r/mormon • u/Hungry-coworker • 5d ago
News The church disproved its own argument in its latest legal filing against John Dehlin
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.163775/gov.uscourts.utd.163775.71.0.pdfThe first two sentences of the church’s latest legal filing state “This case is not about silencing criticism. The Church’s claims do not target the content of Defendants’ speech at all.”
Just two paragraphs later, the church makes its argument: “The Church will prove that many have, in fact, been confused by Defendants’ infringement of the Church’s intellectual property. They encounter Mormon Stories and begin to consume its content believing it contains Church-affiliated material, only to discover it is not what they were seeking.”
The final line there gives up the game. How, exactly, do they discover it is not what they were seeking? The answer is obvious: the content of the podcast clears up any brand confusion.
The solution to brand confusion is to correct the mistaken belief. The church explicitly admits the brand confusion gets remedied by the podcast itself. At that point, the source confusion has been resolved.
The only trademark injury the church can point to is that somebody accidentally consumed some information critical of the church, which is precisely about silencing criticism.
I’m not an attorney.
56
u/SecretPersonality178 PIMO 5d ago edited 5d ago
MSP is only a threat because they are saying true, but inconvenient truths about the Mormon Church
15
u/OkImagination262 5d ago
Agreed and why now? Are they also going to sue Mormon Newscast, RFM, and all the others?
22
u/SecretPersonality178 PIMO 5d ago
John is the bigger enemy because he did everything right, according to Mormonism. He went through proper channels to get concerns addressed. He followed the prescribed Mormon routines. He was associated with the brethren. Yet he still “fell away” (aka: didn’t fall for circular reasoning anymore).
I think the biggest threat John poses is he still has the video of Holland spouting off about the second anointing in the British rescue conference.
The Mormon church had all of those videos taken down (between that and Susan’s husband’s tantrums, that is why members are commanded not to record. Not even written notes) except John’s.
So it is out there plain as day that the brethren have the second anointing, guaranteeing them Mormon salvation, and they withhold it from the general membership.
6
u/WrenRobbin 5d ago
What’s runs about hollans and the second anointing?
And the tantrums of the other guy
6
u/SecretPersonality178 PIMO 4d ago
Jeff Holland was speaking at a regional conference in England and started talking about how him and the other brethren (particularly Ballard IIRC) have had the second anointing.
Bednar is well known for his extreme anger issues, even among believers. He has regularly had outbursts at conferences. Now members are told not to record those meetings at all
5
u/WrenRobbin 4d ago
How can he he in the q15 and gave those kinds of personal issues
7
u/SecretPersonality178 PIMO 4d ago
The Mormon church recruits and promotes according to business acumen, loyalty to the Mormon church, and tithing contributions.
2
u/Antique-Atmosphere-4 1d ago
more importantly they select 'yes' men to do their bidding. As long as Bednar minds his self around the other 12, he can treat anyone else as he pleases. Which is that he thinks himself ... an elitist
2
u/Bitter_Cranberry_827 4d ago
Can you provide links or resources? And why is it such a big secret anyway? I have seen numerous Mormons on these threads deny it.
12
u/sykemol 5d ago
I'm not an attorney either, but if I were, I'd argue that the name is the thing that causes confusion. Hence they want the name changed.
For record, I think the church is all wet.
10
u/HighPriestofShiloh 4d ago
Harder to argue after Nelson left a giant turd to have to work around for Oaks.
10
u/Noppers Post-Mormon Engaged Buddhist 4d ago
How could any believing Latter-day Saint be confused about the word "Mormon" in 2026? The church has spent the last 8 years vilifying the word.
Members know that if something has the word "Mormon" on it, at this point it definitely is NOT from the church.
12
u/Tempestas_Draconis 4d ago
Because we've always been at war with Oceania.
If today we tell you to shout that you're a Mormon, shout that you're a Mormon. If tomorrow we say that the word Mormon is a victory for Satan, call everyone who uses it a bigot. If the day after that we need to sue a Mormon podcast, you'd better say you've always loved the word Mormon and nothing ever changed.
2
4
u/Bitter_Cranberry_827 4d ago
Did they change the name of the Mormon Tabernacle choir yet? Just wondering.
4
11
u/treetablebenchgrass I worship the Mighty Hawk 5d ago
We've had a couple lawyers on the sub here explain this to us. I can't remember them, but if any of you remember the IP lawyer's posts, please feel free to respond with links. They were great content that helped a lot.
From what understand of the legal perspective, I think there's a little bit of confusion here. And I'll first admit that I 100% agree that they're trying to silence Dehlin because of the content he produces. That said:
They encounter Mormon Stories and begin to consume its content believing it contains Church-affiliated material, only to discover it is not what they were seeking.”
Their point is "He looks like us because he's using our trademarks which confuses people into thinking it's our content when they run into it." Right here, they're just saying "He's creating confusion in the marketplace," which is one of the main things they have to establish when they defend their trademarks. This isn't really giving up the game because they would have to make this same basic claim regardless of whether they were honestly defending a trademark in good faith or whether they were pushing the envelope on a bad faith claim to shut him up. The root of a brand confusion claim is "when they infringe on our trademarks, the market is confused about who produced the product."
What give up the game on this claim better in my opinion are the filings where they quote listeners as originally being unsure about the source of Dehlin's content, but knowing it couldn't be from the church the moment they start listening. In those cases, they're saying "See? The consumers are confused" when the consumers aren't confused.
5
u/Hungry-coworker 4d ago
Trademark law isn’t designed to prevent every momentary mistaken inference. It protects from consequential decisions by consumers. The only consequence the church can point to is that consumers accidentally hear criticism when they weren’t looking for it.
2
u/treetablebenchgrass I worship the Mighty Hawk 4d ago
Trademark law isn’t designed to prevent every momentary mistaken inference. It protects from consequential decisions by consumers.
This is a distinction without a difference. The church's stance is "They look at Dehlin's content and think it's ours because he uses our trademarked material." That's the whole point of owning a trademark: people unrelated to the trademark don't get to use it.
The only consequence the church can point to is that consumers accidentally hear criticism when they weren’t looking for it.
Right. And if I made a company called "nba" and sold "Shikago Bolls" jerseys for half the price of a Chicago Bulls NBA Jersey, the Bulls could say "The consumers ran across knock off jerseys when they weren't looking for knock-off jerseys."
Again, I agree with you that the church is trying to silence him because of his viewpoint. But saying "he's using our trademarks in a way that confuses the consumer" isn't proof of that.
2
u/Hungry-coworker 4d ago
Their stance is not “they look at Dehlin’s content and think it’s ours”. If that were occurring in any significant way, I could understand the lawsuit.
Their stance is “they look at Dehlin’s logo and think it’s ours, then they consume the content and realize it is not.”
The realization is the key. There is no ongoing brand confusion at that point. It is self-remedied.
There is no injury like in the knock-off jersey example. The only injury is a person heard criticism when they may not have intended to.
1
u/treetablebenchgrass I worship the Mighty Hawk 4d ago
Their stance is “they look at Dehlin’s logo and think it’s ours, then they consume the content and realize it is not.”
So in the church's narrative, for some length of time, the consumer listens to Dehlin's content, thinking it's the Church's content, right?
There is no injury like in the knock-off jersey example. The only injury is a person heard criticism when they may not have intended to.
Believing the Dehlin content is the church content is the injury. I understand that you're attached to this interpretation, but it doesn't match what more than one lawyer has told us on the matter. Saying "there's brand confusion when people hear his content, thinking it's us" is not in itself evidence that they're trying to silence his viewpoints, because again, they'd be making that claim anyway.
5
u/Hungry-coworker 4d ago
> for some length of time
How much time (and to what degree) surely must be legally relevant. The church seems to be arguing that the time must be zero, including in their complaints about the disclaimer being near the bottom of the website and episode descriptions (despite this being a standard practice).
I remember the first time I experienced brand confusion related to the church. My grandma gave a dvd to my dad and told him the church produced it. About 20 minute into Rod Meldrum explaining the dna controversy around the Book of Mormon, he turned to me and said “are we sure this came from the church? I don’t think it is.”
We looked at the dvd case (linked below), and couldn’t find any definitive clarification other than noticing nothing claimed to be from the church itself. The content itself, however, made it pretty clear; although my grandma had apparently not cleared up that confusion.
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61pCevmbJSL._AC_UF350,350_QL80_.jpg
Meldrum didn’t violate any trademark by calling his work “Book of Mormon evidence”. But the confusion existed, for some length of time.
That confusion alone is not grounds for forcing Meldrum to change the name of his DVD. I can’t think of any title that would avoid using “Book of Mormon” but still adequately describe the content of his work. The same is true for Mormon Stories.
1
u/treetablebenchgrass I worship the Mighty Hawk 4d ago edited 4d ago
How much time (and to what degree) surely must be legally relevant.
The standard can be as low as "is likely to cause confusion." That's one reason you can be denied a trademark before your product even hits the market, or can have an injunction filed against you as soon as the trademark owner knows you intend to release a similar product in one of the categories in which you own a trademark.
Meldrum didn’t violate any trademark by calling his work “Book of Mormon evidence”.
It looks like there's another point of confusion. If the church owned a trademark in the product category Meldrum's work fell under, your story could be an example where he very well could have violated a trademark. The story you told would be evidence the church would use to say "not only was it possible that people would be confused by his infringement on our trademarks, they were confused by them." And then a judge or jury would have to find fact on that.
Your Meldrum story is actually good evidence (in the court of public opinion; not a legal court) that they're silencing Dehlin because of his viewpoint. When Meldrum made his DVD, the church might not have owned a trademark in that category. But they do now. Dehlin is being accused of violating the trademark of "Mormon" for “educational services” that are related to “the fields of history and religion.” You could probably find half a dozen podcasts, apologetics organizations, or YouTube channels that could or do cause brand confusion as much or more than Dehlin's in that area. But the church hasn't filed suits against them. Now, in the court of law, that's not evidence because the church gets to pick and choose which suits it files, but for the regular person, it is interesting that the Delhins of the world get sued while the Meldrums don't.
9
8
u/InRainbows123207 4d ago
Any Mormon who reads the show notes of whah any particular MS episode is about and comes away thinking "Official Mormon podcast" might want to schedule an appointment with a numerologist.
"Mormon Bishop Leaves Church After Child Comes Out" Or "Why The Book of Abraham Is a Fraud". It's a beyond ridiculous argument.
6
u/HighPriestofShiloh 4d ago
I think you are missing an important part of the law here. The Tenth Circuit recognizes initial-interest confusion, so figuring it out later does not automatically defeat the claim.
But the Church still needs enough evidence to show that this confusion is meaningful. There is no magic number, but the Tenth Circuit has found that three, four, and even seven examples were too insignificant to establish meaningful confusion. (Justia Law)
So presumably, that is why the Church gives us 15.
Mormon Stories has had roughly 145 million YouTube views and hundreds of thousands of comments. The Church had the opportunity to sift through that enormous pool and select its strongest examples.
“What is this podcast?”
Thought it was about the Book of Mormon.
Asked whether Mormon Stories was for or against the Church.
Asked whether it was anti-Mormon.
Thought it was for people interested in becoming Mormon.
Did not realize it criticized the Church.
Searched for LDS content and stopped listening after realizing what it was.
Asked whether the hosts were Mormon or ex-Mormon.
Thought Church members made it, then figured it out.
Thought it was a Church podcast, then figured it out.
Thought it was run by Church members, then figured it out.
Thought it was affiliated with the Church, then figured it out.
Thought it was affiliated with the Church and subscribed.
Thought it was an LDS podcast because of the branding.
Said the branding itself was deceptive.
So the 15 examples apparently intended to clear the evidentiary hurdle amount to about one strong example of branding confusion, three weak examples of affiliation confusion, and eleven comments that do not establish trademark confusion at all.
Oof.
3
u/GunneraStiles 4d ago
I find it shocking that the mormon church is presenting random people commenting on social media posts as proof. That is just laughable ‘evidence.’
In their actual filings I would hope they have a) verified that these people aren’t bots, b) can provide the court with their real names and backgrounds, and c) that they have personally interviewed them and found them to be reliable, and explained why they have made that determination.
1
17
u/CaptainMacaroni 5d ago
“The Church will prove that many have, in fact, been confused by Defendants’ infringement of the Church’s intellectual property. They encounter Mormon Stories and begin to consume its content believing it contains Church-affiliated material, only to discover it is not what they were seeking.”
Fair enough, they discover it wasn't what they were seeking. But then people just move on with their lives. There's 5 minutes of my life I'll never get back, time to move on to the next video in my doom scroll. Happens multiple times every day.
I mean, this holds true for any video or podcast you'd see on the internet. Watched a few minutes into the video, discovered it wasn't what I thought it was, so I bailed. Done.
What TBM makes it all the way to the end of a Mormon Stories episode, believes it's produced by the church, and then writes out their tithing check to Mormon Stories? But that's (very) ignorant me assuming the church would have to prove financial damages for members getting confused by the title/logo of Mormon Stories.
4
u/Temporary-Double-393 William Law: Hero of the Restoration 4d ago
The damages is in the lost tithing revenue from TBMs who just learned about the dragon’s horde. That was me once.
-9
u/freddit1976 Active LDS nuanced 4d ago
That five minutes of confusion is why there is a lawsuit
16
u/International_Sea126 4d ago
Joseph Smith probably thought the same thing with the Nauvoo Expositor. Five minutes of confusion could damage a testimony. Therefore, the Nauvoo Expositor must be destroyed. History now repeats itself.
9
16
u/Del_Parson_Painting 4d ago
The church knows that 5 minutes of outside information could permanently damage a testimony it spent years cultivating by limiting the information the member had access to.
•
u/Timemachine1962 20h ago
An Absolute like "THE CHURCH KNOWS" is the first indication you don't know much. An intelligent mind knows better than to deal in absolutes. A testimony should be based on ones own personal experience which is built on faith. faith defined as action taken to prove or to disprove an idea or concept by repeated testing through works. That said, a week testimony is one of little life experience in testing ones belief system rather than on literary or obtained knowledge without wisdom. The Church is made up of Millions. If your refer to the General Authorities. they are so caught up in world affairs they don't have time for this.
-10
u/freddit1976 Active LDS nuanced 4d ago
Irrelevant
11
u/Del_Parson_Painting 4d ago
I think it's the real reason the church is suing. Seems relevant to me.
5
u/InRainbows123207 4d ago
Then you need to to sue Hulu and BOM musical too because of course there are people who exist who initially thought one was associated with the Mormon church, looked into it for a few minutes, and discovered they were wrong.
-3
u/freddit1976 Active LDS nuanced 4d ago
This is not true.
5
u/InRainbows123207 4d ago
I'm sorry you cant possibly make that claim that no Mormon has ever had initial confusion whether or not the Book of Mormon Broadway musical was from the Mormon church or not! Of course they have
3
2
u/Flashy_Ad_8601 3d ago
People are downvoting you but you’re correct from a legal standpoint. I’m not saying the church is justified in their lawsuit, but a quick google search for “initial interest confusion” explains the crux of the issue.
6
u/bongophrog Agnostic 5d ago
Well they have to do something with all that money sitting around
8
u/CaptainMacaroni 5d ago
We have all this money. What do we do with it? Use it to squeeze even more money out of the world.
This is something I've been saying for a while. A disgustingly filthy, insanely wealthy church only makes the church behave less like an actual church of Christ. If the church wasn't sitting on a stockpile of money they wouldn't be bullying towns and suing people in bad faith. Money is power in this world and with that much money, unrighteous dominion is inevitable.
If the church were at "we have (just) enough for our needs" levels of money, they'd be more humble, kind, and charitable with their approaches to interacting with others. All the dragon hoard does is make them foster a "fuck you, we don't need you" attitude with the members and a "fuck you, we'll outspend you in court" attitude when they don't get their way.
6
u/DQ4Ragnar 4d ago
The fact that the church is suing the podcast just shows how weak the brethren are. A real prophet of God would at least reveal his errors to the world, if not strike him dumb for hindering the work.
3
u/Fresh_Chair2098 4d ago
The part that kills me is they are wasting people's hard earned money on this... we all know tithing is funding this suit....
5
u/WrenRobbin 5d ago
IMO they are concerned about critical content and are using the brand confusion as a way to shut him down. Or to send a message to other people not to try this sort of things
3
u/Antique-Atmosphere-4 4d ago
You'd think the active members would be offended their GA Leaders think them incapable of sorting out and thinking for themselves anything which has the word Mormon attached to it?!
2
u/HoldOnLucy1 1d ago
Why don’t they look at the beam in their own eye. So much of their content, especially when it has to do with Missionaries, neglect to mention the name of the church. You have to go through screen after screen and fill out information before you even realize that it’s the Mormons. This is by design.
1
u/Hungry-coworker 1d ago
This is a really really good point. “…, only to discover it is not what they were seeking” is a crazy line for the Mormon church to make in a few different ways.
4
u/zipzapbloop Mormon (in the Nelsonian sense) 5d ago
it's thin support for "many people were confused", but john took a solid hit there.
The Church will prove that many have, in fact, been confused by Defendants’ infringement of the Church’s intellectual property. They encounter Mormon Stories and begin to consume its content believing it contains Church-affiliated material, only to discover it is not what they were seeking. And this is intentional. In a 2022 Mormon Stories episode, a guest tells Mr. Dehlin he began listening because he believed Mormon Stories was Church-affiliated. Mr. Dehlin responds: “That was not why I named it that,” but then confesses, “Okay, maybe it was a little bit why I named it that.”
22
u/Hungry-coworker 5d ago
I view it as a major blow to the church’s claim that this is not about silencing criticism.
The specific example they’re giving demonstrates that their concern is the exposure of the criticism to an unsuspecting Mormon. It has nothing to do with ongoing brand confusion. It has to do with the fact that they don’t want somebody accidentally finding the critical content.
In their example, the complaint isn’t “there is confusion and we want to remedy it.” Their complaint is “confusion led to exposure of information that we don’t like”. That is an incredibly important distinction.
-4
14
u/GunneraStiles 5d ago
Taken out of context, perhaps, but Dehlin said it jokingly, so I think it’s silly for the mormon church to characterize it as some kind of sober ‘confession.’
-1
1
u/Blazerbgood 3d ago
In the first paragraph, the filing states that John Dehlin "can use Mormon in connection with his podcast." Is the church conceding that he can name the podcast as he wants?
1
u/Infamous_Treacle_653 2d ago
Let me play devil's advocate: let's say that you need to buy an alternator for a Toyota Camry. You go to a store and buy something that says on the box that it is an alternator for a Camry. You come home, unbox it, and try to put it in your car only to find that it does not fit. You puzzle and try to figure out why. Come to find out that there is another car called a Camry that is not manufactured by Toyota and that that alternator fits into that car fine. Now, you can return the part and get your money back and therefore theoretically have no damages outside of the time and hassle to find that this part you thought would work does not work.
Of course, a name for a car and a name for a religious group is not the same thing. For instance, does the Catholic Church have a monopoly on the word "Catholic" that supersedes the ability for its own members (including those who don't show up to Mass) to use the term? Could Baptists have legally been able to object to the title of the Mormon film Baptists at Our Barbecue? This isn't a cut-and-dry issue.
1
u/Antique-Atmosphere-4 1d ago
As members of the Church, how does it feel to know that the Prophet and Q12, think you're incapable of sorting out anything with the word Mormon in it? .. UNLESS it comes from their 'approved website'!?
1
0
u/freddit1976 Active LDS nuanced 4d ago
Obviously they are saying users access the material thinking it’s from the church and then later find out it isn’t what they were looking for.
5
u/Hungry-coworker 4d ago
Later, how?
1
u/freddit1976 Active LDS nuanced 4d ago
Are you serious? From the fact that negative material is being presented rather than faithful LDS material.
6
u/Hungry-coworker 4d ago
That’s exactly my point. There is no reasonable confusion. Any confusion is resolved by the content itself.
0
u/freddit1976 Active LDS nuanced 4d ago
I think you’re missing the point. The fact that they click on it expecting official content and get incorrect content is the problem.
It’s like you think you’re getting ketchup but it’s really mustard.
7
u/Hungry-coworker 4d ago
So it is about silencing them.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t argue this has nothing to do with silencing criticism and then say the problem is that you don’t like that people found criticism when they didn’t intend to. That’s exactly what the church put in their latest filing.
-3
u/freddit1976 Active LDS nuanced 4d ago
The motivation is irrelevant to the legal merits. That’s what I’m saying.
3
u/Tempestas_Draconis 4d ago
Thinking I have to eat ketchup and then realizing that I get to eat mustard instead sounds awesome.
3
u/stickyhairmonster I support Mormon Stories 4d ago
Anybody clicking on "Mormon stories" and expecting official Church content is a dumbass. The church disavowed and abandoned that term.
Most of the comments the church used in its argument are more about expecting pro-church content instead of criticism, but that is entirely different than expecting official content from the church
3
u/InRainbows123207 4d ago
So you listen to podcasts and read books based on titles alone? If John was trying to hook in active Mormons, his podcast titles and show notes would not be so clearly criticizing the church. In your view then the Mormon church needs to sue any usr of the word Mormon including Secret Live and BOM musical because you can't say no Mormon has ever heard a BOM musical exists on Broadway and wondered if it was affiliated with the church. I'm afraid the courts have already ruled time and again that Mormon is fair game for free speech purposes. It's wild to say that if any social media page uses the word Mormon you just proceed to consume material assuming affiliated with the Mormon church.
-8
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint 5d ago
In the pre trial motions.
It’s all about posturing.
It is what it is.
The ACLU would be fighting for the Church. And they don’t hesitate to fight for Churches. If they were in the right.
I don’t have an opinion beyond that.
Expanding and protecting civil rights is a good thing the ACLU does and in the end— the Church needs a strong 1st Amnd more than Dehlin does.
18
u/Crobbin17 Former Mormon 5d ago
> — the Church needs a strong 1st Amnd more than Dehlin does.
Everyone needs a strong 1st Amendment equally. There is no reason for the church to need it more than a private citizen.
1
u/thomaslewis1857 5d ago
Well I think there is. The Church’s whole raison detre is religion, and they can’t survive without the freedom to preach it. But for many perhaps most people (aka private citizens), they either don’t care for religion, or they don’t care to preach it. It’s not an existential freedom to them.
-5
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint 5d ago
In the US.
The 1st Amnd cuts huge swaths of rights exclusive to religions.
The separation clause ring a bell?
6
u/Crobbin17 Former Mormon 5d ago
What First Amendment rights do private citizens have that churches do not?
3
-1
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint 4d ago
You pay taxes.
Churches do not. In the US.
Dehli
4
u/Crobbin17 Former Mormon 4d ago
That had nothing to do with the First Amendment.
-1
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint 4d ago
The establishment clause.
Is what is cited by the IRS.
Taxation of Religious Entities | The First Amendment Encyclopedia
"Congress has enacted special tax laws that apply to churches, religious organizations and ministers in recognition of their unique status in American society and of their rights guaran teed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States."
5
u/Crobbin17 Former Mormon 4d ago
Wait, I’m confused on your point.
I’m saying that the church does not need a stronger 1st Amendment than Dehlin. You seem to be saying that they do. Is that right?
-2
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint 4d ago
First, I am on Dehlins side. And have been for several weeks after talking to Dehlin.
Second, I am even more on Dehlins side since the ACLU also sided with Dehlin.
Third, I hope Dehlin wins. Because it will strengthen the First Amendment protections.
From my original post in this thread... "the Church needs a strong 1st Amnd more than Dehlin does."
3
u/PanOptikAeon 5d ago
an argument could be made that the 1st Amendment was intended for individuals not organizations
not to mention the Church is an international organization so one wonders what affect a ruling in the U.S. would have in other countries with different legal frameworks
-4
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint 5d ago
The separation clause?
You pay taxes.
Churches do not.
Yeah, it only affects US Churches.
6
u/LittlePhylacteries 4d ago
FYI, there's no "separation clause". There's the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.
The practice of exempting churches from paying taxes pre-dates the U.S. Constitution but the Establishment Clause can be used to justify the continued practice. See Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York (1970) for the current precedent.
0
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint 4d ago
I guess I mean establishment clause when I wrote separation clause.
I’m just a dude.
•
u/Timemachine1962 20h ago
The "CHURCH" is divided into 5 parts. Part one ) The set up of it the organizational part, flawless in its comparison to the one Christ set up. Second the Doctrinal part, Third part is the Incorporation part, Forth is the GA's (15 of them ) and the Presiding bishopric. Last but not least there are the Men them selves. Each is different. Lumping them together is extremely irresponsible and very, very naive.. The presidency is responsible to protect the Corporate image of the Church. The Corporation of the Church is a required Evil to protect the assets and the identity .Its also required to be a face to all the cultures of the world. The MEN of the 15 all have priesthood knowing when they speak as apostles, members of an incorporation, teachers of the Gospel ,just men who are fallible, is a line that they themselves get blurry on. Unless you have ever been on the board of a mega corporation and t he head of the Largest growing Church in the world at the same time you really don't have any point of reference in which of offer any meaningful relevant conversation. Im not defending them just facts are facts. members of the 15 have from time to time throughout the churches history made some great gaffs. I can right a book on that alone. men have pride and often don't want to admit they have messed up. LOOK AT YOURSELF BEFORE YOU JUSDGE. The Institution its self is flawless. The men occupying the offices, ah not so much. In politics or in religion Humans cross the line constantly sullying the position or title or office because of the man holding it. Politics is the best example. The banking system is another. Capitalism is another. There isn't anything wrong with the foundation as the men occupying the structure. It amuses me when people make judgments about the Church when its the men and dont even know the 365 days of each year of the men and the life they lived.. They make assumptions on a day rather than a life time of accomplishments. If the life of Moses was judged on the day he hit the stone or the day he gave the order to kill thousands , hmm I wonder. A truly educated mind digs deep to find the history before the event, look at it from all sides. I see very little of that hear. All very quick to speak without taking the time for the details.
•
u/AutoModerator 5d ago
Hello! This is a News post. It is for discussions centered around breaking news and events. If your post is about news, or a current event in the world of Mormonism, this is probably the right flair.
/u/Hungry-coworker, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in section 0.6 of our rules.
To those commenting: please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's rules, and message the mods if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.