Adherents of Religion: do schisms in your faith ever bother you?

[Woodrow LI]

Originally Posted by Fillmont

Thanks for the detailed response!

At this point I will have to confess I was mainly coming at the question from the Christian perspective with the Holy Spirit. Does Islam (I will continue to call what Muslims practice Islam for the sake of clarity and ease of use) have something roughly equivalent to this? Does the Qur'an make any claims that through prayer and introspection?

What you describe is much like what TheoGeek has described for Christianity - a set of necessary tenets that must be followed, and further tenets that are open to interpretation. The Five Pillars on one end and Ahadith, the Fiqh-ul-Sunnah and the Teachings of the Madhabs on the other. Islam, Judaism and Mormonism all seem to have a set of "additional texts" that serve to clarify and illuminate aspects of what the holy books state, while not being necessarily divinely inspired themselves. Christianity, unless I'm mistaken, doesn't have this tradition.

I suppose a follow up for both you and TheoGeek would be to ask why God would allow for his holy book to be so open to interpretation, beyond the initial core beliefs that everyone can agree upon. To allow for changing mores throughout time and generations?

We do have a concept very similar to what Christians term the "Holy spirit" Actually 2 concepts. One is messages from Angels. We do that periodically angels do speak with people particullary about specific things regarding the Angel. We also do believe Allaah(swt) does guide us through thoughts and feelings. A saying you will very often hear us use is the Allaah(swt) is closer to us than our jugular vein. We don't mean physically closer but closer in terms of thought and a feeling of love. We feel we are in constant communication with Allaah(swt) and all things we do say and think are what we are telling him. all things are a prayer, so we best be aware that our prayers are to praise, glorify or thank Allaah(swt) We do very often experience what I used to call the "Fullness and presence" of the Holy spirit. A feeling of the presence of God(swt) when in prayer, often at the Mosque. We do believe every prayer is answered, but the answer is what we need not necessarily what we want.

Our additional books, such as the Ahadith and the Fiqh-ul-Sunnah are not scriptural. Rather they are historical accounts by witnesses as to how Muhammad(PBUH) and his companions lived, spoke and followed Islam. they are the work of man, not inspired works but observations. We believe they are true in the sense they are accurate accounts of witnesses. If we find or understand any to be contradictory to the Qur'an we follow the Qur'an.

We have no dogma or prescribed doctrine. there is no Central Islam, nor any human central leader. Much is personal responsibility, always seeking answers and a constant state of self learning. Even the madhabs are but tools to use as guides as we pursue our efforts to learn more.

The closest we have to doctrine is it is stated in both Ahadith and the Qur'an we are under obligation to follow the five pillars.

1 A Muslim must acknowledge that "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his Prophet"

2 A Muslim must pray five times daily facing Mecca: at dawn, at noon, in the midafternoon, at dusk, and after dark.

3 Each Muslim must give a percentage of his wealth, possessions and earnings to those less fortunate..

4 A Muslim must fast for the month of Ramadan. During the fasting month, one must refrain from eating, drinking, smoking, and sexual intercourse from dawn until sunset.

5 A Muslim must make a pilgrimage to Mecca. Every adult Muslim who is physically and financially able to do so must make this pilgrimage at least once in his or her lifetime.


We also share a set of beliefs called the fundamentals of belief or articles of faith.

1. One God;
2. The angels of God;
3. The books of God, especially the Qur'an;
4. The prophets of God, especially Muhammad;
5. The Day of Judgment (or the afterlife); and
6. The supremacy of God's will

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Fillmont

Here's a question for all you adherents in attendance.

It's my general understanding that generally, most religions (and I'm thinking mainly Abrahamic ones here, as these the ones I know the most about) make pretty clear and authoritative claims as to the validity and finality of the religion itself and the holy books associated with them. I have often heard from, say, Christians that the Bible is meant to act as a "final word" from God, and have heard from Muslims and Mormons that their respective texts act as "final words" themselves, correcting mistakes or errors that previous religions got wrong.

Mormonism differs from other Abrahamic faiths in that we don't believe the "final words" have even been spoken yet. We don't look to The Bible as the "final word," nor to The Book of Mormon as the "final word." Unlike Mohammed, Joseph Smith never claimed to be the last prophet God would ever speak through. There have been fifteen LDS men since Joseph Smith to have held the title he held and who are considered modern-day prophets by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In other words, we have an open canon, and believe that God has not nor ever will stop communicating to mankind through His chosen spokespersons.

If this is the case, and your religion is a true and accurate representation of God and what he thinks about the way things should be, how do you then reconcile the fact that every religion has had schisms and off-shoots?

To put it another way: I hear from Christians from time to time - knock and you shall receive. If your God is the true God, and adherents have been searching for God and have found the holy spirit (or alternative equivalent), then why have there been so many schisms?

I guess I've just heard anecdotes about people reading (holy book) and then describing a feeling of understanding that they attribute to God. If there was a one true religion, wouldn't this feeling of understanding be consistent? Wouldn't those seeking answers to questions receive the same answers?

Mormonism is, again, unique in that the reason behind its existence is a belief that Jesus Christ established His Church during His ministry, that after His death and the deaths of His Apostles, men changed the organizational structure and the doctrines of that Church, and that God has re-established it in these days. We believe that it was because the offices of Prophets and Apostles ceased to exist in the years after Christ's ministry that an apostasy came about and that the schisms within Christianity originated. Many Christians don't realize just how fractured the "Christian Church" was by even the end of the first century. Catholics will claim that their church is the one Christ established, but I see no evidence that it is. The Protestant Reformers believed an apostasy of some kind had taken place, although almost all of them would put it at a much later date than the Latter-day Saints do. It was their intent to "reform" the existing Church, but in reality, they just created more schisms. Anyone who has ever tried to settle a disagreement over a point of Christian doctrine by an appeal to the Bible as "the final word," will tell you (at least if he's being honest about it), that you can prove pretty much any position you want to prove by merely citing certain passages and ignoring others. This, to Latter-day Saints, is simply proof that God would not leave mankind with just a book, and hope we manage to interpret it correctly.

I guess I'm mainly asking two questions here:

1) How firm is your religion in stating that it is the one true way, and the associated holy book is all you would need to live life?

Not at all firm. In our opinion, the words of a living prophet and apostles are always necessary, because the world today is simply not the same as it was 2000 years ago. The Bible doesn't claim to be "the final word," and neither does The Book of Mormon. I once heard the following question posed: If you were to go to war against a sophisticated and powerful enemy, which would you prefer to have at your disposal? A vast library on military strategy or that same library plus an intelligent and capable commander? To Mormons, the obvious answer to that question explains why we believe that no religious text is sufficient for the needs of mankind.

and

2) If that's the case, why has there been so much discord over the years? So many disagreements? Why has the One True Book not been "good enough" to avoid all the interpretations?

I guess I already answered that. Or at least I tried to. Did I?

I guess I'm just wondering how you deal with that. If I were a believer I know it would bug me, but I'm curious about your thoughts. Maybe it's just not seen as an issue at all.

I'd say it's a huge issue. I don't know if my answer shed any light on the LDS position or not. Hopefully it did.

Just one post script as this whole issue pertains to schisms within Mormonism. Take, for example, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the FLDS Church, headed by Warren Jeffs). When this Church was first founded, it was based upon the belief that since Joseph Smith had said God had authorized polygamy as recorded in The Doctrine and Covenants, the "mainstream LDS Church" was merely copping out by overturning the practice back in the 1890s. They broke away from the LDS Church because they relied on The Doctrine and Covenants as "the final word" instead of recognizing that a living prophet had the authorization from God to rescind a practice that was started fifty or so years earlier. We could (and somehow I suspect we're going to) get into a debate over why polygamy was really discontinued, and I'm okay with that. But for now, this is how I see schisms and splinter groups as forming.

[mzjamiedawn]

Originally Posted by Fillmont

I suppose a follow up for both you and TheoGeek would be to ask why God would allow for his holy book to be so open to interpretation, beyond the initial core beliefs that everyone can agree upon. To allow for changing mores throughout time and generations?

When I was a "Christian" in the sense as others believe one to be, I had a very big problem with this. The bible says God is not the author of confusion, yet like you've pointed out, there are so many different beliefs that all come from one book. No matter what anyone says, every Christian believes their belief comes directly from the bible, and the Holy Spirit guided them to that truth. They can give scripture to back up their belief. Yet, two beliefs from the same book can be polar opposites. Seems to me that makes for a confusing book, one full of contradictions.

[elamigo]

Originally Posted by Fillmont

Here's a question for all you adherents in attendance.

It's my general understanding that generally, most religions (and I'm thinking mainly Abrahamic ones here, as these the ones I know the most about) make pretty clear and authoritative claims as to the validity and finality of the religion itself and the holy books associated with them. I have often heard from, say, Christians that the Bible is meant to act as a "final word" from God, and have heard from Muslims and Mormons that their respective texts act as "final words" themselves, correcting mistakes or errors that previous religions got wrong.

If this is the case, and your religion is a true and accurate representation of God and what he thinks about the way things should be, how do you then reconcile the fact that every religion has had schisms and off-shoots?

To put it another way: I hear from Christians from time to time - knock and you shall receive. If your God is the true God, and adherents have been searching for God and have found the holy spirit (or alternative equivalent), then why have there been so many schisms?

I guess I've just heard anecdotes about people reading (holy book) and then describing a feeling of understanding that they attribute to God. If there was a one true religion, wouldn't this feeling of understanding be consistent? Wouldn't those seeking answers to questions receive the same answers?

I guess I'm mainly asking two questions here:

1) How firm is your religion in stating that it is the one true way, and the associated holy book is all you would need to live life?

and

2) If that's the case, why has there been so much discord over the years? So many disagreements? Why has the One True Book not been "good enough" to avoid all the interpretations?

I guess I'm just wondering how you deal with that. If I were a believer I know it would bug me, but I'm curious about your thoughts. Maybe it's just not seen as an issue at all.

I am not affiliated to any religions, do not believe in the Bible as the Word of God and do not believe Jesus is his Son.
However, I do believe that God does exists. That is just about as close as I can say I am about religion.
Even though I believe in God I am aware that there is reasonable information to question whether he exists or not. Those schisms are not strong enough so far for me to not believe he exists. I suppose it is not different with some atheists that do not believe in the existence of god even thought there schism in science to prove such thing also. Both side do have a degree of faith to believe as they do. Take care.