Church Calls Openly Gay Bishopric Member

[Anijen]

I don't read it as stating that his church leaders agreed that such a standard would be acceptable for the Church leaders to hold, just that they saw it was workable in the current situation. I find it hard to believe that someone who has served in such a controversial location for as long as the Bishop apparently has would not know what was expected of gay members by the Church leadership even if they had different ideas themselves. And I think his Church leaders would be experienced enough to make sure that Bishop had clear instruction to avoid difficult and tragic situations as much as possible.

Yes this is the same conclusion I have.

I hope (it appears so) Brother Mayne realizes the tight rope he is walking. This could end up to be a can of worms for him but if it works out and he does keep the moral standard the same as a heterosexual couple as he committed to, then it could also be a way to assuage some of the bitter feelings between the church and the gay community.

[kolipoki09]

I might be splitting hairs here.

While it is true than an Executive Secretary is a member of the Bishopric, no where in his "open letter" does he state what his calling is. Judging by the fact that several posters on this board read the article (or at least the headline) and assumed that he was called as a Counselor or even as the Bishop, it is pretty clear that that omission was probably a deliberate attempt to lead people that conclusion.

From the ever-helpful Gregory L. Smith (posted on my Facebook page a few hours ago):

‎

"The ward clerk and ward executive secretary work closely with the bishopric, but they are not members of the bishopric and do not need to be released when the bishopric is reorganized."

Church Handbook (2010), Bk 1, Section 2.

Welp, it doesn't get any more "official" than that.

[KevinG]

Yes this is the same conclusion I have.

I hope (it appears so) Brother Mayne realizes the tight rope he is walking. This could end up to be a can of worms for him but if it works out and he does keep the moral standard the same as a heterosexual couple as he committed to, then it could also be a way to assuage some of the bitter feelings between the church and the gay community.

My inner cynic fears that if he is not committed to living the law of chastity fully and according the church practice that this could be a ready made situation to create a high profile bitter conflict between the church and the gay community.

I pray that is not the case but this is a very delicate path this man and his Bishop have determined to follow. Whom the Lord calls the Lord qualifies - so in the last analysis I'm not in a position to know or judge anything about this situation.

[ERayR]

The executive secretary can and does attend the weekly meetings that the bishopric holds. I know this because I was regularly invited to attend them too. They do tend to go back and fourth from the meeting to the office, acting on requests of those in the meeting. Our Bishop did have a round robin session at the end of the meeting to get comments and suggestions from those that attended. Those that have been to the meetings know what is discussed there. So, if he is attending them, he would be hearing all the confidential information about membership records, courts, welfare, and everything else.

I have served as a bishop's councelor and as a ward clerk twice. The bishops that I served under was very careful to keep confidential information on a need to know basis. The information you listed would go as far as the ward clerk or, in the case of welfare information, maybe to the finance clerk to make out checks. As far as welfare commodities it would be his councilors, the relief society president and the ward clerk when he filed the paperwork. Very seldom is the executive secretary burdened with any more of this kind of information than necessary.

This is just my experience, others may differ.

[Jaybear]

My inner cynic fears that if he is not committed to living the law of chastity fully and according the church practice that this could be a ready made situation to create a high profile bitter conflict between the church and the gay community.

I pray that is not the case but this is a very delicate path this man and his Bishop have determined to follow. Whom the Lord calls the Lord qualifies - so in the last analysis I'm not in a position to know or judge anything about this situation.

He already made it clear he was not. He was only willing to commit to live the same standard as is expected of heterosexuals.As he is not a heterosexual, its fairly obvious what that means. That level of commitment was apparently fine with the bishop.

As I noted earlier, this arrangement will either blow up, now that it has become public, or become the model by which the LDS Church moves to bridge the gap with its gay members.

I am guessing that it blows up. I think your church is about 15-20 years away from making this modest concession to gays. As evident by this thread, your members are no where near ready to treat gays and heterosexuals as equals.

[KevinG]

He already made it clear he was not. He was only willing to commit to live the same standard as is expected of heterosexuals.As he is not a heterosexual, its fairly obvious what that means. That level of commitment was apparently fine with the bishop.

As I noted earlier, this arrangement will either blow up, now that it has become public, or become the model by which the LDS Church moves to bridge the gap with its gay members.

I am guessing that it blows up. I think your church is about 15-20 years away from making this modest concession to gays. As evident by this thread, your members are no where near ready to treat gays and heterosexuals as equals.

The same standard as heterosexuals is no sexual relations outside of legal and lawful marriage (and you know how the church defines legal and lawful marriage). I'm not clear by his statement what he means to do or is willing to do to be able to keep his calling. Like I said before I pray everyone is above board and works to keep this from being a problem. I also fear that this could end up being a wedge if it doesn't work out.

[Messenger]

I think your church is about 15-20 years away from making this modest concession to gays. As evident by this thread, your members are no where near ready to treat gays and heterosexuals as equals.

Now it makes sence. First you question those that have compassion, then you attack us when we dont. Interesting.

I think I assesed your tone pretty well. Its about what his true intentions are. Not what is on the outside or his repented past. That's why the play on beards, and that is why you are not a moderator sir. When you become one, or are the OP, then you can say all you want about my posts. But I know who you are now, watch your step while on this forum.

[Jaybear]

The same standard as heterosexuals is no sexual relations outside of legal and lawful marriage (and you know how the church defines legal and lawful marriage). I'm not clear by his statement what he means to do or is willing to do to be able to keep his calling.

His statement is clear to me. As CA does not presently allow marriage, he is making a concession not to engage is sexual relations with another man. He is not saying he won't pursue and develop a romantic relationship with other men. That is what makes the blog noteworthy.

As for keeping his calling, it might be implied, but its not stated that the Bishop made any commitments to him to allow him to keep his calling if he finds himself in a relationship with another man, even if the relationship was chaste by heterosexual standards.

Like I said before I pray everyone is above board and works to keep this from being a problem. I also fear that this could end up being a wedge if it doesn't work out.

Yes, that would be a shame because the LDS Church gets along so well with the homosexual community.

[Ares]

A reminder to all.

The issue of Homosexuality among Latter-day Saints is a sensitive and potentially divisive topic. In order to promote a civil discussion about these sensitive topics we have chosen to keep a close eye on related threads and keep the number of threads to a minimum.

The moment people start sniping or delving into politics the thread will be shut down or the persons doing so will be dismissed. This applies to any side of this discussion including those who agree or disagree with the current LDS policy and doctrines as they are today.

No exceptions!