Does love require acceptance?

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes.
God can, and so must we learn to love as God loves.

It seems to me like many Church members are fulfilling prophecy:

2 Nephi 28:8 And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.

I disagree, strongly, that God rejects anyone.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

When we use that argument, remember that Christ went to the sinners.  He came to the sinners and invited them to repent.

In other words he went into their world.
He has also been very clear that sinners cannot be welcomed into his kingdom without repentance.

So when we seek to build Christ's kingdom upon the earth which pattern are we following?
We are going into their world to invite them to repent.  But we are in no way required to accept them into Christ's kingdom without repentance.

I guess that is not very accepting.  Perhaps they may not feel loved by Christ.
Why should the Church be any different?  Why should we welcome those in sin into the Church if they do not repent?
Christ would have sat in their homes, taught them, loved them, encouraged them to go and sin no more.  But he would never have invited them into HIS home/kingdom without repentance.

God both accepts us as we are but requires us to change because that is the only way we can truly accept who he is and live with him again.  He won't alter us without our permission or desire so that we are capable of receiving all he is able to give us nor will he give us that which we are not capable of receiving, not because he is controlling or sees us as children, but because it would harm us to get something we weren't ready for, possibly crippling us or even destroying us.  

It is love that creates the need for us to repent and change.

[JLHPROF]

Just now, rockpond said:

I agree with this.  My statement was within the context we were discussing.  Pulling it out of context and making it a new thread subject somewhat alters what I originally meant.

I did not mean to take you out of context.  But both you and Teancum expressed similar thoughts that love required acceptance.
I do not find that to be scriptural or doctrinally correct.  So I though further discussion on the general principle would be beneficial.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It seems to me like many Church members are fulfilling prophecy:

2 Nephi 28:8 And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.

I'm neither suggesting nor advocating for such.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

God both accepts us as we are but requires us to change because that is the only way we can truly accept who he is and live with him again.  He won't alter us without our permission or desire so that we are capable of receiving all he is able to give us nor will he give us that which we are not capable of receiving, not because he is controlling or sees us as children, but because it would harm us to get something we weren't ready for, possibly crippling us or even destroying us.  

It is love that creates the need for us to repent and change.

And yet here we have a thread suggesting we ought to be able to reject and still love.  THat's just not how it works. 

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

I did not mean to take you out of context.  But both you and Teancum expressed similar thoughts that love required acceptance.
I do not find that to be scriptural or doctrinally correct.  So I though further discussion on the general principle would be beneficial.

I support you in creating the new thread, I just wanted to clarify that my statement was meant in a specific context.

[JLHPROF]

Just now, rockpond said:

I disagree, strongly, that God rejects anyone.

You are welcome to that belief, but it is not scriptural.

 

Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Luke 19:45 And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought;
Matthew 21:12 ¶And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

Matthew 5:13 ¶Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.

D&C 42:21 Thou shalt not lie; he that lieth and will not repent shall be cast out.
D&C 42:24 Thou shalt not commit adultery; and he that committeth adultery, and repenteth not, shall be cast out.
D&C 42:28 Thou knowest my laws concerning these things are given in my scriptures; he that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out.

D&C 41:5 He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, and shall be cast out from among you;

D&C 29:36 And it came to pass that Adam, being tempted of the devil—for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency;
37 And they were thrust down, and thus came the devil and his angels;

 

Sounds like an awful lot of rejection to me when people refuse to follow God.

[Mystery Meat]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

He frequently eschewed them for their hypocrisy in how they treated others Mark 7:

The Pharisees seemed to want to see separation and those who were unclean not with those that were clean in their view.

With all due respect to you, this example doesn't support what you said though. Maybe we are talking about two different things. Christ (and his disciples) were willing to interact with anyone and everyone in order to call them to repentance. They needed to repent to be acceptable to Him in His kingdom. The Pharisees wanted no repentance and no forgiveness for these types. They didn't want to interact with the unclean in order to help them repent, to help them change, or to help them conform to the gospel. They were fine letting them remain unclean. No where in this example does it show that "One big issue he had with them is that if they disagreed they did not accept." This has nothing to do with disagreement and being able to accept those they disagreed with (again, that feels like presentism and imposing modern values), this is about condemning the sinner while not reaching out to them in love in order to effectuate change. To the extent that these unclean individuals were sinners (and they were under Jewish law), Christ did not accept their uncleanliness. But he (and his disciples) were willing to interact with them in order to call them to repentance, to help them change, and bring their sinful natures (adultery, fornication, theft, active homosexuality, etc.) into conformity with His Gospel. 

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

And yet here we have a thread suggesting we ought to be able to reject and still love.  THat's just not how it works. 

That's what God has done.

[Mystery Meat]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I disagree, strongly, that God rejects anyone.

What about Lucifer and those who followed him? God cast them out of His presence. What about those who cast to outer darkness or who will not be allowed into the highest degree of glory? They are rejected and because of their actions they will not be accepted in His presence.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Sounds like an awful lot of rejection to me when people refuse to follow God.

I don't see the consequences of sin as equivalent to God rejecting us.

[Mystery Meat]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't see the consequences of sin as equivalent to God rejecting us.

I think this is just a battle of semantics then.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

What about Lucifer and those who followed him? God cast them out of His presence. What about those who cast to outer darkness or who will not be allowed into the highest degree of glory? They are rejected and because of their actions they will not be accepted in His presence.

God didn't reject them, they rejected Him.  They chose to not take part in His plan.  I don't see that as rejection.

Similarly, anyone going to outer darkness does so of their own accord, not because God rejects them and sends them there.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

I think this is just a battle of semantics then.

I agree... think this entire discussion boils down to one's interpretation of acceptance and love.

[Eek!]

6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

JST has an interesting rendering of the "judge not" scripture;

I'm not sure what to make of the JST version of Matthew 7:2:  "Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged, but judge righteous judgement."  That just about flips the meaning from the original, because when has someone passing judgement ever thought that their judgement was unrighteous?   Imo the original wording is more consistent with the rest of the Sermon on the Mount, and with Jesus' other teachings.  Saying "judge righteously" would not have been saying anything remarkable, whereas the rest of the Sermon on the Mount is quite remarkable.  

6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Christ also commanded His followers to be "as wise as serpents, and as harmless as doves" (Matthew 10:16).

I get that one mixed up... most of the time I'm wise as doves, and harmless as serpents...

I think one of the implications of this verse is, if there is any doubt, it's better to err on the side of harmlessness.   

Stan says he misses you.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Eek!

[stemelbow]

43 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

With all due respect to you, this example doesn't support what you said though. Maybe we are talking about two different things. Christ (and his disciples) were willing to interact with anyone and everyone in order to call them to repentance. They needed to repent to be acceptable to Him in His kingdom. The Pharisees wanted no repentance and no forgiveness for these types. They didn't want to interact with the unclean in order to help them repent, to help them change, or to help them conform to the gospel. They were fine letting them remain unclean. No where in this example does it show that "One big issue he had with them is that if they disagreed they did not accept." This has nothing to do with disagreement and being able to accept those they disagreed with (again, that feels like presentism and imposing modern values), this is about condemning the sinner while not reaching out to them in love in order to effectuate change. To the extent that these unclean individuals were sinners (and they were under Jewish law), Christ did not accept their uncleanliness. But he (and his disciples) were willing to interact with them in order to call them to repentance, to help them change, and bring their sinful natures (adultery, fornication, theft, active homosexuality, etc.) into conformity with His Gospel. 

I don't know about your view of the Pharisees.  It seems clear, they simply didn't want to accept some others.  As to whether they wanted people to repent or not, your guess is as good as mine.  Who knows? 

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

On two separate threads recently the following claims have been made:

So, I think this topic is very worthy of discussion, since I don't believe these definitions of love are scriptural or correct.
My opinion is that Love does not require acceptance of all aspects of the thing you love.

Thoughts?

I do want to share some comments and perhaps soften my other comments that prompted in part this thread.  But I don't have time now.  I do think it is a with while topic.

 

 

[CV75]

41 minutes ago, Eek! said:

I'm not sure what to make of the JST version of Matthew 7:2:  "Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged, but judge righteous judgement."  That just about flips the meaning from the original, because when has someone passing judgement ever thought that their judgement was unrighteous?   Imo the original wording is more consistent with the rest of the Sermon on the Mount, and with Jesus' other teachings.  Saying "judge righteously" would not have been saying anything remarkable, whereas the rest of the Sermon on the Mount is quite remarkable. 

But it is consistent with John 7:24, "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment."

[Eek!]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Christ loves us all unconditionally.
Christ died so that our sins can be paid for if we repent.
Christ welcomes all that are willing to give up their sins into his kingdom.
Christ does not accept those into his kingdom who want to keep their sins.
To some that feels like rejection, but it does not remove the love he has for us.

I have no problem with this list.  I submit as possible additions:

Christ's work and glory are to bring to pass the immortality [salvation] and eternal life [exaltation] of man, which includes all of us.  He will not fail.

We are called to become like Him, and that's a very tall order, which is why the path is called Eternal Progression.  

Some of us are Slow Learners, and choose to learn things the hard way, like the Prodigal Son.  

[Eek!]

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But it is consistent with John 7:24, "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment."

 

Thank you, I was unaware of that verse.  It seems to equate "righteous judgement" with "judging not according to the appearance", which rings true to me.

"The eyes are blind.  One only sees clearly with the heart" - Antoine de Saint Exupery 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

It's not about repenting of each sin.  It's about being willing to change and become like God.
The atonement covers our sins if we are willing to work on giving them up even if we can never be perfect at it.  The atonement doesn't cover those sins we refuse to give up.

What is so hard to understand?
Christ loves us all unconditionally.
Christ died so that our sins can be paid for if we repent.
Christ welcomes all that are willing to give up their sins into his kingdom.
Christ does not accept those into his kingdom who want to keep their sins.
To some that feels like rejection, but it does not remove the love he has for us.


 

I love you but don't welcome you into my home. I love you but live on the street.  I love you but go burn in Hell.......

[JLHPROF]

24 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I love you but don't welcome you into my home. I love you but live on the street.  I love you but go burn in Hell.......

I love you but your behavior is not acceptable.

When someone violates acceptable behavior in our society they are no longer allowed to be part of society.  They are incarcerated, being cast out of society until they repent/reform.  Doesn't stop them from being loved.
Why would God's society and its rules be any different?

[JLHPROF]

37 minutes ago, Eek! said:

I have no problem with this list.  I submit as possible additions:

Christ's work and glory are to bring to pass the immortality [salvation] and eternal life [exaltation] of man, which includes all of us.  He will not fail.

We are called to become like Him, and that's a very tall order, which is why the path is called Eternal Progression.  

Some of us are Slow Learners, and choose to learn things the hard way, like the Prodigal Son.  

Rep point.
Totally agree with all this.
You are just missing one point - D&C 76: 112 And they shall be servants of the Most High; but where God and Christ dwell they cannot come, worlds without end.

But I completely agree that progression will never end, and even those who are barred from God's presence may eventually become exalted in some future eternity.

[strappinglad]

Thinking out loud, if I apply to Harvard and receive a letter stating that my application was not accepted, did I reject Harvard or did Harvard reject me? Did the Dean express love for me even while not accepting me?

Genesis 4:6 has something about acceptance in it.

Edited September 9, 2016 by strappinglad

[Eek!]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Rep point.
Totally agree with all this.
You are just missing one point - D&C 76: 112 And they shall be servants of the Most High; but where God and Christ dwell they cannot come, worlds without end.

But I completely agree that progression will never end, and even those who are barred from God's presence may eventually become exalted in some future eternity.

This is kinda funny.... it seems like I am almost as fundamentalist as you, and you are almost as liberal as me.  I'm sitting here grinning from ear to ear at how much common ground we have.  

My reply to D&C 76:112 is this:  Once a person has progressed to the point where they are no longer a Telestial being, they are no longer subject to the barriers that Telestial beings are.  It is my opinion that, at some point, the lower kingdoms will become empty, their inhabitants having outgrown them, and our Father not being a bearer of grudges.