In fairness to everybody, the Christian concept of grace has just always been problematic.
Do you emphasise instead that God really wants us to live right, and quote Jesus's, "Depart from me, ye accursed"? Then you make a judgemental religion in which the fortunate look down on miserable sinners, believing they have deserved their good luck by their virtue. But then do you insist that good works do not suffice for salvation because all have sinned and salvation is all up to God? You remove incentive to be a better person.
In "Luther", W.H. Auden wrote:The fuse of Judgement spluttered in his head:
"Lord, smoke these honeyed insects from their hives.
All Works, Great Men, Societies are bad.
The Just shall live by Faith..." he cried in dread.
And men and women of the world were glad,
Who'd never cared or trembled in their lives.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer was an academic Lutheran pastor who, before he died in a Gestapo noose, tried to distinguish between cheap grace and costly grace. He compared costly grace to the solution of an arithmetic problem that a child has worked out with effort, where cheap grace would just be looking at the answer in the back of the book. The easy answer is correct but still not the right way to do your homework. I have the feeling that Bonhoeffer's concept of two graces is itself kind of like that, however. You can probably get to a point where it rings true for you, but just saying it isn't really enough to bring clarity.
With conscience cocked to listen for the thunder,
He saw the Devil busy in the wind,
Over the chiming steeples and then under
The doors of nuns and doctors who had sinned.
What apparatus could stave off disaster
Or cut the brambles of man's error down?
Flesh was a silent dog that bites its master,
World a still pond in which its children drown.
The fuse of Judgement spluttered in his head:
"Lord, smoke these honeyed insects from their hives.
All Works, Great Men, Societies are bad.
The Just shall live by Faith..." he cried in dread.
And men and women of the world were glad,
Who'd never cared or trembled in their lives.
pushed by Physics guy I looked further. I was reminded of something about Luther. I find there of pieces of him that I find very positive but there are also different angles to hear and look at him that suggest something damaged and damaging.
Poem is long at the date is important.
September 1, 1939
W. H. Auden - 1907-1973
I sit in one of the dives
On Fifty-second Street
Uncertain and afraid
As the clever hopes expire
Of a low dishonest decade:
Waves of anger and fear
Circulate over the bright
And darkened lands of the earth,
Obsessing our private lives;
The unmentionable odour of death
Offends the September night.
Accurate scholarship can
Unearth the whole offence
From Luther until now
That has driven a culture mad,
Find what occurred at Linz,
What huge imago made
A psychopathic god:
I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return.
Exiled Thucydides knew
All that a speech can say
About Democracy,
And what dictators do,
The elderly rubbish they talk
To an apathetic grave;
Analysed all in his book,
The enlightenment driven away,
The habit-forming pain,
Mismanagement and grief:
We must suffer them all again.
Into this neutral air
Where blind skyscrapers use
Their full height to proclaim
The strength of Collective Man,
Each language pours its vain
Competitive excuse:
But who can live for long
In an euphoric dream;
Out of the mirror they stare,
Imperialism's face
And the international wrong.
Faces along the bar
Cling to their average day:
The lights must never go out,
The music must always play,
All the conventions conspire
To make this fort assume
The furniture of home;
Lest we should see where we are,
Lost in a haunted wood,
Children afraid of the night
Who have never been happy or good.
The windiest militant trash
Important Persons shout
Is not so crude as our wish:
What mad Nijinsky wrote
About Diaghilev
Is true of the normal heart;
For the error bred in the bone
Of each woman and each man
Craves what it cannot have,
Not universal love
But to be loved alone.
From the conservative dark
Into the ethical life
The dense commuters come,
Repeating their morning vow;
"I will be true to the wife,
I'll concentrate more on my work,"
And helpless governors wake
To resume their compulsory game:
Who can release them now,
Who can reach the deaf,
Who can speak for the dumb?
All I have is a voice
To undo the folded lie,
The romantic lie in the brain
Of the sensual man-in-the-street
And the lie of Authority
Whose buildings grope the sky:
There is no such thing as the State
And no one exists alone;
Hunger allows no choice
To the citizen or the police;
We must love one another or die.
Defenceless under the night
Our world in stupor lies;
Yet, dotted everywhere,
Ironic points of light
Flash out wherever the Just
Exchange their messages:
May I, composed like them
Of Eros and of dust,
Beleaguered by the same
Negation and despair,
Show an affirming flame.
I wish to repost the dictionary definition of "despite" during Smith's time:
Webster 1828 Dictionary wrote:DESPITE, noun
1. Extreme malice; violent hatred; malignity; malice irritated or enraged; active malignity; angry hatred.
With all thy despite against the land of Israel. Ezekiel 25:6.
2. Defiance with contempt, or contempt of opposition.
He will rise to fame in despite of his enemies.
3. An act of malice or contempt; as a despite to the Most High
DESPITE, verb transitive To vex; to offend; to tease.
I seriously do not feel this word fits within the Book of Mormon in the context given therein and shouldn't be used today by the likes of McClellan. Not a chance. Smith would not have done that and we need to read the passage with the intent and meaning Smith would prefer.
On at least one occasion, Smith used the word "despite" when quoting Hebrews 10:29 in a letter to the Church in Caldwell in 1838:
Joseph Smith wrote:Again if we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin, but a certain fearful looking for of judgement and fiery indignation to come which shall devour these adversaries. For he who despiseth Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses of how much more severe punishment suppose ye shall he be thought worthy who hath sold his brother and denied the new and everlasting covenant by which he was sanctified calling it an unholy thing and doing despite to the spirit of grace.
So, using the word "despite" in the same breath as "grace" is bad form and produces a very negative result. I don't think that is what Smith was trying to express in Nephi's teachings regarding the combining of Moses' law and Christ's grace.
We need not throw in words that Smith would have never used!
shulem, I checked a current dictionary, despite, in spite of. I think that is the meaning which Daniel was saying fit the context. The older meaning or emphasis in meaning would be the reason that Smith did not use the word despite. I can see a point you have that the word despite carries associations which simply fall outside of Mormon views. There may be some Calvinists who would favor despite with its negative associations(all our efforts add nothing) but I do not see that attitude in Joseph Smith even in that early stage.
shulem, I checked a current dictionary, despite, in spite of. I think that is the meaning which Daniel was saying fit the context. The older meaning or emphasis in meaning would be the reason that Smith did not use the word despite. I can see a point you have that the word despite carries associations which simply fall outside of Mormon views. There may be some Calvinists who would favor despite with its negative associations(all our efforts add nothing) but I do not see that attitude in Joseph Smith even in that early stage.
Huck,
I don't give a damn about current dictionaries. All I want to know is what Joseph said and what he might not have said due to poor transmission during dictation. That is why I provided my add on: "in keeping the law of Moses" which I feel justifies the meaning given the context of the teachings of Nephi.
Joseph Smith didn't use the word "spite" in association with the words "in spite of" in the Book of Mormon. In fact, he didn't use the word "spite" in any sense within the whole of the standards works! So why should McClellan?
No, I'm not going to concede this argument but I'm digging my heals in and am just as determined as ever. Sorry.
*I will concede that the word notwithstanding would be a much better fit than the spite words. Had he used that I wouldn't be having this conversation. Perhaps I'm being picky but that's how I see it.
Shulem, your preference for not withstanding is not something I wish to reject. Its fine by me.
Not to argue I hope but there are different uses of despite, possible examples:
The Eagles played very well in the super bowl. Despite looking like they could be the stronger team and clearly having the stronger offensive line they came up three points short in the end.or despite being outplayed in the first half Kansas City squeaked by in the end.
Looking at my examples perhaps "not withstanding" could be preferred.
/////
My understanding of the general subject is that grace starts supports helps finish all our good works and goes beyond that, grace in all portions not just the end. I actually feel pretty sure that was my understanding and one I was taught as a Mormon say in seminary. I have heard critics say Mormons only think of grace as only working after we do our work. I have inclined to think that was a distortion of what Mormons usually think. However I don't think that there is a formulae that all Mormons would agree for the subject.
Someone might observe that nobody does all that they can do. People do not usually conclude that the phrase grace after all we can do means nobody is saved because all fall short of all that we can do.
To me it’s very similar to arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
How does the magic in Harry Potter work? What happens when you fall off flat earth? Why could the ring only be destroyed in Mordor?
It’s all made up and the points don’t matter.
I think the point is worth arguing because many a Mormon has cited that stupid verse in order to guilt people to do more work for the Church. The "after all we can do" is all about servicing the Church and accepting whatever it mandates. In my view, Nephi was only bridging the difference between the consecrations of animal sacrifice under Moses's law to that of the final sacrifice of the Man Jesus which ultimately was suppose to encompass all blood sacrifice. Thus, Nephi was saying that he was saved after all he could do in keeping the law of Moses because the blood of Christ was the whole reason the law was given in the first place! The word "AFTER" used by Nephi was wholly dependent on there being a before which is the law of Moses in and of itself. First came the law, then came Christ which was the grace of God on the last altar of sacrifice.
To me it’s very similar to arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
How does the magic in Harry Potter work? What happens when you fall off flat earth? Why could the ring only be destroyed in Mordor?
It’s all made up and the points don’t matter.
drumdude , do you think anybody actually argued about the number of angels on a pin? I seriously doubt it. I have read Aquinas discussion of angel movement and small places. He is concerned about how they work in relation to God. Quite theoretical but a link in his developing reflections on how creation is related to God. Well, that might be abstruse s but people might care about how we relate to God or try to think about it.
I think people actually experience and place high value on experiences theay call grace. Even if the story people tell to explain grace is fiction and we end up only as dust after death, people ask the story of grace to fit their experience enough to reflect its value. It remains like any good fiction, it means something, it fits real experience, and fits together in a coherent story.
