Becoming children of God

[lattelady]

I am forever grateful that my Heavenly Father made it possible, thru Christ's death for me to be called His daughter. I'm thankful that, while I was yet a sinner, He loved me. I know that none of us deserve His grace and mercy. Yet He offers it to all. I am so grateful that His love is unconditional. When I consider what it will be like to live with Him forever, it blows my mind! He is so good...so kind, so amazing, so forgiving. He chose ME! I will give Him all my worship. I can't believe that the God of Everything loves me and gave Himself to make a way for me to live with Him eternally and become like His Son. His love is unimaginable!

[Vort]

I am forever grateful that my Heavenly Father made it possible, thru Christ's death for me to be called His daughter.

Agreed.

Who does a daughter grow up to be like?

I am so grateful that His love is unconditional.

If God's love is unconditional, why will there be people condemned to hell?

[JudoMinja]

Vort-

His daughters can grow up to be just as Christ-like as his sons. Gender is not important in the doctrine except in the roles played in marriage. There are many references in the scriptures to the importance of motherhood, and they touch briefly on the nature of Mary and other strong women like Ester and Ruth. This shows that the gospel is not simply inclusive of males, but of females as well.

God cannot accept the unrepentant into his kingdom. Unconditional love does not mean letting your children get away with living unrighteously. He will forgive all that we do wrong, so long as we are repentant. We will receive his blessings for the good that we do, and we will also receive chastizement for the bad. When we recognize that we have done wrong and seek to make restitution, he will make up for the rest.

Unconditional love means recognizing the importance of letting your children learn from their mistakes by suffering the consequences that follow. If you are always bailed out and never deal with the effects of your actions, you will never learn, never grow, never understand. Some will be too stubborn to learn, to hard-hearted to see the lessons presented them. These will always continue in their suffering. This does not mean God does not love them. It simply means that they do not love God.

[Vort]

Vort-

His daughters can grow up to be just as Christ-like as his sons. Gender is not important in the doctrine except in the roles played in marriage. There are many references in the scriptures to the importance of motherhood, and they touch briefly on the nature of Mary and other strong women like Ester and Ruth. This shows that the gospel is not simply inclusive of males, but of females as well.

You have totally, completely, and utterly missed the point of my post.

God cannot accept the unrepentant into his kingdom. Unconditional love does not mean letting your children get away with living unrighteously...Unconditional love means recognizing the importance of letting your children learn from their mistakes by suffering the consequences that follow.

Actually, "unconditional love" means loving without condition. I do not believe that God loves without condition. This is even more obviously true when we consider the meaning of God's love, as explained in 1 Nephi 22:25:

And it came to pass that I beheld that the rod of iron, which my father had seen, was the word of God, which led to the fountain of living waters, or to the tree of life; which waters are a representation of the love of God; and I also beheld that the tree of life was a representation of the love of God.

Remember that the waters and the tree, though available to all, are given only to those who actually make the effort to come and get them.

[NeuroTypical]

Many Christian sects believe that unless you make Christ your savior, you're not one of Heavenly Father's children.

I just wanted to point out that we do not believe that. God is our father, and we are all His children. Even the Buddhist, or athiest, or serial murderer on death row.

LM

[Relentless]

Vort, I think she was saying that his love is unconditional, which it is. Do you think that Heavenly Father stops loving us if we don't make it to the Celestial Kingdom? Your answer about "If God's love is unconditional, why will people be condemned to hell?" Is really off base. Now if she had said God's unconditional forgiveness, then you would have a leg to stand on with your argument.

And since when is our NOT accepting something that is offered unconditionally make what is offered conditional? Your logic is flawed, and your example is wrong. I think we can all agree that none of US could love someone who had just NAILED our hands and feet to wood enough to say "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do". Yet Jesus did. Seems pretty unconditional to me...

[Vort]

Vort, I think she was saying that his love is unconditional, which it is.

Please prove this. Elder Nelson appears to disagree with you:

While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional. (Emphasis in original.)

Do you think that Heavenly Father stops loving us if we don't make it to the Celestial Kingdom? Your answer about "If God's love is unconditional, why will people be condemned to hell?" Is really off base.

Saying that my statement is "off base" is not the same as demonstrating that my statement is "off base". I welcome a demonstration.

Now if she had said God's unconditional forgiveness, then you would have a leg to stand on with your argument.

I think my argument has legs.

And since when is our NOT accepting something that is offered unconditionally make what is offered conditional? Your logic is flawed, and your example is wrong.

Again, merely claiming that my logic is flawed and my example wrong does not establish it as so.

I think we can all agree that none of US could love someone who had just NAILED our hands and feet to wood enough to say "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do".

You are incorrect.

Yet Jesus did. Seems pretty unconditional to me...

That it "seems pretty unconditional" to you really doesn't mean much, does it? This is not a question of how unconditional some act of love might seem to Relentless.

Does God love Satan in any meaningful, useful sense? If so, please demonstrate. If not, please explain how God's love is "unconditional".

[Relentless]

Ok, let's break this down.

"On the other hand, many verses affirm that the higher levels of love the Father and the Son feel for each of us—and certain divine blessings stemming from that love—are conditional"

So Elder Maxwell's quote right off the bat is that the "higher levels of love, and certain blessings" are conditional. That does not say that they cease, just because you love person A more than person B or give them more blessings, you do not stop loving person B. Your argument seems to imply that because Heavenly Father's love is demonstrated to us by degrees, it must also mean that His love for us is measured in degrees, thereby making it possible for some of his children to receive 0 degrees of that love.

I do not disagree that there are levels and prerequisits for receiving the FULLNESS of Heavenly Father's love; rather I am saying that it is impossible to say that God STOPS loving us.

Let's start with the most often quoted scripture; John 3:16

For God so loved the WORLD, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting light. (emphasis added)

Now you might say that in order to qualify for that love, you have to live right, and accept the attonement. But that is not true, Jesus suffered for all of the sins of all mankind. He did this out of love for us. Now if we chose to accept this or not does not change the fact that he did it. Jesus did not say, well, I am only going to suffer for the sins of those who I know will accept this, thereby qualifing all to utilize this atonement.

Next, let's consider Moroni 7:47

47 But charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him.

Now how can we have charity, which is "pure love" and which "endures forever", and yet somehow our Heavenly Father doesn't? That makes no sense.

Now, had you bothered to read the entire article, you would have come across this quote

Divine Love and the Sinner

"Does this mean the Lord does not love the sinner? Of course not. Divine love is infinite and universal. The Savior loves both saints and sinners. The Apostle John affirmed, “We love him, because he first loved us.” And Nephi, upon seeing in vision the Lord’s mortal ministry, declared: “The world, because of their iniquity, shall judge him to be a thing of naught; wherefore they scourge him, and he suffereth it; and they smite him, and he suffereth it. Yea, they spit upon him, and he suffereth it, because of his loving kindness and his long-suffering towards the children of men.” We know the expansiveness of the Redeemer’s love because He died that all who die might live again."

I don't know how else I can demonstrate that your argument is off base. Simply put, because Heavenly Father will "show more love and/or blessings" to some of His children, does NOT mean he STOPS loving his other children. Even Elder Maxwell says as much.

As for the legs of your argument, of course you think it has legs, why else would you make it? Who enters into a debate KNOWING they will lose?

Your first example of the tree of life was flawwed. It is flawwed because the fruit is offered to all. Acceptance of the fruit requires US to do something to claim it. It does not demonstrate a "selective love" of Heavenly Father. It shows us that the FULLNESS of his love is offered to us, if we TRAVEL the path and take it. That is how your logic is flawed.

How am I incorrect about us being able to demonstrate love for someone who has nailed us to a cross? Have YOU demonstrated that kind of love? Because I haven't, nor do I kid myself into thinking I could.

As for your second to last statement about this being my opinion, isn't that the point behind a forum? Are you actually the living voicepiece for Heavenly Father? If not, then your statements are all your opinion, same as mine are, thereby rendering my opinions just as valid as yours.

As for Heavenly Father's love for Lucifer, where do you read that he STOPPED loving him?

As I read it from Abraham 3:27-28

27 And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first.

28 And the second was angry, and kept not his first estate; and at that day, many followed after him.

It was Lucifer who decided to "keep not his first estate".

It doesn't say that Heavenly Father stopped loving him. Also, if this life was a test, and "For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things." (2 Nep 2:11) then why would Heavenly Father's plan set up 1/3 of His children for failure? What, is a 66% maximun a reasonable success rate? How do you come to the thought that Heavenly Father STOPS loving his children?

[Vort]

Ok, let's break this down.

"On the other hand, many verses affirm that the higher levels of love the Father and the Son feel for each of us—and certain divine blessings stemming from that love—are conditional"

So Elder Maxwell's quote right off the bat is that the "higher levels of love, and certain blessings" are conditional. That does not say that they cease, just because you love person A more than person B or give them more blessings, you do not stop loving person B.

And therefore...? The immediate topic is whether God's love is unconditional. I have put forth arguments to show that God's love is indeed conditional. You are now trying to turn it into a question of whether loving A more than B means that B is unloved. But, of course, that is a straw man.

Your argument seems to imply that because Heavenly Father's love is demonstrated to us by degrees, it must also mean that His love for us is measured in degrees, thereby making it possible for some of his children to receive 0 degrees of that love.

Or rather, you infer that meaning.

I do not disagree that there are levels and prerequisits for receiving the FULLNESS of Heavenly Father's love; rather I am saying that it is impossible to say that God STOPS loving us.

Actually what you said was:

I think she was saying that his love is unconditional, which it is.

I disagree.

Let's start with the most often quoted scripture; John 3:16

For God so loved the WORLD, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting light. (emphasis added)

Now you might say that in order to qualify for that love, you have to live right, and accept the attonement.

I might. But I didn't.

Next, let's consider Moroni 7:47

47 But charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him.

Now how can we have charity, which is "pure love" and which "endures forever", and yet somehow our Heavenly Father doesn't? That makes no sense.

Nor is it what I said.

Now, had you bothered to read the entire article,

So you are suggesting that I did not read the entire article?

Then you are wrong.

you would have come across this quote

Divine Love and the Sinner

"Does this mean the Lord does not love the sinner? Of course not. Divine love is infinite and universal. The Savior loves both saints and sinners. The Apostle John affirmed, “We love him, because he first loved us.” And Nephi, upon seeing in vision the Lord’s mortal ministry, declared: “The world, because of their iniquity, shall judge him to be a thing of naught; wherefore they scourge him, and he suffereth it; and they smite him, and he suffereth it. Yea, they spit upon him, and he suffereth it, because of his loving kindness and his long-suffering towards the children of men.” We know the expansiveness of the Redeemer’s love because He died that all who die might live again."

I don't know how else I can demonstrate that your argument is off base.

Elder Nelson (not Maxwell) said outright that divine love is not unconditional. For some strange reason, you seem to be avoiding this most studiously, even while you throw up all sorts of other tangential objections to things you only infer from my words.

Simply put, because Heavenly Father will "show more love and/or blessings" to some of His children, does NOT mean he STOPS loving his other children. Even Elder Maxwell says as much.

And therefore...?

Your first example of the tree of life was flawwed. It is flawwed because the fruit is offered to all. Acceptance of the fruit requires US to do something to claim it. It does not demonstrate a "selective love" of Heavenly Father.

Then you are missing the point. God offers his love to all, freely. That love is life and salvation. But not all receive that love. Who receives the love of God? Those who satisfy the conditions.

Ergo, conditional divine love.

It shows us that the FULLNESS of his love is offered to us, if we TRAVEL the path and take it. That is how your logic is flawed.

That is like saying, "My dog is a German shepherd. THAT is why you are wrong about Beluga whales." In other words, you have failed to demonstrate any flaws in my logic, despite your triumphant claims. Or else I'm just too darn dense to see it, in which case I ask that you explain your deconstruction of my logic a bit more explicitly.

How am I incorrect about us being able to demonstrate love for someone who has nailed us to a cross?

You wrote:

I think we can all agree that none of US could love someone who had just NAILED our hands and feet to wood enough to say "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do".

You are wrong. We do not all agree on that point.

Have YOU demonstrated that kind of love? Because I haven't, nor do I kid myself into thinking I could.

Whether or not Relentless is capable of demonstrating that level of love is not the topic.

As for your second to last statement about this being my opinion, isn't that the point behind a forum?

What are you talking about? I never said that something was your opinion.

Perhaps you are talking about this:

That it "seems pretty unconditional" to you really doesn't mean much, does it? This is not a question of how unconditional some act of love might seem to Relentless.

If so, then once again you missed the point. We were discussing whether God's love is unconditional, not whether some certain act of love seems unconditional to you. For you to bring up an example and then say, "That looks pretty unconditional to me", thus implying that God's love must be unconditional in all cases, is as if I claimed that all cars were white, then pointed to a cream-colored car and said, "That one looks pretty white to me", then acting as if I had just proved my point about all cars being white.

Are you actually the living voicepiece for Heavenly Father? If not, then your statements are all your opinion, same as mine are, thereby rendering my opinions just as valid as yours.

This is problematic on at least two counts:

• I never made any such claim as you suggest, so your point is ill-taken.
• The idea that since we both lack authority to make definitive statements, therefore our opinions are of equal validity, is absurd. If it is my opinion that a bat is a mammal and your opinion that a bat is a fish, both opinions aren't equally valid, even if neither of us is a practicing zoologist.

As for Heavenly Father's love for Lucifer, where do you read that he STOPPED loving him?

Moses 4:3

Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me...I caused that he should be cast down;

If God's love is the reception of his glory and presence, as stated in 1 Nephi, then being eternally cast out of his glory and presence is the opposite.

As I read it from Abraham 3:27-28

27 And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first.

28 And the second was angry, and kept not his first estate; and at that day, many followed after him.

It was Lucifer who decided to "keep not his first estate".

It doesn't say that Heavenly Father stopped loving him.

How does this demonstrate your thesis that God's love is unconditional?

What do you believe is meant by "the love of God"?

Also, if this life was a test, and "For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things." (2 Nep 2:11) then why would Heavenly Father's plan set up 1/3 of His children for failure? What, is a 66% maximun a reasonable success rate?

Pray tell, what has this to do with the topic under discussion?

How do you come to the thought that Heavenly Father STOPS loving his children?

Now, now, this is not honest. I claimed that God's love is not unconditional. You are making up the rest.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Vort

[Relentless]

If God's love is unconditional, why will there be people condemned to hell?

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? The idea that you seem to be preaching is that the Fullness of Heavenly Father's love is Celestial Glory, and those who fall short are not loved by Heavenly Father. Your statement apears to take the stance that becasue some people will go to hell, then God must not love them.

I ask you, what scripture do you have to show us this? I am not speaking of receiving a "Fullness of Heavenly Father's Love" (ie Celestial Glory), but that He STOPS loving us if we go to "hell"?

Actually, "unconditional love" means loving without condition. I do not believe that God loves without condition. This is even more obviously true when we consider the meaning of God's love, as explained in 1 Nephi 22:25:

1 Nep 22:25 And he gathereth his children from the four quarters of the earth; and he numbereth his sheep, and they know him; and there shall be one fold and one shepherd; and he shall feed his sheep, and in him they shall find pasture.

So how does that show us that Heavenly Father's love is conditional? Hm, maybe you meant that Jesus will only love His sheep?

As to the example you gave;

And it came to pass that I beheld that the rod of iron, which my father had seen, was the word of God, which led to the fountain of living waters, or to the tree of life; which waters are a representation of the love of God; and I also beheld that the tree of life was a representation of the love of God.

Remember that the waters and the tree, though available to all, are given only to those who actually make the effort to come and get them.

How can you say that it is Heavenly Father who stops offering these gifts to us? We might not do what we need to in order to claim them (ie hold to the rod, continue on the straight and narrow path), but they are offered to us regardless of if we CHOOSE to accept them or not.

Your illustration does NOT prove that Heavenly Father does NOT unconditionally love us, it proves that in order to claim ALL of the blessings available to us, we need to hold to the rod and continue down the path.

Please prove this. Elder Nelson appears to disagree with you:

While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional. (Emphasis in original.)

Elder Nelson says

"While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional. The word does not appear in the scriptures. On the other hand, many verses affirm that the higher levels of love the Father and the Son feel for each of us—and certain divine blessings stemming from that love—are conditional. Before citing examples, it is well to recognize various forms of conditional expression in the scriptures."

So while he does not say that it is unconditional, he also states that it is the "higher levels of love the Father and the Son feel for each of us—and certain divine blessings stemming from that love" that are conditional. This is not so much an argument that Heavenly Father's love is conditional, as it is that the FULLNESS of it is. Thus rendering your statement

If God's love is unconditional, why will there be people condemned to hell?

wrong.

Now before you go off ignoring what I am saying and thinking that you alone speak for Heavenly Father, look at my side of the argument, which I will B R E A K D O W N to very SIMPLE terms. Heavenly Father loves His children. He demonstrated that love for us by sending his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ to earth to atone for our sins. We KNOW this because of John 3:16. By saying that His love IS conditional, you are placing limits upon Him. You will notice that Elder Nelson's argument for not saying "unconditional love" is primarily that the word unconditional is not listed in the scriptures. His examples go on to show receiving blessings and fullness of the Gospel require us to DO things, thereby rendering it conditional. Yet what happens to those who do NOT qualify for those "higher levels of love the Father and the Son feel for each of us—and certain divine blessings stemming from that love" because they did not DO the required tasks (ie your example of going to the tree)? Does Heavenly Father STOP loving them? Or did He not love them at all to begin with? Indeed, Elder Nelson says no.

"Does this mean the Lord does not love the sinner? Of course not. Divine love is infinite and universal. The Savior loves both saints and sinners. The Apostle John affirmed, “We love him, because he first loved us.” 39 And Nephi, upon seeing in vision the Lord’s mortal ministry, declared: “The world, because of their iniquity, shall judge him to be a thing of naught; wherefore they scourge him, and he suffereth it; and they smite him, and he suffereth it. Yea, they spit upon him, and he suffereth it, because of his loving kindness and his long-suffering towards the children of men.” We know the expansiveness of the Redeemer’s love because He died that all who die might live again."

And therefore...? The immediate topic is whether God's love is unconditional. I have put forth arguments to show that God's love is indeed conditional. You are now trying to turn it into a question of whether loving A more than B means that B is unloved. But, of course, that is a straw man.

You put forth arguments to show that the FULLNESS of that love is conditional, which I agree with. The statement at hand was is the love (no matter how small) offered unconditionally. I have offered arguments that it is.

Elder Nelson said outright that divine love is not unconditional. For some strange reason, you seem to be avoiding this most studiously, even while you throw up all sorts of other tangential objections to things you only infer from my words.

How am I avoiding this studiously? I am showing that in the same article, it says that Heavenly Father loves ALL His children. How is that avoiding? Oh, because I didn't agree with you, my bad.

Then you are missing the point. God offers his love to all, freely. That love is life and salvation. But not all receive that love. Who receives the love of God? Those who satisfy the conditions.

Ergo, conditional divine love.

How do you get that "that love is life and salvation"? More importantly, how do you get that the love stops (because the conditions weren't met) if you fail to acheive Celestial Glory? Are you implying that Jesus will be more tolerant and loving because those in the terrestrial kingdom will be in His presence?

That is like saying, "My dog is a German shepherd. THAT is why you are wrong about Beluga whales." In other words, you have failed to demonstrate any flaws in my logic, despite your triumphant claims. Or else I'm just too darn dense to see it, in which case I ask that you explain your deconstruction of my logic a bit more explicitly.

From what I read in your origional example

And it came to pass that I beheld that the rod of iron, which my father had seen, was the word of God, which led to the fountain of living waters, or to the tree of life; which waters are a representation of the love of God; and I also beheld that the tree of life was a representation of the love of God.

Remember that the waters and the tree, though available to all, are given only to those who actually make the effort to come and get them.

Is that Heavenly Father's love must be conditional because not everyone will reach the fruit (life everlasting, or eternal life; Celestial Glory) My argument is that Heavenly Father loves ALL of His children, EVEN if some fail to make it to Celestial Glory. Saying that i am talking about dogs and whales is a bit off, but what else would I expect from the Voice of Reasoned Thought?

You wrote:

I think we can all agree that none of US could love someone who had just NAILED our hands and feet to wood enough to say "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do".

You are wrong. We do not all agree on that point.

In the spirit of YOUR line of reasoning, please provide ME with proof that YOU would say the same thing. Perhaps in the form of a video, so we can see you having nails driven through your hands and feet, and then you asking Heavenly Father to forgive your tormentors?

What are you talking about? I never said that something was your opinion.

Perhaps you are talking about this:

That it "seems pretty unconditional" to you really doesn't mean much, does it? This is not a question of how unconditional some act of love might seem to Relentless.

If so, then once again you missed the point. We were discussing whether God's love is unconditional, not whether some certain act of love seems unconditional to you. For you to bring up an example and then say, "That looks pretty unconditional to me", thus implying that God's love must be unconditional in all cases, is as if I claimed that all cars were white, then pointed to a cream-colored car and said, "That one looks pretty white to me", then acting as if I had just proved my point about all cars being white.

So you stating

If God's love is unconditional, why will there be people condemned to hell?

is not an opinion? Is it a fact? Well maybe When you said

I do not believe that God loves without condition.

it was somehow NOT an opinion?

The point is that neither one of us SPEAKS for Heavenly Father. We both believe we are right, even though our views seem to be contradictory to one another. We have both provided examples we believe (ie interpret) to support our arguments. But the fact still remains that these are our OPINIONS. Last time I checked, the Voice of Reasoned Thought was NOT a delegated Church spokesperson, so anything you say here is opinion, wether you view it as such or not.

This is problematic on at least two counts:

• I never made any such claim as you suggest, so your point is ill-taken.
• The idea that since we both lack authority to make definitive statements, therefore our opinions are of equal validity, is absurd. If it is my opinion that a bat is a mammal and your opinion that a bat is a fish, both opinions aren't equally valid, even if neither of us is a practicing zoologist.

You did not claim to be Heavenly Father's spokesman, but you also claim that your words are definative on this subject (as previously demonstrated by you not thinking you were offering opinion)

As for the validity, who is to say that you are the one calling a bat a mamal in this argument? To me (uh oh, another opinion) your argument is like you calling a bat a fish. But I guess being the Voice, your words are never subjective, so I guess once again i am wrong. (dang)

Moses 4:3

Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me...I caused that he should be cast down;

If God's love is the reception of his glory and presence, as stated in 1 Nephi, then being eternally cast out of his glory and presence is the opposite.

Uh oh, you are offering opinion again. You saying "If God's love is the reception of his glory and presence, as stated in 1 Nephi, then being eternally cast out of his glory and presence is the opposite" operates under the assumption that "reception of his glory and presence" is the only meaning of Heavenly Father's love, which would make several scriptures far different. But again, I must admit, I do not have the authoratative powers of being the Voice, so maybe that is the only definition of Heavenly Father's love.

How does this demonstrate your thesis that God's love is unconditional?

What do you believe is meant by "the love of God"?

My example demonstrated that Heavenly Father did not stop loving his fallen children. It was in response to your question

Does God love Satan in any meaningful, useful sense? If so, please demonstrate. If not, please explain how God's love is "unconditional".

I was merely pointing out that you have no scriptural basis for your theory that Heavenly Father does not love Lucifer (satan).

What do I believe is meant by the love of God? I think it means that Heavenly Father wants good things to happen to us, for us and through us. That He wants us to be happy.

I can not find the reference right now, but I heard a talk given about the afterlife, and in it we were told that it's not that Heavenly Father won't want us to dwell with him, but that we wouldn't feel comfortable in his presence unless we are clean. I will continue to search for it, and post it when I find it.

Pray tell, what has this to do with the topic under discussion?

I was refrencing the prexistance, in a continued argument that Heavenly Father still loves His fallen children (the 1/3 who followed Lucifer). Why else would He accept a plan that He knew off the bat, 1/3 of His children would fail, so He would stop loving them?

Now, now, this is not honest. I claimed that God's love is not unconditional. You are making up the rest.

I am not making up that your argument is Heavenly Father will stop loving His children. Your statement is that His love (not fullness of His love), is conditional. Thereby meaning that it does not happen if we fail to meet those requirements. To me it seems as though you are saying He will STOP loving those who fail to acheive Celestial Glory, which I can not find scriptural reference for. I refuse to believe that not receiving the fullness of His love is the same as not receiving his love.

[prisonchaplain]

You know...and this may just be a stray thought...but the original post almost seemed like a love sonnet of gratitude. Not quite sure how it lead to a point by point debate. :-)

[Vort]

You know...and this may just be a stray thought...but the original post almost seemed like a love sonnet of gratitude. Not quite sure how it lead to a point by point debate. :-)

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.

Edited December 18, 2009 by Vort

[prisonchaplain]

I don't really mind rabbit trails and divergence...it just seemed to happen so quickly this time around. The content's good though. :-)

[Vanhin]

I am forever grateful that my Heavenly Father made it possible, thru Christ's death for me to be called His daughter. I'm thankful that, while I was yet a sinner, He loved me. I know that none of us deserve His grace and mercy. Yet He offers it to all. I am so grateful that His love is unconditional. When I consider what it will be like to live with Him forever, it blows my mind! He is so good...so kind, so amazing, so forgiving. He chose ME! I will give Him all my worship. I can't believe that the God of Everything loves me and gave Himself to make a way for me to live with Him eternally and become like His Son. His love is unimaginable!

There is actually a good bit of truth in your statement that I can agree with. It is true that according to Mormonism, all the spirits of mankind are the literal offspring of God. However, that does not automatically make us sons and daughters in the sense that we are "heirs and joint heirs" with Christ. This fact is made evident in the following testimony by Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon of Jesus Christ.

And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!

For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father— That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God. (D&C 76:22-24)

Through Christ, we can become begotten sons and daughters unto God, in the sense that we inherit all that God has. Another way true discipleship makes us sons and daughters unto God, is explained in the Book of Mormon. Of those who covenant with God through baptism and confirmation, King Benjamin taught:

And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters. (Mosiah 5:7)

I think that scripture closely resembles the feelings you expressed in your OP. Though there are elements that are not in harmony completely with your beliefs, there is enough there that I can rejoice with you.

For those interested, I think this classic exposition by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles is relevant -> LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Father and the Son .

Regards,

Vanhin

[billy2]

The Bible is clear that all people are God’s creation (Colossians 1:16), and that God loves the entire world (John 3:16), but only those who are born again are children of God (John 1:12; 11:52; Romans 8:16; 1 John 3:1-10).

In Scripture, the lost are never referred to as children of God. Ephesians 2:3 tells us that before we were saved we were “by nature objects of wrath.” Romans 9:8 says that “it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.” Instead of being born as God’s children, we are born in sin, which separates us from God and aligns us with Satan as God’s enemy (James 4:4; 1 John 3:8). Jesus said, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me” (John 8:42). Then a few verses later in John 8:44, Jesus told the Pharisees that they “belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire.” The fact that those who are not saved are not children of God is also seen in 1 John 3:10: “This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.”

We become children of God when we are saved because we are adopted into God’s family through our relationship with Jesus Christ (Galatians 4:5-6; Ephesians 1:5). This can be clearly seen in verses like Romans 8:14-17: “…because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, ‘Abba, Father.’ The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.” Those who are saved are children “of God through faith in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:26) because God has “predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will” (Ephesians 1:5).

[bmy-]

Those who are saved are children “of God through faith in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:26) because God has “predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will” (Ephesians 1:5).

Calvinist doctrine? Unfortunately that takes a giant dump on the concept of free will. It's fine to believe -- go for it. But to bring it as scripture to an LDS based forum seems silly. Of course, you had no choice in the matter I'm chained in to responding to you also.

Edited February 9, 2010 by bmy-