Church Calls Openly Gay Bishopric Member

[kolipoki09]

See here:

http://www.mitchmayne.com/

I am Mitch Mayne, and I am an openly gay Latter-Day Saint.

On August 14, 2011, I was sustained as a member of the Bishopric in the Bay Ward of the San Francisco Stake of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons).

I accepted this calling because of the opportunity it presents me to serve my Savior and my community. And, I accepted this calling as my authentic self: A gay man who loves his Savior, loves his Mormon family, loves his counterparts within the LGBTQ community, and recognizes himself to be completely whole as I am—just as my Father made me.

Up until a year ago, I was in a committed, monogamous relationship with my partner of several years. I wore a wedding band. I attended church and held callings within my ward. But, life is not without its own twists and turns, and I had to leave my partner for a variety of reasons, none of which had to do with pressure from the church. It was, without question, the most painful decision I’ve ever made.

As a result, my current circumstances provide me with a unique opportunity to serve in a Priesthood leadership role within my community. Will that always be the case? Perhaps not. I will likely not be single forever, but I am now by choice—given where I am in my own personal healing process.

I am open to a relationship if fate brings that my way. I am not committing to a lifetime of celibacy; I am committing to adhere to the same standard of behavior that we require of any heterosexual member in a Priesthood leadership position. And, I am committed to being completely forthcoming and transparent about my relationship status with my leadership.

I understand that for my gay Mormon brothers and sisters and those who support them both inside and outside our faith, there is special meaning here: For it demonstrates that not only do we as gay Mormons have a home within our faith if we so choose, but that we also have a path.

It is a humbling honor to be asked to serve in this capacity, and I am grateful for a Church leadership that views me as an asset that can help serve our community. Nonetheless, I am simply an ordinary man, blessed to have been placed in extraordinary circumstances. And as such, a man who is willing to bring that experience to bear to help others as they strive to find their place within the gospel, and within the Mormon family.

[thesometimesaint]

kolipoki09:

I'm not going to second guess the Bishop of his Ward. But I think it would be difficult for any member, regardless of hetero/homosexuality, to be in a active sexual relationship that goes against Church standards.

[David T]

kolipoki09:

I'm not going to second guess the Bishop of his Ward. But I think it would be difficult for any member, regardless of hetero/homosexuality, to be in a active sexual relationship that goes against Church standards.

According to the blog, the individual in question very specifically not in an active sexual relationship. And he presents his intentions to remain following the same standards that heterosexual Priesthood Leaders are asked to keep, which I take to mean no sexual relations except with a spouse to whom one is legally and lawfully wed.

Which would admittedly become tricky if he does indeed find himself legally and lawfully wed to another man.

[bridget_night]

thought this was quite interesting about Mitch Mayne:

http://www.mitchmayne.com/

Bridget

--

go to the blog and see this too:

http://familyproject.sfsu.edu/publications and this http://www.mitchmayne.blogspot.com/

Progress is being made in some churches and areas.

Bridget

[thesometimesaint]

nackhadlow:

He already claims to have been in a long term homosexual relationship. He even wore a wedding band. So we know he was actively homosexual.

Then he claims that "As a result, my current circumstances provide me with a unique opportunity to serve in a Priesthood leadership role within my community. Will that always be the case? Perhaps not. I will likely not be single forever, but I am now by choice—given where I am in my own personal healing process".

The Church identifies marriage as between a man and a woman. I take the OP to mean that if the opportunity presents itself he will re-engage in a active homosexual relationship. That is hardly the attitude I would expect any Saint to agree with. It is the same standard for any heterosexual member of the Church.

[Daniel2]

Wow. That's pretty amazing and awesome news. Mr. Morgan's path is not one I would ever take, but I fully support him in doing so; and kudos to both he and his church leaders for being open about it. May he and the members in that congregation have many growing opportunities together.

Best,

Daniel2

P.S. Wow. OK... He's a very handsome guy, as well. Just sayin. Sorry to hear him talk about the end of his previous relationship. Separation and divorce are never easy.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

According to the blog, the individual in question very specifically not in an active sexual relationship. And he presents his intentions to remain following the same standards that heterosexual Priesthood Leaders are asked to keep, which I take to mean no sexual relations except with a spouse to whom one is legally and lawfully wed.

Which would admittedly become tricky if he does indeed find himself legally and lawfully wed to another man.

It clearly states he was in a homosexual monogamous relationship until about a year ago, but continued holding callings, AND that he open to becoming involved in such a relationship again. He is clearly not repentant for his actions and should not hold such a position in a LDS Ward. But I'm now just an outside observer, so my opinion doesn't count for much.

[KevinG]

If he finds another partner he may be faced with a wrenching decision to live the practices of the Gospel and lose the calling.

This should make clear the distinction between same sex attraction (not a sin - but certainly a challenge for a Latter-day Saint) and practicing the law of Chastity according the the LDS.

God bless this man and the delicate and challenging path he is travelling.

[kolipoki09]

Mods, if you could merge these two topics, that would be awesome! Thanks!

[kolipoki09]

It clearly states he was in a homosexual monogamous relationship until about a year ago, but continued holding callings, AND that he open to becoming involved in such a relationship again. He is clearly not repentant for his actions and should not hold such a position in a LDS Ward. But I'm now just an outside observer, so my opinion doesn't count for much.

According to the scriptures which you profess to believe, your opinion hasn't mattered much, outside or otherwise.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

According to the scriptures which you profess to believe, your opinion hasn't mattered much, outside or otherwise.

What?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I will <u>definitely</u> be getting back to you on this, Tyler. Gotta go for now though.

[KevinG]

As a non-LDS youth I was often technically in compliance with the law of Chastity. Although not usually by choice.

[David T]

I take the OP to mean that if the opportunity presents itself he will re-engage in a active homosexual relationship. That is hardly the attitude I would expect any Saint to agree with. It is the same standard for any heterosexual member of the Church.

I take what he says, that he will live the standards for any heterosexual member, which involves celibacy for those who are not legally and lawfully wed. What he doesn't promise is a lifetime of celibacy. We don't even make single heterosexual leaders commit to that!

[kolipoki09]

I take what he says, that he will live the standards for any heterosexual member, which involves celibacy for those who are not legally and lawfully wed. What he doesn't promise is a lifetime of celibacy. We don't even make single heterosexual leaders commit to that!

I'm going to simply trust that Mayne's local ecclesiastical leaders have taken a considerable amount of time in evaluation and meditation before making the final choice. Whatever happens, those involved are accountable to God alone.

Mitch has noted elsewhere:

As many of you know, I am working on a book about being a gay Mormon. The book does not seek to bash the Church, nor does it seek to bash the gay community: both have been done, and both do nothing other than make deeper the divide between these two worlds.

Rather, my book chronicles my story as someone with a foot in two worlds that don’t seem to intersect. I realize, of course, that outside the San Francisco Bay Area this book—and this life—would likely not take place. I recognize I am blessed to live in a ‘protective envelope’ of liberal, spiritual thought. Many gay Mormons do not have such a blessing, and live silent and painful lives. My book seeks to change that. If change is to occur—and it must—it has to come from the inside.

The local church leadership of Northern California is aware of my book. I was recently approached by the Church leadership and asked if I could help craft an ongoing program to help make our Mormon community more open to gays and lesbians. I immediately accepted. I, along with a few others (including Carol Lynn Pearson, a well known gay Mormon author and advocate) have worked with the Church leadership to create the first in a series of programs to Church members. Tomorrow will be the beginning of these programs.

The roadshow will be lead by our Stake President. He will present the bulk of a program that educates our ward about life as a gay Mormon, how we can work towards equality, and what heterosexual Mormons can do to be more open. I created the text below, to be read by a member of our stake during the presentation. I chose to be anonymous as we begin this series of programs. This accomplishes several things: First, my words will be read by a respected, heterosexual member of the stake, which allows the congregation to hear my words from someone who is just like them. Second, it protects my anonymity: I know I run the risk of ex-communication from the Church by coming out, and I will take this risk when I publish my book—but not before.

I wanted to share this with you, because I think this issue is important on many levels. The lives of Mormons are misunderstood in the general community; the lives of gays and lesbians are misunderstood in the Mormon community; and the lives of gay Mormons have been almost entirely invisible in all communities. With any luck, all of those things are about to change.

Last, for those of you who struggle with this issue, I encourage you to reach out to me. I know there are those Mormons who have gay and lesbian family members, and find the Church’s position on homosexuality exclusive and difficult. I know there are those who are not Mormon who find it all confusing. And last, I know there are those who are gay who live within the walls or Mormonism: perhaps the most difficult and confusing position of all.

Given the recent exchange I had with an ex-Mormon who claimed, among other things, that the Church was inherently abusive toward homosexuals, I find the latest news both hopeful and extremely ironic.

[Daniel2]

Given the recent exchange I had with an ex-Mormon who claimed, among other things, that the Church was inherently abusive toward homosexuals, I find the latest news both hopeful and extremely ironic.

Thank heavens we aren't all represented by the stereotypes that may represent a few members of any given community we "belong" to, eh, Tyler?

Great thread.

Daniel2

[DH]

A couple things are unclear to me. First, about the relationship he had until a year ago he says this:

Up until a year ago, I was in a committed, monogamous relationship with my partner of several years. I wore a wedding band. I attended church and held callings within my ward...

Was it a homosexual or a heterosexual relationship? It doesn't say. It is possible that he was married to a woman, due to societal pressure, or in an effort see if he could make it work, or whatever. If, on the other hand, it was a homosexual relationship, did they actually have sex? Or did they just hold hands, go on dates together, etc., while not breaking the law of chastity, as many heterosexual Mormons do, and remain in good standing with the Church. Again, the wording of his letter doesn't make this clear.

Second, he says about the future:

I am open to a relationship if fate brings that my way. I am not committing to a lifetime of celibacy; I am committing to adhere to the same standard of behavior that we require of any heterosexual member in a Priesthood leadership position. And, I am committed to being completely forthcoming and transparent about my relationship status with my leadership.

He might be saying here that he is open to the possibility of a future homosexual relationship. But his statement that he is committed to following the same standards of behavior expected of all Church leaders makes me wonder. Perhaps he is saying that he might in the future have a loving relationship with another man, but still keep the law of chastity. Or he might be saying that he's willing to give a heterosexual relationship a chance despite his homosexual tendencies. It's just not clear.

What is clear is that his bishop considers him worthy to serve in that position. If that's true, then more power to him! I'd like to see more open acceptance of homosexuals like this in the Church.

[KevinG]

A couple things are unclear to me. First, about the relationship he had until a year ago he says this:

Was it a homosexual or a heterosexual relationship? It doesn't say. It is possible that he was married to a woman, due to societal pressure, or in an effort see if he could make it work, or whatever. If, on the other hand, it was a homosexual relationship, did they actually have sex? Or did they just hold hands, go on dates together, etc., while not breaking the law of chastity, as many heterosexual Mormons do, and remain in good standing with the Church. Again, the wording of his letter doesn't make this clear.

Second, he says about the future:

He might be saying here that he is open to the possibility of a future homosexual relationship. But his statement that he is committed to following the same standards of behavior expected of all Church leaders makes me wonder. Perhaps he is saying that he might in the future have a loving relationship with another man, but still keep the law of chastity. Or he might be saying that he's willing to give a heterosexual relationship a chance despite his homosexual tendencies. It's just not clear.

What is clear is that his bishop considers him worthy to serve in that position. If that's true, then more power to him! I'd like to see more open acceptance of homosexuals like this in the Church.

I have known a few that were in this situation but chose to be private about it. Either way it will not be an easy road to tread. I'm glad my struggles with living according to our doctrines are private ones and we can make an effort to be more supportive of those whose struggles are public no matter the cause.

[SeattleGhostWriter]

It is my understanding that for one to be called to be a Bishop requires the approval of the First Presidency. This requires certain criteria to be met. I am not aware of any Bishops who are called that are single. Many of them are married with families of their own.

In fact, the way I heard the process of calling a bishop is that there are a list of names that is brought to the Stake President. The Stake Presidency then forwards these names off to Utah and to the First Presidency. Individuals are then interviewed by the Stake President as to their worthiness. Are they living the law of chastity? Tithe payers? et al. If it is true, then it is some news for those who are struggling with SSA.

However, I am just curious that if he is truly openly gay, was this taken in consideration in calling him because it is the Stake Presidency that calls the Bishop of the Ward, upon the approval of the First Presidency.

[Jeff K.]

I question the veracity of the individual. No Stake President is going to call an openly gay man to be bishop, especially if he readily states that if the opportunity arises he will break the law of chastity. People who tell their Stake President that they will break the law of chastity if they have the opportunity, or the right person comes along, and make no promise to uphold the covenants in the temple have no place in a priesthood leadership position.

So it seems to me that the invidual is merely seeing which buttons he can push in the LDS community in hopes of getting some sort of reaction from the church in general. No one should be gullible to believe such tripe, it is cynical and dishonest.

[Duncan]

I question the veracity of the individual. No Stake President is going to call an openly gay man to be bishop, especially if he readily states that if the opportunity arises he will break the law of chastity. People who tell their Stake President that they will break the law of chastity if they have the opportunity, or the right person comes along, and make no promise to uphold the covenants in the temple have no place in a priesthood leadership position.

So it seems to me that the invidual is merely seeing which buttons he can push in the LDS community in hopes of getting some sort of reaction from the church in general. No one should be gullible to believe such tripe, it is cynical and dishonest.

he was called, apparently, as a counselor in the Bishopric.

[Joseph Antley]

Stumbled across this today: http://www.mitchmayne.com. On the home page of the website you can read a short letter from Brother Mayne describing his circumstance.

About a week ago, Mitch Mayne was sustained as a member of his local ward's bishopric. Mitch is also openly homosexual, was in a homosexual relationship until about a year ago, and is open to the possibility of being in a homosexual relationship in the future.

Thoughts?

[Jeff K.]

That would be irrelevant to my point. Since when is someone called to a position of priesthood authority when they openly admit that they will break the law of chastity and reject their temple covenants if the opportunity arose? Bishops and their counselors often meet with people who struggle with inclinations to break their covenants. What is this man going to say "Well, if the right person comes along, I will break mine". No stake president with a presence of mind towards the gospel would knowingly call such a person, with such an attitude.

[Storm Rider]

Stumbled across this today: http://www.mitchmayne.com. On the home page of the website you can read a short letter from Brother Mayne describing his circumstance.

About a week ago, Mitch Mayne was sustained as a member of his local ward's bishopric. Mitch is also openly homosexual, was in a homosexual relationship until about a year ago, and is open to the possibility of being in a homosexual relationship in the future.

Thoughts?

Leaders, just as members, are committed to being obedient to what Jesus has asked of us. This young man states clearly that he will be obedient. It is a little discomforting to hear that he is open to being disobedient in the future, but that is a personal problem he must work through as God works in his life. God bless him and his leaders.

[Duncan]

That would be irrelevant to my point. Since when is someone called to a position of priesthood authority when they openly admit that they will break the law of chastity and reject their temple covenants if the opportunity arose? Bishops and their counselors often meet with people who struggle with inclinations to break their covenants. What is this man going to say "Well, if the right person comes along, I will break mine". No stake president with a presence of mind towards the gospel would knowingly call such a person, with such an attitude.

Well, some folks think this whole thing is a fake, and who knows how much is at this point unknown. Does SLC know about this? who knows, does the person issuing the call knows about his possible plan , again who knows.