The article is here

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_5684555

Of NARTH, Evergreen, or Brigham Young, it was BYU that first recognized that identity and behavior are not the same thing. BYU’s brand-new policy revisions on homosexuality (which had nothing, nothing I tell you, to do with SoulForce) now read as follows:

One’s stated sexual orientation is not an Honor Code issue. However, the Honor Code requires all members of the university community to manifest a strict commitment to the law of chastity

Prior wording forbid “advocacy” (recognition of) sexual orientation regardless of one’s actual sexual behavior:

Advocacy of a homosexual lifestyle (whether implied or explicit) or any behaviors that indicate homosexual conduct, including those not sexual in nature, are inappropriate and violate the Honor Code.

Interesting that sometimes it’s those who don’t spend their full-time efforts on “reaching out” to strugglers that actually get it. So now gay Mormans attending BYU can join their straight counterparts in celibacy until marriage (which of course is not ever allowed). I consider this a positive step.

In the meantime, to live to see Exodus “reform, be less political and more honest about what they do” would make me feel a little less guilty for having played a part in creating it in the first place.

I’m confused, Michael. Do you want Exodus to reform, be less political, more honest about what they do, or do you want them to go out of business? All your effort to get Alan to put in policies and change this and that seems like nothing more than putting lipstick on a pig.

More politically motivated than Exodus? I don’t think that’s possible. Is there anyone who has tried to influence public policy more than Alan?

I hope they will exercise more caution. I think it would be a really good idea for them to get out of poitics altogether — and not because I disagree with their politics (which I strongly do).

They need to think about the individual gay person, perhaps unfamiliar with the Christian message of hope and redemption, and stick to ministry — conveying the Gospel to gays and lesbians who are understandably suspicious of the “church”. Gay and Lebsian “seekers” should not have to feel like they are joining a political movement.

This is precisely why we “founders” took great pains to avoid politics. Perhaps EXODUS could hire a Public Relations Advisor to help them be more careful with their affiliations and public image and help prevent these kinds of embarassments.

I applaud Exodus for having the courage to rethink some of their alliances. In my opinion, Exodus’ message was being obscured and it’s reputation tarnished by association with these more politically motivated groups. I think Exodus will emerge stronger and more focussed when the dust settles.

I personally think Exodus is moving in a good direction — but I have many issues with other players in this arena. My personal hope is that all concerned will carve out space for individuals to follow their conscience and belief system.

The ex-gay movement wants respect and trust. How can we? They feel we are picking on them unjustly. Given recent events, how on earth would a therapist or pastor determine which organization was “on target” enough to make confident referrals and which should be avoided at all cost?

One EXOUDS affiliate referred to the challenge as “cat-herding”. So many questions: Can we trust EXODUS? NARTH? Which affiliates are competent? Which ones are “fringe” or just plain weird? Have politics and embarrasing media blunders over-shdowed ministry? Who is associated with who? Has anyone been trained? Are Schonewolf and Berger still around?

Should we just wait until this dust dust settles? Maybe the ex-gay movement should hold conference or something to get their act together.

I don’t think that’s what James Dobson expects to get for his money.