Are The Muslims Our Kissing Cousins?

[daz2]

My impression is that Mormonism is most similar to all of them. I say that only with a little bit of tongue in cheek. I have been reading up and studying the Methodist movement and Calvinist churches (Presbyterian, Congregational, etc . . . ) in the U.S. in the 1800s and their various practices and theological debates and I am struck by how similar those debates and evolution of practics and experiments are to many in the Mormonism at the same time. When I read Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years (the book begins about 1000 years before Jesus' birth), a secular history, I was amazed by how similar the theological, philosophical, and sociological debates have been within extended Christianity over the century, how much in common the challenges were in spreading Christianity across cultures as they are today. I really think we LDs have much more in common with peoples of virtually any faith or nonfaith tradition then there are differences.

[mormonnewb]

A person living a life of debauchery who then repents not only on his deathbed but then follows it up by fulfilling that repentance totally in the next life, accepting Christ's Atonement fully and completely may very well enter the Celestial Kingdom. Our doctrine allows for that.

What does it mean to "fulfill that repentance totally in the next life?" Is it just a "timeout" of sorts or does the person need to perform some acts of penance? Because if it's the latter, then the atonement is working as an extension of time. The person must still pass the test of righteousness but they get to keep writing after the bell (death). On the other hand, the Protestant view of the atonement is that it cancels the test altogether.

I'm not sure that such radically different views of the atonement don't put us closer to Islam than Protestantism. In both Islam and Mormonism, it seems that you must "earn" your salvation by meeting some minimum standard of worthiness.

[pogi]

Our closest kissing cousins would be the RLDS or one of its branches.  Does that count?

Edited February 21, 2014 by pogi

[EllenMaksoud]

What does it mean to "fulfill that repentance totally in the next life?" Is it just a "timeout" of sorts or does the person need to perform some acts of penance? Because if it's the latter, then the atonement is working as an extension of time. The person must still pass the test of righteousness but they get to keep writing after the bell (death). On the other hand, the Protestant view of the atonement is that it cancels the test altogether.

I'm not sure that such radically different views of the atonement don't put us closer to Islam than Protestantism. In both Islam and Mormonism, it seems that you must "earn" your salvation by meeting some minimum standard of worthiness.

God's ways are not our ways. I just don't think we are sentient enough to understand "paying for our salvation" fully.  It is posible that what we see as deep moral flawing, Allah SWT may see simply as progression. It is Heavenly Father that sees where he wants to take us, and we are completely clueless. There will be no 72 virgins, no angel wings, no Garden of Eden again. The eye has not seen what is to come.

[mormonnewb]

God's ways are not our ways. I just don't think we are sentient enough to understand "paying for our salvation" fully. It is posible that what we see as deep moral flawing, Allah SWT may see simply as progression. It is Heavenly Father that sees where he wants to take us, and we are completely clueless. There will be no 72 virgins, no angel wings, no Garden of Eden again. The eye has not seen what is to come.

That brings up another similarity ... The concept of sexuality in the afterlife.

[EllenMaksoud]

That brings up another similarity ... The concept of sexuality in the afterlife.

I don't spend much time worrying about that. My own experience in this life greatly clouds my perception. The first thing I think about is Jesus Christ's sexuality. Owing, I think, primarily to the Catholic church we tend to see Jesus Christ as a sort of asexual apparition.  My own thoughts are that he had a wife and perhaps a child, thought his activities here on earth greatly truncated his family life. I think it is safe here to mention the "Book of Mary", a mere scrap of a book in which the disciples bitterly complained to Mary about her stature. With the Bom and other Mormon documents, I do not think the Canonization argument holds much sway here.

 

So, with that in mind, what are we in the next existence? Will we have the same capability to move through dimensional space as Jesus Christ? I have always wanted to pop out to the back side of the Moon to meditate with no interruptions.

 

1 Cor 13:12: For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

 

And what does this mean?

 

 Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

 

and

 

Matthew 22:30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

 

There is lots of discussion about these things, but none of us know. And for the first time, one such as I can see real promise in nor is there male and female.   Perhaps those with mixed up genetics are part of the norm.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

both founding prophets took wives under the age of 18. both religions had adherents commit mass murder on september 11th, though 100+ years apart.

 

This is the kind of thing that will get you banned from a thread or board.  Knock it off.

There is no conclusive evidence that MMM was just evil men like John D Lee seeking to cover another sin by murder, and a cheap shot at all Mormons. A sickening cheap shot at us all!

[volgadon]

You could probably find profitable comparisons to any religion. Here are some made by non-Mormons. http://calba-savua.blogspot.com/2013/09/more-terrible-than-even-persecutions-of.html

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

During a Gospel Principle (or is Gospel Doctrine?) ... anyway, during the "Baby Mormon" Sunday School session, a recent convert asked this question, "What religion is most similar to ours?"  I almost bit a hole in my bottom lip keeping my mouth shut because I knew that my answer might be seen as "negative" and, like everyone else, I'm trying to help them nurture their newfound faith.  However, I don't think that my answer is negative at all; and it is ISLAM.

 

Here are the similarities as I see them (and by the way, I'm really hoping that Ellen will correct the numerous factual and logical errors in my thinking):

 

1)  Both religions were founded by prophets who dictated scripture (Quran-D&C) through revelation.

 

2)  Both religions accept the truth of the Bible (OT & NT) but believe that it is incomplete and has been misinterpreted/translated.

 

3)  Early adherents of both religions were persecuted and eventually sought sanctuary by migrating to their own versions of Zion.

 

4)  Both religions impose specific dietary restrictions and issue prescribed clothing.

 

5)  Both religions deny the Holy Trinity, although both religions acknowledge the existence and significance of three separate personages -- God, Jesus and the Holy Spirt (the archangel Gabriel for Muslims).

 

6)  Both religions posit different degrees of heaven in which people will reside according to their good works, and with the company of equally righteous family members.

 

Now, I do understand that there are SIGNIFICANT differences between the two religions; two of the biggest being that Muslims don't accept the resurrection and atonement of Christ and Muhammed was the last of the Islamic prophets, while we have a continuing line of prophets.

 

However, on a practical and lived basis, I think we are most similar to our Muslim brothers and sisters.  And while I recognize that people have used this comparison in the past to denigrate one (or both) groups, I see no shame in being compared to another group of devout religious believers who have love and service at the center of their theology.

 

Of course, there is no right answer here, so I'm curious as to which religion you think we are closest to?

I am not as learned as others here who have suggested similarities. I have a decades long friend who would find the comparison troubling, as he points out that they find the idea that God had a son, repugnant, they deny the divinity of Christ and deny any Prophets beyond Mohammed, to name a few. We share more with Catholics than any other for a lot of reasons.

[mormonnewb]

I am not as learned as others here who have suggested similarities. I have a decades long friend who would find the comparison troubling, as he points out that they find the idea that God had a son, repugnant, they deny the divinity of Christ and deny any Prophets beyond Mohammed, to name a few. We share more with Catholics than any other for a lot of reasons.

To your points:

1). I think the Catholics would also find the idea that God has a son by natural means repugnant. I think we Mormons are on our own on this point.

2). I'm not sure how "divine" we consider Christ. At most, he is half-divine. But I do concur that we definitely see Christ in a whole different light than our Muslim brothers.

3). I think the comparison between Mohammed and JS is much closer than, say, between JS and the Pope. Although, yes, Islam closed the line of prophets at Mohammed and we have an open line.

All of that being said, Catholic is an "acceptable" answer.

My only question is why your friend would find the comparison "troubling"? I can see how many would find it inaccurate (or as one termed it, "specious"), but troubling?

[MiserereNobis]

1). I think the Catholics would also find the idea that God has a son by natural means repugnant. I think we Mormons are on our own on this point.

 

Yes, indeed.  I mean no disrespect, because I am obviously a Catholic guest on this LDS board, but when posts mention, sometimes in passing, how Jesus is the *literal* son of God, and when posters hypothesize how that happened (bluntly put, a subtle reference to some sort of sexual interaction between God and Mary, or at least the planting of God's DNA in Mary's womb), it makes me very uncomfortable inside.  I know that there is no official Mormon doctrine on this point, but the conjectures are definitely repugnant to a Catholic sensibility.

 

To clarify our point-of-view, God the Father and God the Son is not literal.  The relationship between the First and Second Persons of the Holy Trinity is beyond our complete understanding and God has decided that the best way to represent it to us metaphorically is to use the relationship between a father and a son.  (I don't want to derail this into a Trinity thread; I just wanted to contrast and clarify).

 

 

 

2). I'm not sure how "divine" we consider Christ. At most, he is half-divine. But I do concur that we definitely see Christ in a whole different light than our Muslim brothers.

 

This is a sticking point for most maintream Christians -- the LDS conception of the nature/being of Jesus Christ as not being fully divine and fully human.

 

 

 

3). I think the comparison between Mohammed and JS is much closer than, say, between JS and the Pope. Although, yes, Islam closed the line of prophets at Mohammed and we have an open line.

 

I would agree -- we don't look at the Pope the same way you look at Joseph Smith.  However, I think, based on my observations in both the digital and real world, that the LDS prophet today, at least in actual practice, is quite similar to the Pope.  This connects to the other thread about modern revelation.

 

 

 

All of that being said, Catholic is an "acceptable" answer.

 

It makes sense to me.  Either the early Church fell into apostasy and needed restoring, in which case the LDS church has the best claim among the restorationists, or it didn't.  Not to demean our protestant brothers, but without Apostolic Succession (or priesthood lineage) there isn't much of a leg to stand on.  On that, we quite agree, yes?

 

An earlier poster pointed out that we both also have an affinity for ritual, something missing in protestantism, too.  I go to a Traditional Latin Mass, with all the beauties of vestments and incense and stained glass and Gregorian chant surrounding the incredibly old Roman Canon, so one could say that I have quite the affinity for ritual

Edited February 21, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

To your points:

1). I think the Catholics would also find the idea that God has a son by natural means repugnant. I think we Mormons are on our own on this point.

2). I'm not sure how "divine" we consider Christ. At most, he is half-divine. But I do concur that we definitely see Christ in a whole different light than our Muslim brothers.

I understand what you are suggesting, but we do not believe that Christ was begotten, as a husband or wife would begot a child, only that Christ is his (Elohiem's Son) which was by the power of the Holy Ghost, certainly not by physical means. Also we do not in any way see Christ is 1/2 divine, I pray none of your teachers have ever suggested such a thing.

Mary (The Virgin Mary) gave birth to the Son of God, as Joseph was not his father, she is described in scripture as "the mother of the son of God, after the manor (or is it spell manner) of the flesh, and "the most fair virgin", this from the BoM, not sure if Catholics would object. The other things I listed, that I did not enumerate were Priesthood, confession, sacrament as "body and blood of Christ, etc.

[mormonnewb]

I understand what you are suggesting, but we do not believe that Christ was begotten, as a husband or wife would begot a child, only that Christ is his (Elohiem's Son) which was by the power of the Holy Ghost, certainly not by physical means. Also we do not in any way see Christ is 1/2 divine, I pray none of your teachers have ever suggested such a thing.

Here's why I got the idea of a natural conception of Christ. Is this something that we no longer "emphasize"?

"Christ was begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers." (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 547)

[EllenMaksoud]

Here's why I got the idea of a natural conception of Christ. Is this something that we no longer "emphasize"?

"Christ was begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers." (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 547)

When you read the 4 Gospels, there is nothing in there that suggests that Jesus was anything but a babe. And when you read the account of 12 year old Jesus teaching in the Temple, there is no indication that his Mother and "Father" were any less worried about him than any child.

[Calm]

What does it mean to "fulfill that repentance totally in the next life?" Is it just a "timeout" of sorts or does the person need to perform some acts of penance? Because if it's the latter, then the atonement is working as an extension of time. The person must still pass the test of righteousness but they get to keep writing after the bell (death). On the other hand, the Protestant view of the atonement is that it cancels the test altogether.

There is no teaching that it is a "time out" or that the person needs to perform some act of penance.  All that is taught it that people are taught the gospel and have a chance to accept Christ as their Saviour and thus be released from their sin or they can reject him as their saviour and have to deal with the full consequences of their sin themselves.

[Storm Rider]

The challenge becomes in measuring "all we can do." None of us reach 100% and that's what the atonement is for. However, unlike the Protestants, I don't think that we believe the atonement will make up ANY gap. For instance, if we've lived lives of total debauchery but accept the Gospel on our death beds, I don't think that gets us in the Celestial Kingdom (even assuming that someone performs the ordinances for us posthumously). Or does it? If not, then our concept of the atonement is limited. It makes up the gap; provided that the chasm isn't TOO large.

I'm not saying that this is wrong or anything. I'm simply suggesting that it probably makes us more like Islam than Protestantism.

 

Newwb, that is the point, it is not an accurate portrayal of LDS teaching. As a disciples of Christ, regardless of church affiliation, we believe that if we love God we follow his commandments, his teachings.  When Jesus said in Matthew 5, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your father which is in heaven is perfect", he was not idly providing a tidbit of nice thoughts, he was pointing all his disciples in a direction. This life is about action; it is not about a single event where an individual learns that Jesus is Lord, but directing us in how we live after we learn of him. 

 

Every time an individual is baptized the grace of Christ washes away all sin. Every time we prepare fully to partake of the Sacrament, the grace of Christ washes away all sin and returns us to that pure, perfect state that we had when we exited the waters of baptism. We are perfected in Christ and through Christ. Every good thing that we do is because of Christ.

 

The difference between us and the Evangelical position is that we believe that we cannot learn of Christ and then do nothing. Learning of Christ directs us to act, to do, and to follow.  He is not just our Lord and Savior on Sundays, but on every day that we live. 

 

I don't want to detract from your thread, but I think this is too important to let fly without comment.

[Tacenda]

Newwb, that is the point, it is not an accurate portrayal of LDS teaching. As a disciples of Christ, regardless of church affiliation, we believe that if we love God we follow his commandments, his teachings. When Jesus said in Matthew 5, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your father which is in heaven is perfect", he was not idly providing a tidbit of nice thoughts, he was pointing all his disciples in a direction. This life is about action; it is not about a single event where an individual learns that Jesus is Lord, but directing us in how we live after we learn of him.

Every time an individual is baptized the grace of Christ washes away all sin. Every time we prepare fully to partake of the Sacrament, the grace of Christ washes away all sin and returns us to that pure, perfect state that we had when we exited the waters of baptism. We are perfected in Christ and through Christ. Every good thing that we do is because of Christ.

The difference between us and the Evangelical position is that we believe that we cannot learn of Christ and then do nothing. Learning of Christ directs us to act, to do, and to follow. He is not just our Lord and Savior on Sundays, but on every day that we live.

I don't want to detract from your thread, but I think this is too important to let fly without comment.

We short change the EV when we say that they accept Christ as their Saviour and do nothing. They know that they are compelled to do something once they've gone through the transformation. I just wonder if that change actually can happen overnight and so many LDS never know what it feels like. I have heard several testify that Jesus is in their lives. He literally takes over. Maybe some on here experience it too. But we LDS, really need to quit saying EV's think they don't have to do anything, the ones that have truly done as they say, never say they don't do anything. They only usually say it's a free gift and we need the faith that it is free, and then they are so indebted for the gift they let Jesus take the wheel, so to speak, as per the Carrie Underwood song. And then they do..... Edited February 22, 2014 by Tacenda

[mormonnewb]

We short change the EV when we say that they accept Christ as their Saviour and do nothing. They know that they are compelled to do something once they've gone through the transformation. I just wonder if that change actually can happen overnight and so many LDS never know what it feels like. I have heard several testify that Jesus is in their lives. He literally takes over. Maybe some on here experience it too. But we LDS, really need to quit saying EV's think they don't have to do anything, the ones that have truly done as they say, never say they don't do anything. They only usually say it's a feee gift and we need the faith that it is free, and then they are so indebted for the gift they let Jesus take the wheel, so to speak, as per the Carrie Underwood song. And then they do.....

Amen! The Protestant position is that we obey the commandments in appreciation of, but not as a condition to, salvation. In other words, they believe that obedience is not the price of salvation but rather the expression of gratitude for it. Now, I'm not arguing that their view is correct. In fact, from my limited experience, our view of salvation through works seems to lead to greater obedience. However, what I am arguing is that our view is much closer to the Muslim view than the Protestant view, if not in principle than in practice.

[MiserereNobis]

I understand what you are suggesting, but we do not believe that Christ was begotten, as a husband or wife would begot a child, only that Christ is his (Elohiem's Son) which was by the power of the Holy Ghost, certainly not by physical means. Also we do not in any way see Christ is 1/2 divine, I pray none of your teachers have ever suggested such a thing.

Mary (The Virgin Mary) gave birth to the Son of God, as Joseph was not his father, she is described in scripture as "the mother of the son of God, after the manor (or is it spell manner) of the flesh, and "the most fair virgin", this from the BoM, not sure if Catholics would object. The other things I listed, that I did not enumerate were Priesthood, confession, sacrament as "body and blood of Christ, etc.

 

Yet there have been posts on this very board by active faithful Mormons discussing that Jesus was somehow physically procreated by God and Mary.  I know this is not *official* Mormon doctrine, but I'd say it would be hard to deny that there is a current among Mormons to believe that God, with his physical body, used physical means to procreate his son, Christ.

 

Catholics most strenously object to this.

[volgadon]

Amen! The Protestant position is that we obey the commandments in appreciation of, but not as a condition to, salvation. In other words, they believe that obedience is not the price of salvation but rather the expression of gratitude for it. Now, I'm not arguing that their view is correct. In fact, from my limited experience, our view of salvation through works seems to lead to greater obedience. However, what I am arguing is that our view is much closer to the Muslim view than the Protestant view, if not in principle than in practice.

 

It is much closer to the Jewish views operative in Jesus' day.

[volgadon]

"At least one methodological problem arises from Meyer's common practice of using analogy or parallel features to describe and compare societies. Historians and thinkers today realize that it is possible to prove almost anything by analogy, for an analogy can be used as a blunt instrument if one is determined to make objects similar. But what seem to be analogies or parallels are usually far too complex to endure more than superficial scrutiny. As one observer has noted, "Few different objects or ideas are essentially the same to more than a superficial observer or thinker.""

https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/BYUStudies/article/viewFile/6830/6479

[halconero]

Amen! The Protestant position is that we obey the commandments in appreciation of, but not as a condition to, salvation. In other words, they believe that obedience is not the price of salvation but rather the expression of gratitude for it. Now, I'm not arguing that their view is correct. In fact, from my limited experience, our view of salvation through works seems to lead to greater obedience. However, what I am arguing is that our view is much closer to the Muslim view than the Protestant view, if not in principle than in practice.

 

My difficulty with the mainstream protestant view (which I understand that you don't hold) is that it neglects the Pauline understanding of "pistis," the greek word commonly translated as "faith," "belief," or "believe." Pistis has little to do with a the acceptance of something or someone as true, or even as your Saviour, but much more to do with faithfulness, obedience, piety, love, devotion, and a certain standard of living. Paul most certainly demanded a certain standard of correct action and morality among the Christian groups he established. Were a Christian of our day to tell Paul that believing (in the modern sense of the word) in Jesus as our Saviour was the only condition of salvation he would most likely accuse them of heresy and of perverting the Gospel. So when Paul say that faith is the only thing necessary for salvation he isn't throwing correct action, covenants, devotion, and commandment-keeping out the window, but quite the opposite.

[mormonnewb]

My difficulty with the mainstream protestant view (which I understand that you don't hold) is that it neglects the Pauline understanding of "pistis," the greek word commonly translated as "faith," "belief," or "believe." Pistis has little to do with a the acceptance of something or someone as true, or even as your Saviour, but much more to do with faithfulness, obedience, piety, love, devotion, and a certain standard of living. Paul most certainly demanded a certain standard of correct action and morality among the Christian groups he established. Were a Christian of our day to tell Paul that believing (in the modern sense of the word) in Jesus as our Saviour was the only condition of salvation he would most likely accuse them of heresy and of perverting the Gospel. So when Paul say that faith is the only thing necessary for salvation he isn't throwing correct action, covenants, devotion, and commandment-keeping out the window, but quite the opposite.

Agreed! I think we are correct to not divorce faith from action. They go hand in hand. That's one of the things that I've learned to appreciate about the Church -- we employ spiritual disciplines (e.g., WOW, fasting, garments, temple rituals, etc.) in an effort to create disciples. This only seems logical. But, once again, in the same way, the Muslims employ spiritual disciplines (e.g. dietary restrictions, fasting, daily prayer, ceremonial washings, etc.). I think Catholicism has its own set of spiritual disciplines, although I don't think they are so rigidly observed. And in mainstream Protestantism, they re almost non-existent.

[volgadon]

But, once again, in the same way, the Muslims employ spiritual disciplines (e.g. dietary restrictions, fasting, daily prayer, ceremonial washings, etc.). I think Catholicism has its own set of spiritual disciplines, although I don't think they are so rigidly observed.

 

 

As do Jews and Orthodox Christians. Orthodox Christians are at times even stricter than Muslims when it comes to fasting and dietary restrictions.

[mormonnewb]

As do Jews and Orthodox Christians. Orthodox Christians are at times even stricter than Muslims when it comes to fasting and dietary restrictions.

Fair enough, but I think the Jewish comparison with Mormonism is a non-starter for at least two reasons:

(1). The Great Commission of Christianity is evangelism. The Muslims share this (at some times, even to the extreme of spreading the faith through the sword). On the other hand, Jews don't prosthelize.

(2). While Muslims don't recognize the divinity of Christ, they do at least recognize him as a prophet. Jesus has NO significance for Jews.

As for the Orthodox Christians, do you mean those of the Eastern (Greek) Orthodox Church? I know almost nothing of their traditions (not even sure about the proper name for them). In what ways are they similar to us?