Does love require acceptance?

[JLHPROF]

On two separate threads recently the following claims have been made:

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

 I think that there is tolerance first.  Above tolerance is acceptance.  And above acceptance is love.  But I don't believe you can love someone without accepting them.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

And yes love is also acceptance.  It does not do much good to say I love you but go away because you do things differently than I would.

So, I think this topic is very worthy of discussion, since I don't believe these definitions of love are scriptural or correct.
My opinion is that Love does not require acceptance of all aspects of the thing you love.

Thoughts?

Edited September 9, 2016 by JLHPROF

[RevTestament]

Nope. Did/does Jesus love? Was he accepted?

[strappinglad]

What does it mean to accept a person the way he is? Does it mean to condone his behavior? Does it mean to hate the sin but love the sinner? Does it mean to recognize what the person is and what he has done and forgive all?

  Suppose my child is involved with some horrendous behavior, like has joined IS and beheaded numerous infidels. What would my acceptance look like? Do I get to draw a line somewhere? Anywhere?

Does God draw a line somewhere? Does He still love His son Satan and accept him ?

  Some parents have drug addicts as children and eventually come to the point where they must remove themselves from that child for the sake of the other kids and even their own safety. We condemn people of other cultures that draw lines at points that we feel are way too harsh. Is it better to never draw lines? Society draws lines all the time. I suppose that might be considered intolerant .

[Robert F. Smith]

We often hear that God hates the sin, but loves the sinner.  Does that mean that God loves the third of his progeny who deserted him, and who must be cast into Outer Darkness?  Does God even have a choice?  God weeps (Moses 7:28-29).  Is that a sign of love?  That we can break his heart?

[The Nehor]

The key to loving the sinner but not the sin seems like ridiculous hair-splitting until you  look at the one person most people do this for naturally. Yourself. I love myself not because I consider myself a wonderful person (sometimes I do but those are probably not my finest moments) but because I have sympathy for me. I know I can be better. I love myself because I am myself. Now I just need to learn to love all selves that same way.

Loving someone does not mean you have to imagine that they are a good person underneath it all or that they are misunderstood or whatever. It mean looking at their sin in all its vileness and choosing to love them. Wanting them to be healed and wanting them to be redeemed so one day they can be human again.

Edited September 9, 2016 by The Nehor

[Rivers]

Is it love to give a drunk a drink?

[Eek!]

Does love require acceptance?

Imo Jesus had some really radical thoughts that might be applicable.

For example, He said, “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” Unfortunately, over the past two thousand years, that idea hasn't really caught on. For most people, judging others seems to be a favorite way to apply their religious (or non-religious) beliefs. But what would happen to “love” and “acceptance” if we let go of our judgments of others?

Jesus didn't say visit the innocent who were wrongly imprisoned; he simply said to visit those in prison, He didn't say to feed the hungry or clothe the naked who were in that situation through no fault of their own; he simply said to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. (He went on to say, “Inasmuch as you have done it unto the least of these, you have done it undo me.” Wow. Do you think He really meant that? We'll save that topic for another day.)

Jesus also taught that, if someone makes an unreasonable request, just go ahead and do it, and then some! Like if someone asks you to walk a mile with them, walk two. Or if they ask for one of your valuable possessions, give him that and something else. Why in the world would He teach something so insane??

Jesus had the ability to see far more in people than they saw in themselves, and He was right. He would heal someone and tell them that their faith had made them whole, not that His power had made them whole. I think He was serious. I think that Jesus' seeing something true and wonderful in people entrained them to live up to that truth, even if only for long enough to have faith to be healed. But Jesus could look beyond all that was inauthentic and see people as they are in eternity (which looks like “the far future” to us), and imo that is how we can learn to see one another as well.

The following is just my opinion: In general correcting people is not our job, it's the Holy Spirit's job. The Holy Spirit speaks to all men everywhere through the still small voice. Where we can help is, by removing the barriers that may stand in between a person and the Holy Spirit. By not judging and condemning, we avoid putting people on the defensive, and so those barriers are removed. By meeting people's immediate physical needs, we put them in a position where they can do something besides suffer and worry, and so those barriers are removed. By showing forth a totally unreasonable degree of helpfulness to someone, we demonstrate to them that they are loved way beyond all human reason and logic, and in feeling truly loved they are on the wavelength where the Holy Spirit can speak to them.

Imo faith in a son or daughter of God is never misplaced even if they don't live up to that faith at that moment, because it is faith that their Creator knows what He's doing, and that Christ will not fail in His mission, which is, to bring to pass the immortality (salvation) and eternal life (exaltation) of man.

To put things in perspective: What are the first two commandments about? Yeah, those two. They are both about love. Imo would be a mistake to use any or all of the other commandments as justifications for anything other than love.

Regarding the third question in the poll, about God accepting us, I subscribe to what might be called a "long-path universalist” paradigm.  Briefly, I do not think there are any shortcuts or “honorary degrees”, nor do I think that the door is ever closed to eternal progression.  And it is in our nature to progress, even if we indulge in regression, and that sometimes for a very long time (the school of hard knocks will be in session for as long as it is needed).  Given that we are and will always be sons and daughters of God, and given what Christ's work and glory are, I believe that in the long run (and it can take as long as needed), we all make it.  I believe the parable of the Prodigal Son is about each of us.  

 

Edited September 9, 2016 by Eek!

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, Eek! said:

Does love require acceptance?

Imo Jesus had some really radical thoughts that might be applicable.

For example, He said, “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” Unfortunately, over the past two thousand years, that idea hasn't really caught on. For most people, judging others seems to be a favorite way to apply their religious (or non-religious) beliefs. But what would happen to “love” and “acceptance” if we let go of our judgments of others? ...

 

What would happen to love and acceptance if we let go of our judgments of others? Nothing, necessarily.  To an extent, I agree with you.  It's not necessarily my job to judge someone else, except to the extent that his behavior has an effect on me personally or on someone(s) over whom I have stewardship.  And do many Latter-day Saints, being less concerned about the effect of sin on society in general, instead, seize the opportunity to pass judgment on others merely to look down their noses at them?  Yes.

Still, should Dr. King's idea that "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" (offered in response to the contention that he, as an outsider, should not have been concerned about what was happening in Birmingham AL, USA circa 1963 A.D.: see "Letter from Birmingham Jail") also be applied to unrighteousness?  Is unrighteousness anywhere a threat to the righteous everywhere?  Isn't it naive to think that the Lord will spare the righteous completely from the punishments He visits upon the wicked? JST has an interesting rendering of the "judge not" scripture; the Prince of Peace also uttered such things as those found circa Matthew 10:34-39; as my buddy and erstwhile poster here, Kevin G. said (paraphrasing), "The next time someone asks you, 'What would Jesus do?', remind them that He wasn't above upending tables and scourging people"; and Christ also commanded His followers to be "as wise as serpents, and as harmless as doves" (Matthew 10:16).

Edited September 9, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[ALarson]

Does acceptance equal approval?  

I think one can love & accept someone into their midst without it meaning they are approving of everything that person is doing.   

[strappinglad]

43 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Does acceptance equal approval?  

I think one can love & accept someone into their midst without it meaning they are approving of everything that person is doing.   

But if you don't approve , then you are judging , right? And if you do approve , then you are judging also.

Edited September 9, 2016 by strappinglad

[Buckeye]

My answer depends on how one defines "acceptance." If acceptance means to "agree with and support all choices" then the answer is clearly no. People should not support their loved ones abusing drugs, cheating on a spouse, or a myriad of other harmful choices. But if acceptance means to "acknowledge that the person is a rational actor with agency equal to mine, coupled with a humble recognition that my conclusions may be wrong" then I would say that form of acceptance is a part of "love." 

In my experience, people who are judged to be sinners but persist in their behavior because they think it correct, these people are not looking for everyone to agree with them. Rather, they are looking to find common ground on issues and practices where we can productively work together. So for SS couples and the church, they're not demanding that everyone come celebrate their anniversary, but they do want to be able to have their kids play with your kids, to be able to sit at the ward pot-luck lunch and have a normal conversation, and so forth. 

Love doesn't mean giving up one's principles. But when those principles are in direct conflict with loved-ones' choices, it does mean putting those differences to the side, continuing the relationship on the common ground that remains, and trusting that in the long time we will all eventually align our views with eternal principles of right/wrong as we gain experience. When you're sure you're "right," love means letting the natural consequence of the sinner play out rather than trying to artificially add to them.

 

[bluebell]

I just posted this in the other thread but i'll repeat it here-

I hate that part of our cultural ideology right now (as Americans) is teaching kids from a very young age that in order to treat someone with respect and love them, we must first accept all of their choices as being equally valid as everyone else's, regardless of what those choices are.  I'm much more interested in raising my kids to be able to completely disagree with someone and yet still love them, see value in them, and respect them as human beings.  And likewise, not to demand agreement from other people before they can feel love and friendship from them.  

This, in my opinion, is the example that the Savior set in dealing with others, and also how He wants us to approach our relationship with Him.  Jesus did not agree with every decision of others, yet He still loved them.  Likewise, we need to be able to feel the Savior's love, even when we are doing things (or believing things) that we know He would not approve of.

But as i said in the other thread, i recognize that other people see the world (and the Savior) differently.

[ALarson]

36 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

But if you don't approve , then you are judging , right? And if you do approve , then you are judging also.

We all make judgement calls or decisions in our lives regarding what we choose to do or not do.  I can fully accept and welcome someone even though I do not approve of what they are currently doing in their life. The only time I would not welcome someone is if their presence causes harm or brings danger to myself, my family or anyone else who is there too.

Edited September 9, 2016 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Does acceptance equal approval?

I think one can love & accept someone into their midst without it meaning they are approving of everything that person is doing.  

But what if the thing they are doing makes them unable to accepted into your presence.
We see that with God frequently.

Does that mean we don't accept/love them?  Does any expression of DISapproval show a lack of love?

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

But what if the thing they are doing makes them unable to accepted into your presence.
We see that with God frequently.

Does that mean we don't accept/love them?  Does any expression of DISapproval show a lack of love?

I think I answered this in my post just above yours (regarding a danger or harm from someone who is present).

That's the only thing I can think of right off that would keep me from accepting someone into my presence.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I think I answered this in my post just above yours (regarding a danger or harm from someone who is present).

That's the only thing I can think of right off that would keep me from accepting someone into my presence.

There are more kinds of danger than physical harm.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

There are more kinds of danger than physical harm.

I agree and I don't see that I specified "physical harm".  

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Rivers said:

Is it love to give a drunk a drink?

No.  It requires "tough love" not to be an enabler.  It requires love to just say "no."

[ERMD]

24 minutes ago, ALarson said:

We all make judgement calls or decisions in our lives regarding what we choose to do or not do.  I can fully accept and welcome someone even though I do not approve of what they are currently doing in their life. The only time I would not welcome someone is if their presence causes harm or brings danger to myself, my family or anyone else who is there too.

And what comprises harm or danger to one's self, one's family, or any one else who is there is determined by each individual.

[CV75]

For 1 and 2, I think it depends. We love unconditionally, but there are countless aspects of human interaction that must be conditional, otherwise there is no interaction! We strive to behave and interact in a godly manner, which entails the application of covenants which are conditional.

For 3, He is always willing to accept us back, now and forever (whatever that might mean to different people!), but has thus far revealed that the greatest things He extends toward His children must be received by covenant, or with conditions. I will venture to suppose that even the Atonement must be received by covenant in order to be resurrected (Romans 14:11).

[Buckeye]

24 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

But what if the thing they are doing makes them unable to accepted into your presence.
We see that with God frequently.

Does that mean we don't accept/love them?  Does any expression of DISapproval show a lack of love?

Fortunately, the scriptures are pretty clear on this point. Each of us is a pile of garbage when it comes to the glory of our own presence. You, me, Lebron James, President Monson, Desmond Tutu, Ryan Lochte, Mother Teresa, .... everyone. None of us have any glory that would prevent us from sitting down with the vilest of sinners.  We don't have to accept the sin. But we can all sit together without worry of their filth contaminating us because, well, we're all just as filthy as them. (Correction: Mother Teresa has just been sainted so maybe her presence does require some worthiness now. But from what I've read of her life, I rather doubt she'd make a worthiness test to sit with her.  )

[CV75]

7 minutes ago, ERMD said:

And what comprises harm or danger to one's self, one's family, or any one else who is there is determined by each individual.

Or by the community. In the case of Zion, there is both spiritual and temporal danger in breaking the covenants to we strive to keep them with one heart and one mind. For example, “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.”

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, ERMD said:

And what comprises harm or danger to one's self, one's family, or any one else who is there is determined by each individual.

Well, that's another judgement call that each of us have to make (especially regarding ourselves or our family members).

There are many things to take into account.  For instance, I would not take my 4 year old grandson to a movie that I would take one of my adult kids to.  Age appropriate is a big thing for me when determining what could cause damage (mentally or emotionally).  As far as physical danger, I'd want to protect a 4 year old and the adult from being exposed to that.  

But for the topic that spurred this thread, I'd have no problem having a gay person or a couple who were in a SSM around any member of my family.  

 

 

[stemelbow]

I can't accept the notion that agreement and acceptance are synonyms.  Those who want to say they love people without accepting them seem to misunderstand what it means to accept.  Accepting them would not require you agree with them.  Accepting does not mean supporting either--although I grant that in order to accept one you must offer some level of support. 

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Fortunately, the scriptures are pretty clear on this point. Each of us is a pile of garbage when it comes to the glory of our own presence. You, me, Lebron James, President Monson, Desmond Tutu, Ryan Lochte, Mother Teresa, .... everyone. None of us have any glory that would prevent us from sitting down with the vilest of sinners.  We don't have to accept the sin. But we can all sit together without worry of their filth contaminating us because, well, we're all just as filthy as them. (Correction: Mother Teresa has just been sainted so maybe her presence does require some worthiness now. But from what I've read of her life, I rather doubt she'd make a worthiness test to sit with her.  )

I agree with this up to a point.

But let's take the example of the temple.  That is God's house.  Entering it is the equivalent of entering into God's presence.  There are worthiness requirements to enter into the temple.

Yet the same argument is made - we are unloving, unaccepting, because we don't allow family members that don't meet the worthiness requirements to enter and observe their family member's weddings.

The temple is obviously a slightly different situation, but the argument being used is the same.  "If you don't accept and include us as we are equally you aren't showing love".  It's a bad argument.

Now to bring this back to us weak flawed mortal beings - what sort of community are we trying to create?  What sort of society would we have ourselves become?
I would put forward that we would like to become a holy temple society at some point.  And that will by necessity have the same standards of inclusion and exclusion.
Christ always associated with sinners while a mortal being.  But the time will come when sin will no longer be allowed in his presence either.  Are we hoping to become like he is now as much as we want to be like he was in mortality?