Mormon Bishop Says Church Responsible For Gays’ Emotional Wounds

[frankenstein]

frankenstein:

A LDS Bishop has no authority to do that.

So a person who happens to be a bishop has no authority, right, or whathaveyou to comment as a person who happens to be a bishop about what he thinks has happened to people?.

Can you elaborate as to your position.

[california boy]

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

Yeah I know what you mean. There are a lot of Mormons that are more concerned with the sin of others then they are with healing wounds. I guess they believe that one of the main messages of Christ was to be concerned with other peoples sins and judge them by their sins and not to focus on your own sins.

[california boy]

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.

Thanks so much for quoting the D&C. Now let's see, who is responsible for judging other peoples sins. Oh yeah, God. Or did I miss read the verse you quoted. 31 For I the Lord (perfect members of my church) cannot look upon ^asin with the least degree of allowance;

[california boy]

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?

Sky, why are you so fixated on the sins of homosexuals? Are you as fixated on the sins of others in your ward? Do you feel the need to cry repentance to everyone you meet? Are you beyond sin and feel it is your responsibility to worry about others sins? How does this attitude fit in with the gospel of Jesus Christ?

You're out of the thread for this comment.

[california boy]

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.

The gay community has problems mostly with two churches. The Mormons and the Catholics. You don't see them picketing the Methodists, Presbyterians, Jehovah Witnesses Anglican, Baptist etc. At some point, perhaps members of the Mormon church should ask themselves why does the gay community focus so much of their anger towards the Mormons.

Just saying, it is not just because Mormons think sex outside of marriage whether gay or straight is a sin. Believe it or not, some christian churches focus on bring people to Christ. You gotta ask yourself why 70% of gay Mormons leave the church. Unless of course you feel simply it is their decision and the members of the church have no reason to feel they are a part of their wounds.

I guess now this post will put me on the same list as this bishop accused by members for attacking the church unfairly.

[TAO]

California boy, Sky has gone through... some stuff... he really isn't trying to be judgemental. He is just stating how he views it.

I'm not quite sure if you read forum posts literally, as if they had voices, but I do, and Sky's voice right now is full of kindness, and yet, also full of truth.

I guess what I'm trying to say is he isn't doing anything wrong, imo =P. He is just being his patient self.

Also,

Sky, why are you so fixated on the sins of homosexuals?

Generally, at least in my case, it's because it's an issue that comes up on this forum so much XD. And when not on the forum, in the news. If it didn't come up much, I wouldn't be reminded (well at least not publicly... in my head, it's a different story). =P

EDIT: Fixed all the errors. Sorry Sky, I called you a 'she' again, instead of a 'he'. For some reason, I keep forgetting =/. Blergh =P

[Libs]

I think Sky is a woman?

I agree that calling gays "sinners" is an inherent problem that is not going away. There will always be conflict, as long as there are accusations of immorality that many believe are uncalled for.

Just wanted to put my two cents in that I believe this Bishop was very brave and his compassion very commendable. Will he remain in the church? I had wondered...

[TAO]

I think Sky is a woman?

Mwahahahah I shall fix it!

Thank you! =D

[Libs]

Mwahahahah I shall fix it!

Thank you! =D

Hey, I'm not positive..but, I think so?

EDIT: Looks like I was wrong, TAO! I checked "his" profile.

[ERayR]

Yeah I know what you mean. There are a lot of Mormons that are more concerned with the sin of others then they are with healing wounds. I guess they believe that one of the main messages of Christ was to be concerned with other peoples sins and judge them by their sins and not to focus on your own sins.

Yes but as I remind a couple of my kids occassionally - tis high to be a judge - take a look in a mirror first.

[ERayR]

The gay community has problems mostly with two churches. The Mormons and the Catholics. You don't see them picketing the Methodists, Presbyterians, Jehovah Witnesses Anglican, Baptist etc. At some point, perhaps members of the Mormon church should ask themselves why does the gay community focus so much of their anger towards the Mormons.

Just saying, it is not just because Mormons think sex outside of marriage whether gay or straight is a sin. Believe it or not, some christian churches focus on bring people to Christ. You gotta ask yourself why 70% of gay Mormons leave the church. Unless of course you feel simply it is their decision and the members of the church have no reason to feel they are a part of their wounds.

I guess now this post will put me on the same list as this bishop accused by members for attacking the church unfairly.

CB - In my seven decades of life it has been my observation that the homosexual community has problems with anybody that does not condone their actions. They are not content to be bound by the same moral laws as heterosexuals are. The Catholic and LDS churches have the responsibility to hold their members to their moral code. If a member does not want to live by that moral code they should leave. If those churches did not stand by their moral code then what good is having such a code.

[Jaybear]

CB - In my seven decades of life it has been my observation that the homosexual community has problems with anybody that does not condone their actions.

Stereotype much? In you haven't noticed, some of the more vocal homophobes are themselves gay.

So as it turns out, the gay community is quite diverse.

They are not content to be bound by the same moral laws as heterosexuals are.

Except for the ten commandments, which were chiseled in stone, moral laws change as society progresses.

The Catholic and LDS churches have the responsibility to hold their members to their moral code. If a member does not want to live by that moral code they should leave. If those churches did not stand by their moral code then what good is having such a code.

The highest moral code is to love thy neighbor. If members of the Catholic and LDS Church believe their leaders are acting contrary to that rule, they should not be afraid to speak up to effect change from within.

I believe that many here have recognized that LDS Church leaders are human, and make mistakes. As they have "softened" their position towards gays, who is to say their position will not continue to "evolve."

[thesometimesaint]

frankenstein:

As an individual he has every right to make any comment he wants. When using his position as a LDS Bishop he has no such authority to speak for the Church. It like here on MDB. We are just stating our own opinions, but none of us has the authority to speak for the Church.

[Storm Rider]

Except for the ten commandments, which were chiseled in stone, moral laws change as society progresses.

The highest moral code is to love thy neighbor. If members of the Catholic and LDS Church believe their leaders are acting contrary to that rule, they should not be afraid to speak up to effect change from within.

I believe that many here have recognized that LDS Church leaders are human, and make mistakes. As they have "softened" their position towards gays, who is to say their position will not continue to "evolve."

I am sorry Jay, but let's go back to the verses you allude when it comes to love:

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt

a

love

the Lord thy God with all thy

b

heart

, and with all thy soul, and with all thy

c

mind

.

38 This is the first and great

a

commandment

.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt

a

love

thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the

a

law

and the prophets.

Pay attention to the first great commandment. What does it mean to love the Lord our God? I recall, if ye love me, keep my commandments. That is first and the greatest. The second, where all like to hang their hat to excuse any form of obedience to God's laws, is to love our neighbour as we love ourselves. Blind love is not Christianity; it is not the teaching of Christ, but it is a complete, total fallacy that is used contantly by those who seek to excuse their disobedience and ignorance of God's laws.

The Church can no more excuse unrighteousness than it can deny the Christ.

[Sleeper Cell]

So a person who happens to be a bishop has no authority, right, or whathaveyou to comment as a person who happens to be a bishop about what he thinks has happened to people?.

Can you elaborate as to your position.

If he really wanted to comment as a person, why did he go out of his way to identify himself as a bishop?

[Sky]

Hi everybody -

Just for the record, I’m a guy. I’m not female. I know sometimes this is not always apparent from my screen name or from my posting style. I’m not sure how to change that other than changing my screen name. But many of you already know me as ‘Sky’ – and I think it might be just as well to keep it that way.

For those that don’t already know, homosexuality is an issue that touches me personally, as well as members of my family. That is why I bring it up here. I’m also what some might call a “True believing Mormon.” So without divulging too much more information about me, knowing this should at least help you all to better understand where I’m coming from.

I don’t purposefully seek to offend anybody. I only try to tell it like I see it. I’m not perfect, but I will defend the Church’s law of chastity. I know some of you won’t like that.

[Jaybear]

I am sorry Jay, but let's go back to the verses you allude when it comes to love:

love

the Lord thy God with all thy

b

heart

, and with all thy soul, and with all thy

c

mind

.

commandment

.

love

thy neighbour as thyself.

law

and the prophets.

Pay attention to the first great commandment. What does it mean to love the Lord our God? I recall, if ye love me, keep my commandments. That is first and the greatest. The second, where all like to hang their hat to excuse any form of obedience to God's laws, is to love our neighbour as we love ourselves. Blind love is not Christianity; it is not the teaching of Christ, but it is a complete, total fallacy that is used contantly by those who seek to excuse their disobedience and ignorance of God's laws.

The Church can no more excuse unrighteousness than it can deny the Christ.

Your church can and does excuse unrighteousness all the time. Its simply a matter of interpretation, emphasis, and context.

For example, your God expressly commands:

But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates

Yet Steve Young, Danny Ainge, Dale Murphy are venerated saints, and role models for mormon children.

By contrast Jesus said nothing about gays. Nor did God ever speak about homosexuality in the context of committed relationship, but only in the context of sexual excess.

Gay mormons who wish to express intimacy in a committed mature long term relationship are subject to excommunication. Yet, mormons who have made millions from porn, alcohol and gambling are cherished members of the community, and held in high regard.

[Senator]

Your church can and does excuse unrighteousness all the time. Its simply a matter of interpretation, emphasis, and context.

For example, your God expressly commands:

Yet Steve Young, Danny Ainge, Dale Murphy are venerated saints, and role models for mormon children.

By contrast Jesus said nothing about gays. Nor did God ever speak about homosexuality in the context of committed relationship, but only in the context of sexual excess.

Gay mormons who wish to express intimacy in a committed mature long term relationship are subject to excommunication. Yet, mormons who have made millions from porn, alcohol and gambling are cherished members of the community, and held in high regard.

Oh, Geezz...

That was an unsightly rant

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

There are also policemen, fireman, paramedics, hospital workers. etc., etc., etc., that must work on the Sabbath, including GC, or other people will DIE. We also recognize them, and admire them. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. That is scriptural. When YOU are perfect I'll let you cast the first stone.

Actually the Bible does teach about homosexual relationships. It was a stoning offence. Further there was no legal recognition of homosexual("committed relationship") marriage in ancient Jewish, Christian, or Roman/Greek paganism. Additionally we have men whom we recognize as modern day Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, that have taught that homosexual acts are contrary to Gods' commandments, and are therefore sinful.

The rest of your post is nothing more than an ad hominen attack on the Church.

[california boy]

CB - In my seven decades of life it has been my observation that the homosexual community has problems with anybody that does not condone their actions. They are not content to be bound by the same moral laws as heterosexuals are. The Catholic and LDS churches have the responsibility to hold their members to their moral code. If a member does not want to live by that moral code they should leave. If those churches did not stand by their moral code then what good is having such a code.

I find your comment actually quite ironic. Maybe it is because I hear it so often by those that use that rational to discriminate against gays. And now during this political season the Mormon church is hearing for itself "Love the sinner, hate the Mormon. These evangelics are saying the exact same thing that we see so often by members of the church.

Gays could CARE LESS whether the Mormon church thinks they are sinning. What they are ticked off about is that the Mormon church is not just happy with calling homosexuality a sin, the church wants to pass laws against that gay community. And that is what has started this whole antagonistic relationship between gays and the Mormon church.

Members have been conned into thinking that preventing gay marriage is a moral issue. But when asked if not allowing gays to be married will some how make them more moral, the answer is obviously no it will not make them more moral. But for some reason, defining the definition for some people makes them feel their marriage is better. So we find ourselves fighting over a definition rather than letting those of the same sex enjoy both the legal and commitment that marriage brings to stable relationships which make them stronger family units. And that is the core of the whole struggle between SOME christian churches and the gay members of our country.

Perhaps the time will come when the church will some day say, "We are sorry for imposing our religious beliefs on to others". But I am not holding my breath. Until that happens, or until this reaches the Supreme Court, this battle between civil rights and religious beliefs will continue.

[california boy]

Additionally we have men whom we recognize as modern day Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, that have taught that homosexual acts are contrary to Gods' commandments, and are therefore sinful.

Well I am not sure if homosexuality was a stoning offense, but I do know that the modern day Prophets, Seers and Revelators have yet to say they have gotten a direct revelation from God about this. So far is all they are saying is that we feel it is a sin. Their evolving statements about homosexuality pretty much tells us they are guessing at what they think God would want them to do. I am not questioning their sincerity, I am just stating that God has yet to give theis men a direct revelation like he used to do with Joseph Smith on a regular basis. Haven't heard "thus sayeth the Lord" on this issue.

[Jaybear]

Jaybear:

There are also policemen, fireman, paramedics, hospital workers. etc., etc., etc., that must work on the Sabbath, including GC, or other people will DIE. We also recognize them, and admire them. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. That is scriptural.

Non sequitor. Young, Ainge and Murphy weren't out there saving any lives.

When YOU are perfect I'll let you cast the first stone.

I didn't throw any stones. I don't care if they work on Sunday.

I am just simply pointing out the absurdity of the statement: The Church can no more excuse unrighteousness than it can deny the Christ.

Actually the Bible does teach about homosexual relationships. It was a stoning offence. Further there was no legal recognition of homosexual("committed relationship") marriage in ancient Jewish, Christian, or Roman/Greek paganism.

Hence my use of the word "context."

Times have changed.

Additionally we have men whom we recognize as modern day Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, that have taught that homosexual acts are contrary to Gods' commandments, and are therefore sinful.

How convenient.

When they say something you agree with, they are modern day prophets.

When they say something you disagree with, they are men, and men make mistakes, or you simply point out that said statements are not doctrinal, as they have not been canonized.

The rest of your post is nothing more than an ad hominen attack on the Church.

That is a base less charge.

My post raised a legitimate question whether intimacy in the context of a commit relationship is more unrighteous than profiting from the sale of pornography, alcohol and gambling.

Does that question offend you?

[frankenstein]

frankenstein:

As an individual he has every right to make any comment he wants. When using his position as a LDS Bishop he has no such authority to speak for the Church. It like here on MDB. We are just stating our own opinions, but none of us has the authority to speak for the Church.

Thank you for your clarification.

If he really wanted to comment as a person, why did he go out of his way to identify himself as a bishop?

Sleeper Cell, I am going to address your comment separate and apart from my post/discussion with TSS.

Sleeper Cell, Why is a person who happens to be a Bishop, not permitted to call upon his experience as a Bishop, in making a statement about what he has seen as a Bishop?

For all we know this person/Bishop has a ward full of bigots who can saying nothing nice about a person who is struggling with ssa. IF such is the case why is this Bishop forbidden from saying that members need to repent? He is a Common Judge in Israel, is he not? Can a Bishop call persons to repentance?

If a person unfamiliar with this board were to read comments about gays/homosexuals that person would justifiable be lead to the conclusion that there are some very bigoted members of the LDS Church. One such comment made not too long ago was that along the line that no gay person should every be trusted with children, another regular epitaph directed towards persons who identify as gay is "immoralists". A second thing that a person unfamiliar with this board would realize is that most - if not all - posters who express disapproval of such bigotory are immediately labeled as being a confederate of immoralists. Given this, it is not irrational for a person to think that there is a culture of bigotry towards homosexuals in the among the LDS peoples.

Given the Official Statements from the LDS Church concerning issues of involving homosexuals/person who identify as having homosexual desire, there are members of the Church on this board who need to repent.

Even if the person in the article from the OP said he was a Bishop, can you articulate why he is forbidden from relying on his experiences as Bishop in making a statement, that concerns members of the Church generally?

[BCSpace]

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.

Indeed. Yet his flying out to speak to this group in my mind is suspect. I don't think we want anyone, especially Bishops, buying into the often embellished and insinuative stories of maltreatment whose object is to implicate and denigrate the Church and ultimately change it's doctrine through grassroots pressure.

[frankenstein]

Indeed. Yet his flying out to speak to this group in my mind is suspect. I don't think we want anyone, especially Bishops, buying into the often embellished and insinuative stories of maltreatment whose object is to implicate and denigrate the Church and ultimately change it's doctrine through grassroots pressure.

a person need only read the "dialogue" that occurs here on this board to know that the person even if speaking as a Bishop he was not embellishing.