Gaslighting

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

If it is unintentional, it is not gaslighting.

 

4 minutes ago, Danzo said:

How can gas-lighting be unintentional?

Isn't intent part of the gas-lighting?

I think that church members and leaders intend to promote faith rather than manipulate but the manipulation is still there. 

Is it just ignorance?  Maybe, but certainly not always.  

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 

I think that church members and leaders intend to promote faith rather than manipulate but the manipulation is still there. 

Is it just ignorance?  Maybe, but certainly not always.  

And you believe this is abusive and the result of psychopathic or other psychological disorders?

[probablyHagoth7]

3 hours ago, Danzo said:

How can gas-lighting be unintentional?

Let's say persons A & B initiate gaslighting.

And let's say they decide to convince persons C, D, and E that their target actually is a bubble off plumb and should be treated as such.

Persons C, D, and E, then unwittingly become part of the ruse, and they each tell 2 friends.

Wash, rinse, and repeat.

One more reason why gossip and the like are to be watched for and nixed in the church...one of the earliest duties taught to young priesthood holders.

Edited May 9, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[rockpond]

55 minutes ago, Calm said:

And you believe this is abusive and the result of psychopathic or other psychological disorders?

Abusive?  Yes. 

Result of psychological disorders?  No. 

[RevTestament]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

There's a new article about ways to know if you're being gas lighted. I find this topic fascinating because we've probably all experienced it in a personal relationship, at a job, and even in the church. Manipulation is at the core of gaslighting.

At times I've felt gas lighted after significant changes have been made to church history and doctrine yet when I've asked about it leaders, family, or people on this board act like I'm foolish for ever having believed the old way because they've ALWAYS known the real history and that the church has ALWAYS made the information available for member who cared enough to look. So if I didn't know it is my fault or my memory is faulty. But I know what I was taught and in return what I taught others. Others claiming I don't is really an attempt to get me to question myself and fan the flames of fear that I'm being deceived by Satan.

I see that this also happens in the church regarding covenants and expectations. Has anyone ever been told they have "covenanted" to wear their garments day and night, 24/7? I've never been able to find a place or time when that was done.

Has anyone ever been told that they have covenanted to attend their Sacrament and Priesthood meetings? I don't recall that ever happening.

 

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

I agree with HJW that we are seeing a lot of gaslighting within the church these days.  I also agree with Calm that much of it is not intentional. 

The "covenant" to wear garments always gives me a chuckle.  It doesn't exist.  And it is being perpetuated by well meaning people.

I received my endowments about 20 years ago - strange that you seem not to know the "instruction" to wear your garments. I certainly understood the initiatories as part of my covenants even if that word is not used. However, I have not always worn my garments - for instance in playing sports. Like other things in the temple I think they are symbolic, and important, but I don't stress over a literal 24/7 interpretation.

i have never been told i have covenanted to attend sacrament meeting, but again, I do take my participation in sacrament seriously. Inferring gaslighting from some comment by another member seems a bit - almost jaded... I mean honestly, those are probably a dime a dozen. 

[Tacenda]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kiwimormon/2017/05/arrogance-false-expertise-church-disaffection/ I think this might be related to gaslighting, or not.

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

 

I received my endowments about 20 years ago - strange that you seem not to know the "instruction" to wear your garments. I certainly understood the initiatories as part of my covenants even if that word is not used. However, I have not always worn my garments - for instance in playing sports. Like other things in the temple I think they are symbolic, and important, but I don't stress over a literal 24/7 interpretation.

i have never been told i have covenanted to attend sacrament meeting, but again, I do take my participation in sacrament seriously. Inferring gaslighting from some comment by another member seems a bit - almost jaded... I mean honestly, those are probably a dime a dozen. 

Neither of us claimed that there wasn't an instruction to wear garments.  We stated that there isn't such a covenant made.  The TR interview question claims that one who has gone through the temple has made such a covenant.  If you want to infer such a covenant, that's fine.  Is it gaslighting to tell someone, repeatedly, throughout their life that they have made a covenant that they haven't made?  To do it as a matter of a written policy that priesthood leaders must follow?  I can tell you that I felt bad EVERY time I read those words in the process of interviewing someone for a temple recommend.

You're right, you haven't covenanted to attend sacrament meeting.  I would never suggest that means you shouldn't take your participation seriously.  That's an odd comment.  Just as I don't think anyone shouldn't take their wearing of the garment seriously (even without the claimed covenant).

I wouldn't infer gaslighting from a random comment from a member.  And I don't believe that HJW has either.  That's a strawman.

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Not a good day for me but sometimes, I feel leaders have been and are emotionally abusive. I was doing so much better but leaders do gaslight and some degrade and some do not show love. Some make members feel they will never be good enough and that repentance can never truly be complete. Some create hopelessness and despair and feelings of self-loathing. Some enjoy power and their egos get in the way of being good stewards.  The opposite is also true and some are kind, loving, inspire, uplift, bear burdens and show the way to Christ. Until you're sitting in their office, you just don't know what you're going to get. Some know that spiritual experiences, encouragement , love and hope bring huge motivation and large dividends but others are clueless and do not have the spirit with them. If they had the spirit, they would know the harm they were causing. 

I actually understand where you are coming from on this. I have been in situations with some leaders where I felt much as you do. But, I also have found this to be the exception rather than the rule. In my case I held my tongue, but in a later interview with another leader I asked a question that was related to my less than inspiring experience and received a more reasonable answer, complete with the CHI reference.

Glenn

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kiwimormon/2017/05/arrogance-false-expertise-church-disaffection/ I think this might be related to gaslighting, or not.

The decision to let the book Mormon Doctrine stay published and avoid a rebuke of Elder McConkie out of concern for his influence with the members does seem related but maybe not gaslighting.

I would consider the statement by Sister Gardner to be gaslighting.  And, I do absolutely love Dr. Colvin's closing statement in response to it:

"I’d like to respond by saying that I most feel like leaving the church when people who have never felt like leaving the church, explain to people who don’t want to leave the church, what’s apparently going on for people who wonder if they should leave the church – and they all agree with each other."

[Glenn101]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The decision to let the book Mormon Doctrine stay published and avoid a rebuke of Elder McConkie out of concern for his influence with the members does seem related but maybe not gaslighting.

I would consider the statement by Sister Gardner to be gaslighting.  And, I do absolutely love Dr. Colvin's closing statement in response to it:

"I’d like to respond by saying that I most feel like leaving the church when people who have never felt like leaving the church, explain to people who don’t want to leave the church, what’s apparently going on for people who wonder if they should leave the church – and they all agree with each other."

Doctor Colvin does gaslight a lot doesn't she? "The Arrogance........" 

The talk about gaslighting is really a subjective one. I personally do not feel that I have been gaslighted by LDS doctrines or policies. Instructions on wearing the garments is not gaslighting, in my opinion, because the object is to get people to a more spiritual plane, closer to God. Some leaders have more strict view points than do others on the subject but the Handbook of Instructions gives some general guidelines for wearing the garments. It also states that endowed members should seek and be guided by the "Spirit to answer for themselves personal questions about wearing the garment." That puts the burden squarely upon the individual to get their own answers. Not only with that subject, but with all of the other subjects.

Glenn

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

i have never been told i have covenanted to attend sacrament meeting, but again, I do take my participation in sacrament seriously....

Here is the commandment to offer up our sacraments on God's holy day. Since we covenant to keep all his commandments when we are baptized, take the sacrament, and more explicitly when we make the temple covenant of obedience, one could rightly say we covenant to attend our meetings.

Quote

D&C 59

9 And that thou mayest more fully keep thyself unspotted from the world, thou shalt go to the house of prayer and offer up thy sacraments upon my holy day;

10 For verily this is a day appointed unto you to rest from your labors, and to pay thy devotions unto the Most High;

11 Nevertheless thy vows shall be offered up in righteousness on all days and at all times;

12 But remember that on this, the Lord’s day, thou shalt offer thine oblations and thy sacraments unto the Most High, confessing thy sins unto thy brethren, and before the Lord.

13 And on this day thou shalt do none other thing, only let thy food be prepared with singleness of heart that thy fasting may be perfect, or, in other words, that thy joy may be full.

21 And in nothing doth man offend God, or against none is his wrath kindled, save those who confess not his hand in all things, and obey not his commandments.

22 Behold, this is according to the law and the prophets; wherefore, trouble me no more concerning this matter.

23 But learn that he who doeth the works of righteousnessshall receive his reward, even peace in this world, and eternal life in the world to come.

24 I, the Lord, have spoken it, and the Spirit beareth record. Amen.

 

Edited May 9, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

If it is unintentional, it is not gaslighting.

Dishonesty can result in what is effectively gaslighting. 

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

 

I think that church members and leaders intend to promote faith rather than manipulate but the manipulation is still there. 

Is it just ignorance?  Maybe, but certainly not always.  

Human institutions frequently behave like deliberate machines, despite existing without consciousness as a whole.  I think that in the church, when the occurance of dishonesty and lack of transparency increases, so does the manipulation.

We could call it institutional gaslighting. It's a bad fruit of bad behavior. And yes the church participates in and perpetuates institutional gaslighting. 

[Gray]

15 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

There's a new article about ways to know if you're being gas lighted. I find this topic fascinating because we've probably all experienced it in a personal relationship, at a job, and even in the church. Manipulation is at the core of gaslighting.

At times I've felt gas lighted after significant changes have been made to church history and doctrine yet when I've asked about it leaders, family, or people on this board act like I'm foolish for ever having believed the old way because they've ALWAYS known the real history and that the church has ALWAYS made the information available for member who cared enough to look. So if I didn't know it is my fault or my memory is faulty. But I know what I was taught and in return what I taught others. Others claiming I don't is really an attempt to get me to question myself and fan the flames of fear that I'm being deceived by Satan.

I see that this also happens in the church regarding covenants and expectations. Has anyone ever been told they have "covenanted" to wear their garments day and night, 24/7? I've never been able to find a place or time when that was done.

Has anyone ever been told that they have covenanted to attend their Sacrament and Priesthood meetings? I don't recall that ever happening.

The church is not alone in its gaslighting of members. It happens in many aspects of life, but it feels like a personal betrayal when it is realized. Can anyone think of other examples of gaslighting in the church?

 

 

http://www.theearthchild.co.za/youre-not-going-crazy-15-signs-youre-victim-gaslighting/

There are a lot of non-existent covenants that people think are covenants. I don't know that that's intentional gaslighting. I think as certain things become more emphasized over the years people start to think that there are covenants involved with them.

I often hear, in someone explaining the Word of Wisdom, that we don't drink coffee and tea because the Lord has told us not to. The Lord has done no such thing, but people have come to believe it because it's so strongly emphasized in Mormon culture.

[bluebell]

I haven't read the whole thread so I've probably missed something but I didn't think that manipulation alone equaled gaslighting. 

I thought it had to be manipulation with the intent to make you think you were crazy. 

People manipulate all the time. Babies and children frequently use manipulation to get what the want. Obviously it's not all gaslighting though. 

And neither is all manipulation automatically abusive. 

Edited May 9, 2017 by bluebell

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Doctor Colvin does gaslight a lot doesn't she? "The Arrogance........" 

The talk about gaslighting is really a subjective one. I personally do not feel that I have been gaslighted by LDS doctrines or policies. Instructions on wearing the garments is not gaslighting, in my opinion, because the object is to get people to a more spiritual plane, closer to God. Some leaders have more strict view points than do others on the subject but the Handbook of Instructions gives some general guidelines for wearing the garments. It also states that endowed members should seek and be guided by the "Spirit to answer for themselves personal questions about wearing the garment." That puts the burden squarely upon the individual to get their own answers. Not only with that subject, but with all of the other subjects.

Glenn

Strawman.  Nobody has said that we aren't instructed to wear garments or that there aren't spiritual benefits.  The claim of gaslighting has to do with the church's systematic process of telling members that they have made a covenant when they haven't. 

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I haven't read the whole thread so I've probably missed something but I didn't think that manipulation alone equaled gaslighting. 

I thought it had to be manipulation with the intent to make you think you were crazy. 

People manipulate all the time. Babies and children frequently use manipulation to get what the want. Obviously it's not all gaslighting though. 

And neither is all manipulation automatically abusive. 

If that's the case (the part I bolded) than I agree - it's not gaslighting.  I don't think anyone in the church has the intent of making someone think they are crazy. 

[Meadowchik]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I haven't read the whole thread so I've probably missed something but I didn't think that manipulation alone equaled gaslighting. 

I thought it had to be manipulation with the intent to make you think you were crazy. 

People manipulate all the time. Babies and children frequently use manipulation to get what the want. Obviously it's not all gaslighting though. 

And neither is all manipulation automatically abusive. 

The problem here is that it effectively can become the same, especially when dishonesty enters in. The church has a serious problem trying to prevent a manipulative culture because of its generational nature, among other things. The current generation struggles to mitigate or reverse the damage of previous generations. It feels the pressure to do so as a necessity for survival without necessarily making itself accountable for past actions made in different times and circumstances. 

But the high demand, intensive religion nature of Mormonism is all the more reason the be more sensitive and conscientious and to ambitiously work toward a more repentant institution, as an institution.

[RevTestament]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Here is the commandment to offer up our sacraments on God's holy day. Since we covenant to keep all his commandments when we are baptized, take the sacrament, and more explicitly when we make the temple covenant of obedience, one could rightly say we covenant to attend our meetings.

 

Good point Bernard - thanks. Actually, I've somewhat recently come to the conclusion that the Sabbath day was given as a covenant to Adam, which is a reason for the 7 "day" thing. Even though we no longer keep Saturday as the Sabbath, this section makes it clear that we are to keep "the Lord's Day" or Sunday as our Sabbath.

[Meadowchik]

The temple endowment is a solid example of manipulation: being required to promise to things only moments after being introduced to them. And the first time this usually occurs under duress: the intended is taking out his or her endowments usually as the required step toward mission or marriage--which is typically expected to occur within days-- often surrounded by their closest family and friends. 

[HappyJackWagon]

14 hours ago, pogi said:

The examples you share are not intentional manipulations and emotional abuse that I can see.  The garments, for example, could that not just be a misunderstanding that has been propagated?  In fact, the handbook of instructions specifically states:

Is there such a thing as reverse-gas lighting where people manipulate you by making you believe that you are being manipulative?  Because that's what this feels like. 

In ever TR interview we are asked...

"Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple?"

So the authority is asking if we do something as we have been instructed in the endowment, when that thing has not been instructed in the endowment. It also states that doing so is in accordance with a "covenant" made in the temple, when there is no covenant in the temple about wearing the garment.

If you can show me that I'm wrong I'd be happy to change my tune on this. But this is a good example of the church telling us we've been instructed in the temple and we've covenanted in the temple to wear the garment both night and day, when that has never happened.

Is this a misunderstanding on my part? Maybe. I'm open to being corrected.

Is this a misunderstanding by the church about what is taught and covenanted to in the temple? I find that highly unlikely. So I am either way of base, which would be verifiable, or the church is promoting a recommend question that gaslights people. If the church really wanted those things as part of the temple instruction and covenants it could easily make them so. But it hasn't.

It blew my mind when I first realized that what I believed had been instructed and covenanted to, really hadn't been.

[HappyJackWagon]

14 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

HJW- "Has anyone ever been told that they have covenanted to attend their Sacrament and Priesthood meetings? I don't recall that ever happening. ."

Clark- I can't recall hearing that although I've definitely heard that we should. So it's possible that someone's inferring it from our covenanting to be obedient and being told to attend meetings. It's not that far out an inference. I certainly think people should attend their meetings if possible.

 

Don't forget TR question #8- "8 Do you strive to keep the covenants you have made, to attend your sacrament and other meetings, and to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?"

The way the sentence is structured definitely gives the impression that covenants have been made to attend sacrament and other meetings, as well as other things like keeping the commandments. Would you agree?

[RevTestament]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The temple endowment is a solid example of manipulation: being required to promise to things only moments after being introduced to them. And the first time this usually occurs under duress: the intended is taking out his or her endowments usually as the required step toward mission or marriage--which is typically expected to occur within days-- often surrounded by their closest family and friends. 

Even if you consider that true, it is irrelevant to the thread since it is not gaslighting - an intentional manipulation with intent to deceive.

I will say that I was not deceived at all - nor did I feel manipulated. I went into my endowment fully expecting my covenants would require 100% commitment even to the point of laying down my life because the Lord is like that. He doesn't seem to ask for fence-sitters. Although Jesus was peaceful and loving, he was a quite serious kind of guy - expecting 100% participation of those He came in contact with - to give up their gold and follow him etc. Even if the Church does not ask us to give all our wealth to it, Jesus may require it, and I am prepared to give it. In fact the day will come when men will toss their gold for a chance to be chosen to follow.

[HappyJackWagon]

9 hours ago, RevTestament said:

 

I received my endowments about 20 years ago - strange that you seem not to know the "instruction" to wear your garments. I certainly understood the initiatories as part of my covenants even if that word is not used. However, I have not always worn my garments - for instance in playing sports. Like other things in the temple I think they are symbolic, and important, but I don't stress over a literal 24/7 interpretation.

i have never been told i have covenanted to attend sacrament meeting, but again, I do take my participation in sacrament seriously. Inferring gaslighting from some comment by another member seems a bit - almost jaded... I mean honestly, those are probably a dime a dozen. 

I received instruction regarding the garment, which occurs after the initiatory blessings and covenants are complete. But that instruction does not match what we are told it says. And there is no covenant associated with it.

Every time you have a TR interview you are told you've made that covenant. See question #8. (I posted above).

These questions are provided by top leadership and seem to be well thought out and intentional, yet they claim covenants have been made to attend Sacrament and other church meetings, as well as wearing the garment both night and day, when neither covenant has been made. Is the church mistaken? Why would they claim a covenant has been made when it hasn't been? What's the purpose?

[Bernard Gui]

22 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The temple endowment is a solid example of manipulation: being required to promise to things only moments after being introduced to them. And the first time this usually occurs under duress: the intended is taking out his or her endowments usually as the required step toward mission or marriage--which is typically expected to occur within days-- often surrounded by their closest family and friends. 

Well, unless one had prepared to go.