In 2003, Then Elder Nelson wrote in the Ensign
“While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be defined as UNCONDITIONAL— Divine Love, Russel M. Nelson, February 2003 Ensign
I did a search using the Corpus of LDS General Conference, and found that before Elder Nelson put the kybosh on Unconditional Love, it was used once in the 1970s, five times in the 1980s, six times in the 1990s, and then only once in the 2000s. Each of these uses referenced God or Jesus’s unconditional love for us. One of them was even from Elder Nelson himself!
Godliness is not a product of perfection; it comes of concentration and consecration. Godliness characterizes each of you who truly loves the Lord. You are constantly mindful of the Savior’s atonement and rejoice in His unconditional love. Meanwhile you vanquish personal pride and vain ambition. Russell M. Nelson, GC, Oct 1991
You can look up all the other references if you like, I’ll share just a few
I testify that he assisted in the creation and management not only of this planet, but other worlds. His grasp is galactic, yet he noticed the widow casting in her mite. I am stunned at his perfect, unconditional love of all. Indeed, “I stand all amazed at the love Jesus offers me. Elder Neal A. Maxwell, May 1976
I bear my special witness of Him—that our lives can be everlasting because His love is everlasting. That we may share His eternal, unconditional love with our brothers and sisters everywhere, is my humble prayer in the name of Jesus Christ, amen**.–Elder Robert D. Hales, GC, October 2008
I testify of our Heavenly Father’s love for us. The unconditional love the Father and the Son have for us is so real. The Savior continually invites us to “come unto him and partake of his goodness. Victor L. Brown, GC, October 1989
So what caused Elder Nelson’s change of heart? The clues can be found in his 2003 Ensign article. First he states that the word “unconditional” does not appear in the scripturas. Then he uses a page from Elder Oaks book and get legalistic with the exact words in the scriptures. He states the “conditional” aspects of Gods love using “If …then” and except…cannot” clauses.
Several forms of conditional expression may be found in the scriptures:
“If … [certain conditions exist], then … [certain consequences follow].” (The indicators if and then may be written or implied.)
“Inasmuch as … [certain conditions exist], … [certain consequences follow].”
“Except … cannot …”
“Prove … , if … ” For example, a verse pertaining to our creation reveals a prime purpose for our sojourn here in mortality: “We will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them.” Life here is a period of mortal probation. Our thoughts and actions determine whether our mortal probation can merit heavenly approbation.
I don’t quite see the tie into Love in the above examples. I think most have to to with blessing, which we can all agree have always been taught that they are conditional. God can disapprove of our actions, withhold blessing, but still love us.
So what is Pres Nelson afraid of? I think this is it from the same Ensign article:
Understanding that divine love and blessings are not truly “unconditional” can defend us against common fallacies such as these: “Since God’s love is unconditional, He will love me regardless …”; or “Since ‘God is love,’ He will love me unconditionally, regardless …”
We will sin if we think God will still love us. Elder Christofferson jumped on this same train of thought in 2016
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,” “perfect love,” “redeeming love,” and “everlasting love.” 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. Elder D. Todd Christofferson GC April 2016
Has the Q15 perceived a real threat to the salvation of mankind by the thinking that God’s love is unconditional? Maybe this storm has blown over since we don’t hear about it anymore. Nelson’s 2003 article pretty much stopped any more mention of unconditional love in General Conference, so now we just need a reinforcement every so often (like Elder Christofferson)
What are your thoughts on this?
Image by Ylanite Koppens from Pixabay
Wheat & Tares 
It feels like they’re busy cracking the whip with this move. Can’t have the members thinking they’ve done enough and can sit down and relax for ten minutes. Always something more we should be doing to be earning that love and approval. After all, once you’ve defined God’s love as conditional where’s the end?
Got to think that might be backfiring somewhat, with so many of us coming to be so burnt out, and perhaps reaching the point where we feel if this is your God you can keep him…
Let us be clear. God’s love is unconditional. That is spiritual, historical, and epidemiological fact.
But it is also true that the great hordes are wrong to think that this means that they can sin without consequence. Actions always set a course with consequential results that cannot be avoided.
So the masses who drink themselves silly at the local honky tonk and then go home with strangers to copulate like crazed rabbits should not expect Gods love to help them avoid the addiction, disease, and broken homes that inevitably follow.
So rest assured assured that God loves you. But also recognize that he does not love debauchery and will not save you from the irrefutable law of consequences.
Good morning,
Sundays are better with BBill!
I think that Nelsons statement is a reflection of his conscious/sub-conscious attitude towards the church body. We all know the hollow feeling when someone says I love you, who really does not mean it. This is defiantly another aspect about LDS culture that I despise. How people (ward, stake, and general) get up at the pulpit and repetitively state, “We love the youth”, or “the stake presidency sends their love”. However, when you really need something, have a doubt, the word love is immediately replaced with obedience. Defining true love, is like defining pornography, you know it when you see it. I think the church previously prospered, because of good hearted and Christian people on the ward and stake levels. Those types have now been drowned out with the Covenant path crowd.
When I attended ward/stake council meetings, what is expressed about some members in private meetings, was shocking and defiantly not “love”.
It is another parallel with the LDS church and the Pharisees. The decision makers only “love” the members, who are aligned with the brethren.
Complicating all this is our human desire (insistence?) for fairness. It’s a key element in parenting and governing (institutions and nations). But as far as I can tell from the scriptural record, God skips over the whole idea of fairness and goes straight to love. Granted, much of scripture was written from Israel’s perspective, so there’s built-in bias. But was it fair, for example, for Egyptian children to be murdered so Hebrew children and their parents could go free? Of course not! Or what if we find out after we die that everybody gets “saved”? Religious institutions are invested in the idea that we don’t want to take that gamble. Hence, obedience, following the rules, and prioritizing fairness.
If we can’t rely on a prophet to teach us the true nature of God, how useful is that person as a prophet?
Asking for a friend.
Fwiw I think this is one of the most harmful, incorrect teachings in the LDS church and the root of many of its harms. Nelson hasn’t stopped teaching this either. Maybe he doesn’t use those words but “sad heaven” is all about conditional love and his 2019 talk “the love and laws of god” also teaches this falsehood.
We should avoid “sin” because it hurts people ourselves. But nothing – nothing – separates us from the Love of God which is in Christ Jesus. (Romans 8.). That sounds unconditional to me.
Adding to my prior comment. The idea of a “court of love” for an excommunication/ disciplinary council is appaluing.
This is typically my personal Sunday school time, since I no longer attend formal classes. Today I learned:
FAIR mormon states, they are not courts of retribution (are they kidding?) This term was first mentioned in GC in 1972, and has been used as manipulation in LDS circles ever since.
In the middle ages courts of love were overseen by female judges. I read a mixed history from vampires to chivalry. I learned about The Lasombra clan, which would apply to some in the covenant path mindset.
If the Q15 recognized the background of history of courts of love from the middle ages, they would cease use of the term.
As a TBM we were taught the hippie notion of love was wrong. However, love (not sex) without all the excessive religious attachments is more of what most of us would regonize as ❤️
I see two issues here: (1) the doctrine behind God’s love (2) RMN’s opinion of love.
Let’s start with #2. It’s clear that RMN views love as something that people deserve or not deserve and that it is a subjective or conditional emotion. Let’s give him credit for being honest about his own views on this. A few years ago he gave a GC talk in which he talked about his daughter who had passed away as an adult (in her 50s I believe). He mentioned that she was righteous until the end and he expressed his fatherly love for her that seemed to correlate to that righteousness. I remember wondering whether he’d be talking about her in GC if, say, she had a coffee habit.
As for #1, it may be true that “unconditional love” in nowhere to be found in the scriptures. Is “conditional love”? Did the Savior leave us an example to emulate and did that example include conditions for his love? I’m not exactly sure what the “doctrine” is on this point other than the Savior’s example.
When people rebel against our uncaring and materialistic society by, oh say writing a song about “All you need is Love,” it seems to make our obedience obsessed General authorities have apoplexy. I can’t remember specifically which one of them talked about how false that idea is, but consider, if you truly love God, you will want to make him happy and if you trust that he loves you, then you know that doing as he advises is the best way for you to be happy. So, if all you have is love, then obedience follows naturally and happily.
But if you don’t love God, but only fear his disapproval and you don’t trust that he loves you, then obedience is not natural. Obedience is forced at best, but it is really more about not getting caught. Maybe the idea that they won’t get caught is subconscious, but I really think it is there for a lot of people. See, most people base their idea of God on their parents because when we are infants, our parents are very God like. And sometimes we disobey and our parents don’t notice or simply fail to punish us. And so as an adult, we disobey God and go down to the honey tonk and take someone home to copulate like rabbits, and no immediate consequences follow, and hey that was fun. So our subconscious brain, where behavior actually happens according to the latest theories of psychology, that subconscious part of our brain goes “hey I didn’t get caught and punished.” So, that reinforces that whole thing of acting like the toddler whose parents didn’t catch them being naughty.
Awww, the basic mistake of authoritarian parenting. The parent dictates, expecting obedience. But fails to *explain* the reason that going to the honkey tonk, getting wasted, and finding some stranger to take home and copulate like horny rabbits is a bad idea.
And very often with authoritarian parenting their is a love failure of some sort. Sometimes it s a busy parent who won’t take the time to actually teach the child. It is easier and quicker to dictate for an over worked or impatient parent. Work or accomplishments or financial things have become more important than taking time to understand the child and teach them. This parent may think they are doing it for the good of the child, but they are still neglecting the needs of the child. Most often that love failure is parental ego getting in the way of understanding the child. The parents wants to look good in the community by having an outstanding, high performing child more than they want the child to be happy. They use the child for their own needs or in the service of a goal instead of putting the well being of the child first.
And they only approve and show love when the child obeys and meets their expectations. They will disown or kick out a child who displeases them. Their love is conditional.
Now, remember, a few mistakes won’t ruin your child. These mistakes have to be a consistent and constant pattern.
Thus we come to church leaders. Ours are notorious for putting the good name of the church ahead of the well being of individual members. They dictate to members, expecting obedience. They use member to clean, lead, teach, missionary, serve until the member just can’t any more. They say to put tithing first in your budget, as if the budget never runs out before food, clothing, housing, medical care. They use the members for their own needs instead of putting the well being of members first.
They are the very worst f the model of an authoritarian parent. And then they put themselves in the place of God. Perhaps they are telling us that God’s love is conditional because their love for us is very conditional.
Josh, thanks for pointing out RMN’s personal definition of what love is as shown in that talk about his daughter. I was thinking about that as I was writing, but my other thoughts got long and then I forgot. But you put it down while I was writing. I think it shows us very well what kind of man RMN is. He does not know what unconditional love even is because he personally is incapable f feeling it.
He would be the kind of father that when his prodigal son came home, instead of welcoming him with a shower of love, would have yelled at him, then given him a job slopping pigs until the son proved his worth.
RNM is analyzing God’s love to see how he can use it to his advantage in the next life. If RNM earns God’s conditional love by his exacting obedience, will he then be that much better off than John Charity Spring’s crazed copulators? Yes, and this matters to RNM. He’s striving for eternal glory – multiple wives and many worlds. If God’s love is unconditional, then that raises the threat that JCS’s crazed copulators may also inherit the same thing RNM inherits. RNM cannot make sense of a God that would do that. There must be a hierarchy in the next life because there is a hierarchy in this life. Equality is not an eternal value. But, to be fair in these enlightened times, inequality cannot be based on inherent characteristics. Inequality is only fair if it is based on the efforts someone makes. Therefore, JCS’s crazed copulators deserve less than RNM does, and this inequality is just and fair and Godly.
What RNM (and others) do not understand is that not everyone wants the promised glory. As many here have commented, plural marriage and populating worlds without end just doesn’t sound like something all of us want to do. We don’t have to believe in RNM’s version of God because we don’t want RNM’s version of a heavenly reward.
Honestly, this description of God’s love from the scriptures: “great and wonderful love,” “perfect love,” “redeeming love,” and “everlasting love.” is good enough for me. God loves me. He understands me. He accepts me. I don’t want what RNM wants, and God understands and accepts that too.
I think the criteria of ‘does X term appear in the scriptures?’ is not a good criteria.
Is don’t think “eternal marriage” or “plural wives” appear in the scriptures either (well perhaps not outside of the D&C). I don’t think “gender” appears in the scriptures either, but here we are.
there’s this loss of perspective that some people have when approaching the scriptures too. The scriptures are translations of translations of translations of writings that are several versions removed from the original documents which, in most cases, are based on oral narratives about events that happened years (mostly hundreds and thousands of years) after particular events or stories in question.
It’s silly to quibble about a specific term in modern English not appearing in the scriptures, which are just so many levels removed from whatever specific terminology in some long dead language was used in the first place.
@purple_flurp excellent point.
Do you know what else doesn’t appear in the scriptures?
Covenant Path
Nelson loves that one tho!
Elisa, you posted while I was typing: Since “covenant path” is not used in the scriptures, is it then also false doctrine?
Bishop Bill: I love the title of this post. It says so much. Conditional love, exact obedience, covenant path seems a packaged deal of our current leadership. I look forward to a time that love, growth, and belonging becomes our focus.
Great post and so many great comments. I just want to note that teachings like this are the product of a church led by lawyers, doctors, and businessmen. These guys aren’t spiritual giants; they are the most successful men who rose through the ranks of local, regional, and global church leadership. There isn’t much hope things will change. Local dentists continue to be called as bishops, and religious scholars at the church’s flagship university are more likely to have a doctorate in education than a degree theology or religion.
Great comments everyone. Love them.
Quoting from Richard Rohr in Falling Upward, “Jesus touched and healed anybody who desired it and asked for it, and there were no other prerequisites for his healings. Check it out yourself. Why would Jesus’ love be so unconditional while he was in this world, and suddenly become totally conditional after death? Is it the same Jesus?” pg 102.
This is an idea that I’ll be sharing and repeating as often as I can throughout this year.
At the risk of being excommunicated from the bloggernacle, I don’t really like the term “unconditional love” either. “God’s love” works fine for me. I think God’s love will last as long as His sense of humor and I hope both have an infinite supply. May laughter and love resound through the eternities!
Another consideration is that “unconditional love” has some 20th century messiness in the social science fields I don’t want encroaching on my Christianity.
P.S. I also meant to include Richard Rohr’s quote, “Jesus is never upset at sinners (check it out!); he is only upset with people who do not think they are sinners!” pg 59
The idea that love is conditional is harmful, and not helpful. It backfires. When people feel unconditional love, it allows them to change and become their best selves. When people feel judged, the natural tendency is to rationalize and justify your negative behavior, and double down on it. Unconditional love changes people for the better.
President Nelson is talking about the difference between God’s infinite love and Divine Love. The first is the love that resides in the bosom of the Father for each and every one of his children–it is infinite. The second is the love that we must be willing to receive. “Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ…” And so what we are seeking is a dispensation of his love — a new quantity — into our souls
1. It is without question that God possesses unconditional love for all of his children.
2. In order to receive his divine love in our *own hearts* we must seek it with all the energy we possess.
Old Man,
I love it!
Jack, the love described in Moroni 7:48 is charity, the pure love of Christ. It is our love for others, not God’s love for us.
ji,
You almost make my point. 🙂 In suggesting that we’re talking about to different quantities, that is. Even so, while I agree that we express charity by how we love others, it can only be received as a gift from God, IMO. And as such, it’s not something that we receive automatically. We have to position ourselves to receive it through righteous action.
Jack, I’m breaking my vow not to respond to your comments. Hopefully this will be the only the time.
You write: “It is without question that God possesses unconditional love for all of his children.” Well, yes, Jack, there is a question, thanks to Nelson. That’s what this post is about. You might not think there is, but, as we know, what others think and say and believe isn’t a particular concern of yours.
While the distinction you’re attempting to make may help you and others make sense of the evil that Nelson says, that not what he said. You’re twisting his words and adding a significant amount of your own thinking and terminology unto what he said. He didn’t say anything close to what you argue. Though, again, such twisting and abandonment of fact is a habit of yours.
Given what Nelson wrote and the subsequent falling out of the usage of the phrase among LDS leaders and members, the idea that God love’s for his children unconditionally is absolutely in question. Apparently though, it isn’t to you because (like myself and many others here) you aren’t taking Nelson’s words at face value. Good for you. I mean that in all honesty. I think it’s great to see that you know that there’s no justification for the idea, hence your attempt to salvage it.
Great post, BB. For a Mormon leader to argue anything based on scriptural appearance (or not) is specious at best, especially considering the fact that the very quotes Bishop Bill provide, according to Mormon theology, ARE scripture, and therefore RMN is not only contradicting himself, but also the prophetic “scripture” of his earlier pronouncements. This is just absurd.
Agree with the OP’s implication that there’s this bizarre thought by our leadership that if we think God’s love is unconditional, then it’s cool if we murder people or rob a bank because God will still love us. That’s just nuts, especially given the church’s very clear (and very often mentioned) teaching that God loves us, but also expects us to follow the commandments and that we are, indeed, capable of sin and, because of agency, capable of simply refusing to repent for that sin. It’s like our own leadership doesn’t believe what they’re selling, so they’re trying to be hardliners here. This reminds me of the empathy/depression posts we’ve had lately. Think of the damage that this could do to folks who really struggle with self-worth and struggle to maintain any kind of relationship with deity. Stuff like this simply does not help; to the contrary, it will damage those among us who are most vulnerable. The folks who are pointing out the way this thinking is linked by RMN to the afterlife are also spot on.
Elder Christofferson in GC explained that something becomes doctrine when it is preached by all members of the first presidency and q12. Until we hear the other 14 saying God’s love is conditional, this is simply RMN’s opinion.
@BB, excellent post. I want to postulate one thought in response to your question:
“Has the Q15 perceived a real threat to the salvation of mankind by the thinking that God’s love is unconditional? Maybe this storm has blown over since we don’t hear about it anymore. Nelson’s 2003 article pretty much stopped any more mention of unconditional love in General Conference, so now we just need a reinforcement every so often (like Elder Christofferson).”
You mention, “Maybe this store had blown over…” I would like to challenge this assertion. Recently, RMN, President Oaks and Elder Gilbert Clark (the new Mormon Stasi officer), and Elder Teh, have promoted the idea that you can err in loving marginalized (and, ergo, sinful) groups more than God. The idea here, theologically, is that you shouldn’t love your neighbor as you do your God if that neighbor somehow offends the brethern. It seems to me this rhetoric is aimed at persuading members not to love their gay brothers and sisters, and if they do, they are not loving their God.
Further it seems to me this argument is premised on the idea that God’s love is conditional. Your comment, “since we don’t hear about it anymore” seems to overlook the fact that we are in fact hearing about God’s conditional love more than ever.
Let me make one correction: Elder Clark Gilbert, not Gilbert Clark. If that really makes any difference.
JCS, in an otherwise fine comment, introduces a major irony with his assertion that God’s unconditional love is an “epidemiological fact”. Ironic because when Nelson expounds on actual epidemiological facts (vaccines, masks, etc.) the criticism he receives is even more virulent that what he receives here for supposedly contradicting one.
Brian,
I admit that I speak of Divine Love in different terms than President (then–Elder) Nelson does. Even so, he is absolutely clear (in his 2003 talk) that God loves saints and sinners alike. He speaks of divine love being *conditional* when we seek to receive the “higher levels of love” that God wishes to share with us. This is not controversial. The scriptures are replete with teachings having to do with how the faithful might grow in the love of God.
Divine Love (IMO) is an indwelling element that emanates from God. It “sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of men,” as the scriptures say. But it is something that we must position ourselves to receive–as per Lehi’s dream. Because some folks may receive more of God’s Divine Love than others does not mean that God loves them more than others. It means that they are prepared to receive the transferrable aspect of his love: charity. It does not mean that God feels less love in his heart for those who aren’t prepared as of yet to receive more.
That said, I’m glad that you lifted your moratorium on responding to my comments. Your responses make for interesting discussions.
Jack – so “the Love of God” is like waves of light bathing the universe without discrimination – so people who feel God’s love have “antennas” for it as were like we have all kinds of telescopes used to collect different wavelengths of light and transfer the date into images?
It would explain a few things actually – like how comparing images of different telescopes bear minimal resemblance to each other.
It would also explain why the “landscape” of people’s lives gets in the way of the telescope instruments, just like clouds and storms get in the way of collecting light.
When Nelson says “God’s love is conditional,” I feel that the unspoken second half of the sentence is “… and He loves me more than He loves you.” I feel like anyone that’s grown up with an older sibling has experienced this same dynamic. My older brother certainly was convinced that our parents loved him more than me… when we were CHILDREN. He absolutely outgrew that mindset, but Nelson is stuck with it when he’s almost a century old.
Jack, you are wrong in your reading of the text. Nelson writes explicitly: “many verses affirm that the higher levels of love the Father and the Son feel for each of us—and certain divine blessings stemming from that love—are conditional.” He’s not talking about love we receive or hope to develop ourselves, like you keep saying. He is explicitly talking about love they feel for us. And he says that it’s conditional. Again, I’m glad that you are not buying what he said. But, let’s be honest about what he said. Your paraphrase is not accurate.
Call Me Mark: And when a prophet passes on, all doctrine is back on the table.
I think that many of us differ on this issue because we don’t have a firm idea of how God’s love affects God. We mortal beings can’t fully know such things about such a majestic eternal being. But we have scriptural and revelatory hints and I take great comfort in the simple suggestion that God suffers with His children. The “weeping God of Mormonism” is the God I worship. He aches when we suffer. He misses us when we stray. He revels in our growth and (hopefully) expanding goodness. His work and glory is to see our eventual success and He is not going away.
I don’t think we can even tell someone guilty of horrible crimes against innocents that God loves them less. For God has likely suffered for His knowledge of those crimes far more than His knowledge of my very unimaginative sins. For me to say such a thing would be to discount the pains and efforts of my God. To display such an ungrateful attitude would demonstrate ingratitude for God’s pains and efforts, thereby increasing the pains of our gentle Parent.
Old Man, I like how you describe God’s love for us, because it is a really good definition of unconditional love according to social scientists. They just define it as something humans should strive for, knowing we can’t quite do it.
Romans 8:38-39
38For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
I can’t keep up with y’all, so sometime I start reading from the bottom up, last comment first. I’m especially glad I did, because it means reading Old Man’s comment fresh. And it reminded me of the one thing I’ve had in mind to add to the thread—
That not only is God’s love for us unconditional, but blessings are random. We can leverage more blessings via privilege, but blessings and their flip side, sorrow and hardship, are actually random, and often not fair. According to my observation of many years. And I suspect this is by design for a variety of purposes. But I’ll save that for another post.
However, in a world of random good and bad, a supreme being who loves us would definitely mourn along with us, and rejoice in our progress and learning.
How can love be “perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal” AND conditional? The first time I heard that I thought “that sentence doesn’t even make sense.”
Lily,
Love is conditional if one looks at it from a process perspective. If God is successful in unifying us all into a loving relationship or condition we don’t now enjoy, then we have increased in love. Our relationship with God has increased because we are unified in the same manner that the Godhead is unified. I think of the Intercessory Prayer in the Gospel of John. In such a condition, I think our capacity to give, receive and understand love increases. That’s all I’ve got.
Brian,
I guess I just read President Nelson’s talk differently. IMO, a reading of the talk en toto suggests (to my poor mind at least) that certain conditions must be met in order to access a fulness of God’s love and the blessings that flow from it–blessings that he wants to share with us because of the love that he feels for each of us at those “higher levels.”
Amy,
I think that’s a great analogy–especially with respect to what we must do to position ourselves properly in order to receive a greater portion of the love of God. I also like your idea of utilizing new instruments in order to detect something new. Because (IMO) Divine Love isn’t merely an increase in the powers of love that are inherent in us because of our design. It’s a gift from God that he “bestows upon all who are true followers of his Son.”
Old Man,
You are wise beyond your many years.
The trouble with Amy’s analogy is that our ability to feel God’s love or detect it with those antennas has nothing to do with how much God loves us. He loves us the same, whether we know it or not. So, I just don’t see how anything we do changes God, or in this case changes how much God loves us. Do you know the difference between love given and love accepted? Yeah, poor God often suffers from unrequited love. (That’s a joke)
So, I seriously begin to feel like some of you just can’t stand the word “unconditional”. Because you just can’t hear yourself saying that God loves a sinner no less than he loves anyone else and that nothing we do can make God stop loving us. He might be very displeased with us, but that is approval/disapproval and different than love.
From my own life, I do know that God loved me the same, even when I was pretty sure he hated me, so I hated him right back with a vengeance. But at the time it didn’t change anything. I believed that any love he had to offer was just fake anyway, because he was a lying jerk. It was only looking back, going “well that wasn’t a coincident, so maybe it was God using a bull horn to get through to me.” Because sometimes God doesn’t use a “still small voice,” but a two by four to the side of the head with a bull horn on full volume. Depending on if we have an antenna up or not.
“Love As A Transmission” also has this problem when humans are judging each other. We think/say, “Oh – they aren’t getting compatible readings to my readings – they have to upgrade their equipment.” when in reality, the case may be that they are designed to pick up different readings entirely.
We also have the problem when someone’s equipment gives out suddenly and they feel that “God stops sending transmissions”. Maybe it is on them – there might be physical or mental stuff going on causing distortion, or trauma to make peace with. Or maybe, it’s the time of waiting – Adam spent a period of time growing crops and talking to God before the angel showed up with some instructions.
If God’s love is transmitted as universally as UV rays (literally saturating the sky during daylight) – then maybe we have the wrong focus on how limited it is, and how only a few can sense it or use it.
In today’s daily devotional (1/10), Richard Rohr highlights the prophetic call of Isaiah, who considered himself totally unworthy, a “man of unclean lips.” Yet divine love was greater than Isaiah’s self-recognition of personal inadequacy. Prophets aren’t perfect but must be humble and courageous as they attempt to speak for God.
blessings are random
Sorry for the threadjack, but the above feels too nihilistic to just leave hanging out there.
The assertion is technically true, but likely to be misunderstood. Under any given conditions, there is a probability–but never a guarantee–of receiving a particular blessing. It’s not a uniform probability of 50-50 or anything close to that. If the probability is 99% and you still don’t get the blessing, it is the random element that is to blame. If the probability is 51%, the random element is dominant, but people still feel cheated if they don’t get the blessing.
What is missing from the randomness assertion is that you can change the conditions; you can increase the probability of receiving blessings. Not getting lung cancer is a blessing and you can increase its probability by not smoking. Not getting COVID is a blessing and you can increase its probability by getting vaccinated and wearing a mask. (And there are tradeoffs. Having glasses that aren’t fogged up is also a blessing and you can increase the probability by not wearing a mask.)
People, especially Mormons, hate probablism. The writers of the scriptures also hated (or simply didn’t grasp) probablism. But it is how the universe works and many scriptures (e.g., “There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven…”) make a lot more sense if interpreted through a probablistic lens.
Lastlemming, I upvoted your comment because it’s sensible to me. Also , when I said blessings are random, I followed it with a caveat not to follow that threadjack on this post. Still not gonna do that. My ideas about blessings being random are nuanced and grounded in reality, and of course there are many ways folks can play the probabilities. It helps if we enjoy the privileges that bear positive effects on the blessings we seek. But again, it’s a discussion not for this post.