Openly Gay Mormon Appointed to Church Leadership Position

[_TrashcanMan79]

For your consideration:

Openly Gay Mormon Appointed to LDS Church Leadership Position | Religion Dispatches

[_consiglieri]

Watershed.

[_karl61]

The article was written by:

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/702/joanna-brooks

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

I bet his ward activities will be like Elton John's house on the 4th of July. It would be awesome!

[_Buffalo]

See homodox Mormons? It's coming!

[_Jaybear]

Reminds me of the first season of The Wire, where an innovated Captain reduced the crime rate in district by creating a drug free.

Worked great, until people found out what he was doing.
This too will implode.

[_Blixa]

The Lowest Common Denominator weighs in:

this whole thing is tottal B.S! this weirdo has beard and stash... he is not in any wards bishopric.. and that's just 4 starters!

[_Buffalo]

Jeff K. seems to be in the grips of homosexual panic!

[_floatingboy]

i just had a forehead-slapping "can't believe i didn't think of this before" moment when i was reading this article. since it mentioned his being in keeping with the LDS standards of morality makes him worthy to serve, if he were to legally marry a man (in a state that allows it), the church's own wording on the subject would make him technically in keeping with the "with a person two whom you are legally and lawfully married" clause of the law of chastity. and then the "no duh" moment for me: THAT'S why the church fights gay marriage so hard! it would have to change the wording of the law of chastity (in the temple and elsewhere) and therefore it's stance on whom it's technically kosher for a recommend-holding member to have sexual relations with.

i guess lots of you have already had this thought process, but it was an interesting mini-epiphany for me. but i guess my question is, since there are already states that have legalized gay marriage, how has the church reacted to this for people who would want to claim to be living the law of chastity because they are married? or is this all a non-issue because the church also emphasizes the "one man, one woman" position (which we all know is pretty funny)?

[_MsJack]

Here's my take on the matter:

-------------------

Underwhelmed. Am I not getting it?

An eye-catching headline was brought to my attention recently:

Openly Gay Mormon Appointed to LDS Church Leadership Position

Wow, I thought, Now that is something. I clicked on the link expecting to read about an openly gay bishop, or an openly gay member of one of the quorums of the Seventy.

Instead, I found myself reading an article about an openly gay man who has been called to serve as his ward’s executive secretary.

So, being completely honest here, my reaction was, Is that it?

I should probably back up and remind readers that I am not and never have been a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and while I do have a degree from BYU and visit an LDS ward with my LDS husband once a month, there’s a lot about how wards operate on the day-to-day level that I’m not familiar with and don’t really get.

My understanding of the executive secretary calling is that it is pretty comparable to the administrative assistant position at my own Protestant church—that is to say, they’re both more of leadership-support positions than leadership positions in their own right. I don’t know all of the responsibilities of my church’s administrative assistant, but I know that she spends time in the office keeping records for the church, helps arrange appointments for the senior pastor and other pastoral staff members, attends leadership team meetings, and has the opportunity to give input on decisions that will effect the congregation. On rare occasions, when pastoral staff members have been out of town, she has been called on to participate in different aspects of the Sunday service, though I don’t believe I’ve ever heard her deliver a sermon.

Likewise, I thought that executive secretaries primarily attend leadership meetings (bishopric meetings and Priesthood Executive Committee meetings) and schedule appointments for the bishop. They do not preside over or conduct Sacrament meetings (even when the entire bishopric is out of town), they have nothing to do with ecclesiastical interviews other than scheduling them, and they do not seem to have much decision-making power at the ward level. Neither do they receive more opportunities to preach to the congregation like members of the bishopric do. As a “Gentile,” the only times anyone has ever told me to talk with the executive secretary has been when I or my husband needed to make an appointment with the bishop.

Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not bashing the work that executive secretaries do. I think all of the roles that make a church body function are important (1 Corinthians 12), and I personally feel that I would be far more suited to the type of support work done by executive secretaries and administrative assistants rather than a full-fledged church leadership position. I also think it’s a good thing for the LDS church to allow openly gay, celibate homosexuals into any church callings for which they might be qualified, and I wish Mitch Mayne the best of luck in his new calling.

What I am questioning is whether or not the executive secretary position deserves the fanfare of “LDS Church Leadership Position.” Does it?

You tell me.

-------------------