Gaslighting

[Meadowchik]

12 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

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.

The manipulation is there. It is a tactic commonly seen in sales, the time-sensitive commitment: promise now without time to reflect or research.

It is plain and simple manipulation.  Of course, psychologically speaking, if you operate on the premise that the church is true, it is much less likely to phase you.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

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.

Except for the hundreds of statements by prophets and apostles that the Lord commands it.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

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.

But wouldn't the process of Temple Recommend interviews, in which members are told they have made certain covenants, when they have not, a little bit different? It seems intentional.

[Meadowchik]

8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, unless one had prepared to go.

What do you mean by preparation, exactly?

"No, you were not manipulated in the temple, and if you were, you just weren't prepared."

Bernard, this is gaslighting.

The manipulation in the endowment is plain and simple. It is nothing like the clear, transparent ordinance of a living baptism or the sacrament.

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Except for the hundreds of statements by prophets and apostles that the Lord commands it.

Where did the Lord command it? Certainly not in the word of wisdom itself. The revisions to the word of wisdom in the 20th century don't seem to carry any specific wording from the Lord either.

Some people are very comfortable in assuming that God has literally said all kinds of things, based on little to nothing. I'm not comfortable with that - it seems almost blasphemous or idolatrous to me, even under the assumption that God does speak in words.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Gray

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, unless one had prepared to go.

Unless one looks to "anti" materials for information, they must rely on what members and leaders tell them. Temple Preparation is sorely lacking and resembles more of a Gospel Essentials class than it does any actual preparation for the temple

[Pete Ahlstrom]

14 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.

Over the past decade or so as I have navigated my faith crisis, I do believe that I've been gaslighted quite a bit, and it's frustrating.  So many posters here and members in my own life will say "how did you not know that?" while pretending that the Church didn't teach a different narrative, ignoring that JFS tore out that page containing a differing first vision account,  not acknowledging that the seer stone was hidden in a safe, forgetting that the manuals redacted Joseph's plural marriages and Brigham's teachings on polygamy, and hypothesizing that the ban of saving ordinances for an entire race came from God. 

So, as I said, all this does feel like gaslighting to me though mostly not intentional.  And the church publication of the gospel essays without bothering to explain that they differ from the prevailing narrative that was allowed to be perpetuated does border on abuse in my opinion. 

I think it comes more from being defensive at the allegation that the church could be involved in hiding its troubled history. 

[probablyHagoth7]

44 minutes ago, rockpond said:

...I don't think anyone in the church has the intent of making someone think they are crazy. 

Believe what you wish. Human nature is human nature, whether in or out of the church. And people both inside and outside of any such building/organization are still tempted by similar things. 

The first few seconds of this clip should suffice.

Character assassination is a coward's way of depriving someone of life...resorted to by those who prefer to *consider* themselves moral. There is good reason that the old law punished defamation / character assassination with the same penalty as outright murder, since the outcome of the former could be more cruel and prolonged, and likely also because people executing the former are often acting out on the exact same (selfish) motives as those doing the latter.

I know of at least one person who would have considered it more merciful to have been killed instantly than to wade through years of such uphill/prolonged injustice from those feigning to be closest friends.

Fortunately, for such people, the atonement promises eventual restoration of *all* such losses. 

[Meadowchik]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

Where did the Lord command it? Certainly not in the word of wisdom itself. The revisions to the word of wisdom in the 20th century don't seem to carry any specific wording from the Lord either.

Some people are very comfortable in assuming that God has literally said all kinds of things, based on little to nothing. I'm not comfortable with that - it seems almost blasphemous or idolatrous to me.

Indeed. Truth should be precious, coveted, and sought, not trotted out, imagined, or ignored based on convenience.

This is why I can no longer abide adaptive or any other brand of Mormonism, because it is inherently dishonest about the host of the house.  The host (the Brethren) do indeed require x,y, and z. Pretending it doesn't matter wouldn't be fair to those we would invite in.

To be clear, x, y, and z are whatever the Brethren says they are at the moment. 

[Storm Rider]

This entire thread is a conflation of a vast array of different definitions.  The Oxford Dictionary defines it as follows:

1. Manipulate (someone) by psychological means into doubting their own sanity.  

However, power-packed words tend to gather new definitions to suit the agenda's of specific subsets of communities.  For example, in Everyday Feminism, Shea Emma Fett expanded on the definition to include a range of actions and behaviors that define emotional abuse in a broader manner.  You can Google the word and find a range of other definitions that have been created to fit a purpose.

The problem when power-packed words used with different definitions, or expanded definitions, is that the emotion of the initial definition is carried on.

Not a single person on this thread has demonstrated that a member of the Church - leader or not - actually consciously, psychologically manipulated them into doubting their own sanity.  Yet, several have accused leaders of such a thing.  

Gaslighting is not the standard form of manipulation, which everyone of uses on a daily basis with our children, friends, co-workers, etc.  Each of us either seeks to control specific situations or get our own way in daily life - as a result we manipulate anything we can to get our own way or to implement our will on others.  Gaslighting has an ultimate objective and purpose - to cause you to doubt your own sanity.  

[RevTestament]

13 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The manipulation is there. It is a tactic commonly seen in sales, the time-sensitive commitment: promise now without time to reflect or research.

It is plain and simple manipulation.  Of course, psychologically speaking, if you operate on the premise that the church is true, it is much less likely to phase you.

That is like saying Jesus manipulated Peter when He asked him 3 times if Peter loved Him, and if so to feed His sheep. Or that Jesus manipulated him when He popped this little bit on him:

John 21:

18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.

19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.

I guess I can understand people who do not feel prepared to lay down their lives for the Lord and their fellows since that is the natural man, but the Lord has never indicated anything different. However, I understand that many people just expect no commitment and that the Lord only promises prosperity and positive, happy feelings - hey, that's the modern way. I will warn them if that is what they think the Church is about, then they better go look for a different Church. There are plenty of great and spacious buildings out there, but I hear the crystal cathedral fell on hard times...

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

This entire thread is a conflation of a vast array of different definitions.  The Oxford Dictionary defines it as follows:

1. Manipulate (someone) by psychological means into doubting their own sanity.  

However, power-packed words tend to gather new definitions to suit the agenda's of specific subsets of communities.  For example, in Everyday Feminism, Shea Emma Fett expanded on the definition to include a range of actions and behaviors that define emotional abuse in a broader manner.  You can Google the word and find a range of other definitions that have been created to fit a purpose.

The problem when power-packed words used with different definitions, or expanded definitions, is that the emotion of the initial definition is carried on.

Not a single person on this thread has demonstrated that a member of the Church - leader or not - actually consciously, psychologically manipulated them into doubting their own sanity.  Yet, several have accused leaders of such a thing.  

Gaslighting is not the standard form of manipulation, which everyone of uses on a daily basis with our children, friends, co-workers, etc.  Each of us either seeks to control specific situations or get our own way in daily life - as a result we manipulate anything we can to get our own way or to implement our will on others.  Gaslighting has an ultimate objective and purpose - to cause you to doubt your own sanity.  

I like your reminder about the variability of definitions. That is definitely something that should be considered.

But I think your final line is incorrect. People don't gaslight for the end result of making people doubt their own sanity. People gaslight others for power. They manipulate people into thinking they've said, done, covenanted, asked for certain things when the victim never really had, and it's for the purpose that the perpetrator can establish or maintain power over the other person.

 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

58 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. 

I know I felt a little manipulated after going through, just like many others.

[Meadowchik]

11 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

That is like saying Jesus manipulated Peter when He asked him 3 times if Peter loved Him, and if so to feed His sheep. Or that Jesus manipulated him when He popped this little bit on him:

John 21:

18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.

19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.

I guess I can understand people who do not feel prepared to lay down their lives for the Lord and their fellows since that is the natural man, but the Lord has never indicated anything different. However, I understand that many people just expect no commitment and that the Lord only promises prosperity and positive, happy feelings - hey, that's the modern way. I will warn them if that is what they think the Church is about, then they better go look for a different Church. There are plenty of great and spacious buildings out there, but I hear the crystal cathedral fell on hard times...

No, it is actually not the same. Peter had many times expressed his love for the Christ in word and deed. 

You are comparing a blood oath and gory symbolism to plain promises and reminders of fidelity.  You are pretending one is like the other, and then attempting to shame those who object to such blasphemy.

[Meadowchik]

21 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

This entire thread is a conflation of a vast array of different definitions.  The Oxford Dictionary defines it as follows:

1. Manipulate (someone) by psychological means into doubting their own sanity.  

However, power-packed words tend to gather new definitions to suit the agenda's of specific subsets of communities.  For example, in Everyday Feminism, Shea Emma Fett expanded on the definition to include a range of actions and behaviors that define emotional abuse in a broader manner.  You can Google the word and find a range of other definitions that have been created to fit a purpose.

The problem when power-packed words used with different definitions, or expanded definitions, is that the emotion of the initial definition is carried on.

Not a single person on this thread has demonstrated that a member of the Church - leader or not - actually consciously, psychologically manipulated them into doubting their own sanity.  Yet, several have accused leaders of such a thing.  

Gaslighting is not the standard form of manipulation, which everyone of uses on a daily basis with our children, friends, co-workers, etc.  Each of us either seeks to control specific situations or get our own way in daily life - as a result we manipulate anything we can to get our own way or to implement our will on others.  Gaslighting has an ultimate objective and purpose - to cause you to doubt your own sanity.  

It can be hard to see but the COJCLDS does manipulate inappropriately.  Regardless of intent, regardless of the love the Brethren or local leaders may have, it is an organism in itself that behaves in certain ways to ensure its own survival.  Each participant enables its survival by fulfilling generationally-refined and culturally-entrenched roles.

I understand that it might not feel that way to many people.  There is comfort and a sense of security on the inside.  Sometimes an awareness of the systemic dysfunction is only visible from the outside.

[Bernard Gui]

11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

No, it is actually not the same. Peter had many times expressed his love for the Christ in word and deed. 

You are comparing a blood oath and gory symbolism to plain promises and reminders of fidelity.  You are pretending one is like the other, and then attempting to shame those who object to such blasphemy.

Blood oath? I never took one of those.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Pete Ahlstrom]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It can be hard to see but the COJCLDS does manipulate inappropriately.  Regardless of intent, regardless of the love the Brethren or local leaders may have, it is an organism in itself that behaves in certain ways to ensure its own survival.  Each participant enables its survival by fulfilling generationally-refined and culturally-entrenched roles.

I understand that it might not feel that way to many people.  There is comfort and a sense of security on the inside.  Sometimes an awareness of the systemic dysfunction is only visible from the outside.

I think some of the dysfunction and manipulation has to come from having to constantly defend hard to defend tenets.

[Meadowchik]

30 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Blood oath?

How old are you? If you went through before 1990, you might remember.

Elder Holland acknowledges it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9v2GxDs4To

Notice that Elder Holland creates a false equivalance between blood oaths of the temple and any other, Protestant, Christian, religious oaths.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Gray]

49 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But wouldn't the process of Temple Recommend interviews, in which members are told they have made certain covenants, when they have not, a little bit different? It seems intentional.

Yes, in that case it could be intentional. Or maybe it's a case of someone trying to elevate a pet idea it to a pseudo-covenant via the temple recommend interview where they weren't able to do so by modifying the actual temple ceremony. Maybe more of a political thing?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

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.

All of that can be true (I'm not saying i agree with you but for the sake of argument) and it still doesn't automatically mean the church is gas lighting or abusive.

[Meadowchik]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

Yes, in that case it could be intentional. Or maybe it's a case of someone trying to elevate a pet idea it to a pseudo-covenant via the temple recommend interview where they weren't able to do so by modifying the actual temple ceremony. Maybe more of a political thing?

And politics is all about social survival.  This is why I keep going back to this concept of human institutions behaving like a living organism without a deliberate mind or consciousness. Maybe there is some cackling sinister vilain behind some of them, but just as likely, even moreso, is simply the reality of adaptation.  The LDS church is a baby as far as church's go, and it bears the uncomfortable distinction of so much of its early, raw history still being accessible, vastly accessible, in an information age. The Brethren cannot simply throw away some doctrines and practices within a generation or two without being exposed as inconsistent to early teachings.  And the early teachings and practices of Mormonism are highly problematic.

When I hear more and more reports of Elder Holland dealing with the history of the church, his frustration is so apparent.  He doesn't like having to defend indefensible things, imo.

[Meadowchik]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

All of that can be true (I'm not saying i agree with you but for the sake of argument) and it still doesn't automatically mean the church is gas lighting or abusive.

Consider this bird:

IMAGE

Do the intentions of those who disposed of the debris matter?  The bird swallowed the debris which then in all likelihood contributed to its death. Regardless of the intentions of the humans who disposed of it, the bird is still dead.

So, what's important? That we argue the cosmic inner motivations of the actors of a harmful practice, or that we simply, honestly, call it what it is and call for change?

Edited May 9, 2017 by Meadowchik

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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?

I don't recall the nuance of how it was phrased, but I've always come away thinking they were separate.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

The manipulation in the endowment is plain and simple. It is nothing like the clear, transparent ordinance of a living baptism or the sacrament.

Completely disagree. There's not a single covenant I can think of in the temple you don't find in scripture and regularly discussed in lessons. The only one I can think of is a certain one which some find sexist due to the way it's phrased. But even there it's more the phraseology that at best is a problem as it ends up being the same as the one we make at the sacrament.

[Darren10]

17 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/

As for the changes in church history, if you are talking about how they are presented, then, yes, that happens. What you have been taught about church history is different than what I have been taught simply because you and I are two different people with two different experiences in life created in large part be a variety of differing peoples. If you are speaking about church history in Sunday School I think that is deliberately edited because the main purpose of Sunday School is to uplift and edify. When certain concerns like Joseph Smith's polygamy because such a widespread concern in society in general and / or among church members then additions or alterations to the history presented may result.

Garments: Yes, I have been instructed to wear them 24/7 except for bathing and specific activities such as certain sports where wearing the garments would be inappropriate. Have you covenanted to God to do the same? Have you received similar instruction?

Sacrament and Priesthood meetings: While I do not recall a specific covenant per se attending one's meetings is part of the temple interview, is it not? Have you felt betrayed regarding attending your meetings? If so, how so?