Is divine love unconditional?

[Taldarin]

Obviously not as far as those involved in this thread so far are concerned, as nobody here who has stated that God's love is unconditional has been maintaining such. If that is how you are reading unconditional love then no wonder you take issue with it.

Do you think when Elder Maxwell described God's love as unconditional that he was meaning such?

That's the entire point... How is it that God loves us sooooo much that he allows us to destory ourselves? Apparently, the love has some conditions.

Tell me, when your little brother decides to commit suicide and God doesn't prevent it does that mean he doesn't love him? Because you know, that is pretty much what God is doing, not stopping him and going, "well, it's his choice."

That's why he put me there. And to God, it's not like physical death is the equivalent of eternal torment.

Lucifer wanted to steal God's glory, and altered Father's plan that it might accomplish that very thing. Does that mean he loved us unconditionally?

Fixed the quote.

Some scriptures come to mind that might best illustrate my point:

D&C 76:

25 And this we saw also, and bear record, that an angel of God who was in authority in the presence of God, who rebelled against the Only Begotten Son whom the Father loved and who was in the bosom of the Father, was thrust down from the presence of God and the Son,

26 And was called Perdition, for the heavens wept over him—he was Lucifer, a son of the morning.

27 And we beheld, and lo, he is fallen! is fallen, even a son of the morning!

You can take this as meaning that "whom the Father loved" is referring to the Only Begotten Son, but the usage of the word "was" might suggest it is referring to Lucifer. But, in either case, He allowed it to happen because He loves us enough to let us make our own choices.

And the story of how Enoch saw God and the whole heavens weeping, and it caused Him to wonder how a being such as God, who has done so much good and demonstrated only love and patience with man, could cry...

Moses 7:

28 And it came to pass that the God of heaven looked upon the residue of the people, and he wept; and Enoch bore record of it, saying: How is it that the heavens weep, and shed forth their tears as the rain upon the mountains?

29 And Enoch said unto the Lord: How is it that thou canst weep, seeing thou art holy, and from all eternity to all eternity?

30 And were it possible that man could number the particles of the earth, yea, millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations; and thy curtains are stretched out still; and yet thou art there, and thy bosom is there; and also thou art just; thou art merciful and kind forever;

31 And thou hast taken Zion to thine own bosom, from all thy creations, from all eternity to all eternity; and naught but peace, justice, and truth is the habitation of thy throne; and mercy shall go before thy face and have no end; how is it thou canst weep?

His answer is very direct and pointed, and not so surprising. It's very powerful, please take time to read it:

32 The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency;

33 And unto thy brethren have I said, and also given commandment, that they should love one another, and that they should choose me, their Father; but behold, they are without affection, and they hate their own blood;

34 And the fire of mine indignation is kindled against them; and in my hot displeasure will I send in the floods upon them, for my fierce anger is kindled against them.

35 Behold, I am God; Man of Holiness is my name; Man of Counsel is my name; and Endless and Eternal is my name, also.

36 Wherefore, I can stretch forth mine hands and hold all the creations which I have made; and mine eye can pierce them also, and among all the workmanship of mine hands there has not been so great wickedness as among thy brethren.

37 But behold, their sins shall be upon the heads of their fathers; Satan shall be their father, and misery shall be their doom; and the whole heavens shall weep over them, even all the workmanship of mine hands; wherefore should not the heavens weep, seeing these shall suffer?

38 But behold, these which thine eyes are upon shall perish in the floods; and behold, I will shut them up; a prison have I prepared for them.

39 And That which I have chosen hath pled before my face. Wherefore, he suffereth for their sins; inasmuch as they will repent in the day that my Chosen shall return unto me, and until that day they shall be in torment;

40 Wherefore, for this shall the heavens weep, yea, and all the workmanship of mine hands.

Knowing He could still save man no matter what they chose would make things easy, and generate very little emotion. The higher the stakes the more it matters. Only when your children have the opportunity to become everything or nothing can you really appreciate the love that is required in order to grant man the freedom to exercise his agency, as God did to man after the earth was created.

So the point you're trying to make here is, if I'm understanding correctly, that God doesn't save us even though he loves us and he COULD save us because if we didn't have the "destruction" option we wouldn't have the "exaltation" option.

I understand that. I only think that if his love was truly unconditional, he would, after we completely fail, throw a little cushion in there. Like when your own child makes self-destructive decisions, he knows the choices he's making and he knows that you can't change his decisions, but when he finally hits the rock bottom and can't get back up... You'd still help the poor kid out. If you love him. Yes, he made horrible decisions and was fully conscious of them. Yes, he knew the consequences. But if you love him, you'd help him get out of the hole. I'd assume you wouldn't say "let him rot in the horrible consequences of his decisions..."?

It's why I think it's conditional. Yes, His love is perfect, but He has laws. These laws put conditions. God will not save you if you do certain things. He simply will not, because there are conditions.

And in that case, yes, you could say that God loves us anyway, but his laws stop Him from showing His love. But that only brings it to the point Vort has made several times: How exactly does it help us, then? Knowing God loves us unconditionally but cannot show any form of that love UNLESS we're doing what we're supposed to be doing? Does His love save me, then? Does it give me warm fuzzies knowing that God loves me but can't show it? Not really.

Edited December 19, 2009 by Taldarin

[Justice]

Fixed the quote.

Yeah, I suppose I should point out that my statement is based on how Lucifer saw things, not reality. Often our own perceptions aren't based in reality (many will think mine isn't lol). You're probably going to have to read this slowly many times in conjunction with Alma 12 and 42, but here it goes:

Lucifer thought that his modification to the plan met all the same requirements as Father's plan, and "on paper" it may have. It sounds like it was more of a timing issue as to which redemption had to come first, the physical or the spiritual. But, by removing mortality for everyone other than Adam and Eve, and grant mortality to Adam and Eve only for a brief moment, that meant agency could never be granted to Father's children, so therefore agency would be destroyed (see Alma 12 and 42). Since agency is the driver for Father's plan, meaning there is no exaltation without it, the "good news" (or Gospel) came with "bad news" as well.

Lucifer thought his modification to Father's plan would "save" everyone and remove the bad news. His plan overcame physical death by not allowing it, and overcame sin by not allowing it... explained in the scriptures as removing man's agency to choose it, essentially eliminating both the good and bad news. This is akin to what's being suggested God should have done in this thread, not allow man to do something detrimental to his eternal salvation. This meant no one would go to hell, but it also meant no one could be exalted and perfected. All Lucifer's plan accomplished is that man would now have physical, immortal bodies and could not die, but also meant that men could not become glorified or perfected (again, Alma 12 and 42).

So the point you're trying to make here is, if I'm understanding correctly, that God doesn't save us even though he loves us and he COULD save us because if we didn't have the "destruction" option we wouldn't have the "exaltation" option.

I'm not sure if COULD or COULDN'T works better here, but it may be better to try to distinguish between WOULD or WOULDN'T. But, yeah, if we didn't have the "destruction" option we wouldn't have the "exaltation" option is what I'm trying to get across.

Edited December 19, 2009 by Justice

[Dravin]

That's the entire point... How is it that God loves us sooooo much that he allows us to destory ourselves? Apparently, the love has some conditions.

No. You keep on assuming that God won’t allow people to suffer if he loves them. The logical conclusion is God does not love a lot of people. Go read Elder Oak’s talk on Love and Law I linked to. The idea that because God loves you that law has no effect is false.

And to God, it's not like physical death is the equivalent of eternal torment.

Ah, and you know what eternal torment is like? Sounds like you don’t have a problem with the concept but the extent. If you suffer up to X point God loves you, but once you cross that point he must not love you.

So the point you're trying to make here is, if I'm understanding correctly, that God doesn't save us even though he loves us and he COULD save us because if we didn't have the "destruction" option we wouldn't have the "exaltation" option.

Who says he can save us in our sin?

37 And I say unto you again that he cannot save them in their sins; for I cannot deny his word, and he hath said that no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of heaven; therefore, how can ye be saved, except ye inherit the kingdom of heaven? Therefore, ye cannot be saved in your sins.

22 For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory.

23 And he who cannot abide the law of a terrestrial kingdom cannot abide a terrestrial glory.

24 And he who cannot abide the law of a telestial kingdom cannot abide a telestial glory; therefore he is not meet for a kingdom of glory. Therefore he must abide a kingdom which is not a kingdom of glory.

You seem to be looking at things like:

God: Well, I told you to clean your room in 15 minutes, you took 15.001 minutes. Eternal suffering for you.

I think that is an incorrect view on things, its more.

God: I am giving you the greatest glory you are capable of abiding and respecting your demonstrated (through your actions and behaviors) desires.

As far as Sons of Perdition, while the above does apply I think there is an additional component.

Son of Perdition: I don't want anything to do with you! Go away! I mean it!

God: *Being Omniscient* While I love you and ache for the decisions you have made, not only do I know you cannot abide my presence but I know you do not desire it and as such I will allow your demonstrated desires. Even if it does cause myself pain to do so, for I will not force myself upon you.

38 Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever.

What you are proposing is that a loving parent (to be loving) will hunt down their child who they knows hates them and has extreme emotional upset and pain at their presence, tracking them across a couple continents, kicking down the door and watching them rage and suffer, "I know my very presences causes you pain and suffering, but because I love you I'm gonna force you to be with me anyway."

I truly believe that our disposition in the life to come is the best we are capable of handling, I do not think Cain is (currently) able to bear a Celestial Glory and God sent him to outer darkness because he hates them, that there is no love, no pain in God's heart for Cain.. I think on some level Sons of Perdition (or anyone really) are going to be more content where they are then they would be if forced to live with God. God isn't that selfish.

P.S. You are welcome to hold a different view on things, but I've got the nagging suspicion that the second half of my post is the source of the discrepancy between us.

Edited December 19, 2009 by Dravin

[Relentless]

Please quote from someone in this thread who has said such a thing.

To think God loves us unconditionally would only encourage a sinful attitude--If God loves me no matter what in the world I do, be it direct denial of the Holy Ghost after having a perfect knowledge or killing innocent people, I can continue doing whatever I want. He'll love me anyway.

blessings in this life still go to those who don't have all of the knowledge they need.

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?

This shows nothing. I specified that you back up your claim to show that God acknowledges Satan as his son since the fall of Adam, using scriptural proof. Quoting some questions for discussion at the back of a teacher's manual doesn't do that.

I didn't utilize questions for discussion from the back of a teacher's manual. Iused a lesson directly from the teachers manual. But I guess you would discount it as non doctrinal, because it doesn't support your theory.

The fact that you don't understand this is not the issue. I already know you don't understand it, and apparently refuse to believe it's true despite myriad and manifest evidence that it is so (cf Alma 1:4). The question is not whether you understand that this is so. The question is, Of what benefit is the (false) belief that God's love is "unconditional"?

What evidence do you have "that it is so"? Your own interpretation of scriptures? Why would your interpretation be correct? The quote from Elder Nelson? What about the "less weighty" quote from Elder Maxwell? Simply saying I am ignoring the evidence does NOT make it true. I don't find your evidence compelling enough to cause me to change my views.

I am curious to know why you seem to think that the ONLY measure of Heavenly Father's love for us is salvation. That is after all the basis for your argument, is it not? That if some people end up damned, then it will be because they failed to qualify for Heavenly Father's love, not because (as I assert) that they failed to qualify for the redeeming power of the atonement, yet still have a Father in Heaven who loves them.

Do you have a scriptural interpretation that Heavenly Father only loves those who acheive Celestial Glory? And what about the differing degrees of Celestial Glory? Is His love reserved for only the absolute highest?

I note that you continue to ignore my clearly specified questions. It would make for better conversation if you actually responded to those points.

I guess that you saying my responses are ignoring your questions is a little like you saying I am wrong, therefore you don't need to debate the issue.

As for how come I am saying that the opposing side of this argument (the conditional love side) claims that sometime Heavenly Father will STOP loving some of his children, it is based off simple logic.

IF Heavenly Father loves us now (can we agree on this point?), THEN we are currently meeting the "requirements" for that love.

IF we stop meeting the "requirements" for His love, THEN He will STOP loving us.

Is that not the logic of your arguments? That because His love is conditional, that failing to meet those requirements causes a STOPPAGE of His love? So then is it not fair of me to say that you believe He will STOP loving us if we fail to meet the "conditions"

[Taldarin]

38 Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever.

What you are proposing is that a loving parent (to be loving) will hunt down their child who they knows hates them and has extreme emotional upset and pain at their presence, tracking them across a couple continents, kicking down the door and watching them rage and suffer, "I know my very presences causes you pain and suffering, but because I love you I'm gonna force you to be with me anyway."

I truly believe that our disposition in the life to come is the best we are capable of handling, I do not think Cain is (currently) able to bear a Celestial Glory and God sent him to outer darkness because he hates them, that there is no love, no pain in God's heart for Cain.. I think on some level Sons of Perdition (or anyone really) are going to be more content where they are then they would be if forced to live with God. God isn't that selfish.

P.S. You are welcome to hold a different view on things, but I've got the nagging suspicion that the second half of my post is the source of the discrepancy between us.

Thank you for quoting that scripture. That was what I was talking about. They make their decisions consciously, and then the day comes when they fully realize the consequences of their actions. It says they become consumed with guilt and anguish. In a sense, they feel horrible for what they've done. They realize they haven't exactly been wise in their decisions. In that moment, when divine justice calls, they apparently don't want it. If they wanted it, they wouldn't be feeling guilt, anguish, and pain. They'd be receiving something they wanted.

But, because they feel remorse, they feel horrible. Now, if you were the parents of the self-destructive child that wanted nothing to do with you but had recently hit rock bottom and suddenly felt remorse/guilt/pain/anguish, you'd help them, obviously, if you loved them. Their soul had been awakened. They wouldn't reject the people that could save them from the consequences they just fully realized they don't actually want.

But because there are conditions, otherwise known as His laws, he can't help you.

No. You keep on assuming that God won’t allow people to suffer if he loves them. The logical conclusion is God does not love a lot of people. Go read Elder Oak’s talk on Love and Law I linked to. The idea that because God loves you that law has no effect is false.

Ah, and you know what eternal torment is like? Sounds like you don’t have a problem with the concept but the extent. If you suffer up to X point God loves you, but once you cross that point he must not love you.

No. Those notions are completely ridiculous. We all know that we suffer here in order to learn and grow, and to gain our reward in heaven. We die, and our spirit continues on, perfectly fine(though in a state of happiness or not). Eternal torment, however, is completely different. You can't gain anything from it, there is no coming back, and God is damning you to suffer for eternity.

Who says he can save us in our sin?

I'm sure plenty of people do, but I do not. If you assume I've said that, you've misunderstood what I've been trying to say.

[Taldarin]

I didn't utilize questions for discussion from the back of a teacher's manual. Iused a lesson directly from the teachers manual. But I guess you would discount it as non doctrinal, because it doesn't support your theory.

Vort used a talk by the Apostle Elder Nelson but I guess you would discount it as non-doctrinal, because it doesn't support your theory.

...it goes both ways.

"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)

By the way, did you cite the lesson manual? I'd like to read it(page numbers and everything please)

I am curious to know why you seem to think that the ONLY measure of Heavenly Father's love for us is salvation. That is after all the basis for your argument, is it not? That if some people end up damned, then it will be because they failed to qualify for Heavenly Father's love, not because (as I assert) that they failed to qualify for the redeeming power of the atonement, yet still have a Father in Heaven who loves them.

I think of unconditional love as a love that isn't barred by anything, nothing can get in its' way. It never stops and never ends, and nothing can overcome it. It is my personal belief that if God loves us like that, he'd still find a way to not damn us to endless suffering for making some horrible decisions in a very short period of time.

But, because there are conditions, or, as I refer to them, His laws... he can't do it.

Do you have a scriptural interpretation that Heavenly Father only loves those who acheive Celestial Glory? And what about the differing degrees of Celestial Glory? Is His love reserved for only the absolute highest?

Did anyone say that God only loves them in the celestial kingdom? Does God damn everyone outside of the celestial glory to endless torment and suffering?

Now it just seems like we're getting a little on the pretentious or presumptive side...

Is that not the logic of your arguments? That because His love is conditional, that failing to meet those requirements causes a STOPPAGE of His love? So then is it not fair of me to say that you believe He will STOP loving us if we fail to meet the "conditions"

I simply don't believe that the act of damning someone to suffer eternally, without end and without exit or relief, is an act of love, or is due to an overwhelming love for someone.

I'm just stating my own personal beliefs, and I'm kind of getting sick of spending so much time on a subject that doesn't really matter, so I feel like I should just quote Elder Nelson one more time, and then tell you to go argue with him. The quote is as direct as it gets...

""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)"

I'll take a break from this thread now before we start getting contentious...

Edited December 20, 2009 by Taldarin

[qedd]

Love is unconditional: Love is the unconditional desire for the subject to find joy. Love is the unconditional desire for the subject to achieve his or her potential.

Love is conditional: There are conditions, or natural limitations that the one who loves can not violate lest he or she bring about a result that is contrary to his or her unconditional desire that the subject find joy and achieve his or her potential.

It is only through the exercise of agency that man is able to grow and become something more. Spiritual salvation must be invited in, it can not be forced upon. True growth comes from within.

God does not walk away from the sinner, the sinner walks away from God. God would be unloving if He were to violate the sinner's will and agency and forcefully keep him from willfully walking away. The sinner would be nothing more than a captive or slave. He would be taking away the natural consequences of the sinner's choices, which are themselves opportunities for growth -- both for the sinner himself, as well as for others that observe cause and effect play out.

God's unconditional love does matter, if for no other reason than the practical issue of fairness. If He loves all equally and unconditionally, then there is some guarantee that the rules of the game are fair -- He can be trusted and is worthy of our faith. The sinner can not claim that his present spiritual condition is the result of lesser opportunities afforded by a God that loves him less. The sinner must face the reality that his present spiritual condition is the result of his own agency -- the result of opportunities that he willfully declines.

Of course, personal definitions mean a great deal (as can be evidenced by the back and forth demonstrated in this thread). The above comes from my definition of love.

[Justice]

If you think about it the same way a parent loves their children it becomes clear.

A parent, or at least from my experience, loves their children unconditionally. It doesn't matter if they obey them, cause them heartache, become hateful, or whatever else you can imagine typical children do. However, if the children refuse to love them back and, let's say refuse to come home for the holidays, they will miss out on some of that parent's love.

Remember, the conditional part of God's love is based on us "coming" to Him, not on Him loving us.

[Dravin]

I'll take a break from this thread now before we start getting contentious...

Sure. If we haven't been able to foster any mutual understanding by now the odds a few more rounds of back and forth are going to be the ticket are rather slim. One of the reasons I usually kick myself for getting dragged into Gospel Discussion threads. They end up feeling like a dog chasing its own tail.

Edited December 20, 2009 by Dravin

[Moksha]

I like these words from Elder Uchtdorf:

“Love truly is the defining characteristic of a disciple of Christ.”

“We are important to God not because of our resume, but because we are His Children.

God’s love is so great that he loves even the proud, the selfish, the arrogant and the wicked. What this means is that regardless of our current state, there is hope for us. No matter our distress, no matter our sorrow, no matter our mistakes, our infinitely compassionate Heavenly Father desires that we draw near to him.”

This is certainly preaching the good news of the Gospel.

[Justice]

Remember, the conditional part of God's love is based on us "coming" to Him, not on Him loving us.

Yep, and sounds a bit like this statement I made earlier. :)

[Moksha]

Yep, and sounds a bit like this statement I made earlier. :)

Except it feels as though the emphasis has been shifted from wanting us to draw near him because he loves us, to loving us but not letting us draw near due to not meeting some prior conditional hurdle that His love cannot transcend.

[Justice]

Well, I agree with what Pres. U said... I meant to say basically the same thing.

[Hemidakota]

Is divine love unconditional?

short answer - yes.

It is our ability to let that love in that is at stake...

The new trend - give all the little kids, give everyone (even those who did not earn it) awards and metals etc. etc. How does this make the kids feel? If they did not earn it, they know it, they keep track of the score even if it is not officially kept - they know who earned it and who did not... You can give them an award, treat them the same as everyone else, but they will still not feel the same...

It's impossible to give some things... the joy of acocmplishment, the joy of serving others, the joy of a job well done, the joy that comes after fighting your way through something - you can't give that kind of a feeling to anyone. You can love them, and give them a house, treat them the same as everyone else, do everything in your power to make them happy, and they will still not be happy... why? Some things only come from within.

The commandments that we are given by God lead us to a life where we can have joy from within.

"...untapped potential that lies within each of us. Do you wish to partake of this living water and experience that divine well springing up within you to everlasting life?" - The Abundant Life - Joseph B. Wirthlin

"By living the gospel of Jesus Christ, we develop within ourselves a living spring that will quench eternally our thirst for happiness, peace, and everlasting life." - Living Water to Quench Spiritual Thirst - Joseph B. Wirthlin

"...It is something that must come from within. At such times external events make it even more imperative that we seek peace within ourselves." - Peace—A Triumph of Principles Marvin J. Ashton

“Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (John 4:13–14). As we do so, the Lord will fulfill His promise that within us will be “a well of water springing up into everlasting life.” - The Source William Kim Rawlinson

Some things have to come from within.

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to bact for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 93:29 - 31)

"you must have a capacity to receive, or even omnipotence can’t give" - Lewis. (Lewis is not LDS BTW)

there is a part of us that was not created, that exists independently of God. Heavenly Father is not the author of the evil that is on this Earth. He is cleaning up a mess He did not make. He will not take away our agency though. Robots can't love. The only way to save everyone is to take away agency. If there are those who don't accept His love, it is not God's fault. He did not create them, did not make them who they are... It is up to us to let His love in, and then from His example, learn how to love others that we might have within that well of joy/love springing up into everlasting life

Change, question here, can we still love the Son of the Morning?

[Hemidakota]

Elder Marion D. Hanks spoke on this topic: LDS.org - Ensign Article - Love Unconditional

Elder Russell M. Nelson on the topic of Divine Love - LDS.org - Ensign Article - Divine Love

[Relentless]

While reveiwing confrence talks today I ran across this talk from Elder Dallin H. Oaks. It was delivered during the Saturday afternoon session in the 179th Semiannual General Confrence. His talk is entitled "Love and Law"

The love of God does not supersede His laws and His commandments, and the effect of God’s laws and commandments does not diminish the purpose and effect of His love.

I have been impressed to speak about God’s love and God’s commandments. My message is that God’s universal and perfect love is shown in all the blessings of His gospel plan, including the fact that His choicest blessings are reserved for those who obey His laws. These are eternal principles that should guide parents in their love and teaching of their children.

I begin with four examples which illustrate some mortal confusion between love and law.

A young adult in a cohabitation relationship tells grieving parents, “If you really loved me, you would accept me and my partner just like you accept your married children.”

A youth reacts to parental commands or pressure by declaring, “If you really loved me, you wouldn’t force me.”

In these examples a person violating commandments asserts that parental love should override the commandments of divine law and the teachings of parents.

The next two examples show mortal confusion about the effect of God’s love.

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

Another person says his faith has been destroyed by the suffering God allows to be inflicted on a person or a race, concluding, “If there was a God who loved us, He wouldn’t let this happen.”

These persons disbelieve eternal laws which they consider contrary to their concept of the effect of God’s love. Persons who take this position do not understand the nature of God’s love or the purpose of His laws and commandments. The love of God does not supersede His laws and His commandments, and the effect of God’s laws and commandments does not diminish the purpose and effect of His love. The same should be true of parental love and rules.

First, consider the love of God, described so meaningfully this morning by President Dieter F. Uchtdorf. “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” the Apostle Paul asked. Not tribulation, not persecution, not peril or the sword (see Romans 8:35). “For I am persuaded,” he concluded, “that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, . . . nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God” (verses 38–39).

There is no greater evidence of the infinite power and perfection of God’s love than is declared by the Apostle John: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son” (John 3:16). Another Apostle wrote that God “spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all” (Romans 8:32). Think how it must have grieved our Heavenly Father to send His Son to endure incomprehensible suffering for our sins. That is the greatest evidence of His love for each of us!

God’s love for His children is an eternal reality, but why does He love us so much, and why do we desire that love? The answer is found in the relationship between God’s love and His laws.

Some seem to value God’s love because of their hope that His love is so great and so unconditional that it will mercifully excuse them from obeying His laws. In contrast, those who understand God’s plan for His children know that God’s laws are invariable, which is another great evidence of His love for His children. Mercy cannot rob justice, and those who obtain mercy are “they who have kept the covenant and observed the commandment” (D&C 54:6).

We read again and again in the Bible and in modern scriptures of God’s anger with the wicked and of His acting in His wrath against those who violate His laws. How are anger and wrath evidence of His love? Joseph Smith taught that God “institute[d] laws whereby [the spirits that He would send into the world] could have a privilege to advance like himself.” God’s love is so perfect that He lovingly requires us to obey His commandments because He knows that only through obedience to His laws can we become perfect, as He is. For this reason, God’s anger and His wrath are not a contradiction of His love but an evidence of His love. Every parent knows that you can love a child totally and completely while still being creatively angry and disappointed at that child’s self-defeating behavior.

The love of God is so universal that His perfect plan bestows many gifts on all of His children, even those who disobey His laws. Mortality is one such gift, bestowed on all who qualified in the War in Heaven. Another unconditional gift is the universal resurrection: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). Many other mortal gifts are not tied to our personal obedience to law. As Jesus taught, our Heavenly Father “maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matthew 5:45).

If only we will listen, we can know of God’s love and feel it, even when we are disobedient. A woman recently returned to Church activity gave this description in a sacrament meeting talk: “He has always been there for me, even when I rejected Him. He has always guided me and comforted me with His tender mercies all around me, but I [was] too angry to see and accept incidents and feelings as such.”

God’s choicest blessings are clearly contingent upon obedience to God’s laws and commandments. The key teaching is from modern revelation:

“There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

“And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated” (D&C 130:20–21).

This great principle helps us understand the why of many things, like justice and mercy balanced by the Atonement. It also explains why God will not forestall the exercise of agency by His children. Agency—our power to choose—is fundamental to the gospel plan that brings us to earth. God does not intervene to forestall the consequences of some persons’ choices in order to protect the well-being of other persons—even when they kill, injure, or oppress one another—for this would destroy His plan for our eternal progress. He will bless us to endure the consequences of others’ choices, but He will not prevent those choices.

If a person understands the teachings of Jesus, he or she cannot reasonably conclude that our loving Heavenly Father or His divine Son believes that Their love supersedes Their commandments. Consider these examples.

When Jesus began His ministry, His first message was repentance.

When He exercised loving mercy by not condemning the woman taken in adultery, He nevertheless told her, “Go, and sin no more” (John 8:11).

Jesus taught, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 7:21).

The effect of God’s commandments and laws is not changed to accommodate popular behavior or desires. If anyone thinks that godly or parental love for an individual grants the loved one license to disobey the law, he or she does not understand either love or law. The Lord declared: “That which breaketh a law, and abideth not by law, but seeketh to become a law unto itself, and willeth to abide in sin, and altogether abideth in sin, cannot be sanctified by law, neither by mercy, justice, nor judgment. Therefore, they must remain filthy still” (D&C 88:35).

We read in modern revelation, “All kingdoms have a law given” (D&C 88:36). For example:

“He who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory.

“And he who cannot abide the law of a terrestrial kingdom cannot abide a terrestrial glory.

“And he who cannot abide the law of a telestial kingdom cannot abide a telestial glory” (D&C 88:22–24).

In other words, the kingdom of glory to which the Final Judgment assigns us is not determined by love but by the law that God has invoked in His plan to qualify us for eternal life, “the greatest of all the gifts of God” (D&C 14:7).

In teaching and reacting to their children, parents have many opportunities to apply these principles. One such opportunity has to do with the gifts parents bestow on their children. Just as God has bestowed some gifts on all of His mortal children without requiring their personal obedience to His laws, parents provide many benefits like housing and food even if their children are not in total harmony with all parental requirements. But, following the example of an all-wise and loving Heavenly Father who has given laws and commandments for the benefit of His children, wise parents condition some parental gifts on obedience.

If parents have a wayward child—such as a teenager indulging in alcohol or drugs—they face a serious question. Does parental love require that these substances or their consumption be allowed in the home, or do the requirements of civil law or the seriousness of the conduct or the interests of other children in the home require that this be forbidden?

To pose an even more serious question, if an adult child is living in cohabitation, does the seriousness of sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage require that this child feel the full weight of family disapproval by being excluded from any family contacts, or does parental love require that the fact of cohabitation be ignored? I have seen both of these extremes, and I believe that both are inappropriate.

Where do parents draw the line? That is a matter for parental wisdom, guided by the inspiration of the Lord. There is no area of parental action that is more needful of heavenly guidance or more likely to receive it than the decisions of parents in raising their children and governing their families. This is the work of eternity.

As parents grapple with these problems, they should remember the Lord’s teaching that we leave the ninety and nine and go out into the wilderness to rescue the lost sheep.11 President Thomas S. Monson has called for a loving crusade to rescue our brothers and sisters who are wandering in the wilderness of apathy or ignorance. These teachings require continued loving concern, which surely requires continued loving associations.

Parents should also remember the Lord’s frequent teaching that “whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth” (Hebrews 12:6). In his conference talk on tolerance and love, Elder Russell M. Nelson taught that “real love for the sinner may compel courageous confrontation—not acquiescence! Real love does not support self-destructing behavior.”

Wherever the line is drawn between the power of love and the force of law, the breaking of commandments is certain to impact loving family relationships. Jesus taught:

“Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

“For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

“The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother” (Luke 12:51–53).

This sobering teaching reminds us that when family members are not united in striving to keep the commandments of God, there will be divisions. We do all that we can to avoid impairing loving relationships, but sometimes it happens after all we can do.

In the midst of such stress, we must endure the reality that the straying of our loved ones will detract from our happiness, but it should not detract from our love for one another or our patient efforts to be united in understanding God’s love and God’s laws.

I testify of the truth of these things, which are part of the plan of salvation and the doctrine of Christ, of whom I testify in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

This talk seems to say what BOTH of our sides are saying. That Heavenly Father loves us irregardless of our actions AND that in order to get the full bennefit of that love we need to follow His teachings.

Just some more food for thought on this subject...