Uh…I’ll try to respond, verbatim, to the posts directed at my point. This may be a bit long, so, apologies in advance to anyone who doesn’t want to wade through it.
LDS: Adam had it right. All the active latter day saints I have ever met have been very decent people who appeared to be acting out of sincere caring for their fellow man. I understand that in Utah, some of them have succumbed to the great sin of a religionist: to impose by compulsion the ethical behavior prescribed by one’s beliefs on the populace at large. So they have “blue laws” oriented towards LDS belief on what is proper/improper. But in upstate New York and eastern North Carolina they don’t have that sort of political power, and they as individuals are head and shoulders above some bigoted “orthodox” Christians in ethical behavior. That’s all I meant by what I said about “they don’t make nicer people.” (And it was the generic “they” – read it as Elohim if you like!) 
Adam, during World War II the Combined Chiefs of Staff (British and American) got into a massive argument about what to do with a proposed strategic plan. It turned out they all meant the same thing, but had used the verb “to table” in two different meanings (British, to lay on the table for immediate consideration; American, to lay on the table as something to be put off; the British and Americans both wanted to move forward on this plan, but the Americans misunderstood the British saying that they wanted to postpone discussion of it.
My intent was to defend to you the universality of salvation. “For God so loved the world…” I.e., there is nobody who is not a recipient of God’s love. He loves you, He loves me, He loves pagans, He loves Muslims, He loves atheists, He loved Jeffrey Dahmer and Hitler. (Past tense only because they are now deceased and we’re talking from a human perspective.)
Certainly the sinful things we do grieve Him. And certainly we can turn away from Him and reject the love He offers. And He doesn’t force anybody into Heaven.
But my point, which is shared by Paul and theologians from Augustine on down, is that it is His action which “saves us” – brings us into that relationship with Him where we reciprocate His love and find our way to Him. We are all His beloved children (with the distinction of Who Jesus was as opposed to the rest of us; don’t drag that red herring into this).
A certain man had two sons… you know the parable. But have you ever looked at it in its full context? Jesus is not so much preaching the need of the prodigal younger brother to repent and come home, as he is condemning the attitude of the older brother. And the story is told to the Pharisees, who believed that they could be saved by keeping the Law, as opposed to those other slobs who didn’t keep the Law and whom God was obviously going to condemn. Adam, my brother, the sound of your posts comes dangerously close to echoing the attitude of that older brother to many ears, including mine. I hope and want to believe that you do not mean what it sounds like you do. That is why I reacted so strongly against what you had to say about who is God’s child. What I am saying is that the prodigal never ceased being his Father’s beloved son, even when he was off living large on his inheritance. I think you can draw the proper parallel, and would agree with it.
Would you kindly explain what else I have said that “goes against God’s word” in your estimation? I ask with a touch of asperity, but with a sincere desire to know where we are at odds. I believe I can learn from you, and hope that you feel you can learn from me. And that is what I believe my Lord and Savior and yours would want us to do.