Usa: Gay Man In Mormon Leadership Role

[Damien the Leper]

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.

Show me the Melchezidek Priesthood ever used in the Bible or where it was specifically conferred upon someone.

How about we avoid the 'one true church' narcissism and arrogance? The 'OTC' is an epidemic of spiritual abuse.

Don't be presumptuous to believe that the banner of Mormonism believes the same thing. Many of the Restoration churches hold the same scriptures BoM, PGP, D&C, the Bible but differ on their own interpretations. The 'true' Utah Restoration church isn't the authority concerning these books. Furthermore, don't be presumptuous to believe that all Utah LDS believe the same way. Let's not be naive.

By brother and sister-in-law differ greatly on certain LDS teachings. Thankfully, my brother, being the wonderful husband he is, doesn't try to 'rein' in his wife for her personal beliefs.

[Sky]

Show me the Melchezidek Priesthood ever used in the Bible or where it was specifically conferred upon someone.

How about we avoid the 'one true church' narcissism and arrogance? The 'OTC' is an epidemic of spiritual abuse.

Don't be presumptuous to believe that the banner of Mormonism believes the same thing. Many of the Restoration churches hold the same scriptures BoM, PGP, D&C, the Bible but differ on their own interpretations. The 'true' Utah Restoration church isn't the authority concerning these books. Furthermore, don't be presumptuous to believe that all Utah LDS believe the same way. Let's not be naive.

By brother and sister-in-law differ greatly on certain LDS teachings. Thankfully, my brother, being the wonderful husband he is, doesn't try to 'rein' in his wife for her personal beliefs.

It looks like you are set in your chosen path and beliefs – I could try to engage in a conversation with you but nothing I say will change your mind.

Bottom line: the path I have chosen is to follow the prophets and apostles in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – of whom I trust completely. You might think that sounds like blind obedience or arrogance or whatever, but I don’t apologize for it. I am absolutely sure of my conviction and that there is safety and peace in following this path.

[bluebell]

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.

Obviously. No one is arguing differently.

However, He uses mortals, who aren't ominipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent, to serve His children and we need to be able to find them if we want to serve them. Membership records are not the only way to do that, but they are a valid and effecient way to do that.

LDS believe that God is a God of order, but not only that, we believe His kingdom is a kingdom of order as well. It's not just Christ who needs to know who His sheep are, His servants need to know who they are, and where they are, as well.

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.

LDS don't really look at the bible as a handbook on how to run a church. We believe that God has revealed that in other places. If you believe that we should do absolutely nothing that is not outlined in the bible, then go for it. LDS don't believe that though, because the bible never claims such a thing, so we aren't saddled with the same issues that other churches might be.

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.

Why? I don't care what your opinion is on these things so i'm not trying to change it by proving i'm right, and answering these questions would take us completely off topic even more than we are, which isn't fair to the thread.

I'll just say that LDS believe that God continues to reveal many things to His children (the ones who are open to such revelation anyway) and so again, we do not have to treat the bible in the same way as other Christian churches treat it.

Jesus laid out what was important to Him in the Holy Bible. That is enough for me.

That's fine. Good luck with that. I sincerely wish you the best.

I think it's a shallow way to have a relationship with God, but i realize that what i think doesn't matter to you one bit, and i'm fine with that as well.

[ERayR]

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.

The same motive applies, protect the children from gays preying on the youth.

Saddly it does happen. And too often. An older homosexual man with a younger troubled teen is asking for trouble.

[california boy]

I guess no one wants to respond to my questions I posted. Just a little too difficult to answer??? Yeah they are a little difficult for me as well. If God doesn't want gay men to hold positions in the Young Mens program, why did He inspire the bishop to call me to those positions not once but multiple times? What is God's policy regarding gays serving Him verses the prejudices of men running His church?

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.

[bluebell]

I guess no one wants to respond to my questions I posted. Just a little too difficult to answer??? Yeah they are a little difficult for me as well. If God doesn't want gay men to hold positions in the Young Mens program, why did He inspire the bishop to call me to those positions not once but multiple times? What is God's policy regarding gays serving Him verses the prejudices of men running His church?

I believe Calmariah answered your questions, and i tend to agree with her.

I think that the callings in the church are inspired on a personal level, and i think that a lot of the policies in the church are given on a general level to protect the church and it's members from a litigious society.

It has nothing to do with whether or not gays are capable of serving God, just like men not being allowed to be primary presidents has nothing to do with whether or not men are capable of serving God as leaders to children. It's just policy.

[Sky]

I guess no one wants to respond to my questions I posted. Just a little too difficult to answer???

Well, I’ll give it a try…

So do you believe callings are given by inspiration or not?

Yes.

Do you believe the Holy Spirit guided the bishop in extending those callings to me?

Yes.

Do you believe God knew I was gay and didn't think it was relevant to the work he wanted me to do?

Of course, God knows everything about you and loves you perfectly.

If you were living and supporting the standards of the Church at the time and your bishop judged you as being worthy, then I don’t see any problem with you serving in the Young Men’s program (although others might).

And I’m assuming that you fulfilled your callings well and nothing wrong happened between you and the young men. If that's the case, then I have no doubt that God is pleased with that.

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?

That one is hard to answer - I think it might be a little bit of both. There are circumstances where it definitely wouldn’t be appropriate, and there are other times when I think it could be okay. My personal opinion is that it should be handled on a case-by-case basis – because no one case is the same. But it is important to exercise caution.

I certainly think the Church would prefer that you not publicize your orientation to the world while working with the Young Men – or in other words – keep it private.

[Calm]

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.

Of course membership rolls are very helpful in keeping track of the needs of those we reach out to, helping to ensure that few fall through the cracks. (I see bluebell has already made this point, not surprisingly.)

[Calm]

The fullness of Jesus' ministry is found in the Bible.

Considering how long it would take for Christ to speak what we have in the gospels of his words combined with how long his ministry was (as stated in the Bible)---3 years---it seems strange to me that one would assume that we have everything that Christ taught.

[Amulek]

What is God's policy regarding gays serving Him verses the prejudices of men running His church?

I think it’s wrong to describe policies designed to deal with the unfortunate reality that some adults become involved in inappropriate relationships with youths as prejudice. These sorts of things can and do happen - with gays and straights alike. As such, I think it’s perfectly reasonable for the Church to institute policies which it believes will help minimize the likelihood of these sorts of things from happening.

[Calm]

Citing LDS scriptures does not constitute a valid position since they are mutually exclusive from the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament.

Kind of reminds me of a Jewish acquaintance's attitude to the New Testament in regards to the Hebrew Canon.

[TAO]

Show me the Melchezidek Priesthood ever used in the Bible or where it was specifically conferred upon someone.

There are these verses in the Book of Mormon:

7 Behold, I give unto you ^apower, that whatsoever ye shall ^bseal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven; and thus shall ye have power among this people.

8 And thus, if ye shall say unto this temple it shall be rent in twain, it shall be done.

9 And if ye shall say unto this ^amountain, Be thou cast down and become smooth, it shall be done.

10 And behold, if ye shall say that God shall smite this people, it shall come to pass.

11 And now behold, I command you, that ye shall go and declare unto this people, that thus saith the Lord God, who is the Almighty: Except ye repent ye shall be smitten, even unto ^adestruction.

And so...the power to move mountains is from the power of the Melchezidek, I believe. It uses the sealing power... I think?

So would not the spreading of the sea be similar? Moses spread the sea... perhaps using the sealing power?

Also the Melchezidek priesthood is mentioned clearly in Psalms 110:4 and Hebrews 5:6. Also somewhat clearly in Hebrews 8:6.

How about we avoid the 'one true church' narcissism and arrogance? The 'OTC' is an epidemic of spiritual abuse.

It's not narcissism... we are telling you what we believe. We also find it difficult to accept what other churches teach, because many of them contradict one another. That is the problem they were describing... a sad problem... but a true one =/.

Don't be presumptuous to believe that the banner of Mormonism believes the same thing. Many of the Restoration churches hold the same scriptures BoM, PGP, D&C, the Bible but differ on their own interpretations. The 'true' Utah Restoration church isn't the authority concerning these books. Furthermore, don't be presumptuous to believe that all Utah LDS believe the same way. Let's not be naive.

Of course I know it doesn't. But why does this matter? We are talking of modern day prophets and apostles... which in our viewpoint, means President Monson, the Twelve, and the Seventy. And yes, we know that not all LDS believe the same way. In fact, no person does. But, that doesn't make there 'no true church' out there. Because the church supercedes beliefs of individuals.

Yes, you could argue that an invisible church supersedes even that, containing all Christian branches. But I do not see any organization, I do not see any order in it. I see many churches acting on their own accord. It is not the same, as we are. And though the structure of other churches does much good... it also causes problems too.

My brother and sister-in-law differ greatly on certain LDS teachings. Thankfully, my brother, being the wonderful husband he is, doesn't try to 'rein' in his wife for her personal beliefs.

All people differ my friend. The trick is, finding out which things are important enough that being the same makes a difference. Which stuff is important enough to require belief in, and which stuff is left undecided? That is the difficulty the church goes through, but it does a good job, imo. It keeps people remarkably on the same page, for people of such different cultures, lifestyles, and opinions.

[mfbukowski]

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.

More likely, the bishop was being charitable. "Sure, you're one of us!" A team spirit is essential in leadership. In my neck of the woods the term "Key 5" is often used instead of "Bishopric" pretty much for this reason.

[mfbukowski]

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

Regards,

Pahoran

[mfbukowski]

I guess no one wants to respond to my questions I posted. Just a little too difficult to answer??? Yeah they are a little difficult for me as well. If God doesn't want gay men to hold positions in the Young Mens program, why did He inspire the bishop to call me to those positions not once but multiple times? What is God's policy regarding gays serving Him verses the prejudices of men running His church?

Get the chip off your shoulder and read the thread. No one says that a person who is attracted to the same sex cannot serve- the question is whether or not he is a "practicing" gay person, which is a behavior considered a serious sin by the church and would make one ineligible for a calling. This has been said repeatedly on this thread.

We all have temptations- as long as you were not engaging in homosexual acts there is no reason the bishop could not have been inspired to call you to those positions.

I know of several men "with ssa" who serve in high and responsible callings- some are aware of it and others could be aware of it if they put "two and two" together, but no one would even think to bring it up because of the wonderful people they are.

We have no way of knowing who is a "closeted" pedophile or even a serial killer who has never acted on his impulses for that matter- we are all imperfect people called to do the Lord's work, and as long as we are "following the rules" we are eligible to serve.

Those who do not follow the rules are not eligible. That's just the way it is.

[mfbukowski]

Of course membership rolls are very helpful in keeping track of the needs of those we reach out to, helping to ensure that few fall through the cracks. (I see bluebell has already made this point, not surprisingly.)

Jesus calling was not to take care of administration- his calling was to restore the teachings, and the keys, and to be the savior of the world.

He had the Apostles to worry about administration- that's why each of them had their own "administrative positions" as well as the calling to be an Apostle. Wasn't it Judas who was in charge of the money, for example?

[Pahoran]

The leadership roles in the early church weren't political ones. They were specifically commissioned in ministry and service.

I didn't say the roles were political; I said the titles were the same as those of government functionaries of the day. The two things are not the same.

It is -- and I am trying really hard to be charitable here, Val -- rather facile to dismiss the Church of Jesus Christ for being run "in a fashion similar to a corporate environment." You might imagine that Jesus wanted His Church to be run in the kind of inefficient, chaotic way favoured by low-church Protestants, but the record does not support that assumption.

I would never dare to compare the positions of the early apostles to that of modern LDS apostles. They aren't the same.

In your opinion, yet again declared as an unqualified assertion.

Which, just incidentally, happens to be wrong. The roles are the same.

Just like in the First Century, the modern apostles began as travelling missionaries.

Just like in the First Century, the modern apostles found themselves in the role of administering the whole Church after the death of the prophet who called them.

What you consider incomplete is irrelevent.

Ah, so it is only your opinions -- expressed as dogmatic assertions of fact -- that are relevant.

How illuminating.

The fullness of Jesus' ministry is found in the Bible.

Thank you for that expression of (bibliolatrous) faith. However, I'm afraid the facts don't support it.

Jesus had a mortal ministry that spanned three years; his actual recorded acts could comfortably be carried in two weeks. He preached sermons that took up the better part of a day; the totality of the recorded excerpts can be read, aloud, in about half an hour.

The Gospels do not record all of the words and deeds of Jesus. This is a fact.

Jesus didn't say anything about recording baptismal dates, confirmations, endowments, etc.

You cannot prove a negative; you are relying upon an argument from silence.

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.

Which is actually irrelevant to the question of the need for Church records.

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

So your low-church assumptions are based upon your interpretation of a particular selection of scriptural texts.

How very confidence-inspiring.

Show me the Melchezidek Priesthood ever used in the Bible or where it was specifically conferred upon someone.

How about we avoid the 'one true church' narcissism and arrogance? The 'OTC' is an epidemic of spiritual abuse.

Thank you for preaching your opinion, yet again. Here is a parallel statement: How about we avoid the "one true interpretation of the Bible" narcissism and arrogance? The "OTIB" is an epidemic of spiritual abuse.

Don't you realise how obvious your double standard is? However you justify the ugly remarks about our beliefs, they apply equally well to your own.

Don't be presumptuous to believe that the banner of Mormonism believes the same thing. Many of the Restoration churches hold the same scriptures BoM, PGP, D&C, the Bible but differ on their own interpretations. The 'true' Utah Restoration church isn't the authority concerning these books. Furthermore, don't be presumptuous to believe that all Utah LDS believe the same way. Let's not be naive.

It's a little strange to be lectured about being "presumptuous" by someone who writes that sort of material.

By brother and sister-in-law differ greatly on certain LDS teachings. Thankfully, my brother, being the wonderful husband he is, doesn't try to 'rein' in his wife for her personal beliefs.

I know two EV's who differ greatly on certain EV teachings. Each is convinced the other is going to Hayall.

And they say so at every opportunity.

Regards,

Pahoran

[cdowis]

Show me the Melchezidek Priesthood ever used in the Bible or where it was specifically conferred upon someone.

We accept all of the word of God, including the Bible. It would be foolish to limit myself, for example, to speak of Christ only using the Old Testament. Likewise, when speaking of the priesthood, we have modern revelation to guide us.

The Bible gives us little details on the callings of apostle, prophet and the other callings in the early church. Now Paul tells us that those callings, especially the prophets and apostles, would be found in the authenticate and true church of Christ. The details of these callings, which are lacking in the Bible, the Lord gave them to us in modern revelation through living prophets and apostles.

So, the issue is not the priesthood in the Bible, but whether JS was called as a prophet by the Lord.

[LeSellers]

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.

The Boy Scouts of America refuses to allow openly homosexual men (or women) to be Scoutmasters. It's a liability thing as much as a foundational concept.

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

Show me the Melchezidek Priesthood ever used in the Bible or where it was specifically conferred upon someone.

So what priesthood did Melchizadek have then?

It certainly wasn't Levitical--

[Jaybear]

The Boy Scouts of America refuses to allow openly homosexual men (or women) to be Scoutmasters. It's a liability thing as much as a foundational concept.

Lehi

Correct on one point. As for the point about liability, that's just blatant attempt to rationalize bigotry.

Here is a synopsis of the gay scout case:

The case was brought by James Dale, who wanted to become an adult leader of the local Boy Scouts after distinguishing himself as a member. He was admitted to Order of the Arrow honor camping society and earned the Eagle Scout badge, Scouting's highest honor and one that only 3 percent of Scouts receive.

When he was fired as assistant Scout master of the Matawan, New Jersey, troop in 1990, Dale was 20.

Now 29, he sued the Boy Scouts in 1992 after the Boy Scouts of America rejected his application for the adult leadership position and subsequently fired him. The Boy Scouts told him in writing that homosexuality was contrary to the organization's values.

The Scout oath requires members to be "morally straight." The organization "takes the position that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the Scout oath ... and contrary to the Scout Law to be 'clean' in word and deed," according to Thomas E. Baker, a constitutional scholar at the Drake University Law School in Des Moines, Iowa, who wrote an impartial analysis of the case for the American Bar Association.

On oral argument, the scouts claimed:

During oral arguments, George A. Davidson, an attorney for the Boy Scouts, argued that the Scouts were right in firing Dale because he "had created a reputation for himself" by publicizing his sexual preference and that his being gay hampered his ability to be a role model for Scouts.

[Pahoran]

Correct on one point. As for the point about liability, that's just blatant attempt to rationalize bigotry.

Only if "bigotry" means "putting the safety of children ahead of the hurt feelings of self-interested adults."

Incidentally, the SCOTUS accepted the BSA arguments that you wish to marginalise as "bigotry."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

<br />Only if "bigotry" means "putting the safety of children ahead of the hurt feelings of self-interested adults."<br /><br />Incidentally, the SCOTUS accepted the BSA arguments that you wish to marginalise as "bigotry."<br /><br />Regards,<br />Pahoran<br />

Safety can refer to more than just protection from physical abuse, of course. We often hear talks about keeping our children safe from the influence of evil, for example.

[frankenstein]

Only if "bigotry" means "putting the safety of children ahead of the hurt feelings of self-interested adults."

Incidentally, the SCOTUS accepted the BSA arguments that you wish to marginalise as "bigotry."

Regards,

Pahoran

CFR that SCOTUS stated its ruling is based on the safety of children or liability that homosexuals pose to others?

CFR that BSA in oral argument - to SCOTUS - stated the non-employment of homosexuals is a safety/liability issue.

Dale v Boy Scouts transcript of oral argument to SCOTUS

[Pahoran]

CFR that SCOTUS stated its ruling is based on the safety of children or liability that homosexuals pose to others?

Take it up with Jaybear -- he was the one who linked the two.

CFR that BSA in oral argument - to SCOTUS - stated the non-employment of homosexuals is a safety/liability issue.

Y'know Frankie, I confess that I cannot think of a single reason -- not one -- why immoralists would expect us to trust them with our children.

Can you?

Regards,

Pahoran