Does the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible?

Hi, Ochaye.Here is the entire exchange, starting from the dumbest argument you’ve tried to make on this thread so far: You are the one who said Old Testament people were able to work themselves to heaven.
You are the one who then decided that this meant Jesus died for nothing.And, then, when I confirmed to you the conclusions drawn from the stupid argument you were making, you somehow decided that this proved some point that you didn’t actually make, and concluded that I must no longer believe in my religion.I hope you notice that I didn’t make a single claim throughout that entire exchange. If you don't, at least I can rest in the comfort of knowing that this post makes it possible for others to notice.Edited by Bluejay, : "confirmed" instead of "affirmed"

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Fair enough.But why then focus on 'salvation by works' sounding verses to support your position when you know (as I'm sure you do) that they can be reconciled from a saved > produces faith > produces good works perspective.Surely the viewpoint that can reconcile an apparent conflict is to be considered superior to one that cannot?- Thanks .. for the confusionOption 1 (your option) - appears to render salvation possible by works alone. All the ruler had to do, to inherit eternal life, was to follow the commandments (which he did) + do what he chose not to do in this case, ie: give up his wealth and follow Jesus. There is no need for grace here when work can achieve a result.Option 2 (my option).- That is it impossible for a man to earn salvation by his works doesn't lend support to the notion that salvation is by works + grace (ie: your position). Granted, it doesn't disprove your position - but then again, it doesn't disprove a number of alternative positions.You say 'too' above. The same lack of support - and for the same reason - attaches to that point too. You said then:

quote:

---

Do you agree that, since the statement, If you want to enter life, keep the commandments, exists in the Bible, there is sufficient justification for me to legitimately claim that the salvation doctrine taught in the Book of Mormon is biblical?

---

..there is no justification for supposing works + grace to be taught in this particular biblical passage.- The better way to phrase is would be: "Does the Bible support BoM notions" given that it is not possible to prove any interpretation of the Bible invalid. As far as the notion grace + works = salvation goes? The Bible appears to be silent on the matter. Which isn't proof of anything of course.- Fair enough. My main gripe is that there is no positive support for you postion, biblically. And that you can only inject your notions into 'gaps' in the Bible which don't preclude your doing so.- The general confrontation takes place between the salvation by work-ists and the salvation by grace-ists. In that context, arriving at the conclusion "salvation-impossible-by-work" is seen as a support for the salvation-by-grace view. It being the only other show in town.The salvation by works + grace view is really only a salvation by works view by another name. I made the point earlier that if God spans 999.99 miles of the 1000 mile canyon between man and God, and man spans the rest by his work then it is salvation by works.- Hang on a secWe could combine those same words and posit option 2 to to involve; salvation by works + little green men falling from the sky. That is: a grace element of salvation isn't evidenced in the passage in order that it be included as a logical option. All that's going on is that salvation by works is being demonstrated as impossible. You can't fill the silence with whatever your having yourself.The conclusion so far is: by-works-impossible. That's all the rich young ruler positively evidences. This doesn't, as I say, detract from your position. But it lends zero evidence to the assertion.- The argumentation a little ways up establishes that there is no support in the passage for salvation by grace + works. The only agreed conclusion available (given the exclusion of your preferred option) is 'salvation not by works'. This grants possibly: Mormonisms 'by grace + works'. But it grants also possibly: salvation 'by little green men falling from the sky + works'. Which doesn't say a whole lot.You place the two verses quoted above side by side (as if affirming one common conclusion). But they are addressed at two categories of people(s) in the story. Silence on the issue of the disciples followership can't be inserted into your case as evidence of anything to do with your case. Indeed, we know that the disciples were simply called by Jesus.- Although I've pointed towards Paul's "faith produces work" to enlighten "faith without works is dead" we'd be better off not slinging verses around willy nilly. As per (fascinating) Rich Young Ruler passage, the devil is in the detail.- I'm not quite sure how you differentiate between what appears to me to be a consequential. Grace, and it's offspring, salvation, is a gift from God. By grace saved. By airplane transported. By hammer nail driven.If grace a gift, then the produce of grace is also a gift. Salvation being the produce of grace renders it a gift. I'm not quite sure how else to read it - if your 'clearly' see's something other than that then I'd appreciate something by way of explanation / semantical expansion.- I'm not sure how you involve works here. All I see is works excluded and his grace (expressed by the word ' mercy' in this case) included.Given that your position is grace + works, you need passages that indicate grace + works. All I've seen so far is passages that exclude works and include grace (and nothing else). Assuming you differ with the above conclusion, would you (us) perhaps concentrate on working out one or other specific verse that you suppose combines the two elements of Mormonist salvation?- Logically you have a defense. So have the little-green-menists. What you (and the little green menists) lack is positive evidence for your position. Whereas I feel I have all the evidence I need to arrive at mine:- works won't result in salvation (you agree)
- salvation is by grace (you agree)Because there is no biblical evidence of salvation by little green men / grace + works, I conclude salvation by grace ... alone.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Old Testament people were able to work themselves to heaven.

---

Do you agree with that, or not?Straight answer.

I'll be actively moderating this thread for a few days. I'll try to look in several times each day. I'll be looking for evidence of effort toward constructive discussion, such as clearly articulating one's position, addressing rebuttals, giving indications of working toward understanding other's arguments, etc.The enforcement method I'll be using will be to simply request that a member cease participating in this thread. Suspensions won't be used unless there seems no alternative.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi, Iano. My bad. I read that wrong: I somehow edited out the second part of your first option in my head. I disagree that interpretation must either include or exclude grace: grace is not the subject of the conversation (Remember, the question was, "What must I do?" not "What must be done?")That leaves only one interpretation, in my mind:1. Obeying the commandments and following Jesus lead to salvation....which is not really the focal point of our disagreement. We both accept that this is true: we just disagree on whether it's an attainable goal or not, and what the consequences of that are.I realize that I have left out a portion of my belief in this regard (although I did mention it to KBertsche earlier): that is, repentence. That's where the Atonement comes in: since we will all fall short of perfect worthiness (i.e. we will all sin), God's grace is a way provided for us to clean the slate and start over from zero.That's why grace is required: because we have no means for undoing our sins by ourselves.----- I think this is a personal interpretation of what Jesus is saying.The exchange was: "Who then can be saved?" "With man this is impossible."The meaning is that man cannot save himself. This can be read two ways:1. He needs help in order to be saved.
2. What he does has nothing to do with his being saved.Given the context of the story, with three statements that associate works with salvation, it makes no sense to argue that works have nothing to do with it. Therefore, the most logical conclusion is that man has to do something, but that he also needs help in order to be saved.----- The argument on this thread is that the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible. If, as you say, the Bible is silent on this matter, then how does the Book of Mormon contradict it?Edited by Bluejay, : "somehow," not "someone"Edited by Bluejay, : "option" instead of "open"

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Sorry; it's taken me some time to get back to this.

quote:

---

So, there isn't a "work out" vs "work in" dichotomy in these verses. Based on the English grammar, it is completely invalid to treat these as grammatically synergistic. So, verse 13 provides no context for interpreting the language used in verse 12.

---

You can't split the context of v. 12 and 13--the two verses are part of the same sentence! Verse 13 begins with the coordinating conjunction "for"; it gives the foundation for v. 12. I wouldn't call it a "dichotomy", but Paul specifically repeats the word "work" with various prepositions. In v. 12 the preposition kata is included with ergon (work) as part of a compound verb. Kata literally means "down"; In v. 13 Paul the prepositions are separate from the verbs and participles. Paul uses both "work in" and "work for." Paul seems to be intentionally re-using the word "work" in this passage to make a point.

quote:

---

Granted, Iano's belief that our good works are only the result of God working in us* is fully supported by this scripture.

---

Exactly.

quote:

---

However, I reject this one simply because it makes no intuitive sense to say, "Do X," when what you mean is, "Let God do X through you." What good could possibly be done by saying that?

---

Good observation and question. This sort of contrast is not unusual in the Bible. We could find many other passages that say similar things. But exploring this here would take us off-topic.

Hi, KBertsche. I was talking about the grammatical context. Just because you see "work out" and "work in" in juxtaposition or in the same sentence, doesn't mean that they are meant to be synergistic.My comment was directed specifically at your suggestion that "work out" and "work in" were meant to be juxtaposed for the purpose of imagery.-----But, this is just another example of something that you can explain away by interpreting it favorably for your position, not something that can't start as the basis for an alternate explanation.----- I'm beginning to think that your position is that all pro-works interpretations are off-topic.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

quote:

---

I'm beginning to think that your position is that all pro-works interpretations are off-topic.

---

If they are on topic, what is the Mormon view on this?Old Testament people were able to work themselves to heaven.Does Mormonism agree with that, or not? Is there not a single Mormon out of 13 million to provide an answer?

Hi, Ochaye. This was your statement, not mine.Anytime somebody tries to corner you into defending a statement you make, you instead turn it into a new, pointed question for them to answer.You don't get to be on offense all the time.As Iblis said, you need to show some accountability for your own statements before you claim the privilege of demanding answers from me.As it stands, you haven't yet shown that you have the integrity, decency or intellectual honesty to treat any response I write fairly, so what do I stand to gain from answering your pointed questions?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Just a reminder that I'm still here observing how well participation conforms with the Forum Guidelines. I described my criteria when I posted earlier today.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

quote:

---

This was your statement, not mine.

---

That is not the truth, but it does not matter if no-one has made it. It is a statement. No Mormon has to answer the question about it, which is not directed to any particular poster. But, in a thread of this nature, on the basic issue of salvation, it is all but impossible to usefully proceed on topic unless the question is answered by a Mormon.It seems to me that, if the question is not answered, readers will naturally assume that Mormonism holds that people before Christ were able to work their way to heaven. If Mormons are happy with that, we can come to a conclusion about the thread question.

Hi iano, I thought Paul did a good job straight to the point. Saved by the grace of God through faith.Salvation is a gift of God. You can't earn, buy or steal a gift.No works involved in being saved. If there was you could boast.We are created through Jesus to do good works. Those who are born again will do good works.So the BOM contradicts the Bible.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I'd agree wholeheartedly.But Bluejays position relies on finding a 'loophole in the law'. That is; when the Bible indicates a man isn't saved by works, Bluejay's position agrees: works alone won't save a man. When the Bible indicates a man is saved by grace, Bluejay's position agrees, technically; - a man is saved by grace (in part). When the Bible says a man is saved by grace and not by works, Bluejay's position supposes (I'm supposing) the verse a rebuttal to the person who supposes salvation by works alone (or else this verse is a corruption, to be straightened out in the Book of Mormon).Barring a verse that says salvation isn't by grace and works, Bluejays position can naviagate past objections all day long. It does so on a technicality; reading what's possible into the rather large space of what isn't excluded in the Bible.And so I highlight a larger issue for him: if he places his trust for eternal life on a doctrine that isn't postively taught in the Bible then he might as well believe that salvation is by little green men falling from the sky. That isn't taught in the Bible either.

On the contrary. That statement was one made by you after you (heavily) edited a question posed by Blujay so as to make it look like a statement made by Bluejay.- A quick perusal of the thread title will reveal our task. We've to find something the BoM/Mormon doctrie says and make a case for it contradicting the Bible. Our task isn't to edit the thread title to one of our own choosing- A lot of things can be extracted from a persons silence. The above is but one of them - and not something highest on my own list in this case.