What do "tolerance" and "persecution" really mean?

A friend of mine recently posted a link to an article by an openly gay latter-day-saint man, click here to read the article. Now, some of you may not know, I am a faithful member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints. I also have friends who are gay. I believe the "gay issue" is and will become one of the most divisive issues in the Church's history, it already is in the world at large. For those who do not know, LDS members' views run the entire gamut from one end to the other.
I'd like to just discuss some of the points Mitch Mayne brings up in his article and just air my thoughts on the matter. I am NOT a spokesperson for the Church, but I would like to express my perspective.
On the whole, Mr. Mayne's article is refreshingly free of exaggerated denouncements, of mean spiritedness, and I appreciate that. His article got me thinking about some things, though, and I hope my thoughts can be expressed in the same level headed and noninflammatory way.
Mr. Mayne pointed to the shared history of the LDS church and the homosexual communities having severe persecution resulting from narrowminded negative publicity. That those outside the community then based their opinion of said community on misinformed propaganda loosely based on a fringe percentage of participants. Up to this point, I agree with Mr. Mayne - and the atrocities committed in the name of defense against the "evilness" portrayed by those communities' antagonists are tragic. The church spokesman pointed this out here in response to an HRC petition. None of the church's doctrines are ever meant to be used (and SHOULD NEVER BE USED) as grounds for bullying or mean spiritedness towards anyone else! Any member doing this is NOT in line with the teachings of the church.
But, Mr. Mayne says that the LDS church "deserved the black eye it got" for its involvement in the Prop 8 debate in California. That it was among the "most un-Christlike" things we've done as a church. If you want to see what the church's official response was to the controversy surrounding its involvement, click here.  You'll read in that article that the Church is NOT against same-sex couples having hospitalization rights and other rights as well. You may well scoff at us wanting to defend marriage, you might even point out that heterosexual marriages are not exactly doing well, on the whole, in reaffirming marriage as sacred. It is unfortunate that marriage, as an institution, is taken so lightly by some and is ruined by selfishness in many - but the Church speaks out against those issues as well in its meetings and conferences.
The question here is: did the Church's involvement in Prop 8 constitute persecution of the homosexual community? The answer to that lies somewhat in what you believe.
Obviously, if you believe the Church is NOT true in any way, the Church's stance is at best misguided by out of touch elderly men who are clearly stuck in another time, and at worst,  a bigoted attempt to withhold something that doesn't personally affect them.
If you are a believing member of the Church, it might feel a little more complicated, but it again comes down to what you believe regarding a different question:
Do you believe the Church's doctrines and its stance on moral and ethical questions stem, or should stem, from the opinions and viewpoints of, not the majority of the world, but the majority of the Church's membership?
Or, do you believe the doctrines and stances of the Church are revealed by revelation from God to its appointed leaders? Basically, do you sustain the General Authorities as prophets, seers, and revelators?
Now, I do not mean the comments of any one General Authority on its own. We know from our own history that even those in "higher" callings in the church are subject to anything from apostacy to just being wrong about something. (I personally have serious disagreements with some of the stuff said by Bruce R McKonkie in "Mormon Doctrine.")  But, when the governing officials of the Church come out with an OFFICIAL stance, united as a whole, where do you believe that stance originates?
Let's say that you don't believe in the Church, or as a member you disagreed, is it still considered PERSECUTION? Persecutions endured by the early LDS members were: being driven out of their homes in the dead of winter, killed by mobs, illegally thrown in jail, raped, beaten, tarred and feathered, all while those elected to uphold the law and constitution remained silent or actively encouraged and participated in these activities.
Homosexuals most assuredly have a shared history of persecution by that definition! Again, such conduct is unequivocally and strongly condemned by the Church! The marriage debate is not about kicking homosexuals out, or encouraging bullying and violence in any degree, it is not about ostracizing them - it is about protecting the ideal of marriage. Whatever your thoughts on the validity of that viewpoint, I think it important to understand the motivation is NOT bigotry or narrowmindedness.
Which brings me to my last point - what does "tolerance" mean. I have long thought the meaning of "tolerance" today to mean something very different from what it used to mean. The actual definition of tolerate is:

1. permit something: to be willing to allow something to happen or exist
2. endure something: to withstand the unpleasant effects of something
3. accept existence of different views: to recognize other people's right to have different beliefs or practices without attempting to suppress them

Applied in these terms, I think it means that we are tolerant of people having differing viewpoints and perspectives, that we are still capable of being friends, or at least being civil, to that other person.
However, it seems the word has a different connotation, it has become a word that means "acceptance." It isn't possible to live in a world that everyone "accepts" different viewpoints to be valid, okay, or unharmful. Many also seem to think that being "tolerant" means that there shouldn't be a debate about that person's beliefs. It means you don't try to suppress or eliminate their voice, not that you don't raise your own. (Edit: Please note I am, of course, talking about acceptance of ideas and beliefs of other people. That's where I believe "tolerance" comes to play. When it comes to people, I don't just "tolerate" them. I care very deeply about all of my friends and my family despite disagreeing with all of them about one thing or another!)
I believe both sides are trying to affect a society that they think will create the best environment and opportunities for individuals as well as best serve our society as a whole. They just disagree on how to get there.
I firmly believe that no matter the viewpoint, everyone's voice deserves to be heard. NO ONE should feel pressured to remain silent. And that all of us are obligated and best served when we ARE tolerant of differing viewpoints, and we refrain from name-calling and definitely refrain from any violence or illegal acts against those of opposing views.
So, there's my two cents.
I welcome thoughts and questions, as long as they are devoid of mean spiritedness :)

Der...

I have many moments where later I think, "Der! That was stupid." But, they are usually only a couple hours delay between the incident and the realization. This example brought to you by the letter "x" took a good 8 years.

I'm not going to announce my email address, but it is through xmission.com. Haven't heard of that? I'm sure you haven't, it's been my parent's isp for the last decade and I have kept it after moving out because, well because I'm lazy. So, here's my "Der" moment:

Realizing, for the first time, when giving my email address of dancer...@xmission.com to a cute clerk at a store that it kind of seems like a stripper email.... Oops.

Thank-you Mr. D.S. for the topic of a blog post rant :)

One of the things I enjoy about facebook is the opportunity it affords to have interesting conversations with people of differing views regarding current events, politics, hot-button issues in general, etc. Maybe a friend posts a link to an article such as this one, which starts a little bit of a debate amongst the FB friends. Now, most of them, despite very different opinions, are able to present their arguments in a level-headed and perhaps slightly teasing manner. I enjoy these and find it refreshing to see smart people of different ideologies debate what they think about certain subjects and why.
Then you come across a comment from someone (referenced in the title as DS) that says " I just like the unbiased news sources like KSL and the desert news. They report about democrats all day, but when sh** that the republicans pull every second of everyday they commend the b*****ds. People like Gary Herbert can pull every disgusting deal under the sun but you won't hear about it from the mormon news media. Or Chris Butters, lets give the racist a**hole a standing ovation. The list goes on and on. That's the problem with the tithing funded conservative nonsense that goes on in this state and the mindless "followers of Christ" eat it up like the deseret news is preaching the word of god. What a load of sh**. Not only is the deseret news clearly biased and insulting to anyone's intelligence, its also poorly written." (* added by yours truly).
Okay, whatever. Some people get a little hot headed - especially when it comes to politics and religion where there is a predominant religion.
My comment, verbatim right below his was "That is more than disturbing! To try to use a fictitious pen name is one thing, but to use a picture of a real person! And, the fact that he hasn't even apologized is soooooooo typical of politicians! Republican and Democrat. I understand that he was trying to do something good, but that is at the top of a very slippery slope of comprimising ethics for the "greater good" that should be left untraveled. And, Mr. DS, let's face it, herd-minded mentality is found in any and all religious and secular groups, not just LDS. We don't come close to holding a monopoly on that corner!"
I was tempted to add a disparaging comment, but chose to refrain (*pats herself on the back*) :)
Within minutes he replied (to my very restrained rebuff):
"haha, that's laughable! I guess you are justifying your lack of decision making capabilities as an lds person then Ms. Aroura Wench Sh**(Clever play on my last name, no?)? At least you admit that you are unable to think on your own. Which I can't understand, because Joseph Smith said that God gave us brains to use for a reason? Mayor winder who I think is poor representative anyway, couldn't be tried for any criminal offense. Identity theft as a crime would require him to have stolen and used his identity for financial gain. He could be charged with libel, but unless some one is going to go after every fake profile in the social media universe, I highly doubt its worth the time, money and energy of the legal system."
Where's my lack of decision? I never said he should be criminally prosecuted, I said it was typical of politicians to not take responsibility for their own actions. And I never admitted I couldn't think on my own, I only conceded that though there are some LDS who follow the strongest voice, those kinds of people exist everywhere.
Now, let me say, this post would not exist if the personal attacks had ended here. I am not one for mocking others, but this previous comment was deleted by our mutual FB friend with a comment that rudeness and swearing would not be tolerated on her wall, though DS was more than welcome to repost his thoughts minus the personal attack.
Within A MINUTE of this occurence, I received the following message sent to me personally:
"Somebody must have stolen your husbands identity. hope you get an apology.




"

Seriously? I felt it necessary to post a reply and with it I'll end, because I feel like it sums up my personal views on being able to have civil discussions with those of opposing views:

"Wow. The fact that you can't handle a very cordial disagreement with your philosophies in life shows a complete lack of intillectual integrity. Do you even believe in the validity of your own word vomit? Because I can see no other reason to be so incredibly hostile to a complete stranger who never insulted you. I wasn't implying you were of a herd-minded mentality. But, is this clarification wasted on someone who is looking for opportunity to take offense? I didn't know if this mayor was R or D. And YOU don't even know if I'm one or the other, either. Your arguments will never be given credence if you can't control your emotional diarrhea."

Random thought of the day: Chivalry

Firstly, this post is NOT inspired by anything my husband does/or does not do! :) His actions go above and beyond mere chivalry. I'm, of course, alluding to the fact that I pass out when I vomit. Which is really fun for him to check on me and make sure I'm okay when I have one of those illnesses that make your visits to the bathroom multi-purpose. :)
I just thought I'd say - Listen up guys - just because women decline your chivalry doesn't mean we want you to stop offering. Is that selfish and silly? Perhaps.
But, I think of all those times I lugged around my double-bass (you know, the "really big fiddle" in the back of the orchestra (As all the old men used to call it when talking to me and thinking they were so clever and funny)?), and the stool I would use to sit, AND a music stand, and guys would pass by and.... not offer to carry anything. Now, had they, I would have maybe let them carry my music stand or stool, if I didn't outright decline (I'm NOT entrusting an instrument that cost thousands of dollars to anyone else!), but still, the offering lets you feel important.
Like the time I was assistant manager at an apartment complex and was called to go snake some resident's backed-up toilet. (The maintenance guys didn't work weekends unless it was an emergency).  I walk into the lady's apartment and am greeted by her boyfriend. Now, does this man, seeing a gal of 22 years of age, in office attire, carrying a large metal pole that will shortly be used to mash up the "material" blocking the water from draining out of the toilet, offer to have me show him how to use it so he can risk getting splashed by what is probably his stuff? Of course not! Would I have accepted his hypothetical offer? No. But, come on! You don't even offer?
Or, all the males at the apartment office who, though my official title was Assistant Manager and I was accountable for all pertaining responsibilities, thought of me as a glorified secretary (being the only female there).  And, thus when I was hugely 8 months pregnant and in risk of hypertension, thought nothing of letting me pass out 256 flyers to the residents, when only 2 apartments were on each of the 3 floors in a stairwell. So for every 6 apartments I had to walk up 2 1/2 flights of stairs and also down those 2 1/2 flights of stairs. Now, would I have accepted their hypothetical offer? N..... You bet your sweet non-bloated ankles I would! I'm not bitter . . . really, I'm not. ;)
Chivalry.
Like Nike says - just do it!

Wanna see my new Undiez... for my feet?

I came THIS close to putting the second half of that in the body of this post, but I didn't want to scare people too much :) I'm so excited to try these out at my ballet class this week! Why weren't these around when I was doing dance all the time? It's great because you can still get traction (full shoes can be slippery), but you can turn without tearing up your feet. Just imagine the song "I'm so excited!" playing in the background right now :)

Other randomness:

Totally enjoyed doing Yoga with my husband last night. Not sure trash talking is usually done during Yoga, but it was fun anyway :) Which, by the way, I obviously dominated :)

My good friend Rebecca Mckinnon just self-published her first novel!!! I'm attaching links on here and will now, of course, urge all of you to purchase it. Amazon was selling it for only $9!!! And it's eligible for Free Super Shipping. You can also order it in ebook/kindle format.
It's actually really good! It's a cute romance story and quite the page turner. It's the first in a trilogy. I can't wait to get my copy and read her final version! (I had read the rough draft and several versions since).

Her little blurb says:

"Friends or family?
Desire or responsibility?
She thought she’d made her choice.

Now, finding herself trapped in a world splintered from her own, Narissa is determined to return home. Learning that the means of crossing between realities has been lost, she vows to find the elusive gateway.

Narissa doesn’t plan to make friends. She certainly doesn’t intend to fall in love.

Faced with the decision, will she choose the life she wants, or return to the world where she belongs?"

You can buy it here:

http://www.amazon.com/Annexed-Refuge-Trilogy-Rebecca-McKinnon/dp/1461147662/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1310366876&sr=8-2

you can also enter to win a free copy of it on Goodreads here:

http://www.goodreads.com/giveaway/show/12156-annexedAnnexed

There's only 13 days left to enter - so head over there. Or, just buy it! It's a fast read and you'll love it!

There's my randomness for today :)