How Anti‑LDS Narratives Weaponize LGBTQ Pain—and What Helps

Part II of III

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.

7) Advocacy Recommendations — Truth, Dignity, Safety

---

Notes & Sources

1. ABC News, “Visual timeline of how the Charlie Kirk shooting unfolded” (UVU; Sept 10, 2025; suspect identified as Tyler Robinson). link. ↩
2. Dallin H. Oaks, “Loving Others and Living with Differences,” Oct 2014 General Conference (civility; love, even amid disagreement). link. ↩
3. Church Newsroom, “Same‑Sex Attraction” (feelings/identity not a sin; kindness and compassion). link.
4. Gospel Topics—Same‑Sex Attraction (full participation possible; identity vs. behavior). link.
5. Counseling Resources—Same‑Sex Attraction (“feeling or using an identity label is not a sin”). link.
6. General Handbook 38.6.23 & supplemental guidance: “Church Participation of Individuals Who Identify as Transgender (Guiding Principles).” PDF. See also the General Handbook home.
7. Transgender—Understanding Yourself (overview article; participation and counsel). link; “What is the Church’s position on transitioning?” link.
8. The Trevor Project, 2024 National Survey (key findings page). link.
9. The Trevor Project, 2024 National Survey (full PDF). PDF.
10. 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).
11. Furscience, gender diversity in the fandom (nonbinary/trans measures across samples). link.
12. Furscience, “Autism in the Fandom” (10–15% self‑identify as autistic; community benefits). link; WESA explainer (reporting similar figures): link.
13. ESPN, “Arizona apologizes for fans’ derogatory chant aimed at BYU” (Feb 23, 2025). link. (Context: public hostility toward Latter‑day Saints in mass settings.)
14. Associated Press, “A timeline of Charlie Kirk’s assassination and the arrest of a suspect” (UVU; Sept 10 killing; arrest; initial facts). link.
15. ABC News (AP wire), “As officials searched for Charlie Kirk’s shooter, suspect confessed to his partner, prosecutor says.” link.
16. ABC News, “Tyler Robinson said he killed Charlie Kirk because he ‘spreads too much hate’: Officials” (charging, statements, death‑penalty intent). link.
17. NBC (Washington), “Shooting suspect referenced fascism, memes on bullets” (on engraved ammo phrases). link.
18. PBS NewsHour, “A look into the online subcultures tied to Charlie Kirk’s accused killer” (meme engravings; online context). link.
19. 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.