Doctrine

[Traveler]

Doctrine is way overrated.  For example, I do not believe there is a scripture that indicates that anyone will be judged based on the doctrine they believe.  And yet "good Christians" have executed "heretics" based entirely on doctrine - and wars have been waged over doctrine.  I do not think that anything has divided the religious community more than doctrine.  I would wager that even on this forum; disputes over doctrine has resulted in more bitterness, misunderstandings and harsh unwarranted criticism that all other “things” combined.

There are some scriptures that use the term "doctrine of devils" but such vile doctrines are not clearly defined but they are mentioned in conjunction with seducing spirits.  I have known so called atheists that are more attuned to love and kindness of their fellow men than so called believers in doctrines of religion.

And so I would suggest that if; in discussing any doctrine that we become “angry” with our fellow man – that it is because we are so being seduced by doctrines of devils.  (Please note that disappointed is not the same as angry)  - also note that this applies to “personal attracts” as well.  The doctrine of Christ is to love one another – and to be of “one” heart.  Perhaps it is so very difficult to be an example (as I know so very well) but let us not be the first (or even the last) to cast stones – especially concerning the sin of a doctrine of overbearance.

 

The Traveler

[Anddenex]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

Doctrine is way overrated.  For example, I do not believe there is a scripture that indicates that anyone will be judged based on the doctrine they believe.  And yet "good Christians" have executed "heretics" based entirely on doctrine - and wars have been waged over doctrine.  I do not think that anything has divided the religious community more than doctrine.  I would wager that even on this forum; disputes over doctrine has resulted in more bitterness, misunderstandings and harsh unwarranted criticism that all other “things” combined.

There are some scriptures that use the term "doctrine of devils" but such vile doctrines are not clearly defined but they are mentioned in conjunction with seducing spirits.  I have known so called atheists that are more attuned to love and kindness of their fellow men than so called believers in doctrines of religion.

And so I would suggest that if; in discussing any doctrine that we become “angry” with our fellow man – that it is because we are so being seduced by doctrines of devils.  (Please note that disappointed is not the same as angry)  - also note that this applies to “personal attracts” as well.  The doctrine of Christ is to love one another – and to be of “one” heart.  Perhaps it is so very difficult to be an example (as I know so very well) but let us not be the first (or even the last) to cast stones – especially concerning the sin of a doctrine of overbearance.

 

The Traveler

There is for sure one scripture of "doctrine" that people will be judged on: John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (emphasis mine)

This establishes truth (Jesus Christ) and it is doctrine (truth) taught that is to be believed in order to receive salvation.

The rest of your comment appears to be accurate.

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Anddenex said:

There is for sure one scripture of "doctrine" that people will be judged on: John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (emphasis mine)

This establishes truth (Jesus Christ) and it is doctrine (truth) taught that is to be believed in order to receive salvation.

The rest of your comment appears to be accurate.

Thanks for your response - Consider the contribution of James chapter 2:

Quote

19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the ^adevils also ^bbelieve, and tremble.

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that ^afaith without ^bworks is dead?

21 Was not Abraham our father ^ajustified by works, when he had ^boffered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by ^aworkswas faith made ^bperfect?

23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham ^abelievedGod, and it was imputed unto him for ^brighteousness: and he was called the ^cFriend of God.

24 Ye see then how that by ^aworks a man is ^bjustified, and not by faith only.

In short one is not justified through doctrine but through works of obedience to the law, works of obedience to the ordinances of G-d and works of obedience to our covenants with G-d which are all greater (meaning perfect or complete) than belief and doctrine.

 

The Traveler

[Guest Mores]

31 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Thanks for your response - Consider the contribution of James chapter 2:

In short one is not justified through doctrine but through works of obedience to the law, works of obedience to the ordinances of G-d and works of obedience to our covenants with G-d which are all greater (meaning perfect or complete) than belief and doctrine.

 

The Traveler

How does one obey the law without knowing it first?  Teaching and knowing doctrine IS VERY IMPORTANT.  As you point out, it is not an end in and of itself.  But it is a necessary means to the end.

[Traveler]

51 minutes ago, Mores said:

How does one obey the law without knowing it first?  Teaching and knowing doctrine IS VERY IMPORTANT.  As you point out, it is not an end in and of itself.  But it is a necessary means to the end.

We assume some things because they seem logical but by revelation we are told that little children are saved through the atonement of Christ without knowing the law and having accountability to obey the law.  This must be based in things we cannot fully understand in mortality.  Also Alvin (the brother of Joseph Smith) was saved without knowing the restored law.  We are told to search for the truth - but even if we do not find it - it would seem that our faith and works in Jesus Christ can do more than it would logically seem.  

I am not trying to establish any doctrine except that we employ the doctrine of repentance - but not for the sake of doctrine or knowledge but that we can become a Saint of G-d.

 

The Traveler

[Anddenex]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

Thanks for your response - Consider the contribution of James chapter 2:

In short one is not justified through doctrine but through works of obedience to the law, works of obedience to the ordinances of G-d and works of obedience to our covenants with G-d which are all greater (meaning perfect or complete) than belief and doctrine.

 

The Traveler

I was simply responding to the following statement:

Quote

For example, I do not believe there is a scripture that indicates that anyone will be judged based on the doctrine they believe.

I provided the following verse of scripture/doctrine will be judged upon:

Quote

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (emphasis mine)

We are judged according to our belief in the core doctrine of Jesus Christ and who he is. Our belief is shown in our actions. Thus we know we have two scripture by how a person "believes" they will be judged by their belief and their decision to be like this belief -- like Christ.

We are not talking about justification, I was pointing out that we are indeed judged by our belief in doctrine as given in the provided verse. He that believeth in the Son of God, Jesus Christ, should not perish.

It is obvious that one aspect of our judgement will be our belief or non-belief in Jesus Christ. We have further information in scripture that also specifies what it means to "believe" in Christ. That is a different subject.

Edit:

Let me ask a different question, "In light of what you have specified, do you believe someone will be saved if they reject Christ"? As a caveat, we are not referring to people who profess a belief in Christ, and act hypocritically. We are simply talking one group of people, those who reject the doctrine of Christ as their Savior.

Edited April 25, 2019 by Anddenex

[Traveler]

15 hours ago, Anddenex said:

I was simply responding to the following statement:

I provided the following verse of scripture/doctrine will be judged upon:

We are judged according to our belief in the core doctrine of Jesus Christ and who he is. Our belief is shown in our actions. Thus we know we have two scripture by how a person "believes" they will be judged by their belief and their decision to be like this belief -- like Christ.

We are not talking about justification, I was pointing out that we are indeed judged by our belief in doctrine as given in the provided verse. He that believeth in the Son of God, Jesus Christ, should not perish.

It is obvious that one aspect of our judgement will be our belief or non-belief in Jesus Christ. We have further information in scripture that also specifies what it means to "believe" in Christ. That is a different subject.

Edit:

Let me ask a different question, "In light of what you have specified, do you believe someone will be saved if they reject Christ"? As a caveat, we are not referring to people who profess a belief in Christ, and act hypocritically. We are simply talking one group of people, those who reject the doctrine of Christ as their Savior.

I am not sure there is a short answer.  I believe that we all come into mortality with two things (blessings or gifts) one is what is called the spirit of Christ.  This is not a doctrine or knowledge in the usual sense that we talk about.  It is a spiritual endowment.  When we speak of accepting or rejecting Christ - I believe it is a spiritual thing dealing with the spirit of Christ (I do not believe it is what we normally think of in terms of doctrine).  Thus some individual in some far away place without access to anyone with knowledge of Jesus and his atonement and mission can be judged for their acceptance or rejection of the spirit of Christ that was given them.

The second gift is what we call the gift of the spirit.  I believe it is our exercise of our spiritual gift in connection with the spirit of Christ that we serve and assist others and find connections.  I believe that through studying doctrine and scripture that we can have an awakening of the spirit - but That is so much different that believing in doctrine.

 

The Traveler

[Guest Mores]

On 4/25/2019 at 4:44 PM, Traveler said:

We assume some things because they seem logical but by revelation we are told that little children are saved through the atonement of Christ without knowing the law and having accountability to obey the law.  This must be based in things we cannot fully understand in mortality.  Also Alvin (the brother of Joseph Smith) was saved without knowing the restored law.  We are told to search for the truth - but even if we do not find it - it would seem that our faith and works in Jesus Christ can do more than it would logically seem.  

I am not trying to establish any doctrine except that we employ the doctrine of repentance - but not for the sake of doctrine or knowledge but that we can become a Saint of G-d.

 

The Traveler

These examples are obviously the exception rather than the rule.  But you're expanding this to be the rule and the only rule.  But you're not establishing doctrine...  ok...

[Traveler]

42 minutes ago, Mores said:

These examples are obviously the exception rather than the rule.  But you're expanding this to be the rule and the only rule.  But you're not establishing doctrine...  ok...

I have attempted on many occasions to determine why I (or anyone else) does a certain thing.  I assume that others are motivated by the same things that I am.  The logical motivation is that it seemed to be the good choice at the time.  I am convinced that all "choices" happen through motivation - water flows downhill because gravity motivates it to do so.   Often we are motivated by the opinions and advice of others.  For example, I will do things in the church because I have received a call to do it.  Without a call (or someone asking me to) many things I do - I would not otherwise choose to do.  But these are all short term things - when I am released I quit doing the things I was called to do and let someone else do them.

I think that many think of doctrine as things we are asked to do or believe.  So, if we want others to do and believe things that we do - we think to convince them with doctrine.  Here is where things get interesting - few like being told what to believe or do.  But there is a caveat.  The more we dislike someone the less we are apt to learn, believe or do anything for them or because of them (with the odd exception of "getting even" with them - revenge).  The more we like someone the more we are apt to learn, believe or do things for them and the less that revenge seems important.

And so it seems to me that love is far more important than doctrine.  Not the doctrine of love but the actual love (like, respect or whatever) of a specific individual.  The best example I have is my wife.  I really do not like a lot of things she likes but I like her.  So I watch TV shows and movies and a great many other things I would never watch or do by myself so I can spend more time with her.  Being with her makes those things fun but when I am by myself I do not enjoy them.  There are many things I very much enjoy that she does not want any part of.  For example, she dislikes cold weather very much and will not go skiing with me.  She will sit in the lodge by the fire but she will not go out in the cold of the mountain.  I love the cold and have gone winter camping in 30 below.   If it drops below 50 degrees she has no desire to be outside.  She loves tropical beaches.  Most of our vacations are spent at tropical beaches.  I enjoy seeing her happy.  It is more important to me than my little corner of the room happiness.  Her happiness is more motivation to me than my happiness.

As far as church doctrine - I love knowledge of truth.  I very much enjoy research and reading scriptures.  Not to learn the stories but to learn and acquire knowledge.  I do like doctrine.  I enjoy learning the doctrine of just about every ideology.   But for me I am much more interested in how and why someone concluded something is true that what they think is true.  But when it comes to religion, politics or culture - most seem to believe something just because they were told to by what they think is the authority.  Even when I pray for understanding - I do not want doctrine - I want to know why (even G-d) does what he does or believes what he believes.  I do want to know what anyone else knows - I want more to know how they came about to learn what they know.  Some accept that G-d is good - but I desire to know why he is good and how he determined to be good.  Knowing that Jesus sacrificed and died for us is not what I desire to know - I desire to understand why he would do such a thing.  I think he does things he would not otherwise do because he really does love us and wants to spend more time with us.  The doctrine of the atonement is cool and can be very complex and exciting to learn - but the why of divine sacrifice and atonement is a very different kind of mystery that leads down quite different paths. 

 

The Traveler

[Guest Mores]

7 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I think that many think of doctrine as things we are asked to do or believe. 

I see it as "a teaching of what we believe to be true."  Then our feelings about and expression of our belief of such is "testimony".

Quote

So, if we want others to do and believe things that we do - we think to convince them with doctrine. 

Yes, I agree.  That is a failing in most of us.

Quote

Here is where things get interesting - few like being told what to believe or do.  But there is a caveat.  The more we dislike someone the less we are apt to learn, believe or do anything for them or because of them (with the odd exception of "getting even" with them - revenge).  The more we like someone the more we are apt to learn, believe or do things for them and the less that revenge seems important.

True.

Quote

And so it seems to me that love is far more important than doctrine.  Not the doctrine of love but the actual love (like, respect or whatever) of a specific individual.  The best example I have is my wife.  I really do not like a lot of things she likes but I like her.  So I watch TV shows and movies and a great many other things I would never watch or do by myself so I can spend more time with her.  Being with her makes those things fun but when I am by myself I do not enjoy them. 

Love is more important.  But I have seen no evidence that loving people "convinces" people of anything.  It may temporarily get them to do something, not because of conviction, but because of a feeling of obligation.

The only thing that motivates from within is what we're already convinced of.

I love my wife dearly too (maybe we should start a club).  But there are many things she says that are completely off the wall.  I smile and nod and love her anyway.  But she also has this scholarly side to her.  When that side comes out, she really shows how powerful a woman she really is.  While my emotions will move toward her even when I KNOW I disagree, my mind is wooed when her scholarly side opens up.

Edited April 30, 2019 by Mores

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I have attempted on many occasions to determine why I (or anyone else) does a certain thing.  I assume that others are motivated by the same things that I am.  The logical motivation is that it seemed to be the good choice at the time.  I am convinced that all "choices" happen through motivation - water flows downhill because gravity motivates it to do so.   Often we are motivated by the opinions and advice of others.  For example, I will do things in the church because I have received a call to do it.  Without a call (or someone asking me to) many things I do - I would not otherwise choose to do.  But these are all short term things - when I am released I quit doing the things I was called to do and let someone else do them.

I think that many think of doctrine as things we are asked to do or believe.  So, if we want others to do and believe things that we do - we think to convince them with doctrine.  Here is where things get interesting - few like being told what to believe or do.  But there is a caveat.  The more we dislike someone the less we are apt to learn, believe or do anything for them or because of them (with the odd exception of "getting even" with them - revenge).  The more we like someone the more we are apt to learn, believe or do things for them and the less that revenge seems important.

And so it seems to me that love is far more important than doctrine.  Not the doctrine of love but the actual love (like, respect or whatever) of a specific individual.  The best example I have is my wife.  I really do not like a lot of things she likes but I like her.  So I watch TV shows and movies and a great many other things I would never watch or do by myself so I can spend more time with her.  Being with her makes those things fun but when I am by myself I do not enjoy them.  There are many things I very much enjoy that she does not want any part of.  For example, she dislikes cold weather very much and will not go skiing with me.  She will sit in the lodge by the fire but she will not go out in the cold of the mountain.  I love the cold and have gone winter camping in 30 below.   If it drops below 50 degrees she has no desire to be outside.  She loves tropical beaches.  Most of our vacations are spent at tropical beaches.  I enjoy seeing her happy.  It is more important to me than my little corner of the room happiness.  Her happiness is more motivation to me than my happiness.

As far as church doctrine - I love knowledge of truth.  I very much enjoy research and reading scriptures.  Not to learn the stories but to learn and acquire knowledge.  I do like doctrine.  I enjoy learning the doctrine of just about every ideology.   But for me I am much more interested in how and why someone concluded something is true that what they think is true.  But when it comes to religion, politics or culture - most seem to believe something just because they were told to by what they think is the authority.  Even when I pray for understanding - I do not want doctrine - I want to know why (even G-d) does what he does or believes what he believes.  I do want to know what anyone else knows - I want more to know how they came about to learn what they know.  Some accept that G-d is good - but I desire to know why he is good and how he determined to be good.  Knowing that Jesus sacrificed and died for us is not what I desire to know - I desire to understand why he would do such a thing.  I think he does things he would not otherwise do because he really does love us and wants to spend more time with us.  The doctrine of the atonement is cool and can be very complex and exciting to learn - but the why of divine sacrifice and atonement is a very different kind of mystery that leads down quite different paths. 

"And now, as the preaching of the word had a great tendency to lead the people to do that which was just—yea, it had had more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword, or anything else, which had happened unto them—therefore Alma thought it was expedient that they should try the virtue of the word of God."

Alma 31:5

[Vort]

On 4/25/2019 at 2:44 PM, Traveler said:

We assume some things because they seem logical but by revelation we are told that little children are saved through the atonement of Christ without knowing the law and having accountability to obey the law.  This must be based in things we cannot fully understand in mortality.  Also Alvin (the brother of Joseph Smith) was saved without knowing the restored law.  We are told to search for the truth - but even if we do not find it - it would seem that our faith and works in Jesus Christ can do more than it would logically seem.  

I am not trying to establish any doctrine except that we employ the doctrine of repentance - but not for the sake of doctrine or knowledge but that we can become a Saint of G-d.

I mostly agree with what I understand you to be saying, but I think you're missing the important point. If I understand you rightly, you are correct in asserting that understanding doctrine is not per se of saving value; as you point out, little children are saved without understanding or even obeying the law. This is a manifestation of the general principle "where there is no law, there is no sin". The entire animal world lives this law, where murder, rape, torture, and oppression abound with nary a hint of sinfulness.

But we are not mere animals; we are children of God. Our duty is to (1) search after truth and (2) live by all the truths we understand. Those two things constitute the entirety of our duty in existence (and #2 is actually a subset of #1; one of the truths we search for and acquire is the truth that we must strive to live by all the truths we know).

Given this, our situation as rational adults is not the same as that of the small child who dies. It is our imperative to seek true doctrine. If we do not actively seek true doctrine, we are failing in our duty and need to repent.

The term "doctrine" means "teaching" (from Latin doctor "teacher", which comes from the verb docere "to teach"). So our duty is to search out the true teachings, learn them, and follow them. This is a bedrock principle; you can't really dance around it, drawing a line between the teaching of a truth and the truth itself and saying that we care about the truth, not about its teaching. That's like saying that we care about the gospel of Jesus Christ, not the Restored Church. Just as the full practice of the gospel cannot exist outside the context of the Restored Church, the understanding of a truth cannot exist without a correct doctrine (teaching) of that truth.

Edited April 30, 2019 by Vort

[JohnsonJones]

3 hours ago, Vort said:

I mostly agree with what I understand you to be saying, but I think you're missing the important point. If I understand you rightly, you are correct in asserting that understanding doctrine is not per se of saving value; as you point out, little children are saved without understanding or even obeying the law. This is a manifestation of the general principle "where there is no law, there is no sin". The entire animal world lives this law, where murder, rape, torture, and oppression abound with nary a hint of sinfulness.

But we are not mere animals; we are children of God. Our duty is to (1) search after truth and (2) live by all the truths we understand. Those two things constitute the entirety of our duty in existence (and #2 is actually a subset of #1; one of the truths we search for and acquire is the truth that we must strive to live by all the truths we know).

Given this, our situation as rational adults is not the same as that of the small child who dies. It is our imperative to seek true doctrine. If we do not actively seek true doctrine, we are failing in our duty and need to repent.

The term "doctrine" means "teaching" (from Latin doctor "teacher", which comes from the verb docere "to teach"). So our duty is to search out the true teachings, learn them, and follow them. This is a bedrock principle; you can't really dance around it, drawing a line between the teaching of a truth and the truth itself and saying that we care about the truth, not about its teaching. That's like saying that we care about the gospel of Jesus Christ, not the Restored Church. Just as the full practice of the gospel cannot exist outside the context of the Restored Church, the understanding of a truth cannot exist without a correct doctrine (teaching) of that truth.

I agree for the most part, except I also feel (aka...my feelings on this particular item at the current moment) each creature has it's laws proscribed to each of it's own kind.  Thus, even if they do not live the laws as prescribed to us, they live the laws that they have as per their creation under heaven.  Thus we see that bees will operate as bees do, creating as they are created and obeying the laws which dictate their behaviors and what they can or cannot do. 

From the story of the fig tree which the Lord cursed we could (not that we should or that this is the way it is) see that as an indication that even plants and other creations have certain laws upon which they can abide, and when they do not abide by these laws they are also apt to the Lord's judgments. 

In many ways they each reflect the glory of God and are subject to him.  They may not have the same degree of articulate legality as we are under, but as we have been given dominion over them, we have the standards of Children of God applicable to us.

Edited April 30, 2019 by JohnsonJones

[Traveler]

22 hours ago, Vort said:

I mostly agree with what I understand you to be saying, but I think you're missing the important point. If I understand you rightly, you are correct in asserting that understanding doctrine is not per se of saving value; as you point out, little children are saved without understanding or even obeying the law. This is a manifestation of the general principle "where there is no law, there is no sin". The entire animal world lives this law, where murder, rape, torture, and oppression abound with nary a hint of sinfulness.

But we are not mere animals; we are children of God. Our duty is to (1) search after truth and (2) live by all the truths we understand. Those two things constitute the entirety of our duty in existence (and #2 is actually a subset of #1; one of the truths we search for and acquire is the truth that we must strive to live by all the truths we know).

Given this, our situation as rational adults is not the same as that of the small child who dies. It is our imperative to seek true doctrine. If we do not actively seek true doctrine, we are failing in our duty and need to repent.

The term "doctrine" means "teaching" (from Latin doctor "teacher", which comes from the verb docere "to teach"). So our duty is to search out the true teachings, learn them, and follow them. This is a bedrock principle; you can't really dance around it, drawing a line between the teaching of a truth and the truth itself and saying that we care about the truth, not about its teaching. That's like saying that we care about the gospel of Jesus Christ, not the Restored Church. Just as the full practice of the gospel cannot exist outside the context of the Restored Church, the understanding of a truth cannot exist without a correct doctrine (teaching) of that truth.

Thank you Vort.  I have thought about your post (and @The Folk Prophet's) and some interesting characterizations.   For example, the doctrine taught by Jesus that rational adults should be more like small children - at least concerning the kingdom of heaven.

I do agree that it is important to seek for truth - but I am not sure that is our "prime" responsibility in mortality.  I am of the mind that it is more important to be an example of love, kindness and compassion than it is to be an expert vessel of information concerning love, kindness and compassion.  Perhaps I can provide another example.  I thought I would be a great teacher and wonderful missionary in my youth.  I prepared as best as I knew how.  I memorized all the missionary discussions, all 270 recommended missionary scriptures, and studied a foreign language before being called.  One of my missionary companions was quite different.  He was a native American that could hardly read.  He was the only member of the church in his family and tribe - (he was straight off the reservation).  He could not present any of the discussions nor could he find a single scripture.  His understanding of doctrine was abysmal at best.   But of all my companions - he left the most lasting impression, taught me the most of all my companions and had the most profound and lasting impression on my life.  It was his advice that I seek a "spiritual guide" and find my place in life by fasting in the wilderness rather than seeking scholarly psychological solutions.  I cannot say that he was not one of the best examples of a disciple of Christ as I have ever met. 

At best we are but a instrument through which the Holy Ghost can teach.  I would like to think I am smart but the reality is - for all I have learned and acquired of information and doctrine I am just sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal.  I am not the teacher - but thanks for reading my posts - I do prize your inputs.  But if I have anything to add or contribute to this forum or thread - it is not doctrine - there seems to be sufficient already. 

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

6 minutes ago, Traveler said:

but I am not sure that is our "prime" responsibility in mortality.

I think (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) that @Vort's point is that it isn't useful to distinguish "prime" when all responsibilities are requisite.

It's like saying our prime responsibility regarding nourishment is to eat food, not to gather it.

Okay... But you still have to gather it before you can eat it.

[Traveler]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I think (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) that @Vort's point is that it isn't useful to distinguish "prime" when all responsibilities are requisite.

It's like saying our prime responsibility regarding nourishment is to eat food, not to gather it.

Okay... But you still have to gather it before you can eat it.

Are you sure - how did Jesus feed 5,000?

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Are you sure - how did Jesus feed 5,000?

Are you aware that you're missing the point?

You know we're not actually talking about food, right?

[Guest Mores]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Are you sure - how did Jesus feed 5,000?

Yup.  Totally missing the point.  AND wrong to boot.

SOMEONE gathered the food.  Even if not a mortal, Jesus would have gathered it.  Then it had to be distributed.  Who did that?  OUR PRIMARY duty is to simply eat?  SOMEone has to do the prerequisites.

Imagine if you said we're only interested in the VR Simulation.  The electronics or the software are really unimportant.  That makes no sense.  Without those things, how do you have the VR simulation at all?

Without teaching doctrine, or at least learning it, we cannot obey it.  At the very least, it is taught by the Holy Ghost and the Light of Christ.  How you can separate the two is simply sophistry.

[Traveler]

Consider the following:

 

Quote

Matthew 6

9 ¶ Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor bsteal:

21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of clight.

23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

24 ¶ No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:

29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, ashall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?

31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.

33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

I would add that the kingdom of heaven is not distinguished by doctrine but by #1. The Law,  #2 The Ordinances and #3 The Everlasting Covenant.  

 

I do understand that the kingdom of G-d will teach doctrine and is aligned with truth and light.  I have yet to encounter a religious person that does not think they have access to correct doctrine.  Yet Jesus taught what is more important than doctrine or seeking doctrine:

Quote

John 13:

34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

The problem is that we can seek and know doctrine - but what will all the knowledge of doctrine do; if we do not love one to another?

What is being proposed is that we cannot love others (be a disciple of Christ) unless we are taught the doctrine to do so.  I do not understand that belief to be precise and accurate (complete) or the doctrine taught by Christ. 

 

The Traveler

Edited May 1, 2019 by Traveler