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?”

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.

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.

Below is a list of tactics and fallacies⁴ I have identified over the years that many critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints use and why each is manipulative or wrong.

Manipulation Tactic	Example	Why it is manipulative
Distrust in authority Assuming that any institutional structure with a hierarchy is up to no good.	"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.	This is designed to make the target distrust church leaders. The manipulator wins if the target believes they cannot trust the Church.
Myth of Infallibility An assumption that church leaders are infallible.	Any quote or policy from church leaders in the past that does not align with what we practice or believe today.	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.
False Compromise Presenting opposed narratives and then assuming, "Well, the truth must lie between these two extremes.”	"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."	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.
The Big List (Gish Gallop or Proof by Verbosity) An illusion of proof by the sheer mass of material provided.	The CES Letter. It culminates the critiques of the Church of Jesus Christ's truth claims.	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.
Half Truth Mixing truth with deceit to confuse the issue.	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.	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.
Presentism Assuming historical figures see the world in the same way that a person would today. Judging the past based on today’s standards.	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.	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.
Quote Mining Mining for unflattering quotes made in the past.	A meme on social media by a critic6 - "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.	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.
Meat before Milk Presenting complicated issues without first establishing the fundamental building blocks for understanding.	"Mormons believe they will all have their own planet." "Mormons believe that only they will get into heaven."	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.
Naturalist Assumptions Assuming no supernatural or spiritual forces are at play in the universe.	"Angels don't appear to men to give them golden plates."	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.
Bully on the Playground Use of mockery and name-calling.	“Oh, he is just a TBM (‘True Believing Mormon’). “You’re in a cult.”	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.

Fallacy	Example	Why it’s wrong
Straw Man Set up the opponent's argument to be weaker than it is. Then, proceed to demolish the false, weak version and claim victory.	"Mormons believe you need magic underwear to get into heaven. We believe you need Jesus."	It is dishonest because it does not genuinely engage with the opposing party's arguments. It may win points for the “home team” of like-minded people, but it does not bring anyone closer to the truth.
Ad Hominem Attacking the person instead of their arguments.	"John is a Latter-day Saint. We should not invite him to this equality debate because Mormons are bigots."	Does not address the issue or lead to any understanding.
Hasty Generalization An inference is drawn from insufficient evidence. Leaping to a conclusion.	"The Church's affiliated investment manager, Ensign Peak, was fined $5 million for insufficient reporting of securities owned. So, the Church is sketchy."	We all tend to take lazy shortcuts when we encounter new information. It is easier to write something off than to engage with the issue. One or two more insights may address the concern.
Red Herrings Using an unrelated issue to distract attention away from the relevant question. “Whataboutism" used by political pundits is a form of using a red herring.	"The Church focuses on moral issues? That's rich considering its roots in polygamy!"	Distracts attention away from the issues raised without addressing them.
Poisoning the Well (or Bulverism) Attempts to discredit a person before their arguments are even heard.	"Oh, you can't read anything a BYU scholar says because they're on the Church's payroll!"	Critics hope their target will not engage in the information that may answer important questions.
Double Standard Treating two or more people or circumstances differently even though they should be treated the same.	When Christians say, "If the golden plates are real, then where are they?" Atheists use the same logic for the Ten Commandments written on stone tablets. "The Book of Mormon witnesses are unreliable. They were Joseph Smith's friends and family." That logic can be applied to the witnesses of Christ's resurrection.	This shows that the critic is being internally inconsistent. They use an argument when it is convenient for them without applying it equally to other situations, including those that would reflect poorly on their position.
Appeal to Authority Claiming that something must be true (or false) because it is believed (or not) by someone who is said to be an authority on the subject.	“There is no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon in the Americas.” Black-and-white statements from an unknown expert. These usually start with "there is no evidence" and explain why some aspect of the Book of Mormon is false.	We are naturally inclined to believe an expert. Faith crisis victims do not have the time to be expert archeologists, historians, chemists, linguists, lawyers, doctors, and authors. It is easier to trust an expert. Critics rely on our belief in experts to make bad arguments. The "authority" of the source referenced may be unreliable. Note that actual authorities rarely speak in black-and-white terms.
Bandwagon Claiming something to be true because “most people believe it.”	“Most Christians believe that the Bible canon is closed, so it must be so.”	This fallacy preys on the tendency to want to follow the crowd. Advertisers and salespeople use this tactic all the time.
Appeal to Emotion Seeking to win an argument through the manipulation of emotions. Especially in the absence of evidence.	"The Mormon Church is a bigoted cult! It hates the LGBTQ community and destroys people's lives!"	Critics will use inflammatory or prejudicial language to influence their target. When someone speaks passionately, we want to believe that they are telling the truth.
The False Dilemma or Dichotomy (The “either-or” fallacy) Discussing an issue as if there are only two alternatives and no compromises.	"If you have sincere questions about the gospel, then your family will hate and abandon you."	Critics use this fallacy to create rifts between a questioning Latter-day Saint and their families and wards. In the example given, the critic is trying to create resentment toward the family and the ward, leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Begging the Question - False Premise Reaching a conclusion based on a premise that lacks support.	"The Church hid the fact that Joseph Smith used a seer stone in the translation process. Thus, the Church is immoral."	It subtly takes a giant leap in logic to influence the victim. The victim will likely agree with the conclusion if a false premise is assumed. Even if the target does not agree with the conclusion, the believed false premise itself can generate doubt.
Non-Sequitur A conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement. Non Sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow."	"Russell M. Nelson was a member of a college secret fraternity, ‘Skull & Bones.’ How is he God's prophet?"	A massive leap in logic from the opening statement to the conclusion. The end result is a conclusion that illogically flows from the underlying premise.
Argument from Ignorance Asserts that a proposition is true because it is not yet proven false. Alternatively, that silence is an admission of guilt.	Before metal plates with writing in ancient Israel were found, critics would say, “We’ve never seen ancient people write on metal plates. Therefore, the Book of Mormon is false.”	Critics argue that something cannot be because they cannot imagine how it could be. This intellectual shortcut does not seriously consider the totality of the available evidence.
Slippery Slope Assuming catastrophic results from a premise.	"It is dangerous to accept the doctrine of personal revelation from God. Before you know it, we’ll see criminals committing heinous acts claiming revelation from God."	It is a false idea meant to exploit the target’s risk aversion.
Questionable Cause (Correlation vs. Causation) Oversimplification. Presumes there is a single cause of a more complex phenomenon. It is often used to insinuate that a correlated variable is the cause of an outcome.	"Utah has a higher-than-average suicide rate. Thus, the LDS Church makes people depressed and suicidal."	In my experience, questionable cause is the primary type of data critics use (aside from personal stories). When the manipulator lacks evidence, his/her only corroboration is questionable correlations.
Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy This fallacy takes data out of its context and tries to make it appear more impressive than it is. The name of this fallacy comes from an example of a Texas gunslinger who shoots randomly at a barn door. Afterward, a target is painted around each bullet hole. The holes are random, but the painted targets appear to prove that the gunslinger is a great shot.	"View of the Hebrews and The Late War have some parallels with the Book of Mormon. So, that must have been the source for the Book of Mormon!"	To me, this is grasping at straws. Book of Mormon critics tend to compare loose parallels with other books and then exaggerate how they are "bullseyes" for the source of the Book of Mormon.
Shifting the Burden of Proof Making a claim that needs evidence, then shifting the responsibility for disproof of that claim to another party.	"Brigham Young conspired to get Joseph Smith killed. Prove that I'm wrong."	Critics point to weak, coincidental, and often contradictory connections, and then, in place of evidence, they shift the burden of proof back onto the Church or the believer.
Generalization A claim based on insufficient evidence. Drawing a conclusion about a large population using a small, unrepresentative sample.	"Local ward and stake leaders did not respond adequately enough to an instance of abuse. Therefore, the Church is abusive."	Claims of abuse in the Church or hostilities toward sexual or other minorities often fall into this category. Critics use anecdotal examples to prove an untrue conclusion.

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?

Can their critiques stand on their own 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.

Building Up vs. Tearing Down

The sheer hatred in the critical community alarmed me. I could not identify with that. It never felt like we were building something, only tearing down. I owed a lot to the Church, and even in my worst faith crisis moments, I felt gratitude for my upbringing. Not all critics become bitter, and I applaud those who are not. To be united by hatred is a quick and easy way to feel unity, but it is temporary. I could not imagine living my life identifying myself by what I am not (IE “Ex-Mormon”). I find so much more purpose in building up. Pessimists rarely build anything meaningful.

Above all, I was alarmed by the critic’s strategic use of distrust in family. A faithful church member once had a child come to them and identify as LGBTQ+. The child said, “Are you going to kick me out of the house?” The bewildered father sat in stunned silence. What in the world had given his daughter that impression? What church or family home evening lesson gave that vulnerable child the idea that she would be ostracized if she identified as LGBTQ+? The answer is complex, but I cannot help but sense that critics bear some responsibility. Misguided critics imply to their targets that a doubter's family and the Church will abandon them. These critics calculate the right things to say to influence the victim to see things in their ward and family members that may not even be there. They lead the victim into a self-fulfilling prophecy. In psychology, this is called “the personal expectancy effect,” and using this tactic is wrong.

Don’t the critics realize that they can create the very thing that they warn us about?

“Jesus taught, ‘Seek, and ye shall find.’⁸ I believe this simple phrase is not only a spiritual promise; it is a statement of fact. If we seek reasons to be angry, to doubt, to be bitter or alone, we will find them too. However, if we seek joy—if we look for reasons to rejoice and to happily follow the Savior, we will find them. We rarely find something we are not looking for.

Are you looking for joy?”

– DIETER F. UCHTDORF (A Higher Joy, April 2024 General Conference, emphasis added)

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. It was not enough to leave. Their goal, mission, vision, and conquest is to tear down faith in God. To dismantle belief in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. At times, I felt like I was listening to someone with nothing more than a personal vendetta to disparage the Church. I am sure some of these folks feel genuinely wronged by the Church of Jesus Christ, and I’m sorry they feel that way. Regardless of their personal grievances, my mission is to find more light and truth.

Some critics, like John Dehlin from Mormon Stories, provide coaching services for people who have left the Church to help them handle the trauma of leaving their church community. Is that a conflict of interest?

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?

I have seen many disillusioned former church members share their faith deconstruction stories. Some are emotional messes after their crisis. I wish the best for those folks. I hope they find the peace that they seek. 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.

The Internet

The CES Letter lambasts the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for encouraging members to use divinely appointed sources when researching challenging gospel questions. I admit that this advice from church leaders bothered me for some time. Was I to only look at the Church’s approved list of reading material? It felt suspicious to me. Then I learned why the Church’s invitation to use divinely appointed resources is more reasonable than I gave it credit for.

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.

False news online travels six times faster than the truth, according to a 2018 study by researchers from MIT.⁹ A lie online is clean and short. The truth has depth and takes time to understand. According to the non-scientific internet adage of Brandolini’s law, the “amount of energy needed to refute [BS] is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.”¹⁰

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.

Bruce and Marie Hafen elaborate on this problem in their book Faith is Not Blind. They share a story about a bishop who meets with ward members who have been rattled by a phrase or story taken out of context or by some event or statement they do not understand in Church history.¹¹

“They lack the experience to sense the need for more context; or they don’t know how to find the context; or, despite feeling shattered, they still sometimes don’t care enough to look for it. Their problem is not that they know too much about Church history, but that they don’t know nearly enough. And they have been conditioned by the oversimplifications of social media to expect a short answer to any question. They often aren’t interested in a long answer to anything – even if the true, complete story is very complex.” (emphasis added)

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.

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. When examined carefully, I realized that most everything “new” the critics shared was relatively innocuous or came from church sources. Ultimately, the manipulation happens in the presentation of data and history, not the data and history itself.

Illusions and Mirages

What church are these folks referring to?

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).

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.

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.

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

The Mormon Stories Formula

During my faith journey, I listened to Mormon Stories, the largest and most well-known podcast critical to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The podcast is operated by former member John Dehlin. In defense of the Church, some well-meaning members use personal attacks to undermine John’s show and cast him in a negative light. For my part, I believe that John thinks what he is doing is right. He is behaving in a way that is logical if someone believes the Church is an evil organization that does more harm than good. John makes his lack of divine worldview clear. “Angels do not give golden plates to people” is a favorite phrase of his.

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.

Footnotes

1. Exmormon reddit forum. - A quote from a Mormon Stories podcast is shared and John gives three hearts in response. ↩

2. Runnels, Jeremy. Conclusion of “CES Letter.” CES Letter Foundation, October 2017. https://read.cesletter.org/conclusion/ ↩

3. X (Twitter) comment ↩

4. I borrowed generously from Jeff Roundy’s YouTube video, “Tactics Used by Critics.” I added several tactics and fallacies to the list and provided additional examples and further explanations of why one thing or another is manipulative or wrong.

   Roundy, Jeff. “Tactics Used by Critics.” Latter-day Saint Q&A, January 21, 2020. https://latterdaysaintsqa.com/tactics-used-by-critics/ ↩

5. I borrowed this analogy from Dr. Phil McGraw on the Modern Wisdom Podcast on the March 8th 2024 episode at https://podclips.com/ew/JZiI ↩

6. *Stuff You Missed in Sunday School, “15 Children.” *Stuff You Missed in Sunday Sunday School, https://missedinsunday.com/memes/sexism/15-children/ ↩

7. Quoted by in a FAIR conference speech in August 2019.

   Krywult, René. “Fear Leads to the Dark Side – Navigating the Shallows of (Mis)Information.” FAIR Latter-day Saints, August 2019. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2019/fear-leads-to-the-dark-side ↩

8. Matthew 7:7 ↩

9. Vosoughi, Soroush, et al. “The spread of true and false news online.” Science 359, 1146-1151 (2018). DOI:10.1126/science.aap9559 ↩

10. “Bullshit Asymmetry Principle.” Model Thinkers, accessed on May 7, 2024 from https://modelthinkers.com/mental-model/bullshit-asymmetry-principle ↩

11. Hafen, Bruce and Marie. “Faith is Not Blind.” Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2018, ppg 33-34 ↩