Lucifer's Lantern

In his April 2007 General Conference talk To the Aaronic Priesthood: Preparing for the Decade of Decision, Elder Robert D. Hales told the story of a young pilot who disobeyed orders, attempted aerial stunts at night, and crashed into oil rigs below. He used this as a metaphor for spiritual life, warning that even small acts of disobedience can lead to complete ruin. For Hales, obedience to God is an all-or-nothing matter, like flying a plane where any deviation can be fatal. But people are not aircraft. And life is not a flight path. Demanding an all-or-nothing approach does not just promote commitment, it conditions fear. By insisting that safety lies only in strict obedience, it discourages critical thinking and builds identity around compliance. It teaches young minds to measure their worth by how well they follow commands. For some, the damage runs deeper. LGBTQ youth, people with mental health challenges, and those wrestling with doctrine often hear these messages a...

I came across the poem "The Hollow Men" by T. S. Eliot, and it honestly describes the religious practices of countless people. We are the hollow men we are the stuffed men leaning together headpiece filled with straw. Alas! Our dried voices, when we whisper together are quiet and meaningless as wind in dry grass or rats' feet over broken glass in our dry cellar... Many people claim to believe in God, but their lives tell a different story. They say they have faith, but that faith has little influence on what they do, how they treat others, or what they value. Their heads may as well be stuffed with straw. Its my opinion, that for most people, religion has become more about identity than conviction. Real belief shows up in choices. It changes behavior. It means living as though your faith is true even when it costs you comfort or pride. Comfort plays a huge role in this. Religion can offer security, tradition, and a sense of belonging. There’s nothing wrong wit...

If Jesus came back today, he would not recognize what Christianity has become. The modern church is built on power, money, and influence. Whatever moral teacher he might have been, his message has been rewritten to fit the needs of institutions. The result is less a faith about truth and more a system for control.      The French philosopher Jacques Ellul explored this process in his book The Subversion of Christianity . (Affiliate Link) He wrote that the teachings of Jesus were too disruptive to survive unchanged. The early followers of Jesus spoke about compassion, humility, and equality. Those ideas had no place in an empire built on hierarchy and control. Over time however, Christianity adapted. It learned to cooperate with authority. What started as a small movement of the poor became the official religion of the powerful.      Ellul, who was a Christian, saw this as a betrayal. Every belief system changes once it becomes institutionalized....

     The word “cult” usually brings to mind the most destructive examples of control, where people lose their freedom, identity, or even their lives. That harm is real and should never be minimized. But the psychology behind those groups does not appear only in the extremes.       The same methods of influence exist in more common institutions too, but often differ in intensity. Religion, politics, and corporate systems all use similar tools to shape belief and loyalty. Mormonism belongs on that spectrum, not because it is as harmful as the worst examples, but because it relies on many of the same patterns of authority and conformity.      One way to see this clearly is through the BITE Model of Authoritarian Control. The model, created by Steven Hassan, outlines how groups shape members through four areas of influence: B ehavior I nformation T hought E motion.       Each form of control helps a system maintain stabil...

     On September 28, 2025, a man named Thomas Jacob Sanford drove a truck into a Latter-day Saint meetinghouse in Grand Blanc Township, Michigan, opened fire, and then set the building on fire.      The FBI described it as “ a targeted act of violence believed to be motivated by the assailant’s anti-religious beliefs against the Mormon religious community .” ( NBC News )      That phrasing—“anti-religious beliefs”—is technically accurate but misses the mark. It’s careful. It’s broad. And it hides the real truth: this was an anti-Mormon attack.      1. The violence targeted a specific faith      Sanford didn’t attack a church because he hated religion in general. He attacked Mormons. Witnesses and online posts show he fixated on the LDS Church, calling its members “the antichrist.” That’s not generic hostility toward religion—it’s directed hatred toward one particular group.      2. “...

       Elder Dallin H. Oaks’s 1985 BYU address “Reading Church History” reveals how the LDS Church frames history and criticism. In this video, I break down Oaks’s six main points—scientific uncertainty, context, half-truths, bias, balance, and evaluation—and highlight his statement that church literature is not meant to tell both sides. We’ll also look at his claim that even true criticism of church leaders is unacceptable.

       All right. So, for this post today, I’m going to be talking about a pretty sensitive subject. And that’s going to be satanic ritual abuse and potential ties to leadership of the Mormon church.      It should go without saying that this is going to be a little bit more of a sensitive subject. I’ll say up front that I have no intention of diving into specific examples—detailed descriptions of what satanic ritual abuse looks like—outside of broad definitions. My goal is just to give an idea of what makes ritual abuse a little bit different than regular abuse (for lack of a better word). Consider this your heads up that this is going to be a sensitive subject.      I typically wouldn’t really give this type of subject very much attention. I certainly never planned on making a post about it. But I did have an interesting conversation the other day with an LDS content creator that I message with sometimes. I was a little surprised whe...

  I would probably say that the Book of Mormon is one of the most heavily criticized pieces of literature ever put into circulation. These criticisms go back even before it was published. From the moment Joseph Smith claimed he had access to an ancient record that God needed him to translate, people began theorizing about its origins. They criticized Joseph Smith, questioned his motivations, and doubted his inspirations. Once the Book of Mormon was published, critics finally had the text itself. Since then, it has been torn apart, analyzed, and debated for nearly 200 years. If you want to dive into these criticisms today, you face an overwhelming mountain of material to sift through. That’s where I want to narrow the focus a bit by recommending one book: Studies of the Book of Mormon by B. H. Roberts.   (affiliate link) I recommend it for three reasons. First, it presents excellent criticisms of the Book of Mormon . Second, the controversy surrounding its content and pub...

So much about who we are as individuals is tied up into our belief systems. For most of my life I identified as a Mormon. Walking away from the church, I realized that took up a tremendous part of who I was and how I identified myself as a person. I went through these phases where I struggled with the question: outside of Mormonism, who am I? What do I believe in? What are my moral standings? What are the things that I want to support, and what are the things that I don’t want to support? I don’t think I’m alone in this. The other day I was looking at my  page for reading recommendations. And as I was looked through my reading list, it hit me: every single book I was suggesting to people, (and nearly every single book I had read since leaving the church) was tied directly to Mormonism. And honestly, that bothers me a little bit... I've been keeping myself in a box. I’ve come to identify as an agnostic atheist. But here’s one of the things that’s been bothering me. When I introduce...