There are remarkable similarities between Mohammed and Joseph Smith:
Both were illiterate business-men/conmen with a history of business acumen, though Mohammed had a respectable, highly-literate primary wife who was his early, primary partner. JS was more the intinerant conman/loser.
Both claimed divine visitations, coupled with revelatory events. JS claims that an angel named Moroni delivered the news via some special plates, which the illiterate JS could read by using the Umim&Thumim. M claimed a visit by Gabriel. In both cases, the new stuff was delivered in such a way that the source material could not be verified.
Unlike JS however, M claimed that the current stuff was the perfected message of god, and was literally perfect and correct, at least when rendered in Arabic. Conveniently, the mysterious plates of JS “disappeared.”
Both emerging religions were met with violent oppostion, though Mormon lacked the tribal chaos that characterised Islam.
The big jump for Judeochristianity for Islam is that JC was not the Messiah, that there isn’t a Messiah, and that Mohammed was the last prophet. The big jump for Mormonism is that JHWH isn’t the ultimate God, that there isn’t a unique god, and that we all have the potential to become gods. Basically, deity-as-franchise. Mormonism lacks the true, nuttiness, of, say $cientology, but in truth, Mormonism is a radical departure from Christianity. In my view, Mormonism does play it a bit lightly with the “'nother Book of Christ” marketing bit. Mormonism is more than the idea that JC did some filed trips post-resurrection. Mormonism revises the very idea of deity in the monotheistic vein of Juidaism and Christianity.
cerberus – I’ver long noted that there are similarities between Mormonism and Islam. There are, in fact, interesting parallels between Mormonism and several other religions --I think it’s a function of the dynamics of starting and maintaining a religion.
I’d state the similarities less controversially than you do. To start with, Joseph Smith certainly wasn’t illiterate. I’ve never heard anyone claim that Mohammed was a “con man”. Mormons, of course, will claim that Smith wasn’t either (although I’ve read/heard non-Mormons claim that he was)
Intriguingly, I met Muslims out in Salt Lake. One of their big problems with the LDS church is that Muslims believe that Mohammed was the last Prophet, so Joseph Smith is clearly a usurper of the title.
The similarities between Islam and the LDS Church go deeper – The revelations that became the Koran were not all written down in one place at one time. Some were apparently written on palm leaves, or rocks, as well as paper. Thery had to be gathered together , ordered (the usual ordering is by length) and published. The Book of Mormon was, of course, written at one time and set down and published at once, but the series of revelations that became the Doctrine and Covenants were revealed individually, and later gathered togetrher and published. Just as there are verses said to have originally been in the Koran (the so-called “Satanic Verses”) that were later eliminated, non-Mormons claim that there are deleted revelations no longer in the D&C.
Again, I don’t draw any deep conclusions from these similarities, and certainly nothing about the truth or respectability of the religions. I’m not a believer in each, but I don’t look to denigrate or slander either of them, either.
I look at it this way: I resent Mormon (and other) missionaries for what they do. I respect their right to believe what they believe, and accept that their drive to convert is probably grounded in a sincere belief that only they have the Truth that can save everyone. What I resent is the arrogance implied in knocking on someone’s door with a message that you believe they need to hear.
I feel the same way about people who work actively to deconvert people from Mormonism (or, again, from any other faith): it may be grounded in a genuine concern for the people you’re trying to “help,” but that simply isn’t how I roll. The one big thing I learned on my way out of Mormonism is that the answers and truths that work for me don’t necessarily work for someone else, and it’s presumptuous of me to assume so.
Just watched (most of) the video. I thought I knew about the Mormon religion (Joseph Smith’s golden plates, the moronic angel, etc.) but most of this was news to me. If Mormons really believe all that, where does it come from? Not the bible – is it from the Book of Mormon, wild interpretation of either/both, or admitedly fiction?
I seem to recall that joseph Smith had an extensive legal record in upstate New york. He was charged several times with frauud, in connection with schemes to dig up buried treasure-is this where the "golden plates’ story originated? Anyway, the “Mormon Murders” of the 1980’s (committed by Mark Hoffman)-I recall that Hoffman was forging documents that pointed to Smith’s treasure-seeking activities, and as fast as he could forge them, the Mormon Church (fearing scandal) bought them up! :eek:
Most Mormon beliefs that the average Christian would find novel or outlandish come from:
The Pearl of Great Price
The PogP is comprised of two main parts (there are a few smaller parts as well). The Book of Moses consists of an expansion and revision of parts of Genesis. According to the church, it’s revelation given to Joseph Smith by God while Joseph was re-translating the Bible. The Book of Abraham, according to Joseph Smith, was translated by him from some papyrus scrolls found in a mummy’s coffin. The scrolls turned out to have been written by the hand of Abraham himself.
The Doctrine and Covenants
The D&C is composed of revelations given by God to latter-day prophets, mainly Joseph Smith but including a few others.
In those two volumes, as well as other revelations received by Smith and other early LDS prophets, you’ll find the Mormon doctrines that most other Christians find strange or even heretical. The Book of Mormon itself, aside from its historical claims, is not that different from purely Bible-based Christianity.
I can’t access streaming video from work, but if the clip is from The God Makers, it’s technically pretty accurate, but presented in an intentionally unflattering manner. What are the specific claims made in the video? I’ll address them if you let me know.
As an Ex-mormon, born in the heartland of Zion, and having served God for18 months on a mission, as well as many other years on a parttime basis, I find nothing in the video which contricts Mormon teaching.
The only question out of all of this is the number of wives Jesus had. That is not normally discussed. It was a subject in the 1800s, but not now.
Many Mormons now try to make it seem more mainstream, but when I was growing up, we took pleasure in being different. The fact that we would have many wives in the afterlife was expected.
Joe Smith was a con man, who took the wives of his close associates for his own sexual reasons, often when he sent them on missions to get them away.
I just returned from SLC on business, and upon touring the whole complex, found it technically no different than any other large, globally positioned, highly organized, well funded corporation, with a tax-free status.
The volunteers are a friendly lot, so friendly in fact that the experience gave me that squicked-out, there’s-more-here-than-meets-the-eye kinda feeling.
Like nothing is ever wrong, no one speaks an ill word, nothing bad ever, EVER happens.
SLC is so clean as to be depressing, even the church itself is as clean as if it were erected the day before I showed up. It’s bland, blameless and wholly vanilla.
I think the LDS folks are a step behind Scientologists, not so whacky as to be outlandish, but way left, AND right of the mainstream.
Is that film accurate? You are getting LDS posters (among others) saying it’s not and non-LDS posters saying it is. Whom to believe? Let’s mosey on over to Stendahl’s Rules (Stendahl is the Lutheran Bishop of Stockholm (at the time of that writing)). In bullet shorts:
[ol][li]When learning about a religion, ask the adherents of that religion, not their enemies, about the religion.[/li][li]Don’t compare your best with their worst when learning about their religion.[/li][li]Leave room for “Holy Envy.”[/ol][/li]
So, let me ask you something: how does that video fare when these rules are applied to it?
This assumes that the believers of that religion are necessarily better informed than those who oppose it. I see no reason to accept that claim… especially since many of the anti-LDSers are themselves former members of that church.
Besides, if your statement were correct, then the LDS church should immediately stop saying that other churches – Christian, Buddhist, Moslem or whatnot – are wrong in their beliefs. After all, since Gordon B. Hinckley and company don’t belong to these churches, then they obviously can’t speak with credibility, right?
With all due respect, all this talk of “best” vs. “worst” is simply irrelevant. If the LDS church – or any other church – makes a factual claim, then that claim should be subject to scrutiny. And if that claim is wrong, then it’s wrong… PERIOD.
For the sake of argument, let’s suppose that the producers of this video are indeed motivated by envy. How does this prove that their claims are incorrect?
Quite simply, it does not. They could be seething with envy, but this would not mean that their objections are non-factual or invalid. Their personal motives have no bearing on the accuracy of their claim. Again, with all due respect, such reasoning is a classic example of ad hominem argumentation – attacking the individuals rather than addressing their claims.
Actually, Islam does hold that JC is the Messiah, but NOT the Son of God/God Incarnate, nor that he was crucified, died & risen. Rather, Islam teaches that JC will return with Mohammed to destroy Satan’s rule, raise & judge the dead, and establish the perfect Islamic world kingdom.
And your summary of the big difference between LDS teaching & Judeo-C’tian teaching - whether of not (technical correction) Father Elohim is the ultimate God with His Son Yahweh is dead on.
Btw, for those who wondered, it’s not in the Book of Mormon, Doctrines & Covenants or even The Pearl of Great Price. It first seems to have arisen in Joseph Smith’s sermon at the funeral of a LDS believer named King Follett, and was later expanded upon by Smith, Brigham Young & later prophets & teachers.
If a future Prophet-President & Council of Apostles were to later reverse the
idea of Gods beyond Elohim, and Elohim as an exalted man, as being unwise & unBiblical speculation by Smith, Young & Co, then most mainstream C’tians would probably have little difficulty accepting LDS as fellow believers, even in spite of other disagreements.
I notice that you haven’t actually addressed any of the objections that I raised to what that bishop said. Did I misunderstand his point? Maybe… but that remains unsubstantiated, and certainly unproven.
I noticed you took the abbreviated bullets I posted and ran with that, showing absolutely no indication that you had even glanced at, let alone read and understood, what Bishop Stendahl, a Lutheran Bishop, actually said.
But here goes:
Ask adherents, not enemies. The idea is to ask the adherents what they, the people who believe the stuff, believe they believe and don’t rely on their enemies for the catechism of the belief you’re examining. Your example doesn’t work because the LDS do not consider the RC to be their enemy. To the contrary, the leadership of the LDS have said that there is much truth in other faiths. We are not attacking the RC church. Nor are we going around erroneously telling people what they believe.
Don’t compare your best with their worst. What he was talking about was touting their worst bit as evidence of how bad they are while ignoring your own faith’s worst bits or touting your faith’s best bits as why you’re right while ignoring the other faith’s best bits.
Holy Envy. This is where you really showed that you didn’t get the dude’s message. He was not saying that the enemies were motivated by envy. He was recommending that one make room for envy, that one search for something in the faith examined to be envied.
I don’t know what “Chairman Mao sized” means. They were contained in a large hall in what I think must have been either the North or the South Visitor’s Center. I never took any pics of of the building’s exterior, so I can’t be certain which it was. There was lettering on the way saying something like “Dedicated to the teachings of a modern day prophet.” I have since realized the man pictured is Gordon B. Hinckley. Obviously I was wrong about the “entire building” being devoted to him, or else there would be more evidence of it to be found elsewhere. But the entire atmosphere was very akin to a shrine, and I found it spooky.
This thread looks like it’s devolving into a debate about the merits of Mormonism. No argument could be more ridiculous than a religious one–on any religion. What negative thing could be said about Mormonism that couldn’t also be said of Catholicism? Who really cares about the finer points of the LDS Church’s beliefs? They’re no more compelling than any other religion, they’re no more believable than any other, and they’re not worth any more attention than any other.
“Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the “whore of Babylon” whom the Lord denounces… as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness. And any person who shall be so wicked as to receive a holy ordinance of the gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent of the unholy and impious act. If any penitent believer desires to obtain forgiveness of sins through baptism, let him beware of having any thing to do with the churches of apostate Christendom, lest he perish in the awful plagues and judgments, denounced against them. The only persons among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people who have authority from Jesus Christ to administer any gospel ordinance are those called and authorized among the Latter-day Saints. Before the restoration of the church of Christ to the earth in the year 1830, there have been no people on the earth for many generations possessing authority from God to minister gospel ordinances. We again repeat. Beware of the hypocritical false teachers and imposters of Babylon!” - Apostle Orson Pratt The Seer, Vol.2, No.4, p.255
"The present Christian world exists and continues by division. The MYSTERY of Babylon the great, is mother of harlots and abominations of the earth, and it needs no prophetic vision, to unravel such mysteries. The old church is the mother, and the protestants are the lewd daughters. " - Apostle John Taylor, Times and Seasons, Vol.6, No.1, p.811
But does the LDS church not claim that there is also much error in those faiths?
Again, that’s not what the church writings say.
Besides, you didn’t address my point. The statement you gave – whether in bullet point form or not – implicitly assumes that members of a church are necessarily more reliable and authoritative than its critics. I see no reason to accept that assertion, especially when many of these critics are long-time former members.
And I addressed that point. As I explicitly said, the issue is NOT whether a tenet constitutes one’s “worst” or “best.” Rather, the question is whether one is teaching the truth or not.
Heck, I’ll agree with you that one shouldn’t compare the “best” of one religion with the “worst” of another. I see no evidence that the producers of this video are doing any such thing, though. Rather, they believe that there are errors in LDS teaching, and they strive to expose those errors. Now perhaps they’re wrong, but even if they were, this would not be a case of comparing “best” vs “worst.”
[QUOTE]
3. Holy Envy. This is where you really showed that you didn’t get the dude’s message. He was not saying that the enemies were motivated by envy. He was recommending that one make room for envy, that one search for something in the faith examined to be envied.
[/QUOTE
Okay, for the sake of argument, let’s accept that claim. How does this imply that one should not speak out against Mormonism – or any other religion, for that matter? No offense, but that response is like the words of a child, exclaiming, "Wah! Stop it! Stop pointing out what’s wrong in what I believe! You should be looking for something to envy instead! "
This claim also assumes that there is something to be envied. Perhaps there is, perhaps not. For all you know, the critics did look for something to envy, and concluded that there is nothing to be found that they can’t find elsewhere.
All sorts of Mormons in outer space. And their Leader’s (forget the name) sole job seems to be making little gods with the aid of a veritable harem.
Wow!
Where do I join?
Interestingly, the Mormon church seems to be down playing this publicly lately, while early leaders focused heavily on this concept. The church comes across as much more mainstream lately, although this doctrine precludes acceptance by many other Christian churches.
Joseph Smith’s radically changing concept of the godhead is well documented; at times he was closer to other Christian beliefs than the final evolution which is where the Mormon church is now.
It seems in part to be influenced by JS’s secret practice of polygamy. The basic idea is that in order to be a god or goddess in the next life, a husband and his wife or wives must be “sealed” in this life for “time and all eternity”. Only the most worthy are allowed this and it must be done in a temple. Once the Mormons fled to Utah and started practicing polygamy openly, church leaders were vocal on the need for multiple wives. You can’t really separate the two teachings.
My first reaction to this was that this would be completely unthinkable, but the church as disavowed teachings of Brigham Young which are even more radical.
Joseph Smith was charged a number of times, and found guilty at least once, but I’m not sure if I would call it extensive. He was known for his treasure hunting and seemed to have gotten into disputes with people, some of whom claimed that he defrauded them by charging for looking for treasure which wasn’t found.
The belief is that the Book of Mormon was written on golden plates which JS unburied with the help of the angel Moroni.
I lived in Salt Lake during that period. One of Mark Hoffman’s associate was a man who grew up on my block and went to the same ward (parish level). His father (who was my bishop at one point) was in the hierarchy of the church and got his son a job which had access to historical material kept from the general public or membership. It was thought that this guy shared information with Mark which helped his forgeries. We heard from others in the ward that the friend was really concerned during the bombing attacks, and before Mark stupidly severely injured himself with a bomb, that he may be a target.
One of Mark’s most famous forgeries was the Salamander Letter, in which seemed to confirm JS’s treasure hunting. (And completely off topic, Mark Hoffman had closed but not paid on a house owned by friends of my former girlfriend) just before all this “blew up.”
Why not limit this to religion? Let’s do that with all discussions we have, including politics. Stop the Bush bashing, let’s just ask Rove anytime we have any questions. Did Clinton do something bad or not? Forget about anyone else, just ask his press guys. Is North Korea insane or not? Don’t ask US policy experts, let’s go for their guys.
Actually, I like this idea. Never consider the merits of a discussion, let’s just sign up their yes men instead.
