Bishop Kloosterman

[Damien the Leper]

I explained. You are ignoring all of my explanations.

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.

Apparently he is a bishop and not pretending to be.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/joannabrooks/5357/homophobia_an_%E2%80%9Catrocity%2C%E2%80%9D_lds_bishop_tells_gay_mormon_conference/

[frankenstein]

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.

You do not even appear to attempt the "yet" quote in the proper frames of reference. He is stating that he has not experienced lbgt issues in his family, extended family, as a bishop to which a sister says "yet", not very ethical of you to make such a deliberate misrepresention.

Edited February 14, 2012 by frankenstein

[Damien the Leper]

You do not even appear to attempt the "yet" quote in the proper frames of reference. He is stating that he has not experienced lbgt issues in his family, extended family, as a bishop to which a sister says "yet", not very ethical of you to make such a deliberate misrepresention.

I would like an explanation for this misrepresentation.

[zerinus]

Apparently he is a bishop and not pretending to be.

http://www.religiond...mon_conference/

Everybody is calling him a bishop for the same reason that you are, because he appears to be saying that he is. But that does not answer the question raised by his own remark as recorded in the video, which I transcribed in my post. In Mormonism an ex-bishop is still technically a bishop, so maybe he is an ex-bishop; but still what he says doesn't make sense.

[frankenstein]

I would like an explanation for this misrepresentation.

I do not know why zerinus would make such a terrible and seemingly deliberate misrepresention.

Start the video at 1:32 and end 2:10 to get the full frame of reference for the Sister saying "yet".

[zerinus]

You do not even appear to attempt the "yet" quote in the proper frames of reference. He is stating that he has not experienced lbgt issues in his family, extended family, as a bishop to which a sister says "yet", not very ethical of you to make such a deliberate misrepresention.

Okay, you win that one. I had misunderstood what he had said.

[zerinus]

I do not know why zerinus would make such a terrible and seemingly deliberate misrepresention.

Start the video at 1:32 and end 2:10 to get the full frame of reference for the Sister saying "yet".

It was neither terrible nor deliberate. I had misunderstood what he had said. I stand by everything else that I have said.

[Grundelwalken]

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.

As to revelation condemning gay marriage, I would refer you to The Family: A Proclamation to the World. The wording and counsel contained in this revelatory document is pretty clear concerning your questions. MW

[Damien the Leper]

As to revelation condemning gay marriage, I would refer you to The Family: A Proclamation to the World. The wording and counsel contained in this revelatory document is pretty clear concerning your questions. MW

Fascinating. However, the presentation of that talk by Hinckley should be observed in light of the gay marriage battles that were taking place in the early nineties. Like the 1890 Manifesto and the 1978 Declaration, this is a politically charged document. IMO, of course.

[california boy]

As to revelation condemning gay marriage, I would refer you to The Family: A Proclamation to the World. The wording and counsel contained in this revelatory document is pretty clear concerning your questions. MW

Well this gets into the issue of what is doctrine and what is just a statement by the church. Is the Proclamation coming from God by revelation, or is the First Presidency/maybe Quorum of the 12 making a statement that they feel is what God wants them to say.

I say this because this issue of what is or was doctrine comes up on this site all the time. Was Brigham Young expressing his opinon on blacks and the priesthoood for example or was he just a product of his time? Is the Proclamation also a product of its time? I don't know the answer to that question in all honesty. Perhaps someone has something more authorative that would place it more in the doctrine part of church teaching rather than the "we think at this time we should do this" part of church teaching.

[zerinus]

Fascinating. However, the presentation of that talk by Hinckley should be observed in light of the gay marriage battles that were taking place in the early nineties. Like the 1890 Manifesto and the 1978 Declaration, this is a politically charged document. IMO, of course.

The Proclamation on the Family is about family matters in general, and only has incidental relevance to homosexuality.

[Grundelwalken]

Well this gets into the issue of what is doctrine and what is just a statement by the church. Is the Proclamation coming from God by revelation, or is the First Presidency/maybe Quorum of the 12 making a statement that they feel is what God wants them to say.

I say this because this issue of what is or was doctrine comes up on this site all the time. Was Brigham Young expressing his opinon on blacks and the priesthoood for example or was he just a product of his time? Is the Proclamation also a product of its time? I don't know the answer to that question in all honesty. Perhaps someone has something more authorative that would place it more in the doctrine part of church teaching rather than the "we think at this time we should do this" part of church teaching.

We, The First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His Children. (paragraph 1 of the Proclamation)

It appears to be pretty definite from the Brethren that this is an official declaration of the doctrine of the Church. I don't see much wiggle room in any of their statements. This Message was sent to world leaders, Church leaders, community leaders, and many others in the world. I don't believe they would send an 'opinion' out under this heading if it was not considered doctrine.

Brigham Young did not write a proclamation about Blacks and the Priesthood and send it to the world because he was only speaking his opinion on the subject. MW

[california boy]

We, The First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His Children. (paragraph 1 of the Proclamation)

It appears to be pretty definite from the Brethren that this is an official declaration of the doctrine of the Church. I don't see much wiggle room in any of their statements. This Message was sent to world leaders, Church leaders, community leaders, and many others in the world. I don't believe they would send an 'opinion' out under this heading if it was not considered doctrine.

Brigham Young did not write a proclamation about Blacks and the Priesthood and send it to the world because he was only speaking his opinion on the subject. MW

So apparently you think it is official doctrine. Do others agree with you? Just curious. Like I said, I have no idea. Certainly you would have to agree that people in Brigham Young's day and even until 1978 people believed that blacks not being allowed to hold the priesthood was doctrine with or without BY issuing an official proclamation. So that actually is not by itself an indication that something is doctrine. And if it is official doctrine, is it, or should it be included in the D&C like other subsequent revelations? If not. why not?

[Grundelwalken]

The Proclamation on the Family is about family matters in general, and only has incidental relevance to homosexuality.

With the greatest respect (because I generally agree with what you share) I must disagree. While the message is most definitely about the family, there are numerous times that the reader is taught principles that directly oppose the same sex lifestyle.

1. ...marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God... (paragraph 1)

2. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. (paragraph 2)

3. The First Commandment that God gave Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. (paragraph 3)

4. ... God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife. (paragraph 3)

5. Husbands and wives -- mothers and fathers -- will be held accountable... (paragraph 6)

6. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. (paragraph 7)

There are other references that could be considered pertinent to the issue of a same sex lifestyle but I will stick with these because they are pretty clear. MW

[Damien the Leper]

The Proclamation on the Family is about family matters in general, and only has incidental relevance to homosexuality.

Heh, heh, heh...if you say so.

[zerinus]

With the greatest respect (because I generally agree with what you share) I must disagree. While the message is most definitely about the family, there are numerous times that the reader is taught principles that directly oppose the same sex lifestyle.

1. ...marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God... (paragraph 1)

2. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. (paragraph 2)

3. The First Commandment that God gave Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. (paragraph 3)

4. ... God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife. (paragraph 3)

5. Husbands and wives -- mothers and fathers -- will be held accountable... (paragraph 6)

6. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. (paragraph 7)

There are other references that could be considered pertinent to the issue of a same sex lifestyle but I will stick with these because they are pretty clear. MW

I think it appears like that if you want to read that into it. I doubt that the Brethren had specifically same-sex lifestyles in mind when they composed most of those sentences. I have no doubt that the Proclamation does indeed speak against same-sex lifestyles. But that for the most part is a natural outgrowth of the Proclamations's emphasis on importance of the family in the divine plan as God had intended it to be.

[Alan]

I think this Bishop has over stepped the mark. He seems to be saying that homosexuals are born that way. They are not.

In my ward there is a man who was gay but is now straight, married with several children. There is another man who made a big fanfare about being gay and "knowing" he was all his life, but now rejects this and is married with a child.

In my view this Bishop is likely to be released rather soon.

[Grundelwalken]

I think it appears like that if you want to read that into it. I doubt that the Brethren had specifically same-sex lifestyles in mind when they composed most of those sentences. I have no doubt that the Proclamation does indeed speak against same-sex lifestyles. But that for the most part is a natural outgrowth of the Proclamations's emphasis on importance of the family in the divine plan as God had intended it to be.

I agree. My 'glasses' do see things how I want to see them. MW

[Damien the Leper]

I think this Bishop has over stepped the mark. He seems to be saying that homosexuals are born that way. They are not.

In my ward there is a man who was gay but is now straight, married with several children. There is another man who made a big fanfare about being gay and "knowing" he was all his life, but now rejects this and is married with a child.

In my view this Bishop is likely to be released rather soon.

Ah, the glorious agenda of sexual re-orientation as a means to 'normalize' homosexuals. They can marry and have kids till their blue in the face. Appreciate the lip service while you can.

[Alan]

You are wrong in my view. Not only have these men married and fathered kids, but they absolutely reject their pasts and find the sin of homosexual practice utterly abhorent. They now thoroughly reject homosexuality and regard it as an addictive strategy of the devil. Not my words, theirs.

[california boy]

You are wrong in my view. Not only have these men married and fathered kids, but they absolutely reject their pasts and find the sin of homosexual practice utterly abhorent. They now thoroughly reject homosexuality and regard it as an addictive strategy of the devil. Not my words, theirs.

Ah yeah, someone who is not gay who is absolutely sure people just wake up one day and decide to be gay. Of course the church is not at all sure of your statement and have repeatedly said they don't know if a person is born gay.

Carry on. Nothing to see here.

[Damien the Leper]

You are wrong in my view. Not only have these men married and fathered kids, but they absolutely reject their pasts and find the sin of homosexual practice utterly abhorent. They now thoroughly reject homosexuality and regard it as an addictive strategy of the devil. Not my words, theirs.

And I'm telling you that what they may say is lip service and part of their plan of suppressing their feelings. People are great actors when they want to be.

I will give your aquaintances the benefit of the doubt and applaud them for making the choice to live the lifestyle they do.

[Damien the Leper]

I thought this was funny.

[Calm]

Ah, the glorious agenda of sexual re-orientation as a means to 'normalize' homosexuals. They can marry and have kids till their blue in the face. Appreciate the lip service while you can.

So when someone says they are born gay we are supposed to just accept it as a given, but if someone states they are no longer gay we can discount it as just fooling themselves.

Edited February 15, 2012 by calmoriah