Why was Muhammad Wrong?

[Steve Noel]

Muhammad of Mecca said that the angel Gabriel appeared to him and gave him revelations from God over a 23 year period. These revelations were collected and published as the Qur'an. According to these revelations Jesus was not God, nor the Son of God, but only a prophet of God. According to these revelations Jesus was not the Savior of the world. According to these revelations Jesus did not atone for the sins of the world.

On what basis do Latter-day Saints reject this alleged revelation from God through his alleged prophet Muhammad?

[tesuji]

We have faith that the Bible account is true.

 

 

[bytebear]

I found this article.  Might be an interesting read to get started on the topic.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2000/08/a-latter-day-saint-perspective-on-muhammad?lang=eng

 

[Jane_Doe]

In short, these messages were not from God.

[NeuroTypical]

24 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

On what basis do Latter-day Saints reject this alleged revelation from God through his alleged prophet Muhammad?

On the basis of my testimony, wherein the Holy Ghost manifested to me the truthfulness of the BoM, which testifies (along with the Bible), that Jesus is indeed the Son of God and our Savior.

[LeSellers]

1 hour ago, Steve Noel said:

On what basis do Latter-day Saints reject this alleged revelation from God through his alleged prophet Muhammad?

One wonders why you ask the question.

There is no reason to accept Mohamet as a prophet of God precisely because he discounted Jesus as the Son of God, rejected the House of Israel as the chosen people of God, and a host of other reasons.

And, as NeuroTypical says, we have a testimony of the Restoration, and it does not include Mohamet.

Lehi

[Guest MormonGator]

26 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

One wonders why you ask the question.

 

It's a perfectly fair question. 

On first glance, LDS and Muslims have a lot in common. Both are religions founded by prophets. Both claim to have received holy books of divine origin. Socially, we both abstain from extra-martial sex, alcohol, etc. 

Now, LeSellers is correct. There are many reasons why Mohammed is not considered a prophet in the LDS world. He didn't accept Jesus Christ-and that's the big one. LDS do accept Christ 100%. There is also the Israel reason and many more. 

[LeSellers]

Just now, MormonGator said:

On first glance, LDS and Muslims have a lot in common. Both are religions founded by prophets. Both claim to have received holy books of divine origin. Socially, we both abstain from extra-martial sex, alcohol, etc. 

Only on the unexplored first glance.

Actually, Protestant Christianity has much in common with Islam: both rely on (a) dead prophet(s) and his/their words in a book that must be interpreted by the learned. Both reject any possibility of additional prophets. Both have fou… well we can leave it there.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

9 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

40 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

One wonders why you ask the question [How can LDSs reject Mohamet?].

It's a perfectly fair question.

Perhaps, but the reason for asking is also a reasonable inquiry.

Lehi

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Perhaps, but the reason for asking is also a reasonable inquiry.

Lehi

So were his questions. Both are reasonable. When you don't know much about Mormonism you are bound to ask questions lifelong LDS may find silly or "unreasonable". Remember, you might ask questions about HIS faith that he finds silly or unreasonable. 

[LeSellers]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

So were his questions. Both are reasonable. When you don't know much about Mormonism you are bound to ask questions lifelong LDS may find silly or "unreasonable". Remember, you might ask questions about HIS faith that he finds silly or unreasonable. 

I didn't say his question was unreasonable or silly. I just asked him why he asked.

The implication of his question (or at least of questions like it that I/we have seen in the past) is that Joseph Smith was delusional, like Mohamet (or that Joseph was like Mohamet in other ways, none of which is even neutral, much less laudatory) or that we are as deluded as Muslims.

Lehi

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

I didn't say his question was unreasonable or silly. I just asked him why he asked.

Right, you said "One wonders why he asked the question" implying it was silly or unreasonable.  

Remember-I was agreeing with everything else you said. 

I didn't read the implication of his question like that at all. I think it was just a normal question. 

Edited May 2, 2016 by MormonGator

[LeSellers]

22 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Right, you said "One wonders why he asked the question" implying it was silly or unreasonable.  

I didn't read the implication of his question like that at all. I think it was just a normal question. 

It may be that I inferred those concepts, but I have seen this same question (in almost exactly the same words) many times in the past, and the person asking was almost never asking it innocently, and almost never did the question arise in his own mind.

Color me jaded, but when I see it, it always reminds me of the class that must be in many seminaries, taught from The Little Green Book of "How to Witness to Mormons".

If I'm wrong, I apologize. But it does get wearisome answering the same groundless questions again and again.

Even so, I'd still like to know why @Steve Noelasked. This is a reasonable question, irrespective of anything I read into his.

Lehi

Edited May 2, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest]

@Steve Noel,

I answered this in the angels thread.  But I'll repeat it here for more clarity.

First, I'd reiterated what @NeuroTypical said.  We have revelation form the Holy Ghost which testifies of these things to us.

Second, it would be understandable that you do not accept that since you yourself have no such witness.  So, what you're really asking is,"How can an outsider see that Mormons are any different than Muslims in regard to their claims of a post-biblical prophet and a purported new volume of scripture?

Well, first I'd go with the "by their fruits ye shall know them".  What kind of people are Mormons?  What kind of people are Muslims?  How many use Mormonism as a tool for evil, mass murder, slavery, political tyranny, and many other atrocities that are regularly done by Muslims?  Who stands for individual responsibility and freedom?  Who follows the old testament method of death as the punishment for sins of conscience only?  In fact, who uses any kind of physical punishment for any religious infraction?  The only disciplinary tools we have are disfellowshipment and excommunication.  No physical punishments are issued to those who choose to rebel or leave.  Who uses violence and other means of force to spread their faith?  And who is actually the victim of much abuse for trying to spread their faith?

And the biggest, most obvious difference:  How do we treat our women?  I say that considerately.  Many don't know how a Mormon home actually works.  Many are unaware of the multitude of concessions made to women during our polygamy era.  But suffice it to say that women hold a revered role in the home and in the Church. 

Second, we still believe in Christ.  We still believe the Bible.  Yes, we have interpretive differences.  But many Christian sects are guilty of that same offense.  But no outcy of rejection there.

Edited May 2, 2016 by Guest

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, LeSellers said:

It may be that I inferred those concepts, but I have seen this same question (in almost exactly the same words) many times in the past, and the person asking was almost never asking it innocently, and almost never did the question arise in his own mind.

Color me jaded, but when I see it, it always reminds me of the class that must be in many seminaries, taught from The Little Green Book of "How to Witness to Mormons".

If I'm wrong, I apologize. But it does get wearisome answering the same groundless questions again and again.

Even so, I'd still like to know why @Steve Noelasked. This is a reasonable question, irrespective of anything I read into it.

Lehi

Fair enough. Just remember in the future-you might have seen the question again and again, but that doesn't mean Steve has. 

 

 

[LeSellers]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Who still uses death as the punishment for sins of conscience only?

We could ask for a slight change in wording.

We Saints have never, as this statement could be read, used "death as the punishment for sins of conscience only". To ask if we still do is to ask "Have you stopped beating your wife?

Lehi

[LeSellers]

9 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Just remember in the future-you might have seen the question again and again, but that doesn't mean Steve has.

Again, I could be wrong. It may have been the wording. As I said, it was almost precisely what I have seen dozens, perhaps hundreds of times.

Unless he sees similarities beyond the trivialities he noted (and which are themselves not at all similar), why ask at all?

Lehi

Edited May 2, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest]

@LeSellers

Fixed.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, LeSellers said:

Again, I could be wrong. It may have been the wording, as I said, almost precisely what I have seen dozens, perhaps hundreds of times.

Unless he sees similarities beyond the trivialities he noted (and which are themselves not at all similar), why ask at all?

Lehi

I understand and don't disagree. It's probably just a harmless question based in curiosity. 

And I also understand where you are coming from. Many times LDS feel jaded and defensive because of questions we get from the anti-crowd. However those two personality qualities (being jaded and defensive) aren't that pleasant or welcoming for people who want to ask legit questions. We can't read their intent, after all. 

[Steve Noel]

1 hour ago, LeSellers said:

One wonders why you ask the question.

There is no reason to accept Mohamet as a prophet of God precisely because he discounted Jesus as the Son of God, rejected the House of Israel as the chosen people of God, and a host of other reasons.

And, as NeuroTypical says, we have a testimony of the Restoration, and it does not include Mohamet.

Lehi

This question arises from the discussion thread on angels that his diverged into a discussion on Scripture and revelation. My question is meant to probe how Latter-day Saints judge the truthfulness of teachings and/or revelations. Evangelicals insist that all teachings and experiences must be judged by Scripture. If someone claims that an angel gave them a revelation from God that does not agree with Scripture, then we reject that revelation. On this basis, Evangelicals reject the teachings/revelations of Muhammad. On this same basis, Evangelicals say that the teachings and revelations given to Joseph Smith were not from God. So we view Scripture as a ruler by which we measure the truthfulness of a teaching or revelation that is claimed to be from God. I am trying here to understand on what basis Latter-day Saints judge the truthfulness of a teaching or revelation that is claimed to be from God.

You read too much into my question Lehi. I am not in a class (I finished my last class for my degree last week!), reading a book, or referencing internet sites on how to witness to Mormons. There are similarities between the stories of Muhammad and Joseph Smith, but that is not my point. I am seeking to understand the ruler by which Latter-day Saints measure the truthfulness of a teaching or revelation.

[Steve Noel]

2 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

In short, these messages were not from God.

Muhammad claims that he experienced personal revelations. He states that God sent the angel Gabriel to give him these revelations. On what basis do you reject these revelations as being not from God?

[Guest]

@Steve Noel,

I wasn't getting any anti- Mormon vibe from the OP.  And I'll have to hand it to you too.  This was a question that could very easily have given that feel.  But, to me, you did it in a very matter-of-fact and appropriate way.

Edited May 2, 2016 by Guest

[Steve Noel]

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

On the basis of my testimony, wherein the Holy Ghost manifested to me the truthfulness of the BoM, which testifies (along with the Bible), that Jesus is indeed the Son of God and our Savior.

If Muhammad were here, then he would testify that God has shown him the truthfulness of the Qur'an. He would state that God has manifested the truth to him that Jesus is not the Son of God, not the Savior of the world. What makes your testimony right and his testimony wrong?

[LeSellers]

33 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

Evangelicals insist that all teachings and experiences must be judged by Scripture. If someone claims that an angel gave them a revelation from God that does not agree with Scripture, then we reject that revelation. On this basis, Evangelicals reject the teachings/revelations of Muhammad. On this same basis, Evangelicals say that the teachings and revelations given to Joseph Smith were not from God.

Evangelicals can say the teachings and revelations given to Joseph Smith do not agree with the Bible, but I have yet to find any that don't. They may not comport with someone's interpretation of the Bible, but that is not at all the same thing.

On the other hand, we Saints find a great deal in Protestant, Catholic, Unitarian, and Orthodox teachings that do not agree with the Bible; some fly in the face of clear biblical teachings.

So, we come back to Joseph's observation that an appeal to the Bible is not going to help.

Lehi

Edited May 2, 2016 by LeSellers

[Steve Noel]

17 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Evangelicals can say the teachings and revelations given to Joseph Smith do not agree with the Bible, but I have yet to find any that don't. They may not comport with someones interpretation of the Bible, but that is not at all the same thing.

On the other hand, we Saints find a great deal in Protestant, Catholic, Unitarian, and Orthodox teachings that do not agree with the Bible; some fly in the face of clear biblical teachings.

So, we come back to Joseph's observation that an appeal to the Bible is not going to help.

Lehi

Got it. This is the point of my question. Evangelicals measure a teaching / revelation by the Scripture (you would say "by their interpretations"). Since Latter-day Saints do not "appeal to the Bible" to judge a teaching / revelation, what is your basis for rejecting Muhammad's teaching / revelation?

Edited May 2, 2016 by Steve Noel