It's how I've always discussed the issues with my LDS friends. Of course, what my friends believe and what the leadership has taught historically and publicly, are often very different things indeed. It's when we discuss that juxtaposition that the sparks usually fly....
"...While certain doctrines are enunciated in the standard works and some doctrinal issues have been addressed in formal pronouncements by the First Presidency, there is nothing in Mormonism comparable to the Westminster Confession of Faith of the Augsberg Confession. Few of the truly distinctive doctrines of Mormonism are discussed in official sources. It is mainly by unofficial means -- Sunday School lessons, seminary, institute, and BYU religion classes, sacrament meeting talks and books by Church officials and others who ultimately speak only for themselves -- that the theology is passed from one generation to the next. Indeed it would seem that a significant part of Mormon theology exists primarily in the minds of the members... the absence of a formal creed means that each generation must produce a new set of gospel expositors to restate and reinterpret the doctrines of Mormonism..."Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1982
Re: Your quote from Dialogue, I have three comments:
1. Sunday School and Institute lessons from approved materials ARE official sources -- not to mention the Scriptures (first and foremost, and yes, we do believe the Bible and accept Jesus Christ as our Savior and Redeemer, who provides for us the only way to return to God, through his Atoning sacrifice), the monthly Ensign magazine, which always contains a First Presidency Message and in May and November a report on the semi-annual General Conference, and Priesthood and Relief Society lessons, to name a few, are additional official sources. We have quite a number of official sources. And no, we don't have to redefine ourselves from generation to generation.
2. Dialogue can hardly be described as an authoritative source, since it is an independent publication with no ties to the LDS Church other than the membership of its contributors. I don't know who wrote the quoted paragraph, but it's wrong. If I were to research the doctrines of the Church, I would and do look to the above-identified official source. I'm not saying everything Dialogue publishes in wrong, of course, just that not everything you read in Dialogue can be considered the final word from the horse's mouth.
3. If you'd really like to know what we think and teach, we'd love to have you attend a meeting or two. Just sit in the back and listen. As a matter of fact, come lots of times and listen to lots of talks and lessons, and you'll see the consistency of what we teach. I've been a member all my life, and the doctrines I learned in Sunday School, Sacrament Meeting, and Seminary when I was 16 years old are the same ones I'm hearing now umpteen years later.
You bring up an important good point that is often overlooked when Mormonism is discussed (even here on Free Republic).
As the Dialogue article correctly notes, the LDS Church does not have a formal creed. Although there exist some core beliefs that most if not all Mormons share, there is room for a range of beliefs and interpretations on other theological issues.
I frequently disagree with my co-religionists on a variety of doctrines. In most cases, it is their Mormon folklore that I object to. However, even when we disagree on some things, we nevertheless tend to agree on the essential matters. In my opinion, faith, testimony, and behavior are more important to us than theologizing.