Congratulations on learning how to Google my name. Now that you have taken such an interest in my going-ons, please go back and construct an accurate timeline of my actions.

Better yet, I’ll do it for you:

2003-2005: Misison for the LDS church. Returned with honor.

Summer 2005: Journey Into Manhood preparatory meetings, cancelled weekend excursion.

Spring 2006: Participation with Soulforce, having been burned out by Evergreen, JIM and then one-on-one counseling with a therapist.

Does that clear things up for you?

I don’t think these exclude gay people…if anything, I think many gay/lesbian people would love for there to be more of a push for these types of sexual ethics. That is, if they can be included in the conversation…and talked to, and shared in this, rather than talked about or at.

Absolutely Jag!!!

While I don’t know the position taken on this, your remarks were unusual to me:

“What were you doing with Soulforce, the GLBT organization? Then going to a JIM weekend? *That* doesn’t add up. It seems like you want to have a girlfriend *and* be with GLBT people in Soulforce.”

There are a lot of straight people who support gay and lesbian issues…and some see the oppression of gay and lesbian people in our world as something important to stand up for. It doesn’t exclude them from also attending a “JIM” weekend. I think you could well have a girlfriend and be with the GLBT people in Soulforce…as much as it seems it sometimes, we are not in a state of segregation.

Warren –

You raised some interesting poinst…I wanted to respond to your statement here:

“To me, it seems difficult at best to promote political aims, along with a focus on ministry and do both well. Social conservatives believe in the validity of a socially conservative political stance on sexual ethics as well as the need to offer the love of God, but the question is how should these ends be sought?”

I agree that the simulataneous striving for political aims and ministry tends to mire both….thus the problem with FOF, in my opinion. I would throw financial issues of greed, pride, etc.. into the mix.

I think one way to go about appeasing both ends is to focus on one. For example, a ministry who is solely about ministry will necessarily lead to groups who have certain beliefs on policy.

As for a “socially conservative stance” on sexual ethics, I’m not sure what that means. I’ve heard it used a lot to say that “we don’t agree with homosexuality,” but to be honest – of all the friends I have…heterosexual and homosexual…I’m likely the most conservative in my values on sexual ethics, and I’m married to another woman. From the outside I am labelled in quite another fashion because I am in a same-sex relationship.

Do you think someone can have a socially conservative sexual ethic and be gay?

I think this question is important when examining those who consider themselves “values voters,” or in issues of ministry. Although it is obvious to me, I think that many would disagree that one could be conservative on sexual ethics and gay, or that the minister preaching about fidelity, monogamy and the importance of commitment could well be speaking to a gay congregant in a very personal way. I think they often assume that this is toward a certain audience.

The problem, I think, Warren is that we are too hastily classifying people into categories and claiming exclusivity on these categories. For example, using terms like “conservative sexual ethics,” and making tacit claims that these people are necessarily heterosexual, against same-sex marriage and republican. They could well be homosexual, for same-sex marriage and democrat.

I view a conservative sexual ethic as one that promotes abstinence (although not to the exclusion of other things for other people), monogamy, marriage, family stability, the promotion of family values, etc..and I don’t think these exclude gay people…if anything, I think many gay/lesbian people would love for there to be more of a push for these types of sexual ethics. That is, if they can be included in the conversation…and talked to, and shared in this, rather than talked about or at.

What were you doing with Soulforce, the GLBT organization? Then going to a JIM weekend? *That* doesn’t add up. It seems like you want to have a girlfriend *and* be with GLBT people in Soulforce.

After thoroughly reading the article, the critiques I have are as follows:

- The writer attached too many labels (and very strong ones at that), such as “hatemonger”. Such actions aren’t journalistically proper.
- There are various grammatical errors. One glaring goof is located in one of my quotes, where I “back got” in my car.
- There are statements taken out of context. I did not refer to the weekly activities as “curriculum” but rather as “preparatory meetings”.

I do, however, stand by my experiences. They were not falsified or aggrandized.

The minute I walked in the door I had to sign a non-disclosure agreement and an agreement not to take legal action against them, and I had also put down a deposit for a weekend excursion for the summer of 2005. I attended these meetings in Provo, UT for roughly two months and weekly we would hold “clearings” and take part in activities that apparently we were going to go into more detail with at the weekend excursion.

I have had negative and emotionally unhealthy experiences at these preparatory meetings, enough to have me back out of the weekend excursion itself (which I fully disclosed to the SPLC journalist). However, I will not be listing these experiences in detail nor the names of counselors or fellow participants in this public forum.

If these preparatory meetings are not sponsored by Journey Into Manhood (though I was lead to believe otherwise), then JIM has no right to insist that I sign legal agreements nor should they be accepting money from me. Were these meetings loosely held by some radical counselor or avid JIM participant? It doesn’t add up.

My suggestion to the organizers of Journey Into Manhood is that if they want to avoid negative press in the future, they then need to solidify their structure, *train* their counselors, be more forthright in disclosing to potential applicants what they’re getting into and be a little more clear in their expectations of participants.

Eddy said: “I doubt that anyone is drawn to ex-gay ministry for the money” Yes, but not according to major x-gay watchdogs (e.g Besen).

Personally, I think the national lobbying efforts taint the name of the organization and thus do harm to the individual ministries. I suspect the national political activists in Exodus would disagree.

The national lobbying efforts do do harm to the organization and the sooner Exodus figures that out, the better for them!

People have started to figure out that gay people do not fit the stereotype that the religious right has tried to create. As long as they continue down this path, the majority of people are going to realize they care more about politics than about Truth.

The church has been an agent of support and change for all sorts of strugglers for some time before a political movement was underway for homosexual rights.

Again, heterosexual strugglers with promiscuity have been a focus of the church and will continue to be even when a political movement arises for those who wish to live out those desires.