DiscussMormonism.com

Robert Kirby columnist from the SL Tribune wrote a piece on Thursday discussing myth in belief. Just because we like believing something or just because it makes us feel right it doesn't meant that it is in fact right or true.

Anyone who knows Kirby knows he's LDS and much of what he write has to do with the religion. While I like his comments (I actually think most of what he writes is pretty humorous and hit the mark) but I wonder what others think.

http://www.sltrib.com/columnists/ci_12901652

Comments????

When I was a Utlra-TBM, I hated Kirby ... how could such a liberal Mormon actually consider their self Mormon.

Kirby’s been around for a long time. He might rightly be able to call his self the father of New Age Mormons (or whatever the term is).

Check out Kirby’s famous (or is that infamous) classifications of Mormons way back when

http://www.mudrow.org/Herb/FKM1.html

badseed wrote:Robert Kirby columnist from the SL Tribune wrote a piece on Thursday discussing myth in belief. Just because we like believing something or just because it makes us feel right it doesn't meant that it is in fact right or true.

Anyone who knows Kirby knows he's LDS and much of what he write has to do with the religion. While I like his comments (I actually think most of what he writes is pretty humorous and hit the mark) but I wonder what others think.

http://www.sltrib.com/columnists/ci_12901652

Comments????

I love Kirby. Always have. He's one of the few true gifts that Utah gives to the outside world. And yes, he's LDS, but he's not always a TR carrying LDS. His bishop knows him too well.

Standard missionary lore. As a Missionary I delved into speculation a lot. I shared this speculation but made it clear it was speculative. Within months I heard what had speculated being attributed to General Authorities.

I wish we could wipe away much of the mythology surrounding LDS doctrine. Some LDS teachers teach the doctrine and then teach the reasonable speculations about it and then the reasonable speculations based on those speculations and on and on. While each individual guess might be right I find it unlikely the whole thing is right.

The Nehor wrote:I wish we could wipe away much of the mythology surrounding LDS doctrine. Some LDS teachers teach the doctrine and then teach the reasonable speculations about it and then the reasonable speculations based on those speculations and on and on. While each individual guess might be right I find it unlikely the whole thing is right.

Problem is I have trouble telling where mythology ends and doctrine begins. Things that I was raised with and was sure were doctrine have been declared opinion or myth by some since. How does one tell if things are doctrinal but the Church is still receiving line upon line OR if these things are myth/opinion?

For instance, before my mission the institute teacher in my stake taught me that God the Father was once a man that progressed through mortality, as we were, and eventually became God and the father of our spirits. However, President Hinckley later in an interview deflected this idea as speculative and unimportant. So if we could somehow "wipe away" the lore from LDS doctrine would that idea remain or be washed away with all of the other froth??????

badseed wrote:Problem is I have trouble telling where mythology ends and doctrine begins. Things that I was raised with and was sure were doctrine have been declared opinion or myth by some since. How does one tell if things are doctrinal but the Church is still receiving line upon line OR if these things are myth/opinion?

Read the scriptures and the words of the living oracles. Then use the Holy Ghost to discern between doctrine and speculation.

For instance, before my mission the institute teacher in my stake taught me that God the Father was once a man that progressed through mortality, as we were, and eventually became God and the father of our spirits. However, President Hinckley later in an interview deflected this idea as speculative and unimportant. So if we could somehow "wipe away" the lore from LDS doctrine would that idea remain or be washed away with all of the other froth??????

Read the King Follett discourse and pray about it to learn whether or not the doctrine is correct and which portions of the mythos surrounding this idea are correct.

The Nehor wrote:Read the King Follett discourse and pray about it to learn whether or not the doctrine is correct and which portions of the mythos surrounding this idea are correct.

When was the King Follett discourse canonized?

harmony wrote:

The Nehor wrote:Read the King Follett discourse and pray about it to learn whether or not the doctrine is correct and which portions of the mythos surrounding this idea are correct.

When was the King Follett discourse canonized?

It wasn't. However, the question wasn't about what was canon. The question is how to find out if a doctrine is correct. To do that, you should read the sources of the doctrine and pray about it.

The Nehor wrote:Read the scriptures and the words of the living oracles. Then use the Holy Ghost to discern between doctrine and speculation.

'Living oracles' certainly have gotten it wrong like the rest of us. Speaking of the Hagoth example, a user posted the comments these examples of LDS General Authorities supporting the very idea .

- Elder Mark E. Petersen, in a 1962 general conference address: " . . . As Latter-day Saints we have always believed that the Polynesians are descendants of Lehi and blood relatives of the American Indians, despite the contrary theories of other men."

- Elder Hugh B. Brown, in the closing prayer at the cornerstone laying ceremony at the New Zealand Temple: " . . . We humbly thank Thee that this building is erected in this land, so that those faithful Maoris who came here in early days, descendants of Father Lehi, may be remembered by their descendants. . . . "

- President David O. McKay, in the dedicatory prayer at the New Zealand Temple, April 20, 1958: "We express gratitude that to these fertile islands thou dist guide descendants of Father Lehi and hast enabled them to prosper."

- Elder Gordon B. Hinckley, at the dedication of the New Zealand Temple, April 20, 1958: " . . . Here are two great strains of the house of Israel and the children of Ephraim from the isles of Britain, and the children of Lehi from the isles of the Pacific."

- President Spencer W. Kimball in a 1976 address to Samoan members: [President Kimball read the account of Hagoth in the book of Alma and then said]: "And so it seems to me rather clear that your ancestors moved northward and crossed a part of the South Pacific. You did not bring your records with you, but you brought much food and provisions. . . ."

In that same address, President Kimball quoted President Joseph F. Smith: " `I would like to say to you brethren and sisters of New Zealand, you are some of Hagoth's people, and there is No Perhaps about it!' "

See the Church News story on the subject from 1992: http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/2 ... erica.html

Even if members used the Spirit to discern at this point, many— if not most— tend to merely reaffirm what the leadership has said— except of course for mavericks like yourself.

The Nehor wrote:Read the King Follett discourse and pray about it to learn whether or not the doctrine is correct and which portions of the mythos surrounding this idea are correct.

I guess I'd have more faith in your process if individuals (myself included) didn't come to as many different conclusions as individuals using it— some demonstrably false from my perspective. It seems that people find their own truth and that perhaps big "T" truth does not exist or is not attainable through this method. To me people "praying to learn whether a doctrine is correct or not" looks suspiciously similar to people justifying personal opinion with a self-confirming feelings.

Nehore
I wish we could wipe away much of the mythology surrounding LDS doctrine.

LOL! There would not be anything left. Its myth built on myth.