I am convinced that this hair-splitting nonsense about “official doctrine” is relatively recent concept in the Church and it is deeply rooted in the apologetic movement. I was thinking about this lately because I am in the middle of a discussion over at MAD where I am told that the LDS notion of Elohim = God the Father was only a “recent” thing in Mormonism as if that was somehow supposed to make LDS less tied down to it as doctrine.
For me this was one of the reasons I stopped doing apologetics. So often I said, when faced with something strange or discomforting from say BY or some other leader "That was never or is not official doctrine." Problem is it sure seemed that much of what was not official was though of as at least doctrine by those who said it and those who heard it. But the apologist simply dismissed it with this plea. It makes LDS apologetics much easier. Another example is the idea of becoming a God, creating your own world and peopling it. Growing up in the 60's and 70's this was taught often. Now, because this is not explicit in the canon it is not really doctrine, or official. The target just seems to move too much.
If you don’t believe me when I say “official doctrine” is a recent innovation in Mormonism, just do a search for it on the LDS website. Only seven hits come up, the earliest during the 70’s.
To nail home the apologetic purpose of all this, take a long close look at this Ensign article from 1982. Someone asks the question, “Is President Lorenzo Snow’s oft-repeated statement—“As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be”—accepted as official doctrine by the Church?”
What a great example. And a great point.