[very rough draft]

(Introduction)

I grew up in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I was baptized at 8, a missionary at 19, and married at 22. I graduated from Brigham Young University at 23. I am a right-down-the-middle average member of the Church. I served in various callings from several wards and stakes across the US. I never planned to have a faith crisis. Most people who know me are surprised to hear that I seriously considered leaving the Church. In the ten years since I first admitted that I did not believe in God, I’ve seen other members leave the fold. Whenever I saw a social media post from a friend or family member outlining their decision to remove their names from the records of the Church, it felt uncomfortable. The natural question would always surface: “What do they know that I don’t?”

It might not be something that they know, it might be that they have different values than you?

Initially, during my faith crisis in 2014, I identified with the Church’s critics. I felt like we were a like-minded group of enlightened non-believers. My experience in the Church had been so positive that even when my doubts deepened, I was convinced that the Church was a force for good in the world. Gradually, that changed. I started to believe the critics. The more I heard from disillusioned members, the more I felt like maybe I was wrong about the Church of Jesus Christ. Perhaps the Church is much worse than I ever realized.

We’re all susceptible to the opinions of others (strongest predictor of religiosity is social group religiosity [cite]). Ideally, A person should believe the data and strong arguments. They should follow their own morals in deciding what they should do.

I was ready to leave, but there was a problem. I am not sure when it happened, but eventually, I started noticing a long list of techniques being employed against me by critics of the Church. I could begin to see that I was being tricked into accepting false premises and half-truths. That is when I developed serious concerns about how critics made their case.

One reasonable approach would have been to have been skeptical of them and to push back against the false premises and half-truths. (this is what I have done in countless instances).

In addition, it sounds like you did not really make your own case. Had you done this, then it wouldn’t really have mattered how strong or weak the other critics were. I frequently point out flaws in critical arguments against the Church. I still think the weight of the data run against the LDS Church, though, because I’ve studied the primary data for myself and evaluated (and even formulated) the arguments myself.

I’ve included the table of tactics and fallacies along with my own commentary in this format.

  1. Manipulation Tactic
  2. Example
  3. Why it is manipulative
  4. My Commentary

Distrust in authority

  1. Tactic: Assuming that any institutional structure with a hierarchy is up to no good.
  2. Example: “If the Church donated that money, it must have been for nefarious reasons.” The attitude that anything positive the Church does must have had sinister motives.
  3. Why manipulative: This is designed to make the target distrust church leaders. The manipulator wins if the target believes they cannot trust the Church.
  4. Some exmormons assume all LDS leaders are untrustworthy, but many do not [demonstrate]. I think we should trust people (including LDS leadership) in proportion to their demonstrated trustworthiness (no more, no less).

Myth of Infallibility

  1. Tactic: An assumption that church leaders are infallible.
  2. Example: Any quote or policy from church leaders in the past that does not align with what we practice or believe today.
  3. Why manipulative: It assumes something the restoration never does. Namely, God’s servants should be near perfect and not succumb to popular false teachings. The formula for critics is easy. 1). Assume church leaders are infallible 2). Show an example of fallibility.
  4. My commentary: There are only two possible ways to demonstrate that LDS leaders may not be communicating with an omniscient being: 1) showing that they contradict themselves in some substantive way (since we would not expect a truth-telling God to contradict themselves), and 2) they claim something that can be demonstrated to be at odds with demonstrated reality. The proper framing is whether there is sufficient evidence to conclude that LDS leaders are receiving divine communication in a manner that would distinguish their words or actions from those of any other forward-thinking individual (e.g., a well-educated and thoughtful CEO of a company).

False Compromise

  1. Tactic: Presenting opposed narratives and then assuming, “Well, the truth must lie between these two extremes.”
  2. Example: “Joseph Smith said he translated the golden plates with the gift and power of God. However, he was just a treasure-seeking, peep-stone-looking fraud.”
  3. Why manipulative: Critics do not need their target to agree with their view. They only need the victim to reject the traditional narrative. The middle ground between truth and lies is not where the truth is.
  4. My commentary: LDS leaders have repeatedly emphasized the binary nature of LDS truth claims ([cite Hinckley and Holland, etc]). Nuanced argumentation acknowledges all kinds of possible middle ground (e.g., [my BoM ancient influence chart]). The orthodox LDS position depends on a certain set of minimal conditions, though. Also, for convenience, it’s helpful think about comparing the naturalistic position with the orthodox position.

The Big List (Gish Gallop or Proof by Verbosity)

  1. Tactic: An illusion of proof by the sheer mass of material provided.
  2. Example: The CES Letter. It culminates the critiques of the Church of Jesus Christ’s truth claims.
  3. Why manipulative: Overwhelm the reader or listener. Critics who use the big list tactic want to create the illusion that even if one concern has an answer, there are 100 more. It is the hydra of manipulation strategies.
  4. My commentary: KnoWhy has hundreds of pages. LDS scholars produce volumes of work attempting to defend the faith. The Light and Truth Letter is relatively long. The proper size of a document is the size it takes to convey the data and argument to the intended audience.

Half Truth

  1. Tactic: Mixing truth with deceit to confuse the issue.
  2. Example: The CES Letter seeks to explain how Joseph Smith came up with so many unique place names in the Book of Mormon. A table lists place names and potential candidates in and around upstate New York. The idea is not a half-truth; it is more like a tenth truth. Most modern cities on the list did not exist until after the publication of the Book of Mormon.
  3. Why manipulative: A half-truth is still a lie at its core. It is more destructive than a lie because a half-truth requires untangling the lie from the truth.
  4. My commentary: Ideally, nobody should do this. For the example given, the author updated a lot of the list and gave reasons for the update. The author is free to correct misinformation wherever they find it. For example, a list of placenames that existed during JS’s time was also researched by an LDS historian (amateur?) and I summarized their findings in context.

Presentism

  1. Tactic: Assuming historical figures see the world in the same way that a person would today. Judging the past based on today’s standards.
  2. Example: Church leaders phased in the word of wisdom from its 1833 introduction to 1921. That was when it became required for a temple recommend. Critics point out that early church leaders did not adhere to the Word of Wisdom as we know it today.
  3. Why manipulative: Judging people in the past based on today’s standards is popular but misleading. Imagine getting speeding tickets for driving 35 mph in a 25 mph zone in your neighborhood—except that the speed limit was only recently changed from 35 mph to 25 mph.5 If critics lived at the same time as the people they criticize, they would believe and act similarly (or worse). Anything from 200 years ago seems weird without historical and cultural context.
  4. My commentary: Because LDS historical figures purportedly had access to the mind and will of an omniscient being, then we expect a level of consistency and veridicality that transcends (at least to some extent) those of other past historical figures. The naturalist position expects individuals to act within the context of their time in every way. The orthodox position expects some greater level of consistency or veridicality than we might expect otherwise, so these are important discussions to have.

Quote Mining

  1. Tactic: Mining for unflattering quotes made in the past.
  2. Example: A meme on social media by a critic - “My wife has borne to me fifteen children. Anything short of this would have been less than her duty and privilege.” - George F. Richards, Relief Society Magazine, July 1916.
  3. Why manipulative: It is disingenuous. Scouring a target’s social media feeds to find anything damaging is similar. Often, these quotes lack context or fall into the “presentism” category.
  4. My commentary: Ideally, the sum of a person’s output would be examined. Most members are aware of the flattering quotes, but many are not aware of the unflattering ones (since many are censored [cite John Lee example]). The orthodox LDS model requires a person to be righteous to communicate with the holy ghost [cite]. So, by their own standards, the character of leaders is fair game, and unflattering quotes form some of that substance. Furthermore, many of the “unflattering” quotes contain contradictions (and these are among the only way to form arguments suggesting LDS leaders are not communicating with an omniscient being). Finally, unflattering quotes may highlight cultural phenomena that people may find ethically problematic (e.g., racism or patriarchal attitudes) and point away from the organization being led by a loving, omniscient being.

Meat before Milk

  1. Tactic: Presenting complicated issues without first establishing the fundamental building blocks for understanding.
  2. Example: “Mormons believe they will all have their own planet.” “Mormons believe that only they will get into heaven.”
  3. Why manipulative: Critics who use this tactic either 1). Do not understand the issue, or more likely, 2). Understand it, but know that jumping to the conclusion first will lead people to avoid engaging the Church’s sincere claims.
  4. My commentary: Some critics do employ this tactic. Ideally, every issue would be presented in context and without shock value. On accasion, presenting a fact devoid of its complete context can allow an investigator to genuinely consider an alternative model (i.e., one can substitute another context, like naturalism, and can then ask if that context provides a better explanation for the phenomenon), but in general I think the tactic is problematic.

Naturalist Assumptions

  1. Tactic: Assuming no supernatural or spiritual forces are at play in the universe.
  2. Example: “Angels don’t appear to men to give them golden plates.”
  3. Why manipulative: Critics who have naturalist assumptions are close-minded by definition. They are limited in their pursuit of truth. Eliminating supernatural forces from the universe closes off an entire dimension of truth.
  4. My commentary: To give the LDS worldview a fair shake, we need to be willing to entertain the possibility of supernatural beings operating in the world in various ways that might suspend or contravene known natural law. However, it is valid to ask questions about the consistency or effectiveness of these actions so that we can better judge if these seem like post-hoc rationalization or subconcious manifestation on the one hand, or the genuine actions of beings representing an omniscient being on the other.

Bully on the Playground

  1. Tactic: Use of mockery and name-calling.
  2. Example: “Oh, he is just a TBM (‘True Believing Mormon’). “You’re in a cult.”
  3. Why manipulative: Critics attempt to manipulate people into accepting their worldviews by name-calling or labeling. No one wants to hear that what they are doing is weird. This method is effective, especially if someone is unsure of their convictions.
  4. My commentary: Critics do this frequently and this should be avoided. Some members/apologists[^note_about_apologist] also do this (“can leave but can’t leave it alone.” “Korihor” etc.). [footnote TBM]

Fallacies

Critics are freqently guilty of logical fallacies. Members and apologists are also frequently guilty of these. I have no other comment except to say that we should call them out whenever we see them (i.e., on both sides) so that people can focus on the substance of the issues.

Referencing the CES Letter and other “doubt bombing” critical tactics, Manuel Padro, an anthropologist and former latter-day saint, commented (emphasis added):

“[The] tactic of intentionally luring Latter-day Saints into a situation where they are bombarded with questions they don’t know how to answer is a documented tactic used by these groups … and even before it was documented, it was clearly going on. … When I was a kid, the Lighthouse Ministry and CARM (the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry) were the two big groups using this strategy. Now Mormon Stories, the Life After Ministry, Mormonthink and a number of other groups are all relying on the same abusive tactic. They are trying to coerce you into a situation where they can bombard you with so many doubt-provoking questions that they can cause your resolve to collapse and your identity to fall apart. Inside of that vacuum, created by an act of psychological rape, they hope to impregnate you with their own belief system. … If that sounds abusive, it’s because that’s what it is. It’s an extension of the cultural legacy of the Inquisition. They can’t torture you, but they can humiliate you and pressure you with questions you don’t have an answer to yet. They try to hit you up with too many of these questions to answer because if they don’t, it wouldn’t work. That’s how the CES letter works.”7

Why do critics resort to these tactics?

Highly polarized subject being performed by humans. We expect to see this kind of thing happening in JW/ex-JW, Scientology/ex-Scientology, Muslim/ex-Muslim, Christian/ex-Christian debates also. However, just because an ex-Scientologist commits logical fallacies and employs manipulative tactics (let’s just say, with approximately the same frequency as a Scientologist defender), that does not therefore mean that Scientology is “true.” It just means the discussions are being conducted by (mostly unscholarly) humans around a polarizing topic.

What I think is being implied by the question [need section on this] is that critics are deliberately seeking to hide the truth, but this is an ad hominem and hasty generalization (i.e., because some critics use manipulative tactics and/or commit logical fallacies they are under the influence of Satan and/or it validates LDS truth claims intrinsically).

Can their critiques stand on their own without using inflammatory and abusive rhetoric?

I think so. There are lots of resources where the author tried to present the data without using inflammatory and abusive rhetoric.

The more I learned from critics, the more I saw the manipulative techniques being used against me. Once I started seeing it, I couldn’t unsee it.

Again, this implies that critics … [need a control].

Building Up vs. Tearing Down

The sheer hatred in the critical community alarmed me. I could not identify with that.

Hasty generalization from a small/vocal sample size. Also, you were a white male and may have been felt like it benefitted you. But many people have good reasons to be angry.

Why former members are angry

I also don’t feel personally angry.

It never felt like we were building something, only tearing down.

A lot of exmormons and exmo spaces are dedicated to building/finding spirituality (they don’t hang around exmormon subreddit). I don’t know exactly how he identifies, but Jon Ogden is a great example. Britt Hartley. I spent years discussing with LDS leaders. Most of the time our building isn’t within the exmormon space because it’s not a formal space! (but exmormons are building all kinds of stuff!)

… I have interacted with critics for years. Some are well-intentioned and believe they are doing the right thing.

From others, I get the impression that misery loves company.

Is this how they would characterize their work? Your impression might not be an accurate reflection of how they see themselves. [recording of John Dehlin talking about his mission]

It was not enough to leave. Their goal, mission, vision, and conquest is to tear down faith in God.

Why they leave but not leave it alone. [document]

Is it right for a critic to actively influence a victim into a faith crisis and then charge for groups and counseling sessions for handling the crisis?

The ethics of how John Dehlin handles points to how one exmormon (albeit perhaps the most prominent one) handles his livelihood. The vast majority of exmormons have no such conflict of interest, so it seems like a poor generalization to suggest that this is any kind of general phenomenon or should be used to paint the whole exmormon community. I think we can critique the ethics of exmormon actions, but most exmormons stand to gain nothing financially from their engagement with these issues (e.g., lawyer from QuitMormon).

… I find it deeply immoral for critics to share half-truths and false narratives with the intent of convincing their victims to turn their lives upside down in a faith crisis. This mortal existence is finite, and eternities are forever; the stakes could not be any higher.

We both agree that the stakes are high and that half-truths and false narratives (which exist on both sides) should be highlighted and/or avoided. Do you work as vigorously to point out half-truths and false narratives on the LDS side?

Update: In recent years, critics of the Church have deemphasized how much happier they are since leaving the Church in favor of a narrative emphasizing how hard it is to leave.

This is given no substantiation. My sense is that there is a spectrum of happiness experienced by those who leave (some much happier and the experience is easy; some less happy and/or the experience was difficult).

This is likely intentional to convince their targets that exiting the Church is the hard thing but the right thing to do.

This is engaging in mind-reading and suggests that exmormon narratives are crafted for “targets”. But, most exmormons are not even sharing their stories to “target” people. To be generous to exmormons is to accept that (for most of them anyway) they are sharing their stories simply to share their stories.

It may also help resolve some cognitive dissonance in leaving. The reality is that while it may initially be challenging to abandon a belief system, it takes deep discipline over a lifetime to be a faithful disciple of Jesus Christ. A few months or years of faith deconstruction does not outweigh the lifelong service of selfless sacrifice to God and mankind.

This seems unsubstantiated. Many members are lacsidaisical in their devotion. Many former members are disciplined. Also, this seems like an apples and oranges comparison: by its very nature, an exit from the LDS Church is bound to be more terminal in nature than remaining a member.

To be an atheist is to be culturally relevant and celebrated.

It is becoming moreso, but there is quite a stigma, and the celebration is relevant to ones’ culture (e.g., most members have many friends and family who are members and they know this will not be celebrated by them).

Atheists are not bullied at the university or places of employment for their beliefs.

I’m not sure there’s a substantive difference in bullying between athiests and Christians, but this implies that people are leaving because it’s simply easier. Again, ease depends very much on the context each person exists within, so I don’t think it’s easy to generalize the relative ease or difficulty of the experience leaving.

When I left the LDS Church, every single one of my close co-workers was LDS and my boss had just finished a term as an LDS Bishop. Leaving did not increase my popularity in the work place on any level.

To be a believer is to move against the cultural current of skepticism. Following Christ is hard to do—it always has been.

The difficulty of following a religious path does not seem necessarily tethered to the validity of its truth claims. It is arguably far more difficult to be a JW or a fundamentatlist LDS.

The Internet

… The internet is a great place to find out when Taco Bell closes. But ask Google which political party to vote for? Should I be pro-choice or pro-life? How about pro-Palestine or pro-Israel? Is the Mormon Church a cult? Yikes. Anything remotely controversial on the internet is a mess of disinformation and propaganda.

Short, quick, and easy-to-understand answers are the most appealing at first glance. More so with the advent of social media. When confronted with challenging and unflattering information, it is tempting to accept it. At times, it felt easier for me to say that the Church was lying and that Joseph Smith was a fraud. Knowing the whole story would take too much effort. When I realized this, I started to see how manipulative critics of the Church can be with their use of the internet. They want to capitalize on the natural tendency to want simple answers with little work.

This is to engage in mind-reading without substantiation. While some former members may want to engage in these kinds of tacticsi (I’m happy to grant that for the sake of argument even though the author hasn’t demonstrated it), most of the time the advice from former members on the internet is:

  1. take your time
  2. read all the primary sources yourself
  3. make up your own mind

[point out a reddit post where this is what is being encouraged and quantify the encouragement]

… I was (and in some way still am) one of these members. I did not know nearly enough, even after engaging with critics of the Church for years. Part of the problem is that I have a job and a family. Who has the time, resources, and capacity to become a historian and scholar overnight? That’s the trick. I could feel critics egging me on to shift the burden of proof onto the Church. All the critic has done is share a half-truth with a negative implication. This tactic has a dark motive and is very effective for propagandists. Over time, I found that the negative narratives spun by critics almost always had a good answer. All I had to do was learn more.

The same kinds of forces that critics might use to oversimplify the issues are the same kinds of forces the LDS Church capitalizes on to keep members in (just trust the BYU scholars and any half-truths [likely shared unawares] shared with positive implications). Two sides of the same coin.

… I have learned that the information is not the problem. The real issue is in the interpretation. Critics tried to convince me that they only shared what the Church did not want me to know.

Can we see the substance of these discussions?

When examined carefully, I realized that most everything “new” the critics shared was relatively innocuous …

Certainly, some issues are not death blows. Many issues when examined in depth

The fact that you found these issues to be “new”, however, suggests that learning the information is at least part of the problem. Many members have not been exposed to data which undermine LDS truth claims or arguments that would make sense of the data from a different perspective. That exposure is important for allowing people to decide for themselves just how “innocuous” (or not) the data and arguments really are!

When examined carefully, I realized that most everything “new” the critics shared … came from church sources

Two reasons for this: 1) many members will not even consider sources outside of LDS sources. 2) potential contradictions may reside in LDS sources. The valence of these sources for supporting or underminining the LDS position has to do with their substance.

Ultimately, the manipulation happens in the presentation of data and history, not the data and history itself.

Certainly some critics will try to spin a story with more vigor than the data warrants (just like many members/apologists do when trying to ). A careful critic will present the available data and provide a reasonable explanation from a critical perspective. The act of presenting an argument in this manner is not intrinsically manipulative.

Illusions and Mirages

“Family. Isn’t it about… time to recognize how Church ruins them?” – X (Twitter) comment

“I left because I finally acknowledged what the church is: an American corporation that hoards wealth and actively harms people who have committed themselves to the faith. It offers empty promises in return for ‘all with which you may be blessed.’ It divides families while giving lip service to the ‘sanctity of the family.’ … It protects abusers and tramples victims.” – X (Twitter) comment

What church are these folks referring to?

The LDS Church. These are hyperbolic generalizations by former members. They are similar to over-generalizations such as “everything the Church does supports the family” [find specific examples to support].

The church described by the former members quoted above sounds awful. I do not want to minimize anyone’s lived experience, but with all due respect, the church described by critics is not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I grew up in the Church and have attended several stakes and wards across various US regions and abroad. I’ve received help and resources and likewise given help and resources to help those in need. The Church does countless good around the world for individuals, families, and communities. Charity and humanitarian efforts are done with little fanfare and genuinely help the people intended (See “Welfare Program of the Church” under the “Church Finances” section). Marriages and families tied to the Church are incredibly resilient (see “Fruits of the Church” section). Church members are better off by virtually every meaningful measure (see “Fruits of the Church” section).

The Church can do great good and its truth-claims may still be dubious or ill-supported.

[JW good quote]

If I am honest with myself, I must acknowledge that the Church gave me a mission, identity, purpose, light, and truth. Even at my lowest spiritual point, I could not deny that almost everything good in my life was thanks to the Church. Without my upbringing in the Church of Jesus Christ, I am convinced my life would have turned out for the worse, and I was not naive enough to believe otherwise.

[strong sense of purpose is a feature of high demand groups]

I get the impression that many critics had or heard of a one-off, personal bad experience with the Church. From there, it is easy to create a made-up church of evil-doers. No matter how much the critics want it to be so, the church they imagined may not be real.

Certainly many ex-members are extrapolating from their experience and the experience of those around them to the entire Church. The reverse probably also happens (I had a great experience, so how could people have had a poor one?)

I’m further distressed when some critics accuse the Church of the very thing that they are doing. This is an accusation in the mirror. Critics tell me how intrusive it is for Church leaders to discuss the temple garment. Do you know what the reality is? Critics talk far more about my underwear than any church leader ever has. They cannot have it both ways.

It seems possible that some members may experience more “intrusive” interactions with former members than they did as members [however, it’s difficult to compare the life of a person raised in the Church with someone who can block people on twitter or unsubscribe to some subreddits?]

It is the same story when critics falsely state that the Church is tearing families apart.

Can we refer to this as a hasty generalization? Certainly some former members experience family trauma when one or more children leave or fail to live up to LDS standards. Probably many people experience significant family unity that is properly attributed to LDS teachings and structure.

If a critic has left the Church of Jesus Christ and that tension created a rift in their family, I am sorry that happened. In the same breath, that rift is not the Church’s fault.

[Perhaps it’s proper that the Church share some of that blame because the Church has a poor model for interfaith family relationships. [[lots of examples]]]

The Mormon Stories Formula

… I eventually stopped listening to Mormon Stories when I caught on to the formula. The show became predictable. Despite the hosts’ every effort to reassure the audience that they were not trying to convince me to leave the Church, I got the impression that I was not hearing “the true story” of early church events or modern problems. I was hearing the critical, least generous narratives of church issues from a handful of disillusioned members of the Church.

This strategy can be used to smear any organization. It would be like John starting a channel called Costco Stories. He gives some backstory on the beginnings of the store chain and includes some dirt on the founders. He highlights products that use the least ethical production methods and makes it sound like these problems are unique to Costco. He brings on tearful guests who have had bad experiences shopping at Costco, poor customer service, no return when returns are guaranteed, unfair sample distribution, and a rotisserie chicken incident. They expound on the burden of buying in bulk and how the $1.50 hotdog/drink combo is the leading cause of obesity in the US. Podcast episodes are shared in an understanding tone, with a seemingly honest telling of actual experiences. After listening for a month or so, the listener decides to shop elsewhere. The impressionable listener cannot put their finger on it, but they now believe Costco is bad for the community and their pantry. Amazingly, they believe that Costco is bad, even if their own personal experience is nothing like what they heard.

Perhaps some of what is shared on John’s podcast is true, but the tainted, critical narrative felt disingenuous. So, I stopped listening. In my mission for more light and truth, I had to move on.

One of the main points of the historical critical [?] method is that We should minimize biases. Expecting Mormon Stories to present an unbiased view of all the events is simply not going to happen.1 We expect similar kinds of bias when the average believing member is rehearsing LDS history or truth-claims. A person seeking to find truth needs to listen to a variety of sources (from both sides) and dig into the primary data, in order to find the truth (which likely resides somewhere between the two biases).

  1. Dehlin does have believing members on to defend their position. … Patrick Mason left because he got so much pushback … The LDS Church literally scrubs scholars who are moderately critical of the LDS position and tend not to even reference them. So, although there are some similarities, the stronger bias arguable leans even more strongly on the LDS side when presented by LDS sources. ↩