What is the difference between Mormons and Islam?

[dianaiad]

This relativism is the fallacy. Truth is not one thing here and another thing there and yet another thing over there. There is one truth.

Many secular humanists hold a view that Jesus may or may not have been a historical figure. But some view His existence as believable and His teachings as revolutionary and very humanists. They incorporate some of what He taught into their lives.

Would you call a secular humanist Christian?

If he identifies himself as one because his beliefs are based around His teachings, sure.

I repeat; it’s a term of classification, not a ticket to heaven.

Well, you are a drama queen. I’m talking about this forum. Mormons always get this persecution thing going, when we have nothing but words on a screen.

“nothing but words on a screen?” you should have made that more clear, then.

I am from a LDS family, 5th generation, polygamists, direct descendant of people who were born in NY, Kirtland, Nauvoo and who left their families orphaned (several wives and children) when they died on the trail to UT.

I am also a direct descedent of St. Thomas More.

So you can kill the drama. It isn’t relative to who is Christian or not.

No, it isn’t. But then I’m not claiming that…and you were changing the topic.

 

[mfbukowski]

Hi

Well, my question was in fact directed to Mormons, though you are welcome to reply. The topic of the thread arranges Mormons to Muslims; so my primary concern is as to what the Mormons think they are. If they say that they are not Muslims and they are Christians; for the purposes of this thread I would accept that, though the Christians may accept it or not.

The Christians have their own preferences. Please don’t mind; in my opinion there are no “true Christians” in Christians, as they only follow Paul , and Jesus only in name not in essence and reality.

Do Mormons say they are Christians or not? From this standpoint my research would advance with the Mormons.

I love Jesus and Mary as I love Buddha and Krishna

Thanks

First, dianaiad is a Mormon.

Secondly, yes Mormons believe that they are christians. More particularly, we believe we are the only true christians. So you see this leads to a lot of name calling on this forum, which is unfortunate.

Just as you believe Mohammad restored the true relgion of Allah, we believe that Joseph Smith restored true christianity, which of course to a Christian means the true relgion of Eloheim.

We believe that there is one God in three persons, Father Son and Holy Ghost, who are perfectly united in purpose.

I am curious on your opinion on why the opening verse of the bible refers to God creating the earth, and calls God “Eloheim” in hebrew which I am sure you know is plural.

I personally believe we worship the same God as you, but our understanding of him is different obviously. But the name appears to be the same – EL and Allah – different pronunciations of the same form

 

[mfbukowski]

That is a great thing to say. My reason of being here actually not to compare my religion against other. I mainly argue against somebody from another religion who claim false things about my religion but unable to provide any clue other than from their own holy book, or from other spectacular sources not even supported by their own holy book.

And this is why I am here too.

 

[planten]

First, dianaiad is a Mormon.

Secondly, yes Mormons believe that they are christians. More particularly, we believe we are the only true christians. So you see this leads to a lot of name calling on this forum, which is unfortunate.

Just as you believe Mohammad restored the true relgion of Allah, we believe that Joseph Smith restored true christianity, which of course to a Christian means the true relgion of Eloheim.

We believe that there is one God in three persons, Father Son and Holy Ghost, who are perfectly united in purpose.

I am curious on your opinion on why the opening verse of the bible refers to God creating the earth, and calls God “Eloheim” in hebrew which I am sure you know is plural.

I personally believe we worship the same God as you, but our understanding of him is different obviously. But the name appears to be the same – EL and Allah – different pronunciations of the same form

**No disrespect is intended for the mormons. It is was a problem that we Muslims knew very little about the mormons. Thanks to the posters that we have learnt a lot during this discussion. At least I followed much of the discussion in order to understand mormonism.

There were useful arguments and counter arguments during the discussion. It was helpful. Thanks to all friends. I feel that Catholics should admit that mormons are christians because they attach themselves to christianity. There should be no harm, even though there is a division.

Yet I know nothing about the teachings of JS.
**

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi

It is a happy occasion to meet some Mormons here. I had heard their name so many times but did not have met any amongst them so far. Peace and love be to mfbukowski, zerinus and dianaiad and if there are any more Mormons here.

Now I know that they are not Muslims, for sure, they are not; they are Christians with the same probabality of being the “true Christians” as do the JWs or Protestants or Catholics etc 32000+ denominations of them, all happy to call themselves a “true Christians”.

I think I have been replied almost all the questions I had asked and I thank the Mormons for that; except the following:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4619003&postcount=115

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?

Would you kindly reply it?

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

Thanks

 

[majick275]

Originally Posted by dianaiad
The “Carthage Greys,” who, when Joseph was placed in Carthage jail, were supposed to have protected him. An odd choice, one would think, given that when Joseph was paraded through town toward the jail, they all threw their arms on the ground in protest of Mormons.

you are the only one bringing up carthage greys. i spoke about the nauvoo legion.

It means that I think it was an odd choice to pick protectors from a group that was inimical to Mormons, to the point that they threw down their weapons rather than defend him against people protesting him in the streets. A more suspicious person than a turnip might wonder about the motive behind that choice.

well you are the only one bringing them up

That you think this justifies their behavior is interesting. I’ll remember that when the MMM comes up.

are we gonna have to discuss MMM? inn anay event i have been consistent in saying that JS death was wrong. it wasn’t justified by these events. it WAS incited by them.

That William Law wrote the Expositor isn’t in question. That you presented him as Joseph Smith’s counselor and friend IS;

but he was. that is indisputable. his knowledge of JS secrets caused this to CHANGE. but Law didn’t “forget” what he knew as a confidante.

by doing so, and sending us to a site that is blatantly anti-Mormon and is proud of it, you are being considerably more than ‘the messenger.’ you are like the herald that arrives under color of a truce flag, and pulls out the sword.

who cares what the site says. just read the document. i already said to disregard their analysis. the documents are accurate regardless of who posted them.

The reality here is that William Law profited from Joseph Smith, became his enemy, attempted to kill him, and only after he was stopped from doing that did he publish the Expositor. That rather diminishes the credibility of the rhetoric in it as far as I am concerned.

law never profited from JS. it was the other way around. JS shouldn’t have tried to sleep with law’s wife. JS shouldn’t have tried to assassinate Law. Law was of the initial thought that the LDS church was true and that JS had become a “fallen prophet”. he thus wanted to preserve the church. he had already tried calling JS to repentance. JS did not want anyone to know his secret affairs.

SAY WHAT? WHERE is there any evidence of any sort that has Joseph attempting to kill William Law? Great googly moogly; Joseph even offered to pay for the damages to the printing press!!! (shaking head…)

I'll grant you the attempt to discredit him.

law told us that. you take JS word for it that angels spoke with him.

Asked and answered. Several times. Yes, I have.

well then you have you mind made up

 

[majick275]

continued

You are quite right. It is not taught in seminary that he was supposed to be castrated as well as tarred and feathered, but the good Dr. Dennison backed out when the time came. They forgot to tell me that the attackers tried to force acid down his throat, and that they had succeeded in doing so to Sydney Rigdon–nearly killing him and causing permanent brain damage. They didn’t tell me in Seminary that the “reason” for doing this was that Joseph had, evidently, 'made sexual advances" to a seventeen year old girl–who, even though she grew up, was sealed (married) to Joseph and later and left the church, was quite clear that no such thing ever happened.

yeah…he did try talk this girl into “celestial mariage”

As well, the accusation was supposed to have been made by the brother of one of the attackers–who happened to be an only child.

where do you get this? sources please?

I was not told that the accusation of unwanted sexual advances were really a coverup for a bunch of vigilantes who were mad at Joseph over the bank failure–one that Joseph lost all HIS money in as well.

so at least you admit it was disgruntled mormons. castration was the preferred punishment for sexual predators though. i’m sure the money had them angry to begin with. the attempt to seduce yet ANOTHER teenage girl was the final straw.

I was told, however, that the mob dragged Joseph out in the middle of the night, leaving the door open so that the winter air got in and chilled his son who had the measles–who then died of pneumonia and hyperthermia.

and these children were adopted from who? perhaps JS should have stayed home more and kept his pants on.

So you are quite right. the real story isn’t what is told to seminary students. The real story is much worse.

i agree but not in the way you think. JS was a womanizing con man whose biggest enemies were those mormons who fond out the truth and didn’t by his excuses which somehow became “scripture”.

Actually, many, but by no means all, of his attackers that night were disaffected Mormons, really upset about the bank. They didn’t stay Mormons. In fact, I think it’s safe to say that their actions that night could be considered their resignation letters, don’t you?

not necessarily. many back then considered the church greater than JS and thought him a man who had fallen to sin. they still stayed mormon.

His bank failed. A great many Mormons, including him, lost a great deal of money. He was not a very good banker.

technically it was an “antibank” as he never intended to follow banking laws. it was a scam.

Tell me.

What sort of justice is it that decrees tar and feathering (believe me, such a thing is not funny, involving as it does a substance that must be scraped off flesh with third degree burns) castration and the death of an innocent child as proper punishment? What sort of justice is it that decides that simply suing, or bringing charges against, Joseph isn’t sufficient–but that he must be accused of sexual misconduct by a non-existent man in order to excuse the actions taken in the middle of the bloody night?

I’m sorry, but I have real problems with people who excuse stuff like this, or make it seem justified.

i think the vigilante justice was wrong. BUT…he kept fleeing to other states to avoid the lawsuits and had followers willing to break the law and lie on his behalf. he was very guilty of NUMEROUS counts of sexual misconduct. JS should have spent his life in prison with his property seized. he should NOT have been tarred and feathered or shot.

 

[majick275]

Well, Joseph didn’t murder all his followers, and he was a great deal more successful than Koresh. Not that this matters…I don’t really care whether you think he was a prophet or not, frankly. As to his being successful, well…

neither did jones. koresh didn’t try to kill any of his. you say the success doesn’t matter yet you bring it up. would Mohamed be more appropriate? JS was nowhere near as successful as him. (although Js liked the comparison)

That’s a pretty silly observation, given everything, don’t you think? Whatever you may believe about the doctrine, you have to admit that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is SUCCESSFUL.

why? how do you define success? does that mean that benny hinn? charles taze russel? how about ellen white? (SDA’s have more growth and better convert retention) i consider these false prophets whose only “success” is deceiving many over a long time.

Not at the time he attempted to kill Joseph, and not at the time he wrote the Expositor–and you presented his writings as if he were such at the time. Isn’t that a little like allowing Judas to testify against Jesus because he was an apostle? The bias is pretty obvious.

but why is that bias there? i think the fact that JS chose him and the reasons why he left to give credence to his words.

I didn’t say that. I said that he did the most of any single person to ensure it. There is a difference.

i disagree with that even

Of course I am biased. I see all this stuff through the lens of my own belief. However, I still see all this stuff. …and what do you mean I haven’t presented any evidence? I gave you cites, and history…good grief.

no you gave your opinion of history. give some sources

Hey. Don’t diss Jeff Lindsay! He makes awesome wood carvings.

AND he presents plenty of cites for his claims, too.

he misrepresents all over the place and cites people with dubious credentials. he just parrots the BYU crew.

Where did I deny the text of the Expositor? I am pointing out that A: you were presenting Law as something he was not in order to lend credibility to his claims, and B; I showed you where his claims are less than credible, given his attempt to murder Joseph.

and i claim his account is still credible. i see it as evidence of JS being the untrustworthy one

I don’t look at anti-catholic stuff. I have no way of dealing with it properly…except that if their accuracy about Catholics is at the same level as their accuracy regarding Mormonism, then they are pure wastes of paper, bandwidth and time.

except for the mormon stuff that is anti-catholic.

Thank you, by the way, for quoting the only ‘anti’ stuff that the church has ever written…considerably over a hundred years old and not aimed at any one specific group. Interesting, isn’t it, that you have to go back that far to find something to offend you?

no i don’t but that is canonized scripture. the temple stuff wasn’t changed until 1990. i could bring up mconkie, shoot i could go into hinkley’s rant about the nicene creed.

I’m not claiming anything. I am wondering what the ‘danger’ is, though. I mean, we don’t go out killing people, or kidnapping them. We feed them, though–and given that we work with Catholic Charities a LOT, the Catholics know about that very well.

the danger is spiritual. and man doesn’t live by bread alone

True, if we grow much bigger we might put a crimp in the wine and whiskey production…but then drunk driving arrests might go down a little. Tobacco farmers will have to grow something else.

that’s funny in light of BY’s ideas about producing those things in Utah. it certainly hasn’t stopped marriott from distributing any of that. no i think mormons would never affect any of those things and their numbers are far too small to present a threat like that. the threats are to the few individuals who are vulnerable to the spiritual poison.

We will see a wild and wooly influx of community theater, and “Joseph and the Technicolor Dreamcoat” will be running through the heads of everybody on the planet. Folkdancers will wander the streets. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir will take over the air waves, and (gasp) Marie Osmond might actually WIN 'Dancing with the Stars" next time.

Heaven preserve the lot of us.

community theater is NOT unique to mormons. folkdancers are everywhere. the motab is already prevalent. i don’t care for dancing with the stars. Big Love might get banned. why don’t we look at what happened when mormons were running utah under BY. that might be a better example.

 

[mfbukowski]

Hi

It is a happy occasion to meet some Mormons here. I had heard their name so many times but did not have met any amongst them so far. Peace and love be to mfbukowski, zerinus and dianaiad and if there are any more Mormons here.

Now I know that they are not Muslims, for sure, they are not; they are Christians with the same probabality of being the “true Christians” as do the JWs or Protestants or Catholics etc 32000+ denominations of them, all happy to call themselves a “true Christians”.

I think I have been replied almost all the questions I had asked and I thank the Mormons for that; except the following:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4619003&postcount=115

Would you kindly reply it?

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

Thanks

I thought I answered this is post 143, but perhaps that didn’t answer the question.

If this is not satisfactory, please ask a more specific quesiton and I will be glad to respond.

 

[mfbukowski]

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?

Maybe I didn’t answer your question after all. True messengers do what you have said, but we would add that they should testify also of Jesus Christ, meaning that he is our savior.

But we have some unique beliefs regarding how one finds a true message.

The book of Mormon says: (Moroni 10:4)

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. scriptures.lds.org/en/moro/10

This means that after you study out the truth of the message, that God will actually tell you personally that the message is true and correct, by personal revelation to your heart. This means that you will have an experience caused by God that these things are true.

Many if not all members of my church believe that God has told them that the church is true.

And why would he not do that? He loves us and wants the best for us. And this is a very confusing world where there are many who say they preach the truth.

We believe that God is capable of telling each individual that the message is true.

Does that answer the question?

 

[paarsurrey]

Maybe I didn’t answer your question after all. True messengers do what you have said, but we would add that they should testify also of Jesus Christ, meaning that he is our savior.

But we have some unique beliefs regarding how one finds a true message.

The book of Mormon says: (Moroni 10:4)

This means that after you study out the truth of the message, that God will actually tell you personally that the message is true and correct, by personal revelation to your heart. This means that you will have an experience caused by God that these things are true.

Many if not all members of my church believe that God has told them that the church is true.

And why would he not do that? He loves us and wants the best for us. And this is a very confusing world where there are many who say they preach the truth.

We believe that God is capable of telling each individual that the message is true.

Does that answer the question?

Hi

I don’t think that you have answered the question properly. Maybe some other Mormons, friend and brothers in humanity, could answer it better; or you may improve it again.

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

Thanks

 

[zerinus]

Hi

I don’t think that you have answered the question properly. Maybe some other Mormons, friend and brothers in humanity, could answer it better; or you may improve it again.

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

Thanks

Hi, I take it that this is the question you were referring to:

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?

The position of Joseph Smith on the above is as follows:

1. We worship one God whom we address as the Father. However, we also believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and a divine being, which would contradict Islam. We also believe that the Father and the Son are two separate beings, which contradicts mainstream Christianity as well.
2. We believe that Joseph Smith is a prophet like any other prophet that has ever lived. He is a carrier of God’s message, not God himself; and we don’t worship him as such. However, that would still be a contradiction to Islam, because Islam teaches that Mohamed was the last prophet, and that there won’t be any more prophets after him.

So it looks like according to your criteria you Joseph Smith would not qualify as a prophet! But we don’t accept that your criteria is a valid one. We believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and a divine being; and we believe that Mohamed was not the last prophet, which allows room for Joseph Smith to be a prophet to.

zerinus

 

[dianaiad]

Hi

It is a happy occasion to meet some Mormons here. I had heard their name so many times but did not have met any amongst them so far. Peace and love be to mfbukowski, zerinus and dianaiad and if there are any more Mormons here.

Now I know that they are not Muslims, for sure, they are not; they are Christians with the same probabality of being the “true Christians” as do the JWs or Protestants or Catholics etc 32000+ denominations of them, all happy to call themselves a “true Christians”.

Oh, I love it!

(grin) There you have it, folks, my argument in clear, blazing, wonderful, ironic color. Thank you for putting it so succinctly.
.

 

[paarsurrey]

Paarsurrey said:
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?

The position of Joseph Smith on the above is as follows:

1. We worship one God whom we address as the Father. However, we also believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and a divine being, which would contradict Islam. We also believe that the Father and the Son are two separate beings, which contradicts mainstream Christianity as well.
2. We believe that Joseph Smith is a prophet like any other prophet that has ever lived. He is a carrier of God’s message, not God himself; and we don’t worship him as such. However, that would still be a contradiction to Islam, because Islam teaches that Mohamed was the last prophet, and that there won’t be any more prophets after him.

So it looks like according to your criteria you Joseph Smith would not qualify as a prophet! But we don’t accept that your criteria is a valid one. We believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and a divine being; and we believe that Mohamed was not the last prophet, which allows room for Joseph Smith to be a prophet to.

zerinus

Hi

Thanks for your good reply. It covers my question fully, I think. It could form a basis for my further search for truth. I thank other mormons friends alos who replied to my questions.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Paarsurrey said:

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?

Hi

I would like to quote here from Quran as I have mentioned above:

[3:78] اِنَّ الَّذِيْنَ يَشْتَرُوْنَ بِعَهْدِ اللّٰهِ وَاَيْمَانِهِمْ ثَمَنًا قَلِيْلًا اُولٰٓٮِٕكَ لَا خَلَاقَ لَهُمْ فِىْ الْاٰخِرَةِ وَلَا يُكَلِّمُهُمُ اللّٰهُ وَلَا يَنْظُرُ اِلَيْهِمْ يَوْمَ الْقِيٰمَةِ وَلَا يُزَكِّيْهِمْ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ اَلِيْمٌ‏
[3:78] As for those who take a paltry price in exchange for their covenant with Allah and their oaths, they shall have no portion in the life to come, and Allah will neither speak to them nor look upon them on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He purify them; and for them shall be a grievous punishment.​

[3:79] وَاِنَّ مِنْهُمْ لَـفَرِيْقًا يَّلْوٗنَ اَلْسِنَتَهُمْ بِالْكِتٰبِ لِتَحْسَبُوْهُ مِنَ الْكِتٰبِ‌ۚ وَمَا هُوَ مِنَ الْكِتٰبِۚ وَيَقُوْلُوْنَ هُوَ مِنْ عِنْدِ اللّٰهِ وَمَا هُوَ مِنْ عِنْدِ اللّٰهِ‌ۚ وَيَقُوْلُوْنَ عَلَى اللّٰهِ الْكَذِبَ وَ هُمْ يَعْلَمُوْنَ‏
[3:79] And, surely, among them is a section who twist their tongues while reciting the Book; that you may think it to be part of the Book, while it is not part of the Book. And they say, ‘It is from Allah;’ while it is not from Allah; and they utter a lie against Allah knowingly.​

**
[3:80] مَا كَانَ لِبَشَرٍ اَنْ يُّؤْتِيَهُ اللّٰهُ الْكِتٰبَ وَالْحُكْمَ وَالنُّبُوَّةَ ثُمَّ يَقُوْلَ لِلنَّاسِ كُوْنُوْا عِبَادًا لِّىْ مِنْ دُوْنِ اللّٰهِ وَلٰـكِنْ كُوْنُوْا رَبَّانِيّٖنَ بِمَا كُنْتُمْ تُعَلِّمُوْنَ الْكِتٰبَ وَبِمَا كُنْتُمْ تَدْرُسُوْنَۙ‏
[3:80] It is not possible for a man that Allah should give him the Book and dominion and prophethood, and then he should say to men: ‘Be servants to me and not to Allah;’ but he would say: ‘Be solely devoted to the Lord because you teach the Book and because you study it.’ **

---

[3:81] وَلَا يَاْمُرَكُمْ اَنْ تَتَّخِذُوْا الْمَلٰٓٮِٕكَةَ وَالنَّبِيّٖنَ اَرْبَابًا‌ؕ اَيَاْمُرُكُمْ بِالْكُفْرِ بَعْدَ اِذْ اَنْتُمْ مُّسْلِمُوْنَ‏
[3:81] Nor is it possible for him that he should bid you take the angels and the Prophets for Lords. Would he enjoin you to disbelieve after you have submitted to God?

---

[3:82] وَاِذْ اَخَذَ اللّٰهُ مِيْثَاقَ النَّبِيّٖنَ لَمَاۤ اٰتَيْتُكُمْ مِّنْ كِتٰبٍ وَّحِكْمَةٍ ثُمَّ جَآءَكُمْ رَسُوْلٌ مُّصَدِّقٌ لِّمَا مَعَكُمْ لَتُؤْمِنُنَّ بِهٖ وَلَـتَنْصُرُنَّهٗ‌ؕ قَالَ ءَاَقْرَرْتُمْ وَاَخَذْتُمْ عَلٰى ذٰلِكُمْ اِصْرِىْ‌ؕ قَالُوْۤا اَقْرَرْنَا‌ؕ قَالَ فَاشْهَدُوْا وَاَنَا مَعَكُمْ مِّنَ الشّٰهِدِيْنَ‏
[3:82] And remember the time when Allah took a covenant from the people through the Prophets, saying: ‘Whatever I give you of the Book and Wisdom and then there comes to you a Messenger, fulfilling that which is with you, you shall believe in him and help him.’ And He said: ‘Do you agree, and do you accept the responsibility which I lay upon you in this matter?’ They said, ‘We agree;’ He said, ‘Then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses.’

alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?submitCh=Read+from+verse%3A&ch=3&verse=76

So Quran given the phenomenon under which God Allah YHWH sends the Messengers.

Thanks

 

[dianaiad]

no you gave your opinion of history. give some sources

I did.

community theater is NOT unique to mormons. folkdancers are everywhere. the motab is already prevalent. i don’t care for dancing with the stars. Big Love might get banned. why don’t we look at what happened when mormons were running utah under BY. that might be a better example.

Wow. That last paragraph was a joke, m’friend. I’m well aware that community theater isn’t unique to Mormons–it is simply beloved by them. Considering that “Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat,” while being a staple in Utah community theater, was written by a man who is definitely NOT
Mormon, I would think that would be obvious.

As to what happened when BY was running Utah? Oh, let’s see: women had the vote when very few women anywhere else did. In fact, the feds took the vote AWAY from the women in Utah. BY was sending women back east to medical school, and encouraging education for women in law, medicine, education and the arts when most women anywhere else had very little access to it.

The first thing BY did after picking a site for the Temple was to pick VERY GOOD sites for building churches for other denominations, before he alloted sites for anything else.

Was it a bit of a theocracy? Well, yeah. Pretty much had to be, given the pressure on them from outside. We still managed to be individuals, and invent, learn, grow and contribute to the arts and sciences.

Oh, as to 'anti-catholic" mormon stuff out there?

Lessee: let me set the parameters; to me, “anti;” means publications aimed at the general public for the express purpose of discrediting, destroying, or turning people away from, a stated belief system. It will contain deliberate inaccuracies, (that’s “lies,”) and will twist facts to make them seem to be different than they are. They will take things out of context–and if one accuses a specific belief system of engaging in it, you had better be able to prove that the publication is from officially sanctioned church sources.

Now I can show you anti-Catholic stuff from the Baptists and from many other Protestant sects. I can show you anti-semitic stuff from Catholic sources, Protestant sources and Islamic sources. I can show you anti-Mormon stuff from all the above using those specific parameters, and all of them published within the last year or so.

I can give you titles enough to fill a New York phone book.

Can you show me the anti Catholic, or anti-any other specific belief system, publications from the Mormons within the last fifty years? How about the last century?

???

I’ll wait.

 

[rob179ny]

**Ahmadis are followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, which obviously is not a major sect in Islam. Which is also very young in comparison to Christianity which is over two thousand years old. The Ahmadis may appear to be peaceful but one should not judge. Especially if you make that claim to be a Ahmadi a peaceful muslim, this statement makes the rest of Islam appear not peaceful. It very much distorts and confuses other on what Islam is. I want to learn from the mainstream muslim about Islam not from someone who is just sowing confusion. **

 

[dianaiad]

**Ahmadis are followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, which obviously is not a major sect in Islam. Which is also very young in comparison to Christianity which is over two thousand years old. The Ahmadis may appear to be peaceful but one should not judge. Especially if you make that claim to be a Ahmadi a peaceful muslim, this statement makes the rest of Islam appear not peaceful. It very much distorts and confuses other on what Islam is. I want to learn from the mainstream muslim about Islam not from someone who is just sowing confusion. **

You have to understand that from where the rest of us are sitting, Islam doesn’t look peaceful. Quite the opposite…and it is Muslims who are doing the damage to your reputation.

 

[planten]

**Ahmadis are followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, which obviously is not a major sect in Islam. Which is also very young in comparison to Christianity which is over two thousand years old. The Ahmadis may appear to be peaceful but one should not judge. Especially if you make that claim to be a Ahmadi a peaceful muslim, this statement makes the rest of Islam appear not peaceful. It very much distorts and confuses other on what Islam is. I want to learn from the mainstream muslim about Islam not from someone who is just sowing confusion. **

**You are a peaceful Catholic. May Allah bless you. It is understodd clearly from the teachings of Ahmadis that they are peaceful people. They do not believe in any armed type of Jihad for the last 120 years. They have been preaching against such Jihad for a vey long time and they are abused by the mainstream Muslims on that account too.

It would be good for you to find out all about Ahmadis yourself and not leave it to the opponents of the Ahmadis. You may be more confused in the end.

Of course there is no harm in listening to non_Ahmadis about their problems against Ahmadis. Almost 99 % beliefs of Ahmadis are same as non_ahmadis. There is no difference at all, except that:

1. Ahmadis believe that Jesus has died a natural death at the age of about 120 years.
2. They believe that Muhammad is the last law bearing prophet.
3. They believe that Allah is still speaking to people. i.e. revelation ( not part of sacred books) is still continued. i.e. the news of the unseen unknown things are still coming (available).

Such are the differences. And another rmajor difference is that the Ahmadis believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian (1835-1908) was the promised Masiha of the Muslim Ummah that was promised by the prophet Muhammad.

The mainline Muslims do not believe that Jesus has died. And they do not believe the other things of the Ahmadis. I hope some one will try to explain things in a better way onthis forum.**

 

[majick275]

Oh, I love it!

(grin) There you have it, folks, my argument in clear, blazing, wonderful, ironic color. Thank you for putting it so succinctly.
.

that you are aligned with an ahmadi muslim certainly speaks volumes