Despite All We Can Do


maklelan
 Share

Recommended Posts

I recently had an interview with Laura Harris Hales released on her LDS Perspective Podcast. In it, I discuss some scholarship I recently published on Bible translation and the New Testament, as well as one forthcoming paper in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies treating 2 Nephi 25:23 and the phrase "after all we can do." In short, I show that the phrase was actually quite common in discussions about grace before, during, and after the translation and publication of the Book of Mormon, and that it always and only meant "despite all we can do." I'm providing a link to the interview hosted on The Interpreter, as they helpfully provided an automatically generated transcript. I'd love to hear your thoughts. 

(It should go without saying, but I think I need to say it anyway: this interview contains only my own views and opinions and doesn't reflect the position of my employer or any official Church stance.)

https://interpreterfoundation.org/ldsp-despite-all-we-can-do-with-daniel-o-mcclellan/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always felt the scripture was fine the way it was written. I think the membership’s obsession with trying time adjust it or explain it to mean something else is just them trying to relate it to traditional Christianity, which as we know had fallen into apostasy ages ago.

God’s Grace only effects us after we have chosen to follow him and are seeking to do so. Sure there does need to be some individual coaching on how grace effects us if we fall short through weakness or rebellion, but one scripture can’t be expected to explain all that.

I stand by what the scripture says. We are indeed saved by grace “after all we can do”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fether said:

I have always felt the scripture was fine the way it was written. I think the membership’s obsession with trying time adjust it or explain it to mean something else is just them trying to relate it to traditional Christianity, which as we know had fallen into apostasy ages ago.

God’s Grace only effects us after we have chosen to follow him and are seeking to do so. Sure there does need to be some individual coaching on how grace effects us if we fall short through weakness or rebellion, but one scripture can’t be expected to explain all that.

I stand by what the scripture says. We are indeed saved by grace “after all we can do”.

It is fine the way it was written, I'm just pointing out that we don't interpret it the way it was written. We have changed its meaning. It's similar to the way we misinterpret Jude 1:22. Can you tell me what you understand this verse to mean:

"And of some have compassion, making a difference:"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, maklelan said:

It is fine the way it was written, I'm just pointing out that we don't interpret it the way it was written. We have changed its meaning. It's similar to the way we misinterpret Jude 1:22. Can you tell me what you understand this verse to mean:

"And of some have compassion, making a difference:"

That when we have compassion, it makes a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, maklelan said:

I recently had an interview with Laura Harris Hales released on her LDS Perspective Podcast. In it, I discuss some scholarship I recently published on Bible translation and the New Testament, as well as one forthcoming paper in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies treating 2 Nephi 25:23 and the phrase "after all we can do." In short, I show that the phrase was actually quite common in discussions about grace before, during, and after the translation and publication of the Book of Mormon, and that it always and only meant "despite all we can do." I'm providing a link to the interview hosted on The Interpreter, as they helpfully provided an automatically generated transcript. I'd love to hear your thoughts. 

(It should go without saying, but I think I need to say it anyway: this interview contains only my own views and opinions and doesn't reflect the position of my employer or any official Church stance.)

https://interpreterfoundation.org/ldsp-despite-all-we-can-do-with-daniel-o-mcclellan/

That was a really interesting read to learn about the translation process of Church material. I envy your job. :)

There are two things that I've learned about the revealed word of God that specifically relate to this subject: 1. That God is very efficient in communicating and what he says can have multiple correct meanings based on the situation and 2. No one verse of scripture should ever be isolated from the rest of scripture when seeking to understand it's meaning.

Concerning the first one, I definitely think there is room for both interpretations of 2 Nephi 25:23, despite and after, as they both communicate a correct doctrine concerning being saved by grace and also the effort required on our behalf. In fact I can see the "after" being translated to mean both. Though I can appreciate the problem when translating as many languages won't have a word that can mean both simultaneously. So this is where my second point comes in.

When discussing this particular scripture we usually discuss it out of context in which it was given. In fact we usually cut off the whole rest of that verse. The verse as a whole reads: 

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 think the last part is actually building upon the idea of being reconciled to God. Earlier in 2 Nephi 10 Jacob spoke on this very subject which I think sheds some light on the topic:

24 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.

In this instance the "after" refers specifically to having been reconciled unto the will of God, a humbling of ourselves in recognition, as King Benjamin put it, of our nothingness and God's greatness and consequently our acceptance of God's terms of reconciliation. So in this instance the word "after" does imply an order of events. So the next question then is: What exactly the "all we can do" spoken of in relation the being reconciled unto God. I think King Anti-Nephi-Lehi spoke of this in Alma 24:

10 And I also thank my God, yea, my great God, that he hath granted unto us that we might repent of these things, and also that he hath forgiven us of those our many sins and murders which we have committed, and taken away the guilt from our hearts, through the merits of his Son.

11 And now behold, my brethren, since it has been all that we could do (as we were the most lost of all mankind) 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-

At least in this instance, and I would argue in every instance of reconciliation with God, the "all we can do" is simply the process of repentance, of recognizing our need to be saved and turning our hearts and minds to God and beseeching Him "through the merits of his Son" (or grace) to do for us what we cannot. So while I do not believe 2 Nephi 25:23 refers to having performed a certain number of works before we have access to God's grace I do believe that there is still something required of us "before" grace is applied thus making this interpretation of the word "after" especially appropriate in this verse. But like I said, God is very efficient!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Fether said:

That when we have compassion, it makes a difference.

I think this was one of the really interesting things in the podcast. How difficult it is to translate Jude 1:22. Your understanding of the verse relies very heavily on the KJV translators choice of words here. Pull this one up on Biblehub and see the different ways that different translators have chosen to interpret extant text(s) of this verse: https://biblehub.com/jude/1-22.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Fether said:

That when we have compassion, it makes a difference.

Yes, that's how we misunderstand it. Before the early twentieth century, "making a difference" only meant to differentiate or distinguish (the phrase is used more clearly to mean that in Leviticus 11:47). The KJV was published in 1611, and was a very conservative revision of a translation from the early 16th century, and so what it was saying was "on some have compassion, but be discerning regarding on whom you have compassion." Because that phrase took on an entirely new meaning around 1900, though, and pretty much lost that earlier meaning, when we read it, we think it indicates the new meaning, when it has nothing to do with it. The same is true of "after all we can do." When the Book of Mormon was published, "after all we can do" only meant "despite all we can do." We read it differently now for a variety of reasons that I describe in my paper (the interview was just a preview, the full paper goes into a lot more detail). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, maklelan said:

Yes, that's how we misunderstand it. Before the early twentieth century, "making a difference" only meant to differentiate or distinguish (the phrase is used more clearly to mean that in Leviticus 11:47). The KJV was published in 1611, and was a very conservative revision of a translation from the early 16th century, and so what it was saying was "on some have compassion, but be discerning regarding on whom you have compassion." Because that phrase took on an entirely new meaning around 1900, though, and pretty much lost that earlier meaning, when we read it, we think it indicates the new meaning, when it has nothing to do with it. The same is true of "after all we can do." When the Book of Mormon was published, "after all we can do" only meant "despite all we can do." We read it differently now for a variety of reasons that I describe in my paper (the interview was just a preview, the full paper goes into a lot more detail). 

What you've written above makes sense. But just as a caution, let's not extrapolate wrongly to assume that therefore the evangelical flavor of "salvation by grace" holds water. It does not. We have had nearly 200 years of teaching on this topic, which should clarify the issue if we have any questions or misunderstandings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, maklelan said:

I recently had an interview with Laura Harris Hales released on her LDS Perspective Podcast. In it, I discuss some scholarship I recently published on Bible translation and the New Testament, as well as one forthcoming paper in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies treating 2 Nephi 25:23 and the phrase "after all we can do." In short, I show that the phrase was actually quite common in discussions about grace before, during, and after the translation and publication of the Book of Mormon, and that it always and only meant "despite all we can do." I'm providing a link to the interview hosted on The Interpreter, as they helpfully provided an automatically generated transcript. I'd love to hear your thoughts. 

(It should go without saying, but I think I need to say it anyway: this interview contains only my own views and opinions and doesn't reflect the position of my employer or any official Church stance.)

https://interpreterfoundation.org/ldsp-despite-all-we-can-do-with-daniel-o-mcclellan/

I would really like a personal interview with you.  I find it difficult to comprehend the message without being able to ask my questions.  However, I find your work to be profoundly interesting and a subject (in general) a difficult struggle to understand scripture.   I am a retired engineer from the field of industrial robotics, automation and artificial intelligence.  I am dyslexic and sometimes see the world differently than most.  But I will summarize some of my thoughts generated from your interview on the podcast.

1. I become involved in my youth with mathematics through the discovery that mathematics is a very unambiguous language that is so pure it is impossible to lie without breaking the obvious rules of grammar.  What we usually think of language is much the opposite and almost entirely  ambiguous.   Even to the point that despite how perfectly someone has stated a truth - it can still be understood incorrectly as a lie. There is a caveat to this in that all things can become a lie through the constructs of language to those that are, by intent ambiguous.   I believe this to be the very problem of Satan and those that are evil.  Words, phrases and even our thoughts have elements of ambiguity that not only disrupt communications but interfere with our view of what we think we see and understand.

2. I have been plagued in life with logic - if I can connect to something logically I can understand.  If I cannot connect the logic - I fail.  In school it seemed that I was either the most brilliant or by far the dumbest in the class.  Usually I avoided or discounted the classes that did not make sense to me.  Life is very black and white to me

3.  Isaiah talked about the concept of line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept.  I find this to be like a mathematical grammar  construct.  In essence if we think we know the answer - it is a lie - the answer is the logic of improving understanding.

4. Moroni Chapter 10.  Beyond the answer to prayer concerning the truth of the Book of Mormon - everyone has a spiritual gift through which they are a genius.  But no one has all gifts.  The only way to capitalize on the benefits of all spiritual gifts is through the social structure of sharing what we have learned (language) and through the spirit of truth - or the Holy Ghost.  No one can rely on their own genus in the quest for truth and the understanding of truth.  We are dependent not only on the spirit but others with the gifts of the spirit we lack. 

I wanted to end this post with a discovery of something in scripture that came entirely from my scientific background but that you may find interesting.  One problem you deal with is translations - not just of language but of culture.  This plays backwards into my discovery.  We have through Joseph Smith two pieces of scripture on basically the same subject - that are given to us in English.  However, one is from the classic scientific culture of ancient Egypt.  The other in the classic scientific culture we call Newtonian physics of the era of the 19th century of Joseph Smith.  The two scriptures are Abraham Chapter 3 and Doctrine and Covenants Section 88.  I have often pondered these scripture notions "translated" through the current lenses of relativity and quantum physics. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

...someone hasn't heard about Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems...

One could mitigate Gödel's incompleteness theorems by the difference of intent of a mathematician verses that of the engineer.   Especially how this could apply to the OP of this thread.

Thanks, as always for your brilliance.  Or should I say spiritual gift that I lack.

 

the Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Traveler said:
19 minutes ago, Vort said:

...someone hasn't heard about Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems...

One could mitigate Gödel's incompleteness theorems by the difference of intent of a mathematician verses that of the engineer.   Especially how this could apply to the OP of this thread.

Nah. I was just being funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maklelan I'm curious. When searching for the original meaning of a scripture do you ever consider how might the translator have translated alternate meanings? For example: suppose the Lord actually did intend for "after all we can do" to literally mean one thing taking place before another. Do you ever research how during the time of translation the translator might have likely translated the alternate meaning differently than he did? Because if he would have used the same verbage to portray an alternate meaning then it would be significantly harder to discover the true intent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, laronius said:

@maklelan I'm curious. When searching for the original meaning of a scripture do you ever consider how might the translator have translated alternate meanings? For example: suppose the Lord actually did intend for "after all we can do" to literally mean one thing taking place before another. Do you ever research how during the time of translation the translator might have likely translated the alternate meaning differently than he did? Because if he would have used the same verbage to portray an alternate meaning then it would be significantly harder to discover the true intent.

Thanks for the question! Yes, I do consider that kind of thing, but in my full paper I discuss how using a common phrase in the context in which it normally occurs, but with the opposite meaning in mind, and without any cues, would be rather problematic. We would need some kind of evidence for that, and as I discuss in the paper, my reading actually fits seamlessly with the rest of the Book of Mormon's discussion of the two-stage soteriological process of reconciliation with God (also called "justification" in the New Testament), and then exaltation, with only the latter being addressed in 2 Nephi 25:23.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the reasoning, but I think the idea of saying it as

despite all we can do

May be more misleading than the phrase AFTER all we can do.

19th century (even early 19th century) is not quite as different from 21st century English as some may feel it is.  The phrase still means the same as it did previously, though perhaps not the way some interpret it.

This is made clear by the verses following it.  Basically it is saying, works by themselves are dead.  We cannot, even by following all the commandments, be saved.

After everything we do, it is still by grace that we are saved. 

The difference is that with the word after, it means that we still (as Nephi shows) need to believe in Christ and keep the law.  In fact, Faith is still required as per Nephi, and thus we keep the law because of the commandments.

When using the word despite, it makes it sound as through the Baptists...that there is no reason that we actually NEED to keep the law.  AS the Law is dead, there is no purpose to it.  We are saved despite the anything we can do.  We can go and murder and have a good old time...and we would still be saved.

[Edit - for clarification - Now, in one sense this is correct.  As Nephi seems to also point out, we cannot triumph over death without the savior, and through him, even all those that sin and even the sons of perdition are saved.  They are resurrected and saved from death.

HOWEVER, they are not necessarily saved from sin.  Most will be saved in a Kingdom of Heaven, and if we mean salvation as simply saved from Hell, than yes, we can also accept the word despite.  If we mean exaltation, in the idea that McConkie meant salvation and exaltation as synonomous, than it means something entirely different].

I do not think Nephi (nor Joseph who translated it) meant this (at least in regards to exaltation, though perhaps in simple salvation, meaning saved from hell they may have).

However, this is the problem some will have when one uses the word 'despite' in the context of that verse.  In that, it can imply that we will be saved no matter what we do, or despite what we do, we will still be saved.

Hence, the idea that once saved, always saved.  We are always saved by grace without any works required of us.

Now, I will agree (and have even pushed here on the forums) that the Lord can save any he feels like saving.  If he decides not to require faith, or obedience to his laws or commandments, he can do that.  It truly is by grace that we are saved.

However, there are things that he asks of us and thus, if we go murdering and carousing and stealing and all sorts of sin that are possible, though we may still be saved, we normally do not adhere to the idea that we are saved still, despite what we have done.

We are saved by grace after we show we are willing to be saved.  The others may be saved as well, but we can demonstrate our willingness to accept the Lord and be saved by him by what we do.  Thus, it is by grace we are saved, after all we can do.  Which means we cannot save ourselves.  No matter what we do we cannot save ourselves, but it is by grace that we are saved.

I think it meant much the same in Joseph's time as it does now.  Some idioms and particles of language have changed in meaning and understanding, but not to the point that I think the verse would be as misunderstood.

More editing - In that, there can be several different meanings with the word AFTER.  It can mean that we are all saved from hell despite what actions we take here on earth (at least most of us), or that we are all resurrected.  It can also mean that AFTER we do things, we can receive exaltation (but in that context it also means that something, such as faith, is also expected of us).  If we use the word despite, it loses that tertiary meaning that is possible with the word after.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Clarity and explanation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, maklelan said:

in my full paper I discuss how using a common phrase in the context in which it normally occurs, but with the opposite meaning in mind, and without any cues, would be rather problematic

I'm curious how you see "after [i.e. temporally following] all we can do" to be opposite in meaning to "after [i.e. in spite of] all we can do". To me, "temporally following" is not an opposite of "in spite of". I don't see why the two meanings cannot coexist comfortably.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Vort said:

What you've written above makes sense. But just as a caution, let's not extrapolate wrongly to assume that therefore the evangelical flavor of "salvation by grace" holds water. It does not.

Hi Vort,

It depends on how you define salvation. I've heard evangelicals define grace as unmerited favor.

Regards,
Allison

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, maklelan said:

I need your help.  At the top of the page it gave the disclaimer that it was an auto-generated transcript, so there are going to be some errors.  That's understandable.  But I was not able to figure out what this was:

Quote

And as a result of that resurgence, there was also increased interest in antiquarian aneurysm in older things. 

I'm having trouble taking this literally.  And I'm unaware of any other meaning.  So, you either meant this figuratively (which I've never heard in such a context).  Or this was a computer generated mistake.

Help me out with this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I need your help.  At the top of the page it gave the disclaimer that it was an auto-generated transcript, so there are going to be some errors.  That's understandable.  But I was not able to figure out what this was:

I'm having trouble taking this literally.  And I'm unaware of any other meaning.  So, you either meant this figuratively (which I've never heard in such a context).  Or this was a computer generated mistake.

Help me out with this?

"antiquarian aneurysm" was actually "antiquarianism". Start listening at about 7:10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

I'm curious how you see "after [i.e. temporally following] all we can do" to be opposite in meaning to "after [i.e. in spite of] all we can do". To me, "temporally following" is not an opposite of "in spite of". I don't see why the two meanings cannot coexist comfortably.

No, temporally following is not necessarily the opposite of "despite," but in context, the notion that grace saves us following all that we do is diametrically opposed to the notion that grace saves us despite all that we do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, maklelan said:

No, temporally following is not necessarily the opposite of "despite," but in context, the notion that grace saves us following all that we do is diametrically opposed to the notion that grace saves us despite all that we do. 

How so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, maklelan said:

No, temporally following is not necessarily the opposite of "despite," but in context, the notion that grace saves us following all that we do is diametrically opposed to the notion that grace saves us despite all that we do. 

I believe Elder Uchtdorf supports what you're trying to say here.

Quote

However, I wonder if sometimes we misinterpret the phrase “after all we can do.” We must understand that “after” does not equal “because.”

We are not saved “because” of all that we can do. Have any of us done all that we can do? Does God wait until we’ve expended every effort before He will intervene in our lives with His saving grace?

-- The Gift of Grace:  April 2015 General Conference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share