Are there any denominations that give official advice on how to handle the uncertainty in their doctrines? It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone the existence of doctrinal discrepancies among different branches of Christianity. Most of the time, these doctrinal differences arise from the differing ways in which theologians and Christians in general interpret the Scriptures. You don't see these sorts of discrepancies in mathematics, where theorems can be readily verified by anyone: it's just a matter of following the logical steps of the theorem's proof. Given the initial set of axioms, and provided that the proof is logically valid, there is no question about the final conclusion, and anyone can agree and verify by themselves the truth of the theorem.
Unfortunately, this is far from being the case in Christianity with regards to many doctrines (e.g. the Nature of God, the Trinity, the Sabbath, the Feast Days, the Law, Tithing, the Gifts of the Spirit, Tongues, Miracles, Christology, Pneumatology, Intercession of the Saints, etc.). In contrast to formal mathematical proofs, doctrines instead are typically defended via abductive arguments, where a certain doctrine is held as the &quot;most plausible&quot; explanation for the Scriptural evidence (a set of passages interpreted in a certain way), and possibly historical and testimonial evidence. Relying on abductive arguments to defend a position in a doctrinal dilemma sounds a reasonable approach, but we need to be aware of the fact that abductive arguments are not formal logical proofs -- they are not bullet proof. Thus, there will always be some room for uncertainty (&quot;what if my interpretation is wrong?&quot;), especially in the case of very controversial doctrines.
Question: Are there any denominations that openly acknowledge the existence of (some) uncertainty in (some of) their doctrines, and provide official advice to their members on how to handle that uncertainty?

Related: Are there theological explanations for why God allowed ambiguity to exist in Scripture?
There are uncertainties within denominations and between denominations.  There are also things denominations differ on and yet are each &quot;sure&quot; of.
An Independent Conservative Baptist Church I know of propounds a concept called &quot;truths in tension&quot; regarding uncertainty within the theology of the denomination.  For example, the absolute, universal sovereignty of God is held in one hand and individual human choice is held in the other hand.  These two can not be fully reconciled but neither can either one be released or denigrated since they are clearly revealed in Scripture.
Many eschatological theorems fall into this category.  The pre-millenial, pre-tribulational rapture of the church, for example, might be taught as true within a denomination while at the same time not as necessary to believe for salvation.
Regarding uncertainty within and between denominations another concept is coined &quot;in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity&quot;.  Under this concept a Baptist could, for instance, have Christian fellowship with an Adventist since those things which are considered essentials to the Baptist are held by the Adventist and the differences reside in the non-essential category.  The Adventist might not be able to reciprocate if some of the differences in the Baptist non-essential category are in the Adventist essential category.
Christian fellowship between a Baptist and a Jehovah's Witness (for example) would be impossible due to sharp divergence on essential doctrine.  These two might enjoy personal or professional friendship as falling into the &quot;in all things charity&quot; slot.
Obviously essentials, non-essentials, Christian fellowship, and a whole host of terms then need definition...resulting in continued uncertainty and disagreement.