Church postive vs negative media content: which side is "winning"?

[Nofear]

Which is garnering more views: church-positive media content or church-negative media content? There is a part 1 video too.
 

 

[Dario_M]

So...the content about positive media about the LDS community has more views? How? I've always the feeling that a bunch of people love to watch anti Mormon stuff. People love to gossip, it's in our nature to talk bad about anything that's bothering us, church, other people, whatever you can name of. Unfortunatly i feel like the church got a rather bad name. And that is just to bad. Sometimes it's also just a lack of knowledge i feel like. Nice video though. And nice guy. 🙏

Edited January 28, 2025 by Dario_M

[sunstoned]

From what I tell, the church is receiving more media coverage today than it did a decade ago, both positive and negative. One area that has significantly grown, in my opinion, is the presence of ex-Mormons on social media.

[Dario_M]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

From what I tell, the church is receiving more media coverage today than it did a decade ago, both positive and negative. One area that has significantly grown, in my opinion, is the presence of ex-Mormons on social media.

This for sure. ⬆️

[Pyreaux]

I'm not sure there are more people leaving the LDS church because of the popular growth of anti-LDS media and groups but rather data shows its mostly never-LDS who are interested in how and why they leave (in social media) and the ex-LDS are merely discovering there is a demand for them to identify themselves as ex-members. 

The proliferation of anti-LDS media doesn't necessarily lead to more people leaving the church but instead serves as a magnet for those already inclined to leave or non-LDS curious about why others do. This aligns with the idea that social media often acts as an echo chamber or community-builder for like-minded individuals rather than a direct cause of belief changes.

Those who left might have simply drifted into inactivity, but now they can join groups that provide validation and shared narratives. This can amplify the appearance of a unified movement, even if the underlying motivations for leaving are diverse. Some ex-LDS individuals even adopt "borrowed" reasons for their departure and every matter seem subject to community conformity. When people join groups, there’s often a tendency to align with the dominant narrative, which could lead to oversimplified or uniform critiques of the church.

From this viewpoint, the net effect on the church’s active membership might not be as drastic as it seems.

Constantly stoking grievances may perpetuate a cycle of outrage rather than progress. Broad Criticism without a clear, focused goal can come across as opportunistic, attacking every aspect of the LDS Church rather than advocating for specific, achievable changes. This scattershot approach can undermine credibility and alienate those who might otherwise consider their perspective.

As a strategy, by continuously framing the church as a source of controversy, these groups may ensure a steady stream of content, which can attract sympathizers and reinforce their narratives. Its members are often rewarded for amplifying grievances or vilifying the church. However, the Zoomer generation's #1 value is authenticity. If these groups appear to prioritize generating drama and monetizing their content over genuine engagement or changes they may claim they want, it raises questions about their authenticity. Just like many other online spaces that operate as attention economies, where content creators thrive on sensationalism to maintain visibility and financial support. If ex-LDS groups are consistently focused on "drama," it might suggest a prioritization of engagement metrics over constructive discourse or meaningful advocacy. Which might in the long run fail to actually de-convert those who didn't already have a predisposition.

[Nofear]

4 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

From this viewpoint, the net effect on the church’s active membership might not be as drastic as it seems.

Shhh. This is most decidedly not the narrative the Church-negative crowd wants expressed! Heck, ditto for your entire post.

[Benjamin McGuire]

19 hours ago, Nofear said:

Which is garnering more views: church-positive media content or church-negative media content? There is a part 1 video too.

Indirectly, I think that Mormonism as a whole is at a point right now where it isn't in the limelight as much as it was a few years ago. We don't have a Mitt Romney drawing attention - and I think that there is more than enough news dealing with the new presidential administration to keep the focus elsewhere. Along side this, for those who have axes to grind over issues dealing with race and gender inclusiveness for the Church, the reality is that the Church's positions are rather moderate compared to a lot of what is out there right now (I think by just about anyone's measurement) - so the Church is neither in the spotlight as much nor is it as much of a target. I get only a tiny fraction of questions about Mormonism and our beliefs now as I did a few years ago. I think we are back to more of the traditional back and forth which doesn't register on most people's radar, and doesn't move the needle much in any case.

7 hours ago, sunstoned said:

From what I tell, the church is receiving more media coverage today than it did a decade ago, both positive and negative. One area that has significantly grown, in my opinion, is the presence of ex-Mormons on social media.

I think that this isn't true at all. One of the problems that we do have is that social media is incestuous - if you are looking a Mormon related material, social media will feed you lots of it. Clicks and advertising drive this sort of thing. But what it also means is that your experience is likely very, very different from most other consumers of social media. The greater the customization provided by the AI algorithms, the smaller your world shrinks on social media. A decade ago, Mormonism had a much higher profile in some ways than it does today - particularly having just passed the "Mormon moment" and Mitt Romney's failed presidential campaigns. It is easier to compare mainstream media and see that this is the case - but it is much harder to look at social media - and quantity isn't a good measuring stick. The quantity of social media has climbed in the last decade. It is my experience that as a percentage of the whole, the share of social media devoted to Mormonism and anti-Mormonism has shrunk in the past decade.

[sunstoned]

8 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Indirectly, I think that Mormonism as a whole is at a point right now where it isn't in the limelight as much as it was a few years ago. We don't have a Mitt Romney drawing attention - and I think that there is more than enough news dealing with the new presidential administration to keep the focus elsewhere. Along side this, for those who have axes to grind over issues dealing with race and gender inclusiveness for the Church, the reality is that the Church's positions are rather moderate compared to a lot of what is out there right now (I think by just about anyone's measurement) - so the Church is neither in the spotlight as much nor is it as much of a target. I get only a tiny fraction of questions about Mormonism and our beliefs now as I did a few years ago. I think we are back to more of the traditional back and forth which doesn't register on most people's radar, and doesn't move the needle much in any case.

I think that this isn't true at all. One of the problems that we do have is that social media is incestuous - if you are looking a Mormon related material, social media will feed you lots of it. Clicks and advertising drive this sort of thing. But what it also means is that your experience is likely very, very different from most other consumers of social media. The greater the customization provided by the AI algorithms, the smaller your world shrinks on social media. A decade ago, Mormonism had a much higher profile in some ways than it does today - particularly having just passed the "Mormon moment" and Mitt Romney's failed presidential campaigns. It is easier to compare mainstream media and see that this is the case - but it is much harder to look at social media - and quantity isn't a good measuring stick. The quantity of social media has climbed in the last decade. It is my experience that as a percentage of the whole, the share of social media devoted to Mormonism and anti-Mormonism has shrunk in the past decade.

I don't have any hard statistics, but going off of my limited experience, when I joined the r/exmormon subreddit in 2016 it had under 30k members.  It now has 318k members.  I call that significant growth.

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

I don't have any hard statistics, but going off of my limited experience, when I joined the r/exmormon subreddit in 2016 it had under 30k members.  It now has 318k members.  I call that significant growth.

Yes, I am not questioning this sort of growth. The issue that I am pointing out is that growth of all users has increased. The number of reddit users overall has dramatically increased from 2016 to 2025. And without getting into the problem of raw numbers like this on reddit, what I am suggesting is that the growth of an exmormon subreddit isn't particularly noteworthy. In 2012, /r funny was the first reddit community to hit 1 million users. In 2016 it hit 10 million users. Today, it has 66 million. 2016 was a significant moment for reddit because that was the year that the mobile app was introduced. Duplicate user accounts proliferated. But, the interesting thing about /r exmormon is its stats page. Here are the stats for the end of 2023:

Comments per day: 26

Posts per day: 6

Daily comments per subscriber: 0.000004

At the time those statistics were gathered, the number of subscribers was 289,496. It hasn't changed much. The point I am making is that this isn't a particularly useful statistic when trying to look at the relative reach of mormon/anti-mormon social media.

 

[sunstoned]

8 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Yes, I am not questioning this sort of growth. The issue that I am pointing out is that growth of all users has increased. The number of reddit users overall has dramatically increased from 2016 to 2025. And without getting into the problem of raw numbers like this on reddit, what I am suggesting is that the growth of an exmormon subreddit isn't particularly noteworthy. In 2012, /r funny was the first reddit community to hit 1 million users. In 2016 it hit 10 million users. Today, it has 66 million. 2016 was a significant moment for reddit because that was the year that the mobile app was introduced. Duplicate user accounts proliferated. But, the interesting thing about /r exmormon is its stats page. Here are the stats for the end of 2023:

Comments per day: 26

Posts per day: 6

Daily comments per subscriber: 0.000004

At the time those statistics were gathered, the number of subscribers was 289,496. It hasn't changed much. The point I am making is that this isn't a particularly useful statistic when trying to look at the relative reach of mormon/anti-mormon social media.

 

I don't disagree.  My original point was that it seems there is more negative PR about the church now, and I feel that a good percent of it comes from ex-members.  A quick search of "Mormon" on youtube seems to confirm this.

[2BizE]

I think most of us have seen the survey that places “Mormons” as being highly disliked by people of other faiths. 
I do not think the terrible attitudes the church portrays at many of these towns where temples are being build helps public perception.

[halconero]

I think one dynamic that is shifting is a segment of portrayal's taking people's faith seriously versus something ridiculous or cultish. That doesn't amount to an endorsement of said faith or its truth claims, rather than intelligent, good people can be people of faith. I think other major examples relate to Catholicism, which went through an extremely rough period in the 90s and 2000s given its combination of scandals and the rise of New Atheism. Here's some examples relating to them:

- "Silence" (2016), portrays the struggles of Jesuit priests in Shogunate Japan. Faith, doubt, and religious conviction are all treated seirously.

- "A Hidden Life" (2019), the story of an Austrian Catholic objector to taking an oath to Hitler during WWII; his faith is central to his decision making and treated with incredible reverence.

- "The Young/New Pope" (2016, 2020), I actually loved this series. I know that some took it as being critical of the Catholic Church, but I didn't see it personally. Rather, I think it treats the possibilities of religious faith across the spectrum of political, social, and theological beliefs of Catholics to be portrayed seriously. When fun was poked, it was poked at the character of individuals, rather than their faith. I think some more traditional Catholics actually loved the emphasis the fictional Pope Pius XIII places on mystery, tradition, and practice. At the same time, the possibility that Pius might actually be capable of miracles, and the softening of his heart is also portrayed seriously.

As far as we go:

- The Expanse (2015-2022), a Church-sponsored exploration project actually serves as a major plot point in the early part of the show. The TV series gets some marginally cringey parts about us wrong, but these are mostly minor things, typically the mannerisms of missionaries and senior church leadership; none of it is negative. It's outright said in some of the scene's that the Church's main project (a massive, generational space ship) incorporates a (yet-to-be-dedicated) temple. One of the scenes takes place in, what looks to me at least, a sealing room. In later season, you can see pioneer motifs in the background, and what looks like a prayer alter. Overall, the Church members in the series appear to be eccentric in their mission, but not zealots or negative in any sense.

- Heretic (2024), I haven't seen this, nor do I plan to. That said, I listened to a review with McKay Coppins (member of the Church and staff writer at the Atlantic). There are things he takes major issues with, but he does say the personal faith of the sister missionaries in it is treated seriously. The sisters are genuinely good people, and some parts may even be interpreted as miraculous interventions by a loving God into their lives. The bad guy is a militant atheist (emphasis on the militant; I know there's plenty of good atheists out there), and while his ideas are more-or-less asserted as a plausibly correct view, it's clear that his way of essentially enforcing or spreading them is atrocious. So, minus points for a movie about murdering sister missionaries, but a few pluses for at least treating them like good, compassionate, intelligent people like many of them are.

[Nofear]

On 1/28/2025 at 7:21 PM, sunstoned said:

My original point was that it seems there is more negative PR about the church now

One of the nice things about data is that it helps us overcome some of the biases. Examples include, but not limited to:

• Baader-Meinhof phenomenon
• availability heuristic
• selective attention
• illusory correlation
• spotlight effect
• optimism bias
• recency bias
• observer-expectancy effect

That's not to say anecdotal experiences aren't important. Nonetheless, we humans are pretty bad at having a decent understanding of the world's state. For anecdotal evidence of this, I often encourage folk to take this quiz: https://upgrader.gapminder.org/t/sdg-world-un-goals/21.