I'm inclined to agree with serena that con-man B.S. with a definite, traceable beginning doesn't qualify as myth.

It is not a folk-based explanation of how things happened, except for the nonsense about American Indians coming from Israel. All that crap about Laban, Nephi, Mahonri, Moriancumr, Zelph, Jared's brother who apparently didn't have his own name, etc., etc. - that is not "folk wisdom", legend, folk stories - there is a distinct absence of the folk element in it. Smith made it up, adding just enough of a little Jesus and Jewish stuff to make it plausible for the gullible masses to swallow.

Myths cannot be traced to specific people. Therein lies another very big difference. It's not a myth, it's a hoax.

The con man may have incorporated an existing god myth into his B.S., but that doesn't make Mormonism a god myth in its own right.

I agree, Serena. Mormonism isn't a myth. It's a hoax.

Steve

Mormonism has traceable beginnings, unlike most world religions. You can't prove that Christianity is a hoax, but Mormonism definitely is. A myth should have more obscure origins, which is why we call it a myth. Great point. I can see why SusieQ had to post 12 times.

The charismatic character with a bit of the con artist in them is able to captivate other people and get them to believe what they claim.

Did Joseph Smith Jr really believe he was receiving divine inspiration? Maybe, maybe not. He claimed he did, and people believed him. Initially, it appears that he was a bit surprised that people believed him, then at some point, I think he began to believe he was what he said he was.

No golden plates ever needed to be produced when he could convince people they saw them with their "spiritual eye." That's certainly what I would call a religious con artist.

In the Big Picture, of how myths worth, how people use them to attach meaning and how I have experienced how many believers stick to the claims (will die believing them), I find the term: God Myth works very well. It has all the components that answer the questions about life and death and rituals around important celebratory times in people lives that fits the description, in my view.

The more I read Campbell and Moyers and others the more I am convinced that my category works. I didn't think so, initially, but I do now.

But, each of us will come to our own conclusions. I don't need anyone to agree with me. It's about what makes sense to me.

One thing I have found doesn't work for me is using negativity as a method to understand anything. I just don't find any value in denigrating other people's views, no matter what they are. I might have in times past, but not any more.

So, I accept that we won't all agree. And that's just fine.

Is that happening on this thread? I don't think so.

If, by "using negativity as a method to understand" you're referring to my asking what you meant by "true god myth," then you've misread my intention. It wasn't clear what you meant.

Otherwise, it's just my opinion that Mormonism is not a god myth in its own right. And I started a new thread to say so because the other one was closed.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2012 07:15PM by munchybotaz.

munchybotaz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
At this point, I have put Mormonism in the category of a God Myth. That's my current opinion based on my research.

My opinions are not cast in stone, however, and I may change my mind about how I categorize and understand Mormonism. I can consider other options.

The comment about "negativity" was a general comment about how some folks use it as a method to make conclusions, but not about anyone specifically.

Did you mean your views, or the views of Mormons? Because, as a rule with some limitations, I'm OK with denigrating the views of Mormons--especially in a forum entitled "Recovery from Mormonism." And I'm not going to apologize for that.

If you meant your views, I agree they were denigrated on the previous thread. But, you know, putting an opinion out there on the internet just sort of naturally invites disagreement, and people who have disagreed in the past are just sort of naturally going to become more emphatic and eventually maybe even denigratory. Not saying that's OK, but it's what happens.

It's my opinion that Mormonism is obvious and extremely ridiculous con-man B.S., and that people who believe it or even just want to believe it are emotionally and/or intellectually stunted.

Now I might expect someone to disagree with me--even a few someones, but not as many or as vehemently as if I had said Mormonism is a harmless and perfectly respectable pastime that should always be tolerated.

:)

"I have put Mormonism in the category of a God Myth"

actually, the way you phrased it was "True God Myth"

the important word here being 'true' - because of the loaded way in which mormons use that word re: mormonism

if you're going to make-up a new terminology so that you can (even in a convoluted way) describe mormonism as somehow 'true' i think it's safe to assume you can expect some 'negativity' about it

context matters

grubbygert Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "I have put Mormonism in the category of a God
> Myth"
>
> actually, the way you phrased it was "True God
> Myth"
>
> the important word here being 'true' - because of
> the loaded way in which mormons use that word re:
> mormonism
>
> if you're going to make-up a new terminology so
> that you can (even in a convoluted way) describe
> mormonism as somehow 'true' i think it's safe to
> assume you can expect some 'negativity' about it
>
> context matters

Oh for goodness sake. I have explained why I used the word: True... several times now. I'll do it a gain.

It's a play on how the Mormons use the word: true. Their testimony is based on their claim that they "know it's true." that it's the "only true church of Jesus Christ", they "know the prophet is a true prophet", and a dozen other ways they use the word: true. It's a play also on the idea of what is true and what is false.

Some claim Mormonism is a false church or false religion and my response is that it's a "true" God Myth - a false religion would be a gas station claiming it's a church... just a little humor.

God Myths is not my category or term. It's been around for a very long time. I use it as a neutral term. A category, based on the authors/books/etc. I listed in the other thread I started. It's a result of my research. My conclusion.
That's my explanation. None of which requires anyone accept it, or my opinion.

God Myths is just a way of explaining the core value of the stories in many of the religions throughout the history of humanity. I like the term. I think it fits based on my understanding of how religions work, my experience as a convert, and my decades as an LDS believer in the past.

It is at the core of what I use for "recovery" and rebuilding a New World View. Works for me!
I can pick another God Myth (religion) or none.

I really don't see it as a typical god myth.
I see it more like the myth of the trickster or prankster- Joseph Smith fits the more sinister aspects of characters like Loki.

Itzpapalotl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I really don't see it as a typical god myth.
> I see it more like the myth of the trickster or
> prankster- Joseph Smith fits the more sinister
> aspects of characters like Loki.


Good point. Those are the type of myths I find apply also. They are ancient and show up in many forms.

... and everything's alright???

I don't think so.

Timothy

of Mormonism's religious claims. It has a firm hold on the state of Utah, for instance, and many other smaller areas.
I see it lasting for a very long time.

This is a good debate. Can a thing be both a hoax and a myth? Why not? I think that Joe Smith Jun. and co. invented a hoax. But later it morphed into a word of mouth mythology. Remember crazy myths like "no swimming on Sundays, because the devil controls the water," or "no consuming of caffiene-free colas, because of the appearance of evil?" Those are undocumented myths swirling around the Mormon culture, itself a product of old world myths.

but I don't think Mormonism itself is a myth. Maybe in a couple thousand years, when all the records that haven't been deliberately hidden are buried under mountains of newer information. It might not even take that long ... maybe only a few hundred years.

And then, assuming the Mormon church still exists, there will only be a few very old men who know where to look for proof.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/16/2012 12:23AM by munchybotaz.

Don Bagley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is a good debate. Can a thing be both a hoax
> and a myth? Why not? I think that Joe Smith Jun.
> and co. invented a hoax. But later it morphed into
> a word of mouth mythology. Remember crazy myths
> like "no swimming on Sundays, because the devil
> controls the water," or "no consuming of
> caffiene-free colas, because of the appearance of
> evil?" Those are undocumented myths swirling
> around the Mormon culture, itself a product of old
> world myths.

You make a good point. I have given my opinion of Joseph Smith Jr's ploys. Reading some of the original history indicates to me, anyhow, that he was making, or creating the artifacts in some form, that he claimed he found.

Don Bagley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is a good debate. Can a thing be both a hoax
> and a myth? Why not? I think that Joe Smith Jun.
> and co. invented a hoax. But later it morphed into
> a word of mouth mythology. Remember crazy myths
> like "no swimming on Sundays, because the devil
> controls the water," or "no consuming of
> caffiene-free colas, because of the appearance of
> evil?" Those are undocumented myths swirling
> around the Mormon culture, itself a product of old
> world myths.

OOPSY... Don, my reply is above yours, eyes still blurry this a.m.~! :-)

Any story that becomes well known as a part of a group of people or culture is a myth. The only requirements are that it is traditional and that it usually talks about deity or nature or something that is similar.

I fail to see the point in redefining the concept.

Edit: Also, whether or not a story can be traced to an individual has no bearing on whether or not it is a myth.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/16/2012 12:19PM by snb.

serena Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> n/t


Yes. Of course.
And we can use any definition we like in this process. We can craft it to suit our personal needs in our own "recovery" or the Exit Process from Mormonism as I phrase it for myself.

God Myth is a long standing category that many authors have used also just "myth" is a common word used to describe the many stories in the religious histories of human beings.

I say, if it works, use it. If it doesn't, discard it. It's a personal process that appeals to the individual.

Don't like my terms? OK. No problem. Use your own. We all do that. We are free to share our process. Not everyone is going to agree, we're not in Mormonism anymore! :-) I think it's great that people are free to voice their opinions.

I have noticed, and I am not alone in this, that Mormonism and Mormons in general use words that are well known in the general population as well as in official dictionaries, to fit meanings of their own. This throws "outsiders" off balance and obscures clear communication, but that seems to be by design. I've read enough stuff written by TBMs to realize that they have a writing style that seems pretty unique to the religion - I call it Mormonese. Reading it is like wading through molasses, and about as clear, but again, that's the point.

Making up your own definitions for words doesn't seem like a very honest and forthright thing to do; I value honesty and forthrightness, but mindcontrol cults don't. It's part and parcel of how they operate.

+1 The tendency for mormons and apologists to re-purpose words is definitely not a myth.

blueorchid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> +1 The tendency for mormons and apologists to
> re-purpose words is definitely not a myth.


And, I did not change a definition. I am using a long standing old one. I'm surprised that people who are so familiar with Mormonism don't "GET" the use of the word: true. I have friends who did. I guess it doesn't translate well in black and white. Oh well. :-)

snb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Any story that becomes well known as a part of a
> group of people or culture is a myth. The only
> requirements are that it is traditional and that
> it usually talks about deity or nature or
> something that is similar.
>
> I fail to see the point in redefining the
> concept.
>
> Edit: Also, whether or not a story can be traced
> to an individual has no bearing on whether or not
> it is a myth.


Yes, I agree. To be perfectly clear, I am not redefining the term. I was just having a little fun with the Mormon use of the word: True ~ :-)

I just think it's a common characteristic of myths that they can't be traced back to their beginnings. That's not true of Mormonism.

And regardless of the definition, Joseph Smith only incorporated an existing god myth and did not create a new one.

I am not limiting the stories of Joseph Smith Jr to the BOM in the term: God Myth. Mormonism also includes the mythology of the Christian Bible, and particularly, the Jesus Myth.

The point is well described in the book: "The Power of Myth" by Joseph Campbell with Bill Moyers.

I have the hardback which I much prefer as it has all of the amazing religious illustrations and art work. I think it's still available, but is long out of print.

http://www.amazon.com/Power-Myth-Joseph-Campbell/dp/0385418868/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1326736340&sr=8-1

This book is the basis (partially) for my conclusion that Mormonism is a combination of myths - God Myths, and a Savior Myth.The Old Testament includes a Creation Story Myth. The LDS Church claims their church is the only true Restored Church of Jesus Christ. That puts it right square in the middle of that myth also.

For some discussion on the metaphors: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/14/bill-moyers-visits-huffpo_n_1205669.html



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/16/2012 12:58PM by SusieQ#1.

Mormonism is a combination of cons and lies and manipulation that are well documented.

What purpose does it serve to try to link mormonism to a myth, other than as a desperate attempt to cloud the issue?

I'm here looking for clarity, not word games.

You did not say that in your thread. Instead, you said Mormonism is a true god myth. I asked you about that, not catching your play on words, because it seemed you were trying to put Mormonism on the same footing with Christianity and other ancient religions that you said it follows the pattern of.

You did go to specify what elements follow the pattern, and I wouldn't argue with any of that, but in my mind, Mormonism doesn't follow the pattern because it can be traced back to a single lousy con man who made it up.

It's a hoax, like serena said before I came along and asked you about the true thing.

And by the way, just one minute after you said that was a play on LDS wording, you said you call all religions true god myths. So it's really not that surprising that no one got it.

I would not call Scientology, JWs, Moonies, etc. myths either.

as a God Myth, incorporating the older Jesus Myth, for instance, which for me, adds much clarity and makes sense.

Everyone can define it as they wish, find clarity where it fits.
I don't think there are any right and wrong definitions of Mormonism.

Believers and non believers have very different descriptions. For some, it's their whole life, their heritage, family, etc.
For others, it's useless, and pointless.

Pick what works for you. It's a Great Big World of Ideas out there. Try some different ones and see how they fit! I do.

If you exist in the present how can you be a myth? Mormons are here in the flesh and blood. Their history is all documented. If something is documented it automatically loses myth status.

The only mythical quality to the mormon church is that they are trying to promote some of their well documented doctrines from the past as myths. Just ask little Gordie Hinckley.