Clinical and research literature well documents Ryan’s psychological experience on LDS young adults. The harm is real. Researchers have documented elevated rates of anxiety, scrupulosity (religious OCD), and shame-based disorders among young LDS men navigating the Church’s teaching on sexuality. The system Ryan describes — where honest teens get punished and dishonest ones escape consequences — is a genuine structural dysfunction that many members and leaders have acknowledged.

We do not dispute this. The rebuttal that follows is about precision in specific doctrinal claims, not a dismissal of the underlying harm.

Bottom Line

What’s accurate:

Ryan is correct that this teaching appeared in LDS publications for decades. Spencer W. Kimball’s The Miracle of Forgiveness (1969) and his other writings grouped masturbation within the category of serious sexual sins. The scriptural basis cited is Alma 39:5, which states that sexual sin is “most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost” — placing it third in a hierarchy below: (1) denying the Holy Ghost, (2) murder, (3) unchastity. LDS leaders often taught this as “sexual sin is next to murder” — which is real and was taught widely.

What’s overstated:

Two important distinctions. First, Alma 39:5 refers to serious sexual sin — specifically adultery in context, not masturbation. Church culture and leader commentary extended this teaching to masturbation, not direct canonical text. Second — and significantly — the current LDS General Handbook (2020) explicitly states that masturbation is not grounds for holding a church membership council. The Church no longer treats masturbation alone as a sin requiring formal church discipline. The 2020 handbook represents a formal evolution of position from the Kimball era.

yan experienced a teaching that caused real harm during his upbringing. But “it’s written in church publications” conflates a historically transmitted cultural teaching with current canonical doctrine. Truth seekers deserve to know both — the harm was real, and the current official position has moved.

Direct Answer

Ryan is citing real scripture — though the primary source is 3 Nephi 18:29 in the Book of Mormon (not the Doctrine and Covenants as stated): “For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul.” Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 11:29 say essentially the same thing. The Church still teaches these verses today.

The critical doctrinal context:

In LDS theology, “damnation” does not mean what the word implies in everyday English (eternal hellfire). LDS doctrine defines damnation as being “stopped, blocked, or limited in one’s progression” toward God. According to Scripture Central’s entry on damnation: “In LDS doctrine, to be damned means to be stopped, blocked, or limited in one’s progress.” Elder John H. Groberg has taught that a person who sincerely desires to improve and is not under priesthood restriction is worthy to partake.

The psychological impact on Ryan — extreme fear of taking a weekly ordinance publicly — created real and understandable fear given how this was taught. But the “damnation” language, while in the text, carries a far more specific and limited doctrinal meaning than the everyday word implies. The gap between the word used and the doctrine intended is itself a source of the shame Ryan describes.

Direct Answer

Ryan’s warning is mostly accurate. However, the mechanism requires more precision.

What’s accurate:

BYU’s official Student Standing Policy states: “Students must be in good Honor Code standing to be admitted to, continue enrollment at, and graduate from BYU.” Good standing requires an active ecclesiastical endorsement, the student’s bishop renews it annually. A bishop can withdraw an endorsement at any time. BYU policy further states: “Students who are not in good Honor Code standing are not eligible for graduation, even if they have completed all necessary coursework.” Additionally, LDS students are required to “fulfill their duty in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, attend Church meetings, and abide by the rules and standards of the Church.” If a bishop learns a student has stopped attending or openly departed from Church standards, the bishop can decline to renew or withdraw the endorsement — blocking graduation. And students who have formally resigned their Church membership cannot receive an endorsement at all.

Important precision:

Losing faith quietly and privately, without the bishop’s knowledge, will not trigger this mechanism. A bishop cannot read minds. The risk is real primarily for students who are openly departing — not attending, publicly challenging the Church, or violating honor code standards like coffee consumption or dress and grooming requirements. Ryan’s framing — that disbelieving itself threatens the diploma — is accurate only if the disbelief manifests in visible behavior or disclosure. The chilling effect on authentic self-expression is real; the mechanism requires observable behaviour, not interior thought alone.

What’s also true:

Once a degree has been awarded and posted, BYU does not revoke awarded degrees for faith changes. The risk window is pre-graduation.

Direct Answer

This claim, made by Dehlin and not challenged by Ryan, is factually incorrect. The LDS Church continues to report total membership numbers at every General Conference through the annual statistical report. As recently as April 5, 2025, the Church reported that worldwide membership reached 17,509,781 as of December 31, 2024 — a net increase of 254,387 from the prior year. This report was published on the Church Newsroom website and in official conference materials.

What is true:

The Church does not separately report weekly attendance or activity rates. Independent researchers and analysts estimate that active weekly attendance represents approximately 30–35% of total membership — meaning perhaps 5–6 million people actively attend out of 17.5 million on record. This gap is real, significant, and not highlighted in official reporting. The total membership figure includes everyone baptised who has not formally resigned, including those who have been inactive for decades.

The claim that the Church “stopped reporting membership numbers” is simply false. The accurate criticism is that the Church reports total membership without contextualising the activity rate gap — which is a legitimate transparency concern, but a different claim entirely.

Direct Answer

Ryan’s underlying concern — that the Church’s membership number significantly overstates active participation — is legitimate and widely acknowledged by independent researchers and even some Church-affiliated analysts. The gap between total membership and weekly attendance is real and substantial.

What the numbers actually show:

Independent analyses using ward and stake counts suggest that actual weekly attendance is probably closer to 30–35% of total membership — approximately 5–6 million globally. The Church itself, in statements to media, has acknowledged that “activity levels” differ from membership counts. The 17.5 million includes all people baptised who have not formally resigned or been removed, including those who joined decades ago and never attended again, deceased members whose deaths were not reported to local units, and members who have drifted away silently.

Where precision is needed:

The “5 million active” estimate is a reasonable independent analysis, not an official figure — and estimates vary from around 4 million to 7 million depending on methodology. Presenting it as established fact (“closer to five million”) without noting it is an estimate overstates certainty. Ryan’s decision to resign so his name isn’t counted among the 17.5 million is a completely coherent personal decision based on a legitimate transparency concern — the numbers do not accurately represent active participation. But the “5 million” figure itself is an estimate, not a confirmed internal count.

Direct Answer