Damien the Leper Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDfYQbCro7MWould this talk, though outside an official church forum, be considered 'overstepping' the position of Bishop? Or would it be considered a man's opinion who just so happens to be a bishop of the church?
guitarist Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 I haven't heard anything about this other than actually watching the video, so hopefully I'm not missing some crucial background detail outside of the video.He specifically says in the beginning of the video that he is speaking strictly for himself. That said, I don't think he said anything doctrinally wrong--he's said nothing about embracing the homosexual lifestyle, merely that we should love every neighbor like our selves, and condemning the referenced attacks on homosexuals. His sorrow appears to stem from him not having taken a more active role in condemning/preventing these hate crimes in the past. This is perfectly in line with the gospel, wherein we should love the person but hate the sin.This should be the attitude of every LDS member, but obviously that that's not true. The bishop here clearly feels that he fell into that camp for much of his life up to that point.
Mark Beesley Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 It is unclear whether the speaker is telling us that we need to repent of condemning the homosexual lifestyle or the just the homosexual. If the former, he's off-base, if the latter, then anyone who has been unkind or uncharitable towards individual homosexuals needs to repent. He also kind of lost me toward the end where he talks about different species of animals, and not wanting to make an eagle into a giraffe, or a horse into a lion . . . is he saying that homosexuals are a different species of animal? Obviously not, be he needs a better analogy.On a side note: Are bishops allowed to have beards?
Calm Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 On a side note: Are bishops allowed to have beards?There is no policy against it, but some stake presidents require 'no beard' or at least in the past they did.
guitarist Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 On a side note: Are bishops allowed to have beards?I've met several Bishops with beards (incidentally mostly in Utah). As one who always has some sort of facial hair, I've frequently attempted to get to the bottom of that question. To the best of my knowledge, it lies with the Stake President as to whether or not you can have a beard (I think the "allowance" for a beard was to account for local customs throughout the world, etc.)
Libs Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 (edited) Btw, I think his analogy means that we shouldn't be trying to change that which God has made perfect, already. Not meaning any man is perfect, but that, in the matter of sexual orientation, it is God's work. The lesson or "challenge", as some like to call it, is for those who will not accept it...not for those who were born that way. (my humble opinion) And, I think Bishop Koosterman is beginning to see that, in a big way. Edited February 13, 2012 by Libs 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 I think the "allowance" for a beard was to account for local customs throughout the world, etc.You have it precisely backward. Search the Church handbooks online; they contain exactly zero references to facial hair. A stake president who adds this requirement is doing so based on local custom or personal preference.
guitarist Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 You have it precisely backward. Search the Church handbooks online; they contain exactly zero references to facial hair. A stake president who adds this requirement is doing so based on local custom or personal preference.Thanks for the clarification! I know it's a little off topic, but would you say it's the same for the temple workers too?
Hamba Tuhan Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 The lesson or "challenge", as some like to call it, is for those who will not accept it...not for those who were born that way.I was born extremely selfish, painfully shy, and severely lazy. My parents, sadly, rejected the 'challenge' of seeing those traits as perfections God had given me.... 1
Libs Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 I was born extremely selfish, painfully shy, and severely lazy. My parents, sadly, rejected the 'challenge' of seeing those traits as perfections God had given me....Well, they had very good discernment! Seriously, some of our personality traits could definitely be considered a "challenge". But, sexual orientation? Not in my opinion.
Hamba Tuhan Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 I know it's a little off topic, but would you say it's the same for the temple workers too?No, I was working in the temple when the Temple Department first issued 'dressing and grooming guidelines' about ten years ago. Interestingly, the cover letter which came with the guidelines explained that they'd been drafted in response to complaints that standards were inconsistent amongst temples. Since that time, male temple workers have been instructed 'generally' to be without beards or moustaches. I had a beard at the time which was necessary for the production I was acting in, so I kept serving with it for many months.
Hamba Tuhan Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 Seriously, some of our personality traits could definitely be considered a "challenge". But, sexual orientation? Not in my opinion.And why does this particular sexual sin get a special pass? I'm a historian, and it would be a fascinating project to trace the wildly successful effort of the past few decades to normalise and domesticate homosexual behaviour. 1
Libs Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 (edited) And why does this particular sexual sin get a special pass? I'm a historian, and it would be a fascinating project to trace the wildly successful effort of the past few decades to normalise and domesticate homosexual behaviour.Sex outside of marriage may be a sin (calling that a sin, I can understand), but calling a natural act, resulting from an orientation that one is born with, a sin, just doesn't make sense, inside of a true loving relationship. Edited February 13, 2012 by Libs
Pahoran Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 (edited) Sex outside of marriage may be a sin (calling that a sin, I can understand), but calling a natural act, resulting from an orientation that one is born with, a sin, just doesn't make sense, inside of a true loving relationship.But Libs, "sex outside of marriage" is "a natural act, resulting from an orientation that one is born with." Many sins are "natural acts" of some form or another. Many sins are "natural acts" that two (or more) people might enjoy doing together. Like Hamba, I fail to see why homosexual acts are in such a special category that they just couldn't possibly be sinful.The notion that premarital sex is somehow more sinful than filth and debauchery is a startling one.And I'm sorry, but I don't see Kloosterman saying what you think he says. We are all imperfect people; why do you imagine that homosexuals are not?Admittedly, the meal that was made of this talk in certain quarters, for propaganda purposes, provides a good argument for why LDS leaders should stay away from gatherings characterised by defiant unrepentance, but the fact is that "be nice to people" is a long way from a revolutionary departure from normative LDS thought.Regards,Pahoran Edited February 13, 2012 by Pahoran 1
Maestrophil Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 (edited) But Libs, "sex outside of marriage" is "a natural act,Well said, Pahoran. I think it is sad how many people I see that are horrified by the thought of homosexuals, kind of 'winking" at young hetero couples who "slip". I have heard many members empathize with those situations between young men and women, even going as far as to say things like "well, it is hard for young kids" or "I remember how hard it was for me, and most of us make some mistakes" etc.I feel for the struggle of a brother or sister with homosexual tendencies, it would be a hard to feel you will never share an active sexual bond in the way you desire AND remain a worthy member. That said, many things,not limited to, but including my sexual desires and activities, have not been as fulfilling as I would have hoped them to be throughout my life - and some of my relationships have suffered because of the fact that I have chosen to do what God wants me to with my life rather than what I or a significant other would have me do.It is hard to sacrifice self to become like our Father, that is what faithful members with homosexual desires do... and I respect them highly for it. They understand God does not bend every time his children are hurt or 'deprived'...I get tired of people trying to explain how homosexual sex/marriage should get a pass out of love and/or sympathy... chastity is chastity... straight or gay - do it or don't, but you can't be an exception to the rules! Edited February 13, 2012 by Maestrophil
Damien the Leper Posted February 14, 2012 Author Posted February 14, 2012 The topic of the thread isn't about whether or not we agree with homosexuality or the church's position on the subject. I asked in the OP a very specific question. How about we stay on topic and address the questions I proposed? Whether you do or do not agree with what Bishop Kloosterman says is absolutely irrelevant to the OP.
Damien the Leper Posted February 14, 2012 Author Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) Post edit to satisfy Selek's never ending criticisms. Edited February 14, 2012 by Valentinus
selek1 Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 I think that Bishop Kloosterman was trying to say not to try to re-orient sexual orientation.The topic of the thread isn't about whether or not we agree with homosexuality or the church's position on the subject. I asked in the OP a very specific question. How about we stay on topic and address the questions I proposed? Whether you do or do not agree with what Bishop Kloosterman says is absolutely irrelevant to the OP.I wish you'd make up your mind, Valentinus.Do you want to discuss the question in the OP or push your interpretation of Kloosterman's words?You can't have it both ways.
Damien the Leper Posted February 14, 2012 Author Posted February 14, 2012 I wish you'd make up your mind, Valentinus.Do you want to discuss the question in the OP or push your interpretation of Kloosterman's words?You can't have it both ways.Fair enough.Are you going to contribute or play ringmaster? I wish you would make up your mind.
TAO Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 Well, to be quite honest, I think the church would be fine with pretty much everything the Bishop said... although I have a feeling the church would interpret it differently than the audience interpreted it. People have different ideas about what 'restitution' is, and such.
frankenstein Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 How could what he said be anything other than the opinion of someone who happens to be a bishop. So yes, as he even states, he is speaking for himself about his own thoughts.
KevinG Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 I think the intent was to speak as a private person who happened to be a Bishop. His experience counseling those who struggle with Same Sex Attraction and Homosexual behavior gives him some deep insight into LDS doctrine, policy and culture.However I think his public address made him an unoffical spokesperson for the Church in the eys of the audience even if it wasn't his intent.
ERayR Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 Sex outside of marriage may be a sin (calling that a sin, I can understand), but calling a natural act, resulting from an orientation that one is born with, a sin, just doesn't make sense, inside of a true loving relationship.Mosiah 3:19 19 For the anatural bman is an cenemy to God, and has been from the dfall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he eyields to the enticings of the Holy fSpirit, and gputteth off the hnatural man and becometh a isaint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a jchild, ksubmissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.
selek1 Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) It is unclear whether the speaker is telling us that we need to repent of condemning the homosexual lifestyle or the just the homosexual. In at least one subsequent interview, Kloosterman made it clear that the atrocity to which he referred was hostility and violence towards and against homosexuals.He was (for the most part) echoing the Church's stance of compassion and outreach.Kloosterman was very careful to note and clarify (despite the fervent wishes of the Strib and homosexual agitators) that he was NOT criticizing the Church's doctrine or doctrinal position.That having been said, Kloosterman overstepped his bounds, and allowed his title and position and personal opinion to be used to undermine the Church and its teachings, and to advance a false narrative.Despite the qualifier that he was speaking only for himself (and not in any official capacity), those eager to pursue an agenda studiously ignored that qualifier in reporting the matter.I find it difficult, if not impossible to believe that a reasonable person expected that they would do otherwise.Does anyone here seriously believe that he would have been asked to close their meetings that Saturday and to officiate at the religious services on Sunday were it not for his calling as a Bishop?I don't for a moment criticize his compassion or determination to be reach out to those who are suffering- but whether he was a dupe or a willing participant, this was little more than a publicity stunt intended to capitalize on his post and calling.Whether a dupe or a willing participant, he should have known better. Edited February 14, 2012 by selek1
Recommended Posts