Nehor vs Professional Clergy

[Teankun]

Many are familiar with the account of Nehor in the Book of Mormon and his establishment of a priest craft church. In the past, I, very much like others, imagined his teaching that “every priest and teacher ought to become popular; and they ought not to labor with their hands, but that they ought to be supported by the people.” (Alma 1:3) to be much like unto the professional clergy much like unto the Catholics, but after reading the rantings of Shawn McCraney and other anti-Mormon literature on their disregard of modern priesthood in general, I have reconsidered because what was the other (and perhaps more abominable) teaching Nehor was known for? “he also testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life.” (Alma 1:4)

Well, if all men were to be saved no matter what they did, then there would be no need for saving ordinances, and if there were no need for ordinances, then there would be no need for a clergy to officiate.

While I still hold to the doctrine of a non-paid, lay clergy, I think it would be more appropriate to refer to the “priests” of Nehorism as preachers. Someone just to speak the doctrine and tell the people what they want to hear and often getting paid to do a speaking, much like today’s televangelists or even McCraney himself.

What do you think?

Charley rich most beautiful girl

[RipplecutBuddha]

Indeed, Nehor's ideas are very equateable to Satan's in premortal life. Think about it.

He agreed to be the Savior, but the Savior of people with no agency. With no agency, we could not sin, therefore Satan would not need to atone for anything at all...pretty cushy set-up really.

The problem with either concept is a something-for-nothing ideal, which is not just, nor do eternal principles allow for it. It just cannot work without someone giving up their due property with no return.

As for the modern equivalent, I am too hesitant to paint any direct picture. It could too easily slip into a bashing of other religions. However I can agree that the attitude is out there in some Christian operations. Having a paid clergy does not equate to priestcraft IMHO in all situations. As far as I can see it's a fairly limited segment of the whole.

[prisonchaplain]

I'll have to tip my hat to the Catholics on this one...their priest average less pay than a public school teacher. I also agree that the doctrine of universalism, or of only teaching what is positive and therapeutic, is far more priestcraftish than being paid to serve fulltime for a church.

[Backroads]

I have absolutely no problem with paid clergy. True, it doesn't make much sense in the LDS church, but so many others... what's so wrong with devoting your life to religion?

[Traveler]

Many are familiar with the account of Nehor in the Book of Mormon and his establishment of a priest craft church. In the past, I, very much like others, imagined his teaching that “every priest and teacher ought to become popular; and they ought not to labor with their hands, but that they ought to be supported by the people.” (Alma 1:3) to be much like unto the professional clergy much like unto the Catholics, but after reading the rantings of Shawn McCraney and other anti-Mormon literature on their disregard of modern priesthood in general, I have reconsidered because what was the other (and perhaps more abominable) teaching Nehor was known for? “he also testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life.” (Alma 1:4)

Well, if all men were to be saved no matter what they did, then there would be no need for saving ordinances, and if there were no need for ordinances, then there would be no need for a clergy to officiate.

While I still hold to the doctrine of a non-paid, lay clergy, I think it would be more appropriate to refer to the “priests” of Nehorism as preachers. Someone just to speak the doctrine and tell the people what they want to hear and often getting paid to do a speaking, much like today’s televangelists or even McCraney himself.

What do you think?

Charley rich most beautiful girl

In general I believe that a priest acts as the proxy for G-d in establishing the covenant of G-d with his people. It appears to me that the priest-craft spoken of removes G-d from the ordinances and teachings and substitutes a man as the teacher and mediator rather than proxy.

I know this sounds harsh to some but to those ministers that do not believe man is in training to become like G-d - they should not pretend (or pretend any man) to be able to direct anyone in eternal matters - to do so (especially to receive any money based on their ability to convince anyone of doctrine) is a form of priest-craft.

The Traveler

PS. it is not that a priest is paid that creates priest-craft but that they can be paid more or fired based on their ability to be convincing in their prichings of doctrine.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Traveler
added ps

[ADoyle90815]

I have no problems with a paid clergy, as in most cases, they're trained in counseling as well as theology.

[prisonchaplain]

I know this sounds harsh to some but to those ministers that do not believe man is in training to become like G-d - they should not pretend (or pretend any man) to be able to direct anyone in eternal matters - to do so (especially to receive any money based on their ability to convince anyone of doctrine) is a form of priest-craft.

This proviso either dismisses very few Christian clergy, or nearly all. Most of us believe that man (and woman) can become "God-like." We can become godly, we can grow in holiness, we will eventually see as Jesus sees, we will judge angels, we will rule and reign with him...yes, we will become "like God." On the other hand, if you mean by the rule you lay out that only those who believe the distinct LDS doctrine than with exaltation man can become literally and physically Gods, then I suppose none of us meet your standard.

[estradling75]

For me Priestcraft isn't defined on if someone gets paid for the work. For the laborer is worthy of his hire. No for me priestcraft is about motivation. Why is the preacher preaching the word? Is it to tend to the lambs of God or is it to be seen of men and to become popular? The first is correct way the second is priestcraft.

So a paid minister isn't priestcraft unless the worldly wealth is what the minister is working for. Whereas a gospel doctrine teacher who uses the class to try to show off their knowledge so that people will think highly of them and their knowledge, that could very well be priestcraft without any money exchanging hands.

[slamjet]

I've always associated Nehor-ism with secularism.

[Teankun]

I've always associated Nehor-ism with secularism.

I think you are thinking of Korihor

[slamjet]

I think you are thinking of Korihor

Bingo! Thanks.

[Traveler]

This proviso either dismisses very few Christian clergy, or nearly all. Most of us believe that man (and woman) can become "God-like." We can become godly, we can grow in holiness, we will eventually see as Jesus sees, we will judge angels, we will rule and reign with him...yes, we will become "like God." On the other hand, if you mean by the rule you lay out that only those who believe the distinct LDS doctrine than with exaltation man can become literally and physically Gods, then I suppose none of us meet your standard.

It is one thing for a person to say that they have studied the scriptures and other things and this is what they believe - it is quite another to declare that G-d has asked them to represent him and stand as proxy of G-d before the people to outline what must be or what is not necessary for salvation -- then to declare as their message that man may sort of be like G-d in some insignificant ways but cannot act as G-d because it is not man’s place to be an example of G-d. There is an obvious disconnect. It is like saying only G-d can speak as G-d to declare with authority what is G-d. Thus the question becomes - by what right or authority is such a thing spoken by someone other than G-d?

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler...what you are getting at is an uncomfortable truth. Clergy are held to a higher standard, but there is a sense in which we all bear this burden. We say we are filled with the Holy Spirit, and that Heavenly Father speaks to us, and we follow his direction. And yet, we find ourselves subjected to churches that believe and operate very differently.

We can do as so many do, and assess this by saying that the other side is wrong, does not have the Spirit of God, and may even be demonized. A more moderate position would be to question the other's spiritual authority, and assume they have none. Thus, we listen, mainly to find areas of weakness, so we can highlight those, and perhaps see the lost soul converted over time.

The approach I have taken is to suspend my judgment, and simply engage in spiritual conversation with fellow God-seekers. I know that whoever seeks God sincerely will find him. I leave the "disconnect" of folk claiming communion with God, who nonetheless believe so differently from me, in God's hands.

[Traveler]

Traveler...what you are getting at is an uncomfortable truth. Clergy are held to a higher standard, but there is a sense in which we all bear this burden. We say we are filled with the Holy Spirit, and that Heavenly Father speaks to us, and we follow his direction. And yet, we find ourselves subjected to churches that believe and operate very differently.

We can do as so many do, and assess this by saying that the other side is wrong, does not have the Spirit of God, and may even be demonized. A more moderate position would be to question the other's spiritual authority, and assume they have none. Thus, we listen, mainly to find areas of weakness, so we can highlight those, and perhaps see the lost soul converted over time.

The approach I have taken is to suspend my judgment, and simply engage in spiritual conversation with fellow God-seekers. I know that whoever seeks God sincerely will find him. I leave the "disconnect" of folk claiming communion with God, who nonetheless believe so differently from me, in God's hands.

PC:

I appreciate you honesty and candor. One thing that has bothered me from my youth is based in the epoch stories of scripture were individuals are given divine commissions. Moses is an example of a man approaching G-d in what is symbolic of a burning bush. Now with divine commission, Moses goes before enslaved Israel and Pharaoh and pronounces himself the delivery of Israel and demands of Pharaoh that G-d requires that Israel be set free to worship their G-d.

But then in another place and time (Babylon) G-d writes with his finger on the wall a message to another empire Suzerain. In our day and time, I am involved with prophets; as well as other pronouncing divine commission. We can discuss among you and I; why we believe one has commission and the other perhaps well meaning intentions but is there a “Moses” for our day and time?

I have been in the presents of ordinary men given a divine call - or so I believe. But they are no more or less than I. Perhaps you do have a divine commission - just not of as broad a scope as Moses. I am sure that you are like me in that we think together that we will recognize when Jesus will come - but do we really recognize those that he has sent before him? From what I understand in scripture - those that rejected John the Baptist also did not recognize the Christ. But perhaps what troubles me most is that the devoted Jews involved in the ancient place that became known as Qumran for our day - sought the Messiah and for all that I can see - stood in his midst and did not know him.

The Traveler

[Guest Sachi001]

Many are familiar with the account of Nehor in the Book of Mormon and his establishment of a priest craft church. In the past, I, very much like others, imagined his teaching that “every priest and teacher ought to become popular; and they ought not to labor with their hands, but that they ought to be supported by the people.” (Alma 1:3) to be much like unto the professional clergy much like unto the Catholics, but after reading the rantings of Shawn McCraney and other anti-Mormon literature on their disregard of modern priesthood in general, I have reconsidered because what was the other (and perhaps more abominable) teaching Nehor was known for? “he also testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life.” (Alma 1:4)

Well, if all men were to be saved no matter what they did, then there would be no need for saving ordinances, and if there were no need for ordinances, then there would be no need for a clergy to officiate.

While I still hold to the doctrine of a non-paid, lay clergy, I think it would be more appropriate to refer to the “priests” of Nehorism as preachers. Someone just to speak the doctrine and tell the people what they want to hear and often getting paid to do a speaking, much like today’s televangelists or even McCraney himself.

What do you think?

Charley rich most beautiful girl

'Priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion.” 2 Nephi 26:29

As it was in the Old World, so it went in the New World. Priestcraft did reappear, as Mormon makes clear: “Nevertheless, the people did harden their hearts, for they were led by many priests and false prophets to build up many churches, and to do all manner of iniquity. And they did smite upon the people of Jesus; but the people of Jesus did not smite again. And thus they did dwindle in unbelief and wickedness, from year to year, even until two hundred and thirty years had passed away” (4 Ne. 1:34).

From Zion to Destruction: The Lessons of 4 Nephi - Ensign Sept. 2000

This the true definition of Priestcraft. It can mean many variables, but Nehor was the first to give example in the New World. It was the fact that as he gained pay and fame, He took on vanity, pride, jealousy, slothfulness as part of the seven deadly sins.

This was the apparent wisdom of Alma who recognized such like to the Old World priests of Aaron who became corrupt. You see Nehor exemplified these sins by letting his vanity, pride and anger get to him by slaying Gideon just because Gideon did not agree with his teachings.

The priests after the order of Nehor also succumbed toward these sins as apparent later on in Alma 21. Whereas Aaron went to several of cities where the Priest of Nehor were teaching false doctrines. When Aaron rebuked their teachings even after reading the scriptures they became angry, and vain, and eventually Aaron was imprisoned, and tortured along with several of his brethren who followed.

This is why Nehor and his priest are false. They allow sin to guide their beliefs in search of fame. Which is contrary to the teachings of Lehi and the Tree of Life.

[Guest Sachi001]

Priest paid for being clergy I disagree. King Benjamin set the example and many do in this church. They work a job, lead their homes, and serve their wards. Ordinances are required by the Lord, and are to be exercise for free to all who desire it. Law of Consecration. Those who accept such money for such of the Lords services are practicing Priestcraft.

See Acts chapter 8 on Simon being rebuked by peter for monetary gains in purchasing an ordinance.

[prisonchaplain]

I am sure that you are like me in that we think together that we will recognize when Jesus will come - but do we really recognize those that he has sent before him? From what I understand in scripture - those that rejected John the Baptist also did not recognize the Christ. But perhaps what troubles me most is that the devoted Jews involved in the ancient place that became known as Qumran for our day - sought the Messiah and for all that I can see - stood in his midst and did not know him.

The Traveler

Many churches lay came to distinctive teachings that they believe any Spirit-directed Christian should easily discern. Adventists have the Saturday Sabbath, you have Joseph Smith and the Restored Gospel, my movement has the modern manifestations of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The wake up for me came largely through the movie Jesus Camp. I watched that, and was thrilled to see young children crying before God at an altar, receiving Christ in their hearts with such passion, and then moving in the gifts of the Spirit. Oh how my heart thrilled! Then I read the reviews. Even many of my evangelical brothers and sisters distance themselves from it, saying they were not THAT kind of Christian. Others called in brainwashing, and even wondered if demonic spirits were involved. My best friend is a Southern Baptist minister. He does not share my beliefs about modern gifts of the Spirit. And yet, I know him to be a disciplined lover of Jesus.

"How can they not see, and yet say they love Jesus????!!!" It's a question asked by so many Christians about so many other Christians about so many beliefs. In so saying, I do not deny the seriousness of the questions. They are important, eternal, and must not be dismissed. On the other hand, as I said earlier, in discussions like these I choose to suspend ultimate judgement, and engage in the conversations with folk that I will consider God-seekers.

[Traveler]

Many churches lay came to distinctive teachings that they believe any Spirit-directed Christian should easily discern. Adventists have the Saturday Sabbath, you have Joseph Smith and the Restored Gospel, my movement has the modern manifestations of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The wake up for me came largely through the movie Jesus Camp. I watched that, and was thrilled to see young children crying before God at an altar, receiving Christ in their hearts with such passion, and then moving in the gifts of the Spirit. Oh how my heart thrilled! Then I read the reviews. Even many of my evangelical brothers and sisters distance themselves from it, saying they were not THAT kind of Christian. Others called in brainwashing, and even wondered if demonic spirits were involved. My best friend is a Southern Baptist minister. He does not share my beliefs about modern gifts of the Spirit. And yet, I know him to be a disciplined lover of Jesus.

"How can they not see, and yet say they love Jesus????!!!" It's a question asked by so many Christians about so many other Christians about so many beliefs. In so saying, I do not deny the seriousness of the questions. They are important, eternal, and must not be dismissed. On the other hand, as I said earlier, in discussions like these I choose to suspend ultimate judgement, and engage in the conversations with folk that I will consider God-seekers.

Once in a while I enjoy the sparing of doctrine - especially with you. But I have also come to believe that those that cannot recognize the "foot prints" of Jesus walking among others are most likely to misread or completely mistake his foot prints when Jesus is walking among them.

The Traveler

[Guest gopecon]

When I think of paid clergy and priestcraft I don't think of ministers like PC or Catholic priests. I think that the mega church pastors and televangelists who are raking in 6 and 7 figure incomes. Being LDS I prefer the totally unpaid clergy model, but I don't think there's a big problem with small to medium sized churches paying their clergy enough for them to live in the area and raise their family. That said, only God knows the hearts of the individual pastors. I'm sure some mega-church pastors have servants hearts and are not in it for the money, while some small church preachers would love to have the fame and fortune of some well known televangelists.