You can certainly discuss your dislike of it.

I thought it was a strange image. The idea that something bad can wear the mask of “tolerance” is not new, but why a halloween mask? A halloween mask is usually scomething scary, worn over your real face, which is ordinarily not scary. That image raises the idea that tolerance is someting scary, which is not the right image. It seemed jarring to think of tolerance that way, when many accuse the church of being intolerant in reality, while wearing a mask of Christanity, which should be about love and acceptance.

The idea being expressed was that tolerance is not the ultimate virtue. There are others more important. That’s hard to argue with, but it’s a sentiment that can be misused to countenance hatred.

I think Pres. Monson’s heart was in the right place, but his words are easy to misconstrue. Another word, like “relativism,” that does not have so many good connotations, as does “tolerance” might have been better. I don’t want to be nitpicky though.

I concur with MCQ. I’ve had to respond to the younger generation who have accused me of intolerance with the statement – “I will do much MORE than simply TOLERATE you, I will actually LOVE you.” The difference between tolerance and love can be striking. Don’t believe it? Snuggle up to your wife and whisper sweetly, “Dear, I sure tolerate you!”

What, we should love and accept evil? Love and accept those things designed to distract us and lead us away?

Agreed … but many of us have never equated tolerance with acceptance. In my mind, tolerance does not equal acceptance. But many Church members don’t make this distinction (and here you seem to be making the same connection). It sounds like he was trying to make a statement that acceptance masked as tolerance is bad.

For example, we can be tolerant of homosexuality, even if we don’t accept/condone homosexual behavior.

Ah. I see. You mean “putting up with.”

And for the record, despite queuno’s examples, I am not addressing any particular, singular issue of which to be tolerant.

You see, in some instances “putting up with” is as bad as outright acceptance. In some instances there IS no distinction. We all know that “All it takes for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing.”

In such instances tolerance IS implied acceptance. Period.

Unfortunately for many on this earth who want to believe otherwise, there IS no grey area in the Lord’s kingdom. His kingdom is one instance where you are either with Him or against Him. Granted, it is not our place to judge, but we must each live under His commandments, His boundaries, His precepts.

Do we hate the sinner if we do not tolerate his sin? No. You can love the sinner and help him to find his way back to the iron rod.

We have been taught repeatedly that we cannot tolerate sin; neither can the Father tolerate the least sin.
However, we are all daily bombarded with forces that (attempt to) erode our values. Tolerance of erosion–turning a blind eye to it–weakens us and undermines us.

From Webster:
TOLERATING: Enduring; suffering to be or to be done; allowing; not restraining.
TOLERATION: The act of tolerating; the allowance of that which is not wholly approved.

This was the Prophet of the Lord telling the world that we should not–cannot–embrace or accept those values that the world couches in terms of “tolerance.” We SHOULD be scared of embracing or accepting evil, simply because the rest of the world says “we have to.” We should be aware that by turning the blind eye, we are allowing evil, we are not restraining evil.

So can you cite some examples of evil of which we tend to be tolerant but not accepting, that you believe we should not be?

(I’ll cite one – homosexuality – only because the Church has said we should be tolerant and understanding.)

Was Jesus tolerant of the moneychangers?

And I’m sorry–I’d love to see the citation where we’re told to be tolerant of homosexuality. I couldn’t find one. At least not one that used the words homosexuality and tolerant. If you’ve got one, I’ll look at it. My guess is that we’re told to be loving and understanding of the person, but not tolerant of the act.

Apparently some on the board are tolerant of everything/anyone that questions the position of the Prophet. I’m leaving it on this note, from ordained apostles: “Diversity, by its very nature, implies differences. Communities which successfully address diversity recognize the need for discretion and wisdom in doing so. Not all differences are of equal value, and some differences can be destructive. Some which contribute significantly to the success of the community can be embraced by all. Other differences which don’t amount to much one way or the other can be viewed as neutral and can be accepted at least conditionally. Differences which harm the community or its members must peremptorily be rejected for the good of all. For example, Latter-day Saints, though they are “required to forgive all men” (D&C 64:10), cannot accept and tolerate the gross evils that are so prevalent in societies today.

We hear often of the need for people to be tolerant of differences they observe in others. We agree insofar as tolerance implies genuine respect for another, but we disagree if tolerance connotes acceptance of sins which God Himself rejects. “For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance” (D&C 1:31). Tolerance also does not imply a begrudging, mean-spirited, putting up with the other fellow just because we can’t demand and require him to change.” –Elder Alexander B. Morrison

“What a community tolerates will become tomorrow’s standard for today’s youth.” President Ezra Taft Benson

See also: Spencer W. Kimball, “Why Do We Continue to Tolerate Sin?,” Ensign, May 1975, 107

“We agree insofar as tolerance implies genuine respect for another, but we disagree if tolerance connotes acceptance of sins which God Himself rejects.” THAT is what I’m talking about. It is THAT mask of tolerance that President Monson warned against.

I’m sorry if the truth is apparently too cutting in some respects.

Mike L.–Thanks for the cite.
However, it goes to my point. He said “intolerance…of THOSE who profess homosexual tendencies.” (Emphasis added.)
Again–as I said before, we’re being told to be loving and understanding–tolerant–of the person, but nowhere does this say to be tolerant of the act.
As for the rest of your position, I think I can go along with that interpretation.