What is the difference between Mormons and Islam?

[dianaiad]

(regarding asking Catholics why they worship idols)

Search, you will find numerous topics on this subject. Far more than Mormons and Islam.

I’m certain that I will. People can be rude, and stupid. The point I was attempting to make is that, since Catholics do NOT worship idols, that being asked why you do is the same thing as being asked what the differences are between Islam and Mormonism; it begs the question. How can you possibly explain why you worship idols—when you don’t worship idols?

The question being begged here is whether there is any similarity between Mormonism and Islam–that isn’t also shared with any other Christian sect. (and please, that is not an invitation to debate on whether Mormons are Christians!)

Diana

 

[RebeccaJ]

Oh, help…what’s MADB? (I’m risking feeling dumb, I suppose, but what ARE you talking about?)

www.mormonapologetics.org

Martin Luther did not claim visitations from Angels. He did not produce scriptures that were self-supporting. By this I mean, that type that you see in the D&C, where God is telling JS nearly daily all sorts of new “stuff”, that conveniently align to JS personal views and goals. The Quran has the same but for Muhammed. And interestingly enough, the Quran and the D&C have very little in common, doctrinally.

Which “revelations” should be believed?

In that sense, Christianity as a whole and Islam has a lot in common. So do the vast majority of Protestant sects.

Christianity is not a restorationist movement, as Mormonism and Islam are. Neither are the the Protestant religions.

More comparable to JW and Islam. Or Seventh Day Adventist and Islam.

(grin) And yet there IS a thread, albeit over a year ago, titled ‘Islam and Catholicism…" I’m just sayin’, is all…

There are so many threads about Islam, you could never read them in a lifetime.

Which is why a thread about Catholicism and Islam makes sense in here. I mean…in HERE, Catholics and Muslims can debate each other with some authority and credibility. What is the point of asking either one what the differences between Islam and MORMONISM are?

You obviously need to read some of the Islam threads. Debate often gets quite heated between Catholics and Muslims.

It’s just that I have never once seen the question asked by someone who wasn’t already indoctrinated by some anti-Mormon publication, and primed to argue…not a request for information, but rather an invitation to battle. It usually, (but not always) is a Baptist or other fundamentalist Protestant. I wasn’t expecting it in a Catholic forum. Came as a surprise.

This is a suspicion that I have found to be unfounded here.

What I do see occurring, is that a coherent answer isn’t provided by Mormons, so people start googling. Where, they do find the answers you are describing. A person who has no knowledge of Mormonism does not know what is correct information.

Many a Mormon has come here saying, if you want to know what Mormons believe, ask me. Well, you can ask ten Mormons the same question and get ten different answers. If you get an answer at all. Diversion is more normal than answers. So a person who has no knowledge of Mormonism can assume the internet is as valid as the ten different answers (or non-answers).

No, actually, it is twenty years of hard experience. It’s ‘pre-conditioned’ in the way that bumping your head on a low door sill conditions you to duck when walking through low doors.

Catholics have 2000 years of this experience, so what’s the problem?

Actually, I did. I found many threads about Islam. Many threads about Mormonism. Two or three about the differences and similarities between them…and absolutely NONE about the differences and similarities between Islam and any other specific sect–except that one about Islam and Catholicism posted over a year ago.

So start up a thread and ask, if you are interested.

As I said, Catholics are the majority here. We already know the differences between Catholicism and Islam. Why would we ask?

Never mind. He asked a question. I asked a question. Perhaps neither one has been answered sufficiently, but I think I’ll stop asking mine.

Good night.

 

[dianaiad]

Amazing how you just throw things out, totally made up, and now maybe you would be amazed that a reference to historical facts are in order.

Ah, yes. Well, since you used a quote from the History of the Church, so can I: William Law…"…entered into conspiracies to encompass President Smith’s death, and that of his brother Hyrum. They were in communication with the Prophet’s enemies in Missouri, and sought to betray him into their hands. " History of the Church, volume VI, introduction, page xxvii

"As early as December 1843, the Prophet Joseph had stated in council, “We have a Judas in our midst,” and both William Law, his second counselor, and William Marks, Nauvoo Stake president, took offense (History of the Church, 6:152). By spring, William Law was holding secret meetings with others on how to kill the Prophet, meetings that were reported to Joseph Smith by two loyal boys attending three meetings, Dennison L. Harris and Robert Scott. On 18 April 1844, Law and a number of other conspirators were excommunicated. The next month, the group of excommunicates appointed Law to succeed Joseph Smith, the “fallen prophet.” They canvassed Nauvoo for new members, but the group disintegrated soon after the death of Joseph Smith. "

Ensign, 1979, September edition; the cite is from:

B. H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church, 2:224–25.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Ah, yes. Well, since you used a quote from the History of the Church, so can I: William Law…"…entered into conspiracies to encompass President Smith’s death, and that of his brother Hyrum. They were in communication with the Prophet’s enemies in Missouri, and sought to betray him into their hands. " History of the Church, volume VI, introduction, page xxvii

"As early as December 1843, the Prophet Joseph had stated in council, “We have a Judas in our midst,” and both William Law, his second counselor, and William Marks, Nauvoo Stake president, took offense (History of the Church, 6:152). By spring, William Law was holding secret meetings with others on how to kill the Prophet, meetings that were reported to Joseph Smith by two loyal boys attending three meetings, Dennison L. Harris and Robert Scott. On 18 April 1844, Law and a number of other conspirators were excommunicated. The next month, the group of excommunicates appointed Law to succeed Joseph Smith, the “fallen prophet.” They canvassed Nauvoo for new members, but the group disintegrated soon after the death of Joseph Smith. "

Ensign, 1979, September edition; the cite is from:

B. H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church, 2:224–25.

Interesting, thanks.

Do you have something that backs up the claim that Law was part of the mob that killed Smith?

 

[mfbukowski]

True. Joseph didn’t go to a mountain. He went into a grove of trees.
He claimed that THIS resulted in a visit, not from an angel, but from God Himself and His Son Jesus Christ.

The angelic visit that resulted in the Book of Mormon was the result of prayer in Joseph’s room, by his bedside.

I’ve been interested in this thread; in fact, this thread is why I joined the Catholic Answers forum. I have found this subgroup (the “non-Catholic Religions” forum) to be unusually courteous; Mormons aren’t treated very well in most forums. It is refreshing.

Now I have to ask: why is the question being asked in the first place? I mean, really–“What is the difference between Mormons and Islam?” The very asking of the question betrays a bias against Mormonism that is pretty obvious: Why are the two belief systems being compared in the first place? It is, after all, just as silly a question as asking what the difference is between the Lutherans and Islam–or between Catholicism and Islam. The basic difference is this: Islam bases its faith around, first, Allah (which is Arabic for ‘God,’ ) and second, around the teachings of a prophet Mohammad. It is not a Christian faith, and Muslims would be the first to tell you that it is not a Christian faith; they believe that Jesus, though He may have been the Jewish Messiah, was not the savior of anybody else; he is not the “Son of God” the way Christians believe Him to be, though as far as I know, they buy the virgin birth.

If a Muslim is reading this, please correct any error I may be making here.

Mormons base their belief system around the idea that Jesus Christ very much IS the Only Begotten Son of God, and that as He communicated with His apostles after He died and was resurrected, He still does.

Given the number of different Christian beliefs out there–including snake handlers, pentacostal revivalists, speakers in tongues and interpreters thereof, drinkers of poison, celibates (for everybody, not simply the priests), lifestyle differences that range from not dancing to you-name-it, it seems rather odd to me that it is only the Mormons who are being compared to Islam.

So again I ask; why?

Diana, newbie.

We do tend to get a lot of flack, and always have. Dunno why. Welcome!

 

[mfbukowski]

Uhmn…Actually, Joseph was murdered in 1844, after he turned himself in, having been promised that he would be protected. Turns out, though, that the very militia that was supposed to have protected him formed a great part, if not most, of the 200 member mob that shot him.

The charges against him were: inciting a riot (though there was none…indeed, it might be charged that the Nauvoo Expositor was doing the inciting, since it’s first issue accused him of setting himself up as a king…a little hard to do when you are running for President…and called for people outside of Nauvoo to come in and kill Mormons.) and treason, for the crime of declaring marshal law; something that was well within his rights as mayor of the town, when threatened by militia attacks against the city.

The prevailing thought by historians is that the charges were formed with the express purpose of getting him somewhere so that he could be killed; the wilder and more serious the charges, the less likely he would be convicted, thus, the more likely that he would actually allow himself to submit to arrest.

It worked, obviously–though he himself didn’t want to do this; he knew what was likely to happen. His wife Emma talked him into going, and Brigham Young never forgave her for that.

Just a wee bit of history there…

Diana

 

[dianaiad]

www.mormonapologetics.org

Good night.

Ah. OK…sorry, but I don’t post there. I’ve been posting in alt.religion.mormon for many years, though. Come to think of it, I also post in alt.religion.christian.roman.catholic, where they actually LIKE me.

Haven’t been there in awhile, though.

Good night to you, as well.

 

[mfbukowski]

I’ve been interested in this thread; in fact, this thread is why I joined the Catholic Answers forum. I have found this subgroup (the “non-Catholic Religions” forum) to be unusually courteous; Mormons aren’t treated very well in most forums. It is refreshing.
Diana, newbie.

Still feel the same way?

 

[mfbukowski]

Hi

Kindly quote my post where I said “Mohammad is the only true messenger”.

How could I say that? There is definitely some misunderstanding by you.

Thanks

You are right. I misunderstood this:

The only truthful testimony of a Messenger is God Allah YHWH ; it is He only who knows that He has sent a person for guidance or not; so a false Messenger is caused death by God Allah YHWH.

So the only way we know that a false messenger is sent is if he is killed? As has already been covered, Joseph Smith was a prophet longer than Mohammad. So it is impossible for a false prophet to live a long life? How long does one have to live to be a true prophet?

There are no instances of anyone who was a false prophet living a long life? What about Bahá’u’lláh? He lived to be 75. Does that make him a true prophet? How about Zoroaster?

 

[mfbukowski]

I see. Thanks. In “Lying for the Lord” does it means that we can also deny being a mormon or the follower of Joseph Smith in case of our life are being threathened?

You are listening to a Catholic explain Mormon beliefs. We do not believe in “lying for the Lord”.

 

[mfbukowski]

I have. The question is, have you? Whether Joseph was correct in his decision, along with the city council, to destroy the printing press is a question one can debate. I hardly think that it was supposed to be a capital offense, though, do you?

Here’s another take on it, admittedly from a Mormon source:

en.fairmormon.org/Nauvoo_Expositor

Nauvoo city council meets regarding the Expositor.
10 June 1844
The city council declares the Expositor a public nuisance and threat to the peace. This was not mere exaggeration; there were sixteen episodes of mob violence against controversial newspapers in Illinois from 1832 to 1867, and so the leaders’ fears of civil unrest were likely well-founded. The city council therefore ordered the press and the paper destroyed.[15] This was done. The decision to suppress the Expositor, while legal for the day, worsened a tense situation (in the years following the Expositor suppression, similar tactics would be used in 1862, 1893, 1918, and 1927).[16]
Historically, presses which violated community ideas of what was proper were a genuine risk to the public peace. Elijah Lovejoy, an anti-slavery editor of The Saint Louis Observer was killed by a pro-slavery mob in 1837.[17] Joseph and the city council might well have had memories of what happened in Missouri when some members of the Church became frustrated with the lack of legal redress for their mistreatment by Missouri citizens.
Missouri probably also set the stage for the legal decision to suppress the press. In 1833, the Evening and Morning Star, the LDS paper in Independence, was subject to being “razed to the ground” at the unaninimous decision of the mob committee established to drive out the Mormons.[18] The mob’s ultimatum later stipulated that the Mormons were not to publish anything before leaving.[19]
The law of the day probably gave Joseph and the council the right to destroy the offending issue; however, since they had also ordered the press and type destroyed, they violated property laws. Joseph later said he would be happy to pay for the damages.[20] Critics are inconsistent when they complain about the Nauvoo city council’s decision to suppress the Expositor (an action that was legal) and yet do not also acknowledge that Mormon presses had been destroyed by mobs acting with no legal authority whatever.
Despite the fact that the Expositor’s suppression was legal, the destruction of the press appeared high-handed to Church critics, and other newspapers began to call for the Mormons’ expulsion or destruction. Joseph and others were arrested on charges of “riot.”

 

[zerinus]

**You have shown weakness in your arguments as usual for the mormons. I only knew that Joseph Smith was killed in Year 1851 A.D. Perhaps it is right. No harm. According to you he started preaching his message at the very young age of 14. I am surprised and admit my ignorance about all this.
You win and I lose if Joseph Smith started his ministery at the age of 14. And I will agree that Deut 18:18 did not apply to him.

Next.**

Joseph Smith received his appointment to be the prophet of the new dispensation from God at age 14 when he received the First Vision. That is when he was called of God to be a prophet. He did not begin his ministry in earnest until a few years later when he translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God, and shortly after organized the Church in 1830. However, if in your opinion his ministry as a prophet should begin when he started “preaching his message,” the answer to that is immediately. He related the account of his First Vision to a Protestant minister, after which he was constantly being persecuted because he continued to affirm what he had seen in that vision (JS-H 1:27). Most of his ministry and preaching initially, however, were to members of his family and close friends. I recall that Mohamed also began his ministry initially in private, to close family members and friends, before going more public.

Again another shot from you at Muhammad. You want to avoid the verse Deut 18:18 to be applied to Jospeh Smith. Then what use is that verse? It is particularly for the false prophets. How can Jospeh Smith get out and away from that punishment from God. It is God who told about that and it is the will of God which cannot be averted.

Talking to a Muslim about the Bible is like talking to someone from another planet. What you are referring to is Deuteronomy 18:20, which is as follows:

But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

When it says that “that prophet shall die,” it does not mean that he will die by himself, or that God will kill him. It means that he should be put to death. In other words, being a false prophet under the old Judaic law carries the death penalty. That expression occures elsewhere in the Bible, with that meaning:

Deuteronomy 17:

**12 And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel.

13 And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.**

Deuteronomy 22:

**25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:**

Deuteronomy 24:

7 If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you.

In all the above verses “shall die” means that he must be executed. It does not mean that he will drop dead by himslef.

**That does not apply to Muhammad who survived the intense powerful poison given by a Jewess. He survived and lived for three or four years, quite healthy life, even conquered Makkah after that and made many expeditions against the rascals/ enemies/ kafirs.

Had Muhammad died by the poison then verse Deut 18:18 would have applied to him too.**

Many believe that his death at the relatively early age of 63 was the result of that poisining.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

I was asking if the Mormon has that kind of believe since somebody posted that Joseph Smith was lying? If you believe that the Mormon does not have that kind of teaching, please just say so. I am interested with the Taqiyya because somebody gave the reference from Quran and the Muslim confirmed that. Joseph Smith is a Prophet according to you, and Abraham was a prophet to me (and to you too, I think). Both Abraham and J. Smith lied for their own defense as stated.

Mormonism does not have anything in its theology equivalent to “Taqiyya” in Islam. However, if you wanted to argue that way, there are several instances of God’s prophets not telling the full truth because for one reason or another it was not expedient to do so at that time. Samuel 16:2 and 2 Kings 8:9-10 are a couple of examples. There are more if you wanted to look for them.

zerinus

 

[paarsurrey]

Originally Posted by paarsurrey:

Kindly quote my post where I said “Mohammad is the only true messenger”.

How could I say that? There is definitely some misunderstanding by you

.

mfbukowski Says:

You are right. I misunderstood this:

Paarsurrey says:
The only truthful testimony of a Messenger is God Allah YHWH ; it is He only who knows that He has sent a person for guidance or not; so a false Messenger is caused death by God Allah YHWH.

mfbukowski Says:

So the only way we know that a false messenger is sent is if he is killed?

Paarsurrey says:

In fact I did not exactly mean that this is the only way ; it is one of the ways that if someone is killed, then he is not a Messenger of God, certainly, in terms of OTBible.

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna

Thanks

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi

I don’t know much of Mormons, sorry, and I have never found any interest in knowing much about the Mormons, the reason I have already stated. No mormon ever met me personally; this perhaps is the first time I am in a dialogue/discussion with the Mormons.

I understand that the Mormons say that they are Christians . Is it so? If yes: in what sense please?

I have a litmus test of knowing a Christian from a Muslim.

All Muslims believe, whatever the sect, that Jesus did not die a cursed death on Cross.

All Christians believe, whatever the sect, that Jesus died a cursed death on Cross.

What is the position of our Mormon friends, brothers in humanity here on the above?

Please don’t mind; I want no disrespect to anybody, I have to advance my research for truth in a straightforward manner, when I get introduced with somebody.

If the Mormons feel offended from my posts; they may kindly ignore my posts.

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna.

Thanks

 

[paarsurrey]

mfbukowski Says:

So the only way we know that a false messenger is sent is if he is killed?

Paarsurrey says:

In fact I did not exactly mean that this is the only way ; it is one of the ways that if someone is killed, then he is not a Messenger of God, certainly, in terms of OTBible.

Hi

In terms of Quran, there are other ways also to recognize a truthful Messenger.

All Messenger say that God Allah YHWH is ONE and only He is to be Worshipped and obeyed: and the Messenger also says about himself that people should not consider him God and they are only a carrier of God Allah’s message.

This I have explained in my own words; I could quote many verses from Quran, if needed.

What is the position of Joseph Smith on the above, please?

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna.

Thanks

 

[dianaiad]

Interesting, thanks.

Do you have something that backs up the claim that Law was part of the mob that killed Smith?

I didn’t claim that he WAS a part of the mob that killed Joseph. His diary indicates that he was elsewhere during the attack. What we do know is that he did plot to kill Joseph and Hyrum, and that he was in Carthage during the day of the attack, speaking with several of the men who later bragged about being in on it. He was actually accused and arrested for participating, and almost instantly released.

 

[dianaiad]

Still feel the same way?

Oh, goodness, if you think THIS is heated, or harsh, you’ve been spoiled rotten! I have been cyberstalked (with pictures of very naked, very fat, women posted on the 'net with my name and captions) I have been called every name in the book–including a few, thank heavens, that I haven’t figured out the meaning of yet. I have made the atheist kook list (a high honor, actually…)

My favorite post of all is an incredibly creative diatribe that called me an aged, diseased lady of the streets whose brain was so disturbed by early training and so influenced by Satan that I would probably do business with babies and feed them to my…dogs…for dinner. (the language used has been so sanitized for this group that all the flavor is gone from it, but use your imagination).

All because I called someone ‘sir’ when I disagreed with him. He considered it to be an insult.

This group? Well, I can tell that it contains some truly opinionated people, who can express those opinions with conviction and strength–and who would keep me on my toes.

So yeah. I still feel that way. Mostly.

 

[dianaiad]

Hi

I don’t know much of Mormons, sorry, and I have never found any interest in knowing much about the Mormons, the reason I have already stated. No mormon ever met me personally; this perhaps is the first time I am in a dialogue/discussion with the Mormons.

I understand that the Mormons say that they are Christians . Is it so? If yes: in what sense please?

I have a litmus test of knowing a Christian from a Muslim.

All Muslims believe, whatever the sect, that Jesus did not die a cursed death on Cross.

All Christians believe, whatever the sect, that Jesus died a cursed death on Cross.

What is the position of our Mormon friends, brothers in humanity here on the above?

Please don’t mind; I want no disrespect to anybody, I have to advance my research for truth in a straightforward manner, when I get introduced with somebody.

If the Mormons feel offended from my posts; they may kindly ignore my posts.

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna.

Thanks

The definition of the word “Christian” varies according to who is using it. In fact, there is a logical fallacy called a ‘true scott,’ the classic example of which goes thusly: “No Scott drinks whiskey. Angus McBee, born in Aberdeen, drinks whiskey. Therefore he is not a true Scott.”

I think that this fallacy should be renamed the ‘true Christian’ fallacy. Everybody who uses it defines it differently, as you just have; to you, a ‘true Christian’ has to believe that Christ died on the cross. Well, Mormons definitely believe that–but that’s not what makes us Christian.

What makes us “Christian” is that we base our beliefs around the teachings of Jesus Christ as we believe them to be, and we believe we are Christians. That’s it. “Christian” does not mean “Saved.” It does not mean “correct.” It definitely does not mean a specific set of doctrinal beliefs and practices that exclude all others who think that Christ meant this rather than that.

To claim that only trinitarians (for instance) can be 'true Christians" is to commit this fallacy. To claim that “True Christians” can not pray for intercession from Mary or other Saints is to commit that fallacy. See where I’m going with this?

If Mormons were to buy into the definition of “Christian” that those who deny us use–which boils down to “he who believes precisely what I do about Him–and is correct and saved,” then we would have to say still that yes, we are Christians.

and nobody else is.

and that would be insane, because of course they are. They may not be RIGHT, but that they are Christian? Of course.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The definition of the word

What makes us “Christian” is that we base our beliefs around the teachings of Jesus Christ as we believe them to be, and we believe we are Christians. That’s it. “Christian” does not mean “Saved.” It does not mean “correct.” It definitely does not mean a specific set of doctrinal beliefs and practices that exclude all others who think that Christ meant this rather than that.

To claim that only trinitarians (for instance) can be 'true Christians" is to commit this fallacy. To claim that “True Christians” can not pray for intercession from Mary or other Saints is to commit that fallacy. See where I’m going with this?

This is from a mormon POV, one that arose less than 200 years ago. Prior to the Great Awakening in the US, a Christian was most certainly defined by the very things that you are saying is a fallacy. It is only non-Christian startups who wish to call themselves Christian that attempt to redefine Christianity.

Sorry, Christians don’t buy it.

If Mormons were to buy into the definition of “Christian” that those who deny us use–which boils down to “he who believes precisely what I do about Him–and is correct and saved,” then we would have to say still that yes, we are Christians.

and nobody else is.

You are Christian in your belief in Jesus Christ. You are not Christian in your other beliefs. Christians do not believe the myriad of strangeness that is Mormonism. You have wrapped your belief in Jesus Christ in a package that is completely, totally, 100% outside of Christianity.

and that would be insane, because of course they are. They may not be RIGHT, but that they are Christian? Of course.

According to your definition of Christian, which no one accepts except Mormons.