![\"Arabic](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/186\/2015\/01\/640px-Quran-Mushaf_Al_Tajweed.jpg\")
<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n
Continuing with the discussion that I began in a prior entry, \u201cHow can a Latter-day Saint entertain the possibility that Muhammad might have been a prophet? (Part One)\u201d<\/a>:<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n The Facebook comments from Richard Giroux appear in red. \u00a0My one additional Facebook response will appear in green, while my responses here will simply appear in the ordinary default black.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cTruth exists independent of the speaker\/messenger of it. According to the LDS canon, Satan spoke truth, accompanied by lies, to Adam and Eve in the Garden and also when tempting Jesus. By extension of your argument, people should welcome truth from whatever source\u2013even from Satan.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span> \u00a0<\/p>\n A number of others had weighed in on the discussion in the interim, so I indicated a degree of puzzlement:<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019m not sure who it is that you think you\u2019re debating with,\u00a0Richard Giroux.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cI am criticizing the points you made in your piece. Whether it is a debate or not depends on the willingness of someone else to take up the other side.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cA more general criticism starts with a straw man that you set up so as to provide contrast to what you assert is a Mormon \u2018middle position.\u2019 I consider myself reasonably well read, but I do not believe that there is much, if any, currency in society asserting that people such as Ghandi, Tolstoy or MLK are prophets. People are sometimes metaphorically called prophets, such as Warren Buffet being called the \u201cOracle of Omaha\u201d but not in the sense that they are channeling some divine message that originates outside of their own rational processes.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Okay. \u00a0Now that things are a bit clearer, I\u2019ll reply.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n 1.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Yes, I believe that people should welcome truth no matter whence it comes.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n We certainly don\u2019t believe in rejecting truth merely on account of its source. \u00a0Two plus two will still equal four even if Satan says so. \u00a0The fact that Goebbels and Stalin believed that circles contain 360 degrees and that Moscow is a Russian city doesn\u2019t render\u00a0those\u00a0beliefs false.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n 2.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cI suspect that before you quoted the Qur\u2019an in Church (presumably in the context of using it as a source of truth), you had vetted it against your own view of Mormon doctrine. . . . \u00a0If a Mormon believes that Mohammed taught a truth, it is because it comports, or least does not conflict, with LDS teachings.\u201d<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n There is some validity in that observation. \u00a0I wouldn\u2019t be inclined to regard or use a statement as \u201cinspired\u201d if (a) its inspiration were unestablished\u00a0and (b) what it had to say clearly and directly conflicted with statements whose inspiration I regarded as securely established. \u00a0But this is no different, really, than being reluctant\u00a0to accept, say, a new and questionable historical source when it conflicts with an array of already-validated\u00a0historical data. \u00a0Likewise, if reliable witnesses had strongly testified to a fact in a criminal trial, a new and questionable contradictory witness would not likely overturn their testimony.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n 3.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cIn that way, the Qu\u2019ran really didn\u2019t add to your accepted collection of truths, but was used as another example to teach a truth that you already believed.\u201d<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Well, yes and no.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n There are expressions in the Qur\u2019an that are wonderfully eloquent. \u00a0I find myself citing them sometimes \u2014 even in discussions on Mormon or other non-Islamic topics \u2014 to make a point when they seem better phrased than anything else I know.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n There are also insights in the Qur\u2019an that, in my judgment, might help in understanding Latter-day Saint beliefs\/practices (including some temple issues). \u00a0I\u2019m working on a book (for a non-LDS audience) that will systematically deploy some of these insights. \u00a0If any Latter-day Saints eventually read it, they\u2019ll readily see what I mean.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n 4.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cIf a Mormon believes that Mohammed taught a truth, it is because it comports, or least does not conflict, with LDS teachings.\u00a0It is quite another thing to accept Mohammed or anyone else as a prophet\u2013and thereby accept his\/her teachings with the same openness as the teachings of Joseph Smith.\u201d<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n I\u2019ve not suggested that Latter-day Saints should accept the Qur\u2019an (at least, as we currently have it) as scripture on a par with the four \u201cstandard works,\u201d nor that they should regard Muhammad (at least, as we currently possess his teachings) as a prophet equally authoritative with Joseph Smith.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n My view of the Qur\u2019an (and its status for Latter-day Saints) is closely analogous to the view of the biblical apocrypha expressed in a revelation given through Joseph Smith\u00a0at Kirtland, Ohio, on 9 March 1833, as he was working on what would eventually become the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible:<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n 1\u00a0<\/span>Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the\u00a0Apocrypha\u2014There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;<\/strong><\/p>\n 2\u00a0<\/span>There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are\u00a0interpolations\u00a0by the hands of men.<\/strong><\/p>\n 3\u00a0<\/span>Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be\u00a0translated.<\/strong><\/p>\n 4\u00a0<\/span>Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him\u00a0understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth;<\/strong><\/p>\n 5\u00a0<\/span>And whoso is enlightened by the\u00a0Spirit\u00a0shall obtain benefit therefrom;<\/strong><\/p>\n 6\u00a0<\/span>And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited. Therefore it is not needful that it should be translated. Amen.<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n 5.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cA more general criticism starts with a straw man that you set up so as to provide contrast to what you assert is a Mormon \u2018middle position.\u2019 I consider myself reasonably well read, but I do not believe that there is much, if any, currency in society asserting that people such as Ghandi, Tolstoy or MLK are prophets. People are sometimes metaphorically called prophets, such as Warren Buffet being called the \u201cOracle of Omaha\u201d but not in the sense that they are channeling some divine message that originates outside of their own rational processes.\u201d<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n I deny that I set up a \u201cstraw man,\u201d and I point out that \u2014 on the whole \u2014 we don\u2019t really much disagree in this regard.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n We do disagree, though, about whether people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King have been called \u201cprophets.\u201d \u00a0In my experience, they have. \u00a0And not uncommonly. \u00a0(Perhaps Tolstoy, too, although I can\u2019t offhand remember a particular case of that.)<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n But, yes, they\u2019ve been called \u201cprophets\u201d more or less metaphorically. \u00a0However, those who call them \u201cprophets\u201d not uncommonly have a similar\u00a0view of many of the biblical<\/em> prophets, as well. \u00a0Amos and Micah were calling for social justice and reform, such folks say, in much the same way that Gandhi and Dr. King were seeking reform and social justice. \u00a0Those who speak this way place\u00a0much less emphasis on notions of literal and authoritative divine communication\u00a0than Latter-day Saints typically do \u2014 and may not even believe in it at all. \u00a0Thus, it\u2019s not at all uncommon to hear that Nelson Mandela or Archbishop Desmond Tutu spoke \u201cprophetically,\u201d without there being the slightest hint that they received literal visions or propositional revelations from God.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n I\u2019ve been commenting on such usage for many years now, and this is the middle ground on which I see Latter-day Saints standing:<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n On the \u201cleft,\u201d there are those who are willing to recognize \u201cprophets\u201d all around the world, in different religious and cultural traditions. \u00a0In doing so, though, they tend to downplay the \u201cliterality\u201d of revelation and prophethood \u2014 certainly in comparison to standard Latter-day Saint usage \u2014 and, very often (though this is less essential to my point), to privilege a \u201cprogressive\u201d or \u201csocial justice\u201d political sensibility.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Latter-day Saints share in that willingness to see inspiration and (sometimes) even prophethood beyond the confines of the Bible. \u00a0That\u2019s obvious in our acceptance of the Book of Mormon and the claim of a continuing line of modern prophets and apostles \u2014 but also in explicit authoritative declarations from our apostles and prophets that the Founding Fathers, the Protestant Reformers, Confucius, Plato, Muhammad<\/em>, and others received inspiration.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Our Evangelical Protestant brothers and sisters, on the \u201cright,\u201d share the high (literal) Latter-day Saint view of revelation, but restrict such revelation to the closed biblical canon \u2014 a restriction that Latter-day Saints manifestly reject. \u00a0(Indeed, that\u2019s one of the\u00a0defining\u00a0and most revolutionary principles of the Restoration.)<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Hence, in my terminology, Latter-day Saints occupy a middle position between a general recognition of a defined-down prophethood, on the one hand, and, on the other, the restricted allowance of a robust view of prophethood. \u00a0Latter-day Saints posit a spectrum of inspiration and recipients of inspiration, and readily grant that it continues beyond the boundaries of Mormonism.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n (To be continued.)<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u00a0 \u00a0 Continuing with the discussion that I began in a prior entry, \u201cHow can a Latter-day Saint entertain the possibility that Muhammad might have been a prophet? (Part One)\u201d: \u00a0 The Facebook comments from Richard Giroux appear in red. \u00a0My one additional Facebook response will appear in green, while my responses here will simply […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1019,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-45024","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nMy point is that it is hard to separate the message from the messenger. Belief that a messenger is a true prophet lends credence to his\/her teachings.<\/span>
\nMormons validate the \u201ctruths\u201d that others teach by comparison to the revealed truths that comprise Mormonism<\/a>. I suspect that before you quoted the Qur\u2019an in Church (presumably in the context of using it as a source of truth), you had vetted it against your own view of Mormon doctrine<\/a>. In that way, the Qu\u2019ran really didn\u2019t add to your accepted collection of truths, but was used as another example to teach a truth that you already believed.<\/span>
\nIf a Mormon believes that Mohammed taught a truth, it is because it comports, or least does not conflict, with LDS teachings. It is quite another thing to accept Mohammed or anyone else as a prophet\u2013and thereby accept his\/her teachings with the same openness as the teachings of Joseph Smith.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n