Can Confirm - Emphasis on Conditional Love

[Mormorrisey]

So I can confirm the rumours are true at the highest levels, that they are really trying to get the members to buy into the doctrine of God's conditional love. Story time.

A little while back, my SP went to some regional training with an apostle, and he reported on three things:

1) Apparently they are concerned about people talking about Heavenly Mother, and want us to refer to them as heavenly parents, in lower case. That deserves its own discussion, for another time. Short story is, SP is very confused why they want this, but I understand the implications.

2) Don't put off membership councils. They are apparently very important. At this stage, I'm glad I don't have to be involved with them anymore.

3) God does not love us unconditionally.

So they are really pushing number 3 right now, and my SP mentioned it repeatedly during a recent stake conference. That, and we need to keep the commandments and make sure we repent before we die. I remember sitting in conference during this and thinking about my friend, "There's nobody here (about half regular pre-covid attendance), you are frightened to death that the pandemic has killed people's desire to be here, and this is what you are harping on? God doesn't love you unless you do what the church wants? And you think this will work?" Yowza.

Thing is, I know I'm not alone in thinking that this conditional love stuff is garbage. We've had EQ discussions on this stuff, and when I pipe up and say how much I dislike the doctrine of conditional love, there's not a lot of pushback, and people tend to agree. I re-read Nelson's April 2019 talk about this, where he tells his dying daughter that he loves her BECAUSE she kept the commandments. That's when I realize Nelson is re-imaging God in how he treats HIS children. And why I see God as unconditionally loving, because of the why I view and treat MY children. Frankly, I don't know between the two of us who is right about God, but all I know is that if Nelson is actually right, we're all screwed. What a depressing thought.

In any event, the brethren are going to try and make conditional love doctrine, and I'm not confident at all that the general membership will actually buy in to the concept. Sure, people like my SP, his crew, my TBM wife and narcissist mother will be completely on board, but they are starting to be the shrinking stalwarts, while everyone else is bailing. Nelson's stubbornness and arrogance on enshrining this doctrine will backfire, I am pretty sure.

[moksha]

3) God does not love us unconditionally.

I feel certain that God loves children even when they are out of sorts, and alpacas, especially when they are smiling.

I prefer to take a Universalist view on God's love.

That probably does not hold true for cranky old men seeking to withhold equal rights to LGTBQ people. I think there are some hieroglyphics on the missing scroll of Abraham that declare, "Anyone who shouts religious freedom for the purpose of disenfranchising others deserves a lightning bolt". Other than that, the love is to be spread around freely.

[dogbite]

Love one another as I have loved you.

means tighter in and out-group thinking, further ostracization of out groups, tighter rules of inclusivity.

We especially love you when you pay us to.

[Just This Guy]

In any event, the brethren are going to try and make conditional love doctrine, and I'm not confident at all that the general membership will actually buy in to the concept. Sure, people like my SP, his crew, my TBM wife and narcissist mother will be completely on board, but they are starting to be the shrinking stalwarts, while everyone else is bailing. Nelson's stubbornness and arrogance on enshrining this doctrine will backfire, I am pretty sure.

To be fair, that has ALWAYS been Mormon doctrine. They are justs finally getting to the point where they are willing to admit it publicly.

[stealthbishop]

Thanks for sharing this Mormorrisey. I think it is VITAL information for all of us who still have friends and family in the church. Nelson's spin on the nature of God is SO toxic and damaging. It's completely alien to any decent healthy parent. I don't love my children because they behave the way I want them to. That is completely insane. I feel sadness or disappointment if they do something that hurts their life but it's their life! I'm just grateful to be a part of it and I love them irregardless of what they do. They are my children and I will always love them. Nelson's god is disgusting IMO.

Thanks for sharing this. It's depressing and it will hurt LDS people but it's important for all of us to know.

[jfro18]

It's really amazing how another idea that Nelson had years ago is now God's view after Nelson took over.

2003 Ensign, Russell Nelson: "While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional."

A coincidence, I'm sure.

[alas]

I think there are men who failed to bond with their newborns who honestly do not understand what unconditional love even is. They honestly never experienced what new mothers feel, that this new human is mine and I would die protecting it. Funny thing here. Once I tried to explain the hormonal bond to two different adoptive dads. The first got all bent out of shape about how dare I insinuate he didn’t love his child. The other thought, then said yes, there *is* a difference between a birth child and an adopted child and sometimes you learn to love the adopted child and sometimes you just don’t. But it is different and no amount of “learned love” can ever quite make up for it. Turned out, he was overseas for the first year of his third child’s life, then they adopted a newborn as fifth child.

Just as infants who are really badly neglected who fail to bond and after a certain age, there is no fixing this problem. The child simply grows to adulthood unable to form a healthy bond to a parent, which of course affects later relationships. In kind of a reverse of this, I think there are fathers who fail to bond to their children because they see the infant, not as a part of them, but as an extension of their wife until they are no longer infants and then they “learn” to love the child.

You see this with prexmature births when the child spends six months in the hospital and the parental bond is lacking and you see it with adopted children sometimes. Their adoptive parents fail to bond with the child as theirs. Then years later when the child becomes too much of a problem, the adoption fails and the child is given up. Gee, come to think of it, I have one in my family where the child is still legally theirs, but is more estranged from the family than many of the foster kids they had who were returned to their parents or the agency.

As we have gotten more knowledgeable about bonding, there are changes like laying the newborn on mama’s chest, skin to skin. That didn’t happen with my first two, but by my third baby in ‘78 some progressive hospitals were doing it. This helps the newborn, but it also helps the mother bond to the baby.

While neonatal care has focused on the mother/infant bond nobody has paid much attention to the father/infant bond. But dads who sleep with their pregnant wife follow her hormonal pattern for oxytocin, the bonding hormone.

Psychologists do not have a name for the failure of the parental bond. But I think it can happen to…um… fathers who are in med school then go on to become world famous heart surgeons, then general authorities, and they spend so little time with their children that maybe they get to know these children past their formative years and then dad feels proud of his kid, but mistakes pride in his child for love of that child. Because he was never around or actually caring for the child when the child was a screaming infant, or terrible two, or whatever because he was busy and his wife took care of the child.

So, I wonder of president Nelson understands the concept of “I love him because he is mine.”

[Mormorrisey]

It's really amazing how another idea that Nelson had years ago is now God's view after Nelson took over.

2003 Ensign, Russell Nelson: "While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional."

A coincidence, I'm sure.

Not unlike Hinckley's "Mormon means more good" beatdown of Nelson six months after he gave a talk on the "correct" name of the church in 1990, I've often wondered if then First Presidency member Utchdorf's talk on "the Love of God" in 2009 was a response to Nelson's 2003 diatribe. I wonder if Utchdorf will have the stones to repeat it as a Nelson underling. I'm guessing, no?

In any event, now that Wendy's husband has been unleashed, it seems that this is what Nelson wants his legacy to be. The promotion of a narcissistic God seems to be a pretty crappy legacy, but what do I know?

[Mormorrisey]

Psychologists do not have a name for the failure of the parental bond. But I think it can happen to…um… fathers who are in med school then go on to become world famous heart surgeons, then general authorities, and they spend so little time with their children that maybe they get to know these children past their formative years and then dad feels proud of his kid, but mistakes pride in his child for love of that child. Because he was never around or actually caring for the child when the child was a screaming infant, or terrible two, or whatever because he was busy and his wife took care of the child.

So, I wonder of president Nelson understands the concept of “I love him because he is mine.”

I'm buying this completely, because of the following story.

I once had a friend, a son of local Mormon royalty. I say had, because my very subtle apostasy has severed that cord.

I asked him once about his relationship with his Dad, a very respected leader in this area, and I was surprised by his answer. He said his Dad was always so busy with work or church, that he essentially had no relationship with his Dad. It wasn't strained per se, but it certainly wasn't a close relationship. He was determined to rectify that with his own kids, and as an observer from a distance, it seemed that this guy kept that promise, which is great.

But I would expect that Nelson had similar relationships with his own kids, which leads him to this nefarious "doctrine." On the other hand, my wife and kids are really the only "friends" I have left in the church, and I'm pretty grateful we have the relationship we do. And that probably colours my vision of God too, I'll admit that freely. But at least I recognize my biases!

[Angel]

Because it is by grace that you have been saved, not by anything of your own, but by a gift from God; not by anything that you have done, so that nobody can claim the credit. Ephesians 2:8-9

My grace is enough for you. Strength in weakness. 2 Cor 12:9

Anti-Christ, one who denies the power of the atonement and denies grace, who seeks to save themselves through their own works.

[Hagoth]

Love one another as I have loved you.

RMN's inspired translation: Love one another conditionally as I have loved you conditionally. And you guys stop holding hands.

All of this falls in line pretty well with Bednar's kind of thinking about free agency. We just call it agency now because as a Mormon you are no longer actually free to choose. The Brethren see two options, obey and sin. God grants you the freedom to choose obedience and he loves you when you do. Your only other option is to choose to sin (i.e. anything outside of the official checklist), but since he doesn't grant you freedom to do that without bad consequences, so he doesn't love you when you do. Otherwise he would cease to be God. The HED (Handbook for Exalted Dudes) doesn't permit him to love unconditionally.

[blazerb]

Psychologists do not have a name for the failure of the parental bond. But I think it can happen to…um… fathers who are in med school then go on to become world famous heart surgeons, then general authorities, and they spend so little time with their children that maybe they get to know these children past their formative years and then dad feels proud of his kid, but mistakes pride in his child for love of that child. Because he was never around or actually caring for the child when the child was a screaming infant, or terrible two, or whatever because he was busy and his wife took care of the child.

So, I wonder of president Nelson understands the concept of “I love him because he is mine.”

So, if you look up the jobs with the highest proportion of psychopaths, one finds that CEO, lawyer, and surgeon are all in the top five. Clergy is number 8, I believe. Add that to the inability to bond with children when you are spending 60 hours a week on a job and 40 hours a week on church, and you get doctrines like this.

[DPRoberts]

So I can confirm the rumours are true at the highest
In any event, the brethren are going to try and make conditional love doctrine, and I'm not confident at all that the general membership will actually buy in to the concept. Sure, people like my SP, his crew, my TBM wife and narcissist mother will be completely on board, but they are starting to be the shrinking stalwarts, while everyone else is bailing. Nelson's stubbornness and arrogance on enshrining this doctrine will backfire, I am pretty sure.

And so the train wreck continues in slow motion. It's like it derailed over a big river and we keep seeing car after car drop into the drink. This can hardly be helpful as the OP points out. Not only do members not like it, but their attempts at appearing mainstream Christian are taking a giant step backwards.

The question I'm wondering about is how soon the apologetic walk back begins. Are we going to see attempts to spin it in more palatable terms while Rusty is still alive, or will he have to be gone (and any senior apostles who like the doctrine) before they shut up and let this slip down the memory hole. Or they gaslight the crap out of it.

[Corsair]

It makes me wonder if there will be any inertia in existing members that largely ignore the details of what Russell and company say about Conditional Love. Russell had long, detailed talks on the gathering of Israel and the members large interpret the message as "missionary work equals good". There did not appear to be a concerted effort to actually study this topic. Nelson had a long speech and Wendy testified in favor of it without anyone dwelling on the actual content beyond "missionary work equals good".

It was only last summer when LDS leadership said "Vaccination against Covid is a good thing" and many of the more conservative members responded with "No, I don't think so" and "Until vaccination is in the temple recommend interview I'm not doing that." It seemed like a welcome crack in the endless refrain of "Follow the Prophet".

Back in the 19th century it was largely OK to argue with LDS leadership on loads of doctrinal details as most easily seen by the arguments between Brigham Young and Orson Pratt. The 20th century was much more in line with "when the prophet speaks, the debate is over". The 21st century church may have an uphill battle here. I'll just keep my popcorn fresh as I observe what happens.

[1smartdodog]

In my view what sets God apart from man is his ability to love unconditionally. It is easy to love those that we agree with and are like us. Much harder to love the odd ball or even harder the tyrant. From personal experience i have found it much easier to love others not like me as an apostate than I ever did as a believer.

When you claim exclusive access to God, everyone else becomes less than in your eyes. Nelson is a victim of his own success. It appears to destroying his outlook on humanity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Angel]

In my view what sets God apart from man is his ability to love unconditionally. It is easy to love those that we agree with and are like us. Much harder to love the odd ball or even harder the tyrant. From personal experience i have found it much easier to love others not like me as an apostate than I ever did as a believer.

When you claim exclusive access to God, everyone else becomes less than in your eyes. Nelson is a victim of his own success. It appears to destroying his outlook on humanity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly .

https://youtu.be/qEi_32axaBY

[Red Ryder]

In my view what sets God apart from man is his ability to love unconditionally. It is easy to love those that we agree with and are like us. Much harder to love the odd ball or even harder the tyrant. From personal experience i have found it much easier to love others not like me as an apostate than I ever did as a believer.

When you claim exclusive access to God, everyone else becomes less than in your eyes. Nelson is a victim of his own success. It appears to destroying his outlook on humanity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Perhaps the path to Mormon Godhood is paved with the ability to provide unconditional love? Oh the irony…

Mormons are some of the most judgmental people I know

[nibbler]

I think the emphasis on conditional love and the emphasis on exact obedience is a response from leaders addressing some of their own internal cognitive dissonance.

Maybe their train of thought is that it wouldn't be fair if someone that didn't put in all the work that they put in got the same reward, therefore god must require their level of effort to get the reward, therefore people that don't put in the same level of effort will not get the same reward, and now we've finally arrived at something they can consider fair.

The day laborers say hi.

If that's the case, I think it reveals that they don't particularly enjoy the experience either. It feels like there's an element of, "If I have to do all this crap, you should have to do it too!"

[stealthbishop]

I'm glad this was posted. If any of you have additional verification of this possible doctrinal emphasis trickling down to the masses then please post. I want to keep Ms. Stealth informed.

[Zeezrom]

I think the emphasis on conditional love and the emphasis on exact obedience is a response from leaders addressing some of their own internal cognitive dissonance.

Maybe their train of thought is that it wouldn't be fair if someone that didn't put in all the work that they put in got the same reward, therefore god must require their level of effort to get the reward, therefore people that don't put in the same level of effort will not get the same reward, and now we've finally arrived at something they can consider fair.

The day laborers say hi.

If that's the case, I think it reveals that they don't particularly enjoy the experience either. It feels like there's an element of, "If I have to do all this crap, you should have to do it too!"

Agree 100%. I remember when I was in the bishopric feeling resentful of all the members who were “coasting” while I was busting my ass. My fellow leadership was on the same wavelength and a lot of our bishopric and PEC meetings were spent bitching about those members who were putting in half the work (or less) and expecting the same blessings as us.

There’s something about high demand religions that breeds competitiveness and arrogance.