Does the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible?

Hi, KBertsche. I'd like to beat the Philippians 2 horse a little more:

quote:

---

12Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyednot only in my presence, but now much more in my absencecontinue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.

​

Philippians 2:12-13(NIV)

---

Technically, what you called a "directional word" is part of a transtive verb phrase (meaning a verb that takes on a direct object, the direct object, in this case, being "your salvation").This is in contrast to the usage of the verb "works" in verse 13, which is intransitive, having no direct object attached to it.Granted, I do not know how the Greek grammer pans out, but, in this case, these two words can only be seen as having the synergistic meaning you attribute to them based on a fluke of English grammar that places the words "out" and "in" adjacent to two different usages of the word "work.""Out" is attached directly to the "work" in verse 12, making "out" an adverb and "work out" a verb phrase."In" is attached directly to the word "you" in verse 13, making "in" a preposition and "in you" a prepositional phrase.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.Granted, Iano's belief that our good works are only the result of God working in us* is fully supported by this scripture. 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? *I'm not sure if this is also your belief: I'm more familiar with Iano's theology than yoursEdited by Bluejay, : "out" is not a transitive verb
And, closing code for italic "intransitive"

---

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

Hi, Ochaye.You really want somebody to answer this question: Answer: God.Now, would you like an intelligent answer?Then do get to your point. Until you prove that your random, pointed questions have anything to do with this discussion, you shouldn't be surprised that you keep getting ignored.

---

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

Hi, ICANT. Cut the crap, ICANT.----- The part where it's required before you get the gift. No, I didn't ignore the definitions: my post showed that your belief also fails to meet the definition of "gift" that you required.My version: "In order to be saved, you must do good works."Your version: "In order to be saved, you must believe in me."Both versions: "In order to be saved, you must X."The only difference is our opinions about what X is, not about whether or not salvation is a gift. A gift, by your definition, has no prerequirements or contingencies, not even belief.----- How does asking him walk to the front differ in principle from asking him to help an old lady cross the street? Or from asking him to preach the word? Or from asking him to be baptized? Or from asking him to read a certain book? Or from asking him to sing Billy Joel on karaoke night? Or from asking him to pay your salary.It doesn't matter what you ask him to do: if you ask him to do something, anything, and will only give him his "gift" if he does what you ask, you are making his gift contingent on his works.That's the principle on which the doctrine of salvation by works is based. And you taught that principle over your pulpit, whether you intended to or not.You also think man has to do something before he can receive salvation from God. You just think you can say you don't because you don't call it "works."

---

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

Hi, ICANT. So, according to the definition of gift, God would have had to receive compensation of some kind for our salvation not to be a gift.So, what compensation do Mormons believe God gets for our salvation?

---

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

Hi, Otto. That's clever.I like that.----- The best way to debate somebody who is making a stupid point is to force them to do the thinking.The interaction went like this:ICANT: "Salvation is a gift. You don't have to do anything for it."Bluejay: "But, you just said that there is a contingency on receipt of the gift."ICANT: "But, the contingency that I believe in isn't a form of compensation."Bluejay: "And the contingency that I believe in is?"See? Isn't that the best possible response?----- I'm perfectly content calling this a worthy motivation, and not standing in your way or demanding that you change.However, it's a completely pointless thing to debate in a forum such as this, because it always just ends up a duel of talking points; and middle-of-the-roaders like me are too scared to comment on anything because we will inevitably get sucked in by pointed retorts from either side focusing entirely on the bits of our neutrality that make us sound like the enemy of the side in question.Also, it strays a bit too far from the topic here.

---

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

Hi, ICANT. Perhaps none, unless it happens to be the topic of the thread.Oh, look...----- Yes, God very clearly states that a man's salvation is contingent on something that that man does. Our disagreement is about what a man has to do to satisfy that contingency, and nothing more.Until you are willing to acknowledge that any contingency on receipt of the "gift" (be it works, belief, following, ordinances, or whatever) renders an argument from principle invalid, I see no point in continuing to discuss this with you.

---

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

Hi, Iano. I don't think so. The emphasis of this story is clearly on worldly possessions, rather than on adherance to law. Nor do I particularly accept that there is a clear reference to any law given here.I think these are things that you have read into the text based on external context to which the intended audience, the rich young ruler, was not privy.-----Your recounting of the story and the lesson it was meant to teach cast Jesus in the light of a humble, perfect teacher. As everyone knows, a teacher's effectiveness is dependent on context: it can only be gauged by how well the lesson is tailored to the student.So, what would the rich young ruler take from what Jesus said?The only thing the rich young ruler heard was "Keep the commandments, and you will have eternal life. Sell your possessions, and follow me, and you will have treasure in heaven."What do you think this meant to the rich man?
If this is the only thing you heard Jesus say (along with a few tidbits you overheard from the earlier verses about divorce and little children), what would be your reaction to this statement?
Would you conclude that man's works cannot contribute to his salvation?
Or would you conclude that you must keep the commandments, sell your possessions and travel with Jesus?If you really believe that Jesus was a perfect teacher, then I don't see how you could conclude anything else. Any other interpretation requires you to make a number of assumptions:

1. That the young ruler knew all about the law to which Jesus's "follow me" was a peripheral reference, and that "follow me" was a reference to said law.
2. That the young ruler sorrowed because he couldn't get himself into heaven, rather than because he would have to sacrifice all of his prized possessions.
3. That, when Jesus says, "keep the commandments, and you will get into heaven," He doesn't mean, "keep the commandments, and you will get into heaven," and that the young ruler was privy to that double-speak.

...none of which is founded on anything but a prior belief about what Jesus must have meant when He said what He said, and all of which are carefully crafted so that the interpretation that you want comes popping out of the story.Jesus didn't write the Bible, and His ministry certainly wasn't simply a string of object lessons for people in the future: He was teaching His doctrines to the rich young ruler, and you and I are third parties to it.What we must accept is not that this story is one piece in a grand puzzle meant for us to figure out 2000 years later, but that it was the entire puzzle for this rich young ruler.Otherwise, we must conclude that Jesus is a lousy teacher.----- It's a lot like salvation by grace, because we agree with you that man is not capable of earning his way to heaven on his own. There is a certain "quota" that is expected of us before God's saving grace will be applied to us.----- Well, we believe that "eternal life" refers only to the highest degree of glory. Everyone below that still experiences some degree of spiritual death. The full measure of God's glory is only experienced by those in the highest degree of glory (the "Celestial Kingdom" is what we call it).So, we tend to associate the lowest degree of glory (the "Telestial Kingdom") with Hell and damnation, although this is not doctrinally accurate.----- I'm actually not entirely clear on that. It has to do with major sins, such as the anti-Christ would be guilty of. Maybe Hitler. Darwin, too, if you ask some Mormons .Maybe Michamus could clear this up better, if he wants this thread to go into it.

---

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

Hi, Iano.I don't have the time nor have put in the required thought yet to answer you in entirety right now, but I want to respond briefly to three of your comments now: I'm still stuck on this part:

quote:

---

If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.

​

Matthew 19:17

---

Jesus seems to be clearly stating that obedience to the commandments plays a role in one's salvation. The rest of the story could only be considered a grace-alone story if it contained Jesus clearly going back on that statement.But, it seems problematic to have Jesus saying one thing, then going back on it, doesn't it?----- Well, the young ruler wasn't present for that portion of the story. In fact, he didn't hear anything Jesus said about how difficult it would be, because he had already gone away by then.----- It's just us overfixating on the pinnacle: since we don't aspire to reach the lower degrees, we tend to view them as undesirable, and, since everyone gets some degree, we would feel like essentially the losers if all we got was the lowest degree.But, our doctrine is that any degree of glory is infinitely better than this life.

---

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

Hi, ICANT. I have provided this quote at least four times now:

quote:

---

"Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"

​

"If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

​

--Matthew 19:16-17 (NIV)

---

I would much prefer not having to repeat myself again.----- I certainly didn't call belief a "work": I called it a contingency upon which salvation is decided. Your claim is that, because salvation is a gift, it should have no contingencies. Your own beliefs belie that.If there are no contingencies on salvation, then everybody is saved. Not just those who are baptized. Not just believers. Not just righteous or good people. Everyone. Absolutely everyone. Either that, or salvation is granted via arbitrary lottery, and still has nothing to do with believing in God.Edited by Bluejay, : I decided I should probably engage the greater point in this discussion.

---

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

Hi, Ochaye. This brings up a few important points:

1. You agree with my interpretation of this story
2. Iano's interpretation cannot be correct, because, at the time it was told, the Mosaic Law was still the rule.
3. How come works were appropriate before the Atonement, but not after? Were ancient men capable of greater righteousness than we are?
4. Are you proposing that Matthew 19 chronologically precedes Matthew 5? If not, how do you explain why Jesus taught the New Covenant in Matthew 5, then reverted to teaching the Old Covenant in Matthew 19?

-----Also, I was adding to Message 291 when you responded. I didn't change anything you responded to, though, but I wanted it on the record.Edited by Bluejay, : updated quote to match Ochaye's edited text.

---

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

Hi, Ochaye. You entirely missed the point.If it was possible for Old Testament people to work their way to heaven, why is it not possible for us now?-----Also, I guess you no longer want to talk about the anachronism.Personally, I wouldn't either, if I were you.

---

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

Hi, ICANT. So, Jesus didn't say that obeying the commandments lets you enter into eternal life, but into mortal life?
I’m quite certain that that is meaningless jibberish. I have heard more intelligible arguments from my two-year-old son.Here’s my assessment: you are so thoroughly offended by the possibility that Jesus might actually have been teaching the doctrines of the Mormon church that you would rather believe that He babbles idiotic, incoherent nonsense that sounds deceptively like Mormon doctrines instead.Are you really that intellectually dishonest that you have to make such obviously stupid arguments as this?Such intellectual dishonesty is a consistent pattern in your behavior on these forums from as long as I've been here, and I think this thread could do without that influence.----- First, a minor correction: I did not say belief is not a work. I said that I did not say that it was a work. Don’t get into the habit of over-interpreting my words.Second, do you know what "contingency" means?A contingency is a precondition. If you cannot be saved without belief, then salvation is contingent on belief. Since belief is a decision, an event in which the individual plays an active part, then salvation is partially contingent on man. That means that a man’s actions contribute to his salvation.The only remaining question is which actions contribute to a man’s salvation.And, based on a clear, direct interpretation of Matthew 19:17 that doesn’t rely on twisted, deceptive semantics, I maintain that Jesus teaches that obedience to the commandments is among those actions that contribute to a man’s salvation.From there, it is a pretty direct route to the Mormon belief that the Bible has many internal inconsistencies, and thus requires the assistance of the Book of Mormon to clarify the troublesome bits.

---

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

Hi, Iano. But, we can leap ahead and suppose that Jesus's direct statement, "If you want to enter life, keep the commandments," does mean that following the commandments plays at least a partial role in salvation.I don’t see that as a particularly large leap, either.I haven’t yet seen an argument that gives me an alternative explanation.But, that hardly matters. 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?Remember, to win this argument, I do not have to convince anybody here that salvation by works is a correct doctrine: I only have to show that it is based on the Bible. I feel that I have shown sufficient support for that.If we begin with Jesus’s statement in Matthew 19:17, and interpret the rest of the Bible in light of that, with the combined support of James 2:24 (...faith without works is dead...), Hebrews 5:8-9 (...salvation for all those who obey him...), and Philippians 2:12 (...work out your salvation...), what emerges is an entirely different doctrinal picture.That you and KBertsche can explain these things away with semantic riddles does not change the fact that an alternative interpretation is equally consistent with the writings of the Bible. The doctrine of salvation by works is supportable by the Bible, and that’s all that is being debated on this thread.----- No, that’s the real Hell.

---

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

Hi, Iano. Why does the statement, "If you want to enter life, keep the commandments" not fit this requirement?-----At any rate, the point of this thread isn't to show whether or not anything prevents your interpretation: it's about whether or not anything prevents my interpretation.If nothing prevents my interpretation, then we easily conclude that there is no evidence that the Book of Mormon message contradicts the biblical message, and that the primary argument of the prosecution in this thread has failed.

---

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

Hi, Ochaye. This is, indeed, the implication of your argument.

---

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