Unfortunately your article doesn’t really address this completely – and instead focuses on the wrongs we have witnessed as Mormons.

Oh and your needed definition of tolerance? I would say although this definition will only work for christians, the best idea is probably just to think of how Jesus would act. If you do that, you’re probably covered in terms of tolerance.

Very well said, Bruce. It probably is so general that it transcends “sides”.

Actually, I thought you were right on topic, JFQ.

“Unfortunately on the subjects of tolerance, for example, the PC “rules of engagement” often try to end the discussion before the question is even considered.”

Yes, you are right.

“Unfortunately, it happens equally on both “sides” of any spectrum.”

Yes. Actually, I am not so sure there is a “spectrum” so much as a multitude of points of view that all would prefer to be right and end all discussion. I think this is the “natural state of things” so to speak.

AMEN! That frustrates me more than just about anything, especially when stereotypes and labels are used to avoid or end a discussion. Unfortunately, it happens equally on both “sides” of any spectrum.

On the one hand, I completely agree with you on this. We Mormons in the USA live in a very Protestant culture and we pick up a lot of Evangelicalisms by accident. (Does anyone else remember when Mormons started reading “Left Behind” and wondering if we taught this too? Or when Mormons started deciding D&D was of the devil because Evangelical’s thought so?)

On the other hand, there are so many legitimate similarities between Mormonism and Evangelicalism that I have to reject the claim that Mormons intentionally try to act like them to try to win them over. I guess I just can’t think of any Mormon anywhere — ever — that wanted to win Evangelicals over or was intentionally trying to act like them. The truth is that more often than not we associate Evangelical Christianity with anti-Mormon hate groups. (And this association in our minds is at least partially true.)

So, Veska, I’d like to know what you specifically had in mind with this comment. I agree with your point, but can’t point to that many examples of what you are talking about.

I agree Veska. Tolerance, if defined how I just defined it anyhow, is never condoning sin. The problem is that “tolerance” often is condoning sin if defined in other popular ways. (As I tried to outline in my post.)

So I believe that when Church leaders say things like “tolerance shouldn’t be an excuse for condoning sin” that they are correct.

I don’t know that we’re ever really going to get rid of the idea that “tolerance” somehow means you shouldn’t disagree or offend people. That such a definition immediately becomes one sided is beyond doubt. (i.e. See Rigel’s #3 for an example of this. In the name of tolerance we act intolerant.) If I were to count the number of times people use the word “intolerance” or “tolerance” in such an unjust way, I’m pretty sure it’s the more common usuage now. The upshot of this is that those that preach “tolerance” the most are often the most intolerant and so it gives “tolerance” a bad name and starts to be associated with condoning sin.

I was hoping, with this post, to present a way of look at tolerance that allows all sides to use the word equally and to treat each other as they want to be treated.

Veska, I also enjoyed your story about religious freedom in your country being preceived as assuming everyone was the state religion or something was wrong with you. Made me laugh (or would have if it wasn’t so serious a problem.)

Ironic, isn’t it. Darkly humourous even. By the same person, I have been told I’m going to hell and accused of starting the fight because I believe God said creeds are an abominiation without the slightest realization that condemning to hell just might be considerably worse. (To say nothing of the moral problems of implying they only believe I’m going to hell because “I started it” vs. “because we religiously disagree.”)

Rigel, I also agree with you on the whole open-minded vs. closed-minded thing. I do not think these words mean what we think they mean (said in Spaniard accent.) In fact, I’m not entirely sure why open-minded is considered “good” and closed-minded is considered “bad.” Wouldn’t it depend on the subject? I’d want to be closed-minded on all topics where I know the truth for certain (say whether or not cold blooded murder is good) and I’d want to be open-minded on topics where I’m not sure what the real truth is. The problem is that once we acknowledge this, we can see that both groups you mention are both equally open and closed minded: they just disagree on what “truth” is.

I am LDS since I was 19 almost 30 years ago. I live in a European country that has a state religion, and religion classes are taught in school (freedom of religion is in the constitution, everyone just assumes that you are a member of the sate church and that there is something wrong with you if you’re not). I had a religion instructor who held every other religion in derision and expressed her opinions with relish. I was so repulsed by that that I quit the state church.

Now whenever I hear LDS people belittling other people’s beliefs or accepting someone else’s statements as the truth about their beliefs, I have to bite my tongue not to lash out; then I try to kindly remind them how many people look at us. There is no place for that kind of intolerance in Christ-like living.

To fly off on a tangential issue, I wish that we LDS would not be so eager to look like the Evangelicals who form the religious right. That just associates us with something that is strange to our principles and they’re hardly our friends – although we certainly have more in common with them than with the atheists.

We need to remind ourselves that the idea that tolerance=condoning sin is false or at least oversimplified.

Was he “closed-minded” because he did not agree with the lifestyle presented as moral? Were the facilitators more “open-minded” by persisting in their shocked determination to drive acceptance of a lifestyle that had moral repercussions to this individual’s spiritual beliefs?

As Mormon’s its not unusual to mingle and work closely with individuals who think that we are going to hell. We hope that as those individuals get to know us, they will change their mind, but nevertheless, we tolerate the knowledge that they believe we are going to hell. Is it then intolerance for Mormons to believe that individuals will go to the Terrestrial or Telestial kingdom for other actions? Remember the Seinfeld episode where Elaine was upset because Putty didn’t care that she was going to hell, even though she didn’t believe in hell in the first place?

This is a good point, JFQ. However, I would only agree with you if we then look at specifics. If the whole of the argument is “Joseph Smith had a flawed character and thus can’t be a prophet” then the counter argument “so did Moses, but you believe him to be a prophet” is logically sound until we get more of a basis for how one weighs evidence of what flaws matter to the calling.

In other words, I agree you can’t logically dismiss the argument just because they are both flawed — for one might be more flawed than the other for flawed in a way that matters more to the calling. But I do believe a completely fair question would be “how do you see them as different?” and to expect a thoughtful detailed reply or else likely the person really is just using a dual standard. God is in the details, yes?

(I do not want to turn this thread into that comparison, btw. We already went through that.)

I like what you said about double standards. It is a very common mistake. I wish I remembered all my latin labels for critical fallacies but there’s a kid brother to the error of double standards. It is that while there can be different perspectives that could each be criticized from the same or similar angle, it is a fallacy to treat those differing perspectives as equal. It is still possible (and likely) some options are better than others. I agree that we should undertake the process to weigh that out with charity yet not dismiss the effort as merely relative because of what seem similar flaws or qualities. (For example to claim that because Moses is a flawed character and still accepted as a prophet, that it is not fair to weigh whether the flaws of Joseph Smith do or do not disqualify him from consideration as a prophet.)