Why was Muhammad Wrong?

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, mapman said:

I am actually kind of surprised by the responses since after studying Islam a little bit (I am hardly an expert), I came to feel that he was in fact inspired and that he was a servant of God. I believe that people like Muhammad, Zoroaster, and the Buddha were called by God to write down their wisdom as is taught by the Book of Mormon: "For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written... and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it." (2 Nephi 29:11-12) The belief that Muhammad was inspired of God was reiterated by the First Presidency in 1978: "The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals." (source: https://bycommonconsent.com/2009/03/10/truth-claims/) I have read portions of the Quran (still haven't finished it) and for me it feels like inspired writing.

As for why the Quran rejects the divinity of Jesus Christ, there could be many possible reasons, but I think it ultimately boils down to the fact that inspired writings are always limited by human language and in many cases have things that are just incorrect inserted into them (just like with the Bible). It could very well be that what Gabriel told him is not exactly the same as what's in the Quran due to later editing. Muslims hold the Quran to be absolutely perfect, but I have no obligation to do so. I can believe that Jesus Christ is divine and the son of God while still finding much to value in the Quran.

Just my opinion, but honestly the responses here really surprise me since I think I'm actually with the church's position on this one.

Yup, agree.

There is truth in all religions, some more than others. 

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Mormonism condemns traditional Christianity

No, I don't think so.  "Condemn" is waaaaayyyy too strong.

[mapman]

1 hour ago, Steve Noel said:

Muhammad is claiming that he has personal revelation as well. Why is his personal testimony false and your personal testimony true?

You are way too confident, in my opinion, of your knowledge of what Muhammad claimed to have received from revelation. We know what his followers decades later said he claimed, but most scholars agree that the Quran in the form we have it now is likely not identical to how it was originally given by Muhammad. They would also generally agree that the traditional Muslim account of how it was received (verbatim from an angel) was likely not the actual process of how it was received. I think it was probably more like the Doctrine and Covenants: it was received piecemeal and in different ways and incorporated preexisting sources. We couldn't say for sure what Muhammad actually thought about Jesus, and even if we did know for sure that he thought Jesus wasn't the Son of God, but rather one of the greatest prophets, that would mean that he was wrong about that, but he could have still been inspired about many other things.

Also, your post seems to be operating under the assumption that you can know whether some alleged revelation is really from God from sort of objective standard. That is of course incorrect. Spiritual knowledge like the knowledge that Jesus is the Christ is inherently based off of subjective and highly personal spiritual experiences. Spiritual witnesses of the truths of the Bible, or the Book of Mormon, or even of the Quran, are things you simply have to experience for yourself. You can share your conviction with others, but all you can do is trust that they can have the same spiritual confirmation as you. I accept or reject spiritual claims based on whether or not it matches my experience with God. I can't claim to speak for anyone else.

[3DOP]

11 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

No, I don't think so.  "Condemn" is waaaaayyyy too strong.

Oh Okay, Stargazer. I wasn't even thinking about "condemn" as bad. I just meant what either side opposes. Correction accepted though.

[Stargazer]

46 minutes ago, mapman said:

I am actually kind of surprised by the responses since after studying Islam a little bit (I am hardly an expert), I came to feel that he was in fact inspired and that he was a servant of God. I believe that people like Muhammad, Zoroaster, and the Buddha were called by God to write down their wisdom as is taught by the Book of Mormon: "For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written... and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it." (2 Nephi 29:11-12) The belief that Muhammad was inspired of God was reiterated by the First Presidency in 1978: "The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals." (source: https://bycommonconsent.com/2009/03/10/truth-claims/) I have read portions of the Quran (still haven't finished it) and for me it feels like inspired writing.

As for why the Quran rejects the divinity of Jesus Christ, there could be many possible reasons, but I think it ultimately boils down to the fact that inspired writings are always limited by human language and in many cases have things that are just incorrect inserted into them (just like with the Bible). It could very well be that what Gabriel told him is not exactly the same as what's in the Quran due to later editing. Muslims hold the Quran to be absolutely perfect, but I have no obligation to do so. I can believe that Jesus Christ is divine and the son of God while still finding much to value in the Quran.

Just my opinion, but honestly the responses here really surprise me since I think I'm actually with the church's position on this one.

My own feelings about Islam used to mirror your thoughts here more, but over time I have gotten quite cautious, even suspcious, about that faith.  I read Dan Peterson's biography of Mohammed, and while it did improve my view of him as a person, the founding events of Islam still left me highly disturbed.  And recent history, too, of course.

Edited May 2, 2016 by Stargazer

[boblloyd91]

1 hour ago, Steve Noel said:

Good to interact here with you as well. My question is meant to probe how Latter-day Saints judge teachings/revelations. Evangelicals insist that all teachings and experiences must be judged by Scripture. If someone claims that an angel gave them a revelation from God that does not agree with Scripture, then we reject that revelation. On this basis, Evangelicals reject the teachings/revelations of Muhammad. On this same basis, Evangelicals say that the teachings and revelations given to Joseph Smith were not from God. I am trying here to understand the basis for LDS rejection of teachings/revelations claimed to be from God.

So to ask a question back, how do Evangelicals know the bible is trustworthy? By what measure do you know if it is true or not? I'm not asking to be a jerk, but rather because I am of the opinion that eventually we can only know truth for ourselves through experience. Jesus said in John (6:16 I believe) that we know the truth of something by doing it. Also he talked about the seed that brought forth fruit in the parable of the sower compared to other seeds. I have talked to some Protestants who said they believe the bible is true because it says it is, however this is circular reasoning. It takes the Holy Ghost witnessing of Christ and the scriptures to help us know if he is truly our savior. Mormonism has an expectation that someone has to know for themselves through prayer, faith and study if they want to know truth, all the while having faith in Christ. Moroni 10:4-5 is clear on this

[mnn727]

3 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

On what basis do Latter-day Saints reject this alleged revelation from God through his alleged prophet Muhammad?

By their fruits shall ye know them.

Mohammed's 'fruits' are rotten 

Edited May 2, 2016 by mnn727

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, mnn727 said:

By their fruits shall ye know them. Mohammed's 'fruits' are rotten 

People say the same thing about Christianity - you know, Crusades, Inquisition, and all that.

[Steve Noel]

56 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

It doesn't have to be Islam it could be Protestantism- same problem.  I reject Aquinas and Martin Luther and Augustine as being "correct" as well

No testimony that they were right.  That's the only way we can even know the bible is "right"

Okay, you have a testimony about Jesus that contradicts Muhammad's testimony about Jesus. What makes your testimony true and Muhammad's false?

[Steve Noel]

55 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And of course the EV's say Joseph does as well.

Not a good argument and Steve knows it.  

I understand how this is viewed as an argument against the revelations of Joseph Smith. That is not what I'm after here. I am seeking to understand the ruler by which Latter-day Saints measure the truthfulness of a teaching or revelation.

[mapman]

15 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

My own feelings about Islam used to mirror your thoughts here more, but over time I have gotten quite cautious, even suspcious, about that faith.  I read Dan Peterson's biography of Mohammed, and while it did improve my view of him as a person, the founding events of Islam still left me highly disturbed.  And recent history, too, of course.

Fair enough. Like I said, I'm certainly no expert on Islam. I do tend to think that the way that Muslims tend to interpret the Quran isn't necessarily the best way to read it. Most things that I find troublesome about Muslims come from later interpretations and traditions (the hadith and sharia are where most of the troubling things seem to come from). I feel free to read the Quran separate from its later interpretations and take what I find inspirational from it.

[mapman]

15 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

By their fruits shall ye know them.

Mohammed's 'fruits' are rotten 

I'd say the fruits are mixed. Islamic civilization has produced many marvelous and good things including many advancements in math, science, literature, etc. Also, we need to distinguish between Mohammad's fruits (the Quran) and the fruits of his followers that sometimes twisted his words. I'm not going to say that Muhammad was perfect, but from what I know about him he was a great spiritual leader and has brought millions of people closer to God.

[boblloyd91]

19 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

I understand how this is viewed as an argument against the revelations of Joseph Smith. That is not what I'm after here. I am seeking to understand the ruler by which Latter-day Saints measure the truthfulness of a teaching or revelation.

Okay, sorry if we keep getting off topic. This is my personal opinion. There are personal revelations and church wide revelations. Personal revelation is judged by how well it jives with the scriptures and the teachings of the prophets. Church wide revelation is measured by the collaborative prayers and decisions of the first presidency and council of the twelve

[mapman]

36 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

I understand how this is viewed as an argument against the revelations of Joseph Smith. That is not what I'm after here. I am seeking to understand the ruler by which Latter-day Saints measure the truthfulness of a teaching or revelation.

Your question presupposes that there is a ruler that we can use to measure revelations, like some objective evidence we can all see. There isn't. Revelation (communing with the Holy Ghost) is inherently a subjective experience, and so can't be measured like things that would fall in the realm of science. Some things each individual just has to come to know for themselves. James 1:5: "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." Someone may claim to have received a spiritual confirmation for something that contradicts my experience with God, but all I know is what I have experienced. I can't get inside of another person's head. Most likely we both just have a limited perspective and "see through a glass darkly." I don't find it contradictory that I have felt that the Book of Mormon is true and that someone else has had spiritual experiences with the Quran. There are fragments of truth lying around all over the place if we just open our eyes to see them. God's handiwork can be found in all of the major world religions.

The only way to know the truth of spiritual matters like discerning between true and false revelations is through the Holy Ghost. For example, the Book of Mormon teaches that the way to know whether it is true revelation from God is to receive your own revelation: "But he that believeth these things which I have spoken, him will I visit with the manifestations of my Spirit, and he shall know and bear record. For because of my Spirit he shall know that these things are true; for it persuadeth men to do good. And whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of me; for good cometh of none save it be of me." (Ether 4:11-12)

Edited May 2, 2016 by mapman

[Tacenda]

54 minutes ago, boblloyd91 said:

So to ask a question back, how do Evangelicals know the bible is trustworthy? By what measure do you know if it is true or not? I'm not asking to be a jerk, but rather because I am of the opinion that eventually we can only know truth for ourselves through experience. Jesus said in John (6:16 I believe) that we know the truth of something by doing it. Also he talked about the seed that brought forth fruit in the parable of the sower compared to other seeds. I have talked to some Protestants who said they believe the bible is true because it says it is, however this is circular reasoning. It takes the Holy Ghost witnessing of Christ and the scriptures to help us know if he is truly our savior. Mormonism has an expectation that someone has to know for themselves through prayer, faith and study if they want to know truth, all the while having faith in Christ. Moroni 10:4-5 is clear on this

(bold mine)

And they get no answers or that the church isn't true, what then?  

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Muhammad of Mecca said that the angel Gabriel appeared to him and gave him revelations from God over a 23 year period. These revelations were collected and published as the Qur'an. According to these revelations Jesus was not God, nor the Son of God, but only a prophet of God. According to these revelations Jesus was not the Savior of the world. According to these revelations Jesus did not atone for the sins of the world.

On what basis do Latter-day Saints reject this alleged revelation from God through his alleged prophet Muhammad?

Sounds like a difference of faith -- a difference of opinion about fundamental belief -- which for a Mormon can only be based on the testimony of the Holy Spirit.

[boblloyd91]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

(bold mine)

And they get no answers or that the church isn't true, what then?  

To be honest I'm still trying to figure that one out. The challenge is that many people reading the same materials and doing the same things get different answers. There are countless denominations because of this. Some think Mormonism is evil, some think it's good. Ditto for Catholicism, Evangelicals, Islam etc. I don't know why that is. My prayer is that God is merciful on us at the last day and knows our hearts and desires, and will not judge us too harshly if we were off base theologically or philosophically. 

[cdowis]

41 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And they get no answers or that the church isn't true, what then?  

I remember the story of someone who had that experience.  For many years he did not get an answer, until one day when he was on his mission.

He later became the President of the Church (don't remember his name).  So sometimes it just takes patience.

Edited May 2, 2016 by cdowis

[boblloyd91]

6 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I remember the story of someone who had that experience.  For many years he did not get an answer, until one day when he was on his mission.

He later became the President of the Church (don't remember his name).  So sometimes it just takes patience.

I think that was David O. McKay 

[cdowis]

16 minutes ago, boblloyd91 said:

I think that was David O. McKay 

That was my guess, as well, and now I remember reading it in his bio in the priesthood manual.

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, Steve Noel said:

I understand how this is viewed as an argument against the revelations of Joseph Smith. That is not what I'm after here. I am seeking to understand the ruler by which Latter-day Saints measure the truthfulness of a teaching or revelation.

As one poster has pointed out, we really do not know what Mohammed actually spoke as he was illiterate. We do not know if what is now in the Koran accurately reflects what was originally written. It is possible that Mohammed was actually actually a prophet of God and that Jesus was worshiped as the Son of God. I don't know. Whatever the case, the Muslim religion diverges greatly from Christianity in general and the LDS version in particular.

As Robert F. Smith noted, this difference of opinion can only be based on the testimony of the Holy Spirit.

 

Glenn

[Stargazer]

Someone might know more about this, but I had heard (here we go: hearsay) that a really ancient copy of the Koran was discovered sometime and found to contain divergent text, or, rather, text that didn't correspond with the modern text.  If this is true, it suggests that some changes occurred in the book from the time it was first written down, and thus we may not have the original Koran today.

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

People say the same thing about Christianity - you know, Crusades, Inquisition, and all that.

And the fruit was rotten because they had apostatized from the early and true Christianity and were following the false prophet of Revelation.

[BCSpace]

Quote

Evangelicals insist that all teachings and experiences must be judged by Scripture.

That would be against the very scripture Evangelicals claim to believe (2 Peter 1:20-21).  All forms of exegesis and hermeneutics are fun and sometimes useful, but ultimately useless in the face of living prophets and apostles, required to be in the Church by the Bible (Ephesians 4:11-14), and the testimony of the Holy Ghost.

 

 

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

I understand how this is viewed as an argument against the revelations of Joseph Smith. That is not what I'm after here. I am seeking to understand the ruler by which Latter-day Saints measure the truthfulness of a teaching or revelation.

I don't know if there is a single ruler Steve. As has been noted some of the later General Authorities have inferred that Mohammed gave part of God's light. Well, in Genesis the serpent speaks with part of God's light, and part lie, which is what makes his lies effective. 

Mapman also speaks somewhat favorably of Mohammed. 

I am not an expert on Islam, but I have studied the religion somewhat thoroughly. Dan Peterson at BYU is probably "an expert" on Islam, and I actually planned to speak to him about it at a recent conference I attended, because from what I know of Islam, I have a somewhat negative view of this religion. 

How do I judge Mohammed and Islam? I believe Islam fulfills the prophecies of Zech 5, which says "this is wickedness" ie the scrolls which have a house built for them in the land of Shinar - which was fulfilled when the first caliphate built Baghdad. 

I tend to judge "proposed" truths of God by scripture. If I perceive a "truth" contradicts scripture, then my "scrutiny level" goes up, and I will tend demand some corroborating scripture or evidence. Such evidence can be received through prayer, etc. Of course scripture can often/always be interpreted different ways, so what an evangelical may consider to be conflicting, I may not. However, I can't see a way around the claims of the Qu'ran vs the scriptures of the Church. The Bible plainly says that those who deny the Son, deny the Father as well, and are anti-Christ. The Qu'ran says far be it from Allah to have a Son. As a matter of fact to believe God shares His glory with the Son is to commit the sin of shirk in Islam. I simply see no way to reconcile it with Christianity. As you note, this is not the only way the Qu'ran conflicts with scripture.

Another issue with Islam is that the Qu'ran makes up merely 15-20% of the law. A good 80%+ of Islamic law comes from the "Hadith" which are writings about what Mohammed supposedly did and said. From these come the Sharia law, which seeks to displace Christian values.

I think it is also interesting to note that the golden age of Islam is a little bit of a misnomer. What actually happened is that the Arabs conquered the Eastern Christians, but rather than persecuting them, sought to have the Christians translate their libraries into Arabic. From these translations the Arabs learned of Mathematics, Science and Philosophy of the West - the Greeks, the Persians, etc. The Arabs had the foresight to realize the Christians had more knowledge than they. Of course you will not hear that in Arabic history. It was actually Muslim rulers from the East, esp Timurlane who destroyed this culture. The Turkish Muslims were the ones who tried to conquer Europe, and in some ways the Turks departed from traditional Islam. It was these later rulers who did much to destroy Christianity in the East as they did not tolerate Christianity and converted by forced conscription or beheading. 

I have read most of the Qu'ran, and found it to be a frustrating document. I later learned that this is apparently because it was not written in chronological order, but by order of size of the Surahs from largest to smallest. If it is rearranged into chronological order, there is a noticeable change from the more idealistic early sections which teach things like "there is no compulsion in religion" to later sections which teach to avoid Christians, and to fight them until they pay the jizyah. There is also a verse which justifies this by saying if later revelations conflict with earlier revelations, then the later ones are to be considered the new law. How convenient for Mohammed! Mohammed didn't even follow his own revelations. Muslims aren't allowed more than 4 wives, but Mohammed had more. I believe the religion of Islam rules over the people with a good bit of fear and force contrary to its early declaration that "there is no compulsion in religion." Like someone else indicated "ye shall know them by their fruits." 

So it is not only the anti-Christ teachings concerning Jesus which concern me, but the internal contradictions and use of force to spread the religion and prevent criticism which concerns me greatly, and cause me to believe this religion is controlled by the adversary. That doesn't mean that all Muslim followers are bad people. We are actually commanded as Christians to love all men. I believe the time is near that many Muslims will learn the falsehoods of Islam and will convert to the true and living God as prophecied in Isaiah 60-2. This will require Christians to love Muslims, and show them the true way of Christ. As the descendants of Abraham, I believe they too are prophesied to inherit the land from Shinar to Egypt.