Gay Church Employee loses Temple Recommend and Job

[Calm]

No, it wasn't surprising. He had already had a conversation with his stake pres., didn't listen, and came in with the intent to record him. I'm not buying the act. There's a difference between having friends who make bad choices and being a part of a club that stands for something immoral.

Speaking of clubs....

]Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?

Renault: I

[LDS Guy 1986]

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!

As several has pointed out it wasn't Same Sex Attraction that was the issue here, it was his secret dating of men and his association with organizations that conflict with Church doctrine. You cannot hold a temple recommend if you are associated with organizations that conflict with Church doctrine, and losing your temple recommend can result in you losing a your employment with the Church.

If this was simply based on SSA, I would be outraged as well but it seems that the controversy here is based on intentional refusal to disclose the entire story.

[sjdawg]

A few comments

1. I agree this was premeditated.

2. The man could have been more forthcoming about his activities (only makes sense if he actually accepts the authority of the LDS Church)

3. I don't think it is unusual to record this particular conversation. He apparently knew this could cause him to lose his job. My wife recently found herself in a situation where her workplace was full of conflict and political infighting. People were losing jobs not based on qualifications but because of their perceived support of certain members of the board of directors. Her lawyer counciled her to record any conversations possible and if it wasn't possible take notes immediately afterward.

4. The best thing the LDS Church can do is remain silent. The recording may not be great publicity for the LDS church but the man looks deceitful and vindictive.

[sjdawg]

As several has pointed out it wasn't Same Sex Attraction that was the issue here, it was his secret dating of men and his association with organizations that conflict with Church doctrine. You cannot hold a temple recommend if you are associated with organizations that conflict with Church doctrine, and losing your temple recommend can result in you losing a your employment with the Church.

If this was simply based on SSA, I would be outraged as well but it seems that the controversy here is based on intentional refusal to disclose the entire story.

One of the issues is the very vague and subjective nature of the term "associated"

[sjdawg]

I found these 2 comments from the articles author to be interesting

I think it's pretty clear from the article, but this might be a good place to emphasize: Drew Call admits he was not entirely honest to his stake president. The closet is an inherently dishonest convention and, he tells me, he's happy to be coming out of it. "Coming out" is a process of revealing decades worth of lies, some very fundamental, spiritual and otherwise--and as these comments demonstrate, some people empathize with those lies, others judge. And I object, Alexandria, to labeling the story "oh so slanted." I pointed out Call's dishonesty--which was necessary to understanding the story.

for me this story is about gray areas. Certainly many Mormons can have gay friends and a temple recommend. Certainly Mormons who admit to having gay sex or dating same-sex partners can not--I doubt very highly that any do. But there is a vast world of more nuanced and cloudy situations in the middle. From the stake president's position--from what he knew then, that Call was going to gay bingo and QUAC--Call's situation was gray, not black and white. If you lack empathy for Call's situation or for others like him, that's fine, that's your role as the reader.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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

When it come to the city weekly (that bastion of objective reliable journalism) I tend to dismiss what they say out of hand because they are so poor at what they do. Anything to smear the church and any thing to make them look bad.

I have no idea what really took place. Did the guy even really loose his job? If he did was he acting on his ssa impulses?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I found these 2 comments from the articles author to be interesting

I think it's pretty clear from the article, but this might be a good place to emphasize: Drew Call admits he was not entirely honest to his stake president. The closet is an inherently dishonest convention and, he tells me, he's happy to be coming out of it. "Coming out" is a process of revealing decades worth of lies, some very fundamental, spiritual and otherwise--and as these comments demonstrate, some people empathize with those lies, others judge. And I object, Alexandria, to labeling the story "oh so slanted." I pointed out Call's dishonesty--which was necessary to understanding the story.

for me this story is about gray areas. Certainly many Mormons can have gay friends and a temple recommend. Certainly Mormons who admit to having gay sex or dating same-sex partners can not--I doubt very highly that any do. But there is a vast world of more nuanced and cloudy situations in the middle. From the stake president's position--from what he knew then, that Call was going to gay bingo and QUAC--Call's situation was gray, not black and white. If you lack empathy for Call's situation or for others like him, that's fine, that's your role as the reader.

This is interesting, I like the comments up until "But there is a vast world of more nuanced and cloudy situations in the middle."

Still pandering to the gay crowd and this is still a one sided story that will always remain one sided.

[ERayR]

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.

I will use my powers of clairvoyance the same as the rest of you and say that his homosexual activity was the problem and not his associates.

[Duncan]

As several has pointed out it wasn't Same Sex Attraction that was the issue here, it was his secret dating of men and his association with organizations that conflict with Church doctrine. You cannot hold a temple recommend if you are associated with organizations that conflict with Church doctrine, and losing your temple recommend can result in you losing a your employment with the Church.

If this was simply based on SSA, I would be outraged as well but it seems that the controversy here is based on intentional refusal to disclose the entire story.

but it sounds like he never broke an chastity lines, I don't know what the fuss is all about. The Church associates itself with all kinds of organizations that are in conflict with Church doctrine but I don't see any mass excommunication forthcoming. I can see the Stake President saying if you want to avoid temptation then maybe hanging out with people assciated with it gay or straight may not be a good idea but I don't think that was what he was saying. Some people have their white shirts tucked in too tight!! That is my big judgement for the day!

[Jeff K.]

When you get one side, you can make your side "sound" like a lot of things that are not what actually happened.

[Jaybear]

When you get one side, you can make your side "sound" like a lot of things that are not what actually happened.

I agree. I don't doubt that there is more to the story than his mere association with known homosexuals. The fact that he brought a tape recorder, means he suspected he was going to lose his temple recommend. So he can't really be surprised.

In any event, he choose to be a member of an organization that requires that he submit to an interview, where a person is placed in the position of judging his temple "worthiness". He choose to work for a company that would fire him, if he lost his temple recomend.

I wish him luck in finding a job.

[LDSToronto]

I agree. I don't doubt that there is more to the story than his mere association with known homosexuals. The fact that he brought a tape recorder, means he suspected he was going to lose his temple recommend. So he can't really be surprised.

In any event, he choose to be a member of an organization that requires that he submit to an interview, where a person is placed in the position of judging his temple "worthiness". He choose to work for a company that would fire him, if he lost his temple recomend.

I wish him luck in finding a job.

The question he was asked, and 'failed' was:

6. Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual?

This is a bit of a stretch, since, as one poster noted, the church itself affiliates with groups whose teachings and practices are contrary to those accepted by the Church, through it's co-operation with RCC charities and various other religious and charitable organisations.

Attending a 'gay bingo' in support of an LGBT outreach program, in my opinion, does not qualify any more than the Church's own coalition with apostate church charities.

With respect to his job, it is too bad, but thanks to his stake president, he may have grounds to sue for wrongful dismissal. Some of the words the stake president uses may indicate prejudice. I'm not a lawyer, but I can imagine a good attorney could use the SP's statement to show malice.

H.

[LDSToronto]

In any event, he choose to be a member of an organization that requires that he submit to an interview, where a person is placed in the position of judging his temple "worthiness". He choose to work for a company that would fire him, if he lost his temple recommend.

I've never understood this requirement. Perhaps someone working for the Church could shed some light on why a TR is a requirement of employment.

H.

[sjdawg]

I've never understood this requirement. Perhaps someone working for the Church could shed some light on why a TR is a requirement of employment.

H.

It is a way of getting a 10% rebate on the salary paid???

I understand it for some jobs. (institute instructor) I don't understand if for others. (mowing church lawns, chapel maintenance, data entry)

[deadeye]

Out of curiosity, what is the current church teaching regarding this issue? It seems that when I was a youth (mid 80's) the teachings from leaders seemed to indicate that being gay was something that people brought on themselves through excessive self-abuse and experimentation with others and was strongly condemned (ie the Miracle of Forgivness or "To Young Men Only"). Lately there seems to be more understanding about it, or at least confusion as to why some people, even church members are gay.

Is being gay considered to be a temporal physical condition like blindness or baldness for example, which is expected to be cured in the next life when people are perfected? Are gays in the church expected to endure and overcome whatever temptations they face in this life with the expectation that things will be better once they enter the next life? If not officially taught, it at least seems to be implied based on the cases where gay people have been encouraged to marry and have children, or the BYU attempts to cure it in past years.

Does the confusion warrant the leaders seeking direct revelation about it? Since the church has the advantage of modern day revelation, it seems that the confusion could be put to rest, even if the outside world doesn't like the answer...

[Jeff K.]

I've never understood this requirement. Perhaps someone working for the Church could shed some light on why a TR is a requirement of employment.

H.

The requirement is there so that expected standards of church membership are met by the organization doing the hiring. It is difficult to tell someone to live a certain lifestyle when those you are paying do not adhere to the same. It is perfectly reasonable for religious orders of anykind to make that requirement. You don't hire anti Catholics to feed a monastery.

[Duncan]

The requirement is there so that expected standards of church membership are met by the organization doing the hiring. It is difficult to tell someone to live a certain lifestyle when those you are paying do not adhere to the same. It is perfectly reasonable for religious orders of anykind to make that requirement. You don't hire anti Catholics to feed a monastery.

He knew going in what was expected, ideally, but he is or was in printing so I don't know how he would be telling anyone anything

[Jaybear]

The question he was asked, and 'failed' was:

6. Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual?

I get that he failed on that one question, and that its a stretch, but I assume that if, in the mind of the SP he was an exemplary mormon, he would have let one slide. So because its such a stretch, I suspect it was just the final straw for the SP. Since we only have his side of the story, I don't think we can reasonably conclude that that the SP was unreasonable.

With respect to his job, it is too bad, but thanks to his stake president, he may have grounds to sue for wrongful dismissal. Some of the words the stake president uses may indicate prejudice. I'm not a lawyer, but I can imagine a good attorney could use the SP's statement to show malice.

Nope. The SP was not his boss. The SP simply denied the Temple recommend. Its not for the court's to second guess SP's and decide who is entitled to get a temple recommend.

In the US, he has the right to quit the LDS Church anytime he wants. The LDS Church has right to deny him privileges, or even kick him out, at it discretion.

[Jaybear]

It is perfectly reasonable for religious orders of anykind to make that requirement.

If you the employee deals with ecclesiastical matters, then I agree.

Otherwise, its debatable. I don't personally believe religious organizations should be exempt from those laws prohibiting religious discrimination, for employees whose job has nothing to do with their religious beliefs.

[Deborah]

In any event, he choose to be a member of an organization that requires that he submit to an interview, where a person is placed in the position of judging his temple "worthiness". He choose to work for a company that would fire him, if he lost his temple recomend.

The sky is falling. I once again agree with Jaybear. Doesn't happen often, but once in a while....

[Deborah]

There's a difference between having friends who make bad choices and being a part of a club that stands for something immoral.

I agree. It sounds like his support of gay groups and exposing his daughters to such were the main issues. There may also have been more we don't know about. As has been pointed out in such situations we only hear one side of the story and recordings can be edited.

[MorningStar]

I agree. It sounds like his support of gay groups and exposing his daughters to such were the main issues. There may also have been more we don't know about. As has been pointed out in such situations we only hear one side of the story and recordings can be edited.

Yes, the "comedy drag queens" had names like "Fonda _____" (as in fond of fill in profane name for male genitals). Hetero or homosexual - that's just wrong and doesn't really seem to demonstrate behavior of a person who really wants a temple recommend for reasons other than wanting to keep their job. From the article, it's not clear how they even got on the subject, but the SP objects to him bringing his kids to that kind of show.

[Jaybear]

The sky is falling. I once again agree with Jaybear. Doesn't happen often, but once in a while....

Just so that we are clear, and the sky is firmly in place, I don't believe he did anything wrong, or that is less "worthy", because he associates with gays. But my opinion is besides the point, as he never ceded to me the authority to judge his worthiness.

If you poke a dog, don't complain when the dogs bites you.

[Jeff K.]

If you the employee deals with ecclesiastical matters, then I agree.

Otherwise, its debatable. I don't personally believe religious organizations should be exempt from those laws prohibiting religious discrimination, for employees whose job has nothing to do with their religious beliefs.

The line is too vague to be substantiated as a policy.

[Deborah]

Just so that we are clear, and the sky is firmly in place, I don't believe he did anything wrong, or that is less "worthy", because he associates with gays.

Oh, I understood that. But I agree when you accept a job under certain conditions don't cry when those conditions are imposed. Of course if he really feels he was unjustly denied there is recourse but I think the fact that he made this public rather than following up on that says a lot.