Bullying The Church Into Submission

[selek1]

There is a tactic which exmormons who post negatives about the lds church apply. It is called the bandwagon effect. In other words, exmormons talk about how angry they are at the church with the implication that most exmormons are angry. The doubting member comes along, expresses his or her doubt and suddenly they are greeted with a barrage of posts about angry exmormons who are upset about this or that. The doubting member on his or her way out of the church develops anger also to be a part of the bandwagon.

I would suggest that you take care not to discount the primary variant on this pattern: the "Everybody Says So" Effect.

In this tactic, critics and agitators will use any publically or privately expressed dissatisfaction- no matter how mild or only marginally tangential- to suggest that there is a "groundswell" of movement within the Church that the "Old Guard", (or more commonly "Out of Touch Old White MEN") either cannot comprehend or are actively surpressing (the charge varies depending upon how much sun the accuser has had in the previous week and the amount of tinfoil in their sartorial choices).

Any dissension or criticism- no matter how mild or wildly disconnected- is invoked as support for the change the critics demand- even when the people the critics are citing would be shocked to find their "disagreement" used as a weapon against the Church.

Edited August 19, 2012 by selek1

[why me]

I would suggest that you take care not to discount the primary variant on this pattern: the "Everybody Says So" Effect.

In this tactic, critics and agitators will use any publically or privately expressed dissatisfaction- no matter how mild or only marginally tangential- to suggest that there is a "groundswell" of movement within the Church that the "Old Guard", (or more commonly "Out of Touch Old White MEN") either cannot comprehend or are actively surpressing (the charge varies depending upon how much sun the accuser has had in the previous week and the amount of tinfoil in their sartorial choices).

Any dissension or criticism- no matter how mild or wildly disconnected- is invoked as support for the change the critics demand- even when the people the critics are citing would be shocked to find their "disagreement" used as a weapon against the Church.

Yes, this is also a tactic. What the two have in common is a group think and a group community, a sense of belonging. It can be addictive which is perhaps one reason once hooked into the group think, they can't leave it alone.

We can see this with the bullying about same sex marriage, role of women etc.

[Libs]

If you go back and read the very beginning of the article, you will find it is talking about active LDS women....not so-called apostates.

[Libs]

Many LDS women (perhaps most) are perfectly happy with their roles within the church. Does that mean the rest, who are not, or who see some room for positive change, should not be heard? Should they just sit down and shut-up...go with the flow? Or is it reasonable to allow them to speak their minds?

edit: Perhaps, even garnering some support among women (and men) who haven't really thought about these things?

Edited August 19, 2012 by Libs

[Calm]

Even if one accepts that bullying must involved the stronger attacking the weaker (and I think this is in line with most dictionary definitions so is according to common usage), because people or institutions can be very strong in some areas and weak in others, bullying is more complicated than just picking out the big guy who preys on the little guys.

If you want to see a great example of emotional bullying, the Princess Bride is perfect for it (especially since one is given the emotional satisfaction of the both the bully and his victims getting their deserved rewards):

Fezzik: I just don't think it's right, killing an innocent girl.

Vizzini: Am I going MAD, or did the word "think" escape your lips? You were not hired for your brains, you hippopotamic land mass.

Inigo Montoya: I agree with Fezzik.

Vizzini: Oh, the sot has spoken. What happens to her is not truly your concern. I will kill her. And remember this, never forget this: when I found you, you were so slobbering drunk, you couldn't buy Brandy!

[turning to Fezzik]

Vizzini: And YOU: friendless, brainless, helpless, hopeless! Do you want me to send you back to where you were? Unemployed, in Greenland?

We all know of examples of the 'little guy' who responds to his overpowering insecurities by turning into someone who exploits the insecurities or weaknesses of others to give himself a sense of power. Just because someone is 'small' or 'weak' doesn't mean they can't be bullies.

It is a particularly useful manipulation technique to present oneself as representing the underdog when one is attacking someone or an institution that is perceived by others as generally powerful, I see this as intimidation techniques or pressure tactics more than bullying. And I think it is unwise to use "bullying" when dealing with unequal 'forces' where the target is the perceived stronger 'opponent' because this is playing the game of those who want the discussion to be all about emotion and not about the actual facts. As soon as one lets ones' opponents define the rules, one has already given a huge advantage to them. Even allowing the discussion to be turned into an "us vs. them" discussion...in this case a debate of female members vs. the Church's priesthood hierarchy rather than viewing it as a discussion among church members....sets up an unnecessary win-lose situation.

As was obvious in the case of the opening of the Priesthood to all worthy and eligible males, we can and should approach the discussion as a win-win for all involved even if the ultimate result must wait upon direction from the Lord whether that is "not at this time", "no", or "it is time to expand this blessing to all who desire and are worthy and eligible for it".

Back to the idea of bullying....I don't think in the case of the LDS Church at this time the level of attacks and/or criticisms arises to bullying, though in some cases antagonists would dearly love it to...as in attempts to pressure the government to take on the role of bully by using threats of removing certain tax exemption status against churches in order to force them to either comply, be silent or get out of the arena they are currently involved in (such as has happened with the Catholic adoption agencies).

With the issue of whether or not women are to ever receive the Priesthood, I find it interesting that those who would love to be able to bully the Church into meeting their demands are also the ones who don't believe the Priesthood has any value having left the faith in most cases or never believed it in the first place. I don't remember seeing anyone who actually believes in the Church as a worthwhile faith community wanting to use thuggish pressure tactics on it. So it seems to me the wannabe bullies are true bullies in that they just want to make someone suffer, not actually accomplish any positive changes for others.

And finally I think for those of us who are church members we need to tread carefully so that we don't crossover into using pressure or intimidation techniques on our fellow members no matter what position we and they currently hold on this issue. Trying to shame others into changing their position by implying they are not as faithful or as loving or as understanding or as open to the Spirit and revelation as they should be will in the vast majority of cases not result in greater understanding and acceptance but more like increase resentment, feelings of being unfairly pressured and tend to solidify the opposite of the feelings and beliefs one is trying encourage in others.

I believe as Juliann has stated that we need to recognize that for the vast majority of LDS women who desire the Priesthood, they are like Abraham who sought the blessings of the Priesthood because he desired not greater power and influence but opportunities for greater righteousness and greater knowledge of God through the Spirit. Even for those who would like the Priesthood so they can be more involved in the decisionmaking process, it is generally not about power (though I do accept that for a few who have totally bought into the competitive structure of our greater society it is), but about ensuring that the needs of the members are being as effectively met as they could be, iow they are attempting in their way to further the mission of the Church in the area of perfecting the Saints, etc. and I see nothing inherently undesirable or unworthy and definitely not unfaithful or untrusting in that vision; instead it seems to me that it is trusting the Church to be the very vehicle that it claims to be, the most effective and necessary pathway to God.

Edited August 19, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

BTW, I think everyone interested in the subject should read Sister McBaine's FAIR presentation. It defines the issue very well and very fairly in my opinion and outlines ways of helping positively working in the Church itself within the current structure without having to challenge much of anything, instead simply making fuller use of what is already there to make fuller use of women and thus help make all members more effective in meeting the needs of the membership.

http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-to-do-the-business-of-the-church-a-cooperative-paradigm

[thesometimesaint]

Libs:

I don't view the "suggestions" as positive change.

The Church isn't going to tell them that they can't speak their own minds.

They can stand up and yell if they want. But that doesn't mandate the Church do anything about it.

It would be unreasonable to prohibit them from speaking their own minds. However the Church is not a bottom up organization. The Church is a top down organization.

There are established means by which individual members can have their concerns heard, and if agreed to have those concerns addressed and possibly eliminated. Going public with those concerns is of little value, and may be just an exercise in futility.

Edited August 19, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Libs]

That was an excellent article, Calmoriah. I read that, somewhere, before, but had forgotten about it.

It's very hurtful to have one's concerns (especially when they are genuine) simply dismissed...and then called "bullying" on top of it. A lot of the rhetoric on this thread is very insensitive towards the women in this article and women, in general, IMO.

Edited August 19, 2012 by Libs

[CASteinman]

There you go again...

How so? Are you absolutely sure its not you going there again and I am just following your lead?

Not trying to play games with you, just really think about what you typed the last two posts.

I think that they were fine.

A critic would have a field day talking to you.

And vice versa. But you are not a critic, right? And so its not a field day for you. Why not actually respond to me reasonably?

I am serious think about the last two posts.

I am serious too. Nothing was wrong with them but why will you not answer?

Edited August 19, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

It's very hurtful to have one's concerns (especially when they are genuine) simply dismissed...and then called "bullying" on top of it. A lot of the rhetoric on this thread is very insensitive towards the women in this article and women, in general, IMO.

It is also hurtful to be bullied in the name of "concerns" and have that bullying simply dismissed. A lot of rhetoric on this thread could be considered insensitive in general to those of us hurt by such bullying by masquerading it as "concerns".

Works both ways.

[Libs]

Libs:

I don't view the "suggestions" as positive change.

The Church isn't going to tell them that they can't speak their own minds.

They can stand up and yell if they want. But that doesn't mandate the Church do anything about it.

It would be unreasonable to prohibit them from speaking their own minds. However the Church is not a bottom up organization. The Church is a top down organization.

There are established means by which individual members can have their concerns heard, and if agreed to have those concerns addressed and possibly eliminated. Going public with those concerns is of little value, and may be just an exercise in futility.

Yes, and sometimes revelation is from the bottom up. I've talked about this before. Everyone in the church is privileged to experience revelation and even though the prophet has the final word and is the one who gives revelation for the whole church. Sometimes that revelation comes to some of the members, before the it comes to the prophet. I believe that happened on a large scale, when the priesthood was opened up for blacks (for example). Those members who experience revelation cannot officially act on it, but by simply expressing it, may open up and inspire leadership towards an experience of that revelation for the whole church.

Edited August 19, 2012 by Libs

[Libs]

It is also hurtful to be bullied in the name of "concerns" and have that bullying simply dismissed. A lot of rhetoric on this thread could be considered insensitive in general to those of us hurt by such bullying by masquerading it as "concerns".

Works both ways.

Where in the world has this "bullying" occurred? Certainly, not from me (or anyone else here, that I can see). I left this thread early on in disgust and dismay that these women in the article were being talked about in such a manner.

[KevinG]

Many LDS women (perhaps most) are perfectly happy with their roles within the church. Does that mean the rest, who are not, or who see some room for positive change, should not be heard? Should they just sit down and shut-up...go with the flow? Or is it reasonable to allow them to speak their minds?

edit: Perhaps, even garnering some support among women (and men) who haven't really thought about these things?

You just added accusations of ignorance to the previous mistrust of authority. This comes across as quite condescending.

Edited August 19, 2012 by KevinG

[Libs]

This view represents either a fundamental ignorance of the history of the Church and of how revelation operates or a fundamental misrepresentation of the LDS faithful.

It also begs the question: If- as you admit here- you believe that the Church receives and operates by revelation from GOD, why aren't you a member?

If you do not- and your above statement was merely posturing for rhetorical effect, why are you arguing from a premise or position you don't believe?

I am a member of record and I do believe in revelation...and I know that it sometimes works in this way. I also know I'm not the only one who believes this, since I first heard this theory in a Gospel Doctrine Class. Sometimes members do experience revelations, in advance, that will come to the prophet, at some point. If you believe in revelation, you must know that this is possible. That doesn't mean the person receiving that revelation can implement it...but, it's certainly very possible to know about it, in advance. The spirit is speaking to all of us, all the time...not just to the prophet.

[KevinG]

I am a member of record and I do believe in revelation...and I know that it sometimes works in this way. I also know I'm not the only one who believes this, since I first heard this theory in a Gospel Doctrine Class. Sometimes members do experience revelations, in advance, that will come to the prophet, at some point. If you believe in revelation, you must know that this is possible. That doesn't mean the person receiving that revelation can implement it...but, it's certainly very possible to know about it, in advance. The spirit is speaking to all of us, all the time...not just to the prophet.

Absolutely and as I said before the key is in the counseling approach (nevertheless Thy will be done) as opposed to a prescribing approach (you should be doing what I tell you).

[Libs]

Absolutely and as I said before the key is in the counseling approach (nevertheless Thy will be done) as opposed to a prescribing approach (you should be doing what I tell you).

Of course. I don't disagree with that, at all.

[thesometimesaint]

Libs:

There is a bit more to being a member than just having your name of the records, though no church official will do anything about it as long as someone doesn't actively campaign against the church.

[Libs]

Libs:

There is a bit more to being a member than just having your name of the records, though no church official will do anything about it as long as someone doesn't actively campaign against the church.

I am not an active member, but I am a believer, to a large degree. I probably believe enough of LDS doctrine to still be an active member, but....not sure I could withstand some of the more conservative politics of the church...especially, since the church has gone political activist, on those issues.

[Calm]

Allowing the Trib to define the discussion is the first problem I see in this thread. Labelling those who would like to see some changes as activists or feminists even if the changes they want to see are simply ones that can be incorporated as things are now without making any other changes and even already are in many wards (for example, there are no rules that need to be changed for young women to take over as ushers or to be in charge of getting the programs done or as is done in my ward, going around with the young men to the shut ins on Sunday and sharing prayers and spiritual thoughts along with the giving of the Sacrament).

The only label that needs to be applied to anyone who is a member is "Saint" and this is the position from which all discussion should originated. "What can one Saint do to help another Saint who is troubled" sets up a very different discussion than saying "Feminists and activists are concerned that about certain lacks in the Church in meeting its members' needs".

Allowing outsiders (and I mean those talking outside the structure of the faith community even if they are members) to define the discussion for us inside the faith community is not going to achieve anything but the muddying of waters. Rather we should simply take out of the article any good ideas we might find and ignore the rest, imo, and certainly not allow it to affect how we value or view or judge other Saints in any way.

PS: I am not saying we shouldn't be interested in what outsiders have to say, it is always good to listen to others' POV as we can learn a great deal from them, especially how we are perceived by others. I am just saying we shouldn't let outsiders define a discussion that is about what is going on inside our faith community, involving our members and how they interact with each other, how they see their roles, etc.

Edited August 19, 2012 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

Libs:

I am not an active member, but I am a believer, to a large degree. I probably believe enough of LDS doctrine to still be an active member, but....not sure I could withstand some of the more conservative politics of the church...especially, since the church has gone political activist, on those issues.

Politically I'm as, if not more, liberal than you. Yet I'm an active believing member, and have been for 41 years. In my Church meetings I ignore the hop heads on both sides. When I stand before my maker I'm not going to be judged on what member "X" "Y" or "Z" believed. I will be judged on what I did with what I believe.

[Libs]

Libs:

Politically I'm as, if not more, liberal than you. Yet I'm an active believing member, and have been for 41 years. In my Church meetings I ignore the hop heads on both sides. When I stand before my maker I'm not going to be judged on what member "X" "Y" or "Z" believed. I will be judged on what I did with what I believe.

I certainly respect that and I respect your choice.

I did try (and I may try again, at some point) but I was feeling like a hypocrite, to some degree. I went back, the last time, with really high expectations, for myself....I wanted to do and believe everything perfectly. That caved in on me, pretty quickly and I started feeling like a hypocrite, in some areas, supporting things I didn't really believe.

Even though I still feel the loss (and sometimes feel I should have tried harder)...right now, it's just easier being out.

Edited August 19, 2012 by Libs

[selek1]

Politically I'm as, if not more, liberal than you. Yet I'm an active believing member, and have been for 41 years. In my Church meetings I ignore the hop heads on both sides. When I stand before my maker I'm not going to be judged on what member "X" "Y" or "Z" believed. I will be judged on what I did with what I believe.

Need a good lawyer?

[Skylla]

Deleting personal comments. Stick to the topic.

Skylla

[Libs]

I have.

Despite our fundamentally divided loyalties and oil-and-water worldviews, I tend to pay strict attention to what you write (the doctors say laughter is good for my blood pressure )..

That was mean! lol

And even in posts where the "should" is not explicit, it is still implicit in what your write.

As much as you pretend/prefer not to be, you are a staunch (and occasionally militant) advocate for your preferred vision of thow things "ought to be".

The conflict between us arises where our competing visions contradict.

Well, I'm going to give you this, because I do (personally) believe the church "should" make some changes, even though I didn't say it..and I am staunch in some of my political beliefs (which is one of the reasons I am not comfortable in the church, anymore).

But, that wasn't even in mind, when I was talking about revelation. That comes from a discussion had with members of the church, in a GD class. That people can receive certain revelation, before even the prophet, was not coming from a "should" perspective, but rather just an observation about the way it sometimes happens.

[selek1]

That was mean! lol

You think that was mean, wait'll I tell you what I made for dessert last night and didn't share!

Well, I'm going to give you this, because I do (personally) believe the church "should" make some changes, even though I didn't say it..and I am staunch in some of my political beliefs (which is one of the reasons I am not comfortable in the church, anymore).

But, that wasn't even in mind, when I was talking about revelation. That comes from a discussion had with members of the church, in a GD class. That people can receive certain revelation, before even the prophet, was not coming from a "should" perspective, but rather just an observation about the way it sometimes happens.

Fair enough.