Paid Clergy?

[Bikeemikey]

A teacher is often part of a cleric's duties, but it is not what makes him a cleric.

Other (and arguably more important duties) are:

Interpret doctrine (CES teachers teach established doctrine, but not interpret)

Have stewardship over a group/area (CES teachers do not have stewardship)

Receive donations from membership (CES teachers do not collect donations)

Act as the go to official for the Church/Synagogue/Mosque/Diocese/Temple in the area

Perform/Preside over ordinances (CES instructors may perform ordinances as all priesthood members can, but not in their capacity as CES teachers, and under supervision of authorities)

Determine the standing of individual members in their area (worthiness/full communion, excommunication, etc).

The only commonality that CES teachers have with the clergy of any religion is their religious instruction. The differences are far more apparent than the similarities.

From the inside perhaps... not from the outside... You have stated a lot of detailed information that most casual observers would not likely be aware of.

Those looking in from other faiths ought to be granted the benefit of the doubt if they express incredulity at our statement that we have no paid clergy when they see hundreds of professional religious educators at high schools all through out the Rocky Mountain West.

[halconero]

Incredulity maybe...but it's incredulity that, in my experience, gets cleared up in about five seconds.

Example: My conversation with an investigator last week.

"But, if there are no paid priest's or anything how come Brother Goldthorpe works for the church?"

"Oh, he isn't a minister, he's just a church educator."

"Got it."

[Five Solas]

I really don't get your point. A CES worker is just a teacher. Are teachers considered clergy in other religions?

Then you need to go back to my initial post on this thread. CES professionals are more than mere teachers. But even if that is *all* they were--Bikeemikey makes a good point...

[Calm]

I've been a member of the clergy almost constantly since I was 18.

Beat you, I was 17.

[halconero]

Then you need to go back to my initial post on this thread. CES professionals are more than mere teachers. But even if that is *all* they were--Bikeemikey makes a good point...

Besides teaching and teaching others how to teach what else do they do?

[ERayR]

Ok, this is an observation. I have noticed the Presidency wear cufflinks instead of the regular shirt with buttons. Whenever I see this, I think of rich CEO's. I think that they probably get paid more than some here think. But until it's transparent we'll never know. But I don't begrudge them of it if they do.

Rich CEO's do not wear cufflinks or even ties. The modern dress code for the very wealthy is casual, no tie, top button undone, short sleeves or rolled up sleeves and jeans. So you really should update your stereotypes.

[Sleeper Cell]

This could be the root of why some outsiders find LDS claims of an "unpaid clergy" misleading (i.e., special definitions)...

So what is the “non-special" definition of the word “clergy?” Let’s see how well your definition holds up when applied to different religious traditions.

For that matter, what is the definition of “religious activity?” On this very internet board, we have had several threads involving debates about which activities of a church can be considered religious (thus protected by the first amendment) and which are “secular“ (thus subject to government regulation).

But if you insist in calling CES instructors “clergy” on the basis that some of their duties are similar to those performed by the clergy in other churches, why stop there? Surely, if you consider teachers to be clergy, you must consider missionaries to also be clergy. The LDS church has repeatedly proclaimed “every member is a missionary.” Therefore, let’s say that every member of the LDS church is a member of the clergy and have done with it. Even counting CES instructors as “paid clergy,” the percent of LDS clergy who are paid compared to the total membership of the church (all of whom are clergy) would be a fraction of one tenth of one percent. Any way you look at it, what you call a “misleading” statement is, at worst, a very slight hyperbole.

You need to look at it from an outsider's perspective, bluebell. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

And that is the sort of thinking that has led to a lot of the misunderstanding and prejudice that exists in this world.

It is one thing to draw a very preliminary hypothesis from surface observations. It is quite another to assert such an hypothesis as fact without further investigation. But why do any further investigation? If your superficial hypothesis turns out to be wrong, you can always blame the bird.

An outsider, looking at the functions of CES personnel (some of which I listed previously), would reasonably conclude he (or she) was a paid minister. So when Sleeper Cell tells us the only thing that matters is what the LDS Church "considers" to be clergy... You get my point. --Erik

And that is the problem. How can I understand someone’s else’s religion unless I try to look at it from their prospective? A “reasonable” outsider can conclude that Roman Catholics worship Mary and the Saints. But they would be wrong

[thesometimesaint]

You need to look at it from an outsider's perspective, bluebell.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

An outsider, looking at the functions of CES personnel (some of which I listed previously), would reasonably conclude he (or she) was a paid minister. So when Sleeper Cell tells us the only thing that matters is what the LDS Church "considers" to be clergy...

You get my point.

--Erik

Paul was a tent maker. I don't see many claiming he didn't preach for free.

[rodheadlee]

You need to look at it from an outsider's perspective, bluebell.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

An outsider, looking at the functions of CES personnel (some of which I listed previously), would reasonably conclude he (or she) was a paid minister. So when Sleeper Cell tells us the only thing that matters is what the LDS Church "considers" to be clergy...

You get my point.

--Erik

Your point is to skewer the Church. The bottom line is those who get up and speak on Sundays throughout the world from ward to ward are not paid to do so.

[bluebell]

I thought the question I was answering was related specifically to professional seminary teachers. A professional seminary teacher can spend as much as 8 hours a day teaching scriptures to hundreds of church goers... it really is not hard to see how that kind of position in the church could be considered clergy.

However, a lay seminary teacher who teachers 4-5 hours a week to a half dozen sleepy kids. That is a little more boarder line.

Compare that again to someone who teaches once a week on sunday... even more boarder line.

However, that said, yes there are churches who would consider all of the above clergy.

And yes, we are a little unique among most Christian faiths in that we really do draw on members to the point that more active members have "callings"/"responsibilities" than do not.

As for being equal to a pastor... not all clergy are equal in other churches. Hierarchies to exist in other Christian faiths as well as our own.

If i'm understanding you correctly:

It's not what you do that makes someone a part of the clergy. It's how many hours a week you spend doing it. Is that what you are saying?

[Calm]

This could be the root of why some outsiders find LDS claims of an "unpaid clergy" misleading (i.e., special definitions)...

One thing I have never understood is why someone would assume bad faith on someone's part rather than misunderstanding of their own's or possibly both individuals.

Surely every group must be aware that they use language differently than others outside their group, so why wouldn't they assume this in the case of other groups as well and work toward understanding the "special definitions" of others rather than criticizing them...which is probably what they would prefer others to do in their case (instead of being put off by special group language or customs, try to understand what they mean to the group even if one doesn't accept them as generically applicable or correct).

[Five Solas]

Perhaps a bit tangential, but worth considering--especially for those who would argue CES professionals are mere teachers & shouldn't be counted as part of LDS paid ministry:

The gift of teaching distinguishes Overseers (i.e., pastors or elders) from Deacons.

1 Timothy 3

1 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

8 Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. 9 They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. 11 Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. 13 For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

--ESV

[Sleeper Cell]

Perhaps a bit tangential, but worth considering--especially for those who would argue CES professionals are mere teachers & shouldn't be counted as part of LDS paid ministry:

The gift of teaching distinguishes Overseers (i.e., pastors or elders) from Deacons.

All pastors/elders may be teachers, but not all teachers are pastors/elders.

I’m beginning to miss the good old days when we had threads about how the presence of a French word in the Book of Mormon proved that it wasn’t written in reformed Egyptian.

[halconero]

And with that, I bid this thread adieu.

[Maestrophil]

Sorry I vanished after starting this thread. Work called...

I appreciate everyone chiming in. I agree with what had been said that it appears that we say we have no paid clergy, yet our General Authorities DO get an undetermined income. I never have suspected they become filthy rich, in fact, I know it is a decrease in income for many of them compared to their previous lives in the private sector. It does get a bit messy to explain to non-members or critics why they are paid when we tout we don't pay clergy. And if ANYONE IS clergy, it would be apostles and prophets as far as I can tell.

So how should I best explain this if pressed upon to someone who questions it or is troubled by it? I myself have worked with many of the brethren in several capacities and have no doubt of their callings and sincerity - I just have struggled answering this question in a straight-forward manner since my mission.

For all the input in this thread, I still don't see a simple, clean answer. Please help me if I missed it.

MP

[Calm]

Perhaps the fact that no one chooses a career as clergy in our faith is the most significant difference. All are called by others, they accept the calling but it is not something that anyone would plan on (or should though I've heard of a very few naive and arrogant individuals 'planning' out their rise among the church ranks until they become a GA at the age of whatever) and none who are currently paid a stipend would have considered it as part of their career.

There is no "job path" one follows to become a GA.

Edited March 11, 2013 by calmoriah

[halconero]

I know I bid adieu earlier, but I just had a very interesting experience with the Anglican chaplain at Trinity College (one of the federated colleges that make up the University of Toronto). He acts as a guidance counselor to the students here (Anglican or not). I asked him his opinion, showed him this thread, gave him all the facts and he said that, in his opinion, we do not have a paid clergy within the church.

On top of his duties as a chaplain he is also a theologian at the Anglican seminary still active here and is quite versed in biblical and "Catholic" history (Many Anglicans, especially those who follow the 'High Church' style, consider themselves part of the universal Catholic, if not Roman, Church).

I have to run to class, but I'll post his thoughts soon.

Edited March 11, 2013 by halconero

[Maestrophil]

I no I bid adieu earlier, but I just had a very interesting experience with the Anglican chaplain at Trinity College (one of the federated colleges that make up the University of Toronto). He acts as a guidance counselor to the students here (Anglican or not). I asked him his opinion, showed him this thread, gave him all the facts and he said that, in his opinion, we do not have a paid clergy within the church.

On top of his duties as a chaplain he is also a theologian at the Anglican seminary still active here and is quite versed in biblical and "Catholic" history (Many Anglicans, especially those who follow the 'High Church' style, consider themselves part of the universal Catholic, if not Roman, Church).

I have to run to class, but I'll post his thoughts soon.

I look forward to it!

[saemo]

Sorry I vanished after starting this thread. Work called...

I appreciate everyone chiming in. I agree with what had been said that it appears that we say we have no paid clergy, yet our General Authorities DO get an undetermined income. I never have suspected they become filthy rich, in fact, I know it is a decrease in income for many of them compared to their previous lives in the private sector. It does get a bit messy to explain to non-members or critics why they are paid when we tout we don't pay clergy. And if ANYONE IS clergy, it would be apostles and prophets as far as I can tell.

So how should I best explain this if pressed upon to someone who questions it or is troubled by it? I myself have worked with many of the brethren in several capacities and have no doubt of their callings and sincerity - I just have struggled answering this question in a straight-forward manner since my mission.

For all the input in this thread, I still don't see a simple, clean answer. Please help me if I missed it.

MP

Personally, I don't see that it matters. LDS bring up the subject as though it is a better idea, and it should make someone think, "wow, I want to be Mormon". At least, that is my impression. Just another way of doing things. You say po-tay-toe, I say po-tah-toe. (that's my .02)

[saemo]

Perhaps the fact that no one chooses a career as clergy in our faith is the most significant difference. All are called by others, they accept the calling but it is not something that anyone would plan on (or should though I've heard of a very few naive and arrogant individuals 'planning' out their rise among the church ranks until they become a GA at the age of whatever) and none who are currently paid a stipend would have considered it as part of their career.

There is no "job path" one follows to become a GA.

I haven't heard of anyone planning a rising career as a cleric. It is a process of discernment, beginning with discerning whether or not God is calling you to the priesthood, and then discerning through one's life where God continues to call you.

It is that way for all people, not just clergy.

Edited March 11, 2013 by saemo

[Maestrophil]

Personally, I don't see that it matters.

It only matters to me because I want to be able to present a clear picture of what the LDS church actually teaches AND practices. I must admit, while it does not bother me personally (my testimony is of the perfect gospel and the imperfect church) there seems to be a contradiction between a statement of "NO paid clergy" and our uppermost clergy apparently getting paid

MP

Edited March 11, 2013 by Maestrophil

[saemo]

It only matters to me because I want to be able to present a clear picture of what the LDS church actually teaches AND practices. I must admit, while it does not bother me personally (my testimony is of the perfect gospel and the imperfect church) there seems to be a contradiction between a statement of "NO paid clergy" and our uppermost clergy apparently getting paid

MP

It is a contradiction. :-) LDS have a "mostly not paid clergy". I just see it as compartmentalizing.

[Tacenda]

I guess out of all that do get paid, the President or Prophet is one that is in it for the long run, without even asking for it. I think the perks that come with the job are much deserved. Even if it means college educations for their children, or a place to stay or live or even vacation and a generous stipend. These men's families deserve some compensation for their services. I guess as do the Quorum of the 12 they didn't ask to be where they are, I don't know if they get emeritus status like the GA's, they could, but they deserve to be compensated also.

I use to think it felt like a pyramid with the Prophet, Apostles and GA's then Mission Presidents getting pay and the rest don't but (excluding the MP's) now I tend to think they seem to be deserving of the stipends because of the commitment of many, many years.

[Maestrophil]

Can anyone give me a clean sentence to answer critics with on this one?

[halconero]

Okay. Would I be correct in saying that the General Authorities are compensated from funds outside of the tithing fund?