Usa: Gay Man In Mormon Leadership Role

[Pahoran]

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.

Well, at least Brother Mayne won't have to worry about that.

To every cloud there's a silver lining...

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jaybear]

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.

Welcome. Bah. That is just lip service.

Many here,you included, were very quick to point out that the executive secretary is NOT a position of leadership. The point is obvious, if you are gay, and aspire to be in a position of leadership in the LDS Church, stay hidden in the closet.

Sure they are welcome, as long as they are willing to accept second class status, and they should not even think about helping out with scouts.

When you actually have a openly gay mormon serving in the Bishopric or higher, and its not news, then you claim gays are welcome with a straight face.

[toon]

Well, at least Brother Mayne won't have to worry about that.

To every cloud there's a silver lining...

Regards,

Pahoran

Funny.

[Pahoran]

Welcome. Bah. That is just lip service.

That's false. "Gays" are exactly as welcome as everyone else, and on exactly the same basis, to: Repent. Be baptised. Make a real, good-faith effort to conform your life to the standards of the Church.

These conditions apply to all, equally.

Many here,you included, were very quick to point out that the executive secretary is NOT a position of leadership. The point is obvious, if you are gay, and aspire to be in a position of leadership in the LDS Church, stay hidden in the closet.

Wrong. But thanks for playing.

The real message is: if you "aspire to be in a position of leadership in the LDS Church," then you need to re-think your priorities. Latter-day Saints should be as happy to serve as hymn-book stacker or Primary teacher or librarian as in more visible callings.

And if someone thinks of himself as "gay," then that may be an obstacle to overcoming his challenges.

Sure they are welcome, as long as they are willing to accept second class status,

What "second class status" is that?

and they should not even think about helping out with scouts.

Well here's the thing, you see. If a "gay" man is making a serious effort to live the commandments, he will not resent being protected from temptation. Whenever a "gay" person expresses resentment on this score, I can't help wondering whether it isn't comparable to the resentment of a wannabe shoplifter being excluded from the candy store.

When you actually have a openly gay mormon serving in the Bishopric or higher, and its not news, then you claim gays are welcome with a straight face.

"Gays" are welcome, regardless of the shape of their faces.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jaybear]

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

The experiment is where the Bishop extends a calling to an open and unrepentant gay man, who is not presently in a committed relationship with another man.

One cannot be repentant, if he does not accept that he sinned. He mentioned that he was recently "marriage" not recently sinning.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Alas, this is true in all too many cases.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The experiment is where the Bishop extends a calling to an open and unrepentant gay man, who is not presently in a committed relationship with another man.

One cannot be repentant, if he does not accept that he sinned. He mentioned that he was recently "marriage" not recently sinning.

CFR that he is unrepentant. I missed that. You seem to be twisting the story Jaybear.

[Scott Lloyd]

Many here,you included, were very quick to point out that the executive secretary is NOT a position of leadership. The point is obvious, if you are gay, and aspire to be in a position of leadership in the LDS Church, stay hidden in the closet.

I would have responded similarly in any instance of an ancillary role -- such as executive secretary -- being made to seem as though it carried some sort of pastoral authority or administrative supremacy — which, of course, it does not.

I've seen cases before where some faultfinder tries to imbue himself with greater credibility by claiming to be "in a bishopric." When he is asked if he is first counselor or second counselor in the bishopric (had he been the bishop, he would have said so upfront), the question is generally evaded or ignored.

[Scott Lloyd]

CFR that he is unrepentant. I missed that. You seem to be twisting the story Jaybear.

Yeah. My understanding was that he had renounced the lifestyle and thus was repentant. Is my understanding incorrect?

Violation of the law of chastity regardless of sexual orientation would ordinarily jeopardize one's standing in the Church, and much more so his worthiness to hold a calling.

[Sky]

Violation of the law of chastity regardless of sexual orientation would ordinarily jeopardize one's standing in the Church, and much more so his worthiness to hold a calling.

This was my understanding too.

Here is an open letter from Mitch Mayne. I admire his candidness, but there was still some things that left me scratching my head, in particular:

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. But, life is not without its own twists and turns, and I left that relationship for a variety of reasons, none of which had to do with pressure from the church. It was, without question, the most painful decision I’ve ever made.

But, he also says:

I am committing to adhere to the same standard of behavior that we require of any single, heterosexual man in a priesthood leadership position.

I am left unsure of exactly what this means. Does it mean that he has agreed to permanently leave gay relationships behind him? Or does it mean that he still intends to date men if the 'right opportunity' were to come up? I don't really know the answer to these questions from reading his letter.

[Scott Lloyd]

This was my understanding too.

Here is an open letter from Mitch Mayne. I admire his candidness, but there was still some things that left me scratching my head, in particular:

But, he also says:

I am left unsure of exactly what this means. Does it mean that he has agreed to permanently leave gay relationships behind him? Or does it mean that he still intends to date men if the 'right opportunity' were to come up? I don't really know the answer to these questions from reading his letter.

I agree that if this reflects any sort of intended equivocation on his part, it could be problematical.

[smac97]

Welcome. Bah. That is just lip service.

Many here,you included, were very quick to point out that the executive secretary is NOT a position of leadership. The point is obvious, if you are gay, and aspire to be in a position of leadership in the LDS Church, stay hidden in the closet.

Part of what Jaybear said bears repetition:

The point is obvious, if you are gay, and

aspire

to be in a position of leadership in the LDS Church...

This is something of an indictment of Brother Mayne, I think. Nobody should "aspire" to a callings in the Church. That Bro. Mayne has, well, bragged about his calling, has framed it in relation to his sexual orientation, and - by Jaybear's reckoning - has even aspired to it, are all indicia of problems afoot.

Sure they are welcome, as long as they are willing to accept second class status, and they should not even think about helping out with scouts.

This epitomizes the point I raised in the OP:

We all know people who have struggled with temptations of one kind or another. Some struggle with substance abuse. Some with marital fidelity or some other form of inappropriate sexual behavior. Some with physical abuse of family members. Some with honesty. Some with laziness. Some with pornography. These are all struggles against the flesh, for "the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other." (Galatians 5:17).

I can't imagine any Latter-day Saint would want to "honour" the temptations he/she struggles against. And yet gay Mormons like Mitch Mayne seem to want to privilege their struggle as somehow being different or better than the struggles faced by others.

By Jaybear's reckoning, the LDS Church is supposed to accord a special place for - perhaps even acceptance of - homosexual behavior.

That's utter crap. We are all sinners. We all struggle with our individual temptations and weaknesses. It does nobody any good to say "Hey, gay Mormons! Y'all can do whatever you like as far as your temptation, 'cuz it's special! While the rest of us are called upon to overcome our temptations, you folks get to indulge yours as much as you like!"

By this reckoning, to hold gay Mormons to the same standard as the rest of us is to relegate them to "second class status."

By this reckoning, gay Mormons just can't be expected to adhere to the same standards of morality as the rest of us are asked to observe.

This reckoning would excuse gay Mormons from striving to obey the commandments.

Ah, the soft bigotry of low expectations.

When you actually have a openly gay mormon serving in the Bishopric or higher, and its not news, then you claim gays are welcome with a straight face.

If by "openly gay Mormon" you mean "someone behaving in ways openly defiant to the commandments of God," then you are right to be skeptical. I doubt that will happen.

We love our brothers and sisters too much to let them sink into the fetid worldly swamp that teaches them to embrace sin rather than fight it. To indulge in vice rather than to repent. To succumb to temptation rather than struggle against it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Pahoran]

The experiment is where the Bishop extends a calling to an open and unrepentant gay man, who is not presently in a committed relationship with another man.

One cannot be repentant, if he does not accept that he sinned. He mentioned that he was recently "marriage" not recently sinning.

You may be right about him being unrepentant; however, it is entirely possible that his use of equivocal language made that not so obvious to his bishop.

Furthermore, it is hardly unusual for a Church leader to assess someone's worthiness based upon what they are doing now, not upon what they might do if some hypothetical change of circumstances took place. If there is any "experiment" in view, it is an "experiment" to see whether accepting a responsibility to serve in the Church might help him to realise that some things are more important than merely indulging his temptations. Frankly I'm not confident, especially given what appears to be an attempt to use his calling for "look-at-me" purposes, but we'll just have to see what happens.

Besides all that, I reject the false ideology that seems to underpin your remarks, to the effect that the only way to "welcome" someone is to "welcome" their preferred deviancies along with them.

Regards,

Pahoran

[ERayR]

Welcome. Bah. That is just lip service.

Many here,you included, were very quick to point out that the executive secretary is NOT a position of leadership. The point is obvious, if you are gay, and aspire to be in a position of leadership in the LDS Church, stay hidden in the closet.

Sure they are welcome, as long as they are willing to accept second class status, and they should not even think about helping out with scouts.

When you actually have a openly gay mormon serving in the Bishopric or higher, and its not news, then you claim gays are welcome with a straight face.

Such bigoted drivel. Those who pointed out the correct makeup of the bishopric were trying to correct an error. Since when is it wrong to correct misinformation?

I presently serve as ward clerk and have never gotten the feeling that I was relegated to second class status. I am sure our executive secretary does not have any inkling that he is of second class status. I have also served as sunday school teacher, primary teacher, scout master and many other callings within the church structure. Never once was I made to feel my calling was second class.

It is alright to aspire to serve in the Lords church but that aspiration should be one of service and not one of agrandizement. An aspiration to be of service can be fulfilled by any calling in the church.

[Calm]

Many here,you included, were very quick to point out that the executive secretary is NOT a position of leadership. The point is obvious, if you are gay, and aspire to be in a position of leadership in the LDS Church, stay hidden in the closet.

Sure they are welcome, as long as they are willing to accept second class status, and they should not even think about helping out with scouts.

Don't be silly. Since the majority of LDS men won't be part of a bishopric during their lifetime from what I've seen and all women are guaranteed not to have that experience, suggesting that there is any connection between seeing a gay man as second class because the position they hold is 'only' executive secretary would imply that most men and all women accept their lot in the Church as second class. Very few LDS from what I've seen measure their status in the Church by what callings they have held in their life, but instead measure it by their level of commitment to those callings and church activity in general.

As a side issue, the whole "aspire to be in a position of leadership in the LDS Church" is going to get someone into trouble whatever orientation they claim.

[Zeta-Flux]

And to add to Calmoriah's point, many of us who pointed out that Exec. Sec.'s are not leaders of organizations have been or (in my case) currently *are* in that position (and personally I rejoice in the fact I'm not a leader of an organization).

[Stargazer]

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.

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.

Scott, you are correct that the ES and Clerk aren't Bishopric members. But as Frank indicates, by convention the Executive Secretary and the Clerk, who also attend Bishopric meetings -- see the Handbook -- are frequently treated as if they were part of the Bishopric. As I see it, the distinction might be that there are two Bishoprics: the technical Bishopric consisting of the Bishop and his counselors; and the social Bishopric, which expands to include these other two.

As Ward Clerk for 8 years, I was involved in 3 Bishoprics. Each of the three Bishops invited and expected both me and the Exec Sec to give input -- each of them realized that the entire "social Bishopric" had a greater breadth of knowledge that just the technical Bishopric. Heck, in the last Bishop's case, he had been a ward member for just five years, whereas I had been in the ward for over 20 and knew a lot more members than he did, especially ones who had been on the books but hadn't attended church in decades. Due to my long baseline, I also served the last two bishops as an aid to transition, because I knew a lot about what previous bishops had done about this or that.

But in the end, the final decision was the Bishop's. I recall more than one occasion when the Bishop asked his counselors and the ExecSec and the Clerk for opinions, and in the end decided to do something that none of us recommended. And that's the way it should be of course. Even though in a few cases the Bishop ended up doing something I alone had suggested.

[Jaybear]

Part of what Jaybear said bears repetition:

The point is obvious, if you are gay, and

aspire

to be in a position of leadership in the LDS Church...

First, I said if you are "openly" gay. I have no doubt there are many gay men who have aspired to and do hold a position of leadership with the LDS Church.

Otherwise, I see nothing wrong with aspiring to be a leader. I am sure your current leaders were quite driven and ambitious.

I suspect that Mitch aspires to be in a leadership position because of the positive message that it sends to gay youth in the LDS Church. But that is not the issue.

By Jaybear's reckoning, the LDS Church is supposed to accord a special place for - perhaps even acceptance of - homosexual behavior.

Huh? I have not and would never say that. Your Church can treat gays, women, people who are left handed, red heads, short people, people of color, and way it chooses. If people like Mitch choose to associate with the LDS Church notwithstanding, that is his/their business. "supposed to" ... nah.

By this reckoning, gay Mormons just can't be expected to adhere to the same standards of morality as the rest of us are asked to observe.

This reckoning would excuse gay Mormons from striving to obey the commandments.

Ah, the soft bigotry of low expectations.

What we have here SMAC is a failure to communicate.

You are discussing this issue as if your understanding of what is "sin" was universally accepted and unchangeable, when the definition of sin is in fact the very issue at hand.

Mitch does not believe, and he is not alone in his belief, that he would violate God's law of chastity by pursing a committed monogamous relationship with another man.

There are many many openly gay men and women, in committed relationships who also have a personal relationship with Christ. There are many churches who warmly accept and welcome such couples into their congregation, without condemnation or judgment.

Mitch seems to be under the belief, perhaps because of the kind and warm treatment of his Bishop, that the LDS church is or could be such a church.

Personally, I think he is wrong. If and when he finds himself in a committed relationship, he will learn that he is wrong, and will have to make a choice. But, its his choice, not mine, not yours.

If by "openly gay Mormon" you mean "someone behaving in ways openly defiant to the commandments of God," then you are right to be skeptical. I doubt that will happen.

See, there you go. ... openly defy God.

We love our brothers and sisters too much to let them sink into the fetid worldly swamp that teaches them to embrace sin rather than fight it. To indulge in vice rather than to repent. To succumb to temptation rather than struggle against it.

See, there you go ... embrace sin.

Mitch doesn't believe his is defying God, and isn't embracing what he believes is sinful. Couching it in those terms leads to miscommunication.

You may be right about him being unrepentant; however, it is entirely possible that his use of equivocal language made that not so obvious to his bishop.

I must have a much greater power of discernment than you, because frankly its obvious to me that he is "unrepentant" and it should be obvious to his bishop.

Besides all that, I reject the false ideology that seems to underpin your remarks, to the effect that the only way to "welcome" someone is to "welcome" their preferred deviancies along with them.

Can an openly gay man serve as the scout leader in an LDS ward, even if he is fully committed to celibacy?

Your Church treats gays as if they were pedophiles. I don't consider that a welcoming attitude. But perhaps that is because I harbor a negative view towards pedophile.

[Jaybear]

Don't be silly. Since the majority of LDS men won't be part of a bishopric during their lifetime from what I've seen and all women are guaranteed not to have that experience, suggesting that there is any connection between seeing a gay man as second class because the position they hold is 'only' executive secretary would imply that most men and all women accept their lot in the Church as second class. Very few LDS from what I've seen measure their status in the Church by what callings they have held in their life, but instead measure it by their level of commitment to those callings and church activity in general.

As a side issue, the whole "aspire to be in a position of leadership in the LDS Church" is going to get someone into trouble whatever orientation they claim.

Tap dancing. Let me put this in way that you can understand without having to be empathetic.

The majority of LDS men/women won't be the President of the US. So if we passed a law that said Mormons can't serve as the president, it would be silly for Mormons to find that offensive, right.

[Whiskeypete]

Whether or not an Executive Secretary is technically a member of the bishopric (he's not, see the Handbook reference above) or is often considered a member of the bishopric (clearly he oftentimes is), the fact remains that in Brother Maynes "open letter" that the newspaper articles/blog posts/etc are based on specifically stated that he was called as a member of the bishopric but neglected to state that the calling was that of Executive Secretary.

While not a scientific poll, I did ask several members of the Church, "If I said I was called as a member of the Bishopric, what calling would you assume I had?" the answer invariably was "Either 1st or 2nd Counselor." The assumption is that if one is called as a bishop, they would probably state that they had been called as a bishop, not as a "member of a bishopric".

When this issue was first brought up in a thread in the News section, the overwhelming assumption by posters was that he was called as a counselor. It wasn't until more information came out that it was known that he was called as an executive secretary.

While I can't prove it, the fact that the original open letter announcing the calling specifically did not state what the calling was indicates that there was an attempt to spin the story into more than it was.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

Incorrect we treat openly active gay men just the same as we do openly active adulters. Pedaphiles are subject to the law of the state.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, you are correct that the ES and Clerk aren't Bishopric members. But as Frank indicates, by convention the Executive Secretary and the Clerk, who also attend Bishopric meetings -- see the Handbook -- are frequently treated as if they were part of the Bishopric. As I see it, the distinction might be that there are two Bishoprics: the technical Bishopric consisting of the Bishop and his counselors; and the social Bishopric, which expands to include these other two.

As Ward Clerk for 8 years, I was involved in 3 Bishoprics. Each of the three Bishops invited and expected both me and the Exec Sec to give input -- each of them realized that the entire "social Bishopric" had a greater breadth of knowledge that just the technical Bishopric. Heck, in the last Bishop's case, he had been a ward member for just five years, whereas I had been in the ward for over 20 and knew a lot more members than he did, especially ones who had been on the books but hadn't attended church in decades. Due to my long baseline, I also served the last two bishops as an aid to transition, because I knew a lot about what previous bishops had done about this or that.

But in the end, the final decision was the Bishop's. I recall more than one occasion when the Bishop asked his counselors and the ExecSec and the Clerk for opinions, and in the end decided to do something that none of us recommended. And that's the way it should be of course. Even though in a few cases the Bishop ended up doing something I alone had suggested.

Stargazer,

Ward clerks and executive secretaries are important and fulfill vital roles. That's why I think it unnecessary to inflate them by trying to imbue them with ecclesiastical standing they do not have.

It's good that you felt a close collegiality with the bishoprics you served, but this notion of a "social bishopric" is your own invention; there is nothing official about it. Ward clerks and executive secretaries attend bishopric meetings because it would be difficult or impossible to fulfill their unique roles otherwise. They do not conduct meetings; they do not preside over meetings in the absence of the bishop; they do not interview members to determine worthiness to go to the temple or serve in callings; they do not issue callings; they do not receive tithes and offerings; they do not supervise presidencies of auxiliary organizations in the ward.

It is entirely right and proper for a bishop to seek and receive advice and opinions individually and collectively from the ward council. In fact, Elder Russell M. Ballard has emphasized such, even writing a book called Counseling with Our Councils. Accordingly, the bishop might consult with the executive secretary or ward clerk. He might also do so with the high priests group leader, the elders quorum president, the Relief Society president, the Young Women president, the Young Men president or the Primary president. Doing so does not make them de facto or quasi bishopric members.

I have been an executive secretary under two bishoprics. At no time did I consider my calling equal in standing to the counselors in the bishopric, and I never regarded myself as a member of the bishopric, "social" or otherwise.

If doing so helped you feel better about your calling, I suppose that's harmless enough. I see a potential for problems, however, especially if such a notion is promulgated among Church members at large, thereby causing confusion in their minds. We've seen of late where this misconception can be used to create an entirely false impression about the eligibility of an unrepentant gay man to hold a calling as a "member of a bishopric," understood by most people in the Church to mean a first or second counselor with all the ecclesiastical authority such callings entail.

[Damien the Leper]

I find the situation quite mundane. This is hardly a step in a direction of acceptance of homosexuality. It's really irrelevent that a gay man is executive secretary. Actually, I feel bad for the guy. Could he be called to a more annoying and monotonous calling?

Glorify God by living daily for Him and not an institution. Be prepared to share the Good News to any who are willing to hear. That would be the best calling for the man. Stand as a witness and disciple of Jesus Christ.

Just my thoughts.

[Sky]

Could he be called to a more annoying and monotonous calling?

I was an executive secretary, and I didn't find it annoying or monotonous. I actually enjoyed myself! A positive attitude and a willingness to serve really does help!

Glorify God by living daily for Him and not an institution serving in His Church.

Be prepared to share the Good News to any who are willing to hear. That would be the best calling for the man. Stand as a witness and disciple of Jesus Christ.

Serving as an Executive Secretary in his ward doesn't inhibit him from doing those things. In fact, it should help him in those areas.

[Jaybear]

Jaybear:

Incorrect we treat openly active gay men just the same as we do openly active adulters. Pedaphiles are subject to the law of the state.

Incorrect? What did I say that was incorrect? Please note, first, I was referring to a gay man, committing to live the LDS Gospel.

An openly gay man, committed to live a celibate life, would not be called as scoutmaster. let alone bishop. Correct?

By comparison, a repentant pedophile, committed to stay away from children, would not be called as scoutmaster, let alone bishop. Correct?

By contrast, I would assume that a married man who in the past had strayed, and then repented, and was committed to monogamy, could be called as a scoutmaster, or for that matter, as a bishop.