- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I agree Brian Worthiness for callings should be based on what the person has done, not ideas, beliefs, or feelings. I like to think the Church can hold itself to that, and the Stake President interviewing for worthiness sticks to the handbook on it.
We can’t restrict callings based on a fear the individuals might be prone to a sinful life…that would disqualify all of us.
Quote:We can’t restrict callings based on a fear the individuals might be prone to a sinful life…that would disqualify all of us.
Perfectly said.
Well, I have made a personal connection with Mitch now and we have had some good discussions. He is a very caring individual who has not had it easy in life. Here is a bit about his life: http://mormonsformarriage.com/?p=228 He does love his Savior and was very interested in my spiritual experience over my son where the Lord told me to see my son as in the story of the blind man in the Bible. He wants to give a face and a voice to gay people so members can understand them better. He seems like a very compassionate humble man. He knows the pain and persecution gays have suffered and he admitted to me that his own life is more in danger now for being so public so please pray for his protection.
I am very impressed with him. Here is another recent article on him and his goals:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/52486958-78/mayne-gay-lds-ward.html.csp He said today: “Here is a quote from my Bishop Don Fletcher: “I want to reach out to gays and let them know that they are welcome in the ward, wherever they’re at!” Them’s my marching orders, folks! And I shall follow!”
So, me and another guy asked him a question on his facebook wall after that. I asked:
“Would a gay couple who held hands or put an arm around each other as straights do in Sacrament meeting be made to feel uncomfortable by the members in your ward?”
The other guy asked: “Will you be allowed to be active in the ward if you had a monogmous relationship? If you got legally married in one of the states that allow for that?
Here is how he answered:
Mitch Mayne: ” So many great questions! Bring your partner. I don’t see why affection would be frowned on in any regard (just like it is for straight people). And I would feel at home here VERY MUCH with a partner or husband by my side. What would it mean for my calling? Not sure, but I know I’d be welcome. Given the opportunity I have to work to bring deeper unity, I’m focusing on that right now.”
I think because this is San Francisco there is more willingness for tolerance and love. Who knows how it will play out. He and I talked about the incident of the 20 year old gay man just attacked in Salt Lake city over last weekend:
http://qsaltlake.com/2011/08/31/man-attacked-outside-of-salt-lake-city-gay-club/ Bridget
Mitch just posted this latest interview: http://prideinutah.com/?p=11032 Quote:I know that’s being as charitable in the reading as is possible, but it’s a reasonable reading, nonetheless.
I think that ‘charitable’ implies something that is unwarranted. Your reading may be ‘extreme’, ‘unusual’, or maybe ‘extraordinary’. I don’t have any gay family members, but one of my best friends (through whom I was introduced to the church as a teenager, BTW) is gay. Ought my view of his lifestyle, which apparently brings a lot of happiness and fulfillment to him, his partner, and his children, be less ‘charitable’ because he refuses to adopt an extreme and, in my view, unsustainable position?
Maybe I’m the only one here with this problem, but I am having a hard time grasping what’s going on here.
bridget_night wrote:Mitch just posted this latest interview:
http://prideinutah.com/?p=11032 Thanks for the link, Bridget. I read it with great interest. Mitch seems like an amazing person, but I have to wonder what his motivation is. There are many churches out there with a long history of accepting gays with open arms. What is it that draws him to a church whose doctrine is
fundamentallyat odds with what he believes to be a core and essential part of who he is? doug, if the word “charitable” makes you cringe, feel free to change it to anything that means I tried to read it in as non-judgmental a way as possible – that means I tried to parse the wording to reflect the best possible light on his words. I have said multiple times in multiple threads in multiple discussion groups that I can’t encourage gay members to remain celibate and active LDS members if that is making them miserable, so I certainly didn’t mean to imply otherwise with that particular word choice. I apologize if that was confusing to you and others. It has NOTHING to do with how I view being gay in the LDS Church and NOTHING to do with what I think it warranted or unwarranted, but rather what I think he meant by the statement, given what I’ve read of him.
I found this passsage enlightening from the interview Bridget posted — it hearkens to other comments we’ve made here that apply to ANYONE who has problems with the Church leadership’s handling of certain situations: Quote:
Eric: [regarding a Church leader who has indicated anyone can change their gay orientation] But is it hard to believe in anyone who makes statements like his? Not just from last October, but his earlier writings advocating violence against LGBT people? Mitch: I think that’s a very fair question. I look at it this way: I can’t very well go around and ask the Mormon community to lend compassion and kindness to the LGBTQ community without granting others that same degree of compassion. We’re all three dimensional mortals, every single one of us. And as such, we each have strengths–and flaws. There is not a human on this Earth that is exempt from that, it’s simply our human state.
Gotta remember that as I suffer with my own angst about the sometimes overzealous, sometimes faithless and often uncaring leadership I’ve interfaced with. They deserve the same charity that I would have liked to have received from them at key points in my Church experience.
The caveat, for me, however, is that this DOESN’T mean that I release all the boundaries I have established either, simply because I’ve made a commitment to be charitable. Doing so may well plunge me into another trial of commitment or even faith. One needs to protect one’s testimony and progress in living the paradoxes of our religion, at least, I do, and having such boundaries is one method.
Interesting, I don’t hear much boundary setting on the part of Mitch however, such a coping mechanism doesn’t appear necessary for him based on his interview comments.
Mitch just wrote on his blog: This talk was delivered on Saturday, September 10th here in the Bay Area. The speaker—and the author—were Matt Mosman of the San Francisco Stake Presidency (shared with his permission, of course). I am pleased to call him a member of my leadership team, but, I think, more pleased to call him a friend. And while I could *tell* you how amazing and inspiring I find him, I think it would be more effective to *show* you. His words do his spirit and testimony a justice mine never could. Enjoy http://mitchmayne.blogspot.com/2011/09/on-change.html I am cutting and pasting just a part of it that tells about my new friend Mitch Mayne, a gay Mormon.
Bridget
Quote:“I want to take just a minute and talk for a second about a recent event here in the San Francisco stake, and how it presents us with an opportunity to adjust.
A few Sundays ago Bishop Fletcher (formerly President Fletcher) called a gay man, Mitch Mayne, to be his executive secretary in the Bay Ward. This decision has gotten news coverage nationwide.
I want to first talk about what this calling is not: this is not a change of any kind in church policy. At least as early as 2007, Elder Holland explicitly stated that a person who is attracted to members of the same sex, but who is not acting on that attraction, should enjoy every benefit of church membership, including temple activity. It would be easy to argue, in fact, that this is a policy that has been in place since the church’s inception: any person, no matter what their tendencies, who is living a life in accordance with the gospel’s teachings has always been considered worthy.
It is also not new: gay men are serving elsewhere in positions of more responsibility than Mitch is, and there is at least one gay man serving as a worker in the Oakland temple.
What may be new, in fact, is only this: Mitch is pretty open about it. He has written a blog for years about what it is like to be Mormon and gay, and he is about as direct and plain-spoken about his life as anyone you’re likely to meet. It’s worth noting here, by the way: he is also a wonderful, highly spiritual guy, and I’m almost certain that you’d like him very much.
So it’s not a change. But while it’s not a change, it may in fact be an adjustment.
The fight over Proposition 8 definitely hurt our standing with the gay community, but what is more sad (and unthinkable) is that I think it very quietly might also have hurt their standing with us. For a while there, they were on the opposite side. They were the enemy.
And I’ve listened over the years to folks in our wards who seem to have forgotten, first, that if Prop 8 was a war, it was a Civil War, pitting brother against brother; and second, that it was a debate over public policy, not over how we treat our gay brothers and sisters.
So how should you adjust? By opening your arms just a little bit wider, to encircle these brothers and sisters. They are that, you know. They are the son or daughter of some Relief Society President in Tempe, AZ who worries about them and wants very much for you to watch over and care for them. They’ve spent their whole young lives in church; they might have served a mission somewhere, probably honorably. And life’s been no picnic for them, either.
Seek them out. Encourage them to re-join us. Welcome them with open arms. And remember that no matter what their current situation, in any case they’ll join a congregation that consists, the last time I checked, of people just like them, all struggling to figure out God’s plan for them and trying their best to follow it..
For some, that will be an adjustment. But it will be a loving, big-hearted, Christlike adjustment, and those are the best kind.”
Interesting stuff. Here’s a quote from Donny Osmond –
Quote:We all determine for ourselves what is right and what is not right for our own lives and how we live God’s commandments. I am not a judge and I will never judge anyone for the decisions they make unless they are causing harm to another individual. I love my friends, including my homosexual friends. We are all God’s children. It is their choice, not mine on how they conduct their lives and choose to live the commandments according to the dictates of their own conscience.
I don’t share his taste in music, but I think he is not a homophobe, and is a decent person. He had to take some flak from the Prop 8 crowd. He’s in show business (enough said) and has a big gay following. I don’t think we should all be seen as homophobes because of our curch affiliation. The same could be said about RCs, but I know this not to be true.
http://www.wilshireandwashington.com/2008/12/donny-osmond-wa.html
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.