Strange Things, Horatio.

Brother Mayne fights the good fight, with one foot in Zion and the other buried deeply in the viscous, primordial ooze of the sexual revolution (indeed, Mayne has made this case himself: ).

I must note the following:

Inside the Mormon community there are individuals just like Atticus Finch: those who have a deep sense of loyalty to their Mormon roots, but also an unrelenting desire to do the right thing — even when it means they may face cultural pressure inside their own communities by so doing.

This sets up a deep bifurcation – and tension – between the main body of the faithful (“TBM”) saints and a small core of Atticus Finches; enlightened, progressive members who face hostility, pressure, and resistance from the moral and spiritual peasantry in their efforts to open the church and its blessings to practicing homosexuals. The Atticus Finches in each ward and stake – the moral conscience of that ward or state on the cutting edge of the gospel – seem to be, in Mayne’s mind, the actual “church leaders” among us, not the actual called and ordained church leaders at either the local or church level.

The next statement is quite telling, in my view:

It doesn’t take much more than a quick web search to realize the Mormon culture is changing rapidly when it comes to the LGBT issue. And we have a long way to go before we’re where our Savior would have us be, but change is happening nonetheless.

Not only have church doctrine, teaching, and standards here remained unchanged and unaltered, but “where the Savior would have us be” is, as the gospel has been taught in this dispensation, not the province of individual members but of the man holding all the keys of this dispensation and the other special witnesses of Christ who, together, form the central authority of the restored church on the earth at this time.

This is not, in other words, Mitch Mayne’s call to make.

Mayne’s first “hero” is former Bishop Donald C. Fletcher, who we’ve encountered before in these forums and who, according to his own statements and to Mayne, has made it clear that open, practicing homosexuals are “welcome in the Bay Ward, wherever you are in your personal life.”

Wherever?  Whatever?

So are, I would assume, fornicators, adulterers, wife-swappers, BDSM fetishists (a very popular pastime among numbers of male homosexuals in the San Francisco Bay area) and chicken hawks. No standards or even invitation to adopt and maintain church standards were present in Bishop Fletcher’s invitation ( )

Not convinced? “Brother Blood, no called, ordained Bishop in the church would DARE publicly make such claims and initiate such programs, at least without making clear that church standards relative to the law of chastity are expected of members who desire to fellowship with the saints and receive any of the blessings of the church – including basics such as renewing our covenants through the taking of the sacrament.”  Really?

For gay Mormons, that means we can shrug off the cloak of fear we often wear, because we no longer face excommunication or church discipline, whether we’re single and living inside the confines of the Church policy as we understand it today, married with a partner of the same sex, or anywhere in between.

Let’s be excruciatingly clear what Mayne is saying here: Homosexuality qua homosexuality or, that is to say, not simply same-sex attraction, but homosexual sex, homosexual relations, relationships, and couplings (up to and including homosexual marriage, which the church does not even recognize as intelligible) are to be immune from church discipline of any kind, henceforth. Homosexuals, in other words, are to be given a special dispensation and given a moral and spiritual waiver in relation to the law of chastity (not available to me if my “sexual orientation” dictates that I need to have an affair with my gorgeous 21 year old secretary).

Mayne then falls back on the classic emotional blackmail, so beloved of the cultural Left, to drive home his position:

In addition to creating a welcoming and safe congregation (a direction which many Bay Area wards have taken), Bishop Fletcher authored a powerful op-ed supporting the evidence based research of The Family Acceptance Project advocating for a scientific approach to keeping our gay Mormon youth safe and healthy; and he spoke at several LGBT Mormon forums and shared his own experience, strength, and hope.

The emotional blackmail – less any reference to the law of chastity and the eternal importance of a clear and gospel-centered understanding of human sexuality and gender – continues with his foray into the work of Dr. Caitlin Ryan, a non-member who wants us to know that we can be good Mormons at the gospel, cultural – and sexual – cafeteria while still remaining – good Mormons:

 In 2012, Dr. Ryan published a version of her family education booklet “Supportive Families, Healthy Children,” that shows Mormon families how to respond to their LGBT kids in ways that keep them safer from serious risk — including homelessness, depression and suicide. And, this work is evidence-based, meaning it’s grounded in science, not opinion. Adding to her growing list of resources for Mormons is “Families are Forever,” a riveting award-winning short documentary that tells the story of a devout Mormon family’s journey from supporting Prop 8, to unconditionally loving and supporting their gay teenage son — all while remaining true to the best parts of their Mormon faith.

Being “true” to the restored gospel and to Jesus Christ does not, of course, entail being true to its “best parts” or to determining for ourselves which parts are best and which parts are inessential, but to the the entire system in its all-encompassing entirety.

Next we have Laura Compton, Scott Holley and Spencer Clark and a quick foray into LDS pro-homosexual marriage activism (which is, at its core, tantamount to complete and unabashed support of and for homosexuality, which is to say homosexual relations, practices, and lifestyles as morally and spiritually equivalent to heterosexual relations and to heterosexual monogamy specifically):

“In 2008, during the height of the Prop 8 debacle here in California, devout Mormon Laura Compton (a straight Mormon wife and mother) started a small website called, “Mormons for Marriage,” as a resource for active Mormon families who loved their faith — but respectfully disagreed with the Church’s involvement in Prop 8.”

Here I go again…what we see above here is known as “apostasy” and it begins with rebellion, revolt, and balking, “respectful” or not, against or at the mind and will of the Lord as expressed through his servants,the prophets, and grows, from that point, into a raging pyroclastic flow, often ending in complete alienation from the church and the gospel.

Soon, another member, Scott Holley, creates another left-wing activist organization, Mormons for Equality, which, like the others, promotes the complete redefinition of marriage, family, and gender and the abrogation of the law of chastity in the special case of homosexuals.

Spencer Clark, who took over leadership of this organization in 2012, makes the classic progressive argument for the complete compartmentalization of political and cultural life (essentially, the human condition manifest as human relations in complex, organized societies) from the gospel of Jesus Christ, an argument, quite popular on the Left, that we’ve seen before time and again:

“The church can define what it views as marriage. The question is how we determine the best policy for the country. It’s a political question, not a doctrinal one.”

This is not, of course, itself doctrinally defensible, nor are there, in reality, any clear demarcation lines, on the core aspects of how we should live together as citizens and fellow human beings in a free, open, ordered, lawful, peaceful civil society, between political and spiritual worlds.  All things to the Lord are spiritual; it is we, and only we, here in this probationary state enshrouded by a suffocating mist of darkness, who erect artificial (and convenient) boundaries between the sacred and the “secular.”

The true boundary is not between the sacred and the secular, but between the profound and the profane.  It is truth and falsehood that is the business of the saints, not the milieu in which the ongoing battle between good and evil takes place, or the stage upon which the drama proceeds.

Indeed, virtually the entire Book of Mormon and certain key sections of it call out to us as a clear and unequivocal refutation of and challenge to this entire idea.

There is no escape from the standards of the gospel, the commandments of God, or his perfect and just judgements, in politics.  We cannot hide under the cover of the secular, like wearing our Mardi Gras masks as we celebrate and revel in the carnal, sensual, and devilish, and then return to the sacrament table on Sunday, having removed our secular mask and staggered back to Zion.

As Clark himself stated:

“The church can define what it views as marriage. The question is how we determine the best policy for the country. It’s a political question, not a doctrinal one.”

Next is John Dehlin, whom we need not spend time on here.  “These active Mormons,” Mitch says (this is all prior to Dehlin’s excommunication, and its not at all clear how active he was in the years prior to his exit from the church) “don’t always have the easiest path inside their own community of faith. Indeed, some of them face sharp criticism — but those who make cultural change generally do.”

Here we see the core pattern yet again: it is forward looking, enlightened, spiritually advanced “change agents” within the church guiding, leading, and pointing the way out of neanderthal ignorance and moral primitivism (established church teachings) towards the glorious multiculturalist future, the future neither most members nor the Brethren see rising in the distance as the progressive morning breaks and the shadows flee, but which a gifted and chosen few – the Anointed – see clearly.  So brave, so courageous, and so pioneering are these few spiritual change agents among the LDS hoi polloi that they risk church discipline, including excommunication and loss of all their blessings, promises, and covenants, to stand as ensigns, not to the world, but to the church itself.  And, like Atticus Finch himself, “they still take action — not only because it’s the right thing to do for the LGBT community, but because it’s the right thing to do for the Mormon community, even if their Mormon peers haven’t recognized that quite yet.”

No, we haven’t recognized that quite yet.  Mitch, all I can say at this point is, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s