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:
- What is the Biblical Basis for Sola Scriptura?
- What is the basis for the claim that "we have the completed revelation from God in the Bible"?
- What is the basis of my fractured understanding of "Sola Scriptura"?
- What is the basis for not believing sola scriptura?
- How do continuationists respond to the 'closed canon' argument against the continuation of special revelations and sign gifts?
- Do all Christian views need to have a Biblical basis?
- What is the difference between special revelation and (biblical) inspiration?
- What is the difference between Sola Scriptura and the belief in a closed canon?