Not sure I want to judge doctrine or its excess in general. I was thinking this morning that religions have to attract all kinds if they're to grow. If thats true there are certainly those who delight in complex doctrine and its nuances, and there is probably some value in a thoroughly worked philosophy derived from founding principles. Could be the doctrine is the vehicle but the point of it all is the journey and when we spend too much time working with the doctrine we confuse it for the goal.
But if "take what you like leave the rest" is OK for a 12-step program I don't see why it wouldn't apply to a religion, in which case "working what works" on the religious side seems perfectly reasonable to me.
But you used the word burden which is interesting. This body of doctrine which I've generally been unattracted to hasn't been a burden in the sense of too much or too complicated, more its too obscure (for me) & intepretation often seems strained. I have always found the essential practice (meditation, mantras, the basic readings) helpful. The 12-step work has made the Buddhist principles a lot more widely relevant to me, now they are the tools for one hand and the alanon material the tools for the other, if you will.