DiscussMormonism.com

Read with interest Dr. Peterson’s “Fundamental Mormon Claims.” Quite a lot there for discussion. Like to start with one that may be a little tangential—

I don't think that granting, say, about a hundred people a living allowance when they've been called out of their ordinary salaried work in order to serve full-time until they're seventy years old or even until they die really justifies a blanket statement that the Church has a paid clergy…

This passed by without further comment on the thread. Surprising, because it simply isn’t true—certainly not when Church Education Services (CES) is taken into account. And why would you ignore CES? Institute instructors and directors at universities across the country (yes, I’ve known a few), seminary teachers whose courses are integrated into the class schedule throughout Utah high schools (yes, I was there). Their number isn’t “about a hundred”—it’s an order of magnitude greater. Their function? They teach, they counsel, they organize activities, they issue “callings” to staff their committees and councils and preside over them, and they organize outreach. In short, they do most everything an unpaid bishop does with a few relatively minor exceptions (tithing settlement, temple worthiness interviews).

Now I’m not opposed to paying pastors and staff. In fact, I’m pleased and grateful my local church is able to support our pastor and his family with a reasonable wage. And Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages." But many LDS find the notion of a paid clergy offensive (there’s a clear note of righteous indignation in the quote above— especially when you go back to the original post and read all of it). LDS insist they don’t have one. And they seem to believe their fictional position is in some way superior to those of us who compensate our pastors and staff and are transparent about it.

Why is the fiction of an unpaid clergy so important to so many LDS?

--Erik

ErikJohnson wrote:

Why is the fiction of an unpaid clergy so important to so many LDS?

--Erik

It's difficult to look down on another religion, if we acknowledge the similiarities.

And many MP's are also paid. About the only people who aren't paid are the local leaders: stake, ward, and branch. And that's because we're the ones who buy into the "no paid clergy" thing. Relatively few members know the GAs are paid.

Harmony, I gave a perfectly valid reason for the claim and since I just mentioned "The Temple" it was moved.

Why, when it is the a main reason for the claims of "unpaid clergy"?

And why would you ignore CES?

They don't lead, minister, or officiate.

Religious organizations like the Methodists or Baptists all have support staff that are not in the ministry. When you speak of paid Mormon clergy, it might be best to stick to those who are paid due to their ecclesiastical position, such as First Presidency, Quorum members, Relief Society Presidency and Presiding Bishopric.

ErikJohnson wrote:

Why is the fiction of an unpaid clergy so important to so many LDS?

--Erik

Perhaps because of some rebellion to the expression, "You get what you pay for".

bcspace wrote:

And why would you ignore CES?

They don't lead, minister, or officiate.

They do all of these things, bcspace, unless you have some special definitions for those words. As I wrote in my OP, CES personnel teach, they counsel, they organize activities, they issue “callings” to staff their student committees and councils and preside over them, and they organize outreach. If those activities don't constitute leading, ministering, and/or officiating--what would?

You pretty much proved the point of my OP. Maintaining the fiction of an unpaid clergy is important to you and other LDS. But it seems completely unnessary, extra-biblical, and in my experience lends itself to a holier-than-thou attitude (on the part of LDS) towards everyone else.

My question is why is this idea of an unpaid clergy so essential to LDS? Can you answer that, bcspace?

--Erik

PS. And why do fruit flies like cask-strength single-malt Scotch so much? Pour myself a nightcap and immediately there's a Kamikaze in my glass...

They don't lead, minister, or officiate.

They do all of these things, bcspace, unless you have some special definitions for those words. As I wrote in my OP, CES personnel teach, they counsel, they organize activities, they issue “callings” to staff their student committees and councils and preside over them, and they organize outreach. If those activities don't constitute leading, ministering, and/or officiating--what would?

Yet CES is not an arm of the priesthood nor does it perform any ordinances, and no, they don't minister in any "Church" sense. But they are an educational system setup that includes religious teaching (under the assumption that the LDS Church is the only valid religion of course). In other words, they are not really any different than BYU whose professors are not part of the clergy by virtue of those positions.

How does that Peterson bloke know how many people get paid when the Church keeps it's financials a closely guarded secret?

The reality is that all the people in the Church hierarchy above Stake President could be paid and the members wouldn't know. For instance, how many members know that Temple presidencies receive an income?

Peterson cannot make that claim because he doesn't know who gets paid.
The statement that best fits is 'The Church has a paid ministry but not at a local level.'

ErikJohnson wrote: But it seems completely unnessary, extra-biblical, and in my experience lends itself to a holier-than-thou attitude (on the part of LDS) towards everyone else.

Well, that may not have been in the original intent, but that is certainly the result.