Is divine love unconditional?

[Vort]

This is a continuation of a thread derailing that took place in another forum.

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?

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.

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.

This is your (faulty) inference, not my implication. I neither said nor believe any such thing.

Your statement apears to take the stance that becasue some people will go to hell, then God must not love them.

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.

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?

You continue to ignore Elder Nelson's quote.

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.

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.

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,

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.

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 wrong.

How so? In what possible way does this render my statement wrong?

Now before you go off ignoring what I am saying and thinking that you alone speak for Heavenly Father,

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.

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.

How so?

Is it placing limits on God to state that he is unable to save his children in sin?

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.

This is wrong. That is not his primary argument in any possible sense. Rather, it is an almost parenthetical clarification that he mentions.

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...? God's love is still not unconditional.

You put forth arguments to show that the FULLNESS of that love is conditional, which I agree with.

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.

The statement at hand was is the love (no matter how small) offered unconditionally.

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.

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.

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.

From what I read in your origional example Is that Heavenly Father's love must be conditional because not everyone will reach the fruit (life everlasting, or eternal life; Celestial Glory)

Then you misread me.

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?

So mockery is your discussion method of choice?

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 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.

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.

What has this to do with our discussion?

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)

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.

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.

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.

But I guess being the Voice, your words are never subjective, so I guess once again i am wrong. (dang)

Well, I'm glad you recognize it.

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.

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.

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

What do you mean? I have all sorts of scriptural basis for it.

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.

So, of what immediate value is God's love?

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.

How does this relate to Elder Nelson's statement?

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?

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.

I am not making up that your argument is Heavenly Father will stop loving His children.

In fact, you are making that up.

Your statement is that His love (not fullness of His love), is conditional.

This is Elder Nelson's statement. Take it up with him.

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.

Then the fault is yours for misinterpreting what I said.

Edited December 18, 2009 by Vort
mispeling

[Snow]

Is divine love unconditional?

No - according to Russell M. Nelson,""Divine love is also conditional. While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional." ("Divine Love," Ensign, Feb. 2003, page 20)

Yes - according to Elder Neal A. Maxwell of the Quorum of the Twelve, “Too often we behave as if we were in massive competition with others for God’s love. But we have His love, unconditionally and universally; it is our love of Him that remains to be proven” (Even As I Am, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1982, p. 63).

[Just_A_Guy]

BUT: Also from Elder Nelson (same article as the one Snow quotes):

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.

[Taldarin]

He may love sinners but that doesn't necessarily make his love unconditional.

[lydlou]

seperation from God is not caused by a lack of love. (some might even define it as tough love) It is caused by our propensity to make wrong and hurtfull choices. ask any parent who has "lost" a child to the world. In there harts they are crying "come home all is forgiven" come home and folow our rules. no smoking in this house. get a job and buy ur own food. but we love you and wanna help you make right choices again.

C.S. Lewis once wrote "the gates of hell are locked from the inside" meaning when we excercise our agency to continue choseing ways that seperate us from God, we are the ones causing the seperation, not him.

Alma 40 also suports this, to parapharse- if we are good we will become perfectly good, but those who are evil, will become perfectly evil. (as i said a paraphrase, and not the best, i would look it up, but is past my bedtime.

being a recent convert i'm not well versed in what the Elders of the church have said, I was raised to focus rather on what "the Lord hath said" that is, to search the scriptures for myself.

Gods love is more than just warm fuzzys. His love is what sent Jesus to the cross for us. His love is is in his willingness to forgive- to forgive repetedly.

salvation is what is conditional, conditional on us accepting his love, his forgiveness, and ofcourse his rules, because he is the heavenly father, and all good fathers have rules. as children we may not understand the why, but they are for our bennifit, and all rulse have consequences, else they would be meaningless.

[Moksha]

Would accepting God's unconditional love tend to undermine earthly authority?

[Relentless]

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.

So your argument that if God loves everyone, why will people go to hell is only for Non LDS people? Then you somehow make the leap from "Heavenly Father's love for his children" to "Divine love and salvation".

I am sorry, but the two are NOT inclusive. As any PARENT can tell you, you can LOVE your child and still punish them. I think the bulk of our disagreement stems from 2 things;

1) How we view Heavenly Father's love for us. To you, "Divine Love" is extremely conditional. To me, Heavenly Father is a loving parent whom wants the best for His children.

2) Both of our own unwillingness to look at the issue from the other's perspective, coupled with verbal jabs (by both parties "Dog and whale" refrence ring a bell?).

Before we continue down this path, and I demonstrate more of my "world class jerk"ness, let me set a few things straight.

I do NOT think that our Heavenly Father's love for us will allow Him to OVERLOOK our sin. In order to qualify for SALVATION, we need to practice the principles of the gospel. However, will Heavenly Father STOP loving His children if they fail? No.

Now we keep debating the term "stop loving", but to me it seems as though IF love is conditional, THEN if the conditions are not met, the love will NOT be applied. Seeing as how we are all here because Heavenly Father loves us, then this would constitute a STOPING of His love.

As for scriptural references that Heavenly Father doesn't love Lucifer, I would like your examples. Simply not allowing him to be in Heavenly Father's presence is more like a parent grounding a child then ceasing to love him.

Also, the origional argument was not is Divine Love unconditional, but rather is Heavenly Father's love unconditional.

Edited December 18, 2009 by Relentless

[NeuroTypical]

Things to consider:

* Mothers usually love their kids, even if said kids end up horrible people that do horrible things. Prisons are full of inmates with mothers who love them.

* Loving someone doesn't mean saving them from themselves.

* I find Love to be overrated, in that it isn't enough to create a stable marriage, and is often used as a tool to hide or defend or perpetrate evil.

[Vort]

So your argument that if God loves everyone, why will people go to hell is only for Non LDS people?

Correct. The LDS understanding of "hell" makes that line of argument rather weak.

Then you somehow make the leap from "Heavenly Father's love for his children" to "Divine love and salvation".

Are you seriously suggesting that divine love != God's love?

I am sorry, but the two are NOT inclusive. As any PARENT can tell you, you can LOVE your child and still punish them. I think the bulk of our disagreement stems from 2 things;

1) How we view Heavenly Father's love for us. To you, "Divine Love" is extremely conditional.

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".

2) Both of our own unwillingness to look at the issue from the other's perspective,

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.

coupled with verbal jabs (by both parties "Dog and whale" refrence ring a bell?).

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.

I do NOT think that our Heavenly Father's love for us will allow Him to OVERLOOK our sin. In order to qualify for SALVATION, we need to practice the principles of the gospel. However, will Heavenly Father STOP loving His children if they fail? No.

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?

Now we keep debating the term "stop loving", but to me it seems as though IF love is conditional, THEN if the conditions are not met, the love will NOT be applied. Seeing as how we are all here because Heavenly Father loves us, then this would constitute a STOPING of His love.

This may be true, or you may be misconstruing the meaning. In either case, I hardly see how it is an important distinction.

As for scriptural references that Heavenly Father doesn't love Lucifer, I would like your examples. Simply not allowing him to be in Heavenly Father's presence is more like a parent grounding a child then ceasing to love him.

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.

Also, the origional argument was not is Divine Love unconditional, but rather is Heavenly Father's love unconditional.

By all means, please explain the difference.

[hordak]

Yes the love is unconditional.

The problem is people commonly confuse love and acceptance.

[Dravin]

The problem is people commonly confuse love and acceptance.

Yep. I liked Elder Oak's talk: LDS.org - Ensign Article - Love and Law

People assume, If you really loved me you'd not punish me, require anything of me or want me to be any different than I am. Or in other words, that Mercy can rob Justice.

[Vort]

Yes the love is unconditional.

Elder Nelson disagrees with you.

[Dravin]

Elder Nelson disagrees with you.

That's okay though. Elder Maxwell agrees with him.

[Vort]

That's okay though. Elder Maxwell agrees with him.

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.

[Dravin]

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.

Which is fine if you want to do that. But fact of the matter is Elder Maxwell characterized God's love as unconditional. You can attach as much or as little weight as you'd like to that, as others will with Elder Nelson.

Actually Elder Nelson seems to be using some nuances on unconditional love that I don't think most are applying. For instance, I think most are talking about love as how God feels about them (this is my child, I love them) as opposed to what that Love may offer them (exultation). In the latter case, clearly the blessing offered by God's love are conditional (but as pointed out by Elder Nelson universal), in the former the heavens wept over Lucifer (D&C 76: 26).

[Vort]

Which is fine if you want to do that. But fact of the matter is Elder Maxwell characterized God's love as unconditional. You can attach as much or as little weight as you'd like to that, as others will with Elder Nelson.

Actually Elder Nelson seems to be using some nuances on unconditional love that I don't think most are applying. For instance, I think most are talking about love as how God feels about them (this is my child, I love them) as opposed to what that Love may offer them (exultation). In the latter case, clearly the blessing offered by God's love are conditional (but as pointed out by Elder Nelson universal), in the former the heavens wept over Lucifer (D&C 76: 26).

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?

[Dravin]

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?

Ultimately if that love is useful is independent to whether it is there. I can give money to a dead man, doesn't do him a bit of good, but I still gave money to a dead man, that it doesn't benefit him doesn't change the fact that the money was given. So your question of, "How is that useful?" is a tangent to the question of, "is it there?" So if that is really what you want to know you might want to be asking that question. A thread title is a powerful thing, people will answer the question given over nuance that may follow later.*

As far as why are people so invested in the love being unconditional (independent of the truth of it) I think it is a degree a conditioned response that has arisen from people making comments like, "God hates *insert group of sinners*. For instance, you've got folks going around claiming that God hates Gays, Blacks, Jews or even Mormons, the standard response is, "God loves everyone, even the sinners!" So the idea that God loves everyone is deeply ingrained. Now some take that to the extreme of, "so there are no consequences for any behavior." Others understand as Elder Oaks does, that love is not a free pass to do anything you want.

Edit: *I realize you have asked that in the thread, you aren't just assuming people are diving your intent. However, when somebody asserts that God's love is unconditional and you respond with, "How is that useful?" It comes across as an attempted rebuttal instead of a follow up. To actually answer your question, it isn't particularly useful. It does however give lots of warm fuzzies, much like how it is stressed we are Children of God, it helps us realize our God's relationship with us and how he may feel about us. But fundamentally the fact that Lucifer was a Child of God didn't save him from perdition, how was that knowledge good or useful?

Edited December 18, 2009 by Dravin

[hordak]

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?

Because it show the error of the ideas of predestination and limited atonement.

I think the closest one can come to understanding God in this life is being a parent. As parents we love our kids so much that sometimes we have to punish them to teach them. We call this unconditional love.

Because our relationship with God is so similar (IMO) we apply the same term.

We could say Gods love is conditional on your willingness to follow the rules but it wouldn't fit in with our world views as we don't love our kids any less when we punish them.

[spamlds]

I don't mean this to be offensive, but it seems that some of the forum members use a lot of words to get to teach what should be answers to simple question. That is best done by going to the Book of Mormon instead of dealing with "syllogisms" and man's obtuse rationalizations.

Is God's love unconditional?

"Behold, the Lord esteemeth all flesh in one; he that is righteous is favored of God." (1 Nephi 17:35)

Teach simple truth using the Book of Mormon. Christ's sheep will hear his voice in the words of the Book of Mormon. Those who can't hear them or reject them are not his sheep. Don't waste time preaching to the "goats." We should warn the goats and move on.

[Vort]

Ultimately if that love is useful is independent to whether it is there. I can give money to a dead man, doesn't do him a bit of good, but I still gave money to a dead man, that it doesn't benefit him doesn't change the fact that the money was given. So your question of, "How is that useful?" is a tangent to the question of, "is it there?" So if that is really what you want to know you might want to be asking that question. A thread title is a powerful thing, people will answer the question given over nuance that may follow later.

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.

As far as why are people so invested in the love being unconditional (independent of the truth of it) I think it is a degree a conditioned response that has arisen from people making comments like, "God hates *insert group of sinners*. For instance, you've got folks going around claiming that God hates Gays, Blacks, Jews or even Mormons, the standard response is, "God loves everyone, even the sinners!" So the idea that God loves everyone is deeply ingrained. Now some take that to the extreme of, "so there are no consequences for any behavior." Others understand as Elder Oaks does, that love is not a free pass to do anything you want.

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.

[Just_A_Guy]

Could Elder Nelson's talk be accurately characterized as saying that God loves everyone to at least some minimal degree; but He loves the obedient (and rewards them) more, and thus His love is in that sense conditional?

[Dravin]

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

Hm... sounds like we may have a disconnect of practical verses technical. Even if Satan was the only exception to God loving everyone (or Cain or who have you) that means there is a condition and thus its not technically unconditional. But for all practical purposes there is nothing I or most of the people on this planet could possibly due to make God not love us (become a Son of Perdition).

So I think I get where you are coming from a little better now. I'm not sure I agree that God does not love Satan (or Cain) on some level (even though this is useless as far as benefiting Satan or Cain any at this point), but given your premises your conclusion is reasonable. :)

Edited December 18, 2009 by Dravin

[Vort]

I don't mean this to be offensive, but it seems that some of the forum members use a lot of words to get to teach what should be answers to simple question. That is best done by going to the Book of Mormon instead of dealing with "syllogisms" and man's obtuse rationalizations.

Is God's love unconditional?

"Behold, the Lord esteemeth all flesh in one; he that is righteous is favored of God." (1 Nephi 17:35)

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.

[Relentless]

I simply disagree with the blanket, fuzzy-thinking, meaningless pronouncement that God's love is unconditional.

How is it meaningless to know that Heavenly Father loves you? How is knowing the relationship WE share with HIM meaningless?

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.

How is it useful to KNOW that even if we disappoint Him, Heavenly Father will still LOVE us? I guess that this depends on the state of mind of those who hear it. To some (me) it is comforting to know that we have a Heavenly Father who will FOREVER love us. To others (you) it is of no importance, and should be disregarded as such.

As to what solace is there in knowing God is eternally mourning our lost state; I cannot offer any. I can offer the observation that it parallels the Saviors teachings that "inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these, your brethern, ye have done it unto me". How? Because, our SAVIOR feels a special bond with each of us. See 1 Nephi 21:15-16

15 For can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? Yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee, O house of Israel.

16 Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands; thy walls are continually before me.

Also, consider for a moment the teachings of Alma to the people of Gideon;

Alma 7:12 And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities.

Now I suppose you could argue that in order to be "his people" you need to follow the principles of the gospel. However, if that were your stance, I would ask is it ONLY members who can call upon our Savior, the attonement or Heavenly Father to bring us comfort? Do WE corner the market on goodness and blessings from Heavenly Father? My answer would be no.

As for "God's love is only meaningful if it results in something to our bennefit";

Do you really believe that? I don't know if you have children, but if they made you a macaroni picture, would you throw it away as trash because it was a meaningless demonstration of their love for you? I mean, it's not like you could trade a macaroni picture for anything of monetary value, nor would it be of physical bennefit, as it wouldn't keep you warm or dry. Yet I and I am assuming several other parents have hand made presents from our children which result in no actual bennefit OTHER than the knowledge that our children love us. Sorry if "warm fuzzies" don't get it done for you.

Or do you suppose Satan's state is somehow less damned because (as you suppose) God still "loves" him?

When did I say this? Eternal Damnation is NOT the subject I have been debating. As for your comment that "as I suppose", yes, I do suppose Heavenly Father STILL on SOME level LOVES Lucifer. Just as YOU suppose he doesn't.

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?

How is Heavenly Father refusing to acknowledge Lucifer as His son? The only reason we know Lucifer is His son is because He told us. Do you have a scriptural reference saying Heavenly Father doesn't acknowledge Lucifer as His son? Because otherwise it seems like you are offering opinion that speaks for Heavenly Father.

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.

So how is it that you considering one Apostle's remarks "of much greater moment" than another's any different from me? Is your opinion more correct because it belongs to you?

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?

How is Heavenly Father's unconditional love (as we suppose it is), a good thing? Well, as previously stated, it gives us "warm fuzzies". And some of us like to feel loved.

[Vort]

How is it meaningless to know that Heavenly Father loves you? How is knowing the relationship WE share with HIM meaningless?

No fair answering a question with a question.

How is it useful to KNOW that even if we disappoint Him, Heavenly Father will still LOVE us? I guess that this depends on the state of mind of those who hear it. To some (me) it is comforting to know that we have a Heavenly Father who will FOREVER love us. To others (you) it is of no importance, and should be disregarded as such.

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.

As for "God's love is only meaningful if it results in something to our bennefit";

Do you really believe that?

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?

I don't know if you have children, but if they made you a macaroni picture, would you throw it away as trash because it was a meaningless demonstration of their love for you?

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 do suppose Heavenly Father STILL on SOME level LOVES Lucifer. Just as YOU suppose he doesn't.

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.

Do you have a scriptural reference saying Heavenly Father doesn't acknowledge Lucifer as His son?

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?

So how is it that you considering one Apostle's remarks "of much greater moment" than another's any different from me?

I believe I explained that quite clearly.

Is your opinion more correct because it belongs to you?

Well, yes, if you must know.

How is Heavenly Father's unconditional love (as we suppose it is), a good thing? Well, as previously stated, it gives us "warm fuzzies". And some of us like to feel loved.

And this affects your ability to gain eternal life -- how?