The Importance of Claiming an "Unpaid Clergy"

[_ErikJohnson]

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.

Hey bcspace--

I applaud your efforts to represent the LDS position on the thread. You seem to be a lone soldier. None-the-less, it's going to be apparent to many of your readers that you're just creating special definitions to argue that CES personnel who function in LDS seminaries and institutes don't constitute a paid ministry and clergy.

You appear to concede they do in fact lead, minister, and officiate (from your original explanation), because you subsequently qualified that explanation by adding they would also have to be an "arm of the priesthood" perform "ordinances" and minister in a "'Church' sense"--whatever that may mean.

Point being, almost any Christian active in their local church would recognize the functions of leadership and ministry performed by CES personnel in LDS high school seminaries and college institutes. Many (if not most) of those functions are in common with their own pastors, elders, and other leaders. Institute and seminary directors and instructors minister to their students by any common definition and usage of that word.

And so to argue the LDS Church doesn't have paid ministry/clergy--you create an uncommon definition (and then you refine it until you arrive at something you think is unassailable).

But isn't that just a completely misleading game of semantics--one that's especially confusing for outsiders? It sure seems like it. And for what purpose? To avoid the appearance of "priestcraft" you say? And the Book of Mormon tells us priestcraft should be avoided by inventing new meanings for old words? I'm pretty sure that's not the case--but hard to conclude otherwise based on what you've written.

--Erik

[_ErikJohnson]

Hey bcspace--

Should your silence be taken to mean concession? Are you acknowledging the LDS position requires new and imaginative word definitions for its support (e.g., definitions you have labored to supply here on this thread)?

--Erik

[_jon]

Hey bcspace--

Should your silence be taken to mean concession? Are you acknowledging the LDS position requires new and imaginative word definitions for its support (e.g., definitions you have labored to supply here on this thread)?

--Erik

...<tumbleweed blows gently across the space vacated by bcspaces retreat>...

[_Valorius]

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

When I was a kid back in David O.'s day, and even later when I had graduated from BYU, i remember more than once having an adult tell me why people go into the nonmormon ministry - "for the money and the fame". Saying, "we do our church work for free because we love God" loses power if everyone else does the same. On the other hand, if you can say "they do it for the money," then your position becomes more selfless, more humble, more holy. That's the application after the fact. Other than that, I don't know why it matters.

[_Pahoran]

Hey bcspace--

I applaud your efforts to represent the LDS position on the thread. You seem to be a lone soldier. None-the-less, it's going to be apparent to many of your readers that you're just creating special definitions to argue that CES personnel who function in LDS seminaries and institutes don't constitute a paid ministry and clergy.

I agree that there may be those who know nothing about the Church of Jesus Christ, and who may therefore be left with that false impression.

Those who do understand the Church won't be, of course.

You appear to concede they do in fact lead, minister, and officiate (from your original explanation),

In the same sense as, say, the principal of a high school does those things with regard to the teachers under her management, yes.

because you subsequently qualified that explanation by adding they would also have to be an "arm of the priesthood" perform "ordinances" and minister in a "'Church' sense"--whatever that may mean.

I take it that you don't understand what ministry in the Church actually means; and yet, you are presuming to tell us how CES administrators are doing exactly the same work.

How can you honestly argue that they are doing the same as the Church leadership does, if you don't know how our Church leadership operates?

Point being, almost any Christian active in their local church would recognize the functions of leadership and ministry performed by CES personnel in LDS high school seminaries and college institutes. Many (if not most) of those functions are in common with their own pastors, elders, and other leaders. Institute and seminary directors and instructors minister to their students by any common definition and usage of that word.

Not by ours.

And so to argue the LDS Church doesn't have paid ministry/clergy--you create an uncommon definition (and then you refine it until you arrive at something you think is unassailable).

Erik,

If you want us to accept that you are arguing your position in good faith -- and I'm trying really, really hard to credit that -- then you need to be prepared to acknowledge that we are doing the same.

But isn't that just a completely misleading game of semantics--one that's especially confusing for outsiders? It sure seems like it. And for what purpose? To avoid the appearance of "priestcraft" you say? And the Book of Mormon tells us priestcraft should be avoided by inventing new meanings for old words? I'm pretty sure that's not the case--but hard to conclude otherwise based on what you've written.

Let's pretend, just for the sake of argument, that you are not just trying to play an illegitimate word game here. Let's pretend, Erik, that you are not knowingly trying to obfuscate and collapse meaningful distinctions. We will suppose that you are not knowingly acting as the pot calling the kettle black, that your smugly triumphalistic posturing is really just a socially inept way of saying that you need more information, and that you really aren't, after all, so arrogant as to presume to tell us(!) what our(!) institutions are.

CES is not the Church, and the Church is not CES. Full-time CES instructors are subject teachers, just like English teachers, Math teachers or Biology teachers. Volunteer CES instructors do the same work, just for fewer hours in the day. CES administrators therefore function like high school principals, or perhaps department heads.

I gather from what you have told us that formal religious education either doesn't exist in the religious traditions with which you are familiar, or to the extent that it does exist, it is largely carried out by the clergy. I notice that, like a great many North American Protestants, you rather casually assume that everyone is either just like you, or wish that they were. That is not really the case, but don't let that bother you; the point is that whatever it is you are used to is not the way absolutely everyone who is not-Mormon does things.

My children once attended a fairly small Catholic school at the primary (elementary) level; religious instruction was there carried out by the Marist Brothers. They later attended a larger Catholic school; RE is there done by professional teachers. LDS Seminaries and Institutes more closely match the role of RE in a Catholic school than anything I've seen in chaotic, amorphous Protestantism.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is organised into stakes and wards, priesthood quorums and auxiliary organisations. All of these involve a lot of work, and the work is invariably done by volunteers.

The Church Educational System has Seminaries and Institutes. These are usually aligned with educational institutions. Their primary function is to provide formal, class-based instruction at a comparable academic level to the secular academic instruction the students are concurrently receiving. Classes run during school terms or semesters, and go into recess when school does. Where students have end-of-year exams, classes are frequently structured to end shortly before the start of the exam period.

But the Church, with its units, quorums and auxiliaries, keeps right on going.

When CES starts up in an area where it has not previously been operating, it does not take over functions previously carried out by bishops or branch presidents; rather, it introduces functions that were not previously carried out at all. The work of the bishops and branch presidents is largely unaffected by the operation of CES in their area, except that they are asked to interview students and parents prior to the start of the school year.

On the other hand, seminary and institute teachers and administrators do not, while acting in those roles, preside in Church services, administer the Sacrament, interview Church members, whether students or otherwise, for priesthood offices, callings or missionary preparation. They do not ordain or set apart members to callings or Church assignments. They do not issue Temple Recommends or accept tithes and offerings. They have no responsibility for home teaching, visiting teaching or the care of the poor and the needy. Which is to say that they carry out precisely none of the functions that properly belong to Church leadership or "ministry."

Previously you have not understood the work of CES, and seem to have supposed that it is merely a kind of "ministry" within the Church. Now that you know better, I'm sure you won't make the same mistake again.

You're welcome.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

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.k

See my post, above.

In reality, CES employees are no more relevant to the fact that the Church functions with an unpaid ministry than are the grounds care staff at BYU.

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).

Those exceptions are not minor, and they are not the only ones. In reality, CES staff do practically nothing a bishop does.

As stated above, CES teachers and adminstrators actually do just what their secular counterparts in the schools their students attend do.

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

The real question is: why is the fact of our unpaid clergy so threatening to many anti-Mormons?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_MCB]

In your situation, as employee of CES, I can understand that.

However, can you compare:
AVERAGE TEACHER BASE SALARY:

Public School: $49,630
Private School: $39,690
(Digest 2009, Chapter 2, Table 75)
http://www.edreform.com/Fast_Facts/K12_Facts/

[_madeleine]

Does the LDS church consider teachers of Sunday school, primary, seminary, institute, etc. to be lay ministers? Most Christian churches understand religious education as a ministry of a church, with both clergy and laity involved in that ministry. Teachers and those who prepare teaching materials are lay ministers.

If so most people consider lay ministers who are paid to be professional lay ministers. (Not clergy.)

Peace.

[_bcspace]

CES is not the Church, and the Church is not CES. Full-time CES instructors are subject teachers, just like English teachers, Math teachers or Biology teachers. Volunteer CES instructors do the same work, just for fewer hours in the day. CES administrators therefore function like high school principals, or perhaps department heads.

That is correct. And the auspice of "CES" confers no clergy-specific powers or responsibilites. So, since 99.999999% of the actual ministering in the LDS Church is handled at the ward and stake level, I'd say it's quite safe to assert that the LDS Church has no paid ministry. There is no redefinition of terms going on here. It's just a simple fact.

[Guest]

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?

I just noticed this thread for the first time, and found that, like surprisingly many others here, it's aimed at me.

I can understand the argument for trying to treat CES teachers as "clergy." Nonetheless, I feel quite comfortable omitting them because, in fact, they don't, qua CES faculty, exercise what we see as uniquely priestly or "clerical" functions. They don't baptize, perform weddings, conduct funerals, interview for temple recommends, preside over missionaries, ordain, participate in disciplinary councils, lead congregations, etc.

They teach, they counsel, they organize activities, they issue “callings” to staff their committees and councils and preside over them, and they organize outreach.

Moms and Dads and Primary teachers teach, counsel, organize activities, and etc., too. But they're not clergy.

In short, they do most everything an unpaid bishop does with a few relatively minor exceptions (tithing settlement, temple worthiness interviews).

I don't see tithing settlement, baptism, weddings, funerals, worthiness interviews, missionary work, ordination, disciplinary councils, and presiding over congregations as "relatively minor" things. They are at the heart of what priesthood leaders do.

You could, with equal justice, blur the distinction between a Catholic priest and the active lay men and women in his congregation, and claim that the latter are just the same as clergymen "with a few relatively minor exceptions" such as celebrating the Mass, baptizing, christening, performing last rites, and hearing confessions.

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

For the record, it's not particularly important to me, and I don't make much of it. But I don't think it's just to charge that our claim of having an unpaid clergy is a lie.

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

Harmony, looking down on other people isn't nearly as important to me as it sometimes seems to be to you.

About the only people who aren't paid are the local leaders: stake, ward, and branch.

That's like saying, in a report about an accident in a small town, that "about the only people who weren't injured in it were the other eighteen thousand residents of Niederbip."

Those few local leaders are the hundreds of thousands who lead and manage our local congregations around the world.

And that's because we're the ones who buy into the "no paid clergy" thing. Relatively few members know the GAs are paid.

I rather doubt that. Anybody who thinks for a moment must surely realize that, if someone is plucked out of his employment at the age of, say, fifty, such that he must devote his full time efforts to Church work until he's seventy (or until he dies), that person is going to need some sort of financial support in order to survive and in order to avoid grievous damage to his wife and children.

And, furthermore, financial support for general authorities has been publicly discussed by Gordon B. Hinckley and others. It's scarcely a secret.