Church Calls Openly Gay Bishopric Member

[Jeff K.]

If one knows how callings such as the bishopric are made, it becomes clear fairly quickly that the person claiming to have the call is not being honest.

[Jeff K.]

I disagree, you do not call someone to such a position when they state they will break the covenants they have made if the "right person" comes along. The church does indeed take such things into account.

[Duncan]

I disagree, you do not call someone to such a position when they state they will break the covenants they have made if the "right person" comes along. The church does indeed take such things into account.

maybe he didn't tell them that or if he did and they said well you aren't guilty for sins you haven't committed yet. If he was in my ward I wouldn't care who he pals around with, just as long as he doesn't bugger off with my tithing and buys a new car. I sit on our ward council and he would have to do his fair share of bringing treats and cutlery to meeting-if he doesn't do and does do those two things then whatever!

[Storm Rider]

I disagree, you do not call someone to such a position when they state they will break the covenants they have made if the "right person" comes along. The church does indeed take such things into account.

Jeff, I understand your position; however, you nor I have the ability or the right to tell a stake president what is right or what is wrong. We have limited information on this situation and all we can assume is that he was called by inspiration to this position. The moment that happens, being called of God, we have the choice to accept it and be supportive or reject it and conclude that God does not lead this church.

Another thought, you never know what may happen to this individual as he serves faithfully. His heart may easily change to a desire for complete obedience. Today he is willing; that is all that is needed. Let God take care of his tomorrow.

[erichard]

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?

I disagree with OD-1 and OD-2 being called scripture. I will most likely disagree with OD-3 if it comes.

Richard

[Calm]

While not precise in what type of relationship he was speaking of in the "open letter", if you go to his blog, it seems to me he makes it clear that his "partner" was a man because he speaks of his sorrow of not being able to marry the man that he loved IIRC. What this means about how he envisions future relationships (with a woman as most LDS would assume would be living under the same standards expected of other priesthood holders in the Church, or with a man once homosexual marriage becomes legal thus meeting in his view the standard of only have sexual relationships with one's legal spouse), I don't think he has specified.

He is also an open and very public advocate of gay marriage (or at least antiProp 8 from what I read.

I must say that publicizing his calling to the extent that he is seems counter to the idea of service in the Church to me, but OTOH isn't this what we essentially ask missionaries to do (make their calling a very public matter).

add-on: just to be clear, I am making no comment here or elsewhere for that matter on his personal worthiness in general or specific to his calling. I am only making comments on public perception and how his blog appears to not match what would generally be expected of those in priesthood/church callings. I am now confused (and not making any judgment beyond "I am confused") about how he sees his ultimate role should be as a LDS both in a personal and communal sense as well as what he sees his public role outside the church community should be and how both interact.

I have absolutely no desire to discuss worthiness issues of him or anyone else, that is totally the stewardship of his leaders and it is for his leaders and himself to decide if it's ever needed just the same as for us.

PS: I would be concerned if an individual who had been very active in politics announced that he was going to serve in some position in such a way that it looked like he might be envisioning his political beliefs, etc. to have a role to play within that calling in a nongeneric way.

[Calm]

I disagree with OD-1 and OD-2 being called scripture. I will most likely disagree with OD-3 if it comes.

Richard

Even if OD-3 is a declaration that OD 1 and 2 were the mistakes of men and not revelation?

Kind of shooting yourself in the foot there, aren't you.

[Duncan]

According to a certain someone's facebook thingamahoople status update on this, not only are the Bishop and Stake pres. on board with it but SLC is as well.

[Calm]

It is my understanding that for one to be called to be a Bishop requires the approval of the First Presidency.

In case someone hasn't corrected you yet, he is not a bishop, but a counselor.

[Calm]

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.

According to his blog, he has been a very public figure for awhile, appearing for example at a rally during the appeals on Prop 8. If so, it seems to me to be rather foolish to pretend to have a calling when he hasn't and would completely discredit him in the eyes of church members to misrepresent himself, plus considering the community I find it highly unlikely that given his public appearances as well as other activities he has described participating in at church promoting understanding within the community, that his leadership---assuming his call is valid---are already quite aware of his comments and past experiences so I see it likely either a complete fabrication---which makes no sense to me---or it is likely that it is close to what he says it is (the difference not being intentional but because we tend to see things differently from each other, even those sharing a conversation can come out of it expecting completely different things as I've seen in my extended family and friends over and over again).

He stated he plans on being completely forthright with his leaders about his relationship status. Depending on how he phrased his current status of celibacy and how strict his leaders chose to approach it (I know some leaders who think that those getting baptize should completely off of tobacco usage while others see a limited number of days showing commitment and intent to abide by the WoW even with the possibility/existence of multiple temporary setbacks as sufficient), this situation is possible in my view.

I had a bishop that I was shocked to hear (not because I disagreed with him, but because I thought he'd be more traditional in his views) told a friend who was baptized that he could continue his astrology business if he used astrology only as a tool for personal insights and not for predictions of future events.

Sometimes bishops and other church leaders see things differently than expected. And thank goodness too since we are all too human.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Well, the website seems kinda ... odd? Too ... self-promoting, or something. IMHO. Still, as a development, this is pretty cool!

(Anyone else thinking of the "ministering angels" from 132? Maybe people with same-gender attraction could have monogamous companions in Heaven, though they're not taking part in the same type of marriage as those who "continue the seeds" through dual-gender marriages?)

Any confirmation that SLC is supporting this? I'm skeptical of anonymous Facebook posts, I must say. Still, I've been liking how the Church has been going about related issues of late - supporting equal housing rights and whatnot awhile back, etc..

[Calm]

Right now I am more curious about the program, The Family Acceptance Project, he was promoting on his blog and wondering about people's reactions and if they see this as something that could be adapted to their own ward family?

I am currently reading it here: http://familyproject...ersion_Last.pdf

You probably have to download it and to do so, they ask for your email and zipcode for feedback in two weeks. This is generally a no sale position for me, but I am curious enough to take the risk this time! If I start getting a bunch of spam, I'll be sure and let all of you know.

If the link does work, it would still be nice of you to go in and sign up for feedback.

http://familyproject.sfsu.edu/publications

add-on: from his blog....

In this first-of-a-kind study, The Family Acceptance Project not only empirically links unsupportive environments with LGBT suicide, depression, drug/alcohol abuse, and risk for HIV infection—but they also explain to parents and communities actions they can take to reduce these risks—even if they disagree with being gay or transgender.

“Many parents believe that the best way to help their gay children thrive…is to help them fit in with their heterosexual (Mormon) peers. Because parents see these behaviors as loving or caring for their gay children, they’re often shocked to learn that gay children experience these behaviors as rejection. Young people feel that by rejecting (or trying to alter) their gay identity—a very core part of who they are—their parents are rejecting all of who they are.”

This is not simply another academic research study: it’s a pragmatic, useful tool kit for parents and communities of our LGBT youth, independent of faith. It crosses socio-economic and religious boundaries, and is a real-world means to help create an environment that nurtures positive, healthy LGBT youth to adulthood.

How I’ll work with Caitlin and The Family Acceptance ProjectIn the following months, it is my goal to leverage Caitlin’s research as part of the continuing work with the LDS Church. Hearts inside the church have begun to soften on this topic, and many inside the Mormon community stand ready and eager to learn more. Our next logical step after helping achieve awareness within the flanks of the church, is inspiring them to action. Caitlin’s work provides an approach to do so in a way that honors one of the core tenets of the Mormon faith: commitment to our families first.

My impression from what he states is that the Project does not conflict with another position (what some would call core doctrine about the eternal relationships of man, woman and children) that the Church holds since the Project is also for parents who "disagree with being gay or transgender".

http://www.mitchmayne.blogspot.com/

[Joseph Antley]

Well, the website seems kinda ... odd? Too ... self-promoting, or something. IMHO. Still, as a development, this is pretty cool!

I think that's the point. He's promoting himself as an example of someone who can be both biologically homosexual and happy and secure in the Church, contra those who believe that's impossible.

Any confirmation that SLC is supporting this?

The only information I've read is what was on his homepage, but it would be very unusual to have to have the calling of a bishop's counselor confirmed by the Qof12 or First Presidency.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

*nod* That's what I was thinkin', too.

[BCSpace]

Up until a year ago, I was in a committed, monogamous relationship with my partner of several years.

Repentance process?

[Calm]

So far the only problem I have may be this:

Support your child’s LGBT identity even though you may feel uncomfortable

I say may be as it depends on what they mean by "supporting". Acting as if his/her feelings aren't real or just ignoring it won't be helpful. However, because I believe that there is a cognitive aspect to any self perception or any sense of identity, I don't see it as necessarily a wise thing to automatically accept such feelings as automatically defining of the individual's identity.

Will see if they clarify. So far besides this, it's pretty much a nobrainer for me---of course kids who experience greater levels of rejection in their families will have more problems than those who do not. It is possible, however, that I define some behaviours as 'not rejecting' that those who did the study define as 'rejecting. Also I am wondering since their stated purpose is to help families decrease the likelihood of emotional, mental and physical health issues, if they encourage discussing any behaviours that lead to a greater increase in these, including certain sexual behaviours that are generally portrayed as acceptable as long as between consenting adults.

[Garden Girl]

Sorry, but I am sorely disappointed with this... It's like if I was called to be Rel Soc pres and was interviewed and showed no intent to repent of a past active sexual relationship and gave an indication that if the right man came along I'd probably forego my covenants to live the Law of Chastity, thus mocking God, and enter once again into a sexual relationship...

So he won't commit to a life of celibacy? Why not? I had to when I became widowed 13 years ago. In fact, I had to walk away from a wonderful man I had met... a committed bachelor... because I couldn't and wouldn't enter into the type of relationship I knew he wanted.

No, I'm not impressed with this fellow's attitude... just disappointed.

GG

[Calm]

Support your child’s gender expression

If this means any form of expression my child decides to engage in, I would most heartedly disagree with this no matter whether it's hetero or homosexual expression involved (and this includes extremes in dress and appearance).

We tell parents and caregivers to be honest about their feelings, because children know how their parents really feel. If you are conflicted about having a gay or transgender child, be honest with your child about your feelings and concerns. And be sure to tell your child that you love them.

[Calm]

Overall I found the Project very unsatisfying, superficial in its treatment on the subject without enough specific behaviours to suggest in a variety of situations, perhaps because I've have some background in clinical psychology and know that such general directions won't have many long term effects on their own.

There also does seem to be an elephant in the room that they ignored and that is that many (most, if not all, I would think that see beyond what effect it has on themselves to what effect it may have on their child) parents who have a problem with their child actively seeking out a SSA lifestyle believe that the lifestyle itself is harmful, whether emotionally, mentally, socially, physically or spiritually or all of the above. Since they see "rejection" as a problem affecting a large proportion of the children, this seems very counterproductive to their aims.

For example, there is no discussion of what in my opinion is the second most important part of the discussion on the side of parents (the first being that you make sure your child knows you love him/her and want most for them to be happy) who disagree beyond telling their child they disagree. Their discussion comes across to me as teaching it is inappropriate for a parent to discuss with their child the potential negative aspects of choosing such a lifestyle. They need to be clearer and suggest some options on how to do this in constructive and 'non-rejecting' ways.

There was also no discussion on how boundaries could be set in positive ways so that respect was a two way street or that potentially difficult or dangerous or just inappropriate situations could be avoided by the child. There was no suggestion that they might even be something inappropriate that a child could do and instead loving parents would be doing their all to get their child fully accepted into society no matter what the child did. I got the feeling that one shouldn't even caution one's child that realistically speaking, unfortunately wearing outlandish clothing or extreme behaviour even if appropriate in every way but being different from how others behaved might draw unwanted attention and instead it was the parents' responsibility to work toward getting acceptance of those behaviours by others. I told my kids if they picked their nose in public it would gross other people out and I told one of my sisters that if she was going to suck her thumb in public, she was likely to be teased (I also told them to work on their burping so that if we moved somewhere where it was proper social behaviour, they could shine). I told my daughter when we moved back to the States that if she chose to spell certain words like we did up in Canada, that she might get it marked wrong on a spelling test...but that I hadn't let that penalty stopped me back in middle school so it was her choice, she should just be prepared for lower grades if so (turned out we homeschooled her after all). Should we pretend that kids won't act harshly for those who act differently? I spent a lot of time supporting my daughter with the effects of her terminal shyness in part because I had gotten no support in school with mine and thus knew explicitly how hard it could be, but it would have been detrimental in my opinion to downplay the reality and not to be open about how some people were going to be reacting to it because then she wouldn't be prepared and bad aspects of her experience would be much worse.

I think an intelligent approach that they missed would have been to speak to the child about how many in society react negatively to differences, that such is wrong in many cases---if differences are dangerous than that's a different story---but that it's going to happen and we need to understand this, especially if our behaviours are something we have choices over, such as appearance and affectations. I think it's important in the latter cases of choice behaviours that they decide how important being different is to them, are they willing to risk being treated differently if they embrace this difference and this can include religious differences, educational choices, as well as gender lifestyle choices (for example, I got treated differently when I went into Electrical Engineering but I expected it and so accommodated it easily enough in most cases, it would have been a waste of time and money if because I was unprepared such treatment eventually drove me out of the program---as it was I found out I wasn't interested in Engineering enough to stick with it, should have stuck with Physics and Astronomy)?

[Calm]

Sorry, but I am sorely disappointed with this... It's like if I was called to be Rel Soc pres and was interviewed and showed no intent to repent of a past active sexual relationship and gave an indication that if the right man came along I'd probably forego my covenants to live the Law of Chastity, thus mocking God, and enter once again into a sexual relationship...

Since I wasn't sure of his actual position on the Law of Chastity, I was thinking of an analogy of being called as a RS President having been a public advocate of giving the priesthood to women. Would I make it clear to all concerned that I would not be pushing that agenda during my tenure or would I make it appear to my previous supporters that I would be working to bring 'greater understanding and acceptance' for the concept among other church members and leaders?

[Calm]

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.

It could also be interpreted as a realistic appraisal of one's likelihood to give into temptation, someone who had tried to quit smoking multiple times may when discussing WoW adherence might state something along the lines of 'my current situation allows me to participate fully in the Church, but I likely will not always be in the same situation (with the idea that he was aware that he given into temptation before and wasn't yet at a point where he could see he could resist the temptation in every situation successfully)....

I will agree there does not seem to be any sense that he sees living an 'alternative' lifestyle as a 'temptation' he wishes he could resist or that it needs to be resisted at all. It comes across as more 'I just so happen to be single right now, so it's not an issue for me to be celibate, but that is likely to change...and that's not really a big deal to me.' Whether this is him trying to be diplomatic, reaching out to both of his communities at once or he really sees celibacy as a passing stage, I'm not going to make any judgment.

I highly doubt given the tone of the Family Acceptance Project he accepts the idea that gender identity can be modified in any way, so if he is choosing his words to make it seem like he would consider marriage to a woman in the future as a likely possibility, I find that highly problematic and I prefer to interpret it as him being honest that he thinks he will find himself in a same sex relationship, though he is committed at this time to waiting until it can take place with the framework of a legal marriage (since most CAs I know expect same sex marriage to eventually be made law I don't see it as a big leap).

Again, it could be something as simple as participants in the discussion coming away with different ideas of what just happened or perhaps his leaders just have a lot of faith and are willing to take chances so that miracles can occur.

[Messenger]

Excellent comments so far on this subject. I suppose we don’t know enough about the guy and what is in his heart. If he does not realize, and I suspect that he does, having a calling like that in the bishopric, then becoming unworthy in the future over an immoral act would be difficult for him. I’m not sure anybody is doing anybody any favors by calling 'a person' to such a calling with the knowledge that the person would or may simply defect in the future. Again, I have no idea what is in this mans heart and what he truly believes as opposed to what his public belief is. Which raises the question ... should there be a difference?

However, that being said, it is my belief which seems to be congruent with church policy that any person who may suffer from SSA can have a calling - I suppose even be a G.A. However, that person must be clear of any immoral acts prior to having the calling and commit them no more.

In a strange way I can relate a little bit with this person. Having ADHD, makes relationships difficult, but that doesn’t mean I don’t date the ladies once in a while. Because I don’t date a lot, I have been assumed of being gay by those members that don’t know me very well or understand me. I find it odd that people in the church STILL have uninspired things to say about those that suffer with SSA. After all, didn’t we just have a lesson on the Blacks gaining the Priesthood? Perhaps the real point was missed.

[Messenger]

Well, the website seems kinda ... odd? Too ... self-promoting, or something. IMHO. Still, as a development, this is pretty cool!

There is nothing wrong with promoting what you believe to be true and publishing it on the internet. Elder Ballard has encouraged this. The problem arrises when what the person thinks is true, actually is not. I havent been to his website, but I havent heard anybody say there was a problem with FD yet.

[Calm]

There is nothing wrong with promoting what you believe to be true and publishing it on the internet. Elder Ballard has encouraged this. The problem arrises when what the person thinks is true, actually is not. I havent been to his website, but I havent heard anybody say there was a problem with FD yet.

"FD"?

[Messenger]

"FD"?

False Doctrine - Sorry, it's missionary slang.