Is God's love conditional or unconditional?

[Thinking]

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

"You are constantly mindful of the Saviorâ??s atonement and rejoice in His unconditional love." (Russell M. Nelson)

[thesometimesaint]

Thinking:

Context is everything.

[Scottie]

Interesting talk.

While the specific word "uncondintional" may not be found in the scriptures, that is not the only way to reference the idea of unconditional love.

I'm certainly no scriptorian, but I seem to remember phrases such as "love without end", and "love which knows no bounds" or something like that.

The bottom line, if I were to believe in God, I wholeheartedly disagree with Elder Nelson.

Thinking:

Context is everything.

Did you even read the article??? The entire article is ABOUT how God's love is conditional. This was NOT taken out of context.

[Jeff K.]

The Atonement was for all. The ransom was unconditional. The rest is up to us, which makes the results conditional, but the offering "unconditional". And the offering is in love.

Did you even read the article??? The entire article is ABOUT how God's love is conditional. This was NOT taken out of context.

See above

[Thinking]

Context is everything.

So is an explanation of why you think something is taken out of context. You can't just dismiss an apparent contradiction by claming "context is everything" but not explain why.

[thesometimesaint]

Scottie:

Sure did. I still maintain context is everything.

[Scottie]

So is an explanation of why you think something is taken out of context. You can't just dismiss an apparent contradiction by claming "context is everything" but not explain why.

But Thinking, don't you know that if a critic posts something, it is automatically assumed to be taken out of context? It's just what we do.

[Thinking]

I still maintain context is everything.

Please help me understand how I misunderstood the context.

[mercyngrace]

On the other hand, many verses affirm that the higher levels of love the Father and the Son feel for each of usâ??and certain divine blessings stemming from that loveâ??are conditional.

The higher levels of love encompass trust, admiration, mutual respect, and unity and they are indeed conditional. If you are in a great marriage, you recognize that one of the beauties of that relationship is that you are of one mind and heart. This love is not comparable to the paternalistic love you feel for a child who has limited scope and vision and who acts selfishly. The limitations are because of your child's incapacity and immaturity. As parents we love our children infinitely but we also recognize that the love, in some cases, does not allow for trust and respect because of the decisions our children have made.

Certainly the blessings are also conditional. You don't let your child have the car keys if you've caught him drinking and driving.

[MDalby]

Are the following two statements a contradiction? Which one is true?

"Out of sight, out of mind."

"Absence makes the heart grow fonder."

[LifeOnaPlate]

Elder Nelson is essentially saying God's love doesn't mean He'll save everyone no matter what they want or do. Love is a reciprocal relationship. A true relationship of love involves the efforts and desires of two or more people.

[mercyngrace]

Are the following two statements a contradiction? Which one is true?

"Out of sight, out of mind."

"Absence makes the heart grow fonder."

I thought it was "Absence makes the heart go wander." which would make it synonymous with "Out of sight, out of mind."

[Bernard Gui]

Please help me understand how I misunderstood the context.

The context includes the "if/then" and other scriptures

that support his statement. Without reference to

those, your quote cannot be understood as he

meant it and therefore is out of context.

Bernard

[CV75]

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

"You are constantly mindful of the Saviorâ??s atonement and rejoice in His unconditional love." (Russell M. Nelson)

In the first article, Elder Nelson says, â??â?¦the higher levels of love the Father and the Son feel for each of usâ??and certain divine blessings stemming from that loveâ??are conditional.â?

I take this to mean that this higher level of Divine love is impossible to exist, share or express without the â??onenessâ? Christ wants us to partake of as joint heirs with Him. Without this oneness, the parties cannot mutually perceive, receive, reflect and otherwise share this highest form of perfect love. We can only attain this oneness under certain conditions. I cannot be truly, fully, divinely loved if I am not willing to receive or participate in that love by receiving all that the Father hath, and comprehending it, through Christ. The Father can only love us as much as we are willing to see it, or to see as we are seen.

[Deborah]

Divine love is both conditional and unconditional.

Let's look at it from an earthly parent. Hopefully, we love our children unconditionally, no matter what they do, and want the best for them. However, if they break a rule, we have no choice put to impose a penalty or form of discipline. Thus the love which is uncondiitonal also requires for the benefit of our children conditions on their behavior. We continue to love them but may separate them from our presence by sending them to their room.

That is why I have no problem with what E. Nelson said in either case. The Savior gave his life for us unconditionally, so that all might be saved from the first death, or death of the physical body. But he also put conditions on returning to his presence, ie baptism, obedience to commandments, etc.

[Thinking]

However, if they break a rule, we have no choice put to impose a penalty or form of discipline.

We can only attain this oneness under certain conditions.

The context includes the "if/then" and other scriptures

that support his statement.

As parents we love our children infinitely but we also recognize that the love, in some cases, does not allow for trust and respect because of the decisions our children have made.

When your child makes a poor decision do you love him/her less? Of course you may not trust your child as much but love him/her less?

Elder Nelson is essentially saying God's love doesn't mean He'll save everyone no matter what they want or do. Love is a reciprocal relationship. A true relationship of love involves the efforts and desires of two or more people.

I disagree. Can parents love a child who does not love them back?

Perhaps Elder Nelson should have said, "Because of His unconditional love, the Lord must discipline us so we can grow spiritually."

Maybe I should write his talk next time.

[bluebell]

I disagree. Can parents love a child who does not love them back?

Yes, but not with the type of love that stems from a close mutual loving relationship. I've seen this with my own mother, her parents and her brothers. My grandparents love all their kids and would do anything to help any one of them-but my mother is the one that nurses them when they are sick, buys groceries for them when they can't, goes over just to chat, travels with them on trips while her brothers might call once a week.

Yes, my grandparents love all their kids, but the type of love is different depending on the type of relationship they have with each of them.

[Deborah]

When your child makes a poor decision do you love him/her less? Of course you may not trust your child as much but love him/her less?

Did you even read what I wrote? Go back and read it again and see the part of unconditional love no matter what they do. That doesn't preclude requiring them to do what is right however.

[CV75]

When your child makes a poor decision do you love him/her less?

In response to: "We can only attain this oneness under certain conditions," you wrote: "When your child makes a poor decision do you love him/her less?"

As adult children of an adult God, we are accountable for how we respond to His perfect love. His love becomes conditional when we do: when we refuse to become one with Him and have the gall to demand a demonstration of His love and allegiance that we are not willing to comprehend, receive or reciprocate in accordance with eternal law on the subject. When we are not one with God, we cannot understand how He loves us, and He cannot force or impose that understanding upon us, and His love becomes something less to us. Hence His love is conditional on our willingness to do our part in relation to all He has done for us.

The "poor decision" in our case is to refuse Him and His perfect love, yet insist or demand that He show us a quality of love far greater than that which we are willing to acknowledge and accept. How codependent can you get!

Love entails many actions, feelings, attitudes and states of being that culminate in oneness, joy, charity, perfection, etc. Any of these are compromised through disobedience amongst the parties involved, whether we are earthly or heavenly parents, so it is truly a conditional matter.

[Scottie]

Divine love is both conditional and unconditional.

Let's look at it from an earthly parent. Hopefully, we love our children unconditionally, no matter what they do, and want the best for them. However, if they break a rule, we have no choice put to impose a penalty or form of discipline. Thus the love which is uncondiitonal also requires for the benefit of our children conditions on their behavior. We continue to love them but may separate them from our presence by sending them to their room.

That is why I have no problem with what E. Nelson said in either case. The Savior gave his life for us unconditionally, so that all might be saved from the first death, or death of the physical body. But he also put conditions on returning to his presence, ie baptism, obedience to commandments, etc.

The problem here is that we are not God. We are imperfect. God is not. He has the ability to love each of us unconditionally. That is a human weakness, not a Godly weakness.

Also, the contrast is not the same. You seem to think the paralell between us and God is the same as a grown child and a parent. I suggest that our level of maturity and understanding would be closer to a toddler and a parent. I don't know of a parent in the world that loves their toddler any less, even when the toddler says "I HATE YOU!!" and throws a temper tantrum.

[CV75]

Can parents love a child who does not love them back?

Yes, to the degree the child's "not loving" is not truly willful and caused by developmental or other issues. This is because many things, including the joy of reciprocation and unity, is lost through willful rebellion against a parent. At some point that lack of love can turn to hate, and become destructive, contentious and damaging to the parent or other children. at such a point, they need to set up functioning boundaries that are consistent with healthy relationships. The war in heaven shows how this can play out on a cosmic scale.

[CV75]

"You are constantly mindful of the Saviorâ??s atonement and rejoice in His unconditional love." (Russell M. Nelson)

This unconditional love is different from the conditional love described in the other article in that Christ took upon Himself all the sins of all God's children regardless of how much or how little they love Him, and prepared the way for all God's children to join Him if they so choose. How much love does it take to guarantee every soul a resurrection? Beyond our comprehension. How much love does it take to guarantee every soul their exaltation, on the condition they choose it? Probably a bit more. How much love does it take to make it conditional, so as not to destroy those children who insist on approaching you in their disobedience, and demanding you pour out all your love (glory), by actually not pouring out this love (the kind described in "oneness") that would only destroy them? Quite a bit more.

[CV75]

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

"You are constantly mindful of the Saviorâ??s atonement and rejoice in His unconditional love."

A parent loves a child, and demonstrates that love, in different ways throughout its development, making the type of love expressed conditional.

A parent loves an adult child, and demonstrates that love, in different ways throughout the development of the relationship, also making the type of love conditional.

Parents and adult children can love each other as peers in certain aspects of life (priesthood, family legacies, business, etc.), depending on the maturation of the relationship, so this is conditional also.

In the same way, God's love can take on many successively advanced forms depending on our willingness to be one with Him and participate in all that He does.

[Saint Sinner]

This is a letter that Paul Toscano wrote to Russell Nelson and can be found in his essay collection in the book The Sacrament of Doubt.

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 Godâ??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 articleâ??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 Godâ??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 Godâ??s love. You make "happiness" the end and divine love means in Godâ??s plan of salvation, contrary to the teachings found in the writings of the apostles Paul and John.

You identify the doctrine of Godâ??s unconditional love as a false teaching promulgated by the Book of Mormon apostate Nehor when that book makes it clear Nehorâ?? s heresy was the doctrines of priestcraft and predestination (Alma 1:2-16). You see Godâ??s salvation as a wage rather than a gift, contrary to Paulâ??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 Godâ??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 articleâ??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 Godâ??s benevolence--that is, his desire for our holiness, happiness, and ultimate spiritual maturation and eternal well-being. Clearly, in this sense, Godâ??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 Godâ??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 Christâ??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 Godâ??s love be infinite if it is bounded or limited by conditions? How can Godâ??s love be enduring if it cannot endure sin or disobedience? How can it be universal if it excludes those you donâ??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 Godâ??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. Godâ??s rewards and punishments flow from Godâ??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 Godâ??s love is conditional are all about Godâ??s taking pleasure in us. Obviously, he doesnâ??t if we are deliberately doing our worst, and obviously he does when we are doing our best. But this aspect of Godâ??s love is only part of Godâ??s unconditional, enduring benevolence for his creations, which he desires to save at all costs to himself. You fail to distinguish Godâ??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 Balaamâ??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 Paulâ??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 Godâ??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 Godâ??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 Godâ??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 Godâ??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 Godâ??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 Godâ??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? Isnâ??t it far more probable that Godâ??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 Godâ??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 Godâ??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

I whole-heartedly agree with Toscano.

Saint Sinner

[LeSellers]

This is a letter that Paul Toscano wrote to Russell Nelson and can be found in his essay collection in the book The Sacrament of Doubt.

I whole-heartedly agree with Toscano.

Now, there's a surprise. It's hard to imagine Saint Sinner disagreeing with a prophet and taking the opposite side, isn't it?

Lehi