot of donations from this. Even John said he said if he gets millions of dollars to pay for all the attorney fees, if he gets extra, he’s going to pay people back, right? So he’s has this plan to give people the donors back their money if he gets more than he needs. So you know, it’s not about money. It’s about this he reached the cumulative the cumulative effect of all of this brand confusion. And I think Jacob Hansen’s pushing the pushing the envelope here. He doesn’t have Mormon in his name. He has thoughtful faith, but his branding is very similar. So I would say to to Jacob and anybody else is trying to use imager imagery, iconography, colors, font, all that stuff. If it’s very similar, you’re at risk of getting a letter and you shouldn’t do it. So that’s my Okay. Appreciate that. Cool. I want to get you in here. I’ll just briefly just share my comments on the brand confusion. Whenever I looked at it, I could see where the church was coming
29:45 from with I never made the connection before, but with, you know, the blue logo being similar to other church media, you know, even even the rays and I guess copyright images, that’s something I have to be careful of as well, cuz I think a lot of content creators might use copyrighted images and such. So, I I thought that was one of the strongest cases that the church was making that okay, I could see why this might look similar to other branding and could be branding confusion. But I also want to acknowledge because John changed the background color from blue to orange. I think it was before the mediation. I don’t remember when he removed the rays.
30:20 Um he said that he’s removed during the mediation. Yeah. Okay. Sure. Uh copyrighted images, those sorts of things. So I guess my question is I think if John refused to remove those elements that the church requested then I sort of think okay I think the church is a pretty strong case about brand confusion but since he’s removed the rays and changed the color and copyright images we’ll get to the disclaimer in a minute and the Christo statue I feel like that’s clarifying or he’s basically cooperating and changing a lot of that brand confusion that [clears throat] the church highlighted initially. I want to get everyone else’s thoughts on that.
30:58 Um, just real quick, if you don’t mind me jumping in, just a couple things. Christa Statue, of course, that’s the I think it’s the the title is the Evangelical Church of Sweden. That’s their that’s part of their that’s part of their branding. Um, I think the idea and then also we have to keep in mind that during Lent the church changed its logo to purple. Now, when John first put that out, he was like, “What?” You know, he was questioning why they changed the color. And I messaged him and said that’s the color of Lent that is the traditional Christian calendar uses that color during this period of time. So my question would be could the Catholic Church or a high church Protestant group who use the lurggical calendar and use the coloring saying that the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints is misrepresenting itself as being an Orthodox uh traditional Christian church that uses and then they’re misident in other words there’s brand confusion there because now they’re trying to make themselves appear to be part of
31:57 traditional mainstream Orthodox Nyian uh predal Christianity which of course we all know that’s not how the church views itself within Christianity, but yet now they’re adopting colors uh that they traditionally hadn’t done before. Um so those those are a couple things too is like like we would all think it’s ridiculous if the Catholic Church sued the Mormon church for using purple. Uh just that’s how I kind of see it too.
32:22 So the color blue um you know like I said the church even changed its color during Lent. So, it’s it’s and I even told John, I said, “John, change your logo to purple during Lent.” And he wouldn’t do it, but I was just like, “Make a point. Turn your logo to purple.” He chose not to, but I think that he would have been would have been a a really strong point that he could have made there, which is saying like, “Nobody owns these colors.” And again, you’re using a Christ statue from the church from a church in Europe. you’re using a color scheme from that’s traditionally associated with high church uh and the Catholic Church. I I I just I just think that there it gets a little messy here and I I just think that the church I I don’t I I think that they made a mistake in doing this, but I I just think other people could make cases. If the church is making particular case, other churches could make a case against the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints as well.
33:13 Appreciate that. Colby Genesis got Yen, your thoughts on brand confusion. Um, I’ll just say I’m not sure, Leo, where you got the idea the church is not asking for money. They absolutely are. Um, in their prayer for relief, they ask for damages. The statutes that they’re citing include statutory damages for the copyright infringement, um, other types of money damages. So, I think you’re right that the grainmen is the ca of the case is more about the injunctive relief, stopping use of stopping [clears throat] infringing use, but that’s just incorrect to say that this is not about money. How much money are they asking for? That’s my question. If they are, do we know?
33:51 It’s not stated directly in the complaint, but when they ask for any and all relief provided by 15 USC, 1116, 1117, 17 USC, 504,50, those include money damages, so they don’t have a specific amount. That’s correct. But yeah, they’re they’re basically incorporating it by reference. So I guess the other thing I’d say good point is I struggle to see this is not directly aimed at John when we know that in the last 10 years um well maybe it’s 11 years ago now but when you know before John was communicated and Kate Kelly was excommunicated in 2015 there was that slideshow that had the different bubbles on it of the reasons that people leave the church. Denver Snuffer was one of them. John was one of them or Dane women was one of them. So, I guess I just kind of struggle with the idea that this isn’t about John when there are other podcasts, like you said, Jacobs, I think, is probably on the faithful side, the most close to doing the same thing that John was doing here.
34:50 Um, and and I’ll just say, you know, to Leo’s point about John’s brand change in 2022, I think John probably would agree with this. Probably not the best idea now in retrospect. Um, but it’s not it’s also not as simple as we’re making it seem because remember the First Amendment kind of falls behind all of this. So, first we’ve got the intellectual property issues. Then we’ve got the First Amendment issues and how the First Amendment is going to touch on um, you know, protected free speech commentary. Um, I think this the context of this history will matter with regard to the First Amendment and the selective enforcement that I think we’re seeing from the church here. So, I guess those are some of my additional thoughts kind of on the brand confusion thing is it’s not like taking it to the analogy Leo you’ve used about Nike is not a square fit because that’s a purely commercial product. We’re not talking about a purely commercial product here. We’re talking about an institution that engages in certain behaviors and that is
35:50 fair game for first amendment protected speech and commentary. So, that’s one of the differences I think um that just makes it a little bit more complicated. And the truth is, I don’t know exactly how it’s going to shake out. In one sense, I don’t really care because I think whatever happens legally, the church is making such a huge public relations and court of public opinion mistake that I don’t think any legal victory they’ll win will really matter in the long term.
36:16 Okay. I I want to come back to what we think legally will happen. Jim, let’s get your thoughts on what do you think about the brand confusion? Well, I was I was going to bring up the Nike stories uh example as well. Um, I I as we were talking, I I Googled uh I looked up the Wikipedia page about Nike, and Nike was founded as the Blue Ribbon Shoe Company in 1964 and changed its name to Nike in 1971.
36:39 Uh, and uh, that is recent enough that trademark and copyright protections, I think, are very easy to defend for that word uh, certainly for that image, that blue swoosh. Um, the word Mormon has been in common parliament. Um, well, the Book of Mormon was published in 1830. It’s been in the public domain for well over very close to a century at least. Um, John Delin, if he wanted to, could publish copies of the Book of Mormon uh because it is in the public domain. And I understand I’m not a lawyer and I understand there’s a difference between copyright and trademark. But the idea that somehow the church can police the use of a word that has been around for close to 200 years and that has been in common parliament and that they have explicitly rejected as of 2018.
37:34 And am I right in thinking they don’t even own the copyright for the word Mormon? They own certain trademarks, but they they don’t own the copyright for the word Mormon. I don’t think you can copyright the the word normally. You don’t copyright a word. So, you copyright an image or an expression. Trademark is to protect like either a logo or a specific uh term used in a specific context like a brand name.
37:56 Yeah. And and I I just don’t see how Mormon stories uh can be seen to to be violating that, particularly since the church uh so desperately wants to get away from the word Mormon. Uh they’re trying very hard to have their cake and eat it too here. And I just But again, I I really think I mean my expertise again is not the law. Uh, but I’ve spent a great deal of time in politics. I’ve spent a great deal of time in public relations. I do not see anything positive that will happen for the church in the public relations arena as a result of this lawsuit. I I I mean, I I could be wrong. I probably am. Uh, I’m frequently wrong, but the the reality is that I I just don’t I don’t think this is worth the effort. I I mean I’ I’ve had the same feeling for instance about the um the temple spires. Uh the church eventually won all those fights.
39:04 But at what cost? I mean they have poisoned the goodwill of those communities for generations. We came in and we looked like bullies and we said, you know, we demand to have a building that’s three times higher than any other building in this. And I I mean we can do that. We are allowed to do that and we have the resources to do that. But why do we do that when the unintended consequences are so negative? Because I I I really and the idea that this doesn’t have anything to do with John’s messaging. Really, it just doesn’t pass the smell test. It absolutely doesn’t because Leo, I think you’re right. They would go after uh they would go after Jacob Hansen if if that were the case.
39:48 If this were purely just about things that were similar, uh there’s a and if they think that they can manage or police the word Mormon, uh the secret lives of Mormon wives would be off the air. I mean, it it it seems very clearly targeted at John. And I think there is this idea that somehow this is going to shut John up. And I don’t see any outcome where that is the outcome where where John Delin is silent and just goes away as a result of this. So the brand confusion uh I I mean from what I can tell John has has um agreed to a number of changes.
40:38 He’s agreed to change the color. He’s agreed to change the rays. It’s I mean, we’re going into the weeds here. The one thing he hasn’t agreed to do is pepper all of his audio with intrusive disclaimers. And I don’t blame him for not wanting to do that. I think it may very well end up that he ends up having to do that. I think the church has the ability to be a will be able to sort of force that hand. But uh that’s just a long way around to get a really small victory and and as Colby says, I think it’s a pirick victory anyway you look at it.
41:17 That’s a good transition to talking about maybe the disclaimer next. And just to reiterate my thoughts, initially whenever I looked at the church showing, you know, the Mormon stories logo and the rays and stuff and other church media, I could understand to an extent the branding looking quite similar. But as you pointed out, John has changed the color and he’s removed the rays and the Christa statue and I believe he’s tried to remove a lot of the copyright images.
41:41 So at least he has tried to, you know, follow the church’s requests. So I feel like there’s less brand confusion now. And it seems that the church is saying in their mediation that they are requesting for some sort of a verbal disclaimer. Now, initially whenever I read that, I thought like, okay, I don’t see that as completely unreasonable. I’ve seen faithful podcasts or some channels either have like a visual disclaimer or they’ll just say briefly that the views expressed here, you know, don’t, you know, this isn’t sponsored by or affiliated with the church. I kind of thought like, okay, maybe that’s a reasonable request. Uh I believe John has put in a disclaimer in the description of his videos and on his podcast. Now according according to John he was saying in the mediation meeting they were asking for numerous throughout the podcast which I do think would be a bit excessive. But what do we think about like having
42:35 either a verbal or a visual disclaimer at the start of every episode? Is is that a reasonable request? What do we think? I think the written disclaimer that John is providing is in my mind sufficient uh to distinguish this uh you know and I think uh but I mean again I’m not a lawyer uh I I just the idea that he needs to pepper all of his podcasts with multiple disclaimers uh that’s that’s very very clearly an attempt to control the message. It’s an attempt to derail the message. It’s an attempt to make John’s life harder uh with this sort of uh assumption that somehow that’s going to hinder him, that it’s going to prevent him from criticizing the church as effectively as he does.
43:32 And I just think that’s extraordinarily naive. Yeah. Just real quick, I’ll just chime in. Is before I even uh released my very first episode when I was building my YouTube channel, I actually put a disclaimer in the about section saying that I’m not affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ. And I actually listed a uh Latter-day Saints and a few other other churches or had any affiliation with any restoration movement. I’m quite frankly surprised that John didn’t put a disclaimer almost like early days because it for me it made sense to have a disclaimer in there to make it very clear that I am not associated with the church because so I felt very comfortable. I felt like I needed to do that. So if anything I’m surprised that John waited till 2022 to actually put a disclaimer for me before I even started my channel. I was like I think I should put a disclaimer in there. So I I And your tagline also gives it away common sense. What’s that? And your
44:26 tagline sort of gives it away. We’re an evangelical encounter for restoration. That that’s a disclaimer at the beginning, too. Yeah. Well, does Jacob Hansen have a disclaimer at the beginning of any of his podcasts? Not an audio one, but he does have a visual written one. Does have a visual written one. Mhm. Yeah. I My thoughts on this are, you know, when we talk about the brand confusion element, it’s not about looking at one particular logo. It’s about an overall consumer impression.
44:56 And in the church’s complaint, they had some like people who were saying, “I stumbled on this podcast and thought that I was affiliated with the church.” And if I’m completely honest, I really think that what’s like Jim said, like if you were to if we were to pull up Mormon Stories YouTube page right now or look at their podcast feed and look at just the titles of the last 10 episodes, I don’t think anyone looking at just the titles or the thumbnails with the titles of those episodes is going to legitimately think that that gives an overall impression that this is affiliated, endorsed, or sponsored by the church in any way. Just looking at the titles themselves, I think agree with you there because I’ve got it up right now and it’s like how an ex-Christian experiences Mormonism, graduate BYU, resigned immediately, the biggest anacronism in the Book of Mormon. Like I I’m sure there have been people who have gone on
45:46 the podcast not maybe being sure if it’s faithful or not and then realizing like, oh, this this is a critical podcast. So, I want to legitimize there might have been some people who may have had that experience, but I have to say like looking at a lot of the titles in the thumbnails, you would at least be generally quite suspicious that like hm like this doesn’t seem very faith promoting this seems like it could be critical at least, you know? So, I don’t think it’s not like he’s saying like come listen to the prophet’s voice with a picture of President Nelson and then it’s a video all about, you know, attacking and and criticizing. I feel like his thumbnails and his titles seem to represent his content. recent, but you guys can’t forget like the 2023 conference review, right? Where it’s a picture of the the first presidency on the stand. It’s a very It’s an overall It’s an overall market
46:34 impression, Leo. Not cherrypicking the worst examples that you We’re cherry-picking the last 10, right? I’m saying overall there’s a lot of imagery of like he puts people on his episodes, right? And as pictures of them as missionaries, right? So there they’re the church doesn’t own that. I was a missionary too, but that’s an impression, right? That’s an impression that he’s interviewing a a a return a missionary, right? So which he was, right? He was interviewing a returned missionary. And this this actually leads me right to my point that I was building to is I think what’s really going on here with those brand confusion things that are included in the complaint is the church is not used to having to tolerate this level of a I don’t want to say inside but a tangentially connected dissenting voice.
47:22 And I think people are not used to having to deal with the discomfort of having to, and I mean people in the church are so used to the church controlling the message about itself so strongly that people may have, yes, they may have clicked on Mormon stories just looking at the name, thinking that, oh, anything that uses the term Mormon is going to be favorable to the church. But that’s not the reality anymore. It’s not the 1980s anymore. And the question is not, can we pick a few people who did get confused initially? because even initial consumer confusion is going to be tolerated in a trademark infringement case. It just is. And that’s I guess where I just look at it, it’s like this is just something new for the church to deal with. And I think this was an overreaction. Um like Jim has talked about.
48:09 So, so I want to bring up um you know I’ve seen some believers and people online saying that uh John you know with making his logo ve very similar to the church and the light rays and you know different aspects of the branding he has deceptively and intentionally tried to make this look similar to the church as a way to mislead people into thinking this could be a faithful podcast or affiliated with the church. What what do we think about that that argument people raising that people that have left the church so many of them celebrated when John changed his logo right so there’s a lot of people who former believers who who appreciate John’s work right so when we talk about confusion it’s like on which side are you confused because for so many it’s like my mind has been opened right I’ve watched Mormon stories you know I no longer believe this this dumb religion I can leave I you know, the restraints of
49:05 religion have have the shackles have been removed, right? So, if you ask a lot of former members, they’re like, “Oh, this is great. This is a great thing to be able to attract more people.” And if you know, if I think if um John, so John’s really smart. I’ve said this before to you guys. He He’s not going to come out and actually like directly say, “I’m trying to attract current members of the church, right, to my podcast.” What Why would he ever say that? That’s the dumbest thing ever to say, right? Because it it reveals his strategy. So, he’s going to imply through branding, through like the the the the billboards that he’s put up, right? One of them says, “Faith crisis, you are not alone.” It’s very vague.
49:50 Mormon stories, right? So, if someone’s having a challenge with the church, I can go to Mormon stories, right? So he’s he he is attracting intentionally and his intentions are according to former former believers probably like Colby for example you probably feel like those are good intentions to attract people to his to his his podcast to his videos so they can I just say please don’t can I just say please don’t speak for me I’ll speak for myself. I’m I’m I’m just asking a as the the the the token Xworman here, right? You don’t have to represent everybody else, but if we were to be honest and to look at the situation and John is attracting people to his he’s trying to build his brand. He’s trying to attract more people to view, he only has this his he has a a threshold, a certain a maximum number of people that have left the church. There’s only a certain amount of people that have left the church, right?
50:43 um there are people that are going to be leaving the church. So that’s way for him to build his his brand to build his his company. So So the thing Leo is that attracting people to his platform is what any platform exists to do. That I think you’re getting confused. The intention it has to be the intentional use of the church’s like protected intellectual properties to create legitimate confusion. So those are different things. Of course, he wants to attract people to his platform. And of course, the people that he’s going to attract are people who have an interest in Mormonism, which is going to be, you know, current or former Mormons, right?
51:23 That doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s the same analysis that we’re doing for intentional brand confusion in the copyright trademark context. Does that make sense? Those are different things, but they are related, right? because he if he creates branding that that someone sees like all these people that they’ve they’ve surveyed and I’ve talked to hundreds of people over the years and families that have have been dealing with this with mixed faith marriages.
51:46 I’ve I’ve talked to a lot of people like that way and I’m I’m saying that a lot of people do initial impression of Mormon stories especially the blue logo the iconography um all that stuff initially did lead them to believe that he was associated with the church. So it it has happened. That’s that’s just very difficult for me to believe I guess because if you listen to more than two minutes like yes maybe the initial logo and I’ve already said I would not have selected that logo. Uh but again remember that under the context of the law initial brand confusion can be tolerable even when we’re and that’s before we’re even talking about the first amendment protected context here that we really haven’t talked a whole lot about.
52:29 [sighs and gasps] It’s about overall consumer confusion. And I have a real difficulty saying that anyone who listened to more than five minutes of your average Mormon stories interview is going to think that that is an official product of the Mormon church. I just don’t think that’s accurate. Well, and just to jump in here quickly, but uh Leo, when you start talking about the fact that okay, well, he’s trying to lure people to his platform and using that as as an example of where he’s somewhat in the wrong here. Uh you’re you’re demonstrating that the case really is about his content. You’re saying I mean, if that’s the issue, because there’s absolutely, as Colby points out, nothing illegal about wanting people to come to your platform. But if the goal here is to prevent John Delin from bringing new people into his platform, then absolutely the goal here is to police John Delin’s message.
53:25 Yeah, it could be that that that’s her intent. This is a brethren’s intent is to to shut him down. I don’t I can’t speak for them. I don’t know. If it wasn’t right, if that wasn’t their intent and it was legitimately about brand confusion, they would bring a claim against thoughtful faith, right? He would be an additional defendant. I would say he’s bumping up against the the level there. Like he’s getting close. He doesn’t have Mormon in his his name. It’s thoughtful thoughtful faith, right? He does, but he’s used copyrighted images and trademarked probably should serve him a letter. I think that Jacob Hansen should get a letter.
54:02 And I guess that’s my point just as an additional data point on what Jim’s talking about. I think the fact that they didn’t, Jacob could have been an additional defendant in that same lawsuit. The fact that they didn’t, I think makes it pretty clear that this is about just restricting John’s view viewoint. It’s difficult for me to not see it that way. Maybe John was first. Who knows? Maybe Jacob’s next. I don’t know.
54:22 I’m going to let the lawyers have these discussions because I’m not as familiar with the laws and everything [clears throat] like that. But I do think sometimes one of my biggest concerns and actually this is this was my big concern when this all came out in in November. And as a matter of fact, Steve, we we you and I have talked talked about this. I said, you know, it appears that there’s selective enforcement and who who they’re going after use with using the term Mormon. I said, but and and and when this all came out, I I talked to John. I said, you know, you need to fight this because of course other people have Mormon in in the titles of their podcast or you have organizations like the Mormon History Association. I said, even if maybe there’s no brand confusion because I’m viewed as maybe being friendly to the church and not hostile to the church. So that’s the reason why they’ll let me use
55:08 the word Mormon, I said. But at the same time though, it has this chilling effect that for those who do have Mormon in their name or Mormonism or some variation is that it might cause you to self censor. In other words, well, maybe I can’t have this guest on because maybe there will be a lawsuit or maybe I can’t talk about this particular subject. And so it could have that stifling effect on people that have the term Mormon in there and realize that they almost they the sword of democles on you saying essentially yet at any minute a lawsuit could be filed against you to remove the term Mormon because you are now viewed as a particular subject or a particular guest or whatever is viewed as hostile to the church and that you’re using the church’s misidentifying it so that you can get people to come watch out on your program as though you’re trying to pass it off as being a a church channel. So that’s to me is the stifling effect it
56:04 would have on this entire community whether it’s the faithful side, the eximo side or in my case the neutral side. Um I do think that it can affect and I I don’t want to see that happen in the space because I feel it’s really important that we have independent people able to talk about these things and not have to worry about self-censoring. Yeah, I just remember what my thought was. I’ll just say very quickly, if John changed the name of his podcast to Latter-day Stories or Church of Jesus Christ stories, I I would agree that that would probably seem quite misleading and confusing and a little bit deceptive. And some people have said, “Oh, he picked the name Mormon Stories to mislead people into thinking it’s a faithful podcast.” I guess if we’re being fair, when he started in 2005, I wouldn’t say his podcast was either faithful or outright critical. It was, you know, he would he would interview people from both sides,
56:54 believers, unbelievers, apologists, critics. Over the years, it started to orient critical. Uh, and then he did get excommunicated for it. And again, I would find this more understandable during the height of the I’m a Mormon campaign, but it just makes a little bit less sense to me now. And I do tend to agree with Colby that while I do think there are people who have stumbled across his podcast maybe being unsure, maybe thinking, “Oh, this could be faithful or not, um I do think the majority of his thumbnails and the majority of the titles do represent his channel that the majority of them are critical.” Um, so those were like my thoughts when it comes Well, and just to be clear, I want to share the law like the the line from the case that I cited earlier, that KP case from uh 2004 for this proposition that initial brand confusion can sometimes be tolerated. So the the quote directly from that case is an alleged infringer is free to use words contained in a trademark in their ordinary descriptive
57:56 sense so long as such use did not intend to confuse consumers as to the source of the goods. So the trademark we’re talking about here is the use of the word Mormon in certain context that the church has a trademark to. And I that’s where the rubber is going to meet the road. And I’m not saying that’s absolutely the way the case is going to shake out. I just am saying if people are looking at this and they’re saying well some people were initially they were initially confused the law tolerates that in this context because the term Mormon is a broader term it’s a descriptive term there Mormon studies there’s the Mormon mental health association it’s a term that doesn’t belong purely to the church absolutely so I don’t know if we’ve fully answered this go ahead real quick so so if we’re talking about this is a clear case of the brethren going after you a critic silent critic because there haven’t they haven’t served Jacob Hansen with cease and desist. Okay, if we’re using that logic, we’ve got some other critics. We have to
58:54 be fair here, guys. So, if we have other critics like RFM, Bill Real, they do use pictures of the brethren in their thumbnails. They are extremely vocally critical. I would say more than John is, right? Um they they’re not going after them to silence them, right? So, we’re going to let’s be balanced in what we’re saying here. We’re saying that didn’t they also receive a cease and desist, though? I’m pretty sure they did, didn’t they?
59:20 For for logo, for for branding, not for logo, because they don’t have a logo that looks like the church’s logo, but I’m pretty sure they received a cease and desist at the same time. Did I maybe I have that wrong? I think I know another channel, Mormon News Roundup, I believe, received a cease and desist letter. And that was curious to me because his channel’s become a lot more critical or you could label it anti- Mormon, but I can’t remember too much about his branding, but I don’t think it has a lot of the branding that’s similar to the church, but he’s got the word Mormon and he’s maybe more critical. So, it seems that it’s not just Mormon stories that they’ve gone after. I believe they also sent one to him, but I I’m not aware of Mormonism.
1:00:00 So, we need to know we know what it’s for, right? If it’s for something that’s illegal, if it’s they’re not going to just silence someone because they don’t like what they say, right? So, we’re talking about il illegal behavior. Well, when you say Okay. What do you mean by illegal behavior? Because a civil like a civil claim, I would not describe someone being sued civily as illegal behavior.
1:00:21 So, trademark infringement illegal behavior is like someone’s violated a criminal statute. That’s not what we’re talking about in this context at all. That’s the way I think of it. So, Mormon Stories is acted illegally by by mimicking the church’s branding. Uh, well, as a lawyer, I would not use that phrase. To me, the fact that I have a civil claim against someone does not mean they’ve acted illegally. It means that I can sue in a court of law and maybe be entitled to some relief.
1:00:48 Illegal is like something, the way I think of it, illegal is something like a criminal statute that has been violated or maybe an administrative regulation or something like that. I I just would not use the term illegal. If Jim and I have a Think of it like this, if Jim and I have a contract and Jim breaches that contract, I have a claim against Jim for breaking that contract with me. Jim did not act illegally in that context. I have a right to sue him. That doesn’t mean he acted illegally. So bro, so is he has he broken the law?
1:01:18 Trademark law. Uh has has John Dylan broken trademark law? I suppose that’s almost yet to be determined. That’s what the case is about. Yeah, we have to determine that, right? So, but there’s a there’s an open question, right? I think there’s ambiguity and complexity. You keep saying he acted illegally. That’s precisely what the case is about. Leo, what I would just say briefly, Leo, and I’ll let you comment is, you know, again, if if they sent the cease and desist and they said, you know what, the logo looks very similar to ours, the the rays, this Christa statue, all those things. And if John was like, well, I don’t care. I’m not going to change any of those things. I don’t know what the outcome would be in court. I’m not a lawyer. Um, but I could see the church having a stronger case if John kept all those things. I think there would be a stronger case when it comes to branding confusion.
1:02:10 But because John did change the the logo color, did remove the the rays, did remove the Christa statue, I believe he’s gone through and removed a lot of the copyright images. Yeah. Yeah. I then feel like there’s less branding confusion or at least they could say in court, hey, the church gave us these requests and whether or not it was intentional or unintentional um that his marketing was similar to the church, he can say, well, as soon as they they brought up to us, we changed it. So, we were trying to cooperate.
1:02:41 Yeah. It wasn’t a mistake. When you design a logo, you’re very you’re very intentional in the in the color, the the the font, all of that’s very intentional. It’s anybody that has done any design work knows for sure that that was intentional. Um it’s not was not a mistake, right? So, let’s be clear. It’s but the intention has to be to create the confusion, Leo. Not to create the brand, not to create the logo.
1:03:05 His intention was to look very similar to the church. I mean, you’ve got to admit that. You’ve got that. But that’s not what the law cares about. The law cares about whether he is intentionally creating brand confusion and it looks at the overall picture, not just at [clears throat] the logo. So, they have to prove that in court, I guess. Huh. Be before probably in in some kind of some kind of a um settlement before it gets to actual before it actually gets to a jury, right? That’s the idea. And discovery try to get to that point where they can actually settle and figure this out. Is that how it goes from a Are you ask I’m not understanding what you’re asking me.
1:03:44 So the the it’s an open question. So we’ve got a complaint. They’re going to go through discovery, right, to be able to understand before maybe so when a lawsuit is served on someone, that defendant then has the right or needs to file an answer. Additionally, they can file what’s known as a motion to dismiss in place of that answer or incorporate it into part of that answer. If John were to like if I were John, I’ll just speak that way. I would file a what’s known as a 12b6 motion to dismiss for failing to state a claim on the basis that all of John’s alleged copyright or trademark violations are covered by fair use and protected by the First Amendment. That’s another open question that has to be settled. And if Jon were to prevail on that, there would be no discovery. The case would be over and dismissed on the front end before they even get to discovery. If that doesn’t happen, then yes, you do discovery. Then you usually
1:04:41 have another round of dispositive motions. Then it may be set for trial. Um the one other thing I just wanted to correct quickly, Murf, is you’re right. I was thinking of Mormon news roundup, not RFM and Bill Real. So I think it’s probably because they use a different term. they they they use specifically Mormon instead of like Mormon discussions and that Mormon discussions didn’t have the as similar a logo like Mormon stories or Jacob Hansen does.
1:05:06 Right. I I don’t know if we finished on the point about the disclaimer. I just want everyone you know briefly to share it. Do you think one either verbal or visual disclaimer because I think that’s something that I think is a pity that they couldn’t find a compromise in the mediation on. Uh, I sort of agree multiple, you know, disclaimers throughout an episode. That That’s a bit much. But like either one verbal or one visual one at at the beginning. I know they have it in the description. What do you do? Do you think that’s an unreasonable request or could that not be a compromise to satisfy the church?
1:05:40 And and also John, what do we think about either a visual or a verbal disclaimer at the beginning of every episode? I personally, if I were John, I would never have agreed to an audible disclaimer. I just think that that is a bridge too far of controlling the content. Uh, but I think what John’s done by including the written disclaimers, even if they were to pop up like Jacob has them at the beginning of his videos, I think that’s a reasonable middle ground. I feel like John’s pretty close to that right now.
1:06:12 Anyone else’s thoughts? I talked to a YouTube agency guy in my ward. He owns a YouTube agency. And he said that I asked him, “Is there a way to massedit 2,000 plus videos and add a short 15-second disclaimer at the beginning of every video? Is there any kind of YouTube support or something?” And he’s like, “There is no way to do it. It would be a very costly, timeintensive process for John to have to have it an admin or someone download every video and edit every video, then re-upload. And I believe that he would lose like views and likes and stuff on his videos. I think that happens. So, it’s a big ask. I’m gonna be I’ll be honest with you guys. I think it’s a huge ask to edit all of those videos.
1:06:54 Is that what they’re asking to do for all of his previous videos? I assumed it would have been just from now on going forward. If it’s going forward, then it’s a small it’s a small ask. I if it’s retroactive, I don’t know. I I don’t know the the details there, but if it is retroactive, I think that’s a huge ask. Um, so yeah, I I would not want to do that if I was John. Right. So I want to come to you next just talking about like obviously you’re the only lawyer here, Cole being this seems like a complicated case, so we don’t know what’s going to happen in court, but I’m just trying to imagine myself on the jury and, you know, trying to be as fair as and as unbiased as I can be. If Mormon stories, you know, didn’t change any of the things the church asked and I, you know, I was on the jury and the logo looks similar, you know, the rays, the Christa statues on the copyright images, I might think, okay, I think the church has a bit of a
1:07:47 case with brand confusion or at least there’s more u there’s more of a discussion or debate to be had on it. But sort of like where I’m sitting at the minute is I sort of see that John’s changed his logo. He’s gone rid of the rays, removed the Christa statue. He has a description in his description. He has a disclaimer. He doesn’t have a, you know, a verbal or a visual one. So, I sort of see like what’s left of the brand confusion except for the name Mormon, but the church doesn’t own the copyright of the word Mormon. And if they’re being consistent, shouldn’t they be going after loads of other channels with the name Mormon? But other than the name Mormon and not having a verbal disclaimer, I don’t see much left like of their current branding that causes that confusion. If they didn’t change anything before, then I would think, okay, the church is a plausible case.
1:08:39 But if I was in the jury now, I’d be like, they’ve already changed the blue and they got rid of the rays and the crystal statue and they’re removing the copyright images and they put a, you know, a disclaimer in the description. So, they’re kind of cooperating. So, I don’t see I don’t see the major brand confusion that’s any different to any other podcast with the name Mormon in it. I guess what are your thoughts?
1:09:00 Well, I agree with you entirely. And I think one of the other difficulties for the church that’s kind of being understated that people aren’t talking about is when you are suing someone, unless they are not going to unless they’re only going to seek the injunctive remedies, basically having a court tell Mormon stories that they can’t use that name, that they can’t use certain images, one of the things you have to prove is damages. You have to prove like a monetary amount that you were damaged by. And I think that’s where the rubber will meet the road on what you’re talking about, Murf, is if and that’s a question for the jury. So the jury would be sitting there going h like how do you even and I think that’s one of the things that differentiates between uh Leo’s uh Nike stories analogy Nike stories is a purely commercial enterprise the the church is not a purely commercial enterprise and so how
1:09:47 do you even prove that like the church’s brand has been damaged by what Mormon stories has done? I think that’s a really difficult thing to prove if you’re the church. I guess like would they argue that it’s pulled lots of people away from the church? So maybe that would be the argument they would make. But you said it’s not. But that feels at cross purposes with some of the arguments they’ve made in the tithing cases. I’ll just say because they basically would have be having to say we lost a certain amount amount of members so we lost x amount of revenue in tithing. And it seems like that would be cross purposes with, you know, the voluntary nature of those donations as they’ve been represented in the tithing lawsuits.
1:10:29 I I do think though I want jumping in just quickly that the idea that they’re pulling away lots of people from the church is I think how the church is thinking of this in terms of damages, which is exceptionally, I think, naive because it demonstrates, as Colby talks about, that they think this is still 1985. Uh, I mean, my one of my biggest frustrations with the church, I I remember watching President Oaks give his devotional at BYU, and he sits there and outlines all of the problems of the church in a very frank and candid way, in a way that his predecessors have never done. He says, “We have returned missionaries that are leaving. We have active active members who are troubled by historical, doctrinal, or social issues.” And he sat there and was very candid. And I thought, “Oh, wonderful.
1:11:20 So, what do we do?“ And the answer was, “Well, you only talk to people who believe. You put all these things on the shelf. You ignore them. You bury your head in the sand.” And that doesn’t work. I don’t know that it’s ever worked. But, uh, before the internet, um, it was a whole lot easier to work. I mean what what I see in cases like this is this I I think inability to see how much the world has changed particularly with regard to information and we keep pretending like we have a choice as to whether or not we’re going to deal with all of the difficult issues that confront the church and we’re whether or not we’re going to talk about polygamy or racism or things that the church just doesn’t want to talk about and that John Delin is talking about and is being very effective talking about. And so the church is looking at this and saying, “Okay, we’re trying very hard to reclaim the narrative here.” And I and I just
1:12:24 think it is exceptionally naive to think that this is going to do anything to reclaim the narrative and that it’s absolutely going to empower critics of the church in a way that uh the church is I I think the church would probably much rather have whatever smattering of brand confusion uh Mormon stories was creating than the kind of long-term uh empowerment of critics that I think this lawsuit is going to lead to.
1:12:59 Yeah. I I sort of want to finish on the point of, you know, people’s final thoughts and the impact on the church’s image. It seems like this could be a somewhat complicated legal case and none of us know for sure what the outcome would be. But I couldn’t help but think of the similarities to the Fair View Texas Temple case that we did a panel about Jim and I remember just thinking like why why are they potentially threatening to sue this town for the size of certain size of this temple and and steeple? Like couldn’t there couldn’t there be a compromise over this? And while this might be legally complicated, I I don’t know if the church would win or lose when it comes to it. I just feel like the image that the church is going to have, I understand those who feel like the church needs to protect its intellectual property. But from my current standpoint, other than the current name of Mormon Stories and not having the disclaimer because they’ve cooperated and changed everything else about the branding, I I don’t see like what else
1:13:56 their case is. And I also feel like if they’re being consistent, they should be going after other podcasts with with the name Mormon in it as well. I think the image some people will have is that it almost looks like especially people who are ex Mormons who are the church who view the church as this powerful multi-billion corporation who, you know, is just carries about lawsuits. this will almost reinforce that image of them going after this critic um almost like this Goliath going up against this David and and even if the church wins I just don’t know how good this will look for the church’s image and like with Fairview they found a compromise they were able so it didn’t have to go to court and I honestly wish that the church would drop the lawsuit do another mediation see if they could find a compromise cuz I just think for the image for the church this won’t look good as Kobe said earlier I think this will have a bit of the stranded effect.
1:14:52 And I think this will rather than build bridges create more animosity between the ex Mormon world and the critical world and the believing world. Well, and that’s I’ll go ahead and jump in and share my final thoughts, which is that I I completely agree with everything you just said, Stephen. And my one last thought is I don’t think that this lawsuit has brought out the best in the members either. When John did his live stream a few days ago talking about the lawsuit, there were so many comments in that live stream, you know, calling him a coral or an antichrist, saying things like, “This is what you get for kicking against the pricks.” I’ve seen so many comments like that all across the Mormon/post Mormon internet. And I’ll just say I don’t like, even though I am not affiliated with the church anymore, even though I’m no longer a member, I don’t have hate towards the church. I have had great conversations with everybody here except for Leo before uh Leo. We we could talk
1:15:52 about that another time. Um and it’s Yeah, I guess that’s the other thing I’m surprised by is like out of all the critics, like I know John has the biggest platform out of all the critics, but John does do bridge building episodes sometimes. We did a Valentine’s Day live stream talking about, you know, perspectives of just ex Mormons and things that they love about the church. And seeing so many members like go after John personally or call him names as a result of the church’s action against him and the way that they represented things in their press release and then in the complaint. I guess I just don’t see how that will ever reflect well on the church in the sense that it makes the members look petty and mean. It’s completely different than the way the church handled the Book of Mormon musical where they kind of just got in on the joke and advertised in the Play Bill. That was a much better PR play even if it wasn’t
1:16:48 necessarily the better legal play. And so I think that showed a lot more wisdom than this current course of action. And and I think yeah, like I said, you know, the lawsuit itself will be complicated. Um I I really think the First Amendment element is being understated here, how much it will likely protect John’s um commentary, but overall I think regardless of whether the church wins in court, it in my view it is already lost by even choosing to file this lawsuit. It is lost by handling it the way they did in the press release and then seeing the way it’s brought out some real nastiness in the everyday members. I just don’t like seeing that. I still have love for people who associate with the church and who use the church as a vehicle to bring them to their best selves. And I just don’t see that this course of action the church has gone on is going to do that for anybody.
1:17:41 No. Well said. I’ll just interject briefly before I get to everyone else’s final thoughts that when people are like, “Well, John deserves this. He’s the biggest core and anti-ormon. He’s attacking the church, so he gets what he deserves.” I feel like regardless of how you feel about Mormon stories, whether or not you love it and you’re a big fan or you think it’s the biggest critical or anti- Mormon podcast out there, I feel like this this lawsuit, this case is all about branding confusion. So, that should be the focus.
1:18:09 It’s not, as they’ve said, it’s not about the the stance of the podcast. It’s not about if it’s critical or pro. And if the church is being consistent, they should apply these same standards as you said, Leo, you know, to other either faithful platforms where there could be that branding confusion. And I think we need to try to be fair and consistent. And remember, this is about branding confusion. This isn’t about, you know, going after John Delim because he’s the biggest, you know, critic or anti- Mormon out there. Even you may hold that opinion, but I feel like it’s a bit of a red herring when it comes to the case, which is brand confusion.
1:18:44 Yeah, I’ll go I’ll go next since I’m just dying to say um Colobby, I really appreciated your comments today. Um I know that uh I didn’t mean to speak for you. I’m sorry about that. Um and I I do appreciate your guys’s input on, you know, this impact it could have on the PR of the church and and that does I think that stuff does matter. Um, I just have interacted enough with church leaders um to know that they uh are less concerned about that than everyone thinks they are. I really don’t think they are that concerned about it.
1:19:20 They if they are concerned, it’s about the impact it might be having on the spiritual lives of families. Which leads me to my final thing I wanted to say is that I have over the years I’d say ministered to, but you could just say I’ve talked to hundreds and hundreds of couples and families who have been in the midst of a faith crisis, faith journey. And there’s a lot of pain um that we have to acknowledge that is um in part caused by critics of the church.
1:19:52 The church is definitely responsible, Jim, for a lack of transparency and all these things historically are correlation materials, all these things. You know, I’m right there with you. And we are making some changes internally quietly to try to help be more instructive like in institutes and stuff like that. There is a movement within the church to try to address that internally, but it is a little bit too little too late. Um, and we can’t just blame the critics. But with that said, I’m trying to be balanced here and saying with all these people I’ve talked to over the years, these mixed faith families, um there are some cases that are very bright my mind. There’s a woman who I talked to um recently who her husband was became the biggest fan of John and RFM and these guys and he decided to walk out on her and her kids because she still wanted to go to church and she’s now alone.
1:20:48 She’s been abandoned by him because he’s so angry at her for wanting to continue to believe in the church. So there is pain there and she of course blames John and everybody you know it’s but it’s not just a only his fault. I’m saying the church has responsibility but there is pain and so if there are members that are lashing out at John I understand where they’re coming from. I don’t I’m not saying it’s justified. I I would never do that. I I would in my past life. I think it’s silly to call someone corohor. It doesn’t make any sense. It’s stupid. But there is pain and I think we need to acknowledge that and say there are members or families that have been hurt been hurt in part by John’s efforts. They have been separated.
1:21:35 And so for us to be honest and take responsibility on both sides. I take responsibility for my my church’s side, lack of transparency, etc., etc. But I feel like we need to have more honesty and responsibility on the exormon side to say we do have an impact on families. they are being torn apart in part because of what we do. So that’s all I would ask is that there’s some balance. There’s some some sense of equity here as we all admit our mistakes together. And I don’t know if that’s fair, but that’s how I see it. C can I can I jump in and summarize here because I want to follow up on some of the things that Leo said that I think were really profound. Um, you know, in my weird foray into my you know, my son calls me a D-list Mormon celebrity. uh you know my foray into this world began with with just sort of traditional apologetics with my reply to the CES letter. But when I went on John Delin uh I started to get messages from people
1:22:37 and I still get messages from people who say you did not convince me to come back to church but you did convince me it’s possible to stay in the church and still have intellectual integrity. And uh I have discovered the world that Leo is talking about of the people who are in pain that we never talk to or about people who are in mixed faith marriages. Um they don’t get mentioned in conference. We don’t provide any sorts of tools to how to deal with that. um you know the all of the people that sort of that that reach out to John Delin that see John Delin as a resource to help them deal with a very painful faith re you know deconstruction.
1:23:23 Um these are people that uh the average rank and file member of the church uh either ignores or shuns deliberately shuns. I mean, I’m married to a woman to a large who doesn’t know anything about any of this. I mean, she barely knows who John Delin is, and I think she’s sort of representative of most members of the church that they don’t really follow a lot of this if they’re just sort of rank and file members of the church. Uh, this is inside baseball to baseball to them that doesn’t really matter. But where I see a problem here, um, the biggest problem here again is not the legal problem. It is the PR problem that Colby was talking about because one of the things that that is stunning to me um is that in real life the real people I know Latter-day Saints are some of the finest, kindest, most wonderful, thoughtful human beings on planet Earth. You go online and online Latter-day Saints are not just the worst members of the church.
1:24:34 They’re very often the worst people in the world. They are exceptionally vicious uh in ways that they think they have the stamp of approval from God to treat people like garbage. They hide behind anonymous accounts and they attack people personally. And it’s not just John Delin. I mean, I get attacked all the time because I don’t sufficiently hate LGBTQ people. It’s it’s my primary sin. Also, I don’t like Donald Trump. That’s my other sin. Uh but but the the um the the toxic environment online is I think where those peacemaker talks have all been aimed. I think the brethren absolutely see this as a problem. I know the brethren see this as a problem. I get accused of pretending to to speak for the brethren. Uh but I have spoken to some of the brethren and they recognize that this is a toxic toxic environment online. And I see this case doing nothing but exacerbating that, giving people license to treat John Delin like garbage as if somehow
1:25:48 that’s going to help advance the kingdom of God on earth. It’s creating an even bigger division and us versus them mentality. Yeah. I mean, it’s very much an opportunity to sign up us versus them and it’s very much an opportunity to polarize them, polarize the John Delin folks. I mean, because, you know, when you talk to people who have left and you talk to them one- on-one, up close and personal, and that they realize you’re not trying to attack them and you’re not trying to necessarily convert them back.
1:26:22 Uh, and when they’re willing to be a little bit vulnerable, they’ll talk about the how much affection they still have for the church and the good parts of the church. When Kobe’s talking about this Valentine’s Day episode, I I’ve talked to John Dyn. John Delin has tremendous affection for the church and is very grateful, I think, for being raised in the church and for the moral lessons that the church has taught him that still stay with him. uh you know, but uh these kinds of events uh just pour gasoline on the fire. They just exacerbate the tribalism that is way way way out of hand. And I and I I I firmly believe that the online trolls are not representative of anything close to a majority of church members, but they are the loudest ambassadors for the church. And talk about somebody who’s coming online and they go to Mormon stories and they’re confused. I mean, you come online and you go, “Well, I want to know about the church.” And you see people
1:27:31 calling you the r slur and I mean I mean just all kinds of terrible behavior from church members that is I don’t think representative of who we are as a as a whole. But I I just I just look at this lawsuit and I think I mean I I can very well be con if I were on the jury I could very well be convinced to rule in the church’s favor here. I think that that that again I’m not a lawyer but it seems to me that that uh there is a reasonable case to be made but I just think the cost of making this case is going to be way way too high and I really think that we have a blind spot and that leaders have a blind spot particularly in terms of how much um this kind of PR matters and this kind of uh representation matters uh that they they think, “Oh, we have a legal cause, so we’re legally right, so we should just do it.” It’s like, well, you look like a bully when you’re doing this and that matters. That that isn’t insignificant. Even though there’s no
1:28:44 sort of legal consequence to it, there is absolutely a consequence to how it poisons the culture of the church. when we when we embrace the idea that bullying in the name of the Lord is acceptable. So that’s I mean my feeling on this I I I this is not going to drive me out of the church. Um I I am absolutely you know whatever happens is going to happen but I just don’t think we’ve thought this through as much as we need to.
1:29:21 I appreciate that a lot. I really appreciate everything you shared about. I’ve I’ve been concerned about the online behavior particularly of believers and apologists who almost seem to justify the the harsh language and rhetoric they use and combative and contentious behavior because they’re on the Lord’s side. actually did a recent video on this, how we should still be being peacemakers in our apologetics and trying to use meekness and particularly with the council given by President Nelson and President Oaks at the the last conference and the teachings of Christ, how we especially it’s not a good image. We’re not really being true disciples of Christ if we’re being arrogant and condescending and and being nasty in in our online behaviors. Uh Steve, I want to get you in for your final thoughts in this. Yeah. And I’m just thinking to myself, my personal experience is that I’ve been really brutally attacked by people from the far right believing side and from the
1:30:14 far-left exmo side. So, I think we need to be aware that there’s a lot of uh toxicity in a lot of these different camps and we all should try to be more civil in our approach. You know, what’s so interesting to me is I had I interviewed Jeff Strong who just wrote a book about why people leave the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints. survey 20 20,000 people and uh that the book is uh you can pre-order it now but did a great interview with him and I also had a conversation with Ryan Craig who’s a local guy here in Tampa a professor at University of Tampa who’s also uh did his own survey and his own work in regards to why people leave the church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints and and just just speaking from my own personal experience I will say that I think I have probably engaged more people who said their point that caused them to leave the church was actually referencing Fair Mormons apologetics that I I think I think there’s more people who told me that they access Fair
1:31:13 Mormons materials and that’s what led them out of the church more than I’ve probably heard from people who um watch Mormon stories. I think that people kind of misunderstand what Mormon stories and that what that’s about. It is a community for people who are have been decon were in the process of deconstructing and then they found a place that was talking about the things that they were concerned about. And so I think a lot of people misunderstand what Mormon stories is. And it’s not a and I and like I said, I think that there’s a lot of things that why people leave the church. And what’s so interesting to me is just having my conversation with Ryan and uh and Jeff and I’m we’re going to have a panel discussion about this late next month is why people leave the church and I my thing is is I don’t think it’s as many pe not as many people think that it’s Mormon stories that causes it. It’s usually something else causes it and then people go to Mormon stories. And honestly it’s it’s often
1:32:08 what happens in the church, what’s said at general conference, what apologet apologists are saying. um that that’s something that they need to address as well because I actually think that’s a bigger reason why people leave. It’s not instigated by John. It’s actually done by people in the church or the church itself. Appreciate that. Well, guys, I’ve really loved this panel discussion and I think it’s good that we’ve had, you know, a variety of different views and perspectives and we’ve all been able to, I think, civily share them and and I honestly just wish that a compromise could be had. I I’m a very much a peacemaking mentality and I’m not a lawyer or anything but I’m a primary school teacher and I often have to resolve disputes between children and you’re always just trying to find like what’s what’s the compromise what’s the solution and when it came to the Fairview Texas temple situation I was so glad that a compromise was found and that it didn’t go to court whether or
1:33:01 not the church would have won legally as you said Jim I just think the image it wouldn’t have looked good and similarly I wish a compromise could be had but it’ll be interesting to see what develops and and what the outcomes will be. But I’ve appreciated having you all on and uh doing this panel. Stephen, can I just say as a lawyer, I often feel like I am settling disputes among adults who act like primary school children. So [laughter] there you go.
1:33:26 I love that. And uh everyone go check out the different podcasts. Uh you’ve got Inside Out with Jim Bennett, more in book reviews. That’s Steve Pinecker’s channel. Your channel Colby Let’s Disagree as well. And Leo, you need to make a channel, my friend. Come on, stop slacking. [laughter] No, I’ve already You can just come on to mine. I’ve already Yeah, I’ve already said enough. And I I’d like I would like to disagree with you, Colby, more in the future. So, yeah, [laughter] your next guest.
1:33:55 We can do that. Awesome. And listeners, if you’ve been watching this and enjoyed it, give this a like, comment, share, subscribe, share this with other people as well, uh, to spread this video. and I’ll see you next time on Mormonism with the Thanks everyone for watching this [music] episode. If you’ve enjoyed it, please give it a like, share it with others who might benefit and don’t forget to subscribe so you don’t miss any future content. You can also listen to these episodes on podcast form on Anchor [music] Spotify and you can follow me on Facebook, Instagram, and Tik Tok. Check out my website for more content, [music] personal blog, and more. And if you care to donate to support me, you can via my PayPal or Patreon or through the website. And you can also give donations via YouTube [music] through super chats. Thank you for watching Morism with the M. Take care. Bye-bye.
Looking for comments…
Searching Nostr relays. This may take a moment the first time this article is opened.
Looking for comments…
Searching Nostr relays. This may take a moment the first time this article is opened.