3

For proponents of Sola Scriptura, only the Bible is inspired and authoritative.

For Latter-day Saints, three additional books are inspired and authoritative too: the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price.

According to proponents of Sola Scriptura, are there any doctrines solidly grounded in rigorous biblical exegesis that are in direct logical contradiction to well-established LDS doctrines derived from their holy books?

To use an illustration, let's suppose that book A unambiguously teaches that "all cars are either yellow or blue". Let's suppose also that book B unambiguously teaches that "some cars are green". Then the logical contradiction becomes quite obvious: if book B claims that green cars exist, that logically contradicts the teaching from book A that cars can only be either yellow or blue.

According to proponents of Sola Scriptura, what would be illustrative examples of instances where:

  • we know the Bible unambiguously teaches doctrine X,
  • a LDS sacred book unambiguously teaches doctrine Y, and
  • doctrines X and Y cannot both be true (they lead to a logical contradiction)?

Note: when I say that I want examples of logical contradictions, I'm talking specifically about contradictions between the contents of the books. In other words, something that the Bible says (substantiated by quotation of specific verses) vs. something that a LDS holy book says (substantiated by quotation of specific verses). Thus, the contradiction would need to be grounded in accurate exegesis of the texts: the Bible says X based on exegesis of certain passages, a LDS book says Y based on exegesis of certain passages, and X and Y cannot both be true (logical contradiction).

Therefore, unless Sola Scriptura can be inferred exegetically from the Bible, it would be out-of-scope for this question to appeal to Sola Scriptura itself as an axiom that is contradicted by claims of new revelation by Latter-day Saints. As I said, I want contradictions that are grounded in exegesis of the texts, not in contradictions of a priori axioms which are not found in the texts.

That said, for those interested in the more fundamental debate on whether Sola Scriptura is a reasonable premise to hold, the following related questions may be of interest:

  • 1
    Sola scriptura doesn't seem to me to be a relevant scope for this question. Why not just say Trinitarians, or Protestants if you want to exclude the Deuterocanon for some reason? – curiousdannii Jan 29 '22 at 04:25
  • 3
    @curiousdannii - because Sola Scriptura advocates are presumably more specialized in basing their doctrines on biblical exegesis (which is of interest to my question). Scoping the question to Trinitarians in general may open the door to doctrines that may have some biblical basis, but are mostly based on tradition. –  Jan 29 '22 at 04:34
  • 1
    @curiousdannii - in other words, I would like people expert in biblical exegesis to answer this question, and I used Sola Scriptura as a proxy to achieve that goal. –  Jan 29 '22 at 04:43
  • 1
    there are several doctrines in Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price that are more unique/detailed than other scripture (Book of Mormon included) – depperm Jan 29 '22 at 15:06
  • 1
    It would probably be best if members of the LDS church (seeking to defend the doctrines of the Church) avoid this question and commenting on the merits of answers herein. – Peter Turner Jan 31 '22 at 17:42
  • @PeterTurner this question asks about the Book of Mormon, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price. LDS users are very likely the members of the site most familiar with these texts. What check is there in the system for accurate representation of these texts if the users who are experts on this topic are removed from the discussion? (true those defending these texts are not neutral, but neither are those criticizing them) Would you be more comfortable with LDS users responding in one or more parallel questions? – Hold To The Rod Jan 31 '22 at 20:39
  • @PeterTurner happy to discuss ^^ on Meta or Upper Room if that would be more appropriate – Hold To The Rod Jan 31 '22 at 20:46
  • @hold yeah - talking in Upperroom with depperm right now. – Peter Turner Jan 31 '22 at 21:22
  • @spirit because Sola Scriptura advocates are presumably more specialized in basing their doctrines on biblical exegesis, and, doctrines that may have some biblical basis but are mostly based on tradition. It was worth coming here just for that! – steveowen Jun 08 '22 at 04:56
  • I can think of one logical contradiction. The Bible is incredibly clear that the wicked will physically die (note that I am not saying "annihilated", only "die"). That is found cover to cover, in the first pages of the Bible where being banished from the Tree of Life meant Adam and Eve's inevitable demise, and in the last pages of the Bible where solely the righteous have access to the Tree of Life within the city. Also I think LDS believe we will be married in the next age, though Jesus makes it clear in Luke 20:34-36 that the children of God will not be married in the next world. – Rajesh Jun 09 '22 at 01:21
  • @Rajesh - feel free to expand on that in an answer, although HTTR will most likely reply with a rebuttal :-) –  Jun 09 '22 at 01:28
  • @SpiritRealmInvestigator "although HTTR will most likely reply with a rebuttal" If you think so. I wrote an answer regarding Luke 20:34-36 showing why it proves that we are not married in the next age several months ago. He's had several months to respond to it if he so wanted to, but he hasn't. He also hasn't responded to the many recent answers I've written supporting conditonalism. HTTR is incredibly smart, smarter than me no doubt, but no one is perfect nor unassailable. Anyway, it's not like he is obliged to respond to anything I say. I'm just some nobody on the internet. He has a life. – Rajesh Jun 09 '22 at 01:33
  • You need an expert in the bible AND the book of mormons to answer your question in detail. Or you could use Google to answer your question :) Here is my first find: https://mit.irr.org/contradictions-between-book-of-mormon-and-bible :) – Leonard Jun 09 '22 at 06:45
  • @Rajesh I think this a good example why I think this question hasn't really attracted many (in my opinion) good answers. I am very sceptical your point about the tree of life, (and many other doctrines, really) can be said to be "unambiguously" taught in the Bible. Even on their own, without reference to LDS scriptures at all. – kutschkem Jun 09 '22 at 11:09
  • @Leonard - go ahead and post an answer based on that link :-) –  Jun 09 '22 at 11:42
  • @kutschkem "I am very sceptical your point about the tree of life" Why? It's plainly true. God explicitly says that, in order to prevent the humans from eating of the tree of life and living forever, He kicked them out of the garden. If Adam and Eve had remained in the garden and eaten from the tree of life, they would have lived forever. And now in Revelation the tree of life appears again. And guess what? Only the righteous have access to it, therefore only the righteous will live forever. The tree of life is useless if the wicked can live forever just as fine without it. – Rajesh Jun 09 '22 at 13:37
  • @Rajesh - would you be willing to post an answer presenting that contradiction? I need to give the bounty to someone. –  Jun 09 '22 at 13:43
  • @Rajesh I can tell you exactly why. Corinthian 15:22 "plainly" teaches that all humankind will be resurrected. You seem to imply that is not the case. Revelation also teaches that the dead are raised, then judged. Then comes the second death which is not described as physical death at all, but being cast out in the lake of fire. The tree "plainly" symbolizes not immortality, but being unaffected by the second death as the first tree was symbolic for being unaffected from the "first" death. See how we have now two "unambiguous" interpretations that aren't unambiguous at all? – kutschkem Jun 09 '22 at 14:03
  • @kutschkem "Corinthian 15:22 "plainly" teaches that all humankind will be resurrected." Is the use of 1 Cor. 15:22 just an LDS thing? I've seen 4 LDS use this verse to prove that the unrighteous are resurrected. I agree that they will be resurrected, but because of Acts 24:15 and John 5:28-29, not 1 Cor. 15:22, which is clearly talking only about believers in Christ (see the very next verse, where Christ the firstfruits is resurrected first, then those who belong to Him ... No mention of unbelievers anywhere). "The tree plainly symbolizes... being unaffected by the second death." What? – Rajesh Jun 09 '22 at 14:28
  • Nowhere is that said about the tree of life. Also you realize that the tree of life in Revelation is the same as the one in Genesis, right? If you don't think so, you'll have to provide evidence why this is so. The most natural supposition is that the tree of life in paradise in Revelation is the same tree of life in paradise in Genesis, that is, that is means or symbolizes the same thing. Why would it mean something entirely different? And having the tree of life represents living forever; again, this is why God has to banish A&E from the garden, otherwise they would eat it and live forever. – Rajesh Jun 09 '22 at 14:32
  • @Rajesh Definitely an LDS thing. Not very mysterious though, it's simply because 1 Cor 15:22 it's one of the scriptures seminary students are encouraged to learn by heart, so that one comes easily to mind, while the other ones, despite maybe really being even better to make the point, don't as easily come to mind. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/new-testament-study-guide-for-home-study-seminary-students/100-scripture-mastery-passages?lang=eng – kutschkem Jun 09 '22 at 14:58
  • @kutschkem Oh, that's interesting to know. Thanks for that, I didn't know it before. But I don't think you should use 1 Cor. 15:22, since it is only talking about believers in Christ being "made alive" (resurrected). The following verse makes that clear. "Each in their own order", Christ then those who belong to Him at His coming; unbelievers are not in view here, since they are not mentioned. – Rajesh Jun 09 '22 at 15:11
  • @Rajesh I want to formulate a question regarding the tree of life in revelations, but for that I would like to know what you meant by "die" wrt. the unjust dying after resurrection: the resurrected body physically dying, leaving the spirit again disembodied? You said no annihilation. – kutschkem Jun 13 '22 at 07:10
  • @kutschkem Death is simply the cessation and privation of life. Death is not the same as annihilation, which is the act of causing something to permanently cease to exist. I do believe that the wicked will be annihilated, but that is not their punishment; their punishment is death, and annihilation is simply the means by which God inflicts the punishment of death on the wicked. And annihilation is not obliterating atoms from existence. It's permanently killing both body and soul/spirit (see Matthew 10:28), which happens at the second death. – Rajesh Jun 13 '22 at 13:59
  • @Rajesh Thanks, that helps to understand where you are coming from. – kutschkem Jun 13 '22 at 14:06
  • A quote from a chat with an LDS user has stuck with me for a while now, "Many Mormon doctrines fall apart when restricted solely to Biblical support.". – Mike Borden Jun 15 '22 at 11:30
  • @MikeBorden - you just inspired me to ask this question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/91585/50422 –  Jun 15 '22 at 11:37

3 Answers3

4

Keeping this brief, I'll just point out a couple of things. I'm a supporter of Sola Scriptura, Tota Scriptura (which is also called the plenary inspiration of Scripture) and in the divine preservation of Scripture. The Westminster Confession of Faith (written in 1646) states:

"The Old Testament in Hebrew... and the New Testament in Greek... being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical." (1.8)

Statements that are equivalent, if not identical, appear in the Savoy Declaration (1658), the Helvetic Consensus Formula (1675) and the London Baptist Confession (1689). The point in mentioning this is to flag up that whatever religious writings the Latter Day Saints came up with from the early 1800s onwards, many of their doctrines automatically clash with those Protestant statements of belief about divinely inspired and preserved Scripture stated 200 years earlier.

This means that the point of the argument of supporters of such Protestant declarations is that any religion coming along later to say "We have divinely-inspired holy scripture that adds to earlier divinely-inspired scripture", has already contradicted Sola Scriptura etc. Their very claim is a contradiction in terms!

Those who know what the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures say know that the final written word from God was that last book in the Bible, the Revelation of Jesus Christ, given in visionary and audible form to the elderly apostle John, before the end of the first century A.D. I am not going to trawl through a list of texts which show that. Anybody claiming to have divine revelation from God thereafter, which they say is equal to, or superior to, what is already in the Bible, must by definition contain some doctrines that absolutely clash with biblical doctrine. Upholders of Sola Scriptura know of examples of that with the LDS religion, but I for one am not going to spend a huge amount of my time detailing such contradictory doctrines.

My second, and fleeting point, is that many books written by LDS founders are swiftly relegated to non-inspired status when things in them that do contradict what the Bible states are pointed out. Yet the LDS religion continues to state in its articles of faith that the Bible is only inspired of God insofar as it has been correctly translated:

"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." Article of Faith No. 1.8

This then allows them to go by Joseph Smith's annotated version of the King James Bible. Helpfully (for them) Smith has noted what 'authentic' verses should have said. If they wish to take that approach to the Bible, they are free to do so, but they need not expect proponents of Sola Scriptura to pay heed to them, for the two groups stand in diametrical opposition, when it comes to many biblical doctrines.

I have already answered a related question over a year ago, What evidence does the LDS Church offer regarding claims of degradation of Biblical texts?

EDIT as requested: Additional example: The Jehovah of the Old Testament was created by the god Elohim and his wife as their firstborn spirit baby who later became the man, Jesus. But that's not in the Book of Mormon. And when quotes are made from the speeches / writings of the founding LDS members who taught it, denials come from LDS people. Then my second point is rolled out: “Oh, but those claims are of non-inspired status so it’s no use referring to them!” This may be viewed as a bit of a dodge by some, but this is what people can be up against when they point out an LDS belief that is in print, but which seems to directly contradict orthodoxly Christian, biblical doctrine. “This is not a doctrine!” comes the reply. It then turns into a futile argument which I have no intention of engaging in.

My already stated example (of LDS belief in needing extra-biblical literature and revelations) shows why those who believe in Sola Scriptura have problems with some LDS teachings / beliefs that are found in their extra-biblical literature, and why nobody can get anywhere trying to thrash that out. You asked for answers from believers in Sola Scriptura; let there now be another question asking for why LDS people reject Sola Scriptura. Readers can read both sides of the ‘case’ and weigh matters up for themselves.

Anne
  • 29,661
  • 1
  • 34
  • 116
  • 1
    @Anne - I edited the OP to add emphasis on my interest in concrete examples. I hope it doesn't invalidate your answer too much. –  Jan 31 '22 at 15:26
  • 1
    @Spirit Realm Investigator The example I have provided seems to be the elephant in the room, here. The LDS teaching stated in that Article of Faith 1.8 shows direct opposition to Sola Scriptura. Perhaps LDS people, who don't believe in Sola Scriptura, would dismiss that, yet the logical run-on question, "Why must we have additional, written revelation/doctrines?" might need the answer, "Because we have some doctrines that clash with orthodoxly Christian, biblical doctrine." I've already given an example but I’ll add a second one at the end of my answer. – Anne Feb 01 '22 at 11:50
  • 1
    Anne, I added a note at the end of my question about Sola Scriptura and the kind of contradictions I'm looking for. –  Feb 01 '22 at 14:03
  • 1
    @Spirit Realm Investigator You only added that list of what you are looking for 2 hours after I posted my edit. I protest! I am not here to form answers in accordance with the POs perception of what kind of answers are prefered. My two examples are relevant. If you or others disagree, do so and mark my answer down if you like, and certainly don't select it as your chosen answer, but I am not going to mold by answer around ever-changing parameters of a fluid question. – Anne Feb 01 '22 at 14:09
  • 1
    Then you need to read more carefully. My question asked from the very beginning are there any doctrines solidly grounded in rigorous biblical exegesis* that are in direct logical contradiction to well-established LDS doctrines derived from their holy books?* What is the rigorous biblical exegesis that substantiates Sola Scriptura? Can you quote specific verses? –  Feb 01 '22 at 14:14
  • 1
    @Spirit Realm Investigator Sola Scriptura is solidly grounded in rigorous biblical exegesis, so the LDS Article of Faith 1.8 is a direct contradiction of that. To now ask "what is the rigorous biblical exegesis that substantiates Sola Scriptura" is to ask a different Q to this one. It's as if the logical impasse my example raises has prompted you to demonstrate that very point by your additional 'requirements' and proposed examples. – Anne Feb 01 '22 at 14:22
  • "Sola Scriptura is solidly grounded in rigorous biblical exegesis" - Are you referring to this question: What is the Biblical Basis for Sola Scriptura? –  Feb 01 '22 at 14:26
  • 1
    @Spirit Realm Investigator Certainly not. That closed Q only had one non-answer of about 6 lines. If you want answers about Sola Scriptura in relation to LDS disbelief in that, I suggest you post a fresh Q. – Anne Feb 01 '22 at 14:52
  • 2
    Sola Scriptura is solidly grounded in rigorous biblical exegesis except for the fact that it excludes 7 books of Scriptura 😉 (But that won't get resolved here) – KorvinStarmast Feb 02 '22 at 21:02
1

In addition to Anne's in-depth answer, I'll give a specific and important difference between what the Scriptures teach and what the LDS texts teach.

On the topic of salvation, 2 Nephi 25:23 states that

For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do

Only "after all we can do" are we saved by grace, according to the LDS. But this is contrary to the Scriptures.

But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our wrongdoings, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the boundless riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Ephesians 2:4-9)

But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, since otherwise grace is no longer grace (Romans 11:6)

We see through the Scriptures that it doesn't depend on our works in the slightest, but the LDS holy text specifically requires our works. The Scriptures have our works coming as a result of our salvation, and not the other way around, which is contradicted in the LDS sacred books.

poorplanning
  • 186
  • 3
  • It would be interesting to know how Latter-day Saints interpret 2 Nephi 25:23. Do they believe in works-based salvation? Do they believe in Synergism? –  Feb 01 '22 at 14:10
  • Welcome to the site, and for your answer. It might be worth noting here that there is no obligation for anyone to respond to comments that try to get any kind of discussion or debate going, because that is not what this site is for. It would be up to LDS people to answer the Qs put to you in the comment above. I observe that you are not an LDS person. – Anne Feb 01 '22 at 14:58
  • 1
    related answer on how 2 Nephi 25:23 fits with bible – depperm Feb 02 '22 at 15:23
  • 3
    We see through the Scriptures that it doesn't depend on our works in the slightest Not strictly true. See James 2:26 – KorvinStarmast Feb 02 '22 at 21:03
1

It is difficult to answer this question on a theological basis, as proponents of Sola Scriptura may agree on Sola Scriptura yet disagree on many other issues, coming to a variety of different exegetical conclusions from the same Biblical text.

As discussed in other answers to this question (and the comments responding to them), even doctrines of grace or canon are not universally agreed upon by Christians whose sole source of scriptural authority is the Bible.

Arguments that a Book of Mormon (or D&C or PoGP) passage contradicts a Biblical passage lose their force if believers in Sola Scriptura themselves disagree on the meaning of said Biblical passage.

As such, rather than addressing this question via theology, I will focus on a matter of uncontroversial history.

--

Where was Jesus born

Micah 5:2, Matthew 2:1-6, and Luke 2:4-7 all agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. This is not controversial.

In Alma 7:10 (in the Book of Mormon) the prophet Alma, in prophesying about Jesus, states:

And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers

In discussing the place of Jesus' birth, the Biblical texts refer consistently to Bethlehem; the Book of Mormon refers to Jerusalem.

A Latter-day Saint response to this argument is available here.

Hold To The Rod
  • 12,999
  • 1
  • 12
  • 48