What They Talk About: "The Commitment Pattern"

[Pyreaux]

Those Dirty Missionary Tactics

In the world of ex‑Mormondom, getting into more specific issues, the ex‑Mormon posters often critique LDS missionary tactics that they perceive as emotional manipulation. The so-called “commitment pattern” refers to the slow escalation of requests; from sharing a message, to asking someone to pray, then ask them read, then to meet, then ultimately, get baptized. Critics argue this pressures earnest investigators rather than letting revelation happen organically. They frequently refer to Steven Hassan’s “BITE model” (Behavior, Information, Thought, Emotional control) as applied to LDS Church even though the critic may misapply it.

Voices in the Room

1. Ex-Mo Atheist's Common Claims:

"They break you down emotionally, then rebuild you into what they want."

"Get you to commit at every step so you're already on the boat before you realize it's sinking."

"It's gaslighting disguised as gentleness."

Irony & Bias:

Many critics will normalize such things in other religions and organizations, yet accuse LDS missionaries of "coercion" for similar commitment appeals. They rarely interrogate similar commitment escalations in Christian or secular recruitments. Especially ones they agree with. In fact, while ex-Mormons may not all identify as a formal movement, many engage in active deconversion advocacy and recruitment, these mimic the same methods they accuse the LDS Church of using: emotional manipulation, social pressure, gatekeeping, and staged commitment escalation.

Below is a catalog of tactics used by ex-Mormons, particularly those aligned with online atheist communities.

A. Trauma-Centric Testimonies

Though many just want to tell their "mormon story", these personal stories of abuse or psychological manipulation is often used by many others to psychologically manipulate.

"I've been lied to my whole life."

By telling a traumatic story destabilizes the listener before introducing criticisms of the Church. By Victim Haloing positions oneself as morally unquestionable because of past suffering. Any disagreement is then seen as invalidating trauma. Stories are framed or reframed to make those still remaining LDS seem naive or complicit. Leverages others’ decency and desire to support victims as a moral wedge to push them away from belief.  Using ex-Mormon forums and Channels to curate trauma becomes a mission field of deconversion content.

B. The Gish Gallop of Historical Issues

When listing 50+ issues at once is a Gish Gallop, a manipulation tactic where someone overwhelms an opponent with a rapid series of arguments, questions, or supposed "facts" (often misleading or inaccurate), making it impossible to address each point adequately in real time. It's named after Creationist Duane Gish, who was known for this.

When it comes to historical issues with the LDS Church, the Gish Gallop overwhelms the target’s mental bandwidth; they can’t reasonably respond to all issues at once. The goal isn't an honest discussion, but to overload, shock, and destabilize belief. "The CES Letter" is Implied Guilt by Volume: By listing dozens of issues, even if some are weak or outdated, it gives the impression of a mountain of irrefutable evidence. Creates an emotional sense that "something must be wrong" even if many items are explainable or misrepresented.

Volume as a substitute for depth. This is a classic fallacy of quantity over quality. The side goal is to frame every issue you don't know as something the Church "hid" or “lied about".  It equates complexity or lack of clarity with malicious intent, which is often unfair. They position the listener as having been tricked because they haven’t heard or understood all the "facts."

They can mix historical criticisms with emotional abuse stories, leading the listener to emotionally associate a doctrine with harm, so even neutral doctrines can feel oppressive when emotionally linked to trauma. This is emotional conditioning, not just argumentation. Each issue raised requires context, nuance, and sometimes hours of study to unpack honestly. In contrast, the critic needs just 30 seconds to “plant the doubt.” The audience, if unfamiliar, is unlikely to verify each claim or understand complex counterpoints.

C. In-group/Out-group Framing

Believers are "TBMs" (True Believing Mormons) or “cult members”, and they obtain scripts for “how to get someone out” or “how to deprogram a TBM” while the Ex-Mormons are “Post-Mormons,” “Recovering Mormons” that have "woke" up. Subreddits (e.g., r/exmormon), podcasts, and support groups are safe spaces that censor pro-LDS voices. Endless satire is generated, like exaggerated depictions of LDS culture, temple, garments, etc. to trigger embarrassment and de-sacralize belief. Endless parody like “magic underwear” is made to mock faith. Pointing to Church historic issues (e.g., polygamy, race issues) to label current believers as complicit or immoral. False Equivalence with fringe groups; compared to Jonestown, Scientology, or FLDS to trigger disgust. Ignoring all differences in behavior, violence, or belief.

Logical Fallacies:

Hasty Generalization: Concluding all missionaries use pressure, but it's based on personal experience or isolated stories.

False Cause: Blaming the evangelism for deeper personal crises, even where multiple factors are at play.

2. Ex-Mo Christian's Common Claims:

"Missionaries aren’t sharing Christ - they’re building a funnel process."

"They're trained in marketing, not ministry."

"If it’s spiritual, why rely on psychological tricks?"

Ironies & Bias:

Many ex-Mormon Christians will claim LDS missionaries use pressure-based tactics, yet these tactics align closely with the methods many secular or atheist critics associate with evangelical Christianity. Christian evangelists use altar calls, invitation patterns, and emotional appeals yet rarely accept criticism for doing the same. They demand missionaries to only be driven by the Spirit, while some practiced evangelists employ similar "commitment framing" for conversions.

A. Fear, Obligation, Guilt (FOG)

As atheists say, is when "preaching" includes mention of eternal condemnation, or whatever the consequences failure to comply with church expectations are. This creates emotional pressure rather than fostering genuine spiritual conviction. 

B. Deconversion-Conversion Stories

Evangelists also frequently invite individuals with trauma stories to share them publicly: “My life was a mess in Mormonism, until I gave it to Jesus.” with excessive affirmation, status, or inclusion when they do. 

Logical Fallacies:

Special Pleading: Applying strict standards to LDS missionaries while exempting Christian evangelism.

Strawman: Portraying all missionaries as manipulative rather than acknowledging the genuine spiritual intent in many.

Persuasion ≠ Manipulation

Persuasion can become manipulation if it disables someone’s ability to make an informed, free choice. The same holds for deconversion tactics from ex-religious communities too - both sides can be manipulative if they cross ethical lines. 

LDS missionaries are actually taught to respect agency and not pressure people, but cultural zeal or youthful inexperience can lead to overstepping. The church discourages "hard sales," but outcomes depend on the missionary. A missionary asking someone to pray and read is fairly benign. It's not unethical if a missionary genuinely believes these invitations will lead the person to truth and peace.

The "Commitment Pattern" that the LDS church actually teaches missionaries

As outlined in Preach My Gospel (the official missionary manual):

Teach with clarity and spirit
Present gospel truths in a simple, spiritually centered way, not overwhelming or argumentative.

Identify and discern needs
Ask sincere questions to understand the investigator’s background, concerns, and beliefs.

Bear testimony
Share personal conviction and spiritual witness of what is taught (not just facts or doctrine).

Extend an invitation
Invite them to act, such as reading scripture, praying, attending church, or being baptized.

Promise blessings
Clearly state spiritual or emotional benefits associated with the commitment (e.g., peace, guidance).

Follow up
Show continued care by asking how the commitment went, and providing help if they struggled.

What Makes This Ethical

Consent-driven: The person is always free to say no; nothing is forced.

Incremental: The pattern builds trust and understanding step-by-step with no pressure to make a huge leap right away.

Focus on agency: Missionaries are repeatedly taught that “people must choose for themselves.”

Centered on sincerity: It encourages investigators to pray and seek their own answers - not to take a missionary’s word alone.

No instruction to emotionally manipulate (e.g., guilt trips, threats of hell)

No instruction to withhold key information in a deceptive sense

Why Critics Sometimes Misinterpret It

Critics may conflate spiritual persuasion with manipulation, assuming that any emotional appeal at all is emotional manipulation and unethical. It isn't.

They expect missionaries to disclose all historical controversies (which they may not even know) up front, when that isn’t standard in any faith's missionary outreach on Earth.

They project their personal bad experiences, on either giving or receiving the missionary commitments, onto the whole process, without acknowledging the difference between one's abuse and the providing of structured invitations on principle.

Discussions

So, what say ye? Is the "Commitment Pattern" manipulation?

How do we spiritually differentiate encouragement from emotional manipulation?

What lines exist between inviting and pressuring?

Are we blaming form for effects when the Spirit’s intent is missing?

Do we hold missionaries' methods to different moral standards depending on whose label is on them?

Is there truth to this critique, even when the motive of the missionary might be sincere?

Edited August 5, 2025 by Pyreaux

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Those Dirty Missionary Tactics

In the world of ex‑Mormondom, getting into more specific issues, the ex‑Mormon posters often critique LDS missionary tactics that they perceive as emotional manipulation. The so-called “commitment pattern” refers to escalating the requests; from sharing a message to asking someone to pray, then ask them read, then to meet, then ultimately, get baptized. Critics argue this pressures earnest investigators rather than letting revelation happen organically. They frequent refer to Steven Hassan’s “BITE model” (Behavior, Information, Thought, Emotional control) as applied to LDS Church even if the critic misapplies it.

Voices in the Room

1. Ex-Mo Atheist's Common Claims:

"They break you down emotionally, then rebuild you into what they want."

"Get you to commit at every step so you're already on the boat before you realize it's sinking."

"It's gaslighting disguised as gentleness."

Irony & Bias:

Many critics will normalize such things in other religions and organizations, yet accuse LDS missionaries of "coercion" for similar commitment appeals. They rarely interrogate similar commitment escalations in Christian or secular recruitments. Especially ones they agree with. In fact, while ex-Mormons may not all identify as a formal movement, many engage in active deconversion advocacy and recruitment, these mimic the same methods they accuse the LDS Church of using: emotional manipulation, social pressure, gatekeeping, and staged commitment escalation.

Below is a catalog of tactics used by ex-Mormons, particularly those aligned with online atheist communities.

A. Trauma-Centric Testimonies

Though many just want to tell their "mormon story", these personal stories of abuse or psychological manipulation is often used by many others to psychologically manipulate.

"I've been lied to my whole life."

By telling a traumatic story destabilizes the listener before introducing criticisms of the Church. By Victim Haloing positions oneself as morally unquestionable because of past suffering. Any disagreement is then seen as invalidating trauma. Stories are framed or reframed to make those still remaining LDS seem naive or complicit. Leverages others’ decency and desire to support victims as a moral wedge to push them away from belief.  Using ex-Mormon forums and Channels to curate trauma becomes a mission field of deconversion content.

B. The Gish Gallop of Historical Issues

When listing 50+ issues at once is a Gish Gallop, a manipulation tactic where someone overwhelms an opponent with a rapid series of arguments, questions, or supposed “facts” (often misleading or inaccurate), making it impossible to address each point adequately in real time. It's named after Creationist Duane Gish, who was known for this.

When it comes to historical issues with the LDS Church, the Gish Gallop overwhelms the target’s mental bandwidth; they can’t reasonably respond to all issues at once. The goal isn't an honest discussion, but to overload, shock, and destabilize belief. "The CES Letter" , is Implied Guilt by Volume: By listing dozens of issues, even if some are weak or outdated, it gives the impression of a mountain of irrefutable evidence. Creates an emotional sense that “something must be wrong” even if many items are explainable or misrepresented.

Volume as a substitute for depth. This is a classic fallacy of quantity over quality. They frame every issue as something the Church “hid” or “lied about.  It equates complexity or lack of clarity with malicious intent, which is often unfair. They position the listener as having been tricked if they haven’t heard or understood all the "facts."

Mix historical criticisms with emotional abuse stories, leading the listener to emotionally associate doctrine with harm, so even neutral doctrines can feel oppressive when emotionally linked to trauma. This is emotional conditioning, not just argumentation. Each issue raised requires context, nuance, and sometimes hours of study to unpack honestly. In contrast, the critic needs just 30 seconds to “plant the doubt.” The audience, if unfamiliar, is unlikely to verify each claim or understand complex counterpoints.

C. In-group/Out-group Framing

Believers are “TBMs” (True Believing Mormons) or “cult members”, with scripts for “how to get someone out” or “how to deprogram a TBM” while the Ex-Mormons are “Post-Mormons,” “Recovering Mormons” that have "woke" up. Subreddits (e.g., r/exmormon), podcasts, and support groups censor pro-LDS voices. Endless satire is generated like exaggerated depictions of LDS culture, temple, garments, etc. to trigger embarrassment and de-sacralize belief. Endless parody like “magic underwear” to mock faith. Pointing to Church historic issues (e.g., polygamy, race issues) to label current believers as complicit or immoral. False Equivalence with fringe groups; compared to Jonestown, Scientology, or FLDS to trigger disgust. Ignoring all differences in behavior, violence, or belief.

Logical Fallacies:

Hasty Generalization: Concluding all missionaries use pressure, but it's based on personal experience or isolated stories.

False Cause: Blaming the evangelism for deeper personal crises, even where multiple factors are at play.

2. Ex-Mo Christian's Common Claims:

"Missionaries aren’t sharing Christ - they’re building a funnel process."

"They're trained in marketing, not ministry."

"If it’s spiritual, why rely on psychological tricks?"

Ironies & Bias:

Many ex-Mormon Christians will claim LDS missionaries use pressure-based tactics, yet these tactics align closely with the methods many secular or atheist critics associate with evangelical Christianity. Christian evangelists use altar calls, invitation patterns, and emotional appeals yet rarely accept criticism for doing the same. They demand missionaries to only be driven by the Spirit, while some practiced evangelists employ similar "commitment framing" for conversions.

A. Fear, Obligation, Guilt (FOG)

When "preaching" includes mention of eternal condemnation, or whatever failure to comply with church expectations are. This creates emotional pressure rather than fostering genuine spiritual conviction. 

B. Deconversion-Conversion Stories

Evangelists also frequently invite individuals with trauma stories to share them publicly: “My life was a mess in Mormonism, until I gave it to Jesus.” Excessive affirmation, status, or inclusion when they do. 

Logical Fallacies:

Special Pleading: Applying strict standards to LDS missionaries while exempting Christian evangelism.

Strawman: Portraying all missionaries as manipulative rather than acknowledging the genuine spiritual intent in many.

Persuasion ≠ Manipulation

Persuasion can become manipulation if it disables someone’s ability to make an informed, free choice. The same holds for deconversion tactics from ex-religious communities too - both sides can be manipulative if they cross ethical lines. 

LDS missionaries are actually taught to respect agency and not pressure people, but cultural zeal or youthful inexperience can lead to overstepping. The church discourages "hard sales," but outcomes depend on the missionary. A missionary asking someone to pray and read is fairly benign. It's not unethical if a missionary genuinely believes these invitations will lead the person to truth and peace.

The "Commitment Pattern" that the LDS church actually teaches missionaries

As outlined in Preach My Gospel (the official missionary manual):

Teach with clarity and spirit
Present gospel truths in a simple, spiritually centered way, not overwhelming or argumentative.

Identify and discern needs
Ask sincere questions to understand the investigator’s background, concerns, and beliefs.

Bear testimony
Share personal conviction and spiritual witness of what is taught (not just facts or doctrine).

Extend an invitation
Invite them to act, such as reading scripture, praying, attending church, or being baptized.

Promise blessings
Clearly state spiritual or emotional benefits associated with the commitment (e.g., peace, guidance).

Follow up
Show continued care by asking how the commitment went, and providing help if they struggled.

What Makes This Ethical

Consent-driven: The person is always free to say no; nothing is forced.

Incremental: The pattern builds trust and understanding step-by-step with no pressure to make a huge leap right away.

Focus on agency: Missionaries are repeatedly taught that “people must choose for themselves.”

Centered on sincerity: It encourages investigators to pray and seek their own answers - not to take a missionary’s word alone.

No instructing to emotional manipulation (e.g., guilt trips, threats of hell)

No instructing to withholding of key information in a deceptive sense

Why Critics Sometimes Misinterpret It

Critics may conflate spiritual persuasion with manipulation, assuming that any emotional appeal at all is emotional manipulation and unethical. It isn't.

They expect missionaries to disclose all historical controversies (which they may not even know) up front, when that isn’t standard in any faith's missionary outreach on Earth.

They project their personal bad experiences, on their end of missionary work, onto the whole process, without acknowledging the difference between abuse and structured invitation.

Discussions

Is the "Commitment Pattern" manipulation?

How do we spiritually differentiate encouragement from emotional manipulation?

What lines exist between inviting and pressuring?

Are we blaming form for effects when the Spirit’s intent is missing?

Do we hold missionaries' methods to different moral standards depending on whose label is on them?

Is there truth to this critique, even when the motive of the missionary might be sincere?

This past April, the missionaries assigned to my ward invited me to assist them as they visited the homes of two newly baptized female members (in both instances, these women went totally inactive immediately after baptism). As the conversations ensued, the first thing I observed is how abysmally ignorant both of these women were when it comes to the most basic teachings of the restored gospel. After asking a number of pointed questions, I came to the realization that these women were woefully unprepared for baptism, which led me to ask them what it was that caused them to want to follow through with a commitment to be baptized? In both cases I was told that the missionaries who taught them were so enthusiastic in their manner and so indefatigably insistent that they absolutely needed to join the Church, that they felt saying no wasn’t an option. The most amazing takeaway from this experience is that both of these women really liked and respected the missionaries, both of them standing in awe of their energy, positivity and irresistible zeal. All of these powerful elements combined to put these women in a position where they felt they had no choice but to go ahead and be baptized because they didn’t want to disappoint the wonderful missionaries. 

Edited August 4, 2025 by teddyaware

[Pyreaux]

20 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

This past April, the missionaries assigned to my ward invited me to assist them as they visited the homes of two newly baptized female members (in both instances, these women went totally inactive immediately after baptism). As the conversations ensued, the first thing I observed  is how abysmally ignorant both of these women were when it comes to the most basic teachings of the restored gospel. After asking a number of pointed questions, I came to the realization that these women were woefully unprepared for baptism, which led me to ask them what it was that caused them to want to follow through with a commitment to be baptized? In both cases I was told that the missionaries who taught them were so enthusiastic in their manner and so indefatigably insistent that they absolutely needed to join the Church that they felt saying no wasn’t an option. The most amazing takeaway from this experience is that both of these women really liked and respected the missionaries, both standing in awe of their enthusiasm, positivity and irresistible zeal. All of these powerful elements combined to put these women in a position where they felt they had no choice but to go ahead and be baptized because they didn’t want to disappoint the wonderful missionaries. 

Yep, their positivity is so addictive it ought to be registered as a controlled substance. And what are we supposed to do about the light in their eyes? I 'm pretty sure I heard they exceeded the city of Jerusalem's lumen regulations.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Those Dirty Missionary Tactics

In the world of ex‑Mormondom, getting into more specific issues, the ex‑Mormon posters often critique LDS missionary tactics that they perceive as emotional manipulation. The so-called “commitment pattern” refers to the slow escalation of requests; from sharing a message, to asking someone to pray, then ask them read, then to meet, then ultimately, get baptized. Critics argue this pressures earnest investigators rather than letting revelation happen organically. They frequent refer to Steven Hassan’s “BITE model” (Behavior, Information, Thought, Emotional control) as applied to LDS Church even if the critic misapplies it.

Voices in the Room

1. Ex-Mo Atheist's Common Claims:

"They break you down emotionally, then rebuild you into what they want."

"Get you to commit at every step so you're already on the boat before you realize it's sinking."

"It's gaslighting disguised as gentleness."

Irony & Bias:

Many critics will normalize such things in other religions and organizations, yet accuse LDS missionaries of "coercion" for similar commitment appeals. They rarely interrogate similar commitment escalations in Christian or secular recruitments. Especially ones they agree with. In fact, while ex-Mormons may not all identify as a formal movement, many engage in active deconversion advocacy and recruitment, these mimic the same methods they accuse the LDS Church of using: emotional manipulation, social pressure, gatekeeping, and staged commitment escalation.

Below is a catalog of tactics used by ex-Mormons, particularly those aligned with online atheist communities.

A. Trauma-Centric Testimonies

Though many just want to tell their "mormon story", these personal stories of abuse or psychological manipulation is often used by many others to psychologically manipulate.

"I've been lied to my whole life."

By telling a traumatic story destabilizes the listener before introducing criticisms of the Church. By Victim Haloing positions oneself as morally unquestionable because of past suffering. Any disagreement is then seen as invalidating trauma. Stories are framed or reframed to make those still remaining LDS seem naive or complicit. Leverages others’ decency and desire to support victims as a moral wedge to push them away from belief.  Using ex-Mormon forums and Channels to curate trauma becomes a mission field of deconversion content.

B. The Gish Gallop of Historical Issues

When listing 50+ issues at once is a Gish Gallop, a manipulation tactic where someone overwhelms an opponent with a rapid series of arguments, questions, or supposed “facts” (often misleading or inaccurate), making it impossible to address each point adequately in real time. It's named after Creationist Duane Gish, who was known for this.

When it comes to historical issues with the LDS Church, the Gish Gallop overwhelms the target’s mental bandwidth; they can’t reasonably respond to all issues at once. The goal isn't an honest discussion, but to overload, shock, and destabilize belief. "The CES Letter" , is Implied Guilt by Volume: By listing dozens of issues, even if some are weak or outdated, it gives the impression of a mountain of irrefutable evidence. Creates an emotional sense that “something must be wrong” even if many items are explainable or misrepresented.

Volume as a substitute for depth. This is a classic fallacy of quantity over quality. They frame every issue as something the Church “hid” or “lied about.  It equates complexity or lack of clarity with malicious intent, which is often unfair. They position the listener as having been tricked if they haven’t heard or understood all the "facts."

Mix historical criticisms with emotional abuse stories, leading the listener to emotionally associate doctrine with harm, so even neutral doctrines can feel oppressive when emotionally linked to trauma. This is emotional conditioning, not just argumentation. Each issue raised requires context, nuance, and sometimes hours of study to unpack honestly. In contrast, the critic needs just 30 seconds to “plant the doubt.” The audience, if unfamiliar, is unlikely to verify each claim or understand complex counterpoints.

C. In-group/Out-group Framing

Believers are “TBMs” (True Believing Mormons) or “cult members”, and they obtain scripts for “how to get someone out” or “how to deprogram a TBM” while the Ex-Mormons are “Post-Mormons,” “Recovering Mormons” that have "woke" up. Subreddits (e.g., r/exmormon), podcasts, and support groups are safe spaces that censor pro-LDS voices. Endless satire is generated, like exaggerated depictions of LDS culture, temple, garments, etc. to trigger embarrassment and de-sacralize belief. Endless parody like “magic underwear” to mock faith. Pointing to Church historic issues (e.g., polygamy, race issues) to label current believers as complicit or immoral. False Equivalence with fringe groups; compared to Jonestown, Scientology, or FLDS to trigger disgust. Ignoring all differences in behavior, violence, or belief.

Logical Fallacies:

Hasty Generalization: Concluding all missionaries use pressure, but it's based on personal experience or isolated stories.

False Cause: Blaming the evangelism for deeper personal crises, even where multiple factors are at play.

2. Ex-Mo Christian's Common Claims:

"Missionaries aren’t sharing Christ - they’re building a funnel process."

"They're trained in marketing, not ministry."

"If it’s spiritual, why rely on psychological tricks?"

Ironies & Bias:

Many ex-Mormon Christians will claim LDS missionaries use pressure-based tactics, yet these tactics align closely with the methods many secular or atheist critics associate with evangelical Christianity. Christian evangelists use altar calls, invitation patterns, and emotional appeals yet rarely accept criticism for doing the same. They demand missionaries to only be driven by the Spirit, while some practiced evangelists employ similar "commitment framing" for conversions.

A. Fear, Obligation, Guilt (FOG)

As atheists say, is when "preaching" includes mention of eternal condemnation, or whatever the consequences failure to comply with church expectations are. This creates emotional pressure rather than fostering genuine spiritual conviction. 

B. Deconversion-Conversion Stories

Evangelists also frequently invite individuals with trauma stories to share them publicly: “My life was a mess in Mormonism, until I gave it to Jesus.” Excessive affirmation, status, or inclusion when they do. 

Logical Fallacies:

Special Pleading: Applying strict standards to LDS missionaries while exempting Christian evangelism.

Strawman: Portraying all missionaries as manipulative rather than acknowledging the genuine spiritual intent in many.

Persuasion ≠ Manipulation

Persuasion can become manipulation if it disables someone’s ability to make an informed, free choice. The same holds for deconversion tactics from ex-religious communities too - both sides can be manipulative if they cross ethical lines. 

LDS missionaries are actually taught to respect agency and not pressure people, but cultural zeal or youthful inexperience can lead to overstepping. The church discourages "hard sales," but outcomes depend on the missionary. A missionary asking someone to pray and read is fairly benign. It's not unethical if a missionary genuinely believes these invitations will lead the person to truth and peace.

The "Commitment Pattern" that the LDS church actually teaches missionaries

As outlined in Preach My Gospel (the official missionary manual):

Teach with clarity and spirit
Present gospel truths in a simple, spiritually centered way, not overwhelming or argumentative.

Identify and discern needs
Ask sincere questions to understand the investigator’s background, concerns, and beliefs.

Bear testimony
Share personal conviction and spiritual witness of what is taught (not just facts or doctrine).

Extend an invitation
Invite them to act, such as reading scripture, praying, attending church, or being baptized.

Promise blessings
Clearly state spiritual or emotional benefits associated with the commitment (e.g., peace, guidance).

Follow up
Show continued care by asking how the commitment went, and providing help if they struggled.

What Makes This Ethical

Consent-driven: The person is always free to say no; nothing is forced.

Incremental: The pattern builds trust and understanding step-by-step with no pressure to make a huge leap right away.

Focus on agency: Missionaries are repeatedly taught that “people must choose for themselves.”

Centered on sincerity: It encourages investigators to pray and seek their own answers - not to take a missionary’s word alone.

No instructing to emotional manipulation (e.g., guilt trips, threats of hell)

No instructing to withholding of key information in a deceptive sense

Why Critics Sometimes Misinterpret It

Critics may conflate spiritual persuasion with manipulation, assuming that any emotional appeal at all is emotional manipulation and unethical. It isn't.

They expect missionaries to disclose all historical controversies (which they may not even know) up front, when that isn’t standard in any faith's missionary outreach on Earth.

They project their personal bad experiences, on either giving or receiving the missionary commitments, onto the whole process, without acknowledging the difference between one's abuse and the providing of structured invitations on principle.

Discussions

So, what say ye? Is the "Commitment Pattern" manipulation?

How do we spiritually differentiate encouragement from emotional manipulation?

What lines exist between inviting and pressuring?

Are we blaming form for effects when the Spirit’s intent is missing?

Do we hold missionaries' methods to different moral standards depending on whose label is on them?

Is there truth to this critique, even when the motive of the missionary might be sincere?

This seems like a lot of “the evil Mormons sneaky ways” and not much personal responsibility.

But sure, there’s probably a lot of truth in a few of these accusations, depending on the missionary that was teaching.

[Tony uk]

From my own very limited experience with missionaries. I never found them to be trying to give the hard sale so to speak. They made their position clear in a small introductory way. Very supportive people, and understanding towards my own position. And I must say very impressed by the general way these young adults have been. 

Edited August 5, 2025 by Tony uk
Spelling correction

[Rain]

52 minutes ago, Tony uk said:

From my own very limited experience with missionaries. I never found them to be trying to give the hard sale so to speak. They made their position clear in a small introductory way. Very supportive people, and understanding towards my own position. And I must say very impressed by the general way these young adults have been. 

I think some of this comes from a change in how missionary work is done.  "The Comittment Pattern" was something the church taught missionaries through a manual.  Part of the problem was that most missionaries and I would say even most mission presidents misunderstood the process of commitment taught. They pressured commitments and mission presidents pressured missionaries, but the manual taught not to give those commitments unless the people were ready. Eventually that manual and the missionary lessons that went along with it were done away with and now there is the current combo of how to teach and discussions that work better for people.

I still use so much of The Commitment Pattern in my life though. It was just practical for communicating and working with people.  People use it all the time without know it.  You just should not use it to manipulate people which was why it became a problem the way many people used it.

[Tony uk]

29 minutes ago, Rain said:

I think some of this comes from a change in how missionary work is done.  "The Comittment Pattern" was something the church taught missionaries through a manual.  Part of the problem was that most missionaries and I would say even most mission presidents misunderstood the process of commitment taught. They pressured commitments and mission presidents pressured missionaries, but the manual taught not to give those commitments unless the people were ready. Eventually that manual and the missionary lessons that went along with it were done away with and now there is the current combo of how to teach and discussions that work better for people.

I still use so much of The Commitment Pattern in my life though. It was just practical for communicating and working with people.  People use it all the time without know it.  You just should not use it to manipulate people which was why it became a problem the way many people used it.

If there has been a change of approach, in anyway, for any reason for the best way of approaching people. Then I guess that can be for the good of all concerned. 

From the very limited contact that I have had over the years, and recently. I have found the missionaries to be good People, and have confirmed my respect of LdS.

[Notatbm]

There is an interesting episode of the “inside out” podcast with Jim Bennett , Ian Wilkes and Greg prince. The episode is called “Greg prince returns.”

they propose changes to how missionary work is done and member retention among other things. Anyway it can be found on a few of the streaming providers. I can get it in apple and Spotify. 
 

If some of the changes they propose would have been available even I may have gone on a mission.  

Edited August 5, 2025 by Notatbm

[Robert F. Smith]

20 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Those Dirty Missionary Tactics

.......................... emotional manipulation. The so-called “commitment pattern” refers to the slow escalation of requests; from sharing a message, to asking someone to pray, then ask them read, then to meet, then ultimately, get baptized. Critics argue this pressures earnest investigators rather than letting revelation happen organically. They frequently refer to Steven Hassan’s “BITE model” (Behavior, Information, Thought, Emotional control) as applied to LDS Church even though the critic may misapply it.

...........................................

Consent-driven: The person is always free to say no; nothing is forced.

Incremental: The pattern builds trust and understanding step-by-step with no pressure to make a huge leap right away.

Focus on agency: Missionaries are repeatedly taught that “people must choose for themselves.”

Centered on sincerity: It encourages investigators to pray and seek their own answers - not to take a missionary’s word alone.

No instruction to emotionally manipulate (e.g., guilt trips, threats of hell)

No instruction to withhold key information in a deceptive sense

Why Critics Sometimes Misinterpret It

Critics may conflate spiritual persuasion with manipulation, assuming that any emotional appeal at all is emotional manipulation and unethical. It isn't.

They expect missionaries to disclose all historical controversies (which they may not even know) up front, when that isn’t standard in any faith's missionary outreach on Earth.

They project their personal bad experiences, on either giving or receiving the missionary commitments, onto the whole process, without acknowledging the difference between one's abuse and the providing of structured invitations on principle.

........................................

It is a model of success, but not very different from the once vast missionary efforts of mainstream Christianity (Methodists, Presbyterians, etc.) -- now not quite so bold or active.  It was always considered part of the Great Commission directly from Jesus Christ himself (Matt 28:16-20).  Evangelicals still consider it of vital importance.

[Tacenda]

19 hours ago, teddyaware said:

This past April, the missionaries assigned to my ward invited me to assist them as they visited the homes of two newly baptized female members (in both instances, these women went totally inactive immediately after baptism). As the conversations ensued, the first thing I observed is how abysmally ignorant both of these women were when it comes to the most basic teachings of the restored gospel. After asking a number of pointed questions, I came to the realization that these women were woefully unprepared for baptism, which led me to ask them what it was that caused them to want to follow through with a commitment to be baptized? In both cases I was told that the missionaries who taught them were so enthusiastic in their manner and so indefatigably insistent that they absolutely needed to join the Church, that they felt saying no wasn’t an option. The most amazing takeaway from this experience is that both of these women really liked and respected the missionaries, both of them standing in awe of their energy, positivity and irresistible zeal. All of these powerful elements combined to put these women in a position where they felt they had no choice but to go ahead and be baptized because they didn’t want to disappoint the wonderful missionaries. 

I agree! I hope there's not a lot of pressure for the missionaries to get numbers. It seemed to be a thing in the past. I think the girls didn't quite know the significance of joining the church. They definitely needed to be aware of what they were agreeing to do or be.

This has been a problem in the past, with a lot of people getting baptized but not staying active and I thought the church was working on making changes to help this not happen. 

Missionaries are for the most part very loveable and can indeed make one want to help and not disappoint. 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Notatbm said:

There is an interesting episode of the “inside out” podcast with Jim Bennett , Ian Wilkes and Greg prince. The episode is called “Greg prince returns.”

they propose changes to how missionary work is done and member retention among other things. Anyway it can be found on a few of the streaming providers. I can get it in apple and Spotify. 
 

If some of the changes they propose would have been available even I may have gone on a mission.  

I listened to this and think Greg Prince made some great suggestions for the church, that I hope can be implemented.

[ttribe]

20 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

1. Ex-Mo Atheist's Common Claims:

"They break you down emotionally, then rebuild you into what they want."

"Get you to commit at every step so you're already on the boat before you realize it's sinking."

"It's gaslighting disguised as gentleness."

 

2. Ex-Mo Christian's Common Claims:

"Missionaries aren’t sharing Christ - they’re building a funnel process."

"They're trained in marketing, not ministry."

"If it’s spiritual, why rely on psychological tricks?"

 

Where did you come up with these so-called "Common Claims"? Do you have specific examples? IMO, just about anything can be used to manipulate people, and the Commitment Pattern is no exception. In my experience, most missionaries weren't skilled enough to truly manipulate anyone. This whole thread looks like its own straw man, to some degree.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I listened to this and think Greg Prince made some great suggestions for the church, that I hope can be implemented.

What suggestions were those and when were they made?  Perhaps some have already been implemented.  Plus it’s alway interesting to hear people’s ideas, imo.

If they were implemented after Prince made the suggestion, Prince could certainly have contributed as he is relatively well known, imo, and a leader or leaders or their advisors might have seen his suggestions somewhere, but we need to be careful not to attribute a cause and effect if we aren’t sure as someone else could have come up with the ideas independently of Prince if they were also aware of the issues.  Some ‘solutions’ may even already be present, such as in the case of the original wear pants to church criticism where the leaders thought it was against the handbook to wear pants on Sunday when it was just a custom.

added:  looked it up and I see it’s a recent date.  I will assume the suggestions are not currently in place.  Maybe someone who loves the podcast would be willing to list some to talk about.  I don’t do podcasts unless I have to and this is not a have to situation.

Edited August 5, 2025 by Calm

[MrShorty]

@Calm  It's been a couple of weeks, so I don't remember everything they discussed. The big one I remember was for the church to put much greater emphasis on service missions and much less emphasis on proselyting missions. I think there might have even been a comparison to Peace Corps or similar programs where young adults could be sent around the world for humanitarian work with no push for any kind of proselyting.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

@Calm  It's been a couple of weeks, so I don't remember everything they discussed. The big one I remember was for the church to put much greater emphasis on service missions and much less emphasis on proselyting missions. I think there might have even been a comparison to Peace Corps or similar programs where young adults could be sent around the world for humanitarian work with no push for any kind of proselyting.

I would love to do a church Humanitarian mission but I'm probably not able to go given my current status. But this may have been the gist of what Greg spoke on, but could be more. I wish I had better recall.

 

[Tony uk]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I would love to do a church Humanitarian mission but I'm probably not able to go given my current status. But this may have been the gist of what Greg spoke on, but could be more. I wish I had better recall.

 

Maybe you could look at the possibility of assisting local to where you live. I am not sure how this works within the LdS, Church or community. I presume maybe similar to how other Churches provide help and assistance. Fires and flooding take place in various places, including USA and the UK. And also other forms of life changing emergencies. Maybe there is some way you could assist, from where you live. Just a thought I would contribute. 😊

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Tony uk said:

Maybe you could look at the possibility of assisting local to where you live. I am not sure how this works within the LdS, Church or community. I presume maybe similar to how other Churches provide help and assistance. Fires and flooding take place in various places, including USA and the UK. And also other forms of life changing emergencies. Maybe there is some way you could assist, from where you live. Just a thought I would contribute. 😊

Totally.  Service missions have changed a lot of the years, but generally there isn't a lot more to it than there is for volunteers. They are under some kind of leadership, currently the mission president in the area, wear nametags, have connections/meetings with other missionaries and I think still have study time, but overall they choose where to volunteer and go do that most days. Really the biggest difference between a service missionary and a volunteer who does it regularly is the leadership over them and the extra commitment/time to church. Everything else a volunteer could have if they wanted. 

Edited August 6, 2025 by Rain

[manol]

20 hours ago, MrShorty said:

... I think there might have even been a comparison to Peace Corps or similar programs where young adults could be sent around the world for humanitarian work...

[that-reminds-me-of-something tangent] When I was a little kid, back during the Vietnam War, there were ads on TV for the Peace Corps, and I had the impression people generally thought quite well of it.  Then I would overhear conversations about another such organization which was evidently rather controversial.  It was called "Youth in Asia".  It wasn't clear to me why some people were for it and others against it, and apparently strongly so.  I figured it probably wasn't safe for the young people who signed up, considering that there was a war going on in Southeast Asia.

Well as you've probably figured out, my vocabulary at the time did not yet include the word "euthanasia"... 

[/tangent]

Edited August 6, 2025 by manol