A Matter of Genes and Chromosomes

[_charity]

I understand the explanation on similarities between pagan faiths and Christianity. I lifted a quote from LDS.org so I think this doctrine is current.

The Savior's dual nature—man and God—enabled him to make an infinite atonement. First, he was able to assume the burdens and effects of the sins of all mankind and, in doing so, to engage suffering and anguish beyond what a mere mortal could endure. Second, he was able to submit to physical death, to willingly lay down his life and then take up his body again in the Resurrection.

So my question is, "What immortal characteristics did Jesus possess?" Would He have passed any of those characteristics on to His offspring if He had them? Is there an LDS answer to this question or is just unknown?

You answered your own quesiton. The two specific immortal characteristics attributed to Him, were that 1. He had were the physical capability to take on suffering beyond what would kill an ordinary mortal, and 2. ability to lay down his body and take it up again in resurrection. Those two.

I believe it is doctrine that the two abilities were only able to be used because He had lived a perfect life. Any such vestigial remnants of those abilities in His offspring would not have been "usable" if that offpsring had not lived a perfect life as Jesus did.

[_charity]

Just a little FYI, I know of no mythologist, historian, or expert who even remotely would suggest that the myths and stories devolved from an original story as Nibley & Co. asserted.

Contrariwise, like language, myths and stories evolve and develop.

:-)

~dancer~

You know of no mythologist, historian, or expert who can even remotely pinpoint when any myth or story developed, or who it developed from. Those who do not believe in Adam and Eve are left without explanation, except, well, it evolved.

The question really is, evolved from what? Even evolutionsists of all kinds, admit that evolution starts with SOMETHING. Nothing evolved from absolutely nonthing.

[_truth dancer]

You know of no mythologist, historian, or expert who can even remotely pinpoint when any myth or story developed, or who it developed from. Those who do not believe in Adam and Eve are left without explanation, except, well, it evolved.

I'm not sure if you are serious or not? Ever heard of Joseph Campbell? How about Jonathan Young?

I personally had a conversation with Jonathan Young and specifically asked him about Nibley's assertions and he clearly stated he and Joseph Campbell did not agree with the diffusionist theory. Nibley was WAY wrong on this. The idea was popular about a hundred years ago but it is no longer even remotely accepted by anyone of whom am aware.

The question really is, evolved from what? Even evolutionsists of all kinds, admit that evolution starts with SOMETHING. Nothing evolved from absolutely nonthing.

The stories of humankind began simply as consciousness emerged. As language developed, as humans began to consciously experience life, they began to put the stories together. The stories developed, expanded, evolved as life came forth.

And, yes there are very clear origins, very well documented influences and developments... If you want to learn more about it I would suggest starting with Joseph Campbell.

I do not know any expert, historian, anthropologist or expert who would disagree with this general summation.

If you do, please share.

~dancer~

You can read a little about this topic at: Center for Story and Myth - Jonathan Young http://www.folkstory.com/center/center.html[/url]

[_charity]

TD, you have to be a Jungian at heart to accept Campbell's philosophy. I reject Jungianism in all its forms.

And another word about Campbell's philosophy. That's all it is. You cannot prove or demonstrate anything about a time period where there are no records. You can make assumptions. In Campbell's case, his assumptions are baed on Jungian psychology which is not held in good repute at this time. Because it is totally NON SCIENTIFIC. No data which can be verified.

Sorry to burst that bubble.

[_truth dancer]

TD, you have to be a Jungian at heart to accept Campbell's philosophy. I reject Jungianism in all its forms.

And another word about Campbell's philosophy. That's all it is. You cannot prove or demonstrate anything about a time period where there are no records. You can make assumptions. In Campbell's case, his assumptions are baed on Jungian psychology which is not held in good repute at this time. Because it is totally NON SCIENTIFIC. No data which can be verified.

Sorry to burst that bubble.

Sounds like you have not read Campbell or any other modern day mythologists.

Again, can you give us even one modern day expert/mythologist/anthropologist/historian/linguist who agrees with your theory?

~dancer~

[_charity]

A survey course on mythology. After learning about Campbell's basic assumptions, I didn't care to study him. I told you I reject all forms of Junianism.

Why don't you address my concerns about Jungian underpinnings of the philosophy, and the lack of verifiability of theories which have no testable data?

[_truth dancer]

Charity...

Why don't you address my concerns about Jungian underpinnings of the philosophy, and the lack of verifiability of theories which have no testable data?

You haven't read Campbell so there is nothing to discuss. I chose Campbell because I think he is brilliant and extraordinarily well-regarded throughout the world but if you have no interest in his ideas, fine. I could have chosen any mythologist and the point would be the same.

You made an assertion and I am asking you to give us a name, just one will do of ANY modern day expert, mythologist, anthropologist, historian, or linguist who agrees with your unique heliocentric diffusionist theory.

I am unaware of ANY of the above who would support your theory that there was an original truth/story that devolved/deteriorated into the rest of the world's myths, religions, and beliefs, so it would be beneficial to share some sort of documentation to support your assertion.

~dancer~

[_charity]

Charity...

Why don't you address my concerns about Jungian underpinnings of the philosophy, and the lack of verifiability of theories which have no testable data?

You haven't read Campbell so there is nothing to discuss. I chose Campbell because I think he is brilliant and extraordinarily well-regarded throughout the world but if you have no interest in his ideas, fine. I could have chosen any mythologist and the point would be the same.

People can be brilliant and be really, really wrong. Campbell and othes are in the same position as Dan Vogel. They reject without considering one possible alternative. When you eliminate the truth, no matter how brilliant you are, you are going to be wrong.

You made an assertion and I am asking you to give us a name, just one will do of ANY modern day expert, mythologist, anthropologist, historian, or linguist who agrees with your unique heliocentric diffusionist theory.

Your call for a secular expert is a strawman. I suggested the reason why there are commonalities in myths. And you cannot refute it. There is no verifiable data on the exact source of myths. But mythologist pretend. Just as psychologists pretend there is such a thing as a random sample.

I am unaware of ANY of the above who would support your theory that there was an original truth/story that devolved/deteriorated into the rest of the world's myths, religions, and beliefs, so it would be beneficial to share some sort of documentation to support your assertion.

I don't have any secular support. But then that isn't necessary. I can have my unsupported position, just as the secular mythologists can have their unsupported positions.

~dancer~[/quote]

[_truth dancer]

Your call for a secular expert is a strawman. I suggested the reason why there are commonalities in myths. And you cannot refute it. There is no verifiable data on the exact source of myths. But mythologist pretend. Just as psychologists pretend there is such a thing as a random sample.

No, this is EXACTLY the point.

as far as I know, there is not a single reputable scholar who supports your ideas.

If you could come up with something we could have a discussion, until then I think there is nothing really to discuss.

Experts, mythologists, anthropologists, historians, linguists, etc, etc, have come a long way in understanding the origins of myth. Because you are not aware of this doesn't mean there is no understanding.

The following is a quote from Jonathan Young who is considered one of the world's leading mythologists... this quote is from an online discussions we had a few years ago discussing this very point:

"...For example, we all go through great personal transitions at several points in our lives. These are moments of initiation. They are similar for all people. The myths reflect these great disorienting shifts. The stories do not stem from a single historical event, but from a shared type of event. That is why they are similar all over the world. They are still plural. One cannot reduce the rich variety of world mythologies to a single story. Still, there are great shared patterns."

Scholars and research can be wrong but on this Earth, we have a very clear story supported by virtually every modern day scientist and expert of which I am aware. Is there more to learn? Of course. But this doesn't mean one can make up some sort of completely unsupported assertion, ideas that contradict reality, and call it fact.

You have come up with your own assertion that is clearly not in tune with any sort of science or real world evidence. Of course this is fine for you but with all due respect its not really something to discuss in the real world.

It is sort of like trying to have a discussion with a believer in the flat earth... kind of pointless.

If you are willing to read up on the current knowledge and research accepted by the world's scientists and experts then we could at least have a starting point.

~dancer~

[_charity]

Your call for a secular expert is a strawman. I suggested the reason why there are commonalities in myths. And you cannot refute it. There is no verifiable data on the exact source of myths. But mythologist pretend. Just as psychologists pretend there is such a thing as a random sample.

No, this is EXACTLY the point.

as far as I know, there is not a single reputable scholar who supports your ideas.

If you could come up with something we could have a discussion, until then I think there is nothing really to discuss.

Experts, mythologists, anthropologists, historians, linguists, etc, etc, have come a long way in understanding the origins of myth. Because you are not aware of this doesn't mean there is no understanding.

The following is a quote from Jonathan Young who is considered one of the world's leading mythologists... this quote is from an online discussions we had a few years ago discussing this very point:

"...For example, we all go through great personal transitions at several points in our lives. These are moments of initiation. They are similar for all people. The myths reflect these great disorienting shifts. The stories do not stem from a single historical event, but from a shared type of event. That is why they are similar all over the world. They are still plural. One cannot reduce the rich variety of world mythologies to a single story. Still, there are great shared patterns."

Scholars and research can be wrong but on this Earth, we have a very clear story supported by virtually every modern day scientist and expert of which I am aware. Is there more to learn? Of course. But this doesn't mean one can make up some sort of completely unsupported assertion, ideas that contradict reality, and call it fact.

You have come up with your own assertion that is clearly not in tune with any sort of science or real world evidence. Of course this is fine for you but with all due respect its not really something to discuss in the real world.

It is sort of like trying to have a discussion with a believer in the flat earth... kind of pointless.

If you are willing to read up on the current knowledge and research accepted by the world's scientists and experts then we could at least have a starting point.

~dancer~

TD, the study of myth, while it may be something that attracts smart, even brilliant, people, is not the stuff of science. There are no testable hypotheses, everything is assumptions and interpretation. It doesn't matter how many people nod in agreement, it is very tenuous at best.

Of course, there are common experiences. And maybe some of the assumptions may even be accurate. Such as the Sleeping Beauty story as one of these common experience stories. When she pokes her finger on the spinning wheel, and a drop of blood appears, that is really the metaphor for the begining of menstruation. When she goes to sleep that demonstrates that a female does not "awaken" sexually for several years after the appearance of the menses.

But this wandering down the rabbit trail of mythology isn't even what we are talking about. I said that gosple truths were taught. So tell me how baptism is some kind of common human experience that worked its way into the earliest religious stories by accident?