Once again, 2 Nephi 25:23

[Scott26.2]

In another thread, Vance has insisted that I have misunderstood 2 Nephi 25:23. Since that thread has already gone off the track of its original subject, I thought it would be helpful to start a new thread on this specific topic. Here is the verse:

"For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." (2 Nephi 25:23)

Vance claims that this verse does not mean "that we HAVE to do ALL we can DO." He claims:

Let me see if I can state correctly the LDS understanding of 2 Nephi 25:23. Please tell me if anything I say here is incorrect.

As I understand it, according to LDS teaching, what 2 Nephi 25:23 means is that Jesus' blood, his atonement, will save us, but only after we have done all we can to save ourselves by keeping His commandments. We are saved by grace, but that grace of God comes only "after all we can do." Grace cannot suffice without total effort on the part of the recipient. "After all we can do" means a maximum of individual effort and includes extending our best effort; that is, grace is a supplement to our best efforts. In the plan of salvation as the LDS Church teaches it, God does for human beings only what they cannot do for themselves. No mortal

[Rob Bowman]

Scott,

I hope you don't mind, but I'd like to keep this thread focused on the issue raised in the opening post. Thanks for understanding. We have a lively discussion of your question going on another thread.

Ah yes...grace and works....here it is again.

I once heard an evangelical radio minister say "you can't live like hell on earth, and expect to live in heaven" This man was speaking to and referring to saved, born-again Christians. While I think there are differences, I believe there is much more agreement between Evangelical and LDS beliefs of grace and works than we normally suppose.

I take heart that a majority of Christians (in my opinion) do not believe in the Once Saved Always Saved doctrine. Rob, don't you agree that after a person has been "saved" some effort on the persons part is necessary and required in order for salvation? I could ask it this way: In the complete absence of Christian works after a person has been saved, would this person still go to heaven?

It's simple really, no matter what Evangelicals say we believe...LDS believe in Grace, we do not believe we save ourselves, we love Christ and we try to follow him. Just like other Christians.

My two cents...

Scott26.2

[cdowis]

Charles,

Tell that to your fellow Mormons who criticized the parable.

I will leave that to themselves. This is not a SS class.

But it should be clear, regardless of the details of interpretation, that we do not believe that we can earn our way to heaven. Anyone who tells you otherwise is outside the LDS faith.

[Scott26.2]

Scott,

I hope you don't mind, but I'd like to keep this thread focused on the issue raised in the opening post. Thanks for understanding. We have a lively discussion of your question going on another thread.

I don't mind at all. I will have to look for this "lively discussion" then...

Scott26.2

[wenglund]

Charles,

When I quoted Packer's analogy on this forum, a number of LDS objected that they didn't agree with it, while others offered differing interpretations of what it meant. So it isn't as simple as you make out.

That is the beauty of the restored gospel. By design, it isn't a systematic theology, but a modestly structured theo-story, and is thus wonderfully resistent to mind-narrowing dogma.

To me, the intent of the gospel isn't to engage in legalistic debates or intellectually bicker over doctrine. Rather, it is to bring us to Christ and enable us to become like him, and this by applying the principles of the gospel in our lives. By so DOing, the many rich layers of meaning of his revealed word are openned to our minds, and become a blessing to our souls.

If one wishes to know if the message of Mosiah is true and consistent with what has been revealed elsewhere, then scholastically quibbling over this passages and that will not do. Instead, one need but humbly kneel before God and enquire of him and apply in one's life the principles that Mosiah espoused. In the process, see if yet another layer of meaning of Mosiah's message is unfolded to one's understanding.

Whether salvation is, in part, a product of what we DO, and/or it is a gift regardless of what we DO, the fundamental message of the gospel is to DO--"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." (James 1:27)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cdowis]

That is the beauty of the restored gospel. By design, it isn't a systematic theology, but a modestly structured theo-story, and is thus wonderfully resistent to mind-narrowing dogma.

snip.

Whether salvation is, in part, a product of what we DO, and/or it is a gift regardless of what we DO, the fundamental message of the gospel is to DO--"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." (James 1:27)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

We certainly agree on the basics. I think Rob is just giving an excuse to ignore the obvious.

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

That is the beauty of the restored gospel. By design, it isn't a systematic theology, but a modestly structured theo-story, and is thus wonderfully resistent to mind-narrowing dogma.

Oh, the beauty of rhetoric. If evangelical Christians are divided into different denominations or have theological disagreements, this shows that they are rudderless ships with no living prophet to guide them, no priesthood authority to empower them, and no true church to unify them; but if Mormons have theological disagreements, this shows that they are free of systematic theological straitjackets and resistant to narrow-minded dogmatism.

You wrote:

To me, the intent of the gospel isn't to engage in legalistic debates or intellectually bicker over doctrine. Rather, it is to bring us to Christ and enable us to become like him, and this by applying the principles of the gospel in our lives.

Of course the purpose of the gospel is not theological debate. That doesn't mean that theological debate is pointless or wrong; it just means that it is not directly a function of the gospel.

By the way, Christians were preaching the gospel and bringing people to Christ for centuries without the LDS Church's help. If we don't need to worry about doctrinal correctness, why did Christ supposedly complain to Joseph Smith about the creeds? Why not tell Joseph, "I'm not a big fan of creeds, but it doesn't really matter so long as the theo-story is generally the same"?

You wrote:

Whether salvation is, in part, a product of what we DO, and/or it is a gift regardless of what we DO, the fundamental message of the gospel is to DO--"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." (James 1:27)

No, that's how pure religion is manifested, not what the fundamental message of the gospel is.

[JDave]

Scott,

I hope you don't mind, but I'd like to keep this thread focused on the issue raised in the opening post. Thanks for understanding. We have a lively discussion of your question going on another thread.

All righty, then don't get distracted discussing Elder Packer's analogy and focus on my direct responses to the OP.

[cdowis]

Oh, the beauty of rhetoric. If evangelical Christians are divided into different denominations or have theological disagreements, this shows that they are rudderless ships with no living prophet to guide them, no priesthood authority to empower them, and no true church to unify them; but if Mormons have theological disagreements, this shows that they are free of systematic theological straitjackets and resistant to narrow-minded dogmatism.

While we may disagree on some details, there is a fundamental set of doctrines. The historic Christians disagree even on fundamental issues of salvation, such as baptism, "once saved, always saved", free agency, and even on works vs grace.

Of course the purpose of the gospel is not theological debate. That doesn't mean that theological debate is pointless or wrong; it just means that it is not directly a function of the gospel.

By the way, Christians were preaching the gospel and bringing people to Christ for centuries without the LDS Church's help. If we don't need to worry about doctrinal correctness, why did Christ supposedly complain to Joseph Smith about the creeds? Why not tell Joseph, "I'm not a big fan of creeds, but it doesn't really matter so long as the theo-story is generally the same"?

The restoration of the priesthood authority was a fundamental aspect of the restoration of the Gospel, and prophets are required to hold the keys of that priesthood, as Christ bestowed them upon Peter. Those keys which Peter held were lost to the church. Paul tells us that the church organization which included apostles and prophets was necessary.

This were not merely theological issues.

Even if your church believes in the necessity of baptism, it does not have the authority to perform it.

All of these are necessary to come back into the presence of the Father. If you want only to go to "heaven" where Christ dwells, these are unnecessary and you will be saved but not exalted.

[Benjamin McGuire]

I think it can be easy to read that passage in 2 Nephi 25:23 when taken all by itself. There is, however, Mosiah 2:21-25 -

21 I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another

[wenglund]

Oh, the beauty of rhetoric. If evangelical Christians are divided into different denominations or have theological disagreements, this shows that they are rudderless ships with no living prophet to guide them, no priesthood authority to empower them, and no true church to unify them; but if Mormons have theological disagreements, this shows that they are free of systematic theological straitjackets and resistant to narrow-minded dogmatism.

I was silent about evangelical Christians and spoke only of the restored gospel. So, all that you said about evangelicals above are words you have inappropriately put into my mouth. Please stop. Such straw rhetoric is quite ugly.

Of course the purpose of the gospel is not theological debate. That doesn't mean that theological debate is pointless or wrong; it just means that it is not directly a function of the gospel.

For the most part, I agree. Where I may differ is when theological debates come at too high an expense of the purpose of the gospel.

By the way, Christians were preaching the gospel and bringing people to Christ for centuries without the LDS Church's help. If we don't need to worry about doctrinal correctness, why did Christ supposedly complain to Joseph Smith about the creeds? Why not tell Joseph, "I'm not a big fan of creeds, but it doesn't really matter so long as the theo-story is generally the same"?

I am not sure why you are asking me. Nothing I said could reasonably be interpreted as suggesting we need not worry to some degree about doctrinal correctness. I believe we do.

No, that's how pure religion is manifested, not what the fundamental message of the gospel is.

I appreciate that is how you view things, and I have no intention of debating your assertion.

For my part, I look to the Savior as my exepliary as contrasted with the Pharisees and Saducees. While the later were busy in their synagogues and temples disputing over doctrines, Christ was, for the most part, out among the people healing the sick, enabling the blind to see, raising the dead, teaching salvific principles and ordinance like faith, repentence, baptism, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, obedience to the commandments, particularly loving God and neighbors, all of which is action-based and about DOing.

Again, I am not suggesting that Christ thought doctrinal correctness was unimportant. What I take from Christ's example is that the correctness of the doctrines isn't as important as the DOing of the doctrines. And, more importantly, the way to descern what is doctrinally correct, isn't so much by way of legalistic and intellectual debate, by rather by asking him and by applying the doctrines in our lives to see if they bear the fruit of salvation/exaltation--the verity of the doctrines may be known by their fruits as brought forth by DOing.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Bowman]

JDave,

I'm waiting for Vance to reply before I reply to your objections.

All righty, then don't get distracted discussing Elder Packer's analogy and focus on my direct responses to the OP.

[Vance]

JDave,

I'm waiting for Vance to reply before I reply to your objections.

I don't quite understand why you need a reply from me. I made my position clear enough for you to start this thread in the first place.

I did give JDave a rep point yesterday when I read his post.

With that being said, I will go back to my lurking in this thread, and let others speak their piece.

[JDave]

Rob,

I was thinking about how this verse is used in the Church so I looked up the last ten General Conference talks that reference 2 Ne. 25:23. I include them here along with commentary on each. It is important to take the entirety of what is taught on a subject to help define context. Otherwise it is simply a case of cherry-picking the quotes that can be sensationalized the most. Here are the first five. You'll have to wait for my take on the next five, but you have some responding to my previous posts to take care of in the interim.

[quote name='Jorge F. Zeballos,

[Rob Bowman]

I had written:

As I understand it, according to LDS teaching, what 2 Nephi 25:23 means is that Jesus

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I realize that some LDS writers offer an explanation of 2 Nephi 25:23 that takes a somewhat different angle. However, the explanation I gave certainly cannot be faulted as an anti-Mormon misrepresentation. Moreover, my explanation (which again isn

[JDave]

I was curious to know if my explanation would be criticized as a misunderstanding, or even as a deliberate misrepresentation, even if I was careful to use only the exact words of LDS sources. Sure enough, some of the LDS on this list fell right into the trap.

I realize that some LDS writers offer an explanation of 2 Nephi 25:23 that takes a somewhat different angle. However, the explanation I gave certainly cannot be faulted as an anti-Mormon misrepresentation. Moreover, my explanation (which again isn

[Vance]

And Vance, who usually pounces on anything I say, . . .

Like a cat on prey right!

I suppose I have been interacting with too many anti-Mormons, and some of their behavior has rubbed off on me.

As the saying goes, "what goes around, comes around".

. . . was strangely reticent to comment.

I explained that I didn't want to influence others in any way.

In this case, he might have taken the wiser course than those who found fault with my explanation.

The problem with your post is that you have taken only the phrases that seem to match your agenda, without trying to actually understand the issues involved.

For example, I found this statement in my search. And I suspect that you will want to jump on it (like a cat on prey) as saying that it is inconsistent with the statements you have listed.

If your friends ask,

[Rob Bowman]

JDave,

I did not claim that my explanation was "the entirety of LDS thought on the matter." I also did not claim that "Mormons think works are more important than grace." Your critique is ruined by these misrepresentations of my argument.

You also claim that I combined the LDS statements I used "in a way that distorts the authors' original intent." Unfortunately, you gave no examples. I would challenge you to back this up with Harold B. Lee, for example. Go read my quotations from him in context and see if you can show that I took his statements out of context. I don't think you will succeed.

Rob, you were very careful it is true. But what you were careful to do was cherry-pick phrases and sentences that emphasized a certain point. Then you strung them together and said, Voila, this is the entirety of LDS thought on the matter. Then you place them together in a way that distorts the authors' original intent.

I stated in my original post that if anyone uses the verse to emphasize works then it was not an issue. So I have no issue with the entirety of what your quoted sources say. But I have issue with you stringing their words together, saying "Look, Look, the Mormons think works are more important than grace!!" and then sitting back with a disingenuous smile claiming you only used 'exact words' and are blameless. As I said in my previous post, you have to take the usage as a whole. No single phrase you used was anti-Mormon, and there are the kernels of truth in there. As Mola said, it isn't exactly 'wrong'. And maybe I am reading more into it because you are not LDS. I don't know, Rob. I am trying to give you the benefit of a doubt here, but taken with your other statements on your view of how we teach grace and works I have a hard time reading that paragraph and believing that you understand the LDS position here.

If this is back-pedaling, that is just fine with me. I would appreciate the same from you -- that your constructed paragraph is not the 'LDS position' on that verse. I also think you purposefully distorted the authors' intent, but I am not expecting that much back-pedaling.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

So now it's the fault of "anti-Mormons" that you behave so rudely....

I freely acknowledge that you can find statements from LDS sources that deny that we earn our salvation. There are also LDS sources--generally, from what I have seen, more authoritative and numerous--that explicitly affirm that we do earn our salvation. I'm afraid your lengthy quotation from Hafen didn't reconcile this obvious contradiction. In pointing this out, I am not taking offense at mere words, but drawing attention to some substantive issues in LDS teaching that impinge on the gospel. Your claim that I am not trying to understand the issues is hot air, Vance. I am making a far greater effort to understand LDS doctrine than you are making to understand evangelical doctrine.

[Vance]

Vance,

So now it's the fault of "anti-Mormons" that you behave so rudely....

Behaving like you is rude?

Who would have thunk it.

I freely acknowledge that you can find statements from LDS sources that deny that we earn our salvation.

And yet you don't want to accept that fact and want to take only those quotes that you can use in your anti-Mormon agenda. That isn't really understanding at all.

There are also LDS sources--generally, from what I have seen, more authoritative and numerous--that explicitly affirm that we do earn our salvation.

Elder Oaks isn't "authoritative"? Who would have thunk that?

I'm afraid your lengthy quotation from Hafen didn't reconcile this obvious contradiction.

Of course not, at least not for YOU. I am unsurprised.

In pointing this out, I am not taking offense at mere words, . . .

False!

. . . but drawing attention to some substantive issues in LDS teaching that impinge on the gospel.

Also false.

Your claim that I am not trying to understand the issues is hot air, Vance.

The hot air is yours. This response is prima facie evidence of such.

I am making a far greater effort to understand LDS doctrine than you are making to understand evangelical doctrine.

What make you think I don't understand your doctrine?

I explained it to you before and you agreed with my assessment. So why do you claim I don't understand it?

Is it because I still don't accept it?

[LeSellers]

So now it's the fault of "anti-Mormons" that you behave so rudely....

Unfortunately, when you play with pigs, there's tendency to get some on you.

Lehi

[JDave]

I did not claim that my explanation was "the entirety of LDS thought on the matter." I also did not claim that "Mormons think works are more important than grace." Your critique is ruined by these misrepresentations of my argument.

I wasn't intending to claim you used those words, but what was your intent? You stated in the OP "Let me see if I can state correctly the LDS understanding of 2 Nephi 25:23". Such a statement does seem to indicate you are going to do an overall description, rather than focus on one aspect. It is true that I am guessing as to your purpose, and I would be pleased to have you prove me wrong. If you meant otherwise I will gladly retract those statements and you can respond to the remainder of my post.

You also claim that I combined the LDS statements I used "in a way that distorts the authors' original intent." Unfortunately, you gave no examples. I would challenge you to back this up with Harold B. Lee, for example. Go read my quotations from him in context and see if you can show that I took his statements out of context. I don't think you will succeed.

Only some of the quotes were completely taken out of context.

Spiritual certainty that is necessary to salvation must be preceded by a maximum of individual effort. Grace, or the free gift of the Lord

[Vance]

You stated in the OP "Let me see if I can state correctly the LDS understanding of 2 Nephi 25:23". Such a statement does seem to indicate you are going to do an overall description, rather than focus on one aspect.

EXCELLENT!!

[zerinus]

In another thread, Vance has insisted that I have misunderstood 2 Nephi 25:23. Since that thread has already gone off the track of its original subject, I thought it would be helpful to start a new thread on this specific topic. Here is the verse:

"For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." (2 Nephi 25:23)

Vance claims that this verse does not mean "that we HAVE to do ALL we can DO." He claims:

Let me see if I can state correctly the LDS understanding of 2 Nephi 25:23. Please tell me if anything I say here is incorrect.

As I understand it, according to LDS teaching, what 2 Nephi 25:23 means is that Jesus' blood, his atonement, will save us, but only after we have done all we can to save ourselves by keeping His commandments. We are saved by grace, but that grace of God comes only "after all we can do." Grace cannot suffice without total effort on the part of the recipient. "After all we can do" means a maximum of individual effort and includes extending our best effort; that is, grace is a supplement to our best efforts. In the plan of salvation as the LDS Church teaches it, God does for human beings only what they cannot do for themselves. No mortal