Carol Lynn Pearson And The New Church Pamphlet

[selek]

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.

No, but she is publically attacking the Church's stance on homosexuality.

She may not be doing it in the schoolyard, but she is publically peddling an agenda directly contrary to the laws of God and the teachings of the Church.

And all of your sophistry hasn't been able to cloud that point.

[katherine the great]

No, but she is publically attacking the Church's stance on homosexuality.

She may not be doing it in the schoolyard, but she is publically peddling an agenda directly contrary to the laws of God and the teachings of the Church.

And all of your sophistry hasn't been able to cloud that point.

What sophistry? I'm merely pointing out the irony of you calling her an apostate! It is the job of the church leaders to decide if a member is an apostate-not you. Her perceived crime is against them, and so far, they don't seem to as worried about it as you are. You accuse her of making herself judge and jury, well, that is exactly what you are now doing.

[Zoidberg]

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.

Pahoran, I am amazed you drew this conclusion from Daniel's post. However, I am beginning to think that he was probably right when he said that YOU are the one who does not allow the possibility of the LDS Church ever being wrong or not making sense in the treatment of gay people.

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.

I'll even do bullet points. And provide links to lds.org whenever possible. All the emphasis will be added by me.

*"Prophets anciently and today condemn masturbation. It induces feelings of guilt and shame. It is detrimental to spirituality. It indicates slavery to the flesh, not that mastery of it and the growth toward godhood which is the object of our mortal life. Our modern prophet has indicated that no young man should be called on a mission who is not free from this practice. What is more, it too often leads to grievous sin, even to that sin against nature, homosexuality." Spencer W. Kimball, Miracle of Forgiveness. How is this not nonsense? I like Occam's razor, too. Show me what basis he had for making the assumption that masturbation leads to homosexuality? He goes on to talk about mutual masturbation with the person of the same sex. Show me how one's masturbation in private leads to mutual masturbation with a person of the same sex, or what basis he had for making this assumption.

*"Today we are aware of great problems in our society. The most obvious are sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, drug abuse, alcoholism, vandalism, pornography, and violence.

These grave problems are symptoms of failure in the home - the disregarding of principles and practices established by God in the very beginning." Ezra Taft Benson http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem..._&hideNav=1

Please tell me what his basis is for the assumption that homosexuality has anything to do with any kind of failure in the home, or, even more specifically, is symptomatic of the failure in the home? So if there is no failure in the home, there is a 100% guarantee that no gay people will grow up in that home? Or does he allow for the possibility that homosexuality could be a symptom of something other than a failure at the home, as well? If he does, one has to twist one's brain pretty hard to arrive at this conclusion.

*"There is some widely accepted theory extant that homosexuality is inherited. How can this be? No scientific evidence demonstrates absolutely that this is so." - James E. Faust http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menu...0004d82620a____

I can see what his basis is here for stating that homosexuality CANNOT be inherited. Why, there is no absolute proof that it is! I would like to see his answer to someone who would apply similar logic to the existence of God, or, even better, to the "trueness" of the LDS Church.

As much as I respect past and present GAs, their statements are often full of unfounded assumptions and logical fallacies. And your outright refusal to accept this fact does not negate it. Feel free to contribute to my list, everybody.

[captain-jack]

What sophistry? I'm merely pointing out the irony of you calling her an apostate! It is the job of the church leaders to decide if a member is an apostate-not you. Her perceived crime is against them, and so far, they don't seem to as worried about it as you are. You accuse her of making herself judge and jury, well, that is exactly what you are now doing.

If someone is smoking marijuana, do you wait for the police to say they are a drug user? Though selek may get a bit zealous at times, his point still stands. She is calling for a change that is against what scriptures teach. Though anyone feeling or practicing homosexuality should be loved the same, the Church has made it's stance on this teaching, it shouldn't change.

[katherine the great]

If someone is smoking marijuana, do you wait for the police to say they are a drug user? Though selek may get a bit zealous at times, his point still stands. She is calling for a change that is against what scriptures teach. Though anyone feeling or practicing homosexuality should be loved the same, the Church has made it's stance on this teaching, it shouldn't change.

Apostate has no legal meaning. It is specifically a crime against the church and can only be bestowed by the church. Maybe the church will take action against her. I'm actually kind of surprised that they haven't, but if she is still an active member in good standing, it is morally wrong to publicly pronounce her an apostate!

[captain-jack]

Apostate has no legal meaning. It is specifically a crime against the church and can only be bestowed by the church. Maybe the church will take action against her. I'm actually kind of surprised that they haven't, but if she is still an active member in good standing, it is morally wrong to publicly pronounce her an apostate!

While I agree that it is up to the Church and I'll keep my thoughts to myself for that matter, but still, just trying to show the point. Someone using illicit drugs is still doing something illegal. You may be able to tell the police, but ultimately it is up to the judicial system to do anything or label them a drug user. You still know they are a drug user in the mean time.

That is not to say we all should know that Miss Pearson is an apostate, but if it quacks like a duck your first thought usually is, "it's a duck".

I'd also like to note that her feelings of wanting to accept anyone no matter their sin I see as highly noble, I just draw the line at accepting the person and not the sin.

[LDSBruin]

*"Prophets anciently and today condemn masturbation. It induces feelings of guilt and shame. It is detrimental to spirituality. It indicates slavery to the flesh, not that mastery of it and the growth toward godhood which is the object of our mortal life. Our modern prophet has indicated that no young man should be called on a mission who is not free from this practice. What is more, it too often leads to grievous sin, even to that sin against nature, homosexuality." Spencer W. Kimball, Miracle of Forgiveness. How is this not nonsense? I like Occam's razor, too. Show me what basis he had for making the assumption that masturbation leads to homosexuality? He goes on to talk about mutual masturbation with the person of the same sex. Show me how one's masturbation in private leads to mutual masturbation with a person of the same sex, or what basis he had for making this assumption.

First, this is not official church doctrine. He did not write this as a prophet. Second, he says "too often leads", I don't see that as an overly strong statement.

*"Today we are aware of great problems in our society. The most obvious are sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, drug abuse, alcoholism, vandalism, pornography, and violence.

These grave problems are symptoms of failure in the home - the disregarding of principles and practices established by God in the very beginning." Ezra Taft Benson http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem..._&hideNav=1

Please tell me what his basis is for the assumption that homosexuality has anything to do with any kind of failure in the home, or, even more specifically, is symptomatic of the failure in the home? So if there is no failure in the home, there is a 100% guarantee that no gay people will grow up in that home? Or does he allow for the possibility that homosexuality could be a symptom of something other than a failure at the home, as well? If he does, one has to twist one's brain pretty hard to arrive at this conclusion.

In the Church's opinion homosexuality is a behavior, not a character defining attribute. The brethren have stated this over and over. I'm pretty sure this statement was in reference to the behavior and yes, this behavior is symptomatic of failure in the home. The Church's position has always been against the behavior, no change here.

*"There is some widely accepted theory extant that homosexuality is inherited. How can this be? No scientific evidence demonstrates absolutely that this is so." - James E. Faust http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menu...0004d82620a____

I can see what his basis is here for stating that homosexuality CANNOT be inherited. Why, there is no absolute proof that it is! I would like to see his answer to someone who would apply similar logic to the existence of God, or, even better, to the "trueness" of the LDS Church.

As much as I respect past and present GAs, their statement are often full of unfounded assumptions and logical fallacies. And your outright refusal to accept this fact does not negate it. Feel free to contribute to my list, everybody.

The church does not deal in proving anything. FARMS may make attempts at it, but they are not the church. If you believe the church you can choose to follow it, but the church has no need of coming up with scientific proof to teach a true principle.

[Zoidberg]

First, this is not official church doctrine. He did not write this as a prophet. Second, he says "too often leads", I don't see that as an overly strong statement.

What was his basis for making an assumption it EVER leads to homosexual behavior? If homosexual BEHAVIOR is, in fact, what he meant. It seems to me that he was saying that homoerotic behavior (playing with you best friend's junk) influences the person to decide they are gay.

In the Church's opinion homosexuality is a behavior, not a character defining attribute. The brethren have stated this over and over. I'm pretty sure this statement was in reference to the behavior and yes, this behavior is symptomatic of failure in the home. The Church's position has always been against the behavior, no change here.

Okay, then. So if there is no failure in the home, there may be a child raised in that home who will feel same-gender attraction, but never, ever act on it? A child who is raised in a failureless (I'm making up words) home will NEVER, EVER have gay sex? And if they do, it means that gay sex could be a symptom of something else, not necessarily a failure in the home?

The church does not deal in proving anything. FARMS may make attempts at it, but they are not the church. If you believe the church you can choose to follow it, but the church has no need of coming up with scientific proof to teach a true principle.

Yet it's perfectly okay for them to make unfounded statements or use logical fallacies. If Elder Faust says something that sounds like a logical fallacy, this must mean that he is right and logic is wrong.

Edited: Do we have any doctrinal statements on what constitutes Church doctrine? Or when one is "teaching"? Selek was asking for examples of Church leadership teaching nonsense. I gave him some. Yes, I assume SWK is TEACHING in the Miracle of Forgiveness. He was also in the Church leadership. If you want to debate the meaning of the word "teaching", we can do that.

[LDSBruin]

What was his basis for making an assumption it EVER leads to homosexual behavior? If homosexual BEHAVIOR is, in fact, what he meant. It seems to me that he was saying that homoerotic behavior (playing with you best friend's junk) influences the person to decide they are gay.

Do you honestly think that there aren't any "gay" people who are that way because it was simply the next step in sexual deviance? I'm not saying all gay people have arrived in this manner, but I am saying that SWK's statement that it "too often" leads to "other" problems EVEN homosexuality is really not that strong.

To clarify, what precisely are you trying to argue? That SWK is wrong? or what the Church's policy is on gays? (the most recent sidetrack in this thread).

Okay, then. So if there is no failure in the home, there may be a child raised in that home who will feel same-gender attraction, but never, ever act on it? A child who is raised in a failureless (I'm making up words) home will NEVER, EVER have gay sex? And if they do, it means that gay sex could be a symptom of something else, not necessarily a failure in the home?

I don't think homosexual behavior is impossible with good parenting. The quote you cite said it was a symptom, not a guarantee. I think that good parenting will very likely help a person stay away from such behavior, but obviously everyone has moral agency.

Yet it's perfectly okay for them to make unfounded statements or use logical fallacies. If Elder Faust says something that sounds like a logical fallacy, this must mean that he is right and logic is wrong.

What was unfounded in his statement? There is NO foundation for inherited homosexuality. Elder Faust was correct. You say his conclusion is inappropriate since the lack of evidence is not itself evidence, but all he said was "How can this be? No scientific evidence demonstrates absolutely that this is so." He was debunking the popular belief that it is so, not stating proof that it isn't.

[BishopRic]

Do you honestly think that there aren't any "gay" people who are that way because it was simply the next step in sexual deviance?

Yes, I don't see any connection between homosexuality and sexual deviance.

I'm not saying all gay people have arrived in this manner, but I am saying that SWK's statement that it "too often" leads to "other" problems EVEN homosexuality is really not that strong.

I think Pres. Kimball did the best he could with what awareness he had at the time. I don't think you will hear modern leaders of any religion who read good medical journals say many of these things about the cause of homosexuality. All good studies today indicate a biological basis (probably increased testosterone levels in utero) for homosexuality. This isn't "hereditary." Why it happens for some and not others is still not understood.

I don't think homosexual behavior is impossible with good parenting. The quote you cite said it was a symptom, not a guarantee. I think that good parenting will very likely help a person stay away from such behavior, but obviously everyone has moral agency.

No studies show anything to indicate this. Because the cause is biological, how could "good parenting" have anything to do with it? If I as a heterosexual male had totally amazing and loving parents, that taught me that I should be attracted to other males, I'm quite sure I would still be attracted to females.

What was unfounded in his statement? There is NO foundation for inherited homosexuality.

See above. Even Professor Bradshaw of BYU understands this:

http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/49488

[selek]

Pahoran, I am amazed you drew this conclusion from Daniel's post.

It's not merely from Daniel's post, but from his long-time advocacy on this issue. You might want to review the history and personalities involved rather than merely cheerleading the side you agree with.

*"Prophets anciently and today condemn masturbation. It induces feelings of guilt and shame. It is detrimental to spirituality. It indicates slavery to the flesh, not that mastery of it and the growth toward godhood which is the object of our mortal life. Our modern prophet has indicated that no young man should be called on a mission who is not free from this practice. What is more, it too often leads to grievous sin, even to that sin against nature, homosexuality."

Spencer W. Kimball, Miracle of Forgiveness. How is this not nonsense?

How is it nonsense, Zoid? We've seen problems with pornography and other carnal lusts spin out of control. Wasn't "sexual addiction" the cop-out used by a recent president?

Indulging in one sin very often leads to another. Even George Carlin (no friend to the Saints) has commented on this.

I like Occam's razor, too. Show me what basis he had for making the assumption that masturbation leads to homosexuality? He goes on to talk about mutual masturbation with the person of the same sex. Show me how one's masturbation in private leads to mutual masturbation with a person of the same sex, or what basis he had for making this assumption.

What would it take to prove it? A single case. What would it take to disprove it? A heck of a lot more- specifically, that it has never happened in the history of human sexuality. On which side does Occam's razor fall, Zoid? Again, we (and he) are talking about actions, not inclinations.

*"Today we are aware of great problems in our society. The most obvious are sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, drug abuse, alcoholism, vandalism, pornography, and violence.

These grave problems are symptoms of failure in the home - the disregarding of principles and practices established by God in the very beginning." Ezra Taft Benson

Please tell me what his basis is for the assumption that homosexuality has anything to do with any kind of failure in the home, or, even more specifically, is symptomatic of the failure in the home?

President Benson himself answered this one, but you chose to ignore it:

Children need to know who they are in the eternal sense of their identity. They need to know that they have an eternal Heavenly Father on whom they can rely, to whom they can pray, and from whom they can receive guidance. They need to know from whence they came so that their lives will have meaning and purpose.

Children must be taught to pray, to rely on the Lord for guidance, and to express appreciation for the blessings that are theirs. I recall kneeling at the bedsides of our young children, helping them with their prayers.

Children must be taught right from wrong. They can and must learn the commandments of God.

That is the very distinction which you and Sister Pearson, with the best of intentions and the worst of arrogances, are trying to blur. You yourself have argued on these boards that sexual deviancy should be tolerated (though you've thus far refrained from demanding acceptance) for fear of alienating those engaged in it. President Benson is far less circumspect: Children must be taught right from wrong and they must learn the commandments of God. Nearly all of our societal ills can be traced to an increased permissivenes towards license and deviancy in our homes and our culture at large.

So if there is no failure in the home, there is a 100% guarantee that no gay people will grow up in that home? Or does he allow for the possibility that homosexuality could be a symptom of something other than a failure at the home, as well? If he does, one has to twist one's brain pretty hard to arrive at this conclusion.

This is a beautifully constructed strawman, but nothing more. So long as there is human agency, neither the Church nor the Savior gives any guarantees about the conduct of another person. President Benson is specific: we are judged by our stewardship. We are not guaranteed that we will never have adversity or temptation merely because we follow the commandments.

You will also note from other conversations on these boards that the Church draws a sharp distinction between homosexual behavior and temptations.

*"There is some widely accepted theory extant that homosexuality is inherited. How can this be? No scientific evidence demonstrates absolutely that this is so." - James E. Faust http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menu...0004d82620a____

I can see what his basis is here for stating that homosexuality CANNOT be inherited. Why, there is no absolute proof that it is! I would like to see his answer to someone who would apply similar logic to the existence of God, or, even better, to the "trueness" of the LDS Church.

Another beautiful strawman- clearly you've missed your calling in life. The best scientific evidence currently available indicates that there may (as in might) be genetic or environmental predispositions towards homosexual behavior. There is, however, no credible evidence however that homosexuality is an inherited trait.

Again, homosexual behavior is an action. However much they may be inclined or predisposed, those who practice it choose to engage in that behavior. They still retain their agency, and may choose to abstain.

As much as I respect past and present GAs, their statements are often full of unfounded assumptions and logical fallacies. And your outright refusal to accept this fact does not negate it. Feel free to contribute to my list, everybody.

And as much as you refuse to acknowledge it, you have yet to demonstrate that any of these positions taught by the GA's is inherently nonsensical. You may not like the interpretation, but that doesn't mean the position itself is nonsense.

[selek]

Yes, I don't see any connection between homosexuality and sexual deviance.

You conveniently ignore the fact that homosexuality is by definition, sexual deviancy- a specific departure from the norms of society and that is specifically condemned by God.

I think Pres. Kimball did the best he could with what awareness he had at the time. I don't think you will hear modern leaders of any religion who read good medical journals say many of these things about the cause of homosexuality. All good studies today indicate a biological basis (probably increased testosterone levels in utero) for homosexuality. This isn't "hereditary." Why it happens for some and not others is still not understood.

Again, the best current scientific understanding points toward predispositions rather than causes.

No studies show anything to indicate this. Because the cause is biological, how could "good parenting" have anything to do with it? If I as a heterosexual male had totally amazing and loving parents, that taught me that I should be attracted to other males, I'm quite sure I would still be attracted to females.

Again, the distinction is between predispositions and actions. Having been taught the law of God and the consequences, you still have to choose which behaviors you engage in.

[Obiwan]

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

I would actually like to know, other than the obvious "trials" involved, WHY the councel to go ahead and marry (which is doing the right thing in the end) is somehow wrong or bad? I have a strong attraction for asians much more so than other races, but does that mean I shouldn't have married my caucasion wife? Or, what if I had a strong attraction for sex with other women, or pure girls, or little girls, boy's, etc. Or what if I liked animals? Does all that mean I shouldn't marry in the right and natural way, strive to control my natural impulses (that I've had from birth like you all say), or to simply do the right and good thing despite my weaknesses and sins???

Please tell us.....

You see, in the end, the justification by people who are attracted to the same sex (or whatever) ultimately falls. Yes, God and your environment made you that way. Since, that is your CROSS, does that mean you should stop and not even try to do the RIGHT and GOOD and NATURAL thing? Does that mean you should not have to learn to fully rely on the blood of Christ to cleans and heal you? That is the problem with the "gay movement" especially in the Church. It is in direct conflict with the entire Key Principle of the Restored Gospel and the Purpose of life. Remember the old saying? "The Church exists to make bad men good and good men better."

A LOT of people have their own private crosses, but that doesn't mean we should just "give in" to them.

Homosexuality, as well as a lot of other devient behaviors (out of the norm) are simply not of God. And everyone who has them will tell you they've had those feelings and thoughts as far back as they can remember, as well as those who development them later for whatever reason or cause. The same exists with homosexuals, etc. There are all kinds of levels and all kinds of causes.

So, you anti-God's laws people, humble yourselves and repent.... and do so until the day you die if you have too. That is your cross. But, you can be healed if you really have the faith too. God can work miracles.

[Zoidberg]

Do you honestly think that there aren't any "gay" people who are that way because it was simply the next step in sexual deviance? I'm not saying all gay people have arrived in this manner, but I am saying that SWK's statement that it "too often" leads to "other" problems EVEN homosexuality is really not that strong.

To clarify, what precisely are you trying to argue? That SWK is wrong? or what the Church's policy is on gays? (the most recent sidetrack in this thread).

Hmm, I think that the Current Church's policy on gays can probably be best summed up in saying that having gay sex makes one subject to Church discipline. I am not trying to argue anything. Selek was asking for nonsensical teachings of the Church leadership, which I provided for him. Now let's move on on whether or nor SWK is wrong. Me arguing that he was wrong in saying that there is any causation between masturbation and homosexuality would be like arguing that there is no Santa Claus. SWK was talking nonsense because he didn't have any evidence to base his statements on to begin with. You already know that lack of evidence is not itself evidence. Good. So he obviously lacks evidence. I, on the other hand, do not have 100% certainty that there has never lived a person whose masturbation lead him/her to homosexuality. So I can't disprove his claim. Just like you can't disprove the existence of Santa Claus. Which does not mean that Santa Claus isn't nonsense.

I don't think homosexual behavior is impossible with good parenting. The quote you cite said it was a symptom, not a guarantee. I think that good parenting will very likely help a person stay away from such behavior, but obviously everyone has moral agency.

Like I have already said, one has to twist one's brain really hard to take his statement this way. We can't discern what he meant to say, unfortunately. The only way this quote would not be nonsense is if he meant overlapping symptoms (fatigue can be a symptom of a physical disease, but also of depression; or if you have both a certain physical disease and depression, fatigue could simultaneously be a symptom of both). However, I doubt that he was thinking about this analogy on such a deep level. If he meant to say that homosexuality is symptomatic only of the failure in the home, that means that you can have failure in the home without homosexuality, but you CAN'T have homosexuality without failure in the home. Which is nonsense. '

What was unfounded in his statement? There is NO foundation for inherited homosexuality. Elder Faust was correct. You say his conclusion is inappropriate since the lack of evidence is not itself evidence, but all he said was "How can this be? No scientific evidence demonstrates absolutely that this is so." He was debunking the popular belief that it is so, not stating proof that it isn't.

Well, how else are you interpreting "How can this be"? You don't think he was saying "I don't know how this can be, so I'd appreciate it if someone showed me how"? "How can this be?" means "It can't be". You don't seriously think he was asking "How can this be that a theory is extant that homosexuality is inherited?" or "How can this be that a theory that homosexuality is inherited is widely accepted?", do you? And I know that he was right in saying that no scientific evidence absolutely demonstrates that homosexuality is inherited. The theory that homosexuality is inherited makes at least (I think more, but that's irrelevant) as much sense as the theory that it is socialized, or the theory that both factors are necessary in order for one to become a homosexual (which also makes sense, IMHO, but that's irrelevant), so why would he wonder how such a theory could exist? Or be widely accepted? here's the whole paragraph:

There is some widely accepted theory extant that homosexuality is inherited. How can this be? No scientific evidence demonstrates absolutely that this is so. Besides, if it were so, it would frustrate the whole plan of mortal happiness. Our designation as men or women began before this world was. In contrast to the socially accepted doctrine that homosexuality is inborn, a number of respectable authorities contend that homosexuality is not acquired by birth. The false belief of inborn homosexual orientation denies to repentant souls the opportunity to change and will ultimately lead to discouragement, disappointment, and despair.

Let's take a giant leap and assume he really meant "How can this be that such a theory exists or is widely accepted?". Saying that a theory should not exist or be widely accepted (the belief that homosexuality is not inborn is pretty widely accepted, too) just because "a number of respectable authorities contend that homosexuality is not acquired by birth" is also nonsense. A larger number of respectable authorities contend that there are genetic influences, and that's why it's widely accepted. I still think it's obvious that he meant "homosexuality is not inherited" by "How can this be?", but in either case, it is nonsense.

[selek]

Hmm, I think that the Current Church's policy on gays can probably be best summed up in saying that having gay sex makes one subject to Church discipline. I am not trying to argue anything. Selek was asking for nonsensical teachings of the Church leadership, which I provided for him. Now let's move on on whether or nor SWK is wrong. Me arguing that he was wrong in saying that there is any causation between masturbation and homosexuality would be like arguing that there is no Santa Claus. SWK was talking nonsense because he didn't have any evidence to base his statements on to begin with. You already know that lack of evidence is not itself evidence. Good. So he obviously lacks evidence. I, on the other hand, do not have 100% certainty that there has never lived a person whose masturbation lead him/her to homosexuality. So I can't disprove his claim. Just like you can't disprove the existence of Santa Claus. Which does not mean that Santa Claus isn't nonsense.

Like I have already said, one has to twist one's brain really hard to take his statement this way. We can't discern what he meant to say, unfortunately. The only way this quote would not be nonsense is if he meant overlapping symptoms (fatigue can be a symptom of a physical disease, but also of depression; or if you have both a certain physical disease and depression, fatigue could simultaneously be a symptom of both). However, I doubt that he was thinking about this analogy on such a deep level. If he meant to say that homosexuality is symptomatic only of the failure in the home, that means that you can have failure in the home without homosexuality, but you CAN'T have homosexuality without failure in the home. Which is nonsense. '

Well, how else are you interpreting "How can this be"? You don't think he was saying "I don't know how this can be, so I'd appreciate it if someone showed me how"? "How can this be?" means "It can't be". You don't seriously think he was asking "How can this be that a theory is extant that homosexuality is inherited?" or "How can this be that a theory that homosexuality is inherited is widely accepted?", do you? And I know that he was right in saying that no scientific evidence absolutely demonstrates that homosexuality is inherited. The theory that homosexuality is inherited makes at least (I think more, but that's irrelevant) as much sense as the theory that it is socialized, or the theory that both factors are necessary in order for one to become a homosexual (which also makes sense, IMHO, but that's irrelevant), so why would he wonder how such a theory could exist? Or be widely accepted? here's the whole paragraph:

There is some widely accepted theory extant that homosexuality is inherited. How can this be? No scientific evidence demonstrates absolutely that this is so. Besides, if it were so, it would frustrate the whole plan of mortal happiness. Our designation as men or women began before this world was. In contrast to the socially accepted doctrine that homosexuality is inborn, a number of respectable authorities contend that homosexuality is not acquired by birth. The false belief of inborn homosexual orientation denies to repentant souls the opportunity to change and will ultimately lead to discouragement, disappointment, and despair.

Let's take a giant leap and assume he really meant "How can this be that such a theory exists or is widely accepted?". Saying that a theory should not exist or be widely accepted (the belief that homosexuality is not inborn is pretty widely accepted, too) just because "a number of respectable authorities contend that homosexuality is not acquired by birth" is also nonsense. A larger number of respectable authorities contend that there are genetic influences, and that's why it's widely accepted. I still think it's obvious that he meant "homosexuality is not inherited" by "How can this be?", but in either case, it is nonsense.

In other words, you can't support your position, so you'll just repeat it from the top and hope no one notices.

[Zoidberg]

I gotta go. Someone please explain to selek how Occam's razor works. It's for his own good.

[selek]

I gotta go. Someone please explain to selek how Occam's razor works. It's for his own good.

I'm quite well aware, thank you.

It is a philosophical exercise or logical construct that posits that simple explanations are far more likely than complex ones.

Which is more likely: At least one instance in the entire history of human sexuality of mutual masturbation exercises leading to other homosexual practices,

---or---

No single instance of mutual masturbation exercises leading to other homosexual practices at any point in the entire history of human sexuality.

In this instance, Occam's Razor does not support your rather silly hypothetical, nor your continuing agenda.

Thank you for playing.

[LDSBruin]

Yes, I don't see any connection between homosexuality and sexual deviance.

If you don't think sexual deviance can lead to experimenting with homosexuality we'll have to disagree. I'm not saying it has to, just like smoking pot doesn't have to lead to smoking crack. I don't think SWK said anything stronger than that either.

I think Pres. Kimball did the best he could with what awareness he had at the time. I don't think you will hear modern leaders of any religion who read good medical journals say many of these things about the cause of homosexuality. All good studies today indicate a biological basis (probably increased testosterone levels in utero) for homosexuality. This isn't "hereditary." Why it happens for some and not others is still not understood.

I agree there are biological factors in many maybe even most cases but that there are emotional/environmental in others.

No studies show anything to indicate this. Because the cause is biological, how could "good parenting" have anything to do with it? If I as a heterosexual male had totally amazing and loving parents, that taught me that I should be attracted to other males, I'm quite sure I would still be attracted to females.

I was speaking of acting on such behavior. As an example, I have a strong tendency towards anger and a short temper, however, my parents taught me to control it, and I responded to their guidance (for the most part). The church wouldn't condemn me for having a short temper, but they would if I didn't control it and abused someone.

See above. Even Professor Bradshaw of BYU understands this:

http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/49488

I'm not questioning if there is biological connection. The question is if it's hereditary. Elder Faust pointed out that many people think that it is, whereas there is not (at the time of his quote at least) evidence that it is.

[LDSBruin]

I, on the other hand, do not have 100% certainty that there has never lived a person whose masturbation lead him/her to homosexuality. So I can't disprove his claim. Just like you can't disprove the existence of Santa Claus. Which does not mean that Santa Claus isn't nonsense.

Hmm. I don't think SWK was trying to say it's a guaranteed transistion, just that it is a dangerous possibility. Based on my human experience I agree. I do not have proof. However, the difference between the degrees of incredulity of believing masturbation may lead to other sexual deviance and that Santa Claus exist are in no way comparable.

you CAN'T have homosexuality without failure in the home. Which is nonsense. '

I definitely do not read it that way. The quote is talking about society as a whole if I'm not mistaken? Pointing out that the rampant murder, adultery and homosexual behavior are symptoms of failure at home is not a claim that anyone with a homosexual son is individually a failure.

There is some widely accepted theory extant that homosexuality is inherited. How can this be? No scientific evidence demonstrates absolutely that this is so. Besides, if it were so, it would frustrate the whole plan of mortal happiness. Our designation as men or women began before this world was. In contrast to the socially accepted doctrine that homosexuality is inborn, a number of respectable authorities contend that homosexuality is not acquired by birth. The false belief of inborn homosexual orientation denies to repentant souls the opportunity to change and will ultimately lead to discouragement, disappointment, and despair.

On reading the whole quote, I'll concede that he was in fact implying that it is not only unsupported by science, but should definitely be false.

[BishopRic]

If you don't think sexual deviance can lead to experimenting with homosexuality we'll have to disagree.

I guess so...and of course it depends on how you define "sexual deviance." By what was said earlier, I assume you might include masturbation in that category. I'm quite certain masturbation has nothing to do with homosexuality, nor leads to it in any way.

I'm not saying it has to, just like smoking pot doesn't have to lead to smoking crack. I don't think SWK said anything stronger than that either.

I agree there are biological factors in many maybe even most cases but that there are emotional/environmental in others.

Current research is indicating that if there is higher than average testosterone levels in the uterus during gestation, there is the biological predisposition to homosexuality. The logical conclusion is that those with only slightly higher levels may have more of an ability to lead a heterosexual life, and those with more, a greater challenge doing such.

I was speaking of acting on such behavior. As an example, I have a strong tendency towards anger and a short temper, however, my parents taught me to control it, and I responded to their guidance (for the most part). The church wouldn't condemn me for having a short temper, but they would if I didn't control it and abused someone.

A common comparison...but I would submit that the biological urges for love and affection are much stronger than those towards a little temper tantrum. Some would say it is evolutionary.

In Carol Lynn's play "Facing East," a more appropriate metaphor was given of a tree: "You are a beautiful tree, but that blossoming thing you do in the spring...well, we just can't have that!"

For us "straights," perhaps it is not too much challenge to ask us to wait until marriage to "partake" of intimacy. To tell us "you may never experience romantic intimacy in this life" is unreasonable for most, IMO.

I'm not questioning if there is biological connection. The question is if it's hereditary. Elder Faust pointed out that many people think that it is, whereas there is not (at the time of his quote at least) evidence that it is.

At the time of the quote, there was no understanding of the uterine environmental factor, which is "biological" but not hereditary. He appears to have spoken in terms understood at the time. The point is, it is not a voluntary trait. We are born with it.

On reading the whole quote, I'll concede that he was in fact implying that it is not only unsupported by science, but should definitely be false.

And I think he was wrong.

[selek]

And I think he was wrong.

And you are entitled to your opinion- but that doesn't make the Church's position wrong, let alone "nonsense."

[LDSBruin]

I guess so...and of course it depends on how you define "sexual deviance." By what was said earlier, I assume you might include masturbation in that category. I'm quite certain masturbation has nothing to do with homosexuality, nor leads to it in any way.

I think the desire to find increasingly exciting sources of sexual pleasure is well documented for those with addictive tendencies. Masturbation is an easy starting point for such people. I think SWK was wise in his counsel.

Current research is indicating that if there is higher than average testosterone levels in the uterus during gestation, there is the biological predisposition to homosexuality. The logical conclusion is that those with only slightly higher levels may have more of an ability to lead a heterosexual life, and those with more, a greater challenge doing such.

Sounds fair enough. I'm a big believer that people are much more prone to tendencies than undeniable urges. I have more of a tendency to put on weight than my wife, but I have a choice in the matter.

A common comparison...but I would submit that the biological urges for love and affection are much stronger than those towards a little temper tantrum. Some would say it is evolutionary.

Condescending terms like "little temper tantrum" hardly reduce the seriousness of anger management. If you think it's a small matter that is easily controlled, look up statistics on abuse in our nation.

In Carol Lynn's play "Facing East," a more appropriate metaphor was given of a tree: "You are a beautiful tree, but that blossoming thing you do in the spring...well, we just can't have that!"

For us "straights," perhaps it is not too much challenge to ask us to wait until marriage to "partake" of intimacy. To tell us "you may never experience romantic intimacy in this life" is unreasonable for most, IMO.

Yet, that is exactly what the church teaches for those who are single (a very large percent, 1/3 of adults in the church are single according to the last first presidency message). So you have to admit, at least the church is consistent.

[T-Shirt]

I, on the other hand, do not have 100% certainty that there has never lived a person whose masturbation lead him/her to homosexuality. So I can't disprove his claim.

Here, I will help you:

One young man, struggling with homosexuality, stated that his first sexual experience took place with some cousins when he was six years old. Whenever they camped or slept out, their activities included masturbation and oral stimulation. By the time he was eighteen, he had had numerous such experiences. As an adult he was confused about his sexual orientation because of these early experiences, and he was able to resolve his feelings only after a great struggle.

(A. Lynn Scoresby, Bringing Up Moral Children [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1989], 109.)

Now you can, truthfully, say that there is evidence for what SWK said.

T-Shirt

[Lamanite]

sorry, I've been off the grid for a minute and need to catch up. I know, I know, bad form- but what can you do?

[Zoidberg]

I'm quite well aware, thank you.

It is a philosophical exercise or logical construct that posits that simple explanations are far more likely than complex ones.

*Sigh* That's what I thought. Your understanding is an oversimplification that is simply wrong. Here, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor#In_science

Hopefully, the top part will be sufficient to make you realize that your current understanding of the razor is wrong. If not, keep reading. It's crucial to the understanding of why my examples are valid. If you've read the whole article and still don't think your current understanding of the razor is wrong, come back and I'll try to explain it to you myself. Because I'm nice like that