Gaslighting

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

 

I don't think that word means what you think it means.  Perhaps you should come up with a new word to describe what you mean instead of borrowing a word that means something else.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Here is what the first presidency has said about it:

"Church members who have been clothed with the garment in the temple have made a covenant to wear it throughout their lives.  This has been interpreted to mean that it is worn as underclothing both day and night... (Excerpt of a letter from the First Presidency, taken from The Temple Garment: An Outward Expression of an Inward Commitment)."

The prophets have authority to interpret scripture for the church, likewise they also have authority to interpret the temple ritual.  This is the official interpretation as outlined in the official handbook of instruction. 

[MiserereNobis]

4 minutes ago, Danzo said:

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?

 

If it is taught in the class then we can certainly discuss it here, right?  Are the following questions acceptable:

What are the covenants of the temple?

What are the "blood oaths" that people have been talking about?

What is the ritual clothing about?

I've heard there are handshakes and passwords and things.  Is this true?

I know I could go watch the ceremony somewhere online, but it doesn't feel right to me to watch something that someone secretly recorded, so I haven't done it.  I'm just wondering if my questions above would be answered in a temple class.

[clarkgoble]

3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

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?

From the Temple Prep manual:

"Explain that in the temple we receive the ordinances that will enable us to return to the presence of God. We also make covenants to live the laws of the gospel."

"“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”"

"“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”"

"You may want to review the covenants just described by writing them on the chalkboard. Emphasize that we make covenants to be righteous and pure, and we also make covenants to give all we have to building the Lord’s kingdom. Read the following statement:

“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”"

 

Looks like they were all specified. Gee.

Edited May 9, 2017 by clarkgoble

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Every 18 year old that i have personally known who has gone through the temple has been encouraged to study and attend the temple prep class.  I agree that if parents and leaders aren't encouraging that then they (especially parents) are neglecting their duties.  And of course the 18 year old needs to take responsibility for themselves as well and actually follow the instruction and advice they are given.  

And yes the temple prep classes do discuss the covenants or at least they should if they are teaching out of the manual.  I quoted out of the temple prep class manuals/books in a previous post.  

[HappyJackWagon]

18 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

The information in these classes is extremely vague and simple. It resembles a Gospel Essentials class. The lesson you reference that is "all about the covenants one makes" is chapter 4 Receiving Temple Ordinances and Covenants, wherein the vast majority of the conversation is about defining "what is an ordinance," or "what is a covenant." The closest they get to discussing the covenants comes here...

Quote

“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” (The House of the Lord, rev. ed. [1976], 84).

With respect, these statements are extremely broad. They don't talk about the Law of the Gospel (nor is that ever really defined), or consecrating everything to the church (not God, but the church). It doesn't talk about the signs and tokens which are important elements of some of the most severely penalized covenants if they are broken. It doesn't talk about women covenanting to keep the Law of the Lord, which in real terms means following their husbands. Temple Prep is terrible unless you get an instructor who goes far beyond the manual.

[Danzo]

14 minutes ago, JulieM said:

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.

we discussed the covenants made in the temple in the temple prep class we just finished up.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

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?

They are told though.  The quotes I provided tell people what they will be covenanting.  Can you think of a covenant that you made during your endowment that wasn't spoken of in those quotes?

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

If it is taught in the class then we can certainly discuss it here, right?  Are the following questions acceptable:

What are the covenants of the temple?

What are the "blood oaths" that people have been talking about?

What is the ritual clothing about?

I've heard there are handshakes and passwords and things.  Is this true?

I know I could go watch the ceremony somewhere online, but it doesn't feel right to me to watch something that someone secretly recorded, so I haven't done it.  I'm just wondering if my questions above would be answered in a temple class.

I invite you to take the temple preparation class.  Your questions should be answered to your satisfaction.

[Darren10]

15 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. 

"Covenant" simply means and "agreement". I do believe every church member is instructed on proper garment use and by taking out your endowments you agree to wear the garments. While I would not use the word "covenant" as it is generally overused in the church, It fundamentally is a covenant to use it, is it not?

"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" - To each his own but as for me my intent to reply in such a way is to make a point that a) the Church did not nor does it intentionally make individuals or the members collectively ignorant by omitting or falsifying its history. Granted, I've no idea exactly why the church does not show Joseph Smith being married to multiple wives on its genealogical website but it truly does not bother me.

"and hypothesizing that the ban of saving ordinances for an entire race came from God" - My understanding is that they hypothesized that it required a revelation to overturn. I do not know if "the Church" accepted the ban as something from God though certain church leaders certainly did.

"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." - My my aren't you the high maintenance one?

[Danzo]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The information in these classes is extremely vague and simple. It resembles a Gospel Essentials class. The lesson you reference that is "all about the covenants one makes" is chapter 4 Receiving Temple Ordinances and Covenants, wherein the vast majority of the conversation is about defining "what is an ordinance," or "what is a covenant." The closest they get to discussing the covenants comes here...

With respect, these statements are extremely broad. They don't talk about the Law of the Gospel (nor is that ever really defined), or consecrating everything to the church (not God, but the church). It doesn't talk about the signs and tokens which are important elements of some of the most severely penalized covenants if they are broken. It doesn't talk about women covenanting to keep the Law of the Lord, which in real terms means following their husbands. Temple Prep is terrible unless you get an instructor who goes far beyond the manual.

Instructors always should go beyond the manual, otherwise why have a class at all? Why not  just give them the manual to read.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Danzo

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

They are told though.  The quotes I provided tell people what they will be covenanting.  Can you think of a covenant that you made during your endowment that wasn't spoken of in those quotes?

Yes.

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I don't think that word means what you think it means. 

"Inconceivable!"

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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

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

That's a fair reading though I've always read it differently as the final two clauses explaining the first. I wonder if it's a different experience hearing someone ask the question instead of reading it.

If everyone on this board asked their bishop and Stake President if attending meetings was a covenant obligation, I wonder how many would say it is. I'm sure there would be a mix but for many the implication or even the explicit statement they hear very well could be that they have made a covenant

[Meadowchik]

13 minutes ago, Danzo said:

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?

 

 

 

 

I simply gave Bernard Gui an example of gaslighting in the context being discussed. I am certainly not ashamed of being straightforward, open, and honest about this subject.

[Darren10]

23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

"No I haven't received that instruction in the temple as part of the endowment (as the question states). " - Of course not, but haven't you ever "received instruction" on wearing the garments. The temple reiterates wearing them faithfully.

"As I've noted in previous comments, question 8 causes one to think that they have done something they haven't. " - I'm reading up on the comments now, will that explain what 'question 8' is? Because right now I'm completely lost.

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

I simply gave Bernard Gui an example of gaslighting in the context being discussed. I am certainly not ashamed of being straightforward, open, and honest about this subject.

Do you think I am guilty of gas-lighting this family that I am helping to prepare to attend the temple?

 

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I don't think that word means what you think it means.  Perhaps you should come up with a new word to describe what you mean instead of borrowing a word that means something else.

What word are you referring to? Could you be specific? I assume you're talking about "gaslight" but just want to be sure. How is my statement incorrect. Gaslighting is a tool that is used to obtain or maintain power. Can you explain how I'm wrong?

[probablyHagoth7]

27 minutes ago, Danzo said:

but is that gaslighting?

The snowballing defamation sparked by persons A and B? Certainly.

Gaslighting isn't as effective if other participants aren't unwittingly drawn into the ploy. Hot balls of gas and/or collapsing stars seeking to draw others into their orbit? Yep. Part of nature.

Edited May 9, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, pogi said:

Here is what the first presidency has said about it:

"Church members who have been clothed with the garment in the temple have made a covenant to wear it throughout their lives.  This has been interpreted to mean that it is worn as underclothing both day and night... (Excerpt of a letter from the First Presidency, taken from The Temple Garment: An Outward Expression of an Inward Commitment)."

The prophets have authority to interpret scripture for the church, likewise they also have authority to interpret the temple ritual.  This is the official interpretation as outlined in the official handbook of instruction. 

So the only real thing that matters is that we accept whatever leaders tell us, right?

If the brethren want that full statement to be a part of the covenant, they can make it so. Why have an "interpretation" after the fact. Legally that would be viewed as a bait and switch and would be an abusive article in a contract. Imagine if the lender were able to go back and redefine the contract you signed after you had signed your mortgage. Would that be acceptable?

You're kind of making my point for me. By changing the terms and definitions of covenants after they have been entered into, the authority is telling a person what they have promised to do, when in fact the person originally agreed to no such thing.

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

What word are you referring to? Could you be specific? I assume you're talking about "gaslight" but just want to be sure. How is my statement incorrect. Gaslighting is a tool that is used to obtain or maintain power. Can you explain how I'm wrong?

The definition I get from google is

"manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity."

Do you have a different definition?

Are you accusing me of "manipulating (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity." When I help and encourage people to attend the temple?"

It seems to me that you might be substituting "gaslight" for the word "manipulate" without including the rest of the definition.

[clarkgoble]

2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

If it is taught in the class then we can certainly discuss it here, right?  Are the following questions acceptable:

The details we'll not go into due to seeing them as sacred. But in general terms we can talk about them.

Quote

What are the covenants of the temple?

See the prior comment I made which discusses all of them.

Quote

What are the "blood oaths" that people have been talking about?

There were a near eastern styled symbolic curse if you were to break your covenant. They, and some other things which were seen as non-essential trappings arising out of masonry that helped inspire the details of the endowment were removed around 1991. (Don't remember the exact date) Covenant curses are typical with near eastern oaths and covenants and are ubiquitous in the Old Testament. i.e. Lev 26:14-39; Deut 28:15-68 Mormons typically saw these curses as symbolic. But since our culture is so different from 19th century culture not to mention the near east at the time of Jeremiah or Jesus they were removed since people were misinterpreting them.

Quote

What is the ritual clothing about?

You are clothed in robes of the priesthood. This for the most part follows the clothing of the priests in the Old Testament although there are a few differences. See for instance Ex 28.  

Quote

I've heard there are handshakes and passwords and things.  Is this true?

Yes although we don't go into the details. Again they are symbolic and common in heavenly ascent literature from the ancient near east in late antiquity. So this is pretty common as is the putting on of priesthood clothing during such ascents. The signs either symbolize ways of identifying others or often symbolize holding items like a staff.

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-1999/early-christian-and-jewish-rituals-related-to-temple-practices

While alien to our culture, similar things were found in masonry and related movements popular up through the 1950's (although there still are many around). Masonry influenced the Mormon endowment but there are pretty significant differences. Most of the differences end up being much more similar to these older traditions from late antiquity. (Which indirectly shaped masonry as such things were being discovered by people in the renaissance - so many early Mormons saw masonry as an corrupted remnant of the endowment much as they saw protestantism as a corrupted remnant of the church Jesus and his apostles established

 

[clarkgoble]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The closest they get to discussing the covenants comes here...

All the covenants are delineated in that chapter. If you feel there's something not specified in that chapter that we covenant I'm all ears.

[HappyJackWagon]

16 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

If it is taught in the class then we can certainly discuss it here, right?  Are the following questions acceptable:

What are the covenants of the temple?

What are the "blood oaths" that people have been talking about?

What is the ritual clothing about?

I've heard there are handshakes and passwords and things.  Is this true?

I know I could go watch the ceremony somewhere online, but it doesn't feel right to me to watch something that someone secretly recorded, so I haven't done it.  I'm just wondering if my questions above would be answered in a temple class.

The only things that people covenant not to disclose outside of the temple are the signs and tokens. Everything else should be fair game. But note that I say "should". There is a strange reluctance to talk about anything that happens inside the temple.

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Do you think I am guilty of gas-lighting this family that I am helping to prepare to attend the temple?

 

Why do you ask? I defined gaslighting as a dishonesty after the temple experience. Maybe you should re-read my post.