Tolerance Versus Acceptance

[jaxenro]

"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."

 

This has nothing to do with a "teaching moment" or "making a stand". Nor would it be an attempt to change their views or alter their agency.

 

I am simply stating I would refuse to participate in an action I consider so morally wrong. That is my agency. That is who I am. That is the person my son knows and he would no more want me to compromise my values than I him. We have mutual respect for one another and understanding.

 

I have explained repeatedly my views on the marriage ceremony and that attendance equates to participation. You may disagree but that is your interpretation. We each stand, or fall, on what we individually think is right.

 

Does everything have to be political here? Or politically correct?

[jaxenro]

I have to ask does anyone here have standards they commit to? It seems the asnwers are all about "supporting" your child regardless if you agree with his actions. Unconditionally accepting them. Bendng your standards so that you show support? Respecting their right to do whatever they want?

 

Does it ever occur to you that by committing to standards and living to them you are showing love to your children? Perhas your children want to understand that you commit to the standards you preach, that it isn't all game, or hypocrisy, that when you take a stand you mean it.

 

My son knows when I give my word I keep it. We have never discussed this situation but then again he isn't gay. But he knows who I am and I would like to think respects that. Yes I have made mistakes that he knows of, and more that he doesn't, but knowing where I stand was never in doubt. I would no more ask him to do something he didn't support then him me. I have more restect for him than that. And personally I think this is more important to a relationship than showing up at an event you don't support. We each know when the other gives his word he can rely on it. We each respect the other. We each, to use an old fashioned and outdated term, act like men.

 

So to reverse the situation if I was to engage in a SSM and it went against my son's beliefs I would not ask him to attend nor be insulted if he didn't.

Edited March 18, 2014 by jaxenro

[mormonnewb]

I have to ask does anyone here have standards they commit to? It seems the asnwers are all about "supporting" your child regardless if you agree with his actions. Unconditionally accepting them. Bendng your standards so that you show support? Respecting their right to do whatever they want?

 

Does it ever occur to you that by committing to standards and living to them you are showing love to your children? Perhas your children want to understand that you commit to the standards you preach, that it isn't all game, or hypocrisy, that when you take a stand you mean it.

I think where we disagree is on what it means to "commit to standards and live [up] to them." For me, that means that I, mormonnewb, agree to live by the law of chastity, consecration, etc. It does not mean that I insist others do so. Nor does it mean that I can't support others when they decide not to live by MY standards (as much I might want them to).

Perhaps, as a convert, I see this differently because most of my cherished loved ones are NOT Mormons. My father isn't even a Christian. He doesn't live according to the gospel (although, in some ways, he is twice the "Christian" that I am). However, if he were to decide to buy a house with his current girlfriend. I would attend their housewarming. Sure, I believe that men and women should only live together in matrimony, but my commitment to that belief only extends to MY actions. And since my wife won't let me buy a house with a new girlfriend -- or even have one (Women!), my commitment to that principle is secure. Whether other people embrace or keep that commitment is between them and Heavenly Father.

[jaxenro]

I spoke of personal standards not asking others to obey them. To thine own self be true

Although I wouldn't attend a SSM, my sons or any others, I wouldn't tell another individual not to have one, my son or any other.

I would vote against it but that is simply my political right to help determine the society I want to live in

And I am, at present, not a LDS member and if I am allowed to rejoin I will be the only one besides my wife in my family

I would have been making the exact same argument a year ago without any inkling I would ever rejoin the LDS church

Edited March 18, 2014 by jaxenro

[jaxenro]

"I would attend their housewarming"

 

So would I. As a LDS member I understand the commitment to matrimony but as a naturalist I do not see it contravening natural law. They would be exercising what I see as common law marriage. Just as I would attend a wedding in a different church or before a magistrate. Although the LDS church does consider such weddings valid

[awyatt]

Context is (as they say) everything. Calmorah stated as much earlier in this thread.

 

I think where we disagree is on what it means to "commit to standards and live [up] to them." For me, that means that I, mormonnewb, agree to live by the law of chastity, consecration, etc. It does not mean that I insist others do so. Nor does it mean that I can't support others when they decide not to live by MY standards (as much I might want them to).

 

I know my standards. If I don't live up to my standards (if my behavior is not consistent with my accepted, covenanted, and professed beliefs), then I have failed. I would not expect anyone to accept, condone, support, or celebrate my failure to live up to my standards. Why should I accept, condone, support, or celebrate anyone else's similar failure, whether they be a relative or not?

 

The context, here, is the acceptance (by covenant) of standards. If my relative or child does not have those same standards (and hasn't made covenants in that regard), then I can accept that. I would join with them, provided they were living up to whatever standards they had accepted and professed to live by. Context.

 

The discussion in this thread has devolved into consideration of a single question: Is it "tolerant" to attend a marriage based on something you find morally objectionable? As much fun as it might be to discuss that, I think there are more telling questions and answers. For instance:

• Where does tolerance end when it comes to teaching your children what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior?
• Where does tolerance end when it comes to enforcing laws you find unacceptable or "out of date"? (Governmental authorities face this all the time.)
• Where does tolerance end when it comes to workplace behavior?
• Where does tolerance end when it comes to your neighbor's noisy party?
• Where does tolerance end when it comes to your neighbor's behind-closed-doors illegal activities?

There are many such questions that we all face from time to time. Our principles and standards are often challenged, as are our tolerance levels.

 

By the way: A very good book on this topic is The Intolerance of Tolerance (D.A. Carson, 2012, Eerdmans Publishing). He lays out the case very convincingly that in our society the supreme virtue is tolerance. It trumps all and the only thing we don't tolerate is intolerance. It is a much wider issue than the relatively narrow one of the societal acceptance of homosexual behavior. This is, of course, a recipe for moral anarchy. (But that is a topic for a different thread.)

[Gray]

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?

 

 

John Dehlin did a survey of gay Mormons with retired BYU prof Bill Bradshaw on quality of life for gay Mormons. 

 

I'm just reporting on the results of the survey. What people choose to do is their own business. 

Edited March 18, 2014 by Gray

[Gray]

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.

 

Marriage is about so much more than sex. Most of what's involved in a gay marriage is not anything to do with what you might call law of chastity issues. 

[california boy]

I think where we disagree is on what it means to "commit to standards and live [up] to them." For me, that means that I, mormonnewb, agree to live by the law of chastity, consecration, etc. It does not mean that I insist others do so. Nor does it mean that I can't support others when they decide not to live by MY standards (as much I might want them to).

Perhaps, as a convert, I see this differently because most of my cherished loved ones are NOT Mormons. My father isn't even a Christian. He doesn't live according to the gospel (although, in some ways, he is twice the "Christian" that I am). However, if he were to decide to buy a house with his current girlfriend. I would attend their housewarming. Sure, I believe that men and women should only live together in matrimony, but my commitment to that belief only extends to MY actions. And since my wife won't let me buy a house with a new girlfriend -- or even have one (Women!), my commitment to that principle is secure. Whether other people embrace or keep that commitment is between them and Heavenly Father.

 

The gauge we should all use to determine our behavior is to turn towards the life of Christ.  This post just feels like what Christ did and what He would want us to do.  I guess I would rather error on the side of unconditional love.

[jaxenro]

The gauge we should all use to determine our behavior is to turn towards the life of Christ. This post just feels like what Christ did and what He would want us to do. I guess I would rather error on the side of unconditional love.

And each of us make our own decisions in life. As I have said many times here there are not so much right and wrong answers as individual choices

[Calm]

However, if he were to decide to buy a house with his current girlfriend. I would attend their housewarming.

Is your dad married or single?

[Calm]

Marriage is about so much more than sex. Most of what's involved in a gay marriage is not anything to do with what you might call law of chastity issues.

But it is a significant part of it, otherwise we would be having all sorts of companionships of the nonsexual kind being labeled marriage.

[DJBrown]

It isn't a question of approve or disapprove but participate or not participate

Am I speaking Greek? Is this Julius Caesar?

I would not not attend to show disapproval I would not attend in order not to participate

 

I really think we underestimate the danger associated with same-sex marriage and the degree to which it offends the Lord.  It is in complete opposition to God and His work.

 

I think the closing paragraphs of the Proclamation to the World is an important consideration here. It reads:

 

"WE WARN that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

WE CALL UPON responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."

The Calamities referred to will come as a result of efforts to change and break down the family.  There can be no greater assault on the family than same-sex marriage.  Legalizing same-sex marriage is an enormous step in society's validating and placing moral equivalence on the institution.

The Lord stated in D&C 101:97, "Let not that which I have appointed be polluted by mine enemies, by the consent of those who call themselves after my name." 

Same sex marriage is certainly a pollution of marriage.  And attending such a ceremony must be seen as giving one's consent.  

It is interesting to me that the rabbinical writings in the Babylonian Talmud from roughly 2,500 years ago demonstrate that the Jewish leaders of the time believed that the final straw in God's decision to flood the earth was state endorsed same-sex marriage.  There had been homosexuality and violence for a long time.  But the acceptance by society in the form of state endorsement was a big step.  

In that context, and considering God's covenant with Enoch, I think it is very interesting to note what is the universal symbol of the GLBT community- the rainbow.  The rainbow was the sign from God that He would never flood the earth again.  

The recent letters sent by the church to local leaders is also instructive on this issue.  That letter states, "Church officers will not employ their ecclesiastical authority to perform marriages between two people of the same sex, and the Church does not permit its meetinghouses or other properties to be used for ceremonies, receptions, or other activities associated with same-sex marriages."

It goes on to state that all are welcome to attend our meetings.  The difference here is much like the difference between showing love and acceptance of a child or friend and drawing the line with the ceremony of same-sex marriage.  I would not attend or participate in such a ceremony. But that does not keep me from showing Christ-like love to those individuals outside of that ceremony and what it represents.

The father of the prodigal son did not go with the son in his "riotous living."  But he welcomed him back when he had "come to himself."

[Ahab]

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.

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

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.

SSM relationships are not eternal and never will be, no matter how much the participants hope they will be, so think of how someone who believes that feels about missing a SSM ceremony. It's just a very sad event and I would not want to be a part of it.

[pogi]

Same sex marriage is certainly a pollution of marriage.  And attending such a ceremony must be seen as giving one's consent.  

 

By whom must it be seen as giving one's consent?  Do people have no choice but to see things from your perspective?  The only must or rather, "should" in this scenario is following the spirit.  There are no scriptures which dictate how one should act in this situation.  I have heard no official pronouncements on the matter.  The only guiding light is the spirit.  This would be a personal decision between Me, God, and my Son.

 

Being that I am not faced with this situation, I admittedly have not prayed about the issue and am open to being corrected by the spirit.  As of now, I don't have to see things your way simply because you say that I must.  It doesn't feel right to me and it would be inauthentic and disingenuous of me to not attend.  I would be living counter to my conscience. 

[jaxenro]

Interesting. If you read through this discussion you will notice I have always stated what I would do, never what others should, except to follow the dictates of their own conscience. Yet several who disagreed with me seemed to state what I should do. I chalked this to rhetorical excess.

I think if we lit debate to what we would do and not what others should do it would be better

[pogi]

I know my standards. If I don't live up to my standards (if my behavior is not consistent with my accepted, covenanted, and professed beliefs), then I have failed. I would not expect anyone to accept, condone, support, or celebrate my failure to live up to my standards. Why should I accept, condone, support, or celebrate anyone else's similar failure, whether they be a relative or not?

 

To me, I do not look at sin as failure.  There is no redemption in failure.  There is no hope in failure. There is no future in failure.  It is still premature to determine if we are failures or not.  I would expect acceptance from others despite my perceived "failure".  What a harsh cold world it would be for the sinner (all of us) without acceptance.  What motivation would he have to return where he is not accepted?  Again, I am using the word "accept" as defined earlier by me, not as many of you here are using the word. 

 

My attendance would in no way be condoning, supportive, or celebratory of Gay marriage.  It would probably be one of the most difficult and somber occasions of my life.  I would not be there for the ceremony though.  

[pogi]

Interesting. If you read through this discussion you will notice I have always stated what I would do, never what others should, except to follow the dictates of their own conscience. Yet several who disagreed with me seemed to state what I should do. I chalked this to rhetorical excess.

I think if we lit debate to what we would do and not what others should do it would be better

 

I admit, that you have been fair and your point is well taken.  However, there was one post where even you participated in a little "rhetorical excess" which came across as a moral superiority despite saying earlier that we could both be right in our position.  You said:

 

I have to ask does anyone here have standards they commit to? It seems the asnwers are all about "supporting" your child regardless if you agree with his actions. Unconditionally accepting them. Bendng your standards so that you show support? Respecting their right to do whatever they want?

 

You need to understanding that my standards would not be bent, and I probably have the same standards as you regarding SSM.  I simply view attendance different from you.  Many people keep insisting that attendance must mean this, or that, but I simply ask why must it mean this or that?  Where is the law which states that?

 

i have attended many events that I didn't like or didn't want to attend, my attendance was never seen as celebration, support, or condoning of the event in any way, but simply as a message to my wife that I would be there for her.  Do you see how attendance to an event can mean different things depending on your reason for attending.

 

Calmoriah made a good point about how the word "acceptance" has been used in this forum.  Just like it is probably best that we don't use a universal definition for "acceptance",  perhaps we should treat the word attendance the same way.  

 

In answer to a couple of your questions - absolutely I would unconditionally accept my child (there are some good talks on that).  Yes, I would respect their "right" to do whatever they want, however, I wouldn't respect their choices all of the time.

[jaxenro]

True I went a little too far with that one my apologies. I should not have questioned your adherence to your standards.

[jaxenro]

Attendance can mean many different things depending on the event. My understanding of weddings is that those in attendance stand as witnesses (you know the tradition do any here question and all that) and are therefore participatory to a degree different than just having a private dinner together.

[mormonnewb]

Is your dad married or single?

LOL!

He's single. He's not THAT much of a heathen.

And for the record, no, I would not attend the housewarming if he moved in with another woman WHILE he was married to my mom. I would however attend his funeral

[pogi]

Attendance can mean many different things depending on the event. My understanding of weddings is that those in attendance stand as witnesses (you know the tradition do any here question and all that) and are therefore participatory to a degree different than just having a private dinner together.

 

First, simply because I witness someone else's sin doesn't make me a participant, nor does it mean that I endorse or approve of it.  It simply means that I acknowledge that it happened.

 

Second, not all attendees act as witnesses, only those who have been called.  Traditionally there are usually three.  

 

The whole, "speak now or forever hold your peace" thing has become somewhat obsolete, it isn't really done outside of churches.  The fact that it was ever asked however, demonstrates that attendance does not, and did not always equal approval, as you insist that it historically meant.  Those who approved and those who disapproved were expected to attend.   In fact, your absence would be indicative of your weakness or inability to really take a stand on how you feel.  You all are talking about taking a stand and not bending your standards, yet ironically you are not even present at the ceremony to actually and literally take a stand when you are offered the chance.

 

 If they don't ask the question on the other hand, you are in no way offering your consent or obligated to publicly protest the marriage.  If for some crazy reason a gay couple took the risk of including that in their ceremony (which they wouldn't), I might say something like this:

 

"I have expressed my feelings to my son privately on this issue.  He knows that I do not support gay marriage and am having difficulty reconciling this situation.  Having said that, I am not here to plead that this wedding be stopped, I have done enough of that already.  I have taught what I believe to be true and now my son must govern himself.  My son has made up his mind and I will respect and honor his agency, even when I disagree with his choices.  I am here to demonstrate my deep and profound love and commitment to my son through thick and thin and for better or worse.  I want my son and his future husband to know that they are welcome in my home and I will do everything in my power to bless this new couple in their new lives together.  I want you to know that I love you son, and I will always be here for you."

Edited March 18, 2014 by pogi

[pogi]

I like this:

 

Question: I understand and agree with the Church’s stance on same-sex marriage. However, is it wrong to congratulate people or attend the wedding of a same-sex couple? Wouldn’t it be similar to going to a wedding of a different religion?

 

While the Catholic Church teaches that marriage is reserved to one man and one woman, this doesn’t preclude Catholics from attending celebrations that aren’t Catholic sacramental weddings. Civil weddings don’t pass muster in the Catholic Church, nor do some unions celebrated in other religious communities. That’s not the point here. Mere presence at an event does not mean approval of everything that is taking place. If you were to take a poll of everyone gathered to celebrate any wedding, you would likely find a wide range of opinions, convictions, and experiences with respect to marriage. Some people in attendance might not even approve of the marriage being celebrated, or of marriage at all! But all the guests would probably express love and friendship for the couple and a desire to support them at an important time in their lives. If someone invites you to a gay wedding or to a wedding of a different religion — especially if that someone is a friend or relative of yours — don’t hesitate to go. You are called first and foremost to love that person and to honor the relationship you have with him or her. There is another time and place to discuss the teaching of the Church with respect to marriage. And if you are concerned about scandal, remember this: There’s a difference between a Catholic priest presiding at a gay wedding and you attending one.

 

http://bustedhalo.com/questionbox/can-i-attend-a-gay-wedding

Edited March 18, 2014 by pogi

[jaxenro]

"has become somewhat obsolete"

 

I myself am somewhat obsolete. I seem to live in a different time

[Bikeemikey]

"has become somewhat obsolete"

I myself am somewhat obsolete. I seem to live in a different time

Are you the guy from Quantum Leap, dr who or the highlander? Edited March 18, 2014 by Bikeemikey