In fact, the Church already has distanced itself from fundamental doctrines, e.g., "As man is, God once was."
CFR
Prior to the priesthood ban being lifted, LDS leaders taught that during the war in heaven, some of the spirits were sort of neutral or "less valiant" than the ones who really wanted Jesus to win. These spirits are born to black (Negro) parents who are "cursed" with a dark skin as an outward sign of their lukewarm attitude during the war in heaven. I've posted examples of LDS leaders teaching this doctrine here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13385&p=330724&hilit=negro#p330724
Too bad this was never official Church doctrine and never binding on the Saints as such. How long people such as yourself will be recycling the same threadbare shibboleths is actually far more interesting than how long it will be before the Church accepts Gay marriage.
"Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" seems to be the framework for much that passes for anti-Mormon "thought".
When the priesthood ban was lifted, the Church did not repudiate these teachings, and still has not done so.
It doesn't have to, as they were never more than the theological speculations of various apostles. They were never settled, "orthodox" doctrine and never taught by the Brethren unitedly (The Church) as such.
Even so, the idea that there were many different levels of faith, obedience and individual progression in the preexistence is quite well established in the Church, and follows necessarily from the vast variation of personalities and the existence of free agency in that sphere. The same differences and variations appear here in mortality as well, and will exist in the eternities following this life.
Given this, there is no reason, in LDS theology, why an individual's specific level of valiance, obedience to eternal law, and individual characteristics in the premortal state might not imply a mortal experience within a certain linage or ethnic group. Indeed, the very existence of morphological variation among human beings would seem to assume, in an LDS context, some meaning or purpose behind their existence transcending mortal boundaries.
This would include all ethnic types, however, and include time and place of birth, beyond mere morphology.
Anyway, the core doctrine didn't change. Neither did the "less valiant" doctrine;
Was it a "doctrine"? How do you know?
But I'm glad we're fleshing this out, because I think the racial doctrines imbroglio gives us a good model to predict the Church's future stance on homosexuality.
No, it patently doesn't, because skin color, or other morphological attributes, are purely biological in nature, and have more moral or philosophical relevance, in and of themselves.
Homosexuality is a behavioral syndrome, a lifestyle, and a culture, and is utterly incompatible with the plan of salvation and the boundaries, conditions and perimeters of human sexuality the Lord as established for his children and only through observance of which can they become like him.
The question of homosexual marriage is so far removed, as to conceptual relevance, from the black civil rights movement as to leave one wide eyed and open mouthed at the prospect of any attempt to logically unite them.