Alma 1

Alma 1:15-16

Even after Nehor acknowledged that the ideas he was spreading “were contrary to the word of God” there were still “many who… went forth preaching false doctrines”. It is no longer Nehor who causes trouble for the Nephites, he is already dead and he even took back what he once preached. He no longer causes trouble but it is his legacy that survived after him which still caused trouble for the Nephites. This shows that his ideas no longer depend on the originator, but there comes a time in the development of a movement in which the legacy grows beyond the control of its creator. Nehor and also Korihor (Alma 30) got themselves in such predicament, in which they had begun something which grew too big for them to clean up.

            This is no longer a wonder when one considers how easy it is to screw certain things up. It is a lot easier to spill milk then it is to recover it. Creating things that grow beyond the creators power to manage is certainly not an improbable phenomenon.

Verse 26:

The Book of Mormon does a lot of reference towards a certain behavior for priests to take advantage of people’s admiration and of their position as priests to have believers sustain them financially; this they call “priestcraft.” Priestcraft is thus defined as the craft that priests use to con people for their money. Such position held by the church of Latter-Day Saints puts down all other denominations and religions who follow the traditional custom of having the offering of the people maintain the economic welfare of priests, by degrading this custom to a scam.

Regarding this matter, Paul also follows the admirable example of the Nephites by supporting himself by his own labor and by his own means while he also does the work of God (1 Thessalonians 2:5-9). Indeed, Paul does mention the custom of “charging” for the preaching of the Gospel, but he does not deem the custom as a scam but as a right, moreover as a right commanded by God (1 Corinthians 9:13-14). This custom even goes back before the tradition of the Nephites. God indeed commands the early nation of Israel that the priests of the nation should get pay for their priestly services (Leviticus 18:21).

Although the perspective of getting pay for priestly and spiritual services is backed by the traditions and the words of the Bible, this verse (Alma 1:26) does give me another perspective about this “right” that the priests are set to have. According to Alma 1:26, the priest also labors as everyone else, specifically because they do not deem themselves above everyone else. Does this mean that the only reason why a priest would get pay for their priestly work is if they consider themselves above everyone else? Is pride the only reason why priests accept pay? The answer is not necessarily an obvious “no”. This verse assures that spiritual work of a priest is not necessarily above others, indeed it is not necessarily a one-way service. The traditional perspective of the teacher dispensing knowledge into the student is being replaced by a more modern perspective of both parties doing learning. In this perspective, both the priest and the congregation both benefit and receive strengthening from the interaction. The teacher is not above the student, all individuals are only part of a community of learners.

The act of being financially independent as one preaches the gospel is definitely admirable. But should those who do not follow the example of Paul and the Latter-Day Saints be ashamed of themselves and consider themselves scammers? Definitely not. Yet, one must be careful that this right to be supported by the offering of the people should not be abused, just as any other right. It is understandable how this right may lead to insensitivity and ungratefulness of priests; it may even lead to the natural insensitivity and ungratefulness of the general humanness of the priest to being more noticeable. Thus, the general insensitivity of the humanness of the priest can be interpreted or may even manifest as a susceptibility to scam.

Finally, even though the Mormon tradition insists on the admirable custom of the priests being financially independent and although they condemn the model of “priestcraft,” they do not necessarily belittle the custom of the other religions and denominations. What they do explicitly disparage is straight-out scamming which they refer to as priestcraft. Yes, they do disparage the opportunity that priests have to scam believers but this thin line between right and abuse can be displaced by opinion or outright ignored so that it is possible to become judgmental and condemn anyone who receives pay for their priestly services.

Written 11-27-14