Comments on: The New York Times finally gets around to covering the Ugandan ex-gay conference

By: Lynn David

Lynn David — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 06:48:27 +0000

Hmmm …. ‘start’ citing Lively’s works. Well, there is the question about how did that link to the article (it was on the LeaderU website, which also took it down) got on the Exodus website. It seems I remember Alan Chambers saying that all manner of people could put up a link on the Exodus site. I suppose that was to say any of the main staff and possibly also anyone on the board of directors. Could that mean Don Schmierer? Possibly….

By: Michael Bussee

Michael Bussee — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 04:41:52 +0000

I keep thinking of these guys as the Three Stooges of Uganda-gate. Can’t imagine how proud oregon must be. Thanks for sharing this, Lynn David.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf/2010/01/live_from_oregon_the_ugandan_c.html

Like you, I am also “next to convinced” that Don Schmierer knew more than he is letting on. I just don’t buy the “Gee-I-didn’t-know-anything-I-was-duped” excuse.

Whether he duped or not, like Warren “I believe there is more that could be done to speak directly to the Ugandan people and to those who organized the conference.”

What would really be helpful is for the three to say directly to the Ugandan people: we were wrong in what we told you. — Dr. THrockmorton

BTW: I know when they stopped, but when did Exodus start citing Lively’s works? Why would they cite him without first finding out what he stood for?

By: Warren

Warren — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 18:53:18 +0000

Eddy – I will say again, he was warned and by those who had nothing against Exodus (me). It seems that it was a case that the warnings were dismissed for reasons I do not know but they were not taken seriously. In hind sight, the leadership has recognized that more going and speaking at that conference with the other presenters was a mistake. I believe there is more that could be done to speak directly to the Ugandan people and to those who organized the conference. It remains to be seen what else will come.

By: Michael Bussee

Michael Bussee — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 18:07:21 +0000

What did he know? What should he have known? It’s discussed here. http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/12/09/17561

By: Eddy

Eddy — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 17:01:11 +0000

When someone is trying to dupe you, it’s actually relatively easy for them to foil your best attempts at research. I was once asked to speak at a Christian college. I inquired as to the format of the class session, the focus of the discussion, if there’d be other presenters, etc. I don’t know what more I could have done? Call the professor’s mother, perhaps? Was most surprised when I got there to see that there was another presenter besides myself and that this presenter represented ‘the other side’. I had been set up and it was too late to do anything other than salvage the moment.

What ticked me off was that ‘my opponent’ had been briefed that I’d be there. I handled the situation capably but would have packed a few more reference materials in my briefcase had I known we’d be debating.

Was I less thorough in my research than Michael? Did Michael research community calendars, local ordinances, and recent newspaper editorials to assess the ‘climate’ in which he’d be speaking? That seems to be the deficit that we’re accusing Schmeirer of.

I am not saying that a mistake wasn’t made; I’m not saying it wasn’t a big one but I believe a major portion of our protest, as I’ve hinted before, is coming in a ‘Monday morning quarterback’ mode. “He should have seen that ball coming”…”he should have anticipated that move”,

Did Schmeirer know what Lively said in his workshops? Should he have known? I don’t know. I seem to remember that during the first Exodus conference I attended, that, for some sessions, the leaders (this includes Michael) were not present. Sometimes engaged in ‘founder discussions’…sometimes getting acquainted with new ministers/ministries…sometimes prepping for their own presentations. It’s easy to presume that because a person was in attendance at the same conference that they were privy to all that transpired but that’s simply not a given.

I believe there’s enough going on here–enough to discuss–without moving into the area of presumption and judgement.