Lds Church Backs Utah Lgbt Anti-Discrimination Bill

[Buckeye]

Yes, a position that's been consistently held by the Church but not consistently applied in all areas. So the confirmation and clarification is much appreciated.

 

Exactly.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, a position that's been consistently held by the Church but not consistently applied in all areas. So the confirmation and clarification is much appreciated.

If it's a confirmation of a position that has been consistently held, it is, by definition, not a new development. Hence, it would not serve as an example -- now or 10 years from now -- as a "significant change," or even an insignificant one.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

If it's a confirmation of a position that has been consistently held, it is, by definition, not a new development. Hence, it would not serve as an example -- now or 10 years from now -- as a "significant change, or even an insignificant one.

Which is why I referred to it as a development, not a change.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, a position that's been consistently held by the Church but not consistently applied in all areas. So the confirmation and clarification is much appreciated.

 

 

Exactly.

I'm not persuaded that it has been inconsistently applied. I do observe on occasion that when a member is called to account for his intemperate remarks about the Church's involvement in the public dialogue about marriage redefinition, his ready narrative is that he is being oppressed for his political views. John Dehlin is probably the most recent and prominent example of that.

[Buckeye]

I'm not persuaded that it has been inconsistently applied. I do observe on occasion that when a member is called to account for his intemperate remarks about the Church's involvement in the public dialogue about marriage redefinition, his ready narrative is that he is being oppressed for his political views. John Dehlin is probably the most recent and prominent example of that.

 

All I can give is my personal experience. In my neck of the woods there has been significant misunderstanding, with most members/leaders believing that you could not support SSM and remain in good standing. I've heard too many accounts from others, particularly in California during prop 8, to think my stake is unusual.

 

I take that back. I can give one example of someone whose recommend was taken for supporting SSM, but not attacking the church: Kevin Kloosterman.

 

 

 

It feels scary to have all the words I say on Facebook and Twitter monitored,” said Kevin Kloosterman, a mental health therapist in Sycamore, Ill.

 

Mr. Kloosterman, who was a bishop from 2007 to 2012, attracted headlines and scrutiny for an emotional talk he gave at a conference in Salt Lake City in 2011 apologizing to gays rejected by their Mormon families. He also lobbied for same-sex marriage in his state. But there were no consequences until March of this year, when, at a meeting, his bishop cited a Twitter post by Mr. Kloosterman congratulating the first gay couple to be married in Utah.

 

“Jesus would never do that,” the bishop said, according to Mr. Kloosterman. He said his bishop informed him that an Area Seventy church leader had weighed in on his case (Mr. Kloosterman declined to name him), and that leaders had been monitoring his Internet activity and knew he supported groups that disagree with church teaching.

 

The bishop revoked Mr. Kloosterman’s “temple recommend,” denying him entrance to the temple, where important rituals like baptisms and marriages are held and where he and his wife used to go regularly for spiritual uplift.

 

“It’s been devastating,” he said. “I’m in shock still.”

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/19/us/critical-online-comments-put-church-status-at-risk-mormons-say.html?_r=0

 

 

Edit to add:

 

Here is a tweet from Kloosterman just 17 hours ago:

 

 

After being denied the blessings of the temple for the past year,I now can return w/ my wife and children!Very happy! http://www.sltrib.com/blogs/2301174-155/mormons-free-to-back-gay-marriage …

 

https://twitter.com/kevkloosterman

 

 

 

So at least in one case, this change/development/announcement/reminder has made an important difference. I'm very happy for Bishop Kloosterman.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Buckeye

[rockpond]

I'm not persuaded that it has been inconsistently applied. I do observe on occasion that when a member is called to account for his intemperate remarks about the Church's involvement in the public dialogue about marriage redefinition, his ready narrative is that he is being oppressed for his political views. John Dehlin is probably the most recent and prominent example of that.

 

I don't expect to persuade you.  And I agree that Dehlin's claim that he was excommunicated for his SSM support and advocacy is false.

 

But...

 

Buckeye just gave you one example.

 

Here are a number of others:  http://mormonstories.org/stories-of-people-disciplined-by-lds-church-just-for-supporting-same-sex-marriage/

 

And I'll add mine:  I was never threatened with discipline.  But a few years ago when I posted the marriage equality symbol on my facebook page my wife and parents (my father is a former bishop and stake president) told me that they felt doing such things could put my membership in jeopardy.

 

I think the sentiment is out there among many members and leaders.  Just look at the other thread on this subject ("Can We Support Same-Sex Marriage?") in which members of MDDB are saying that Elder Christofferson is just pandering and that they leaders are mistaken in allowing members to publicly support SSM.

[Hamilton Porter]

Assuming your numbers are correct, the 75 percent under 45 perhaps need to be taught why such a thing is unthinkable and that waiting for people to die off isn't going to result in any change in that respect.

Moreover, since many people can be expected to gain wisdom with age and experience, that figure may well change as that portion of the demographic ages.

 

It's unlikely if the Church would ever do it, but if it did then 75% (of a group mostly BYU grads, count myself in) would grudgingly stick with the Church, another 10% would actually applaud it, and the rest would go apostate.

 

So if the Church would ever need to make such a move, it'd have to wait for a lot of old mullahs to die.

[toon]

So if Hugh Hefner pops down to the local photography shop and wants me to come and take pics of nude women I have to do it? or only if they are getting married?

 

I'm pretty sure "nude women" has never been legislatively defined as a protected class.

[Scott Lloyd]

All I can give is my personal experience. In my neck of the woods there has been significant misunderstanding, with most members/leaders believing that you could not support SSM and remain in good standing. I've heard too many accounts from others, particularly in California during prop 8, to think my stake is unusual.

 

Such accounts are apt to be self-serving and slanted. Someone unhappy about being disciplined could be expected to think he was ill used. Credibility is at issue here.

 

I take that back. I can give one example of someone whose recommend was taken for supporting SSM, but not attacking the church: Kevin Kloosterman.

 

 

The use of Kloosterman as an example of this is debatable. He does not have standing to "apologize" on behalf of the Church, and his presuming to do so implies wrongdoing on the part of the Church, which could be viewed as an attack. I, for one, found it obnoxious.

 

Moreover, a bishop, by reason of his calling and mantle, his prominent visibility as a local leader and potential influence in the lives of those he leads, etc., has a greater-than-usual responsibility in terms of loyalty to the Church and compliance with doctrine, principles, policies, etc. Where much is given, much is expected.

 

Edit to add:

 

Here is a tweet from Kloosterman just 17 hours ago:

 

So at least in one case, this change/development/announcement/reminder has made an important difference. I'm very happy for Bishop Kloosterman.

 

Were his temple privileges restored because Church leaders have acknowledged there was irregularity in his situation or because he himself has undergone repentance? The tweet does not say.

 

As for the Tribune link, it's puzzling. I seems the entire article is not there, that the last portion has been cut off.

 

I say this, because it appears to end with this question:

 

Could there be a time when the LDS Church would change its position on gay marriage?

 

Anyone who had watched the entire video would know that this question was put to Elder Christofferson in the interview, and the unequivocal answer was "No."

 

Does anyone know if there is another version of this, perhaps in print, or is this merely an on-line blog post?

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm pretty sure "nude women" has never been legislatively defined as a protected class.

In today's political climate, it's only a matter of time.

[Scott Lloyd]

It's unlikely if the Church would ever do it, but if it did then 75% (of a group mostly BYU grads, count myself in) would grudgingly stick with the Church, another 10% would actually applaud it, and the rest would go apostate.

 

So if the Church would ever need to make such a move, it'd have to wait for a lot of old mullahs to die.

We can be grateful it's something we will never have to face. "Highly unlikely" overstates the chances of it ever happening.

[toon]

In today's political climate, it's only a matter of time.

 

As much as some may think it, the sky is not falling.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't expect to persuade you.  And I agree that Dehlin's claim that he was excommunicated for his SSM support and advocacy is false.

 

But...

 

Buckeye just gave you one example.

 

Here are a number of others:  http://mormonstories.org/stories-of-people-disciplined-by-lds-church-just-for-supporting-same-sex-marriage/

 

There is still a lot about the case of Kloosterman that is unclear (see my response to Buckeye).

 

And I have never regarded "Mormon Stories" or any of Dehlin's properties as a paragon of credibility.

 

And I'll add mine:  I was never threatened with discipline.  But a few years ago when I posted the marriage equality symbol on my facebook page my wife and parents (my father is a former bishop and stake president) told me that they felt doing such things could put my membership in jeopardy.

 

I think the sentiment is out there among many members and leaders.  Just look at the other thread on this subject ("Can We Support Same-Sex Marriage?") in which members of MDDB are saying that Elder Christofferson is just pandering and that they leaders are mistaken in allowing members to publicly support SSM.

 

 

There is quite a bit of territory between well-meant warnings from family and friends and the formal administration of discipline.

[Buckeye]

Such accounts are apt to be self-serving and slanted. Someone unhappy about being disciplined could be expected to think he was ill used. Credibility is at issue here.

 

 

I've not only had conversations with member who were told this, but bishops and stake presidents who said the same. Should I disbelieve a local leader who said that public support of SSM would lead to a loss of a recommend? At some point, Scott, you have to acknowledge that you don't have the ability to speak for everyone's experience in the church.

 

 

 

The use of Kloosterman as an example of this is debatable. He does not have standing to "apologize" on behalf of the Church, and his presuming to do so implies wrongdoing on the part of the Church, which could be viewed as an attack. I, for one, found it obnoxious.

 

Moreover, a bishop, by reason of his calling and mantle, his prominent visibility as a local leader and potential influence in the lives of those he leads, etc., has a greater-than-usual responsibility in terms of loyalty to the Church and compliance with doctrine, principles, policies, etc. Where much is given, much is expected.

 

Were his temple privileges restored because Church leaders have acknowledged there was irregularity in his situation or because he himself has undergone repentance? The tweet does not say.

 

 

Study the Kloosterman account more. His public address as a bishop came in 2011. It wasn't until 3 years later, when he was actively involved in helping pass gay marriage in his home state of Illinois, that his recommend was taken. It's clear the recommend was taken for that action, not because of anything he said 3 years earlier while serving as an active bishop.

 

I agree that bishops are held to higher standards. I wouldn't be surprised if a bishop were released for public support of SSM. But their temple worthiness should not be judged any different from ordinary members.

 

I agree the tweet does not say that Kloosterman has had his recommend restored. Considering the timeframe, I rather doubt it. My point in posting the information, though, is to show that Elder Christofferson's words are having an impact. A member now has a good hope of returning to the temple with his family, whereas last week he did not.

[Scott Lloyd]

As much as some may think it, the sky is not falling.

Not too long ago, I posted that I didn't believe I would ever see the day in my lifetime when the state of Utah, against prevailing community standards, would be forced to accept the imposition of same-sex "marriage." Boy, was I in for a rude awakening!

Edited March 18, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[VideoGameJunkie]

A true sign of the end of times would be if gays were allowed to marry in the temple. I predict that will never happen.

[Scott Lloyd]

I've not only had conversations with member who were told this, but bishops and stake presidents who said the same. Should I disbelieve a local leader who said that public support of SSM would lead to a loss of a recommend? At some point, Scott, you have to acknowledge that you don't have the ability to speak for everyone's experience in the church.

 

But I can evaluate the likelihood that a thing actually did transpire as reported. In fact, anyone who professes to engage in critical thinking must do just that. Perhaps the bishops and stake presidents of your acquaintance said what they did because they understood that one so engaged might be apt at some point to stray into criticism of the Church and its mission and message. Issuing a well-placed and timely warning before something happens is far better than trying to deal with it afterward.

 

Study the Kloosterman account more. His public address as a bishop came in 2011. It wasn't until 3 years later, when he was actively involved in helping pass gay marriage in his home state of Illinois, that his recommend was taken. It's clear the recommend was taken for that action, not because of anything he said 3 years earlier while serving as an active bishop.

 

It took 10 years or more before Dehlin's cumulative behavior finally resulted in his formal discipline.

 

I was going to post earlier, but neglected to, that if there has indeed been inconsistency in the administration of discipline, it's that some local leaders have erred on the side of leniency.

 

 

I agree that bishops are held to higher standards. I wouldn't be surprised if a bishop were released for public support of SSM. But their temple worthiness should not be judged any different from ordinary members.

 

I'm not so sure about that.  I believe that in view of his being a bishop, a man's violation of covenants could be considered an extraordinarily grave matter, perhaps calling for a stricter penalty than might be given to, say, a newly minted convert or a member in his late teens guilty of a youthful indiscretion.

 

I agree the tweet does not say that Kloosterman has had his recommend restored. Considering the timeframe, I rather doubt it. My point in posting the information, though, is to show that Elder Christofferson's words are having an impact. A member now has a good hope of returning to the temple with his family, whereas last week he did not.

 

See, I didn't even understand it to that extent. I thought Kloosterman was announcing that he had now been given back his temple recommend.

 

I think the restoration of his recommend depends more on his personal repentance than anything else, and if he's feeling vindicated by a news media report, perhaps he has a ways to go.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

A true sign of the end of times would be if gays were allowed to marry in the temple. I predict that will never happen.

Well, some have given a time frame of 30-40 years within which they expect just such a thing will occur.

 

I have a clock running on that prediction. It now stands at 39 years, 10 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 8 hours, 8 minutes, 17 seconds and counting down.

[Buckeye]

Well, some have given a time frame of 30-40 years within which they expect just such a thing will occur.

 

I have a clock running on that prediction. It now stands at 39 years, 10 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 8 hours, 8 minutes, 17 seconds and counting down.

 

Meanwhile, the clock running on Scott's prediction that Utah would not adopt SSM in his lifetime is now running at negative 1 year, 2 months, 26 days, 10 hours, 5 minutes, 14 seconds, and continuing to count up.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Meanwhile, the clock running on Scott's prediction that Utah would not adopt SSM in his lifetime is now running at negative 1 year, 2 months, 26 days, 10 hours, 5 minutes, 14 seconds, and continuing to count up.

Pro move.

[Scott Lloyd]

Meanwhile, the clock running on Scott's prediction that Utah would not adopt SSM in his lifetime is now running at negative 1 year, 2 months, 26 days, 10 hours, 5 minutes, 14 seconds, and continuing to count up.

I suppose I could quibble that Utah never did "adopt" it; rather, Utah was forced into accepting it.

 

But I won't.

 

Edited to add:

 

I have great confidence in the Church of Jesus Christ. The federal government and its judiciary? Not so much. Far less than I once did.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

At some point, Scott, you have to acknowledge that you don't have the ability to speak for everyone's experience in the church.

 

Yes, Scott has a unique perspective... he lives in the heart of the "MorCor", works for a church-owned entity, and is a journalist covering religion.

[rockpond]

There is still a lot about the case of Kloosterman that is unclear (see my response to Buckeye).

 

And I have never regarded "Mormon Stories" or any of Dehlin's properties as a paragon of credibility.

 

There is quite a bit of territory between well-meant warnings from family and friends and the formal administration of discipline.

 

Like I said, I didn't expect to persuade you.

[Buckeye]

Pro move.

 

I'm still practicing. With time and effort, I hope to be able to join FARMs.

[Calm]

I'm still practicing. With time and effort, I hope to be able to join FARMs.

Umm...hate to tell you, but that ain't going to happen. No such thing as FARMS around anymore.