Emotional Blackmail, A Weapon Against Lds Defenders

[Scott Lloyd]

For quick reference, I have just added my definition of emotional blackmail to my signature.

 

My thanks again to Hamba Tuhan for coming up with this very apt term for a frequently used technique.

 

 

[Freedom]

The emotional blackmail I see is the accused lying about the reason for his excommunication as if he was removed because of his personal opinions. I am welcome to disagree with my lawyers and engineers but if I actively defy them and admonish others to disregard their advice then I am in a seriously libelous situation and will not only loose my job but end up in court. This is the disconnect. 

[Teancum]

Yawn.....

[Uncle Dale]

For quick reference, I have just added my definition of emotional blackmail to my signature.

 

...

 

Might not this general term also be applied to instances in which

opponents attempted to silence "defenders" in a dissident group

(Morrisites, Gladdenites, Godbeites, Glendenningites, etc.)?

 

Or, would that application be perfectly justified -- as these sects

are not the "One True Church;" and thus the righteous silencing

and shaming of vocal defenders, of such obvious apostasy, would

be Divinely sanctioned?

 

UD

 

ps -- We had some descendants of Soda Springs Morrisites in our

Pocatello, Idaho branch when I was a young fellow -- but I think

they've all passed away by now.

[Kenngo1969]

Yawn.....

Awww, poor Teancum.  I'm sorry you're so tired.  D&C 88:124.

[Calm]

There are different forms of emotional blackmail.

 

The wiki does has a simple table demonstrating the forms:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_blackmail

[Brian 2.0]

There are different forms of emotional blackmail.

 

The wiki does has a simple table demonstrating the forms:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_blackmail

 

Reading those forms, what form was Dehlin using, again?

 

And I don't totally understand the definition in you sig, Scott.  Is it okay to ever make someone feel guilty if you're just speaking the truth, or your reality?  Is saying "when you say that, it hurts me and it hurts others" emotional blackmail?  

[Scott Lloyd]

Reading those forms, what form was Dehlin using, again?

I think it's pretty clear he was using a variation on the "sufferer's threat,"

 

Eat the food I cooked for you or I'll hurt myself.

With the sufferers being not necessarily Dehlin himself but the downtrodden masses he is speaking in behalf of because the Church leaders and/or defenders won't shut up and let the critics complain.

 

Eat the food I cooked for you or I'll hurt myself.

 

And I don't totally understand the definition in you sig, Scott.  Is it okay to ever make someone feel guilty if you're just speaking the truth, or your reality?  Is saying "when you say that, it hurts me and it hurts others" emotional blackmail?

When it's more manipulative than truthful, or when it's intended to shame the defender into silence so that the critic or complainer has free and uncontested rein, I'd call it blackmail. Edited February 16, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Brian 2.0]

I think it's pretty clear he was using a variation on the "sufferer's threat,"

 

With the sufferer's being not necessarily Dehlin himself but the downtrodden masses he is speaking in behalf of because the Church leaders and/or defenders won't shut up and let the critics complain.

 

Eat the food I cooked for you or I'll hurt myself.

 

When it's more manipulative than truthful, or when it's intended to shame the defender into silence so that the critic or complainer has free and uncontested rein, I'd call it blackmail.

 

theres a big difference between:

 

"Change your teachings and policies on gays and lesbians OR I'll hurt myself."

 

and 

 

"Change your teachings and policies on gays and lesbians BECAUSE people are killing themselves as a result of them."

 

You can disagree with that 2nd statement, but it's not a threat or emotional blackmail.

[Ham Clam]

I don't think "making defenders feel guilty" tacks it down. I would put "manipulating defenders emotions or personal relationships".

This post on "interpersonal terrorism" (using the Dehlin-stake president relationship as an example) would be an extreme example of blackmail.

[Ham Clam]

theres a big difference between:

 

"Change your teachings and policies on gays and lesbians OR I'll hurt myself."

 

and 

 

"Change your teachings and policies on gays and lesbians BECAUSE people are killing themselves as a result of them."

 

You can disagree with that 2nd statement, but it's not a threat or emotional blackmail.

 

 

It is fun to watch their reaction when they harp on about how unkind you are and how baby Jesus is crying ove it and carry on ignoring their cheap little trick. For example:

Definately a difference in this name-calling and arguing an emotional point. Keep it to the point.

[Teancum]

Awww, poor Teancum.  I'm sorry you're so tired.  D&C 88:124.

Cute.

[Robert F. Smith]

Might not this general term also be applied to instances in which

opponents attempted to silence "defenders" in a dissident group

(Morrisites, Gladdenites, Godbeites, Glendenningites, etc.)?

 

Or, would that application be perfectly justified -- as these sects

are not the "One True Church;" and thus the righteous silencing

and shaming of vocal defenders, of such obvious apostasy, would

be Divinely sanctioned?

 

UD

 

ps -- We had some descendants of Soda Springs Morrisites in our

Pocatello, Idaho branch when I was a young fellow -- but I think

they've all passed away by now.

There will always be dissidents, Dale.  Thing about the LDS Church is that it is quite genteel with dissidents of whatever kind, whether Jerald & Sandra Tanner or Sterling McMurrin.  No threats, no violence, and no guilt trips.

[sethpayne]

There will always be dissidents, Dale.  Thing about the LDS Church is that it is quite genteel with dissidents of whatever kind, whether Jerald & Sandra Tanner or Sterling McMurrin.  No threats, no violence, and no guilt trips.

 

Didn't President McKay have to personally intervene to prevent McMurrin's excom by calling his SP or offering to be a witness?  My memory is fuzzy on the details.  Lucky McMurrin knew President McKay personally or he would have lost his membership.  

 

So while I agree with you broadly that the LDS Church is genteel with dissidents, there are occasions where local leaders perhaps get a little overzealous.  (FWIW ... I am NOT suggesting this is what happened in any recent public cases).

[Uncle Dale]

 

...there are occasions where local leaders perhaps get a little overzealous....

 

Which is why I mentioned the Morrisites. I used to live in East Layton and

drove by the scene of their "genteel" handling on an almost daily basis.

 

But, leaving my own youthful experiences unstated, I'll briefly make mention

of the gal from Eskdale who used to walk past the LDS "Tute" adjacent to

the Weber State campus. The catcalls did not come from the young gentlemen

scholars (to their good credit) but from three Hooper farm-girls who thought

the sight of "an apostate" clad in long prairie dress and sun-bonnet, was just

too good of an opportunity to miss out on.

 

The "Levite" miss took to walking on the other side of the street, and the

farm-girls took their bad manners with them back to Hooper.

 

Not a big deal, actually -- every sect has its rude bad-apples. But the scene

sticks in my memory, and comes back to recollection, whenever I hear that

the LDS do not taunt, nor lay guilt trips upon the members of other churches.

 

UD

Edited February 15, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[Robert F. Smith]

Which is why I mentioned the Morrisites. I used to live in East Layton and

drove by the scene of their "genteel" handling on an almost daily basis.

 

But, leaving my own youthful experiences unstated, I'll briefly make mention

of the gal from Eskdale who used to walk past the LDS "Tute" adjacent to

the Weber State campus. The catcalls did not come from the young gentlemen

scholars (to their good credit) but from three Hooper farm-girls who thought

the sight of "an apostate" clad in long prairie dress and sun-bonnet, was just

too good of an opportunity to miss out on.

 

The "Levite" miss took to walking on the other side of the street, and the

farm-girls took their bad manners with them back to Hooper.

 

Not a big deal, actually -- every sect has its rude bad-apples. But the scene

sticks in my memory, and comes back to recollection, whenever I hear that

the LDS do not taunt, nor lay guilt trips upon the members of other churches.

 

UD

Compared to the mobbing, rape, murder, and formal extermination policies of their enemies, the Mormons have (with notable exceptions) refrained from that sort of thing.  When constant, unremitting blasphemy comes forth from anti-Mormons, the counsel has always been to let it go.  Indeed, some evangelicals have stated publicly and repeatedly that their own fellow evangelicals have deliberately and knowingly lied about the Mormons.  When a virulent Broadway play blasphemes God and the LDS religion, Mormons take out ads in the playbill advertising the Book of Mormon -- while Muslims engage in direct, retaliatory murder.

 

You have lost your sense of perspective and proportion, Dale.  People often make negative jibes and jabs at the Mormons (you do it often on this board), but most of us consider it inappropriate to respond in kind.  We try hard to be civil, believing that this too shall pass.  WWJD?

 

I remember when I first went out to the midwest and found so many "down home folks."  It was nice.  They didn't have to be Mormon, and most weren't, but l liked them just the same.  Some of them had faults, and their ancestors had done some horrific things.  However, I did not feel it necessary to bear false witness against them as a community.  Whether the staff at the Auditorium, or their sworn enemies in town, or non-Mormons around the greater Kansas City area, I found them all nice and friendly, down home folks.  Sure, I have a strong critique of how certain organizations did what they did, and I even write about it based on research I did out there for many years.  You and I even met and exchanged views at a JWHA meeting and we corresponded (do you recall?).  However, I see no reason to take certain actions out of context, or to lose perspective.  That's just bad reportage, wouldn't you say, Dale?

[Uncle Dale]

 

...That's just bad reportage, wouldn't you say, Dale?

 

The bad part of that particular set of events was that I kept silent.

As the token "non-member" taking classes after regular college

courses let out, I felt I should stand back and not draw attention

to myself. But that was a mistake. It took the observation of an

astute CES teacher to notice the vocal bigotry, and end it.

 

A friend said recently, "Dale -- you sure tell a lot of stories --

are any of them true?" It was said in a light-hearted manner, but

I suppose that not many people around today came from the

old listening-and-repeating heritage of my English ancestors.

I heard a thousand family stories from my father and his siblings

and another couple of hundred from my Broadhurst grandfather.

It was how I was brought up -- listen -- question -- and remember.

 

That was important, in understanding the family history -- of

three generations growing up in Parker, Fremont Co., Idaho,

between the times of Garfield and Hoover. Three generations

of non-members, living in an exclusively LDS town and region.

Of course the hostile memories often stayed in the family

memory more vividly than times when we actually got along OK

with our Mormon neighbors. That's just natural.

 

But farm animals stolen, out-buildings burned, fences broken

down, arguments, threats, shaming over "apostasy," and

continual offers to be "bought out and git out" were not forgotten.

 

It made matters worse that my great grandmother came from

a half-Josephite, half-Brighamite family. It made matters worse

that my great great grandfather Broadhurst fellowshiped with

Josephites back in Utah. Gentile families living a few miles

away, in St. Anthony seemed to get by with far less friction.

 

So, perhaps I'm a little thin-skinned. Perhaps it was just the

peculiar notion of my youthful neighbors (all LDS until 1957)

that I was destined for the Lake of Fire -- while they would

be "Adams many, on worlds many." Probably the local Bishop

never told them to say such things, or to play dirty tricks on

the "others" (the only residence vandalized on our street

each Halloween), but don't tell me that LDS bigotry is a myth.

 

But that is minor stuff -- stuff any upright Amish family goes

through in decades among the infidels of the countryside.

 

The really, really bad stories came from the Utah refugees

of the late 1860s and early 1870s, who made it across the

state line, up to Malad, and "safety." They didn't muffle their

oxen hooves and sneak out of Cache Valley at three in the

morning, because they owed back tithing, or had been

robbing neighbors' hen-houses. They went to Malad, to

Soda Springs, and later to Pocatello to escape religious

persecution, pure and simple.

 

History buffs can read through the wild west "tales" of folks

escaping from "The Valley" with little more than their lives,

and laugh, and say that it must all be fiction.

 

Go read the preserved records of the Malad RLDS branch,

and the accounts related to the sons of Joseph Smith, when

they came west to preach the restored gospel.

 

No murders -- and perhaps no attempted murders -- I'll grant

that much "genteel" toleration for the leavers. No Bill Hickman

or John D. Lee opened fire upon the Josephite converts as

they approached the Idaho line.

 

That sort of thing was reserved for the Morrisites.

 

UD

[wtrdog]

This thread is truly a profound irony.  Is this really how you people see yourselves?  As put upon defenders of the faith, a modern army of god bearing some great cross?  There is a whole forum, NOM, dedicated to therapy for unorthodox members who are being emotionally blackmailed by their orthodox spouses.  What is it you think the church engages in, if not emotional blackmail?

 

http://mormonhurt.org/ofworthandtestimony/#more-1035

[Darren10]

theres a big difference between:

 

"Change your teachings and policies on gays and lesbians OR I'll hurt myself."

 

and 

 

"Change your teachings and policies on gays and lesbians BECAUSE people are killing themselves as a result of them."

 

You can disagree with that 2nd statement, but it's not a threat or emotional blackmail.

That's a great point in distinction. Now, what policy by the LDS Church *caused* gays to kill themselves?

[Darren10]

I don't think "making defenders feel guilty" tacks it down. I would put "manipulating defenders emotions or personal relationships".

This post on "interpersonal terrorism" (using the Dehlin-stake president relationship as an example) would be an extreme example of blackmail.

Yes, that's exactly what ot is.

[The Nehor]

This thread is truly a profound irony.  Is this really how you people see yourselves?  As put upon defenders of the faith, a modern army of god bearing some great cross?  There is a whole forum, NOM, dedicated to therapy for unorthodox members who are being emotionally blackmailed by their orthodox spouses.  What is it you think the church engages in, if not emotional blackmail?

 

http://mormonhurt.org/ofworthandtestimony/#more-1035

There are dozens of forums discussing reptilian conspiracies and UFO sightings. Does is logically follow that because there is a forum about it the subject of the forum is a pervasive problem?

[why me]

This thread is truly a profound irony.  Is this really how you people see yourselves?  As put upon defenders of the faith, a modern army of god bearing some great cross?  There is a whole forum, NOM, dedicated to therapy for unorthodox members who are being emotionally blackmailed by their orthodox spouses.  What is it you think the church engages in, if not emotional blackmail?

 

http://mormonhurt.org/ofworthandtestimony/#more-1035

I  don't think that the church engages in emotional blackmail but people do. You mention spouses as one example.Spouses have been emotionally blackmailing eachother since time began: adam and eve as an example. Nothing knew there. All religions can create problems when one spouse no longer believes in the faith that once was shared. And emotional blackmail can come into the picture. This is not just a mormon problem but a difference of faith problem. This was just discussed on the BBC. They interviewed a catholic couple where the wife believed and the husband didn't. And also with a muslim who didn't believe but whose wife returned to islam. Not good either. So, this happens quite a lot. All were receiving emotional blackmail.

 

However, critics do tend to emotionally blackmail members. Sometimes it goes like this: the critic is aggressive toward the lds defender and when the lds member aggressively defends the church, the critic cries foul by exclaiming that such aggression is unchristlike, thereby making the member feel guilty. I have seen this often on the boards. Only critics can exhibit passion while members need to be neutered.

Edited February 15, 2015 by why me

[Scott Lloyd]

I  don't think that the church engages in emotional blackmail but people do. You mention spouses as one example.Spouses have been emotionally blackmailing eachother since time began: adam and eve as an example. Nothing knew there. All religions can create problems when one spouse no longer believes in the faith that once was shared. And emotional blackmail can come into the picture. This is not just a mormon problem but a difference of faith problem. This was just discussed on the BBC. They interviewed a catholic couple where the wife believed and the husband didn't. And also with a muslim who didn't believe but whose wife returned to islam. Not good either. So, this happens quite a lot. All were receiving emotional blackmail.

 

However, critics do tend to emotionally blackmail members. Sometimes it goes like this: the critic is aggressive toward the lds defender and when the lds member aggressively defends the church, the critic cries foul by exclaiming that such aggression is unchristlike, thereby making the member feel guilty. I have seen this often on the boards. Only critics can exhibit passion while members need to be neutered.

There's a word for that. It's hypocrisy. But apparently some aggressive critics can't be charged with that because, well, only Mormons can be hypocrites in their eyes. Edited February 16, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Robert F. Smith]

......................................................................  

 

But farm animals stolen, out-buildings burned, fences broken

down, arguments, threats, shaming over "apostasy," and

continual offers to be "bought out and git out" were not forgotten.

 

..................................................................    

So, perhaps I'm a little thin-skinned. Perhaps it was just the

peculiar notion of my youthful neighbors (all LDS until 1957)

that I was destined for the Lake of Fire -- while they would

be "Adams many, on worlds many." Probably the local Bishop

never told them to say such things, or to play dirty tricks on

the "others" (the only residence vandalized on our street

each Halloween), but don't tell me that LDS bigotry is a myth.

........................................................   

The really, really bad stories came from the Utah refugees

of the late 1860s and early 1870s, who made it across the

state line, up to Malad, and "safety." They didn't muffle their

oxen hooves and sneak out of Cache Valley at three in the

morning, because they owed back tithing, or had been

robbing neighbors' hen-houses. They went to Malad, to

Soda Springs, and later to Pocatello to escape religious

persecution, pure and simple.

 

................................................................  

 

Go read the preserved records of the Malad RLDS branch,

and the accounts related to the sons of Joseph Smith, when

they came west to preach the restored gospel.

 

No murders -- and perhaps no attempted murders -- I'll grant

that much "genteel" toleration for the leavers. No Bill Hickman

or John D. Lee opened fire upon the Josephite converts as

they approached the Idaho line.

 

That sort of thing was reserved for the Morrisites.

 

UD

O.K. Dale, I'll give you that, and if we go back far enough, no one's hands are clean.  True enough.

 

However, as I posted on another thread a week ago (even though it is from 2010):

 

http://www.mormonnew...y-about-mormons

Major New Study of Religion Has Much to Say About Mormons

15 NOVEMBER 2010 — POSTED by RYAN TOBLER

 

 A new and important study of religion in America has, among other things, a good deal to say about members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Recently published under the title American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us , the sociological study was conducted by scholars Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell and yields valuable insight to the nature and social effects of American religion. Drawing from in-depth new surveys, the study’s authors affirm that in many respects, religion in America exerts a healthy influence upon American society — one that typically promotes generosity, trust, neighborliness, and civic engagement. And while Mormons are a relatively small component of American society, the study data reveals that they play a conspicuous part in American religious life.

Among the study’s findings related to Latter-day Saints are the following:

 

·         Mormons are among the most devout religious groups in the country.

The American Grace study assessed a composite measure of “religiosity” that measured individuals’ levels of religious observance, the strength of their religious convictions about God and their faith, and the degree to which they feel their religion is personally important. As a group, Mormons registered a high level of “religiosity” (American Grace, 23-24).

 

·         Mormons are among those most likely to keep their childhood faith as adults.

In an age of American religion where people often depart from the religion of their upbringing and where switching between religions is becoming more common, the study indicates that individuals raised as Latter-day Saints are among those most likely to keep their faith (137-138).

 

·         Mormons are unusually giving.

Among the study’s larger conclusions is the fact that, in general, religion in America contributes to civic virtue, altruism, and good neighborliness. Study data, meanwhile, indicate that collectively Mormons are among the most charitable of Americans with their means and time, both in religious and nonreligious causes (452).

 

·         Mormons are relatively friendly to other religious groups.

The study also reports that Mormons are among those most friendly toward those of other faiths. Relatively speaking, the United States has not been the scene of deep religious conflicts; it is and has been a place of remarkable religious tolerance and pluralism. Nevertheless, the study’s authors point out that Americans are divided by religion, and hence, American society is susceptible to religious discord. Indeed, American religious (and nonreligious) groups have various feelings about one another. While data suggest that Mormons are among those viewed least positively by many American religious groups, they themselves hold relatively positive views toward members of other faiths, including those outside of Christianity (505-508).

 

·         Mormons are among the most likely to believe that one true religion exists, but also that those outside their faith can attain salvation or reach “heaven.”

The scholars behind the study conclude that while many American religions make claims to being exclusively “true,” few religionists in the United States actually believe that “one true religion” exists. Of all American faiths, Mormons are most likely to affirm that there is a “true” faith (546). However, in what might seem a paradox to those unfamiliar with Mormonism, study data also indicate that while many Mormons believe that there is a “true” religion, Mormons are also the most convinced of any group that those outside their faith — including non-Christians — can “go to heaven” or gain salvation (535-537). While this belief is general among American believers, it is, according to the study, strongest among Latter-day Saints.

 

Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell, American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2010).

 

[why me]

There's a word for that. It's hypocrisy. But apparently some aggressive critics can't be charged with that because, well, only Mormons can be hypocrites in their eyes.

Of course it is hypocrisy. But it is a great weapon to make apologists feel guilty. For people who no longer believe and who are at times atheists, to use the Christ-card is a extreme case of emotional blackmail. It means that they cannot win the argument but they can attempt to silence the lds member or make the lds member less passionate in the post. I view the internet as a game of war. Members are actually doing battle with the critics and now these critics can be the members themselves who adopt a critic persona. So, in a way it becomes a civil war whereas before it was a war with an outside foe.

 

Unfortunately, members can be overcome by the opposing forces. They go to their websites become allies with them and also join their side. And the emotional blackmail begins with the unchristlike accusation.

 

But we can also look at internet boards. How many defenders do we have on limited? Quite a few. And why? Have the mods been emotionally blackmailed?  When a defender is harsh with a critic, do lds members report this person to the mods and the mods then put the person on limited or banned from the thread because of unchristlike behavior? And when greg wrote his well written article how many members claimed that it was unchristlike? This accusation is used over and over again toward defenders of the church when they become passionate about what they are writing. So, in a way, the game is rigged on the side of the critic. Or is it?