What a ridiculous and close-minded article. Of course Mormon culture exists. One must be intentionally obtuse to deny the culture if they have spent any time active in the Church. Leaving Church activity in no way invalidates a person’s lived experience within the Mormon culture.
R HollandMay 3, 2026
KFC would never say that Kentucky Fried Chicken will make you sick.
Sally GreenfieldApril 29, 2026
As a cultural anthropologist who grew up attending the LDS church, I strongly and in no uncertain terms object to the claims made in this article.
I am confident that I have forgotten more about how culture works than this author has ever known.
R. O.April 27, 2026
The gatekeeping is strong with you, brother
John T. PrinceApril 27, 2026
> But if you apostasize from your faith, you don’t get to keep claiming it. Or at least people should ignore you when you try to.
Is this article meant to be an example of ignoring the people trying to claim the term Mormon? Or will that be left to others to implement?
John T. PrinceApril 27, 2026
> And we would do well to look at such claims the same way Europeans do when Americans claim European identity—with cringe.
> “You’re not Irish. Maybe your great grandparents were Irish, but then they left, and you’ve been in America for a very long time.”
1. To this point I've never heard of someone referring to themselves as "culturally mormon" unless they themselves were members. Seems like there's an enormous difference between "great grandparents were Irish" and someone actually having been shaped by the religion/culture directly as a member for the majority of their own lifetime?
2. The brand confusion with Mormon Stories and SLOMW is not a good representation of the use of the term "cultural mormon" among most former members, I think, so it's unfortunate that this essay groups them together. The majority of former members I know would not want to be mistaken as a member. Many do not consider themselves Mormon anymore on any level, and those that do view themselves as a cultural mormon will almost always qualify it as needed so that there isn't any confusion about their membership status in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Trevor SnellApril 27, 2026
I’ve followed John Dehlin’s work for a long time, and I’m struggling to find instances where he shared verifiably false info. Since he was excommunicated over a decade ago, I’m curious which specific claims were cited as 'false' at that time. Also, if he has updated or removed content over the years, isn't that a sign of trying to be accurate? I’d love to hear your perspective on what he’s gotten wrong."
NoWayApril 27, 2026
You gain membership through baptism, and you maintain that membership through covenant keeping.
You're going to have to tell that to Gen Z, Christopher. You'd be shocked how many of them aren't wearing their garments and drinking latte while claiming full fellowship. If a 2 list checkbox of 1) baptized and 2) covenant keeping decides who gets to call themselves Mormon then you need to start reporting 500K Mormons exist instead of 18M.
MaryannApril 27, 2026
Since President Nelson was so clear and very firm about the importance of dropping the word "Mormon" as a title for the church, or for individuals in the church, it is disappointing that so many still persist in using it. When he had to repeat this again counsel later, he firmly said that this is not optional. He also said that we need to correct those who speak to us or about us, using the term "Mormon." Of course, we do that with gentleness and a smile. If we all would be obedient to this counsel from a Prophet, it would become understood by the world, and we wouldn't have to keep repeating ourselves. But, most important of all, when we use the full name of the church, it is a declaration that we ARE followers of Jesus Christ.
Bill AltmanApril 27, 2026
Yes—the Church is a religion with doctrine. No one disputes that. But pretending there’s no such thing as “Mormon culture” is just not serious.
There absolutely is a distinct Utah/Intermountain West Mormon culture—shared norms, social expectations, dating dynamics, family structures, even aesthetics. The article itself accidentally admits this, then tries to rename it so it doesn’t “count.” That’s word games, not an argument.
And more importantly:
You don’t get to tell people they lose the right to describe their own lived experience.
If someone grew up Mormon, served, married, dated, struggled, left—those are still Mormon experiences.
Calling something like Mormon Stories “not Mormon” is absurd—it’s literally about people’s lives in and around Mormonism.
“Ex-Mormon” is a valid label, but it doesn’t erase the cultural imprint.
Where the piece really falls apart is this idea that once you leave, you lose any legitimate claim to the label or perspective. That’s not how identity works. If you spent years (or decades) immersed in a system, it shapes you—culturally, socially, psychologically. You don’t just “unsubscribe” from that history.
The “no Mormon culture” claim also collapses under real-world examples:
Mormon royalty absolutely exists socially, whether people like the term or not. Families with status, lineage, or leadership ties often carry influence.
Personal example: I was asked to stop dating someone because I was a convert. Her mother—wife of a former mission president—made it clear I wasn’t acceptable as a son-in-law. That wasn’t “doctrine.” That was culture and hierarchy.
You can’t dismiss that as imaginary while also talking about “pioneer heritage,” “Utah traditions,” and insider norms. That is culture.
Also, the comparison to trademarks (KFC, etc.) is weak.
Religion isn’t a corporation, and identity isn’t owned IP. People don’t need permission to describe their own background.
Bottom line:
The Church defines doctrine.
People define their experiences. Calling that “anti-Mormon” just because it’s critical is a convenient way to dismiss uncomfortable narratives.
Both can exist at the same time. Denying “Mormon culture” doesn’t protect the Church—it just ignores the reality that millions of people have actually lived.
HelenCApril 25, 2026
Thank you for this. My beloved husband left the Church shortly after his mission in South Africa 46 years ago. He has never even thought of trading on that former life, except when I invite him to share stories with current missionaries. He respects the Church and my dedication to it. He has never had a desire to tear it down.
I do use it in my prayers as I plead for help to persuade him to return because I know just how much Father in Heaven and the Savior love him and because I know that sacrifice counts with Them.
To me, he is a beloved son of God who lost his faith. He does not choose hate nor does he respect those who do.
Paul AndersApril 24, 2026
Well written explanation.
Peter BleakleyApril 24, 2026
What a silly thing to say. 'Your lifetime of experience as a Church member and leader, raised and living in a family and social culture entirely defined by generations of Mormon thought and social norms, counts for absolutely nothing if you start to disagree with us. You have suddenly completely forgotten all of that. You don't know what you are talking about. Your lifetime of experience that means last year you were trusted with senior callings doesn't count for anything any more.' Are you serious?! This is desperate, arrogant and obviously hypocritical. So should we ignore any criticisms Martin Luther and the Protestants made of the Catholic church because they left it? Why do Latter-day Saints now celebrate and make heroes of those people for what they did and said after rejecting Catholicism? Should we ignore the criticisms and opinions and analysis Joseph Smith offered of Methodists and Presbyterians and suchlike because he and his immediate family were members of their churches and community and then chose to leave them? Make this make sense.
Boanerges RubalcavaApril 24, 2026
Instead of "Mormonism" use "Christianity of Christ". This differentiate the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints from the "Historical Christianity" .
Comments | Return to Story
Joseph gowenMay 8, 2026
What a ridiculous and close-minded article. Of course Mormon culture exists. One must be intentionally obtuse to deny the culture if they have spent any time active in the Church. Leaving Church activity in no way invalidates a person’s lived experience within the Mormon culture.
R HollandMay 3, 2026
KFC would never say that Kentucky Fried Chicken will make you sick.
Sally GreenfieldApril 29, 2026
As a cultural anthropologist who grew up attending the LDS church, I strongly and in no uncertain terms object to the claims made in this article. I am confident that I have forgotten more about how culture works than this author has ever known.
R. O.April 27, 2026
The gatekeeping is strong with you, brother
John T. PrinceApril 27, 2026
> But if you apostasize from your faith, you don’t get to keep claiming it. Or at least people should ignore you when you try to. Is this article meant to be an example of ignoring the people trying to claim the term Mormon? Or will that be left to others to implement?
John T. PrinceApril 27, 2026
> And we would do well to look at such claims the same way Europeans do when Americans claim European identity—with cringe. > “You’re not Irish. Maybe your great grandparents were Irish, but then they left, and you’ve been in America for a very long time.” 1. To this point I've never heard of someone referring to themselves as "culturally mormon" unless they themselves were members. Seems like there's an enormous difference between "great grandparents were Irish" and someone actually having been shaped by the religion/culture directly as a member for the majority of their own lifetime? 2. The brand confusion with Mormon Stories and SLOMW is not a good representation of the use of the term "cultural mormon" among most former members, I think, so it's unfortunate that this essay groups them together. The majority of former members I know would not want to be mistaken as a member. Many do not consider themselves Mormon anymore on any level, and those that do view themselves as a cultural mormon will almost always qualify it as needed so that there isn't any confusion about their membership status in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Trevor SnellApril 27, 2026
I’ve followed John Dehlin’s work for a long time, and I’m struggling to find instances where he shared verifiably false info. Since he was excommunicated over a decade ago, I’m curious which specific claims were cited as 'false' at that time. Also, if he has updated or removed content over the years, isn't that a sign of trying to be accurate? I’d love to hear your perspective on what he’s gotten wrong."
NoWayApril 27, 2026
You gain membership through baptism, and you maintain that membership through covenant keeping. You're going to have to tell that to Gen Z, Christopher. You'd be shocked how many of them aren't wearing their garments and drinking latte while claiming full fellowship. If a 2 list checkbox of 1) baptized and 2) covenant keeping decides who gets to call themselves Mormon then you need to start reporting 500K Mormons exist instead of 18M.
MaryannApril 27, 2026
Since President Nelson was so clear and very firm about the importance of dropping the word "Mormon" as a title for the church, or for individuals in the church, it is disappointing that so many still persist in using it. When he had to repeat this again counsel later, he firmly said that this is not optional. He also said that we need to correct those who speak to us or about us, using the term "Mormon." Of course, we do that with gentleness and a smile. If we all would be obedient to this counsel from a Prophet, it would become understood by the world, and we wouldn't have to keep repeating ourselves. But, most important of all, when we use the full name of the church, it is a declaration that we ARE followers of Jesus Christ.
Bill AltmanApril 27, 2026
Yes—the Church is a religion with doctrine. No one disputes that. But pretending there’s no such thing as “Mormon culture” is just not serious. There absolutely is a distinct Utah/Intermountain West Mormon culture—shared norms, social expectations, dating dynamics, family structures, even aesthetics. The article itself accidentally admits this, then tries to rename it so it doesn’t “count.” That’s word games, not an argument. And more importantly: You don’t get to tell people they lose the right to describe their own lived experience. If someone grew up Mormon, served, married, dated, struggled, left—those are still Mormon experiences. Calling something like Mormon Stories “not Mormon” is absurd—it’s literally about people’s lives in and around Mormonism. “Ex-Mormon” is a valid label, but it doesn’t erase the cultural imprint. Where the piece really falls apart is this idea that once you leave, you lose any legitimate claim to the label or perspective. That’s not how identity works. If you spent years (or decades) immersed in a system, it shapes you—culturally, socially, psychologically. You don’t just “unsubscribe” from that history. The “no Mormon culture” claim also collapses under real-world examples: Mormon royalty absolutely exists socially, whether people like the term or not. Families with status, lineage, or leadership ties often carry influence. Personal example: I was asked to stop dating someone because I was a convert. Her mother—wife of a former mission president—made it clear I wasn’t acceptable as a son-in-law. That wasn’t “doctrine.” That was culture and hierarchy. You can’t dismiss that as imaginary while also talking about “pioneer heritage,” “Utah traditions,” and insider norms. That is culture. Also, the comparison to trademarks (KFC, etc.) is weak. Religion isn’t a corporation, and identity isn’t owned IP. People don’t need permission to describe their own background. Bottom line: The Church defines doctrine. People define their experiences. Calling that “anti-Mormon” just because it’s critical is a convenient way to dismiss uncomfortable narratives. Both can exist at the same time. Denying “Mormon culture” doesn’t protect the Church—it just ignores the reality that millions of people have actually lived.
HelenCApril 25, 2026
Thank you for this. My beloved husband left the Church shortly after his mission in South Africa 46 years ago. He has never even thought of trading on that former life, except when I invite him to share stories with current missionaries. He respects the Church and my dedication to it. He has never had a desire to tear it down. I do use it in my prayers as I plead for help to persuade him to return because I know just how much Father in Heaven and the Savior love him and because I know that sacrifice counts with Them. To me, he is a beloved son of God who lost his faith. He does not choose hate nor does he respect those who do.
Paul AndersApril 24, 2026
Well written explanation.
Peter BleakleyApril 24, 2026
What a silly thing to say. 'Your lifetime of experience as a Church member and leader, raised and living in a family and social culture entirely defined by generations of Mormon thought and social norms, counts for absolutely nothing if you start to disagree with us. You have suddenly completely forgotten all of that. You don't know what you are talking about. Your lifetime of experience that means last year you were trusted with senior callings doesn't count for anything any more.' Are you serious?! This is desperate, arrogant and obviously hypocritical. So should we ignore any criticisms Martin Luther and the Protestants made of the Catholic church because they left it? Why do Latter-day Saints now celebrate and make heroes of those people for what they did and said after rejecting Catholicism? Should we ignore the criticisms and opinions and analysis Joseph Smith offered of Methodists and Presbyterians and suchlike because he and his immediate family were members of their churches and community and then chose to leave them? Make this make sense.
Boanerges RubalcavaApril 24, 2026
Instead of "Mormonism" use "Christianity of Christ". This differentiate the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints from the "Historical Christianity" .
ADD A COMMENT