Divine Love Is Conditional

[Investigator]

5 hours ago, Duncan said:

I wrote then Elder Nelson a letter about it, he wrote back! God's love is unconditional but it's conditioned upon us accepting it. His loving us doesn't mean we can do whatever we want and he just accepts it, he loves enough to want to change us into "new creatures"

Do you have the letter he wrote back?  He should have wrote this in the article. God love does not change based upon our behavior. We change when we receive his love.

[Duncan]

5 minutes ago, Investigator said:

Do you have the letter he wrote back?  He should have wrote this in the article. God love does not change based upon our behavior. We change when we receive his love.

I have it somewhere!

[Investigator]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

My interpretation in blue.

“If ye keep my commandments, [then] ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.”

If you keep the commandments your capacity to receive and feel God's love will increase. God's love for you does not change.

“If you keep not my commandments, [then] the love of the Father shall not continue with you.”

If you  break commandments you will not feel God's love. You will distance yourself from Him.

“If a man love me, [then] he will keep my words: and my Father will love him.”

Doesn't say he will not love those who do not keep his words.

“I love them that love me; and those that seek me … shall find me.”

Doesn't say he doesn't love those who don't love Him.

“God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.”

God loves everyone. Loving is not the same as bestowing blessings.

The Lord “loveth those who will have him to be their God.”

Doesn't say he doesn't love those who don't love Him.

“He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.” 

He will manifest himself to those who truly love him. He still loves those who don't show their love to Him. He will wait to manifest himself to them until they show their love to Him. If you love him you will keep his commandments.

 

[Bobbieaware]

29 minutes ago, Investigator said:

 

If everything remains precisely the same with regard to God’s ability to demonstrate his love for mankind, whether men chose to love and served him or not, why does the Savior bother to to say anything at all on the subject? Why didn’t he just simply say, “God loves everybody equally, whether they choose to love and serve him or not, so don’t bother to worry if you don’t love and serve him because he loves you just as much as he loves those who do love and serve Him. Don’t worry, be happy.”

 

 

Edited January 19, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[pogi]

53 minutes ago, Investigator said:

Do you have the letter he wrote back?  He should have wrote this in the article. God love does not change based upon our behavior. We change when we receive his love.

He did say that His love is “infinite” and “universal” in the article.  He is simply pointing out that’s there is also a conditional aspect of God’s manifestation of love in our individual lives.  

This is plainly manifest in the parable of the prodigal son.  The father could not love his son in the way that his heart desired until the son chose to turn back to his father.  While the son was away, the father could not embrace him as he wished, he could not clothe him in the robe of his love, nor kill the fatted calf and throw a feast for him, nor rejoice with him in the same intimate way.  That expression of the father’s love was conditional upon the son’s choices.  So it is with God, as the parable goes. 

That is what President Nelson was getting at.

Edited January 19, 2018 by pogi

[Investigator]

3 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

I have an important counter question for you; Are you Christian?

No, I am a Mormon who doesn't accept everything out of hand  that is said by a GA without searching into and contemplating it.  That would be called trusting in the arm of the flesh. There’s an old saying: “Catholics say the pope is infallible but don’t really believe it; Mormons say the prophet is fallible but don’t really believe it.” Dallin Oaks said on Tuesday that they are fallible. So should we accept everything they say without some degree of testing it. 

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

If everything remains precisely the same with regard to God’s ability to demonstrate his love for mankind, whether men chose to love and served him or not, why does the Savior bother to to say anything at all on the subject? Why didn’t he just simply say, “God loves everybody equally, whether they choose to love and serve him or not, so don’t bother to worry if you don’t love and serve him because he loves you just as much as he loves those who do love and serve Him. Don’t worry, be happy.”

 

 

you wouldn't be saying though that God loves someone who is a Stake President,more than a non member? What happens when that Stake President gets released, does God's love diminish? given that hopefully the Stake President "feasts upon his love" Jacob 3:2, and he shows it to others, like a non member-who in turn can accept God's love and through the spirit changes their heart?

I don't think anybody is saying that we "don't bother to worry if you don't love and serve him" “For what doth it profit a man if a gift is bestowed upon him, and he receive not the gift? Behold, he rejoices not in that which is given unto him, neither rejoices in him who is the giver of the gift.” DC 88:33

God gave the gift of his son to literally everyone on earth, now, in the past and in the future but we must accept him and also the "loving kindness" of God

52 "And now the year of my redeemed is come; and they shall mention the loving kindness of their Lord, and all that he has bestowed upon them according to his goodness, and according to his loving kindness, forever and ever.

53 In all their afflictions he was afflicted. And the angel of his presence saved them; and in his love, and in his pity, he redeemed them, and bore them, and carried them all the days of old;" DC 133:52-53

[Bobbieaware]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

He did say that His love is “infinite” and “universal” in the article.  He is simply pointing out that’s there is also a conditional aspect of God’s manifestation of love in our individual lives.  

This is plainly manifest in the parable of the prodigal son.  The father could not love his son in the way that his heart desired until the son chose to turn back to his father.  While the son was away, the father could not embrace him as he wished, he could not clothe him in the robe of his love, nor kill the fatted calf and throw a feast for him, nor rejoice with him in the same intimate way.  That expression of the father’s love was conditional upon the son’s choices.  So it is with God, as the parable goes. 

That is what President Nelson was getting at.

Excellent Response! Another way to explain the principle is that God perfectly loves everyone, but his most earnest desire is to have loving RELATIONSHIPS with his children — relationships where love and mutual respect are regularly expressed in both word and deed — is frustrated when people refuse to love and serve him. God respects freedom of choice too much to force unwanted manifestations of his love on anyone. In addition, love is an an action verb, not just a noun.

[Bobbieaware]

34 minutes ago, Duncan said:

you wouldn't be saying though that God loves someone who is a Stake President,more than a non member? What happens when that Stake President gets released, does God's love diminish? given that hopefully the Stake President "feasts upon his love" Jacob 3:2, and he shows it to others, like a non member-who in turn can accept God's love and through the spirit changes their heart?

I don't think anybody is saying that we "don't bother to worry if you don't love and serve him" “For what doth it profit a man if a gift is bestowed upon him, and he receive not the gift? Behold, he rejoices not in that which is given unto him, neither rejoices in him who is the giver of the gift.” DC 88:33

God gave the gift of his son to literally everyone on earth, now, in the past and in the future but we must accept him and also the "loving kindness" of God

52 "And now the year of my redeemed is come; and they shall mention the loving kindness of their Lord, and all that he has bestowed upon them according to his goodness, and according to his loving kindness, forever and ever.

53 In all their afflictions he was afflicted. And the angel of his presence saved them; and in his love, and in his pity, he redeemed them, and bore them, and carried them all the days of old;" DC 133:52-53

Read all of my posts on this thread in sequence and then we’ll see if you have the same questions?

[Atheist Mormon]

50 minutes ago, Investigator said:

No, I am a Mormon who doesn't accept everything out of hand  that is said by a GA without searching into and contemplating it.  That would be called trusting in the arm of the flesh. There’s an old saying: “Catholics say the pope is infallible but don’t really believe it; Mormons say the prophet is fallible but don’t really believe it.” Dallin Oaks said on Tuesday that they are fallible. So should we accept everything they say without some degree of testing it. 

I agree with you.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Investigator said:

No, I am a Mormon...

I think you mean, “yes, I am a Mormon”

I agree with the rest of your post.

[Lemuel]

6 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

You’re not differentiating between God’s constant feelings of emotional love that never change and the fulfillment of his love in action. Even Christ testified that the Father’s love toward him was conditioned upon his willingness to successfully endure the agonies of his atoning sacrifice.

17 THEREFORE doth my Father love me, BECAUSE I lay down my life, that I might take it again. (the word ‘therefore’ means “for this reason.”)

President Russell got it right...

 

The love is always there.  We can choose to accept the gift or not.  I hope that's what Nelson intended to say.

[Investigator]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think you mean, “yes, I am a Mormon”

I agree with the rest of your post.

I don't identify with creedal historic Christianity which Joseph characterized as an abomination. So no, I'm a Mormon; christian in the sense that I worship our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 

[Raymond Ellis]

'Jacob served seven years for Rachel but they seemed like a few days because of his love for her' -- Genesis 29:20 True Love.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, pogi said:

He loves all of his children.  President Nelson never said otherwise.  He specifically emphasized that God's love is "infinite and universal":

President Nelson preemptively answered your question in his talk:

In other words, God's love is infinite and universal, but our experience of God's love is conditional upon us accepting it.  God's arms are always extended towards us (all of us) in love, the conditional part is whether or not we will turn towards him.   

Yes.  Satan and his host rejected God's love, just as they rejected his infinite atonement.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Investigator said:

No, I am a Mormon who doesn't accept everything out of hand  that is said by a GA without searching into and contemplating it.  That would be called trusting in the arm of the flesh. There’s an old saying: “Catholics say the pope is infallible but don’t really believe it; Mormons say the prophet is fallible but don’t really believe it.” Dallin Oaks said on Tuesday that they are fallible. So should we accept everything they say without some degree of testing it. 

Correct.  Brigham Young said that every member of the Church must pray about what a GA says and find out via the Holy Spirit whether it is true.  We can also test it in line with Alma 32 to see whether the claims of the Brethren are true.  Brigham plainly stated that blind obedience or "living on borrowed light" was not good.  One needs to stand on his own hind legs.

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Lemuel said:

The love is always there.  We can choose to accept the gift or not.  I hope that's what Nelson intended to say.

Of course that’s what he intended to say. Read his address in it’s entirety and see for yourself.

The most meaningful and jouful manifestation of God’s is when he pours out his rich blessing upon the children of men. Those who choose to not love and serve God are still looked upon with the eyes of his perfect love, but the blessings of his love are poured out on a conditional basis. 

[Gray]

7 hours ago, USU78 said:

On what scriptural or other basis can we assert G-d no longer loves Satan  ...  or Cain  ...  or <insert your favorite moral monster here>?

I don't know. But if God's love is conditional, then there are some children he no longer loves.

[Gray]

9 hours ago, pogi said:

Yes and no.  Words get in the way, but I understand what President Nelson is trying to say, and as he explained in a personal letter to our very own Duncan.  His love is unconditional in some respects, yes, but I think the love that President Nelson was speaking of is the type of love that can only be given when accepted.  For example, a mother who's child ran away will never be able to give the love that she wants to give to the child.  The ability to love her child in the way that she wants has been taken from her.  Those experiences of love that she wants to give her child, such as nurturing, hugging, laughing with, giving heart felt presents to, spending time with, crying with, showing her pride, etc. etc. etc. are conditional upon the child being present to receive it, though her feelings of love will be entirely unconditional.  

Yes, I think that's what he means too - but then a clearer way to get across his meaning is to say that God's love is unconditional, but we are free to reject or accept that love.

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, Gray said:

This raises the question: which of God's children does he no longer love?

I have a list here. It includes a lot of people I do not personally like but I can only assume that is purely coincidental.

Edited January 19, 2018 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Investigator said:

No, I am a Mormon who doesn't accept everything out of hand  that is said by a GA without searching into and contemplating it.  That would be called trusting in the arm of the flesh. There’s an old saying: “Catholics say the pope is infallible but don’t really believe it; Mormons say the prophet is fallible but don’t really believe it.” Dallin Oaks said on Tuesday that they are fallible. So should we accept everything they say without some degree of testing it. 

Hmmm.....different fonts there. How much of that did you cut and paste from whatever site you are using to concoct this fun little barb at the LDS faith? Pretending the words of others are your own is called plagiarism and is generally considered to be wrong.

[Freedom]

11 hours ago, Gray said:

Meh. We all know we can find passages to support either position, or reinterpret the same passage two ways to support two positions.

Jeremiah 31:3 The LORD appeared to us in the past, saying: I have loved you with an everlasting love; I have drawn you with loving-kindness.

Psalm 52:8b I trust in God’s unfailing love for ever and ever.

Psalm 136:2 Give thanks to the God of gods. His love endures forever.

 

John is a frequently used source in the above, seeming to suggest that God only loves those who keep the commandments. Meaning God loves Jesus alone and no one else?

 

 

 

None of these references contradict the notion of love being conditional. I can have unfailing and everlasting money, but that does not mean you are getting any of it. His love is everlasting, but us benefiting from it is not unconditional. If you want his everlasting love, you need to keep his commandments 

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, USU78 said:

On what scriptural or other basis can we assert G-d no longer loves Satan  ...  or Cain  ...  or <insert your favorite moral monster here>?

None, but I suspect the devil and possibly others are so far gone that there is nothing left to love. God would love who they once were and mourn their loss but love the remains that are gone after their soul is debased beyond humanity and spiritity (I like this new word) and there is no light left in them. I really do not know for sure but I admit I can see no merit in that kind of love for a being that has shucked off personhood and any spark of virtue they might have had has been permanently snuffed out. God might anyways. I do not know.

This is, of course, not what Elder Nelson was talking about in any case.

[clarkgoble]

12 hours ago, Investigator said:

In a 2003 Ensign article, then Elder Nelson characterized God's love as conditional. How can God’s love be infinite if it is bounded or limited by conditions? How can God’s love be enduring if it cannot endure sin or disobedience? How can it be universal if it excludes those you don’t approve of? How can it be perfect if it is less reliable than the love of good children for abusive parents or that of good parents for errant children?  I don't believe God's love for us changes based upon our behavior. I certainly hope President Nelson's view on that topic has changed since then.

Didn't we discuss this talk extensively here a few months back? Unfortunately the search function here is frustrating to use and I can't find much with it.

Anyway I'd say this whole discussion rests on a rather obvious equivocation over love in its sense as action and love in its sense as intention. We use the same word to describe these rather distinct albeit related ideas. I can want my son to succeed and something and do everything I can to help them succeed, yet their success as success depends upon their action as well as mine. If I simply tell them they succeeded even though they didn't then they didn't really succeed. 

In the same way my love can be outpoured non-stop yet the desired consequences of that love can depend both upon the lover and the loved. To make a rather different example think of spurned love. A person might love a person who doesn't love them. But if love is essentially relational (as we ascribe deep romantic and marital love) then there's a fundamental difference between true love and unrequited love. Effectively the loved acts as a set of conditions on the love.

This isn't a small point, by the way. The point both Uchtdorf and Nelson get at tends to be a place where traditional Christianity disagrees with major theologies within Protestantism. Some say justification is imputed. That is because God says we're just we are just regardless of whether our character and behavior has changed. Catholics and easter Christians reject this view of justification. The debate over conditional love really ends up being this debate over imputed justification and grace. 

As other noted the traditional Mormon way of viewing this is that God loves all of us but the conditional fulfillment of the telos or end of that love rests in our hands not God's. The image used in the Book of Mormon is that God's arm is always outstretched but we have to enter into his embrace.

[Investigator]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Hmmm.....different fonts there. How much of that did you cut and paste from whatever site you are using to concoct this fun little barb at the LDS faith? Pretending the words of others are your own is called plagiarism and is generally considered to be wrong.

There’s an old saying: “Catholics say the pope is infallible but don’t really believe it; Mormons say the prophet is fallible but don’t really believe it.” I cut and pasted this, put it in quotes, and said “There’s an old saying:” I think it’s clear I am not claiming I wrote that. I wrote the rest of the post. Thank you for your concern.