Church Calls Openly Gay Bishopric Member

[Messenger]

I’ve just been to his website; there is nothing in there that is FD in any way. He says he is 'openly gay'. This is the only part on his blog that is controversial. In my opinion, he is telling everyone he has SSA, but is on a track of repentance from his immoral past. Further, he hopes to not be single in the future. All that means to me is that he plans on getting married in a heterosexual relationship someday..... Wow, I don’t have any problem with this AT ALL. People that are reading more into it than that should really start to question themselves.

Sorry, Darth is not here.

[Calm]

False Doctrine - Sorry, it's missionary slang.

The only real thing that might be potential "FD" (as opposed to personal opinion) that I can see is a comment by him that took place at a rally, IIRC (I may be mixing up his blogs) where he states something along the lines that he is looking forward to a time when the law (and the church?) would give all (the rally was for the appeal of Prop 8 ) the rights and benefits that God already gives them or something along that line (should be going to bed, will look for the reference in the morning if someone cares) and that could be interpreted in multiple ways, there would be also a difference if he chose to promote this position in the venue of his calling that God sees "marriage equality" (I believe this is the term he uses) as 'doctrinal' more or less or if he kept any political commentary out of church.

Anyone: If my memory is wrong or I misread the comment, please correct me if you've read it yourself and noticed my error.

[Anijen]

At the risk of being judgmental (and I could be) I find it concerning that so soon after a relationship and that admits he would have another one and yet he still was called to that position (I don't believe it).

Am I being too quick to judge? Or am I the only one suspicious?

Edited to say; I assume his last relationship was with a man and he would be willing to have another one.

This to me sounds made up, and not real. I mean this is from his blog. I find that not reliable.

[Storm Rider]

At the risk of being judgmental (and I could be) I find it concerning that so soon after a relationship and that admits he would have another one and yet he still was called to that position (I don't believe it).

Am I being too quick to judge? Or am I the only one suspicious?

Edited to say; I assume his last relationship was with a man and he would be willing to have another one.

This to me sounds made up, and not real. I mean this is from his blog. I find that not reliable.

Unfortunately, I think you are being too quick to judge. Specifically, you nor I have the right to judge this situation; it lies up to his SP and other leaders. I think we must assume that the circumstance of being called is true and that he is willing to serve. Further, he is committed to being worthy of his calling. There really is not anything else that we can say except to support him in his calling.

Is it possible that he has a misunderstanding of some gospel principles? Of course, just like the rest of us. However, given his continued honorable service, we all should pray that he be blessed and that he continue to grow in knowledge and testimony of the gospel.

[Anijen]

Unfortunately, I think you are being too quick to judge. Specifically, you nor I have the right to judge this situation; it lies up to his SP and other leaders. I think we must assume that the circumstance of being called is true and that he is willing to serve. Further, he is committed to being worthy of his calling. There really is not anything else that we can say except to support him in his calling.

Is it possible that he has a misunderstanding of some gospel principles? Of course, just like the rest of us. However, given his continued honorable service, we all should pray that he be blessed and that he continue to grow in knowledge and testimony of the gospel.

I agree I could and probably am too quick to judge. I also agree that if called by his SP it would be inspired. But where I am skeptical is that he actually was called. I think its not true. I do not think he was called to be a counselor in a Bishopric after being in such a relationship so soon and to add to it that he is willing to have another relationship again.

Yes I believe there are openly gay worthy men out there who could be called to such a position. But my judgmental self is saying because of his last relationship being so recent and that he openly gay and furthermore says he will have another one and yet still called to such a position is, call me bad but highly unlikely. This is raising all sorts of red flags. And only from his blog. Seriously am I suppose to take this as factual?

[Storm Rider]

I agree I could and probably am too quick to judge. I also agree that if called by his SP it would be inspired. But where I am skeptical is that he actually was called. I think its not true. I do not think he was called to be a counselor in a Bishopric after being in such a relationship so soon and to add to it that he is willing to have another relationship again.

Yes I believe there are openly gay worthy men out there who could be called to such a position. But my judgmental self is saying because of his last relationship being so recent and that he openly gay and furthermore says he will have another one and yet still called to such a position is, call me bad but highly unlikely. This is raising all sorts of red flags. And only from his blog. Seriously am I suppose to take this as factual?

Friend, I understand your position and why you feel the way you do. If it is a hoax, it will be easily disproved and he will look like an idiot. However, because it would be so easily disproved, I must assume that it is true (God forbid that anyone is that stupid). He is active in the LGBT community and his blog may just be written for that audience. When he speaks to the LDS community, he may speak differently. I assume that he was called, I assume that he is faithful in his service. After that, it is all up to God and him.

In my own life I try not to get too excited about the future; I am concerned about today and how willing we are to follow Christ. Tomorrow will take care of itself if today we are walking in the footsteps of Jesus Christ.

As far as the timing of his call in relation to a past relationship...God is prepared to forgive before we even ask; it is our own issue to wash the sin from our lives. We must assume that the SP was/is fully aware of his lifestyle and his willingness to follow Jesus Christ today.

I really don't think there is anything we can say more about this situation. Being a homosexual means nothing to the Church; however, acting on those feelings is where sin is involved. Today he stands before God as a worthy LDS and High Priest.

[Messenger]

..... my judgmental self is saying because of his last relationship being so recent and that he openly gay and furthermore says he will have another one ....

This is raising all sorts of red flags.

There's the issue right there.

1) You are looking at this time between when he HAD a relationship to now..... How long does it have to be? I understand one year is the mark. Do you know how much time had actually passed? Further, we don’t know what the "relationship" involved in terms of sexual acts. He likes to dramatize his statement that’s for sure. "Openly Gay" for example has a different meaning for him than it does you or me.

2) There is nothing that I have read that says he will have another gay "relationship" in the future. Again, what does “relationship” mean for him? I read it that he was looking forward to upholding the doctrine in a heterosexual relationship in the future.

I think your red flags might be jumping the gun here. Clearly he's been out of the loop as far as church phrases and meanings. He's either doing this because of his church ignorance, or because he's wanting more hits on his webpage or both. This doesn’t mean he's a bad person. To me he seems a bit like a fish out of water. I suppose that is normal to anybody in a life changing event like this.

It’s going to be an interesting road for him that’s for sure. I hope he can learn to breathe while he is out of the water. Down the road perhaps he’ll learn to walk.

[Anijen]

There's the issue right there.

1) You are looking at this time between when he HAD a relationship to now ..... how long does it have to be? I understand one year is the mark. Do you know how much time had actually passed? Further, we dont know what the "relationship" involved in terms of sexual acts. He likes to dramatize his statments thats for sure. "Openly Gay" for example has a different meaning for him than it does you or me.

2) There is nothing that I have read that says he will have another "relationship" in the future. First of all, what does that mean? I read it that he was looking forward to upholding the doctrine in a heterosexual relationship.

I think your red flags might be jumping the gun here. Clearly he's been out of the loop as far as church phrases and meanings. He's either doing this because of his church ignorance, or because he's wanting more hits on his webpage. This doesnt mean he's a bad person. To me he seems a bit like a fish out of water. I suppose that is normal to anybody in a life changing event like this.

Its going to be an interesting road for him thats for sure.

I could be jumping the gun. Yet, I stand by what seems to me a lie. I will admit I am being judgmental it is not the time difference it is him saying he will do it again (have another relationship with a man). I assume when a gay guy says he lived with another gay man that it was not a chaste relationship I assume he means the same type of relationship he will have again. Add to the fact that the only source for this is his blog. I am reluctant to believe. Call me a doubting Thomas or whatever... It appears to me fishy.

[Messenger]

I could be jumping the gun. Yet, I stand by what seems to me a lie. I will admit I am being judgmental it is not the time difference it is him saying he will do it again (have another relationship with a man). I assume when a gay guy says he lived with another gay man that it was not a chaste relationship I assume he means the same type of relationship he will have again. Add to the fact that the only source for this is his blog. I am reluctant to believe. Call me a doubting Thomas or whatever... It appears to me fishy.

He did say this ..... "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."

[Jeff K.]

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.

Sheep never look up on the way to the shearer, or on the way butcher. They never know. One does not need the "ability" or "right" to tell the stake president what is right or what is wrong. Indeed we know what is right or what is wrong. When a person states they have made clear they wre willing to jettison their temple covenants when it becomes convenient, we know it is wrong to give them a position as a judge in Israel over others who are keeping their covenants.

The person is false. He is either being false to the Stake Presidency, but more likely false in his pronouncements. The whole thing reflects the tactics of a group that wants little more than declare dissension.

[Jeff K.]

2) There is nothing that I have read that says he will have another "relationship" in the future. First of all, what does that mean? I read it that he was looking forward to upholding the doctrine in a heterosexual relationship.

Actually he said he would on his website if the right person came along.

I see it as the equivalent of a heroin user that hasn't repented of his use of heroin and if the right mixture came along, he would use it again. You don't call such people to the bishopric.

The website and individual reflect a narcissistic streak combined with an advocacy of his own importance as being gay. Such a tactic is typical of those who have the "see what I can do". One should look at the evidence and what one knows, both about the church and how it operates before they blindly presume something is accurate, and then when other more logical approaches and people expose its illogic. You don't have to be judgemental to see and know a falsehood. I note the lack of detail in his blog as to which ward and where. It is false and deceptive, and those rallying around it should know better.

You are out of this thread.

[Messenger]

Actually he said he would on his website if the right person came along.

I see it as the equivalent of a heroin user that hasn't repented of his use of heroin and if the right mixture came along, he would use it again. You don't call such people to the bishopric.

So, if the Bishop does call a person like the one in the OP, do we not support the bishop or the person he calls? Do we have all the facts? Are we called to deny him of that opportunity? When he says "he would if the right person came along " .... does person automatically mean a man? Jeff, the guy admits to repenting and you are comparing him with a heroin addict? Really? Wow, that was nice! HAHA!

Personally, I can see why this person was called .... it wasn't so clear at the beginning of the post, but now it is. Ironic, since we just had a lesson on blacks getting the priesthood. Hmmmmmm

Not saying anybody needs to repent, but I do find a lot of paralells. However, if he does fail, it would certainly mean excommunication for him. Can you imagine? After having a calling in the Bishopric then having that kind of insight taken away. I dont know him, but if I was in his situation, that would give me pause.

I say give the guy a chance. Its not up to us - "dont steady the ark". It reminds me a lot of being a convert on my mission. Most missionaries targeted me because I didnt walk and talk like the rest of them. Well, no kidding buckwheat, I was a convert! LOL .

Im done with this hate thread. Maybe done with the forum if it doesnt get taken care of.

[thesometimesaint]

Messenger:

Before OD2 any Bishop who ordained anyone not eligible faced Church discipline.

[Alan]

I do not believe this claim.

Firstly, this man would have to be a High Priest in order to serve on a Bishopric, and it is my understanding he would also have to be married.

The fact that this guy admits to living in a homosexual relationship up to about a year ago, is unrepentant, and candidly admits he will do it again, suggests to me this is a false story. He could not have been subject to church discipline, and in the space of one year been back in the church, blessings restored and called to the Bishopric.

I would also point out that the Bishop does not call his counsellors, he puts a name forward to the Stake Presidency for their consideration and it is they, not the Bishop, who calls a member of the Bishopric.

This story is obviously a wind-up.

[Messenger]

Messenger:

Before OD2 any Bishop who ordained anyone not eligible faced Church discipline.

So what you are saying you think that he hasnt gone through the repentance process. The part on his website that gives some credance to your thought is 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."

My thoughts are that he would have needed to be excommunicated if he was a member, having callings and had a sexual relationship with another man. Since he said he had callings in the church, then I assume he was a member. To have an official calling, you have to be a member from what I understand. You can have an assignment as a non-member, but not a calling. So, if he was in a sexual relationship with a man AND held callings, that would be grounds for a church court and excommunication. But I suppose they could have asked him to leave the relationship. But then he goes on to say, "I had to leave my partner for a variety of reasons, none of which had to do with pressure from the church." So, apparently there was no pressure. If he was ex'd, then it would take him at least a year to be rebaptized. Then another year to get the priesthood back along with an interview from a G.A. Since he said he was recently called in the bishopric, then in the same sentance says, "Up until a year ago, I was in a committed, monogamous relationship with my partner of several years" . I suppose that means he wasnt excommunicated or didnt turn his letter in. He could have left the church on his own, then entered a relationship, then left it, then got re-baptised. Then, he wouldnt have broken any baptismal promises, but he certainly wouldnt have been able to be called a year later to the bishopric because it still takes two years to be ready for priesthood calling.

[David T]

Word on the street is that he is the Executive Secretary, not a counselor.

[Messenger]

I do not believe this claim.

Firstly, this man would have to be a High Priest in order to serve on a Bishopric, and it is my understanding he would also have to be married.

It’s not absolute from my understanding. There are unmarried high priests that serve in the bishopric - it’s not very common at all though. It’s a little more common to be in a branch with a similar calling. By the way I am a high priest and not married. But have not yet served in the bishopric. I currently hold a calling in the High Priest group as 2nd assistant.

[Messenger]

Word on the street is that he is the Executive Secretary, not a counselor.

I dont believe you need to be a high priest in order to have that calling. But it does require a person to be an elder. When a person comes back from being ex'd or having thier records removed, it takes at least a full year of being a member to get ANY priesthood back. Then when it is restored, its the level they had when they left. I think he said he served a mission, so that would at least be elder. Still, thats two years of work.... I dont see how the math works out.

[Messenger]

This story is obviously a wind-up.

I agree with you there.

[MorningStar]

One important issue hasn't been addressed here.

Mitch, why the open shirt? Why?

I don't know if what he claims is true, but it seems he's using his calling for self-promotion. I don't like it. And I think his letter is confusing.

[thesometimesaint]

Messanger:

I have no idea, and I presume he has talked about it to his Bishop. As I said before I'm not going to second guess the Bishop. However I do believe it would be very hard for a member to have the attitude that if something comes along he is open to resumption of his sins, and remain a faithful member.

That is NOT the repentance process that I know.

[Daniel2]

One important issue hasn't been addressed here.

Mitch, why the open shirt? Why?

I don't know if what he claims is true, but it seems he's using his calling for self-promotion. I don't like it. And I think his letter is confusing.

Hmmm. Interesting catch, MorningStar.

As much as a man wearing an open shirt doesn't bother me, I would actually find it disconcerting to see a member of an LDS bishopric wearing one--at least, given the expectations and culture of the church today. I would assume the photos were taken prior to his current activity level. But even if that's the case, why would he be promoting this most current blog about his leadership position, today with that series photo...? (I couldn't find that particular photo ON his blog, MS, which may indicate that it is from a previous photo shoot prior to his calling....? The photo credits on the blog are attributed to "Brad Mayne" of "Mayne Frame Photography"--a family member, perhaps? Where did you come across it? EDIT: Scratch the question--I just found it from his blog on an entry on May 29, 2011--prior to his calling, but still listed on his site.)

One thing is certain: the internet is abuzz with information about Mr. Mayne (since this was posted yesterday, I've received NUMEROUS emails about this story through many Mormon/Ex-Mormon Gay chat groups I subscribe to), and many will be watching with heightened scrutiny how the facts surrounding Mr. Mayne's calling unfold.

While, again, I don't agree with the LDS lifestyle, I hope there is no dishonesty or deceit on his part. I hope that the words on his blog, as well as his intentions with his leaders, are as candid as he appears to suggest they are through his words--and not that photo.

Daniel2

[MorningStar]

This post has the photo. I wouldn't think twice about the average guy wearing a shirt like that. That is, unless he was wearing a gold chain or had really unsightly chest hair.

But seriously, it is kind of odd for a guy announcing to the world that he's in a bishopric to use those photos even if they were taken prior to becoming active again.

[Daniel2]

This post has the photo. I wouldn't think twice about the average guy wearing a shirt like that. That is, unless he was wearing a gold chain or had really unsightly chest hair.

But seriously, it is kind of odd for a guy announcing to the world that he's in a bishopric to use those photos even if they were taken prior to becoming active again.

Agreed on both counts, MorningStar (except that I happen to really like most chest hair... )

I found the following video on Mr. Mayne to be informative in helping understand him better:

Regardless... I'm still as shocked/confused/puzzled as I am hopeful/optimistic/glad that he has been called to a position of leadership in a bishopric.

Daniel2

[Messenger]

One important issue hasn't been addressed here.

Mitch, why the open shirt? Why?

I don't know if what he claims is true, but it seems he's using his calling for self-promotion. I don't like it. And I think his letter is confusing.

Well, he is a photographer. Did you get this from his professional photographer site or his blog?