Vort

No fair answering a question with a question. You appear to be missing the point of the question. Consider two contrasting questions: How does thinking of God's love as "unconditional" help you? (I can see potential harm, as in those who insist that God's love is so unconditional that he will forgive them for anything they care to do. But what is the upside to such a belief?)How does understanding God's love and the benefits of that love as a conditional gift harm you? I don't see the downside. I am looking for a definition of God's love that makes the statement "God's love is unconditional" meaningful. Saying that God has the warm fuzzies for Satan or that he eternally mourns Satan's fall is a complete nonstarter. Indeed, it is an anti-inducement to strive for exaltation -- who wants to spend eternity mourning those who are lost? No, because it is not a meaningless demonstration. It is very meaningful. But God is not my son or daughter. I don't derive a lot of comfort from the belief that my children love me unconditionally, as you appear to do from such a belief of God's love. I have provided for you the scriptures that I believe back my assertion that God's love does not apply to Satan. Please provide your scriptures to back your assertion that God still "loves" Satan. I have a scriptural reference saying that Satan stakes a claim on being God's son as part of his pattern of deception. Do you have a reference where God claims the fallen Satan as his son? I believe I explained that quite clearly. Well, yes, if you must know. And this affects your ability to gain eternal life -- how?

I appreciate your sentiments, but you have failed to answer the question. The verse you quoted does not settle whether God's love is unconditional.

In principle, I see nothing wrong with it. In practice, I suspect that some people want a Priesthood blessing as a "magic bullet". I think this is unrealistic and borders on misuse of Priesthood authority.

Because you don't have to pay workers or business expenses. Look, if you want to deduct the expense of gasoline and car care for traveling to and from work before you tithe, go for it. That is between you and God. The commandment is both clear and simple: Pay a tenth of your increase. President Hunter gave perfectly good and accurate guidelines for determining what constitutes your increase. Then go for it. Start paying again. But don't treat it as a tax and look for ways to maximize deductions and minimize assets. God has blessed you greatly, so give greatly. If you have doubt about whether to tithe some certain thing, just tithe it. Tithing is not designed to make you feel comfortable. Having said that, if you are short on money, the bishop would be glad to let you visit his storehouse for some staples. This might be a good way to help you out. Then it is not tithing. Tithing means "a tenth". What do you mean, Your actual profit? You mean the money you have left over after paying your rent, utilities, and student loan? That's not "profit", that's "money you have left over". "Profit" is what you bring home in your paycheck. Good luck.

Actually, my observation is that scripture has rather little to say on the matter, besides the fact that Christ will come again and there will be signs of his coming, so we should prepare. Other than that, the scriptures do not dwell on which signs we should look out for and how we should go about starting a betting pool on when the blessed event shall occur.

Then the question is useless, like asking if God has hair around his navel. Finding out why people are "so invested in" the idea was a purpose of the thread, but not the only purpose. I can think of another possibility: People who sin (that is to say, people) are prone to think, "Now God doesn't love me any more because I'm a filthy sinner." This is a Satanic lie, of course, but many people fall into this trap. The idea of "unconditonal love", however literally false it may be, might act as a healing balm to help people understand that they are not beyond God's love and, therefore, forgiveness. This sort of divinely-approved hyperbole is not without precedent, as seen in D&C 19:6-7: Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment. Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory. This seems to suggest that God is not above using hyperbole to drive a point home. I am reminded of President Monson's frequent use of the term "literally" in a non-literal way, e.g. "We literally crept along at a snail’s pace along the street." (Somehow I doubt it.) So in some sense, I suppose I can see a reason why people might use and cling to the idea of "unconditional love". Eppur, si muove.

One of the purposes of this thread is so that I can figure out why it's so important to some people that God's love be "unconditional". How is that a good or useful thing?

Exaltation is not a multiple-choice exam that we take here and then find out the results after we die. The Lord cannot save us in our sins. If we give up our sins, he can save us. As long as we insist on following sectarian Christianity and Islam in viewing the judgment of God as an exercise of whether we've scored enough points to qualify, we will forever miss the meaning of what's going on. Does the music bring you closer to God and edify your spirit? Then it helps your cause. Does it do the opposite? Then it hurts your cause.

Elder Maxwell used the phrase "unconditional love". So far as I know, he never offered a sermon clarifying the meaning of the phrase or talking specifically about it. Elder Nelson did, so I consider his remarks of much greater moment.

Elder Nelson disagrees with you.

Correct. The LDS understanding of "hell" makes that line of argument rather weak. Are you seriously suggesting that divine love != God's love? Incorrect. I do not know what "extremely" conditional means, as opposed (I assume) to "a little bit conditional" or "kind of conditional" or "rather conditional" or "moderately conditional". As Elder Nelson explained, God's love cannot correctly be characterized as "unconditional". Incorrect. I am both willing and able to look at it from your perspective, and have done so. I simply disagree with the blanket, fuzzy-thinking, meaningless pronouncement that God's love is unconditional. In what sense do you consider that a "verbal jab"? It was the same as saying that you were comparing apples to Buicks. The only "verbal jab" I may have offered was when I identified your actions as those of a world-class jerk. This was certainly hyperbolic -- "garden-variety internet jerk" would have been more accurate -- but the point was that your reactions were making useful conversation unlikely. Let's suppose we accept your viewpoint for the sake of argument. How is this a useful thing? If we are damned, who cares if God loves us? What solace is there in knowing that God is eternally mourning our lost state? It is useless, a non-consolation. God's love is only meaningful to us if it results in something to our benefit. Or do you suppose Satan's state is somehow less damned because (as you suppose) God still "loves" him? This may be true, or you may be misconstruing the meaning. In either case, I hardly see how it is an important distinction. So if I ground my child for all eternity and never, ever, EVER allow him in my presence or to inherit what I have -- that is, if I completely disinherit him and forever and always turn away and refuse to acknowledge his status as my son -- then that is simply a stern form of grounding a naughty child? I completely disagree with your characterization. By all means, please explain the difference.

My point is that it's rather silly that we would even need the idea of Christ's return to motivate us. We're mortal, after all. We're all going to die pretty soon. We'll be standing before the Lord in very little time, so worrying about the timing of his coming seems misplaced (to say the least).

I do not believe we have received any such revelation.

Does anyone really believe that Mohammed is asking questions in sincerity? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

VORT'S SIGNS OF THE IMMINENT ARRIVAL OF THE PRESENCE OF THE LORD I've gotten fat.My reflexes are slowing down.My kids are starting to get as tall as me.I'm going gray.My joints often ache.I can't remember the other ones. (This is one of the signs, too).

Eschatology is a waste of time. I will stand before Christ within the next 50 or 60 years, max. This is true whether he comes again to earth or not.

Just as a point of clarification: If you have received your temple endowment, you would be guilty of adultery for any sexual activity outside of marriage, even if you were divorced -- indeed, even if your sealing to your husband were dissolved.

If your thinking on the matter is to list out various possible acts and ask, "Is this sinful? Is that sinful?", then I think you are almost entirely missing the point of the Savior's teachings. Do not lust after women (or, needless to say, men). It's unholy. People are more than their sex organs. Look on them as brothers and sisters. To ask "What if I stick my tongue in her ear? What if I stick my tongue down her throat? What if I stick my tongue in her navel?" is to ignore the underlying meaning of the teaching and instead focus on the wording. Now, wherever we are at, that's where we start. No one is expected to become perfect by tomorrow. We learn by doing, and that learning takes place line upon line. We learn to control our thoughts. Beating ourselves up overly much because we wondered how it would be to kiss that girl (or other thoughts along those lines) is probably not useful. On the other hand, if we are not working to control our thoughts and make them divine, we are losing our opportunity to learn what God has for us.

To quote my previous post: You and others are arguing that we should believe a in global flood because the Biblical record describes the flood as global. I am pointing out that this is utter nonsense. That is: The Biblical record does not describe a flood as being global because the Biblical record cannot describe a flood as being global. That does not directly argue about the global nature of the flood; rather, it argues about the mindset of those who wrote the account.

A testimony is not faith, per se. A testimony is a revelation. The question is, What would it take for someone to cease believing the revelation they were given? In the case of at least some people, merely discovering that Noah's flood did not cover the entire earth would apparently be enough to cause them to forsake the revelation of truth they received. That does not mean their revelation (testimony) was false, or that the seed wasn't good. It is that they planted it in a dry wadi that got flooded out. Okay, sorry about that one. I partially agree with this, but in the end I think I do not agree. We, all of us, believe wrong things. In fact, there may not be anything we believe that is pristinely correct. But that doesn't mean all our knowledge is false or useless. It means we're using Aristotelian physics instead of Newtonian, or Newtonian physics in stead of Einsteinian. God hates dolphins.

This is a continuation of a thread derailing that took place in another forum. This seems to me like you are saying that Heavenly Father will not continue to love His children if they are condemned to not be in His presence. How did you arrive at this idea? My original reply was to LatteLady, a non-Mormon posting on the Christian Beliefs Board. I was using language that I thought would be more understandable to her. I personally do not find that line of argument particularly convincing, nor would I use it with Latter-day Saints. This is your (faulty) inference, not my implication. I neither said nor believe any such thing. Consider the typical non-LDS Christian belief in heaven and hell: Some will enjoy heaven while others suffer endlessly in hell. Now, consider the common Christian belief (non-LDS, though many Latter-day Saints appear to believe this) that God's love will make up for any and all deficiencies -- basically, Nehor's doctrine that God created everyone, God loves everyone, so therefore God will save everyone. These two beliefs are in direct contradiction. The latter belief is obviously faulty, but why? I see two possible solutions to this seeming conundrum: God's love will not save his children.God does not love everyone the same.These two solutions are actually the same thing. The only difference is in how you care to define "divine love". If divine love is defined as the salvific power of God to redeem his people, then God's love most clearly does not apply to all people in the same way. If divine love is defined as the warm fuzzies that God feels toward his creation, then perhaps in that sense God does love everyone the same, but what of it? It's a useless and unimportant characteristic, sort of like saying that God is eight feet tall or is right-handed. You continue to ignore Elder Nelson's quote. As I wrote before: If you define the love of God to be the warm feeling he has toward us, then I grant that it is possible (but by no means obvious) that his "love" (i.e. warm feeling) is unconditional. But in this case, God's love is a useless characteristic. You are mistaken in your characterization. Elder Nelson does not merely "not say that [God's love] is unconditional". Rather, he explicitly says that God's love "cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional." In other words, to say that God's love is "unconditional" is to speak falsely. At least, according to Elder Nelson. How so? In what possible way does this render my statement wrong? You know, Relentless, you are really coming off as a world-class jerk. I have not yet spoken down to you or criticized you personally. I have argued a point: That God's love is not unconditional. I have presented my reasoning. You can do the same without all the unwarranted personal vindictiveness. How so? Is it placing limits on God to state that he is unable to save his children in sin? This is wrong. That is not his primary argument in any possible sense. Rather, it is an almost parenthetical clarification that he mentions. And therefore...? God's love is still not unconditional. Please review Elder Nelson's statement: While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional. Let me restate that for your benefit: It [God's love] cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional. That has been and remains my only point. I never made such a statement about the offering of God's love. In fact, I disbelieve the statement you wrote: God's love is quite clearly offered to all. Because you continue to insist that Elder Nelson's article does not say what it clearly does say: That God's love cannot correctly be called unconditional. Then you misread me. So mockery is your discussion method of choice? What sort of proof would suffice? Just a video of me being crucified? This is absurd. You said that we all agree that we could not forgive someone for crucifying us. I said that's incorrect: We don't agree on it. I think it's entirely possible that a non-divine being could still forgive someone for crucifying him. Your call that I now provide proof that I would do so is irrelevant. What has this to do with our discussion? What do you mean, "as previously demonstrated"? You have demonstrated nothing. It's simple: If you are going to accuse me of claiming that my words are definitive, you must provide the quotation where I said so. Otherwise, retract your claim. So what? The point is, the fact that each of us has an opinion does not mean the both opinions are equally valid, which is what you claimed. Well, I'm glad you recognize it. I am not offering an opinion. I am offering a kind of syllogism, where I explicitly define the terms. You may take issue with the definitions, which is your right. But that does not invalidate the logic. What do you mean? I have all sorts of scriptural basis for it. So, of what immediate value is God's love? How does this relate to Elder Nelson's statement? So you are saying that if God produced a plan that would require him to stop loving some of his children, that he would then reject any such plan because it would require him to stop loving some of his children? Surely you can see how hopelessly circular your assertion is. In any case, I would be happy to examine any evidence you can give demonstrating that God would reject any such plan. In fact, you are making that up. This is Elder Nelson's statement. Take it up with him. Then the fault is yours for misinterpreting what I said.

You are correct, of course. I apologize. This is a complete derail of LatteLady's original post, and is in the wrong forum for such a discussion, to boot. EDIT: Derailed thread continued here.

I agree. I think HiJolly does, too. I believe you are missing his point, which I understand to be that the literal occurrence and global nature of the flood of Noah are central to the testimony of many Saints. This may be unfortunate, but it is a fact.

Yes. I personally know several. I would be surprised if there were not at least a few on this very discussion list whose testimony of the gospel would be badly threatened if Noah's flood were shown to be anything less than literal in nature and global in scope. Of course not, but that is not the issue. Not sure what HiJolly said that implies to you he thinks that God wanted the dolphins dead.