Bishop Kloosterman

[Pahoran]

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.

Well, I'm not so sure.

I agree with you that there's not really anything problematic about what he said.

I also agree that his name and position did get leveraged for polemical purposes.

The thing is that, if he's had no experience of that kind of political manoeuvring before, he wouldn't necessarily expect to be embroiled in it.

Just as dishonest people are always suspicious, so trustworthy people also tend to be trusting; at least, until they've been stung once or twice.

I thought I read at one point that he had his Stake President's approval to participate? If so, then at least he was a little bit cautious about it.

In any event, I agree that he made a mistake and as a result, he was used. And I expect he's now learned from the experience.

Regards,

Pahoran

[ERMD]

In time, I think he will see this as an unwise move.

[Libs]

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

Well, perhaps, I didn't say what I meant, very well. Or maybe we just have different ideas about what is "filth and debauchery". Not at all sure what you meant by that.

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.

That's a good question. Why ARE homosexual acts made more special? They are, you know. If they weren't, then homosexuals could marry, just as heteros, and have a spiritually legitimate avenue of expression for their love.

All I'm saying is, it's not a sin to love someone and to express that love in perfectly natural ways, if it is consensual and reciprocated.

As for Kloosterman, his heart took him there, for a reason. He may not have meant what I said, but it sure did sound that way, to me. What else could it have meant? Not making a rooster into an elephant (or whatever the animals were)...?

Edited February 14, 2012 by Libs

[ERMD]

As you should understand, for members of the LDS Church, and especially for those who have been to the temple, any sexual contact outside of marriage between a man and a woman is a grievous sin, whether the two consenting individuals are of the same or opposite sex.

The standard applies to all.

"Natural" does not equate to "good" in all circumstances.

[KevinG]

Why ARE homosexual acts made more special?

Outside of the Biblical admonition against homosexual acts, adultry and fornication... On pondering why sexual sin is such a big deal I have come to the conclusion that God has delegated two truly godlike powers to His children on earth. One being the ability to create life and the other the ability to take life. These are only to be used at times proscribed by God.

Sexual realtions are to procreate and strengthen the bonds of marriage. Just because sexual acts and drives are enjoyable or powerful in other situations does not mean we have free reign to use them outside of the carefully selected conditions God has set forth.

[cdowis]

I agree with you that there's not really anything problematic about what he said.

Well, let's take a closer look.

He says that he is a "recent convert" (knowing laughter from the audience), and obviously not about his testimony of the LDS church. And what does this "conversion" mean, in the context of a bishop in the church. His tears of contrition, his conversion "in a sacred place" (clearly referring to the temple), represent a thinly disguised message about the treatment of gays, etc, in the church -- for Utah, and Zion.

Whether he doing this consciously, despite his denial, he is using his position in the church to project his opinions on this issue, not as an ordinary member speaking his private opinion. The video mentions that he is a bishop, and he makes his church calling clear in his speech. His tears can be interpreted as an apology for the position of the church.

While he says that he does not speak for the church, it is clear that his friends are using his position IN THE CHURCH to gloss over the personal nature of his speech. We missed the introduction, but are we to believe that it was not mentioned his position in the church?

He is walking a very thin line here on using not only his membership but also his church leadership role as a vehicle to gain converts to his views, he calls Zion to repentence, he exhorts that a lion cannot become a bear, and such public advocacy **within the context of his membership in the church** has been sufficient grounds for action on his membership. In that context, the text of his speech is irrevelant to the intent of his speech. It is not his role to use his membership to seek converts, to make an impassioned plea to join with his worldview, regardless of the merit of that view, to call Zion to repentence.

He has made this issue his special mission, and like those before him -- polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, feminism-- he has now wandered down his own path.

Edited February 14, 2012 by cdowis

[Duncan]

As you should understand, for members of the LDS Church, and especially for those who have been to the temple, any sexual contact outside of marriage between a man and a woman is a grievous sin, whether the two consenting individuals are of the same or opposite sex.

The standard applies to all.

"Natural" does not equate to "good" in all circumstances.

I see "natural" along those lines as well and would add that natural means something you don't have any control over, like you don't have any contol over the desire for sex, food, water but you can decide if you will have sex, food, water etc.

[Storm Rider]

I think this Bishop overstepped his boundaries. If he speaks as a man, rather than a bishop, then he should be identified as such. That fact that he presents himself in the capacity of a bishop, he has abused his position in the Church. This is unfortunate and inappropriate for any leader to do. Too often they think the mantle is theirs when they have only be given it for a short time to serve their brothers and sisters.

[frankenstein]

Nvm

Edited February 14, 2012 by frankenstein

[california boy]

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.

That is a good question. Why is the sin of homosexuality attacked so vigorously by the church compared to other equally sinful acts. What other sin does the members of the church pay millions to pass laws to prevent those practicing that sin from being married. Why is it that those that are homosexuals not allowed to marry when there is no other sin that marriage is forbidden. In fact, there are far more biblical references condemning fortification than homosexuality. When someone is tempted to have sex outside of marriage, the counsel is usually wait for marriage. But with this sin, marriage is condemned even more vigorously than the sin itself. And oddly enough there has been no revelation from God forbidding marriage between gay couples. Yet this is a tinder box that sets members off like no other issue. There are more threads started about this one sin than all the other moral sins combined. It is as if members target this one sin just because it is a sin that does not effect them if they are straight.

[zerinus]

Would 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?

He said two things which amounted to overstepping his bounds. Firstly, it is not clear who or what he is "apologizing" for. If he is apologizing for the Church, he is overstepping his bounds. He is not in a position to apologize for the Church. If he was apologizing for himself, he didn't make clear what he was apologizing for, and why. He came over as apologizing for the Church, which he was not in a position to do.

Secondly, by comparing sexual orientation with how various animal species are "born," he was implying that sexual orientation is a God given attribute, just like being born a dog or a cat. I don't believe it is a God given attribute, any more than being born with a genetic deformity is a God given attribute. We should have compassion on those born with a genetic deformity; that is not the same as identifying it as a God given virtue. We may not know what causes reverse sexual orientation within genders; but there is no questioning that it is not a God ordained attribute. If it was, the act would not be forbidden. God would not induce an orientation, and then forbid the action. If the action is forbidden, then the orientation is not of God.

Edited February 14, 2012 by zerinus

[frankenstein]

Zerinus

For the LDS it is entirely possible that homosexual desires are given of God. See Ether 12, God gives weaknesses that we may become strong.

[zerinus]

Zerinus

For the LDS it is entirely possible that homosexual desires are given of God. See Ether 12, God gives weaknesses that we may become strong.

I can find you a better scripture:

Moses 6:

55 And the Lord spake unto Adam, saying: Inasmuch as thy children are conceived in sin, even so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good.

56 And it is given unto them to know good from evil; wherefore they are agents unto themselves, and I have given unto you another law and commandment.

A disposition to commit sin is not a God given attribute though.

[frankenstein]

First how is one scripture better than another? Also that verse you provide does not support your assumption.

Second, The LDS know and teach that weaknesses are given to us of God.

[zerinus]

First how is one scripture better than another? Also that verse you provide does not support your assumption.

It is better because it describes the situation better.

Second, The LDS know and teach that weaknesses are given to us of God.

"Weakness" is not equivalent to a disposition to commit sin. The scripture you are referring to is as follows:

Ether 12:

23 And I said unto him: Lord, the Gentiles will mock at these things, because of our weakness in writing; for Lord thou hast made us mighty in word by faith, but thou hast not made us mighty in writing; for thou hast made all this people that they could speak much, because of the Holy Ghost which thou hast given them;

24 And thou hast made us that we could write but little, because of the awkwardness of our hands. Behold, thou hast not made us mighty in writing like unto the brother of Jared, for thou madest him that the things which he wrote were mighty even as thou art, unto the overpowering of man to read them.

25 Thou hast also made our words powerful and great, even that we cannot write them; wherefore, when we write we behold our weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock at our words.

26 And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying: Fools mock, but they shall mourn; and my grace is sufficient for the meek, that they shall take no advantage of your weakness;

27 And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.

28 Behold, I will show unto the Gentiles their weakness, and I will show unto them that faith, hope and charity bringeth unto me—the fountain of all righteousness.

35 Wherefore, I know by this thing which thou hast said, that if the Gentiles have not charity, because of our weakness, that thou wilt prove them, and take away their talent, yea, even that which they have received, and give unto them who shall have more abundantly.

36 And it came to pass that I prayed unto the Lord that he would give unto the Gentiles grace, that they might have charity.

37 And it came to pass that the Lord said unto me: If they have not charity it mattereth not unto thee, thou hast been faithful; wherefore, thy garments shall be made clean. And because thou hast seen thy weakness thou shalt be made strong, even unto the sitting down in the place which I have prepared in the mansions of my Father.

"Weakness in writing" is not equivalent to a disposition to commit sin. You are talking about two different things here.

Edited February 14, 2012 by zerinus

[frankenstein]

It is a good thing that the voice of Lord is quoted as "weakness" and not "weakness in writing". The Lord offers no clarification when He say "I give unto men weakness that they may be humble"

Edited February 14, 2012 by frankenstein

[zerinus]

It is a good thing that the voice of Lord is quoted as "weakness" and not "weakness in writing". The Lord offers no clarification when He say "I give unto men weakness that they may be humble"

The qualification is in the context, and also in Moses 6:55-56. We understand any text within its context; and the scriptures in particular in the context of all the scriptures. There is no scripture that suggests that sinful dispositions are God given attributes. They teach that sin came as a consequence of the Fall, and as a result of yielding to temptation. See again Moses 6:55-56.

[DH]

Would 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?

Why would it be considered 'overstepping'? The Church teaches that homosexual behavior is wrong, but that we should love and welcome homosexual people. It seems to me that that is exactly what Bishop Kloosterman is doing. If anything, he is magnifiying his calling as a bishop by expressing love to his homosexual brothers and sisters.

Or would you rather that homosexuals just leave the Church and/or commit suicide?

[zerinus]

Why would it be considered 'overstepping'? The Church teaches that homosexual behavior is wrong, but that we should love and welcome homosexual people. It seems to me that that is exactly what Bishop Kloosterman is doing. If anything, he is magnifiying his calling as a bishop by expressing love to his homosexual brothers and sisters.

Or would you rather that homosexuals just leave the Church and/or commit suicide?

Perhaps you missed my post #36; or maybe not.

[frankenstein]

Post 36 only indicates that because you did not like his delivery that he over stepped. One has to assume too much. He spoke as aperson who happens to be a bishop. Any one can view behaviour and make judgment on that behaviour.

[DH]

He said two things which amounted to overstepping his bounds. Firstly, it is not clear who or what he is "apologizing" for. If he is apologizing for the Church, he is overstepping his bounds. He is not in a position to apologize for the Church. If he was apologizing for himself, he didn't make clear what he was apologizing for, and why. He came over as apologizing for the Church, which he was not in a position to do.

There are different types of apology. If you have a teenage son who you have taught well, who nevertheless rebels and spray paints graffiti on a building, you as his parent might apologize to the building owner on behalf of your son, even though it's not your fault. I see Bp. Kloosterman's apology as one on behalf of all those Church members who have mistreated homosexuals, whether or not they themselves feel sorry. It's a recognition on Kloosterman's part that something bad happened, and an expression of regret and sadness, intended to help his audience know that there are Mormons, like him, who do care about them.

Secondly, by comparing sexual orientation with how various animal species are "born," he was implying that sexual orientation is a God given attribute, just like being born a dog or a cat. I don't believe it is a God given attribute, any more than being born with a genetic deformity is a God given attribute. We should have compassion on those born with a genetic deformity; that is not the same as identifying it as a God given virtue. We may not know what causes reverse sexual orientation within genders; but there is no questioning that it is not a God ordained attribute. If it was, the act would not be forbidden. God would not induce an orientation, and then forbid the action. If the action is forbidden, then the orientation is not of God.

Kloosterman did not say homosexuality is a God-given attribute or virtue, but that doesn't mean that homosexuals aren't "born that way." It just means that if they are born that way, it could be something that just happened, not something that God did. I believe we should have compassion on homosexuals, and I believe that is what the Church teaches. If you disagree with the Church that is your privilege, but that doesn't mean Bishop Kloosterman is wrong to show compassion for homosexuals.

Edited February 14, 2012 by DH

[Damien the Leper]

Why would it be considered 'overstepping'? The Church teaches that homosexual behavior is wrong, but that we should love and welcome homosexual people. It seems to me that that is exactly what Bishop Kloosterman is doing. If anything, he is magnifiying his calling as a bishop by expressing love to his homosexual brothers and sisters.

Or would you rather that homosexuals just leave the Church and/or commit suicide?

Some, as you have seen, do consider it to be overstepping. I'm at a standstill on this because I have not spoken with Bishop Kloosterman in order to understand his full intent in his message.

I would not suggest leaving the church or suicide. The suicides are atrocities that are not just borne within the self loathing homosexual Saint. That is naive and irresponsible. As children of God, we are responsible for the well being of ALL God's creation. This is why I like Community of Christ's Mission Initiatives that I cited in my other thread. The Mission Initiatives, IMO, are not just church practices but are Sacraments of Jesus Christ.

[ERayR]

The good bishop stepped over the line. If he were only speaking for himself he should not have spoken as Bishop Kloosterman but only as Mr. Kloosterman.

[zerinus]

Post 36 only indicates that because you did not like his delivery that he over stepped.

I explained. You are ignoring all of my explanations.

One has to assume too much. He spoke as aperson who happens to be a bishop. Any one can view behaviour and make judgment on that behaviour.

He does not even appear to be a bishop. He says early on in his speech, "... in my family, in my extended family, as a bishop, and of course, one of our good sisters reminded me to include the word, 'yet' ..." What is that supposed to mean? He does not even appear to be a bishop, but pretending to be.

[zerinus]

There are different types of apology. If you have a teenage son who you have taught well, who nevertheless rebels and spray paints graffiti on a building, you as his parent might apologize to the building owner on behalf of your son, even though it's not your fault. I see Bp. Kloosterman's apology as one on behalf of all those Church members who have mistreated homosexuals, whether or not they themselves feel sorry. It's a recognition on Kloosterman's part that something bad happened, and an expression of regret and sadness, intended to help his audience know that there are Mormons, like him, who do care about them.

He can only apologize for himself, not for the rest of the Church. The Church has nothing to apologize for; and if it did, it wouldn't be coming from him.

Kloosterman did not say homosexuality is a God-given attribute or virtue, . . .

That is what was implied by his speech. When he ways, "... who would want to make an eagle be a giraffe, who would want a tiger to be a bear ..." that is what he is implying, that being a homosexual is as normal, or "God-given," as a tiger being a tiger, or an eagle being an eagle. It is not.