Despite All We Can Do

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Well, what grammatical rules are being broken to come to this conundrum:

X^0 = 1

0^x = 0

What is 0^0?

0!

[Carborendum]

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

0!

While true, I haven't seen the proof.

I know the line of reasoning (I can't call it a proof) that shows 0^0 = 1.  But I don't know how 0! = 1.  I have read the reasoning.  But it doesn't seem consistent to me.

Edited April 24, 2020 by Carborendum

[Vort]

14 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

While true, I haven't seen the proof.

I know the line of reasoning (I can't call it a proof) that shows 0^0 = 1.  But I don't know how 0! = 1.  I have read the reasoning.  But it doesn't seem consistent to me.

It's a definition that is tremendously useful in many situations. For example, if you have n items that you take k at a time, how many permutations can you get? The equation to get you the result you want is

_nP_k == n!/(n-k)!

So for example, if you have 5 items that you want to take 2 at a time, there are 5!/(5-2!) = 5!/3! = 5*4 = 20 possible ways (permutations, i.e. order-dependent) to do this. (You can check this on your fingers.)

So what about the case n=k? That is, you want to find _nP_n. Then

_nP_n == n!/(n-n)! = n!/0!

That equation will actually still work just fine, so long as you define 0! == 1. So that's how it's defined.

Edited April 24, 2020 by Vort

[Carborendum]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

That equation will actually still work just fine, so long as you define 0! == 1. So that's how it's defined.

That's not circular logic?

[Vort]

Just now, Carborendum said:

That's not circular logic?

Not at all. It's definition. We define our orthography such that it is meaningful. Why is 0/0 undefined? Because there is no useful definition we can give it. If there were, we would do so. Such is not the case with 0!, though.

[maklelan]

42 minutes ago, Vort said:

How so?

Because the two positions represent the opposite sides of a fierce debate that has been going on for millennia. Either "all we can do" plays a role in grace or is does not.

[Carborendum]

17 minutes ago, Vort said:

Not at all. It's definition. We define our orthography such that it is meaningful. Why is 0/0 undefined? Because there is no useful definition we can give it. If there were, we would do so. Such is not the case with 0!, though.

With 0/0 we see the numbers approaching from both direction indicating a divergence where there cannot be a definition.

With 0^0 we see two patterns that are in conflict with each other. Not divergent patterns, but still mutually exclusive patterns.  Therefore, a third pattern is called into the mix to tip the balance.  And the third pattern is a pattern more consistent than the first two that indicate a definition which happens to agree with one of the other two.

Here is my weakness in math.  I don't "know math" like a well trained human calculator.  I even have a tough time seeing a lot of engineered solutions that are brought before me.  I see patterns.  I only use the language of math to express the patterns I see.  So, I have to have someone walk through the patterns with me.  Then I figure how I would express those patterns in mathematical grammar.

The proof you've given actually generates patterns where there are just as many conflicts that don't really answer the question.  Yes, if you just assume 0!=1, then it solves it.  But it could just as easily be undefined.  If it is more clear in one direction, I'm not seeing it.  Hence, I thought it was circular logic.

Edited April 25, 2020 by Carborendum

[Vort]

Just now, maklelan said:

Because the two positions represent the opposite sides of a fierce debate that has been going on for millennia. Either "all we can do" plays a role in grace or is does not.

This is not correct. The two positions do not represent opposite sides of a debate. They may be taken that way (and obviously they often are), but that is a false dichotomy. There is no intrinsic opposition between them. I can believe that salvation is granted, not as a reward for my wonderful works, but as a gift from Christ, yet still (consistently) believe that accepting Christ's grace is done by following his commandments, including those commandments to do good works.

It seems to me that saying that the two given meanings of "after" are opposite each other is simply false. I don't think it's logically defensible. You have to apply unwarranted definitions outside of the plain words used to come to such a convoluted result.

[Vort]

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The proof you've given actually generates patterns where there are just as many conflicts that don't really answer the question.

Carb, I'm no mathematician, just a guy who likes math. What conflicts do you see in what I wrote? Because I don't see any. Things look perfectly consistent to me. I can't think offhand of any cases where it would be useful to define 0! == 0. In fact, if you don't define 0! == 1, I don't see any other useful way to define it at all.

(And for the record, I didn't supply any proof, just an example of why 0! == 1 is a useful definition.)

Edited April 25, 2020 by Vort

[Carborendum]

14 hours ago, maklelan said:

Because the two positions represent the opposite sides of a fierce debate that has been going on for millennia. Either "all we can do" plays a role in grace or is does not.

Now I think you've possibly misworded this.

There is no question that works "play a role" in our obtaining Christ's grace.  (OK, I just read @Vort's post.  Yes, I agree with him).  I would reword your comment as "all we can do" does NOT EQUAL grace.  It is, however, a prerequisite to obtaining the grace which grants us salvation. 

This does include the idea that for some, "all we can do" is often very little or even none.  But what can be done should be done.  If not, what do you make of 2 Nephi 31?

Edited April 25, 2020 by Carborendum

[Carborendum]

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

Carb, I'm no mathematician, just a guy who likes math. What conflicts do you see in what I wrote? Because I don't see any. Things look perfectly consistent to me. I can't think offhand of any cases where it would be useful to define 0! == 0. In fact, if you don't define 0! == 1, I don't see any other useful way to define it at all.

(And for the record, I didn't supply any proof, just an example of why 0! == 1 is a useful definition.)

The useful case would be that 0! would include a case where we have  0*X = 0.

But I did a bit of googling while we've been posting.  I found something fairly interesting.  It is close, but not quite the same as your example.  And it is a consistent pattern.

n!/n=(n-1)! for all positive whole numbers.

Edited April 25, 2020 by Carborendum

[Carborendum]

8 hours ago, maklelan said:

but be discerning regarding on whom you have compassion.

What would be your comment on multiple alternate translators preferring the following translation.

show compassion upon those who are doubting.

For my part, I believe this would mean "making a difference" would refer to "those who separate themselves from the church" / going inactive.  (I'm using "church" in the ancient sense).

Edited April 25, 2020 by Carborendum

[askandanswer]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

It's a definition that is tremendously useful in many situations. For example, if you have n items that you take k at a time, how many permutations can you get? The equation to get you the result you want is

_nP_k == n!/(n-k)!

So for example, if you have 5 items that you want to take 2 at a time, there are 5!/(5-2!) = 5!/3! = 5*4 = 20 possible ways (permutations, i.e. order-dependent) to do this. (You can check this on your fingers.)

So what about the case n=k? That is, you want to find _nP_n. Then

_nP_n == n!/(n-n)! = n!/0!

That equation will actually still work just fine, so long as you define 0! == 1. So that's how it's defined.

Oh!

[maklelan]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

What would be your comment on multiple alternate translators preferring the following translation.

show compassion upon those who are doubting.

For my part, I believe this would mean "making a difference" would refer to "those who separate themselves from the church" / going inactive.  (I'm using "church" in the ancient sense).

That's a textual issue. The NT manuscript on which the KJV was based had a nominative participle at the end, which it interpreted adverbially, describing how the main verb of the sentence was to be done. Since then, however, we've discovered thousands of New Testament manuscripts that are both older and more reliable. We now know the participle at the end was supposed to be in the accusative case, so they're to be the object of the verb. The verbal root of the participle has to do with weighing, considering, or discerning, so it's most frequently interpreted as a reference to folks who are doubting. It could also be interpreted to refer to those who separate themselves from the Church. I discuss this in the paper I recently published on Bible translation in the Church (which is discussed in the podcast interview). You can access that paper here:

https://www.academia.edu/39443839/_As_Far_as_It_Is_Translated_Correctly_Bible_Translation_and_the_Church

[Anddenex]

I, honestly, don't see the difference between 'after all we can do" and "despite all we can do." This argument/debate seems similar to the debate of conditional vs. unconditional love.

I, personally, like the interpretation provided in our Bible Dictionary, "However, grace cannot suffice without total effort on the part of the recipient. Hence the explanation, “It is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do” (2 Ne. 25:23). It is truly the grace of Jesus Christ that makes salvation possible."

I could only find one source from the Church's website regarding "despite all we can do" from Elder Oaks, "But despite all we can do, we cannot have a fulness of joy in this world or through our own efforts. (See D&C 101:36.) Only in Christ can our joy be full. This is why the angel proclaimed: “I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people." Elder Oaks has also said, "And what is “all we can do”? It surely includes repentance (see Alma 24:11) and baptism, keeping the commandments, and enduring to the end." So, Elder Oaks has used both phrases.

The concept of "after all we can do" reminds me of (and correlates with) the following verses of scripture:

1) Mosiah 2: 21, "I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another—I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants."

2) Omni 1: 26, "And now, my beloved brethren, I would that ye should come unto Christ, who is the Holy One of Israel, and partake of his salvation, and the power of his redemption. Yea, come unto him, and offer your whole souls as an offering unto him, and continue in fasting and praying, and endure to the end; and as the Lord liveth ye will be saved."

3) Moroni 10: 32, "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."

4) Moses 6: 60, "For by the water ye keep the commandment; by the Spirit ye are justified, and by the blood ye are sanctified;" (This encompasses the bounteous love and mercy given by Jesus Christ)

Notice how the term "despite" doesn't fit perfectly with Moroni 10:32, but "after all we can do" fits nicely. The Bible Dictionary definition "total effort" seems to some it up nicely between "despite" and "after." Despite our total effort we are still saved by grace. After our total effort, we are still saved by grace.

I would say the argument is pedantic and is splitting hairs; however, that is from my perspective. 

Also, I am a little confused with this statement, "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."

2 Nephi 25: 23 implies all Moses 6:60. If we do not keep the commandments (includes repentance) we cannot be justified, which means we are unable to be sanctified. I am reading your statement as, "2 Nephi 25: 23 only refers to exaltation." Is that what you meant?

Edited April 25, 2020 by Anddenex

[Traveler]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

What is 0^0?

Grammatically it is undefined within the real and complex number sets - which means there is no number within those number sets that will suffice.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

5 hours ago, maklelan said:

 Either "all we can do" plays a role in grace or is does not.

Is not that the essence of what the scripture is saying?  The point being that grace is not the equivalent of the overloading the scale of Mot such that we are saved but rather the enabling of agency.  Thus we may choose (by an act of doing) but we are granted that power of choice by grace.   Can we, by choice, reject or nullify grace?

Another way to look at is may be with the grammar of mathematics.  Grace is a constant and what we can do is a variable. 

 

The Traveler

Edited April 25, 2020 by Traveler

[maklelan]

12 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Now I think you've possibly misworded this.

There is no question that works "play a role" in our obtaining Christ's grace.  (OK, I just read @Vort's post.  Yes, I agree with him).  I would reword your comment as "all we can do" does NOT EQUAL grace.  It is, however, a prerequisite to obtaining the grace which grants us salvation. 

This does include the idea that for some, "all we can do" is often very little or even none.  But what can be done should be done.  If not, what do you make of 1 Nephi 31?

There are two stages here. The first is reconciliation to Christ, or coming unto Christ, and that is what requires baptism, repentance, etc. That is the "gate" referred to in 2 Nephi 31. 2 Nephi 25:23 is referring to what happens once we're on the path, and 2 Nephi 10:24 says the same thing: "after ye are reconciled unto God [that's the first step with baptism, etc], that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved." 2 Nephi 10:24 and 25:23 say the exact same thing: grace alone saves us once we've been reconciled to God/Christ through baptism, repentance, etc.

[maklelan]

12 hours ago, Vort said:

This is not correct. The two positions do not represent opposite sides of a debate. They may be taken that way (and obviously they often are), but that is a false dichotomy. There is no intrinsic opposition between them. I can believe that salvation is granted, not as a reward for my wonderful works, but as a gift from Christ, yet still (consistently) believe that accepting Christ's grace is done by following his commandments, including those commandments to do good works.

It seems to me that saying that the two given meanings of "after" are opposite each other is simply false. I don't think it's logically defensible. You have to apply unwarranted definitions outside of the plain words used to come to such a convoluted result.

I'm not talking about the isolated meanings of just the words "after," and I'm not talking about the entire conceptual suite that you want to bring to the background of this. The opposite meanings don't obtain apart from the contexts in which they appear, and definitions have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any of this. Your personal theory of how grace works that you want to superimpose on this scripture does not bear on the fact that the most common reading in the Church of this passage has for generations been that our works are what qualify us to receive grace and be saved, while the intended sense was that our works cannot possibly qualify us for salvation. The passage agrees with 2 Nephi 10:24 and with Mosiah 2:21 that there is no amount of works that we could ever possibly do to qualify for salvation. Now, if you want to reconcile these approaches in your head, that's your prerogative, but it doesn't in any way change the fact that on the surface, the two interpretations are directly at odds with each other.

[maklelan]

8 hours ago, Anddenex said:

I, honestly, don't see the difference between 'after all we can do" and "despite all we can do." This argument/debate seems similar to the debate of conditional vs. unconditional love.

I, personally, like the interpretation provided in our Bible Dictionary, "However, grace cannot suffice without total effort on the part of the recipient. Hence the explanation, “It is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do” (2 Ne. 25:23). It is truly the grace of Jesus Christ that makes salvation possible."

I could only find one source from the Church's website regarding "despite all we can do" from Elder Oaks, "But despite all we can do, we cannot have a fulness of joy in this world or through our own efforts. (See D&C 101:36.) Only in Christ can our joy be full. This is why the angel proclaimed: “I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people." Elder Oaks has also said, "And what is “all we can do”? It surely includes repentance (see Alma 24:11) and baptism, keeping the commandments, and enduring to the end." So, Elder Oaks has used both phrases.

The concept of "after all we can do" reminds me of (and correlates with) the following verses of scripture:

1) Mosiah 2: 21, "I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another—I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants."

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." In Mosiah, this is expanded on, and "all those things" is fleshed out a little more fully to drive home the point that no matter what we could do, we would never overtake our debt. Now, in the 18th and early 19th century, a bunch of folks were publishing criticisms of deism and Catholicism, and they were saying things like "after all he can do, is still an unprofitable servant," and "It is certain that after all we can do, still we are unprofitable servants," and "Every thinking man must be sensible, that after all his endeavours [sic], and the very utmost he can do, he is still not only an unprofitable servant, but too often an ungrateful and disobedient one." In other words, DESPITE everything we would ever do, we remain unprofitable servants. This is precisely what Mosiah says, and it is precisely what 2 Nephi 25:23 is saying: no matter what we do, and no matter how much we could ever do, it will always and only be grace that saves us." This is in precise agreement with what 2 Nephi 10:24 says: "remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved."

Quote

 

2) Omni 1: 26, "And now, my beloved brethren, I would that ye should come unto Christ, who is the Holy One of Israel, and partake of his salvation, and the power of his redemption. Yea, come unto him, and offer your whole souls as an offering unto him, and continue in fasting and praying, and endure to the end; and as the Lord liveth ye will be saved."

3) Moroni 10: 32, "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."

 

We've got two different stages going on here. Coming unto Christ is the equivalent of being reconciled to Christ/God, as is mentioned in 2 Nephi 10:24. That step requires repentance, baptism, etc., and that represents the gate we pass through to get onto the path (2 Nephi 31:17). Moroni 10:32 is talking about the process of getting on the path, which it says is being perfected in Christ (the New Testament calls this justification), and then in verse 33, it describes how grace, and grace alone, sanctifies us. 

Quote

 

4) Moses 6: 60, "For by the water ye keep the commandment; by the Spirit ye are justified, and by the blood ye are sanctified;" (This encompasses the bounteous love and mercy given by Jesus Christ)

Notice how the term "despite" doesn't fit perfectly with Moroni 10:32, but "after all we can do" fits nicely. The Bible Dictionary definition "total effort" seems to some it up nicely between "despite" and "after." Despite our total effort we are still saved by grace. After our total effort, we are still saved by grace.

 

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.

Quote

 

I would say the argument is pedantic and is splitting hairs; however, that is from my perspective. 

Also, I am a little confused with this statement, "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."

2 Nephi 25: 23 implies all Moses 6:60.

 

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.

Quote

If we do not keep the commandments (includes repentance) we cannot be justified, which means we are unable to be sanctified. I am reading your statement as, "2 Nephi 25: 23 only refers to exaltation." Is that what you meant?

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." 

[Carborendum]

12 hours ago, maklelan said:

You can access that paper here:

https://www.academia.edu/39443839/_As_Far_as_It_Is_Translated_Correctly_Bible_Translation_and_the_Church

Is the document small enough to post on the forum.  When I go to the download site, it wants access to my contacts.  And I've had bad experiences with spam being sent to my contacts (in my name) when I did that before.

[maklelan]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Is the document small enough to post on the forum.  When I go to the download site, it wants access to my contacts.  And I've had bad experiences with spam being sent to my contacts (in my name) when I did that before.

If you're signing up for academia.edu, it's not gonna spam anyone, it just wants to see if you know anyone who's already on the site. I don't expect anybody to create an account just to access the paper, though. If you message me your email address, I'll send you a PDF (and won't do anything else at all with your email address).

[Carborendum]

9 hours ago, Traveler said:

Grammatically it is undefined within the real and complex number sets - which means there is no number within those number sets that will suffice.

 

The Traveler

Excellent.

It may be undefined by some criteria.  But we can also define it in terms of limits.  And when we take the limit of X^X as X---> 0 (from the positive side) is 1.  It starts to turn around as X=0.37 or so.

But the thing is that the grammar rules tell us two separate things that are well defined.  But your answer is that it is undefined.  Remember your original comment was about the mathematical rules of grammar and how perfectly exact the language of math is.

I recall a huge proof that a physics professor once did where he showed why something in the vacuum of space was the way it was.  However, it hinged upon a variable (I forget which one -- you may remember) = 1.  He went through the entire proof.  I was wondering why he was going through it so fast that it was hard to keep up with him.  At the end he said.

"But there's just one problem.  This variable isn't anywhere near equal 1.  Yet by choosing it to be one, we get the solution that is found to correctly predict much of what we know about the vacuum of space."

If math is so precise and exact and accurate, how did it correctly predict reality when an incorrect assumption was made as the input?

Linguistics is not much different.  Sometimes a translation turns out to be the best way to express the overall intent even though the exact wording of the translation is not what anyone would consider accurate.  (This happens most with idiomatic expressions).

Don't get caught up so much with mathematical certitude with its precision and exactness and accuracy, so that you lose sight of the reality behind the numbers.

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, maklelan said:

There are two stages here. The first is reconciliation to Christ, or coming unto Christ, and that is what requires baptism, repentance, etc. That is the "gate" referred to in 2 Nephi 31. 2 Nephi 25:23 is referring to what happens once we're on the path, and 2 Nephi 10:24 says the same thing: "after ye are reconciled unto God [that's the first step with baptism, etc], that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved." 2 Nephi 10:24 and 25:23 say the exact same thing: grace alone saves us once we've been reconciled to God/Christ through baptism, repentance, etc.

I'm hearing what you're saying.  And I am somewhat coming along with you. (And thank you for the correction to 2 Nephi rather than 1 Nephi.)  I have formed a theological theory.  As a "just now formed" idea, it needs some kinks worked out.  But here goes.

Because we do believe in the separation of the Trinity into members of the Godhead, there are some understandings that we can have about the nature of Grace and the Atonement.

• Jesus is our mediator with the Father.
• He gained this role and right by virtue of the Atonement.
• We are reconciled to the Son through our Works (again, not ironed out yet).
• We are reconciled to the Father through the Son.
• The ability to reconcile at all is through grace.

I want to note for everyone that we're now no longer really talking about the verbiage of the translation anymore.  We've gone into the theological/doctrinal meaning of the verse in question.  This is natural -- as opposed to the mathematical thread jack which is running parallel to the thread.  

Edited April 25, 2020 by Carborendum

[JohnsonJones]

18 hours ago, maklelan said:

Because the two positions represent the opposite sides of a fierce debate that has been going on for millennia. Either "all we can do" plays a role in grace or is does not.

I agree.  This is also where I think there may be a slight flaw in giving the idea that it means despite rather than after.  With Catholicism (Roman and Orthodox) their was the idea that works were needed to get to Heaven.  Grace was still seen as saving mankind, but works were needed to show that one was following Christ.  Thus we have the sacraments (as pertaining to Catholicism) with one of the most important being that of Baptism.

The interpretation of the Bible was that works were required.

There were those that read the Bible differently.  They felt that works may not be mandatory.  Protestant religions fall all over the spectrum in relation to works vs. grace.  Some take the idea that no works are necessary at all, that only grace saves us.  Some take it to the degree that those who worshipped the Rameumpton took, that the Lord chooses who he saves and there is no choice on our part.  If we are saved, we might as well praise the Lord to be saved and then do whatever we want.  Others had beliefs that the only work one had to do was to choose to have faith in the Lord and then eat, drink, and be merry. 

The solitary source of scripture chosen can be identified with the word despite.  In some ways it is acceptable on it's own.  With modern revelation we know that ALL men will be saved from death.  There is NOTHING we can do, no work, no belief, that will save us from mortal death.  We will die.  It is only by the Lord and his atonement and sacrifice as well as his breaking the bonds of death that we will be resurrected.  In this, there is nothing we can do.  We will be saved despite anything (and all) we can do from death.

The next is that we can be saved from hell.  This is salvation in the minds of many.  IN this, for 99.9999% of men, they will be saved from Hell.  With the percentage that high we could apply it in general terms to everyone.  We all sin.  All of us.  As such, all of us will end up in Hell and deserve it if it were left to us.  Only through the atonement and sacrifice of the Lord can we be saved from Hell.  Nothing we do can save us.  Only through the grace of our Lord can we be saved.

Is this, then, the doctrine of the Book of Mormon?  Is this all there is?  Is there more? 

Left to this solitary verse or even set of verses, perhaps that could be the understanding.  However, there is FAR more to the Book of Mormon and it sets to describing different approaches to religion throughout the Book.  It tells of stories of men who express the protestant and other religious beliefs of our day.  Prophets refute their statements and try to teach true principles of the gospel.  The Book of Mormon itself can be seen as clarifying and it leaves another explanation as well.  ONLY by ignoring the Book of Mormon can we arrive that the above teachings are ALL that this could represent.

In 3rd Nephi, chapter 12 it says...

Quote

48 Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect.

What does this mean?  This phrase means much the same as it did in Joseph's day.  We could ascertain that it is THIS phrase where the common and modern interpretation of 'after all you can do.' originates.  All you can do is not enough to be perfect...however if all you can do is striving to be perfect, it shows that you are willing to follow the Lord.

Is this then, what it means?  That you have to be perfect and if you were perfect, you would accomplish this commandment?  What does perfection even look like?  Does the Book of Mormon answer this question?

I think THIS is the heart of the debate, or the debate that the despite vs. all you can do, is based upon.  However, the BIGGER question in academia would not be whether or not this is true or not, but whether this interpretation is made up or not.  Do members actually BELIEVE this idea that All you can do means after everything you can do on your own...only then are you saved?

Rather than question whether despite or after is the appropriate wording, perhaps a study would need to be done first to actually prove that the interpretation of the wording is what members believe or not.

For some, a tertiary meaning comes up.  In this, the Book of Mormon gives 'works' of which we must do.  These works cannot save us, but they indicate the willingness of our souls to follow and obey the Lord.  We are not perfect, but we can do all we can to show we are following him through faith and repentance.  We can continually pray and repent throughout our lives.  All we can do therefore is more on all that we can do in our struggles to follow these commandments of the Book of Mormon.  Repentance itself indicates that we have not done "ALL" that we "Could" have done, as we are not perfect, but we can do all without our power.  There are set things that we can do with 100% efficiency.  WE can have faith, we can repent, and we can be baptized.  Then we can continue to humble ourselves, have faith, and repent.  The Book of Mormon continually hammers that there are those that are saved and those that go to hell.  If we are only talking about the top two processes of being saved, what matters the works?

Is this what Nephi meant?

Then why does he continue to clarify after he has said it?

Because as he says, the law is dead.  The law cannot save us.  Our works without Christ have no saving power.  In essence, after ALL we can do with the Law, we will not be saved by it or by doing rote acts in it without Christ and a belief in him.  Christ is necessary to the Plan of Salvation.  After all (there's that wording again and used in a similar as Mark Twain utilized it!), without him, the laws, the ordinances, and everything else, even belief in him, is worthless.  If he does not exist, none of what we do can save us.  It is ONLY through Christ and the grace he extends that can save us.  That does not mean there are no works he asks of us to do.  Nephi actually goes into great detail (prior to this verse, after the verse, and several chapters after that) to indicate WHY we keep the commandments and the laws he has placed.  His point was that keeping the ordinances without the works of faith in Christ and that belief or faith being real in a REAL Savior who does a REAL atonement are powerless.  That the central and core of our entire belief and way of thinking and doing things should be centered on a very REAL Messiah that has the power to save.

Does this mean that replacing it with the word despite is wrong?  Not necessarily, but I think saying that this clarifies the position may not be correct.  It takes for granted that the Saints are using only ONE interpretation of the phrase.  It may be true some think that way, but I think that is a flawed premise to begin with.

Furthermore, the question then falls on whether using the word despite actually clarifies anything in our modern speech?  Once again, it may.  I can't counter that entirely.  On the otherhand, it may also bring other interpretations that using the word after does not.  Is it necessary to change the scripture then to use the word despite rather than accept?

I do not believe so, but I think it could be used in a talk to highlight the power of the Grace of God and the power he has thereof.  Others may be of another opinion...of course.

Edited April 25, 2020 by JohnsonJones
Clarity