The lawsuit filed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints against podcaster John Dehlin over his use of the term 'Mormon' in his podcast's branding has sparked a heated debate about the limits of free speech and the boundaries of trademark law. This is not just a battle for brand recognition, but also a symptom of a deeper power struggle between an institution trying to redefine itself and a dissident who refuses to be silenced.
Dehlin, a sixth-generation member who was excommunicated by the church in 2013, has been a thorn in the side of the Church's leaders for some time with his Mormon Stories podcast. The church claims that Dehlin's use of the term 'Mormon' is causing confusion among its members and diluting the brand recognition it has worked to build.
The church stopped using the term 'Mormon' in 2019, following a directive from President Russell M Nelson that the church should only be referred to as 'The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints'. This move was seen by some as an attempt to distance the institution from its more contentious aspects and rebrand itself as a mainstream Christian denomination.
The lawsuit alleges that Dehlin and his organisation have refused to comply with the church's demands to alter their branding, despite agreeing to do so in the past. The church claims that Dehlin is intentionally exploiting the term 'Mormon' for his own benefit, causing confusion among its members and damaging the church's reputation.
However, critics of the church argue that this lawsuit represents a heavy-handed attempt by the institution to silence dissenting voices and suppress criticism. As Patrick Mason, a specialist in the study of the Latter-day Saint movement at Claremont University, notes: 'The irony is that the church is litigating over the term Mormon during the same era that it doesn't want to be associated with it.'
Dehlin has indicated that he and his organisation will not back down, accusing the church of using its trademark and copyright laws as a tool for intimidation. This high-stakes battle between an institution trying to redefine itself and a dissident who refuses to be silenced has significant implications for free speech and the boundaries of trademark law.