Emotional Blackmail, A Weapon Against Lds Defenders

[Calm]

How many critics do you think have been banned in relation to defenders of the Church?

 

There are about 40 limited posters, of them I count probably 8 that are LDS supporters.  It is likely that critics who are put on limited disappear by choice while defenders stick around.

Edited February 16, 2015 by calmoriah

[Ham Clam]

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.

 

I found that article.

And, I agree, probably the worst example you could find is couples being mean/having relationship problems.

[Robert F. Smith]

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?

You sound just a tad paranoid to me, amigo.

 

And then, where do you get that "unchristlike" thing?  I haven't seen it before on this board.  Is that in the rules somewhere?

[Ferdinand55]

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.

The "Christ-card" irks me more than anything else. Christ was perfectly loving, but he was not afraid to tell the truth when he needed to. And the wicked "take the truth to be hard". 

 

It reminds me of what Jeffrey R. Holland said:

"Sadly enough, my young friends, it is a characteristic of our age that if people want any gods at all, they want them to be gods who do not demand much, comfortable gods, smooth gods who not only don’t rock the boat but don’t even row it, gods who pat us on the head, make us giggle, then tell us to run along and pick marigolds."

 

Take Matthew 23, for example. Christ certainly doesn't mince words when he denounces the pharisees:

 

17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?

24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.

28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,

33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

 

If Christ said something like this today, he would be labeled a prejudiced bigot. He would be accused of using an ad hominem attack and, in all likelihood, he would be accused of being "unchristlike".

[Uncle Dale]

 

...to use the Christ-card is a extreme case of emotional blackmail.

...

 

 

 

 

Although it was never said to me, I heard it directed to many a

Baptist parishioner, when I spent time among them...

 

"Sister, Jones, every time you wear a skirt that short, you crucify

Christ anew."

 

"Mr. Peterson, your letting your kids go to a movie like that just

drives another nail into Jesus' hands."

 

"Reverend Black, that sermon of yours last Sunday was the most 

unChristlike, liberal propaganda I've ever heard. You should be

ashamed of yourself -- for, I can tell you right now, God is!"

 

It wasn't so much the words, as the combination of pleading

and vindictiveness in their intonations -- I wish I knew how to

duplicate that whining/barking in a web-posting.

 

UD

Edited February 16, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[why me]

You sound just a tad paranoid to me, amigo.

 

And then, where do you get that "unchristlike" thing?  I haven't seen it before on this board.  Is that in the rules somewhere?

It is said either directly or indirectly. Usually, the more passive aggressive way is to say that the lds member who defends the church should have a more charitable tone. Or is advised to write like jesus would write etc. But maybe I am paranoid. Who knows.   But the point that I was trying to make which many defenders can relate to is the admonishing from critics who lecture defenders in the tone that they use when confronting critics. I see this especially on critic boards where the game is rigged.

[Tacenda]

I said it about some on this board Why Me. But not anyone outside of it. But have heard of situations where the LDS defender will turn on a critic, first acting as the loving kind member, but getting rather ugly to a critic, usually a close member of the family. One couple treated the disbelieving person as if they were the devil themselves. My own sister and sister in law, mentioned that doubts are caused by Satan. How would you like to be told that Satan was influencing you. It did a number on me.

[Analytics]

I  don't think that the church engages in emotional blackmail....

 

From the Wikipedia article on emotional blackmail:

 

Emotional Blackmail and FOG, terms coined by psychotherapist Susan Forward, PhD, are about controlling people in relationships and the theory that fear, obligation or guilt ("FOG") are the transactional dynamics at play between the controller and the person being controlled.  

 

Compare:

 

Mormon 9:27

O then despise not, and wonder not, but hearken unto the words of the Lord, and ask the Father in the name of Jesus for what things soever ye shall stand in need. Doubt not, but be believing, and begin as in times of old, and come unto the Lord with all your heart, and work out your own salvation with fear and trembling before him.

 

Thomas S. Monson, October 2010

"Missionary service is a priesthood duty—an obligation the Lord expects of us who have been given so very much."

 

Alma 5:18

 18 Or otherwise, can ye imagine yourselves brought before the tribunal of God with your souls filled with guilt and remorse, having a remembrance of all your guilt, yea, a perfect remembrance of all your wickedness, yea, a remembrance that ye have set at defiance the commandments of God?

 

Fear, obligation, and guilt are central to Mormonism.  You entered into a sacred covenant when you were eight years old that you would be loyal to the Church for the rest of your life; you are now obligated!  Fear God!  Jesus died for you, and you don't even have have enough faith to give him 10% of your gross income before you pay your bills and buy food!  I would to God that ye had not been guilty of so great a crime.

 

But if you think I'm saying all this to emotionally blackmail you, remember that I would not dwell upon your crimes, to harrow up your soul, if it were not for your good. 

[Duncan]

From the Wikipedia article on emotional blackmail:

 

Emotional Blackmail and FOG, terms coined by psychotherapist Susan Forward, PhD, are about controlling people in relationships and the theory that fear, obligation or guilt ("FOG") are the transactional dynamics at play between the controller and the person being controlled.  

 

Compare:

 

Mormon 9:27

O then despise not, and wonder not, but hearken unto the words of the Lord, and ask the Father in the name of Jesus for what things soever ye shall stand in need. Doubt not, but be believing, and begin as in times of old, and come unto the Lord with all your heart, and work out your own salvation with fear and trembling before him.

 

Thomas S. Monson, October 2010

"Missionary service is a priesthood duty—an obligation the Lord expects of us who have been given so very much."

 

Alma 5:18

 18 Or otherwise, can ye imagine yourselves brought before the tribunal of God with your souls filled with guilt and remorse, having a remembrance of all your guilt, yea, a perfect remembrance of all your wickedness, yea, a remembrance that ye have set at defiance the commandments of God?

 

Fear, obligation, and guilt are central to Mormonism.  You entered into a sacred covenant when you were eight years old that you would be loyal to the Church for the rest of your life; you are now obligated!  Fear God!  Jesus died for you, and you don't even have have enough faith to give him 10% of your gross income before you pay your bills and buy food!  I would to God that ye had not been guilty of so great a crime.

 

But if you think I'm saying all this to emotionally blackmail you, remember that I would not dwell upon your crimes, to harrow up your soul, if it were not for your good. 

 

 

"Those who are filled with the love of Christ do not seek to force others to do better; they inspire others to do better."

- Howard W. Hunter

[Buzzard]

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).

IIRC, Brother McMurrin was an LDS professor up at the U. Over the years, he lost his testimony. Joseph Fielding Smith sent him a letter with questions about his stands on various doctrines. McMurrin told the truth in reply, but stated that he still attended his meetings, sang in the choir, and was an active member of his ward. JFS wanted to ex him, but President McKay stepped in and stopped it.  Brother McMurrin was not running around giving lectures on his post-Mormonism, or seeking to help people leave the church. He was a perfect example of someone who has a different opinion about some doctrines, but doesn't try to persuade others to join him. JFS just got hot under the collar.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

In consideration of the above, I have amended the definition in my sig accordingly.

[Buckeye]

IIRC, Brother McMurrin was an LDS professor up at the U. Over the years, he lost his testimony. Joseph Fielding Smith sent him a letter with questions about his stands on various doctrines. McMurrin told the truth in reply, but stated that he still attended his meetings, sang in the choir, and was an active member of his ward. JFS wanted to ex him, but President McKay stepped in and stopped it.  Brother McMurrin was not running around giving lectures on his post-Mormonism, or seeking to help people leave the church. He was a perfect example of someone who has a different opinion about some doctrines, but doesn't try to persuade others to join him. JFS just got hot under the collar.

 

Look at pp. 96-97 of Greg Prince's McKay Bio (hopefully the link below works). You will see that McMurrin was vocally opposed to the priesthood ban and publicly called it a "moral deficiency that deserves the most rigorous condemnation." He also made public some private comments from President McKay to the effect that the ban was policy, not doctrine, and would be eventually lifted. Comments like that are what led the FP/Q12 to consider excommunication.

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=3UBXLIkLEQwC&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=sterling+mcmurrin+priesthood+ban&source=bl&ots=w2rfRlTiSv&sig=J00kJMXldebLCUOzu9pXA8Qhi0g&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sGHiVIXnN8eqNorfgYAG&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=sterling%20mcmurrin%20priesthood%20ban&f=false

 

Now, imagine if John Dehlin had said in a TedTalk that "the church's involvement in Prop 8 is morally deficient and deserves rigorous condemnation" and then was quoted in the NY Times to reveal that Elder Holland had confessed to him that exclusion of women from priesthood office was merely policy, not doctrine, and that it would change in the future. That would be comparable to McMurrin.

 

Edit to add: FWIW, I do think there is a parallel between Dehlin and McMurrin. In both situations, church leaders had to make a utilitarian calculation as to whether disciplinary action would make things better or worse for the church.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Buckeye

[Calm]

In consideration of the above, I have amended the definition in my sig accordingly.

Scott. Grammar police here....I think your its got autocorrected in your sig.

[Robert F. Smith]

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).

IIRC, Brother McMurrin was an LDS professor up at the U. Over the years, he lost his testimony. Joseph Fielding Smith sent him a letter with questions about his stands on various doctrines. McMurrin told the truth in reply, but stated that he still attended his meetings, sang in the choir, and was an active member of his ward. JFS wanted to ex him, but President McKay stepped in and stopped it.  Brother McMurrin was not running around giving lectures on his post-Mormonism, or seeking to help people leave the church. He was a perfect example of someone who has a different opinion about some doctrines, but doesn't try to persuade others to join him. JFS just got hot under the collar.

It was much more than simply knowing President McKay personally.  It also had to do with his family, which was highly regarded among the Brethren.  It was also true that McMurrin, who was a permanently endowed professor at the UofU, and the author of important books on the theology and philosophy of Mormonism, was also a national figure, who had been the U. S. Commissioner of Education under President Kennedy.  He also had very nice things to say about the Mormons as a people.  In short, he was a perfect gentleman, and exuded a gracious and positive aura.

 

Thus, even though he frequently declared openly that he considered the Book of Mormon to be fiction, and engaged in important public debates with Hugh Nibley, he was virtually untouchable.

 

I also suspect that Pres McKay agreed with McMurrin that the priesthood restriction was a "moral deficiency that deserves the most rigorous condemnation," but, without a revelation on the subject (as demanded by JFS), he was not free to go public on the matter. 

Edited February 16, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Mystery Meat]

I said it about some on this board Why Me. But not anyone outside of it. But have heard of situations where the LDS defender will turn on a critic, first acting as the loving kind member, but getting rather ugly to a critic, usually a close member of the family. One couple treated the disbelieving person as if they were the devil themselves. My own sister and sister in law, mentioned that doubts are caused by Satan. How would you like to be told that Satan was influencing you. It did a number on me.

 

Satan influences everybody. It may be a hard truth, but it is a truth. And doubts are almost certainly sourced in the devil. He will do anything he can to get people further away from the restored gospel.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott. Grammar police here....I think your its got autocorrected in your sig.

Ugh! Thank you. Fixed.

 

The doubly embarrassing thing is that I had to read it over several times to spot it after you pointed it out.

 

I'm having to correct myself quite a bit on that particular error lately. Gotta be auto-correct that's to blame, especially since I'm posting with a mobile device quite often these days. (That's the story I'm sticking to, anyway.)

[Scott Lloyd]

I also suspect that Pres McKay agreed with McMurrin that the priesthood restriction was a "moral deficiency that deserves the most rigorous condemnation," but, without a revelation on the subject (as demanded by JFS), he was not free to go public on the matter. 

I can't agree that President McKay would have felt that way and done nothing about it as prophet, seer and revelator. I have more respect for his integrity than that.

 

Edited to add:

 

From the 1969 statement of the First Presidency:

 

Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, “The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God….

“Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state.”

 

Edited February 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

Ugh! Thank you. Fixed.

 

The doubly embarrassing thing is that I had to read it over several times to spot it after you pointed it out.

 

I'm having to correct myself quite a bit on that particular error lately. Gotta be auto-correct that's to blame, especially since I'm posting with a mobile device quite often these days. (That's the story I'm sticking to, anyway.)

I know it is more me being autocorrected because I see it happening while it does it and it drives me buggy.  I use its rather than it's more often, I can always write it is too so it if has to autocorrect, why not the easy one?

Edited February 17, 2015 by calmoriah

[KevinG]

Autocorrect is a tool of da debil. It denies us our agency to misspell.

[Robert F. Smith]

I can't agree that President McKay would have felt that way and done nothing about it as prophet, seer and revelator. I have more respect for his integrity than that.

 

Edited to add:

 

From the 1969 statement of the First Presidency:

Problem is Scott that there were only two signatures on that 1969 document you quote (not Pres McKay).  As for Pres McKay, who was 96, and who would die very shortly, he was too weak to participate in the heated debate going on among his Counselors and the Twelve.  It was a very shabby, rancourous affair, and the main characters were all dead by 1978, when the revelation finally came, and when Elder McConkie affirmed that he and others had spoken without light and knowledge -- and to forget whatever he had said on the matter.  A detailed account with full documentation is available at Gregory A. Prince, "David O. McKay and Blacks: Building the Foundation for the 1978 Revelation," Dialogue, 35/1 (2010):145-153, online at https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Dialogue_V35N01_157.pdf .

[Scott Lloyd]

Problem is Scott that there were only two signatures on that 1969 document you quote (not Pres McKay).  As for Pres McKay, who was 96, and who would die very shortly, he was too weak to participate in the heated debate going on among his Counselors and the Twelve.  It was a very shabby, rancourous affair, and the main characters were all dead by 1978, when the revelation finally came, and when Elder McConkie affirmed that he and others had spoken without light and knowledge -- and to forget whatever he had said on the matter.  A detailed account with full documentation is available at Gregory A. Prince, "David O. McKay and Blacks: Building the Foundation for the 1978 Revelation," Dialogue, 35/1 (2010):145-153, online at https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Dialogue_V35N01_157.pdf .

He may have been incapacitated at the time, but their statement quoted an earlier statement from him. Was that a fabrication?

[Robert F. Smith]

He may have been incapacitated at the time, but their statement quoted an earlier statement from him. Was that a fabrication?

This was a very emotional and trying moment for the Brethren, among whom such infighting is quite rare.  The 1969 statement was not intended to reflect Pres McKay's views, but to be an end run around some of the Brethren who shared his views.  These are fallible humans just like you and me, Scott, who have now no doubt all come around to one united view in celestial glory.  One of these days we too shall share that same complete unity on all matters now in dispute.  I look forward to truly getting my head on straight in that "sweet by and by,"

 

To our bountiful Father above,

We will offer our tribute of praise

For the glorious gift of His love

And the blessings that hallow our days.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Scott Lloyd]

This was a very emotional and trying moment for the Brethren, among whom such infighting is quite rare.  The 1969 statement was not intended to reflect Pres McKay's views, but to be an end run around some of the Brethren who shared his views.  These are fallible humans just like you and me, Scott, who have now no doubt all come around to one united view in celestial glory.  One of these days we too shall share that same complete unity on all matters now in dispute.  I look forward to truly getting my head on straight in that "sweet by and by,"

 

To our bountiful Father above,

We will offer our tribute of praise

For the glorious gift of His love

And the blessings that hallow our days.

But the statement they attributed to him is what it is, and it seems clear and unequivocal. Was it taken out of context? Can we document a primary source for it where it can be read in context? Did his views change that dramatically over time, and if so, were his Brethren deliberately misrepresenting him?

Sincere questions. I'm asking because I don't know.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Ahab]

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.

Blackmail usually involves a threat by the blackmailer to do something bad to the one being blackmailed, so what bad thing do you suppose the blackmailers are threatening to do to those they are blackmailing?

I would probably just laugh at somebody who threatened to do something bad to me, if not also feeling a little pity for them, because in the end I would be the one to come out on top and their bad deeds would end up doing damage to them.

As long as we don't do anything bad, we have nothing to fear.

[Uncle Dale]

Blackmail usually involves a threat by the blackmailer to do something bad to the one being blackmailed...

 

 

Might also add in "the appearance of evil" there somewhere.

 

As in, "Bishop, I won't tell your wife about your visit to the sick

sister who lives up above the Painted Lady Club... but who wasn't 

at home when you stopped by last night -- no problem."

 

"And, by the way, I have an appointment with some mountain trout

next week, on "every member a janitor" clean-up day. I'm sure

you'll understand...."

 

UD