What is stalking?

It is assertive unwanted pursuit.

That's what GAs stand up and advocate at general conference when they implore every member to be a missionary. They tell faith promoting stories about how persistence pays off. Don't take no for an answer. Pursue new converts and lost sheep relentlessly. They can say no in hundreds of ways over many years, but eventually a mormon will catch them at a vulnerable time. They'll come back to the fold. When that happens, they'll thank their pursuers and rue the day they foolishly thought they didn't want contact.

The above is a classic mindset for stalking.

Bishops and others give the same stalking pep talk in local wards.

Missionaries hear that same drivel at the MTC and from their leaders out in the mission field.

Who gets to say what constitutes stalking? The perpetrator or the victim?

Only the victim fully knows if they feel stalked. They know if the attention is welcome or if it feels oppressive.

Stalkers typically assume their efforts are positive and helpful. They routinely misread turndowns and negative hints.

Does most stalking end in violence? Certainly not. Only in very very rare cases and probably never in the case of mormon stalking.

One distinct stalker catagory termed "the naive pursuer." That is someone who is thick, unsophistcated, and simply does not realize the inappropriateness of his/her behavior. The naive stalker's goal is to "help" the object of their pursuit. Thick headed stalkers ignore every clue that their target might not want "help."

Clueless stalkers feel justified because their intentions are pure and they receive validation for their misguided efforts from peers and leaders, although not from the victims they pursue.

Some mormon stalkers vaguely sense how inappropriate their actions might be but still carry out their directives to pursue lost sheep. They hit and run, leaving anonymous notes or treats then dashing away to avoid face to face meetings.

Examples of how mormon stalkers discount rejection:

1. The person who never attends church services. Mormons claim this must be due to lazyness or mild offense. The person hasn't left the cult. They're just temorarily "less active."

2. The target person is home and doesn't answer the door. Mormons claim this means they're ashamed of sinning and are not able to face well meaning concerned fellowshipping efforts.

3. The person doesn't pick up phone calls. This means they're either busy or in denial about wanting church contact.

4. The target says they want to be on a no-contact list. This must mean they feel unready for the time being to return to full activity.

5. The target resigns. This means they were pushed too hard and reacted in anger. Once they cool off, they'll be ready to accept a heartfelt invitation.

6. The target hoses a set of clueless mocking missionary boys. Too bad for the mishies but that will be a good story to tell back home. Next time send girl mishies or an elderly couple. No one would treat them in such a mean way.

Stalkers in the clueless unsophisticated catagory are that dumb! Still, what they do is stalking. They don't know it but the stalking definition remains the same.

It means unwanted pursuit. Perpetrators have boundless abilities of denial. They don't get to decide if their actions are welcome or abhored.

Only a victim knows if he/she feels stalked.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2012 07:59AM by Cheryl.

Let's say that you are employed in a full time job, and you don't show up for a few days in a row. Someone would probably call your home trying to figure out where you were. If your employer couldn't reach you, they might contact a family member, just to make sure that you were okay. Your name would probably come up in a management meeting. After a while, human resources would get involved. Etc.

That's how the church treats inactives -- as if you were an errant, sick, or irresponsible employee who didn't show up for your job. It's a "we own you" mentality that even goes beyond what an employer would do. At a certain point, your employer would give up on you. The employer would terminate you and likely give you little thought after that. The church never gives up. Years from now, if you are still on the rolls, some elderly couple on a mission will be tracking your name on the interwebs. Someone will leave a message on your machine telling you that you've been signed up for church janitorial duty, or to bring a covered dish to a church dinner. Someone will be knocking on your door, and trying to find you and your eight-year old children. No matter how little you or your family wish to be found.

Church is a voluntary activity. However the Mormons do not treat it as such.

Excellent summary!

Most targets try to be polite at first, thinking that their stalkers (persumably a person will an understanding of appropriate social boundaries) will get the hint and retreat. But when the stalker doesn't stop, they are forced to be rude. Then the stalker huffs away complaining about how they were treated.

Why is it that so few mormons have the ability to view their actions from another person's perspective?

You know, you are absolutely correct, Summer. Irresponsible.
Delinquent on keeping up with your holy obligations. Of course, THEY define what those are and they keep changing.

You are a church resource. An unrealized asset, in other words.

A part to keep track of, inventory run amok.

Potentially, you represent x uncollected $, which must be collected.

The church is a massive collection agency and its minions are its agents. Scary thought, that isn't it? (Calling at any hour, no respect for boundaries, threatening, unwilling to stop harassing tactics, etc)

Failing that, you are unrealized labor. This labor must be utilized.

Etc. etc.

When you become a liability; however, you get xed.

Otherwise, you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave.

There's no room to pour water into a cup that is already full.

The leadership knows that with extremely rare exceptions, persistence to the point of stalking is not going to yield returns. IMO that is not the main reason why they say, "Every Mormon a missionary” and pressure members into being salesmen.

Instead, it is to keep each member’s “cup” so full that there is no room to consider ANY thoughts or points of view other than the Mormon one they are already saturated with. After all, these missionaries are going out into dangerous enemy territory, i.e. the homes of semi-apostates! (inactives) Can’t let those TBM “testimonies” be challenged; they wouldn't stand up for a moment!

So condition TBM sheeple to shut their ears to ANYTHING non-church-approved, and all will be well in Zion!

What is that?
Stalking.
Has it a name?
It has.
Will you give it to me?
I will, through these boards: Love bombing.

because you always have something interesting to say. But this time you have outdone yourself. You are right on target with this one. There is no difference between what Mormons do and what stalkers do ... it's just a matter of degrees. The intent is the same, the tactics are the same, the self-justifications are the same. It's another example of how Mormonism teaches the members to do things that are bad (stalking) while praising them for their righteousness (love thy neighbor/feed my sheep). It's so twisted and it makes me feel sorry for my Mormon friends who want to be good and are being warped because they are soaked in Mormonism. Their good intentions are being used to corrupt them.

What CA girl said. I haven't had to deal with any stalking myself, except for some mild lovebombing when I first left, but the experiences others have shared on here are indeed stalking to me, in EVERY sense of the word.
I think that along with the actual physical act of stalking, there are less overtly agressive but still effective and insidious stalking methods. Psychological stalking: the emails and verbal exchanges in which Mormon family members use passive-aggressive 'concern' for the welfare of their stalkees, with shunning on the flip side if the stalkees don't fall back in line or become so far gone that they start ordering coffee at Starbucks on a Sunday.

Discussing personal and private information pertaining to the stalkees strikes me as mentally stalking them. Always bringing them and their families up in meetings, strategizing ways to 'bring them back'. Emotionally stalking them would be using tears, appeals to their (the 'stalkee's) sense of duty, to the 'testimony' they once had, to not hurt their family members (aged parents, TBM spouse, impressionable young children, etc.)

There are all kinds of ways to 'stalk' someone and obsess over controlling them. I'm with Mia, Cheryl, CA girl, and others who say "enough is enough". These are desperate times, and desperate sheeple are using desperate measures to stalk and harass people. If you don't like it and don't want it......time to make it stop!!!

The proper term for this is actually 'gang stalking'

The reverend Jim Jones (of the Peoples Temple grape kool aid fame) is generally credited with inventing it.

Here is a good description of the act(s).

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.magick.moderated/browse_thread/thread/8b0d8944e39286b6?pli=1



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2012 03:00PM by Susan I/S.

...they interpret politeness as interest so they keep it up, and eventually force you to be blunt, then say you're persecting them.

Stalking Law and Definition:

A person who intentionally and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat, either expressed or implied, with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm is guilty of the crime of stalking. A person may be charged with aggravated stalking if they commit the crime of stalking while subject to a temporary restraining order, injunction against trespass, or similar order.

Stalkers target public figures or celebrities, children, and sometimes even complete strangers. But, in most cases, a stalker is someone you know and with whom you have had a relationship. Criminal statutes which can be used in an effort to deter stalking include laws against harassment and assault, as well as a specific stalking law.



State Stalking Laws http://www.esia.net/State_Stalking_Laws.htm


Just my personal opinion but an invite to an event, a church meeting, etc. is not stalking. There is no threat of injury or death, etc.

I have not found a case where the members of the LDS Church have committed the crime of stalking and been criminally prosecuted.


Just my view.

I think we need to be careful using words that have criminal meanings.
But, hey, that's just me.

SQ#1 wrote:

"I think we need to be careful using words that have criminal meanings."

Why?

The mormon cult has a long and storied history of criminal activity. Its version of stalking might not agree with your definition, but its still unwanted harrassment.

Again, why do "we" need to be careful?

Timothy

Maybe it's time we stopped being so careful and started filing for restraining orders. Myself, I sent my stalkers a letter from my attorney last week telling them to cease and desist or I will be filing charges for harassment and stalking. I think THEY are the ones who need to be careful.

There is no reason for US to be careful when it's the mormons who are at fault.

If they don't like our unfavorable reactions, they need only mind their business and stay away from those who resist their stalking.

Recently I spent time in the hospital (only my second visit in 71 years). I have left the church (though I have a large posterity still in it). All of a sudden, the phone calls and visits began.
My high priest group leader ("A sign you should return to activity"), the bishop, "hope you get to feeling better" (if not we will plan a plan of salvation service for your funeral), my home teacher, who actually came to the hospital (minus his wife - I think she is put off totally by apostates and avoids me).

I'm home now, having survived, and the love-in has diminished. Well, except for my kids who love me unconditionally. Happy affirmations for 2012.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2012 12:38PM by george.

Well, George. You didn't coperate with their plan by returning to the church and then dying - providing them with a faith-promoting story. Neither did you die without returning to the church - providing them with a "so sad" faith-promoting story.

Damn. You, the uncooperative apostate, recovered and went home? Where is the faith-promoting story in that?

have a legal and criminal meaning. When they are used in other ways, we loose credibility and sound like we don't know what we are talking about. I don't like to see that happen to former Mormons. I maintain there is no policy in the LDS Church that supports stalking, certainly not in any legal sense.

Sure, some church members can be invasive, and persistent, and annoying, in their contacts, but we do not have to accept any of it. We are not helpless victims. The LDS Church does not have a policy of threatening people or threatening death.

Telemarketers are not legally stalking either. We can hang up, we can op out of their calling system.

A person may "feel" harassed, or stalked. That is not the same as the legal definition.

That's just my personal opinion, of course.
There is no need to agree with me.

I believe that stalking was used as a word long before the legal definition came along. I just pulled my Webster's New World dictionary off of the shelf. Here's what it has to say:

stalk 1) to walk through in a stiff, haughty manner, 2) to advance grimly, 3) to pursue (game, etc.) stealthily

I think that the kind of stalking that Mormons do fits comfortably into the third definition, although in some ways the second definition would also fit.

I don't think that stalking has to meet the legal standard to fit. For instance when I was a young woman, sometimes a man would pester me dozens of times for a date after I had repeatedly said, "no." That felt like stalking to me. It exceeded the social norm for contacts. The repeated attempts were made in an oblivious, bull-headed manner. It was like my repeated no's didn't matter. That's how the Mormons often do it. They don't care about your feelings. They don't care about your lack of interest. What they want is far more important (to them) than what you want.

I don't think the OP was about legal definitions.

For those still tied to the cult there is always the fear of losing credibility and sounding like one doesn't know what one is talking about.

If one has no attachment to the cult or its followers, one has no need to defend the cult or its followers.

As noted in the original post, stalking is an overall mormon policy & directive.

No amount of apologetics will change that.

Timothy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2012 01:31PM by Timothy.

before they direct them to go to private property even if they've been told by the owner to stay away.

Without official lists there could be very little stalking or harassment possible.

OK, but you are basically defining a technicality. This isn't a criticism. When I edit, I get hung up on technicalities all the time. You are correct by the strict definition of the word and, since words have power, you do have a good point.

But it's just a matter of degrees. It's taking the same tactics, the same mind set, the same justifications as a stalker and just not going to the extreme that someone who could be legally persecuted would go to.

SusieQ writes:

'Sure, some church members can be invasive, and persistent, and annoying, in their contacts, but we do not have to accept any of it. We are not helpless victims. The LDS Church does not have a policy of threatening people or threatening death.'4


We do have the story of the breaking and entering bishop from a few months ago. We have many documented cases of sexual abuse of minors being covered up. We actually have documentation of DearBroJo in his website counseling an incest victim to go to the bishop rather than law enforcement.

Of course this is not written in official policy that is open for public scrutiny. Nonetheless, it is a culture that does threaten people, their marriages, and their family.

Additionally, they threaten eternity of 'outer darkness' to us apostates.

I certainly think it is time to call them on their use of aggressive, threatening, and stalking tactics to increase their market share. I would defend the points made here, and would relish the thought of an open dialogue with these people as they try to defend their tactics.

loss of friendship, loss of community status, loss of being included in family weddings, and even loss of genitals in the lower kingdoms of heaven since only "gods" need to reproduce spirit babies.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2012 01:49PM by Cheryl.

The author, Gavin DeBecker, focused primarily on men who stalk former girlfriends, but he said that anyone can be a victim of stalking for many different reasons. EVERYTHING he said in the chapter applies to mormons stalking inactives and exmormons, especially the paragraph about "naive stalkers."

A paramount point was this: Do not try to let a pursuer down easily. Anyone with a stalker mindset will misread this concession as an invitation to increase the pressure. Don't give excuses or he/she will counter them and increase the pressure in more specific ways.

I don't see that happening with dropping off cookies or sending an email, but hey, that's just me! :-)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2012 01:55PM by SusieQ#1.

That's an excellent point. It's not stalking to you because it doesn't bother you. If it bothers someone to be visited by Mormons and they ask repeatedly to be left alone by Mormons and the Mormons refuse to respect that persons boundaries...THAT is when it becomes a problem.

If my boyfriend sent e-mails and cookies, I wouldn't mind. If the guy I dumped kept sending those things, despite my asking him not to and giving him the brush off, then it becomes creepy and inappropriate. Even if there is no threat involved, it's still creepy and inappropriate.

But the difference is, if it doesn't bother you and you've made peace with your Mormons, then for you the cookies and e-mails are OK. But other people have a different reality and if their reality isn't respected - if it's trampled on, then there is a problem.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2012 02:02PM by CA girl.

LDS culture actually has a term for this behavior. A person becomes a 'Ward Project'

It is done in the most sinister fashion, often involving children and such entities as the Boy Scouts.

It is planned, it is organized, and usually done with the full knowledge and condoning of the highest ranked local leader.

It is not done out of compassion. It is not done as a Christian act. It is merely a corporate act of stalking to increase tithe payers.

People can call dropping off cookies and phone calls anything they want ! But it's wise, in my view to use the correct terms for the actions.

I would suggest that the dropping off of cookies is a milk before meat moment.

They do have other motives. By not making a stand with these people, it is like feeding a stray dog hoping it will go home.

They have a single motive. They can sugar coat it. They can act as though they are in service to you.

But we must not forget what their objective is, which is to bring you into their fold, and under the control and scrutiny of their leadership. They are acting in obedience, and they want you to be under their obedience.

Apostates, particularly loud ones who like the internet, are the biggest threat to the church.

We are the disinfecting sunlight to their cardhouse of lies.