Mohammed recieved the Qu’ran from an Archangel (which one?).
Brigham Young recieved the Book of mormon from the angel Moroni(?).
Both faiths are generally posessing devout adherents.
Both (apparently) promote multiple wives.
Both bar non-adherents from fully opening their faths.
(Non-Mormons may not participate in certain Temple services, Non-Muslims may not enter Mecca).
What other parallels exist between the Peoples, Faiths, and Books?
Mormonism doesn’t allow polygamy anymore (except a few offshoot sects which are fairly insignificant.) Although the Koran does technically permit multiple wives, very few mainstream Muslim men take part in this practice.
Having shared an office with a Mormon (LDS) for years, been a Best Man at a (non-Temple) LDS wedding, attended Ward and Stake Dances, then moved to Utah for four years, I’ve pondered this myself. Meaning no disrespect to LDS folk, there are some interesting parallels, as you point out. Another is that the revelations to Joseph Smith and the Suras revealed to Mohammed were no originally considered as part of a “book”, but were later gathered together into the Doctrine and Covenants and the Koran. In both cases, there are disputed or “forbidden” revelatyions that those outside the faith claim have been suppressed (the so-called “Satanic Verses” of the Koran in one case. There is an entire book of claimed suppressed LDS revelations that I once saw on sale at a SLC bookstore).
As far as comparisons between Muslim polygamy and Mormon polygamy, I suggest that you read Sir Richard F. Burton’s book The City of the Saints, about a journey he made to SLC circa 1850. One reason for his trip was to compare Mormon polygamy with Muslim polygamy (which he was familiar with). In his opinion, Muslim came off better, IIRC.
More interesting comparisons may be made between Mormonism and Catholicism. These are particularly interesting since Mormonism sprang from people raised and steeped in the American Prottestant tradition (which itself came from philosophies that rebelled against Catholic forms). It’s interesting, then, to see religious ceremony with “secret” portions (Just as Catholicism once had a secret portion of the Mass and the “Mass of the Catechumens”). The Mormons have a Church hierarchy that resembles Catholicisms, with its own Council of Seventy, like the College of Cardinals, and with a Pope-like leader who is usually elderly (until very recently, every LDS leader was born in the 19th century). LDS religious practices have much ceremony and lore and tradition, and in general feel much more like ancient Catholic church traditions than Protestant practices. (This isn’t a put-down of Mormon theology. The Church in its present incarnation only dates back to the 1830s, and many practices and traditions aren’t obviously older.) Interesting reading is a book called A Tale of Two Cities – not the Charles Dickens book, of course, but a response to Mormon theology by a Catholic (the two cities being SLC and Rome).
Joseph Smith received instructions from Moroni on where to find the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated.
All faiths have practicioners of varying degrees of devotion or lack of devotion. I don’t understand how this is unique to Islam or Mormonism?
Incorrect, plural marriage has not been condoned in the Church in 150 years. It is not possible to be a member in good standing and practice plural marriage.
True, some places are just too sacred to the participants to welcome those who might not behave with reverence or respect, such as the occasional bouts of vandalism by non believers that take place during LDS temple open houses when the temples are open to the public prior to their dedication.
So far you the only parallel you have that both faiths have among their membership devout adherents.
Gabriel.
You got the spelling correct for the angel Moroni. Brigham Young didn’t receive the Book of Mormon. Moroni showed Joseph Smith Jr where to find it.
So do a vast many of other faiths: Hindu, Buddhism, Zorastrianism, Confucianism, Taoism, etc.
Absolutely incorrect. Islam permits multiple wives in countries where that is lawful; however, the husband is required to prove (in theory) that he can support all the wives and their children in an identical manner to the other wives. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not permit plural marriage for their adherents anywhere in the world.
Other faiths have proscriptions on non-believers. We LDS see the ceremonies conducted in the Temples to be sacred and also hold the ground therein to be sacred ground. Muslims hold both Makka and Medina (used to be called Yathrib, IIRC) to be extremely sacred ground.
Plenty. Just like any comparison of any other two faiths involving humanity as adherents. There are certainly many differences.
Now I’ve a question for you: What’s your purpose in this thread?
I’d like to respectfully add that perhaps if you want to draw parallels between religons you might want to start off by learning more about both religons before you begin drawing inaccurate conclusions.
www.lds.org or
There’s also some “interesting” things in the Bible Code. As Dext showed in his report, those are coincidences.
Incorrect:
[ul][li]The Book of Mormon wasn’t a revelation. It was (if you accept the LDS explanation) already written and buried. Joseph Smith Jr dug it up and translated it with divine assistance (again, if you accept the LDS explanation).[/li][li]The Qur’an (if you accept the Muslim explanation of it) was already written and resident itself in Heaven. It was revealed a bit at a time to Muhammed. Thus it was always considered a book.[/ul][/li]
The Doctrine and Covenants is a different volume of Scripture than the Book of Mormon. It is a compilation (if you accept the LDS explanation of it) of the revelations given to the Presidents of the Church. The Qur’an was finally written down on Earth by the scribes of Muhammed after his death.
And there are disputed books purported by one group or another to belong to the Bible. For such claims, one really has to look into the background, character, and purpose of the individuals making those claims.
I suggest one get a hold of a recent newspaper and check the date. 1850 was a long time ago.
Never heard of a Council of Seventy, nor one with any authority at all like the College of Cardinals. At the head of the church, supposedly, is the Godhead (God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit). Next is the First Presidency (President of the Church and his two counsellors). Then there is the Council of the Twelve (the Apostles {today’s Apostles, not the ones from ca. 2000 years ago}). Then the First Quorum of the Seventy. Then regional authorities, stake presidencies, ward bishoprics.
As do the practices of many other religions.
How about one I’m reading at the moment: MORMONISM, The Story of a New Religious Tradition, Jan Shipps, University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago, 1987 (copyright 1985), ISBN 0-252-0147-0. I finally learned from this book why we call our version of dioceses stakes: “They support the tents of Zion.” {That may not be a perfect quote, I forget where in the book it is.}
Drat. Could a mod be so kind as to edit that close tag to [/list]? Thanks!
Here’s another book published by a leading member of the RLDS (now Community of Christ) church:
Divergent Paths of the Restoration by R. Shields.
Gotcha covered on the /list thing, Monty. I don’t think I’ve ever successfully used that damned command.
Enola, I am also curious about the genesis of this question. Are you trying to find out whether the pruported parallels are more than coincidences – that Mormonism or some of its rites may have descended from Islam or something?
Monty, I find your post puzzling.
And your point is? I suggest nothing myself about origins or truth, and cetrtainly no connection to The Bible Code. There’s probably some significance in the common sructure of religions. But that implie no value judgements.
No, correct. Whether revealed to Joseph Smith or to Moroni, it’s still revelation. But I had the revelations that became the D&C in mind when I wrote this. As for the suras, they were originally written on palm fronds, stones, paper, bark, etc., as independent revelations, with n suggestion at first that they formed a coherent book. It remained for those after the Prophet’s time to collect these and evaluate them into a book. Yes, I know about the Koran in heaven, but AFAIK there isn’t a suggestion that we have all of t here, or that this piece of information was doctrine.
[quote]
The Doctrine and Covenants is a different volume of Scripture than the Book of Mormon. It is a compilation (if you accept the LDS explanation of it) of the revelations given to the Presidents of the Church. The Qur’an was finally written down on Earth by the scribes of Muhammed after his death.
I’m quite aware of this. The analogy between the two religions doesn’t hold that precisely. It’s the revealing and eventual collection of the D&C and of the Koran that seem so parallel. But for Heaven’s Sake, I’m not suggesing they were identical!
My apologies for cmisremembering the title of the Quorum o Seventy. Again, I’m not suggesting identities. But surely the parallels of Church organization – so very different from those of the Muslims, or of Protestant denomnations – cannt have scaped you.
Yes, indeed. But it is unusual for a faith so young (in current practice) to have traditions that feel o old. Christian Science doesn’t, for instance.
I suggest you et a copy of Burton’s booki. That’s when it came out.
Good Lord, I’m not suggesting that practices then are ractices now. But polygamy was certainly practiced in both faiths, and still is in splinter groups. It certainly is worth of study and contrast.
Sounds worth looking at (and I haven’t heard that about stakes before). If you’re interested, we can exchange titles of other books.
I thought made this abundantly clear in my post – I am not putting anyone’s eligion down, nor attempting to disprove any, nor convert anyone to another faith (I’m agnostic, myself). But I think the OP has a valid point about similarities between religions, and it’s one I’ve ruminated about myself at some length. Some of these are urely coincidences, while others, I suspect, reflecta sort of “parallel evolution” in organizing and transmitting ideas. Certainly they’re not inevitable – the same parallels don’t hold between Islam and Mormoism as between Mormonism and, say, Hinduism.
Being neither Mormon nor Muslim and having only a rudimentary knowledge of the two faiths, I did indeed feel that some of the parallels between them are more than mere coincidences.
I wondered if the parallels and coincidences hinted at a deeper
reality…a deeper unity of truth.
I do think that in the past some people have speculated on this topic…whether the founders of the LDS were consciously influenced by Islam. Not so much from those superficial likenesses, but deeper theological links between the two over the nature of God, man, sin and so on. I wish I could find some books on that subject myself.
Keep in mind Islam represented something far different to mid-19th century Westerners than the current media image of the religion.
No C&P because the coding in Cal’s post is a bit off. No complaint about that, just easier to respond this way.
Cal: You’re still incorrect regarding the Book of Mormon. Not all of it was revealed to Moroni. A good portion of it was revealed to folks other than him. But, if you don’t accept the LDS explanation of it, it wasn’t revealed at all.
What parallels of church organization? That there’s more than one level? Heck, any outfit past a certain size has that. One could just as easily, and with as little validity, say the LDS church has such a parallel with the BSA.
Muslims don’t exactly have a church organization. Technically, they have none. Zero. Zilch. Each person has an individual relationship with nobody between that person and God. IIRC the different titles of the so-called clerics in Islam are essentially different rankings of academic titles, but in the realm of religious academia.
I’m well aware of when Burton’s book came about. Look at the wording of the OP again and tell me when you think the OP’s talking about. Study of the practices of splinter groups is not the study of the LDS church. It’s the study of the splinter groups.
I am interested in exchanging titles of books about current practices in the LDS church. On this board I’ve recommended to folks to read A Gathering of Saints and two other books regarding the “Mormon Murders” committed by Mark Hoffman back in the 1980s. In relation to the OP, current practices is what seems to be the issue–not those of 150 years ago.
My point about the Bible Code was that one can take any set of letters, words, or even events, and apply creative rules of discovery to them and get interesting results. Problem is, they’re not really discoveries, they’re coincidences.
Monty, have you read “Mormon America”? I wouldn’t call it pro-LDS, but I wouldn’t consider it very anti either (even though the authors don’t seem to like Boyd Packer very much). I found it an interesting read at least, and a good way to pass a few hours.
This is bound to get me in trouble, but I noticed that I forgot one striking set of similarities:
Islam split into two major groups after the death of the Prophet Mohammed - the Sunnites and the Shi’ites. The former followed the leadership of Abu Bakr, the father-in-law of the Prophet, whose election to Church leadership was {to quote Understanding Islam by Thomas Lippman) “chosen by a group of insiders and presented to the community as a fait accompli.” But a minority held that the Prophet’s cousin and son-in-law, Ali, had been designated heir by the Prophet, and supported him. In subsequent times, they held that Ali’s descendants were the rightful leaders of the church.
After the death of Joseph Smith, his son, Joseph Smith III, was far too young to lead the Mormons, and most accepted his second-in-command, Brigham Young, as leader. Young brought the Mormons across much of the country and settled them in Utah, where the main body of the LDS curch has its center today. But a minority held that Joseph Smith III had been designated the heir to the leadership of the Church, and this group remained in the Midwest, following the younger Smith when he came of age and forming the Reformed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (RLDS), which continues to this day, and which has always been lead by his descendants. (Just for the recrd, the “orthodox” church in SLC has been lead by descendants of Joseph Smith, too, although not exclusively. It’s interesting that they have had three leaders named “Joseph Smith” – Joseph Smith, jr. (the Prophet), Joseph F. Smith, and Joseph Fielding Smith. )
The first paragraph giveth, and the second taketh away.
I’m not entirely sure what the point of this thread is, but I think it probably belongs in Great Debates, so I’ll move it over there.
They bother worship a single god too! 
Of course they disagree on the importance of Christ, IIRC Islam has him simply as a Prophet, not the Messiah, I could be wrong on this.
The names of the Prophets isn’t really interesting beyond a moments, “Oh, that kind of neat.” Joseph and the last name Smith aren’t exactly uncommon names. What would have been more interesting is if there was multiple Hinckleys.
As I understand it, the name Yeshua wasn’t exactly uncommon back in the day either.
“Bother Worship”?
Sorry, I know it’s a typo, but it reminds me of Horace Rumpole calling the Head of Chambers’ “Lawyers as Christians” club he “God-Bothering Society”.