God’s love

[Anonymous]

There is some discussion going on in other threads about God’s love. I think it merits it’s own thread to give us a chance to coherently express our thoughts in one place. Because my understanding of God’s love is quite nebulous, I’m very curious to know what others think and why. I think the basic dichotomy is between God’s individual love and God’s collective love, but the two are not mutually exclusive. Here are my questions (and not I opted not to do this in poll form on purpose):

1. Does God know and love us each individually and is He involved in the intimate details of our life?

2. Does God know and love us individually but in the interest of agency and personal growth is loath to intervene (except perhaps some tender mercies)?

3. Does God love some individuals and not others? (Regular people, not Satan) Does He love us all equally?

4. Instead of loving us individually, does God love us collectively but sometimes intervenes in individual lives for unknown reasons (or perhaps reasons known to the individual)? This could also include tender mercies.

5. Does God love us collectively but not intervene because of agency or some other divine purpose not necessarily clear to us? (Again, tender mercies are possible.)

6. Is God nothing more than the Creator and any perceived love is a teaching of men?

7. Other – any combination of the above or something completely different.

I do have an opinion, but since I’m asking for the opinion of others I’ll keep it to myself at this point (although regulars probably know what I think on the subject).

[Anonymous]

I’ll echo something I often hear at church, I believe it even came up during this most recent conference. We are god’s hands.

In your list of 7 things replace the word “god” with “my neighbor” and replace all the plural first person pronouns with singular first person pronouns.

E.g.: Does my neighbor know and love me individually and is he involved in the intimate details of my life?

If we aren’t feeling the love from our family, friends, and neighbors whom we do see then I imagine it will be hard to feel loved by god whom we do not see.

I’m afraid I’m going to need another question answered. What is love (baby don’t hurt me)?

I don’t always know the answer to that question, sometimes I define it by mourning with those that mourn and comforting those that stand in need of comfort. For now I’ll focus on the receiving end of the love equation, what it takes to feel loved. Life has dealt me an interesting hand, I’ve noticed:

1) I have trials that people can’t help with. As much as people would like to help me there’s just no fixing certain problems.

2) I’ve had people be indifferent to my needs, people only approaching me because they need me to do something for them. They take absolutely no stock in the trials that I’m facing and how I might currently be in a position where I need to be on the receiving end rather than giving end. People mostly worry about themselves first.

3) I’ve had people that saw my trials, showed absolutely no concern whatsoever, and decided that burdening me with even more trials was the thing to do.

4) Of course I’ve been in positions where people did mourn with me and did comfort me.

Let’s say that the scales are out of balance for an extended period of time, there’s an overabundance of people and problems in life that fit into categories 1, 2, and 3 and even though they are present, there are not enough experiences with people that fit into category 4 to balance things out. Would that person feel loved? Would their experiences with other people that they interact with on a regular basis create bias in how they perceive their relationship with god? Someone that has a stellar support network may feel god’s love while someone that has a poor support network may feel as though god is indifferent towards them. Like Job except talking about a real person with real emotions. :angel:

[Anonymous]

Relevant post on BCC about Oaks’ comment regarding missionaries in Belgium: Belgian Theodicy

I particularly liked this comment.

Quote:

I think that it is at least within the interpretive range that the text will bear to say that Oaks was arguing that God intervenes, but we can never be sure how, when or why unless we are told so directly by somebody who happens to know. After all, his larger point was that bad stuff happens for all kinds of reasons and we should be willing to accept it. So I think that it is at least possible to read his remarks as something like:

“Very bad things happen and we don’t always understand why. I know that this can make it seem like God is not interested in our lives, but, since I am a prophet, seer, &etc. I can let you know that He is. Here are two times in the past year or so that, I just happen to know that He intervened to mitigate the effects of a disaster. So, understand that God loves you and is interested in you, but also understand that his reasons and perspectives are not usually available to us (well to you anyway; they are available to me, but I’m not supposed to blab too much), so when really bad things happen, keep in mind my prophetic statement that God does love us and does intervene sometimes, but don’t go crazy trying to figure out why something happened, or whether or not God loves you, because that’s not the way that it works.”

[Anonymous]

Hi DJ,

Interesting questions. In my mind there is no question that God does not intervene and there is so much inequality and uncertainty in the world I don’t understand how this life can be considered a fair test of our decision making ability to choose what God wants.

I lean toward #6 but I still hold out some faith, maybe it’s only hope, that #2 more closely describes God. I can’t believe that God selectively loves some but not others.

[Anonymous]

Joni wrote:

Relevant post on BCC about Oaks’ comment regarding missionaries in Belgium

Quote:

when really bad things happen, keep in mind my prophetic statement that God does love us and does intervene sometimes, but don’t go crazy trying to figure out why something happened, or whether or not God loves you, because that’s not the way that it works

I think some really like the idea of this almight Great God of Heaven too great to comprehend, too mystical and mysterious to know, but all things to all people being everywhere and no where and so superior we cannot know His ways…and in that…we are perhaps the ants in an anthill that get kicked, not because we are ignored but because it is just a small part of the major big cosmos of things going on, and we just trust there is meaning and order.

Mormonism seems to be founded on bringing God from the great big mysterious nebulous God…to a Heavenly Father intimately involved in sending seagulls to the crops to help, and patriarchal blessings to reveal specific tribe associations and personal revelations.

Although I’ve grown up having faith God’s love was very personal to me, and very involved in my daily life…life experiences lead me to believe that it is more like the quote Joni posted…that trying to figure out “why” to things is almost impossible. It doesn’t mean it is not there…just means I can’t rely on predicting how it will be manifest and what it means.

At times I think I figure it out a little…something reminds me that I just don’t know, and it could be anything.

I mostly think it has mostly to do with what story I decide to tell myself about things that I experience. The past 3 years have been some of the worst things in my life, and the best things in my life. I can’t tell what role God has in any of that…but I choose to believe God loves me always whether I can decipher when and how, or not.

[Anonymous]

For me it’s a combination of 4 & 5. Yet, I believe I have had very direct divine interventions in my life and I have credited those to Him. I also have read enough accounts of people who also have had interventions they can’t explain and in the end call it God.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

1. Does God know and love us each individually and is He involved in the intimate details of our life?

I reserve judgment on that one. I am agnostic about it. I hope He does, and assume that in some cases, but I am not sure.

Quote:

2. Does God know and love us individually but in the interest of agency and personal growth is loath to intervene (except perhaps some tender mercies)?

I have seen tender mercies at different times in my life, but I am not sure if they are coincidences or not.

Quote:

3. Does God love some individuals and not others? (Regular people, not Satan) Does He love us all equally?

I am not sure if he loves everyone — but I know that he does NOT love all people equally. If love is expressed in actions, the scriptures are clear that God loves some people more than others — the righteous more than the wicked.

Quote:

4. Instead of loving us individually, does God love us collectively but sometimes intervenes in individual lives for unknown reasons (or perhaps reasons known to the individual)? This could also include tender mercies.

This is much easier to believe than a God that is directly involved in each individuals’ life.

Quote:

5. Does God love us collectively but not intervene because of agency or some other divine purpose not necessarily clear to us? (Again, tender mercies are possible.)

Don’t know.

Quote:

6. Is God nothing more than the Creator and any perceived love is a teaching of men?

Don’t know but I hope he is actively loving and not a figment of our imaginations.

Quote:

7. Other – any combination of the above or something completely different.

I believe He exists, but his rules for loving intervention are not predictable. As I get older, I find his intervention is rarer and rarer in my life. It was more frequent when I was young.

[Anonymous]

I enjoy freedom from linear thinking. I see rich symbolism everywhere, I have no idea how the literal/concrete realities of life coincide with spiritual truths; my preference is not to mingle them.

I (metaphorically) stand on the term “God is Love.” To me that means God’s love is love, we can only experience it because of, or through His grace. That makes the love of God universal and individual at the same time. Every small detail can be credited to God, as well as the claim that he is for the most part “hands off.”

I know how senseless this all sounds, but it is my truth. It doesn’t easily conform to words.

[Anonymous]

Orson wrote:

I enjoy freedom from linear thinking. I see rich symbolism everywhere, I have no idea how the literal/concrete realities of life coincide with spiritual truths; my preference is not to mingle them.

I (metaphorically) stand on the term “God is Love.” To me that means God’s love is love, we can only experience it because of, or through His grace. That makes the love of God universal and individual at the same time. Every small detail can be credited to God, as well as the claim that he is for the most part “hands off.”

I know how senseless this all sounds, but it is my truth. It doesn’t easily conform to words.

I actually do get this, Orson. If indeed we are able to take the idea of God being a person or being of some sort and just view God as love, it can work. I have tried in the past to make that concept work with some success – but not total success. Although I came to Mormonism without a concept of a personal God (I was nominally Catholic if that gives you a basic idea), the Mormon concept of God appealed to me very much. Simply, the kind of God that appeared to Joseph Smith and wasn’t big enough to fill the universe yet small enough to dwell in my heart was exciting. I could relate to the Mormon God because I could somewhat comprehend Him. The idea of God being love, which is closer to Catholic theology in some ways, is harder for me to wrap my head around while trying to let go of what I have believed about God.

[Anonymous]

Thank you for all your responses so far. I didn’t mean to only respond to Orson earlier, I just planned my time poorly and Orson’s response was looking from a whole different point of view which I have attempted.

Anyway, I agree Nibbler, that our perception of God’s love can be greatly influenced by the love of others we do or don’t feel in our lives. This lack of neighborly and Christian love was a part (a big part) of my FC. I thought I had a good support network and it turns out I didn’t – hence the reason I say I now know who my friends really are (in a way like the fictitious Job). At least I think that’s what you were trying to say.

I did read your link, Joni. You might know if you read the GC thread that I Skipped DHO’s talk on purpose. It’s not that I don’t like DHO, he has actually grown on me (even though he needs to smile more and appear nicer than he does). With his talks I have to not listen, perhaps see what others have to say about them, and then skim at first because while I do like much of what he says I also dislike much of what he says. This talk is one of those I will never read in its entirety. I tired of the “why bad things happen to good people” rhetoric a long time ago. The BCC post was fine, thanks for sharing it – it does point out the problem with the point Oaks was trying to make. FWIW, I do not believe God did anything to “blunt” what happened to those poor missionaries and if he truly loved or cared about them more than others he would have “inspired” them or otherwise made it impossible for them to be there. At least two of them are going to have at least some limitations for the rest of their lives due to this incident. And Fiji? Just coincidence, anybody who has ever lived in hurricane country knows that. I truly wonder what the rhetoric would be had the storm centered more on the temple area. (The link also brings up another topic about our evolving definition of prophet for it’s own thread sometime.)

RR, I agree. I’m also at 6, but I’d love if God were 2 or 1. I once believed He was. I once believed in Santa. ‘Twas I, ’tis not I.

Heber, I also agree. My life experiences have also given cause for me to give up – hence my deist (number 6) view.

I don’t want to pry, Mom, but I’d be interested in hearing more. I used to be able to point to things I thought God had done (and that statement started an earworm for me) but I can so easily dismiss them as coincidence, actions of other humans (evil or good), or just the way things are. In other words, I don’t think I could count any more blessings than my atheist neighbor. That doesn’t mean I have given up hope that God could do things like tender mercies – but that hope grows dimmer with each passing day.

Good point, SD, about not loving us all equally. There is some dichotomy there between stated doctrine/theology/dogma and the scriptural inference you make. Like you I am agnostic, and also feel that as I have gotten older Godly intervention/interaction in my life has grown more sporadic. The heavens have been closed to me for many years at this point.

So another question, and not just directed at those who have already answered. Has your concept of God evolved over the years, and if so how?

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

The idea of God being love, which is closer to Catholic theology in some ways, is harder for me to wrap my head around while trying to let go of what I have believed about God.

I don’t see the ideas as mutually exclusive. Just because I relate to a concept of God being love/love “being” God, at least to some degree; it doesn’t eliminate in my mind the possibility of a divine eternal father figure. I do appreciate the idea that God in his entirety is simply too much for our human minds to fully grasp. In our Mormon world we often talk about beliefs that are comprehensible, but we also have beliefs about eternity and God that must be outside our ability to grasp.

Think of the old joke of St. Peter giving a new arrival a tour of heaven, the pass a closed off area and St. Peter says “Shhh… in there are the Mormons, they think they are the only ones here!” I think God must be bigger than we can imagine.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

Orson wrote:

I enjoy freedom from linear thinking. I see rich symbolism everywhere, I have no idea how the literal/concrete realities of life coincide with spiritual truths; my preference is not to mingle them.

I (metaphorically) stand on the term “God is Love.” To me that means God’s love is love, we can only experience it because of, or through His grace. That makes the love of God universal and individual at the same time. Every small detail can be credited to God, as well as the claim that he is for the most part “hands off.”

I know how senseless this all sounds, but it is my truth. It doesn’t easily conform to words.

I actually do get this, Orson. If indeed we are able to take the idea of God being a person or being of some sort and just view God as love, it can work. I have tried in the past to make that concept work with some success – but not total success. . . . I could relate to the Mormon God because I could somewhat comprehend Him. The idea of God being love, which is closer to Catholic theology in some ways, is harder for me to wrap my head around while trying to let go of what I have believed about God.

Sometimes I read things that I wrote in the past and wonder where in the heck that came from. I think of R. Bushman telling of how Joseph Smith would study the revelations he had received, in a small way I can relate.

I like to say “God is the reality, science can only teach us more about God and his ways.” People put creation and evolution at odds, I see evolution as the outcome of intelligent design. If the universe was designed in a way that pointed directly to God and nothing but God, faith could not exist. The purpose of life requires that we don’t know, that is the only way we can ask sincere questions and discover for ourselves.

The question of intervening for me rests on the point of view. I don’t believe in the “button pushing” God, the image of “okay I’ll help them find lost keys but I won’t heal that child’s cancer.” I see the conditions of life as the proper classroom to teach us what we are to learn. Humans are prone to superstition, many blend it with religion. Our prayers should ultimately help us become one with our neighbors, as we ask for blessings for our loved ones it puts other wheels into motion. We are his hands, together we fulfill the purposes of God. I don’t mean that to exclude the possibility of “divine intervention” but I see our ultimate exaltation as growing more out of our education from experience than our reliance on an invisible hand.

[Author]

Posts