The more I think about it, the more I think that just about anything could be a manifestation of love. Love isn't one of several listed possible acts. Love is a motivation that can inspire any number of kinds of acts. I suppose that, if your goal is the welfare of a person, any attempt to accomplish that goal can be viewed as an expression of love for that person. Of course, it's best if those attempts actually contribute to that person's welfare, but it may be that, so long as your heart is in the right place, then anything you do to try to help that person, including trying to understand how to best help them, can be an act of love.
Applying that to God gives us an interesting result. I think I recall hearing that everything God does, He does for our benefit. Yeah, here it is. 2 Nephi 26:24: "He doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world; for he loveth the world..." God loves the world, so everything He does, he does for the benefit of the world; therefore, everything He does is an expression of love for the world, including us.
Naturally, that would include every act of omission as well. Choosing not to do something is a choice that's as active as choosing to do something is. Just as everything God does is something that God does because He loves us, everything He doesn't do is something He doesn't do because He loves us.
Huh. That even applies to withholding blessings. As President Dallin H. Oaks said, "God’s universal and perfect love is shown in all the blessings of His gospel plan, including the fact that His choicest blessings are reserved for those who obey His laws." So long as all actions made for the benefit of someone are expressions of love for that person, and so long as all of God's actions (and inactions) are made for our benefit, then all of God's actions (even including withholding blessings and meting out punishments) are expressions of His love for us.
This is a little mind-blowing, to be honest. This is prompting me to reevaluate some of God's inactions which I had previously interpreted as evidence of an absence of love, or at least as a limitation on God's ability to express His love. Perhaps I was misinterpreting the (lack of a) sign that I was given. Yet, the logic seems sound. If the premises hold true, then the conclusion must be true as well. If all acts taken for the benefit of a person are expressions of love for that person, and if all of God's acts are for our benefit, then all of God's acts are expressions of love for us, even if they don't feel like acts of love at the time.
I currently believe that this revelatory moment is the reason I was chosen to lead this discussion. God wanted me to have this assurance that everything God does, He does because He loves us, because He loves me.
I almost mentioned this yesterday, and the night before, but I thought that leading this discussion was going to be difficult because I hadn't felt God's love for me in a long time. I felt like He couldn't reach me or didn't care to. But now I know that, if those two premises are true, then I must conclude that everything God does (or doesn't do), He does (or doesn't do) out of love. So, God does love me after all, and every sign He shows me, or doesn't show me, is an expression of that love.
No comments:
Post a Comment