Church Calls Openly Gay Bishopric Member

[Messenger]

Clicked the link to the YouTube video and now I am more concerned than I was. He seems to be advocating that its ok to be openly, actively gay and be a member of the church, not just have a condition known as SSA. In the video he denies having a condition. While I have all the respect in the world for him, I'm not sure his beliefs (if I understand them) are congruent with being a member of the church. I know I dont want everyone in the world or members of the church to treat him like a witch and burn him at the stake, but I also feel there is great value in our beliefs. Again, when I heard him talk on the video, I get the impression that he thinks that he is changing our minds, not the other way around.

The outcome of this wont be good.

[Anijen]

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.

Only the Bishop is required to be married, his counselors can be single. Like you, I do not believe his claim.

[Daniel2]

Clicked the link to the YouTube video and now I am more concerned than I was. He seems to be advocating that its ok to be openly, actively gay and be a member of the church, not just have a condition known as SSA. In the video he denies having a condition. While I have all the respect in the world for him, I'm not sure his beliefs (if I understand them) are congruent with being a member of the church. I know I dont want everyone in the world or members of the church to treat him like a witch and burn him at the stake, but I also feel there is great value in our beliefs. Again, when I heard him talk on the video, I get the impression that he thinks that he is changing our minds, not the other way around.

The outcome of this wont be good.

Given your beliefs, I think your concerned reaction is understandable, Messenger. Mr. Mayne does seem to be advocating that it's OK to be openly, actively gay and a member of the church, and seems to feel that being gay is not "having a condition." It also does seem that he feels he is changing many Latter-day Saints minds, not the other way around.

It's probably unsurprising that my reaction to the above perceptions are not alarming, but hopeful. In all honesty, because my issues with many of the beliefs and historicity of the church go far deeper than merely it's stance on sexual orientation, I will likely never return to the church, even if it were to change in it's view to affirm that openly-and-actively gay and lesbian members could "act on" their sexuality in spiritually-healthy/love-affirming/God-approved ways similar to those that it sanctions for openly-and-actively straight couples. But despite the fact that I don't find it likely I'll ever return, I acknowledge that such changes would benefit and improve my relationship with many of my devoutly-LDS family members (whom I support in their devotion to the church, even as it makes acceptance of me, my life, and any man I date--let alone hopefully marry, someday--challenging/impossible, for many of them).

All of that makes his appointment/calling in the church (if it is true) that much more puzzling, surprising, and worth watching, as the events unfold.

Daniel2

[kolipoki09]

Joanna Brooks of Religion Dispatches fame has a forthcoming article on Mitch Mayne. I'll make sure to link to it here when it's published. She had the chance to speak with Mitch yesterday and it looks promising. I believe John Dehlin also had a chance to speak with him, though I am unaware as to whether John will feature Mitch in a forthcoming Mormon Stories podcast (calling John Dehlin for a possible idea).

Mitch's website/blog existed long before his recent calling, which might explain some of the comments being made. He's been actively involved in Sunstone, as well as activities in his stake aimed at improving the Church's relationship with the LGBTQ community. By and large, members of the San Francisco Stake appear to be much more progressive, given that the socio-economic circumstances of most of the area's residents reflects that.

The reactions on this board to the original story seem to suggest that the Church remains strongly divided on this issue. When I broke the story to my Doctrine and Covenants class yesterday, everyone seemed enthusiastic and pleased. When the story aired on a few local radio stations this morning, the reaction was mixed, with many people wanting to know the source.

I understand that Mitch is walking a fine line, and I'm sure he knows it more than anyone. But I'm happy for him, and I wish him well.

[Messenger]

Given your beliefs, I think your concerned reaction is understandable, Messenger. Mr. Mayne does seem to be advocating that it's OK to be openly, actively gay and a member of the church, and seems to feel that being gay is not "having a condition." It also does seem that he feels he is changing many Latter-day Saints minds, not the other way around.

It's probably unsurprising that my reaction to the above perceptions are not alarming, but hopeful. In all honesty, because my issues with many of the beliefs and historicity of the church go far deeper than merely it's stance on sexual orientation, I will likely never return to the church, even if it were to change in it's view to affirm that openly-and-actively gay and lesbian members could "act on" their sexuality in spiritually-healthy/love-affirming/God-approved ways similar to those that it sanctions for openly-and-actively straight couples. But despite the fact that I don't find it likely I'll ever return, I acknowledge that such changes would benefit and improve my relationship with many of my devoutly-LDS family members (whom I support in their devotion to the church, even as it makes acceptance of me and my life challenging/impossible, for many of them).

All of that makes his appointment/calling in the church (if it is true) that much more puzzling, surprising, and worth watching, as the events unfold.

Daniel2

I agree on all the above. While my testimony are not rooted in openly gay people being members, I do have some concern, and I wouldnt describe mine as panic, about that video. Alot of people say all kinds of things to get hits on a website. Some of those things include phrases with dual meanings usually in an attempt to get hits. But seeing him on the video and talking about him being gay, openly, like most understand the word "openly", and not having any admitted condition, well thats just baffling. I mean I have a pretty good understanding how Heavenly Father feels about protecting the power of procreating and only using between a man and a woman in marriage. It would be difficult to fathom how this understanding could be changed in such away to include people acting gay, and all that goes with it, and being priesthood holders in callings. I understand people with SSA wanting to be a member and being celibate and worthy to hold a calling, just like I would young people being celibate or people who have lost a spouse due to death and not wanting to remarry. I get it. But not being celibate (gay, single or widow) AND being a member with a calling - I see nothing but problems. Again, I am not at all concerned about the church. This is why I am concerned about him.

Hopefully this is all some sort of misunderstanding. Maybe the website is a spoof, and unauthorized. Again, as you say it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Certainly drama in the church.

[kolipoki09]

Only the Bishop is required to be married, his counselors can be single. Like you, I do not believe his claim.

They also don't have to be High Priests or endowed - though having endowed High Priests has become the norm. Both counselors in our Bishopric are still elders, but they're both 24 and 23 respectively.

If the story is true (and I have ample evidence suggesting that it is), how might this change your views about the Church and homosexuality in general?

[Daniel2]

I agree on all the above. While my testimony are not rooted in openly gay people being members, I do have some concern, and I wouldnt describe mine as panic, about that video. Alot of people say all kinds of things to get hits on a website. Some of those things include phrases with dual meanings usually in an attempt to get hits. But seeing him on the video and talking about him being gay, openly, like most understand the word "openly", and not having any admitted condition, well thats just baffling. I mean I have a pretty good understanding how Heavenly Father feels about protecting the power of procreating and only using between a man and a woman in marriage. It would be difficult to fathom how this understanding could be changed in such away to include people acting gay, and all that goes with it, and being priesthood holders in callings. I understand people with SSA wanting to be a member and being celibate and worthy to hold a calling, just like I would young people being celibate or people who have lost a spouse due to death and not wanting to remarry. I get it. But not being celibate (gay, single or widow) AND being a member with a calling - I see nothing but problems. Again, I am not at all concerned about the church. This is why I am concerned about him.

Hopefully this is all some sort of misunderstanding. Maybe the website is a spoof, and unauthorized. Again, as you say it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Certainly drama in the church.

Thanks for sharing, Messenger. I appreciate your thoughts.

Daniel2

[Calm]

I understand that Mitch is walking a fine line, and I'm sure he knows it more than anyone. But I'm happy for him, and I wish him well.

Totally agree here.

[MorningStar]

What really confuses me is that he says he plans on living the way any heterosexual priesthood holder should. Then he says he will be totally transparent about his relationships, which makes it sound like he might be open to having another same sex partner vs. being with a woman. So does this mean that he thinks he can date other men, hold hands, kiss them, etc. without breaking the Law of Chastity because heterosexual priesthood holders can do that with women? He's not very clear, but I have seen that argument at times that gay men should be able to date as long as they don't have sex.

[MorningStar]

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

From his blog. It's located in a post and also under the section titled "Press". Good to know he's a photographer. I guess that means he can quickly take a new photo with his shirt buttoned.

[MorningStar]

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

From his blog. It's located in a post and also under the section titled "Press". Good to know he's a photographer. I guess that means he can quickly take a new photo with his shirt buttoned.

[Calm]

Haven't watched the video, but I don't have a problem with some with SSA refusing to think of that attribute as a "condition". I do not see my heterosexuality (or other aspects of my personality including ones I don't like and think I should change) as a "condition" but simply as a description of part of my behaviour set. I do not have a problem with someone describing their attraction as part of who they are as that can be just a realistic self-evaluation. I define in my worldview "conditions" as something that are imposed on someone, not something that is currently native or even inherent to the individual. I also recognize that others often use different labels that mean essentially the same thing. I see this 'issue' as potentially primarily one of language and how one chooses to frame one's experiences, internal and external. So his current worldview could be problematic in this aspect in the 'worldview' held by the Church, but I don't see it as automatic from the limited information given so far.

Insisting that we cannot change who we are or that we should not have to even if it is not an attribute that contributes to Christlike behaviour and becoming one with God....that I would have a problem with.

I see the miraculous promise of the Atonement to include being able to change attributes that are inherent to us, allowing us to let go of fundamental qualities that would forever prevent us from becoming something much greater than we are if we were left to our own devices. It is why I have hope for myself, after all, because I know that in certain aspects of myself if I am to progress it will take a miracle to do so, the first part of that miracle being the appearance of a sincere heartfelt desire to change beyond an intellectual acknowledgement of my own shortcomings.

Given that view, I don't see it as a huge step of logic or faith to see as acceptable to the Lord as a leader someone who views some attribute like same sex attraction as part of themselves and does not currently see it as something that he (or she as the case may be) needs to actively work on to change, but is still being able to participate fully as an active Saint because he does have a fundamental faith and trust in God to the point that he is willing to put himself fully into God's hands to do with as He pleases no matter what that outcome may be. I see this as an acceptable position for a saint even if he doesn't believe that part of God's work will include some modifications of gender identity just as it would be if someone didn't recognize or understand that certain aspects of his behaviour amounted to inappropriate arrogance, addictive behaviour or self-centeredness. The important aspect of all of this, imo, is cultivating a state of being open to God changing one in whatever manner God desires for one. If one fully believes and is willing to abide by "Thy Will be done", I don't see the addition of "as I currently understand what you want me to do" as an inherent part of that surrender and if one doesn't add it, then the impossible can be achieved.

So I think if his leaders (whether it was the SP or his Bishop or whomever) believed that level of faithfulness and trust in the Lord was in him, I could see them seeing him as someone they could and even should work with in a leadership partnership because the Lord was included as the leader of that 'work force' by all involved. That is what I think is of primary importance in our leaders and even in our membership as saints, that we are ultimately open to all that the Lord would have us do and even more important to be so even if it seems 'unnatural' to our current view of who we are and is not what we want at this point in our life to be when we visualize our eventual state.

A saint in my view is one who is able to honestly say "I will go where you want me to go, Dear Lord" and mean it for not only his external world, but his internal one. There is no need to have the road map in his hands when he proclaims this if this covenant is written on his heart, mind and body.

[alter idem]

I'm a little concerned that his calling may not last long. IMO, It just seems from what he wrote that he's using it to promote his own agenda and that's too bad because I think it could have been a good thing. There are members who are SSA and not living the gay lifestyle who would like to be active and serve in callings but don't feel that they can be open about SSA and still be given opportunities to serve. But I agree with those who were uncomfortable with what he wrote about his future, so I'm not sure he'll be much help in changing perceptions and minds.

[erichard]

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.

I said "most likely". My foot seems to still be OK.

Richard

[Calm]

I said "most likely". My foot seems to still be OK.

Richard

Ah, I thought you were expressing uncertainty about your own position, not what the content of OD 3 was to mean.

[Bernard Gui]

Something is a few degrees off here.

To say in a bishopric calling interview that you aren't sure in the future you

will keep the commandments you have broken in the recent past would

be a deal breaker for several very good reasons.

Could be a set up?

I do have a SSA friend who is celibate and who has served in a bishopric.

Bernard

[Duncan]

http://bycommonconsent.com/2011/08/23/a-few-items-of-ward-business/#more-28134

Looks like Bro. Mayne is the Exec. Sec and not a counselor in the Bishopric.

[Calm]

I'm a little concerned that his calling may not last long.

In full disclosure, I probably should add that "I've got a bad feeling about this" in that I don't really understand how someone as intelligent, thoughtful, articulate and as publicity savvy as he comes across on his blog could unknowingly set up the dialogue as he has done with (in my likely cynical view, though it seems only realistic from my POV), as it seems to me to be creating different and ultimately conflicting sets of expectations between the two communities he is trying to live within.

Will not most of the politically active LGBT community after reading his open letter and knowing his past actions supporting marriage equality with no accompanying rejection of that political stance assume he will be actively working to bring that into greater acceptance in the Church, which is contrary to its current stance of rejection? Will not most LDS if they take the position that he is a sincere member intent on living a gospel life according to the standards the LDS Church teaches assume he means to support the current church position or at least not take on the role of trying to change it while he serves (as we don't allow members to use their positions to push other political positions) and that he will not be promoting same sex marriage or even same sex romantic relationships among church members?

Even if he manages to fulfill both expectations at once (which it seems to be impossible to me), it seems inevitable that there is going to be increased conflict in discussions between the two communities because of the different set of expectations will at the least cause them to talk past each other, thus creating more confusion and disillusionment rather than understanding and acceptance. (Hoping to be wrong about this, if it isn't clear)

I think he needs to be clearer about his perception and intent to avoid contributing to the controversy in a highly negative way.

[Calm]

http://bycommonconse...ess/#more-28134

Looks like Bro. Mayne is the Exec. Sec and not a counselor in the Bishopric.

In my experience, a lot of members describe the Sec and ward clerks as part of the Bishopric even when technically speaking it's the Bishop and his counselors. Even in my own family, we talk about how my husband is going out to represent the Bishop(ric) and he's a ward clerk and we know the technical def.

As an aside, I think there is a whole different dynamic involved with the calling of an Executive Sec and a Counselor in that a Sec can contribute insights and information in very helpful ways but is not in the position where he is influencing other members as much as a counselor could be, not being in a teaching position for example. His influence is directly to the Bishopric and thus is likely to be balanced and filtered before making any significant impact if he happens to hold any controversial positions.

[Messenger]

Haven't watched the video, but I don't have a problem with some with SSA refusing to think of that attribute as a "condition". I do not see my heterosexuality (or other aspects of my personality including ones I don't like and think I should change) as a "condition" but simply as a description of part of my behaviour set. I do not have a problem with someone describing their attraction as part of who they are as that can be just a realistic self-evaluation.

One thing that might help you with this concept is that people with SSA, or any mental aspect of behavior that considered normal BY THE ONE afflicted by it. In other words, there are SSA people that are attracted to the same sex, but absolutely detest it and do not feel it is normal. I have ADHD, and there are many people that have ADHD that feel its totally normal and refuse to call it a condition. I am also hard of hearing, so, do I tell everyone else that they have hearing surplus? I personal belief is that when people have SSA they probably go through the same mindset. They may actually realize that thier spirit is hetrosexual, but the mental attraction to men is from the physical body (brain).

Insisting that we cannot change who we are or that we should not have to if it is not an attribute that contributes to Christlike behaviour and becoming one with God....that I would have a problem with.

I think the real question is ... when? After having ADHD, and also being hard of hearing, my experience has been that most people accept me being hard of hearing, at least now in my life. That wasnt the case when I was in grade school back in the 70's. People labeled me as anti social. Well I couldnt hear anything they were saying so why would I want to talk to them? LOL Realizing there is a physical change in the brain that makes ADHD symptoms, it actually helps me to improve my situation when I have an event. While I cant control the event, negative hyperfocus, I can understand when it is happening, relate that to my boss, and close friends, and learn how to manage it and more quickly return to normal brain function. Being hard of hearing is the same. I manage it with a hearing aid. But the underlying condition may not change during my lifetime. I know this because I was given a blessing just after my baptism when I was 15 years old. In the blessing, it said I would always be provided very inexpensive hearing aids. I've had three over my lifetime. Total expense has been $200. Each hearing aid sell for over $2500.

We all have conditions that we manage. Some are so problematic, the church and our government call them disabilities. Most people that have them, would rather call them conditions. Denying that they cant be managed, like some that have SSA, dont understand the real point.

[ERayR]

Something is a few degrees off here.

To say in a bishopric calling interview that you aren't sure in the future you

will keep the commandments you have broken in the recent past would

be a deal breaker for several very good reasons.

Could be a set up?

I do have a SSA friend who is celibate and who has served in a bishopric.

Bernard

I have had the same feeling since I first read this post. My fear is that we have a couple of leaders in that ward and stake who are pushing the limits. Don't know but it has happened before.

[jadams_4242]

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.

this whole thing is tottal B.S! this weirdo has beard and stash... he is not in any wards bishopric.. and thats just 4 starters!

[Calm]

this whole thing is tottal B.S! this weirdo has beard and stash... he is not in any wards bishopric.. and thats just 4 starters!

FWIW, my husband has a nice beard and was in two bishoprics and as a counselor, not a sec.

Plus he can always shave it.

[thesometimesaint]

jadams_4242:

I've had a bushy "Stash" ever since I could grow one, before I even joined the Church. I've had many leadership positions including in the Bishopric. No beard though I find them too itchy.

[Anijen]

One can be in the Bishopric with facial hair.