Getting Beyond the Lie: Historical Mythmaking

[Guest]

Actually, you have won me over to your thoughts re myths since the beginning of this thread, so I would agree with you! The following of cultural myths defines generation after generation of pretty fascinating Mormon history, and has resulted in the monolith of Mormonism today. I can certainly view that as a success of the Mormon myths, overall.

The right or wrong of choosing to follow those myths is an individual decision, however, which I agree is outside the purview of observation and evaluation of the historical myth process as a whole. It will be interesting to follow future generations to see how those myths survive (or don't!) or evolve.

I have reason to hope that the recent changes to the endowment will have a positive impact. If you consider the temple drama to be a myth, then there are substantive, positive changes concerning the model for women’s behavior and to the associated covenants. That may show Meadowchik to be partly correct. The myth can be improved, so that must mean it was, in the views of people like me, far from perfect.

[_Lemmie]

.... We live in a free society. People are free to be Mormons if it makes them happy and free to leave if they are not happy. I do what I can to live by that and persuade others that is true. I do not believe it is my place to tell everyone a myth will necessarily make them unhappy when that is factually untrue.

I don't know what Bill Reel said, but if he did that, I agree. I don't have a problem with him saying the myth makes him unhappy and could potentially do the same for others.

It may make them unhappy, and I think they should know that. I would encourage them to choose another path if they are unhappy Mormons. I do not prescribe to all people that they must leave Mormonism because it will inevitably make them happy. I am neither a prophet nor an aspiring tyrant.

Agreed. It is an interesting problem. So your issue is more with him imposing his interpretation of the myths on others? Or more specifically, his newly acquired understanding of the myths as damaging?

[_Kishkumen]

I don’t know that Bill did say that. I don’t say he did.

[_Lemmie]

Exactly. It's complicated. Like every single one of us.

Nobody said it better.

[_Dr. Shades]

Reverend:

If a leader of the LDS church, past or present, lied as opposed to "mythmade," what would that lie look like?

Is your objection to Bill Reel something other than the terminology he employed? If so, what is it?

(As a corollary to the above, if Bill never used the word "lie" and always used the word "myth," would you have any objection to him?)

[_Lemmie]

I don’t know that Bill did say that. I don’t say he did.

My apologies, I didn't mean to presume.

[_Dr. Shades]

Not to detract from my post two posts above this one . . . I hope you'll respond to it. . . but here's something else I hope you'll consider:

My criticism of Bill Reel’s conflation of lies and myths is not my attempt to replace lies with myths to spare the feelings and testimonies of believers.

In that case, whence your criticism of Bill Reel? I'm serious about that question.

What I am trying to do is inject a different perspective from the usual ex-Mormon myth. What you have done is essentially to repeat Reel’s myth to me. I get it. Bill gives “real” history, and is punished by the Church for doing so.

That's hardly a myth if that's indeed truly what has happened. Do you disagree that that's precisely what happened and is therefore not mythological?

OK, so, I will say this. “Real” history has little to do with Mormonism’s foundation myth.

So you and Bill Reel agree.

To the extent that historical evidence requires a shift in Mormonis’s founding narrative, the narrative will change, but only as elements of old narrative become absolutely untenable will they be sloughed off or changed.

And if not for good people like Bill Reel, grindael, etc. to give us the historical evidence, how can any shift come about?

But the new founding narrative will be a myth, because it will be the founding narrative of the faithful, not an “objective” history.

So, "baby steps," I guess?

Bill Reel has no standing to demand that Mormons change their foundation myth to suit his tyro efforts at secular history. That’s absurd.

I think it no sin to point out what's myth vs. what's fact. Do you?

He wanted to live out an entirely different mythological narrative, that of the secular Mormon whistleblower. He lived out that myth by challenging the Mormon myth.

Was he a secular Mormon whistleblower, or wasn't he? Remember, that which is factual is not mythical.

But the LDS church leaders sell their narrative as accurate, as reflecting actual events. That's what Bill Reel was calling them out on. He was not demanding that Mormons change anything. He was pointing out to them the falsehoods.

Reverend, what's your response to this trenchant observation by Holy Ghost? I'd really like to know.

ALSO: In your opinion, if someone believes in a myth but mistakenly assumes that that myth is a fact, is it a sin to point out that myth's non-factual status?

[_Meadowchik]

The value judgment is the statement I quoted. This comment supports that it is a projection of your values onto this other person and not as objective as you imagine. That's not to argue with the paragraph example. Does the statement reflect your values and contain an explicit or implied "what ought to be"? It's probably a value judgment.

I'm sorry, but all you've done is repeated that this contains a value judgment. Please identify the value judgment.

I will restate it in possible steps:

1. Woman is taught that she, her family and community will be more likely to prosper if she obeys God. (Mormon myth)
2. Woman is commanded to make temple marriage her highest priority. (Mormon myth)
3. Woman is commanded to multliply and replenish the earth (Mormon myth)
4. Woman is taught that her divinely-appointed role, barring extraordinary circumstances, is to be the primary caregiver of her children (Mormon myth)

(Neither she nor I, when I make this observation of her, need to make a value judgment to arrive at this conclusion. The need to survive as a member of the community is not a value judgment.)

[_Meadowchik]

I assure you that myths can indeed result in a construct where a woman suffers an abusive marriage for eternal reward.

Yes, and the “can” part of your statement requires interpretation. You put together a construct that can happen but will not necessarily happen. We see the same kinds of things happening where different myths influence the actors, and I do not see that anyone has demonstrated that it happens more among Mormons than in other groups. You have a long way to go before you prove that the myths themselves are to blame.

Here you tell me that I must do more to prove my point.

Yet I've shown you how believing the myth leads directly to the dysfunction.

The existence of similar myths that have similar consequences does not undermine my claim.
The existence of similar consequences from other chains of events does not undermine my claim.

If I understand Lemmie correctly, I agree that there might be other results of a myth, like ones affecting the community as a whole, which impact individuals enough to provide net benefit to a person suffering from a dysfunctional myth. In fact, I have have already referred to the possible changing benefit of myth, depending on socioeconomic circumstances.

If the myth is going to cause dysfunction as long as you believe it, it is a problem. It sounds like you are saying that, well, a person who actually believes all of it and does not prioritise their own rational value judgments and personal safety over the myth are just doing it wrong. It sounds like you are saying that people who believe myth should be careful to disbelieve it some of the time. But if a myth is only functional while we know when to not believe it, what does that tell us?

Once more, talking about the harmfulness of myth does not mean we are imposing our perspective on believers. That is not what I am suggesting.

[Guest]

It sounds like shame speaking when you call others to choose moving on over scorn. That seems like an emotional reaction, not a plan for betterment.

I'm saying if the only way you can view it is through the "it's a lie" lens, then you're better off just moving on.

Looking at it with a black & white lens is what's childish, which really is the whole point.