Leaderboard

If Elizabeth Smart went through nine months of sheer hell, I think Ed Smart suffered through a different kind of hell during that period, perhaps one even more bitter than his daughter's. He was the one who hired his daughter's kidnapper and rapist and allowed him into his house, all in an apparent effort to be Christlike. How could Ed Smart not have blamed himself? What sort of twisting effect would such an experience have on his (or anyone else's) mind? I have great sympathy for Ed Smart. I do not condone his actions in any possible way; I think it's shameful that a man older than me would up and leave his wife in order to follow his gonadal urges. I suspect that his actions, if not quickly repented of, will have a deeper, longer-lasting negative effect on his family even than his daughter's horrific experience, both now and in succeeding generations. But I'll withhold personal condemnation. I wouldn't trade places with the guy for all the gold in Fort Knox.

Right. If one concludes—as Smart alleges—that one’s sexual orientation is God-given and that God wouldn’t give us a sexual proclivity and then tell us not to act on it because doing so would make him a big meanie—ya gotta apply that to everyone. And that doesn’t even get into the despicable action of blowing up your family and ditching your wife of forty years merely because you no longer find her physically attractive, which—gay or straight—is an utterly evil thing to do.

I am very happy to see this. Church Newsroom: Church Launches Protection Training for Leaders of Children and Youth. Training and FAQ link In Crisis? Talk now - links from the church website to CPS and the major national hotlines and helplines for domestic violence, child abuse, sexual assault, crime. RAINN too. Also things for New Zealand and the Philippeans. I just took the training. It's good. Very good day in the kingdom.

Fair point. But I think when we come at this primarily from an analysis of his frame of mind, we run the risk of indulging in the same sinner-centric universe that the sinner himself is living in and doing a disservice to those the sinner has harmed. The Smart’s marriage was never just about Ed, and neither is their divorce, and neither are Ed’s sexuality or his other life-choices. If we think Ed is hurting, let us also spare a moment for Lois (who feels all the pain he does, plus more) and his kids—all of whom will be expected to conceal their pain and express “support” as an “ally” so that caddish Ed can feel validated with his rotten life choices.

Fair point, but I would also note that in some of the stories we do know—we don’t actually have the straight (abandoned) spouse’s direct story; we have the gay (deadbeat adulterer) spouse publicly assuring us that his victim is just fine with all this (really!); and the victim declines to supplement the record publicly (and even if she did offer a rebuttal and ringing condemnation of her ex’s covenant-breaking and profligacy, I think we know that society today would mostly look at her as being the selfish one). Yes, divorce is complicated; but at the end of the day Ed himself attributes his divorce to his desire to have a sexual relationship with a person/people other than his wife. He didn’t have to cite that motive specifically—but he did. Second: I wouldn’t read too much into who actually filed for the divorce. Once a couple separates, the man—with his typically higher earning power—can afford to stay in a holding pattern for months or even years without the legalities ever being addressed. A woman who is dependent on whatever her husband gives her and finds herself suddenly cast off with five kids to support and only qualified for a minimum-wage job, can’t afford to wait; and that’s one reason women are often the filers.

Folks, we don't know the whole story. We don't know if the wife's position - divorcing could be her idea, or a joint thing. It happens. The one or two accounts of similar split ups of which I'm aware, have had divorce be a joint thing. First account is from a couple who used to be in my ward, she filed. Second account was Josh Weed. We do know, according to what was originally written in this article, he did not intend the letter to go public, and removed it quickly. Not the brightest thing to do, posting something on Facebook that you don't want known, but there it is.

Ironically, "moving away" means almost nothing for an internet-based discussion group. Big upheaval for @pam, but unless she's planning not to manage the TH forums any more, pretty much transparent for most of the rest of us. Except, of course, she won't come see me any more when I go to Utah. Guess I'll have to make some Texas visits.

This ☝️ Covenants were made. Does he believe it’s on to break covenants with God when he finds something he thinks is better?

He was Elizabeth Smart's abductor and rapist. @Just_A_Guy is using Ed Smart's words/description of his daughters tormentor to highlight his current hypocrisy. While there are clear differences between the two cases, God only has one standard when it comes to sexual relationships. Ed is now just as much a violator of that standard as was BDM.

Essentially he's apparently decided that his personal, carnal self-satisfaction is what the Savior really cares about.

The 1st of September I take off on my new adventure living in Texas. I want to do a last get together (for me anyway) here in Utah. I'm currently planning on doing this on August 23rd. Please let me know if you are interested. I'd love to have as many people there as possible so I can properly say good bye. I've made so many good friends from the forums. I'll still be participating on the forums but just from Texas instead. So who is interested? Depending on who is coming will determine if it is in Salt Lake Co. or in Utah Co. ****EDIT This will be on the 23rd at 6:30 at Tucanos in Orem, Utah. I am making reservations on Monday the 19th so please let me know by then if you will be attending and/or bringing someone. Tentative group: Me @The Folk Prophet +1 (highchair?) @estradling75 +1 @Just_A_Guy @Anddenex +1 @classylady +1 @beefche

Or a very sad day....depending on how one views it. I can't exactly see the scriptures, if being written in our day, saying anything other than something like, "And behold, the people were so corrupt that it was requisite that they did commence mandatory training for the leaders of the church." On the other hand, said scripture could be followed up with something like, "And thus we see that the Lord doth provide for His church." So, yeah. A good day -- but a sad one too.

The difficult situation of not being able to have illicit sex with all the people to whom you're sexually attracted without it being a sin? Boo freakin' hoo.

Clearly the former. All of us are entitled to the same testimony as an Apostle. Being an Apostle is a calling. But one must be willing to accept that calling.

I knew eventually this topic might come up when I saw the articles. I have worked with great people who are gay, but I have two concerns: 1. Why is this news? Is it going to be front page news every time somebody announces a sexually oriented change in their life? Some matters are left private. 2. It sorrows me that so many people associate being "true" to themselves with their physical nature and not their spiritual nature. Being true to yourself is recognizing that your body is just a shell and that the "true" you is an eternal spirit son or daughter of God. I am sympathetic to the difficult situation a person with same-sex attraction endures, but I see it as no different from the situations for many wonderful single members of the church who never marry in this life for various reasons. They have physical desires that they long to fulfill, but they can't without offending God. The "acceptance" line of reasoning being used by so many people announcing they are coming out also troubles me. If heterosexual men and women followed that same pattern of reasoning, most would have to say that they can no longer accept being in monogamous marriages because God made them with physical desires for more than one man or more than one woman, and they need to be true and accept their natures. To me this is a false doctrine that substitutes God-given physical desires for God-given commandments. Carnal desires are not commandments, and following them outside the law of chastity can only lead to unhappiness in the eternities.

My take on this: This dude has been lying to God, himself and his family for decades. He is a priesthood holder, and has taken covenants in the Temple of the Lord. He has no intention of keeping the covenants that he has made. He is breaking multiple commandments (I, II, VII, IX, & X) without shame. He has convinced himself that it is his right to break commandments... He just made this huge announcement to gain applaud and sympathy from the world. While bringing shame to his family and the church. What a selfish individual who never learned anything about sacrifice despite being taught such principles as a member of the Latter-Day Saint. Notice that although the announcement is recent, his wife filed for divorce back in July 5th. Which obviously means that she has been considering the option of divorce for likely a long time... I wouldn't be surprised if he has been sleeping around with other men, gave his wife a STD, and got caught. Many might think that I am judgmental and that I am wrong to have such thoughts. I totally disagree. I am not his judge (although I wish I was...) We each have the Light of Christ and should use the power of discernment to understand what is going on around ourselves and our families.

Honestly, I don't think it's anything you need to worry about. However, if Heavenly Father is calling you, MY experience during my conversion is that it's best to answer him, regardless of the situation. He knows what's best.

Man, I want to go so bad. So many great people to meet! How often do we do this???

Here is my take. As a missionary in 1968 I attended a meeting with Apostle Gordon B Hinckley who then presided over the South American missions. He bore a testimony more or less as follows: I have never had a vision, never heard a voice. But the Spirit has conveyed to me in no uncertain terms that Jesus is the Christ and that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. I obtained this witness by prayer and fasting. As in olden times, the apostles are ones who are willing to give up all that they have to follow the Lord. Not many of us are willing to do that. I’m not. I’m looking forward to a relaxing retirement. Not gallivanting around the globe preachingthe gospel. Gordon B Hinckley gave his life to the Lord. That makes him a special witness.

Personally I hate articles that have to bring up a race etc to describe someone. And another thing. I've never considered someone of Mexican descent to be "of color."

This is not hypocrisy.

"I deeply regret the excruciating pain this has caused her. Hurting her was never my intent. While our marriage will end, my love for Lois and everyone in my family is eternal," Wow, he is so brave!

Well look at Elder Gong. He is the first “Asian” apostle right??? He is 100% American. Born in CA. He is as much Asian as I am European.

I was involved in the automation of a GE plant in Virginia - that operates just like every other corporate entity (some good with some bad). In addition I have been a little more concerned with GE ever since I learned they got involved in the personal disputes (and legal rangaling) between Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla and sadly picked the wrong side. But this was like two generations ago. As far as the general economy - I believe the best economic advice for all Saints of all eras is ----- {drum roll} --- STAY OUT OF DEBT! And in the case of thoses not paying attention to history. To the person - there was not one individual that apostatized from the early church because of the Kirtland Safety Society that did not speculate and create enough debt to ruin them completely when the Kirtland Safety Society failed and went under. They thought that the church would save them regardless of their personal economic foolishness and despite the spiritual blessing they had been given. This apostasy included both counselors in the first presidency and half of the apostles. The Traveler

No. It was extremely physical, just as much so as Christ's resurrection was literal and physical.

I believe your mental model of who and what the Holy Ghost is to be incomplete.

Even if an Apostle were to see Christ face to face, it would be irrelevant as the basis of a witness without the equal presence of the Holy Ghost to testify. Does any of us actually believe that Paul was convinced solely by seeing Christ, or can we all agree that his heart was pricked by the Spirit of God, and a change was wrought within him as his mind was opened and his understanding expounded? Whether or not any apostles have seen Christ face to face, I would suggest that such a manifestation of the Spirit as I presume Saul experienced would be enough for any man to have as a special witness, whether for himself, or for the Church as a whole.

I did find this quote, granted I don't know the original source, but it is attribute to Elder Oaks on "Ask Gramps" " I think is that modern Apostles are called to be witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world. Doctrine and Covenants 107:23. This is not to witness of a personal manifestation. To witness of the name is to witness of the plan, the work, or mission, such as the Atonement, and the authority, or priesthood of the Lord Jesus Christ." I personally don't believe that an apostle or even a prophet needs to see Christ to be called to their calling. I remember being told that by a GA... but until I can find some official statement, you can only take my word for it... Additionally, as I mentioned above in my comment to Vort. In his title he used "special witness" not the title form "Special Witness". Don't know if that was purposeful to drive a point that we all have our own special witnesses, but I would just like to add that just like we are all prophets, we are all special witnesses.

I totally get what you're saying... to me it does appear to me to only be Tautology and... well... pointless. I personally can't find much info to answer your question directly and fully on any official church sites. While writing this, however, it did occur to me that a discussion could be had about the capital letter "Special Witnesses" vs the lower case "special witnesses". Similar to a prophet vs a Prophet.

Hmm . . .

Like others, I'm going to ignore the term "temple marriage" and focus more on "sealing" (of spouses). And I'm afraid the answer, as I understand it, is neither simple nor satisfying. I will break this up into a few different time periods to consider Garden of Eden to Moses This is the hardest time period to make any claims, and so my primary assertion is that we just don't know. Certainly, the ancient records don't make any indication of sealing being a Thing. I don't know of a lot of modern revelations that make the claim that it did, and most of those, even, seem like they rest on the assumption that all of the ordinances revealed/restored in the modern Church must have existed in the ancient Church. I'm not convinced that is true of ordinances. Covenants...maybe (but then, what's the difference, really?), but I find it more plausible that implementations of covenants and principles differ across dispensations than that all of our ordinances as we know them existed in ancient times. I'm inclined to believe that sealing was not a Thing during this time period, but again, there's very little in the way of evidence and I can't say with certainty. Moses to Christ The existence of a sealing, or eternal marriage, assumes the concept of a Resurrection. But you'll be hard pressed to find Resurrection as we understand it taught in ancient scripture. The concept of redemption exists as far back as Moses, but is generally portrayed as currying favor with God. Redemption leading to eternal life doesn't start to develop much until Isaiah and the period between the Old and New Testaments. It then becomes a central theme of the New Testament. This is important, because if the ancient Israelites hadn't developed the concept of Resurrection, there is no reason to pursue an eternal marriage. So, I would argue that sealings were not a Thing between the time of Moses and the time of Christ. Christ to Apostasy For the time between Christ's ministry and the Apostasy, I have my doubts that sealing was a Thing. I base that mostly on the fact that Paul wasn't too concerned about people getting married, going so far as to say that marriage is a tolerable option when people can't keep it in their pants (1 Cor 7), but celibacy is preferred. Yeah, I know, I'm really stretching the context of what Paul was saying, and that's an interesting discussion for another time. But my point is that, even if sealing were a Thing at the time, it wasn't looked at as essential to salvation, and so really couldn't have been quite the same as what we practice now. Apostasy to Restoration (1843ish) I'm going to go out on a limb and just assume that all of us Mormony folk here will agree sealing wasn't a Thing during this time. Restoration to present Going out on another limb, but most of us would also probably agree that sealings were a Thing after 1843 To circle back and wrap up, if you are to ask me when sealings began, my inclination is to say "1843." That is, I am inclined to believe that it is an entirely modern concept. It may have existed in the earliest of days, but I'm skeptical. And I have seen no convincing evidence that it was taking place between Moses and 1843.

Funny... Maybe something happened on this forum where this wording was used (or perhaps I used it and forgot), but I have been contemplating this very saying off and on all week trying to make sense of it. Is the correct term “few and far between”?

My own siblings won't even come to see me as I leave as they will be at the game. I see where their priorities are.