Savior’s Doctrine?

I have similar questions.

Actually, my main similar doctrinal conundrum is that millions of people have died (notably women and children in childbirth, children, and the elderly) because of the spread of germs because people did not wash their hands – especially doctors between patients. So why is it that God gave “revelation” regarding the cleanliness rules taught in the Old Testament regarding food purification, and other ceremonial cleanliness rites – but apparently did not say anything about washing hands while taking care of patients or set up best practices as hand-washing as ritual ceremonies.

I think the conflict comes in when “best ideas” that are taught as subsets to “Loving God”, and people impose checklists on others to make sure (for organizational, and/or benevolent and/or other reasons) those things happen.

Here is my take on “Inspiration” (Environments Set Up For It):

1. A person has to be interested/expertise/have a focus in that area. Nephi didn’t know how to build boats, but he had limited expertise in project management built from traveling in the wilderness for years and re-building his bow. President Nelson had years of operations under his belt before the heart operation was “diagrammed” for him. President Utchdorf cited in his conference talk that the doctor who started the hand-washing practice had the training to realize that there had to be a reason that his patients were dying when other similar patients were not and do the observations and analysis to arrive at the conclusion that going from the bedside of the dead to the bedside of a laboring mom was not a good idea without hand-washing.

2. Quiet Meditation: Joseph Smith found a grove to pray in. Brother of Jared spent time considering his campfire.

3. Force of Personality/Connection: There has to be a reason that the “inspiration” gets out – either by a charismatic person broadcasting it to others who think about an internalize it (Pioneers who read the Book of Mormon after missionaries gave it), a close family member sharing it and making it advantageous to update a person’s/group of people’s narrative (which is why the recent prophets keep talking about the influence women have on the course their families take), logical thinking and applying, or politics.

4. Developmentally “Ready” for it: We talk a lot about people being developmentally ready to transition from the Law of Moses to the given by Jesus Christ because they were “ready”. We have quite a few experts these days who have marked out common (ish) milestones/paths of development from Early Childhood Studies, Stages of Faith, timelines of biological development, etc.

I think that sometimes what we think is “revelation” is simply a resolution of the unconscious resolving cognitive dissonance in an specific area and coming forward with a specific plan of action and/or principle to weave into that person’s (or group of people’s) narrative. It isn’t all bad – I look for “revelation” regularly in how to teach/discipline my oldest daughter effectively given her unique talents and disadvantages.

I have questioned this as well. You are absolutely correct that Christ calls his doctrine (given to him by the Father, AKA the Doctrine of Christ) believe, repent, be baptized in 3 Nephi 11. Yet, very often when people (including some of the Q15) refer to the Doctrine of Christ they add GotHG and endure to the end. In fairness, 3 Nephi 27 Christ does mention endure to the end, BUT in chapter 11 he refers to these things as his doctrine while in chapter 27 he calls it his gospel. There are definite differences in those two words and I have wondered why they are used in referring to similar “requirements” just a few chapters apart. My own take: I choose to believe in chapter 11 as it is very much in line with the Bible.

BTW, I do have a favorite talk on the subject: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng

I partly like that talk because it contains this gem:

At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.”

But I also note that despite the statement early in his talk referring directly to 3 Nephi 11 and asserting that the gospel really is that simple, DTC did indeed add the GotHG and endure toward the end of the talk.

I am a seminary teacher.

Love the calling. I really do.

I also love the Book of Mormon.

We recently covered 3 Nephi 11:40.

I remember reading this as a teenager (before google) and wondered about it.

Now that I am re-reading it, I wonder….how does this line up with our Church organization?

And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock;

Is the Church guilty of adding to his doctrine, which, by the way, is simply this: repent and be baptized (according to 3 Ne 11).

Along those lines, here is what I have found in my own study of just the scriptures…

Savior’s Doctrine: repent and be baptized

Savior’s gospel: Love God. Love others.

*do those last two things, and everything else will just sort of fall into place

If it’s as simple as that, why do we (church members) feel so conflicted so often??

Also (sorry), we are taught that the purpose of the earth is to make eternal families. If that is the sole purpose of the earth, um, why didn’t the Savior teach that to the Nephites in the Americas? Kinda seems like that would be an important point he would make while there, don’t ya think?

As time passes, you realize the scriptures are very flexible. They can be interpreted however the user of the scriptures wants. The BoM says nothing about temple marriage, yet it contains “the fulness of the gospel”. When you ask people how that can be, you get convoluted answers like “it tells you the minimum you have to do to get to the celestial kingdom” (which celestial kingdom, by the way, it’s mentioned specifically in the BoM.

Fact is, JS brought the Bom to life, then found it necessary to create additional doctrine. he did so, in the D&C, but was stuck wtih the problem of his former “fuln ess of the gospel” descriptor about the BoM.

That is how I view it. It doesn’t affect my testimony though. That too is flexible.

Maybe those simple things ARE the core essence of what God expects of us.

What if we aren’t here on earth to be tested on our faith and obedience? What if the only test is whether we give or withhold unconditional love and everything else is an appendage to that?

Maybe it doesn’t really matter what you believe.

Personally I think you’re spot on Beefster.

I don’t get caught up in the whole adding/subtracting debate. I believe in ongoing revelation / evolution of understanding, so I don’t want consistency. I see no addition or subtraction as stagnation, and organizations wither and die when they stagnate.

I focus solely on whether each aspect has meaning for me – or if I can make if have meaning through creative interpretation and application.

I wondered for a moment what “adding/subtracting” might look like. I imagined doctrine where good ideas or “shoulds” become quasi-doctrine over time. Then it reaches a point where there is a desire to simplify and go back to basics. Perhaps that is a personal journey or perhaps part of a movement – either way it seems to describe the cyclical nature of all religion.

Expecting unchanging doctrine does not seem realistic for humans.

We are told all of the law and the prophets hangs on love – of God, self, and others.

If something doesn’t promote love (not necessarily acceptance, in all cases, but love itself), it is not of God.

It really is that simple to me.

Roy, I definitely agree with you there to embrace the good changes.