Interview with Michael Glatze

I spoke with Michael Glatze earlier this evening by phone and we corresponded some by email. First, by email, he gave me some answers to questions about the nature of his religious beliefs. He said:

My religious beliefs are these: Jesus Christ came to take upon Him all of our sins. There is a place called The Kingdom of God. The only way to the Kingdom of God is through Jesus Christ. We must “give up our lives for His sake” and do as He commands, and we become welcomed in the Kingdom of God. Those are my religious beliefs. Most people who are Christian (not fake Christian) know, exactly, what I’m talking about. Other people think it is dogma or jargon.

I followed up the email with a phone call and asked more specifically about his views as well as some of the information posted here. He said he had not met Roy Masters, nor did he think of him as an influence. He didn’t recognize the name as associated with meditation although he said he had been involved in some Buddhist oriented meditative practices. He did confirm a report by commenter Lynn David that he was baptized into the Latter Day Saint church earlier this year.

Regarding the issues surrounding sexuality, he said again that he is now repulsed by the thoughts of sex with a man. I asked if he was assisted by anyone or any ministry and he answered:

No; I did not have any counseling or ministry help. That was not the way God wanted it, for me. For others, that may be the case. For me, it was all on my own, and with God. I spent nights, days, so much time alone, praying and “giving up my will” to His.

One thing that seemed clear to me was that Michael wanted to convey that he has had an encounter with God. He said: “What changed me was the words of Jesus.” He also expressed a zeal to communicate a message that homosexuality is not set for people. I asked him about people who have had different experiences than him and he acknowledged that there are many roads to same sex attraction. However, he is very clear that, in his mind, homosexuality identity is incompatible with his new found faith.

Talking with Michael, I was reminded of David Benkof, founder of the Q Syndicate. David sold the business and decided to leave homosexual relationships for religious reasons (Orthodox Jewish). I remember talking to David quite a bit after his decision. I do not remember him being quite as strident as Michael. In fact, he continued to dialogue with his former colleagues in the gay news world. Last I knew he was still pursuing heterosexuality. In contrast to Michael, I do not think David felt his desires were gone quickly but he made a value based decision to live a different way.

I was not able to ask Michael other questions I wanted to pose. I suspect there are questions readers would want to ask. In the coming days, I hope to pursue other aspects of this story.

UPDATE: 7/5/07 – Michael’s former organization has responded to his recent change of viewpoint on their website.

  • Mitchell

    Please ask Michael why he chose to come out to David Kupelian. David is a long time follower of Roy’s teachings and past editor in chief of his publications ‘The Iconoclast’ and ‘New Dimensions’. Roy has helped many homosexuals leave the lifestyle behind, but he rarely publicizes his treatment or his retreat called ‘Tall Timber Ranch’ except on his radio show. Roy views most Christians as fake and most church-goers as artificially seeking social stimulation. Roy is very unique in his teachings and profoundly effects those who come into contact with him for any period of time. Matthew Drudge used to host a tv show on FOX and became very close to Roy, frequently having him as a guest on his show. Roy helped Matt overcome his own SSAD. Matt is listed as an endorser here: http://www.fhu.com/books/emotions/NegativeEmotions.pdf

  • http://www.exgaywatch.com David Roberts

    Roy helped Matt overcome his own SSAD.

    Mitchell, either provide outside proof of this claim or stop making it.

  • Jayhuck

    Again – why all the focus on this man? He’s obviously a zealot, and is wrapped in a great deal of emotion right now, and not much rational thinking. He’s obviously been hurt and is lashing out at the gay community.

    He’s not saying anything we haven’t heard a million times before from other Ex-Gays.

    How many Ex-Gays have we heard from who have said they had no more attractions to men, who were repulsed by the thought of having sex with men, only to become Ex-Ex Gay years later, or “slip up” and end up sleeping with a man.

  • Jayhuck

    Warren,

    I’m interested in your lack of desire to acknowledge and talk about the hurt Ex-Ex Gay people have faced, and yet jump at the chance to post a message and interview about a guy who not only sounds like a zealot but who has slandered an entire community, who isn’t saying anything we haven’t heard before – and who, quite frankly, doesn’t sound like a Christian at all – except for the words, belief and Christ.

    There are many roads to homosexuality? Isn’t that one of the Ex-Gay mantras? There are probably just as many roads to heterosexuality – my question is, so what? Good Grief

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/ Warren

    Mitchell — I agree with David. You have produced some evidence that Drudge likes Masters but there is nothing I have seen yet that links Drudge with homosexuality. Your use of SSAD sounds Richard Cohenesque. I will delete any further references to this matter unless you produce some evidence.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/ Warren

    Jayhuck – I am trying to figure out your characterizations of me. I have a forum here for anyone to discuss their sexual identity story and you say I have no desire to talk about ex-ex-gays. Please note that seven of the most frequent commenters on this forum are gay/ex-ex-gay.

    Mr. Glatze’s story is relevant to my interests and the issues I cover here on this blog. How people come to reconcile their religious and sexual conflicts is quite interesting to me. My focus is quite often those who resolve these conflicts in line with traditional Christianity since that is the bulk of my research and clinical work.

  • Jayhuck

    Warren,

    My apologies – I appreciate the open forum, and that you allow Ex-Ex Gays to speak. It just seems like, lately, when it comes to Ex-Ex Gays, all I heard from you, in the way of interest, seemed to be questioning why they were holding the conference they did and what they hoped to gain. When it comes to Mr. Glatz, you jumped at the chance of trying to contact him and post his story about what was going on. I understand why you would be interested in him – perhaps it is just the events of late that have skewed my perceptions.

  • Jayhuck

    Mr. Glatz’s words have affected me in a negative way. I remember when I was a zealot like him – I remember talking like him and saying similar things – things which I now regret, and hearing them again, like this, has left a bad taste in my mouth. Which is why, though I’m happy he has found God, I am sad that he has to be so immature about it. I suppose my own exerience should have made me a little more compassionate towards others going through the same thing!

  • http://www.exgaywatch.com Dave Rattigan

    Hi, Warren. I found the phrase “repulsed by the thoughts of sex with a man,” strange, and wonder whether you meant “the thought [singular] of sex with a man,” ie the idea of it, or actual “thoughts,” ie temptations. Could have been a simple typo.

  • http://www.exgaywatch.com Dave Rattigan

    Also, I still find it very ambiguous whether Glatze is claiming a total reversal of orientation, from gay to straight. It wasn’t clear that the WND headline ‘How a ‘gay rights’ leader became straight’ was Glatze’s own. Perhaps this is something you could ask him when you speak again.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/ Warren

    I think it should have been thought – singular. That would be truer to his meaning I believe.

    He says he is looking forward to having a family but he did not go into specifics.

  • Mary

    This is great to read about the variety of relgious experiences that people have that change their lives.

  • jag

    Warren -

    If you are interested in how individuals reconcile their orientation to “change” to be in line with their traditional christian beliefs, are you equally curious as to those who find no conflict between the two, live happy openly gay lives with their partner and follow Christ’s path?

    There are so many stories to this effect that seem unexplored. For example, two women I am aware of who are marrying under God, long-time christians, and see no conflict with their faith – who attend a reconciling methodist church?

    Why not begin to examine these individuals as well?

    The issue seems not to be with “orientation,” but often in how people sometimes attempt to mold themselves to align further with their beliefs. What of the people who feel no need to? Are they “happier” in the end, more well-adjusted, etc..

    I think these are interesting questions from a psychological point of view. Don’t you? Those are rarely addressed here.

  • Korry

    He might have had an epiphany, but I have doubts about its divinity. He claims to be in the grip of guilt for what he has said and done — which doesn’t make any sense if he has indeed found Christ. His casting sweeping judgements further, to me, makes him suspect. And why he figured on, of all things, the Mormon Church, with its pagan beliefs, as the path to salvation (after being a Buddhist?) really makes one go “huh”? Words like “repulsive” and “repulsion” don’t point up to someone experiencing much inner peace.

    Honestly, I have only met two types of ex-gays: the kind who loudly denounce their past and “the lifestyle” (but who are not really attracted to women) and those who simply fall in love with a particular woman, perhaps marrying her — but still hanging onto their gay friends.

  • Lynn David

    Warren wrote:

    He says he is looking forward to having a family but he did not go into specifics.

    Well, I was correct, he is Mormon. Likely Glatze will be watched in his ward quite closely, perhaps even “introduced” to some eligible women.

    I wonder if it is a part of his penance that he now speak out against homosexuality to the same degree that he had formerly spoken in favor of homosexuality? From my limited knowledge of the LDS religion, that seems to me to be a likely course he may have to follow.

  • Lynn David

    In October of 1995 “Same-Gender Attraction” by Apostle Dallin Oaks was published in the Ensign. The article makes the point that the concept of “homosexual” or “lesbian” as a kind of person is incompatible with LDS theology. Rather the terms should be reserved for use as adjectives that refer to kinds of behavior.

    There is no such thing as homosexual orientation according to the LDS church. Thus whatever Glatze now says must be termed in that light, that is why he is now so rabidly anti-gay.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/ Warren

    jag – I have a limited amount of time and focus. There are other sites that focus on those without conflict; I focus on these conflicts and provide a forum for those who are interested in these issues.

    Lynn David — Yep, I tried to link to your comment but the link doesn’t seem to go where I pointed it.

  • Jayhuck

    Warren -

    I’m curious what you meant when you said “traditional Christianity” above. I’m wondering if you meant those segments of Christianity that have traditional views on homosexuality and NOT the early Church!

  • Eddy

    Warren–

    You also said ‘in his mind, homosexuality identity is incompatible…’. LOL! Is this different than the more standard ‘homosexual identity’? :-)

    Jayhuck–

    It’s been some months now but there was a time that I was convinced Warren’s secret mission was to destroy EXODUS. To paraphrase the weatherman’s slogan, “He doesn’t make the news, he just reports it.” (And, he knows he has this forum to help him dissect, understand and learn from it.) Have faith–the topic tides will turn again.

    Lynn David–

    I think you may have explained the unusual bluntness of Glatze’s statements. There is a distinct Mormon-style directness. One part puzzles me though. My impression was that Mormon’s saw Jesus as ‘the perfect man’ not the redemptive ‘both God and man’ of Glatze’s first paragraph up in the topic. Am I misinformed on the Mormon’s or has Glatze got some ‘hybrid fundamentalism’ going on? (BTW: ANYONE”S informed comments are welcome. I think Lynn-David and I would both concede that we’re not that well acquainted with Mormon beliefs.)

  • Eddy

    On a re-read, I found Michael Glatze’s latter paragraph is an excellent lesson in ‘Christianese”.

    “No; I did not have any counseling or ministry help. That was not the way God wanted it, for me. For others, that may be the case. For me, it was all on my own, and with God. I spent nights, days, so much time alone, praying and “giving up my will” to His.”

    Okay, so he had no counseling or ministry help…well, then, how did a man of his lifestyle come by the theology expressed in his first paragraph? This goes beyond simple ‘Jesus saved me’ stuff. So, it wasn’t counseling, PER SE, or ministry help…but it WAS teaching and directed Bible study, at the very least.

    My limited knowledge of the Mormons tells me that you don’t go through ANY of their sacraments (do they use that word?) without first showing that you’ve earned/learned your way. Is he suggesting that HIS CHURCH, not a ministry helped him? Or does he really believe that he did it ALL on his own?

    I can’t stop the alarms inside my head from ringing!!!

  • Pingback: Ex-Gay Watch » Glatze Is LDS Convert - Why the Silence?

  • Pingback: Anonymous

  • Boo

    I think you may have explained the unusual bluntness of Glatze’s statements. There is a distinct Mormon-style directness. One part puzzles me though. My impression was that Mormon’s saw Jesus as ‘the perfect man’ not the redemptive ‘both God and man’ of Glatze’s first paragraph up in the topic. Am I misinformed on the Mormon’s or has Glatze got some ‘hybrid fundamentalism’ going on? (BTW: ANYONE”S informed comments are welcome. I think Lynn-David and I would both concede that we’re not that well acquainted with Mormon beliefs.)

    From a non-Mormon who took comparitive religion, Mormons do not believe in the Trinity. They believe that Jesus, Satan, and all people began as spirit children of God the Father. Prior to coming to live in material form on this planet, God asked Jesus and Satan to each submit plans for the salvation of the rest of us. Jesus came up with the whole crucifixion/ressurection thing, Satan said just force everyone to obey. God picked Jesus’s plan over Satan’s which made Jesus the Messiah, and caused Satan to rebel. There’s a lot more… interesting details that explain, among other things, early Mormon racial attitudes, but the gist is that they’re more or less Arians in their Christology.

  • minty

    Mormons in the audience, I’m sure this makes perfect sense.

    For everyone else, the question becomes: if he heard that part of the celestial transmission wrong, what else got horribly mangled on the way to his ears? Perhaps the part about renouncing homosexuality?

    Lol, sigh… people are strange. >

  • Pingback: Northern Lights » Blog Archive » Michael Glatze now LDS?

  • Mary

    Eddy,

    My own story starts out with changing and having no religious frame at the time. However, religions does enter later. Perhaps his is the same. Not sure just providing a possibility.

  • Aaron

    Lynn, I have posted quite a bit on exgay watch about mormonism and homosexuality. One thing is that there is double speak. Yes, the Church does not recognize orientation, but behind the scenes (Church psychologists, etc.) do. In fact, in therapy, I was told by the social therapists and psychologists that the Church realizes that I may have a biological element and that I should just live a celibate life. There seems to be a personal and public presentation on the issue.

  • Aaron

    Also, Mormons are taught that they are being tested, so you have things like addiction or sexuality that may be inside, but you have to avoid them. In fact, it is thought that much of the testing comes from the inability in the preworld to fully stand on the side of Jesus.

  • Pingback: Friendly Atheist » If You Want to Become Straight, Edit a Gay Magazine

  • Lynn David

    ChurchExecutive.com has quoted this post when saying that Mr Glatze is now a Mormon, see:

    http://www.churchexecutive.com/Page.cfm/PageID/9643

    I dunno if the previous one posted or not. Nothing I have posted today has been showing up!

  • http://howller.blogspot.com/ howller

    Eddy, Glatze’s opening paragraph above is perfectly good LDS theology, regardless of what Evangelicals may try to convince people. And indeed the spiritual element experienced by Mormons can be both profound and sublime. But I can tell you, as a life-long Latter-day Saint, that nowhere in Glatze’s essay do I find distinct Mormon buzzwords and rhetoric. So I doubt that his newly-found faith is the primary influence behind his particular diatribes. Instead he mentions such new-agey ideas as “Christ-self” and “inner truth.” Curious.

  • Lynn David

    As for whether the LDS worships a trinity or Jesus as a god, I would say they do, but they separate these ‘persons’ out on the basis of substance, thus Jesus is considered a being lessor than the Father. See:

    http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDS_Intro.shtml#What

    2) The Trinity? We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. We believe that they are One Eternal God – yet they are also three distinct Beings. …. In my view, this kind of oneness is a unity of purpose, intent, and heart, not a blending of substance into one being. When Christ prayed (many times) to His Father in Heaven, we believe that He was doing exactly that – communicating with His Father, another Being, of whom Christ said, “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), contradicting, for example, the Athanasian Creed. …

    More at link above, of course… it’s just a bit funkier than most of Christendom’s view of the trinity (and perhaps heretical).

  • http://www.exgaywatch.com Dave Rattigan

    In my experience, LDS would have no problem affirming the statement that “Jesus is God”, and would likewise have no problem with the affirmation “The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God”. However, getting down to theological brass tacks, they would be very clear that this is a statement about function, rather than being. So far as I know, they would never use the word “Trinity”, and would deny that the traditional Christian formulation of the Trinity was what they believed.

  • jag

    So Warren -

    It seems you are not interested in whether those who report “change” are happier, more well-adjusted, etc.. than their non-conflicted gay/lesbian counterparts? Or if their nonconflicted gay/lesbian counterparts are psychologically healthier than them?

    I wonder what that says about the work when you are not interested in comparing the outcome of becoming “ex-gay” to other groups (nonconflicted gay, etc..)? To me, the outcome should be one of the most important aspects of the work. Or, perhaps you are afraid that you may not like what you find if you start to make such comparisons in outcome.

    Scientifically, however, it’s hard to dispute that it must be done. How can you support something when you don’t necessarily know it produces a psychologically “healthier” outcome?

    It’s an issue of credibility, and validity of the work. How can anyone be expected to take it seriously if such comparisons are not made? Why would anyone want to change if the research shows that (in the future), even with their best efforts, their change will produce a psychological state which is not optimal?

    Warren, I thought this was a bit more scientific.

  • Michael Glatze

    To My Friends Who Are Trapped In Homosexuality

    By Michael Glatze

    Dear friend,

    Thank you for your kind comments and keen observations regarding my story and my revelation about no longer being homosexual and now being heterosexual. I thank you for the time that you have spent in considering this issue, deeply, and with great passion. God loves you.

    God is right there, within you, whether you like to see Him or not. Can you humble yourself to Him? It’s a really nice feeling. I know that, in some small way, you want to. We all do. We don’t like being separated from our Father; it makes us sad and lonely, forcing us to be angry, to act out, to get vulgar… well, I won’t go on; many of you have already demonstrated, on your blog comments, exactly what I’m talking about. ☺

    God love you, Yes! He does! And, He wants you to be free from homosexuality. God made us men and women. Think about that; you could – really – be a man or a woman! Not a strange creature… but, real! That’s awesome… ☺

    Change is very difficult and takes a lot of inner strength. Do you have that strength? I promise you that the Gay Identity does not exist, that it is a fabrication of mankind (look it up, if you don’t believe me), and that you are not “trapped” in same-sex-orientation. To believe that you are Gay is to be stupid. I’m sorry, if that sounds cruel; it’s not cruel. To believe that you are a false identity, created by man, unnaturally, to participate in social engineering, is to be stupid.

    It’s not the acts, as much as it is the Identity. No one ever told you that, before, because they wanted to feed you with the lie that homosexuality is a set thing. Any intelligent “homosexual” knows there’s no fixed Gay Identity. If you don’t believe me, ask the theorists or “intellectuals.” ☺

    Gay Identity has been packaged and fed to you, and – if you believe yourself to be “Gay” – you have eaten it, preventing you from further growth and understanding of your true and real self.

    Coming out from under this packaged lie requires strong self-confidence and will and desire to know the Truth. Yes, Truth is capitalized. It is that way for a reason. There is only one Truth.

    That one Truth is the fact that you are beautiful, perfect, and glorious, in the image of He who created you… God. There is only one God. I know it may be hard for you to get your head around the paradoxical nature of God… but, He is everywhere “out there” and – at the same time – right inside your soul. He sees and knows you. He loves you. ☺

    He wants you to be free of homosexuality. I promise you that. He’s rooting for you; He knows you can do it. Remember, He loves you! He’s not judging you – those angry voices in your mind, planted there by Satan, might scream and judge and ridicule – but, no; He’s not judging you. He has patience. He’ll give you strength. All you have to do is pray to Him.

    Prayer and love – True Love, my dear friends – requires total humility. Can you do that?

    I know, in my heart, that all homosexuals desire to be free.

    It is a new world, one in which the lie will not stand much longer. The tide is turning. Be not afraid! It’s a good change! Jesus will come. ☺ And, when that day happens, will you be – truly – yourself!? Or, will you be a demon, trapped in a fabrication not your own, lusting and hating and destroying your soul to hell? Consider this one last thing: all the love you may believe you feel for yourself or for someone else, while trapped in the homosexual mindset, is a grain of sand on the beach of the love that you could feel. Healing is possible. When you choose to go there, you know who to call on for help. His name is Jesus Christ.

    Michael Glatze

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/ Warren

    jag said:

    It seems you are not interested in whether those who report “change” are happier, more well-adjusted, etc.. than their non-conflicted gay/lesbian counterparts? Or if their nonconflicted gay/lesbian counterparts are psychologically healthier than them?

    What gave you that idea? You are wrong in what “it seems.” I try to follow the data where it leads.

  • luke

    “Change is very difficult and takes a lot of inner strength. Do you have that strength? I promise you that the Gay Identity does not exist, that it is a fabrication of mankind (look it up, if you don’t believe me), and that you are not “trapped” in same-sex-orientation. To believe that you are Gay is to be stupid. I’m sorry, if that sounds cruel; it’s not cruel. To believe that you are a false identity, created by man, unnaturally, to participate in social engineering, is to be stupid.”

    It sounds great!

    For more than ten years I am free from that stupid way of thinking. I have told many men to look it up but they seems so afraid of falling and getting frustraded. It is shame. I believe everyone would change if they at least do their best to understand and to walk in a rational way.

    Thanks God we are free from those stupid lie and my wife and daughter give thanks for the Lord for the husband and daddy they have at home.

    Claudio, Brazil (claudiomultifocal@yahoo.com.br)

  • Boo

    I know, in my heart, that all homosexuals desire to be free.

    I know, in my heart, that Michael Glatze is an extremely unhappy man. His belief that he is “free” is stupid. I know that his feeble protestations of “freedom” and inner happiness are the act of a drowning man desparate to escape his own self-hatred. I know he will be much happier and more fulfilled when he finally sheds the false ex-gay identity, as well as the false Mormon heresy, and embraces his true self as God created him to be. I know that his favorite food is cheez-its, no matter what false tastes he tries to immerse himself in.

    Sounds kind of arrogant when it’s someone else doing it, doesn’t it?

  • Rick

    “Change is very difficult and takes a lot of inner strength. Do you have that strength? I promise you that the Gay Identity does not exist, that it is a fabrication of mankind (look it up, if you don’t believe me), and that you are not ‘trapped’ in same-sex-orientation.”

    Mike: are you truly and passionately in love with a woman right now? You know, the sort of passion consumes your thoughts and leaves you feeling drained the morning after? I say this, because until you actually get there, you may want to temper your patronizing platitudes about “change.”

    I was willing to give you the benefit of a doubt, but after reading your latest public statement, I am picking up on the creepy vibe of one of Eric Hoffer’s “True Believers.”

    From this Wikipedia summary of Hoffer’s seminal book:

    “The premise of the book is as follows: Mass movements spread by promising a glorious future, and they need people to be willing to sacrifice all for that future, including themselves and others. To do that, they need to devalue both the past and the present. Therefore, mass movements appeal to the frustrated; people who are dissatisfied with their current state, but are capable of a strong belief in the future and to people who want to escape a flawed self by creating an imaginary self and joining a compact collective whole to escape themselves. Some categories of such people are the poor, the misfits, the creative thwarted in their endeavors, the inordinately selfish, the ambitious facing unlimited opportunities, minorities, the bored, and sinners…PART OF HOFFER’S THESIS IS THAT MOVEMENTS ARE INTERCHANGEABLE AND THAT FANATICS WILL OFTEN FLIP FROM ONE MOVEMENT TO ANOTHER.”

    (Emphasis mine)

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/ Warren

    Michael/Luke:

    You are presenting me with a moderation dilemma. I would like to allow you to express your views and stories. However, the reference to “stupid lie,” for example, is contrary to my guidelines for commenting here. You are both new to this forum so I will err of the permissive side for now. However, in future comments, disparaging views you disagree with will make the comment subject to deletion. It is a judgment call that I am sure I am not perfect about, but I want to keep the dialogue civil and constructive.

  • http://www.gaychristian101.com Rick Brentlinger

    Thanks Warren, for the interesting insights about Michael Glatze.

    He seems to be in the spin cycle now. I wonder what will happen to him when his SSA reasserts itself?

    Somehow we need to get the news out that one can be gay and Christian without becoming heterosexual.

    Rick Brentlinger

    http://www.gaychristian101.com

  • David Blakeslee

    I’ve been under things for a while, so I haven’t commented…I am glad to see that things get livelier in my absence. Totally life affirming :).

    MIchael”s disclosure strikes me as a huge event…as big as any evangelical or conservative politician leader who came out. If we can contain our reactivity to their decisions we can watch over time and see how effectively these monumental transitions are for them and better advise those who are wrestling with such decisions.

    Michael has a right to speak out strongly, and his small number of posts in various locations pale in comparison to the comments he made over a number of years as the editor of the magazine.

    I wouldn’t be suprised if the word “zealot” applied to his previous writing and that he painted with overly broad brushstrokes in his characterization of gays, lesbians and straights even prior to his conversion.

    It seems to me that people have been trying to make sense out of mysterious or baffling feelings for thousands of years and over time wrapped a theology around those sensations. Whatever sensations Michael was experiencing prior to conversion drove him to be a seeker and to engage in a spiritual exercize that is repeated for a billion different reasons all around the globe by billions of souls.

    Let’s just watch and learn…maybe a loving God has work to do in each of us to help us love our neighbor more deeply and truly as Christ loved us…and he can both use our gifts and transform us.

    Redemption and transformation are the promises of Christiantiy and concern much larger issues than SSA.

  • http://www.exgaywatch.com David Roberts

    @David Blakeslee

    Bold, sweeping proclamations demand equally bold scrutiny, particularly when they are used as a method to marginalize. Others chose to make this an earth shaking event, we are simply responding as needed. This isn’t about a little spiritual seed planted along the path which we can check on now and then.

    As to Glatze’s impact before, I’ve been around gay issues for quite some time and I had never even heard of him until a couple of days ago. Google searches return tons of hits from recent events, but very little of significance before that except a handful of appearances and his more recent involvement in Buddhist meditation communities.

  • Sonja Dalton

    Rick wrote: “…Mike: are you truly and passionately in love with a woman right now? You know, the sort of passion consumes your thoughts and leaves you feeling drained the morning after? I say this, because until you actually get there, you may want to temper your patronizing platitudes about ‘change.’…”

    Rick, romance-marriage-sex is not the ultimate purpose of mankind. It is a mystery that reflects the nature of the relationship between Christ and His church. It is a great blessing for those who love and marry in the Lord, but it is not proof of change/salvation.

    Michael does not need to fall madly in love and marry to demonstrate change. He needs to:

    * reject his “gay” identity and homosexual sex and any other sins to which he was captive (a change of mind and will),

    * place his faith in Jesus Christ as Redeemer/be baptized into Christ (a change of heart, a new Master), and

    * produce fruit consistent with his profession of faith — worship, evangelize, grow in knowledge, serve, resist temptation, etc. (a change in character and behavior).

  • Timothy Kincaid

    Sonja,

    But you define change differently than we do. You are defining religious conversion. However, the headline on the article was not “How a ‘gay rights’ leader became a Christian” but instead was “How a ‘gay rights’ leader became straight”.

    And though you may want to change the subject or talk around it or pretend otherwise, being attracted to the opposite sex is a requirement for “becoming straight”.

    By the way, Sonja, please let us know your opinions about Michael’s affiliation with the Mormon Church. I’m really curious about that.

  • Bot

    The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) is often misunderstood . . Some accuse the Church of not believing in Christ because of their concept of the Trinity and, therefore, not being a Christian religion . . This post helps to clarify such misconceptions

    A literal reading of the New Testament points to God and Jesus Christ , His Son , being separate , divine beings , united in purpose. . To whom was Jesus praying in Gethsemane, and Who was speaking to Him and his apostles on the Mount of Transfiguration?

    The Nicene Creed”s definition of the Trinity was influenced by scribes translating the Greek manuscripts into Latin. . The scribes embellished on a passage explaining the Trinity , which is the Catholic and Protestant belief that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. . The oldest versions of the epistle of 1 John, read: “There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water and the blood and these three are one.”

    Scribes later added “the Father, the Word and the Spirit,” and it remained in the epistle when it was translated into English for the King James Version, according to Dr. Bart Ehrman, Chairman of the Religion Department at UNC- Chapel Hill. . . .He no longer believes in the Nicene Trinity. .

    Scholars agree that Early Christians believed in an embodied God; it was neo-Platonist influences that later turned Him into a disembodied Spirit. . Divinization, narrowing the space between God and humans, was also part of Early Christian belief. . The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) views the Trinity as three separate divine beings , in accord with the earliest Greek New Testament manuscripts.

  • Mary

    WOW – this has gone off topic. Are we discussing LDS or this man’s transformation?

  • Lynn David

    A thank-you to Warren for managing my problem with posting and also allowing Michael Glatze”s comment to appear in its entirety. I think it may show up a personality defect for which his identification wtih strong movements is necessary – much the same as Rick mentioned in Eric Hoffer’s book, “True Believers.”

    Reading Glatze’s comment the image of a robot came to my mind. Glatze doesn’t seem to have a personality of his own. He perhaps accepted the persona of being gay as a way of programming himself into a personality, which when his partner left him (?) fell apart, Glatze reprogrammed himself in a manner which divorced himself from what that relationship represented.

    My question is, where was Michael Glatze in that comment? I’m not sure he was anywhere, perhaps he wasn’t anywhere as a gay man either. It appears to me that Glatze needs to find himself.

    _______________________________________

    David Blakeslee wrote:

    MIchael”s disclosure strikes me as a huge event…as big as any evangelical or conservative politician leader who came out. If we can contain our reactivity to their decisions we can watch over time and see how effectively these monumental transitions are for them and better advise those who are wrestling with such decisions.

    Only if you see homosexuality as evil, ungodly, the direct opposite of “godliness.” And I am not sure that even many conservatives here see it as such opposites.

    And I don’t think anyone caught Glatze visiting straight bars to pick up women or visiting women prostitutes to satiate those heterosexual desires which were always there. So,… big difference.

  • Trent

    LDS is a very accepting religion for people struggling with SSAD. Michael is part of a vibrant community of beautiful young men who have embraced LDS and Jesus Christ as a release from the bondage of homosexuality. To the degree that anyone is opposing this is actually quite shocking. Who among us would deprive a man of spiritual freedom and fulfillment, except someone bitter and empty who is beholden to Lucifer?

    It is interesting that those who prostelitize the homosexual lifestyle choice very carefully edit out its actual practices. Michael even spoke of getting horrible intestinal disease as part of unimaginable acts associated with homosexuality. Let’s support him if for nothing other than to protect our children and the future of this great country. Rome fell due to the debauchery of homosexual pederasy. We cannot let the USA fall to the same tragic impulse. Please support Michael and support our troops who are defending us from the same evil that is trying to destroy America.

  • David Blakeslee

    Tim,

    The headline is clear…and the question remains whether it is accurate…good point.

    He seems to want to represent himself as a prior leader/spokesperson of the magazine (editor)…Dave are you saying that he has no prior publications to assert this claim that you can find in a cursory search using google?

    Finally, is this the second editor of a magazine in the past year to reject their gay/lesbian identity?

  • David Blakeslee
  • David Blakeslee

    Charlene Cothran of Venus magazine is the other editor who has recently relinquished her lesbian identification.

  • David Blakeslee

    Interesting quote by Glatze in Time, it appears he was examining Exodus as it appealed to disaffected gays and lesbians: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1112856-10,00.html

  • David Blakeslee

    He has co-authored a book: XY Survival Guide (Paperback)

    by Benjie Nycum (Author), Michael Glatze (Author)

  • David Blakeslee

    Others have probably made similar posts…I am coming in late here.

  • Mary

    Relinquished. LOL – sounds like reluctantly gave back.

  • http://www.exgaywatch.com David Roberts

    Charlene Cothran of Venus magazine is the other editor who has recently relinquished her lesbian identification.

    Actually, I had never head of her before she made her announcement either. As to Glatze, as I said there is a handful of references to him if you go back before his recent announcement, but they pale in comparison to his coverage now. And again, everyone I spoke with after it broke was saying “who is he?” The magazine he started folded after 5 issues.

    I’m not sure how to respond beyond that David. Your earlier post seemed to suggest that everyone should just sit back and let this unfold without scrutiny, and I don’t see how that would be responsible considering the way Glatze chose to handle it.

  • Lynn David

    David Blakeslee wrote:

    Interesting quote by Glatze in Time, it appears he was examining Exodus as it appealed to disaffected gays and lesbians…

    Glatze said:

    “Today so many kids who are gay, they don’t like Cher. They aren’t part of the whole subculture. …. They feel like they belong in their faith, in their families.”

    I would not equate not wanting to be a part of the subculture – that subculture which intolerance forced into creation – to be desirous of examining Exodus. It is as any gay person would hope, that they might be accepted as they are by the culture at large, their family and friends, with a faith such as many at Ex-Gay Watch now profess, without resorting to an underclass for any amount of acceptance. It seems to me that only someone who doesn’t really understand gay people would take that statement by Glatze to mean anything else.

  • Lynn David

    Ok… I missed this quote of Glatze…. My apologies to David Blakeslee…

    “I don’t think the gay movement understands the extent to which the next generation just wants to be normal kids. The people who are getting that are the Christian right.”

    That might be so construed as looking to Exodus. Certainly Time brought Exodus into the mix at that point. And yet Glatze ended with this statement:

    “Dorothy resonates so much with older gay people–the idea of Oz, someplace you can finally be accepted. … The city of Oz is now everywhere. It’s in every high school.”

    Which seems to be commendatory of GSA’s and goes directly back to the point I made in my previous post (#36564) and his prior post. Glatze would seem to have been vacillating at that point in time.

  • Lynn David

    Trent wrote:

    It is interesting that those who prostelitize the homosexual lifestyle choice very carefully edit out its actual practices. Michael even spoke of getting horrible intestinal disease as part of unimaginable acts associated with homosexuality.

    You cannot imagine the act? I would assume that Glatze managed to get his mind around it so why did he edit it out? I’d be more than happy to talk about it here as I find it most enjoyable in moderation, but then Dr T would edit me… right off the blog.

    Michael is part of a vibrant community of beautiful young men who have embraced LDS and Jesus Christ as a release from the bondage of homosexuality.

    Then he and some one of those other “beautiful young men” of that “vibrant community” is likely have trouble in keeping with the tenets of the LDS. But then it is my understanding that you all watch each other quite closely, especially on missions.

    Let’s support him if for nothing other than to protect our children and the future of this great country. Rome fell due to the debauchery of homosexual pederasy. We cannot let the USA fall to the same tragic impulse. Please support Michael and support our troops who are defending us from the same evil that is trying to destroy America.

    Oy vey…. way to stick your head in the sand about the issue of the very existance of homosexual persons. Such seems to be the rank & file LDS response, but your leaders seem to have quietly accepted someething rather different.

  • PW

    Mr. Throckmorton, I think Mr. Glatze’s insufferable zealousness completely distracts from any effective conversation about his claims of change.

    Trent, what in the world are you talking about? Rome was Christian when it fell to the barbarians. And what does this guy’s life choice have to do with the children of this country? And how exactly are the troops involved in this? And who died and made you expert in who is beholden to Lucifer? Your comments are simply thrown to the wind and have little to do with this subject or any subject for that matter.

  • Rick

    Says Sonja:

    “Michael does not need to fall madly in love and marry to demonstrate change. He needs to…”

    Warren may rebuke me and even ban me from the forum for this, but regarding everything you wrote, Sonja, I swear only a woman would post something as aburd as that. Which is to say your post evinces a conflict that is not about gay vs straight or secular vs religious, but rather, more deeply, about men vs women in approaching sexuality. I am reminded of straight friend of mine who left his sexless marriage after so many years, one in which his wife tried to convince him that just sitting in the living room and quietly reading books was “a form of sex.”

    Eventually he joined a men’s support group, reclaimed his testes, and is now with a real woman with whom he has real sex. Regularly. And yes, he is a practicing Christian.

    Anyhow, Sonja, you might want to study the difference between being celibate and actually being heterosexual, or “straight,” which is what Michael Glatze, via WND, is claiming to be when he talks about “change.”

  • Trent

    Here is a fascinating article about the origins of WorldNetDaily. I believe this may explain why WND was the first organization Michael wanted to carry his message: http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2006/wndmasters.html

  • Trent

    Thank you for the links to the TIME article and the Glatze quotes. What is absolutley amazing is if you create a timeline of these events. The quotes in the TIME article take on a whole new perspective. Michael said he began his journey of change in 2003 and it culminated in full transformation by 2006. The TIME article is from late 2005. It is clear that Michael had almost completed his ex-gay transformation by the time he was interviewed for TIME. It is absolutely fasincating to read it in that new context and see that he was already trying to get the Truth out, but the interviewer didn’t get it.

  • Steve G

    As someone who used to know Mike I’m struck by the style of the writing, which isn’t the style he used in day to day emails or any of the styles he used for various pen names while at XY Magazine.

    Mike, if you’re reading this, can you share what color and type of car you drove back in 2000-2001?

    I also feel somewhat hurt by your sweeping statements about what it means to be gay, given the documentary you made about gay youth in America in which you tried to focus on an alternative positive perspective to the sex-driven mainstream view. I thought the documentary was about happiness, freedom, and finding stable relationships. Further, I thought that Young Gay America made an effort to avoid “flesh” photos of the sort you had to run at XY under Peter.

  • Jayhuck

    Trent -

    “Truth” is not the same Truth others on this blog have found. Michael’s comments are the same comments we hear from every single Ex-Gay person – even many Ex-Ex Gays used to say what Mike is now saying.

    I will be more interesting to see Mr. Glatz in 10 years.

  • Trent

    The only way to get some of the answers to these questions is to ask Michael yourselves. He will be live on Michelangelo Signorile’s Sirius radio show next week (don’t know which day yet). In a few seconds you can sign-up for a free three day trial with just an email addy(upper right corner of site): http://www.siriusoutq.com/

  • Jayhuck

    Trent,

    WND isn’t a respected webzine by even conservatives – only the radically religious seem to embrace its existance.

    As for the “practices” by some gay people that you seem to equate with a person’s orientation, why don’t you do the same with straight people who get all manner of diseases by behaving badly???

    Making bad decisions, as Mr. Glatz did, has nothing to do with one’s orientation. It is sad he feels the need to blame his orientation for his mistakes, but when straight people get diseases or disorders because of their own lifestyle, we don’t blame their heterosexuality do we? I hope you can see the double standard you are espousing.

  • David Blakeslee

    DON’T BAN RICK FROM THIS WEBSITE!!!!!

    He speaks truth!

    Regarding the obcurity of these two prominent editors (it seems gays and lesbians who post here have never heard of them), I am not sure that some in the community not knowing them disqualifies the significance of the decision they have made.

    I wonder if when we think of an editor of a magazine we think of a person soley responsible for the magazine’s publication and editing. Maybe these folks were contributing ediors among scores of editors.

    Regardless, it is on a level of importance simllar to a publisher of a book for teens about Christian living deciding that he is an agnositc or Buddhist or athiest. A very interesting event.

    I do think that Michael’s response does deserve scrutiny, but that his response is not complete…time will tell as it does for all of us.

  • David Blakeslee

    Over the last century SSA have moved from repressed and reviled to embraced and prescribed. Both of these positions may be reactive and the current discussions here and at Ex-gay Watch may be trying to find a response to SSA that is respectful and non-reactive and value based.

  • Mary

    I agree with Sonja – he does not need to fall in love and marry to demonstrate change to the rest of us.

    Men, it seems, often equate the act of sex with far more meaning than women do. But nonetheless, a man who has changed and has accepted principles of LDS will probably not have sex until he marries – if he finds the right woman. It will not mean – if he does not find the right woman – that he has not changed.

  • jayhuck

    I’m wondering about something I read on Ex-Gay Watch having to do with this story. It seems to have been kept very quiet, in the WND article especially, but in other articles I’ve read – except of late, that Mr. Glatz is part of the Mormon Church. Don’t the majority of Evangelicals view Mormonism as a cult? The only reason I bring this up is that it seems odd that Mormonism has been such a point of contention for these same Christians who are now using Mr. Glatz as their Ex-Gay poster boy?

  • Mary

    Confusing one group of Christians with one goal (that of evangelizing the world as Baptists, Lutherans etc…) and another group of Christians with a different goal (that of using holy scripture to cause a change in sexual reorientation.)

  • jayhuck

    Mary,

    I wasn’t sure if you were addressing me or not. I assure you I’m talking about the same group of people.

  • Rick

    “I agree with Sonja – he does not need to fall in love and marry to demonstrate change to the rest of us. Men, it seems, often equate the act of sex with far more meaning than women do.”

    For the record, I never talked about marriage either. I was talking about emotional and physical passion. But Mary and Sonja effectively discredit religious ex-gayism by affirming it: “You can change your sexual feelings from gay to straight?” “Yes.” “But I am still not attracted to women.” “Oh, this isn’t about sex, but religion.”

    What you say, Mary, about men, sex, and meaning reminds me of the dillema of many straight men I have met whose wives no longer want to have sex with them, claiming “sex doesn’t matter.” Then if their husbands even consider a little sex on the side, they go ballistic over something which they just said “doesn’t matter.”

    I will say that Mary and Sonja, with their indifference to physical and erotic passion, would make IDEAL wives for men claiming the ex-gay identity.

  • Mary

    Rick,

    I did not say that sex does not matter nor did I say emotional and physical passion do not matter. I said that he does not need to prove he has changed. He needs only to feel that change within himself regardless of how he chooses to express that.

    Jayhuck,

    Well, it just goes to show you that we “order” people differently, into different sets of groups. I wonder if those same people we speak of might do the same thing with others??? (being sarcastic) Of course they do because lumping everyone into one group by one criteria doesn’t seem to work. (ie: homosexuality is not of God’s plan/design).

  • Rick

    “I did not say that sex does not matter nor did I say emotional and physical passion do not matter. I said that he does not need to prove he has changed. He needs only to feel that change within himself regardless of how he chooses to express that. ”

    If Mike Glatze and WND are claiming that he, Glatze is now “changed” and “straight,” it means just that: heterosexual, as in sexually and romantically attracted to the opposite sex. You and Sonja can spin it anyway you like (quoting scripture and such), but that is what being “straight” is.

    You can put me down as a sexist if you like, but I have a judgement that many women in our culture have a very difficult time coming to terms with the reality of sexual feelings as well as the sex act itself. Such women have a right to be uncomfortable with sex, but they don’t have a right to minimize its value and importance for men as well as other women who enjoy sex.

  • Mary

    Rick,

    You’may be a sexist (I don’t know) but you also may be projecting some attributes onto me that don’t exist. And whereas you are speaking in general terms of attraction – I was speaking that if Glatze is a member of the LDS church then his sexual and romantic conduct (not sexual and romantic thoughts) will be more strictly expressed until he is married. Thus – his demonstration of his changed self may not be as obvious as some would prefer.

  • Sonja Dalton

    Rick, your astonishing ignorance of women (specifically Christian women, not to mention Christian men) is revealed. Trust me, we are not devoid of passion nor disinterested in sexuality. We are bringing our passions under subjection:

    “It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God… The Lord will punish men for all such sins… For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit.”

  • Sonja Dalton

    This discussion exposes a fundamental difference in our worldviews.

    Some here understand Michael’s testimony this way: Michael claims to have changed from a “gay” identity to a “heterosexual” identity; therefore, he must prove that he is now “straight” through heterosexual attraction, romance, marriage, sex, children, etc. If he doesn’t display his change in such a manner, he is merely a repressed, celibate gay man.

    But the Bible teaches that the “gay” identity is a deceit, a lie, a fraud — just as it instructs that homosexual sex (like every fraud perpetrated by Satan) is a perversion of God’s provision. So the change under consideration is not a transition from actually being “gay” to being “straight” but rather a change of mind, from being deluded (thinking he was “gay” and behaving accordingly) to realizing the truth.

    According to Michael’s own testimony, he discovered his “truest, God-given” identity (which is God-oriented, not sexually oriented) by turning to God on his own, by reading the Bible (not the book of Mormon, not the creed of any church/congregation), by bowing to Jesus Christ. He has repudiated his false “gay” identity along with homosexual sex. He may remain celibate or he may marry — either is compatible with his true identity.

    Michael is just beginning to serve His God and probably has much to learn — he is likely to make a mistake or two (like the rest of us). But in as much as Michael has acknowledged God as Sovereign and Jesus as Savior, I would expect God to to answer his prayers for more knowledge and wisdom, to bless him as he walks in righteousness, to discipline him when he errs, and to complete the good work He has started in Michael.

    And if, GOD FORBID, Michael should someday turn from God and back into his former sins (as both homosexual and heterosexual sinners sometimes do), it would not disprove the transforming power of Christ, but the deceitful allure of Satan. I pray that God will enable Michael to finish his race and qualify for the prize.

  • Lynn David

    Sonja Dalton wrote:

    Some here understand Michael’s testimony this way: Michael claims to have changed from a “gay” identity to a “heterosexual” identity; therefore, he must prove that he is now “straight” through heterosexual attraction, romance, marriage, sex, children, etc. If he doesn’t display his change in such a manner, he is merely a repressed, celibate gay man.

    Actually we”re not at all sure, Michael Glatze has been giving “mixed signals.” On the surface it appears that all he has done is say that he has accepted the poorly contrued Biblical sexual invectives and decided that he cannot be himself anymore. But then there are those little things he throws out. Such as something to the effect like ‘I can’t wait to start a family;‘ which only leads one to the conclusion that he either believes he has “changed” or can sustain a heterosexual attraction or that he doesn’t need to be sexually attracted to a wife, that his god will provide.

    So I and others are not sure that Glatze is sure about how he feels. All that seems to be for sure is that Glatze has fallen for one aspect of the fundamentalist christian right propaganda (The Marketing of Evil) and thrown in his own feelings of guilt to declare that he has left his gay life and his other problems. But considering that he appears to have rather “flippantly” joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints simply because of “friends,” one doesn’t know what to make of his “conversion.”

  • Rick

    “So the change under consideration is not a transition from actually being ‘gay’ to being ‘straight’ but rather a change of mind, from being deluded (thinking he was ‘gay’ and behaving accordingly) to realizing the truth.”

    So it ISN’T about ACTUALLY going from “gay” to “straight” after all, as you have now just stated in print, but rather simply holding a judgement towards one’s former claimed identity…even if “gay” feelings persist. So in effect, you agree with me.

    I honestly wish Michael well; I know enough about him, in his previous life as an advocate for the safety and protection of gay youth, and his involvement in the Shambhala Institute, to perceive a man capable of tremendous compassion and spirituality. I would even venture that he is better than many of his gay critics, who never did as much as he did for the welfare of others, much less explore, on a deep level, questions of faith and spirit. It seems only logical that he would be challenged to confront very profound issues that subtly haunt many gay men, but whom most never deal with or resolve.

    However, Chistendom has a long and sorry history of men and women whose epiphanies quickly became perverted into zealotry, often with very bloody consequences. This is often the case when spiritual enlightenment is not matched with humility and self-discipline. On a gut level, Michael Glatze’s public announcement of his “redemption” sounds very premature to me, and he may be setting himself up for things which he will come to regret.

  • Sonja Dalton

    In Michael’s particular case, he has stated that he no longer feels same sex attraction, but rather same sex sexual revulsion.

    My observation as a Christian is that we (believers) tend to struggle with temptation primarily when we fail to truly repent…when we keep hanging on to our sin for some reason, failing to recognize how much better it will be when we submit to God and follow the Creator’s design. When we really “get it” the sin which has deceived us (whatever sin that might be) loses most/all of its appeal.

  • Rick

    Well, my observation as a human being is…just check this site out:

    http://www.homonomo.com/

    17 years, $30,000, marriage, and even missionary work in Africa.

  • Pingback: Northern Lights » Blog Archive » In the News: Michael Glatze and Wayne Besen debate tonight on CNN's ‘Paula Zahn Now’

  • jayhuck

    Sonja,

    How many other people like Michael have said the exact same thing, only to show us years later, that they were wrong?

  • Pingback: Dr. Throckmorton Follows up on Glatze « as were some of you

  • http://www.collegejay.blogspot.com Jay

    “But the Bible teaches that the “gay” identity is a deceit, a lie, a fraud…”

    Please, Ms. Dalton, point out exactly what verses of the Bible speak about “gay identity” at all. To me, it is a social construct made only in recent years. Surely, it is nothing that the authors of the Bible had a grip of, and nothing that they wrote about. What matters to them (and what should matter to Christians) is conducting our lives in a manner that is similar to Christ.

    Chastity is important, not a particular label. I am celibate, but I still use the word “gay” to describe myself because it is more honest. I still am sexually attracted to men. The thought of sleeping with a man is repellent, but not physically. It is spiritually repellent, because I don’t want to do anything to disrupt my relationship with Christ.

    My identity (whatever an identity is, and a proper definition would be nice one of these days) is in Christ. Everything else: Republican, gay, Southern, teacher, writer, etc. is extra anyway. So who cares if I use a three letter word to describe where my temptations lie? Calling myself “heterosexual” would be a true deceit, lie, and fraud, especially to those SSA folk who are pursuing Christ and want to know what kind of life is in store for them. Surely a life of telling yourself that the only worthy people are straight people is not one God wants for his children.

  • Mary

    Rick,

    One homonomo or even ten thousand homonomos does not tell some one else’s story.

    Not allowing others to live the life they want and speak about it (just as in the days of Stonewall) does not mean that the ex gays do not exist.

    Ex ex gays exist, gays exist and ex gays exist. Saying it ain’t so – doesn’t make it so.

  • Timothy Kincaid

    Mary,

    Now now, no one is saying any of those folk don’t exist. No one is “not allowing others to live the life they want.” No one is saying they can’t tell their story.

    We’re just saying they have to tell the truth. And several who participate here – gay, ex-gay, XXgay – all seem quite capable of speaking honestly and with integrity about attractions, temptations, values, intentions, and their realities of their life without having to resort to games about “change” or “identity”.

    Unless you are willing to tell us which persons here are stifling your story, please don’t continue making these accusations.

  • Mary

    Timothy,

    That comment was directed to someone else, however, he seemed to be mocking the individual. In any case, that individual is telling his story as it happened to him – it is not up to you or me to say it is not true or is- time will tell more.

  • Timothy Kincaid

    Actually, Mary, it quite often is up to me to tell whether someone’s story is true. Whenever someone extrapolates their experiences onto my life and either makes demands of me or lobbys to litigate my life based on their story, then that story is completely up for repudiation.

    Or mocking.

  • Mary

    It is up to us to stand and be counted for ourselves – we are not truer beings because we demolish someone else. Calling others the equivalent of liars, bogus, frauds, etc… is akin to mud slinging and does not prove that your position is more valid. Just my opinion.

  • DW

    As a devout LDS person (who also happens to be an instructor of psychology of gender at BYU), I am upset but not surprised at the ignorance of LDS beliefs reflected in this discussion board. We Mormons of course are used to this, and I do not take offense.

    Just a couple corrections I offer here. First, the name-calling remark about Mormons being “pagans” is bigoted and does not deserve a response.

    Second, the idea that Glatze needs to speak against homosexuality as part of is “penance” is ridiculous. No. It may be an outgrowth of his conversion, but if you think that the LDS Church is looking down this guy’s neck, watching his every move, making specific demands about repairing the damage he’s done, then you have a VERY wrong idea of the LDS Church. I have NEVER seen anything like this in my 25+ years as a member. In fact, the suspicions that brood about such an idea are LOL ridiculous. I think that many of you might be surprised at how uninterested the Church and its leaders are at micromanaging its members’ lives.

    Third, I think that many of you might be surprised at how similar LDS views are to evangelical Christians regarding Christ (while also different in important ways). We believe that Christ is God, not just “a perfect man.” We believe that He atoned for our sins, died for us on the cross, and rose on the third day, using very similar language to other Christians. We do not believe that God asked Christ and Satan to come up with two plans (an outright false idea of LDS doctrine that is explicitly condemned by Church leaders), but rather that God had ONE plan, embodied in His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ (who was his Beloved and Chosen from the beginning), and that Satan rebelled against that plan. Also, the view that some “testing” comes from an inability in the pre-world to fully stand on the side of Jesus is completely false (and such views have been explicitly condemned by recent Church leaders). Also, Aaron, the “double-speak” you refer to regarding public and private views of LDS views on homosexuality is changing. Our leaders and members have had false notions regarding homosexuality in the past (e.g., that reparative therapy and heterosexual marriage are THE answer). Please forgive us for these wrong views–we’re trying to move forward; please let us and not harbor resentment for the past. Such views you longer see being repeated by Church leaders, at least at the very top. Unfortunately, the trickle-down process can take some time. Moreover, more understanding and compassionate views regarding homosexuality and SSA have been anything but quiet–as one person suggested–among Church leaders, at least at the top level of leadership (but yes, we certainly have many members who are not fully on board).

    Fourth, Latter-day Saint doctrine does not incorporate a view in which one saves her- or himself. We believe that Christ is the only way to salvation, that humans are sinners who are utterly incapable of saving themselves, and that any of the works involved in the Church are simply an expression of one’s “coming to Christ.” The entire mission of the Church is encapsulated in the coming of Christ and is entirely grounded in His divine nature, His Atoning sacrifice, and His glorious resurrection. We worship Christ. If you have a hard time believing this, read the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ (as opposed to simply reading about it). Read it for yourself. See what it says about belief in Christ. I think you might be surprised. Here is just one little excerpt, entirely consistent with the entire theme of the book: “And if Christ had not risen from the dead, or have broken the bands of death that the grave should have no victory, and that death should have no sting, there could have been no resurrection. But there is a resurrection, therefore the grave hath no victory, and the sting of death is swallowed up in Christ. He is the light and the life of the world; yea, a light that is endless, that can never be darkened; yea, and also a life which is endless; that there can be no more death … And now, ought ye not to tremble and repent of your sins, and remember that only in and through Christ ye can be saved? … Redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father. Amen” (Mosiah 16: 7-9, 15).

    I apologize if this comment deviates too much. My hope, however, is that my perspective will be valued and help to counter some false views regarding the LDS Church. Thank you.

  • Boo

    Woo-hoo! Thread derailment!

    We do not believe that God asked Christ and Satan to come up with two plans (an outright false idea of LDS doctrine that is explicitly condemned by Church leaders), but rather that God had ONE plan, embodied in His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ (who was his Beloved and Chosen from the beginning), and that Satan rebelled against that plan.

    From the LDS scripture “Book of Moses”:

    “And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan… is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.

    “But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.

    “Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power… I caused that he should be cast down” (Moses 4:1-3.)

    From ldsfamilies.com:

    Long before the world was formed, we lived with our Father in Heaven, our Savior, Jesus Christ, and all our other brothers and sisters. A plan was laid forth by our Heavenly Father whereby we might have the opportunity to become like Him. There were two who stepped forth to fulfill the plan. One, Jesus Christ, willing to execute the plan in accordance with our Father, and another, Satan, who wished to force all of the Father’s children to return and in exchange for this, wished for all the glory. The Father chose Jesus Christ, which was ratified by all in attendance, to carry forth the plan, whereby all of His children might be returned to Him. A great war took place, as is outlined in Revelations. Jesus Christ, Michael and their followers won this battle and Satan and the one third of the hosts of heaven were forever cast out of the presence of Heavenly Father.

    We believe that Christ is God, not just “a perfect man.”

    But not in the same sense as mainstream Christianity, as Jesus being of one substance with The Father, correct?

    And that’s not even getting into the whole as we are God once was, as God is we may become thing.

    Anyone wanna place bets on how many posts until Warren steps in and returns us to our regularly scheduled argument?

  • Russell

    As an orthodox and educated Latter Day Saint myself, I am pretty well-acquainted with the Church literature on the topic. Homosexual orientation–bot in public and “behind the scenes” IS ACKNOWLEDGED as being a possibility. What that orientation means, however, is what is questioned. In a recent interview with Dallin H. Oaks and Lance Wickman on the lds.org website, they offer a qualified comparison of homosexual orientation to a physical limitation, like being confined to a wheelchair or being born without a limb. The BYU honor code (which school I attend) also makes a clear distinction between orientation and behavior, stating that “orientation is not an Honor Code issue.”

    One might summarize the Church’s stance as being ambiguous–some things we really don’t know. You may quote past leaders with various opinions, insights, but the bottom line is that we do not know. That, my friends, is the Church’s stance.

    Re: biological elements, while there is no gay gene per se (no “inherited” trait–to use genetics terminology), there might be some element of “heritable” traits behind homosexuality. Of course, these traits are subject to numerous other factors–environment, biological/chemical makeup, personal choice.

  • jayhuck

    Yes Russell – just like heterosexuality – and as of yet, there is evidence of a gene or set of genes influencing orientation – though there isn’t definitive proof, the evidence we do have leads in that direction – but like all things, genes are never really the final word.

  • Pingback: idea macht versehentlich Werbung für Mormonen | SkepTicker

  • Pingback: As I See it » Jones and Yarhouse study: Homosexuals can change!

  • Aksehl

    In response to those that bring up Roy Masters I wish to attest to the fact that his meditation does seem to work. It’s not an overnight thing although it did make it possible for me to give up gay “hook up” web sites overnight. Before meditating I could not make it through a day without visiting a couple such sites, often spending hours on them. After just a couple times of doing the “be still and know” meditation I was no longer feeling the need to log on to them and I dropped my profiles and haven’t been back in over a year. After a few weeks of meditating I wasn’t able to tolerate the sexual touch of another man, even if I still desired it, which is odd. I’d get into a situation where I’d be alone with a guy I thought I was attracted to but when it got sexual he didn’t look good to me anymore and I couldn’t go through with it. Also,after a couple months of meditating I had a dream about swimming with three naked women and woke up with a strong erection. This actually scared, confused me and I stopped meditating for awhile, then started again, then stopped again. It seems I still look at men with “women’s eyes” as Roy puts it, but the draw is nowhere near as strong as it used to be, unless I resent the attraction or get upset with myself, then it get’s stronger. One has to have a care free attitude as this affliction is fed and grows stronger through resentment. Roy is clearly onto something.

  • I

    From my own experience, sexuality is so fluid.

    Many stupid persons believe that it’s innate and non changeable. A mùinority knows that it’s far away to be innate.

    People tend to believe what activists say to them without analysing it.

    Many resarches concluded that homosexuality is not innate, and it can be changed. But in vain.

    I understand why Galileo was killed whan he said that the earth is turning around. The reason that they dont’ believe him is that they don’t feel that it’s true.

    Warren, i agree with you, i readed many topics in your website and they are amazing.

    Cordially

  • Pingback: Lifesitenews article: An exercise in confirmation bias — Warren Throckmorton


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X