That's Not Doctrine!

[_Yahoo Bot]

I'd say the whole concept of the resurrection is illogical. As the "arm of the flesh" said at the time, "the disciples stole the body."

[_Buffalo]

I'd say the whole concept of the resurrection is illogical. As the "arm of the flesh" said at the time, "the disciples stole the body."

Agreed.

Until you can show me an arm that isn't made of flesh (excluding the robotic kind), I'll stick to the arms that we're sure are real. You know, the fleshy kind.

Even believers operate on that principle. We all act as if there is no god because "God helps those who help themselves." That's a meme that has survived because it works - living your life as if there is no god to help you out works out much better for everyone from a practical standpoint.

[_Kevin Graham]

All you have to do is a search for "official doctrine" on the LDS.ORG website. Search all the magazines. I did this a few years ago and found a section of the Ensign that answers random questions from readers. Someone asked about the "man is God was" wondering if it was "official doctrine". The person who wrote a response said yes, and seemed confuse that anyone would even make such a distinction between doctrine and official doctrine. This was published in the late 70's or early 80's I can't remember exactly, and I don't have the reference on hand. But you could look it up.

I do remember the person responding said that everything taught is doctrine, and that only in times of mass confusion does the Church come forth and present "official" statements. They are designed to clear up misunderstanding or confusion. Otherwise, everything taught is to be considered doctrine, period.

[_MrStakhanovite]

I think Bot’s messy and confused ecclesiology pretty much demonstrates the Church’s need for a systematic theology.

[_Aristotle Smith]

I'd say the whole concept of the resurrection is illogical. As the "arm of the flesh" said at the time, "the disciples stole the body."

Strictly speaking resurrection is not illogical. As logic is based on formal reasoning, not on the truthfulness of the propositions. Hence, reasoning which assumes a resurrection can be valid (i.e. logical).

Depending on the worldview in which the logical reasoning takes place, logic involving resurrection may or may not be sound. In a naturalistic system, logical arguments which depend on the existence of a resurrection will be by default unsound. In a religious system, arguments which depend on the existence of the resurrection will be sound (assuming the other propositions are true).

However, under no worldview would resurrection be illogical in the sense that using it as a proposition produces an invalid argument. Hence, it can't be illogical. It may be impossible, but it's not illogical.

[_MrStakhanovite]

The closest it probably came were the Lectures on Faith that were de-canonized in 1921. The Lectures were the beginning of a series of such lectures that were to lay out the doctrine of the Doctrine and Covenants.

A few other things come to mind. Some sections of the D&C like section 20. 76, 84, 107 and the Articles of Faith off the top of my head start such a process.

Why were the Lectures on Faith de-canonized?

[_MrStakhanovite]

Strictly speaking resurrection is not illogical.

I'm sure Bot meant 'rational' instead of 'logical', but your point is excellent. For a resurrection to be illogical it would have to be something that is contradictory, like, Bot is all green and all red at the same time, in the same place.

Most modern naturalistic worldviews would view resurrection as conceivable, but very low in probability.

[_MsJack]

Why were the Lectures on Faith de-canonized?

Later theological developments in Mormonism contradicted what the Lectures taught about the Godhead. For example, the Lectures taught that the Father is "a personage of spirit" in contrast to the Son, who is "a personage of tabernacle." (LoF 5:2c-d) The Holy Spirit is not a personage at all but the mind of the Father and Son. (LoF 5:Second Amendment, j-k)

[_Dr. Shades]

I don't think that's all that "good" of a guess. BY's purported Adam-God "doctrine" was addressed before that.

The Adam/God Doctrine was never addressed. Everyone just quietly swept it under the rug after Brigham died.

[_jon]

If that which is taught is to be considered doctrine then:

We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally

Is doctrine.

Racist.