Interesting blog on Mormon treatment of grace

[Archaea]

http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2008/...-2-nephi-2523/

[aaronshaf]

I've been working on this article for a little while now:

http://www.mrm.org/topics/salvation/...sage-salvation

(It's still a working draft)

Anyways, given my research, I was pretty happy to see a Mormon blogger publicly dealing with the two main interpretations of the passage.

[jay santos]

I've commented on this scripture several times.

I obviously take interpretation #2. I disagree that it is awkward or strained or a clever manipulation. It seems a very natural interpretation, and I think it fits just fine with the rest of Nephi's sermon, rest of BoM, and Mormon doctrine.

Comment #7 represents how I see it.

There is a common linguistic technique that can clarify lots of statements that use parenthetical comments (including those that are written with commas) - simply switching the phrases and adding the appropriate qualifiers. Often the shorter version is used when the author wants to say it as concisely as possible - which fits Nephi’s oft-stated space constraints.
Switching the phrases in 2 Nehpi 25:23 gives us:
“After all we can do, we know that it is by grace that we are saved.” Adding appropriate qualifiers makes it, “(Even) after all we can do, we know that it (still) is by grace that we are saved.” This final construct is a perfectly reasonable reading of the original - not the only possibility, but certainly a reasonable one.
That fits Mormon theology perfectly, since it says that even though we are required to exert our all, that effort doesn’t save us without God’s grace. That message is repeated over and over and over again in the rest of the Book of Mormon, including Nephi’s other words.

[Tex]

While I appreciate his well thought-out comments, I suppose my simplistic mind just took it for granted that Nephi was speaking semi-rhetorically. Based on the volume of discussion of Christ's atonement in the Book of Mormon (to say nothing of Benjamin's speech as noted), and the body of commentary by latter-day prophets, it seems foolish to me to read that isolated passage and assume that salvation is works with a little grace sprinkled on top. Likewise it seems presumptuous that we mortals could possibly believe we could derive a formula for salvation from that one verse, assigning grace and works their proper proportions. As Maxwell noted, "We can't do the math because we don't have all the variables."

But if I had a dollar for everytime a born-again got in my face about the word "all" in "all we can do", I'd be a rich man indeed. Damn literalists.

[pelagius]

I'll admit to not reading it very carefully, but mostly because I didn't like it. The author seems very bright and should be applauded for talking the text seriously. However, I think he imputes a theological precision to the text that I just don't thing is warranted. The Book of Mormon is not a formal theological treatise or an exploration of systematic theology (in my view that author treats it as something like this throughout). I think the most one would want to conclude from a single sentence like that is that Nephi (and the church) believes that an aspect of grace is compensatory. Which is hardly problematic and not the only way that grace is talked about in the Book of Mormon. Grace, for example, is transformative in Ether 12:6.

[aaronshaf]

Remember, it has been correlated literature and Mormon authorities from the General Conference pulpit who have promoted the first interpretation. It'd be unfair to pin the first interpretation on those "damn born again literalists".

[Archaea]

I agree with Pelagius as to canon. Historically I haven't viewed any scripture, be it the First Testament or the Second Testament or any LDS scripture as legalistically precise.

Theologians may agonize over religious pronouncements as if precision were intended, but I see no reason to interpret them thusly.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

Remember, it has been correlated literature and Mormon authorities from the General Conference pulpit who have promoted the first interpretation. It'd be unfair to pin the first interpretation on those "damn born again literalists".

I think Mormons would have to agree, even those for interpretation #2, that church leaders have interpreted it the first way.

But when it comes to grace/works LDS prophets and apostles make it clear that both are necessary. So does Book of Mormon. So does Bible. And Evangelicals agree.

I see the LDS doctrine on grace/works evolving a little and going more towards the Book of Mormon teachings which are more grace centered. It's not fair for Evangelicals to beat us up on the "Mormons believe they work their way to heaven" argument--it's just simply not the case.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I think Mormons would have to agree, even those for interpretation #2, that church leaders have interpreted it the first way.

But when it comes to grace/works LDS prophets and apostles make it clear that both are necessary. So does Book of Mormon. So does Bible. And Evangelicals agree.

I see the LDS doctrine on grace/works evolving a little and going more towards the Book of Mormon teachings which are more grace centered. It's not fair for Evangelicals to beat us up on the "Mormons believe they work their way to heaven" argument--it's just simply not the case.

In the war and competition for members, i.e., paying customers, when was fairness ever an issue?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

Remember, it has been correlated literature and Mormon authorities from the General Conference pulpit who have promoted the first interpretation. It'd be unfair to pin the first interpretation on those "damn born again literalists".

Oh, it's plenty fair. Those damn literalists are not in our scriptures altruistically, thanks.