Pro-exgay pundit and college professor Warren Throckmorton reports today:
NARTH has had some changes in recent days. A. Dean Byrd, PhD, CEO of the LDS affiliated Thrasher Research Fund was appointed President-elect of NARTH and I heard through a friend who attended the conference that David Pruden, Executive Director of Evergreen International, was appointed Executive Director of NARTH. Dr. Byrd (ProCon bio) is also a clinical professor in the medical school at the University of Utah and was formerly the Director of Clinical Training for the LDS Social Services. No word on when Dr. Byrd’s term will begin.
No word on the fate of Joseph Nicolosi, the organization’s longtime president.
Under Nicolosi, NARTH grew from a mere answering machine in an antigay therapist’s office into a flagship of the ex-gay movement. But the organization also strayed from its conservative scientific roots into cultural warfare. Its unaccountable advisory-board members and crackpot web team issued statements that affirmed child abuse and defended racism and slavery. Nicolosi himself recently encouraged ex-gays to abhor themselves, and his Love Won Out keynote speeches in recent years were lacking in constructive advice and peppered with angry comments about effeminate ex-gays and their parents.
The Nicolosi era may have passed, but his successors bring some controversy of their own.
A. Dean Byrd was criticized last year for clinical bias when he advocated for patient freedom to choose ex-gay therapy but not, apparently, for the freedom to choose therapy that would help a patient co-exist and be healthy with one’s sexual orientation.
David Pruden has an established history of using misleading language in media communications:
- He said, “Absolutely, one can change one’s sexual identity” — sidestepping the entire question of sexual orientation.
- He misrepresented the scientific research of Simon LeVay and others on the biology and genetics of sexual orientation.
- He misrepresented the research of Dr. Robert L. Spitzer regarding success/failure rates in ex-gay programs.
- He participated in the AFA exgay political video “It’s Not Gay.” This video relied not upon reputable medical or scientific sources, but rather upon false medical claims derived from antigay activist Paul Cameron. The video also relied heavily upon the un-Christlike testimony and culture-war politics of one HIV-positive ex-gay activist, Michael Johnston, who was soon revealed by AFA to have been having unsafe-sex orgies with men at the time of the video’s production.
NARTH has long marketed itself as a professional and conservative mental-health organization, not a religious group. Its choice of new leaders seems to confirm the organization’s transition from a mission of academic inquiry to one of revising science in pursuit of religious orthodoxy.
I’m pretty confused by this turn of events.
I guess we’ll have to see what this means for the tone of NARTH output, but I honestly don’t expect much change in their tone. Here’s to hoping I’m pleasantly surprised.
Byrd is quoted at NARTH’s site encouraging NARTH members to come out of the closet:
Hmmmm… he kinda echoes Alan Chambers about being public.
It will be interesting to see what he’s speaking of regarding ethics.
This is just the beginning of the ex-gay movement…people like me, who we take the struggle and prevail will be more and more common. We do have the right to choose whatever we want!
I am kinda confused too. Most evangelical Christians I know consider the LDS a cult. Does this mean that the relationship between NARTH and the evangelical Christian community?
Yosef M: “We do have the right to choose whatever we want!” Nobody has claimed otherwise. You also have the right to shove pencils up your nose if you want to, but I don’t have to think it’s healthy.
I am kinda confused too. Most evangelical Christians I know consider the LDS a cult. Does this mean that the relationship between NARTH and the evangelical Christian community?
In Christian bookstores that I have been into have LDS placed in their cult sections. The Mormon doctrine rejects core Christian beliefs that most Protestants, Catholics, and Evangelicals commonly share. Like the Holy Trinity for example. So it will be interesting to see how far the right is willing to go now that LDS is in charge of NARTH.
I have heard some evangelicals have sided with Mormon Governor Of Massachusetts Mitt Romney on the Gay Marriage issue. Their aggreement in protecting traditional marriage outweighs any differences they have regarding their religious beliefs.
Here is a link that I forgot to add to my last post.
https://www.nysun.com/article/40802
Although James Dobson thinks Romney’s Mormon faith maybe an obstacle if he makes a bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, Jerry Falwell thinks otherwise.
Yosef M: “We do have the right to choose whatever we want!” Nobody has claimed otherwise. You also have the right to shove pencils up your nose if you want to, but I don’t have to think it’s healthy.
What if you just change your identity to one who shoves pencils up your nose without actually doing it?
I saw James Dobson on Larry King Live last night and saw him make a total fool of himself when Larry King asked him searching, important questions. Even when Larry asked him whether he would support Mitt Romney’s bid for president (i.e. “would you vote for a Mormon?”) James Dobson said he did not know whether he would or not because he had to look at him a little more closely. This kind of divisive, narrow thinking that is the hallmark of James Dobson and his Focus On The Family is another evidence as to how un-Christian his approach really is. Would Jesus be like this man? I cannot imagine.
Larry King asked him a lot of other questions about same sex marriage and James Dobson continually answered with the same old worn out rhetoric and lies regarding Scandanavian countries marriage rates dropping among heterosexuals because of the same sex marriage laws in that region.
I would imagine that the clip will be available very soon at CNN.Com
I think there is going to be a lot of conflict within the ex-gay community regarding the recent changes with NARTH as well because Evangelicals tend to view Mormons as a “non-Christian cult”. The question is how much credibility will Evangelicals give to NARTH now that it is led by two outspoken Mormons. I dated a man who thought that Dean Byrd practically walked on water calling him “Dr. Byrd”. Dean Byrd just basically filled this man with a lot of pseudoscientific (cherry picked) information (Dean Byrd is very intellectual) and rarely helped him with his deep emotional issues which did not help his inner conflict but only made it worse. Pretty much everyone I have spoken with has said that Dean Byrd is somewhat effeminate and a major “snake-oil salesman” who definitely fits the description of the quintessential salesman type. To me he looks a lot like the stereotypical funeral director. I have a really close friend who told me that he abhors Dean Byrd having been involved with several of his lectures, etc. with Evergreen. My friend calls Dean Byrd “toxic” and not helpful to people who are trying to find themselves. People like Dean Byrd do not want to look beyond the religious dogma to the fact that there are healthy, stable, same sex relationships that also are deeply spiritual resulting in an innate goodness. He would rather ignore that reality and fall back on dogma. Here is a photo of Dean Byrd from the LDS Meridian Magazine website a long with an article written by him.
https://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://www.meridianmagazine.com/images/author/Byrd%2520Dean.JPG&imgrefurl=https://www.meridianmagazine.com/familywatch/040902Born.html&h=170&w=163&sz=15&hl=en&start=1&tbnid=y7CVLF-VvAC-CM:&tbnh=99&tbnw=95&prev=/images%3Fq%3DDean%2BByrd%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN
I think there is going to be a lot of conflict within the ex-gay community regarding the recent changes with NARTH as well because Evangelicals tend to view Mormons as a “non-Christian cult”.
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to recognize this – very true. I would say this view is held by more than just Evangelicals. I wonder how Dobson, et al, will handle this one.
It seems to me that NARTH’s “academic” appearance has never been more than a facade. Most of their “advisors” have astonishingly close ties with religious political movements – a reality that makes their motives a trifle suspect at the best of times.
Even living a heart-beat away from their HQ in Salt Lake City I get more insight and interesting news about Mormons from XGW and Mr. B. Clark than almost anywhere else!! I’m in a little bit of a shock.
But before I go further:
Is it a cult or a Christian cult or a non-Christian cult?
I’m not sure I can tolerate any more arrogance of either side of the Mormon/Evangelical debate. Evangelicals saying Mormons are not Christian when the very name of their Church is: The Church of Jesus Christ. So what if they do not use the Cross as a symbol for their religion? They prefer a trumpeting representation of an Angel named Moroni. Big deal! That should not preclude the LDS faith being Christian. The broad generalization of the Mormons as being labeled a cult is mostly because the Mormons arrogantly believe they are one step above the Evangelicals because they are the only ones with a direct communication/link with Jesus through a modern-day Prophet. That rubs the Evangelicals’ fur in the wrong direction.
So what if they have different symbols or methodologies in their respective rituals…they’re all Christians.
The debate whether one religious organization is a cult or not is highly subjective.
My question to folks here on XGW: How closely attached at the ideology hip are the groups Evergreen-Exodus-NARTH. Isn’t Evergreen slightly behind the times? Eventually they will figure out changing someone’s Same-Sex-Attraction will not work and the best they can hope for is being an asexual eunuch.
A part of me get the feeling the LDS General Authorities are trying to distance themselves from these ex-gay groups, but this news about some Mormons exercising some political dominance in NARTH seems to indicate otherwise. I admit reading between the lines but the recent message from LDS General Authority Elder Dallin H. Oaks seems, in part, to distance the LDS Church from ex-gay groups. Not being a lawyer (but Mr. Oaks is), could the LDS Church be liable in some court of law for some of the horrific past deeds it did to its gay members within Evergreen or even within their own network of Mormon-based psychologists?
Oh-my-heck! I’m suddenly realizing what might happen. A Boston Born-Again gay might be sent off to NARTH HQ in Salt Lake City and not only get re-oriented to heterosexuality but might return to his home parish wearing some funny underwear!
Dobson would have a cow.
**To explain the underwear: LDS Temple undergarments are part of the rituals for being a good (very good!) Mormon.
But before I go further:
Is it a cult or a Christian cult or a non-Christian cult?
Let me be clear first, XGW is not the place to debate whether Mormonism is a cult so let’s just stay away from that one. The point here is that much of Christianity, certainly Evangelicals, consider it to be. And to answer your question, I think it would be considered a Christian cult, since those who consider it so would say that it is a perversion of core Christian beliefs.
This is germane here only because we now have individuals deeply involved with the Mormon church and their ex-gay programs in top leadership positions at NARTH, an organization deeply intertwined with the mission of Evangelical ministries such as Focus on the Family and Exodus. No matter which angle you take, this will be a sticky development, especially for the aforementioned ministries.
I agree Mr. Roberts…the debate about whether Mormonism is a cult should not be the topic here. I posed the question to demonstrate the silliness of it all. But, you went ahead anyway and pronounced your judgment about the Mormons. I’m sure a few Mormons think some Evangelical sects are a perversion. Does that make these Evangelicals a Christian cult?
A cult should only be defined from an unbiased perspective.
Evangelicals have a distinct disdain for those who belong to The Church of Jesus Christ. It is being manifested in the political arena now with Mitt Romney. The main-stream-media is wondering if Evangelicals can accept Mitt as a political candidate. And, now, here in the gay/ex-gay arena the world is worried about this cult…err…Mormons taking over the ex-gay movement.
It thrills me to think Mormons (unofficially, though) would associate with Evergreen, Exodus, and NARTH. XGW has demonstrated convincingly to me the lies and deception of these organizations. It does more harm to the reputation of the Mormon Church. I would think the Mormon Church would have distanced itself from these organizations long ago. Especially, when they have been implicated with past fiascos involving gruesome shock therapies, playing church basketball and advocating marriage to the opposite sex as a means to re-orient same-sex attractions.
I have done a cursory look at the Evergreen website and I think the Mormon Church w/should be appalled at the information related therein.
Maybe the Mormon Church is not involved officially. Maybe it’s only a few over-zealous members of the LDS Church taking advantage of the power-play at NARTH.
I agree with David. This site is not at all interested in debating whether or not the LDS church (or anyone else, for that matter) is a cult. That’s not at all relevant to our purpose.
However, it is relevant that many conservative evangelicals consider the Mormon church to be a cult. And the ex-gay movement is comprised significantly (especially Exodus) of conservative evangelicals.
I’m the Anon E. Mouse @ 8:28PM above. (sorry)
The Evergreen/LDS Church/NARTH connection is a debate that I feel needs to be discussed here on Ex-Gay-Watch. I have some insights I would love to share with anyone or post to the blog if there is an interest.
Thank you everyone.
Nicolosi’s office has been run by volunteers from the Mormon church at least since I was a client of his from about 1997-2000. One of his proteges who was “ex-gay” (I believe) was also a Mormon. There were never any Mormons in his group therapy meetings. Mostly Catholics, Protestants and even a New Age type guy and a couple of atheists.
cowboy said:
But, you went ahead anyway and pronounced your judgment about the Mormons.
Excuse me? I did no such thing. I answered your question related to what Evangelicals would call the Mormon church. I explicitly said this is not the place to make that judgment ourselves, only to guage how it will play out among those who do.
Please don’t put words in my mouth.
Hey Cowboy, the “undergarments” (a topic that needs to be treated with respect to a person’s faith) is something that Latter-day Saints receive when they are washed and annointed in the Temple. It is a ritual that is briefly alluded to in the Old Testament and Orthodox Jews also wear a similar undergarment. There are ancient cultures (both Jewish and Christian) that mention these things as they are found in apocryphal documents, etc. We are stuck in a culture (time and worldview) that is almost completely removed from the language of symbolism, ritual, etc.. I just hate it when people glibly talk about (derisively) things that they don’t have a clue about. I think that religion should be treated with the respect that it deserves. It is the actions of people and their beliefs as they pertain to our freedoms as GLBT people that are either healthy or lead to an unhealthy end. If we wish to be treated with respect by the majority then we need to be respectful and keep to the topic of discussion which has to do with Mormons and NARTH.
The reason the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is opposed to gay people creating same sex unions/marriages and raising children is very similar to the reason Evangelicals are opposed to it. The difference is that the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints teaches that men and women’s eternal destiny is tied directly to their gender and ability to procreate. It is considered a step toward becoming like God and enjoying a glimpse of what God experiences. So the Church has been striving to solve the puzzle of homosexuality (always behind the scenes) since the late 1950’s. The more visible we have become (out) the more the Church has to face it and deal with it in any way possible. Unfortunately they will not look at any other conclusion but that we either practice celibacy or get married to someone of the opposite sex. Evergreen was established mainly because of the increasing visibility of the gay community and as a response to the increased pressure by society to respect us for who we are. Evergreen was also created as a response by an increasing number of gay and lesbian Latter-day Saints who have “unwanted same sex attraction” due to their innate religious views regarding their orientation. Because the greater gay community is so open those who are conflicted are far more likely to feel a need to deal with their orientation and they turn to the organization they were raised to trust and that is the Church. The journey is a bit complex with a lot of events a long the way but the bottom line is that the Church will not look at anything but what complies with it’s doctrine in this regard, much like the Catholic Church. The terrible tragedy is that there are a great number of GLBT Latter-day Saints who have to deal with the repercussions of the doctrine and how it is completely out of sync with their innate being. You have the doctrine of the Church which teaches that you must either get married to an opposite sex partner or remain celibate. That is typically a formula for depression, anxiety, lost opportunities for love, other major mental illnesses and even suicide. It is something that needs to change.
Benjamin Clark said:
Hey Cowboy, the “undergarments” (a topic that needs to be treated with respect to a person’s faith) is something that Latter-day Saints receive when they are washed and annointed in the Temple.
You are correct, we don’t need to be making jokes about the issue here, for reasons I have elaborated on many times. We respect the people who visit here and that includes their beliefs or lack thereof.
We aren’t perfect at it, but we try to make this neutral ground as much as possible in the areas of politics and religion.
Something I did want to point out is that the LDS has played a monumental role in opposing gay rights and gay marriage statutes across the USA. They were instrumental in opposing Hawaii’s efforts some years ago vis a vis gay marriage and also poured considerable amounts of money into anti-gay marriage legislation here in California.
Also, the Boys Scouts of America is considered by the LDS a very important youth activity. I’m under the impression that it is the “official” youth program for Saints. As such, the Church itself is heavily involved in the funding and management of the national, BSA organization. It’s been put forth that one of the reasons why the BSA is so anti-gay, as opposed to the Scouting organizations around the rest of the world, is because of the heavy involvement of the LDS in the organization.
I don’t mean this to be some kind of “anti-LDS” diatriabe. Saint’s are free to believe whatever they want, no matter how silly I think the whole thing is.
What concerns me is that if the LDS has taken over NARTH — and not simply that NARTH is led by an LDS church member — then will we see a huge infusion of cash into NARTH? Will its already pretty shakey claims as a “scientific” organization be pushed to strongly support the efforts of Evergreen to “make people straight” or to simply support LDS doctrine?
Am I needlessly worrying here or are there legitimate grounds to be concerned?
Jody – You are probably correct about the money flow. I think being innately gay is more of a problem for the LDS than for the evangelicals since the LDS believe in a pre-existance state. How could spirit children be born gay and then placed into Mormon homes without there being some real challenge to the Mormon view of pre-existance. The LDS church may have more at stake (pun intended) than evangelicals who believe sin is original since Adam and Eve.
Why is there a problem with having a particular religious orientation and being a leader of a scientific organization? Leaders in any job have a right to their religious preference.
Why is there a problem with having a particular religious orientation and being a leader of a scientific organization? Leaders in any job have a right to their religious preference.
Who said they didn’t have that right?
David answered you, Anonymous…with another question.
But it’s a fairer question, to something that didn’t require a question in the first place.
Anyway, I’m looking at all the articles and what the medical and mental health professionals are saying about autism.
That it’s on the rise.
I look at the anti gay, the heterosupremacists and their preoccupation with gay identity and behavior and unwillingness to see it’s DISTINCT differences between destructive/hostile actions committed against another person, or behavior differences in those with mental illness and addictions.
After all the discussions that gay people have between themselves and the things gay people attempt to teach society, the resistence to what gay people say, or the positive news regarding the high functionality of gay people from the health professionals gets denied, dismissed or distorted.
Even worse, issues like autism and addictions that literally put our national security at risk, is getting short shrift comparatively.
The resources poured into political campaigns to thwart integration of gay people is obscene, when you look at the families who struggle with someone with serious mental problems, and they have few resources to help them.
There are better more noble things that require attention, than whether or not a gay couple marries and adopts a child.
After all, lots of children that need a home are autistic…and I don’t see Alan Chambers, DL Foster adopting such needful kids.
What a stupid, unforgivable WASTE…
Let me put it this way, the person who commits something immoral won’t want to be honest about it.
Gay kids want nothing more than to be honest, and forthright about who they are, their orientation, needs and dreams.
Would sound the same as that of their non gay peers.
The problem is….straight people are offended even by such HONESTY from gay folks.
The nuance, the simplicity of it all….gets so lost…the anti gay are looking truly arrogant and stupidly so.
It’s tiresome, beyond ridiculous for a straight person to argue with someone gay about what they are, and then deny what the GAY person says as true.
As a straight woman observing it all, listening to anti gay straight people discuss gay life…it’s appalling.
If they only knew how dumb they sound.
Autism…it’s a strange and horrendous disorder.
Ask the folks with someone afflicted like that in their family.
Nobody is asking them.
But I would…
What would you prefer:
Gay equality would strengthen our society’s safety net.
Would the money and resources fighting for and against gay equality be better served for more needful causes?
Guess what the answer would be…
Respectfully, Mr. Benjamin Clark: I was not derisively talking about the undergarments. I mentioned that about the funny underwear as an explanation about the Temple garments. Maybe the terminology should have been: peculiar underwear but the point I was trying to make was the Evangelical would return to Boston a Mormon: something that might be worse than being ‘gay’ (in Dobson’s eyes). Funny or peculiar was not meant as derisive.
Sorry if you took offense.
If you really want to go off on a diatribe: Go to the recent additions to the Mormon and Funny Underwear topic on Andrew Sullivan’s blog. I’d would rather you submit your chastisement to Mr. Sullivan. I’d support you in that. You do it so well.
And I do think we could do with a more thorough intercourse about NARTH-LDS/Evergreen-Evangelicals-Exodus relationships.
cowboy said:
And I do think we could do with a more thorough intercourse about NARTH-LDS/Evergreen-Evangelicals-Exodus relationships.
By all means if you have additional thoughts germane to the topic, add them to the debate.
Regan, you rok, as usual!
I have two mentally ill (Brain disorders) children, that, because I am lesbian, I have been unable to see since they have been 6 and 3 ys old, respectively.
If the Religious Right had put one iota of effort into helping these two rather than keeping away from them, guess how much better off they’d be.
And yes, I believe that the emotional component of their disorders, which make them much more treatment resistant, are largely a result of the anger they have been made to feel towards me as a result of heterosupremicist programming.
Rather than let a highly successful and functional lesbian make positive contributions to their lives, the RR sealed them into an environment with a minimally functional, bigoted custodial parent– with predictable results.
Sorry this is off the NARTH topic, but I am responding to some of Regan’s points. The resources wasted in keeping GLBT people down do have a human cost in wrecked lives.
This is always such a distressing subject for me. I was definitely a gender non-conformist as a child and I got clobbered on the playground by boys who couldn’t tolerate the fact that I played with girls. Then I got punished at home by my father who couldn’t tolerate my feminine traits. My family were Pentacostal Holiness and I don’t think we ever missed going to church in our entire lives. I lived on a farm 10 miles from the nearest town, never knew a homosexual until I was 30 and all the year before the age of 30 I could not figure out what the hell I was.
This story about NARTH and conversation that is surrounding it, is like going back to my childhood and living all of that miserable, humiliating experience all over again. I spend the first 30 years of my life on my knees asking God to cure me while simultaneously going to counseling twice a week for four years. When I read about Ted Haggard I thought, He’s just like I was; publically living to be a Christian and privately living in a constant state of upset and indecision from the time he was a little kid. The pain never really leaves you and the real saving grace I’ve had, after 5 decades of life, is that coming out of the closet and finding a good and descent companion was the best thing I ever did. Having a man love me back cured me of every misery I ever had.
I read about NARTH’s promotion of corporal punishment to achieve some kind of repair and, I swear to God, it make me cry. My parents punished me day-in and day-out for “sissy” behavior I could not even believe I engaged in. I lived in fear of being whipped with a leather belt for having played jacks on the sidewalk with the girls at school. My father forced me to fight other boys who picked on me and would punish me for being afraid. How many times? Countless. To this day I can’t even sleep with my back to the bedroom door because I’d been pulled from a dead sleep some many time with my dad screaming about how he was going to make a man out of me. Then he’d put whelps on my backside with his belt. My father died when I was 18 and I didn’t shed a tear at his funeral, and it took me another 20 years just to get over being afraid of him. That’s what NARTH encourages by advocating punishment; a lifetime of terror.
Although the LDS (Mormon) church does not officially subscribe to any particular reparative therapy, nor openly promote a particular “ex-gay” organization, it is worth noting that a General Authority (having leadership authority over the entire church, wordlwide) always speaks at the yearly Evergreen conference held in the church-owned building across the street from the Salt Lake LDS Temple. Most ecclesiastical leaders at the local level will refer homosexual church members to Evergreen. Evergreen was formed for the express purpose of providing support for Latter-day Saints “struggling with same-sex attraction.”
Ray, its wonderful to hear that you’ve found love and its relieved your pain. Best of luck to you and your partner.
Well, no “official” reparative therapy, but Don Harryman’s 85 sessions of electro-shock therapy under the watchful eye of his licensed therapist who just happend to be an elder in his church is indicative of the Mormon approach to homosexuality. When *one* jolt in therapy is the equivalent of a grand mal seizure, I’d say the new patients at NARTH are in for the Mormon “by-any-means-necessary” kind of case management.
BYU was involved with shock therapy on campus until at least 1995, although it was practiced under the radar. There are several accounts posted online. One dating to 1995 is here. I have heard that as recent as the year 2000 a student was referred by the BYU student health center to an off-campus therapist who treated the student to aversion therapy that involved vomiting.
There are some Bishops (local leaders) who are more accepting of homosexual orientation than others. I found that in California (for instance) and even in some Latter-day Saint congregations in Utah that there are bishops who are far more up to date and understand this issue than others. I know of gay or lesbian couples who attend Church at their local congregations with a higher degree of tolerance than ever before. Many of these couples are still members of the Church and are not threatened with excommunication or other “church action”. I think the reason for this is that Mormonism has a very liberal side to it that tends to trust science more than conservative Christianity does and thus psychology can be a fairly trusted science. These stories of acceptance are still the exceptions and not the rule. A wonderful link to gay Mormon issues is found here http://www.sunstoneonline.com and at http://www.affirmation.org.