How long before this Bishop gets released?

[_Drifting]

Subgenius, can you see in the article where he says:

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.”

[_Drifting]

I can not advocate abuse nor harm upon the LGBT, but i can not condone nor support their choice to be LGBT. That being said, people are more than just LGBT or just Mormon and all deserve compassion and fair treatment. But one can not allow tolerance to erode all virtue or tolerance will be without virtue itself.
This issue seems like more of the same cliché' LGBT exaggerations about not getting enough attention.

Do you support the way the Church has behaved towards people who are sexually attracted to the same sex?
Did you support the Church's stance on Prop 8?

[_LDSToronto]

I did not see anywhere in the article where he specifically faulted the policy of the church, but rather he faulted the actions of some members.
He says straight members should repent...not...that church policy should change. I can easily see where one could see this a call for a deliberate change in how members act upon the policy, and not for a change in the policy itself.
I can not advocate abuse nor harm upon the LGBT, but i can not condone nor support their choice to be LGBT. That being said, people are more than just LGBT or just Mormon and all deserve compassion and fair treatment. But one can not allow tolerance to erode all virtue or tolerance will be without virtue itself.
This issue seems like more of the same cliché' LGBT exaggerations about not getting enough attention.

Do you not see something sweetly ironic in your words? You state that
1. you don't advocate harm or abuse upon the LGBT
2. members act incorrectly upon a false interpretation of church policy towards LGBT folks

and then you say:

A. you can not condone nor support their choice to be LGBT
B. tolerance of the LGBT stance erodes virtue
C. LGBT complaints are cliché exaggerations aimed at getting attention

Do you believe the statements you made do no harm to LGBT people? Are you interpreting Church policy correctly? Is it Church policy to tell LGBT that their complaints are exaggerations? Is it Church policy to tell LGBT people that tolerance of them would lead to an erosion of virtue?

H.

[_bcspace]

This is the same Bishop that already did a podcast with Dehlin (disguising his voice).

Why would he do that?

This Bishop is an incredible man with a great deal of integrity and courage. He speaks for a lot of active members as well as what you might call "cafeteria Mormons".

So remaining a member of an organization whose main claims and doctrines one doesn't accept is an act of integrity?
LOL!

I hope the higher ups pay attention.....but I tend to believe they will just try to silence him.

Based on your description, I would not hesitate to ex him.

[_Madison54]

This is the same Bishop that already did a podcast with Dehlin (disguising his voice).

Why would he do that?

Most likely because he wasn't ready yet to face what he's facing now.

This Bishop is an incredible man with a great deal of integrity and courage. He speaks for a lot of active members as well as what you might call "cafeteria Mormons".

So remaining a member of an organization whose main claims and doctrines one doesn't accept is an act of integrity?
LOL!

I think that he's hoping he can make some changes from the inside out (within the church) and he definitely still supports much of what the church teaches and stands for (from what I can tell after reading some of what he's posted). I think his motives are valiant, but I've never thought this would be effective.

This will be interesting to watch play out. Many on other boards are cheering this Bishop on, hoping that he'll be the first of many (in leadership positions) who will come forward and support him and that the church will begin to change their policy toward gays in the church. I don't hold out much hope of that happening and I think that's pretty naïve. I think it'll be much more likely that this Bishop will be made an example of and will be released.

[_keithb]

As I said before in a similar thread in the Terrestrial forum, I really didn't see anything in this man's talk that some of the more liberal GAs -- Marlin Jensen for example -- wouldn't feel at home saying in a similar type setting. In fact, if I were an LGBT member of the Mormon community, I might have wanted him to make stronger statements than those he actually made in his talk.

Also, I highly doubt that this man gets released early. The PR team for the Mormon church is probably smart enough to figure out that the best thing they can do at this point is to just wait and see what happens. Probably, this is a kind of special case where the man in question had a personal relationship with John Dehlin, etc., and I really don't foresee a deluge of bishops rushing to the NOM side of things as a result. At the same time, I don't see the good bishop holding a calling much higher than Sunday School teacher after his release, if he and his family choose to remain active in the Mormon church.

It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out. As a person who has met Bishop Kloosterman in real life, I sincerely hope that things work out for him in his journey. I admire his courage and honesty.

[_subgenius]

...
Do you not see something sweetly ironic in your words? You state that
1. you don't advocate harm or abuse upon the LGBT
2. members act incorrectly upon a false interpretation of church policy towards LGBT folks

and then you say:

A. you can not condone nor support their choice to be LGBT
B. tolerance of the LGBT stance erodes virtue
C. LGBT complaints are cliché exaggerations aimed at getting attention

what irony?
since when did refusal to condone become synonymous with abuse?
by this example, i stand by my original claim of "exaggeration".

Do you believe the statements you made do no harm to LGBT people?

No harm was done at all. My statements may have offended some, but asi es la vida.
Harm is a far cry from offense, and for one to cry "harm" because i can not sanction their actions is merely a symptom of a greater defect. And for one to cry "harm" because i propose that their choices are detrimental is childish. My statements are supported my own arguments and hastily derived.

Are you interpreting Church policy correctly? Is it Church policy to tell LGBT that their complaints are exaggerations?

i believe the church may support the notion that when something quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and looks like a duck one may call it a duck.

Is it Church policy to tell LGBT people that tolerance of them would lead to an erosion of virtue?

I do not see where it is discouraged. However, it is clearly against Church policy to persecute people (any people) and by that i am compliant. Obviously a position that promotes tolerance of all things is not one i am convinced of, nor is it one that is reconciled with sound logic and social responsibility.

[_Madison54]

Also, I highly doubt that this man gets released early. The PR team for the Mormon church is probably smart enough to figure out that the best thing they can do at this point is to just wait and see what happens. Probably, this is a kind of special case where the man in question had a personal relationship with John Dehlin, etc., and I really don't foresee a deluge of bishops rushing to the NOM side of things as a result. At the same time, I don't see the good bishop holding a calling much higher than Sunday School teacher after his release, if he and his family choose to remain active in the Mormon church.

It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out. As a person who has met Bishop Kloosterman in real life, I sincerely hope that things work out for him in his journey. I admire his courage and honesty.

I hope you are right (about him NOT being released). I agree with all that you wrote about this good man (I would have loved to have had a Bishop like him when I was active). Time will tell how this plays out.

I did read online that at least one person had contacted Salt Lake about this Bishop and his public remarks, demanding his release (and discipline). The person he spoke to told him that they were well aware of what took place and that they were in the process of "taking care of it" (whatever that means. Again, we'll see.)

[_bcspace]

This will be interesting to watch play out. Many on other boards are cheering this Bishop on, hoping that he'll be the first of many (in leadership positions) who will come forward and support him and that the church will begin to change their policy toward gays in the church. I don't hold out much hope of that happening and I think that's pretty naïve. I think it'll be much more likely that this Bishop will be made an example of and will be released.

I think you're right and I'm happy the Church will not change their policy/doctrine on gays because it is perfect now and has been always as far as I can tell. If I were cynical, I would say that the Church cannot make such changes because of what it's stated before especially regarding not being in conflict with the scriptures.

But the reality is that the doctrine of the Church is not based on public opinion but on revelation from God and God has already stated his opinion on homosexuality through His prophets. Those who would argue public opinion should remind themselves that the Church still practices plural marriage; it's still a doctrine. And the Church has not repudiated not allowing descendents of Cain to have the priesthood for a time. In the face of public opinion, the Church merely presents another face, it doesn't change it's doctrine.

[_Buffalo]

This will be interesting to watch play out. Many on other boards are cheering this Bishop on, hoping that he'll be the first of many (in leadership positions) who will come forward and support him and that the church will begin to change their policy toward gays in the church. I don't hold out much hope of that happening and I think that's pretty naïve. I think it'll be much more likely that this Bishop will be made an example of and will be released.

I think you're right and I'm happy the Church will not change their policy/doctrine on gays because it is perfect now and has been always as far as I can tell. If I were cynical, I would say that the Church cannot make such changes because of what it's stated before especially regarding not being in conflict with the scriptures.

But the reality is that the doctrine of the Church is not based on public opinion but on revelation from God and God has already stated his opinion on homosexuality through His prophets. Those who would argue public opinion should remind themselves that the Church still practices plural marriage; it's still a doctrine. And the Church has not repudiated not allowing descendents of Cain to have the priesthood for a time. In the face of public opinion, the Church merely presents another face, it doesn't change it's doctrine.

The church leadership has consistently proclaimed for a while now that "we don't know why blacks weren't allowed to have the priesthood." However, Pres. McKay revealed that it was merely policy, not revelation. They haven't apologized, but they have backed off on the Cain thing.

I hope you live long enough to see the church back off on the gay thing - they inevitably will. You'll probably pop a blood vessel! :D