101 Reasons Why I Believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God.
Evidence Seventy-Three:
“Saved in our sins, or from our sins? Another Score for the Book of Mormon”©
The Book of Mormon offers a unique and important view of the notion that Christ will save the world from sin.(3 Nephi 9:21.) The only clear mention of this idea in the Bible is found in Matthew 1:21 which is part of the angel’s instruction to Joseph in a dream: “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.” (Emphasis added here and in all future cases unless otherwise noted.) There is no further explanation of this point here or anywhere else in the Bible. Perhaps the meaning is considered self-evident, but the Book of Mormon introduces another important element when Nephi teaches “And, in fine, wo unto all those who die in their sins; for they shall return to God, and behold his face, and remain in their sins.” (2 Ne. 9:38) The same doctrine is reiterated in even stronger terms by Abinadi in Mosiah 15:26:
But behold, and fear, and tremble before God, for ye ought to tremble; for the Lord redeemeth none such that rebel against him and die in their sins; yea, even all those that have perished in their sins ever since the world began, that have wilfully rebelled against God, that have known the commandments of God, and would not keep them; these are they that have no part in the first resurrection.
Nephi and Abinadi’s statements begin to clarify an important issue. Jesus will save us from our sins, but he cannot do it while we are in our sins. Later in the book of Alma, Alma teaches his wayward son Corianton. He explained to his son that in the resurrection the soul should be restored to its body (Al. 40:22-23), and in chapter 41 he has more to say about this doctrine of restoration, because some misunderstand or intentionally wrest the scriptures on the subject.(1) He says this restoration will be consistent with the justice of God and men will be judged according to their works. (Al. 41:1-3) Then he warns Corianton:
9) And now behold, my son, do not risk one more offense against your God upon those points of doctrine, which ye have hitherto risked to commit sin. 10) Do not suppose, because it has been spoken concerning restoration, that ye shall be restored from sin to happiness. Behold, I say unto you, wickedness never was happiness.” (Al. 41:9-10.)
Even Moroni weighs in on the matter. Within the last ten verses of the Book of Mormon, he writes: “And wo unto them who shall do these things away and die, for they die in their sins, and they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God; and I speak it according to the words of Christ; and I lie not. (Moroni 10:26.)
Salvation cannot be a divine fiat irrespective of the divine laws of justice; it must be consistent with them.
Alma was one who consistently taught that Jesus came to redeem his people “from their sins.” Three times in Alma 5 and 6 he addresses the issue as he taught the people of Zarahemla and Gideon. Notice for him the issue is the spiritual cleanliness of the individual:
5:21 I say unto you, ye will know at that day that ye cannot be saved; for there can no man be saved except his garments are washed white; yea, his garments must be purified until they are cleansed from all stain, through the blood of him of whom it has been spoken by our fathers, who should come to redeem his people from their sins.
Al. 5:27 Have ye walked, keeping yourselves blameless before God? Could ye say, if ye were called to die at this time, within yourselves, that ye have been sufficiently humble? That your garments have been cleansed and made white through the blood of Christ, who will come to redeem his people from their sins?
Al. 6:8 And Alma went and began to declare the word of God unto the church which was established in the valley of Gideon, according to the revelation of the truth of the word which had been spoken by his fathers, and according to the spirit of prophecy which was in him, according to the testimony of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who should come to redeem his people from their sins, and the holy order by which he was called. And thus it is written. Amen.
As I said earlier, one may think much of this is self-evident. However there is an episode recounted in the eleventh chapter of Alma that suggests otherwise. Just as Corianton may have been confused or sought a loophole in scriptural language, the following shows there are those who play word games and thereby wrest the scriptures and doctrines of the Gospel.(2) Here Zeezrom debates with Amulek about the coming of Jesus Christ; a portion of their dialog concerns this issue:
34) And Zeezrom said again: Shall he save his people in their sins? And Amulek answered and said unto him: I say unto you he shall not, for it is impossible for him to deny his word. 35) Now Zeezrom said unto the people: See that ye remember these things; for he said there is but one God; yet he saith that the Son of God shall come, but he shall not save his people—as though he had authority to command God. 36) Now Amulek saith again unto him: Behold thou hast lied, for thou sayest that I spake as though I had authority to command God because I said he shall not save his people in their sins. 37) And I say unto you again that he cannot save them in their sins; for I cannot deny his word, and he hath said that no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of heaven; therefore, how can ye be saved, except ye inherit the kingdom of heaven? Therefore, ye cannot be saved in your sins. (Alma 11:34-37.)
Later Helaman recalls this episode to his sons Nephi and Lehi. Though not directly stated in Alma 11, Helaman’s interpretation of the incident is that it infers a distinction between being saved in their sin from being saved from their sin.
And remember also the words which Amulek spake unto Zeezrom, in the city of Ammonihah; for he said unto him that the Lord surely should come to redeem his people, but that he should not come to redeem them in their sins, but to redeem them from their sins. (Hel. 5:10.)
In LDS theology, the story does not end here. In 1918 President Joseph F. Smith received a vision of the gospel being preached to the spirits in the Spirit World. He said, “These were taught faith in God, repentance from sin, vicarious baptism for the remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.”(D&C 138:3.) And in verse 32 he wrote, “Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets.
As I reflect upon this doctrine as it may pertain to Joseph Smith’s alleged authorship of the Book of Mormon versus translating it by the gift and power of God, I confess that this data really astounds me. First, this is a fairly subtle language issue that gradually takes on a significant life of its own as it progresses through the Book of Mormon story, and I find myself asking two questions: 1) What could possibly have existed in Joseph Smith’s immediate situation or his doctrinal interest that would have made it relevant to weave this through the text from 1 Nephi to Helaman and 3 Nephi, and even to Moroni? 2) Was Joseph Smith familiar and spiritually sensitive enough, at age 24-25, with the Bible story to realize that the issue raised in Matthew 1:21 was never fully treated further in the biblical text, and therefore, was ripe for further explication in his book? To me the improbability of this increases when you consider how many other similar things are present in the Book of Mormon. Creativity and insight on steroids! Was he at that age, aware that some men wrest the scriptures on the basis of technical language to score doctrinal victories, moreover, that it was an important enough issue to include more than one example of the practice in the Book of Mormon including this one? The reader will have to answer these questions for himself. To me, though I believe Joseph Smith possessed a mind with spiritual gifts we have not yet plumbed, I still find it difficult to believe that he intentionally planned to do this and ingeniously scattered it in the sermons and teachings of several prophet-authors, in separate incidents, over hundreds of years until it becomes a significant sub-theme in the book. I am also convinced that given more thought and analysis, there are a number of good reasons for the Book of Mormon to ensure the distinction between being saved in our sins from being saved from our sins is important in this dispensation.
At least one of those reasons may be discovered from the following quotations from noted Evangelical theologian John MacArthur, Texan Fundamentalist Baptist Robert Jeffress, and noted World War II theologian-martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer, concerning the popular "saved by grace" intellectual assent theology today which is "cheap grace" which "makes no moral demands" or exempts Christians from "any standard of conduct."(3)
MacArthur: The gospel in vogue today holds forth a false hope to sinners. It promises them they can have eternal life yet continue to live in rebellion against God. Indeed, it encourages people to claim Jesus as Savior yet defer until later the commitment to obey Him as Lord. It promises salvation from hell but not necessarily freedom from iniquity. It offers false security to people who revel in the sins of the flesh and spurn the way of holiness. By separating faith from faithfulness, it leaves the impression that intellectual assent is as valid as whole-hearted obedience to the truth. Thus the good news of Christ has given way to the bad news of an insidious easy believism that makes no moral demands on the lives of sinners. It is not the same message Jesus proclaimed.
Jeffress: “In an attempt to ‘rescue’ grace from legalists [those who would turn the gospel into a set of regulations and good works that save us], we have unwittingly delivered it into the hands of libertarians, who insist that grace exempts Christians from any standard of conduct. Instead of saying that there is nothing we need to do to cause God to love us any more than He already does, a libertarian places the period after the word do. ‘Grace means there is nothing we need to do.’”
Bonhoeffer: We are fighting today for costly grace .... Cheap grace means the justification of sin without the justification of the sinner.... Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate....
Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of his Son: ‘ye are bought at a price.’ And what has cost God much cannot be cheap for us.”(4)
Thank God for Joseph Smith!
Let’s think together again, soon.
Notes:
1. Alma 41:1.
2. Amulek accuses Zeezrom of just such conduct in Alma 11:21.
3. All as cited in Robert L. Millet, The Atoning One, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2018, 122-24.
4. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, New York: Touchstone, 1995, 43-45, emphasis in original.
