Glatze Is LDS Convert – Why the Silence?
In a short interview with Warren Throckmorton published today, former gay youth activist and now ex-gay Michael Glatze confirmed that he was recently baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, known popularly as the Mormons.
In the interview, which Throckmorton hints will be the first of several, Glatze denied rumours that he had been influenced by controversial self-help “guru” Roy Masters, but did state that he was now a member of the LDS Church. This was not mentioned in the WND story, nor in any Christian media, and for a very obvious reason: The LDS Church is generally regarded by conservative evangelical and orthodox Christians as a heretical, non-Christian cult. For evangelicals, this kind of disclosure would ordinarily cast a cloud over, and more likely completely invalidate, a person’s claim to have met with and been changed by God.
Of his testimony, Glatze said:
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.
Throckmorton elaborates:
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.”
Faith figures very large in Glatze’s conversion. His description of nights and days “alone,” “praying,” and “giving up [his] will” to God suggests a mystical or even miraculous process. He explicitly denies he received help from any person, whether religious or secular. God, Jesus and faith are not incidental to Glatze’s testimony, but absolutely central to its claims. But which God and which Jesus? The evangelical position on whether Mormons are Christian has historically been very clear. The words of Chuck Colson are typical in this regard:
[No] Christian body, even those liberal ones, accepts Mormon baptism as valid. It’s not a Christian baptism because Mormonism is not Christian.
Or again, from evangelical apologetics ministry CARM:
A [Mormon] has a false Jesus, and, therefore, a false hope of salvation.
So far, Exodus has wisely steered clear of endorsing Glatze. But this has not stopped other evangelicals from rushing in to validate Glatze’s testimony, including the American Family News Network/One News Now, Peter LaBarbera at Americans for Truth, Stephen Bennett, Matt Barber of Concerned Women for America, and of course WorldNetDaily, who broke the story. In doing so, they have not simply validated a moral decision, but a religious experience that in any other context would be denounced as false.
Given the crucial nature of Glatze’s religious experience to his testimony, how can evangelical leaders continue to hail Michael Glatze as an ex-gay success story without implicitly endorsing his religious beliefs?
To those ex-gay leaders who have been quick to endorse Glatze, XGW asks: Will you continue to endorse Michael Glatze’s religious testimony now that it appears his Jesus is that of the Latter Day Saints?
Update: Apology & belated hat-tip to Lynn David for uncovering the LDS connection.
2nd update: This article referenced by the Christian Post.
It almost sounds as if people are jealous of Michael. I respect the risk he took at leaving the lifestyle and finding new found freedom. Shouldn’t we all be happy for that?
LDS has a history of embracing family-values and promoting a very wholesome image and lifestyle. If everyone decided to become as clean-cut as Michael, there would be far fewer problems in the world.
I believe in his WND article he spoke about contracting intestinal disease from gay lifestyle practices. Isn’t it a testiment to his own resolve that he gave up the behaviors associated with his former sexual preference? I consider him a pioneer and a spokesmen for struggling youth everywhere who want to choose what’s right for themselves and our Nation rather than the emptiness of narcissism. Our heroic soldiers protecting us from the terrorist overseas have done no less than what Michael has. Both seek a Nation in which evil doesn’t follow us home. Let’s support these American heroes.
Two words…
STEPHEN FALES!
Charles, that is the funniest spoof post I have ever seen. Keep it up. It almost sounds real.
Regan… that is your shortest post EVER
But, good point. However it should be linked
Stephen Fales
Charles F:
Is it a risk he took to LEAVE the “lifestyle,” or is it a risk he took to STAY IN the “lifestyle?” Ex-gay advocates are masters of doublespeak. You mention risks in both directions, as if being same-sex attracted is equal to joining the Crips or the Bloods (dangerous gangs). People like this will say gays are weak members of society who do nothing positive to contribute and then in the same breath say they’re a powerful sect of society that is inches away from destroying “Christian America.” If you ask Matthew Shepard, I’m sure he’d tell you it’s a greater risk to tell people you’re in the “lifestyle” than to tell people you’re out of it.
Michael didn’t contract his intestinal condition because he was attracted to and having relations with the same sex. He contracted it most likely because of poor decision-making. A woman married for 10 years can contract a disease having sex with her husband in a careless manner, too (e.g., yeast infections, or cervical cancer at worst if she doesn’t have regular checkups). Now, I do not mean to cast judgment on Michael’s sex life- everyone can make mistakes, everyone does. But it is a great error to associate any one disease with sexual orientation. It has everything to do with how one personally treats their body and takes care of themselves when they are sexually active.
And this belief of Mormons, more than anything else, is why we part company. It shouldn’t be a surprise since we both believe the other has an inherently flawed Christology, nor is this a trifling matter. Of course such theological concerns are not really germaine to the central issue of this post, but since you raised them…
I highly recommend anyone to listen to Michael in his own words in a radio interview at the CWA site. It is amazing.
There are many innacuracies being spread. Micheal didn’t get the intestinal illness from sexual behavior. On the radio he clearly says that he had become sick from contemplating his life and thought he had developed a heart condition that killed his father.
Also, Michael didn’t suddenly become ex-gay. In the interview he says it took years of self-searching and at one point he even thought he might be a gay Christian. It is an amazing interview and I encourage everyone to listen to Michael in his own words. He is extremely strong and courageous as you will hear. In the interview he speaks of his work at Harvard, his ivy league degree, and many other accomplishments that people are not aware of. This guys is a true renaissance man and willing to forge any path towards truth. You will be fascinated hearing him.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/13383/CFI/family/index.htm
Having now listened all the way through the CWFA interview with Bennett, there are a few things that Bennett has said that cannot be squibbed, and that do deserve Dave R’s question directly put: eg Bennett said Glatze “was a new man in Christ”.
That’s stepping well over the “God did it!” and claiming an LDS member is something they normally would deny. Bennett did do the expected “God gets all the glory and all the credit for this.” — but since when has a Mormon truly been a new man in Christ in his eyes???
But, at least somethings stay the same: no let up in the all too typically confused message:
Glatze to Bennett (claims Bennett): “Steve, this is a process I’ve just begun.” (about “coming out of this lifestyle”)
From someone claiming to be Glatze: “I am not just a celibate man who is avoiding the homosexual tendencies. I no longer have desires of that nature at all and DO have normal male desires.” [1]
OK…. beginning, or end? Or just plain nonsense?
Interestingly, Matt Barber (CWFA) claimed Glatze rang him looking for guidance for “getting his message out”. Barber referred him to Bennett. Glatze rang Bennett.
Doesn’t sound a very passive couple of days for Glatze.
——————————–
Mike A: no probs. It just seemed oddly unlike what you’d normally say. Apparently, it was!
Gene, I had listened to that interview also, and I still took it as if it was gay related. Not only that, but it is obviously the original WND article seems to imply it. Maybe it was related to other issues, but then why bring it up at all in the original article in relation to self-destructive activities. Gene, my definition of renaissance man and yours differ greatly.
I forgot to mention, but in the interview Michael cryptically mentions that he is anticipating death threats and almost seems to consider himself a martyr. Is was the only part of the interview I found somewhat troubling.
The other part that was unusual is that he says he began his spiritual journey in 2003 but didn’t leave YGA until 2006 when he left the computer message about “homosexuality=death”. I am curious how he performed his job at a company that espoused homoesxuality while he was troubled by it. That would be a fascinating story.
Also, Michael does not mention being Morman once in the extensive CWA interview so I don’t think that was a cruicial element of his being saved. From the interview, it sounds as if he went on the journey much of the time all by himself similar to either John the Baptist or Jesus himself in the early years.
Gene, from my experience, a person who considers himself or herself Mormon is not considered saved by the general Christian public. I could be wrong, but I have been told over and over that if someone is truly “saved,” they are not led in a direction where a person can do something against the gospel of Christ. Now, I am not a Christian (agnostic here), but I doubt most mainstream Christians would see Mormonism as saved. (I am not saying Mormons are not Christian).
I suspect that the reason the LDS aspect was not brought up is because it would make the CWA audience question the testimony.
Here is a really great article that someone emailed me about the origins of World Net Daily. This may explain why Michael reached out to them: http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2006/wndmasters.html
I might guess that Glatze has been baptized into the LDS because his friends could then get him work through the church. You just don’t join the LDS and get baptized if you arer gay or have been homosexually active, I have been told [not sure of the veracity] that the church requires a year-long period of celibacy before you may be baptized. So I am somewhat skeptical of Glatze’s admission of only 2 months before being baptized.
Glatze doesn’t seem to understand his accepted religion. His story seem almost robotically spoken. I once had a discussion about Mormonism with the Mormon director of a stake’s genealogical library after we shared our enjoyment of science fiction. He the pointed out to me that his religion was very much like Heinleinian Sci-Fi in which persons may become elevated enough to go off and create for themselves new worlds, in which they were then ‘the god.’ His comment specifically to me was that most Mormons don’t realize that is the actual meaning of their religion.
I thought that over a while back then and thought it sounded better than the mainline Christian religions, certainly more interesting…. I mean I’d at least like to go fishing in heaven or antiquing, but then everything is shiny new. Oh well….
Gene, if the LDS connection isn’t mentioned prominently in the interview, it’s just as likely because it is being played down in the Christian media, for the reasons I outlined above.
I find it very strange that Glatze would say he has been baptized into LDS simply because his friends go there. The LDS isn’t simply another evangelical corner church among others. There are some very specific steps you go through when you convert to LDS, not least confessing your belief in Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.
Organizations like Focus on the Family would most likely attack and demonize the LDS Church if it did not have gays and lesbians to demonize.
Latter-day Saints look at Evangelicals and other mainstream Christians in a similar way that the ancient first century Christians looked at the Jewish sects of their day. The ancient Jewish sects typically looked at the ancient Christians as heretics, extremists, etc.
Benjamin: there’s a famous joke among my people- God created Mormons so that Christians would know how Jews feel.
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/
Dave, I agree. People don’t just get baptized because of friends. The Mormon Church has a very strict way of “weeding” out undesirables. On the other hand, the social community of the LDS is very insular, and friends are encouraged to bring non-LDS friends into the fold (young Mormon women are notorious for bring non-LDS boys into the Church). From my experience though, once baptized, if you leave the Church, you lose your friends. My best friend told me point blank 17 years ago that unless I repented and returned to the Church, he had nothing to say to me. The process is very strict, so you don’t just do it for friends. Most converts I have met also tend to early on be eager to talk about the Church. Interestingly, the retention rate is very small. Most people leave soon after baptism. This is just strange and not familiar to my experience overall.
P.S. One thing I have noticed in Michael’s interviews and posts–Straight=real man. Masculinity is a big issue for him, but I don’t understand how being gay makes one less masculine. I never cared about gender.
The article that started this thread actually is asking questions of those who are promoting Glatze, not Glatze himself.
Sometimes I wonder if this is really a sincere conversion for Michael or if this simply is a ruse to get YGA Magazine up and running again. It appears that YGA Magazine had published 4 or 5 so issues and then ran out of money (www.ygamag.com). In the April/May 2005 issue of YGA, Mike wrote an ed-op piece titled “God: You.” I don’t doubt that Michael wants a relationship with God, but his conversion came from looking at God from different religions and viewpoints, including meditation (he was working for Shambhala Institute during 2006(http://www.shambhalainstitute.org/Fieldnotes/Issue11/index.html). Mike then became involved with the Mormon Church in Halifax and was baptized in late April 2007. I wonder if Mr. Glatze really has a deep understanding of the true grace of God? It sounded like he went to a revival meeting of some sort and came back accepting the Lord as his savior and then decided to publically announce this to the world. If so, let us hope that as he grows in his faith, he will achieve a better understanding of God’s true and ultimate grace for all.
According to Signorile just now, Glatze not only “chickened out” and will not appear on his show today, but he did the same thing last night on CNN, resulting in the cancellation of that segment. Signorile added that he only found out about the cancellation through a third party.
I guess Glatze isn’t all that interested in being in a real spotlight, just those venues which support and promote him.
David,
What I believe is happening to Glatze is he’ll reach out to anyone that is willing to listen to him without being challenged. WND, Bennet, CWA will not challenge his testimony of change. He probably feels the GLBT community will not listen to him. Or he will speak to the GLBT community but only if he is not challenged.
These cancelations sound like he cannot deal with confrontation by anyone that has reservations about his change. Which makes me believe there are other personal issues he’s dealing with.
87 On July 10, 2007 at 6:59 PM, billy wrote —
I watch the gay community struggling for acceptance for a behavioral problem that can be readily changed by making and identifying the confusion of same sex attraction and love. The agenda of the gay community in itself proves that they are reaching out for acceptance for sexual behavior that defies natural law. This confusion of love is the monster that rages inside, the monster of same sex attraction. I know that monster is a strong word, however that is how it starts then we begin to sugar coat it in order to cope until eventually we become callous to it’s existence and begin to accept it as being natural.
I express my feelings when I first recognized that same sex attraction was a problem I had to confront head on and eventually deal with it. Do you remember those initial feelings? Do you remember the humiliation, the embarrassment, the feeling of despair? You are now faced with same sex attraction that is outside natural law and now being confronted of being sexually abnormal? Do you remember how you felt as being defined as a “queer”?
Do you remember the failure of being different and not really understanding why? Do you remember the first sexual encounter, the gratification, the resentment, then the justification, but most of all the confusion? Isn’t this where we begin to sugar coat the feeling trying to make it acceptable? When we began to sugar coat our urges we began to choose our destiny. Did we not choose to accept this behavior despite all the emotional conflicts raging within. How many times did you quit, denied being gay, but lost control, and eventually moved back to what is now addictive sexual behavior. How long did you fight yourself until finally you gave in, became deceived and called same sex attraction normal behavior? Has your deception been so sugar coated that you totally believe it is acceptable? If you could change it, would you? If you would change it, could you?
Realize that truth and eternal laws cannot be changed. It is key to understand that the natural laws affect your life even when you are oblivious to their existence. It is our responsibility to identify truth and live accordingly. Otherwise we will pay some consequence for its violation or at the very least not enjoy the benefit of its existence. An extreme example would be the Law of Gravity. We cannot see it but we know it is there. We can choose to ignore the law and suffer the consequences by violating the law or we can choose to accept it as law and use it for our benefit.
It was by choice that we started down the path of being an active homosexual or other addictions i.e. pornography, adultery, drugs, alcohol, all of which destroys, not only the person but also the family. The family is the core of our existence, and being a homosexual violates that very existence.
If there were no males and females, then families wouldn’t exist. Thus you and I wouldn’t exist.
Gay “free” for 35 years
Seriously BillyBob, it sounds to me like you weren’t gay but just experimenting with the possibility that you might be.
I had no monster as you describe it. I experienced rage, true, but that was due to others that felt the need to call me names and pick on me because of their need to feel superior. I never fought my sexuality once. It seemed fighting against what came to me naturally at the demands of those that believed I had to change in order to “fit in” was a fruitless attempt at something I believe would never happen (heterosexuality). Just read all the ex-ex gay stories Mr. BillyBob. They tried to free themselves from their homosexuality but could not even after long prayer, sacrifice, and countless dollars. Are they giving into their Monster urges? Have they been deceived?
And I don’t buy the “natural law” theory as you explain it. Our struggles are not due to the fact we are going against what you call “natural law” but we struggle because of those that wish to suppress our very lives through the legislation process and through condemnation, justified by, their use of the Bible as their chosen weapon against us. Same as Hitler did to the Jews and others than were beneath him during WWII. Suppression first, leading up to extinction. Same as those people throughout history that have suppressed others they claimed were inferior because they didn’t follow a certain pattern of life that was prescribed by the majority.
I seem to recall a man named Galileo that was condemned for his belief that the Earth revolved around the sun while the Church held to the Scriptural belief that the Earth was fixed and unmoving. Which we now understand is untrue. God has revealed a great many mysteries in our lives through science. Science is not our enemy. Bigotry and intolerance is.
Yes, thank God for our parents!
It seems I decided to go for a sugar-coating…. while others went for a bile-coating. I certainly am happy I didn’t choose that!!
But seriously, the gravity analogy is not bad. Just as with gravity, there is an invisible pull that draws people together. There is that spark of attraction, that inner pull that when it is right results in love, deep and true.
And just like we can tie helium baloons to our belt, or put springs in our shoes, or even swing from ropes, there is still that natural draw, that law of attraction (one might even note that it’s Newton’s law of attraction) that pulls us in the direction we were intended. And though we can claim to be gravity free for 35 years or even longer, ultimately the draw is still there.
Perhaps one is happiest when one lets go of the artificial means used to fight this natural pull and relax knowing that the pull, the draw, the attraction is in the natural and intended direction.
I think billybob is queer-free and not gay-free. I can stay out of the gay clubs and miss every circuit-party from now until gravity takes over (get my drift). But, I’m still gay. I could marry and breed some mini-mes until I formed my own football/hockey team. But, I’m still gay. I could become a hermit and dwell in self-loathing pity. But, I’m still gay.
There is a choice. Choose to be miserable or choose to be what nature intended you to be. Fearing of being labeled a queer is not being “free” of being gay.
It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are not. Andre Gide – French critic, essayist, & novelist (1869 – 1951)
Natural law is a very problematic concept. There is always ambiguity to natural law, so that is why natural law theorists, such as on the Supreme Court, will often fight over what is and isn’t natural law. Gravity is testable; natural law is not (bad analogy).
The questions and situations you posed do not sound like my experience. The only problem I had was with my religion, family, and community. On my end, I was completely fine–no resentment, no guilt. I did feel resentment and guilt when I tried to pretend I was something I was not. There is no sugar coating to feelings. My family and community largely found it was not an issue. The religion did. I dealt with the consequences of the religion aspect, but I felt mutally that the religion was not the right place for me. Everyone’s happy, and it was one of the best choices I ever made. I could be in a household with a wife I am not attracted to, kids that don’t know their own father, playing house, involved in a religion where I would nod my head and “agree,” but I realized that was all a lie, and I chose (yes, I chose) to be honest about deep-seated feelings, and I did the best thing possible. And that path is the one that made all the difference.
It is important to note that choices are critical in determining which course we take in life and what our end result will be. My character as it now stands is defined by the choices that I made. Good choices or bad, it doesn’t matter, we always have the same opportunity to turn mistakes into something good and uplifting. When we own our choices, there is no one to blame. We choose who we are.
We have the ability to turn our weaknesses into strengths if we so choose.
Love and sex are not the same and the confusion of love mixes the two.
Otherwise sex is not love and love is not sex. The expression of love can be demonstrated with two people of the same gender without sex and that confusion of love leads to homosexuality.
I may have started out “queer free” but I am now “gay free” with a lovely wife, 3 children and 4 grandchildren. It can’t get any better
Why is it everybody who aligns same sex attraction with addiction, brokenness, and pornography cannot fathom that an intense, genuine, real romantic love can exist between two same-gendered people? That love and sex are not the same and can be confused has nothing to do with WHO you love. Bringing forth a point about “Natural Law” is so useless because it is so ambiguous a term. Natural law for seahorses has fathers giving birth instead of mothers. Natural law for rams (male sheep) means that 8% of their population will be “non-breeding” – that is, spend the rest of their lives around other rams.
I’ve never tried to be straight – i never tried to “test” myself by being with men instead of women. Why? Because my parents raised me to be myself and never force anything to happen when you feel it won’t. So sometimes I’m asked, “well, then how do you know you’re gay if you’ve never been with men?” and to them i respond, “How do you know you’re straight if you’ve never been with anyone of the same sex?” And then they usually get it – for me it is and always has been about love and attraction, about genuine feelings, not sex acts.
billybob, this isn’t an open forum and you are moving it off topic. Please confine your comments to the subject, which in this case is why there has been such great silence in the Christian media reports concerning the fact that Michael Glatze was baptized into the Mormon church.
No billybob, we have never felt the way you have. Your age — the times in which you grew up — and the attitudes you absorbed at that time probably is the cause of that difference.
We never felt “the humiliation, the embarrassment, the feeling of despair” about our sexuality — that has always been a joy, and accepted as the wonderful, terrible gift that it is; and we are truly sorry you feel otherwise.
Instead, what we were long aware of was the scalding ignorance and prejudice around us. We didn’t fear our behaviour or our attractions, but we feared the behaviour and attitudes of others. There is still barely a day that passes when we are not reminded of the wilful prejudice of some people. Because of that alone we experience everything from rudeness to violence from others.
However, such people do not include our families. Whatever surprise they may have felt on knowing, it was not followed by rejection. Whatever concerns they may have, those are not ultimately about our sexuality or ourselves as a couple. Regardless of all the many ways they hold a faith or worship; none of them hear voices, imagine people to possessed by demons and none are plagued by visions of the fires of hell. Thus far — when our families do unreasonable, it isn’t for those reasons.
Hence the general silliness of comparing gravity to your religious beliefs. One does not need to believe in gravity. Gravity doesn’t care what you think. It applies to all, regardless. Jumping from a height has the same outcome whether you are the Pope, the Dalai Lama, Richard Dawkins or Mel White. Gene Robinson or Peter Akinola. The same force was felt by the Pharoah and Moses, by Socrates, by Saul, by the Stoic or the Epicurean, by Martin Luther and by Thomas Acquinas. By the children of Israel on one side of the wall, and by those who submit to the will of Allah on the other.
Quite plainly, how you experience your sexuality is a world away from our own. We cannot say the same about gravity.
For the sheer irony of it all: as a proponent of The Natural Law, you no doubt also subscribe to the belief that it must be either heterosexual marriage or complete celibacy for gay men and women.
How celibacy for two disconnected, tormented gay individuals is supposedly better than the unconflicted connection to the river of life within a loving gay couple remains, as always, as yet unexplained. Such views are completely at odds with those who know us best — those who raised us as children, grew togther a friends, and then witnessed us first find and join with each other. What fate, one can wonder, is behind that?
Far from being anti-family, our commitment to each other is the highest expression of family. Within that relationship we achieve our best, for each other and for others. That is the choice we have, not heterosexuality.
Apart from that, mind your own business: it’s your own relationships that need your consideration, not ours.
WELL, I am a Mmeber of the Church of CHrist. It views all other Churches as flatly wrong.It’s also labled a Cult, a word used well too often, by Evangelicals.
My own take is “So?”
If Michael Glatze wants ot eb a Mormon, this is his decision.If he beleives Mormionism is true, this also is his right. I also do not see the Mormon Church as worshipping a different God and different Jesus.I am aware many do, but not all, and I think you will find most Average Christains just don’t care enough about the difference. He has found God and Jesus is his Saviour. Surely this makes him a Christian, even if a Misguided one.(At leats if I am right and SMith was not a Prophet, but I digress.)
Now, I disagree wit much in the LAtter-Day Saints movement, but I do not queasiton their sincerity, and he fruits of their faith are evident in helpful, well adjusted people. Not all Mormons, of ocurse, are helpful and well adjusted, but most are, and Mormons tend ot be family-oriented, friendly people who are kind, compassionate, and overall live in accordance tot he teahcigns of Jesus.
So, as much as they may be wrogn on theological matters, at leats if I am correct in my own theology, or else someone els is, one canot fault their moral teaching, which is the same as most other CHristans, with only minor vaiation here and thee.
I’d still count my dear Michael Glatze as a Fellow Christian, and if I ran a pub;icaiton in Christian Media ( I don’t) I’d see no reason not to mention this, if indeed it was needful.
That said, there may be, in charity, a reaosn it was not mentioned to WND that he was LDS. He may not have told them, or ele it may just have not been central to o the sory, it may not be a diliberate obfusiation.
All this said, I do wonder why it matters. Michael Glatze has found God, and has accepted the Lord Jesus as his Saviour.(Not to talk like an Evangleical, I am not.) I see no reason why we shoudl subject him to ridicule based spley on his choice of Church.
That aid, we can now all maeke fun of Katherine Jefferts-Schori’s hat, and the Popes frilly robes.