What is priestcraft lds

I do not believe it is about money. You need to be a member in order to leave a comment. Sign up for a new account in our community.

It's easy! Already have an account? Sign in here. Third Hour Forum Rules - Please be familiar with these rules before posting. Sign in to follow this Followers 0. What is Priestcraft? Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2. Recommended Posts. Report post. Posted March 4, Share this post Link to post Share on other sites.

It's defined in the Book of Mormon as using religion to "get gain". I really can't think of any examples off hand Vort It's when and year-old boys get together to glitter and decoupage things.

Palerider Blackmarch Posted March 5, Pay me and I'll tell you. Jamie Televangelists come to mind. Billy Graham did indeed seem like a decent person. Traveler Posted March 11, The Folk Prophet Posted March 12, When leaders "make merchandise" of men's souls 2 Pet. Both in scripture and in literature priestcraft is condemned. Peter cursed Simon the sorcerer, who wanted to purchase the priesthood for money Acts Dante's Peter castigates several popes and priests for not serving freely and for making a sewer of the sepulcher of Peter by selling priesthood appointment Paradiso Our employment includes studying and teaching the gospel.

Sometimes inservice presentations can become an unspoken competition about who has done the most in-depth research and come up with points that no one has heard before. One of the dangers with that, whether they are emotional insights or scholarly insights, is that the insight becomes an end in itself.

We may become a so-called expert in a certain area of the gospel and may chafe at the policy of teaching different courses in institute. We can get so focused on publishing or other scholarship that our own pursuit of knowledge takes priority over the students and over our teaching. We may become dependent on finding strongly emotional stories to use in our classes, or we may use stories that focus unduly on ourselves and on our personal lives. Or as President Hunter mentioned, we may manipulate emotions and label it as the Spirit.

So if there are priestcrafts in our system, what are the results? And as you know, the Brethren have asked us to take a hard look at how we can get the scriptures and gospel knowledge from the head to the heart so that our students will do the right things in their lives.

We can also teach a wrong message if we are involved in priestcraft. The students might worship the teachers but not get the true connections with the gospel doctrine. It is like a father who forcefully teaches his children about honesty but cheats on his taxes.

What if teachers can remain free of priestcraft? Well, then we have a powerful situation. They can teach the doctrine and the gospel simply and unadorned, and they can teach with the Spirit.

The only way to learn spiritual things is by the Spirit. It is the only way our students can have the power to live the gospel in these latter days.

They will love you, and they will be grateful for what you taught them, but they will be turned to the Lord. They will be turned to their parents and their priesthood leaders. There will be miracles in the lives of the students, and we will be able to witness them. We can do it. Priestcraft is an occupational hazard. We can do the right things. We can have powerful classrooms because we have great people—you. You have great attitudes. You work hard.

You have allowed the Lord to be a powerful influence on so many. I am grateful for the teachers I have had in Church education. Recently I was involved in a question and answer session with some employees.

One person made a comment to the effect that sometimes it seems the administration uses a shotgun when it should use a rifle. In other words, we may have a concern with a few people and instead of talking directly to those few people we take a shotgun to everyone in the system. Please know I intentionally wanted to talk with all our full-time employees about this topic.

It is aimed at all of us. It is for me, for the zone administrators, and for every teacher in the system. It would be a mistake to make a little list in your mind of people you hope are listening very carefully to this message. Each of us faces this particular occupational hazard. Since priestcraft is a matter of the heart, it is best battled and eradicated at a personal level. It is so much better to be self-regulating in these matters before they cause concern for priesthood leaders and supervisors.

It is a matter that we must watch closely in our lives. It has a tendency to creep in if we are not diligent. As we regularly reflect upon the dangers associated with our profession, we must continually think of the students.

To quote Elder Holland once again:. We thank you for letting us nail this sign to the wall of the powder shed one more time. I want to conclude with a scripture from the New Testament. The Apostle Paul is reviewing with the Thessalonians how he taught them the gospel. I think this is a beautiful example of a teacher who is not infected with priestcraft. I know the gospel is true. I know that we are involved in a very important work. I know that it is crucial that we keep our lives pure, so that we can teach the youth of the Church and they can have the truths of the gospel witnessed to their souls through the power of the Spirit.

I know that President [Gordon B. It is a great privilege we have to teach from the scriptures and the words of the prophets. I pray for you good teachers. I express my gratitude for all you do.

I am grateful for you spouses, too. I am grateful for my wife, Jill, and am so glad to have her with me. I say this in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Teaching Seminary: Preservice Readings. Spiritual Communication Richard G. Reuben Clark Jr. Frankly, I lean toward the last option. Someone can charge for blessings, do it privately without seeking any praise, give the money to the church, and honestly believe that charging money and giving that money to the church helps the welfare of zion. Afterall the person paying for the blessing can afford it and the church needs the money. I still think that is priestcraft.

Does requiring them to pay up to receive that blessing qualify as priestcraft? Can the church itself practice priestcraft or by definition can the church not, as priestcraft must operate without the churches blessing?

I tend to believe the church itself can be imperfect and act in priestcrafty ways. Our stake used to have Friday morning classes that there was a charge for. Then a recent stake president decided there should not be a charge to study the gospel, and instead of hiring the teachers, the stake called them.

Our current teacher is very knowledgeable in both Church History and Book of Mormon. He gives extensive handouts and refuses to take money for them, as he says people should not have to pay to study the gospel.

I did give him a ream of paper one time and I believe some of the other class members have made similar gifts. However, he is retired and has the time to teach the class without pay. For some teachers, that is their profession,the means whereby they support their families, and I would not call it priestcraft.

I think the number one criteria for priestcraft is evil intent. If anyone wants to see an example of full blown larger than life priestcraft, read up on Walter Gibson Murray. I only know of him anecdotally and found this link via Google. And as long we are passing judgement, we have to include those poisonous schemers who play up church positions to prey on the savings and retirements of the naive and elderly among us….

Hey Bob, where do I roundly criticize DB? And I might buy a J. I note parenthetically here that the only Jon McNaughton paintings and prints available at DB are temples and landscapes and Church history scenes—that probably says more than my previous paragraph. Which of those qualify as treacly or aesthetically offensive?

So no, as I said, DB is not engaged in priest craft. As such, I stand by my statement. Tastes differ. Does getting compensated with a modest living allowance you are unwilling or ashamed to acknowledge in public qualify as priestcraft? Snarkiness aside, is there any reliable information out there as to exactly what amount these modest sums might be?

If not, why not? Does this acknowledge the church really is first a corporation if its leaders expect to be paid like corporate executives? Makes me kinda nervous. Not from the avalanches either. Meldrum, you tell me. Does it meet any scriptural definition of priestcraft? Placing final authority with the scriptures is a defining characteristic of the Protestants.

Both Catholics and Mormons do not place final authority in scriptures but on their leaders; an infallible Pope in one case and inspired Prophets in the other. I disagree respectfully with your presumption that scriptural definitions are final.

However, I concede that from this traditional Mormon perspective the leaders can determine whatever allowance they wish for themselves, scriptures be damned, and so my argument strengthens your position considerably. Priestcraft is logically impossible when we hold prophetic pronouncements above scripture, which we do. Convenient, priestcraft is what other people do, not us. Aside from legalistic considerations, in the spirit of fairness and compassion, I would like to make a modest proposal, lets yoke the oxen the other way.

Everyone earning less income than the modest living allowance of the top leadership should be exempt from the blessings of paying tithing. But if they are mingling their own thoughts and no authority is present to ensure doctrine is pure then it could fit that one too. Setting themselves up as a light intentionally or otherwise may be just enough. Think about those who flattered many away in the BoM.

It was mostly to get honor and gain. That curriculum is mostly correlated, I think. That suggests to me that the scriptural definition is in harmony with the traditional Mormon perspective on prophetic leadership: The institution-Church upholds the final authority of that scripture.

Moreover, scripture defines for us just what it is condemning. I reserve the possibility that I can determine what is right or wrong through my own reasoning and inspiration in some matters.

Not commanded in all things. It might not be infallible but this has other advantages. For example, I have nobody to blame when I screw up. Or to lay awake at night and wonder if my crazy cousin might be right, under the principle that even a blind squirrel finds a few acorns and I have no way to crack this particular nut.

I like to know how much things cost. Even if I am going to pay for them anyway. Is that asking too much? Apparently so. Meldrum, you are certainly entitled to evaluate yourself what is right and wrong, using your own idiosyncratic criteria, in the same way I and everybody else does.

Full stop. I personally hope they receive enough to free them for their important and full time work within the kingdom of God. I recall Elder John M. Madsen then of the Seventy coming to our stake in and his shoes could not have been any older, his scriptures are what I would consider very, very well read. Elder Marion D. Hanks was in a rest home for sometime before he passed and I hope that the Church was footing the bill as he was called to be a General Authority at what like all of 31?

I percieve that you are getting pissed at me. Rather than being a weenie and retreating, in the spirit of going to a brother and trying to resolve a disagreement, I hesitantly reply. We can neither misuse nor not misuse the term priestcraft without further information.

That is my point. Full Stop. Why do you repeatedly attempt to force me to make a judgment without this information? You accuse me of accusing them of stealing while you also say they are not.

How can we determine this without knowing the amount of the modest allowance? I refuse to permit you to label my point as any more idiosyncratic than your points aand then to blithely dismiss it. The defense that they are not taking too much is what is entirely unfounded. As far as offensive, it is not offensive any more than any other inconvenient truth if in fact it is true.

Which you have not demosntrated. I have no legal social or religious reason to be entitled to know what they are paid? Then why all the fuss? Obviously, visible public figures do have this obligation. It is not like I am asking for their shoe sizes or the time of day of first sexual intercourse or some other irrelevant piece of information.

Besides, last time I checked it was the LDS church that is constantly trumpeting the claim that they have no paid clergy. The LDS church creates this obligation when they so loudly and broadly make this claim and go further when they lamblast other ministers for getting paid. Covers what? I find that the most natural reading; in 30, SilverRain, while keeping the conjunctivity, rearranges the criteria to require each of three things.

But saying that satisfying one criterion meets the definition does not cover anything. I have no idea how much Brad Pitt or Brandon Flowers makes. I am reminded when I was a missionary in Japan and sometimes I would look up every word in a sentence and still not understand what was said.

Honestly, I am confused about what you are saying on several points and it appears to me that you are likewise in the same boat? Are we talking past each other? Jail time? Really now.

Let me go legalistic in an effort to be meaningful and presume your 5 criteria are close enough for government work. I am confused. I thought any one of them was enough to define priestcraft coupled with the first. It seems that from your remarks you see them as a mixture?