Untethered-BoM TBMs: Why not the Qur'an too?

[_sock puppet]

I have a basic question for those that believe that they can learn something from the Book of Mormon, regardless of whether they believe in the historicity of the BoM-described peoples and events:

Why do you cling to the notion that you can learn something sacred from the fictional Book of Mormon, but not read and learn and regard as sacred the Qur'an?

Is the Book of Mormon just a sacred hangover from when you were lied to, that the Book of Mormon peoples really lived, events really happened? Is it just a moral 'security blanket' you have a hard time letting go of and deciding for yourself what is and is not moral?

[_Kishkumen]

I have not heard that anyone has said that they can't learn something from the Quran. I have read and benefited from reading the Quran.

I don't get where you come up with these baseless assumptions. You are conflating your liberal Mormons and batshit-crazy Mormons into one group.

My sense is that "Liahona" Mormons are happy to gather truth from a variety of sources.

Look at the talk I posted from Hugh B. Brown in another thread. It is a famous talk among knowledgable liberal Mormons. Does that sound like he's talking from a closed mind to you?

[_Sethbag]

I recently read (ok, listened to) the book Mistakes Were Made, But Not By Me.

One section of the book discussed some experiences that tested whether or not the difficulty of initiation rituals influenced the views of individuals toward the groups they were initiated into. They discovered that the more difficult the initiation rituals, the more positively the members viewed the group, and the more value they saw in it.

The LDS church requires quite a lot out of members. You could argue that plowing through the Book of Mormon, going on missions (at least for males), among other things, are required for full member status. I think they will not only make the member view the LDS Church more positively, but that the opposite will be true too. That is, they will see more meaning in the initiation rituals themselves.

People want to think that they are smart, and that they make good choices. Once they've chosen to read the Book of Mormon, there's going to be a certain attraction to finding reasons to justify that as something a smart person who makes good choices would do. That person may well be more inclined to look at the Book of Mormon with an eye toward finding reasons to justify their having put so much time and effort into it.

A Mormon who has never read the Qu'ran has nothing invested in the Qu'ran. They aren't going to feel the same need to justify the expenditure of time and effort to do so. A devout Muslim, on the other hand, who has put some considerable effort into the Qu'ran, will have the incentive to find reasons to praise and value the book, justifying their efforts and time spent.

[_sock puppet]

I have not heard that anyone has said that they can't learn something from the Quran. I have read and benefited from reading the Quran.

I don't get where you come up with these baseless assumptions. You are conflating your liberal Mormons and batshit-crazy Mormons into one group.

My sense is that "Liahona" Mormons are happy to gather truth from a variety of sources.

Look at the talk I posted from Hugh B. Brown in another thread. It is a famous talk among knowledgable liberal Mormons. Does that sound like he's talking from a closed mind to you?

Do you consider Hardy's Jude the Obscure as sacred too because it teaches the reader something the reader can learn? If not, how do you distinguish the Book of Mormon fiction as sacred and Hardy's as not?

[_Kishkumen]

Do you consider Hardy's Jude the Obscure as sacred too because it teaches the reader something the reader can learn? If not, how do you distinguish the Book of Mormon fiction as sacred and Hardy's as not?

I consider all truth sacred.

[_sock puppet]

Do you consider Hardy's Jude the Obscure as sacred too because it teaches the reader something the reader can learn? If not, how do you distinguish the Book of Mormon fiction as sacred and Hardy's as not?

I consider all truth sacred.

So the Book of Mormon is on no greater level than Jude the Obscure, right?

[_sock puppet]

Do you consider Hardy's Jude the Obscure as sacred too because it teaches the reader something the reader can learn? If not, how do you distinguish the Book of Mormon fiction as sacred and Hardy's as not?

I consider all truth sacred.

Do you think it is truth to behead someone (Laban) because you think that god told you to do so?

[_bcspace]

Islam violates D&C 134:4 and so is not a valid religion anyway.

[_Tobin]

Mormons should study and carefully regard all other religious texts. I value the Quran as much as the Book of Mormon. Those things that edify, expand on a knowledge or practice of following God should be adopted and used. This is true of all other relgions as well.

[Guest]

Kish and Tobin,

A copy of the Q'uran sits on my nightstand, provided to me at no cost by my landlord. When I have nothing better to do, I read it. For secularists, the Q'uran is best taken in exceedingly small doses. While there is some nice imagery in the Q'uran, it takes a lot of reading to find it and IMHO is hardly worth the effort.

However, there is an individual at work who "memorized" the 6000 or so versus of the Q'uran as a teenager because his parents and his Imam thought that this would show devotion to Allah. Doubt that he could recite the whole thing now, but he is a recognized "hafiz". Point is, he knows a lot about the Q'uran. He likes to practice his English, and so we sometimes have discussions comparing Christianity and Islam with a little Mormonism thrown in now and then.

Muslims believe that the Q'uran complements and clarifies the Bible (and supersedes the Bible when the two disagree), just as Joseph Smith taught that the Book of Mormon and his other scriptures are "more correct" than the Bible and/or restore truths that were found in the "Ancient Church" and were somehow lost from, or not included in, the Bible. (Thus his abortive attempts to re-interpret or "re-translate" portions of the Bible).

I will have to tell you that during the course of these discussions and from my reading of the Q'uran, I find nothing of value there that is not available in the Bible, or indeed available, based on evidence, from secular sources.

As far as I can see, there is no really useful knowledge in the Q'uran. It is mainly a collection of fevered visions, sayings, rules, restrictions and empty threats and promises from an individual who imagined that he was in contact with God through an angel, as remembered and eventually written down by his associates, whereafter it was compiled into a book of which there are several versions some 20 years after his death. (Pretty much like the Bible in terms of contemporary authorship.)

Here is my question to you: In your reading of the Q'uran, did you find any useful "truths" that are not available in the Bible or indeed from secular sources?

If so, would you care to provide one or two examples?

Thanks.
_________________________

ETA: Just saw Tobin's post in praise of the Q'uran, so the question is for him as well, should he care to elaborate.