Why was Muhammad Wrong?

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

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 rejection Muhammad's teaching / revelation?

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?

Edited May 2, 2016 by Guest

[zil]

15 hours ago, Carborendum said:

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

@Steve Noel, in addition: you say you judge truthfulness by whether it agrees with the Bible.  (So presumably this is why you don't believe in the prophet Muhammad.)  But why do you believe in the Bible?  How do you know it's the right standard to use?

Edited May 2, 2016 by zil
with > this

[LeSellers]

2 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

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?

Asked and answered. Mohamet did not teach that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, among a host of other things that disqualify his being a true prophet.

Further, you misread us when you say that "Latter-day Saints do not 'appeal to the Bible' to judge a teaching". We do, and we do so often. But it is not our ultimate source: God through the Holy Ghost is, and They use Their prophets and Apostles to reveal if and when a teaching is not of God.

Lehi

Edited May 2, 2016 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

22 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

26 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

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 rejection Muhammad's teaching / revelation?

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

This question is the summum bonum of the discussion.

We love the Bible. As a Church, we've spent millions of dollars and almost as many hours producing a world class, award-winning edition of the AV. All of our doctrines are based on the Bible. Joseph Smith read, and had his scribes write from his dictation huge portions of the Bible, and, using the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, restored much of what had been taken from the sacred tome (nearly every page got some emendments), in an effort that took 14 years, plus another three or four to get it in shape to print.

Each of our other three Standard Works refers to the Bible directly, and in the footnotes added during and subsequent to formatting the LDS edition we have thousands of cross references back to the Bible.

The only thing that separates our doctrine from yours is that your interpretations of the Bible and ours do not match. So, we arrive at @Carborendum's question: whose interpretations are valid (if anyone's are), and, more importantly, how do we know?

Lehi

Edited May 2, 2016 by LeSellers

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Steve Noel said:

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?

We get sloppy in our everyday discourse, but before proceeding one should note that Mormonism technically distinguishes between "scripture" (any true thing said by any person under the influence of the Holy Spirit--under that definition, a passing remark in Sunday School--or even a number of posts to LDS.net--could fit the bill) versus "canon" (deriving, I think, from an old English word denoting a measuring stick).  The latter does indeed serve as a sort of "check and balance" against which new revelation can be evaluated--with the caveat that often, the canon is not as unambiguous or clear as many folks would like to believe it to be.  

I think it is hypothetically possible for the Bible to disprove the claims of a Mohammed, or a Joseph Smith, or a David Koresh--but unless the Holy Spirit tells me that there is merit to any of those individuals' claims, I may never bother to undertake the analysis at all (as with Mohammed or Koresh).  And when I subject Smith to that sort of analysis, what I keep finding is that the Bible doesn't really say what Smith's fiercest critics say that it says. 

And for Mormons, the flip side of accepting the primacy of the canon is that the reason the Church accepts it in the first place, is that the Holy Spirit has confirmed its reliability to us.  We don't consider either the Bible or the other books of the LDS canon to be self-proving on the basis of their own infallible logic or consistency or some sort of external evidence, the way some mainstream Christians seem to view the Bible.  We accept the canon because we find, through trial and experience, that it brings us into closer communion with God. 

[LeSellers]

11 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

We get sloppy in our everyday discourse, but before proceeding one should note that Mormonism technically distinguishes between "scripture" (any true thing said by any person under the influence of the Holy Spirit--under that definition, a passing remark in Sunday School--or even a number of posts to LDS.net--could fit the bill) versus "canon" (deriving, I think, from an old English word denoting a measuring stick).

Etymology of canon: before 900; Middle English, Old English < Latin < Greek kanṓn measuring rod, rule, akin to kánna cane.

I've seen more detailed etymologies showing canon coming from , aIr, a Hebrew (or Egyptian) word meaning "reed".

We have this from the Doctrine and Covenants, section 68:

Quote

4 And whatsoever [all those who were ordained unto this priesthood, whose mission is appointed unto them to go forth] shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

Not sure if that covers "any person under the influence of the Holy [Ghost]" or "a passing remark in Sunday School", but it does differ from what most Christians accept as scripture.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

2 hours ago, zil said:

why do you believe in the Bible?  How do you know it's the right standard to use?

I've asked these questions dozens of times. No Christian has ever answered them without using circular logic (that is to say, no logic at all).

Lehi

[SpiritDragon]

Hi Steve,

I think to some extent you'll come to discover that there isn't an universal "mormon view" on how false prophets are determined. This is perhaps because our time spent worshiping is dedicated to learning about that which is uplifting and helps us to more closely emulate our Saviour Jesus Christ. Thus I've never heard and never expect to hear an official Mormon teaching specifically targeting what is wrong with another's belief system, that being said there are teachings on how to determine that which is true and to avoid deception.

Now then I'll first answer with why I personally reject the prophet of Islam starting with a scripture I've seen used recently (I believe in the Angels Thread) 

Revelation 19:10

¹⁰ And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

To start with to declare that Christ is not deified seems to automatically disqualify him as others have mentioned.

Further the teachings of Islam simply don't reconcile with Biblical teachings. I know many assert that the same can be said of Mormonism, but I have to confess I don't understand that position - having been a student of the scriptures I cannot find any Mormon teaching that is contrary to Biblical teaching. In fact I find it more in line with Biblical teaching than any other religion's teaching I have ever studied... back to the OP now.

In the Doctrine and Covenants section 9 verse 8 one reads,

But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

This also goes along with and must pass the test of "by their fruits, ye shall know them." The fruits of the spirit are "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance" and would logically be (at least) expected to be among the fruits of true prophet. Now I'm not saying that the founder of Islam taught it to be so (I'm not extremely well versed with his teachings), but I find the idea of violently seeking to oppress and dominate the world with the "religion of peace" just doesn't live up to the fruits by which a true prophet is known.

So let me explain these two points in the context of how I use the above teaching to help me discern between truth and error. First I study it out in my mind and compare the teachings to those found in sources (such as the Bible) that I have come to believe to be true. If the idea that I am studying is contrary to what I believe to be true than I don't tend to concern myself with it further. If however I find no reason to reject it through study than I take that finding to God in prayer for further insight. If the item in question leaves me feeling the spirit as I've come to recognize it, then I believe it to be true and feel the need to act on it accordingly. If I feel no particular feeling when praying on it I also tend to put it on the shelf and figure that it is either not true or not important for me at that time.

 

So in the case of Mohammed, I haven't felt the need to even pray about it because of the apparent contradictions to revealed truth.

 

I hope this helps you understand how some Latter-day Saints work things out.

[Blackmarch]

12 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?

Actually i have no idea how much muhammed himself adhered to that christ was not the son of God while at the same time heaping the mantle of prophet on him (christ) more than on muhammed himself. Both christianity and islam went through a dark age and did not come out unscathed... Nor did their texts go untouched by such either.

 

I have never heard the church declare that he was or was not (or how much was coorrect or incorrect). it does not matter if he was or was not- The church testifies of christ as the son of god because of revelation that has been recieved in these days.

 

Muhammed was not given the keys or commanded to do what we have to do. I dont find it impossible that mohammed had happen to him what is said happened to him. There just isnt a lot of solid info to condemn him or to exalt him. God will do what he will do with those who seek him, or will do what he can, to the limit of what people are able.

however out of his servants, god pointed me to Joseph smith and the church of jesus Christ of latter day saints. And so here i am.

Edited May 2, 2016 by Blackmarch

[NeuroTypical]

13 hours ago, 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?

Well, he's not here.  I don't know what he would do or not do, and neither do you.  For all you know, he wouldn't give me the time of day, and would instead have his men slay me as a heretic or something.

Can I ask you a similar question?

Quote

Evangelicals insist that all teachings and experiences must be judged by Scripture.

1. All teachings and experiences must be judged by scripture.
2. No, not any of the thousands of other holy books out there, not the Kesh Temple Hymn, or the Hindu Rigveda, or the Zoroastrian Avesta, or the Quran.  Torah yes, Tanakh no.  Some books yes, apocrypha no.  Out of all the scriptures, all the holy works, from all human civilization, you are talking about none of them except the Lutherian Canon that one particular group of folks figured was scripture back in the 1500's-ish, and the idea stuck.
3. That hand-picked set of books, which testify of a particular kind of a particular God - that's the scripture you're talking about.

So, ok.  Everything must be judged by scripture.  What makes your scripture right and others' scripture wrong?

I mean, when I ask myself that question, I know the answer.  I gave it above.  Just wondering about your answer.  You say "evangelicals insist".  So, what makes evangelical insistence take precedence over other insistence?  

"Jesus is God and Mohammed was wrong, because a particular group of humans with which I associate, insist that a certain group of books are right."

I know you don't like relying on the 'arm of flesh' any more than I do here...

Edited May 2, 2016 by NeuroTypical

[NightSG]

21 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

2. No, not any of the thousands of other holy books out there, not the Kesh Temple Hymn, or the Hindu Rigveda, or the Zoroastrian Avesta, or the Quran.  Torah yes, Tanakh no.  Some books yes, apocrypha no.  Out of all the scriptures, all the holy works, from all human civilization, you are talking about none of them except the Lutherian Canon that one particular group of folks figured was scripture back in the 1500's-ish, and the idea stuck.

How about the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics?

(Now there's a way to start up a really comprehensive religion.  Plus, when people complain about 2 Nephi being long and boring, we can send the CRC missionaries to talk to them.  After a couple weeks of log tables and trig constants, they'll be back, eager to read I Chronicles.)

[anatess2]

4 minutes ago, NightSG said:

How about the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics?

(Now there's a way to start up a really comprehensive religion.  Plus, when people complain about 2 Nephi being long and boring, we can send the CRC missionaries to talk to them.  After a couple weeks of log tables and trig constants, they'll be back, eager to read I Chronicles.)

Oh, but I love 2 Nephi.  Loads better than Reading and Phonics: My English Book for Daily Use.

[Jane_Doe]

14 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

 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.

I'm going to start my answer by dispelling a couple of common myths about LDS views (I'm not saying that you believe these myths @Steve Noel, but I'm just making sure the bases are covered).

Myth #1: LDS do not use the scriptures as a ruler of truthfulness.  This is SO far from the truth!  LDS study and refer to the scriptures near constantly in their religious life.  Every hurdle life throughs at use is judged how to handle it with scripture, and how to be comforted/find strength to endure the hurdles from the pages of scripture.  New teachings and knowledge are judged via scripture and the Spirit.  (Note: when I say "scripture" I mean the actual God-breathed scriptures, not men's flawed thoughts on what they think scripture says- less we all become Pharisees).

Myth #2: Because LDS believe in continuing revelation, they will just believe any "revelation" regardless of how ridiculous it is.  Again SO far from the truth!  Yes, it is true that LDS do believe in continuing revelation: that's how God has always worked and He does not change.  But we are also heed the scripture's warnings about false prophets- warnings found abundantly in the Bible and other LDS scriptures.  New teachings are not whimsically accepted, but go through a rigorous process of judging against scripture and via consulting directly with God.  This process happens on the church level, but also on the level of each individual- when they first come into the church (yes, we are aware that the Joseph Smith story can seem out there) and for each experienced member as they learn new things (I myself have gone through this process intensively this week in my private studies).  

Now on to Muhammad: he claims revelation, but that does not mean LDS or any other person should blindly accept them just because he says so.  From the LDS perspective, Muhammad's teaching are clearly against the Truth based on his rejection of Christ's Sonship alone.  This Sonship is clearly and unmistakably established in scripture and via the witness of the spirit.  So yes, Muhammad is rejected.

 

14 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

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.

Please forgive us for our suspicion Steve.  We... honestly it is so easy to become biased and suspicious of non-LDS folks on-line-- at points it seems that the trolls outnumber the honest 10 to 1.  

[NeuroTypical]

btw, I have zero suspicions about you Steve.  I see you being clear and transparent about your motives, and I believe you.   You think you're right, and you're challenging us with what you consider difficult questions.  I have no problem with that.  

And on top of that, you're doing it kindly and civilly, without hardly a trace of passive-aggressiveness or unrighteous judgment.  That's refreshing.

[LeSellers]

36 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

honestly it is so easy to become biased and suspicious of non-LDS folks on-line-- at points it seems that the trolls outnumber the honest 10 to 1.  

Ten to one?!

It seems more like 10,000 to one.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Dup

Lehi

Edited May 2, 2016 by LeSellers

[unixknight]

To me personally, the answer to the question is that I have received testimony through the Holy Spirit that Joseph Smith indeed was a prophet, and that the Book of Mormon is true.  For Mohammed and the Quaran, I have not.

Everything else is just academics.

 

 

[zil]

1 hour ago, LeSellers said:

Ten to one?!

It seems more like 10,000 to one.

Lehi

For the rest of us, it's 10 to 1.  You get 10,000 all for you (I accidentally got copied on one of their planning emails - wrong "zil").

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, zil said:

For the rest of us, it's 10 to 1.  

Less that that. I get anti LDS stuff occasionally, but it's hardly as often as 10 to 1. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, zil said:

For the rest of us, it's 10 to 1.  You get 10,000 all for you (I accidentally got copied on one of their planning emails - wrong "zil").

Why do they like Lehi so much?

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Why do they like Lehi so much?

Because Nephi's dad is just cool.

[zil]

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Why do they like Lehi so much?

How should I know - as soon as it became clear the email wasn't for me, I replied to tell them they got the wrong zil and deleted it.

Maybe it's the "Lehi" thing...  You'll never read about "zil" in scripture.

[LeSellers]

3 hours ago, LeSellers said:

It seems more like 10,000 to one. [Emphasis added]

18 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Why do they like Lehi so much?

7 minutes ago, zil said:

Maybe it's the "Lehi" thing...  You'll never read about "zil" in scripture.

No, it's a perception thing.

The real ratio may be only 10:1, but there are just those times, you know.

Lehi

 

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

No, it's a perception thing.

The real ratio may be only 10:1, but there are just those times, you know.

Lehi

 

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

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, zil said:

How should I know - as soon as it became clear the email wasn't for me, I replied to tell them they got the wrong zil and deleted it.

Maybe it's the "Lehi" thing...  You'll never read about "zil" in scripture.

No, just ziff.