Over on Times and Seasons, Kaimi Wenger blogs about the inimitable Pastor Fred Phelps and his congregants who believe “God hates fags” (their phrase), and who plan to add to their list of funeral protests that of Gordon B. Hinckley.
(Warning: Some of links above may contain offensive content. Which is sort of the point.)
No need to worry. Anyone who actually has paid any attention knows that Hinckley was neither “gay-friendly,” nor a believer in Lorenzo Snow’s so-called “little couplet.” The Westboro fanatics have it completely wrong.
Hi, Nick. Welcome to the FAIR blog.
According to the Westboroites, everyone (except for them) is “gay-friendly” and contributing to the destruction of America. It’s a fascinating and bizarre lens through which to view the world. To quote Douglas Adams, they’ve got “delusions beyond the dreams of analysts.”
And there’s more to the story behind President Hinckley and Lorenzo’s couplet than most people realize.
Yes, Mike, I realize these people basically think anyone who doesn’t want all gays executed is an enemy of deity.
As for your link, I’d suggest there is more to the story than many apologists want to realize, as well. Forgive me if I don’t take FAIR explanations as the final word on all things LDS.
I thought that President Hinckley missed a great opportunity to expound upon, as a prophet of God, Lorenzo’s couplet. Instead, he said that the church doesn’t teach it. Why doesn’t the church teach it?
I believe that President Hinckley did show a loving attitude towards homosexuals. Much more so than he showed towards polygamist. Just look at the difference in tone between those two subjects in his GC talk “What are People Asking About Us?”.
What is your Church’s attitude toward homosexuality?
“In the first place, we believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. We believe that marriage may be eternal through exercise of the power of the everlasting priesthood in the house of the Lord.
People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are.
We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families.”
What is the Church’s position on polygamy?
“We are faced these days with many newspaper articles on this subject. This has arisen out of a case of alleged child abuse on the part of some of those practicing plural marriage.
I wish to state categorically that this Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. Most of them have never been members. They are in violation of the civil law. They know they are in violation of the law. They are subject to its penalties. The Church, of course, has no jurisdiction whatever in this matter.
If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church. An article of our faith is binding upon us. It states, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” (A of F 1:12). One cannot obey the law and disobey the law at the same time.
There is no such thing as a “Mormon Fundamentalist.” It is a contradiction to use the two words together.
More than a century ago God clearly revealed unto His prophet Wilford Woodruff that the practice of plural marriage should be discontinued, which means that it is now against the law of God. Even in countries where civil or religious law allows polygamy, the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriage.”
The homosexuals should at least take comfort in the fact that the former President of the Church is friendlier to them that he would be to Brigham Young, if Brigham persisted in coming back to Earth with more than one wife.
As far as Phelps goes, he’ll do nothing but bring good publicity to the Church. It’s always a good thing when you have an idiot like that opposing you. I think his church is not too far away from where I live. Perhaps I’ll go hand out some pass-along cards.
Nick: I don’t expect you to “take FAIR explanations as the final word”, but clearly there is more to the story than your earlier comment that directly claimed GBH didn’t believe Lorenzo Snow’s couplet. There’s quite a bit of evidence that he did, including this comment from a talk he gave in October 1994 General Conference:
Any claim that GBH did not believe in deification as taught in the KFD or in the Snow couplet has to deal with this remarkably forthright and contemporary public comment.
Brent: If you’re going to bring polygamy into every conversation on this blog, your presence is going to get very tiresome very fast.
Brent,
Point well taken, but I don’t know that the LDS church under Hinckley spent literally millions of dollars in an effort to deny equal civil rights to those who practiced plural marriage. Given the choice, I’d rather have a religious group say unkind things about me, than spend millions of dollars lobbying to persecute me politically.
Mike,
Any claim that GBH did not believe in deification as taught in the KFD or in the Snow couplet has to deal with this remarkably forthright and contemporary public comment.
I’m not really talking about the “As God is, man may become” part of Lorenzo Snow’s statement, Mike. I’m talking about the “As man is, God once was” portion. I realize that many have claimed that he was misquoted (by more than one reporter, from more than one interview, in more than one publication) on this. I also realize that it’s fashionable for some to deny Joseph Smith taught the doctrine in order to make Hinckley’s denial consistent. Ultimately, however, it really does appear that Hinckley simply didn’t believe that deity was once a mortal man. He’s entitled to that opinion, of course, but it’s not an opinion that Joseph Smith or Lorenzo Snow shared.
Nick:
So, if I understand you correctly, you’re saying that GBH believes the second part of the Snow couplet — even so far as to quote it in General Conference — but does not believe the first part? And that he believes the parts of the KFD that talk about deification of man, but not the parts that talk about the Father’s previous mortal life?
Seriously?
I agree with you that Hinckley wasn’t misquoted. And if you’ll read the FAIR wiki article I linked above (it doesn’t appear that you have), you’ll see that it doesn’t claim Hinckley was misquoted — only that he understood the question differently than the reporter intended it to mean.
In any event, his follow-up statement in October 1997 General Conference should put to rest doubts about his understanding of Church doctrine.
Mike,
LOL! I just couldn’t resist the homosexual/polygamy comparison of President Hinckley’s statement in General Conference.
I’m sure you’ll find other reasons, other than polygamy, to find me tiresome.
Nick,
Polygamy rights and homosexual rights aren’t really on the same level in the political sphere at this time. There’s no need to spend millions fighting polygamy when it’s not on the political radar. Besides, the government is willing to spend the money to fight the battle against polygamy, so there’s no real need for the church to spend much.
Nick,
I’d also be interested in seeing the source for your claim that the Church spent “millions of dollars” in fighting gay marriage.
Yeah Nick, Mormons don’t even tip well.
What makes you think we’d spend millions on a political crusade?
Mike and Seth,
Of course a complete accounting of LDS expenditures isn’t available to you or me (assuming you don’t work in the LDS church’s financial department, and if you did, you couldn’t share the info anyway). The LDS church has a right to keep their financial records closed, and does so.
Just for starters, however, here is a source from the State of Hawaii, demonstrating that at least $600,000.00 was contributed by the LDS church to fight against marriage equality in that state alone. This is a government report, not an “anti-Mormon” website, etc. http://hawaii.gov/campaign/ballot.htm
I would also point out that the LDS church encouraged members to donate to anti-marriage equality groups in California. While those are not direct LDS church expenditures, it certainly falls under the category of LDS spending their dollars to fight against marriage equality.
Nick,
Thanks for the source. I’m honestly glad to know that there is documentation for your claim.
I’d be interested to know where the money came from that the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop donated. When I was in California in the late 90s, I remember bishops calling in members who had the financial means and asking them to donate toward the Church’s support for Prop 22. I suspect that much of the Hawaii money came from donations from members that were funneled through the CPB. (I have no documentation to back up my suspicions, though.)
For what it’s worth, I was uncomfortable with the anti-Prop 22 movement and did not donate to it or contribute any time toward it. And I also opposed the federal Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. My politics are pretty libertarian — I would actually prefer if the (hypothetical) gay couple next door were married rather than living together. The illegality of an act doesn’t make it any more or less difficult to teach the morality of it to my children. So I’m pretty much on your side on this issue.
What saddens me the most is that there are people out there that are so empty inside that hate filled rhetoric and ideas like those of Phelps so easily available are the ideology that fills there emptiness…
I am not LDS, but I live only about 50 miles from Palmyra so a couple of years ago I travelled to Cumorah with my dad (a retired protestant minister) to see the pageant. We were both shocked to discover that lined up on both sides of the street (route 21) on the way onto the field beneath the hill where the stage is set up were 100’s of fundamentalist protestors…it was unbelievable to us for a number of reasons not the least of which was the lack of common decency, Christian charity, and self respect…anyway Phelps is a tad worse than those I witnessed in Palmyra but hate is hate….
Sounds like a lot of people are starting to do a 180 in their attitude towards the Westboro Baptist Church. Before, they were a cruel, unAmerican, hate filled, unChristian organization. But now that they plan on protesting President Hinckley’s funeral, they will be seen by many as mainstream defenders of free speech, bravely standing up to the evil, self-righteous Mormon Church.
Now that the gay community, the evangelical right and the Westboro Baptist Church are allies, the world will be a much better place.
Clark,
I respectfully disagree. There is no evidence that anyone supports WBC’s approach. (Except perhaps the Street Preachers.)
I wonder if WBC thinks the Street Preachers are going to hell? Or vice versa?
Calvinist vs. Calvinist, the Ultimate Showdown ™(results are pre-destined).
🙂
(NB: I have no problem with Calvinists in general, just the rather intolerant manifestations of it cited above.)
They are almost parodies of themselves. It’s hard to see how either group could be more extreme. One almost suspects that Phelps is some kind of secular humanist plant designed to make religious people look absolutely crazy.
(The Street Preachers are a FAIR black ops project; don’t tell anyone.)
Mike,
My comments were not intended to be taken seriously. I’ve read at least one prominent critic of the LDS Church who is furious that the WBC would protest President Hinckley’s funeral. And I can’t imagine anyone in the gay community wanting the ally themselves with the WBC.
Mike and all at FAIR, I am a fundamental Baptist preacher. And please mark this down in stone in the records for your category of anti-Mormon critics.
I fervently hate WBC’s work.
I hate their signs.
I hate their literature.
I hate their preaching.
And I hate it all, not because of how it might reflect upon Berean Baptist Church up here in Idaho Falls.
In it’s continual and dreadful distortion, I hate their work because it falls wickedly short of my God’s glory.
Greg
“Calvinist vs. Calvinist, the Ultimate Showdown ™(results are pre-destined).”
Having been raised by Moderate (which means liberal I guess) Calvinists I find that way too funny 😉
Todd Wood,
Thank you for your condemnation of WBC.
It is sometimes too easy for us Mormons to lump people like them in with all evangelical Christians — and yet we get upset when child-abusing polygamist cults are lumped in with us.
I’m glad you publicly made this important distinction.
One of the FAIR volunteers forced himself to listen to a WBC sermon downloaded from their web site. This was his reaction:
It’s too bad that Fred Phelps and his pathetic little gaggle of pipsqueaks don’t have anything better to do. It sounds like they picture God as being some sort of cosmic Hannibal Lecter.
Regarding gay marriage , I find it interesting that those who complained about the LDS Church’s involvement on one side of that issue did not seem to have any problem with the Unitarian Church’s involvement on the opposite side. As a Mormon and a former Unitarian I find that rather amusing ( as well as a tad hypocritical).
A FAIR volunteer has reported that he was at the Conference Center this morning, and Westboro Baptist Church was nowhere to be seen.
Regarding gay marriage , I find it interesting that those who complained about the LDS Church’s involvement on one side of that issue did not seem to have any problem with the Unitarian Church’s involvement on the opposite side. As a Mormon and a former Unitarian I find that rather amusing ( as well as a tad hypocritical).
There is a world of difference between an organization promoting equal civil rights, vs. an organization fighting against equal civil rights, Sasha Bill. I’m surprised you see these as equal actions. Would you see both actions the same if one church was lobbying to deny civil rights to African Americans, while another church was lobbying against that bigotted view?
Nick,
You assume that everyone agrees with you that gay marriage is a civil rights issue. Many do, and many do not.
I am one who does not see it as a civil rights issue. Marriage is a moral construct, with a moral definition, requiring the making of moral jusgments. Morality consists of making discriminatory judgments between choices, actions, and behaviors, as compared to other choices, actions, and behaviors. The gay lifestyle, being a pattern of behavior, is open to the making of such judgments, and the Mormons and the Boy Scouts are within their rights to make them and to advocate them. I for one am proud of the Boy Scouts for their willingness to stand up and face down the “politically correct” community on this issue. I stand with the Scouts all the way.
There is something refreshing about an honest hate, as Mr. Phelps has for those who aren’t like him!
How much easier it is to know where one stands, as opposed to trusting those who profess “love” for us, yet betray that trust by doing vile things to us, thus, adding insult to injury!
Look, Rev. Phelps and the Westboro Baptists have done us all a favour by declaring themselves our enemy. There’s no betrayed trust, because there was never any trust to betray!