Talk:Lonnie Frisbee

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)

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]