An Other Testament: On Typology by Joseph M. Spencer

[huckelberry]

......
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.

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.

Res Ipsa, I was thinking that this myth and logos forms overlap and crisscross quite a bit. You are pointing out one overlap which has become particularly painful in recent time.

[Moksha]

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?

Perhaps the Veil between reality and fantasy was thinner in those days. Smith did possess magic charts and the Jupiter Talisman. Tolkien probably never gave a sermon calling on the power of the Ents. On the other hand, Tolkien did assign the Elvish name Taruithorn to Oxford.

[Res Ipsa]

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.

Res Ipsa, I was thinking that this myth and logos forms overlap and crisscross quite a bit. You are pointing out one overlap which has become particularly painful in recent time.

Painful? How so?

[huckelberry]

Res Ipsa, I was thinking that this myth and logos forms overlap and crisscross quite a bit. You are pointing out one overlap which has become particularly painful in recent time.

Painful? How so?

Palestinians loosing places to live. Conflicts within Jewish groups on how to deal with Israeli desire for expansion. I thought that sort of problem is what you had in mind. Jewish claim to a right to all of the land while other people there say, what?

[Res Ipsa]

Painful? How so?

Palestinians loosing places to live. Conflicts within Jewish groups on how to deal with Israeli desire for expansion. I thought that sort of problem is what you had in mind. Jewish claim to a right to all of the land while other people there say, what?

Ah, got it. The conflict has been painful to witness for far too many years. Devastating and deadly for many.

[huckelberry]

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.

Well there are a lot of times when people want to know what actually happened.

I think there is richness in the realm of myth. There is also quite a spread in meaning and how people relate to it. To illustrate I took a little piece from the Wikipedia article on myth:
////////
Definitions of "myth" vary to some extent among scholars, though Finnish folklorist Lauri Honko offers a widely-cited definition:

Myth, a story of the gods, a religious account of the beginning of the world, the creation, fundamental events, the exemplary deeds of the gods as a result of which the world, nature and culture were created together with all parts thereof and given their order, which still obtains. A myth expresses and confirms society's religious values and norms, it provides a pattern of behavior to be imitated, testifies to the efficacy of ritual with its practical ends and establishes the sanctity of cult.[2]

Another definition of myth comes from myth criticism theorist and professor José Manuel Losada. According to Cultural Myth Criticism, the studies of myth must explain and understand “myth from inside”, that is, only “as a myth”. Losada defines myth as “a functional, symbolic and thematic narrative of one or several extraordinary events with a transcendent, sacred and supernatural referent; that lacks, in principle, historical testimony; and that refers to an individual or collective, but always absolute, cosmogony or eschatology”.[15][16]

Scholars in other fields use the term "myth" in varied ways.[17][18][19] In a broad sense, the word can refer to any traditional story,[20][21][22] popular misconception or imaginary entity.[23]

Though myth and other folklore genres may overlap, myth is often thought to differ from genres such as legend and folktale in that neither are considered to be sacred narratives.[24][25] Some kinds of folktales, such as fairy stories, are.
///////
Tagriffy, perhaps you could clarify by being less cagey. I do not know what you mean by treating the Book of Mormon as myth. Do you think about the extent and limits of its value? Does it present a reason for a person to join or participate in the LDS church?

[huckelberry]

Ok to my mind the idea that history is some recent invention unfamiliar to Joseph Smith and other early 19th century Americans is either madness or a confusion about what we are meaning with the word hitory. History has been written by people for over 2000 years. Last night I was watching a program about the terracota army created by the first emperor of China. It discussed the history of China written about 2000 years ago which discussed the destruction of earlier histories.

In the Bible the book of Kings and Chronicles are clearly history. They intend to tell people who want to know what happened, what happened. Even a cursory reading shows that a lot has been left out. What actually happened is always much larger than can ever be told. A closer reading my start to yield some frustration with the possibility that this history intentionally leaves out important stuff. It is definitely being told to further a particular understanding of the big picture.

I can understand modern approaches to history as seeking tools to be more accurate about events. I can see increase in a conscious effort to avoid interpretation from one view only but is that not at best only a relatively successful effort?

[tagriffy]

Tagriffy, perhaps you could clarify by being less cagey. I do not know what you mean by treating the Book of Mormon as myth. Do you think about the extent and limits of its value? Does it present a reason for a person to join or participate in the LDS church?

To answer the last question first, I would hope that it gives people a "live option." If you are familiar with William James' "The Will to Believe," then you should be able to see what I'm basically aiming for. The Wikipedia article on the essay may be easier to digest if you're not familiar with it. Part of my intended audience is those who are teetering on or have given up on Book of Mormon historicity. As you know, the Church and especially its apologists keep pounding the line that either the Book of Mormon is ancient or Joseph was not a prophet. I had already been through something like that with biblical inerrancy, as I discussed here. Basically, I was being told the same thing about biblical inerrancy as Latter-day Saints are being told about Book of Mormon historicity. So when I gave up on biblical inerrancy, that threw me into a faith crisis and it was only by reconciling the fact that God still spoke to me through an errant text that I could even begin to seriously consider Mormonism. So, one of the things I'd like to show is that Joseph could have written the Book of Mormon and still be a prophet.

So in a sense, I want to take what I'm getting from biblical studies and apply it to the Book of Mormon (as well as other modern scripture). You'll remember something I quoted from Spencer's book via the review:

On my argument, the Book of Mormon must be regarded as neither historical nor unhistorical, but as nonhistorical.

In this sense, historicity doesn't really matter. As the Wikipedia article you quoted said, "A myth expresses and confirms society's religious values and norms, it provides a pattern of behavior to be imitated, testifies to the efficacy of ritual with its practical ends and establishes the sanctity of cult." Or as you said, "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." The Book of Mormon serves the Mormon people in both these ways.

Will it actually present someone a reason to join or participate in Mormonism (I'm not particularly caring about the LDS Church in particular)? I can't say. If I am successful, all I've actually done is give people a live option. They still have to choose on their own.

To answer the first question, I do indeed think about the limits and extent of its value. I have not come to any full conclusions. There is a certain concrete simplicity to the either/or propositions presented conservative religious beliefs. "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it." By way of contrast, my ideas require a major rethinking of God, prophets, and scripture; offers no easy answers; and in some ways requires a lot more faith. It certainly is not a path for everyone.

[tagriffy]

Ok to my mind the idea that history is some recent invention unfamiliar to Joseph Smith and other early 19th century Americans is either madness or a confusion about what we are meaning with the word hitory. History has been written by people for over 2000 years. Last night I was watching a program about the terracota army created by the first emperor of China. It discussed the history of China written about 2000 years ago which discussed the destruction of earlier histories.

In the Bible the book of Kings and Chronicles are clearly history. They intend to tell people who want to know what happened, what happened. Even a cursory reading shows that a lot has been left out. What actually happened is always much larger than can ever be told. A closer reading my start to yield some frustration with the possibility that this history intentionally leaves out important stuff. It is definitely being told to further a particular understanding of the big picture.

I can understand modern approaches to history as seeking tools to be more accurate about events. I can see increase in a conscious effort to avoid interpretation from one view only but is that not at best only a relatively successful effort?

But remember, what I said is that "history as we now know it" was in its infancy in Joseph Smith's time. Of course history existed before Joseph Smith's time. History in the sense of seriously and critically examining evidence and trying to determine what really happened and why, i.e., history as a scholarly endeavor with its rules for weighing evidence and what conclusions can be drawn from that evidence is a much more recent phenomenon, even accounting for older antecedents.

[huckelberry]

Ok to my mind the idea that history is some recent invention unfamiliar to Joseph Smith and other early 19th century Americans is either madness or a confusion about what we are meaning with the word hitory. History has been written by people for over 2000 years. Last night I was watching a program about the terracota army created by the first emperor of China. It discussed the history of China written about 2000 years ago which discussed the destruction of earlier histories.

In the Bible the book of Kings and Chronicles are clearly history. They intend to tell people who want to know what happened, what happened. Even a cursory reading shows that a lot has been left out. What actually happened is always much larger than can ever be told. A closer reading my start to yield some frustration with the possibility that this history intentionally leaves out important stuff. It is definitely being told to further a particular understanding of the big picture.

I can understand modern approaches to history as seeking tools to be more accurate about events. I can see increase in a conscious effort to avoid interpretation from one view only but is that not at best only a relatively successful effort?

But remember, what I said is that "history as we now know it" was in its infancy in Joseph Smith's time. Of course history existed before Joseph Smith's time. History in the sense of seriously and critically examining evidence and trying to determine what really happened and why, i.e., history as a scholarly endeavor with its rules for weighing evidence and what conclusions can be drawn from that evidence is a much more recent phenomenon, even accounting for older antecedents.

Tagriffy, I thought I was referring to the difference in rules for weighing evidence in thinking about the limitations on information in Kings. I really wish there was a more complete presentation of what was really going on back then. There clearly is an ongoing political conflict between traditional Canaanite culture and a newer reformed version held by the authors of Kings. What sort of hold does the traditional culture have?

But I do not see how you are relating historical questions about the Book of Mormon to this kind of modern clarifying of historical accounts.