"Official" View On 2 Nephi 25:23

[JDave]

I was unaware that the church newsroom had doctrinal tidbits in there (thanks CV75 for pointing in that direction) and as I was browsing I came upon the entry for Grace. I was interested in (and happy with) their use of 2 Ne. 25:23 at the end. Thoughts? Is that the official way on how to read the end of that verse?

Without grace, or Christ’s divine gift, mankind could not be resurrected from death or overcome the inevitable effects of sin. However, Mormons believe that individuals also have an important part to play. According to Latter-day Saint beliefs, God desires not only to save His children from death, but also to help them grow and become like Him. To be true “partakers of the divine nature,” then, individuals must choose to access Christ’s grace and be changed by its influence. Or in the Apostle James’ formulation, they show their faith in Christ’s grace “by [their] works.” The Book of Mormon, in conjunction with Christ’s call to faithful action in Matthew 7:21, further teaches that that each individual’s own efforts are necessary, though not sufficient, for salvation; for even “after all we can do,” it is only “by grace that we are saved” (1 Nephi 25:23). (bold mine)

[JDave]

I'm also tangentially interested in how to inform them that they mistakenly put the verse in 1 Nephi. But they only list contact information for the media. So if anyone is more capable of passing that information on, I would appreciate it.

[CV75]

I'm also tangentially interested in how to inform them that they mistakenly put the verse in 1 Nephi. But they only list contact information for the media. So if anyone is more capable of passing that information on, I would appreciate it.

...also if they could provide a link in the text. It seems that Scott Lloyd might know how to pass this along--PM him!

[CV75]

I was unaware that the church newsroom had doctrinal tidbits in there (thanks CV75 for pointing in that direction) and as I was browsing I came upon the entry for Grace. I was interested in (and happy with) their use of 2 Ne. 25:23 at the end. Thoughts? Is that the official way on how to read the end of that verse?

I think it is one official way, for the purposes of the website. I don't mean to say that there are contradicting official readings, but only that this level of reading and explanation is appropriate for the medium being used as an official source. I say this because of the official entry about "Revelation" -- http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/revelation

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I was unaware that the church newsroom had doctrinal tidbits in there (thanks CV75 for pointing in that direction) and as I was browsing I came upon the entry for Grace. I was interested in (and happy with) their use of 2 Ne. 25:23 at the end. Thoughts? Is that the official way on how to read the end of that verse?

Good, this is what I have teaching in Gospel Doctrine, (on and off) for 24 years.

[theplains]

Good, this is what I have teaching in Gospel Doctrine, (on and off) for 24 years.

The video speaks of an open canon but does not address why no revelations have been

canonized since 1978.

Regards,

Jim

[CV75]

The video speaks of an open canon but does not address why no revelations have been

canonized since 1978.

Regards,

Jim

See the Topic on "Scripture" / "Standard Works" -- the standard works do explain what scripture is and how it is ongoing, and why that does not necessitate canonization (and in fcat only most rarely requires and involves canonization).

[JDave]

I think it is one official way, for the purposes of the website. I don't mean to say that there are contradicting official readings, but only that this level of reading and explanation is appropriate for the medium being used as an official source. I say this because of the official entry about "Revelation" -- http://www.mormonnew...icle/revelation

I agree that they would not be saying that no other way of looking at it is possible or of benefit, but it is gratifying to see an official usage of it that counters what critics say about us requiring unreasonable things just to receive grace.

[canard78]

I was unaware that the church newsroom had doctrinal tidbits in there (thanks CV75 for pointing in that direction) and as I was browsing I came upon the entry for Grace. I was interested in (and happy with) their use of 2 Ne. 25:23 at the end. Thoughts? Is that the official way on how to read the end of that verse?

Maybe... maybe not. I prefer Nibley's perspective:

"There's no office in the Church that qualifies the holder to give the official interpretation of the Church. We're to read the scriptures for ourselves, as guided by the Spirit.

Joseph Smith himself often disagreed with various of his brethren on different points, yet he never cracked down on them, saying they'd better change this or that, or else. He disagreed with Parley P. Pratt on a number of things, and also with Brigham Young on various things."

Hugh Nibley

http://mimobile.byu.edu/?m=5&table=books&bookid=103&id=1154

There's no such thing as an official interpretation and the end of the discussion. The newsroom offers a perspective which we can consider, but don't have to accept.

[The Nehor]

The video speaks of an open canon but does not address why no revelations have been

canonized since 1978.

Because revelation is not restricted to canon and the Lord has not promised us a new canon timetable. There could easily be no canon until the Savior returns. Then who knows if He will bother to canonize anything?

[canard78]

The video speaks of an open canon but does not address why no revelations have been

canonized since 1978.

Who needs an updated canon? A prophet speaks and asks me to discern and pray to know whether what he says allies to me. If it doesn't I presume he was talking to someone else. No need to have the hassle getting dogmatic when every person can acquire their own personalised canon.

[JDave]

Maybe... maybe not. I prefer Nibley's perspective:

Hugh Nibley

http://mimobile.byu....kid=103&id=1154

There's no such thing as an official interpretation and the end of the discussion. The newsroom offers a perspective which we can consider, but don't have to accept.

I totally agree. I wasn't thinking official as in final and binding upon us and that we teach pedantically. I was thinking more of official from the view of critics and outsiders -- something to point to and show that the "be perfect and then obtain grace" line really isn't an accurate portrayal of our doctrine.

[canard78]

I totally agree. I wasn't thinking official as in final and binding upon us and that we teach pedantically. I was thinking more of official from the view of critics and outsiders -- something to point to and show that the "be perfect and then obtain grace" line really isn't an accurate portrayal of our doctrine.

I hope not. I'm not sure how it would be possible that way round.

[CV75]

I agree that they would not be saying that no other way of looking at it is possible or of benefit, but it is gratifying to see an official usage of it that counters what critics say about us requiring unreasonable things just to receive grace.

It certainly is!

[Anakin7]

I'm also tangentially interested in how to inform them that they mistakenly put the verse in 1 Nephi. But they only list contact information for the media. So if anyone is more capable of passing that information on, I would appreciate it.

I have already called from my LDS JEDI KNIGHT Home and informed the LDS Public Affairs Newsroom in SLC Utah and the change will be made.

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Edited August 6, 2013 by Anakin7

[Doug the Hutt]

Hi JDave (and Y'all),

I'll chip in with my just-speaking-as-a-Hutt-perspective,

(sorry for the edits -- copy/paste isn't working as-expected in Chrome, plus I can't type to save my life).

1. The Scriptures are where authoritative doctrine is taught. Interpretations, even by Bishops, High Priests, Stake Presidents, General Authorities, "Prophets, Seers, and Revelators", even delivered in General Conference, even republished in the Ensign and/or the Church's PR pages are ultimately interpretations of fallible, well-intentioned but often incorrect men. The Spirit alone is supposed to testify truth to you, not someone on TV, not someone wielding a degree from a fine university, not the post-millennial missionaries using iPads and social media to spread the Gospel, not anyone. Until you feel the Spirit, consider the words just words of men.

2. I find it interesting that the page author created a hyperlink directly to Matthew 7:21 found on lds.org for the verse that leverages the "doeth" part of the Gospel, for "Jesus Christ", "atonement", they also made internal anchors to the bottom of the page to the references of 2 Peter 1:4 and James 2:17-24 but didn't link directly to them. It's as if they wanted people to have rapid access to their doeth-action-works Matthew 7:21 reference but force the reader to go out of their way to get the other scriptural references.

3. I find it interesting that they changed the meaning of 2 Nephi 25:23 by rearranging Nephi's original points:

"Without grace, or Christ’s divine gift, mankind could not be resurrected from death or overcome the inevitable effects of sin. However, Mormons believe that individuals also have an important part to play. According to Latter-day Saint beliefs, God desires not only to save His children from death, but also to help them grow and become like Him. To be true “partakers of the divine nature,” then, individuals must choose to access Christ’s grace and be changed by its influence. Or in the Apostle James’ formulation, they show their faith in Christ’s grace “by [their] works.”[ii] The Book of Mormon, in conjunction with Christ’s call to faithful action in Matthew 7:21, further teaches that that each individual’s own efforts are necessary, though not sufficient, for salvation; for even “after all we can do,” it is only “by grace that we are saved” (1 Nephi 25:23).

Here's 2 Nephi 25:23:

23 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.

1830 edition:

; for we labor diligently to write, to per-

suade 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 that we can do.

The rearranging of ideas reminds me of how the JW's changed the meaning of Luke 23:43:

43 And he said to him: “Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.” Luke 23:43, NWT

43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

I wonder why the page author felt it appropriate to co-opt Nephi's words regarding grace and rearrange them thereby changing the original meaning. Because I'm aware of this my own spirit is offended, the Spirit does not confirm the truth of the analysis provided by the Church's PR people regarding Grace and I cannot accept their assertion. See my original point #1.

4. I'm often

about scriptures, doctrine, limited geography theory, superbowl picks and practically everything else. Again, see point #1. Edited August 6, 2013 by Doug the Hutt

[Tacenda]

Hi JDave (and Y'all),

I'll chip in with my just-speaking-as-a-Hutt-perspective,

(sorry for the edits -- copy/paste isn't working as-expected in Chrome).

1. The Scriptures are where authoritative doctrine is taught. Interpretations, even by Bishops, High Priests, Stake Presidents, General Authorities, "Prophets, Seers, and Revelators", even delivered in General Conference, even republished in the Ensign and/or the Church's PR pages are ultimately interpretations of fallible, well-intentioned but often incorrect men. The Spirit alone is supposed to testify truth to you, not someone on TV, not someone wielding a degree from a fine university, not the post-millennial missionaries using iPads and social media to spread the Gospel, not anyone. Until you feel the Spirit, consider the words just words of men.

2. I find it interesting that the page author created a hyperlink directly to Matthew 7:21 found on lds.org for the verse that leverages the "doeth" part of the Gospel, for "Jesus Christ", "atonement", they also made internal anchors to the bottom of the page to the references of 2 Peter 1:4 and James 2:17-24 but didn't link directly to them. It's as if they wanted people to have rapid access to their doeth-action-works Matthew 7:21 reference but force the reader to go out of their way to get the other scriptural references.

3. I find it interesting that they changed the meaning of 2 Nephi 25:23 by rearranging Nephi's original points:

"Without grace, or Christ’s divine gift, mankind could not be resurrected from death or overcome the inevitable effects of sin. However, Mormons believe that individuals also have an important part to play. According to Latter-day Saint beliefs, God desires not only to save His children from death, but also to help them grow and become like Him. To be true “partakers of the divine nature,” then, individuals must choose to access Christ’s grace and be changed by its influence. Or in the Apostle James’ formulation, they show their faith in Christ’s grace “by [their] works.”[ii] The Book of Mormon, in conjunction with Christ’s call to faithful action in Matthew 7:21, further teaches that that each individual’s own efforts are necessary, though not sufficient, for salvation; for even “after all we can do,” it is only “by grace that we are saved” (1 Nephi 25:23).

It reminds me of how the JW's changed the meaning of Luke 23:43 by placing a comma after the word "today" instead of before it:

43 And he said to him: “Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.” Luke 23:43, NWT

43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

I wonder why the page author felt it appropriate to co-opt Nephi's words regarding grace and rearrange them thereby changing the original meaning. Because I'm aware of this my own spirit is offended, the Spirit does not confirm the truth of the analysis provided by the Church's PR people regarding Grace and I cannot accept their assertion. See my original point #1.

4. I'm often

about scriptures, doctrine, limited geography theory, superbowl picks and practically everything else. Again, see point #1.

Love what you've put forth here. It is my belief, the spirit told me or my heart and mind did, that God saved us with no works involved through us. But it's a matter of how well we believe it and what we do with it that counts. Just like a child that is given a gift and then tramps on it or even the child that says here I can't accept this gift unless I pay for it. It's all in how we receive the gift that counts. And right now I'm just understanding Grace, I've never really understood it as Grace or a free offering before. Only that when we are baptized and live the laws and ordinances will we be forgiven and maybe live with Him again. The laws and ordinances that are kept in the temple, that is.

[bluebell]

Love what you've put forth here. It is my belief, the spirit told me or my heart and mind did, that God saved us with no works involved through us. But it's a matter of how well we believe it and what we do with it that counts. Just like a child that is given a gift and then tramps on it or even the child that says here I can't accept this gift unless I pay for it. It's all in how we receive the gift that counts. And right now I'm just understanding Grace, I've never really understood it as Grace or a free offering before. Only that when we are baptized and live the laws and ordinances will we be forgiven and maybe live with Him again. The laws and ordinances that are kept in the temple, that is.

It might be a good idea for you to study baptism as well Tacenda, especially, why LDS believe that it is a necessary part of salvation. And maybe also study why LDS believe that one must also receive the gift of the Holy Ghost to be saved.

I've found that it's very possible for people, myself included, to understand that something is taught in the church, but that if they've never stopped to really study WHY we believe the doctrine that we do, it can lead them to assume things about the doctrine that just isn't true.

Your words above, especially the part I bolded, seem to imply that you really don't understand what the LDS doctrine actually is on grace, works, and salvation.

[cinepro]

The video speaks of an open canon but does not address why no revelations have been

canonized since 1978.

Regards,

Jim

Well, how often do you want to buy a new quad?

[Tacenda]

It might be a good idea for you to study baptism as well Tacenda, especially, why LDS believe that it is a necessary part of salvation. And maybe also study why LDS believe that one must also receive the gift of the Holy Ghost to be saved.

I've found that it's very possible for people, myself included, to understand that something is taught in the church, but that if they've never stopped to really study WHY we believe the doctrine that we do, it can lead them to assume things about the doctrine that just isn't true.

Your words above, especially the part I bolded, seem to imply that you really don't understand what the LDS doctrine actually is on grace, works, and salvation.

I've got some jet lag, so brain is more foggy than the usual. What I meant to say is, that we aren't able to live with God if we don't keep the laws and do the ordinances. Third article of faith, "We believe man will be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel". Edited August 6, 2013 by Tacenda

[bluebell]

I've got some jet lag, so brain is more foggy than the usual. What I meant to say is, that we aren't as able to live with God if we don't keep the laws and do the ordinances. Third article of faith, "We believe man will be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel".

You got it a bit wrong there. It's actually-

We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

[Tacenda]

You got it a bit wrong there. It's actually-

We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

Shoot you beat me to it, I meant to quote it fully just now, but the ending is significant is it not?

[Tacenda]

Blue Bell, it's not free grace then is it? What do you mean I don't understand baptism in the church? Understand you're dealing with someone who is going through a lot of changes mentally and physically, menopause knocking on my door, so if I say crazy stuff I'll blame it on that. Oops, I mean bluebell! Not Blue Bell.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Tacenda

[bluebell]

Shoot you beat me to it, I meant to quote it fully just now, but the ending is significant is it not?

It is only significant because of the beginning.

We are saved through the Atonement of Christ, but we must access that saving power--that grace--in the way that Christ has declared it is accessed, by having faith in Him, repenting of our sins, being baptized, and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.

When we do that, we have 'entered in at the strait gate' and gotten on the path which leads to eternal life. As long as we continue to have faith in Christ, repent, and try to follow Him, then we remain on the path and know that we are saved.

Our faith, our repentance, and our obedience do not earn our salvation, neither does Christ need them to add to His Atonement.

[bluebell]

Blue Bell, it's not free grace then is it? What do you mean I don't understand baptism in the church? Understand you're dealing with someone who is going through a lot of changes mentally and physically, menopause knocking on my door, so if I say crazy stuff I'll blame it on that. Oops, I mean bluebell! Not Blue Bell.

If Christ's grace is free, in the way that you are defining the word, then why isn't EVERYONE saved?

And I wondered if you understood baptism because your previous post didn't make it clear whether or not you understood that baptism is the way that we covenant with Christ, becoming His sons and His daughters. It is the way we literally take His name, and therefore his righteousness, upon ourselves, without which, we would remain unjustified and therefore unsaved.