Talk:Lonnie Frisbee/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →


Contents

Drugs and Homosexuality

Frisbee was abused and molested as a child. This may have led to sexual confusion later, both before and during his life as a Christian. He remained silent about these matters during the rest of his life. Though he was raised in a Christian home, he found the California drug culture more inviting.

This paragraph has a couple subtle POV problems. Is it the bigoted attitude of his peers that led to the confusion, or the molestation? I'm not saying the article should be changed to support the former view, that would just be the reverse POV, but the language needs to be made more neutral and less editorial as per wikipedia NPOV policy.

Second the sentence "though he was raised in a Christian home, he found the California drug culture more inviting", this comes from the POV that the California drug culture was necessarily opposed to Christianity. There were many Christian sects involved in the California drug culture, as a matter of fact the California drug culture is apparently what made LF dedicate his life to Christian beliefs. And I even know Christians today who see some drugs, like hallicinogens, as perfectly acceptable, perhaps even spiritualy edifying (if I were Christian I probably wouldn't hold this view, but nonetheless there are people who DO hold this view who are Christians--and very familiar with Christian doctrine--which makes the implications of the sentence in question POV.)--Brentt 00:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

If you began an encyclopedia article by saying the subject was a "prominent heterosexual artist", no doubt someone would comment that the artist's heterosexuality was irrelevant to his being a prominent artist. While Lonnie's sexuality clearly impacted his later life and needs to be discussed by the article, to start the article by labeling him a "prominent homosexual artist" seems POV to me. Also, the statements that Lonnie was "found by members of the ... mission" and that "when the missionaries found him he was talking about Jesus and flying saucers" strikes me as more subtly POV. In order to be found, one must first be lost, and while it's quite likely the missionaries indeed did see Lonnie as lost, I'm not sure that characterization belongs in Wikipedia. - Mark Dixon 05:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Good points. Saying he was "found" does come from a very Christian POV. Brentt 06:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Gifted1! Why did you deleted this? This is vandalism!

Lonnie & AIDS

- Lonnie contracted AIDS at some point in his life, and he died on 12 March 1993 from complications. He was eulogized as a Samson figure—a man through whom God did many great works, but was the victim of his own struggles and temptations.

I have a quick thought. AIDS surfaced as an epidemic in 1981. My uncle contracted it in the 80s and he died in about 1991. Therefore, Lonnie Frisbee must have been involved in homosexual acts or needle sharing. Just a thought. What do you think? MLSmateo 05:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It should go without saying, but won't, that heterosexuals can, in fact, contract aids through heterosexual sex. Anal sex has a slightly higher risk because of abrasions, but its not like non-IV using heterosexuals don't get aids. But its moot. I think its not controversial whether he was involved in homosexual acts or not is it? I thought that was kind of inferred by just about everyone seeing as how he didn't have a blood transfusion. (Although there are other ways to contract it. For example a lazy hospital tech or nurse not sterilizing equipment properly--this actually happened to a friend of mine. The equipment was used on an HIV patient before her too. They called her a year later and told her to come in for a HIV test. Fortunately she tested out OK. Point is there are other ways, but since Lonnie did apparently "struggle" with his sexuality, it wouldn't be unreasonable to suspect that he contracted it through sexual intercourse.) Brentt 05:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Lonnie & Connie divorced

In 1973, Lonnie and Connie divorced, and Connie later remarried. Lonnie spent the next five years, in his words, "fritting to and fro throughout the body of Christ".

Please don't delet this very important informations about Lonnie and the roots of Calvary Chapel! --TransylvanianKarl 08:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith, don't go around accusing people of vandalism when its not obviously vandalism. I can see why Gifted1 might have seen some problems with both sentences. For the first one, it is a rather controversial view to hold that he was a "victim of his struggles and temptations" and not simply a victim of a unfortunate epidemic. (would someone who died of the flu in 1918 be a victim of their "struggles and tempations" if they caught it from frivolously going out in public?) As a matter of fact, wasn't there some controversey over Chuck Smith's eulogy because he said something similar? The POV issue is mitigated somewhat by the fact that it was a eulogy, and therefore just a statement of an important POV. But it probably should be presented as a quote from a specific person giving the eulogy (e.g. Chuck Smith), and not just a summing up of all the eulogies.
As for the second. Even though they are LF's own words, they don't really mean much of anything to general readers. "fritting to and from throughout the body of Christ" is a rather esoteric statement. Most people (including myself and I suspect a majority of Christians) don't really know what "the body of Christ" refers to (it probably means different things to different people--there does seem to be a marked lack of consensus about what it means in theological writing through the centuries). So its arguably superflous to include it. It doesn't really present information that is useful to the general reader. I wouldn't be to concerened about the quote being included personally. But it is a quote that will be meaningless to the general reader. --Brentt 19:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay! I agree whit you and deleted, this 2 controversial sentences.--TransylvanianKarl 15:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Lonnie photo

I hope I did this right. I discussed with Duane Pederson (editor/publisher of the Hollywood Free Paper during the Jesus Movement) the fact that there was no photo of Lonnie Frisbee accompanying his article on Wikipedia. I mentioned the particular photo I wanted to post, and asked him if the HFP owned that photo. Duane responded "Lonnie's photo is from the HFP archive and permission is given for its use." I uploaded it to Wikipedia Commons and posted it in the article. - Mark Dixon 04:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

After adding the photo I was informed that the photo's author, Jack Cheetham, had placed restrictions on the use of his work that would not be compatible with Wikipedia. I have reverted out my addition of the photo, and Duane Pederson has provided another from the HFP archive that is not subject to Jack's restrictions. I will be uploading it soon. Sorry for the misunderstanding. - Mark Dixon 01:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is the evidence of his homosexuality?

Over the years, since I mention on my web site, the profound impact Lonnie had on my life in 1979 (deliverance from drugs, I have been accused of being a homosexual because Lonnie is accused of being a homosexual! Wikipedia is doing a firther disservice to all its readers by promoting this unsubstantiated rumor of Lonnie Frisbees so called homosexuality. John Wimber told me personally that Frisbee contracted HIV from a woman in Africa and that he had never observed deviant behavior in him... it Lonnie was a prominant homosexual artist then please give quote the source of that rumor. I for one want to know... when I met Lonnie in Denver I was very active in street preaching in the capitol hill (gay district) and never observed any activity by him in that area, I am convinced that the rumor of his homosexuality is spread by those who still oppose the jesus movement and the gospel... and am very glad that no one has entered a wikipedia entry on myself.

Rabbi Yossef, Denver, CO

Lonnie himself told his future wife that he was gay or had been gay but exopected that that aspect of his life was now over. Later on he was witnessed partying at gay bars on Saturdays nights and then preaching the following morning. Both these and other first-hand testimony are in the documementary about his life and his homosexuality is part of the reason that his role in helping build two large churches from humble beginnings has been erased.Benjiboi 19:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverted drastic edit with way too much POV and rosy prose

I reverted the last edits by Barkonst. The edits were a mix of unacceptable and acceptable, but hard to extricate the acceptable from the unaccapetable because it was such a drastic edit. The edits were quite condescending to other beliefs "new age metaphysics and counter-culture gobbedlygok", which is very unencyclopedic and coming from a Christian POV. (fromt he POV of people who hold those beliefs it isn't gobbedlygok). Becuase it is a article about a Christian and even if Lonnie was dismissive of those beliefs later in life, it is still not NPOV to write the article as such. Saying that later in life Lonnie was dismissive of his beliefs at the time would be the approach more apporpriate to a NPOV article.

Plus the prose in some parts was unencyclopedic: saying things like those "wild and experimental times" is POV, and a bit of a cliche (I don't mean to call it cliche just to be insulting, it really is a cliche in the sense that it doesn't have the effect intended, its empty.) Also making flowerly similes is unencyclopedic "like a siren's call...".(that would actually be bad writing, because, again, its cliche, even if it was a more appropriate place for such similes. But its unencyclopdedic to make similes like that.)

And finally, without explanation you took out apparently decent sections. If you had replaced those unreferenced sections with good referenced sections, it would be different. But you replaced them with, somtimes OK, sometimes bad (as in unencyclopedic and POV), sections. Had you attributed those statements to a source it would have been OK. But you didn't. So for now I'm going to revert your edits. But some of the information you added was possibly useful to the article. But please reference your sources and keep in mind my, hopefully constructive criticisms above. If you are new to wikipedia, please read the NPOV policy pages. Brentt 11:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Article Seriously Needs Cites

Citations are needed very badly in this article. There are articles about him. All this info should be cited. He is too controversial a figure, with many groups wanting to claim him as their own, for it not to be a well cited article. Brentt 11:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What does this mean?

...because of what many accounts witnessed as his incredible anointing of the holy spirit as referenced in the Christian Bible's New Testament.

What does it mean to "annoint the holy spirit"? Remember this is supposed to be accesible to the general reader. You would not start a article on the calculus saying "calculus is useful in finding limits as referenced in Newton's Principia Mathematica." This article isn't just for people immersed in Christian theology and knowledgeable of the jargon. People who know nothing about Christianity need to know what is being said. And that statement is meaningless to most people. Brentt 22:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not wholesale delete the work of others. Editing is not supposed to be censoring. Consider doing research yourself and making the article more accurate or even suggesting on the Talk page what you think would be better.Benjiboi 03:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, your explanation of the term was OK. But the second part:
Although hard to describe to those who don't personally witness these events, Lonnie's presence of the Holy Spirit was undeniably special and most likely the reason his unique appearance and homosexuality were overlooked.
This needs to go, its editorializing, and not only Christian POV, but the POV of a particular sect of Christianity. If you can attribute the view that his "presence of the Holy Spirit was undeniably special" to a source, then it will be OK. Until then its unacceptable editorializing.
I WILL delete any work by others that does not adhere to the Wikipedia:manual of style and any egregious neglegcting of style guidlines--and this was a pretty clear cut case of not adhering to the manual of style. Brentt 07:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, it's documented in the documentary about his life and is the only reason he was able to build two different humble churches into sizable congregations, despite his unique looks his works spoke volumes. Also, although the anointing of spirits, gifts of the spirits, pentacostal works, etc are unique to certain religions they are from the roots of modern Christianity and a rich part of the US (now international) Assembly of God churches that are amongst the largest churches in the US.Benjiboi
It doesn't matter if its a widespread POV (because its the roots of modern christianity), its still a POV, and the view needs to be attributed to a source. It very much is a relevant view to the article, but it needs to be treated as a view, and not as a direct statment, as per NPOV standards. i.e. it needs to be attributed as a view of a particular source, and not treated as a fact. Brentt 03:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm open to (non-hostile) suggestions.Benjiboi 18:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you implying that I was being hostile? I was being insistent, there is a difference between being hostile and insistent.
This was a clear case of editorializing, and unencyclopedic use of jargon, not to mention writing an opinion as fact. Many people who aren't Christian would say he gained followers because he was charismatic, not anything to do with the "holy spirit". You have to remember, even though this article is about a Christian it is not to be written from a Christian POV. Please do not take insistence on adhering to standards as hostility.
It is OK to have the view in the article, but it needs to be attributed to a source. How was that hostility? Brentt 20:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The way the intro is written now it is good. Thank you for your edits. Brentt 20:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

To me the statement "I WILL delete any work by others that does not adhere to the Wikipedia:manual of style and any egregious neglecting of style guidlines..." came off as pretty hostile. Personally I'm no expert at writing, formating or a few other things but I do try and, I believe, part of the wiki process is to build up a body of knowledge which can then be developed and refine as research allows.

Deleting whole sections of other folk's (usually thoughtful) work when the article is greatly in need of content and context to begin with might be premature. Ppromises of deletions if someone doesn't adhere to the wiki style (which I've only glanced at for reference) or neglecting style guidelines, to me, seems off-putting to would-be wiki contributors who may able to contribute something considerably worthwhile but be unfamiliar with or unable to comply with those standards. I'd rather have the idea to work with than potentially silence or stiffle communication. I'm sure you weren't trying to do that but the written word often loses subtlety.Benjiboi 23:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Content Dispute

Please discuss the current content dispute over the sexuality of Lonnie Frisbee here, rather than edit warring over the article. Pastor David † 20:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

OK.
I referenced my source and I don't know why my work was reverted. Burntapple 20:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Burntapple edits included removing closeted gay from article; changed "Lonnie himself never believed homosexuality was anything other than a sin in the eyes of God but forgave those who maligned him before his death from AIDS." which was right out of the documentary.

removed the link Lonnie Frisbee: Homosexuality, Marriage and Mumford which includes "Despite their lack of physical intimacy, Frisbee told everyone he was going to marry Bremer. She rejected him first. She was among the very few people who knew of Lonnie’s gay dalliances." and removed the category "Category:LGBT people from the United States" To cover all these edits was given http://www.lonniefrisbee.com/faq/ which is the FAQ for the documentary which I have viewed and which clearly discusses Lonnie's homosexuality. I revisions after the first one I tried to incorporate more the "homosexuality is a sin" but Lonnie's take was that it was a sin before God which is why I felt that Burntapple's rveisions were simply wiping away traces and sources to confirm that he was gay and had gay experiences.Benjiboi 20:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

1) You assume he was closeted. 2) I thought you aproved of the documentary 3) I'm pretty sure apologeticsindex.org is owned by the same people that gave Frisbee the boot. Burntapple 20:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you please give your source here on the talk page. Also, when commenting on a talk page, use colons : to indent one more your comments -- it makes things easier to read. Pastor David † 20:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
"He always maintained it was a sin. And I have many tapes of him talking about this." [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Burntapple (talk • contribs) 20:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
Ok, having looked over the source, a few thoughts. (1) what is the rationale for removing the other source mentioned? (2) Based on this source, it would be acceptable to state that Frisbee preached that homosexuality is a sin, and even to add a qualifying sentence somewhere that "Docementarian David Di Sabatino alludes to friends of Frisbee who doubt the authenticity of accounts of Frisbee's homosexual behavior." (3) This one source is not enough to remove the category in question. Maybe this gets us somewhere? Pastor David † 20:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
1) See my last post 2) I thought it was fair to say he may have been kicked out of Chuck Smith's Calvary Chapel due to homosexuality and leave it at that. Burntapple 20:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

As to the apolagetics index webstite: I just looked at it, and it does not qualify as a reliable source (or even a good external link) - it is self-published, and POV. However, the Orange Country weekly article (a good reliable source) linked to in the article is pretty explicit about Frisbee's on -going homosexual behavior, see especially the third page. Indeed, it makes clear that the documentary presents homosexual behavior as the reason Frisbee was asked to leave Calvary chapel. Pastor David † 21:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, he was closeted as was revealed (if no where else) in the documentary for his being dismissed as a minister. I don't show of any evidence that he preached against homosexuality although he may have. It would be more accurate to state that the documentarian interviewed his ex-wife as well as others who knew of his being gay as well as socializing in gay bars the Saturday night before preaching the next morning in church.Benjiboi 21:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I have edited the article, trying to make it conform to a little bit more NPOV. I have made clear the bit about his sexuality in the lead, but did not change any of the content in the article body itself. I also added numerous fact tags, as the article needs significantly better sourcing and citations. Everyone happy -- or at least, satisfied enough? Pastor David † 21:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the work and effort. I do have some areas that I feel should be addressed. Do we have reference that he did preach against homosexuality? If not I think that should be removed. Also the statement he forgave those who maligned him was in regards to the two pastors and other church folks but with the revision seems like he just forgave whomever. I think it also should be stated upfront that he was both gay and closeted, part of what makes him a compelling and controversial figure in the growth of both churches and the main reason he was expunged from that history and his work ceased despite his obvious talents.Benjiboi 22:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


It's bad enough tht you quote the OCweekly which has it's own inherent bias without balancing it, but it's even worse when you selectively CHERRY pick quotes that support a bias. Where is this information in the article: (From the OC) But others around the Calvary leader have blasted the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.68.127 (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Anointing explanation

With the recent edits, this section about anointing was dropped but is key to understanding why a person with his looks, who was gay was put as a minister in front of congregations repeatedly. (see also What Does This Mean above)

"because of what many accounts witnessed as his incredible anointing of the holy spirit as referenced in the Bible's New Testament where believers "do signs, miracles, and wonders for the sake of evangelism or for ministry within the church.""

There may be better ways to explain it but without, I feel the article lacks needed context.Benjiboi 21:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I dropped that section as extraneous. The councept of annointing is (I say without looking) explained on the anointing article. That is why we wikilink to other articles: so that if people want a detailed explanation of a tangential topic or term, they can follow the link. Pastor David † 21:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
works for meBenjiboi 22:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


Dear Burntapple, Lonnie Frisbee was gay

The blogspot in question was used as it was a more complete interview with the documentarian about the subject of the article. Also the blogspot was written by someone who is not only within the media industry but also shares a Christian POV so seems well-balanced. The blog is the full version of an interview, hardly a pundit off on a tangent.

There was no supposedly about him socializing as a gay man even during his preaching days, is referenced in the article and can be seen in the documentary movie, FRISBEE: The Life and Death of a Hippie Preacher, trailer as well as the documentary movie itself.

Also I did consider if Lonnie was bisexual but no research has yet supported this and everyone so far confirmed that he said he was gay and closeted. Also please stop removing LGBT categories. Benjiboi 23:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


Adding Homosexuality Revealed To Church Officials Section

Resolved.

I've done more research as suggested as a follow up to the edit warring and am documenting that work here for future reference.

In The Orange County Weekly article "The First Jesus Freak," which chronicles Frisbee's life, Matt Coker writes, "Chuck Smith Jr. says he was having lunch with Wimber one day when he asked how the pastor reconciled working with a known homosexual like Frisbee. Wimber asked how the younger Smith knew this. Smith said he’d received a call from a pastor who’d just heard a young man confess to having been in a six-month relationship with Frisbee. Wimber called Smith the next day to say he’d confronted Frisbee, who openly admitted to the affair and agreed to leave."[1] Benjiboi 20:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

documenting the family section as well

To Lonnie's Family

In a 2005 interview by British Columbian Christian News film reviewer Peter Chattaway with David Di Sabatino, the documentary director of "Frisbee: The Life and Death of a Hippie Preacher" they spoke about addressing Lonnie's homosexuality with his family. "I brought to light some things that not a lot of people knew. I've been in rooms with his family where I've had to tell them that he defined himself as gay, way back. Nobody knew that. There's a lot of hubris in that, to come to people who loved him and prayed for him, and to stand there and say, "You didn't really know this, but..."[2] Benjiboi 22:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

To Calvary Chapel

In the same interview Di Sabatino also stated, "His early testimony at Calvary Chapel was that he had come out of the homosexual lifestyle, but he felt like a leper because a lot of people turned away from him after that, so he took it out of his testimony—and I think that's an indictment of the church." [3] Benjiboi 03:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. And what would a Wikpipedia article be without bringing up at least ONE indictment against 'The Church'?71.238.68.127 15:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll balance this article out with the REALITY that, by including Soulforce in this documentary, Di Sabatino has indicted HIMSELF as one willing to use the TRAGIC death of Frisbee as a Trojan Horse (sorry Soulforce lol!) to yet again attack the church's stand that homosexuality is a sin. 71.238.68.127 15:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to reveal my religion and spiritual life but I will state clearly that Christian or other religious affiliation POVs need to be checked at the door as well as an acceptance that we all have POVs and need to keep them in check, let the facts speak for themselves and if we include an opinion or research it should be sourced as to who's opinion or research and we should use reliable sources to do so. Regardless if one religion thinks homosexuality is sinful or whatever that POV-pushing is not improving the article and will get removed, if not by me, by another editor soon enough. Frisbee was both gay and the founder (correcting my mistake, he's considered the charismatic spark) of two charismatic Christian denominations, this is a great study in contradictions and, I believe, has been addressed in the article appropriately. Soulforce's inclusion in the documentary, to me, shows that similar to wikipedia there is balancing information presented and he let's the many sources speak for themselves as should we. I think some of your contributions presented neutrally could potentially improve the article but adding statements such as Di Sabatino has made other unfair and hostile accusations against Christianity casting doubt on his ability to objectively handle the material.; Had Lonnie chosen to separate himself from the practice of homosexuality, as he had been urged to by the Christian community, he likely would have never contracted AIDS and “Samson—a man who knew the powerful anointing of God’s light all would make wonderful contributions to a church bulletin but have little room in an encyclopedia. Benjiboi 21:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I will state clearly that LGBT or other social engineering POVs need to be checked at the door as well as an acceptance that we all have POVs and need to keep them in check.

You have repeatedly TWISTED the truth to contort to your LGBT worldview. It is just as much an influence as anyone's religion. You don't get to play the game that you are purely objective while anyone with a religious/spiritual background is addled with a bias.

You called my reporting that Lonnie was molested 'slanderous.' But it was Di Sabatino, who you are ALL TOO WILLING to use as a NPOV source, who revealed this truth and key to why Lonnie became a homosexual. http://www.consolationchamps.com/2005/06/14/who-was-lonnie-frisbee/ "Di Sabatinosays that Lonnie was RAPED as an eight-year-old child "

The quote 'Samson—a man who knew the powerful anointing of God’s light' came from Chuck Smith. A man that your side wants to slander as being 'hurtful' to Lonnie. It was spoken at his funeral as a tribute and it PERFECTLY captures the reality that was Lonnie's life. This is irrespective of Di Sabatino's cutaway to Lonnie's ex who apparently didn't get the analogy. But it is very apt. And it's going back in the article. Quit editing to satisfy your compunction to 'punish' Christianity for not accepting the practice of homosexuality.


Chuck Smith's primary beef with Lonnie was over DOCTRINAL issues. The two had different takes about how much Charismatic influences the church service would have. That's why there was the rift. But you dishonestly make it seem like it was over Lonnie being 'gay.'

Lonnie never self-Id'd as gay. He struggled AGAINST that temptation just like he would struggle against any other SINFUL predilection. His battles with other church leaders were egocentric turf wars as is sadly all too common.

This narrative that the church shunned him at his most needy hour but the brave gay soul found it in his heart to forgive the heartless hateful Christians on his death bed may make for a good LIFETIME movie. But it has no place in an encyclopedia.

There is NOTHING confusing as you imply in the life of Lonnie Frisbee. He was raped as a child and that early HORRIFIC influence was VERY difficult for him to overcome. Even after he became a born again believer, he struggled.

It's only confusing for the confused.

Lonnie was a man with a weakness. Just like Sampson. Lonnie tried very hard, with intermittent success, to overcome that weakness. In the end, it wound up exposing him to disease and death.

You write "Frisbee was both gay and the founder of two charismatic Christian denominations, this is a great study in contradictions and, I believe, has been addressed in the article appropriately."

THAT IS THE LGBT narrative of what happened. It is utterly at odds with the truth but it's the one you are trying to FORCE the facts to fit, even when they don't.

For you to call Lonnie gay is the same as calling Sampson bald. Defining the man by his weakness. That is unacceptable in a NPOV encyclopedia.

To stipulate that Lonnie was 'the founder' of two charismatic Christian denominations demonstrates you know nothing of Christianity and even less of the Vineyard or Calvary. Lonnie was certainly instrumental in empowering those ministries, and it serves your purpose as a gay activist trying to shred the truth to elevate him to a 'founder.'

But he founded neither nor EVER claimed to.

There is NO debate on this.

Here is the proof: http://gaddabout.blogspot.com/2005/11/vineyard-mythology.html

Lonnie himself REBUKES THIS LIE in this video at the 35:00 mark http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6833129779160574833

I'll grant you this...he seems VERY gay in this video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.68.127 (talk) 07:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


Check this out - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0-r4XbTJrw

I'm surprised you didn't appoint Frisbee 'Founder' of Kathryn Kuhlman's ministry as well. lol

That fact that you would plaintively stipulate such brazen untruths makes me think your bias is so great that it disqualifies you from working on this piece.

I would respectfully ask you to find other articles to edit and refrain from contorting this article any longer.

Thanks ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.68.127 (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It all boils down to SOURCE? REFERENCE? PROOF? DATA? which you have not provided. You add things to the article without adding any sources, references or proof whatsoever. Benjiboi's reverts of your addition of unsourced content is warranted, valid and correct, whether you like it or not. You want to cite Wikipedia policy about 3RR but don't follow policy yourself. You can't have it both ways. When it comes to unsourced content, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Further, if you continue to add unsourced content to this article, someone will be forced to request a ban against you. Now, contribute to the article with sources or leave it alone. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 05:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"It all boils down to SOURCE? REFERENCE? PROOF? DATA?'"

No it doesn't. It all boils down to this LGBT editor wanting to DISTORT the truth about someone he is UTTERLY UNQUALIFIED to understand.

I just included my source for Lonnie's molestation. I also included a source for Chuck Smith's quote about Lonnie and Sampson.

I've edited here a long time. Your ruinous threats don't scare me. Your attempts to game the system and accuse me of slander are in DIRECT VIOLATION of Wikipedia standards.

Now quit harrassing me and especially quit pretending to be objective.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.68.127 (talk) 05:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


This source - http://fixedreference.org/en/20040424/wikipedia/Lonnie_Frisbee

is a much more HONEST appraisal of Lonnie's life. It's what you get when you rid the article of all the LGBT bias that's currently tainting it.

It validates that Lonnie's battle AGAINST homosexuality was rooted in his HORRIFIC childhood rape incident and that his split from Calvary was over DOCTRINAL issues that LGBT people would have no clue about and NOT because he was allegedly gay.

Now call in about ten other liberal wikipedia editors to pretend to be neutral as they try to protect these distortions by gaming the system while accusing me of what you guys are guilty of -POV. I've been through this before countless times... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.68.127 (talk) 05:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, although all very inspiring (in ways you probably didn't intend) the valid references above have already been used in the articles (see WP:RS) and the final reference being a page copy of the article we're actually writing from several years ago. Also I never claimed, and will correct if someone else did, that Frisbee founded any churches as I found nothing in the many videoes and writings that claimed he did, instead it clearly designates him as being the charismatic spark' igniting two denominations and influencing countless others. Benjiboi 21:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Source?

Resolved.

"As part of his ostracism from his former churches, his work was maligned"

Can someone provide a source for this? It's possible this happened as sometimes, in an effort to move on, people in church's will castigate their former leaders. It's kind of like ripping on an old girlfriend. lol But the inference here is that, because he wound up giving in to homosexual behavior, his work was trashed.

That's a far more INSIDIOUS charge and needs to be bolstered by facts if it is true which I doubt.

It is true and I've added the source. Benjiboi 20:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Raped as an 8-year old

Resolved.

Sheesh! Now that i've dug through the voluminous pile of accusations I've found there is a reference that can be used for this, although it's blog format it's actually a xtian-based interview that we're already using as it's the full interview with the documentarian. Was it so hard for you to say there is a reliable source and here it is? It was correct for the content about someone being raped to be removed until it's sourced, if you had a bio on wikipedia you would probably expect at least that much. Now do you have any proposed wording and where it could go that gives it balance (avoiding undue weight)? My guess is that we should couple it within the context it was presented as some speculating that Frisbee's sexuality can be explained partly because of the incident. Benjiboi 20:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It was in the same interview you had been quoting. You did not have to dig through anything. I found it in 10 minutes. 71.238.68.127 17:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to digging through your voluminous and "ranty" comments. I'm glad something useful to the article was found. Benjiboi 21:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to digging through your ..."ranty" comments"

Benjiboi - Please assume good faith 66.51.147.97 17:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments such as You have repeatedly TWISTED the truth to contort to your LGBT worldview. It is just as much an influence as anyone's religion. You don't get to play the game that you are purely objective while anyone with a religious/spiritual background is addled with a bias.; to me, are considered a bit ranty. It's hard for me to assume good faith when confronted with accusations and veiled threats. Regardless, I have made good on including the information and even corrected it per references so that it adheres to wp policies as well. Someone being raped should never be treated lightly in a bio unless the subject of a bio has plainly treated it that way. And it should always be referenced. Benjiboi 17:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"t's actually a xtian-based interview" So? Does that disqualify it somehow? What if it were a Jewish based interview? Would that make it worse? What's the relevance here other than animus? Thanks 71.238.68.127 17:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

These talk pages are archived for future editor's use. It makes sense to note what items have been dealt with and, in this case. to note that the sourced was from a Christiam blog yet still considered a reliable source. Please assume good faith. Benjiboi 21:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Sabatino revealed in the same interview that he was told Frisbee had been raped as an eight-year-old child.[3]
Any suggestions as to wording? I think this should go chronologically as the first point in the Early life section but not sure how to word it. Benjiboi 21:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

"not sure how to word it" That does not give you the right to delete it as you apparently did. I put it back in. Please...please do not try to twist the facts. You are already on record as saying at different times Frisbee was the founder of two Christian denominations as well as he was NOT the founder. You should make up your mind. Better yet, let the facts make up everybody's mind.

I think your own personal bias has you confused. Could you consider allowing someone less subjective edit this article? Just a helpful thought. thank you! 71.238.68.127 17:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed it and put it on these pages for someone else to reword it and re-insert it as it was poorly written at the time. Hardly twisting facts, your concerns about my misstatement have been addressed elsewhere. I see it's been reinserted and reworded, you can save the rest of your accusations as they do not belong. Please assume good faith and stick to discussing the article only please. Benjiboi 21:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Update. sourced material has been added to address these concerns. Benjiboi 01:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)