Unconditional love is what changes people’s behavior. I am willing to guess that none of us here ever changed the way we thought/acted (at least on a permanent basis) due to someone else’s tactics of guilt, fear, manipulation, etc.
This may not be coming out in the most eloquent, cohesive way, but what I mean to say is that because we, in ourselves, do not really possess the power to change other’s actions (only influence) the only way to love them (in answer to the origial question) is to serve them and love them in the way that they (and all us) need to be; without any kind of judgement or criticism, because it seemly does not work otherwise. Now, please do not misinterpret this to mean that never at anytime should we exhibit tough love with those close to us who are making very dangerous decisions (taking drugs, becoming violent, hanging around violent people, taking dangerous risks, etc). In those more extreme siuations, we need to try to help them see that they could do themselves permanent damage. To stand by and say nothing would be wrong. But there a definite contrast with these kind of situations versus the ones originally referred to ( the family member who is inactive, apathetic about the gospel, ect). And we can all use our own best judgement to distinguish those.

The scripture in the original post explicitly calls out the fact that the questioner was a lawyer. We already have one strike against this guy. Then, not only is he a lawyer, he’s a lawyer that tempts Jesus. Now there’s two individuals that tempt Jesus–Satan and a lawyer. I think BY was on to this, but I haven’t heard any ranting in GC against lawyers. “Live and let live” is alive and well in Mormonism.

Josh

I think there’s a distinction between what Jesus is teaching here and what he was teaching with “the least of these my brethren” (ditto for King Benjamin). The contrast comes from the fact that it doesn’t say “love your neigbor as yourself in order to show God that you love him also”. There’s two distinct parts here. The first part implies building a personal relationship with God (and in my opinion learning a good deal of theology in the process). The second part implies building a personal relationship with your neighbors. If you skip one and just focus on the other you’re definitely missing part of the equation.

You can’t “live and let live” and just sit around all day studying the scriptures. At the same time, I would argue that if you’re approach to everyone is “tough love”, you haven’t taken sufficient time to understand either God or your neighbors. What (B) doesn’t understand is that God doesn’t expect or want him to convert every single person that he thinks is mistaken. There is more to loving your neighbor than saying “I know what’s best for you now take it and LIKE IT”. That’s way too close to the “other” plan.

Another problem with “tough love” is that many people on the recipient end of such treatment react negatively to the approach/messenger without ever even considering the message. You’ll shoot yourself in the foot before you even get a chance. If you really love your neighbor, you will strive to understand his/her character at least as well as you understand your own and thereby find the right balance of toughness vs tolerance for each individual. If you’ve been working on step 1, then a little personal inspiration/revelation is sure to help.

As for the issue of progression between kingdoms, I recognize that you were just trying to set up assumptions in order to establish the question. However, I don’t think its a required assumption. Even with progression (which admittedly, I’m not a fan of) you can point to an indefinite period of suffering prior to their completed progression as sufficient reason to want to convert a stubborn friend/relative.

Jacob captured mostly where I am going here when he said “theology has a way of getting its fingers into practical matters whether we want it to or not”.

I feel there is no question we should try to be a positive influence on those around us

I do too, but this is begging the question. Our views on theology drive our views on what being a “positive influence on those around us” means.

I do like that Gary brought section 121 into the conversation though. If we follow that counsel it will have a tempering effect on any attempts at tough love no matter how screwed up our theological ideas might be.

Anyway, I feel there is no question we should try to be a positive influence on those around us. The question is usually how best to go about doing it so that we don’t end up pushing them further away by those efforts. Building good relationships is an important first step in those efforts.

However, if I love somebody, I will try to influence them for good in the way that is most likely to achieve the result I want. There is a difference between being right by preaching truth, and being effective. In my experience, it is seldom effective to nag, brow beat or to be overbearing in preaching repentance. There is no “tough love” and “live and let live” dichotomy. Influence should only be exerted by meekness and love unfeigned. The application of this principle may vary based on circumstances, but our actions must always be guided by that principle.