Sign in to follow this  
ADoyle90815

Openly gay man in bishopric

Recommended Posts

Mitch Mayne This is someone who was in a monogamous relationship, but since he and his partner broke up, he recently became a part of his local bishopric.

Mods, feel free to move this if necessary. I put this here as he is a member of the LDS church and sustained to a church position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest gopecon

There's no reason that a gay person following the law of chastity cannot hold callings in the Church or go to the temple. He can repent of his previous lifestyle just like a straight person who has had sex outside of marriage can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admire him for speaking out. I respect the courage he is showing by talking about he personal experience.

I wonder though if he would still be in his current calling if the Bishop and Stake President read this letter. The part that concerns me is:

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.

The same standards of behavior required of heterosexual members of the church are no sex outside of marriage AND marriage is defined by the church as between a man and woman only.

Does he mean that should a gay relationship come his way again that he'll throw away the repentance he's been through?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sexual sin is sexual sin. If this individual was openly fornicating with women instead of men, he still repents, he is forgiven after his repentance process and the Lord remembers them no more and he can move on to better things.

Does anyone know if it has it been said (in scripture, church manuals, the pulpit etc...) that a homosexual sin is more or less grievous than any other sexual sin? I've always thought that breaking the law of chastity is a sin, the same sin regardless of the particulars. Having sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage between a man and woman is forbidden, is all fornication created equal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admire him for speaking out. I respect the courage he is showing by talking about he personal experience.

I wonder though if he would still be in his current calling if the Bishop and Stake President read this letter. The part that concerns me is:

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.

The same standards of behavior required of heterosexual members of the church are no sex outside of marriage AND marriage is defined by the church as between a man and woman only.

Does he mean that should a gay relationship come his way again that he'll throw away the repentance he's been through?

Let's not assume that local priesthood leaders haven't read this. However, it is through the context of his website that anyone could interpret this statement to mean that he's seeking another same-sex relationship. He can say that he's intent on a husband-wife relationship between himself and a woman...

I've heard of LDS members being excommunicated for communications like this. I hope things go okay for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read more on this individual's statements. He is definitely following the commandments of God. He was called out of his own ward in Oakland to serve in San Francisco. He strongly believes he was called by the Lord for the purpose of showing the many LDS gays in the Bay area that they can be good members of the Church, live by its standards, be loved and accepted as good members in good standing, and not feel shunned.

I hope he has much success in this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha! I don't believe this to be true at all! There is no way this man is a bishop. NO WAY!

I've never heard of a SINGLE man in a bishopric.

It doesn't say he is a Bishop. It says he is part of a Bishopric. And yes I've known single men to be in a Bishopric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the men currently in my Bishopric is single. His wife passed away about 10 years ago and he has never remarried. He's currently in his 40's I would guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm reading on another site that this brother was not called into the bishopric, but as the executive secretary. This doesn't really change my opinion of the situation, given how closely the executive secretary works with the bishopric, but in the interests of accuracy, it ought to be noted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what all the fuss is about online about this brother. He is gay and he got a calling. So?

I think the fuss is about there being mormons that can see past a person being gay and recognize that he can contribute to the church in spite of--and perhaps more importantly, because of--his gayness*. It's kind of a novel concept.

*I hope that doesn't come across as offensive as I fear it will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what all the fuss is about online about this brother. He is gay and he got a calling. So?

The fuss is that his statement can be read that if the opportunity for a homosexual relationship arose (possibly after same-sex marriage is made legal in California) that he'd pursue it. He could be meaning after the Church hypothetically changes it's position but the comment about being upfront with leadership is confusing in that sense. So it comes across as, "I was sinning a year ago. Stopped. Got this new calling. And hey, I may just resume my sinning. But I'll tell my Bishop if I do." Which would cause waves if we're talking homosexual relations, promiscuity, or wild drunken nights on the town for someone (being described) as in the Bishopric.

Now it is entirely possible people are making some incorrect assumptions of what he's trying to say, or that he simply may have phrased things poorly/weirdly, but the perception that such is what he is saying is the source of the kerfluffle, not his sexuality.

I think the fuss is about there being mormons that can see past a person being gay and recognize that he can contribute to the church in spite of--and perhaps more importantly, because of--his gayness*. It's kind of a novel concept.

I disagree, see the above.

Edit: I should qualify, in my experience in the few discussions I've participated in.

Edited by Dravin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fuss is that his statement can be read that if the opportunity for a homosexual relationship arose (possibly after same-sex marriage is made legal in California) that he'd pursue it. He could be meaning after the Church hypothetically changes it's position but the comment about being upfront with leadership is confusing in that sense. So it comes across as, "I was sinning a year ago. Stopped. Got this new calling. And hey, I may just resume my sinning. But I'll tell my Bishop if I do." Which would cause waves if we're talking homosexual relations, promiscuity, or wild drunken nights on the town for someone (being described) as in the Bishopric.

Now it is entirely possible people are making some incorrect assumptions of what he's trying to say, or that he simply made have phrased things poorly/weirdly, but the perception that such is what he is saying is the source of the kerfluffle, not his sexuality.

I disagree, see the above.

I just read his blog a little. He is seeking for change within the Church. I wish him well, having said that I'm afraid he may be reprimanded (or worst) about some of the things he wrote.

EDIT: My views are probably too liberal for a site like this with regards to this issue, however I wanted to clarify that my comment about him and the possibility of being reprimanded was about some of the things he expressed on his blog and how the present Church may perceive it, NOT about things that I particularly disagree.

Edited by Suzie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read his blog.....and wow, not sure how to feel. The whole issue confuses me. Frankly, it's one thing to be gay and worthy to serve...kudo's, BUT, it sounds like he has some rather subversive ideas. No way this guy is in a Bishopric....executive secretary...perhaps. It does seem like some of his associations would prevent him from receiving a Temple recommend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because a man or women is gay, it does not meen they are evil. They are souls, children of our father. God loves us all includeing those who go astray. He offers a hand to us, the ability to repent because he loves them so much. He gave his only begotten son for us. Is being gay any worse from breaking marriage vows or the commitment to abstain from sex untill mariage? If this man has repented and with true and diligent faith. Let him serve, his personal trial is hard and he will have mixed thoughts, but his actions are accoutned to God our father not too us. Being gay is the same as any other sin, it is nor worse or less. Again if he did repent, let him serve. God has no need for a perfect "kinght", as none of us can achieve profection here on this earth, but we can strive to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being gay is the same as any other sin, it is nor worse or less.

What do you mean by "being gay"? I think we clearly need to separate same sex attraction from engaging in homosexual behavior. Being gay (same sex attraction) is NOT a sin. Members who struggle with same sex attraction in the Church and they're living the normal church standards, can have callings and hold temple recommends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean by "being gay"? I think we clearly need to separate same sex attraction from engaging in homosexual behavior. Being gay (same sex attraction) is NOT a sin. Members who struggle with same sex attraction in the Church and they're living the normal church standards, can have callings and hold temple recommends.

Of course that is what he meant, but I might add that Brother Mane doesn't sound very repentant over his past transgressions nor completely determined to abandon the practice in the future and worse he is hoping that the church may one day "change" so that he may enjoy a more guilt free life of grievous sin.

Elder Spencer W Kimball (not very popular in some LDS circles), but none the less a Prophet of the Lord spoke very directly regarding the issue:

The unholy transgression of homosexuality is either rapidly growing or tolerance is giving it wider publicity. If one has such desires and tendencies, he overcomes them the same as if he had the urge toward petting or fornication or adultery. The Lord condemns and forbids this practice with a vigor equal to his condemnation of adultery and other such sex acts. And the Church will excommunicate as readily any unrepentant addict.

Again, contrary to the belief and statement of many people, this sin, like fornication, is overcomable and forgivable, but again, only upon a deep and abiding repentance, which means total abandonment and complete transformation of thought and act. The fact that some governments and some churches and numerous corrupted individuals have tried to reduce such behavior from criminal offense to personal privilege does not change the nature nor the seriousness of the practice. Good men, wise men, God-fearing men everywhere still denounce the practice as being unworthy of sons and daughters of God; and Christ’s church denounces it and condemns it so long as men and women have bodies which Can be defiled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this