…then headed off to go to a big meeting in London where Elder Holland spoke to the London and London South missions!! We didn’t get to shake his hand because our bus driver was sooo slow and arrived late, missed exits, etc etc, so that was sad. The talk was so powerful though and humbling. My favorite quote from it was him saying that if we left the church after our missions he would “hunt you down. I will be scratching on the windows when you sleep. When you take out the garbage I will be there, not in the garbage, but I will be there”. He also told us that an Avon lady he knows is more bold than we are.

By any means this sounds controlling and even bullying.

There are also reports such as this claiming he put his hands around missionaries’ necks:

“”President informed us that Elder Holland received specific information about some missionaries who were being less than obedient, he received specific names that he then proceeded to give to President Harbertson. Insane right hahah. President had interviews with all those missionaries after the conference. (dont worry i wasnt one of them) And yes Elder Holland did literally smack some people in the face and strangle them during the whole mission meeting. It was super cool!”

Now if you were to say something a little more benign like there’s social pressure you might have a point. But you didn’t do that. (Thus the jumping of the shark) I’d simply note that such pressures are hardly unique to Mormons and can be found in most faiths and even among atheists towards family members thinking of becoming Mormon. And don’t get me started on the silliness and social pressures people put towards politics, race, and so forth. (Statistics on the increasing discomfort of a child marrying someone of a different political party boggle my mind) That you leap to the mind control of what you presumably perceive as cults (I assume that’s why you raise the scientology parallel) rather than these other obvious parallels shows exactly how you are thinking. That you call it mind control shows rhetorically how you see it as well.

I’m fully open to a discussion of the psychology of in-group and out-group dynamics on a family level especially with group signifiers so tied to self-identity. (Which is rather characteristic of religion) That’s a fairly well studied dynamic. However let’s at least be honest that you aren’t doing that in the least. Instead you’re talking of mind-control. As I said, shark jumped. And with that I’ll bow out of that tangent.

You should bear in mind that there are a good number of LDS people who want to leave the church but feel that they can’t (ex-Mormon sites are replete with these types of people). If the LDS church is a voluntary organization, why do they feel this way? Are they crazy? Why do they fear significant social costs for simply decreasing participation? I don’t think that we can answer this without the concepts of psychological manipulation and mind control.

And with that we’ve jumped the shark.

Through mind control and psychological manipulation, yes. Telling a large congregation of believers that he is furious with those who leave and that he won’t let others leave the LDS church makes other members feel justified in coercing people to stay in the church by expressing anger at their decision to believe and trying to control them.

“Had Elder Holland any real power to control, there might be merit to your point”

He is using the mind control tactic of excessive shaming. And Holland has a tremendous amount of power and influence in the LDS church. Impressionable members cling to his every word because they regard him as an authority whom god appointed. According to LDS doctrine, the only valid methods of swaying someone to participate in the LDS church and believe in its doctrines are by invitation and persuasion. Anything beyond that inhibits the agency of others.

Having actually been controlled and manipulated, I find it easy to discern the difference between that and expressive use of vocabulary in the passion of a moment.

No, but no one is saying that he intended to do so. His words, “I’m so furious with people who leave this church,” and “I’m not going to leave [the church] and I’m not going to let you leave it” reveal a very controlling personality that prefers manipulative mechanisms, such as shaming designed to effectively trap people whose inclination is to leave in the church, to abiding by what the LDS church teaches, which is the doctrine of agency.

“He cares about people who leave, that is obvious.”

When you “care” about someone so much that you feel the need to use heavy shaming tactics to coerce them to stay in a voluntary organization, it is a sign that you don’t care about them as much as you care about your self and your organization.