The original stories make so much more sense

[Hagoth]

The Bible tells us that God made Man from clay and breathed his own spirit into him. In just one generation God's creation had turned rebellious and it wasn't long until he had to send a flood to kill them all, only to have them restore civilization and repeat the same pattern over and over until one day he'll have to kill them all again with fire. This leaves a lot of ragged questions: why were God's creations imperfect and rebellious, why does he allow disease and death to children and other aspects of the problem of evil?

In Babylonian mythology, which predates the Bible by millennia, the gods created Man from clay animated by the admixture of the blood of a god. Their plan had a flaw in that the god who provided the blood had been killed by the other gods because of his rebellious nature, which explains where humans inherited their rebelliousness. Humans were created to serve the gods and so were given the power of reproduction so the gods wouldn't have to make each and every unit themselves. They turned out to be too fertile and made so much noise that the god Enu destroyed them with a flood. Now the gods had the problem of no one to serve them until the ark inhabitants repopulated, so they took measures to ensure a constant reservoir of humans that didn't grow too quickly, they introduced natural death from old age. This was still inadequate so they added stillbirths, infant mortality and disease, which could be employed as necessary to control the population. This provides a much more logical approach to the problem of evil.

There are many examples of this pattern. Fir example, why do we eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus? And why is it represented by bread and wine? Prototypes of this story come from earlier nature gods. In Egypt you drank the blood and ate the flesh of the god of the harvest. Bread was literally his flesh and his blood was literally beer. You were not eating and drinking mere emblems of his flesh and blood, you were eating and drinking the literal fruits of his harvest.

[document]

The bible is much easier to put into context when you look at the texts from the appropriate angle: a series of ancient texts coming out of the cult of YHWH (who saw their god as greatest, not as the one and only, that came later), which most likely grew from the cult of El in the Canaanite Pantheon. Christianity grew out of the cult of YHWH and thus we still see the patterns come out of it. Sometimes, oftentimes, Christians forget their roots.

It's much like Mormons who go to the temple with no clue what is going on. But when you learn about Masonry, and the fact that endowed men were actually made Masons before they went through the temple (and it was more like the Shriners, a Masonic ceremony for Mormon Masons), suddenly things start to be put into context and make more sense.

[No Tof]

The bible is much easier to put into context when you look at the texts from the appropriate angle: a series of ancient texts coming out of the cult of YHWH (who saw their god as greatest, not as the one and only, that came later), which most likely grew from the cult of El in the Canaanite Pantheon. Christianity grew out of the cult of YHWH and thus we still see the patterns come out of it. Sometimes, oftentimes, Christians forget their roots.

It's much like Mormons who go to the temple with no clue what is going on. But when you learn about Masonry, and the fact that endowed men were actually made Masons before they went through the temple (and it was more like the Shriners, a Masonic ceremony for Mormon Masons), suddenly things start to be put into context and make more sense.

I think you are right Doc that finding the right context helps us understand where things came from, but it still doesn't make any sense to me.

The mythological explanations for the unexplainable just serve to fill the gaps in our understanding so we can live with a delusional hope in superstition. Seems that we would do much better, to spend our time learning more about the things that are understandable, then so much time on the speculative mysteries of god.

[document]

The mythological explanations for the unexplainable just serve to fill the gaps in our understanding so we can live with a delusional hope in superstition. Seems that we would do much better, to spend our time learning more about the things that are understandable, then so much time on the speculative mysteries of god.

The books of the bible (both Old and New Testament) are real ancient texts written by real people. To studying ancient Israel without studying their mythological texts is like studying the ancient Greeks without reading the Odyssey. Yes, the stories in the Odyssey are clearly mythological in nature and perhaps were rooted in a real war. But the gods intervening to the seas, the Cyclopes, or Cerce? These are obviously fabrications. But what do they tell us of the people, what do they tell us of humans?

Interestingly enough, I have read Greek, Roman, Norse, Russian, Egyptian, Sumerian, Babylonian, Hindi, and Islamic (although that overlaps with Jewish quite a bit) mythology. While reading those texts nobody has ever assumed that I was taking the texts literally. For some reason, if you pick up Jewish or Christian scripture, everyone assumes you are trying to find God in them or that you are taking them literally. Nope, I just really like studying ancient religious texts and mythology.

One does not need to search for the mysteries of God while studying religion and mythology.

[Hagoth]

For some reason, if you pick up Jewish or Christian scripture, everyone assumes you are trying to find God in them or that you are taking them literally. Nope, I just really like studying ancient religious texts and mythology.

This is especially problematic when studying the Book of Mormon, since it is not based on any preexisting mythology apart from what it borrows from the Bible. It is hard to appreciate BoM stories as meaningful interpretations of mythological events because they are themselves the mythologies, invented up by a historical figure to whom we can attach a name. It makes it impossible to appreciate the stories as reinterpretations of ancient mythology, which, I suppose, is why so many people regard the BoM as Bible fan-fiction.

It's the same with the church's origin stories. Mormons are among the very few world religions who can trace their origins to specific people in recent historic times. The research that our leaders try so hard to dissuade us from is exactly what allows us to trace the evolution of our religion, because it has all been documented. With a few hours of thoughtful historic research we can watch our origin events become mythologized right before our eyes.

[document]

This is especially problematic when studying the Book of Mormon, since it is not based on any preexisting mythology apart from what it borrows from the Bible. It is hard to appreciate BoM stories as meaningful interpretations of mythological events because they are themselves the mythologies, invented up by a historical figure to whom we can attach a name. It makes it impossible to appreciate the stories as reinterpretations of ancient mythology, which, I suppose, is why so many people regard the BoM as Bible fan-fiction.

I have read the book of Mormon enough times that I don't think it warrants studying anymore. I consider the book of Mormon to be much like the "Immortals" or "Thor", in which it uses myths (in this case ancient Israel) to frame a new, current-event driven story. I think calling the book of Mormon "fan-fiction" is a great description.

At the same time, Mormonism does have its own sets of religious texts and cultural stories that should be studied. There are enough miraculous or magical events surrounding the founding of Mormonism that it often reads like ancient mythology.

* A young boy is visited by angelic visitors / God / God & Jesus / pillar of fire at the age of 14 / 15
* A young boy is visited by an angel telling of a golden book
* The golden book is protected by an angel
* Joseph translates said golden book through a magical stone revealing words in a hat
* Joseph runs through the forest carrying the 150+ pound plates in a sack, and even is able to use them as a weapon
* Joseph is visited by John the Baptist and later Peter, James, and John
* Being visited by Elijah, Elisha, (two separate people in Mormonism), and Moses
* Angels flying in and out of the temple in Kirtland
* The angel with a flying sword threatening Joseph Smith

I think these events should be studied, because they show considerable insight into the mind and culture of Mormonism! The book of Mormon is nothing, but the D&C and the official history, now that is fascinating stuff!

[LSOF]

Being visited by Elijah, Elisha, (two separate people in Mormonism),

Elijah and Elisha are two separate people. I think you mean Elijah and Elias.

[Korihor]

Being visited by Elijah, Elisha, (two separate people in Mormonism),

Elijah and Elisha are two separate people. I think you mean Elijah and Elias.

Hey hey hey LSOF - Quitting focusing on those details. If it feels good it must be true. And I feel good about Elisha and Elijah.

[document]

Sorry! I totally meant Elijah and Elias! Blame it on tired eyes and a brain frozen by the bloody weather.