Book Of Mormon, Hoax?

[Barter_Town]

There isn't any "proof" for any spiritual things. There is no proof for the claims of the Bible or the Quran.

This is correct.

There is no real proof, in fact, that the earth moves around the Sun.

Sure there is. We have the science that proves it.

However the evidences are ample enough so that most accept it.

There you go, you said it yourself -- "evidence".

Others are so skeptical that if they were to find an ancient sign in Mesoamerica stating, "10 miles to Zarahemla" they still would not think it evidence for the Book of Mormon. In fact, when I brought this up earlier, one individual insisted it would have to state it in Reformed Egyptian to be evidence.

Surely you're not referring to me; I made no such demands and I would appreciate it if you didn't misrepresent my posts like this. If archaeologists found a "10 miles to Zarahemla" road sign (never mind that Native Americans didn't measure in miles, or, to my knowledge, use road signs), I would think yes, this would qualify as evidence to support the Book of Mormon's historicity regardless of the script in which it is written. But this is all quite moot since a) Egyptian script has never been discovered in America, let alone "reformed Egyptian" and b) Mayan is the only complete writing system developed by Native Americans, and it is in no way related to Egyptian. Which is why in my previous post (page 4) I had said, "a road sign written in what, Mayan?"

Again, if anything, let alone a road sign, was discovered in "reformed Egyptian" script it would certainly bolster the claim that the Book of Mormon is a historical record. To date, nothing of the sort has been found.

Well, who would be able to read Reformed Egyptian?

Egyptologists.

Second, how could we tell it is reformed Egyptian?

Considering that Egyptian would be its parent script, this shouldn't be difficult.

For all we know, Mayan hieroglyphics could be a form of reformed Egyptian.

There is no relation between the Egyptian and Mayan scripts.

Next, Reformed Egyptian was only used to write the Nephite record, and not the language of the normal people, such as the Lamanites or Mulekites, so doubtless the sign would NOT be written in Reformed Egyptian.

Well considering that their ancestors (Lehi and kin) were Hebrew and recent transplants from Jerusalem, one could reasonably assume their spoken language / common script would reflect their Semitic origins. So, any road sign they produced would likely bear this stamp.

IOW, skeptics often set up too many straw men that they can easily knock down, so as nothing becomes evidence.

Actually, I am quite happy to examine any evidence to support the historicity of the Book of Mormon. It is too bad that the "evidence" produced thus far has been so flimsy.

I mean, these were civilizations far, far advanced from any other Meso-American civilization at that time; they reigned for a thousand years, numbered in the millions, had domesticated Old World animals and crops, were Christian, smelted steel, used a seven-day week calendar, spoke a Semitic language, used a coin-based currency, and used the wheel. On top of that, their entire civilization was killed off suddenly in a huge battle down to the last man. And all this was not long ago at all, archaeologically speaking.

One would expect there to be an abundance of evidence to support these people and events. We have no problem locating coins, texts, epigraphs, weapons and other artifacts proving that Romans were in Britian, for example, which dates from the same era as the events described in the Book of Mormon. And yet I'm the unreasonable one for expecting there to be some sort of evidence left behind by this civilization?

The thing is, we actually know quite a lot about the inhabitants of the Americas dating before, during and after the periods described in the Book of Mormon; the reality of the ancient Americas is a world apart from the descriptions found in the Book of Mormon. That's just how it is. Sorry.

Such will never gain the evidences nor witnesses needed to gain a testimony. Like Sherem or Korihor, they have completely shut themselves off to seeing and hearing, making themselves spiritually blind and deaf.

So, anyone who might expect there to be evidence of the Book of Mormon's peoples (a quite reasonable expectation, I might add) is spiritually akin to the one-dimensional bad guys of the Book of Mormon? I thought honest inquiry would be something encouraged in the church.. apparently not.

Edited October 5, 2009 by Barter_Town

[Dr T]

Hi Bartering one. I have not read this thread and just read the last page and your last post. Your reasoning makes sense to me. I hope I can read some more of what you are saying. Thanks. :)

[ztodd]

How accurate is the Book Of Mormon? Is there any proof that anything in it really happened?

I know you haven't posted for about two months, and that this thread has gone way off into the sunset, but for some reason I thought I'd reply to your original post, in case you ever come back to see it.

Yes, most definitely, there is proof that it all really happened! The proof is contained within the book itself. Study it, pray about it, try it out. While you're studying it, take on the challenge given by Moroni, in Moroni 10:3-5. It is a promise, and it will come true.

Edit: You may notice I hadn't posted for about two months either. But since I posted a blog of my conference notes on here today, I thought I'd check out the forum again. :)

Great general conference weekend, wasn't it? Hope you were able to see at least some of it.

[Barter_Town]

Yes, most definitely, there is proof that it all really happened! The proof is contained within the book itself. Study it, pray about it, try it out. While you're studying it, take on the challenge given by Moroni, in Moroni 10:3-5. It is a promise, and it will come true.

The problem is that this is the same method Muslims use to find out whether or not the Koran is the word of God -- "study it and pray to know if it's true". Evidently their studies pay off and their prayers are likewise answered in the affirmative, since one-fifth of the world's population is Muslim.

[beefche]

Barter, are you really Snow? You two sound alike....

[Barter_Town]

Barter, are you really Snow? You two sound alike....

No, I'm just Barter Town. I don't know who Snow is. Sorry. He must be the other rational thinker on this board

But I can't say I'm surprised that we apparently "sound" alike; I'm hardly the first to point these problems out, and this stuff isn't exactly rocket science.

[deseretgov]

The problem is that this is the same method Muslims use to find out whether or not the Koran is the word of God -- "study it and pray to know if it's true". Evidently their studies pay off and their prayers are likewise answered in the affirmative, since one-fifth of the world's population is Muslim.

Is that really a problem though? We're not all identical people. Perhaps God knows that Islam would be better(for right now) for some people than the LDS church. Maybe a person in the Cathloic church can come closer to God in that religion than in any other. Would God force someone into a religion that lessens their ability to come close to Him. After all the amount of truth we recieve isn't what we are judged on. What we are judged on is what we do with the truth we have.

[Dr T]

I wish there were true Desertgov. Maybe that depends on what u mean by that but I don't think that statement works in this context.

[Barter_Town]

Is that really a problem though? We're not all identical people. Perhaps God knows that Islam would be better(for right now) for some people than the LDS church. Maybe a person in the Cathloic church can come closer to God in that religion than in any other. Would God force someone into a religion that lessens their ability to come close to Him. After all the amount of truth we recieve isn't what we are judged on. What we are judged on is what we do with the truth we have.

Which is perfectly reasonable speculation. I wouldn't have a problem with this idea were it not for the identical, competing claim that the core doctrine of each of these religions promotes -- that Islam / Catholicism / Mormonism / etc. is the only true religion, and the only religion by which one may hope for salvation.

Therein lies the problem; they all claim to be the only path to God. But they can't all be true. None of them are okay with their claims being relative; they are each claiming absolutes -- "the only true religion". And yet the only way we can know which religion is true is to read their claims and pray for spiritual confirmation. Inevitably we have everyone getting a "yes" answer in direct proportion to the particular religion they were praying about in the first place. If you want an affirmative answer to your prayers, you'll inevitably get one -- regardless of the religion in question.

[Barter_Town]

(Book of Mormon | Alma 32:27 - 33)

(Book of Mormon | Moroni 10:3 - 7)

The Holy Spirit is real. You really can get an answer straight from the source .

Most people here "know" because of personal spiritual experiences. If you ponder, experiment on the words, "ask with a sincere heart, with real intent" and you will get an answer. work on being sincere, on the experiment, pondering, if you have not had an answer. When you get an answer, don't continue to deny it.

Take a little trip over to the Muslim boards over at Ummah.com and see for yourself all the English-speaking Muslims saying the same sorts of things you are here, i.e. citing scripture, sharing personal anecdotes and encouraging people to pray about whether or not their scriptures are true. It all sounds very nice, but it isn't essentially any different from what you're saying here. In fact any adherent of any religion could make the same claims, but again, they can't all be true given that their doctrines are mutually exclusive.

[Barter_Town]

Ask God, get an answer for yourself, that is the only way to know.

If Mormons were the only people getting affirmative answers to their prayers as to whether X religion is true, you might have a point. Obviously that is not the case.

Anyone can say anything they want,

Exactly. Hence the importance of evidence.

you can only know what spiritual experiences you personally have had.

Yep.

I am a convert to the LDS church (after looking at many many other religions) because the Holy Spirit bore witness to me that the LDS church was true.

That's great. That hasn't happened to me. Or, at least not sufficiently enough to convince me that I'm not just talking to myself in my head and giving myself nice feelings. Again, hence the importance of evidence.

For example, people also claim to see UFOs on a fairly regular basis. Am I going to accept their claims without some sort of verifying evidence? No, I'm going to go by my own experience. I personally haven't seen a UFO, so I have no reason to believe in them.

Similarly, I haven't had a member of the Christian godhead (or Allah, or Shiva, or Ahura-Mazda, or my Buddha-self, etc.) appear and explain the "truth" to me. I may have thought I had in the past, but it is just as likely that I was convincing myself of what I'd wanted to be true. Which is the same phenomena experienced by adherents of virtually every religion on earth.

Sound crazy?

Yes, frankly. But given the fact that religion is so common and widespread, the insanity of it is seemingly benign.

A member of the Godhead comes down and shows you a few things? Sounded crazy to me too... I had no idea that it was all so "real".

Yeah, well. Not to discount your personal experiences, but you shouldn't underestimate people and their ability to convince themselves of virtually anything. People in general are extremely gullible.

It's real, you can ask, you can recieve an answer. It is that simple.

If only it were, my friend. Like I said, if Mormons were the only people getting a "yes" answer to their prayers, you might have a point. But that simply isn't the case.

Edited October 5, 2009 by Barter_Town

[Barter_Town]

I have - been there done that, celebrated Ramadan with them, read the Koran, etc. etc. I had no spiritual experience there.

Plenty of others have.

I can only know my own personal experiences.

Very true.

I have been to a lot of places with a lot of different people.

Great. So have I.

I have never experienced there what I have in the LDS church. That is why I converted to the LDS church.

Well every religion can claim converts. I've heard Muslim converts saying the same sorts of things you are here.

You need to go out, read, ponder, pray, come back after you have had a genuine spiritual experience.

Been there, done that.

No amount of chatting will give you what you are looking for. You need to follow the advice of everyone - pray, get the answer straight from the source.

If only "the source" was a little more reliable.

[rameumptom]

Sure there is. We have the science that proves it.

Rameumptom: Actually science cannot directly prove it. It is like sitting in a moving vehicle. Is the vehicle moving or the things around it moving? Part of it depends on perspective, as looking out the window, it will seem like the trees and fields are moving. So it is with our planet. We have evidence that it is what moves, but there is no absolute proof. And isn't that what skeptics are looking for?

There you go, you said it yourself -- "evidence".

Ram: There is a difference between proof and evidence. Try this article I put together a few years ago: No Such Thing As Proof - Life, the Universe, and Etcetera

Surely you're not referring to me; I made no such demands and I would appreciate it if you didn't misrepresent my posts like this. If archaeologists found a "10 miles to Zarahemla" road sign (never mind that Native Americans didn't measure in miles, or, to my knowledge, use road signs), I would think yes, this would qualify as evidence to support the Book of Mormon's historicity regardless of the script in which it is written. But this is all quite moot since a) Egyptian script has never been discovered in America, let alone "reformed Egyptian" and b) Mayan is the only complete writing system developed by Native Americans, and it is in no way related to Egyptian. Which is why in my previous post (page 4) I had said, "a road sign written in what, Mayan?"

Again, if anything, let alone a road sign, was discovered in "reformed Egyptian" script it would certainly bolster the claim that the Book of Mormon is a historical record. To date, nothing of the sort has been found.

Ram: Once again, you are presuming that Reformed Egyptian would have been the common language. It wasn't. When the Nephites took over the Mulekites, do you think the Mulekites suddenly started speaking and writing in Reformed Egyptian? That's silly. It doesn't happen in cultures today, why then? Why do we have so many Spanish speakers in the USA today? Because most of the immigrants do not learn English as their native tongue, but it takes a few generations. And that's only true if English is the prominent language in the area. Let's not create straw men, shall we?

And there ARE evidences. We HAVE found a road sign of sorts. NHM: Nihm or Nahom, is a real place with a real marker with the name on it. And it wasn't exactly known in Joseph Smith's time, either. Please don't pretend that a young man in back woods New York state would have access to volumes of books that most American scholars didn't have access to at the time.

Egyptologists. (could read Reformed Egyptian)

Ram: Why do you propose that? There are current language forms known, including some that deal with a type of reformed Egyptian that we still cannot translate today! Check out the following:

Akedah - Life, the Universe, and Etcetera

ReformedEgyptian - Life, the Universe, and Etcetera

Considering that Egyptian would be its parent script, this shouldn't be difficult.

Ram: That is a mighty big assumption. Proof? Evidence, that what you claim is true? Or is this just more snake oil? Meanwhile, the link above to the Akedah Pendant shows that just because a known language script is used, does not mean it can be translated.

There is no relation between the Egyptian and Mayan scripts.

Ram: Let me adjust your statement. There is no KNOWN relation between them. However, scholars actually used Egyptian and Chinese language concepts to decipher the Mayan language. For a century, many Mayan scholars insisted it was undecipherable. But in the 1980s, the same tools used to decipher Egyptian and Chinese characters allowed scholars to begin figuring out the language.

Well considering that their ancestors (Lehi and kin) were Hebrew and recent transplants from Jerusalem, one could reasonably assume their spoken language / common script would reflect their Semitic origins. So, any road sign they produced would likely bear this stamp.

Ram: Once again, you are assuming that the Nephites filled the entire continent with Hebrew/Egyptian speaking people. Such is not the case. If in the USA, we had a special language for some of the hierarchy, but not the common people, would we make road signs for the common people to use, or just the hierarchy? Your insistence on issues that do not fit with modern sociological evidence just does not fit. Once again, quit creating straw men.

Actually, I am quite happy to examine any evidence to support the historicity of the Book of Mormon. It is too bad that the "evidence" produced thus far has been so flimsy.

Ram: Once again, this is YOUR opinion. There are various scholars who have felt the evidence to be of interest and compelling. Harold Bloom called Joseph Smith a genius, believing him to somehow been an expert in the Kabbalah and other ancient forms.

John Welch comments on a few things in his article "Scholarship in Mormonism and Mormons in Scholarship." He notes the following:

Evangelical scholars Carl Mosser and Paul Owen presented their now-famous paper at a regional meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. Entitled "Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?" it was later published in Trinity Journal 19NS (1998). The authors noted that various LDS scholars who wrote for FARMS were also involved in serious scholarly work that has been published in a wide range of non-LDS scholarly publications.

In 1966 a little-known critic of the LDS Church wrote a series of inflammatory letters designed to elicit negative comments about the Book of Abraham from prominent Near Eastern scholars. In his response, William F. Albright of Johns Hopkins University expressed doubts that Joseph Smith could have learned Egyptian from any early nineteenth century sources. Explaining that he was a Protestant and hence not a believer in the Book of Mormon, he observed, "It is all the more surprising that there are two Egyptian names, Paanch [Paanchi] and Pahor(an) which appear in the Book of Mormon in close connection with a reference to the original language being 'Reformed Egyptian.'" Puzzled at the existence of such names in a book published by Joseph Smith in 1830, Albright vaguely suggested that the young Mormon leader was some kind of "religious genius"10 and defended the honesty of Joseph Smith and the good name of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Are you on par with William F. Albright on your claims that the names in the BoM do not count as evidence?

I mean, these were civilizations far, far advanced from any other Meso-American civilization at that time; they reigned for a thousand years, numbered in the millions, had domesticated Old World animals and crops, were Christian, smelted steel, used a seven-day week calendar, spoke a Semitic language, used a coin-based currency, and used the wheel. On top of that, their entire civilization was killed off suddenly in a huge battle down to the last man. And all this was not long ago at all, archaeologically speaking.

Ram: We are talking about a small group of people among many groups in Mesoamerica. The distance from Lamanite lands to Desolation was only a couple weeks walking time, with animals and families in tow. We're talking an area of perhaps 250 square miles at the zenith of Nephite existence. And these events occurred in what is known as pre-Mayan era, which is a period that has not been closely examined by archaelogists.

One would expect there to be an abundance of evidence to support these people and events. We have no problem locating coins, texts, epigraphs, weapons and other artifacts proving that Romans were in Britian, for example, which dates from the same era as the events described in the Book of Mormon. And yet I'm the unreasonable one for expecting there to be some sort of evidence left behind by this civilization?

Ram: Consider the terrain, the amount of work done in England vs Mesoamerica, etc. We can easily find Hadrian's wall and look for coins around it. There has been lots more work done in Britain archaeology than in all of Central America, and England is a tiny little island. Meanwhile, the jungles eat things away quickly, they rot. And since the BoM does not give us specifics on American locations, just where do we look?

The thing is, we actually know quite a lot about the inhabitants of the Americas dating before, during and after the periods described in the Book of Mormon; the reality of the ancient Americas is a world apart from the descriptions found in the Book of Mormon. That's just how it is. Sorry.

This is completely false. Compared with European or Middle Eastern history, we know almost nothing about Mesoamerica. We have thousands of books from the Old World, while only 5 books remain from the Spanish destruction of Aztec/Mayan literature. We know very little about the inhabitants, except perhaps for a few of their kings.

And it isn't a "world apart." It is just one of several peoples that lived in the area.

So, anyone who might expect there to be evidence of the Book of Mormon's peoples (a quite reasonable expectation, I might add) is spiritually akin to the one-dimensional bad guys of the Book of Mormon? I thought honest inquiry would be something encouraged in the church.. apparently not.

Ram: I have given several evidences. You have shrugged them off, which is the concern that Evangelical scholars like Carl Mosser and Paul Owen warn against. They see that much of the stuff brought against the Book of Mormon is really on shaky ground, and makes true scholarship look bad. This is exactly what you are doing here.

John Tvedtnes tells us what real, serious scholars have done with the book of Mormon:

n the spring of 1978, the Religious Studies Center of Brigham Young University sponsored a symposium to which a number of non-LDS scholars were invited to discuss topics of special interest to Latter-day Saints. The papers presented at the symposium were assembled by Truman G. Madsen and published in a book entitled Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian Parallels.13 Several of the papers discussed topics drawn from the Book of Mormon and other unique LDS scriptures. David Winston of the University of California (Berkeley) discussed "Preexistence in Hellenic, Judaic and Mormon Sources." Krister Stendahl of the Harvard Divinity School discussed "The Sermon on the Mount and Third Nephi." Edmond LaB. Cherbonnier of Trinity College (Hartford, Connecticut) spoke "In Defense of Anthropomorphism." John Dillenberger, President of Hartford Seminary Foundation, compared "Grace and Works in Martin Luther and Joseph Smith." Ernst W. Benz of the University of Marburg titled his presentation "Imago Dei: Man in the Image of God." James H. Charlesworth of Duke University presented a paper entitled "Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha and the Book of Mormon."

Since then, several non-LDS scholars have met in other areas. Margaret Barker and others spoke at the 2005 Joseph Smith Conference. She noted that Lehi's dream of the Tree of Life matched First Temple imagery perfectly, even though one does not find it in the Bible anymore (removed by the Deuteronomists).

We find Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon, such as Chiasmus - unknown in Joseph Smith's day. And we're not talking simple parallelism, but chiasms that go several layers deep.

Again, Tvedtnes notes:

In 1981, while serving as chair of the annual Symposium on the Archaeology of the Scriptures and Allied Fields, I invited Raphael Patai of Princeton University to speak at the symposium on the subject of his book The Hebrew Goddess (1968), in which he suggested that at least some Jews in ancient times believed God was married. Patai expressed surprise that Latter-day Saints should be interested in the topic, and when I explained our concepts of God and eternal marriage, he asked that I send him some materials, which I did. His presentation at the symposium was well received, and Patai later returned to Provo for other presentations.

In some of his subsequent books, Patai drew on the Book of Mormon. For example, in The Jewish Alchemists: A History and Source Book, a note to the story of thirteenth-century French alchemist Nicolas Flamel reads, "The idea that sacred texts were originally inscribed on metal tablets recurs in the Mormon belief that the Book of Mormon came down inscribed on gold tablets. Important documents were in fact inscribed on metal tablets and preserved in stone or marble boxes in Mesopotamia, Egypt, etc."18 The note references an article by LDS scholar H. Curtis Wright in a book published by FARMS19 (and to which Patai and other non-LDS scholars contributed), and he thanked one of the editors of that book, John M. Lundquist, for bringing this information to his attention.....

In recent years, Book of Mormon topics have been discussed in regional and national meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL). At the 1997 national meeting, Eric G. Hansen gave a paper on "The Egyptian 'Opening of the Mouth' Ritual in the Book of Mormon.

So, as Alma told Korihor, you have only your own self as a witness, while I have all of these witnesses (and more) that these things are true.

[Hemidakota]

Well every religion can claim converts. I've heard Muslim converts saying the same sorts of things you are here.

Being with the Muslims people a few years ago, the experience on one receive as a personal testament of truths in this church is not the same as those who accept the Islam. There is a vast difference of what is seen, heard, and felt vice what is not given to others.

[Islander]

Take a little trip over to the Muslim boards over at Ummah.com and see for yourself all the English-speaking Muslims saying the same sorts of things you are here, i.e. citing scripture, sharing personal anecdotes and encouraging people to pray about whether or not their scriptures are true. It all sounds very nice, but it isn't essentially any different from what you're saying here. In fact any adherent of any religion could make the same claims, but again, they can't all be true given that their doctrines are mutually exclusive.

In business is called benchmarking. People study and dissect the practices and guiding principles of the leaders in order to reach similar results.

Nowhere in the Qur'an or even the al-hadith are spiritual experiences mentioned, encouraged or sought as confirmation for the veracity of the Islamic cannon. American Muslims are simply imitating (benchmarking) evangelicals and/or transferring part of their former theosophical jundra (since most were nominal Christians perhaps) into a religion that does not rely on such. In Islam you "declare" your acceptance of your belief in One God and that Muhammad is his prophet. You declare that in front of competent witnesses and you are s Muslim. There is no such things as spiritual insights, manifestations, personal revelation or guidance from God in the process.

What happens on internet forums in America has little to do with true Islam as it is practiced and understood in the ME. Attempting to equate such is quite dangerous and misleading.

[cougarfan]

You need to go out, read, ponder, pray, come back after you have had a genuine spiritual experience

What do you do for someone like me? I think I've said this before, but I've read the book of mormon at least 20 times, prayed about it hundreds of times, have studied it inside and out, even read it in more than one language. I've never had a genuine spiritual experience revealing to me that the book of mormon is really true. If anything, I would say I have had more the "stupor of thought" experience. I am 100% serious. I get way more out of the bible than the book of mormon. Maybe for some of us the promise doesn't work.

[Islander]

What do you do for someone like me? I think I've said this before, but I've read the book of mormon at least 20 times, prayed about it hundreds of times, have studied it inside and out, even read it in more than one language. I've never had a genuine spiritual experience revealing to me that the book of mormon is really true. If anything, I would say I have had more the "stupor of thought" experience. I am 100% serious. I get way more out of the bible than the book of mormon. Maybe for some of us the promise doesn't work.

I guess it is for you to find out why the Lord has denied you a spiritual experience in regards to His word. I also supposed, that if your heart is true and your intent pure you must read the BoM another 20 times and pray hundreds more until the Lords grants your petition.

[Barter_Town]

In business is called benchmarking. People study and dissect the practices and guiding principles of the leaders in order to reach similar results.

Interesting. I'm not sure that Muslims consider Christians their leaders, or that they feel compelled to adopt their tactics, but interesting nonetheless.

Nowhere in the Qur'an or even the al-hadith are spiritual experiences mentioned, encouraged or sought as confirmation for the veracity of the Islamic cannon.

Well, Muslims say the existence of God is obvious, but the Qur'an does say that God will give you "signs", which I would think qualify as "spiritual experiences".

For example, in surah 27:93:

"Praise be to God. He will show you signs and you will recognize them. Your Lord is not heedless of anything you do."

The Ability to See the Signs of God - The Religion of Islam

So, when I hear Muslims inviting me and other non-Muslims at Ummah.com to read, ponder and pray, it sounds awfully familiar.

American Muslims are simply imitating (benchmarking) evangelicals and/or transferring part of their former theosophical jundra (since most were nominal Christians perhaps) into a religion that does not rely on such.

Interesting theory, but I wonder if it holds considering that most of the users / contributers at Ummah.com are British, and as such, probably not much influenced by American-style Christian evangelicalism.

In Islam you "declare" your acceptance of your belief in One God and that Muhammad is his prophet. You declare that in front of competent witnesses and you are s Muslim. There is no such things as spiritual insights, manifestations, personal revelation or guidance from God in the process.

I am sure a Muslim would say otherwise.

After all, what leads up to the "declaration"? It doesn't just happen spontaneously. People become convinced of its authenticity prior to conversion, obviously.

And given that Muslims believe that the Koran in itself is a revelation from God, I'm pretty sure that its entire purpose is precisely that -- to guide, give insight, and reveal God.

What happens on internet forums in America has little to do with true Islam as it is practiced and understood in the ME.

Not sure why you think they're American.. Ummah.com is based in the UK and most of its users are British, most of which are first generation English-speakers. Most have family in the ME and spend time in the ME as well. Go and familiarize yourself there, you'll see. But here you go:

From Wiki:

"The Islamic website Ummah.com, formerly the Islamic Gateway, is best known for the Ummah Forum, a large English Muslim internet forum. Ummah.com is based in the UK, as are the majority of its voluntary contributors and active forum users. It is fully owned by Waha Media Limited, and is financed entirely through donations."

Ummah.com - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would think their understanding of Islam would have more to do with their own families and culture than this supposed emulation of American-style Christian evangelicalism that you seem to think of it as (not sure how you arrived at that conclusion anyway).

Attempting to equate such is quite dangerous and misleading.

I would think that if anything is "dangerous and misleading", it would be attempting to speak on behalf of a religion that is not even your own and attempting to discount their spiritual experiences as being derivative and not as legitimate as your own.

[Islander]

Interesting. I'm not sure that Muslims consider Christians their leaders, or that they feel compelled to adopt their tactics, but interesting nonetheless.

Well, Muslims say the existence of God is obvious, but the Qur'an does say that God will give you "signs", which I would think qualify as "spiritual experiences".

For example, in surah 27:93:

"Praise be to God. He will show you signs and you will recognize them. Your Lord is not heedless of anything you do."

The Ability to See the Signs of God - The Religion of Islam

So, when I hear Muslims inviting me and other non-Muslims at Ummah.com to read, ponder and pray, it sounds awfully familiar.

Interesting theory, but I wonder if it holds considering that most of the users / contributers at Ummah.com are British, and as such, probably not much influenced by American-style Christian evangelicalism.

I am sure a Muslim would say otherwise.

After all, what leads up to the "declaration"? It doesn't just happen spontaneously. People become convinced of its authenticity prior to conversion, obviously.

And given that Muslims believe that the Koran in itself is a revelation from God, I'm pretty sure that its entire purpose is precisely that -- to guide, give insight, and reveal God.

Not sure why you think they're American.. Ummah.com is based in the UK and most of its users are British, most of which are first generation English-speakers. Most have family in the ME and spend time in the ME as well. Go and familiarize yourself there, you'll see. But here you go:

From Wiki:

"The Islamic website Ummah.com, formerly the Islamic Gateway, is best known for the Ummah Forum, a large English Muslim internet forum. Ummah.com is based in the UK, as are the majority of its voluntary contributors and active forum users. It is fully owned by Waha Media Limited, and is financed entirely through donations."

Ummah.com - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would think their understanding of Islam would have more to do with their own families and culture than this supposed emulation of American-style Christian evangelicalism that you seem to think of it as (not sure how you arrived at that conclusion anyway).

I would think that if anything is "dangerous and misleading", it would be attempting to speak on behalf of a religion that is not even your own and attempting to discount their spiritual experiences as being derivative and not as legitimate as your own.

Well, I really have no time to share with you what my insight into the Islamic world is. But I would reiterate my assertion that there is NO such things as personal revelation, spiritual insight or relationship with God as described in the Book of Mormon. I am not discounting anyone's spiritual experiences. I am merely stating that the text itself makes no reference to such, period.

What you bring as a reference of the "signs of God" is a very novel and fairly recent theory. It refers, by the way, to what Christians coined as "Intelligent Design" or the evidence of God's hand in the world around us. It does not relate to spiritual manifestations of any kind. The concept is foreign to Islam although, as I stated before, former Christians and western educated Muslims are stretching the jundra well beyond what Islamic scholars, ancient and modern, declare in regards to what the text actually says.

Believing, being convinced of or asserting something does not equate to revelation from God. Some people believe, claim to have evidence of and assert being the subject of demonic possession or alien abduction. Go figure.

It is certainly not my religion, but you remain completely and utterly ignorant of my background, history and level of insight and knowledge into the culture and the social environment of the ME. What I have stated here is not my opinion but facts that I can demonstrate with a significant degree of academic certainty. I would keep from doing so only because the thread should move on rather than being hijacked by us in a pointless argument.

[BenRaines]

Folks, I would suggest you start a thread regarding Muslims if that is what you wish to discuss.

This thread is being closed. Has run its course.

Ben Raines