Bishop Kloosterman Released

[_harmony]

I just don't like the ones who have a Pollyannish attitude toward the church and see "progress" where there really is none.

Heaven forbid a positive attitude!

[_Drifting]

I just don't like the ones who have a Pollyannish attitude toward the church and see "progress" where there really is none.

Heaven forbid a positive attitude!

I think the challenge is at the point where the line between a positive attitude and self delusion becomes blurred. For instance, what material changes in either policy, practice, belief or doctrine have been made since 1978?

[_Aristotle Smith]

I believe he said 4 and half years.

Just long enough to have plausible deniability that his time was really up and the release had nothing to do with him shooting his mouth off.

I hope the former Bishop Kloosterman enjoys his new calling in the Cub Scouts. He is going to be there a good long while.

[_Willy Law]

I believe he said 4 and half years.

Just long enough to have plausible deniability that his time was really up and the release had nothing to do with him shooting his mouth off.

I hope the former Bishop Kloosterman enjoys his new calling in the Cub Scouts. He is going to be there a good long while.

certainly goes against the latest trend outside the morcor that bishops are serving longer sentences. My bro in law was recently told that he should expect to serve at least seven years.

[_Madison54]

certainly goes against the latest trend outside the morcor that bishops are serving longer sentences. My bro in law was recently told that he should expect to serve at least seven years.

Same where I live. Bishops are now being told to plan on serving for 8 years.

[_Aristotle Smith]

certainly goes against the latest trend outside the morcor that bishops are serving longer sentences. My bro in law was recently told that he should expect to serve at least seven years.

True.

My only point is that it's close enough to the old "5 year sentence" that used to be customary for Mormon bishops. Because of that, there is room to finagle. Had he been released after only 2-3 years, the plausible deniability goes away.

[_Jason Bourne]

I love it! He was one of the poster children for the NOMish, Sunstoner, liberal, squishy, Dehlin-Brooks Mormons who think the church is making "progress" and becoming more "tolerant" of "diverse" viewpoints. It isn't, of course. The church is as fascistic, authoritarian, dogmatic, and backward as it has ever been. And this is more evidence of that fact.

Do we know he was released because of his stance on gay marriage or whether it was because his time was up?

[_Equality]

I love it! He was one of the poster children for the NOMish, Sunstoner, liberal, squishy, Dehlin-Brooks Mormons who think the church is making "progress" and becoming more "tolerant" of "diverse" viewpoints. It isn't, of course. The church is as fascistic, authoritarian, dogmatic, and backward as it has ever been. And this is more evidence of that fact.

Do we know he was released because of his stance on gay marriage or whether it was because his time was up?

No, but why let facts get in the way of a good rant?

[_Jason Bourne]

I agree with this and have no problem with NOMs who are forced deep undercover for family or employment or social reasons, etc. I just don't like the ones who have a Pollyannish attitude toward the church and see "progress" where there really is none.

I don't think Dehlin or Brooks has ever said there is lots of change or progress. But the mere fact that Brooks and Dehlin and others like them can do what they do out in the open and not be disciplined or even silenced means there is some change in the Church.

[_Equality]

I agree with this and have no problem with NOMs who are forced deep undercover for family or employment or social reasons, etc. I just don't like the ones who have a Pollyannish attitude toward the church and see "progress" where there really is none.

I don't think Dehlin or Brooks has ever said there is lots of change or progress. But the mere fact that Brooks and Dehlin and others like them can do what they do out in the open and not be disciplined or even silenced means there is some change in the Church.

I think Brooks has been softer on the church than Dehlin (for example, arguing that the church is softening its harsh stance on homosexuality because a celibate gay man was called as an executive secretary in California). As for them escaping discipline, time will tell. I think that has more to do with their high profile than any real change in the church. Church leaders presumably have calculated the PR damage they are suffering by having Dehlin and Brooks out there as members of the church versus the PR damage the church would suffer if the church disciplined them, and have for now concluded that the latter would be greater than the former.