Close Topic Options

Mormonism - A Lay Ministry?

I can say a lot on this topic now, but I will try to be short and continue more later. This is a lay Ministry, no one is paid in the Church to preach the Gospel or magnify the Priesthood. Yes, we are told the GAs receive some kind of stipend, but I believe this is only fair since most of their life is taken away from the regular means to make a living. Anyway, this is not my point... I want to get to the fact that the natural man seems to always like monetary rewards. Can you imagine if we started to pay home teachers based on how often they did Home Teaching? Yep, home teaching would jump by leaps and bounds, but this is not how the Lord wants it. It has to be based on Love. I think many leaders in the Church think that because they are not being paid they do not have to be 'professional' in the way they conduct the affairs of the Church. By 'professional' I mean that they dress, look, act and research/prepare for whatever task they are responsible for.

Now this is just a personal point of view, but I feel somehow leaders in key positions like Bishop or Branch President need to be instructed in things like: Basic Doctrine, How to Speak to people, Confidentiality, etc. One cannot assume that someone in that position knows these things. Yes, there is formal training, but it should be on an individual level, maybe with even a quiz or certificate or something so you know they study (Yes, I am serious). Why? Think about it... Many times bishops counsel people, but suppose that counsel has nothing to do with the Church, or maybe even wrong doctrine --> what a mess! I have seen it happen. Correcting such a thing causes real problems in the future.

What are your thoughts?

Ministry Lay - Mormonism

Interesting topic. First, I am really glad we have a lay ministry because it gives people more opportunity to serve the Lord and to grow spiritually. It does, however, leave open the possibility of mistakes. Yet, that also exists with paid ministry. In all cases, we are nothing more than human. I know the Church has handbooks and I believe Stake Presidents do meet with newly called Bishops. I think the key is to convince them when they are newly called that they need to read all the handbooks carefully, etc. I think it is natural that someone who is newly called to something is more eager to read and learn than someone who has become comfortable.

I believe, we as members also have some responsibility. We need to remember that our local leaders are called in the same way we are called to do whatever their assignments are. That they are not perfect and that they can make mistakes. If we think our Bishop is counseling us to do something that doesn't sit well with us, we should pray about it and also, if appropriate, study the topic. If we then believe he is wrong, we should meet with him again and discuss it further. I believe our Bishops take their roles seriously and want to do what the Lord would have them do so if we can lovingly show them they have made a mistake, I think most of them would accept that. You might say I am being naive, but I don't think so. I believe the Lord calls Bishops and he knows them before he calls them. He knows their hearts.

To me a big problem area is a newer member who doesn't yet really view her Bishop as a Lay Minister because in all other Churches this isn't true. Those of us who are adult converts probably can remember how we viewed our first Bishop. I know, I thought he was close to perfect and would have done just about whatever he told me to do without question. Now, I recognize that my Bishop is called to his position by the Lord, that he is sincere in his desire to serve well, but that he isn't perfect. He has his opinions and pet concerns, etc. At times, that will be apparent in his counsel. I need to decide when, if at all, those pet concerns, are adversely affecting or unfairly influencing his counsel to me.

I am not sure rigid formal training would do anything to help the situation. I think Bishops want to be following what the Lord wants them to do, they just need to be pointed to where the handbooks are and encouraged to read them.

I think this is true of RS and EQ presidencies as well. I know the two RS presidencies in which I have been involved took seriously the role and referred regularly to the handbook. I can't speak for EQ presidents, but I haven't experienced any RS president in the time I have been reactivated that I don't believe also strove to do what the Lord wanted and followed the handbook as well. Maybe I have just been extremely blessed in this.

I think we need to be careful that we don't let formal training replace prayer and fasting for guidance. I think our Church leaders need to stay close to the spirit more than close to the handbook. And we as members must never forget that our leaders are Lay Ministers and will make mistakes. We need to be forgiving and also always take personal responsibility for our own salvation.

Mormonism - A Lay Ministry? Studies Doctrine Mormon

Great topic JB. I think the Church could do much more to train the leaders in the Church, specially Bishops and Stake Presidents. I'm glad we all have an opportunity to learn but also some big mistakes are done on the way and lives are changed because of certain things that have been said to someone. So even though I do not know if I totally agree with a professional ministry ( a paid one) I agree that Bishops and leaders in general should take some kind of course and be tested in the basic Church doctrine and in important issues such as what to do in cases of abuse, etc. Yes, there are booklets and stuff and the Church in general is talking more about it, but nobody is checking whether these leaders know about it, they just tell them to go and read but we don't know whether they will apply the things that have been taught.


Many years ago when the issue of domestic violence was not as it is nowdays, when sisters in the Church confided to the Bishops and ask for help they wew told to 'be better wives and not complaint'. Of course the tone of the subject is not a permissive one anymore but I do think what a Bishop or any other leader may counsel to someone may affect their lives forever. Many Church leaders do not counsel based on what the Church think about a specific topic but rather thet counsel giving their personal point of viewon the subject.


I don't think it will hurt anyone to make some kind of course and be tested. I think everything could improve so much!.

Ministry Lay - Mormonism

I understand the desire to test Bishop's but does that mean if someone doesn't pass the test they don't get the calling? I wonder how the Lord would feel about that. After all, he is supposed to be the one calling these people.

Also, it is well documented that some people just don't test well. What about someone with a learning disability? Does this mean they can't be Bishops? I really think training is fine, but I don't agree with a test. How about, if I am being called to be Bishop in a country with a language other than my native country? I might not be able to pass a written test in that language. However, I still might have commiunication skills good enough to be the Bishop, or maybe I am being called to lead a foreign language Branch or Ward, so it doesn't matter that I can't speak the native language.

I think training is essential and should happen, but I don't think I want to see a requirement implented that says an actual test must be taken. Maybe this is more of a problem in countries with smaller membership, but in my area, there are plenty of people to chose from who are well versed in the doctrine so I don't think they need to take a test to show they know Church doctrine, but a training class to help them understand Church policy should be available. I just don't think I want to see a testing requirement.

Ministry Lay - Mormonism

Let me clarify something here so that it is not taken in the wrong light.

First of all I am not saying there should be a paid Ministry. Not at all, like I said, the Lord requires that His Ministry be one of Love and not of Money.

Second, I am not saying that leaders who fail a test are not going to get a call or that even that it is a prerequisite to getting a call, in fact if you read what I said above you will note that I am saying that those who are called should be quizzed. Now quizzes can come in various forms (random conversations, asking in a class, surprise paper test, interview, etc) and I will show you an example of the importance. A missionary or a Bishop, which one has to do more? Which one has a more 'important' job? You may say both are equal and both are just as important. There is one difference though... missionaries go through rigorous discipline in the way they live and yes, they are quizzed, role played and certified. They are given two years, but the important thing is that they can see that they are required to be studying, to be practicing. to be reading, because someone will follow-up to make sure they do! Unlike our member leaders that seem to think, well, no one is really going to ask me if I read my handbook, so why bother. This is what I am getting at.

If I as the Stake President said to my Bishops... 'Bishops, next month we will have a little quiz on chapter 4 of the CHI, please read up as we will be asking questions and would like for you to relate your experiences.' How many do you think would study? Probably more than if I, as Stake President, said nothing. This is what I am getting at. More interest needs to be placed on 'we are concerned', 'we want to make sure you know it', instead of 'he is a friendly guy, surely he knows it' or 'he has a temple recommend so I am sure he can teach the temple class'.

Too many assumptions are made about members and their knowledge and view points on things. Believe me, you will be shocked to know members and even leaders' view points on common issues if you but talk to them or 'quiz' them.

Using my simple 'quiz' method I often found members (yes, and leaders) that seemed to be 'ok' were in fact ignorant or willfully disobedient (which ever you prefer) on basic things like the fact that they should wear their garments all the time, and not when they feel like it, or that tithing means 10% and not 9%, etc.

Mormonism - A Lay Ministry?

I fully support this idea. I think it would be excellent to do this sort of thing regularly. I misunderstood what you were suggesting before. I don't agree with a formal test. However, having training that specifically addresses certain procedural things with the Bishop's and even other auxilliary leaders when the leadership meetings happen, I think, is an excellent idea.

I also believe every teacher should attend a teacher development class based upon the manual "Teaching, No Greater Call." I am not concerned that a teacher fully understand the doctrine before teaching it. That is why we have lesson manuals. I think they need to be taught the proper way to teach, which is to use the manuals provided exclusively and not add their personal opinions.

Mormonism - Lay Ministry

I found the following article with a couple of Stake Presidents stating why NOT being paid has its rewards:

Source 3

Mormonism - Lay Ministry Mormon Doctrine Studies

I sometimes think we have too many meetings and trainings, but that is my personal opinion.

While I love the informality of relationships within the Church (Lay leadership ideally being on the same level as the membership), I acknowledge that if
confidentiality is breached,or false doctrine is being taught, that informality should not get in the way of training those leaders that need it.

I come from an area where it seems (I probably do not see all the issues that may be occurring) that the local leadership goes out of their way to teach and expect professional behavior from the leaders. As far as I see, issues are resolved well before they become larger problems.

And I am not sure that the local priesthood holders would allow false doctrine to be taught over the pulpit without questioning the leader regardless of his position in the Church.

I am sure I do not see things, as I tend to not be very good with the details.