Comparing islam to Mormonism

Some common ideas I found between the two religions

1- an angel talked to me and said
A) the bible is false and I need to rewrite it
B) I am the new prophet
C) I need to endorse polygamy and take your wife or daughter
D) use of violence endorsed

These are the things I found in common with Muhammad and Joseph smith

You forgot another comparison. Both religions started at least more than 500 years before Christianity.

I think you mean after

What did JS think of Islam? :stuck_out_tongue:

MJ

Unless they’re talking about “from Islam/Mormonism’s point of view.”

As much as one could compare the two religions and note some interesting similarities the radical dissimilarity between the two is more profound than their common beliefs.

Muslims for one thing are radically apophatic when it comes to describing God, to the point where they won’t even say God has a substance or being. Mormons seem to believe that God, God the father is a physical being made of flesh and bone and if so it seems that one could grasp that being, especially if one is to become God in the next life. Muslims would also deny that they become Gods.

Another dissimilarity and one that I think is socially important, is that there are no radical Mormons blowing themselves up, fighting holy Jihad so that Islam might take over the world. Surface level similarities are one thing but it seems to me odd to compare the two mormonism and Islam. the supposed similarities are found in viritually all faith traditions, that all new religions claim the old religions have failed in some way

Thanks for bringing some actual thought to this thread, Philo.

Interesting. Another distinction is that Mohammed claimed to be the LAST prophet, while Joseph Smith claimed to be the forerunner of an age of prophets, and urged men and women to seek the gift of prophesy.

Another dissimilarity and one that I think is socially important, is that there are no radical Mormons blowing themselves up, fighting holy Jihad so that Islam might take over the world.

True, but the pseudomormon pligs get pretty violent some times. :frowning: And that rancher dude in Nevada has a lot of mormons very embarrassed.

Surface level similarities are one thing but it seems to me odd to compare the two mormonism and Islam. the supposed similarities are found in viritually all faith traditions, that all new religions claim the old religions have failed in some way

I think their point was to be offensive rather than to say anything meaningful. But you’ve turned it around into an intelligent discussion. Thank you.

Haha my bad. :smiley:

Here’s a fun question:

If an angel were to appear to you and told you that either Islam or Mormonism was the true religion of God, which would you be more likely to believe, and why? Remember, Islam or LDS are your only options.

Since no one else has posted this quote, I will:

“I will be to this generation a second Muhammad, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Alcoran [Koran] or the sword’. So shall it eventually be with us - ‘Joseph Smith or the Sword!’”

  • Joseph Smith, at Far West Missouri on October 18, 1838

“I will be to this generation a second Muhammad, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Alcoran [Koran] or the sword’. So shall it eventually be with us - ‘Joseph Smith or the Sword!’”

  • Joseph Smith, at Far West Missouri on October 18, 1838

Interesting. JS was quite a fellow indeed. :wink:

MJ

I had forgotten about that quote

My first thought would be that it was not an angel.

within the limits of the question:

Islam. Having read both the Koran and B of M, the Koran is more genuine, not being copied from other sources and without the odd story of how it came to be (translated by seer stones from a language that does not exist). Additionally, I am unaware that Mohammed had many, many versions of his “first vision”.

I also like that they trace back to Abraham and Mecca has a little building allegedly built by Abraham and Ismael.

I think it is a stretch to say that either of the two religions say the Bible is false. That certainly wouldn’t apply to Mormonism even though they say it is only true insofar as it has been translated correctly. I think most Christians would say the Bible was true in the original manuscripts which is not different from what most Mormons say. And it would be difficult to make the claim that at various times in our own Catholic history violence was not endorsed. Ask the Anabaptists.

I apologize for feeling it necessary to put in another contrary two cents’ worth. There is an excellent publication by James Bales on apostolic succession in the Mormon church. I recall that Brigham Young reportedly told “the saints” that no one would replace Joseph Smith as head of the church. Instead, the Quorum of Twelve Apostles would lead the church. As far as I am aware, there is no revelation, commandment, policy, or stipulation up to that point, allowing the Twelve that degree of authority.

Regardless of that, when it became apparent that a Mormon sect which did have a prophet at its head was winning over converts from the Church of the Twelve Apostles, and mocking the Brighamites for having a “headless” church, Young decided it was time for a new prophet to be chosen. Unfortunately, in promoting himself for that office, he neglected to obtain a quorum. Throughout the Bible prophets seem to have been called by God by some direct manner. In the case of Brigham Young, it was by popular vote. I do not recall any Biblical prophet, or Islamic prophet, or Book of Mormon prophet having obtained office through popular election. But what else could they do, in the absence of a direct call by God, in the absence of ordination by an angel, in the absence of another prophet passing his mantle and ascending into heaven in a chariot of fire? It was at that time that the Mormon Church obtained the doctrinal innovation, that the Quorum of Twelve Apostles possessed an unprecedented authority to elect prophets by popular vote.

Something interesting happened just after Joseph Smith’s execution. Sidney Rigdon, who was properly qualified as successor to Joseph Smith, by virtue of having been ordained “Prophet, Seer, and Revelator” in 1841, by being Joseph Smith’s vice-presidential running mate for the U.S. presidency, senior member of the First Presidency, being both First Counselor and Assistant President. Young, strategizing to effect his own elevation, asked the Mormons in conference, asked, “I now want to ask each of you to tell me if you want to choose a guardian, a Prophet, evangelist or something else as your head to lead you. All that are in favor of it make it manifest by raising the right hand.” No one did.” The Mormon Church’s current tack is to belittle Rigdon’s authority and importance by claiming he was never an Assistant President. This is what I might expect from a church that idolizes its prophets after voting in front of Brigham Young that they want no prophet! “… tell me if you want to choose . . . a Prophet . . . or something else as your head to lead you.” Young continued, “Here is the twelve, an independent body, who have the Keys of the Kingdom to all the whole world so help me God, and they are as the First Presidency of the hurch! . . . You can’t call a prophet. You can’t take Elder Rigdon or Amasa Lyman. They must be ordained by [us]! God will have nothing to do with you. You can’t put anyone at the head of the Twelve!”

More than a little arrogant, that.

Sabacthani, I never read anything about Joseph Smith saying anything at all like himself being some kind of forerunner to an age of prophets. And Brigham Young clearly insisted there would be no successor to Smith, until after a change in strategy was required in order to slow down the exodus from his church to a rival church. Maybe you are confusing the use of the word “prophet.” Joseph was the prophet of the Church, thus the supreme authority. The “gift of prophesy” that he claimed men and woman could enjoy was extremely limited – to their own personal affairs. Since anyone, even according to Mormon teachings, can enjoy inspiration from God, there always has been and always will be “an age of prophets,” meaning people with personal inspiration. That is our divine heritage. It’s not a remarkable claim for anyone, especially a supposed Christian, to make. But as for “an age of prophets” resembling – or succeeding – Joseph Smith as supreme, doctrinally infallible authority, I have not come across that in my reading. If you could provide a citation where Smith, or even Young really does say this, I would be grateful if you would share it. Thank you.

Im sorry if this sounds rude but it seems to me like it is just men trying to get what they want from others. (power, money, fame, women)

Men and women both try to get what they want from others. If they can’t do it anywhere else, they’ll try it in religion. If they can’t do it in religion, they’ll try it somewhere else. At the same time, clichely speaking, “There is good in all people, even those who belong to groups perceived as evil.”

In a very stereotypical way, male egos can be found competing within any religious institution.

Any.

Exactly.

Until people, esp men, can imitate Our Lady’s authentic humility, these sort of happenings will continue to occur.

Humility is no easy task for any human, esp for men. I think that is due to (and I am serious) testosterone. There is something so very competitive in men. At least in western culture.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.