An Other Testament: On Typology by Joseph M. Spencer

[Dr. Shades]

I think you are correct that unfortunately people too easily equate myth with lie or fiction.

How can it be anything other than a lie or fiction? Please answer that question sincerely.

Do you have any suggestions--beyond explicating what religious scholars mean by the term--for overcoming that equation?

Does it need to be overcome? If so, why?

Two people watch Star Wars, a modern myth. The original 1977 version. Person A believes the movie is a documentary consisting of a compilation of hidden camera footage, that the entire course of events transpired as shown. Person B believes that the movie is made-up fiction from front to back, originating in the mind of a man named George Lucas.

Is one of them to be praised and the other pitied? Or are they both to be praised, or both to be pitied? Explain your answer.

[Moksha]

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

It would be like a different animal if Joseph had access to Google. With a color laser printer, there could have been panda and triceratops illustrations.

[tagriffy]

I think you are correct that unfortunately people too easily equate myth with lie or fiction.

How can it be anything other than a lie or fiction? Please answer that question sincerely.

Because it is myth!

Seriously, myth is more than what is on the page (or the screen as the case may be). Karen Armstrong put it better than I can at this moment:

We tend to assume that the people of the past were (more or less) like us, but in fact their spiritual lives were rather different. In particular, they evolved two ways of thinking, speaking, and acquiring knowledge, which scholars have called mythos and logos. Both were essential; they were regarded as complementary ways of arriving at truth, and each had its special area of competence.

Myth was regarded as primary; it was concerned with what was thought to be timeless and constant in our existence. Myth looked back to the origins of life, to the foundations of culture, and to the deepest levels of the human mind. Myth was not concerned with practical matters, but with meaning…

Myth could not be demonstrated by rational proof; its insights were more intuitive, similar to those of art, music, poetry, or sculpture.

…To ask whether the Exodus from Egypt took place exactly as recounted in the Bible or to demand historical and scientific evidence to prove that it is factually true is to mistake the nature and purpose of this story. It is to confuse mythos with logos.

Logos was equally important. Logos was the rational, pragmatic, and scientific thought that enabled men and women to function well in the world.. We are very familiar with logos, which is the basis of our society. Unlike myth, logos must relate exactly to facts and correspond to extemal realities if it is to be effectlve. Unlike myth, which looks back to the beginnings and to the foundations, logos forges ahead and tries to find something new…

In the premodern world, both mythos and logos were regarded as indispensable. Each would be impoverished without the other. Yet the two were essentially distinct, and it was held to be dangerous to confuse mythical and rational discourse. They had separate jobs to do. Myth was not reasonable; lts narratives were not supposed to be demonstrated empirically. It provided the context of meaning that made our practical activities worthwhile. You were not supposed to make myth the basis of a pragmatic policy. If you did, the results could be disastrous, because what worked well in the inner world of the psyche was not readily applicable to the affairs of the external world.

Logos had its limitations too. It could not assuage human pain or sorrow. Rational arguments could make no sense of tragedy. Logos could not answer questions about the ultimate value of human life.

Mythos is the function I propose the Book of Mormon (not to mention any other scripture) fulfills. To insist that the Book of Mormon must be historical, either for it to be scripture or for Joseph to be a prophet, is to do what Armstrong says of the Exodus, confounding logos with mythos.

Two people watch Star Wars, a modern myth. The original 1977 version. Person A believes the movie is a documentary consisting of a compilation of hidden camera footage, that the entire course of events transpired as shown. Person B believes that the movie is made-up fiction from front to back, originating in the mind of a man named George Lucas.

Is one of them to be praised and the other pitied? Or are they both to be praised, or both to be pitied? Explain your answer.

It depends on what the person does with those beliefs. At the level of the core statements, I would neither praise nor pity either of them. It is simply a fact they have such beliefs. But if either of them start insisting that it must be one way or the other for the movie to be great, that is where I would start having a problem.

[Res Ipsa]

How can it be anything other than a lie or fiction? Please answer that question sincerely.

Because it is myth!

Seriously, myth is more than what is on the page (or the screen as the case may be). Karen Armstrong put it better than I can at this moment:

We tend to assume that the people of the past were (more or less) like us, but in fact their spiritual lives were rather different. In particular, they evolved two ways of thinking, speaking, and acquiring knowledge, which scholars have called mythos and logos. Both were essential; they were regarded as complementary ways of arriving at truth, and each had its special area of competence.

Myth was regarded as primary; it was concerned with what was thought to be timeless and constant in our existence. Myth looked back to the origins of life, to the foundations of culture, and to the deepest levels of the human mind. Myth was not concerned with practical matters, but with meaning…

Myth could not be demonstrated by rational proof; its insights were more intuitive, similar to those of art, music, poetry, or sculpture.

…To ask whether the Exodus from Egypt took place exactly as recounted in the Bible or to demand historical and scientific evidence to prove that it is factually true is to mistake the nature and purpose of this story. It is to confuse mythos with logos.

Logos was equally important. Logos was the rational, pragmatic, and scientific thought that enabled men and women to function well in the world.. We are very familiar with logos, which is the basis of our society. Unlike myth, logos must relate exactly to facts and correspond to extemal realities if it is to be effectlve. Unlike myth, which looks back to the beginnings and to the foundations, logos forges ahead and tries to find something new…

In the premodern world, both mythos and logos were regarded as indispensable. Each would be impoverished without the other. Yet the two were essentially distinct, and it was held to be dangerous to confuse mythical and rational discourse. They had separate jobs to do. Myth was not reasonable; lts narratives were not supposed to be demonstrated empirically. It provided the context of meaning that made our practical activities worthwhile. You were not supposed to make myth the basis of a pragmatic policy. If you did, the results could be disastrous, because what worked well in the inner world of the psyche was not readily applicable to the affairs of the external world.

Logos had its limitations too. It could not assuage human pain or sorrow. Rational arguments could make no sense of tragedy. Logos could not answer questions about the ultimate value of human life.

Mythos is the function I propose the Book of Mormon (not to mention any other scripture) fulfills. To insist that the Book of Mormon must be historical, either for it to be scripture or for Joseph to be a prophet, is to do what Armstrong says of the Exodus, confounding logos with mythos.

Two people watch Star Wars, a modern myth. The original 1977 version. Person A believes the movie is a documentary consisting of a compilation of hidden camera footage, that the entire course of events transpired as shown. Person B believes that the movie is made-up fiction from front to back, originating in the mind of a man named George Lucas.

Is one of them to be praised and the other pitied? Or are they both to be praised, or both to be pitied? Explain your answer.

It depends on what the person does with those beliefs. At the level of the core statements, I would neither praise nor pity either of them. It is simply a fact they have such beliefs. But if either of them start insisting that it must be one way or the other for the movie to be great, that is where I would start having a problem.

Okay, but applying what Armstrong said, Shades is part of the "we" that isn't part of the premodern world. The best we have in this modern (post-modern world) is the acknowledged fact that fictional stories can communicate certain truths that aren't tied to factual or historical accuracy. But if there is this fundamental distinction between premodern thought and modern/post-modern thought, when did the transition happen? Did Smith live in the premodern area? What evidence do we have that Smith and his contemporaries considered the distinction between mythos and logos in the way that ancient geeks did? When Tolkien wrote the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, did he understand what he was doing the same (but not selfsame) way that Homer understood what he was doing when he wrote the Illiad?

Based on how Smith talked about the Book of Mormon peoples in reference to actual geographical locations, isn't it reasonable to conclude that he viewed the book as a literal history of actual people in a real place? And based on how the faithful have viewed the book at its creation and over time, that they understood the book in exactly the same way? Or was Joseph Smith's world that of the premodern with a transition that we can identify between the 1830s and 2022?

[huckelberry]

The current political situation demonstrates that the modern society and people can leave logos behind in the pursuit of myth.

I frankly have a hard time seeing any significant change in how humans relate to the twine thought or communication types, myth and logos. As well as I can see they are both live and well as far back as we have written records. Without written records I feel quite sure people could distinguish and use both coyote story and ask why is the dog barking in the middle of the night.

How true a myth is is a matter of real concern. Consider movie Birth of a Nation.

/////
I am happy to see value in myth. It is possible to find a good bit of understanding in fiction without the extra dressing of calling it myth. I still think Shades presents a valid question , one that does not go away.

[tagriffy]

Okay, but applying what Armstrong said, Shades is part of the "we" that isn't part of the premodern world. The best we have in this modern (post-modern world) is the acknowledged fact that fictional stories can communicate certain truths that aren't tied to factual or historical accuracy. But if there is this fundamental distinction between premodern thought and modern/post-modern thought, when did the transition happen? Did Smith live in the premodern area? What evidence do we have that Smith and his contemporaries considered the distinction between mythos and logos in the way that ancient geeks did? When Tolkien wrote the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, did he understand what he was doing the same (but not selfsame) way that Homer understood what he was doing when he wrote the Illiad?

I read something somewhere (you'll have to forgive the vagueness here, but I can't remember the exact source) that Tolikien was indeed trying to forge a mythology for Britain or England. If this is so, then did understand he was doing the same kind of thing Homer was doing.

In any case, in the same link, Armstrong goes on to say:

By the eighteenth century, however, the people of Europe and America had achieved such astonishing success in science and technology that they began to think that logos was the only means to truth and began to discount mythos as false and superstitious…

Our religious experience in the modern world has changed, and because an increasing number of people regard scientific rationalism alone as true, they have often tried to turn the mythos of their faith into logos. Fundamentalists have also made this attempt. This confusion has led to more problems.

How this applies to Joseph is not fully prepared to explicate, yet. Right now, this is just an idea that is crashing around in my head, and I'm just banging it out. I no longer have a copy, but I remember Quinn talking about this in Mormonism and the Magic World View. If I recall correctly, Quinn was basically saying that Joseph the clockwork-universe-world that is characteristic of modernity. So in that sense, we could say he was premodern. Yet he was also still part a world that was rapidly modernizing and was certainly aware of some scientific developments. See, for example, Hel. 12:15. So in that sense, we could say he was modern. But really he is in a state of anomie, with one foot in the premodern world and the other in the modern world.

Based on how Smith talked about the Book of Mormon peoples in reference to actual geographical locations, isn't it reasonable to conclude that he viewed the book as a literal history of actual people in a real place? And based on how the faithful have viewed the book at its creation and over time, that they understood the book in exactly the same way? Or was Joseph Smith's world that of the premodern with a transition that we can identify between the 1830s and 2022?

You'll remember in response to your question,

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 responded

Personally, I don't think Joseph would have recognized there was a difference.... 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.

Likely, most of his early followers were much the same; they simply accepted it as historical. Mind you, we are not at the state of fundamentalism yet (what we would now call fundamentalism is a fully modernist phenomena, and if I am correct, Joseph, his followers, and most common people weren't truly modernists). How I would tentatively describe this while taking Armstrong as my cue would be to say mythos was being elided into logos. They simply didn't have the tools we now have to do otherwise.

[tagriffy]

I am happy to see value in myth. It is possible to find a good bit of understanding in fiction without the extra dressing of calling it myth. I still think Shades presents a valid question , one that does not go away.

I won't argu with that.

[huckelberry]

from the Karen Armstrong link:
"In the premodern world, both mythos and logos were regarded as indispensable. Each would be impoverished without the other. Yet the two were essentially distinct, and it was held to be dangerous to confuse mythical and rational discourse. They had separate jobs to do. Myth was not reasonable; lts narratives were not supposed to be demonstrated empirically. It provided the context of meaning that made our practical activities worthwhile. You were not supposed to make myth the basis of a pragmatic policy. If you did, the results could be disastrous, because what worked well in the inner world of the psyche was not readily applicable to the affairs of the external world."
///
Karen Armstrong may present some interesting observations and thoughts but interesting does no require agreement from others.I find myself at least in my present reflection experiencing a hard rejection of this proposal.I might (with Res Ipsa's observation or question) think modern is a very flexible word. Perhaps modern starts with the invention of writing. At least to my mind her observation might work better if pushed well back into prehistory.

I think there is good reason to think of the exodus story as myth. It presents theological and spiritual ideas of freedom hope and struggle. It has inspired lots of suffering people. It also has been taken as a basis for political understanding by Jewish people for millennia now. Perhaps for better or worse depending upon how that is seen. It would be a guiding myth for my handcarting ancestors, again perhaps with mixed results. There may be different ways people have applied the exodus story but it has not been secreted away for inner spiritual quests only.

There is an adjoining myth in the Bible , the conquest. It would be better I think if that story was kept as an invitation for inner purging of evil but of course it has not been so limited. A certain Roman destruction of Jerusalem may well have been occasioned by Jewish people feeling called to put that mythic story into real world action.

But more simply the exodus story has these great miracles demonstrating the active presence of God. If real that is evidence for such a god and belief influences action. Similarly the Book of Mormon if real events includes overwhelming proof of Jesus being raised from the dead and having divine power. People care about that idea beyond Jesus being a myth of innocence and good character.

Are we not supposed to ask such questions? People always have asked such questions. Just because they lived in some past they were not in some benighted state where such questions did not concern people.

[Res Ipsa]

Okay, but applying what Armstrong said, Shades is part of the "we" that isn't part of the premodern world. The best we have in this modern (post-modern world) is the acknowledged fact that fictional stories can communicate certain truths that aren't tied to factual or historical accuracy. But if there is this fundamental distinction between premodern thought and modern/post-modern thought, when did the transition happen? Did Smith live in the premodern area? What evidence do we have that Smith and his contemporaries considered the distinction between mythos and logos in the way that ancient geeks did? When Tolkien wrote the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, did he understand what he was doing the same (but not selfsame) way that Homer understood what he was doing when he wrote the Illiad?

I read something somewhere (you'll have to forgive the vagueness here, but I can't remember the exact source) that Tolikien was indeed trying to forge a mythology for Britain or England. If this is so, then did understand he was doing the same kind of thing Homer was doing.

In any case, in the same link, Armstrong goes on to say:

By the eighteenth century, however, the people of Europe and America had achieved such astonishing success in science and technology that they began to think that logos was the only means to truth and began to discount mythos as false and superstitious…

Our religious experience in the modern world has changed, and because an increasing number of people regard scientific rationalism alone as true, they have often tried to turn the mythos of their faith into logos. Fundamentalists have also made this attempt. This confusion has led to more problems.

How this applies to Joseph is not fully prepared to explicate, yet. Right now, this is just an idea that is crashing around in my head, and I'm just banging it out. I no longer have a copy, but I remember Quinn talking about this in Mormonism and the Magic World View. If I recall correctly, Quinn was basically saying that Joseph the clockwork-universe-world that is characteristic of modernity. So in that sense, we could say he was premodern. Yet he was also still part a world that was rapidly modernizing and was certainly aware of some scientific developments. See, for example, Hel. 12:15. So in that sense, we could say he was modern. But really he is in a state of anomie, with one foot in the premodern world and the other in the modern world.

Based on how Smith talked about the Book of Mormon peoples in reference to actual geographical locations, isn't it reasonable to conclude that he viewed the book as a literal history of actual people in a real place? And based on how the faithful have viewed the book at its creation and over time, that they understood the book in exactly the same way? Or was Joseph Smith's world that of the premodern with a transition that we can identify between the 1830s and 2022?

You'll remember in response to your question,

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 responded

Personally, I don't think Joseph would have recognized there was a difference.... 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.

Likely, most of his early followers were much the same; they simply accepted it as historical. Mind you, we are not at the state of fundamentalism yet (what we would now call fundamentalism is a fully modernist phenomena, and if I am correct, Joseph, his followers, and most common people weren't truly modernists). How I would tentatively describe this while taking Armstrong as my cue would be to say mythos was being elided into logos. They simply didn't have the tools we now have to do otherwise.

Thanks for the very thoughtful response, which helps me understand the concept better.

[Res Ipsa]

from the Karen Armstrong link:
"In the premodern world, both mythos and logos were regarded as indispensable. Each would be impoverished without the other. Yet the two were essentially distinct, and it was held to be dangerous to confuse mythical and rational discourse. They had separate jobs to do. Myth was not reasonable; lts narratives were not supposed to be demonstrated empirically. It provided the context of meaning that made our practical activities worthwhile. You were not supposed to make myth the basis of a pragmatic policy. If you did, the results could be disastrous, because what worked well in the inner world of the psyche was not readily applicable to the affairs of the external world."
///
Karen Armstrong may present some interesting observations and thoughts but interesting does no require agreement from others.I find myself at least in my present reflection experiencing a hard rejection of this proposal.I might (with Res Ipsa's observation or question) think modern is a very flexible word. Perhaps modern starts with the invention of writing. At least to my mind her observation might work better if pushed well back into prehistory.

I think there is good reason to think of the exodus story as myth. It presents theological and spiritual ideas of freedom hope and struggle. It has inspired lots of suffering people. It also has been taken as a basis for political understanding by Jewish people for millennia now. Perhaps for better or worse depending upon how that is seen. It would be a guiding myth for my handcarting ancestors, again perhaps with mixed results. There may be different ways people have applied the exodus story but it has not been secreted away for inner spiritual quests only.

There is an adjoining myth in the Bible , the conquest. It would be better I think if that story was kept as an invitation for inner purging of evil but of course it has not been so limited. A certain Roman destruction of Jerusalem may well have been occasioned by Jewish people feeling called to put that mythic story into real world action.

But more simply the exodus story has these great miracles demonstrating the active presence of God. If real that is evidence for such a god and belief influences action. Similarly the Book of Mormon if real events includes overwhelming proof of Jesus being raised from the dead and having divine power. People care about that idea beyond Jesus being a myth of innocence and good character.

Are we not supposed to ask such questions? People always have asked such questions. Just because they lived in some past they were not in some benighted state where such questions did not concern people.

The Exodus story as myth is a good example. Regardless of its literal truth or historicity, it was a central truth to the Jews understand of their relationship to God and their identity as a people. But shift to today, where the myth is being used as fact in an argument over real estate. That claim to land today depends on the historicity of the claim. Maybe the best way to understand the story depends on the question one is asking.