John 14:6 says Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Finally, I reached an understanding as I walked to church and met up with my ward mission leader. He started telling me about how his grown daughter had a dog that she didn’t care for particularly well. She kept it in a small kennel most of the time and rarely took it for walks or gave it any attention. He asked her why she kept the dog and she said, “Because I love it!” “That’s not love,” he replied. That, for me, was it. It clicked. That daughter may have had some passive emotion toward that dog, but it wasn’t love in any meaningful sense. I don’t know what God feels for Paris Hilton, but I now believe that if a person is unrighteous, they do not enjoy the full measure of His love. The door is open for their return, but that doesn’t change the present condition.

Kaimi’s reminder here on pride is also useful–no, vital! It recalls what I’ve been reading in Hugh Nibley’s biography where I found this quote from Hugh: “God knows perfectly well where we stand…and admonishes us not to despair: what matters is the direction we are facing–the person at the bottom of the stairs facing up is more pleasing to the Father than the one at the top of the stairs facing down.” Pride seems to be an awfully easy way to find yourself at the top of the stairs facing down. Thanks for the reminder.

We sometimes get caught up in the idea that God’s infinte love means that we have a right to eternal acceptance of our weaknesses and open rebellion. Elder Nelson uses numerous scriptural examples – John 14:21 is an excellent one. The context is the discussion the Savior had with the apostles after the last supper. From this it is plain that our love is demonstrated by our efforts to be obedient and that the Father and Son will love and bless conditionally those that make the choice to obey.

Many LDS critics take exception to “earning” salvation and refer to the doctrine of grace, ad nauseum…. Salvation, immortality, and eternal life are defined by the gospel plan and a loving Father & His only begotten Son have provided these gifts for the rest of us on their terms. Elder Nelson does a masterful job of reminding us that although divine love is perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal it is also conditional. The greatest gifts a loving Father has for His children are conditionally given based on their love and obedience to Him and His plan of happiness for them.

I heard my stake president discuss this several years ago in a leadership session after he had been trained by Elder Nelson and he commented on how it had allowed him to recognize and accept that he loved his own children differently. He had an adult child that had rebellious, struggled, and had been a challenge for many years. He acknowledged that he loved this child but felt he had been “given permission” to love his other children more. When I first heard this I had some of the same reactions that others have shared in earlier posts. But it’s not an all or nothing proposition.

After reflecting on what he taught us that day and then reading Elder Nelson’s article, which came out later, I have come to accept and understand the truth & reality of this concept. I think many of us that have children, if we are honest with ourselves, will admit that even though we love them all, we have favorites. They are each different and unique and we love them differently as well. And we often feel guilty about it. But if we are fair with them should we feel guilty?

Perhaps the easiest way to put this into context is to take it to the extreme. In our premortal existance Lucifer, the son of the morning and Jehovah, the first born of His spirit children, were both spirit children of our Father in Heaven. But Lucifer rebelled, was cast out and became Satan. While Jehovah accepted and championed the Father’s plan and became Jesus the Christ, our Redeemer & Savior. Is it right and is it fair that our Heavenly Father would love Jesus more than He loves Lucifer? Of course it is and so His love is conditional!

And I’m sure that Ashton & Paris are also loved by the Savior & Heavenly Father. As disgusting as their behavior can be, like us, they are not “finished” yet. And while they are unfinished their is hope because they could change. And so can we!

Equally? Wowzers. Not sure why you should feel guilty (nor that there are a generation of you) about Elder Nelson’s talk.

But do we then have to take some pointed stabs at Deseret Book as well?

So dispite the public naughtiness of Sister Hilton and whatever red-state angst the association of Hollywood and Jesus triggers, the issue is really this: the face of He who thrashed the money changers who were defiling His Father’s house is being used to make money selling something that was *probably* produced under conditions that amount to grinding on the face of the poor.

I went and re-read the article. Your bomment brought back vague memories I had of the article and I was nice to go back study it anew. I not so sure that it should apply to our relationships with others. In D&C 64:10 Christ states: “I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men.” I think we can just as easily substitute the word “love” for “forgive” and not commit blasphemy. While God may choose to love or favor one individual (or group) over another I think the commandment to us is that we should try and love all equally and reserve judgement for God.

Kaimi:

I think the danger of popularizing Jesus is that it slowly marginalizes Him as our Lord and Redeemer and the God of this World. Since the birth of the Renaissance until the twentieth century the trend by those hostile to Christianity had been to deny Christ’s existance. The attempt was largely unsuccessful and comprehensively refuted. Now, the trend seems to be that the hostiles concede the historicity of Jesus but want to marginalize his divinity. Printing His mug on a t-shirt or bandana works toward blurring the differences between Him and the likes of such notable mass murderers as Che Guevara (another fashion trend).

Another thing along this line that I have wondered about is the Christian music movement. I love those songs, but I sometimes feel guilty and wonder if I am not being reverent enough and God is mad at me. Still working on that punitive-Old Testament-God picture.

I wonder about Derek’s point, as well. I vaguely remember that talk, not enough to discuss, but what is up with that? It bothers me on an emotional level that God’s love is conditional, I wonder if that is the emotion that Elder (who, I forgot?) intended. Perhaps I will write him and tell him he inspired a whole new generation of guilty people.

I like what the prophet Spencer W. Kimball said: “It is better to be respected than to be loved.” I think people like Paris Hilton, Madonna, or whoever deserve equal “Christian love” from us. That does not mean that they deserve our respect however.

As for me, I don’t know what Paris’ deal is. I don’t know about her life and I don’t devote much thought to her. That’s all I have to say about her.

Regarding the Jesus T-Shirt movement. I sometimes get the feeling that we put Christ into T-shirts, coffee mugs, bumper stickers, and tacky pop music because we want to keep Jesus where we can keep an eye on Him. I think some people are a little uncomfortable with what an unseen God is doing behind their backs. So we slap Him on a T-shirt and presto! We have now contained God in a manageable space. With God thus comfortably compartmentalized, we can now forget about Him and go on with our lives.