Despite All We Can Do

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

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

We are so glad that you and @Carborendum decided to join us in community lockdown.  I'm learning new words like bitumen and the name of the guy who braided Indy's whip.

[The Folk Prophet]

There. Avatar properly nerded up and chocolate frosting confusion averted.

[Just_A_Guy]

49 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

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.

That’s a good point, though it does seem somewhat tangential to what I was (poorly) trying to articulate.

If the Book of Mormon is what we believe it to be, then it was revealed twice—first by God to the various authors, and the record left by by those authors was then re-revealed by God to Joseph Smith as translator/transcriptionist.  Even if we assume that the entire English BoM was a verbatim transcription of the precise words Joseph Smith saw on the U&T/seer stone and that the “translator” was God Himself—we certainly don’t know that that’s the process by which the BoM’s various authors wrote the book in the first place.  Nor do we know what kind of translation methodology God used in approaching the texts left by Nephi, Moroni, etc and the idiosyncratic vocabularies, syntax, grammatical usages, etc of each of those authors.  

Whatever the transmission/translation process was, it seems to have resulted in the fact that even in English many of the BoM authors have their own distinct “voices”.  It seems reasonable that just because Moroni understood a concept in one way, doesn’t mean that Nephi understood it exactly the same way or would have articulated it with the same verbiage.  And the question then becomes—does the Translator transmit the text in a way that is faithful to the record the author left?  Or does the Translator superimpose His own linguistic style onto the entire record?

So, no; I’m pretty gun-shy about approaching scripture as a holistic “legal code” in which a word consistently means one thing and only one thing all the way through.  If the phrase “saved by grace after all we can do” is somehow offensive—well, maybe the problem is with the varying meanings of the word “after”, as the OP suggests.  But then again—maybe the problem is with varying meanings of the word “grace”.

Edited April 28, 2020 by Just_A_Guy

[scottyg]

If one wants to know the true meaning of the scriptures, the Holy Ghost is the one to seek after for that knowledge...not men who fancy themselves "learned" due to their calling, career, or position. I'll also put this quote here in no direct response to anyone in particular. It was given to Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer.

“These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God; the translation of them which you have seen is correct, and I command you to bear record of what you now see and hear”.

History of the Church, 1838–1856, volume A-1, p.25 [23 December 1805–30 August 1834]

[The Folk Prophet]

8 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

That’s a good point, though it does seem somewhat tangential to what I was (poorly) trying to articulate.

If the Book of Mormon is what we believe it to be, then it was revealed twice—first by God to the various authors, and the record left by by those authors was then re-revealed by God to Joseph Smith as translator/transcriptionist.  Even if we assume that the entire English BoM was a verbatim transcription of the precise words Joseph Smith saw on the U&T/seer stone and that the “translator” was God Himself—we certainly don’t know that that’s the process by which the BoM’s various authors wrote the book in the first place.  Nor do we know what kind of translation methodology God used in approaching the texts left by Nephi, Moroni, etc and the idiosyncratic vocabularies, syntax, grammatical usages, etc of each of those authors.  

Whatever the transmission/translation process was, it seems to have resulted in the fact that even in English many of the BoM authors have their own distinct “voices”.  It seems reasonable that just because Moroni understood a concept in one way, doesn’t mean that Nephi understood it exactly the same way or would have articulated it with the same verbiage.  And the question then becomes—does the Translator transmit the text in a way that is faithful to the record the author left?  Or does the Translator superimpose His own linguistic style onto the entire record?

So, no; I’m pretty gun-shy about approaching scripture as a holistic “legal code” in which a word consistently means one thing and only one thing all the way through.  If the phrase “saved by grace after all we can do” is somehow offensive—well, maybe the problem is with the varying meanings of the word “after”, as the OP suggests.  But then again—maybe the problem is with varying meanings of the word “grace”.

I don't think the idea of holistic "legal code" is the proper approach either. As I'm sure you're well aware, even holistic legal code can only be interpreted when there is a shared understanding of phrases and meaning in the legal community. I'm mindful of @Vort getting on anyone's case who uses the phrase "begs the question" incorrectly. Technically, he's right, and yet per the literal meaning of the words and the common usage by those not in the know, he's sort of wrong. And yet he's right. And wrong.

But who are we to say that the Lord, knowing full well that the lay person in the church would understand "after all we can do" to mean we have to do everything we can to qualify for grace didn't fully intend those words to be used in that way, even if Joseph really meant "despite all we can do"? The implication otherwise is that the entire church has been wrong and misinterpreting scripture for most of the history of the restored church -- but isn't that exactly why we have a living prophet -- to make sure we aren't being led astray? Didn't the great apostasy occurred precisely because such was lost and academic interpretations guided instead. And what have our prophets been teaching us for the history of the restored church about the meaning of that scripture? But some smarter-than-y'all know-it-all wants to come along and tell everyone the prophets are wrong and the academic, I've-studied-this-better interpretation of the scripture is the true and accurate one. Upon whose arm are we to really rely here?

The problem I really have, as I've articulated up thread, is the question of why anyone would argue that it must mean "despite". What's the point? I think the truth is actually not that difficult and those who argue for a convoluted twist in the meaning based on a flimsy* argument are just as off based as those arguing for a concrete postliminary-only meaning.

It seems pretty straight forward to me for anyone reasonably educated in the gospel. Grace is not earned. But we must qualified for it. Why anyone in the church would argue otherwise is really beyond me.

"There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated." D&C 130:20–21 (emphasis mine)

This plain (call it legal code if you will) scripture refutes any concept that grace, a decided blessing from God, is not predicated upon obedience (works). It is. Full stop. End of argument.

In fact there are so many scriptures that teach the same sort of idea that it's really strange to me that this idea keeps rearing its head here and there.

It should be obvious to the linguistics master that "earned" is a subjective idea and in one sense we do, indeed, "earn" salvation, but in another sense we very much do not "earn" salvation. That's not particularly difficult to grasp, methinks. And yet, apparently, it is.

* I haven't seen all the examples the OP has for believing "after all we can do" was commonly used to mean "despite all we can do" but from what I've heard the argument seems flimsy. The idea that it was used in certain noteworthy writings doesn't mean that the average commoner understood it to mean that. And Joseph, at the time of translating the Book of Mormon, was ignorant and unlearned (as described by Emma). The likelihood of his familiarity with phrases that were not, indeed, common in daily speech is unlikely. Showing a phrase to be common in published writing does not show it to be common in the provincial. I have a hard time believing that the general populace in the early church would have understood the words, "after all we can do" to mean anything other than what the words say at their face value, in the same way most people understand "begs the question" to mean "pleads for a question". Moreover, the examples I did hear used modifier words. The ideas of "We are saved by grace after all we can do" is quite different than something like, "We are saved by grace even after all we can do". One word can drastically change the meaning of a phrase, and examples with different phrasing don't prove the meaning in this case.

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

But who are we to say that the Lord, knowing full well that the lay person in the church would understand "after all we can do" to mean we have to do everything we can to qualify for grace didn't fully intend those words to be used in that way, even if Joseph really meant "despite all we can do"? The implication otherwise is that the entire church has been wrong and misinterpreting scripture for most of the history of the restored church -- but isn't that exactly why we have a living prophet -- to make sure we aren't being led astray?

I completely agree with this reasoning. But my original point remains untouched: The two interpretations are not mutually exclusive. That people of Joseph Smith's time thought they were—that Joseph himself may have thought they were—is irrelevant.

People have been framing this as a false dichotomy for centuries, probably millennia.  @maklelan is all excited because he has written a paper demonstrating that the original (early 19th century) meaning of "after" may well have been "despite". And bully for him. It's exciting to find out that something we always thought meant A actually means B, and it's pretty cool when you can write that up and publish it somewhere. But again, that does not imply that A and B are mutually exclusive.

Despite (I should say "After") @maklelan's protestations, my objection is not just about a pet theory I might have. It's a fundamental linguistic truth, and a way of pointing out that @maklelan and others involved in this miniteapot-tempest are assuming an underlying condition which is very likely false, namely, that the two interpretations are opposite each other. They are not.

Edited April 28, 2020 by Vort

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

I completely agree with this reasoning. But my original point remains untouched: The two interpretations are not mutually exclusive. That people of Joseph Smith's time thought they were—that Joseph himself may have thought they were—is irrelevant.

...

 @maklelan and others involved in this miniteapot-tempest are assuming an underlying condition which is very likely false, namely, that the two interpretations are opposite each other. They are not.

Exactly. We are, indeed, saved by grace despite all we can do. We are also saved by grace, very literally, postliminarily "after" all we can do. This is why I don't, per se, have a problem with the idea of understanding it to be "despite" except in that it seems to be trying to supplant the common understanding. It's the conclusions being drawn that bothers me.

Part of what bothers me about it is the assumption that everyone who thinks we are saved by grace in the end "after" all our own efforts also believes that we earned that salvation. It's trying to fix a problem that does not exist that I'm aware of in the church. Two more things that are not mutually exclusive. Just because I believe I have to pay the price asked does not mean I believe the price is equal to the reward.

Edited April 28, 2020 by The Folk Prophet

[Vort]

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Exactly. We are, indeed, saved by grace despite all we can do. We are also saved by grace, very literally, postliminarily "after" all we can do. This is why I don't, per se, have a problem with the idea of understanding it to be "despite" except in that it seems to be trying to supplant the common understanding. It's the conclusions being drawn that bothers me.

Part of what bothers me about it is the assumption that everything who thinks we are saved by grace in the end "after" all our own efforts also believes that we earned that salvation. It's trying to fix a problem that does not exist that I'm aware of in the church. Two more things that are not mutually exclusive. Just because I believe I have to pay the price asked does not mean I believe the price is equal to the reward.

Another way of saying this is as follows: The "price" we have to "pay" to receive Christ's grace is simply to accept his grace. And as Christ himself taught us, to accept his grace is to love him, which means to keep his commandments. Those efforts do not save us; Christ saves us. But we are saved because we are Christ's, and the way we become Christ's is by doing what he told us to do.

Honestly, this is basic LDS theology. Any eight-year-old child raised in the gospel knows this, whether or not he can formulate it in words. The whole raging "works vs. grace" argument is irrelevant to Latter-day Saints, because it's a meaningless distinction.

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

Another way of saying this is as follows: The "price" we have to "pay" to receive Christ's grace is simply to accept his grace. And as Christ himself taught us, to accept his grace is to love him, which means to keep his commandments. Those efforts do not save us; Christ saves us. But we are saved because we are Christ's, and the way we become Christ's is by doing what he told us to do.

Right. Do we keep the commandments because we have accepted Christ or do we accept Christ by keeping his commandments? Aren't both sort of true?

I honestly don't understand the new-fangled preaching about grace that keeps popping up. Shouldn't we be, moreso, focused on things that we have control of rather than something we don't? I am less concerned with whether Christ's grace is conditional or not as I am over what I need to do. I can only control my works. Therefore my concern is my works.

"Ah," but one says, "it's important that we understand this concept!"

"Oh yeah?" I ask. "How do I go about understanding it then?"

"Why through study, thought and effort, of course," they reply.

"Oh...you mean by my works?" 

 

 

"......🦗🦗🦗🦗......"

 

 

These debates are somewhat semantically ridiculous because depending on how you look at it, one cannot get away from works. Just accept Christ's grace says one? Well, that's a work says I. Which makes the whole debate seem silly.

There seems to be this, sort of, "you're doing it wrong" idea behind proposals like the OP offers. The question I ask myself (as I've stated) is simple: What do I need to be doing? It's as simple as that. And that means works.

Am I motivated by and grateful for Christ's grace? Oh yes. Very much. And if there is a problem with people taking pride in their works and crediting their salvation to themselves (as I expect there is in cases) then there does, in those cases, need to be some better perspective, humility, and improved understanding. But that doesn't seem to be the point of the OP or the attached interview.

[The Folk Prophet]

Well, I had sort of been hoping to get into it a bit with the OP, (who I actually respect intellectually and his understanding and education by and large, but feel he's missed the boat on a few ideas here). But as he seems to have abandoned the thread for now at least, and as I'm actually not interested in re-attending the forum generally, I'm taking off again. Perhaps I'll pipe up again if he comes back and replies more.

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Well, I had sort of been hoping to get into it a bit with the OP, (who I actually respect intellectually and his understanding and education by and large, but feel he's missed the boat on a few ideas here). But as he seems to have abandoned the thread for now at least, and as I'm actually not interested in re-attending the forum generally, I'm taking off again. Perhaps I'll pipe up again if he comes back and replies more.

Oh, so you only want to argue with people you disagree with and not talk with your friends, is that it? Okay, I see how things are.

[The Folk Prophet]

27 minutes ago, Vort said:

Oh, so you only want to argue with people you disagree with and not talk with your friends, is that it? Okay, I see how things are.

Honestly I just wanted to ask him what his motivations were and see if I could get an upfront answer. I expect I wouldn't have.

[Midwest LDS]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

Another way of saying this is as follows: The "price" we have to "pay" to receive Christ's grace is simply to accept his grace. And as Christ himself taught us, to accept his grace is to love him, which means to keep his commandments. Those efforts do not save us; Christ saves us. But we are saved because we are Christ's, and the way we become Christ's is by doing what he told us to do.

I enjoyed this discussion immensely, and just thought I'd add something related to the above point. I think part of the issue is some, members and non members alike, confuse faith and Grace. I've listened to members bear witness that we are saved by Christ through Grace and works when they meant to say faith instead of Grace. It complicates things, because then people think we don't believe we are saved and exalted by the Grace of Christ, but rather our own efforts and his Grace. The idea that there is some mystical amount of works we have to complete before the Lord's Grace kicks in, in other words. I try to make sure I clarify that we gain access to Christ's Grace through our faith and our works or, as you stated, that is the "price" we pay to be saved by Christ's Grace.

[scottyg]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Honestly I just wanted to ask him what his motivations were and see if I could get an upfront answer. I expect I wouldn't have.

Methinks they were self-serving motivations, e.g. seeking validation. Just another young buck who recently got an education and wrote a paper who now wants to show the rest of the world how enlightened he is so he can feel welcomed at the adult dinner table.

Perhaps I am too harsh, and I could be wrong, but he definitely came off as pround and unwilling to accept the possibility that others views could be right. He appears to be around my age, and I am sure I have done my fair share of showboating at times as well.

[Traveler]

23 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

That’s a good point, though it does seem somewhat tangential to what I was (poorly) trying to articulate.

If the Book of Mormon is what we believe it to be, then it was revealed twice—first by God to the various authors, and the record left by by those authors was then re-revealed by God to Joseph Smith as translator/transcriptionist.  Even if we assume that the entire English BoM was a verbatim transcription of the precise words Joseph Smith saw on the U&T/seer stone and that the “translator” was God Himself—we certainly don’t know that that’s the process by which the BoM’s various authors wrote the book in the first place.  Nor do we know what kind of translation methodology God used in approaching the texts left by Nephi, Moroni, etc and the idiosyncratic vocabularies, syntax, grammatical usages, etc of each of those authors.  

Whatever the transmission/translation process was, it seems to have resulted in the fact that even in English many of the BoM authors have their own distinct “voices”.  It seems reasonable that just because Moroni understood a concept in one way, doesn’t mean that Nephi understood it exactly the same way or would have articulated it with the same verbiage.  And the question then becomes—does the Translator transmit the text in a way that is faithful to the record the author left?  Or does the Translator superimpose His own linguistic style onto the entire record?

So, no; I’m pretty gun-shy about approaching scripture as a holistic “legal code” in which a word consistently means one thing and only one thing all the way through.  If the phrase “saved by grace after all we can do” is somehow offensive—well, maybe the problem is with the varying meanings of the word “after”, as the OP suggests.  But then again—maybe the problem is with varying meanings of the word “grace”.

I thought to comment on your post.  Most of us think in English when we read scripture, including the Book of Mormon.  Sometimes those that served mission will think in their "other" language when addressing the scriptures.  I personally find discussing scriptures with someone bilingual to be most enlightening.  One such example comes from the German version of the Book of Mormon.  To explain - the English word is repentance.  This word has unique meaning in the English language.  The term by its very nature implies a price of sorrow and emotion for something done or the result of something done.  But the term does not demand an actual lasting change.  The word conforms very well with traditional Catholic doctrine of confession.  

Martin Luther did not like that particular concept and used a different word that German word meant to "turn around" which implies a lasting change.  The German version of the Book of Mormon uses both German words in different places.  My brother, who is quite connected to the German version suggests that the German version of the Book of Mormon was accomplished by committee and the resulting word that remained in the text was who in the committee had, in essence, the final say and if their background (pre conversion) was Catholic or Lutheran.   

I think I agree with what you are trying to say - in that if Joseph Smith required divine assistance to determine phraseology and terms - that to understand such things - that we also require divine assistance.  If we understand divine assistance as a spiritual gift from G-d - then according to Moroni chapter 10 --- to some is given a particular point of view and to other a variant view.  And Moroni explains that the purpose for variant views through the spirit is not so we can endlessly argue our spiritual view but that we all can come to greater spiritual awareness of the things of G-d.  What I am suggesting is that the variances in word meaning are not so much of a problem as perhaps a panoramic insight. 

 

The Traveler

[Still_Small_Voice]

On 4/28/2020 at 10:23 AM, Traveler said:

[My wife] seldom reads scripture because she does not want to argue with me or anyone else concerning what this or that particular verse "REALLY" means.  . . . 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.

From what you posted it sounds to me your wife may have the spiritual gifts of faith, compassion and of hearing and using the still small voice of the Holy Ghost.