If you are gay and Mormon or pay much attention to the Mormon Bloggernacle, then you've probably heard that Mitch Mayne, an openly gay man living in San Francisco, was recently called to be executive secretary in his ward. I'm guessing that it isn't the first time this has ever happened, but it's definitely generated more conversation online than other instances. I think part of this is due to the fact that Mitch isn't apologetic about his sexuality, nor does he adopt the narrative of it being a broken part of him. He owns it. He's also fairly actively shared his story online of being openly gay and being asked to serve as executive secretary of his ward.
I think it's valuable to stop and read the posts and conversations about all of it (especially if you have no idea what I'm talking about). I think the conversations taking place give a good sense of where we are and aren't in the Mormon church on the topic of homosexuliaty. I think that's the most interesting thing to me: to observe how people process the information, how they hold it, the questions they ask, the questions they don't ask. It's not so much what happened that interests me but how it's presented and how people react to it.
Here are some links for you to join in the observation process yourself:
Mitch Mayne's website (which includes a link to his blog where he talks about his new calling)
Post at By Common Consent (the comment stream here is kind of interesting)
Post at Times and Seasons
Joanna Brooks' write up at Religion Dispatches
Of course there has also been plenty of discussion in Facebook groups, but all those groups are closed so I can't link to them here.
And here's a presentation Mitch gave in March at Sunstone West before any of this took place:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Mitch writes that he has been called to serve in a Bishopric but did not (in the articles I read) state that his calling was as executive secretary. Where does it state that the executive secretary is part of a Bishopric? It has been my experience that a Bishopric consisted of a Bishop and his two counselors.
ReplyDeleteThat's actually something they discuss at length in the comment thread of the BCC post. I think technically, the ES isn't considered part of the bishopric, but some people lump them and ward clerks in there.
ReplyDeleteIf you log onto a ward website, and click on your ward's leadership, the ward clerks appear under the category of bishopric. I believe the internet.
ReplyDeleteGood point, Matt, the internet never lies. Does it say the same about executive secretary?
ReplyDeleteThe fact that he was called in the first place is a travesty.
ReplyDeletehttp://theblog.michaelcrook.org/2011/08/what-of-mitch-mayne.html
Yes, the executive secretary is included.
ReplyDeleteI hope these shenanigans (thank you, autocorrect) lead to a better environment for gay people in the LDS church, but I feel like it will be forgotten or disregarded or both.
ReplyDeleteIt's a tale told by an idiot--full of sound and fury, signifying nothing--to borrow a phrase.