- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Had an interesting Priesthood meeting today. The teacher told an interesting story about a stake presidency in a well-educated part of America. Apparently, it had crept into the culture of that area that if someone was to be called to a high profile leadership position, they had to have at least a Master’s Degree.
The teacher indicated Dallin H Oakes came to the area, learned about it, and told the Stake Presidency that they had fallen into priestcraft as a result. He also made that point that if JS was alive in their stake, as an ordinary member, that SP would have denied him a calling. So, he rebuked them as a result.
My question — recognizing it’s unacceptable to limit leadership callings to people with a certain level of education, would you call this practice priestcraft? What is the definition of priestcraft, and would this practice qualify as priestcraft?Priestcraft is understood to be preaching for personal profit. With that definition, your example wouldn’t fit that term. Having said that, I am happy it was rebuked by Elder Oaks. It absolutely goes against the foundation of our history regarding local leadership and fits the description of apostate teachings, as well as the entire story of the the class divisions of Ammonihah.
I agree that their unwillingness to call anyone to a leadership position unless they had a Master’s Degree was something worthy of rebuke. However, I wouldn’t call it priestcraft. Different forms of exclusion occur in the church when callings are under consideration. In one area all the big callings were held by people in certain families, and they rotated…
I’d be curious to know how many general authorities do not have college degrees. From lds.org Priestcraft
Men preaching and setting themselves up for a light to the world that they may get gain and praise of the world; they do not seek the welfare of Zion (2 Ne. 26:29).
I agree this was not priestcraft and I agree with the rebuke. FWIW I believe almost all of the GAs have at least a bachelor’s degree with the possible exception of some of those from SA and Africa – but they generally do as well. I guess the only way to figure that out is to go read al of their profiles, and I don’t want to spend time doing that. I will say on the local level here, my SP actually has a doctorate but most people don’t know that and he doesn’t flaunt it. The HC does consist of a couple college professors, a lawyer, and a dentist, but we also have a contractor and a guy who I don’t know what he does but it’s a run-of-the-mill job. There are a couple others who I don’t know what they do, and when I was called I was unemployed. Most of them don’t know what I do now or my level of education.
I don’t mind if you find, that through luck, the people with advanced degrees end up in leadership positions. But to make it a conscious requirement is clearly wrong. I am currently pondering the ways that the LDS church and membership is elitist. We are the cream of the cream of the cream. However, we are also fairly egalitarian and universalist. In our temple worship all are alike, priesthood is given to all male members 12 and up, and our theology grant nearly everyone into a heavenly kingdom of glory.
I understand why many leadership calling would tend to go to wealthy individuals. Because those people are wealthy they might be good organizational managers (uncertain correlation to be sure
I think most of those trends in callings are unspoken and certainly not strict requirements.
I honestly do not understand what a requirement of a master’s degree would hope to gain. Given that this appears to be an uncorroborated anecdotal story, I am rather suspicious. Church culture as I understand it would lean heavily against an individual leader creating such an additional requirement. It is hard for me to imagine a place in America where the local culture could differ so strongly from broader Mormon culture.
However, it does not seem to be priestcraft from my definition.
Some callings, including EQP, require the individual to be a full tithing payer. Could that be said to be priestcraft?
Temple ordinances require the individual to be a full tithing payer. In some situations, the only barrier to temple attendance is tithing payments. Could that be priestcraft? Or is it only priestcraft when an individual is deriving personal enrichment from their controlling the access to godly rituals?
Roy wrote:
Some callings, including EQP, require the individual to be a full tithing payer. Could that be said to be priestcraft?Temple ordinances require the individual to be a full tithing payer. In some situations, the only barrier to temple attendance is tithing payments. Could that be priestcraft? Or is it only priestcraft when an individual is deriving personal enrichment from their controlling the access to godly rituals?
If you accept Curtis’ definition of ministering for personal profit, then you could argue that anyone in a paid, ecclesiastical position is engaging in priestcraft. We know that many people at the top are paid, and it seems appropriate — how do you expect someone to work full time for the church and sustain themselves and their families? You can’t, so they have to be paid.
The term ‘priestcraft’ therefore has no consistent meaning to me anywhere. So I reject the concept as something I can detect.
I think we over-apply the term to people who are getting paid for their service but aren’t doing it with the motive of “getting gain or recognition”. To me, a humble preacher, minister, priest, etc. who does it for the love of God and to serve isn’t involved in priestcraft; that person simply is getting paid for full-tile religious service (like our top leadership). OTOH, a minister who appears to be doing it solely or primarily for fame and fortune (like one I knew who bought a new Cadillac every year and went on an expensive vacation every year – or like so many televangelists) . . . To me, that is a perfect example of priestcraft.
To me it is if you require payment in order to get to heaven. Not to be confused with donating funds to any organization. All organizations need money to exist, but when you tie your eternal soul to that donation then it is priestcraft. 1) If this story is to be believed and Elder Oaks called this practice priestcraft then I expect he was responding to the idea of creating a priestly class. If we add some requirement of formal education in order to serve in certain callings in the church then we may be doing something similar to other churches that have theological degrees and seminaries. I would think that Elder Oaks would be responding to that specifically in labeling it priestcraft. Even though, as others have stated, having to be educated as a minister is not technically priestcraft as we have historically defined the term. I understand that we Mormons have understood the practice of ministers or priests charging a fee for performing baptisms or weddings as being priestcraft – quite literally charging money in exchange for priest work.
SilentDawning wrote:
We know that many people at the top are paid, and it seems appropriate — how do you expect someone to work full time for the church and sustain themselves and their families? You can’t, so they have to be paid.
2) I believe that the church is very careful to avoid priestcraft on an individual level. I find that the top leadership being paid a “stipend” that does not increase depending on their seniority in the hierarchy in the church is significant in this regard. It doesn’t matter how many talks you give or areas conferences you preside over, the stipend is the same for everyone. The word stipend is important here because it is specifically NOT compensation for your efforts. A stipend is an amount of money to cover your expenses to free you up completely for another pursuit.I wonder if Paul H. Dunn making up stories so he can sell books was considered Priestcraft. He was subject to some discipline as a result of that… SilentDawning wrote:
I wonder if Paul H. Dunn making up stories so he can sell books was considered Priestcraft. He was subject to some discipline as a result of that…
I know a well placed guy who believes all the books written by GAs are priestcraft because the purpose of the books is to make money for the author and earn him more “fame.” I can’t say I totally disagree with him.
Quote:I know a well placed guy who believes all the books written by GAs are priestcraft because the purpose of the books is to make money for the author and earn him more “fame.” I can’t say I totally disagree with him.
As a writer by profession this totally irks me. Because a lot of times those books are a compilation of talks they gave. Meaning they do get paid. I get that they need money, but most of them have 2 houses – I don’t. As a person who isn’t automatically famous (whether GA or Rihanna) it kind of bites that my long hours don’t immediately grant me front of store coverage, etc. Now people like Lund were writing before they were GA’s, so it gets grey there.
Quote:I wonder if Paul H. Dunn making up stories so he can sell books was considered Priestcraft.
I believe for him it wasn’t for books, it was the delight of audiences, and likely some ego. Yes books and tapes came from it. But he was a thrill to listen to. Humourous, original, kind of a man of the people type guy, regular Joe, who just happened to know famous people. His winning gift was delivery, whether it was President Kimball breaking a bed he jumped on (then spending all night putting it back together) or making you believe he held a dying man in a fox hole. It would be the fox hole story that toppled his platform. I would say in this case less Priestcraft, and more fame driven. Let’s face it – most people would love to be ardently admired. And he was.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.