They're on Kaimi like Mormons on fudge over at T&S. I can't tell you how much I appreciate Kaimi's "rebroadcasting" of a truly fine post, but it's just all too stereotypical. Lots and lots of evidence from the liberals, accusations of "affiliating with organizations that oppose the teachings of the Church" from the Mormon right.
I'm just kidding, guys. I just enjoy saying things like that. But, still, you can't help but wonder sometimes. The basic argument against the ACLU that's on offer over there is its generally anti-religious, anti-majoritarian sentiment. To the credit of that discussion, it's happened with a minimum of judgment, with only casual discussion of taking temple recommends from ACLU members and nobody (yet) advocating universal stripping of the recommend.
You guys probably know from my sarcastic remarks above how I feel about the ACLU. I value the ACLU not for its specific policy positions, but for its policy of generally making life hell for regressive governments and organizations. I think there's a heck of a lot to be said for an organization that makes life hard for people that mess with intellectual or demographic minorities. I don't agree with everything they do as an organization, but I don't agree with a lot of what our bishop says, either, and I've yet to resign my membership. I don't really want to talk that specifically about the ACLU here, unless anyone desperately wants to, so I'll limit my specific remarks to that.
What I really want to say will surprise nearly everyone that visits here often. There was a comment on T&S that actually suggested that the Church maintain a list and use that to determine the temple worthiness question. I agree wholeheartedly. I think this for two reasons.
Look, we've got to find the sympathizers. We all know what apostates are. If you have two wives, if you have no wives, if your wife is a man, if your wife used to be a man, you're an apostate. If you drink coffee, eat coffee cake, or refuse to support regressive regimes that supply us with coffee, you're an apostate. If you gamble with your money, your chastity, your food storage, or support those that do, you're an apostate. But this isn't really what we're worried about. These are wolves in wolf suits. What I'm concerned about are the wolves in sheep's clothing. These are those that unwittingly support Satan by giving money to free speech advocates. Did you know that what those people were saying on Temple Square WASN'T CORRELATION APPROVED? These are those that joined the Democratic Party on a Mountain Dew bender at Arizona State. These are those that joined local interfaith organizations in an effort to spread their gospel, not knowing that while you can repent of unchastity, you can't repent your ideological virginity back. It's the apostate sympathizers that will destroy this Church if left unchecked, especially given that the Church can't be destroyed in these the latter days.
Second, well, they, you know, actually, that's it. They're everywhere and must be rooted out.
All fun and games, but this is actually a serious matter. How much apostasy should the Church tolerate in this area? I obviously don't see it as a concern. But if the institutional Church takes the "Alternate Voices" stuff seriously, if we're going to get in bed with Pat Robertson on SSM, if we're going to consistently talk the right wing talk, I think we need to walk the walk. Either supporting SSM is about worthiness or it isn't. Either the ACLU or whatever other group is apostate or it isn't.
I don't actually think we need to walk the walk. Jaw, jaw, is better than war, war. But how long before this reasoning becomes dominant?
Now, I certainly recognize (and, in fact, agree with) the position that even if these groups are harmful, they're not harmful to a temple worthiness degree. Very well.
But then, you have to ask, why so much emphasis on alternate voices? Why the political proclamations? Surely they mean something, right?
Actually, I sure hope not.