Ed Smart, father of Elizabeth Smart, Announces he is gay

[Calm]

I am curious about the view of those who if I understand correctly see a covenant with God as a covenant is a covenant is a covenant even if the understanding someone has who enters into it varies a great deal or changes over time.

I assume there are limits to covenant making accountability as someone who was ten years of age but mentally more like 5 would not be viewed as breaking a covenant if they said they were no longer a member, that would be recognized as okay because the covenant couldn’t be fully in place due to limited understanding by one participant, correct?

What if the limited understanding is not from mental capacity but from information supplied, what if a woman in the 1850s married a missionary in England and then traveled out west with him when he returned and discovered he already had a family and wife...maybe even more than one.  He had never denied he was married, just never mentioned it. 

Would she be a covenant breaker in your views if she walked away from the marriage or would she be without sin because he married her while not informing her about his situation?

Edited August 18, 2019 by Calm

[Storm Rider]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why does it fall apart?  You have not explained why, just said it falls apart.

Do you think God holds the identical view of the covenants made by an 18 year old who covenanted as an 8 year old who got baptized because they believed their parents are good people and want the best for them, so trust the parents are right as he holds an 38 year old adult who has had a personal revelation of the truthfulness of the gospel and therefore took on the covenant of baptism as a 28 year old?

”I do think that God is more merciful than we give him credit in almost all conversations. Nothing that we are talking about is beyond forgiveness”

I very much agree with this. 

I don't think covenants between God and man at any level can be premeditatively dismissed without considerable consequences to the soul of the individual. I don't think I want to be baptized any longer and insteal I want to live the wild life is nothing more than rejecting the name of Christ and choosing to follow Satan. How is that okay?  Your logic above paints covenants as something insignificant. 

The reason I said your logic falls apart is because I thought the baptism comparison was so glaring that it was evident why it was poor logic. No, there is not a third rail. Yes, God really things covenants are significant. Have you ever read anything in scripture to make you think they aren't?  Have you ever understood the breaking of covenants with God to be insignificant?  Just curious, I am trying to understand your process of getting to this position. 

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

 I don't think I want to be baptized any longer and insteal I want to live the wild life

This is not the only reason to decide not to be baptized. Going there first does not deal with sincere efforts of trying to become more righteous to the best of someone’s understanding, for example, even if wrong from others’ POV 

“Your logic above paints covenants as something insignificant.“

Actually I think my view leads to covenants being viewed as more significant and life altering, as they move away from a one size fits all approach and becomes more about making personal commitments to God to the best of our understanding instead of what often amounts to filling out the paperwork. 

I am not saying typical covenant making is cookie cuttering without regard to the individual or God really. I am just saying we might stray into that approach if we don’t look at the understanding people have when they say those words and instead treat the words as if they have some mystical ability to turn all experiences into the same meaningful encounter with God. 

In my view the covenants we make with God are “true and living” and not static. This allows for us to move closer to God, but it also means new understandings may not always see the covenant in the same way. Hopefully from the viewpoints of believers, understandings overtime bring deeper commitment to the covenants themselves, but it may be possible that growth is inconsistent in spiritual areas and great growth leads to closeness with God in ways that seem contradictory to the covenant due to spiritual growth and understanding not also occurring in areas that enlighten covenantal commitment. 

Thus someone who got baptized because they incorrectly interpreted what they thought the Gospel was, who then over time desires to come closer to God so begins to study scripture, only to find what they are understanding from scripture is not what they understand the Church to teach.  They may be wrong, but if they choose to walk away from baptism because they truly believe that is God’s will, is that the same sort of covenant breaking that someone who walks away to commit adultery experiences?  

What if that scripture study person made the baptism covenant with the understanding he would follow God wherever he was led, would sacrifice whatever God asks him to sacrifice. Is he breaking the covenant he made if he walks away from the Church because he believes God wants him to or is he honoring it to the best of his fallible mortal understanding?

Is ignorance and misunderstanding a sin in the same way as adultery is or would we say it was more of a transgression, the covenant is broken in one sense in that he is parting with the community of Saints, etc, but in another his commitment to seek out and serve God may be higher. Should we condemn a person who sincerely is seeking God’s will and instead insist if he doesn’t want to be damned for covenant breaking he continue in the status quo rejecting where he believes God is calling him because he made a promise and must keep it according to our u understanding, not his own? 

Edited August 18, 2019 by Calm

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

But one can be honest about their feelings and still stay married depending on what is seen as workable. They would probably have to discuss what was expected of each other including remaining sexually faithful to each other while not having a sexual relationship themselves if that wasn’t desired (there are multiple reasons to have sex, including giving comfort to each other). Depending on the person, there still might be able to have a physical relationship if only sitting with arms around each other as friends and remaining celibate. 

I think years of thinking your spouse found you attractive and then finding they didn’t might make a person see one’s lie as all a lie, feel trapped by the relationship and want out to find out who one is really when one stops making choices based on a lie. So it could be very hard these days when both men and women have the right to choose their own lives and not just have to accept whatever is given to them to stay long enough in a place of so much pain to begin to heal. 

Marriage is difficult for me when my children are grown. I feel like I want to break out of my life and do everything I was unable to do while raising a family. Maybe Lois can hopefully move on and fulfill some of her dreams perhaps. Sometimes with a husband, it just can't be done. 

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I said we don’t have record of their being a revelation announcing its origin. I didn’t say there was no revelation. You are jumping to conclusions.

The fact that the Lord for so long did not answer persistent prayers from the prophets telling them to remove the ban is tantamount in my view to revelation that the ban should remain in place for the time being. We understand from scripture that “a stupor of thought” amounts to a “no” answer.

And Greg Prince, in his biography of David O. McKay, recounts that the message President McKay got in answer to his prayers was that the ban would not be lifted during his presidency and that he should cease to trouble the Lord about it. 

 

Scott, don't make me out to be the villain here.  From the very beginning I am trying to find the answer to this simple question so that I DON'T jump to conclusions.  Do you believe the Priesthood Ban was a revelation from God or not. You have yet to answer the question directly.  I feel like you are playing me.

Say yes to one of the following questions or just refuse to answer the question.  Your choice.

I believe BY received a revelation from God to ban all blacks from the priesthood

I don't BY received a revelation from God to ban all blacks from the priesthood

I am not sure if BY received a revelation from God to ban all blacks from the priesthood.

BY believe Joseph Smith received a revelation from God to ban all blacks from the priesthood.

 

Geeze is that such a difficult question to answer?  

Edited August 18, 2019 by california boy

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

Scott, don't make me out to be the villain here.  From the very beginning I am trying to find the answer to this simple question so that I DON'T jump to conclusions.  Do you believe the Priesthood Ban was a revelation from God or not. You have yet to answer the question directly.  I feel like you are playing me.

Say yes to one of the following questions or just refuse to answer the question.  Your choice.

I believe BY received a revelation from God to ban all blacks from the priesthood

I don't BY received a revelation from God to ban all blacks from the priesthood

I am not sure if BY received a revelation from God to ban all blacks from the priesthood.

 

Geeze is that such a difficult question to answer?  

You might want to include the possibility that JS received a revelation as some believe. 

[california boy]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

I have to say, this thread has been an eye opener for me.  I had no idea just how judgmental members of the Church could possibly be against someone who is gay.  I really wonder how universal these feelings are in the Church.  I would like to set up a poll to ask some questions about how members feel about straight divorces, but I don't know how to do that on this site.  Perhaps someone more savvy could help me.  It would be interesting to see if there are any differences in attitudes on the two types of divorce.  

These are the questions I would like to ask everyone on this thread.

When a wife in a straight marriage files for divorce in the Church do you think it is part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to

A. Speculate whether the husband is having an affair?

B. Speculate that the husband is a sex addict?

C.Assume the husband is overcome by the power of Satan?

D. Accuse the husband of sliming his wife?

E. Speculate that the husband is in the throes of Jungle Fever?

F. Believe the husband is not now, and never has been a moral man?

G. Assume the husband Is wholly self-centered, turning from Christ to satiate one's passions. 

So let's hear your response.  Just type the letter and give us a yes or no to each question in the survey.  If you wish, you can add a comment about how all of this fits perfectly in with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  

 

So no one who spent half this thread bad mouthing and judging Ed Smart wants to take my poll?  Anyone feel badly?

Ok, I know I am pushing it.  But maybe someone had to.  At least it seems to have stopped.

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

You might want to include the possibility that JS received a revelation as some believe. 

Ok good edit to add.  I will do that.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, longview said:

It would be helpful if you could provide references for the two oddities.

For the second:

Quote

When a woman becomes alienated in her feelings & affections from her husband it is then his duty to give her a Bill & set her free which would be fornication for the man to cohabit with his wife after she had thus become alienated from him....Also there was another way in which a woman could leave a man if the woman preferred another man higher in authority & he is willing to take her & her husband gives her up there is no Bill of divorce required in the case it is right in the sight of God.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Primary_sources/Brigham_Young/8_October_1861_discourse_on_plural_marriage

So if it is right in the sight of God, how can breaking the marriage covenant in the case be a sin?

Edited August 18, 2019 by Calm

[smac97]

8 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This thread has moved past the point where I want to contribute, but I did want to apologize for implying dishonesty on your part. I do believe you post sincerely and should have chosen my words better.

Thx.

[Calm]

Quote

 

For nineteenth-century Latter-day Saints, feelings about divorce were mixed. President Brigham Young did not approve of men divorcing their wives, but women were relatively free to dissolve an unhappy marriage, especially a polygamous union (see Plural Marriage). Such divorces were handled in ecclesiastical courts because polygamous marriages were not considered legal by the government. Records of the number of divorces granted between 1847 and 1877 show a relatively high rate of divorce for polygamous marriages. This rate was high, not so much because polygamy was difficult, but because LDS society had not developed clear rules and expectations for the practice or the participants (Campbell and Campbell, p. 22).

Early Utah laws reflected general LDS beliefs and may have influenced the incidence of divorce. An 1851 territorial divorce law had lenient residency requirements and allowed divorce when it was clear "that the parties cannot live in peace and union together, and that their welfare requires a separation" (First Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Utah, 1851, p. 83).

 

https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Divorce

[Meadowchik]

Perhaps some more consideration of the faith transition can be taken into account when understanding a person who "breaks a covenant." Covenants are not one-sided, and they are contingent on commitments of both parties. It is entirely possible that a person can feel like promises were illegitimately obtained by the church. This is not an uncommon issue currently for the church, where people feel like the church operated under false pretenses, and where false pretenses can invalidate a covenant. I think that is a possible reading of Ed Smart's statement, but broadly, it is a fair representation of how many people feel about the covenants they made in the church.

So, it might be helpful to consider the possibility of what happens IF an agreement is made improperly.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

But one can be honest about their feelings and still stay married depending on what is seen as workable. They would probably have to discuss what was expected of each other including remaining sexually faithful to each other while not having a sexual relationship themselves if that wasn’t desired (there are multiple reasons to have sex, including giving comfort to each other). Depending on the person, there still might be able to have a physical relationship if only sitting with arms around each other as friends and remaining celibate. 

I think years of thinking your spouse found you attractive and then finding they didn’t might make a person see one’s lie as all a lie, feel trapped by the relationship and want out to find out who one is really when one stops making choices based on a lie. So it could be very hard these days when both men and women have the right to choose their own lives and not just have to accept whatever is given to them to stay long enough in a place of so much pain to begin to heal. 

I agree, I think that was my argument, why get a divorce? I believe in the redemptive power of Jesus Christ, that he is able (as he did for the Nephites, or any righteous for that matter) to make any burdens become light, no matter the burden, no matter the struggle, he IS able. He can and will take upon him our burdens, and we can take up his yoke, with is easy. Far too often we believe that “our burdens” are too great, that God is unwilling, but this is not so. We cannot help our feelings, and there is no condemnation for having them, but we can choose our actions, this I believe. I fear that my words may be understood incorrectly, I love members of this family, and pray for all, and compassion for all, I pray this is what is coming through, if not my sincere apologies. 

[Storm Rider]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

This is not the only reason to decide not to be baptized. Going there first does not deal with sincere efforts of trying to become more righteous to the best of someone’s understanding, for example, even if wrong from others’ POV 

“Your logic above paints covenants as something insignificant.“

Actually I think my view leads to covenants being viewed as more significant and life altering, as they move away from a one size fits all approach and becomes more about making personal commitments to God to the best of our understanding instead of what often amounts to filling out the paperwork. 

I am not saying typical covenant making is cookie cuttering without regard to the individual or God really. I am just saying we might stray into that approach if we don’t look at the understanding people have when they say those words and instead treat the words as if they have some mystical ability to turn all experiences into the same meaningful encounter with God. 

In my view the covenants we make with God are “true and living” and not static. This allows for us to move closer to God, but it also means new understandings may not always see the covenant in the same way. Hopefully from the viewpoints of believers, understandings overtime bring deeper commitment to the covenants themselves, but it may be possible that growth is inconsistent in spiritual areas and great growth leads to closeness with God in ways that seem contradictory to the covenant due to spiritual growth and understanding not also occurring in areas that enlighten covenantal commitment. 

Thus someone who got baptized because they incorrectly interpreted what they thought the Gospel was, who then over time desires to come closer to God so begins to study scripture, only to find what they are understanding from scripture is not what they understand the Church to teach.  They may be wrong, but if they choose to walk away from baptism because they truly believe that is God’s will, is that the same sort of covenant breaking that someone who walks away to commit adultery experiences?  

What if that scripture study person made the baptism covenant with the understanding he would follow God wherever he was led, would sacrifice whatever God asks him to sacrifice. Is he breaking the covenant he made if he walks away from the Church because he believes God wants him to or is he honoring it to the best of his fallible mortal understanding?

Is ignorance and misunderstanding a sin in the same way as adultery is or would we say it was more of a transgression, the covenant is broken in one sense in that he is parting with the community of Saints, etc, but in another his commitment to seek out and serve God may be higher. Should we condemn a person who sincerely is seeking God’s will and instead insist if he doesn’t want to be damned for covenant breaking he continue in the status quo rejecting where he believes God is calling him because he made a promise and must keep it according to our u understanding, not his own? 

Okay, I think I understand what you are saying now. Let me put this another way because I think we agree, but have been talking past one another.

In the case of baptism, one enters into a covenant with God to take the name of Jesus upon ourselves and to follow him. I can easily see where a member of the Church falls away from the Church and begins to fervently participate in another church. Personally, I don't see this as a violation of the baptismal covenant, because the individual continues to follow Christ in a way they feel led. For example, when I participated on the Catholic board I conversed with a young man who left the Church and joined the Catholic church. Long story short, after long interaction he mentioned that he might have never left the Church had he understood the gospel in the way I was teaching it. I never felt like he left God or Christ, but he chose a path that allowed to him and his young family to more actively engage with God. They may never return, but again, they might.  What is important to me is that he felt led to join the Catholic Church. 

I don't think this can type of flexibility can apply to marriage covenants because the covenant itself involves three individuals - the couple and God. I will admit that in this area I belong to an old school of scriptural thinking that divorce and then remarriage is unacceptable to God. I have no problem with a divorce, but a huge problem with remarriage. This considerably influences my view of how individuals treat the marriage covenant. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

21 hours ago, california boy said:

22 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

I fear this may not be well received, but I feel I must speak the truth in these comments.
...
Once I became a husband and a father, ALL THINGS”, became secondary. 

I am so interest to hear what members of the Church think of your post.

I appreciate Papa Lee's post, and wholeheartedly endorse and support just about all of it.  I believe any healthy marriage should contain "deal breakers", the common ones being abuse, adultery, and addiction.  A marriage can survive maybe a single slip up in one of these.  Forgiveness absolutely has a part.  But victims of serial abuse need to ask themselves why God would want them to remain married.  Spouses of serial unfaithful need to think about protecting themselves from STDs and legal ramifications.  Spouses of those lost in unrepentant addictions need to ask themselves if their spouses are actually capable of being married in God's eyes.  I'm doubting that Papa Lee has any of these problems with his wife (or she with him), and I am guessing if he was, he'd probably be saying the same thing except for maybe a qualification or two.

 

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

I agree, I think that was my argument, why get a divorce? I believe in the redemptive power of Jesus Christ, that he is able (as he did for the Nephites, or any righteous for that matter) to make any burdens become light, no matter the burden, no matter the struggle, he IS able. He can and will take upon him our burdens, and we can take up his yoke, with is easy. Far too often we believe that “our burdens” are too great, that God is unwilling, but this is not so. We cannot help our feelings, and there is no condemnation for having them, but we can choose our actions, this I believe. I fear that my words may be understood incorrectly, I love members of this family, and pray for all, and compassion for all, I pray this is what is coming through, if not my sincere apologies. 

Maybe the redemptive power IS a reason some choose divorce, because that power enables them to not fear divorce in their situation.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

15 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Maybe the redemptive power IS a reason some choose divorce, because that power enables them to not fear divorce in their situation.

Could be, with any marriage other than our own, we are just spectators, and speculators, on the outside looking in. 

[Tacenda]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

This is not the only reason to decide not to be baptized. Going there first does not deal with sincere efforts of trying to become more righteous to the best of someone’s understanding, for example, even if wrong from others’ POV 

“Your logic above paints covenants as something insignificant.“

Actually I think my view leads to covenants being viewed as more significant and life altering, as they move away from a one size fits all approach and becomes more about making personal commitments to God to the best of our understanding instead of what often amounts to filling out the paperwork. 

I am not saying typical covenant making is cookie cuttering without regard to the individual or God really. I am just saying we might stray into that approach if we don’t look at the understanding people have when they say those words and instead treat the words as if they have some mystical ability to turn all experiences into the same meaningful encounter with God. 

In my view the covenants we make with God are “true and living” and not static. This allows for us to move closer to God, but it also means new understandings may not always see the covenant in the same way. Hopefully from the viewpoints of believers, understandings overtime bring deeper commitment to the covenants themselves, but it may be possible that growth is inconsistent in spiritual areas and great growth leads to closeness with God in ways that seem contradictory to the covenant due to spiritual growth and understanding not also occurring in areas that enlighten covenantal commitment. 

Thus someone who got baptized because they incorrectly interpreted what they thought the Gospel was, who then over time desires to come closer to God so begins to study scripture, only to find what they are understanding from scripture is not what they understand the Church to teach.  They may be wrong, but if they choose to walk away from baptism because they truly believe that is God’s will, is that the same sort of covenant breaking that someone who walks away to commit adultery experiences?  

What if that scripture study person made the baptism covenant with the understanding he would follow God wherever he was led, would sacrifice whatever God asks him to sacrifice. Is he breaking the covenant he made if he walks away from the Church because he believes God wants him to or is he honoring it to the best of his fallible mortal understanding?

Is ignorance and misunderstanding a sin in the same way as adultery is or would we say it was more of a transgression, the covenant is broken in one sense in that he is parting with the community of Saints, etc, but in another his commitment to seek out and serve God may be higher. Should we condemn a person who sincerely is seeking God’s will and instead insist if he doesn’t want to be damned for covenant breaking he continue in the status quo rejecting where he believes God is calling him because he made a promise and must keep it according to our u understanding, not his own? 

This post is very nice, I'd gush but don't want to embarrass you Calm.

[Daniel2]

On 8/16/2019 at 7:38 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

Precisely. I find it breathtaking that we've reached the point of dressing up bog-standard infidelity as something noble and life-affirming.

I don’t see anyone affirming infidelity, or anything close to suggesting infidelity is noble.

Most of the comments I see acknowledge the painful challenges facing all members of this family, as well as sympathy for what they are going through. 

What I do believe is noble is having the courage to be forthright about and apologizing for years of dishonesty to ones family, as well as humbly and candidly striving to live the tenants of “the serenity prayer” (to accept the things we cannot change, to change the things we can, and to achieve the wisdom of knowing the difference).

Many gay spouses have great empathy for their straight spouses and do all we can to take their needs, thoughts, and feelings into consideration as we try to figure out how to make restitution for our mistakes.

Finally, I do find it life-affirming to identify and move away from harmful behaviors, attitudes, beliefs, and environments that inspire self-destructive behaviors, wherever they be found (in either straight and gay-affirming circles or in exclusively straight-affirming circumstances).

[MustardSeed]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

So no one who spent half this thread bad mouthing and judging Ed Smart wants to take my poll?  Anyone feel badly?

Ok, I know I am pushing it.  But maybe someone had to.  At least it seems to have stopped.

I highly suspect that none of my participation on  this site is in alignment with the Gospel.  It takes my time and flirts with conflict. 

[Meadowchik]

42 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Could be, with any marriage other than our own, we are just spectators, and speculators, on the outside looking in. 

Yes indeed.

[Daniel2]

On 8/16/2019 at 8:50 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yet, oddly, no one seems to have celebrated his choice to be 'true to his real self' in this matter.

CFR that anyone is “celebrating” what the Smart family is going through. 

[Daniel2]

On 8/16/2019 at 9:21 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

It's not my definition; that's precisely why I quoted from an American dictionary for you. Faithfulness is loyalty. Unfaithfulness is disloyalty.

And no, not every failed marriage involves a violation of the marriage covenant, but very often it does. I'm assuming you'd agree the the first husband of my stake president's wife was unfaithful to his marriage vows?

Yes, faithfulness is loyalty and unfaithfulness is disloyalty according to the dictionary, but context is key, and even though a word technically meets a given definition doesn’t mean the context doesn’t alter which definition is inferred and understood by the majority of who’s following the discussion.

I appreciate Julie’s posts asking for clarification from you so your views and use of the word are better understood by all. 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

 

Scott, don't make me out to be the villain here.  From the very beginning I am trying to find the answer to this simple question so that I DON'T jump to conclusions.  Do you believe the Priesthood Ban was a revelation from God or not. You have yet to answer the question directly.  I feel like you are playing me.

Say yes to one of the following questions or just refuse to answer the question.  Your choice.

I believe BY received a revelation from God to ban all blacks from the priesthood

I don't BY received a revelation from God to ban all blacks from the priesthood

I am not sure if BY received a revelation from God to ban all blacks from the priesthood.

BY believe Joseph Smith received a revelation from God to ban all blacks from the priesthood.

 

Geeze is that such a difficult question to answer?  

I’ve already responded to this question; you just don’t like the answer. In my opinion, you are in violation of this board’s asked-and-answered policy. 

So, as long as you continue to badger me in this way I am going to copy and paste the answer you’ve already been given, because that’s the only answer you’re going to get from me. Here’s that answer: 

I said we don’t have record of there being a revelation announcing its origin. I didn’t say there was no revelation. You are jumping to conclusions.

The fact that the Lord for so long did not answer persistent prayers from the prophets telling them to remove the ban is tantamount in my view to revelation that the ban should remain in place for the time being. We understand from scripture that “a stupor of thought” amounts to a “no” answer.

And Greg Prince, in his biography of David O. McKay, recounts that the message President McKay got in answer to his prayers was that the ban would not be lifted during his presidency and that he should cease to trouble the Lord about it. 

Edited August 18, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Daniel2]

On 8/16/2019 at 9:27 PM, longview said:

Infidelity is not always the same thing as having an affair.  But regardless, when he married his wife he made a covenant in a three-way relationship.  The third point of the triangle was with God.  The highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom requires a husband/wife partnership.  This entails being worthy and trustworthy enough to be allowed to invite intelligences to become their spirit children and to proceed with the next Eternal Round for implementing the Plan of Happiness.  Bro. Smart not only slimed his wife he also turned against God.  He has failed the test.

To be clear, then, it naturally follows that from your view, all LDS divorces are the result of infidelity.