Gaslighting

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

"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?

No, I'm not high maintenance (and that's an ad hominem rather than facing the issues)... but I see the pain that is being caused and the damage to families and because of that I'd like to see some more openness rather than what conditions I've described per your quotes.

And I disagree that covenant and agreement are the same in our gospel language.  Regardless, there isn't an agreement made either.  Unless you want to just say that we've agreed to obey everything that is told to us.  But the TR language uses the word covenant so to merge all these ideas is to diminish the principle of making covenants with God.

[Danzo]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Many of us prefer to talk about sacred things in sacred places.  The home and chapels come to mind, I prefer to do it with opening prayer and with people who are sincere. 

I haven't quite felt comfortable using these forums to go into too much detail about what I hold sacred.

Obviously others feel differently so perhaps you can get more information from them. 

[probablyHagoth7]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The only things that people covenant not to disclose *outside of the temple*...

That phrasing makes a few assumptions. Much of what is taught is figurative. As such, I don't agree with the inference demanded by your choice of words... 

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

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.

Read the OP to know the starting point of this discussion.

 

[Meadowchik]

46 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

Do you really believe that the Masonic and secret of the temple is simply relic of ancient practice? 

Things tend to be used or misused for a reason. Why do you think Joseph claimed those practices to be essential to salvation and exaltation? 

[clarkgoble]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

No. How on earth did you get that from what I said?

Quote

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.

You're kidding, right? That's your criticism? Are you being ironic or is that really your criticism?

You know I'd think you'd have a point except that of course that's how the scriptures do their covenants. So your criticism is there.

Typically most Christians think the problem the Children of Israel had when Moses tried to give them the gospel was that they needed everything spelled out rather than living by the spirit. More or less from that perspective you're just repeating that need for legalism rather than the New Covenant.

Quote

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?

Again I'd think you'd have a point except for the fact most laws are pretty vague and general and left up to judges to interpret. So you're wrong even in terms of American law. If you disagree I can guarantee it's not hard to find tons of examples of federal law that's vague and open to executive interpretation. Indeed I can even find you some pretty prominent news stories about how conservatives and liberals disagree over how the President interprets laws. 

Given that this is almost always in the news, again I'm kind of wondering how serious you are in these comments.

Quote

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.

Please specify what changed. At baptism we're told to keep his commandments. We're told his commandments come by prophets. Where's the bait and switch? If you accept prophets, then you accept what they say if you believe they are speaking for God. Inherent to that is that God may give directions for a particular time and place through a prophet. Again this is just so repeated in scripture it's pretty hard to believe you're serious.

Now again my usual caveat. No one is making you accept prophets as real. But if you're going to the temple one of the questions first asked is whether you accept Joseph Smith and President Monson as prophets. So I have a pretty hard time believing someone goes ignorant of what that means.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

That phrasing makes a few assumptions. Much of what is taught is figurative. As such, I don't agree with the inference demanded by your choice of words... 

Ok...could you explain what those few assumptions are so we all know what you're talking about  

I honestly don't know what you're trying to say her. What is the inference?

[clarkgoble]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Do you really believe that the Masonic and secret of the temple is simply relic of ancient practice? 

Things tend to be used or misused for a reason. Why do you think Joseph claimed those practices to be essential to salvation and exaltation? 

I believe that masonry included made up things inspired by the documents available in the renaissance to teach deeper truths. (This is hardly surprising since they're pretty forthright about that) I think that includes things that were correct and things that weren't. (I think exactly the same thing about Protestantism) 

Do I think they are "simply a relic of ancient practice?" No clearly not since I think the endowment is, like baptism, an authentic ordinance of the gospel administered with power and with the spirit. So it's much, much more than a relic. It is living and authoritative.

As for things being misused, anything can be misused. That says nothing about its proper use. The fact some people drive drunk and cause accidents implies nothing about the proper responsible use of a car.

Edited May 9, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Darren10]

11 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

Dr. Colvin does not intentionally manipulate others but she is very partisan in her beliefs and treats people who challenge her as enemies and church leaders as Imperial Storm Troopers  lead by Darth Vader himself and Darth just happens to be a Conservative Republican. While not gas lighting, she does practice arson to burn the corrupt church and its leaders down.  But, I've been banned from her blog for a while now and thus have not kept up reading her posts as she does not care to read mine. So, what do I know?

[pogi]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Baiting and switching?  Abusive power? Manipulation?  We are talking about garments, right?  

First of all, this is not a contract between man and the church, so this is not equivalent to an abusive article in a contract.  We have no contract with the church.  The church serves to interpret and clarify the contract between man and God, much as the courts frequently do even after contracts have been signed.

 

[Bobbieaware]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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. 

It's important to note the New Testament Church faced very similar issues, challenges and problems, so I hope no one here is looking to the meridian Church of Christ as a flawless ecclesiastical paradigm to be admired and emulated in every way. What many former believers fail to realize is we're all flawed people living in a fallen state, and the kinds of things that have driven them out of the Church are inescapable and unavoidable as long as the people of the Church remain fallen and imperfect. In demanding near perfection, such people cut themselves off from all that is good, edifying and empowering that yet remains in the Restored Church.

 The scriptures make it abundantly clear even gospel dispensations and churches founded with the ministration of angels and glorious theophanies always become messy affairs. Even so, the scriptures testify these very same flawed organizations remained God's authorized and empowered vehicles to bring the messages and ordinances of salvation to the children of men. In an existence affirmed upon an eternal framework of there being polar opposition in all things, the negative things the 'near perfection or nothing' advocates emphasize and decry invariably come with the territory and -- believe it or not --the presence of such imperfection is absolutely necessary if genuine tests of faith and testimony are going to exist.

The prophet Lorenzo Snow's attitude accurately explains how I feels about the Church.:

"I saw Joseph Smith the Prophet do things which I did not approve of; and yet…I thanked God that He would put upon a man who had these imperfections the power and authority which He placed upon him…for I knew I myself had weaknesses and I thought there was a chance for me. These same weaknesses…I knew were in Heber C. Kimball, but my knowing this did not impair them in my estimation. I thanked God I saw these imperfection"  (President Lorenzo Snow, 1898.) 

Edited May 9, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

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

I am the one encouraging this family to go to the temple.

I am the one who arranged for the temple recommend interview.

I am the one who got the temple prep class started (It was also taught to investigators, got one person who wasn't a member to get married to their significant other as a result of the class).

My wife scheduled the temple for the sealing and endowment session.

Am I guilty of gaslighting?

Am I guilty of trying to "manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity."?

You seem quite comfortable making these accusations against the "Church" or the "Brethren" or the "institution", but it is people like me that make up the "Church" or the "Brethren"

If the "Church" is guilty then I must be guilty.

 

 

 

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Dr. Colvin does not intentionally manipulate others but she is very partisan in her beliefs and treats people who challenge her as enemies and church leaders as Imperial Storm Troopers  lead by Darth Vader himself and Darth just happens to be a Conservative Republican. While not gas lighting, she does practice arson to burn the corrupt church and its leaders down.  But, I've been banned from her blog for a while now and thus have not kept up reading her posts as she does not care to read mine. So, what do I know?

Ha.  No bias there.

[Darren10]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No, I'm not high maintenance (and that's an ad hominem rather than facing the issues)... but I see the pain that is being caused and the damage to families and because of that I'd like to see some more openness rather than what conditions I've described per your quotes.

And I disagree that covenant and agreement are the same in our gospel language.  Regardless, there isn't an agreement made either.  Unless you want to just say that we've agreed to obey everything that is told to us.  But the TR language uses the word covenant so to merge all these ideas is to diminish the principle of making covenants with God.

"No, I'm not high maintenance (and that's an ad hominem rather than facing the issues)..." - I was totally joking. Just laugh.

"Regardless, there isn't an agreement made either. " There isn't? And, yes, you do agree to all of it or none of it regarding wearing garments and getting your temple endowments.

[Darren10]

Just now, rockpond said:

Ha.  No bias there.

Naw, none!

[Meadowchik]

57 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

Yes, intent is important when we want to judge the person, but it does not change the basic harmlessness or harmfulness of a practice. You are talking about evaluating manipulation based on intent. I chose at this time to focus on harmfulness, because in general, intent is difficult to discern. I grant for the sake of argument innocent intent in this topic and thread today.

But harm matters. Let's look at that.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

No. How on earth did you get that from what I said?

1- You're kidding, right? That's your criticism? Are you being ironic or is that really your criticism?

You know I'd think you'd have a point except that of course that's how the scriptures do their covenants. So your criticism is there.

Typically most Christians think the problem the Children of Israel had when Moses tried to give them the gospel was that they needed everything spelled out rather than living by the spirit. More or less from that perspective you're just repeating that need for legalism rather than the New Covenant.

2-Again I'd think you'd have a point except for the fact most laws are pretty vague and general and left up to judges to interpret. So you're wrong even in terms of American law. If you disagree I can guarantee it's not hard to find tons of examples of federal law that's vague and open to executive interpretation. Indeed I can even find you some pretty prominent news stories about how conservatives and liberals disagree over how the President interprets laws. 

Given that this is almost always in the news, again I'm kind of wondering how serious you are in these comments.

Please specify what changed. At baptism we're told to keep his commandments. We're told his commandments come by prophets. 3- Where's the bait and switch? If you accept prophets, then you accept what they say if you believe they are speaking for God. Inherent to that is that God may give directions for a particular time and place through a prophet. Again this is just so repeated in scripture it's pretty hard to believe you're serious.

Now again my usual caveat. No one is making you accept prophets as real. But if you're going to the temple one of the questions first asked is whether you accept Joseph Smith and President Monson as prophets. So I have a pretty hard time believing someone goes ignorant of what that means.

1- I don't understand your point. Why is it ironic to say that people need to understand the terms of a covenant at the time they make the covenant, instead of making the covenant and finding out later what it means? That sounds like a process congress would follow.  

2- We're not talking about attorneys or governments squabbling over language. We're talking about regular people. There will always be disputes and judges come in at that point to decide because there will always be nuance and misunderstandings in the use of language. But if the writer of the contract/covenant is intentionally unclear then they are likely to be held responsible for misleading the other party.

3- What have we been talking about specifically? Wearing the garment. If a person is told wear it throughout their life (and they don't object) and then later the person (organization) who told them that says, "by the way, you covenanted in the temple to wear the garment night and day 24/7", that is a bait and switch. It's changing the expectations after it has implicitly (though not covenantal) that the authority is trying to maintain a kind of behavior that the other person never covenanted to.

[Gray]

48 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

In the case of the Word of Wisdom, we have actual canonized revelation that doesn't say anything about God commanding us to abstain from tea. The policy changes during prohibition don't seem to have a revelation attached, and the changes to the Word of Wisdom weren't even presented for a sustaining vote. The WOW as currently interpreted has all the hallmarks of folk doctrine, or Mormon cultural artifact.

It's a good example of how phantom revelations can take root and grow in the church. It's not really any different from the priesthood ban, except of course that the priesthood ban was harmful, and the WOW revision was fairly harmless. But to confidently say that God says no tea strikes me as a violation of the commandment not to take the name of the great I Am in vain.

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Dr. Colvin does not intentionally manipulate others but she is very partisan in her beliefs and treats people who challenge her as enemies and church leaders as Imperial Storm Troopers  lead by Darth Vader himself and Darth just happens to be a Conservative Republican. While not gas lighting, she does practice arson to burn the corrupt church and its leaders down.  But, I've been banned from her blog for a while now and thus have not kept up reading her posts as she does not care to read mine. So, what do I know?

Not much apparently. That hyperbolic scree against Colvin is way over the top.

Or perhaps you have a reference or quotes where she compares the church to the empire and the prophet to Vader?

[Danzo]

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

No. How on earth did you get that from what I said?

You're kidding, right? That's your criticism? Are you being ironic or is that really your criticism?

You know I'd think you'd have a point except that of course that's how the scriptures do their covenants. So your criticism is there.

Typically most Christians think the problem the Children of Israel had when Moses tried to give them the gospel was that they needed everything spelled out rather than living by the spirit. More or less from that perspective you're just repeating that need for legalism rather than the New Covenant.

Again I'd think you'd have a point except for the fact most laws are pretty vague and general and left up to judges to interpret. So you're wrong even in terms of American law. If you disagree I can guarantee it's not hard to find tons of examples of federal law that's vague and open to executive interpretation. Indeed I can even find you some pretty prominent news stories about how conservatives and liberals disagree over how the President interprets laws. 

Given that this is almost always in the news, again I'm kind of wondering how serious you are in these comments.

Please specify what changed. At baptism we're told to keep his commandments. We're told his commandments come by prophets. Where's the bait and switch? If you accept prophets, then you accept what they say if you believe they are speaking for God. Inherent to that is that God may give directions for a particular time and place through a prophet. Again this is just so repeated in scripture it's pretty hard to believe you're serious.

Now again my usual caveat. No one is making you accept prophets as real. But if you're going to the temple one of the questions first asked is whether you accept Joseph Smith and President Monson as prophets. So I have a pretty hard time believing someone goes ignorant of what that means.

I think that this overall dedication legalism is a large reason people fall away. It isn't much difference between the pharisees in the time of Christ.

Everything must be spelled out exactly and there can be no contradictions.

"No work on the Sabbath" can't contradict with "Harvesting wheat on the Sabbath or healing on the Sabbath"

"Obey the law of the land"   "Immigrants must be treated with kindness"

One of the purposes of this life is learning what to do when there are  contradictions, not trying to figure out some theory of everything so that we know exactly what to do at all times because it is in an instruction manual somewhere.

[BlueDreams]

18 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?

I haven't read all the thread, but I just wanted to say this is absolutely ridiculous and not at all what gaslighting even means. This is about as useful of an application of the term as it is to say I'm a "little OCD" because you like your shoes in order and books alphabetized. Someone can feel betrayed, hurt, or even wronged without it being an indication that the other party involved somehow abused them. It's what I jokingly tell people is being healthily dysfunctional. Communication has broken down, they're triggering each other, they're talking past each other, and they both may say some things that are not OK/unfair/hurtful/etc. But it's not abuse or gaslighting or any other term associated with abuse. It just turned into a poor relationship.

Gaslighting is a form of unhealthy dysfunction where something is very intrinsically wrong, power dynamics are extremely skewed, a person is being controlled, etc. This is very rarely something I see even on a day-to-day relational level...I can't think of a time that I've seen it structurally in the church. In leadership positions I've seen more stupidity or overstepping their callings/boundaries, than blatant gaslighting. I won't say that hasn't ever happened ever. I just can't think of a single incident that I have access to where that happened. Including with statement or thoughts that I disagree with or may even think can be harmful.   

What you give as examples of potential gasligting.....are not examples of gaslighting. You may find them somehow hurtful, overstretching, misleading, or something along those lines. But feeling that doesn't automatically make it gaslighting.

 

With luv,

BD    

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

"No, I'm not high maintenance (and that's an ad hominem rather than facing the issues)..." - I was totally joking. Just laugh.

"Regardless, there isn't an agreement made either. " There isn't? And, yes, you do agree to all of it or none of it regarding wearing garments and getting your temple endowments.

Ha.  Okay.

I still disagree about the "agreeing to all of it" and that "all of it" includes the 24/7 wearing of garments.  That's an extrapolation.  And to repeatedly tell a member that they have covenanted to such is manipulative.

[Danzo]

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes, intent is important when we want to judge the person, but it does not change the basic harmlessness or harmfulness of a practice. You are talking about evaluating manipulation based on intent. I chose at this time to focus on harmfulness, because in general, intent is difficult to discern. I grant for the sake of argument innocent intent in this topic and thread today.

But harm matters. Let's look at that.

So are you accusing me of harming the family that I am preparing to go to the temple? (although you concede that my intentions may be innocent)

 

[Meadowchik]

3 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I am the one encouraging this family to go to the temple.

I am the one who arranged for the temple recommend interview.

I am the one who got the temple prep class started (It was also taught to investigators, got one person who wasn't a member to get married to their significant other as a result of the class).

My wife scheduled the temple for the sealing and endowment session.

Am I guilty of gaslighting?

Am I guilty of trying to "manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity."?

You seem quite comfortable making these accusations against the "Church" or the "Brethren" or the "institution", but it is people like me that make up the "Church" or the "Brethren"

If the "Church" is guilty then I must be guilty.

 

 

 

If after their endowment, in the Celestial room, this family says "but we were not informed of the *** and *** in the endowment! If you then say they were informed and if you are dishonest in that regard in order to cast the temple as a faith promoting experience that they can turn to to bolster their trust in the church, then, yes, you would be guilty of gaslighting. 

I hope you can be as candid as possible so that they can have as good an experience as possible. 

[Darren10]

3 hours 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?

Ah, there's question 8.

I lean towards the side that "covenants you have made" as something different than "attend your sacrament and other meetings". no "covenant" to attend sacrament unless, of course, you take the simple meaning of "covenant" as an "agreement".