In the 181st October Conference President Monson quotes an excerpt from a Wall Street Journal article by British Rabbi Jonathan Sacks:“In virtually every western society in the 1960s there was a moral revolution; an abandonment of its entire traditional ethic of self-restraint. All you need, sang the Beatles, is ‘love.’ The Judeo-Christian moral code was jettisoned. In its place came: whatever works for you. The Ten Commandments were rewritten as the Ten Creative Suggestions.”To be fair President Monson may be transposing love with free love which sullied the word for many who lived through the 60's and 70's. But the sneer with which he delivers the word love is disturbing to me given that John Lennon based that song on the principle of love which, intended or not, is reflective of Christ's teachings and the one commandment Jesus gave to us.
Because if you live according to the commandment to love others as Jesus loved us then guiding yourself by that spirit and principle you will not only cross off all other commandments but you will fulfill the law in letter and in spirit.
Download the talk here.
The audience seems to be in agreement that this idea of love being all you need is laughable. So many have been hurt by this mocking of the doctrine of love, so take a look at this post about the various meanings of love in the Ancient Greek the New Testament was written in.
But appearances can be deceiving, it is not that liberals have a bleeding heart, it's that those who are first to make the claim are without one themselves. And by every definition I have ever heard, Jesus has a bleeding heart as well so I'm in good company as far as I'm concerned.
And thought the ethos of love is admirable, the lax sexual morays and over abundance of drug use and the burned out ideas and personalities of the 60's and 70's is what sullied the ethos of love for many.
Just as the hardened hearts and narrow black and white you're-either-with-me-or-against-me mentalities of the religious right has sullied and therefore profaned the name of Christ to the minds of millions of disaffected Ex-Christian and Ex-Mormons over the last few decades.
It is wrong to profane the ethos of love but it is equally sinful to sully the name of Jesus or the name of God.
But as troubling as it is to see a leader seemingly mock the doctrine of love, we can't blame "The Church" because we are the church. President Monson's joke about love would have fallen flat if it weren't for so many people being in total unquestioning agreement.
We can't blame our society since we are that society.
But possibly mocking love is just the beginning, in 2003 Russel M. Nelson gave a talk in which he argues that God's love is conditional because the term unconditional love is found nowhere in scripture. He is mistaken as it is found the the original Aramaic meaning of love as well as the word agape in Ancient Greek has been defined as unconditional love since antiquity and that's how it was meant when used in the gospels. He is using his understanding of an imperfect, therefore flawed, translation.
"While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional. The word does not appear in the scriptures. On the other hand, 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. Before citing examples, it is well to recognize various forms of conditional expression in the scriptures."
Russel M. Nelson can't be blamed much for his mistake, it's not like he's a theologian.Find the proof here that God's love being conditional is now church policy.
God much like any parent has house rules, so he has needs that must be met for any of us the be prepared for what comes next but His love isn't conditional. Any parent knows what unconditional love is, we all have that for our children. We don't say bring home straight A's or I wont love you anymore. God's love is infinite, rich, mystical and so much more perfected than our own. I refuse to believe my unconditional love for my children is superior to God's "conditional" love for us.
I guess what shocks me most, and what I find most disturbing is that God's love is now conditional-in direct opposition to what is written in ancient scripture. Or that it is worthy of mockery and laughter. How far must we have fallen if our culture laughs at the ethos of love?
Jesus was a bleeding heart-be more like Him, be the love you need the most and others will follow your lead.
Perhaps it's time to open a dialog with our leaders that would change minds and soften hearts. If we want love we must be loving, if we want mercy we must be merciful, if we want to be given the benefit of the doubt we must judge favorably. We ask these things of our leaders but we must be willing to accept and forgive them their mistakes as well.
I'm not out to lynch our leadership, but I think the concept of conditional love and mockery of it must be discussed in order to learn what direction they are truly attempting to undertake.
