If you want a more substantial answer to your question about how the doctrines have changed, read “This is my doctrine” by Charlie Harrell. If you want a more detailed example of what doctrine is and how it changes, read “second class saints” by Matthew Harris. If you want even more examples, just read the BOM and see how doctrines in it are at odds with the D&C. Seriously - take the BOM at face value and compare it. It’s wildly incompatible. Ignore the context of what you’ve been taught about the BOM. Read it like someone in 1828 would.
Even something like the doctrine of the atonement has fundamentally changed because Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both advocated for blood atonement (yes, Joseph did teach and advocate it). And the Adam God doctrine was literally taught in the temple. These two things alone show that even something as seemingly static as the atonement of Christ is anything but static within the history of the church.
Doctrine changes all the time and no one in any position of authority wants to take a firm stand on what it is because it’s impossible to define. The reason why I use the atonement is to prevent (well intentioned, I’m sure) tbm’s from using the motte and bailey fallacy: something that someone says isn’t actually doctrine, according to you, (like Africans being descendents of Cain, for example) so you retreat to something more fundamental like the atonement. This is also similar to moving the goal posts.
At any rate, good luck with working your salvation out with fear and trembling. I gave most of my life to the church. I’m better now that I’m out. I’m much better now that I’m out. That’s not going to be true for LITERALLY everyone, but you should at least be willing to give it serious thought.
If you want a more substantial answer to your question about how the doctrines have changed, read “This is my doctrine” by Charlie Harrell. If you want a more detailed example of what doctrine is and how it changes, read “second class saints” by Matthew Harris. If you want even more examples, just read the BOM and see how doctrines in it are at odds with the D&C. Seriously - take the BOM at face value and compare it. It’s wildly incompatible. Ignore the context of what you’ve been taught about the BOM. Read it like someone in 1828 would.
Even something like the doctrine of the atonement has fundamentally changed because Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both advocated for blood atonement (yes, Joseph did teach and advocate it). And the Adam God doctrine was literally taught in the temple. These two things alone show that even something as seemingly static as the atonement of Christ is anything but static within the history of the church.
Doctrine changes all the time and no one in any position of authority wants to take a firm stand on what it is because it’s impossible to define. The reason why I use the atonement is to prevent (well intentioned, I’m sure) tbm’s from using the motte and bailey fallacy: something that someone says isn’t actually doctrine, according to you, (like Africans being descendents of Cain, for example) so you retreat to something more fundamental like the atonement. This is also similar to moving the goal posts.
At any rate, good luck with working your salvation out with fear and trembling. I gave most of my life to the church. I’m better now that I’m out. I’m much better now that I’m out. That’s not going to be true for LITERALLY everyone, but you should at least be willing to give it serious thought.