If it were, we’d hear about it every general conference, and frequently in sacrament meetings and Sunday School. We’d be asked in our temple recommend interviews. The fact that it isn’t, to me, is a good indication that it’s more to the periphery of the web.

Your other point that studying the “core doctrines” leads naturally to conclusions about free market economics, etc. supports the conclusion of the original post, i.e. “everything is related.” However, looking at worldwide membership–or even within Utah–I would have to disagree that church doctrine leads inevitably to a single political viewpoint.

Apart from those two examples that I don’t choose to address, if you read the teachings of the prophets you’d come to the conclusion that on who God is either (or both) Brigham Young and Spencer W. Kimball were simply wrong on the identification of God the Father with Adam. There are other examples of such contradictions among the teachings of persons sustained by the Church as prophets and revelators. The whole matter of reading and honoring the teachings of the prophets is not as simple as you (or perhaps The Other Clark) portray it.

If Jesus were to address disputations about points of His doctrine (as opposed to the teachings reflecting the limited understanding of men (or women) including Church leaders), perhaps it would be in the form reported in 3 Nephi 11:31-40. There is no mention of communism or polygamy or numerous other matters on which leaders of the Church have taught (whether or not you call their teachings “doctrine.”) Jesus concludes “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…” That conclusion may be a bit harsh if one equates the doctrine or teachings of leaders of the restored Church with the doctrine of Christ. I prefer to read it as making a distinction between Christ’s doctrine and others’ sometimes flawed attempts to interpret it or apply it in the context of specific concerns, whether cultural or theological. Of course, this is not to say that my attempts are not also flawed or have not also changed over time,

That’s pretty slanted. No one would argue the books are comprehensive of their teachings that are true. But that the books served a purpose to teach principles that the Lord wanted the church to focus on.

If you read and honor the teachings of the prophets you’d come to the conclusion that you should to opposed to communism, and you’d also should to come to the defense of the prophets who practiced polygamy.

But that doesn’t mean the Lord or his servants think those topics need our attention right now. They were important in their day and no less important when people try to use them as a wedge against faith, but not generally important enough to teach the body of the church when the principles taught and the spirit followed will lead to those conclusions anyway.

To the extent that more and more people feign confusion on social issues (gender, Priesthood, homosexuality), the prophets do speak clearly to the Doctrine for those that have ears to hear.

It’s usually only the people who don’t have ears to hear that are saying there’s no doctrine there.

If you want to disagree and say I’m being too harsh, just imagine that this whole discussion is taking place in the time of Jesus’ mortal ministry. Do you think that Jesus will say, yes you’re right there’s no clear Doctrine and the truth is mushy? I think he’d be clear about all the sophistry and speak unambiguously about the prophets saying if you have read them you don’t understand them. And then he’d give a parable about servants in the vineyard disputing amongst themselves about the master’s directives rather than doing them.

Dave, I think the example of Mother in Heaven is particularly interesting. It’s a good example of a doctrinal gap – if marriage is eternal, then what about God the Father? What fills the gap, both semi-officially and as folk doctrine, though, is very Mormon stuff: sacred silence (paralleling temple worship), ideals of domesticity or cooperative partnership, even plural wives. What tends not to fill the gap are things like Mary or Mother Earth. It’s much easier for Mormonism to fill its gaps with existing parts of itself, while outside material gets treated with more suspicion.

I agree! One Mormon’s doctrine is another Mormon’s folklore. I’m okay with this, what some see as dissonance.

I don’t think heavenly mother or seer stones work since in many circles they never dropped out.

Policies are always easier to shift when they don’t depend upon doctrine. So the number and sizes of temples, meeting schedules, practical methods of collecting and distributing funds etc. Indeed I kind of wonder in these days of everyone contributing electronically how long deacons doing fast offerings are for this world.

The rate of change seems a bit different. Especially if we use 1977 as the pivot point. Maybe this just reflects my biases but 1977 seems a whole lot more like 2017 than 1937 does to 1977. Admittedly the differences aren’t profound. The real big changes happen in the decades immediately prior to the 30’s. But if you lived in 1937 you’d probably have polygamists in your ward which seems freaky to even consider. There’s a good chance women were giving blessings to women for child birth or feminine problems. There likely were young but married men on missions still. (Don’t recall the exact date on that shifting) Most members had likely regularly come in contact with apostles directly.

On the other hand since the 1980’s we’ve had tons more scholarly work on Mormon history and particularly Mormon scripture. The Church is nearly everywhere rather than primarily limited to the Mormon belt in the west. Mormons aren’t seen as nearly as weird. The theology in many ways has changed, largely in response to closer readings of neglected scripture, closer attention to early Mormon history but also more of a harmonizing of science and theology through primarily apologetic groups like FARMS in the 80’s through 90’s. Then the use of the internet both for critics but also for Mormons even in meeting halls is huge.

— Eliminating local seventies, previously an office an a quorum at the local level.
— Informally dropping Coke and other caffeinated sodas from the definition of “hot drinks.”
— Emphasizing Heavenly Mother in LDS doctrine (previously a “we don’t talk about it” topic).
— Acknowledging the possession of some of Joseph’s seer stones and their us in BoM translation.

This set of changes seems to illustrate how malleable, even ad hoc, are most LDS doctrinal formulations.

— Creation of the three-hour block and elimination of RS and Primary meetings during the week.
— Embracing the “smaller temples” idea, then building them all over the world.
— Eliminating local contributions to building funds.
— Moving Conference from the historic Tabernacle to the newly constructed Conference Center.
— Lowering missionary age to 18 for young men and 19 for young women.

Together, these and other changes make life as a Mormon rather different in 2017 than in say 1977, only forty years ago. A mix of both retrenchment and assimilation moves.