Jump to content

Mormon Bishop Says Church Responsible For Gays’ Emotional Wounds


Sky

Recommended Posts

"[bishop Koosterman] clarified that he was speaking only on his own behalf and did not intend to represent the views of the church."

That's why he flew all the way from Illinois to attend the conference and say:

“I began to see the emotional wounds and scars that many of you have today,” Kloosterman said, “and I began to ask, ‘Where did you get these wounds?’ And the answer, unfortunately, was in the house of my friends.”

“The straight members of the church have a lot of repenting to do,” he said.

What did he think was going to happen when the Utah news outlets got ahold of his comments?

Link to comment

I believe that he was saying that the prejudice and insensitivity of members of the church has wounded the gays. Why do you have a problem with that statement?

One of the "I am an ex-mormon" who lived in Utah said that she was told that Satan was gay. Where did she hear that? From her LDS friends in high school, I would assume. Certainly not from the pulpit.

Link to comment

The SL Tribune unfortunately misrepresented his talk. He didn't say that the Church was at fault, but it was the fault of individual members who committed hateful acts against homosexuals. If you read his talk (found in full here), you will see that he is careful not to call for ecclesiastical reform but to only for us to treat homosexuals with love and charity--the same general statement from the Church.

Link to comment

As long as the Church teaches that acting on same-sex attraction is a sin, there will always be tensions with the LGBT community. It will never go away, no matter how nice and charitable individual members of the Church try to be.

And if the Church ever changes its position, it will get criticized for bending to political pressure. So it seems to me like a no-win situation for the Church.

And as for this bishop – if he is not careful, he is on a path towards falling away from the Church (maybe this has something to do with why some people are so happy for him). What could be better for the LGBT cause than having an LDS bishop criticizing the Church from within?

Many of people who participated in the “Circling the Wagons” conference aren’t exactly known for being orthodox LDS believers and supporters.

All around, this is not an easy situation with any easy answers.

Link to comment

And as for this bishop – if he is not careful, he is on a path towards falling away from the Church (maybe this has something to do with why some people are so happy for him). What could be better for the LGBT cause than having an LDS bishop criticizing the Church from within?

Do you feel at all strange saying someone is "on a path towards falling away from the Church" by trying to heal the wounds of people struggling with their relationship with the church? What does that say about the Church?

Somehow I see Christ giving the message of this bishop more than I see Christ saying anyone reaching out to any group of sinners to ease their pain as being on a path towartds falling away from the church. Perhaps you can explain how what this bishop did that is such a wrong action and not in keeping with the example Christ so clearly set.

Link to comment

The SL Tribune unfortunately misrepresented his talk. He didn't say that the Church was at fault, but it was the fault of individual members who committed hateful acts against homosexuals. If you read his talk (found in full here), you will see that he is careful not to call for ecclesiastical reform but to only for us to treat homosexuals with love and charity--the same general statement from the Church.

Well said, Emerson--many in the gay community are commenting that they're dissatisfied with the way the SL Tribune has framed this bishop's talk, because mischaracterizing it will likely lead to more defensiveness, rather than building the bridges that were apparently the point of the conference (which I didn't attend).

I think it's worth quoting the commentary from Mormon Stories in the link you provided (which I'd already received as a link from those LGBT individuals that are concerned that this bishop may face unfair consequences for the Trib's spin):

LDS Bishop Kevin Kloosterman’s Talk on Homosexuals in the LDS Church

November 7, 2011By John Dehlin

Kloosterman-300x225.jpgWhile we understand that nuance and context are sometimes difficult to capture in news articles, we are worried that some of the framing in this SL Tribune article (especially the headline) might give the wrong impression about LDS Bishop Kevin Kloosterman’s talk on homosexuals in the LDS Church, which was given on 11/6/2011 during the Mormon Stories “Circling the Wagons” conference in Salt Lake City, UT in support of our LDS LGBT brothers and sisters.

Consequently, the full audio and transcript of Kevin’s talk have been included below, to give people the chance to read/hear what Kevin was trying to communicate.

For the record — (John here) — I did not in any way interpret this talk (including the use of the word “atrocity”) to be an attack specifically on the LDS Church, its leadership, its policies, or on the general general LDS church membership – but on ALL OF US IN SOCIETY….LDS and non-LDS alike.

Also for the record, I don’t have any reason to believe that Bill Boram (or his editors) intended to mislead anyone….theirs was perhaps a reasonable interpretation. But to me, the headline doesn’t adequately capture (and potentially miscommunicates) the spirit of what Kevin was saying, and could potentially cause ecclesiastical problems for Kevin, which we think would be a terrible reward for Kevin’s courageous, heartfelt acts this weekend.

We love and support you, Bishop Kloosterman. You are a man of love and courage.

Daniel2

Link to comment

Well said, Emerson--many in the gay community are commenting that they're dissatisfied with the way the SL Tribune has framed this bishop's talk, because mischaracterizing it will likely lead to more defensiveness, rather than building the bridges that were apparently the point of the conference (which I didn't attend).

I think it's worth quoting the commentary from Mormon Stories in the link you provided (which I'd already received as a link from those LGBT individuals that are concerned that this bishop may face unfair consequences for the Trib's spin):

Daniel2

The Trib's interpretation of the speech is driven by this statement:

And I seem to ask the

question, “Where did you get these wounds?” and unfortunately the answer was,

“In the house of my friends.”

Its seems obvious to me that when he said "house of my friends", he was referring to the LDS Church.

Link to comment

Do you feel at all strange saying someone is "on a path towards falling away from the Church" by trying to heal the wounds of people struggling with their relationship with the church? What does that say about the Church?

it depends on how it is done. If they advocate ignoring the sin of active immoral behavior then no it is not strange to say they are "on a path towards falling away from the Church". If they advocate repentence for immoral acts and embracing gospel principles then yes it would be strange to say "on a path towards falling away from the Church".

Somehow I see Christ giving the message of this bishop more than I see Christ saying anyone reaching out to any group of sinners to ease their pain as being on a path towartds falling away from the church. Perhaps you can explain how what this bishop did that is such a wrong action and not in keeping with the example Christ so clearly set.

Somehow I see Christ as saying repent from immoral activities. I do see Christ as embracing the repentent sinner.

Link to comment

Do you feel at all strange saying someone is "on a path towards falling away from the Church" by trying to heal the wounds of people struggling with their relationship with the church? What does that say about the Church?

Somehow I see Christ giving the message of this bishop more than I see Christ saying anyone reaching out to any group of sinners to ease their pain as being on a path towartds falling away from the church. Perhaps you can explain how what this bishop did that is such a wrong action and not in keeping with the example Christ so clearly set.

Doctrine and Covenants section 1, verses 31-33 come to mind:

31 For I the Lord cannot look upon asin with the least degree of allowance;

32 Nevertheless, he that arepents and does the bcommandments of the Lord shall be cforgiven;

33 And he that arepents not, from him shall be btaken even the light which he has received; for my cSpirit shall not always dstrive with man, saith the Lord of Hosts.

According to the Salt Lake Tribune article:

Kloosterman spoke at the final event of a weekend-long seminar dedicated to exploring gay Mormon issues, titled Circling the Wagons. He said he recently became aware of LGBT issues and his views changed from that of the church — that acting on gay urges violates its moral code — and had a “mighty change of heart.”

The article makes it clear that he has a different viewpoint than the Church. If this is really how he feels, how could the article have mischaracterized his viewpoints so much? That is a pretty big blunder on the part of the Salt Lake Tribune. Either that or the bishop needs to do a better job himself of explaining and clarifying his viewpoints.

And if this bishop was indeed criticizing the Church, it would seem to me that his comments would be directed just as much (if not more) towards the higher-ups in Salt Lake City (and the Church as a whole) than any individual rank-and-file member.

Link to comment

Its seems obvious to me that when he said "house of my friends", he was referring to the LDS Church.

While it may be seem to you that "the house of [his] friends" he was referring to was the LDS Church, even that interpretation of his words doesn't mean that he was blaming the institutional LDS Church for said wounds. It certainly just as clear to me that he was expressing dismay by the actions of individual church members, who were being less than Christlike, rather than expressing a criticism at the stance of the institutional Church, which (most especially in recent years) has been advocating a far kinder, gentler approach than many members have taken towards the subject of homosexuality.

Daniel2

Link to comment

While it may be seem to you that "the house of [his] friends" he was the LDS Church, even that interpretation of his words doesn't mean that he was blaming the institutional LDS Church for said wounds. It certainly just as clear to me that he was expressing dismay by the actions of individual church members, who were being less than Christlike, rather than expressing a criticism at the stance of the institutional Church, which (most especially in recent years) has been advocating a far kinder, gentler approach than many members have taken towards the subject of homosexuality.

Daniel2

Nah. This was not a comment directed at a few bad apples behaving improperly. He said:

I said, the straight members of the church have a lot of repenting to do. Repenting is not

necessarily a dirty word. It’s Greek, it means to change your thoughts. And

we need to change our thoughts.

He was addressing broad institutional thinking .... not isolated incidents of bad behavior.

We both know that the bad behavior directed towards gays, flows from the accepted institutional belief that homosexuals are damaged, broken or inferior to heterosexuals.

Link to comment

The SL Tribune unfortunately misrepresented his talk. He didn't say that the Church was at fault, but it was the fault of individual members who committed hateful acts against homosexuals. If you read his talk (found in full here), you will see that he is careful not to call for ecclesiastical reform but to only for us to treat homosexuals with love and charity--the same general statement from the Church.

That's much better. The article didn't do any favors by extracting the repenting statement from context.

Link to comment

For those who are interested in him clarifying his message:

He did a great interview with Joanna Brooks at Religious Dispatches. (See here.) In it, he makes clear that he is speaking out against the "violence and hostility" shown toward homosexuals, not against the Church's stance. Indeed, he spoke very positively and defensively of the Church's position, saying he aligns himself with them. When asked about the Tribune article, he said, "The way the Tribune reports it takes my words out of context. I was not criticizing the Church. In fact, I felt and feel like we needed to support the leadership of the Church in their movements forward with our gay brothers and sisters."

Link to comment

For those who are interested in him clarifying his message:

He did a great interview with Joanna Brooks at Religious Dispatches. (See here.) In it, he makes clear that he is speaking out against the "violence and hostility" shown toward homosexuals, not against the Church's stance. Indeed, he spoke very positively and defensively of the Church's position, saying he aligns himself with them. When asked about the Tribune article, he said, "The way the Tribune reports it takes my words out of context. I was not criticizing the Church. In fact, I felt and feel like we needed to support the leadership of the Church in their movements forward with our gay brothers and sisters."

Yes, I read this, but I’m not sure how much it actually clarified for me.

He seems to be walking a very fine line between trying to support the leadership of the Church and at the same time criticizing the Church for being too homophobic. What is not answered is whether he agrees with the Church’s doctrine that acting on same-sex attraction is a sin. The impression that I get is that he does not agree with this. How could a person serve as a bishop in good conscience if they disagree with the Church on such a significant issue?

I also found it kind of ironic that he quoted President Boyd K. Packer, of all people.

Link to comment

He was addressing broad institutional thinking .... not isolated incidents of bad behavior.

We both know that the bad behavior directed towards gays, flows from the accepted institutional belief that homosexuals are damaged, broken or inferior to heterosexuals.

His later statements seem to show that you've read him wrong and that Daniel2 has gotten it right-we members need to do a better job of treating gay and lesbian people in a more Christ-like maner, as the church teaches us we should do.

Link to comment

His later statements seem to show that you've read him wrong and that Daniel2 has gotten it right-we members need to do a better job of treating gay and lesbian people in a more Christ-like maner, as the church teaches us we should do.

I agree. His later statement would seem to show that I read him wrong, My impression, however, would be that he offered thinly veiled perhaps even unintended criticism, but then chose to fully retreat, when pressed.

All I know for certain is that if the point of his speech was that LDS members should treat gays "as the church teaches us we should do", then he choose his words very poorly.

.

Link to comment
So why was a Bishop flown in from IL to make this statement? And why would any self respecting Bishop do that?

Perhaps first you should articulate why a bishop should not speak out about how that bishop believes memebers of the church need to repent

Anyone who reads this board will quickly learn that members of the church are in need of repentance in how they speak to or about persons who identify as having homosexual desires. Of those person in need of repentance is a person who I have reason to believe is aasociated with the Maxwell institite though I am not certain if anyone from middle earth is associated with MI and posts on this board

Link to comment

we members need to do a better job of treating gay and lesbian people in a more Christ-like maner, as the church teaches us we should do.

But the Church also teaches us that homosexual acts are sinful. Must we throw out this doctrine in order to treat gays and lesbians in a more Christ-like manner? Because that’s exactly what the LGBT community would like to see the Church do. Is there a way to reconcile this? Or am I the only one who sees an inherent problem here?

Link to comment

But the Church also teaches us that homosexual acts are sinful. Must we throw out this doctrine in order to treat gays and lesbians in a more Christ-like manner? Because that’s exactly what the LGBT community would like to see the Church do. Is there a way to reconcile this? Or am I the only one who sees an inherent problem here?

I sincerely don't understand what the problem is. Regardless of what the LGBT community might want, it's very possible to treat people kindly and lovingly without condoning their actions. I know i personally do it every day as most of the people i spend my days with are living with boyfriends or girlfriends outside of marriage and having kids out of wedlock. In fact, one of my closest friends right now is a lesbian who is in the middle of some girlfriend drama that she likes to vent to me about. I don't believing doing any of those things are good or right but i still really like my friends and care about them and treat them the same way as i do my friends from church.

Whether or not anyone else thinks a person can be kind while not agreeing with the lifestyle of someone else, it is possible and, in my opinion, something we should all strive for, regardless of our beliefs.

Link to comment

I sincerely don't understand what the problem is. Regardless of what the LGBT community might want, it's very possible to treat people kindly and lovingly without condoning their actions. I know i personally do it every day as most of the people i spend my days with are living with boyfriends or girlfriends outside of marriage and having kids out of wedlock. In fact, one of my closest friends right now is a lesbian who is in the middle of some girlfriend drama that she likes to vent to me about. I don't believing doing any of those things are good or right but i still really like my friends and care about them and treat them the same way as i do my friends from church.

Whether or not anyone else thinks a person can be kind while not agreeing with the lifestyle of someone else, it is possible and, in my opinion, something we should all strive for, regardless of our beliefs.

I agree that it’s very possible to be kind and loving towards a person without condoning their actions. It’s something that I strive to do.

I guess my point is that as long as the Church teaches that homosexual acts are sinful, the LGBT community will never be particularly fond of us. The relationship will always be uneasy, regardless of how nice or Christ-like we are.

Ultimately, I don’t believe you can be a supporter of both LDS doctrine and the LGBT cause. For better or for worse, they are irreconcilable. That is the inherent problem that I see. And that is why I think this bishop is in a tough spot to be in.

Link to comment

Archived

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

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

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