Church Calls Openly Gay Bishopric Member

[Messenger]

The only people you can trust are people with a beard. I love mine, and Brigham Young loved his.

[Calm]

So I have been reading the discussion on this topic over at BCC. IIRC, it is the Executive Secretary that calls members to set up appointments for the Bishop and/or his counselors (or whomever else he takes along). Brother Mayne discussed in his Sacrament Meeting talk that is no longer posted for some reason (perhaps he changed his mind after hearing some reactions and felt it should remain something more between himself and his former ward, I could certainly understand that feeling) that part of his calling was to reach out to the high numbers of inactive gays in the area of his new ward (which appears to be outside his geographically 'assigned' ward...thus the unique nature of the calling).

I can't recall for sure if he gave more detail, but it makes sense to me (and to others on BCC who came up with the idea) that reaching out could be in part more successful because he could share his personal conviction and experience that those with same sex attractions could find a home within in the LDS faith and could even play a vital role within its walls. I believe there is a common perception from what I've seen that there is no place for those with SSA among LDS (there certainly was when I lived in the Bay Area eons ago), this would go a long way to counteract the perception, especially if they've had direct experience of less than welcoming members in the past and could really help others in taking the first step back into the faith community. By being the first to make contact by phone or by accompanying the Bishop or others, it would help 'get a foot in the front door' so to speak. Once that's been accomplished, then hopefully the love and compassion and friendship of all involved along with the Spirit that hopefully will also be present will finish the persuasion to come back and give the life another try.

I assume that missionaries try and find active members who have commonalities with investigators when they are looking for members to fellowship and support them. If so, this would be just a variation on that theme.Maybe someone braver than I will 'reach out' to him and ask for some details of his calling as I do find this possibility quite interesting.

I do think if he's going to make it work, he's going to have to be clearer about what he is trying to do both for the community and how he intends to live personally, but unless he continues to blog about it and use that forum as another method to get his message of "come back" out there, I don't think he owes that clarification to anyone but those in his ward and those he reaches out to....but it would be nice to hear from him anyway.

I do hope that even if he personally believes that God will get the message to the Church leadership someday that "marriage equality" is right and acceptable within the LDS community and if he personally assumes that he will someday have the opportunity to be in another relationship such as he was before, but with the addition of it being perceived as chaste and lawful by the Church rather than sinful as the previous one likely was (assuming that the wedding ring he wore meant it was the full relationship to him and was not just some 'commitment' ring), that he does not use this personal expectation as some sort of incentive to persuade others to come back to the faith because in his view surely there will eventually be change. Just like any relationship (be it employer and employee, spouses or even an individual and a faith community), if it can't work on the 'personalities' and attributes of that currently exist, it should not be entered into longterm based on the expectation of future change will bring future happiness....because likely it won't.

[Messenger]

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!

Calling someone a weirdo because they don’t meet your personal standards of appearance is very much against our religion. Again, didn’t we just have a lesson in church on people of African decent gaining the priesthood? Outward appearance doesn’t have a lot to do with what’s inside. I would agree that if Mitch is really in the bishopric, even as an executive secretary, his views published on that video wouldn’t be congruent with church doctrine. That’s more of a problem for him, than me. What I have found in my personal experience is that people don’t know how to react to differences and end up just reacting without thinking. Christ taught that all of God’s children, even you J, are loved by our father. Afterall, isn’t that why he send his son? I mean, if Christ died for you, me and Mitch, so that we can live forever, and have the possibility of living with our Father again, I think that we should at least be tolerant of those that may seem weird to you and me.

I find it ironic that the first thing you point out, his beard, would be something that would disqualify him as being a person in the Bishopric. I can only point out some examples ….. Are you sure you want to judge them the same way?

[Calm]

Outward appearance doesn’t have a lot to do with what’s inside.

That would depend on what aspects of appearance was involved. For example extreme slovenliness is likely a result of a inward defect of some kind (laziness, low self esteem, mental or emotional disturbance, etc) rather than genetics. I would agree that having a beard or mustache is not providing anyone with a window to the man's soul. And being weird does not equate to being wicked or weak or whatever.

[Messenger]

That would depend on what aspects of appearance was involved. For example extreme slovenliness is likely a result of a inward defect of some kind (laziness, low self esteem, mental or emotional disturbance, etc) rather than genetics. I would agree that having a beard or mustache is not providing anyone with a window to the man's soul. And being weird does not equate to being wicked or weak or whatever.

notice I chose my words carefully .... " a lot" and we are talking about beards, When and if I become a common judge in isreal, or the spirit tells me that I need to be careful of the person I am dealing with, or I am looking to call someone to responsibility, I would say that ANY outward physical appearance is not enough unto itself to judge a man as being worthy or not.

Acts 10

34 ¶Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no ^arespecter of persons:

35 But in every ^anation he that ^bfeareth him, and ^cworketh ^drighteousness, is ^eaccepted with him.

Moroni 8

12 But little ^achildren are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a ^brespecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!

13 Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless h***.

Labels (link)

by President Thomas S. Monson - First Counselor in the First Presidency

The outward appearances of some men (is) often misleading. The Master declared to one group:

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.

“… Ye … outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.”

“Suddenly President Kimball turned to the stake president and asked him to identify a particular man seated perhaps two-thirds of the way back from the front of the chapel. The stake president replied that the individual was James Womack, whereupon President Kimball said, “He is the man the Lord has selected to be your stake patriarch. Please have him meet with me in the high council room following the meeting.”

James Womack did not wear the label of a typical man. He had sustained terrible injuries while in combat during World War II. He lost both hands and one arm, as well as most of his eyesight and part of his hearing.

That evening as President Kimball met with Brother Womack and informed him that the Lord had designated him to be the patriarch, there was a protracted silence in the room. Then Brother Womack said, “Brother Kimball, it is my understanding that a patriarch is to place his hands on the head of the person he blesses. As you can see, I have no hands to place on the head of anyone.”

Brother Kimball, in his kind and patient manner, invited Brother Womack to make his way to the back of the chair on which Brother Kimball was seated. He then said, “Now, Brother Womack, lean forward and see if the stumps of your arms will reach the top of my head.” To Brother Womack’s joy, they touched Brother Kimball, and the exclamation came forth, “I can reach you! I can reach you!”

“Of course you can reach me,” responded Brother Kimball. “And if you can reach me, you can reach any whom you bless. I will be the shortest person you will ever have seated before you.”

[Jaybear]

notice I chose my words carefully .... " a lot" and we are talking about beards,

Why are you talking about beards? The man is gay.

He was in a committed relationship with a partner, where they exchanges vows. He obviously does not consider that intimacy in such an arrangement to be improper. As to the future, he said very clearly:

I am committing to adhere to the same standard of behavior that we require of any heterosexual member in a Priesthood leadership position.

That is the issue. Not the beard. According to the LDS Church, the law of chastity is as follows:

We are to have sexual relations only with our spouse to whom we are legally married. No one, male or female, is to have sexual relations before marriage. After marriage, sexual relations are permitted only with our spouse.

He believes the same law should apply equally to gays and heterosexuals.

If the LDS Church is ever going to make peace with gays, it will be on his terms. Some of you will, I am sure, rather remain at war with the gays, than respect the sanctity of a gay marriage.

[Messenger]

Why are you talking about beards? The man is gay.

Because OTHER people brought up that the guy is wierd, cuz he has a beard .... ( LOL ) among other possible issues. It does appear he was gay, and appears that he is indicating that he he may still act on that, based on the video. If so, that is a violation of church morality and is grounds for church court and possibly excommunication. But, to show hate towards the man, is also a violation of civility. Others have posted hateful things, and I just want to make sure we dont burn the guy at the stake. Afterall, its the Bishop and the Stake President that called him. Im not saying we hate them either. But perhaps a little compassion and understanding should be inserted in your tone. Besides, do you really KNOW the guy is acting on his SSA? If not, then do you think you may be judging him? And if he is acting on is SSA in an incorrect way, what would you suggest we do? Run over to San Fran and knock on his door and run him up on a tree? Really?

[Jaybear]

But perhaps a little compassion and understanding should be inserted in your tone.

Compassion for what? That he suffers from SSA, or that he not currently in a relationship?

I don't think he sees being gay something needing to be cured.

Besides, do you really KNOW the guy is acting on his SSA?

He says he is not. I see no reason not to take him at his word.

If not, then do you think you may be judging him?

No. I don't think I am judging him.

And if he is acting on is SSA in an incorrect way, what would you suggest we do? Run over to San Fran and knock on his door and run him up on a tree? Really?

Huh? Is there a correct way for a mormon to act on his SSA?

You are completely missing the point. He is advocating that the LDS Church change how it treats gays. The fact that he is a member in good standing, with a calling, notwithstanding his past relationship with his "partner" suggests that (1) some in the LDS Church (his bishop/sp) may be receptive to this change; or (2) he kept this relationship from his bishop/sp at the time.

[Messenger]

You are completely missing the point. He is advocating that the LDS Church change how it treats gays. The fact that he is a member in good standing, with a calling, notwithstanding his past relationship with his "partner" suggests that (1) some in the LDS Church (his bishop/sp) may be receptive to this change; or (2) he kept this relationship from his bishop/sp at the time.

So, your point is your concern over the fact that "(his bishop/sp) may be receptive to this change; or he kept this relationship from his bishop/sp at the time"

It should be reported to the church yes. But I dont understand why you are so upset? Im not upset or missing the point because I know the truthfulness of our morality laws and I am perfectly comfortable with myself being in them. What you are suggesting is that some action be taken. Or perhaps you would rather verbally slay the guy on a forum? Im not understanding your point, which seem to be pointless. So I ask you again WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO ABOUT IT BESIDES LETTING LOOSE ON A PUBLIC FORUM? Perhaps you are simply raising awareness that this is wrong? Do you know the guy is acting on his SSA? Just so you know, a lot of church members that have SSA also say they are gay, that doesnt automattically mean they are acting on it. And if he is, do you not have confidence that this has already been reported to the church HQ? If not, what are you waiting for?

[california boy]

So I have been reading the discussion on this topic over at BCC. IIRC, it is the Executive Secretary that calls members to set up appointments for the Bishop and/or his counselors (or whomever else he takes along). Brother Mayne discussed in his Sacrament Meeting talk that is no longer posted for some reason (perhaps he changed his mind after hearing some reactions and felt it should remain something more between himself and his former ward, I could certainly understand that feeling) that part of his calling was to reach out to the high numbers of inactive gays in the area of his new ward (which appears to be outside his geographically 'assigned' ward...thus the unique nature of the calling).

I can't recall for sure if he gave more detail, but it makes sense to me (and to others on BCC who came up with the idea) that reaching out could be in part more successful because he could share his personal conviction and experience that those with same sex attractions could find a home within in the LDS faith and could even play a vital role within its walls. I believe there is a common perception from what I've seen that there is no place for those with SSA among LDS (there certainly was when I lived in the Bay Area eons ago), this would go a long way to counteract the perception, especially if they've had direct experience of less than welcoming members in the past and could really help others in taking the first step back into the faith community. By being the first to make contact by phone or by accompanying the Bishop or others, it would help 'get a foot in the front door' so to speak. Once that's been accomplished, then hopefully the love and compassion and friendship of all involved along with the Spirit that hopefully will also be present will finish the persuasion to come back and give the life another try.

I assume that missionaries try and find active members who have commonalities with investigators when they are looking for members to fellowship and support them. If so, this would be just a variation on that theme.Maybe someone braver than I will 'reach out' to him and ask for some details of his calling as I do find this possibility quite interesting.

I do think if he's going to make it work, he's going to have to be clearer about what he is trying to do both for the community and how he intends to live personally, but unless he continues to blog about it and use that forum as another method to get his message of "come back" out there, I don't think he owes that clarification to anyone but those in his ward and those he reaches out to....but it would be nice to hear from him anyway.

I do hope that even if he personally believes that God will get the message to the Church leadership someday that "marriage equality" is right and acceptable within the LDS community and if he personally assumes that he will someday have the opportunity to be in another relationship such as he was before, but with the addition of it being perceived as chaste and lawful by the Church rather than sinful as the previous one likely was (assuming that the wedding ring he wore meant it was the full relationship to him and was not just some 'commitment' ring), that he does not use this personal expectation as some sort of incentive to persuade others to come back to the faith because in his view surely there will eventually be change. Just like any relationship (be it employer and employee, spouses or even an individual and a faith community), if it can't work on the 'personalities' and attributes of that currently exist, it should not be entered into longterm based on the expectation of future change will bring future happiness....because likely it won't.

I like your comments. I wish that everyone was as compassionate as you are. But quite frankly this forum illustrates the reality of being gay in the church. Some people are ok with it and supportive. Others, well, just freak out. They can't deal with people that are different than they are. Even a beard evidently is too much for some. Being gay and being an active member of the church means that there are a lot of people in your ward that will love and support you and a lof of people who will think you wierd, shouldn't have a calling and feel they have a responsibility to be your judge. One thing is for sure, you will not be treated as a regular member of the ward. Combine that with the demands of living a celebrate life where some people think you shouldn't even date another gay man, and a promis of living for eternity with a woman if you are faithful in this life and you have pretty much all the reasons why most gay men choose to leave the church.

[Jaybear]

So, your point is your concern over the fact that "(his bishop/sp) may be receptive to this change; or he kept this relationship from his bishop/sp at the time"

It should be reported to the church yes. But I dont understand why you are so upset? Im not upset or missing the point because I know the truthfulness of our morality laws and I am perfectly comfortable with myself being in them. What you are suggesting is that some action be taken. Or perhaps you would rather verbally slay the guy on a forum? Im not understanding your point, which seem to be pointless. So I ask you again WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO ABOUT IT BESIDES LETTING LOOSE ON A PUBLIC FORUM? Perhaps you are simply raising awareness that this is wrong? Do you know the guy is acting on his SSA? Just so you know, a lot of church members that have SSA also say they are gay, that doesnt automattically mean they are acting on it. And if he is, do you not have confidence that this has already been reported to the church HQ? If not, what are you waiting for?

You need to reassess your ability to grasp tone from a written post.

I am not the least bit upset. You should go back and read what I wrote again.

The only action that I suggest be taken is the discussion of the fascinating issue raised by his blog, and that issue is not his beard.

[bluebell]

The only action that I suggest be taken is the discussion of the fascinating issue raised by his blog, and that issue is not his beard.

Messenger was only responding to j. adams post about how him having a beard proves his story isn't true. I think you might have come in to the middle of the conversation that occurred because of that remark, and misunderstood why messenger was talking about his beard.

[toon]

One can be in the Bishopric with facial hair.

So long as you're wearing a white shirt, even if unbuttoned.

[sjdawg]

One can be in the Bishopric with facial hair.

Not in my stake.

[Anijen]

Not in my stake.

Then perhaps your Stake President didn't get the memo from the First Presidency. Or perhaps they did and still require one to be clean shaven.

[Jaybear]

Messenger was only responding to j. adams post about how him having a beard proves his story isn't true. I think you might have come in to the middle of the conversation that occurred because of that remark, and misunderstood why messenger was talking about his beard.

No misunderstanding. Just trying to get the OP back on track.

Based on the discussions, one would think the OP was: "Church Calls Openly BEARDED Bishopric Member"

[bluebell]

No misunderstanding. Just trying to get the OP back on track.

Based on the discussions, one would think the OP was: "Church Calls Openly BEARDED Bishopric Member"

I think only one page or so out of six really dealt with the bread, so if someone got that impression, it might be because they didn't read the whole thread.

Honestly though, i haven't read the first 3 or 4 pages either so maybe the beard does make more of an appearance than is necessary and i'm the one guilty of not seeing the whole picture.

[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).

As promised, the timeless Joanna Brooks:

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/joannabrooks/5013/openly_gay_mormon_appointed_to_lds_church_leadership_position/

I do however, take issue with his use of the term "Bishopric" to describe his role as his ward's Executive Secretary. That's just me though.

[Calm]

Glad this was clarified:

“I was floored,” says Mayne. “I told him: ‘My entire life I’ve known I was gay. Why would I have lived my life to be worthy of serving a bishopric-level calling? A calling that as I gay man I’ve been told I was not entitled to? I am a three-dimensional person.’”

After a frank discussion with local Church leaders, Mayne committed to adhere to the same standards of sexual morality expected of heterosexual members of the LDS Church, and he agreed to serve.

(Sources I spoke with in the San Francisco Stake of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints confirm that Mayne’s calling was conducted according to LDS Church policy and that it does not represent an innovation but simply an implementation of policies permitting any member who is found worthy by their local priesthood leaders to serve.)

[Calm]

Technically speaking is Ex Sec a leadership position? My husband has always referred to it as 'staff' or 'administrative, defining leadership as someone who either teaches or even more so is someone making decisions.

I don't have a problem with people discussing it as a leadership position as I can see that is a common perception, just wondering about technicalities.

[Anijen]

After a frank discussion with local Church leaders, Mayne committed to adhere to the same standards of sexual morality expected of heterosexual members of the LDS Church, and he agreed to serve.

To me, two married guys living in a homosexual relationship is not the "same standards of sexual morality" of a heterosexual couple.

I agree, if married they both can be faithful to each other. The point where I see the problem is of having homosexual relations even if married and faithful is not the same as a hetrosexual one.

So as I read this Brother Mayne has agreed to the same morality standards as a heterosexual member.

Is that correct? If so, would not that mean if he had a homosexual relationship with only his wedded spouse then that would not be the same to what he agreed with his local church leaders. That is how I have to read it.

Because if I am wrong here and correct me if I am. That would mean if Brother Mayne gets married to a man and although he is faithful but is sexually active with his spouse then the local church leaders agreed (according to Brother Mayne) that he is worthy of his "Bishopric" position. I use the term "bishopric" knowing he is the executive secretary, but use bishopric because it is the term Brother Mayne himself uses.

[Calm]

If so, would not that mean if he had a homosexual relationship with only his wedded spouse then that would not be the same to what he agreed with his local church leaders.....That would mean if Brother Mayne gets married to a man and although he is faithful but is sexually active with his spouse then the local church leaders agreed (according to Brother Mayne) that he is worthy of his "Bishopric" position.

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.

What would make the situation acceptable to all is if Brother Mayne's standard which he committed to was not only involving a "legal" spouse, but also a relationship that was viewed as "lawful" by the Church (I found the differentiation between legal as relating to man's laws and lawful as relating to God's law by someone at BCC IIRC as an interesting and probable explanation for what appears to be a repetition)....because he clearly anticipates that at some time in the future the Church will accept his view of "marriage equality" because he currently sees it as the way God views the situation. Even if he is wrong in his belief (and I believe he is), if he is true to his commitment to wait until the Church accepts such a relationship as legitimate....isn't he essentially saying "Thy Will be done" (assuming this interpretation of his comments is correct)?

If he is saying he is just willing to wait until it becomes the law of the land, then I would say I expect his leaders are hoping that time and commitment to living a saintly life will bring him closer to the correct understanding of the gospel....and they are willing to trust his sincerity and the ability of the Lord to work miracles. I also assume they have or will probably make it clear what he is and isn't supposed to use to persuade others to come back to the faith, not wanting to create false expectations in others.

[Whiskeypete]

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.

While I don't have any problem with the calling of someone who has same-sex-attraction who has repented of any violation of the law of Chastity, there is still something unsettling about the way this whole thing is being presented. Sneaky on the part of the open letter, misleading on the part of the headline writers.

[Messenger]

Technically speaking is Ex Sec a leadership position? My husband has always referred to it as 'staff' or 'administrative, defining leadership as someone who either teaches or even more so is someone making decisions.

I don't have a problem with people discussing it as a leadership position as I can see that is a common perception, just wondering about technicalities.

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.

[Messenger]

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.

While I don't have any problem with the calling of someone who has same-sex-attraction who has repented of any violation of the law of Chastity, there is still something unsettling about the way this whole thing is being presented. Sneaky on the part of the open letter, misleading on the part of the headline writers.

You and I agree 100%. So it begs the question .... what if the church DOES change policy? I mean I know whats right for me, would it be selfish of me and others who have lived by the rules to expect those who do not be accepted without penalty and be married in the temple? If so, what does this do for the proclamation of the family? Im ok with thinking about these possibilities,