Found this gem over on postmo:

If TSCC can discredit someone then the arguments against Mormonism become less effective. The idea is to destroy the credibility of the speaker or writer. Overt acts and open attacking an "apostate" makes the organization look very guilty. Destruction of credibility leads to the person telling truth looking foolish. Tactics have been perfected for such things and are used by organizations on a regular basis.

1. Whispering campaigns

2. Careful selection and editing of a person's words. It is very obvious this is going on when what the TBM is saying to your face bears absolutely no resemblance to what they are saying to everyone else. The problem with gossip is it often does get back to the person being talked about. This can be disconcerting to the "apostate", making them overly cautious in terms of what he or she says, and limiting his or her interactions. When the gossip consists of blatant lies this can cause the "apostate" to wonder what else is being said behind his or her back.

3. Death by a thousand cuts. A little slander here, a small lie there, a bit of gossip over there.

4. Strategically planned "slips" or comments that "just crop up" in a personal conversation with someone's boss or colleague. These comments do not need to be true and often are not.

5. Isolating the "apostate" socially. "Do not associate with apostates." This can lead to job loss, inability to obtain a comparable position, a necessity to move long distances, and isolation from former support networks.

6. Quietly encouraging a spouse to divorce the unbeliever. This does not need to come directly from the bishop or stake president. There is enough material floating around from years past that TBM friends, visiting teachers, etc will be unwitting accomplices in these efforts.

7. The above tactics have the added benefit of leading to what are referred to as "nth order effects". If you begin applying this type of stress to a person it can often lead to bankruptcy, additional stress that can increase health problems and the cost of medical care, bad decisions on the part of the "apostate", correct and incorrect accusations from the "apostate", among many other things.

All of this is much more effective than blatant attacks. It makes TSCC look like the victim and the "apostate" look like a putz. Quite a racket actually. The true perpetrator of the problem, TSCC, becomes the perceived victim. This type of turning the tables is very, very common. It is not necessary to touch a person to effectively destroy them.

http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/index.php/discussions/viewthread/19724/#425157

Good post. Thanks for the re-post.

It's pretty much like "mobbing" in the workplace, and if verified, it's illegal and can result in fines.

The nasty parts in particular are the whisper and slipped comment campaigns to employers or potential employers, as well as the triumphant and self-confirming "See how Satan has ruined his life?" after the individual has succumbed to the huge stress of fighting for and maybe losing his family, friends, social network, employability, etc. Gee, that'll teach members to exercise their freedom of religion.

And that's why the church is basically evil. It crushes individuals who dissent from it.

derrida Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good post. Thanks for the re-post.
>
> It's pretty much like "mobbing" in the workplace,
> and if verified, it's illegal and can result in
> fines.
>
> The nasty parts in particular are the whisper and
> slipped comment campaigns to employers or
> potential employers, as well as the triumphant and
> self-confirming "See how Satan has ruined his
> life?" after the individual has succumbed to the
> huge stress of fighting for and maybe losing his
> family, friends, social network, employability,
> etc. Gee, that'll teach members to exercise their
> freedom of religion.
>
> And that's why the church is basically evil. It
> crushes individuals who dissent from it.


I was not familiar with workplace "mobbing". That is a very useful piece of information to help avoid such abuse:

Characteristics of Mobbing

1. By standard criteria of job performance, the target is at least average, probably above average.

2. Rumours and gossip circulate about the target’s misdeeds: “Did you hear what she did last week?”

3. The target is not invited to meetings or voted onto committees, is excluded or excludes self.

4. Collective focus on a critical incident that “shows what kind of man he really is.”

5. Shared conviction that the target needs some kind of formal punishment, “to be taught a lesson.”

6. Unusual timing of the decision to punish, e. g., apart from the annual performance review.

7. Emotion-laden, defamatory rhetoric about the target in oral and written communications.

8. Formal expressions of collective negative sentiment toward the target, e. g. a vote of censure, signatures on a petition, meeting to discuss what to do about the target.

9. High value on secrecy, confidentiality, and collegial solidarity among the mobbers.

10. Loss of diversity of argument, so that it becomes dangerous to “speak up for”or defend the target.

11. The adding up of the target’s real or imagined venial sins to make a mortal sin that cries for action.

12. The target is seen as personally abhorrent, with no redeeming qualities; stigmatizing, exclusionary labels are applied.

13. Disregard of established procedures, as mobbers take matters into their own hands.

14. Resistance to independent, outside review of sanctions imposed on the target.

15. Outraged response to any appeals for outside help the target may make.

16. Mobbers’ fear of violence from target, target’s fear of violence from mobbers, or both.

http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/checklist.htm

Thanks for the post Eddie. This really puts things in perspective for me. I have only been out for about 2 months and there has been some noticeable behavior differences from those I still associate with in TSCC. It is really sad. I didn't change who I was, they are modifying their behavior just like you posted. I didn't tell anyone I was leaving, but I am sure the ward big mouths spilled the beans.

Thanks again for the eye opener.

At least on your longer drives. The shorter ones have been on the green and within inches of the cup..

My compliments; those of us who've followed the LDS spin machines for years have witnessed these practices again and again, but they continually demand exposure and illumination.

Here are some facts you can toss into the mix. I'm in the middle of some research on two 19th Century individuals who were repeatedly discredited all the way to the allegedly hallowed halls of Brigham Young University's history department, and I should have a thread ready in a few days, but here are a couple of hors d'oeuves...

The practice appears to have originated with Joseph Smith, and one of his early victims was Sarah Pratt, the wife of Orson Pratt, who was later generally regarded as Zion's most "adept" speaker, at least as far as his ability to give sermons is concerned. It was Orson Pratt who was given the duty of disclosing the practice of polygamy to the 1852 General Conference following Captain Gunnison's reports in his best-selling volume about his time spent in Utah.

Sarah, if we are to believe her claims--and I see no reason to doubt them because there's evidence others, notably Jane Law, acted in similar fashion--actually spurned Joseph Smith's requests to make her a plural wife, and she payed a horrific price.

Other claims by those with apostate tendencies were treated similarly; William Hickman, apparently fearing for his life and bothered by even his own nearly non-existent conscience, gave his "confession," but some of his descendants insist that the journalist J.H. Beadle fabricated the stories to sell lurid potboilers to the Eastern reading public.

Except the individual who first heard Hickman's confessions was Robert N. Baskin, who later became mayor of Salt Lake City and ultimately a justice on the Utah Supreme Court. This volume is available in a reprint from Signature Books, and when I stopped in Will Bagley's office last week, this was one book that came up in the conversation (A quotation from Will: "Mormons were afraid of Brigham Young. Mormon historians are still afraid of him").

http://signaturebooks.com/?p=444

Modern Mormon apologists continue using this tried-and-true tactic; here's Jeff Lindsay--whose writings literally leave me embarrassed for my species, they're so absurd and convoluted--paying "homage" to Hugh Nibley...

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/wildbill.shtml

>In Sounding Brass (Bookcraft, 1963) Hugh W. Nibley wrote a long chapter entitled "How to Write an Anti-Mormon Book." That chapter explains 36 rules of the genre which Nibley extrapolates from the examples before him. Although the chapter is a fine example of Socratic irony, and is written with tongue firmly in cheek, the rules are thought-provoking, and very applicable.

>So faithfully, in fact, that it would be possible, using the methods the Tanners employ on The Book of Mormon, to "prove" that Nibley's essay provided the "ground plan" for that article. There is no doubt that they have seen Sounding Brass, since they quote from it, thus:

>"Nobody had been able to pin anything on the Mormons until 14 years later, when Bill Hickman came to the rescue with his thrice-welcome 'confessions'... a long and lurid catalogue of blood in which every major crime committed in Utah is mechanically and unimaginatively pinned on Brigham Young.... Hickman, as we shall see, never dreamed of such a thing until Beadle put him up to it... Beadle was a professional purveyor of scandal... we believe that those tales are Beadle's invention... The patent absurdity of the 'Confessions' becomes apparent on the most superficial investigation and grows with every monotonous episode.... The Hickman stories were not true." (Sounding Brass, 1963, pp. 254, 256, 263-65)

Similarly, when John D. Lee's "Mormonism Unveiled" appeared, Lee's attorney was accused of embellishing the narrative, particularly those where JDL implicated Brigham Young, saying the orders to attack the Fancher/Baker train were probably conveyed by apostle George A. Smith.

I don't know whether Brigham Young was correct in saying Mormons had the "greatest and smoothest liars in the world," but I'm sure he believed they did, and they've been practicing their craft for over a hundred and fifty years now.

leaves the generational, traditional, religious culture of Mormonism. They become an outcast in many ways.
Some LDS folks don't have a problem with that, but it appears that most or many do.
It's the same thing that happens in most of the animal kingdom when one member leaves either on their own or pushed out.

I'm not a bit surprised by much of the treatment that is negative, non accepting, and critical by the cohesive tribe. Not at all. When we purposely take ourselves out of our tribe, there will naturally be negative consequences.
The defector is seen as a threat, different, not to be trusted, shunned, a danger, and a dozen other fearful attitudes creep up. It's very often taken as a personal insult.

So, we try to manage those waters as best we can, doing all we can to teach others how to treat us as human beings, still acceptable but different.

We are most fortunate when we have LDS folks in our lives as friends and family that are not threatened or fearful, caustic, rude, etc. because we changed our minds and left the family traditions.

But, as human beings, doing what they usually do, there will be those that cannot or will not adjust to our changes, at least not easily.

The only way I have found to deal with those who are not able to accept or understand my changes is to treat them with patience and love and be kind and polite. Just exactly the way I behaved as a Mormon! :-)

OMG! I've been mobbed! On all 16 points!