Why was Muhammad Wrong?

[LeSellers]

4 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It's just due to your sparkling wit and charm Lehi. 

Guilty as charged, yeronor.

Lehi

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Guilty as charged, yeronor.

Lehi

I taught you well. Carry on.  

[zil]

27 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

No, just ziff.

RIght.  No relation.  There's none of it out in the shed either.

[Traveler]

23 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

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?

 

Could you provide the Qur’an quote?  This is news to me.

 

The Traveler

[Anddenex]

On May 1, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Steve Noel said:

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?

I remember the first time a Protestant Christian sought out an answer to this question from my companion and I, and honestly, this question puzzles me now just as it did then. 1) The comparison between Joseph Smith's first vision and Muhammad's visitation is comparing an apple to an orange. 2) The Church of Jesus Christ claims to be Christian, not a different religion. Here are highlights that appear to be apparent unless someone is turning a blind eye:

1) Joseph Smith' first vision was of the Father and the Son (Jesus Christ). These weren't messenger angels from God, it was God that visited him. 

2) Gabriel, according to LDS doctrine, Gabriel appeared to Mary confessing to her of her role in being the birth mother of the Savior, Jesus Christ.  Gabriel also announced the birth of John who would be a forerunner to Jesus Christ, preparing the way of the Savior and who would ultimately baptize the Savior declaring his role.

3) A primary role prophets have before God is to bear witness of Jesus Christ, they are testators of his divinity and mission. Here is a quote from Joseph Smith, "The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it."

Lorenzo Snow, one who filled the role of prophet later, "The spirit of God descended upon me, completely enveloping my whole person, ... dispelling forever, so long as reason and memory last, all possibility of doubt or fear in relation to the fact handed down to us historically that the 'babe of Bethlehem' is truly the Son of God." (emphasis added)

David O Mckay, "Members of the Church of Christ are under obligation to make the sinless Son of Man their ideal. He is the one Perfect Being who ever walked the earth; the sublimest example of nobility; Godlike in nature; perfect in his love." (emphasis added)

4) All truth is received by the Spirit of God, as all revelation from prophets to us has been received and proclaimed (Moroni 10: 3-5, John 15: 26). As given evidence also, the Lord (Jesus Christ) praised Peter because truth of who Jesus Christ was, was delivered to him by the Father through revelation. The Father reveals truth to his children, his sons and daughters, via the spirit which testifies of Christ.

5) In light of 1-4, we receive the following admonition and warning, D&C 50:17-18, "Verily I say unto you, he that is ordained of me and sent forth to preach the word of truth by the Comforter, in the Spirit of truth, doth he preach it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?

"And if it be by some other way it is not of God."

In short, the question asked already provides the answer in reference to LDS doctrine, "According to these revelations Jesus was not...the son of God..."  Ergo, Muhammad would be considered a false prophet as he did not bear witness, nor declare, the divinity of Christ...the "fundamental principles of our religion" the "obligation" of all members of the Church, and who have received witness from the testator of Christ.

Thus, the question puzzles me then, and still does.

 

[Steve Noel]

Thanks for all the replies. I have had a long day of taking kids to the dentist, to swim classes, to the after hours clinic, and then grocery shopping. Got to love these days off from work :). Anyway, I just wanted to let you all know that I will interact with the posts during the week. Thanks for being patient.

[Jamie123]

On 02 May 2016 at 2:02 AM, LeSellers said:

...or that we are as deluded as Muslims.

Statements like this are always necessary. If you claim your own religion is right then you are going to have to claim other religions are wrong (at least in so far as they contradict what you believe). But this is the precise reason I'm never impressed by the statement that "Mormon's don't criticize other faiths". Oh yes they do. Like all other faiths they need to.

I remember once when a couple of Elders were talking to me, one of them said "some other religions you can tell aren't true. They cannot be true." Naturally I asked him for an example, to which he paused for a moment and then said "You can do that for yourself. We don't criticize other religions."

Now I have had Mormon missionaries criticize me for: (i) not believing that physical baptism is necessarily important for salvation, (ii) not believing that baptism must be performed by total inversion, (iii) thinking that it is right to baptize babies, (iv) thinking that baptisms performed by non-ordained people might still be valid and (v) using the NIV instead of the KJV. Yet to avoid having to back up his vague assertion that "some religions cannot be true" with any hard evidence, he conveniently whips out his trump card of "we don't criticize...".

P.S. I've just remembered that the criticism of my using the NIV came from someone who was not a missionary. I must strive not to misrepresent anyone here

Edited May 3, 2016 by Jamie123

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Statements like this are always necessary. If you claim your own religion is right then you are going to have to claim other religions are wrong (at least in so far as they contradict what you believe). But this is the precise reason I'm never impressed by the statement that "Mormon's don't criticize other faiths". Oh yes they do. Like all other faiths they need to.

I remember once when a couple of Elders were talking to me, one of them said "some other religions you can tell aren't true. They cannot be true." Naturally I asked him for an example, to which he paused for a moment and then said "You can do that for yourself. We don't criticize other religions."

Now I have had Mormon missionaries criticize me for: (i) not believing that physical baptism is necessarily important for salvation, (ii) not believing that baptism must be performed by total inversion, (iii) thinking that it is right to baptize babies, (iv) thinking that baptisms performed by non-ordained people might still be valid and (v) using the NIV instead of the KJV. Yet to avoid having to back up his vague assertion that "some religions cannot be true" with any hard evidence, he conveniently whips out his trump card of "we don't criticize...".

P.S. I've just remembered that the criticism of my using the NIV came from someone who was not a missionary. I must strive not to misrepresent anyone here

 

Perhaps there are two kinds of criticism.  One where there is a malicious intent to cause pain and suffering.  The other is a statement of truth.  Often with the first the criticism contains or is dependent on exaggerated, and false data or information.  I tend to think of these two as two ends of a spectrum and that most disagreements fall somewhere in between.

In general – I believe that usually the first kind of criticism is based in prejudice and in which case are contradictions.  It is not difficult to realize contradictions and we can see examples of fanaticism contradictions in the arena of religion, politics and sports.

As I have searched for truth I have found inward contradiction to be the first and easiest way to realize something is false.  An example of an inward contradiction is this statement, “It is impossible for man to understand the nature of G-d,” The reason such a statement is obviously false is that the statement is definitive and therefore in and of itself could not be understood – therefore the statement is what we call an irrational contradiction.

Another example of an irrational contradiction is the claim that something is contradictory of scripture.   The problem is that scripture interpretation is contradictory and is preciously why Satan quoted scripture in tempting Christ.

 

BTW added - Question - From your understanding of Christ - did he give himself as an example of unnecessary concepts?  Or do you believe he was perfect (without contradictions in his teachings and examples).  Why was Jesus baptized by John?  Was it "physically" necessary? 

 

The Traveler

Edited May 3, 2016 by Traveler

[LeSellers]

4 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Now I have had Mormon missionaries criticize me for: … (ii) not believing that baptism must be performed by total inversion

Whoever he was, that missionary was wrong because that's just silly. Not even the Jehovah's Witnesses baptize by inversion.

Lehi

 

[LeSellers]

4 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Now I have had Mormon missionaries criticize me for: (i) not believing that physical baptism is necessarily important for salvation, (ii) not believing that baptism must be performed by total inversion [sic], (iii) thinking that it is right to baptize babies, (iv) thinking that baptisms performed by non-ordained people might still be valid and (v) using the NIV instead of the KJV.

"Criticism" comes in various flavors. Has any Saint told you that you are not Christian because your interpretations of scripture, etc., don't conform to ours? Has any of us told yo you are going to hell because you don't believe exactly as we do?

i) Yet this is what the  bible teaches: that baptism is a salvific ordinance, and that without it, we cannot be saved.

ii) The very word "baptism" means immersion. To do it otherwise not only does violence to the menaing of the word, but ignores those passages in the bible that imply immersion because of "much water", or similar statements.

iii) The Bible never tells us of any one's baptizing babies. To require it (or even to do it), cannot be based on biblical precedent.

iv) Paul re-baptized whole families whose previous baptisms were not done by someone with authority. If just any ol' body could baptize, that seems a waste of effort.

v) Go ahead an use any translation you like. Just know that any of them, the AV included, was rendered by men who had their own biases, and who neither had nor claimed any special authority from God to so that work.

Lehi

[NeuroTypical]

I used to live in SLC.  I remember inversion.

[zil]

5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I used to live in SLC.  I remember inversion.

Aaaah, frequent, extended-duration baptism by inversion. It's like a whole new way of thinking...

[Guest]

Actually, I was baptized by inversion twice.  My feet kept popping up to the surface.  But the third time they were kept down, so I was finally baptized by immersion.

[mordorbund]

 

16 hours ago, Traveler said:

On 5/1/2016 at 6:44 PM, Steve Noel said:

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?

Could you provide the Qur’an quote?  This is news to me.

 

The Traveler

From my notes back when I read it through:

Jesus

·         Sura 61:6 – Jesus prophesies of Mohammed (see footnote)

·         Sura 3:44-49 – Jesus story reaffirmed

o   Casting lots for Mary (see pseudo-Matthew)

o   Child Jesus teaching in temple

o   Playing with clay bird (bringing them to life - see infancy gospel of thomas)

o   Standard miracles

o   Virgin birth

·         Sura 4:157-159 – Jesus did not die? What of his resurrection?

 

From an online search (translators in italics, citations found here):

19:92 -

Yusuf Ali

For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that He should beget a son.

Muhsin Khan

But it is not suitable for (the Majesty of) the Most Beneficent (Allah) that He should beget a son (or offspring or children).

23:91-

Yusuf Ali

No son did Allah beget, nor is there any god along with Him: (if there were many gods), behold, each god would have taken away what he had created, and some would have lorded it over others! Glory to Allah! (He is free) from the (sort of) things they attribute to Him!

Muhsin Khan

No son (or offspring or children) did Allah beget, nor is there any ilah (god) along with Him; (if there had been many gods), behold, each god would have taken away what he had created, and some would have tried to overcome others! Glorified be Allah above all that they attribute to Him!

Pickthall

Allah hath not chosen any son, nor is there any god along with Him; else would each god have assuredly championed that which he created, and some of them would assuredly have overcome others. Glorified be Allah above all that they allege.

112:3 -

Muhsin Khan

"He begets not, nor was He begotten;

Shakir

He begets not, nor is He begotten.

Sahih International

He neither begets nor is born,

Jesus is Messiah, but not God

5:72 - 

Sahih International

They have certainly disbelieved who say, " Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary" while the Messiah has said, "O Children of Israel, worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord." Indeed, he who associates others with Allah - Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers.

Pickthall

They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers.

Shakir

Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah, He is the Messiah, son of Marium; and the Messiah said: O Children of Israel! serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Surely whoever associates (others) with Allah, then Allah has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the fire; and there shall be no helpers for the unjust.

[Jamie123]

8 hours ago, LeSellers said:

Whoever he was, that missionary was wrong because that's just silly. Not even the Jehovah's Witnesses baptize by inversion.

Lehi

 

Don't you just hate autocorrect? 

[Jamie123]

.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Jamie123

[Jamie123]

8 hours ago, LeSellers said:

"Criticism" comes in various flavors. Has any Saint told you that you are not Christian because your interpretations of scripture, etc., don't conform to ours? Has any of us told yo you are going to hell because you don't believe exactly as we do? 

No but that misses the point I was making. You can criticize my beliefs all you want. Tell me I'm going to hell if you wish. Just don't do it and then say "we don't do it"  as an excuse to avoid backing up vague assertions with fact. 

Edited May 3, 2016 by Jamie123

[Vort]

On 5/1/2016 at 3:44 PM, Steve Noel said:

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?

On the basis that Joseph Smith, a prophet of God, received revelations that contradict certain points of Islamic doctrine.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Vort

[Vort]

On 5/2/2016 at 6:43 PM, Steve Noel said:

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?

This is irrelevant. If you ask a psychotic for his witness of, well, anything, you'll get something. How do you know that's wrong and you're right?

Personal witness. God will speak to you if you ask in faith. That's the difference.

[Vort]

On 5/2/2016 at 6:55 PM, Steve Noel said:

Evangelicals measure a teaching / revelation by the Scripture (you would say "by their interpretations").

This is demonstrably false. Evangelicals reject the clear Biblical doctrine that we are to become exactly as perfect as the Father (Matthew 5:48).

[Vort]

8 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I used to live in SLC.  I remember inversion.

Were your sins remitted?

[Jamie123]

10 hours ago, Vort said:

This is demonstrably false. Evangelicals reject the clear Biblical doctrine that we are to become exactly as perfect as the Father (Matthew 5:48).

I'm not exactly an evangelical myself, but I know some people who are. (I sometimes try to cough in a way that sounds like "Darwin" whenever they talk about their literal 6-day-creation beliefs - which my wife hates me doing.)

But do evangelicals really reject "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect"? Certainly they would not accept that we can be equal with God, but does that necessarily mean we cannot in some sense share God's perfection?

[Steve Noel]

On 5/2/2016 at 9:59 PM, Carborendum said:

Again, I have to make another course correction.  I realize we've been giving you the opposing view to let you know where our differences are.  But the similarity is that we also use scripture (including the Bible) as a standard by which to judge.  But it is by our interpretations of said scriptures, not yours.

So as a counterpoint, I'd ask, what justification do you have for saying that your interpretations trump ours?

I don't really want to haggle hear about who interprets the Bible correctly. When it comes to the teachings/revelations of Muhammad we both interpret the Bible as contradicting what he said. What I'm trying to grasp is the relationship in LDS belief between experience and Scripture. Do you judge experience by Scripture or do you judge Scripture by experience or possibly some third option? Muhammad claimed he had experiences from God. Millions of people are convinced that this was true. They reject what both Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints say about Jesus. I asked this at another LDS forum as well. There is variation, but it seems that Latter-day Saints reject Muhammad's teachings/revelations about Jesus because those revelations/teachings about Jesus are in opposition to what Latter-day Saints teach/believe about Jesus. This is what I'm getting at. What standard do you use to make that judgment. Is it your personal testimony? Is it the testimony of your prophets? Is it the Scriptures? Is it a combination of these things (possibly others)? 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Steve Noel said:

I don't really want to haggle hear about who interprets the Bible correctly. When it comes to the teachings/revelations of Muhammad we both interpret the Bible as contradicting what he said. What I'm trying to grasp is the relationship in LDS belief between experience and Scripture. Do you judge experience by Scripture or do you judge Scripture by experience or possibly some third option? Muhammad claimed he had experiences from God. Millions of people are convinced that this was true. They reject what both Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints say about Jesus. I asked this at another LDS forum as well. There is variation, but it seems that Latter-day Saints reject Muhammad's teachings/revelations about Jesus because those revelations/teachings about Jesus are in opposition to what Latter-day Saints teach/believe about Jesus. This is what I'm getting at. What standard do you use to make that judgment. Is it your personal testimony? Is it the testimony of your prophets? Is it the Scriptures? Is it a combination of these things (possibly others)? 

Steve,

To be honest, I don't believe this is fair.  I understand that we don't want to get into a debate on who knows the Bible better. (Because it's clear that Mormons do ).  But at the same time, when you ask the question the way you did in the OP, it implies that at least a part of you believes (or is ignorant of the contrary) that:

1. In your mind there is no substantive difference between Mormons and Muslims.  
2. We're equally wrong.
3. We interpret Biblical writings as wrong as Muslims do.

If you did not mean to imply it, I'd ask you to clarify yourself.  Regardless, the nature of the question is such that it asks us to defend our position.  When you do so, it is only fair that we ask you to defend your side as well.  Not only that, but to ask you to explore how you know what you know or why you believe your position is superior to ours (and let's face it, when we believe as we do, we all believe our position is "more correct" than the other, and by that standard, superior) only then can you begin to understand why we feel the same about ours.

The fact is that I have no hope of any missionary work here.  I have zero expectation that you're going to be converted.  So, why would I want to have a discussion with you?  I do it because I appreciate intellectual stimulation and mutual education of each other's faith and ideas.  The question you posed is not a new one.  And therefore, does not provide much in the way of intellectual stimulation.  I'd hoped to gain more knowledge about your faith and your ideas.  That's the exchange I hoped for.  I found myself quite enlightened to find that evangelicals didn't believe humans and angels were of the same species.  Yes, there was some debate about the Biblical basis. That's to be expected.  But I appreciated being enlightened by that knowledge.  

But if this is all going to be one sided, I don't think I want to continue.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Guest

[zil]

The answer to your questions of us lies in your answer to my question earlier: How do you know the Bible is the right standard by which to judge truth?  (Or, why do you believe that it is?)

Edit: I don't ask this to question your belief; I ask this to bring us to a point of mutual understanding.

Edited May 4, 2016 by zil