As I mentioned over at Times and Season, I put together what we call our “safe-space group” to discuss all kinds of topics, and not surprisingly history stuff was one of the genre of topics the group wanted to go over.

As all of my fellow JI bloggers know, that can be a bit of a difficult topic to try to do a crash course in because though our concepts of what happened in the past are very important to the larger culture and our church, we all know the study of history can be a tricky thing that often isn’t understood very well. And if such a discussion can get tricky in our larger societies’ culture war, it is even more so in debates within Mormonism when we often feel that larger religious truths are on the line.

So I thought a lot about best approaches when I was brainstorming how to introduce the topic and all the points that trained historians often want to convey. Things like “the past is a foreign country,” we have to rely on historical documents and good-faith interpretations vary, but that doesn’t mean we just make up whatever narrative we want, good historical interpretations will be supported by historical evidence (etc etc).

Since the historical topics we were going to cover were in the context of our religious beliefs, I thought I would be useful to start with the concept of the Greek ways of knowing: mythos and logos (And yes I’m using the division for my own purposes, feel free to correct!) Mythos is the accepted cultural truth about the Gods (common in all pre-modern societies) while Logos is truth that comes truth discussion (Logos=word), debates, logic, and inquiry; what the philosophers were trying to get at.

Such ways of knowing often clash: the example of Socrates being executed for challenging the contemporary religious system is a good example. Even more so would be the containing angst biblical scholarship can cause. Yet, the example of many such scholars maintaining a religious faith after making adjustments is also an example of something of a reconciliation between mythos and logos. (I know this is an extremely complicated topic with a very long history, just trying to offer some summaries).

So a big question is which is primary between mythos and logos and I’d say it’s a difficult question to answer. Scholars note how important it is to humans to find meaning, (I really like the first chapters of Robert Bellah’s Religion In Human Evolution: From the Paleolithic to the Axial Age) and that the sense of a total lack of meaning, or nihilism, can be quite devastating to humans.

So I’d say they are both important, and I would also point to the importance of the second one, logos, that I use here as a short-hand for good historical methodology. Again, such inquiry can challenge the mythos of received religious truth, but I really do feel that a good faith effort to use the methodology is vital as well: God commands it in DC 88:79.

I want to post more on this topic, but I’d argue that scholarly efforts are and essential part of seeking truth also. That includes making the good faith effort to apply good methodology, to attempt to base our conclusions on our best efforts, and not force our conclusions and methods into a predetermined outcome based our prior religious narratives (the mythos).

Again, larger meaning is important, but good methods are too, and I believe that larger meaning can indeed still be found if we allow good adherence to methodology.

More to come.