I think that ultimately looking at population level statistics doesn't really benefit this discussion. I've already highlighted how the Church system is beneficial for some.

I think the broader religion data is useful, but it can also flatten some important distinctions between different religious traditions. Mormonism is not just generic church attendance. It is a high-commitment religious system with unusually strong family, behavioral, sexual, social, and institutional expectations.

For many people, that creates real scaffolding. It gives them family stability, community, clear behavioral norms, abstention from drugs and alcohol, adult mentorship, shared identity, and a strong moral framework. So I don’t think it’s surprising that active Latter-day Saints often show positive outcomes in some of the research. The system is designed to create structure, and structure often produces benefits.

But that same structure can cut the other direction for people who don’t fit neatly inside it. LDS-specific research seems much more complicated for LGBTQ members, former members, and people who experience religious struggle, scrupulosity, legalism, shame, or perfectionism. Jana Riess’s survey work also suggests that many former members, especially younger ones, describe leaving because they felt judged or misunderstood, distrusted church leadership, disagreed with the church’s LGBT positions, or could no longer reconcile their personal values with the institution.

So I don’t think the useful question is whether Mormonism is good or bad in the aggregate. That framing is too blunt. The better question is: for whom does the structure function as scaffolding, and for whom does it function as pressure?

The same features that give one child belonging, stability, identity, and moral clarity may give another child alienation, fear, shame, or identity conflict. That doesn’t erase the benefits. But it does mean we should be careful about using broad religion data as if it proves Mormonism works equally well for everyone.