- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Has anyone else read the article by Elder Oaks in the this months Ensign entitled “Balancing Truth and Tolerance”. Whilst it doesn’t directly referrence homosexuality, this is a thinly veiled attempt at justifying the church’s position on homosexuality and the recent legal wrangle regarding Prop 8. Knowing that I’m in the midst of a ‘faith crisis’, my wife said I wouldn’t like what he had to say. She was right. Any thoughts of others would be interesting.
https://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/02/balancing-truth-and-tolerance?lang=eng ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/02/balancing-truth-and-tolerance?lang=eng kristmace, Is the issue of homosexuality a “push-button” issue for you? I read the article and my feeling is that you’ve taken an article that was written on a very broad topic and projected your own feelings about an issue that you seem to feel strongly about.
And even if you’re assertion that the church is trying to justify it’s position regarding homosexuality and Prop 8 is correct, why is that a problem? Wouldn’t you expect the church to attempt to justify it’s positions? I know that as someone who struggles with the church’s position on homosexuality, I’m constantly trying to justify
myposition in an effort to help people better understand where I’m coming from… I suppose it is a bit of a ‘push button’ issue for me, and one that I feel quite strongly about. I think I looked at the timing of the article and had pre-conceived notions about the subject matter. Having read it again, I realise this. I suppose the church should be expected to defend it’s position, but it’s not doing so in a overt way. I still take issue with some seriously flawed logic in regards to belief in deity and moral boundaries and decisions. In the same paragraph he states that intolerance comes from atheism, and I think the exact opposite is often the case.
I will be honest, I had a hard time finishing the article. The lady half turned to skimming & I might have skipped the last quarter. It seems he wants a tolerance and understanding from atheists that he and most Christians are not willing to reciprocate.
I had to roll my eyes at the part where he included the following things in his list of signs of moral decay; swearing, dressing immodest, tattoos, and piercing. Really these are among the biggest troubles in society? Nit picking at these items while discussing tolerance has some irony, especially when he later asserted profanity as a characteristic of atheism.
In cases such as these, there is definitely room for moral relativism. I do believe that we need to stand up for what we believe is right, but only when belief crosses into the realm of behavior, and only when that behavior interferes with the rights of another person. This I believe would fall in line with the articles of faith.
This article didn’t make me have a huge desire to renew the Ensign subscription.
There have been a lot of really good, progressive articles in the Ensign recently.This wasn’t one of them. I really like Elder Oaks in many ways, but I withdraw more than a bit when he starts making legal-esque arguments. I just don’t see many of them the same way that he does.
I don’t think it was about homosexuality – and I can’t really fault at all a request for tolerance. I just think we don’t have much of a moral leg to stand on right now, since we ought to be willing to model what we request. In other words, we ought to accept and practice our own 11th Article of Faith much more expansively and vigorously than we have on too many occasions. Lacking that foundation, a call for tolerance from others is a bit weak, to say the least.
kristmace wrote:Has anyone else read the article by Elder Oaks in the this months Ensign entitled “Balancing Truth and Tolerance”. Whilst it doesn’t directly referrence homosexuality, this is a thinly veiled attempt at justifying the church’s position on homosexuality and the recent legal wrangle regarding Prop 8…Knowing that I’m in the midst of a ‘faith crisis’, my wife said I wouldn’t like what he had to say. She was right. Any thoughts of others would be interesting.
Personally I don’t see much balance, truth, or tolerance in most of this. Whatever lip-service he gives to tolerance is more than cancelled out by all the judgmental and self-righteous comments and all the talk about how wrong relative morality supposedly is and how we know we have absolute truth. I guess that’s what happens when you have a habit of treating things (ideas, traditions, etc.) like they are more important than people.
Ok my last rant was a bit of of a rant. I have to agree with Ray, wthat the general idea of a call for tolerance is needed. I think the leaders of the church are generally, but not always, ahead of the curve on these kinds of things. It is to bad he had to include the but. We need to be tolerant, but… Zealous members need to hear it straight up, not with a big but.
Some people like big buts. 😈 Kristmace, Were you previously aware of this talk given in 2009?
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/oaks-religious-freedom The Ensign article seems to have faint similarities to the byu-idaho talk–indeed, the talk may have even been the inspiration for the article. In the BYU-Idaho talk, E Oaks clearly references Prop 8. Perhaps you remembered the talk while reading the article?
Quote:While we must practice tolerance and respect for others and their beliefs, including their right to explain and advocate their positions, we are not required to respect and tolerate wrong behavior.
This sounds awfully like the Church’s current position on homosexuality.
Yes, this article is easy to pick on. My own list of “evil acts” that are destroying civilization goes well beyond those found in For the Strength of Youth. But can you imagine how terrible it would be to have to dispense timeless and universal truth from the highest perch of a criticism-free zone? You’re drinking your own Kool-Aid at every meal. Unless your wife happens to read it and say, “Dallin, dear, I think you’re off your game here,” everyone else will just hold their breath and smile. Especially to an apostle who has taken some serious licks on this issue and is standing his ground. I think I’m being only slightly hyperbolic. I’ve seen somewhat up close the stupefying effects of Q15 star power. Listen, this article is in deep theological fertilizer from the very title: “Balancing Truth and Tolerance.” He defines truth here, of course, as “absolute truth.” Any talk of balancing absolute truth against tolerance is necessarily nonsense. Absolute truth trumps everything. Every. Single. Thing. Not just tolerance for nose piercing and bare shoulders. Let your mind run wild. There is nowhere to go with this.
Which reminds me of Garry Wills’ great column yesterday on the papal abdication. It contains a substantial meditation on the impossible constraints imposed by the dogma of infallibility, which is just one construction of religious claims to absolute truth:
Quote:In 1870, [Pope Pius IX] elicited — from a Vatican council he called and controlled — the first formal declaration that a pope is infallible. From that point on, even when he was not making technically infallible statements, the pope was thought to be dealing in eternal truths. A gift for eternal truths is as dangerous as the gift of Midas’s touch. The pope cannot undo the eternal truths he has proclaimed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/13/opinion/new-pope-ive-given-up-hope.html?_r=1& ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/13/opinion/new-pope-ive-given-up-hope.html?_r=1& Well worth reading on from there, as he illustrates how this can be particularized. Our church’s own construction of absolute truth is no less ossifying. Continuing revelation can only extend absolute truth in a non-contradictory way, necessarily. More directly to the point here, tolerance is openness to the possibility that your apprehension of the truth in conflict is flawed, or the truth itself is relative, partial, contingent, etc. I think any definition of tolerance that is less than this is just water for tea. It’s mere nose-holding, or submission to practical constraints, or an attempt at politeness. Tolerance is not just empathy, friendliness, right to free speech, etc.; they are their own things; and his distinction between belief and behavior is totally opaque to me.
Absolute truth precludes tolerance in any meaningful social sense, however much cultural pressure we may feel to practice it. Fortunately, most of us draw a very tight circle around absolute truth. For most of us it does not include pagan painting of body parts, bad words, etc. We understand that to proclaim something absolute truth is to drop an H-bomb on everything beneath it.
Sorry to go on so long. I just think this is a Triple-Whopper-with-Cheese of a theological problem.
SamIAm – Superb response there. you put into eloquent words exactly what I was thinking but don’t have the intelligence to say! 
:clap: kristmace wrote:…intolerance comes from atheism, and I think the exact opposite is often the case.
Intolerance often rides shotgun with ignorance, accompanied by pride and arrogance. Fanatical beliefs, no matter the color, are fertile ground for intolerance.
In other circumstances and using another definition intolerance is the pinnacle of civilized society. I hope we can all become intolerant of extreme violence, world hunger and all forms of abuse.
SamIam wrote:Yes, this article is easy to pick on…this article is in deep theological fertilizer from the very title: “Balancing Truth and Tolerance.” He defines truth here, of course, as “absolute truth.”
Any talk of balancing absolute truth against tolerance is necessarily nonsense. Absolute truth trumps everything…tolerance is openness to the possibility that your apprehension of the truth in conflict is flawed, or the truth itself is relative, partial, contingent, etc. I think any definition of tolerance that is less than this is just water for tea.It’s mere nose-holding, or submission to practical constraints, or an attempt at politeness. Tolerance is not just empathy, friendliness, right to free speech, etc.; they are their own things;…Absolute truth precludes tolerance in any meaningful social sense, however much cultural pressure we may feel to practice it. Fortunately, most of us draw a very tight circle around absolute truth…I just think this is a Triple-Whopper-with-Cheese of a theological problem. It’s not unusual for people to think they are right most of the time. To me the basic meaning of intolerance is simply an overbearing attitude some people have that it’s not alright for others to be significantly different from them in terms of beliefs, preferences, etc. As long as you are willing to let others be different or even wrong in peace without being overly hateful or disrespectful about the differences then I think you can believe you are right all you want without necessarily being intolerant at the same time.
There’s a big difference between defending your own rights and opinions and aggressively trying to impose your own view of what is right on others. This article mostly confuses the issues and sends mixed messages but it gives the impression that he felt like we are under attack and need to fight back. It’s not like anyone is seriously trying to argue for the tolerance of highway robbery or anything like that so I don’t see the need to make excuses for intolerance over things that aren’t necessarily any of our business (other people’s beliefs and choices that don’t directly involve us) and act like tolerance is such a tricky concept that should supposedly only apply in some cases but not others where many people already think it should.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.