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

[Meadowchik]

44 minutes ago, california boy said:

When my sister divorced a guy that, well, she just should have never married, my entire family except my father who thought like you, celebrated.  He (and you) are dead wrong.  She went on to find a wonderful loving husband who was a father to her two boys in a way their biological father never was or probably could be.  The boys grew up in a much more healthy environment, without the scars and psychological issues their abusive biofather was putting on them.  So not just the life of my sister was saved, but the cycle of abuse was broken, and those tender boys were saved, now have solid families of their own.  

Divorce is absolutely not always associated with unhappiness.  When the institution becomes more important than the people within the institution, something has gone very bad.  The institution should be a support not a destructive tool.

Similar for my sister-in-law, whose husband was negligent and emotionally abusive. She left and later remarried, to my brother, who helped raise her daughter as his own. Through the years, the ex-husband was with other women and had more children with them, but women had difficulty being married to him. The daughter is grown, now serving an LDS mission, and having benefited from living in a household with the stability of loving parents committed to good values and emotional health. And what is even more remarkable to me is that the ex-husband has come to admire my brother and seems to try to model his parenting after his and my SIL's parenting. He seems to be becoming a better father, in part because his wife was able to leave him and have a better marriage with someone else who, with her, could provide a better situation for their daughter.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Divorce is absolutely not always associated with unhappiness.  

I suspect Vance would say he is right in this case because unhappiness is the cause of the divorce....which is pretty much a given, people don’t get a divorce because  their marriage is in great shape.  The issue is whether or not divorce can resolve unhappiness when making the effort to stay together and heal the marriage can’t and therefore is appropriate in certain circumstances, imo, and thus can be a healthy and righteous choice rather than covenant breaking by that individual (for example, in the case where an abusive spouse refuses to change or get counseling, I don’t see a sealed individual taking the step of divorce as covenant breaking as the abusive spouse has prevented the covenant from being actually sealed by the Spirit, it is a sealing on paper only).

I don’t see how a marriage can be sealed by the holy spirit  of promise unless those involved understand what that means for them, for themselves and for their spouses and for their relation and family and truly accept that meaning.

Edited August 19, 2019 by Calm

[CV75]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

Thank you for posting these. This is pretty much my view, better stated (assuming I am interpreting correctly). As an FYI, I do not view sexual transgression as the only behaviour that leads to a irredeemable relationship.  I think it is wishful thinking to believe that only sexual betrayal can lead to that level of pain or disconnection. 

I agree:

"And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them. But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not." (Mosiah 4:29-30).

And even Elder Faust uses the qualifier "apparently" irredeemable. Couples may find, and accept the opportunity even after it is "apparently" too late, to reconcile after their divorce, even if in the spirit world.

[MustardSeed]

I don’t understand how someone can think that sexual infidelity is the only reason for divorce. 

Adultery is only a symptom. 

[Kevin Christensen]

21 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Historically, you’ve always raised this question in gay-related threads, so it’s not surprising you do so, here. 

What troubling, though, is that Mr. Smart said nothing of sex being his motivation for coming out at all, yet you still continue to imply being gay is tied to sex addiction. 

It’s also worth continuing to repeat that the concept of “sex addiction” is highly controversial and isn’t actually recognized by most major medical/psychological/psychiatric organizations.

What I continue to do is raise the question of sex addiction as a potential factor in human behavior as both legitimate and important.  I do not advocate jumping to conclusions in individual cases without making an informed inquiry.  But those who are unaware of even the existence of a valid question and the information to make an informed decision cannot benefit.  I do know what I am talking about.

http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleChristensenRashomon.html

As to the controversial nature of the question of sex addiction, I have read dozens of books, numerous articles, personally consulted expert researchers and therapists, and have personally done recovery, and have seen the effects in my own life and experience.  I have worked closely with scores of other people for over 16 years and have seen real changes happen in many lives.   If my own condition did not exist, what changed as a result of my efforts at recovery?  Nothing?  Or something?   I remember what I was like before.  The difference is real.  It's not about shaming, but healing.

And what of the thousands of others whose experience is akin to my own?   Would you attend an SA convention, listen to a few score personal stories, and then face to face, personally, announce them all that their experience is not valid because it does not conform to your views, because their choices and results do not mirror yours, because, for instance, the LDS therapist at Patheos does not approve of the notion of addiction?   I remember dismissing the notion myself.  I learned better.  It turns out that addicts resist the notion of addiction because the recognition itself is a threat to the supply of behavior that serves addiction.

If something is controversial, is it enough to choose a side for personal convenience, to reflexively label the opposition as bearers of "Fake news?"  Or would carefully reading the literature, and personally consulting people with personal experience, make a difference?  You would not tell people to ignore LBTQ literature and personal experience, I expect. "By proving contraries, truth is made manifest."  By suppressing contraries, ideology is made manifest.

Another diagnostic factor in human addictive behavior is a reliance on grievance stories for self justification.  Recovery involves "dismantling the grievance stories,"  removing beams from one's own eyes.  It's all about seeing clearly.   When a person sees clearly, they can then have the serenity to accept the things they cannot change, the courage to change the things they can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited August 19, 2019 by Kevin Christensen

[mfbukowski]

44 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

What I continue to do is raise the question of sex addiction as a potential factor in human behavior as both legitimate and important.  I do not advocate jumping to conclusions in individual cases without making an informed inquiry.  But those who are unaware of even the existence of a valid question and the of information to make an informed decision cannot benefit.  I do know what I am talking about.

http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleChristensenRashomon.html

As to the controversial nature of the question of sex addiction, I have read dozens of books, numerous articles, personally consulted expert researchers and therapists, and have personally done recovery, and have seen the effects in my own life and experience.  I have worked closely with scores of other people for over 16 years and have seen real changes happen in many lives.   If my own condition did not exist, what changed as a result of my efforts at recovery?  Nothing?  Or something?   I remember what I was like before.  The difference is real.  It's not about shaming, but healing.

And what of the thousands of others whose experience is akin to my own?   Would you attend an SA convention, listen to a few score personal stories, and then face to face, personally, announce them all that their experience is not valid because it does not conform to your views, because their choices and results do not mirror yours, because, for instance, the LDS therapist at Patheos does not approve of the notion of addiction?   I remember dismissing the notion myself.  I learned better.  It turns out that addicts resist the notion of addiction because the recognition itself is a threat to the supply of behavior that serves addiction.

If something is controversial, is it enough to choose a side for personal convenience, to reflexively label the opposition as bearers of "Fake news?"  Or would carefully reading the literature, and personally consulting people with personal experience, make a difference?  You would not tell people to ignore LBTQ literature and personal experience, I expect. "By proving contraries, truth is made manifest."  By suppressing contraries, ideology is made manifest.

Another diagnostic factor in human addictive behavior is a reliance on grievance stories for self justification.  Recovery involves "dismantling the grievance stories,"  removing beams from one's own eyes.  It's all about seeing clearly.   When a person sees clearly, they can then have the serenity to accept the things they cannot change, the courage to change the things they can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Perhaps he doth protest too much.

To me this is another evidence that in morality and these sensitive areas, "objectivity" is simply not possible.

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

What I continue to do is raise the question of sex addiction as a potential factor in human behavior as both legitimate and important.  I do not advocate jumping to conclusions in individual cases without making an informed inquiry.  But those who are unaware of even the existence of a valid question and the of information to make an informed decision cannot benefit.  I do know what I am talking about.

http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleChristensenRashomon.html

As to the controversial nature of the question of sex addiction, I have read dozens of books, numerous articles, personally consulted expert researchers and therapists, and have personally done recovery, and have seen the effects in my own life and experience.  I have worked closely with scores of other people for over 16 years and have seen real changes happen in many lives.   If my own condition did not exist, what changed as a result of my efforts at recovery?  Nothing?  Or something?   I remember what I was like before.  The difference is real.  It's not about shaming, but healing.

And what of the thousands of others whose experience is akin to my own?   Would you attend an SA convention, listen to a few score personal stories, and then face to face, personally, announce them all that their experience is not valid because it does not conform to your views, because their choices and results do not mirror yours, because, for instance, the LDS therapist at Patheos does not approve of the notion of addiction?   I remember dismissing the notion myself.  I learned better.  It turns out that addicts resist the notion of addiction because the recognition itself is a threat to the supply of behavior that serves addiction.

If something is controversial, is it enough to choose a side for personal convenience, to reflexively label the opposition as bearers of "Fake news?"  Or would carefully reading the literature, and personally consulting people with personal experience, make a difference?  You would not tell people to ignore LBTQ literature and personal experience, I expect. "By proving contraries, truth is made manifest."  By suppressing contraries, ideology is made manifest.

Another diagnostic factor in human addictive behavior is a reliance on grievance stories for self justification.  Recovery involves "dismantling the grievance stories,"  removing beams from one's own eyes.  It's all about seeing clearly.   When a person sees clearly, they can then have the serenity to accept the things they cannot change, the courage to change the things they can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Ed Smart says he hasn’t been sexually unfaithful to his wife. 

The point that as far as we know, sex isn’t a factor in the Smart’s divorce has been repeatedly emphasized by numerous participants here. 

You’re always welcome to advocate for your beliefs about sex addiction, but they certainly seem off topic in this thread.

New readers unfamiliar with our past conversations may not realize based on your comments above that we have discussed this topic numerous times before, and I am not ignorant of both your views and the alleged research and experiences you mention. I have studied much of the type of information you’ve proffered as evidence of your position and believe that the relief you and others have experienced has been correlated with some of the actions taken to relieve shame, but is still misdiagnosed as the a treatment for so-called “sex addiction.” That’s similar to how David Matheson, former “reparative therapist,” has since denounced the change aspects of that brand of therapy but still acknowledges that aspects of it were beneficial in that some of the processes helped men struggling against their homosexual attractions to decrease shame and self-loathing, this setting them up to paths of true healing.  It’s always worth remembering that correlation is not the same thing as causation.    

All of this said, we are straying off topic, so this will be my last post on the matter in this thread.

And again, your post doesn’t seem to be relevant in the Smart’s case.

Edited August 19, 2019 by Daniel2

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

What I continue to do is raise the question of sex addiction as a potential factor in human behavior as both legitimate and important.  I do not advocate jumping to conclusions in individual cases without making an informed inquiry.  But those who are unaware of even the existence of a valid question and the information to make an informed decision cannot benefit.  I do know what I am talking about.

http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleChristensenRashomon.html

As to the controversial nature of the question of sex addiction, I have read dozens of books, numerous articles, personally consulted expert researchers and therapists, and have personally done recovery, and have seen the effects in my own life and experience.  I have worked closely with scores of other people for over 16 years and have seen real changes happen in many lives.   If my own condition did not exist, what changed as a result of my efforts at recovery?  Nothing?  Or something?   I remember what I was like before.  The difference is real.  It's not about shaming, but healing.

And what of the thousands of others whose experience is akin to my own?   Would you attend an SA convention, listen to a few score personal stories, and then face to face, personally, announce them all that their experience is not valid because it does not conform to your views, because their choices and results do not mirror yours, because, for instance, the LDS therapist at Patheos does not approve of the notion of addiction?   I remember dismissing the notion myself.  I learned better.  It turns out that addicts resist the notion of addiction because the recognition itself is a threat to the supply of behavior that serves addiction.

If something is controversial, is it enough to choose a side for personal convenience, to reflexively label the opposition as bearers of "Fake news?"  Or would carefully reading the literature, and personally consulting people with personal experience, make a difference?  You would not tell people to ignore LBTQ literature and personal experience, I expect. "By proving contraries, truth is made manifest."  By suppressing contraries, ideology is made manifest.

Another diagnostic factor in human addictive behavior is a reliance on grievance stories for self justification.  Recovery involves "dismantling the grievance stories,"  removing beams from one's own eyes.  It's all about seeing clearly.   When a person sees clearly, they can then have the serenity to accept the things they cannot change, the courage to change the things they can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Please open a new thread if you want to discuss sex addiction.  

Unless you have evidence that this is relevant to Ed Smart's situation or anything related to my OP, it's off topic.

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Ed Smart says he hasn’t been sexually unfaithful to his wife. 

The point that as far as we know, sex isn’t a factor in the Smart’s divorce has been repeatedly emphasized by numerous participants here. 

You’re always welcome to advocate for your beliefs about sex addiction, but they certainly seem off topic in this thread.

New readers unfamiliar with our past conversations may not realize based on your comments above that we have discussed this topic numerous times before, and I am not ignorant of both your views and the alleged research and experiences you mention. I have studied much of the type of information you’ve proffered as evidence of your position and believe that the relief you and others have experienced has been correlated with some of the actions taken to relieve shame, but is still misdiagnosed as the a treatment for so-called “sex addiction.” That’s similar to how David Matheson, former “reparative therapist,” has since denounced the change aspects of that brand of therapy but still acknowledges that aspects of it were beneficial in that some of the processes helped men struggling against their homosexual attractions to decrease shame and self-loathing, this setting them up to paths of true healing.  It’s always worth remembering that correlation is not the same thing as causation.    

All of this said, we are straying off topic, so this will be my last post on the matter in this thread.

And again, your post doesn’t seem to be relevant in the Smart’s case.

Ha....beat me to it  

 

[clarkgoble]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

40-45% members of the Church get divorced, yet you  proclaim in your wise position to judge that being gay is not a reason for divorce.  

Where are you getting this statistic? I assume you are referring to US members. But the only figure I could find was from the 2008 ARIS survey which showed only 9% were divorced. The GSS (which can be a bit problematic relative to Mormon statistics at times) had a 10% divorce rate for those who remained Mormon as an adult and 25% for those who had left the Church. For temple marriages the divorce rate is usually seen as 6% - based upon a study by Daniel Judd from 2000. So I'd treat it with a bit of skepticism for applying for today. There's also weird complexities there due to civil and temple marriages not being the same. There was a 1999 study by Barna research of 4000 Americans that had 24% of Mormon marriages ending in divorce. I've not seen the original study so I don't know what n was for the Mormon population in that study and thus how careful one should take it. It's not available online.

Overall though, I'm not sure we have good statistics on this. However what statistics we have point to a much, much lower rate than you suggest.

I've no thoughts on the larger topic other than it seems unseemly to speculate about marital problems when we know nothing about what was going on. Surely we're above that kind of gossip.

Edited August 19, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Kevin Christensen]

3 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Ed Smart says he hasn’t been sexually unfaithful to his wife. 

The point that as far as we know, sex isn’t a factor in the Smart’s divorce has been repeatedly emphasized by numerous participants here. 

You’re always welcome to advocate for your beliefs about sex addiction, but they certainly seem off topic in this thread.

New readers unfamiliar with our past conversations may not realize based on your comments above that we have discussed this topic numerous times before, and I am not ignorant of both your views and the alleged research and experiences you mention. I have studied much of the type of information you’ve proffered as evidence of your position and believe that the relief you and others have experienced has been correlated with some of the actions taken to relieve shame, but is still misdiagnosed as the a treatment for so-called “sex addiction.” That’s similar to how David Matheson, former “reparative therapist,” has since denounced the change aspects of that brand of therapy but still acknowledges that aspects of it were beneficial in that some of the processes helped men struggling against their homosexual attractions to decrease shame and self-loathing, this setting them up to paths of true healing.  It’s always worth remembering that correlation is not the same thing as causation.    

All of this said, we are straying off topic, so this will be my last post on the matter in this thread.

And again, your post doesn’t seem to be relevant in the Smart’s case.

For the record, treatment for sex addiction is nothing like reparative therapy.   My essay directly criticizes reparative therapy as fundamentally flawed.   I don't agree with the comparison but I know about how paradigmatic metaphors work in the service of rhetoric.  Here, it's a trick of the light rather than true illumination.  Like the quotes around "sex addiction." 

Quote

One potent argument against describing sexual behavior as addiction has always been that drug addiction involves putting foreign substances into the body whereas sexuality is natural. This overlooks the importance of naturally occurring chemicals in the brain, such as the endorphins, (which are natural opiates chemically resembling heroin and morphine), serotonin, and dopamine. Donald Hilton explains:
 

In the brainstem, a chemical called dopamine is produced in the ventral tegmental area (VTA), which has been found to be important in the brain’s pleasure and reward system. When activated by a pleasurable stimulus, the VTA causes dopamine to be released in an area of the thalamus called the nucleus accumbens. Other chemicals such as the brain’s natural opioids, the endorphins, also stimulate the nucleus accumbens. It may be that dopamine is more important in wanting pleasure, whereas the endorphins are more important in liking pleasure. These pathways are important because without them we would not value appropriate pleasures. An area of the cerebral cortex called the frontal lobe helps control the amount and context of the pleasure. It also helps us weigh the benefits and risks of a pleasurable stimulus. For instance, uncontrolled eating may be pleasurable, but it is unhealthy. Unrestrained sexuality may be pleasurable, but it destroys relationships and spiritual power and insight. It is the frontal lobe that tells us to judge these risks and benefits.

When we overuse pleasure centers, the cells that produce dopamine are overworked, and in what may be a defensive reaction, the brain decreases the amount of dopamine available for use and also causes shrinkage in the cells that produce the dopamine and in the frontal control areas. Paradoxically, the pleasure cells in the nucleus accumbens may actually enlarge in the addicted state because they have less dopamine available for pleasure and are seeking to extract every possible molecule. These physical changes in the brain have been called long-term potentiation and long-term depression. Thus, in addiction, normal pleasures are not enough to alleviate the craving for dopamine, and this craving in the newly reset pleasure thermostat in the brain is likely key in the desire to relapse. The shrinkage in the frontal control areas also contributes to the compulsivity and impulsivity seen in addiction. Interestingly, as neurosurgeons, we see these same characteristics in frontal lobe shrinkage from traumatic brain injury, and this has been recognized by addiction scientists. Sexual addiction obviously involves other neurotransmitters, two of which may be oxytocin and vasopressin. Oxytocin is important in bonding and increases trust in humans, and vasopressin may be important in sexual bonding, particularly in males. [42]

So sex addiction not only involves behavior but potent drugs that the addict carries in their own body.  In Hope and Freedom for Sex Addicts and their Partners, Dr. Milton Magness reports that crack cocaine addicts have consistently reported that recovery from sex addiction is much harder to manage than recovery from drug addiction. [43]   I recently heard the lament of a man who had managed a year of sobriety from his alcohol and narcotics addictions, but couldn’t manage a week of sobriety from sex.  The addictive behavior--in whatever form--is not an end in itself but a means to access that internal drug supply. 
 

[T]he sexual high comes from the neurochemical release that is found in the compulsive sexual behavior. Even if the addict finds a partner whose appetites are similar to his own, continued sex with the same person over a period of time results in more normalized neurochemical levels. What some call the ‘adrenaline rush’ or more accurately an increased level of dopamine, cortizol, norepinephrine, and other neurotransmitters diminishes. The lower level of chemical reinforcement does not satisfy the addiction.” [44]

So the addict eventually goes elsewhere to satisfy the addiction.  For this reason, marriage is not a cure for sex addiction in either heterosexuals or homosexuals. [45]   Steven’s disclosure, for example, came in a period of what Carnes describes as “de-escalation,” when he is not binging, but is still guarding the secret world:
 

The addict makes every effort to make life manageable and to live an honorable life. …there is a rapid de-escalation to safe or acceptable behavior…They continue to guard their secret world, either to hide their obsession (which convinces them they are not curable) or to keep intact the web of lies they wove during the time they were acting out. Thus de-escalation is not recovery. Honesty with oneself and others, self-acceptance that includes one’s illness, and support for change by people who know the addiction’s power to delude are prime determinants for recovery. [46]  

In addiction the brain is tricked into treating the object of addiction as equivalent to survival. [47]   Subsequent cravings and impeded judgments reflect that distortion of values. Something that should be optional or, worse, taboo and/or dangerous, feels necessary. The distortion of values leads to impaired choices, aptly described in recovery literature and experience as “bargains with chaos.” Addiction in this model is not a moral issue to be addressed by either shaming or punitive approaches directed at symptoms. It is not a matter of a “true self” to be nurtured by an enabling society that strives to protect people from the consequences of their impaired choices.  Compulsive acting out accompanied by impaired judgment is a symptom of addiction, not the disease itself.  I see aversion/reparative therapy as an attempt to re-direct the symptoms while failing to recognize and treat the actual damage.

I know several recovered and recovering sex addicts who had been unfaithful physically, and several who had been unfaithful emotionally, some with online fantasy, some with same sex, some different, some a mix.   The effect on the spouse is still traumatic.  As Carol Lynn Pearson put it when is happened to her:

 

Dim,

dim,

I do not doubt,

if someone blew me

I would go out.

 

Oh, and the person I mentioned in that the quote who at one point could not manage a week has since done a successful recovery.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Surely we're above that kind of gossip.

EDITED TO ADD:

Edited August 19, 2019 by The Nehor

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

For the record, treatment for sex addiction is nothing like reparative therapy.   My essay directly criticizes reparative therapy as fundamentally flawed.   I don't agree with the comparison but I know about how paradigmatic metaphors work in the service of rhetoric.  Here, it's a trick of the light rather than true illumination.  Like the quotes around "sex addiction." 

I know several recovered and recovering sex addicts who had been unfaithful physically, and several who had been unfaithful emotionally, some with online fantasy, some with same sex, some different, some a mix.   The effect on the spouse is still traumatic.

Maybe you missed my first request:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72137-ed-smart-father-of-elizabeth-smart-announces-he-is-gay/?do=findComment&comment=1209923436

But if you want to discuss sex addiction, please open a new thread.  Thanks!

[california boy]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Where are you getting this statistic? I assume you are referring to US members. But the only figure I could find was from the 2008 ARIS survey which showed only 9% were divorced. The GSS (which can be a bit problematic relative to Mormon statistics at times) had a 10% divorce rate for those who remained Mormon as an adult and 25% for those who had left the Church. For temple marriages the divorce rate is usually seen as 6% - based upon a study by Daniel Judd from 2000. So I'd treat it with a bit of skepticism for applying for today. There's also weird complexities there due to civil and temple marriages not being the same. There was a 1999 study by Barna research of 4000 Americans that had 24% of Mormon marriages ending in divorce. I've not seen the original study so I don't know what n was for the Mormon population in that study and thus how careful one should take it. It's not available online.

Overall though, I'm not sure we have good statistics on this. However what statistics we have point to a much, much lower rate than you suggest.

I've no thoughts on the larger topic other than it seems unseemly to speculate about marital problems when we know nothing about what was going on. Surely we're above that kind of gossip.

This was from an article in the Deseret News.  I linked the article as well as quoted from the study a few pages back.  You should be able to find it.

[Stargazer]

On 8/16/2019 at 7:48 PM, smac97 said:

If I did, I wouldn't publish such sentiments to the world.

No, I can't imagine that.  I've said nothing to disparage or insult or fault Mr. Smart.

Nope.  That's your gloss.

Thanks,

-Smac

When one reads between lines, one frequently finds things that are not there.  LOL.

[clarkgoble]

36 minutes ago, california boy said:

This was from an article in the Deseret News.  I linked the article as well as quoted from the study a few pages back.  You should be able to find it.

I found it - but it's a story from 2002 which is quite dated now. He doesn't refer to what studies he talks about and also notes that for regular attendees of church its down around 25% - although again he doesn't explain his sources. (A common problem in newspaper stories)  Heaton had a Dialog article that was primarily making use of data from the 80's with similar figures so I hope he's not using that data. Unfortunately the Dialogue article only references his papers and not the data sources he's basing his conclusions off of. (My guess is the gss, but I don't know) He noted the difficulty reconciling those statistics to other studies finding extremely low divorce rates.

I found many other studies that were still referenced in recent studies, but again most of the data was from the 80's.

From what I could find - and I really did look hard - the Barna 1999 study is the most recent study on this and it gives a figure of 24% for self-identifying Mormons. Again though it doesn't distinguish activity or temple marriage in that figure. It's also unclear how many Mormons were in the study or how representative the sample was. While there's reasons to be skeptical of it, that 24% is probably the best figure we have but it's clearly extremely dated at this point. 

Edited August 19, 2019 by clarkgoble

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I found it - but it's a story from 2002 which is quite dated now. He doesn't refer to what studies he talks about and also notes that for regular attendees of church its down around 25% - although again he doesn't explain his sources. (A common problem in newspaper stories)  Heaton had a Dialog article that was primarily making use of data from the 80's with similar figures so I hope he's not using that data. Unfortunately the Dialogue article only references his papers and not the data sources he's basing his conclusions off of. (My guess is the gss, but I don't know) He noted the difficulty reconciling those statistics to other studies finding extremely low divorce rates.

I found many other studies that were still referenced in recent studies, but again most of the data was from the 80's.

From what I could find - and I really did look hard - the Barna 1999 study is the most recent study on this and it gives a figure of 24% for self-identifying Mormons. Again though it doesn't distinguish activity or temple marriage in that figure. It's also unclear how many Mormons were in the study or how representative the sample was. While there's reasons to be skeptical of it, that 24% is probably the best figure we have but it's clearly extremely dated at this point. 

I think it might depend on whether you're referring to temple sealings or Mormon civil marriages ending in divorce?

From what I have read, the Mormon divorce rate is about the same as the average divorce rate overall.  I've also read that Utah's rate is high....but I'd have to look for that again.

ETA:

Found this:

https://thirdhour.org/blog/buzz/lds-news/mormons-marriage-rates/

Quote

 

The strength of Latter-day Saints lies not only in their commitment to marriage but also in their commitment to try again. Utah, home to more than two million Mormons, has one of the nation’s higher divorce rates. But Utahns are also likely to remarry, found Utah’s Department of Workforce Services; so while more Utahns divorce, less are divorced.

“What makes Utah unique is that its residents get married earlier than the rest of the nation,” wrote Salt Lake Tribune’s Matt Canham. “Because of that, it has a slew of young divorcees, who are then far more likely to re-enter the dating world than someone whose marriage falls apart later in life.”

 

 

Edited August 19, 2019 by ALarson

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think it might depend on whether you're referring to temple sealings or Mormon civil marriages ending in divorce?

From what I have read, the Mormon divorce rate is about the same as the average divorce rate overall. 

I'd be interested in this data, particularly if it is up-to-date.

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Found this:

https://thirdhour.org/blog/buzz/lds-news/mormons-marriage-rates/

Quote

The strength of Latter-day Saints lies not only in their commitment to marriage but also in their commitment to try again. Utah, home to more than two million Mormons, has one of the nation’s higher divorce rates. But Utahns are also likely to remarry, found Utah’s Department of Workforce Services; so while more Utahns divorce, less are divorced.

 

I wonder if this statistic is true.  And if it is, how much of it is attributable to Latter-day Saints having higher rates of marriage (rather than just couples living together).

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'd be interested in this data, particularly if it is up-to-date.

I wonder if this statistic is true.  And if it is, how much of it is attributable to Latter-day Saints having higher rates of marriage (rather than just couples living together).

Possibly (IMO).  I have seen a lot more young couples getting divorced (just heard of another fairly newly married couple getting a divorce this week....a son of one of the Bishop's in our stake who was married in the temple).  I don't remember hearing of so many young couples getting divorced even say 10 years ago.  We also have a couple getting divorced in our ward who have a new baby (and were married in the temple).  Very sad....

So, this is interesting from the article:

Quote

“What makes Utah unique is that its residents get married earlier than the rest of the nation,” wrote Salt Lake Tribune’s Matt Canham. “Because of that, it has a slew of young divorcees, who are then far more likely to re-enter the dating world than someone whose marriage falls apart later in life.”

 

Edited August 19, 2019 by ALarson

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Possibly (IMO).  I have seen a lot more young couples getting divorced (just heard of another fairly newly married couple getting a divorce this week....a son of one of the Bishop's in our stake who was married in the temple).  I don't remember hearing of so many young couples getting divorced even say 10 years ago. 

That's my sense as well.  But then, social media and such have us sharing far more information about our lives than we used to.

15 minutes ago, ALarson said:

We also have a couple getting divorced in our ward who have a new baby (and were married in the temple).  Very sad....

So, this is interesting from the article:

Quote

“What makes Utah unique is that its residents get married earlier than the rest of the nation,” wrote Salt Lake Tribune’s Matt Canham. “Because of that, it has a slew of young divorcees, who are then far more likely to re-enter the dating world than someone whose marriage falls apart later in life.”

 

Sort of a "silver lining" kinds of observation.  Yes, I can see the validity of it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

I think it might depend on whether you're referring to temple sealings or Mormon civil marriages ending in divorce?

From what I have read, the Mormon divorce rate is about the same as the average divorce rate overall.  I've also read that Utah's rate is high....but I'd have to look for that again.

That's Heaton's thesis. I just can't find his data demonstrating that. He also acknowledges it conflicts with other studies. My point is just from what I can tell all the studies are ridiculously dated. The newest one I can find is that 1999 one I found and that has it below the national average. (24% versus 40-50% -- although as you noted Heaton saw it as about the same)

Utah obviously isn't a good proxy for Mormonism, both due to the distinction between active members and inactive but also because only 55% of the state is Mormon. While again the statistics are ridiculously dated, the evidence from the 80's was that interfaith marriages were 7x as likely as inner faith Mormon marriages to lead to divorce. That has implications in a state like Utah - particularly if one spouse leaves the Church.

Sadly Pew and ARIS didn't address the issue although "divorced" was an option for marriage. It doesn't really help if people remarry though.

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

Possibly (IMO).  I have seen a lot more young couples getting divorced (just heard of another fairly newly married couple getting a divorce this week....a son of one of the Bishop's in our stake who was married in the temple).  I don't remember hearing of so many young couples getting divorced even say 10 years ago.  We also have a couple getting divorced in our ward who have a new baby (and were married in the temple).

I knew of lots of young marriages leading to divorce. I actually think the young age of marriage is a bit of a problem and marrying later is probably one big reason why marriage for college educated is so high these days. That's also partially why I worry that so much data on Mormon divorce is data from the 80's and 90's or even earlier. Marriage has stabilized after a rash of divorce once it became socially accepted in the 60's and 70's. It became accepted in LDS circles much later. There's definitely people who stay together because they think they're supposed to who would have been far better off divorcing. While I think gay marriages (one person gay who marries) aren't that common, just given rates of homosexuality, clearly those were acceptable in the 70's through mid 90's in a way they most definitely aren't today. 

I think we just don't really have a good grasp on divorce in the Church the way we have a reasonable grasp on say the demographics of single hood (and the associated tensions).

 

Edited August 19, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Calm]

11 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Adultery is only a symptom. 

For some reason this strikes me as wrong, like saying “cancer is only a symptom” as one could say every disorder is just a symptom of the body making a mistake.  I need to think about this. 

Edited August 20, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

7 hours ago, ALarson said:

have seen a lot more young couples getting divorced (

With more younger couples getting divorced, this may raise the divorce numbers for an individual (a person who has been divorced has a higher rate of divorce for later marriages) since they have more time to get remarried and divorced multiple times.  This could raise the overall rate of divorce and confuse the numbers for people experiencing divorce in their lifetime.

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 hours ago, ALarson said:

I have seen a lot more young couples getting divorced ...

 

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

That's my sense as well.  But then, social media and such have us sharing far more information about our lives than we used to.

FWIMBW, Pres Eyring attended a conference in a stake that I lived in. His chosen topic: marriage. He told us forthrightly that one of the topics that is discussed weekly by the First Presidency is the soaring divorce rate in the Church. He mentioned that temple marriages used to be almost uniquely solid but that that has completely broken down in the past few years.

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

FWIMBW, Pres Eyring attended a conference in a stake that I lived in. His chosen topic: marriage. He told us forthrightly that one of the topics that is discussed weekly by the First Presidency is the soaring divorce rate in the Church. He mentioned that temple marriages used to be almost uniquely solid but that that has completely broken down in the past few years.

Maybe they should institute the same policy for couples that divorce as they have against gays.  If you divorce, you have to remain celibate the rest of your life and can never hold hands, flirt, kiss, hug, date or have sex with someone of the opposite sex.

There, just cut the divorce rate down substantially, and lined it up with the teachings of Christ when he said marring someone who is divorced is committing adultery.

Next problem?