Jonathan Neville on BOM Translation–Part I

 

I came across the above video, in which Jonathan Neville explains his theories about the translation of the Book of Mormon. I had previously watched several of his earlier videos, expressing his views on this subject, and I had always meant to respond to them in my blog, but never got round to it. Now I have finally decided to give my opinion on the subject.

I recall reading in Church literature several years ago that at one time someone asked Joseph Smith the following question, regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon: “Who did the translating, was it the ‘stone’ that he was using, or was it Joseph Smith himself?” (or words close to it, I am quoting from memory) Joseph’s reply was that it was not the will of the Lord at that time that it should be revealed the precise details of how the Book of Mormon was translated. What the questionnaire was effectively asking was whether the translation of the Book of Mormon was purely a revelation from God, or whether Joseph Smith was intellectually involved in the translation process, like any ordinary human translator might. That is a question that Joseph Smith refused to answer at that time. I am not now able to find the source of that original quote. If someone can find and point it out to me, it would be appreciated. But searching the Internet, I was able to find another quote by Joseph Smith (or possibly the same quote, with the source of the question that drew out Joseph’s response missing) that says the same thing. I found it in several publications. The following is copied from an article by John W. Welch published in BYU Studies, and titled, “Documents of the Translation of the Book of Mormon” Link. It is as follows:

“Br. Hyrum Smith said that he thought best that the information of the coming forth of the book of Mormon be related by Joseph himself to the Elders present, that all might know for themselves. Br. Joseph Smith jr. said that it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, & also said that it was not expedient for him to relate these things &c.”

This quote unfortunately does not identify the original question that drew out this response from Joseph Smith. That original question asked (the source of which I am not now able to find), however, is as important as the answer that was given to it. The question was not about what physical instrument was used to translate the plates—the seer stone, or the Urim and Thummim. The question was about the actual manner or nature of the translation—i.e. whether it was dictated as a direct revelation from God, or whether Joseph Smith’s own intellect was involved in the translation process. Joseph Smith refuses to answer that question at that time. That is significant. The question of what instrument was used in the translation process—the seer stone or the Urim and Thummim—is of secondary importance, compared to the question of whether the translation was a pure revelation from God; or whether Joseph Smith was intellectually involved in the translation process—like a normal human translator might. Jonathan Neville makes a big fuss about whether it was by the Urim and Thummim or by the sheer stone—which is not the most important consideration.

Likewise the distinction he makes between the two instrumental methods—as one of “translation” vs. “transcription”—is unjustified, based on all the documentary evidence that is available about the process of how the translation was done. The above mentioned article by John W. Welch, published in BYU Studies, provides a comprehensive list of all the documentary evidence that is available on the subject; and the distinction between “translation” vs. “transcription” that Jonathan Neville makes, with regard to the two instruments, is not justified by that documentary evidence. The two instruments did more or less the same kind of thing. It is of secondary importance which instrument was used to do the translation, compared to the more important question of whether it was entirely a revelation from God; or whether Joseph Smith’s own intellect was involved in the translation process—or whether it was a combination of both—regardless of which instrument was used.

Oliver Cowdery’s experience in attempting to translate, and the advice that the Lord gave him in the process, is significant here, and provides us with some clues in answering that question:

Doctrine and Covenants 9:

7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.

8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.

10 Now, if you had known this you could have translated; nevertheless, it is not expedient that you should translate now.

That in part answers the question raised above. It was a combination of both—a direct revelation from God, with Joseph Smith’s own intellect being involved in the process. But the speed with which he accomplished the task suggests that the revelatory element, in his case at least, was much stronger than his own intellectual involvement.

This brings us to the next element that needs to be considered in our analysis of these events—which Jonathan Neville tends to overlook or downplay—the speed with which the translation was accomplished. It is said that Joseph Smith completed the work of translation within 65 working days. Some people would have a hard time reading the Book of Mormon in that period of time, nevermind composing or translating it. So the question still remains: was the translation a direct revelation from God; or was Joseph Smith intellectually involved in the translation process? If we conclude that it was a direct revelation from God, that comes into conflict with the advice that the Lord gave to Oliver Cowdery in Doctrine and Covenants 9:7-10. If we conclude that Joseph Smith was intellectually involved in the translation process, that raises the question of how he was able to accomplish it in such a short period of time? Perhaps that is why Joseph Smith didn’t want to answer that question at that time. People wouldn’t have been able to understand what he was talking about.

There is one other clue, however, that gives us more insight into how the translation was done. According to Doctrine and Covenants 3:12, God gave to Joseph Smith “sight and power” to translate. In other words, the translation process was a miraculous exercise, even though Joseph Smith’s own intellect was involved in the translation process. His intellect was so enlightened and elevated beyond the normal human capacity that the process for him was a lot faster and more convenient than anyone could have imagined. That may also explain the reason why he didn’t want to tell anyone how the translation was accomplished, because no one would have understood him if he had.

But the most important consideration of all, in what has been said above, is that whatever the process of translation was, the end result, the finished product, was (1) Sacred, and (2) Given by god (D&C 9:9)—in other words, it was as good as if it had been dictated directly from God. That pretty much negates all of Jonathan Neville’s arguments about the nature of the translation process. Firstly, it renders his big fuss about whether the translation was done by the seer stone or the Urim and Thummim (and likewise his distinction between the two methods as one of “translation” vs. “transcription”) irrelevant and redundant. Secondly, it negates his argument that the translation process was mainly a human endeavor, like any other normal human translation. He even goes so far as to conclude (in an earlier interview which he gave with Rick Bennett of Gospel Tangents, which can be seen here), that Joseph Smith’s translation of the lengthy Isaiah passages was simply an act of memorizing the KJV; and the variations in them are the result of a faulty memory!—which again is in direct contradiction to what the Lord has revealed in Doctrine and Covenants 9:7-10. How could that translation have been sacred, and given from God (D&C 9:9), if Joseph Smith was simply memorizing quotes from the KJV, and giving us a faulty version from a bad memory—as Jonathan Neville has theorized?

There remains one more question that needs to be answered here. If the original translation of the Book of Mormon was perfect, or close enough, and “given from God,” as Doctrine and Covenants section 9 suggests, why was it necessary for Joseph Smith to make editorial changes to it later on? There are several possible reasons for that. One reason was the obvious typographical errors that were common at that time, due to hand copying of manuscripts, or manual typesetting of books. But that doesn’t explain all the changes that Joseph Smith later made. Some of them were obvious editorial changes—although their numbers were few. There are other possible explanations for that. The primary reason is that just because a piece of text has been given by revelation from God, it does not follow that it has been cast in stone, and God does not have the right to edit, improve, and make changes to it himself later on. God has as much right to edit his own work as man does. The changes would reflect changes in circumstance, not that God has changed, or his doctrine has changed, or that he had previously made a mistake.

Many of the revelations in the book of Doctrine and Covenants were edited and improved (by revelation by Joseph Smith) in later editions. That doesn’t mean that God had made a mistake in earlier editions, or that the doctrine had changed. The changes later made do not affect the doctrine. It reflects changes in circumstance. God deals with mankind at the human level; and as man’s circumstances may change, how God interacts with man later on may also change. That I believe is the reason and explanation for the editorial changes that Joseph Smith made (by revelation) in the later editions of the the Doctrine and Covenants; and the same applies to the (minor) editorial changes that Joseph Smith later made (by revelation) in the next edition of the Book of Mormon. It reflects changed circumstances, not that God had changed, or his doctrine had changed, or that he had previously made a mistake. And the Book of Mormon in its present form, as published by the Church, still contains some typographical errors introduced as a result of human involvement in earlier editions, which still remains to be corrected—which is a separate issue entirely. And the punctuation is also manmade, not part of the original revealed text. But the Book of Mormon in its original form, as dictated by Joseph Smith, was a pure revelation in its entirety, with no involvement of Joseph Smith’s own human intellect—except insofar as that intellect was enlightened and inspired by power of the Spirit of God. And the text of the Book of Mormon in its original form was (and still is) sacred and divine, and originates directly from God, as outlined in Doctrine and Covenants 9:9: “therefore you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me”. That settles it completely. It discredits, dismantles, cancels out, and puts the final end to all of Jonathan Neville’s baseless theorizing about the translation and coming forth of the Book of Mormon. It is a pure revelation from God, from the beginning to the end—minus the punctuation, and a few minor typographical errors that still remain in it.

Pastor Jeff on the Book of Mormon–Part VII

 

Pastor Jeff has put out his latest video commenting on the contents of the Book of Mormon, in which he discusses the book of Helaman. He doesn’t say too many controversial things, so it doesn’t require a lengthy reply. I will comment briefly on a couple of points. At around 20 minutes into the video he comments on a reference made in chapter 12 verse 15, about the “earth moving rather than the sun,” in the daily appearance of sunset and sunrise; or referencing the miracle in Joshua 10:12-13; and concludes that it is a “scientific” observation that was not known at the time; and ends it with the following statement:

“… but I also understand what Latter-day Saints will say is that this is part of the ongoing revelation, and maybe some of these specific details were in the Bible at one point, but they were lost.”

That would not be my conclusion. My conclusion would be that “science” has nothing to do with it. Science is one way of obtaining knowledge, but not the only way. Revelation from God is another way. God knows whether the earth is moving or the sun, and can reveal that information to his prophet at any time that he chooses to. It doesn’t have to be any more complicated than that. And it needn’t have previously been revealed to anyone else in the Bible either. It may have been, but it needn’t have been. Then further down he comments on what is said in verses 25 and 26 of the same chapter as follows:

Helaman 12:

25 And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord;

26 Yea, who shall be consigned to a state of endless misery, fulfilling the words which say: They that have done good shall have everlasting life; and they that have done evil shall have everlasting damnation. And thus it is. Amen.

And asks how that matches up with the doctrine of the “three degrees of glory” taught in section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants? There are two answers to that question. The first is that many of those who end up in the telestial kingdom (perhaps all of them) spend some time in hell, as punishment for their sins, before being redeemed, and being assigned to a place in the telestial kingdom:

Doctrine and Covenants 76:

83 These are they who deny not the Holy Spirit.

84 These are they who are thrust down to hell.

85 These are they who shall not be redeemed from the devil until the last resurrection, until the Lord, even Christ the Lamb, shall have finished his work.

According to the Bible (Luke 12:47-48; Matt. 5:26), as well as modern LDS scripture, for most people hell is not permanent. Hell is permanent only for those who commit the unpardonable sin, or sin against the Holy Ghost. All the rest will eventually come out, after they have paid the full penalty for their sins; or the “uttermost farthing,” as Matthew 5:26 describes it; and will be assigned a place in the telestial kingdom. Hell doesn’t have to be permanent for it to be effective punishment. Just because it is not permanent, it does not mean that those who end up there have an easy time. The second answer to that question is found in Doctrine and Covenants 19:6-12, which explains that phrases such as “eternal punishment” and “endless punishment” is an indication of the nature of the judgments of God, or divine punishment; and does not necessarily mean that there shall be “no end” to this punishment.

Catholics, Mormons, and The Great Apostasy

 

I found the above video from Jeremy Christiansen, a former Latter-day Saint who later converted to Catholicism, justifying his conversation. I had previously responded to an earlier interview he gave to Steven Pynakker six months ago in February 2023, which can be seen here. This is a much shorter video, in which he succinctly explains and justifies his conversation. He begins as follows:

“There are two things I would say to an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who supposes that a great apostasy occurred, and what they ought to do. Two things: One is a piece of common ground: truth. We want truth. That is what we want. What matters is truth. Catholics want truth, Mormons want truth. Hold fast to that, because that will always be the right guiding principle, is to want the truth. And the second would be to come from that: to read, to go and and look for yourself. You can open up, you can find for free on the Internet, you can find solid translations of the church Fathers, and you can read the writings of the people who died in colosseums across the Empire. You can read the writings and the beliefs of people who suffered greatly for their faith in Jesus Christ; and you can judge for yourself whether you thought these people believed in an imminent apostasy occurring; or do you really think these people were in the midst of one, …”

That is a good introduction, it is a good start! “Truth” is the most important element. And the most important item, or element of truth in this discussion, relative to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that needs to be established before anything else, is not whether the “apostasy” occurred or not, or is true or not; but whether the Church that Joseph Smith claimed to have established by revelation, and by the ministration of angels, is true or not; and whether its claims to be lead by revelation, by true prophets and Apostles, are true or not—and the chief means of determining that is the Book of Mormon. That is the primary reason why it was given. As Joseph Smith once said, “The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion …”. It is the litmus test, the ultimate touchstone by which the validity of the truth claims of Joseph Smith, and of the Church that he established can be assessed. It is the rock on which the restored Church of Jesus Christ stands or falls. If the Book of Mormon is true, that means that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and the Church that he established by revelation, and by the ministration of angels, is true—thus making it a true Restoration of God’s one and only true Church on earth. If the Book of Mormon is not true, and is not what it claims to be, that invalidates the Church’s claims completely, and there is nothing left to argue about. Luckily there is a way to find out for sure. The Book of Mormon claims to be a book of ancient scripture equal to the Bible, directly revealed from heaven; and contains a promise, that those who prayerfully study it, with a sincere desire to know of its truth, and ask God in faith, the truth of it will be revealed to them by the power of the Holy Ghost:

Moroni 10:

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things [i.e. the Book of Mormon], if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

And the testimony of the Holy Ghost is not the same as “feelings,” as he has implied. It is an assured witness, a personal revelation from God that something is true. That is how we can know—for sure. Once the truth of the Book of Mormon has been established, however, that also proves that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and the Church he established by revelation is God’s true Church. Once that has been determined, it also proves that an Apostasy must have occurred for the Restoration to have become necessary. There would have been no need for a Restoration, if there had been no Apostasy. We don’t start with the Apostasy, and then end with the restored Church. It is the other way. It is the testimony of the Restoration that proves to us that there must have been an Apostasy. Joseph Smith didn’t start with the Apostasy, and end with the Restoration. He didn’t say, “Christianity has apostatized, therefore let’s start a new religion”. He went to the woods to inquire of the Lord which church was right, and which one to join. It was the Lord that then told him that all churches were wrong, instructed him to establish God’s true Church. And the chief means of determining the truth of that claim is the Book of Mormon. That is the primary reason why it was given—to stand as a witness to the restoration of the gospel in the latter days.

On the subject of our understanding of the doctrine of the Apostasy, or the nature of that Apostasy, he has made some incorrect statements about that too. It does not mean that there were no more true believing Christians left in the world, who had a saving faith in Jesus Christ. It means that priesthood keys and Apostolic authority was lost. It means that the Church could no longer be led by revelation, by true prophets and Apostles, as it was initially. The institution of the Twelve Apostles was never meant to be abolished, or discontinued. It was lost as a result of persecution and martyrdom. But it does not mean that all Christians thereafter lost their faith, and no one after that had a saving faith in Jesus Christ. The Early Church Fathers were faithful believing Christians and great men, and produced great Christian literature worthy of our study and examination. That is not in dispute. And the same applies to the early Christian martyrs. They were faithful, believing Christians and great men and women, who gave their lives rather than deny their faith. None of that is denied or questioned. Likewise we have great respect for the Catholic Church as an institution, its history and legacy; and value its historical role in preserving the Christian faith, tradition, and scripture in the world. Our belief in the doctrine of the Apostasy does not go against any of those things. One other thing he has said that needs to be answered is the following:

“Here is the slippery part, is that, Mormons are not universalists in the strict sense; but universalists in a very real sense; and the concept of hell is basically non-existent. It is only there for the devil and the angels who followed him, and maybe some very small subset of people who have an assured knowledge of the truthfulness of the LDS Church, and who rejected anyway, who you would have to be like raw evil to do that, if you really knew, right? Otherwise all of us are going to a kingdom of Glory, that is greater than what anything we could possibly conceive of.”

That is not correct either. There is a damnation and a hell, and both the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants have a lot to say about That. Here are a selection of references:

2 Nephi 2:

24 And if they will not repent and believe in his name, and be baptized in his name, and endure to the end, they must be damned; for the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, has spoken it.

Alma 12:

11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.

3 Nephi 11:

39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.

3 Nephi 12:

30 For it is better that ye should deny yourselves of these things, wherein ye will take up your cross, than that ye should be cast into hell.

3 Nephi 18:

13 But whoso among you shall do more or less than these are not built upon my rock, but are built upon a sandy foundation; and when the rain descends, and the floods come, and the winds blow, and beat upon them, they shall fall, and the gates of hell are ready open to receive them.

• • •

29 For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.

3 Nephi 22:

34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.

Mormon 9:

4 Behold, I say unto you that ye would be more miserable to dwell with a holy and just God, under a consciousness of your filthiness before him, than ye would to dwell with the damned souls in hell.

Ether 4:

18 Therefore, repent all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me, and believe in my gospel, and be baptized in my name; for he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned; and signs shall follow them that believe in my name.

Doctrine and Covenants 10:

26 And thus he flattereth them, and leadeth them along until he draggeth their souls down to hell; and thus he causeth them to catch themselves in their own snare.

Doctrine and Covenants 49:

5 Thus saith the Lord; for I am God, and have sent mine Only Begotten Son into the world for the redemption of the world, and have decreed that he that receiveth him shall be saved, and he that receiveth him not shall be damned.

Doctrine and Covenants 68:

8 Go ye into all the world, preach the gospel to every creature, acting in the authority which I have given you, baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

9 And he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned.

Doctrine and Covenants 76:

106 These are they who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, until the fulness of times, when Christ shall have subdued all enemies under his feet, and shall have perfected his work;

Doctrine and Covenants 84:

40 Therefore, all those who receive the priesthood, receive this oath and covenant of my Father, which he cannot break, neither can it be moved.

41 But whoso breaketh this covenant after he hath received it, and altogether turneth therefrom, shall not have forgiveness of sins in this world nor in the world to come.

• • •

74 Verily, verily, I say unto you, they who believe not on your words, and are not baptized in water in my name, for the remission of their sins, that they may receive the Holy Ghost, shall be damned, and shall not come into my Father’s kingdom where my Father and I am.

Doctrine and Covenants 104:

18 Therefore, if any man shall take of the abundance which I have made, and impart not his portion, according to the law of my gospel, unto the poor and the needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment.

Doctrine and Covenants 112:

28 But purify your hearts before me; and then go ye into all the world, and preach my gospel unto every creature who has not received it;

29 And he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not, and is not baptized, shall be damned.

Doctrine and Covenants 121:

23 Wo unto all those that discomfort my people, and drive, and murder, and testify against them, saith the Lord of Hosts; a generation of vipers shall not escape the damnation of hell.

Doctrine and Covenants 132:

4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.

6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.

The doctrine of the “three degrees of glory” (D&C 76, 88) in LDS theology is a description of what heaven looks like. It is not a denial of hell. The Bible teaches that there are gradations of heaven and hell. Not all who go to heaven receive the same reward, nor all who go to hell receive the same punishment. Jesus said, “In my Father’s house are many mansions” (John 14:2). Some receive greater rewards in heaven than others (Matt. 5:12; 6:1; Luke 6:23); and some are punished with fewer “stripes” in hell than others (Luke 12:47–48). For some, hell is permanent; but for others, it is temporary. Some “come out thence” after they have paid the “uttermost farthing” (Matt. 5:26); and some will not be forgiven either in this life or in the next (Matt. 5:26). The implication of the last quote is that some will be “forgiven” in the next life. There are some passages of scripture that tend to paint a black-and-white picture of the afterlife; but there are also passages that teach something different, as referenced above. It is not a “one size fits all,” in heaven or in hell. The LDS doctrine of heaven and hell is closer to the Bible than that of either Catholicism or Protestantism; although in fairness, the Catholic doctrine of “Purgatory” brings it closer to the Bible than that of Protestantism.

Grace vs. Works – an LDS Perspective

 

Pastor Jeff has put out his latest video, in which he comments on and discusses a talk given by Brad R. Wilcox at BYU around twelve years ago on July 12, 2011, titled: “His Grace Is Sufficient,” in which Brad Wilcox discusses the controversial issue of “grace vs. works,” from an LDS theological perspective (Link). I think that Brad Wilcox has done a nice job of developing the subject from the LDS theological point of view; but I think that he has made it sound a bit more complicated than it needs to be. The issue of “grace vs. works” is a hot topic in Evangelical circles; but not so much among Latter-day Saints. LDS as a rule don’t have an issue with that. They don’t see a conflict between the two (as the Evangelicals do). That is why I am a little bit skeptical about the anecdotal incident that Brad mentions with regard to a BYU student who questions him on that subject. It sounds more like someone who may have been adversely influenced by Evangelical thinking on that subject. LDS don’t have a long list of “DOs” and “DON’Ts” that they are required to adhere to (as the Evangelicals and critics like to insinuate). As true followers and disciples of Jesus Christ, we are expected to do what is good and right in the sight of God, and avoid evil; and everyone knows what that is. The Bible says:

James 4:

17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin”.

That sums it up very nicely. That is what Latter-day are expected to do: to do good; to love, serve, and obey God; and to abstain from evil, as summarized in these Bible verses:

1 Thessalonians 5:

21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

There is no “list”. But going back to the original question of reconciling “works,” with salvation by “grace” and by “faith,” the answer is simpler than how Brad Wilcox has tried to explain it. The answer is that the gospel of Jesus Christ requires us to repent of our sins and keep the commandments of God to be saved; and that is not the same as “works,” or a “works based” salvation. “Works salvation” means that we save ourselves by our own works; or that our works save us, independent of the saving and redeeming work of Jesus Christ. That is what the Jews believed in at the time, and which is what Paul was arguing against. All of his talk about “faith alone” and no “works,” is directed at that. He didn’t mean that we don’t need to repent of our sins and keep the commandments of God to be saved. Those are two different things. Calvinists and Evangelicals have conflated the two, and have constructed for themselves a perverse “faith alone” theology in which any talk of repenting of our sins and keeping God’s commandments as a requirement for salvation is considered “works,” and disallowed! Repenting of our sins and keeping God’s commandments is something that automatically “happens” to people whether they like it or not just because they have “believed!” That is the perverse, heretical theology of Calvinism and Evangelicalism. And it has all been derived from a few misconstrued passages in the writings of Paul, to the exclusion of 99% of the rest of the Bible, including other writings of Paul, and indeed of Jesus himself, which teach something different. Here are some typical examples:

Matthew 7:

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Luke 6:

46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

47 Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:

48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.

49 But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.

Matthew 25:

21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

• • •

23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

1 Corinthians 6:

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Galatians 6:

7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

• • •

10 As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.

Hebrews 10:

23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)

24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:

Hebrews 13:

15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.

16 But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.

2 Timothy 3:

13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

James 1:

22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

• • •

27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

James 4:

6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.

7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.

9 Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness.

10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

The Bible teaches that we need to repent of our sins and keep the commandments of God to be saved, no doubts about it. That is the condition for salvation. And if we fall short and do sin, we have the assurance of forgiveness and remission of sins through faith and genuine repentance, by virtue of the redeeming and atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. But there is no question that according to the gospel of Jesus Christ as taught in the Bible, repenting of our sins and keeping God’s commandments is a requirement for salvation. Another doctrinal perversion that beclouds their thinking is the belief in the Calvinistic heresy of predestination and predetermination, which denies human freewill, which is unbiblical and false, e.g.:

Deuteronomy 30:

19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

Joshua 24:

15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

And in 2 Nephi 25:23, “after all we can do” means in spite of what we can do:

2 Nephi 25:

23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

It doesn’t mean that we do our part, and then Jesus does the rest, or makes up the difference—a common misreading or misunderstanding of that scripture. But it does mean that we need to repent of our sins and keep the commandments of God to be saved.