Jump to content

Carol Lynn Pearson And The New Church Pamphlet


Lamanite

Recommended Posts

After reading the New Church Pamphlet I wonder how her story might have changed if her husband Gerald would have applied the principles taught in this new pamphlet as opposed to him trying to apply and live the nonsense taught and espoused by the Church back then?

CFR, Lamanite.

Please demonstrate that the Church taught and espoused nonsense during the period when she and her husband apostasized out of carnal lust and misplaced sympathies.

And just to make it easier, please demonstrate the differences between the Church's position then and now.

Link to comment

CFR, Lamanite.

Please demonstrate that the Church taught and espoused nonsense during the period when she and her husband apostasized out of carnal lust and misplaced sympathies.

And just to make it easier, please demonstrate the differences between the Church's position then and now.

Are you saying, Selek, that you do not believe that LDS church leaders frequently counseled men "who struggle with Same Sex Attraction" to marry, in previous years? or that such teachings were common?

What kind of "references" would satisfy your call, to show that such was the case? Are you looking for a specific quantity of Bishops' counsel on LDS church letterhead? or do the testimonials of gay lds men who were so counseled satisfy your desire to know?

Daniel

Link to comment

CFR, Lamanite.

Please demonstrate that the Church taught and espoused nonsense during the period when she and her husband apostasized out of carnal lust and misplaced sympathies.

And just to make it easier, please demonstrate the differences between the Church's position then and now.

Selek, please demonstrate that Carol Lynn has apostacized out of carnal lust and misplaced sympathies.

Link to comment
Are you saying, Selek, that you do not believe that LDS church leaders frequently counseled men "who struggle with Same Sex Attraction" to marry, in previous years? or that such teachings were common?

What kind of "references" would satisfy your call, to show that such was the case? Are you looking for a specific quantity of Bishops' counsel on LDS church letterhead? or do the testimonials of gay lds men who were so counseled satisfy your desire to know?

Daniel

I can't speak for Selek; but speaking only for myself--no, they wouldn't.

Because I don't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, I'm not inclined to suppose that the accuracy of ex-Mormons' claims about former Church experiences are likely to be radically different by selecting for a particular sexual preference. IOW, for such "testimonials" to be worth anything at all, "gay [ex] LDS men" would have to be amazingly more honest than straight ones, and I have no reason to suppose that that would be the case.

What we like here, Daniel, is the official policy from official sources. "Gay [ex] LDS men" don't make Church policy; neither do bishops. The First Presidency and the Twelve do. I am unable to find anything from any official source that promotes this view. To the contrary, all I can find is some strong statements rejecting such a course of action.

Which of course doesn't mean that nobody ever advocated such a thing. Indeed, the fact that such statements were made supports the claim that it was being advocated at some level. However, the nature and content of the statements makes it clear that this was seen as a problem to be addressed rather than any kind of policy reversal.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

The apostate who can't spell "apostatize"?

:P

Hmm, you're right. I was wondering about the spelling when I read Selek's "apostasized," wondering if it was spelled right. It looks like I corrected the wrong letter, as "apostatized" appears to be the correct spelling. But it also appears that even the great Pahoran contributed to the on-slaught of incorrect spellings here too, spelling it "apostatise."

Anyway, I agree with Pahoran's reading of the comment.

If he meant to only include "Mr." Pearson, I would like to hear him say that. Or if he includes Carol Lynn in his accusation of "carnal lust," I'd like a reference.

Link to comment
Hmm, you're right. I was wondering about the spelling when I read Selek's "apostasized," wondering if it was spelled right. It looks like I corrected the wrong letter, as "apostatized" appears to be the correct spelling. But it also appears that even the great Pahoran contributed to the on-slaught of incorrect spellings here too, spelling it "apostatise."

I follow British spelling conventions, FWIW.

If he meant to only include "Mr." Pearson, I would like to hear him say that. Or if he includes Carol Lynn in his accusation of "carnal lust," I'd like a reference.

I can see that it isn't unambiguously clear from the text of Selek's post. However, there has recently been a thread on this subject. Apparently Mr. Pearson left the Church or was ex'ed when he left his wife to pursue a "gay" lifestyle. After being perfectly "monogamous" with his gay lifetime partner, as they all are, of course, he came crawling back home, dying of AIDS. Carol took him in, nursed him till he died, and then apparently decided that it was all the Church's fault.

So that's the history as it has come to our notice: his apostasy==carnal lust. Hers==misplaced sympathies.

Selek was referring to that.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

I follow British spelling conventions, FWIW.

I can see that it isn't unambiguously clear from the text of Selek's post. However, there has recently been a thread on this subject. Apparently Mr. Pearson left the Church or was ex'ed when he left his wife to pursue a "gay" lifestyle. After being perfectly "monogamous" with his gay lifetime partner, as they all are, of course, he came crawling back home, dying of AIDS. Carol took him in, nursed him till he died, and then apparently decided that it was all the Church's fault.

I'd like references to this. I know Carol Lynn...lived in Walnut Creek while going to Cal, and have had many conversations with her since then. I'm not aware of her "blaming the church" for anything.

So that's the history as it has come to our notice: his apostasy==carnal lust. Hers==misplaced sympathies.

Selek was referring to that.

I appreciate you attempting to speak for Selek, but I'd like to hear him speak for himself.

Thanks.

She certainly had sympathy for a dying man, and the father of her children. I don't see how anybody can consider that "misplaced."

Link to comment

I follow British spelling conventions, FWIW.

I can see that it isn't unambiguously clear from the text of Selek's post. However, there has recently been a thread on this subject. Apparently Mr. Pearson left the Church or was ex'ed when he left his wife to pursue a "gay" lifestyle. After being perfectly "monogamous" with his gay lifetime partner, as they all are, of course, he came crawling back home, dying of AIDS. Carol took him in, nursed him till he died, and then apparently decided that it was all the Church's fault.

So that's the history as it has come to our notice: his apostasy==carnal lust. Hers==misplaced sympathies.

Selek was referring to that.

Regards,

Pahoran

Pahoran,

You hang yourself with the rope of your own ignorance. Clearly, you are not familiar with The Pearsons' story.

Gerald Pearson never had a "gay lifetime partner," nor was he ever "monogomous," nor did he merely "crawl back home," but was invited to return by Carol Lynn, several times, after his diagnosis.

I am not aware of Carol Lynn EVER stating anything along the lines of "it was all the Church's fault," either.

Your facts, quite simply, are wrong.

I am not surprised that you would choose not to believe the testimonials of any number of gay formerly lds men, any number of whom were counseled by their LDS bishops to get married as part of their cure for their sexuality. Your worldview simply doesn't seem to allow for the LDS church to be wrong, or accountable, for the actions of it's bishops, unless you find some section of the LDS cannon and/or letterhead directing them to do so. Real life experiences are of little interest to you, apparently, as you can waive them out of existence with a "that's not official, and you can't prove it" stance. Some things are true, whether or not they can be 'proven,' espeically when the LDS church keeps its communications behind bishops' doors as private and/or personal (given the "ecclesiastical confidentiality" stance usually taken by the LDS church, I think it is disingenuous, at best, to demand a "CFR," in the first place, as such "privacy" keeps the church from being accountable, anyway... ). I see little point in trying to convince you otherwise.

Thanks,

Daniel

Link to comment
Pahoran,

You hang yourself with the rope of your own ignorance. Clearly, you are not familiar with The Pearsons' story.

Gerald Pearson never had a "gay lifetime partner," nor was he ever "monogomous,"

I'm sorry, I was merely giving the nod to the conventional way of speaking about these things. I have been given to understand that all gay men are strictly "monogamous" and stay faithful to a "lifetime partner." Perhaps I was misled on that score.

nor did he merely "crawl back home," but was invited to return by Carol Lynn, several times, after his diagnosis.

Oh, so crawling isn't crawling if the crawler is invited?

I am not aware of Carol Lynn EVER stating anything along the lines of "it was all the Church's fault," either.

Perhaps not in so many words. Now tell me that that isn't the point of "No More Goodbyes."

Your facts, quite simply, are wrong.

Whatever.

I am not surprised that you would choose not to believe the testimonials of any number of gay formerly lds men, any number of whom were counseled by their LDS bishops to get married as part of their cure for their sexuality. Your worldview simply doesn't seem to allow for the LDS church to be wrong, or accountable, for the actions of it's bishops, unless you find some section of the LDS cannon and/or letterhead directing them to do so.

I am not surprised that you would expect everyone to unquestioningly accept the assumption that the "testimonials" of gay ex-Mormons are vastly more reliable than the tissues of self-serving lies that the rest of the ex-Mormon "community" of shared resentments regularly regale us with. Your worldview simply doesn't seem to allow for any "gay" people to say or do anything wrong vis-a-vis the Church of Jesus Christ.

Nor am I surprised that you failed to notice that I accepted that there is some valid evidentiary support for the claim that some people might have been given such counsel. I merely question whether any such counsel represented actual Church policy, something your vast congregation of "gay formerly lds[sic] men" are not competent to testify to.

Real life experiences are of little interest to you, apparently, as you can waive them out of existence with a "that's not official, and you can't prove it" stance. Some things are true, whether or not they can be 'proven,' espeically when the LDS church keeps its communications behind bishops' doors as private and/or personal (given the "ecclesiastical confidentiality" stance usually taken by the LDS church, I think it is disingenuous, at best, to demand a "CFR," in the first place, as such "privacy" keeps the church from being accountable, anyway... ). I see little point in trying to convince you otherwise.

Thanks,

Daniel

So, IOW, you are using "ecclesiastical confidentiality" as your blank cheque. This permits you, you suppose, to allege anything you please as a former policy, so that you can then point triumphantly to the present situation as proof that the Church has "changed" its policy in accordance with your propaganda?

So sorry, Daniel. No can do.

You know what the Church's policy is today, because it is documented. If it was otherwise previously, it would likewise have been documented. All I ask is the same level of evidence for a former policy as we have for a current one.

Which really shouldn't be hard, if said former policy had ever actually existed.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

Selek where for art thou?

I could be wrong but I always presumed the Church just adopted homosexual theory from that period of time in the world which was rather ignorant and in many cases dead wrong rather than their own unique inspired approach. It appears to me we have now adopted more commonly accepted theories of homosexual behavior that are prevalent in the world today. However I am probably wrong as I am ignorant about the subject.

I am really curious to know if that clandestine homosexual aversion program is still going on at BYU, where the individual's genitals are wired up and they are shown a pornographic film for stimulus reponse - real sci-fi clock work orange stuff, perhaps the way of the future. I don't know how one would find out though, in the last thread on the subject I was surprised to learn that apparently in some cases it was an effective scientific solution, shows my ignorance, as I presumed it had no merit.

Link to comment

Selek, please demonstrate that Carol Lynn has apostacized out of carnal lust and misplaced sympathies.

Ric, Daniel, and Lamanite:

My statement was very precise, though I am sorry you didn't get it. Perhaps I should have said, "carnal lust and misplaced sympathies, respectively."

Pahoran and several others had no trouble deciphering my meaning, which was that her husband apostatized out of lust and she out of misplaced sympathy for him.

And frankly, whether she has directly blamed the Church for his death (or anything else) is irrelevant (though her articles on suicide make it clear whom she holds responsible).

Out of the sympathy she felt for her late husband, Pearson has annointed herself as guardian of the downtrodden and corrector of the big, bad, Mormon Church. She has proclaimed herself judge and jury, and found us wanting, based solely on her own rationalizations.

She has proclaimed herself wiser and more enlightened on these matters, condemned God's annointed, and demanded that God's laws be changed to suit her fancies.

That is apostasy, and it has definitely come from misplaced sympathies.

Inasmuch as she agrees with your agenda, you laud her. But however good her heart may be (and I have no doubt that it is), she has chosen to stand in opposition to the teachings of God's Church- and thus become a tragic figure in this particular play.

And for all of the insignificant sound and fury you have blown, gentlemen, you have yet to answer my CFR- namely a demand for proof that the Church leadership taught "nonsense" on this topic in earlier times.

And no, aggreived "testimonials" from those driven solely by an agenda of demanding acceptance and normalization is not going to suffice.

Perhaps you might bullet point the teachings of the Church proven to be nonsense, and then accompany that bullet point with the less-than-credulous proof that such point is, in fact, nonsense.

Baurak, if you can come up with something more substantive than tinfoil hat theories (or thinly veiled scenes from the movie Ghostbusters), I would be very interested in evidence supporting your presumption.

Truth be told, what you have provided sounds very much like the scene where Venkman is trying to seduce the blond chick with a rigged clairvoiyance test (and drive away the other participant with electric shocks).

This strikes me as about as credible as the alien lizards secretly controlling the world from their tunnels beneath Salt Lake City.

Link to comment
I know Carol Lynn...lived in Walnut Creek while going to Cal, and have had many conversations with her since then. I'm not aware of her "blaming the church" for anything.

So . . . that bit about wishing that homosexually inclined youth should grab up their souls & hie their heinies out of the Church as fast as their little Birkenstock's can carry them rather than be hounded into a life of self-loathing ending in justified suicide was just a little hiccup?

Link to comment

She certainly had sympathy for a dying man, and the father of her children. I don't see how anybody can consider that "misplaced."

Sometimes reading through a thread can get your head so twisted as to where the questions meet up with the answers, I sometimes don't know how to answer or even what to answer. :P

However, one thing is for sure. She apostatized and used her husband's preferences of life style as a beginning place to criticize and leave the church.

Link to comment

No. I suspect some of the iron rods on here claim she has "in spirit," since she is outspoken about her views regarding the church's stance on homosexuality, but she is still an active member.

So, some of those who are the most protective of Priesthood authority and hierarchy take it upon themselves to pronounce "apostate" status on an active member when church leadership has not?

Link to comment

So, some of those who are the most protective of Priesthood authority and hierarchy take it upon themselves to pronounce "apostate" status on an active member when church leadership has not?

So we should wait until the Church court to isolate our children from an accused drug dealer even when we've seen them with the crack pipe?

Pearson has publically and repeatedly criticized the leadership of the Church and advocated people renouncing their membership.

Do I need for her to sew a scarlet "A" on her forehead before discounting her advocacy and agenda?

There is a profound difference between condemning someone to Hell (which I'm not ready to do in Pearson's case) and acknowledging the positions, agendas, and statements she herself has made.

Link to comment

That's exactly what you are doing by calling her an apostate.

There is a difference between being an apostate and a <daughter> of perdition.

Given her stances, I believe Pearson is the former. It's up to God to determine whether she's the latter.

And for all the mock outrage, niether you, nor Ric, nor Lamanite, nor Daniel has been able to address the meat of my CFR.

Keep clouding the issue with your impassioned defenses of poor, imperiled, Pearson- but it doesn't change that basic fact, nor the fact that her positions are in direct contrast to those announced by Prophets of God.

Link to comment

And it's up to the CHURCH to determine if she is even an apostate!

So you do believe I should wait for the scarlet "A".

I should continue to allow the drug dealer to associate with my children until after the Church court gets done with him?

Very, very, enlightening, Katie.

Link to comment

So you do believe I should wait for the scarlet "A".

I should continue to allow the drug dealer to associate with my children until after the Church court gets done with him?

Very, very, enlightening, Katie.

You are being ridiculous. I find it hard to believe that Carol Lynn Pearson is cruising your children's school in order to get them addicted to her literature on homosexuality.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

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

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