Stephen Robinson on after all we can do -- and sidenote on BOM historicity

[CV75]

17 hours ago, SamIam said:

Perhaps if we expand on the meaning; there are two places in the Book of Mormon this ideology is put forth.  I always anticipate that when I find something that seems incomplete that if I look long enough or hard enough then I will find where scripture explains scripture.  This is one such example where that is very much the case. 

The first example and one most referenced is:

This verse contributes meaning to the above and is found in:

The essence is that it will take "all we can do" to repent of our sins for it is by repentance that we are "reconciled unto God" (2 Nephi 25:23) and repentance is the requirement to "take away our stain" (Alma 24:11).  In other words the process of overcoming the natural man, full of sin and wickedness takes a full and complete effort, everything we can do, in order to put ourselves in a position to receive God's greatest blessings. True repentance embodies both sides of the equation and where I think anyone who tries to separate this concept into a works versus grace discussion fails. It is not a dissected doctrine that can stand alone on one leg but requires both sides to be accurate. The ideology is not about works and earning a place, but that we will be changing our performances to do more of the works of Christ as a natural out pouring of our conversion which is initiated and maintained by ongoing repentance. These efforts then allow the Grace of God to be manifest in our behalf.

I've often looked at works and grace (and by extension, grace, hope and charity) as having the same kind of dynamic as Alma 32's grace and knowledge, as Ether 12 seems to point out:

The Lord says, “…my grace is sufficient for the meek …And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them [this is repentance]. Behold, I will show unto the Gentiles their weakness, and I will show unto them that faith, hope and charity bringeth unto me—the fountain of all righteousness.”

Moronic responds with his understanding that God “workest unto the children of men according to their faith” and has “prepared a house for man, yea, even among the mansions of thy Father, in which man might have a more excellent hope; wherefore man must hope, or he cannot receive an inheritance in the place which thou hast prepared,” and that He has “loved the world, even unto the laying down of [His] life for the world, that [He] mightest take it again to prepare a place for the children of men.” He tells Him, “And now I know that this love which thou hast had for the children of men is charity; wherefore, except men shall have charity they cannot inherit that place which thou hast prepared in the mansions of thy Father” and “prayed unto the Lord that he would give unto the Gentiles grace, that they might have charity.”

[JAHS]

When Nephi says "after all we can do", how do we know if we really have done all we can do? Could we have done better? Could we have done more? I don't see how we can know that. Therefore, because we can never know if we have done all we can do, we must rely on the grace of God to save us any way, but He does at least expect us to try and will know what is in our hearts regarding our efforts to do it and our level of worthiness.  I think this is what Nephi meant.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

When Nephi says "after all we can do", how do we know if we really have done all we can do? Could we have done better? Could we have done more? I don't see how we can know that. Therefore, because we can never know if we have done all we can do, we must rely on the grace of God to save us any way, but He does at least expect us to try and will know what is in our hearts regarding our efforts to do it and our level of worthiness.  I think this is what Nephi meant.

Yes, and that seems to fit James 4:8 "Draw nigh unto God, and he will draw nigh unto you."  Which sounds very  much like the common Mormon notion that you should reach up as high as you can, and God will reach all the rest of the way down to you."  Not sure that Steve Robinson would appreciate that, but that seems to be the nexus between faith and works.

[SamIam]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I've often looked at works and grace (and by extension, grace, hope and charity) as having the same kind of dynamic as Alma 32's grace and knowledge, as Ether 12 seems to point out:

The Lord says, “…my grace is sufficient for the meek …And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them [this is repentance]. Behold, I will show unto the Gentiles their weakness, and I will show unto them that faith, hope and charity bringeth unto me—the fountain of all righteousness.”

Moronic responds with his understanding that God “workest unto the children of men according to their faith” and has “prepared a house for man, yea, even among the mansions of thy Father, in which man might have a more excellent hope; wherefore man must hope, or he cannot receive an inheritance in the place which thou hast prepared,” and that He has “loved the world, even unto the laying down of [His] life for the world, that [He] mightest take it again to prepare a place for the children of men.” He tells Him, “And now I know that this love which thou hast had for the children of men is charity; wherefore, except men shall have charity they cannot inherit that place which thou hast prepared in the mansions of thy Father” and “prayed unto the Lord that he would give unto the Gentiles grace, that they might have charity.”

As someone who is a student by nature, sometimes spending weeks on a single verse trying to make sure I can ferret out what is to be found I have noted something that, if I am understanding you,  speaks to your observations.  The ideology that all truth can be circumscribed into one great whole describes the nature of how each separate gospel principle is connected by bonds of dependency upon other doctrines upon which each depends to complete it's full meaning.  When we lay our foundation of line upon line precept upon precept we are describing connecting understandings, not setting them side by side as independent self contained truths.  However, often when we discuss or develop through our study a gospel principle for greater understanding, of necessity, we approach it as a single self contained concept. In the beginning this is a necessary thing to do to enable us to direct our inquiry. Then becoming somewhat more expert we engage in the kinds of conversations where one person has explored grace and truly grown to love and cherish the generous and beneficent undertones of the principle.  Another person, however, has developed a penchant for the works side of the equation.  It seems so much more acceptable to him that grace wrongly sought is like looking for the spiritual dole. And so these two people, both right in the isolated embrace of their favored perceptions, distort the value of the other side, for the wrong emphasis of a falsely perceived priority, when only seeing these doctrines as contributing parts of the great whole, dependent on each other, will do.  If that is the dynamic you see then I see it the same.

As I read your comments you seem to be implying that grace, while not mentioned specifically at all in Alma 32, is yet an underlying facet of the receipt of the blessings of an increase in faith and knowledge that come from planting the seed.  Now you may have meant to say "Alma 32's 'faith' and knowledge" but in this instance that still lends itself to recognizing that grace is a permeating  doctrine that ebbs and flows throughout any aspect of any gift or benefit we receive from God. However, to fail to plant - a work clause, is to fail to receive the grace of his gifts that follow.  If that is the dynamic or something analogous then I would agree.   Elder Packer describes a bigger picture application of this dynamic in the following:

 

Quote

I have not, to my knowledge, in my ministry said anything more important. I intend to talk about the Lord, Jesus Christ, about what He really did—and why it matters now….

Through Him mercy can be fully extended to each of us without offending the eternal law of justice….

This truth [The Atonement of Christ] is the very root of Christian doctrine. You may know much about the gospel as it branches out from there, but if you only know the branches and those branches do not touch that root, if they have been cut free from that truth, there will be no life nor substance nor redemption in them. (Packer, Boyd K., The Mediator, Ensign, May 1977, p. 56)

I would like to consider upon what you have highlighted concerning giving the gentiles grace and that grace somehow providing for their acquisition of charity...an interesting juxtaposition.  Nonetheless, we can look at grace as a separate stand alone concept permitting a diminished association upon works for its access.  We can look at works with an inappropriate emphasis on their necessity as if it is in acquiring a tally sheet of distinguished efforts that purchases for our individual benefit the grace of God.  Works are required, for sure but the subtleties of the interaction of these two dependent concepts are as Elder Packer explains, without "substance nor redemption in them" having "no life" unless they are placed back into the narrative of the great whole of truth which has at it's center the atonement of Christ - the greatest act of grace ever provided through the most significant work ever done in behalf of all mankind.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, SamIam said:

As someone who is a student by nature, sometimes spending weeks on a single verse trying to make sure I can ferret out what is to be found I have noted something that, if I am understanding you,  speaks to your observations.  The ideology that all truth can be circumscribed into one great whole describes the nature of how each separate gospel principle is connected by bonds of dependency upon other doctrines upon which each depends to complete it's full meaning.  When we lay our foundation of line upon line precept upon precept we are describing connecting understandings, not setting them side by side as independent self contained truths.  However, often when we discuss or develop through our study a gospel principle for greater understanding, of necessity, we approach it as a single self contained concept. In the beginning this is a necessary thing to do to enable us to direct our inquiry. Then becoming somewhat more expert we engage in the kinds of conversations where one person has explored grace and truly grown to love and cherish the generous and beneficent undertones of the principle.  Another person, however, has developed a penchant for the works side of the equation.  It seems so much more acceptable to him that grace wrongly sought is like looking for the spiritual dole. And so these two people, both right in the isolated embrace of their favored perceptions, distort the value of the other side, for the wrong emphasis of a falsely perceived priority, when only seeing these doctrines as contributing parts of the great whole, dependent on each other, will do.  If that is the dynamic you see then I see it the same.

As I read your comments you seem to be implying that grace, while not mentioned specifically at all in Alma 32, is yet an underlying facet of the receipt of the blessings of an increase in faith and knowledge that come from planting the seed.  Now you may have meant to say "Alma 32's 'faith' and knowledge" but in this instance that still lends itself to recognizing that grace is a permeating  doctrine that ebbs and flows throughout any aspect of any gift or benefit we receive from God. However, to fail to plant - a work clause, is to fail to receive the grace of his gifts that follow.  If that is the dynamic or something analogous then I would agree.   Elder Packer describes a bigger picture application of this dynamic in the following:

 

I would like to consider upon what you have highlighted concerning giving the gentiles grace and that grace somehow providing for their acquisition of charity...an interesting juxtaposition.  Nonetheless, we can look at grace as a separate stand alone concept permitting a diminished association upon works for its access.  We can look at works with an inappropriate emphasis on their necessity as if it is in acquiring a tally sheet of distinguished efforts that purchases for our individual benefit the grace of God.  Works are required, for sure but the subtleties of the interaction of these two dependent concepts are as Elder Packer explains, without "substance nor redemption in them" having "no life" unless they are placed back into the narrative of the great whole of truth which has at it's center the atonement of Christ - the greatest act of grace ever provided through the most significant work ever done in behalf of all mankind.

Yes, I am speaking to the interdependency of the principles (work and grace) as being similar to that interdependency described between faith and knowledge in Alma 323, and to this interconnectedness to faith, hope and charity; it all connects to the Atonement of Jesus Christ (Joseph Smith’s saying, “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”).

I see a two-fold connection between grace and charity. From Ether 12:34, where charity is the love that God has for His children, a man may “have it” in two ways: one, by receiving the gift of God (i.e. inherit that place in His mansions), the fullest or greatest being eternal life (D&C 14:7); and two, by possessing this very attribute (1 Nephi 11:21-23, which in that same chapter relies upon and ties back to the Lord’s Atonement). Both gifts are given by grace.

I think the finer point about the Gentiles in general pertains to their capacity to not mock sacred things or imperfect prophets in showing the love that reflects the law written in their hearts. This will ultimately lead to an attraction to Christ, and then faith, hope and charity in Christ and the opportunity to receive grace on Gospel terms, which terms go beyond integrity to the sense of right and wrong we are born with and extends to the commandments and covenants that can be revealed and kept only through the priesthood keys (D&C 84:19-21).

[stemelbow]

This thread offers us a good example of showing the scriptures mean whatever we want them to mean.  I mean within some amount of reason.  

[filovirus]

That line alone is taken out of context 9 Times out of 10.  To get a full understanding, it must be read in accordance to the WHOLE chapter. Nephi talks about the how they are living the Law of Moses. But eventually that law will be done away. So for Nephi and crew specifically,  it reads correctly. "After all they can do" means living the Law of Moses. Because we no longer abide by the Law of Moses, that line isnt quite as applicable to us as it was for Nephi.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, filovirus said:

That line alone is taken out of context 9 Times out of 10.  To get a full understanding, it must be read in accordance to the WHOLE chapter. Nephi talks about the how they are living the Law of Moses. But eventually that law will be done away. So for Nephi and crew specifically,  it reads correctly. "After all they can do" means living the Law of Moses. Because we no longer abide by the Law of Moses, that line isnt quite as applicable to us as it was for Nephi.

2 Nephi 10 speaks of reconciling unto God without reference to the Law of Moses. In verses 24 and 25: “Wherefore, my beloved brethren, reconcile yourselves to the will of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved. Wherefore, may God raise you from death by the power of the resurrection, and also from everlasting death by the power of the atonement, that ye may be received into the eternal kingdom of God, that ye may praise him through grace divine. Amen.”

It seems to me that 2 Nephi 25 is a second witness to this theme; it is not about works under the law of Moses, but about reconciling unto God irrespective of keeping the law (“we speak concerning the law that our children may know the deadness of the law; and they, by knowing the deadness of the law, may look forward unto that life which is in Christ”). Works are as follows: “…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. And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ [this takes precedence over the law of Moses], we keep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled [by Christ, not by them]. For, for this end was the law given; wherefore the law hath become dead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith; yet we keep the law because of the commandments [these are the commandments –laws--that overarch the law of Moses, making it subordinate to the Gospel law of Christ]. And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies [these are the works that grace answers to, not the law of Moses], that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins. Wherefore, we speak concerning the law that our children may know the deadness of the law; and they, by knowing the deadness of the law, may look forward unto that life which is in Christ, and know for what end the law was given.” (verses 25-27).

Edited December 11, 2017 by CV75

[filovirus]

51 minutes ago, CV75 said:

2 Nephi 10 speaks of reconciling unto God without reference to the Law of Moses. In verses 24 and 25: “Wherefore, my beloved brethren, reconcile yourselves to the will of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved. Wherefore, may God raise you from death by the power of the resurrection, and also from everlasting death by the power of the atonement, that ye may be received into the eternal kingdom of God, that ye may praise him through grace divine. Amen.”

It seems to me that 2 Nephi 25 is a second witness to this theme; it is not about works under the law of Moses, but about reconciling unto God irrespective of keeping the law (“we speak concerning the law that our children may know the deadness of the law; and they, by knowing the deadness of the law, may look forward unto that life which is in Christ”). Works are as follows: “…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. And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ [this takes precedence over the law of Moses], we keep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled [by Christ, not by them]. For, for this end was the law given; wherefore the law hath become dead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith; yet we keep the law because of the commandments [these are the commandments –laws--that overarch the law of Moses, making it subordinate to the Gospel law of Christ]. And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies [these are the works that grace answers to, not the law of Moses], that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins. Wherefore, we speak concerning the law that our children may know the deadness of the law; and they, by knowing the deadness of the law, may look forward unto that life which is in Christ, and know for what end the law was given.” (verses 25-27).

24 And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we keep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled.

25 For, for this end was the law given; wherefore the law hath become dead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith; yet we keep the law because of the commandments.

This was what Nephi was talking about in verse 23. They keep the law because of the commandments. That is doing "all they can do."

We are no longer bound by the law. It has been fulfilled. But Nephi and Co. were bound by the law, even though he knew it would be fulfilled. Nephi was talking specifically about his group in verse 23, and not us as latter-day-saints.

[SamIam]

10 hours ago, stemelbow said:

This thread offers us a good example of showing the scriptures mean whatever we want them to mean.  I mean within some amount of reason.  

Now is a perfect time to address the 2 question stated in the OP.

Quote

2. Is this important for BOM authorship analysis? ie the idea that we have intertextuality in the text that seems obvious now, yet no one seems to have noticed for 150 years. 

A lot of folks think like sternalbow, that scripture can be a private interpretation as long as you get kind of close and seem reasonable.  This is the burden of discounting the significance of Jewish influence on the methods that lend to proper scriptural analysis. We have individuals we refer to as scientists for their expertise in a particular field.  After many years of study I have concluded that the Jews have the scientists of theology in their midst.  The scriptures, after all, were for the most part written by them, for them, to instruct them.  The ideology of bringing the Stick of Judah and the Stick of Ephraim together can surely be enhanced by understanding how those of the stick of Judah knew to properly interpret those scriptures. In fact Nephi mentions this very issue in second Nephi where he provides a clue  wherein he states,  "For I, Nephi, have not taught them many things concerning the manner of the Jews"; For example, while there are several primary concepts involved in Jewish scripture understanding, one is referred to as The Seven Rules of Hillel.  Rules two and seven are applicable to this set of verses and are as follows:

Quote

2. “Equivalence” -"gezerah shavah"

The second rule dealt with an inferred relation between two subjects from identical expressions of reference; for instance, it was written that both the Sabbath and the Passover sacrifice must be “at the due season,” and if this meant that the “daily” sacrifice must be offered on a Sabbath, then the Passover sacrifice may also be offered on a Sabbath. It is probable that etymologically the word gezerah means "law" – as in Daniel 4:4, 14 – so that gezerah shavah would mean a comparison of two similar laws (Beẓah 1:6; see however S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, 193ff.); if the same word occurs in two Pentateuchal passages, then the law applying in the one should be applied to the other. Bergman argues (Sinai 71, 1972) that a gezerah shavah is the application of the laws in one instance to a second instance to achieve a unified legal principle, irrespective of the differences between the cases, more often than not by finding a word that appears in both instances. For example, the word be-mo'ado ("in its appointed time") is used both in regard to the Paschal lamb (Num. 9:2) and to the tamid, the daily offering (Num. 28:2), which is offered on the Sabbath as well. Thus it can be inferred that the term be-mo'ado includes the Sabbath and hence the Paschal lamb may be offered even on the Sabbath, although work normally forbidden on the Sabbath is entailed (Pes. 66a). The gezerah shavah, as may be seen from the above example, was originally a purely logical principle. It is reasonable to suppose that a law clearly stated in one passage can shed light on a similar law in a different passage. In the schools, however, the gezerah shavah threatened to become a formal principle whereby a mere similarity in words was sufficient warrant for positing similar laws in the respective passages.

 

Quote

 

7. An inference from the context.

Rule seven was an application of inferences from passages that were self-evident. In the hands of the scribes these simple rules became the basis for much unwarranted interpretation.

The meaning of a passage may be deduced: (a) from its context (mi-inyano), (b) from a later reference in the same passage (mi-sofo). As an example of (a), "Thou shalt not steal" in the Decalogue (Ex. 20:13) must refer to the capital offense of kidnapping, since the two other offenses mentioned in the same verse, "Thou shalt not murder" and "Thou shalt not commit adultery," are both capital offenses (Mekh., Ba-Ḥodesh, 8, 5). In example of (b), "I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession" (Lev. 14:34), refers only to a house built with stones, timber, and mortar, since these materials are mentioned later in verse 45 (Sifra, introd. 1:6).

Yes, then is the answer to question number two, it is very important. In fact there are areas of scriptures, such as the Nephi slaying Laban event which can only be properly understood by application of these rules.  However, I find I am not as comfortable with exegesis that is made from sources that fail to consider Jewish instructions favoring intellectual claims of expertise which lacks a Jewish foundation.

Any knowledgeable Jew would see the common phraseology in  2 Nephi 25:23 and Alma 24:11 which pivots on the phrase "all we could

do" and insist on a shared combined meaning as appropriate for correct understanding.  So by taking note of the processes of interpretation and placing them against the standard of the Gospel to establish the boundaries we find a means of consideration upon scripture that is superior to the often willy nilly, no rhyme or reason, types of interpretation that are so common. 

 

End Note:

Further discussion by Nephi is found concerning the things of the Jews in the following verse also found in 2 Nephi 25:

5 Yea, and my soul delighteth in the words of Isaiah, for I came out from Jerusalem, and mine eyes hath beheld the things of the Jews, and I know that the Jews do understand the things of the prophets, and there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews.

6 But behold, I, Nephi, have not taught my children after the manner of the Jews; but behold, I, of myself, have dwelt at Jerusalem, wherefore I know concerning the regions round about; and I have made mention unto my children concerning the judgments of God, which hath come to pass among the Jews, unto my children, according to all that which Isaiah hath spoken, and I do not write

 

Edited December 12, 2017 by SamIam

[CV75]

13 hours ago, filovirus said:

24 And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we keep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled.

25 For, for this end was the law given; wherefore the law hath become dead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith; yet we keep the law because of the commandments.

This was what Nephi was talking about in verse 23. They keep the law because of the commandments. That is doing "all they can do."

We are no longer bound by the law. It has been fulfilled. But Nephi and Co. were bound by the law, even though he knew it would be fulfilled. Nephi was talking specifically about his group in verse 23, and not us as latter-day-saints.

Yes, they kept the law of Moses, but that is only a small part of what they did, or a small portion of all they could do. They only kept the law of Moses because they were commanded to, not because the law of Moses is independently and inherently something to be obeyed. All they could do entailed obeying all God commanded them, not simply keep the law of Moses. God also commanded them to write, believe and rejoice in and look unto Christ; to persuade others to do likewise; to talk, preach and prophesy of Christ and to “bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out.” The law of Moses is secondary: “And, inasmuch as it shall be expedient, ye must keep the performances and ordinances of God until the law shall be fulfilled which was given unto Moses.”

From Matthew 23:23, they were not to omit the weightier matters of the law (judgment, mercy, and faith), but do them fully, while at the same time not leaving the various practices under the law of Moses undone.

[Bobbieaware]

23 hours ago, CV75 said:

Yes, they kept the law of Moses, but that is only a small part of what they did, or a small portion of all they could do. They only kept the law of Moses because they were commanded to, not because the law of Moses is independently and inherently something to be obeyed. All they could do entailed obeying all God commanded them, not simply keep the law of Moses. God also commanded them to write, believe and rejoice in and look unto Christ; to persuade others to do likewise; to talk, preach and prophesy of Christ and to “bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out.” The law of Moses is secondary: “And, inasmuch as it shall be expedient, ye must keep the performances and ordinances of God until the law shall be fulfilled which was given unto Moses.”

From Matthew 23:23, they were not to omit the weightier matters of the law (judgment, mercy, and faith), but do them fully, while at the same time not leaving the various practices under the law of Moses undone.

I’ve never heard anyone use the line of reasoning on 2 Nephi 25: 23 I’m about to demonstrate, but I think it’s the simplest way to determine what Nephi meant to say. This suggested line of reasoning starts with two simple questions:

1) Was Nephi laboring diligently because he knew it was by the grace of God that he would be saved, but only after first laboring diligently and doing all he could possibly do?

Or...

2) Was Nephi laboring diligently so as to persuade his children and people to believe in Christ and be reconciled to God the Father through Christ’s atoning sacrifice?

if question number 1 is correct, then God’s saving grace is imparted to a man only after he first does all he can do to obey the will of God so that he might be found righteous in His sight. 

If question number 2 is correct, then Nephi is warning us that even after a man does everything humanly possible to obey the will of God so as to be judged as righteous in His sight, all those expended efforts still aren’t enough to satisfy the law of justice and obtain salvation.

Because I believe question 2 provides the correct answer, I think Nephi’s meaning is simple: After wearing out one’s life in an effort to be found righteous in the sight of God, but attempting to do so apart the gospel Christ and it’s ordinances, it still won’t be enough to be declared righteous and obtain salvation. Why? The only way even a man of good will can be saved is to believe in Christ and receive a remission of his sins through repentance coupled with a strong reliance on Christ’s atonement.

 

Edited December 13, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[jkwilliams]

21 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

I’ve never heard anyone use the line of reasoning on 2 Nephi 25: 23 I’m about to demonstrate, but I think it’s the simplest way to determine what Nephi meant to say. This suggested line of reasoning starts with two simple questions:

1) Was Nephi laboring diligently because he knew it was by the grace of God that he would be saved, but only after first laboring diligently and doing all he could possibly do?

Or...

2) Was Nephi laboring diligently so as to persuade his children and people to believe in Christ and be reconciled to God the Father through Christ’s atoning sacrifice?

if question number 1 is correct, then God’s saving grace is imparted to a man only after he first does all he can do to obey the will of God so that he might be found righteous in His sight. 

If question number 2 is correct, then Nephi is warning us that even after a man does everything humanly possible to obey the will of God so as to be judged as righteous in His sight, all those expended efforts still aren’t enough to satisfy the law of justice and obtain salvation.

Because I believe question 2 provides the correct answer, I believe Nephi’s meaning is simple: After wearing out one’s life in an effort to be found righteous in the sight of God, but attempting to do so apart the gospel Christ and it’s ordinances, it still won’t be enough to be declared righteous and obtain salvation. Why? The only way even a man of good will can be saved is to believe in Christ and receive a remission of his sins through repentance coupled with a strong reliance on Christ’s atonement.

 

This might be the first time I've ever agreed with something you've posted. This is the reasoning Stephen Robinson explicates in "Believing Christ," so you're not alone. I read that years ago, and it was a great comfort to me, as I had always been taught the idea that you had to work until you were bleeding and exhausted of all possible effort to be able to receive God's grace. I do wish the church's Bible Dictionary would catch up, however, as it still seems to be stuck in your first question above:

 

Quote

 

It is through the grace of the Lord Jesus, made possible by His atoning sacrifice, that mankind will be raised in immortality, every person receiving his body from the grave in a condition of everlasting life. It is likewise through the grace of the Lord that individuals, through faith in the Atonement of Jesus Christ and repentance of their sins, receive strength and assistance to do good works that they otherwise would not be able to maintain if left to their own means. This grace is an enabling power that allows men and women to lay hold on eternal life and exaltation after they have expended their own best efforts.

Divine grace is needed by every soul in consequence of the Fall of Adam and also because of man’s weaknesses and shortcomings. However, grace cannot suffice without total effort on the part of the recipient. Hence the explanation, “It is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do” (2 Ne. 25:23). It is truly the grace of Jesus Christ that makes salvation possible. This principle is expressed in Jesus’ parable of the vine and the branches (John 15:1–11). See also John 1:12–17; Eph. 2:8–9; Philip. 4:13; D&C 93:11–14.

 

 

[CV75]

48 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

I’ve never heard anyone use the line of reasoning on 2 Nephi 25: 23 I’m about to demonstrate, but I think it’s the simplest way to determine what Nephi meant to say. This suggested line of reasoning starts with two simple questions:

1) Was Nephi laboring diligently because he knew it was by the grace of God that he would be saved, but only after first laboring diligently and doing all he could possibly do?

Or...

2) Was Nephi laboring diligently so as to persuade his children and people to believe in Christ and be reconciled to God the Father through Christ’s atoning sacrifice?

if question number 1 is correct, then God’s saving grace is imparted to a man only after he first does all he can do to obey the will of God so that he might be found righteous in His sight. 

If question number 2 is correct, then Nephi is warning us that even after a man does everything humanly possible to obey the will of God so as to be judged as righteous in His sight, all those expended efforts still aren’t enough to satisfy the law of justice and obtain salvation.

Because I believe question 2 provides the correct answer, I think Nephi’s meaning is simple: After wearing out one’s life in an effort to be found righteous in the sight of God, but attempting to do so apart the gospel Christ and it’s ordinances, it still won’t be enough to be declared righteous and obtain salvation. Why? The only way even a man of good will can be saved is to believe in Christ and receive a remission of his sins through repentance coupled with a strong reliance on Christ’s atonement.

kewl! Nephi's was certainly a "work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thessalonian 1:3).

[CV75]

32 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

This might be the first time I've ever agreed with something you've posted. This is the reasoning Stephen Robinson explicates in "Believing Christ," so you're not alone. I read that years ago, and it was a great comfort to me, as I had always been taught the idea that you had to work until you were bleeding and exhausted of all possible effort to be able to receive God's grace. I do wish the church's Bible Dictionary would catch up, however, as it still seems to be stuck in your first question above:

It seems to me the Bible Dictionary does reflects #2 per Moroni 10:32 (and Ether 12:27), "Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God." Nephi was exemplifying the human component of that formula. D&C 93:11-13, 20 shows that as Jesus, we may receive grace by degrees until a fulness is received. The conditions are the same for us as they were for Jesus.

[jkwilliams]

39 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It seems to me the Bible Dictionary does reflects #2 per Moroni 10:32 (and Ether 12:27), "Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God." Nephi was exemplifying the human component of that formula. D&C 93:11-13, 20 shows that as Jesus, we may receive grace by degrees until a fulness is received. The conditions are the same for us as they were for Jesus.

I don't think we're too far apart. I've always viewed works and grace as two sides of the same coin: grace enables the works, so in that sense, the works are God's, not ours. What I don't like is the idea that grace is earned by human effort, as the scriptures are pretty clear we don't earn grace and salvation. We are saved in spite of our sins, not because of our righteousness. In the end, "all we can do" is "not much." But many people labor under the perception that salvation is a set of tasks, like different levels of a video game: finish the last level, and you're saved. I once saw a chart in Gospel Doctrine that was labeled "steps of salvation." It was a large triangle, with the bottom layers being faith, repentance, baptism, and the Holy Ghost; in succession came such things as priesthood ordination, endowment, temple marriage, home teaching, and so on. At the very top was a tiny triangle labeled "Atonement." But salvation/exaltation is not a series of hoops to jump through or levels to climb in a triangle. I see it more as a journey with a companion who leads, guides, and even carries us toward our destiny. But the journey isn't one length, and all that is required is to make the journey and not abandon our companion guide, no matter how long or short the journey is.

To illustrate, when I was a missionary in Bolivia, a woman was scheduled to be baptized. On the appointed day, it was so cold they had to break the ice on the surface of the font. The missionaries suggested postponing the baptism, but she insisted she was going to be baptized that day. Consequently, she contracted pneumonia and died a week or so later (not surprising given living conditions and lack of medical care in Bolivia). This woman never had an opportunity to do the works we sometimes assume are how we lay hold on grace. She never went to the temple, never did visiting teaching, never had a calling, never even had Family Home Evenings or family prayers or scripture study. Her covenant journey was extremely brief, but it was enough. And a fulness of grace cannot be denied to someone simply because they haven't had a chance to receive grace by degrees.

 

Edited December 13, 2017 by jkwilliams

[CV75]

49 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't think we're too far apart. I've always viewed works and grace as two sides of the same coin: grace enables the works, so in that sense, the works are God's, not ours. What I don't like is the idea that grace is earned by human effort, as the scriptures are pretty clear we don't earn grace and salvation. We are saved in spite of our sins, not because of our righteousness. In the end, "all we can do" is "not much." But many people labor under the perception that salvation is a set of tasks, like different levels of a video game: finish the last level, and you're saved. I once saw a chart in Gospel Doctrine that was labeled "steps of salvation." It was a large triangle, with the bottom layers being faith, repentance, baptism, and the Holy Ghost; in succession came such things as priesthood ordination, endowment, temple marriage, home teaching, and so on. At the very top was a tiny triangle labeled "Atonement." But salvation/exaltation is not a series of hoops to jump through or levels to climb in a triangle. I see it more as a journey with a companion who leads, guides, and even carries us toward our destiny. But the journey isn't one length, and all that is required is to make the journey and not abandon our companion guide, no matter how long or short the journey is.

To illustrate, when I was a missionary in Bolivia, a woman was scheduled to be baptized. On the appointed day, it was so cold they had to break the ice on the surface of the font. The missionaries suggested postponing the baptism, but she insisted she was going to be baptized that day. Consequently, she contracted pneumonia and died a week or so later (not surprising given living conditions and lack of medical care in Bolivia). This woman never had an opportunity to do the works we sometimes assume are how we lay hold on grace. She never went to the temple, never did visiting teaching, never had a calling, never even had Family Home Evenings or family prayers or scripture study. Her covenant journey was extremely brief, but it was enough. And a fulness of grace cannot be denied to someone simply because they haven't had a chance to receive grace by degrees.

I think our inability, or the impossibility, to earn divine grace is why it is always presented in terms of receiving and finding it rather than than obtaining it. I cannot think of anyone who has not had, or will not have, a chance to receive God's grace by degrees (we all start somewhere); and likewise no one, even Jesus, received a fulness at once.

[clarkgoble]

8 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

This might be the first time I've ever agreed with something you've posted. This is the reasoning Stephen Robinson explicates in "Believing Christ," so you're not alone. I read that years ago, and it was a great comfort to me, as I had always been taught the idea that you had to work until you were bleeding and exhausted of all possible effort to be able to receive God's grace. I do wish the church's Bible Dictionary would catch up, however, as it still seems to be stuck in your first question above:

I think the problem with the Bible Dictionary (and let's be honest - it has lots of problems not just this one) is that it's ambiguous about what total effort means. Does it mean that one could in no way do more? I rather doubt that's what it means. Does it mean being willing to sacrifice all? I think there's a case to be made for that, although then you have the problem of "line upon line, grace upon grace" where we develop over time. The problem is that "total sacrifice" is so vague as to be almost meaningless. Which is a problem since undoubtedly people have interpreted it in extreme ways leading to giving up or feeling like they aren't worthy of grace. Or, as I've argued, it becomes used as a rhetorical foil for people who prefer a view of grace where effort doesn't matter at all. Either way the Bible Dictionary entry isn't helpful although hopefully people turn to lds.org with far better answers.

 

Edited December 13, 2017 by clarkgoble