Do We Believve God's Love Is Conditional Or Unconditional?

[RDC]

different levels means conditional

Then it's conditional. I was trying to find a nice way of combining the two thoughts that I thought were a difference of opinion in definition. Obviously not. When it comes down to it, I believe the scriptures and side with Elder Nelson. It's conditional.

Others can say that He loves them, and He does, but not as much as when they are obedient to Him.

[fatherofone]

Then it's conditional. I was trying to find a nice way of combining the two thoughts that I thought were a difference of opinion in definition. Obviously not. When it comes down to it, I believe the scriptures and side with Elder Nelson. It's conditional.

Others can say that He loves them, and He does, but not as much as when they are obedient to Him.

which means not as merciful and loving as you guys make him out to be

[RDC]

which means not as merciful and loving as you guys make him out to be

Who is "you guys"?

[Ihearya]

The mortal perspective is hardly the one that defines love. I have a son who passed away after years of physical suffering due to his many handicaps. Yet there is no doubt that God loved him. What I learned is that when one leaves this limited field of understanding, what seemed such awful suffering in this life seem as a passing dream, leaving no scar or pain behind...this is my own personal "revelation" as I tried to reconcile God's love with the suffering of an innocent child. Truly, eternity is not so limited.

Would you then say Elder Nelson was saying that innocent people who suffer are being unloved by God for some reason?

First, sorry for your loss. "Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God." I think is the best way to answer your question. You cannot compare those who suffer as a result of punishments from God and those who suffer as a result of the conditions imposed upon us in mortality (sickness, frail bodies, disease, handicaps, etc.) When a perfectly good person has a heart attack and dies, it doesn't mean he was punished with death.

You need to disassociate God's punishments from natural events of mortality, which includes imperfect bodies, accidents, sickness and premature death.

[Ihearya]

More philosophies of men, mingled... <sigh>

He wasn't speaking of God's love or hate, was He? Was Christ teaching a lesson here? What was the point? I think you're grasping. You apparently don't understand divine love. You can argue from here 'til judgement day, and it won't help. God is Love.

HiJolly

OK. "Matt 25:41-46

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: "

[Ihearya]

The reward, while indeed having a connection to love, is not given nor taken away based on any fluctuation of that love. God's love is eternal and unchanging.

HiJolly

Why do you think that is logical?

HiJolly

You just ask questions. Care to comment instead? Thanks.

[HiJolly]

OK. "Matt 25:41-46

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: "

Cursed does not mean unloved, Ihearya. There. I commented.

HiJolly

[SquarePeg48]

First, sorry for your loss. "Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God." I think is the best way to answer your question. You cannot compare those who suffer as a result of punishments from God and those who suffer as a result of the conditions imposed upon us in mortality (sickness, frail bodies, disease, handicaps, etc.) When a perfectly good person has a heart attack and dies, it doesn't mean he was punished with death.

You need to disassociate God's punishments from natural events of mortality, which includes imperfect bodies, accidents, sickness and premature death.

Precisely! Suffering does not equal not being loved. Therefore, if the wicked suffer, it is part of the results of mortality, not the results of God failing to love them, or ceasing to love them! THat was exactly the point I was trying to make! Physical ailments and suffering in life are not connected to God's love/punishments except insofar as they open us and humble us to feel that love.

[Flyonthewall]

When upon life's billows you are tempest tossed,

When you are discouraged thinking all is lost,

Count your many blessing, name them one by one,

And it will surprise you what the Lord has done.

I have gone through varying stages of discontent with my percieved lack of blessings. But when I step back from what I don't have, and look at what I do have, I can see that the Lord has not left me out in the cold. A lot of blessings go unnoticed or are taken for granted because they may seem small, or not of divine origin, like a roof over my head, my health, the love of my wife & kids, etc.

It's a littel like what God said on Evan Almighty-

God: Let me ask you something. If someone prays for patience, you think God gives them patience? Or does he give them the opportunity to be patient? If he prayed for courage, does God give him courage, or does he give him opportunities to be courageous? If someone prayed for the family to be closer, do you think God zaps them with warm fuzzy feelings, or does he give them opportunities to love each other?

Whatever grief, anguish, agony or sorrow we go through in this life, only prepares us for the opposite level or higher, of joy in this or the next life.

If you have gone through some bad times in your life, how will you learn from it? Will you get angry and rebel and when the good times come, be tainted by bitterness? or will you weather the bad keeping hope and faith alive so that the good times will be all the sweeter?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Perhaps the issue is not in God's unconditional love for us as much as it is our conditional love for Him.

[Hoops22]

Forgive me, but this sounds like the "saved by grace" argument but with different terms.

Come on, you can't have it both ways. Either it's yes or no.

I said nothing about Grace and did not imply it. I am saying that God loves us, what is conditional is whether or not we love him. Have you loved someone and they did not reciprocate it? Have you ever loved someone and they did reciprocate? I seem to recall Jesus saying, "If ye Love me, Keep my commandments" The question is not about God but about us. We can't do much to change the actions of others, what we can do is concern ourselves with what we ourselves feel and think.

Didn't say you did. But it is the same old construction. It goes something like this:

We are saved by grace.

But only after we do certain things.

Then that's not grace.

Well we can't do all these things so yes it is.

So what are the things we can't do.

It depends on your level of knowledge.

Huh?

Here it is for this subject.

God loves us unconditionally.

Only if we first love him.

Then that's a condition.

Yes, but... you get the idea.

You are superimposing your (human) idea of love and unconditional. I find God to be much larger than that. But the point remains, as does the question - Does God love unconditionally? Nothing about us loving him first, or better, or whatever. It demands a "yes" or "no".

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

How do you define the words, love, conditional and unconditional? My initial reaction is to say we believe God's love for us is unconditional; that is, He loves us as His children no matter what. His blessings and gifts to us, however, seem to be conditional on many things, but willingness to be obedient would be the basic requirement.

unconditional

[mbh26]

We say God's love is unconditional in order to try to be more respectful to God, but in practice we act as if God's love is conditional in order to put pressure on people and keep them in line.

[mocnarf]

Is God's love for the 1/3 of his Children that He cast out the same kind of Love He has for His other Children?

Frankly, I am glad my mortal father does exhibit his love in the same draconian way God does.

[Duncan]

Hoops22

"Only"

I would eliminate that word. God loves us, the thing is as Jesus says in John, "If ye love me" then do what I ask you to. Also we are to abide in his love. That means to dwell or make space for his love but we have, or hopefully should, recognize his love and love him back. When we love someone we do things for them and with them.

[Lamanite]

We say God's love is unconditional in order to try to be more respectful to God, but in practice we act as if God's love is conditional in order to put pressure on people and keep them in line.

HA HA HA LMAO!!!

It's funny cuz it's true!

[LifeOnaPlate]

Is God's love for the 1/3 of his Children that He cast out the same kind of Love He has for His other Children?

Frankly, I am glad my mortal father does exhibit his love in the same draconian way God does.

This explains a lot. I've been told by a little blue bird that many folks project their view of their parents onto God.

[sean0scott]

His love is unconditional, his blessings are irrevocably decreed to be conditional.

[Paul Ray]

Didn't say you did. But it is the same old construction. It goes something like this:

We are saved by grace.

But only after we do certain things.

Then that's not grace.

Well we can't do all these things so yes it is.

So what are the things we can't do.

It depends on your level of knowledge.

Huh?

Here it is for this subject.

God loves us unconditionally.

Only if we first love him.

Then that's a condition.

Yes, but... you get the idea.

You are superimposing your (human) idea of love and unconditional. I find God to be much larger than that. But the point remains, as does the question - Does God love unconditionally? Nothing about us loving him first, or better, or whatever. It demands a "yes" or "no".

Hoops,

From your comments, I can't tell what you think and what you are saying other people think.

What is your answer?

I say God's love is unconditional but not everybody knows that and those who don't know that and don't feel God's love are pretty much living without God's love or as if God does not love them... even though he really does... because they do not know that he does love them.

And it's not enough for you or I to tell other people that God really does love them.

If people don't know that God really loves them, then how will they know he really does?

God is love, and those who know God know that. Those who don't, don't.

[Kenngo1969]

I did read it. I read it at least twenty times after it came out in 2003. I have subsequently read it many times. I still think he's wrong.

OK, when youâ??re called as an apostle, you can begin your first General Conference address, â??Brothers and Sisters, Iâ??d like to say that I was deeply humbled by this call, but the truth is, I donâ??t have any idea why it took the Lord so long to issue it, because Iâ??ve been chomping at the bit to debunk something Elder Russell M. Nelson wrote in the February 2003 Ensign â?¦ .â?

Or, if it bugs you so much that youâ??d rather not wait until then, you can always write a letter to him at Church Headquarters. (That approach isnâ??t likely to meet with much, if any, success, however).

And thereâ??s a big difference between, â??Iâ??ve read it many times and I still think heâ??s wrong,â? versus â??Iâ??ve read it, fasted over it, pondered it, and prayed about it, and the Spirit has manifested to me that heâ??s wrong.â?

Does the Church require that I agree with him?

Not unless the Church of Jesus Christ has installed a mind control device in your brain that the rest of us donâ??t know about. You have as much moral agency and freedom of conscience as anybody.

Do you think Elder Nelson misinterprets or otherwise misuses the scriptures he uses to support what he writes? Have you made those scriptures a matter of study and, perhaps, fasting and prayer? Can you find anything in the writings or addresses of current prophets and/or apostles that seems to contradict Elder Nelson?

Publication of the Ensign is overseen by quite a number of the Brethren. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve are listed in its staff box. Iâ??m unsure what day-to-day oversight these Brethren exercise over the magazineâ??s content; if other aspects of Church operation are any indication, at least one apostleâ??or perhaps a small committee of themâ??probably monitors and approves the magazineâ??s content, taking any questions that might arise about how to proceed to the full Quorum of the Twelve and/or to the First Presidency. (Can anyone more â??in-the-knowâ? enlighten us as to what roles the First Presidency and [member(s) of] the Quorum of the Twelve play in monitoring and approving Church magazine content?)

In any event, a General Authority is listed as the magazineâ??s editor, and three more are listed as advisers. Was the article published merely because none of these Brethren are apostles, so Elder Nelson â??outranksâ? them? Do you think the publication of Elder Nelsonâ??s article came about as a result of his winning some sort of a â??power struggleâ? among the Brethren (which would include the First Presidency)?

How accountable do you think the magazineâ??s rank-and-file staff members are to these Brethren? Do you think that they seek for, and exercise, the gifts of the Spirit in their work? If not, why not? If so, do you think their decision to publish Elder Nelsonâ??s article was an instance in which they failed to seek, or to respond to, the Spirit? How, exactly, do you think an article that allegedly errs so egregiously in doctrine came to be published? And if Elder Nelson seemingly was somehow able to get something so â??wrongâ? published, how do we know what, if any, other content we can trust in Church magazines?

And if you think Elder Nelson is wrong, do you espouse an â??eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we dieâ? approach to life? (I donâ??t think you do espouse such an approach, but Iâ??d like to hear it from you.) If you donâ??t espouse such an approach to life, why not?

Iâ??ve alluded to a statement of Dr. Petersonâ??s on the Board a number of times, and it bears repeating now. He said, paraphrasing, that too many 20th- and 21st-century Christians have lost their awe and respect for the Divine, coming to think of God, instead, as everyoneâ??s ever-loving, ever-supportive, nonjudgmental Pal. As my Friend, I believe God tells me what I need to hear (as true friends do)â??if not always what I want to hear.

[Kenngo1969]

We say God's love is unconditional in order to try to be more respectful to God, but in practice we act as if God's love is conditional in order to put pressure on people and keep them in line.

Mote, meet beam? God's not nearly as judgmental of His Children as you are in making that comment!

[Ihearya]

Joseph P. Wirthlin, October 1999General Conference:

Anthony D. Perkins of the 70- October 2006 General Conference:

Neal A. Maxwell, October 2002 General COnference:

And that's just the tip of the iceberg of declarations by God's apostles and prophets of the love God has for us without condition.

Russell M. Nelson, â??Divine Love,â? Ensign, Feb 2003, 20

"While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional."

Now what?

[Changeling]

HiJolly, you certainly have an uplifting worldview. Thanks for describing it.

On the one hand it almost looks like God is some sort of divine legalistic IRS agent who will let us debtors off the hook if we invoke the right loophole (the atonement - the whole concept of which seems insane to me). I would prefer to see God as the father of the prodigal son, and each of us is that prodigal son. But I don't have a "testimony" of this - it's just a wishful theory with me.

Regarding the question of whether God's love is conditional or unconditional, I don't know - I simply don't know him well enough to make that call. But I hope HiJolly is right on this one.

[mbh26]

Mote, meet beam? God's not nearly as judgmental of His Children as you are in making that comment!

Whose eye am I trying to pull a mote out of? I was using Occam's razor. Many times the simplest explanation is the right one. To me these are not revealed doctrines hence the contradiction. They're just truisms that have evolved in church culture over time for the purposes I stated above. That's why the reasoning between the two statements does not add up.

[HiJolly]

HiJolly, you certainly have an uplifting worldview. Thanks for describing it.

On the one hand it almost looks like God is some sort of divine legalistic IRS agent who will let us debtors off the hook if we invoke the right loophole (the atonement - the whole concept of which seems insane to me). I would prefer to see God as the father of the prodigal son, and each of us is that prodigal son. But I don't have a "testimony" of this - it's just a wishful theory with me.

Regarding the question of whether God's love is conditional or unconditional, I don't know - I simply don't know him well enough to make that call. But I hope HiJolly is right on this one.

Actually, Changeling, this whole thread is problematic for me. It's not the first time I have had issues with a General Conference address by an apostle or prophet, and I'm not just referring to the Adam-God talks by Brigham Young (say, in April 1852 General Conference (JD 1:50-51)).

The only reason I'm commenting here and thus risk being compared to Nehor (as per Elder Nelson's talk prev. referenced) is that this is a topic where I have received direct, personal revelation from God.

I am actually in agreement with Elder Nelson for the most part, looking at his comments from the psychological and institutional viewpoint. I just regret that many look to his comments as a personal comment, rather than institutional. Elder Nelson and everyone else speaking in Conference CANNOT ignore the responsibility they have to teach and expound from that POV. It is their stewardship.

The outer Church and the inner, the Church and the Gospel, these must be considered when we contemplate these things. IMO. In the past, GA's have said in conference that the Church and the Gospel are two different things. It's been a long time since then, as best as I know, and I doubt it will be repeated anytime soon, due to the weakness of the Church members. Much is done by necessity to accommodate that weakness.

On a positive note, the outer Church is nonetheless TRUE. A beautiful blessing to the peoples of the world, if we can only see it for what it is.

HiJolly