Carol Lynn Pearson And The New Church Pamphlet

[captain-jack]

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

Knowing how someone got to the point they are at can be important if treatment is being given. Knowing the path to how they are feeling can help in giving them tools to get to where they want to be. I speak of this from personal experience, so at least for me it was helpful. There is love and mercy for those who seek it, that shouldn't be clouded with acceptance for sin.

[USU78]

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.

What an inappropriate and, might I add, vicious ad hominem attack. We don't do that around here, youngster. Clean up your act.

USU "And what did the Master then say to the woman?" 78

[Lamanite]

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.

No that was not it. He spoke to her with love and asked "Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

Jhn 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."

Notice also that he did not condemn "HER". He said nothing like "Neither do I condemn the old law." He was able to do this because he knew her, her heart, her desires, her history, her circumstances etc. That is why we just love and forgive cuz we don't know all that.

One other thing in regards to mercy or forgiveness being sought. I don't care whether or not it's sought, it can always be offered.

[captain-jack]

What an inappropriate and, might I add, vicious ad hominem attack. We don't do that around here, youngster. Clean up your act.

USU "And what did the Master then say to the woman?" 78

Wait, I know this one...

"Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father prepare to die!"?

Some people think it was about her faith making her whole and sins forgiven because she seeks it. I don't think so.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What an inappropriate and, might I add, vicious ad hominem attack. We don't do that around here, youngster. Clean up your act.

USU "And what did the Master then say to the woman?" 78

Actually I think Lamanite is ignorant of the fact that Pahoran is well aware of what the Savoir said and taught. It is arrogant to assume that he would think What the heck lets just stone her. As pointed out Jesus condemed that practice.

[Momus]

What an inappropriate and, might I add, vicious ad hominem attack. We don't do that around here, youngster. Clean up your act.

USU "And what did the Master then say to the woman?" 78

The administration of the board agrees. Lamanite clean up your act, knock of the emotional outbursts, and references to temple content. We do not allow it on our board. It's ok to disagree and have a different point of view.

Momus

[Lamanite]

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.

Who are you people to give out passes or not. This is the point. I'm trying to help those people afflicted and you people want to do what exactly? Yank passes and make sure they know they are willful sinners who deserve what they get.

Again, I caution that is a slippery slope in a religion that teaches you will be judged with your own judgements.

[captain-jack]

Jhn 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."

What of that part? He knew she was sinning, she knew it too. He told her not to continue in that fashion that caused her to be brought before Christ.

One other thing in regards to mercy or forgiveness being sought. I don't care whether or not it's sought, it can always be offered.

You're right, it should always be offered. Love and forgiveness, but not acceptance of sin. No one should ever be treated as though they are scourge but sin remains sin, that needs to be dealt with by forsaking it, not accepting it.

[captain-jack]

Who are you people to give out passes or not. This is the point. I'm trying to help those people afflicted and you people want to do what exactly? Yank passes and make sure they know they are willful sinners who deserve what they get.

Again, I caution that is a slippery slope in a religion that teaches you will be judged with your own judgements.

I, for one, do not want to accept any sexual sin as not someone's fault when they are in full capacity. I don't want to see someone be told that they are a special case when they shouldn't be because rather than follow Heavenly Father's law, they want it to bend to their will. And who said anything about anyone other than Christ giving a free pass?

[Lamanite]

What of that part? He knew she was sinning, she knew it to. He told her not to continue in that fashion that caused her to be brought before Christ.

You're right, it should always be offered. Love and forgiveness, but not acceptance of sin. No one should ever be treated as though they are scourge but sin remains sin, that needs to be dealt with by forsaking it, not accepting it.

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. Had Gerald been loved and embraced as a homosexual and encouraged to pray for an entire change of his same sex attraction but accept God's answer/ or non answer, and also remain abstinent while working with a Bishop and also possibly a counselor, things might have turned out differently for him and others of that era.

[Zoidberg]

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.

selek... You're back! Have you read my link? Have you understood the application of Occam's razor?

[captain-jack]

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. Had Gerald been loved and embraced as a homosexual and encouraged to pray for an entire change of his same sex attraction but accept God's answer/ or non answer, and also remain abstinent while working with a Bishop and also possibly a counselor, things might have turned out differently for him and others of that era.

I completely agree. The argument I see happening is that some are saying no person should be shunned for having homosexual feelings while others hear we should accept the sin and not consider it as such anymore. It happens too often I see. And it translates both ways as well.

[Lamanite]

The administration of the board agrees. Lamanite clean up your act, knock of the emotional outbursts, and references to temple content. We do not allow it on our board. It's ok to disagree and have a different point of view.

Momus

Done.

As far as the Temple is concerned I thought I wasn't allowed to discuss those parts of the ceremony that I covenanted not to reveal. Anyway, sorry.

[Lamanite]

The administration of the board agrees. Lamanite clean up your act, knock of the emotional outbursts, and references to temple content. We do not allow it on our board. It's ok to disagree and have a different point of view.

Momus

Also, who are you? I've read the rules and regs and usually a mod posts concerning rule breaking? Are you the moderator? Maybe even a bigger boss? I'm being serious and not trying to demean whatever position you hold.

[Momus]

Also, who are you? I've read the rules and regs and usually a mod posts concerning rule breaking? Are you the moderator? Maybe even a bigger boss? I'm being serious and not trying to demean whatever position you hold.

Momus

Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

***

Group: Senior Admin

Posts: 554

Joined: 8-January 07

Member No.: 4489

Emphasis added. If you would like me to point out the emotional outbursts and temple content, and where the rules would be applied and how they can be applied I will. However since this is just a simple get back on track warning I don't think it should be necessary.

Momus

[Momus]

Done.

As far as the Temple is concerned I thought I wasn't allowed to discuss those parts of the ceremony that I covenanted not to reveal. Anyway, sorry.

We try not to allow any Temple content on this board, we know what is covenanted to and what isn't. Thanks for understandings.

Momus

[Lamanite]

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?

I wonder how this thread would have turned out if I had not used the word "Nonsense" and relplaced the words "The Church" with "Some Church leaders". I'll remember that my exaggerations enflame some of your dogmatic tendancies.

I think the issue got lost here. Sorry for all the ad homs. My heart goes out to all of those still suffering. For those who are wondering I'm not gay and have been married for a decade and have 4 daughters. I just have a hard time seeing people who have a testimony struggle while in the church.

To those who have transgressed or been offended, we say, come back. The path of repentance, though hard at times, lifts one ever upward and leads to a perfect forgiveness.â?

"Exceeding Great and Precious Promises,â? Ensign, Nov. 1994

[selek]

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. Had Gerald been loved and embraced as a homosexual and encouraged to pray for an entire change of his same sex attraction but accept God's answer/ or non answer, and also remain abstinent while working with a Bishop and also possibly a counselor, things might have turned out differently for him and others of that era.

And this is my problem with your entire approach.

Sexuality is not the sum total of a person's existence. Gerald's homosexual tendencies were but a single facet of his being- and becuase of the unhealthy focus on sustaining, and encouraging that single facet (including those making excuses for it) to the exclusion of the rest, he became further and further lost.

I agree, however, with the remainder of your statement.

Don't misunderstand me- I don't want to see anybody flogged needlessly over their sins. I don't want to see anybody's spirit broken or see anyone driven to the kind of agony that Brother Pearson endured.

I simply don't beleive that the correct alternative is to pretend the problem doesn't exist. Silence which allows permissiveness is every bit as destructive as cheerleading that same permissiveness.

A proper balance has to be struck.

And ultimately, no one has answered my CFR- demonstrate that the Church taught nonsense.

I don't for a moment pretend that every position, every action, or every policy taken by the Church has been 100% correct. But there is a profound chasm which lies between mistaken, misguided, and nonsensical.

That's the gap that needs to be answered. We can disagree about whether the Church's policy and actions were perfect or wholly correct. Honest people can have honest disagreements.

Statements accusing the Church of teaching nonsense, add nothing to the dialogue, and smack of the same kind of close-mindedness you accuse us of practicing.

Will you either support or retract the accusation that the Church taught nonsense?

[Lamanite]

This is all I wanted people to see.

You are a son or daughter of God, and our hearts reach out to you in warmth and affection. Notwithstanding your present same-gender attractions, you can be happy during this life, lead a morally clean life, perform meaningful service in the Church, enjoy full fellowship with your fellow Saints, and ultimately receive all the blessings of eternal life.

You are a precious son or daughter of God. He not only knows your name; He knows you. His love for you is individual. You lived in His presence before you were born on this earth. You cannot remember your premortal relationship with Him, but He does. Although His children may sometimes do things that disappoint Him, He will always love them.

In some circumstances a person defers marriage because he or she is not presently attracted to a member of the opposite gender. While many Latter-day Saints, through individual effort, the exercise of faith, and reliance upon the enabling power of the Atonement, overcome same-gender attraction in mortality, others may not be free of this challenge in this life. However, the perfect plan of our Father in Heaven makes provision for individuals who seek to keep His commandments but who, through no fault of their own, do not have an eternal marriage in mortal life.

(IMO This could have been a changing idea had Gerald been taught this) Many people with same-gender attractions have strong testimonies of the gospel and, therefore, do not act on those attractions. Attractions alone do not make you unworthy. If you avoid immoral thoughts and actions, you have not transgressed even if you feel such an attraction. The First Presidency stated, â??There is a distinction between immoral thoughts and feelings and participating in either immoral heterosexual or any homosexual behaviorâ? (letter, Nov. 14, 1991).

One very important way to fill your spiritual garden with good seed is to participate actively in the Church. Even though same-gender attractions may continue and may foster unresolved tensions, you will be strengthened by service in the Church and by interaction with other Church members who share beliefs and have made the same covenants you have made. Partaking of the sacrament, singing the hymns of Zion, and listening to uplifting talks all contribute to your spiritual growth. Neglecting these positive influences and withdrawing from the Church because of discouragement, perceived rejection, or a sense that you do not belong can only hurt your spirituality and your desire to control your actions.

Some people with same-gender attraction have felt rejected because members of the Church did not always show love. No member of the Church should ever be intolerant. As you show love and kindness to others, you give them an opportunity to change their attitudes and follow Christ more fully.

Despair is another adverse influence. It often results from a lack of understanding and trust in Godâ??s continuing love as made available through the power of the Atonement. You can find hope in the fact that every blessing contemplated by Heavenly Fatherâ??s plan of happiness remains available for each of His children. Despair and doubt may lead to withdrawal, fault-finding, and impatience that all answers and resolutions for lifeâ??s problems are not immediately forthcoming. The Spirit of God brings good cheer and happiness. Trust the Lord. Do not blame anyoneâ??not yourself, not your parents, not Godâ??for problems not fully understood in this life.

No one is, or ever could be, excluded from the circle of Godâ??s love or the extended arms of His Church, for we are all His beloved sons and daughters. As President Hinckley said: â??Our hearts reach out to those who struggle with feelings of affinity for the same gender. We remember you before the Lord, we sympathize with you, we regard you as our brothers and sistersâ?

I think things would have been a lot different for a lot of people had these messages been taught with prevalence(sp?)

[Zoidberg]

I wonder how this thread would have turned out if I had not used the word "Nonsense" and relplaced the words "The Church" with "Some Church leaders". I'll remember that my exaggerations enflame some of your dogmatic tendancies.

Yes, I believe that would have been better and that's what I've tried to make an emphasis on when selek was throwing around CFRs. "The Church" is such a fleeting concept. When the president of the Church (AKA the prophet of God) writes a book - well, he didn't write it as a prophet and it has nothing to do with the Church at all and no one in the Church is going to buy it and read it and believe that it would indeed be a miracle if they receive any forgiveness from God. When there is a talk you can still locate on the Church's website - well, it's not official Church doctrine (even though we don't have a doctrinal statement on what is doctrinal). It's just this GA's opinion. And we know better what he meant when he said it which is not at all what it sounds like to an unbiased recipient. When there is a manual for bishops that says "There are a many testimonies of ex-gays who found happiness in marriage, which is a commandment of God, BTW" - why, that's not pressure to get married at all.

I think I saw your point that the issue here is how gay members feel they are treated by the Church and by God. And I think it is pretty obvious that if a gay person with a testimony reads some of the talks by various GAs throughout the century, or the old version of "For the Strength of Youth", or hears condemnation of homosexuality from their priesthood leaders who are appointed by God, it will be a wonder if they don't throw themselves off a bridge. And it's good that the Church is beginning to realize that and at least be more careful in its choice of words. But that's not enough to eradicate the memory of everything that has been said prior to "God loveth His Children".

[Zoidberg]

And ultimately, no one has answered my CFR- demonstrate that the Church taught nonsense.

I have answered your CFRs that demonstrate that the Church LEADERSHIP has taught nonsense, which is precisely what you asked for. "The Church" does not really exist as a humanless organization that teaches anything without anyone speaking a word. You don't perceive my examples as valid because you don't have even the most basic understanding of logical reasoning. If you had read the link I gave you (which I don't think you have), you would understand why I don't need to prove to you that an unnecessary assumption made despite the lack of any evidence that supports it is nonsense, and I don't have to disprove an unnecessary assumption to you in order to be fully authorized to proclaim it is nonsense. Just please read the article and then we'll talk. Ignoring me will not change the pattern of logical reasoning.

[Lamanite]

And this is my problem with your entire approach.

Sexuality is not the sum total of a person's existence. Gerald's homosexual tendencies were but a single facet of his being- and becuase of the unhealthy focus on sustaining, and encouraging that single facet (including those making excuses for it) to the exclusion of the rest, he became further and further lost.

I actually agree with you. I don't know where I stated that the opposite was "my approach".

I simply don't beleive that the correct alternative is to pretend the problem doesn't exist. Silence which allows permissiveness is every bit as destructive as cheerleading that same permissiveness.

agreed

And ultimately, no one has answered my CFR- demonstrate that the Church taught nonsense.

I don't for a moment pretend that every position, every action, or every policy taken by the Church has been 100% correct. But there is a profound chasm which lies between mistaken, misguided, and nonsensical.

My interpretation of the Church's "mistaken" and "misguided" actions is that they were nonsense. I have already lamented my use of that word. I would gladly substitute the Church's actions in regards to homosexuals as mistaken and misguided.

Will you either support or retract the accusation that the Church taught nonsense?

Will retract my statement and replace it with. "Some leaders of the Church but not necessarily the Brethren took mistaken and misguided actions towards counseling and treating Homosexuality".

[selek]

I have answered your CFRs that demonstrate that the Church LEADERSHIP has taught nonsense, which is precisely what you asked for. "The Church" does not really exist as a humanless organization that teaches anything without anyone speaking a word. You don't perceive my examples as valid because you don't have even the most basic understanding of logical reasoning. If you had read the link I gave you (which I don't think you have), you would understand why I don't need to prove to you that an unnecessary assumption made despite the lack of any evidence that supports it is nonsense, and I don't have to disprove an unnecessary assumption to you in order to be fully authorized to proclaim it is nonsense. Just please read the article and then we'll talk. Ignoring me will not change the pattern of logical reasoning.

You have presented no such evidence. You have only shown that you disagree with the teachings when ripped from their proper context.

You have yet to show that the teachings themselves are nonsense.

Simply reiterating your position is not proof. A lie remains a lie no matter how many times it is repeated. Only the public perception changes.

Nonsense is defined as:

1) Foolish or absurd language or behavior.

2) Extravagant foolishness

3) Something of little or no importance or usefulness.

4) Pretentious or insolent behavior.

While your own arrogance in condemning priests and leaders calls of God certainly meets all four definitions, you have yet to demonstrate where any of the Church's teachings meet any of these definitions.

We understand that you don't agree with their position, and that you beleive that you are far more enlightened on the matter of sexual sin than the leaders of the Church.

Until, however, you are called/commissioned as God, the sin of not subscribing to the Gospel According to Zoidberg does not constitute foolishness, folly, or nonsense.

I actually agree with you. I don't know where I stated that the opposite was "my approach".

agreed

My interpretation of the Church's "mistaken" and "misguided" actions is that they were nonsense. I have already lamented my use of that word. I would gladly substitute the Church's actions in regards to homosexuals as mistaken and misguided.

Will retract my statement and replace it with. "Some leaders of the Church but not necessarily the Brethren took mistaken and misguided actions towards counseling and treating Homosexuality".

Then we're in agreement. Somebody hoist a call Guiness. We've got a record for them .

[Lamanite]

Yes, I believe that would have been better and that's what I've tried to make an emphasis on when selek was throwing around CFRs. "The Church" is such a fleeting concept. When the president of the Church (AKA the prophet of God) writes a book - well, he didn't write it as a prophet and it has nothing to do with the Church at all and no one in the Church is going to buy it and read it and believe that it would indeed be a miracle if they receive any forgiveness from God. When there is a talk you can still locate on the Church's website - well, it's not official Church doctrine (even though we don't have a doctrinal statement on what is doctrinal). It's just this GA's opinion. And we know better what he meant when he said it which is not at all what it sounds like to an unbiased recipient. When there is a manual for bishops that says "There are a many testimonies of ex-gays who found happiness in marriage, which is a commandment of God, BTW" - why, that's not pressure to get married at all.

I think I saw your point that the issue here is how gay members feel they are treated by the Church and by God. And I think it is pretty obvious that if a gay person with a testimony reads some of the talks by various GAs throughout the century, or the old version of "For the Strength of Youth", or hears condemnation of homosexuality from their priesthood leaders who are appointed by God, it will be a wonder if they don't throw themselves off a bridge. And it's good that the Church is beginning to realize that and at least be more careful in its choice of words. But that's not enough to eradicate the memory of everything that has been said prior to "God loveth His Children".

it was muddied by my inflammatory use of "nonsense" so I can understand how everyone missed it. I can't tell if I'm being sarcastic.

[Lamanite]

Then we're in agreement. Somebody hoist a call Guiness. We've got a record for them .

phew *wiping sweat from my brow*