An Other Testament: On Typology by Joseph M. Spencer

[Kishkumen]

As Brigham Young said, if the Book of Mormon were written much later, it would look very different.

Indeed, and the best part of the Book of Mormon, First Nephi, was one of the later parts to be dictated. Oh, if we could only read the actual lost manuscript. How fascinating that would be. Beta version Book of Mormon.

[Kishkumen]

And now, we have the book "Method Infinite" which has demonstrated Joseph Smith was the same way in his approach to the Masonic ideas of their own legends and stories. There was a "literalization" of the history of the legends, yet there is not a history there at all. This is most interesting and an avenue I am pursuing... actually, if one wants to see what the "literal" history of ancient Israel in the Bible was, William G. Dever is really strong in that area, and yet, Israelite history, not as the Bible portrays, but as archaeology has discovered, an actual Israel, but the legendary stuff in the Bible tells us more about what it meant to people than the actual dirt and bone archaeology ever will. It is an interesting arena to be sure.

If George Oliver could rewrite Bible stories, why not Joseph Smith?

Before Enoch assumed the superintendence of our Order, there appears to have been some admixture of the two lines of Seth and Cain, for the world does not exhibit so bright an aspect as during the last period. Adam, however, was yet living, and his authority was sufficient to restrain the race over which he possessed the supreme government, as king, priest, and prophet, from those rash and violent deeds, which, after his death, deformed the face of nature.

[Philo Sofee]

And now, we have the book "Method Infinite" which has demonstrated Joseph Smith was the same way in his approach to the Masonic ideas of their own legends and stories. There was a "literalization" of the history of the legends, yet there is not a history there at all. This is most interesting and an avenue I am pursuing... actually, if one wants to see what the "literal" history of ancient Israel in the Bible was, William G. Dever is really strong in that area, and yet, Israelite history, not as the Bible portrays, but as archaeology has discovered, an actual Israel, but the legendary stuff in the Bible tells us more about what it meant to people than the actual dirt and bone archaeology ever will. It is an interesting arena to be sure.

If George Oliver could rewrite Bible stories, why not Joseph Smith?

Before Enoch assumed the superintendence of our Order, there appears to have been some admixture of the two lines of Seth and Cain, for the world does not exhibit so bright an aspect as during the last period. Adam, however, was yet living, and his authority was sufficient to restrain the race over which he possessed the supreme government, as king, priest, and prophet, from those rash and violent deeds, which, after his death, deformed the face of nature.

And conversely, it is not that the made up stories, not being literal history are valueless. Just because something didn't happen has no bearing on its relevance to many folks. The parables of Jesus are tantamount to recognizing historical reality is not the singular best, nor only way to actual and real truth in our lives. It is extremely difficult for literalists today - both Mormon and critics - to grasp this...

Myth is denigrated, yet it is a path to greater truth than the scripture in many regards. Myth are just stories, yet that is the basis of life changing truth even if it is not recognized. Myth is spit on, yet it holds the only actual key to truth there is, so long as one is not too literalist especially the fundamentalist historians and the fundamentalist scientists who both pooh-pooh myth thus missing the larger more significant truth it holds and bears in our lives, an actual reality not heard, seen, or known in our physical world. And it's near impossible to get literalists to see this. The either/or black and white thinking is amazing and amazingly short-sighted for value, for reality in the universe. It seems to me everything being reduced to the physical alone is how we have missed the boat, and yet I advocate for that periodically forgetting the mythological lesson when arguing with apologists...ayiyi....

[tagriffy]

I already asked Kish this, but what do you think would be helpful in overcoming the denigration of myth, other than being careful to delineate what the term means in scholarly circles? I literally (pun intended) approach the Book of Mormon as a modern myth, so anything that would help me communicate what I see there would be extremely helpful.

[Kishkumen]

I already asked Kish this, but what do you think would be helpful in overcoming the denigration of myth, other than being careful to delineate what the term means in scholarly circles? I literally (pun intended) approach the Book of Mormon as a modern myth, so anything that would help me communicate what I see there would be extremely helpful.

There is a lot of good scholarship on myth. I have found the scholarship of Bruce Lincoln to be helpful.

[tagriffy]

I already asked Kish this, but what do you think would be helpful in overcoming the denigration of myth, other than being careful to delineate what the term means in scholarly circles? I literally (pun intended) approach the Book of Mormon as a modern myth, so anything that would help me communicate what I see there would be extremely helpful.

There is a lot of good scholarship on myth. I have found the scholarship of Bruce Lincoln to be helpful.

I will check him out. Do you think useful comparisons with other types of modern mythmaking, such as Star Wars or the DC and Marvel universes would be helpful in getting people to understand, if not necessarily overcoming the denigration of myth?

[Kishkumen]

I will check him out. Do you think useful comparisons with other types of modern mythmaking, such as Star Wars or the DC and Marvel universes would be helpful in getting people to understand, if not necessarily overcoming the denigration of myth?

Not really, unfortunately. I think that modern myths are every bit as interesting and worthwhile as ancient myths, but I am not sure we are yet in a cultural space where Genesis and the Marvel Universe could be treated as belonging, in some regards, in the same category.

[tagriffy]

Hmm.

[tagriffy]

Dan, your video really, really makes me miss my library!

[Res Ipsa]

Do you think Smith thought of the Book of Mormon as an “instructive story about the past” as contrasted with a record of literally true events that took place in the Americas? I’m perfectly comfortable with the concept of the Book of Mormon as myth and with the concept of historicity being irrelevant to myth. But I have trouble picturing Joseph Smith understanding the Book of Mormon as myth. I personally have given up on the idea of understanding what it was like to be Smith — how he thought about what he was doing. I have no idea.

Personally, I don't think Joseph would have recognized there was a difference. History writing as we now know it was in its bare infancy in his time. Then there is his relative lack of education to deal with. I would say that he simply accepted it as literally true events, much as most common people of his time simply accepted the historicity of Adam or the Tower of Babel. Sure, these kinds of concepts were already being challenged, but mostly in the ivory towers. They hadn't yet filtered down to the common people. Notably, when Joseph did start learning a bit about Hebrew, he would quickly jettison doctrines like creatio ex nihilo. As Brigham Young said, if the Book of Mormon were written much later, it would look very different.

Thanks!