Apparently for Daniel Peterson—Mormonism’s most prominent living apologist who is also the leading LDS scholar on Islam—denying that Jesus is the Lord and Savior who died on the cross and rose from the dead isn’t enough to make one a false prophet. He writes, “I’m not sure whether Muhammad was a prophet or not.” Yes, he really did say that.
What follows is a summary of some key points in the discussion that ensued.
Rob Bowman replies to Daniel Peterson, “Why haven’t you simply prayed about it? Don’t you believe that if you ask God in faith, he will make known to you whether someone is a prophet or not?”
Peterson ducks the question with, “Why do you assume that I haven’t?” And he goes on to shrug it off:
Whether Muhammad was or was not a prophet is not a matter of existential concern to me, and would make no difference to the way I live my life. I have found the gospel and church of Jesus Christ, and I don’t think God really cares that much about answering questions of merely antiquarian curiosity.
He then does some fancy dancing:
I’m inclined to think that Muhammad was not a full prophet in the LDS understanding of the word. But I was impressed, years ago, by the way in which what I believe to be his authentic call narrative matches ancient Semitic throne theophany visions, and I’m open to the theoretical possibility that the text of the Qur’an as we now possess it may not quite accurately represent his teachings — and that it is, specifically, the relative handful of anti-Christian verses in the current text that may have been inserted after his death, when the Muslim community came into fierce military conflict with the (Christian) Byzantine empire. Those who know Arabic, and particularly the way in which jahili poetry and the Qur’an are structured, will readily understand how easy it is to insert (or excise) a verse without detection. So I don’t altogether rule out the possibility that, in the case of Muhammad, we may be dealing with distorted information about a genuine ancient prophet of some sort. To decide whether he was or was not a prophet, at this juncture, would be, in my judgment, to go beyond the evidence. But I’m entirely willing to defer to the decisions of those who have plainly given this question more thought than I have and know more about the topic.
Bowman responds:
I had asked you if you didn’t believe, as a Mormon, that God would give you an answer if you asked him about an alleged prophet. You ducked that question…
From your earlier statement that you didn’t know if Muhammad was a prophet I can see only two possible conclusions: (1) you asked God if Muhammad was his prophet and didn’t get an answer, or (2) you didn’t ask. Scenario (1) doesn’t fit the LDS doctrine of revelation, which is why I tend to think scenario (2) is the reality. Your comment quoted above would seem to confirm my assumption, since someone who claims not to care if Muhammad was a prophet is unlikely to bother asking God about it.
To your statement quoted above I might retort that whether Joseph Smith was or was not a prophet is not a matter of existential concern to me and would make no difference to the way I live my life, but that would be a lie. If I knew that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, I would become a Mormon. Likewise, if I knew that Muhammad was a prophet of God, I would become a Muslim. Since Islam is incompatible with both Mormonism and orthodox Christianity, neither one of us can plausibly claim not to know if Muhammad was a prophet of God; our choice to remain where we are proves we have answered that question in the negative. And the question of whether Muhammad was a true prophet of God certainly ought to be a matter of existential concern to anyone who claims to care about God’s truth and who is an expert on Islam!
On one point, though, I can agree with you. God does not need to answer questions about whether Muhammad was a prophet of God. We have the revelation of God in Jesus Christ and can see for ourselves (even from our very different theological perspectives) that the religion of Muhammad is not compatible with that revelation in Christ. I don’t need to ask God if Muhammad is God’s prophet, because I know Christ is God’s Son. Likewise, I don’t need to ask God if the Book of Mormon is the word of God, because I know the Bible is the word of God and that the religion founded on the Book of Mormon is not compatible with the Bible. Disagree with that conclusion you will, but the principle is a sound one: we need not pray to know if a religion is true if we have what we consider good, God-honoring reasons to conclude that it is not.
Rob goes on to ask, “Is there anyone in the history of the world who claimed to be a prophet of God that you can say confidently was or is a false prophet?” Jason replies, reflecting what I believe is a general Mormon reluctance to denounce any significant religion’s prophet as false: “No, not with full confidence. I can name some people who definitely were true prophets, however.”
Are we really trusting and following Jesus if we have this above attitude toward prophets? Rob makes this an issue about Jesus:
[T]he Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles repeatedly warned us to guard against following false prophets (Matt. 7:15; 24:11, 24; Mark 13:22; Luke 6:26; Acts 13:6; 2 Cor. 11:13-15; 2 Pet. 2:1; 1 John 4:1-6; Rev. 2:2; 16:13; 19:20; 20:10). How can you be on guard against them if you are not capable of determining who they are?
In the same thread, “Ahab” writes to “nackhadlow”:
Okay, so you are saying you are confident that those men were false prophets of God. Does that mean you think those men never said anything true? The way I see it, we are prophets of God when we declare what is true, just as God declares what is true, and we are false prophets when we declare the truth is false.
Rob responds:
That is not a biblical way of thinking about it. Jesus didn’t say, “All of us are sheep when we say the truth and savage wolves when we say something incorrect.”
Someone asks him, “How would Rob know who was a true prophet?” He answers that a true prophet would
- be consistent with previously established revelation from God (i.e., the Bible)
- live, not sinlessly, but generally speaking to a standard at least as high as that of righteous believers of his own time
- build faithfully on that foundation with additional revelations that show him to be “ahead of the curve” in some way
- give a coherent account of why God had raised him up to serve as a prophet at the particular time and place that he did
- tell the truth about himself and others
At the end of the thread I couldn’t help but think: If you can’t trust Mormon apologists to make an honest assessment of Muhammad (who denied the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus), how can you trust them to make an honest assessment of Joseph Smith? Also, why the gigantic double-standard on praying to God for a spiritual/emotional epiphanic confirmation on whether a prophet is true or false?
Update: One Mormon is complaining at MADB that Peterson’s “comments differentiating between what Muhammad may have personally taught, and what was eventually included in the Qur’an are never addressed by the commentators [at MC], of course.”
I’m not buying into Peterson’s dance of differentiation for two main reasons:
– It’s not reasonable to believe that Muhammad was ignorant of Jesus. Any non-false/true prophets after Jesus ought to be heralding Jesus, pointing to Jesus, pushing Jesus as THE Messiah, as the Son of God. Muhammad affirmed some true things about Jesus, but Muhammad didn’t get on board with the Jesus-centered, Jesus-focused messages of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.
Yet Peterson still isn’t sure if Muhammad was a false prophet.
– So what if Peterson has doubts over Muhammad’s original teachings? He still should be able to simply pray to God for a clear yes or no answer to the question of whether Muhammad was a false prophet. Otherwise, he is selectively applying Mormonism’s spiritual/emotional epiphanic confirmation test to Smith and not to Muhammad. The question still stands to Daniel Peterson: “Why haven’t you simply prayed about it? Don’t you believe that if you ask God in faith, he will make known to you whether someone is a prophet or not?”
Peterson’s non-answer of, “Why do you assume that I haven’t?”, is simply embarrassing.
To use the language of Moroni 10:4-5:
"I would exhort that Daniel Peterson would ask Allah if these things in the Quran are not true; and if he shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Allah, he will manifest the truth of it unto him, by the power of Allah. And by the power of the Allah ye may know the truth of all things, including whether or not Mohammed was a prophet."
I get a kick out of Peterson. His writing gives me the impression that he thinks that if he blows enough blue smoke around and incorporates some "smart talk" he'll appear intelligent and might I say "deep". Here's a few of my favorites:
*"a matter of existential concern…"
*"authentic call narrative"
*"Semitic throne theophany visions"
*"those who know Arabic and particularly the way in which jahili poetry and Qur'an are structured.."
That last one is a real dandy! Is he telling us that he knows Arabic, which he may, or is he trying to get us to think that he knows Arabic? I remember reading a college text by some deconstructivists feminists one time and I came to the conclusion that their whole program centered around them creating a language that the "in" people could speak and write in and there by elevating their status as part of the smart crowd.
As far as the content of what Peterson wrote, my conclusion is that the guy definitely thinks Mormon and fits well within the Mormon world. I would advise him not to step too far out of it however.
Falcon, Peterson is an academic who knows Arabic.
Daniel Peterson "makes sense" as far as mormon thinking goes. It might not make sense to anyone who is not LDS, however. I can see a Muslim saying "get lost" with your arguement. I can't see them wanting or needing LDS support. I personally don't get it. Why they think they have a corner on truth, and yet can be so supportive of other religions, I think it must be an attempt at good public relations, which might be failing in so many ways.
Using an altered Moroni 10: 4-5 makes a great point. I imagine that J.S. wrote that to appeal to the christian masses he was so familiar with. What made him think it would be appealing to a Muslim? Buddhist, hindu or pagan?
cont…
What about the possible answer you would get? Before you even pray that, isn't the expected answer to be 'yes'? Thats one thing that is instilled in LDS members when they suggest thoughtful prayer that the answer will be yes, and if its not, the person has some problem or isn't ready for the answer or something.
An earlier comment in a previous thread suggested that one could even get an answer from a 'travel gnome', as a witness that the church was true. I always wondered about why LDS faithful could be so confident that their spiritual answer is correct, that burning in the bossum. They say its not subjective or imagination or emotion.
One question, while we are on the topic of Islam, how do you all know its not true? how does a muslim know that its true?
Just out of curiousity, is a 'false profit' anything like a 'toxic asset'?
Oh sure Aaron, but DOES HE KNOW REFORMED EGYPTIAN? Don't mean to yell, but that's the true test of a Mormon academic! Actually I'm an academic too, but no I don't know Arabic or Reformed Egyptian, but I do know Jesus.
Just having a few yucks here!
This is just my impression but perhaps some of you other folks can help me out here. Mormons seems to be really into prophets and revelation where ever they find them. They are great incorporators of various stream of "light, truth and wisdom". That's how Joseph Smith built his religion. Mormons, for example, don't seem to be too embarrassed by either Smith's occult connection with his magic rock/seer stone or his "borrowing" of their sacred rituals from Free Masonry. BTW, Smith also appropriated his view of the Celestial Kingdom from someone else. Mormons just see it all as truth and revelation.
Pick-up a copy of "Under the Banner of Heaven" and you'll get a real eye opener regarding this whole aspect of Mormon prophesy and revelation. There's all these Mormon dudes running around thinking they are thee prophet. That's why there's so many off-shoots of Mormonism. Everybody's a prophet but that's what Smith encouraged from the beginning. When he saw that it was getting out of hand he had another revelation that only he could reveal church doctrine. The genie was out of the bottle however and he had unloosened a trend that is present even today.
A few months ago a Mormon was badgering and challenging me to read the BoM. I told him that I had asked God about it and God had said to me, "Why would you read something that you know wasn't true"? The Mormon backed off pronto. It surprised me!
So, anyway, my impression is that Mormons are universalists who will accept "prophets" and "revelation" just about any where they find them. There standards, also, are real low regarding prophets and prophetic utterance hence they can do the Mormon two-step regarding some of the goofy things their past prophets have said.
This is an interesting article, Aaron.
It sounds like Daniel Peterson has spent a good amount of time studying Islam and its prophet. Daniel said he was unsure whether the founder of Islam was a (true) prophet. Later, he explained he could not be certain whether anyone who claimed to be a prophet of God was actually a false prophet.
This came as a surprise to me.
Daniel listed one of his qualifications for a true prophet:
Consistency with earlier revelation from God (i.e., the Bible).
Is Daniel uncertain whether the revelations of Islam's prophet accord with the Bible? Pretend, for a moment, that Islam's prophet had made the following statement:
<quote>There are many things in the Bible which do not, as they now stand, accord with the revelations of the Holy Ghost to me.</quote>
Would this establish he had failed to qualify as a true prophet? The above quote was made not by Islam's founder, but by the founder of the LDS religion (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 310).
Returning to Islam, Jersey Tomato asked how one can know that Islam is not true. This is a good question.
Many Muslims have never read the book Islam's founder introduced. However, what they all know is the "Five Pillars of Islam." This is a list of five laws, which if the Muslim abides by; lives a good enough life by, then they can go to Heaven. For they believe that good people go to Heaven. The five laws involve the Islamic profession of faith, daily scheduled prayers, an annual month-long fast, generous charitable donations, and a onetime pilgrimage to a city significant to the religion's founder.
I know that Islam is not true. How is that? Because what I've just described is pure paganism. It has nothing to do with Christianity. The Bible tells us that as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse (Galatians 3:10). There is none good; no, not one (Romans 3:10). If it were possible to make oneself righteous in God's sight by one's best efforts, finding just the right pattern of piety, then Jesus died in vain (Galatians 2:21). And since Jesus was born to die, this would mean his birth was meaningless, as would be our celebration of Christmas. Think of that: If Islam (or any works-righteousness religion) is true, then Christmas is meaningless.
The good news about Christianity is that even though you, I, and everyone is a sinner, totally undeserving of Heaven, God gives the believer Heaven as a gift (Romans 6:23). Heaven is free. How is that? To go to Heaven, don't you need to be perfect? Yes, you do. And I can truthfully tell you that I have a perfect life. I just didn't live it. Christ lived it for me.
i was less than 5 years old when i first was told that i knew the church was true, and that Joseph Smith was a true prophet.
It takes a lot, to undermine the brainwashing someone has inherited. An act of God even. 🙂
It's instructive that Peterson can't say that the founder of Islam is a false prophet. That's really the crux of the above article, I think. I can kind of hear his Mormon wheels whirling as he considers that Mohammed might actually have had some truth and light and this may have been revealed to him by one of the members of the star studded pantheon of Mormon gods. You see once someone goes down that road without a map, every path leads to the same end. It's like that old saying, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it!"
Mormonism, with its fits and starts and redos regarding its prophets and revelation, is basically a free-for-all grab bag of whatever happens to be on the shelf today. Everything else has an expired shelf life and was only good when it was fresh. The constant flow of revelation from a new and improved prophet keeps the troops in a state of anticipation and excitement. But for many the buzz wears off and the drag of the legalistic religion with too many holes in it loses it's appeal.
The prophet, like the naked emperor in the fairy tale, is seen for what he is.
I'm certain that Peterson's comment is like that of many LDS academics: listened to when helpful, and otherwise just his personal opinion. Don't expect a 1st Presidency statement affirming or denying his theorizing any time soon.
Incidentally, I had this sort of discussion with a couple of LDS missionaries once. The more outspoken and engaging one, an Aussie, had a helpful response. When I asked if he had prayed about the Koran to see if it was true he said, "no, because I already have the truth in the BoM!" at which point I said, "amen, now you know how I feel about the Bible!" A light actually seemed to come on for him, though his (senior) companion was getting increasingly uncomfortable and launched into a speech about how I didn't have to believe anything different than I already did (as an evangelical) to be a Mormon. We had covered this ground already, and it seemed to irritate his Aussie companion, but it made the senior more comfortable apparently, who then launched into a testimony-bearing, and the visit was essentially over. My hunch overall is that rank-and-file Mormons simply have not thought about Islam and you will get a huge variety of opinions. Quoting Peterson to an LDS member or missionary will presumably only get blank stares.
Brian, that Joseph Smith quote is something else. Thanks a ton for pointing it out.
I'm thinking that academics in the Mormon world, Peterson not with standing, probably think and believe in a different manner than your rank-and-file Mormon. I like that quote by the BYU professor who said, "In Mormonism you can believe what ever you want, you just can't teach it." Sandra Tanner talks about going to the Mormon Historical Society meetings and engaging these historians in discussions. These guys know what's up and have come to some sort of psychological adjustments to keep them in Mormonism but not really "in" the way the average member is.
I often cite the Community of Christ which has basically told its members to believe what ever they want about the BoM. This group clings heavily to continuous revelation but beyond that, they've moved on. I believe Aaron calls them "Methodists with extra scripture."
If a person doesn't have a firm grasp of what a prophet is and what revelation is, then just about anything can fit into their program because they will see some "light" and "wisdom" even within the most outlandish pronouncements. That's how cults survive. The JWs for example will simply say they have more "light" now than they did previously when their prophesies are pointed out as having not come to pass.
Let's face it, if someone accepts Joseph Smith as a prophet, they'll consider anyone and anything as having some value.
"…and I’m open to the theoretical possibility that the text of the Qur’an as we now possess it may not quite accurately represent his teachings"
LDS Articles of interfaith:
8.We believe the Qur’an to be the word of Allah as far as it is translated correctly
Thats a new take on Islam, LDS relations. I am kind of wondering what the point is about LDS comments about islam? What does that have to do with anything? I think the LDS people just want to acknowledge 'truth' when they see it. If you compare any two religions, philosophies, your bound to find some similiarities, and perhaps many, many more differences. You can emphasize the differences, or the similiarities. Its good P.R. to emphasize the similiarities. I know its a bit of a reversal for them to do this, but perhaps its a better stratagy than saying everything else is completely false.
Falcon,
I think they have a different perspective on Freemasonry, and occult things like glass looking. I believe their idea is that other people are just making up stuff and distorting things to make the LDS church look bad, just because people have sour grapes over leaving or getting kicked out of church membership.
Wow, that was bad, bad, bad.
I´m sure Mr. Peterson is aware of the law of non-contradiction. There´s no "maybe" in that question, as Rob Bowman noted. If he doesn´t deny Mohammed was a true prophet, how will he fit him in during the great apostasy where God supposedly didn´t call prophets and didn´t start a new dispensation? Did Mohammed have the priesthood?
By their fruits you will know them – and Mohammed´s fruits don´t bring anyone to Christ. That should have been an easy one to answer for Daniel Peterson… I wonder if we´ll ever see Thomas Monson´s opinion on the matter.
I think the whole thing is a way to leave the doors open to Muslims, to keep them open minded so that when the missionaries come knocking they´ll maybe listen to their "gospel"….
"but perhaps its a better stratagy than saying everything else is completely false."
Better strategy for what? What are you trying to accomplish by doing that? Imagine Christ saying "I AM THE WAY, but don´t tell that to pagans, they might get offended and it will result in bad P.R."
That statement you made is just another example of how the lds church is a cult, working through deception.
"I am kind of wondering what the point is about LDS comments about islam"
Read the article again. Do you believe Mohammed was a prophet of God? Just like Jo Smith, if you believe him to be a prophet sent by God you had better hear what he says and follow it. The same thing is true about Mohammed – if he is a true prophet of God and his claims are true, you then had better follow him. That would also mean we are all in the wrong religion, LDS and Christians alike.
"I think the LDS people just want to acknowledge 'truth' when they see it."
So, i guess you have read the Qur’an – how much truth did you find in it? How do you apply that truth in your life? Have you also searched for truth in Buddhism? Why not, why do you only search for truth in the words of your leadership? Would you be allowed to burn incense and do some meditative chanting in sacrament meeting?
I didn´t think so…
"I would advise him not to step too far out of it however."
We´ll find out, if he gets excommunicated… 😛
"Using an altered Moroni 10: 4-5 makes a great point. I imagine that J.S. wrote that to appeal to the christian masses he was so familiar with. What made him think it would be appealing to a Muslim? Buddhist, hindu or pagan?"
Your words make a case against Joseph being a prophet of God visited by Jesus Himself and many angels… if Joseph truly was a prophet of God he wouldn´t have to "think" anything was appealing to anyone. God would have simply told Him of His ways and that would be it.
Unless the Mormon Church is a revolutionary group which goal is to take over the world, through getting someone on the White House as Joseph himself tried. That may sound crazy, but i don´t doubt the lds church would do the same the Catholic Church did in the middle-ages had they the same political power.
"how do you all know its not true"
As stated in the article – it denies the deity of Jesus and His atoning sacrifice. In Islam Jesus is just another prophet.
The problem also is that once a person is "spiritually" convinced that Joseph was a prophet, everything had to have a positive explanation.
If he was involved in occult practices, they´ll say that´s how God prepared him to receive revelation.
If he was money-digging, they´ll say he was just a kid part of a "respectable minority community" misunderstood by his neighbors…
in other words, there´ll be always an explanation no matter the issue.
"my impression is that Mormons are universalists who will accept "prophets" and "revelation" just about any where they find them"
That may be true of the first "latter-day saints", but today i think that doesn´t apply anymore – today mormons won´t accept anything that wasn´t spoken by either the prophet, the apostles or a seventy… while they´ll be curious about spiritual experiences, if those are not interpreted as confirmation of the church´s "truthfulness" they´ll be dismissed as lies of Satan, or counterfeit experiences that Satan produced to take them off the path.
That´s the only way… if someone is to leave to believe the true Jesus.
A person can have all sense in the world, but unless God has imparted His spirit to them, they can not see His truth for looking.
There is another LDS man who comments out here some times. He's intelligent, and studies a great deal. So he seems scholarly. And yet, he does not and will not apply his study techniques to the religion he wants to believe in. So you say, wow, you sure have studied this up, but to what end? If all you were doing was trying to validate yourself, and you won't study up anything that proves you wrong, where has it gotten you?
I added an update to the original post.
I read about this elsewhere, and came to look.
Peterson is obviously a complete idiot, with little grasp of history, no understanding of the Bible, and no sense whatsoever of elementary logic.
Refuting him is child's play. It doesn't even require accurately understanding or restating his position.
WOW! What a great last sentence and insight. Mormons want to get people into the baptismal tank so it wouldn't be a bit surprising to me to see them fold the prophet of Islam into Mormonism. Of course that will mean holding back the information on the nature of "god" of Mormonism.
Would you be so kind as to dazzle us with your intellectual prowess and explain how you're not practicing a Mormon double standard by not simply praying to ask God if Muhammad was a false prophet? Seriously, are the heavens closed? Has God ceased speaking to mortals? Is Heavenly Father silenced? Why don't you tap into the gift of personal revelation and ask God if Muhammad was a false prophet? As Rob asked, "Don’t you believe that if you ask God in faith, he will make known to you whether someone is a prophet or not?"
Answering that kind of question doesn't require a PhD. If Muhammad was a true prophet, it has profound implications for your life.
Here's a wild quote from George Q. Cannon:
"I believe myself that Mahomed, whom the Christians deride and call a false prophet and stigmatize with a great many epithets—I believe that he was a man raised up by the Almighty, and inspired to a certain extent by Him to effect the reforms which he did in his land, and in the nations surrounding. He attacked idolatry, and restored the great and crowning idea that there is but one God. He taught that idea to his people, and reclaimed them from polytheism and from the heathenish practices into which they had fallen. I believe many men were inspired who lived after him and before him, who, nevertheless, did not have the Holy Priesthood, but were led by the Spirit of God to strive for a better condition of affairs and to live a purer and higher life than those by whom they were surrounded were living. But while this was the case it was the Spirit of God that did it." http://jod.mrm.org/24/368#371
"He attacked idolatry, and restored the great and crowning idea that there is but one God." —- Ahem, HUH??? That's like John Boehner extolling Barack Obama for pushing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Yes, exactly. Even most converts don´t realize who their god is. It´s rare to see a new convert searching for books that will help them understand their new faith better, so, i honestly have met converts that even after a couple of years of attendance didn´t know that their god was a polygamous man… it´s absurd and sad… a bishop once told most members thought mormonism was a monotheistic religion, but that the truth was it was polytheistic. Really, but obviously, for him that was a deep truth that nobody needed to be saved.
commenting on my post above, another interesting part of it is that Joseph´s first vision where jesus tells him all religions were corrupt could be twisted to only apply to Christian denominations, since Joseph "restored" 1st century Christianity, leaving all else unharmed. As odd as that may seem, i think it is a card that could eventually be played as they start approaching their Muslim friends – so, the real challenge would be just to convince them they are the only true christians…
I can even imagine the missionary approach – it would go something like "Mohammed is great and so it is the Qur’an. You know, just like Mohammed, God called a boy named Joseph Smith and gave him a revelation, that revelation is the Book of Mormon…"
I suppose you have no way of checking, but was that the real Daniel Peterson or just someone calling themselves Daniel Peterson? My wife's first cousin is named Daniel Peterson but I don't think its him since he was raised in the Assembly of God Church.
Anyway, I wish the guy had stuck around instead of doing the Mormon version of a drive by shooting which we do get from Mormons occasionally here. I expect a little more from an apologist for/from the Mormon church.
All I'd really like to know is if in Mr. Peterson's view; is Mohammad a legitimate prophet? By legitimate I mean someone whose views are compatible with Mormonism? We know, as Christians that Joseph Smith and Mohammad are not prophets because their religious views are not compatible with the Bible.
So, thanks Mr. Peterson for showing up. Stick around, love to have ya!
Smith himself was not unaware of Muhammad, nor of his impact. This quote has always intrigued me:
“If the people let us alone, we will preach the gospel in peace. But if they come on us to molest us, we will establish our religion with the sword. We will trample down our enemies and make it one gore of blood…from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean. I will be to this generation a 2nd Muhammad, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Al-Qur’an or the sword.’ So shall it be with us — ‘Joseph Smith or the sword!’ (See History of the Church, Vol. 3, p. 167).” [emphasis in original]
What I had never contemplated, when I was a Mormon, was the real impact of such statements. Aaron is correct in his interpretation of Muhammad – that his lack of recognition of Jesus as Messiah, and God, is perhaps the number one reason to reject the message of the 'prophet' of Islam. That Smith would liken himself to this man, and claim jihad, shows his true lack of comprehension about the real message of Jesus. Even on his way to Carthage, Smith was still bent on revenge, wanting his brother Hyrum to live to 'avenge his death'. This was carried to the extreme in the Temple Revenge Oaths instigated by men like Brigham Young after Smith's demise. What a difference when one looks to the Messiah and his message from the cross to forgive those that were putting him to death.
This kind of rhetoric, and the actions behind it, remind me of a story about Hyrum's son, Fielding Smith, who heard some talking about the Smith's deaths, and got so wrought up that he was actually handling a knife he carried around with him, with the full intention of gutting these men if they 'spoke evil' of the Smith's.
Smith was fond of quoting that the testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy, to try and validate himself, but seems to have forgotten that those that follow Jesus, do the things that he did. Anyone can say Lord, Lord! but the real mark of a follower of the true Messiah is following his message of love, and not the way of the sword. Zion indeed will come with power, but it will be the power of the Love of Jesus. There are many, Christians as well as Muslims, who would do well to take his teachings of love to heart, and endure in the face of persecution, lashing back not with violence, but with the love shown to us by the God-man Jesus Christ.
I was just searching for information for what non-Islamic people believe in regards to Mohammed as a prophet when I stumbled across this article. I'm a bit confused by this site. At first I thought it was a Mormon site, but I can tell from the rhetoric that it is plainly against Mormonism.
I don't understand the angst toward Daniel Peterson. It seems to me that he is saying that Mohammed may have been a prophet who fell and that that does not contradict his belief in a prophet coming later as Joseph Smith. I suppose it is strange, but then again a lot of religious beliefs seem strange to those who don't follow them. Is Daniel Peterson a spokesman for the church? Is he saying that it is doctrine that Mohammed may have been a prophet?
I guess I'm a little confused by this site. Is this site used to discredit Mormonism? What's the point? Are you all former Mormons who have are angry? I came across a similar site regarding Catholicism where those who ran the site had been harmed by the leaders of the church. They made it apparent that they had been harmed. Have you been harmed by leaders of the Mormon church? If you've been hurt in any way, I'm not belittling what you've been through I'm just curious why there is this anger.
Maybe I'm mistaken but I'm not aware of any harm that the Mormon church has done en masse to the country or the world.
Thanks, interesting article by the way.
Nope.
You're personally insulting and you're not intellectually serious.
I wish you all the best (think of that as an instance of plainly unmerited grace), but I'm not going to dignify this sort of nonsense with a response. If it hits a more significant venue, I may find myself obliged to engage it — but, in the meantime, I'm not interested and I'm not going to bother.
you know, melo, Joseph did think he could restore the true Freemasonry too. lol
Julius, you can read about MRM's basic purposes and philosophy here.
Daniel Peterson is Mormonism's foremost living apologist, and is a leading LDS scholar on Islam, so his remarks on the matter of Muhammad are notable, regardless of them not being "official."
Where do you get the impression that Peterson admits Muhammed as a prophet "fell"?
Take care,
Aaron
Johnny,
Good post. Sums up the major differences between Jesus and some of those who have falsely claimed to represent him (or to follow in his career).
I have often thought that Joseph Smith was the Mohammed of North America, and Mormonism is its Islam.
PS Did you spot Smith's potential "translation" error?
He called it "the Al-Qu'ran".
I might be mistaken, but "Al" is the definite article. So Smith renders it "the the Qu'ran".
We're back to the Cherubims again. (Sigh).
Somebody should have spoken to him about the whole business of translations, so he wouldn't have made such embarrassing mistakes.
Aaron, I'm thinkin that there might be another reason why Prof. Peterson won't say
as to whether Muhammed was a false prophet or not. ( he knows that according to the criteria that
the Church uses to identify a false prophet, Muhammed fits that description). I think the Church may
be trying to broker a business deal with some wealthy Muslim business men . Given how
sensitive Muslims are to any critique of their religion these days, Peterson has probably
been told to watch what he says etc. A joint ventor like this happened in the early 1980"s with
a project called " Triad". The Khashoggi brothers of Saudi Arabia offered 400 million dollars in
the project which was to include two 40 story towers. Not sure exactly what the Church gained
in this but this could be happening today etc. Just a thought. ww
No I wouldn't say we are angry any more than I would say that Jude was when he wrote: "……contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." That's what we do. We contend earnestly for the Gospel of Jesus Christ which was delivered once and didn't need to be delivered again. If you will read the posts above, one writer quotes Joseph Smith as saying that his revelations, which were inconsistent with the Bible, superseded (the Bible). Jude also writes: "In the last time there shall be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts." This pretty much describes Joseph Smith who Mormons will defend and make excuses for in order to preserve their own misguided faith and belief in his revelation.
As defenders of the faith, we are to identify and expose false prophets like Smith who rejected God in order to make himself a god. Even today, that is the basis of Mormonism (with the exception of some sects that reject this blasphemy). The idea that Mormons see themselves as deeply spiritual and with extraordinary spiritual insight regarding these matters is proof enough of the deluding spirit of Mormonism.
I really can't see that sugar coating it does Mormons any good because their eternal destiny depends on their coming to grips with the truth about the false prophet Smith and then coming to and accepting God and the gift of eternal life he is offering.
F-Melo,
I would be careful, "I AM THE WAY" was used in Egypt, predating the Christian faith. Whats a better strategy? Humility, it took over a century for the LDS movement to get any at all. I just hope that calling the prophet of islam is confined to your philosophical debate, and not international relations, which are probably at an all time low. I don't recommend burning the Koran either.
Yes, years ago I attempted to read the Koran, but got disinterested after it kept on saying that so and so was not "a jew or a christian, but a muslim". I took a look at a book which examined detailed observations made in the Koran, including interesting numerical themes. Interesting when examined in this way, but not so interesting to make me want to attempt to read it again. Muslims are not satisfied with English translations either, saying I need to learn arabic to really grasp the koran. Well, safe to say I'm really not interested in learning Arabic to gain the insight.
I suppose its still possible that LDS, Christians, sikhs, hindus etc are all wrong. Buddhism is an interesting philosophy, whats wrong with that? Why is that not a possibility? Incense and chanting in an LDS chapel, interesting images. I just can't see a metal joseph smith image in the lotus position, holding a BOM in his lap, instead of a mudra. But, that could be next, "Zen Mormonism" who would have guessed?
falcon, you said, " Mormonism, with it's fits and starts and redos reguarding its prophets
and revelation, is basically a free-for-all grab bag of whatever happens to be on the shelf
today. " When one looks over the track record of what Mormon leaders have taught over
the pulpit and in Church publications for the last 180 years, what you have stated hits the
nail on the head ! The precious Mormon people deserve more reliable guides.
ww
Yet you bother stopping by to comment in a self-pitying, condescending way. Sorry, but I’m not buying the pretentious talk.
You never sufficiently answered the question at your own favored venue, MADB, where they roll out red carpet for you. So I hardly expect a venue change to be the magic ingredient on this issue.
"I would be careful, "I AM THE WAY" was used in Egypt, predating the Christian faith"
That boiled my blood, if i was in person i would have told you some very ugly things. You should be careful to not use any cultural references of your day either… hypocrite…
". Whats a better strategy?"
Christianity has one strategy – preach the Gospel, and the Holy Ghost will do His part. Christ said Joh 10:27 "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me"
So, there´s no point in making a strategy, if you´re NOT Christ´s sheep, you won´t come to Him it doesn´t matter what i do.
YOU should be careful with the sun-god graven image on that Nauvoo Temple, and all that masonic occultic symbolism in the SLC temple. You know who you´re really worshipping if you´re worshipping the sun, since you know so much about egytptian religion?
btw, Christ proved He was The Way by being resurrected. That counterfeit Babylonian religion only used those terms in an empty, philosophical way.
"Humility, it took over a century for the LDS movement to get any at all"
That "humility" is the most vile piece of manipulation ever – man, mormons are humble(right), specially when they say they are the only ones who have the full truth, and everyone else has just some bits and pieces of it. Not to mention the insulting remarks we hear even today demeaning Christians and Christianity.
You´re so worried about "strategy" because you know nothing about Christ, and those "strategies" make you even filthier than the first century Pharisees.
Repent of those blasphemies, and stop blaspheming the Christ, turn away from the filth spewed by Joseph Smith and his successors, who said Christ´s blood wasn´t good enough to atone for certain sins, among many many other blasphemies.
Aaron, One thing that I thought was strange, if Prof. Peterson does'nt like to dialog with you what about some of the rest of us ? I for one would really like to hear his answer to the question that he was asked about Muhammed. Does he agree with with the how his leadership identifies a false prophet ? Seemed like such an easy question for an "apologist " . ww
" I just hope that calling the prophet of islam is confined to your philosophical debate, and not international relations, which are probably at an all time low. "
So what? Should i be afraid of telling the truth because i´ll be murdered because of it? It would be an honor to be murdered for Christ like the Apostles were and hundreds of Christians as well.
Not like those fake mormon apostles in their riches and comfort, with all of the best surrounding them all the time… what a joke…
"I don't recommend burning the Koran either. "
Oh, i get it – you´re calling me an irrational fundamentalist… do you think anybody here is stupid? I am a fundamentalist alright, do you have a problem with that? Are you going to start persecuting me for my beliefs?
What kind of idiot would burn a sacred book from another religion? Not Christians, Christ would have nothing to do with it, he wouldn´t have to, because if they were converted, they themselves would burn their own books.
Act 19:19 "Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver."
I have no problem saying that Mohammed was a false prophet, even if that means i´ll lose my life, because it is the truth. Contrary of you, willing to put aside even the least amount of respect for Christ´s name…
For those who don´t know why i´m so upset at Jersey Tomato´s remarks – "I would be careful, "I AM THE WAY" was used in Egypt, predating the Christian faith"
watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pgRUpDDrb0
This is an old accusation made by the Jews recorded in the Talmud, that Christ learned his magic powers in Egypt when he was there. In that video though, Christ is shown to be just another sun deity, another impersonation of an ancient pagan religion…
Yeah, that´s was bizarre – Joseph said masonry was a corrupt form of the worship done in the ancient temple…
everything was corrupt in Joseph´s eye – Christianity and its doctrines, the Bible, Freemasonry. I wonder how much more "corrupt" practices he would have found if he hadn´t been killed.