I believe they are discussing different ideas, but arriving at the same
conclusions overall. Elder Nelson is trying to refute the idea of God
unconditionally accepting everything we do, simply because he loves us. 
He will not exalt us in our sins, and we are erring if we think so.

Elder Maxwell is teaching that God loves us period, however in the same
chapter he discusses that God is not always accepting of our actions, nor
will he bless us in our wickedness.

The difference is terminology and what each is trying to express. Kind of
like a verse in the scriptures saying "by grace ye are saved" which is a
true, albeit, incomplete statement. It is correct, but can be taken in
different interpretations if not taken in its proper context.  So it is
with Elder Nelson's statement. He has an issue with calling God's love
unconditional, because it sounds like God is totally accepting of all our
actions, good or evil. But I'm sure he would not disagree with Elder
Maxwell's term of "perfect" love, which allows God to love us all, but
not necessarily be accepting of what we do or have become.

K'aya K'ama,

Gerald (Gary) Smith     
http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom/index.html         LDS Evidences,
Family History, Food Storage, etc.

Gary, I accept Elder Maxwells comments with all my heart, as that is the
I have always beloved.  However how does this reconcile with Elder
article in the Ensign where he appears to say something very different?

///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!

Reply via email to