Concern
Hope and desire that we will return to him
Sadness if we don’t
Benevolence
Compassion

Put all that together, and I don’t know how you come up with something that doesn’t equal love. Bigelow’s list of things God is unconditional about isn’t an alternative to love, it’s a virtual definition of love. If anyone is bandying about the word “love” loosely, it’s Bigelow.

But I do appreciate the information he gave us about the apparently official attitude the church has toward the concept of “unconditional love.” If the correlation committee is giving out official instructions not to use that term, then this phenomenon is not restricted to one article by one apostle (Russell M. Nelson’s article about God’s unconditional love). Or maybe the policy came about because of that one article–can’t contradict the apostle!

It explains a lot, this dread the church seems to have of people misunderstanding what unconditional love means. It takes no great mental effort to understand that unconditional love doesn’t necessarily mean unconditional acceptance of any behavior we choose, but even this simple explanation isn’t enough for them. They’d rather add one more influence that makes us frightened of a wrathful, judgmental God than risk any chance their iron grip (speaking of things made of iron) on the members is weakened.

It doesn’t surprise me Bigelow makes the argument he’s made. He’s demonstrated publicly and willingly by the things he’s written that he’s one wrath-of-God, hellfire-and-damnation kind of guy. Neither Bigelow nor Nelson nor the church invented that concept of God–it’s been around for a long time. Lots of religious types seem to get nervous if the average believer starts thinking God loves him unconditionally.

Me, I find it difficult to believe that I have more character than God has, because I sure seem to love my kids with something that approaches unconditionality.

Cliff #3 wrote: “If your teenager crashes the car because of his own carelessness and you take away his driving privledges, is it because you love him less? No, a parent who disciplines is actually showing love by protecting his child from a power and responsiblility that he isn’t ready for and may cause him serious damage.”

While the “love” in this case does continue unbroken, I argue that it is downgraded from the conditional trust-and-communion level to the unconditional concern-and-hope level. If conditions are again met through repentance, the love can go back up to the trust-and-communion level again. But you are using the word “love” as a blanket term and a catch-all.

“But that does not mean we are allowed to withdraw our prescence from those who sin simply because they are sinners.”

I didn’t say this at all. God does this, but I specifically said we shouldn’t. Even if we can only feel concern and hope for a person, we can still choose to associate with them and minister to them. Of course, it’s usually never as simple as an on/off switch. We might respect, trust, and commune with a person in some areas in which they meet our conditions for giving that level of love, while at the same time in other areas we may be able to give them only our concern, compassion, and hope, because we don’t agree.

GBSmith #9 wrote: “Why did the Correlation Committee ban the term “unconditional love”?”

I don’t remember being given an explanation, or if I was, it was very brief and I have forgotten it. But if you do a search at lds.org, you’ll find that the term doesn’t appear in church magazines from a certain point onward, except on occasional times when a general authority uses it, which is their prerogative.

Jeff Spector #11 wrote: “I suppose there are instances when parent and child separate and never reconcile, perhaps losing that basic love between them. That is one thing that will never happens with God.”

Um, what do you call outer darkness? Spiritual death?

“Unconditional love” has been banned from correlated teachings for the same reason “free agency” has. I think the Brethren are concerned that we focus too much on the “free” aspect of “agency”, thinking that our choices are without consequences, and that we are not fearful enough of sin if we focus on the unconditionality of God’s love. These may be legitimate concerns.

Our detractors might speculate that these wording matters are meant to increase Church members’ feelings of obligation and shame when failing to measure up (when we fail to measure up, God loves us leass)–i.e., to increase the likelihood of compliance with the commandments. This might also be a legitimate concern.

I would be interested what other words are now de-emphasized in the Church (apart from “inactive” and “genealogy”). I would hope that, following Elder Ballard’s talk, the word “guilt” will also be banned.

“Is anything too hard for the Lord?”

In fact, there are a couple of assertions about Mormons and our beliefs that simply are wrong – and fit orthodox Protestant theology much better. For example:

1) You said: I can’t conceive of Jesus buying into your explanation, and can’t picture a God that would create a mortal experience for the purpose of sifting through his children to find the “best” ones with whom he can live eternally, shutting the rest of us out because we’re not good enough. That is the Mormon viewpoint, and while it motivates some it can’t possibly help the rest of us. It ultimate means there are winners and losers to this mortal game we’re playing. So God’s work and glory then becomes “immortality and eternal life for only the cream of the crop”?

Are you saying there are no “losers” as a result of mortality? Are you saying salvation and exaltation are universal? If so, you are much closer to Mormon theology than to orthodox Protestant theology.

Mormonism allows for VERY few “losers” (the Sons of Perdition), because everyone else “wins” in the sense that they are rewarded with higher glory than they had prior to mortality and everlasting life in the presence of a God. Orthodox Protestantism, otoh, condemns billions to everlasting separation from God. Which of these theologies posits “eternal life for only the cream of the crop”?

2) You said: Mormons tend to see this life as an individual sport with individual winners. I believe God wants us to bring as many as possible along with us rather than see individuals “win”.

Mormons posit that exaltation CANNOT be obtained individually – that it has to include at least a couple, and that we cannot be exalted without working to exalt others (particularly our kindred dead). Orthodox Protestantism, otoh, defines salvation explicitly as an individual reward. The difference is stark and obvious.

I agree with your concerns about interpreting the idea of conditional love incorrectly and ending up moving away from God, but I can’t agree that your descriptions represent common traits within the Mormon Church – and they certainly are not Mormon doctrine.

I can’t conceive of Jesus buying into your explanation, and can’t picture a God that would create a mortal experience for the purpose of sifting through his children to find the “best” ones with whom he can live eternally, shutting the rest of us out because we’re not good enough. That is the Mormon viewpoint, and while it motivates some it can’t possibly help the rest of us. It ultimate means there are winners and losers to this mortal game we’re playing. So God’s work and glory then becomes “immortality and eternal life for only the cream of the crop”?

The author’s assertion seems really twisted to me: “Any time anyone treats anyone else—including his or her own self—contrary to the gospel, I love the person less because I am not able to relate with them or see eye to eye with them. Ideally I would still feel unconditional concern, compassion, and hope for such people, including my own family members who misbehave, and I may even be able to minister to them in some ways, but I would not be able to fully respect them, trust them, and commune with them unless and until they truly improved enough to warrant it. And of course I would not expect people who are more righteous than I am to love me as much at this higher level as they could if I deserved it more.”

What did Jesus do, but spend time communing with the unworthy and doing everything possible to teach them and bring up to a “higher” level? If I take your words at face value, I’m going to judge those around me, decide who is worthy of my respect, trust, and communion, and — what, toss the others aside?

Mormons tend to see this life as an individual sport with individual winners. I believe God wants us to bring as many as possible along with us rather than see individuals “win”. It’s like the funeral I recently attended, where an honorable Mormon man was praised for all the holy things he did, and in the audience were his children and grandchildren, very of few of whom are active in the church and most of whom are struggling with addictions and completely broken families. How does he see himself in the Celestial Kingdom when the family he leaves behind is a complete train wreck?

As for God’s presence, when is a parent not willing or able to be present with a child in pain? Sins are the spiritual equivalent of a broken leg. Personally I believe that God is always there, and always loving us. Perhaps even holding or carrying us when we are spiritually suffering. The problem we sometimes face is that we are howling so much about our pain that we don’t notice God’s presence there. If we will calm down and “be still” we will sense God’s presence.

All the experiences related to show that God’s love is unconditional demonstrate what happens as a person begins to cast off the shrouds of sin and feel the love of God. The more we allow ourselves to feel it, the greater blessings we enjoy. It is true that He never stops caring for us and wanting us to experience His joy. His love, however, is meaningless if we do not avail ourselves of it. In this sense, it is conditional. In order to be loved, we must allow ourselves to be loved by living up to certain conditions.

Just my take on it.

“Years ago, Church President Harold B. Lee, in a private interview, cautioned me not to accept any new teaching from any Church leader, even the president of the Church, unless it met four tests. President Lee said such a teaching must be (1) consistent with scripture, (2) consistent with the teachings of the prophets living and dead, (3) consistent with the promptings of the Holy Ghost, and (4) consistent with human experience. I fear that your new teaching that God’s love is conditional passes none of these tests. It is not consistent with the teachings of the prophets because no Latter-day Saint has ever before heard any Church leader assert that God’s love is conditional. The doctrine is inconsistent with the Holy Ghost that has prompted numerous Latter-day Saints in both talks and testimonies to bear witness of God’s unconditional love. And the doctrine does not accord with the experiences of the vast majority of the Saints of the Church and the people of the Lord everywhere.”

So although I would personally not be comfortable “correcting” those above me in the hierarchy of the church, I did agree on the whole with Toscano’s perspective rather than the content of the article. Using Lee’s 4 proofs, I would have to say that I agree the article didn’t meet any of the 4 proofs, with the possible exception of #1 (if proof texting is applied).

Although most will dismiss him as an angry ex-communicant, I think Paul Toscano makes some good points in his response to Elder Nelson’s “conditional love” talk: http://mormonalliance.org/newsletter/jul_2003.htm

In my own words, this idea posits that God wants us to praise Him – to tell Him how wonderful He is – and that if we do so we receive His ultimate reward. The Church doesn’t view God in this narcissistic way and has made various statements to that effect for years without getting the message across, so Elder Nelson attempted to draw the distinction in his talk. He attempted to show that such an ideology is not just a harmless idea but actually takes people away from the effective, transformative power of God’s love.

Iow, the move away from the term “unconditional love” was a move NOT away from the core idea of how God feels about His children but rather away from the bastardized definition that has become prevalent in much of our current society.

“When I used to work as an editor at the LDS Church’s Ensign magazine, I remember that the correlation committee instructed us not to use the term unconditional love.”

I still would like to know why the Church (Correlation Committee) is opposed to the term “unconditional love”. It seems to me to be apropos to the discussion but either no one knows or is willing to introduce it into the conversation. You can continue to split hairs about love and what it is and what it isn’t all night but I don’t see that means much without putting it into context with what the “Church” thinks.

1) God feels love unconditionally for every single, solitary, faithful OR rebellious child – just as I do for my own children (including our “foster” children and those who simply lived with us for a while). My love for “my kids” is not restricted by biological ties; I love every kid who has used our house as a temporary, get-my-life-back-together sleeping pad unconditionally, as well. In this most fundamental way, God’s love truly is unconditional and felt for / extended to all.

2) In the Bible, there is a STRONG theme of love being *proven* or *expressed* or *manifested in action* – that true love is MUCH more than just a feeling or emotion. (For example, “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” – John 14:15) This obviously pertains to us and our requirement to do more than *say* we love God. (“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)

Within this concept is the central idea that “love” also includes the “rewards” of love returned – of “reciprocal love” or “covenant love”. This type of “shared love” is NOT unconditional, as it requires the fulfillment of conditions in order to receive the rewards promised by the giver’s love. The giver’s unconditional love extends the reward to ALL, but only those who accept that offer and requite their own love in return receive the full, “unconditional” gift. (the gift that includes no condition or restriction but provides ALL to the receiver)

I am going to do a “Common Scriptures in Review” post about a NT verse on love, so I will flesh this out further there.

Again, I think Elder Nelson’s talk could have been phrased differently, but I believe the central idea is valid – that God’s love cannot be **actualized** in our lives without adherence to the conditions He has set for us to receive “the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.” (I Corinthians 2:9)

The failure to acknowledge God’s unconditional love is merely a failure of imagination. Just because we have been shown incapable of demonstrating such love is no proof that God cannot.

I don’t think this is true, because I can’t see Jesus hanging out with disreputable crowds because he loved them less.

Perhaps I am wrong, I am reminded of the Joseph Smith Translation that changed Jesus’ words from “Judge not least ye be judged.” into “judge not unrighteous judgment . . .” I don’t see how such ideas can be reconciled with my own spiritual experience.