Once again, 2 Nephi 25:23

[Vance]

Are you saying that you were intentionally misrepresenting Evangelicalism to either get back at Rob or to show him what it looks and/or feels like?

On occasion yes. But not this time. I honestly thought they were "Evangelical sources", but I understand now that they weren't.

I also thought statements like "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved. That simple. Nothing else to it" were clear, and left no room for the inclusion of other aspects. Am I wrong there too?

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

I will try to respond when I have time. I am still recuperating and my energy level is low, and I have higher priority responsibilities that must be carried out first. Was there a specific post in that thread that you thought merited a reply?

Yes, this is one were he did not respond more than once. And I can't take your comment serious that a trip to Uganda conveniently kept him from responding. I take that as a tounge in cheek comment?

I would be very interested if Rob would finish that thread up.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

I will try to respond when I have time. I am still recuperating and my energy level is low, and I have higher priority responsibilities that must be carried out first. Was there a specific post in that thread that you thought merited a reply?

Brother, you should just take a nap until you have more energy and are feeling better. Oh wait, then people might claim you were hitting and running again. What to do, what to do?

I will look forward to your responce when you get the time.

[JDave]

Mola,

I will try to respond when I have time. I am still recuperating and my energy level is low, and I have higher priority responsibilities that must be carried out first. Was there a specific post in that thread that you thought merited a reply?

I echo Mola, get the rest you need. I would like to flesh out a bit more what we were discussing in this thread, but when you get the time.

I would also like to advance the discussion without any more distraction of whether Rob is a hit-and-run poster or whether Evangelicals believe in lip-service only. Let's stay on topic or just let it go.

[Zakuska]

Hey vance... heres another intresting quote...

According to Phillip Johnson:

"These days, support for the no-lordship gospel is mostly confined to a small but prolific group of speakers and writers. Dallas is still the geographical hub of their movement. The Grace Evangelical Society has published their journal since 1988. In fact, for the past 15 years or so, GES has almost singlehandedly kept the drumbeat alive for the no-lordship position."[2]

http://www.theopedia...dship_salvation

I guess the 'Grace EVANGELICAL Society" arn't really evangelicals after all and some one should sue them for false advertisment!

[Vance]

Mola,

I will try to respond when I have time. I am still recuperating and my energy level is low, and I have higher priority responsibilities that must be carried out first. Was there a specific post in that thread that you thought merited a reply?

Rob,

I hope these exchanges don't adversely affect your health and/or recovery. (Like elevate your blood pressure.) I know we don't agree much, but I really wish you well.

[zerinus]

Zerinus,

Too bad. I hate to break it to you, but you're not going to make it to exaltation and godhood with an attitude like that. I'm pretty sure that LDS teaching views a proud unwillingness to acknowledge when you have wrongly spoken ill of someone as a serious character flaw.

LOL! I suggest you let me worry about my salvation. You hold on to your own hat and make sure it doesn't get blown away.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola, JDave, Zakuska, and Vance,

Thanks for your kind words. Hopefully I'll be feeling better tomorrow.

[Bernard Gui]

Rob: How are we Mormons to distinguish between true and false Evangelicals?

Here is a message to Mormons from the Watchman Fellowship, a group with which

I have had interaction. Is this the true Evangelical message? Does it require any

qualifiers? What does it mean to "begin now?" Is there more to follow?

The atonement did not change or lower God's standard. God has only one standard,

the standard Jesus met. His righteousness fulfilled all God's requirements. It is sufficient

to make one perfect before God, and it is given freely, for the asking. Begin now to put all

your trust in Jesus alone, to save completely. He can and will save everyone who trusts Him that way.

http://www.watchman.org/lds/forgive.htm

This appears to be an Evangelical group...

Statement of Faith

Watchman Fellowship endorses a biblically based, conservative, evangelical position, proclaiming that all must turn from sin to trust the death, burial, and resurrection of the second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, as the only remedy for sin and the sole foundation for true religion.

Bernard

[Rob Bowman]

Bernard,

I used to work for Watchman Fellowship. Yes, they are evangelical. What makes you think I would not view them as evangelical? I agree with the statement you quoted: Salvation is a free gift that God gives to those who genuinely put their trust completely in Jesus alone to save them.

[Zakuska]

Not to speak for Bernard, but I think you missed his point Rob.

"asking" for salvation is "DOING" something, and thus is not "Grace Alone"

[Vance]

bump!

[erichard]

bump!

Vance,

I think of what the Lord said in 1986, in this non-LDS revelation:

2 Behold I your Savior do speak unto you that ye may learn wisdom. For the proper use of knowledge is a most precious gift that if a man gains he is indeed rich.

3 For the law bringeth wisdom-- for the living thereof bringeth one to the Spirit.

4 Behold, I say unto you that all have gone astray both in My church and out of My church; and they must needs return to the precepts of My Law, even My Pure Law, that they may gain My Spirit.

5 For some seek My Spirit not having works. Though their desire is great they will fail, for their works either are lacking, or being at fault, will not qualify them for the reception of My Spirit; and they will be led astray by false spirits.

6 For if they desire My Spirit, it will call them to repentance which they reject thinking they have no need of it, and thus they reject My Spirit and are thus led by false spirits which they accept. For the false Spirits give unto them peace of mind, blinding them to the faults that prevent them from receiving My Spirit.

7 And thus they are led to exclaim, "Yea, all is well in Zion, yea all is well", and are led carefully and deceitfully down to hell, rejoicing as they go.

8 To such the law is to be taught and for such it was designed. For My people are a stiffnecked and deceitful people, desiring the exaltation of the righteous without the works.

9 Their cup will be a bitter cup, unless they repent and return to the law.

10 And what is the Law? Behold it was that Law that I gave unto Moses on the Mount, even the Ten Commandments.

...

28 Behold My commandments are laid before you; ye have no excuse.

29 Ye say, "We are led by the spirit". Behold the spirit ye receive is not of Me.

30 Such must return to My law with meekness of heart, becoming like unto little children willing to learn, not of men, but of Me your Savior.

31 For ye must become servants, yea even unto the least, that ye may be purged of all pride and arrogance, and in this manner ye will become strong, yea ye will receive My Spirit, that will lead you unto Eternal realms.

32 For if a man obey Me not ye will know from which source he proceedeth. For a man must needs be where his heart lieth, whether it be unto his God, or unto another according to his desire.

33 Behold, I am with thee even unto the end, even unto My faithful who heareth My words and do the same, even your LORD, the Advocate with the Father.

Even so, Amen.

It seems pretty clear: the Lord requires works, especially the works of repentance. Even today. No tricky deals for gaining salvation. And yet salvation is by grace, after all we can do.

Richard

[Obiwan]

So, is this an accurate statement of what the LDS Church teaches regarding the meaning of 2 Nephi 25:23?

I always like to point out this article on the "The Seven Laws of the Harvest", and specifically LAW 6 which is equivalent to 2 Nephi 25:23.

http://bible.org/article/seven-laws-harvest

Thus, it is a falsehood for other Christians to say that this Book of Mormon scripture has no "Biblical" basis.

[Kenngo1969]

I'm late to the party (and from the looks of things, there have been, not just one party, but several; why wasn't I invited? ). As such, I'm sure someone(s) here has/have probably already brought this up, perhaps only for Rob to reject it (several times), but just to add my 1/2-cent worth: Who here does "all they can do"? And if they did do "all they can do," wouldn't that obviate the need for grace?

Is "after all they can do" used in the temporal sense (in other words, you do "all [you] can do", then Christ will save you)? Or is it used in a different sense? For example, the eleventh definition of the word "after" at Dictionary.com is, "subsequent to and notwithstanding; in spite of: [e.g.,] After all their troubles, they still manage to be optimistic" (emphasis mine). Bros. Robinson and Millet would support this reading, I think. Perhaps 2 Nephi 25:23, read in isolation, could support Rob's conclusion that we believe our works save us, but it does not do so when read in conjunction with other Book of Mormon verses, i.e., 2 Nephi 2:6, 8; 2 Nephi 10:24-25; Moroni 10:32.

[thatjimguy]

Rob,

My question for you is quite simple. With all these people (and others) that will tell you that we do not believe that works are a saving ordinance, why do you insist that we do? Obviously, if what you state truly is what we believe, would we not just stand up and say "Yes, you are correct."

I ask you Rob, how many LDS you brought this subject up have ever said "Yes, we believe you cannot be saved without works."

[JDave]

My question for you is quite simple. With all these people (and others) that will tell you that we do not believe that works are a saving ordinance, why do you insist that we do? Obviously, if what you state truly is what we believe, would we not just stand up and say "Yes, you are correct."

Mola Ram Suda Ram has agreed that his paragraph is more or less correct, and Rob does have a decent understanding of the LDS position on faith and works. Coming from a Protestant point of view, I think he is quite prejudiced against anything that implicates works being a necessary ingredient in salvation.

On this thread specifically, Rob has presented some select quotes from LDS authors and has also, I assert, specifically excluded other quotes and statements that would have provided a more full and accurate description. Hopefully Rob will address this when he returns from his current trip.

I ask you Rob, how many LDS you brought this subject up have ever said "Yes, we believe you cannot be saved without works."

I am not sure what you are stating here. I think pretty much every LDS apologist here has stated that we believe we cannot be saved without some works, i.e. something must be initiated by us to receive the grace of God. God will force no one to heaven and we must do something on our own or else we won't end up in heaven.

Ironically the Evangelicals believe the same thing but want to equivocate over whether choosing to trust in Christ and follow Him constitutes a work or not. And they see an issue with the more prescriptive list of actions taught in LDS doctrine, i.e. faith, repentance, baptism, receiving the Holy Ghost, etc.

[Rob Bowman]

All,

Let me try to restate the issue in a way that I hope will do justice to the constructive concerns that some have raised to my earlier statement.

2 Nephi 25:23 states, "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." As I understand the way LDS doctrine works, the interpretation of scripture is not a matter of individual speculation or even scholarly exegesis but a matter of following what the living prophets and apostles have authoritatively stated (e.g., in general conference) as to how we are to understand scripture. Thus, if we are to understand 2 Nephi 25:23 properly, we must listen to what the General Authorities of the LDS Church have said is the meaning of the text. So in seeking to understand this text in an LDS context, I begin with the statements of LDS Church presidents and then consider other statements by general authorities, especially those statements made in general conference.

The LDS Church teaching manual Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Harold B. Lee quotes President Lee as making the following statements:

"The Savior

[Vance]

. . . .

According to this dominant view, . . . .

As I said before, in this thread,

"dominant view" reveals that you are simply looking for support for your anti-Mormon agenda rather than actually trying to understand the concepts/principles/issues involved.

What you are put forth here is NOT the "dominant view", it may very well be the majority view, but it is NOT dominant.

If your friends ask,

[zerinus]

All,

Let me try to restate the issue in a way that I hope will do justice to the constructive concerns that some have raised to my earlier statement.

2 Nephi 25:23 states, "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." As I understand the way LDS doctrine works, the interpretation of scripture is not a matter of individual speculation or even scholarly exegesis but a matter of following what the living prophets and apostles have authoritatively stated (e.g., in general conference) as to how we are to understand scripture. Thus, if we are to understand 2 Nephi 25:23 properly, we must listen to what the General Authorities of the LDS Church have said is the meaning of the text. So in seeking to understand this text in an LDS context, I begin with the statements of LDS Church presidents and then consider other statements by general authorities, especially those statements made in general conference.

The LDS Church teaching manual Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Harold B. Lee quotes President Lee as making the following statements:

"The Savior

[StuddleyG]

The LDS church teaches that we are saved through a covenant relationship with God.

Mosiah 5:7

And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the ^achildren of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are ^bchanged through faith on his name; therefore, ye are ^cborn of him and have become his ^dsons and his daughters.

While it is impossible to save ourselve through ultimite perfection, the grace of God saves as long we keep our part of the bargain. Being born-again means to enter into the covenant. "All we can do" simply means our end of the covenant.

[JDave]

Thus, if we are to understand 2 Nephi 25:23 properly, we must listen to what the General Authorities of the LDS Church have said is the meaning of the text. So in seeking to understand this text in an LDS context, I begin with the statements of LDS Church presidents and then consider other statements by general authorities, especially those statements made in general conference.

I agree that usage within the church helps us see what is the official or at least encouraged understanding should be. I also appreciate the somewhat more complete quotes, though taking some of them in full context reveals a different overall message than what you are presenting here. I am also concerned that you have not listened to at least my complaint that you seem very arbitrary in your selection of quotes. Vance has provided some other quotes recently, and others have been provided previously in this thread. I would discuss some in particular, but tonight unfortunately is more than a bit busy.

Speaking of alternative theories of the meaning of the verse, citing Robinson and Millet, is again avoiding the issue of dealing with a more holistic understanding of what church leaders teach respective to the verse and doctrine in question. I don't know what you are considering a "contrary" view to the verse. I don't really see a contrary view as much as a more complete view that emerges when taking all citations together. You were asked to do this, but instead you simply relist the same quotes and profess that your selection of quotes is what everyone should consider the dominant LDS view. If you really need me to provide some additional recent citations, I will do so.

[Obiwan]

Would the above be an accurate statement of the facts concerning LDS understandings of 2 Nephi 25:23?

They are PART of the Picture.... The tapestry of LDS Doctrine on the subject.

Let me ask you. When you and your fellow Preachers etc. teach a particular subject, or especially when you "briefly" mention a subject in a sermon/talk do all of you ALWAYS give a Thesis, stating every single aspect of that subject? Or do you sometimes give partial mention, or mention part of the subject, or address one part of the subject?

See, the above two aspects are part of the reason why we LDS are ALWAYS telling anti-mormons and sometimes critics that they are bearing false witness of us. Because they quote certain things, to fit THEIR Agenda, not what we IN FULL believe on the subject. More could be said, but I hope you get the point.

Also, did you see my post here from a non-LDS source?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

As I said before, in this thread, "dominant view" reveals that you are simply looking for support for your anti-Mormon agenda rather than actually trying to understand the concepts/principles/issues involved. What you are put forth here is NOT the "dominant view", it may very well be the majority view, but it is NOT dominant.

I feel confident that if I had said "the majority view," you would still be finding fault. In any case, your criticism is at best quibbling. You cannot deny, and do not even try to deny, that the view I described has been taught by LDS Church presidents, and no president has taught to the contrary. Your quote from Dallin H. Oaks does not disagree with the majority/dominant view, though it does not explicitly affirm that view. Bruce Hafen clearly agrees with the majority/dominant view. Gerald Lund's point in the quote you provided from him was simply that we are not saved (exalted) "only" by our own good works; he doesn't deny the majority/dominant view. I would not have quoted Hafen or Lund's books, as they don't have the authority for the whole LDS Church that statements by LDS Church presidents or statements made at general conferences have.

Of course, I fully agree with what Jesus said in Matthew 5:19, but he was not commenting on the meaning of 2 Nephi 25:23.

The bottom line is that you failed to produce even one quotation from an authoritative LDS source disagreeing with what I called the dominant view. There are such quotations available, from Millet and Robinson, but of course they are LDS theologians, not general authorities. You produced only one quotation from a GA in an authoritative context (a general conference quote from Oaks), but he does not expressly present a different interpretation of 2 Nephi 25:23.

Thus, I respectfully conclude that you have failed to support your claim that I am not "trying to understand" the issues.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

I didn't twist what those General Authorities said; at least, you neglected to show where I did so.

To sum up the rest of your post, you argue that what the GAs meant was that to be saved people must "repent," and by repent you mean "to stop doing what is wrong, and start doing what is right." In other words, to be saved, people must stop sinning. I am sure that if I had claimed that the LDS view is that a person must stop sinning in order to be saved, invectives would have rained down upon me for distorting the LDS position. Yet this is what you ended up saying.