Needless to say, when I was still a Mormon, I found this disturbing, but I later came to understand that the First Vision, while based loosely on historical events, functions as a myth for Mormons.\u00a0 By \u201cmyth\u201d, I don\u2019t mean that it is false.\u00a0 Rather I mean that is a story by which Mormons organize their experience in a meaningful way.\u00a0 A myth may or not be historically accurate, but that\u2019s not the point, as Karen Armstrong explains in A Short History of Myth<\/em>:<\/p>\n \u201cSince the eighteenth century, we have developed a scientific view of history; we are concerned above all with what actually happened. But in the pre-modern world, when people wrote about the past they were more concerned with what an event had meant. A myth was an event which, in some sense, had happened once, but which also happened all the time. Because of our strictly chronological view of history, we have no word for such an occurrence, but mythology is an art form that points beyond history to what is timeless in human existence, helping us to get beyond the chaotic flux of random events, and glimpse the core of reality.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n On the other hand, I think the First Vision myth is problematic in so far as it paints the world in black and white and encourages dichotomous thinking about questions of truth.\u00a0 What does it mean if one receives divine confirmation that the Mormon church is \u201ctrue\u201d?\u00a0 Does it mean it is true for you or for everyone?\u00a0 Does it mean is always was and always will be true, or is just true in this moment?\u00a0 Does it mean that every claim the Church makes is historically accurate, or does it mean that it is \u201ctrue\u201d in the sense that it works?\u00a0 These questions are glossed over by the First Vision myth, which admits no such ambiguities.<\/p>\n Pagan Myths<\/strong><\/p>\n There are other Pagan myths, though, that have been confused with history.\u00a0 Take, for example, the myth of the Burning Times<\/a>.\u00a0 Like the Mormon First Vision, it is based in historical fact, but has become mythical for us.\u00a0 And like the First Vision, the myth has both positive and negative aspects.\u00a0 For example, the Burning Times may be understood as a mythical expression of contemporary women\u2019s experience of patriarchy, which can be empowering.\u00a0 On the other hand, the myth can create a victim mentality, which is not empowering.<\/p>\n There are other Pagan myths, which many of us don\u2019t recognize as myths.\u00a0 There\u2019s the myth of pagan survivals, the myth of Gaia \u2026 perhaps the very idea of contemporary Paganism is a myth.\u00a0 The point isn\u2019t whether our myths are historically accurate or not.\u00a0 All of these myths have a certain connection to historical realities, but each has become mythological for us.\u00a0 And each of them perpetuates some healthy attitudes and some unhealthy ones.<\/p>\n The Trap of Literalism<\/strong><\/p>\n So does it matter whether we take our myths literally? Does believing the official version of the First Vision make Mormons more prone to dichotomous thinking? Does a belief that 9 million women were killed during Burning Times make it any more likely to foster a victim mentality? Does a believing that ancient Crete was a matriarchal paradise make it more likely that we will fall into gender essentialism?<\/p>\n I think it does matter.\u00a0 Myths, as we have seen, can be good or bad.\u00a0 Often they are a mixture of both. And it seems to me that, when we confuse myth with history, we lose the critical frame of reference from which we can ask whether our myths are helpful or not. For example, if we believe that 9 million women were burned at the stake as witches, then we cease to see the Burning Times as a myth. When we lose sight of its mythic nature, then we fail to ask whether the myth is good for us. Likewise for the myth of matriarchal prehistory or the myth of pagan survivals or any other myths we are living by now.<\/p>\n When myths are confused with historical fact, when we take them literally, then they become sacrosanct.\u00a0 When our become insulated from critical scrutiny, then all historical inquiry comes to be seen as a threat to the legitimacy of our religion, and an anti-intellectual sentiment is fostered. Nietzsche described this process well:<\/p>\n \u201cFor it is the fate of every myth to creep by degrees into the narrow limits of some alleged historical reality, and to be treated by some later generation as a unique fact with historical claims. \u2026 For this is the way in which religions are wont to die out: under the stern, intelligent eyes of an orthodox dogmatism, the mythical premises of a religion are systematized as a sum total of historical events; one begins apprehensively to defend the credibility of the myths, while at the same time one opposes any continuation of their natural vitality and growth; the feeling for myth perishes, and its place is taken by the claim of religion to historical foundations.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Danger of Demythologization<\/strong><\/p>\n The fact is that we need myths.\u00a0 History can tell us what happened in the past. But myth tells us why it matters and how we, individually and collectively, fit in to the story.\u00a0 Carl Jung wrote that myths \u201care the psychic life of the primitive tribe, which immediately falls to pieces and decays when it loses its mythological heritage, like a man who has lost his soul. A tribe\u2019s mythology is its living religion, whose loss is always and everywhere, even among the civilized, a moral catastrophe.\u201d Nietzsche described a culture which has lost myth as<\/p>\n \u201ca culture without any fixed and consecrated place of origin, condemned to exhaust all possibilities and feed miserably and parasitically on every culture under the sun. \u2026 What does our great historical hunger signify, our clutching about us of countless other cultures, our consuming desire for knowledge, if not the loss of myth, of a mythic home \u2026 And who would care to offer further nourishment to a culture which, no matter how much it consumes, remains insatiable and which converts the strongest and most wholesome food into \u2018history\u2019 and \u2018criticism\u2019?\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I think this describes our secularized society pretty well.<\/p>\n In a way, demythologization actually makes the same basic mistake as the literalism which it means to correct. Both confuse myth with history. Literalism mistakes myth for good<\/em> history and accepts it uncritically. Demythologization mistakes myth for bad<\/em> history and dismisses it entirely.<\/p>\n Believing in Our Myths, Without Believing Them<\/strong><\/p>\n The question shouldn\u2019t be whether the Burning Times really happened or whether there actually was a Neolithic matriarchal paradise. Rather, we should be asking what meaning do these stories have for us now. How do they situate us in the cosmic drama? How do they inspire us? How do they transform us?<\/p>\n I think we need to find a way to live mythically, without taking our myths literally \u2014 to believe our myths, without believing in<\/em> them.\u00a0 We need our myths to live by, but we also need to be conscious that we have a choice of which<\/em> myths to live by. Not all myths are equal. And we really could use some good myths nowadays, as Karen Armstrong writes:<\/p>\n \u201cWe need myths that will help us to identify with all our fellow-beings, not simply with those who belong to our ethnic, national or ideological tribe. We need myths that help us to realize the importance of compassion, which is not always regarded as sufficiently productive or efficient in our pragmatic, rational world. We need myths that help us to create a spiritual attitude, to see beyond our immediate requirements, and enable us to experience a transcendent value that challenges our solipsistic selfishness. We need myths that help us to venerate the earth as sacred once again, instead of merely using it as a \u2018resource.\u2019 This is crucial, because unless there is some kind of spiritual revolution that is able to keep abreast of our technological genius, we will not save our planet.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Believing in Our Gods, Without Believing They Exist? I think we sometimes make the same mistakes when talking about gods as we do when talking about myths.<\/p>\n Fortunately, I think polytheists have a leg up over monotheists in this regard.\u00a0 If you\u2019re a polytheist, believing in the existence of a god doesn\u2019t mean you choose to worship that god.\u00a0 For a polytheist, there\u2019s plenty of gods to choose from, and no one could worship them all anyway.\u00a0 But many polytheists do believe they were chosen by their gods. Perhaps the gods do choose us, but surely we have to choose them back. We always have a choice of who or what to worship. And whatever the nature of the gods, we need to choose wisely. We need to adopt a perspective which enables us to critically examine that choice.<\/p>\n On the other hand, I think those who want to do away with gods make the same mistake as those who want do away with myth. Just as the question of the historicity of myth is the wrong question, I think the question of the existence of the gods is the wrong question.\u00a0 When some asks whether the gods \u201cexist\u201d, often it is implied that only what is objective is meaningful.\u00a0 But this is a false assumption, and one that leads to a disenchanted world<\/a>.\u00a0 (It\u2019s no coincidence that the word which English-speakers have translated as \u201cdisenchantment\u201d, entgotterung<\/em>, literally means \u201cde-godding\u201d.)\u00a0 Whether something objectively exists and whether it is meaningful are two different questions altogether.\u00a0 As Rhyd Wildermuth has written recently<\/a>, \u201cwhat something really is does not begin to describe what something means. Looking for the material being-ness of a thing, rather than its tapestry of meaning, is to destroy it.\u201d<\/p>\n As I understand the nature of the gods, they belong to the realm of myth.\u00a0 Therefore, we cannot speak about them objectively, independently of our relationships with them.\u00a0 This is why they disappear from view when we start asking whether they objectively exist.\u00a0 So, rather than asking whether the gods \u201cexist\u201d, we should ask what the gods mean to us. What meaning do they bring to our lives? How do they cause us to relate differently to others, to the earth, and to ourselves?\u00a0 Do they help us lead richer, more meaningful lives?\u00a0 Do they motivate us to care for the earth and its human and other-than-human inhabitants?\u00a0 The answer will not be the same for all of us (and I\u2019ve been wrong to imply otherwise in the past).\u00a0 But I think it is a question we need to keep asking ourselves.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" We need to find a way to live mythically, without taking our myths literally — to believe our myths, without believing in them. We need our myths to live by, but we also need to be conscious that we have a choice of which myths to live by. Not all myths are equal. And we really could use some good myths nowadays.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1538,"featured_media":9619,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[411,1564,571,1563,1562,146,1567,244,518,1565,245,1566,717,21,1556,153],"class_list":["post-2472","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-atheism","tag-burning-times","tag-deities","tag-demytholigization","tag-demythologizing","tag-gods","tag-historical","tag-history","tag-literalism","tag-matriarchal-prehistory","tag-myth","tag-mythical","tag-mythology","tag-polytheism","tag-real","tag-theism"],"yoast_head":"\n![\"Previous](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/363\/2015\/09\/FirstVision.jpg\")
<\/a>The First Vision myth serves as a model for every Mormon.<\/a>\u00a0 Every person who investigates the church is explicitly invited to follow the example of Joseph Smith in the official version of the First Vision and ask God if the Mormon church is true.\u00a0 I think the First Vision myth is a good one in so far as it encourages those considering becoming Mormon to seek the truth for themselves by study and prayer. This can be quite empowering for people raised in other authoritarian religions.<\/p>\n![\"burning5\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/363\/2015\/09\/burning5.jpg\")
<\/a>We Pagans have our own myths too.\u00a0 I\u2019m not referring mean the myths of ancient pagans, like the myths recorded in the Illiad or the Mabinogion or the Egyptian Book of the Dead.\u00a0 We may adopt those myths too, but we are mostly aware of them as myths<\/em>.\u00a0 Few of us confuse those myths for history.<\/p>\n![\"41YlbImM7qL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_-2\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/363\/2015\/09\/41YlbImM7qL._SY344_BO1204203200_-2.jpg\")
<\/a>Another important myth for many Pagans is the myth of matriarchal prehistory<\/a>.\u00a0 Again, while it is based in some historical fact, this myth serves an important function as a myth.\u00a0 <\/em>Though it is a story about the past, it can also be understood as a vision of a possible feminist future.\u00a0 It serves as a challenge to another myth, the myth of the inevitability of patriarchy.\u00a0 However, Cynthia Eller has argued<\/a> that\u00a0the myth may also perpetuate the same stereotypical notions of femininity that have always served as tools of sexist oppression.<\/p>\n![\"il_570xN.677924482_5gvn\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/363\/2015\/09\/il_570xN.677924482_5gvn.jpg\")
<\/a>So why not just do away with myth and stick to the historical facts?\u00a0 That was my though when I left the Mormon church.\u00a0 I thought, doesn\u2019t the Mormon church \u2014 and all religions for that matter\u2013 just be \u201chonest\u201d about their foundation myths, to admit that they are not historical.\u00a0 (Incidentally, the Mormon church has recently been taking steps in this direction<\/a>.)\u00a0 This \u201cdemythologization\u201d is the course that much of mainline Protestant Christianity followed in the 20th century. But I think the decline of the mainline churches serves as a cautionary tale against such a course. Demythologized religion simply does not inspire the same devotion as religions which embrace their myths.<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n![\"olympian-2\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/363\/2015\/09\/olympian-2.jpg\")
<\/a>On the one hand, there are literalists who believe their gods exist.\u00a0 In some ways, believing in the literal existence of gods may be analogous to believing that a myth is historical.\u00a0 Maybe the gods exist, maybe they don\u2019t; but it\u2019s really the wrong question.\u00a0 And if we get hung up on the question of whether the gods literally exist, then we may be less likely to ask the next question: whether we should be worshiping them.\u00a0 Just as there are good myths and bad myths, there must be good gods and bad gods too \u2014 or gods who are healthy for us to worship and gods who are not healthy for us to worship.\u00a0 And focusing on the existence of the gods may cause us to lose sight of the question whether our gods are even worthy of worship, even if they do exist.<\/p>\n