Four Flavors of "Doctrine"

What is doctrine, and how is it established?  I have come to recognize four categories of beliefs that often get labeled as doctrine, though only one of them truly is.  I find this framework is very helpful in understanding the doctrine of the Church, and in understanding why there are many flaws in the church. (notice the big C vs the little c).

True Doctrine (with a big D)

The Doctrine of Christ, and the various other Doctrines which surround it, are the only teachings which can truly be attributed to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  For a teaching to be considered Doctrine, it must be consistently and frequently taught by Prophets, Seers, and Revelators.  This does not preclude "deep Doctrine", but it does separate the true "Mysteries of Godliness", from the non-doctrines.  For me personally, an item is only true Doctrine if I can find it taught by at least 3 different Prophets (or Apostles), and only if I can see it taught by them with some consistency over multiple years.  Once that has happened, I consider the teaching to be well established, and I am entirely comfortable teaching it in any setting (unless it is of such a nature that I feel it should be reserved for certain settings).

False Doctrine

False doctrine is the polar opposite of true Doctrine.  These are teachings which have been consistently and frequently described as false by the Prophets and Apostles of the Church.  Like true Doctrines, I expect to see a consistent pattern of clear statements over time.  When I hear a false doctrine taught in any setting, I will quickly as respectfully speak up.  Generally I find that a simple question will resolve the issue without hurt feelings.  "Where did you learn that?"  Generally the answer is, "I got an email (or Facebook, or read a website)...."  I can then explain that the "quote" they read was never spoken and that the teaching is not consistent with Doctrine (for reason XYZ).

Non-Doctrine

Non-doctrine is a very interesting concept.  I came across this concept a few years back.  Basically, non-doctrine are thoughts and ideas upon which there is no consensus or consistency among the leaders of the church.  This includes principles that are taught in General Conference even, if such principles are not taught consistently by multiple individuals.  It also includes any concepts that may be discovered individually, or taught by individuals who have no authority to contribute to doctrine.  McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine" is an excellent example of this.  It was written before he was an Apostle, and introduces numerous ideas that were not taught with any consistency among the Brethren.  In fact, many of the things taught in that book were refuted by other Apostles.  There are, particularly in the early church, many examples where the Brethren openly taught conflicting concepts.  These instances where there is disagreement (a lack of consistency), constitute non doctrines.
I want to point out that there is nothing wrong with non-doctrine.  It is not necessarily false, but it requires careful thought.  First, we need to be very sensitive to the spirit when considering these principles.  Through the spirit we can be enabled to understand truth and determine the worthiness of such principles.  Second, we need to be particularly caution when sharing non-doctrine.  Whenever possible, it should be made clear to our listeners that the principle we are teaching is not established doctrine.  We can certainly bear testimony of it if we have received such a witness, but it should still be made clear that this is a personal witness, and not an established church teaching.  Finally, non-doctrines should rarely be discussed in a formal church learning environment (Sunday School, etc).  These are principles best kept for more private and intimate discussions with those who clearly understand that they involve a degree of conjecture.
Finally, a short word on the source of non-doctrine.  Many of these teaching originate with individual members and their personal thoughts.  However, others arise from church leaders.  In many cases, they come from journals or private teaching environments where early church leaders often felt very comfortable theorizing and contemplating.  Modern leaders are much more cautious about such teaching, specifically because church members are too quick to treat such teachings as doctrine.  So let's keep in mind that being an Apostle does not mean that you instantly know everything, nor does it mean that God suddenly chooses to correct every mistake you make.  How unfortunate that would be for those men.  They too deserve the opportunity to grow and discover gospel truth.

Cultural Doctrine

The final category, and one I've only recently come to consider, is cultural doctrine.  These are teachings and practices that are a result of culture, not gospel truth.  Personally, I consider them some of the most damaging to the spiritual growth of church members.  For example, we teach and claim to believe in the Gifts of the Spirit.  However, very few of the these gifts would be tolerated in a modern church meeting.  the Gift of Tongues, as an example, is now treated as somehow synonymous with "learning a language fast".  We tell stories about our history that clearly show that wasn't always the case.  I can only imagine the reaction of church members if we were to see the same miracles as were experienced at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple.  I think most of our members would be very uncomfortable by such a manifestation.  Other elements include the way we generally teach chastity, modesty, and many others.  When, and how, did it become important that Priesthood holders wear business suits?  Is the power of the priesthood really somehow connected to my tie?  If so, what color was Moses tie when he parted the Red Sea?  I'll probably blog a great deal about cultural doctrines because I genuinely feel they are detrimental to the personal growth of church members; both those that espouse them, and those who are hurt by them.

Well, there you have it.  That is my framework for considering Gospel principles.  Oh, and there was a great talk along those lines a few years back.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng