I noticed that BC has a link in his signature line to the Church's press release of last year explaining what constitutes "doctrine" of the Church. I am sure this must have been asked before, but it seems under the press release's own description of what doctrine is, the press release itself IS NOT doctrine. So are we not simply left without any "doctrinal" description of what is in fact "doctrine"?
Why do you think the Church would publish such a thing if it weren't doctrine?
Yup. Doctrine is in the canon.
Indeed.
Everything else published by the church is considered "consistent" with doctrine, but cannot itself be doctrine.
Incorrect. If that were so, the doctrine need not be published elsewhere or be established as per the previous sentence. Doctrine, therefore, is the interpretation of scripture. As a corolllary: Scripture is doctrine but doctrine is not scripture.
I suppose a fair response to the question of "What is true Mormon doctrine" (possibly asked by someone who wants to follow Elder Packer's advice about how to change attitudes and behavior) is to refer one to the press release about what consitutes Mormon doctrine with the caveat that the release itself does not consitute doctrine,
Having such a caveat invaldidates the content. Being published by the Church means the release is official and doctrinal.
In addition to antiMormons arguing amongst themselves about what is LDS doctrine being ironic, they also have a vested interest in there NOT being any doctrinal standard at all in order for their arguments to have any affect. To that end, they will dismiss any attempt by the Church to define doctrine, no matter the source, no matter the venue. Highly irrational and hypocritical as most, if not all churches have standards for doctrine.