Unconditional Love of God in a performance-based religion

I think he really wanted to get at:

For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;

Meaning people shouldn’t use god’s love to justify sin. In short I think it was a very poor choice of words. If the real danger is in justifying sin say just that, don’t try to place bounds on god’s love just to get some other point across.

I feel like the statement may also be an attempt to instill obedience through fear.

Last thought… maybe he’s confusing judgment with love? From the perspective of a TBM wouldn’t god continue to love all his children regardless of which kingdom they ultimately inherited?

Christ went to the sinners, I wonder what that says about the conditions of his love. If god’s love is conditional on obedience and we are to emulate divine qualities wouldn’t that give everyone license to not love anyone? For all have sinned and come short of the glory of god. If we are meant to emulate Christ I think the scriptures give more than enough proof that he loved unconditionally.

1) I agree with the main points he made in the talk, but I think the wording of that one sentence got in the way of the message. I think it was a very poor choice of words, but I also think people made him an offender for a word and totally ignored or mis-stated what he actually said. I think he knew what he meant and didn’t realize it would be taken the way it was taken.

When the whole talk is read, minus that sentence (and I mean eliminating that sentence completely), he meant that God doesn’t bless everyone equally no matter what they do – that there is no foundation in the Church for the idea that we can confess the name of Christ, for example, and then do whatever we want to do and still receive the highest reward / result – that our actions have a real effect on what we can receive from God.

In other words, I think he believes that God loves us unconditionally but that he doesn’t bless or reward unconditionally. I think all of us probably understand that distinction with regard to our own children. It was a talk addressing the idea that there is a difference between salvation and exaltation – again, with a very bad choice of wording and framing in that sentence.

2) The following statement is not accurate:

I consider the Church’s authoritative position on this subject as expressed by Elder Nelson . . .

No individual apostle expresses authoritatively the LDS Church’s official position, especially in one General Conference talk. Seriously, we hear conflicting interpretations regularly in General Conference. To latch on to one particular view as THE authoritative position of the Church, especially when there are other talks that present a very different view, simply isn’t fair to the wide range of views held and expressed by the leadership.

Well a part of the reason we screw this up in LDS or in many religions is because we screw up the basis on what it means to love and be loved. We make a connection where none exist with love and obedience. Obedience isn’t a part of love, it isn’t connected to it. Rather a manifestation of a child’s seeking approval and love from their parent or authority figure. And as such a mistake in connection is made. I read the talks. The entire talk speaks about love (mercy) and justice in a very natural man manor of legalistic lens perspective.

In point so much that he gives examples of children leaving out of wed lock as an example of some dorm of justice.

To wit that point and using that same logic one could not help but come to the same conclusion about what would happen to someone if they did something much worse then that, like say teach the Adam god theory or force or manipulate marriage Polygamy. Especially since they died in their “sins”.

One would have no choice by that logic but to come to the same or worse conclusion about others in ones own institution(in this case LDS). That the same or worse fate had to befall them. This teaching that the examples they used which were of less offense to justice then some of what we do and have done in the institution.

Long story short by their own misguided but well intentioned legalistic logic of love and obedience, we have squarely put our own apostle and prophets down that same logic road with the same conclusion.

Something we do not actually teach. So their must be dual logic at play here.

A double standard which violates the laws of justice In every conceivable way.

That standard would condemn and limit or own leaders from a fellow leader.

A very odd stance to take unless you some how think you don’t rob justice by a double standard.

Anyways the logic I find isn’t logical at all with regards to the double stances and relationship between grace and mercy and justice. It takes on a very long held natural human view that existed before religion itself.

Do we espouse that natural man view of this to be inherently godly?

Thanks, Roy. Very thought-provoking comment.

I think ‘love’ is an emotion that we cannot even define in our mortal realm. As described in the scriptures, God’s love is incomprehensible. I would say that we will never be able to categorize something that we can’t even comprehend. Asserting that God’s love is either conditional or unconditional is unprovable and unprofitable.

I prefer to think that God, as represented in the scriptures, has “unconditional patience” for us.

To wit, it is hard to describe but not impossible.

Because it encompasses so many things.

It would be better to say love is an act that produces forth good feelings and fruit in others. Something which can be observed based on that criteria.

I think ‘love’ is an emotion that we cannot even define in our mortal realm. As described in the scriptures, God’s love is incomprehensible. I would say that we will never be able to categorize something that we can’t even comprehend. Asserting that God’s love is either conditional or unconditional is unprovable and unprofitable.

I prefer to think that God, as represented in the scriptures, has “unconditional patience” for us.

I agree, but yet to say that God has patience for me seems so different than to say that God loves me. I agree that the meaning behind the word love is so broad, deep, and varies based on the experiences of the individual that it can be hard to pin down exactly what is meant.

I guess what bothers me the most about this is that it seems to be saying that God only works with us based on the performance model … and that people that feel power and comfort in other models are dangerously deluding themselves.

I do not desire a gold medal – a hug from my Father is more meaningful to me. I feel like this talk devalues my motivation.

In short – this talk is just one more example of someone standing up and effectively saying, “In case you think this unconditional love thing is compatable with Mormonism – I’m here to tell you that it is not. You do not fit in here.”

I get that the church has every right to define the bounds of what is normal and accepted. But it still hurts somewhat to be on the outskirts, on the borderlands.

It hurts to be told that God doesn’t love you as much as you think he does.

Roy, no argument here. The scriptures do say that God loves us, beyond that, I’m not sure that anyone, including MRNelson, is qualified to break it down further. I believe each of us is free to interpret God’s love toward us however we want. But that he loves us is well attested in the scriptures, as in the case of one of my favorite scriptures:

God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8 – NRSV)

Thanks OON. I suppose I am more impassioned about this issue because it hits close to home. My crisis revolves around the stillbirth of my daughter. I was grappling with two issues. 1) What happens to unborn babies in a meritocracy (since they haven’t achieved anything)? 2) Was I not righteous enough to merit God’s intervention on behalf of my daughter?

• A person rejects the doctrine that a couple must be married for eternity to enjoy family relationships in the next life, declaring, “If God really loved us, I can’t believe He would separate husbands and wives in this way.”

These persons disbelieve eternal laws which they consider contrary to their concept of the effect of God’s love. Persons who take this position do not understand the nature of God’s love or the purpose of His laws and commandments.

How ironic that God’s love can be a threat to the church. :crazy: