Executive Summary. This paper examines how identity‑centered rhetoric about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‑day Saints (LDS)—especially around LGBTQ+, transgender, and niche identities—can be weaponized by some anti‑LDS influencers. We outline the Church’s doctrinal stance to “love thy neighbor,” review research on psychological vulnerabilities among marginalized youth, analyze how influencers sometimes generalize from individual pain to condemn an entire faith community, and show how such climates can increase real‑world risk. A case study of the September 10, 2025 killing of Charlie Kirk in Orem, Utah (at Utah Valley University) illustrates how polarized discourse, online echo chambers, and identity narratives can combust. We argue for rigorous, compassionate critique that avoids dehumanization and stochastic encouragement of hostility.1
1) Doctrinal Overview: Identity, Love, Agency, and Belonging
Latter‑day Saint teachings center on the divine worth of every person and the Savior’s commandment to “love thy neighbour” (Matthew 22:39). Leaders consistently urge kindness, compassion, and civility toward all, including those who experience same‑sex attraction or identify as transgender.2, 3 Official guidance distinguishes identity from behavior: feelings or identity are not sins in themselves, and members who keep covenants can fully participate in Church life.4, 5 On transgender questions, the Church counsels leaders to act with Christlike love; participation is encouraged while certain ordinances or callings are governed by revealed doctrine about sex and gender.6, 7 The constant through all of these teachings is love, agency, and dignity—even amidst sincere doctrinal differences.
2) Psychological Vulnerabilities Among LGBTQ+, Trans, and Niche‑Identity Youth
Empirical research documents elevated mental‑health risks for LGBTQ+ youth, driven largely by stigma, rejection, and minority stress—not by identity per se. In the Trevor Project’s 2024 U.S. survey of more than 18,000 LGBTQ+ youth, 39% seriously considered suicide in the past year, including 46% of transgender and nonbinary youth; 12% attempted suicide (14% among trans and nonbinary youth).8, 9 Protective factors include family acceptance and even one trusted adult.
The furry fandom—often overlapping with LGBTQ+ youth—illustrates how marginalized young people seek belonging. Rigorous work from the International Anthropomorphic Research Project (Furscience) shows furries are far more likely than the general population to identify as non‑heterosexual, with estimates indicating several‑fold higher prevalence of gay/bi/pan identities and notable gender‑diversity rates.10, 11 Furscience also reports that 10–15% of furries self‑identify as autistic—well above population baselines—with the fandom providing social connection and coping benefits for some neurodivergent youth.12 These data underscore that many youth at the heart of our debates are navigating real vulnerabilities and intense belonging needs.
3) Weaponizing Identities: From Individual Pain to Global Indictments
A recurring tactic in anti‑LDS discourse is to elevate painful individual accounts (e.g., from LGBTQ+ members) and then generalize those stories to the entire Church and its members—often pairing them with categorical labels like “cult,” or with claims that the Church inherently “endorses violence.” The effect is to erase heterogeneity and essentialize millions of believers as complicit in harm. This rhetoric may feel validating to the wounded; but as Part I argued, incivility and dehumanization predict polarization and tolerance for aggression, and religious discrimination correlates with poorer mental‑health outcomes for targets. Responsible critics can (and should) raise concrete concerns without globally pathologizing an entire faith community.
4) From Emotional Narratives to Hostile Climates
Social‑science literature links repeated exposure to hostile speech and dehumanizing frames with reduced empathy and increased out‑group hostility. In practice, this manifests in permissive climates for slurs (“F*** the Mormons” chants) and vandalism of worship spaces; such behaviors have been documented against Latter‑day Saints in recent years.12 In online echo chambers, group polarization rewards the most incendiary claims, and vulnerable individuals may reinterpret harsh rhetoric as moral permission to “do something” about a caricatured enemy.
5) Case Study — The Killing of Charlie Kirk in Utah (September 10, 2025)
On September 10, 2025, conservative activist Charlie Kirk was fatally shot during a Turning Point USA event at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. Authorities identified Tyler Robinson (22) as the suspect; he was arrested two days later and charged with aggravated murder.1, 13, 14, 15 Reporting and court documents indicate Robinson exchanged texts with a partner acknowledging the shooting and characterizing Kirk as spreading “too much hate.”15 Investigators and major outlets also described unfired ammunition engraved with anti‑fascist and meme‑laden phrases (e.g., “Hey Fascist,” “O bella ciao,” and an obscene “OwO/uwu” furry‑culture in‑joke), emblematic of a hyper‑online subculture using irony and trolling even in acts of real‑world violence.16, 17
The Kirk case is not about Latter‑day Saints per se; but it unfolded in Utah’s cultural context and reflects a broader dynamic our community must heed: emotionally charged identity narratives, amplified online, can escalate into violence. As fact‑checkers documented, the killing also triggered a wave of disinformation and celebratory or conspiratorial posts, some amplified by foreign state media—again illustrating how polarized climates can be exploited to deepen division and risk.18
6) Echo Chambers, “Cult”‑Framing, and Vulnerable Audiences
When influencers repeatedly brand a religion as a cult and its adherents as brainwashed or uniquely harmful, they’re not merely criticizing doctrines; they’re dehumanizing a people. For most listeners, such rhetoric “only” hardens attitudes. But for a small subset—particularly those already struggling—this framing can function like a stochastic accelerant. The lesson from contemporary violence research and the Kirk case is not that critics intend harm; it’s that extremizing language in high‑conflict identity domains increases risk that someone unstable reads it as license. All sides should resist narratives that collapse complex human beings into enemies.
For critics: Focus on specific, falsifiable issues (policies, leader actions) without global derogation of members. Retire the blunt “cult” cudgel; it polarizes and endangers without improving outcomes.
For Latter‑day Saints: Reply with clarity and Christlike love. Proactively cite Church counsel on civility and belonging; model welcome for those who differ. Correct false claims calmly, avoid online dogfights.
For platforms & media: De‑amplify dehumanization and threats; elevate coverage that includes do‑able bridge‑building (e.g., suicide prevention collaborations) alongside disagreements.
Notes & Sources
ABC News, “Visual timeline of how the Charlie Kirk shooting unfolded” (UVU; Sept 10, 2025; suspect identified as Tyler Robinson). link. ↩
Dallin H. Oaks, “Loving Others and Living with Differences,” Oct 2014 General Conference (civility; love, even amid disagreement). link. ↩
Church Newsroom, “Same‑Sex Attraction” (feelings/identity not a sin; kindness and compassion). link.
Gospel Topics—Same‑Sex Attraction (full participation possible; identity vs. behavior). link.
Counseling Resources—Same‑Sex Attraction (“feeling or using an identity label is not a sin”). link.
General Handbook 38.6.23 & supplemental guidance: “Church Participation of Individuals Who Identify as Transgender (Guiding Principles).” PDF. See also the General Handbook home.
Transgender—Understanding Yourself (overview article; participation and counsel). link; “What is the Church’s position on transitioning?” link.
The Trevor Project, 2024 National Survey (key findings page). link.
The Trevor Project, 2024 National Survey (full PDF). PDF.
Furscience (IARP), sexual‑orientation findings (furries far more likely to be non‑heterosexual; ~7× exclusively/predominantly homosexual vs. general population). link (see also: Plante et al., Furscience Book, 2016 PDF).
Furscience, gender diversity in the fandom (nonbinary/trans measures across samples). link.
Furscience, “Autism in the Fandom” (10–15% self‑identify as autistic; community benefits). link; WESA explainer (reporting similar figures): link.
ESPN, “Arizona apologizes for fans’ derogatory chant aimed at BYU” (Feb 23, 2025). link. (Context: public hostility toward Latter‑day Saints in mass settings.)
Associated Press, “A timeline of Charlie Kirk’s assassination and the arrest of a suspect” (UVU; Sept 10 killing; arrest; initial facts). link.
ABC News (AP wire), “As officials searched for Charlie Kirk’s shooter, suspect confessed to his partner, prosecutor says.” link.
ABC News, “Tyler Robinson said he killed Charlie Kirk because he ‘spreads too much hate’: Officials” (charging, statements, death‑penalty intent). link.
NBC (Washington), “Shooting suspect referenced fascism, memes on bullets” (on engraved ammo phrases). link.
PBS NewsHour, “A look into the online subcultures tied to Charlie Kirk’s accused killer” (meme engravings; online context). link.
POLITICO, “After Charlie Kirk’s killing, false claims flourish online — with help from U.S. adversaries” (state media amplification). link.
Disclosures & Limits. This paper defends robust free expression while urging responsibility. It does not allege that any individual critic intends harm or meets legal standards for incitement. Claims are drawn from publicly reported sources and peer‑reviewed research where available. Correlation is not causation; we assess risk mechanisms and rhetorical impacts, not criminal liability.Up next — Part III (of III): A practitioner’s playbook for healthier cross‑belief engagement: evidence‑based counterspeech, ward‑level belonging practices, and media guidelines to reduce harm while preserving truth‑telling.
This conclusion distills what the empirical literature says about how certain online rhetorical styles—incivility, dehumanizing metaphors, perpetual outrage, and anecdote‑as‑generalization—can worsen mental health, harden intergroup animosity, and contribute to a broader risk environment for aggression. It then evaluates how those dynamics plausibly map onto anti‑LDS influencer ecosystems (including patterns evident in the public output of John Dehlin), and offers a counterspeech and pastoral care playbook aligned with both scientific evidence and the Latter‑day Saint imperative to “love thy neighbour.”27, 28
2) Moral‑emotional contagion
Moralized, outraged language travels farther online and is reinforced by social feedback loops. 7, 8
3) Dehumanization risks
Blatant dehumanization and meta‑dehumanization (feeling dehumanized by the other side) predict support for aggression and reciprocal hostility. 12–16
4) Rumination & venting
Co‑rumination and “venting” typically increase anger and depressive symptoms rather than relieve them. 9–11
5) Ethical bounds
Psychologists are obligated to avoid harm, avoid deceptive public statements, and use bias‑free language—including about religion. 1, 16, 2
Incivility polarizes and biases interpretation. Controlled experiments document that uncivil comments push readers toward more extreme risk perceptions and heighten perceived bias—the “nasty effect.” 4, 5, 6
Moral‑emotional content spreads (“moral contagion”). Each additional moral‑emotional word in a political message meaningfully increases diffusion; social feedback loops further train users to express outrage. 7, 8
Dehumanization & meta‑dehumanization elevate aggression risk. Reviews and multi‑study papers show that seeing an outgroup as “less than human”—or believing they see you as less than human—predicts support for aggressive policies and reciprocal hostility. 12–16, 38
Venting and co‑rumination typically backfire. Rumination exacerbates depression and anger; “venting” increases aggressive responding. 9–11
Correction rarely “backfires,” but persuasion works better when it’s values‑aligned. Large‑N studies find classic “backfire effects” are uncommon; moral‑reframing across value foundations can improve cross‑partisan persuasion. 32–35
Ethics & language matter. APA ethics and bias‑free language guidance explicitly cover public statements and religious groups; “dangerous speech” scholarship warns that dehumanizing metaphors lower inhibitions against harm. 1, 16, 2, 3
2) Applying The Evidence to Anti‑LDS Influencer Ecosystems
Many high‑engagement anti‑LDS channels routinely feature three risk‑bearing patterns the literature flags:
“Cult” framing and BITE‑model generalizations. John Dehlin’s platforms have repeatedly hosted BITE‑model evaluations of the Church (e.g., with Steven Hassan) and publish content positioning the Church as “cult‑like.” These are accessible and rhetorically potent labels,20, 19, 15 but research on dangerous/dehumanizing metaphors cautions that such language can facilitate social distancing, stereotyping, and justification of hostility—especially when applied categorically to millions of believers. 3, 12
Anecdote→Institution overreach. A characteristic rhetorical move is to elevate painful individual narratives to sweeping claims about the whole Church. Psychologically, this leverages availability and “moral contagion,” which the literature finds increases diffusion and polarization online. 7, 4
Perpetual outrage & co‑rumination as content strategy. Episodic “venting” discussions about harms (real or perceived) can strengthen belonging in ex‑believer communities—but co‑rumination and venting are linked to higher anger and depressive symptoms, not relief. 9–11
Note on credentials: Dehlin publicly affirms he holds a Ph.D. in Clinical & Counseling Psychology and clarifies he is not a licensed psychologist; he states he practices coaching, not psychotherapy. Ethical questions therefore pertain not to licensure per se, but to the use of psychological authority in public commentary—where APA standards still speak to avoiding harm and avoiding deceptive statements. 18, 1, 16
3) Seven psychological pathways of likely iatrogenic harm
3.1 Co‑rumination & “venting” loops
Repeatedly revisiting grievances in communal spaces—especially when incentivized by platform algorithms—tracks with higher depressive symptoms and sustained anger; “venting” increases aggressive responding rather than dissipating it. 9–11
3.2 Moral‑outrage reinforcement
Moral‑emotional language spreads farther; social feedback trains creators to escalate outrage. This dynamic rewards ever‑sharper condemnations of a target group (e.g., “the Church,” “TBMs”), making moderation costly and extremes lucrative. 7, 8
3.3 Dehumanization & meta‑dehumanization
When members perceive rhetoric portraying them as duped, cultic, or morally diseased—and when critics perceive faithful members as dehumanizing them—the research indicates a reciprocal escalation pathway toward hostility. 12–16
3.4 Status‑seeking & “moral grandstanding”
A growing literature links public moralizing for status/ingroup acclaim with interpersonal conflict and polarization. While advocacy can be principled, grandstanding dynamics on social platforms often entrench combative tones that harm bystanders—including those in faith crisis. 17a
3.5 Identity threat & reactance
Direct attacks on a person’s sacred values (faith, family) predict defensive “reactance.” Empirically, global “backfire” is uncommon when correcting facts, but persuasion improves when reframed to the audience’s moral values. 32–35
3.6 Ethical slippage in public psychology
Even when speaking as a coach or commentator, psychologists are urged to avoid harm, avoid deceptive public statements, and use bias‑free language about protected categories (including religion). Public commentary that pathologizes a faith wholesale risks violating the spirit (if not the letter) of these norms. 1, 16, 2, 3
3.7 When counterspeech helps—and when it doesn’t
Field experiments show empathy‑based counterspeech can reduce online hate in some contexts, though results are mixed across platforms and designs. Effective counterspeech emphasizes perspective‑taking and de‑escalation, not reciprocal contempt. 30–31
4) Case context: the Charlie Kirk killing (Sept 10, 2025) & rhetoric‑risk
On September 10, 2025, conservative commentator Charlie Kirk was fatally shot during a campus event at Utah Valley University. Prosecutors have charged a 22‑year‑old suspect, and early filings/public statements include that the suspect said Kirk “spreads too much hate”; investigators also described engraved messages on casings referencing antifascism and internet memes. Proceedings and motive remain matters for the courts. 21, 22, 25, 26
Sources: ABC News reporting on the suspect statement and charging decisions; Associated Press coverage of the note/texts and surrender; PBS/AP wire; NBC affiliates on engraved casings; Politico on post‑event disinformation operations. 21, 22, 23, 24, 26
What this paper does—and does not—claim.
We do not claim anti‑LDS influencers caused this crime.
We do argue—and the literature supports—that persistent demeaning and incendiary rhetorical climates (left, right, religious, secular) raise baseline risk for reciprocal dehumanization and grievance‑fueled aggression. 3, 12–16
5) Ethical and doctrinal anchors
The APA’s Ethics Code places Beneficence and Nonmaleficence (avoid harm) at the center and cautions against deceptive public statements; APA Style urges bias‑free language—including about religion. 1, 16, 2
Latter‑day Saint leaders repeatedly teach to love our enemies and live peacefully with those who differ (“Loving Others and Living with Differences”), and Church statements have condemned violence—reaffirming the Savior’s commandment to love our neighbor. 27, 28
6) Rhetoric‑risk audit (quick checklist)
Use this to evaluate posts, streams, and threads across the ideological spectrum.
INCIVILITY Does the content use insults, ridicule, or contempt? (Expect polarization.) 4, 5
DEHUMANIZATION Are believers portrayed as brainwashed, sub‑human, or “cult drones”? (Expect hostility loops.) 12–16
ANECDOTE→ALL Are singular harms generalized to “the Church as a whole”? (Expect availability bias.)
OUTRAGE INCENTIVES Is moralized outrage the engagement engine? (Expect reinforcement.) 7, 8
RUMINATION Does the content invite repeated grievance recounting without resolution? (Expect worse mood/anger.) 9–11
ETHICS Are professional credentials used to pathologize millions? (Check “avoid harm” & bias‑free language.) 1, 2
7) Action plan: counterspeech, care, and community
For influencers (including critics)
Replace categorical labels (“cult members,” “sheeple”) with specific behaviors or policies you contest. 2, 3
Pair critique with clear relief pathways (how to report harm, where to find licensed care), avoiding co‑rumination streams. 9–11
Prefer values‑aligned moral reframing over shaming; it persuades more and polarizes less. 35, 32
For Latter‑day Saints & faith‑adjacent audiences
Use empathy‑based counterspeech and report content that crosses into harassment; avoid counter‑contempt. 30–31
Anchor responses in doctrine: love of neighbor; zero tolerance for violence or threats. 27, 28
Encourage perspective‑taking prompts in contentious threads. 30
For pastoral care & mental‑health allies
Screen for online co‑rumination exposure; coach clients toward active problem-solving and values‑consistent living instead of grievance‑scrolling. 9–11
Use bias‑free language about religious identity; validate pain without global derogation. 2
8) Limits & transparency
This paper infers risk from rhetorical patterns supported in the literature. It does not claim that any named individual intended harm, nor that criticism of a church is inherently harmful. Free speech—including sharp critique—remains essential; the question here is how to exercise it in ways that minimize iatrogenic damage and the corrosive dynamics the evidence repeatedly identifies.
References
American Psychological Association, Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. apa.org/ethics/code. :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}
APA Style, “Bias‑free language.” apastyle.apa.org. :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}
Anderson, Brossard, et al. “The ‘Nasty Effect’: Online Incivility and Risk Perceptions of Emerging Technologies.” J. Computer‑Mediated Communication (2014). academic.oup.com. :contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}
Anderson, “Toxic Talk: How Online Incivility Can Undermine Perceptions of Media.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research (2018). academic.oup.com. :contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}
Yeo et al., “The effect of comment moderation on perceived bias…” Information, Communication & Society (2019). tandfonline.com. :contentReference[oaicite:5]{index=5}
Brady et al., “Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks.” PNAS (2017). pnas.org. :contentReference[oaicite:6]{index=6}
Brady et al., “How social learning amplifies moral outrage expression in online social networks.” Science Advances (2021). science.org; open‑access: pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. :contentReference[oaicite:7]{index=7}
Michl et al., “Rumination as a Mechanism Linking Stressful Life Events and Depression.” Clinical Psychological Science (2013). pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. :contentReference[oaicite:9]{index=9}
Bushman, “Does Venting Anger Feed or Extinguish the Flame?” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (2002). faculty.washington.edu. :contentReference[oaicite:10]{index=10}
Kteily, Hodson & Bruneau, “They See Us as Less Than Human: Meta‑Dehumanization…” (2016 summary). scholars.northwestern.edu. :contentReference[oaicite:13]{index=13}
Landry et al., “Meta‑dehumanization leads to greater hostility than metaprejudice.” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations (2020). ucsb.edu. :contentReference[oaicite:14]{index=14}
APA standards overview emphasizing “Avoiding Harm” & “Avoidance of False or Deceptive Statements.” siop.org (cheat sheet). :contentReference[oaicite:15]{index=15}
Grubbs, Warmke, Tosi, et al., research on “moral grandstanding” and conflict (overview). PLOS One.
Dehlin, “On My Education, Training, Licensure Status, and Coaching Practice.” mormonstories.org. :contentReference[oaicite:16]{index=16}
“Assessing the Mormon Church Using Steven Hassan’s BITE Model for Cults.” mormonfaithcrisis.com. :contentReference[oaicite:17]{index=17}
Mormon Stories episode with Steven Hassan. mormonstories.org. :contentReference[oaicite:18]{index=18}
ABC News: “Tyler Robinson said he killed Charlie Kirk because he ‘spreads too much hate’: Officials” (Sept 16, 2025). abcnews.go.com. :contentReference[oaicite:19]{index=19}
Associated Press: “Suspect left note… later confessed in texts” (Sept 16, 2025). apnews.com. :contentReference[oaicite:20]{index=20}
PBS/AP: “Suspect feared being shot by police before surrendering, sheriff says” (Sept 18, 2025). pbs.org. :contentReference[oaicite:21]{index=21}
Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “Loving Others and Living with Differences” (Oct 2014). churchofjesuschrist.org. :contentReference[oaicite:25]{index=25}
Church Newsroom statement on violence following the UVU shooting (Sept 10, 2025). newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org. :contentReference[oaicite:26]{index=26}
Hangartner et al., “Empathy‑based counterspeech can reduce racist hate speech” (PNAS, 2021). Open access index. zora.uzh.ch. :contentReference[oaicite:27]{index=27}
USC/ISI (2024) report on counterspeech limits on Reddit (news release). usc.edu. :contentReference[oaicite:28]{index=28}
Nyhan & colleagues, “Why the backfire effect does not explain…” PNAS (2021). pnas.org. :contentReference[oaicite:29]{index=29}
Swire‑Thompson et al., “The backfire effect after correcting misinformation is rare.” pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. :contentReference[oaicite:30]{index=30}
From Anecdote to Attack: The Cost of Anti‑Mormon Narratives
September 2025 · Author: Mormon Truth Project Editorial Team
Executive Summary. This paper surveys what social science and speech‑risk scholarship say about inflammatory, dehumanizing, and “dangerous” speech—and why it matters for Latter‑day Saints (LDS). Research shows that dehumanizing and uncivil rhetoric increases polarization, reduces empathy, and correlates with support for aggression. It also documents real‑world anti‑LDS hostility (e.g., sports‑arena chants vandalism, and attacks) and outlines why influential voices—including prominent critics—bear special responsibility to avoid sweeping generalizations about a faith community. Nothing herein argues for censorship; rather, we call for accuracy, proportionality, and counterspeech grounded in evidence and ethics.1
1) Concepts that matter: dangerous speech, dehumanization, and online incivility
Dangerous speech. The Dangerous Speech Project defines “dangerous speech” as expression that raises the risk its audience will condone or commit violence against a group—not only via explicit calls, but also through narratives that prime fear or disgust.1 The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum’s practical guide, Defusing Hate, applies these frameworks to reduce risk while protecting free expression.2
Dehumanization. Across multiple studies, blatant dehumanization predicts support for aggressive policies and is distinct from mere “dislike.”3 Research further shows that meta‑dehumanization—believing “they see us as less than human”—triggers reciprocal dehumanization and greater hostility, creating cycles of conflict.4 A related finding: dehumanization especially increases instrumental violence (harm seen as a means to an end).5
Incivility online. The “Nasty Effect” experiments show that uncivil comment threads polarize readers’ risk perceptions—even when the base article is identical.6 Neurocognitive work suggests that exposure to hateful comments can dampen brain responses associated with empathizing with others’ pain.7
Key takeaways:
Repeated exposure to dehumanizing or hateful language reduces empathy and heightens out‑group hostility.7
Feeling dehumanized often begets reciprocal dehumanization and support for punitive or aggressive measures.4
Incivility isn’t neutral “venting”; it measurably shapes audience attitudes and polarization.6
2) Anti‑LDS hostility in public life is real—not theoretical
Sports arenas. On February 22, 2025, after BYU upset Arizona in Tucson, video captured a crowd chant adding an expletive to “Mormons.” The University of Arizona publicly apologized the next day, acknowledging the derogatory chant aimed at BYU, the flagship school of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‑day Saints.8
Vandalism and harassment. Anti‑LDS graffiti and property damage appear regularly in local reporting (e.g., Colorado, 2023), and during California’s 2008 Proposition 8 fight, multiple LDS facilities sustained vandalism amid heated protests.9, 10
National data. Federal hate‑crime statistics track religion‑based targeting (with granular bias categories in downloadable tables). While anti‑Jewish and anti‑Muslim offenses comprise the largest shares nationally, the program also records offenses targeting other religious groups, including Latter‑day Saints, in state and local submissions.11, 12, 13 Reporting is imperfect and often undercounts incidents, but the trendlines underscore that religion‑based harassment and violence remain a real risk.14
3) Why rhetoric matters for people’s well‑being (including LDS members)
Peer‑reviewed studies link religion‑based discrimination—especially from peers—to worse mental‑health outcomes (stress, depression, reduced life satisfaction), whereas supportive religious community can buffer stressors for some youth.15, 16, 17, 18 Taken together with lab and field work on dehumanizing/incivil speech, these findings suggest that relentless derogation of a faith group is not a cost‑free “debate tactic”; it maps onto measurable harms.
4) The role—and responsibilities—of influential critics
4.1 John Dehlin’s rhetoric toward the Church
John Dehlin’s platforms (Mormon Stories, workshops, and associated sites) have, at times, framed the Church as “cult‑like” using the BITE model (Steven Hassan) and similar constructs. For example, a Mormon Stories resource page asserts: “I am absolutely convinced that the Mormon church meets full cult criteria.”19 Workshop descriptions likewise connect the BITE model to “high‑control groups like the Mormon church.”20
Why this matters: In the research literature, repeated portrayals of a group as uniquely manipulative, abusive, or sub‑human (or “cult‑like” in blanket terms) can function as dehumanizing frames in the eyes of audiences who do not have granular knowledge of believers’ day‑to‑day lives. Such frames elevate risk of hostility by (a) lowering empathy and (b) prompting retaliatory narratives.4, 3, 7
4.2 Professional status and ethical guardrails
Dehlin publicly clarifies that he is not a licensed psychologist (though he holds a Ph.D. and extensive supervised clinical hours) and that he operates a coaching practice rather than psychotherapy; he states he’s never claimed licensure.21 This transparency is welcome. Still, when work intersects with vulnerable populations (e.g., people in faith crisis), broadly accepted ethical principles in psychology emphasize beneficence/non‑maleficence and respect for people’s rights and dignity—including avoiding biased, demeaning characterizations of groups.22, 23
Bottom line for influencers (pro‑ or anti‑church): The science says tone, generalization, and dehumanizing labels matter. Platforms that repeatedly depict an entire faith community as “cultic,” “toxic,” or uniquely harmful risk nudging audiences toward contempt rather than constructive help for those who struggle—LGBTQ members, people of color, women, and others included.6, 7
5) Speech, risk, and law: what’s protected vs. what’s prudent
The U.S. strongly protects offensive and even inflammatory speech. Criminal liability for incitement requires advocacy “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and likely to produce it (Brandenburg v. Ohio).24 “True threats” require, at minimum, a reckless mental state regarding the threatening nature of the communication (Counterman v. Colorado).25 Most anti‑LDS commentary is legal. But legality is a floor, not a standard of wisdom or care—especially as platforms themselves (e.g., X/Twitter) prohibit dehumanization of religious groups given the link to offline harm.26
6) A sobering contemporaneous example: escalatory climates and the Charlie Kirk killing
While not directly about Latter‑day Saints, the September 10, 2025 shooting that killed conservative activist Charlie Kirk during a Utah Valley University event illustrates how infused, polarized information climates can metastasize into violence and disinformation storms. Within days, authorities charged a 22‑year‑old suspect with aggravated murder; major outlets documented waves of conspiracies and sharp rhetoric that followed.27, 28, 29, 30 The lesson for all sides—including anti‑LDS critics and defenders—is straightforward: avoid language that paints whole groups as malevolent monoliths or “less than human.” The risks are real; the remedy is rigor and restraint.
7) What responsible critique looks like (recommendations)
Separate systems critique from member devaluation. Identify concrete policies, doctrines, or leadership decisions; avoid labels that globally pathologize ordinary members who worship, volunteer, and serve.23
Use proportional evidence. Avoid extrapolating from vivid anecdotes to the entire church. Spotlight base rates and denominational context when discussing harms.
Prefer counterspeech that humanizes. Evidence‑backed approaches (e.g., empathy‑based counterspeech) reduce hate expression more effectively than taunts.31
Mind platform norms. Even when lawful, group‑dehumanizing rhetoric violates many platforms’ rules because of documented offline risks.26
Balance the record. When critiquing the Church, acknowledge countervailing data (e.g., humanitarian work, community benefits) to avoid skew.32
8) Evidentiary balance: recognizing LDS contributions while debating policy
Multiple official and independent summaries report that in 2024 the Church supported 3,836 humanitarian projects across 192 countries/territories, with US$1.45 billion in expenditures and 6.6 million volunteer hours—figures covered by the Church Newsroom, the Church’s “Caring for Those in Need” summary, and independent outlets.32, 33, 34 Whatever one’s view of LDS doctrine, these data complicate totalizing narratives about the community’s social value.
Notes & Sources (all links verified Sep 18, 2025)
Dangerous Speech Project, “What is Dangerous Speech?” dangerousspeech.org. See also USHMM overview of dangerous speech applications. ↩
Defusing Hate: A Strategic Communication Guide to Counteract Dangerous Speech (U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum). PDF: ushmm.org; landing page: link. ↩
Kteily, N. & Bruneau, E., et al. On dehumanization as a unique predictor of hostility. Overview PDF (teaching compendium): UNC. Foundational measure and findings across conflicts. ↩
Kteily, N., Hodson, G., & Bruneau, E. “They See Us as Less Than Human: Metadehumanization Predicts Intergroup Conflict via Reciprocal Dehumanization.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (2016). PubMed: link; see also Landry et al., 2020/2022: PDF. ↩
Rai, T. S., Valdesolo, P., & Graham, J. “Dehumanization increases instrumental violence, but not moral violence.” PNAS (2017). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1705238114. ↩
Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Xenos, M., & Ladwig, P. “The ‘Nasty Effect’: Online Incivility and Risk Perceptions of Emerging Technologies.” Journal of Computer‑Mediated Communication (2014). Wiley: link; OUP copy: link. ↩
Pluta, A., et al. “Exposure to hate speech deteriorates neurocognitive mechanisms of the ability to understand others’ pain.” Scientific Reports (2023). Nature: link; PubMed: link. ↩
Myron Medcalf, “Arizona apologizes for fans’ derogatory chant aimed at BYU.” ESPN, Feb 23, 2025. link. ↩
Local example of anti‑LDS vandalism (Colorado, 2023): CBS Denver/Colorado affiliates have reported periodic LDS chapel vandalism; representative coverage includes regional broadcast and police blotters. (One example set: 2023 vandalism reports in the Front Range.)
“LDS church building vandalized as protests over Prop 8 continue.” KCRA 3 (Sacramento), Nov 2008. link. ↩
FBI Hate Crime Statistics 2017 — Table 1 and Topic Pages. FBI UCR: Table 1; Overview: incidents/offenses. ↩
U.S. Department of Justice, Hate Crimes: summary dashboards and links to FBI reports. link. ↩
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Hate Crime Recorded by Law Enforcement, 2010–2019. PDF. ↩
Rice (Boniuk Institute) news release: “Peer religious discrimination harms mental health more than exclusionary policies.” Sept 21, 2023. link. ↩
Sharif, M. Z., et al. “The association between experiences of religious discrimination and social‑emotional adjustment and sleep outcomes.” Ssm‑Mental Health (2021). Open access: PMCID: PMC8350065. ↩
Estrada, C. A. M., et al. “Religious education can contribute to adolescent mental health.” Int’l J Mental Health Systems (2019). link. ↩
Scheitle, C. P., et al. “Perceived religious discrimination and health.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (2023). link. ↩
Mormon Stories resource page with explicit claim that “the Mormon church meets full cult criteria.” mormonstories.org/resources/ (language present on page as of verification). ↩
Mormon Stories workshop description referencing “high‑control groups like the Mormon church.” link. ↩
“On My Education, Training, Licensure Status, and Coaching Practice.” Mormon Stories (John Dehlin) explanatory page. link. ↩
American Psychological Association, Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. link (see General Principles A & E). ↩
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). Oyez: summary; Justia: opinion. ↩
Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023). Supreme Court PDF: opinion; summary: Oyez. ↩
X/Twitter policy statements on dehumanization/hateful conduct (religion). Blog: 2018, 2019; Help Center: policy. Coverage: WaPo, The Verge. ↩
ABC News visual timeline and follow‑ups on the Sept 10, 2025 shooting death of Charlie Kirk at UVU, case developments and suspect custody. timeline; custody/conditions: update. ↩
Politico, “After Charlie Kirk’s killing, false claims flourish online—with help from U.S. adversaries,” Sept 17, 2025. link. ↩
Los Angeles Times, “Charlie Kirk’s killing roils Huntington Beach,” Sept 17, 2025. link. ↩
Fox News live coverage/updates on charges and death‑penalty intent, Sept 16–17, 2025. Sept 16; Sept 17. ↩
Hangartner, D., et al., “Empathy‑based counterspeech can reduce racist hate speech in a social‑media field experiment.” PNAS (2021). Open access: PMCID: PMC8685915. ↩
“A World of Caring: 2024 Caring for Those in Need Summary.” Church Newsroom, Mar 25, 2025. link; summary hub: link; PDF (at‑a‑glance): PDF. Independent coverage: Deseret News. ↩
Regional newsroom recaps citing the same 2024 totals (e.g., Europe, Africa). Europe. ↩
Disclosures & Limits. This paper does not assert that any named individual intends harm or meets a legal standard for incitement or threats. It evaluates rhetorical patterns against established research on dehumanization, incivility, and discrimination. Correlation is not causation; nevertheless, the weight of evidence justifies caution about sweeping, demeaning claims about entire faith communities.Coming in Part II (of III): We will examine (a) how sensitive identity topics (e.g., LGBTQ) are used rhetorically to indict entire faith groups, (b) why vulnerable populations deserve accurate, non‑instrumentalized care, and (c) how to keep disagreement—fierce as it may be—within guardrails that lower real‑world risk. (Part III will focus on constructive engagement and counterspeech playbooks.)
The Church does not teach “being gay is a sin.” Chastity is a commandment for all. Missionaries teach this clearly. LGBTQ+ discipleship is real — and Christ’s invitation is inclusive and rooted in truth, not affirmation alone.
Podcast
YouTube – “Sister Grenfell”
Episode
Everything Mormon Missionaries DON’T Tell You
Category
Church Doctrine / LGBTQ+
Quote
“They will not tell you that being gay is a sin… If you convert as a gay member, you’ll be expected to live a life of celibacy or marry heterosexually. That’s the only option.” — “Sister Grenfell”, 01:25:04–01:26:40
Core Claim
The Church teaches being gay is sinful, missionaries conceal this, and LGBTQ converts are forced into celibacy or heterosexual marriages.
Conclusion
False → Straw Man Distortion
Logical Questions
Does the Church say “being gay is a sin”?
Are all members called to live chastity, or just LGBTQ+?
Does the Church force straight marriages or deny spiritual participation?
🔍 Core Finding
💬 Feelings ≠ Sin
The Church distinguishes between orientation and behavior:
“Same-sex attraction itself is not a sin. If you have these feelings and do not pursue or act on them, you are living a faithful life.”
— ChurchofJesusChrist.org: Same-Sex Attraction
⚖️ Missionaries DO Teach the Law of Chastity
All converts are taught that sexual intimacy is reserved for marriage between a man and a woman (D&C 42:22–24). LGBTQ individuals are not singled out — this is a universal standard.
💍 Marriage is Not “Forced”
Church leaders explicitly counsel against entering straight marriages to “resolve” same-gender attraction:
“We counsel against any kind of marriage for purposes of trying to resolve same-gender feelings.”
— Elder Dallin H. Oaks, 2006
Calling tithing “evil” isn’t brave. It’s lazy. The Church doesn’t let the poor starve. It feeds them — with food and with faith. Doctrine without context isn’t truth. It’s a talking point.
Podcast
YouTube – Anonymous Creator
Episode
“How the Mormon Church Secretly Built a $293 Billion Fortune”
Category
Tithing Ethics & Accusations of Harm
Quote
“You’re giving this multi-billion dollar church your 10%. Food or tithing — pay tithing. How can you say that with a straight face? That’s just evil.” — Narrator, 00:56:05
Core Claim
The Church’s tithing doctrine causes harm to the poor and is morally evil.
The narrator calls the Church’s tithing doctrine “evil” — but leaves out the spiritual framework, the voluntary nature of tithing, and the welfare resources available to every member. It’s not coercion — it’s consecration. And the Church teaches both sacrifice and support.
📖 What the Church Actually Teaches
Tithing is voluntary and confidential.
Bishops are trained to help anyone in need, regardless of donation history.
Members are not denied food, rent, or employment support because they don’t tithe.
📖 Scriptural Principle
“The Lord will open the windows of heaven… and pour you out a blessing.”
— Malachi 3:10
To believers, tithing is a spiritual act of trust — not a contract. You may disagree with that faith, but calling it “evil” ignores what it actually means to the people who live it.
To claim that missionaries “don’t want full informed consent” is spiritually cynical and doctrinally untrue. The gospel invites faith, not frontloading. Missionaries teach with spiritual integrity under priesthood keys. Converts are responsible for their own seeking, prayer, and confirmation.
“And so all of that is important to share. so that you can understand that a missionary’s goal is to get you baptized… It’s not to explain everything about the church. The goal is not to have full informed consent.” — “Sister Grenfell”, 00:04:59–00:05:10
Core Claim
Missionaries deliberately avoid teaching full doctrine or “informed consent” and are primarily focused on securing baptisms quickly, potentially misleading converts.
Conclusion
Misleading
Logical Questions
Does Preach My Gospel explicitly instruct missionaries to withhold information?
What is the “milk before meat” principle and is it deceitful?
Are converts truly uninformed at baptism, or are they introduced progressively in line with scriptural precedent?
🔍 Core Finding
📘 Do Missionaries Fast-Track Without Full Consent?
No. Preach My Gospel outlines a principle-based teaching framework where spiritual preparation and doctrinal understanding are nurtured line upon line (Isaiah 28:10, D&C 19:22). The focus is on spiritual readiness, not deceptive omission.
🥛 Meat Before Milk — Scriptural Not Secret
The “milk before meat” principle originates in scripture (1 Corinthians 3:2; Hebrews 5:12–14). Even Jesus withheld deeper teachings from disciples until they were spiritually ready (John 16:12). This is not deception — it’s sacred pacing.
🧾 Informed, Not Overloaded
Missionaries are not university professors giving a full religious dissertation. They are guides, introducing foundational principles as taught by Christ (faith, repentance, baptism). Conversion requires personal study, prayer, and spiritual confirmation — not academic overload (Moroni 10:4–5).
⚖️ Is it Informed Consent?
Yes — baptismal candidates must:
Attend church multiple times
Meet with missionaries and local leaders
Affirm belief in restored gospel, commandments, and the Savior
Pass a formal interview on commandments including tithing, chastity, Word of Wisdom, and sustaining Church leaders
