Tolerance is a tricky virtue. In a list of ways one might interact with others, it’s certainly better than active persecution but falls far short as a ideal way to engage people or ideas we don’t fully understand or (yet) trust. How do we draw the line between the need to protect ourselves from potentially harmful influence while still being open to the possible richness that might be added to our lives, and to theirs as they interact with us, should we come to truly engage them? In two recent addresses, Elder Dallin H. Oaks and President Boyd K. Packer, take on the question of tolerance. Each affirms that we are indeed called to be tolerant and loving toward others, but each warns in a different way about being "too" tolerant, with President Packer even calling an excess of tolerance a potential "trap." Both leaders's attempts demonstrate just how difficult it is to suggest proper boundaries for interacting with others while still striving to live gospel ideals. In this episode, panelists Charles Randall Paul, James McLachlan, and Michael Fife join Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon for a focused look at these two talks and their approaches to the virtue of tolerance while also moving into wider explorations that draw on many different disciplines. What do we find in LDS or wider Christian scripture, history, or teachings that can serve as good guides for how to engage others while still protecting ourselves? What are the most effective ways for teaching or modeling tolerance (or its opposite, such as when Christ overturned the tables of the money changers in the temple)? How should we approach the difficult competing ideals of loving all people, including those we consider sinners, even as we are taught from the scriptures that God "cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance" (Alma 45:16; D&C 1:31)? Are there better terms than "tolerance" that suggest the best ways to interact with others with who we are not in full agreement? If the panelists were to take the general conference pulpit, how might they approach teaching the proper balance between being watchpersons on the tower and at the same time embracing the sisterhood and brotherhood of all persons and welcoming their influence on us?

Tolerance is a tricky virtue. In a list of ways one might interact with others, it’s certainly better than active persecution but falls far short as a ideal way to engage people or ideas we don’t fully understand or (yet) trust. How do we draw the line between the need to protect ourselves from potentially harmful influence while still being open to the possible richness that might be added to our lives, and to theirs as they interact with us, should we come to truly engage them? In two recent addresses, Elder Dallin H. Oaks and President Boyd K. Packer, take on the question of tolerance. Each affirms that we are indeed called to be tolerant and loving toward others, but each warns in a different way about being "too" tolerant, with President Packer even calling an excess of tolerance a potential "trap." Both leaders's attempts demonstrate just how difficult it is to suggest proper boundaries for interacting with others while still striving to live gospel ideals. In this episode, panelists Charles Randall Paul, James McLachlan, and Michael Fife join Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon for a focused look at these two talks and their approaches to the virtue of tolerance while also moving into wider explorations that draw on many different disciplines. What do we find in LDS or wider Christian scripture, history, or teachings that can serve as good guides for how to engage others while still protecting ourselves? What are the most effective ways for teaching or modeling tolerance (or its opposite, such as when Christ overturned the tables of the money changers in the temple)? How should we approach the difficult competing ideals of loving all people, including those we consider sinners, even as we are taught from the scriptures that God "cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance" (Alma 45:16; D&C 1:31)? Are there better terms than "tolerance" that suggest the best ways to interact with others with who we are not in full agreement? If the panelists were to take the general conference pulpit, how might they approach teaching the proper balance between being watchpersons on the tower and at the same time embracing the sisterhood and brotherhood of all persons and welcoming their influence on us?

When Brigham Young first taught in initial outlines of what is now known as the "Adam-God Doctrine" (or the "Adam-God Theory"--the preferred term by those who want to downplay its status within LDS doctrinal development) some commented that with this theological position the cat was truly "out of the bag!" It came as a huge surprise to almost all who heard him preach it, but soon most leaders and members came to accept it and even like it very much. Indeed, although never voted on or made official through insertion in scripture (unless one wants to think of the lecture given before the veil in the temple as "scripture"?) it is hard to deny that for several decades of the Nineteenth Century the doctrine spelled out the dominant understanding among Latter-day Saints of God(s) and roles for humans who would some day become exalted beings. Later distancing from the teaching led leaders to downplay its status or even outright deny that it was ever taught (using the rhetoric that Brigham Young was mis-understood and/or his statements were deliberately taken out of context by Church enemies), but this simply isn’t the case. It was taught; it was influential; most prominent leaders believed it with many claiming that its truth had been confirmed to them by the Spirit. So what is this doctrine? What is its history--not only its rise but also its falling out of favor and even later being outright preached against? Are there any remnants of this doctrine alive in today’s Mormonism, even if they are no longer associated with the full teaching? The rise and fall of the Adam-God Doctrine also presents a classic case of doctrinal evolution (as well as fuzziness!) that contradicts the image many Latter-day Saints have of prophetic revelation coming through in perfectly clear ways. So how might Latter-day Saints frame this messier view of revelation that does not deny an important role for prophetic leadership? In this episode, panelists Danielle Mooney, Brian Stuy, and Geoff Nelson join Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon for a discussion of all these things.

When Brigham Young first taught in initial outlines of what is now known as the "Adam-God Doctrine" (or the "Adam-God Theory"--the preferred term by those who want to downplay its status within LDS doctrinal development) some commented that with this theological position the cat was truly "out of the bag!" It came as a huge surprise to almost all who heard him preach it, but soon most leaders and members came to accept it and even like it very much. Indeed, although never voted on or made official through insertion in scripture (unless one wants to think of the lecture given before the veil in the temple as "scripture"?) it is hard to deny that for several decades of the Nineteenth Century the doctrine spelled out the dominant understanding among Latter-day Saints of God(s) and roles for humans who would some day become exalted beings. Later distancing from the teaching led leaders to downplay its status or even outright deny that it was ever taught (using the rhetoric that Brigham Young was mis-understood and/or his statements were deliberately taken out of context by Church enemies), but this simply isn’t the case. It was taught; it was influential; most prominent leaders believed it with many claiming that its truth had been confirmed to them by the Spirit. So what is this doctrine? What is its history--not only its rise but also its falling out of favor and even later being outright preached against? Are there any remnants of this doctrine alive in today’s Mormonism, even if they are no longer associated with the full teaching? The rise and fall of the Adam-God Doctrine also presents a classic case of doctrinal evolution (as well as fuzziness!) that contradicts the image many Latter-day Saints have of prophetic revelation coming through in perfectly clear ways. So how might Latter-day Saints frame this messier view of revelation that does not deny an important role for prophetic leadership? In this episode, panelists Danielle Mooney, Brian Stuy, and Geoff Nelson join Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon for a discussion of all these things.