Once again, 2 Nephi 25:23

[Rob Bowman]

Bernard,

2 Nephi 31:19-21 does not distinguish general salvation (resurrection to immortality) from individual salvation (eternal life, exaltation). Whatever the salvation under consideration in 25:23, it seems to be the same salvation as in 31:19-21.

The fact remains that the distinction not only does not appear in the context of 2 Nephi 25:23, it does not seem to appear anywhere in the Book of Mormon.

[Vance]

He suffers the punishment for my sins, but he suffers it in a different way

Humm,

2 Cor 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Or, {NIV God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.}

Isa 53:4

[Bernard Gui]

To the contrary, it seems to teach that salvation delivers people from both temporal (physical) and spiritual death. Perhaps you could cite some specific texts on this point.

2 Nephi 9

Alma 12 (note verses 9-10)

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

Bernard,

2 Nephi 31:19-21 does not distinguish general salvation (resurrection to immortality) from individual salvation (eternal life, exaltation). Whatever the salvation under consideration in 25:23, it seems to be the same salvation as in 31:19-21.

The fact remains that the distinction not only does not appear in the context of 2 Nephi 25:23, it does not seem to appear anywhere in the Book of Mormon.

Rob, with all due respect, I am LDS, have been for 60 years, have studied the gospel assiduously,

and I just have to say you are dead wrong. As I said before, of course you cannot accept an answer

from a Mormon because you filter it through your Evangelical eyes. You cannot possibly understand

2 Nephi 25:23 unless you understand the entirety of Nephi's 11 chapter exposition within the full

context of LDS belief. Until then, you can only see through the glass darkly.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

It is true that the Book of Mormon doesn't distinguish between degrees of glory. Exaltation is indeed not in mind at this stage of the game.

The doctrine of exaltation is found in the Book of Mormon. Of course, the word is not found, but the concept is plain to see.

Specifically, 2 Nephi 31.

Have you considered this?

And for this cause ye shall have fulness of joy; and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father;

yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am,

and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one. 3 Nephi 29:10

And this?

Thou art my servant; and I covenant with thee that thou shalt have eternal life; and thou shalt serve

me and go forth in my name, and shalt gather together my sheep.

And he that will hear my voice shall be my sheep; and him shall ye receive into the church, and him will I also receive.

For behold, this is my church; whosoever is baptized shall be baptized unto repentance.

And whomsoever ye receive shall believe in my name; and him will I freely forgive.

For it is I that taketh upon me the sins of the world; for it is I that hath created them; and it is I that granteth

unto him that believeth unto the end a place at my right hand.

For behold, in my name are they called; and if they know me they shall come forth, and shall have a place eternally at my right hand.

Mosiah 26:20-24

Bernard

[David T]

nackhadlow,

Try to look at this from my perspective for a moment. The LDS Church claims that the Bible has lost or had removed many plain and precious things, resulting in the obscuring of the gospel of salvation. It claims that the Book of Mormon contains the fullness of the gospel. Yet the Book of Mormon says nothing in support of the distinction between a general salvation (resurrection) and an individual salvation (exaltation).

I'd say the Book of Mormon does make a distinction between Resurrection and Salvation. 2 Nephi 9 makes clear that the gift of Resurrection enables all mankind with the opportunity to stand in God's presence, and without it, the possibility would not be there, and one would be doomed to live out life as a devil. This is professed to come to all. While not given the title Salvation, it's reasonable to apply it there as Salvation from Death ("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.")

Exaltation as currently understood ( 3rd degree in Celestial Kingdom, Developed Doctrine of Theosis, Marriage Relationship, Continuation of the seed, etc) is not a concept found in the Book of Mormon text. (that was for your benefit, Bernard) I don't think anyone professes that it is. The Book of Mormon concerns general absolutes, however, when it refers to Salvation: either you end up dwelling in full fellowship in God's presence, or you don't. The Book of Mormon makes clear that if you don't end up there, it's your own choice, because Christ makes his Covenant available to all.

Because of the Resurrection, all will be physically capable of returning to God. Those who enter into the Covenant and choose to remain in it are Saved, and are enabled to remain in God's presence. the other option is you reject it, and reject Salvation. That's the essence of the Gospel message: Jesus Christ has performed an infinite Atonement that is available to Save/Bring back into communion with God all who accept Him by entering into Covenant with Him.

That would seem to be rather crucial to the LDS gospel, especially since several Mormons here have chastised me for supposedly ignoring this all-important distinction. So how can it be missing from the entire Book of Mormon?

Degrees of Glory and the details of Exaltation which were further developments in the period of the Restoration are auxiliaries to that, frankly, and detail degrees of separation from (and, conversely, closeness to) God. I feel that much of that knowledge was unique to the Restoration and, general usage of prooftexts aside, was not something generally understood in antiquity in the same way we do today. Nor was it taught in the earliest days of the Restoration.

Although the Book of Mormon distinguishes (more or less) physical and spiritual death, I know of no text that distinguishes salvation from physical death and salvation from spiritual death. To the contrary, it seems to teach that salvation delivers people from both temporal (physical) and spiritual death. Perhaps you could cite some specific texts on this point.

To be clear on what you are requesting, Aare you saying you are not familiar with passages that state that all - wicked and righteous alike - will be Resurrected, while only the Righteous will be fully saved in God's presence?

I'd say 2 Nephi 9 in its entirety discourses on this very subject.

[zerinus]

zerinus,

We were discussing the definition of repentance, and you claimed that repentance means to stop sinning -- and you even claimed that you had actually stopped sinning yourself. When I pointed out two problems with this claim, you dismissed those points as a "dodge." I'm sorry, but our discussion came to a grinding halt at that point.

Your dodges and hit and run tactics won't work with me. I will reply to your posts and expose the flaws in your arguments whether you like it or not, and whether you reply to them or not. Now hear the answer to the question I had asked, which you did not want to answer. The question was:

What do you thing Jesus meant when said,

[Vance]

The fact remains that the distinction not only does not appear in the context of 2 Nephi 25:23, it does not seem to appear anywhere in the Book of Mormon.

2 Ne. 9:23 And he commandeth all men that they must repent, and be baptized in his name, having perfect faith in the Holy One of Israel, or they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God.

Alma7:14 Now I say unto you that ye must repent, and be born again; for the Spirit saith if ye are not born again ye cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven; therefore come and be baptized unto repentance, that ye may be washed from your sins, that ye may have faith on the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world, who is mighty to save and to cleanse from all unrighteousness.

15 Yea, I say unto you come and fear not, and lay aside every sin, which easily doth beset you, which doth bind you down to destruction, yea, come and go forth, and show unto your God that ye are willing to repent of your sins and enter into a covenant with him to keep his commandments, and witness it unto him this day by going into the waters of baptism.

16 And whosoever doeth this, and keepeth the commandments of God from thenceforth, the same will remember that I say unto him, yea, he will remember that I have said unto him, he shall have eternal life, according to the testimony of the Holy Spirit, which testifieth in me.

. . .

11:37 And I say unto you again that he cannot save them in their sins; for I cannot deny his word, and he hath said that no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of heaven; therefore, how can ye be saved, except ye inherit the kingdom of heaven? Therefore, ye cannot be saved in your sins.

. . .

40 And he shall come into the world to redeem his people; and he shall take upon him the transgressions of those who believe on his name; and these are they that shall have eternal life, and salvation cometh to none else.

41 Therefore the wicked remain as though there had been no redemption made, except it be the loosing of the bands of death; for behold, the day cometh that all shall rise from the dead and stand before God, and be judged according to their works.

42 Now, there is a death which is called a temporal death; and the death of Christ shall loose the bands of this temporal death, that all shall be raised from this temporal death.

43 The spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect form; both limb and joint shall be restored to its proper frame, even as we now are at this time; and we shall be brought to stand before God, knowing even as we know now, and have a bright recollection of all our guilt.

44 Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.

45 Now, behold, I have spoken unto you concerning the death of the mortal body, and also concerning the resurrection of the mortal body. I say unto you that this mortal body is raised to an immortal body, that is from death, even from the first death unto life, that they can die no more; their spirits uniting with their bodies, never to be divided; thus the whole becoming spiritual and immortal, that they can no more see corruption.

. . .

40:23 The soul shall be restored to the body, and the body to the soul; yea, and every limb and joint shall be restored to its body; yea, even a hair of the head shall not be lost; but all things shall be restored to their proper and perfect frame.

24 And now, my son, this is the restoration of which has been spoken by the mouths of the prophets

[Skylla]

Zerinus: That is over the top. You're banned from the thread.

Skylla

[JDave]

Aren't you holding me to a higher standard of precision than you hold your own prophets?

This has been answered fairly completely, but I will add my 2 cents.

First off, we aren't discussing how precise or complete the scriptures are; we are discussing the interpretation of a verse of those scriptures. So let's just leave that topic alone. EDIT TO ADD: It looks like a lot of people need to leave this can of worms alone, or open a new thread. This is way off topic for this thread.

Second, when the prophets make doctrinal expositions they employ a higher standard of precision than when they write sermons. You, in addition, are writing a doctrinal exposition of someone else's faith -- which requires some extra care to make sure that semantic issues are not a problem.

The length of what you write to describe things also impacts the level of precision. My own prophets wrote a vast amount of words, which makes it much easier to understand what they mean because you can read several other addresses and see the totality of their teachings (huzzah for the internet, by the way). You are distilling all those words into a single phrase or paragraph, which doesn't allow for the background or additional context. That has been my main complaint. You need to include a much broader context into your description because otherwise you do have this difficult level of precision to maintain in order to avoid misunderstanding.

I hope the level of precision required is not too burdensome, but what you are undertaking does, inherently, require a fair amount of precision. Setting a "trap" doesn't exactly encourage me to be all that lax in my desire of precision from you either.

[Ahab]

zerinus,

We were discussing the definition of repentance, and you claimed that repentance means to stop sinning -- and you even claimed that you had actually stopped sinning yourself. When I pointed out two problems with this claim, you dismissed those points as a "dodge." I'm sorry, but our discussion came to a grinding halt at that point.

For clarification, would you tell me which claim you were pointing out some problems with?

... the claim that zerinus had stopped sinning, or the claim that repentance means to stop sinning?

Repentance pretty much does mean to stop sinning, or to be a little more precise, to turn from sin toward God, but the fact that a person has repented (or turned from sin toward God) doesn't mean they can't turn back toward Satan in sin, again, at which point they would, again, need to repent, again, until they finally stayed turned towards God and never turned back toward Satan in sin, again.

[Bernard Gui]

Exaltation as currently understood ( 3rd degree in Celestial Kingdom, Developed Doctrine of Theosis, Marriage Relationship, Continuation of the seed, etc) is not a concept found in the Book of Mormon text. (that was for your benefit, Bernard) I don't think anyone professes that it is.

Let me introduce you to a Mormon who professes that...Meet BGui. Pleased to meet you.

Of course, I agree eternal marriage and continuation of the seed (as parts of the doctrine of exaltation) are not found

in the Book of Mormon. But the promise to become a God, IMO, is indicated in the two scriptures I cited.

3 Nephi states it as clearly as it is stated anywhere in scripture.

I also believe it is intimated in Moroni 8:25-26, Alma 42:21-23, Mormon 9:11-13,

Helaman 14:15-18, Alma 12 and 13.

Bernard

[Vance]

You, in addition, are writing a doctrinal exposition of someone else's faith -- which requires some extra care to make sure that semantic issues are not a problem.

[David T]

Let me introduce you to a Mormon who professes that...Meet BGui. Pleased to meet you.

Of course, I agree eternal marriage and continuation of the seed (as parts of the doctrine of exaltation) are not found

in the Book of Mormon. But the promise to become a God, IMO, is indicated in the two scriptures I cited.

3 Nephi states it as clearly as it is stated anywhere in scripture.

I also believe it is intimated in Moroni 8:25-26, Alma 42:21-23, Mormon 9:11-13,

Helaman 14:15-18, Alma 12 and 13.

Bernard

So in other words, you do agree that, "Exaltation as currently understood ( 3rd degree in Celestial Kingdom, Developed Doctrine of Theosis, Marriage Relationship, Continuation of the seed, etc) is not a concept found in the Book of Mormon text. "

While 3 Nephi 29:10 which you cited comes closest to stating that man will become as Christ is, I don't see Mosiah 26::20-24, Moroni 8:25-26, Alma 42:21-23, Mormon 9:11-13, Helaman 14:15-18 nor anything in Alma 12 or 13 presenting anything more explicit or unique than entering into and dwelling in the restful and glorious presence of the Lord. But this is going off on a strange tangent to the thread itself.

[Bernard Gui]

I'd say 2 Nephi 9 in its entirety discourses on this very subject.

Add Samuel's discourse in Helaman 14:

12 And also that ye might know of the coming of Jesus Christ,

the Son of God, the Father of heaven and of earth, the Creator of

all things from the beginning; and that ye might know of the

signs of his coming, to the intent that ye might believe on his

name.

13 And if ye believe on his name ye will repent of all your

sins, that thereby ye may have a remission of them through his

merits.

14 And behold, again, another sign I give unto you, yea, a sign

of his death.

15 For behold, he surely must die that salvation may come; yea,

it behooveth him and becometh expedient that he dieth, to bring

to pass the resurrection of the dead, that thereby men may be

brought into the presence of the Lord.

16 Yea, behold, this death bringeth to pass the resurrection,

and redeemeth all mankind from the first death--that spiritual

death; for all mankind, by the fall of Adam being cut off from

the presence of the Lord, are considered as dead, both as to

things temporal and to things spiritual.

17 But behold, the resurrection of Christ redeemeth mankind,

yea, even all mankind, and bringeth them back into the presence

of the Lord.

18 Yea, and it bringeth to pass the condition of repentance,

that whosoever repenteth the same is not hewn down and cast into

the fire; but whosoever repenteth not is hewn down and cast into

the fire; and there cometh upon them again a spiritual death,

yea, a second death, for they are cut off again as to things

pertaining to righteousness.

19 Therefore repent ye, repent ye, lest by knowing these things

and not doing them ye shall suffer yourselves to come under

condemnation, and ye are brought down unto this second death.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

Post deleted.

[JDave]

Grace and the merits of Christ make it possible to continuously dwell in God's presence

...

Command to reconcile oneself to the Will of God (through Faith and Repentence, and entering the Covenant Relationship) - after you are reconciled (through those actions) , it is grace that saves you.

...

After all that we can do (faith, repent, enter into the covenant relationship), it is by grace we are saved

...

The Laws given are training tools that, under the covenant relationship, have significance and lead one into submission to the Spirit and sanctification.

...

Weaknesses and shortcomings are overcome through, and while living in a state of, grace

...

The grace that leads to sanctification is activated by love of and reliance on God (Faith in Him), and denial of unrighteousness (repentence). Grace, then, perfects us. Perfection is by grace, for those who enter into and remain in the Covenant.

I quite enjoyed that (the whole post, really). Thanks!

[Rob Bowman]

Dave,

You and others have asserted that I have taken Dennis Simmons out of context. Indeed, judging from the comments that you and others have made, my use of Simmons is apparently in your eyes the most egregious misrepresentation I have made in my quotations from General Authorities on 2 Nephi 25:23. So let's look at it. This is the part I had quoted:

[JDave]

You and others have asserted that I have taken Dennis Simmons out of context. Indeed, judging from the comments that you and others have made, my use of Simmons is apparently in your eyes the most egregious misrepresentation I have made in my quotations

Well, it does stand out.

Before looking at what Simmons says in context, I'd like to point out a troubling implication of what you are saying. According to your interpretation, Simmons was not talking about salvation at all. Yet that, clearly and explicitly, is the subject of 2 Nephi 25:23. The text is in fact talking about salvation. So if Simmons was not in any way talking about salvation, then he was taking this Book of Mormon text out of context. You seem to recognize this problem but massage it by saying that Simmons "only uses the verse in a rhetorical way." That is a polite way of saying that he is taking the verse out of context. Apparently, it's okay for Simmons to take the scripture out of context, but it's not okay for me to take Simmons out of context! Again, I maintain you are holding me to a higher standard than you hold your own General Authorities.

A polite way of saying he took it out of context? I really don't understand your complaint here. To try to use 2 Nephi 25:23 as a doctrinal exposition on the interrelationship of grace and works and salvation is to take the verse itself out of context. But people do it all the time. So when Elder Simmons uses it to help us deal with challenges in life, it is no more out of context then when so many others use it as if it is a definition in itself of the workings of grace and works. The scriptures are used to illustrate truths as often as they are used to precisely define truths. You are looking at how LDS authors and leaders have used 2 Nephi 25:23 to illustrate truths about the interplay of grace and works and salvation. And there is plenty of material to look at. So when we have a talk that is about confronting temporal challenges, and there is an reference to this verse in that context, it is not really the best source to draw from in understanding how the LDS employ this verse in defining how grace and works and salvation all work together.

By stating that I am again doing this you seem to still think I am doing so with respect to the previous quote from Harold B. Lee. You seem to be straining here so that you don't have to backpedal too much, or maybe you are sincerely thinking I am employing some double standard. Let me make this clear. You do have a high measure of precision to maintain. This is not a sermon you are making. If Elder Simmons wishes to use a verse in his sermon that does not follow rigid exegetical standards, that is reasonable. If you wish to use a paragraph out of his sermon, excise the first sentence, and then use that as a representative sample of LDS thought on the interplay of grace and works, thereby imputing additionally that Elder Simmons was actually describing such an interplay, you had better follow some rigid standards.

Now, reading Simmons's statement in the first quoted paragraph in context, it is evident that he intends "He expects us to do all we can do" to be understood not merely as a statement regarding how we are to deal with life's ordinary challenges but how we are to live our live in such a way as to "receive all that he [the Father] has," including the Father's kingdom. This is clear from the fact that Simmons repeats the expression "do all we can do," which he has just used with explicit reference to 2 Nephi 25:23, at the end of his conference talk as part of the condition to "receive all that He has," referring to D&C 84:35-38. Of course, receiving all that the Father has, including his kingdom, is a way of speaking of exaltation.

How is it clear that "He expects us to do all we can do" applies to eternal life with the immediately preceding question is "What does the Lord expect of us with respect to our challenges?" ?

I grant that the phrase "do all we can do" is used in the conclusion referring to eternal life. But that would make that sentence much more applicable to your paragraph than the one you selected.

The real point that Simmons was making, then, was that we should face our ordinary "challenges in life" (as you put it) by doing all we can do because this is what needs to characterize our life if we are to be fully saved in the sense of becoming exalted, receiving all that the Father has.

That seems to be a bit of a jump as to "the real point" he was making. It seems more that he was pointing out that the "all we can do" that he understood with reference to salvation could also be applied to dealing with challenges, not the other way around. This talk does serve as a pretty decent example of some level of "implied understanding" of the usage of 2 Nephi 25:23 as you have presented it. It does seem that Elder Simmons is assuming that most people will understand the verse to be interpreted a certain way, and applies that to how we should deal with challenges. So it is a very good example in that sense, but not really a good specimen for extracting a phrase.

In the end, the phrase you extracted is specifically preceded by the question, "What does the Lord expect of us with respect to our challenges?". The phrase you extracted specifically and obviously is with respect to dealing with challenges. 2 Nephi 25:23 is then quoted. It would be a jump to claim the Elder Simmons meant not only that "do all we can do. He will do the rest" applies just as much to salvation as it does to dealing with challenges. You are turning the intended meaning around and suggesting it goes both ways. That is pushing it a bit. Also it is painfully clear that the entire talk is about challenges and it would be doubly pushing it to extract this paragraph, excise the first sentence, and claim that Elder Simmons was making a statement about the interaction of grace and works with respect to salvation.

[Rob Bowman]

Dave,

I try to be as precise as I can, but an infinite level of precision and completeness is not only impossible to me but impossible to everyone and probably useless to everyone, because it would take an infinite number of books. Nor do I think this is a straw man, because no matter how hard I try to be precise, accurate, and reasonably complete, I get accused not merely of inaccuracy but even (by most here) of deliberate misrepresentation. Meanwhile, any measure of imprecision or incompleteness in LDS writings can be rationalized. It isn't just a "sermon" by Lee or Simmons that is at issue (though describing these conference messages as "sermons" seems to reduce their significance inappropriately); the problem extends even to the LDS scriptures.

I am satisfied that my quotation of Simmons is contextually justifiable. The two occurrences of the expression "do all we can do" are clearly related. I quoted the first occurrence because an explicit quotation of 2 Nephi 25:23 immediately followed. In the future I will try to include the second occurrence as it confirms that Simmons understood it as referring to salvation in the "exaltation" sense.

You jumped all around it, but the fact is that you were willing to let Simmons off the hook for taking 2 Nephi 25:23 out of context, since you claimed that Simmons's use had nothing to do with salvation, yet 2 Nephi 25:23 clearly concerns salvation. You wrote: "To try to use 2 Nephi 25:23 as a doctrinal exposition on the interrelationship of grace and works and salvation is to take the verse itself out of context. But people do it all the time." This muddies the issue; the verse is not by itself a complete doctrinal exposition on anything, but it is often used in doctrinal expositions, by LDS leaders.

I could go through your post line by line and argue the points further, but I don't think it is necessary or even fruitful. I'll go back and look at the best of your posts later when I have time and see what else I can take the time to answer.

Well, it does stand out.

A polite way of saying he took it out of context? I really don't understand your complaint here. To try to use 2 Nephi 25:23 as a doctrinal exposition on the interrelationship of grace and works and salvation is to take the verse itself out of context. But people do it all the time. So when Elder Simmons uses it to help us deal with challenges in life, it is no more out of context then when so many others use it as if it is a definition in itself of the workings of grace and works. The scriptures are used to illustrate truths as often as they are used to precisely define truths. You are looking at how LDS authors and leaders have used 2 Nephi 25:23 to illustrate truths about the interplay of grace and works and salvation. And there is plenty of material to look at. So when we have a talk that is about confronting temporal challenges, and there is an reference to this verse in that context, it is not really the best source to draw from in understanding how the LDS employ this verse in defining how grace and works and salvation all work together.

By stating that I am again doing this you seem to still think I am doing so with respect to the previous quote from Harold B. Lee. You seem to be straining here so that you don't have to backpedal too much, or maybe you are sincerely thinking I am employing some double standard. Let me make this clear. You do have a high measure of precision to maintain. This is not a sermon you are making. If Elder Simmons wishes to use a verse in his sermon that does not follow rigid exegetical standards, that is reasonable. If you wish to use a paragraph out of his sermon, excise the first sentence, and then use that as a representative sample of LDS thought on the interplay of grace and works, thereby imputing additionally that Elder Simmons was actually describing such an interplay, you had better follow some rigid standards.

How is it clear that "He expects us to do all we can do" applies to eternal life with the immediately preceding question is "What does the Lord expect of us with respect to our challenges?" ?

I grant that the phrase "do all we can do" is used in the conclusion referring to eternal life. But that would make that sentence much more applicable to your paragraph than the one you selected.

That seems to be a bit of a jump as to "the real point" he was making. It seems more that he was pointing out that the "all we can do" that he understood with reference to salvation could also be applied to dealing with challenges, not the other way around. This talk does serve as a pretty decent example of some level of "implied understanding" of the usage of 2 Nephi 25:23 as you have presented it. It does seem that Elder Simmons is assuming that most people will understand the verse to be interpreted a certain way, and applies that to how we should deal with challenges. So it is a very good example in that sense, but not really a good specimen for extracting a phrase.

In the end, the phrase you extracted is specifically preceded by the question, "What does the Lord expect of us with respect to our challenges?". The phrase you extracted specifically and obviously is with respect to dealing with challenges. 2 Nephi 25:23 is then quoted. It would be a jump to claim the Elder Simmons meant not only that "do all we can do. He will do the rest" applies just as much to salvation as it does to dealing with challenges. You are turning the intended meaning around and suggesting it goes both ways. That is pushing it a bit. Also it is painfully clear that the entire talk is about challenges and it would be doubly pushing it to extract this paragraph, excise the first sentence, and claim that Elder Simmons was making a statement about the interaction of grace and works with respect to salvation.

[Vance]

Meanwhile, any measure of imprecision or incompleteness in LDS writings can be rationalized.

Rationalized?

Really?

Like this?

He suffers the punishment for my sins, but he suffers it in a different way because he is not merely one ordinary man, but the God-man, providing an infinite atonement.

Now, THAT is some serious rationalization.

Reminds me of the phrase "pychological projection".

[Bernard Gui]

I am satisfied that my quotation of Simmons is contextually justifiable. The two occurrences of the expression "do all we can do" are clearly related. I quoted the first occurrence because an explicit quotation of 2 Nephi 25:23 immediately followed. In the future I will try to include the second occurrence as it confirms that Simmons understood it as referring to salvation in the "exaltation" sense.

This is very troubling, Rob. I pointed out this error very early on and Dave has nailed you to the wall.

Is it really so hard to admit that you over-reached on this one and now you need to respectfully back away? Any informed LDS hearing this talk would immediately know what Elder Simmons was getting at. The talk is about the well-established LDS belief that expects us to do our share and God will do the rest, whatever the situation. It is an example our practice to "liken the scriptures unto us." To have you pick at him in this way really damages your credibility. It appears that you really do not want to understand Mormons but just to find ways

to knock them about. That's disappointing.

Here are two examples to help you understand:

Brigham Young: an Uncommon Common Man, He Rose from Obscurity To, LDS Church News, 02/27/93

By Ronald K. Esplin

A biography of Brigham Young written in the 1920s began with the non-Mormon author's assertion that "without Brigham Young the Mormons would never have been important . . . but without the Mormons Brigham Young might have been a great man." (M.R. Werner, Brigham Young, p.v.) Such a statement reveals that the otherwise fair-minded author knew little about the Church and less about what lay at the heart of Brigham Young's leadership.

For his part, President Young believed that God had blessed him with needed abilities and directed his successes, and that without the Church, without the Prophet Joseph Smith as mentor, and without divine assistance, he would have been of no special consequence.

No doubt many early Saints would have agreed. Though he came into the Church in 1832 with a well of common sense and a reputation for flinty integrity and practical competence, he possessed no formal education, lacked social refinements, was a poor speaker, and had no leadership experience. He did not see himself as a leader of men, nor did others. Because his strengths and inherent abilities lay undeveloped beneath an unpolished exterior, many thought him less promising than others around him.

"God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and . . . the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty." (1 Cor. 1:27.) Brigham Young drew strength and comfort when Joseph Smith applied this promise to him and to others selected as members of the new Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in 1835. But the potential the Lord saw was not yet visible to most observers.

Years later Brigham Young recalled that when he and his friend Heber Kimball, the two least polished of the new apostles, met the more educated Saints on the streets of Kirtland, their looks expressed, "What a pity!" that the Lord had not found someone better. Remembering, President Young conceded that his call had been a mystery even to him until he considered that perhaps the alternative to men like himself and Heber were "Big Elders" who could not be taught. When he considered what "consummate blockheads" some of them could be, "I did not deem it so great a wonder." (Journal of Discourses 8:173, hereafter cited JD.) Throughout his life Brigham Young maintained that it was better to be a humble man who knew too little and had to rely on the Lord than a Big Elder who could not be taught.

In February 1835 Joseph Smith promised Brigham and other inexperienced apostles that "even the smallest and weakest among us, shall be powerful and mighty, and great things shall be accomplished by you from this hour." Brigham Young received a specific blessing that he would grow in his calling, "that he might be strong and mighty . . . that he may add ten talents." (History of the Church 2:182, 188, hereafter HC.) Such promises gave him courage despite his timidity. His rise from humble obscurity to become one of the mighty men of Zion provides a case study in the fulfillment of the Lord's promises...

By word and by example Brigham Young frequently reminded his people of several simple messages that were central to how he lived his life. He preached and provided an example of the efficacy of faith and works. "Do your duty before God and God will do the rest. Is life difficult, are you tried, have you had to suffer? May as well suffer now as later," Brigham Young commented, "for you've got it to do." And it was for our good.

Jenny Piderit de la Maza,

[Rob Bowman]

Bernard,

I'm not going to agree with you and Dave merely on your say-so. I looked at the context and showed that it supported my point. I was not "picking at him" but merely citing him as one of a large number of LDS leaders whose statements reflect the same dominant interpretation of 2 Nephi 25:23. Even Dave had to admit that Simmons held to that interpretation, later in the very passage in question.

[Bernard Gui]

Rob,you might want to add this talk to your list. Elder Burton used 2 Nephi 25:23 a number of times.

It will help you better understand that scripture.

LDS General Conference, April 1972, Theodore M. Burton

....These sons of perdition (perhaps only few in number) will be resurrected but will not be redeemed from the power of Satan because they are still filthy; as the prophet Alma said of them:

[Bernard Gui]

Bernard,

I'm not going to agree with you and Dave merely on your say-so.

Right back atcha.

Bernard