Elder D. Todd Chrostofferson: "unconditional love"

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Yes that could be. In a sense I think God's love for us can be called unconditional in the sense that no matter what we do, good or bad, He will always feel love for us; but conditional in the sense that even though He will always love us He can not excuse unrepentant sin or give a person eternal life if they are not worthy. 

I see it as the difference between what is felt and how it is expressed.  One needs to modify the expression of love to the unique requirements of the individual.  Using the words "I love you" would not be truly loving if you knew they meant nothing to the person (perhaps they don't know English), in those situations you are saying it for yourself.  True love means being there fulfilling the needs of the loved one, whether it is expressed by providing freedom or restriction depending on their needs and desires.  True love is conditional because it is a reaction to the person and not just some generic, good will towards all men kind of feeling...something that is not a bad thing, but hardly the intimate, known and loved down to the core of our being, down to the strands of our DNA so to speak, infinite love that God has for us.

[stemelbow]

I believe it was Elder Rendlund who also said God's love for us is constant.  Which to me would suggest it is not conditioned.  I prefer to think of God loving us people as unconditional.  this conditional business is weird to me. 

[Gray]

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Which is why unconditional love is true in a sense but sinners can and do use the term to justify their sins which is why he cautioned us about using it. It causes problems in the same way "God is love" does. While true some pervert it into "love is God".

Heaven forbid that people feel secure that God will always love them!

Edited October 3, 2016 by Gray

[Jeanne]

Well..first of all..I am a sinner.  By that I mean I make mistakes.  They are not super huge..and I always try to do better and learn as I go..as a woman, as a daughter of God and as a non member of the LDS church.  Now...Bluebell and Calm  ..may not be perfect..simply because none of us are.  But I know that they adhere to the gospel in the church and accordingly to the doctrine are far more progressed than I am.  My point is that I in my faults and sins, am not justifying and very thought that God might love them more.  If that were true, my heart would break.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Jeanne

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Well..first of all..I am a sinner.  By that I mean I make mistakes.  They are not super huge..and I always try to do better and learn as I go..as a woman, as a daughter of God and as a non member of the LDS church.  Now...Bluebell and Calm  ..may not be perfect..simply because none of us are.  But I know that they adhere to the gospel in the church and accordingly to the doctrine are far more progressed than I am.  My point is that I in my faults and sins, am not justifying and very thought that God might love them more.  If that were true, my heart would break.

God definitely does not love me more than He loves you (or more than He loves anyone).  

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

God definitely does not love me more than He loves you (or more than He loves anyone).  

Thank you.  I just wanted only to point out that I don't justify any of my sins/mistakes because God would love me anyway.  Hugs to you.

[hope_for_things]

On 10/1/2016 at 2:55 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Elder D. Todd Christofferson, in his general conference sermon, is providing a very lucid explanation of why the unscriptural term "unconditional love" can be misleading when applied to divine love and lead to mistaken notions, such as, "God will save me regardless of my behavior, because, after all, His love is 'unconditional.""

 

This was a very frustrating talk for me, for an alternative view on this important subject, take a look at this post.  

https://bycommonconsent.com/2016/10/02/christofferson-gods-love-is-unconditional/

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Heaven forbid that people feel secure that God will always love them!

They can feel secure that that will always be true. They should be secure in general because it is true. I would find it disgusting if a serial rapist felt secure because "God loved him". While true there is no security for him in that status nor is there security in it for lesser sins which is what some try to twist God's love into.

I look at the life of Jesus. To those who know their sins matter and seek help he helped. To those who knew they sinned and felt that pain but would not change he felt sorrow. Those who denied their own sins or who believed they did not matter he used as object lessons and insulted them. He did not bother with teaching them or cajoling them. They would seem to be the lost. The supremely ignorant who preach the love of God as a non-judgemental always-there comfort blankie are in the same state.

A stint in hell will cure most of them of their delusions but those delusions will cost them Eternal Life.

[Jeanne]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They can feel secure that that will always be true. They should be secure in general because it is true. I would find it disgusting if a serial rapist felt secure because "God loved him". While true there is no security for him in that status nor is there security in it for lesser sins which is what some try to twist God's love into.

I look at the life of Jesus. To those who know their sins matter and seek help he helped. To those who knew they sinned and felt that pain but would not change he felt sorrow. Those who denied their own sins or who believed they did not matter he used as object lessons and insulted them. He did not bother with teaching them or cajoling them. They would seem to be the lost. The supremely ignorant who preach the love of God as a non-judgemental always-there comfort blankie are in the same state.

A stint in hell will cure most of them of their delusions but those delusions will cost them Eternal Life.

What about the simple faith that Jesus loves them.  Is that so delusional?  Is that not faith at all?  I speak outside the box I know..but to think that we would justify sins because He loves us, is not right.  Each of us..or most of us in and outside the church try to do the best we can.  Sinners all of us.  Do you think that those of us outside the church deny our sins?  That is so untrue. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Thank you.  I just wanted only to point out that I don't justify any of my sins/mistakes because God would love me anyway.  Hugs to you.

I don't doubt that.  There are people who do believe that way though, so those are the people being spoken to.  If something isn't about us then we can confidently move on to the next thing.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

This was a very frustrating talk for me, for an alternative view on this important subject, take a look at this post.  

https://bycommonconsent.com/2016/10/02/christofferson-gods-love-is-unconditional/

I do not accept this person as a gatekeeper for what I have to say to qualify as a Christian.

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

What about the simple faith that Jesus loves them.  Is that so delusional?  Is that not faith at all?  I speak outside the box I know..but to think that we would justify sins because He loves us, is not right.  Each of us..or most of us in and outside the church try to do the best we can.  Sinners all of us.  Do you think that those of us outside the church deny our sins?  That is so untrue. 

I did not say that everyone outside the church is oblivious and I am not talking about those who weep and mourn over their sins secure in the love of God. We are told those people will be comforted.

I am talking about those who think the love of God is license to sin. We see this in human relationships where some take the love of a spouse or the love of a child or parent and use that love as a kind of anchor to misbehave and spread misery.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I believe it was Elder Rendlund who also said God's love for us is constant.  Which to me would suggest it is not conditioned.  I prefer to think of God loving us people as unconditional.  this conditional business is weird to me.

I didn't hear anyone say God's love is conditional.
I did hear several people say that God's unconditional love doesn't mean tolerating and accepting a violation of law.

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Heaven forbid that people feel secure that God will always love them!

God will always love them.  I didn't hear anyone say anything else.
 

Not sure why this is such a difficult topic.  Perhaps we have been falsely conditioned (pun intended) that to love unconditionally has to mean allowing us to break law without consequence.

[bluebell]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

Perhaps we have been falsely conditioned (pun intended) that to love unconditionally has to mean allowing us to break law without consequence.

Or that it has to mean agreeing with everything that we do and believe....

[ERayR]

On 10/2/2016 at 9:45 AM, Gray said:

Unconditional love is scriptural. See the teachings of Jesus on loving those who hate you. That's love without conditions.

Furthermore, it's settled LDS doctrine that God will save just about everyone, regardless of their behavior. 

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1971/10/love-unconditional?lang=eng&_r=1

Not correct or are you going to stand there, smiling, and let him, who hates you, continue to punch you in the nose?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

This was a very frustrating talk for me, for an alternative view on this important subject, take a look at this post.  

https://bycommonconsent.com/2016/10/02/christofferson-gods-love-is-unconditional/

 

53 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I do not accept this person as a gatekeeper for what I have to say to qualify as a Christian.

Yes. This parting shot really rubbed me the wrong way:

Quote

 

So, dear Mormon friends: if you want to be Christian, repeat after me: God’s love is unconditional.

 

It's as though the author is saying all people must accept the buzz phrase, including its potential to mislead, in order to qualify as Christian.

It's a variation on the unpalatable mindset among many evangelicals that could be summed up in these words: "You are not Christian unless you think and believe what I do."

Furthermore, it seems the author of this is reacting to Elder Christofferson's (and Elder Nelson's) challenge of a catch-phrase and its possible implications more so than to the substantive content of what Elder Christofferson actually said. Thus the author ends up pontificating on points that Elder Christofferson did not disagree with in his talk.

Moreover, in his haste to contradict Elder Christofferson, the author ends up contradicting himself, as Cameron, one of the respondents to the blog post, pointed out in his response:

Quote

 

That word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
“whether we hear Him clearly will depend on how we attune ourselves.” Attune synonyms : accustom, adjust, adapt, acclimatize, CONDITION, accommodate, assimilate; acclimate (emphasis added)

If it makes you feels better, you can say that Gods love is indiscriminate. Because he does give it to all without any regard to race, gender, culture, past, present or future sin. He gives it to all and “all are alike unto God”.
But the receipt of that love is conditioned on our asking for, seeking and receiving it. I agree the we need to attune (i.e. Condition) ourselves.

To fully receive and reciprocate Christs love we must follow his example and teaching. “If ye love me, keep my commandments (read conditions)”. And any blessing of that love that God is willing to give to all indiscriminately is obtained ” by obedience to that law (read condition) upon which it it predicated.”

I agree fully with our apostle of God, that the idea that this man made and prolific (but admittedly catchy) idiom “Gods love is unconditional” or the possible misinterpretations associated with the semantics of the term unconditional love should not get in the way of Gospel truth.

Gods love is infinite, eternal, universal, available to all, freely given and is received on conditions of repentance. And that is Christian.

 

 

Edited October 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Heaven forbid that people feel secure that God will always love them!

I feel very secure that God will always love me but I am not so secure in thinking he will let me get away with anything I want. 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

This was a very frustrating talk for me, for an alternative view on this important subject, take a look at this post.

https://bycommonconsent.com/2016/10/02/christofferson-gods-love-is-unconditional/

What a silly article.

This is an argument over terminology, not doctrine.
Both Mormons and Christians believe God's love is unconditional.  Nobody has ever said otherwise.

The difference of opinion isn't even in what "unconditional" means.
It means God will always love us always no matter what.  We all agree on that.

The disagreement is in what "love" actually means.

 

[Thinking]

I think we're playing the semantics game here. The Heavenly Father that I was taught about loves us all the same. He wants us all to return to Him. There isn't one child that He prefers over another child. Some would call this unconditional love. However, He doesn't reward us all the same. Our rewards are conditional.

[stemelbow]

51 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Yes. This parting shot really rubbed me the wrong way:

It's as though the author is saying all people must accept the buzz phrase, including its potential to mislead, in order to qualify as Christian.

It's a variation on the unpalatable mindset among many evangelicals that could be summed up in these words: "You are not Christian unless you think and believe what I do."

Furthermore, it seems the author of this is reacting to Elder Christofferson's (and Elder Nelson's) challenge of a catch-phrase and its possible implications more so than to the substantive content of what Elder Christofferson actually said. Thus the author ends up pontificating on points that Elder Christofferson did not disagree with in his talk.

Moreover, in his haste to contradict Elder Christofferson, the author ends up contradicting himself, as Cameron, one of the respondents to the blog post, pointed out in his response:

Quote

That word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
“whether we hear Him clearly will depend on how we attune ourselves.” Attune synonyms : accustom, adjust, adapt, acclimatize, CONDITION, accommodate, assimilate; acclimate (emphasis added)

If it makes you feels better, you can say that Gods love is indiscriminate. Because he does give it to all without any regard to race, gender, culture, past, present or future sin. He gives it to all and “all are alike unto God”.
But the receipt of that love is conditioned on our asking for, seeking and receiving it. I agree the we need to attune (i.e. Condition) ourselves.

To fully receive and reciprocate Christs love we must follow his example and teaching. “If ye love me, keep my commandments (read conditions)”. And any blessing of that love that God is willing to give to all indiscriminately is obtained ” by obedience to that law (read condition) upon which it it predicated.”

I agree fully with our apostle of God, that the idea that this man made and prolific (but admittedly catchy) idiom “Gods love is unconditional” or the possible misinterpretations associated with the semantics of the term unconditional love should not get in the way of Gospel truth.

Gods love is infinite, eternal, universal, available to all, freely given and is received on conditions of repentance. And that is Christian.

 

I think we're seeing quite a bit of confusion.  here in the above quoted we have someone advocating for conditioned love from God.  But that is not what was being discussed, I thought. (indeed JLHProf made sure I wasn't going off on a tangent above to clarify that's not what anyone has said) 

But someone has said it.  God only gives His love to those who repent?  Is that Christian?  Scriptural?  Mormon? 

[stemelbow]

46 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

What a silly article.

This is an argument over terminology, not doctrine.
Both Mormons and Christians believe God's love is unconditional.  Nobody has ever said otherwise.

The difference of opinion isn't even in what "unconditional" means.
It means God will always love us always no matter what.  We all agree on that.

The disagreement is in what "love" actually means.

 

I'm confused.  YOu keep saying no one has said otherwise, but just a couple posts above yours we have Scott's post advocating the teaching that God's love is conditioned on us asking and our repentance. 

What does love actually mean to you? 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I do not accept this person as a gatekeeper for what I have to say to qualify as a Christian.

Personally I agree with the author's assessment of what it means to be a Christian, but I also accept that many people have a right to the label of Christian and they have different opinions about what that central message is.  Love is the central idea, unconditional, thats my opinion.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's as though the author is saying all people must accept the buzz phrase, including its potential to mislead, in order to qualify as Christian.

It's a variation on the unpalatable mindset among many evangelicals that could be summed up in these words: "You are not Christian unless you think and believe what I do."

Furthermore, it seems the author of this is reacting to Elder Christofferson's (and Elder Nelson's) challenge of a catch-phrase and its possible implications more so than to the substantive content of what Elder Christofferson actually said. Thus the author ends up pontificating on points that Elder Christofferson did not disagree with in his talk.

Moreover, in his haste to contradict Elder Christofferson, the author ends up contradicting himself, as Cameron, one of the respondents to the blog post, pointed out in his response:

I do think that the Mormon concepts on these issues are evolving and becoming more in alignment some mainstream Christian perspectives.  In some ways I like this, but in others it makes me sad.  On this topic in particular I do think that belief in an unconditionally loving God is important and central to the Christian message.  I think Mormonism has tried to put qualifiers on this love and conditions that I don't think actually exist.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

What a silly article.

This is an argument over terminology, not doctrine.
Both Mormons and Christians believe God's love is unconditional.  Nobody has ever said otherwise.

The difference of opinion isn't even in what "unconditional" means.
It means God will always love us always no matter what.  We all agree on that.

The disagreement is in what "love" actually means.

I would love to agree with you on this, but some people in this very thread seem to think that God's love isn't unconditional.  If we can all agree that it is, then I have no problem thinking that our actions have consequences of some form or another.  I just don't think one of those consequences is a loss of love from God.  I think many Mormons believe that a loss of love is one of the consequences of certain choices.  

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm confused.  YOu keep saying no one has said otherwise, but just a couple posts above yours we have Scott's post advocating the teaching that God's love is conditioned on us asking and our repentance.

What does love actually mean to you?

 

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I would love to agree with you on this, but some people in this very thread seem to think that God's love isn't unconditional.  If we can all agree that it is, then I have no problem thinking that our actions have consequences of some form or another.  I just don't think one of those consequences is a loss of love from God.  I think many Mormons believe that a loss of love is one of the consequences of certain choices.

 

Actually what Scott's post said was "But the receipt of that love is conditioned on our asking for, seeking and receiving it."
Many of us find ourselves incapable of receiving God's love.
This is really not confusing.
It is the difference between God's love for us (how he feels towards us) versus our access to God (our ability to receive the blessings of that love).
There is nothing you can ever do that will stop God loving you.  There is plenty that you can do to prevent being able to receive that love.

GOD'S LOVE WILL ALWAYS BE THERE (the only way it is unconditional)
Romans 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

OUR CHOICES CAN SEPARATE US FROM GOD, BUT NOT HIS LOVE (making our access to that love conditional)
D&C 76:111 For they shall be judged according to their works, and every man shall receive according to his own works, his own dominion, in the mansions which are prepared;
112 And they shall be servants of the Most High; but where God and Christ dwell they cannot come, worlds without end.

 

Figure out how both these scriptures are true and you will understand.