Despite All We Can Do

[Anddenex]

14 hours ago, maklelan said:

But this passage is saying precisely what the "despite all we can do" reading says, namely that there's no amount of works that we could do to merit salvation. In the interview and in my paper, I point out that this "unprofitable servants" phrase comes from Luke 17:10, which says, "So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do."

A little confusion hear. Nephi's word were written long before Luke 17: 10 was written.  Mosiah was also written long before Luke 17:10.  I am not sure how either of these "comes from" the New Testament. Are you referring to the concept in translation (if I am remembering correctly) how translators would use their current language and understanding to assist with translation?

14 hours ago, maklelan said:

And this is where President Uchtdorf's comments are relevant, because he says we shouldn't understand it this way. After all, he says, "Have any of us done all that we can do?" Nobody has expended their "total effort," so that is an entirely inaccessible soteriology.

This is where we would find disagreement. As a basketball player, I have had the opportunity to teach youth basketball. It is quite easy to confirm and view who is giving "total effort" when practicing, dribbling, shooting, etc... It is also easy to recognize who is haphazardly practicing, shooting, dribbling, etc... Total effort is totally accessible, and is recognizable. Total effort is also unique to each individual's talents and gifts.

If total effort is inaccessible, then we would have to ponder why the word of God informs us to, "Yea, come unto him, and offer your whole souls as an offering unto him..." If total effort is inaccessible how then are we to offer our "whole souls" as an offering? A command that it entirely impossible.

14 hours ago, maklelan said:

Moses 6:60 is about symbolism, but the water and the spirit are the reconciliation to God (baptism is how you enter the gate, and the spirit justifies you) which is referred to in Moroni 10:32 as coming unto Christ and being perfect in him, while the blood––symbolic of grace––is what sanctifies, or saves us, as stated in Moroni 10:33 and 2 Nephi 10:24.

True, Moses 6: 60 is very symbolic and fully of truth and knowledge. That is why I suggested the correlation with 2 Nephi 25: 23. Moroni 10, is an "if/then" statement. If you do x, then you receive y. X in this case is denying yourselves of all ungodliness. Y is "then" is his grace sufficient.

We also have the story of the 5 wise and 5 unwise virgins. Despite all they did, the 5 unwise did not receive the grace of Christ. After all the 5 wise did they did receive the grace of Christ. Despite the efforts of the unwise, who knew of the bridegroom, they were still unprepared. We can also say, despite all the 5 wise did, without the bride groom they would not be save, but it wasn't until they did something different then the 5 unwise.

14 hours ago, maklelan said:

The specific clause in 2 Nephi 25:23 that I'm evaluating refers to the period AFTER reconciliation to God/Christ, or after one has entered the gate through baptism, repentance, ect. (again, 2 Nephi 10:24). Now, there is obviously a way that someone can "Fall" or "depart from grace," and so there are obviously things still expected of folks, and it gets a little muddy trying to keeps those things separate from discussions of grace, but that's an argument for another day (I'm not building an entire soteriology). The whole point is that the phrase "after all we can do" in 2 Nephi 25:23 has to be understood to mean "despite all we can do," and cannot mean "once we have have done all we can do." 

I am not convinced this isn't splitting hairs between "despite" and "after." They both have their place in learning. Example, we know there is a law connected to blessings. Grace is a blessing from God. Once we have done all we can do seems to fit just fine with a law that predicates the blessing of grace. Or any other blessing.

 

[maklelan]

8 hours ago, Anddenex said:

A little confusion hear. Nephi's word were written long before Luke 17: 10 was written.  Mosiah was also written long before Luke 17:10.  I am not sure how either of these "comes from" the New Testament. Are you referring to the concept in translation (if I am remembering correctly) how translators would use their current language and understanding to assist with translation?

The date of composition is really immaterial here, but whether or not the Book of Mormon is quoting Luke is a much more complex question.

Quote

This is where we would find disagreement. As a basketball player, I have had the opportunity to teach youth basketball. It is quite easy to confirm and view who is giving "total effort" when practicing, dribbling, shooting, etc... It is also easy to recognize who is haphazardly practicing, shooting, dribbling, etc... Total effort is totally accessible, and is recognizable. Total effort is also unique to each individual's talents and gifts.

You're exaggerating. No one can give "total effort." They can absolutely give more effort, or adequate effort, or a lot of effort, but even on the basketball court, no one expends every last unit of effort. Similarly, no one can expend every last unit of effort in remaining obedient. That's just not possible for a normal human.

Quote

If total effort is inaccessible, then we would have to ponder why the word of God informs us to, "Yea, come unto him, and offer your whole souls as an offering unto him..." If total effort is inaccessible how then are we to offer our "whole souls" as an offering? A command that it entirely impossible.

Same with the command to be as perfect as God, or the command to be obedient in all things. That's simply not possible.

Quote

True, Moses 6: 60 is very symbolic and fully of truth and knowledge. That is why I suggested the correlation with 2 Nephi 25: 23. Moroni 10, is an "if/then" statement. If you do x, then you receive y. X in this case is denying yourselves of all ungodliness. Y is "then" is his grace sufficient.

 

Quote

We also have the story of the 5 wise and 5 unwise virgins. Despite all they did, the 5 unwise did not receive the grace of Christ. After all the 5 wise did they did receive the grace of Christ. Despite the efforts of the unwise, who knew of the bridegroom, they were still unprepared. We can also say, despite all the 5 wise did, without the bride groom they would not be save, but it wasn't until they did something different then the 5 unwise.

Yes, that's the reconciliation part. Grace is involved in both the reconciliation (justification/being made perfect), and the sanctification (salvation).

Quote

I am not convinced this isn't splitting hairs between "despite" and "after." They both have their place in learning. Example, we know there is a law connected to blessings. Grace is a blessing from God. Once we have done all we can do seems to fit just fine with a law that predicates the blessing of grace. Or any other blessing.

But again, no one apart from Christ has ever done or will ever be able to do ALL they could possibly do. To say grace is only activated once we have done all we could possibly do is to say it's never been activated. President Uchtdorf made that pretty clear. Even the passage in Mosiah makes it pretty clear doing all we could possibly do is just not reasonable, much less required.

[laronius]

Just a few verses earlier Nephi says: 20 And now, my brethren, I have spoken plainly that ye cannot err.       And yet here we are. 😆

The way I see it this is not about one correct principle and one incorrect principle but rather two correct principles but trying to figure out which one the writer/speaker was specifically referring to. But I have another question for you @maklelan regarding footnotes. Using this verse as an example the footnote to the word "do" takes us to James 2:24 which says "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." To me it would be a little confusing to have this verse connected directly to another that says "despite all we can do." So if in translation you change a verse away from the then commonly understood interpretation do you also have to change the footnotes as well?

[Fether]

2 hours ago, maklelan said:

But again, no one apart from Christ has ever done or will ever be able to do ALL they could possibly do. To say grace is only activated once we have done all we could possibly do is to say it's never been activated.

It isn’t clear to me that that is what is being said either. Now I am no scholar of linguistic history or any other extra curricular scriptural forms, so my thoughts may only seem feeble to you.

But to me “can do” is not referring to the amount of physical/mental/emotional/spiritual effort we exhort, but rather what we “can do”. It isn’t a drill sergeant yelling at us to work harder and harder before he comes in and assists, but rather a parent helping a child clean their room. The child, depending on the age and ability, can pick up the blocks and put them in the bucket. But he cannot out the bucket back in the shelf.

What can I do:

- I can be obedient to “X commandment”

- I can get baptized

- I can receive the Holy Ghost

- I can take the sacrament

- I can receive my endowments

- I can be sealed in the temple

- I can repent of my sins

- I can develop faith, hope and charity

- I can develop and apply humility

- I can confess my sins

- I can apologize
 

What I cannot do:

- I cannot save myself from death

- I cannot learn to be perfect

- I cannot purify my soul

- I cannot justify my sins

- I cannot sanctify myself

- I cannot exhale myself

 

As we do those things that are within our reach and capability, God’s Grace is there for us. I think individual effort is a major part of this, but it is not the whole picture.

Edited April 26, 2020 by Fether

[maklelan]

1 hour ago, laronius said:

Just a few verses earlier Nephi says: 20 And now, my brethren, I have spoken plainly that ye cannot err.       And yet here we are. 😆

The way I see it this is not about one correct principle and one incorrect principle but rather two correct principles but trying to figure out which one the writer/speaker was specifically referring to. But I have another question for you @maklelan regarding footnotes. Using this verse as an example the footnote to the word "do" takes us to James 2:24 which says "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." To me it would be a little confusing to have this verse connected directly to another that says "despite all we can do." So if in translation you change a verse away from the then commonly understood interpretation do you also have to change the footnotes as well?

No one is suggesting the way this verse is translated will change, but if it ever did, that would be up to the scriptures committee. The translations of the Book of Mormon carry a different set of footnotes from the English, too.

[Anddenex]

10 hours ago, maklelan said:

The date of composition is really immaterial here, but whether or not the Book of Mormon is quoting Luke is a much more complex question.

I am not sure it really is that complex. We have at least three options:

1) Nephi and Mosiah used their own words. Their words were written hundreds of years before Luke.

2) When translating, Joseph (as inspired by God) used language he was familiar with.

3) Nephi and Mosiah were shown hundreds of years into the future and were able to see Luke preach and thus use his words in their writings.

Could there be more options, I assume so, but not likely. Option #1 and #2 are more likely.

Quote

You're exaggerating. No one can give "total effort." They can absolutely give more effort, or adequate effort, or a lot of effort, but even on the basketball court, no one expends every last unit of effort. Similarly, no one can expend every last unit of effort in remaining obedient. That's just not possible for a normal human.

Same with the command to be as perfect as God, or the command to be obedient in all things. That's simply not possible.

I'm not exaggerating, I am accepting the total effort a person can give according to their talent. It appears, I could be wrong, you are conflating perfection with total effort. Haven't you heard coaches (a leader) and others say about a player (any talent), "Man, he/she really gave his/her all today." It is a figure of speech that a person went all out, even if but for a short time. No one believes for a moment when we make the statement, "That person gave us his all," that it was done with perfection and that the person is therefore perfect. The verse of scripture doesn't equate "total effort" with perfection, and I don't believe the Bible Dictionary is equating perfection with total effort either.

This is again where we would disagree. Does God give commands that are impossible? I don't think so, scriptures appear to be quite clear that God doesn't provide any commandment that is impossible. If you want to believe a commandment from the Lord is impossible, I assume that is your choice.

Quote

But again, no one apart from Christ has ever done or will ever be able to do ALL they could possibly do. To say grace is only activated once we have done all we could possibly do is to say it's never been activated. President Uchtdorf made that pretty clear. Even the passage in Mosiah makes it pretty clear doing all we could possibly do is just not reasonable, much less required.

It appears your definition of "ALL" is perfection. I don't read total effort or our whole souls as perfection. Imperfect people are able to give their ALL according to their individual gifts and talents. Grace is activated according to conditions, it is a blessing predicated upon laws.

Plus I am not the one stating we need to give our all for Christ's grace, Moroni is pretty clear on that point (emphasis mine):

"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."

Do you then feel that the first great commandment is also impossible to achieve and follow? (emphasis mine)

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

Especially in light of scripture (emphasis mine), "And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

Is God really telling us, giving us commands, that are impossible? Would that make him a liar then, or unjust?

..........

To be clear, I believe the concept of "despite all we can do" is a necessary truth to understand; however, if we only accept one interpretation or one meaning (as it is the ONLY way it can be interpreted) we are missing out on further light and knowledge.

Edited April 26, 2020 by Anddenex

[maklelan]

13 hours ago, Anddenex said:

I am not sure it really is that complex. We have at least three options:

1) Nephi and Mosiah used their own words. Their words were written hundreds of years before Luke.

2) When translating, Joseph (as inspired by God) used language he was familiar with.

3) Nephi and Mosiah were shown hundreds of years into the future and were able to see Luke preach and thus use his words in their writings.

Those are three options if we presuppose that Joseph's own agency played absolutely no role whatsoever in the process of translation––in which case it's just dictation, not translation––which isn't supported by any evidence.

Quote

 

Could there be more options, I assume so, but not likely. Option #1 and #2 are more likely.

I'm not exaggerating, I am accepting the total effort a person can give according to their talent.

 

You can't possibly believe that basketball players are expending every last unit of effort that their bodies possess. That's just silly.

Quote

It appears, I could be wrong, you are conflating perfection with total effort. Haven't you heard coaches (a leader) and others say about a player (any talent), "Man, he/she really gave his/her all today." It is a figure of speech that a person went all out, even if but for a short time. No one believes for a moment when we make the statement, "That person gave us his all," that it was done with perfection and that the person is therefore perfect. The verse of scripture doesn't equate "total effort" with perfection, and I don't believe the Bible Dictionary is equating perfection with total effort either.

No, I'm pointing out that "they gave their all" us hyperbole. Nobody can give their "all." They can give more than they usually do, or more than the people around them, but when a parent or coach says, "They gave their all," it's absolutely laughable to suggest they are making a statement of empirical fact about a player's expending literally all of their effort. They would collapse and be unconscious and likely die if they gave literally all their effort. 

Quote

This is again where we would disagree. Does God give commands that are impossible? I don't think so, scriptures appear to be quite clear that God doesn't provide any commandment that is impossible. If you want to believe a commandment from the Lord is impossible, I assume that is your choice.

So you believe it is not only possible, but absolutely necessary, for a regular human being to be absolutely and entirely obedient in all things without fail?

Quote

 

It appears your definition of "ALL" is perfection. I don't read total effort or our whole souls as perfection. Imperfect people are able to give their ALL according to their individual gifts and talents. Grace is activated according to conditions, it is a blessing predicated upon laws.

Plus I am not the one stating we need to give our all for Christ's grace, Moroni is pretty clear on that point (emphasis mine):

"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."

 

This is about justification, and this standard is met through repentance and baptism (as described in 2 Nephi 31:17–18).

Quote

Do you then feel that the first great commandment is also impossible to achieve and follow? (emphasis mine)

Absolutely. It's a target, and it's a distillation of the first four commandments, but no normal human in this life can be absolutely obedient to it. 

Quote

 

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

Especially in light of scripture (emphasis mine), "And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

Is God really telling us, giving us commands, that are impossible? Would that make him a liar then, or unjust?

 

Yes, God is telling us to be obedient in all things despite the indisputable fact that none of us can possibly be obedient in all things in this life. 

Quote

 

..........

To be clear, I believe the concept of "despite all we can do" is a necessary truth to understand; however, if we only accept one interpretation or one meaning (as it is the ONLY way it can be interpreted) we are missing out on further light and knowledge.

 

I've nowhere said it's the only way it can be interpreted. I'm saying it's the interpretation that was intended in the initial composition and publication. All texts are free to be interpreted however people want, and especially scripture. I am pointing out what the translator had to have intended by the phrase, but nobody's personal reading is bound to that. 

[Carborendum]

@Anddenex, @maklelan,

I believe that the "give it your all" in the gospel sense is going to be like an athlete in the following way.

Sprinters can reach tremendous speeds -- for the short term.  But if an Olympic class marathon runner were to keep up the pace of an Olympic class sprinter for the duration of a marathon, they'd most likely die.  Then they cannot do any more marathons.  It is not meet that a man can run faster than he has strength.

But what happens if the marathon is cut short?  Example: we pace ourselves for a marathon.  But then find out it is only a mile run.  We certainly could have done better.  But we didn't know that.

If I knew I were dying then I could be almost reckless in my zeal for preaching the gospel, administering to the sick, feeding and clothing the poor.  But if it turns out I'm not dying, then I just wasted an opportunity to do much more along a longer timeframe.

Only the Savior knew exactly what needed to be done at exactly the right time.  And that included having his feet washed and his head anointed -- and throwing moneychangers out of the temple and upturning tables.

We're not so all-knowing.  So, we simply can't give EVERYTHING, because we don't know what the appropriate level is at what time.  I think it can be safely said that people tend to do the best they believe, the best the understand, with what they know at the time.

Edited April 27, 2020 by Carborendum

[Anddenex]

13 minutes ago, maklelan said:

Those are three options if we presuppose that Joseph's own agency played absolutely no role whatsoever in the process of translation––in which case it's just dictation, not translation––which isn't supported by any evidence.

I am going to say you read too quickly the points. Option #2, read it again, it obviously shows Joseph's agency potentially playing a role.

13 minutes ago, maklelan said:

You can't possibly believe that basketball players are expending every last unit of effort that their bodies possess. That's just silly.

No, I'm pointing out that "they gave their all" us hyperbole. Nobody can give their "all." They can give more than they usually do, or more than the people around them, but when a parent or coach says, "They gave their all," it's absolutely laughable to suggest they are making a statement of empirical fact about a player's expending literally all of their effort. They would collapse and be unconscious and likely die if they gave literally all their effort. 

Your statements here are confirming that you are conflating perfection with giving it your all and total effort.

Now it looks like your exaggerating. Again, total effort or giving it your all, doesn't mean that 100% percent of the time you are 100% of the time giving total effort. There is a thing called "rest", "take a break," slow down for a moment. We have scripture that concludes this point:

"And see that all these things are done in wisdom and order; for it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength. And again, it is expedient that he should be diligent, that thereby he might win the prize; therefore, all things must be done in order."

13 minutes ago, maklelan said:

So you believe it is not only possible, but absolutely necessary, for a regular human being to be absolutely and entirely obedient in all things without fail?

I believe in what the scriptures teach, not what a human wants the scriptures to mean. I believe in what prophets have taught and continue to teach. I don't believe God gives us commandments that are impossible to keep, that would be unjust.

Without fail? Repentance is a commandment, is it not? There is a difference between thinking a commandment is impossible, and that all things are possible with God. Despite God giving commandments that are possible, he knew we would not keep them, and thus a Savior was provided. Christ proved that we can be absolutely and entirely obedient in all things without fail. Sadly, we do not love the Father as much as the Son (Jesus Christ) loved his Father.

13 minutes ago, maklelan said:

This is about justification, and this standard is met through repentance and baptism (as described in 2 Nephi 31:17–18).

Yes, all we have to do is read the verses after verse 23, and we recognize the purpose of the laws given and the deadness of the laws. As we are alive in Christ, through repentance. Did, I mention repentance wasn't necessary. I think I was pretty clear with the verses I shared in my first post regarding repentance (particularly Moses 6:60).a

13 minutes ago, maklelan said:

Absolutely. It's a target, and it's a distillation of the first four commandments, but no normal human in this life can be absolutely obedient to it. 

Yes, God is telling us to be obedient in all things despite the indisputable fact that none of us can possibly be obedient in all things in this life. 

None of us have shown this, doesn't mean none of us could have if we had loved God as much as Christ loved God.

13 minutes ago, maklelan said:

I've nowhere said it's the only way it can be interpreted. I'm saying it's the interpretation that was intended in the initial composition and publication. All texts are free to be interpreted however people want, and especially scripture. I am pointing out what the translator had to have intended by the phrase, but nobody's personal reading is bound to that. 

This is the statement I was referring to as given by you (emphasis mine), "The whole point is that the phrase "after all we can do" in 2 Nephi 25:23 has to be understood to mean "despite all we can do," and cannot mean "once we have have done all we can do." 

When someone uses the term "has to be understood to mean" it sure doesn't sound like their are other options for interpretation. Unless, I am misunderstanding what you mean by "has to be..."

[maklelan]

15 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I am going to say you read too quickly the points. Option #2, read it again, it obviously shows Joseph's agency potentially playing a role.

You qualified it as "as inspired by God." That means God influenced his usage of familiar language, taking his agency out. 

Quote

 

Your statements here are confirming that you are conflating perfection with giving it your all and total effort.

 

Not remotely. They're two very different concepts. To give one's all is to expend absolutely every last unit of effort. One can do that and still fail or miss the mark or do things wrong. Perfection would be to do everything correctly and accurately, which may or may not have anything at all to do with the amount of effort expended.  

Quote

Now it looks like your exaggerating. Again, total effort or giving it your all, doesn't mean that 100% percent of the time you are 100% of the time giving total effort.

That's precisely what it means. "All" means "all," not most, or a majority, or more than the next person. To give my all means I have nothing left. 

Quote

 

There is a thing called "rest", "take a break," slow down for a moment. We have scripture that concludes this point:

"And see that all these things are done in wisdom and order; for it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength. And again, it is expedient that he should be diligent, that thereby he might win the prize; therefore, all things must be done in order."

 

Which supports my point that no one can or is expected to give their all. 

Quote

I believe in what the scriptures teach, not what a human wants the scriptures to mean.

The scriptures only "teach" to the degree that a human ascribes meaning to them. Texts have no inherent or intrinsic meaning.

Quote

I believe in what prophets have taught and continue to teach. I don't believe God gives us commandments that are impossible to keep, that would be unjust.

So you believe that there are regular human beings on this earth who are keeping all the commandments without fail?

Quote

Without fail? Repentance is a commandment, is it not? There is a difference between thinking a commandment is impossible, and that all things are possible with God. Despite God giving commandments that are possible, he knew we would not keep them, and thus a Savior was provided. Christ proved that we can be absolutely and entirely obedient in all things without fail. Sadly, we do not love the Father as much as the Son (Jesus Christ) loved his Father.

How did Christ prove we can be absolutely and entirely obedient in all things without fail? Are you suggesting that because HE did it, it proves that we ALL can do it, or are you saying that IN HIM we can be perfected? Those are two very different things, and neither undermines my position. 

Quote

 

Yes, all we have to do is read the verses after verse 23, and we recognize the purpose of the laws given and the deadness of the laws. As we are alive in Christ, through repentance. Did, I mention repentance wasn't necessary. I think I was pretty clear with the verses I shared in my first post regarding repentance (particularly Moses 6:60).a

None of us have shown this, doesn't mean none of us could have if we had loved God as much as Christ loved God.

 

Which no one does or can, so that's moot. 

Quote

This is the statement I was referring to as given by you (emphasis mine), "The whole point is that the phrase "after all we can do" in 2 Nephi 25:23 has to be understood to mean "despite all we can do," and cannot mean "once we have have done all we can do." 

When someone uses the term "has to be understood to mean" it sure doesn't sound like their are other options for interpretation. Unless, I am misunderstanding what you mean by "has to be..."

If I posted that without contextualization that indicated I meant in its original context, then that's a shortcoming on my part, and I apologize. 

[Anddenex]

1 hour ago, maklelan said:

You qualified it as "as inspired by God." That means God influenced his usage of familiar language, taking his agency out. 

God's inspiration doesn't remove agency, in no way.

1 hour ago, maklelan said:

Not remotely. They're two very different concepts. To give one's all is to expend absolutely every last unit of effort. One can do that and still fail or miss the mark or do things wrong. Perfection would be to do everything correctly and accurately, which may or may not have anything at all to do with the amount of effort expended.  

That's precisely what it means. "All" means "all," not most, or a majority, or more than the next person. To give my all means I have nothing left. 

Which supports my point that no one can or is expected to give their all. 

We will continue to disagree. No need to further discuss this.

1 hour ago, maklelan said:

The scriptures only "teach" to the degree that a human ascribes meaning to them. Texts have no inherent or intrinsic meaning.

This isn't correct. Texts have the meaning that was given by the person who wrote it. This is why we need the Spirit to understand.

1 hour ago, maklelan said:

So you believe that there are regular human beings on this earth who are keeping all the commandments without fail?

If a person loved the Father liked the Son (Jesus Christ) loved the Father, then yes. Are there people on earth who are keeping commandments without sin? If they loved God like the Son (Jesus Christ) loved God, yes. If not, then no.

1 hour ago, maklelan said:

How did Christ prove we can be absolutely and entirely obedient in all things without fail? Are you suggesting that because HE did it, it proves that we ALL can do it, or are you saying that IN HIM we can be perfected? Those are two very different things, and neither undermines my position. 

I am not suggesting. That is a truth. If we loved God, as Christ loved God, we would be perfect also. The sad part, is we don't, which is why we sin, and thus a Savior was provided. Thus, if we sin, our perfection is in Him.  Christ proved to all of us that perfection was possible, but we have chosen, ourselves, to sin.

1 hour ago, maklelan said:

If I posted that without contextualization that indicated I meant in its original context, then that's a shortcoming on my part, and I apologize. 

That's fine. No worries.

[maklelan]

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

God's inspiration doesn't remove agency, in no way.

So even with divine inspiration, the Prophet could have rendered his own personal ideas that directly conflicted with that inspiration?

Quote

This isn't correct. Texts have the meaning that was given by the person who wrote it. This is why we need the Spirit to understand.

Nope. No text that has ever existed has possessed meaning. Meaning is entirely and exclusively confined to the minds of those producing or consuming language. Thus the widespread problem with Jude 1:22. I wrote about this very recently here: https://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/2020/04/25/no-words-do-not-have-meaning/.

Quote

 

If a person loved the Father liked the Son (Jesus Christ) loved the Father, then yes. 

 

And since no one possibly can, the answer is no, you just can't bring yourself to acknowledge it. 

Quote

Are there people on earth who are keeping commandments without sin? If they loved God like the Son (Jesus Christ) loved God, yes. If not, then no.

Again, the answer has to be no. 

Quote

 

I am not suggesting. That is a truth. If we loved God, as Christ loved God, we would be perfect also. 

 

X circumstance is not impossible because if Y impossible circumstance obtains, then so does X circumstance. Saying you can imagine a scenario where it's possible is not the same as demonstrating it's possible. I can imagine a scenario in which an unaided human can run a 5-second mile, but that doesn't make it any less impossible. 

Quote

The sad part, is we don't, which is why we sin, and thus a Savior was provided. Thus, if we sin, our perfection is in Him.  Christ proved to all of us that perfection was possible, but we have chosen, ourselves, to sin.

And since there are no exceptions to that, no one can ever achieve it. 

[Anddenex]

12 minutes ago, maklelan said:

So even with divine inspiration, the Prophet could have rendered his own personal ideas that directly conflicted with that inspiration?

Correct, have we seen in scripture divine inspiration received and the person reject that inspiration or choose their own thoughts? Yes we have. Examples: Jonah leaving and taking a boat despite inspiration. The lost 116 pages of manuscripts.

Agency is never removed with inspiration from God. I am unsure where you would say it is.

12 minutes ago, maklelan said:

Meaning is entirely and exclusively confined to the minds of those producing or consuming language. Thus the widespread problem with Jude 1:22. I wrote about this very recently here: https://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/2020/04/25/no-words-do-not-have-meaning/.

That is what I said, "Texts have the meaning that was given by the person who wrote it. This is why we need the Spirit to understand." Moot to argue this anymore.

12 minutes ago, maklelan said:

And since no one possibly can, the answer is no, you just can't bring yourself to acknowledge it. 

Nope. I don't bring myself to acknowledge what maklelan is teaching.  There is a difference, do you see it? (Note, I am using now the same tone you are using)

12 minutes ago, maklelan said:

Again, the answer has to be no. 

No, it doesn't. This is your assumption, you just can't bring yourself to admit it. You see what I did there?

12 minutes ago, maklelan said:

X circumstance is not impossible because if Y impossible circumstance obtains, then so does X circumstance. Saying you can imagine a scenario where it's possible is not the same as demonstrating it's possible. I can imagine a scenario in which an unaided human can run a 5-second mile, but that doesn't make it any less impossible. 

And since there are no exceptions to that, no one can ever achieve it. 

Christ is the exception. He proved perfection was possible. I don't need to imagine. I have proof in Christ's life.

I don't see any further need to continue with you, as your tone is changing. Have a wonderful day.

[NeedleinA]

I haven't read the thread, I know, my bad. I'm deep in debates with Anti-mormons on the Church's facebook page and this subject of Grace vs. Works was brought up.
 

 

[The Folk Prophet]

Jumping on for just a bit here:

I cannot understand the motivation behind the "after all means despite" argument.

For example, in the end of the interview Laura Hales says:

"Yet we still cannot in our social culture, dissolve the almost magnetic attraction of works to the discussion of salvation. We always need to tack on that, but you need the ordinances, but you need to endure to the end."

Well...yeah, Laura. That's a good thing, is it not?

What am I concerned with in the gospel? What should I be concerned with? That's what matters to me. It comes down to a simple question:

What do I need to do?

The objective here seems to be to push people further away from that question. That seems highly problematic. Why would we want to teach people to believe what they do is of no import?

Either that or the objective seems to be some sort of intellectual braggadocio.

This is the plain truth: "We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel." (emphasis mine).

We can wrest the scriptures all we want but this article of faith remains true.

Christ's is a works based gospel. Always has been. Always will be. The reality that we're saved by Grace doesn't change that, or really relate. I don't have a problem with the idea that we are saved by grace "despite" all we can do in an of itself. The idea is correct. We cannot save ourselves. But I know of no one in the church that I've ever met or heard of that believes the Atonement of Christ was unnecessary because we can save ourselves. If anyone did believe that they'd clearly be in a state of severe apostasy.

Nevertheless, the "tack on" idea that we need the ordinances and to endure to the end is obviously of paramount importance. Isn't our prophet constantly pushing us to be concerned with being on the covenant path? Are we not saved through the Atonement of Christ by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel? Are we not commanded, accordingly, to repent, serve, preach, sacrifice, etc, and make and keep covenants? And if we don't do such is not our salvation forfeit?

So why the drive to push people's thinking in a different way? I seriously can't understand the...how was it put....rhetorical need behind this argument.

[Allison]

On 4/25/2020 at 11:54 PM, Anddenex said:

True, Moses 6: 60 is very symbolic and fully of truth and knowledge. That is why I suggested the correlation with 2 Nephi 25: 23. Moroni 10, is an "if/then" statement. If you do x, then you receive y. X in this case is denying yourselves of all ungodliness. Y is "then" is his grace sufficient.

Hi Anddenex,

That if/then condition in Moroni scares me a bit.  Since we are all sinners
because we are not denying ourselves of all ungodliness, then Christs grace
is not sufficient for any of us.

Thank you for your insights,

Allison

[Vort]

Hi, Pete!

[NeedleinA]

3 hours ago, Allison said:

Hi Anddenex,

That if/then condition in Moroni scares me a bit.  Since we are all sinners
because we are not denying ourselves of all ungodliness, then Christs grace
is not sufficient for any of us.

Thank you for your insights,

Allison

Yes. Hi Pete.

3 hours ago, Vort said:

Hi, Pete!

Bada Bing Vort!
@Carborendum also.

Edited April 28, 2020 by NeedleinA

[Carborendum]

11 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

14 hours ago, Vort said:

Hi, Pete!

Yes. Hi Pete.

But this is @Allison, a girl's name.  Shouldn't we be calling her @GaleG?

14 hours ago, Allison said:

Hi Anddenex,

That if/then condition in Moroni scares me a bit.  Since we are all sinners
because we are not denying ourselves of all ungodliness, then Christs grace
is not sufficient for any of us.

Thank you for your insights,

Allison

You see, Gale, again, you've made the same mistakes as always.

• A statement of confusion where there was none before. 
• Ignoring context to intentionally put a meaning into the words that was never intended. 
  • e.g. I don't see you saying the same thing about Christ's injunction to "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect."
• Pointing out a flaw in scriptures that isn't a flaw.
• Never pointing out anything inspirational, but only what you found confusing.

Have you ever considered that maybe a book that millions of people read on a regular basis and find inspirational and helpful to leading a better life might actually have some good things to say?  Why haven't you found them?

I don't believe in the stories of ancient mythology.  But I can find so many truths of life in those stories.  And I don't condemn them as "false."  I just find them as really cool stories with very important messages.  I say the same with the works of Shakespeare.  So, even if you don't believe the Book of Mormon is Godly, then at least find some very real truths of life as if you found it in any literature.

Now, I expect you to find "false truths" and show "false excitement" over them just to point out how false the BoM is.  Thanks for playing anyway.

Edited April 28, 2020 by Carborendum

[Just_A_Guy]

On 4/27/2020 at 7:33 AM, maklelan said:

You qualified it as "as inspired by God." That means God influenced his usage of familiar language, taking his agency out. 

A couple of thoughts:

For those who have given a priesthood blessing:  do you get specific words that come into your brain that you then enunciate?  Or do you just get conceptual impressions that you then try to articulate into verbal language as best you can? 

For me, it’s very much the second.  My family has a tradition of recording and writing down priesthood blessings, and it’s interesting to review what I’ve written in hindsight and through further experience/further revelation/additional meditation, consider additional ways that the blessing may have been phrased or problems created by the phrasing I used the first time around.

The textual history of the Doctrine and Covenants suggests that Joseph Smith himself went through such a process—and indeed, often modified his revelations months or years after they had been recorded; sometimes quite extensively.  

For that reason, I think there are limits to how successfully we can apply a legalistic approach to the scriptures, or assume that every English word in the scriptures is chosen deliberately and has the exact same meaning/application whether we see it in the D&C or in Moroni or in Job or in Leviticus or in 1 Peter.

I’m open to the idea that the application of “after”, as it appears in 2 Nephi, may be somewhat malleable.  But I would respectfully suggest, @maklelan, that if we are sort of repeating the same error of the strict legalists/textualists if we point to—say—Moroni 10, or other scriptural engagements with the term “grace”, to bolster an alternative interpretation of the word “after”.

For example:  When Moroni 10 talks of “grace”, is he including the “prevenient grace” that manifests itself in God’s unconditional offering of the Light of Christ which both attracts us back to the goodness, truth, and beauty of our Maker and offers us an enabling power that amplifies our capacity for obedience?  I rather don’t think Moroni included “prevenient grace” in his definition of “grace”.  But does that mean that Nephi didn’t, either?

Edited April 28, 2020 by Just_A_Guy

[Traveler]

I want to thank @maklelan for this thread.  I also want to thank all those that have posted.  I do not think any other single point of doctrine has evolved more for me over my lifetime than this one particular principle centered in the grace of G-d, the plan of salvation and the purpose of agency in our half blind mortal experience or trial.    I have purchased many books that deal with textual criticism of sacred scripture.  I have wrestled with individual words in scripture trying to figure out if I could understand a particular scripture a little better.  My wife is just the opposite of me.  She seldom reads scripture because she does not want to argue with me or anyone else concerning what this or that particular verse "REALLY" means.  In essence she does not care who gets the credit and she is not interested in who should be blamed.  The truth of all this is that she connects with everybody (including G-d) much better than I do.  She comforts those in need of comfort, she genuinely feels other's pain, she finds joy in other's happiness and she has a way of turning someone's anger.  She does all this stuff without quoting scripture.

The strange thing to me is that seems that everyone believes (to some degree) they will be saved by G-d and that someone else will not.  I wonder why?  I think I will - but my plan is that when I come face to face with G-d - My plan is to beg for mercy.  I do not plan to discuss or argue over scripture.

 

The Traveler

 

 

[Traveler]

10 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

A couple of thoughts:

a) For those who have given a priesthood blessing:  do you get specific words that come into your brain that you then enunciate?  Or do you just get conceptual impressions that you then try to articulate into verbal language as best you can? 

For me, it’s very much the second.  My family has a tradition of recording and writing down priesthood blessings, and it’s interesting to review what I’ve written in hindsight and through further experience/further revelation/additional meditation, consider additional ways that the blessing may have been phrased or problems created by the phrasing I used the first time around.

The textual history of the Doctrine and Covenants suggests that Joseph Smith himself went through such a process—and indeed, often modified his revelations months or years after they had been recorded; sometimes quite extensively.  

For that reason, I think there are limits to how successfully we can apply a legalistic approach to the scriptures, or assume that every English word in the scriptures is chosen deliberately and has the exact same meaning/application whether we see it in the D&C or in Moroni or in Job or in Leviticus or in 1 Peter.

I’m open to the idea that the application of “after”, as it appears in 2 Nephi, may be somewhat malleable.  But I would respectfully suggest, @maklelan, that if we are sort of repeating the same error of the strict legalistas/textualists if we point to—say—Moroni 10, or other scriptural engagements with the term “grace”, to bolster an alternative interpretation of the word “after”.

For example:  When Moroni 10 talks of “grace”, is he including the “prevenient grace” that manifests itself in God’s unconditional offering of the Light of Christ which both attracts us back to the goodness, truth, and beauty of our Maker and offers us an enabling power that amplified our capacity for obedience?  I rather don’t think Moroni included “prevenient grace” in his definition of “grace”.  But does that mean that Nephi didn’t, either?

I appreciate you post - but @maklelan has an assignment (perhaps even a calling) to prepare translations of official church material.  If I were in his shoes - I do not think I would do a better job.

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

18 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

A couple of thoughts:

For those who have given a priesthood blessing:  do you get specific words that come into your brain that you then enunciate?  Or do you just get conceptual impressions that you then try to articulate into verbal language as best you can? 

For me, it’s very much the second.  My family has a tradition of recording and writing down priesthood blessings, and it’s interesting to review what I’ve written in hindsight and through further experience/further revelation/additional meditation, consider additional ways that the blessing may have been phrased or problems created by the phrasing I used the first time around.

The textual history of the Doctrine and Covenants suggests that Joseph Smith himself went through such a process—and indeed, often modified his revelations months or years after they had been recorded; sometimes quite extensively.  

For that reason, I think there are limits to how successfully we can apply a legalistic approach to the scriptures, or assume that every English word in the scriptures is chosen deliberately and has the exact same meaning/application whether we see it in the D&C or in Moroni or in Job or in Leviticus or in 1 Peter.

I’m open to the idea that the application of “after”, as it appears in 2 Nephi, may be somewhat malleable.  But I would respectfully suggest, @maklelan, that if we are sort of repeating the same error of the strict legalists/textualists if we point to—say—Moroni 10, or other scriptural engagements with the term “grace”, to bolster an alternative interpretation of the word “after”.

For example:  When Moroni 10 talks of “grace”, is he including the “prevenient grace” that manifests itself in God’s unconditional offering of the Light of Christ which both attracts us back to the goodness, truth, and beauty of our Maker and offers us an enabling power that amplifies our capacity for obedience?  I rather don’t think Moroni included “prevenient grace” in his definition of “grace”.  But does that mean that Nephi didn’t, either?

Having a hard time staying out of this thread despite* (*pun intended) intentional inactivity in the forum.

This premise doesn't square with the idea of Joseph blocking light with a hat so he could see the literal words appearing. There are plenty of reports that imply Joseph didn't translate the Book of Mormon into anything but the words the Lord intended him to use. Of course they're secondhand reports and not entirely consistent, and even if fully accurate don't imply the entire process was the same. But still, we have, I believe, fairly good reason to believe the words used in the Book of Mormon are, generally speaking, from the Lord rather than from Joseph's idea of what it might/should say. Indeed, that is part of the miracle of the Book of Mormon, and differs distinctly from the revelations in the Doctrine & Covenants.

Now, how someone could think that the Lord showing/providing Joseph what words to use meant Joseph lost his agency is very perplexing.

[Vort]

At first glance, I thought it was a closeup of chocolate frosting. Looks like a whip. A riding crop, perhaps? What's the story on your new avatar, TFP?

[The Folk Prophet]

31 minutes ago, Vort said:

At first glance, I thought it was a closeup of chocolate frosting. Looks like a whip. A riding crop, perhaps? What's the story on your new avatar, TFP?

I am a secret nerd who taught himself how to braid bullwhips so as to not have to pay $1000 for a David Morgan whip (the guy who made them for the Indiana Jones movies). 10 years and like $3000 or so later I can make a whip that's like almost 2/3rds the quality of a David Morgan!

The image is one of the original whips from the Indiana Jones trilogy. I think from the 3rd one. I put it as my avatar because I was updating my "Religion" to use the full name of the church and decided to grab a different avatar too. The thought came from the fact that I've recently purchased more leather to braid a new whip, hopefully improving on my quality and getting to 4/5ths the quality of a David Morgan for only another $300 in materials or so. 

I pretend annoyance, but the truth is the process has been a lot more fun than just buying an expensive one. Turns out I like making them more than cracking them. #manlyCrafts

Edited April 28, 2020 by The Folk Prophet