Gaslighting

[Darren10]

Gas Lamp is a popular bar in Houston. So for me as an Uber driver, "gaslighting" takes on a different meaning.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Darren10

[bluebell]

1 hour 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.

If you have prepared to enter the temple you have already reflected and research.  The covenants we make in the temple are nothing new or surprising.  

 

[RevTestament]

29 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.

No offense Meadowchick, but I don't believe you fully understand the atonement. Jesus did ask us to drink wine in remembrance of His blood shed for us. Do you consider that gory symbolism too? It certainly is not blasphemous for the Lord to ask us to lay down our lives for Him, as He told Peter he would do. It is like "plain promises and reminders of fidelity." The Lord repeats it several times in the NT.  There is nothing blasphemous about it. He considers those willing to lay down their lives for Him to be blessed.

Maybe you don't take His words the same way I do:

John 15:13

13 Greater ^alove hath no man than this, that a man lay down his ^blife for his ^cfriends.

1 John 3:16

16 Hereby perceive we the ^alove of ^bGod, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

I take these words quite literally:

Revelation 20:4

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and ^ajudgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and ^breigned with Christ a ^cthousand years.

I am not attempting to shame anyone, and am actually hurt that you would take it this way. I am merely trying to prepare them for what is coming.

[clarkgoble]

31 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

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

President Holland acknowledges it here:

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

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

Penalties for oaths are an artifact of how covenant making was made in the ancient near east. I can understand within our culture people freaking out, which is why they were removed, but contextually they make perfect sense in the endowment. You find them throughout the Old Testament. Since the endowment is a set of steps in both a coronation rite and an anointing of a priest in the general form of the Old Testament such things are to be expected. The main problem is that as our culture becomes more and more separated from the language of the scriptures and more perfused with modernism these things become more alien to us.

The Church has tried to adjust by removing the more masonic elements from the endowment that people found uncomfortable although I confess I miss their passing. But if they, as symbols, don't function the way as intended due to the huge shifts in our culture there's not much the brethren can do. I suspect we'll see more such things removed as our culture continues to change and even the 19th century seems alien.

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If you have prepared to enter the temple you have already reflected and research.  The covenants we make in the temple are nothing new or surprising.  

Sorry bluebell, but that's simply not true.  Members are told not to discuss these outside of the temple, they are not included in the prep classes (at least the ones I took, they were spoken of only vaguely with no details).

Are you saying now that they're online (on websites members are asked to stay away from), there's no excuse for not knowing the details of what we will be asked to promise?

[Pete Ahlstrom]

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

Don't you think someone, unprepared as they are, could think the clothing combined with the starkness of the promises made is a little unsettling? Isn't that one of the reasons for the secrecy and lack of preparation, hence manipulation?

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

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?

It's fine to call things what they are, and that's part of the point.  Manipulation in and of itself is not gaslighting.  That word has a very specific meaning and we can't just apply it willy nilly if we want to be taken seriously.  Manipulation also isn't automatically abuse.   If it was, every parent would be an abusive parent for example.  

Besides that, of course intent is important!  To continue to use the example of parenthood, you are not a perfect parent.  I am not a perfect parent.  I don't even have to know you to know that we both do things that are not good for our kids sometimes (because that is a universal truth of parenting).  However, our intent makes all the difference.  Our intent-our love for our kids-is what makes our imperfect parenting redeemable.  

Yes, when we know better we need to do better, but our motivations for why we do what we do cannot be dismissed as if they don't matter.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour 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.

First off people go through a class preparing them for all this before attending the temple. (Or at least they are supposed to) One of the lessons is all about the covenants one makes. Second, I'd say there's not a single covenant you don't already make elsewhere. (Chastity, obedience, sacrifice, purity) They're all pretty broad and all are basically just quoting or paraphrasing oft quoted scripture. So to say these are a surprise just seems pretty odd. To me going through the first time the oddity was that there really wasn't anything new in terms of covenants. It was more just making more explicit things we'd already promised to do when we said we'd keep the commandments. It's pretty generic NT stuff. So for instance Rom 12:1 and 1 Pet 2:5  already tells us about the sacrifice God commands. The same is true of everything else. About the only difference is the symbolism of the coronation although much of the rest of you can find in the Old Testament on the ordinances for the priesthood.

[HappyJackWagon]

19 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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

That is a direct quote of the Temple Recommend question. What are you thinking is separate? Covenants, attending meetings, and keeping the commandments? 

I read it as saying "covenants" comma (which include) attending church meetings and keeping commandments. How do you read it?

[clarkgoble]

8 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Don't you think someone, unprepared as they are, could think the clothing combined with the starkness of the promises made is a little unsettling? Isn't that one of the reasons for the secrecy and lack of preparation, hence manipulation?

Of course anything new can be unsettling. I think the manuals are reasonably good about the generalities. I think it'd be more helpful if they add in a chapter about the near eastern context. I typically tell people to pick up a few of Eliade's excellent books on near eastern ritual. But it seems to me that alien culture (again largely due to changes in our own culture) is a separate issue from what the thread is asserting.

[HappyJackWagon]

45 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?

That's a disturbing possibility.

I'm not naïve enough to think that political wrangling doesn't go on in some ways but if this were a "pet project" and "pseudo covenant" then it would seem to be a good example of gaslighting.

 

[clarkgoble]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That is a direct quote of the Temple Recommend question. What are you thinking is separate? Covenants, attending meetings, and keeping the commandments? 

I read it as saying "covenants" comma (which include) attending church meetings and keeping commandments. How do you read it?

I read it as keeping ones covenants then attending church then keeping the commandments. But in any case they're all three talked about all the time separately in so many lessons and conference talks it seems kind of silly to make too much of the phraseology. Is there anyone who thinks you aren't supposed to go to church or keep the commandments? I have a very hard time thinking any of this new. But let's say someone was unsure. Just ask the Bishop or Stake President asking the questions.

Edited May 9, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

14 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Sorry bluebell, but that's simply not true.  Members are told not to discuss these outside of the temple, they are not included in the prep classes (at least the ones I took, they were spoken of only vaguely with no details).

That's simply not true. The exact phrasing of the covenants isn't given but if you haven't encountered all those things numerous times you've simply not been reading your scriptures or listening to lessons. They get addressed ad nauseum. The problem isn't that they're new or shocking but that we keep getting hit over the head with them non stop. Again go to lds.org and do a search for (1) sacrifice (2) chastity (3) obedience. 

 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour 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, even under the assumption that God does speak in words.

Most members consider directives from the prophets the word of God when confirmed by the spirit. So I think you're being pretty disingenuous here. (Gaslighting?) If you ask the typical member if God's told us not to abuse heroin I doubt you'll find many who disagree simply because of how we view prophets.

Now if you don't consider the words of modern prophets as inspired by the spirit to be from God that's of course fine. No one is demanding it of you. But if you're attempting to represent mainstream LDS thinking then I'm not sure how you could say what you say.

Edited May 9, 2017 by clarkgoble

[HappyJackWagon]

23 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

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.

1-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?

2-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? 

1- No I haven't received that instruction in the temple as part of the endowment (as the question states). Nor have I made a covenant about it (as the question states). Would you mind saying where you received this instruction and made this covenant?

2- I don't feel betrayed by attending meetings. What bothers me, and what I am suggesting is gaslighting, is the act of telling me I have made covenants to attend my church meetings when I haven't. As I've noted in previous comments, question 8 causes one to think that they have done something they haven't. This is manipulative. It's similar to my teen telling me they are leaving for a concert in the city and that I had given them permission to attend, when in fact we had never had the conversation. It's an attempted manipulation by telling me I agreed to something I haven't. Then I have to question myself about whether or not I'm just forgetful or going a bit nuts not recalling an important conversation like that.

[HappyJackWagon]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If you have prepared to enter the temple you have already reflected and research.  The covenants we make in the temple are nothing new or surprising.  

 

How many 18 year olds research or are encouraged to research before entering the temple? If they are encouraged at all, it would be to read church approved materials that really don't discuss the happenings of the temple. The Temple Prep classes don't even discuss the covenants, let alone the ritualistic practices that are so out of the ordinary for all other LDS church worship.

[Danzo]

14 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

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.

but is that gaslighting?

[JulieM]

12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That's simply not true. The exact phrasing of the covenants isn't given but if you haven't encountered all those things numerous times you've simply not been reading your scriptures or listening to lessons. They get addressed ad nauseum. The problem isn't that they're new or shocking but that we keep getting hit over the head with them non stop. Again go to lds.org and do a search for (1) sacrifice (2) chastity (3) obedience. 

 

CFR that members are told what they will be promising or covenenting with God in the temple prior to attending.

Just because certain topics are in scriptures or lesson material (ie. sacrifice, chastity), we do not know what the covenants in the temple are.  One would have to go to anti sites to read them.  And most are young when they first attend who don't even know where to search.

And, this is now.  My Mother has shared with me that she was horrified with the blood oaths she made and had absolutely no idea she was going to be asked to make them.

Edited May 9, 2017 by JulieM

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Sorry bluebell, but that's simply not true.  Members are told not to discuss these outside of the temple, they are not included in the prep classes (at least the ones I took, they were spoken of only vaguely with no details).

Are you saying now that they're online (on websites members are asked to stay away from), there's no excuse for not knowing the details of what we will be asked to promise?

No, i'm saying that the covenants we make are not surprising.  They are essentially the same covenants we have already made in baptism, just more in-depth. 

We promise in the temple to live righteous lives (obey the commandments) and to live the gospel as it's outlined in the our scriptures. This is what is taught in the temple prep. classes (its in the "preparing to enter the holy temple" booklet and the eternal marriage/temple preparation manual) about the covenants we make in the temple-

“The ordinances of the endowment embody certain obligations on the part of the individual, such as covenant and promise to observe the law of strict virtue and chastity, to be charitable, benevolent, tolerant and pure; to devote both talent and material means to the spread of truth and the uplifting of the race; to maintain devotion to the cause of truth; and to seek in every way to contribute to the great preparation that the earth may be made ready to receive her King,—the Lord Jesus Christ. With the taking of each covenant and the assuming of each obligation a promised blessing is pronounced, contingent upon the faithful observance of the conditions” (House of the Lord, 84)."

and

We covenant with the Lord to devote our time, talents, and means to His kingdom.

We are a covenant people. We covenant to give of our resources in time and money and talent—all we are and all we possess—to the interest of the kingdom of God upon the earth. In simple terms, we covenant to do good. We are a covenant people, and the temple is the center of our covenants. It is the source of the covenant.

It's not word for word of course, but all the covenants we make in the temple are spoken of in that paragraph.  

[probablyHagoth7]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

...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....

As we all know, absence of [presented] evidence is *not* evidence of absence. Ample evidence exists. There is simply good reason not to expose it in full, at least at this juncture. Perhaps never.

My motives for contributing to this thread may be quite different from one of your expressed concerns. I don't wish to defame church members or leaders...

Meanwhile, God has declared,  "...it is the nature and disposition of nearly all..."  So, while acknowledging that the Spirit's work is intended to transform our natures, and that the church houses many amazing  people, merely being told with hands on head to receive the holy ghost or being extended a mantle by similar means does not make one immune to the previous caveat. Or do some here suggest that it does?

Fair enough?

Edited May 9, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That is a direct quote of the Temple Recommend question. What are you thinking is separate? Covenants, attending meetings, and keeping the commandments? 

I read it as saying "covenants" comma (which include) attending church meetings and keeping commandments. How do you read it?

I've always understood that sentence to be speaking about three independent things.  

• Keeping our covenants.  
• Attending our meetings.  
• Keeping the commandments.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

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.

I think you are being highly offensive here,  making accusations that have no merit. You should be ashamed of yourself.

There is a family that we have been working with for quite some time.  They have been taking the temple preparation class.  Each of the covenants in the temple have been discussed in detail and length. Everything has been discussed in detail. I have been involved in most of the process. 

The family is eager to go. They have been looking forward to it for over a year now.  

You are suggesting that these people are only going because they were "Gaslighted"

Are you suggesting that I attend the temple only because I have been 'gaslighted'?

Or are you accusing me of doing the gaslighting?

 

 

 

 

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

speak for yourself and the way you teach the class. 

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No, i'm saying that the covenants we make are not surprising. 

That's different than knowing what we are going to be asked to promise ahead of time.  If these promises are so known and open, why can't someone be told so they can truly prepare for the covenants they will be making?

[clarkgoble]

9 minutes ago, JulieM said:

CFR that members are told what they will be promising or covenenting with God in the temple prior to attending.

Note I didn't claim that. I claimed that all the things they covenant are already found in the scriptures.

Quote

Just because certain topics are in scriptures or lesson material (ie. sacrifice, chastity), we do not know what the covenant in the temple are.  One would have to go to anti sites to read them.

That's true, except that again these are all found in the scriptures. If the complaint it's manipulation because you didn't know you had to live the law of chastity then that's just a silly claim when the law of chastity is talked about constantly. Further at baptism we already covenant to keep his commandments which already include all the things spoken of in the temple.

So to say that there's something new in the covenants when they are really just repetition of things we've already covenanted to do seems disingenuous. If your point is just that we don't know the details that's true. But again since we've already covenanted to follow his commandments I think this is just misleading at best.

Quote

And, this is now.  My Mother has shared with me that she was horrified with the blood oaths she made and had absolutely no idea she was going to be asked to make them.

Again, they've not been in the ceremony for nearly 30 years. But they were of course symbolic. Since I didn't take the temple prep class prior to my mission I simply don't recall how the old manuals dealt with it back in the late 80's.

Edited May 9, 2017 by clarkgoble