Muhammed, the Muslim prophet

[liberty_bellecaptain of 100]

OMD, a couple of things. First, I never said that the Jews left their land willingly, I was making sure I understood the Shi'ia words.

Second, about the Khazars, the information I got was from a man who he himself had dedicated his life to understanding where they came from. Also the majority of Jews, those in leadership especially claim themselves that they are Ashkazaria Jews. I appreciate all information and I am investigating your link to wikipedia against what I have read. Even if, as you suggested in the Israel Post, that they were the Elite of the Khazars, they were the ones from which the Rothschilds and every Zionist who has been a leader came from. I know you cannot be ignorant of the part the Rothschilds have played in history but if you are, here is link to a timeline:

http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Rothschild.htm

I have not been able to find in any of the information I have been reading, other than what you just posted, where the Jews entering into Palestine, bought anything. If they did, to whom was the money paid, the UN? Great Brittan? Certainly not the Palastinians themselves, so to whom? That would be like the Govorner of UT negotiating the transfer of Governemnt and property of Arizona without our knowledge and then accepting the money but not paying us.

I spent a lot of time on Wikipedia, which is not a really a source I count on as the complete truth. I attended University of Phoenix for a week and I was told that not one University accepts wikipedia as a credible source in doing research, so with that said.....The links that I kept connecting to within wikipedia told the story of the deals being made without the knowledge of certain nations, one being Palestine. So, if they never were involved, but their fate was decided by other people, I think I would be angry also, wouldn't you? HOwever, this has actually verified information that I read from a man in the 1960(I think that was the year he revealed his information on the Khazars).

The UN Partition of land that was not their's to partition without the consent of the people who lived in the area. I am an American, I call America my homeland and I am loyal to it. Just like you, my roots did not originate here. My mom's family is from England and my Dad's from Scottland. I do not call that my homeland and demand to be restored to there. Lets take that just a bit further, in my patriarchle blessing, I am told that I am a LITERAL DESCENDANT of Ephraim, so where does that put my actual homeland? By this reasoning, I could claim Egypt and the lands of Ephraim in the Middle-East. My family obviously had been those who had been taken captive and assimilted into Assyria. The Jews were scattered for the same reasons, they perverted the Law of Moses, they denied the Christ and killed him and those that followed him. They were guilty and were given the consequences, but just like my family the Ephramites have been promised, that we would once again, when we believe in Christ and when the Lord gathers all the tribes together with his mighty arm, that we would once again gain a land for our inheritance.

I would also like you to consider 2 Nephi 29 and 30. What are the Gentiles guilty of where the Jews are concerned. Let me just give you a hint, its not restoring them to the lands of their inheritance, that is what the Lord has claimed HE will do with a mighty arm. We are guilty of something different. When you read that we can have further discussions on where it says in that scripture that the Jews would be gathered to help faciliate their conversion.

I would also like you to consider, how the Jews will ever become believers in Christ when in their land we are not allowed to proselyte? Isaiah promised them the Gentile Nations (Christian) would be their nursing mothers and fathers...this implies that this is where they would be safe and have the best chance for conversion. However, God also had foreknowledge of just what would happen in the middle east and the horrible conflicts that would envelope the world, and promised that those who were humble would flee from their enemies (that could also mean their oppressors within their own governemnt) and meet Christ when the mount of olives split and he shows him his wounds. They will know they inherited lies, just as we all will.

The point is that even the Arabs and Muslims have inherited lies. However, they believe that their Savior will deliver them from their enemies just as we do. They believe that their Savior will destory by death all of his enemies who refuse to believe and worship him, just as we do. They believe that their God will have an army, just as we do (every hear of the 144k?). Their God will give them the lands of their inheritances, just as we do. Now compare that to the Jews, they believe they are the chosen race, they believe that their Messiah will destory all their enemies.....what then is so different in our beliefs? Nothing except to whom we call Savior.

I have asked if anyone as attempted to read the Talmud? If not maybe I will start a thread on it. I think you would be surprised.

[Oldemandaltoncaptain of 1,000]

Liberty Belle;
OMD, a couple of things. First, I never said that the Jews left their land willingly, I was making sure I understood the Shi'ia words.
That’s cool LB. You would be surprised how many on this forum believe that the Jews have no right to be in Palestine.

Second, about the Khazars, the information I got was from a man who he himself had dedicated his life to understanding where they came from. Also the majority of Jews, those in leadership especially claim themselves that they are Ashkazaria Jews. I appreciate all information and I am investigating your link to wikipedia against what I have read. Even if, as you suggested in the Israel Post, that they were the Elite of the Khazars, they were the ones from which the Rothschilds and every Zionist who has been a leader came from. I know you cannot be ignorant of the part the Rothschilds have played in history but if you are, here is link to a timeline:

I believe your friend has ‘dedicated his life’ in half-truths. He needs to expand his search a little. Pearls aren’t found in the cow pasture, remember.

I am sure once the Jews fled and were enslaved in Europe that they intermarried to a point. God gave Israel the laws of Moses which not only helped to lead them to Christ, but also it separated them from their neighbors. An example is their dietary laws. This would have kept them somewhat apart from the Europeans they found themselves living amongst. They did keep their identity Liberty Belle.

Ashkenazi Jews
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews


http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradf ... schild.htm

I know about the Rothschilds and no they don’t “control the world”. It’s a lot more complicated than blaming everything on one rich Jewish family.

I have not been able to find in any of the information I have been reading, other than what you just posted, where the Jews entering into Palestine, bought anything. If they did, to whom was the money paid, the UN? Great Brittan? Certainly not the Palastinians themselves, so to whom? That would be like the Govorner of UT negotiating the transfer of Governemnt and property of Arizona without our knowledge and then accepting the money but not paying us.

Read the article I posted above. It explains who they paid. Check out the footnotes. Most are not Jewish sources.
See also;

Land Ownership in Palestine, 1880-1948, by Moshe Aumann

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=jewish%20land%20purchases%20in%20palestine&source=web&cd=15&ved=0CDoQFjAEOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwordfromjerusalem.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F11%2Fthe-case-for-israel-appendix2.pdf&ei=jTPgTuCpOOOuiQLOsJiNDw&usg=AFQjCNH3YzR2q0E6WY3BFlUpsw7wi-us8w

Jewish land purchase in Palestine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_land_purchase_in_Palestine

Part III, The Sweeping Vista of Jewish History, Fantastic Victory-Israel's Rendezvous With Destiny, by W. Cleon Skousen

I spent a lot of time on Wikipedia, which is not a really a source I count on as the complete truth. I attended University of Phoenix for a week and I was told that not one University accepts wikipedia as a credible source in doing research, so with that said.....The links that I kept connecting to within wikipedia told the story of the deals being made without the knowledge of certain nations, one being Palestine. So, if they never were involved, but their fate was decided by other people, I think I would be angry also, wouldn't you? HOwever, this has actually verified information that I read from a man in the 1960(I think that was the year he revealed his information on the Khazars).

When I use Wikipedia I always check the footnotes also and see where they lead.

There was neither a ‘Palestine’ nor ‘Palestinians’. They were all Arabs who were governed by different kingdoms, caliphates and, towards the end the Ottoman Empire. Brittan ended up with it and wanted to create two nations within what they called the Palestinian Mandate, one Jewish and one Arab. Brittan tried to work with both groups. Most of the Jews cooperated some didn’t. Most of the Arabs did not and neither did they want to share governance of Palestine with the Jews. Never did, still don’t. The Arabs wanted to drive the Jews into the sea in 1948 and have never given up with this goal ever since.

The UN Partition of land that was not their's to partition without the consent of the people who lived in the area. I am an American, I call America my homeland and I am loyal to it. Just like you, my roots did not originate here. My mom's family is from England and my Dad's from Scottland. I do not call that my homeland and demand to be restored to there. Lets take that just a bit further, in my patriarchle blessing, I am told that I am a LITERAL DESCENDANT of Ephraim, so where does that put my actual homeland? By this reasoning, I could claim Egypt and the lands of Ephraim in the Middle-East. My family obviously had been those who had been taken captive and assimilted into Assyria. The Jews were scattered for the same reasons, they perverted the Law of Moses, they denied the Christ and killed him and those that followed him. They were guilty and were given the consequences, but just like my family the Ephramites have been promised, that we would once again, when we believe in Christ and when the Lord gathers all the tribes together with his mighty arm, that we would once again gain a land for our inheritance.

The Arabs lost their chance to compromise when they chose the path of war in 1948, rather than peace.

I would also like you to consider 2 Nephi 29 and 30. What are the Gentiles guilty of where the Jews are concerned. Let me just give you a hint, its not restoring them to the lands of their inheritance, that is what the Lord has claimed HE will do with a mighty arm. We are guilty of something different. When you read that we can have further discussions on where it says in that scripture that the Jews would be gathered to help faciliate their conversion.
I would also like you to consider, how the Jews will ever become believers in Christ when in their land we are not allowed to proselyte?

The two witnesses IMO will open the work to the Jews after the ‘Times of the Gentiles’ has ended. Until then it is still the Gentiles turn.

Isaiah promised them the Gentile Nations (Christian) would be their nursing mothers and fathers...this implies that this is where they would be safe and have the best chance for conversion.

No it means that God used the Gentiles UN/Brittan/USA, etc, to have God’s promises fulfilled.

However, God also had foreknowledge of just what would happen in the middle east and the horrible conflicts that would envelope the world, and promised that those who were humble would flee from their enemies (that could also mean their oppressors within their own governemnt) and meet Christ when the mount of olives split and he shows him his wounds. They will know they inherited lies, just as we all will.

So you believe that the Jews will flee to Palestine during the ‘War of Armageddon”? No, LB, it is the Jewish nation of Israel that will be attacked by the armies of Gog for 3 ½ years and will be supported by the two witnesses, two LDS Apostles. After part of Jerusalem is sacked and the two witnesses lie in the street for three days they are resurrected, Christ comes, splits Mnt of Olives in two and saves the rest of the Jews from slaughter. That’s when they see their Messiah and realize he was the Christ which their ancestors had crucified. I believe that many will be converted during the 3 1/2 year war as the two apostles perform one miracle after another to save them.

The point is that even the Arabs and Muslims have inherited lies. However, they believe that their Savior will deliver them from their enemies just as we do. They believe that their Savior will destory by death all of his enemies who refuse to believe and worship him, just as we do. They believe that their God will have an army, just as we do (every hear of the 144k? Missionaries, not an Army). Their God will give them the lands of their inheritances, just as we do. Now compare that to the Jews, they believe they are the chosen race, they believe that their Messiah will destory all their enemies.....what then is so different in our beliefs? Nothing except to whom we call Savior.

Yes but the difference is that ours and the Jews prophecies will come true and those of the Muslims ….. well let’s just say they’ll be very disappointed when it is THEIR army that is destroyed.

I have asked if anyone as attempted to read the Talmud? If not maybe I will start a thread on it. I think you would be surprised.





The Talmud is not scripture LB.

The sriptures and quotes below show that God did want the Jews to settle in the Holy Land in these the last days.


Elder Orson Hyde’s Dedicatory Prayer for the return of the Jews to Palestine in 1841, “…"Now, O Lord! Thy servant has been obedient to the heavenly vision which Thou gavest him in his native land; and under the shadow of Thine outstretched arm, he has safely arrived in this place to dedicate and consecrate this land unto Thee, for the gathering together of Judah's scattered remnants, according to the predictions of the holy Prophets..”

Soon after this prayer the Zionist movement began in earnest and thousands of the diaspora Jews began to settle in Palestine.

D&C 133:13
13 And let them who be of Judah flee unto Jerusalem, unto the mountains of the Lord’s house.

D&C 109:61-64
61 But thou knowest that thou hast a great love for the children of Jacob, who have been scattered upon the mountains for a long time, in a cloudy and dark day.
62 We therefore ask thee to have mercy upon the children of Jacob, that Jerusalem, from this hour, may begin to be redeemed;
63 And the yoke of bondage may begin to be broken off from the house of David;
64 And the children of Judah may begin to return to the lands which thou didst give to Abraham, their father.

3 Nephi 29:8
8 Yea, and ye need not any longer hiss, nor spurn, nor make game of the Jews, nor any of the remnant of the house of Israel; for behold, the Lord remembereth his covenant unto them, and he will do unto them according to that which he hath sworn.

2 Nephi 29:3-5
3 And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.
4 But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles?
5 O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have cursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them. But behold, I will return all these things upon your own heads; for I the Lord have not forgotten my people.

Elder Ezra Taft Benson
In a Conference talk, April 1950, Elder Benson describes the establishment of the State of Israel as fulfillment of prophecy,
“As Latter-day Saints, familiar with ancient and modern prophecies, we of course do not agree that some other more suitable place should be and will be found for the descendants of Judas. We believe in the over-ruling power of Providence in the affairs of men and nations. We believe that the Old Testament prophets clearly predicted the dispersion and scattering of Israel and the eventual lathering of Judah in the land given to their fathers.”

President Joseph Fielding Smith
In an April 1966 Conference Talk by President Joseph Fielding Smith, entitled, Stand With Israel also describes the creation of the nation of Israel as fulfillment of prophecy. He said “Jesus said the Jews would be scattered among all nations and Jerusalem would be trodden down by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles were fulfilled. (Luke 21:24.) The prophecy in Section 45, verses 24-29, of the Doctrine and Covenants regarding the Jews was literally fulfilled. Jerusalem, which was trodden down by the Gentiles, is no longer trodden down but is made the home for the Jews. They are returning to Palestine, and by this we may know that the times of the Gentiles are near their close.”

President Wilford Woodruff
“President Wilford Woodruff uttered a very important prophecy, prayer, and testimony with reference to this people, in which he said,
. . . the Lord has decreed that the Jews should be gathered from all the Gentile nations where they have been driven, into their own land, in fulfillment of the words of Moses. their law-giver. And this is the will of your great Elohim, O house of Judah... Then he said further that the time would come when the armies of the Gentiles would be gathered against them, but he promised further that the time is not far distant when the rich men among the Jews would be called upon to use their abundant wealth to gather the dispersed of Judah and purchase the ancient dwelling places of their fathers in and about Jerusalem, and rebuild the holy city and temple.”

W. Cleon Skousen
In W. Cleon Skousen’s book “Fantastic Victory: Israel's Rendezvous With Destiny”
Bro Skousen explains very well the Arab Israeli conflict and the history of the Jew’s return to Palestine. This book is a must read for the Israel/Jew doubters.

It is interesting that under the heading, Zionism, Bruce R. McConkie, in “Mormon Doctrine” stated;
“One of the living miracles of the ages is the preservation of the Jewish people as a distinct race and the restless anxiety in the hearts of so many of them to return to the land of their fathers. This modern movement to resettle the house of Judah in Palestine is called Zionism. It gains impetus from the many Old Testament prophecies which tell of the latter-day return of Judah to their homeland.”

[Book of Ruthcaptain of 100]

Something that I have learned from my friend the Shi'a:

They give strict adherence to their Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. He is their authority, he interprets Islamic law, and when he says move, they are prepared to move with stict obedience. They take their month long fast Ramadan very seriously, and they follow their leader, and will move as one when called upon.

This is important, because we as LDS following the Prophet often pick and chose what commandments/council we will follow, they DO NOT. We will be in the "wilderness" for our "training" on how to obey every word. They have been at it for their entire lives, and they are prepared.

Worse, they know that we are uncommited, undisciplined, and that as we currently stand, that they can move forward upon us because we will scatter to save our own skins because we do not have discipline. (Speaking as American's as a whole.)

They pride themselves are bending their own will into the will of the Allah. And they are really really good at it. We have got to learn complete faith in our Prophet as he speaks for the Savior. Disciplining ourselves to do exactly as the Prophet directs. They have.

[linj2flycaptain of 1,000]

This transcript (FAIR conference talk) by Daniel Peterson, is an excellent survey of the teachings of Joseph Smith and other brethren on religious freedom and tolerance. It's a mine of quotes, and I highly recommend it.

The first half covers Joseph's sentiments toward other religions, while the second half focuses on Islam and is a survey of teachings from our prophets and apostles regarding Islam from the mid-19th century up to 1978:

http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2011-fair-conference/2011-mormonism-islam-and-the-question-of-other-religions#en28

[liberty_bellecaptain of 100]

I re-read this entire thread after having done a lot more research these past few months. I have come to the conclusion that there are many great people in the world with a handful of cruel puppeteers who have used relgion as a means to control others.

After reading again this thread, I just wanted to say thank you to Paperface for your incredible posts. Truly, a peacemaker!

[chasecaptain of 100]

The problem with this post is that everyone is referring to both Islam and Mormonism as they exist today. I think the initial intent was to show that Islam, at its roots, is much the same as Christianity, Mormonism, etc, at their roots. What we seem to be commenting on is what these religions have become, not where they began...and where they began is what is important, and in all likelihood they began in the same place.

[Oldemandaltoncaptain of 1,000]

chasetafer0707
The problem with this post is that everyone is referring to both Islam and Mormonism as they exist today. I think the initial intent was to show that Islam, at its roots, is much the same as Christianity, Mormonism, etc, at their roots. What we seem to be commenting on is what these religions have become, not where they began...and where they began is what is important, and in all likelihood they began in the same place.

Roots are what the religions were founded on, Chasetafer0707. “Christianity and Mormonism” were both founded by The Lord Jesus Christ. He Himself restored it to the Jews in the Holy Land two thousand years ago. Then in 1830 He restored it again after the “Great Apostasy” through a living prophet Joseph Smith. This differs greatly from Islam. It was started by a man, Mohammed, who claimed to be a prophet and to have received revelations from God. It is interesting to me that Mohammed was born the same years as the start of the Great Apostasy, 570 AD.

There are similarities between the teachings of Islam and Judaism because many of the Bedouin tribes where it began were descendants of Abraham through Ishmael, Esau, and Lot and shared many common traditions and beliefs with the Jews. The difference is that in Islam it was Ishmael who got the birthright from Abraham and not Isaac, thus the centuries of enmity between the two people. This was very similar to the hatred between the Nephites and Lamanites. The elder children feel jealousy and hatred toward their younger siblings who receive the birthright instead of them, which is tradition amongst their people.

Just as any religion created by man it has “the philosophies of men mingled with scripture”. Islam has a split personality due to the evolution in the life of Mohammed. It the beginning he taught peace and prosperity. Eventually he taught that ‘jihad” was not only a spiritual struggle against Satan and evil but also a righteous way to spread Islam and to subjugate their earthly enemies. The peaceful Muslims around the world read the Qur’an and hadith ignoring the violent sections while the fanatical Islamists embrace them. Thus we get Arabs who want to live in peace with their distant cousins, the Jews, while on the other hand we have Jihadists who want to “kill all the Jews” and have trees call out,” there is a Jew hiding behind me come kill him”.

[chasecaptain of 100]

chasetafer0707
The problem with this post is that everyone is referring to both Islam and Mormonism as they exist today. I think the initial intent was to show that Islam, at its roots, is much the same as Christianity, Mormonism, etc, at their roots. What we seem to be commenting on is what these religions have become, not where they began...and where they began is what is important, and in all likelihood they began in the same place.

Islam was started by a man, Mohammed, who claimed to be a prophet and to have received revelations from God. It is interesting to me that Mohammed was born the same years as the start of the Great Apostasy, 570 AD.

There are similarities between the teachings of Islam and Judaism because many of the Bedouin tribes where it began were descendants of Abraham through Ishmael, Esau, and Lot and shared many common traditions and beliefs with the Jews. The difference is that in Islam it was Ishmael who got the birthright from Abraham and not Isaac, thus the centuries of enmity between the two people. This was very similar to the hatred between the Nephites and Lamanites. The elder children feel jealousy and hatred toward their younger siblings who receive the birthright instead of them, which is tradition amongst their people.

Just as any religion created by man it has “the philosophies of men mingled with scripture”. Islam has a split personality due to the evolution in the life of Mohammed. It the beginning he taught peace and prosperity. Eventually he taught that ‘jihad” was not only a spiritual struggle against Satan and evil but also a righteous way to spread Islam and to subjugate their earthly enemies. The peaceful Muslims around the world read the Qur’an and hadith ignoring the violent sections while the fanatical Islamists embrace them. Thus we get Arabs who want to live in peace with their distant cousins, the Jews, while on the other hand we have Jihadists who want to “kill all the Jews” and have trees call out,” there is a Jew hiding behind me come kill him”.

Haha, I guess you don't see the interesting parallels in what you wrote an what I said. Of course we look at the situation and see the vast differences between Mormonism and Islam. That is how we operate. But look at what you just said. "It was started by a man, Mohammed, who claimed to be a prophet and to have received revelations from God." Isn't that what people say about Joseph Smith? Those of use who believe obviously refute critics disagreement that our church was founded by a man by telling them that we have a testimony. Well, what if Mohammed really did have significant spiritual experiences because of his righteousness which he unsuccessfully attempted to present to his posterity? Could his experiences have been akin to what Joseph experienced when he sought for divine guidance?

What if after Israel's failure to maintain the gospel covenant (around the time when Christ's church drifted into apostasy, which you said was around the date of Mohammed's theophany), God offered the gospel to those who were not of the covenant lineage. For example, the gospel going to the Gentiles (maybe we can lump Ishmael in with the Gentiles) which it did. You also bring up the example of the Nephites and the Lamanites. Of course the Nephites had the gospel anciently and the Lamanites traditionally did not...but who is going to be gathered as the remnant in the end? The Lamanites. Perhaps this is a parallel example. Israel failed to keep the covenant (like the Nephites) so it was offered to the Ishmaelites (as it will be to the Lamanites).

Was the original intent of "Jihad" to be an offensive military movement? I don't think so. I think it was meant to be a teaching of declaring peace to a nation, and then if that nation continued its offenses, those followers of that teaching were then allowed to defend themselves. This sounds strangely familiar to what we find in the D&C as the only justification for violence. I do not think that Islam in its modern form is inspired or saving or credible. Nor do I think the modern version of jihad is valid. I don't think it has maintained its original intent. However, I think if we would go back to the source, we might be surprised. If Mohammed actually did have heavenly visions, as did Joseph, even just angelic visions, I think that at the well-spring of Islam we may find something very similar to Mormonism. On the other hand, we may find that Mohammed was deceived. We are not privy to that information. Personally, I doubt that Mohamed ever received the promises given to Abraham granting a perpetual covenant to his seed, otherwise Islam would have perpetuated ordinances, which it seems they haven't, but that doesn't mean that he wasn't on the path to those promises at some point. As an important note, I don't think I have received those promises either. I think that outside of Joseph, very very few men, if any, have in this dispensation. I could be wrong...but so could you.

We look at history through a very western lens, and we tend to look at results rather than actual facts. For example, Mormonism is much much different than it was when Joseph received it, but do we blame Joseph for that or those who have come after him. I imagine Islam is vastly different than Mohammed (or even God) intended for it to be. But should we blame Mohammed for that? I am only responding because I think you misunderstood my original post. I just wanted to clarify what I meant, and we may just have to respectfully disagree, but I think there are striking parallels in what you said in response and what I said in my original post. Thanks for the reply Oldmandalton.

[Oldemandaltoncaptain of 1,000]

chasetafer0707
Haha, I guess you don't see the interesting parallels in what you wrote an what I said. Of course we look at the situation and see the vast differences between Mormonism and Islam. That is how we operate. But look at what you just said. "It was started by a man, Mohammed, who claimed to be a prophet and to have received revelations from God." Isn't that what people say about Joseph Smith? Those of use who believe obviously refute critics disagreement that our church was founded by a man by telling them that we have a testimony. Well, what if Mohammed really did have significant spiritual experiences because of his righteousness which he unsuccessfully attempted to present to his posterity? Could his experiences have been akin to what Joseph experienced when he sought for divine guidance?

No I think their experiences were different because Joseph Smith actually DID see God the Father, Jesus Christ, and many other heavenly beings while, IMO, Mohammed did not. Why do I believe this? When the apostasy occurred there was no more priesthood on the earth nor any more prophets or visitations by angles. Daniel prophesied that this apostasy would last 1260 years which is long after Mohammed’s establishing the religion of Islam. If the apostasy did last 1260 years then there were no prophets or priesthood holders during this time.

See:
The 1260 Year Prophecy
http://mormonprophets.org/prophecies/the-1260-year-prophecy

Quotes From Modern Prophets
http://mormonprophets.org/prophecies/quotes-from-modern-prophets

What if after Israel's failure to maintain the gospel covenant (around the time when Christ's church drifted into apostasy, which you said was around the date of Mohammed's theophany), God offered the gospel to those who were not of the covenant lineage. For example, the gospel going to the Gentiles (maybe we can lump Ishmael in with the Gentiles) which it did. You also bring up the example of the Nephites and the Lamanites. Of course the Nephites had the gospel anciently and the Lamanites traditionally did not...but who is going to be gathered as the remnant in the end? The Lamanites. Perhaps this is a parallel example. Israel failed to keep the covenant (like the Nephites) so it was offered to the Ishmaelites (as it will be to the Lamanites).

You bare correct that after the rejection of the gospel by the Jews it went to the Gentiles. The Church was to be on the earth till 570 AD, when the Great Apostasy began. This is decades before Mohammed started Islam so it could not have been ordained of God.

See:
Seven Proofs Of The Great Apostasy
http://mormonprophets.org/prophecies/seven-proofs-of-the-great-apostasy

Was the original intent of "Jihad" to be an offensive military movement? I don't think so. I think it was meant to be a teaching of declaring peace to a nation, and then if that nation continued its offenses, those followers of that teaching were then allowed to defend themselves. This sounds strangely familiar to what we find in the D&C as the only justification for violence. I do not think that Islam in its modern form is inspired or saving or credible. Nor do I think the modern version of jihad is valid. I don't think it has maintained its original intent. However, I think if we would go back to the source, we might be surprised. If Mohammed actually did have heavenly visions, as did Joseph, even just angelic visions, I think that at the well-spring of Islam we may find something very similar to Mormonism. On the other hand, we may find that Mohammed was deceived. We are not privy to that information. Personally, I doubt that Mohamed ever received the promises given to Abraham granting a perpetual covenant to his seed, otherwise Islam would have perpetuated ordinances, which it seems they haven't, but that doesn't mean that he wasn't on the path to those promises at some point. As an important note, I don't think I have received those promises either. I think that outside of Joseph, very very few men, if any, have in this dispensation. I could be wrong...but so could you.

You are right that “jihad” did not have a militaristic meaning in the beginning but gradually evolved into one during Mohammed’s life time. Thus all the wars of aggression and domination when we see that Islam spread by the sword from Arabia into North Africa, Europe, and Asia.

We look at history through a very western lens, and we tend to look at results rather than actual facts. For example, Mormonism is much much different than it was when Joseph received it, but do we blame Joseph for that or those who have come after him. I imagine Islam is vastly different than Mohammed (or even God) intended for it to be. But should we blame Mohammed for that? I am only responding because I think you misunderstood my original post. I just wanted to clarify what I meant, and we may just have to respectfully disagree, but I think there are striking parallels in what you said in response and what I said in my original post. Thanks for the reply Oldmandalton.

Actually Islam has changed little over the centuries.

We as LDS have an advantage over other churches because we have living prophets to help interpret the scriptures and understand God’s will. We know the importance of priesthood authority and how it is necessary to administer in God’s Church. Without revelation and the priesthood men have created churches which may have similarities to God’s true church but do not have the full truth. They are churches who truly have “the philosophies of men mingled with scripture”.

Go here to learn about Islamic on a friendly site:
http://www.islamicity.com/education/understandingislamandmuslims/?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

And here for an opposing view:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/History.htm

[chasecaptain of 100]

chasetafer0707
Haha, I guess you don't see the interesting parallels in what you wrote an what I said. Of course we look at the situation and see the vast differences between Mormonism and Islam. That is how we operate. But look at what you just said. "It was started by a man, Mohammed, who claimed to be a prophet and to have received revelations from God." Isn't that what people say about Joseph Smith? Those of use who believe obviously refute critics disagreement that our church was founded by a man by telling them that we have a testimony. Well, what if Mohammed really did have significant spiritual experiences because of his righteousness which he unsuccessfully attempted to present to his posterity? Could his experiences have been akin to what Joseph experienced when he sought for divine guidance?

No I think their experiences were different because Joseph Smith actually DID see God the Father, Jesus Christ, and many other heavenly beings while, IMO, Mohammed did not. Why do I believe this? When the apostasy occurred there was no more priesthood on the earth nor any more prophets or visitations by angles. Daniel prophesied that this apostasy would last 1260 years which is long after Mohammed’s establishing the religion of Islam. If the apostasy did last 1260 years then there were no prophets or priesthood holders during this time.

See:
The 1260 Year Prophecy
http://mormonprophets.org/prophecies/the-1260-year-prophecy

Quotes From Modern Prophets
http://mormonprophets.org/prophecies/quotes-from-modern-prophets

What if after Israel's failure to maintain the gospel covenant (around the time when Christ's church drifted into apostasy, which you said was around the date of Mohammed's theophany), God offered the gospel to those who were not of the covenant lineage. For example, the gospel going to the Gentiles (maybe we can lump Ishmael in with the Gentiles) which it did. You also bring up the example of the Nephites and the Lamanites. Of course the Nephites had the gospel anciently and the Lamanites traditionally did not...but who is going to be gathered as the remnant in the end? The Lamanites. Perhaps this is a parallel example. Israel failed to keep the covenant (like the Nephites) so it was offered to the Ishmaelites (as it will be to the Lamanites).

You bare correct that after the rejection of the gospel by the Jews it went to the Gentiles. The Church was to be on the earth till 570 AD, when the Great Apostasy began. This is decades before Mohammed started Islam so it could not have been ordained of God.

See:
Seven Proofs Of The Great Apostasy
http://mormonprophets.org/prophecies/seven-proofs-of-the-great-apostasy

Was the original intent of "Jihad" to be an offensive military movement? I don't think so. I think it was meant to be a teaching of declaring peace to a nation, and then if that nation continued its offenses, those followers of that teaching were then allowed to defend themselves. This sounds strangely familiar to what we find in the D&C as the only justification for violence. I do not think that Islam in its modern form is inspired or saving or credible. Nor do I think the modern version of jihad is valid. I don't think it has maintained its original intent. However, I think if we would go back to the source, we might be surprised. If Mohammed actually did have heavenly visions, as did Joseph, even just angelic visions, I think that at the well-spring of Islam we may find something very similar to Mormonism. On the other hand, we may find that Mohammed was deceived. We are not privy to that information. Personally, I doubt that Mohamed ever received the promises given to Abraham granting a perpetual covenant to his seed, otherwise Islam would have perpetuated ordinances, which it seems they haven't, but that doesn't mean that he wasn't on the path to those promises at some point. As an important note, I don't think I have received those promises either. I think that outside of Joseph, very very few men, if any, have in this dispensation. I could be wrong...but so could you.

You are right that “jihad” did not have a militaristic meaning in the beginning but gradually evolved into one during Mohammed’s life time. Thus all the wars of aggression and domination when we see that Islam spread by the sword from Arabia into North Africa, Europe, and Asia.

We look at history through a very western lens, and we tend to look at results rather than actual facts. For example, Mormonism is much much different than it was when Joseph received it, but do we blame Joseph for that or those who have come after him. I imagine Islam is vastly different than Mohammed (or even God) intended for it to be. But should we blame Mohammed for that? I am only responding because I think you misunderstood my original post. I just wanted to clarify what I meant, and we may just have to respectfully disagree, but I think there are striking parallels in what you said in response and what I said in my original post. Thanks for the reply Oldmandalton.

Actually Islam has changed little over the centuries.

We as LDS have an advantage over other churches because we have living prophets to help interpret the scriptures and understand God’s will. We know the importance of priesthood authority and how it is necessary to administer in God’s Church. Without revelation and the priesthood men have created churches which may have similarities to God’s true church but do not have the full truth. They are churches who truly have “the philosophies of men mingled with scripture”.

Go here to learn about Islamic on a friendly site:
http://www.islamicity.com/education/understandingislamandmuslims/?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

And here for an opposing view:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/History.htm

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I can see this becoming just a back and forth about things you say that I disagree with and vice versa. Thanks for your replies.

[Oldemandaltoncaptain of 1,000]

chasetafer0707
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I can see this becoming just a back and forth about things you say that I disagree with and vice versa. Thanks for your replies.

It’s the back and forth where we can understand each other’s position, chasetafer0707. I am not trying to be combative just trying to understand your position while expressing mine. I am not sure where you stand on Islam and the prophet Mohammed. I get the impression you believe that he could have been a prophet who receive revelation from God and that the religion he started deviated from his teachings.

Can I ask a few direct questions to more understand your position?

Do you believe that Mohamed received revelation and was visited by angles?

Are the Qur’an and the hadith scripture, written by inspiration and direction from God just as the Bible and Book of Mormon were?


Joseph Smith is a good example of a prophet who was called of God to restore His church on earth. He claims to have seen God, record scriptures (B of M, D & C), and receive revelation to start a religion. There is not middle point where it comes to the truth. Either Joseph Smith was a charlatan and made up his visions and wrote fiction calling them scripture OR he did as he says and translated ancient records of God’s people from this continent and was visited by God and Jesus Christ himself and was commanded to restore His Church. I believe and know he did and that through Joseph Smith the Priesthood and Christ’s Church was restored and we have living prophets again on the earth to guide mankind.
The same goes for Mohammed. Either he did receive revelation from God, was visited by angles, and wrote scripture OR he did not. One or the other occurred, both cannot be true.

[AussieOicaptain of 1,000]

I am not sure where you stand on Islam and the prophet Mohammed

Gods spirit was poured out on all man and part of it found its way to Mohammed

Official. Church. Position

[Oldemandaltoncaptain of 1,000]

Every religion has truth AussieOi. My question was is Mohammed a prophet who spoke with God and was visited by angels. Also whether the Qu'ran is the word of God just as the Bible and B of M are.

[ldsfireguycaptain of 100]

Noah did NOT visit Mohammed and instruct him to start the Muslim faith. That did NOT happen - Noah was as familiar with the Truth as any man who ever lived.

Does that mean that Mohammed did not have any divine truth? Of course not, he had plenty. But it means that the "angel" who visited Mohammed was no angel, any more than were the beings who visited Ellen White, Mary Baker Eddy, or any other founders of such religions. The followers are sincere, in most instances good, and possess truths that sometimes are not yet possessed in the gospel ... but they are false religions founded upon false revelation by someone masquerading as an angel of light.

[ndjilicaptain of 100]

Muhammad received his first revelation in 610, on the mountain of Hira outside Mecca. The revelation came in a time when Muhammad searched for solitude. Muhammad received the first fraction of the Holy Koran from the angel Gabriel, and experienced first great pain, and feared that he was going to die. Muhammad was ordered to recite. The first fraction Muhammad received is believed to be the beginning of sura 96:

1 Recite in the name of your Lord, who created,
2 created mankind from clots of blood,
3 recite, and your Lord will be the bountiful,
4 he who have taught by the pen,
5 taught mankind what was not known.

Most of the stories of Muhammeds first vision are terrifying. In contrast to those of Joseph Smith or Moses..only the ones from Satan are painful or terrifying.

Christians believe that Jesus was divine, the actual son of God. Moslems believe that Muhammad was a mortal man, not at all divine. Rather, they see Muhammad as a prophet, in fact, the last and most important of the great prophets (such as Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus).

inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock

S In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One. He has
no associate. Unto Him belongeth sovereignity and unto Him belongeth praise. He quickeneth and He giveth death; and He has Power over all things. Muhammad is the servant of God and His Messenger.
SE Lo! God and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet.
O ye who believe! Ask blessings on him and salute him with a worthy salutation. The blessing of God be on him and peace be
on him, and may God have mercy. O People of the Book! Do not exaggerate in your religion
E nor utter aught concerning God save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of
Mary, was only a Messenger of God, and His Word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit
from Him. So believe in God and His messengers, and say not 'Three' - Cease! (it is)
NE better for you! - God is only One God. Far be it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is
in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And God is
sufficient as Defender. The Messiah will never scorn to be a
N servant unto God, nor will the favoured angels. Whoso scorneth
His service and is proud, all such will He assemble unto Him.
Oh God, bless Your Messenger and Your servant Jesus
NW son of Mary. Peace be on him the day he was born, and the day he dies,
and the day he shall be raised alive! Such was Jesus, son of Mary, (this is) a statement of
the truth concerning which they doubt. It befitteth not (the Majesty of) God that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him!
W When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is.
Lo! God is my Lord and your Lord. So serve Him. That is the right path. God (Himself) is witness that there is no God
save Him. And the angels and the men of learning (too are witness). Maintaining His creation in justice, there is no God save Him,
SW the Almighty, the Wise. Lo! religion with God (is) Islam. Those who (formerly) received the Book
differed only after knowledge came unto them, through transgression among themselves. Whoso
disbelieveth the revelations of God (will find that) lo! God is swift at reckoning!

These statements are anti-christ. Just because all religions have kernels of truth it does not make them true...hence the importance of the restoration.

I fear that the truthers forget that the Muslim Brotherhood always worked with the Nazis.

[chasecaptain of 100]

Noah did NOT visit Mohammed and instruct him to start the Muslim faith. That did NOT happen - Noah was as familiar with the Truth as any man who ever lived.

Does that mean that Mohammed did not have any divine truth? Of course not, he had plenty. But it means that the "angel" who visited Mohammed was no angel, any more than were the beings who visited Ellen White, Mary Baker Eddy, or any other founders of such religions. The followers are sincere, in most instances good, and possess truths that sometimes are not yet possessed in the gospel ... but they are false religions founded upon false revelation by someone masquerading as an angel of light.

Perhaps Noah DID visit Mohammed and DID instruct him to restore the gospel. Perhaps the people who followed Mohammed failed to maintain that covenant. The truth is we do not know. So to say conclusively that Mohammed was NOT inspired by a divine mandate or to say conclusively that he DID receive a divine commission is ignorant. Mohammed was either inspired or uninspired, and we just do not know if he was or not. We assume that he was not because Islam "looks" different than we suppose the gospel should look. Well, if we saw the Kirtland and Nauvoo church it would look very different to us than Mormonism looks today. People fail to maintain the gospel covenant all throughout scriptural history, and therefore, their religions take on a different "look." To say that Islam was originally uninspired would be just as ignorant as saying that modern Judaism sprang from a wholly uninspired source or Catholicism sprang from a wholly uninspired source. Both were mistaken interpretations of a true religion. Is it a far-fetched idea that Islam too may be a mistaken interpretation of a true religion / revelation? The difference is that we may not have record of the supposed restoration attempt through the prophet Mohammed. The revelations given in our dispensation do not give us the right nor even the clearest lens through which to view the past. In the end, if we are truly honest with ourselves, we don't know if Mohammed was inspired or not, but it is hard to say that it would be inexcusible for him to have a visionary revelation while maintaining that Joseph did. If you disagree with this post, that's fine, but I would like for someone to show any evidence that Mohammed did not have any sort of revelation.

[AussieOicaptain of 1,000]

i understand our official position is that he had a portfolio of gods light given to him

we say the same about luther and others like that

whether we actually believe that or not i dont know. in truth it may just be an olive leaf statement. we are good for them

[ndjilicaptain of 100]

In the end, if we are truly honest with ourselves, we don't know if Mohammed was inspired or not, but it is hard to say that it would be inexcusible for him to have a visionary revelation while maintaining that Joseph did. If you disagree with this post, that's fine, but I would like for someone to show any evidence that Mohammed did not have any sort of revelation.

I dont think anyone is denying Muhammad had visions and revelations...but rather asking who the source was. God is not the only one who gives revelation....But Satan will try as well...masked as an angel of light. We are given the sign to tell a false prophet...by their fruits ye shall know them.

[jimmy kcaptain of 50]

It has been said on this thread that God gave muhammed a portion of light.
If he did do you not think that he would have given him the most important portion of all.
JESUS CHRIST IS THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD and any religion that does not reconise or teach this
has NO FOUNDATION AT ALL.
You want to know if the koran is true pray about and if the Spirit testifys to you that it is true then you have your answer. But make sure the right spirit is testifying to you.

[Book of Ruthcaptain of 100]

It has been said on this thread that God gave muhammed a portion of light.
If he did do you not think that he would have given him the most important portion of all.
JESUS CHRIST IS THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD and any religion that does not reconise or teach this
has NO FOUNDATION AT ALL.
You want to know if the koran is true pray about and if the Spirit testifys to you that it is true then you have your answer. But make sure the right spirit is testifying to you.

Thank YOU!!!!! Only Satan would create a religion that directly teaches against Jesus Christ being the Son of God!!!!!

[ndjilicaptain of 100]

“By every possible means he seeks to darken the minds of men and then offers them falsehood and deception in the guise of truth. Satan is a skillful imitator, and as genuine gospel truth is given the world in ever-increasing abundance, so he spreads the counterfeit coin of false doctrine. … [As] the ‘father of lies’ he has … become, through the ages of practice in his nefarious work,” such an adept “that were it possible he would deceive the very elect.”

We know that there is available to each of us the gift of the Holy Ghost—the power of revelation which embraces the gift of discernment by which we may unerringly detect the devil and the counterfeits he is so successfully foisting upon this gullible generation.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2005/02/satan-the-great-deceiver?lang=eng&query=satan+knows+scriptures

[mes5464captain of 1,000]

I don't care what anyone else says, Sharia law in America is bad. See the case in point.

US Judge rules Muslims have a right to assault people who offend them
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49740

[chasecaptain of 100]

chasetafer0707
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I can see this becoming just a back and forth about things you say that I disagree with and vice versa. Thanks for your replies.

It’s the back and forth where we can understand each other’s position, chasetafer0707. I am not trying to be combative just trying to understand your position while expressing mine. I am not sure where you stand on Islam and the prophet Mohammed. I get the impression you believe that he could have been a prophet who receive revelation from God and that the religion he started deviated from his teachings.

Can I ask a few direct questions to more understand your position?

Do you believe that Mohamed received revelation and was visited by angles?

Are the Qur’an and the hadith scripture, written by inspiration and direction from God just as the Bible and Book of Mormon were?


Joseph Smith is a good example of a prophet who was called of God to restore His church on earth. He claims to have seen God, record scriptures (B of M, D & C), and receive revelation to start a religion. There is not middle point where it comes to the truth. Either Joseph Smith was a charlatan and made up his visions and wrote fiction calling them scripture OR he did as he says and translated ancient records of God’s people from this continent and was visited by God and Jesus Christ himself and was commanded to restore His Church. I believe and know he did and that through Joseph Smith the Priesthood and Christ’s Church was restored and we have living prophets again on the earth to guide mankind.
The same goes for Mohammed. Either he did receive revelation from God, was visited by angles, and wrote scripture OR he did not. One or the other occurred, both cannot be true.

I don't feel like you are combative. It's just that I don't feel like many people are apt to agree with my assessment of Mohammed, and I just thought I'd bow out of the debate now, rather than 10 posts from now after arguing the same point back and forth. But since you asked me some questions, I'll answer them. Thanks for your interest in my opinion.

I think it is possible that Mohammed received revelation and was visited by angels. Whether he did or not, is a question of history, not of opinion.

I have not read the religious literature of Mohammed, but I suspect if it were authentic at the time it was first reduced to writing, that it too, like the Bible, would be subject to mishandling, misinterpretation, mistranslation, and malicious rewriting.

As far as Joseph Smith as a comparison, I believe that in his ministry there are many points at which he could have deviated from the Lord's proscribed course. We have one example with the 116 pages and possibly a few more, that actually occurred. So I don't think that being a prophet is a black and white picture. I don't think that a man receives a prophetic calling and then stands above the mortal tendency to err. Joseph really struggled during his life, not just with external trials, but with understanding and applying doctrine. I think polygamy is a wonderful example of this. He was a man, and the path he walked was flawed, just as any man's. He encourages his followers not to rely too heavily upon him (Nauvoo--May 26 1842), but to rely upon God. Thus we see, that while Joseph was an inspired prophet and while his words are indispensible for counsel and doctrine, we would do well to place our faith in Christ alone and to measure all of Joseph's words carefully under the lens of both scripture and personal revelation by the Holy Ghost. He was a great prophet, but he was mortal and susceptible to all sorts of human frailty. Furthermore, the Old Testament is an abundant witness that the callings of every prophet are not always the same. God calls prophets to fulfill differing roles throughout history, not the exact same role in all cases. Thus, we cannot judge Mohammed's ministry by direct comparison or contrast to Joseph's.

Mohammed was similar to Joseph in a few regards, however. They were both human and subject to like weaknesses. They both claimed to have had heavenly visions. They were both, directly or indirectly, founders of a religion. Both of the religions they founded appear very different today from the point at which they were founded. Whether Mohammed completed a faithful ministry or got sidetracked and fell away from his mission at one point, I don't know. I believe Joseph was faithful to his sacred calling, but I don't believe that it would have been impossible for him to fall, if he strayed too far from the path. And so I have compassion for Mohammed, whether or not he had heavenly visions and had a divine mandate. I can't be that judge, so in the meantime I'll take him at his word, or at least what I perceive his word to be. I am not a follower of Islam, nor am I a follower of a man who was maybe a prophet (Mohammed). However, I don't judge Mohammed based upon the mistakes of his followers or those who claim to be (modern Islam). Could he have been a false prophet? Yes. Could he have been inspired? Yes. Could he have failed in his ministry? Yes. Could he have succeeded in his ministry and subsequently his followers failed? Yes.

I concede, my opinion would hold more weight if I had actually read some of the Koran. I don't think I would be content just to rely upon other men's interpretations of the book in forming my own opinion of it, however.

I agree with your last statement. "Either he did receive revelation from God, was visited by angles, and wrote scripture OR he did not. One or the other occurred, both cannot be true." It has to be one or the other. However, you have not accounted for our ability to misinterpret what happened. Yes, he either was a prophet and wrote scripture OR he was not and did not. This statement IS black or white. However history often IS NOT black and white. You have to wrestle with historic questions as well, and that is where things get misty. "Did the Koran get tampered with?" "Did his followers obey or disobey his teachings?" etc. So the question is not so simple when you compound it with the shortcomings of millions of people that came after Mohammed. The study of this question could occupy scholars for their entire lifetimes, and I don't plan on being one of them. Therefore, I'm not too inclined to continue to speculate too much farther, except to say that I really don't know, but I err on the side of giving Mohammed the benefit of the doubt because I see common threads between he and Joseph. Who am I to judge?

[InfoWarrior82captain of 1,000]

It's possible there was an apostasy with the origins of Islam. It could have been pure revelation which was immediately lost and corrupted. Mohammed, as I understand, was illiterate and had others keep the records.

[iamse7encaptain of 1,000]

For what it's worth...

"I have heard Joseph Smith, Jr., say that he believed Mahomet was a good man; that the Koran was not a true thing, but the world belied Mahomet, as they had belied him, and that Mahomet Was A True Prophet!!" (George M. Hinkle, Correspondence and Orders, 1841, p.128)

Soon after the dissenters were driven away from Caldwell county, I was in Far-West, in Corill’s [Corrill's] store, perhaps the last of June last, and heard Joseph Smith, jun., say, that he believed Mahomet was an inspired man, and had done a great deal of good, and that he intended to take the same course Mahomet did; that if the people would let him alone, he would, after a while, die a natural death; but if they did not, he would make it one gore of blood from the Rocky Mountains to the State of Maine. (Testimony of George Walter, in James H. Hunt, Mormonism: Embracing the Origin, Rise and Progress of the Sect, with an Examination of the Book of Mormon)

I have heard the prophet say that he should yet tread down his enemies, and walk over their dead bodies; that if he was not let alone he would be a second Mahomet to this generation, and that he would make it one gore of blood from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean; that like Mahomet, whose motto, in treating for peace, was” the Alcoran or the Sword,” so should it be eventually with us, “Joseph Smith or the Sword.” These last statements were made during the last summer. (Affidavit of Thomas B. Marsh, Richmond, Missouri, October 24, 1838)

[gdemetzcaptain of 100]

FAIR has some interesting insights into those alleged statements. In my own opinion, I think that the second hand information got upgraded from an inspired man to a true prophet. Also, some of the other second hand statements were given by members that were at the time estranged from the church, and FAIR mentions that some were recanted later. I also think, as FAIR points out, that some of the bolder statements were for the benefit of their enemies. Also, if Mohammad were really a true prophet, then Islam which he founded should be a true religion. However, under close examination it is clearly just another part of the church of the devil if Nephi is to be believed.