Gaslighting

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

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.

Do you have a different definition of gaslighting? after all that is what this thread is about. (according to the title).

[probablyHagoth7]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

Now that is abusive. 

I respectfully disagree...at least for the bulk of that post.

D was getting increasingly/overly defensive (to the point of being aggressive) about commentary not specifically directed his/her direction.

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

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.

Any unrepented of sin will keep you away from God and his Church. God can not look upon sin with the least degree of tolerance. Neither can his Church, What he and we offers is the chance at repentance for any and all sin.

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

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.

I deny that!!!

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I've mentioned this before, but I forgo the temple prep class and take the temple prep upon myself completely.

I wish I'd had you for helping me prep for the temple!  I admire you going the extra mile to help those getting ready for the temple.

I do have to say though, that many wouldn't approve probably (of you doing "your own thing" and not following the manual, etc.).  And, that's too bad.

Also, even with all you're doing, I can't see that you're able to really discuss much of what a person is actually asked to promise or covenant to.  I really don't get the secrecy regarding that.  I get why other things are not to be discussed, but not the covenants. Especially if they're so obvious or well known or in the scripture as others here have pointed out.

Edited May 9, 2017 by JulieM

[Danzo]

13 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

I respectfully disagree...at least for the bulk of that post.

D was getting increasingly/overly defensive (to the point of being aggressive) about commentary not specifically directed his/her direction.

I don't think you get my point. I probably am not very good at explaining it. 

When you accuse the church of something, you are accusing the members of doing that thing. The church can't do anything by itself, its members that are doing whatever you are accusing the church of doing.

When someone accuses the church of trying to "manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity.", when they go to the temple, you are accusing the members of doing so.  

Some people have a hard time understanding why it is difficult go a board where they are consistently being accused of lying, deceiving, manipulating, sexually harassing people and abusing people.

When you say the church is doing something then you are saying that the members of the church are doing that something.

When you refer to the church  "in general" then you are really referring to the members of the church "in general".

I consider myself a member, I am probably an ordinary member, but I teach lessons, have done some administering in the church, done some ministering and church service.  If the "church" is guilty of something, than I am probably guilty of whatever that thing is.

I just get a bit tired of people constantly accusing me of doing evil things like "gas-lighting". (which is truly evil).

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

No she *has* refered to leaders of the Church as imperialistic and that they are influenced by the "ultra right" conservative Republican Mormons which dominate Utah. Colvin screes against imperialism and references Utah Mormons as culturally imperialistic. That's why I chose to compare her rhetoric to that of the Evil Galactic Empire 9btw, Epidose VIII comes out in December, WHOOHOOO!!!!).

"Utah Mormons (and the entire church really)" - Nope, not according to Colvin, it's Utah Mormons, not all the church, especially not the Māori Mormons.

"Yes, I understand that the start wars Empire and imperialistic are based in the same word" - You totally lost me there, dude. But...who cares, Episode VIII, this Decemeber, WHOOHOO!!!

 

[Meadowchik]

Juliann, on you personally calling my post to Danzo abusive:

CFR, please.

I was requesting Danzo to stop trying to bait me. That is fair, straightforward, and honest.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Darren10]

50 minutes ago, juliann said:

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.)

Rape is also a food: http://www.recipetips.com/glossary-term/t--36959/rape.asp

[Meadowchik]

12 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I don't think you get my point. I probably am not very good at explaining it. 

When you accuse the church of something, you are accusing the members of doing that thing. The church can't do anything by itself, its members that are doing whatever you are accusing the church of doing.

When someone accuses the church of trying to "manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity.", when they go to the temple, you are accusing the members of doing so.  

Some people have a hard time understanding why it is difficult go a board where they are consistently being accused of lying, deceiving, manipulating, sexually harassing people and abusing people.

When you say the church is doing something then you are saying that the members of the church are doing that something.

When you refer to the church  "in general" then you are really referring to the members of the church "in general".

I consider myself a member, I am probably an ordinary member, but I teach lessons, have done some administering in the church, done some ministering and church service.  If the "church" is guilty of something, than I am probably guilty of whatever that thing is.

I just get a bit tired of people constantly accusing me of doing evil things like "gas-lighting". (which is truly evil).

This is a discussion board.

[Meadowchik]

26 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Any unrepented of sin will keep you away from God and his Church. God can not look upon sin with the least degree of tolerance. Neither can his Church, What he and we offers is the chance at repentance for any and all sin.

And God will not condone false prophets. That's why I left the LDS church...I saw it as necessary to following Christ.  I understand that others may feel differently, though.

[HappyJackWagon]

54 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

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.

Really strange, man.

Cryptic response followed by some condescension and more vagaries. I have no clue what you're getting at, but I guess I'm not "ready" to understand your deep insinuations? OK...peace.

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

This is a discussion board.

Often I feel it is an accusation board, where ordinary members come to be accused of ghastly and evil things, Like Gaslighting people.

Gaslighting is a truly evil thing.

Some elements of the discussion can be helpful and illuminating, such as improving temple preparation.

However, one has to endure accusations of great evil to get to that point.

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Juliann, on you personally calling my post to Danzo abusive:

CFR, please.

I was requesting Danzo to stop trying to bait me. That is fair, straightforward, and honest.

Danzo seems to think this is all about him. He's taking everything personally. It's hard to talk about ideas if people are going to respond as unreasonably as Danzo and others who support his defensive posts.

I fear this thread has deteriorated quickly. It was fun and interesting while it lasted, but alas, when people like Danzo start acting like victims and in turn make accusations against others, there's not much else to say.

[probablyHagoth7]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Really strange, man.

Cryptic response followed by some condescension and more vagaries. I have no clue what you're getting at, but I guess I'm not "ready" to understand your deep insinuations? OK...peace.

Absolutely *no* condescension was intended.

Apologies for any initial misunderstanding.

But thanks for calling me strange. Normal is so boring/passe. :0)

[And for the record, I did *not* say you weren't ready. But I wouldn't presume that everyone in a public internet forum would be...all at the same time. *That* is the reason for no public/broadband answer.]

Edited May 9, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[Meadowchik]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Danzo seems to think this is all about him. He's taking everything personally. It's hard to talk about ideas if people are going to respond as unreasonably as Danzo and others who support his defensive posts.

I fear this thread has deteriorated quickly. It was fun and interesting while it lasted, but alas, when people like Danzo start acting like victims and in turn make accusations against others, there's not much else to say.

Indeed, we all likely experience what we feel is righteous indignation at the ideas people present.  Part of discussing in good faith requires at least partial relaxation of our defensiveness.  With that, I defer to your judgment, HJW.

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Danzo seems to think this is all about him. He's taking everything personally. It's hard to talk about ideas if people are going to respond as unreasonably as Danzo and others who support his defensive posts.

I fear this thread has deteriorated quickly. It was fun and interesting while it lasted, but alas, when people like Danzo start acting like victims and in turn make accusations against others, there's not much else to say.

If it is not about me, then who is it about?

Can you name names or do you just want to accuse some unknown member of heinous evil.

Remember you are the one who made the accusation.  Who was it against? your Elders quorum president? Your stake president?

You can't accuse the church without accusing its members. that is my point.

[gopher]

The only time I've witnessed gaslighting in the church was around the campfire on a boy scout campout.  Please warn your young men that it can cause serious harm and should not be attempted.

[probablyHagoth7]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

I don't think you get my point.

I actually understand your point...very well.

Meanwhile, I believe you missed the point/intent of the OP, and of subsequent commentary.

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

When you say the church is doing something then you are saying that the members of the church are doing that something.

...then you are really referring to the members of the church "in general".

Yes to the former. On a very limited scale.

A very definite no to the generalization implied in the latter. 

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

If the "church"...than I am probably guilty of whatever that thing is.

? Why make such a claim?

If some attending BYU chug Vanilla Coke, is everyone to infer the same to be true of all BYU alums?

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

I just get a bit tired of people constantly accusing me of doing evil things like "gas-lighting". (which is truly evil).

I would get exhausted too if I assumed every general comment had a bullseye on my back. You remind me a bit of those at the last supper who meekly asked, "Lord is it I?" If I may, you take too much ownership of what a few select others are said to have done. I would instead suggest unhitching the raised hackles, and simply acknowledge that people are people - in whatever subset of humanity we're talking. 

You might opt to read "condemnation" into what some have posted here. I don't. Feedback is merely feedback, which includes an invitation/opportunity to rise up, shake off the dust, and improve.

Edited May 9, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[Calm]

Bluedream's very relevant post is completely neglected by those using the term "gaslight" inappropriately.

I find this very unfortunate.

Clark Goble's citing of the covenants in the manual wasn't dealt with either that I can remember.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Calm

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I fear this thread has deteriorated quickly. It was fun and interesting while it lasted, but alas, when people like Danzo start acting like victims and in turn make accusations against others, there's not much else to say.

How can a thread which accuses the church of serious abusive behavior ever be called 'fun and interesting'?  

And Danzo does have a point.  How can members of the church (those who don't believe the church is abusive, specifically) not take such accusations personally?  The church is its members.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

 

What is the ritual clothing about?

If you haven't seen this yet, it may be helpful.  While it doesn't show Temple clothing or garments being worn, the clothing itself is shown:

https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2014-01-1460-sacred-temple-clothing?lang=eng

[MiserereNobis]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How can a thread which accuses the church of serious abusive behavior ever be called 'fun and interesting'?  

And Danzo does have a point.  How can members of the church (those who don't believe the church is abusive, specifically) not take such accusations personally?  The church is its members.

I am Catholic, but I do not take personally the attacks leveled at the Catholic Church.  I also don't take it personally when people discuss and denounce (and rightfully so) the evils of the sexual abuse scandal.  Catholics committed those crimes and enabled those crimes, but I wasn't one of them, even though I am Catholic.  Danzo seems to be taking the position that an accusation against something going on in the LDS church is an accusation against him.  This doesn't make sense to me, since there could reasonably be a temple class teacher who is doing bad things by withholding information, but that doesn't mean that Danzo is doing it.  To take it back to me, there were lay Catholics who helped cover-up the priest abuse scandal, but I wasn't one of them.

[rongo]

44 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I do have to say though, that many wouldn't approve probably (of you doing "your own thing" and not following the manual, etc.).  And, that's too bad.

Well, I was told to by my stake presidency.  Since the temple prep manual doesn't actually prepare people for the things that bother people when they go through (when this happens), I don't think many would think it amiss if those responsible for recommending them (the bishop and stake president, for first-timers) ensure, without discussing things that we covenant not to, that people have been taught about them in a faithful manner.

Also, even with all you're doing, I can't see that you're able to really discuss much of what a person is actually asked to promise or covenant to.  I really don't get the secrecy regarding that.  I get why other things are not to fe discussed, but not the covenants. Especially if they're so obvious or well known or in the scripture as others here have pointed out.

I'm going to ask my temple president about this? I also don't see any reason not to teach about covenants that are in our scriptures. But I won't if instructed not to.  

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, MiserereNobis said:

I am Catholic, but I do not take personally the attacks leveled at the Catholic Church.  I also don't take it personally when people discuss and denounce (and rightfully so) the evils of the sexual abuse scandal.  Catholics committed those crimes and enabled those crimes, but I wasn't one of them, even though I am Catholic.  Danzo seems to be taking the position that an accusation against something going on in the LDS church is an accusation against him.  This doesn't make sense to me, since there could reasonably be a temple class teacher who is doing bad things by withholding information, but that doesn't mean that Danzo is doing it.  To take it back to me, there were lay Catholics who helped cover-up the priest abuse scandal, but I wasn't one of them.

Withholding information in a temple prep class is not gaslighting.

If some member of the church withholds information from a temple prep class, them some member is doing that.

If the 'Church' is withholding information from a temple prep class then it is implied that this information is being withheld by most of the teachers  of temple prep classes.