"Official" View On 2 Nephi 25:23

[Tacenda]

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.

This is sounding more on the EV's side of belief or more biblical. Becoming a child in Christ vs. already a child? In LDS belief it's...I am a child of God, and he has sent me here.....or His spirit children. So we are adopted when we accept His name to be upon on us, sort of thing? I thought we were always his children or the LDS belief was this. And no we aren't all saved, because not everyone accepts His gift, not as a get out of jail free card but also accepts it with indescribable feelings of thankfullness, if they believe they truly will be damned for not believing. And for those that never heard of him, say aborigines, than just by them communicating mentally (looking at nature) that they acknowledged God would be enough, atleast this was how a non LDS Christian described it once. I'm all out of posts, so I'll have to edit this post to keep discussing, until after 11 pm today. But thank you for your patience in this, since my crisis I've been hung up about the works vs. Grace thing.

[JDave]

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

I may never ever buy a new (paper) quad. Just download the updated canon onto your digital device of choice.

[bluebell]

This is sounding more on the EV's side of belief or more biblical.

This is LDS doctrine on the subject. That you don't know that is one of the reasons I think you might need to spend less time studying other religious beliefs and first focus on those of the church you already belong to.

Becoming a child in Christ vs. already a child? In LDS belief it's...I am a child of God, and he has sent me here.....or His spirit children. So we are adopted when we accept His name to be upon on us, sort of thing? I thought we were always his children or the LDS belief was this.

We are always the spirit children of our Heavenly Father.

We are not the children the Christ. We are adopted into Christ's family and become Christ's children (thereby qualifying us to be joint-heirs with him) when we covenant with him through baptism and take His name upon us.

And no we aren't all saved, because not everyone accepts His gift, not as a get out of jail free card but also accepts it with indescribable feelings of thankfullness, if they believe they truly will be damned for not believing.

What does a person have to do to 'accept the gift'?

But thank you for your patience in this, since my crisis I've been hung up about the works vs. Grace thing.

No problem. If discussing it through PMs would be easier we could go that route as well.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

canonized since 1978.

Regards,

Jim

It might be useful to draw an analogy comparing it to the U.S. Constitution.

It is well understood that the Constitution is always subject to amendment from time to time. It may, in that sense, be regarded as an "open constitution," if you will.

But the basic framework has already been put in place, and only rarely is it necessary to amend it.

True, the prophets and apostles are subject to a constant flow of inspiration as they govern the affairs of the Church. But it is almost never necessary to canonize such day-to-day revelation. That would only be necessary if it were to have some momentous and global impact.

Likewise, laws are constantly being enacted in the United States of America and in its various state and local jurisdictions within the framework of the U.S. Constitution. But again, it is rarely necessary to amend the Constitution itself to put such laws in force.

Edited to add:

I believe the article of faith that states, "We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, and we believe that he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God" has application not just to canonical revelation, but to non-canonical revelation as well.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[JDave]

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.

Indeed, and there have been numerous varied usages of the verse in General Conference. Few of them could even liberally be referred to as doctrinal expositions on grace and works, however. So they were not even interpretations of the verse as much as simply using the verse to make some point.

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.

I didn't really notice that, and upon review I don't think it is really an issue. Phrases out of the first two were included, whereas only a link to the third was included. If they were really trying to emphasize Matthew 7:21 they could have included the phrasing they wanted AND included a link inline.

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

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.

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.

I don't see how the rearrangement necessarily changes the original meaning. You have to apply an interpretation just to decide what was originally meant anyway. Many people have interpreted the verse to have a meaning akin to what the rearrangement proposes, including many church leaders in General Conference going back many years. The unique thing about this particular usage on the Newsroom website is that it is a clear (and official) doctrinal exposition on grace that uses 2 Nephi 25:23 in that manner.

[Vance]

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

Good question, especially considering that God wants us all to be saved. 1 Tiim 2:4 (God) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

[ERayR]

Blue Bell, it's not free grace then is it?

It's free to the extent we want to accept it. It is just not forced.

[Vance]

It's free to the extent we want to accept it. It is just not forced.

It is also free, in that it is open/available to all.

[Calm]

It is like having free lessons for anyone who desires to take them to learn how to read at the local library. Just signing up for them doesn't mean you will automatically know how to read.

Edited August 7, 2013 by calmoriah

[theplains]

It might be useful to draw an analogy comparing it to the U.S. Constitution.

It is well understood that the Constitution is always subject to amendment from time to time. It may, in that sense, be regarded as an "open constitution," if you will.

But the basic framework has already been put in place, and only rarely is it necessary to amend it.

Thanks. A good analogy.

True, the prophets and apostles are subject to a constant flow of inspiration as they govern the affairs of the Church. But it is almost never necessary to canonize such day-to-day revelation. That would only be necessary if it were to have some momentous and global impact.

I could see the same applicable to the prophets and apostles (pastors/bishops/elders) in

my non-LDS church.

I believe the article of faith that states, "We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, and we believe that he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God" has application not just to canonical revelation, but to non-canonical revelation as well.

I would surmise that my local pastor also receives inspiration/revelation to guide his local

branch without saying 'Thus Saith the Lord' and writing it in his own book.

Thanks,

Jim

[Calm]

I would surmise that my local pastor also receives inspiration/revelation to guide his local

branch

Most LDS would likely agree. All should, imo. Edited August 7, 2013 by calmoriah

[Kenngo1969]

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.

Besides, every time we Mormons get "updates" to the canon, we simply grumble because we just wasted a few bucks on a new set of scriptures ...