Talk:Lonnie Frisbee/Archive 2

Lonnie's Testimony
It has been reported that Lonnie took out the part about him being a homosexual before he was saved from his testimony.

That makes sense to me given the time.

However, a GRATUITOUS cheap shot against the church is added to this fact in the article.

Why, other than the obvious (some of the editors in here controlling the article might not be fans of Christianity), is this insult included?

Society was so much different back then. People could lose their jobs for being homosexual. My God, even Paul Lynde couldn't come out of the closet back then. lol

Why does the church need to be indicted in specific? You are anachronistically taking a cheap shot.

It'd be like me saying New York City did not allow blacks in certain neighborhoods in 1870 and then find a source to RIDICULOUSLY say 'And I think that's AN INDICTMENT against NYC.'

I'll leave it in for a few days. But unless someone can offer a LEGIT reason for it's inclusion, it should come out.

Again..HATING Jesus does not qualify as a legitimate reason. Not that anyone in here does. Since I'm assuming good faith. I'm sure you all LOVE him...71.238.68.127 05:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, let's save the presumptions about other editors and stick the discussing the article. If you're referring to the statement I think that's an indictment of the church that is a direct quote. I'm happy to button that with a follow up statement that now the church allows openly gay ministers or even now the church allows gay ministers as long as they keep their sexuality covert if we have a reference supporting it. Benjiboi 17:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'll keep my presumptions in check if you promise to do the same. It may be a direct quote, but it's a gratiutious slam that has no relevance. It is relevant that Lonnie USED to tell people he WAS gay as part of his testimony. But not for the reasons you probably think. He felt it was a sign of God's power that he could deliver someone from such a WRETCHED lifestyle. That WAS his opinion, you know. The fact that he later backslid notwithstanding. Personally, I would include that in the article, but I know it would make you cry, so I'm cool keeping it out. I don't have an agenda other than to make the article NPOV which it most certainly was NOT until I began contributing. In the 70's and early 80's the church was a little creeped out about homosexuality (as was much of society), esp the male variety. Remember, this was before LGBT people got in high positions within the entertainment community and began their non-stop blitzkrieg to the point where now it seems that every show has to have at least one gay character.

So, Lonnie deleted that part from his testimony. That is all that is important here. Whether some guy interprets this deletion as a sign the church is/was full of homophobic meanies is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT in this regard. 71.238.68.127 (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please confine your comments to what is directly related to writing this article. I am not interested in your personal views on homosexuality, American politics or entertainment, and certainly not your suppositions about whether or not editors have taken Jesus Christ as their personal savior. As interesting as all of that might be to you, it has nothing to do with our purpose and only serves to make the editing atmosphere tense. The next time you post in such a manner I will either delete your remarks or refractor them to make render them harmless to others who happen upon this page. Jeffpw (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Claims of member numbers
The article (as well as the linked one on the House of Miracles - see Talk Page) states that membership was at 100,000. This claim needs to be verified and if not, the assertion should be removed. The HoM article will be tagged accordingly. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ref added. Benjiboi 01:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop including the "closeted gay" clause at the beginning
I am the documentary filmmaker who did the doc on Lonnie, and it is misleading to say that he was a "closeted gay" hippie preacher. It is better to leave that clause out and then let the homosexual inferences come at a later date. If you have questions about that, because it is seemingly more complex than simply a two word clause, please contact me privately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barkonst (talk • contribs) 16:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored. Please do not remove sourced content from the article. - &#10032; ALLSTAR &#10032; echo 16:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there a way to word that better? It seems as though his later ostracism and firing from his church(es) would make his homosexuality a relatively key fact?  -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The lede would need to be reworked altogether which certainly is possible. From what I keep reading he was an amazing preacher but because he was gay he was expelled from the churches he helped create. If not in the first sentence this would certainly be in the second sentence. Benji boi 13:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Stephen Fry's homosexuality doesn't get a mention in the lead of his article. It would be fair to say that Frisbee's closet homosexuality would be more significant in terms of his profession as a minister, but it shouldn't be used to define someone. It should be mentioned in terms of how this affected his life, personal and professional. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 11:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact I've changed the lead slightly. I wasn't able to find anything online which definitively stated that he was a closet homosexual, therefore I've added that there were suspicions (as mentioned here) Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 11:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sources don't support your doubts about his being both gay and closeted about it. In fact the website you link is a great documentary that states both. Benji boi 18:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Did he self-identify as gay, or do we have a source that says he was a closeted gay man? To me, that's the question. No doubt, Lonnie went through a great internal struggle; the question is, what do the sources say? If we have sources, we can say "his closeted homosexuality was an open secret, according to ," etc. Comes back to the eternal reliable sources ideal. If there are biographical sources describing him such, then it's no problem. FCYTravis (talk) 09:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. The documentary on him quite clearly identifies him as both. Frisbee's early testimony including references to his being gay (or formerly gay) but he stopped talking about that as it made people in the church uncomfortable. Our coverage seems quite accurate actually... Although Lonnie's homosexuality was documented as a "bit of an open secret in the church community" and he would "party" on Saturday night then preach Sunday morning[14] many in the church were unaware. However, as time went on, certain church officials felt that his inability to overcome what the church considers sexual immorality became too big of a hindrance to his ability to minister.
 * So we have reliable sources showing he was gay and closeted and expunged from the various churches he helped build because of such. Now all we need is any reliable sources that actually dispute this. Benji boi 03:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Would there be any objection to replacing the phrase "being a closeted gay man" with simply "homosexuality"? That seems to be a fair way to mention his homosexuality in the opening of the article without unnecessarily simplifying a complex issue, since the rest of the article discusses the significance of his homosexuality to the rest of his life in an appropriate amount of detail. DrHouse09 (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually yes, the churches were more concerned with him still manifesting as a closeted gay man instead of as a repentant and "sinful" gay man excising the demon of homosexuality. If we have a sources that backs up what you want to state then we should reconcile the sources. Benji boi 01:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I find it incredible that you are citing sources to contradict me THAT ARE MY SOURCES!! You are quoting the very words that come from MY documentary. Do you think I don't know what the subject matter is? I get the issue, but the fact remains that when you say he is a "closeted gay man" that is a blanket statement that covers his entire life. And that just isn't accurate. He entered into homosexual unions in the latter portions of his life, and that is where he got in trouble and was ostracized. What I am trying to avoid here is the appearance that he was involved in gay liaisons throughout his life and evangelistic career. That would be inaccurate. There is no proof of this, and I think that some benefit of the doubt should be given to me since I am the one who you are essentially quoting. (Again, I find it incredible that I am arguing with people who probably haven't seen the documentary in its entirety, and are quoting those sources well out of the context of where they fall in the lineage of his life.) If Wikipedia exists as an experiment in documenting the truth, do you really think it wise to give everyone an equal vote on these matters... really? I know nothing about Costa Rica. I think that if I was arguing with someone who was born, raised and wrote the definitive book on that country, I would have to defer to their knowledge. I am not opposed, obviously, to Lonnie being involved in homosexual activities. I was the one whose work made these comments in the first place.

Why not this? Why don't we take out the "closeted gay man" reference... and instead, I will tackle and properly contextualize his homosexuality. Ergo...perhaps this explains it better and can be put in a place so that instead of "closeted gay man" we have a more complexified (AND TRUTHFUL) understanding.

_______________ Lonnie's sexuality is a controversial subject. By his own admission, he was involved in homosexual liaisons before his conversion experience. After he became a Christian he believed, according to evangelical teaching at the time, that this was a thing of the past. But there is evidence that homosexual liaisons continued on occasion, especially toward the latter portion of his life. At no time did Lonnie Frisbee ever preach or believe that homosexuality was anything other than a sin. ______________

thanks 76.87.214.254 (talk) 08:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well even your sources don't concur. In fact we have sources that show he was in the gay underground at 15 and little to suggest that he wasn't a closeted gay man. Benji boi 01:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the statement that Lonnie "came from a broken home and entered into Laguna Beach's gay underground scene with a friend when he was 15," even if those two assertions were independently true, the sentence is constructed in such a way as to suggest a cause and effect relationship, which I believe makes the entire statement POV absent any legitimate research (other than conservative Christian pseudoscience) to suggest that homosexuality is the result of being raised in a "broken home." - Mark Dixon (talk) 04:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I separated the two to address this. Banj e  b oi   03:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Soundtrack deets
It may merit it's own article but the soundtrack details could be added in. here is an article delving into the soundtrack. Benji boi 23:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible source
here is an overview based on the documentary. Benji <u style="text-decoration:none;font:98% cursive;color:hotpink">boi 23:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Larry Norman - Frisbee collection album
Larry Norman, release a a compilation called "Frisbee" to coincide with the documentary coming out. some details here. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:95% cursive;color:#CC00CC">Benji <u style="text-decoration:none;font:98% cursive;color:hotpink">boi 00:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible source
history of the vineyard church. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:95% cursive;color:#CC00CC">Benji <u style="text-decoration:none;font:98% cursive;color:hotpink">boi 00:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Another Greg Laurie source
here. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:95% cursive;color:#CC00CC">Benji <u style="text-decoration:none;font:98% cursive;color:hotpink">boi 00:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Google books
28 hits here. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:95% cursive;color:#CC00CC">Benji <u style="text-decoration:none;font:98% cursive;color:hotpink">boi 00:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible source
refering to John Wimber and Mother's day event. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:95% cursive;color:#CC00CC">Benji <u style="text-decoration:none;font:98% cursive;color:#8000FF">boi 00:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Other possible images

 * album cover - not a great pick but it shows him ministering overseas. See this for more info.


 * movie poster need to find more original source. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj e  <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b oi   22:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect image caption
The photograph captioned "Lonnie Frisbee in the 1960s" was in fact taken in 1972 when Lonnie appeared on Kathryn Kuhlman's television show with his then-mentor Chuck Smith and Hollywood Free Paper creator/editor Duane Pederson. I admit it's a minor point but, to be strictly correct, it's not from the 1960s. - Mark Dixon (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there a video on youtube or elsewhere we could use to confirm this? <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj e  <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b oi   03:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, there is, I've seen it around once or twice. If I can locate it again I will post that information here in the discussion.  I do know of my own personal knowledge that it is correct, which of course doesn't do us a bit of good in fixing the article because of WP:NOR and WP:V, both of which I agree with. - Mark Dixon (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed - I keep coming up with late 1960s/early 1970s so it would be nice to sort it out. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj e  <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b oi   02:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Rape as inferred cause of homosexuality?
This is for discussion and editorial reference:

I am puzzled by the simplistic inclusion of the rape in such a way that lends itself to the representation that being molested was a cauasal factor in Lonnie's attraction to other men.

I'm not sure that it violates NPOV or anything... but it just seems unscientific. There is hot debate as to whether homosexuality is caused by anything... whether its genetic... whether its changeable.

For the purposes of recounting history well... It should certainly be included, but are we being careful enough to avoid playing into the hands of a particular representation of history?

GLBT advocates may prefer to see it represented seperately, perhaps in an early life section, rather than as an apparent explination of so called 'homosexual behaviour'. I'm hinting here that there's a difference between saying he was gay, and he 'did gay things'... and its a very significant one.

It's much more comfortable for Christians who want to make it very clear that homosexuality is a sin, to provide compassionate grounds for forgiving that sin. On the other hand others may wish to dispute this.

I myself am Christian, but I will not allow myself the shortcut of rationalising that rape 'turned' an otherwise straight Lonnie Frisbee into a "Gay Sinner". The scholarly debate continues in research and literature, meaning that this question can't be checked as "RESOLVED" on wikipedia, if it isn't resolved in good, preferably peer-reviewed literature. So many of the contents of this article are poor sources... but the story is still well told.

The notion that Homosexuality is a "Sin" is contained within a christian POV, and this is an article on someone who it appears did live within that POV and remain dedicated to it his entire life. Is that sufficient justification for this encyclopedia to explain it thus, or does NPOV require us to be further detatched? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdogilvy (talk • contribs) 17:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Tdogilvy (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC) (didn't realise manual signature was required, appologies)


 * Tdogilvy has brought up an important subject. I think the reason certain editors have made such a priority of labeling Frisbee as gay is that within their personal religious POV they perceive homosexuality as having a negative or "sinful" connotation.  I think the correct answer to Tdogilvy's question regarding NPOV is that the question of whether or not Frisbee was gay is only significant to those whose religious POV attaches a negative meaning to that.  The exception is the whole issue of whether Frisbee was dealt with unfairly (maligned, ostracized, removed from positions of leadership or responsibility, etc.) by churches and clergy that did believe there was a negative or "sinful" connotation to being gay.  But even in dealing with that issue, Frisbee's actual sexual orientation is not important, but only the churches' belief or perception as to his sexual orientation that caused them to take the actions against him that they did. - Elmarco 00:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * not a personal POV. It's the stance taken in the churches he was in at the time. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Samson analogy
Since someone asked, the "serial miscreant" who added the sentence "Others saw the Samson analogy as spot on" was, who is currently blocked for disruptive editing. Check his edits and see if you can disagree. Here's] the diff. He clearly meant it as an attack on a dead gay man. If a non-loon editor wants it in, that's fine with me, but if this were an article that I regularly edited and cared about I'd do everything possible to discourage him. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoops! There was DOCUMENTATION for the Samson analogy being well received. And it's an apt comparison despite the protestations of so many in the GAY MAFIA who try to MANIPULATE wiki articles in order to advance their dishonest agenda. I fought these NUTCASES tooth and nail a few years ago only to be GAMED or should I say GAYmed (haha) by them. These liberal LOONS use the rules of Wiki to OSTRACIZE anyone who doesn't share their far left agenda.

It turns out that comparing Lonnie to Samson was a compliment and not an attack on a 'dead gay man' as some gay advocate so dramatically (shocked! haha) suggested. Lonnie was NOT gay. He was a normal man who had been raped as a young boy much like Jerry Sandusky raped those little boys in the Penn State shower. This of course led Lonnie to engage in other gay activities despite his better judgement. The man himself did NOT want to practice homosexuality. But because of some GAY pedophile, he had his struggles.65.48.16.58 (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The facts argue against Frisbee being gay. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible source
another article, this one's more extensive. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:95% cursive;color:#CC00CC">Benji <u style="text-decoration:none;font:98% cursive;color:hotpink">boi 00:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh wonderful --- a decidedly BIASED source that has an agenda to proclaim... and this is what you want to use. Besides, almost all the information that they present comes SOLELY from the skewered Dave DiSabbitino documentary. Come to think of it, almost ALL information regarding this man points right back to this one documentary which tries to cannonize Lonnie as something he was not. re: Christian. He was rebuked for his sins, he failed to repent, and by the Bible's own standard he was put out of the body as an UNbeliever. I've even seen interview footage with Lonnie where he talks about how he duped everyone into believing he was a Christian.

Irks me when people with agendas, point to sources with the self-same agenda to prove their point. Lonnie wasn't a saint. neither was he some martyred believer. He was a FALSE prophet who, when discovered, refused to repent. That doesn't make him admirable, that makes him pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.31.132.183 (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree that it it's irksome with people with agendas point to nothing to prove their bias. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lonnie Frisbee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070524214855/http://www.ocweekly.com/film/film/ears-on-their-heads-but-they-dont-hear/14935/ to http://www.ocweekly.com/film/film/ears-on-their-heads-but-they-dont-hear/14935/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lonnie Frisbee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071111073826/http://lonniefrisbee.com/images/typical-photo/Lonnie-face-2.jpg to http://www.lonniefrisbee.com/images/typical-photo/Lonnie-face-2.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Note on ref
There is a reference that gives Stodder & Houghton as the publisher, seeing it elsewhere and searching is what led me here. Perhaps it is unintentional, I also want to play with the name Hodder & Stoughton when I read it, but it might worth checking the contribution. ~ cygnis insignis 03:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)