Does the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible?

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.

We have a man who either:- figures the bar is set to high for him to clear it, or...- is saddened by being offered the very best investment proposal he could ever hope to make. Eternal life in exhange for temporal loss of wealth: who'da thunk that'd make someone sad.But if you insist then certainly, either is 'possible' at this point.- Certainly the lesson to the disciples will have to connect to what has gone before. At this point, we're not sure what the nature of the rulers inner conflict is (of the above options).- This jumps ahead of things a little - although it might suffice for me to say that that this idea has potential. But let's leave that aside until the stories chronology permits fuller inclusion of the disciples view. At this point we have the ruler depart and Christ making a proclamation:Jesus makes his 'camels & eye of a needle' comment which is contextually referencing what has just occurred (rich men seeking to work for eternal life). Assuming you agree that his comment does indeed indicate an impossiblity (like: whoever heard of a camel going through the eye of a needle) we have two potential conclusions to available:- we can suppose the ruler found it impossible (and not just undesirable) to do the work required for eternal life. The rulers question/answer/reaction would be illustrating Jesus' concluding proclamation "with man impossible". This view provides storytelling continuity: Jesus teaches the ruler as an individual then universalises that same lesson by way of universal proclamation of sameOR- we can suppose the ruler found it undesirable (but possible) to do the work set for him leading to eternal life. This would mean Jesus' deceived the ruler in setting a 'possible' works goal for salvation (no other assumptions being imported into the rulers lesson, thus no other information available to the ruler during his lesson) but then, when the ruler had departed, proclaiming that this palmed-off-as-possible demand wasn't actually possible and that (you conclude later) something else is required. We're neither of us supposing Jesus to have deceived the ruler, I take it?Could I seek your view on these options before proceeding: limited as indicated, to the lesson as the ruler understood it - in the light of Jesus' proclamation ? In the meantime, I'll make some roundabout comments on the remainder of your post.- 1) You lack continuity. Jesus' statement: "it is impossible for man" is not connected to anything in the story suggested by you as un-doable (see your quote at the top of the page). Thus we have a standalone piece of doctrine without any contextual connection.2) Whilst the case of the rulers potential motivation for following is clear: works for salvation, the disciples motivation for following isn't stated in any way. One person can marry for money and another for love. That we observe two different people occppying the same status (ie: they are married) doesn't say anything about the basis of the marriage. Similarily, you cannot presume the disciples following as work-contributing-to-salvation without inserting something into the story. We could as easily insert something else into the story and render their work the result of their already having been saved, ie: saving faith has produced the following work - not them trying to salvation by doing work.-One last point to emphasis the above point: One of those isn't Jesus' statement to the disciples. "If you leave.." was a conditional statement made to the rich young ruler who came looking to save himself: "IF work THEN eternal life". The conditionality of the statement fits the question asked.The statement made by Jesus to the disciples is subtly different. It's not a conditional statement, it's descriptional statement.

quote:

---

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 or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.

---

Salvation is argued elsewhere to produce work in the faithful (eg:"...it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good pleasure"). In that case, work would a marker of the saved person, a consequence of their having been saved - not a contributing cause of their having been saved.Thus, a descriptional statement regarding a persons works can as easily be interpreted consequential as it can be interpreted causal. Neither of us may introduce our doctrine into the story to push it this way or that and so we need to look elsewhere for resolution of the point: causal or consequential*The disciples followed alright. But why is that? The descriptional/conditional differentiation helps make the above distinction clearer. But even an IF/THEN statment regarding works can be interpreted as works > consequential and not works > causal- I've the feeling that you skip around a bit and jump to conclusions without moving step by step through the story. For example above, you skip past Jesus proclamation and the context for doing so and move straight to the disciples reaction and Jesus response.I think we're still moving forward however. Perhaps if we can keep unpaking & resolving dilemmas (like Jesus currently deceiving the ruler, apparently) then we'll arrive at an agreed position (perhaps stalemate) Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

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.

Haw, I'm starting to get attached to this analogy.Maybe there's a big sign out in front of the Grace-Alone store that says "No faith, no works, no service."And the people coming in pretty much had faith, often up to their knees and with big jingly spurs on the side. But they kept showing up without their works on! They were like "Uh, don't these overalls count?"So finally the proprietors had to stick up another sign, very attractive with pictures of big mesas and angry fully-clad Native Americans on it getting ready for a scalping, which said "Sorry folks, seriously, if you come in here without any works we are just going to have to ask you to leave. Signed, MR MORONI (the Manager)"

Given the lengths people go to to hang on to life and delay it's tendency towards decay, I'm not so sure it's other than cut and dried. Posed with the option, "which would you like: the comforts of wealth for a short period or eternal life" I think most people would plump for the latter.If considering it possible for themselves to do it.- I do - but it appears to be relevant to a later point, the point about reading X(works) as a marker of Y(salvation) rather than doing X(works) to get Y(salvation). I'm not sure how that objection fits in here but will read on.-Because chronology is important to our reasoning, I've re-arranged your post to deal with things in chronological order. I agree the young ruler is has a more-than-mere-philosophical interest in the answer to his question. But that doesn't alter the plain intent of it and the works-for-salvation perspective under which he labours.We cannot suppose there is 'more to it than just X' because we are not permitted to import our conclusions into the story in order to arrive at our conclusions. We have a one dimensional question and an equally one dimensional answer to that question: works for salvation - what's necessary? Then the ruler walks away. If there is more to it than can be gleaned from the lesson given to the ruler - without importing notions - then Jesus is being deceptive in regard to the ruler.We must come to a conclusion about this issue before going on to deal with the further lesson involving the disciples I feel. Loose ends here are creating looseness in discussion later because both of us are basing our subsequent arguments on different conclusions drawn here.-The only way Jesus could be considered not to be deceiving the ruler is in the case where the lesson given contains an answer to the rulers question. And the only available option available (that I can think of) is1) the ruler believes "with me impossible"If the ruler walks away believing it's possible for him to work - but difficult - then Jesus has deceived him on the basis of his subsequent comment "with man impossible". Options that speculate on the ruler perhaps walking away prior to delivery of the full lesson - and such like, would be importing things into the story in order to render Jesus not deceiving. That isn't permissible we have agreed.I'll leave aside the issue of the disciples lesson in order that we can perhaps agree on what conclusion the ruler drew before moving on? His conclusion informs later analysis.- Firstly, I'm not interpreting it as a descriptional statement. It is a descriptional statement - lacking as it does conditional words I merely pick on this one to show how even an IF/THEN statement can be seen as descriptional (in reverse to the way you can potentially see this descriptional statement as implying IF/THENGiven that we haven't concluded the basis for salvation (the point of our discussion) we cannot decide a priori that blue shirts aren't the reason folk get ice-cream. My point is to stalemate your position for the moment - not to advance mine.- We don't know why Peter follows so cannot comment on whether works a cause or works a consequence. That's a nice way of putting it though: "a cause (or consequence) statement extrapolated to principle".Hopefully you can get to agreeing that "with me impossible" in the case of the ruler is a persons personal conclusion extrapolated by Jesus into universal principle by his "with man impossible" statement. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

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.

Working through your post chronologically:
- You are correct. But permit me a second bite at the cherry.The ruler asks: 'what do I need to do to inherit eternal life' and is told he must perform certain work. Jesus confirms that he shall be given eternal life if he does these works. There is no need to include details of other, non-works elements involved in this mans salvation because:a) any other element is useless to this ruler unless the required work is carried out. In answering the question "what must I do", Jesus tells us it must be done (if works are indeed involved in salvation).b) any other element involved must be applied if this work is performed - in order that Jesus' confirmation to the ruler be true.Which renders 'any other element' not=grace. For grace isn't a conditional thing dependent on what we do. The problem of Jesus confirming works-shall-result-in-salvation, extends downwards through the passage. The rulers two possible conclusions regarding this lesson were, we recall:1) "I cannot do this".2) "I can do this".The first option leads us salvation by grace alone. The second option leads us to salvation by works apart from grace (indicated by b) above)Then there is Jesus 'Camel & Needles' proclamation which precludes the ruler correctly arriving at conclusion 2).Could you comment thus far?- Which is why I'm trying to focus on resolving the first half of the story."Who then can be saved" is a question arising out of Jesus "Camels & Needles" statement. And that statement arises directly out of his dealing with the rich young ruler. The nature of the second lesson is tied up with the first and we really need to arrive at conclusion about the first in order to be informed about the nature of the second.- "With man this is impossible".'This' indeed refers to salvation. But 'with man' can only refer to a-man-by-his-works/effort/input because that is the only thing a man can contribute to the 'with' part of the sentence. And so we read "With man by his works impossible".We cannot forget either "who then can be saved" is the astonished response of the disciples to Jesus "Camels & Needles" proclamation so "with man impossible" connects back to whatever is going on there (as mentioned already)- Granted. We might agree then that descriptional-sounding statements can be conditional in fact. And that conditional-sounding statements can be descriptional in fact. Which means we must look elsewhere for our conclusions regarding what Jesus means at the end of this passage.- I would imagine Peter to have thought his following a work at this point time. Which doesn't mean it was. Consider for a moment that my case "I cannot do this" above was established and is applied to this part of the passage.

quote:

---

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

​

27Peter answered him, "We have left everything to follow you!..."

---

1) with man impossible - man cannot do the work required.2) yet Peter is doing the work required.3) with God possible, ie: Peter is doing because God is empowering (whether Peter is aware of this or not)4) The rest of the passage is descriptional.Which is why I'm interested in dealing with what the rich young ruler must conclude.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.