MrStakhanovite wrote:In a
recent blog postI stated this:
One of the messages I wanted to get across (and I’m unsure that I was able to effectively communicate this) was that to the person outside of Islam, you can’t get Islam from the Qur’an. Just like you can’t get Mormonism from just the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price, Judaism from the Tanakh, nor any form of Christianity from the Holy Bible.
Would you folk agree or disagree with that?
Your comment and blog reminded me of somethings I had read by Boston University's Professor of Religion, Stephen Prothero, a couple of years back. Your blog's conclusion is in line with his conclusions - to understand a religion requires more than familiarity with it's foundational texts.
Prothero's view is that to start to understand a religion begins from this premise: Religions generally agree that there is something wrong with the world. Outside of this, there is much less common ground.
His approach for outsiders to attempt understanding is helpful, in my opinion, and begins from the shared starting point above: If something is wrong with the world, then how does each religion answer these questions?
- What is the actual problem? (what is wrong with the world?)
- What is the solution, or a solution, to the problem as outlined?
- What techniques are proscribed for moving from the problem to the solution?
- Who is the exemplar who personifies the path for following the technique?
One of the reasons I think you see what you do with Islam, if Prothero is approximately correct, is that reading the Qu'ran is perhaps the most comprehensive way to outline the problem and the solution, but only if you already know the problem and are looking for the solution. In Prothero's view, the broad answers to the four questions above would be:
- The problem is self-sufficiency, pride, denying Allah
- The solution is prostration, submission to Allah
- The technique is the four pillars of Islam
- The exemplar is the Prophet
It seems to me natural for someone inside of the tradition to attempt to explain all of the above by handing you the Qu'ran and with it ask, "Do you not understand?"
I bring that up to set up my comment on the OP: No religious text can answer those four questions by themselves, but to answer the four questions requires reading the sacred texts.
For Mormonism, I'd suggest the four questions can be answered as follows:
- What is the problem?
A: Apostacy from Christ's pure word
- What is the solution?
A: Restoration
- Technique for achieving this?
A: Priesthood with it's ordinances
- Exemplar?
A: Joseph Smith
Within that context, it seems that each book of the standard works supports the solution. Each is, in it's own way, part of the restoration of all things. Each, in it's own way, evidences the priesthood ordinances needed to become restored ourselves in the true relationship with God. To the professed Mormon, how could someone live Mormonism without the standard works? Without them, there would be no restoration.
So, while I agree with the OP in general, I think it's not a wholely useful observation by itself. One has to use it as a beginning and not an end.
