:D "Not interested," Dyin'! As someone raised within the Evangelical Christian context, Grace v. works was a hot button topic. I remember how it was argued back and forth, throughout the religious landscape, an apologetical free for all. I also remember thinking just how small it made G-d seem, petty even, nitpicky.
Ya know, for being a "clown" you're awfully intelligent and well-spoken and well-researched. You're also not nearly as terrifying as the clowns I've come across in my normal life :p It is so sad to see so much hate directed at you and your person specifically, but that seems to be just the way things go :(
People who fear they are wrong will often lash out with ad hominem attacks. I don’t watch a lot of apologist/evangelical videos - preferring Dan’s rational, historical, and data-driven approach, but many of the videos that Dan shows snippets of as part of his correction process seem to be made by people who - if you met them on the street - you would judge to have mental or at least behavioral issues. Actually, a lot of fervent, outspoken religious people seem to fall somewhere on that particular spectrum.
Especially amazing how people who claim to be followers of man who preached and commanded love, tolerance, empathy and compassion, are often the exact opposite. 🤔
As a missionary in Berlin in 1971, I came across a person with an 1879 German edition of The Book of Mormon. It says we're saved by grace "trotz" all that we do. Trotz translates as "in spite of". It was only in later versions that "nach", meaning "after", was used instead of "trotz". Orson Hyde oversaw the 1852 translation, and Orson Pratt the 1879 version.
our investigator was a sweet little old lady convinced we are saved by grace alone, and we missionaries were trying to put a little more emphasis on the importance of works. When we asked her to read from the BofM and it came across as 'trotz', she said, "see, I'm right". Pretty funny. We had to admit that was pretty conclusive.@@dinocollins720
nice - I was wondering what that version said. So if as Dan says "after" meant in-spite-of in 1830, and Orson H&P used 'trotz' in German to preserve the meaning, then this all hangs together - and it's just the present version of 'after' that has changed meaning an misled us.@@FrederickBergman-gz5yp
@amertlich right but notice how the analysis is based on a corpus of English language protestant literature. If the BOM was originally in a Ancient Near Eastern language or indigenous American language and was only translated into English then that would be the wrong corpus to understand the meaning of these ideas. Compare to how Dan analyzes the Hebrew Bible its always in the context of a corpus of ancient Semitic literature. What 19th century protestants are writing doesn't tell you what ancient Jews mean when they composed the pentatuch etc Literature is always a reflection of the historical context its from, authors write to reflect controversies and understandings of their time and place etc.
@@granthallee1953 Could it be possible that it’s an inspired translation, refracted somewhat through the instrumental prism of Joseph Smith? Scholars believe Jeremiah and Ezekiel likely incorporated contemporary perspectives and even self serving bias’ into some of their prophecies. Yet these are still treated as inspired. Whether revelations of God get filtered through mortal delivery mechanisms and can still be truthful seems to be left up to individual faith and spiritual discernment.
@@amertlich I mean I'm Jewish so I am just basically never going to accept this premise from the jump since I don't believe Jesus is (a) God. But if that is the way you negotiate with the text to make the BoM work in your religion then that's fine, that's how religious faith works. That said I do think that the BoM, Mormon history etc makes way way more sense if you understand it as a fundamentally human and historical endeavor. I really recommend some of the historical work of John Hamer which really puts it in context and makes it make a lot of sense. Also to refer to your example of Ezekiel. YES we do see stuff from their time period in that text because it is fundamentally a product of that era. It would be really weird if Ezekiel started addressing 1st century Jewish apocalypticism or adopting medieval poetic forms. In fact if that happened I don't think scholars would accept that that part of the text was actually original.
Nonetheless, and this may be a fool's errand on my part, but I feel moved to offer a clarification on the source of Catholic soteriology. This is to say that Holy Mother Church does not "negotiate" her soteriology from the Bible, but rather that She Herself canonized what would and would not be included in the Bible in the first place, and then _also_ determines and teaches Her own soteriology on the authority of our Lord as represented in the Keys to the Kingdom. To put it yet another way, Catholics do not profess to be people of a book - as do Muslims or perhaps some Protestants - but rather we are people of the Word - the _Logos._ The Bible is not, for us, a crystal ball through which we look for divine inspiration, but rather a publication which only came to be through the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, established by our Lord Jesus on the Rock of Pope Saint Peter. Importantly, let me add that all are invited to join us, so we might welcome you home
@@MarcillaSmith, as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I really appreciate your comment about being people of the Word rather than people of a book. Without an authoritative means of interpretation, be that through tradition or an inspired leader, words on a page can mean whatever you want them to mean, and even the most thorough, honest, and diligent of scholarly theologians can disagree about their meanings.
Until you see these guys on a call with a young LDS man or woman, telling that the church teaches this, and teaching them that their beliefs are evil and they need to repent. It is important to correct these individuals because first, they are wrong, and second, they are misleading people.
You are an important teacher of superior quality that is able to deliver information efficiently without noise and static. I watch in amazement and joy.
These are amazing to watch. It never stops being delightful to watch someone who cares about evidence and rationality dismantle these snide tribalists.
Sir, how dare you imply that reading a headline is not enough to give you a deep understanding of both the paper, it's arguments and their shortfalls, it's conclusions, and the wider subject matter and context. I mean, that would take effort! 😂 /sarcasm guys as it seems sometimes YT comments sections can't tell lol
Great explanation as usual! I sometimes wonder whether the content creators who take aim at your work are actually up to the task of trying, and trying hard, to learn, and understand, something new. I was raised a Catholic, - though I am some kind of atheist or agnostic now - and I remember a priest once making a remark about those who would not convert as being forgiven by God for their "invincible ignorance." This amusing rhetoric still makes me smile. But I am starting to truly understand the meaning of this phrase. If there is a God, let us hope They are truly forgiving of invincible ignorance. Now that really would be grace. Keep 'em coming, please.
Dan, you have to be the last person I would ever label a clown. In fact, you take your work so seriously it is kinda scary. I love listening to well studied individuals of which you are of the finest. Thank you for your work.
Look I'm not trying to gatekeep knowledge, but the internet is wild how just anyone can try and attack someone with a PHD lol. I mean, I don't agree with Bart Erhman on a lot but I wouldn't call him a clown, he's an academic scholar. I know it's not the point of this video, but I feel like the internet/social media is a terrifying vehicle for anti-intellectualism.
And yet you're here watching a video that I wouldn't call Anti Intellectual. The truth is that what we need is a culture that teaches people to see out good sources of knowledge. The absurdity on the internet is, by and large, a symptom rather than the source of the problem.
I've never understood protestants uncontrollable desire to, well... Protest every. "Hey look, a religion that is culturally shifting to be more in line with our doctrine of grace. Let's make sure to tell them they are wrong for doing that."
I like it. I always had my own apologetic for the "after all we can do".. That I felt in my heart was the spirit of what was meant. That being it was an expression of acts of faith. That grace saves us , but it's through Faith.. and the All we can do is simply expression of acting in Faith. But I like your exegesis of the meaning of the phrase in the 19th century.
I agree with your interpretation. If you cross with 2 Nephi 10:24 and consider the two verses together, a better reading would be "despite" or "notwithstanding all the works you can do," remember it is only through grace that one is saved. Good work.
Is 'after' in the sense of 'despite' not a thing in current US English? Maybe it's my age or because I'm British but I still understand and use it that way.
It is still a thing in modern American English, if perhaps a bit less common than it used to be. One issue is that people tend to assume all words/phrases can only have one meaning and assume the one that is the most useful to their position is only def.
I think when "after all" appears at the beginning of a sentence it clearly means despite, however, when it comes at the end of a sentence, like in 2Nephi 25:23, it becomes a little murkier. Growing up in the LDS tradition, I was explicitly taught this verse meant "after you've expended every effort." It was often used as a dig against churches who were perceived as only believing in word not deed. I also heard it used in reference to being saved by the "works" of priesthood ordinances. Christ's grace saves all makind from hell and death, but only those who are baptized LDS and receive covenants in the temple enter the Celestial Kingdom (basically, you're extra saved). Lately, I've heard more believing members share Dan's interpretation, which I think is healthier. As a side note, I think the reason this particular verse is so often interpreted as pro-works has more to do with page layout and where we pause to take breaths. The verse is longer than the couplet, and the "after all we can do" is often on its own line, making it natural to pause there before finishing.
@@Chronoplague I agree position in sentence or phrase matters, in this case it could be ambiguous however the context, 19th century religious writing, ought to make it obvious that it means despite.
@@Chronoplague I'm a believing member who shares Dan's interpretation, and I remember the cultural transition from "salvation is by works" to "salvation is by grace" that happened around the time Brad Wilcox gave his 2011 talk "His Grace is Sufficient." There's been a *lot* in the culture surrounding the Church that is toxic and frankly directly contrary to what Jesus Himself taught, and I'm grateful that we're finally, *finally* stepping away from it.
Grace is not like some gift card where if you check all the boxes, you get the gold star or giant stuffed bear. In the end, the decision is not nor ever was, yours.
For me the Jewish understanding makes the most sense. Deuteronomy 26 5 and Ezekiel 18 9 say that in order to be righteous or just in God's eyes you have to keep his commandments. Then we have verses about forgiveness in Isaiah or the book of Chronicles and more which say that in order to achieve forgiveness you need to repent. To have faith is the minimum criteria to be a believer but to be just or righteous in God's eyes you have to keep God's commandments. And in order to get forgiveness/grace you have to repent from your sins. So you have to do something in order to be saved. Faith is not enough. This goes in line with Jesus in the synoptics. When he was asked how to get eternal life, he referred to the commandments of God. And in the lords prayer he said to ask God for forgiveness. But then comes Paul along and says you only have to have faith in Jesus as "lord" and to believe in the resurrection. And we see people like Zachriah and Elisabeth and David called righteous in God eyes. And David for sure was not free of sins. So this shows you also don't have to be perfect. Summary: no one will be saved by his deeds *alone* but by God's grace, but in order to get God's grace you have to keep God's commandments to the best of your ability, faith is not enough. James basically says the same: no one is saved by faith alone
I always see it as "Faith is the spark, works are the tinder, there is no fire without either". You can have faith, but if it doesn't drive you to DO SOMETHING then your faith is dead.
@@squiddwizzard8850 for me faith is the basis and a minimum criteria to be a believer. You won't be judged by your faith but by your deeds. It's easy to have faith, everyone can have faith, but not everyone is willed to keep God's commandments. So every believer has faith but not every believer who has faith is righteous in God's eyes.
I think you're correct about the text, as a non believer who isn't worried about any gnosis or faith tests after death. Works matter, and in the text it's those works that are divinely commanded which matter above all else (no matter how destructive and petty the divine command). Turning away from doing wrong and paying restitution back 120% are also pretty common tropes, in addition to killing some pigeons or freeing a goat to take away the sins of the people. Stuff like that. There are a lot of different ancient ideas about gaining the favor of the gods, and all of them have caveats because of course they all have inconsistent results IRL.
from finlaye Quaye's song 'Even after all' Even after all the murdering that go on Even after all, oh no, your suffering, so You know I love you so You know I love so, and so Even after all
Fwiw, I have never heard an "indigenous person" from North America use that label self-referentially -- I have only heard it used in the context of whites needing to broadly categorize the victims of colonialism and their descendents while assuaging their own sense of racial guilt.
The entire chapter addresses the futility of trying to earn salvation by keeping the Mosaic law. That's the context. Taking 1 verse out of context and riding it for all it's worth never works.
You are saved by Grace, after all that you can do. --> Translation: After all is said and done (all that you are capable of saying and doing) the fact still remains that you are saved by grace.
Hearing Dan take on that natural Pidgin / Caribbean rhythm and accent at around the 6:00 mark is so weirdly interesting. I would have done the same thing and I'm wondering how much of that is culturally intuitive for us when we read passages like that to automatically recite them in that sway and rhythm.
I am full of admiration for Dan but I admit to being puzzled by his adherence to the LDS movment, keeping in mind his focus on data over dogma. That being said, it is not my place to dispute anyone's honest beliefs, I am only concerned with the difference between knowledge and belief, fact and faith. In this regard, Dan is absolutely honest and consistent. Anyone who challenges Dan on the facts is either reckless and foolish, or dishonest. Because the man does his homework.
He joined as an adult but in his long interviews he never mentioned Jesus or repentance once, he stated he 'saw a pathway opening up' ie a career, he's never been a believer in mormon or the gospels and he actively hides what he believes because he doesnt actually believe any of it, hes a Bart Ehrman clone
@@mmcbride1 Very true. Of course, most religious people never even look at the text of other religions. I mean, why would you if you already knew you had the real truth? 😁
It's probably because the LDS Church leans very heavily on the idea of lived experience as a form of proof rather than on appeals to written documents. Two different voices in the Book of Mormon (Alma and Moroni) explicitly call upon hearers/readers to "experiment for themselves" to see if the teachings work. Multiple parts of the Book of Mormon, especially those with authorship attributed to Moroni, explicitly state that fallible men wrote the book and that the book itself may contain errors. The emphasis (at least officially, if not culturally) has always been on personal experience with the divine rather than on faith in the writings of fallible humans. This ethos aligns quite nicely with that of a critical scholar. My best guess is that Dan has had personal experiences that led him (and continue to lead him) to believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the best path for him.
So ... now they not only argue the Hebrew and Greek, but actually the _English?_ And about the meaning of such a common, obvious phrase? I mean, I'm not a native speaker, and I was never in doubt about it. OK, we do have similar constructs in German, so maybe not all that surprising after all. 😇
The Law was given in a way that it could be kept and those who do it would be blessed and be happy in a good and righteous life. It is obedience that is overtly mentioned in scripture as the definition of righteous as opposed to a mental conviction. It is obedience that makes a righteous person, not just faith. No man in scripture was rewarded for simply believing.
I feel like this is such a normal use of after lol. Like he’s imposing causation into the word and acting like it’s absurd to say it can just be like a neutral temporal meaning like literally before and after
The Streisand effect is an unintended consequence of attempts to hide, remove, or censor information, where the effort instead backfires by increasing awareness of that information. It is named after American singer and actress Barbra Streisand, whose attempt to suppress Kenneth Adelman's website publication of his photograph of her cliff-top residence in Malibu, California, taken to document California coastal erosion, inadvertently drew far greater attention to the previously obscure photograph in 2003.[1
it's SUPER WEIRD to me that so many of these evangelical protestants have taken the importance of god's grace as-commandment to DENIGRATE works. Like: would we tell our children "I will always love you, therefore you don't need to worry about being moral"? Of course not! Saying "God is Love and will forgive you; will always choose reconciliation", is NOT the same as saying 'Doing Good Doesn't Matter." Heck: Even saying "No amount of doing good can remove the impulse towards selfish desire within the mortal soul" is NOT the same as saying "Doing Good Doesn't Matter." Also really needs to be said that the historical conflation of "Moral/Behavioral Good" and "Ritual" in Christianity is Really Unhelpful in this discussion. So many people pull themselves, bizarrely!, into renouncing ethical conduct in their hurry to insult and denigrate the ritual differences of traditions not their own |:T
Dan, I have been "marathoning" your videos and have a question: if Jesus is not God, then who is He? During the Mass then, are we really worshiping God the Father, and not Christ? Thank you.
Deists got shade in the 18th century, these days most people dont even know we exist. Not sure which is better, having the opportunity to argue your position with people who take an interest in your arguments, or flying under the radar of hateful "christians"
If the LDS believed in salvation by grace , then the restoration wouldn’t be necessary. Spencer W Kimball called salvation by grace alone the greatest heresy in Christendom. In Mormonism , basically everyone is “saved “ by Christ’s atonement , meaning they will get resurrected . See 2 Nephi 9 . But this is not what LDS doctrine calls “eternal life “ . Dan knows this distinction. The type of salvation Nephi was talking about , requires one to endure to the end and worship God “ with all your might , mind , and strength and IF you do this ye shall in no wise be cast out.” In other words , “ after all you can do “ see 2 Neph 25:29
I would love to research if the more modern idiom "after all" is the abbreviated remnant of "after all (one) can do." Additionally, I would love to research what relationship the idiom "at the end of the day" might have with those idioms. Both "after all" and "at the end of the day" are used today to refer to one thing *overriding* another (though they seem to have taken on other, newer uses too). I’ve been hoping to refer to linguistic research that deals with how idioms in general evolve, but I haven’t found much of that kind of research. Additionally, while I'm not sure whether univocality plays a role in the Book of Mormon, passages like 2 Nephi 25:23-27, Mosiah 12:31, Mosiah 13:27-28, 31-33, Jacob 4:5-7, and Alma 25:16 all seem to identify exactly *what is overridden* by *grace,* namely, adherence to the *the Law of Moses.* In other words, it seems to me that the BoM authors are trying to say “Yes, we acknowledge to future generations that we practiced the Law of Moses, but only because it pointed our minds to Christ. We don’t want future generations to think the Law of Moses saved us or will save them. For that reason, we ‘talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, and we preach of Christ,’ so that ‘our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins,’ because *at the end of the day,* it is by His grace that we are saved-not by adherence to the Law of Moses." Ultimately, it doesn’t seem to me like the Book of Mormon is addressing our more modern question of “grace Vs. works” generally, but their older question of “the Grace of Jesus Vs. the Law of Moses” specifically. And 2 Nephi 10:24 seems to state the BoM’s position on that question most clearly: “it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved." No “after all we can do” idiom there. Just a period on that one. Also, in 1 Nephi 17:22, Nephi seems to show Laman and Lemuel as an example of *erroneously* identifying adherence to the Law of Moses as a measurement of righteousness, which Nephi seems to end up refuting more directly in 2 Nephi 30:1-2. And last but not least, Hi Dan!
Just an armchair observation from an under qualified observer, but "after all" seems to have two modern variant meanings. First variant is the way I see it used most often, in a context such as, "So you didn't make it on time after all." This indicates that the intent was to make it on time, but the intent was not achieved, although effort to do so was made. The second variant is less common and is used in a context such as, "After all that was said, we finally understood his meaning." This indicates that "all" is the sum of many things. By far, the first variant is the most common and clearly means "despite." It is obvious to me that this is the modern form of the older "after all we can do." It might make it more plain to restate it as, using my example of the first variant from above, "So you didn't make it on time, _even_ after all you did to make it on time." The addition of "even" may help clarify the meaning for modern readers.
When I talked to Mormon missionaries they conveyed that the meaning was that grace was given when we do all that we tried to do, not in spite of all we can do.
Both meanings are used, we believe in giving ourselves fully to Christ. That in no way lessens the grace of Jesus Christ as mosiah puts it we are unprofitable servants. I think why so many protestants have a hard time with this is because they are used to just read one scripture and not dealing with the nuances of the gospels
@barebob1 that’s not surprising. Dan in this video referenced that the meaning of the phrase “after all we can do” transitioned in the culture to mean what you were told. It’s only recently that the phrase is being transitioned back.
Is there a way to ask questions? I tried to use the "contact" on your webpage, but it appears to be a broken link. Do we need to be a Patreon to get in a question queue?
🐻I can't help thinking that you aren't going to change the mind of the person you are responding to. After all your calm explanations, and after all the examples you've brought to the table, they still aren't going to accept your position.🐻
If you're arguing that the B of M is highly derivative of 19th-century thinking, especially from Sidney Rigdon, then yes, "all you can do" might carry the "in spite of" meaning. BYU Religion dept chair Robert Millet saw that differently (Jesus put salvation with reach, making our effort meaningful and causative.) As a student of consciousness, I laugh at the pure manipulation that salvation represents.
“To get salvation we must not only do some things, but everything which God has commanded “ Teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith , 332. Hence , the Book of Mormon says we are saved , after all we can do . In LdS doctrine , members are expected to obey Gods commandments for their entire life , Mos 5:8, 2 Neph 31:16, eternal life comes by obedience to laws and ordinances article of faith #3, D&c 138:4, 1 Neph 22:31, D&c 14:7. All blessings are predicated from obedience D&C 130:20-21, we came to earth to prove our willingly to obey Abr 3:24-25, D&c 98:14. All of these verses were taken from chapter 17 “obedience , a law of heaven “ doctrines of the gospel student manual 2004 . Mormon IS a legalistic, works based, Jesus + your obedience conditional salvation gospel . This is why the LDS baptize dead people , because the commandment to be baptized MUST be obeyed or NO GRACE can kick In .
We use the phrase, "the author of the book of Luke" because no on knows who wrote that book, but don't we know for a definite fact who wrote the Book of Mormon?
I am kind of confused by what the creator that Dan responded to's intention was. He definitely does not side with the "works" in the faith v works debate, so why is he mad Dan showed the 2 Nephi phrase advocated for faith not works? Does he think that Dan is "tricking" people to join the Church of LDS under a false pretext on where the church stands in the faith v works debate?
We were saved FROM THE LAW of sin and death. It all comes down to WHO was saved and SAVED from WHAT ? Everything else depends on it. All the small pity of works or grace is not an issue once it’s understood . Whenever the Bible says NOT through works it’s referring to the works of the LAW. Not just faith based works .. Context is everything.
This is what happens when you try to "disect" every word and every letter. You miss the "forest for the trees". Common sense should kick in and ask you "Does it really make sense to 'interpret' it this way?......Does God want me to look at it this way?". If you say yes and the end result is "nothing gets better".....
So, are Mormons like Calvinists, where God has already decided before you're even born whether or not you'll go to hell, and there's literally nothing you can do to change his mind either way?
No, it’s more you have the agency to follow God’s commandments or not. If you sin but sincerely repent, the Atonement (or Grace) cleans you from your sin and should be blessed. If you sin and don’t repent, then you won’t be blessed. As far as the eternal reward, it’ll be determined based on your works on earth and the intent of your heart (if I’m remembering correctly). I think with the line “saved by Grace DESPITE all that we can do” (and this is my understanding from Dan’s explanation), the idea is that God will know you tried and we don’t have to worry about our works being “filthy rags” or arbitrary.
Not quite. The LDS Church flatly rejects the idea of predestination. Instead, the Church teaches that we must live in a way to change our fallen nature in order to be willing to accept the grace of Christ. Christ’s grace is freely given and open to all, but not all will be willing to accept it.
Not at all. LDS theology teaches everyone must choose of their own freewill and moral agency to accept the gift of Grace. God offers the gift to all, but not everyone will choose to accept that gift.
If ALL you could do was learn of and accept Jesus Christ as the Savior, then that's all you could do. Evangelicals DESPERATELY want a fictional gospel where they have to do absolutely nothing, to go to heaven.
I don't agree. Faith is works. The end justifies the means. We die according to our sin. Otherwise there could not possibly be an increase of any sort.
This video isn't about what is true, but what a specific phrase in a book written in the 19th century meant at the time it was written. Critical scholarship of the texts has nothing to do with theology.
We are justified in a cense. Faith is our inspiration. That goes unto acetetism. The more one suffers the more treasure they have. That's a lie. There's no benefit to subjection to depravity. @@germanboy14
We are justified in a sense. Faith inspires works. This article lifts up aecetitism. That's not true. The amout of suffering one endures does not indicate the amout of treasure they have amassed. There is no benefit to depraved subjection.@@germanboy14
I agree with your interpretation of the verse. Unfortunately, in their never ending quest to control their followers, the know nothing LDS apostles have taught the Mormon people to misinterpret the verse.
The LDS Apostles are not univocal on this topic, or most controversial topics. Too many people look at quotes from one or two LDS Apostles and assume that is representative of them all. What I find more disturbing is that those promoting this trend often quote from unofficial books published decades before the individual in question became an Apostle and ignore quote the same authority made afterwards. Bruce R McConkie is a good example, where most people quote from books he published through Bookcraft Press in the 50s and 60s as if they were authoritative, even though he did not become an Apostle until the early 70s. While at the same time ignoring quotes from people like John Witdsoe and Hugh B Brown who were ordained Apostles at the time they disagreed with McConkie. When people say that Dan's research runs counter to 200 years of Apostolic guidance, they are assuming that a minority of Apostles who shared opinions from the 50s through early 90s represent the unanimous opinion of all over 200 years. When it really is a minority opinion shared for less than 50 years. It is just that 50 years covers a period still within modern recollection.
@@brettmajeske3525 I think on this question, though, there are many examples of LDS apostles interpreting it to mean we are not saved unless we do everything we can do. If there are examples of LDS apostles interpreting it similarly to Dan, they are few. But what Mormons do is pick and choose the teachings they agree with and then weaponize them against anyone who disagrees. Of course, such behavior is not exclusive to Mormons. But it does go on an awful lot in the LDS church.
@@honder1866 When I looked up this question I found relatively few Apostles explicitly promoting the interpretation Dan refuted, although the ones that have did so a lot. Mostly Lee, McConkie, Peterson, and Packer. All were very vocal, but it seems many assume they were representative of all the rest. Mostly 2 Nephi is quoted without explicitly defining what "after all" means, so those who want to interpret it one way or the other can and just assume the Apostle agrees with them. Which may or may not be true. It is a trend I find common by both critics and apologists, who seem equally dogmatic in many ways. If a phrase can be interpreted in a way that agrees with their thesis, that must be the correct definition. Neither side is particularly good at researching historical context.
@@brettmajeske3525 I remember Howard Hunter using that passage to say we all had to do everything within our power in order to be saved. I bet if you took a poll at church, the majority would interpret it that way.
@@brettmajeske3525 After more than 46 years in the church I have seen the opposite. In my experience LDS members and leadership have taught that our salvation is very much dependent on our works. How many times have we heard the concept..."do all you can and then Jesus will make up the difference." This ties directly to the misinterpretation of this BofM verse that Dan is discussing. I don't doubt your experience or perspective, I only comment to share that there are also many of us who disagree and have indeed been taught we are saved after "all we can do" tied to works before Jesus can make up the difference.
"You're divorcing me?! After all I've done for you?! After all we've been through together?!" This is still common parlance today.
:D "Not interested," Dyin'! As someone raised within the Evangelical Christian context, Grace v. works was a hot button topic. I remember how it was argued back and forth, throughout the religious landscape, an apologetical free for all. I also remember thinking just how small it made G-d seem, petty even, nitpicky.
Ya know, for being a "clown" you're awfully intelligent and well-spoken and well-researched. You're also not nearly as terrifying as the clowns I've come across in my normal life :p It is so sad to see so much hate directed at you and your person specifically, but that seems to be just the way things go :(
Yes, the clown comment was unwarranted.
People who fear they are wrong will often lash out with ad hominem attacks. I don’t watch a lot of apologist/evangelical videos - preferring Dan’s rational, historical, and data-driven approach, but many of the videos that Dan shows snippets of as part of his correction process seem to be made by people who - if you met them on the street - you would judge to have mental or at least behavioral issues. Actually, a lot of fervent, outspoken religious people seem to fall somewhere on that particular spectrum.
Especially amazing how people who claim to be followers of man who preached and commanded love, tolerance, empathy and compassion, are often the exact opposite. 🤔
@@ViewerEm I never said anything about coming across clowns. You must have me mistaken for the OP.
@@Noneya5555 this is perhaps true
“Sell you on the idea”
Yes, Dan with his examples and logic did sell me on the idea that “after all” meant “despite all” at the time.
Great video. After all you can do… I don’t think he’ll accept he’s wrong.
As a missionary in Berlin in 1971, I came across a person with an 1879 German edition of The Book of Mormon. It says we're saved by grace "trotz" all that we do. Trotz translates as "in spite of". It was only in later versions that "nach", meaning "after", was used instead of "trotz". Orson Hyde oversaw the 1852 translation, and Orson Pratt the 1879 version.
that's cool
our investigator was a sweet little old lady convinced we are saved by grace alone, and we missionaries were trying to put a little more emphasis on the importance of works. When we asked her to read from the BofM and it came across as 'trotz', she said, "see, I'm right". Pretty funny. We had to admit that was pretty conclusive.@@dinocollins720
I have a first edition English facsimile, it says “ after all we can do”, same as the current version .
nice - I was wondering what that version said. So if as Dan says "after" meant in-spite-of in 1830, and Orson H&P used 'trotz' in German to preserve the meaning, then this all hangs together - and it's just the present version of 'after' that has changed meaning an misled us.@@FrederickBergman-gz5yp
Academic Biblical Scholar, social educator, and the most well spoken clown in history. Congratulations on your many accomplishments!
I don't know what fraction of your audience is interested in Mormon specific content but I appreciate this video
This whole conversation also very clearly demonstrates the roots of the BoM in its original context: 19th century English-lanugage protestant debates.
Wouldn’t 19th century English be the expected delivery mechanism for an audience of that era?
That's arguable
@amertlich right but notice how the analysis is based on a corpus of English language protestant literature. If the BOM was originally in a Ancient Near Eastern language or indigenous American language and was only translated into English then that would be the wrong corpus to understand the meaning of these ideas. Compare to how Dan analyzes the Hebrew Bible its always in the context of a corpus of ancient Semitic literature. What 19th century protestants are writing doesn't tell you what ancient Jews mean when they composed the pentatuch etc
Literature is always a reflection of the historical context its from, authors write to reflect controversies and understandings of their time and place etc.
@@granthallee1953 Could it be possible that it’s an inspired translation, refracted somewhat through the instrumental prism of Joseph Smith?
Scholars believe Jeremiah and Ezekiel likely incorporated contemporary perspectives and even self serving bias’ into some of their prophecies. Yet these are still treated as inspired.
Whether revelations of God get filtered through mortal delivery mechanisms and can still be truthful seems to be left up to individual faith and spiritual discernment.
@@amertlich I mean I'm Jewish so I am just basically never going to accept this premise from the jump since I don't believe Jesus is (a) God. But if that is the way you negotiate with the text to make the BoM work in your religion then that's fine, that's how religious faith works. That said I do think that the BoM, Mormon history etc makes way way more sense if you understand it as a fundamentally human and historical endeavor. I really recommend some of the historical work of John Hamer which really puts it in context and makes it make a lot of sense. Also to refer to your example of Ezekiel. YES we do see stuff from their time period in that text because it is fundamentally a product of that era. It would be really weird if Ezekiel started addressing 1st century Jewish apocalypticism or adopting medieval poetic forms. In fact if that happened I don't think scholars would accept that that part of the text was actually original.
When someone absolutely and positively KNOWS they are right... it's generally best to just let them be.
Thanks for adding in the needed context.
Nonetheless, and this may be a fool's errand on my part, but I feel moved to offer a clarification on the source of Catholic soteriology. This is to say that Holy Mother Church does not "negotiate" her soteriology from the Bible, but rather that She Herself canonized what would and would not be included in the Bible in the first place, and then _also_ determines and teaches Her own soteriology on the authority of our Lord as represented in the Keys to the Kingdom.
To put it yet another way, Catholics do not profess to be people of a book - as do Muslims or perhaps some Protestants - but rather we are people of the Word - the _Logos._ The Bible is not, for us, a crystal ball through which we look for divine inspiration, but rather a publication which only came to be through the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, established by our Lord Jesus on the Rock of Pope Saint Peter.
Importantly, let me add that all are invited to join us, so we might welcome you home
@@MarcillaSmith, as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I really appreciate your comment about being people of the Word rather than people of a book. Without an authoritative means of interpretation, be that through tradition or an inspired leader, words on a page can mean whatever you want them to mean, and even the most thorough, honest, and diligent of scholarly theologians can disagree about their meanings.
Until you see these guys on a call with a young LDS man or woman, telling that the church teaches this, and teaching them that their beliefs are evil and they need to repent.
It is important to correct these individuals because first, they are wrong, and second, they are misleading people.
You are an important teacher of superior quality that is able to deliver information efficiently without noise and static. I watch in amazement and joy.
These are amazing to watch. It never stops being delightful to watch someone who cares about evidence and rationality dismantle these snide tribalists.
There are few things as gratifying as proficiency in action.
It's good to hear someone referencing original manuscripts in the language they were written.
So, all he had to do was... read the content of the paper? Instead of just reacting on the cover?
Sir, how dare you imply that reading a headline is not enough to give you a deep understanding of both the paper, it's arguments and their shortfalls, it's conclusions, and the wider subject matter and context.
I mean, that would take effort! 😂
/sarcasm guys as it seems sometimes YT comments sections can't tell lol
Look at him. Does he look like someone that read Dan's paper?
Great explanation as usual! I sometimes wonder whether the content creators who take aim at your work are actually up to the task of trying, and trying hard, to learn, and understand, something new. I was raised a Catholic, - though I am some kind of atheist or agnostic now - and I remember a priest once making a remark about those who would not convert as being forgiven by God for their "invincible ignorance." This amusing rhetoric still makes me smile. But I am starting to truly understand the meaning of this phrase. If there is a God, let us hope They are truly forgiving of invincible ignorance. Now that really would be grace. Keep 'em coming, please.
Dan, you have to be the last person I would ever label a clown. In fact, you take your work so seriously it is kinda scary. I love listening to well studied individuals of which you are of the finest. Thank you for your work.
Look I'm not trying to gatekeep knowledge, but the internet is wild how just anyone can try and attack someone with a PHD lol. I mean, I don't agree with Bart Erhman on a lot but I wouldn't call him a clown, he's an academic scholar. I know it's not the point of this video, but I feel like the internet/social media is a terrifying vehicle for anti-intellectualism.
And yet you're here watching a video that I wouldn't call Anti Intellectual. The truth is that what we need is a culture that teaches people to see out good sources of knowledge. The absurdity on the internet is, by and large, a symptom rather than the source of the problem.
When someone goes to ad hominems I stop listening to them
With a "Hellboy" shirt on... LOL
Dam, you consistently model well the art of speaking to others, and I appreciate it
Sadly, too many will continue to believe false information, after all you can do... 😏
lol!!!
Oh my gosh thank you! I’ve long suspected this but have struggled to find evidence to support it. This is great!
I've never understood protestants uncontrollable desire to, well... Protest every. "Hey look, a religion that is culturally shifting to be more in line with our doctrine of grace. Let's make sure to tell them they are wrong for doing that."
Was kind of hoping Dan would come back with a clown nose on or something 😆
Oh god I pictured it too, that'd have been fantastic.
Man, this guy is smart!
People who are set in their ways do not want to hear the truth. And of course most of them do not want to do the work to discover they are wrong.
Hearing Mr TPain is delightful 😁
I like it. I always had my own apologetic for the "after all we can do".. That I felt in my heart was the spirit of what was meant. That being it was an expression of acts of faith. That grace saves us , but it's through Faith.. and the All we can do is simply expression of acting in Faith. But I like your exegesis of the meaning of the phrase in the 19th century.
I agree with your interpretation. If you cross with 2 Nephi 10:24 and consider the two verses together, a better reading would be "despite" or "notwithstanding all the works you can do," remember it is only through grace that one is saved. Good work.
Is 'after' in the sense of 'despite' not a thing in current US English? Maybe it's my age or because I'm British but I still understand and use it that way.
It is still a thing in modern American English, if perhaps a bit less common than it used to be. One issue is that people tend to assume all words/phrases can only have one meaning and assume the one that is the most useful to their position is only def.
I think when "after all" appears at the beginning of a sentence it clearly means despite, however, when it comes at the end of a sentence, like in 2Nephi 25:23, it becomes a little murkier. Growing up in the LDS tradition, I was explicitly taught this verse meant "after you've expended every effort." It was often used as a dig against churches who were perceived as only believing in word not deed. I also heard it used in reference to being saved by the "works" of priesthood ordinances. Christ's grace saves all makind from hell and death, but only those who are baptized LDS and receive covenants in the temple enter the Celestial Kingdom (basically, you're extra saved). Lately, I've heard more believing members share Dan's interpretation, which I think is healthier.
As a side note, I think the reason this particular verse is so often interpreted as pro-works has more to do with page layout and where we pause to take breaths. The verse is longer than the couplet, and the "after all we can do" is often on its own line, making it natural to pause there before finishing.
@@Chronoplague I agree position in sentence or phrase matters, in this case it could be ambiguous however the context, 19th century religious writing, ought to make it obvious that it means despite.
@@Chronoplague I'm a believing member who shares Dan's interpretation, and I remember the cultural transition from "salvation is by works" to "salvation is by grace" that happened around the time Brad Wilcox gave his 2011 talk "His Grace is Sufficient." There's been a *lot* in the culture surrounding the Church that is toxic and frankly directly contrary to what Jesus Himself taught, and I'm grateful that we're finally, *finally* stepping away from it.
Eres un chingón, Dan. Te admiro. Tú renaciste mi interés por la religión.
Grace is not like some gift card where if you check all the boxes, you get the gold star or giant stuffed bear. In the end, the decision is not nor ever was, yours.
It's great watching religious refutations in action while wearing a Hellboy t-shirt.
Another fantastic video! Thank you Dan!
I can’t believe people like this would even argue with Dan, they’re way outgunned
End of the video was epic.
For me the Jewish understanding makes the most sense.
Deuteronomy 26 5 and Ezekiel 18 9 say that in order to be righteous or just in God's eyes you have to keep his commandments. Then we have verses about forgiveness in Isaiah or the book of Chronicles and more which say that in order to achieve forgiveness you need to repent.
To have faith is the minimum criteria to be a believer but to be just or righteous in God's eyes you have to keep God's commandments. And in order to get forgiveness/grace you have to repent from your sins. So you have to do something in order to be saved. Faith is not enough.
This goes in line with Jesus in the synoptics. When he was asked how to get eternal life, he referred to the commandments of God. And in the lords prayer he said to ask God for forgiveness. But then comes Paul along and says you only have to have faith in Jesus as "lord" and to believe in the resurrection.
And we see people like Zachriah and Elisabeth and David called righteous in God eyes. And David for sure was not free of sins. So this shows you also don't have to be perfect.
Summary: no one will be saved by his deeds *alone* but by God's grace, but in order to get God's grace you have to keep God's commandments to the best of your ability, faith is not enough. James basically says the same: no one is saved by faith alone
I always see it as "Faith is the spark, works are the tinder, there is no fire without either".
You can have faith, but if it doesn't drive you to DO SOMETHING then your faith is dead.
@@squiddwizzard8850 for me faith is the basis and a minimum criteria to be a believer. You won't be judged by your faith but by your deeds. It's easy to have faith, everyone can have faith, but not everyone is willed to keep God's commandments. So every believer has faith but not every believer who has faith is righteous in God's eyes.
I think you're correct about the text, as a non believer who isn't worried about any gnosis or faith tests after death. Works matter, and in the text it's those works that are divinely commanded which matter above all else (no matter how destructive and petty the divine command). Turning away from doing wrong and paying restitution back 120% are also pretty common tropes, in addition to killing some pigeons or freeing a goat to take away the sins of the people. Stuff like that. There are a lot of different ancient ideas about gaining the favor of the gods, and all of them have caveats because of course they all have inconsistent results IRL.
Love the last line. Yup! 🤣
from finlaye Quaye's song 'Even after all'
Even after all the murdering that go on
Even after all, oh no, your suffering, so
You know I love you so
You know I love so, and so
Even after all
Fwiw, I have never heard an "indigenous person" from North America use that label self-referentially -- I have only heard it used in the context of whites needing to broadly categorize the victims of colonialism and their descendents while assuaging their own sense of racial guilt.
Dan thank you for how you handled this…the ending was epic but it’s data over dogma all day…THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU DO
The entire chapter addresses the futility of trying to earn salvation by keeping the Mosaic law. That's the context. Taking 1 verse out of context and riding it for all it's worth never works.
You are saved by Grace, after all that you can do. --> Translation: After all is said and done (all that you are capable of saying and doing) the fact still remains that you are saved by grace.
Hearing Dan take on that natural Pidgin / Caribbean rhythm and accent at around the 6:00 mark is so weirdly interesting. I would have done the same thing and I'm wondering how much of that is culturally intuitive for us when we read passages like that to automatically recite them in that sway and rhythm.
Love this article Dan!
I am full of admiration for Dan but I admit to being puzzled by his adherence to the LDS movment, keeping in mind his focus on data over dogma. That being said, it is not my place to dispute anyone's honest beliefs, I am only concerned with the difference between knowledge and belief, fact and faith. In this regard, Dan is absolutely honest and consistent.
Anyone who challenges Dan on the facts is either reckless and foolish, or dishonest. Because the man does his homework.
When you study various religious texts you are less likely to adhere to a dogma that only one of them has truth.
He joined as an adult but in his long interviews he never mentioned Jesus or repentance once, he stated he 'saw a pathway opening up' ie a career, he's never been a believer in mormon or the gospels and he actively hides what he believes because he doesnt actually believe any of it, hes a Bart Ehrman clone
@@mmcbride1 Very true. Of course, most religious people never even look at the text of other religions. I mean, why would you if you already knew you had the real truth? 😁
It's probably because the LDS Church leans very heavily on the idea of lived experience as a form of proof rather than on appeals to written documents. Two different voices in the Book of Mormon (Alma and Moroni) explicitly call upon hearers/readers to "experiment for themselves" to see if the teachings work. Multiple parts of the Book of Mormon, especially those with authorship attributed to Moroni, explicitly state that fallible men wrote the book and that the book itself may contain errors. The emphasis (at least officially, if not culturally) has always been on personal experience with the divine rather than on faith in the writings of fallible humans. This ethos aligns quite nicely with that of a critical scholar. My best guess is that Dan has had personal experiences that led him (and continue to lead him) to believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the best path for him.
@@adamkotter6174 That is intersting. I admit to limited knowledge of the LDS. I shall have to do more study. Thank you.
So ... now they not only argue the Hebrew and Greek, but actually the _English?_ And about the meaning of such a common, obvious phrase? I mean, I'm not a native speaker, and I was never in doubt about it. OK, we do have similar constructs in German, so maybe not all that surprising after all. 😇
The t-shirt will freak some ppl out. 😂😂😂😂
Probably the most honest statement Dan has ever made.
I use "after" like this all the time. "I am trying to be a good person, after all my human imperfections."
It seems to me you get clarity for the despite meaning also when you see "could/can do" vs "did do".
Dr.Dan
Pls. Can you shed some light on this grace vs work topic in as usual scholarly way ?‼️
So you were excising the eisegesis out of it!🤗
Me, calmly listening while brushing my teeth: 🙂
Dan:... Mr. T-Pain...
Me: 👁️👄👁️
don't mess with Dan!
I've always liked Pelagius. It seems to me that Augustine did him dirty.
My favourite "heretic".
People with no grace revel in the idea of hell. People with grace look for kinder outcomes.
Do these people not understand how words work....wait, of course they don't after all, they prove it daily.😂
The Law was given in a way that it could be kept and those who do it would be blessed and be happy in a good and righteous life. It is obedience that is overtly mentioned in scripture as the definition of righteous as opposed to a mental conviction. It is obedience that makes a righteous person, not just faith. No man in scripture was rewarded for simply believing.
Dan, I love your content. Would you please critique the Book of Mormon as ancient Hebrew scripture?
I feel like this is such a normal use of after lol. Like he’s imposing causation into the word and acting like it’s absurd to say it can just be like a neutral temporal meaning like literally before and after
The Streisand effect is an unintended consequence of attempts to hide, remove, or censor information, where the effort instead backfires by increasing awareness of that information. It is named after American singer and actress Barbra Streisand, whose attempt to suppress Kenneth Adelman's website publication of his photograph of her cliff-top residence in Malibu, California, taken to document California coastal erosion, inadvertently drew far greater attention to the previously obscure photograph in 2003.[1
And you're saying this is relevant to Dan somehow?
@@squiddwizzard8850 It's relevant to the creator he's responding to.
it's SUPER WEIRD to me that so many of these evangelical protestants have taken the importance of god's grace as-commandment to DENIGRATE works. Like: would we tell our children "I will always love you, therefore you don't need to worry about being moral"? Of course not! Saying "God is Love and will forgive you; will always choose reconciliation", is NOT the same as saying 'Doing Good Doesn't Matter." Heck: Even saying "No amount of doing good can remove the impulse towards selfish desire within the mortal soul" is NOT the same as saying "Doing Good Doesn't Matter."
Also really needs to be said that the historical conflation of "Moral/Behavioral Good" and "Ritual" in Christianity is Really Unhelpful in this discussion. So many people pull themselves, bizarrely!, into renouncing ethical conduct in their hurry to insult and denigrate the ritual differences of traditions not their own |:T
Dan, I have been "marathoning" your videos and have a question: if Jesus is not God, then who is He? During the Mass then, are we really worshiping God the Father, and not Christ? Thank you.
I love hearing that guy try to start at the edges so he does give his bigoted worldview away. Then Dan blocks him. He must be "tiktok furious" today!
Deists got shade in the 18th century, these days most people dont even know we exist. Not sure which is better, having the opportunity to argue your position with people who take an interest in your arguments, or flying under the radar of hateful "christians"
If the LDS believed in salvation by grace , then the restoration wouldn’t be necessary. Spencer W Kimball called salvation by grace alone the greatest heresy in Christendom. In Mormonism , basically everyone is “saved “ by Christ’s atonement , meaning they will get resurrected . See 2 Nephi 9 . But this is not what LDS doctrine calls “eternal life “ . Dan knows this distinction. The type of salvation Nephi was talking about , requires one to endure to the end and worship God “ with all your might , mind , and strength and IF you do this ye shall in no wise be cast out.” In other words , “ after all you can do “ see 2 Neph 25:29
I would love to research if the more modern idiom "after all" is the abbreviated remnant of "after all (one) can do." Additionally, I would love to research what relationship the idiom "at the end of the day" might have with those idioms. Both "after all" and "at the end of the day" are used today to refer to one thing *overriding* another (though they seem to have taken on other, newer uses too). I’ve been hoping to refer to linguistic research that deals with how idioms in general evolve, but I haven’t found much of that kind of research.
Additionally, while I'm not sure whether univocality plays a role in the Book of Mormon, passages like 2 Nephi 25:23-27, Mosiah 12:31, Mosiah 13:27-28, 31-33, Jacob 4:5-7, and Alma 25:16 all seem to identify exactly *what is overridden* by *grace,* namely, adherence to the *the Law of Moses.*
In other words, it seems to me that the BoM authors are trying to say “Yes, we acknowledge to future generations that we practiced the Law of Moses, but only because it pointed our minds to Christ. We don’t want future generations to think the Law of Moses saved us or will save them. For that reason, we ‘talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, and we preach of Christ,’ so that ‘our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins,’ because *at the end of the day,* it is by His grace that we are saved-not by adherence to the Law of Moses."
Ultimately, it doesn’t seem to me like the Book of Mormon is addressing our more modern question of “grace Vs. works” generally, but their older question of “the Grace of Jesus Vs. the Law of Moses” specifically. And 2 Nephi 10:24 seems to state the BoM’s position on that question most clearly: “it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved." No “after all we can do” idiom there. Just a period on that one.
Also, in 1 Nephi 17:22, Nephi seems to show Laman and Lemuel as an example of *erroneously* identifying adherence to the Law of Moses as a measurement of righteousness, which Nephi seems to end up refuting more directly in 2 Nephi 30:1-2.
And last but not least, Hi Dan!
Just an armchair observation from an under qualified observer, but "after all" seems to have two modern variant meanings. First variant is the way I see it used most often, in a context such as, "So you didn't make it on time after all." This indicates that the intent was to make it on time, but the intent was not achieved, although effort to do so was made. The second variant is less common and is used in a context such as, "After all that was said, we finally understood his meaning." This indicates that "all" is the sum of many things. By far, the first variant is the most common and clearly means "despite." It is obvious to me that this is the modern form of the older "after all we can do." It might make it more plain to restate it as, using my example of the first variant from above, "So you didn't make it on time, _even_ after all you did to make it on time." The addition of "even" may help clarify the meaning for modern readers.
Great additional observations. Thanks!@@TestUser-cf4wj
At last!!!! We finally find out who they is. Now what?
Could you share more context about the church history document you shared part of? I'd mostly love to know who it was written by.
When I talked to Mormon missionaries they conveyed that the meaning was that grace was given when we do all that we tried to do, not in spite of all we can do.
Both meanings are used, we believe in giving ourselves fully to Christ. That in no way lessens the grace of Jesus Christ as mosiah puts it we are unprofitable servants. I think why so many protestants have a hard time with this is because they are used to just read one scripture and not dealing with the nuances of the gospels
@barebob1 that’s not surprising. Dan in this video referenced that the meaning of the phrase “after all we can do” transitioned in the culture to mean what you were told. It’s only recently that the phrase is being transitioned back.
@@clearstonewindows I'm not protestant
@@barebob1 my bad.
Dan answered that very well. *because facts- mic drop
Is there a way to ask questions? I tried to use the "contact" on your webpage, but it appears to be a broken link. Do we need to be a Patreon to get in a question queue?
🐻I can't help thinking that you aren't going to change the mind of the person you are responding to. After all your calm explanations, and after all the examples you've brought to the table, they still aren't going to accept your position.🐻
The ending LOLOL!!!
This is Dan at his very best. Almost makes all the wild partisan stuff worth it
If you're arguing that the B of M is highly derivative of 19th-century thinking, especially from Sidney Rigdon, then yes, "all you can do" might carry the "in spite of" meaning. BYU Religion dept chair Robert Millet saw that differently (Jesus put salvation with reach, making our effort meaningful and causative.) As a student of consciousness, I laugh at the pure manipulation that salvation represents.
“To get salvation we must not only do some things, but everything which God has commanded “ Teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith , 332. Hence , the Book of Mormon says we are saved , after all we can do . In LdS doctrine , members are expected to obey Gods commandments for their entire life , Mos 5:8, 2 Neph 31:16, eternal life comes by obedience to laws and ordinances article of faith #3, D&c 138:4, 1 Neph 22:31, D&c 14:7. All blessings are predicated from obedience D&C 130:20-21, we came to earth to prove our willingly to obey Abr 3:24-25, D&c 98:14. All of these verses were taken from chapter 17 “obedience , a law of heaven “ doctrines of the gospel student manual 2004 . Mormon IS a legalistic, works based, Jesus + your obedience conditional salvation gospel . This is why the LDS baptize dead people , because the commandment to be baptized MUST be obeyed or NO GRACE can kick In .
We use the phrase, "the author of the book of Luke" because no on knows who wrote that book, but don't we know for a definite fact who wrote the Book of Mormon?
Heck yeah, unleash that cognitive linguistics on him!
Everyone is entitled to their iwn opinion.
But everyone is NOT entitled to their own facts.
Dan, I thought you "saved" that T-shirt especially and only for ward socials?
I am kind of confused by what the creator that Dan responded to's intention was. He definitely does not side with the "works" in the faith v works debate, so why is he mad Dan showed the 2 Nephi phrase advocated for faith not works? Does he think that Dan is "tricking" people to join the Church of LDS under a false pretext on where the church stands in the faith v works debate?
Solid s holarsjip
No I said set aside...😂😂😂
We were saved FROM THE LAW of sin and death. It all comes down to WHO was saved and SAVED from WHAT ?
Everything else depends on it.
All the small pity of works or grace is not an issue once it’s understood .
Whenever the Bible says NOT through works it’s referring to the works of the LAW. Not just faith based works ..
Context is everything.
After all, this is a waste of time. We will all go to the frame and nothing more.
This is what happens when you try to "disect" every word and every letter.
You miss the "forest for the trees".
Common sense should kick in and ask you "Does it really make sense to 'interpret' it this way?......Does God want me to look at it this way?". If you say yes and the end result is "nothing gets better".....
So, are Mormons like Calvinists, where God has already decided before you're even born whether or not you'll go to hell, and there's literally nothing you can do to change his mind either way?
No, it’s more you have the agency to follow God’s commandments or not. If you sin but sincerely repent, the Atonement (or Grace) cleans you from your sin and should be blessed. If you sin and don’t repent, then you won’t be blessed. As far as the eternal reward, it’ll be determined based on your works on earth and the intent of your heart (if I’m remembering correctly).
I think with the line “saved by Grace DESPITE all that we can do” (and this is my understanding from Dan’s explanation), the idea is that God will know you tried and we don’t have to worry about our works being “filthy rags” or arbitrary.
Not quite. The LDS Church flatly rejects the idea of predestination. Instead, the Church teaches that we must live in a way to change our fallen nature in order to be willing to accept the grace of Christ. Christ’s grace is freely given and open to all, but not all will be willing to accept it.
Mormon theology allows for redemption after death, too.
Not at all. LDS theology teaches everyone must choose of their own freewill and moral agency to accept the gift of Grace. God offers the gift to all, but not everyone will choose to accept that gift.
Freewill vs predestination is a whole different can of worms. The exchanges between Luther and Erasmus are almost amusing.
He lost me at "clown."
If ALL you could do was learn of and accept Jesus Christ as the Savior, then that's all you could do. Evangelicals DESPERATELY want a fictional gospel where they have to do absolutely nothing, to go to heaven.
I REALLY LIKE YOU DAN.
Apologies not accepted.
If your argument ends with 1) God’s gonna get ya or 2) the Devil’s gonna get ya… maybe stop talking.
is his usage of "salesman" just a code for "Jew" ..after all?
🫳
🎤
I don't agree. Faith is works. The end justifies the means. We die according to our sin. Otherwise there could not possibly be an increase of any sort.
Faith is not works. Faith is a minimum criteria to be a believer but in order to be just in God's eyes you have to do works
This video isn't about what is true, but what a specific phrase in a book written in the 19th century meant at the time it was written. Critical scholarship of the texts has nothing to do with theology.
We are justified in a cense. Faith is our inspiration. That goes unto acetetism. The more one suffers the more treasure they have. That's a lie. There's no benefit to subjection to depravity. @@germanboy14
We are justified in a sense. Faith inspires works. This article lifts up aecetitism. That's not true. The amout of suffering one endures does not indicate the amout of treasure they have amassed. There is no benefit to depraved subjection.@@germanboy14
I agree with your interpretation of the verse. Unfortunately, in their never ending quest to control their followers, the know nothing LDS apostles have taught the Mormon people to misinterpret the verse.
The LDS Apostles are not univocal on this topic, or most controversial topics. Too many people look at quotes from one or two LDS Apostles and assume that is representative of them all.
What I find more disturbing is that those promoting this trend often quote from unofficial books published decades before the individual in question became an Apostle and ignore quote the same authority made afterwards. Bruce R McConkie is a good example, where most people quote from books he published through Bookcraft Press in the 50s and 60s as if they were authoritative, even though he did not become an Apostle until the early 70s. While at the same time ignoring quotes from people like John Witdsoe and Hugh B Brown who were ordained Apostles at the time they disagreed with McConkie.
When people say that Dan's research runs counter to 200 years of Apostolic guidance, they are assuming that a minority of Apostles who shared opinions from the 50s through early 90s represent the unanimous opinion of all over 200 years. When it really is a minority opinion shared for less than 50 years. It is just that 50 years covers a period still within modern recollection.
@@brettmajeske3525 I think on this question, though, there are many examples of LDS apostles interpreting it to mean we are not saved unless we do everything we can do. If there are examples of LDS apostles interpreting it similarly to Dan, they are few. But what Mormons do is pick and choose the teachings they agree with and then weaponize them against anyone who disagrees. Of course, such behavior is not exclusive to Mormons. But it does go on an awful lot in the LDS church.
@@honder1866 When I looked up this question I found relatively few Apostles explicitly promoting the interpretation Dan refuted, although the ones that have did so a lot. Mostly Lee, McConkie, Peterson, and Packer. All were very vocal, but it seems many assume they were representative of all the rest.
Mostly 2 Nephi is quoted without explicitly defining what "after all" means, so those who want to interpret it one way or the other can and just assume the Apostle agrees with them. Which may or may not be true.
It is a trend I find common by both critics and apologists, who seem equally dogmatic in many ways. If a phrase can be interpreted in a way that agrees with their thesis, that must be the correct definition. Neither side is particularly good at researching historical context.
@@brettmajeske3525 I remember Howard Hunter using that passage to say we all had to do everything within our power in order to be saved. I bet if you took a poll at church, the majority would interpret it that way.
@@PopulusVultDecipi Yes. That’s another doctrinal error they are always making.
Yet how many timea have I seen Mormons say that it is by their works and Jesus they can enter Heaven???
MANY.
After more than 50 years I have seen far more critics of the LDS Church accuse LDS of being works driven than actual members.
@@brettmajeske3525 After more than 46 years in the church I have seen the opposite. In my experience LDS members and leadership have taught that our salvation is very much dependent on our works. How many times have we heard the concept..."do all you can and then Jesus will make up the difference." This ties directly to the misinterpretation of this BofM verse that Dan is discussing. I don't doubt your experience or perspective, I only comment to share that there are also many of us who disagree and have indeed been taught we are saved after "all we can do" tied to works before Jesus can make up the difference.
@@Fromage4972 The LDS Church is not a monolith, I have noticed wide varieties in regional interpretations.
You still need a haircut.
All this banter makes me really think Christianity is a false religion. Makes no sense. So confusing.