Why was Muhammad Wrong?


Steve Noel
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Huh?

He said that his intent was to find out how we determine divine truth.  But instead he asked a question about Muslims.  How was that the right question to LEAD with?

I'm not trying to speak for Steve.  I'm only answering from my experience.  The question that I asked about Muslims is the "flip side" of the answer that I asked about Mormons.  When I asked this question, I asked it to my husband, so I had the advantage of not having to worry that he would misinterpret the intent of my question.  So, I asked him - how do you know that Joseph Smith is a prophet?  And he gave me his answer.   Now, that would have been sufficient if I understood what he meant by testimony (you don't hear that word often in Catholicism) and revelation by the Holy Ghost (another word that has a different connotation in Catholicism).  So, I asked him - how do you know that Muhammed is not a prophet?  And he gave me a different facet of the same words - testimony and revelation... the other side, or flip side.  That gave me a fuller understanding of what he meant by testimony and revelation.

As somebody who grew up in the Church, my husband took a lot of things for granted, thinking I understand what he means.  It took a lot of questions - different ways of asking the same questions, even - for me to get the LDS understanding of certain religious phrases and religious concepts.

And I have said it here many times, a lot of it - and I would even say ALMOST ALL of it - stems from very basic things LDS are taught that are missing from Catholic teaching... like, pre-mortal spirits for example.  That very simple, very primary-level thing has VAST ramifications on the understanding of certain concepts.  In reference to the OP, what I kept on stubbing my toe on was the concept of open canon, it was not something I was used to and every time my husband would say Testimony, Revelation, Scripture... they all mean slightly different in my brain than in my husband's brain because of it.  Scripture is a different thing in Catholicism than in LDS which is also different from Evangelists.  Scripture for Catholics is the Holy Bible - the same way it means in Evangelical usage.  But, as Evangelicals do not hold anything outside of the Scripture as authoritative, they have a different way of truth-finding than Catholics who hold Sacred Tradition as authoritative as well.  Now, not knowing anything about LDS, as a Catholic, I was subconsciously looking for something that equates to Sacred Tradition.  An evangelical wouldn't be doing that... rather, they would subconsciously go back to the authority of Scripture which is nothing more than the Holy Bible.  It seems like an easy thing to do when I'm trying to explain it in this paragraph.  But, as my experience has proven, this "switch" in thinking is a difficult thing to adjust and I found myself asking the same questions in different ways or even in the same way because I never really got it the first time due to my "default" understanding of the role of Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you said, it was the "flip-side" of the actual question.  The flip-side is the wrong one to LEAD with.  You (even with your own husband) asked the first question immediately before asking this one.  True this was a continuation of a previous thread, but it was still the OP of this thread.  As such, it needs to stand on its own.  And the verbiage of the OP did not lend itself to that -- certainly not if the intended meaning was as he said.

Further, I was a primary participant of the earlier thread and I still did not get that as the original intent of the OP -- not as worded.  Even now, with all the background, and all the clarification, I still think that was the wrong question to ask.

But he's now asked the question intended.  I guess we answered it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

As you said, it was the "flip-side" of the actual question.  The flip-side is the wrong one to LEAD with.  You (even with your own husband) asked the first question immediately before asking this one.  True this was a continuation of a previous thread, but it was still the OP of this thread.  As such, it needs to stand on its own.  And the verbiage of the OP did not lend itself to that -- certainly not if the intended meaning was as he said.

Further, I was a primary participant of the earlier thread and I still did not get that as the original intent of the OP -- not as worded.  Even now, with all the background, and all the clarification, I still think that was the wrong question to ask.

But he's now asked the question intended.  I guess we answered it.

But see... you are looking at it as somebody who already knows the answers.  Somebody asking the question has a completely different brain - method of learning, different organization of information, different perspective, in addition to different knowledge etc. - than you.  So, what you know is a "wrong question" with your knowledge is a completely "right question" in a different brain seeking knowledge.  And a lot of times, someone seeking knowledge doesn't even know where to start... so they just ask the first question that comes to mind that makes logical sense to the asker.

So, that's why, we always say... there are no wrong questions.  Ask away.  We'll figure it all out as we continue to discuss things.

So, really... it is only the wrong question when we attribute the wrong intent to it.  Telling someone it is the wrong question presumes way too much.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/5/2016 at 10:59 PM, Carborendum said:

I understand you being busy.  So don't sweat that.  But regarding your explanation above: If that was your intent, then the OP was the wrong question to ask.

Perhaps. The title I gave to this thread was the question, "Why was Muhammad Wrong?" I closed the OP with the question, "On what basis do Latter-day Saints reject this alleged revelation from God through his alleged prophet Muhammad?" In answering the "why" or "on what basis" I felt that you all would be expressing how you judge the truthfulness of a teaching/revelation that is claimed to be from God. Sometimes asking a specific question about a specific situation reveals things that a general question may not. Let me illustrate. There is an evangelism training course that a Presbyterian minister developed in 1962 called Evangelism Explosion. In that program Christians are taught to ask strategic diagnostic questions to help determine if someone understands the gospel. One of those questions is this: "If you were to die today and you found yourself standing before the throne of God, and He asked you, 'Why should I let you into my heaven?' What would you say?" How a person answers this question will reveal to you what they are trusting in for their eternal salvation. Usually the answer will be something to the effect of "I try to be a good person." Such an answer reveals that they are trusting in their goodness (or their good works) to gain eternal life. That is the way I was using the Muhammad illustration in the OP. I guess I could have just asked what standard do you use to judge truth.This is just the way I thought to ask the question.

Edited by Steve Noel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Rhoades said:

If you are asking "How do you learn true doctrine or how do you know what's true and what's not?"

Some things that help are:

  • Scriptures (2 Tim 3:15-16)  I wonder if the answers in this thread make it seem like we undervalue "it is written".  We absolutely use the scriptural canon as a basis to measure things.  This is very very important.
  • Prayer (James 1:5) "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God."
  • Leaders called of God like apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, etc. (Ephesians 4:11-14)  These are given to us so we can come to "the knowledge of the Son of God."
  • Righteousness (John 7:17) "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine". See also 2 Peter 1:4-9 which teaches if you acquire divine attributes such as diligence, faith, temperance, charity, etc. they "make you ... neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.".

That's not a complete list.  Offhand I also think of fasting with prayer, meditation, and pondering.

But the underlying key to ALL of these is
revelation.  The Spirit of Truth is the one that helps us know and recognize truth.  We can ONLY know the things of God through the Spirit; "the things of God knoweth no man, but [by] the Spirit of God" (1 Corinthians 2:11 with "by" added to clarify its meaning. See also 12-14 which support this; verse 12 teaches we have received the Spirit of God that we might know the things of God.)  I'm sure you're familiar with others such as "the Spirit of truth ... will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13)

Another thing to mention is that anything that denies Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God and Savior and the only way to salvation can be rejected.  We know this because of scripture, the Book of Mormon as well as the Bible.

Some related teachings from the Book of Mormon include:

Moroni 10:5-6:
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
6 And whatsoever thing is good is just and true; wherefore, nothing that is good denieth the Christ, but acknowledgeth that he is.

Moroni 7:16-17:
16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.
17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

Ether 4:11
11 But he that believeth these things which I have spoken, him will I visit with the manifestations of my Spirit, and he shall know and bear record. For because of my Spirit he shall know that these things are true; for it persuadeth men to do good.

Alma 5:46-48:
46 Behold, I say unto you they are made known unto me by the Holy Spirit of God. Behold, I have fasted and prayed many days that I might know these things of myself. And now I do know of myself that they are true; for the Lord God hath made them manifest unto me by his Holy Spirit; and this is the spirit of revelation which is in me.
47 And moreover, I say unto you that it has thus been revealed unto me, that the words which have been spoken by our fathers are true, even so according to the spirit of prophecy which is in me, which is also by the manifestation of the Spirit of God.
48 I say unto you, that I know of myself that whatsoever I shall say unto you, concerning that which is to come, is true; and I say unto you, that I know that Jesus Christ shall come, yea, the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace, and mercy, and truth. And behold, it is he that cometh to take away the sins of the world, yea, the sins of every man who steadfastly believeth on his name.

Here Alma explains that its through the Spirit that he knows truth, including the truthfulness of the scriptures ("words which have been spoken by our fathers").

This leads to something you brought up earlier in the thread that I'm not sure got answered: person X believes one thing and you believe another and you both claim your knowledge is from God.   Q: How do I know which is right?  A: 
Use the things I mentioned above and rely on God to guide you.  I maybe could have put humility and willingness to follow in that list too, although those are somewhat implied with prayer.  If you humbly trust in God and you seek to learn truth from Him, He'll lead you there.

And, if Person X really does believe something that is not true he will have to answer for himself.  But I am certain that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and the Savior.  And, I am also certain that the Bible and Book of Mormon are true.  Like Alma, "I have fasted and prayed many days that I might know these things of myself.  And ... the Lord God hath made them manifest unto me by his Holy Spirit."  To Latter-day Saints, knowledge of divine truth must be received from God through His Spirit.

Thank you for a thoughtful response. I find much that I can agree with here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/5/2016 at 10:26 PM, NeedleinA said:

Thank you for your answers thus far Steve.

Can I ask what your definition of "apologetic approaches to Mormonism" means?

What purpose is gained by understanding these varying approaches more, how does this serve you better? What is the end purpose of learning how to apply apologetic approaches to Mormonism?

Thanks again

In the other forum that I joined before this one there was one guy who thought I might be in a class about Mormonism. They speculated that I knew more about Mormonism then I was revealing. He thought I was "undercover" for a class assignment. Here are the relevant portions from my response to him. I think it will answer your questions as well:

"I assure you all that I have no ulterior motives here. I have a passion for studying Scripture, theology, Church history, etc. I do not personally know anybody else who cares at all what Mormons believe. I do not personally know any Mormons... I attend a small Pentecostal church in Michigan. I am getting my BA in Religion degree online through Luther Rice University... My interest in Mormonism has nothing to do with my schooling. I am currently taking only 1 course (my last one!), and it is English Composition II. I do have to write a research paper for this course, but I am not writing on Mormonism. I am doing my paper on why Genesis 1 should be translated literally and not figuratively.

Sal thinks I may know more about Mormonism than I am articulating. I don't know if that is true. I do know a good bit about Mormonism, but much of that knowledge comes from Evangelical apologetic works on Mormonism. I have read Walter Martin's chapter on Mormonism in Kingdom of the Cults, James White's Letters to a Mormon Elder, Janis Hutchinson's The Mormon Missionaries, Ed Decker's The God Makers, parts of Gerald & Sandra Tanner's The Changing World of Mormonism, Marvin Cowan's Mormon Claims Answered, Ron Rhodes' chapter on Mormonism in The Challenge of the Cults, and Richard Abanes' One Nation Under Gods. In addition I have read sections of many other books from Christian apologists or former Mormons who have written against Mormonism. I have also listened to many hours of teachings, podcasts, and debates on Mormonism from folks like James White, Walter Martin, Bill McKeever, and Robert Morey. Several years ago I read through the book of Mormon in about 3 weeks. This was when Mitt Romney was running for President and I was listening a lot to Glenn Beck. After reading through the Book of Mormon I went to Mormon.org and had the missionaries come over. I was not interested in joining the LDS Church. I just wanted to discuss Mormonism with actual Mormons. We had some good discussions, but they were very basic. The missionaries were not really prepared too get too far off the path of their lessons. Many times when I would challenge a belief or interpretation they would just begin to state, "I know Joseph Smith is a prophet..." I could not get them to really dig into the Bible with me. I now know that this is not what they are trained to do.

So do I know a lot about Mormonism? I thought that I did. In the last several years I happened upon the public conversations that Greg Johnson and Robert Millet were having. I was very impressed with Dr. Millet. I bought several of his books and started reading them all. I then learned about How Wide the Divide? by Craig Blomberg and Stephen Robinson. I bought that and started reading it too. I then became aware of a book by several Evangelical scholars/apologists called The New Mormon Challenge, and I started reading that. Notice a theme? I have read the preface, forward, and 1st chapter of a lot of books :). Even though I was lacking discipline, I did learn through from these books that my knowledge of Mormonism may actually be inaccurate. These newer books all strongly criticized most of the Evangelical writings on Mormonism that I had read. I have never shared or enjoyed the acerbic tone of some Evangelical writers against Mormonism. I have often thought that the tone and style of some Evangelical works against Mormonism were not representative of the fruit of the Spirit. I am a Pentecostal Arminian. I have experienced the arrogance, condescension, sarcasm, mockery, misrepresentation, etc. that sometimes comes from theologically/apologetically minded Evangelicals (especially online). So here I am. My desire is to get a true understanding of the LDS faith."

Edited by Steve Noel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

In the other forum that I joined before this one there was one guy who thought I might be in a class about Mormonism. ... [ Jane shortening this ]...

Steve, color me even more impressed.  It is not often a person receives such an extensive "education" and then realizes it's mostly bunk, and then has the humility and the drive to come get the real facts.  Color me impressed.

And also thank you for your explanation, it does put a lot of puzzle pieces together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Even though I was lacking discipline, I did learn through from these books that my knowledge of Mormonism may actually be inaccurate. These newer books all strongly criticized most of the Evangelical writings on Mormonism that I had read. I have never shared or enjoyed the acerbic tone of some Evangelical writers against Mormonism. I have often thought that the tone and style of some Evangelical works against Mormonism were not representative of the fruit of the Spirit. I am a Pentecostal Arminian. I have experienced the arrogance, condescension, sarcasm, mockery, misrepresentation, etc. that sometimes comes from theologically/apologetically minded Evangelicals (especially online). So here I am. My desire is to get a true understanding of the LDS faith."

Thank you Steve for the clarification on this. Speaking solely for myself, this helps me understand where you are coming from... I believe
I have always thought you wanted to hear the "real" doctrine of the LDS church, hence why you can to this more "orthodox" forum.

My hold up has been... does Steve want to learn about us:
1. in an approach to be more knowledgeable and simply learn accurate information vs. biased information?
OR
2. in an approach to be more knowledgeable and simply learn accurate information (net result) so that he can better formulate "apologetic" (using that word as: reasoned arguments) answers against LDS members in your own Evangelical ministering. 

As always, thanks for your answers thus far. 

Edited by NeedleinA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

...I am doing my paper on why Genesis 1 should be translated literally and not figuratively.... 

Your post was very informative but this was the sentence that really stood out for me. I tend to read Genesis more as figurative than literal; so since I've really enjoyed reading your posts here at lds.net, I would be very interested in reading this paper of yours when it's done.

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

Thank you Steve for the clarification on this. Speaking solely for myself, this helps me understand where you are coming from... I believe
I have always thought you wanted to hear the "real" doctrine of the LDS church, hence why you can to this more "orthodox" forum.

My hold up has been... does Steve want to learn about us:
1. in an approach to be more knowledgeable and simply learn accurate information vs. biased information?
OR
2. in an approach to be more knowledgeable and simply learn accurate information (net result) so that he can better formulate "apologetic" (using that word as: reasoned arguments) answers against LDS members in your own Evangelical ministering. 

As always, thanks for your answers thus far. 

I live in Michigan. I know of very few people who have had any interaction at all with Latter-day Saints. I have never heard a sermon or attended a class about Latter-day Saints in my church. This is not something most around here are exposed to, so there is little interest in Mormonism. It is not likely that I will spend much time in future ministry talking about Mormonism. That being said, if an opportunity arises I'm sure that I will speak about what I've learned. That may be to correct misconceptions or to explain where I believe Latter-day Saints are wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Maureen said:

Your post was very informative but this was the sentence that really stood out for me. I tend to read Genesis more as figurative than literal; so since I've really enjoyed reading your posts here at lds.net, I would be very interested in reading this paper of yours when it's done.

M.

It is already finished. I got an A! It was an argumentative research paper. I'm not sure that it will be all that interesting to you, but I can send it to you if you want. PM me with you email address. In the paper I argue for this thesis:

The days of creation in Genesis 1 should be interpreted literally, because applying grammatical-historical principles of interpretation to the text leads to this conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, zil said:

Lol, I know where the closest LDS church is at. I don't know how many Latter-day Saints there are around here, but I've lived here for about 35 years and I've never met one that I know of (except the missionaries I had come to my home).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Steve Noel said:

Lol, I know where the closest LDS church is at. I don't know how many Latter-day Saints there are around here, but I've lived here for about 35 years and I've never met one that I know of (except the missionaries I had come to my home).

Show up one Sunday when the meetings are supposed to start - you might learn more about Mormons in one Sacrament meeting than a year of internet discussions.  (Tell them what you told us about your purposes and you should be fine - everyone is welcome, and if they know your purposes, they won't necessarily sic the missionaries on you...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, zil said:

Show up one Sunday when the meetings are supposed to start - you might learn more about Mormons in one Sacrament meeting than a year of internet discussions.  (Tell them what you told us about your purposes and you should be fine - everyone is welcome, and if they know your purposes, they won't necessarily sic the missionaries on you...)

I am also reading LDS literature. I recently purchased Wrestling with the Angel and LDS Beliefs.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Steve Noel said:

I am also reading LDS literature. I recently purchased Wrestling with the Angel and LDS Beliefs.

 

Yeah, but being among the natives teaches you more than any book - or maybe it would be more accurate to say it will teach you things you can't learn from a book. :)  No pressure, some teasing, but we're harmless, really - and as someone who's studied a culture and language, then gone to live there, I know that the books are only good for preventing complete culture shock. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steve Noel said:

Lol, I know where the closest LDS church is at. I don't know how many Latter-day Saints there are around here, but I've lived here for about 35 years and I've never met one that I know of (except the missionaries I had come to my home).

*Warning the following is a display of Jane's math-happy personality*

Michigan: 1 temple (Detroit), 2 missions, 8 stakes, 61 wards, 33 branches, 44 family history centers.

There are 27,055 LDS people, of the 9,922,576 total (0.45%).  This is a small proportion, only 7 US states have a lower proportion.  

Still statically speaking, if you know only know 150 people in Michigan (I'm guessing you do Steve, you seem very nice), one of them is likely a Mormon.  I'm guessing you just don't know that they are, because we usually don't know the religious choice of many of the people we hang out with.  For example, do you know what church (if any) your fellow soccer parents attend?  There's a 10% chance one of the families are LDS on any given soccer team, even in Michigan.  

Edited by Jane_Doe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zil said:

Yeah, but being among the natives teaches you more than any book - or maybe it would be more accurate to say it will teach you things you can't learn from a book. :)  No pressure, some teasing, but we're harmless, really - and as someone who's studied a culture and language, then gone to live there, I know that the books are only good for preventing complete culture shock. :D

If you want to understand theology, theological books are undoubtably a good way to do it.

However, there is also culture when it comes to full understanding any group (religious or otherwise).  And to culture is best understood via hand-on experiencing it.  

For a light-hearted example: part of Mormon culture is babies screaming their heads off during an otherwise very quite reflective passing of the Lord's Supper.  Why?  Well, Mormons believe that worship during our main service should be done as a family, during which the Lord's Supper is passed (hence why we call it sacrament meeting).  And frankly... there's only so quiet you can keep a 15+ babies.  (Admittedly this is a really light hearted example, but when I've had non-LDS friends visit my church this is by far the #1 thing people comment on).  (And now that I'm a mom, I really appreciate all those times when someone else's baby is screaming louder than mine).

Edited by Jane_Doe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

That being said, if an opportunity arises I'm sure that I will speak about what I've learned. That may be to correct misconceptions or to explain where I believe Latter-day Saints are wrong. 

Thanks for taking the time to answer things Steve, now I know where you stand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

there is also culture when it comes to full understanding any group (religious or otherwise).  And to culture is best understood via hand-on experiencing it. 

A more somber example:

When Elizabeth Smart was kidnapped, a Sacramento (now national) radio talk show host announced that he suspected her father of sexually molesting her and killing her to cover his crime because he called her "a young woman". Ed Smart, as  Latter-day Saint, used the phrase because that's what we call girls aged 12~18. Sullivan didn't understand the culture, and, from his police background, jumped to a heinous conclusion.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

A more somber example:

When Elizabeth Smart was kidnapped, a Sacramento (now national) radio talk show host announced that he suspected her father of sexually molesting her and killing her to cover his crime because he called her "a young woman". Ed Smart, as  Latter-day Saint, used the phrase because that's what we call girls aged 12~18. Sullivan didn't understand the culture, and, from his police background, jumped to a heinous conclusion.

Lehi

Way to be depressing Lehi...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share