Getting Beyond the Lie: Historical Mythmaking

[_Gadianton]

Finally, the demand the church makes on its members to literally believe the myth makes for some frustrating conversations. How many times does one have to contort, justify this or that, refuse to admit problems, etc., etc. in order to remain? Talking to those who still believe in the literalness of the myth is annoying and it has to do with the myth itself.

I haven't followed Bill and it's not my cup of tea, but I get the attraction, and I have no problem watching him make leaders uncomfortable. They're getting back some of the literalism they dished out. If we're going to say there is no "church" with a face on it, let's recognize that Bill is not converting anyone to that idea, that's already an assumption of his audience famous for sayings such as "The Church is perfect but the people aren't" and recently, "The Church doesn't seek or give apologies." The leaders aren't upset over Bill's lack of consideration for scholarly models of human behavior, the point of dispute isn't whether there is a church with a face on it, but whether it's a happy or a sad face. Using the logic he's been assaulted with from the time of his conversion, I'm sure he makes a great case that it's a sad face.

I will point out that this isn't the ONLY way to find one's way out of Mormonism. My testimony got its biggest jolt after reading from a few Bible commentaries while on my mission. It wasn't the documentary hypothesis, but something similar to that -- it became readily apparent to me that there isn't a category of "scripture" that even rises to the level of coherency whereby one could from there, ask God whether it's true or false. It was enough to know that the Bible is a jigsaw puzzle of culture clashes and from there Mormonism can't possibly be true. I only learned about polygamy, first vision accounts, bank failures, and all of that years after the last time I'd been to church, and from these boards. I like reading the posts on the boards, but I've never had much interest in pursuing the details myself. Oh, certainly, it can be irritating to hear some of the Joseph Smith stories given the amount of Smithmas reverence he gets from his modern disciples. And that is certainly going to resonate with people more in the short term. However, I really do believe that to advance as a society, it's not going to happen by gathering around and burning Books of Mormon and calling Smith a liar in the same way we burned our collections of heavy metal records and gave the devil a piece of our minds before entering the MTC.

The better, more stable path of enlightenment ultimately comes from the secularization approach. It's really frustrating for me to watch new MI types intellectualize the gospel in terms of Marxism or whatever, but I also know that these are steps of people well on the path of seeing themselves out. There was a post on Sic et Non recently with Migdley going ape over Europe maintaining the facade of Christianity while the spirit of it is nearly dead. He declared he wouldn't be hanging Christmas lights with these kinds of people. This is ultimately, the better, more stable path.

[_Meadowchik]

It sounds like we end up back in Prophet Puzzle Land. But that's only because we're treating Smith differently than we could and should in comparing him with others.

As a person who has been trying the Religious Studies approach in order to understand and not merely condemn, I find myself sympathetic to Kish, Bokovoy and Bradley and others who seem caught up in the lie vs revelation argument. But Smith was not a mere religious figure--he was also a political, economic and military force. His aim was to create a theocracy and if corners were cut and tales told, the theocracy would justify the means. Just like it had been justified throughout the Bible.

Did he mislead? Yes. Did he commit fraud and deception? Yes. Have other influential religious figures done these things? I would bet my life that most religious figures DO mislead and deceive. They are expected to. It is their approach to reality and much of their appeal. They are in the business of words and images and EMOTION. Not truth, history, science. Revivalists seek change internal to the believer. That change does not occur through rationality but through an emotional experience that the experiencer has learned to interpret as the influence of the Holy Ghost or other entity.

We should feel free to consider and describe myths in negative terms. The myths of white nationalism have risen again in America. Myths can be destructive and poisonous. I think the myths of Mormonism carry such dark DNA. I see my senior Senator, a descendent of a mass murderer who was reinstated by the church, the same church engaged in secret manipulations, lawsuits, acquisitions, and I can conclude that nothing has been learned. Nothing but that there are those who will always follow, who want to worship a man, who will bend time and space and reality for their own selfish purposes. This must also be a part of Religious Studies: the recognition that much of religion is disguised commercial activity. It was always so, from the fake relics that propped up moneymaking cathedrals to now.

The step I see here is the choice to divorce one's paradigm from known verifiable facts when they are available. Then, to decide that unprovable fancy must pass as authoritative. It is a sloppy, egocentric morality that allows this to happen, an even worse one that lets it continue.

[_Kishkumen]

I think Smith believed he had some divine visions.

Oh. Ok. Well. You're not really doing a bang up job of defending your thesis in the OP. That's for sure.

- Doc

I don’t see that anyone can prove what Joseph Smith did or did not experience. Anyone who says he lied about it all is on just as shaky ground as someone who thinks he did not.

What are you expecting? A testimony? An anti-testimony? Smith appears to have believed he had visions of some kind. He connected these experiences to myths about the Native Americans being Hebrews and a restoration of primitive Christianity. Those connections evolved and strengthened over time, but I think historical evidence points to a core theology of seership, temples, and the vision of Christ assuring salvation early on.

No one is obliged to believe what Joseph believed, obviously. I am not convinced, however, that he did not believe it. He spent the better part of his short life unfolding ideas and experiences tied to some early profound experience, in my opinion. You can see the various core elements in place in the text of the Book of Mormon and in documents dating before the Book of Mormon’s publication.

I think he justified juicing things up based on the idea that he had received the sealing power Nephi receives in the Book of Mormon. It’s a pretty scary passage in which God basically gives Nephi a blank check to do what he wants because God trusts Nephi. These things only really make sense if Joseph had believed he had experienced a vision of Christ before he wrote the Book of Mormon.

[_Stem]

I don’t see that anyone can prove what Joseph Smith did or did not experience. Anyone who says he lied about it all is on just as shaky ground as someone who thinks he did not.

What are you expecting? A testimony? An anti-testimony? Smith appears to have believed he had visions of some kind. He connected these experiences to myths about the Native Americans being Hebrews and a restoration of primitive Christianity. Those connections evolved and strengthened over time, but I think historical evidence points to a core theology of seership, temples, and the vision of Christ assuring salvation early on.

No one is obliged to believe what Joseph believed, obviously. I am not convinced, however, that he did not believe it. He spent the better part of his short life unfolding ideas and experiences tied to some early profound experience, in my opinion. You can see the various core elements in place in the text of the Book of Mormon and in documents dating before the Book of Mormon’s publication.

I think he justified juicing things up based on the idea that he had received the sealing power Nephi receives in the Book of Mormon. It’s a pretty scary passage in which God basically gives Nephi a blank check to do what he wants because God trusts Nephi. These things only really make sense if Joseph had believed he had experienced a vision of Christ before he wrote the Book of Mormon.

yep.

[_Gadianton]

Shulem,

You've mentioned recently that Smith has perpetrated a real crime against the Egyptian religion by misappropriating their noble gods to his own selfish ends. Believe me, I am a fan of your work. But I do have to ask, who was the guy who came up with the Egyptian gods in the first place? I'm a little suspicious because thousands of impoverished slaves baking in the sun for years to construct a tomb in order for one guy to get a good afterlife reeks of a scam to me. What's the evidence that he was sincere? How is it that you can respect the Egyptian religion without first proving the gods of Egypt are either a) real, or b) sincere constructs by somebody who really and sincerely believed they were real, thereby making it legitimate myth? How do we know that the gods weren't just made up by some guy who wanted power for himself and his family, thereby making Egyptian "mythology" nothing but a pack of lies?

[_Kishkumen]

Hey, Meadowchik:

I was not describing my own experience, no. I can see why you thought I might be! ;-)

Personally I am uncomfortable with the assumption that one person’s life is objectively better than another person’s, once certain basic needs are met.

I recall the sobering experience of hearing the reactions of family members of the Heaven’s Gate cult to their loved ones’ final video messages before they took their own lives. Some remarked that the person was at peace and was acting voluntarily.

That’s a case to which many people react with outrage and incredulity. Lives were wasted. The leaders are frauds. We all know the script. At the same time we might think that people should be able to pursue their own happiness and live with their own choices. Should we criminalize religion and prevent people from making these choices because we know better?

That sounds like a slippery slope to me.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

What are you expecting?

Well, when you opened up with a really interesting take on Mormon myth making, and then with Stak chiming in about human propensity for myth making, I think I was expecting you to walk us through, more or less, how humans have developed myths as a sort of manifestation of their pathos/ethos/culture/broader understanding of the world around them and how that segued into Mormonism inheriting these myths and adapting them to their era. You then could explain how they represent historical LDS zeitgeist that is less scam-y and more spiritual-y. Less huckster and more guru.

The thing is you have a big challenge ahead of you if you want to tie Mormonism to a deep human need for symbolism manifested through myth making that isn't what its own history shows it to be. As others have said, lies have become myth and the flock has adapted that to their own spirituality, but I guess I can't get past the incontrovertible facts of Mormonism's history that shows it as a deeply crass attempt at profiteering.

- Doc

[_Shulem]

Shulem,

You've mentioned recently that Smith has perpetrated a real crime against the Egyptian religion by misappropriating their noble gods to his own selfish ends. Believe me, I am a fan of your work. But I do have to ask, who was the guy who came up with the Egyptian gods in the first place? I'm a little suspicious because thousands of impoverished slaves baking in the sun for years to construct a tomb in order for one guy to get a good afterlife reeks of a scam to me. What's the evidence that he was sincere? How is it that you can respect the Egyptian religion without first proving the gods of Egypt are either a) real, or b) sincere constructs by somebody who really and sincerely believed they were real, thereby making it legitimate myth? How do we know that the gods weren't just made up by some guy who wanted power for himself and his family, thereby making Egyptian "mythology" nothing but a pack of lies?

Unlike Joseph Smith who stole from the Christians and the Jews who lived thousands of years prior, the Egyptians made up their own religion indigenas to their own people and lands. The original Egyptian myths of creation and gods is dated back as far as human writing can tell the tale. The Egyptians had their own religion and their own sense of honor. But Joseph Smith comes along and steal from the Christians, steals from the Jews, steals from the Egyptians, steals other men's wives, and steals everything else he can get his grubby money loving hands on.

The Egyptians lived their religion -- honored their gods and their myths. But Joseph Smith stole from them and made a mockery of their religion. Hence, the prophet was shot dead at Carthage to atone for his mistakes. That's Karma, baby. He deserved to die. he crossed a line. He burnt the press. Lied about the papyrus. Screwed fanny and lied to Emma. He was a scumbag and a Goddamn liar. Don't even get me started . . . .

[_Shulem]

We can study the makings of Mormonism because we have records and eyewitness accounts to the effect. We really can't do that with the Egyptian religion. The Egyptian religion is pretty much all myth. Mormonism is NOT myth. It's a Goddamn modern day lie fit for those who choose to be brainwashed.

[_JP]

Great thread, Kish.

All this effort to make Mormonism something special and deserving of some special level of scorn is positively exhausting, not to mention ironic this time of year when we celebrate all sorts of rituals and traditions that are just shy of made up out of thin air.

Mormonism is built on myth. Christianity is built on myth. Christmas is built on myth. The United States of America is built on myth. The idea that you're standing up for "truth" by calling out the LDS Church on its "lies" is an awfully childish way of approaching reality.

Can you live within the myth? Even embrace it? If so, great. If not, move on with your life for God's sake.