Gay Church Employee loses Temple Recommend and Job

[Calm]

Which makes the story completely misleading.

I will admit to the possibility, I have my suspicions about it myself as you can probably tell, lol.

OTOH, I think it is likely more of a case that the reporter is being misled by the former employee and not completely intentional on his [the reporter's]part. The reporter was rather free with details that put the exemployee in a bad light and contradicted what the employee was quoted as saying.

[Daniel2]

I haven't read this whole thread, nor have I fully read every article about Call.

However, based on what I've read here and on Mormon Discussions, it seems clear to me that the SP acted as he should have.

Call chose to seek employment from an employer he knew is anti-gay. If he desired to maintain his employment, he should have avoided obviously revealing any potential implication that he was publicly advocating, endorsing, or personally-embracing a gay lifestyle.

Or, he should have had the integrity to resign from his job of his own accord.

I'm not buying what appears to be entrapment in a desire to earn pity.

I strongly disagree with the LDS church's stance on LGBT issues--but in this instance, the man's local leaders were at least acting consistently with church doctrines and teachings, and this man has no reason to be surprised or shocked. He needs to get over his victim complex. Falsely accusing the church of things that aren't surprising makes him look vindictive and detracts from other, more legitimate criticisms of the church.

My view,

Darin

[sjdawg]

I haven't read this whole thread, nor have I fully read every article about Call.

However, based on what I've read here and on Mormon Discussions, it seems clear to me that the SP acted as he should have.

Call chose to seek employment from an employer he knew is anti-gay. If he desired to maintain his employment, he should have avoided obviously revealing any potential implication that he was publicly advocating, endorsing, or personally-embracing a gay lifestyle.

Or, he should have had the integrity to resign from his job of his own accord.

I'm not buying what appears to be entrapment in a desire to earn pity.

I strongly disagree with the LDS church's stance on LGBT issues--but in this instance, the man's local leaders were at least acting consistently with church doctrines and teachings, and this man has no reason to be surprised or shocked. He needs to get over his victim complex. Falsely accusing the church of things that aren't surprising makes him look vindictive and detracts from other, more legitimate criticisms of the church.

My view,

Darin

well said and very fair minded.

[bookofmormontruth]

I haven't read this whole thread, nor have I fully read every article about Call.

However, based on what I've read here and on Mormon Discussions, it seems clear to me that the SP acted as he should have.

Call chose to seek employment from an employer he knew is anti-gay. If he desired to maintain his employment, he should have avoided obviously revealing any potential implication that he was publicly advocating, endorsing, or personally-embracing a gay lifestyle.

Or, he should have had the integrity to resign from his job of his own accord.

I'm not buying what appears to be entrapment in a desire to earn pity.

I strongly disagree with the LDS church's stance on LGBT issues--but in this instance, the man's local leaders were at least acting consistently with church doctrines and teachings, and this man has no reason to be surprised or shocked. He needs to get over his victim complex. Falsely accusing the church of things that aren't surprising makes him look vindictive and detracts from other, more legitimate criticisms of the church.

My view,

Darin

Bravo! Well said! Even members from the gay community can see right through false accusations.

I do take issue with the Church being "anti-gay", but I am sure that was just a typo.

[Daniel2]

Bravo! Well said! Even members from the gay community can see right through false accusations.

I do take issue with the Church being "anti-gay", but I am sure that was just a typo.

For what it's worth, I subscribe to a couple of emailing lists of former LDS gay members and their LDS family members. Many of us share the same opinion I've expressed that this man's explanation is non-condonable.

Ummm... that aside... nope, no typo. The LDS church is clearly anti-gay, from my perspective.

Darin

[bookofmormontruth]

For what it's worth, I subscribe to a couple of emailing lists of former LDS gay members and their LDS family members. Many of us share the same opinion I've expressed that this man's explanation is non-condonable.

Ummm... that aside... nope, no typo. The LDS church is clearly anti-gay, from my perspective.

Darin

Fair enough.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say the LDS Church is anti-sin? anti-fornication, anti-adultery etc..? Or do you believe the LDS Church is "against" all gay people for their sexual preference?

[Calm]

I haven't read this whole thread, nor have I fully read every article about Call.

However, based on what I've read here and on Mormon Discussions, it seems clear to me that the SP acted as he should have.

Call chose to seek employment from an employer he knew is anti-gay. If he desired to maintain his employment, he should have avoided obviously revealing any potential implication that he was publicly advocating, endorsing, or personally-embracing a gay lifestyle.

Or, he should have had the integrity to resign from his job of his own accord.

I'm not buying what appears to be entrapment in a desire to earn pity.

I strongly disagree with the LDS church's stance on LGBT issues--but in this instance, the man's local leaders were at least acting consistently with church doctrines and teachings, and this man has no reason to be surprised or shocked. He needs to get over his victim complex. Falsely accusing the church of things that aren't surprising makes him look vindictive and detracts from other, more legitimate criticisms of the church.

My view,

Darin

Apparently I'm not terribly original tonight because I was going to post "well said" as well. I think you summarized the actual issue without being distracted by the whining which honestly got to me so my comments are less than concise or nice, lol.

And I agree that these kind of victim plays for attention or pity or whatever too easily garner attention that should be given to actual victims and attempts to help them. One doesn't support one's cause by using cases that can be reasonably be dismissed as whinefests or entrapments because then it's too easy for someone to make a claim that all one's cases are trivial and worthless, etc.

And I've also never understood people who feel the need to create criticisms of the Church, there are plenty to choose from that actually do exist (depending on one's POV, of course).

I would be curious to see whose POV is going to be strongest, yours where people see him as vindictive or CA boy who says that the Church is going to look even more bigoted as the story spreads.

[bookofmormontruth]

Apparently I'm not terribly original tonight because I was going to post "well said" as well. I think you summarized the actual issue without being distracted by the whining which honestly got to me so my comments are less than concise or nice, lol.

And I agree that these kind of victim plays for attention or pity or whatever too easily garner attention that should be given to actual victims and attempts to help them. One doesn't support one's cause by using cases that can be reasonably be dismissed as whinefests or entrapments because then it's too easy for someone to make a claim that all one's cases are trivial and worthless, etc.

And I've also never understood people who feel the need to create criticisms of the Church, there are plenty to choose from that actually do exist (depending on one's POV, of course).

I would be curious to see whose POV is going to be strongest, yours where people see him as vindictive or CA boy who says that the Church is going to look even more bigoted as the story spreads.

The real victims are the ex-wife and kids.

[Calm]

Fair enough.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say the LDS Church is anti-sin? anti-fornication, anti-adultery etc..? Or do you believe the LDS Church is "against" all gay people for their sexual preference?

I think "anti-gay" is appropriate if it's interpreted like "anti-abortion" and not like "anti-semite". The Church is not neutral on the gay lifestyle, but it teaches against acting out homosexual behaviour and even teaches that we should actively work in controlling any tendency in ourselves that would likely lead us to desire to engage in homosexual behaviour, including fantasizing.

[Calm]

The real victims are the ex-wife and kids.

I think the man is a real victim as well as he was trying to do the right thing when he got married nor do I think he actively sought out being in the position of having to deal with homosexual desires, etc, I just don't see him as a victim of what he is claiming in this specific case.

[Calm]

Something in the article caught my eye:

Melson

[bookofmormontruth]

I think "anti-gay" is appropriate if it's interpreted like "anti-abortion" and not like "anti-semite". The Church is not neutral on the gay lifestyle, but it teaches against acting out homosexual behaviour and even teaches that we should actively work in controlling any tendency in ourselves that would likely lead us to desire to engage in homosexual behaviour, including fantasizing.

True, but we don't say we are anti-heterosexual when someone is fornicating.

[bookofmormontruth]

I think the man is a real victim as well as he was trying to do the right thing when he got married nor do I think he actively sought out being in the position of having to deal with homosexual desires, etc, I just don't see him as a victim of what he is claiming in this specific case.

Good points, I agree.

The "chatting online with gay men" while married probably didn't help either.

[Calm]

Good points, I agree.

The "chatting online with gay men" while married probably didn't help either.

He was definitely a victim of bad judgment when he took his daughters to a place featuring group which labeled themselves "Sluts" (hetero or homosexual, I can't imagine a devout LDS woman---and plenty of nonLDS women---not being upset by having her daughters subjected to just that language, let along a routine that apparently centered around the theme....I am assuming here that the exwife is still LDS).

[Daniel2]

True, but we don't say we are anti-heterosexual when someone is fornicating.

The difference between the fact that the church isn't "anti-heterosexual", but it is "anti-gay" is that there are instances in which the former type of behavior OR relationship is not only condoned, but it's mandated--but there are NEVER instances in which the latter type of behavior OR relationship is even tolerable (so far as the church/God's view is concerned).

"Anti-fornication" doesn't equate to "anti-straight" because a) "fornication" could mean either straight or gay non-marital sexual relations, but more specifically, b) (as already mentioned) there are still cases that straight behavior and relationships are both sanctioned and even required, by the LDS God.

Again, the term "anti-gay" currently applies to Mormonism, however, because there are (as yet) no cases in which gay behavior and/or relationships are sanctioned, expected, or even tolerated, from an LDS perspective.

Darin

[Calm]

This is one of the versions going around. Not exactly a balanced presentation, lol.

Salt Lake City, Utah

[bookofmormontruth]

The difference between the fact that the church isn't "anti-heterosexual", but it is "anti-gay" is that there are instances in which the former type of behavior OR relationship is not only condoned, but it's mandated--but there are NEVER instances in which the latter type of behavior OR relationship is even tolerable (so far as the church/God's view is concerned).

"Anti-fornication" doesn't equate to "anti-heteroseuxal" because there are still cases that heterosexual behavior and/or relationships are both sanctioned and expected.

"Anti-gay" currently applies to Mormonism, however, because there are (as yet) no cases in which homosexual behavior and/or relationships are sanctioned, expected, or even tolerated.

Darin

I hear what you are saying, but you still described it as a "behavior" and not what the person is (homosexual or heterosexual).

So anti-homosexuality is more of a appropriate term in my opinion. Unless of course, you believe the LDS Church is anti-gay/homosexual then that would be more appropriate for you. Which I adamantly disagree with.

[Daniel2]

I hear what you are saying, but you still described it as a "behavior" and not what the person is (homosexual or heterosexual).

So anti-homosexuality is more of a appropriate term in my opinion. Unless of course, you believe the LDS Church is anti-gay/homosexual then that would be more appropriate for you. Which I adamantly disagree with.

From my perspective, "Homosexual" and "gay" are interchangeably synonymous, just as "heterosexual" and "straight" are interchangeably synonymous. The distinction between "anti-homosexual" vs. "anti-gay" is, to me, likewise interchangeable--and both terms equally apply to the LDS Faith (among others).

It appears, to me, that your discomfort with the term "anti-gay" is based on the professed idea that the LDS church doesn't currently view any sin or self-responsibility for proactively-celibate gay (or homosexual, or 'attracted to other members of the same-sex') individuals--a view that I believe is inconsistent and unevenly applied (for example, openly gay--but still celibate--individuals may not serve in certain capacities within Mormon hierarchy, even in group-based activities, such as the scouting program--a restriction not highlighted or applied to openly heterosexual members who may individually interact with youth in other capacities--i.e. a bishop interviewing young girls one-on-one about their 'worthiness').

Darin

[TAO]

From my perspective, "Homosexual" and "gay" are interchangeably synonymous, just as "heterosexual" and "straight" are interchangeably synonymous. The distinction between "anti-homosexual" vs. "anti-gay" is, to me, likewise interchangeable--and both terms equally apply to the LDS Faith (among others).

It appears, to me, that your discomfort with the term "anti-gay" is based on the professed idea that the LDS church doesn't currently view any sin or self-responsibility for proactively-celibate gay (or homosexual, or 'attracted to other members of the same-sex') individuals--a view that I believe is inconsistent and unevenly applied (for example, openly gay--but still celibate--individuals may not serve in certain capacities within Mormon hierarchy, such as the scouting program--a restriction not highlighted or applied to openly heterosexual members who may interact with youth in other capacities--i.e. a bishop interviewing young girls one-on-one).

Darin

Darin, I think bookofmormontruth was trying to say that the church is anti-homosexuality, rather than anti-homosexual. We aren't against the people, we're against the action if you know what I mean =).

I don't really like calling people homosexual anyways, I guess. It sounds too much like condemning them. I'd rather say they are people with homosexual inclinations/behaviors.

[cdowis]

I also agree that the Stake President overreacted,

"At a February private meeting with his Salt Lake City stake president

[Duncan]

"At a February private meeting with his Salt Lake City stake president

[TAO]

I thought the Church now says that gay thoughts aren't sinful but that the sexual behaviour is, which looks like he didn't do any.

Nah, they say the inclinations aren't sinful, it's something slightly different.

An example - I may have the inclination to lust after women, but I am still responsible for my thoughts and deeds despite that.

It means that if I am tempted to have lustful thoughts, the temptation isn't sinful - but willingly letting yourself think about it without resisting is, sorta-ish.

In other words, avoid the sin (thoughts or actions) but your inclination, your constant temptation isn't a sin - giving into it is =/.

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

"Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group... whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

If he had become affiliated with a gay organization that he and his friends were are part of, it does seems to be possible that he lost his temple recommend for having gay friends... who were also considered supporters/affiliates of a group that teaches contrary to the church. Though not so much simply having gay friends.

[Jeff K.]

For what it's worth, I subscribe to a couple of emailing lists of former LDS gay members and their LDS family members. Many of us share the same opinion I've expressed that this man's explanation is non-condonable.

Ummm... that aside... nope, no typo. The LDS church is clearly anti-gay, from my perspective.

Darin

If having sex with other people of the same sex is integral to being gay, then to say someone is anti-gay would naturally follow. If the sex act is not integral to being gay, then I would say that it is not correct.

[LDSGuy]

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

If a man has comitted a sexual sin as a heterosexual, he would most likely be asked by his bishop or stake president to not have close relationships with women while going through the repentance process, and would be asked to give up relationships with women with whom it would make it easier to fall in transgression. These women may even be close friends.

This man had a urge that made it hard for him to resist temptation, and his stake pres. asking him to avoid these friends was an attempt to help him avoid sin. By refusing to accept the stake pres. counsel, he was refusing to repent, and on those grounds was refused a temple recommend.