Is the Church Targeting Ex-Mormons Over the Term "Mormon"?

A recent Salt Lake Tribune article has renewed debate about whether The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is “pressuring” critics, such as Mormon Stories Podcast creator John Dehlin, to rebrand. For some readers, the story appears to confirm that the Church is attempting to silence or marginalize former members and critics by restricting their use of the word “Mormon,” “Mormonism,” or related imagery. For others, the situation looks more like a dispute over branding and intellectual property that has little to do with theology.

As with most controversies involving religion, media, and law, the reality is more complex than the most reactive interpretations. A careful look at the Church’s policies, history, and stated principles around terms like Mormonism indicates this issue is less about targeting ex-Mormons and more about preventing public confusion over what is—and is not—official Church communication.

The case critics make

Critics see it differently, and their case deserves its strongest form. The word “Mormon” has described millions of people and their history for nearly two centuries, and the Church itself asked the world to stop using it in 2018. A global institution suing a former member’s podcast, they argue, chills criticism whatever the legal theory. That concern is real, and it is the question this article tests.

The Role of Intellectual Reserve

Intellectual Reserve, Inc., a Utah nonprofit corporation affiliated with the Church, holds and manages the Church’s intellectual property. Its responsibility includes overseeing trademarks, copyrights, and other protected elements associated with Church publications, digital products, and visual identity. This is not a unique arrangement; large religious organizations, universities, and nonprofits routinely maintain similar entities to protect their names and branding.

The primary purpose of this enforcement is not to antagonize critics or inhibit their free speech. Rather, it is to ensure clarity for the public—especially those who are unfamiliar with the Church—about which media sources are official and which are not. In an era where information spreads quickly and visually, branding confusion can happen easily and unintentionally.

Preventing confusion is fundamentally different from suppressing disagreement. One is a matter of consumer clarity; the other is a matter of ideology. The Church has consistently demonstrated that its goal is the former, not the latter.

Free Speech and the 11th Article of Faith

Claims that the Church is attempting to silence critics also sit uneasily alongside its own doctrinal commitments. The 11th Article of Faith states: “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”

This principle has been cited by practically every Mormon leader as evidence of a strong institutional commitment to freedom of belief, including the freedom to disbelieve. While critics may understandably question how this principle plays out in specific disputes, it is difficult to argue that the Mormon prophet and other officials think voices should be suppressed simply for being critical.

Indeed, there is little evidence that the Church objects to Mormon Stories or similar platforms because they publish Church-critical material. Critical books, podcasts, and articles about the Church are widespread and generally uncontested from a legal standpoint. The issue, instead, lies in presentation.

Branding, Not Belief

According to the Church’s explanations, rebranding requests typically arise when media outlets—whether critical, neutral, or even supportive—use names, logos, fonts, or visual elements that too closely resemble official Church materials. These requests are not limited to ex-Mormon or critical platforms. Faith-supportive groups and independent LDS-themed projects have also been asked to adjust their branding when it risks being mistaken for an official Church product.

In the case of Mormon Stories, the Church’s complaint points to a cluster of design choices adopted in December 2022, chiefly a blue logo with an arched frame, a centered figure and radiating light rays, along with Church-owned photographs used without a license. We lay out that branding case, the court record and 121 public accounts of confusion in Is There Really Brand Confusion Over Mormon Stories?

From a branding perspective, this is precisely the kind of scenario intellectual property enforcement is meant to address.

The “Mormon” Label and the Question of Hypocrisy

In response to this event, some have asked: Why would the Church enforce intellectual property rights around the term “Mormon” and “Mormonism” when it has publicly emphasized that it prefers not to be called that at all?

The answer lies partly in public recognition. Despite recent efforts to emphasize the Church’s full name, the reality is that the majority of people worldwide still recognize the faith primarily by the nickname “Mormon” or “Mormonism.” That recognition did not disappear overnight, nor could it realistically be expected to.

Because of this, the Church continues to maintain legal protections around the term in specific contexts. This is not about claiming ownership of a word, but about preventing its use in ways that suggest official sponsorship or endorsement.

If an unauthorized source uses the word “Mormon” while simultaneously presenting itself in a way that looks official, the potential for confusion is significant, especially for investigators, journalists, or casual readers encountering the content through search engines or social media.

Algorithms Don’t Understand Theology

Modern information ecosystems add another layer of complexity. Internet algorithms do not distinguish between “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” and “the Mormon Church” in the nuanced way humans might approach Mormonism. Search engines, app stores, and social platforms often rely on keywords, visual similarity, and user behavior to determine credibility and relevance.

As a result, unofficial or critical content that resembles official branding can surface in ways that unintentionally mislead users. From the Church’s perspective, reducing that confusion is not only reasonable, but necessary, particularly in a media climate where misinformation can spread rapidly.

A Disagreement Without a Villain

None of this requires viewing John Dehlin or Mormon Stories as acting in bad faith. Nor does it require assuming that the Church’s actions are motivated by fear of criticism. It is entirely possible, and perhaps most accurate, to see this as a genuine disagreement about branding boundaries in a charged religious context.

Reasonable people can disagree about whether the Church’s enforcement efforts are too broad or insufficiently sensitive to historical usage of the term “Mormon.” They can also disagree about whether certain visual elements should be considered distinctive enough to warrant protection. But framing the issue as a targeted campaign against ex-Mormons oversimplifies a more nuanced reality.

Update, Oct. 27, 2026. The question in this headline is now before a federal court. In the Church’s lawsuit against Mormon Stories, the Church told the court on Aug. 20 that John Dehlin “can use Mormon in connection with his podcast” but not its marks or images in ways that suggest a connection. Dehlin’s June 22 counterclaims ask the court to cancel some of the Church’s “Mormon” trademark registrations. A hearing on his motion to dismiss is set for Nov. 24. Follow the case filing by filing.

Which Marks the Church Protects, and How Licensing Works

The Church publishes its framework for third-party use of its intellectual property in a public document titled Guidelines for Third Party Use and Licensing of Church Trademarks and Copyrights.

A non-exhaustive list of the Church’s trademarks and service marks includes:

• The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• The Christus symbol, an image of Christ with outstretched arms standing under an arch
• Liahona
• Book of Mormon
• Mormon
• LDS
• CTR
• FamilySearch

Under the published guidelines, third parties wishing to use those marks are directed to request a license through the Church’s permissions portal. The guidelines state that requests from outside individuals and organizations to use Church marks as primary branding are rarely approved, that such licenses when granted are governed by a written contract, that disclaimers are often required, and that royalties may apply.

A Familiar Pattern for Creators

The dispute with Mormon Stories is the largest and most public version of a process that has played out many times with smaller creators in the Latter-day Saint online space, on both sides of the doctrinal divide.

In 2019, after the Church released its Come, Follow Me home-study curriculum, a wave of independent podcasts, YouTube channels, blogs and social accounts launched using the same name. Creator Jasmin Rappleye has described how many of those accounts received polite requests from the Church’s legal team to stop using the curriculum title to avoid confusion with official Church content. Several rebranded as a result. The podcast now called Talk of Him, for instance, was previously known as Real Talk–Come, Follow Me. The We Believe Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit dedicated to helping Latter-day Saints establish a habit of daily scripture study, operated as the Come Follow Me Foundation before rebranding to its current name. Both organizations are openly supportive of the Church, which underscores the neutrality the Church attributes to its enforcement framework: the outreach was about reducing confusion between independent content and official curriculum, not about viewpoint.

More recent examples extend beyond naming to visual identity. The operator of the Instagram account @anticipatingchristsreturn, a faith-forward page that publishes doctrinal content, wrote publicly that she was contacted earlier in 2026 after using the Christus statue in her channel’s logo, noting that the Church does not appear to distinguish between supportive and critical creators when the visual line has been crossed.

A parallel example surfaced in public response to the Mormon Stories filing. Luke Hanson (@LukeFHan), a former staffer at The Cougar Chronicle, an independent student newspaper at Brigham Young University, wrote on X that BYU’s lawyers once contacted the paper about copyright. The staff met with one of the lawyers and other officials for about two hours, made some changes and had no further problems.

That pattern tracks with the Church’s public statement of April 17, 2026, which says it reviews hundreds of potential trademark issues each year and typically resolves them through private correspondence rather than litigation.

Broader Context: “Bad Mormon”

This is not the first time the Church has defended its trademarks in a formal proceeding. In 2022 it opposed reality television personality Heather Gay’s application to register “Bad Mormon” as a trademark, before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Gay abandoned the application in 2024. Mormon Stories’ lawyers cited that dispute in a Sept. 28, 2026 court filing.

So, Is the Church Trying to Target Critics?

The question, then, is not whether the Church is trying to target ex-Mormons who use the term “Mormonism,” but whether it is trying to protect the clarity of its public identity in an increasingly crowded and algorithm-driven media landscape. The available evidence suggests the latter.

That does not mean Intellectual Reserve always gets it right, nor that critics are wrong to raise concerns. It does mean, however, that this dispute is better understood as a branding and intellectual property issue rather than an attempt to silence dissent. For a faith that explicitly affirms the right of all people to believe (or disbelieve) as they choose, that distinction matters.

Frequently Asked Questions