Openly gay man in bishopric


ADoyle90815
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am sorry for the misinterpretation. What i ment from "being gay is the same as any other sin";is engageing in the homosexuality behavior. Engageing in this behavior is not any worse, if you catch me? But same sex attraction without engageing in its pratice is just as wrong. Its not bad, but men of the preisthood need to try and keep clear and pure minds. As it can lead to you enacting upon your fantasys. And i never said they cannot hold offices in the church for just haveing an attraction to the same sex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I might possibly also be able to suggest something. The way i read his words i took it to mean he hasn't abandoned the chance of a homosexual relationship that he see's mimics a relationship equal to a unmarried straight couple. He will live the law of chastity exactly as required of any other unmarried person, just would have said relationship with another man. There is a great deal you can get out of dating while still following the idea of the law of chastity that feeds the heart and soul vs a life time of being alone. Now it could be I'm wrong in how i took it and he really is just willing to throw away all he's worked for, but i offer a possible other view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might possibly also be able to suggest something. The way i read his words i took it to mean he hasn't abandoned the chance of a homosexual relationship that he see's mimics a relationship equal to a unmarried straight couple. He will live the law of chastity exactly as required of any other unmarried person, just would have said relationship with another man. There is a great deal you can get out of dating while still following the idea of the law of chastity that feeds the heart and soul vs a life time of being alone. Now it could be I'm wrong in how i took it and he really is just willing to throw away all he's worked for, but i offer a possible other view.

I wondered if that's what he meant too, but I see that behavior as being equal to a married man dating other women, which is obviously not acceptable. I have seen people make the argument before that gay people should be able to date the same sex like straight people date, but I think that's ridiculous. Imagine a married man bringing another woman to church with his arm around her, holding her hand, etc. Would it really fly if he said, "Oh, I'm not having sex with her. I'm just dating her." ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry for the misinterpretation. What i ment from "being gay is the same as any other sin";is engageing in the homosexuality behavior. Engageing in this behavior is not any worse, if you catch me? But same sex attraction without engageing in its pratice is just as wrong. Its not bad, but men of the preisthood need to try and keep clear and pure minds. As it can lead to you enacting upon your fantasys. And i never said they cannot hold offices in the church for just haveing an attraction to the same sex.

Your post is a tad confusing. Same sex attraction is not considered a sin....acting on these attractions is a sin and engaging in homosexual behavior is as grievous a sin as fornication and possibly even worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might possibly also be able to suggest something. The way i read his words i took it to mean he hasn't abandoned the chance of a homosexual relationship that he see's mimics a relationship equal to a unmarried straight couple. He will live the law of chastity exactly as required of any other unmarried person, just would have said relationship with another man. There is a great deal you can get out of dating while still following the idea of the law of chastity that feeds the heart and soul vs a life time of being alone. Now it could be I'm wrong in how i took it and he really is just willing to throw away all he's worked for, but i offer a possible other view.

I doubt that would fly......even same sex intimate activities involving clothed participants would be considered immoral and a sin.

Edited by bytor2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt that would fly......even same sex activities involving clothed participants would be considered immoral and a sin.

The issue with this is the church has lead it's self into a corner. The current teachings is that the fornication is the sin. The actual sexual sin. They have gone out of their way to say there is no difference between a gay man and a straight man as long as there is no sex outside of marriage. So in not saying 100% that there is a double standard applied they have left the door open. The usual thing of " well they can't command in all things" swings both ways if they don't forbid it out right and very clearly they can't really punish someone doing exactly the same as the straight person next to them, hard to follow a rule that's not clear. The married analogy doesn't work because there is a very clear statement on married conduct but no such statement that I've found has as clearly stated that gays can't date or live the law of chastity exactly as other couples do out side of marriage. There is lots of supposition and suggestion but nothing clear and current has been presented. This gentleman might very well be pushing for a very clear statement either way to finally get an answer on the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue with this is the church has lead it's self into a corner. The current teachings is that the fornication is the sin. The actual sexual sin. They have gone out of their way to say there is no difference between a gay man and a straight man as long as there is no sex outside of marriage. So in not saying 100% that there is a double standard applied they have left the door open. The usual thing of " well they can't command in all things" swings both ways if they don't forbid it out right and very clearly they can't really punish someone doing exactly the same as the straight person next to them, hard to follow a rule that's not clear. The married analogy doesn't work because there is a very clear statement on married conduct but no such statement that I've found has as clearly stated that gays can't date or live the law of chastity exactly as other couples do out side of marriage. There is lots of supposition and suggestion but nothing clear and current has been presented. This gentleman might very well be pushing for a very clear statement either way to finally get an answer on the issue.

No they haven't. They have recognized that a "gay" man struggles with an unholy desire and as long as he resists that desire he is not sinning. "Total and complete abandonment of the sin in thought and act" (Spencer Kimball) Two men or women holding hands and smooching (just an example) is not exactly resisting or trying to overcome the desire. If you want clear and current go see your Bishop and tell him that you struggle with same sex attraction and have been dating your own gender and see what happens......

Note: Understanding LDS beliefs by reading threads or excerpts from the Handbook without the aid of the Holy Spirit leads to meaningless quibbling. The Atonement and repentance process is better understood by the Spirit and in an appropriate setting.

President Hinkley summed it up well:

Question 2: What is your Church’s attitude toward homosexuality?

In the first place, we believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. We believe that marriage may be eternal through exercise of the power of the everlasting priesthood in the house of the Lord.

People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are.

We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families.

Edited by bytor2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No they haven't. They have recognized that a "gay" man struggles with an unholy desire and as long as he resists that desire he is not sinning. "Total and complete abandonment of the sin in thought and act" (Spencer Kimball) Two men or women holding hands and smooching (just an example) is not exactly trying to overcome the desire. If you want clear and current go see your Bishop and tell him that you struggle with same sex attraction and have been dating and your own gender and see what happens......

If we stick with Spencer Kimball's teachings then we have to toss out most of what The last two prophets have said on same sex attractions. A lot of what Kimball said has been revamped over time.

Letter To A Friend © 1971 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Author: President Spencer W. Kimbal, past President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. First printing 1971, revised 1978; latest printing post-1996.

Currently distributed to Stake and Ward leadership for counseling parents and their children.

"The death penalty was exacted in the days of Israel for such wrongdoing."

"Perversion is forgivable."

". . .the sin is curable, and you may totally recover from its tentacles."

"Satan tells his victims that it is a natural way of life; that it is normal; that perverts are a different kind of people born 'that way' and that they cannot change. This is a base lie."

"Homosexuality . . . means waste of power, an end to the family and to civilization. One generation of it would depopulate the world . . ."

". . . you are one who has yielded to the enticings of evil people and Lucifer, the 'father of lies'. . ."

". . . you can recover, and you can become the man your Heavenly Father created you to be."

". . . know that your sin is vicious and base."

". . . you should now make the super-human effort to rid yourself of your master, the devil, Satan . . ."

"You do the bidding of your master."

"You are in abject bondage, a servant compelled to do the will of your master, the devil, Lucifer, Satan . . . Is your father the Devil?"

"These unnatural practices are . . . of the Devil, the master liar and deceiver who laughs as he rattles his chains . . ."

"God made no man a pervert"

"So long as you tolerate this 'gay world' and its degenerate people, you are in a very desperate situation . . ."

"Men who die may live again, but when the spiritual death is total, it were better that such a man were never born."

"REMEMBER: Homosexuality CAN be cured."

Now from my reading on current teachings from leaders higher up for the last 5-10 years the tone has changed quite a bit. In fact I'm not sure you can even get this pamphlet any longer due to the fact it's no longer current teachings.( though i could be wrong, i only have the word of other members telling me what can and can't be ordered) So while it seems clear here, the current words cloud the issue. So can one bishop follow Kimballs words and another follow closer to what currently seems to be the position and both be right and fair, and if so how is one to know for sure. The obvious answer is to just avoid it all together, but the same answer could be given to dating couples who might transgress, just avoid dating and all situations that might cross a line and you'll be safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, would a married man be sinning if he only dated another woman, kissed her, held her hand, etc.? How would it be a sin for him and not for two gay men? Neither situation can lead to a situation approved by the Lord. Two single heterosexual people dating leads to marriage, which is the Lord's will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we stick with Spencer Kimball's teachings then we have to toss out most of what The last two prophets have said on same sex attractions. A lot of what Kimball said has been revamped over time.

Now from my reading on current teachings from leaders higher up for the last 5-10 years the tone has changed quite a bit. In fact I'm not sure you can even get this pamphlet any longer due to the fact it's no longer current teachings.( though i could be wrong, i only have the word of other members telling me what can and can't be ordered) So while it seems clear here, the current words cloud the issue. So can one bishop follow Kimballs words and another follow closer to what currently seems to be the position and both be right and fair, and if so how is one to know for sure. The obvious answer is to just avoid it all together, but the same answer could be given to dating couples who might transgress, just avoid dating and all situations that might cross a line and you'll be safe.

Two guys kissing intimately is a sin.....it is homosexual behavior. It is not sex, but a sin to be sure. Will they get disciplined for it....maybe. If they are witnessed by others in this act it could be considered as bringing shame on the Church and in opposition to the churches teachings.

Dating couples date to find a mate and marry and hopefully be blessed with children. Two men dating are not trying to overcome SSA and a Bishop will consult the Handbook and the Lord and seek to help the transgressor repent. Elder Kimball was very direct and other Prophets not quite as direct, but the message is still clear. See the President Hinkley comment in previous comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, would a married man be sinning if he only dated another woman, kissed her, held her hand, etc.? How would it be a sin for him and not for two gay men? Neither situation can lead to a situation approved by the Lord. Two single heterosexual people dating leads to marriage, which is the Lord's will.

They would be acting on the inclinations rather than "turning away" from them. We are admonished to flee temptation, not dance with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, would a married man be sinning if he only dated another woman, kissed her, held her hand, etc.? How would it be a sin for him and not for two gay men? Neither situation can lead to a situation approved by the Lord. Two single heterosexual people dating leads to marriage, which is the Lord's will.

And again I've seen some pretty clear black and white statements made by prophets, and at any number of conferences that clearly state what is acceptable conduct for married people and what crosses a line. Also the non married have made no other vows that unmarried people haven't. So again the analogy doesn't work, there is a very very clear cut expectation and guideline for what is acceptable and what isn't. This guy has possibly raised a question to be clarified in a final way, is the church really standing by what it says about the sin being the actual sexual act like they have stated or is it everything associated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two guys kissing intimately is a sin.....it is homosexual behavior. It is not sex, but a sin to be sure. Will they get disciplined for it....maybe. If they are witnessed by others in this act it could be considered as bringing shame on the Church and in opposition to the churches teachings.

Dating couples date to find a mate and marry and hopefully be blessed with children. Two men dating are not trying to overcome SSA and a Bishop will consult the Handbook and the Lord and seek to help the transgressor repent. Elder Kimball was very direct and other Prophets not quite as direct, but the message is still clear. See the President Hinkley comment in previous comment.

And yet even in the Quote it doesn't expand.

If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are

if they don't violate the law of chastity, and yet is there a clear statement what limits are in place or is it assumed? What inclinations are not to be acted on? If the church really has this stance then why have they not said "no dating period, no nothing" They've been very clear on many other things. they aren't shy about commenting on intimate subjects or haven't been in the past. So why when they can clearly say " there can be nothing" do they leave it vague. It might sound like nit picking and i can see why, but there are serious questions. Members swear that gay members are not asked to do anything different, but then say they expect them to not ever date. They say a gay member can live a life like any member but then point out different rules. Believe it or not there are a lot of mixed messages to the gay members that seem very clear to those on the out side. The last 2 prophets have seen some of the issues from the past and started working to clear up some of it, but pushing like this guy might be trying to do could get clear answers even if we don't like them. His methods of doing this if this is what he's doing might not be the best or most enlightened but it could get a clear answer positive or negative. A lot of people seem to be asking " why don't you just get it, it's so simple?" and yet we see more than a few areas of doctrine where many can't quite agree on and people end up scratching their heads going "are you blind"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh come on! It should be perfectly obvious that the church frowns on gay people dating each other. Are people really going to use the argument, "Well the church didn't say for gay men NOT to hold hands, kiss, and cuddle." I beg to differ.

I'm sure a lot of people think there are things that should be perfectly obvious and yet look at the questions we've seen on this forum from members both new and long term, both faltering and strong of faith on such a wide ranger of church doctrines and issues. To you it's clear, can you say you've always seen a clear view of all doctrine, nothing that's confused you or not quite made sense that you sought clarification on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if they don't violate the law of chastity, and yet is there a clear statement what limits are in place or is it assumed? What inclinations are not to be acted on? If the church really has this stance then why have they not said "no dating period, no nothing" They've been very clear on many other things. they aren't shy about commenting on intimate subjects or haven't been in the past. So why when they can clearly say " there can be nothing" do they leave it vague. It might sound like nit picking and i can see why, but there are serious questions. Members swear that gay members are not asked to do anything different, but then say they expect them to not ever date. They say a gay member can live a life like any member but then point out different rules. Believe it or not there are a lot of mixed messages to the gay members that seem very clear to those on the out side. The last 2 prophets have seen some of the issues from the past and started working to clear up some of it, but pushing like this guy might be trying to do could get clear answers even if we don't like them. His methods of doing this if this is what he's doing might not be the best or most enlightened but it could get a clear answer positive or negative. A lot of people seem to be asking " why don't you just get it, it's so simple?" and yet we see more than a few areas of doctrine where many can't quite agree on and people end up scratching their heads going "are you blind"

I can see your confusion and why. I do not know much more about SSA than what I have read on this forum and obviously our church leaders don't really know much either other than that if someone has these type of desires and acts upon them they are involved in very serious sin. So, in the church we are taught to flee temptation, run away from it so we don't end up giving in and acting on our desires whatever they maybe. Logic dictates that dating one's own gender could lead to sexual sin and it is also in opposition to the church's teachings. My guess is that anyone doing this keeps it private and will answer to the Lord for it if they were wrong.

Thankfully, we will be judged by the Lord and HE is perfect in his love and his personal knowledge and understanding of each of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest fadedleaf

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.

I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but I whole heartily believe openly gay / actively gay people should not hold any bishopric callings. I think the issue with me is the usage of the word "gay" or "openly gay." Cast in point on Mich's web page he makes the flippant claim,

I am Mitch Mayne, and I am an openly gay Latter-Day Saint...I was sustained as a member of the Bishopric...

I would not cease to complain at every opportunity to have him removed form the bishopric, because he asserts he is indeed openly gay. From my understanding having same sex attraction is much different from being gay. In fact, the church goes to great lengths to help those suffering from SSA. But is would appear to me (IMOP) that those boasting they are gay, and crating a webpage to advertise it, are not repentant and therefor should be removed.

If I were a philanderer of women, and I am unrepentant (I made a webpage to advertise), than the church leaders would probably take my calling away. Or if I drink alcohol the church would likewise review my status and have me removed. The person in the OP (not the OP) then later claims that he,

[is] committing to adhere to the same standard of behavior that we require of any heterosexual member in a Priesthood leadership position...

would seem to me this person jumps to the other side of the fence whenever it suits him. I'm sorry, there really is no gray area in this matter; The Old Testament is very clear on these situations and we should not deviate from them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see your confusion and why. I do not know much more about SSA than what I have read on this forum and obviously our church leaders don't really know much either other than that if someone has these type of desires and acts upon them they are involved in very serious sin. So, in the church we are taught to flee temptation, run away from it so we don't end up giving in and acting on our desires whatever they maybe. Logic dictates that dating one's own gender could lead to sexual sin and it is also in opposition to the church's teachings. My guess is that anyone doing this keeps it private and will answer to the Lord for it if they were wrong.

Thankfully, we judged by the Lord and HE is perfect in his love and his personal knowledge and understanding of each of us.

And you've summed up the confusion quite well. Reading through the gospel doctrine and principal manuals the closest thing to come up on the subject is your quote from the prophet. Yet even his quote seems to say that acting on inclinations is only applied to breaking the law of chastity which both manuals very clearly describe. Dating as other couples do doesn't fall into that, however then there is the "moral standards of the church" which is a lil wide open. The argument of fleeing temptation is wise, but in reality every dating couple faces temptation and we have to admit that while yes there is the possibility of straight couples getting married they still face the exact same choices before marriage. Your closing sentence in the first paragraph actually says a lot. It's easier to stay silent and just not be honest than it is to be honest and risk punishment on the subject of a question that's never been clearly answered. I'm not sure which is better, though i agree at the end we'll be answerable to a higher power and all of us might find a few surprises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but I whole heartily believe openly gay / actively gay people should not hold any bishopric callings. I think the issue with me is the usage of the word "gay" or "openly gay." Cast in point on Mich's web page he makes the flippant claim,

I would not cease to complain at every opportunity to have him removed form the bishopric, because he asserts he is indeed openly gay. From my understanding having same sex attraction is much different from being gay. In fact, the church goes to great lengths to help those suffering from SSA. But is would appear to me (IMOP) that those boasting they are gay, and crating a webpage to advertise it, are not repentant and therefor should be removed.

If I were a philanderer of women, and I am unrepentant (I made a webpage to advertise), than the church leaders would probably take my calling away. Or if I drink alcohol the church would likewise review my status and have me removed. The person in the OP (not the OP) then later claims that he,

would seem to me this person jumps to the other side of the fence whenever it suits him. I'm sorry, there really is no gray area in this matter; The Old Testament is very clear on these situations and we should not deviate from them.

Really very little difference between gay and SSA except in the case of bisexuals. it's like calling LDS mormons instead. Being there is no sin in having SSA(being gay) there is nothing to be repentant of unless you've broken the law of chastity. Your stance is like telling an alcoholic who's been sober for for 10 years and repented that he can't serve in this calling because he's admitting he's still an alcoholic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest fadedleaf

Really very little difference between gay and SSA except in the case of bisexuals. it's like calling LDS mormons instead. Being there is no sin in having SSA(being gay) there is nothing to be repentant of unless you've broken the law of chastity. Your stance is like telling an alcoholic who's been sober for for 10 years and repented that he can't serve in this calling because he's admitting he's still an alcoholic.

Good point, and I completely understand your argument. However, I have drank before, and I have also repented, thus I do not go around telling impressionable youth what it's like to be drunk. The person in question says he is openly gay, which is a serious offense.

I do think SSA and gay are two completely different lines of thought. For instance, I was watching Captain America with my wife and saw Chris Evans step form the chamber as our buff hero. I though to my self that I need to work out more while Mr. Evans chest and abs flashed across the screen. Was that gay? - I don't think so. Did I experience having some attraction for the same sex? - probably. I envied what it would be like to have the image of another man, nonetheless. However, I do not chase romantic fantasies, or have the desire, of the same sex, hence I am not gay (I have been hitting the gym though). If I said I was gay that would be admitting my desire of those of the same sex, as if I were an alcoholic pining over the good'ol days before I stopped drinking. Both of which have no place in God's house.

Edited by fadedleaf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point, and I completely understand your argument. However, I have drank before, and I have also repented, thus I do not go around telling impressionable youth what it's like to be drunk. The person in question says he is openly gay, which is a serious offense... Period.

I do think SSA and gay are two completely different lines of thought. For instance, I was watching Captain America with my wife and saw Chris Evans step form the chamber as our buff hero. I though to my self that I need to work out more while Mr. Evans chest and abs flashed across the screen. What that gay? - I don't think so. Was that SSA? - probably. I envied what it would be like to be in the image of another man nonetheless. However, I do not chase romantic fantasies of the same sex, hence I am not gay (I have been hitting the gym though). If I said I was gay that would be admitting my desire of those of the same sex, as if I were an alcoholic pining over the good'ol days before I stopped drinking. Both of which have no place in God's house.

K a few minor points of clarification

You might not go around telling kids what it's like to be drunk. If you were an alcoholic you'd identify as one for life, nothing you could do would change it, once an addict always an addict. I guess I'll have to read his blog as see how he explains his sexual exploits being that's the only really sinful part of being gay.

lol your reaction to Cap wasn't SSA it was just envy and self awareness unless the sight of him also arroused you as you thought about going to the gym lol.SSA= Gay. same sex attraction is a sexual response to the same sex. it's not envy, it's not noticing a guy/girl looks good, it's a sexual attraction. It's the politically correct term to avoid using the "g" word and shock peoples sensibilities. Again the desires them self are not sinful as long as they aren't acted on so again saying you are gay isn't a sin nor should it be seen as such.

As a side note the guy i saw Captain America with looks better than Cap in my opinion :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest fadedleaf

As a side note the guy i saw Captain America with looks better than Cap in my opinion :P

My wife was drooling in her lap; how do you think I felt? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to Mich Mayne's website.... I was shocked. It sounds like he is definitely defining himself as "openly gay" and is open to another such relationship in his life. He admits to being "married" (he states he wore a wedding ring in his last relationship) and still holding callings in his ward....

I read his blog, which counsels parents on how to support their teens in their SSA~

Huhh?!?! I"m not even allowed to take the sacrament in my ward simply because I smoke! I know I will not be called to serve in a calling anytime soon because of this. What is going on here? There are a lot of General Authorities who are members of my ward, and my bishop is, or has been (might be emeritus now) a general authority. All the rules are strictly adhered to.

This seems like a double standard to me. I don't know fully what's going on. But, as has been said, I feel strongly that something needs to be said...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS. I called the church office building in Salt Lake City late tonight and spoke to a receptionist there. She told me to call tomorrow during business hours to let the public affairs dept. know of this site/blog, which is what I'm going to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share