In part 1 of this series, I gave an overview of a group called the World Congress of Families (WCF) and the anti-lgbtq and women’s rights work it has pursued in Eastern Europe and Africa. Today in part 2, I’ll be describing the ways that the LDS Church has been involved with WCF and its work. Part 3 will address the connections between WCF’s work and Russian imperialists (including, for a teaser, Konstanin Malofeev!).
At the outset, I’ll note that the LDS Church has hardly kept its involvement with WCF a secret. While records about whether and to what extent the LDS Church has directly funded WCF are not available (because neither is required to disclose its funding activities), the Church has proudly and publicly discussed its collaboration with and support for WCF.
Many may remember that the WCF’s global Congress was hosted in Salt Lake City in 2015, with much fanfare (and some protesting) from the community. It’s also no secret that the Church opposes gay marriage. What most of us have not understood, however, are WCF’s ties to Russia, the foreign events the LDS Church has participated in and the types of people Church representatives would have been rubbing shoulders with at those events, and the foreign advocacy undertaken by WCF that goes well beyond gay marriage. The WCF is not just a conservative Christian group–in fact, WCF does not claim to be Christian at all. It is significantly more aligned with radical right-wing politicians and agendas, and its support of Russian imperialism far more dangerous, than many of us have realized.
While of course one cannot attribute every WCF speech and activity to the Church, and I’m not suggesting such, I can’t help but think about the counsel given in the Church publication Standards for Youth (formerly known as For the Strength of the Youth):
Everyone needs good and true friends. They will be a great strength and blessing to you. They will influence how you think and act, and even help determine the person you will become. They will help you be a better person and will make it easier for you to live the gospel of Jesus Christ. Choose friends who share your values so you can strengthen and encourage each other in living high standards.
…
As you seek to be a friend to others, do not compromise your standards. If your friends urge you to do things that are wrong, be the one to stand for the right, even if you stand alone. You may need to find other friends who will support you in keeping the commandments. Seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost as you make these choices.
One has to wonder if the Church erred in counting the WCF among its friends. So, how deep did that friendship go?
The LDS Church’s Sponsorship of and Involvement with WCF
I’ve found evidence of four ways the LDS Church has been involved with WCF and its work: (1) provided vocal support for WCF in its own news statements and meetings through at least 2015, (2) provided direct funding, planning, and sponsorship for multiple WCF events before 2015 (it was not possible to identify funding sources for all events, nor is general funding information available) and sent delegates to all World Family Congress global events through the most recent event in 2019; (3) has had a board seat on WCF, and (4) aligns with other foundations that are not officially LDS foundations but were created by or involved Church members and that officially partner with WCF.
- Vocal Support
The Church has spoken in support of WCF’s mission to protect the “natural” family on numerous occasions. At the request of some commenters on the last post, I’m including the public rationale Church leaders gave for partnering with WCF in the first place–but I don’t think you’ll find anything surprising here. The rationale was primarily focused on supporting the traditional / natural family and advocating against gay marriage. I have not found public comments about the Church regarding WCF’s involvement in Russia or more extreme activity such as pushing for criminalization of homosexuality–although Church members with their own foundations were instrumental in promoting those more extreme measures.
In 1997, multiple Church leaders announced their participation in the World Family Congress and objectives for that participation:
- Elder Dallin Oaks: “There are many forces in the world today which promote family definitions and practices that are contrary to gospel values, things like cohabitation outside marriage, single-sex relationships and abortions … Also, there are some nations of the world that sponsor the idea that key decisions about the raising of children should be made by the state instead of by parents. These are quite extreme ideas, but they are out there. [Editor’s note: Howdy, Texas! Oaks is coming for you and your extreme ideas!]. ‘ . . . As the year 2000 approaches, defenders of the family from about the globe must come together to restore the family as the first social institution and as the center of civilization in all places.’ … The Church is anxious to have official representation to show support for an effort that is itself supportive of wholesome values. It shows our interest as a worldwide Church in having a voice in a conference with these kinds of objectives. In view of their stated aims, it is appropriate for us to participate in the World Congress of Families to reinforce what that congress is seeking to accomplish.”
- Elder Charles Didier: “We cannot preserve our high level of culture and our technological stature without preserving the basic fundamentals or values necessary to support a modern society: family, moral and spiritual laws … The trends presented daily in the media represent an intellectual and political ideology hostile to the family structure and to family values. Those trends, if not changed, will destroy our civilization. … The World Congress of Families is an attempt to defend, restore and reaffirm the traditional Godly concept of family as the center of civilization.”
- General Relief Society President Elaine Jack: “I think of the implications of groups who are interested in promoting family values from these diverse areas of the world; this can’t help but make a difference. We are not alone in our interest in and concern for the family. Sometimes, we might think we’re alone but we are not. We have something to offer and we can support other groups, and we can learn from others. We can extend our influence.”
- Elder Bruce Hafen: “I saw the World Congress of Families as an opportunity to work with scholars and pro-family groups from many countries who welcome gospel teachings about family life. In its first meeting, the convening committee defined the family as `a man and a woman bound in a lifelong covenant of marriage for the purposes of continuing the human species, rearing children, regulating sexuality, providing mutual support and protection, creating an altruistic domestic economy, and maintaining bonds between the generations. … People across the world are recognizing that the teachings and the people of our Church offer the best available example of stable, productive family life. The congress thus offers the Church an opportunity to influence and support opinion leaders and grass roots organizers from many nations in confronting what the draft declaration calls ‘a profound worldwide crisis’ . . . that across the globe, the family exhibits an accelerating decline as . . . an institutional presence and as a cultural force.'”
Subsequent reporting on WCF’s activities and events is similar. To its credit, I did not find Church press or other public statements about WCF after 2015, and the number and visibility of official Church representatives appears to have declined after that conference–so it seems the Church has scaled back its public involvement since then, without explanation. In addition, while there have been multiple WCF regional (not global) events in Ghana and other African countries in recent years, the LDS Church has sponsored its own family conferences in the region that seem to me to be more positive than WCF events and do not appear to publicly advocate for the harsh penalties for LGBT folks that WCF advocates for. If they are involved behind the scenes, I don’t have visibility into that.
In addition, in his opening address at the 2015 Congress in Salt Lake City, Elder Ballard called for compassion and fairness for all while also defending the traditional family:
“Just as we do not or should not shun family members with whom we disagree, we cannot and should not shun those who look or think or act differently than we do … We demonstrate our best humanity when we show love and kindness to all of God’s children. We demonstrate our discipleship when we refuse strident tones, when we refuse derisive labels, and when we enter the public square seeking fair outcomes through understanding and mutual respect.”
This is a much more restrained approach than WCF takes–Brian Brown, its president, told a gay journalist that he saw “no way” for him and the journalist to “live in peace in the same society.” Indeed, it’s possible that the Church and WCF leaders disagree on “fairness for all” and that has contributed to the distancing. To be clear, though, I believe “fairness for all” is more of a shrewd legal strategy on the Church’s part than a genuine concern about LGBT folks–more on that later.
2. Funding & Conference Sponsorship
The Church and/or BYU were founding sponsors of the first several world congresses, assisted in the planning of multiple congresses, sent large delegations to multiple congresses, and has sent at least one representative to every single congress. Note, I only focused on the global events. WCF also holds many regional events but, beyond confirming that the LDS Church did not formally participate in a Ghanian event that advocated for the criminalization of homosexuality, I did not research regional events.
1997, Prague
- Elder Bruce Hafen (identified by WCF because of his scholarship on the family) played a key role in planning the 1997 conference, beginning in 1996.
- Elder Dallin Oaks announced the Church’s participation in and support for WCF, and the Church appointed several official delegates.
- Delegates attending included Elder Charles Didier (then President of the Europe East Area) and his wife, Elder Bruce Hafen (then first counselor in the Pacific Area presidency) and his wife, Relief Society General President Elaine Jack.
- BYU law professor Lynn Wardle (an anti-gay marriage and gay adoption scholar and activist) also attended.
1999, Geneva
- The LDS Church was also heavily involved in planning for the second World Family Congress held in Geneva, Switzerland in 1999. Church leaders–including President Boyd K. Packer, Elder Dallin Oaks, General Relief Society President Mary Ellen Smoot, and BYU President Merrill Batement–hosted WCF’s founder Allan Carson in Salt Lake City in 1998 for an event called “A Celebration of the Second World Congress of Families” where they had speakers and prepared for the 1999 conference.
- BYU, through its World Family Policy Center (which was founded and run by BYU Law School professor Richard Wilkins from 1999-2008 until Wilkins, a leading legal scholar in the fight against gay marriage, left BYU to form a similar center in Qatar) co-sponsored and co-convened the event (one of only two sponsors).
- The speaker / attendee list for this event was not available.
2004, Mexico City
- BYU’s World Family Policy Center co-sponsored and co-convened the event (again, one of only two sponsors).
- Elder Charles Didier, then in the Presidency of the First Quorum of the Seventy, served on the planning committee.
- Professor Richard Wilkins was scheduled to speak at the event.
2007, Warsaw
- “Major funding” was provided by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Foundation, and Church News reported on the event.
- The Central European Area, LDS Church and BYU’s World Family Policy Forum were both co-sponsors of the event.
- Elder Bruce Hafen (then President of the Central Europe Area) spoke on “Marriage as a Social Good”, Scott Loveless (then-director of the World Family Policy Center) spoke on “Childlessness: Causes and Consequences”, Professor Lynn Wardle spoke on “The Attack against Traditional Marriage.” Professor Richard Wilkins also spoke at the event (as did other LDS people affiliated with separate organizations).
2009, Amsterdam
- Then-Elder Russell Nelson, Wendy Watson, and Sherri Dew attended and spoke at the event. Nelson praised WCF’s attempts to fight against factions that want to undermine the family.
2012, Madrid
- Elder Kopischke of the Seventy, and former General Relief Society President Mary Ellen Smoot spoke at the event. Elder Kopischke spoke on “the value of the natural family.”
- Several public affairs missionaries (Elder Frerich Görts, former undersecretary of the German federal government and then serving as representative of the Church to European Union institutions) and Elder and Sister Jim and Carole Brande, “managed a booth” with the help of local Church members.
2013, Sydney
- The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sponsored the event.
- Elder Peter Meurs, Area Seventy, was a keynote speaker at the event; Professor Lloyd Newell of BYU and “Music and the Spoken Word” also spoke.
2014, Russia
- No speaker list is available for this event, which was “canceled” due to sanctions on Russia resulting from its invasion of Crimea, but another event was held that was reframed as Russia-only (despite the participation of American WCF members).
2015, Salt Lake City
- The LDS Church was heavily involved in the planning and execution of this event.
- Elder Ballard, apostle, gave the opening remarks. Elder Oaks’ daughter, Jenny Baker Oaks, and her children performed, as did the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Numerous Church members spoke.
2016, Tblisi
- Elder Larry Kacher, Europe East Presidency and BYU Professor Mauro Properzi spoke.
2017, Budapest
- Professor Lynn Wardle spoke. I could not find information about other participants or sponsors.
2018, Moldova
- Elder Christoffel Golden, Eastern Europe Area President, spoke. I could not find information about other participants or sponsors.
- Later in 2018, Allan Carlson was invited to speak at BYU.
2019, Verona
- Elder Massimo de Feo, Europe Area President, spoke on strategies for promoting the family.
3. Board Seat
In 2015, the HRC report listed Dallin Oaks as an honorary board member of WCF. A 2017 press release from WCF likewise identifies Oaks as such. I could not find information about when that board position began or whether it has ended.
3/7/22 addition: a reader alerted me to the fact that Lynette Gay, wife of Elder Robert Gay (an member of the 70 since 2012), was on the WCF Board until she resigned in 2016 after controversy arose over her WCF participation.
4. Church-Adjacent Organizations
In addition, organizations founded by LDS people have been key supporters of WCF. Of course, these do not prove direct involvement or sponsorship by the Church and I am not suggesting as much (with the exception of the Sutherland Institute). While I researched each of these organizations and their ties to WCF, I did not do a deep dive into their potential ties with the LDS Church beyond affiliating with WCF since this post is focused on WCF. That would be an interesting follow up.
- The Sutherland Institute is a Utah-based conservative think-tank that has been heavily involved in anti-gay marriage efforts and sponsored the 2015 Congress in Salt Lake City. LDS man Stanford Swim served as the Institute’s Chairman until 2019, when he stepped down, and was a major donor to and Board member of WCF. Paul Mero, who was President of the Sutherland Institute until he was fired in 2014, has served on the five-member managing committee of WCF (and was Vice President of the Howard Institute). The Sutherland Institute is alleged to have very close ties with the LDS Church, often taking policy cues and legal strategy from top Church leadership and public affairs. This account by Mero (who is not remotely left-leaning) is fascinating in detailing the relationship, and suggesting that the Church’s “fairness for all” approach was an insincere attempt to win Supreme Court cases against gay marriage at the advice of lawyers (who Mero disagreed with as being too soft on LGBT rights).
- Family Watch International (FWI), founded by an LDS woman, Sharon Slater. FWI is an official partner of WCF and Slater (and her husband) have been featured speakers at numerous global and regional WCF events. FWI has been designated by the SPLC as an extremist hate group.
- The National Organization for Marriage (NOM), which has much of the same leadership as WCF – specifically, Brian Brown, who has senior roles at both organizations. It was founded in 2007 to fight Prop 8 in California. Some have alleged it was formed by Catholic and LDS Churches (who cannot officially advocate politically due to 501(c)(3) laws) to fight gay marriage, but their roles have been obscured as NOM has fought attempts to disclose its funding sources. (Disclosure of funding sources is not required for 501(c)(3) organizations, but is required of 501(c)(4) organizations since they can advocate politically.) Matthew Holland was on the founding board and was later replaced by Orson Scott Card (who resigned in 2015 after the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage). It has been criticized by the SPLC, particularly for its claims that homosexuality is linked to pedophilia.
- United Families International, founded by LDS woman Susan Roylance. It was been designated as a hate group by SPLC in 2012 and has attended WCF conferences. (According to SPLC, UFI is an umbrella organization for IOF, but I haven’t been able to confirm this anywhere else. And you’re welcome for the alphabet soup.)
- The Worldwide Organization for Women (WOW), a group founded in 1977 by LDS women who the LDS Church mobilized to oppose the Equal Rights Amendment. It is an official partner of WCF and historically has attended annual WCF events.
Conclusion
It is not my position that the Church is fully aligned with WCF, that we should equate the two, or that we can attribute WCF quotes and activities to the Church without any evidence of a direct connection. It seems to me that starting in 2015, the Church decreased its involvement with WCF, potentially as a result of a difference of approach in legal and PR strategies: WCF remained stridently, publicly anti-gay and the LDS Church attempted to strike a balance with “fairness for all,” which many WCF affiliates objected to. That said, given its previous public support of WCF, I have to wonder if more should have been done to cut ties, and the Church continued to send representatives to events post-2015 (all of which were hosted and attended by known fascist and Putin sympathizers, which will be discussed in part 3). As we’ll consider more in part 3, the Church throwing in with far-right extremists in order to further its any-gay marriage advocacy seems to have come to roost post-2016.
For now, some questions to consider:
- What do you think of this level of involvement?
- Is it ethical for the Church to have been closely involved with an organization that shared one objective if that organization went far beyond what the Church claims its position (love and fairness for all) is? Where would you draw the line?
- Do you think this is an example of the Church continuing to align with a group despite a difference on certain issues to pursue a common objective, or do you think this is evidence that the Church’s “fairness for all” is an insincere attempt to preserve its own legal and PR interests by acting less anti-gay than it actually is?
- Going back to the idea of “friends”, what do the allies the Church basically had to work with tell us about the logical extremes of the Church’s position on gay marriage and LGBT rights? Should they be a flag that this position, no matter how you dress it up, is fundamentally anti-gay when expressed to the fullest extent (and therefore at its core)? Or do you think there is a concrete and meaningful difference between the Church’s position and WCF’s?
Wheat & Tares 
The church needs to stop fight big culture wars that are already lost. Young people will leave in droves if the church does not let this go.
I am old enough to remember the Prop 8 war. The position of the church was that if same sex marriage was allowed, the institution of marriage as a whole would be denigrated and society would fall into the abyss.
Well, neither of those things happened. Allowing same sex marriage did not harm a single heterosexual marriage in any way whatsoever. And society has continued. Those who entered into same sex marriages worked, went to school, and engaged in service.
The sky did not fall as the church said it would. That hurts the credibility of the church, and so will continued association with this WCF nonsense.
Remind me again why Uchtdorf got his hand slapped for donating to Biden’s campaign? Oh right, because it’s unseemly for an apostle to be openly political. Got it.
Elisa, thanks for this fascinating exploration of the subject so far.
It appears that Church involvement with WCF has been tapering off significantly since Obergefell. Perhaps they are slowly coming to the realization that this is not a winnable war?
In some cases, I have no problem with the Church choosing to align with outside organizations with which it has only limited common values, such as when the COJCOLDS partners with other churches for charity/humanitarian causes/disaster relief. In the case of the WCF, though, the moral/ethical line was crossed because its objective is a perverse form of social engineering. I also lived through Prop 8 in Southern California, and I remember the sense of urgency that leaders attached to the issue–that we had to act swiftly and boldly to oppose marriage equality, no matter the social cost. I saw a lot of Mormons engage in outright bigotry because, well, it’s not bigotry if God (through His servants) tells you to do it. Fear can be a powerful motivator, even if the threat is not real. In those years just prior to Obergefell, I imagine there was a also lot of fear and urgency among the Brethren that led them to affiliating with an ostensibly pro-family organization while being willfully oblivious to their more extremist views and the real human consequences.
Or perhaps it springs from the Church’s perpetual persecution complex, in which we feel like we have to join forces with bullies in order to keep from getting bullied ourselves.
Thanks again for this excellent series. This recent article from Religion Dispatches is relevant, I believe, to the LDS church’s relationship with the WCF and Russia: https://religiondispatches.org/a-twisted-love-story-how-american-evangelicals-helped-make-putins-russia-and-how-russia-became-the-darling-of-the-american-right/
Looking forward to Part 3!
@Jack Hughes, that’s a good point about 2015 and Obergefell. On the one hand yes perhaps the Church saw less value in working with WCF since the US fight was over but on the other that’s when the orgs started focusing their efforts outside of the US where they could win.
But maybe the Church doesn’t care as much OUS and has instead focused on other areas like amicus briefs in employment discrimination cases and the whole “fairness for all” stuff supporting some civil rights but with strong religious liberty carveouts.
I should add that the Alliance Defending Freedom is a current WCF partner that Dallin H. Oaks has specifically praised and encouraged support of in the past.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/elder-oaks-encourages-members-to-understand-promote-religious-freedom
As I read this, I recognize that if I had been more aware of the LDS church and individual members involvement here, I would not have been so shocked that LDS individuals played roles in the Trump campaign, administration, and the Jan. 6th insurrection. That really isn’t much different than what had already been going on in terms of supporting extremist groups.
Dr. Lynn Wardle is a puzzlement to me. In person
he doesn’t seem at all dogmatic or proud, and can be kind and generous, but to me his writing and speeches seem to be both dogmatic and full of hibris. Given his own struggles with marriage and family life, I don’t understand why he feels so confident in publicly proclaiming to others what the best kind of family is or that only cis-hetero families are good for kids.
What do I think of the Church’s involvement in the WCF? My answer is the same as it would be if you asked me what I think of the Church’s involvement in any political (my definition) organization. The Church ought to testify of Christ, Christianity, charity, and love. And they should stay out of Utah politics, US politics, and worldwide organizations that promote ideas (as opposed to providing charity).
Let me explain it this way. The Q15 claim to be “special witnesses of Jesus Christ”. You can decide for yourself if that is really the case but for the sake of argument let’s say it is. Then the Q15 should be doing just that, and not much else. Let the 70s administer the corporation. with First Presidency oversight. But for heaven’s sake stay out of politics.
By the way, I’m not asking the Church to be pro-BLM, pro-LGBTQ, or pro-women. I’m asking for nothing. Just stay in your lane and we (members, x-members, etc.) will handle the rest. Imagine how the Church might have flourished if it stayed away from polygamy (i.e., women are property), priesthood / temple ban (“the” blacks are fence sitters, anti-LGBTQ policies (the gays are broken). Again, the Brethren didn’t need to help these groups individually. They just needed to stop harming them. I guess that’s too much to ask, and the chickens are coming home to roost.
Your research on LDS / WCF has been very enlightening.
Great work Elisa. You deserve a raise 😉
My simple mind wants to understand the religious and spiritual purpose behind the Church’s involvement. So much time, attention, and money on this which frankly could have been spent on the poor/developing countries and actually earned the Church legit respect.
I see two basic things here: First, doctrinally, we have a theology that is almost exclusively based on heterosexual procreation during this life and in the next, which gets spirits into a physical body and beyond. Second, our Church is the literal Kingdom of God on earth, so it’s activities and interactions can take on more than simple affirmations of spiritual “truths.” And because we “know” these things are true, the financial cost and social cost are not barriers.
I cannot argue with nature’s reproductive laws, but I can argue with a religion’s adopting such observations as being indicative of the Almighty’s unalterable Plan, and its efforts to compel citizens of the world to adhere to that viewpoint. We know so very little of life before and after mortality. There simply is not enough throughout the scriptural record to justify the logical leaps taken by Church leaders in declaring the absolute mind and will of God for his children, alienating and harming a significant number of individuals.
And we all here can see the irony of a religion that practiced a form of marriage/family life (polygamy, plural wives) which was illegal and viewed as disgusting by most of the nations and cultures on earth at the time, having taken significant steps over the last 40+ years to accost and discriminate against others who hold opinions on human sexuality/family life different that the current iteration of our Church “doctrine.”
@10ac, I don’t at all want to attack individual people, but personally I found Wardle to have a massive ego in my interactions with him. But I think if you’re going to take a minority position that basically turns you into an academic pariah, you have to have a thick skin. Maybe too thick. I’m genuinely glad to hear your take of him though as perhaps the contexts in which I interacted with him were different than yours and I’m happy to know he’s kind and generous – really.
I knew Wilkins too, and while I strongly disagreed with his politics, I thought he was a warm and lovely person. I feel bad for both of them that they wrecked their professional reputations doing the Church’s bidding, and I’m sure they both were doing what they thought was right and that it took a lot of courage in some ways – even if I think it’s misplaced. Of course, it takes the *most* courage to admit one was wrong about something, particularly after being so public about your erroneous views and staking your reputation on them. Wilkins did not live long enough to see the outcomes of his work today–he died in 2012–but Wardle has. I wonder if he has reconsidered.
Totally off topic but while we’re at it, I also knew Dean Byrd quite well! Somehow I know all the who’s who of Mormons and gays even though my interactions with all three had nothing to do with that! But a post for another day.
Some thoughts on the recent history of the Church’s political activism.
During my lifetime—I am in my mid-fifties—the Church’s most significant cultural shift happened during the 1990’s. Until that time, Mormons were marginalized outsiders everywhere. Educated people knew that we didn’t secretly grow horns, but you wouldn’t know it from reading the New York Times. Then, suddenly, Mormons entered the mainstream of American culture. We had not become the center of cultural power, but we were part of the conversation. I saw the change, I felt the change, and it was amazing. Mormons started to wonder what to do with this new status. For generations we had cultivated our solitude and turned it into what we thought of as a virtue. Should we change? Should we try to use our influence more widely? If so, how?
The path our leaders chose was to influence politics and culture in ways that seemed, at the time, to maximize our comparative advantages. Our image was associated with strong families. Leaders latched onto that as the key to further growth and wider influence.
However, in discussions about the Church’s political stance, family values immediately became conflated with anti-gay priorities. It was precisely at that time—1993—when courts in Hawaii started to look at legalizing same-sex marriage. The alarm bells sounded. It must have seemed like the perfect moment for the Church to start exploring political advocacy with an issue tailored to its own special moral expertise. The gay marriage fight became the original template for the Church’s political activism.
As it turned out, the Church was not especially unique in its approach to the problem. The Church bought fully into the religious right’s rhetoric that used “family values” as nothing more than a code word for anti-gay policies. There is nothing pro-family about legally restricting the blessings of family life to those who are economically, racially and sexually capable of living like idealized 1950’s white suburban Americans. Yet that is the movement that the Church ended up supporting.
We are still stuck in the hypocrisy of that choice. Policies that we hoped would build on our rapid growth have now backfired on us, leading to stagnation. Our time in the cultural mainstream turned out to be momentary; it is stunning how swiftly we have gone back toward the margins. But the truth is that we chose to associate with the right-wing extremes. What else could we have expected to happen?
Elisa, Richard Wilkins was indeed a warm and charming person at times, but the bile he could spew when talking about gay people was vicious. It nauseated me.
“Do you think this is an example of the Church continuing to align with a group despite a difference on certain issues to pursue a common objective, or do you think this is evidence that the Church’s “fairness for all” is an insincere attempt to preserve its own legal and PR interests by acting less anti-gay than it actually is?”
My opinion: the Church is insincere in its outreach to the gay community. The Church used to be very vocal about the gays going to hell, and they were choosing the gay lifestyle, and it was absolutely a sin, exemplified in the fight against Prop 8 in California. Then the rhetoric softened into the current tone – gays should be treated with respect, even if we disagree. But the Church still doesn’t extend any real acceptance; witness the debacle about gay students at BYU. The Church is still as anti-gay as ever, it’s just using its nice voice to say so. Instead of outright hostility, now it’s condescension and pity. The Church is using its ‘nice voice’ to continue to condemn people who don’t enjoy the sacred procreative process.
It’s the difference between someone shouting, “I hate you, you piece of filth!” And someone using their talk-to-a-preschooler-voice to say, “I really love you, I just think that if you fall in love you’ll go to hell for all eternity and that makes me sad!” I’d prefer the open honesty of someone yelling out their hatred, rather than someone faking concern for me but also still hating me. Personal preference.
(And for the record, I don’t think the Church will ever really change their stance and truly accept the queer community. They’ll change the tone but not the message.)
On your post as a whole, I must admit I am very relieved to hear the Church has dialed back its involvement since 2015. The Church rarely (never) makes public statements when it changes course, so I wouldn’t expect a public statement about the WCF. If that was timed with the WCF’s pivot to increasing criminalization and harsh penalties in other countries, then I’m glad the Church has pulled back. Whew!
First off. Great research, and thanks for including the quotes from church leaders.
To answer a couple of your questions: Do you think this is an example of the Church continuing to align with a group despite a difference on certain issues to pursue a common objective? Do you think there is a concrete and meaningful difference between the Church’s position and WCF’s? My opinion is Yes, and Yes.
CosmoTheCat certainly doesn’t agree with many of the posts and comments on Wheatandtares.com, but I like to hear what people are saying and I like to have my voice heard, because I have a shared interest in the subject matter being discussed. Heck, I might even donate to the website, and if I were asked to contribute a post, I would probably do my best to come up with something (although it surely be lower quality than what is usually posted). But I don’t think that my participation here means I secretly agree with everything that goes on here (although some might say I’m associating with questionable influences- I know my mom certainly would 😉 ) If in the future W&T takes a turn to anti-church rhetoric and I step back my involvement, I wouldn’t want people to make the leap that I support anti-church groups.
Based on what you’ve shared, I’m not shocked or outraged by the church’s involvement with WCF. I can see where they were coming from. I don’t agree with it, but I understand it. (I know, I know, cue the down votes).
I’m still not sure what I make of these posts. When I first saw the title and read about the subject I thought “I wonder what Elisa’s intention is in writing these posts? Or what she expects the outcome to be?” I’ll admit that in my mind I had the accusing thought, “Hmmm… My bet is that she’s going to promote outrage against the church.” But I think I was wrong, but maybe not, I don’t know. It has given me a lot to think about…so maybe that was the point? Either way- here I am, reading it, thinking about it, and commenting on it. You’ve done a really nice job with your research and presentation. You’ve drawn me in.
*and some might say… not although some might say.
@CosmoTheCat, thanks.
I’m not trying to promote outrage for outrage’s sake and I am glad you see that. I am trying to be as fair and accurate as I can, present information that I think people are interested in and entitled to, let people make of that what they want, and hopefully have a great discussion in the comments and elsewhere.
Of course I have an opinion and I’ve expressed it. I think that what the Church did here was foolish and harmful. I’m not trying to hide that. But I also acknowledge that most people were doing their best according to what they knew (that’s part of what makes this interesting – how could that be that this is what people thought / think is best?).
And I hope that when we know better, we do better.
@Loursat – I think your take on the 90’s is really insightful. I saw a lot of that too.
That Paul Mero blog post you linked was very eye-opening.
@Elisa, since I don’t know you, I think my suspicion of you says more about me than it does about you. I read through your posts looking for something to criticize in the content or the presentation… and I came up with nothing. For a minute I thought you missed a comma somewhere, but then I realized that’s just because I don’t actually know correct grammar and I just use commas like confetti. So I am pleased to conclude that your posts have been super fair, super honest presentation of the facts, with good thoughtful questions at the end.
Kudos to everyone who has commented as well, with well thought reasoned responses. I really like this blog (even with all the questionable influences I’m associating with 🙂 )
I would like to see a discussion of how this ties into efforts at the United Nations to institutionalize a rejection of families and the alliance that was formed to push back.
It seems as if those pushing to for the dismantling of families have moved on and so has the Church.
Stephen, in what way was the UN pushing for the dismantling of families? I would be very interested to see any evidence. It’s always sounded like so much fearmongering to me.
The unicef convention on the rights of the child specifically recognises the value of the family, as far back as 1989.
https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/convention-text
@stephen marsh I don’t know what you’re referring to. I didn’t see that in the articles I read – rather, they commonly cited a UN declaration about families as supportive of their work – and I also just did a quick search online and can’t figure out what you’re talking about either. Is there a reference somewhere?
Thank you again Elisa for doing the hard work for sharing this information with us.
My experience is similar with Janey. I started to type more but it’s too triggering of past wounds that I’m not willing to expose today. I hope as more members are forced to engage with the queer community this will change, and I do see people ignoring elder oaks and letting their queer children spend the night in their homes.
In the past, I have felt conflicted with the TR question about association with certain organizations. I no longer care about those questions. But I do wonder how our leaders can answer this question if they are affiliated with this organization.
The fact that the Church is (was) involved with these borderline amoral organizations is difficult to digest. But it does parallel with other unfortunate leadership decision. The Church sent the Tabernacle Choir to Trump’s inauguration. The FP3’s shunning of the Dalai Lama, the world’s foremost advocate for peace and religious freedom, during his most recent visit to SLC. Church leadership’s gleeful welcoming of then Pres. Trump to SLC. With then senator Hatch proudly making the introductions. A temple somewhat announced for China, a major religious freedom violator. The Church has got to quit associating with despicable organizations and governments. And find more Christ-like activities.
Hedgehog—the final UN action was pro family. No question about it.
But there were serious efforts made by some of the participants to take things a different way that created a number of alliances.
Thus “efforts at” rather than “efforts by” if that makes sense.
I’m relieved as well to hear the church has scaled back its connection to this group. Yeah it could just be a PR move but I’d like to think that at least a few of the Q15 have legitimately gained more empathy for LGBTQ people since 2015. It’s hard to tell since they’re all so committed to the party line and so good at legalistic doublespeak, but you’d have to be a pretty cold-hearted bastard to have the terrible pain that LGBTQ members go through made clear to you and still parrot the vile fictions coming from the WCF. I imagine the brethren’s feelings on the subject probably range from active disgust (like my mother-in-law who visibly shudders when same-sex marriage comes up in conversation) to wishing things could change but having their hands bound.
Re:Roger Hansen
From SLTrib in 2016:
“ Even Pope Francis — the dynamic, barrier-busting leader of the largest Christian religion — has declined to meet the charismatic Tibetan.
The reason for all this obfuscating? The long arm of China casts a shadow over the ever-popular globe-trotting monk.
The world’s most-populous nation believes that Tibet, which it took over in 1950, has always been a part of China and opposes any effort for independence.
As tiny Tibet’s political and spiritual leader, who helped set up an exiled government in India, the Dalai Lama seems to symbolize the “Free Tibet” effort — despite saying repeatedly that he does not favor a complete break with China.”
Here are a collection of pictures of Donald Trump visiting Welfare Square. https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-leaders-to-visit-with-us-president
The one with Stephen Miller and Rob Porter in the background is particularly disturbing. Stephen Miller has been responsible for more pain and suffering in the U.S. than anyone else still living–including the policy of physically tearing young children away from their parents for months and even years at a time solely to warn immigrants away from the border. Rob Porter was a top Trump advisor and LDS–and like everyone closely associated with Trump, a total scumbag. Porter couldn’t get FBI clearance because both of his former wives made credible claims of physical abuse.
Elisa mentions the language in the For Strength of Youth pamphlet about being friends with good people, and Roger Hansen listed some of the church’s other unfortunate friends. Seems like the church has a lot of room to improve on this front. Thanks for bringing the WCF/church friendship to light.
Stephen, you haven’t answered my question. The document in my link dated back to before the start of Eliza’s timeline. I am not seeing the connection you are trying to make.
On the OP, I would hope the church have ended all involvement in these organisations. But when individuals in leadership continue to participate, and there is no acknowledgment by the church of the problems damage continues to be done.
Hedgehog—it wasn’t as if the matter was a “one and done” situation.
I get that your conclusion is that the issue was resolved for all time, the one side packed up and left and the expanding coalition was unnecessary and should have just gone home to celebrate victory.
Perhaps you are right and my conversations with people at the law school about what happened are completely wrong and readily refuted by their successes.
Given the downvotes my comments have drawn I’m concluding there is no point to further discussion and have deleted my draft of a post on the matter.
Well I seem to upsetting everyone today. If you have things to say, information to present then do so. We aren’t mind readers for crying out loud. I asked because I wanted to know. You didn’t mention your conversations with people at law school in your first comment.. But if you prefer to sulk instead of educate because I m not psychic, and like Eliza haven’t been able to find any information about what you’re referring to online… be my guest!
Unfortunately, possible disengagement with WCF doesn’t mean a kinder Church attitude toward the LGBTQ community. Last week, BYU officials built a temporary fence around the “Y” on the mountain to keep gays out. The university is refusing to voice assist trans. Holland’s ugly threat to BYU staff. BYU’s attempt to stop student demonstrations. If anything, things are getting worse. What are Church leaders afraid of?
As for the UN, I thought the paranoia about the UN had abated. Apparently not. The Church has been working with UN agencies to make the world a better place. Let’s stop trashing the UN.
Everyone works with the UN. I’m not speaking paranoia about the UN, I’m merely discussing that they are not a monolith nor are they acting from a single agenda unaffected by those who give them input.
Roger, talking about a fight that happened at a venue is not being paranoid about the venue.
Yeah – like I said the UN stuff didn’t come up in what I was looking at, but I was looking at 1996 and on because that’s when WCF began.
The Howard Center, which was closely related to WCF, was formed in the 70’s.
All of it seemed more a reaction to feminism (hence the 70’s timeline for Howard center) and gay marriage (hence the late-90’s timeline) from what I read.
I would imagine that some of the people involved would have been in involved in the UN stuff but I don’t know.
“Holland’s ugly threat to BYU staff.”
I remember it more as a poignant reminder.
@jack, if you aren’t in the groups of people that Holland targeted musket fire, I’d refrain from characterizing it.
Elisa, you certainly have the right to shepherd your own blog–and so I can understand the need to push back a little (from time to time) in order to keep my comments within the bounds of propriety.
But even so — and I don’t want to go down a rabbit hole — I think a lot of people have mischaracterized his speech because they’ve misunderstood both his intent and, perhaps, more importantly, the context.
@jack there are a lot of people for whom that speech was incredibly painful. There are a bunch of other blog posts about it if you want to have that discussion, but I’d prefer not to reopen that wound here to debate.
I am fully aware of the intent, circumstances, and context. But more importantly, since I’m not in the vulnerable group he was talking about, I rely on their testimony as to the impact – whether or not intended, doesn’t matter – of his words.
Jack, Elder Holland inappropriately criticized a young graduation speaker and has yet to apologize. There were numerous problems with his talk. I won’t repeat them here. My point was that Church leaders are still obsessed with the LGBTQ community.
Stephan, all legislative bodies and discussion groups end up with weird positions discussed. Take the Utah legislature or the Congress. I’m tired of people’s suspicions of the UN. Sure there are nuts in all groups. And yes, the UN is not perfect. But it’s all we have for the moment. It serves a valuable purpose.
Roger. The UN serves an excellent purpose. That fights occur there is the same as that fights occur other places.
That is far different from saying they were taking the side of the faction they eventually sided against.
10ac, as a former student of Lynn’s this caught my eye:
Dr. Lynn Wardle is a puzzlement to me. In person
he doesn’t seem at all dogmatic or proud, and can be kind and generous, but to me his writing and speeches seem to be both dogmatic and full of hibris. Given his own struggles with marriage and family life, I don’t understand why he feels so confident in publicly proclaiming to others what the best kind of family is or that only cis-hetero families are good for kids.
During my time at the law school, Prof. Wardle seemed dogmatic and proud in person. I thought his Family Law was a waste of time because so much of it was spent dealing with, what seemed to be, an anti-LGBT agenda. I remember one class where he told us lesbian couples were highly disposed towards domestic violence.
If you’re comfortable sharing, what were his “own struggles” in marriage and family life?
Lois, the Chinese have been working hard to destroy the Tibetan Buddhist culture. In western China, they are currently brainwashing the Islamic Uyghurs. Trying to destroy their culture.
Is this a government we want to appease? How many compromises can the Church make without obliterating its integrity?
Pres. Oaks preaches religious freedom. The Dalai Lama is one of foremost proponents of peace and religious freedom. Not a person we should be ignoring.
I agree Roger.
I didn’t remember Dalai Lama’s visit and was puzzled and curious about the circumstances.
Oaks has been on the “religious freedom” ie “limit LBGTQ rights for quite some time.
It’s possible that I am a naive fool, but I can’t help but suspect that the church leaders bought into the front face “We just want to support families” line. And are possibly still buying into it, in the hopes of steering the organization to a nicer place.
1. I think the level of involvement is too much. Being a founder at the beginning could have made sense, but at this point its unjustifiable.
2. I could see it being ethical for the church to have ties to an organization that does stuff far beyond the mission of the church. The line is when the organization proactively hurts others.
3. I hope it’s ignorance or is an attempt to change the organization for the better.
4. I think that there is a difference between the Church’s stance and WCF’s.
I recently read Sapiens, and it addressed the point of what is a “natural” family. It goes over family structures which we have known about through history, and many different family structures which have been discovered when meeting first-contact tribes. One would think that the “natural” families are those who are living in nature with no civilization or technology. Not us, who live and work in climate-controlled buildings and drive around in climate-controlled vehicles. We’re the unnatural ones.
This year:
https://politicalnetworkforvalues.org/en/what-we-do/transatlantic-summit/transatlantic-summit-iv-budapest-2021/
Sponsored by amongst others:
International Organisation for the Family
Family Watch International
The Heritage Foundation
all coming together under the Political Network for Values.
This is the news article that alerted me:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/26/the-network-of-organisations-seeking-to-influence-abortion-policy-across-europe
Was doing some internet research on another topic when I discovered the article below documenting that at the WCF conference in Salt Lake City, a complementary copy of W. Cleon Skousen’s “The 5000 Year Leap” was included in the registration bags for all attendees. Right alongside the FamProc.
https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/world-congress-of-families-swag-skousens-5000-year-leap/
@grand scoobah, Oh, the company we keep! Should be so telling that we’re not developing the right friendships …