As I wrote about a few posts back, since disaffecting from Mormonism, I have started reading about other Christian denominations, gaining an appreciation for the differences in how they interpret concepts that might I might have thought I knew all about as a Mormon. By doing this, I feel I have gained as close to “holy envy” for those other denominations as may be possible for an atheist.
One such concept this has certainly applied to has been the concept of grace. Any Mormon who has discussed grace with a Protestant friend should be well aware of the difference — 2 Nephi informs Mormons that we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do (2 Nephi 25:23). There have been essays over whether we read that phrase appropriately (either theologically or even just grammatically), but if you had to accuse Mormons of either works righteousness or of cheap grace, it would be far more accurate to accuse the theology of the former.
There have been stirrings of a change in interpretation, however, with Adam Miller’s Grace is Not God’s Backup Plan, Brad Wilcox’s His Grace is Sufficient, and even President Dieter Uchtdorf’s The Gift of Grace. Each of these shifts the needle away from the idea that one must earn God’s love and grace.
However, as of October 2016, we still have to seriously question whether God’s love is unconditional. With his October 2016 conference talk “Abide in My Love,” Elder D. Todd Christofferson shares with us the one word that might mislead you about the nature of God’s love:
There are many ways to describe and speak of divine love. One of the terms we hear often today is that God’s love is “unconditional.” While in one sense that is true, the descriptor unconditional appears nowhere in scripture. Rather, His love is described in scripture as “great and wonderful love,”3 “perfect love,”4 “redeeming love,”5 and “everlasting love.”6 These are better terms because the word unconditional can convey mistaken impressions about divine love, such as, God tolerates and excuses anything we do because His love is unconditional, or God makes no demands upon us because His love is unconditional, or all are saved in the heavenly kingdom of God because His love is unconditional. God’s love is infinite and it will endure forever, but what it means for each of us depends on how we respond to His love.
As I read through Christofferson’s remarks, it seems that there are a few things that Christofferson is trying to get at (such as a distinction between unconditional salvation and conditional exaltation), but my biggest impression when reading the post was whether what he was describing were in fact conditions on the love at all.
Ultimately, everything seems to hinge on one question:
Is acceptance of a gift a condition to it?
Near the beginning of the talk, Christofferson quotes the following from President Monson:
As President Thomas S. Monson has expressed: “God’s love is there for you whether or not you feel you deserve love. It is simply always there.”
I think that this hints at what non-LDS Christians are getting at when they talk about grace as a gift and God’s love as being unconditional. God’s love keeps coming at all of us regardless of what we do, who we are, what we deserve, and what we feel we deserve. It is simply always there. (As Adam Miller would expound in his General Theory of Grace, this ever-flowing gift is present from even the first act of creation. The universe, our planet, our lives, our every moment is gift after gift sent our way from God.)
So, if Christofferson agrees with his quotation of Monson (and if Monson’s quotation is reconcilable with that general theory of grace), then Christofferson’s statements should nevertheless be compatible with an unconditional notion of God’s love.
It seems that Christofferson’s proposed conditions on love can all be redirected away from what God is doing to instead what we are doing. To quote the last line from my first quote block:
God’s love is infinite and it will endure forever, but what it means for each of us depends on how we respond to His love.
How we respond to His love.
Does our response pose conditions on God’s love?
When we talk about giving people gifts, aren’t those unconditional? What do we mean by that? Wouldn’t we mean that our gift is not based on the recipient “earning” the gift (we choose to give it regardless of what they have done for it) and it is not based on the recipient “deserving” the gift (again, we choose to give it regardless)?
And yet…doesn’t a gift recipient still have choices? They can reject the gift. They can misuse the gift. They can lose it. They can damage it.
If the recipient does any of these things, does that change the nature of the gift? Does that then mean that we (the giver) have placed conditions on the gift? Would we say that a gift is conditioned on the acceptance and proper use thereof?
It doesn’t seem to me like that would be the case.
In fact, it seems like we could say that our gift is unconditional precisely because we give it even when the recipient rejects it or when the recipient withholds it.
At the same time, we can say that we have given the gift unconditionally, but that the recipient’s response will affect what the gift means for them. If they do not accept it, they may not receive the full value and benefit of the gift (and yet, it was still unconditional). If they misused it, lost it, or damaged it, they may not receive the full value or benefit, yet the gift was still unconditional.
Does this make sense to you? Or would you say that those things place conditions on the gift?
Interpreting commandments in terms of responses to gifts
If the previously mentioned framework can make sense as a model for gifts, grace, and unconditional love, then that allows us to reconfigure a lot of Mormon-centric concepts in this new light. If this works correctly, then we should be able to maintain familiarity with Mormon teachings (that is, not completely jettison core concepts) while seeing them in that different light.
I think Steve Evans summarized it well in his post at BCC in response to this talk:
This is the fundamental difference, which brings us out of heresy: God’s unconditional love is the greatest constant in the universe, but God also has established commandments and covenants. Some of God’s greatest blessings are conditioned on faithfulness. This does not mean that God’s love is conditional, but rather that our ability to understand and accept God’s love for us will grow as we obey Him and come to know Him. God is broadcasting His love throughout creation: whether we hear Him clearly will depend on how we attune ourselves. That’s a simplistic metaphor but an apt one. Even our evangelical friends will likely agree that accepting Jesus Christ is required to actualize God’s love in our lives in a salvific way.
In this new light, we can think of obedience as being particular responses to gifts. The gift is there regardless of what we do, but obedience is like opening a new gift, reading the instructions manual, and following along.
What’s important here to always remember is that gifted aspect. In this case, thinking of God’s love as unconditional is helpful precisely because it keeps us from claiming credit.
If we take Brad Wilcox’s piano lessons analogy (from His Grace is Sufficient), what is crucial (and perhaps part of the reason Protestants emphasize that unconditional nature so often) is to remember that even if one improves at playing at piano through practicing and following one’s instructor, one must always recognize that one’s piano playing ability, one’s tutor, one’s piano itself — these were and are freely given and not earned. Though you did practice (and without that practice, you wouldn’t have gotten different results), everything was freely given first and without respect to anything you did — your piano, your teacher, your lessons, but also your very ears to listen and your hands to play.
Wheat & Tares 
Billy Graham had the following to say:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-23/features/sns-201207030000–tms–bgrahamctnym-b20120723-20120723_1_gift-salvation-eternal-life
Can you reject an unconditional gift?
“These are better terms because the word unconditional can convey mistaken impressions about divine love, such as, God tolerates and excuses anything we do because His love is unconditional, or God makes no demands upon us because His love is unconditional, or all are saved in the heavenly kingdom of God because His love is unconditional.”
The Christofferson quote is a perversion of the concept of God’s unconditional love designed to fool people into thinking that men like Cristofferson (and the LDS church) have power they don’t, in fact, have. Always remember that God loves you no matter what, and you are forever safe in His hands.
I personally believe 100% that God’s love for us and everything He created has no strings attached. It always existed and it always will. God loves us regardless of what we do and everybody is destined for heaven. There’s no fine print.
Ste(phen?):
Hearing it put so simply is kinda humbling, but also makes me think I didn’t totally botch the post up.
anon:
If everyone is destined for heaven, then that would imply that you can’t reject God’s love.
(I actually still need to write a post about the Orthodox view of heaven and hell — it also agrees that everyone will live in God’s presence in the end…but it also agrees that whether you experience that as heaven or hell is dependent on you.)
“If everyone is destined for heaven, then that would imply that you can’t reject God’s love.”
I don’t follow the logic here. Let’s say God loves person X. X, on the other hand, rejects that love, declares himself an atheist, and becomes a serial bank robber. After X dies, God welcomes X into heaven. X can mope around for an eternity in heaven “rejecting” God’s love, but God’s love never changes. This, of course, is all very hypothetical and assumes that God, Heaven, and X even exist. I fail to see how X going to heaven implies that X accepts God’s love. X can reject God in heaven just as well as here on earth. What’s the diff?
anon,
OK, I understand what you’re saying now. Per the post that still needs to be written on Orthodoxy, Heaven or Hell are states of mind/mentalities within the presence of God. In that viewpoint, “X moping around for an eternity in [God’s presence]” *is* Hell. Heaven is not defined as being in God’s presence, but being in God’s presence *and accepting God’s love*.
To me, I have to associate Heaven with that psychological enjoyment.
“In that viewpoint, “X moping around for an eternity in [God’s presence]” *is* Hell.”
Somehow, I am picturing a sullen goth teenager here. 🙂 If heaven is defined in the terms you give, then what you say makes more sense to me. However, I am not sure that it can be said that moping around in heaven is “hell”, in the sense of some sort of everlasting punishment. I suppose it’s possible to make that logical leap, but it sounds kind of artificial to me.
I mean, if we are going to make rules on the fly, then we can imagine that God says to X, “I understand that accepting my love and being in heaven makes you miserable. I am infinitely powerful, though. What can I do for you to make you happy?” X replies, “I want You to put me into an eternal state of dreamless, suspended animation, and I still reject Your love and deny that You even….” Poof!
Andrew, using my phone to post on our new format is not always as useful as I’d like.
But yes, I think you got it nicely analyzed.
I’ve been enjoying your theology posts.
I think that this talk must be related to Elder Nelson’s 2003 talk “Divine Love” which has gotten some negative attention over the years:
Maybe Elder Christopherson wanted to try and clarify Elder Nelson’s whose unfortunate thesis “God’s love is conditional” has probably been the source of some unnecessary confusion in the church.But how do you “fix” what a more senior apostle has said? You can’t. The best you can do is defend what Elder Nelson said, but softening the edges ever so slightly. Look at just how closely his argument mirror’s Elder Nelson’s:
Ironically, by trying to clarify Elder Nelson, Elder Christopherson makes it seem like he’s also a works-oriented hardliner. But perhaps the opposite is true. This could simply be trying to clean up the semantic mess that Elder Nelson created, but there’s only so much you can do when a fellow apostle makes such a categorical statement.
In the end, LDS culture is so thoroughly works-oriented, that it doesn’t make a lot of sense to launch an attack on the words “unconditional love.” Elder Nelson was probably just riffing on some of the connotations of having a works-oriented doctrine, but without stopping to consider that he was trampling upon one of humanity’s most enduring bulwarks. Now that the word “unconditional,” has been sullied, Elder Christopherson decides that he basically has to finish the job, killing it off for good, but replacing it with: “God’s love is infinite and it will endure forever.” In the meantime, this just makes it more unlikely that LDS culture will adopt a more grace-based theology any time soon.
I suspect Nate may be onto something. I also think that what’s behind talks like this is a white-knuckled terror of the cheap grace we see on offer in evangelical and mainline protestant churches. Personally, I think that terror is placed on the wrong side. Mormons are far more likely to think they are self-righteously “earning” grace than to think that they can just do whatever they want and still be saved. The excesses in our religion all lie in the other direction. I imagine every church errs one way or the other on this topic, but since a Mormon is far more likely to think they are going to hell for a sip of coffee and to think they are building up a cache of heavenly points by avoiding certain visible sins, the risk is twofold: 1) misplaced pride that we aren’t sinners like so-and-so, and 2) a fundamental lack of gratitude for grace if we believe we are sacrificing and earning our way into it. If cheap grace is the alternative we reject, then we are conversely at risk of over-valuing our merit.
Elder Christofferson implies that we earn our way to the celestial kingdom and that God’s love is conditional and dependant on our obedience to Him. I would submit that it is God’s grace that empowers us to repent, forgive and obey and God’s unconditional love is the driving force of His grace and His atonement. Without faith that the Lord loves us unconditionally, many feel that are unworthy of His love and lose hope. I am an active member of the Church and depend every day on God’s unconditional love to sustain, strengthen, and empower me.
Thanks for the post, Andrew.
anon
Certainly, the idea of a mopey goth teenager probably can be a bit silly, but I can certainly imagine higher/deeper levers of internal torment.
I think what I would get at though is increasingly, I am thinking that Hell is not a place that God sends people to (in the normal sense that “eternal punishment” implies…as if God is a punisher), but a place that people end up as a result of some state they have gotten themselves in and which everyone (God included) would love to help them out, but the person has to accept that help.
But as a twist on your last paragraph, I could totally imagine God asking, “What do you want me to do?” and then someone saying, “I never want to see you again.” and then getting their wish. Definitely interesting to think about.
Nate,
Unfortunately, I think your last sentence is probably right. I feel like there can be a way to reconcile obedience with grace, though, so I hope that leaders would try it again.
Hawkgrrrl,
I agree with both of the risks you mention — especially that second. One of the big takeaways that I got from Adam Miller was that that is what Paul means by the law selling one into sin — it’s not that the law is bad, but that in a sinful mindset, we get caught up about making the law about earning, merit, etc., instead of about grace.
Jan,
Great comment. I think it should not be controversial to note that in a Christian framework, God’s grace is what empowers everything else.
@Andrew
“[Hell is] a place that people end up as a result of some state they have gotten themselves in and which everyone (God included) would love to help them out, but the person has to accept that help”
To me, offering a gift–conditionally or unconditionally–is completely separate from acceptance of that gift. Assuming God’s offer of going to heaven applies to everybody, I personally don’t think refusal of that “gift” changes it in any way or changes God’s intent in any way. I would say that a person in an uncomfortable state who, presumably, makes a conscious choice not to accept help in exiting that state, is choosing to remain there.
“I’m locked up in jail!! I hate it here!”
“Here’s the key to the door.”
“I don’t accept the key.”
“OK.”
“I could totally imagine God asking, “What do you want me to do?” and then someone saying, “I never want to see you again.” and then getting their wish.”
I think that (or the solution I gave) would answer the problem of a person who, by choice, didn’t want to be in God’s presence–or was in God’s presence, but unhappy about it. I am sure there are plenty of atheists who aren’t in “God’s presence” here on earth. They are fine now and if, presumably, God wants them to be happy in the afterlife, He will accommodate them. I don’t see living without God on earth or in heaven as any sort of problem at all, personally.
I’d offer one last tidbit. I found a little plant with orange flowers (globe mallow) while I was out hiking. I brought it home, potted it, and have it on a sunny window sill. I really love that plant and I expect nothing from it. My love is unconditional, and I water it and fertilize it to keep it healthy. The plant, is completely unaware of my feelings for it. Is that plant “accepting” my taking care of it? Given God’s vast intelligence, what if our understanding of God’s love for us is at the level of that little plant I brought home?
I’m not sure why the semantics matter so much. What’s the functional difference between God’s love being conditional and God’s love being unconditional but only noticeable it if we accept it? If “accepting” it means thinking or doing something, how is that functionally different than saying that God’s love is conditional on thinking or doing something? How can you tell the difference between the two?
I agree with Steve’s quote entirely. I’m bewildered by all those who feel the need to push back on what Elder Christofferson or even what Elder Nelson said.
anon,
I think I’m tracking with you, and we’re on the same page.
I think your last paragraph is interesting. I think (to again, borrow from Adam Miller’s general theory of grace) that for the most part, many people are precisely in that condition (since, for Miller, everything is a grace — starting with Creation. So, by *living* and doing *anything*, we are “accepting”.[Adam would say that it’s when we run away from the things that come our way that we are rejecting God’s grace. In your example, it would be if the plant didn’t take the water or fertilizer…)
Martin,
I think the difference changes our focus.
When we start with the framework of God’s love being unconditional, then we can start from the position that it’s always there, we are never beyond redemption, it doesn’t matter how much we fail, because none of that was the point.
But additionally, when we start with that framework, then we can remain humble and not fall into thinking that somehow we “earned” that love/grace through our actions.
In contrast, when we start with the framework that God’s love is conditional, then there’s the anxiety of whether we’ve done enough to earn it or deserve it (or if we have perhaps gone beyond the pale and are no longer eligible for it)…and on the flip side, when we’re seemingly in a good position, we might think that we can brag or boast about our own obedience and good works.
I think there is a world of difference between the mindsets.
When I heard Elder Christophersons talk I thought he was responding to those who Question the POX because it seems the opposite of love and is saying God does not love unconditionally and so we don’t have to either.
After praying about the POX the enlightenment I received is that yes Gods love is unconditional, and also that “if ye love me keep my commandments” refers to the main commandment he taught, to love our fellow man/woman,
10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.
11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.
12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
Further if we discriminate against any of our fellows we are choosing to refuse to fully follow the commandment to love one another, so until we treat women and gays equally we are refusing to love one another, and as Christopherson says limiting our reception of Gods love.
When we fully accept the commandment to love one another we will be a Zion society.
When I say to fellow members that Christs main message was to love unconditionally, they usually come back with , but he also taught “if ye love me keep my commandments”. They interpret his commandment as doing all the things the Church says, in reality his commandment was to love our fellow mortals as he loves us.
I believe Christopherson was trying to say; but he doesn’t love us if we don’t accept his commandments, so we can then justify discriminating against gays, and women, because they don’t accept our commandments.
Wouldn’t it be nice if he would just explain where it is revealed that gay marriage is such a grievous sin, instead of all this twisting and turning.
The difference between focusing on grace or works can seem a little academic, but it can make a big difference in how a church is structured. With a focus on grace, there really isn’t any need for repentance processes or disciplinary councils because the church leaders can trust that the members are doing their best to live their lives by the scriptures instead of trying to determine if each member is truly repentant. If someone sincerely wants to change and prays for forgiveness, God will forgive them. If someone asks for forgiveness without intending to change, God would know even without a bishop to apply the gift of discernment. While members believing in cheap grace may be a problem in some churches, it is usually considered the individual member’s problem and not an institutional problem. After all, the member will show up at the judgement bar, not the church.
In s church focused on grace, there would be less need for guilting the members. There would no longer be any need to guilt people about their failures based on scriptures that say that the lord would provide a way for them to keep all the commandments if they were sincere. There wouldn’t be any need for doctrines of retroactive revocation of forgiveness for guilting people who struggle with a particular sin.
In a church focused on grace, the distinction between being a worthy member and an unworthy member no longer makes much sense. As the church exists today, young members are encouraged to spend their free time at ward FHE and institute, but this is problematic for anyone who isn’t a worthy return missionary because the women at those activities won’t want to date them anyway. Anyone who can’t meet the standards are cast aside. While that might be great leverage for trying to control people, it can just as easily break someone down if they fail.
Overall, a church focused on grace would provide more help and encouragement and less judgement for people who don’t fully measure up to expectations. I don’t think the church could switch to that model while still preserving a works-based exaltation in addition to a grace based salvation. I think that the temple has become too tied to worthiness interviews for the church to make the change.
AndyAndy said, “I think that the temple has become too tied to worthiness interviews for the church to make the change.” I agree. A grace based doctrine would recognize that the Lord cares more about how I treat my neighbor than whether I drink coffee. A grace based doctrine doesn’t give the Church enough leverage to keep its members thinking the appropriate group-think and doing the things it needs to perpetuate it’s survival. But in the end, a grace based doctrine is the only true path to exaltation.
Andrew,
I still think it’s a distinction without a difference. Admittedly, different people react to different words differently, so the effects of thinking one way (conditional love) could certainly be as you describe. But as you pointed out in your post, the effects of thinking the other way (unconditional love) can just as easily lead people towards cheap grace, the idea that what they do doesn’t matter because they’ve accepted Christ as their Savior. And even if they don’t go so far as that end of the spectrum, they can also think that repentance doesn’t involve real struggle. Both models can lead to different errors, imo. That’s why you need Elder Cornish’s talk and Elder Christofferson’s talk, and the listeners need to listen with the Spirit to see where their thinking may be faulty.
Martin,
I think I would just say that if you can recognize the difference between works righteousness and cheap grace (and recognize that different language contributes to either), then that would seem to say that this certainly makes a difference. Ultimately, every group is going to want to avoid both works righteousness and cheap grace, though, so if what is said in talks can help people avoid both, then great.
I know I’m REALLY behind in finding this commentary and no one is likely to see this comment by I just needed to thank you fir putting into words what bothered me so intensely. A few weeks ago my husband was Ahmed to use this talk to teach the high priest group and simultaneously our RS had the lesson. In his prep he shared his thoughts on this talk during FHE. At that time I shared my discomfort that bordered on hatred for this talk and it began a few week long discussion on why it was so offensive. I was not nearly as articulate as you. I sounded rather a bit more like a raving lunatic actually. Muttering about how our leaders continually perpetuate the horribly damaging cultural beliefs of earning grace and how fear mongering is so much easier than inspiration. My husband was utterly confused and could not see how I could be so angry about such a glorious talk. He, like Martin in your comments can not seem to understand the destructive power of this type of talk and how when our leaders speak like this it allows members to justify a shame based judgmental attitude that is so harmful.
Aagh! I should edit prior to submitting.my apologies for all of the typos!