Is this a choice, or can we simply use each for our own purposes?

I would say the Christian right is less “evil” an organ where at least some standards and moral creedo exist, though it may be wrong. The ACLU preaches relativism rather than right or wrong.

In my mind you have put forward a choice between “wrong doctrine” and “doctrine is wrong”. I, personally, have to choose doctrine.

The ACLU has done more harm to my interests. I like the Boy Scouts of America. The religious right are mostly just a bunch of noisemakers. They don’t take Boy Scout troops to court and get them kicked out of public facilities.

Look at how the religious right treated Romney and his beliefs to, say, how the ACLU/secular left treats Harry Reid.
The religious right attacks us specifically, while the secular left may attack (or defend) us along with many other groups. The religious right singles us out. The secular left doesn’t. Our biggest threat is the religious right Huckabee types.

#1 nasamomdele – definitely “use” each for its purpose is a good idea, although I feel like we are covered in s@#& everytime we work with either group. Interesting perspective as I see the religious right as more damaging due to some of the other commenters do.

#2 bfwebster – I think the ACLU has historically been sueing the Church left and right – at least when I lived in Utah. We nicknamed them Against Christ Lucifer’s Usurpers or something like that when I was at BYU. I agree with you that the ACLU has done some good as have the evangelical missionaries, but I think you hit it spot on with your assessment of the US based congregations.

#3 John Mansfield – yes, the ACLU has certainly been active against the BSA. But hasn’t the Religious Right also hurt you in their rhetoric against the Church, Romney, etc.?

#4 Sam – Interesting point on the ACLU – are they running out of causes?

#5 Timj – agreed completely – Huckabee is Satan Incarnate (ok not really, but I really, really, really detest the guy)

bfwebster comes closest to my thinking.

Devyn: I’m calling you out on being bigoted towards Evangelicals and the Christian Right. It’s not their rank and file, but, as bfwebster says, some of their professional pastors and _some_ of their theologians.

What you’re doing is akin to what some uneducated Christians do when they blame all Jews for “killing Christ”. It wasn’t “the Jews” who “killed Christ”, it was “the leaders of the Jews.” Failure to see the difference is either ignorance or laziness.

Devyn, please please please quit:

1) lumping evangelicals/pentecostals/fundamentalists/Christian-right all in together with anti-Mormons or anti-Mormonism. It just ain’t so! Doing so is not only bigoted, but it’s incorrect, and lazy (lazy, because you’re painting them all with the same broad brush.)

and please quit:

2) conflating the leadership of said groups with their rank-and-file. They are not a monolith. Mormons are much more monolithic than what you’re making out the Christian Right to be.

And as Sam said in #4, they DO MUCH GOOD, in raising people from a telestial level to a terrestrial level.

Let’s face it, the LDS missionary paradigm pretty much relies on investigators already coming from a Christian background as opposed to an atheistic/pagan or non-Judeo-Christian background.

Even if said investigators are not “active” in a Christian religion, their childhood passage through those other churches (or cultural inculcation through merely living in a Judeo-Christian society) still leaves a mind-set in them that allows them room to fit in that which is taught by LDS missionaries.

Most of our full-time missionaries are unprepared to deal with atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, etc.

Without the “Religious Right”, our main source of converts in the US would almost disappear. You’re biting the hand that feeds us investigators.

As someone who went through that evangelical/fundamental path and was prepared by it in order to find God’s official church, your bigotry, apparent ignorance and painting-with-an-overly-broad-brush is personally offensive to me.

I realize I need to repent myself, because my feelings towards your above post are not charitable at all right now. You’ve really pushed a hot button with me.

As far as anti-Mormons, we _need_ opposition, or we grow complacent. Brigham Young was clear on that.

Moreover, a point could be made that opposition is not “damaging” at all. Brigham Young said that the only way you can kick the church is “upstairs.”

Jesus even said that we’re blessed when we’re persecuted, and spoken against, and we ought to rejoice when that happens, because that is how the ancient prophets were treated.

It sounds like you’re complaining. Well, #1, we should rejoice, not complain, because of anti-mormons.

#2, it’s professional anti-mormons, not the “Christian Right” who you should be talking about.

And #3, none of that is really “damaging” the church anyway.

Are you friendly with my sister-in-law, who thinks I’m the devil for thinking that the ACLU is a needed entity in our society?

The following is from the “about” page at aclu.org:

“So long as we have enough people in this country willing to fight for their rights, we’ll be called a democracy.” – ACLU Founder Roger Baldwin

The ACLU is our nation’s guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.

These rights include:

Your First Amendment rights – freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.
Your right to equal protection under the law – protection against unlawful discrimination.
Your right to due process – fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
Your right to privacy – freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.
The ACLU also works to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including people of color; women; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people; prisoners; and people with disabilities. .

If the rights of society’s most vulnerable members are denied, everybody’s rights are imperiled. Support the ACLU today.

I guess how one feels about the ACLU depends on how one interprets the “rights” that are supposed to be protected by the US Constitution, and how one feels about how the various courts across the land interpret those “rights”.

It seems to me that if I were in some kind of a legal beef involving my rights under the Constitution, I’d sure appreciate having the ACLU in my corner.

Been doing more thinking. I think they represent different types of threats.

Christian right: More of a religious threat/religious rivalry. The anti-stuff is mostly from them. The anti-mormon people cause a lot of potential investigators to drop the elders after a first discussion. So they are threat that way.

ACLU is more of a political threat. Prop 8, BSA, issues in SLC etc. They also faciltate a more secular society. They are mostly a left wing advocacy group like jimbob mentions.

One of the questions my sister-in-law in Provo refuses to answer (just resorts to name-calling and asking to tear up my temple recommend):

1. If you got rid of the ACLU, what existing advocacy organization would you replace it with that would be as effective?

I can’t help but wonder how things would have gone, polygamy-wise, if the ACLU had been around in the late 1800s.

bbell – You can’t separate the national level from the local chapters, though. That’s like saying, “I hate the NFL but I love the Cowboys…”.

In what sense does the ACLU “damage” the Church at all?

I happen to think that public-school-sponsored prayer and the like are infringements of religious freedom, so I’m generally quite happy with the ACLU defense of my religious freedoms.

It seems to me that both the “establishment” and “free exercise” clauses are helpful in allowing the Church to flourish. The ACLU is pretty consistent in defending those rights, so I don’t see much “damage” being done.

There have been a few cases where different individual rights have come into conflict, where I think the ACLU made the wrong choice, but those are pretty rare. They occasionally defend the rights of repugnant causes, but I don’t have any problem with that either. Some people find Mormons and our cause too repugnant to defend, too.

#23. Left Field . I am on the ACLU mailing list. They are taking on court cases involving administrative orders allowing torture. I would like your commentary about Mormons for Equality and Social Justice; not so much as an organization but the concepts mentioned in its mission statement. Read my last post on Establishing the Cause of Zion.

Sinister – not sure I would say the ACLU is neither conservative or liberal – I would think most people would agree it is a fairly liberal organization. So why is it a stupid question?

Ardis – very wise as usual. You are correct, not a dang thing we can do about bigotry, but we can certainly duke it out in the courts with the ACLU if need be. I think this sentence is a beautiful summary: “We don’t always win — sometimes judges don’t see things our way, and sometimes, maybe, just maybe, we might be wrong, not in doctrine but in the fairness with which we implement practice.” Thanks

The ACLU and the NRA are basically the same beast, but for different colored states.

And both are essential.

The case queuno mentions is the one that completely reversed my ideas on the ACLU. I haven’t gone so far as to join, mind you :) , but at least now I can muster respect for their dedication to principle.

Jared C: your response supposes a complete absence of opposition to the Church; i.e., “the Church us soooo true that nothing can stand in its way in the least.” Note that Devyn’s question was not, “Which of these two played the biggest role in utterly destroying the church?” He’s asking about opposition—surely you believe that the church experiences opposition?

Sure the Church experiences opposition, but the ACLU? the Christian Right? It doesn’t seem that these groups are trying to instill fear and hatred in the hearts of men, they are both essentially well-meaning groups, trying to do what they think is right and true.

We have to assume the Lord set up the church to attract scorn. Why else would he use the weak and humble things of the world to break down the wise.

I think we have to assume opposition is part of the plan, not something that works against it considering all of the methods that he could have used to establish the church.

From my perspective, what stands in the way of the church is not what is outside, but what is inside. The church is supposed to be a gathering of the elect, a light on a hill, salt of the earth. The ultimate question is the quality of the elect; the brightness and availability of the light; the savor of the salt. What others do must ultimately be irrelevant.

Its like asking: Which harmed Jesus more, the Pharisees or the Romans?
I think if you take

I suppose whether you think the Christian right can harm the church depends on your understanding of what the Church is. If it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ, literally lead by him, set to gather the elect before his second coming, any obstacle in the churches way will be removed depending on the faith of its members. I mean we are taught that we have essentially unlimited power to do the work of God, depending on our faith, so the only possible thing that could harm the church is a failure to tap into this power to overcome obstacles.

As D&C 3 states, God’s work is not frustrated.

I can’t see how the Christian right, or the ACLU pose any serious risk to perfecting the saints, redeeming the dead or spreading the Gospel. My thought would be that if the Christian Right or the ACLU were even able to harm the church, it would be just another group trying to protect its image.

If you believe the D&C the elect will hear the voice of the spirit and missionaries mouths will be filled with the words to bring the spirit. Anti-Mormon literature, if anything, is a good thing, in that it makes people curious about the church that otherwise would never hear of it. if the Spirit is there, the “elect” will hear it. The presence of the spirit is determined by the nature of the messenger, not the presence of opposition.

P.S. Obama would have beat Romney like a drum even if he was able to get the nomination.

Brian J:

“First, You can’t use the word “church” in a definition of the word “church.””

Who was defining the word Church? I am not trying to create a distinction, the Church is what it is. I am questioning how we understand its character. Is it a tribe of Mormons or THE vehicle to prepare for the ultimate second coming or Jesus.

I still think the question is similar to asking which harmed Jesus more, the Romans or the Pharisees. The entire thrust of His message was that these groups, although odious, could not ultimately harm Him or his church. On one level the question makes sense, both the Romans and the Pharisees were against Jesus and his disciples but on another level the question betrays a true lack of perspective on what really matters.

I think whether anti-mormon literature harms the church by leading people a way is an interesting question. I suppose what I am really quibbling over is the definition of “harm”. Given the general tenor and low quality of the anti-mormon tracts, I think that members leaving because of it reveals a weakness in the church. We leave such members ill-prepared for the challenge. The enemy is us. Although there are certainly better ways to spread the gospel than through anti-mormon literature, obviating the need for the fund you propose, I think that if the ultimate message is as strong as we claim, any publicity is good publicity.

A parallel and equally interesting question would be whether the early persecution was harmful to the church. Liberty Jail was extreme injustice but we are told it was ultimately for the “Good” of those involved. The trials may have made the church stronger, but I don’t know that you could make that argument to mothers of the victims of sutter’s mill.

I suppose the original question did not touch on all of these things, and I may be inflating the original point a bit, but it reminded me of the Mormon tribalism that I think actually does weaken the church.

#40 – BrianJ – “It’s a little funny how you quasi-equate Romney’s loss to a loss for the Church. I don’t think you really meant that, but that’s certainly one way to read your comment.” Fair point – I should have added in a few more details, but I was thinking about all of the negative press about the Church which unfortunately effectively cemented our “cult” status with many Americans – not to mention the whole Prop 8 debacle…

Jared C: I’ve stated my point so I don’t have much more to say. You believe that the Church will reign triumphant in the end; thus, there is no such thing as “harm” because nothing can stop us. I agree that the church will ultimately be “the winner,” but I still recognize many lost battles along the way. And I see them as real losses, because those are people who will not enjoy membership in Christ’s church. That leaves me rejecting the idea that “the enemy is us.”

Devyn: I’m glad you realized I wasn’t “calling you out,” ’cause like I said I knew what you meant.