Mormons sure like copying Catholics.
I’d love to see a “Morslim Harmony”: the “coincidences” between the lives, movements, schisms, deaths, wives, circumstances, and peripheral teachings between the two greatest false prophets of the past 1500 years is staggering.
And, rather amazing coincidences as well, aren’t they?
Indeed. For just one parallel (not counting the fake scriptures and their relations to the real ones, polygamy, violence, political ambitions, immoral characters of the men, or anything else). I am disregarding for the below the foundations of Sufism, which in part predate Islam, and are heavily influenced by other religions, such as Christianity, Manichaeism, and Zoroastrianism. Many Muslims, especially the more conservative or traditionalists, consider Sufis to be aberrant or not Muslim at all.
I present, “Morslim Harmony, Part I: Succession Disputes and Major Schisms”.
ISLAM - SUCCESSION DISPUTES
Sunni: schismed after Muhammad’s death, following a close friend (Abu Bakr) but not blood relative of Muhammad, claiming that community acclamation was all that was necessary for transfer of the caliphate (or, in Mormonism, Prophethood). Roughly 80-90% of Muslims followed.
Shi’i: schismed after Muhammad’s death, following Muhammad’s son as the true caliph (or Prophet) of the ummah, claiming that Muhammad had appointed Ali by divine right to be the caliph, and no amount of community acclamation could override the Prophet’s decisions. Was lead by Muhammad’s daughter as well, and supported by one of his wives. Roughly 10-15% of Muslims followed.
Khawarij/Ibadi: rejected both and settled on a leader of their own liking for various reasons, from supposed miracles to political expediency and dislike of the policies of the other rulers. Roughly 2-5% of Muslims followed, some rejoining one of the two main groups at one point.
MORMONISM - SUCCESSION DISPUTES
LDS: schismed after Joseph Smith’s death, following a close friend (Brigham Young) but not blood relative of Joseph Smith, claiming that community acclamation determined the next Prophet (or Caliph). Roughly 75-80% of Mormons followed.
RLDS: schismed after Joseph Smith’s death, following Joseph Smith’s son (Joseph Smith III), who was supported by JS’s original wife, claiming that JS had appointed JSIII by divine right to be the Prophet, and that no amount of community acclamation could override the Prophet’s decisions. Roughly 10% of Mormons followed.
Every other Mormon branch (True Church of JC, LDS fundamentalists, Strangites, Rigdonites, Temple Lot, etc. etc.): rejected both and settled on a leader of their own liking, for reasons ranging from supposed miracles (Strang and Rigdon) to political expediency and dislike of the policies of the other rulers. Roughly 15% of Mormons followed and became a member of one of these groups (many of which still exist) at one point, some rejoining one of the two mainstream branches.
A while after their founding and foundational schisms:
Quraniyoon, Ahmadiyya broke off from Sunnism, and Babists and Baha’is broke off from Shi’ism due to differences with doctrinal teachings (not counting anything like the opposed or enemy caliphates, such as Cordoba v Abbasid v Alid) in a reform movement to liberalize Islam. Some (Salafis and Wahhabis) broke off in order to return it to “traditional” status, with emphasis on practicing everyday doctrines rejected by the civilized world. Quraniyoon did away with the ahadith and sunan, the main religious sources of Islam from its earliest time, to rely on the Koran alone. Babists and Baha’is introduced new scriptures.
Groups such as the non-LDS or RLDS schismed within themselves; RLDS schismed, the main branch (Community of Christ) becoming a reforming movement and almost doing away with the Book of Mormon, becoming a quirky but not-otherwise-irregular Protestant Restorationist sect. Groups such as LDS fundamentalists broke off (from LDS instead of RLDS) in order to return to “traditional” status after Official Declaration - 1, with emphasis on practicing everyday doctrines rejected by the civilized world.
But wait, there’s more!
“For just one parallel (not counting the fake scriptures and their relations to the real ones…”
I think if you looked closely at the say how the Book of Mormon was supposed to have originated it would not be anything close to how the Qur’an originated… The two bear little similarity.
Khalid wrote above:
“Shi’i: schismed after Muhammad’s death, following Muhammad’s son as the true caliph (or Prophet) of the ummah, claiming that Muhammad had appointed Ali by divine right to be the caliph, and no amount of community …”
I think you meant to write “Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law” to be more accurate. Of course the question would be who split from whom…? after the death of Prophet Muhammad.
“Babists and Baha’is broke off from Shi’ism due to differences with doctrinal teachings (not counting anything like the opposed or enemy caliphates, such as Cordoba v Abbasid v Alid) in a reform movement to liberalize Islam.”
Actually not just a* “reform movement to liberalize Islam”* but starting a new religion entirely.
That would have nothing to do with “copying Catholics”. The words “Mormons Come Home” would be a phrase that could be “_______ come home” and be any welcoming back effort by any group for those whom they wanted to “bring back”. It is a common idea in very common English. “Home is where the heart is” is another very common English phrase.
Yes…Mormons never copy…it is just a coincidence that there has been a website called Catholics come home for a long time. It is just a coincidence that the Book of Mormon has whole sections that are almost word for word from the Bible. It is just a coincidence that the LDS temple worship is almost word for word, sign for sign and secret handshake for secret handshake like the Masons…
Please Brother Parker, do not think we are stupid. Please?
That’s Elder Parker to you.* Remember the Grip of the Nail and the Five Points of Contact to enter the Celestial Kingdom!
I’ve not noticed until very recently that the Book of Mormon says on its cover in very large letters, ANOTHER GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST - remember what Early-day Saint Paul said about another gospel? And that the LDS god is “the god of this world” alone - remember what he said about the god of this world? And you have to go all the way back to Genesis, chapters 3-4 to find out what happened the last time the god of this world promised to make man a god.
*At least that’s what I assume, he may be Bishop or Counselor or Seventy Parker instead. When I first investigated Mormonism and the missionaries gave me the number of a Bishop to call, I was astounded - what a way to make a man feel important! My questions are actually good enough that the missionary lessons can’t handle them, but they need to refer me to an actual bishop? It was too late that I realized that was a diocesan pastor, whose job is to talk to people.
To that let me add"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."
Entering the Cathedral of the Madeleine, you look up to the side and see the words of St. Paul stating the anathema of listening to unknown angels…
Condemning Christianity as corrupt, the Roman Church an abomination…such sweeping statements…is not the work and language of Christ…but man against man…knocking the other down so one can raise himself up.
Opposite movement of Christ HImself, Who came to atone, sanctify, redeem all of us.
The language of Mormonism has greatly evolved from that spoken and written in the 1800’s to that of today…church language sounding on par with the Catholic Church. They have learned and copied with much intensity from our Church.
I can always pick up a former Catholic now Mormon, by use of their thinking process…and likewise seeing the gaps…they are seeking self-validation rather than the Cross.
Parker, when the Catholic Church sends out the invitation to “come home”, they are not only speaking to former Catholics, but rather the whole world. Christ’s true Church is home to everyone and this is a sentiment that most converts experience. They are finally home. The Mormon attempt here is so obviously a copying of the Catholic effort that it should be embarrasing to Mormons.
Well, it would be some kind of miracle if a “Mormon come home” effort included this pledge: “dedicated to presenting the honest truth about even very difficult subjects”. Mormons would be more like, “dedicated to steadying your spiritual ark by presenting half-truths and hiding information, especially on the very difficult subjects”
The Mormon attempt here is so obviously a copying of the Catholic effort that it should be embarassing to Mormons.
Whenever Mormons try to copy Catholics, they make fools of themselves, because they are so unaware of the heart-beat of Catholicism. They have no understanding of what it is about.
Do you want to hear something very creepy?? Listen (don’t watch) talks from LDS leaders. Listen to the phrasing, the words, the pauses, the tone…they almost all sound alike. Not the same voices, but it is like they are all indoctrinated. Go ahead. Listen
ha, I remember those cadenced talks, was creepy, but also geared for maximum drowsiness.
I’ve given up on Parker’s posts. Soporific. Sort of like sugar-poisoning for the diabetic.
You can’t. You fall asleep. It’s like listening to Ben Stien read “War and Peace.”
The pausing effects the listener to just focus on the present moment…no critical thinking…no sequence of step, no historical context…
Same can be said of charismatic, secular leaders…that are appealing to emotive based mindsets.
I hate to be obvious, but I think the “mormon come home” idea is primarily for tithing that has been lost due to the massive exodus they have been experiencing in recent years. (gotta love the internet)
The Catholic Come Home idea is aimed at the true spiritual, religious, faith aspects.
BIG difference between the two.
While it has been said that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, I think this is more of a deception than anything else.
Just my :twocents: