What does it mean to you to be a Mormon?

[Cairbre]

I was under the impression that Muslims believed that the prophet Muhammad was the "seal of the prophets," interpreted to mean that he was the last prophet before the final judgment and return of Isa and and the Mahdi.

If that's the case, then that means that Joseph Smith cannot be a prophet, nor can the Book of Mormon or Doctrine & Covenants be the words of God to a prophet.

Yes, that is the argument often made.

[Cairbre]

Maybe that is how it appears from the point of view of a non-Mormon, so we will have to agree to disagree in that one.

I think that people are on different stages in their journey towards eternal life or salvation. You can compare it to a journey that a child takes from childhood to adulthood and to higher education. The most important thing is not where one is along that journey, but that he is moving in the right direction. A non-Mormon who is committed to the Christian ideal according to his or her own Christian tradition, and tries to live by it, will not be denied the highest glory that God offers provided that he or she does not turn away from the course that leads to it somewhere along the line, either in this life or in the next. That means accepting all the truth that God has revealed at some point in his journey, either in this life or in the next. So the statement that "Mormons believe they will attain a higher glory than non-Mormons" is not entirely accurate. Perhaps the correct way to put it is that if one rejected message of the restored gospel wholeheartedly after it had been preached to you by the power of the priesthood and the Holy Ghost, and persists in that course to the end of your life, then you are not likely to get a second chance.

I went back and looked at some of your earlier posts, and again would like to comment on these:

It appears that these are important questions to you. In answer I would again refer you to my post #138. In addition you might like to note the following interesting quote form the Book of Mormon:

• Alma 29:8 "For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true."

This I believe the light in which Latter-day Saints view the teachings of the Prophet Mohammad; and the statements form the First Presidency generally reflect this sentiment. Beyond that the Church is not prepared to go at the present time.

Thank you for the information.

[Cairbre]

We believe that Mormonism is God's only true Church, therefore it is not a question of "choosing between apples and oranges". The choice is between Mormonism or nothing.

So are we going back to the exclusion of Christians or just other Christian churchs?

[Calm]

So are we going back to the exclusion of Christians or just other Christian churchs?

Define what you mean by exclusion and what we are excluding them from and we can tell you whether or not we are excluding anyone, including churches.

We are excluding no one from salvation or exaltation in the long run.

[Cairbre]

Maybe the explanation is that the Koran has been changed!

I think the possibility of the Koran having been changed is less than the interpretations of its meaning have varied.

[Cairbre]

Define what you mean by exclusion and what we are excluding them from and we can tell you whether or not we are excluding anyone, including churches.

We are excluding no one from salvation or exaltation in the long run.

I am going by what you said about God's "choice is between Mormonism or nothing".

What did you mean by that? It sounds like exclusion to me.

[Cairbre]

Sorry, I've been busy having a real life. There were only 12 because two articles of faith were combined in one response. The 6th talks about the scriptures, and the 9th talks about revelation, I combined those in my discussion. If you need a reference to the actual articles of faith, they are HERE

Remember that I was modifying them based upon the premise of how we differed from other Christian religions.

TULIP - Is the 5 points of Calvinism:

Total depravity

Unconditional election

Limited atonement

Irresistible grace

Perseverance of the saints

I refer you to a Calvinist and to this Wikipedia article for more info.

- SlackTime

OK, thank you for clarifying.

[zerinus]

So are we going back to the exclusion of Christians or just other Christian churchs?

I don't know what you mean by "exclusion". Whom are we excluding from what? Mormonism is God's only true Church, period. The meaning of that is clear.

[Cairbre]

I do not know how most mormons feel about using the term "prefer" when talking about God's relationship with those of our faith, but I find it to be too laden with connotations that lead to wrong conclusions and thus it would be better to avoid its use.

First and foremost I think one needs to make a division between the faith and those who practice it. One is not the other. Our faith is the Gospel as it has been revealed to us, in its fullest and purest form on the earth. As I have mentioned before and as stated in the Articles of Faith there is more to be revealed to us, but if one understand the Gospel to be the "good news" the Lord has given the world in order that those who desire it may enter back into his presence and live with him eternally, then one can state that the LDS is the full Gospel, not just the fullest. We have all the knowledge we need to get to the next step the Lord requires of us on the way to exaltation. We also believe that others do not have the full knowledge and so like zerinus said, it is not a matter of degree between the LDS faith and any other religious faith but rather choosing between accepting the Gospel as taught by the LDS Church and damnation.

Other faiths do have many truths, but salvation---like pregnancy---does not happen in degrees. One is not "mostly saved". One's actions will be judged in the context of the truths and laws they have been given at that time, but eventually they will be given all truth and at that point will make a decision whether to accept the Lord completely into their lives or choose a lesser degree of glory.

At first glance this is not unlike many other Christian faiths who teach theirs is the only way. One big difference is that we also teach an explicit mechanism (as opposed to relying on the mercy of God to take care of the lacks) whereby those who did not have a full opportunity to accept the Gospel in their mortal life will be able to receive it in the next life (the mechanism is well explained in the Gospel Principles manual so I won't go into it in detail here).

So to speak of God "preferring" Mormons as a group does not really fit into the LDS paradigm imo as all will have the same opportunities to experience God's love in its fullest form, just at different times in their lives.

One could say that those who have the opportunity first--either through being born in the faith or encountering it in their mortal lives and accepting it---would seem to be preferred simply because they got there first, but I would point to the parable of the labourers in the vineyard that demonstrates it's not when one arrives at the truth that matters, but simply that one arrives and stays. This mortal life is short, if not sweet and in my view when compared to eternity, the differences of 'when one arrives' are too insignificant to even be considered.

I would also use the idea of a "chosen people" presented in the Old Testament of the Hebrews. Simply because God chose them to do the work did not give them an automatic pass to eternal salvation. And there were times that God's 'preference'---because of their rejection of the truths and laws he had given them---was expressed in allowing them to suffer the full consequences of their sins including their nations being destroyed, enduring slavery and being scattered. There are some that would prefer not to be chosen if those are the things one can look forward to if one is less than obedient to the Lord's Will or gives one's love more to another than to God.

LDS are "chosen" in that way. We and all of those who join us through conversion have been given an assignment by the Lord to help in bringing the full truth of the Gospel to the World and to provide the ordinances of mortality necessary for eternal life. That does not mean we are automatically "better" or more loved by the Lord, it just means that for some reason he found us suited to this work and gave it to us. If we accept this calling and fulfill it to the best of our abilities through God's guidance and blessings, then we can expect to join with him through eternity. If we do not, if we reject this blessing of serving others in this way, then we will not be able to look forward to being one with the Lord.

It seems the term "degrees of Christianity" with I used to describe the preference Mormons claimed to have does not sit right with many of you. But your own literature speaks of degrees of glory (you even mention it above). So how do you separate your doctrine of different degrees of glory from different degrees of Christianity as I have compared to different degrees of understanding, commitment, and knowledge?

[zerinus]

I think the possibility of the Koran having been changed is less than the interpretations of its meaning have varied.

I know that that is the argument that is often made for the Koran by the Muslims; but that is more of an illusion. A cursory of the history of the Koran would destroy that myth pretty fast. The historical evidence for changes made in the Koran are greater than for the Bible.

[Cairbre]

I don't know what you mean by "exclusion . . ." Mormonism is God's only true Church, period. The meaning of that is clear.

Never mind, I withdraw the question.

[Cairbre]

Well thank you all for participating in my first thread. I feel I have learned much and that the topic has gone as far as it needs to.

I will check back to see if anyone adds some comments.

Good-bye for now.

[Calm]

I am going by what you said about God's "choice is between Mormonism or nothing".

What did you mean by that? It sounds like exclusion to me.

Again exclusion from what?

Everyone has the same opportunity to accept, therefore in the long run there is no exclusion except self-exclusion.

[Calm]

It seems the term "degrees of Christianity" with I used to describe the preference Mormons claimed to have does not sit right with many of you. But your own literature speaks of degrees of glory (you even mention it above). So how do you separate your doctrine of different degrees of glory from different degrees of Christianity as I have compared to different degrees of understanding, commitment, and knowledge?

The degrees of Christianity has nothing to do with the degrees of glory.

It is about what we do with the knowledge, not the knowledge itself that will determine our eternal state.

We will all the opportunity to have the same level of knowledge and truth. What will be different is how much someone is willing to accept. Think of it as a large university....the more classes you take, the more higher level classes you are allowed to take. Those who don't want to put the effort into learning will be satisfied with an associate degree with the limits of responsibility and choice of careers placed on those, those with post graduate work have a much larger range of choices they can engage in....

But all are accepted into the university and all are able to go as far in learning as they desire.

This is why I think it is important for you to read Gospel Principles if you are sincere in your desire to understand LDS thought. We are going over and over the idea of "degrees of Christianity" because you don't understand how LDS actually look on the issue of possessing "degrees of truth", our "degrees of glory" etc. Getting a basic understanding would help tremendously in avoiding these types of misunderstandings and misplaced assumptions.

From the GP manual:

Assignment to Glories

At the Final Judgment we will be assigned to the kingdom for which we are prepared. We will be sent to one of four places: the celestial kingdom (the highest degree of glory), the terrestrial kingdom (the second degree), the telestial kingdom (the lowest degree), or outer darkness (the kingdom of the devil

[mfbukowski]

It seems the term "degrees of Christianity" with I used to describe the preference Mormons claimed to have does not sit right with many of you. But your own literature speaks of degrees of glory (you even mention it above). So how do you separate your doctrine of different degrees of glory from different degrees of Christianity as I have compared to different degrees of understanding, commitment, and knowledge?

I think you are on the right track, and as I read the thread, I was thinking of the degrees of glory as paralleling what you call the "degrees of Christianity".

It is not that there are degrees of Christianity, it is that we believe that one who believes and practices Mormonism and does all that is required by our church will achieve a higher degree of glory in the afterlife.

So in a sense you are right. One thing which I think has not come up is that it is possible that one who has not believed here, who has not had a full opportunity to hear the truth here, will have an opportunity in the afterlife to hear it. Were that not so, God would not be just because there have been so many who have lived who have never heard of Jesus. How could God justly condemn someone for something which was not their fault?

So all religions have some truth, and some forms of Christianity have more truth than others, but all will have the opportunity to hear the gospel and choose for themselves. If they choose correctly and understand the truth, they will receive the highest reward.

[Calm]

One thing which I think has not come up is that it is possible that one who has not believed here, who has not had a full opportunity to hear the truth here, will have an opportunity in the afterlife to hear it. Were that not so, God would not be just because there have been so many who have lived who have never heard of Jesus. How could God justly condemn someone for something which was not their fault?

So all religions have some truth, and some forms of Christianity have more truth than others, but all will have the opportunity to hear the gospel and choose for themselves. If they choose correctly and understand the truth, they will receive the highest reward.

I have said this at least twice already.

[volgadon]

Many of us view Jewish Zionism as a counterfiet.

Probably because you do not understand it.

[volgadon]

Muslims believe we are the descendants of Abraham through Ishmael. That is our place in the Bible. If others could see it, they might see the Koran in a different light. Likewise, if the Mormon faith did not have its bases in the Bible it would be unbelievable and unsustainable. All viable religions must trace back to something in the Bible. Christians do that by claiming Jesus was the Messiah promised in the Old Testament.

The problem is that the Quran attributes Isaac's role to Ishmael.

[volgadon]

It would also be nice if Mormons and Christians before commenting on the Koran would read what it has to say, put it in the context of the times it was written, and try to understand how what it says fits into their own belief system with the goal being a unity of thought and purpose. Because I believe God had a purpose in bringing people outside of Christianity and Judaism to a common place where they would be considered the descendants of Abraham. When you then add this concept of purpose to a world in apostasy, a world where Christians and Jews are outside of their doctrine, it seems clear to me that Islam is the place he created for those in an apostasy of the truth. Therefore, a fallen Jew or a fallen Christian still have a place in God.

I have read it. I read and prayed about it long before I did so for the Book of Mormon.

[volgadon]

I am going by what you said about God's "choice is between Mormonism or nothing".

What did you mean by that? It sounds like exclusion to me.

God gives everyone the opportunity to choose. If someone is excluded, it is because they have excluded themselves.

[volgadon]

That is a valid point. That would be another one of those "irreconcilables" between Mormonism and Islam---unless of course the word "seal" has been incorrectly interpreted! "Seal" need not necessarily mean "the last one". It could be interpreted in other ways, such as in "seal of approval" for example---meaning that Mohammad came to testify of, approve, or confirm the truth of all previous prophets.

I'm not aware of any Semitic expressions like seal of approval. The word seal in Hebrew and Arabic means closed.

[mfbukowski]

I have said this at least twice already.

Ooops. Sorry.

You mean I actually have to read these threads?

[melsgoof]

Typically people like to define themselves, but also, it is not uncommon for people to also like to define "others."

Hence, Mormons claim to be Christians, but some folks who claim to be Christians don't feel that Mormons are part of the "true" group of Christians. Many Mormons find this definition by others frustrating, and cite their own arguments as to why they are indeed Christians, but frequently these arguments are unconvincing to those who are certain that Mormons aren't Christians.

Interestingly, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims its members are Mormons, but generally doesn't encourage use of terms like "Mormon Church" and cites even the Associated Press as evidence that only members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are Mormons. I used to have acquaintance with members of the RLDS Church, many of whom considered themselves Mormons and I have known members of other groups that split off from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who also consider themselves Mormons. I don't think every group that is part of the Latter Day Saint movement considers itself Mormon, but certainly several do, even though the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims those others "really aren't" Mormons, and finds the arguments of those others just as unconvincing as some Christians find Mormon arguments that they are Christian.

Further, at least some churches or movements within the larger Latter Day Saint movement are NOT or at least "do NOT appear to be" Christian, for example Reform Mormonism http://www.reformmor...d_and_faith.htm and I am a member of another Latter Day Saint church that isn't Christian.

So, definitions of Christian and Mormon (like definitions of most other terms) do not appear to be static or universally accepted.

And, even within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints there are varying opinions of what it means to be Mormon, and some of those have been pretty well represented in this thread. No doubt, in a church with more than 13 million members there are many other themes that could be cited. Something I would find interesting would be to see what "cultural" differences exist among members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in different areas. In many senses it is said "the church is the same all over the world" but I have a strong suspicion that there are cultural differences. (One relatively minor one that comes to mind is that when I was living in a southern state, it was common for members in the pews to answer back to each speaker when the speaker said "Good morning" at the beginning of their talks with "Good morning." Some missionaries and others from Utah found this disruptive, disturbing and damaging to their ability to feel the spirit. A sister from Hawaii told me that a big "Aloha" was common from speaker to congregation and congregation to speaker in her home stake in Hawaii. Nothing like this was done in the stakes and wards I've visited in the Midwest, and in talking to folks from Utah about this, I am sometimes responded to with a blank stare of disbelief).

I think this answer, in general, is the best answer to the original poster's question. In my opinion, any word in any language can have multiple meanings depending on how the word is used and by who is using the word. To argue about who is and who is not "Christian" is simply word-play (and honestly a fruitless discussion). It is a conversation that will run in endless circles. In my opinion, if a person/group calls themselves Christian, let them. It is between that person/group and God to determine if their claims to Christianity are valid.

That said, "Christian" doctrine does vary from sect to sect, denomination to denomination (and even within the same parish/congregation). It is possible to debate doctrine, but even that can be a fruitless endeavor if both parties are steadfast in their faith/stance/position.

I guess what I am trying to say is: "Don't sweat the small stuff."

[handys003]

Only if you believe good can come out of the devil can you claim the angel Mohammad spoke with was a false messenger.

Only if you lack knowledge of what the world was like in 600 AD can you say that no good came out of God's interaction with Mohammad.

I generally do not quote from the Koran because it is frowned upon to give snippets outside of the whole context. If the person you mention wishes to quote from the Koran in defense of it that is up to him. I believe the Koran needs no defense or excuse for what it says because it comes from God. Those who reject it or try to prove it wrong will be judged by God accordingly.

Then you say, "I know it's you redwave." To which I say, I will leave you with your own imaginations of reality.

LOL! You do not sound or defend like any Muslim I've known, and I've known quite a few in my lifetime.

Elaborate on the following:

He said: Surely I am a servant of Allah; He has given me the Book and made me a prophet;

And He has made me blessed wherever I may be, and He has enjoined on me prayer and poor-rate so long as I live;

And dutiful to my mother, and He has not made me insolent, unblessed;

And peace on me on the day I was born, and on the day I die, and on the day I am raised to life.

[zerinus]

I'm not aware of any Semitic expressions like seal of approval. The word seal in Hebrew and Arabic means closed.

The word "seal" (???) in Arabic means the same thing at it does in English. It is a seal or stamp you put at the bottom of a writing that identifies it as yours, like a modern signature. In those days instead of signing their letters or writings they would stamp it with their personal seals or signets, and it would identify it as belonging it to them. That is still done sometimes on very formal occasions, such as when two countries sign an important treaty for example. I looked it up in a proper Arabic-English dictionary and it gives this as its primary meaning: "To seal, to stamp, to put a signet upon (a writing)". To "end" or "close" is one of its derivative meanings, but not its primary meaning. Another derivative meaning is to "finish reading a book". But its primary meaning is the first definition I gave. I tried looking it up online, but found that most Arabic Dictionaries don't work properly; and the only one that worked didn't give very clear definitions. Here it is in case you are interested. So interpreting that verse in the Koran as the "last prophet" is certainly not the only or even the most intuitive way to interpret it. The fact that Muslim scholars have always interpreted it that way does not make it sacrosanct.