Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

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


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That is, if a single person leaves the church, their odds for marriage don't necessarily increase. If a homosexual member, on the other hand, leaves the church, their odds for finding companionship go up exponentially. 

Umm. I don't think I agree with that. Given the reality of the Mormon dating scene I mentioned, leaving the Church opens up a ton of social opportunities. I understand not wanting to dismiss unique LGT concerns (B is obviously different) but I think you're dismissing the reality of single life particularly outside of Utah. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I wonder if Jesus thought his Bread of Life sermon was a "problem" along these lines (see John 6).  I really doubt it.  "When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?"  (John 6:61)

The Law of Chastity prohibits things like adultery, fornication, and homosexual behavior.  I think these are truths which have become hard to hear for people of our day, not unlike the truths in the Bread of Life sermon were hard to hear for the people in Jesus' day:

Thanks,

-Smac

I understand your point, but to me there is a vast difference between Jesus (The Son of God) teaching a truth, and men (leaders of the church) teaching what they believe to be truth based on the traditions and teachings of other men.

IF I believed the church and its leaders to be perfect like Jesus, then I'd agree with you. But I don't so there's a disconnect.

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yes, I think that your looking at 'problem' from a standpoint that doesn't mesh with what the church purports to be and what it purports to do.   If the church was a social organization, then I think your perspective would make sense, but as it's not I don't think that perspective holds up.

I agree that I view the church differently than what it purports to be. But if the church's goal is to bring people to Christ through the saving ordinances of the church, and more and more people are leaving and rejecting the church, then it would seem the church isn't achieving it's stated mission, at least not as well as it previously had.

Edited by HappyJackWagon
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree that I view the church differently than what it purports to be. But if the church's goal is to bring people to Christ through the saving ordinances of the church, and more and more people are leaving and rejecting the church, then it would seem the church isn't achieving it's stated mission, at least not as well as it previously had.

Some cannot be saved or are unwilling to meet the conditions necessary.  Surely you aren't suggesting they can bring more people to valid saving ordinances by ignoring the conditions those ordinances operate under?

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I understand your point, but to me there is a vast difference between Jesus (The Son of God) teaching a truth, and men (leaders of the church) teaching what they believe to be truth based on the traditions and teachings of other men.

IF I believed the church and its leaders to be perfect like Jesus, then I'd agree with you. But I don't so there's a disconnect.

I agree that I view the church differently than what it purports to be. But if the church's goal is to bring people to Christ through the saving ordinances of the church, and more and more people are leaving and rejecting the church, then it would seem the church isn't achieving it's stated mission, at least not as well as it previously had.

Jesus drove away followers all the time with what he taught. Even in the Father’s presence a third part of the hosts of heaven fell. If they in their omniscience could not retain followers it is foolish to expect that we can come up with a way to make the gospel palatable to everyone. We should try to teach in a way that retains and entices but we should not expect total success. 

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Some cannot be saved or are unwilling to meet the conditions necessary.  Surely you aren't suggesting they can bring more people to valid saving ordinances by ignoring the conditions those ordinances operate under?

I am suggesting that members who have been stalwarts for decades are leaving and I'm suggesting that the church would prefer for it to be different. I don't think the church is happy with people leaving, or missionaries baptizing fewer people. If the conversion and activity levels don't meet their expectations, and if in fact they are declining, then from an organizational perspective they would view that as a problem. How they address the problem is another issue.

But to claim that there is no "problem" seems a bit silly to me. Maybe it's a problem to which there is no solution, but that doesn't change the fact that there's a problem.

I would hope that the church, like other organizations, is continually self-evaluating its mission and how it is performing to that mission. It could be that the problem is with everyone else, but it would seem to be beneficial for them to at least ask the question "Is it I?" At the very least it would be a good intellectual exercise for the leaders as the evaluate the church's mission against it's critical success indicators.

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:
22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree that I view the church differently than what it purports to be. But if the church's goal is to bring people to Christ through the saving ordinances of the church, and more and more people are leaving and rejecting the church, then it would seem the church isn't achieving it's stated mission, at least not as well as it previously had.

Some cannot be saved or are unwilling to meet the conditions necessary.  Surely you aren't suggesting they can bring more people to valid saving ordinances by ignoring the conditions those ordinances operate under?

Right. It's the members not the church (doctrines and ordinances) who need to change to achieve the mission. Active church members and leaders could make some improvements on how to teach and administer the doctrines to other members, but the ultimate responsibility is on the members.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I assume you meant “deflecting”. Deflecting from what? That gay people who act on their desire are judged sinful by the church and usually leave?

What he said was, "As an openly gay man, the church is not a place where I find solace any longer"

What act are you accusing him of?  The point is the church is unable to be of use to most of God's children. 

 

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I understand your point, but to me there is a vast difference between Jesus (The Son of God) teaching a truth, and men (leaders of the church) teaching what they believe to be truth based on the traditions and teachings of other men.

IF I believed the church and its leaders to be perfect like Jesus, then I'd agree with you. But I don't so there's a disconnect.

 

I don't think that's where the disconnect is.  

What the example with Jesus teaches us (on this topic) is that people turning their backs on a religious leader is not automatically a problem the religious leader needs to recognize.  That's true whether the leader is perfect (like Christ) or not (like the church/Pres. Nelson).

Quote

But if the church's goal is to bring people to Christ through the saving ordinances of the church, and more and more people are leaving and rejecting the church, then it would seem the church isn't achieving it's stated mission, at least not as well as it previously had.

That was one of Christ's missions as well, right?  Did that mean that Christ stopped achieving His mission as more and more people rejected Him?  No, it didn't mean that.   Speaking in generalities, when people reject a true message, that's a problem the people need to recognize, not the messenger.   

The church obviously spends a lot of time and effort in trying to achieve bring people to Christ and get them on the covenant path, but if a true doctrine or teaching starts to cause people to leave that path, while it is very sad and difficult and worthy of concern, that's not the church's fault.  And changing the doctrine to keep more people in the church would not get the church any closer to achieving it's mission.  In fact, it could move the church further away from it's goals. 

(and to clarify, I'm not stating a fact that the church's teachings on gay issues are true.)

 

 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Jesus drove away followers all the time with what he taught. Even in the Father’s presence a third part of the hosts of heaven fell. If they in their omniscience could not retain followers it is foolish to expect that we can come up with a way to make the gospel palatable to everyone. We should try to teach in a way that retains and entices but we should not expect total success. 

Yes, but the church is not God.

I'm suggesting that a little humility on the part of the church could go a long way as opposed to acting like everything they say, do, preach is the direct perfect will of God. I think the church would do well to consider that it may not be perfect and therefore may be in need for changes. We've seen lots of changes over the past few years so I think they are willing to be self-reflective in some areas while holding on to inerrancy in others. IMO- if A, C, and E are wrong, it would at least be wise to consider and look at whether B, D, F, G, H could also have some error

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Jesus drove away followers all the time with what he taught. Even in the Father’s presence a third part of the hosts of heaven fell. If they in their omniscience could not retain followers it is foolish to expect that we can come up with a way to make the gospel palatable to everyone. We should try to teach in a way that retains and entices but we should not expect total success. 

Perfectly said.  I'll add that in our desire to retain and entice, we can't change the doctrines of God to make them more palatable.  Sure, more people will accept them, but nothing is actually gained.

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I understand your point, but to me there is a vast difference between Jesus (The Son of God) teaching a truth, and men (leaders of the church) teaching what they believe to be truth based on the traditions and teachings of other men.

And yet He told us that "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."  (D&C 1:38)

If we were speaking of some peripheral or obscure point of doctrine, or a topic about which we lack much in the way of revealed knowledge, I think you would have a stronger point.  But the Law of Chastity is really well-established doctrine.  I don't think we can disregard its prohibition against adultery / fornication / homosexual behavior.  If we can, then pretty much every doctrine is up for grabs, can be tossed out at a whim.

Ephesians 4 comes to mind:

Quote

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.

And this counsel from Elder Andersen:

Quote

A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.

The Law of Chastity is not difficult to find.  It's not tucked away in an 1856 talk by Brigham Young to the members of the Church in Tooele.

The parameters of the Law of Chastity are likewise not difficult to find.

Quote

IF I believed the church and its leaders to be perfect like Jesus, then I'd agree with you. But I don't so there's a disconnect.

I've never thought of the leaders of the Church as perfect.  Hence the wisdom expressed by Elder Andersen: "True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find."

Quote

I agree that I view the church differently than what it purports to be.

I wasn't suggesting that.  I do not know how you view the Church (except for what you have said here).

Quote

But if the church's goal is to bring people to Christ through the saving ordinances of the church,

Yes.  "We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel."  (AoF 1:3).

We can't ignore or gloss over or suppress those five words.

Quote

and more and more people are leaving and rejecting the church,

If so, it's not because of the doctrine.  The Law of Chastity remains substantively unchanged from what it was years ago.

So if you are looking to allocate fault, with concomitant expectations of change and accommodation, why are you looking at the doctrine, rather than subjective and emotional and culturally-influence shifts in perspectives about the doctrine?

The Bread of Life sermon in John 6, and the reaction to it, seem really applicable here.

Quote

then it would seem the church isn't achieving it's stated mission, at least not as well as it previously had.

Okay.  Do you think the Church's success at "achieving its stated mission" would improve if the Church tossed out the Law of Chastity and authorized members to engage in previously-prohibited conduct? 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think that's where the disconnect is.  

What the example with Jesus teaches us (on this topic) is that people turning their backs on a religious leader is not automatically a problem the religious leader needs to recognize.  That's true whether the leader is perfect (like Christ) or not (like the church/Pres. Nelson).

That was one of Christ's missions as well, right?  Did that mean that Christ stopped achieving His mission as more and more people rejected Him?  No, it didn't mean that.   Speaking in generalities, when people reject a true message, that's a problem the people need to recognize, not the messenger.   

The church obviously spends a lot of time and effort in trying to achieve bring people to Christ and get them on the covenant path, but if a true doctrine or teaching starts to cause people to leave that path, while it is very sad and difficult and worthy of concern, that's not the church's fault.  And changing the doctrine to keep more people in the church would not get the church any closer to achieving it's mission.  In fact, it could move the church further away from it's goals. 

(and to clarify, I'm not stating a fact that the church's teachings on gay issues are true.)

 

I never said Christ stopped achieving his mission. Perfect God vs imperfect church. I trust Jesus' message, but I don't trust the church's interpretation of Jesus' message and I think the church leaders would be wise to consider areas in which they may be wrong. Doctrines have changed many times in the church and I'm sure had internet boards like this existed in the 70's everyone would have argued that Blacks didn't need the priesthood because it was the doctrine of Christ.

Bottom line, for me, I take what the church says with a grain of salt. I don't accept it just because church leaders are the ones who said it. I don't trust leaders that much, and therefore there is a possibility for error in what they say and do. So acting like we KNOW what is true and it will never change indicates to me that we haven't learned some of the important lessons in church history.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

What he said was, "As an openly gay man, the church is not a place where I find solace any longer"

What act are you accusing him of?  The point is the church is unable to be of use to most of God's children. 

 

I am not accusing him of anything. It is not my place. If it were I would start with leaving his wife.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes, but the church is not God.

I'm suggesting that a little humility on the part of the church could go a long way as opposed to acting like everything they say, do, preach is the direct perfect will of God. I think the church would do well to consider that it may not be perfect and therefore may be in need for changes. We've seen lots of changes over the past few years so I think they are willing to be self-reflective in some areas while holding on to inerrancy in others. IMO- if A, C, and E are wrong, it would at least be wise to consider and look at whether B, D, F, G, H could also have some error

I have never seen this hubris which so many of our critics accuse church leaders of having. Our critics, though, they can tell us how to fix the church’s “problems” with great accuracy. 

I also dispute your assumption that all changes are error correction. I think this assumption comes from not believing in revelation in the first place.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet He told us that "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."  (D&C 1:38)

If we were speaking of some peripheral or obscure point of doctrine, or a topic about which we lack much in the way of revealed knowledge, I think you would have a stronger point.  But the Law of Chastity is really well-established doctrine.  I don't think we can disregard its prohibition against adultery / fornication / homosexual behavior.  If we can, then pretty much every doctrine is up for grabs, can be tossed out at a whim.

Ephesians 4 comes to mind:

And this counsel from Elder Andersen:

The Law of Chastity is not difficult to find.  It's not tucked away in an 1856 talk by Brigham Young to the members of the Church in Tooele.

The parameters of the Law of Chastity are likewise not difficult to find.

I've never thought of the leaders of the Church as perfect.  Hence the wisdom expressed by Elder Andersen: "True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find."

I wasn't suggesting that.  I do not know how you view the Church (except for what you have said here).

Yes.  "We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel."  (AoF 1:3).

We can't ignore or gloss over or suppress those five words.

If so, it's not because of the doctrine.  The Law of Chastity remains substantively unchanged from what it was years ago.

So if you are looking to allocate fault, with concomitant expectations of change and accommodation, why are you looking at the doctrine, rather than subjective and emotional and culturally-influence shifts in perspectives about the doctrine?

The Bread of Life sermon in John 6, and the reaction to it, seem really applicable here.

Okay.  Do you think the Church's success at "achieving its stated mission" would improve if the Church tossed out the Law of Chastity and authorized members to engage in previously-prohibited conduct? 

Thanks,

-Smac

Technically, a man told us that GOD said that. And we believed the man, hoping he was right.

I've never suggested that the church should toss out the entire law of chastity. What I've suggested is that how that law is understood, and the policies governing how certain behaviors in the church are treated, could be open to interpretation and changes in policy. For example, it is the expectation that 1 man and 1 woman are married and have relations. Anything outside of that is breaking the law of chastity. But obviously, that same interpretation hasn't always existed in the church.

Anyway, I'm out for the day. Have a good weekend, y'all.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, ALarson said:

I doubt that's how the Smart family feels.  "Nothing"?

But I do hope that their privacy will be respected now that people are aware of what they are going through.  It's got to be very difficult to go through something like this even privately, but the publicity surrounding it has to make it even more painful for them, IMO.

opps, I just realized what my editing did.

 

I posted and deleted, but we cannot delete a post. So I put "nothing to see here" because the post requires something, AND I just realized that phrase is usually reserved for dismissing a post, I had no such intent.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am not accusing him of anything. It is not my place. If it were I would start with leaving his wife.

huh?  I thought you suggested something about the church judging gay people who act.  I'm not sure why you got acting out of ths.  what act?  

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I never said Christ stopped achieving his mission. Perfect God vs imperfect church. I trust Jesus' message, but I don't trust the church's interpretation of Jesus' message and I think the church leaders would be wise to consider areas in which they may be wrong. Doctrines have changed many times in the church and I'm sure had internet boards like this existed in the 70's everyone would have argued that Blacks didn't need the priesthood because it was the doctrine of Christ.

Bottom line, for me, I take what the church says with a grain of salt. I don't accept it just because church leaders are the ones who said it. I don't trust leaders that much, and therefore there is a possibility for error in what they say and do. So acting like we KNOW what is true and it will never change indicates to me that we haven't learned some of the important lessons in church history.

That's all fine and your choice and you do you and I'll keep my opinions about it to myself, but it doesn't address my point.  You wondered "at what point will the church recognize it has a problem."   If the church's teachings are true, then it has no problem.  The problem is with the people who are leaving, and we could all wonder 'at what point will these people who leave recognize they have a problem?"

I'm not arguing that the church has a problem or doesn't, or that the people leaving have a problem or don't.  What I'm saying is that people sometimes respond wonderfully to false teachings and sometimes respond horribly to true teachings.  That's our nature as human beings.  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Umm. I don't think I agree with that. Given the reality of the Mormon dating scene I mentioned, leaving the Church opens up a ton of social opportunities. I understand not wanting to dismiss unique LGT concerns (B is obviously different) but I think you're dismissing the reality of single life particularly outside of Utah. 

I accept your criticism and lived experience (Nehor as well)

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Technically, a man told us that GOD said that. And we believed the man, hoping he was right.

I've never suggested that the church should toss out the entire law of chastity. What I've suggested is that how that law is understood, and the policies governing how certain behaviors in the church are treated, could be open to interpretation and changes in policy. For example, it is the expectation that 1 man and 1 woman are married and have relations. Anything outside of that is breaking the law of chastity. But obviously, that same interpretation hasn't always existed in the church.

Anyway, I'm out for the day. Have a good weekend, y'all.

I just want to say that while you might have followed the prophet on the law of chastity because you hoped he was right, that's not why everyone follows the prophet.  We all know that we tend to see things, not as they are but as we are, but sometimes it's worth reminding ourselves that just because we don't know something, it doesn't mean that no one does.  

Happy weekend!  :) 

Link to comment

Didn't the Church already go through this cycle of so many rules and regulations that many during the time of Christ just couldn't deal with it.  How many steps allowed on the Sabbath, not picking corn on the Sabbath, not stitching a button on a jacket.  The list was endless as it is today.

Members of the Church have this idea that God really cares if someone drinks coffee or tea or has a tattoo or a perching or vapes.  Maybe it is just me, but I thought Christ was way more interested in a change of heart.  Of how we treat others.  How we serve.  What goodness there is in us.  Church leaders need to reread Mathew 25 again.  

Quote

 

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

 

Do you see God concerned about whether someone worrying about all the countless rules the Church puts on it's members so they can judge themselves as doing the will of God?  I think that is your point.  Arbitrary rules are not leading people to the fundamental message and mission of Christ.  But hey, no one is drinking coffee.  Church members must be righteous.  Right?

 

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:
Quote

And yet He told us that "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."  (D&C 1:38)

Technically, a man told us that GOD said that.

Technically, everything we know about Jesus Christ is based on what men have told us.  So if you reject D&C 1:38 because it expresses an idea conveyed through "a man," you must likewise reject the entirety of the Bible, and every other source of evidence pertaining to Jesus Christ.

The one way we can transcend this reliance on what "a man told us" is to seek confirmation of the thing from the Spirit.  If and when that happens, then we are "technically" relying on more than just what "a man told us."

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

And we believed the man, hoping he was right.

Well, yes.  All of this is a matter of faith.

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I've never suggested that the church should toss out the entire law of chastity.

Just the part prohibiting homosexual behavior, then?  May I ask why?  What is the basis for tossing this part out and keeping the rest?

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

What I've suggested is that how that law is understood, and the policies governing how certain behaviors in the church are treated, could be open to interpretation and changes in policy.

"Open to interpretation" so as to allow the Church to authorize and embrace and celebrate adultery?  Fornication?  

I don't think this works.

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

For example, it is the expectation that 1 man and 1 woman are married and have relations.

Okay.

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Anything outside of that is breaking the law of chastity.

Okay.

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But obviously, that same interpretation hasn't always existed in the church.

Yes, it has.  I assume you are referencing polygamy here.  But polygamy never involved adultery, or fornication, or sexual relations between the wives.  The only authorized behavior, even in polygamous unions, was between "1 man and 1 woman."

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Anyway, I'm out for the day. Have a good weekend, y'all.

Okay.  Have a good time.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That's all fine and your choice and you do you and I'll keep my opinions about it to myself, but it doesn't address my point.  You wondered "at what point will the church recognize it has a problem."   If the church's teachings are true, then it has no problem.  The problem is with the people who are leaving, and we could all wonder 'at what point will these people who leave recognize they have a problem?"

Well said.

Again, John 6 is instructive here.

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not arguing that the church has a problem or doesn't, or that the people leaving have a problem or don't.  What I'm saying is that people sometimes respond wonderfully to false teachings and sometimes respond horribly to true teachings.  That's our nature as human beings.  

Man, I wish I could be this concise.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...