Foreknowledge, Power, and Love: Part II, Love
Well, the first of these was received in interesting ways. Anyway, here goes again. I said last time that there were three things I thought it was essential God have for us to have faith in him: Foreknowledge, Power, and Love. I’d like to move on now, to discuss love because I think it is the most essential of the three.
We are told in the scriptures that three things endure, faith, hope, and charity. Faith I see as power, and it is tied to the efficacy of our actions. God can do what he needs to. Hope is the ability to see beyond the present moment. For God, this, I believe, manifests itself as foreknowledge, which I don’t want to discuss here. Love, however, is different. We must be able to trust that in every way God will act in our best interests. If we work towards our salvation, or that of others, we can never be at cross-purposes with God. At the same time, if we work towards the purposes of God, we will never be working away from our own salvation. God would never, I believe, give us a commandment for any other reason than that it would make us happy in the long run. Whether it is worshipping him, praying, helping others, whatever it is, it is always for our good. And I believe that he has charity for us in an absolute way so that if we start, all of us with a clean record at our creation, he does not favor the salvation of any one soul to the detriment of another. That is, he never says, hey, this will save Sally, so I can let Joe slip by.
It also seems like the one thing that God has that could not simply be gifted to us, or come to over time, in the next life is Love. If we are to become more like God, I believe that this is the most essential way that we must become like him. I see love in the way some musicians see the abstract value of “musicality.” That is, you can teach a person to play correctly, but it’s much harder to learn to play with feeling. I think that development of faith and hope in this life is important, as these will certainly be among the most important things that carry over with us to the next life. And yet, I think that the development of charity trumps other concerns. If we can develop love, the other things can come later if need be. If we do not, no amount of the others can help us. The most important thing is not how much power God–or eventually you or I–have, but to what purpose the holder of power might put that power to use.
In the end, I believe in a very literal way that “charity . . . endureth forever . . . and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him.” (Moroni 7:47)
Also, I believe that it is faith in this attribute of God that can lead us to accept whatever comes from God and whatever doctrine God would teach us, since anything God does is for our interest, not simply what God wants for us (which without this attribute could be anything), but our actual happiness and well being in an absolute sense. In fact, it is this that can help us to be OK with the fact that we do not understand doctrine. When Nephi is speaking to the angel about the birth of Christ, the angel asks him if he knows “the condescension of God.” His reply is less an expression of his understanding of the doctrine and his limitations as an expression of his faith in whatever the doctrine may be before it is even taught: “I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.” (1Ne 11:17)
Interesting. I agree, but with some caveats. To me it seems that there two distinct and separate forms of Love. We have charity, which God has for all human beings and we have a different type of Love reserved for those who God is close to. It is the difference between the love that Christ had for the individual that was crucified next to him and the Love he had for John (“whom Jesus loved”).
Moreover, it seems that ultimate charity is a result of the atonement. That is to say that which limits our capacity for empathy and charity is our limited comprehension of others. Christ, by the expiation, gained an intimacy in comprehension that allows for perfect charity. He comprehends therefore he loves.
The Love he had for John seems to be different. This love seems to be more a result of finding harmony between individuals. If we are represented by waves, then the manner in which our waves harmonize (or not) determine the amount of Love that we have for each other. It is a testament to John that the Lord loved him so much.
So, Jesus has perfect charity for us because of the atonement, and he loves God the father because they are in perfect harmony. Then does God the Father have the same level of charity as Jesus does?…I would have to say no. I guess I would say that it is not his love that qualifies our faith in Him, but his Justice and Goodness.
Comment by J. Stapley — 3/23/2005 @ 2:11 pm
J. Stapley –
If I understand you correctly, I don’t agree.
I agree that empathy – by definition – is limited by our comprehension of others. And that, as such, only Christ truly has empathy for everyone.
But I don’t think the same applies to charity. You don’t have to know the other at all to have charity for them. As beings with agency, there are thus no limits to our potential for charity. This would suggest that charity is not a result of the atonement, but that the atonement is a result of charity. Charity is the first thing, the cause, the mover of all else.
Does God the Father then have the same level of charity as Christ? Absolutely.
Comment by Eric Russell — 3/23/2005 @ 2:52 pm
Eric,
I agree with your difference between charity and empathy, and I do believe that God the father has the sort of empathy for us that God the father has. That is to say, whether or not God the father had an earthly experience like Christ’s he can have perfect charity, and so can we. I think that pure love motivated the atonement, and was not simply the result of it.
J,
I do, however, recognize that the word love is used in different ways in the scriptures. There is a sense in which God loves those who keep his commandments. I feel that this love is more like favor, and it is natural that they should recieve that favor. It is favoritism based to some degree on what we do, but not on God’s preference that one or another of his children be saved.
The charity that I believe is absolute is a charity that simply says that we are truly concerned with the welfare of the other in the same way that we are concerned with the welfare of the self. In this way I see charity as ethical. I think that too many ethical theorists have recently tried to remove ethics from love. That is to say that God will not simply create a law because he thinks it would be better that way and then reward or punish us based on that law. Rather, he creates laws that he is absolutely positive will be for our benefit and his rewards and punishments are designed to help us to obey that law so that we can recieve the benefits he wants to give us anyway. In a way, this might relate to the idea so talkes about lately on the posts on foreknowledge here and here of whether God changes his mind. God’s mind is always that we should obey his commandments so that we can obtain the maximum blessings. What blessing or punishment will most likely bring that about changes from moment to moment, perhaps, but the result always has to be the greatest good for each of his children. Thus, I don’t think that our will ever changes God’s will, though the dsiposition of God towards our behavior at any given moment and the steps he will take to direct us given that behavior might be different, always based on the fact that concern with our salvation is his end goal and, perhaps, the only thing with which he really concerns himself.
Comment by S. Hancock — 3/23/2005 @ 3:33 pm
Eric & Steve-
Your assessment of my position was correct and I can see why you would disagree. However, I submit that Love is not the first thing, if you will. Imagine for a moment a god with limited perception. He is surrounded by spirits, yet he cannot, nor has he ever, perceived them. Among these spirits is an individual, Bob. Does this god love Bob? No, because this god doesn’t know Bob exists.
We can then imagine a scenario where the god gains perception of those about himself. After perceiving Bob, the god starts to love him. Why? Because he has knowledge of Bob, but there has to be more. Because the god values certain things (namely spirits and their virtues) and perceives them in Bob, the god will love Bob.
The question then becomes whether an increased knowledge of Bob will yield an increase in love? I believe the answer is Yes.
It seems that Love is not the great Mover, but God’s values.
Comment by J. Stapley — 3/23/2005 @ 3:51 pm
I believe I understand. I think I’m working with a different concept of ‘love’ because, using ‘love’ in the sense that you do, I have to agree.
You seem to take it as a pure, personal love for all mankind that comes through knowing us deeply, intimately, personally. This concept of love is, essentially, an emotion; a feeling for another person that can only be as strong as our knowledge of another person. And, as you point out, this emotion cannot exist for a person if one is unaware of that other person’s existence.
I think I see charity differently. The bottom line might be that I don’t think that pure love is an emotion at all. I think it’s a state of being wherein we “love the neighbor as ourselves.” In other words, it is a state of being where we are completely unselfish; wholly altruistic. Charity is “the pure love of Christ.” Or, in other words, love that is generated out of pure motives – love that is purely altruistic. To have charity, then, is to be purely altruistic in heart and soul. To genuinely have no more concern for oneself than for ones neighbor.
It is this charity that led God to create us, that led Christ to atone for us, and is one that we can achieve, theoretically at least. Although probably none of us ever will, it is still possible. All of us have the ability to become purely charitable. Even if we are alone on an island.
I think I prefer this form of charity because it seems more complete. The emotion-based love extends only so far as we know another, so there are limits to the amount, or rather, degree of charity we can have. It is a commandment, then, that can not be fulfilled. And if it can’t be done, then it can’t be a moral obligation.
This problem is solved with the being based love. We need not run around meeting more people, or getting to know people more deeply, in order to have more charity. We simply need to become more unselfish.
Similarly, I think the emotion-based love lacks the moral value of the being-based love. An evil man, who knows lots of people, could love a large number of people and hate just as many, whereas a good man in a small village can love only a limited number, even if he hates none. It would seem as if the evil man had more charity than the good man.
Again, the problem is solved with the being based love.
Well, it’s late and my comments are poorly expressed. But it’s good to think about these things.
Comment by Eric Russell — 3/24/2005 @ 3:35 am
Indeed, Eric, this is a fascinating discussion. I will address the issues you bring up, but first I will posit that we call charity “the pure love of Christ” because He (and not any other member of the Godhead) is the grand archetype. As you already distinguished, I think He is the grand archetype because of his empirical depth (and consequent depth of charity).
First, I think by definition charity is an emotion. Is it not what we feel for other people? But if charity is not an emotion, then it must be a value (i.e, the degree to which one ascribes value to something). I would surmise that it would be the degree to which we value human life, which (according to my comment #4 is root of the emotion).
Because of the Mormon concept of eternal progression, I am not sure that altruism is the best synonym for love. I will state however that the moment Jesus asked that the cup be removed lest there be no other way was the paragon of charity: It was his love for us (and not a desire for exaltation) than moved him to drink. I do, however, think it is fair to cast this discussion in relation to the value of souls.
I will concede that an intimacy of knowledge is not required for basic charity. Basic charity is a function of our basic knowledge and value for human souls. But if you are alone in a village and don’t know that there are other people outside your village, your charity is limited to those in the village. So in a sense, we do need to expand our comprehension of others to expand our love.
As to your scenario where an individual loves many and yet hates many: I would say that if one has charity, then one cannot concurrently hate. While it is possible to love someone and simultaneously hate another, this is an example of the second type of love I described in comment #1. Basically this is an example of the love that results when people “harmonize”. Intrinsically, harmony is not required for charity, only existence is required.
So to summarize, I think that you are describing the source of what I am calling charity. Basically, I am saying that charity is an emotion that is a function of knowledge and a value. You are saying that charity is simply that value.
Comment by J. Stapley — 3/24/2005 @ 12:28 pm
It was his love for us (and not a desire for exaltation) than moved him to drink.
I totally agree. And this is why I beleive that it is an absolute value. We do call it the “pure love of christ. Once something is pure, it doesn’t get more pure than totally pure. That is to say, I believe that god has pure love in that every decision he makes is 100% motivated by love for us. I do think this is an emotion, but there are a lot of emotions, and too many have been called love. The emotion here is concern for the well-being of another. Christ’s love was pure because he was willing to do the thing that was as bad as it gets in his own regard, the most painful, the most degrading, the most unappreciated by the larger number of people for whom it was done. And he did it because it would bring good to others. It was, in fact, before he gained the empathy the atonement would have given him that he demonstated his pure love through his willingness. I would say that pure love might motivate us to seek empathy so that we could help others, but is not motivated by empathy.
Still, I do think there is value in the being sort of approach to charity. that is to say, we have been trained to see the individual as paramount in existence. I think therefore I am. I thin charity might say, I love you, therefore you are. It makes the other the more important measure of existence and doesn’t even perhaps mesure whether the self exists. Paradoxically, this would be what givves us being in the most real sense, and thus we exist in the other. This would radically change the way we read I AM in the Old Testament. Samuel Taylor Coleridge reads it as an affirmation of the primacy of the self. I read it as God having concern for himself only insomuch as it is reassuring to the Israelites. Before Moses asks, he doesn’t even give his name, just his charge to Moses to help his people.
Although probably none of us ever will, it is still possible.
I don’t know that I believe this. I think that developing this pure love will be a requirement before God grants us power that will have any lasting effect on the souls of men, and I do think he will eventually do so. I think we often sell ourselves short in this in the name of humility, but I think that we also sell short the possibilities of salvation. I think that the atonement an help us to obtain this pure love in the long run. Of course that might be the subject of a completely different post.
Comment by S. Hancock — 3/24/2005 @ 1:20 pm