Why I Started Mormon Stories Podcast

Why Mormon Stories Podcast Began: Understanding the Motivations Behind Critical LDS Voices

For nearly two decades, the Mormon Stories Podcast has occupied a contested space in Latter-day Saint discourse. Founded by John Dehlin, the show has become one of the most influential platforms for documenting LDS exit narratives, challenging official church positions, and exploring Mormon history from a critical perspective. But what actually prompted the creation of this polarizing show? Understanding the origins of Mormon Stories Podcast requires examining both the personal journey of its founder and the broader landscape of faith deconstruction that was reshaping American Mormonism in the early 2000s.

The answer lies in a convergence of factors: years of observing members leave the faith, exposure to historical information at odds with official narratives, and a conviction that the least harmful response was not silence or conformity, but transparent dialogue. These motivations reveal something important about how some Latter-day Saints came to view their relationship with institutional religion, and how documentation and storytelling became tools for processing religious transition.

The Long Observation: Two Decades of Faith Transitions

Before Mormon Stories Podcast launched in 2005, Dehlin had witnessed something the institutional church rarely acknowledged: a steady stream of members leaving Mormonism. This wasn't happening dramatically or publicly in most cases. Instead, it occurred quietly in living rooms, therapist's offices, and through late-night conversations, people struggling with contradictions between what they'd been taught and what historical documents, scientific findings, or personal experience revealed.

What struck Dehlin was that these departures were rarely as simple or destructive as church leaders portrayed them. The narrative within official LDS discourse suggested that those who left typically fell into sin, abandoned morality, or succumbed to offense. The reality was far messier and more nuanced. Some former members thrived. Others struggled. Many experienced profound grief alongside liberation. But crucially, the church had no institutional mechanism for acknowledging this complexity.