1) What The Research Shows

• 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:

1. “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}
2. 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}
3. 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}

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}

For platform/community moderators

• Down‑rank incivility and dehumanization; up‑rank substantive, solution‑oriented disagreements (lab‑tested moderation reduces “nasty effect” spillovers). ⁶
• 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.