This post comes to Doves & Serpents from Atticus F. McConkie.
Joanna Brooks, a respected author and scholar, and faithful member of the Church, in an August 24 article in Religion Dispatches, covered the significant news that Mitch Mayne, a Mormon who happens to be gay, has been called to a leadership position in his San Francisco congregation.
Unfortunately, denial of this historic moment has come from some unlikely places. This denial is the product of the failure of bloggers to follow simple fact-checking processes. A blog post by Lyman Kirkland in a publication called LDS Newsroom Blog, “demonstrates what happens when [the fact checking] process breaks down or, worse, is ignored.”
Brother Kirkland asserts:
Religion Dispatches, in writing about a man in California who received a Church calling (lay assignment) and who states he is “openly gay,” implies that the Church’s position on sexuality and morality is somehow evolving and changing. GetReligion’s Mattingly correctly challenges that claim in asking Religion Dispatches to “back that statement up with some on-the-record quotations from people in positions of LDS authority. . . .Where are the crucial names and titles that make these claims matter? In other words, where is the journalistic infrastructure? Is this article news or opinion?
Not only did Sister Brooks not imply that there was a change in policy, she explicitly stated that Brother Mayne’s call “does not represent an innovation but simply an implementation of policies permitting any member who is found worthy by their local priesthood leaders to serve.” Did Brother Kirkland even bother to read Sister Brooks’ full article?
As a liberal Mormon, I have enjoyed Sister Brooks’ articles. They are faith affirming and loyal to the Church. They have strengthened my testimony. Sister Brooks is a great ambassador of our faith. As such, Brother Kirkland’s thinly veiled attack on her integrity as a means to deny history and progress is deeply disturbing and embarrassing.
Regardless of the position taken by Sister Brooks and Brother Kirkland, the Church’s positions on matters of sexuality generally, and homosexuality specifically, have undergone dramatic changes over the years.
Even so, change in policy and doctrine is completely consistent with the Restoration and the Gospel. “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God (Articles of Faith 1:9). We believe that as individuals and as a people we learn “line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little” (2 Nephi 28:30).
Is it not wonderful to wake up today knowing more than we did yesterday? Is it not a celebration of our divine potential as children of our Heavenly Parents to recognize when we have made improvement and progress?
Brother Kirkland’s untenable position is not only denied by history, but itself denies one of the most sacred and distinctive doctrines of the Restoration: continuing revelation. Brother Kirkland has taken the arrogant and heretical position that we know all there is to know about homosexuality, and thus change in policy and doctrine simply isn’t possible. There hasn’t been change, there can’t be change and there won’t be change. In short, Brother Kirkland has closed the door on continuing revelation so far as homosexuality is concerned.
At the end of Kirkland’s blog post in a publication called LDS Newsroom Blog, he issues the following challenge:
Mattingly correctly asserts, ‘If people make claims about evolving Mormon doctrines, look for names, titles and clear statements of attribution.
Need quotes, titles and clear statements of attribution, Brother Kirkland?
Done.
Elder Boyd K. Packer [NAME] of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles [TITLE] gave an infamous talk entitled “To Young Men Only” in Priesthood Session on October 2, 1976 [CLEAR STATEMENT OF ATTRIBUTION].
There are some men who entice young men to join them in these immoral acts. If you are ever approached to participate in anything like that, it is time to vigorously resist.
While I was in a mission on one occasion, a missionary said he had something to confess. I was very worried because he just could not get himself to tell me what he had done.
After patient encouragement he finally blurted out, “I hit my companion.”
“Oh, is that all,” I said in great relief.
“But I floored him,” he said.
After learning a little more, my response was “Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and it wouldn’t be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way.”
I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself.
The message is clear. Gays are out to recruit others to join in their evil acts and lifestyle. If a gay tries to recruit you, it’s ok to use violence against them.
Now, if the Church’s position has not changed on this issue, then this policy still stands. It’s OK to hit a person if you perceive they are trying to recruit you into homosexuality. Curiously, this address appears nowhere on the Church’s official website. Perhaps Brother Kirkland, in a publication called LDS Newsroom Blog, could explain to us why that is.
“Brother Atticus, that was just President Packer’s personal opinion. You’ve proven nothing.”
All right. Let’s get more official. In our correlated Church, there’s nothing more official than the publication called the Church Handbook of Instructions (CHI). The Church Handbook of Instructions is the operating manual for local leaders. It contains definitive statements on Church policy. Fortunately for you, Atticus F. McConkie has served in a couple of bishoprics himself and has copies of the Handbook.
The Handbook was recently updated in 2010. The previous version from 2006, had this to say about homosexuality:
If members have homosexual thoughts or feelings or engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth. Leaders should also help them accept responsibility for their thoughts and actions and apply gospel principles in their lives.
Emphasis added, Church Handbook of Instructions, pg. 187 (2006). In 2006, the Church’s policy prohibited “homosexual thoughts or feelings.”
The 2010 Church Handbook of Instructions has this to say about homosexuality:
While opposing homosexual behavior, the Church reaches out with understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender.
If members feel same-gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive Church callings. If they are worthy and qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple blessings.
Church Handbook of Instructions §17.3.6 (2010). In 2006, the Church prohibited homosexual feelings. In 2010, homosexual feelings are innocuous so long as they are not acted upon.
No change in policy there, right?
Perhaps in an upcoming post in a publication called LDS Newsroom Blog, Brother Kirkland could reconcile the 2006 and 2010 Handbooks for us.
In the meantime, I join with others in celebrating Mitch Mayne’s recent calling to the bishopric. He is a pioneer. In 30 years, a successor to Brother Kirkland will herald him as much in a publication called LDS Newsroom Blog.
What many people call sin is not sin; I do many things to break down superstition, and I will break it down.
-The Prophet Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 4:445-446
As has already been stated and noted repeatedly elsewhere in the blogosphere:
1. An openly gay man serving as executive secretary is nothing new. An open gay friend of mine held this calling last year in his ward and nobody thought anything of it. Nobody thought it was newsworthy. Friends of mine know of other gay people who’ve served in that and other callings. By itself this calling is utterly routine and certainly no new development in doctrine, policy or practice.
2. The LDS Newsroom’s statements accurately reflect current LDS teachings. An openly gay person can serve in virtually any calling in the church as long as he or she lives according to church behavioral standards. The historical evolution of those teachings is a separate matter. Fact remains that this calling is completely in line with current LDS policy.
3. The reason this story has gotten the attention it did? Before the change was even announced in his ward and he was sustained to the position Mitch Mayne announced it on his Facebook page as a “call to the Bishopric.” He announced it on his personal blog which included a link for press inquiries. He did his best to push the story for as much publicity as possible, and even posted on line the text of his “farewell address” to his prior ward. However, he didn’t say what his new calling was, and for days afterward evaded questions about it. Eventually it was confirmed that his calling was executive secretary, which according to the Church Handbook of Instructions, is _not_ part of the bishopric as he originally stated. By then it’d gotten enough attention on FB and elsewhere that news organizations, not knowing the uniquely Mormon definition of “bishopric,” started to notice and think this was something new, which it wasn’t. Interviews were given, articles were written, media attention was focused, all on the assumption that a gay Mormon being “called to the bishopric” was some new development. It wasn’t. In my opinion, LDS church media monitors got wind of all this and decided they needed to step in to correct misperceptions about the calling and its “place in history” which arguably trace back to Mr. Mayne’s own original inaccurate description of his new job.
4. All of this spin has created quite a stir within the gay Mormon community, many of whom have themselves served in callings like this with their sexual orientation well-known. Some support Mayne’s efforts to promote understanding and tolerance of gay people within the LDS church. Many others see the story as a publicity stunt disproportionate to its true importance in the larger picture. However, even vigorous opponents of LDS policy within that community have expressed agreement with the LDS Newsroom’s statement.
Hm. It’s seems hypocritical to me. Lyman Kirtland really went after Joanna Brooks’s journalistic integrity, and gave no examples to prove his point. He wrote: “GetReligion.com, a respected blog that critiques and discusses reporting on religion, today covered the importance of inquiry and attribution in religion journalism. Terry Mattingly points to a blog post in a publication called Religion Dispatches that “demonstrates what happens when this process breaks down or, worse, is ignored.”” He ends his piece with: “There is a lot of interest in the Church and a lot being written about it. It’s important for the public to distinguish between fact, opinion and personal advocacy.”
He insinuates that Brooks isn’t up to par, and that she is saying things that she never said. I think he should re-read her post!
Excellent post! I think the Church is trying to serve two masters with their handbook changes and their PR campaigns and it’s disheartening and disappointing. The newsroom piece was not only smug and incredibly nit picky, it was completely unnecessary. Joanna seems to have an incredible amount of integrity in her writing and in her interviews. I think the real problem here is that the church can’t control the voice of this particular messenger and that drives them bonkers. Again, great response to their article!
Jonathan – you’re the voice of reason and logic! well said. If the author of this article would bother to look in the same CH he keeps quoting from, he would also find out for himself that the Executive Secretary is NOT PART OF THE BISHOPRIC. in spite of that Mayne wants it to be! it’s good to hear that even the opponents of LDS gay policy have their heads on straight about this and can see it for what it really is – much ado about NOTHING! unfortunately.
and who in the church isn’t already well aware of the change the church made several years ago regarding accepting that it might not be a choice to be gay but nonetheless, you still have to be celibate – FOREVER! how is that really comforting progress anyway??
let’s hope this Mayne guy will show some integrity and correct the erroneous info he shouted out loud and clear from his FB page. i’m sure he’s well aware of the stir he’s caused and he’s seen it a thousand times by now that HE IS NOT PART OF THE BISHOPRIC. they give that same calling all day long to activate inactive men including CELIBATE GAY MEN just like Mayne.
i think this Mayne’s ego is going to end up being his undoing w/his church. i predict his newfound “active” status will be short-lived once his created hype dies down. i don’t know him but i’m curious as to what he’s really getting out of the stir he’s created.
When the Church accepts the plurality of its polyandric past, hopefully it will realize that inclusive of people of all political, sexual, and cultural backgrounds and persuasions is the only way to achieve the unity and peace that Christ taught. When we see all people welcome and included in our Church and when we see a variety of people from all backgrounds as GA’s, we will begin to see true gospel in action. Until that, we can fervently pray that the leaders of our Church will come to realize that God loves all of His children, not just a select few that meet their own perferences.
@Jonathan, you lay out all the right facts, but then you reach all the wrong conclusions. Yes, there have been other openly gay men serving in leadership positions. Yes, this calling is perfectly in line with current LDS policy.
Mitch’s ordination is not big news because it challenges the precepts of the LDS church. Mitch’s ordination is big news because it challenges millions of people’s preconceptions.
The greatest thing Mitch did is to stand up, hang a bulls-eye around his neck, and call attention to himself. That’s not because the world needs to hear about it or because this is some great victory for gay rights over the evil LDS church. We needed one of these men who are serving faithfully in their ward to stand up and call a whole bunch of attention to it because the rest of the church membership needs to hear about it.
The biggest change we need right now is in the hearts of the membership. The church policy change in the 2010 handbook seems like a small change based on a technicality, but it will require a sea change in the hearts and minds of millions of mormons. I have heard too many of my fellow mormons make horrible prejudicial comments in Sunday School and Elders Quorum.
The members of the church need to hear more about faithful, gay members like Mitch because there are too many members holding on to old prejudices and there are lots of members who only think of gay people as enemies of the church that want to vandalize our buildings and shout insults at us from the sidewalk in front of temple square.
Even more importantly, disaffected gay members need to hear about Mitch’s ordination. Every gay member has heard a pile of insults from their fellow mormons, as well as a mountain of anti-LDS pressure from their own gay community. Their wounds will not heal by having the church quietly change their policy, and wait decades for the membership to accept and embody the new standard. Their wounds will only heal when they realize there are people who love them in their home wards.
Lyman Kirkland/LDS Newroom ® and Terry Mattingly/GetReligionâ„¢ smugly lecture Joanna Brooks on the proper journalistic uses of “attribution” but somehow manage to never mention her name. Not even once between the two of them. Facepalm.
Chino, Perhaps Joanna is just like Heavenly MOther? Too sacred and in need of protection for them to use her name? :)
Good one, Paula!
My thoughts:
The Church is definitely trying to control the message. Ironic, since they have encouraged members to be vocal online, but I guess only to their neighbors. Should one of them like Joanna get too much publicity it’s a bad thing, I guess. She must not be Bushman-esque enough. Also, they like the back door approach of pointing to a news source they agree with, so they don’t seem to shrill by coming out on their own and criticizing Religion Dispatches and Joanna directly. Sly fellows.
Jonathon is right: Mitch Mayne is making too big a deal of this and of himself. Glamour shots of himself on his website with his shirt open into his bosom? Is he trying to mimmick Moroni? It was disingenuous of him to say he was being called to the bishopric, and I think he knows this. Humility is a better way. No wonder the Church is frustrated. They feel like they have to do something, and Joanna is an easier target than the new token homosexual in a local calling.
Atticus and Joanna are right: Church practice (if not doctrine as well) has changed, and is evolving, but the Church of course doesn’t want to acknowledge it. It’s part of its continuing effort of institutional forgetting (credit to Lavina Fielding Anderson for that term). Wouldn’t it be great if, rather than make a change and pretend it has always been this way, the Church, in its “publication called LDS Newsroom Blog,” elaborated on how continuing understanding of God’s methods and intentions has yielded new practices that are more in line with Christ’s teachings about how we include our SSA brothers and sisters.
Sigh. One can hope.
One more thing: I love the fact that the Church used the Salt Lake Tribune (Utah’s “gentile” news source) and Peggy Fletcher Stack as backup for its position. I think Peggy has been a thorn in their side for some time. Church PR was very critical of her and the Tribune not too long ago when it commented on her article on the departure of Peter Danzig (Care for the Flock, http://newsroom.lds.org/article/care-for-the-flock, 24 Feb 2008). The end of that PR statement reads: “However, the Church felt compelled to defend its position when Mr. Danzig made this information public and because of the blatant, inappropriate editorializing by the Salt Lake Tribune in what was purported to be a news story.”
Delicious irony.
This reportedly historic moment certainly needs some open windows. But I’d settle for having people open the blinds on those windows to let in some of the light of reality and sensible perspective. This seems to be more of a media moment than something genuinely momentous. Some thoughts in addition to those already left by others:
1. The GetReligion and LDS newsroom attacks on the articulate and learned scholar Joanna Brooks were not only mean-spirited, they sounded like something from the script of an episode of Mad Men. Joanna Brooks contributes much more to a thoughtful discussion of spirituality and Mormon life than the online Mormon community has seen from Mr. Mattingly and Mr. Kirkland. Ms. Brooks deserves much credit for creating a space for discussing topics than need to be discussed. She does so with great skill, compassion and wit. That said, I’m frustrated that Ms. Brooks used the phrase “Church Leadership Position” in her August 24, 2011 post at Religion Dispatches. It’s better than the use of the term “bishopric,” but it misconstrues what a leadership position is in the LDS church. But in a church composed almost exclusively staffed by lay people, maybe everyone is a leader.
2. Yes, the LDS church’s policy regarding homosexuality and the role of GLBTQ people in the church and society at large is evolving and change. Thing is, that change is taking place at such a glacial pace that only a team of seismologists stationed in Antarctica could be legitimately excited about this magic Mormon moment.
3. I think the excitement about this calling among some is due to over-exuberance. This is understandable at one level. But those swept up in all the excitement should consider chilling just a bit until this plays out for a few months.
4. Many openly gay Mormons have served in church callings of all sorts. Mr. Mayne may be considered by some to be a pioneer. But he is not in the lead wagon. This is not the first time an openly gay man has served as ward executive secretary. The difference here is that this is probably the first time that someone so called has published his own website with a “Press Info” button, professional headshots, and an introductory blurb which declares he was called to “the Bishopric” (and then changed to “executive secretary in the Bishopric”).
5. The use of the term “bishopric” is confusing. While many Mormons consider the clerical support position of ward executive secretary to be “in the bishopric,” it is not. Not according to the Church Handbook of Instructions (CHI) or the accepted practice of most church leaders. The LDS church prizes compliance with the policies and practices set forth by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who instituted the CHI, and who therefore do not consider ward executive secretary to be part of the bishopric. Complying with those policies and practices is usually what Mormons call sustaining their leaders. So, it’s very curious why so many are willing to completely ignore (and not sustain) the clear statements of the 15 apostles regarding who is and who isn’t in the bishopric.
6. Capitalizing the term “bishopric” is misleading. Mormons who understand the functions of local priesthood leadership would not capitalize the term. Has it been capitalized before? Of course. It seems that capitalizing “bishopric” can lead to at least two misconceptions.
One is among the Mormon faithful. They will be lead to believe, as noted in #4 above, that ward executive secretary involves some ecclesiastical authority that it does not.
Two, people unfamiliar with Mormonism can very easily be led to believe that Mr. Mayne was called to the office of bishop, which is clearly not the case. Most people outside the world of Mormonism understand the term “bishopric” to be used only in reference to the single individual ordained to that office. It does not include any other persons, counselors, secretaries, clerks or others in the bishop’s inner circle. Capitalizing the term to read “Bishopric” furthers that misconception because it brings to mind the office of bishop even more. Now, with the use of the phrase “executive secretary in the Bishopric” makes it even more confusing, because it conjures up images such as United Nations Secretary General.
In either case, the nature of the calling is inappropriately inflated. This inflation process ultimately de-values any subsequent callings of gay people to positions that do have ecclesiastical significance.
7. The use of the term “ordination” in Jim H.’s comment above is troubling. Mr. Mayne was not ordained ward executive secretary. He was set apart. Ordination is used, both in Mormonism and in the Christian community in general, to denote the conferral of ecclesiastical, pastoral and ministerial authority. It is not used in reference to appointing a person to a leadership support or clerical support position. In Mormonism, the term “set apart” is used. (No other religious community that I’m aware of uses that term.)
8. As for Mr. Mayne standing up and hanging a bulls-eye around his neck and calling attention to himself, that much is clear. I am astonished by the level of self-promotion related to this call to be ward executive secretary. Usually, people are called and serve in their calling without promoting their service on a website or launch a PR campaign.
9. It is very, very curious as to why a person from the Oakland First Ward would be called specifically to a position in a ward in an entirely different stake. Usually, callings are filled with local people, given the almost exclusively geographic boundaries of wards. The Bay Ward apparently covers the Castro District of San Francisco. This is part of the significance, I presume. The fact that this calling was done not in the normal course but involved numerous exceptions cuts against its reported historic significance. So far, it is an anomaly, not a move in a new direction.
And just for clarity’s sake… I am a gay man from a Mormon background. I served in church leadership callings as well as other callings not considered leadership in nature. I am no longer involved in the church, following a very long and traumatic process of moving beyond it to a path that works better for me. Developments in the church still interest me, of course. It will always be a part of my heritage, for both good and ill. I hope that those still affiliated with the LDS church can find meaning and spiritual fulfillment through their involvement. I just hope they do so with both eyes and both ears open.
I don’t know, Paula, apparently Lyman Kirkland is the fragile one. His twitter handle is @lkirk and he’s now blocked Main Street Plaza from following his tweets because we sent him this reminder yesterday:
Here’s the link you forgot to include in your “Informed Reading” post over at the #LDS Newsroom: http://bit.ly/ptLFwb @lkirk #Bloggernacleâ„¢
If anybody here felt inclined to drop Cap’n Kirkland a similar note, I’ve got $5 says you’ll get blocked, too.
I haven’t read all the comments yet, but have to say while I was initially thrilled hearing about Mayne, now I think it’s kind of lame. Somehow, he made it sound like he was called into the bishopric. I guess the ward clerk is part of that, but I definitely don’t think it’s the same. I’ve never considered a ward clerk a “leader” in any way. Maybe that’s my problem, but ya know…And once I realized that, I have to agree with what others have suggested – it’s not new. He’s definitely not “the first” to serve in such a position, even as an openly gay person. I think what may be slightly new is that he has made it pretty clear that he’s been in a relationship previously, and that he is open to be in a gay relationship again. So, he’s not just an openly gay person, but in a sense, an openly gay person who is also living as a gay. Of course, that may make his situation a little unique, since he isn’t quite conforming with the current standards…but then again he is as long as he’s not “acting out” currently while he’s serving. So, I think it’d be interesting to see how this develops if he’s in a relationship again. Until then, I think this is all a bit hyped up, though I’m glad for Mitch to have this opportunity, and to feel embraced and welcome by his ward. That certainly is good news…
Thank you for all of the thoughtful feedback.
I just want to add a few additional thoughts as to why Mitch Mayne’s call is historic. Some here and elsewhere have correctly noted that countless gay men have served in priesthood leadership positions in the closet and a small number have served openly. So, in that sense alone Mitch Mayne is not a first. That being said, Mitch Mayne’s calling *is* historic because his call is much more than an openly gay man called to a priesthood position. Indeed, the calling is historic because Brother Mayne wasn’t called in spite of being gay, or with his sexual orientation being an incidental matter, but BECAUSE HE IS GAY. Mitch Mayne was called to a leadership position in the Church because he is gay. That is incredibly historic.
Moreover, Brother Mayne hasn’t been called to the traditional role of an Executive Secretary (sit through boring meetings, arrange the bishops schedule, make phone calls). In addition to that burden (and trust me, Atticus F. McConkie has felt that burden), Brother Mayne has specifically been called to be an ambassador of the Church to the LBGT community. This was all done through the formal, institutional structure of the priesthood. That is undeniably historic.
Brother Mayne should have been more transparent about exactly what his calling is. I think he lost some credibility there, but the historic nature of the call remains.
Finally, I just want to add a few thoughts on “institutional forgetting.” The Church moves at such a gradual pace when it changes policies that it is often difficult to pinpoint historic moments. There are just shades of gray. Even if this weren’t a historic moment itself (it is), the contrast between where we are as a people and a Church today as opposed to 10, 20, 30 or 50 years ago IS historic and at some point needs to be acknowledged, yea, even in a publication called LDS Newsroom Blog. Happily, long gone are the days when Church leaders publicly commended Anita Bryant’s homophobic campaigns. We will never hear another “To Young Men Only” over the pulpit again. This is progress that should be acknowledged and celebrated.
That being said, there is still a long ways to go before we as a Church and as a people have truly embraced our LBGT brothers in sisters in a way that is consistent with the teachings of our Savior. There is still work to be done. I am inspired by the Mitch Mayne’s, the Joanna Brooks’ and others of this Church and people who roll up their sleeves and courageously forge ahead with the Work.
“Gird up your loins, fresh courage take, our God will never us forsake”
By definition, this will be historic only when it’s history. Right now, it’s a new development—one that some few as inspirational and others view with skepticism. When we see work rather than talk and PR, we can assess it’s importance.
I don’t see the 1970s as long gone; they’re well within living memory. Change in the LDS church is best measured in geologic time. And we heard an updated version of “To Young Men Only” and “To the One” over the pulpit just months ago, delivered by the same speaker. For me, the real test is whether this moment has any momentum.
By definition, this will be historic only when it’s history. Right now, it’s a new development-one that some view as inspirational and others view with skepticism. When we see work rather than talk and PR, we can assess its importance.
I don’t see the 1970s as long gone; they’re well within living memory. Change in the LDS church is best measured in geologic time. And we heard an updated version of “To Young Men Only” and “To the One” over the pulpit just months ago, delivered by the same speaker. For me, the real test is whether this moment has any momentum.
Pablo,
While it is true that BKP gave homophobic talks in both 1976 and 2010, the reactions to those talks really supports my argument. To BKP’s credit, he has remained remarkably consistent on this issue. However, the Church has not. The 2010 talk was much less explicit and harsh than the 1976 talk. And yet, the Church’s position has changed so much in the interim that the 2010 talk caused enough backlash for the Church to essentially correct BKP’s remarks. This really underscores how much the Church has changed. In 1976 advocating violence against gays and portraying them as a caricature like unto a drug dealer was unremarkable. In 2010 suggesting that God doesn’t make people gay is unacceptable. This is significant progress, even by the Church’s standards.
I’m Episcopalian, not Mormon, but I’ve spent a lot of time around Mormons and studied the Latter-day Saint church in detail, as I have all other major religions. The study of Christian history and the theology of different denominations has long been a hobby of mine. And though I tried to just stick to the facts before, now I’ll state my personal opinion.
This whole story seems like one big flim-flam to me, ginned up for PR purposes. Much ado about nothing. Mr. Mayne’s job sounds like an administrative assistant not a policymaker or spokesman or anything like that. I have a Mormon friend who is gay and had this same job in his congregation in another big city and everybody knew he was out when he got it. No news attention. No press releases. He didn’t pump up a media campaign. And I respect him for it. He is a self-effacing guy who was devoting a lot of time to his church because he wanted to serve not because he wanted the spotlight. By contrast, Mr. Mayne seems quite the publicity hound. I’ve been talking to some of my Mormon friends about this story and based on what they’ve told me, I don’t think this is “historic” I think Mr. Mayne is reveling in the attention he sought all along. My Mormon friends think the same and are disgusted by the whole thing. If Mr. Mayne got the job because he was gay, then he’s being used as a token by a church that has already built such a homophobic anti-gay reputation that it’s going to take generations to live it down. Too little and far too late.
I know the Mormon church has lay leadership but I have never heard of a church job called “ambassador to the gay community.” If that were really Mr. Mayne’s function, San Francisco should be the last place such a person could hope to make a difference. You Mormons need “ambassadors” like that in Utah and Idaho, not San Francisco. From what I’ve been told, the Mormon church is withering and dying in the Bay Area anyway and the Prop 8 campaign told everyone there just what the Mormon church thinks of gays. Especially any Mormons who live in or near the Castro and obviously never go to church. Why would they? Actions speak far louder than press releases or token gays in low-level church jobs, and I think Mr. Mayne hasn’t got a snowball’s chance of changing any of those attitudes, and from what my friends tell me the ham-handed way in which he jumped the gun and misrepresented his new job stripped him of all credibility anyway. Talk about shutting the barn door after the horse is a hundred miles out.
If the Mormon church is changing on this issue as you said Atticus, then it seems the members are leading the leaders instead of the leaders speaking God’s word as they claim to be able to do. Isn’t that backward? If God speaks to Mormon leadership, they should be in the forefront of change that leads to greater truth and understanding and Christian charity, not being dragged kicking and screaming toward recognizing a reality everybody else has long since adopted. That pattern is pretty clear and strongly suggests to me they aren’t speaking for God on this issue. If the leaders are correcting each other’s un-PC remarks because of backlash from the membership, who’s really driving the bus? How is that “historic”? Seems more like “confused” or “disoriented” to me.
My two cents’ from outside the Mormon group.
I have to agree with Atticus. Despite whether or not you agree with Mayne’s process (frankly some of these comments sound simply jealous), here’s a guy who’s been outspoken about the trials of being a gay Mormon for years. He’s had the audacity (gasp) to shine a nationwide spotlight on a group that has been silenced and suffering for generations. Did he do it perfectly? Perhaps not. But I think he may have done more for the voice of gay and lesbian Mormons in one week than has been done in a long time. How long do you think it will be before others follow suit?
And, here’s a guy who:
– won’t apologize for being gay by labeling himself SSA
-won’t apologize for having a long term relationship with his partner
-won’t commit to a life of celibacy
-was called not IN SPITE OF but BECAUSE he is gay–and plans on using his orientation to make things better (God be with him on that one)
Yeah, that’s pretty historic.
I think some of you should actually go in and read his words before you jump to conclusions on the basis of a picture that offends 1950s sensibilities. This guy gets it. He has a message. And now he has a venue. Kudos to him, Who cares if he happens to have a nice chest or biceps while he’s doing it.
Read his words, people:
“As for me personally, I believe every single one of us is equal in the eyes of our Savior, regardless of orientation, ethnicity, gender–or any other marker we use as humans to define differences between ourselves and others. As such, I don’t believe it is ever my job to condemn, criticize, or mock another. My job, as my Father’s son, is to walk beside you as you learn the lessons life is intended to teach you; to celebrate your joys with you, and to lend a hand when you stumble. The true spirit of love we have for one another is kind, patient, and doesn’t demand it’s own way. It doesn’t scold, condemn, or criticize. I am most certainly an imperfect human–but this is the spirit I think our Savior wants us to strive to achieve throughout the human family, and it is the spirit that I endeavor to bring to my entire life–and most certainly my faith.”
Get over the way it looks to your eyes and process what’s important here. This church stands ready for this. This church NEEDS this, I say let him go forth–he’s got my vote all the way!
@Brock:
I’m not LDS so there’s certainly no reason for me to be jealous of Mr. Mayne’s quixotic efforts. What he does or achieves in the Mormon church is irrelevant to me personally. But as a Christian, I couldn’t help thinking of a few scriptural verses as I read his words which you quoted:
“Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly. And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.” Matthew 6:1-6.
Thanks, Jonathan. That would be great if there weren’t millions of people suffering in silence over this issue already.
@Brock: There are plenty of resources out there already, just a three second Google search away, which will give any gay Mormon far more information, knowledge, and hope than Mr. Mayne ever could. There’s nothing wrong with sincere reaching out. There’s everything wrong with advertising oneself for doing it.
Joanna gets more flak for her post, and “publication called LDS Newsroom Blog” and GetReligion get props, at http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700177933/Mormon-Church-applauds-media-watchdogs.html
What a twist that the Deseret “News” considers this news. It would be more appropriate to print this in the Church News.
To Brock:
Re: “I think some of you should actually go in and read his words before you jump to conclusions on the basis of a picture that offends 1950s sensibilities. This guy gets it. He has a message. And now he has a venue. Kudos to him, Who cares if he happens to have a nice chest or biceps while he’s doing it.”
No offense taken, and a nice body is a good thing, but drawing attention to oneself and showing more skin than can be covered by garments are probably not the most “mormony” attributes. That was my reason for mentioning it.
A powerful share, I just given this onto a colleague who was doing somewhat analysis on this. And he in fact purchased me breakfast as a result of I discovered it for him.. smile. So let me reword that: Thnx for the treat! But yeah Thnkx for spending the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about it and love reading more on this topic. If possible, as you change into experience, would you mind updating your blog with extra details? It is highly useful for me. Massive thumb up for this weblog submit!