Does the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible?

Hi, KBertsche. I have already told you, your interpretations are off-topic in this thread. The scripture clearly says, "work out your salvation," and your view (both of them, so far) clearly contradicts this bibilical teaching.Therefore, you are being anti-biblical, and cannot be saved by God's grace.

---

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

Hi, Ochaye.You specifically said that James said we must be perfect.He did not.You lied.

---

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

Hi, Guys.I need to let y'all know what's going on.Life is getting really busy right now, and I've been stressed out. Rereading my recent posts on this thread, I can see that it's spilling over into this, and I've been getting more and more out of control.I'm getting to obsessed with this topic, and it's affecting my research and my class work. I'll try to post a brief summation message in the next couple of days, after which I'll have to take a break from this website for at least a couple of weeks in order to get my work and personal life back on track.Before I go, I want to apologize to you two for venting my personal-life frustrations in this thread. I can see that I'm not capable of handling intense debates right now.Thanks, guys.Edited by Bluejay, : A few alterations.

---

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

Hello, Everyone.Sorry to keep you all waiting so long, but, like I said, I’ve been dreadfully busy.This will be my closing argument on this thread. I do not like the way this topic consumes me and ruins my ability to focus at work, so I will not post again here after this.I maintain that the contradiction in the grace vs works debate is purely on the part of the Bible. The entire Bible contains multiple instances of commandments being given and of judgment being meted out on the basis of our actions; neither of these is consistent with the view that works are not necessary for salvation. I maintain that the teachings of different books in the Bible do not conform to one another in a consistent fashion, despite the obstinate denial by Kbertsche and Ochaye.However, I would like to add a new observation, just to stir things up a little bit:

quote:

---

Hath he commanded any that they should not partake of his salvation? Behold I say unto you, Nay; but he hath given it free for all men; and he hath commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance.

​

-2 Nephi 26:27

---

and

quote:

---

And thou hast beheld in thy youth his glory; wherefore, thou art blessed even as they unto whom he shall minister in the flesh; for the Spirit is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. And the way is prepared from the fall of man, and salvation is free.

​

-2 Nephi 2:4

---

quote:

---

24 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, reconcile yourselves to the will of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved.

​

-2 Nephi 10:24

---

This is salvation by grace alone, championed in the Book of Mormon. In order to be consistent, KBertsche must now claim that the BoM contradicts the Bible twice, because now the BoM contradicts both of the Bible’s mutually contradicting statements about the means of salvation.-----The simple fact is that, despite the incessant hounding of born-again Christians, no Christian on the planet believes in salvation by grace alone. Not one. Every single one of us believes that salvation is, at least in part, contingent on man. The Bible contains a repetitive formula: If you do X, you get Y:Here are four:Matthew 14:12
Matthew 19:17
John 15:10
1 Corinthians 3:13-15These scriptures very clearly speak of works, and how works translate into salvation, eternal life, God’s love and grace, judgment, etc. But, to Kbertsche, this doesn’t matter, because some other verses say completely the opposite.KBertsche’s idiotic argument can be allegorized as follows: -----And, finally, it is abundantly clear that KBertsche and Ochaye have nothing more than a personal interpretation about what the Bible message is. In fact, ironically, most of the Christian community disagrees with them about their interpretation. At the very least, this should make it clear that the matter is unresolved, and that the statements of KBertsche and Ochaye are not authoritative.In light of this evidence, I declare a mis-trial.

---

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

Hi, KBertsche.I changed my mind: I'm back in. So, then, it's your position that every person in the world is saved? If not, what is it that separates the "saved" from the "not saved"?----- Then I refer you to the previous message from Ochaye (524230): As long as these two mutually contradictory positions are held by two non-Mormons on this thread, your argument that my position on the issue is non-biblical has no credibility.----- Yep, it sure is. But, I can't remember now what reference I originally wanted. Guess I've only got three instead.----- Earlier on this thread, you were arguing that it didn't matter what the rest of the New Testament said, as long as the BoM said the opposite of what one scripture said.Now, you're complaining about me taking things out of context.Normal humans would be experiencing a phenomenon called "cognitive dissonance" at this point.----- No, it isn't. It goes like this:Man: "I did X: what else do I have to do to get into heaven?"Jesus: "Do Y. And Z. Then, you'll get into heaven."Note that Jesus didn't answer, "Nothing: nothing you do will ever get you into heaven." That's what He would have to have said in order for the story to mean what you interpret it to mean. Instead, He told the man that doing Y and Z would get him into heaven.And, verse 29 (NIV) says:

quote:

---

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 and will inherit eternal life.

---

Jesus says, "If you do X, you get eternal life, where X = leave family or belongings for me." Since "leaving family or belongings" is something a person does, and "something a person does" is the operational definition of "works," Jesus just said that works get people into eternal life.And, in order to avoid any potential further confusion, "eternal life" is generally what Mormons mean when we say, "salvation."It seems pretty clear to me.----- Here's the scripture (NIV) with surrouding verses for context:

quote:

---

11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work.
14 If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward.
15 If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

---

What reward is received by the man whose work survives the fire, and lost by the man whose work does not survive the fire?In Mormonism (and in some other sects, I understand), we define two types of "salvation": salvation from physical death (resurrection), and salvation from spiritual death. Salvation from physical death is free for all men (i.e. all men go to "heaven"); but, salvation from spiritual death requires works (i.e. only those who fulfill the works requirement go to the "best heaven," where God is).To me, that's the "reward" 1 Corinthians 3 mentions. What is your opinion as to what the "reward" is?----- And, before Paul taught that (granting, for the sake of argument, that you are right about this), Jesus taught that doing X will get people into eternal life, where X = a type of work.So, I'm sorry, but what you say is false: the historic Christian faith was a faith of salvation by works.

---

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

Hi, Iano. I suppose I overgeneralized. I didn't think it would matter, because I didn't think anyone else was going to read this thread.My apologies.----- Except that the scriptures I listed have X="good works" and Y="salvation."To me, that's a rather big clue leading one to conclude salvation not by grace alone.

---

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

Hi, Ochaye. Good. Then we are in complete agreement.I'm still not sure why you're going on about justification when this entire sub-topic has been about salvation. Come to think of it, I've never really been clear on what "justification" means in this context (it isn't a term we use much, if ever, in the LDS church).But, regardless of what "justification" means, I again refer you to James 2:24, which says the exact opposite of your argument about whatever "justification" means:

quote:

---

You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. (NIV)

---

----- So, what the BoM says does not matter in a discussion about what the BoM says?I'm sure this makes perfect sense to you, given the coherency of your previous arguments.

---

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

Hi, Iano. There you go again... unfounded assumptions. ----- C'mon, Iano: give me some credit.We've discussed our doctrinal views before... over a year ago now. It was one of my earliest threads on EvC. I quite enjoyed it then, if I remember correctly.I don't remember most of what we talked about, but here's the position I remember you championing in regards to works and grace:

• Man could get to heaven by doing good works.
• Man is evil and fundamentally incapable of doing good works.
• Therefore, man cannot get to heaven by his works.

This is a fine and lovely argument to use against people who believe in salvation by works alone.But, neither the Book of Mormon nor Mormonism says that salvation is by works alone. We also agree that man's works accomplish nothing without God's grace to make up the vast difference between what we can accomplish by our works and what must be accomplished in order to get us into heaven.From the Book of Mormon, Mosiah 2:21:

quote:

---

21 I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to anotherI say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants.
22 And behold, all that he requires of you is to keep his commandments; and he has promised you that if ye would keep his commandments ye should prosper in the land; and he never doth vary from that which he hath said; therefore, if ye do keep his commandments he doth bless you and prosper you.
23 And now, in the first place, he hath created you, and granted unto you your lives, for which ye are indebted unto him.
24 And secondly, he doth require that ye should do as he hath commanded you; for which if ye do, he doth immediately bless you; and therefore he hath paid you. And ye are still indebted unto him, and are, and will be, forever and ever; therefore, of what have ye to boast?

---

No Mormon believes that we buy our way into heaven with good works. We know that our good works will never add up to the requisite conditions of "goodness" that get people into heaven. Rather, we believe that, after all men are saved by God's grace, additional rewards (also called "salvation") are applied based on our willingness to do good works.-----I have another objection to your argument as it specifically pertains to the example from Matthew 19:17-29. Namely, Jesus laid out specifically what a man must do to get into heaven. Furthermore, it is also stated, in verses 27 and 28 (NIV):

quote:

---

Peter answered him, "We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?"

​

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

---

So, not only does Jesus say what a man must do to get into heaven, but He also points out that some of them have accomplished the required task, and will receive the promised reward for it.It seems pretty clear to me.

---

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

Hi, KBertsche. So, you agree that, in some form or another, salvation is, at least in part, contingent upon man?----- So did you: verses 27-29 repeat (NIV):

quote:

---

27 Peter answered him, "We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?"
28 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
29 And 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 and will inherit eternal life.

---

Verse 29 states: "Everyone who has done ____ will inherit eternal life."How is this anything but salvation contingent on works?----- I quoted Jesus, dude.----- And you seem to think that disagreeing with you can only be a product of ignorance.It must be a terrible burden for you to have to live in a world so full of ignorant people. My condolences.

---

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

Hi, KBertsche. Perhaps you should have tried assuming that I wasn't talking about Paul or Augustine, but Jesus. It kind of follows from the observation that I was quoting Jesus, and not Paul or Augustine, talking about works and salvation.You don't get much more historical than Jesus.Edited by Bluejay, : Additions and restructuring.

---

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

Hi, Hyroglyphx.Bluejay is a Mormon.

---

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

Hi, Iano.Thanks for your patient, detailed exposition of your viewpoint. I think I’ve gained a bit of understanding about your beliefs from this.However, I seems to me that your contextual analysis has replaced a couple of things that Jesus actually said with a couple of things that you decided, beforehand, that he must be saying, and in so doing, have changed the meaning. But, this is not what Jesus said. This is clear from the fact that He later (v. 28) confirms that his apostles (some of them, at least) have lived up to this condition, which indicates that the condition to which He is referring is not something that is impossible for men.So, I believe a more appropriate interpretation of this is that our salvation is contingent upon us doing something that we are fully capable of doing. The context of this story seems to support this much more clearly.----- I realize that this interpretation isn’t derived only from this scripture, but I think your interpretation is also at odds with Jesus’s direct statement.Basically, this could be interpreted two ways:

1. My way: If you do X, you will receive...
2. Your way: People who will receive... do X.
   ​
   Where X = leave family and home.

Basically, my way is to interpret this as a mechanistic statement: doing X brings about Y.Your way is to interpret X as a way for the disciples to identify those who will get Y, but X actually has nothing to do with why they will get Y.Grammatically, either interpretation is trivially correct, but one of them is disingenuous, at best. If I were to say, Blonde-haired people get ice cream, wouldn’t you automatically conclude that having blonde hair is the reason those people get ice cream? Well, you should, because that’s the implication of that statement. However, you would have me interpret such as sentence as saying, all people who deserve to have ice cream also have blonde hair, which is actually an entirely different statement.In effect, it’s speaking backwards: instead of meaning, Doing X gets you into heaven, it’s supposed to mean, Getting into heaven causes you to do X. This is the exact opposite of what is actually said. It gives me the impression that you believe Jesus is trying to cleverly deceive people by grammatically attaching the outcome to a consequence of the reason they deserve the outcome, rather than to the actual reason why they deserve the outcome.Why would Jesus speak in such a fashion if His goal is to clearly and concisely teach correct doctrines? It is, frankly, a deceptive way of speaking. I do not personally feel that such deliberate deception is compatible with the compassionate character that we attribute to Jesus. I feel that it is beyond my power to accept both Jesus’s compassion and the deceptive speech patterns that you attribute to Him.----- Sure, no problem.Essentially all men, with few exceptions, will receive salvation. This means that they will be resurrected, and will go to heaven (we like to use the term degree of glory instead of heaven). Degrees of glory are wonderful, blissful places where we can live forever. Again, all men are granted these.Of course, some degrees of glory are better than others, and the purpose of good works is to increase your degree of glory. And, basically, as your degree of glory increases, your degree of separation from God (i.e. spiritual death) decreases.

---

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

Hi, KBertsche.I hope you hadn’t read the short, snippety version of this message before I edited it. I was in a rush and decided to be more terse than was productive to our discussion, and thereby would simply have perpetuated the animosity and angst that has characterized this thread.Here is my revised response: Agreed.And, the Book of Mormon contradicts a lot of stuff in Christian history. Obviously: that’s why our religion is different from yours.But, I’m not misunderstanding Christian history: I’m ignoring it, because we’re not talking about whether the Book of Mormon contradicts things from Christian history. Rather, we’re talking about whether the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible.It’s becoming clear to me that you are using your view of historical Christian faith as the context under which to interpret what the Bible says, and thereby retroactively apply the title biblical to those interpretations that are consonant with your philosophy.And, of course, I have been doing exactly the same thing, only I’m using my Mormon faith as the context under which to interpret what the Bible says.I therefore refer you to the story from Matthew 19 and ask that you read it without applying your philosophical context to it. I think you will see that this story clearly has Jesus stating that, if you do works X and Y, you will receive eternal life, and that he also points out an example of people who have done X and Y, and will receive eternal life for it. This should be enough to establish the principle of the contingency of salvation on the works of man.If you start with that single reference as your context, I think you will be able to see why I interpret James and Paul and Peter as support for the Mormon model that both grace and works are required.Edited by Bluejay, : Complete overhaul

---

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

Hi, ICANT.Welcome to the thread! And, those are the named conditions, aren't they?"Blonde-haired people get ice cream."If your hair is brown, do you get ice cream? No.If your hair is blonde, do you get ice cream? Yes.It divides the pool of possible receivers into two groups based on the named characteristic. Therefore, the named characteristic is the means of determining who gets ice cream and who doesn't.If the real reason for my giving the ice cream is not blonde hair, then my mentioning of blonde hair can only be seen as an attempt at deception or misdirection. Thus, in order to maintain your view of things, you have to say that Jesus was being deceitful in his answer to the rich man.----- It seems that your particular belief system suffers from the same problem. Your own statement: If eternal life is a gift, why does He require you to believe in Him in order to receive it?There is no difference between our beliefs in principle: it is only in the substance of the contingency that we disagree. Neither of us really believes that eternal life is a "gift," in the strictest sense, so I find this argument to be extremely dishonest of you.

---

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

Hi, Kbertsche. You're right: I lost the context of our disagreement in the midst of all the other ones I was trying to maintain. This is where it started: Message 175Clearly, when I called it a "personal opinion," you understandably thought I meant that you were writing your own brand of Christianity. I actually meant to say that you were treating any contradiction to your interpretation of the Bible, as a contradiction to the Bible.To be fair, I understand why you interpret the Bible the way you do. I obviously disagree that it is the correct interpretation, or is the only possible interpretation. On that grounds, I argue that it is unreasonable to call contradictions to your favored interpretation of the Bible contradictions to the Bible itself.

---

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