Usa: Gay Man In Mormon Leadership Role

[Sky]

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

As for being called as a Scoutmaster – I would say that depends on the individual circumstances of the person and on the inspiration of the Bishop. If the person has demonstrated the ability to control their same-sex inclinations and is a good fit for the calling, I wouldn’t see a problem with them being called as a Scoutmaster. I could be wrong, but I’m not aware of any policy which says that a person can’t serve in Scouts simply because they may have SSA feelings. And just because a man may have SSA feelings doesn't mean that he is a pedophile.

As for a Bishop - a man must be married (to a woman) in order to be considered for that position. No single man, regardless of orientation, can be called as a Bishop. So if that’s unfair – it’s unfair for all of the single men in the Church. Gay men aren’t being singled out for being excluded to that position.

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

I'm pretty sure that the Church wouldn't allow this, no matter how repentant they may be. This is only for the safety of everybody involved (including the pedophile).

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.

I would think they probably could, but again, much of it depends on the individual circumstances of the person and on the inspiration of the Bishop/Stake President.

[Jaybear]

As for being called as a Scoutmaster – I would say that depends on the individual circumstances of the person and on the inspiration of the Bishop. If the person has demonstrated the ability to control their same-sex inclinations and is a good fit for the calling, I wouldn’t see a problem with them being called as a Scoutmaster. I could be wrong, but I’m not aware of any policy which says that a person can’t serve in Scouts simply because they may have SSA feelings.

Yeah, you would hope that would be the case. Tell you what, give me the name of a single openly gay scoutmaster, and I will concede that your are correct. To make it easier for your, he doesn't have to be a Mormon, any gay scoutmaster for any scout troop and I will admit that I was wrong.

[Sandy Petersen]

This is looney. Even as I would not want a heterosexual male to be on at Girls' Camp without plenty of chaperoning, nor to sleep in a girl's tent, who would want a gay male to be out on a camp with a pack of boys?

It isn't necessarily even about the gay male - many, perhaps most, parents would immediately withdraw their boys from such a camp. Think of the massive litigious nightmare that the BSA would leave itself open for if it permitted such a thing.

I could much more easily be talked into letting a gay male go on girl's camp.

A member of my immediate family, whom I love, experiences full-fledged same-sex attraction. I don't want him to be a second-class citizen. He has experienced almost entirely love and acceptance from the bishop and other leaders. But this doesn't mean that anyone would want him as their boy scout leader. (Note: he has been on many a scout camp - but not as the leader.)

[Amulek]

We also don’t allow men - gay or straight - to teach in Primary, unless accompanied by another adult. And we don’t have missionaries dine in the homes of members who are single and of the opposite sex. And we counsel Bishops to avoid meeting with sisters in locations where no one else is present. And if you’re an Apostle whose wife has passed away, you can’t even court another woman without a chaperone. Etc. Etc. Etc.

All of these policies are in place - not to make people feel like second-class citizens - but because the Church recognizes (rightly, in my view) that all people are susceptible to sin.

[ERayR]

We also don’t allow men - gay or straight - to teach in Primary, unless accompanied by another adult. And we don’t have missionaries dine in the homes of members who are single and of the opposite sex. And we counsel Bishops to avoid meeting with sisters in locations where no one else is present. And if you’re an Apostle whose wife has passed away, you can’t even court another woman without a chaperone. Etc. Etc. Etc.

All of these policies are in place - not to make people feel like second-class citizens - but because the Church recognizes (rightly, in my view) that all people are susceptible to sin.

They are also in place because the Church Leadership recognizes (rightly, in my view)that if something did happen the church would be sued for enormmous sums of money and the Jaybears would be pointing fingers and condemning for allowing it to happen.

[frankenstein]

We also don’t allow men - gay or straight - to teach in Primary, unless accompanied by another adult. And we don’t have missionaries dine in the homes of members who are single and of the opposite sex. And we counsel Bishops to avoid meeting with sisters in locations where no one else is present. And if you’re an Apostle whose wife has passed away, you can’t even court another woman without a chaperone. Etc. Etc. Etc.

All of these policies are in place - not to make people feel like second-class citizens - but because the Church recognizes (rightly, in my view) that all people are susceptible to sin.

the only one I do not agree with, or rather think does create a "second class" is the Primary one. What the Church has said via the policy is "Men can not be trusted with children and that man needs a baby sitter". Women, LDS woman even, also molest children. If there is to be a policy, it should be an across the board "two adults at all times".

[Damien the Leper]

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!

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.

Remember that His Church is the body of Christian believers and not a specific denomination under the banner of Christianity.

Administrative positions aren't the most conducive to the witnessing of the Spirit. Calling members and making appointments to see the bishop or the stake president is a snooze fest. Updating member records and other clerical duties fall in the same boat.

I prefer Urban Ministry. Taking the Gospel to the streets. That's what Jesus did and we should follow in that example. Tracting is not Urban Ministry...just for clarifications sake.

[Pahoran]

This is looney. Even as I would not want a heterosexual male to be on at Girls' Camp without plenty of chaperoning, nor to sleep in a girl's tent, who would want a gay male to be out on a camp with a pack of boys?

Evidently Jaybear would.

Whenever I see a post like Jaybear's, I ask myself: if a guy with a weight problem was genuine about sticking to his diet, why would he complain about not being allowed in the candy store?

Likewise, if a man with SSA issues was genuine about obeying the commandments, why would he complain about being delivered from temptation?

It isn't necessarily even about the gay male - many, perhaps most, parents would immediately withdraw their boys from such a camp. Think of the massive litigious nightmare that the BSA would leave itself open for if it permitted such a thing.

Well there's a thought. In fact, think of the massive litigious nightmare that the Church would leave itself open for if it permitted such a thing.

Maybe that's another reason why some seem so eager for the Church to appoint "gay" scout leaders.

Or it may simply be that they'd like to see American scouting transformed into something like the German Wandervogel movement that was (not coincidentally) heavily involved in both pederasty and far-right politics.

Regards,

Pahoran

[bluebell]

I prefer Urban Ministry. Taking the Gospel to the streets. That's what Jesus did and we should follow in that example. Tracting is not Urban Ministry...just for clarifications sake.

One thing i really like about the LDS church is that it is a "I'll go where you want me to go, dear Lord" kind of church.

Whatever the Lord has need of, whether it's working in an inner city, helping to keep order in His church through appointment making and accounting practices, or teaching a class, the LDS church believes it is important. I love that the LDS church strives to teach that no one way of giving service in God's kingdom is more 'Christ-like' or 'better' than another.

I don't say that as an attempt to try to make my church better than yours but as an explanation of why, what you see as a weakness in a church, i view as a strength.

[Damien the Leper]

One thing i really like about the LDS church is that it is a "I'll go where you want me to go, dear Lord" kind of church.

Whatever the Lord has need of, whether it's working in an inner city, helping to keep order in His church through appointment making and accounting practices, or teaching a class, the LDS church believes it is important. I love that the LDS church strives to teach that no one way of giving service in God's kingdom is more 'Christ-like' or 'better' than another.

I don't say that as an attempt to try to make my church better than yours but as an explanation of why, what you see as a weakness in a church, i view as a strength.

I mean no disrespect to the LDS. But I doubt that Jesus had in mind running His Church in a fashion similar to a corporate environment. Jesus didn't care about membership rolls. He cared about reaching out to those who would have faith in Him and accept His grace as sufficient for salvation. The ultimate sacrifice for each of God's children is to give ourselves over to Him and adhere to the greatest commandment surpassing ANY commandment: that we love one another as He loves us. The ministry Jesus proposed was one of salvific, pacifistic, pluralist, egalitarian, service, charity, humility and love. Not a ministry consisting of a to-do list of things in order to get to some mythological highest kingdom.

Remember...we are SAVED by GRACE through FAITH, which FAITH is PERFECTED by WORKS. This is the ministry of JESUS CHRIST and our commission as Disciples.

[Pahoran]

I mean no disrespect to the LDS. But I doubt that Jesus had in mind running His Church in a fashion similar to a corporate environment.

Which is why he gave his Church a specific organisation with officers who reported to him; and he gave those officers titles like "messenger" (apostle) and "supervisor" (bishop) which were taken from the government bureaucracy of the day, is it?

Jesus didn't care about membership rolls.

How do you know? You say that with such certainty, but where, in the fragmentary and incomplete record of his earthly ministry, does it actually say that?

Is it just possible that you are projecting your own low-church assumptions back on Jesus, instead of being taught by him?

He cared about reaching out to those who would have faith in Him and accept His grace as sufficient for salvation. The ultimate sacrifice for each of God's children is to give ourselves over to Him and adhere to the greatest commandment surpassing ANY commandment: that we love one another as He loves us. The ministry Jesus proposed was one of salvific, pacifistic, pluralist, egalitarian, service, charity, humility and love. Not a ministry consisting of a to-do list of things in order to get to some mythological highest kingdom.

Remember...we are SAVED by GRACE through FAITH, which FAITH is PERFECTED by WORKS. This is the ministry of JESUS CHRIST and our commission as Disciples.

Valentinus: before the mods ping you for preaching in a discussion forum, I suggest you try to rein yourself in. This isn't the street in front of Temple Square, so please put away your bullhorn.

Regards,

Pahoran

[bluebell]

I mean no disrespect to the LDS. But I doubt that Jesus had in mind running His Church in a fashion similar to a corporate environment. Jesus didn't care about membership rolls.

I think that Jesus cares very much about membership rolls because it's one way that he keeps track of His sheep.

I can't tell you how many times i've met someone who has just moved into the area, who knew now one and had no intention of going to church, but who found friends and a renewed relationship with their Savior because of the way the church keeps tract of its members.

I very much believe that Jesus is running this church and that the organizational aspects are inspired.

He cared about reaching out to those who would have faith in Him and accept His grace as sufficient for salvation. The ultimate sacrifice for each of God's children is to give ourselves over to Him and adhere to the greatest commandment surpassing ANY commandment: that we love one another as He loves us.

I completely agree.

And i believe that those who are truly intune with the Spirit see every calling in the church, including setting up appointments for the bishop, as a service calling. There are no small parts in this "play". No part of the 'body of Christ' that isn't necessary or important.

The ministry Jesus proposed was one of salvific, pacifistic, pluralist, egalitarian, service, charity, humility and love. Not a ministry consisting of a to-do list of things in order to get to some mythological highest kingdom.

It is only your misunderstanding of the LDS church that causes you to miss the forest for the trees. The gospel of Jesus Christ is not a to-do list, but it might look that way to people who are unable to see the bigger picture.

Remember...we are SAVED by GRACE through FAITH, which FAITH is PERFECTED by WORKS. This is the ministry of JESUS CHRIST and our commission as Disciples.

Of course. No disagreement here. If Jesus wants me to be a secretary in His church, accept that commission. I'm a firm believer in not telling Jesus what is or isn't important, what is worth my time and what isn't, but letting Him lead.

I'm sure you believe that as well. We just disagree on the logistics of it, which is fine.

[california boy]

This is looney. Even as I would not want a heterosexual male to be on at Girls' Camp without plenty of chaperoning, nor to sleep in a girl's tent, who would want a gay male to be out on a camp with a pack of boys?

It isn't necessarily even about the gay male - many, perhaps most, parents would immediately withdraw their boys from such a camp. Think of the massive litigious nightmare that the BSA would leave itself open for if it permitted such a thing.

I could much more easily be talked into letting a gay male go on girl's camp.

A member of my immediate family, whom I love, experiences full-fledged same-sex attraction. I don't want him to be a second-class citizen. He has experienced almost entirely love and acceptance from the bishop and other leaders. But this doesn't mean that anyone would want him as their boy scout leader. (Note: he has been on many a scout camp - but not as the leader.)

I served as Young Mens president as well as Venture leader and Teachers quorum adviser for most of my active adult life in the church. The total number of years serving in the young mens organization was probably close to 20 years. I guess God felt I was a good influence on those young men I served. While I was not out, I was and still am gay. Each time when I was called to those positions I pointedly asked the bishop if my calling was inspired by God. Each time the answer was a definite yes. Since I believe in inspiration in regards to church callings, I took that to mean that God, knowing that I was gay wanted me to serve in those positions. Oddly enough for some on this board, I had no idea I was suppose to be tempted by 14 year old boys. I am gay I am not a pedophile. This perpetuating of a relationship between the two is just well misguided at best.

And just to confuse things a bit more, I also served in a bishopric for about 5 years as a counselor. Oh yeah, I also went to girls camp for about 4 years. Priesthood brethren asked to help out at girls camp are not assigned a partner to watch over them. Man this is going to confuse some of you. I seem to be breaking all the rules you are putting up.

So do you believe callings are given by inspiration or not? Do you believe the Holy Spirit guided the bishop in extending those callings to me? Do you believe God knew I was gay and didn't think it was relevant to the work he wanted me to do? Is it God that has a problem with gay men serving in these positions or is it misdirected prejudices against gay men that cause you to make the statements you and many others on this board are making? Just asking the questions.

[Calm]

I would not be surprised if the primary reasons that older SSA men were not to be allowed in youth leadership positions were legal and exception driven, much like team teaching is now required for men in Primary due to past experiences---rare experiences---of men abusing under their young charges and the more common but still unusual law suits against the Church for such.

Otherwise it seems to me it would be left to be more of a case by case decision process based on past behaviour and personal evaluation (does the individual feel uncomfortable about the situation) and observation (does the individual have any inappropriate behaviors) as it does for anyone of heterosexual leanings.

If it was simply to avoid situations where the individual might be tempted (rather than leaving it up to the person to decide what does and does not tempt), it would make more sense to exclude them from Elder's Quorum (or RS if female) or missionary service.

OTOH, I don't see too many young single men working intimately and often with young women slightly younger than them, missionaries are required to keep their distance from such, etc., so it seems prudent to restrict young single men with SSA from working with young men slightly younger than they are in potentially intimate situations as well (I am speaking of family wards, not singles wards).

[Amulek]

Oddly enough for some on this board, I had no idea I was suppose to be tempted by 14 year old boys. I am gay I am not a pedophile. This perpetuating of a relationship between the two is just well misguided at best.

I wasn’t perpetuating any sort of ‘gays as pedophiles’ meme. It is, however, a sad reality that when you place younger adults in positions of authority over minors who are beginning to come of age, you are (over time) going to encounter incidences of inappropriate relationships between those two groups.

And the more unstructured time they spend together, the higher the likelihood that you are going to run into problems. Start paying attention to the occurrences of inappropriate student-teacher relationships, for example, and you will begin to see the trend on the teacher side: coaches, music teachers, etc.

Instituting policies to try and minimize the chances of this sort of thing from happening seems perfectly reasonable to me. And I suspect that if the Church didn’t have such policies in place, the same critics who are complaining about us treating certain people as second-class citizens today would be complaining about the Church failing to protect children every time something like this were to occur.

[thesometimesaint]

It's for the protection of the guy. All it takes is one alledged case to give the guy and the Church a very bad name and add heaps of legal trouble.

See McMartin PreSchool trial for a horrible example.

[Jaybear]

Evidently Jaybear would.

Whenever I see a post like Jaybear's, I ask myself: if a guy with a weight problem was genuine about sticking to his diet, why would he complain about not being allowed in the candy store?

Likewise, if a man with SSA issues was genuine about obeying the commandments, why would he complain about being delivered from temptation?

Thank you Paharon. You are doing excellent job of confirming my point, which is that the LDS Church treats gay men, they same way they treat pedophiles.

TSS: It's for the protection of the guy. All it takes is one alledged case to give the guy and the Church a very bad name and add heaps of legal trouble.

See McMartin PreSchool trial for a horrible example.

Nice try, but you are too late. Pahoran has already spoken.

I suppose you are not old enough to remember the Briggs initiative in CA. The same motive applies, protect the children from gays preying on the youth.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

I was 37 years old and living in New Mexico at the time. So no one asked for my opinion of California prop 6. It was garbage then and it would be garbage now.

Homosexuality has not been a crime in any state that I have lived in since joining the Church, while pedophilia has.

Ps; Neither Pahoran nor anyone else has my permission to speak for me. I get into plenty of trouble all on my own.

[Damien the Leper]

Which is why he gave his Church a specific organisation with officers who reported to him; and he gave those officers titles like "messenger" (apostle) and "supervisor" (bishop) which were taken from the government bureaucracy of the day, is it?

The leadership roles in the early church weren't political ones. They were specifically commissioned in ministry and service. I would never dare to compare the positions of the early apostles to that of modern LDS apostles. They aren't the same.

How do you know? You say that with such certainty, but where, in the fragmentary and incomplete record of his earthly ministry, does it actually say that?

What you consider incomplete is irrelevent. The fullness of Jesus' ministry is found in the Bible. Jesus didn't say anything about recording baptismal dates, confirmations, endowments, etc. The endowment wasn't even a practice of either the first or the second temples. Jesus knew who His believers were...afterall, He is God.

Is it just possible that you are projecting your own low-church assumptions back on Jesus, instead of being taught by him?

Not really. I base it off of the Canonical Scriptures that are sanctioned by the Muratorian Canon.

Valentinus: before the mods ping you for preaching in a discussion forum, I suggest you try to rein yourself in. This isn't the street in front of Temple Square, so please put away your bullhorn.

Regards,

Pahoran

Warning noted.

[Damien the Leper]

I think that Jesus cares very much about membership rolls because it's one way that he keeps track of His sheep.

I can't tell you how many times i've met someone who has just moved into the area, who knew now one and had no intention of going to church, but who found friends and a renewed relationship with their Savior because of the way the church keeps tract of its members.

Jesus is God. He is ALL Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent. He isn't confined to the limitations of the created humans. He knows who His followers are because He will recognize us...not by a baptismal certificate or a file/portfolio in an office building.

I very much believe that Jesus is running this church and that the organizational aspects are inspired.

Ok.

I completely agree.

And i believe that those who are truly intune with the Spirit see every calling in the church, including setting up appointments for the bishop, as a service calling. There are no small parts in this "play". No part of the 'body of Christ' that isn't necessary or important.

Where is it outlined in the Bible the necessity for Executive Secretary, Ward Clerk, EQ Pres, RS Prez, Activities Committee, etc.? This isn't modern "revelation" meant to benefit the time and culture of the church.

It is only your misunderstanding of the LDS church that causes you to miss the forest for the trees. The gospel of Jesus Christ is not a to-do list, but it might look that way to people who are unable to see the bigger picture.

Please cite anywhere in scripture where an endowment or celestial marriage is required of the highest salvation? Explain to me the necessity of proxy baptism (Without the misunderstood Pauline citation in Corinthians. We already know that doesn't work)? Citing LDS scriptures does not constitute a valid position since they are mutually exclusive from the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament.

Of course. No disagreement here. If Jesus wants me to be a secretary in His church, accept that commission. I'm a firm believer in not telling Jesus what is or isn't important, what is worth my time and what isn't, but letting Him lead.

I'm sure you believe that as well. We just disagree on the logistics of it, which is fine.

Jesus laid out what was important to Him in the Holy Bible. That is enough for me. If He so chooses to give divine revelation to each of His children concerning their individual lives so be it. He directs His Church here on earth and that is the body of believers.

[thesometimesaint]

Valentinus:

Jesus certainly did establish a church with governing members to guide it.

See Ephesians 4:11-13.

[Damien the Leper]

Valentinus:

Jesus certainly did establish a church with governing members to guide it.

See Ephesians 4:11-13.

You misunderstand. There is a place for the apostles in the early church to propogate the initiatory means for Jesus' ministry and for it to flourish. The structure as instituted in Ephesians and Titus and Timothy is that of a bishop/pastor and a council of elders to lead the church. I'm not saying there was no governance. I'm saying that the LDS version today is NOT the same as the early church.

[thesometimesaint]

Valentinus:

With over 40,000 different Christian religions in the US alone I must of missed where we came to a unity of faith, and are perfect men(women). Let alone all the other non Christian religions.

[Sky]

Valentinus:

With over 40,000 different Christian religions in the US alone I must of missed where we came to a unity of faith, and are perfect men(women). Let alone all the other non Christian religions.

I wonder which of those 40,000 different Christian churches would Valentinus say is the true church? If not the LDS, which one of them is being governed as outlined in the Bible? Maybe he would say they are all true since they are part of the 'body of believers' - never mind their diverging points of belief and doctrine in spite of all of them sharing the Bible.

Hence the need for living prophets and apostles with the proper Priesthood authority and modern revelation, of which only the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims to have.

[Damien the Leper]

Duplicate post...sorry.