LDS Did Joseph Smith succeed in creating an American version of Islam?

[Jane_Doe]

The reference was no doubt to the so-called "Inspired Bible" which Smith produced.

Which you well know is not the "Mormon Bible", but a footnote

 

[Albion]

Which you well know is not the "Mormon Bible", but a footnote

I certainly wouldn't call a 500 page work a "footnote."

And it is used in some Latter-Day Saints churches if not in the "Utah Church."

 

[dzheremi]

The OP is far from the first one to notice the parallels between Mormonism and Islam. Here is a video about that made by a Lutheran YouTube channel:

While the information is presented in a comedic way, I do think there is something to it, at least insofar as Mormonism and Islam both share a kind of 'me too'-ism in their prophetology and epistemology -- for Islam, concerning the Arabs (who didn't necessarily have their own prophet until Muhammad made himself one, despite being visited by the apostles and their disciples, and mentioned explicitly in the Bible as being present at Pentecost), while for Mormonism, concerning a particularly 'American' view of the Biblical narrative (e.g., Adam and Eve being in Jackson County, MO or whatever) and the LDS community as the restoration of the Christian Church via JS. So I could see JS and Mormonism being America's Muhammad/Islam, if it weren't for the fact that we are also cursed with the regular Muhammad and regular Islam, leaving us with two unconvincing restorationist religions. Maybe (and I hate to put it this way, but I think it fits) Mormonism is like Islam for those who don't want to subscribe to the Arab supremacy in Islam, and instead want a kind of American supremacy where they can go to SLC instead of Mecca, don't feel pressured to call themselves Hajji Muhammad Abdallah al-Mortenson or whatever, don't have to pray five times a day, etc., but they can still have the satisfaction of being the obedient followers of God's last, best, most perfect and final revelation, while the rest of us peons linger in our jahiliya/non-Mormonness. Meh.

 

[withwonderingawe]

In the heat of the Missouri “Mormon War” of 1838, Joseph Smith said, “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!’ ”

The following is from Mormonfair;

"The source of this claim is from Thomas B. Marsh, an apostate former president of the Quorum of the Twelve. In 1838, Marsh swore an affidavit in which he claimed to have heard Joseph Smith say:

he would yet tread down his enemies, and walk over their dead bodies; and if he was not let alone, he would be a second Mohammed to this generation, and that it would be one gore of blood from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean; that like Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was, 'the Alcoran or the Sword,' so should it be eventually with us, 'Joseph Smith or the Sword.'

Arnold Green and Lawrence Goldrup noted in 1971 that "this threat was quite probably a mere fabrication by the disgruntled Marsh," and pointed out Orson Hyde (who was also disaffected at the time) later repented and returned, indicating that parts of the affidavit had been invented by Marsh. Marsh himself was later to repent and return to the Church, which casts further doubt on his story.

The tale was also repeated by George M. Hinkle, John Corrill, George Walter, and partially by Abner Scovil. Joseph Smith's journal for the period notes:

"...some excitement was raised in the adjoining Counties, that is Ray & Clay, against us, in consequence of the suden departure of these wicked character, of the apostates from this Church, into that vicinity reporting false stories, and statements, but when they [the Missourians] come to hear the other side of the question their feeling were all allayed upon that subject especially."

Now me speaking;
Joseph was actually a pacifist, in D&C 63 he warns against the shedding of blood when purchasing the land which would become Zion.
"31 And if by blood, as you are forbidden to shed blood, lo, your enemies are upon you, and ye shall be scourged from city to city, and from synagogue to synagogue, and but few shall stand to receive an inheritance.

Well they did shed blood and they were driven from city to city.

again in D&C 87 he reveals
13 Therefore it is expedient in me that mine elders should wait for a little season, for the redemption of Zion.
14 For behold, I do not require at their hands to fight the battles of Zion; for, as I said in a former commandment, even so will I fulfil—I will fight your battles.
37 And inasmuch as they follow the counsel which they receive, they shall have power after many days to accomplish all things pertaining to Zion.
38 And again I say unto you, sue for peace, not only to the people that have smitten you, but also to all people;
39 And lift up an ensign of peace, and make a proclamation of peace unto the ends of the earth;
40 And make proposals for peace unto those who have smitten you, according to the voice of the Spirit which is in you, and all things shall work together for your good.
41 Therefore, be faithful; and behold, and lo, I am with you even unto the end. Even so. Amen.

I have no idea why this line is running through my posting?

 

[withwonderingawe]

is it happening now?


Nope ????

 

[tickingclocker]

"Jane_Doe, post: 69627823, member: 377805"]How about let's look at the big topics, instead of some misc small ones:

1) Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?
. Nicene Christian: yes. Mormons: yes. Muslims: no.
----"A" son of God, or one of many.... Christians: no. Mormons: yes. Muslims: no.

3) Shahadah: sincerely reciting the Muslim profession of faith. (1 of 5 essential pillars of Islam)
. Nicene Christian: yes. Mormons: yes. Muslims: yes.
----Christians: no. Mormons: yes. Muslims: yes. Just because someone "recites" the Nicene creed doesn't mean they automatically become a "Christian". Anyone can "recite" anything they are given to recite. Do they believe it, is the key there. Stating their own LDS Articles of Faith (a creed) is considered stating "truth", as they are considered 'sacred' words in the LDS church. The Nicene Creed has never been considered "sacred" by any Christian church. So nice try, but your suggestion won't be playing in Peoria.

5) Sawm: fasting during the month of Ramadan. (1 of 5 essential pillars of Islam)
. Nicene Christian: no. Mormons: no. Muslims: yes.
----Regular fasting once a month: Christians: no Mormons: yes. Muslims: yes.

Conclusion: Mormonism has a lot more in common with Islam than its members wish to believe, even within the majors. It still does not answer the question of, did JS succeed in creating an American version of Islam? It's not Islam itself, but mormonism is an entirely new (false) religion which had to base itself upon a true, older, established religion. Mormonism is not Christianity. Is it.

 

[tickingclocker]

More similarities:
Angels:
Brought message to JS that God had commissioned him as His last Prophet.
Updated Revision: Brought message to JS that God had commissioned him as a prophet. Despite the fact that God called prophets as He needed them and only for certain periods of time, JS instituted a continual appointment of "prophets", according to physical age, to administrate his LDS church.

Brought message to Muhammad that God had commissioned him as His last Prophet.

Other religions:
Mormonism rejects all religions, including "apostate" Christianity, as having any validity.
Islam rejects all religions, including Christianity and especially Judaism, as having any validity.

Prophecy:
JS could produce divine revelations which suited himself on short notice.
Muhammed could produce divine revelations which suited himself on short notice.

Alterative substances:
Mormonism: No drinking alcohol, hot drinks, caffeine or drugs is allowed.
Islam: No drinking alcohol, but consuming caffeinated drinks, and doing opium/hashish is allowed.

Mission:
Mormonism: "Reform" old religions which have gone astray. If they refuse, be nice to them until they see your values are superior.
Islam: "Reform" old religions which have gone astray. If they refuse, kill them.

Population
Mormonism:Claims to be the fasted growing religion worldwide.
Islam: Claims to be the fasted growing religion worldwide.

 

[fatboys]

More similarities:
Angels:
Brought message to JS that God had commissioned him as His last Prophet.
Brought message to Muhammed that God had commissioned him as His last Prophet.

Other religions:
Mormonism rejects all religions, including "apostate" Christianity, as having any validity.
Islam rejects all religions, including Christianity and especially Judaism, as having any validity.

Prophecy:
JS could produce divine revelations which suited himself on short notice.
Muhammed could produce divine revelations which suited himself on short notice.

Alterative substances:
Mormonism: No drinking alcohol, hot drinks, caffeine or drugs is allowed.
Islam: No drinking alcohol, but consuming caffeinated drinks, and doing opium/hashish is allowed.

Mission:
Mormonism: "Reform" old religions which have gone astray. If they refuse, be nice to them until they see your values are superior.
Islam: "Reform" old religions which have gone astray. If they refuse, kill them.

Population
Mormonism:Claims to be the fasted growing religion worldwide.
Islam: Claims to be the fasted growing religion worldwide.

Lol. I didn't know I was Muslim. By the way I'm not sure wher you got the idea that Joseph Smith was to be the last prophet

 

[dzheremi]

3) Shahadah: sincerely reciting the Muslim profession of faith. (1 of 5 essential pillars of Islam)
. Nicene Christian: yes. Mormons: yes. Muslims: yes.
----Christians: no. Mormons: yes. Muslims: yes. Just because someone "recites" the Nicene creed doesn't mean they automatically become a "Christian". Anyone can "recite" anything they are given to recite. Do they believe it, is the key there. Stating their own LDS Articles of Faith (a creed) is considered stating "truth", as they are considered 'sacred' words in the LDS church. The Nicene Creed has never been considered "sacred" by any Christian church. So nice try, but your suggestion won't be playing in Peoria.

While not 'sacred', exactly, the Nicene Creed is held in high esteem by traditional Christians precisely because it is a clear and concise statement by which all those who would claim to be Christian but would not sincerely recite it and worship according to it are thus exposed. That was indeed the situation on the ground at the time when it was written (lots of different bodies claiming to be the church despite teaching wildly varying theologies, like the Arians, Sabellians, and such), hence it came out of the council of all gathered bishops, from the West straight through to Mesopotamia and beyond. When you can get that much of humanity to agree on such a thing (sure, not down to a man, but at least in terms of the representatives of the Church clear across the world, in the form of the assembled bishops from each church), obviously it's going to leave a big footprint on Christianity as a whole. It's a bit like arguing about the Biblical canon, in a way: Is the canon itself sacred? Well, not exactly; there is no one 'the canon' to speak of (aside from the basic list of 27 NT books, I suppose). But that doesn't prevent us from recognizing the good and useful work of the men who came before us in establishing what we have now. Even Mormons use our 27-book NT canon, despite our being dirty, dirty 'apostates'. Gee, imagine that...

5) Sawm: fasting during the month of Ramadan. (1 of 5 essential pillars of Islam)
. Nicene Christian: no. Mormons: no. Muslims: yes.
----Regular fasting once a month: Christians: no Mormons: yes. Muslims: yes.

I'm not sure that this is a fair comparison. No Christian or claimed-to-be-Christian body follows the Islamic calendar, so we don't have 'Ramadan' to begin with. In basically all of Eastern Christianity (Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Eastern Catholicism, etc.), regular fasting is very much the rule, however. I can't speak for others, but in my communion (the Oriental Orthodox), we keep the traditional Wednesday and Friday fast every week of the year, except for the fifty days between Easter and Pentecost, when we are not allowed to fast at all. I know the Eastern Orthodox are similar, but fast less than we do (they do about half the year, while we do something like 210 days of the year). Even the Roman Catholics used to fast, but that has basically been eliminated with the reforms of the 1960s, and replaced with this really lame, watered down 'do a good deed' sort of substitution. Meh.

It should be noted here, however, that the fasting is not so much an 'essential pillar' like it is for Muslims, and more like a matter of athletic training: You want to get in shape, so you have to modify your diet and exercise accordingly, to take in less food and exercise more. We want to get in spiritual shape, so we modify our diet (fasting) and our exercise (prayer), all in an effort to redouble our fight against the passions that otherwise distract us from the proper worship of God. At least in the Orthodox Church, there is a lot of physicality to the prayer, with prostrations, bows, chanting, etc. It is meant to engage all the senses, and nothing can put you off of that like a big bowl of ice cream and a nap or whatever! But in terms of being an 'essential pillar', it's all relative. Fasting is meant to be normative, but only insofar as it frees you to focus on prayer and other aspects of the Christian life. There have been times in my own life when I was specifically forbidden from fasting by my priest for various health reasons, in which case that became my discipline for those times (hey, obedience is obedience!). At any rate one thing that you can hear from Coptic people is that we aren't to look at another brother's plate during the fast (i.e., focus on what you are doing, not on what others are doing unless it's to encourage, help, and strengthen them). We are pragmatic about it. I'm not sure whether that's the case with Muslims (doubtful, given the number of countries where you can get in trouble for eating in public during Ramadan).

I think reading too much into this idea of Mormonism or any religion having things in common with Islam is a bit silly. Of course it does. Islam stole a lot from Christianity (Christianity I would say incorporated a lot from Judaism, the difference being that we don't shy away from citing our sources, while Islam pretends that before it was created was the 'time of ignorance'...haha) just like Mormonism did, so it's hardly surprising that there would be commonalities. I think the particular things in common between Mormonism and Islam are very interesting indeed (as in the video I posted), but having things in common doesn't in itself mean anything.

When you type in "Coptic prostration" into YouTube, you get a lot of videos from Muslims claiming that we ripped them off...hahaha. Even in our monasteries from the 3rd/4th century (so several centuries before Islam or Muhammad ever existed), as below:

Is this something that we have in common, as Orthodox Christians, with Islam? Absolutely! Does it mean that we are a 'Coptic version of Islam'? Noooooooo! Islam is way late on the scene.

(I know you know this already, tickingclocker, but I'm trying to refocus the conversation slightly, since many of the things that have been brought up as evidence of LDS ties to Islam are also true of Christianity, albeit perhaps not Western Christianity. That doesn't make Mormonism any more true than Islam is, but for the sake of defending traditional practices, I'll stick my neck out a bit. I would think that Mormonism has more in common with Islam theologically and historiographically -- in its rejection of the Trinity, its back-door deification if its prophet, its mode of 'revelation' and so on -- than in terms of praxis; Muslims do have a sort of 'liturgy', in the most basic sense of formalized ritual worship, while LDS do not.)

 

[BigDaddy4]

Stating once again: the "Mormon Bible" is the KJV of the Bible. Is there something about this Bible that you find offensive?

"as far as it it translated correctly."

 

[fatboys]

"as far as it it translated correctly."

And?

 

[Jane_Doe]

"as far as it it translated correctly."

Is you opinion of the Bible such that you would accept a mis-translated version of it? Or is only the most correct acceptable?

 

[tickingclocker]

Lol. I didn't know I was Muslim. By the way I'm not sure wher you got the idea that Joseph Smith was to be the last prophet

Nope. That's not what Armenian John is alluding to. It's a similar religion "like" Islam. You do know what "like" is meant as, don't you? It's similar to "I will be "like" the Most High". Not, "I will be the Most High", because even Satan knew he couldn't replace God. Yet he wanted what God possessed. Absolute power.

 

[tickingclocker]

Is you opinion of the Bible such that you would accept a mis-translated version of it? Or is only the most correct acceptable?

What if it IS correct? Its a distinct possibility, considering its the divine God who is speaking "through men", and not the words of fallible man. How are Mormons going to explain themselves to God then?

 

[dzheremi]

Is there a point in arguing with Mormons over issues of translation accuracy? It'd be like arguing over the accuracy of the Warren Report with a JFK conspiracist.

 

[tickingclocker]

While not 'sacred', exactly, the Nicene Creed is held in high esteem by traditional Christians precisely because it is a clear and concise statement by which all those who would claim to be Christian but would not sincerely recite it and worship according to it are thus exposed. That was indeed the situation on the ground at the time when it was written (lots of different bodies claiming to be the church despite teaching wildly varying theologies, like the Arians, Sabellians, and such), hence it came out of the council of all gathered bishops, from the West straight through to Mesopotamia and beyond. When you can get that much of humanity to agree on such a thing (sure, not down to a man, but at least in terms of the representatives of the Church clear across the world, in the form of the assembled bishops from each church), obviously it's going to leave a big footprint on Christianity as a whole. It's a bit like arguing about the Biblical canon, in a way: Is the canon itself sacred? Well, not exactly; there is no one 'the canon' to speak of (aside from the basic list of 27 NT books, I suppose). But that doesn't prevent us from recognizing the good and useful work of the men who came before us in establishing what we have now. Even Mormons use our 27-book NT canon, despite our being dirty, dirty 'apostates'. Gee, imagine that...



I'm not sure that this is a fair comparison. No Christian or claimed-to-be-Christian body follows the Islamic calendar, so we don't have 'Ramadan' to begin with. In basically all of Eastern Christianity (Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Eastern Catholicism, etc.), regular fasting is very much the rule, however. I can't speak for others, but in my communion (the Oriental Orthodox), we keep the traditional Wednesday and Friday fast every week of the year, except for the fifty days between Easter and Pentecost, when we are not allowed to fast at all. I know the Eastern Orthodox are similar, but fast less than we do (they do about half the year, while we do something like 210 days of the year). Even the Roman Catholics used to fast, but that has basically been eliminated with the reforms of the 1960s, and replaced with this really lame, watered down 'do a good deed' sort of substitution. Meh.

It should be noted here, however, that the fasting is not so much an 'essential pillar' like it is for Muslims, and more like a matter of athletic training: You want to get in shape, so you have to modify your diet and exercise accordingly, to take in less food and exercise more. We want to get in spiritual shape, so we modify our diet (fasting) and our exercise (prayer), all in an effort to redouble our fight against the passions that otherwise distract us from the proper worship of God. At least in the Orthodox Church, there is a lot of physicality to the prayer, with prostrations, bows, chanting, etc. It is meant to engage all the senses, and nothing can put you off of that like a big bowl of ice cream and a nap or whatever! But in terms of being an 'essential pillar', it's all relative. Fasting is meant to be normative, but only insofar as it frees you to focus on prayer and other aspects of the Christian life. There have been times in my own life when I was specifically forbidden from fasting by my priest for various health reasons, in which case that became my discipline for those times (hey, obedience is obedience!). At any rate one thing that you can hear from Coptic people is that we aren't to look at another brother's plate during the fast (i.e., focus on what you are doing, not on what others are doing unless it's to encourage, help, and strengthen them). We are pragmatic about it. I'm not sure whether that's the case with Muslims (doubtful, given the number of countries where you can get in trouble for eating in public during Ramadan).

I think reading too much into this idea of Mormonism or any religion having things in common with Islam is a bit silly. Of course it does. Islam stole a lot from Christianity (Christianity I would say incorporated a lot from Judaism, the difference being that we don't shy away from citing our sources, while Islam pretends that before it was created was the 'time of ignorance'...haha) just like Mormonism did, so it's hardly surprising that there would be commonalities. I think the particular things in common between Mormonism and Islam are very interesting indeed (as in the video I posted), but having things in common doesn't in itself mean anything.

When you type in "Coptic prostration" into YouTube, you get a lot of videos from Muslims claiming that we ripped them off...hahaha. Even in our monasteries from the 3rd/4th century (so several centuries before Islam or Muhammad ever existed), as below:

Is this something that we have in common, as Orthodox Christians, with Islam? Absolutely! Does it mean that we are a 'Coptic version of Islam'? Noooooooo! Islam is way late on the scene.

(I know you know this already, tickingclocker, but I'm trying to refocus the conversation slightly, since many of the things that have been brought up as evidence of LDS ties to Islam are also true of Christianity, albeit perhaps not Western Christianity. That doesn't make Mormonism any more true than Islam is, but for the sake of defending traditional practices, I'll stick my neck out a bit. I would think that Mormonism has more in common with Islam theologically and historiographically -- in its rejection of the Trinity, its back-door deification if its prophet, its mode of 'revelation' and so on -- than in terms of praxis; Muslims do have a sort of 'liturgy', in the most basic sense of formalized ritual worship, while LDS do not.)

Absolutely. Your posts are an absolute and continual joy to read. Every single one of them, and every single word.
I couldn't agree more.

It's not like Armenian John was claiming that mormonism IS Islam. I knew Mormons would latch on to that tail. I just knew it. It's not that mormonism is Islam, but it does bear some similarities in its religion "to" Islam. It does appear that JS did borrow quite a lot from it, but he also borrowed quite a lot from "dirty apostate Christianity", just as you said. Then altered everything to suit his own ideology.

Both do defend their own prophets vociferously, to the point of idol worship in our eyes. Maybe not to their perspective, but it does seem quite odd to us for them to defend obviously fallible men as they do. It's as if their faith depends upon... their prophets. Not God. That's the way we see it.

 

[tickingclocker]

Is there a point in arguing with Mormons over issues of translation accuracy? It'd be like arguing over the accuracy of the Warren Report with a JFK conspiracist.

I guess we are hoping that we will both be able to finally share some common ground in the bible at some point in time. Mormonism's "iffy-ness" on the infallibility of the bible seems more adjustable than our firm stand upon God's Word remaining divine, i.e., being precisely accurate. We will not budge from that stand. We can only hope they will finally comprehend what "divine" truly means. Arguing from hope, in other words. Sigh.

 

[tickingclocker]

Lol. I didn't know I was Muslim. By the way I'm not sure wher you got the idea that Joseph Smith was to be the last prophet

As far as JS being your last and final prophet, no. That is inadvertently false, and I do apologize. I will gladly adjust that statement to reflect the truth. He does remain the final word on everything mormonism, however. To my current knowledge, no other one of your resulting prophets have ever revised anything he ever claimed, like they do with the others.

 

[dzheremi]

Both do defend their own prophets vociferously, to the point of idol worship in our eyes. Maybe not to their perspective, but it does seem quite odd to us for them to defend obviously fallible men as they do. It's as if their faith depends upon... their prophets. Not God. That's the way we see it.

I am all for vociferous defense of the prophets and saints (Christian ones, that is; not LDS ones), though also know well enough that their lives and acts can speak for themselves. Where I think the LDS and Islam go wrong is in refusing to recognize bad behavior as bad behavior when it is coming from one of their people. This is so unlike Christianity, which traditionally deals with bad behavior from its saints in a different manner, emphasizing the transformative power of God in the lives of these once-wayward people rather than pretending that they couldn't have ever done anything wrong, or if they did it was actually right in the context in which they did it, or whatever. That's a very easy way to begin to worship a person without necessarily intending to.

By contrast, the entry on the martyrdom of St. Moses the Black (a.k.a., St. Moses the Strong, St. Moses the Ethiopian) in the Coptic Orthodox synaxarium reads as follows:

"Beloved Ones, contemplate in the power of repentance, and what it did. It transformed an infidel slave who was a murderer, adulterer and robber into a great Father, teacher, comforter, and priest who wrote rules for the monks, and saint whose name is mentioned on the altar in our prayers."

Because that is the point...not "look at how great this guy from the fourth century was!", but "look at what a great testament to the love and forgiveness of God we have in the example of St. Moses!" It is very hard to tell that kind of story when you refuse to believe that your Muhammad or your Joseph Smith ever had anything to repent of in the first place, because they were always right, because God chose them to deliver His final message to mankind.

The Lord tells us "My grace is sufficient for you, for my strength is made perfect in weakness" (2 Corinthians 12:9). For the Christian, this is a great joy and a source of strength, such that we would rather boast in our infirmities (as St. Paul puts it). Where is that same spirit in the LDS? I know it is not in Islam, so I wouldn't even bother asking, but for LDS to claim that their religion is a form of Christianity and yet not admit the faults of their prophet and leaders strikes me as very unconvincing and unmoving. It seems as though all of JS' struggle was in getting people to believe him and to escape various legal charges. He certainly did not deny himself a multiplicity of wives, the power to create doctrines, or anything else that would be given to him by his believers, all of which is entirely out of step with the examples of Christian saints who were first and foremost self-denying, so as to best follow the Biblical call that "He must increase, but I must decrease".

 

[tickingclocker]

I am all for vociferous defense of the prophets and saints (Christian ones, that is; not LDS ones), though also know well enough that their lives and acts can speak for themselves. Where I think the LDS and Islam go wrong is in refusing to recognize bad behavior as bad behavior when it is coming from one of their people. This is so unlike Christianity, which traditionally deals with bad behavior from its saints in a different manner, emphasizing the transformative power of God in the lives of these once-wayward people rather than pretending that they couldn't have ever done anything wrong, or if they did it was actually right in the context in which they did it, or whatever. That's a very easy way to begin to worship a person without necessarily intending to.

By contrast, the entry on the martyrdom of St. Moses the Black (a.k.a., St. Moses the Strong, St. Moses the Ethiopian) in the Coptic Orthodox synaxarium reads as follows:

"Beloved Ones, contemplate in the power of repentance, and what it did. It transformed an infidel slave who was a murderer, adulterer and robber into a great Father, teacher, comforter, and priest who wrote rules for the monks, and saint whose name is mentioned on the altar in our prayers."

Because that is the point...not "look at how great this guy from the fourth century was!", but "look at what a great testament to the love and forgiveness of God we have in the example of St. Moses!" It is very hard to tell that kind of story when you refuse to believe that your Muhammad or your Joseph Smith ever had anything to repent of in the first place, because they were always right, because God chose them to deliver His final message to mankind.

The Lord tells us "My grace is sufficient for you, for my strength is made perfect in weakness" (2 Corinthians 12:9). For the Christian, this is a great joy and a source of strength, such that we would rather boast in our infirmities (as St. Paul puts it). Where is that same spirit in the LDS? I know it is not in Islam, so I wouldn't even bother asking, but for LDS to claim that their religion is a form of Christianity and yet not admit the faults of their prophet and leaders strikes me as very unconvincing and unmoving. It seems as though all of JS' struggle was in getting people to believe him and to escape various legal charges. He certainly did not deny himself a multiplicity of wives, the power to create doctrines, or anything else that would be given to him by his believers, all of which is entirely out of step with the examples of Christian saints who were first and foremost self-denying, so as to best follow the Biblical call that "He must increase, but I must decrease".

You have such a gentle way of bringing things.... straight home. Yes, we do recognize that we are sinners, saved by the amazing grace of our Lord. Pray we never lose sight of that. It will be our undoing.