Yes, this is a connection Robert Millet makes in Grace Works, but I agree with Robert C. that you should do some more work on this. Millet mentions it only briefly, and you’ve given a richer, more contextualized reading here already with just a few paragraphs. Go!

I teach Gospel Doctrine in my ward, and I’m preparing this week’s lesson on Alma 23-29. I came across some text that I feel is relevant to this conversation regarding 2 Ne. 25:23 (“after all we can do”). This text potentially offers another alternative reading to 2 Ne. 25:23, which is separate from the typical Mormon reading (“after we do all we can”) and the Robinson/Spencer reading put forward here (“apart from all we can do”).

Here’s some background: in Alma 24:1-4, the Anti-Nephi-Lehies are faced with the threat of violence from other Lamanites who have not converted–they wish to rise up in rebellion against King Anti-Nephi-Lehi (this is Lamoni’s brother, who is named king over the Lamanites to replace Lamoni’s father, who dies in the same year). So the question under debate is whether the Anti-Nephi-Lehies should make preparations to defend themselves against the rebellious arm of the Lamanite society. King Anti-Nephi-Lehi issues a statement (comprising Alma 24:7-16) that they should not, lest the stains of their past sins & murders that have been cleansed through the atonement of Christ should return and not be cleansed again (see particularly v. 13).

Here’s the text that I want to highlight: in v. 11, King Anti-Nephi-Lehi states “since it has been all that we could do (as we were the most lost of all mankind) to repent of our sins and the many murders which we have committed, and to get God to take them away from our hearts, for it was all we could do to repent sufficiently before God that he would take away our stain–”

In this verse, there are two “all we could do” clauses, which is essentially the same clause from 2 Ne. 25:23, except it’s narrated in a past tense. [Well, "could" isn't strictly the past tense for "can", but I'm not sure if "can" has a technical past tense--is "can" even a verb?]. In both of these clauses, “all we could do” is connected to repenting of our sins.

The king again repeats this “all we could do” clause in v. 15, again connecting it to getting their stains taken away–in other words, repentance. I tried analyzing the remainder of the text of the king’s statement further to see if there were any clues to hint that he is directly referencing Nephi’s teachings, but I couldn’t find anything else there to support this hypothesis.

In the end, I feel like it’s clear that King Anti-Nephi-Lehi interprets “all we can do” to be saved as repenting of our sins–putting down our weapons of rebellion. I feel this reading aligns nicely with the concept of grace that you’ve been putting forward in this series. That is, the Lord’s grace is always there for us, and sin is our rejection of it (or rebellion against it). “All we can do” to accept that grace and be saved, as Nephi instructs us, is put down our weapons of rebellion and repent of our sins so that we can accept the gift which has already been prepared for us.

I completely agree that we should all “live in the hope of eternal life right now.” That is an awesome perspective to keep! But to me that’s much different from declaring “I’m saved” or “we’re sealed” to denote a personal status that doesn’t yet exist in reality. I recognize this is fully cultural (and my own pet peeve) and is not going to change but I see it most often declared as a way to elevate/separate onself above/away from others rather than to unify with them. That’s all.

Just a word of explanation: Commentators often note that Paul (with only one exception) talks of salvation as lying in the future, and a quick glance in the Book of Mormon suggests that wherever it isn’t ambiguous, “saved” is coupled with “shall be” and “at the last day.”

Of course, that’s not to say we can’t talk about salvation in other terms.

In this year’s Priesthood/Relief Society manual, President Smith says, “we are living eternal lives”, and “Today is the beginning of eternal happiness or eternal disappointment for you.” I don’t know why we shouldn’t hope for eternal life right now, if we’re promised the companionship of the Holy Ghost.

Roberta says, “…in reality no one is “saved” (past tense) until after the resurrection ordinance is received by them.”

Well, I suppose that depends on how you defined “saved”. The problem I have with how most members define salvation is they rarely give much thought to what we’re saved from. Helaman 5:10 has led me to believe that the reason we can’t be saved in our sins is that our sins are the very thing the Lord would save us from. Romans 6:1-7 leads me to believe that that kind of salvation takes place, at least in some sense, at baptism.

I think Robinson would say that we’re saved from the “demands of justice”. And this is the main problem I have with his idea of grace. It would save us from the effects of sin without saving us from sin itself.

Joe says, “Scripture almost universally refers to salvation as an event that comes only at the last day, and I don’t mean to deny that.”

Almost universally? Can you explain further? I think in most cases where scriptures refer to salvation, the precise chronological timing of it is ambiguous.

Saved (delivered) from death and sin, yes. But atonement, while rooted in the resurrection, is, I take it, still distinct from it. It is one of its effects. We can hold out against grace. We don’t “lose” it that way. We’ll still be resurrected. But we end up with a “second” or “spiritual” death as a result.

So I think you’re right: the only thing we had to “do” was to come to earth. But this earth is all about how we’ll relate to grace, and there are, generally speaking, three ways we might relate to it—I’d call them “celestial,” “terrestrial,” and “telestial.”

And there are also a thousand ways to postpone grace as well as misunderstand it. I worry about that “tantalizing distance” in my life.