Building Credibility in Social Messaging
If you are going to speak publicly — through Instagram, podcasts, interviews, or written statements — especially about institutional misconduct or injustice, your influence will rise or fall on one discipline:
Say only what the record can carry.
Everything below flows from that.
Rule 1: Acknowledge the Nature of “Proof”, Privately and Publicly.
Be grounded in this, and let listeners know where you stand regarding this.
Proof does not mean:
You feel certain.
The pattern seems obvious.
Others agree with you.
It’s morally clear.
God has revealed it to you.
Proof means this:
A neutral, skeptical outsider — someone who does not already agree with you— could review the evidence and reasonably conclude that your claim is more likely true than not.
That’s the standard.
Proof must be:
Independently verifiable
Documented
Defensible under cross-examination
Ask yourself:
“If this sentence were read in a deposition, could I defend every word of it under oath?”
If the answer is:
“Well, I’d need to explain…”
or
“It’s more of a conclusion…”
Then soften the language.
There are three categories you must never confuse:
Proof – establishes that something happened.
Inference – suggests what it may mean.
Suspicion – indicates what might be happening.
You may publish proof.
You may carefully label inference.
You may not publish suspicion as fact.
If you discipline yourself here, most credibility problems disappear before they start.
Rule 2: The Greater the Conjecture, the Lower the Credibility
Your own principle says it plainly:
The more the conjecture, the less the credibility.
Do not exaggerate victories.
Do not exaggerate corruption.
Do not dramatize what the record does not support.
If someone committed a verifiable misdeed, state the misdeed.
State the injury.
State the procedural response.
Stop there.
The facts are compelling enough.
Overstatement weakens them.
Rule 3: Separate Fact from Interpretation — Out Loud
Always clarify:
What is documented.
What is alleged.
What is your interpretation.
What remains unknown.
Say things like:
“The record shows…”
“My interpretation is…”
“The documents raise reasonable questions about…”
Never collapse interpretation into certainty.
Audiences trust people who distinguish categories.
They distrust people who blur them.
https://youtu.be/14CTeElwq-A?si=HlVHCth-WRNoquAq
Rule 4: Never Accuse Beyond the Record
Joe McCarthy may have been very sincere in his desire to protect America from communism. There’s no fault in this. Where his life unraveled was that his accusation outpaced proof.
Sweeping claims + insufficient documentation + escalating rhetoric = credibility collapse.
Win procedurally first.
If necessary:
Subpoena.
File.
Litigate.
Establish findings.
Then report calmly.
A quiet, documented conclusion is far more powerful than repeated accusation.
As you proceed to declare truth to your followers, never lose sight of Joe McCarthy’s demise. Joe died at 48, a miserable, depressed, alcoholic. His life coud have gone so much differently if he’d had the restraint to never accuse beyond the record.
Rule 5: Bridle Passion (or Negativity) to Avoid the Appearance of Guilt
This is hard, but critical.
Anger, blame, criticism, labeling, overtly judging, name calling etc. are often interpreted by the public as evidence of one’s guilt or instability, even if you are 100% innocent.
Even justified negativity reads poorly to neutral observers.
When messaging becomes:
Repetitive grievance
Emotional escalation
Harsh labeling
People stop evaluating the evidence and start evaluating you.
Explain what happened. Let the facts surface. Avoid inflammatory language.
Calm communicates strength. Heat or negativity communicates insecurity.
Ground-breaking research done in 2023 by Kim and Goodman suggests that when someone consistently provides negative information or feedback regarding a person or group, the audience attributes the negativity to this person’s disposition vs. the target of the negative messaging (i.e. the Church, OUR etc.).
In this, the audience isn't evaluating the individual claims; they are evaluating the speaker’s motives. The negative feedback or narrative reinforces the idea that the source (the speaker) is driven by vindictiveness or emotional trauma, making the source fundamentally unreliable and untrustworthy.
Rule 6: Never Bark Without Biting
Barking without biting diminishes credibility.
If you threaten exposure, lawsuits, or consequences — and nothing materializes — you undermine people’s trust in you.
An empty threat is so much worse than silence.
If you are not prepared to act, do not announce.
Speak when action is real.
Act when you speak.
Rule 7: Use a Whip, Not Stones
The whip represents facts:
Precise. Documented. Controlled.
The stones represent:
Judgment.
Character assassination.
Motive attribution.
You can prove behavior.
You cannot prove inner corruption unless it is explicitly documented.
Stay with behavior.
You do not need to prove someone is evil.
You only need to prove what they did.
Facts land.
Stones backfire.
Rule 8: Protect Context Relentlessly
We live in clip culture. A 90-second excerpt can distort a two-hour explanation.
If you make strong claims:
Publish or quote full statements in context, not just a clip.
Preserve timelines.
Provide primary sources.
Transparency stabilizes you. If your claim depends on unseen material, you will always appear vulnerable.
Bill Gates Example:
“The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about nine billion. Now If we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that [population] by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”
Presented alone, critics framed this as a plan to reduce the number of people.
What he said earlier, in the same talk, to clarify the meaning:
“The faster we improve health, the faster family size goes down.”
Gates was explaining a well-documented demographic pattern: when child mortality drops and families feel confident their children will survive, birth rates tend to decline naturally. His point was about lowering population growth rates by reducing child mortality and improving health outcomes — not eliminating people.
Rule 9: Stay Mission-Oriented — Speak More to What You’re Building
Movements weaken when grievance becomes the center.
Address problems — yes, and as inspired (and if you think it will keep people encouraged) explain what legal progress is currently underway in this very moment.
But speak much more about:
What you are building.
What solutions are emerging.
What outcomes are possible.
Builders attract followers and momentum.
Perpetual accusers shrink their coalition.
Let your message point forward.
What to Do With Claims You May Not Be Able to Prove Currently
Do not publish as fact.
If you cannot defend the sentence under oath, don’t state it as a conclusion. If it doesn’t clear that bar, it doesn’t go out.
Convert conclusions into questions.
Instead of “They did X,” say, “The record raises questions about X.” If the evidence suggests but does not establish, frame it that way.
Separate investigation from broadcasting.
If it is still forming, it belongs in your files — not on social media. Investigation first. Messaging second.
Do not assign motive.
You can prove actions. Motives are almost always inference unless formally established. Stick to what can be shown.
Lower the claim, not raise it.
If you’re unsure, scale the language down. Say “serious procedural failure” instead of “corruption” unless corruption is proven. Understatement protects credibility.
Test every sentence before you post it.
Ask yourself:
Is this proof, inference, or suspicion?
Could a neutral outsider defend this?
Would I stand by every word under oath?
Have I overstated the claim?
If you hesitate on any of those, refine the language or wait.
Advance the mission, not the emotion.
Most importantly, ask: Does this move the mission forward?
If it’s true but doesn’t serve the larger objective, reconsider whether it needs to be said now — or at all.
If you operate this way, two things happen:
Your credibility compounds.
Your opponents have very little room to attack you, which is the point of this paper.
Say only what the record can carry. That reputation is extremely hard to break.
Accusations Anaylisis
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is covering up church wide, top down SRA and other sexual abuse.
…meaning, a coordinated, institutional policy to conceal satanic ritualistic abuse or other sexual abuse.
You’ve stated that “the Mormon Church” is involved in a cover up. This would me a top down, church wide, concealed agenda to cover up something that our leadership is secretly supporting. This is different than there being hundreds of one-offs where there indeed has been cover up with millions paid in damages.
Uncover vs. Discover
To Uncover (Public Perception): Highlighting facts already available but perhaps ignored, such as the existence of the 24/7 help line or the role of Kirton McConkie.
To Discover (Legal Process): Using the court to force the handover of confidential call logs and disciplinary files to prove exactly what was said and when.
What’s needed to prove that “The Church” (fom the top down) is doing this:
Internal documents showing knowledge and concealment at a top down level as general practice church-wide.
On the SRA side - proving that SRA exists throughout the church general membership, (which I believe does exist) you would need corroborated witness accounts, criminal indictments or forensic evidence of the abuse.
Actions Leading to Discovery
In a civil lawsuit, a plaintiff must convince a judge that internal files are essential to the case to override religious privacy protections.
Challenging Privilege: Proving the "Clergy-Penitent Privilege" was used as a legal/HR shield for the institution rather than for a private spiritual confession.
Whistleblowers: An employee leaking internal databases or call logs, which would bypass the slow legal process and jump straight to the public.
Proving "Prior Notice": While individual cases of prior notice are public, a court-ordered disclosure would force the Church to reveal all similar records, proving a systemic pattern rather than isolated incidents.
The Chances of any of this leading to the uncovering of a top-down, general church cover-up related to SRA.
Based on historical investigations and current legal evidence, the likelihood of a coordinated, institutional "Satanic Ritual Abuse" cover-up, related to the above, is extremely low.
Historical Lack of Evidence: 1990s investigations by the Utah Attorney General and the FBI found zero physical evidence of organized satanic cults within the Church.
Therapeutic "Confabulation": Experts and leaders noted many SRA claims were "recovered memories" induced by improper therapy rather than historical events.
Negligence vs. Occultism: Evidence points to institutional cover-up—protecting reputation and finances—rather than a "satanic" conspiracy.
A Helpful Comparison Between the Catholic CoScrew-upsver up and the LDS Screw ups.
The Catholic cases produced:
Independent government investigations (and if these are coming, let’s wait until then to support the outcomes).
Publicly documented internal communications showing concealment.
In LDS cases so far, what we see is:
Institutional legal defensiveness in connection with individual cases.
Controversial use of clergy privilege.
Civil litigation.
Criticism from journalists and plaintiffs’ attorneys.
But not a confirmed, government-documented, church-wide concealment enterprise.
Bottom line: Authorities in Utah have looked into claims of ritual abuse but couldn’t find solid proof beyond what people said had happened. Furthermore, there was no physical evidence, criminal charges, or independent confirmation of a larger organized system. They also did not find evidence that LDS church leaders were running or secretly coordinating SRA activities.
The Glenn Pace memo shows that allegations were reported and discussed internally, but it doesn’t prove that a widespread ritual abuse system (Church of Satan) existed or that leaders were covering one up. Furthermore, the memo is publicly available, which undercuts the idea that there was some hidden, suppressed evidence.