Seal Of The Prophets

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

[islam is] not typically willing to regard postbiblical persons as prophets, on the basis, among other things, of the Qur

[Smith]

I have been puzzling over this, and would like to know more [from anyone] about Muhammad being the Seal of the Prophets, and what that could alternatively mean, under the theory that Muhammad could be a ligit prophet under LDS theology.

I think it could mean that he is a confirmation, an evidence, for the other prophets. Perhaps some kind of fulfillment of what they said. Or evidence that God indeed does ensure his word(or some portion of it) gets to many nations. (2 Nephi 29:7)

[BCSpace]

[islam is] not typically willing to regard postbiblical persons as prophets, on the basis, among other things, of the Qur

[mocnarf]

You talk as though Mohammed is a true prophet of God. Do we (mormons) not believe that many false prophets will be raised up to lead humanity astray? What evidence is there that Mohammed was a true prophet of God and not a false prophet? It seem's to me that Mohammed received his revelations from God's sworn enemy. Where am I going wrong?

.

Do we (Mormons) not believe that in the last days, Satan will raise up a mighty force that will seek the destruction of Isreal and the bondage of all humanity. When I look at the world, I can only see one force that seems to have those goals. What do you see?

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

Do we (as Mormons) deny Muhammad was a prophet, just because the apostate Christian Church, under non-existant authority, said so? What if the false prophets were those who corrupted his teachings? There are then indeed plenty of false prophets. What makes you think you should know these false prophets by name? Buddha told his followers [not] to worship him, yet they do it anyways.

Satan's forces could be made up of Musloms, but it just as easily be Christians (Nazi-like EVs ), Atheists ("Communist Reds" *countries with red flags* ), etc. We have been told that there are other books of scripture in many countries, even on islands, that are to come forth. What if, one day, we are supposed to add the Quran in the Standard Works? Is that going to offend you?

[Cold Steel]

According to the Book of Mormon, the question of whether Muhammed could be considered a prophet rests on whether he taught that Jesus was the Christ and whether he was crucified for the sins of the world. The Qur'ran says no, Jesus was a messenger in the same sense Muhammed was, or as far as we know. Dr. Peterson says he sees significance in the story that has a voice calling to Muhammed three times; still, if Muhammed denies the godhood of Christ and denies the Atonement, he ultimately must be rejected.

Jesus says by their fruits you shall know them. All I see in the Qur'ran is a bunch of secular nonsense. The eschatological aspects are equally as bizarre.

One may ask whether the world would be better or worse without Muhammed. Could the culture today sustain the tribal polytheism that existed in Muhammed's day? I'd like to say not, but the Far East has shown us that anything's possible.

[BCSpace]

You talk as though Mohammed is a true prophet of God.

Understandable. But that is not how I intended it to come across. I spoke only the sense that he is listed among others considered to be true prophets of God.

Jesus says by their fruits you shall know them. All I see in the Qur'ran is a bunch of secular nonsense. The eschatological aspects are equally as bizarre.

One may ask whether the world would be better or worse without Muhammed. Could the culture today sustain the tribal polytheism that existed in Muhammed's day? I'd like to say not, but the Far East has shown us that anything's possible.

I agree with your assesment that he must be rejected as a prophet of God because he did not preach Christ as you specified. Perhaps one might think otherwise if he had come before Christ speaking simply of a messenger to come, but that is not the case. He seems to speak directly against Christ's divinity in an age well after Christ.

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

I'm no expert but s little as I've seen, I see Muhammed did preach of Jesus, it simply clashed with the Catholics. Mormons don't believe the Catholic creeds, we've learned that Jesus is not God the Father, he is "one" under a covenant with God. Though we refer to him as "God", thats in the sense that he's in the Godhead, and as the mediator Angel he comes in his name and the speaks on behalf of God. We know Jesus is a spirit Son of God, one of many, and there are very specific Sons of God or Arch-Angels such as Michael and Gabriel who have come to earth born as verious important prophets at different eras, and Jesus was the highest ranked. I don't know where the conflict is in that issue.

[Cold Steel]

I agree with your assesment that he must be rejected as a prophet of God because he did not preach Christ as you specified. Perhaps one might think otherwise if he had come before Christ speaking simply of a messenger to come, but that is not the case. He seems to speak directly against Christ's divinity in an age well after Christ.

Well, some might say that we really don't know precisely what Muhammed taught. Perhaps he was really called of God and perhaps his message was pure when first given, but afterwards corrupted. Perhaps Muhammed was told he would be the last messenger to the Arabs and it got twisted into his being the last messenger, period. This is all grasping at straws, granted, but judging Islam by the corrupt doctrine that it teaches, I'm not hopeful that Muhammed will be proven to be a true messenger of God.

Still, if I were a Muslim and not a Mormon, I would view the succession issue as a non-starter. If Muhammed was to be the final prophet to mankind, then the entire debate on who should succeed him is irrelevant since they are not going to be more enlightened than anyone else. Only dead religions have uninspired successors and once revelation ceased, then whether it was Ali or Abu Bakr makes no never mind. This is my biggest gripe with modern Christianity. If my clergyman receives no revelation, then he's as clueless as I am if I'm not receiving revelation. Christ even delivered a parable about this and even with that parable most Protestants miss it completely! Blind guides leading the blind is a story that shows the necessity of continuing revelation.

[cjcampbell]

According to the Book of Mormon, the question of whether Muhammed could be considered a prophet rests on whether he taught that Jesus was the Christ and whether he was crucified for the sins of the world. The Qur'ran says no, Jesus was a messenger in the same sense Muhammed was, or as far as we know. Dr. Peterson says he sees significance in the story that has a voice calling to Muhammed three times; still, if Muhammed denies the godhood of Christ and denies the Atonement, he ultimately must be rejected.

Jesus says by their fruits you shall know them. All I see in the Qur'ran is a bunch of secular nonsense. The eschatological aspects are equally as bizarre.

One may ask whether the world would be better or worse without Muhammed. Could the culture today sustain the tribal polytheism that existed in Muhammed's day? I'd like to say not, but the Far East has shown us that anything's possible.

I guess the question would be whether Mohamed genuinely influenced his culture to any great extent or whether he was merely a reflection of something that was already there. Much of what is considered modern Islam -- the clothing, the beards, the violence, the intolerance, etc., are really Arabic in nature, not religious. After all, we are often told that Islam is basically peaceful -- and anyone who disagrees will be threatened with death, his churches burned to the ground, and there will be riots in the streets. And when he dies, the peaceful Muslims will fire their automatic weapons in the air and dance in jubilation, because saying that they are not peaceful is such a terrible lie. Certainly, the founder of a peaceful religion like that is entirely justified in waging war and forcing people to convert under threat of death. He wants peace to be spread over the whole world, right? So it is important to kill all those infidels, because they are a threat to peace. Mohamed considered all his wars to be a form of self defense. The refusal of all mankind to be united in his religion was an attack. So you see, anyone who preaches peace must be considered to be a true prophet.

[TraddButton]

According to the Book of Mormon, the question of whether Muhammed could be considered a prophet rests on whether he taught that Jesus was the Christ and whether he was crucified for the sins of the world. The Qur'ran says no, Jesus was a messenger in the same sense Muhammed was, or as far as we know. Dr. Peterson says he sees significance in the story that has a voice calling to Muhammed three times; still, if Muhammed denies the godhood of Christ and denies the Atonement, he ultimately must be rejected.

Is it possible to be inspired by God and not believe in Jesus as a divine figure? I suppose this may go against the basic tenants of Christianity, but the vast majority of the world does not believe in Jesus as a divine figure, to include most Jews and even some Christians (who think Jesus was a Buddha like figure, though some would question their Christian-ness). Given this imbalance between Christians and Non-Christians, I would think it would be somewhat odd to believe that God would not inspire those outside of the Christian fold.

I guess the question would be whether Mohamed genuinely influenced his culture to any great extent or whether he was merely a reflection of something that was already there. Much of what is considered modern Islam -- the clothing, the beards, the violence, the intolerance, etc., are really Arabic in nature, not religious. After all, we are often told that Islam is basically peaceful -- and anyone who disagrees will be threatened with death, his churches burned to the ground, and there will be riots in the streets. And when he dies, the peaceful Muslims will fire their automatic weapons in the air and dance in jubilation, because saying that they are not peaceful is such a terrible lie. Certainly, the founder of a peaceful religion like that is entirely justified in waging war and forcing people to convert under threat of death. He wants peace to be spread over the whole world, right? So it is important to kill all those infidels, because they are a threat to peace. Mohamed considered all his wars to be a form of self defense. The refusal of all mankind to be united in his religion was an attack. So you see, anyone who preaches peace must be considered to be a true prophet.

This appears to be an attempt at sarcasm, but I have not seen a legitimate expert on Islam who would agree with the above. I would highly recommend the Zaytuna lectures.

http://www.zikrcast.com/podcast/audio/Extremism.mp3

Sarcasm is a poor way to view others.