SeekingUnderstanding Posted August 16, 2019 Posted August 16, 2019 5 minutes ago, bsjkki said: I really don’t know. Correct 5 minutes ago, bsjkki said: I just know he admits to causing her excruciating pain. I’m sure this is true for both him and Josh. But what is the root of causality? To me they are both victims of God (if you believe Him to exist) as well as church and culture. Ed Smart didn’t want to cause pain, but his life was a living hell. Read Lilly ‘s post. 5 minutes ago, bsjkki said: I tend to empathize more with her. This is fine, but can be done without judging Ed. 5 minutes ago, bsjkki said: With the Weed family didn’t she know he was gay from the beginning? I don’t know that story completely. She did know. As for Mrs Smart, who can say?
bsjkki Posted August 16, 2019 Posted August 16, 2019 14 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: She did know. As for Mrs Smart, who can say? I think this information would be vital before claiming the two stories are "pretty analogous." 2
bsjkki Posted August 16, 2019 Posted August 16, 2019 (edited) 52 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: In that mindset, there is no dishonesty to not coming out to your intended. I think it is dishonest, if he knew he had this struggle at that time. But, i also hope them both future happiness. I had a good friend who left her husband after 24 years because he didn't "excite" her in the bedroom. He is a great guy and she struggles with depression and looking for happiness in the all the wrong places. I did realize that he might now have a chance to be with someone who actually loves him for all his great qualities instead of being married to someone who finds him lacking and boring. I hope Lois Smart finds someone too. My relationship with a parent changed dramatically with the addition of a step parent though. Even as an adult. Divorce, remarriage definitely changes family dynamics. Edit: Also, I don't think he was dishonest based on this quote, "It is with this same spirit that I wish to share the news that I have recently acknowledged to myself and my family that I am gay." Based on his own words, He only recently acknowledged to himself that he was gay. Edited August 16, 2019 by bsjkki 1
Robert F. Smith Posted August 16, 2019 Posted August 16, 2019 3 hours ago, CV75 said: CFR on "Church leaders have stated that being gay is not a choice" ........................ The LDS Church previously taught that same-sex attraction is a curable condition, but now states that "individuals do not choose to have such attractions" and that therapy focusing on "a change in sexual orientation" is "unethical." https://www.hrc.org/resources/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saint . "Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including [those with same-sex attraction]’” ("The Lord Needs You Now," Ensign, Sept 2015, 29), and https://mormonandgay.churchofjesuschrist.org/articles/church-teachings . Dallin Oaks: Quote Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn. Others are traceable to mortal experiences. Still other feelings seem to be acquired from a complex interaction of “nature and nurture.” All of us have some feelings we did not choose, but the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us that we still have the power to resist and reform our feelings (as needed) and to assure that they do not lead us to entertain inappropriate thoughts or to engage in sinful behavior. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/same-sex-attraction?lang=eng. 3 hours ago, CV75 said: Also, assuming people identify as (fill in the blank) in the resurrection exactly as they did in this life (Alma 34:34), is that the best that God offers and intended for them to hold onto in this life? (3 Nephi 27:5) Sounds a tad Calvinistic.
CV75 Posted August 16, 2019 Posted August 16, 2019 11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: The LDS Church previously taught that same-sex attraction is a curable condition, but now states that "individuals do not choose to have such attractions" and that therapy focusing on "a change in sexual orientation" is "unethical." https://www.hrc.org/resources/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saint . "Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including [those with same-sex attraction]’” ("The Lord Needs You Now," Ensign, Sept 2015, 29), and https://mormonandgay.churchofjesuschrist.org/articles/church-teachings . Dallin Oaks: Sounds a tad Calvinistic. Thank you. RE 1st quote: The partial quote says the “attraction,” and not “being gay,” is what is not chosen. Do you have the original Church statement? RE: 2nd quote: this might be what I asked for. The focus of choice is on behavior. RE: 3rd quote: “feelings” are not “being;” For example, that “I feel sad” is the same as “I am sad” is more of a colloquial usage. Somewhat like “I feel like junk” vs. “I am junk.” “Offering” and “intending” are not “predestinating.”
Robert F. Smith Posted August 16, 2019 Posted August 16, 2019 3 hours ago, CV75 said: .................... RE 1st quote: The partial quote says the “attraction,” and not “being gay,” is what is not chosen. Do you have the original Church statement? RE: 2nd quote: this might be what I asked for. The focus of choice is on behavior. RE: 3rd quote: “feelings” are not “being;” For example, that “I feel sad” is the same as “I am sad” is more of a colloquial usage. Somewhat like “I feel like junk” vs. “I am junk.” Just because I gave you multiple quotes from differing sources should not obviate the official source I cited. That declaration is normative. For now . . . 3 hours ago, CV75 said: “Offering” and “intending” are not “predestinating.” You spoke about God intending and offering, as if that were the best He could do -- as though it was up to God -- LDS theology doesn't leave it up to God. We make our own choices, and the laws of nature control God equally as much as they control us.
CV75 Posted August 17, 2019 Posted August 17, 2019 4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Just because I gave you multiple quotes from differing sources should not obviate the official source I cited. That declaration is normative. For now . . . You spoke about God intending and offering, as if that were the best He could do -- as though it was up to God -- LDS theology doesn't leave it up to God. We make our own choices, and the laws of nature control God equally as much as they control us. Yes, I consider the 2nd quote (Elder Oaks) to be the reference I was asking for. It doesn't say anything about "being gay" or whether it is or is not a choice. This various views have been discussed many times on this forum, hence I was mostly interested getting the quote What God intends and offers us is the best He can do, and we access that grace and its benefits after all we can do. This has nothing to do with "laws of nature" that might be said to "control" God and His (Their) children and the laws of innumerable of other kingdoms that God does control and teaches us to control, including the laws of agency. At some point "law" and "will" are one, and where their governors are united we have godliness, and God gives us covenants to cover all this. Elder Oaks pointed out some samples of natural laws governing those feelings we do not choose and one or two divine laws governing the covenant-keeping we do choose. Nowhere does he assert that feelings we do not choose define our being. I suppose there are cases where natural law renders one unaccountable for his actions in this life, but we know the answer or solution to that. I think it is far better to cultivate charity than to cultivate judgement over perceived accountability, and charity is the place where the covenants come from, where the covenants take us, and the place from which they are meant to be kept.
Robert F. Smith Posted August 17, 2019 Posted August 17, 2019 4 hours ago, CV75 said: Yes, I consider the 2nd quote (Elder Oaks) to be the reference I was asking for. It doesn't say anything about "being gay" or whether it is or is not a choice. This various views have been discussed many times on this forum, hence I was mostly interested getting the quote Elder Oaks pointed out some samples of natural laws governing those feelings we do not choose and one or two divine laws governing the covenant-keeping we do choose. Nowhere does he assert that feelings we do not choose define our being..................... You are mistaken. The third quote was from Oaks, the second quote is from the official Church website and represents the shift noted in the news article. Your comments on Oaks are thus irrelevant. 4 hours ago, CV75 said: What God intends and offers us is the best He can do, and we access that grace and its benefits after all we can do. This has nothing to do with "laws of nature" that might be said to "control" God and His (Their) children and the laws of innumerable of other kingdoms that God does control and teaches us to control, including the laws of agency. At some point "law" and "will" are one, and where their governors are united we have godliness, and God gives us covenants to cover all this. ............................ I suppose there are cases where natural law renders one unaccountable for his actions in this life, but we know the answer or solution to that. I think it is far better to cultivate charity than to cultivate judgement over perceived accountability, and charity is the place where the covenants come from, where the covenants take us, and the place from which they are meant to be kept. All beings in the universe (including God) are subject to natural law. God has an advantage over us in that He at least understands natural law so well that it is at His beck and call. We humans are not so fortunate, though we may someday understand it and interact with it in the celestial kingdom. "Charity" is really love (agape), and David O. McKay used to like to say "Love suffereth long and is kind" (1 Cor 13:4). Then he would repeat it for effect. I explain "after all we can do" (which you don't get) in my “Book of Mormon Theologies: A Thumbnail Sketch,” lecture delivered at the September 2012 annual meeting of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology (SMPT), at Utah State University, Logan, Utah, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/251781864/BOOK-OF-MORMON-THEOLOGIES-A-THUMBNAIL-SKETCH .
mrmarklin Posted August 17, 2019 Posted August 17, 2019 On 8/15/2019 at 10:26 PM, bsjkki said: I agree the advice to gay men to marry women was atrocious and I also believe the wife who is seemingly inevitably discarded as collateral damage is hurt the most. He didn’t have to marry her or fake it for 40 years. People always have choices. Sorry...I have a friend this happened to. It’s sad to watch the wife and kids struggle. She is still single. The guy is being incredibly selfish. He should have taken his secret to the grave instead of harming his innocent family members. 1
Meadowchik Posted August 17, 2019 Posted August 17, 2019 38 minutes ago, mrmarklin said: The guy is being incredibly selfish. He should have taken his secret to the grave instead of harming his innocent family members. Honestly he could be doing much more good than harm, and giving his wife the opportunity to experience love more expansive than she could with him. So I don't think you have rthe information needed to really make that determination for them. 1
Stargazer Posted August 17, 2019 Posted August 17, 2019 7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: You are mistaken. The third quote was from Oaks, the second quote is from the official Church website and represents the shift noted in the news article. Your comments on Oaks are thus irrelevant. All beings in the universe (including God) are subject to natural law. God has an advantage over us in that He at least understands natural law so well that it is at His beck and call. We humans are not so fortunate, though we may someday understand it and interact with it in the celestial kingdom. "Charity" is really love (agape), and David O. McKay used to like to say "Love suffereth long and is kind" (1 Cor 13:4). Then he would repeat it for effect. I explain "after all we can do" (which you don't get) in my “Book of Mormon Theologies: A Thumbnail Sketch,” lecture delivered at the September 2012 annual meeting of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology (SMPT), at Utah State University, Logan, Utah, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/251781864/BOOK-OF-MORMON-THEOLOGIES-A-THUMBNAIL-SKETCH . I find what you write extremely interesting and valuable, even on the odd occasion when I disagree with you. And it is so annoying to find out that you've written something I've not yet read. I suppose I should be happy to find something new to me... Looking on ScribD I see that there's lots I haven't read. Better get cracking... Anyway, when are you going to publish a book? I note that a check of Amazon reveals a book entitled "Oracles & Talismans, Forgery & Pansophia: Joseph Smith, Jr. As A Renaissance Magus", which is noted as being "not available". Time to self-publish on Amazon, Robert? I've done it myself, it's not hard. The world is waiting for you! If you publish on Kindle, with a nice price, you'd find people actually paying you read what you write. 1
Stargazer Posted August 17, 2019 Posted August 17, 2019 52 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: Honestly he could be doing much more good than harm, and giving his wife the opportunity to experience love more expansive than she could with him. So I don't think you have rthe information needed to really make that determination for them. Does she want this "opportunity"? You're arguing that it's for her own good so she should be grateful. I doubt that she is giving thanks over this. Or that she ever will. After 20 years of marriage, my late wife's first husband (let's call him "Casey") came home from a year in Korea (military tour) and then promptly got her pregnant and then divorced her. Because he found that he liked playing around (like he did in Korea as she found out) more than being monogamous, and temple covenants were just, so last decade. He was just being honest with himself, "coming out" as a libertine, and we should all applaud and tell his now ex-wife that she has this great new "opportunity" to find a man who will love her and stay loyal to her? Pardon me, but aside from the benefit to myself of finding a loving wife whom I could love and cherish for the rest of her life, I don't think this was quite as much of an "opportunity" as you think. And please explain to me the difference between what Mr. Smart has done to Mrs. Smart and what Casey did to my late wife? People go off to "find themselves" all the time, only to realize (usually too late) that all they did was get lost. 4
Calm Posted August 17, 2019 Posted August 17, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, mrmarklin said: The guy is being incredibly selfish. He should have taken his secret to the grave instead of harming his innocent family members. I know wives of men who didn’t share their attractions until they felt forced to. As difficult as that is, at least they stopped asking themselves what they were doing wrong and blaming themselves when they couldn’t understand what was misdemeanor my from their relationship. Living a lie with a loved one day in and day out is not a kindness, it is not protection. I am not saying divorce is the only option, I am focusing on honesty is the only way to heal. There are gentler and less harmful ways of opening up though. Probably seeking advice from a marriage counselor and getting that support in place for the spouse for when they are hit with it is a good step. Edited August 17, 2019 by Calm 1
ALarson Posted August 17, 2019 Posted August 17, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, mrmarklin said: The guy is being incredibly selfish. He should have taken his secret to the grave instead of harming his innocent family members. His wife filed for divorce. We have no idea what has taken place behind closed doors over the years between them regarding this. She has to have known for at least some time that he is gay and they appear to still care deeply about each other. Maybe it was her choice to end the marriage and this gave him courage to come out regarding the fact that he is gay? Edited August 17, 2019 by ALarson 2
Recommended Posts