Is divine love unconditional?

[Taldarin]

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

He wasn't even talking about that... He was talking about God's unconditional love. It's one thing to know God loves you, and another to think God loves you unconditionally.

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.

How exactly DOES the unconditional thing help you?

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.

Does it not say that God will judge the people according to what He has given them? If they were born in islam and died in islam, they'd be judged according to what he had knowledge of. So obviously, blessings in this life still go to those who don't have all of the knowledge they need.

Now, if someone had all the knowledge from God, and then decided to go other ways... Of course, the goodness and blessings wouldn't be too easily accessible.

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.

Eternal Damnation is a major point in the thread... If God loves us unconditionally, why does he eternally damn us, not wanting anything to do with us anymore?

Is condemning Lucifer to eternal suffering and destruction truly an act of love for him?

How is Heavenly Father refusing to acknowledge Lucifer as His son?

Throwing him out of His presence, damning him to endless torment, and not wanting anything more to do with him seems to suggest it.

If not, what does it suggest?

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.

Knowing that God loves us gives us warm fuzzies, and yes, that's a good feeling. However, "knowing" that he loves us "unconditionally" would give us warm fuzzies even if we're in a state of apostacy and we continue going downhill. That would be a false sense of the love of God, if you asked me.

"He still loves me, even though I'm fornicating and have no plans to stop . Yay warm fuzzies!" -- It only lets people deceive themselves. Even some crime lords pray to God to help them with whatever they're doing. They're apparently semi-delusional with the whole unconditional love thing.

I believe He loves us even when we aren't doing what we should be doing-- However, I feel like I will not be able to truly feel his love if I don't repent of what I'm doing. He always wants us to improve and do better, but his love must be conditional if there is a possibility of Him damning you to eternal destruction.

Edited December 18, 2009 by Taldarin

[Relentless]

I guess I don't understand why some people are claiming that Heavenly Father won't love us even if we are sinning? I think that you need to seperate the act of loving someone from the act of providing them blessings. I find no doctorinal proof that Heavenly Father ever stops loving us.

As for doctorinal proof that Heavenly Father ACKNOWLEDGES Lucifer as his SON, look at the Church's teachings on the premortal life;

From Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual;

link

• Before the earth was created, Heavenly Father called a council in heaven and presented the plan of salvation to all His spirit children. What were some elements of the plan that Heavenly Father presented in the premortal world? (See 2 Nephi 2:24–26; Alma 34:8–9; Abraham 3:24–25. Answers could include the Atonement of Jesus Christ; the Creation of the earth; the Fall; time on earth during which we would receive a mortal body and be tested; and agency, or the power to choose good or evil.)

• How did Jehovah, the Firstborn of the Father, respond to the plan of salvation? (See Moses 4:2. To show how the Savior obeyed the Father’s will, you may want to read D&C 19:16–19 and D&C 76:40–42. Emphasize that the Atonement of Jesus Christ makes the plan of salvation possible. The Savior is the central figure in God’s plan for our salvation.)

• Lucifer rebelled against the plan of salvation, seeking to destroy our agency and gain Heavenly Father’s power (Moses 4:1, 3; D&C 29:36). He became Satan, and he and his followers were cast out of the Father’s presence and denied mortality (D&C 29:36–38; 76:25–27; Moses 4:4; Abraham 3:26). Why is it important for us to know about the existence of Satan and his followers?

So Heavenly Father gathered all of His children to discuss the plan of salvation, but also invited a random spirit whom He wasn't related to the party? The only reason we know that Lucifer even IS Heavenly Father's child is because He revealed it to us. If he was refusing to acknowledge Lucifer as such, why would he tell us, much less allow us to teach it?

As for your assertation that Heavenly Father stopped loving Lucifer and one third of the host of heaven, let us examine D&C 76:26 And was called Perdition, for the heavens wept over him—he was Lucifer, a son of the morning

So what heavens wept over him? Everyone BUT Heavenly Father? Why did they weep? Are we to believe these are tears of joy?Now please, do NOT confuse me saying Heavenly Father still loves Lucifer with my saying He will forgive or in some otherways bless Lucifer. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that the blessings Heavenly Father offers are obviously conditional. The degree to which He is able to demonstrate His love for us is conditional.

I do not understand how believing that Heavenly Father will love us unconditionally would lead us to think that sin is ok. That is quite a jump to me. Obviously we are capable of loving someone without loving or approving of their actions, so why would Heavenly Father be different?

[Vort]

I guess I don't understand why some people are claiming that Heavenly Father won't love us even if we are sinning?

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

As for doctorinal proof that Heavenly Father ACKNOWLEDGES Lucifer as his SON, look at the Church's teachings on the premortal life;

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 do not understand how believing that Heavenly Father will love us unconditionally would lead us to think that sin is ok.

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"?

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

[Dravin]

Of what benefit is the (false) belief that God's love is "unconditional"?

He doesn't accept the premise that it is false. You're begging the question.

Edited December 18, 2009 by Dravin

[Vort]

He doesn't accept the premise that it is false. You're begging the question.

Then remove the word "false". The question stands, unbegged.

[Justice]

Like most Gospel related discussions, I think there needs to be some common ground. It appears that some are speaking of one kind of love while others are speaking of another.

The truth is that God does love His children unconditionally. He offered the chance at Eternal Life to ALL His children. Those who do not choose His plan cannot obtain the gift. God loved His children so much that He allowed many to choose to fall instead of forcing them to choose Him.

God's love is "charity." God loves so He does.

"God so loved the world, that He gave His Only Begotten Son..."

Those who accept God's love can grow to accept more of His love, and can accept more of what God offers. So, from that perspective, God can only love us more if we meet certain conditions, which would therefore make that part of His love conditional.

The answer is both, when taken in perspective. I believe some are focusing on His unconditional love, while others are focusing on His conditional love. Common ground will never be reached if you don't agree on the kind of love you're speaking about.

[Dravin]

Then remove the word "false". The question stands, unbegged.

And what is the point of the question? Even if the answer is there is no benefit to the belief (beyond believing in something that is true), what? It doesn't change if the belief is true or not (such is independent of truthfulness). Perhaps it has bearing on why people invest and maintain such is the case? Not really, quite a few people will go on maintaing something is true even if it is of no tangible benefit to them (particularly on the internet). I suppose some will go the opposite route and if it is detrimental to them deny it even if they know/believe it true (No I did not cheat on my taxes).

The 8 millionth digit of Pi is of no benefit to me. If I did know that information would you expect me to not maintain it is what it is because it doesn't benefit me to know that? I'm really confused at what you are trying to get at. That truth is only truth if it is useful?

[OneEternalSonata]

Could it properly be said that the fullness of God's love is conditional? (That each of us has a measure of His love.) It seems to me that we wouldn't have the capacity to accept/receive all His love unless we were as He is, exalted.

Edited December 18, 2009 by OneEternalSonata

[prisonchaplain]

Oh wow. The OP informs me that this string could largely become a disputation about definitions. Here's what I know.

1. God is love.

2. Some people will enjoy eternal blessings.

3. Some people will suffer eternal suffering.

4. God sent his son because he loved the world.

5. Jesus died for us "while we were yet sinners."

Snow is correct. The answer is definitely yes. And, definitely no. Tell me what you mean by "unconditional love," and I can tell you whether you get a yes or no.

[Traveler]

It is my opinion that the love we get - from G-d or anyone else is over rated. The love we give - to G-d and everyone else is underrated.

Thus it is greater to be trusted than to be loved. It is also more beneficial to be able to trust than to love. I am quite certain that G-d will only allow those that he trusts to be close to him. We all make a big deal about G-d’s love with emphasis on his loving us individual. But I am sure that G-d will not welcome home every one he loves with the statement, “Well done thou good and faithful servant!” Such a statement will only be reserved for those who G-d trusts.

I have learned by sad experience that it is not practical or beneficial to trust all who I have come to love. But I have learned by experience that it is easy and natural to love everyone that I have come to trust. And it is most difficult and sometimes sad and trying to love someone that cannot be trusted.

The Traveler

[Moksha]

Oh wow. The OP informs me that this string could largely become a disputation about definitions.

This is essentially correct in that we are defining the qualities we will let God have or not have.

[Taldarin]

I do not understand how believing that Heavenly Father will love us unconditionally would lead us to think that sin is ok. That is quite a jump to me. Obviously we are capable of loving someone without loving or approving of their actions, so why would Heavenly Father be different?

This is why soooooo many people excuse their sins. God will beat us with a few stripes, but because he loves us unconditionally, he'll save us at the last day anyway.

[Vort]

The truth is that God does love His children unconditionally. He offered the chance at Eternal Life to ALL His children.

How does this demonstrate "unconditional love"?

God loved His children so much that He allowed many to choose to fall instead of forcing them to choose Him.

It is not immediately obvious to me that allowing someone to be damned is a loving act.

The answer is both, when taken in perspective. I believe some are focusing on His unconditional love, while others are focusing on His conditional love. Common ground will never be reached if you don't agree on the kind of love you're speaking about.

I don't think that playing around with the definition of "love" and splitting up into several different "kinds" a la the Greeks is the answer to this dilemma. I do agree that the answer depends on what you mean by "God's love", which is why I have asked numerous times what "God's love" means that gives sense to the statement "God's love is unconditional."

[Vort]

Oh wow. The OP informs me that this string could largely become a disputation about definitions.

I believe that 99% of philosophy is argument about word definitions. How could it be otherwise? The miracle and the curse of all token-based communication, including speech, is the assigning of meaning to the tokens. When the tokens do not represent the same idea in each mind, confusion results. This is why I have repeatedly asked for definitions of God's love that give meaning to the statement "God's love is unconditional". I can think of no useful definition for God's love that provides meaning to that statement.

[Justice]

How does this demonstrate "unconditional love"?

...

It is not immediately obvious to me that allowing someone to be damned is a loving act.

The hardest thing I have to do as a parent is let my kids follow a course that will lead them to harm, when I know ahead of time that it will harm them. But, love means I have to give them their agency to learn for themselves.

[Vort]

The hardest thing I have to do as a parent is let my kids follow a course that will lead them to harm, when I know ahead of time that it will harm them. But, love means I have to give them their agency to learn for themselves.

No, this is a false argument. You might allow your child to lose money, or perhaps burn himself on the stove, so that he can learn an important lesson. You would not allow your child to be hit by a truck so that he would learn a lesson. If you did, you could not reasonably claim that you allowed your child to be killed because you loved him.

The idea that God loves us soooooo much that he allows us to destroy ourselves is absurd.

(Besides, I don't believe that allowing your child to pursue a course that leads to harm is really "the hardest thing [you] have to do as a parent". Other things are much harder, such as watching helplessly while your child self-destructs and you are powerless to do anything about it.)

[Taldarin]

The idea that God loves us soooooo much that he allows us to destroy ourselves is absurd.

This statement is a fantastic summarization of what I think on the subject.

It's basically what I've been trying to say the entire time(and perhaps Vort, but I can't speak for him)

[edit] and this

I believe that 99% of philosophy is argument about word definitions. How could it be otherwise? The miracle and the curse of all token-based communication, including speech, is the assigning of meaning to the tokens. When the tokens do not represent the same idea in each mind, confusion results. This is why I have repeatedly asked for definitions of God's love that give meaning to the statement "God's love is unconditional". I can think of no useful definition for God's love that provides meaning to that statement.

Edited December 19, 2009 by Taldarin

[Justice]

The idea that God loves us soooooo much that he allows us to destroy ourselves is absurd.

There is a caveat in that they need the ability to make this choice in order to be truly happy.

On one hand, they have the opportunity of being like God, on the other they have the chance to choose destruction. Without the choice they cannot reach their full potential.

[Justice]

(Besides, I don't believe that allowing your child to pursue a course that leads to harm is really "the hardest thing [you] have to do as a parent". Other things are much harder, such as watching helplessly while your child self-destructs and you are powerless to do anything about it.)

I disagree. Watching them knowing you can't do anything about it is painful, but watching them knowing you CAN do something but choosing not to is, in my opinion, more difficult.

[Taldarin]

There is a caveat in that they need the ability to make this choice in order to be truly happy.

On one hand, they have the opportunity of being like God, on the other they have the chance to choose destruction. Without the choice they cannot reach their full potential.

Wouldn't "unconditional love" mean that even if they chose to destroy themselves, He'd still save them?

Even if my rebellious little brother decided to commit suicide by stepping in front of a car, I'd still save the punk kid because I love him anyway. I wouldn't sit there and say "well, it's his choice..."

[prisonchaplain]

Perhaps the short answer to the question of whether or not God loves us unconditionally is that his love is certainly perfect.

[Vort]

Perhaps the short answer to the question of whether or not God loves us unconditionally is that his love is certainly perfect.

Granted, but that is a tautology, so it doesn't give us any new information.

[prisonchaplain]

Perhaps we are attempting to ask questions, or impose understandings, that scripture simply does not address. Can I say I love God, live for the Devil my whole life, and then expect that because God loves me "unconditionally," that I will spend eternity with him? Only Universalists believe that. So, if that's what unconditional means, it's wrong.

On the other hand, do we believe that God's offer of salvation and love in John 3:16 was limited--only to a select chosen few, whom Father predetermined? No, our churches agree that "Whosoever will may come." So the offer salvation was made unconditional. All may accept it. BUT, to accept it would mean taking on Christ's life, with all it's restrictions. Does that make the gift "conditional?" No more than saying you can't use God's oxygen unless you breathe. That's sort of the point, isn't it. So, you can't take God's salvation unless you take Jesus' life. Again, that's the point.

So, if "unconditional" means God has to take you no matter what you've done, or what your attitude towards him ends up being, then no, that's heresy. On the other hand, if "unconditional" means what the Arminians meant--that salvation is available to everyone--that God did not pre-select who would get it--it's open to all, then yes, God's love is all that.

[Dravin]

Wouldn't "unconditional love" mean that even if they chose to destroy themselves, He'd still save them?

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?

Even if my rebellious little brother decided to commit suicide by stepping in front of a car, I'd still save the punk kid because I love him anyway. I wouldn't sit there and say "well, it's his choice..."

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."

Edited December 19, 2009 by Dravin

[Justice]

Wouldn't "unconditional love" mean that even if they chose to destroy themselves, He'd still save them?

Bluntly, no. It means going forward with what needs to be done in spite of what pain it brings. "God so loved the world that He gave His Only Begotten Son, that whosoever..."

Just for the opportunity that ANY of His children that wanted to grab hold of the iron rod had that opportunity. He set a plan in motion that had eternal rewards for some and eternal consequences for others.

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.

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

Edited December 19, 2009 by Justice