Testimony

At less than five years old, I was instructed to stand in front of my primary class and say that I knew the church was true. This experience was repeated for years. Sometimes I wonder if I really knew what I was talking about. I wondered if kids had some kind of spiritual gift that helped them know the truth.

One memory affirms that I did not actually understand what I was asked to testify of. When I was six, my family moved to a new ward. I remember feeling confused in a primary class. My old primary teachers always used to say, “I know that this church is the only true church.” So when we went to a new building (a new church, as I remember understanding it), I was distraught to hear my new primary teacher say, “I know that this church is the only true church.” We were going to a new church, I thought, and both cannot possibly be true.

I once told this story at a youth activity and got a few laughs. It’s always felt like a cute anecdote about a confused kid. But I’ve realized its significance: when I was asked to “bury” my testimony in primary, I was given a script to repeat. I was taught to say what I believed until I finally actually believed it. The church’s claims were required to be my ground truth for years.

Shared Identity

As a teenager, I was still conflicted. My friends in seminary would talk about having amazing spiritual experiences. People shared how they felt like God was speaking to them when they read the Book of Mormon. I never had these experiences, but I felt like I had to share them to fit in. So when a seminary teacher asked us to share our experience with the Book of Mormon with a neighbor, I made one up. When I was asked to speak in church, I concluded my talk with a template that I still have saved on an old hard drive:

I know with all my heart that the church is true. I know Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and that he translated the Book of Mormon by the power of God. I know the church is led by a prophet today. I know the scriptures are true. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

It was made clear to me that to be accepted in the church, you had to have a testimony, and you had to repeat it often. I remember hearing the parable of the ten virgins and being chastised in Sunday School because I wouldn’t stand up in testimony meetings. I was told that when Jesus came, I had better have enough testimony (or oil in my extended-metaphorical lamp).

When I was a missionary, I was told to testify regularly. Even if I was doubting something, I must have repeated thousands of times the same testimony over and over. In the MTC, I practiced using tone and inflection to sound sincere when I bore a testimony. I spent hours practicing “Yo se que la iglesia es la unica iglesia verdadera” (I know that the church is the only true church). Throughout my mission, I learned from mission companions and the mission president that changing my voice’s tone made a testimony sound more convincing. I practically mastered the whispery “testimony voice” that so many of us are familiar with.

Having a testimony to share gave me a sense of shared identity. I was part of an “in-group” who could talk about spiritual experiences and bear testimony of them. This shared identity can be valuable; it was nice to believe I had support from my church community if I needed help.

Pressure to Testify

However, this shared community created a sense of constant pressure. If I were to stand in front of a congregation and say “I’m not sure whether or not the church is true”, there would likely have been people whispering to each other in the pews, and I would probably have subtly become less welcome in the community. I was chastised as a teenager because I didn’t go up to the microphone during testimony meetings.

I was good at giving a fake testimony, but I wanted to have the spiritual experiences other people kept talking about. I prayed several times a day on my mission to feel that the church was true. I prayed for some sort of confirmation that the Book of Mormon was true or that Joseph Smith was a prophet. I occasionally felt relaxed and peaceful, and I thought that might be good enough. I thought that if so many other people had impactful, significant spiritual experiences and could testify of truth, so could I. I lied through my teeth and it worked. People could not tell I was lying, or they at least never called me out for it. Mission companions would say they felt the spirit when I testified about the church. I am now deeply remorseful that many people were (at least partially) converted and baptized on the basis of my phony testimony.

Eventually, I could not tell what I believed and did not believe anymore. Memorizing and repeating my testimony dozens of times every day for two years eroded at any sense I had of what I really believed. When I got back from my mission, I knew all the right lines to say. I was congratulated for giving an impressive, eloquent talk (which was a translation of a talk I gave in the last week of my mission). Even though it felt gimmicky and repetitious to me, people said they felt the spirit when I shared my testimony in Spanish at the close of the talk.

Eventually, I was asked to give a talk in sacrament meeting themed “Why I believe”. I started writing the talk by scribbling “What do I believe” on the top of a ledger notebook. I was stumped. I wanted to say I believed the church was true, but I’d never really received a spiritual confirmation of it. So after spending several hours trying to piece together any scraps of testimony I actually had into a talk, I ended up talking about believing that it is valuable to believe in a chance to correct mistakes. I talked about how the Jesus story was useful, and how we should love all of God’s children. I somehow managed to squeeze out a 10-minute talk. Had I not felt pressure to testify of what everyone expected, I could have given a much more meaningful talk, but I couldn’t bring myself to show any doubt in front of my community.

My New Testimony

After my talk, I started seriously researching the church’s truth claims. For the first time in my life, I let myself read “anti-mormon” literature, like the Gospel Topics Essays on the church website. I spent a good deal of time on the Mormon Stories website and reading Letter for my Wife. Finally, I was starting to read logically consistent arguments. It was terribly unfortunate that these arguments contradicted everything I’d been taught to believe, but they finally worked in my mind.

Over the next few weeks, I read antagonistic work followed by apologist rebuttals (usually from FAIR). The apologist arguments were, in my opinion, incredibly weak and involved a great amount of speculation, while antagonistic work was usually evidence-based and logically sound. I wanted so badly for the church to be true, so I prayed over the course of several days. Eventually, I told God I had no testimony and experienced abuse from the church, and unless I received a spiritual confirmation the church was true, I was going to leave. I told Him I respected Him and wanted to follow His will, but that He had not yet given me enough information to believe that meant staying in the church.

I felt very little. So I prayed again. “Dear Heavenly Father, should I leave the church?” I asked. I felt more peace and calm than I had felt during any other prayer. My mind felt clear. I felt everything church leaders had identified to me as signs of the spirit. I couldn’t believe it. “I’m interpreting this feeling as a sign that I should leave the church,” I confirmed. I still felt what I identified as the spirit, so later that day, I let my wife know I was leaving the church.

I can now say with more assurance than I ever had as a member of the church that the church is not true. I know with all of my heart that if there is a God, it is not through Russell Nelson or any other rich white man in a suit that He directs His work. I know Joseph Smith was not a prophet. He deceived, abused, and manipulated swaths of innocent people. Above all else, I know that leaving the church has made me happier, healthier, kinder, more hopeful, more generous, more tolerant, more understanding, and overall better than staying possibly could.

I learned in the church that while people can refute facts, they cannot refute spiritual experiences. So I humbly and vulnerably share this in hopes that it might help someone avoid the abuse thousands of church members have survived and continue to experience every day. The church is not true; it is not what it claims to be.

Pressure

In the church, pressure to conform is palpable and pervasive, often manifesting in forms that can leave individuals feeling trapped and manipulated. This pressure is not merely social; it is deeply woven into the fabric of church doctrine, culture, and community expectations. As I navigated my own journey of questioning and ultimately leaving the church, I became acutely aware of how this pressure operates and the toll it takes on members.

When I made the decision to leave the church, I felt I had been betrayed and lied to. For several weeks, I had lingering doubts about my decision. I have since learned that what I experienced is very common among people who leave high-demand religions, and it bears many similarities with the experience of leaving an abusive or manipulative relationship. The pressure to conform to church teachings and expectations can create a sense of entrapment, making it difficult for individuals to assert their autonomy or question their beliefs.

Think Celestial

For years, I refused to acknowledge the manipulative aspects of the church, believing that any resemblance to manipulation was a distortion of divine guidance. However, as I began to investigate my beliefs, I was shocked by the manipulative language used by church leaders. For instance, during General Conference, Russell Nelson’s statements often employed fear-based rhetoric, suggesting that failing to adhere to church teachings would result in eternal separation from loved ones. Such comments not only instill fear but also reinforce the idea that questioning the church equates to rejecting God. This kind of language can be deeply troubling, as it creates an environment where members feel compelled to suppress doubts and conform to the collective belief system.

Thus, if we unwisely choose to live telestial laws now, we are choosing to be resurrected with a telestial body. We are choosing not to live with our families forever.¹

Those who have participated in or watched an endowment ceremony in the 2010s might relate when I say this sounds much closer to Satan’s threat (something akin to “if these people do not live up to every covenant they make, they will be in my power”) than God’s comforting, patient language. It strikes fear into parents who believe they are sealed to their children forever. It uses threatening language, and I believe this manipulative statement alone is damning evidence that Nelson’s address does not match the tone or nature of God.

Consider a later paragraph in his address:

When you are confronted with a dilemma, think celestial! When tested by temptation, think celestial! When life or loved ones let you down, think celestial! When someone dies prematurely, think celestial. When someone lingers with a devastating illness, think celestial. When the pressures of life crowd in upon you, think celestial! As you recover from an accident or injury, as I am doing now, think celestial! As you focus on thinking celestial, expect to encounter opposition. Decades ago, a professional colleague criticized me for having “too much temple” in me, and more than one supervisor penalized me because of my faith. I am convinced, however, that thinking celestial enhanced my career.¹

While they appear innocent, catchphrases like “think celestial” are common thought-stopping strategies. Consider this: if “think celestial” was your go-to mantra, and you were confronted with something that made you doubt, would it be more appealing to “think celestial” or use reasoning skills to sort out who is right? This sentiment reminds me of language common among manipulative parents I’ve met, who will convince their child to do something with questions or sayings that back the child into a corner.

Of course, mantras can be helpful. My wife and I often repeat to each other, “handle it now,” which keeps us from letting dishes or laundry build up. But I suggest that when someone else tells you what your mantra should be, it is worth scrutinizing their intentions.

Nelson continues in his talk:

As you think celestial, you will find yourself avoiding anything that robs you of your agency. Any addiction—be it gaming, gambling, debt, drugs, alcohol, anger, pornography, sex, or even food—offends God. Why? Because your obsession becomes your god. You look to it rather than to Him for solace. If you struggle with an addiction, seek the spiritual and professional help you need. Please do not let an obsession rob you of your freedom to follow God’s fabulous plan.¹

When I first heard this talk, this quote struck me as particularly problematic. It uses something familiar to many church members (the concept of addiction) and expands its scope to include anything someone turns to rather than God for solace. While it is wise to seek help if an addiction is controlling your life, this paragraph appears to be designed to tear down people who are struggling rather than lifting them up.

I cannot speak for Jesus, but the stories I’ve read throughout the scriptures do not seem to indicate that he was offended by people suffering with addiction. I can only imagine Jesus having more compassion and empathy than I could comprehend. I do not think this is the language he would have used. Not to mention, addiction is globally categorized as a disorder that often requires treatment rather than something that can be prayed away.

It is impossible for me to know Nelson’s exact motive when he penned this talk. But I will suggest that I would only say something like this if I wanted my audience to feel guilty and ashamed. As I discuss in the following sections, guilt and shame are great tools to keep people engaged in the church and afraid to question. Everyone I’ve ever met has “struggled” with something on this list during a hard time. Students play video games to relax after a long day of classes and work. People go into debt in emergencies or even to feed their families. Anger is a normal emotion and is healthy when expressed appropriately, and on a personal note, I cannot imagine a perfect, merciful God being offended that I bake a batch of cookies after a long day at work (even if the practice is not the healthiest).

Consider one final quote from this talk:

As you think celestial, you will view trials and opposition in a new light. When someone you love attacks truth, think celestial, and don’t question your testimony. The Apostle Paul prophesied that “in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.”¹

Understanding “think celestial” as a thought-terminating statement, I do not understand how this paragraph could possibly have been inspired by the same Jesus I’ve read about in the New Testament. I suggest that this statement is carefully crafted to cast doubt on anyone who thinks differently or does not believe. The word “attacks” conjures warlike and violent imagery, and listeners are encouraged to see anyone expressing contrary or alternative ideas as the enemy. This is a painfully divisive way of speaking in which the alternative opinions the enemy. If you start to question your loyalty to the church, you must be “giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils”.

I would encourage reading rest of Nelson’s talk. It is full of fallacy: rather than truly rebut any “anti-mormon” arguments or even mention them specifically, he shamelessly casts his opposition away with Ad Hominem. Because I oppose his ideas, I must have been seduced by a devil and should not be trusted.

I would like to point out at this point: I primarily cite church-produced resources and my own experience to form my argument. I propose that there are specific problems with the church, and my argument focuses on those problems, not individual church members or leaders. While I disagree with many of the points Nelson makes, I make no attempt to degrade him or use his character to negate his arguments.

The Weight of Expectations

From a young age, members of the church are taught that their worth is tied to their adherence to church teachings and their ability to fulfill various roles within the community. This creates an environment where people feel they must constantly measure up to an ideal that is often unattainable. The pressure to serve, to be perfect, and to maintain a façade of righteousness can be overwhelming. I often felt that my worthiness was contingent upon my ability to meet these expectations, leading to a cycle of guilt and shame whenever I fell short.

For instance, the concept of “worthiness” is a recurring theme in church teachings. Members are frequently reminded that they must be worthy to partake of sacred ordinances, such as taking the sacrament or entering the temple. This creates a high-stakes environment where individuals may feel they cannot express doubts or struggles for fear of being deemed unworthy. The pressure to conform can lead to a façade of compliance, where members feel compelled to present a polished image to the community, even if it means suppressing their true feelings and experiences.

For years, I refused to acknowledge the manipulative aspects of the church, believing that any resemblance to manipulation was a distortion of divine guidance. However, as I began to investigate my beliefs, I was shocked by the manipulative language used by church leaders. Their messages often instill fear and reinforce the idea that questioning the church equates to rejecting God. This kind of language can be deeply troubling, as it creates an environment where members feel compelled to suppress doubts and conform to the collective belief system.

The Role of Guilt and Shame

The pressure to conform extends beyond mere rhetoric; it permeates daily life and personal relationships. Members often feel obligated to adhere to an idealized version of what it means to be a faithful Mormon, leading to feelings of guilt and inadequacy when they fall short. This pursuit of perfection can manifest in various ways, from the pressure to fulfill church callings to the expectation of maintaining a certain image within the community. I found myself caught in a cycle of overcommitment, where I would question whether I was doing too much, reassure myself it was God’s will, and then feel guilty for wanting to do less. This cycle is indicative of the manipulative dynamics that can arise within high-demand religious settings.

Guilt and shame are powerful tools used within the church to apply pressure to members. Leaders often employ these emotions to encourage compliance and discourage dissent. For example, when church leaders speak about the consequences of sin or the importance of tithing, the underlying message is often one of fear: fear of losing blessings, fear of eternal separation from loved ones, and fear of disappointing God. This fear can be paralyzing, leading members to stay in the church even when they have serious doubts or concerns.

I remember feeling a profound sense of guilt when I considered stepping back from my calling during a personal crisis. The thought of letting down my family, my leaders, or even God himself was enough to keep me tethered to a belief system that no longer worked for me. This guilt was compounded by the church’s teachings on family and eternal relationships, which often frame leaving the church as a betrayal that could result in eternal separation from loved ones. The pressure to maintain these relationships, even at the cost of personal well-being, is a heavy burden to bear.

The Illusion of Agency

One of the most insidious aspects of the pressure within the church is the illusion of agency. Members are taught that they have the freedom to choose, yet this choice is often framed within a narrow set of church-defined parameters. The idea that one can choose to leave the church is often met with dire warnings about the consequences of such a decision, reinforcing the notion that true happiness and fulfillment can only be found within the church’s teachings.

This manipulation of agency can lead to a profound sense of confusion. I often found myself questioning whether my desire to leave was truly my own or a result of external pressures. The church’s narrative suggests that those who leave are succumbing to temptation or being led astray by “seducing spirits.” This framing not only invalidates the experiences of those who leave but also serves to reinforce the idea that dissent is inherently wrong.

Encouraging Manipulation

The pressure to conform is particularly evident in the relationships between parents and children within the church. Many parents are taught that if their children stray from the faith, they risk eternal separation, leading to strict adherence to church teachings. This can create a toxic environment where children feel guilted into compliance, often at the expense of their own well-being. The fear of disappointing family members can be a powerful motivator to remain in the church, even when personal beliefs have shifted.

Within Families

Parents within the church are often taught that if their children stray from the faith, they risk eternal separation. This belief can lead to an environment where strict adherence to church teachings is enforced during childhood. Although I am grateful that my parents respect my autonomy, it took me months to muster the courage to tell them I had left the church. I frequently hear stories of individuals who have left the faith and now struggle with strained relationships with their families who remain. It is heartbreaking to consider that a church, which claims to promote free will, can foster such tragic outcomes.

Many children raised in the church face disciplinary actions if they refuse to attend services or participate in church activities. They often experience shame or guilt for not conforming, especially if their friends are not church members or if they engage with ideas that contradict church teachings. The experience of disclosing one’s departure from the church is often likened to coming out to homophobic parents about one’s sexual orientation, highlighting the deep emotional turmoil involved.

Among Missionaries

Missionaries are trained to be adept manipulators and high-pressure salespeople, often employing tactics such as “love-bombing.” This strategy involves identifying individuals who are vulnerable—those going through a divorce, experiencing job loss, facing homelessness, or navigating new parenthood—and presenting oneself as a supportive friend. Missionaries frequently express love and concern these individuals, despite having little genuine connection. They encourage other church members to join in this support, praying with the individual and sharing comforting scriptures, all while subtly suggesting that joining the church is the solution to their problems. However, once the missionaries leave or become preoccupied with other conversions, the initial support often dissipates, leaving the individual feeling abandoned within the church.

In Leadership

Reflecting on my time in leadership positions during my mission, I feel a deep sense of regret. I now recognize that my ability to be manipulative played a role in my assignments, even though I was unaware of it at the time. My conversations with fellow missionaries reveal that many others share this sentiment. When assisting the mission president in assigning companionships, it became clear that those who garnered his favor were more likely to be promoted to leadership roles. My own promotion to assistant was likely influenced by our shared hometown and the personal rapport we developed.

After my mission, while serving as a singles’ ward clerk, I was tasked with compiling a list of the highest-donating members in the ward to inform leadership decisions. Leadership roles and callings are often assigned with the belief that providing individuals with prestigious positions will make them feel valued and encourage their continued participation. Leadership meetings often felt like strategic sessions, where we were playing a game of chess with people’s spiritual well-being.

Feeling Trapped

Before I made the decision to leave the church, I found myself in the Denver airport, returning from a work trip. As I passed by a restroom, a sign caught my eye that read something along the lines of, “If you feel you cannot leave, you may be a victim of human trafficking.” This statement struck a chord with me and prompted deep reflection on my own experiences within the church.

Throughout that summer, I had been working to process the trauma I experienced during my mission. Standing there in the airport, it suddenly hit me: I had never once felt that I could leave my mission. Even if I had wanted to, the church had my passport, and it was made abundantly clear that any missionary sent home would have to endure a humiliating phone call with their parents and would likely be shunned by their community. This moment made me acutely aware of how trapped I had felt within the confines of my mission and the church as a whole.

As I contemplated my relationship with the church, I compiled a list of the ways I felt constrained. I realized that I never felt I could decline a calling, believing that these assignments were divinely inspired. This sense of obligation weighed heavily on me, as I felt that saying no would be tantamount to rejecting God’s will. The pressure to comply was compounded by the guilt I experienced when family health issues pulled me away from church meetings. I often convinced myself that I wasn’t doing enough for God, leading to a cycle of self-reproach that only deepened my sense of entrapment.

Moreover, I felt silenced when it came to addressing concerns with church leaders. The fear of being perceived as dissenting or unfaithful kept me from voicing my thoughts, even when I witnessed mistakes or harm. This culture of silence extended to my financial obligations as well; I was convinced that failing to pay tithing would lead to dire consequences, including financial ruin. The belief that my worthiness was tied to my contributions created an environment where I felt I had to constantly prove myself.

As I advanced in priesthood offices and served my mission, I did so out of a sense of duty rather than genuine desire. The mantra of “that’s just what I’m supposed to do” echoed in my mind, reinforcing the idea that my path was predetermined and that deviation was not an option. This led me to bear a dishonest testimony, as I feared disappointing both God and those around me. I felt compelled to present a polished image, wearing conservative clothing and hairstyles out of fear of being labeled immodest.

My teenage years were marked by attending unwelcoming church activities simply to keep others happy, even when I felt uncomfortable. I often voted to sustain church leaders without knowing anything about their character, driven by a sense of obligation rather than informed consent. The temple, which was meant to be a sacred space, became a source of trauma and triggering memories, especially after my mission. I participated in worthiness interviews, despite understanding my inherent worth to God, and I prayed and spoke in meetings even when I felt unprepared or uninterested.

Setting boundaries was a foreign concept to me; I never felt empowered to do so, even when I was hurt or uncomfortable. This lack of agency led me to be unkind and judgmental toward those who didn’t fit the church’s mold, despite knowing that Jesus taught love for all. I found myself justifying hateful, bigoted, and otherwise inappropriate actions under the guise of sustaining church leaders and doctrine, further entrenching myself in a system that felt increasingly misaligned with my values.

While my list could go on, I believe this captures the essence of my experience. I constantly felt compelled to give endlessly, often without any evidence that my contributions were genuinely benefiting others. This led to a relentless cycle: I would question whether I was doing too much, reassure myself it was God’s will, feel guilty for wanting to do less, and then double down on my efforts, only to repeat the cycle.

Recovery from Pressure

This may or may not be your experience, but if it resonates with you, know that these feelings are indicative of being in an abusive and manipulative relationship. As I reflect on my own experiences, I recognize that the pressure to conform and the manipulative tactics employed by the church can have lasting effects on mental health and personal identity. The journey of leaving such a high-demand environment is fraught with challenges, but it can also lead to a newfound sense of freedom and authenticity.

By acknowledging the pressures inherent in the church’s high-demand culture, we can better understand the complexities faced by those navigating their faith journeys and the importance of reclaiming one’s agency in the process. Since leaving the church, I have discovered a newfound freedom to be myself and pursue my own path. I believe I am living an honorable life, doing as much good as I can, and it has been liberating to shed the fear, shame, guilt, and pressure that accompanied my relationship with the church.

Perfection

There’s something wrong with you. In fact, you’re naturally God’s greatest enemy and you always have been. Don’t worry, though. We have the cure. For the low price of 10% of your income and eternal, unwavering loyalty, we will make sure you’re good enough for God.

That’s the message I internalized as I grew up in the church. It’s a powerful message.

The church’s pervasive message of imperfection can often feel like a heavy burden. The underlying narrative suggests that there is something inherently wrong with every human being, framing everyone as fundamentally flawed and in need of redemption. This sentiment is often couched in seemingly innocuous phrases such as, “Of course, nobody’s perfect,” or “We all need to repent.” While these statements may appear benign, they contribute to a culture of perfectionism that can be deeply damaging. The church teaches that imperfection not only separates individuals from God but also bars them from eternal family connections in the afterlife. This creates a powerful incentive for members to seek perfection, often leading to feelings of inadequacy and self-doubt.

The church’s teachings can be distilled into a reductive framework that emphasizes the following points: you are inherently flawed, your imperfections prevent you from achieving eternal happiness, you cannot attain perfection on your own, and the church alone possesses the means to facilitate your journey toward perfection through the Atonement. This narrative can feel like a snake oil sales pitch, where the solution is presented as exclusive to the church, creating a dependency on its teachings and practices. The pressure to conform to these ideals can be overwhelming, as members are often reminded that failing to meet these standards can result in exclusion from sacred ordinances, such as temple access or holding the priesthood. This creates a cycle of anxiety and self-criticism, where individuals constantly strive for an unattainable ideal.

The Impact of Perfectionism

The harmful effects of this perfectionist culture are evident in the lives of many members. The church’s emphasis on an “us versus them” mentality can lead to a lack of compassion for those who do not conform to its standards. While some congregations are making strides toward inclusivity, the pressure to evangelize and convert those outside the faith can create an environment where individuals feel unwelcome or judged. This was particularly evident in my own experiences, where discussions about LGBTQ+ issues were often steeped in condemnation, leaving little room for understanding or acceptance. The fear of being seen as imperfect or unworthy can lead to isolation, as members may feel they must hide their true selves to fit in.

Moreover, the church promotes an image of happiness, health, and prosperity as a direct result of faithful living. This creates an additional layer of pressure, as members feel compelled to present a façade of perfection to the outside world. The expectation to maintain appearances can be exhausting, leading to a culture where individuals are afraid to express vulnerability or admit to struggles. This pressure is compounded by the church’s teachings that equate personal trials with opportunities for growth, leaving little room for genuine emotional expression. The result is a community where many feel they must constantly perform, sacrificing their authenticity for the sake of perceived righteousness.

Keeping Up Appearances

Ironically, while church leaders often condemn perfectionism, the relentless pursuit of perfection becomes yet another task on the already overwhelming to-do list of a faithful member. Balancing the demands of school, family, church responsibilities, and personal aspirations can feel insurmountable. The expectation to excel in all areas can lead to burnout and disillusionment, as individuals grapple with the impossibility of meeting these standards. The pressure to be a perfect spouse, parent, and church member can create a sense of inadequacy, as members compare themselves to the idealized versions of others they see in church settings or social media.

This culture of perfectionism can also lead to a phenomenon known as “imposter syndrome,” where individuals feel like frauds despite their accomplishments. Many members may achieve significant milestones—such as serving missions, obtaining degrees, or raising families—but still feel unworthy or inadequate in the eyes of their peers and church leaders. This internal conflict can be exacerbated by the church’s teachings that emphasize the need for constant self-improvement and repentance, creating a cycle of self-doubt and anxiety.

Good, Not Perfect

During my faith journey, I have found solace in affirmations that challenge the perfectionist mindset instilled in me. Recognizing that perfection is subjective and that I am deserving of love and respect, regardless of my flaws, has been liberating. Simple affirmations such as “I care, and I am trying, and that is enough” have provided a sense of peace that was often elusive within the church’s framework. These affirmations serve as reminders that personal worth is not contingent upon meeting external standards or conforming to societal expectations.

Additionally, engaging in self-compassion practices has been instrumental in counteracting the harmful effects of perfectionism. Learning to treat myself with kindness and understanding, especially during moments of failure or struggle, has fostered a healthier relationship with myself. This shift in perspective allows for a more nuanced understanding of personal growth, where mistakes are viewed as opportunities for learning rather than as indicators of worthlessness.

Summary

Ultimately, the church’s narrative that there is something fundamentally wrong with individuals serves to control and manipulate its members, creating a cycle of dependency on its teachings for validation and worth. This perfectionist culture not only fosters feelings of inadequacy but also stifles authentic self-expression and connection with others. As individuals grapple with the pressure to conform to unattainable ideals, they may find themselves trapped in a cycle of self-criticism and isolation. However, recognizing that personal worth is inherent and not contingent upon perfection can be a transformative realization.

Embracing the understanding that imperfection is a beautiful part of the human experience can lead to greater compassion for oneself and others. By challenging the harmful teachings of perfectionism and cultivating a mindset of self-acceptance, individuals can break free from the constraints of the church’s narrative. In doing so, they can foster a more authentic and fulfilling life, grounded in the belief that they are worthy of love and respect simply for being who they are. As we move forward, it is essential to remember that our value is not defined by our adherence to rigid standards but by our capacity for growth, empathy, and connection with others.

In the immortal words of John Steinbeck, “And now that you don’t have to be perfect, you can be good.”

Control

It is deeply offensive to tell someone they are in a cult. I don’t see any advantage to arguing about the word cult as it applies to the church, but I do propose that it is both a high-demand religion and an authoritarian, controlling organization. Whether the word cult applies to the church, its controlling behavior is problematic and leads to harm.

I explore the BITE Model, developed by cult expert Steven Hassan, to identify areas where the church imposes authoritarian control over its members. The BITE Model is a framework used to analyze the methods of control employed by cults and high-control groups. It consists of four components: Behavior Control, Information Control, Thought Control, and Emotional Control, which I analyze individually in this section.

If you are an active church member and feel threatened or uncomfortable reading this section, I would encourage an exploration of those feelings. I did not believe I was in a controlling, authoritarian organization until I noticed I did not feel free to question it.

This section might apply particularly to your relationship with the church. Please take good care of your own mental health, but I encourage an honest exploration of your feelings as you read.

Behavior Control

Behavior control is a significant aspect of the organizational structure and culture within the church. The church employs various methods to regulate the actions and lifestyles of its members, creating an environment that encourages conformity and discourages dissent. This control manifests through strict adherence to church teachings, surveillance by church leaders and peers, and the imposition of behavioral norms that govern many aspects of daily life.

One of the primary methods of behavior control in the church is the regulation of personal activities through the Word of Wisdom. This code prohibits the consumption of alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea, while encouraging a diet rich in grains, fruits, and vegetables. Members are expected to adhere to these guidelines, and failure to do so can result in social stigma and disciplinary action. Additionally, the church requires members to participate in regular church activities, such as weekly meetings and service projects, which further reinforces group cohesion and commitment to the church’s teachings.

Surveillance is a critical component of behavior control within the church. Members are often encouraged to monitor one another’s behavior, fostering a culture of accountability and mutual observation. This can manifest in informal settings, such as ministering programs, where members are assigned to check in on each other regularly. The church also emphasizes the importance of personal worthiness, which is assessed through regular interviews with local leaders. These interviews can create a sense of being constantly observed, leading members to self-censor and conform to the church’s expectations.¹

Confession and accountability are also prevalent. Members who commit serious transgressions, such as adultery or pornography use, may be required to confess their sins to a bishop or stake president, who then determines a course of action for disciplinary measures. This process can involve public acknowledgment of wrongdoing, which serves to reinforce group norms and discourage nonconformity. The fear of public shame and the desire for forgiveness can compel members to adhere strictly to church teachings, making it difficult for them to question or challenge the church’s authority.²

The church employs a subtle system of rewards and punishments to maintain behavior control among its members. Positive reinforcement is evident in the recognition and praise given to those who fulfill their callings, participate in church activities, and adhere to church standards. Conversely, members who fail to comply may face social ostracism, loss of church privileges, or even excommunication. This system creates a powerful incentive for members to conform, as the desire for acceptance and fear of rejection become significant motivators in their lives.³ Over time, this dynamic can lead to a profound internalization of the church’s values and beliefs, making it increasingly challenging for individuals to break free from the church’s influence.

Behavior control is a critical mechanism employed by the church to maintain authority and influence over its members. Through the regulation of personal activities, surveillance, public confession, and a system of rewards and punishments, the church creates an environment that stifles individual autonomy and promotes conformity.

Specific Examples:

• Adults who drink coffee and tea or who do not wear church-provided undergarments are not allowed to attend their loved ones’ temple weddings.
• To obtain a temple recommend, people must devote a significant amount of time and money to the church.
• Missionaries’ entire physical reality is regulated, including a strict schedule, monitored communication, 24/7 surveillance, and restrictive rules.

Information Control

Information control is a crucial aspect of the organizational dynamics within the church. This control manifests through the regulation of information that members receive, shaping their understanding of the world and reinforcing the church’s teachings. By managing the flow of information, the church tries to maintain doctrinal purity, discourage dissent, and foster a unified belief system among its members.

One of the primary methods of information control is the promotion of church-approved literature and media while discouraging or banning outside sources. The church encourages members to read scriptures, church publications, and materials produced by church leaders, which present a specific narrative aligned with church doctrine. This focus on approved materials limits exposure to alternative viewpoints and critical analyses of church history and teachings. For instance, members are often discouraged from reading books or articles that are critical of the church, as these are labeled as “anti-Mormon” literature, which is seen as misleading or harmful.¹

The church also employs a strategy of discrediting outside sources of information. Members are taught to view secular media and academic critiques with suspicion, often being warned that such sources are biased or hostile to the church. This creates an environment where members may feel guilty or fearful for seeking information outside of church-sanctioned materials. The church’s emphasis on the importance of faith and spiritual confirmation over empirical evidence further discourages critical thinking and independent research, reinforcing a reliance on church teachings as the ultimate authority.²

Rewriting history is a common tactic used in information control. The church has a history of presenting a sanitized version of its past, often omitting or downplaying controversial events, such as the practice of polygamy or issues related to racism and sexism. This selective presentation of history serves to maintain a positive image of the church and its leaders, while discouraging members from questioning or exploring these complex topics. When members encounter conflicting information, they may be taught to dismiss it as false or misleading, further entrenching their loyalty to the church’s narrative.⁴

Isolation from non-members is also a significant aspect of information control in the church. Members are often encouraged to associate primarily with other church members, which limits their exposure to diverse perspectives and alternative beliefs. This social isolation reinforces the church’s teachings and creates an echo chamber where dissenting opinions are less likely to be encountered. The church’s emphasis on community and fellowship among members fosters a sense of belonging that can make it difficult for individuals to seek out or accept information that contradicts church doctrine.¹

Information control is a vital mechanism employed by the church to shape the beliefs and behaviors of its members. Through the promotion of church-approved materials, discrediting of outside sources, rewriting of history, and social isolation, the church creates an environment that limits access to diverse perspectives and reinforces adherence to its teachings.

Specific Examples:

• The pamphlet and talk “To Young Men Only” was regularly taught and reinforced when I was a teenager. It appears to have been removed completely from the church’s website and curricula.
• Many members were confused at the publication of Saints, which presents a still-sanitized but more open view of church history that was previously considered anti-Mormon.
• The Gospel Topics Essays present a convoluted view of history and doctrine, clearly designed to prevent members from seeking other sources or viewing outside sources as legitimate.
• As a missionary, I was only allowed to read a carefully-curated selection of four books plus my scriptures.

Thought Control

Thought control is a significant mechanism employed by the church to shape the beliefs and cognitive processes of its members. This control manifests through various techniques designed to promote conformity, discourage critical thinking, and reinforce the church’s teachings. By influencing how members think about themselves, their faith, and the world around them, the church seeks to maintain a cohesive and loyal community.

One of the primary methods of thought control is the use of indoctrination techniques that emphasize repetitive messaging and slogans. Church leaders often use catchphrases and simplified doctrines to convey complex theological concepts, making them easier for members to internalize. For example, phrases like “Follow the prophet” or “The family is central to God’s plan” serve as guiding principles that members are encouraged to adopt without question. This repetitive reinforcement can lead to a form of cognitive dissonance, where members may suppress doubts or critical thoughts in favor of maintaining alignment with the group’s beliefs.¹

Black-and-white thinking is another hallmark of thought control within the church. Members are often taught to view the world in binary terms, categorizing beliefs and behaviors as either righteous or sinful, true or false. This dichotomous thinking simplifies complex issues and discourages nuanced understanding, making it easier for the church to maintain authority over its members. For instance, members may be taught that those who leave the church or criticize its teachings are “anti-Mormon” and therefore inherently misguided or evil. This framing reinforces loyalty to the church and discourages members from exploring alternative viewpoints.²

Cognitive dissonance is further exacerbated by the church’s emphasis on personal revelation and spiritual confirmation. Members are encouraged to seek personal experiences that validate their beliefs, often through prayer and meditation. Members are taught that these experiences must align with church teachings. While this can foster a deep sense of faith, it can also lead to a reliance on subjective experiences over objective evidence. When members encounter information that contradicts church teachings, they may experience cognitive dissonance, leading them to dismiss the conflicting information as false or misleading rather than reevaluating their beliefs.⁴

The church also employs thought-stopping techniques to discourage critical thinking and questioning. Members are often taught to suppress doubts or negative thoughts about the church, viewing such feelings as temptations from the adversary. This can create an internal conflict where members feel guilty for questioning their faith, leading them to silence their critical faculties in favor of blind obedience. The emphasis on faith and trust in church leaders further reinforces this dynamic, as members are taught that questioning authority is tantamount to questioning God.¹

Thought control is used by the church to shape the beliefs and cognitive processes of its members. Through indoctrination techniques, black-and-white thinking, reliance on personal revelation, and thought-stopping practices, the church creates an environment that discourages critical thinking and promotes conformity.

Specific Examples:

• “Doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith”
• It is extremely taboo to criticize church leaders.
• Members are taught to sing a hymn or read scriptures if they start to doubt.
• Ex-mormons are viewed as misled by Satan.

Emotional Control

Emotional control is employed by the church to maintain influence over its members and ensure adherence to church teachings. This control manifests through various tactics designed to manipulate members’ emotions, fostering a sense of dependency on the church and its leaders. By creating an environment where feelings of guilt, fear, and love are strategically employed, the church seeks to reinforce loyalty and discourage dissent.

One of the primary methods of emotional control is the use of guilt and shame to regulate behavior. Members are often taught that failing to adhere to church teachings or commandments can lead to serious spiritual consequences, including separation from God and loss of eternal blessings. This emphasis on guilt can create a pervasive sense of inadequacy among members, leading them to constantly strive for perfection and fear the repercussions of their shortcomings. The church’s teachings on repentance and forgiveness can also be used to manipulate emotions, as members may feel compelled to confess their sins to church leaders, reinforcing their dependence on the church for spiritual validation.¹

Fear is another powerful tool of emotional control within the church. Members are often warned about the dangers of leaving the faith or associating with those who are critical of the church. This fear can manifest in various ways, including the fear of losing one’s eternal family, facing social ostracism, or experiencing spiritual condemnation. The church teaches that those who leave the faith are at risk of falling into darkness or being led astray by the adversary, which can create a sense of urgency to remain loyal and compliant.² This fear can be particularly potent for members who have been raised in the church, as the prospect of leaving can feel like abandoning their entire support system.

Love bombing is another tactic used to exert emotional control in Mormonism. New members or those who are struggling with their faith may be overwhelmed with affection and attention from fellow church members. This initial warmth and acceptance can create a strong sense of belonging, making it difficult for individuals to question the church or its teachings. Once individuals are more deeply integrated into the community, the church’s emotional manipulation can shift to a more controlling dynamic, where love and acceptance are contingent upon adherence to church norms.¹

Shaming and blame are also prevalent in the emotional landscape of the church. Members who express doubts or question church teachings may be shamed for their lack of faith, leading to feelings of isolation and self-doubt. This shaming can discourage open dialogue about personal struggles and reinforce the idea that questioning the church is inherently wrong. The emotional toll of this dynamic can lead members to suppress their feelings and conform to the group’s expectations, further entrenching their loyalty to the church.⁴

Emotional control is a vital mechanism used by the church to maintain authority and influence over its members. Through the use of guilt, fear, love bombing, and shaming, the church creates an environment that manipulates emotions and fosters dependency on the church and its leaders.

Specific Examples:

• Members are threatened with eternal isolation if they break their covenants.
• The church suggests that no true happiness is possible outside of the organization.
• Many people who leave the church are shunned by their families, friends, and former communities.

Summary

In summary, the mechanisms of authoritarian control employed by the church can be understood through the lens of Hassan’s BITE Model, which encompasses Behavior Control, Information Control, Thought Control, and Emotional Control. Each of these components plays a crucial role in shaping the beliefs and behaviors of church members, fostering an environment that prioritizes conformity and loyalty to the church.

Behavior control is evident in the regulation of personal activities, surveillance by peers and leaders, and the imposition of strict behavioral norms. Members are required to adhere to church teachings and participate in community activities, creating a culture of accountability that discourages dissent.

Information control further reinforces this dynamic by promoting church-approved literature while discrediting outside sources. This selective exposure limits members’ access to diverse perspectives and critical analyses, shaping their understanding of the world in a way that aligns with church doctrine.

Thought control manifests through indoctrination techniques, black-and-white thinking, and the promotion of personal revelation over objective evidence. These practices discourage critical thinking and create cognitive dissonance, leading members to suppress doubts and maintain alignment with the church’s teachings.

Emotional control is employed through the manipulation of guilt, fear, love, and shame. By fostering dependency on the church for emotional validation and support, the church reinforces loyalty and discourages individuals from questioning their beliefs.

Together, these mechanisms create a system of control that shapes the lives of members within the church. Understanding these dynamics is essential for recognizing the challenges faced by individuals navigating their faith and for providing support to those seeking to explore their beliefs outside the confines of the church.

Honesty

Like many belief systems, mormonism places a strong emphasis on values such as integrity, truthfulness, and honesty. These principles are deeply embedded in the teachings of the church and are often highlighted in sermons, church literature, and community interactions. However, despite this promotion of honesty, there exists a complex and often contradictory relationship between these ideals and the lived experiences of many members. This tension manifests in a reluctance to discuss doubts, questions, or personal struggles openly, creating an environment where authenticity can be overshadowed by fear of judgment.

Cultural Expectations

At the heart of this issue is the cultural expectation within church communities to present a façade of unwavering faith and adherence to church teachings. Members are often encouraged to share their testimonies and experiences in a way that reflects positively on their faith. There exists a strong cultural expectation for members to embody unwavering faith and adherence to church teachings. This expectation is often reinforced through church services, community gatherings, and personal interactions. Members are encouraged to share their testimonies, which typically highlight their faith journeys in a positive light. This creates an environment where individuals may feel compelled to present an idealized version of themselves, often at the expense of their true feelings and experiences.

The pressure to conform to this image can lead to a reluctance to express doubts or questions. Many members find themselves grappling with internal conflicts, feeling that their struggles with faith may not be understood or accepted by their peers. This cultural norm can foster an atmosphere of silence around personal challenges, where individuals may feel isolated in their experiences. This can lead to a culture where individuals feel pressured to conform to a certain image of righteousness, suppressing doubts or questions that may arise. The fear of being judged or ostracized for expressing uncertainty can be overwhelming, leading many to internalize their struggles rather than seek support or understanding from their peers.

This reluctance to engage in open discussions about doubts can have significant implications for mental health and personal well-being. Members may experience feelings of isolation, anxiety, or guilt when they grapple with issues that challenge their beliefs. The internal conflict between the desire for authenticity and the fear of judgment can create a sense of dissonance, where individuals feel they must choose between their true selves and their community. This dynamic can be particularly pronounced for those who may be questioning fundamental aspects of their faith or who have experienced personal crises that challenge their beliefs.

Fear of Judgment

The fear of judgment is a significant barrier to open dialogue within church communities. Members may worry that expressing doubts or questioning church teachings will lead to social ostracism or disapproval from fellow congregants. This fear can be particularly acute for those in leadership positions or those who are heavily involved in church activities, as they may feel a heightened sense of responsibility to uphold the church’s image.

This fear can manifest in various ways, including self-censorship and avoidance of discussions about faith-related struggles. As a result, many individuals may internalize their doubts, leading to feelings of shame, anxiety, and loneliness. The inability to share these experiences openly can hinder personal growth and spiritual development, as individuals may feel trapped in a cycle of unacknowledged conflict.

Impacts on Mental Health

The internal struggle between the desire for authenticity and the fear of judgment can have profound implications for mental health. Members who feel unable to express their doubts may experience increased levels of stress, anxiety, and depression. The pressure to maintain a façade of faith can lead to feelings of inadequacy and self-doubt, as individuals grapple with the disparity between their internal experiences and external expectations.

Moreover, the stigma surrounding mental health issues within the church can exacerbate these challenges. Many members may feel that seeking help for mental health concerns is incompatible with their faith, further isolating them from potential support systems. This dynamic underscores the urgent need for open conversations about mental health and the importance of creating a culture that encourages vulnerability and authenticity.

Dishonesty at Higher Levels

The issue of dishonesty within the church is not limited to individual members grappling with their faith; it extends to institutional practices and leadership decisions that can undermine trust within the community. Instances where church leaders have failed to address controversial topics or have misrepresented information can create a culture of opacity that leaves members feeling betrayed and confused. This section explores notable cases of dishonesty at higher levels, including the SEC scandal and other instances where church leaders have misled members, highlighting the implications of these actions on the faith community.

The SEC Scandal and Financial Dishonesty

One of the most significant recent examples of dishonesty at high levels within the church is the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation into the church’s financial practices. In 2019, the SEC charged the church’s investment arm, Ensign Peak Advisors, with failing to disclose over $32 billion in investment assets. The SEC alleged that the church had intentionally concealed these assets to avoid scrutiny and regulatory oversight, which raised serious ethical questions about transparency and accountability within the organization.¹

The SEC’s findings revealed that church leaders had misled members about the church’s financial status, claiming that funds were being used primarily for charitable purposes while maintaining a substantial investment portfolio. This lack of transparency not only violated federal securities laws but also eroded trust among church members who believed they were contributing to a faith that prioritized honesty and integrity. The scandal highlighted a disconnect between the church’s teachings on honesty and the actions of its leadership, leading many members to question the integrity of the institution itself.

Historical Misrepresentation

Beyond recent scandals, there have been numerous instances throughout the church’s history where leaders have misrepresented information or failed to address controversial topics candidly. For example, the church’s historical stance on race and the priesthood has been a contentious issue. For many years, church leaders taught that Black individuals were denied the priesthood (and other saving ordinances) due to divine revelation, a narrative that was later disavowed when the church lifted the ban in 1978. The lack of transparency surrounding the reasons for the ban and the subsequent change in policy has left many members feeling misled and confused about the church’s true stance on race.

Additionally, the church’s handling of its history regarding polygamy has also raised questions about honesty. For decades, church leaders downplayed the practice of polygamy, often framing it as a historical anomaly rather than a foundational aspect of early church history. This selective presentation of history can lead to feelings of betrayal among members who later discover the full extent of polygamy’s role in the church’s past. The failure to address these issues openly can create a culture of mistrust, where members feel that they are not receiving the full truth about their faith.

The Impact of Leadership Dishonesty

The implications of dishonesty at higher levels within the church are profound. When leaders prioritize maintaining a specific narrative over fostering open dialogue, it can lead to a breakdown of trust between members and church leadership. This mistrust can manifest in various ways, including decreased engagement in church activities, increased questioning of church teachings, and, in some cases, disaffection or disaffiliation from the faith altogether.

Moreover, the lack of transparency can have a chilling effect on individual members who may feel discouraged from expressing their doubts or concerns. When church leaders are perceived as dishonest or evasive, it can create an environment where members feel they must choose between their personal beliefs and their loyalty to the institution. This dynamic can lead to increased feelings of isolation and anxiety, as individuals grapple with the dissonance between their experiences and the church’s teachings.

Advocating for Transparency

To address these issues, it is essential to advocate for a culture of transparency within the church. Encouraging open discussions about doubts, questions, and personal struggles can help dismantle the stigma associated with vulnerability. Creating safe spaces for dialogue—whether through small group discussions, workshops, or online forums—can empower members to share their experiences without fear of judgment.

Additionally, church leaders should play a crucial role in fostering transparency by addressing difficult topics openly and honestly. By acknowledging the complexities of faith and the challenges that members face, leaders can help create an environment where authenticity is valued and supported. This shift towards transparency can lead to a more compassionate and understanding community that honors the diverse experiences of its members.

The Call for Accountability

The gap between leaders’ expectation of honesty from church members and the leaders’ scandals and dishonesty emphasizes an unhealthy power dynamic between leaders and members. Members are taught regarding dishonest leaders that they are only men, and they can’t be expected to be perfect. However, to be able to enter a temple, members must affirm to their leaders that they are honest in their dealings with their peers.

In light of these issues, there is a growing call among members for greater accountability and transparency from church leadership. Many members advocate for a more open approach to discussing difficult topics, including the church’s financial practices, historical controversies, and the implications of past leadership decisions. By fostering an environment where honesty is prioritized, the church can begin to rebuild trust and create a more inclusive community that values authenticity.

Additionally, some members are pushing for structural changes within the church to promote transparency. This includes advocating for independent audits of church finances, open forums for discussing controversial topics, and increased accessibility to church history and doctrine. By addressing these concerns head-on, church leaders can demonstrate a commitment to honesty and integrity that aligns with the core values of the faith.

Summary

In conclusion, while the church promotes values of integrity and truthfulness, the reality of navigating faith within this cultural context can be fraught with challenges. The tension between the desire for authenticity and the fear of judgment creates barriers to open dialogue, impacting both individual well-being and the overall health of the community. By advocating for transparency and fostering an environment where honesty is celebrated, the church can move towards a more inclusive and supportive culture that honors the complexities of faith and personal experience. Embracing these changes can ultimately lead to a stronger, more resilient community that values complexities of faith and personal experience.

The Other

My favorite song in the church’s Children’s Songbook is “I’ll Walk With You”. It reads, in part:

If you don’t walk as most people do, Some people walk away from you, But I won’t! I won’t!

If you don’t talk as most people do, Some people talk and laugh at you, But I won’t! I won’t!

I’ll walk with you. I’ll talk with you. That’s how I’ll show my love for you.

Jesus walked away from none. He gave his love to ev’ryone. So I will! I will!¹

I always felt that the church should feel welcoming to everyone. Of course, the church is usually welcoming to majority groups. I, a straight white man, was allowed to be relatively comfortable in the church, so I was hesitant to notice glaring problems affecting the people around me. I was eligible for any calling I could possibly want. The church had made it clear to me for decades that I was born into my comfortable status because I had won God’s favor (perhaps even before I was born).

The church fosters a strong sense of community among its members, often characterized by deep-rooted in-group solidarity. This solidarity is built upon shared beliefs, values, and experiences that create a cohesive identity among members. However, this strong sense of belonging can also lead to a pronounced skepticism toward those outside the faith, often referred to as “non-Mormons”, as well as people within the group who don’t meet the cultural norms of the group. This dichotomy between in-group solidarity and out-group skepticism has significant implications for relationships, personal identity, and the broader cultural dynamics within and outside the church.

The In-Group

Within church communities, members often experience a sense of belonging and support. This solidarity is cultivated through shared religious practices, communal activities, and a collective commitment to the church’s teachings. Members frequently engage in social events, service projects, and church meetings that reinforce their shared identity and values. This strong sense of community can provide emotional and spiritual support, fostering a sense of purpose and belonging that is deeply fulfilling.

However, this in-group solidarity can also create an “us versus them” mentality, where members may view those outside the faith with skepticism or suspicion. This perspective is often rooted in a desire to protect the community’s values and beliefs from perceived external threats. As a result, interactions with non-Mormons can be fraught with tension, as members may feel compelled to defend their faith or distance themselves from those who do not share their beliefs.

The Out-Group

Of course, non-Mormons fall into the out-group. Ex-Mormons are especially problematic to church teachings, so we also fall into the out-group. But I believe the out-group (i.e., “the other”) is made up of more people than church members often see.

Perhaps you’ve been “the other” before. I remember how it felt to be picked last in gym class, how painful it was to be teased because I didn’t have social skills, and how it felt to be a relatively-disliked religious minority in Honduras. While these experiences are obviously not representative of everyone, I hope I can draw on them to empathize.

If you have spent much time in the church, you probably already have a good idea of who “the other” might be. Everyone’s experience is unique, so there is no way to describe every situation that might cause someone to be “the other”, but this list may describe a few “others” in the church:

• Women, who are to be helpmeets to their husbands and are not to serve in major leadership roles;
• LGBTQ+ individuals, who are taught that their very existence is problematic and sinful;
• Families (especially parents) of non-Mormons or ex-Mormons;
• Mixed-faith couples and families;
• Single adults approaching their late 20s;
• Unmarried couples who live together;
• Introverts;
• Neurodiverse people;
• People with tattoos and multiple piercings;
• People experiencing poverty or homelessness;
• People who drink coffee and tea;
• People who swear;
• People who bring up controversial topics in Sunday School;
• Young men who return home from a mission early or don’t go on one;
• Men without significant callings;
• Women without children;
• People with disabilities and chronic illness.

The list could go on, but I believe I have made my point. In some areas, more people are likely to feel unwelcome at church than not.

Out-Group Skepticism

The skepticism toward “the other” can manifest in various ways, influencing how members perceive and interact with them. This skepticism may stem from a combination of doctrinal teachings, cultural narratives, and historical experiences that shape the community’s worldview. For instance, members may be taught that their faith is the only true path to salvation, leading to a belief that those outside the faith are spiritually misguided or lacking in understanding.

This perspective can complicate relationships with non-Mormons, as members may approach interactions with preconceived notions or biases. Non-Mormons may be viewed as outsiders who do not understand the values and principles that guide their community. This can create barriers to meaningful connections, as members may be hesitant to engage with those who hold different beliefs or lifestyles.

Specific Effects on Out-Groups

Because I cannot possibly do everyone justice, I would like to discuss in greater depth how just a few of these “others” are impacted by church culture and teachings.

Women

Women are not equal to men in the church. They simply are not. Because I, occasionally to my demise, have a Y-chromosome and do not have the understanding this topic deserves, I would like to quote two women who have been extremely supportive to me as I have deconstructed my faith.

First, I present a quote from my wife:

Growing up, I was taught I was nothing more than a baby-making, housekeeping sex toy, an object for my husband’s use and enjoyment. Beginning in primary—before I had even started puberty—I was overtly taught that the greatest role I could ever fill is that of a righteous homemaker, a wife, and a mother. I was a second-class citizen in the church from my conception, and I was expected to be treated as such for time and all eternity as my husband’s wife.

I recorded this thought shortly after we learned we likely couldn’t have kids, and we were working on processing the trauma that came with that. While the news was challenging for both of us, my wife seemed especially devastated. She felt like because God won’t let her have kids, her worth was gone. Never mind her academic and professional success and her amazing skills in so many areas of life; her job was to be a mom, and suddenly she couldn’t have that. We talked about how she could still be a nurturing, motherly figure, but her role as a mother was so deeply ingrained in her beliefs about herself.

As an aside, I refer to my wife throughout this document as “my wife” rather than by her name. After much discussion, she determined it was in her best professional interests to make it hard for search engines to index this document using her name.

Second, I roughly quote one of our best friends who has been extremely supportive as we have deconstructed our beliefs:

It feels like the playground bully is holding equality over women’s heads. It feels so “gaslighty”. They say women are equal and toss us a little tiny bit: young women passing the sacrament to women in mothers’ rooms, relief society presidents helping more with church welfare. But it’s not equality. I’m still a helpmeet to my husband, I’m still first and foremost a mom, I’m still a second-class citizen who needs a man to make my decisions for me.

When we first started talking about gender dynamics in the church, I learned that there was a whole world I had never even noticed. I didn’t have any clue that my wife felt less-than when she learned in the temple that I was required for her to be exalted. I didn’t know how painful it is for women to feel like they don’t have a voice at church. I am ashamed to have benefitted greatly from imbalanced gender roles without even realizing it. My wife has mentioned that she didn’t even realize it, but she was conditioned to expect to be less-than, even in her own home.

Since leaving the church, we have made it a priority to have truly equal roles in our marriage. I still have a lot to learn, and I am so grateful for my wife’s patience as I have learned about the subtle ways I was conditioned to oppress her in our own home. We are becoming happier than ever, and our relationship is becoming healthier and more balanced than it ever was.

Racial Minorities

This topic has been discussed a great deal in both support and opposition of the church. I wholeheartedly condemn the racist teachings and practices in the church (many of which still exist today), but because of my background, I do not feel especially qualified to thoroughly address racism.

I will simply say that I am disgusted that the church and its leaders would teach for decades that racial minorities are inferior, were less righteous before this life, or should not participate fully in the church. It is, in my opinion, horrifying and reflective of despicable moral character to insist that the church is not (and has never been) racist. It is disappointing to see racist church leaders from generations ago hailed as prophets and revelators without acknowledging that many of their fundamental teachings were inherently racist and directly contradictory to God’s nature as “no respector of persons”.

The LGBTQ+ Community

I am deeply discouraged when I hear many church members and leaders treat the LBGTQ+ community as less-than. I am ashamed to have once believed that “same-sex attraction” was just a temptation from God. Shortly before I left the church, I sat uncomfortably through a meeting while a stake president mentioned that we shouldn’t care or even acknowledge that someone is gay. He taught that all of our identities boil down to being a child of God, and that we should look past anything else.

I bit my tongue, but I wanted to ask: if the only part of our identity that matters is being a child of God, why would The Family: A Proclamation to the World indicate that gender is a vital part of our identities? And why, if we only care about being children of God, can women and men not have the same responsibilities within the church?

I have tried throughout this resource to avoid throwing unanswered questions at a reader, so I propose my own answer to the above questions: The church’s leaders benefit greatly by putting themselves above others, especially when someone’s identity can be dismissed as sinful. Thus, the church has enacted a trans-exclusionary restroom policy while unashamedly protecting child abusers.²

Further complicating the issue, parents of people in the LGBTQ+ community are often stuck between a rock and a hard place; damned if they support the church, damned if they support their child. I regret remaining silent in a Sunday School class sitting next to the parents of a gay friend while the teacher taught that “if you raise a kid up in the way they should go, they won’t depart from it”. The lesson condemned parents who didn’t do enough to keep their kids “on the strait and narrow”. My friend’s mom decided to prioritize loving and supporting her son over defending the church; his dad chose to prioritize the church. Neither was able to balance the church’s teachings: his mom was condemned by staunch church members for letting her morals slide, and his dad was condemned by others for letting his child down.

I am also appalled when some church members expect someone to remember and recite “Member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” and become genuinely upset about the use of the word “Mormon” at the same time they insist on deadnaming teans people (i.e., using someone’s former name or pronouns after an identity transition) or refuse to use any of the several appropriate ways to refer to the LGBTQ+ community (e.g., LGBT, LGBTQ, LGBTQ+, LGBTQIA+, etc.). I cringed in church meetings when someone talked about “alphabet people”, or some random combination of letters. The LGBTQ+ community is huge and there are 4-7 letters to learn.

Less-Common Church Membership Status

While it seems to be becoming more acceptable, church members have long-condemned nuanced, less-active or inactive church members, calling them “lazy learners” or “fence-walkers”. I remember feeling morally superior as they sent us as young men to proselyte to our less-active friends. It was clear to me that people were to be exactly obedient to the church. We talked in classes and meetings about people who were “falling away” or “giving in to the influence of the adversary”. The church has members believe anyone but the most faithful members has been deceived by Satan’s lies and should be preached to.

Neurodiversity and Introversion

I am autistic and introverted. Church meetings and ordinances were a living hell. It was exhausting to act like a door-to-door salesman during two years of missionary work. It was distressing to be baptized over and over for the dead or have water and oil dripped onto my head during initiatory ceremonies. It was humiliating to be expected to give equivalent talks and testimonies to everyone else. And I was one of the lucky ones: I have relatively low support needs and can “mask” well enough to fit in during church meetings.

A family member with ADHD has also shared her experience being judged and criticized for playing games, drawing, reading, or working on crafts during church meetings. Because it was unrealistic for her to sit still and focus on the speakers in church, she always felt like a lower-class citizen among church members.

The church’s message is clear: if you are not an extroverted neurotypical person, you’re not welcome.

Early Returning and Non-Missionaries

Early returning missionaries and those who choose not to serve missions often find themselves navigating a complex social landscape. For many members, serving a mission is seen as a rite of passage and a demonstration of commitment to the faith. Early returning missionaries—those who return home before completing their full two-year service—may face stigma or judgment from their peers, as their experience can be perceived as a failure to meet the community’s expectations. Similarly, individuals who opt not to serve missions for personal, financial, or health reasons may also feel marginalized within the church.

Cultural Insularity

The dichotomy between in-group solidarity and out-group skepticism can contribute to a sense of cultural insularity within church communities. Members may find themselves primarily interacting with fellow church members, leading to a limited exposure to diverse perspectives and experiences. This insularity can reinforce existing beliefs and create an echo chamber effect, where members are less likely to question their views or engage with differing opinions.

Moreover, this cultural insularity can impact personal identity. Members may come to define themselves primarily in relation to their faith, viewing their identity as intrinsically linked to their membership in the church. While this can foster a strong sense of belonging, it may also limit individuals’ ability to explore their identities outside the confines of the church community. For some, this can lead to feelings of alienation or confusion when encountering differing beliefs or lifestyles.

Implications for Relationships

The implications of this perspective on relationships are profound. Members may struggle to form genuine connections with non-Mormons, as the skepticism toward outsiders can create barriers to understanding and empathy. This can lead to missed opportunities for meaningful dialogue and collaboration, as members may be reluctant to engage with those who hold different beliefs.

Additionally, the pressure to conform to the community’s views can create internal conflict for individuals who may wish to explore relationships outside the faith. Members may feel torn between their loyalty to the church and their desire for authentic connections with non-Mormons. This tension can lead to feelings of isolation or frustration, as individuals navigate the complexities of their identities and relationships.

Identity

Identity encompasses the beliefs, values, and experiences that shape a person’s sense of self. In the context of the church, identity is profoundly influenced by faith and community. For many members, being a part of the church is not just a religious affiliation; it is a central aspect of who they are. The teachings, rituals, and social dynamics of the church play a significant role in shaping personal and cultural identity. However, as people navigate their faith journeys—whether through questioning, redefining beliefs, or even distancing themselves from the church—they may find themselves undergoing profound transformations in their identities. In this section, I explore how a church community shapes personal and cultural identity, the intersection of faith and self-perception, and the complexities involved in redefining one’s identity in light of evolving beliefs.

Faith and Identity

Faith serves as a foundational pillar in the identity of many church members. The beliefs and doctrines of the church provide a framework through which people understand themselves and their place in the world. For many, being a member of the church is synonymous with their identity; it informs their values, behaviors, and relationships. The teachings of the church, such as the importance of family, service, and moral integrity, become integral to how members perceive themselves and their responsibilities within the community.

The core teachings of the church, including the principles of the Gospel, the Plan of Salvation, and the emphasis on eternal families, shape the worldview of its members. These teachings provide a sense of purpose and direction, influencing how members define success, happiness, and fulfillment in their lives. For many, the church’s doctrines offer not only spiritual guidance but also a moral compass that informs their daily decisions and interactions with others. Participation in church rituals, such as baptism, confirmation, and temple ordinances, reinforces a sense of belonging and identity among members. These rituals serve as milestones that mark significant spiritual and communal commitments, further solidifying one’s identity as a faithful member of the church. The shared experiences of worship, service, and fellowship create a collective identity that members often carry with them outside of church settings, influencing how they relate to others and perceive their roles in society.

The concept of “being a Mormon” is often viewed as a core aspect of identity, characterized by strong social expectations and norms within the community. Many church communities are marked by a sense of social cohesion, where members feel a collective responsibility to uphold the values and standards of the faith. This creates a set of social expectations that can shape individual behavior and self-perception. Members may feel pressure to conform to certain ideals, such as being active in church service, maintaining a wholesome lifestyle, and raising children in the faith. These expectations can reinforce a sense of identity that is closely tied to one’s participation in the church and adherence to its teachings.

Personal and Cultural Identity

For many members, faith is not only a personal belief system but also a cultural identity that is deeply intertwined with their upbringing, community, and social interactions. This blending of faith and culture creates a unique identity that can be both enriching and challenging, particularly as people navigate the expectations and norms of the church alongside their personal experiences and beliefs.

Cultural identity within church communities is often influenced by a rich tapestry of traditions, values, and practices that are passed down through generations. These cultural elements can include everything from family gatherings and holiday celebrations to specific ways of worship and community service. For many members, these traditions serve as a foundation for their identity, providing a sense of continuity and belonging. The cultural practices associated with being a Mormon can create a strong sense of community, where shared experiences and values foster deep connections among members. However, this cultural identity can also impose certain expectations that may conflict with individual beliefs or experiences, leading to internal struggles as members seek to reconcile their personal identities with the collective identity of the church.

Members further find themselves navigating a complex relationship with the outside world, particularly in regions where they are a minority. Perceptions of the church in popular culture and media can influence how people view themselves and their faith. Stereotypes and misconceptions about the church can lead to feelings of defensiveness or the need to prove one’s worthiness as a member. This external pressure can complicate the process of identity formation, as people may feel the need to conform to societal expectations while also adhering to the teachings of their faith.

As people engage with the world outside the church, they may encounter diverse perspectives and experiences that challenge their understanding of identity. This exposure can lead to a reevaluation of personal beliefs and values, prompting members to explore what it means to be both a faithful church member and a member of a broader society. For some, this journey may involve embracing new ideas and practices that enrich their understanding of self, while for others, it may result in a desire to distance themselves from the church altogether. The process of navigating these complexities can be both liberating and disorienting, as people seek to carve out their own identities in a world that often feels at odds with their faith.

The interplay between personal and cultural identity is particularly evident in the experiences of those who may feel marginalized within the church. People in the LGBTQ+ community, for example, often face unique challenges in reconciling their sexual orientation with the teachings of the church. The cultural norms and policies surrounding sexuality and gender within the church can create a sense of alienation for those who do not conform to traditional expectations. As these people navigate their identities, they may find themselves grappling with feelings of shame, rejection, or the need to hide their true selves. This struggle can lead to a profound redefinition of identity, as they seek to find acceptance and belonging both within and outside the church.

Faith Journeys and Identity Redefinition

As people embark on personal faith journeys, they often encounter significant challenges that prompt them to reevaluate and redefine their identities. This process can be complex and multifaceted, as members grapple with the tension between their deeply held beliefs and the realities of their lived experiences. For many, this journey involves questioning established doctrines, confronting doubts, and ultimately seeking a more authentic sense of self that may diverge from traditional church teachings.

One of the primary challenges faced by people navigating their faith journeys is the struggle to reconcile personal beliefs with institutional teachings. Many members grow up internalizing the church’s doctrines, which can create a strong sense of certainty and belonging. However, as they encounter new ideas, experiences, or perspectives—whether through education, relationships, or exposure to different cultures—they may begin to question the validity of those teachings. This process of questioning can be both liberating and disorienting, as people confront the possibility that their long-held beliefs may no longer resonate with their evolving understanding of the world. The internal conflict that arises from this dissonance can lead to feelings of guilt, confusion, and isolation, as members grapple with the fear of disappointing their families, friends, or church leaders.

For some, the journey of faith may culminate in a decision to distance themselves from the church altogether. This can be a painful and difficult choice, as it often involves leaving behind not only a set of beliefs but also a community that has provided support and identity for much of their lives. The process of leaving the church can be fraught with emotional turmoil, as people navigate feelings of loss, grief, and uncertainty about their place in the world. However, for many, this decision also represents an opportunity for personal growth and self-discovery. By stepping away from the constraints of institutional teachings, people may find the freedom to explore new beliefs, values, and practices that align more closely with their authentic selves.

Conversely, some people may choose to remain within the church while redefining their relationship with their faith. This can involve a reexamination of church teachings and a willingness to embrace a more nuanced understanding of doctrine. For these people, the journey may include finding ways to integrate their personal beliefs with their commitment to the church, allowing for a more flexible and individualized approach to faith. This process can foster a sense of empowerment, as members learn to navigate their spiritual paths on their own terms, rather than adhering strictly to prescribed norms.

The process of redefining identity in light of personal faith journeys is often accompanied by a search for community and support. As people explore new beliefs or question established doctrines, they may seek out like-minded people who share similar experiences. This can lead to the formation of alternative communities, both within and outside the church, where people can find acceptance and understanding. Online platforms, support groups, and local gatherings can provide spaces for open dialogue and connection, allowing people to share their stories and learn from one another. These supportive environments can be instrumental in helping people navigate the complexities of their faith journeys, fostering a sense of belonging that may have felt elusive within traditional church settings.

Ultimately, the journey of navigating faith and redefining identity is a deeply personal and transformative experience. As people confront the challenges of questioning their beliefs and seeking authenticity, they may emerge with a more profound understanding of themselves and their place in the world. This ongoing exploration of identity not only enriches their personal lives but also contributes to the broader conversation about the nature of faith, belonging, and the complexities of the human experience. By embracing the journey of self-discovery, people can cultivate a more inclusive and compassionate understanding of identity that honors the diverse paths taken by members of the church and beyond.

Identity Changes

Many people experience significant changes in their identities, particularly when their faith journeys lead them away from the teachings and practices of their existing belief system and community. This transformation can be both liberating and isolating. For those who begin to question or reject core tenets of their faith, the process of redefining their identity often involves a painful separation from the community that once provided a sense of belonging and purpose.

The isolation felt by people distancing themselves from their community can be profound. Many find that their relationships with family and friends become strained as they diverge from shared beliefs and practices. The social fabric of the church is tightly woven, and stepping away from its teachings can lead to feelings of alienation. This is particularly true for those who have been raised in the faith, where the concept of “being a Mormon” is deeply ingrained in their self-perception. The fear of judgment or rejection can create a barrier to open dialogue, leaving people feeling unsupported in their quest for authenticity.

Moreover, the loss of community can exacerbate feelings of loneliness and confusion as people grapple with their new identities. The transition often requires not only a re-evaluation of personal beliefs but also the search for new social networks that align with their evolving values. This journey can be daunting, as people seek to find acceptance and understanding outside the familiar structures of their upbringing. However, it can also lead to the discovery of new communities that celebrate diverse identities and foster a sense of belonging based on shared experiences rather than shared beliefs.

Conclusion

The interplay between faith and identity is complex and multifaceted. While the teachings and practices of the church play a foundational role in shaping individual identities, the process of navigating personal faith journeys can lead to profound transformations. As people confront doubts and redefine their beliefs, they may experience both the challenges of isolation and the opportunities for growth and self-discovery.

By fostering an environment that values individual experiences and encourages open dialogue, the community can become a more inclusive space where all members—regardless of their faith journey—can find acceptance and support. Ultimately, recognizing and celebrating the richness of diverse identities not only strengthens the community but also enriches the broader tapestry of human experience.