Tolerance Versus Acceptance

[Ahab]

Christ fully and completely accepted (which is different from approval) all of our sinful behavior in Gethsemane. I don't know what it even means to not accept someone else's behavior. How can you not accept it without being blind of it's reality? Acceptance is nothing more than a compassionate acknowledgement of what is. Without a compassionate acknowledgement, there can be no forgiveness, or repentance for that matter.

All sinners need compassionate acknowledgement of their reality. This is not to say that we should become principle-less door-mats. Sinners will not and cannot turn to us without both acceptance and disapproval.

Accepting and acknowledging are not the same things. Accepting something is to embrace it and make it a part of what you are. To not accept something is to refuse it even though you can acknowledge it for what it is.

The miracle of our Lord's atonement is that a person who was totally free of any sin of his own accepted (yes, truly accepted) all of the sins of everyone else sent to this planet who had repented or would later repent from their sins, and that when he died those sins died with him as if those who repented had already repented so that neither he nor they no longer had any sin.

It's never a good time to celebrate when someone is in the act of committing a sin, though, not even an unrighteous marriage.

[pogi]

Accepting and acknowledging are not the same things. Accepting something is to embrace it and make it a part of what you are. To not accept something is to refuse it even though you can acknowledge it for what it is.

I am speaking of acceptance from a mindfulness perspective.  There are certainly many definitions and uses of the word acceptance.  My use of the word in this way is correct. - “Acceptance means perceiving your experience [or that of others] and simply acknowledging it”

 

In fact, one definition of the word from dictionary.com is "to tolerate"  Which is simply a compassionate acknoledgement without necessarily approving.

 

You can't refuse their marriage, it is a reality.  You can try to avoid it all you want, but the sooner you embrace facts as they are, the sooner you can deal with it and move on in your relationship with your child.  All you can do is acknowledge it with compassion.  Once the teaching has been done, they have their agency.  We need to accept that and keep our relationship open. 

[Bikeemikey]

Well, we know it can provide much greater happiness than what you would call righteousness. Quality of life for gay people who marry is very good, and quite the opposite for those in the church who abstain from marriage or who marry the opposite sex. 

 

Aside from the issue of happiness, I'm not sure what you're saying? Are you saying you'd prefer a rougher path? Less commitment and monogamy? 

 

If we were talking straight unmarried people, wouldn't fewer partners be better than many? 

 

While I am personally in favor of Gay Marriage, it has to do with by beliefs around the importance of equal treatment of citizens, Govt legislative equality and individual agency. 

 

The jury is going to be out a long time before we see any hard evidence either way as to positive or negative impacts for either gay couples specifically or society generally.

 

The homosexual community has not done themselves any favor over the last few decades with regards to data & research relating to sexual promiscuity etc. I'm fully in favor of equal treatment, Gay marriage etc. That does not mean we need to ignore very real practices and trends within the homosexual community. Hopefully the opportunity to marry and have more societal acceptance will help reverse some of the negative indicators around homosexual relations trends.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[jaxenro]

It is said for evil to take hold good men need only do nothing

 

Perhaps for sin to take hold good men need only accept it

[pogi]

Perhaps for sin to take hold good men need only accept it

 

Depends on how you define "accept."  This would not happen if you use my definition as is used in mindfulness. 

What the sinner needs is both acceptance and disapproval.  If either element is missing, you are going to lose them. 

 

Using my definition of acceptance, your statement seems more like a recipe for denial and avoidance of reality than anything.  We all accepted sin in the preexistence.  Remember, Satan's plan was to not accept any sin, while Christ's plan was to allow for it.  We all accepted that we would fall.

[Bikeemikey]

It is said for evil to take hold good men need only do nothing

 

Perhaps for sin to take hold good men need only accept it

 

Or perhaps for sin to take hold good men only need to be human.

[Ahab]

I am speaking of acceptance from a mindfulness perspective. There are certainly many definitions and uses of the word acceptance. My use of the word in this way is correct. - “Acceptance means perceiving your experience [or that of others] and simply acknowledging it”

In fact, one definition of the word from dictionary.com is "to tolerate" Which is simply a compassionate acknoledgement without necessarily approving.

You can't refuse their marriage, it is a reality. You can try to avoid it all you want, but the sooner you embrace facts as they are, the sooner you can deal with it and move on in your relationship with your child. All you can do is acknowledge it with compassion. Once the teaching has been done, they have their agency. We need to accept that and keep our relationship open.

I can refuse to accept/approve of an unrighteous marriage while accepting/acknowledging it for what it is, though, and I can continually tell my child/relative/friend how I feel about what they have done and are still doing regardless of any other relationship they have with any other person.

[jaxenro]

You can all define "accept" as you want I will go with Websters:

 

1

a :  to receive willingly <accept a gift>

b :  to be able or designed to take or hold (something applied or added) <a surface that will not accept ink>

2

:  to give admittance or approval to <accept her as one of the group>

3

a :  to endure without protest or reaction <accept poor living conditions>

b :  to regard as proper, normal, or inevitable <the idea is widely accepted>

c :  to recognize as true :  believe <refused to accept the explanation>

4

a :  to make a favorable response to <accept an offer>

b :  to agree to undertake (a responsibility) <accept a job>

5

:  to assume an obligation to pay; also :  to take in payment <we don't accept personal checks>

6

:  to receive (a legislative report) officially

 

Which would you prefer for sin? To "receive willingly", "to be able or designed to take or hold",, "to endure without protest or reaction", "to regard as proper, normal, or inevitable" ," to recognize as true", "to make a favorable response to", "to agree to undertake", "to assume an obligation to pay" or "to receive officially"?

 

Just curious are either of you LDS? Being new I am trying to understand official doctrine as well

[Calm]

I agree that we live in times of hard moral choices.  For me, I will always put my family before my need to make a point, especially when I have already clearly defined my position.  Good, better, best.

And what if the need is to make a point to one's family?

We teach our children by our example. How will they know how much they matter to us when we tell them they matter to us if they can't see us taking uncomfortable stands on the things we've told them matter to us?

(I am not arguing for not going to a child's wedding, I simply exploring why Jax may feel it is appropriate not to…I think there are valid reasons not to attend and nonvalid reasons and what ends up being most important will depend on the person and his relationship to his children and their need in his view to know his principles and commitments---including commitment to his children---and how much he is willing to sacrifice for them. Will they be able to trust he will be there for them if he makes a commitment to his children if they see him as having backed down on other commitments he has made?)

[Calm]

I would draw the line when someone applies that scripture to a son or daughter.

If you had the ability that by doing so you could remove a grievous sin that was damaging the body, soul and mind of your child, would you "pluck" it out or allow it to stand because of the pain the 'plucking' would cause?

[Calm]

Quality of life for gay people who marry is very good, and quite the opposite for those in the church who abstain from marriage or who marry the opposite sex.

How in the world do you know this?

Have you taken measures of the quality of life of those in the Church who have abstained from marriage? I am sure you know of Josh Weed. Are you claiming that in his case he has made a mistake and shouldn't have married his wife because he would have a better life without her?

How is this telling people they would be better outside the Church any different than telling gays they would be better off not living a gay lifestyle? Why is one situation of telling someone what is best for him wrong, but not the other?

Edited March 18, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I think the problem we have had is in your confusion of "acceptance" with "approval", which was evident from your very first post.   There is a big difference, but is easily and often confused.

I think there is confusion on more than his side with "acceptance" and "love".

I see more than one use of the term "acceptance" here. The conversation would become clearer if it wasn't given such a global meaning and was just used in a limited sense.

[Calm]

For a gay couple, being married does not make the sin worse or less.  And that is what I don't get about this position of not attending a gay wedding.

Because the wedding is about the homosexual behaviour itself and not something separate from it, such as the example used as dinner…eating has nothing to do with how one views homosexuality, wedding is celebration of the relationship itself. If one believes the relationship is wrong, then there seems to me a valid reason not to celebrate it. If one sees oneself as a witness and a participant in the wedding by attending and not just a bystander or observer, then it seems to me that it could be parallel in one's view to being a signature on a petition to change legislation to make SSM legal, both being public statements and both having one as a participant in a process to make a law.

Take the dinner example…having dinner as friends and families is something different than attending a dinner that is a fundraiser for a politician. By attending the political fundraiser, one very well could be seen as a supporter of that individual's political ambitions. And yet both are the identical action of eating. The context behaviours take place in is significant.

Edited March 18, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

The marriage is not the sin.

Do you agree it is a celebration of the couple's relationship?

[Calm]

I am curious for those of you who see homosexuality as sin, but still believe it is important to go to the wedding to show acceptance for your child.

I am not equating SSM to any of these situations, just trying to understand if there are any limits anyone would place on attending a wedding of their child.  (this could have nothing to do with SSM, I am just wondering about how people see the concept of a wedding)

Would you attend the wedding if your child was entering into an illegal polygamous cult through the wedding commitment?

Would you attend if you knew the spouse was a physically and verbally abusive individual who treated your child like dirt?

Would you attend if he was marrying a known felon or even a murderer?

Would you attend it if your child told you "I know that when I see you at my wedding you have accepted me for who I am, that you approve of what I am doing and have accepted that what I do is not sinful, but love"? IOW, your child makes it clear to you that by showing up at the wedding he will believe that you don't see homosexual or whatever other behaviour he might be engaging in…such as abuse or illegal polygamy or anything else seen as immoral or wrong by you, that in your heart of hearts you have changed your position and if you still protest you just haven't intellectually committed to the change of heart yet but he knows you will.
 

Edited March 18, 2014 by calmoriah

[jaxenro]

Or what if it wasn't your child but a friends or neighbors child would you makeexceptions for your own you wouldn't for anothers?

[california boy]

No the marriage is not the sin it is meaningless from a LDS theological perspective. And my position was the same a year ago when I never had any intention of rejoining the LDS church.

 

I am opposed to SSM for many reasons. Personally I feel it contravenes natural law, makes a mockery of the concept of marriage, which is the natural pair bonding of two different sexes to form a union greater than the sum of it's parts, and is not a stable building block for a sound society. For those that disagree, fine, but don't make any claims it isn't true until at lest a few hundred years have passed and you have a weight of evidence to support you. I have a minimum of 5,000 years historical evidence to support my position.

 

What is so hard to understand that I would refuse to participate in a ceremony that I believe so strongly against. Maybe I spent too many years reading the classics, my neo classical heritage and things like The Lictors Bring to Brutus the Bodies of His Sons are too strong in me.

 

I get it.  You are willing to protest your own son's wedding to make a statement about what you think marriage SHOULD be like.  I just find that a shame.  It is your relationship with your own son that you are doing this.  I just hope it is worth the price you are paying to make such a statement.

 

I get that you think attending the marriage is participating.  But I think it is a big stretch to say that attending your son's marriage is the same as participating in homosexual activity.  One requires repentance the other one does not.  One is a sin, the other is a statement of belief.  

 

Maybe I could be a bit more personal here.  My family does not invite me to any family activities because I am gay.  I am not invited to family reunions, weddings, birthdays, missionary farewells, Christmas dinner, nothing.  Their reason?  They don't want to appear that they embrace my "decision" to be gay.  They are basically using the exact same reasoning you are using to not attend your son's wedding, just a bit more extreme.  It has always been clear that they disapprove of my actions.  But is all their actions have done is distance me from any influence my family might have had on me.  At this point in my life, I know that I will never make them happy.  And I have gotten to the point that I really don't care.  Any influence my family might have had on my life is gone.

 

I personally think that a father that does not attend his own son's wedding because in his own mind (not based on anything the church teaches or the example that Christ set) he would be a participant in the gay behavior, would only make me less willing to rely on a close relationship with my father.  I would feel that my father's love for me was conditional and something I could never achieve unless I chose to live a celibate life, something that I had already decided was not something I was willing to do for a number of reasons.  It is all about trying to control my life.  As my bishop said to my family, they are not responsible for my salvation.  

Edited March 18, 2014 by california boy

[Calm]

I get it.  You are willing to protest your own son's wedding to make a statement about what you think marriage SHOULD be like.  

That is not how I am reading it.

 

Not wanting to participate is not the same thing as protesting.

 

For example, are all those who do not attend General Conference because they are not believers protesting the faith?

[jaxenro]

Sorry you are not "getting it". Your own hurt based on your situation with your family is, I think, clouding your ability to understand. I am sorry for your situation and that your family excludes you from their gatherings. I won't patronize you by offering you platitudes. Your situation, to use a vulgar expression, sucks.

As my son is not gay this discussion is, to me, hypothetical. To you it is deeply personal. I wish I had understood that earlier I would have changed some of what I wrote. It wouldn't have changed my opinions but I would have been more sensitive to your condition. I thought we were engaged in a hypothetical debate on both sides.

If you are trying to gain some insight as to your parents actions by perhaps understanding my motives I advise against it. my own views of morality, and honor, are more shaped by my historical and philosophical readings then anything from the 20th century. I studied fencing for years and prefer swordplay to most modern sports. I use 19th. century style guns not 21st. I know I am a anochronism and don't fit in the modern era.

I am sorry for your situation and if I can be of any private assistance let me know.

[pogi]

And what if the need is to make a point to one's family?

 

What is the point?  That you disapprove?  That marriage should be between a man and a women?  Your point may possibly come at the cost of your relationship.  This is unnecessary when there are other equally effective ways to teach and demonstrate your point.  If your child understands your position, your non-attendance will not change that for him.  It is more of a slap on the face than a teaching moment.  There are many messages and points being made by attending or not attending.  The question is, which one should be priority?  That you accept your child no matter what, or that you don't approve of gay marriage?  I don't need to not attend to make the second point.  The first point might be a little more difficult to demonstrate without attending. 

 

We teach our children by our example. How will they know how much they matter to us when we tell them they matter to us if they can't see us taking uncomfortable stands on the things we've told them matter to us?

 

There are right ways to take stands and wrong ways.  I think this particular way is wrong for the reasons that I have mentioned.  

 

 

(I am not arguing for not going to a child's wedding, I simply exploring why Jax may feel it is appropriate not to…I think there are valid reasons not to attend and nonvalid reasons and what ends up being most important will depend on the person and his relationship to his children and their need in his view to know his principles and commitments---including commitment to his children---and how much he is willing to sacrifice for them. Will they be able to trust he will be there for them if he makes a commitment to his children if they see him as having backed down on other commitments he has made?)

 

Attendance will not be viewed as approval if you explain as much.  A simple discussion and explanation can make that clear to your child.  I understand why Jax feels the way he does.  He has made it clear that attendance to him would be equal to participating in the sin.  For me, I don't let tradition dictate what attendance means, that is between me, God, and my child.  It is what is in your heart that matters.  There is no eternal law which states that attendance of a marriage means that you approve of the marriage.  As long as your heart, God, and your child knows the real reason, then I see no reason to not attend.  Who cares what tradition says about attendance at a marriage?  Traditions will vanish into thin air, but relationships are eternal, and are therefore eternally more important to me than tradition. 

Edited March 18, 2014 by pogi

[pogi]

If you had the ability that by doing so you could remove a grievous sin that was damaging the body, soul and mind of your child, would you "pluck" it out or allow it to stand because of the pain the 'plucking' would cause?

 

I would pluck it out.  My problem is that he was equating his son with the offense that needed to be plucked out. I would never pluck off my child because he offended me. 

[pogi]

I see more than one use of the term "acceptance" here. The conversation would become clearer if it wasn't given such a global meaning and was just used in a limited sense.

 

I can agree with that. 

[jaxenro]

I think the meaning of acceptance is fairly clear and I gave the common ones from Websters.

The problem is I think man can rationalize all sorts of ways to arrive at what he thinks is an honest answer. So he twists the meaning of words to be what he wants.

Many speak of accepting Christ into our lives yet the meaning of accept is clear when used there. By accepting Christ we take upon us his name and agree to follow His commandments

Yet by accepting SSM we some think we can divorce that from the action it represents? Sorry but no that dog don't hunt. If you accept SSM you are accepting homosexuality and stand at odds with the teachings of the Bible and LDS doctrine as I understand it. And as far as I know the GA have been very clear that opposition to both homosexuality and SSM is doctrine.

[mormonnewb]

I think the meaning of acceptance is fairly clear and I gave the common ones from Websters.

The problem is I think man can rationalize all sorts of ways to arrive at what he thinks is an honest answer. So he twists the meaning of words to be what he wants.

Many speak of accepting Christ into our lives yet the meaning of accept is clear when used there. By accepting Christ we take upon us his name and agree to follow His commandments

Yet by accepting SSM we some think we can divorce that from the action it represents? Sorry but no that dog don't hunt. If you accept SSM you are accepting homosexuality and stand at odds with the teachings of the Bible and LDS doctrine as I understand it. And as far as I know the GA have been very clear that opposition to both homosexuality and SSM is doctrine.

If my son opened a winery, I would attend the grand opening. Yes, we would be "celebrating" the sale and consumption of alcohol. But I do ACCEPT the right of people to live as non-Mormons.

In fact, if my son joined another faith, I would attend his baptism, christening, voodoo ceremony or whatever. Because I do accept his right to worship according to his conscience. In fact, don't we have an Article of Faith dealing with this situation?

I simply don't see how it is disloyal to the church or the gospel to stand by your child as they exercise their agency.

As for them knowing where "you stand," if you haven't made your beliefs about SSM clear over the last two decades, then I don't think that the day of their wedding is the time for that teaching moment. Perhaps, at the point, this hypothetical day could be about your son and his relationship and not YOU and YOUR views of it.

(Please remove what will invariable read like sarcasm from my response. It's not intended as such.)

[Bikeemikey]

If my son opened a winery, I would attend the grand opening. Yes, we would be "celebrating" the sale and consumption of alcohol. But I do ACCEPT the right of people to live as non-Mormons.

In fact, if my son joined another faith, I would attend his baptism, christening, voodoo ceremony or whatever. Because I do accept his right to worship according to his conscience. In fact, don't we have an Article of Faith dealing with this situation?

I simply don't see how it is disloyal to the church or the gospel to stand by your child as they exercise their agency.

As for them knowing where "you stand," if you haven't made your beliefs about SSM clear over the last two decades, then I don't think that the day of their wedding is the time for that teaching moment. Perhaps, at the point, this hypothetical day could be about your son and his relationship and not YOU and YOUR views of it.

(Please remove what will invariable read like sarcasm from my response. It's not intended as such.)

What he said!