Carol Lynn Pearson And The New Church Pamphlet

[Lamanite]

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.

CFR, are you kidding me. I thought this was common knowledge. Let me get through the rest of this thread and then I will attempt to help you for your eyes are obviously not yet opened.

[Lamanite]

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

It's my understanding that Carol Lynn has not apostatized and still confesses Jesus Christ as her personal Savior and is involved and loves the Mormon Church.

Mormon author Carol Lynn exresses her love for Mormondom

[Lamanite]

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

Pahoran,

You're second and third paragraph contradict each other. Which is it? Which ever the answer you lose. I say that only because the sin of homosexuality was grossly mistreated and the proposed solutions ran the gamut from silly to abuse.

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

wrong. and your flippant treatment of a man's death and his ex wife's pains are disgusting.

[Lamanite]

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

I think this paragraph hits the mark!

[Lamanite]

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.

The logic behind this statements is laughable. I thought this board was for adults seeking to discuss complex ideas, problems, and associated emotions. Obviously this is impossible for those who are beyond orthodoxy and have reached the Grand Title of Zealots. (You may want to check the BoM on Zealots because it has some things to say about this.)

[Lamanite]

Ric, Daniel, and Lamanite:

Inasmuch as she agrees with your agenda, you laud her.

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.

Inasmuch as there should be a documented source for all actions taken by the Church please provide the First Presidency proclamation ordering the MMM.

Thanks

PS. What is my agenda?

[Lamanite]

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.

Thanks, I'm glad someone besides me, you, and apparently her bishop don't think she's apostatized.

[Lamanite]

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.

This is the philosphies of men mingled with scripture at its finest. Notice the Bible's teaching as it relates to judgments.

Mat 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

You're on a slippery slope.

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.

You're call for CFR does not make the histories of Gays and Lesbians in the Church disappear.

At this point just give me a list of what would be acceptable besides First Presidency Proclamation and we'll go from there.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

You're second and third paragraph contradict each other. Which is it? Which ever the answer you lose. I say that only because the sin of homosexuality was grossly mistreated and the proposed solutions ran the gamut from silly to abuse.

Here's a suggestion: instead of throwing out blanket judgements, how about you substantiate your assertions?

To begin with, please point out where my second and third paragraphs contradict each other. Mere assertion does not make an argument.

wrong.

How? Cheering for your fellow activist's defeated argument doesn't cut it.

and your flippant treatment of a man's death and his ex wife's pains are disgusting.

Get over it. He died of a self-inflicted wound, and was the actual source of his ex-wife's pains. Her compassion towards him was admirable, but it seems that she was ultimately unable to forgive him without first finding another scapegoat upon whom to fasten the blame.

In the which, she was wrong.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Zoidberg]

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.

It may sound more credible, but that's just because you're used to hearing that Santa Claus is nonsense. I'll address T-shirt's example below.

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.

What? he was referring to the whole society as "home"? You've lost me here. Is failure at someone else's home responsible for one's homosexual child, then? Where's the basis for that assumption?

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.

So you admit what he said was a logical fallacy? (saying "it would frustrate the whole plan of happiness" is not a valid additional argument, since science has not addressed the question of whether or not such a plan even exists for obvious reasons).

Here, I will help you:

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

This questionable quote your provided is not any kind of evidence. Why did they engage in sexual play in the first place? How is it obvious that the sexual play led to homosexuality, not the other way around? Besides, there are plenty of people who have homosexual experiences in childhood, yet they do not grow up to be homosexual. The new Church pamphlet itself disagrees with your "evidence": "Innocent mischief early in life does not predispose a youth toward same-gender attraction as an adult."

[Pahoran]

Inasmuch as there should be a documented source for all actions taken by the Church please provide the First Presidency proclamation ordering the MMM.

Thank you. Excellent case in point.

The MMM was not an "action taken by the Church," therefore there is no "First Presidency proclamation ordering" it.

Just as there is no "First Presidency proclamation ordering" the misguided actions of a few 20th century Mormons looking for quick fixes for people with same-sex attraction problems.

Not to trivialise the MMM in any way by comparing the two things--after all, the MMM directly caused a lot of death and suffering to innocent people, while the latter actions did not--but the simple truth is that neither of these were "actions taken by the Church."

PS. What is my agenda?

You tell us.

Regards,

Pahoran

[BishopRic]

Here, I will help you:

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

T-Shirt

Sexual dysfunction when there was abuse in the young years is quite complicated. It appears to involve many different mental processes as one grows up to cope. It is beyond the scope of a forum discussion, IMO.

SWK's story illustrates his point. It is not evidence of anything.

[Daniel2]

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.

Selek,

I definately believe that Pahoran's post was NOT reflective of me or my attitudes, alledging that I am never critical of anything that might be construed to be gay, and I believe you have misunderstood my position and view, if you agree with him by saying something along the lines of "[Daniel's] long-time advocacy on this issue."

I have not endorsed "all things gay." I have not said that all choices are equal, either within living openly as a gay man OR living openly as a straight one. There definitely ARE ways in which one can live in or seek out a gay relationship which are dangerous, emotionally and physically unhealthy, and less-than-stabilizing. Similarly, there are ways in which one can live or seek out a straight relationship with are dangerous, emotionally and physically unhealthy, and less-than-stabilizing. Even in recent threads on Carol Lynn Pearson, I have acknowledged that Gerald Pearson was, himself, responsible for acquiring the deadly, sexually-transmitted disease from which he passed away.

In fact, Selek, if you were to take your own advice, review my TOTAL history here at MAD (formerly FAIR), you would find that my "long-time advocacy" is actually relatively new. For thirty years, I held the opposing views that you and many devout members of the church do. When I first began posting here, I did so as a TBM, myself. I defended the faith against nay-sayers and critics, both on this subject and other non-related ones. It wasn't until about three years ago that my views changed, and I began to admit that I believed I was wrong.

The statement made by Pahoran that I "expect everyone to unquestioningly accept" anything I share with the group is not something that I do. In addition, the charge that "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," is again untrue. I am critical of things that gays say and do, often reflective of many of the values the LDS church emphasizes.

I recently shared the following with some friends: I don't feel the need to accept all manifestations of gay relationships, merely because I am gay. Sometimes, gay relationships CAN be destructive, unhealthy, dangerous (emotionally and physically), and even spiritually destructive. I think it would be foolish for me to refuse to acknowledge otherwise, and I usually say as much, even among my gay friends! In the same vein, sometimes straight relationships CAN be destructive, unhealthy, dangerous (emotionally and romantically, and even spiritually destructive. Such does not mean that ALL relationships, either way, are "bad" by default. In sum, just as I don't feel the need to place all gay relationships as equally "good," I'm not prepared to condemn all straight relationships as equally "bad."

Hope that helps at least clarify my view on the matter, more.

Thanks,

Daniel

[selek]

Selek,

I definately believe that Pahoran's post was NOT reflective of me or my attitudes, alledging that I am never critical of anything that might be construed to be gay, and I believe you have misunderstood my position and view, if you agree with him by saying something along the lines of "[Daniel's] long-time advocacy on this issue."

I have not endorsed "all things gay." I have not said that all choices are equal, either within living openly as a gay man OR living openly as a straight one. There definitely ARE ways in which one can live in or seek out a gay relationship which are dangerous, emotionally and physically unhealthy, and less-than-stabilizing. Similarly, there are ways in which one can live or seek out a straight relationship with are dangerous, emotionally and physically unhealthy, and less-than-stabilizing. Even in recent threads on Carol Lynn Pearson, I have acknowledged that Gerald Pearson was, himself, responsible for acquiring the deadly, sexually-transmitted disease from which he passed away.

In fact, Selek, if you were to take your own advice, review my TOTAL history here at MAD (formerly FAIR), you would find that my "long-time advocacy" is actually relatively new. For thirty years, I held the opposing views that you and many devout members of the church do. When I first began posting here, I did so as a TBM, myself. I defended the faith against nay-sayers and critics, both on this subject and other non-related ones. It wasn't until about three years ago that my views changed, and I began to admit that I believed I was wrong.

The statement made by Pahoran that I "expect everyone to unquestioningly accept" anything I share with the group is not something that I do. In addition, the charge that "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," is again untrue. I am critical of things that gays say and do, often reflective of many of the values the LDS church emphasizes.

I recently shared the following with some friends: I don't feel the need to accept all manifestations of gay relationships, merely because I am gay. Sometimes, gay relationships CAN be destructive, unhealthy, dangerous (emotionally and physically), and even spiritually destructive. I think it would be foolish for me to refuse to acknowledge otherwise, and I usually say as much, even among my gay friends! In the same vein, sometimes straight relationships CAN be destructive, unhealthy, dangerous (emotionally and romantically, and even spiritually destructive. Such does not mean that ALL relationships, either way, are "bad" by default. In sum, just as I don't feel the need to place all gay relationships as equally "good," I'm not prepared to condemn all straight relationships as equally "bad."

Hope that helps at least clarify my view on the matter, more.

Thanks,

Daniel

Daniel,

You are quite correct. I apologize for painting with too broad a brush. While we do have stark disagreements on this issue and those surrounding it, you have never in my experience been either an unthinking or reckless advocate of the positions you have taken.

Wrong- certainly , but I cannot recall ever seeing you take a reflexive position on these topics.

It was patently unfair of me to charactize you (however unintentionally) as having done so.

Please accept my apologies.

[Lamanite]

How? Cheering for your fellow activist's defeated argument doesn't cut it.

Get over it. He died of a self-inflicted wound, and was the actual source of his ex-wife's pains. Her compassion towards him was admirable, but it seems that she was ultimately unable to forgive him without first finding another scapegoat upon whom to fasten the blame.

In the which, she was wrong.

Regards,

Pahoran

I think had you been in the crowd when the Savior said: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." You might have been the only one left thinking "ah what the heck, she is going to die of a self-inflicted wound- The law is clear and just" and then bash her on the face with a giant boulder.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think had you been in the crowd when the Savior said: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." You might have been the only one left thinking "ah what the heck, she is going to die of a self-inflicted wound- The law is clear and just" and then bash her on the face with a giant boulder.

If it quaks like a duck. and walks like a duck then it is a.... ??

Also when the women was brought before Christ he didnt denounce the crowd from saying that she wasnt an adualter.

[Lamanite]

Thank you. Excellent case in point.

Just as there is no "First Presidency proclamation ordering" the misguided actions of a few 20th century Mormons looking for quick fixes for people with same-sex attraction problems.

Regards,

Pahoran

Thank you. You're admission that there were "misguided actions" by some "Mormons looking for quick fixes" is the crux of the problem and the need for the new pamphlet. Thank you for making my point.

Now as a result of some of these "quick fixes" there was plenty of emotional and physical consequences. These consequences are the focus of my topic, thread, and discussion.

Thanks,

Sione

[Lamanite]

If it quaks like a duck. and walks like a duck then it is a.... ??

Also when the women was brought before Christ he didnt denounce the crowd from saying that she wasnt an adualter.

Typical Mormon response to look past the lesson of mercy and love and side with the pharisaical and say "well he didn't say what she was doing wasn't wrong..."

Just the same I am not saying Homosexuality is right. I am on the other hand saying it is unequivically WRONG. However, the path to healing is not scorn and ridicule. Love, mercy, and forgiveness are our responsibilities as brothers and sisters.

[Zoidberg]

If it quaks like a duck. and walks like a duck then it is a.... ??

Also when the women was brought before Christ he didnt denounce the crowd from saying that she wasnt an adualter.

I assume you meant to say "Christ didn't denounce the crowd for saying that she was an adulterer" or "Christ didn't denounce the crowd by saying she wasn't an adulterer" (those are the only more or less coherent interpretations of what you said I've been able to come up with). He did say "first cast the beam out of thine own eye" on another occasion, however. I suppose the question is whether or not labeling Carol Lynn Pearson an apostate and her husband as deserving to die in a conversation between third parties hurts her. I think it does.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Typical Mormon response to look past the lesson of mercy and love and side with the pharisaical and say "well he didn't say what she was doing wasn't wrong..."

Just the same I am not saying Homosexuality is right. I am on the other hand saying it is unequivically WRONG. However, the path to healing is not scorn and ridicule. Love, mercy, and forgiveness are our responsibilities as brothers and sisters.

Ha. That isnt at all the case. It just the typcal responce for some one else to say he with out the first sin. Im not throughing rocks here btw. Also there is no trespass againt me so no mercy or forgivness can be sought. You just know I made a valid point. They lady that was brought before CHrist was still an Adualter. Was she not? Christ just condemed the old law. That was it.

[captain-jack]

Let's also not forget that she didn't ask Christ if it wasn't her fault, she was born that way. Or ask Him to change His policy based on those feelings. She submitted to Him and asked His forgiveness. Miss Pearson isn't doing that. While the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" parallel holds, likening Miss Pearson to the woman from the parable doesn't.

[Lamanite]

Two things I've noticed so far in this thread.

1. In the treatment of the Homosexual I don't think it matters one bit how on became gay. For prevention puposes it may be useful, but for treatment I can't understand how it would matter?

2. I am apalled at the lack of love, mercy, and understanding proffered to those struggling and dealing with this problem.

From N. Eldon Tanner:

"The reason, therefore, that we cannot judge is obvious. We cannot see what is in the heart. We do not know motives, although we impute motives to every action we see. They may be pure while we think they are improper.

It is not possible to judge another fairly unless you know his desires, his faith, and his goals. Because of a different environment, unequal opportunity, and many other things, people are not in the same position. One may start at the top and the other at the bottom, and they may meet as they are going in opposite directions. Someone has said that it is not where you are but the direction in which you are going that counts; not how close you are to failure or success but which way you are headed. How can we, with all our weaknesses and frailties, dare to arrogate to ourselves the position of a judge? At best, man can judge only what he sees; he cannot judge the heart or the intention, or begin to judge the potential of his neighbor.

When we try to judge people, which we should not do, we have a great tendency to look for and take pride in finding weaknesses and faults, such as vanity, dishonesty, immorality, and intrigue. As a result, we see only the worst side of those being judged. "

Ensign, Jul 1972, 34

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I assume you meant to say "Christ didn't denounce the crowd for saying that she was an adulterer" or "Christ didn't denounce the crowd by saying she wasn't an adulterer" (those are the only more or less coherent interpretations of what you said I've been able to come up with). He did say "first cast the beam out of thine own eye" on another occasion, however. I suppose the question is whether or not labeling Carol Lynn Pearson an apostate and her husband as deserving to die in a conversation between third parties hurts her. I think it does.

Well I certainly think you are right. I did intend to write the way you have portrayed. Also I'm not judgeing Carol as a total apostate. I dont even know the person. She maybe apostate in some of her views. I dont know. I really dont care. I just want to make a quik coment here. Also I agree with Riker here too.

[selek]

Let's also not forget that she didn't ask Christ if it wasn't her fault, she was born that way. Or ask Him to change His policy based on those feelings. She submitted to Him and asked His forgiveness. Miss Pearson isn't doing that. While the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" parallel holds, likening Miss Pearson to the woman from the parable doesn't.

Another parallel is this: neither Pearson nor the woman taken in adultery was condemned.

Neither were they told they could continue in their sinful behavior with a free pass.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Another parallel is this: neither Pearson nor the woman taken in adultery was condemned.

Neither were they told they could continue in their sinful behavior with a free pass.

I concour with the above statment.