Getting Beyond the Lie: Historical Mythmaking

[_Gadianton]

I'm not going to be dropping in much for a few days, but can respond to this:

There was discussion earlier about whether one can really call a myth good or bad without being subjective. I disagree that that is always the case, and this is a major example.

I'm thinking this refers to something I said, but I didn't say exactly this. I said that I reject a scholarly treatment of myth that allows one myth to be good and another one bad. I'm open to being proven wrong by the following: show me a contemporary reputable historian or anthropologist who ranks the moral content of mythology. Greek myths are good but Hopi myths are bad -- anything like that. (can send PM since I might not see it here).

The famous example of "ranking" myth (using the term a little loose here) would be Friedrich Hegel's "Philosophy of History" where the merits of the great cultures in history are shown to build upon each other, with truth itself transforming, until 19th century Germany arrives. If we want to assume contemporary secular liberalism is the standard to judge the world by, I think that's fine as a useful tool for the Department of Justice, I'm not going to let anyone eat my pets because their culture says it's okay. But to see history as an exercise in getting to the bottom of a scam is a bit ridiculous.

If anyone believes Mike Quinn's was on to something with his "magic world view", then Joseph Smith and co. at once are already mitigated somewhat in their "lying" by, namely, the magic worldview. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

[_Kishkumen]

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

1. He sees the foundation of Mormonism primarily through the lens of his perception of Joseph Smith’s dishonesty.

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?

What truly happened is contested, and it is not obvious to me that Mormon foundations could or should be anchored in secular history.

So you and Bill Reel agree.

Far from it. All Abrahamic faiths are founded on mythological narratives, not “real” history. To demand that Mormonism operate outside of the tradition it is founded upon is to betray the tradition. The Hebrew Bible is not secular history. The New Testament is not secular history. The Koran is not secular history. The Mormon tradition similarly will be founded on narratives of faith, not secular history.

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

Historians are required and I welcome them. Bill’s ejection from the LDS Church is not just about the history he shared.

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

I really am not concerned with that question at all.

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

Your model of simple dichotomies does not work here. I never said he was not a secular Mormon whistleblower. I said he was. A secular Mormon whistleblower can still operate according to a myth or type while sharing what she or he views to be facts.

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.

LOL!

It really isn’t that simple. LDS leaders accept spiritual events as real events. They trust that Joseph Smith’s narratives reflect spiritual realities. They have a completely different worldview. Bill Reel does not accept what they hold to be spiritual realities as such. He rejects them based on an argument that has no place for such things. For Reel, Smith could not see God with his spiritual eyes and really see God. Martin Harris could not see the plates with his spiritual eyes and really see plates.

One could, however, adopt a point of view in which the experiences and statements of these early Mormons are accepted as true and real, regardless of secular arguments to the contrary. It is not simply the case that the only honest position is to accept the secular history over the narrative of faith. We know which narrative most of us on MDB tend to go by. But we don’t get to define what other people accept as real and true in a way that works for us at the expense of them and imagine we are having a constructive discussion with people of faith.

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?

I believe that everyone needs to do a better job of understanding and articulating their own and others’ views. The triumphal crow that one’s own views are the real, factual, and the only valid ones may be affirmed in the end, but it is no way to have a discussion with those holding other views, and one simply cannot reject one’s faith’s “faith narrative” publicly and demand to stay in full fellowship. I don’t see how that works.

[_JP]

Far from it. All Abrahamic faiths are founded on mythological narratives, not “real” history. To demand that Mormonism operate outside of the tradition it is founded upon is to betray the tradition. The Hebrew Bible is not secular history. The New Testament is not secular history. The Koran is not secular history. The Mormon tradition similarly will be founded on narratives of faith, not secular history.

Excellently put.

I find it foolish condemn people who choose to operate (or just naturally operate) within the realms of myth and tradition is really to condemn the human condition, because that's how we all operate. We're all products of the myths associated with whatever environment we find ourselves in. Each choosing when and where to suspend disbelief. Each basing decisions, even important ones, on myths we've created and stories we've told ourselves about what is "true."

[_Dr. Shades]

Each basing decisions, even important ones, on myths we've created and stories we've told ourselves about what is "true."

I never told myself that the Mormon myth was true. I was duped into it, nothing more.

[_Meadowchik]

Each basing decisions, even important ones, on myths we've created and stories we've told ourselves about what is "true."

I never told myself that the Mormon myth was true. I was duped into it, nothing more.

I did, but I still think I was duped. Either way, we were impacted by the Mormon myth.

[_Meadowchik]

Far from it. All Abrahamic faiths are founded on mythological narratives, not “real” history. To demand that Mormonism operate outside of the tradition it is founded upon is to betray the tradition. The Hebrew Bible is not secular history. The New Testament is not secular history. The Koran is not secular history. The Mormon tradition similarly will be founded on narratives of faith, not secular history.

Excellently put.

I find it foolish condemn people who choose to operate (or just naturally operate) within the realms of myth and tradition is really to condemn the human condition, because that's how we all operate. We're all products of the myths associated with whatever environment we find ourselves in. Each choosing when and where to suspend disbelief. Each basing decisions, even important ones, on myths we've created and stories we've told ourselves about what is "true."

Who is condemning? Of course myth is natural, and we all use it. Bill Reel, however, is not merely complaining that individuals use myth and that they are lying. Bill Reel, as far as I can tell, is complaining about a powerful organisation claiming supernatural authority over myth, and then perpetuating its use of that claim on a continual basis that impacts individual lives and also complex social relationships.

What if you let your children believe in Santa? One day, your oldest child learns that the Santa myth is not literal, but chooses to continue playing, and does so with the younger siblings. What if you maintain a Santa-is-real facade with your oldest child? You never let on that you know it is a game and you expect everyone in the family to treat Santa as a real person. If you've ever heard children argue about the existence of Santa, you might easily understand that maintaining such a facade can be oppressive, but also raining on the Santa game is not fun for the little ones.

Personally, I have taken this approach as soon as my young children learn that Santa might not be real: "No, Santa is not real, but it is fun to pretend sometimes." I want my children to know that we value objectivity, but that we can still enjoy fantasy. I do think that people who use myth oppressively do indeed make a lie out of it.

[_honorentheos]

And yet, who set up those scenarios? There is a difference between choosing between different degrees, and choosing between an education and no education. And there is a difference between continuing work experience and discontinuing indefinitely.

How about the myth of home ownership providing financial stability? That might have been generally reliable under most circumstances in the US, perhaps until lending practices were not accurately reflected by the ratings of investment banks.

Hi Meadowchik,

I should point out that the discussion on value judgment is not fully in the domain of myth. Rather, it is the domain of objective evaluation, so it overlaps the discussion only when it comes to discussing how someone is evaluating the value of a myth or how well it is performing a function for an individual or culture. When I point out a value judgment in one of your statements, it isn't because the assumed person represented as believing a particular myth is making a value judgment, it's pointing out a place where you are inserting your values into the assessment which moves it closer to subjective and further from objective observation.

Going back to the example -

...because she believed God would prosper her family in the land of her inheritance if she stayed home and made lots of babies.

We've assumed a perspective in this part of the statement where we are claiming a fictional but representation person made "bad" life decisions based on a belief that, "God would prosper her family in the land of her inheritance if she stayed home and made lots of babies." Sure, plenty of LDS women have made the decision to forego advanced education to start a family with the Church likely influencing that decision. But there is a legitimate difference between noting the parallel between the Church's teaching and the number of LDS women who do not earn degrees past a high school diploma despite significantly higher academic achievement in high school compared to the male peers, and the quoted statement. You've inserted something personal into this. That's not to say it's wrong to do so when making decisions or outside of claiming to be objective about a subject. But it's not being objective. In the examples you share, you often are lining up perfectly reasonable examples of observations, but then making value judgment conclusions from it in a way I tend to associate with folks like Rush Limbaugh. Stringing facts together to form a crowd around a disguised opinion that sounds kinda factish is normal, but one should be aware when it is happening or when one is doing so oneself.

[_I have a question]

Each basing decisions, even important ones, on myths we've created and stories we've told ourselves about what is "true."

I never told myself that the Mormon myth was true. I was duped into it, nothing more.

Here's a lesson manual for 3 year olds explaining how they should make their own minds up about the Church.

Prophets talk with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ

Explain that Noah, Moses, and Joseph Smith were all prophets. A prophet is a man who talks with Heavenly Father and Jesus. Since Heavenly Father and Jesus are not on the earth to teach us, they have prophets to help them. Heavenly Father and Jesus teach the prophet, and the prophet teaches us what we should do so that we can be blessed and happy.

https://www.lds.org/manual/primary-1/lesson-43?lang=eng

Have the {3 year old} children stand and say, “(Name of the living prophet) is a prophet of God.”

Those pesky 3 year olds creating myths and stories and making their own minds up about what's true.

[_Dr. Shades]

Those pesky 3 year olds creating myths and stories and making their own minds up about what's true.

Ha! Very, VERY well stated, I have a question.

[_Shulem]

Those pesky 3 year olds creating myths and stories and making their own minds up about what's true.

Ha! Very, VERY well stated, I have a question.

Amen to that!