Usa: Gay Man In Mormon Leadership Role

[frankenstein]

However, I do have reservations about this fellow talking to a newspaper and describing himself as an "openly gay priesthood leader." First, I'm not sure ward executive secretary qualifies as a "priesthood leader[ship]" position.

Isn't Exec Sec a member of the Bishopric?

Second, "openly gay priesthood leader" seems to be potentially misleading. I think "openly gay" carries connotations with the general public that are not applicable to this person ("openly gay" seems more or less synonymous with "practicing gay").

I think it is only LDS that would think such as you suggest. When I hear "openly gay" I think that the person has openly admitted that they have sexual desires for persons of their own gender.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

I don't know about unnatural, but it is within the range of human sexual thought, and actions. Again we are not responsible for the fleeting inappropriate thoughts that we all have, or at least I don't believe God will hold me(or anyone else) responsible for them. What I will be held responsible for is dwelling on those thoughts to the point of action.

Both personally and professionally someone elses sexuality is none of my business, and only make it so when a client is having difficulty in accepting their own sexuality. I'm far more into people living their own best possible lives, and in finding happinesss therein.

Don't hold your breath till seeing that happen. I no more see the Church accepting active homosexuals than active adulters.

[LeSellers]

Isn't Exec Sec a member of the Bishopric?

No, as has been explained here several times.

Lehi

[Mark Beesley]

This topic degenerated from the OP about a non-issue to a non-issue about whether the ES is part of the bishopric--and all in the space of less than two pages. How utterly earth-shattering.

[Pahoran]

This topic degenerated from the OP about a non-issue to a non-issue about whether the ES is part of the bishopric--and all in the space of less than two pages. How utterly earth-shattering.

Sure it's not very earth-shattering. But then again, neither is it very earth-shattering that someone who isn't currently breaking any commandments might get called to a non-leadership position in their ward.

This is not the "watershed moment" that some immoralists wish it were.

Incidentally, over on the sty, now that even they have realised that this is no big deal, they are oinking that it is all a beat-up by the Church PR machine. That, of course, is a false notion arising from their own bigotry. It was Mr Mayne who decided to beat this story up; the Church is actually pointing out that it isn't a big deal.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

Isn't Exec Sec a member of the Bishopric?

Um, no. See my posts, especially the two immediately preceding yours.

[Scott Lloyd]

Sure it's not very earth-shattering. But then again, neither is it very earth-shattering that someone who isn't currently breaking any commandments might get called to a non-leadership position in their ward.

This is not the "watershed moment" that some immoralists wish it were.

And hence the point about whether a ward executive secretary is a bishopric member. To state or imply so, and to say he is involved in "executive-level decision making," is part of the overall manipulative spin which has been inflicted upon a potentially gullible public to make this thing appear to be more than the non-event that it is.

[frankenstein]

And hence the point about whether a ward executive secretary is a bishopric member. To state or imply so, and to say he is involved in "executive-level decision making," is part of the overall manipulative spin which has been inflicted upon a potentially gullible public to make this thing appear to be more than the non-event that it is.

the Bishoprics I have been involved sought the advice and opinion of the Exec Sec concerning issues in the ward; therefore the Exec Sex was involved withe executive level decision making.

[Zeta-Flux]

the Bishoprics I have been involved sought the advice and opinion of the Exec Sec concerning issues in the ward; therefore the Exec Sex was involved withe executive level decision making.

I think the relevant difference is that he can offer input but cannot make any final decisions. Other members of the Bishopric can do so (such as distribute temple recommends, give interviews, assess worthiness, extend callings, etc...). The executive secretary is not a "leader" in that sense.

[frankenstein]

I think the relevant difference is that he can offer input but cannot make any final decisions. Other members of the Bishopric can do so (such as distribute temple recommends, give interviews, assess worthiness, extend callings, etc...). The executive secretary is not a "leader" in that sense.

was the calling of Exec Sec defined as a "leader in that sense".

From the OP the first few sentences delineate admin duties and participation in decision making - a person who provides input participates. I think the hubbub is not about the terminology used to describe the persons calling. and all the times I was Exec Sec, the Bishops said "you are considered a member of the Bishopric".

The article describes with accuracy the position of Exec Sec, I have served in the position more than once and is several states.

[Scott Lloyd]

the Bishoprics I have been involved sought the advice and opinion of the Exec Sec concerning issues in the ward; therefore the Exec Sex was involved withe executive level decision making.

Offering opinions is one thing; making decisions is another. To say someone is "involved in executive-level decision making" makes it sound like the person has a binding vote in a decision-making body. Which, of course, a ward executive secretary does not. I still say the wording is manipulative spin.

[Scott Lloyd]

... all the times I was Exec Sec, the Bishops said "you are considered a member of the Bishopric".

The misconception seems to be so widespread, I don't doubt that even some bishops themselves are confused on this point -- particularly those who haven't gotten around to familiarizing themselves with the relevant passages in the handbooks and manuals.

[frankenstein]

The misconception seems to be so widespread, I don't doubt that even some bishops themselves are confused on this point -- particularly those who haven't gotten around to familiarizing themselves with the relevant passages in the handbooks and manuals.

I do not think the article is spin or manipulation. However, what newspaper does not spin, manipulate or have an agenda (to include the LDS Church owned new outlets; nothing personal against anyone who works or contributes to a LDS Church owned/run news outlet, just a statement of opinion concerning the dissemination of news.)

[Sky]

Whether an Executive Secretary is considered part of a Bishopric or not – why don’t we all give this man some credit anyway? The role of an ES shouldn’t be inflated, but it shouldn’t be deflated either. It’s still an important calling!

He must have a testimony and I’m sure he will serve in this capacity to the best of his ability. I do have some unanswered questions, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt. I’ll trust the judgment of his bishop.

The significance of this article is (1) that he calls himself gay, not someone that "has same sex attraction" and (2) his bishop is okay with that.

As evident by this thread, most Mormons view homosexuality as an unnatural, abnormal urge/attraction that must be suppressed/controlled.

I agree with you about the significance of the article. He chooses to use the term 'gay' as opposed to 'same-sex attraction.' Normally in the Church, the term 'gay' is discouraged in favor of the latter.

I'd also say that your assertion about how Mormons view homosexuality is pretty accruate.

I predict that in 5 years, this man will still be gay, but he will no longer be a mormon.

Is this what you want for him? Because I don’t! I want him to feel welcome and to find joy in his church service! The more he feels this way, the more likely he will be able to stay committed to living the standards of the Church and to keeping the faith!

[Scott Lloyd]

Whether an Executive Secretary is considered part of a Bishopric or not – why don’t we all give this man some credit anyway? The role of an ES shouldn’t be inflated, but it shouldn’t be deflated either. It’s still an important calling!

I'd say virtually all callings in the Church are important. And it is not minimizing the position to point out -- correctly -- that an executive secretary is not a bishopric member. I say this having been an executive secretary, in two wards.

He must have a testimony and I’m sure he will serve in this capacity to the best of his ability. I do have some unanswered questions, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt. I’ll trust the judgment of his bishop.

I don't have a doubt to give him the benefit of. I have no problem at all with a person, regardless of sexual orientation, serving in a calling, so long as the person has been found worthy.

[Jaybear]

Is this what you want for him? Because I don’t! I want him to feel welcome and to find joy in his church service! The more he feels this way, the more likely he will be able to stay committed to living the standards of the Church and to keeping the faith!

This experiment aside, the LDS Church is not presently a welcome place for openly gay men and women. I hope that changes, not so much for his sake, but for the gay mormon teenagers.

[Scott Lloyd]

I do not think the article is spin or manipulation. However, what newspaper does not spin, manipulate or have an agenda (to include the LDS Church owned new outlets; nothing personal against anyone who works or contributes to a LDS Church owned/run news outlet, just a statement of opinion concerning the dissemination of news.)

I don't know that we're dealing with a newspaper here. My impression is that this thing originated with a blog post or some such thing.

But to the broader point, I would respond that responsible and ethical authors, be they newspaper writers or whatever, try diligently to refrain from misleading readers, even when they are advocating a particular viewpoint. To say that nobody ever writes or publishes without engaging in misleading spin strikes me as unduly cynical.

[Sky]

I'd say virtually all callings in the Church are important. And it is not minimizing the position to point out -- correctly -- that an executive secretary is not a bishopric member. I say this having been an executive secretary, in two wards.

I've also been an executive secretary - and I was told by the bishop that I was a member of the Bishopric. But I guess I was told wrong. No worries!

FWIW, here is what I found on the Encyclopedia of Mormonism about Bishoprics.

I don't have a doubt to give him the benefit of. I have no problem at all with a person, regardless of sexual orientation, serving in a calling, so long as the person has been found worthy.

If he’s not fully committed to abstaining from homosexual relationships, then I see problems for him down the road relating to his Church membership. That is the main thing that I’m unsure about, but I’m trying to avoid making judgments or coming to any conclusions. Like I said, I'll trust the judgment of his bishop.

I don't know whether you recognize that Jaybear is not a Church member and has no great love for Mormonism.

Yes, I know. I was trying to be as respectful as possible to Jaybear – while at the same time pointing out to him that I think his actual desire is to see Brother Mayne leave the Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

This experiment aside, the LDS Church is not presently a welcome place for openly gay men and women. I hope that changes, not so much for his sake, but for the gay mormon teenagers.

It is a welcome environment for any who would strive to conform their behavior to the commandments of God. And I'm confident that will never change.

[Scott Lloyd]

I've also been an executive secretary - and I was told by the bishop that I was a member of the Bishopric. But I guess I was told wrong. No worries!

FWIW, here is what I found on the Encyclopedia of Mormonism about Bishoprics.

Thank you for this which, though not an official Church source, does confirm my point:

The bishopric, consisting of the bishop and two counselors, is the presiding or governing council in a ward (congregation).

[kolipoki09]

I've also been an executive secretary - and I was told by the bishop that I was a member of the Bishopric. But I guess I was told wrong. No worries!

"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."

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

[Sky]

"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."

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

Okay...that settles it! Thank you!

[Scott Lloyd]

Okay...that settles it! Thank you!

I thought my cite from the "Teachings and Blessings of the Priesthood" manual had pretty much done that.

But I do thank kolipoki for this. You can't get much more authoritative than the handbook.

[toon]

No, as has been explained here several times.

Lehi

While the Exec. Sec. is not a member of the bishopric, there is the perception, usually promoted by the status-conscious and ambitious wife of the Exec. Sec. who wishes her husband were a member of the bishopric.

[Pahoran]

This experiment aside, the LDS Church is not presently a welcome place for openly gay men and women. I hope that changes, not so much for his sake, but for the gay mormon teenagers.

What "experiment" is that? The "experiment" whereby someone whose faith and commitment are a bit shaky is given a calling? That "experiment" is performed in every ward in the Church, every year. AFAICT, it has been carried on continuously since Joseph Smith's time.

The Church is, and always has been, a "welcome place" for everyone. Repentance is always available.

Regards,

Pahoran