Does the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible?

Hi, ICANT. It is. But, context should have made it clear that that's not what I'm talking about. Definition #4 from the Encarta dictionary used by MS Word:

quote:

---

a condition in a contract that has to be fulfilled before the contract is binding

---

----- Will you stop with this red herring already?Mormons still believe that Jesus instituted a New Covenant: we just believe that the New Covenant is different from what you think it is.How many of the 613 commandments were associated with ritual sacrifices, circumcision and diet regulations, which were explicitly done away with?Acts 15 and Galatians 2 teach that the Law of Moses is no longer required, because Jesus's Atonement fulfilled it. The requirements for us are different from the requirements for the Old Testament people.Is this clear?

---

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

Hi, Iano. Agreed.----- Also agreed.----- Disagreed.It’s not a quote-mine!I have already explained the Mormon teaching that both grace and works are required.Thus, obviously, "For man this is impossible" fits perfectly with my interpretation too!So, external cues and contexts provide no means to separate the validity of our views!Your job on this thread is to prove that my interpretation of the Bible is not valid, not that you can explain away my evidence by inserting your own doctrinal interpretation as context.I can explain away any and all of your evidence by inserting my own doctrinal interpretation as context, too, but I have not endeavored to do so because this thread is not about explaining things under specific contexts, but about showing whether a certain interpretation can emerge logically from what is written.I have spent this entire thread avoiding things that y’all can explain away, looking for specific, clear, unambiguous evidence. But, I’ve now realized that this was my error from the beginning: your ability to explain it away does not make it support for your position, nor does it diminish its ability to support my position.So...When we combine if you want to enter life, obey the commandments and with man salvation is impossible, two seemingly contradictory statements, we can interpret it two ways:

1. Man is not capable of meeting the requirements that are set for him (your way).
2. Even if man meets the requirements that are set for him, he will still need God’s grace to be saved (my way).

So, now we must look for additional clues from the story:

quote:

---

if you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor... (v.21)

​

everyone who has left [...a list of things...] for my sake ... will inherit eternal life, (v.28)

---

We now have two additional comments reaffirming the interpretation that works play a role in salvation, with the added contextual implication that certain men have already achieved the task that was set for them, and will thus inherit eternal life.This belies---but, granted, does not actually disprove---your interpretation that the task set before man is impossible for man to achieve.However, it is fully and comfortably consistent with my interpretation that works play a role in salvation.Then, James 2:24, Philippians 2:12 and Hebrews 5:8-9 fall comfortably into place as saying that works play a role in salvation.Ephesians 2:8-9 (quoted earlier by KBertsche):

quote:

---

For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so that no one can boast.

---

This scripture clearly states that grace, not salvation, is the gift of God. And, sure enough, grace does not come from our works.Titus 3:5 (quote earlier by KBertsche):

quote:

---

he saved us not by works of righteousness that we have done but on the basis of his mercy, through the washing of the new birth and the renewing of the Holy Spirit...

---

Using my understanding of Matthew 19, James 2, Philippians 2 and Hebrews 5, I can interpret this as saying that our works do not save us without His grace.And, I can do the same for any scripture you present before me, so long as I first remember what it is that I believe the entire Bible message and gospel of Jesus to be.Can you agree with me that this method is logically defensible?----- I don’t see this as an important point, but since you keep drawing attention to it, I feel I need to explain it.The dichotomy I was drawing wasn’t whether or not the man was going to give away his possessions, but whether his sadness was for his salvation or his possessions. He wasn’t going to give away his possessions, because he loved them, but he wasn’t going to be able to enjoy them anymore, because now he knew that they were holding back his salvation.It was an extremely narrow niche-point that I was making, and I feel like the window for fitting it into the discussion has already passed: there are much better ways of making my argument.

---

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

Hi, Ochaye. Since when did this exchange have anything to do with anything I've said?

---

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hi, Iano. This is where we disagree. Jesus didn't say that man can't do the works required of him: He says that man cannot save man. That statement is a direct response to the disciples asking, "Who can be saved?" not "Who can do the works necessary?"It is completely neutral in terms of our two arguments, because all it can be positively taken to mean is that God is needed in salvation.Yet, it is the only comment from the story that leads you to conclude that works are not part of salvation. There are three other statements in this story that talk about works:"...if you want to enter life, obey the commandments.""...you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones...""...everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much will inherit eternal life"Eternal life is twice associated with works, and rewards in heaven are also twice associated with works. Compare this to your one statement that simply says that God is needed, and can only be interpreted to mean more than that if you first assume an interpretive framework that is not included in this story. It's obvious that the moral of the story is that man is required to work for his salvation, with the sidenote that God is also required.There are two positive statements saying that works lead to salvation, and you are disregarding both of them in favor of one statement that can be interpreted to support either of our views.All I'm asking is that you acknowledge that my interpretation is valid, even if you think it's wrong.----- I'm having a very difficult time establishing a baseline from which to start my interpretive framework of the Bible, because I am met with three unrelenting opponents who have constructed a concrete bunker of dogma around the entire Bible, such that, if they can explain away my arguments with their selective interpretations, I cannot use my arguments to support myself.Meanwhile, I am not allowed the luxury of using my dogmatic interpretive framework to support my arguments or to explain away my opponents’ arguments. So, my opponents basically demand that I start with nothng, and they start with everything, and that all neutral conclusions thus must fall in their favor, even though the burden of proof is supposed to be on the prosecution, meaning that the Book of Mormon is supposed to be assumed innocent until proven contradictory......so you'll get no sympathy from me. I was very glad to see you post here, though: I knew I could get a good, rational discussion with you. Thanks.

---

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

Hi, Ochaye. I understand your sentiment.But, you have posted nearly 100 messages on this thread, most of which contains a question that you feel your opponents must answer, and few of which include serious attempts to address any of the questions your opponents feel you must answer.In the Evolution/ID debate, this is referred to as the "Gish gallop" (named after an IDist who is notorious for using it).I will continue to engage you in this discussion on one condition: for every point of yours that I address, you have to address one of mine in roughly equal detail. And, since I’ve answered considerably more of your questions than you have of mine, I get to start. Deal?If so, here's one that I want you to answer (along with its context from this discussion):

In Message 292, you claimed that Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19:17 is anachronistic. My assumption is that you mean He is still teaching the Old Covenant, because the New Covenant wouldn’t apply until after the Atonement, which hadn’t yet happened.

​

I pointed out a list of problems that I saw with your argument, which were:

​

1. that you must have accepted that Jesus’s teaching in Matthew 19 was pro-works (I had originally split this up into two separate points, but it’s actually one)
2. that you must have also accepted that the Old Covenant allowed salvation by works
3. that your argument ignores the simple observation that Jesus was already teaching the New Covenant in Matthew 5, so it would not be anachronistic for Him to be teaching the New Covenant in Matthew 19.

​

Your response was to ask for my view on one of those things, which really isn’t required in order for you to defend your statement.

​

I’m asking you straight up now: do you still believe that Matthew 19 is an anachronism?

​

What I would consider a sufficiently detailed answer:

​

1. A logical explanation for why one or more of my problems above are invalid.
2. The one-word response no.

​

What I would not consider a sufficiently detailed answer:

​

1. An inquiry as to my opinion on the subject.
2. A snide remark about paganism, equating me with a Calvinist or Catholic, or my alleged conversion to Protestantism

​

(Incidentally, I think I may have overinterpreted your argument with regards to my problem (1), but I’ll wait for your confirmation before I accept that I did).

Edited by Bluejay, : Restructuring my preconditions.Edited by Bluejay, : It wasn't every one of his posts... or none of his posts, it was most of his posts and few of his posts.

---

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

Hi, ICANT. I already responded to this in Message 298.Either Jesus is talking about eternal life, or He is talking about mortal life.If He is talking about mortal life, then He taught that people have to keep the commandments before they are born.If this is what the Bible teaches, then it means one of two things:1. Jesus taught about a pre-mortal life (a doctrine of Mormonism)
2. I would no longer have a problem with agreeing that the BoM contradicts the Bible.

---

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

Hi, Iano. First of all, you’re reading too much into this.What the young ruler learned was that there was something he could do that would get him saved, but that it sounded hideously unpleasant. There is no indication that he thought it was an impossible task: there is only the indication that he was emotionally torn between two things that he very much loved.We simply do not know anything beyond this, so it is completely your interpretation that he learned, I cannot do the works required of me to earn eternal life.With that in mind, it’s easy to see that what you are using as context is just color that you added yourself.----- Once the ruler left, Jesus was no longer teaching the young ruler: He had a new class. That means that the lesson from then on would be tailored to the new class, and not to the ruler.Jesus used the ruler’s inner conflict as a teaching aid for His new class.But, the new class, the disciples, had already done the thing that Jesus said was required of them, and so, weren't experiencing that inner conflict. In fact, most of them were probably thinking, I’ve done that already... so I must be going to heaven, right?So, they ask Jesus, "Who can make it to heaven?" And Jesus answers, "It's impossible for you to save yourself, but I can save you."Peter astutely realizes the implication of this: "But, You just said that we need to give up everything to follow You! And, we've already done that. So, what do we get for that?"And, Jesus's answer explicitly includes eternal life for those who follow Him (v. 29), despite having just said that man cannot save himself.So, how can we reconcile Jesus's two statements: "You cannot save yourself" and "You will get eternal life if you leave everything to follow me"?The most natural interpretation is that both must be required.I don't think it gets plainer than that.----- I realize I didn’t really make it clear in my last post, but when I said, three opponents with concrete bunkers, I wasn’t including you... I was talking about the other three. You’ve been plenty reasonable.I feel like I’ve presented positive evidence from a plain, straightforward reading of this passage. Note also that I feel like I've done it three times now, each time in response to you requesting that I provide a step-by-step analysis of the story. Do you still feel like I haven't done this yet?Furthermore, I feel that my reading is the superior one, because it incorporates only what the scriptures say directly, does not rely on a subtle interpretation of any statement in the story, and reconciles all of Jesus's statements. All other readings require me to semantically or contextually massage away one or more of Jesus's statements as simply situational artifacts.

---

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

Hi, Iano.I agree that some progress is being made. It’s actually very logical... if you can’t decide which one you want more. It’s not an intuitive, easy question to answer (or even to ask, for that matter) for most people.----- Sure, I don’t think He was trying to deceive anyone.Of course, there is this part in Matthew 16, when the disciples realize that they forgot to get bread, and Jesus says, beware the yeast of the Pharisees, and the disciples said, What? Don’t by bread from Pharisees, you say? And Jesus responded, What made you think I was talking about bread? (not actual quotations). That was kind of deceptive of Him (annoyingly so, in fact).So, I won’t rule it out completely. Seriously, though...You don’t seem to be assimilating my objection to this portion. The Savior’s this is impossible with man is not aimed at the works that man has to do, but at that attainment of salvation, or entrance into heaven. Remember my Do X, get Y presentation?Remember, the question the disciples asked is different from the question the young ruler asked. Accordingly, they received different answers.Ruler: What must I do to inherit eternal life? (asking about X)Disciples: Who can be saved? (asking about Y)So, the ruler got an answer about X, because that’s what he asked for.It can be argued that Jesus’s answer is intentionally deceptive, because he doesn’t mention that there’s more to it than just X. However, I think the way the question is phrased suggests that this young ruler knew exactly what it was that he was asking.I have asked the exact same question many times (in Sunday school and introspectively during prayer or contemplation): What am I supposed to do? When asking that question, I am not simply asking Jesus an intellectual, doctrinal question out of curiosity: I am asking for personal guidance. The observation of the young ruler’s emotional attachment to the subject later in the story suggests that his was also not just a philosophical, hypothetical question.But, maybe it was just an philosophical inquiry, and Jesus’s answer was therefore deliberately incomplete (or, maybe the ruler walked away before he could hear the end of the story). However, to suppose this is to assume one of two possible interpretations (the other being that the ruler knew exactly what he was asking).Either way, we can still conclude that the young ruler got exactly the answer he asked for. That makes it objectively the best conclusion.On the other hand, the disciples asked their question in response to Jesus’s statement about camels and needles. To me, it seems that Jesus very likely made that statement for the express purpose of encouraging the disciples to ask the very question that they asked. Basically, it was like pointing at that guy and saying, He’s not going to heaven. It’s not going to happen.Then, they thought, What? You just told him that it was possible! So, they ask him, Who can be saved, then?Well, nobody can save themselves, Jesus answers, But I can save them.----- I agree that it can be interpreted as such.But, like I said earlier, interpreting this as a descriptional statement is like saying, people wearing blue shirts get ice cream, when a blue shirt is not the real reason why ice cream is given. It’s a perfectly legitimate statement to make if your goal is to provide a way for others to identify those who will be getting ice cream (cf. Hey, look! All of us are wearing blue!), but not if your goal is to explain why somebody gets ice cream (cf. You forgot your blue shirt today? Oh... that’s too bad for you.).We should be able to determine the goal from the context. And, the context is Peter asking what he will get for his dedication to Jesus, not how he can recognize somebody who will be going to heaven. So, to me, it’s either a causal statement extrapolated to principle, or it’s a deliberate misdirection.Edited by Bluejay, : Added salutation.

---

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

Hi, Iano. See, this is the only thing I’ve consistently addressed in every post I’ve made, but it’s also the only thing I’ve said that you haven’t incorporated into your rebuttals.The ruler asked, What must I do? And Jesus answered that directly by telling him what his role in the salvation process was. By the time he left, there has been no mention of anything but the young ruler’s role in the process. We seem to agree up until this point.But, the disciples weren’t asking only about their role in the process when they asked, Who can be saved? At this point, you continue to interpret the story as if Jesus is still trying to answer the young ruler’s question. But, new students with new questions change the dynamic of the story, and there is no reason to believe that Jesus is still answering the old question. The new question should serve as the context under which we interpret the answer.With man this is impossible... was meant to answer the question, Who can be saved? It does not answer the question, Who can do what is required for salvation? or Who can keep all the commandments and leave everything to follow You? or What must I do to gain eternal life? It answers, Who can be saved?So, in the answer (i.e., With man this is impossible), the word this refers to salvation, not to works (i.e. the outcome of the process, rather than the apparent means). These are two distinct concepts. Although the distinction is not important for the argument you’re making, it is important for the argument that I’m making, so you will not be able to address my argument without providing some sort of commentary on the distinction between the outcome (salvation) and the apparent means (works).They were different questions. We cannot assume that the meaning of both was the same simply because they appear within a few verses of one another.----- But, this is, itself, an imported assumption. It incorporates the assumption that the ruler needed to be taught more than what Jesus taught him. Like everything else, there are two possibilities: (1) the ruler already knew/wasn’t interested in the doctrinal basis of the issue, and Jesus tailored His responses to this; or (2) the ruler was uninformed on the issue and Jesus did not completely inform him.Regardless, though, all we know is that Jesus answered the question that was asked. We do not know the context, motivation or demeanor of the question, so we cannot conclude that Jesus’s answer was deceptive, accurate, complete or incomplete. All we can conclude is that He directly answered the question that was asked. Any additional conclusions can only be drawn from importing assumptions.----- Firstly, you have a firstly with no secondly. Secondly, if is not the only conditional construction. [Person] who or [noun] that is also a conditional structure.If I ask how a sports trophy was awarded, you could answer in two ways:

1. The team that wins the tournament gets the trophy.
2. If a team wins the tournament, they get the trophy.

They are exactly the same thing. The first statement is a generalized principle, while the second is an example of the generalized principle. But, in practice, they are the same thing.----- This is rather at odds with the rest of your argument.Surely we agree that at least Peter thought his works were analogous to the young ruler’s works.If their works are not analogous, then, once again, we have Jesus leaving something out of His explanation (namely, what the difference between Peter and the young ruler is), which, according to you, is deception.

---

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