What would 2 Nephi 25:23 mean if you changed one word?

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Faithfully and consistently bringing forth the works of the Spirit (also known as living works) are an essential and indispensable element of the sanctification process leading to authentic holiness. A man is only able to increase in righteousness and holiness by allowing the creative and redemptive power God’s Spirit to work in partnership with his own spirit. The only works a man can perform that are considered truly righteous in the eyes of God are those works that are inspired and empowered by the indwelling influence of the Spirit of God. In fact, good works are utterly impossible to perform without the Spirit of God being present in each act. Therefore our righteous works are manifestations of salvation by grace in the same way obtaining a remission of sins is a manifestation of salvation by grace. 

24 And now I speak unto all the ends of the earth—that if the day cometh that the power and gifts of God shall be done away among you, it shall be because of unbelief.

25 And wo be unto the children of men if this be the case; for there shall be none that doeth good among you, no not one. FOR IF THERE BE ONE AMONG YOU THAT DOETH GOOD, HE SHALL WORK BY THE POWER AND GIFTS OF GOD. (Moroni 10)

This is often interpreted as what happened during the Great Apostasy. You know, the time where everyone was completely depraved and evil.

*checks history books*

Hey, wait a minute……..

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

They did pretty different things and Judaism at the time didn’t really have a blissful afterlife to be saved into. This is just projecting Christianity onto ancient Jews and acting like they thought just like us. They did not.

It depends on what part of Judaism you’re talking about. During Jesus’s time the Sadducees believed that the spirit died when the body died, but the Essenes and the Pharisees seemed to believe in an afterlife. And some believed in a blissful afterlife for the righteous. 

[GoCeltics]

20 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

What's the first condition listed in Moroni 10:32?  That we come unto Him.  I suppose I'm not understanding what in that verse, aside from the human tendency to try make life a "do-it-yourself" operation, is so hard to do.  In Christ, I can indeed "be perfected"; in Christ, I can indeed "deny [myself] of all ungodliness"; paradoxically, perhaps, in Christ, I can indeed "love God with all [my] might, mind, and strength."  And why is it that I may become perfect only in Christ?  Because, otherwise, I might be tempted to "deny the power of God."  And if [as] I come unto Christ, it is He who does the "perfecting" ("be perfected in Him").

Satisfy several conditions [C] and then grace is sufficient.

The sufficiency of grace brings results [R].

“Yea, [C1] come unto Christ, [C2] and be perfected in him, [C3] and deny yourselves of all ungodliness;  and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, [C4] and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, [R1] that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, [R2] ye can in nowise deny the power of God.”

[GoCeltics]

13 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Titus 3:4–8: “But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.”

And this is often the same theme found in the teachings of Jesus, such as in Matthew 19:28–29 (“every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life”) and the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25:31–46 (i.e. “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.”)

Who are the righteous that have life eternal in Matthew 25:46?

Edited January 23 by GoCeltics

[GoCeltics]

18 hours ago, JVW said:

On 1/18/2026 at 9:43 AM, GoCeltics said:

What would 2 Nephi 25:23 mean if it was changed to “... for we know that it is by works that we are saved, after all we can do?”

There, fixed it for you, you picked the wrong word to change.

@bluebell

“Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.”

Jesus’ audience is focused on “works,” and Jesus redirects their attention to what true “work” really means.

An article from Ensign qualifies grace and salvation.

“But, if we wish to overcome spiritual death and enter back into God's presence, we must be obedient to laws and principles. This is exaltation by works. Thus, according to this explanation, we are saved by grace and exalted by works.”

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

It depends on what part of Judaism you’re talking about. During Jesus’s time the Sadducees believed that the spirit died when the body died, but the Essenes and the Pharisees seemed to believe in an afterlife. And some believed in a blissful afterlife for the righteous. 

There was a belief amongst many of the Pharisees of a coming physical resurrection but it wasn’t a heavenly afterlife as most Christians would view it. It was a resurrection during the messianic age. This can count as an afterlife of sorts but not one that most Christians would envision. Attempts to mesh the Christian afterlife with the scriptures talking about the Jewish one sometimes leads to a sometimes clumsy melding of the millenium with another more spiritual afterlife afterwards. A lot of versions of Christianity dispensed with the millenium idea.

The Sadducees were more conservative and often treated any idea not taught in the Torah to be suspect and the resurrection isn’t in there.

The Essenes were an apocalyptic cult. They saw the messianic age as imminent and probably died trying to make it happen. John the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul were all apocalyptic preachers saying the messianic age was near but they don’t appear to be as strict as the Essenes. The Essenes were (by all indications we have) not out preaching to get converts. They gathered to prepare for the apocalyptic battle and live VERY strictly by the law of the Torah with some loophole exceptions created to get out of some requirements like not having to pay the temple tax. This is the Essenes as they were when the Dead Sea Scrolls were written.

It is probably unfair to assume they were following everything that was written in the Dead Sea Scrolls as written at the time of Jesus since the scrolls were written earlier. The Essenes were still around but many of the scrolls were a century or two old at that point and beliefs and practices can shift a lot in that time. Generally apocalyptic cults tend to loosen up some when they find the end does not happen immediately but who knows what happened.

It is still likely John the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul were not as strict as the Essenes. Well, unless you favor the gospel of Matthew’s reading of Jesus where you have to follow the Torah even more strictly than the Pharisees AND also here are some new even stricter laws to follow about not even looking upon someone with lust and the rest of the add ons. Also that following the Law will be required until the heavens and the earth pass away which virtually no Christian group today does. I don’t think the writer of the gospel of Matthew was a big fan of Paul letting in Gentiles who didn’t submit to the Law.

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, GoCeltics said:

@bluebell

“Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.”

Jesus’ audience is focused on “works,” and Jesus redirects their attention to what true “work” really means.

An article from Ensign qualifies grace and salvation.

“But, if we wish to overcome spiritual death and enter back into God's presence, we must be obedient to laws and principles. This is exaltation by works. Thus, according to this explanation, we are saved by grace and exalted by works.”

That article was written by Elder Lund, and he's actually refuting the idea that tries to separate salvation from exaltation, and explains that though it was a popular way for some Latter-day saints to deal with Paul's teachings, it's not correct. 

The quote you shared above from the article is actually located under the heading "Inadequate Explanations".

Quote

 

"The second typical explanation goes something like this: The fall of Adam brought two kinds of death into the world—physical death, which is the separation of body and spirit, and spiritual death, which is separation of man from God. The atonement of Christ overcame physical death through the Resurrection. This is salvation by grace because it comes to all men automatically and does not depend on what kinds of lives they have lived. But, if we wish to overcome spiritual death and enter back into God’s presence, we must be obedient to laws and principles. This is exaltation by works. Thus, according to this explanation, we are saved by grace and exalted by works.

This is an appealing explanation because it seems to provide a logical argument that fits the statements of Paul neatly into it. However, there is a doctrinal error involved here. While the resurrection of the dead is certainly an integral part of the plan of salvation, and is unconditional and independent of men’s works, the term salvation as used in the scriptures does not mean physical resurrection alone."

 

He even quotes Elder McConkie to double down on incorrectness of the idea that the term salvation used in the scriptures doesn't mean exaltation:

Quote

 

While the resurrection of the dead is certainly an integral part of the plan of salvation, and is unconditional and independent of men’s works, the term salvation as used in the scriptures does not mean physical resurrection alone. As Elder Bruce R. McConkie has pointed out, salvation is synonymous with exaltation:

“Salvation in its true and full meaning is synonymous with exaltation or eternal life and consists in gaining an inheritance in the highest of the three heavens within the celestial kingdom. With few exceptions this is the salvation of which the scriptures speak. It is the salvation which the saints seek.” (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966, p. 670.)

 

It's a very long article and most of it is relevant but since it's not possible to quote all the parts discussing salvation by grace, I'll quote one of the last paragraphs:

Quote

In summary then, there is no need to go to extraordinary lengths to apologize for Paul, or try to explain away his statements on salvation by grace. We are saved by grace—saved by Christ’s love from physical and spiritual death; saved by Christ’s love from Adam’s fall and our own; saved from sin and transgression by the grace or gifts of God. The atoning power of God unto salvation is a freely available gift from him—but our works of righteousness are essential to bring the gift into power in our lives. Sin brings alienation from God. The more we sin, the greater the alienation and the more difficult it becomes to effectively tap the power of God, which alone is sufficient to save us from our sins.

 

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There was a belief amongst many of the Pharisees of a coming physical resurrection but it wasn’t a heavenly afterlife as most Christians would view it. It was a resurrection during the messianic age. This can count as an afterlife of sorts but not one that most Christians would envision. Attempts to mesh the Christian afterlife with the scriptures talking about the Jewish one sometimes leads to a sometimes clumsy melding of the millenium with another more spiritual afterlife afterwards. A lot of versions of Christianity dispensed with the millenium idea.

The Sadducees were more conservative and often treated any idea not taught in the Torah to be suspect and the resurrection isn’t in there.

The Essenes were an apocalyptic cult. They saw the messianic age as imminent and probably died trying to make it happen. John the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul were all apocalyptic preachers saying the messianic age was near but they don’t appear to be as strict as the Essenes. The Essenes were (by all indications we have) not out preaching to get converts. They gathered to prepare for the apocalyptic battle and live VERY strictly by the law of the Torah with some loophole exceptions created to get out of some requirements like not having to pay the temple tax. This is the Essenes as they were when the Dead Sea Scrolls were written.

It is probably unfair to assume they were following everything that was written in the Dead Sea Scrolls as written at the time of Jesus since the scrolls were written earlier. The Essenes were still around but many of the scrolls were a century or two old at that point and beliefs and practices can shift a lot in that time. Generally apocalyptic cults tend to loosen up some when they find the end does not happen immediately but who knows what happened.

It is still likely John the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul were not as strict as the Essenes. Well, unless you favor the gospel of Matthew’s reading of Jesus where you have to follow the Torah even more strictly than the Pharisees AND also here are some new even stricter laws to follow about not even looking upon someone with lust and the rest of the add ons. Also that following the Law will be required until the heavens and the earth pass away which virtually no Christian group today does. I don’t think the writer of the gospel of Matthew was a big fan of Paul letting in Gentiles who didn’t submit to the Law.

I agree, it wasn't an afterlife as we would view it, but it was an afterlife, where choices made during mortality directly impacted the state of the soul after mortality.

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree, it wasn't an afterlife as we would view it, but it was an afterlife, where choices made during mortality directly impacted the state of the soul after mortality.

Yeah, it is a kind of afterlife. I wrote poorly but I was focusing on Pharisees not viewing themselves as saved by anything specific like a Christian would talk about Jesus. I might have even gone too far here. We don’t know a lot about the Pharisees. The closest thing we have to the writings of a self-identified Pharisee is Paul and he was obviously mixing in Christian ideas. Josephus describes them a bit in the abstract but he never describes himself as a pharisee though he might have aligned with them.

The whole of Judea in the 1st century CE is a bit of a black hole of historical writings. We have the New Testament, Josephus, and Philo of Alexandria who lived in Egypt though he wrote that he visited the temple. Philo also mostly wrote up philosophical works harmonizing Judaism with Greco-Roman philosophy and not a lot about what was going on. There are fragments around and we have stuff written about some other political figures especially all the Herods (there were WAY too many Herods).

What I am saying is it can be hard to be sure exactly what the Pharisees believed and taught and what was needed to get into the resurrected messianic ‘heaven’. Definitely following the Law and oral traditions. Later when the other major Jewish sects were gone (Sadducees lost all credibility when the temple was gone, the Zealots and probably the Essenes died in the revolts) so the Pharisees were in charge of the religion but not the territory anymore. This is the transition to rabbinic Judaism but we don’t have much from them either until the late second century so while they quote people from the first century it is hard to establish authenticity. The second century saw the Bar Kochba revolt and after that the one thing it seemed every rabbi agreed on was that they were SO DONE with apocalypticism since its primary function for the last few centuries seemed to be getting lots of Jews killed. It also led to a big emphasis on writing everything down going forward. A lot of teachings were passed on orally before but all the death had them justifiably paranoid that a lot could be lost so the Mishnah started getting composed to preserve it and over the following centuries the Talmuds were composed.

And I am wandering off the point and rambling so will stop now. Basically it is hard to know what preparation for the resurrection required and meant in 1st century Pharisee thought.

[teddyaware]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There was a belief amongst many of the Pharisees of a coming physical resurrection but it wasn’t a heavenly afterlife as most Christians would view it. It was a resurrection during the messianic age. This can count as an afterlife of sorts but not one that most Christians would envision. Attempts to mesh the Christian afterlife with the scriptures talking about the Jewish one sometimes leads to a sometimes clumsy melding of the millenium with another more spiritual afterlife afterwards. A lot of versions of Christianity dispensed with the millenium idea.

As if the resurrection of the mortal body to immortality at the beginning of the glorious millennial reign of the Messiah isn’t a very real concept of an afterlife!! Are you kidding? People physically raised from otherwise permanent physical death to immortality during the glorious millennial reign of the mighty Messiah isn’t a legitimate conception of an afterlife? Not coincidentally, the prophecy of a limited resurrection at the beginning of the Messiah’s redemptive millennial reign is exactly the same vision of the post-mortal millennial afterlife that’s presently taught as official doctrine by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. And just in case you’ve forgotten, heaven — the eternal home of those worthy of obtaining a celestial glory — isn’t an immaterial realm that’s exists somewhere in a far off immaterial Never-Never Land, for it’s nothing less than the material planet earth that we currently occupy exalted to a more glorious state of existence than it will enjoy during its semi-glorified millennial (terrestrial) state of existence.

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

Who are the righteous that have life eternal in Matthew 25:46?

You know already (because we have discussed this), the "righteous" are defined within the context of that parable as those who followed the behavior of the Savior during their life by feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick, etc. etc.

"For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me." (Matthew 25:35–36)

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

An article from Ensign qualifies grace and salvation.

“But, if we wish to overcome spiritual death and enter back into God's presence, we must be obedient to laws and principles. This is exaltation by works. Thus, according to this explanation, we are saved by grace and exalted by works.”

You've been corrected on this misrepresentation of that article before when you were posting as telned (in this post from me on 08/31/2024, and those that follow).  

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

“Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.”

Jesus’ audience is focused on “works,” and Jesus redirects their attention to what true “work” really means.

To truly "believe" in Jesus is a work, just like "knowing" Jesus is a work.

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."  (John 17:3)

Compare this with John's epistle where he explains what it means to "know" Jesus:

"And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.  But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked." (1 John 2:3–6)

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

As if the resurrection of the mortal body to immortality at the beginning of the glorious millennial reign of the Messiah isn’t a very real concept of an afterlife!! Are you kidding? People physically raised from otherwise permanent physical death to immortality during the glorious millennial reign of the mighty Messiah isn’t a legitimate conception of an afterlife? Not coincidentally, the prophecy of a limited resurrection at the beginning of the Messiah’s redemptive millennial reign is exactly the same vision of the post-mortal millennial afterlife that’s presently taught as official doctrine by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. And just in case you’ve forgotten, heaven — the eternal home of those worthy of obtaining a celestial glory — isn’t an immaterial realm that’s exists somewhere in a far off immaterial Never-Never Land, for it’s nothing less than the material planet earth that we currently occupy exalted to a more glorious state of existence than it will enjoy during its semi-glorified millennial (terrestrial) state of existence.

I was obviously talking about the contrast of the Jewish physical resurrection to a millenial reign with the more common interpretations of Christian heaven (and hell) that developed. LDS theology is a grab bag of the physical resurrection to a millenial reign, a quasi-heaven and hell in the Spirit World that loosely mirrors the traditional Christian interpretation of the afterlife, and then finally we capped it off with combining the two into an even more exalted spiritual and physical state and introducing a much more expansive form of theosis than the rest of Christianity had and also replacing the Platonic conception of deity that Judaism and Christianity adopted with a form of henotheism.

It is kind of annoying how you seem to endlessly think you are teaching me LDS doctrines as if I am completely ignorant of them. I guess any excuse to condescend will do when you want to break out your prophet-teacher voice where you do your angelic/prophetic drag act and give us vainglorious pronouncements about the fate of the poor deceived fools who don’t accept the gospel.

The prophecy of a limited resurrection at the time of the Messiah’s resurrection came from Joseph Smith. That is not exactly impressive prophecy. Like most prophecy ours tends to be very good right up until it actually has to predict the future and then we have to reinterpret to keep making the prophecies work.

[Kenngo1969]

On 1/23/2026 at 9:36 AM, GoCeltics said:

Satisfy several conditions [C] and then grace is sufficient.

The sufficiency of grace brings results [R].

“Yea, [C1] come unto Christ, [C2] and be perfected in him, [C3] and deny yourselves of all ungodliness;  and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, [C4] and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, [R1] that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, [R2] ye can in nowise deny the power of God.”

I don't think it is possible to do any of those things without Christ's grace to begin with.

[teddyaware]

On 1/22/2026 at 10:34 PM, Calm said:

I have wondered why this is so if this means we can’t do good unless the Spirit is first there helping us instead of doing good draws the Spirit to us. (Most people seem to interpret the scriptures as meaning the first in my experience, we can’t even think good thoughts unless the Spirit pushes us that direction.)

Why didn’t you focus your attention on the verses I quoted from the Book of Mormon, words  that powerfully support the point I made? Please explain why you believe the following words of Moroni don’t powerfully support my doctrinal position that it’s impossible to do good without first obtaining power from God?

 

24 And now I speak unto all the ends of the earth—that if the day cometh that the power and gifts of God shall be done away among you, it shall be because of unbelief.

25 And wo be unto the children of men if this be the case; for there shall be none that doeth good among you, no not one. FOR IF THERE BE ONE AMONG YOU THAT DOETH GOOD, HE SHALL WORK BY THE POWER AND GIFTS OF GOD. (Moroni 10)

Edited January 25 by teddyaware

[Calm]

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Why didn’t you focus your attention on the verses I quoted from the Book of Mormon, words  that powerfully support the point I made? Please explain why you believe the following words of Moroni don’t powerfully support my doctrinal position that it’s impossible to do good without first obtaining power from God?

 

 

24 And now I speak unto all the ends of the earth—that if the day cometh that the power and gifts of God shall be done away among you, it shall be because of unbelief.

25 And wo be unto the children of men if this be the case; for there shall be none that doeth good among you, no not one. FOR IF THERE BE ONE AMONG YOU THAT DOETH GOOD, HE SHALL WORK BY THE POWER AND GIFTS OF GOD. (Moroni 10)

That just says what and how, not why this is so.

I am not challenging the belief, I am curious about the reason this is the only way.

Edited January 26 by Calm

[JVW]

On 1/25/2026 at 10:30 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't think it is possible to do any of those things without Christ's grace to begin with.

Are you a closet Calvinist?  

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

That just says what and how, not why this is so.

I am not challenging the belief, I am curious about the reason this is the only way.

I think it comes from Roman 3:10 and the teaching that there are none righteous but God, and that an unrighteous person is incapable of doing good without the influence of righteousness.

The whole 'fruit of the tree' thing, and how an unrighteous person cannot produce good fruit, left to their own devices.

[teddyaware]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

That just says what and how, not why this is so.

I am not challenging the belief, I am curious about the reason this is the only way.

Fair enough. I’ll post a series of enlightening scriptural references, in several successive posts, that directly address the doctrinal truth that testifies why it’s impossible to do good apart from the Spirit of God, imparted by virtue of  the atoning sacrifice of Christ. Here’s the first…

20 And now, my brethren, how is it possible that ye can lay hold upon every good thing?

21 And now I come to that faith, of which I said I would speak; and I will tell you the way whereby ye may lay hold on every good thing.

22 For behold, God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting, behold, he sent angels to minister unto the children of men, to make manifest concerning the coming of Christ; AND IN CHRIST THERE SHOULD COME EVERY GOOD THING.

23 And God also declared unto prophets, by his own mouth, that Christ should come.

24 And behold, there were divers ways that he did manifest things unto the children of men, which were good; AND ALL THINGS WHICH ARE GOOD COMETH OF CHRIST; OTHER WISE MEN WERE FALLEN, AND THERE COULD COME NO GOOD THING COME UNTO THEM.

25 Wherefore, by the ministering of angels, and by every word which proceeded forth out of the mouth of God, men began to exercise faith in Christ; AND THUS BY FAITH (IN CHRIST), THEY DID LAY HOLD UPON EVERY GOOD THING.(Moroni 7)

IT’S ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE APPREHENDING FAITH IN CHRIST BY WHICH MEN CAN LAY HOLD ON EVERY GOOD THING, OF WHICH MORMON SO POWERFULLY TESTIFIES , IS A GIFT OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD IMPARTED TO MAN BY VIRTUE OF THE INFINITE AND ETERNAL ATONING SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST!

 

 

Edited January 26 by teddyaware

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

Are you a closet Calvinist?  

Nope.  Not sure why you would ask.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think it comes from Roman 3:10 and the teaching that there are none righteous but God, and that an unrighteous person is incapable of doing good without the influence of righteousness.

The whole 'fruit of the tree' thing, and how an unrighteous person cannot produce good fruit, left to their own devices.

I get the reasoning, but want to know why can’t humans do anything good without God’s grace?  Not even a little good.

It would be like saying people can’t be smart, they will only get to the dumb level of intelligence unless they have gone to school and got taught how to use their brains.  In this analogy, something about education might switch on the part of brain that does logical thinking, allows then to act on something besides instinct.

It is not a question that can be answered as far as I know, just speculated about because scripture is not a psychology text.

By the way, Teddy, I am not blind.  Repeating yourself using larger and bolder text doesn’t make something into an explanation when it’s not an explanation in regular font.

It is just curious to me that scripture teaches that humans, who LDS believe are the same species of God, are still unable to think and act in good ways without God (I would suggest it is the Light of Christ that activates this ability to do good, but still don’t get why it would be needed even for minimum good behaviour).  Why is there no inclination in the “natural man” to be kind, generous, charitable, protective and loving of others, etc?

At least as far as the scriptures are concerned it seems to me.

 

Edited January 26 by Calm

[JVW]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I get the reasoning, but want to know why can’t humans do anything good without God’s grace?  Not even a little good.

I wanna take a stab at this. Life and death are in God's purview. Every breath we take is a gift from God. So without His support we couldn't be alive and if we weren't alive we couldn't do any good. I don't know if literally enabling us to live is part of the "grace" package, but I think this is a pretty reasonable argument.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

It would be like saying people can’t be smart, they will only get to the dumb level of intelligence unless they have gone to school and got taught how to use their brains.

That's the smartest thing I've read all day. If you don't have a degree your opinion is worthless. (I'm just kidding here, I just don't feel like working and am joking through my misery.)

2 hours ago, Calm said:

By the way, Teddy, I am not blind.  Repeating yourself using larger and bolder text doesn’t make something into an explanation when it’s not an explanation in regular font.

This made me lol!

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Why is there no inclination in the “natural man” to be kind, generous, charitable, protective and loving of others, etc?

In honor of Teddy,

"Mosiah 3:19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."

... duh ...

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

I wanna take a stab at this. Life and death are in God's purview. Every breath we take is a gift from God. So without His support we couldn't be alive and if we weren't alive we couldn't do any good. I don't know if literally enabling us to live is part of the "grace" package, but I think this is a pretty reasonable argument.

That's the smartest thing I've read all day. If you don't have a degree your opinion is worthless. (I'm just kidding here, I just don't feel like working and am joking through my misery.)

This made me lol!

In honor of Teddy,

"Mosiah 3:19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."

... duh ...

But young children can be kind even when they haven’t be told to, I have seen abused children be thoughtful and kind to others (of course, they may have learned that by watching someone besides their abusive parent, it might not be a natural impulse).  Even a toddler will share food or toys at times.

I am curious if a child was brought up in a completely hostile or indifferent environment except for being provided what they need to survive (if it could survive) could demonstrate kindness and it be real kindness and not manipulation.  I see animals do good things to others, care for others, so there seems to me a natural/instinctual component to at least some level of kindness, which I would call good.

And maybe a hostile or indifferent universe is the crux of the reasoning and saying all good comes from God is not just a religious identifier in scripture demonstrating humility and gratitude to God.  Maybe the universe is actually inherently hostile or indifferent and only by God’s intercession can our lives be touched by things of beauty, love, and compassion, so only through him can we actually learn how to desire to be good and do good actions.

Edited January 26 by Calm

[teddyaware]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I get the reasoning, but want to know why can’t humans do anything good without God’s grace?  Not even a little good.

It would be like saying people can’t be smart, they will only get to the dumb level of intelligence unless they have gone to school and got taught how to use their brains.  In this analogy, something about education might switch on the part of brain that does logical thinking, allows then to act on something besides instinct.

It is not a question that can be answered as far as I know, just speculated about because scripture is not a psychology text.

By the way, Teddy, I am not blind.  Repeating yourself using larger and bolder text doesn’t make something into an explanation when it’s not an explanation in regular font.

It is just curious to me that scripture teaches that humans, who LDS believe are the same species of God, are still unable to think and act in good ways without God (I would suggest it is the Light of Christ that activates this ability to do good, but still don’t get why it would be needed even for minimum good behaviour).  Why is there no inclination in the “natural man” to be kind, generous, charitable, protective and loving of others, etc?

At least as far as the scriptures are concerned it seems to me.

 

Aw shucks! But my turbocharged Type A personality enjoys engaging in over-the-top gesticulating while I’m teaching, something I’m unable to do while commenting on this board! So I do the next best thing which is to engage in over-the-top bolding, capitalizing, highlighting, enlarging and making excessive use of exclamation marks!!!

But in answer to your above question, the Book of Mormon prophet Jacob beautifully explains why we are unable to do anything good apart from God’s empowering influence:

7 Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement — save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption. Wherefore, the first judgment which came upon man (permanent spiritual and physical death) must needs have remained to an endless duration. And if so, this flesh must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more.

8 O the wisdom of God, his wisdom and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more.

9 And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light, and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness.

10 O how great the goodness of our God, who prepareth a way for our escape from the grasp of this awful monster; yea, that monster, death and hell, which I call the death of the body, and also the death of the spirit. (2 Nephi 9)

Wise Jacob’s point is that after the fall we would have had no goodness that we could call our own apart from the redemptive blessings bestowed on us through atoning suffering of Jesus Christ. In fact, after the fall we would have been so totally bereft of any internal goodness that we would have been powerless to prevent ourselves from being unavoidably drawn down into the spiritual black hole of hell where we would have all become devils (beings in which there is no goodness).

Jacob provides proof positive that without the wondrous mitigating effects of the atonement of Christ we would have no internal goodness of our own and zero access to any source of external goodness. This is why the redeemed saints in the scriptures shout such unrestrained and exultant praises to Christ as their God and King, for they know that without his willingness to courageously descend below all things in his atoning suffering that no good thing could come unto them.

24 And behold, there were divers ways that he (God) did manifest things unto the children of men, which were good; and all things which are good cometh of Christ; otherwise men were fallen and there could no good thing come unto them. (Moroni 7)

 

 

 

Edited January 26 by teddyaware