DiscussMormonism.com

I was looking at a children's book on World Mythology last night. I noticed that some of the myths discussed in the book are still part of some contemporary religions in America, India, and Japan. However, anything related to the Abrahamic traditions are completely omitted.

For reference, please see this randomly selected example from Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Mythology-World-N ... +mythology

Looking at the TOC, it appears this book covers the following myths:

Ancient Greece
Ancient Rome
Ireland
Scandinavia
Mesopotamia
India
Japan
China
Americas
Australia
Africa

The section on India talks about Rama, who is still included in contemporary religious worship of Hindus. The section on Japan notes "The First Ancestor", who is meaningful to a people that incorporate ancestor worship in their contemporary religion. The section on the Americas discusses ancestors as well, which are likely still a part of the religious ideas of the Native Americans.

Why don't world mythology books for children mention Adam and Eve? What about the beasts of Revelation? What about Cherub?

It may just be that the authors know their audience. Western Christians, particularly Americans, will not take kindly to having their beliefs labeled "myths." It's fine to label someone else's beliefs mythology, but not your own.

Bob Loblaw wrote:It may just be that the authors know their audience. Western Christians, particularly Americans, will not take kindly to having their beliefs labeled "myths." It's fine to label someone else's beliefs mythology, but not your own.

I guess you are right. I thought it might be okay to consider Adam and Eve, Cherub, and The Dragon as mythical without poking fun at the religion of today.

If this is directed at US kids, it may simply be that the authors thought that US kids would already be familiar with those stories.

I'm generally not a fan of these kinds of compilations no matter what their content. People who tell stories (including Christians and Jews) put these stories into a larger context. Books like this have to rip the stories out of context so that it's an easily digestible nugget so that the authors can put lots of stories into a sub 200 page book. The end result is that no matter which stories you present, they will be seen as "Awww, look at the cute BS that people believe."

As another example, it's generally popular to include myths from the ancient Greeks, or even to have entire compilations of ancient Greek myths. The funny thing is that the Greeks never felt a need to compile a collection book to put forward their myths. Neither did the Romans. The closest you get is Ovid's Metamorphosis, but that's a complex work where myths are re-woven together and reworked for a larger purpose, not a disjointed collection. But this is how all living myths operate (including Jewish and Christian). They are reworked, reinterpreted, and kept part of a living tradition. To excise certain myths and put them into a collection always results in loss of meaning and misunderstanding.

Aristotle Smith wrote: Books like this have to rip the stories out of context so that it's an easily digestible nugget so that the authors can put lots of stories into a sub 200 page book. The end result is that no matter which stories you present, they will be seen as "Awww, look at the cute b***s*** that people believe."

Maybe they could use a different word other than "myth"? Maybe they could call it "Ancient Religions" or "Religious Roots"?

Is it really necessary to start these books out with the definition of myth (as most do)? "A myth is a fictional story that people used to think was reality." Instead, they could start out with, "Religion is..."

And for the record, my own children know very little about the ancient stories of the Abrahamic religion.

zeezrom wrote:I was looking at a children's book on World Mythology last night. I noticed that some of the myths discussed in the book are still part of some contemporary religions in America, India, and Japan. However, anything related to the Abrahamic traditions are completely omitted ...

Like the man already said - the latter are not myths, they're truths.

Aristotle Smith wrote:If this is directed at US kids, it may simply be that the authors thought that US kids would already be familiar with those stories. ... I'm generally not a fan of these kinds of compilations no matter what their content. People who tell stories (including Christians and Jews) put these stories into a larger context. Books like this have to rip the stories out of context so that it's an easily digestible nugget so that the authors can put lots of stories into a sub 200 page book.

On US kids already knowing these stories, see above: many of them will not think of the Abrahamic material as 'stories' at all. Personally, I learned a lot from such books as a kid, and they inspired me to read deeper as opportunity arose. I am only sorry that it took so many years for me to realize that the contents of the Book of Genesis was no less 'storytelling' than the fascinating stuff I was reading about from cultures not my own.

The "but you must read it in context" demand is legitimate enough (in its own proper context), but can also function as a away of ensuring that certain things are simply not discussed at all, since 'proper' discussion is an ever-receding objective.

I think most people confuse the meaning of the word myth, and associate it to "fable", or something that is made up.

It is acceptable (even appropriate) to call the story of Adam and Eve a myth, as that is what it is.

"Myths are symbolic tales of the distant past (often primordial times) that concern cosmogony and cosmology (the origin and nature of the universe), may be connected to belief systems or rituals, and may serve to direct social action and values." http://www.faculty.de.gcsu.edu/~mmagouli/defmyth.htm

As Aristotle already pointed out, a myth has a place in a context. Removing it from that context changes its meaning.