Openly Gay Mormon Appointed to Church Leadership Position

[_Daniel2]

I thought the following post from the "comments" section of the article in the OP is spot-on:

One of the remarkable things about the Mormon Church is their capacity to change in the face of public opposition without admitting error, apologizing, or even admitting that they've changed at all.

Even more remarkable is the way the followers fall into line. One day a prophet can be castigating Gays and saying they deserve the death penalty:

http://www.i4m.com/think/history/mormon_gays.htm

The next moment they are serving with the Bishop and the members are singing with joy that "all is well in Zion."

The capacity for change is, of course, admirable. But when an organization changes without admitting culpability, error, or even a lapse in judgement it looks more like George Orwell's book 1984, where inconvenient events are quickly sanitized and removed from the collective memory.

If we are really witnessing the latest change in church doctrine, and the abandonment of more than a century of anti-Gay rhetoric, we can expect the church will follow the same process that's served them so well before. Denials, re-writing history, new talking points, etc. And all with a happy face and a "what are you talking about?" response whenever the church's history toward Gays is brought up.

When I was an active Mormon I learned there are several steps to repentance, including:

1) Recognizing the sin
2) Remorse for the sin
3) Restitution for the sin
4) Resolve never to commit the sin again.

If the LDS Church is to *really* follow the example of Jesus, they need to do all those things. But if history is any guide to the future, hell will freeze over before the LDS Church admits that they sinned against Gays, feel genuine sorrow for the way they treated Gays, try (in anyway) to make restitution for their behavior, or exhibit any resolve not to be just as nasty toward other groups that serve as convenient "evil doers."

Instead a new army of apologists will deny that anything has changed -- and those with short memories will believe them.

Duwayne Anderson

Daniel2

[Guest]

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

Jeff seems to be a very wounded soul and has a huge blind-spot when it comes to holding onto his hostility towards gays and lesbians. On non-gay-related topics, I have found some of his posts to be thoughtful and kind. On gay issues, his words strike with all the subtlety of a bull, blinded by its own hurt or rage, rampaging through a china shop.

I'm not sure if he's fighting his own same-sex attractions and needs to hold on to that pain/anger towards us, or if he's simply been so deeply hurt (he's mentioned enduring terrible treatment, including being spit upon, by pro-same-sex civil-marriage supporters) that he genuinely can't find forgiveness and embrace a more gentle/sensative approach towards LGBT issues.

Either way, I feel great empathy--and sympathy--for Jeff.

Daniel2

[_Aristotle Smith]

Can someone please tell me why Joanna Brooks is excited over calling a CELIBATE gay man to anything in the church? I mean if he's CELIBATE, then what could the possible objection to any calling, from hymn book collector to newest apostle be?

[Guest]

Here's Here's my take on the matter:

Underwhelmed. Am I not getting it?

Hi, MsJack,

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.

Although the "bishopric" status (which, as an executive secretary, isn't technically accurate, according to the church's handbook of instructions) is attention/headline-grabbing, and also makes it easy to 'measure' in it's sense of visibility, the calling itself is (in my opinion) less significant than the fact that a call was extended to an openly gay man, at all.

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.

I hope the media/online attention doesn't cause the situation about Mr. Mayne's calling to implode, which I think would be seriously unfortunate and a huge back-step in LGBT-LDS relations.

I wish Mr. Mayne well and hope he represents both gays and Mormons well, as he strives to bring about understanding to both groups.

Daniel2

[_Nomad]

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.

At the risk of ruining my reputation for disagreeable nastiness (not to mention sockpuppetry, seeing as how this thread has no relationship to Will Schryver) I’m afraid I have to speak out and say that MsJack is 100% on the mark with her comments.

This Mayne fellow has, in my opinion, misrepresented himself by suggesting he is in a bishopric. In a “leadership position”. He is the ward executive secretary! It is a role whose function is actually quite similar to what MsJack describes for the administrative assistant in her church congregation.

In fact, it has been my experience over several decades in a variety of wards, that quite often the executive secretary calling is very deliberately extended to someone in the ward that the bishop wants to "keep a close eye on". At least that has been the case in many wards I’ve been in. The ward clerk, who also attends bishopric meetings, is in much more of a responsible position in that he oversees the tithing and offering receipts, and therefore needs to be much more thoroughly “vetted” than someone being called as executive secretary.

The executive secretary has no leadership responsibilities at all. No one reports to the ES. He is not steward over anything except the bishop’s appointment book. In the absence of the entire bishopric, the ES would not conduct sacrament meeting, or any kind of meeting. He never sits on the stand. The elder’s quorum president or HP group leader would do that. The ES is not assigned to teach, or expound doctrine, or do any other thing associated with ward leadership.

I’ve got to believe this particular ES won’t be serving much longer, having now tried to publicly use his calling to make what amounts to a political statement, and has misrepresented himself in the process.

[_Aristotle Smith]

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.

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.

[Guest]

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.

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.

Thanks for the good question, Aristotle. Given that symantics play an important part of how people perceive issues related to sexual orienatation, I think it's helpful to clarify what others mean when using certain terms (as well as clarifying what we ourselves mean).

To me, someone who self-identifies as "gay" and is open to a same-sex relationship is being "actively gay," whether or not they are engaging in physically-intimate behaviors. As I understand his situation, Mr. Mayne says he remains open to the possiblity of another same-sex relationship (apparently chaste, prior to marriage), which means, according to how I define it, that he is "actively gay." Accordingly, when I use the term "actively gay" in reference to Mr. Mayne, I don't mean to suggest that he's currently engaged in any specific same-gender sexual or romantic physical behaviors.

It seems, to me, that Mr. Mayne has been quite candid that he intends to adhere to the same sexual standards that heterosexuals are expected to adhere to, while serving in his capacity as Executive Secretary of his ward. It's less clear if that means he would pursue a chaste same-sex relationship (which, I suppose, could technically include some expressions of affection, such as hand-holding and kissing--though I'm not sure if Mr. Mayne would engage in such or not).

Hope that helps clarify.

Daniel2

[_Daniel2]

for what it's worth, I don't think the following open letter from Mr. Mayne's website (http://www.mitchmayne.com) have been posted in this thread:

I am Mitch Mayne, and I am an openly gay Latter-Day Saint.

On August 14, 2011, I was sustained as a member of the Bishopric in the Bay Ward of the San Francisco Stake of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons).

I accepted this calling because of the opportunity it presents me to serve my Savior and my community. And, I accepted this calling as my authentic self: A gay man who loves his Savior, loves his Mormon family, loves his counterparts within the LGBTQ community, and recognizes himself to be completely whole as I am—just as my Father made me.

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 had to leave my partner 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.

As a result, my current circumstances provide me with a unique opportunity to serve in a Priesthood leadership role within my community. Will that always be the case? Perhaps not. I will likely not be single forever, but I am now by choice—given where I am in my own personal healing process.

I am open to a relationship if fate brings that my way. I am not committing to a lifetime of celibacy; I am committing to adhere to the same standard of behavior that we require of any heterosexual member in a Priesthood leadership position. And, I am committed to being completely forthcoming and transparent about my relationship status with my leadership.

I understand that for my gay Mormon brothers and sisters and those who support them both inside and outside our faith, there is special meaning here: For it demonstrates that not only do we as gay Mormons have a home within our faith if we so choose, but that we also have a path.

It is a humbling honor to be asked to serve in this capacity, and I am grateful for a Church leadership that views me as an asset that can help serve our community. Nonetheless, I am simply an ordinary man, blessed to have been placed in extraordinary circumstances. And as such, a man who is willing to bring that experience to bear to help others as they strive to find their place within the gospel, and within the Mormon family.

More of Mr. Mayne's own words about his approach to his Mormonism and his homosexuality can be found on his blog, which is worth a read: www.mitchmayne.blogspot.com

Daniel2

[_karl61]

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.

At the risk of ruining my reputation for disagreeable nastiness (not to mention sockpuppetry, seeing as how this thread has no relationship to Will Schryver) I’m afraid I have to speak out and say that MsJack is 100% on the mark with her comments.

This Mayne fellow has, in my opinion, misrepresented himself by suggesting he is in a bishopric. In a “leadership position”. He is the ward executive secretary! It is a role whose function is actually quite similar to what MsJack describes for the administrative assistant in her church congregation.

In fact, it has been my experience over several decades in a variety of wards, that quite often the executive secretary calling is very deliberately extended to someone in the ward that the bishop wants to "keep a close eye on". At least that has been the case in many wards I’ve been in. The ward clerk, who also attends bishopric meetings, is in much more of a responsible position in that he oversees the tithing and offering receipts, and therefore needs to be much more thoroughly “vetted” than someone being called as executive secretary.

The executive secretary has no leadership responsibilities at all. No one reports to the ES. He is not steward over anything except the bishop’s appointment book. In the absence of the entire bishopric, the ES would not conduct sacrament meeting, or any kind of meeting. He never sits on the stand. The elder’s quorum president or HP group leader would do that. The ES is not assigned to teach, or expound doctrine, or do any other thing associated with ward leadership.

I’ve got to believe this particular ES won’t be serving much longer, having now tried to publicly use his calling to make what amounts to a political statement, and has misrepresented himself in the process.

I always get a chuckle out of people that compare LDS church callings thinking being called as a Bishop or Stake President is a big thing, even better is being called to the Seventy or even better is an Apostle. In my view all men who hold the LDS priesthood are in the same spot - sort of. They can go the temple, be married to one or more women, and be a king and queen to the most hight God and in the right sunday school class one can hear that they can become God. The best calling is one where you can still become a God and one that you count the amount or hours you were able to spend with your family. Who wins in this situation, not the one spending forty hours a week at church.

[_Jaybear]

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

Here you go: