Eek! Posted January 22, 2018 Posted January 22, 2018 Thank you pogi for taking the time to reply thoughtfully and considerately. Pardon me for chopping up your first paragraph into sentences for replying, but I think each sentence deserved its own reply. I'm probably not going to answer your questions in the way you were expected, and I hope this doesn't come across as confrontational. If so let me know, and I'll try again. 2 hours ago, pogi said: There tends to be a common misunderstanding that love is simply a feeling and not also verb. I understand that the word has multiple meanings and is rather imprecise all by itself, but I would not be comfortable with an analysis which leave us with something that pales in comparison with the expansive way the word is used in the first and second commandments, as taught by Jesus. 2 hours ago, pogi said: Would you agree that your child who has tested you to an extreme has missed out on higher levels of intimacy due to their level of openness, trustworthiness, vulnerability, etc., or lack thereof?. No. I didn't withhold at all. Far as I can tell, our communication was never impeded and our relationship was never damaged. 2 hours ago, pogi said: Would you agree that those levels of intimacy are only possible upon their desire and work towards reconciliation? No. I do not require the other person to work towards reconciliation; my job is simply to not place any barriers to it. 2 hours ago, pogi said: Isn't the relationship and mutual experience and expression of love a two way street? No. It is the duty of whoever is the most sane at the moment to lay aside all grievances and quit keeping score. If neither is ready to do that, then it may take a while. 2 hours ago, pogi said: Even though you may wish to see your child more or love them in a different way, would you agree that it is important for you to respect your child's boundaries and not force on them the love you want to give them? Of course I respect my kids' boundaries and would never try to force anything. But I have absolutely zero fear about the final outcome, and therefore I can be as patient as necessary. 2 hours ago, pogi said: And because of their boundaries and level of willingness to work on a healthy relationship, your experience of loving them (the verb) may be hampered, correct? Only the outward form is hampered by such limitations, and the outward form is temporary. The content need not be hampered by distance or time or anything else. However this requires seeing things from a somewhat unorthodox perspective. 2 hours ago, pogi said: I agree that there are different degrees and levels of light. That light emanates from God. To know and experience that light, is to know God. Higher levels of light equates to higher levels of intimacy with God. Higher levels of intimacy is a higher experience (not just the feeling) of love for both parties. As Christ said, "I am the light of the world". Therefore Christ (like light) is experienced in differing degrees conditionally. Those who follow after him are promised that they will not walk in darkness, those who don't have no such promise. Our relationship with Him (love as a verb) is therefore conditional and on a spectrum. It is not all or nothing as many here like to imagine. I believe that you are a genuinely kind and loving person who truly only wants what's best for everyone. I agree that our experience of light is on a continuum, and therefore that our perception of God's love is on a continuum, but do not believe that God's love for us is likewise on a continuum. In other words, I believe that any barriers are our doing, not God's. I also believe that God created us enough like himself that eventually we will all choose to lay aside all such barriers, and I do not believe that he will then hold our past mistakes in that regard against us for an instant, much less for all eternity.
pogi Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Eek! said: I understand that the word has multiple meanings and is rather imprecise all by itself, but I would not be comfortable with an analysis which leave us with something that pales in comparison with the expansive way the word is used in the first and second commandments, as taught by Jesus. Thank you in return for your thoughtful reply! Good point on the first and second commandments. Let's examine those for a minute here. How expansive is the command to love our neighbor? Is the injunction to love our neighbor an expectation to love (the verb) everyone equally? I need a bigger Christmas budget!!! Should I love (the verb) my enemy the same way that I love (the verb) my ally? Should I share the same intimate details and sensitive information with them because I have been commanded to love them? Does forgiving those toxic/abusive/manipulative people in our lives require us to invite them in our home and place our family in danger? Are we not expected to love some people from a distance, both to protect ourselves and our family, but also to respect their boundaries? 1 hour ago, Eek! said: No. I didn't withhold at all. Far as I can tell, our communication was never impeded and our relationship was never damaged. No. I do not require the other person to work towards reconciliation; my job is simply to not place any barriers to it. No. It is the duty of whoever is the most sane at the moment to lay aside all grievances and quit keeping score. If neither is ready to do that, then it may take a while. Of course I respect my kids' boundaries and would never try to force anything. But I have absolutely zero fear about the final outcome, and therefore I can be as patient as necessary. You are very fortunate to have that kind of relationship then. Have you ever witnessed a truly toxic relationship? I have witnessed the manipulation, abuse, and chronic theft that can lead to a complete lack of trust in some families. Again, some people need to be loved from a distance until a certain level of trust can be attained. There are truly toxic relationships that need reconciliation before true intimacy can be had. 1 hour ago, Eek! said: No. I do not require the other person to work towards reconciliation; my job is simply to not place any barriers to it. I see this often in addiction recovery. I am not implying that you are doing this, as I don't know the details of your relationship with your child, but parents often act as a crutch for their addicted children. They often use that same excuse..."I don't want to place any barriers on our relationship." Addiction recovery often takes intensive education and work for the entire family. Many times the parents with good intention, only fuel and foster the addiction. Sometimes the parents have to create boundaries that might be perceived as "unloving" to the addict. If there is no work of reconciliation in harmed relationships, then recovery is NOT possible. Period. Double period.. We should expect our children to ask forgiveness and make restitution for their misdeeds towards us. That is the healthy way to love our children. We need to have expectations, or we will be doormats - codependent crutches to unhealthy behavior. It is pseudo love. Unconditional love (the verb) is an illusion. 1 hour ago, Eek! said: Only the outward form is hampered by such limitations, and the outward form is temporary. The content need not be hampered by distance or time or anything else. However this requires seeing things from a somewhat unorthodox perspective. I don't know what you mean here, can you expound? Thanks. 1 hour ago, Eek! said: I believe that you are a genuinely kind and loving person who truly only wants what's best for everyone. I agree that our experience of light is on a continuum, and therefore that our perception of God's love is on a continuum, but do not believe that God's love for us is likewise on a continuum. In other words, I believe that any barriers are our doing, not God's. I also believe that God created us enough like himself that eventually we will all choose to lay aside all such barriers, and I do not believe that he will then hold our past mistakes in that regard against us for an instant, much less for all eternity. I agree that God's love (the feeling) is not on a continuum, but his love (the verb) is - for our own good. It teaches us much about love, trust, and respect. It teaches us that we cannot take advantage of others and expect the same level of intimacy and love (the verb). So, yes, in a way you are right, the barriers are ultimately our doing because the Lord is "bound" when we do what he says. The bold portion accentuates the line below your name "Long-path universalist". I can respect that belief, but I kind of feel that it approaches too closely to predestination. Whether or not progression in all kingdoms is possible, is one thing. But to say that "we will ALL choose" to face our own personal demons and overcome our own weaknesses is another thing entirely. It kind of waters down the idea of true agency. I suspect that many will prefer to remain eternally comfortably numb. Maybe I am just biased because I know too many addicts! Edited January 23, 2018 by pogi 3
USU78 Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 10 hours ago, Gray said: Yes, I agree. It's a strange idea that God would expect us fallible mortals to love each other unconditionally (ie love your enemies) and yet He doesn't love us unconditionally. Such a God would be a moral monster 1
Storm Rider Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 7 hours ago, Gray said: Additional context doesn't support your conclusion any better than mine. The fact is there are varying opinions about the matter in scripture. I suspect what is often meant by "love" is actually divine favor. Israel fell on hard times, so it fell to prophets to explain why the chosen people should be a conquered people. Usually the explanation was that they were being punished for sin. God forbid if the people were actually called out for actually doing anything unfavorable to God, but that they wanted to do anyway. You can lead a horse to water, but you can never make him drink.
pogi Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 2 hours ago, USU78 said: Such a God would be a moral monster Yes indeed. Which is why God doesn’t expect us to love (the verb) unconditionally...because neither does he
Eek! Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, pogi said: Thank you in return for your thoughtful reply! Good point on the first and second commandments. Let's examine those for a minute here. How expansive is the command to love our neighbor? Is the injunction to love our neighbor an expectation to love (the verb) everyone equally? I need a bigger Christmas budget!!! Should I love (the verb) my enemy the same way that I love (the verb) my ally? Should I share the same intimate details and sensitive information with them because I have been commanded to love them? Does forgiving those toxic/abusive/manipulative people in our lives require us to invite them in our home and place our family in danger? Are we not expected to love some people from a distance, both to protect ourselves and our family, but also to respect their boundaries? Imo the first two commandments are about correcting our perceptions, and from that point, we are much more likely to have correct emotions and to do correct actions. How expansive is the second commandment? I think it is huge, and extends well beyond the scope of what I can put into a relatively quick reply, so I'll have to ask you to give me some time to gather my thoughts. 5 hours ago, pogi said: Have you ever witnessed a truly toxic relationship? I have witnessed the manipulation, abuse, and chronic theft that can lead to a complete lack of trust in some families. Again, some people need to be loved from a distance until a certain level of trust can be attained. There are truly toxic relationships that need reconciliation before true intimacy can be had. I have some experience with toxic relationships and sometimes giving the relationship distance and time are the best you can do under the circumstances. I would never ask anyone to put themselves or someone else in undue danger. The counsel to be “wise as serpents and harmless as doves” comes to mind. But in my most long-term toxic relationship, there were many honest in-depth conversations about who did what to whom, and that NEVER produced reconciliation. NOT EVEN CLOSE. The counselor I was seeing told me that the other person had been/was being abusive, and I needed to tell them so, and demand to be treated differently. The counselor the other person was seeing told them that I had been/was being abusive, and that they needed to tell me so, and demand that I treat them differently. Can you see why that resulted in utter failure? Instead, peace finally came through shifts of perception, first on the part of one party, and later the other joined in. Neither of us seeks anything that would remotely imply a tallying of grievances with penance or settlement or retribution or whatever being due. If you choose to no longer treasure your grievances, it doesn't matter who did what to whom. I realize this sounds insane. Give-'em-your-cloak-too insane. Turn-the-other-cheek insane. Love-your-enemies insane. Those aren't just platitudes – they are indications of a correct paradigm which is very different from the ones we are accustomed to. Ime, it works. When you hold out for the other person to do what it takes to satisfy the demands of reconciliation, you make yourself a slave to their choices. Your happiness depends on them doing what you want them to do. Imo there is a better way, one where your happiness is not dependent on anyone else's choices. I will continue with my reply in a few minutes. Edited January 23, 2018 by Eek!
Gray Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 53 minutes ago, pogi said: Yes indeed. Which is why God doesn’t expect us to love (the verb) unconditionally...because neither does he Unconditional love is the foundation of the Christian message. 1
Eek! Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) 16 hours ago, pogi said: If there is no work of reconciliation in harmed relationships, then recovery is NOT possible. Period. Double period.. We should expect our children to ask forgiveness and make restitution for their misdeeds towards us. That is the healthy way to love our children. We need to have expectations, or we will be doormats - codependent crutches to unhealthy behavior. It is pseudo love. Unconditional love (the verb) is an illusion. I have tried the approach of expecting the other person to make amends and ask for forgiveness. In my limited experience, that approach was a total failure. Again in my limited experience, a shift of perception that made no demands of the other person is what eventually led to peace for both parties, Maybe we could use the word “reconciliation”, but to me that word has connotations of “a debt was paid”, which is not what happened. A “debt” was not even “forgiven”. Instead, the value-less (two long lists of grievances) was discarded, and peace and love are what took its place. So I prefer the word “peace”. That being said, it is quite possible that the approach you describe works better sometimes. Wisdom is justified of her children. Eek! said: "Only the outward form is hampered by such limitations, and the outward form is temporary. The content need not be hampered by distance or time or anything else. However this requires seeing things from a somewhat unorthodox perspective." To which pogi replied: 16 hours ago, pogi said: I don't know what you mean here, can you expound? Thanks. Briefly, the unorthodox perspective would be, to see things as they are in eternity, rather than as they are in time, to the extent that we can. Pogi bolded something Eek! said: "I also believe that God created us enough like himself that eventually we will all choose to lay aside all such barriers, and I do not believe that he will then hold our past mistakes in that regard against us for an instant, much less for all eternity." Pogi then commented: 16 hours ago, pogi said: I agree that God's love (the feeling) is not on a continuum, but his love (the verb) is - for our own good. It teaches us much about love, trust, and respect. It teaches us that we cannot take advantage of others and expect the same level of intimacy and love (the verb). So, yes, in a way you are right, the barriers are ultimately our doing because the Lord is "bound" when we do what he says. The bold portion accentuates the line below your name "Long-path universalist". I can respect that belief, but I kind of feel that it approaches too closely to predestination. Whether or not progression in all kingdoms is possible, is one thing. But to say that "we will ALL choose" to face our own personal demons and overcome our own weaknesses is another thing entirely. It kind of waters down the idea of true agency. I suspect that many will prefer to remain eternally comfortably numb. Maybe I am just biased because I know too many addicts! Note that I said "choose", so I don't think I'm advocating "predestination" in the sense you are probably thinking, any more than "every knee will bow and every tongue confess" (which I also believe will be by choice rather than by coercion) constitutes "predestination". Thank you for noticing that I claim to be a "long-path universalist". Came up with that one myself! I think the basic idea can be summed up in one sentence, after giving a bit of background. First, the background: What is Jesus' job? It is, To bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man (and imo that means all of us). Will he succeed? Of course. The works and the designs and the purposes of God cannot be frustrated, neither can they come to naught. Will he eventually abandon the screw-ups? Nope. On the contrary, the parable of the good shepherd tells us that he will deliberately go after the screw-ups. Therefore, I have zero fear for my soul, nor for anyone else's. But I do not believe there will be any unearned diplomas handed out. Here's why: What manner of men are we to become? The same manner of man as Jesus! Does anyone really believe that? I do. So here is a one-sentence summation: There is nothing to fear; there is only work to be done. One thing this paradigm would ask a person to give up is, the notion of "specialness". By way of analogy, long-path universalism says that a tenth-grader is not more special than a second-grader just because he is much further along. Long-path universalism truly believes in all our brothers ("nothing to fear"), and says that incorrect thought patterns such as addictions are not part of who they really are ("there's work to be done"). And I thank you and salute you for working to heal addicts, because you (at least a tenth-grader in this area) are helping them (second-graders in this area) to do some of that work. The worth of souls is great! * * * * Anyway thank you pogi for taking the time to read my from-far-left-field posts in this thread, and for engaging in an exchange of ideas with me. I don't claim to be right; only that what I've posted is where I am at this time. I'll work on a reply to your question "How expansive is the command to love our neighbor?", because I think there is more going on there than is obvious at first glance. Edited January 23, 2018 by Eek!
Eek! Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) 11 hours ago, Gray said: Unconditional love is the foundation of the Christian message. If "God is love", must admit I kinda hope He's not the watered-down, grammatically malleable, easy-to-rationalize-away, easily offended, no-better-than-us, conditional sort. If "God is love", and my misdeeds are so powerful they can vanquish that love, wouldn't that make me more powerful than God? (Of course we are not more powerful than God; it would be arrogance to think that our misdeeds have power over God, or over His love, or both.) Edited January 23, 2018 by Eek! 1
Gray Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 9 hours ago, Eek! said: If "God is love", must admit I kinda hope He's not the watered-down, grammatically malleable, easy-to-rationalize-away, easily offended, no-better-than-us, conditional sort. If "God is love", and my misdeeds are so powerful they can vanquish that love, wouldn't that make me more powerful than God? (Of course we are not more powerful than God; it would be arrogance to think that our misdeeds have power over God, or over His love, or both.) Well said! 1
pogi Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) 14 hours ago, Eek! said: Imo the first two commandments are about correcting our perceptions, and from that point, we are much more likely to have correct emotions and to do correct actions. How expansive is the second commandment? I think it is huge, and extends well beyond the scope of what I can put into a relatively quick reply, so I'll have to ask you to give me some time to gather my thoughts. I have some experience with toxic relationships and sometimes giving the relationship distance and time are the best you can do under the circumstances. I would never ask anyone to put themselves or someone else in undue danger. The counsel to be “wise as serpents and harmless as doves” comes to mind. But in my most long-term toxic relationship, there were many honest in-depth conversations about who did what to whom, and that NEVER produced reconciliation. NOT EVEN CLOSE. The counselor I was seeing told me that the other person had been/was being abusive, and I needed to tell them so, and demand to be treated differently. The counselor the other person was seeing told them that I had been/was being abusive, and that they needed to tell me so, and demand that I treat them differently. Can you see why that resulted in utter failure? Instead, peace finally came through shifts of perception, first on the part of one party, and later the other joined in. Neither of us seeks anything that would remotely imply a tallying of grievances with penance or settlement or retribution or whatever being due. If you choose to no longer treasure your grievances, it doesn't matter who did what to whom. I realize this sounds insane. Give-'em-your-cloak-too insane. Turn-the-other-cheek insane. Love-your-enemies insane. Those aren't just platitudes – they are indications of a correct paradigm which is very different from the ones we are accustomed to. Ime, it works. When you hold out for the other person to do what it takes to satisfy the demands of reconciliation, you make yourself a slave to their choices. Your happiness depends on them doing what you want them to do. Imo there is a better way, one where your happiness is not dependent on anyone else's choices. I will continue with my reply in a few minutes. I had to smile at the part in bold . Yes, I think we can all relate to some degree or another in the futility of two people pointing fingers and demanding an apology from the other...a "this is all your fault" approach. That really isn't what I am talking about though. We cannot control another person or force them to change. All that we can control is ourselves. We can work on our own weakness, seek restitution and reconciliation where possible after doing a searching and fearless moral written inventory (step 4). This can sometimes influence loved ones to follow suit (as you said, it usually takes one to change first). If not, we need to establish and enforce healthy boundaries. Sometimes that is exactly what an addict needs from their loved ones, to see and understand how their behavior affects others. They also need to have healthy self-respect and dignity modeled for them. But unfortunately, wherever there is an addict, there is always a co-dependent nearby (spouse or parent) who acts as a crutch to bad behavior. If we want our loved ones to stop behaving like parasites, we need to stop behaving like a willing host. Mutualistic relationships cannot be nurtured where parasitic relationships are fed. We need to teach others how to treat us through first treating ourselves with love, dignity and respect through healthy boundaries. (love your neighbor as you love yourself.) If we are not loving ourselves through healthy boundaries, then we can't healthily love others as we love ourselves. Can peace be attained without reconciliation? Sure. Peace is easy, it is found in the numbness of avoidance and addiction. But can deeper levels of true intimacy, trust, vulnerability, and healing occur...nope, not in toxic relationships. 13 hours ago, Eek! said: I have tried the approach of expecting the other person to make amends and ask for forgiveness. In my limited experience, that approach was a total failure. Again in my limited experience, a shift of perception that made no demands of the other person is what eventually led to peace for both parties, Maybe we could use the word “reconciliation”, but to me that word has connotations of “a debt was paid”, which is not what happened. A “debt” was not even “forgiven”. Instead, the value-less (two long lists of grievances) was discarded, and peace and love are what took its place. So I prefer the word “peace”. What if that person does not discard their toxic, hurtful behavior - abuse for example? Can you trust them with true intimacy? Or, should you love yourself enough to demand a safe distance by enforcing conditional love (the verb) and closeness? 13 hours ago, Eek! said: Thank you for noticing that I claim to be a "long-path universalist". Came up with that one myself! I think the basic idea can be summed up in one sentence, after giving a bit of background. First, the background: What is Jesus' job? It is, To bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man (and imo that means all of us). Will he succeed? Of course. The works and the designs and the purposes of God cannot be frustrated, neither can they come to naught. Will he eventually abandon the screw-ups? Nope. On the contrary, the parable of the good shepherd tells us that he will deliberately go after the screw-ups. Therefore, I have zero fear for my soul, nor for anyone else's. But I do not believe there will be any unearned diplomas handed out. Here's why: What manner of men are we to become? The same manner of man as Jesus! Does anyone really believe that? I do. So here is a one-sentence summation: There is nothing to fear; there is only work to be done. Ok, I will not argue against your belief system. But I will point out that if you truly believe in the necessity of agency and work to eventually attain salvation, then you recognize that the highest expression of God's love (exaltation) is conditional upon that choice and work. I also want to highlight what you said earlier: "I would never ask anyone to put themselves or someone else in undue danger. The counsel to be “wise as serpents and harmless as doves” comes to mind." I agree with that, but it speaks to the necessity of conditional love (the verb). God commanded us to pray for those who mistreat you and despitefully use you (aka love them from a distance ). He also commanded us to withhold that which is most treasured and intimate from those who mistreat us (don't cast your pearls before swine). In other words, we should love (the verb) different people differently. But we ALWAYS need to make sure that we love ourselves enough to keep healthy boundaries by loving conditionally. Edited January 23, 2018 by pogi 1
pogi Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 13 hours ago, Gray said: Unconditional love is the foundation of the Christian message. Yes, the foundation is unconditional, but the fruits are conditional. Just like the foundation of God's love is unconditional (creation, atonement, resurrection, etc.), but the fullness of God's love (exaltation) is conditional. 2
Gray Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 8 minutes ago, pogi said: Yes, the foundation is unconditional, but the fruits are conditional. Just like the foundation of God's love is unconditional (creation, atonement, resurrection, etc.), but the fullness of God's love (exaltation) is conditional. We're talking about two very different things - let's leave it at that!
pogi Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, Gray said: We're talking about two very different things - let's leave it at that! I don't think we are, but ok. Eternal life (exaltation) is described in scripture as "the greatest gift of God" (D&C 14:7). Giving gifts is to love (the verb). Exaltation is the "greatest" expression of that form of love. In the Book of Mormon, the "greatest gift of God" is said to be the fruit of the tree of life (1 Nephi 15:36). How is that possible? Well...they are the same thing! The fullness of the tree of life (love of God) is eternal life (exaltation). The the tree of life is eternal life, or the fullness of the love of God according to Nephi. It is conditional: Quote And, if you keep my commandments and endure to the end you shall have eternal life, which gift is the greatest of all the gifts of God (D&C 14:7) The tree of life is also conditional as described in the Book of Mormon by progressing in the word of God (commandments etc.) and enduring to the end of the iron rod. Edited January 23, 2018 by pogi
Eek! Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 On 1/23/2018 at 11:26 AM, pogi said: We cannot control another person or force them to change. All that we can control is ourselves... If we want our loved ones to stop behaving like parasites, we need to stop behaving like a willing host... What if that person does not discard their toxic, hurtful behavior - abuse for example?... Apologies for my reply being so slow. My work situation is... complicated. My day job often is also my night job. I think you and I are using different wording to refer to essentially the same thing. I think what you would call “loving conditionally”, I would call “loving wisely”. What might look to an observer like the withholding of love may actually be the most loving thing a person can do for someone under the circumstance. That being said, my own limited experience tells me that focusing on behavior modification is focusing on the symptoms, not the root cause. Yes someone can be pressured into changing his behavior, or may choose to do so out of sheer willpower, but maintaining the modified behavior under these conditions involves great strain. Ime it is far more effective to make correction at the level where the error originates, which is, at the level of thoughts. Our thoughts are the cause, and our actions are their effects. Or as a wise man once said, “teach them correct principles and they govern themselves.” 2
pogi Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 12 hours ago, Eek! said: Apologies for my reply being so slow. My work situation is... complicated. My day job often is also my night job. I think you and I are using different wording to refer to essentially the same thing. I think what you would call “loving conditionally”, I would call “loving wisely”. What might look to an observer like the withholding of love may actually be the most loving thing a person can do for someone under the circumstance. Right, I think a lot of this is semantics. Stupid words! I think that loving wisely necessitates conditional requirements for different levels of intimacy (love). You are right, sometimes withholding higher levels of love, is perhaps the most loving thing we can do given certain conditions. It might be the best love that we can give them under the circumstances, but it is far from ideal love. There are different levels of love. What we receive from God is the best for our circumstances, but may not be the full expression of God's love, which can only be attained through meeting certain conditions. 12 hours ago, Eek! said: That being said, my own limited experience tells me that focusing on behavior modification is focusing on the symptoms, not the root cause. Yes someone can be pressured into changing his behavior, or may choose to do so out of sheer willpower, but maintaining the modified behavior under these conditions involves great strain. Ime it is far more effective to make correction at the level where the error originates, which is, at the level of thoughts. Our thoughts are the cause, and our actions are their effects. Or as a wise man once said, “teach them correct principles and they govern themselves.” I love this! It is so true. Even if a person is able to suppress a bad behavior through behavior modification techniques, unless they address the root cause (their damaging beliefs and thoughts), the root cause will simply manifest itself in different negative ways. That is the difference between sobriety and recovery. 1
Atheist Mormon Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 On 1/22/2018 at 6:54 PM, USU78 said: Such a God would be a moral monster I'm sure you read the OT.
Freedom Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 On 1/19/2018 at 2:19 PM, Gray said: The father's love in the parable is not conditional. But it is. The son only benefited from his Father's love while in his presence. The son separated himself from his father and was therefore separated from the love. The fathers love was conditional on the son's location. Thus, God's love will always be there, but we separate ourselves from him through sin. Us accessing Gods love depends upon our actions. Everlastings and conditional are not mutually exclusive.
Gray Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 12 hours ago, Freedom said: But it is. The son only benefited from his Father's love while in his presence. That's not what conditional love means. The father's love didn't change. Do you live at home? If not, I guess you don't benefit from your parents' love? 12 hours ago, Freedom said: The son separated himself from his father and was therefore separated from the love. The fathers love was conditional on the son's location. Thus, God's love will always be there, but we separate ourselves from him through sin. Us accessing Gods love depends upon our actions. Everlastings and conditional are not mutually exclusive. This is ridiculous. By the way, we're all separated from God - that's kind of where we are in this point in the plan of salvation.
Kevin Christensen Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 The issue is not whether God loves us unconditionally, but whether, as a direct and urgent consequence of that love, whether he then is willing to state and enforce conditions in an inescapably social cosmos in which intelligences share time and space. According to Jesus, love for God, for ourselves, and for our neighbors is the foundation upon which commandments are built. And in stating those conditions, he has also declined the use of force, and bound himself to settle for persuasion, patient, long suffering attraction, rather than cold efficiency of coercion. Neither order nor freedom are the first and great commandment. If either were placed in that position, the consequence is hell. I suppose I could love my children by saying, "Because I love you, do whatever you feel like doing, and I'll consider it my job to prevent any negative consequences and clean up any messes." What kind of President, for instance, do you think that kind of upbringing would create? What kind of God? But I recall Jesus saying that whatsoever we do to anyone is the same as if we had done it to him, which, I think is the literal and actual effect of the At-one-ment, and not just a motivational quip. "If ye love me," he says, "Keep my commandments." Not "To thine own self be true," because after all, "other people are not as real as you are, and not deserving consideration except as resources, obstacles, and competitors." That is the way of the sociopath. My breaking commandments has not, I notice, separated me from the love of God, but it has, I also notice, separated me from the blessing of not keeping those commandments. Damage was done, and I have to do my part to repair that damage. There is a moment in Saving Private Ryan, as he looks at the endless rows of crosses in the graveyard, asking "Have I lived a good life?" knowing that in the face of all the horror, even that good life cannot outweigh the moral burden. Captain Miller had died, saying "Earn this." But what can Ryan do to earn what his life has cost? So the need for atonement is inescapable, the need for grace, and the need to answer the moral burden, to do what we can, where we can. Just because I love someone, that doesn't mean I don't feel pain when they hurt me, and visa versa. It actually makes the pain worse, but, through the gospel, there is a path towards hope and healing. Love recognizes the reality that our lives are all interconnected, and therefore bids us to act accordingly. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 1
pogi Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said: The issue is not whether God loves us unconditionally, but whether, as a direct and urgent consequence of that love, whether he then is willing to state and enforce conditions in an inescapably social cosmos in which intelligences share time and space. According to Jesus, love for God, for ourselves, and for our neighbors is the foundation upon which commandments are built. And in stating those conditions, he has also declined the use of force, and bound himself to settle for persuasion, patient, long suffering attraction, rather than cold efficiency of coercion. Neither order nor freedom are the first and great commandment. If either were placed in that position, the consequence is hell. I suppose I could love my children by saying, "Because I love you, do whatever you feel like doing, and I'll consider it my job to prevent any negative consequences and clean up any messes." What kind of President, for instance, do you think that kind of upbringing would create? What kind of God? But I recall Jesus saying that whatsoever we do to anyone is the same as if we had done it to him, which, I think is the literal and actual effect of the At-one-ment, and not just a motivational quip. "If ye love me," he says, "Keep my commandments." Not "To thine own self be true," because after all, "other people are not as real as you are, and not deserving consideration except as resources, obstacles, and competitors." That is the way of the sociopath. My breaking commandments has not, I notice, separated me from the love of God, but it has, I also notice, separated me from the blessing of not keeping those commandments. Damage was done, and I have to do my part to repair that damage. There is a moment in Saving Private Ryan, as he looks at the endless rows of crosses in the graveyard, asking "Have I lived a good life?" knowing that in the face of all the horror, even that good life cannot outweigh the moral burden. Captain Miller had died, saying "Earn this." But what can Ryan do to earn what his life has cost? So the need for atonement is inescapable, the need for grace, and the need to answer the moral burden, to do what we can, where we can. Just because I love someone, that doesn't mean I don't feel pain when they hurt me, and visa versa. It actually makes the pain worse, but, through the gospel, there is a path towards hope and healing. Love recognizes the reality that our lives are all interconnected, and therefore bids us to act accordingly. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Nice post! Would you agree that the conditions that God enforces restrict the expression of the fullness of His love (exaltation), except when those conditions are met? In that sense, I think it actually is an issue of whether God loves us conditionally. President Nelsons made it an issue anyway. That is what I think President Nelson meant by saying that God's love is both universal and conditional. In one sense, His feeling of love for us is universal (unconditional); but in another sense, His expression and bestowal of love via gifts, etc. is conditional. The confusion, I think, is in the complexity of the word love, it being more then just a feeling.
pogi Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 4 hours ago, Gray said: By the way, we're all separated from God - that's kind of where we are in this point in the plan of salvation. Yep, Adam was free to partake of the tree of life (the love of God) until certain conditions were not met. He was physically separated from the full expression of the love of God by a cherubim and a flaming sword. We are all on the path back to the full experience and expression of that tree, one condition at a time.
USU78 Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 On 1/25/2018 at 3:31 PM, Atheist Mormon said: I'm sure you read the OT. Na, und?
The Nehor Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 Yes, because Mommy and Daddy love me more than you because you are mean!
Freedom Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 10 hours ago, Gray said: That's not what conditional love means. The father's love didn't change. Do you live at home? If not, I guess you don't benefit from your parents' love? This is ridiculous. By the way, we're all separated from God - that's kind of where we are in this point in the plan of salvation. You may not like it, but this is the doctrine of the bible and the doctrine of the lds church. I have children and my love for them is everlasting and I am always there for them, but I can't and won't force my benevolence upon them.
Recommended Posts