What's new

Is there a fundamental misunderstanding betwen Mormons and Muslims? help solving the puzzle!!

You shouldn't judge an entire religion just because of a few hundred million bad apples.

Add up all the members of Al-Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS etc and you won't even have 0.01% of Islam. Al-Qaeda for example has less than 20,000 members when you combine all branches. Support for these organizations is mostly found in countries with low literacy rates.
 
Last edited:
I'm glad that you guys are having your random fun with some of our beliefs. Some things like the virgins deal are probably meant to say a lot more different deal. I have never thought of the afterlife that is an eternity with a bunch of chicks. Think of the side effects of that! God doesn't hate us you guys.
I just envision them as fully-submissive, sexual slaves.

If the afterlife is as bomb as most say then it must be overflowing with beautiful, mute women.
 
I would respond with PKM's question as well. Because if true, then isn't Smith saying that the religion based on the Bible (Christianity), was false?

No, Smith said that the religion based on the Bible (Christianity) was completely true... but that over the centuries people fell away from the original teachings so that a restoration of the those original Biblical teachings was needed.

Go back to my example of your friend with the Bible that had Matthew, Luke, and John, but was missing Mark. Would you say that his Bible is false? I don't think so. That's how the LDS view traditional Christianity. So if you were to ask some random LDS members today, "do you think that traditional Christianity is false" nearly all of them would reply, "No, but it is incomplete."

I also have problems with several prophesies directly contradicting the Bible.

Feel free to post more details if you'd like my opinions on them.
 
I just envision them as fully-submissive, sexual slaves.

If the afterlife is as bomb as most say then it must be overflowing with beautiful, mute women.

I think the Japanese have already invented those in the form of companion robots.
 
One of my friends said once - "if there is no fishing in heaven I would rather go to hell".

My mom used to always say, "I'd rather go to hell, all my friends are going to be there."
 
No, Smith said that the religion based on the Bible (Christianity) was completely true... but that over the centuries people fell away from the original teachings so that a restoration of the those original Biblical teachings was needed.

Go back to my example of your friend with the Bible that had Matthew, Luke, and John, but was missing Mark. Would you say that his Bible is false? I don't think so. That's how the LDS view traditional Christianity. So if you were to ask some random LDS members today, "do you think that traditional Christianity is false" nearly all of them would reply, "No, but it is incomplete."



Feel free to post more details if you'd like my opinions on them.

Response to the first: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" Luke 21:33. That's the most common interpretation. Another one is, "Heaven and earth will disappear, but my words shall never disappear" (NLT) is another one. How about Isaiah 40:8, "The grass withers, the flowers fade, but the word of our God will stand forever." Except ya know, for those thousand years or so, they won't stay for those years. Do you really think a sovereign God would allow the Bible to remain incomplete for over a thousand years (or whatever timeframe it was) before revealing it to His people? I just cannot believe that.


For the second, let me again refer to several verses.

Deuteronomy 18:20-22 "But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’ And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him."

Numbers 23:19 "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?"

God does not lie, He does not change. All true prophecy comes from Him, therefore any prophecy that does not come true, cannot come from Him, making that prophet a false prophet.

"I prophecy in the name of the Lord God of Israel, unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in the state of Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potsherd left for their wickedness in permitting the murder of men, women and children, and the wholesale plunder and extermination of thousands of her citizens to go unpunished (History of the Church, Vol. 5, page 394)."

That prophecy was made by Joseph Smith in 1843. The US Gov't did not redress those wrongs, nor did they get overthrown. I think it's safe to say that a few years have passed by now. Smith prophecies in the name of the Lord here…so was God wrong, or was Smith a false prophet?

"Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Kirtland, Ohio, September 22 and 23, 1832. HC 1:286-295.

1. A revelation of Jesus Christ unto his servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and six elders, as they united their hearts and lifted their voices on high.

2. Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem.

3. Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased.

4. Verily, this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation.

5. For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house."

Safe to say that Joseph Smith, nor anybody from his generation build that temple in Missouri, as they were kicked out. Again, false prophecy.

I also have problems with how African-American members were first not allowed to become priests (because of prophecy), and then were allowed to become priests (because of prophecy). Does the Bible anywhere state that color of skin has anything to do with becoming an elder or deacon or priest? Does the Bible anywhere state that the color of skin has anything to do with discipling somebody? Does the Bible not state that God does not lie, and does not change His mind? How then can we believe that the flip-flopping of this prophecy is from God?

In summary, based on what the LDS church teaches and believes, God allowed His people to be abandoned of His true Word, He changed his mind, and lied, and allowed the commission of a prophet who has had multiple false prophecies. I cannot, and will not believe that to be true, because it contradicts the Bible.
 
My mom used to always say, "I'd rather go to hell, all my friends are going to be there."

Had a guy tell me that as a Mormon I had a special spot reserved for me in the seventh circle of hell. He was serious. I laughed in his face and told him that as a pentacostle (or however you spell it) he would be next to me and if he was lucky they'd let him take his tamborine. To which he asked me who I was to assign anyone to hell. I just sat back and smiled and wondered how ling it would be before the hypocrisy dawned on him. When he swore, slammed some stuff on the ground and stomped off I decided I was having a good day.
 
I'm not mormon but it seems most logical to me that if there were prophets back in the day that there would be prophets now. But it also seems illogical that there would be 1 true religion and that religion would be pretty minor in comparison to other religions. Also if your religion is almost completely based on the region you were born in there being 1 true one doesn't make sense either.
 
Had a guy tell me that as a Mormon I had a special spot reserved for me in the seventh circle of hell. He was serious. I laughed in his face and told him that as a pentacostle (or however you spell it) he would be next to me and if he was lucky they'd let him take his tamborine. To which he asked me who I was to assign anyone to hell. I just sat back and smiled and wondered how ling it would be before the hypocrisy dawned on him. When he swore, slammed some stuff on the ground and stomped off I decided I was having a good day.

People like that guy really bother me. Are there people I think are wrong when it comes to religion? Yes. Are there people I think are headed to Hell, unless they change their ways? Yes. Would I ever, ever, ever tell them that I absolutely know they are going to hell? No! It says right in the Bible that isn't our job to worry about that. We don't get to choose who goes and who doesn't.
 
You shouldn't judge an entire religion just because of a few hundred million bad apples.

Yeah, you should look at the arc of how the creation of a religion has been utilized by different rulers to suit their best interests, and investigate how the arc of Islamic history has culminated in the widespread adoption and advocacy of only one style of interpretation of faith (that of course has no superiority over any other interpretation of the Islamic religion).
 
One of my friends said once - "if there is no fishing in heaven I would rather go to hell".

Charles had a passion for fishing. So much so that he pursued his passion at all costs including his personal relationships. Every major event in Charles' life revolved around his fishing schedule. He was on the Yellowstone River fishing for cutthroat on the day of his 25th wedding anniversary. Charles was fishing for grayling in Glacier National Park on the day that his first child was born. He was fishing for tarpon in the Florida Everglades on the day that his father passed away even though he knew his father had a short time to live. His motto was, "If there is no fishing in heaven I'd rather go to hell". All of this aside, Charles was actually a kind and decent man that was willing to help others... as long as it didn't interfere with his fishing.

On the day that Charles died he was greeted at the Pearly Gates and taken to a large meadow in the mountains with a crystal clear stream running through it. The guide let him know that this was his reward for the life he had lived and was handed a pole, creel and fishing gear. As the situation sank in Charles became excited. He had been rewarded for his good and decent life and was in now in heaven doing what he loved most.

Charles carefully rigged his pole. He picked out the perfect fly and knotted it onto his line. With a quick flick of the wrist he expertly landed the fly just above a promising hole. He watched the fly bob around a rock and settle into the middle of the hole. Never had a cast come so easily on the first try and settled in so perfectly. BAM! A large trout hit his fly within seconds. With skill he set the hook and reeled the magnificent fish in. He gently placed the fish in his creel and decided to try the hole once again.

Again, a perfect cast on the first try and again, within seconds, a magnificent fish hit his bait. Charles found it odd that such a small hole would produce two equally magnificent fish but he wasn't complaining. This was a great start to his stay in heaven.

On the odd chance that a new fish had already settled into the same hole he cast out again. Perfect cast, perfect bait placement and yet again an equally magnificent fish withing seconds. "What the hell?" he muttered while reeling in the fish. The guide simply looked at him and said, "Exactly".
 
^ so I guess perception is reality

or something like that


(kind of like the basis for most religions I think... it's just a matter of belief, and what you believe is real for you...)
 
Response to the first: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" Luke 21:33. That's the most common interpretation. Another one is, "Heaven and earth will disappear, but my words shall never disappear" (NLT) is another one. How about Isaiah 40:8, "The grass withers, the flowers fade, but the word of our God will stand forever." Except ya know, for those thousand years or so, they won't stay for those years. Do you really think a sovereign God would allow the Bible to remain incomplete for over a thousand years (or whatever timeframe it was) before revealing it to His people? I just cannot believe that.

I have many thoughts in response to that. Let me be clear that I'm merely explaining my own point of view here (and that of most LDS). I'm not trying to persuade you that my point of view is correct, merely that it's reasonable.

First, the word of God does indeed stand forever. But "word of God" is not synonymous with "the Bible". So those verses do NOT mean that the Bible is inerrant. From the tone of your post I suspect we disagree on that point. But to me the word of God is the message that God delivers to his prophets and apostles. The Bible is a transcription of some of that. But I see no reason to suppose that it's a transcription of ALL of that. In other words, the Bible *contains* the word of God. But it does not contain all of the words of God. In fact, the Bible itself refers to many books as scripture which are not even to be found ANYWHERE today. It is clearly not complete. Moreover to me it also seems obvious that the Bible contains many things which are NOT the word of God. For example, I do not believe God directed the many massacres described in the Old Testament, the way it records. Also, the Bible disagrees with itself in places, and different versions of the Bible disagree with each other...even if you look at the old manuscripts as far back as they go. I'm reading the New Testament in the Zondervan NIV Study Bible right now, for example, and on nearly every page there are suggestions for alternate phrasings, or notes that "in some manuscripts, [this word or this phrase] can be found." And so forth. Why would I suppose that the Bible is inerrant if we don't even know what the original Biblical books really said?

If the Bible really were this perfect item that it seems you have envisioned, I can't understand why God would let the original manuscripts be lost, why He would allow different translations to be made, and so forth. I think my view is much more reasonable--that the Bible is great, and teaches many truths, contains the word of God, can lead people to Christ... but is not inerrant.

Second, I don't see much difference in thinking that millions of people didn't have access to the full word of God because they lived in the wrong PLACE (which presumably you think), compared to thinking that millions of people didn't have access to the full word of God because they lived at the wrong TIME (which I believe). If someone is going to miss out on the word of God, what difference does it make that he/she lived in the wrong area of the world vs. if he/she lived during the period of the "great apostasy" (as we LDS term the time between the apostles and the restoration by Joseph Smith)? To me, there is no difference. Missing out is missing out. And that leads me to a point where the LDS church, to me, makes MUCH more sense than all other Christian religions, namely the revelation to Joseph Smith that the gospel is being preached to those who have passed on, and that in the hereafter they have the opportunity to learn the word of God and accept Christ. I believe very strongly in that doctrine. The fact that its not a central part of any other Christian religions that I know of is evidence that part of the gospel went missing after the apostles... even though it's clearly (to me) taught in the Bible (see 1 Pet 3:18-20), the teaching apparently somehow got lost from the churches which followed the Bible.

For the second, let me again refer to several verses.

Deuteronomy 18:20-22 "But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’ And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him."

Numbers 23:19 "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?"

God does not lie, He does not change. All true prophecy comes from Him, therefore any prophecy that does not come true, cannot come from Him, making that prophet a false prophet.

OK, I agree with that.

"I prophecy in the name of the Lord God of Israel, unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in the state of Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potsherd left for their wickedness in permitting the murder of men, women and children, and the wholesale plunder and extermination of thousands of her citizens to go unpunished (History of the Church, Vol. 5, page 394)."

That prophecy was made by Joseph Smith in 1843. The US Gov't did not redress those wrongs, nor did they get overthrown. I think it's safe to say that a few years have passed by now. Smith prophecies in the name of the Lord here…so was God wrong, or was Smith a false prophet?

False dichotomy. There are other ways to view it. For some detailed commentary on that particular quote, please see here: https://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Sm...hecies/Government_to_be_overthrown_and_wasted

"Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Kirtland, Ohio, September 22 and 23, 1832. HC 1:286-295.

1. A revelation of Jesus Christ unto his servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and six elders, as they united their hearts and lifted their voices on high.

2. Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem.

3. Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased.

4. Verily, this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation.

5. For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house."

Safe to say that Joseph Smith, nor anybody from his generation build that temple in Missouri, as they were kicked out. Again, false prophecy.

You are interpreting "generation" very narrowly. I just looked up the word in Webster's 1828 dictionary (https://webstersdictionary1828.com/) to see what it might have meant to Joseph Smith, and I found these definitions: "a series of children or descendants from the same stock... A family; a race.... Progeny...". By those definitions I am still of the generation of Joseph Smith. And in fact, the common view on those verses in the LDS church is simply that the prophecy has not come to pass yet. Not that the time for its fulfillment is over and done.

I also have problems with how African-American members were first not allowed to become priests (because of prophecy), and then were allowed to become priests (because of prophecy).

The first part is incorrect; the second part is correct. That is, African-Americans were actually initially allowed to become priests, under Joseph Smith, but then in 1851 Brigham Young changed the policy and enacted a ban on blacks holding the priesthood. There is no record that Brigham Young received any prophecy or revelation in making that decision (although obviously most people of his era would have felt that there was). But then there was a definite revelation given to end the practice, to later church president, Spencer Kimball.

The view of the church on this matter is given here: https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng. I urge you to read it. It explains the historical context and some possible reasons why Brigham Young might have instituted the ban (it boils down to racism, in my opinion), and why church leaders after Brigham Young felt that a revelation was needed to reverse the policy.

Does the Bible anywhere state that color of skin has anything to do with becoming an elder or deacon or priest? Does the Bible anywhere state that the color of skin has anything to do with discipling somebody?

Nope.

Well... if you want to get technical, actually it was, and racism exists STRONGLY throughout most of the Bible. Race was used for many things in the Old Testament--for example priesthood was limited to the Israelites, and even beyond that I believe it was limited to individuals from certain tribes. Even in the New Testament Jesus said he was only teaching his message to the house of Israel, and it wasn't until Peter's revelation that the gospel was proclaimed to the Gentiles. But as the proclaiming of the gospel after Peter is undoubtedly what you are talking about, I agree with you that after that time there wasn't discrimination based on race.

Does the Bible not state that God does not lie, and does not change His mind? How then can we believe that the flip-flopping of this prophecy is from God?

Again, there are alternate ways of viewing this history that don't involve God flip-flopping.

In summary, based on what the LDS church teaches and believes, God allowed His people to be abandoned of His true Word,

False

He changed his mind,

False

and lied,

False

and allowed the commission of a prophet who has had multiple false prophecies.

False

I cannot, and will not believe that to be true, because it contradicts the Bible.

That's fine, I respect your belief. But my belief is that the Bible is incomplete, that it in fact never says that it is/should be complete or inerrant, that many of the teachings of the early Christian church were lost, and that a restoration was needed and performed by Joseph Smith. Who was a true prophet.
 
People like that guy really bother me. Are there people I think are wrong when it comes to religion? Yes. Are there people I think are headed to Hell, unless they change their ways? Yes. Would I ever, ever, ever tell them that I absolutely know they are going to hell? No! It says right in the Bible that isn't our job to worry about that. We don't get to choose who goes and who doesn't.

I agree 100% with this. Well put.
 
The Bible never says it is inerrant? Maybe we aren't reading the same Bible.

2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is God-breathed..."

Psalm 12:6 "The words of The Lord are flawless"
 
Top