Lds Perspectives Podcast: After All We Can Do'

[Dan McClellan]

I recently spoke with Laura Harris Hales on her LDS Perspectives Podcast about some recent publications of mine, including a forthcoming article about 2 Nephi 25:23 and the concept of being saved by grace, "after all we can do." I'd love to hear what you think.

Also, it should go without saying, but everything I share in the interview is my own personal opinion and not that of my employer, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I do not speak for the Church. The research I talk about was done on personal time (though sparked by discussions at work), and the conclusions I reached are not official in any sense whatsoever.

https://ldsperspectives.com/2020/03/18/despite-all-we-can-do-with-daniel-o-mcclellan/?fbclid=IwAR1CJ4D4sK79crADORJE6X4I_liffEOuZCZIZ-uC01Gkc-M0RMF6RDzztG4

[strappinglad]

Personally , I think " after all we can do " has to mean somewhere between " no matter what we do , after all " and " after we have squeezed out every last drop of blood " .

[Maureen]

I have a question. First of all I am non-LDS.

At the beginning of the podcast you were talking about translating Church documents (I am assuming Teaching Manuals, etc into other languages.) And in those English Church documents are scriptual quotes from the KJV. So my understanding of translating the Old and New Testaments into multiple languages is that the existing Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are typically used. So my question is, if the language you are translating your manuals into already has it's own Old and New Testaments, wouldn't it be easier to use those translations then figure out how to use a KJV quote for translating into a different language?

M.

Edited March 18, 2020 by Maureen

[Robert F. Smith]

I loved the interview, thought Laura Hales asked all the right questions, but I found myself questioning a couple of your responses, Dan.

First off, it doesn't seem likely to me that the Early Modern English form of the Book of Mormon published in 1830 was actually intended for the people of that day.  It was a key sign of Joseph's prophetic status (both formally and informally), and most members dealt with it as such at that time. But, if it was intended to be read and understood by them, why wasn't it rendered in 19th century English?  Can I explain why it was rendered in EModE?  No, but that is a fact which we ought to accept and deal with as best we can.  The language can and has been updated.  Even Joseph could see the need for that in editing the second edition.

I was fascinated by your research into the linguistic context of "after all we can do" as connected with, and as a defense of grace.  However, I opted for an intertextual approach in my Sept 2012 SMPT paper:

VI.  Grace, Covenant & Works

A.  In law a deal is sometimes spoken of as consisting of an offer, an acceptance, and a consideration.  However, just because you make a free offer doesn't mean that I accept it.  So, is faith required to accept the free gift of grace?  And is faith a "work"?  Is it a “consideration”?

How should we parse Nephi’s statement in II Nephi 25:23?

Quote

. . . be reconciled unto God;

for we know that it is by grace we are saved,

after all we can do.

Or of Jacob in II Nephi 10:24?^[1]

Quote

. . . 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.

Or the King of the Anti-Nephi-Lehis in Alma 24:11?

Quote

. . . it has been all that we could do . . .

to repent of all our sins and the many murders which we have committed,

and to get God to take them away from our hearts,

for it was all we could do to repent sufficiently before God

that he would take away our stain . . . .

Or of Paul in Ephesians 6:13 (ISV)?

Quote

For this reason, take up the whole armor of God so that you may be able to take a stand whenever evil comes. And when you have done everything you could, you will be able to stand firm. [καὶ ἅπαντα κατεργασάμενοι]

B.  Should we follow Stephen Robinson here in his suggestion that “after” is a preposition of separation, suggesting that we are saved by grace “apart” from all we can do, while at the same time requiring that we be faithful to the covenant.^[2] Or do we understand it according to Brant Gardner's suggestion that the "after all we can do" refers to centuries of observance of the Law of Moses, i. e., "after" being sequential in time, with the Law of Moses being the type which looks forward to the antitype which fulfills the Law.^[3]  As Brad Wilcox has put it:                         

Quote

Christ is not waiting at the finish line once we have done “all we can do” (2 Ne. 25:23). He is with us every step of the way.^[4]

C.  As Amy-Jill Levine points out, part of this quandary stems from disregard of Judaism and the nature of Jewish law – in which repentance is central. 

Quote

  . . . the election of Israel is based on grace, not merit or works.  Jews do not follow Torah in order to “earn” divine love or salvation; the Mishnah (m. Sanh. 10.1) states that “all Israel has a share in the world to come” -- it is part of the covenant.^[5]

D.  Just so, New Testament Greek charis “grace” indicates not merely gratitude, nor merely the “gratia plena” of the Ave Maria, but actually indicates a reciprocal gift-giving relationship between patron and devotée.^[6] Indeed, biblical Hebrew ḥēn “grace,” and ḥānâ “to be gracious, show favor,” must be understood first in the context of the formal covenant relationship between Israel and the Lord God (Exodus 34:5-28, Numbers 14:18).^[7]  The offer and acceptance of that covenant (as in Mosiah 5:1-15) brought with it the obligation of faithful adherence to that covenant, such that Jesus himself repeatedly insisted that men will be judged according to their works:

Quote

Matthew 16:27 "he shall reward every man according to his works."  John 5:29 "And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."  (Matthew 5:16, 7:16, 13:23, 25:40, Luke 6:35, John 3:21, 8:39, 14:15; I Nephi 15:32-33, II Nephi 9:44, Mosiah 3:24, 16:10, Alma 7:27, 9:28, III Nephi 12:16, 26:4, 27:11-15, Mormon 3:18,20, 6:21, Moroni 7:5)

Works and grace: Can't have one without the other.  "Draw nigh unto God, and he will draw nigh unto you" (James 4:8).  For “grace without works is as dead as a body without a soul” (James 2:20,26; cf. Proverbs 24:12), with the proviso that "They who have not the Law are a law unto themselves" (Romans 2:14).

---

[1] Book of Mormon Central, “Why Does Nephi State that We Are Saved by Grace ‘After All We Can Do’? (2 Nephi 25:23),” KnoWhy #371, Oct 10, 2017, online at https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/why-does-nephi-state-that-we-are-saved-by-grace-%E2%80%9Cafter-all-we-can-do , insightfully points out that Nephi is quoting Jacob (a quote reversed in accord with Seidel’s Law).

[2] Robinson, Believing Christ: The Parable of the Bicycle and Other Good News (Deseret Book, 1992), 91-92 (91, “regardless of all we can do”); cf. Robert Millet, After All We Can Do . . . Grace Works (Deseret Book, 2001); both cited by Spencer, An Other Testament, 94-95.

[3] Spencer, An Other Testament, 94-95, citing Brant Gardner, Second Witness, I:343-344.

[4] Wilcox, “His Grace is Sufficient,” BYU Devotional Address, July 12, 2011, published in BYU Today, devotional address at BYU (Winter 2012), online at https://magazine.byu.edu/article/his-grace-is- sufficient/, citing Bruce Hafen, The Broken Heart (SLC: Deseret Book, 1989), 155.

[5] Levine, “Common Errors Made about Judaism,” in Levine & Brettler, eds., The Jewish Annotated New Testament (Oxford Univ. Press, 2011), 502; also quoted in Pirqei ʼAbot superscription.

[6] Brent. J. Schmidt, Relational Grace: The Reciprocal and Binding Covenant of Charis (Χάρις) (Provo: BYU Studies, 2015); Brent Schmidt and John Welch, “Op-ed: The Mormon Restoration and the Meaning of Grace,” Deseret News, Dec 20, 2017, online at https://www.deseretnews.com/article/ 865694194/Op-ed-The-Mormon-restoration-and-the-meaning-of-grace.html .

[7] John S. Kselman, “Grace: Old Testament,” in D. Freedman, ed., ABD, II:1084-1086.

Edited March 19, 2020 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

36 minutes ago, Maureen said:

I have a question. First of all I am non-LDS.

At the beginning of the podcast you were talking about translating Church documents (I am assuming Teaching Manuals, etc into other languages.) And in those English Church documents are scriptual quotes from the KJV. So my understanding of translating the Old and New Testaments into multiple languages is that the existing Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are typically used. So my question is, if the language you are translating your manuals into already has it's own Old and New Testaments, wouldn't it be easier to use those translations then figure out how to use a KJV quote for translating into a different language?

M.

Dan pointed out the use by his department of already existing translations of the Bible (those which are preferred), rather than the KJV.

[Maureen]

Just now, Robert F. Smith said:

Dan pointed out the use by his department of already existing translations of the Bible (those which are preferred), rather than the KJV.

Yes, but I wasn't sure if he was talking about all English translations.

M.

[Robert F. Smith]

14 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Yes, but I wasn't sure if he was talking about all English translations.

M.

I think only foreign language translations.

[Dan McClellan]

3 hours ago, Maureen said:

I have a question. First of all I am non-LDS.

At the beginning of the podcast you were talking about translating Church documents (I am assuming Teaching Manuals, etc into other languages.) And in those English Church documents are scriptual quotes from the KJV. So my understanding of translating the Old and New Testaments into multiple languages is that the existing Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are typically used. So my question is, if the language you are translating your manuals into already has it's own Old and New Testaments, wouldn't it be easier to use those translations then figure out how to use a KJV quote for translating into a different language?

M.

EDITED: Sorry, I read your post too quickly. Our process has the translators look first to the existing preferred translation in their language, and only if that doesn't work do they translate the KJV.

Edited March 19, 2020 by Dan McClellan

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

... [4] Wilcox, “His Grace is Sufficient,” BYU Devotional Address, July 12, 2011, published in BYU Today, devotional address at BYU (Winter 2012), online at http://magazine.byu.edu/article/his-grace-is- sufficient/, citing Bruce Hafen, The Broken Heart (SLC: Deseret Book, 1989), 155. ...

Bro. Smith:

You need an "s" after that "http" in the link to Bro. Wilcox's Devotional Address.  Here's a link that'll get you there: https://magazine.byu.edu/article/his-grace-is-sufficient/

You're welcome.

Glad I could help!

[Dan McClellan]

19 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I loved the interview, thought Laura Hales asked all the right questions, but I found myself questioning a couple of your responses, Dan.

First off, it doesn't seem likely to me that the Early Modern English form of the Book of Mormon published in 1830 was actually intended for the people of that day.  It was a key sign of Joseph's prophetic status (both formally and informally), and most members dealt with it as such at that time. But, if it was intended to be read and understood by them, why wasn't it rendered in 19th century English? 

But it was rendered into 19th-century English. It was archaizing, absolutely, but the majority of the language is 19th century in origin.

Quote

Can I explain why it was rendered in EModE? 

I would argue there are only sporadic intersections with EModE. More frequent are the 19th-century indicators. My paper goes into much more detail about this, but the "after all we can do" actually fits comfortably into the early 19th-century phase of the developmental trajectory of Protestant rhetoric that used this phrase in reference to grace.

Quote

No, but that is a fact which we ought to accept and deal with as best we can.  The language can and has been updated.  Even Joseph could see the need for that in editing the second edition.

I was fascinated by your research into the linguistic context of "after all we can do" as connected with, and as a defense of grace.  However, I opted for an intertextual approach in my Sept 2012 SMPT paper:

VI.  Grace, Covenant & Works

A.  In law a deal is sometimes spoken of as consisting of an offer, an acceptance, and a consideration.  However, just because you make a free offer doesn't mean that I accept it.  So, is faith required to accept the free gift of grace?  And is faith a "work"?  Is it a “consideration”?

How should we parse Nephi’s statement in II Nephi 25:23?

Or of Jacob in II Nephi 10:24?^[1]

Or the King of the Anti-Nephi-Lehis in Alma 24:11?

Or of Paul in Ephesians 6:13 (ISV)?

B.  Should we follow Stephen Robinson here in his suggestion that “after” is a preposition of separation, suggesting that we are saved by grace “apart” from all we can do, while at the same time requiring that we be faithful to the covenant.^[2] Or do we understand it according to Brant Gardner's suggestion that the "after all we can do" refers to centuries of observance of the Law of Moses, i. e., "after" being sequential in time, with the Law of Moses being the type which looks forward to the antitype which fulfills the Law.^[3]  As Brad Wilcox has put it:                         

C.  As Amy-Jill Levine points out, part of this quandary stems from disregard of Judaism and the nature of Jewish law – in which repentance is central. 

D.  Just so, New Testament Greek charis “grace” indicates not merely gratitude, nor merely the “gratia plena” of the Ave Maria, but actually indicates a reciprocal gift-giving relationship between patron and devotée.^[6] Indeed, biblical Hebrew ḥēn “grace,” and ḥānâ “to be gracious, show favor,” must be understood first in the context of the formal covenant relationship between Israel and the Lord God (Exodus 34:5-28, Numbers 14:18).^[7]  The offer and acceptance of that covenant (as in Mosiah 5:1-15) brought with it the obligation of faithful adherence to that covenant, such that Jesus himself repeatedly insisted that men will be judged according to their works:

Works and grace: Can't have one without the other.  "Draw nigh unto God, and he will draw nigh unto you" (James 4:8).  For “grace without works is as dead as a body without a soul” (James 2:20,26; cf. Proverbs 24:12), with the proviso that "They who have not the Law are a law unto themselves" (Romans 2:14).

---

[1] Book of Mormon Central, “Why Does Nephi State that We Are Saved by Grace ‘After All We Can Do’? (2 Nephi 25:23),” KnoWhy #371, Oct 10, 2017, online at https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/why-does-nephi-state-that-we-are-saved-by-grace-%E2%80%9Cafter-all-we-can-do , insightfully points out that Nephi is quoting Jacob (a quote reversed in accord with Seidel’s Law).

[2] Robinson, Believing Christ: The Parable of the Bicycle and Other Good News (Deseret Book, 1992), 91-92 (91, “regardless of all we can do”); cf. Robert Millet, After All We Can Do . . . Grace Works (Deseret Book, 2001); both cited by Spencer, An Other Testament, 94-95.

[3] Spencer, An Other Testament, 94-95, citing Brant Gardner, Second Witness, I:343-344.

[4] Wilcox, “His Grace is Sufficient,” BYU Devotional Address, July 12, 2011, published in BYU Today, devotional address at BYU (Winter 2012), online at http://magazine.byu.edu/article/his-grace-is- sufficient/, citing Bruce Hafen, The Broken Heart (SLC: Deseret Book, 1989), 155.

[5] Levine, “Common Errors Made about Judaism,” in Levine & Brettler, eds., The Jewish Annotated New Testament (Oxford Univ. Press, 2011), 502; also quoted in Pirqei ʼAbot superscription.

[6] Brent. J. Schmidt, Relational Grace: The Reciprocal and Binding Covenant of Charis (Χάρις) (Provo: BYU Studies, 2015); Brent Schmidt and John Welch, “Op-ed: The Mormon Restoration and the Meaning of Grace,” Deseret News, Dec 20, 2017, online at https://www.deseretnews.com/article/ 865694194/Op-ed-The-Mormon-restoration-and-the-meaning-of-grace.html .

[7] John S. Kselman, “Grace: Old Testament,” in D. Freedman, ed., ABD, II:1084-1086.

 

I'm not sure exactly what reading you're promoting here.

 

[Maureen]

3 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

EDITED: Sorry, I read your post too quickly. Our process has the translators look first to the existing preferred translation in their language, and only if that doesn't work do they translate the KJV.

I had read your previous response and am actually happier with your edited one. I think it's very important that the preferred language translation takes priority.

M.

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

But it was rendered into 19th-century English. It was archaizing, absolutely, but the majority of the language is 19th century in origin.

I would argue there are only sporadic intersections with EModE. More frequent are the 19th-century indicators. My paper goes into much more detail about this, but the "after all we can do" actually fits comfortably into the early 19th-century phase of the developmental trajectory of Protestant rhetoric that used this phrase in reference to grace.

Language is a stream, and 19th century English had plenty of carry-over from earlier English expression or style.  However, Stanford Carmack has convinced me that EModE is systematically present in the BofM, not simply in an occasional phrase here and there. What's more, those systematic EModE characteristics are so often features absent from the KJV that it puts the BofM in a class by itself.  EModE was dead long before 1830, and it is a mystery why the BofM was presented to Joseph Smith already prepared in that form of translation English.

12 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

I'm not sure exactly what reading you're promoting here.

I am arguing for a fully reciprocal, intertextual reading, rather than your exclusionary "despite all we can do."  We need only substitute your "despite" in the various parallel phrases to see how unworkable it is.  In addition, "despite" doesn't seem to comport with what we find in LDS Church publications:

Pres. Ezra T. Benson, “Redemption through Jesus Christ after All We Can Do,” Ensign, Dec 1988,
“What is meant by ‘after all we can do’?

“‘After all we can do’ includes extending our best effort. It includes living his commandments.

“‘After all we can do’ includes loving our fellow men and praying for those who regard us as their adversary. It means clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, visiting the sick, and giving ‘succor [to] those who stand in need of our succor’ (Mosiah 4:16) —remembering that what we do unto one of the least of God’s children, we do unto him.

“‘After all we can do’ means leading chaste, clean, pure lives, being scrupulously honest in all our dealings and treating others the way we would want to be treated.”

Pres. James E. Faust, “The Atonement: Our Greatest Hope,” Ensign, Nov. 2001, 18,
“I am profoundly grateful for the principle of saving grace. Many people think they need only confess that Jesus is the Christ and then they are saved by grace alone. We cannot be saved by grace alone, “for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do” (2 Ne. 25:23; emphasis added).

Elder Claudio Zivic, “After All We Can Do,” Ensign, Nov 2007,
“Nephi taught us clearly what we ought to do. He said, “For we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do” (2 Nephi 25:23).

“I believe that the first thing we have to keep in mind in doing “all we can” is to repent of our sins.”
* * * *
“Another thing that must be our permanent responsibility is to do ‘all we can do’ to share the gospel of happiness with all mankind.”

E. Richard Packham, “My Maturing Views of Grace,” Ensign, Aug 2005,

“And what is ‘all we can do’ referred to in 2 Nephi? We can have faith, repent, be baptized, receive the Holy Ghost, and endure faithfully to the end (see 3 Ne. 27:19–21).”
** * *
“I have concluded that while works, such as obedience to gospel principles and ordinances, play a key role in accessing the full benefits of the Atonement, it is by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ that we are saved.”

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Bro. Smith:

You need an "s" after that "http" in the link to Bro. Wilcox's Devotional Address.  Here's a link that'll get you there: https://magazine.byu.edu/article/his-grace-is-sufficient/

You're welcome.

Glad I could help!

Thanks for that correction.  Dan Wilcox is in my stake, and I have had the pleasure of serving with him in the Cub Scouts. 

[Islander]

Robert F Smith above lays a very strong proposition that is very consistent with the teachings (although infrequent) of the Church of the subject. I had a very similar conversation with a local leader not long ago and he was surprised that the subject of grace has never been brought up in church according to his recollection. 

No amount of works will be sufficient to earn our way into the kingdom of our God. Isaiah says : "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy (menstrual)  rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." Isa. 64:6 

I can also read Spanish and Portuguese and the meaning is quite clear. Like B. Wilcox put it in "The Continuous Atonement", (my paraphrase here) Christ is not the Savior of the gap. He is not waiting to see what we can do to then bridge and patch the hole on the pathway to heaven. A true child of the covenant, an heir to the kingdom, filled with the love of God and all mankind will NOT fail to produce fruit meet for repentance and put forth the works of righteousness. But that will not be sufficient. We rely on the merits of Him who is mighty to save. Moroni closes the BoM with these words:

"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." Mor. 10:32

[Dan McClellan]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Language is a stream, and 19th century English had plenty of carry-over from earlier English expression or style.  However, Stanford Carmack has convinced me that EModE is systematically present in the BofM, not simply in an occasional phrase here and there. What's more, those systematic EModE characteristics are so often features absent from the KJV that it puts the BofM in a class by itself.  EModE was dead long before 1830, and it is a mystery why the BofM was presented to Joseph Smith already prepared in that form of translation English.

I've talked with Stan about these data, and I'm not as convinced as he is. Being absent from the KJV isn't evidence of much. Archaizing never reproduces just the older style. It's always an older style seen through a lens of other styles. That's a much longer discussion for another day, though.

Quote

I am arguing for a fully reciprocal, intertextual reading, rather than your exclusionary "despite all we can do."  We need only substitute your "despite" in the various parallel phrases to see how unworkable it is.

There are no parallel constructions. "It was all we could do" is an entirely distinct construction from "after all we can do." My reading actually directly supports the statement in 2 Nephi 10:24. You don't have the whole paper yet, but the idea is that reconciliation is justification, or the first step, which puts us on the path. At that point, grace is the only thing that saves us, despite all we can do. This is precisely the message of 2 Nephi 10:24. Ephesians 6:13 is not talking about grace.   

Quote

 

In addition, "despite" doesn't seem to comport with what we find in LDS Church publications:

Pres. Ezra T. Benson, “Redemption through Jesus Christ after All We Can Do,” Ensign, Dec 1988,
“What is meant by ‘after all we can do’?

“‘After all we can do’ includes extending our best effort. It includes living his commandments.

“‘After all we can do’ includes loving our fellow men and praying for those who regard us as their adversary. It means clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, visiting the sick, and giving ‘succor [to] those who stand in need of our succor’ (Mosiah 4:16) —remembering that what we do unto one of the least of God’s children, we do unto him.

“‘After all we can do’ means leading chaste, clean, pure lives, being scrupulously honest in all our dealings and treating others the way we would want to be treated.”

Pres. James E. Faust, “The Atonement: Our Greatest Hope,” Ensign, Nov. 2001, 18,
“I am profoundly grateful for the principle of saving grace. Many people think they need only confess that Jesus is the Christ and then they are saved by grace alone. We cannot be saved by grace alone, “for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do” (2 Ne. 25:23; emphasis added).

Elder Claudio Zivic, “After All We Can Do,” Ensign, Nov 2007,
“Nephi taught us clearly what we ought to do. He said, “For we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do” (2 Nephi 25:23).

“I believe that the first thing we have to keep in mind in doing “all we can” is to repent of our sins.”
* * * *
“Another thing that must be our permanent responsibility is to do ‘all we can do’ to share the gospel of happiness with all mankind.”

E. Richard Packham, “My Maturing Views of Grace,” Ensign, Aug 2005,

“And what is ‘all we can do’ referred to in 2 Nephi? We can have faith, repent, be baptized, receive the Holy Ghost, and endure faithfully to the end (see 3 Ne. 27:19–21).”
** * *
“I have concluded that while works, such as obedience to gospel principles and ordinances, play a key role in accessing the full benefits of the Atonement, it is by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ that we are saved.”

 

I address all this in the full paper. The "official" interpretation has become far more nuanced in recent years, but I'm not trying to harmonize everything, I'm just pointing to what the literary and rhetoric context indicates it meant when it was published.

[Dan McClellan]

6 hours ago, Islander said:

Robert F Smith above lays a very strong proposition that is very consistent with the teachings (although infrequent) of the Church of the subject. I had a very similar conversation with a local leader not long ago and he was surprised that the subject of grace has never been brought up in church according to his recollection. 

No amount of works will be sufficient to earn our way into the kingdom of our God. Isaiah says : "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy (menstrual)  rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." Isa. 64:6 

I can also read Spanish and Portuguese and the meaning is quite clear. Like B. Wilcox put it in "The Continuous Atonement", (my paraphrase here) Christ is not the Savior of the gap. He is not waiting to see what we can do to then bridge and patch the hole on the pathway to heaven. A true child of the covenant, an heir to the kingdom, filled with the love of God and all mankind will NOT fail to produce fruit meet for repentance and put forth the works of righteousness. But that will not be sufficient. We rely on the merits of Him who is mighty to save. Moroni closes the BoM with these words:

"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." Mor. 10:32

We're talking about two different stages of "grace" here. Coming unto Christ is being reconciled to God, or what Paul calls justification. This is stage one. That's entering into the path. Look at the next verse, where it says that when grace has perfected us in Christ, and we have not denied his power––in other words, once we have entered the path, or become reconciled to God––it is THEN that by the grace of God we are sanctified in Christ. These are two different processes. Throughout the Book of Mormon it talks about being reconciled to God to get us on the path. This is repentance, baptism, etc. Once we're on the path, grace is the only means of salvation, like it says in 2 Nephi 10:24. 2 Nephi 33:9 similarly expresses a hope that the Gentiles will “be reconciled unto Christ, and enter into the narrow gate, and walk in the strait path which leads to life, and continue in the path until the end of the day of probation.” We have to keep the grace attending reconciliation separate from the grace that effects ultimate salvation. 

[Islander]

43 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

We're talking about two different stages of "grace" here.  We have to keep the grace attending reconciliation separate from the grace that effects ultimate salvation. 

I am sorry, my brother, but it seems that you are stretching the item theologically to the point where it seems, in your view, that the text is talking about two distinct types of "grace". Nephi and their descendants were Jews and the "vision" of Christ they got was limited to the preaching of their prophets. The ministry of the Savior in the Americas was a short one. The word "grace" appears in the biblical texts of the scriptures over 170 times. The concept is labored and more explicit in te NT than in the BoM but it is there. It is a very well documented concept. It relates to the undeserved favor that the Lord extend to us, broken, fallen humans, that have, ALL of us, broken His laws and deserve death as a consequence. Because in this life we are NOT able to ascertain perfection, no matter what we do and ALL fall short of the glory of God, it is Him that extends grace to us. He allows us to repent again, and again . And like Nephi says:

" 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." 2 Ne. 10:24

The ordinance will not save you and there is no righteousness that we can bring before the throne of God. We are saved because God accepts our broken heart, contrite spirit and faith in the Atoning blood of His son as a token. So, it is His grace (which we do not deserve -- for a sovereign God does not owes anything to His creatures) that makes provision for our salvation. in 2 Ne 4:16-19 Nephi laments that inspite of everything that the Lord has done for him, he is still a sinner. But, his has faith; he trusts in his Savior and that is his comfort. He knows he will saved because of his faith and the grace of God. Paul is explicit in Romans 3:24-25: "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;  justified (made righteous) freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:"  

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God," Eph 2:8  I think the principle is well established and clear in the scriptures, both, in the NT and in the BoM. We are all helpless. There is nothing we can do to save ourselves. It is God in His infinite grace and mercy that makes the Atoning blood of Christ the propitiation for our salvation.

 

 

Edited March 20, 2020 by Islander

[Dan McClellan]

14 minutes ago, Islander said:

I am sorry, my brother, but it seems that you are stretching the item theologically to the point where it seems, in your view, that the text is talking about two distinct types of "grace". Nephi and their descendants were Jews and the "vision" of Christ they got was limited to the preaching of their prophets. The ministry of the Savior in the Americas was a short one. The word "grace" appears in the biblical texts of the scriptures over 170 times. The concept is labored and more explicit in te NT than in the BoM but it is there. It is a very well documented concept. It relates to the undeserved favor that the Lord extend to us, broken, fallen humans, that have, ALL of us, broken His laws and deserve death as a consequence. Because in this life we are NOT able to ascertain perfection, no matter what we do and ALL fall short of the glory of God, it is Him that extends grace to us. He allows us to repent again, and again . And like Nephi says:

" 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." 2 Ne. 10:24

The ordinance will not save you and there is no righteousness that we can bring before the throne of God. We are saved because God accepts our broken heart, contrite spirit and faith in the Atoning blood of His son as a token. So, it is His grace (which we do not deserve -- for a sovereign God does not owes anything to His creatures) that makes provision for our salvation. in 2 Ne 4:16-19 Nephi laments that inspite of everything that the Lord has done for him, he is still a sinner. But, his has faith; he trusts in his Savior and that is his comfort. He knows he will saved because of his faith and the grace of God. Paul is explicit in Romans 3:24-25: "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;  justified (made righteous) freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:"  

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God," Eph 2:8  I think the principle is well established and clear in the scriptures, both, in the NT and in the BoM. We are all helpless. There is nothing we can do to save ourselves. It is God in His infinite grace and mercy that makes the Atoning blood of Christ the propitiation for our salvation.

 

I didn't say two different types of grace, I referred to two different stages of grace, and the Book of Mormon consistently distinguishes the process by which one "enters the gate," which it refers to as reconciliation to God/Christ, and the process by which grace ultimately saves the person. 

[caspianrex]

I finally got around to listening to the podcast episode shared in the original post.

Really a great discussion, especially as it gets into how language works. Dan makes some great points. Meaningful, even to a non-member like myself!

[Dan McClellan]

36 minutes ago, caspianrex said:

I finally got around to listening to the podcast episode shared in the original post.

Really a great discussion, especially as it gets into how language works. Dan makes some great points. Meaningful, even to a non-member like myself!

Thanks for the kind words! Would love to be able to have more conversations like that.

[hope_for_things]

On 3/18/2020 at 11:40 AM, Dan McClellan said:

I recently spoke with Laura Harris Hales on her LDS Perspectives Podcast about some recent publications of mine, including a forthcoming article about 2 Nephi 25:23 and the concept of being saved by grace, "after all we can do." I'd love to hear what you think.

Also, it should go without saying, but everything I share in the interview is my own personal opinion and not that of my employer, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I do not speak for the Church. The research I talk about was done on personal time (though sparked by discussions at work), and the conclusions I reached are not official in any sense whatsoever.

https://ldsperspectives.com/2020/03/18/despite-all-we-can-do-with-daniel-o-mcclellan/?fbclid=IwAR1CJ4D4sK79crADORJE6X4I_liffEOuZCZIZ-uC01Gkc-M0RMF6RDzztG4

I just finished listening to this, and thought it was an excellent interview.  I wanted to thank you for the time you took for the interview and the work you've done on this issue.  I'm not familiar with your writings or background, but I was pleasantly surprised by what I heard here.  

Two questions for you. 

1. I really love how you emphasized that we need to look at the 1830s audience as the intended context to best understand the meaning of the BoM as it was originally intended.  Your moving the argument about historicity to the side so we can focus on the text and what it meant in the time period it was dictated, I really appreciate.  Do you think as a culture that we can successfully get to the point where we're focused more on the text and less on historicity?  I personally would like to see the appetite for Elder Clayton and his style of apologetics to become secondary to actually discussing the text of the BoM.  

2.  With so much of the BoM language being tied directly to the New Testament, I'm hoping that a more in depth analysis of the BoM will actually help people learn to appreciate the NT more, and especially how the NT was being used and understood in the 19th century.  Are you aware of any scholarly treatments that look at the similarities between the BoM and the NT as a way of interpreting meaning in BoM passages?  

Thanks again

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I just finished listening to this, and thought it was an excellent interview.  I wanted to thank you for the time you took for the interview and the work you've done on this issue.  I'm not familiar with your writings or background, but I was pleasantly surprised by what I heard here.  

Two questions for you. 

1. I really love how you emphasized that we need to look at the 1830s audience as the intended context to best understand the meaning of the BoM as it was originally intended.  Your moving the argument about historicity to the side so we can focus on the text and what it meant in the time period it was dictated, I really appreciate.  Do you think as a culture that we can successfully get to the point where we're focused more on the text and less on historicity?  I personally would like to see the appetite for Elder Clayton and his style of apologetics to become secondary to actually discussing the text of the BoM.  

2.  With so much of the BoM language being tied directly to the New Testament, I'm hoping that a more in depth analysis of the BoM will actually help people learn to appreciate the NT more, and especially how the NT was being used and understood in the 19th century.  Are you aware of any scholarly treatments that look at the similarities between the BoM and the NT as a way of interpreting meaning in BoM passages?  

Thanks again

I listened to the LDS Perspectives interview during my walk today.  I enjoyed it very much and I like Dan's approach.  I'd really like to comment on both your questions, but you didn't ask me  and I'll let Dan answer.  

[Dan McClellan]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I just finished listening to this, and thought it was an excellent interview.  I wanted to thank you for the time you took for the interview and the work you've done on this issue.  I'm not familiar with your writings or background, but I was pleasantly surprised by what I heard here.  

Two questions for you. 

1. I really love how you emphasized that we need to look at the 1830s audience as the intended context to best understand the meaning of the BoM as it was originally intended.  Your moving the argument about historicity to the side so we can focus on the text and what it meant in the time period it was dictated, I really appreciate.  Do you think as a culture that we can successfully get to the point where we're focused more on the text and less on historicity?  I personally would like to see the appetite for Elder Clayton and his style of apologetics to become secondary to actually discussing the text of the BoM.  

2.  With so much of the BoM language being tied directly to the New Testament, I'm hoping that a more in depth analysis of the BoM will actually help people learn to appreciate the NT more, and especially how the NT was being used and understood in the 19th century.  Are you aware of any scholarly treatments that look at the similarities between the BoM and the NT as a way of interpreting meaning in BoM passages?  

Thanks again

Thanks for the thoughtful questions! My thoughts:

1. I really hope so. The more we stay stuck in an apologetic framework that dedicates most of its time to finding more and different ways to defend our truth claims, the more of the texts functionality we leave on the table. I think there's so much more out there to learn, and things like the new brief theological introductions to the Book of Mormon are excellent starts. We could have so much to offer if we let go of that boundary maintenance and focused more on how the text can inform our walk with God. 

2. Nothing springs to mind, but I definitely agree with you. There are untold exegetical riches out there for those willing to interrogate the intersection of the Book of Mormon, the New Testament, and 19th-century restorationism. I see the field of history being far more willing to bring that critical lens to that period, but I think we're starting to scratch the surface. 

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I listened to the LDS Perspectives interview during my walk today.  I enjoyed it very much and I like Dan's approach.  I'd really like to comment on both your questions, but you didn't ask me  and I'll let Dan answer.  

Thanks, I always like to hear multiple perspectives, please share yours as well.  

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

Thanks for the thoughtful questions! My thoughts:

1. I really hope so. The more we stay stuck in an apologetic framework that dedicates most of its time to finding more and different ways to defend our truth claims, the more of the texts functionality we leave on the table. I think there's so much more out there to learn, and things like the new brief theological introductions to the Book of Mormon are excellent starts. We could have so much to offer if we let go of that boundary maintenance and focused more on how the text can inform our walk with God. 

2. Nothing springs to mind, but I definitely agree with you. There are untold exegetical riches out there for those willing to interrogate the intersection of the Book of Mormon, the New Testament, and 19th-century restorationism. I see the field of history being far more willing to bring that critical lens to that period, but I think we're starting to scratch the surface. 

Thanks, this kind of a future is one that I can get behind and feel like I can positively contribute to.  I still haven’t picked up the first theological introductions books from Maxwell institute yet, but I’m planning to.