- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
“I consider charity—or the “pure love of Christ”—to be the opposite of criticism and judging. In speaking of charity, I do not at this moment have in mind the relief of the suffering through the giving of our substance. That, of course, is necessary and proper. Tonight, however, I have in mind the charity that manifests itself when we are tolerant of others and lenient toward their actions; the kind of charity that forgives; the kind of charity that is patient…. Charity is having patience with someone who has let us down; it is resisting the impulse to become offended easily. It is accepting weaknesses and shortcomings. It is accepting people as they truly are. It is looking beyond physical appearances to attributes that will not dim through time. It is resisting the impulse to categorize others.” —President Thomas S. Monson It’s a great talk about tolerance and charity.
Wayfayer, that was a great post. I would consider using that in a sacrament talk. I wonder how that would go over with the general population at church. I know several members who would agree whole heartily with this. I too enjoyed the post. I think the section talking about the sex act being what constitutes the transition from betrothed to married answers a question I posted a while back about what traditional marriage looked like. I wondered if a wedding was essential way back when, but it sounds like it was less formal than our current interpretation. It’s that correct? Maybe those today who are ‘living in sin’ in long term, committed relationships might just be closer to traditional marriage than we once thought. Perhaps Shawn has a point: perhaps I overstated in saying that the church is on the wrong side of this issue: clearly President Monson’s quote above, and his closing conference address about tolerance are in harmony with the higher law. I would amend my comments to say that many in the church are on the wrong side of this issue.
wayfarer wrote:Perhaps Shawn has a point: perhaps I overstated in saying that the church is on the wrong side of this issue: clearly President Monson’s quote above, and his closing conference address about tolerance are in harmony with the higher law.
I would amend my comments to say that many in the church are on the wrong side of this issue.
I appreciate this. Thank you.I also wanted to point out that the word “tolerance” isn’t itself very tolerant. Jesus didn’t tell us to tolerate but to love our neighbor. Tolerate implies that we don’t approve but we don’t fight them either. It’s not really a Christian principle. hawkgrrrl wrote:I also wanted to point out that the word “tolerance” isn’t itself very tolerant.
Jesus didn’t tell us to tolerate but to love our neighbor. Tolerate implies that we don’t approve but we don’t fight them either.It’s not really a Christian principle. Maybe the scriptures don’t specifically use the word “tolerance” but in the Bible Jesus talked about forgiving people 70×7 times, turning the other cheek, and the idea that if someone takes your cloak then you should just let him have your coat also. To me that sounds about as tolerant as anyone could possibly be. So to see these suggestions to just let it go in cases where someone intentionally causes you direct harm but then turn around and expect people to think we need to draw the line in cases where there isn’t necessarily any harm done to anyone (gay marriage) and insist that we won’t stand for it doesn’t make much sense to me. Even if you are convinced that something really is a sin (which I’m not for many things the Church claims are sins) then why wouldn’t it be good enough to simply avoid sinning yourself? Why should it be our responsibility to try to make sure that everyone else’s beliefs and behavior are correct as well? That is typically never going to happen regardless of what any group of intolerant zealots settle on as being absolutely correct.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.