- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I thought this was quite interesting about Mitch Mayne: go to the blog and see this too:
http://familyproject.sfsu.edu/publications and thishttp://www.mitchmayne.blogspot.com/ Progress is being made in some churches and areas.
Bridget
It is surprising but not just for the fact that he is gay but that he is single. I always thought it was a no go for single men to be in bishoprics. I think it is supposed to be a no go for single members of the bishopric. Especially if we are going to use the scriptures as a guide for qualifications. But my personal feelings on this: I think this is a great thing. It could definitely be a step in the right direction concerning tolerance and acceptance of those who are not necessarily correlated.
observant wrote:It is surprising but not just for the fact that he is gay but that he is single. I always thought it was a no go for single men to be in bishoprics.
In his case, he doesn’t have a choice really — if he’s gay, he can’t marry and maintain his membership status, so I guess if we are going to really accept the gay person into our religion, there will have to be an exception to the “no go if single” rule.
1) Based on what I’ve read elsewhere, I’m not sure if this is legit or not, so I’m not going to comment on that. I also don’t want this to turn into a discussion like happened over on Times & Seasons. Just saying. (I’m sure it won’t, since this is a much different site than that.) 2) There is NO prohibition on single members being in the Bishopric – but a single member can’t be the Bishop.
3) There is NO official prohibition on a celibate gay member holding any calling that a celibate, single, straight member can hold.
4) Living with someone is not a sin of any kind. It’s the possible activities involved that are considered sin.
5) “Appearance of evil” is BADLY misunderstood in the Church (and pretty much everywhere else) and doesn’t apply to living together in celibacy.
If this is legit, I am glad to hear about it – since it would prove all of the above in real life. If so, my prayers are with him.
:wtf: If itisfor real, I don’t get it. At least from his standpoint. The church, I suppose, would score some serious brownie points, but it could so easily backfire that I’d be surprised they’d take that gamble. Old-Timer wrote:1)If this is legit, I am glad to hear about it – since it would prove all of the above in real life. If so, my prayers are with him.
The thing that made me question if it’s legit is he said in one place he said he didn’t expect to be celibate all his life — on his personal site. If I read it right. I’m not sure what he’s implying — that he may embrace a homosexual relationship at some time? That he may get remarried to a heterosexual at some point? I found myself wondering about this.
The old CHI said that if you are having same sex feelings that there were limits on service — if I remember correctly. I think the new one said there are no such limits. Someone with the book might be able to clarify…
I think the single thing varies on locality and probably there is no official policy on that. Currently the Church Directory of Leaders does not show Mayes as a counselor but the current bishop listed was from June 2006. Of course, this directory can take a couple of weeks to be updated. I can watch it if you’d like. If this is legit it will show up there. But if it is isn’t it’ll be outed quicker than that on the internets! LOL
I don’t see how this can be a bad thing?
This is the quote from the man’s blog that has me confused: Quote: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.
Perhaps he’s talking about a heterosexual relationship? That is the only one required of a Priesthood holder.
SilentDawning wrote:This is the quote from the man’s blog that has me confused:
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.
Perhaps he’s talking about a heterosexual relationship? That is the only one required of a Priesthood holder.
I interpret this as Bro. Mayne saying that he may at some time enter into a committed homosexual relationship, but while he is yet single he will practice abstinence. I believe his reference to the “same standard” is talking about abstinence prior to marriage or in his case abstinence prior to a committed homosexual relationship at whatever legal level is permissible.
I read this as Bro. Mayne being fully homosexual in his orientation and not really open to the possibility of a heterosexual relationship.
Roy wrote:SilentDawning wrote:This is the quote from the man’s blog that has me confused:
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.
Perhaps he’s talking about a heterosexual relationship? That is the only one required of a Priesthood holder.
I interpret this as Bro. Mayne saying that he may at some time enter into a committed homosexual relationship, but while he is yet single he will practice abstinence. I believe his reference to the “same standard” is talking about abstinence prior to marriage or in his case abstinence prior to a committed homosexual relationship at whatever legal level is permissible.
I read this as Bro. Mayne being fully homosexual in his orientation and not really open to the possibility of a heterosexual relationship.
Hmmm….I question whether this washes with the whole Mormon philosophy. Can someone say “I may someday [insert act considered a major transgression], but for now, I’m going to obey the commandments and be a high profile priesthood leader”? This doesn’t sit right with me, and if I was calling the person to a position, I would be nervous this might happen while he’s “in office”. Not that I’m against the guy, I’m trying to look at his comments through the lens of a tradtional believing Stake President.
This still doesn’t make sense to me — it only washes if he means he may try another heterosexual relationship within the bonds of matrimony.
According to the sleuths at BCC, it has been verified that he was called as the Executive Secretary. Officially, according to the CHI, that isn’t part of the actual bishopric – but most people see it and the Ward Clerk as Bishopric members, so the distinction isn’t a big deal, imo. I read that statement as saying he is committed to living as a celibate gay man – unless there comes a time when the Church allows homosexual members to marry where it is legal and still retain their membership and serve in callings. I know that’s being as charitable in the reading as is possible, but it’s a reasonable reading, nonetheless.
Weird. Earlier today there was a 2nd Counselor listed in that bishopric. I noticed that because his date was a different date than bishop or 1st counselor. Now that name is gone. Obviously the ward is going through the some changes. It lists the ward clerk but not the Exec. Sec. I think I should just PM someone the bishop’s phone number and they can call him and ask him what’s up. Or maybe an email address? 
If I go to my ward’s information it lists the ward clerk and the exec. sec. I’m thinking since it lists all of them they could be considered the “bishopric” it certainly is semantics.
Doesn’t it depend how much choice they have in an area? Still good news and encouraging either way (re: exec secretary).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.