/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Why Muslim and not Mormon?



nimrod
03-20-2006, 01:20 AM
Both faiths disagree with the scripture that preceded them. Both were started by one man making dubious claims of visions. Neither one fits with the general message given in scripture before them. Neither one agrees with earlier scripture concerning Heaven and what happens to man. Both agree on marriage in Heaven when earlier scripture speaks plainly against it. Neither one agrees that Jesus is God in spite of Old Testament scripture saying Jesus would be called Almighty.

If I were to rate the Koran against the Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Mormon and the writing styles, I would have to rate the Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Mormon as sounding more biblical.

If you were to make an argument to an unbeliever in favor of Islam over Mormonism (not the exact correct term, but close enough) what would it be?

Show me why I should give Muhammad any more weight than Joseph Smith.

Thanks
Nimrod
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
abdul Majid
03-20-2006, 01:28 AM
http://www.watchislam.com/videos/video.php?vid=67

watch this and youll know...
Reply

nimrod
03-20-2006, 02:37 AM
Abdul Majid, I have very slow dial-up internet access. It would be helpful if you would just type out your opinion. To down-load a video/audio file is very time consuming.

*edit* I tried to down-load the file in spite of the loooonnngggg time needed so I could be fair in judging any replies.
My safety programs stopped the down-load.
I would use caution.

Thanks
Nimrod
Reply

Muezzin
03-20-2006, 04:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by nimrod
Both faiths disagree with the scripture that preceded them. Both were started by one man making dubious claims of visions. Neither one fits with the general message given in scripture before them. Neither one agrees with earlier scripture concerning Heaven and what happens to man. Both agree on marriage in Heaven when earlier scripture speaks plainly against it. Neither one agrees that Jesus is God in spite of Old Testament scripture saying Jesus would be called Almighty.
Neat. Except we don't wear those weird box thingies.

If I were to rate the Koran against the Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Mormon and the writing styles, I would have to rate the Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Mormon as sounding more biblical.
And your point is...?

That's like saying, 'If I were to rate a pear and a tangerine against a clementine, I'd have to rate the tangerine as being more orange'

I personally always thought Muslims were closer to Jews in terms of the religious rituals and everything.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Mohsin
03-20-2006, 08:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by nimrod
Both faiths disagree with the scripture that preceded them. Both were started by one man making dubious claims of visions. Neither one fits with the general message given in scripture before them. Neither one agrees with earlier scripture concerning Heaven and what happens to man. Both agree on marriage in Heaven when earlier scripture speaks plainly against it. Neither one agrees that Jesus is God in spite of Old Testament scripture saying Jesus would be called Almighty.

If I were to rate the Koran against the Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Mormon and the writing styles, I would have to rate the Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Mormon as sounding more biblical.

If you were to make an argument to an unbeliever in favor of Islam over Mormonism (not the exact correct term, but close enough) what would it be?

Show me why I should give Muhammad any more weight than Joseph Smith.

Thanks
Nimrod
Where is Jesus PBUH prophecised in the OT? I think you'll find Islam is extremely similar to teachings of Judaism on oneness of god, belief in Prophets PBUT, Adam/Eve, we believe in heaven/hell, we believe in angels

Excuse me for my lack of knowledge, but what is a Mormon?
Reply

Mohsin
03-20-2006, 08:59 PM
Also i'd like to add that we don't know all the things the previous prophets preached. we believe the Bible is no longer the same as the original scripture, there have been mistranslations, scintific errors, contradictions, and even mathematrical errors. We don't for a second believe God could do any of these, and it is clear in the Qur'an where it is clear of any kind of error. Thus we believe the later generations after Jesus and Moses PBUT changed the scriptures, so a few things may be found different. However there are still a lot of similarities
Reply

renak
03-21-2006, 08:59 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by nimrod
Both faiths disagree with the scripture that preceded them. Both were started by one man making dubious claims of visions. Neither one fits with the general message given in scripture before them. Neither one agrees with earlier scripture concerning Heaven and what happens to man. Both agree on marriage in Heaven when earlier scripture speaks plainly against it. Neither one agrees that Jesus is God in spite of Old Testament scripture saying Jesus would be called Almighty.

If I were to rate the Koran against the Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Mormon and the writing styles, I would have to rate the Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Mormon as sounding more biblical.

If you were to make an argument to an unbeliever in favor of Islam over Mormonism (not the exact correct term, but close enough) what would it be?

Show me why I should give Muhammad any more weight than Joseph Smith.

Thanks
Nimrod
I've often wondered this myself. I've posted in other threads that my maternal family was originally mormon (most of the current generations converted to other forms of Christianity).

Both Morman and Islam have a prophet after Jesus. They both accept(ed) polygamy. Perhaps since the mormon prophet, Joseph Smith was from America, it is more "accepted" or "understood" by the majority of Americans. It is a lot to think about.....

Personally, I tend to have more interest in Islam. Perhaps it's because it is an older, and larger religion. From what I know about Islam, it seems that they have maintained their original teachings better than the mormons. There's goodness in both religions.
Reply

renak
03-21-2006, 09:19 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Moss
Where is Jesus PBUH prophecised in the OT? I think you'll find Islam is extremely similar to teachings of Judaism on oneness of god, belief in Prophets PBUT, Adam/Eve, we believe in heaven/hell, we believe in angels

Excuse me for my lack of knowledge, but what is a Mormon?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon

In a nutshell, Mormons are members of the Church of Latter Day Saints. They believe that God sent an American prophet, Joseph Smith, who wrote the Book of Mormon. This denomination uses the old testament, new testament, and Book of Mormon. The denomination was formed I believe in the early 1800's, and the followers of Joseph Smith eventually migrated to Utah. They pretty much secluded themselves in Utah because they had beliefs which were not accepted by the majority of Christians during the 1800's. The main belief which was opposed by a lot of state governments in the USA was polygamy. However, they held onto the notion that polygamy was accepted by God, and continued to live polygamist lifestyles.

However, they eventually relented to the US governments opposition to polygamy, and officially took a stance that they did not agree with the practice. It is still practiced today on a lesser scale by those who separate themselves from the Church of Latter Day Saints, and stick to old time Mormon practices. However, it is also worth noting that many people actively involved in the Church of Latter Day Saints still privately practice polygamy, while denouncing it publically. They pretty much keep their second or third wife, and their families as "kept women".

They tend to have very large families, live very strict and moral lives, and prepare for disasters by stockpiling food, and ammo.
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
03-21-2006, 09:22 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin
Neat. Except we don't wear those weird box thingies.


And your point is...?

That's like saying, 'If I were to rate a pear and a tangerine against a clementine, I'd have to rate the tangerine as being more orange'

I personally always thought Muslims were closer to Jews in terms of the religious rituals and everything.
Lol, I have to agree.:sister:
Reply

itsme01
03-21-2006, 09:26 AM
dont know if it is the same sect., but i watched a documentry on CBC The National or W-Five, that a Christian sect. in States have a living prophet, they have their own huge county, protected and patrolled by gaurds. Childeren do not go to school there, the men have dozens of wives, homo-sexuality is somewhat accepted, there is no justice for women, etc... Even though the Gov't knows about it - they have taken very less action against this person.
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
03-21-2006, 09:30 AM
I don't think their prophet is still alive, is he?
Reply

itsme01
03-21-2006, 09:33 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Mu'MiNaH~
I don't think their prophet is still alive, is he?
yes he is. and there is another guy fighting for power (i.e. to gain authority and claim his "prophethood")
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
03-21-2006, 09:39 AM
so they have more prophets? I hought the dude he started this sect would be their final prophet? If not, thne it differs from Islam massively. I think we need to look at the finer details to see how different Islam is from mormonism.
Reply

itsme01
03-21-2006, 09:50 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Mu'MiNaH~
so they have more prophets? I hought the dude he started this sect would be their final prophet? If not, thne it differs from Islam massively. I think we need to look at the finer details to see how different Islam is from mormonism.
i am not saying its mormoism - but its one of the christanity sect, it could be mormonism.
Reply

renak
03-21-2006, 10:03 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by itsme01
dont know if it is the same sect., but i watched a documentry on CBC The National or W-Five, that a Christian sect. in States have a living prophet, they have their own huge county, protected and patrolled by gaurds. Childeren do not go to school there, the men have dozens of wives, homo-sexuality is somewhat accepted, there is no justice for women, etc... Even though the Gov't knows about it - they have taken very less action against this person.
No, this isn't Latter Day Saints. It may be some offshoot of mormons who have no affiliation with the official religion.
Reply

renak
03-21-2006, 12:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Mu'MiNaH~
I don't think their prophet is still alive, is he?
No he would have died in the 1800's
Reply

- Qatada -
03-21-2006, 12:29 PM
Hey.

I dont understand why marriage is hated so much within christianity.

Its like, all the pious people within the society (eg. priests, nuns, monks etc.) all can't get married, whereas all the less pious people can get married. Which means, only the less pious get offspring, which probably leads to their children not being that pious either.


This is one of the reasons why there are alot of reports of peadophile priests etc. And their actually turning to sin, because they can't do what their body is inclined to do. i.e. have a partner (in marriage), start a family, have children etc.


Whereas islam believes that all people should marry because it protects people from adultery/fornication, it keeps a person chaste from other types of sins (e.g homosexuality, peaodophile acts etc.) And it is a good way of remaining chaste, passing down the message to ones children, starting a family etc.

And among His signs is this, that He has created for you mates from among yourselves, that you may dwell in tranquillity with them; and He has put love and mercy between you. Verily in that are signs for those who reflect. (Qur'an 30:21)


Why did God create Adam and Eve in two genders, if its a sin to have sexual relations? Why didn't God just create all of mankind in one gender?

Alot of stuff like this confuses me.
Reply

Abu Zakariya
03-21-2006, 12:36 PM
I'm surprised to hear this kind of argument from a Christian.
I mean, where in the Old Testament can we find mention of the word Trinity? Heck, where can we find that word in the New Testament?

If God really is three-in-one, why didn't the Prophets of old mention this?
So I don't think you're the right person to be talking about a lack of harmony between the old and new Scriptures.

Muhammad (may God's peace and blessings be upon him) came to inform the people of the fact that the NT had been tampered with and that we should follow the message of all the prophets, which is monotheism.
Reply

renak
03-21-2006, 12:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
Hey.

I dont understand why marriage is hated so much within christianity.

Its like, all the pious people within the society (eg. priests, nuns, monks etc.) all can't get married, whereas all the less pious people can get married. Which means, only the less pious get offspring, which probably leads to their children not being that pious either.


This is one of the reasons why there are alot of reports of peadophile priests etc. And their actually turning to sin, because they can't do what their body is inclined to do. i.e. have a partner (in marriage), start a family, have children etc.


Whereas islam believes that all people should marry because it protects people from adultery/fornication, it keeps a person chaste from other types of sins (e.g homosexuality, peaodophile acts etc.) And it is a good way of remaining chaste, passing down the message to ones children, starting a family etc.

And among His signs is this, that He has created for you mates from among yourselves, that you may dwell in tranquillity with them; and He has put love and mercy between you. Verily in that are signs for those who reflect. (Qur'an 30:21)


Why did God create Adam and Eve in two genders, if its a sin to have sexual relations? Why didn't God just create all of mankind in one gender?

Alot of stuff like this confuses me.
Christianity as a whole does have an unhealthy view of marriage and sexuality. From what I've read the view seems to have originated from early church organizers. For example, priests were allowed to marry for the longest time, until the catholic church came to the conclusion that they were losing too much property due to inheritance of the offspring. Therefore, they began to forbid priests from marriage. This whole repressive attitude toward marriage and sexuality was passed down throughout the years and made its way into other forms of Christianity. Of course if you can control a persons sexuality, you can control the person.
Reply

- Qatada -
03-21-2006, 01:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by renak
Christianity as a whole does have an unhealthy view of marriage and sexuality. From what I've read the view seems to have originated from early church organizers. For example, priests were allowed to marry for the longest time, until the catholic church came to the conclusion that they were losing too much property due to inheritance of the offspring. Therefore, they began to forbid priests from marriage. This whole repressive attitude toward marriage and sexuality was passed down throughout the years and made its way into other forms of Christianity. Of course if you can control a persons sexuality, you can control the person.

Thanks for explaining the reason behind why its not liked. But I still don't agree with the fact that people should make up their own laws regarding religion.

Like, just because the priests had problems with property and inheritance, it shouldn't be a sin on the rest of the priests who may find it easy to support their children. Unless its something sinful which was ordained by God, or Jesus (peace be upon him) - then it shouldn't be a sin, and men shouldn't have the right to create laws, only God or his prophets.


This is why in islam, we don't follow the whims/desires of other men, but we stick to the authentic two sources for our guidance; the Qur'an (the word of God) and the Sunnah (ways of our beloved Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.)

Our laws can only be derived from them two sources, and no other law is acceptable except through them.


I hope you don't take offense to what i'm saying, its just that its too complicated to follow the ways of people who want to create new laws in religion. How does the person know who to follow? This is why, its important to stick to the main sources that were by God, and His messengers, and no-one else.
Reply

renak
03-21-2006, 02:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
Thanks for explaining the reason behind why its not liked. But I still don't agree with the fact that people should make up their own laws regarding religion.

Like, just because the priests had problems with property and inheritance, it shouldn't be a sin on the rest of the priests who may find it easy to support their children. Unless its something sinful which was ordained by God, or Jesus (peace be upon him) - then it shouldn't be a sin, and men shouldn't have the right to create laws, only God or his prophets.


This is why in islam, we don't follow the whims/desires of other men, but we stick to the authentic two sources for our guidance; the Qur'an (the word of God) and the Sunnah (ways of our beloved Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.)

Our laws can only be derived from them two sources, and no other law is acceptable except through them.


I hope you don't take offense to what i'm saying, its just that its too complicated to follow the ways of people who want to create new laws in religion. How does the person know who to follow? This is why, its important to stick to the main sources that were by God, and His messengers, and no-one else.
I don't take offense at all. I don't agree with the fact that people have made up laws concerning christianity. However, I'm having difficulty understanding how the hadiths are any different than man made rules.
Reply

- Qatada -
03-21-2006, 02:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by renak
I don't take offense at all. I don't agree with the fact that people have made up laws concerning christianity. However, I'm having difficulty understanding how the hadiths are any different than man made rules.

You may want to check these links out to get a better understanding regarding the ahadith and their authenticity etc.

http://www.islamicboard.com/educatio...resources.html (Studying Islam - List of Resources)

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/Ulum/


You also have to remember that I said that God and his prophets make the rules, not normal priests, imams etc. This is why I mentioned Jesus (as he is a prophet in islam.)


Peace.
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
03-21-2006, 02:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abu Zakariya
I'm surprised to hear this kind of argument from a Christian.
I mean, where in the Old Testament can we find mention of the word Trinity? Heck, where can we find that word in the New Testament?

If God really is three-in-one, why didn't the Prophets of old mention this?
So I don't think you're the right person to be talking about a lack of harmony between the old and new Scriptures.

Muhammad (may God's peace and blessings be upon him) came to inform the people of the fact that the NT had been tampered with and that we should follow the message of all the prophets, which is monotheism.
Are you talking to renak?:?
Reply

renak
03-21-2006, 02:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
You may want to check these links out to get a better understanding regarding the ahadith and their authenticity etc.

http://www.islamicboard.com/educatio...resources.html (Studying Islam - List of Resources)

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/Ulum/


You also have to remember that I said that God and his prophets make the rules, not normal priests, imams etc. This is why I mentioned Jesus (as he is a prophet in islam.)


Peace.
Weren't the hadiths written by people, not prophets?
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
03-21-2006, 03:01 PM
yes but they were the Prophet's words. They were written down by his close companions. Scholars have a system to rule whether a hadith is authentic, weak or fabricated.
Reply

renak
03-21-2006, 03:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Mu'MiNaH~
yes but they were the Prophet's words. They were written down by his close companions. Scholars have a system to rule whether a hadith is authentic, weak or fabricated.

I didn't realize that they were written by people who actually knew Mohammad.
Reply

HeiGou
03-21-2006, 03:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
I dont understand why marriage is hated so much within christianity.
Marriage is the lesser of two evils, but it is sin that is hated. Most of it to do with sexuality.

Its like, all the pious people within the society (eg. priests, nuns, monks etc.) all can't get married, whereas all the less pious people can get married. Which means, only the less pious get offspring, which probably leads to their children not being that pious either.
Assuming that piety is passed down father to son. Priests in the Orthodox tradition have always married. It is only in the Catholic tradition that they have not.

This is one of the reasons why there are alot of reports of peadophile priests etc. And their actually turning to sin, because they can't do what their body is inclined to do. i.e. have a partner (in marriage), start a family, have children etc.
I doubt that. I expect it is more likely to be cause by the collapse of faith in the West and hence many priests deciding they are not going to suffer for a religion they are not really sure about any more.

Whereas islam believes that all people should marry because it protects people from adultery/fornication, it keeps a person chaste from other types of sins (e.g homosexuality, peaodophile acts etc.) And it is a good way of remaining chaste, passing down the message to ones children, starting a family etc.
And yet in Islam, because of polygamy, most men have traditionally delayed marriage until their mid-thirties. Women have been scarce resources and so they cost a lot. Which means that "other types of sins (e.g homosexuality, peaodophile acts etc.)" are not exactly unknown in Islam - in fact Western observers have always associated Islam with said acts, probably only partly from prejudice. There are studies which suggest that the majority of Muslim men until the last century had their first sexual experience without being in the presence of a woman.

Why did God create Adam and Eve in two genders, if its a sin to have sexual relations? Why didn't God just create all of mankind in one gender?
Well I assume that God created Eve as company for Adam. But without sex which came with the eating of the Forbidden Fruit. So the original nature of marriage was companionship and love in a less-than-physical sense. The Fall involved the discovery of sex and all the consequences that follow. I can see the sense in that - after all what is more important in a marriage?
Reply

Mohsin
03-21-2006, 03:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by renak
Weren't the hadiths written by people, not prophets?
no i think you've misunderstood

They were sayings of the Prophet PBUH. Prophet Muhammed would say something, and a Sahaba, thats a companion of his, who heard this, would memorize his saying. It shows his eloquence that people used to memorize everything muhammed PBUh did, its said he rarely spoke, but when he spoke Muhammed PBUH only spoke useful words. So pious companions would memorize them.
after the prophets death, the companion would pass on the hadfith to someone else, a person also known for his honesty and piety, and so this person would learn the hadith. It was all recorded by memory, some hadith were written down, and finally Imam Bukhari came a few years later and wrote down all authentic reports going back to the Prophet PBUH. So they are words of the Prophet, except they were written down later on
Reply

aakhirah
03-21-2006, 03:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Moss
... and finally Imam Bukhari came a few years later and wrote down all authentic reports going back to the Prophet PBUH...
:sl:

I feel I must correct this. Firstly, Imaam al-Bukhaari was not the first muHaddith to compile Hadeeth. There were others before him. Secondly, he did not write down "all authentic reports"; he compiled a subset of these in his SaHeeH. Imaam Muslim also compiled a subset of these in his SaHeeH, many of which cannot be found in SaHeeh al-Bukhaari (and vice versa).

:w:

A.
Reply

HeiGou
03-21-2006, 03:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by renak
Originally Posted by ~Mu'MiNaH~
yes but they were the Prophet's words. They were written down by his close companions. Scholars have a system to rule whether a hadith is authentic, weak or fabricated.
I didn't realize that they were written by people who actually knew Mohammad.
The very earliest hadith collections were written by people who knew people who knew Muhammed. Or are said to have been written by such people. For instance the Sahifah of Hammam bin Munabbih, (d. 110/719) is supposed to have been written by someone who studied under Abu Huraira (who is the man responsible for more aHadith than anyone except Aisha I think). However of his short list of 138 Hadith only 98 or so were accepted by Bukhari.

The state of the field in the Western scholarship is that ever since Ignaz Goldziher, Western academics tend to think many Hadith were faked. This is not a problem in itself because clearly a lot were - Bukhari rejected tens of thousands. But Western scholars go on to claim that many of the more accepted ones are faked and even that the better an isnad is, the more likely it is to be faked. At the extreme end is the so-called "Revisionist" school that claims that pretty much everything is an invention of the mid-to-late Umayad or even early Abbasid period. This is when the great aHadith collections were written: Sahih Bukhari, collected by al-Bukhari (d. 870), included 7275 hadiths, Sahih Muslim, collected by Muslim b. al-Hajjaj (d. 875), included 9200, Sunan Abi Da'ud, collected by Abu Da'ud (d. 888), Sunan al-Tirmidhi, collected by al-Tirmidhi (d. 892), Sunan al-Sughra, collected by al-Nasa'i (d. 915), and the Sunan Ibn Maja, collected by Ibn Maja (d. 886).
Reply

renak
03-21-2006, 03:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Moss
no i think you've misunderstood

They were sayings of the Prophet PBUH. Prophet Muhammed would say something, and a Sahaba, thats a companion of his, who heard this, would memorize his saying. It shows his eloquence that people used to memorize everything muhammed PBUh did, its said he rarely spoke, but when he spoke Muhammed PBUH only spoke useful words. So pious companions would memorize them.
after the prophets death, the companion would pass on the hadfith to someone else, a person also known for his honesty and piety, and so this person would learn the hadith. It was all recorded by memory, some hadith were written down, and finally Imam Bukhari came a few years later and wrote down all authentic reports going back to the Prophet PBUH. So they are words of the Prophet, except they were written down later on
Thanks for the explanation. Unfortunately, this makes me doubt the validity of the hadiths once again. Perhaps I need more faith and less reason, but the system in which they were compiled does not seem reliable (unless one has great faith in the honesty of many humans).

I'm thinking that the regulations created by Christian leaders seem as trustworthy as the hadiths. By saying this I do not wish to offend anyone. I'm just finding that the issues I have with Christianity also exist within Islam, which is quite discouraging.

If I have to have what I consider to be "unreasonable faith" in Christianity or Islam, I might as well forget about becoming a muslim. It would simply be easier and equally rewarding to be a Christian.
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
03-21-2006, 03:28 PM
Hey renak, I changed my signatur:sister:. *cough*... anyway, I assure you that we do not blindly take hadiths. There is a very strict system to determine an authentic hadith, and Bukhari's collection is the most authentic. However, theer are many authentic hadith in Muslim, tirmidhee, Abu Dawod etc (books of hadith). I'd also like to point out that Bukhari was born blind, but his mother kept praying for him and he regained his sight. He must have been very garetful for this as he did alot of good work with his sight. I can understand if you find this hard to believe, but I believe that thisis easy for Allah.
-Peace
Reply

Khattab
03-21-2006, 04:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by nimrod
Both faiths disagree with the scripture that preceded them. Both were started by one man making dubious claims of visions. Neither one fits with the general message given in scripture before them. Neither one agrees with earlier scripture concerning Heaven and what happens to man. Both agree on marriage in Heaven when earlier scripture speaks plainly against it. Neither one agrees that Jesus is God in spite of Old Testament scripture saying Jesus would be called Almighty.

If I were to rate the Koran against the Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Mormon and the writing styles, I would have to rate the Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Mormon as sounding more biblical.

If you were to make an argument to an unbeliever in favor of Islam over Mormonism (not the exact correct term, but close enough) what would it be?

Show me why I should give Muhammad any more weight than Joseph Smith.

Thanks
Nimrod
Muslims dont have any problem with the scripture that came before the revelation of the Qu'ran. We believe in the Torah, Psalms and Gospel as these are all revelations by God. However over the ages these revelations have been changed by the hands of men, this is what we dont accept.

There was nothing "dubious" about Muhammad (SAW), he spoke nothing but the truth, a man to be admired and followed, and as we believe the last of the prophets.

His readiness to undergo persecution for his beliefs, the high moral character of the men who believed in him and looked up to him as leader, and the greatness of his ultimate achievement all argue his fundamental integrity To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems than it solves. Moreover, none of the great figures of history is so poorly appreciated in the West as Muhammad.

- W Montgomery Oxford, 1953, p 52.


If you are sincere in learning about Muhammad (SAW) life, then I recommend the book Muhammad: His life based on the earliest sources by Martin Lings.
Reply

renak
03-21-2006, 04:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Khattab
Muslims dont have any problem with the scripture that came before the revelation of the Qu'ran. We believe in the Torah, Psalms and Gospel as these are all revelations by God. However over the ages these revelations have been changed by the hands of men, this is what we dont accept.

There was nothing "dubious" about Muhammad (SAW), he spoke nothing but the truth, a man to be admired and followed, and as we believe the last of the prophets.

His readiness to undergo persecution for his beliefs, the high moral character of the men who believed in him and looked up to him as leader, and the greatness of his ultimate achievement all argue his fundamental integrity To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems than it solves. Moreover, none of the great figures of history is so poorly appreciated in the West as Muhammad.

- W Montgomery Oxford, 1953, p 52.


If you are sincere in learning about Muhammad (SAW) life, then I recommend the book Muhammad: His life based on the earliest sources by Martin Lings.
I'll look up the book, thanks for the suggestion. I don't have an issue with the Quran, or question Muhammad. I'm having difficulty in believing in the accuracy of the hadiths.
Reply

Issa
03-21-2006, 05:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Mu'MiNaH~
I don't think their prophet is still alive, is he?
:sl: ,

I think this "living prophet" of theirs is like Elijah Muhamed of the Nation of Islam. Only a few follow him....
Reply

renak
03-21-2006, 05:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Issa
:sl: ,

I think this "living prophet" of theirs is like Elijah Muhamed of the Nation of Islam. Only a few follow him....
That's probably a good comparison. Latter Day Saints are well known, and influential in the US; however, I doubt that they have international appeal.
Reply

Khattab
03-21-2006, 05:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by renak
I'll look up the book, thanks for the suggestion. I don't have an issue with the Quran, or question Muhammad. I'm having difficulty in believing in the accuracy of the hadiths.
Hi Renak, is it the hadiths as a whole you have a problem with or just certain ones?

The following links will inshallah be of benefit to you:

http://www.islamicboard.com/sects-di...ty-hadith.html

http://www.themodernreligion.com/mis...rejectors.html

Peace:)
Reply

czgibson
03-21-2006, 06:16 PM
Greetings,

I've known a few Mormons, and I was interested in what they believed so I studied their faith a little. Fascinating and bizarre at the same time. They freely admitted that some of their beliefs were a little strange and hard to believe, which I found odd.

format_quote Originally Posted by renak
In a nutshell, Mormons are members of the Church of Latter Day Saints. They believe that God sent an American prophet, Joseph Smith, who wrote the Book of Mormon.
Everything else you've said is true, but I think Mormons would take issue with this point; they believe Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, not that he wrote it. Apparently he was given "the Plates of Nephi", which were writings in a previously unknown language written on goldish metal, which he then translated into English. Since the time when Joseph Smith translated these writings and showed them to a few of his companions, they have been seen by nobody. Oddly enough, long passages of his translation coincide almost exactly with passages from the King James Bible, even including the mistakes made by the translators of that Bible.

One other thing the Mormons are known for is the study of genealogy - they usually have extensive knowledge of their family history.

Peace
Reply

HeiGou
03-21-2006, 06:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Everything else you've said is true, but I think Mormons would take issue with this point; they believe Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, not that he wrote it. Apparently he was given "the Plates of Nephi", which were writings in a previously unknown language written on goldish metal, which he then translated into English. Since the time when Joseph Smith translated these writings and showed them to a few of his companions, they have been seen by nobody. Oddly enough, long passages of his translation coincide almost exactly with passages from the King James Bible, even including the mistakes made by the translators of that Bible.
If I may quote that font of all religious knowledge, South Park, Joseph Smith gave his "translations" to a follower, whose wife was suspicious and so told him to hide them and tell Smith they had been destroyed and ask for another copy to see if he could "translate" the same way twice. Smith could not. Follower confessed all and remained a Mormon anyway.

Go figure.
Reply

nimrod
03-23-2006, 04:19 AM
Muezzin, I can understand why a person might not understand why I made the statement about the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price sounding more biblical.

The reason I made that statement is in comparing one faith against another a person has to consider what claims a faith makes about its self.
One of the claims I have read on this message board is about the statement/claim that no one can write even one verse that compares to the writings in the Koran.
My statement could have been better stated as the Mormon scriptures more closely resemble the scripture in the Torah than anything in the Koran. Ergo the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price “sound” more biblical.

Sorry for any confusion.

Moss there are a number of different places in the Old Testament that prophecies’ about Jesus.
I have had a very busy last day or two, if I can get an earlier start tomorrow I will post some of the scripture for you.

Moss I understand your point about the bible we have today isn’t written exactly as the original scripture was.
A person must study all the scripture they can, that is what lead me to read the Koran. Once you have studied scripture very thoroughly you can make informed decisions about what scripture you accept as real and what you feel may have been corrupted.

One of the mistakes we see a person often making is that sooner or later a person grows to understand that the bible we have today isn’t written just exactly as the original scripture was. When they finally learn this they may just start blaming everything they disagree with on the scripture being corrupted.

A person has to have a very good reason for dismissing scripture, a person must guard against just simply making the claim that since some scripture maybe corrupt then I can just dismiss any scripture and claim that is the reason for doing so.

The bible has a general outline of what took place and an understandable progression from one step to the next. Everything when understood properly will fit as it should, if you read some supposed scripture that doesn’t agree with the basics of what all the rest of scripture teaches then you can dismiss it.
That is how I know Mormon teachings are not of God.

Renak you my find some reading on the “afterlife” described in the Koran and the LDS teachings interesting.
A simple Goggle will get you to the official LDS site.

Itsme01 I agree with your observations about the LDS. The particular sect your post refers to is an off shoot and not mainstream Mormon. But your statement about them claiming to have a living prophet is completely true for all Mormons.
Itsme01 one last point, to be Christian one must accept Jesus as Lord Almighty. Mormons don’t accept Jesus as that. The Mormon view of Jesus is very similar to Islam.

Fi_Sabililla I am not sure what you are referring to but marriage is highly valued Christianity. The idea of some not marrying in Christianity refers to Paul’s teachings.
If you will read the scripture you will learn that Paul states that concerning that particular teaching he is speaking for himself and NOT speaking on God’s behalf.

Abu Zakariy you have raised some very good points. They are deserving of a thread all by themselves.
I think I have seen several threads concerning your points already started on this forum.
Pick one of them that asks what you would like answered and p.m. me of post a link on this thread and I will do my best to address it. If there aren’t any threads already started concerning your exact points, then start one and let me know and I will respond.

Khattab I understand your points, I will try to do a better job of offering a reply sometime this week. Some of them I have answered in this post. Thanks.

Issa, Mormons follow their living prophet or they will be disowned and treated as dead, not just a few, but all.

Czbibson, I know a very nice Mormon that is well informed, educated, soft spoken and very thick skinned.

If requested (by most) I will invite him to this forum. You are right, the Mormon faith is an very interesting study.

Hei Gou your statements, as always, are well founded.


Thanks
Nimrod
Reply

Malsidabym
03-23-2006, 04:31 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by itsme01
i am not saying its mormoism - but its one of the christanity sect, it could be mormonism.
I assure you, this is not a christian sect. This a cult. No christian would accept this as a christian group. Clearly a sick cult.
Also, most christians do not accept the mormon church as a christian church. There are no more prophets to come after the messiah.
Reply

nimrod
03-23-2006, 05:23 AM
Malsidabym "There are no more prophets to come after the messiah".

That isn't correct according to Revelation, at least any generally Christian teachings.

If I misunderstood your intended meaning with your post please overlook me.

Thanks
Nimrod
Reply

north_malaysian
03-23-2006, 05:26 AM
Mormons cant drink Coke. so Muslims are better because we can drink loads and loads and loads of coke.:okay:
Reply

usamuslimah64
03-23-2006, 05:51 AM
Salam alaykum.:sl: ..I will say that briefly, when I was in my late teens I was really searching for something to fill the hole that Christianity wasn't. Thats when I met two elderly female Mormon missionaries..I was immediately attracted to many things the offered me and readily accepted most of the stuff they told me<as I was a teenager, I didn't question much>and I decided to become a Mormon..One the whole it is really a group of people you have to admire. I was an active Mormon for about a year.
Here are some of the things they believe:
Joseph Smith was sent a new book(another testament)called the book of Mormon by an angel supposedly named Moroni.
Jesus Christ came to the Americas.
They believe that some of the people from Israel came to the Americas via a boat thingy and I believe were descendent's of Abraham or something like that.
They say they have this proof because there is a white tribe in South America somewhere(But hey, weren't people from the Semitic background tan skinned?):rollseyes
They believe Jesus came to Americas to share gospel to this tribe cuz they were from Abraham's lineage(he was supposed to have done this after he was crucified and before he ascended)
They believe in several levels of heaven.
they believe that you get married and sealed as a family for all eternity
they believe you can go to the temple(which only Mormons are allowed to enter) and get your ancestors into heaven.
They believe that before we are born we choose who we want to be born with and God puts a veil of forgetfulness up after we are born.
they definitely believe in predestination.

They believe that there is a living prophet until now and that he is in the priest hood(Melchezdik, I think) but I could be off on that one.
Joseph smith supposedly brought back the melchezdik priesthood and after the last prophet dies and new priest is elected and become a prophet.
they are good people on the whole and get people to join mostly on blind ignorance and they especially target the teens cause they are easily swayed and accept most things without question(Like I did):X
I could really go on a long time about what they believe, honestly though, i forgot alot of things. I left them when i finally got a mind and started seriously questioning their doctrine
Wa Salaam:w: , I hope this was a little helpful:sister:
Reply

Malsidabym
03-23-2006, 07:47 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by nimrod
Malsidabym "There are no more prophets to come after the messiah".

That isn't correct according to Revelation, at least any generally Christian teachings.

If I misunderstood your intended meaning with your post please overlook me.

Thanks
Nimrod
No you did not misunderstand, I stand corrected, I was just plain wrong. Sorry. For some reason I believed this, but after reading your post and looking in revelations, I see I am wrong. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Peace.:)
Reply

Muezzin
03-23-2006, 09:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by nimrod
Muezzin, I can understand why a person might not understand why I made the statement about the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price sounding more biblical.

The reason I made that statement is in comparing one faith against another a person has to consider what claims a faith makes about its self.
One of the claims I have read on this message board is about the statement/claim that no one can write even one verse that compares to the writings in the Koran.
My statement could have been better stated as the Mormon scriptures more closely resemble the scripture in the Torah than anything in the Koran. Ergo the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price “sound” more biblical.
I see.

Sorry for any confusion.
That's all right, I just jumped to conclusions as usual. No worries. :)
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
03-23-2006, 10:17 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
If I may quote that font of all religious knowledge, South Park, Joseph Smith gave his "translations" to a follower, whose wife was suspicious and so told him to hide them and tell Smith they had been destroyed and ask for another copy to see if he could "translate" the same way twice. Smith could not. Follower confessed all and remained a Mormon anyway.

Go figure.
So... it's a sham. But saying that, you probably think all religion is a sham.
But hey, at least we both agree it helps with depression.:)
Reply

usamuslimah64
03-23-2006, 10:51 AM
Salam Alaykum...I went directly to a lds website and here is what i got..



Introduction to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

When Jesus Christ lived on the earth, He organized His Church so that all people could receive His gospel and return one day to live with God, our Heavenly Father. After Jesus Christ ascended to heaven, His Apostles continued to receive revelation from Him on how to direct the work of His Church. However, after they were killed, members changed the teachings of the Church that He had established. While many good people and some truth remained, this Apostasy, or general falling away from the truth, brought about the withdrawal of the Church from the earth. The Apostle Peter prophesied that Jesus would restore His Church before His Second Coming (Acts 3:19–21).
Jesus Christ began to restore His Church in its fulness to the earth through the Prophet Joseph Smith in 1820. It has grown to become a worldwide Church with over 12 million members. It has the same teachings and basic organization as the Church established by Jesus in New Testament times.
Reply

usamuslimah64
03-23-2006, 10:52 AM
Apostasy

A general falling away from the truth occurred after the death of Christ’s Apostles. This is called the Apostasy.
When Jesus Christ lived on the earth, He established His Church. After His Ascension into heaven, His Apostles carried on His work under His direction, through revelation and with His priesthood authority.

After the Apostles and many righteous Church members were killed and other members departed from the truth, the Lord took the priesthood authority and His Church from the earth. Without God’s priesthood authority, the Church no longer functioned as Christ had established it. The ordinances were changed and many plain and simple truths were lost. While many good people and some truth remained, the original Church was lost.

The Apostles prophesied of the falling away or Apostasy. One example is Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians (2 Thessalonians 2:1–3).
Reply

usamuslimah64
03-23-2006, 10:53 AM
Joseph Smith -Their Prophet

Joseph Smith Jr. was born in 1805 in Sharon, Windsor County, Vermont, to Joseph and Lucy Mack Smith. He had 10 brothers and sisters. His parents taught him to pray, read the Bible, and to have faith in God.
At age 14, Joseph saw God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, in his First Vision. At age 17, Joseph began to receive heavenly messengers who prepared him for his role in the Restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ to the earth. He was a prophet, just like those in biblical times
Reply

usamuslimah64
03-23-2006, 10:54 AM
The First Vision

As a boy, Joseph Smith was surrounded by various churches which each claimed to teach the truth. This caused him much serious reflection. He wanted to know which church was right. One day he read a passage in the Bible which says, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him” (James 1:5). Joseph decided to accept the invitation to ask God.
In the spring of 1820, Joseph went to a grove of trees near his home and prayed to learn which church he should join. In answer to his prayer, Heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, appeared to him. Joseph wrote: “When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!” Joseph was told to join none of the churches that existed at that time.

Joseph Smith’s First Vision marked the beginning of the Restoration of Jesus Christ’s Church to the earth.

Joseph’s written account of this event is a powerful testimony of what he saw and experienced.
Reply

usamuslimah64
03-23-2006, 10:55 AM
Restoration

The Apostle Peter prophesied of the “restitution of all things” before Christ’s Second Coming (Acts 3:19–21). Having been lost because of the Apostasy, Christ’s Church and His authority were to be restored to the earth. This Restoration would make available the opportunity for all to receive once again all of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Joseph Smith’s First Vision marked the beginning of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the earth. In subsequent years, Christ restored His priesthood and reorganized His Church. He has continued to reveal truths to His prophets and to restore the blessings that were taken from the earth for a time
Reply

usamuslimah64
03-23-2006, 10:56 AM
Restoration of the priesthood

Throughout time, God has given His servants, the prophets, the authority to act in His name. This authority is called the priesthood. Jesus Christ gave the priesthood to His original Twelve Apostles, and they directed the work of His Church after Jesus ascended to heaven. But after the Apostles were killed, the priesthood gradually disappeared from the earth.
In 1829 Joseph Smith received the priesthood authority to organize Christ’s Church. In 1830 the same Church of Jesus Christ that existed centuries ago was organized and restored to the earth.

The priesthood has two divisions. The lesser priesthood is called the Aaronic Priesthood, named after Aaron in the Old Testament. It includes the authority to preach the gospel of repentance and to baptize. The greater priesthood is called the Melchizedek Priesthood, named after Melchizedek in the Old Testament. It includes the authority to preside over the Church and to perform all ordinances, including giving the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Reply

usamuslimah64
03-23-2006, 11:01 AM
Salam alaykum...Remember earlier I was talking about Mormons believing that Issa came to america? Here is some proofs.

Book of Mormon witnesses of Christ

Just as the Bible contains witnesses of Jesus Christ from the Holy Land, the Book of Mormon contains witnesses of Jesus Christ from ancient America. For this reason, the Book of Mormon is called “Another Testament of Jesus Christ.”
Here are some examples of Book of Mormon witnesses of Christ:

Nephi saw the birth and death of Christ in a vision (1 Nephi 11:13–15).
The brother of Jared saw the Lord because of his great faith (Ether 3:7–16).
The prophet Samuel the Lamanite prophesied of Christ’s coming and gave the signs of His birth and death (Helaman 13-14).
After His Resurrection, Christ appeared to the people of ancient America and invited them to come forward one by one to see and touch Him until “they had all gone forth and had witnessed for themselves” (3 Nephi 11:13–17).



Christ’s visit in America

In the Bible, Jesus told His Apostles:

Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. [John 10:16]
Soon after He was resurrected, the Lord visited these “other sheep”—the inhabitants of ancient America. His appearance had a powerful, long-lasting impact on the people. During His visit, Jesus Christ:

Invited them to feel the wound marks in His hands and feet and side.
Taught them His gospel.
Called twelve disciples to teach His gospel.
Healed the sick.
Prayed for the people.
Performed miracles.
Christ’s visit to ancient America is recorded in the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ (3 Nephi 11-28).





Moroni’s promise

The last prophet of the Book of Mormon, a man named Moroni, gave this remarkable promise to anyone who wants to know whether the Book of Mormon is true:

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. [Moroni 10:4]
As you sincerely ask for an answer to your questions about the Book of Mormon, God will answer you through the power of the Holy Ghost.

Moroni was supposed to be the LASt Prophet for the book of mormon
Reply

usamuslimah64
03-23-2006, 11:06 AM
Blessings for our ancestors

Many people have died without receiving baptism and other ordinances that Jesus Christ taught were necessary to enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5). Because Heavenly Father wants all His children to have the opportunity to return to Him, He has provided a way for those who have died without these ordinances to receive them.
In holy temples, members of the Church can perform these ordinances on behalf of their ancestors who have died.

This makes it possible for those who have not received these ordinances to accept them, if they choose, and return to live one day with our Heavenly Father.


This is where i was talking about how they believe you can pray dead into heaven
Reply

usamuslimah64
03-23-2006, 11:09 AM
Living prophets

Throughout history, God has chosen prophets, such as Noah, Abraham, Moses, and others, to teach the gospel and direct His Church (Amos 3:7). It is no different today. We all need God’s guidance in a world that is sometimes confusing. Because God loves His children, He continues to send living prophets. Joseph Smith (1805–44) was the first prophet of our time. Gordon B. Hinckley is God’s chosen prophet today.
Just as God led the Israelites out of slavery and to a better place through His prophet Moses, He leads His children today into happier, more peaceful lives when they choose to follow His living prophet. We invite you to listen to the words of living prophets and consider how knowing God’s will can benefit your life.
Reply

usamuslimah64
03-23-2006, 11:11 AM
This is another book they believe in..the Book of Mormon



Living prophets

Throughout history, God has chosen prophets, such as Noah, Abraham, Moses, and others, to teach the gospel and direct His Church (Amos 3:7). It is no different today. We all need God’s guidance in a world that is sometimes confusing. Because God loves His children, He continues to send living prophets. Joseph Smith (1805–44) was the first prophet of our time. Gordon B. Hinckley is God’s chosen prophet today.
Just as God led the Israelites out of slavery and to a better place through His prophet Moses, He leads His children today into happier, more peaceful lives when they choose to follow His living prophet. We invite you to listen to the words of living prophets and consider how knowing God’s will can benefit your life.



I wish to remind everyone that, alhumdillah, I am Muslim and do not believe in this..I am just informing everyone.
Reply

usamuslimah64
03-23-2006, 11:12 AM
The Book of Mormon

The Book of Mormon is another witness that Jesus Christ really lived, that He was and is God’s Son. It contains the writings of ancient prophets. One of these, Lehi, lived in Jerusalem around 600 B.C. God commanded Lehi to lead a small group of people to the American continent. There they became a great civilization.
God continued to call prophets among these people. The Book of Mormon is a collection of the writings of their prophets and record keepers. It is named after Mormon, one of the last of these ancient prophets.

These prophets knew about Heavenly Father’s plan for His children and the mission of Jesus Christ. They recorded that Christ appeared, after His Resurrection, to the people in America, taught them His gospel, and formed His Church among them. The book contains the teachings of Jesus Christ, testifying of His Atonement and His love. It supports and verifies the Bible.

The Book of Mormon concludes with a great promise that those who read it and sincerely pray about it can know by the Holy Ghost that it is true (Moroni 10:4).
Reply

usamuslimah64
03-23-2006, 11:18 AM
History of North American people: The Jaredite people were one of many groups scattered from the Tower of Babel circa 2250 BCE. They settled on the East coast of Central America. They were totally destroyed because of their corruption.
Some Israelites departed from the Middle East about 600 BCE, before the time of the Babylonian captivity and arrived in America. A patriarch Lehi had two sons: Nephi (from whom the Nephites descended) and Laman (from whom the Lamanites descended). The two tribes lived in a state of continuous feuding and warfare. The earthen mounds throughout the Palmyra area are believed to be attempts at defensive fortification. Eventually, the Lamanites exterminated all of the Nephites circa 385 CE, and became the ancestors of present day Native Americans. God gave to Native Americans their "red skins" in order to visually separate them from those who continued to follow God's commandments and teachings.
Jesus came to America after his resurrection where he performed miracles, delivered a sermon similar to the Beatitudes and selected twelve disciples from the Nephite tribe.
Reply

HeiGou
03-23-2006, 03:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Mu'MiNaH~
So... it's a sham. But saying that, you probably think all religion is a sham.
I am pretty sure I don't think it is all a sham. Of course if I were a believer I would have to believe that 99.99 percent of the world's religions were a sham. But I am not. So the problem of dealing with the truth of a religion (or not) is a problem we both face. I think that you cannot assume that everyone all the time is faking it. I am suspicious of Joseph Smith I have to say. But that still leaves hundreds and thousands of would-be or actual religious preachers, reformers, want-to-be prophets etc. Do you just do a proof by authority (whatever my teachers tell me is fake, is fake) or do you have some sort of measurement or test by which you separate the sheep from the goats?

But hey, at least we both agree it helps with depression.:)
Hmm, well, of all my observant pious friends, well, a lot of them have been very seriously depressed. And pretty much all of them have spent time in hospitals for their problems. Does it help or does it cause? I wonder. I would like to think it helps but I don't know what the evidence is.
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
03-23-2006, 05:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
I am pretty sure I don't think it is all a sham. Of course if I were a believer I would have to believe that 99.99 percent of the world's religions were a sham. But I am not. So the problem of dealing with the truth of a religion (or not) is a problem we both face. I think that you cannot assume that everyone all the time is faking it. I am suspicious of Joseph Smith I have to say. But that still leaves hundreds and thousands of would-be or actual religious preachers, reformers, want-to-be prophets etc. Do you just do a proof by authority (whatever my teachers tell me is fake, is fake) or do you have some sort of measurement or test by which you separate the sheep from the goats?



Hmm, well, of all my observant pious friends, well, a lot of them have been very seriously depressed. And pretty much all of them have spent time in hospitals for their problems. Does it help or does it cause? I wonder. I would like to think it helps but I don't know what the evidence is.
No Hei Gou, you can't do this to me! You agreed with me, and then you just took it back! Do you know exactly how much that hurts?:'(

P.s what does Hei Gou mean?
Reply

HeiGou
03-23-2006, 05:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Mu'MiNaH~
No Hei Gou, you can't do this to me! You agreed with me, and then you just took it back! Do you know exactly how much that hurts?:'(
Well you also said that you would not be happy unless we disagreed at least once a day - so here you are.

I can imagine.

P.s what does Hei Gou mean?
Umm, long story probably inappropriate for this forum.
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
03-23-2006, 05:49 PM
Well you also said that you would not be happy unless we disagreed at least once a day - so here you are.
I was joking:statisfie. I like it when we agree.:happy:



Umm, long story probably inappropriate for this forum.
Shall we start a new one?:sister:
Reply

nimrod
03-25-2006, 03:42 AM
This has been interesting. No Muslim has stepped up to the plate to show me why a person shouldn't choose Mormon/LDS (J. Smith) as their faith over Islam (Muhammad).

I can show why a Christian shouldn't logicaly choose Mormon/LDS.
I won't, but I can.

Thanks
Nimrod
Reply

HeiGou
03-25-2006, 09:10 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by nimrod
This has been interesting. No Muslim has stepped up to the plate to show me why a person shouldn't choose Mormon/LDS (J. Smith) as their faith over Islam (Muhammad).

I can show why a Christian shouldn't logicaly choose Mormon/LDS.
I won't, but I can.
Oh go on. I'm dying to know.
Reply

usamuslimah64
03-25-2006, 09:12 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by nimrod
This has been interesting. No Muslim has stepped up to the plate to show me why a person shouldn't choose Mormon/LDS (J. Smith) as their faith over Islam (Muhammad).

I can show why a Christian shouldn't logicaly choose Mormon/LDS.
I won't, but I can.

Thanks
Nimrod
Salam Alaykum:sl: , well, I did post all of those things to show everyone what Mormons believe in and I am also oping anyone with a mind can see that JS is not a prophet in any sense. Also, don't forget they believe in modern day living prophets..
Wa Salaam:w: , Susan
Reply

usamuslimah64
03-25-2006, 09:14 AM
Hoping^
Reply

Snowflake
03-28-2006, 09:13 AM
The word mormom sounds similar to muhmin (believer in islam). I wonder if mormons were infact muslims who strayed from the truth. :confused:
Reply

Al-Mu'min
03-28-2006, 01:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by nimrod
This has been interesting. No Muslim has stepped up to the plate to show me why a person shouldn't choose Mormon/LDS (J. Smith) as their faith over Islam (Muhammad).

I can show why a Christian shouldn't logicaly choose Mormon/LDS.
I won't, but I can.

Thanks
Nimrod
Salamu-Alaykum.

Hi Nimrod.

Here are some contradictions in the religion of Mormons. Their earlier teachings like Christianity have been revised. Here are some contradictions between earlier and revised Mormon teachings.

1.

Before:
God is increasing in knowledge and power.
Wilford Woodruff - "If there were a point where a man in his progression could not proceed any further, the very idea would throw a gloom over every intelligent and reflecting mind. God himself is increasing in knowledge, power and dominion, and will do so, worlds without end. It is just so with us. We are in a probation, which is a school of experience." Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 120 (1857)

After:
God has all power and knowledge.
"God is a glorified and perfected man, a personage of flesh and bones (see D&C 130:22). Inside his tangible body is an eternal spirit. God is perfect. He is a God of love, mercy, charity, truth, power, faith, knowledge, and judgment. He has all power. He knows all things. He is full of goodness." Gospel Principles, 1992 ed., p. 9

2.

Before:
Adam not made of the dust of this earth.
Brigham Young — Adam not made of the dust of this earth. Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 6 (1853)
Joseph Smith — "The Priesthood was first given to Adam; ... He is Michael the Archangel, spoken of in the Scriptures. Then to Noah, who is Gabriel: he stands next in authority to Adam in the Priesthood" Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 157.
Wilford Woodruff — Adam is Michael [the archangel] or God. Wilford Woodruff Diary, vol. 4, p. 129 (April 9, 1852)

After:
Adam made of the dust of this earth.
Joseph Fielding Smith - "Adam created from dust of this earth." Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 90-91 (1954)

3.

Before:
Joseph died after shooting two or three people.
John Taylor - Recounts final minutes of Joseph Smith's life and how he shot and wounded two or three people, two of whom died, before Joseph himself was murdered. History of the Church, vol. 7, pp. 102-103 (1844)
Account of Joseph Smith's death describing his returning fire with a six shooter. History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 618 (1844)

After:
Joseph's death patterned after that of Jesus. He went to his death like a lamb to the slaughter. (D&C 135:4)
"When Joseph went to Carthage to deliver himself up to the pretended requirements of the law, two of three days previous to his assassination, he said: 'I am going like a lamb to the slaughter; but I am calm as a summer's morning; I have a conscience void of offense towards God and towards all men. "

"... the life of Joseph Smith was in some degree patterned after that of his Master, Jesus Christ. ... Like his Master, Joseph Smith also shed his blood in order that the final testament, the reestablishment of the new covenant, might be in full effect (see Heb. 9:16). " The Ensign, June 1994, p. 22.

4.

Before:
Deacon must be a man with a wife and family.
Brigham Young - Quoting the Apostle Paul - "Says he, 'I dare not even call a man to be a Deacon, to assist me in my calling, unless he has a family.' It is not the business of an ignorant young man, of no experience in family matters, to inquire into the circumstances of families, and know the wants of every person. ... select a man who has got a family to be a Deacon, whose wife can go with him." Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 89 (1854)

After:
12-year-old boy can be deacon in LDS Church.
"A boy who has been baptized and confirmed a member of the Church and is worthy may be ordained to the office of deacon when he is twelve years old." Gospel Principles, 1992 ed., p. 88

5.

Before:
Blacks never to hold priesthood in this life.
Bruce R. McConkie - In the Pre-existent eternity there was a war in heaven. "Of the two-thirds who followed Christ, however, some were more valiant than others. ... Those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin. (Moses 5:16-41; 12:22) Noah's son Ham married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain, thus preserving the negro lineage through the flood. (Abraham 1:20-27)
Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. ...
The present status of the negro rests purely and simply on the foundation of pre-existence. ...
The negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow there from." Mormon Doctrine (1958 ed.), pp. 476-477 (1972)

After:
All worthy males can hold priesthood.
Bruce R. McConkie - This edition has all the above parts edited out of this section, and they are replaced with new wording that reflects the 1978 revelation that allowed blacks to hold the LDS priesthood. Mormon Doctrine (1966 ed.), pp. 526-528 (1979)


Islam doesn't have any contradictions. I hope this is reason enough to consider Islam over being a Mormon.

Peace.
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
03-28-2006, 02:09 PM
Me too Hei Gou... why exactly, Nimrod?
Reply

nimrod
03-29-2006, 03:27 AM
Al-Mumin has hit the nail on the head.

Also Usamuslimah64 was hot on the trail of it when she posted about the claims Joseph Smiths claims about the blood line concerning native Americans.

DNA tests have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt the the Mormon claims are false.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,5561316.story

Thanks
Nimrod
Reply

renak
04-07-2006, 06:27 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by nimrod
Al-Mumin has hit the nail on the head.

Also Usamuslimah64 was hot on the trail of it when she posted about the claims Joseph Smiths claims about the blood line concerning native Americans.

DNA tests have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt the the Mormon claims are false.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,5561316.story

Thanks
Nimrod
Does anyone know if any DNA testing has been done to determine a connection between the Muslims who claim they are direct descendants of Muhammed?
Reply

usamuslimah64
04-07-2006, 04:45 PM
Assalaamu Alaykum,
I thought that this was interesting and copied it.
Wa Salaam, Susan
DNA research and Mormon scholars changing basic beliefs
By Patty Henetz, Associated Press
SALT LAKE CITY — Plant geneticist Simon Southerton was a Mormon bishop in Brisbane, Australia when he woke up the morning of Aug. 3, 1998 to the shattering conclusion that his knowledge of science made it impossible for him to believe any longer in the Book of Mormon.

Two years later he started writing Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA and the Mormon Church, published by Signature Books and due in ctores next month. Along the way, he found a world of scholarship that has led him to conclude The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints belief is changing, but not through prophesy and revelation.

Rather, Southerton sees a behind-the-scenes revolution led by a small group of Brigham Young University scholars and their critics who are reinterpreting fundamental teachings of the Book of Mormon in light of DNA research findings. Along the way, he says, these apologist scholars, with the apparent blessing of church leadership, are contradicting church teachings about the origins of American Indians and Polynesians.

"You've got Mormon apologists in their own publications rejecting what prophets have been saying for decades. This becomes very troubling for ordinary members of the church," Southerton said.

And while the work of the BYU apologists — the term means those who speak or write in defense of something — remains confined largely to intellectual circles, some church members who have always understood themselves in light of Mormon teachings about the people known as Lamanites are suffering identity crises.

"It's very difficult. It is almost traumatizing," said Jose Aloayza, a Midvale attorney who likened facing this new reality to staring into a spiritual abyss.

"It's that serious, that real," said Aloayza, a Peruvian native born into the church and still a member. "I'm almost here feeling I need an apology. Our prophets should have known better. That's the feeling I get."

Southerton, now a senior researcher with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Canberra, Australia, has concluded along with many other scientists studying mitochondrial DNA lines that American Indians and Polynesians are of Asian extraction.

For a century or so, scientists have theorized Asians migrated to the Americas across a land bridge at least 14,000 years ago. But Mormons have been taught to believe the Book of Mormon — the faith's keystone text — is a literal record of God's dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas who descended from the Israelite patriarch Lehi, who sailed to the New World around 600 B.C. The book's narrative continues through about 400 A.D.

The church teaches that Joseph Smith translated this record from gold plates found on a hillside in upstate New York in 1820, when he was 14. The Book of Mormon was first published in 1830.

In Mormon theology, Lamanites are understood as both chosen and cursed: Christ visited them, yet their unrighteousness left them cursed with dark skin. The Book of Mormon says Lamanites will one day be restored to greatness through the fullness of the gospel. (The original 1830 version of the Book of Mormon said they would become "white and delightsome;" in 1981, the passage was changed to "pure and delightsome.") Though not mentioned specifically in the Book of Mormon, Polynesians have been taught they are a branch of the House of Israel descended from Lehi.

Traditionally, Mormons have understood the Book of Mormon to cover all of the Americas in what is known as the hemispheric model. At a Bolivian temple dedication in 2000, church prophet and President Gordon B. Hinckley prayed, "We remember before Thee the sons and daughters of Father Lehi." And in 1982, the church's then-President Spencer Kimball told Samoans, Maori, Tahitians and Hawaiians that the "Lord calls you Lamanites."

Southerton's book details how these teachings have helped LDS efforts to convert new members, especially among Indians in Latin America and Maoris in New Zealand. He also offers primers on Mormon history and American race relations, quick tutorials on DNA research and syntheses of Mormon-related genetic research and DNA scholarship.

But in light of BYU scholars' recent opinion that the Book of Mormon's events could only have occurred in parts of Mexico and Guatemala — that is, Mesoamerica — the final third of the book is dedicated to examining the work of LDS scholars at the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, or FARMS, established 25 years ago and housed at BYU.

FARMS findings on Mesoamerica are based on the Book of Mormon's "internal geography," that is, descriptions of how long it took the ancient peoples to get from one place to another. The apologists now believe the events occurred only hundreds of miles from each other, not thousands — provoking new questions including how the Americas could have been so rapidly populated with people speaking so many languages without the presence of vast numbers of people who never appear in the narrative.

In a telephone interview from his Canberra office, Southerton said that keeping up with the rapidly growing body of work in genetic research made it difficult for him to finish the book while also keeping it up-to-date with critics and apologists and those in between all seeking to reframe the Book of Mormon in light of DNA research.

In particular, he's tried to keep up with FARMS qrticles, which he said are "completely at loggerheads with what the church leaders are teaching."

Church spokesman Dale Bills on Thursday said the church teaches only that the events recorded in the Book of Mormon took place somewhere in the Americas. The doctrine of the church is established by scripture and by the senior leadership of the Church, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.

"Faithful Latter-day Saint scholars may provide insight, understanding and perspective but they do not speak for the church," he said.

On its Web site, under the "Mistakes in the News" heading, the church declares, "Recent attacks on the veracity of the Book of Mormon based on DNA evidence are ill considered. Nothing in the Book of Mormon precludes migration into the Americas by peoples of Asiatic origin. The scientific issues relating to DNA, however, are numerous and complex."

The site then offers Web links to five articles, four of which were published last year in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, a FARMS publication.

Aloayza believes that is tacit approval of what FARMS is saying.

"There is such a huge divide between what the scholarly elite with the LDS church knows and will discuss and what the ordinary member knows," Aloayza said. "The burden of proof is on the people who are advancing the Book of Mormon as the word of God."

BYU political science professor and FARMS director Noel Reynolds said FARMS reseabch and writings are not aimed at proving or disproving the Book of Mormon. "We understand the difficulties of that. We get dragged into these discussions repeatedly because of books like Southerton's or ordinary anti-Mormon questions," he said.

The work of FARMS shouldn't be considered counter to church doctrine because the geography of the Book of Mormon has "never been a matter of official church pronouncement," Reynolds said.

While believing in a hemispheric model might be considered "naive," he said, "it's also fair to say that the majority of LDS over a period of time have accepted a hemispheric view, including church leaders."

Added FARMS founder and BYU law professor John Welch, "We don't speak officially for the church in any way. These are our opinions, and we hope they're helpful."

Southerton, who no longer is a member of the church, said given the state of DNA research and increasing lay awareness of it, church leaders ought just to own up to the problems that continued literal teachings about the Book of Mormon present for American Indians and Polynesians.

"They should come out and say, 'There's no evidence to support your Israelite ancestry,' " Southerton said. "I don't have any problem with anyone believing what's in the Book of Mormon. Just don't make it look like science is backing it all up."
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Reply

usamuslimah64
04-07-2006, 04:52 PM
Assalaamu Alaykum,
I thought this was interesting too..
Wa Salaam, Susan


Bedrock of a Faith Is Jolted
DNA tests contradict Mormon scripture. The church says the studies are being twisted to attack its beliefs.
By William Lobdell,Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
February 16, 2006

From the time he was a child in Peru, the Mormon Church instilled in Jose A. Loayza the conviction that he and millions of other Native Americans were descended from a lost tribe of Israel that reached the New World more than 2,000 years ago.

"We were taught all the blessings of that Hebrew lineage belonged to us and that we were special people," said Loayza, now a Salt Lake City attorney. "It not only made me feel special, but it gave me a sense of transcendental identity, an identity with God."


A few years ago, Loayza said, his faith was shaken and his identity stripped away by DNA evidence showing that the ancestors of American natives came from Asia, not the Middle East.

"I've gone through stages," he said. "Absolutely denial. Utter amazement and surprise. Anger and bitterness."

For Mormons, the lack of discernible Hebrew blood in Native Americans is no minor collision between faith and science. It burrows into the historical foundations of the Book of Mormon, a 175-year-old transcription that the church regards as literal and without error.

For those outside the faith, the depth of the church's dilemma can be explained this way: Imagine if DNA evidence revealed that the Pilgrims didn't sail from Europe to escape religious persecution but rather were part of a migration from Iceland — and that U.S. history books were wrong.

Critics want the church to admit its mistake and apologize to millions of Native Americans it converted. Church leaders have shown no inclination to do so. Indeed, they have dismissed as heresy any suggestion that Native American genetics undermine the Mormon creed.

Yet at the same time, the church has subtly promoted a fresh interpretation of the Book of Mormon intended to reconcile the DNA findings with the scriptures. This analysis is radically at odds with long-standing Mormon teachings.

Some longtime observers believe that ultimately, the vast majority of Mormons will disregard the genetic research as an unworthy distraction from their faith.

"This may look like the crushing blow to Mormonism from the outside," said Jan Shipps, a professor emeritus of religious studies at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, who has studied the church for 40 years. "But religion ultimately does not rest on scientific evidence, but on mystical experiences. There are different ways of looking at truth."

According to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, an angel named Moroni led Joseph Smith in 1827 to a divine set of golden plates buried in a hillside near his New York home.

God provided the 22-year-old Smith with a pair of glasses and seer stones that allowed him to translate the "Reformed Egyptian" writings on the golden plates into the "Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ."

Mormons believe these scriptures restored the church to God's original vision and left the rest of Christianity in a state of apostasy.

The book's narrative focuses on a tribe of Jews who sailed from Jerusalem to the New World in 600 BC and split into two main warring factions.

The God-fearing Nephites were "pure" (the word was officially changed from "white" in 1981) and "delightsome." The idol-worshiping Lamanites received the "curse of blackness," turning their skin dark.

According to the Book of Mormon, by 385 AD the dark-skinned Lamanites had wiped out other Hebrews. The Mormon church called the victors "the principal ancestors of the American Indians." If the Lamanites returned to the church, their skin could once again become white.

Over the years, church prophets — believed by Mormons to receive revelations from God — and missionaries have used the supposed ancestral link between the ancient Hebrews and Native Americans and later Polynesians as a prime conversion tool in Central and South America and the South Pacific.

"As I look into your faces, I think of Father Lehi [patriarch of the Lamanites], whose sons and daughters you are," church president and prophet Gordon B. Hinckley said in 1997 during a Mormon conference in Lima, Peru. "I think he must be shedding tears today, tears of love and gratitude…. This is but the beginning of the work in Peru."

In recent decades, Mormonism has flourished in those regions, which now have nearly 4 million members — about a third of Mormon membership worldwide, according to church figures.

"That was the big sell," said Damon Kali, an attorney who practices law in Sunnyvale, Calif., and is descended from Pacific Islanders. "And quite frankly, that was the big sell for me. I was a Lamanite. I was told the day of the Lamanite will come."

few months into his two-year mission in Peru, Kali stopped trying to convert the locals. Scientific articles about ancient migration patterns had made him doubt that he or anyone else was a Lamanite.

"Once you do research and start getting other viewpoints, you're toast," said Kali, who said he was excommunicated in 1996 over issues unrelated to the Lamanite issue. "I could not do missionary work anymore."


Critics of the Book of Mormon have long cited anachronisms in its narrative to argue that it is not the work of God. For instance, the Mormon scriptures contain references to a seven-day week, domesticated horses, cows and sheep, silk, chariots and steel. None had been introduced in the Americas at the time of Christ.

In the 1990s, DNA studies gave Mormon detractors further ammunition and new allies such as Simon G. Southerton, a molecular biologist and former bishop in the church.

Southerton, a senior research scientist with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Australia, said genetic research allowed him to test his religious views against his scientific training.

Genetic testing of Jews throughout the world had already shown that they shared common strains of DNA from the Middle East. Southerton examined studies of DNA lineages among Polynesians and indigenous peoples in North, Central and South America. One mapped maternal DNA lines from 7,300 Native Americans from 175 tribes.

Southerton found no trace of Middle Eastern DNA in the genetic strands of today's American Indians and Pacific Islanders.

In "Losing a Lost Tribe," published in 2004, he concluded that Mormonism — his faith for 30 years — needed to be reevaluated in the face of these facts, even though it would shake the foundations of the faith.

The problem is that Mormon leaders cannot acknowledge any factual errors in the Book of Mormon because the prophet Joseph Smith proclaimed it the "most correct of any book on Earth," Southerton said in an interview.

"They can't admit that it's not historical," Southerton said. "They would feel that there would be a loss of members and loss in confidence in Joseph Smith as a prophet."

Officially, the Mormon Church says that nothing in the Mormon scriptures is incompatible with DNA evidence, and that the genetic studies are being twisted to attack the church.

"We would hope that church members would not simply buy into the latest DNA arguments being promulgated by those who oppose the church for some reason or other," said Michael Otterson, a Salt Lake City-based spokesman for the Mormon church.

"The truth is, the Book of Mormon will never be proved or disproved by science," he said.

Unofficially, church leaders have tacitly approved an alternative interpretation of the Book of Mormon by church apologists — a term used for scholars who defend the faith.

The apologists say Southerton and others are relying on a traditional reading of the Book of Mormon — that the Hebrews were the first and sole inhabitants of the New World and eventually populated the North and South American continents.

The latest scholarship, they argue, shows that the text should be interpreted differently. They say the events described in the Book of Mormon were confined to a small section of Central America, and that the Hebrew tribe was small enough that its DNA was swallowed up by the existing Native Americans.

"It would be a virtual certainly that their DNA would be swamped," said Daniel Peterson, a professor of Near Eastern studies at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, part of the worldwide Mormon educational system, and editor of a magazine devoted to Mormon apologetics. "And if that is the case, you couldn't tell who was a Lamanite descendant."

Southerton said the new interpretation was counter to both a plain reading of the text and the words of Mormon leaders.

"The apologists feel that they are almost above the prophets," Southerton said. "They have completely reinvented the narrative in a way that would be completely alien to members of the church and most of the prophets."

The church has not formally endorsed the apologists' views, but the official website of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — http://www.lds.org — cites their work and provides links to it.


"They haven't made any explicit public declarations," said Armand L. Mauss, a church member and retired Washington State University professor who recently published a book on Mormon race and lineage. "But operationally, that is the current church's position."

The DNA debate is largely limited to church leaders, academics and a relatively small circle of church critics. Most Mormons, taught that obedience is a key value, take the Book of Mormon as God's unerring word.


"It's not that Mormons are not curious," Mauss said. "They just don't see the need to reconsider what has already been decided."

Critics contend that Mormon leaders are quick to stifle dissent. In 2002, church officials began an excommunication proceeding against Thomas W. Murphy, an anthropology professor at Edmonds Community College in Washington state.

He was deemed a heretic for saying the Mormon scriptures should be considered inspired fiction in light of the DNA evidence.

After the controversy attracted national media coverage, with Murphy's supporters calling him the Galileo of Mormonism, church leaders halted the trial.

Loayza, the Salt Lake City attorney, said the church should embrace the controversy.

"They should openly address it," he said. "Often, the tack they adopt is to just ignore or refrain from any opinion. We should have the courage of our convictions. This [Lamanite issue] is potentially destructive to the faith."

Otterson, the church spokesman, said Mormon leaders would remain neutral. "Whether Book of Mormon geography is extensive or limited or how much today's Native Americans reflect the genetic makeup of the Book of Mormon peoples has absolutely no bearing on its central message as a testament of Jesus Christ," he said.

Mauss said the DNA studies haven't shaken his faith. "There's not very much in life — not only in religion or any field of inquiry — where you can feel you have all the answers," he said.

"I'm willing to live in ambiguity. I don't get that bothered by things I can't resolve in a week."

For others, living with ambiguity has been more difficult. Phil Ormsby, a Polynesian who lives in Brisbane, Australia, grew up believing he was a Hebrew.

"I visualized myself among the fighting Lamanites and lived out the fantasies of the [Book of Mormon] as I read it," Ormsby said. "It gave me great mana [prestige] to know that these were my true ancestors."

The DNA studies have altered his feelings completely.

"Some days I am angry, and some days I feel pity," he said. "I feel pity for my people who have become obsessed with something that is nothing but a hoax."
Reply

jinaan
04-07-2006, 06:21 PM
I don't even see how you can compare the two religions. First of all, the book of Mormon is a book written by an ordinary man. Which has also been changed like the bible, or added onto I should say. The quran is the word of God. It has been preserved since it's revelation. There is not one copy around the world different from another. Compare Islam with christianity, with judaism but please, with mormons? I don't even think christians compare themselves with mormons let alone muslims.
Reply

HeiGou
04-07-2006, 06:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by jinaan
I don't even see how you can compare the two religions. First of all, the book of Mormon is a book written by an ordinary man.
Mormons do not believe that. They think it was dictated to Joseph Smith by the Angel Mormoni. Now that does sound familiar.

Which has also been changed like the bible, or added onto I should say.
Really? When?

The quran is the word of God. It has been preserved since it's revelation.
That is what a lot of people say though. How is that different to Mormons?

I think that perhaps Smith deliberately copied what he heard of Muhammed and Islam. There are similarities if you accept Smith probably did not know very much.
Reply

usamuslimah64
04-08-2006, 04:01 PM
Assalaamu Alaykum,
I really doubt if Joseph knew anything about Islam, as he lived in a small town at the time of his so called revelation of the Book of Mormon. I mean think of it, Media was pretty limited back in that time..It could be that they were using telegraph back then, but I doubt seriously that this was a common topic for the average Joe in USA back then. I guess if one wants he could compare the two..you can find common ground in most religions anyway. To my knowledge, none of them accept a modern day prophet.
I don't really think it is possible to compare Islam with Mormonism.
Wa Salaam, Susan
Reply

usamuslimah64
04-08-2006, 04:04 PM
Assalaamu Alaykum,

Hey..., doesn't the nation of Islam believe in modern day prophets? If not now, didn't they believe in one not so far back..whats his name..Elijah Mohammed? I guess opening this would be a whole other can of worms.

Wa Salaam, Susan
Reply

HeiGou
04-08-2006, 04:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by usamuslimah64
I really doubt if Joseph knew anything about Islam, as he lived in a small town at the time of his so called revelation of the Book of Mormon. I mean think of it, Media was pretty limited back in that time..It could be that they were using telegraph back then, but I doubt seriously that this was a common topic for the average Joe in USA back then.
But they would all have known something about Islam. Edward Gibbon wrote on Muhammed. Washington Irving (1783-1859) wrote not only on the life of Muhammed, but also "translated" stories from Andalucia. Joseph Smith (1805–1844) would have been just the right age. But I agree it probably was not a common topic.

I guess if one wants he could compare the two..you can find common ground in most religions anyway. To my knowledge, none of them accept a modern day prophet.
I don't really think it is possible to compare Islam with Mormonism.
Well there are things in common which are not often found in other religions. They both have a prophet who talked to angels who in turn dictated a new scripture. They both pushed for polygamy. They both denied the concept of the Incarnation. But I don't think Smith had much good information about Islam if you know what I mean.
Reply

Skillganon
04-08-2006, 04:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
But they would all have known something about Islam. Edward Gibbon wrote on Muhammed. Washington Irving (1783-1859) wrote not only on the life of Muhammed, but also "translated" stories from Andalucia. Joseph Smith (1805–1844) would have been just the right age. But I agree it probably was not a common topic.



Well there are things in common which are not often found in other religions. They both have a prophet who talked to angels who in turn dictated a new scripture.They both pushed for polygamy. They both denied the concept of the Incarnation. But I don't think Smith had much good information about Islam if you know what I mean.
Polygamy is in the bible, nothing new.

God incarnation is denied by Islam and Judaism, such notion is anethema to one God!

We can make an anology and say Christianity and Hinduism, in a sense, propogate that God incarnated into a man!
I can also say some Hindus believes in three God, but mantain their is one God.i.e Trinity!

I can draw similarities with Hercules and other mythologies (paganism)!
Reply

nimrod
04-08-2006, 07:19 PM
I also find a lot of commonality in their respective views of the afterlife in Heaven, in contrast to the common understanding of the rest of those who believe in Jehovah.

Thanks
Nimrod
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-18-2016, 09:52 AM
  2. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-18-2013, 12:59 PM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-17-2013, 02:56 PM
  4. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 06-14-2013, 06:29 PM
  5. Replies: 47
    Last Post: 05-10-2009, 11:56 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!