Does the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible?

Hi Bluejay, No it doesn't, You gave no reason for them to receive the ice cream.You only said they get ice cream.You are equating your statement with you will receive ice cream "If you have blonde-hair".The Bible plainly states if you believe on Jesus you will not be condemned. I take that to mean you have eternal life, a present posession.The Bible plainly states if you do not believe on Jesus you are already condemned. I take that to mean you have eternal death, a present posession. This verse also gives the only reason a person is condemned already to the lake of fire."because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God".It says nothing about church membership, baptism, good works, keeping the faith or anything else. Simply none belief.I understand the word belief there to mean. Believing that God is and He will honor His Word to save all who trust Him and receive His gift to mankind. Dictionary definition of gift.Gift = 1. Something that is bestowed voluntarily and without compensation SourceA legal definition of gift from a legal dictionary. SourcePlease explain how God could give me the "gift" of eternal life then require me to do something in order to receive said eternal life and it still remain a gift.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."

Tricked by the Devil? So what was Paul, when he wrote that even the angels did not know who are the elect? And also:'I do not even judge myself. My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts.' 1 Co 4:3-5 NIVAny who make much of their own Christianity, historic or present, Catholics, Calvinists, Mormons, are not Christians. One can know too much.

Sure.

It's kind of funny that you missed his whole point.His statement that you have been tricked by the devil branches even into your understanding of scripture. Kind of takes the fun out of it, but it takes the point right home.Religion and Textual interpretation all comes down to personal bias. If you want Grace only salvation, you can skew scriptural interpretation, and equivocate in such a fashion that it becomes "scripture based".This same rule applies to all "interpretations" of the Bible, and "the Devil has tricked you" or "You're not looking hard enough" is always the defense utilized when an opposing interpretation is suggested.The fact that you didn't get it just shows how self absorbed you are in your beliefs.

quote:

---

Textual interpretation all comes down to personal bias.

---

So is Mormonism merely personal bias? Many non-Mormons would agree, if so.

Why are you dodging this question? Faith vs Works vs Some Other Method isn't a new debate, it goes back as far as Paul and James at least. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly, but you don't seem willing to support your answer. You won't reconcile the scriptures that have been quoted for you, you won't quote scriptures of your own, you just assert baldly that everyone knows something they obviously don't know, or they wouldn't have been arguing about it for thousands of years, would they?This sort of conflict is exactly why it seems logical to some folks that any decent God would clear up such confusions, perhaps by producing yet another testament along the lines of the Book of Mormon. Yeah, I'm a sinner, so what? So were Paul and James.Erasmus and Origen were both wicked heretics, but you wouldn't have the provincial doctrines you assert "everyone knows" if they hadn't done all the legwork for the more conservative theologians that followed them.Argue the points, not the persons.

quote:

---

Faith vs Works

---

What does one believe in to be saved?

Salvation, to start with. That you don't have it, that you need it, that you can get it.Then secondly, a method of salvation, a process. These differ from church to church, but can loosely be split into two groups, and qualified as real or imaginary.If you believe that salvation is something that only involves the world inside you (i e is imaginary) then it follows that you can get it simply by believing things. These tend to consist of tenets, often organized into a creed and/or expressed as a prayer.On the other hand, if you believe that salvation in some sense involves the world outside you (i e is real) then it follows that in order to get it you are going to have to actually do something!So, which is it? Is your faith real? (alive)In which case, it's going to necessarily include works.Or, is your faith imaginary? (DEAD)

quote:

---

Then secondly, a method of salvation, a process. These differ from church to church, but can loosely be split into two groups, and qualified as real or imaginary.

---

Which group does the Mormon belief fall into?

Nope, no more pointy questions from you until you answer all the questions you've been asked.I swear, I could write a bot that would do this whole trick for you, you wouldn't have to type at all. A begging-the-question bot.Look, you don't contradict the Bible, do you? (How could you if you don't make any clear assertions?) So then, what do we need you for?* Socrates is in hell right now, praying for icewater.He isn't being coy about it either, saying "What might be, a liquid substance, that you might give me, that could quench my thirst?"He's going PLEASE PLEASE GOD GIMME SOME MOTHERFUCKING WATER PLEASE !!!But, he still doesn't get any ...

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.

ROFL. You still don't get it. Every religion agrees on the same thing, that all other religions are based on "Personal Bias toward scripture interpretation".I just took one step further back than the age old, "you're wrong because I'm right" fallacy.What's funny is every post you have made so far demonstrates this personal bias toward the one interpretation you want it to be... yet you don't see it yourself.No worries though ochaye, because you fit right in with all religious folk.

quote:

---

Every religion agrees on the same thing, that all other religions are based on "Personal Bias toward scripture interpretation".

---

So Mormons agree with everyone else that there is no factual basis behind anything that they, Mormons, believe.Goodnight, Mormons, in your mist of guesswork, your endless search for nothing at all. Travel on, hoping never to arrive.What a farce, really.

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.

Goodnight, Ochaye, in your mist of guesswork, your endless search for nothing at all. Travel on, hoping never to arrive.