quote:

---

I have to agree with W.P. (except the part about marrying a man, which I'm not about to do )

---

I told him once, as he was headed off to the seminary in Pasadena, that I wished him luck in his endeavors. I meant it, at the time I was also headed of in a different direction but to do somewhat the same thing - I was going on a mission for the LDS church. He actually told me that I could not honestly wish him luck, becuase if he suceeded he would be causing me to fail! But I was being honest. I may not agree with what he was going to be preaching, but I cared enough for him that i wanted him to succeed in whatever he tried to do.

The question is whether we can accept that and move on instead of dawdling on some little event. The sooner one forgives and puts it aside and the sooner one pushes to understand the motivation, the better the tolerance to such relational bruisings. Some call this tolerance equality, others just call it understanding, others still don't even think of it. But to me, it's quite a necessary thing for everyone to do.

Especially readers. A Writer has something to say, and a belief to show (in many cases), and the reader must be tolerant and understanding (though they are kind of the same...) so that they won't be hung up on such annoying details as the number of minority characters in a book or the portrayal of women in a novel that was written centuries ago or whatever the case may be.

I just thought of a story about some church leaders and their adventures...

Well, once upon a time, long ago, there was a problem in a small Stake in southern Utah. The High council of this Stake had become...impatient, with the Stake president. And they had decided to not sustain him at the next Stake conference. Well, someone went ahead and warned Salt Lake, and the prophet sent a couple of guys down to deal with it. Their instructions were simple and seemingly impossible. Persuade all of the High council of this Stake to sustain the Stake president.

Well, basically they went down, and really got to work. Well, as it turned out, the problem wasn't that the Stake president was dispicable and everyone hated him, or anything like that. In fact, he was well liked, and all of the High council had had friendly relationships with him over the years. But he was woefully ineffective. Woefully. Every one of the men that the representatives of the prophet spoke to was adamant. The Stake president may be a nice guy, but he had to go. He was letting the Stake fall apart, there was utter chaos, something had to be done, and...

But there was that time he had helped his neighbors bring in the harvest before a thunderstorm. The youth in the community that had gotten a sports team put together with his help. The heartfelt and inspired blessing of a child taken ill.... In fact, with a lot of effort, questioning and really getting to know each of those men serving in the High council, and their relationship with the Stake president, the representatives from Salt Lake found every man a reason to sustain the Stake president. He may not have been the most effective man ever to serve in that capacity, in fact, almost every man on the High council of the Stake still felt that he was probably the least effective Stake president in the history of the church, including those mentioned in the epistles of John, but he was a good man nonetheless, and they each decided to sustain him.

So Stake conference rolled around, and the Stake president was sustained, and a couple of very tired First presidency represetatives went back to Salt Lake with the news of their success.

They got back, and reported to the prophet, and he said well done. And then he sent them right back down to release the Stake presidency of that Stake, and call a new Stake presidency. After all, he really wasn't the most effective man for the job.

What's the moral of the story? Simple.

The Church responds to the needs of the membership, not the demands of the members.

Well, researchers have now confirmed that this actually did happen, in the region of the Black Sea. At the end of the last Ice age it was a low lying area of fertile land with a lake in the center, until rising ocean levels allowed the Mediterranean to invade the area, flooding it in a month or less. I have seen several reports of this in the news now. Click here to read one of the stories.

I do not believe that your beliefs and the feelings of your friends or loved ones ever are, or should they be, mutually exclusive! I had more reason than Charles ever did to say things that were cutting and hateful, but did I? No. And why not? Because the one belief that we did share was Christianity - a belief based on charity and kindness. Now, which one of us lived our beliefs in this particular scenario?

But as of relationships, there is an idea that if everyone was socially greedy, everyone would behave. It's mutually beneficial to help others and have strong relationships, whatever they might be. I've always kept that in mind, myself.

But you don't trust them just then, right?

Interesting. Not sure I agree, but it is certainly thought provoking. I was thinking of maybe adding that forgiveness begins with understanding. It is hard to stay angry when you truly understand why the person did what they did (and I mean you have to understand lots of facets of it, not just understand in the sense of "Oh, sure, he's a bigot, what else did you expect...")

After that, you still have to get over your anger.

I could see where then I might have to still imagine that if this person did x, y, and z, in the future I would then give him/her my trust. But I think I can forgive without ever hoping to trust that person.

I person robs me at gunpoint. I figure out that he's got it rough and needs my money more than I did at the moment (or whatever), and I eventually forgive him. I don't have to wait for him/her to do anything and I don't have to believe that he/she might do something in the future to earn my trust.

Seems like my definition lets me forgive without expecting anything from that person, while in your definition, forgiveness depends on the other person's attitude and/or actions.

I think my way is better only because I can get on with my life without all the anger. I'm not looking for anything from anyone else. If he/she changes to try to earn my forgiveness, I might be more ready to give it, but I should be able to forgive without that, shouldn't I?

I'd still turn the person in if they commited a crime. My forgiveness of the person is not more important than my duty as a citizen to the next innocent victim.

quote:

---

I believe in the principals of scientific proof. Where science ends, as in where its methods cannot be used to test the truth of a given hypothesis, I remain completely non-committal and non-judgemental. Where science can illuminate the truth, I adhere to the principles of science. If you can't understand the distinction, you and I can't even discuss the issue. Your continued attempts to "prove" that I've said one thing when I have not make me think you are either a smart person trying to bait me for the fun of it, or you are truly ignorant of the scientific method and of logic. I don't see a third alternative.

---

Here I think we see an excellent illustration of the problem that this thread was originally discussing (although I think that Jack may have been exaggerating just how difficult it would be for him to understand--and thus accurately portray--a person with certain differences in belief from himself). Even as we try to portray characters that may have very different beliefs and attitudes from our own, we often display intolerance and little willingness to understand real people that differ from us even on fairly esoteric points of belief. I solve this problem by unabashedly casting any difference from my own beliefs as a defect or "flaw" in my characters, but surely this limits me as a writer. I don't think that I could portray a person that was narrowly dogmatic as being strong because of that dogmatism, nor do I think that I could portray a callous disregard for other's lives as a good quality, nor do I believe that I could portray emotionalism as a positive characteristic. The list of things that I just don't portray as being good is much longer, but I don't wish to bore anyone (nor do I wish to reveal everything about myself all at once).

Narcissistic, no?