Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Divine Love Is Conditional


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Amazing how "unconditional vs conditional" negate each other like "Matter vs Antimatter" (but of course......this is my perspective).

God’s feelings of love for each of his children are unconditional, but whether or not he is able to pour out the love he feels in the form of blessings is conditional. That being said, in each and every instance he pours out his feelings love in the form of blessings upon each of his children to the maximum allowable degree without permitting mercy to rob justice. This is the whole burden of the scriptures.

Edited by Bobbieaware
Link to comment
19 hours ago, Brother Bear said:

You could probably copy/paste this post into just about any thread on this forum and it would be relevant. Would probably make a good quote to have in your signature :)

Aha! Another disciple of Wittgenstein  ;)

Link to comment

When you discipline a child, is your love conditional?

When you ground a teenager or refuse to give money to an addict is your love conditional?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Amazing how "unconditional vs conditional" negate each other like "Matter vs Antimatter" (but of course......this is my perspective).

Yet matter and antimatter coexist in the universe.  Just like conditional and unconditional (universal) love are coexistent in God.  Just like love is both sexual and nonsexual in humans ("Not possible! Those should negate each other :crazy:").  As mfb stated, this is a semantics issue.  It is not as complicated or as paradoxical as you make it seem.  The confusion is found in the English use of the word "love".  It is a terribly complex word in English, and I think we are oversimplifying it here.  The Greeks are right to divide the single English word "love" into six different words, with each conveying a different kind or branch of love.  Again, think of the parable of the prodigal son, the father showed both conditional and unconditional love for his son.  When we understand that different kinds of love are manifested in different ways (as the Greeks understand), this is not as strange as it seems.  

Link to comment

I'm probably alone here on this.  I have no desire at all, as far as I've tried dig into myself to uncover it, to seek God's love.  I figure he either loves me and cares about me or not.  That's not to say I don't want to do good.  I realize though, when I seek to do something good, it is never to win the love of God.  It is normally because I want to love other people, and learn to love them, almost always.  Other times it is to win praise from others perhaps.  

This idea that God's love is conditional doesn't resonate with me at all, even considering the whole of his talk.  I don't get why Pres Nelson or any of them brethren want others to feel like they have to seek "higher levels of" God's love, as if members should see themselves as particularly special.  

Link to comment

I am a flawed and sinful man. Yet, I know that God loves me, as I have heard him declare it to me in His own voice. Years ago while trying to understand God's character and attributes, I came across Elder Nelson's article. There are numerous other writings by PSR who characterize God's love as unconditional. I have yet to understand why Elder Nelson wrote this article in this way. When writing the opening post, I included four questions. While these questions do reflect the questions of my own heart, I did not write those questions.  They were posed by someone else. I should have taken the time to write them myself. Not doing so was lazy and wrong. I have included the letter from which I copied the questions.  To be honest, this letter makes more sense to me than Elder Nelson's attempt at describing Divine Love. If that makes me a further flawed and sinful person, then so be it. I suppose God will withhold his love from me.

Quote

By Common Consent

NEWSLETTER OF THE MORMON ALLIANCE

Volume 9, No. 3                                                                                    July 2003

 

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD

Paul J. Toscano

An Open Letter to Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Council of the Twelve rebutting his article, "Divine Love" Ensign, February 2003. Published here by permission.

16 June 2003
Dear Elder Nelson,

I read with interest and dismay your February 2003 Ensign article "Divine Love," in which you argue that God’s love is not unconditional Although you supported your position with many familiar verses of scripture, your conclusion contradicts the settled doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in particular and of the larger Christian community in general.

The subject you address, divine love, is of vital importance to Latter-day Saints, to Christendom, and to many yet unconverted, seeking souls. For this reason, I am writing this open letter to suggest to all who may read your article that, on this point, you are likely quite wrong, despite your apostolic calling and the status of your article as an official pronouncement of the Church; for your conclusion, though supported by some scriptural passages, runs clean contrary to many others and to the great weight of belief and experience of the disciples of Jesus in and out of the Church.

Joseph Smith warned that great religious questions are not likely to be resolved by recourse to scripture, "for the teachers of religion of the different sects [understand] the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible" (Joseph Smith--History 2:12). It is for this reason that he sought wisdom directly from God. Though the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is founded on the principle of revelation, you do not claim that your article’s conclusion was revealed; and, of course, you could not, because you are not the revelator to the Church. However, you write in a prophetic voice, and you make it clear that your conclusion is based upon your reassessment of scripture.

Because of your high calling, many Latter-day Saints will therefore assume that your conclusion is inspired. They might forget the statement of the apostle Paul that "charity [divine love] never faileth; but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part and prophecy in part. ... And now abideth faith, hope and charity, but the greatest of these is charity" (1 Cor. 13:8-10, 13). This scripture would suggest that it is not divine love that is conditional, but the gifts of prophesy, inspiration, and knowledge.

Moreover, it appears that you began your research with a predetermined conclusion in mind and then scoured the scriptures for proof texts, choosing only those passages that seemed to support your novel doctrine. You defined the term "conditional," but you failed to define the term "love." You did not distinguish divine love from divine expectation, or blessing, or approval, or salvation. In the quoted scriptures, you mistake synonyms for divine love for conditions for divine love; and for this reason you conclude that passages like "if a man love me, he will keep my words; and my Father will love him" (John 14:23) express the idea that God’s love is conditioned on our keeping the commandments when the passage can mean that to love God is to keep his commandments.

You give equal weight to both Old and New Testament scriptures and never consider that prophetic understanding of divine love could, with the advent of Christ, have deepened over time. You do not consider the paradoxical nature of such sayings as "love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you" (Matt. 5:44) or of such parables as the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) or the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37). You suggest that, because God loves conditionally, he does not love the unrighteous, and then you deny this logical conclusion from your premise.

You assume that the King James Bible accurately expresses spiritual or prophetic intent, forgetting that for Latter-day Saints the Bible is correct only so far as it is translated correctly (Eighth Article of Faith). You never state the conditions you claim for God’s love. You make "happiness" the end and divine love means in God’s plan of salvation, contrary to the teachings found in the writings of the apostles Paul and John.

You identify the doctrine of God’s unconditional love as a false teaching promulgated by the Book of Mormon apostate Nehor when that book makes it clear Nehor’ s heresy was the doctrines of priestcraft and predestination (Alma 1:2-16). You see God’s salvation as a wage rather than a gift, contrary to Paul’s statement: "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 6:23). You do not explore if it is possible to love God without knowing him, without a testimony, without faith. You do not wonder if those without hope can experience God’s love. You assert that "wickedness never was happiness" (Alma 41:10), but you do not address the question: If righteousness is happiness, why does such happiness so often elude the righteous or why do afflictions so often befall even innocent children and animals? You never grapple with the reality of the lovable prodigal and the unlovable puritan. You do not explain how a God of conditional love is holier than humans whose love is unconditional.

Your article’s chief defect is its failure to distinguish among the different meanings of the term "love." As defined in most dictionaries, love has four basic meanings: (1) sexual attraction, (2) benevolence, (3) affection, and (4) the taking of pleasure in someone or something. Only the latter three are pertinent to divine love, which refers to God’s benevolence--that is, his desire for our holiness, happiness, and ultimate spiritual maturation and eternal well-being. Clearly, in this sense, God’s love is unconditional. God does not stop being benevolent in the face of sinning humans. He is at least as good as those human parents whose love does not diminish when confronted by prodigal children. Besides, Latter-day Saint scripture establishes the unconditional nature of God’s benevolence in passages you did not quote in your article. For example, in Moses 7:28-40, we are told of Enoch's vision of the Lord weeping over the most wicked of his children, to whom, despite their sins, he holds out the offer of salvation through Christ’s redemption.

True, in your article, you admit that divine love is perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, but then announce that it is also conditional. This is no paradox. It is an outright contradiction. What you grant with one hand you take away with the other. 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?

There is a way, of course, in which God’s love is conditional. One of the meanings of love is to take pleasure in someone or something. Naturally, God does not take pleasure in us when we cause each other needless suffering, when we are greedy, power-hungry, selfish, narcissistic, and especially when we withhold love from each other. Divine love turns to divine indignation in the face of these sins. But divine love and divine indignation are one and the same; both are derivatives of divine benevolence. God’s rewards and punishments flow from God’s benevolent desire to save us all from the narrow prisons of our egos, our opacity of mind, our fears, and our selfishness. Divine love is expressed both as comfort and rebuke. We are enjoined to rebuke "betimes with sharpness" so long as afterwards we show forth afterwards "an increase of love" (D&C 121:43), which is what I am imperfectly attempting to do in this letter with respect to your well-intentioned but dangerously incorrect discussion of divine love.

In your article, those quoted passages of scripture that show that God’s love is conditional are all about God’s taking pleasure in us. Obviously, he doesn’t if we are deliberately doing our worst, and obviously he does when we are doing our best. But this aspect of God’s love is only part of God’s unconditional, enduring benevolence for his creations, which he desires to save at all costs to himself. You fail to distinguish God’s benevolence for all his creatures from his taking pleasure in his good children. But this is your job, your duty, your calling. It is unseemly that I, an excommunicant with only the barest thread of any remaining faith, should like Balaam’s *** (Num. 22:13-35) have to bray all this to you, an apostle, with the full spiritual and temporal resources of the Church at his disposal. But such, I suppose, are the ironies of God.

The rest of your speech is a restatement of the usual confusion of Church leaders over whether we are saved by works or grace. All I can do in response is to repeat Paul’s teaching in the epistle to the Romans that people who attempt to claim salvation on the strength of their good works are doomed to failure. The works that save us are not ours, but those done by Jesus Christ in Gethsemane and on Calvary. The commandment is for us to accept those works as having been done vicariously for us. By accepting his works as our works, we accept the gift of God’s divine love that alone can transform us from sinners into Saints. It is not what we do that makes us righteous, for doers can be hypocrites. It is the love of God dwelling in us that makes us righteous (Moro. 7:47-48). The Church cannot dispense this love. It comes only through the Spirit by the grace of the living God. Your article does not make this clear; rather, while dispiriting its members, your article justifies the corporate Church in its emphasis on judgment and punishment at the expense of tolerance and forgiveness.

Years ago, Church President Harold B. Lee, in a private interview, cautioned me not to accept any new teaching from any Church leader, even the president of the Church, unless it met four tests. President Lee said such a teaching must be (1) consistent with scripture, (2) consistent with the teachings of the prophets living and dead, (3) consistent with the promptings of the Holy Ghost, and (4) consistent with human experience. I fear that your new teaching that God’s love is conditional passes none of these tests. It is not consistent with the teachings of the prophets because no Latter-day Saint has ever before heard any Church leader assert that God’s love is conditional. The doctrine is inconsistent with the Holy Ghost that has prompted numerous Latter-day Saints in both talks and testimonies to bear witness of God’s unconditional love. And the doctrine does not accord with the experiences of the vast majority of the Saints of the Church and the people of the Lord everywhere.

If God’s love were conditional, then the righteous would always be blessed and the wicked always punished. But this is not how the world is. The sun shines and the rain falls on the just and the unjust (Matt. 5:45). One reason why people become atheists or agnostics is that on earth the guilty triumph and the innocent suffer. The Book of Mormon teaches that this is so because mortality is a probationary state in which we must choose good over evil, despite the absence of immediate reward (Alma 12:24).

Elder Nelson, is it probable that God would have created such a probationary state if his love were conditional? Is it probable that God would so love the world that he would send his Son into it to die for it if his love were conditional? Is it probable that God would have endured all the long, troubled centuries of violent human history, or have bargained to save wicked Sodom and Gomorrah, or have visited the spirits in prison and freed them, or have ordained a universal resurrection, or have saved virtually every one of his children in a kingdom of indescribable glory, or decreed the automatic salvation of children who die without reaching the age of accountability if God’s love were conditional? Is it probable that God would have restored the gospel, the priesthood, the ordinances, and the Church in the last days if God were a God of divine, conditional love? Isn’t it far more probable that God’s love is unconditional and that it is the love of the Church and its leaders that is conditioned upon the unquestioning obedience of even the most loyal of the Saints?

Only a very simple creature would conclude that sinners could be motivated to repent before a God of conditional love. Such love would turn sinners to despair while filling the self-righteous with arrogance and authorizing the powerful to further dominate the meek. Sinners will turn to God only if they have faith and hope that God’s charity truly never fails (1 Cor. 13:8).

Please understand that I believe it is no sin to err in doctrine and recognize that it is I who may be wrong. But for both our sakes, I hope that I am not and that God’s love will prove more certain than my faith or your opinion. And though we disagree and speak from vastly different experiences in Mormonism, I sincerely hope that God will love and forgive us despite our failings.

Yours sincerely, Paul Toscano 

http://mormon-alliance.org/newsletter/jul_2003.htm

 

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm probably alone here on this.  I have no desire at all, as far as I've tried dig into myself to uncover it, to seek God's love.  I figure he either loves me and cares about me or not.  That's not to say I don't want to do good.  I realize though, when I seek to do something good, it is never to win the love of God.  It is normally because I want to love other people, and learn to love them, almost always.  Other times it is to win praise from others perhaps.  

This idea that God's love is conditional doesn't resonate with me at all, even considering the whole of his talk.  I don't get why Pres Nelson or any of them brethren want others to feel like they have to seek "higher levels of" God's love, as if members should see themselves as particularly special.  

Maybe because God commands it? Not because the feelings of his love for us diminish, even in the least, if we don’t seek to repent and grow spiritually, but because the immutable law of eternal justice prevents him from pouring out the greater blessings of his love upon those who are not motivated to love him and obey his will. And in fact the very withholding of the more abundant blessings of his love from the disobedient IS MOTIVATED  BY HIS PERFECT LOVE because he knows he must allow us to taste the spiritual bitterness we create in our own lives so that we might learn through our own experience how to prize the good. This is all very simple and abundantly corroborated throughout the scriptures.

Edited by Bobbieaware
Link to comment
53 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm probably alone here on this.  I have no desire at all, as far as I've tried dig into myself to uncover it, to seek God's love.  I figure he either loves me and cares about me or not.  That's not to say I don't want to do good.  I realize though, when I seek to do something good, it is never to win the love of God.  It is normally because I want to love other people, and learn to love them, almost always.  Other times it is to win praise from others perhaps.  

This idea that God's love is conditional doesn't resonate with me at all, even considering the whole of his talk.  I don't get why Pres Nelson or any of them brethren want others to feel like they have to seek "higher levels of" God's love, as if members should see themselves as particularly special.  

When you truly believe that God is your literal father, there is an instinctual desire (at least in me) and longing to connect and bond with daddy (abba).  When you open your heart to it (conditional), it is profoundly life-changing in a deep and intimate way.  It truly is delicious above all that is delicious.  Allowing myself to seek and be vulnerable to God's light and love, saved me from the numbing chains of addiction.  It heals co-dependency.  When you receive loving validation from perfection Himself, you don't need to "win praise" from imperfect and fallible humans, because our self-worth and value is confirmed in undeniable ways via God's love.  Toxic shame cannot coexist in God's love.  That profound and loving assurance empowers us and is completely liberating. My desire to be present in God's love is as natural as is my desire to be emotionally present and bonded with my earthly father.  It has nothing to do with this elitist specialness that you keep referring to. 

Seeking God's love does not make us elitists.  We make us elitists.  This lesson is also found in the parable of the prodigal son in comparing the prodigal son to his brother, who did see himself as "special" and perhaps "elitist".  But that was caused by his own corrupt heart and motivations, and not by the fathers love.  Stem, you can't know the heart of man.  I would resist judging others who seek God's love as being elitists.  God's love is the only hope for humanity.  Those who seek it with pure intent are the peacemakers of the earth.  Those who don't seek God's love, but instead turn their course elsewhere, are the ones who find themselves in great and spacious building elevated above their brethren, pointing their fingers in elitist scorn and judgment. 

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
12 hours ago, Gray said:

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

I guess I missed the part where somebody said G-d no longer loves somebody.

That His Mercy extends only so far as an individual potential recipient of that Mercy in his freedom allows doesn't mean that the Mercy, arising out of love for all, isn't available to the unwilling free agent, or that the unwilling free agent isn't loved.  Wouldn't you agree?

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, pogi said:

When you truly believe that God is your literal father, there is an instinctual desire (at least in me) and longing to connect and bond with daddy (abba).  When you open your heart to it (conditional), it is profoundly life-changing in a deep and intimate way.  It truly is delicious above all that is delicious.  Allowing myself to seek and be vulnerable to God's light and love, saved me from the numbing chains of addiction.  It heals co-dependency.  When you receive loving validation from perfection Himself, you don't need to "win praise" from imperfect and fallible humans, because our self-worth and value is confirmed in undeniable ways via God's love.  Toxic shame cannot coexist in God's love.  That profound and loving assurance empowers us and is completely liberating. My desire to be present in God's love is as natural as is my desire to be emotionally present and bonded with my earthly father.  It has nothing to do with this elitist specialness that you keep referring to. 

Seeking God's love does not make us elitists.  We make us elitists.  This lesson is also found in the parable of the prodigal son in comparing the prodigal son to his brother, who did see himself as "special" and perhaps "elitist".  But that was caused by his own corrupt heart and motivations, and not by the fathers love.  Stem, you can't know the heart of man.  I would resist judging others who seek God's love as being elitists.  God's love is the only hope for humanity.  Those who seek it with pure intent are the peacemakers of the earth.  Those who don't seek God's love, but instead turn their course elsewhere, are the ones who find themselves in great and spacious building elevated above their brethren, pointing their fingers in elitist scorn and judgment. 

 

Great post! (Can’t give you a rep point because I’m on ‘limited.’

Link to comment
11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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.

True enough.  Is there a point at which a change in degree become a change in kind, such that the Son of the Morning becomes no son at all?  Interesting notion.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I'm probably alone here on this.  I have no desire at all, as far as I've tried dig into myself to uncover it, to seek God's love.  I figure he either loves me and cares about me or not.  That's not to say I don't want to do good.  I realize though, when I seek to do something good, it is never to win the love of God.  It is normally because I want to love other people, and learn to love them, almost always.  Other times it is to win praise from others perhaps.  

This idea that God's love is conditional doesn't resonate with me at all, even considering the whole of his talk.  I don't get why Pres Nelson or any of them brethren want others to feel like they have to seek "higher levels of" God's love, as if members should see themselves as particularly special.  

Manual rep point from Jeanne..your feelings match my own in many ways. I know God loves me.  I also know that when I do good things, I feel that love.  That is all I need to know.

Link to comment
55 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm probably alone here on this.  I have no desire at all, as far as I've tried dig into myself to uncover it, to seek God's love.  I figure he either loves me and cares about me or not.  That's not to say I don't want to do good.  I realize though, when I seek to do something good, it is never to win the love of God.  It is normally because I want to love other people, and learn to love them, almost always.  Other times it is to win praise from others perhaps.  

This idea that God's love is conditional doesn't resonate with me at all, even considering the whole of his talk.  I don't get why Pres Nelson or any of them brethren want others to feel like they have to seek "higher levels of" God's love, as if members should see themselves as particularly special.  

Well, I don't know that you are alone Stem. I have never prayed for God to love me. I think He may show His love more to those who do love Him and try to follow Him, but in my way of thinking He does love everyone created on this earth - He says that is why He sent His Son - His revelator to us. However, there is another aspect to the Hebrew word. Hebrew verbs are all verbs of action. To love God is to follow Him - not just speak it with your tongue. To have a feeling or moral belief and not act on it is being hypocritical in the Hebrew mind. So Yeshua speaks this way. He tells Peter, if you love me, feed my sheep. He tells His apostles, if you love me, keep my commandments. I think that is the interpretation Nelson is talking about. I believe he is trying to motivate readers to action. Nevertheless, I would personally do it a different way. 

Like you I don't like the idea of followers envisioning themselves elevated as the only ones God loves - or being a chosen generation. While it may be true that members of the Church are mostly foreordained, if not all so, that doesn't make us better, but really just more responsible. It places the onus on us to spread the gospel - as the ones God has chosen for the task. While that may involve blessings, many if not all of those are to help us learn, and enable us to complete our tasks here on earth. As Kengo says your mileage may vary, but that is basically the way I look at things.

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, Investigator said:

I am a flawed and sinful man. Yet, I know that God loves me, as I have heard him declare it to me in His own voice. Years ago while trying to understand God's character and attributes, I came across Elder Nelson's article. There are numerous other writings by PSR who characterize God's love as unconditional. I have yet to understand why Elder Nelson wrote this article in this way. When writing the opening post, I included four questions. While these questions do reflect the questions of my own heart, I did not write those questions.  They were posed by someone else. I should have taken the time to write them myself. Not doing so was lazy and wrong. I have included the letter from which I copied the questions.  To be honest, this letter makes more sense to me than Elder Nelson's attempt at describing Divine Love. If that makes me a further flawed and sinful person, then so be it. I suppose God will withhold his love from me.

Investigator, you are making too much of this.  I will admit, President Nelson's talk troubled me for some time.  It was the first general conference talk that I can remember strongly disagreeing with.  I have come to understand the nuance and limitations of human language to adequately capture and define God's love.  Could President Nelson have been more careful with his word choices and been more clear in his elaboration...yes.  Did he say anything that is untrue?  No.  God's love is universal in some ways, and conditional in other ways.  Even this article that you posted acknowledges that.  This is my favorite part:

Quote

There is a way, of course, in which God’s love is conditional.

Look, God can't love us in the way that he desires to if we are not spiritually present to accept it.  As a sinner, I too believed that God loved me, but I didn't understand the extent of his love (and I am sure that I still don't comprehend it in its entirety) until I turned to him as the prodigal son did.  The level of spiritual intimacy and love that my Father desired with me was restricted by me.  I did not allow Him in.  He could not love me as He wanted to.  I had a thick, tall, impenetrable wall around my heart.  NOTHING was going to get in.  It was too dangerous, too painful, I couldn't bear the vulnerability.  I didn't believe that anyone would accept me if they saw the REAL Ryan.  At my lowest point I turned to God in desperation.  Little by little, I poked an ever so tiny hole through the solid mortar of my wall and let a speck of light in.  I am always working on that wall, but I have in many ways stepped out from behind it and stepped into the light and love of God, and have proclaimed as Adam did when he came out of hiding..."here I am."   The word "love" is inadequate to describe what I experienced!  How long I kept that experience from both myself and my daddy. I experienced his conditional love.  I know that it was conditional, because that level of intimacy did not exist between us while I was in hiding.  It couldn't. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, pogi said:

When you truly believe that God is your literal father, there is an instinctual desire (at least in me) and longing to connect and bond with daddy (abba).  When you open your heart to it (conditional), it is profoundly life-changing in a deep and intimate way.  It truly is delicious above all that is delicious.  Allowing myself to seek and be vulnerable to God's light and love, saved me from the numbing chains of addiction.  It heals co-dependency.  When you receive loving validation from perfection Himself, you don't need to "win praise" from imperfect and fallible humans, because our self-worth and value is confirmed in undeniable ways via God's love.  Toxic shame cannot coexist in God's love.  That profound and loving assurance empowers us and is completely liberating. My desire to be present in God's love is as natural as is my desire to be emotionally present and bonded with my earthly father.  It has nothing to do with this elitist specialness that you keep referring to. 

Seeking God's love does not make us elitists.  We make us elitists.  This lesson is also found in the parable of the prodigal son in comparing the prodigal son to his brother, who did see himself as "special" and perhaps "elitist".  But that was caused by his own corrupt heart and motivations, and not by the fathers love.  Stem, you can't know the heart of man.  I would resist judging others who seek God's love as being elitists.  God's love is the only hope for humanity.  Those who seek it with pure intent are the peacemakers of the earth.  Those who don't seek God's love, but instead turn their course elsewhere, are the ones who find themselves in great and spacious building elevated above their brethren, pointing their fingers in elitist scorn and judgment. 

 

I'm not sure what to make of this pogi.  But I'm glad to point out we certainly are coming at this from different angles.  

"you can't know the heart of man.  I would resist judging others who seek God's love as being elitists"

and

" are the ones who find themselves in great and spacious building elevated above their brethren, pointing their fingers in elitist scorn and judgment."

I don't know how I got condemned for knowing the heart of man, which I don't think I claimed, only to see you condemn a bunch of people based on your knowing their heart as they point their fingers of scorn, feeling themselves to be above the brethren, or whatever.  I do find many of my fellow Church members pretending to know the heart of those who aren't Mormon claiming they are the ones who presume to be above the brethren pointing their fingers of scorn, while these members themselves often point their fingers of scorn at their family and friends who are, it seems most often suggested, below them.  

I don't wish to condemn anyone without knowing his/her heart, but I do wish to stay away from a spirit of pretending to be above another in God's eyes.  

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

Maybe because God commands it? Not because the feelings of his love for us diminish, even in the least, if we don’t seek to repent and grow spiritually, but because the immutable law of eternal justice prevents him from pouring out the greater blessings of his love upon those who are not motivated to love him and obey his will. And in fact the very withholding of the more abundant blessings of his love from the disobedient IS MOTIVATED  BY HIS PERFECT LOVE because he knows he must allow us to taste the spiritual bitterness we create in our own lives so that we might learn through our own experience how to prize the good. This is all very simple and abundantly corroborated throughout the scriptures.

if this is Church I'm happy to work my way out.  if scripture is to be above my own dealings with God in defining how it should be, I don't want part in it.  Honestly, this is not appealing to me in the least.  

Link to comment
51 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Well, I don't know that you are alone Stem. I have never prayed for God to love me. I think He may show His love more to those who do love Him and try to follow Him, but in my way of thinking He does love everyone created on this earth - He says that is why He sent His Son - His revelator to us. However, there is another aspect to the Hebrew word. Hebrew verbs are all verbs of action. To love God is to follow Him - not just speak it with your tongue. To have a feeling or moral belief and not act on it is being hypocritical in the Hebrew mind. So Yeshua speaks this way. He tells Peter, if you love me, feed my sheep. He tells His apostles, if you love me, keep my commandments. I think that is the interpretation Nelson is talking about. I believe he is trying to motivate readers to action. Nevertheless, I would personally do it a different way. 

Like you I don't like the idea of followers envisioning themselves elevated as the only ones God loves - or being a chosen generation. While it may be true that members of the Church are mostly foreordained, if not all so, that doesn't make us better, but really just more responsible. It places the onus on us to spread the gospel - as the ones God has chosen for the task. While that may involve blessings, many if not all of those are to help us learn, and enable us to complete our tasks here on earth. As Kengo says your mileage may vary, but that is basically the way I look at things.

This sounds far more appealing and reasonable.  Thanks.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

if this is Church I'm happy to work my way out.  if scripture is to be above my own dealings with God in defining how it should be, I don't want part in it.  Honestly, this is not appealing to me in the least.  

So do you believe God should ignore the law of justice and bless everyone equally?

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure what to make of this pogi.  But I'm glad to point out we certainly are coming at this from different angles.  

"you can't know the heart of man.  I would resist judging others who seek God's love as being elitists"

and

" are the ones who find themselves in great and spacious building elevated above their brethren, pointing their fingers in elitist scorn and judgment."

I don't know how I got condemned for knowing the heart of man, which I don't think I claimed, only to see you condemn a bunch of people based on your knowing their heart as they point their fingers of scorn, feeling themselves to be above the brethren, or whatever. 

I was responding to this:

Quote

I don't get why Pres Nelson or any of them brethren want others to feel like they have to seek "higher levels of" God's love, as if members should see themselves as particularly special.

And your earlier comment in another thread, using words like "elitism" and "self-aggrandizing" to describe those who seek Gods blessings.  You are continuing that pattern here.

I am not condemning you stem, but as one who does seek God's blessings, and wishes to connect with God on "higher levels", I feel judged by you.  For some reason I can't comprehend, you seem to think that I seek his blessings and loving connection to place myself above my brother and sister.  It has nothing to do about anyone but me and God.  No need to feel threatened or judge me for my very personal relationship with God. 

I am not condemning anyone.  You are misreading me here.  I am referring to Lehi's dream.  I am not claiming to know the heart of any man, I am not saying that anyone specifically is in the great and spacious building.  I am simply pointing out that many who stop feeling after God can end up there.  Leave those who are feeling after God by progressively moving forward in his word (the iron rod) towards the tree of life (love of God), alone.

33 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I do find many of my fellow Church members pretending to know the heart of those who aren't Mormon claiming they are the ones who presume to be above the brethren pointing their fingers of scorn, while these members themselves often point their fingers of scorn at their family and friends who are, it seems most often suggested, below them.  

Yep, I've seen them too.  Therefore, what?

36 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't wish to condemn anyone without knowing his/her heart, but I do wish to stay away from a spirit of pretending to be above another in God's eyes.  

Me too.  

Don't assume that those who seek God's love and blessings are doing so in a spirit of judgment and comparison.  To judge and compare is to be off the path.  My relationship with God is personal.  It has nothing to do with comparing my position against my neighbors who's heart I can't know and judge. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Investigator said:

I am a flawed and sinful man. Yet, I know that God loves me, as I have heard him declare it to me in His own voice. Years ago while trying to understand God's character and attributes, I came across Elder Nelson's article. There are numerous other writings by PSR who characterize God's love as unconditional. I have yet to understand why Elder Nelson wrote this article in this way. When writing the opening post, I included four questions. While these questions do reflect the questions of my own heart, I did not write those questions.  They were posed by someone else. I should have taken the time to write them myself. Not doing so was lazy and wrong. I have included the letter from which I copied the questions.  To be honest, this letter makes more sense to me than Elder Nelson's attempt at describing Divine Love. If that makes me a further flawed and sinful person, then so be it. I suppose God will withhold his love from me.

 

Toscano’s angst filled open letter to President Nelson is off point and impertinent because he apparently missed an all-important key line that appears at the beginning  of the article. Here’s the line Tuscano seems to have missed:

“On the other hand, many verses affirm that the higher levels of love the Father and the Son feel for each of us—and certain divine blessings stemming from that love—are conditional.”

Note that President Russell says the Father and the Son DO NOW, in the present tense, “feel higher levels of love for each of us.” If he meant to say the Father and the Son do not feel higher levels of love for his children UNTIL they fulfill certain requirements he would have said so. He then a second time refers to that higher love as something that already exists. Everything subsequent to this critically important line makes it clear that our access to those preexisting higher levels of divine love that the Father and the Son DO NOW feel for each of us can only be felt and experienced by us if WE choose to love God and serve him. That is the condition.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Investigator said:

I am a flawed and sinful man. Yet, I know that God loves me, as I have heard him declare it to me in His own voice. Years ago while trying to understand God's character and attributes, I came across Elder Nelson's article. There are numerous other writings by PSR who characterize God's love as unconditional. I have yet to understand why Elder Nelson wrote this article in this way. When writing the opening post, I included four questions. While these questions do reflect the questions of my own heart, I did not write those questions.  They were posed by someone else. I should have taken the time to write them myself. Not doing so was lazy and wrong. I have included the letter from which I copied the questions.  To be honest, this letter makes more sense to me than Elder Nelson's attempt at describing Divine Love. If that makes me a further flawed and sinful person, then so be it. I suppose God will withhold his love from me.

We all are flawed, and of course sinful....Being sinful is a major ingredient of my brain that I cannot discard anytime soon, since I was "very much" hardwired by birth with my instincts. I read Toscano's latter ages ago, I doubt that it made any impact on recipient. 

But I hate to read from you "I suppose God will withhold his love from me.", which is not true one iota. I'd hope you did not hear this from him (God).

Link to comment
On 1/18/2018 at 1:47 PM, JLHPROF said:

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

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

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

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

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

“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.”

I love my children no matter what they do.  Whether they obey me or don't.  I may not like what they do and at times not like them.  But I always love them.  Apparently my love is a higher level of love than God's since God demands submission before God loves us.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, USU78 said:

I guess I missed the part where somebody said G-d no longer loves somebody.

That His Mercy extends only so far as an individual potential recipient of that Mercy in his freedom allows doesn't mean that the Mercy, arising out of love for all, isn't available to the unwilling free agent, or that the unwilling free agent isn't loved.  Wouldn't you agree?

If his love is conditional, then some of his children will have fallen short of those conditions, yes? Ergo He no longer loves them.

If his love is a metaphor for something else, like mercy, or divine favor, then it's a different discussion.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...