Gaslighting

[Darren10]

13 minutes 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.

"I also don't take it personally when people discuss and denounce (and rightfully so) the evils of the sexual abuse scandal." - Agreed (somewhat) but what about when they are inaccurate?

Edited May 9, 2017 by Darren10

[Danzo]

21 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

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

 

you wouldn't say "the church chugs Vanilla Coke" if it wasn't generally true of its members. and an expected  action for church members.

Danzo chugging Vanilla Coke doesn't make it a church thing.

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

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.

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.  

I think that's great.  Again, I wish you'd been teaching the class when I was took it 

[bluebell]

7 minutes 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.

I think it's the implication made when someone says "the church."  That's different than saying a church member.  When a charge is leveled at the church in general than means that it is typical behavior of the church as a whole.  

[Pete Ahlstrom]

 

29 minutes ago, Danzo said:

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

Maybe you need to rethink this. It's unhealthy to feel offended whenever someone points out the sins or mis-steps of the past and/or current leaders. Surely, this is what the "acting as men instead of prophets" is all about. If one of the general authorities was found guilty of some misdeed, you wouldn't be to blame. Likewise, the men who run the organization are not perfect and will cause the organization to make mistakes from time to time. You shouldn't feel responsible for that.

[rongo]

For what it's worth, I'm baffled by the obstinance on the part of some in this thread to seriously argue that the Church has gaslighted or does now gaslight. 

Spinning, selectively teaching and suppressing history, milk before meat (even when ridiculous), claiming things have never been taught or have always been taught, etc. are many things, but they are not gaslighting:

Gaslighting is a form of manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or members of a group, hoping to make targets question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the target and delegitimize the target's belief.^[1][2]

Instances may range from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred up to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim.

I mean, come on. 

[probablyHagoth7]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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

Dunno. I have used neither term.

And I don't consider acknowledgement/invitation for improvement the same as accusation. Do you?

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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 same way you don't have to take ownership of your son or neighbor choosing to steal someone's lunch money - even if you don't wanna believe that your sweet Jimmy would ever do such a thing. If, as a parent and/or teacher, you have taught and reinforced correct principles, wringing *your* hands over someone else's occasional errant decision isn't gonna help anyone...not the one who made the mistake, nor the one whose money was taken.

As to appropriate levels of engagement, one participant apparently deemed it appropriate/funny to question someone's sanity in this thread. None who know the destructive effects of lengthy gaslighting find *additional* attempts at disparaging/dismissive slights *anywhere near* funny/amusing. And yet it is notable that *none* here chose to take ownership of (or issue with) that possibly inflammatory affront.

Some like to poke what they deem to be a bear, sit back with a grin, and see what fur might fly. Different things amuse different people. Such doesn't amuse me in the least.

It's only when people opt to start blaming those who repeatedly went without lunch that things get beyond abusive. Which is what was bizarre (and disconcerting) about circle-the-wagons groupthink surfacing here. 

Fair enough?

Edited May 9, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

For what it's worth, I'm baffled by the obstinance on the part of some in this thread to seriously argue that the Church has gaslighted or does now gaslight. 

Spinning, selectively teaching and suppressing history, milk before meat (even when ridiculous), claiming things have never been taught or have always been taught, etc. are many things, but they are not gaslighting:

 

 

If you were to remove the words "and sanity" from that definition, I believe it fits.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it's the implication made when someone says "the church."  That's different than saying a church member.  When a charge is leveled at the church in general than means that it is typical behavior of the church as a whole.  

Don't human, fallible leaders run the church and cause the church to make missteps from time to time? So, it isn't your fault if the fallible leaders cause the church to make a mistake, right?

[rongo]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

If you were to remove the words "and sanity" from that definition, I believe it fits.

"seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or members of a group?"

"hoping to make targets question their own memory, perception, and sanity?" 

I understand where people are coming from if they complain about "using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying," but  "it attempts to destabilize the target and delegitimize the target's belief?"

"staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim?"  (okay, maybe youth treks . . .  )

[HappyJackWagon]

Just now, rongo said:

For what it's worth, I'm baffled by the obstinance on the part of some in this thread to seriously argue that the Church has gaslighted or does now gaslight. 

Spinning, selectively teaching and suppressing history, milk before meat (even when ridiculous), claiming things have never been taught or have always been taught, etc. are many things, but they are not gaslighting:

 

 

For a moment, let's just throw away the term "gaslight". We're not using that term.

What if we focus instead on the behaviors that some (I'm the guilty one) claim are harmful.

Does the church (by that I specifically mean leadership who influence policy throughout the entire church) sometimes tell us we've made a covenant, when in fact we haven't? (Thinking specifically about garments & attending church meetings)

-Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

- Why would they tell us we've made a covenant when we haven't? What's the motivation/purpose of doing that?

-Can it be confusing and disconcerting to people to be told by leaders that they have made specific promises to God when in fact that hasn't happened?

[Storm Rider]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

It can be hard to see but the COJCLDS does manipulate inappropriately.  Regardless of intent, regardless of the love the Brethren or local leaders may have, it is an organism in itself that behaves in certain ways to ensure its own survival.  Each participant enables its survival by fulfilling generationally-refined and culturally-entrenched roles.

I understand that it might not feel that way to many people.  There is comfort and a sense of security on the inside.  Sometimes an awareness of the systemic dysfunction is only visible from the outside.

It all depends on your definition of manipulation.  The looser the definition the easier it is to accuse everyone and everything of manipulation.  A child manipulates an adult by looking up with pleading eyes and says, "Peez".  You manipulate your spouse when you say, "I don't really want to go to the social function tonight (when the real reason is you just don't like the people, want to watch a show on TV, or would rather visit with the neighbors - whatever the real reason is).  

When we choose to use words with negative connotation then we have to use the same standard for all things.  This is where it gets tricky because some things we don't want to use that definition - it is our sacred cow.  In this game of loose definitions every sacred cow is slaughtered.  

The standard of fairness is do we want to describe our sacred cow by the same standard?  If so, then go ahead and use the looser definitions to produce one's agenda.  However, if we would really prefer to use a more strict definition i.e. the one in the dictionary, then the loose definition does not apply.  

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

"seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or members of a group?"

"hoping to make targets question their own memory, perception, and sanity?" 

I understand where people are coming from if they complain about "using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying," but  "it attempts to destabilize the target and delegitimize the target's belief?"

"staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim?"  (okay, maybe youth treks . . .  )

The second paragraph of your definition stated that "Instances MAY range...".

Does the behavior we've discussed destabilize the target and delegitimize their beliefs?  I think so.

When the Church has intentionally obscured something like the founding prophet's 30+ wives along with the circumstances of those marriages, and a then a lifelong member finds out the truth and the response to them is:  You should have known about that.  It's your fault for not learning it.  The church has been open about these things.  Those are destabilizing and delegitimizing statements.  I've seen the impact of them first hand.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

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.

Why do you think they don't have inspiration/revelation? That's a strong claim.

It's fine you don't believe it's inspired of course. People believe that of lots of things Mormons believe. It seems to me though you think the prophets are lying when they say something is required comes of god. I ask because it seems there's no shortage of conference talks emphasizing the word of wisdom in the sense of abstinence from drugs or so forth. I'm not saying they might not be mistaken. I'm a fallibilist and open to being mistaken about anything. But it seems the burden of proof is on those saying it's uninspired.

 

[probablyHagoth7]

15 minutes ago, rongo said:

For what it's worth, I'm baffled by the obstinance on the part of some in this thread to seriously argue that the Church has gaslighted or does now gaslight. 

I haven't said that "the Church" does this. What I have said is that such does happen within the church. 

More to the point, how is it somehow obstinate to patiently attest to something that I have witnessed again and again, year after year. (And again *in this very thread*?) 

To wrap up this discussion with a bow of sheer irony, shall we heap "unstable" and "insane" on top of your preferred response to label others "obstinate"? Like whipped creme and cherry on top? 

15 minutes ago, rongo said:

Spinning, selectively teaching and suppressing history, milk before meat (even when ridiculous), claiming things have never been taught or have always been taught, etc. are many things, but they are not gaslighting:

You must be referring to other posts. I haven't commented on such things.

[Storm Rider]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

No, it is actually not the same. Peter had many times expressed his love for the Christ in word and deed. 

You are comparing a blood oath and gory symbolism to plain promises and reminders of fidelity.  You are pretending one is like the other, and then attempting to shame those who object to such blasphemy.

No, you are comparing apples and oranges.  Do you promise?  Stick a needle in your eye?  Hope to die?  Now insert any gruesome penalty of your choice.  The first is a promise - do you covenant.   What you are doing is conflating a promise with a penalty for not keeping your promise.  They are not the same thing, but are distinctly different.  

I think we should recognize these types of distinctions even when looking at things in a critical manner.  There is no need to distort them or create a straw man.  The point is that people promise to do things all the time; even children and they are even more accepting/demanding of penalties.

I may not be disagreeing with your conclusion, but I strongly disagree with your method of getting there - it is not accurate. 

[clarkgoble]

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

Lots of points that are made are being ignored and then the central claims repeated. 

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

When the Church has intentionally obscured something like the founding prophet's 30+ wives along with the circumstances of those marriages, and a then a lifelong member finds out the truth and the response to them is:  You should have known about that.  It's your fault for not learning it.  The church has been open about these things.  Those are destabilizing and delegitimizing statements.  I've seen the impact of them first hand.

I've heard misguided members/amateur apologists say these things (you should have known, it's your fault, the church has been open, etc.), but not the Church itself. The Church follows the PR strategy of silence, and less is more (and, in my view, moves too ponderously and is too careful with words, at times). It memory-holes things, or does quiet edits, but I've never seen the Church try to pin ignorance of hidden or undiscussed historical items on members.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Why do you think they don't have inspiration/revelation? That's a strong claim.

It's fine you don't believe it's inspired of course. People believe that of lots of things Mormons believe. It seems to me though you think the prophets are lying when they say something is required comes of god. I ask because it seems there's no shortage of conference talks emphasizing the word of wisdom in the sense of abstinence from drugs or so forth. I'm not saying they might not be mistaken. I'm a fallibilist and open to being mistaken about anything. But it seems the burden of proof is on those saying it's uninspired.

 

Did Gray say they were lying? I've noticed a lot of people on this board lately who take offense by assuming someone is calling them a liar simply because there is disagreement or even allowing for the possibility of error or misunderstanding. So when modern prophets say something is a command of God, and someone suggests that it's not, it doesn't have to be because the Q15 are liars. They could honestly assume that the longstanding policy is doctrine that was received directly from God, when in fact it may not have been. Just like when Q15 consistently taught that the priesthood ban was from God, yet they can't find/produce any kind of revelation from God stating it is from Him.

So when you say the burden of proof is on the person saying something isn't (or may not be) directly from God, you've got it backwards. The claim is that God revealed something. That is a massively big claim. Revelations can be written down. It can be accepted into canon by a vote of common consent. There are methods in place for treating a revelation as it comes from God. This was not done for the race ban and it wasn't done with the changes and interpretations of the WoW.

The burden of proof is on the individual claiming to speak for God, not on the person who is skeptical.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

I've heard misguided members/amateur apologists say these things (you should have known, it's your fault, the church has been open, etc.), but not the Church itself. The Church follows the PR strategy of silence, and less is more (and, in my view, moves too ponderously and is too careful with words, at times). It memory-holes things, or does quiet edits, but I've never seen the Church try to pin ignorance of hidden or undiscussed historical items on members.

That's true, the institutional church tends to use silence which, sadly, allows the other behavior to go on.

The garment "covenant" example is, however, something the institutional church is doing.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

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.

I didn't see anything he did that was that unique. Of course classes depend upon the quality of the teacher. Just the inherent limits within a ward means not all lessons are good. It's hard to get around that although having excellent resources like lds.org helps. There are tons of resources for anyone doing personal study including full access to all the manuals.

As to the promises and covenants, as I've linked to several times, all those things are in the manual. I understand this is becoming a somewhat long thread but I've linked to the chapter in the manual several times. The premise many here have brought up that the covenants aren't discussed is just false. They're discussed regularly including in the temple prep class. The only things not discussed are details of the symbolism not the actual content.

 

[rongo]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

For a moment, let's just throw away the term "gaslight". We're not using that term.

What if we focus instead on the behaviors that some (I'm the guilty one) claim are harmful.

Does the church (by that I specifically mean leadership who influence policy throughout the entire church) sometimes tell us we've made a covenant, when in fact we haven't? (Thinking specifically about garments & attending church meetings)

-Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

- Why would they tell us we've made a covenant when we haven't? What's the motivation/purpose of doing that?

-Can it be confusing and disconcerting to people to be told by leaders that they have made specific promises to God when in fact that hasn't happened?

I'm baffled by your two main illustrations for your argument: garments, and question 9 (or 10, or whatever) in the TR interview.

With respect to garments, we all know what is explicitly taught about them in the endowment. While the exact wording "I am making a covenant" is not used, it is understood by all that this is part of the obligation you are taking upon yourself in receiving your endowment. I'm not sure why people are acting surprised and "abused" if the Church in later iterations refers to this obligation as a covenant. It is certainly a major part of the endowment, a part that we agree to wear and stand as a tangible reminder of our covenants. Excommunication results in loss of the blessings, right, and privilege to wear the garment, even as it results in loss of all priesthood offices, baptismal covenants, and the gift of the Holy Ghost. It is certainly treated as a covenant in that respect.

The question in question does not imply a "covenant" to attend meetings. It consists of three dependent clauses that all hark back to "Do you strive to . . ."

a) keep the covenants you have made

b) attend your sacrament and priesthood meetings

c) live you life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel

You appear to be interpreting a) as being linked to b) and c), whereas a, b, and c are all linked grammatically to "Do you strive to . . .?" It's three separate sub questions within the one.

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Lots of points that are made are being ignored and then the central claims repeated. 

Are you and Calm expecting people who don't agree with a particular post to laud it for some reason? Or would it be more reasonable to have individuals who agree with points to bring them up and try to move the conversation in that direction.

In the case of Bluedreams, I chose not to respond because I respect her even if her post was extremely critical. I've got no problem with her posting that, but I have no desire to pick a fight with her, and aside from one comment it doesn't seem like she's engaged in this particular conversation anyway.

I've also made points that no one responds to. I could blame others for not picking up on those points OR I may realize that no one was interested in those points OR maybe they weren't good points.

I find it strange to have a couple of posts bemoaning how people aren't commenting on certain posts or ideas, when those exact posts could have done  what they claim should be done.

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Don't human, fallible leaders run the church and cause the church to make missteps from time to time? So, it isn't your fault if the fallible leaders cause the church to make a mistake, right?

They do, but systemic (i'm not sure that's the word i mean but it's the only one coming to mind right now) missteps are different than the missteps from individual people.   

And besides that, i've been a leader in a ward before.  My family and friends are made up of past and current leaders in the church.   If someone calls 'the leaders of the church' abusive, they are calling my family and friends abusive.  That's personal, even if they don't mean for it to be.

[Meadowchik]

7 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

It all depends on your definition of manipulation.  The looser the definition the easier it is to accuse everyone and everything of manipulation.  A child manipulates an adult by looking up with pleading eyes and says, "Peez".  You manipulate your spouse when you say, "I don't really want to go to the social function tonight (when the real reason is you just don't like the people, want to watch a show on TV, or would rather visit with the neighbors - whatever the real reason is).  

When we choose to use words with negative connotation then we have to use the same standard for all things.  This is where it gets tricky because some things we don't want to use that definition - it is our sacred cow.  In this game of loose definitions every sacred cow is slaughtered.  

The standard of fairness is do we want to describe our sacred cow by the same standard?  If so, then go ahead and use the looser definitions to produce one's agenda.  However, if we would really prefer to use a more strict definition i.e. the one in the dictionary, then the loose definition does not apply.  

When children reach the age of eight in the church, what typically happens? What abot 12, 14, 16, 18, and 19?

At these milestone ages what is more likely, that they will be taught to do choose between the "good" milestone and "not good" of not complying, or will they be presented with both choices as equally acceptable? Do they even have an out to defer to their personal revelation regarding baptism, priesthood ordination, personal progress participation, or mission? Are there lots of children actively attending who defer baptism until "they're ready" of their own accord? Is that acceptable practice of the church?

See what I mean?

So imagine if an older Mormon complains they didn't really have free agency in the church. What is the appropriate response, given typical church practice? Should one say they could have always chosen against the grain, or should we acknowledge the double bind prevalent in the church?