sjdawg Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Has this article been discussed? If true, it appears that a celibate but gay LDS Church employee was denied a temple recommend because of his association with gay friends.http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/article-13533-man-fired-from-lds-church-for-refusing-to-give-up-gay-friends.html
Gohan Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 From the article, it doesn't appear that he was quite celibate...In April 2009, he filed for divorce. Unbeknownst to his stake president, he started secretly dating men. If this was just because he had friends that were gay, and the Stake President told him to give them up for a recommend, then he'd have every right to be angry and his Stake Pres wouldn't be in the right, IMO.As it is, it seems like there was a bit more involved.Edit: Dang it, I was hoping I wouldn't be the first one to post...
bluebell Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Did the article state that he was secretly dating men before all this took place? I couldn't exactly tell.Personally, i don't agree, from what is in the article, that he should lose his recommend because he has friends who live a lifestyle that the church condemns.If that was the way that question was meant to be applied, i would not be able to have any contact with my sisters or brother in law, nor with my mother in law (who live with people they are not married to, or enjoy many a good alcoholic drink when they can). I don't really see how such an interpretation can be supported.
frankenstein Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 To receive or maintain a temple recommend, Mormons must answer certain standardized questions. The stake president says on the recording that the question Call could not answer honestly asks,
Mordecai Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 The guy was dating men and attending officially gay organizations,. I don't know that the Stake President was right or wrong, other than my intuition telling me that I would do the same, based mostly on the guy's attitude, not so much on having gay friends.
Duncan Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 I also agree that the Stake President overreacted, heck our I had a mission comp with SSA, in our stake we had a High Councilor who has SSA (he's married to a woman though) plus there are people who post on here with SSA who are awesome folks!
katherine the great Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 If that was the way that question was meant to be applied, i would not be able to have any contact with my sisters or brother in law, nor with my mother in law (who live with people they are not married to, or enjoy many a good alcoholic drink when they can). I don't really see how such an interpretation can be supported.Not to mention every LDS couple who have a single child who is sexually active. That would force a very significant percentage of members to give up their relationships with their wayward children or surrender their temple recommend. I can only think that this Stake President feels that the man is purposely putting himself in temptation's way by continuing to nurture these friendships. Still, if the man has been true to his temple covenants, it seems dreadfully unfair to deprive him of his job and whatever strength he might gain by temple attendance. People need friends.
frankenstein Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 The guy was dating men and attending officially gay organizations,. I don't know that the Stake President was right or wrong, other than my intuition telling me that I would do the same, based mostly on the guy's attitude, not so much on having gay friends.if it was because he was dating men one would think the SP would have said "it is because you are dating men" not "associating with those people". Man will be punished for his own sins, not for the sins of those he associates with.
deadeye Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 It's possible that the Stake President overreacted, but it could also be that he knew about the dating situation. Salt Lake is a relatively small area and it wouldn't be surprising if a co-worker or someone else who knows him observed him on a "date" with another man and passed this information on to the church leaders. Maybe the SP was simply trying to nudge him back into stricter celibacy without openly accusing him of anything?
sjdawg Posted March 23, 2011 Author Posted March 23, 2011 From the article, it doesn't appear that he was quite celibate...If this was just because he had friends that were gay, and the Stake President told him to give them up for a recommend, then he'd have every right to be angry and his Stake Pres wouldn't be in the right, IMO.As it is, it seems like there was a bit more involved.Edit: Dang it, I was hoping I wouldn't be the first one to post...I should clarify my reading of the article. It doesn't state that he was celibate but that doesn't appear to be the issue the Stake President has. I assume that if he was having sex the Bishop did not know about it. The recording (I'd like to see a transcript or hear it) indicates the issue was with his choice of friends and associates and not with breaking the LDS law of chastity.
TAO Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 To be quite honest, I would like to see the entire audio transcript rather than make judgments now.I'm a bit iffy about how they won't quote him directly saying 'abandon your gay friends'... they insert in the context.I do believe that the Stake President may be correct in terms of bringing children to those events though... especially the second one.Also in terms of the dating... that probably would be a valid reason regardless of how far he went into it... although if he had stopped by that point, I don't know if it would be a valid reason anymore.There are alot of things to consider. Not my job, but the SP's job to think about them I suppose.
sjdawg Posted March 23, 2011 Author Posted March 23, 2011 It's possible that the Stake President overreacted, but it could also be that he knew about the dating situation. Salt Lake is a relatively small area and it wouldn't be surprising if a co-worker or someone else who knows him observed him on a "date" with another man and passed this information on to the church leaders. Maybe the SP was simply trying to nudge him back into stricter celibacy without openly accusing him of anything?I don't buy it. If you are going to make a decision that you know will cost a man his job the least you could do is be upfront with him. I'm going to assume the Stake President meant exactly what he said. (I haven't heard the recording or seen any word by word transcript so I don't know exactly what was said. )
Jeff K. Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 I think there is much more to it than the article mentions. I would say there is an absence of evidence because one party does not discuss the process, while the other party can paint it anyway they want. I would suggest the article reflects a lack of facts involved.
sjdawg Posted March 23, 2011 Author Posted March 23, 2011 I think there is much more to it than the article mentions. I would say there is an absence of evidence because one party does not discuss the process, while the other party can paint it anyway they want. I would suggest the article reflects a lack of facts involved.That question was raised in the article's comments section. Here is the response by the author. He also mentions in another comment that the transcript of the conversation should be forthcoming soon.All I can offer is my due diligence in attempting to provide balance. In this case, neither the stake president nor the LDS Newsroom would discuss this situation beyond what you read above. So, it may be a bit one-sided, but not by my design, preference or choosing.
Jeff K. Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 All I can offer is my due diligence in attempting to provide balance. In this case, neither the stake president nor the LDS Newsroom would discuss this situation beyond what you read above. So, it may be a bit one-sided, but not by my design, preference or choosing. Which pretty much means he agrees, the whole story isn't there. It is church policy NOT to discuss such things, they never have. He knows he is painting one side of the story.When I did mergers and acquisitions, if I could not substantiate the entire story on a purchase or investment, we tended to walk away from it since we aren't sure what the whole story is, especially if only one party is painting the picture. We did not say "Oh well did the due dilligence, now lets make the investment anyway". That is not how it works, nor should we invest in a story where only one side is told.
sjdawg Posted March 23, 2011 Author Posted March 23, 2011 Which pretty much means he agrees, the whole story isn't there. It is church policy NOT to discuss such things, they never have. He knows he is painting one side of the story.When I did mergers and acquisitions, if I could not substantiate the entire story on a purchase or investment, we tended to walk away from it since we aren't sure what the whole story is, especially if only one party is painting the picture. We did not say "Oh well did the due dilligence, now lets make the investment anyway". That is not how it works, nor should we invest in a story where only one side is told.I would hope that the author listened to the recording and based his article from that. This isn't investment banking so the comparison doesn't really work. News stories are printed all the time where one or more of the parties won't comment. If reporters always waited for comments from both sides of every story there wouldn't be much in a newspaper.
MorningStar Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 How many people bring a recording device to a temple recommend interview? If he was so caught off guard, for what reason did he bring a recording device? The whole thing sounds planned to me.The title is misleading. No one is going to be denied a temple recommend for simply having gay friends. To be a part of organizations that actively promote the lifestyle is different. Bringing children to Bingo with drag queens called "Utah Cyber Sluts"? Sounds like he associates with gay activist groups. If I were a part of a swingers club (not jazz - spouse swapping), I would expect to be denied a temple recommend if my stake pres. had knowledge of that whether I've actually gone to the point of committing adultery or not. Then suppose I said, "It came as a big surprise that I couldn
Mordecai Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 if it was because he was dating men one would think the SP would have said "it is because you are dating men" not "associating with those people". Man will be punished for his own sins, not for the sins of those he associates with.I know. I think the Stake President may have been mistaken, but I'd like to talk to him about it first, before I say anything like that. Looking at the conversation they had, it sounds like the Stake President knew he was involved in gay clubs and was openly and publicly gay, like homosexual behavior was a good thing. That's the issue I have with him, and I actually think the guy doesn't belong in the Church at all. Do I think you should be ex'd for hanging out with gay people? Nope. If you are gay and hang out with a lot of gay people and go to gay clubs? I think you shouldn't have a temple recommend. You might as well wear a shirt that says, "Gay and proud of homosexual behavior."In this case, I think maybe the Stake President wanted him to avoid any temptation of having sexual relations with men and to do that, he shouldn't be hanging out with gay men. I suspect we're missing context here. I don't know that, but I think it doesn't seem unlikely.
USU78 Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 He also mentions in another comment that the transcript of the conversation should be forthcoming soon.Say rather a one-sided claimed transcript of a conversation between two people, one of whom cannot, by law, tell his side of the story.Classically and undeniably unreliable.Not to mention self-serving.Not to mention misleading.Not to mention that by the mere fact of going public, he justifies the Stake Presidency member's decision to withhold his temple recommend.USU "Knows that people in positions requiring a temple recommend ought to conduct their lives so as to maintain that recommend, since they know or should have known of that condition of employment upon obtaining employment" 78
Calm Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 How many people bring a recording device to a temple recommend interview? If he was so caught off guard, for what reason did he bring a recording device? The whole thing sounds planned to me.The title is misleading. No one is going to be denied a temple recommend for simply having gay friends. To be a part of organizations that actively promote the lifestyle is different. Bringing children to Bingo with drag queens called "Utah Cyber Sluts"? Sounds like he associates with gay activist groups. If I were a part of a swingers club (not jazz - spouse swapping), I would expect to be denied a temple recommend if my stake pres. had knowledge of that whether I've actually gone to the point of committing adultery or not. Then suppose I said, "It came as a big surprise that I couldn
Calm Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 He chatted online with gay men occasionally starting in 2008 as his marriage started to fall apart over financial issues and growing distrust. He was too afraid of sexually transmitted infections
MorningStar Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 It was planned. The guy expected it to happen to the point he was looking for another job for over a year. Plus the guy was planning on resigning anyway, just wanted it to be on his own terms.I just found it very contradictory due to this:
Avatar4321 Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Sounds like the Stake President made the right decision to me. It also sounds like there are alot of people who need to realize they shouldn't be second guessing the decision of someone who has more facts than they do. Especially when exercising the keys of the Priesthood.
Calm Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 In this case, I think maybe the Stake President wanted him to avoid any temptation of having sexual relations with men and to do that, he shouldn't be hanging out with gay men. I suspect we're missing context here. When they actually quote the SP that is exactly what it sounds like. It's not wise to hang out at bars if you have a problem with alcohol, you don't hang out with prostitutes if that's your problem, you don't hang out at bakeries or all you can eat buffets if you lack control that area. It's common sense that if you have an appetite problem, you don't go to situations that promote the temptation rather than support your resistance to it. OTOH, if you don't see it as a problem---and there is nothing in the article that suggests the man did except for the consequences to his job---you feel quite comfortable surrounding yourself with people telling you that it's okay to behave in whatever way you want to behave in.The man states that his friends were supportive of his choices, describes them as his "allies"...his allies against what? From the paragraph it's pretty clear he means the Church and its standards about homosexual behaviour:In April 2010, the already-strained relationship with his parents grew more painful when they were told
MorningStar Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 I'm also guessing that his kids told their mom what Dad was taking them to and his ex-wife took issue with that. I wouldn't be surprised at all if she passed on the info, knowing he was working for the church. He knows that is expected to work for the church. I bet there are plenty of people living the standards who need a job.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.