Does love require acceptance?

[stemelbow]

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.  

To disagree is not the same as not accepting.  I think the notion that we must not have to accept someone to love them is to treat people who disagree with as people we do not accept.  That's a sad danger, I think, that we're dealing with today.  Those who disagree with gay people for instance, tend to make them feel unaccepted.  It's tough, because try as you might, if you disagree and treat it like you can't accept, using them as synonyms, they won't feel the love at all.  It's not their problem, though.  It's the givers problem, I'd say. 

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

I don't think you're correct here.  First, we have very little of Jesus' life.  That which we have is probably a pretty sad rendition of what He really did.  Second, as the NT has it, Jesus showed great disrespect for the teachings and thinking of those like the Pharisees.  One big issue he had with them is that if they disagreed they did not accept.  So we learn here, that we ought not let those whom we disagree with feel unaccepted.  But the problem here is did the Pharisees feel accepted by Jesus?  Third, there's no finer example than Jesus sitting and supping with sinners, or rubbing elbows with those who were regarded as the lowest in society.  I cant forget that. 

[thesometimesaint]

We are required to love everyone. We're not required to like everything they do.

[stemelbow]

Just now, thesometimesaint said:

We are required to love everyone. We're not required to like everything they do.

SImple huh? 

[Buckeye]

19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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?

I agree that we can set reasonable behavioral expectations for people who come into our homes or hang out with us. And fact scenarios run the gambit from situations where most reasonable people would be accepting ... to situations where most reasonable people would not be accepting ... to the unavoidable middle ground situations where reasonable people will disagree. As one example, I expect everyone on this board would be accepting of a gay son to their family Thanksgiving dinner. I expect everyone would not be accepting of that son making out with his boyfriend during Thanksgiving dinner. And I think we'd be split on whether to allow the son to bring his boyfriend to dinner.

 

[Damien the Leper]

I love my friends and family. I respect their right to have a religion. However, I do not condone their religious lifestyles. Their choice, and the consequences that come with it, to live in such a manner is none of my business.

[thesometimesaint]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

SImple huh? 

It is the very simplest of concepts to understand, and the hardest to implement.

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

To disagree is not the same as not accepting.  I think the notion that we must not have to accept someone to love them is to treat people who disagree with as people we do not accept.  That's a sad danger, I think, that we're dealing with today.  Those who disagree with gay people for instance, tend to make them feel unaccepted.  It's tough, because try as you might, if you disagree and treat it like you can't accept, using them as synonyms, they won't feel the love at all.  It's not their problem, though.  It's the givers problem, I'd say. 

I think the bolded statement is one that hasn't been proven, so i have a real hard time being asked to just accept it as if it were a fact.  I agree that those who disagree with gay people can make them feel unaccepted, but you'd have to answer a CFR before i would agree that they tend to make them feel unaccepted.  The first statement implies possibility and the other implies probability.  

Maybe i'm misunderstanding you though.  If you are saying that gay people tend to feel unaccepted by those who disagree simply because they disagree, then that would prove my point about the "agreement = love" culture we are dealing with right now in the U.S.

Quote

Third, there's no finer example than Jesus sitting and supping with sinners, or rubbing elbows with those who were regarded as the lowest in society.  I cant forget that. 

This was the example i was specifically thinking of when i said what i said about Jesus.  He did not accept the lifestyle choices of those sinners, yet that didn't mean He didn't love them.  Neither did it stop them from being able to feel His love.

I doubt the pharisees were able to feel Jesus' love, but we know He loved them regardless.  The problem was on their end, not on His.

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

 I expect everyone would not be accepting of that son making out with his boyfriend during Thanksgiving dinner. And I think we'd be split on whether to allow the son to bring his boyfriend to dinner.

Do you think there is anyone here who would be o.k. with their heterosexual son making out with his girlfriend during thanksgiving dinner though?  

[Buckeye]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Do you think there is anyone here who would be o.k. with their heterosexual son making out with his girlfriend during thanksgiving dinner though?  

Of course not. I was just trying to draw some bright lines where everyone would agree.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Of course not. I was just trying to draw some bright lines where everyone would agree.

I should have added a smiley. 

[stemelbow]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think the bolded statement is one that hasn't been proven, so i have a real hard time being asked to just accept it as if it were a fact.  I agree that those who disagree with gay people can make them feel unaccepted, but you'd have to answer a CFR before i would agree that they tend to make them feel unaccepted.  The first statement implies possibility and the other implies probability.  

Maybe i'm misunderstanding you though.  If you are saying that gay people tend to feel unaccepted by those who disagree simply because they disagree, then that would prove my point about the "agreement = love" culture we are dealing with right now in the U.S.

I'm not sure what you mean, Bluebell.  You seem to agree that gay people tend to feel unaccepted.  But you disagree that those who are opposed to homosexuality tend to contribute to homosexuals feeling unaccepted.  To me this is a distinction without a difference.  How a people feels is a result of how they are treated, by and large.  You can say, people are the kindest and don't make homosexuals feels unaccepted all you want, but the fact remains they often feel unaccepted.  But this is certainly getting better and better, even with some steps backwards now and then. 

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This was the example i was specifically thinking of when i said what i said about Jesus.  He did not accept the lifestyle choices of those sinners, yet that didn't mean He didn't love them.  Neither did it stop them from being able to feel His love.

I doubt the pharisees were able to feel Jesus' love, but we know He loved them regardless.  The problem was on their end, not on His.

Well, so the story goes.  But the teaching seems clear--the Pharisees were often condemned by Jesus because of their lack of acceptance.  We may just have to consider Jesus a unique case.  As it is we aren't Him.  While we love to condemn like He did, we simply don't know or understand quite like He did or does. 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

 Third, there's no finer example than Jesus sitting and supping with sinners, or rubbing elbows with those who were regarded as the lowest in society.  I cant forget that.

When we use that argument, remember that Christ went to the sinners.  He came to the sinners and invited them to repent.

In other words he went into their world.
He has also been very clear that sinners cannot be welcomed into his kingdom without repentance.

So when we seek to build Christ's kingdom upon the earth which pattern are we following?
We are going into their world to invite them to repent.  But we are in no way required to accept them into Christ's kingdom without repentance.

I guess that is not very accepting.  Perhaps they may not feel loved by Christ.
Why should the Church be any different?  Why should we welcome those in sin into the Church if they do not repent?
Christ would have sat in their homes, taught them, loved them, encouraged them to go and sin no more.  But he would never have invited them into HIS home/kingdom without repentance.

[rpn]

Accepting a person is different from accepting everything they do or say.   Yes, in order to really love a person, you have to accept them for what and who they are and can be.  

But that doesn't mean for a moment that you have to approve of everything they do.   Acceptance of them means to acknowledge their worth and importance and divinity.   It doesn't mean you also have to join the NRA or Girl Scouts, or fly a rainbow flag at a protest (though we surely could do any of those things we wished to do also).

Of course Heavenly Parents love Their lost children as much as They love those who are as good as they personally can be in every mortal circumstance.   Anyone who is a parent should know that.    And that loving doesn't always mean liking or wanting to hang around with them alot (the latter mostly because of the negative atmosphere, not the children themselves).

[Buckeye]

40 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

When we use that argument, remember that Christ went to the sinners.  He came to the sinners and invited them to repent.

In other words he went into their world.
He has also been very clear that sinners cannot be welcomed into his kingdom without repentance.

So when we seek to build Christ's kingdom upon the earth which pattern are we following?
We are going into their world to invite them to repent.  But we are in no way required to accept them into Christ's kingdom without repentance.

I guess that is not very accepting.  Perhaps they may not feel loved by Christ.
Why should the Church be any different?  Why should we welcome those in sin into the Church if they do not repent?
Christ would have sat in their homes, taught them, loved them, encouraged them to go and sin no more.  But he would never have invited them into HIS home/kingdom without repentance.

 

I agree with a lot of this. My one caveat is that none of us is Christ. All our judgments will prove to be faulty to some degree. Even our prophets make doctrinal mistakes (e.g., racial priesthood ban). So while we should aim for higher spheres, and we recognize that there will be standards, we must also be humble enough to consider that our line drawing may end up placing us out of heaven. Our teachings kept black families out of the temple for 100+ years. That choice not only hurt them, but in a very real sense it damned the church body. Our progression was stopped. We're still dealing with the consequences. 

Edited September 9, 2016 by Buckeye

[CV75]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

I think it is well to accept everyone as a child of God, and in doing so recognize the divine spark within him. I think this (both the spark and the recognition of it in others) is what engenders love. As children of God, I see us as free agents who act on that divine spark, and not everyone acts on it the same way (whether for reasons of opportunity, circumstance, or choice), in fanning or diminishing it. But once love (the kind I'm talking about) is engendered, it does not go away. A mother' love, for example. Our acts may separate us from a common community, but divine love will always remain.

[Mystery Meat]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I Second, as the NT has it, Jesus showed great disrespect for the teachings and thinking of those like the Pharisees.  One big issue he had with them is that if they disagreed they did not accept.  So we learn here, that we ought not let those whom we disagree with feel unaccepted. 

I would like to see an example of this. I do not seeing this lesson in the NT, especially when the Savior talked about dividing families, swords, hell fire, not because the Jews would not accept those they disagreed with (a 20th - 21st Century imposition), but because they would not conform and agree with Him.

[stemelbow]

54 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

When we use that argument, remember that Christ went to the sinners.  He came to the sinners and invited them to repent.

In other words he went into their world.
He has also been very clear that sinners cannot be welcomed into his kingdom without repentance.

So when we seek to build Christ's kingdom upon the earth which pattern are we following?
We are going into their world to invite them to repent.  But we are in no way required to accept them into Christ's kingdom without repentance.

I guess that is not very accepting.  Perhaps they may not feel loved by Christ.
Why should the Church be any different?  Why should we welcome those in sin into the Church if they do not repent?
Christ would have sat in their homes, taught them, loved them, encouraged them to go and sin no more.  But he would never have invited them into HIS home/kingdom without repentance.

All of us sin and virtually none of us repents of each sin we commit.  I'm not sure I get where you're coming from. 

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

All of us sin and virtually none of us repents of each sin we commit.  I'm not sure I get where you're coming from.

It's not about repenting of each sin.  It's about being willing to change and become like God.
The atonement covers our sins if we are willing to work on giving them up even if we can never be perfect at it.  The atonement doesn't cover those sins we refuse to give up.

What is so hard to understand?
Christ loves us all unconditionally.
Christ died so that our sins can be paid for if we repent.
Christ welcomes all that are willing to give up their sins into his kingdom.
Christ does not accept those into his kingdom who want to keep their sins.
To some that feels like rejection, but it does not remove the love he has for us.


 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

This idea of acceptance means agreement with choices, etc. is actually going to end up creating more problems imo, because eventually you disagree with everyone and then they won't have the skills developed to make that work or the expectation that it will work and be genuine.  It also turns people into having more passive relationships and not being willing to work at them.  My sister's husband (nonlds) left her because he decided they couldn't be in love because they had to work at the relationship.  He was a very nice guy, just didn't get that relationships, intimacy had the same requirement as other things one wanted to be good at.  

It reminds me of the cliche "love means never having to say you are sorry".  Wonder how many relationships were ruined by that expectation.

[stemelbow]

23 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

I would like to see an example of this. I do not seeing this lesson in the NT, especially when the Savior talked about dividing families, swords, hell fire, not because the Jews would not accept those they disagreed with (a 20th - 21st Century imposition), but because they would not conform and agree with Him.

He frequently eschewed them for their hypocrisy in how they treated others Mark 7:

Quote

 1 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.

 2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.

 3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.

4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

 5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

 6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

 7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

The Pharisees seemed to want to see separation and those who were unclean not with those that were clean in their view.

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It's not about repenting of each sin.  It's about being willing to change and become like God.
The atonement covers our sins if we are willing to work on giving them up even if we can never be perfect at it.  The atonement doesn't cover those sins we refuse to give up.

What is so hard to understand?
Christ loves us all unconditionally.
Christ died so that our sins can be paid for if we repent.
Christ welcomes all that are willing to give up their sins into his kingdom.
Christ does not accept those into his kingdom who want to keep their sins.
To some that feels like rejection, but it does not remove the love he has for us.


 

Everyone wants to change and become more godlike.  It just so happens they don't know God to know what they want to become.  Everyone wants to do well, in the end.  Well, maybe there's some weirdos out there wanting to wreak havoc at every turn, but everyone enjoys loving others and doing good, even if some of us are worse at it than others. 

[rockpond]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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

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?

Consider the antithesis:  Can you love someone who you reject?

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Consider the antithesis:  Can you love someone who you reject?

Yes.
God can, and so must we learn to love as God loves.

It seems to me like many Church members are fulfilling prophecy:

2 Nephi 28:8 And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.

Edited September 9, 2016 by JLHPROF

[rockpond]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

My opinion is that Love does not require acceptance of all aspects of the thing you love.

I agree with this.  My statement was within the context we were discussing.  Pulling it out of context and making it a new thread subject somewhat alters what I originally meant.

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

This idea of acceptance means agreement with choices, etc.

I don't think anyone is arguing for that, BTW.

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

is actually going to end up creating more problems imo, because eventually you disagree with everyone and then they won't have the skills developed to make that work or the expectation that it will work and be genuine.  It also turns people into having more passive relationships and not being willing to work at them.  My sister's husband (nonlds) left her because he decided they couldn't be in love because they had to work at the relationship.  He was a very nice guy, just didn't get that relationships, intimacy had the same requirement as other things one wanted to be good at.  

It reminds me of the cliche "love means never having to say you are sorry".  Wonder how many relationships were ruined by that expectation.