Once again, 2 Nephi 25:23

[Rob Bowman]

JDave,

Your complaint is too generalized, too lacking in specifics, for me to know what to do with it. Vance's quotes don't change the picture, as I explained in my response to him. I am unaware of anything in the context of my quotations from GAs that would significantly change the picture. And I must disagree with your claim that my selection of quotes is arbitrary. I quoted first LDS presidents, then other GAs speaking in authoritative contexts (general conferences), specifically commenting on the meaning of 2 Nephi 25:23. I am unaware of any such quotation that I did not include, at least that would significantly differ in its understanding of 2 Nephi 25:23.

I think the difference between the way Lee and Benson explained 2 Nephi 25:23 and the way Robinson and Millet explained it is real and significant. Some of your fellow LDS apologists in this thread do too, as they cited Millet and Robinson to counter my explanation.

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.

[Rob Bowman]

Obiwan,

For the record, I am not a preacher (although I can preach when necessary).

If you recognize that evangelical preachers need not say everything about a subject whenever they touch on it, and if LDS authorities can do so, why is it "bearing false witness" if I fail to say everything about the LDS view of a subject? I don't see any substantive criticism of my presentation, merely a generalization that I supposedly presented only "PART" of the picture. What's wrong with that? I didn't claim to present everything every Mormon ever said about everything. I only claimed to present what I perceive to be the dominant LDS interpretation of 2 Nephi 25:23.

Yes, I saw your citation of the article at bible.org. It doesn't have any direct relevance to the subject at hand.

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? http://www.mormonapo...__p__1208892532

[Vance]

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.

Elder Oaks isn't authoritative?

There are such quotations available, from Millet and Robinson, but of course they are LDS theologians, not general authorities.

And the fact that they present a different aspect of this verse SHOULD tell you something, but only if you were really interested in listening.

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.

True, as many have tried to tell you, but you won't listen, what he presents is a different facet of this verse. He clearly tells us that "all we can do" is "to have faith in Jesus Christ, repent throughout our lives, be baptized and receive other ordinances, and faithfully endure to the end. If we do that, we are promised eternal life through the grace of God."

THAT is totally different from the misrepresentation you are trying to put forth.

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

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Elder Oaks isn't authoritative?

Elder Oaks did not disagree with the dominant/majority view.

You wrote:

True, as many have tried to tell you, but you won't listen, what he presents is a different facet of this verse. He clearly tells us that "all we can do" is "to have faith in Jesus Christ, repent throughout our lives, be baptized and receive other ordinances, and faithfully endure to the end. If we do that, we are promised eternal life through the grace of God."

THAT is totally different from the misrepresentation you are trying to put forth.

It's not different at all, much less "totally different."

[JDave]

Your complaint is too generalized, too lacking in specifics, for me to know what to do with it.

It was a request to have you use a more complete set of quotes. You are the one that set out to describe LDS understanding of the verse. It was pointed out that other quotes exist that give a more full picture. You refuse to incorporate them, and simply state that you are unaware of anything that would "significantly differ in its understanding." I agree that you are not going to find any alternative views such as Millet's in a General Conference address. I see no requirement for a description of LDS views on the verse to have to include mention of them. What you will find is the whole picture and the full context. If you are sincere in trying to convey the LDS understanding, then full context should be paramount. If you are trying to highlight differences between our religious viewpoints, then limiting your selection to just a part of the picture and stating that you aren't far off from the truth is much more advantageous.

I don't see any substantive criticism of my presentation, merely a generalization that I supposedly presented only "PART" of the picture. What's wrong with that? I didn't claim to present everything every Mormon ever said about everything. I only claimed to present what I perceive to be the dominant LDS interpretation of 2 Nephi 25:23.

The problem is taking if you take your "PART" and present it to non-LDS people who are unaware of the other pertinent aspects that you conveniently excluded. There is no problem ommitting certain aspects in a sermon WITHIN your own group because of the common knowledge base. But as a non-LDS person you are under some obligation to provide full context, especially with the stated goal of describing "the dominant LDS interpretation", if only to prove you are aware of the full context and also to avoid any disingenuous self-serving descriptions of someone else's doctrine.

[Vance]

Vance,

You wrote:

Elder Oaks did not disagree with the dominant/majority view.

You wrote:

It's not different at all, much less "totally different."

Your continual denial of the obvious won't change it.

to have faith in Jesus Christ, repent throughout our lives, be baptized and receive other ordinances, and faithfully endure to the end. If we do that, we are promised eternal life through the grace of God.

That IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT from the characterization that you are promulgating.

What part of the "If we do that, we are promised eternal life" don't you understand?

[Vance]

If you are sincere in trying to convey the LDS understanding, then full context should be paramount.

THAT is one very big "IF".

It is rather OBVIOUS that Rob is not interested in accurately representing LDS doctrine.

[Rob Bowman]

JDave,

This is getting ridiculous. You have in the past seemed fair-minded, and perhaps you are sincere, but I object to being accused of deliberately leaving relevant information out despite my efforts to include whatever seems relevant and the fact that I openly solicited input and demonstrated that I took your input seriously. For example, I actually DID incorporate one of the quotations you cited earlier (from Zeballos). I have not excluded anything of which I am aware that would be in any way significantly relevant. Your claim that I "refuse to incorporate" other quotes that give a fuller picture is false. Cite a quote that you think I am refusing to incorporate and I'll look at it.

It was a request to have you use a more complete set of quotes. You are the one that set out to describe LDS understanding of the verse. It was pointed out that other quotes exist that give a more full picture. You refuse to incorporate them, and simply state that you are unaware of anything that would "significantly differ in its understanding." I agree that you are not going to find any alternative views such as Millet's in a General Conference address. I see no requirement for a description of LDS views on the verse to have to include mention of them. What you will find is the whole picture and the full context. If you are sincere in trying to convey the LDS understanding, then full context should be paramount. If you are trying to highlight differences between our religious viewpoints, then limiting your selection to just a part of the picture and stating that you aren't far off from the truth is much more advantageous.

The problem is taking if you take your "PART" and present it to non-LDS people who are unaware of the other pertinent aspects that you conveniently excluded. There is no problem ommitting certain aspects in a sermon WITHIN your own group because of the common knowledge base. But as a non-LDS person you are under some obligation to provide full context, especially with the stated goal of describing "the dominant LDS interpretation", if only to prove you are aware of the full context and also to avoid any disingenuous self-serving descriptions of someone else's doctrine.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Unless you or someone else specifies what is 'totally different" between my explanation and the material you quote, and actually shows that there is a difference (not merely assert that it exists), you have failed to provide any reason why I should take your criticism seriously.

You wrote:

What part of the "If we do that, we are promised eternal life" don't you understand?

I understand it just fine. It doesn't disagree with what I said.

[Vance]

Rob,

Since, in the past, you have shown an inability to be accurate, let me correct your statement so that there is no question.

According to this dominant view, wWhat 2 Nephi 25:23 means is that Jesus' atonement will save us only after we have done all we can to have faith in Jesus Christ, repent throughout our lives, be baptized and receive other ordinances, keep the commandments and faithfully endure to the end. We are saved by grace, so that salvation and exaltation (to the celestial kingdom) is a gift, but that grace of God comes "after all we can do" to have faith in Jesus Christ, repent throughout our lives, be baptized and receive other ordinances, keep the commandments and faithfully endure to the end. Grace cannot suffice without total effort on the part of the recipient to have faith in Jesus Christ, repent throughout our lives, be baptized and receive other ordinances, keep the commandments and faithfully endure to the end. "After all we can do" means a maximum of individual effort and includes extending our best effort to have faith in Jesus Christ, repent throughout our lives, be baptized and receive other ordinances, keep the commandments and faithfully endure to the end; that is, grace is a supplement to our best efforts to have faith in Jesus Christ, repent throughout our lives, be baptized and receive other ordinances, keep the commandments and faithfully endure to the end and the capstone of salvation and exaltation. In the plan of salvation, God does for human beings only what they cannot do for themselves. No mortal

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Being repetitive is not the same thing as accurate.

[Bernard Gui]

" The Savior

[zerinus]

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.

You did not address the points I had raised, nor answer the question I had asked.

Do you deny that repentance is a gospel requirement and a necessary condition for salvation?

If you believe that repentance is not a gospel requirement, how do you explain the scriptural passages I had quoted?

If you believe that repentance is a gospel requirement, what is your definition of repentance?

[Rob Bowman]

Bernard,

You wrote:

But you should make clear you are talking about "exaltation" in the celestial kingdom.

I did. Here is what I said: "The standard explanation from the authorities of the church would seem to be that people must do all they can do, putting forth their best effort, in order to be saved by grace to eternal life in God

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

No, I don't deny that repentance is a necessary condition for salvation. Repentance means acknowledging and confessing with regret that one is a sinner in need of salvation.

[Vance]

Repentance means acknowledging and confessing with regret that one is a sinner in need of salvation.

This sounds insufficient.

A man robs a bank and absconds with a million dollars without being caught. He spends a portion of it on himself and others. He finds "Jesus". Now, what must he do to fully repent? Choose all that apply.

A) acknowledge and confess with regret to God that he robbed the bank.

B) acknowledge and confess with regret to his minister that he robbed the bank.

C) acknowledge and confess with regret to the FBI that he robbed the bank.

D) acknowledge and confess with regret to the court that he robbed the bank.

E) willingly pay his "debt to society" by going to jail for the duration of his sentence and paying whatever fines imposed.

F) give back the unspent money to the bank.

G) repay the money he spent on himself and others.

H) never rob a bank (or anything else) again.

[Vance]

Vance,

Being repetitive is not the same thing as accurate.

Maybe not, but with you, it is necessary, lest you find a loop hole which you would use as an excuse to misrepresent.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

There is a difference between repentance and restitution. Are you looking for a definition of repentance, or a description of the behavior that a truly repentant person should exhibit, or what?

This sounds insufficient.

A man robs a bank and absconds with a million dollars without being caught. He spends a portion of it on himself and others. He finds "Jesus". Now, what must he do to fully repent? Choose all that apply.

A) acknowledge and confess with regret to God that he robbed the bank.

B) acknowledge and confess with regret to his minister that he robbed the bank.

C) acknowledge and confess with regret to the FBI that he robbed the bank.

D) acknowledge and confess with regret to the court that he robbed the bank.

E) willingly pay his "debt to society" by going to jail for the duration of his sentence and paying whatever fines imposed.

F) give back the unspent money to the bank.

G) repay the money he spent on himself and others.

H) never rob a bank (or anything else) again.

[Bernard Gui]

Here is what I said: "The standard explanation from the authorities of the church would seem to be that people must do all they can do, putting forth their best effort, in order to be saved by grace to eternal life in God

[Vance]

Vance,

There is a difference between repentance and restitution. Are you looking for a definition of repentance, or a description of the behavior that a truly repentant person should exhibit, or what?

It was a very simple question.

This sounds insufficient.

A man robs a bank and absconds with a million dollars without being caught. He spends a portion of it on himself and others. He finds "Jesus". Now, what must he do to fully repent? Choose all that apply.

A) acknowledge and confess with regret to God that he robbed the bank.

B) acknowledge and confess with regret to his minister that he robbed the bank.

C) acknowledge and confess with regret to the FBI that he robbed the bank.

D) acknowledge and confess with regret to the court that he robbed the bank.

E) willingly pay his "debt to society" by going to jail for the duration of his sentence and paying whatever fines imposed.

F) give back the unspent money to the bank.

G) repay the money he spent on himself and others.

H) never rob a bank (or anything else) again.

And to repeat it, lest there be confusion.

Now, what must he do to fully repent? Choose all that apply.

[JDave]

...

Rob, I am being sincere and I guess I jumped to the conclusion that if you could gain access to the quotes you included you also had easy access to the many quotes I read. But then maybe you read them and felt that none of them were significant enough to include. I will provide a more detailed post later with various quotes and how I feel they impact the LDS view on the verse.

Could you do me the favor of describing if there is any discrepancy between the LDS interpretation of 2 Nephi 25:23 and what you consider to be true Biblical Christianity? Maybe that will provide me some of that background context that you are associating with the quotes. If you feel that will explode the thread, and it may well might, just send it to me via PM -- we may just be talking past each other a bit.

[zerinus]

zerinus,

No, I don't deny that repentance is a necessary condition for salvation. Repentance means acknowledging and confessing with regret that one is a sinner in need of salvation.

That is not the biblical definition of repentance. What do you think it means to

[Rob Bowman]

JDave,

I appreciate your patient and kind response.

My understanding of the biblical gospel of salvation is that we are saved by grace alone, with varying measures of good works the consequent result of God's grace (through which we become regenerate, indwelled by the Holy Spirit, sanctified, etc., as well as pardoned, justified, forgiven, reconciled, etc.). This is how I understand Ephesians 2:8-10. Salvation by grace is not a reward given to those who have done all they can do, who have put forth their best effort; it is an act of mercy to those who have failed to do all they can do, whose effort was far from their best, but who trust alone for their eternal standing with God in what Christ did for them. Works, effort, etc., are in no sense a precondition of salvation; such are the fruit of saving grace. This doctrine of salvation needs to be understood in the context of my classically orthodox eschatology, in which all human beings ultimately will receive either eternal punishment (in varying degrees) or eternal life (Matt. 25:46). Thus, salvation by grace in this context means salvation from eternal punishment and to eternal life in the new heavens and new earth.

As I understand the dominant LDS interpretation of 2 Nephi 25:23, the verse is understood to mean that we must do all that we can, putting forth our best effort, if we are to be the beneficiaries of the grace that saves us to the individual or conditional salvation that is entrance into the celestial kingdom, or exaltation. That is, the verse is interpreted (by those who read it this way) to mean that we must do our part or else God will not do his part in granting us salvation in this higher sense. Since no one is sinless or absolutely good in this mortal life, God does not demand sinless perfection to attain salvation to the celestial kingdom, but he does demand that we have sincerely tried as hard as we can to be faithful in doing all we can. Furthermore, since none of us is sinless, even those who do their utmost and live in the most exemplary fashion are utterly dependent on God's grace to "make it" and cannot hope to attain exaltation apart from that grace. Nevertheless, according to this dominant view, we must do all that we can, at least in the sense of having put forth our best effort, striving to be as faithful as we can, to receive that grace.

I should point out that this dominant view need not be interpreted as putting our best effort before grace chronologically, although it could be taken that way. That is, while it is possible to understand "after all we can do" to mean that our best efforts precede chronologically our reception of grace, this is not a necessary aspect of the dominant view. It can also be understood to mean that our reception of grace is in some way dependent on or contingent on us doing, and continuing to do, all we can. This would allow for the idea that the person receives God's grace during his or her mortal life and continues to do so as long as that best effort continues to be put forth.

The contrast between the view I espouse as an evangelical and the dominant LDS view should be clear enough. The dominant LDS view says that we are saved by grace into the celestial kingdom if and only if we have put forth our best effort and done all that we can do. The evangelical view says that we are saved by grace to live in the only eternal, heavenly kingdom despite the fact that we have not put forth our best effort and have failed to do all we can do. The dominant LDS view makes some measure of good works a condition of salvation to the celestial kingdom; the evangelical view denies that good works are in any way a condition of salvation to the eternal kingdom. In fact, although I recognize a minority, alternative approach to the interpretation of 2 Nephi 25:23 within LDS circles, as far as I can tell all LDS leaders and teachers agree that good works are in some fashion a precondition for exaltation or entrance into the celestial kingdom. I don't see any ambiguity on that point.

Rob, I am being sincere and I guess I jumped to the conclusion that if you could gain access to the quotes you included you also had easy access to the many quotes I read. But then maybe you read them and felt that none of them were significant enough to include. I will provide a more detailed post later with various quotes and how I feel they impact the LDS view on the verse.

Could you do me the favor of describing if there is any discrepancy between the LDS interpretation of 2 Nephi 25:23 and what you consider to be true Biblical Christianity? Maybe that will provide me some of that background context that you are associating with the quotes. If you feel that will explode the thread, and it may well might, just send it to me via PM -- we may just be talking past each other a bit.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

A man robs a bank and absconds with a million dollars without being caught. He spends a portion of it on himself and others. He finds "Jesus". Now, what must he do to fully repent? Choose all that apply.

A) acknowledge and confess with regret to God that he robbed the bank.

B) acknowledge and confess with regret to his minister that he robbed the bank.

C) acknowledge and confess with regret to the FBI that he robbed the bank.

D) acknowledge and confess with regret to the court that he robbed the bank.

E) willingly pay his "debt to society" by going to jail for the duration of his sentence and paying whatever fines imposed.

F) give back the unspent money to the bank.

G) repay the money he spent on himself and others.

H) never rob a bank (or anything else) again.

And to repeat it, lest there be confusion. Now, what must he do to fully repent? Choose all that apply.

I think I'll go ahead and shock you: the answer is (A). Anyone who has done (A) has fully repented.

Now, if you has asked me, What would we reasonably expect that a man who had robbed the bank and then repented would then do as a result of his repentance, or in demonstration of his repentance, my answer would have included some or possibly even all of the above. But "repent" does not mean "pay back what you stole" or "go to jail for your crime" (etc.).

I can easily prove this with regard to a variation on choice (E). I have sinned against God. The penalty for sinning against God is eternal separation from God. In order to "repent" of my sin against God, must I willingly "pay my debt to God" by being eternally separated from God?

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

To bring forth fruits meet for repentance means to do things that show that one's professed repentance is genuine. But I agree that the truly repentant person will act like it. My point is that doing good things that demonstrate one's sincerity is not the same thing as repentance itself.

No biblical text teaches that repentance means to sin no more. When Jesus or Paul exhorted someone not to sin again, they did not mean that a truly repentant person will actually never sin again for the rest of his life. Of course, I agree that we should stop committing any sinful behavior in which we are engaged and make an effort to live in a holy manner, but successfully ceasing from all sin is not repentance, and it is not a requirement or precondition for salvation.

Tell us, please: Have you stopped sinning? Do you claim to have "repented" according to your own definition?

That is not the biblical definition of repentance. What do you think it means to