Quite the contrary, I thought your post was excellent. You offered some important criticisms of the practices of the Latter-day Saints, without loaded or abusive language, and without ascribing ulterior motives to anyone.
You raise some valid points. Allow me to comment on some of them:
I found that most of the bishopric were quite lacking in their knowledge of the scriptures. Most had an extremely difficult time with public speaking and the information would be lost because you couldn’t understand what it was they were saying.
It varies. Some know Mormon doctrine well; some do not. Some are great communicators; some are lousy.
Members were “assigned” topics and were given ~ 15 minutes to present a talk on the topic. It was told to me that it was “so we may become more enlightened on the topic”.
Again, it varies. Some bishops assign topics; some suggest topics; some leave the choice up to the speaker. The length of time allotted varies as well.
But if we are the only ones who spend the time researching it, studying it and preparing a talk, who else benefits? Because by the time the speaker gets past their “nervous” introduction, it’s almost time to wrap it up for the next speaker. Very little knowledge is imparted unto the congregation.
I agree with you that too many members speak poorly. (On the other hand, some are excellent speakers.) As you say, sometimes only the speaker benefits directly from the talk. However, by spreading out the opportunities to speak and teach, we ensure that everyone at least gets the benefit that comes from preparation.
I’ve since begun listening to pastors and preachers and have noticed that they have extensive knowledge on the topic they are addressing. They have the background and education required for them to be able to present the information in such a way that lets the congregants understand/comprehend what is being taught. They know their members and can start presenting topics that are of relevance to the needs of their congregation. Not following a boilerplate schedule that tells them on week 1 of month 6 the topic is _______________.
Yes, as I indicated before, there are advantages to having a professional clergy. Theological consistency and an ability to communicate may be among those advantages.
That said, theological consistency is less important to Latter-day Saints than it may be for other Christians. This is an extremely important point, one that is relevant to the article that began this thread. The author of that article expresses frustration that Mormonism "is immune" to what he considers "fatal criticism" based on doctrine and beliefs.
There is a reason for that. Mormonism is not so much a system of doctrines as it is a way of life. In other words, to be a "Mormon" in good standing is more a question of conduct and attitude than theology.
Some have said that Mormonism is "atheological." I believe that is true.
Unfortunately, I cannot stay to explain to say more. I would be happy to discuss the atheological character of Mormonism this evening, if anyone is interested.
There is a reason for that. Mormonism is not so much a system of doctrines as it is a way of life. In other words, to be a "Mormon" in good standing is more a question of conduct and attitude than theology.
"...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 or 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...."
- Peter Crawley, writing in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1982
"Mormons focus on accessible, social aspects of their religion. Although the Mormon system of doctrine is genuinely attractive to many of its members, many have argued that the primary "glue" of Mormonism is the heritage, culture, and family ties, not the doctrine and theology.Related thread:In other words, the typical allegiance to the Mormon organization primarily stems from something other than doctrinal concerns. The average Mormon sitting in a pew does not care how or why their religion works, they only care that it works for them."
From the thread Atheoligical Tendency ~Open~
That's a very interesting post.
I venture to say though, that it is a perfect description of just why Christians balk at the claim that mormons can, as you do, describe Christians as "other Christians."
I challenge you to present a Christian faith, an honest Christ-based faith, that holds these precepts as you describe them:
1. Theological consistency is less important to Latter-day Saints than it may be for other Christians.
2. Mormonism is not so much a system of doctrines as it is a way of life
3. To be a "Mormon" in good standing is more a question of conduct and attitude than theology
Please say if you believe that Christ would accept your definition of Christian within this framework and why.
there - all fixed
theology is the basis from which doctrine is held to a consistent Biblical standard. Though it does make sense though, as Mormons consider the Bible "accurate as written".
That aside, Smith called the LDS a restored church - the rest being apostate...why are you trying to dive into the same category as the rest of us theologically consistent Christians?....speaking of course in matters of Trinity, creeds, etc...