Openly Gay Mormon Appointed to Church Leadership Position

[_Morley]

....
Underwhelmed. Am I not getting it?

....

My thoughts, too. I'm not sure this is a leadership position. And it's in the San Francisco area, which is not exactly Bountiful, Utah.

But then, substantive change is often incremental.

[_stemelbow]

No kidding, big deal. Once I grew a mean looking beard and i was still called to be the Ward Mission Leader. Here that "leader"? Secretary nuttin'.

[_Daniel2]

The more I read of Mr. Mayne's blog, the more amazed I am. Here's his entry from March 29, 2011 (obviously, several months prior to his current calling as Executive Secretary, but apparently according to his blog, during his tenure as a Sunday School teacher in his ward):

As I’ve become more vocal about being a gay Mormon—both in and outside the church—I’ve had the opportunity to meet some very remarkable people, some of whom quite clearly fall into the category of “straight allies.” Some have purposefully become an ally; others have simply stumbled there through circumstance. Just the same, the common bond that unites them is a deep and passionate desire to follow their hearts and do what is right.

They are my heroes: dedicated not so much to a cause, but to their own conscience. And through this dedication, lift the often heavy mantle carried by the LGBT community, regardless of faith.

I dedicate this article to them.

Rey is not your usual suspect when it comes to straight allies. Married to his wife Christine for almost 21 years, the father of three boys, an athlete, and a veteran—on paper, he’s almost the kind of person we’d expect to hold a decisively more conservative view. Yet, I’ve been repeatedly humbled as I’ve watched him champion equality through his support of gay marriage the repeal of DADT. He speaks out openly and with courage—even in the face of opposition.

Likewise, Jackie is an equally atypical ally. Jackie is the mother of 4 boys, a wife of almost 10 years, and an active Mormon who serves as a scout leader in the suburbs of Dallas. Recently, Jackie and her husband were drawn into a potentially violent situation when they stood up for the rights and dignity of a gay man. Many would have turned and looked the other way. But Jackie and her husband, driven by the strength that comes from doing what is right, stood their ground.

What makes Rey and Jackie—and other straight allies—unique, is they have cultivated the view (knowingly or unknowingly) that we are all children of our Father, and as such, are equals in His eyes. They don’t ascribe to the concept that gays and lesbians are the other—or any notion that there is anything that separates us as a human family. They do, in fact, view everyone as equals—and more importantly, feel that in their hearts and express it in their actions. They recognize that despite our external differences, our sameness as brothers and sisters unites all of us—and the strength of that commonality weighs more than any individual difference.

I am proud to know them both, and the other many straight allies whom I’ve come to appreciate and respect. And, I think their examples are powerful ones and help underscore the critical role straight allies have in the quest to soften the hearts of others—Mormon and otherwise.

Within the Mormon Church, straight allies are in a unique position to approach church leadership in a way that I, as an openly gay Mormon, am not. They have the added credibility of not being seen as someone with an agenda other than to do what is right. As a straight ally, you have the ability to speak on our behalf and deliver a message as someone who is not viewed as the other—and that will lend you a power and strength beyond what I, or any gay member, could have.

And deliver that message, you must. For if change is to occur, it has to have people pushing from the inside, as well as those pulling from the outside.

As with any challenge, there is also a hidden opportunity for our straight allies—regardless of faith. As a straight ally, you have the chance to be truly Christ-like. In fact, if we think about our Savior’s mortal ministry, it was a ministry largely centered on people society had cast out—that society viewed asthe other.

When Christ was on an urgent rescue mission for the daughter of one of the Jewish leaders of the synagogues, there was a woman among the throngs of people that followed him, who reached out to touch his robe in an act of faith—that by doing this, she would be healed. For twelve years she had suffered a vaginal flow of blood, an almost constant hemorrhage. But worse than the physical illness was the suffering she had to endure at the hands of her brothers and sisters in the community—because of the plague of mental and emotional shame inflicted upon her.

She wanted to be near the Savior, to look into His face, to feel of His love. But this she could not do, because according to Jewish law, she was unclean. She, like many gay Mormons, was judged unfit to mingle with the community, unfit to worship in the temple. She was scorned as an outcast—worthless and unclean.

She, too, was the other.

Yet, like so many times in his mortal ministry, Christ stopped and healed the woman of this terrible burden. But the most important aspect of His kindness was the healing of her lonely and aching spirit. What a humble honor it would be for the rest of her life to know that Christ knew her, that Christ noticed her, and that Christ accepted her. What a profound demonstration of our Savior’s love, mercy and kindness. What a tremendous example of reaching out to the other—regardless of consequence.

Being born gay is not a plague; but what many of us suffer at the hands of others is. What an amazing invitation this story is to our straight allies to help their gay brothers and sisters achieve equality in the eyes of all.

What an exciting call to arms for our straight allies within the Mormon Church—for as Mormons, there can be no more worthwhile pursuit than becoming like our Savior. And what an equally moving cry for those of other faiths, or none at all—for there is little more virtuous a pursuit than striving for what is right.

When we listen to the sense of responsibility that is whispered to us by our own conscience, and speak out for what is right, we move beyond our individual problems and give unconditionally. Independent of our faith, through our words and actions we have the opportunity to lighten the burdens of others, to speak hope to the spirits of those who are heavy laden, and change hearts—and lives.

There is wisdom in knowing what is right; there is virtue in doing it.

Today, I will seek to be an instrument of virtue and peace. I will act on my conscience and speak for what I know to be right. For I know that there is no better gift I can give the world—or myself.

Will you speak for what is right today?

As I've said before, while I don't share his religious beliefs, I admire the manner in which this man walks his path.

Daniel2

[_Themis]

No kidding, big deal. Once I grew a mean looking beard and i was still called to be the Ward Mission Leader. Here that "leader"? Secretary nuttin'.

Ward mission leader is one of those callings you give to those members you can't trust to do their job, so if they don't it's no big deal. :)

[_Daniel2]

Can you please point to any evidence that he is actively gay right now? And by active I mean having sex with men currently, not active in the sense of self identification.

Another entry from Mr. Mayne's blog, Aristotle, illustrates what I would consider evidence that Mr. Mayne is what I would consider to be "actively gay," even though he isn't engaging in any same-gender sexual behaviors:

Being a child of my Heavenly Father was not a choice. Being gay is not a choice. Both things simply are. Both things are intertwined into the DNA of my soul so deeply that you could not extricate one from the other without destroying who I am. They are, in fact, who I am.

I am a gay Latter Day Saint.

I don’t want pity. To pity me is to make me a victim. I want understanding. To understand me, is to love me as an equal.

I don’t want tolerance. If I am tolerated, I am disliked or feared in some way. I want respect as a fellow striving child of God—an equal in His eyes.

I don’t want acceptance. To accept me is to graciously grant me the favor of your company. To accept me is to marginalize me with the assumption that I am less than you. I am your peer. I am neither above you nor below you.

I don’t want judgment. My path may be different than yours, but it is a plan built for me by a power greater than any of us. To judge me is to judge the designer of that path.

I don’t want to be labeled as “afflicted” or “suffering” or “struggling.” I do not have an illness that requires my soul be mended. I want to be recognized, like you, as a whole person, just as my Heavenly Father made me. I have suffered no affliction by His hand; I have, however, suffered affliction at the hands of others, including my brothers and sisters in the gospel.

I do not want to be viewed as a mistake. My path on this Earth was prescribed uniquely for me, just as yours was for you. It was designed to give me the experiences I need to grow as a child of my Heavenly Father. To view me as a mistake is to view Him as a maker of mistakes.

On a cosmetic level, we are very different, you and I. You have spouses, or the opportunity for spouses, I do not. You have children, or the opportunity for children, I do not. You are attracted to those of the opposite gender, I am attracted to those of my same gender.

What I want most of all is for you to look past the superficial and the cosmetic. I want you to look at what makes us the same: the simple fact that we are all children of our Heavenly Father, and we are striving day to day to understand how to best do His will, and how to return to Him. It is that simple sameness, brothers and sisters, that weighs more than all the differences in His universe.

[_lostindc]

Can you please point to any evidence that he is actively gay right now?

Here you go:

lmao

[_MsJack]

Daniel2 ~ Thanks for your thoughtful response.

Being openly, actively Gay--and self-identifying as gay, and being open to a monogomous gay relationship--and receiving a call to serve--and openly so--in the LDS church is huge, for many of us who could never concieve of such an action.

If that is the case, I agree that it's potentially significant. However, it's been my understanding ever since I listened to Silus Grok's podcast on being a gay member of the church that gay members can hold any leadership calling in the church for which they are qualified up to bishop, so long as they are not engaging in actual same-sex relationships. This may not have been done often in practice, but the theoretical framework was there.

(Of course, gay members and bisexual members who are heterosexually married could get away with holding any calling in the church, but that's kind of another story.)

I agree that it's unusual for a gay member to be as outspoken and open about his or her gay status as Mr. Mayne has been, although that would only signal a change in well-established church practice rather than policy. What is really unusual is Mr. Mayne's apparent* declaration that he remains open to another homosexual relationship. But I'm not sure this signals any kind of shift in the LDS church's attitude towards gays. I wonder whether or not his superiors are simply taking an attitude of, "Well, you aren't in a relationship now, so we're going to look the other way." If he continues to hold the calling after entering into another such relationship . . . that I would see as significant.

The symbolism of the act alone is causing HUGE ripples in the LDS-LGBT community (I've been reading a LOT about it on many LDS/ex-LDS gay online community groups). While I can appreciate that a non/never-Mormon may be underwhelmed at the position itself, its significance has already generated some very positive discussion between my own parents and I. We discussed the similarities of the priesthood being extended to the blacks. My elderly father, a life-long, extremely devout Latter-day Saint who has become more and more emotional in his advanced years and as his Parkinson's has progressed, wept as I sat and read the article aloud to he and my mother. This act has the potential to be a great source of healing, even for those of us who are non-believers but have devoutly LDS family members.

Thank you for sharing that.

I continue to hold reservations about Joanna Brooks describing the calling to non-members as a "church leadership position" and Mr. Mayne and others saying that he is now a member of the bishopric. I think "church administrative position" would have been more accurate. As you correctly note, the CHI states that the executive secretary is not a member of the bishopric, and I've never felt that an executive secretary has anywhere near the presence in his ward a the bishop or his counselors.

I’m afraid I have to speak out and say that MsJack is 100% on the mark with her comments.

Okay. Just as long as we don't have to hug or something.


----

* I say "apparent" declaration because I see a few possible "escape hatches" in Mr. Mayne's statements on his blog. But I'm so used to people playing word games in the Mormon dialogue and discussions world that it's made me the cynical type.

----

[_LDSToronto]

I continue to hold reservations about Joanna Brooks describing the calling to non-members as a "church leadership position" and Mr. Mayne and others saying that he is now a member of the bishopric. I think "church administrative position" would have been more accurate. As you correctly note, the CHI states that the executive secretary is not a member of the bishopric, and I've never felt that an executive secretary has anywhere near the presence in his ward a the bishop or his counselors.

"Leader" and "leadership" are words that are defined differently in the LDS lexicon. If we were to use a secular definition of leader, or leadership, then there are very few positions that would qualify at a stake/ward level - stake president, bishop, elders quorum president, young men and young womens president, Relief Society President, and Primary President. That's really about it - not even counselors would qualify. However, using the word 'leader' in an LDS context, the following would qualify: Stake presidency, stake clerk, stake executive secretary, patriarch, high counselor, bishopric, ward clerk, executive secretary, YM/YW presidency, Sunday School Presidency, Primary Presidency, EQ Presidency, HPGL and assistants, Relief Society Presidency, along with all aforementioned secretaries, and of course, all stake auxiliary presidencies. Basically, anyone who is not a teacher.

Even then, Mormons endure many, many lessons and talks stating that we are all leaders - leaders in the home, leaders at work, leaders in the community, leaders in our own lives, and so on and so on.

I'm not saying I agree with this classification; it simply exists.

H.

[Guest]

"Leader" and "leadership" are words that are defined differently in the LDS lexicon. If we were to use a secular definition of leader, or leadership, then there are very few positions that would qualify at a stake/ward level - stake president, bishop, elders quorum president, young men and young womens president, Relief Society President, and Primary President. That's really about it - not even counselors would qualify. However, using the word 'leader' in an LDS context, the following would qualify: Stake presidency, stake clerk, stake executive secretary, patriarch, high counselor, bishopric, ward clerk, executive secretary, YM/YW presidency, Sunday School Presidency, Primary Presidency, EQ Presidency, HPGL and assistants, Relief Society Presidency, along with all aforementioned secretaries, and of course, all stake auxiliary presidencies. Basically, anyone who is not a teacher.

I'm familiar with the phenomenon of Mormons using terminology one way when outsiders understand those terms in a completely different way, though I hadn't thought "leader" was one of the buzz words. However, that's why I said that I think it's misleading to represent the calling as a "leadership position" in a dispatch meant for outsiders. A pastor's secretary isn't usually considered a "leader" of the congregation; likewise, I doubt many outsiders would see the executive secretary as a "leader" in an LDS ward. They would see the counselors in the bishopric as "leaders" because those men have a visible presence in the main Sunday meeting, presiding over and conducting them.

Besides, let's pretend that we had an executive secretary accused of sexually abusing his stepdaughter. Then let's pretend the stepdaughter's lawyer put out a dispatch: "Woman's suit alleges abuse by LDS church leader." How long do you think it would take for apologists and Mormon bloggers to declare that executive secretaries are hardly "church leaders"?

(Something very similar happened in 2009 with a woman claiming she was abused by a "Mormon priest.")

----

[_Hoops]

Can you please point to any evidence that he is actively gay right now?

Here you go:

This is funny!!