Does the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible?

So much so that the present day term for a good exercising of the body is a "work out".

Tentively raises a finger and points to the Calvinists (of which I am not one )My own view wouldn't agree with you either, believing as I do in the Bibles pointing to the relentlessly sinful nature of man which, if left to it's own devices would express it's will in one direction and one directon only, ie: contra God.Assuming man's nature to be as described above (not at all rare a view amongst Christians), salvation cannot be dependent on any act of the will of man - whether in thought or carried out unto deed. I mean, how can a being that can only do evil (were it not for Gods' restraint) contribute to his own salvation and foil the notion of salvation by grace alone?- Therein lies a rather big clue leading one to conclude salvation by grace alone.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

That's not the NT. That's a verse from the NT. But seeing as we're slinging verses around, there's this other verse from the NT

quote:

---

1 Thess: 2We always thank God for all of you, mentioning you in our prayers. 3We continually remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.

---

If godly faith produces work then what can we conclude about faith that doesn't produce work. Might we conclude as James concludes? That such a faith is actually dead? Ungodly? Useless?Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I'm aware of that, and agree there are many verses which say such a thing. That's one conclusion you could arrive at - a kind of skimming the surface, simplistic conclusion. If you were to add an obvious piece of information to the pot however, a piece of information that everyone has at their disposal, then you'd quickly arrive at the opposite conclusion.C'mon Bluejay, you're a sinner, you're smart. It shouldn't be that difficult.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I'd refine your(my) first point to read: man could get to heaven if he followed all of the law (and all the nuances of all of the law) all of the time. The rest is spot on. Which leads a person to but one conclusion whenever they read verses demanding work for heaven (assuming they're not also reading from the Book of Mormo)n:"Yikes!! In that case I'm hell-bound - for I cannot keep all of the law (and all the nuances of the law), all of the time*!!- Additional rewards? If an aspect of salvation is by grace, it cannot be given as reward. A reward being something earned. Surely?Could you also clarify something, seeing as we mean different things by 'salvation'. What benefits accrue to the man who is saved by the grace element alone in Mormonism? And do all men receive this?- Here are the verses concerned. Can we take a look at them with a view to Jesus teaching as I'm arguing he/Paul et al teach?: God sets man an impossible task in order that man sees the task as impossible? Because the story of the Rich Young Ruler is an excellent example of same.

quote:

---

Matthew 19:16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"

---

The issue is clear: eternal life and what a person has to do to obtain it. There is no reliance on grace, only reliance on self. "What must I do.."

quote:

---

17"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

---

So far so straightforward: obeying the law is the work required.

quote:

---

18"Which ones?" the man inquired.

​

Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'"

​

20"All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"

---

Clearly this man hasn't followed these commandments. Jesus has told us elsewhere that anger equates to murder and lust with adultery. He has, in other words, expanded on the meaning of the law to the nth degree - so much so that no one can say they obey the law. This man, like every man, is guilty of breaking that expanded law.Rather than embark on a lesson in the expanded law, Jesus engages in a lesson in the condensed law. All 'the law and the prophets' is summed up in but two 'golden rules'. Given this mans obvious-to-Jesus idol (wealth, riches, luxurious life, fine eating/dining), Jesus shoots the fish in a barrel.

quote:

---

21Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect*, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

---

The man has asked what he lacks, Jesus tells him what that is. He needs to be perfect(*all of the (condensed) law, all of the time). All it will take for this particular man to achieve perfection is: obey the first golden rule.This man needs to love God: in a right here/right now kind of way. I can't imagine the kind of life Jesus was leading and the kind of people Jesus was hanging with made that demand a simple one to follow for this young ruler. Imagine the smell, the lack of a comfortable bed, the dregs that Jesus hung out with, the lack of servants, the lack of freshly washed bedlinen, the lack, the lack..

quote:

---

22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

---

Is it any wonder? Hopefully at some point he realised.. Which is why Jesus picked this particular issue in this particular case. He could do the same for anyone who supposes eternal life to be obtainable by what they do. The detail may differ depending on the person, but everyone's got gods they don't want to give up.

quote:

---

23Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to (self)enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to (self)enter the kingdom of God."

---

Given the context of Jesus' lesson and the question asked by the rich young ruler, I've entered 'self' in the appropriate places above.

quote:

---

25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?"

​

26Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but
with God all things are possible."

---

Again the context is self-salvation: for man, impossible. For God, possible. Thus God's grace, and not man's works. That was the question asked. That was Jesus' response. He doesn't tell us anything about God's way of salvation. He does tell us that mans way is futile.That was the lesson.

quote:

---

27Peter answered him, "We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?"

​

28Jesus 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. 29And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother[f] or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.

---

The argument here would be that the disciples are already saved men, If so, their saving faith inevitably produces work - in this case following the golden rule. In their following Jesus.Their 'work' is a consequence of their having been saved, not a cause of their being saved.- Hopefully this contextual analysis, with an emphasis on the opening line "what must I do..." will give cause for re-assessment.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

It is this: we're all sinners and can't keep the law. Even atheists are capable of appreciating this (even if they don't believe in God, sin, The Law). If the demand on us is "keep the law and you will be saved" then even the dumbest of us is capable of concluding:"in that case I am lost"The rest of the road to salvation follows naturally from there. I mean: what is a man, who is convinced he is not capable of doing what it takes to achieve salvation, likely to do on reaching that same conviction?If not fall to his knees I mean?Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

We can take a look at the case of the disciples in a minute, but we should not skip past the lesson issued to the rich young ruler - which lends a context to Jesus' dealing with the disciples.Remembering also, the spirit in which my original case was made:

quote:

---

Here are the verses concerned. Can we take a look at them with a view to Jesus teaching as I'm arguing he/Paul et al teach?: God sets man an impossible task in order that man sees the task as impossible? Because the story of the Rich Young Ruler is an excellent example of same.

---

Are we agreed that the man is looking to see how he can achieve eternal life for himself by what he does? And that the means whereby he is examined has to do with 'adherance to God's law' - initially against the classic, Mosaic sense of the law? And that Jesus confounds (intentionally, one must conclude) the mans attempt to achieve eternal life so by asking him to follow the law of God as further expounded on by Jesus (golden rules) - but which is Gods law nonetheless?If the text stopped at that point, I believe we could conclude that the premise suggested by me is well supported by this passage.-Having another look at your contention: This analysis takes no account of the information that went before. We have a particular lesson to apply here and it has something to do with Jesus' confounding of one who seeks to work for eternal life. I doubt you'd suppose Jesus accidently happening to finger 'giving up wealth' in the case of a rich young ruler. We should suppose he was intending to cause this man to stumble and fall on the issue of self-earning of eternal life.Assuming you agree with the lesson Jesus was teaching this rich young ruler, my insertion of 'self' is, I think, an acceptable emphasis to place on his conclusion below. A conclusion which states the impossibility of earning eternal life oneself.

quote:

---

23Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to (self)enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to (self)enter the kingdom of God."

---

-And so to your contention: The rich young ruler came looking for eternal life by own effort - and he left stumped. That is: with man impossible.There is no indication that the disciples followership was sourced in such self-reliant motivation. Indeed, we know that Jesus turned up and simply called them and they followed. We know also that when asked by him would they leave him that they acknowledge that they couldn't: he had the words of eternal life.There is a contrast to be drawn here:Rich young ruler > what must I do/work at > Impossible with man
Disciples > we cannot do, we rely on Jesus > Possible with God- I feel I've given a step by step breakdown of happenings, with reasonable in-context conclusions attaching to those steps - over the whole passage. Would you like to pose an alternative, step-by-step viewpoint along those lines?- Deceptive? Jesus is speaking but frankly. This rich young ruler asked a straight question and Jesus gave him a straight answer.Q: "What work must I do..? What standard must I reach ... if I want to earn eternal life?"A: "This is the work must you do... this is the standard you must reach - if you want to earn eternal life for yourself"It's worth noting the complete absence, anywhere in scripture, of Jesus saying or implying himself as saying that a persons trying their best to follow the law will suffice for a self-earned salvation? He is remorselessly insistant that it be all of the law, all of the time: Jesus isn't at all deceptive, Bluejay. He speaks in parable often, and in riddles that have his own disciples wondering. He very often doesn't answer the question asked sometimes and at other times, such as this time, does so with laser precision. There can be little doubt about his message here when it comes to a man achieving eternal life through own effort, which comes through adherance to Gods law.With man it's impossibleSeeing that that's all a man needs to be convinced of in order to gain eternal life (according the the gospel of grace), what better message should Jesus concern himself with delivering if not:With man it's impossible.- Gotcha. It's a little like salvation by grace. Works are important in terms of heavenly reward (or degrees of glory if you like). It's just that they don't earn you eternal life/heaven in the first place.What is the basis for the few exceptions not gaining heaven btw?Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Interjecting here.You said in response to my query that effectively (nigh on) all men will be saved (in the sense of going to heaven) but that heaven is a case of degrees of bliss, the degree depending on the work a man does.This primary salvation isn't contingent on a mans work I take it?

Fair enough. I'm supposing this lesson tailored to precisely this student (although we can all learn from it - the vehicle of wealth being replaceable by many others)- (Leaving aside discussion on whether Jesus implied "keep the commandments and you will have eternal life") I'd say the message the rich young ruler heard was:"You ask me what you have to do to get eternal life? Well, you've followed the commandments: so far so good. All that's left for you to do is.."- Not at all! I'd continue along in the belief I was raised in; that my works established my righteousness before God and that eternal life depended on them. All that Jesus tidbits, and all his specific demands of me would achieve is to raise the height of the bar I already thought I had to jump over.- It's not necessary that the young ruler knew whether or not this is the law of God. All he had to know was that it was a requirement he had to follow, delivered by someone he felt was in a position to demand it of him. He perceived it as a work he had to do - in the context of a question he himself had asked.- Hmm. I'd warrant the context supports the cause of his sadness - which happens to coincide with Jesus looking at him and telling him that it's camel-through-a-needle hard for him. Which is another way of saying, as Jesus said, that it's impossible - for a man.- The issue is the conclusion the ruler forms in his own mind. If it's the conclusion Jesus' wants to be formed there, then Jesus' teaching mission is accomplished. Agreed?I'm assuming that the sadness in this man arises from his recognising his being unable to give up his wealth (and not sadness because he intends to and is "missing it already"). If so, then Jesus is the one who has formed that mans conclusion about himself:"I've asked and I've been answered. I conclude that I can't do that which is required to inherit eternal life"I see no particular external assumptions used in the formulation of the above view (bar the basis of the rulers sadness). So we can say that our respective views rely on the basis of the mans sadness.- The conclusion "I'm not capable of doing what's necessary to inherit eternal life" is the only lesson this young ruler need take away with him - according to the mechanism of salvation by grace. Salvation by grace can work with a lesson thus implanted.- We appear to mean different things by salvation by grace also .If the canyon between salvation or no is 1000 miles wide and God bridges 999.99 of them by his own grace and we work for the rest (our quota being 0.1 mile) then it's salvation by works through and through. In my (good) book: salvation by grace means man contributes nothing to his salvation by way of work.(Thank God btw. I've been going around telling anyone who'll listen (and many who won't) that 'every world Religion and major cult (sorry) has works as the basis of it's salvation'. You nearly runed my credibility there )- But degrees of glory sounded like nice things (even if in different degrees of niceness). Is Hell nice?- The Mother of All Mortal Sins you mean But fair enough: too much a sidetrack to worry about. Core essential is that: all will be saved in degree. All it'll be good, to greater or lesser degree.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

The Mormon and the RC rely on works. The Calvinist not at all. (the Calvinist relie on a celestial lotto )Edited by iano, : No reason given.

What they say is about all I've to go on. Their doctrine precludes their working for salvation: so they're either- believing Calvinist doctrine and working for some other reason (Calvinists who call themselves Calvinists)- don't believe Calvinist doctrine and are working for their salvation (not-Calvinists calling themselves Calvinist)Like, how can you be a Calvinist and not believe Calvinism?

The same could be said of people from all denominations.- Again, I only know them by what they say and in the main they seem alright - their doctrine not necessarily deflecting them from the grace they consider themselves to be subject of.That said, I've heard/debated some on the likes of CARM and would agree the theology an appalling one - and the triumphalism of some of those who consider them 'the predestined elect" appallinging. A decision for Christ? Sounds like a choice to me. A work in other words. Why, why, you... unreformed Roman Catholic you..

My point was that: ..there are non-Christians in all demoninations(sic), not just non-Christians in the Calvinist denomination.My own view is that people are saved by Gods grace alone, not by the particular doctrine they happen cleave too. Were it we were saved by doctrine alone.And so there will be, I believe, saved people from amongst the Calvinist persuasion, the Arminian, the Mormon, the Muslim. I'm sure even the atheists will be represented amongst the saved; Matthew 25's somewhat surprised-to-be-there sheep probably making up their number.- You mean Bluejay? I've always found him a reasonable enough debater and not one easy to push into a corner. But them darn Catholiks..

When you say "all a person has to do" you leave yourself open to that charge. But it's not one that can stick too well- Let's examine what common sense tells us about believing. Something else causes belief about it to arise up in you. You enter a state of belief about something on account of the effect of that something on you. If that something doesn't work on you then you will not believe, regarding it. The italicised puts it quite nicely. If God convinces man, man believes. No work involved on mans part, he can sit back and relax in the matter.

A 'solution' to there being non-Christians in not just the Calvin denomination but in all other denominations?I'm not sure a solution is required .. but you seem to be asking me to push the button on this?

quote:

---

There are very few people who would say that X, and Y, are not evangelical Christians (substitute names of any two well-known Calvinist preachers for X and Y). Try it, and see what happens.

---

Let X = Martyn Lloyd Jones and Y = John Calvin(stands back expectantly).