According to proponents of Sola Scriptura, what are examples of logical contradictions between doctrines from the Bible and LDS sacred books?

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: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/1332/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/91337/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/2/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/1334/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/85908/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/3096/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89281/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89378/50422