Gaslighting

[thesometimesaint]

Gaslighting

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

[clarkgoble]

29 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Well Congress doesn't follow that unless you think the law for Title 9 entailed private university courts without due process on rape claims to maintain federal funding for instance. (This is independent of the question of whether that's useful to prevent rape and punish rapists) If you think it did, then why did that only start well into Obama's administration rather than years earlier when the law was passed? Again I can give you literally hundreds of examples off the top of my head. So in terms of American law this is the rule not the exception. Indeed liberal jurisprudence tends to disparage the textualist jurisprudence favored by conservatives that looks at original intent and literal meaning of the text.

It's not ironic to think they need to understand the covenant. It's ironic to think everything needs to be spelled out. Why it's ironic I specified - both because it's how the covenants in the New Testament are made and because it's the main criticism of the Children of Israel Christians make. You're effectively putting yourself in the place of Moses' critics which is why they didn't get the higher covenants. 

Quote

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.

Being vague is different from being misleading. But again if you think there is a covenant that is misleading in context I'm all ears. 

Quote

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.

Except that as I've repeated numerous times the covenants we make are to keep the commandments including those as given by the prophet under the direction from God. If the prophet says that then we've covenanted to do it. A covenant of obedience to as yet unstated commands is not a bait and switch if it's clear that's what the covenant is. Since that's repeated all through the scriptures it's hard to take you seriously. So if the prophet says wear it 24/7 with no nuance then that's clearly within the specification of the covenant. Note that I don't think this presentation of the requirements of the garment is accurate as I said early on in the thread. Also the particular wording when you are washed, anointed and given the garment has changed somewhat with time. I remember being told to wear it day and night which isn't the same as 24/7. My sense is that the OP misinterpreted something said to them or the person speaking to them misinterpreted it. I've never heard of anyone wearing garments in the shower, swimming pool, or bath tub for instance. Despite that being a trope in some old Evangelical anti-Mormon materials.

You might not like open ended covenants (or contracts) but again they are pretty common and they aren't misleading. The NDA contracts I sign and have people sign almost always has a vague "and future specified products" as an open ended way of specifying any future products that have to be kept secret that haven't even been invented at the time of the contract.  

Now if you think the covenants aren't so open ended so as to include future as yet unstated commands I'm all ears. 

Edited May 9, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Darren10]

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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?

Nope, I stand by it...COMPLETELY!

My example is hyperbolic but I can provide quotes that she sees Church leaders as puppets to the "ultra conservative" Republicans in Utah.

Edited to add: oh, and Utah Mormons are [culturally] imperialistic.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Darren10

[clarkgoble]

13 minutes ago, Danzo said:

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.

Yes. I tend to agree. 

Worse, they want the legalism and then are shocked when they don't find it.

[JulieM]

53 minutes ago, Danzo said:

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

In detail? 

Just to be clear, you told them exactly what they would be asked to covenant to?

Do you have a source where this is in writing to be included in instruction and prep for those going to the temple?

Edited May 9, 2017 by JulieM

[Meadowchik]

34 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

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 out 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.) 

Indeed, as a believing Mormon I pointed to the age of the early Christian church as advantageous in comparison to the relatively nascent state of the COJCLDS in the epistemological retrospect of both. (I even cited that today in another thread.) I have accepted human frailty as an absolute of human experience, but still continue in the hope of transcendent experience with the divine.  I still feel the Spirit.  I still have experiences of cognitive clarity and charitable feeling toward my fellow men.

I used to defend the practice of LDS excommunication for apostasy as necessary to keeping the ship aright in order to preserve the believers on board, in addition to giving the opportunity for repentence.  Because, how can the church survive if it is questioned and then broken up?

I now hold different beliefs about the nature of Christ's church and its viability and its needs. And I no longer make the false equivalence that some sin is as bad as any sin, I expect a standard of compliance from the Lord's anointed servants.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

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. 

Can you not see how offensive your statements are!

No wonder there aren't very many faithful members posting on this board! Something that brings joy to our lives gets reduced to some sort of abuse and attempt to drive someone insane!

You are accusing me of gas lighting, if for some reason, some detail of the temple ceremony wasn't conveyed to them ahead of time in a way that they remembered it exactly???

You are saying that I need to show them a video of it and make them watch it over and over and make sure they are tested because if they say they didn't remember being informed about an aspect than I am guilty of abusing them?

The temple ceremony brings me great joy. I learn and pick up on different aspects of it every time I go and I have been attending it for over 20 years!  The experience of it is much more than just the covenants.

I have enough experience with the temple to know that there experience with it is not really that dependent on how candid I am or was.  

We went through many details of the ceremony with them. The bishop spent a couple of hours with them explaining everything. It is the policy of our stake to be as detailed as possible.

If something was missed or if they don't remember it, or they expect something different then they get, to you it means that I am trying to  "manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity."

Really?

 

 

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

In detail? 

Just to be clear, you told them exactly what they would be asked to covenant to?

Do you have a source where this is in writing to be included in instruction and prep for those going to the temple?

Yes, we told them about the covenants to obedience, chastity, sacrifice, consecration.

One person in the class decided to get married and the ward put a wedding on for them after we talked about the covenant to obey the law of chastity

I have no idea if there is an instruction manual that mentions these and I don't think it matters. The church is run by the spirit and by the priesthood, not by a manual.

 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

52 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?

I think this goes to the heart of what some here would term "gas-lighting."  In my opinion it comes from the perceived need to defend the church by claiming to not see what is clearly seen by most people. I assume you believe what you say so I don't think you are intentionally trying to manipulate, but even so, your positions are indefensible and therefore I suspect they come from a place of denial.

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Well Congress doesn't follow that unless you think the law for Title 9 entailed private university courts without due process on rape claims to maintain federal funding for instance. (This is independent of the question of whether that's useful to prevent rape and punish rapists) If you think it did, then why did that only start well into Obama's administration rather than years earlier when the law was passed? Again I can give you literally hundreds of examples off the top of my head. So in terms of American law this is the rule not the exception. Indeed liberal jurisprudence tends to disparage the textualist jurisprudence favored by conservatives that looks at original intent and literal meaning of the text.

It's not ironic to think they need to understand the covenant. It's ironic to think everything needs to be spelled out. Why it's ironic I specified - both because it's how the covenants in the New Testament are made and because it's the main criticism of the Children of Israel Christians make. You're effectively putting yourself in the place of Moses' critics which is why they didn't get the higher covenants. 

Being vague is different from being misleading. But again if you think there is a covenant that is misleading in context I'm all ears. 

Except that as I've repeated numerous times the covenants we make are to keep the commandments including those as given by the prophet under the direction from God. If the prophet says that then we've covenanted to do it. A covenant of obedience to as yet unstated commands is not a bait and switch if it's clear that's what the covenant is. Since that's repeated all through the scriptures it's hard to take you seriously. So if the prophet says wear it 24/7 with no nuance then that's clearly within the specification of the covenant. (Note that I don't think this presentation of the requirements of the garment is accurate as I said early on in the thread)

You might not like open ended covenants (or contracts) but again they are pretty common and they aren't misleading.

Now if you think the covenants aren't so open ended so as to include future as yet unstated commands I'm all ears. 

No, but it is ironic that you make that argument when in fact the rule about garment wearing becomes more strict and spelled out than what is actually instructed in the temple. I'm arguing against making things more strict after the fact. It would be like your bishop instructing you to keep the Sabbath day holy. Ok, sounds fine. But later he tells you that you have covenanted to wake up at 6 am every Sunday, do 2 hours of scripture study, attend church, do 5 more hours of study in the afternoon, etc etc. What sounded reasonable (keep the Sabbath day holy /wear the garment throughout your life) is now inundated by additional requirements that were never explained to you and to which you never agreed.

When changes or additions to the original covenant are made, they must be agreed to for the new covenant to be in effect. Otherwise, one party could always change the covenant however they choose and thus render the covenant useless.

[Meadowchik]

11 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Can you not see how offensive your statements are!

No wonder there aren't very many faithful members posting on this board! Something that brings joy to our lives gets reduced to some sort of abuse and attempt to drive someone insane!

You are accusing me of gas lighting, if for some reason, some detail of the temple ceremony wasn't conveyed to them ahead of time in a way that they remembered it exactly???

You are saying that I need to show them a video of it and make them watch it over and over and make sure they are tested because if they say they didn't remember being informed about an aspect than I am guilty of abusing them?

The temple ceremony brings me great joy. I learn and pick up on different aspects of it every time I go and I have been attending it for over 20 years!  The experience of it is much more than just the covenants.

I have enough experience with the temple to know that there experience with it is not really that dependent on how candid I am or was.  

We went through many details of the ceremony with them. The bishop spent a couple of hours with them explaining everything. It is the policy of our stake to be as detailed as possible.

If something was missed or if they don't remember it, or they expect something different then they get, to you it means that I am trying to  "manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity."

Really?

 

 

Just stop.

If my definition applies to you, if you plan on being dishonest with this family if they express concern over their temple experience, after it is over, then shame on you.  If not, then stop playing the victim, Danzo.

Really, just be a grown-up.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Meadowchik

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Nope, I stand by it...COMPLETELY!

My example is hyperbolic but I can provide quotes that she sees Church leaders as puppets to the "ultra conservative" Republicans in Utah.

Edited to add: oh, and Utah Mormons are [culturally] imperialistic.

Good, so you agree you are being hyperbolic for effect even though she has never called leaders vader, or the church the Empire. Good enough.

Utah Mormons (and the entire church really) is culturally imperialistic but that is an academic statement, not hyperbolic. Yes, I understand that the start wars Empire and imperialistic are based in the same word but that doesn't mean they're the same thing.

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

Just stop.

If my definition applies to you, if you plan on being dishonest with this family if they express concern over their temple experience, after it is over, then shame on you.  If not, then stop playing the victim, Danzo.

Really, just be a grown-up.

No you are accusing me of planning to be dishonest.

It never stops with you does it.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

11 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Can you not see how offensive your statements are!

No wonder there aren't very many faithful members posting on this board! Something that brings joy to our lives gets reduced to some sort of abuse and attempt to drive someone insane!

You are accusing me of gas lighting, if for some reason, some detail of the temple ceremony wasn't conveyed to them ahead of time in a way that they remembered it exactly???

You are saying that I need to show them a video of it and make them watch it over and over and make sure they are tested because if they say they didn't remember being informed about an aspect than I am guilty of abusing them?

The temple ceremony brings me great joy. I learn and pick up on different aspects of it every time I go and I have been attending it for over 20 years!  The experience of it is much more than just the covenants.

I have enough experience with the temple to know that there experience with it is not really that dependent on how candid I am or was.  

We went through many details of the ceremony with them. The bishop spent a couple of hours with them explaining everything. It is the policy of our stake to be as detailed as possible.

If something was missed or if they don't remember it, or they expect something different then they get, to you it means that I am trying to  "manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity."

Really?

 

 

All I can say is that I probably would have avoided it had I known about it prior to going through. I went through pre-1990 and during the first part, I had a friend standing directly behind me (for some reason) with his hands on my shoulders and my father by my side while an old man with shaky hands administered to me. It wasn't fun or holy to me and got worse from there. My friend who still believes had a similar experience her first time and refused to go back for years.

[clarkgoble]

8 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I have no idea if there is an instruction manual that mentions these and I don't think it matters. The church is run by the spirit and by the priesthood, not by a manual.

It's spelled out in the manual. I don't buy for a second the idea people are ignorant of the covenants when making them without really trying to be ignorant.

Some of the trappings I fully concede are alien to our culture. When I've taught temple prep in the past I always made sure in the symbols lesson to explain the near eastern context. I think the lesson manual could do a little better there. When I know of people going for the first time I usually send them a few links like this Fair one or buy them a copy of The Sacred and Profane and The Myth of the Eternal Return. I'll recommend his Images and Symbols as well. They're very well written and easy to read. I think they're invaluable for providing the context our culture has lost for our ordinances.

[Danzo]

5 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

All I can say is that I probably would have avoided it had I known about it prior to going through. I went through pre-1990 and during the first part, I had a friend standing directly behind me (for some reason) with his hands on my shoulders and my father by my side while an old man with shaky hands administered to me. It wasn't fun or holy to me and got worse from there. My friend who still believes had a similar experience her first time and refused to go back for years.

I appreciate that your experience wasn't a good one.

Do you think that your father, or your friend standing behind you were gaslighing you? That is, were they guilty of trying to "manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity."?

[clarkgoble]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No, but it is ironic that you make that argument when in fact the rule about garment wearing becomes more strict and spelled out than what is actually instructed in the temple.

I'm saying it's not.

Quote

I'm arguing against making things more strict after the fact.

Yes, I recognize that. I'm saying that's unreasonable. As circumstances change the prophets give us new commands. Some things they ease up on other things they make more strict.

I disagree with what you're saying about the garment though.

Quote

It would be like your bishop instructing you to keep the Sabbath day holy. Ok, sounds fine. But later he tells you that you have covenanted to wake up at 6 am every Sunday, do 2 hours of scripture study, attend church, do 5 more hours of study in the afternoon, etc etc. What sounded reasonable (keep the Sabbath day holy /wear the garment throughout your life) is now inundated by additional requirements that were never explained to you and to which you never agreed.

We do have free will. Even though we've covenanted to keep the commandments we can of course break that at any time. You might think it unreasonable for God to give you a new specific command and say, didn't you covenant to obey me? But I think most members are fine with it if the command is actually from God.

Quote

When changes or additions to the original covenant are made, they must be agreed to for the new covenant to be in effect. Otherwise, one party could always change the covenant however they choose and thus render the covenant useless.

Again there are no changes to the covenant. You might not like open ended covenants like "obey God" but those are the covenants. See for example Deut 29. Now clearly you dislike open ended aspects to covenants and contracts. That's fine. But the nature of those covenants is pretty straightforward. You're free to break the covenant at any time you wish.

To repeat again, the reality is that open ended terms are ubiquitous even in contemporary contracts. Basically every NDA people sign has elements that are open ended. You may not like that and that is your right. No one forces you to make covenants or sign contracts.

[Danzo]

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It's spelled out in the manual. I don't buy for a second the idea people are ignorant of the covenants when making them without really trying to be ignorant.

Some of the trappings I fully concede are alien to our culture. When I've taught temple prep in the past I always made sure in the symbols lesson to explain the near eastern context. I think the lesson manual could do a little better there. When I know of people going for the first time I usually send them a few links like this Fair one or buy them a copy of The Sacred and Profane and The Myth of the Eternal Return. I'll recommend his Images and Symbols as well. They're very well written and easy to read. I think they're invaluable for providing the context our culture has lost for our ordinances.

Thanks for finding the reference for me. I have a hard time figuring out how to find stuff on LDS.org.  I usually use the app on my phone.  We went through all of the covenents in the class.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

4 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I appreciate that your experience wasn't a good one.

Do you think that your father, or your friend standing behind you were gaslighing you? That is, were they guilty of trying to "manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity."?

My friend and father were part of the overall manipulation. My friend admitted after that he had his hands on me to ensure that I would stand still.

[rongo]

25 minutes ago, JulieM said:

In detail? 

Just to be clear, you told them exactly what they would be asked to covenant to?

Do you have a source where this is in writing to be included in instruction and prep for those going to the temple?

I've mentioned this before, but I forgo the temple prep class and take the temple prep upon myself completely. I started doing this when a new convert had a bad experience her first time, and I complained to the stake presidency about the inadequacy of the class and was told that I'm the gatekeeper --- it's my job to make sure they're properly prepared, not a manual or a class. She is awesome, and was able to get over it (she was later one of my RS presidents, and remains a close friend that we still have over every New Year's), but I vowed that would never happen again if I had anything to say about it. 

In preparing people, I show the picture from the Gospel Art kit with the tabernacle and the priests in ceremonial clothing, and I explain that we wear ceremonial clothing in the temple that has symbolic meaning, some of which will be taught, and some of which we are to learn for ourselves. We participate in a drama where we identify ourselves with Adam and Eve, and we make covenants while participating in the drama. The drama helps us place ourselves in the cosmos and in creation, and goes through the Creation, the Garden of Eden, the Fall, Atonement and Reconciliation, and the Restoration. There will be a lot of things when you go through, but all of the covenants, symbols, and actions fit within this big picture. 

I explain about garments (but don't get into symbolism, because that is part of the endowment) and that they will be expected to wear them night and day throughout their life (I use the FP statement in the TR interview). This is necessary because I have a lot of people whose spouses aren't members, and we all have to make sure that that isn't going to be an issue in their marriage or family. 

I may ask our temple president for counsel on discussing the covenants. They are not new and are in the scriptures, but as they are presented as part of the endowment, I'm not sure if that's something we shouldn't do or not. I also realize that mileage may vary between different temple presidents on this; there is not church policy.

I explain in broad terms about washings and annointings, and use the Old Testament to provide context. I explain that the promises and blessings in this are among my favorite parts. 

I also explain about the prayer circle. I have shared and taught in my ward the power of the prayer circle (personal experiences, and some excellent JoD anecdotes), so most know something about it. 

I show pictures of the insides of the temple that the Church has published as I walk them through, as much as I can, what they will do and what will happen. 

[probablyHagoth7]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

Such an answer is intended for those ready. Wouldn't presume to attempt a full reply in a public forum.

(My mere challenge of your inference must suffice to prime the pump.)

So I defer your question Elsewhere.

Edited May 9, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[juliann]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

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

 

It doesn't. This is yet another example of redefining words. It reminds me of how the word rape has been hijacked to label annoyance or inconvenience. Never mind that it has a narrow meaning that can be life destroying for those subjected to what it really is. (Thankfully, I don't see as much marginalizing of true victims through abuse of this word as I used to.)

[Danzo]

11 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

My friend and father were part of the overall manipulation. My friend admitted after that he had his hands on me to ensure that I would stand still.

They were trying to manipulate you into questioning your own sanity?

[juliann]

33 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Just stop.

If my definition applies to you, if you plan on being dishonest with this family if they express concern over their temple experience, after it is over, then shame on you.  If not, then stop playing the victim, Danzo.

Really, just be a grown-up.

Now that is abusive. 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

They were trying to manipulate you into questioning your own sanity?

It was manipulation from my standpoint. Whether it was done with the intent to have me question my sanity, I don't know because I wasn't inside their heads. Besides, I never claimed it was gaslighting under your definition.