Tolerance Versus Acceptance

[jaxenro]

So effectively that terminates relationships with those who do not follow your moral beliefs. Has that been your experience, or have you had relationships that have survived such decisions?

So unless I bend my moral code to accede to theirs my friends would abandon me?

Let me reverse this. I had friends that wouldn't attend my baptism because they oppose te church yet I remained their friend and respect their choices. Why shouldn't I expect the same consideration in return?

[jaxenro]

Ok, sorry I presumed.

No need to apologize posting in an imperfect medium.

[Bikeemikey]

So unless I bend my moral code to accede to theirs my friends would abandon me?

Let me reverse this. I had friends that wouldn't attend my baptism because they oppose te church yet I remained their friend and respect their choices. Why shouldn't I expect the same consideration in return?

I was asking what your experience was with friends after a decision to decline participation.

My close friends, all non-members, all came to many of my church events.

Those who didn't ended up not being close friends, not because of absence.

Cheers!

[jaxenro]

My friends weren't the type to go to church

 

Then again most of them weren't the type to marry either

 

Most of the rest I met at Church

[pogi]

where does tolerance cross the line to acceptance?

 

Perhaps you meant to ask, where does tolerance cross the line to approval.

 

There is a huge difference between acceptance and approval. My acceptance of other people and their choices is not conditioned with my approval.  

 

If a friend or relative invited you to attend a same sex marriage ceremony would you attend? And would you consider attendance tacit approval?

 

Absolutely, I would attend.  Would we attend if it was our son's weeding?  Why would we treat our friends any different?  I would wish them a happy life together too.

 

This question kind of reminds me of the Pharisees and teachers of the law in Mark 2:16 - "When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: "Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?"

 

It also reminds me of those of the circumcision who contended with Peter in Atcs 11saying - "Thou wen test in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them."  

 

Another good scripture that speaks to this point is in Isaiah 65:5 - "who say, 'Keep away; don't come near me, for I am too sacred for you!' Such people are smoke in my nostrils, a fire that keeps burning all day."

 

I am sure that these teachers, pharisees, and those of the circumcision who contended with Peter confused tolerance and acceptance for approval as well.  They obviously were wrong in doing so.  

 

I think that the meaning of "tolerance" has evolved in certain circles from its original meaning.  It used to mean 'I may disagree with you completely, but I still accept your agency and will treat you with civility and brotherly kindness', but now many use it to mean 'you must approve of everything I do.' 

Edited March 16, 2014 by pogi

[jaxenro]

Correct me if I am wrong but when Christ met with sinners didn't he often send them on their way with a variation on go your way and sin no more? Not go your way, have a happy life, and continue sinning?

 

"I think that the meaning of "tolerance" has evolved in certain circles from its original meaning.  It used to mean 'I may disagree with you completely, but I still accept your agency and will treat you with civility and brotherly kindness', but now many use it to mean 'you must approve of everything I do.'"

 

Agreed
 

[pogi]

Correct me if I am wrong but when Christ met with sinners didn't he often send them on their way with a variation on go your way and sin no more? Not go your way, have a happy life, and continue sinning?

 

No, he did not send them away.  He was invited to and attended their gatherings and was their guest.  He sat and ate with them, which many interpreted to mean that he approved of their sins.  

 

I wish all sinners a happy life...including myself.

 

Attending my son or friend's gay wedding, is not the same as saying "continue sinning."  On the contrary, it is saying "I am here for you no matter what, even if I disapprove of your actions."  It would say to my son or friend, "though I may disapprove of your choices, my relationship with you is more sacred than any statement that I could make by not attending."  Isn't that the message that Christ gave by attending the feasts of sinners as he was invited?  I too would be their guest.  They would know that I do not approve, but my attendance would not be viewed by them as approval, but rather as acceptance. 

Edited March 16, 2014 by pogi

[california boy]

Perhaps you meant to ask, where does tolerance cross the line to approval.

 

There is a huge difference between acceptance and approval. My acceptance of other people and their choices is not conditioned with my approval.  

 

 

Absolutely, I would attend.  Would we attend if it was our son's weeding?  Why would we treat our friends any different?  I would wish them a happy life together too.

 

This question kind of reminds me of the Pharisees and teachers of the law in Mark 2:16 - "When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: "Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?"

 

It also reminds me of those of the circumcision who contended with Peter in Atcs 11saying - "Thou wen test in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them."  

 

Another good scripture that speaks to this point is in Isaiah 65:5 - "who say, 'Keep away; don't come near me, for I am too sacred for you!' Such people are smoke in my nostrils, a fire that keeps burning all day."

 

I am sure that these teachers, pharisees, and those of the circumcision who contended with Peter confused tolerance and acceptance for approval as well.  They obviously were wrong in doing so.  

 

I think that the meaning of "tolerance" has evolved in certain circles from its original meaning.  It used to mean 'I may disagree with you completely, but I still accept your agency and will treat you with civility and brotherly kindness', but now many use it to mean 'you must approve of everything I do.' 

Christ couldn't have been more clear and personally set an example for what I thought was for  all of us to follow.  I am kind of surprised that this is even an issue for some members.  You would have to completely dismiss the example the Savior set while here on the earth to rationalize a reason to stay away from a SSM.  But that is just my reading of the scriptures.  I have attended a lot of events in my life that didn't necessarily follow my religious beliefs.  What are my religious beliefs is to follow the example of the Savior whenever possible.  And to try not to let the "laws" as the Pharisees did get in the way of how we treat others.

[Ahab]

I will try to tread the fine line on this one so I don't get blocked again but where does tolerance cross the line to acceptance? I know hate the sin but love the sinner and I am not, will not, and never have or will advocate any form of violence or other types of harassment in any way but where would you draw the line?

If a friend or relative invited you to attend a same sex marriage ceremony would you attend? And would you consider attendance tacit approval?

When it came time for officiator to ask if anyone knew of a lawful reason why those 2 should not be wed my friends would already know why I wasn't there to say it again.

[changed]

Here's a good talk:

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/ces-devotionals/2011-09-truth-and-tolerance?lang=eng

 We must work harder to build mutual respect, an attitude of forbearance, with tolerance one for another regardless of the doctrines and philosophies which we may espouse.”⁸

Note that President Hinckley spoke of “mutual respect” as well as tolerance. Speaking at BYU a decade later, a Muslim scholar, Dr. Alwi Shihab, an Indonesian, elaborated that idea in these words: “To tolerate something is to learn to live with it, even when you think it is wrong and downright evil. … We must go, I believe, beyond tolerance if we are to achieve harmony in our world.”

Relying on the teachings of the Quran, Dr. Shihab continued: “We must respect this God-given dignity in every human being, even in our enemies. For the goal of all human relations—whether they are religious, social, political, or economic—ought to be cooperation and mutual respect.”⁹

Living together with mutual respect for one another’s differences is a challenge in today’s world. However—and here I express a second absolute truth—this living with differences is what the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us we must do.

[changed]

When it came time for officiator to ask if anyone knew of a lawful reason why those 2 should not be wed my friends would already know why I wasn't there to say it again.

Was it against the law where you lived?

[Yirgacheffe]

My friends weren't the type to go to church

 

Then again most of them weren't the type to marry either

 

Most of the rest I met at Church

So none of them are your friends anymore?

[Yirgacheffe]

Correct me if I am wrong but when Christ met with sinners didn't he often send them on their way with a variation on go your way and sin no more? Not go your way, have a happy life, and continue sinning?

 

"I think that the meaning of "tolerance" has evolved in certain circles from its original meaning.  It used to mean 'I may disagree with you completely, but I still accept your agency and will treat you with civility and brotherly kindness', but now many use it to mean 'you must approve of everything I do.'"

 

Agreed

 

You can't really be a shining light to the world if you hide from it.

[jaxenro]

"You can't really be a shining light to the world if you hide from it"

 

True, neither can you be a shining light to the world if you turn it off.

 

I understand your reasons why you would go and accept them, seems you don't understand my reasons I wouldn't go and don't accept them? Interesting.

 

I'm not seeking to set policy or dictate how others should act just seek knowledge as I usually do by challenging others who want to engage in such challenges (my understanding is by participating in a thread such as this others are accepting the challenge). As I see it both win in an exchange of ideas.

 

I would go to dinner at a gay couples house and, it being their house, I would not mention their relationship and my views on it. I consider it bad manners to go into anothers house and, uninvited, criticize their lifestyle. I would refrain from giving an opinion unless directly asked. But I would not attend their wedding as I consider that tacit approval. So yes I would eat with them, converse with them, socialize with them, and show them love as I would any member of God's family, for they are God's children as surely as I am. But I would not participate in the solemnization of their marriage, even as a guest.

 

But again this is just me I don't advocate others follow my example

Edited March 17, 2014 by jaxenro

[jaxenro]

So none of them are your friends anymore?

 

Yes and no. I found when I had children and stopped drinking and doing drugs many of them stopped coming around. When I joined the church most of the rest went away. Some I haven't seen in over 25 years now. It wasn't my choice the reasons I was friends with them remained for me but somehow they seemed not able to relate to someone who wasn't living their life style. And I wanted more for my children than to teach them that.

Edited March 17, 2014 by jaxenro

[jaxenro]

Here's a good talk:

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/ces-devotionals/2011-09-truth-and-tolerance?lang=eng

 

 

From the same talk

 

The Two-Sided Coin of Tolerance and Truth

As to less extreme behaviors, where even believers disagree on whether or not they are wrong, the nature and extent of what we should tolerate is much more difficult to define. Thus, a thoughtful LDS woman wrote me about her concern that “the world’s definition of ‘tolerance’ seems to be increasingly used in relation to tolerating wicked lifestyles.” She asked how the Lord would define “tolerance.”¹¹

President Boyd K. Packer gave an inspired introduction to this subject. Speaking to an audience of institute students three years ago, he said: “The word tolerance does not stand alone. It requires an object and a response to qualify it as a virtue. … Tolerance is often demanded but seldom returned. Beware of the word tolerance. It is a very unstable virtue.”¹²

This inspired caution reminds us that for persons who believe in absolute truth, tolerance for behavior is like a two-sided coin. Tolerance, or respect, is on one side of the coin, but truth is always on the other. You cannot possess or use the coin of tolerance without being conscious of both sides.

Our Savior applied this principle. When He faced the woman taken in adultery, Jesus spoke the comforting words of tolerance: “Neither do I condemn thee.” Then, as He sent her away, He spoke the commanding words of truth: “Go, and sin no more” (John 8:11). We should all be edified and strengthened by this example of speaking both tolerance and truth: kindness in the communication, but firmness in the truth.

[california boy]

"You can't really be a shining light to the world if you hide from it"

 

True, neither can you be a shining light to the world if you turn it off.

 

I understand your reasons why you would go and accept them, seems you don't understand my reasons I wouldn't go and don't accept them? Interesting.

 

I'm not seeking to set policy or dictate how others should act just seek knowledge as I usually do by challenging others who want to engage in such challenges (my understanding is by participating in a thread such as this others are accepting the challenge). As I see it both win in an exchange of ideas.

 

I would go to dinner at a gay couples house and, it being their house, I would not mention their relationship and my views on it. I consider it bad manners to go into anothers house and, uninvited, criticize their lifestyle. I would refrain from giving an opinion unless directly asked. But I would not attend their wedding as I consider that tacit approval. So yes I would eat with them, converse with them, socialize with them, and show them love as I would any member of God's family, for they are God's children as surely as I am. But I would not participate in the solemnization of their marriage, even as a guest.

 

But again this is just me I don't advocate others follow my example

What is it about the couple marrying that you find to be such a problem?  You seem to be ok with them living together, but the minute they decide to legalize their relationship, you have a problem??  Do you think their relationship is more moral if they don't get married?  By your actions, the message I am getting is that you will be a part of their lives, but some how choosing to marry becomes some immoral act that you refuse to participate in.  I don't get it.  Is it simply the hysterical reaction to gay marriage that is motivating you or do you really think by marrying they have crossed some moral line that you can not accept?

[Sandy Petersen]

My son has same-sex attraction, and lives with a man. He was raised within the church and we were active members for his whole life.

 

I don't like or support his choice, but I still love him. The man he lives with is actually a pretty good guy, and we get together some times. If my son chose to wed this man, I would not attend the ceremony.

 

California boy - you ask "What is it about the couple marrying that you find to be such a problem?  You seem to be ok with them living together, but the minute they decide to legalize their relationship, you have a problem??" I am emphatically NOT okay with them living together. I hate it every second that he is living with a man away from what I firmly believe is the truth. It is just how things are and I work with what I've got - a son that I don't want to be estranged from.

 

In any case, I don't see how marriage "legalizes" anything because living together is no longer illegal.

[jaxenro]

What is it about the couple marrying that you find to be such a problem? You seem to be ok with them living together, but the minute they decide to legalize their relationship, you have a problem?? Do you think their relationship is more moral if they don't get married? By your actions, the message I am getting is that you will be a part of their lives, but some how choosing to marry becomes some immoral act that you refuse to participate in. I don't get it. Is it simply the hysterical reaction to gay marriage that is motivating you or do you really think by marrying they have crossed some moral line that you can not accept?

[jaxenro]

No I think by living together, or simply engaging in same sex relations, they have crossed the moral line. As has been pointed eating in their home does not translate to condoning or approving of their relationship. Participating in their marriage, to me, does. To me the former is tolerance the latter approval. I have no hysterical reaction to gay marriage just like I have no hysterical reaction to drinking alcohol. I disapprove of both but I am around people that drink and have been in places that serve alcohol. But I wouldn't own a place that served alcohol.

I suppose it comes down to how you view guests at a marriage. I tend to follow what I consider to be the historical viewpoint that they are there to witness and support the action being taken, unlike a regular dinner which may simply be a gathering of friends.

[Buzzard]

Yes and no. I found when I had children and stopped drinking and doing drugs many of them stopped coming around. When I joined the church most of the rest went away. Some I haven't seen in over 25 years now. It wasn't my choice the reasons I was friends with them remained for me but somehow they seemed not able to relate to someone who wasn't living their life style. And I wanted more for my children than to teach them that.

Sounds like they couldn't um...accept you and your lifestyle. 

[jaxenro]

"Sounds like they couldn't um...accept you and your lifestyle."

 

Seemed to make them uncomfortable

[california boy]

My son has same-sex attraction, and lives with a man. He was raised within the church and we were active members for his whole life.

 

I don't like or support his choice, but I still love him. The man he lives with is actually a pretty good guy, and we get together some times. If my son chose to wed this man, I would not attend the ceremony.

 

California boy - you ask "What is it about the couple marrying that you find to be such a problem?  You seem to be ok with them living together, but the minute they decide to legalize their relationship, you have a problem??" I am emphatically NOT okay with them living together. I hate it every second that he is living with a man away from what I firmly believe is the truth. It is just how things are and I work with what I've got - a son that I don't want to be estranged from.

 

In any case, I don't see how marriage "legalizes" anything because living together is no longer illegal.

 

I understand that you don't see how marriage legalizes anything, but that does not explain why you wouldn't gp to their wedding.  If you think that your son living with a man is immoral, how does marriage change that.  I am guessing it does not change anything.  So what are you protesting by choosing to not go to your own son's wedding?

[jaxenro]

I am not trying to answer for someone else but not attending the wedding isn't "protesting" it is simply refusing to take part in a ceremony you don't agree with. I don't go to the Catholic Church and take their sacrament either but my not attending isn't a protest.

[california boy]

No I think by living together, or simply engaging in same sex relations, they have crossed the moral line. As has been pointed eating in their home does not translate to condoning or approving of their relationship. Participating in their marriage, to me, does. To me the former is tolerance the latter approval. I have no hysterical reaction to gay marriage just like I have no hysterical reaction to drinking alcohol. I disapprove of both but I am around people that drink and have been in places that serve alcohol. But I wouldn't own a place that served alcohol.

I suppose it comes down to how you view guests at a marriage. I tend to follow what I consider to be the historical viewpoint that they are there to witness and support the action being taken, unlike a regular dinner which may simply be a gathering of friends.

 

If you owned a restaurant, would you server coffee?  If you owned a grocery store, would you sell beer?  If you worked in a grocery store as a clerk would you ring up alcohol for a customer?  I am just trying to understand what you consider to be moral.