Replies

First of all, this article that you refer to was written in 2000 before 911. After 911 the Church leadership denounced those attacks very forcefully and the radical islamics who conducted them...and urged American citizens to fight.

Second, Toronto is not a spokesman for, or General Authority of the Chuirch. Back then he wrote what he considered a scholarly article on Muslims...and one of the qutes you use, speaking of Mohammed in a praising fashion, he clearly cites as coming from Muslim sources.

The Church opposes Sharia Law which is the political heartstone of fundmental Islam and its desire to enslave the world.

At the same time, we recognize that there are good people amongst the Muslim population who follow virtuous teachings about marriage, the family, virtue, etc. I believe that is the principle point trying to be made by the author back then...and one the church urges its members to try and do...that is find the good in other people.

But radical Islam and its compulsion is an enemy to all rational and reasoned persons and institutions and the Church does not confederate with it, or preach that it is good.

The church does try and find common ground with Muslims who are seeking to avoid the violence and compulsion that that form of Islam inspires and promotes.

Fact is, more Iraqis, Afghans, and Pakistanis have died fighting against radical fundamental Islam than we have lost in all of our encounters with them ourselves...far more, and many many of them have died right at our personnel’s side. Problem is, they live amongst populations that are run through with the fundamental jihadists who believe that the moderate, more peace seeking muslims must either conform or die...and who will act the part to infiltrate the ranks of the “new” forces we set up so they can kill our people along with their own.

My own opinion, and shared by most LDS people I know is that we cannot afford to “nation-build” these places. That we MUST go in with absolute overwhelming force and destroy not only the jihadists camps and forces, but anyone who gives them support and sanctuary...meaning the populations that do so...just like we doid with in Germany with the Nazis.

If there are those who would fight with us, then they better seperate themselves and fight the enemy just as hard...and there are those that do.

But trying to imply that somehow Romney or Mormons in general are going to placate and be sympathetic to our enemies in the fashion that Obama is, is simply not true.

Well said.

Muslim leaders express thanks to President Uchtdorf

It is interesting how buddy-buddy mormons want to be with muslims.

Toronto is not a spokesman for, or General Authority of the Chuirch.

(Have you -- or other Mormons -- told that to the BYU students who sit at Toronto's BYU lectures? Or to the women who sat to hear one of his talks @ the '01 BYU Women's Conference? I didn't know Toronto -- or somebody else -- had to issue this disclaimer each time Toronto spoke at a class, conference or other BYU or Mormon-attended event...somebody must be slacking off...better get on some Mormon leaders' case 'bout that, Jeff)

Good post....

Fair accurate observations....

First of all, this article that you refer to was written in 2000 before 911. After 911 the Church leadership denounced those attacks very forcefully and the radical islamics who conducted them...and urged American citizens to fight. Second, Toronto is not a spokesman for, or General Authority of the Chuirch. Back then he wrote what he considered a scholarly article on Muslims...and one of the qutes you use, speaking of Mohammed in a praising fashion, he clearly cites as coming from Muslim sources. [Jeff Head, Mormon]

ALL: We can learn as much from what Mormon FREEPERS don't address in a response as much as what they do address.

Note that in the excerpts I culled out from this article in post #1, I highlighted FOUR Lds leader references to Mohammed. And these were all highly pro-Mohammed statements!

* One was from Mitt Romney's G-G Grandfather, Lds "apostle" Parley P. Pratt;
* Another from another Lds "apostle," George A. Smith
* A third from a BYU professor (Toronto)
* A fourth from the highest level of Lds hierarchy -- a First Presidency statement from 1978.

Now did Jeff Head, FREEPER Mormon, respond at all to these pro-Mohammed Lds statements? (NO!!!)

He ducked. He skirted. He shied away. He waived off addressing them. He veered. He bobbed. He weaved. He darted away. He ran. He slithered away.

Nope. No head-on addressing Mohammed from Jeff, lest he either...
...(a) counter these four positive Lds leader statements about Mohammed, & thereby put these leaders whom he's supposed to "sustain" in a bad light;
...or (b) show the world that, he, too, is pro-Mohammed and likewise presents him in a positive light.

Jeff, 9/11 didn't change Mohammed. It simply highlighted the pro-violent Quranic jihadist passages already there -- the ones already attributed to Mohammed!

Bottom line: Mormon leadership has been "up" on Mohammed for a LONG time -- given that Parley P. Pratt was an Lds "apostle" at the time of Joseph Smith's era & given that the Lds First Presidency has been making such statements in Jeff Head's lifetime!

Mitt? Sounds to me like he's pro-Mohammed, too.

If you're Muslim, Mitt, Mitt, he's your man...nobody can "foreign policy" Islam like Romney can!

[Oh, and btw, quite interesting to see Lds leadership so upbeat and positive about Mohammed and Islam in general...yet Lds "scripture" labels the "professors" of Christian sects as 100% "corrupt" ("all") per Joseph Smith, History, vv. 18-19, Pearl of Great Price]

But whadda we to expect? The Muslims call Christians "infidels" -- and Joseph Smith & co. came along to tag-team with them and call ALL Christians and their denominations "apostates." Why, they're on the same page, aren't they?...'twas probably "unveiled" by the same "angel" -- the one Mohammed thought at first was a jinn (demon) until a relative convinced him otherwise.

Jeff, oh come on.
Joseph Smith declared himself to be the next mohammad.
Much of mormonISM is founded on islamic principles, Joseph Smith was enamored with islam. SLC lds have been partnering with islam for years, even going so far as to praying in each other sanctuaries.

What of Islam isn’t radical? Wipe it off the Earth. Nazism was eliminated. So too must it be for Islam.

But trying to imply that somehow Romney or Mormons in general are going to placate and be sympathetic to our enemies in the fashion that Obama is, is simply not true.

HMMMmmm...

“I Will Be a Second Mohammed”

In the heat of the Missouri “Mormon War” of 1838, Joseph Smith made the following claim, “I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, 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!’ ”[1]

It is most interesting that a self-proclaimed Christian prophet would liken himself to Mohammed, the founder of Islam. His own comparison invites us to take a closer look as well. And when we do, we find some striking—and troubling—parallels. Consider the following.

Mohammed and Joseph Smith both had humble beginnings. Neither had formal religious connections or upbringing, and both were relatively uneducated. Both founded new religions by creating their own scriptures. In fact, followers of both prophets claim these scriptures are miracles since their authors were the most simple and uneducated of men.[2]
Both prophets claim of having angel visitations, and of receiving divine revelation to restore pure religion to the earth again. Mohammed was told that both Jews and Christians had long since corrupted their scriptures and religion. In like manner, Joseph Smith was told that all of Christianity had become corrupt, and that consequently the Bible itself was no longer reliable. In both cases, this corruption required a complete restoration of both scripture and religion. Nothing which preceded either prophet could be relied upon any longer. Both prophets claim they were used of God to restore eternal truths which once existed on earth, but had been lost due to human corruption.
Both prophets created new scripture which borrowed heavily from the Bible, but with a substantially new “spin.” In his Koran, Mohammed appropriates a number of Biblical themes and characters—but he changes the complete sense of many passages, claiming to “correct” the Bible. In so doing he changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place. In like manner, Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon, much of which is plagiarized directly from the King James Bible. Interestingly, the Book of Mormon claims that this same Bible has been substantially corrupted and is therefore unreliable. In addition, Joseph Smith went so far as to actually create his own version of the Bible itself, the “Inspired Version,” in which he both adds and deletes significant portions of text, claiming he is “correcting” it. In so doing he also changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place.
As a part of their new scriptural “spin,” both prophets saw themselves as prophesied in scripture, and both saw themselves as a continuation of a long line of Biblical prophets. Mohammed saw himself as a continuation of the ministry of Moses and Jesus. Joseph Smith saw himself as a successor to Enoch, Melchizedek, Joseph and Moses. Joseph Smith actually wrote himself into his own version of the Bible—by name.
Both prophets held up their own scripture as superior to the Bible. Mohammed claimed that the Koran was a perfect copy of the original which was in heaven. The Koran is therefore held to be absolutely perfect, far superior to the Bible and superceding it. In like manner, Joseph Smith also made the following claim. “I told the Brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding its precepts, than by any other book.”[3]
Despite their claim that the Bible was corrupt, both prophets admonished their followers to adhere to its teachings. An obvious contradiction, this led to selective acceptance of some portions and wholesale rejection of others. As a result, the Bible is accepted by both groups of followers only to the extent that it agrees with their prophet’s own superior revelation.
Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith taught that true salvation was to be found only in their respective religions. Those who would not accept their message were considered “infidels,” pagans or Gentiles. In so doing, both prophets became the enemy of genuine Christianity, and have led many people away from the Christ of the Bible.
Both prophets encountered fierce opposition to their new religions and had to flee from town to town because of threats on their lives. Both retaliated to this opposition by forming their own militias. Both ultimately set up their own towns as model societies.
Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith left unclear instructions about their successors. The majority of Mohammed’s followers, Sunni Muslims, believe they were to elect their new leader, whereas the minority, Shiite Muslims, look to Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib, whom they consider Divinely appointed, as the rightful successor to Muhammad, and the first imam. (Ali was the cousin and son-in-law of the Islamic prophet Muhammad). Similarly, the majority of Joseph Smith's followers, Mormons, believed their next prophet should have been the existing leader of their quorum of twelve apostles, whereas the minority, RLDS, believed Joseph Smith's own son should have been their next prophet. Differences on this issue, and many others, have created substantial tension between these rival groups of each prophet.
Mohammed taught that Jesus was just another of a long line of human prophets, of which he was the last. He taught that he was superior to Christ and superceded Him. In comparison, Joseph Smith also made the following claim.

“I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him, but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.”[4] In light of these parallels, perhaps Joseph Smith's claim to be a second Mohammed unwittingly became his most genuine prophecy of all.

[1] Joseph Smith made this statement at the conclusion of a speech in the public square at Far West, Missouri on October 14, 1838. This particular quote is documented in Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History, second edition, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), p. 230–231. Fawn Brodie’s footnote regarding this speech contains valuable information, and follows. “Except where noted, all the details of this chapter [16] are taken from the History of the [Mormon] Church. This speech, however, was not recorded there, and the report given here is based upon the accounts of seven men. See the affidavits of T.B. Marsh, Orson Hyde, George M. Hinkle, John Corrill, W.W. Phelps, Samson Avard, and Reed Peck in Correspondence, Orders, etc., pp. 57–9, 97–129. The Marsh and Hyde account, which was made on October 24, is particularly important. Part of it was reproduced in History of the [Mormon] Church, Vol. III, p. 167. See also the Peck manuscript, p. 80. Joseph himself barely mentioned the speech in his history; see Vol. III, p. 162.”

[2] John Ankerberg & John Weldon, The Facts on Islam, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1998), pp.8–9. Eric Johnson, Joseph Smith & Muhammed, (El Cajon, CA: Mormonism Research Ministry, 1998), pp. 6–7.

[3] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.4, pp.461.

[4] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.6, pp.408–409.

But trying to imply that somehow Romney or Mormons in general are going to placate and be sympathetic to our enemies in the fashion that Obama is, is simply not true.

Uh, how is that relevant to an anti-Mormon thread? Doncha know Mormons are the same as Muslims? I saw it cut-and-pasted ad nauseum on FR. It’s gotta be true!

Is a sarc tag even necessary? lol!

I hear many people trying to distinguish “radical Islam” from “Islam” as if there is a difference. Muslims are called Muslim because they identify with the doctrines of Islam. There is not a “radical Islam”. Islam is radical. There are Muslims who do a good job of deceiving the infidel by white-washing most of the evil doctrine of Islam. I’ve read the post-9/11 writings and listened to MP3 of Mormons, including lectures of academics at BYU in their Middle Eastern Studies curriculum. They apologetically relate with and defend Islam - still. They are enamored by the persecution they share, the latter day prophet concept, the “new holy books” they have in common, and perhaps, their shared preference for multiple wives, despite the forced ban a century ago. Any religion that identifies with Islam shares in the evils of Islam and cannot be trusted or condoned.