In Michael Quinn’s book Origins of Power published in 1993, the historian explains why the temple endowment grants women the Melchizedek Priesthood. According to Quinn on page 36, (formatting changed)
The last major development in LDS priesthood is even less recognized today. In 1843 Smith extended the Melchizedek priesthood to LDS women through an “endowment ceremony” rather than through ordination to church office.
- For example, in 1843 Presiding Patriarch Hyrum Smith blessed Leonora Cannon Taylor:
- “You shall be bless[ed] with your portion of the Priesthood which belongeth to you, that you may be set apart for your Anointing and your induement [endowment].”
- Thirty-five years later, Joseph Young (a patriarch and senior president of the Council of Seventy) blessed Brigham Young’s daughter:
- “These blessings are yours, the blessings and power according to the Holy Melchi[z]edek Priesthood you received in your Endowments, and you shall have them.”
The decline in women’s awareness that the endowment ceremony gives them Melchizedek priesthood corresponds to the decline in women’s status in the LDS church during those same years. In the process, twentieth-century Mormons–both male and female, conservative and liberal–have identified priesthood with male privilege and hierarchical administrative power. Therefore, some recent writers regard as insignificant the concept that endowed Mormon women had (and continue to have) the Melchizedek priesthood without ordained office and hierarchical status.
I will add that garments are known as “garments of the holy priesthood”, and are worn by men and women. The ceremonial clothing worn in the temple is referred to as the “robes of the priesthood” and is worn by both men and women.
I agree with Quinn that modern Mormons always associate priesthood with administration. On the other hand, I can remember as a deacon, teacher, and priest, being told the priesthood is “the power to act in the name of God.” So, even though women may not hold an administrative office, it is fascinating to me that Quinn uses a different definition to discuss women’s priesthood power “to act in the name of God.” Isn’t this a more important use of priesthood power?
Not everyone agrees with Quinn. Last October, I wrote a post titled, Mormon Women Blessing the Sick, as a follow up to my post on Women with Priesthood in Ancient Christianity. Jonathon Stapley was the first to correct me, saying
Equating early Mormon female healing with evidence of female priesthood is folly. Kris’ and my paper on female ritual healing is finally coming out in January (JMH). We treat most of your questions and clean up the historiography a bit.
In the interim here is our paper on the development of Mormon healing to 1847, including the role of women.
Stapley commented further,
Moreover, power, or the gifts of the spirit are incoherently conflated with priesthood. Now there is no question, as you note, that some have tried to say that priesthood is the power of God or the authority to act in God’s name; however, every day people pray in the name of Jesus that don’t hold the priesthood and no one seriously believes all spiritual gifts are constrained to priesthood office.
Stapley and Kristine Wright have documented numerous instances of Mormon women blessing the sick through anointing with oil, washing the sick (similar to temple ceremonial washings), and using the laying on of hands. Rather than calling these priesthood blessings, Stapley and Wright refer to these as “gifts of the spirit” available to all. In February, I reviewed their article called The Forms and the Power: The Development of Mormon Ritual Healing to 1847. From page 59,
The idea that all believers could have access to healing power is illustrated by an area of practice often misunderstood by modern observers-ritual healing by women.54 Though female healing was not formalized until the later Kirtland period, forms of the practice were exhibited earlier. Despite Smith’s early revelation that the elders be called to lay hands on the sick, when Joseph Smith Sr. First gave patriarchal blessings publicly in 1835, he sometimes bestowed the ‘gift of healing’ or the ‘power to heal’ on women.55 One of the extraordinary accounts of healing during this period in Kirtland during this period in Kirtland was later recorded by Sarah Studevant Leavitt, decades after the fact. While her daughter lay critically ill, Sarah prayed fervently. In response, an angel appeared and instructed her ‘to call Louisa up and lay my hands upon her in the name of Jesus Christ and administer to her and she should recover.’56 This ritual formulation is precisely that contemporarily described by William McLellin and Orson Pratt.
What’s interesting to me is that healings performed by women was not rare, and I don’t understand why it has vanished from the church. Bored in Vernal will discuss Stapley and Wright’s latest research, published in the current issue of the Journal of Mormon History called Female Ritual Healing in Mormonism. It seems to me that Stapley/Wright and Michael Quinn agree on “the idea that people had access to the power of God and the implicit authority to wield it.” But this point about whether women hold the priesthood seems to be a bit of a semantic argument. Stapley says it is “folly” to compare female healings to priesthood, but apparently Quinn disagrees. Both discuss how healings related to the temple, especially the Kirtland Temple. Do you agree with Quinn or Stapley? What do you make of women blessing the sick?
Wheat & Tares 
Do you agree with Quinn or Stapley?
I think that Stapley and Wright would actually agree with Quinn that some form of priest/priestesshood is given to women as part of the temple endowment. The point of disagreement seems to be whether female blessings in the early church were evidence of this priesthood. Quinn says yes, they were. Stapley and Wright say no, that LDS women’s healing blessings were always intended to be gifts of the spirit and were not connected with Priesthood. In their articles they thus refer to these actions as “female ritual healing.” (which I think is a very cool term)
At this point I’m not sure who I agree with. Later this afternoon I’ll post on how well Stapley and Wright make their argument in their recent JMH article.
I have to say that I kind of agree with both and neither. Nice and ambiguous. 😉
To me it is clear that women who have been through the Temple hold the Priesthood. Surely the Women Temple workers do. How can washings and anointings be done without the Priesthood? How can one impart keywords signs and tokens without the Priesthood? How can one wear garments or robes of the Holy Priesthod without holding such Priesthood?
Joshua, I agree completely. However, I feel compelled to point out the other point of view. This can be seen in our most recent Visiting Teaching message in the March Ensign: they do it under the direction of the Priesthood.
Re #4 BiV
Yeah, that is the other point of view, and I think it underscores the fact that this is really a semantic argument.
At some point though we’re splitting hairs here aren’t we? The truth is, women blessing people, healing the sick, and laying on hands was a common occurrence. Apparently Joseph didn’t mind, and maybe even encouraged it (someone correct me here if I’m way off). My own take on the issue is that Joseph may have had in mind a specific form of priesthood for women, and probably would have revealed it in an official capacity had he not been martyred. That’s speculation, but my impression is that Joseph wasn’t done with the Relief Society when he died, and no one really picked up where he left up in the “restoration” process.
Not having investigated the issue thoroughly, I suppose I shouldn’t take sides on this particular issue, but it is clear to me that if you’re invested in the current church, fully believing its prophetic nature and continuing revelation, then it’s far easier to see things the way Stapley/Wright do.
IMHO, it is less important how we interpret these past events and more important how we help empower future events (i.e. how will women be able to use the priesthood in the future).
#5. No, I don’t believe we are splitting hairs. It’s extremely important to me as an endowed woman to be able to understand first if I even hold priesthood, and second to know the designated ways of using it!
If the early women of the Church were giving blessings, I’d like to know if they were doing it by the power of their faith (which then would mean I could expect to do the same) or by the power of the priesthood (which would mean that as someone who is “invested in the current church” I must refrain.)
Finally, if indeed Joseph intended women’s ritual healing to be done by the power of the priesthood and this has been changed today, it would have major implications for all members’ understanding of power structure, developing doctrine, and continuing revelation. I really don’t understand how anyone can say this is just semantics, or just splitting hairs.
Because, BiV, it doesn’t really matter. There were many things that were done one way at first, and later changed for whatever reason. Either way, my understanding of “power structure, developing doctrine, and continuing revelation” doesn’t change one iota. You know that, if moved upon by the Spirit, you can bless by the power of faith right now, and that it is not our practice now for women to actively wield the priesthood.
When I have come up against similar problems in my mind, I have found it good to pray for further understanding to be revealed through accepted channels of the Church. Because until it is, we cannot wield the priesthood with authority OR understanding. No amount of reaching consensus here on a blog changes that, even if every last one of us agreed that women do actually hold the priesthood.
I know that isn’t a comfortable truth, but there it is.
Well, Silver Rain, there are many things that will never be clarified by the leaders of the Church that members can nonetheless gain understanding of, and act upon. Otherwise we are nothing but automatons.
Stapley.
As for women wearing the robes of the priesthood in the temple and the garment of the priesthood — women and men also received the ordinances of the priesthood. One does not need to hold the priesthood to receive its ordinances or its blessings.
SR & BiV: It is certainly possible that this question is far more important to one of you than the other. And that’s ok. BiV, I disagree, however, that sustaining and following church leadership with faith makes us automatons.
Paul, but recall the words in the Endowment. We rearrange the robes at a certain point to officiate in the ordinances of the Higher Priesthood. It’s not like the sacrament where we solely receive the benefits of the administration of the Priesthood.
Additionally, I received my keywords and tokens by a man holding the Priesthood. I dont see how BiV could have received them if the female temple worker didn’t have the Priesthood to give them. One must have something to impart it to others.
Compliments for an article worth finding.
I think we get tangled up with the notion of who holds priesthood, period. Priesthood holds people. Not the other way around.
Try to keep it away from someone whom God wants to endow with it. Try to give it to someone God doesn’t want to have it. You’ll discover you can no more do that than you can make a prophet by granting a degree from divinity school.
#10: BiV, I disagree, however, that sustaining and following church leadership with faith makes us automatons.
Paul, I don’t believe that, either. What I’m trying to say is that there are many areas in which we are not commanded, but that we are asked to seek after and do by our own initiative.
“Try to keep it away from someone whom God wants to endow with it. Try to give it to someone God doesn’t want to have it. You’ll discover you can no more do that than you can make a prophet by granting a degree from divinity school.” Agreed.
It may be that there are many who hold the power of God and do not know it. And many who do not hold the power of God and think they do. Both men and women.
BiV—Yes, but the functions of the priesthood are not among them. Use of the priesthood is entirely based on having authority. If a person wants to believe they have authority directly from God, that is their prerogative, but at that point they are forming a different Church. At the moment, we don’t have authority from God to wield the priesthood, because His chosen leader of the Priesthood does not grant it to us. Granted, you can decide to believe that the Prophet is not called of God, but you can’t have both. Not when it comes to priesthood authority.
Paul—It is not that it isn’t important to me. It is that there are other things that are more important.
#14 BiV, I agree with you.
#11: The word you cite is correct, and yet we do not officiate thereafter.
And those who do elsewhere use the word “authorized” or “having authority” without reference to priesthood.
The hair is being split to finely for me; I’m not able to decide for myself, let alone convince someone else.
I have to go with Stapley because I’ve read enough Quinn to know that he plays very fast and loose with primary sources to bolster his thesis. The times I’ve gone back to his primary material, on it’s face, it disagreed enough with his interpretation to make me think very little of him as a scholar. An attention-seeking narcissist (i.e. a successful author 😉 ) but not a scholar in the way I was trained to do research.
Women must hold the priesthood in the temple or the ordinances performed for the women of the Church by the women of the Church have no efficacy. The JMH article by Stapley and Wright clearly shows that *all* of the early prophets of the Church were of the view that women could officiate in healing ordinances, and in fact sanctioned their official *callings* at the Stake level as ordained healers. Multiple First Presidencies of the Church even issued official statements detailing *how* the women were to officiate.
However, once the rest of world started getting on the band wagon of healings as a proof of the correctness of their own churches, then The Church had to move to emphasizing the Priesthood as the critical difference (the article lays out this developmental process clearly and shows it takes about 50 to 60 years to occur). But there are still remnants of it. The article gives the example of Elder McConkie asking Sister Kimball to join the circle when he administered to President Kimball.
Currently (much like the Blacks prior to 1978) women are not ordained nor called in these capacities. However, the actual history of the Church shows that at some point it is possible that all worthy female members of the Church will eventually hold and exercise the Priesthood. Will it be in this life (again), or just in the eternities? Who knows, but knowing that it has already happened (just like with the Blacks) gives one a reason to look forward with real hope.
Silver Rain:
It means that you have a different mission and a different administrative chain of command, not that you’re part of a different “body of Christ”. The 12 in Jerusalem and the 12 in Zarahemla didn’t normally deal with each other. They were both “direct reports” to Jesus. 😀
One of the potential corrupting influences of priesthood that I take very seriously is the notion of priesthood as gatekeepers to Jesus (as in the NT story of keeping little children away from Him) rather than being gateways to get people to Jesus.
It seems to me that it was ministers being gatekeepers that played a big role in leading JS to the Palmyra grove in the first place.
Men have priesthood and women have motherhood- men need the priesthood because
they are naturally selfish and self oriented, through the priesthood they learn to be like the savior. Women have the priesthood and always have and that is understood among women and men of the church in the history of yesterday and in today and now. I believe and have used the priesthood myself as a women of the church, for the healing of the sick and for other blessing, but I want you to know that the men of the church need the priesthood and a role to play otherwise a males role is basically non existant, what would we need a man for- only one thing-seed. Women ultimately have to be in the back ground so to speak in my opinion because thier role of mother,nuturer and educator in the home is so valuable that -that role must come first. It is the same with women in the military, we can and do join and do our duty but the main role and obligation before God is our family and our role in the family. Everywhere in Nature you see the male is predominantly more colorful and attractive, His job is to destract the attention from the enemy or others away from His mate so that she may fullfill her most vital role of Cocreator and parent to ensure survival and quality of life for her young. You are grasping at straws, women who have are confidant with their roles are not threatened by a man who is confident with his role. There are prescise rolls both the male and females must fullfill or there is confusion. Eve, Sarah, the garden, the handmaid–doing the job of the male or being overpowering and fullfilling his role is confusion and chaos, lets just leave it at that. Moreover, why not start the attack on women having to fullfill a man’s role because he either lacks the want, desire, drive or know how to do it, or because he wants to have his cake and eat it too. Good luck on that one.
FireTag—True, but those two separate bodies were created because they did not have access to the other. I believe there is some evidence to suggest that each knew of the existence of the other, but did not (obviously) have communication. I don’t believe the Lord is going to create two parallel lines of authority where one will do.
And I don’t believe that limiting the authority of the priesthood is the same thing as being a gatekeeper to Christ.
john harvey, very interesting comment. I must agree with silver rain in 2. it seems to me that both quinn and stapley are right. while I agree that quinn’ citations aren’t always good, i’m not seeing a problem with this particular citation.
who currently has a ym calling? when I had the aaronic priesthood, a common definition of priesthood was ‘power to act in the name of god.’ I would be shocked if that definition has changed, because in elders quorum recently, that was the definition we used. that is quinn’s definition, so I would say that quinn is right on the mark. I also agree with jmb that the relief society was going to be a priesthood quorum if joseph had lived longer.
stapley is arguing that we have conflated gifts of the spirit with priesthood. once again, I agree. but it isn’t the members conflating these, it is the leadership. when we require melchizedek priesthood holders to bless the sick, then it becomes a priesthood process. clearly women participated in healings.
so if quinn’s definition of ‘power to act in the name of god’ is a correct definition of priesthood (and I believe it is), then women have the priesthood by virtue of the endowment. on the other hand, if leaders have conflated gifts of the spirit with priesthood (like stapley says, and I agree) then why can’t women simply exercise these gifts of the spirit? either way, women should be able to participate in healings whether one believes they hold the priesthood or not.
And I want to make something clear. I’m not saying what I’m saying to try to shut anyone up or because I don’t think that we should dare ask these questions. I think asking the questions is good.
But when it comes to priesthood authority in the Church, there are only two ways: to follow the current priesthood structure, or to depart from it.
“Men have priesthood and women have motherhood…”
If only there was some component for “motherhood” that men could participate in.
Oh yeah — there’s “fatherhood”.
Motherhood’s component is Fatherhood — not priesthood.
There are a couple of things at play, here (and let me note that I am only speaking for myself here).
First is whether the gifts of the spirit or things that follow them that believe (healing, blessing, glossolalia, casting out devils, etc) are indicative a priesthood. At this point I honestly can’t see any case that can be made for this. If you were to ask a random Mormon woman in 1837 if she had the priesthood because she just anointed someone for healing, I can’t imagine a situation where she would respond affirmatively.
Now, I also think that there is a problem with how we use the term “priesthood” as its usage and meaning have evolved and changed over time. So modern readers have the tendency to project current perspectives onto the past.
Regarding the temple and priesthood, Kris and I discuss this a bit in the liturgical reform section of the female healing paper and I go over in depth in my paper on temple adoption ritual forthcoming in this summer’s issue of JMH. The temple quorum, which JS established was frequently referred to in priesthood language, and as has been noted, the various ritual clothing bears the name of the priesthood. I have come to call the temple JS’s new cosmological priesthood. He was creating the priesthood of heaven. A priesthood that was synonymous with kinship and salvation. There are no deacons or elders in Smith’s heaven, only kings/priests and queen/priestesses (the “fullness of the priesthood”). The temple liturgy exists to establish the cosmological priesthood on earth and really it is quite easy to determine whether or not someone is a king/priest/queen/priestess or not.
It is unclear how JS planned on integrating the older administrative priesthood of the church and the new cosmological priesthood of the temple; however, it is pretty clear that the Twelve and subsequent leaders have viewed them as being discrete.
Silver Rain:
I’m surprised by the notion that a hierarchy is God’s preferred method of work. He usually can’t get enough of us to listen to Him to work with multiple chains of command, perhaps, but none of us want to go back to computers that couldn’t share files, do we?
God isn’t capacity-limited, and if He voluntarily limits himself to one administrative line, the terrestrial kingdom is going to have one big thousand-year traffic jam before the second resurrection. 😀
“I’m surprised by the notion that a hierarchy is God’s preferred method of work.”
Would you say that His preferred method then is anarchy?
Nope, Justin. With Stuart Kauffman, I think LIFE exists on the edge between order and chaos.
FireTag—Not all of God’s work happens through the order of the Priesthood. Obviously. That’s partly my point.
I don’t really get your second paragraph, I’m having a rather literal-mind day, so you’ll have to explain further.
Per the church website on Priesthood:
The priesthood is the eternal power and authority of God. Through the priesthood God created and governs the heavens and the earth. … Priesthood holders can be authorized to preach the gospel, administer the ordinances of salvation, and govern the kingdom of God on the earth.
As defined, it is not about gifts of the spirit (healing) or revelation, but about authority to govern the kingdom of God.
I’m not saying I like it, I’m just clarifying how it is defined.
The priesthood is the language of God. Priesthood is a combination of the spoken word and a gesture language. There are three other components to priesthood, which, when present, make it validly “spoken.”
Although the priesthood is a language that only God speaks, He allows others to obtain the right to speak it. Because the priesthood is a language specific to God alone, when those with this right speak it with all 5 of its components, it is as if God Himself is the speaker and the very powers of heaven yield to the pronouncement.
The power of God is agency.
The authority of God are the keys.
I’m just clarifiying.
I personally think it’s folly to presume that we can confer the “priesthood” to anyone, man or woman.
This article does an excellent job of discussing it.
I think we should reconsider those stakes we put up to presume that women can only get it in the temple, that men can only get it with advancement of age and some pre-determined age. Genesis 14 (JST) is an excellent resource for showing how it perhaps should happen.
Stapley: I have come to call the temple JS’s new cosmological priesthood. He was creating the priesthood of heaven. A priesthood that was synonymous with kinship and salvation. There are no deacons or elders in Smith’s heaven, only kings/priests and queen/priestesses (the “fullness of the priesthood”). The temple liturgy exists to establish the cosmological priesthood on earth and really it is quite easy to determine whether or not someone is a king/priest/queen/priestess or not.
Love this.
April,
#21,
Men have fatherhood and women have motherhood. Men and women have the priesthood. The priesthood is no substitute for fatherhood.
as I read that last comment from BiV quoting stapley, it seems to me that stapley and quinn actually agree on this cosmological priesthood. jonathan, do you agree?
“A priesthood that was synonymous with kinship and salvation.”
Love it too.
#36, I did say that in comment #1… 🙂
Re: There are no deacons or elders in Smith’s heaven, only kings/priests and queen/priestesses (the “fullness of the priesthood”).
Interesting. The combination of king/priest is (scripturally) very unique. Melchizedek (who’s name means King of Righteousness)was King of Salem and Priest of the Most High God. The Messianic prophecies in Psalms indicate the Jesus Christ would be both King and Priest. There had been no other King/Priests between Melchizedek and Jesus Christ in the Old Testament. Kings descended from the Tribe of Judah and Priests from Levi. Jesus was a High Priest (as per Hebrews 4:14 and fulfilling Psalms 100:4 which states that Christ is Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek).
The uniting of the two offices was one of the accomplishments of Christ. In Exodus it is prophesied that Israel will be a ‘kingdom of priests’. The term ‘royal priesthood’ also denotes connection of king/priest. Revelations also speaks of those who were washed from our sins being made kings and priests unto God. Jesus is called the ‘prince of the kings of the earth.’
Exaltation requiring a sealing of a king/priest and queen/priesthood suggests that exercise of the Priesthood will require BOTH acting in the name of God unitedly. The modern Mormon association of Priesthood with administration doesn’t look like an eternal model.
“the actual history of the Church shows that at some point it is possible that all worthy female members of the Church will eventually hold and exercise the Priesthood. . .knowing that it has already happened (just like with the Blacks) gives one a reason to look forward with real hope.” This reminded me of the John Lennon song “Woman is the Nigger of the World.”
Silver Rain,
I guess the reason to delve into it is to try and understand is the current process due to traditions or because they are the true order of things? Take marrying all our women off to BY and JS until a prophet took the time to question the practice and pray about it then change it. Take the process of of not giving the blacks the priesthood, it took a generation of the church to die off before it was changed, it was never said if it were a false tradition or something that was true. The church is run by people that try to do their best to understand God and listen to Him. But we all come in with our preconceived notions and might not being doing that which is correct.
@Firetag & SR,
I think a good example would be Lehi being called as a prophet while he was in Jerusalem while their were other prophets. Can multiple prophets exist in the same area? Certainly. What is a prophet? Someone who testifies of Christ and he can lead each one of us to tell us what we need to do.
@Justin & Firetag,
Anarchy doesn’t necessarily equate to chaos. You can have ordered anarchy. Chaotic anarchy is of the devil, ordered anarchy is the people living under the rule of God oft times referred to as natural rights.
Take marrying all our women off to BY and JS until a prophet took the time to question the practice and pray about it then change it.
uhhh….. where do I even start?
Hawkgrrl
I am surprised by your use of the N word. “Woman is the N***** of the World.”
I also consider hon***, crac***, and Wet**** to be offensive.
Jon:
Did you see the title of the blog that my name links to?
Also — ditto what BIV [#42] said.
@BiV,
I don’t understand what you are trying to say in #42?
@Justin,
I’m familiar with what you write about to a certain extent. The comment was more for Firetag. I’m not sure of what type of anarchy you espouse but I would think it would be more towards ordered since that is what you write about. I also know that Firetag espouses, to a certain extent, ordered anarchy, from previous blogversations.
Jon—a prophet is not the Prophet, as in the President of the Church, one authorized to hold all the keys of the priesthood at this time.
And while delving into it and wondering isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it is important to keep in mind that it doesn’t really matter what we collectively decide is “the true order of things” so long as we sustain leadership who does not teach the same.
In short, the history COULD mean women had the priesthood, it COULD mean they did not. The best thing we can learn from that is to be open if change comes, but not resent it if it doesn’t.
Jon:
“I’m not sure of what type of anarchy you espouse”
That would be tribal anarchy, I would say that it is “ordered” in the sense that it is not chaotic and it is based on the common tribal law of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Further, LDS typically desire to put the priesthood into a hierarchy box and put up fences and draw lines around everything so that we end up limiting things b/c of what “the Prophet(TM)” has said, etc.
We limit the roles of women in the church when we put the priesthood into one of the Gentile pyramid structures [where the greater is “above” and is obeyed by the lesser] — instead of an anarchical inverted pyramid where the greater is “under” and are the servants of the lesser.
When we say that priesthood = the administrative arm of the Salt Lake oligarchical patriarchy, then sure women can’t be said to hold that “Priesthood(TM)”.
But when priesthood is understood as the language of God and the keys of the priesthood are not seen as concentrated at the top of a Gentile power pyramid — the a proper tribal picture comes into focus.
Re BiV
Whoa, I think I must have been very unclear because this isn’t what I meant at all. I apologize if I ruffled your feathers. I’m agreeing with you. I agree it’s a very important issue, one I’m very interested in as well. I was pointing out that the idea of calling it “under the direction of the priesthood” is very similar to calling the current war in Libya “enabling our allies to enforce a no-fly zone.”
I fall on the side that I think women did (in some capacity), probably should, and would have held (completely) the priesthood.
@SilverRain,
Yes, but there can be multiple Prophets, it all depends on what God wants (just look for it in the scriptures). Yes, there can only be one President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (well actually three if you count the counselors).
It also does matter what we believe. We are responsible to teach our children the true gospel of Christ. So we need to seek for truth to teach our children correctly, even if it contradicts traditions in the church.
Yes, it’s important to sustain the leadership but, at the same time, we are given our own individual agency to do that which is right before God. If we need to do something for God and the leaders teach something different, we should first question why it is different and make sure that what we are receiving is truly coming from God and then, if it is, follow through with it. Nephi was taught not to kill, the prophets taught the same, but the spirit told him different.
I’m not saying that what you teach has no merit. However, I believe that one major truth is that God has given the keys of administration to the Church leadership, and whatever I feel might be the true case, it is just as true that I have no authority to practice the priesthood outside of their direction.
As I said before: the history COULD mean women had the priesthood, it COULD mean they did not. The best thing we can learn is to be open if change comes, but not resent it if it doesn’t.
SilverRain,
“God has given the keys of administration to the Church leadership“:
Which keys [when authorized by the vote of the members] have authority or jurisdiction over the church.
“it is just as true that I have no authority to practice the priesthood outside of their direction.“:
Which is true in regards to the church — however it is not true in regards to your family [or tribe]. That is an entirely different organization and neither one [the church or the family] has jurisdiction over the other.
I keep thinking that Stapley/Quinn juxtaposed picture should have “before” and “after” printed on it.
Kids, this is what apostasy can do to you.
The priesthood has no organizational boundaries. The priesthood exists independent of any organization, including the one that has trademarked its own name (i.e. “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”). As such, I sincerely wonder about said Church’s efforts to “control” the priesthood, to say what someone can/cannot do via the priesthood. To suggest you can’t practice something that doesn’t belong to someone (i.e. practicing the priesthood outside the direction of the Church) seems more than a little bizarre.
Just my $0.02.
I of course mean no disrespect to either Quinn or Stapley. I admire Stapley, and know next to nothing about Quinn other than he is a historian from a while back who has written things that are seen as controversial.
It struck me as weird to juxtapose the pictures, especially given the fact that the two men don’t have very different characteristics, exacerbated by the fact that the younger photo is black and white – making it look like it comes from earlier times.
Meh.
#53 SR: I’m with you.
We believe a man must be called of God, by prophecy and the laying on of hands by those who are in authority to preach the gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
Paul/SR:
The bestowal of priesthood comes with all of the associated keys — albeit in an unactivated state [D&C 107:18-20]. The various keys needed to perform the work of the Lord are then activated by the consent of the members, with the presiding high priest being the only priesthood holder to have all active keys.
People must have priesthood authority [keys] to act in the name of God when performing the sacred ordinances of the gospel, such as baptism, confirmation, administration of the sacrament, and temple ceremonies.
When these ordinances are done for the church, then it is the consent of the church members that authorizes the priesthood holder’s keys as valid for that purpose.
When these ordinances are done within a tribe, then it is the consent of the family members that authorizes the priesthood holder’s keys as valid for that purpose.
If someone does not have the priesthood, then even though they may be sincere, the Lord will not recognize ordinances performed as valid [according to Matthew 7:21-23 or the 5th A of F].
If someone does have the priesthood, but has not been authorized by the vote of the church, then the Lord will not recognize ordinances performed as valid for the church.
However, the tribe is an entity separate from the church —
and therefore, if someone does have priesthood and has been authorized by the consent of the family, then the Lord will recognize ordinances performed as valid for the tribe.
“When these ordinances are done within a tribe . . .”
That is the issue. The quotes that you put up there are to do with familial stewardship. That is in no way the same thing as ordinances. None of the ordinances you mention have any meaning beyond the church level.
What ordinances, exactly, are you supposing are done on the family level?
“What ordinances, exactly, are you supposing are done on the family level?”
My family [and at least five others that I know of from the LDSA blog] have began partaking of the sacrament as a weekly tribal worship service [A post on the subject here].
“The quotes that you put up there are to do with familial stewardship.”
That is not different than ordinances. When the oral law states that my weekly FHE:
This means that should we choose to partake of the sacrament according to the pattern given in the scriptures [an ordinance], or pray for healing gifts according to the true order of prayer [an ordinance], etc. — then church priesthood leaders have no say-so in the matter. They do not have a steward-based jurisdiction over the affairs of a tribe.
So — to sum it up according to the quote by Dallin:
Back to your, “What ordinances, exactly, are you supposing are done on the family level?” question:
I know of one man who has been baptized and confirmed as a member of his tribe — and I am working with one particular priesthood holder that I know and trust to baptize and confirm me as a member of mine [My wife is already a baptized/confirmed member of our tribe].
Just about every ordinance performed at church can be performed in a tribe. The same priesthoods are used for all of these ordinances. Thus:
A child can be blessed and given a tribal name. a boy or girl can be baptized for the remission of sins as part of his or her entrance into the tribe, the gift of the Holy Ghost can be given as a confirmation that he or she is a member of the tribe, males can be ordained to the priesthoods, etc.
Although the same priesthood is used, these are tribal ordinances, not church ordinances. They are recorded on family records, not church records. Should the individuals desire to join a church — they can do that, too, but they’ll have to receive these ordinances again from the hands of authorized church officers.
Priesthood found within a tribal setting, authorized by the family members, is recognized as valid by the Lord.
My point in comment #59 was that even if it is granted that women obtain the rights of the priesthood upon receiving the key-words of the priesthood in the temple ceremony — they are not authorized church officers:
However, in a tribal setting, the “church” to which they belong [being the organization of the family] may choose to authorize the use of the priesthood keys that the woman holds [if the family so decides that women are given the rights of the priesthood] by their vote.
Though it is my speculation [according to use of the gender pronouns in section 20 verses 72-74] that women cannot perform the functions of priests or elders — which is why I’m talking with another male priesthood holder from the church to baptize/confirm me, and not just having my wife do it.
Wow, Justin.
The way you interpret it, it would be okay to sacrifice your child during FHE, and the Church Leadership should have no right to an opinion about it. That, in my mind, is a gross misrepresentation of the quote. It might have some loose, subjective connections with Biblical tribes, but has plenty of indications that you are completely out of line with the Gospel of Christ insofar as I understand it.
You are welcome to your opinions, but you must be aware that they are not in line with the Church. The way you talk about it, you intimate that it is. Since my comments have to do with the doctrines of the Church, which I sustain, we have little common ground on which to conduct a discussion.
“The way you interpret it, it would be okay to sacrifice your child during FHE, and the Church Leadership should have no right to an opinion about it.”
Lol — as though partaking of a sacramental meal in remembrance of the Savior and murdering my children are equal in terms of comparison. Church Leadership wouldn’t need to have any right to an opinion on it due to the fact that murder is contrary to the laws of God and the laws of man.
That, in my mind, is a gross misrepresentation of the point I was making.
“You are welcome to your opinions, but you must be aware that they are not in line with the Church…Since my comments have to do with the doctrines of the Church, which I sustain…”
Fortunately, one of what you say applies to tribes and tribal ordinances. The priesthood when used within a tribe becomes a tribal priesthood.
When using priesthood in a church setting, you need church permission. When used in a tribal setting, the tribe has jurisdiction, not the church.
^Correction^:
Second to last paragraph should read — “Fortunately, none of what you say applies…”
justin, you have some really interesting interpretations. however, I don’t see that baptizing oneself into a tribe is beneficial-joseph smith said without proper authority, other faiths (tribes) baptisms are like baptizing a bag of sand-useless. it seems to me that baptizing into a tribe is just that-ut has no value beyond the veil. now I am sure you disagree, but unless you’re claiming angelic authority, a tribal baptism is simply a tribal baptism, and has no authority beyond the veil.
as such, I don’t understand why a female couldn’t baptize you into a tribe. my post on ancient female priesthood showed that women baptized. I think god is no respector of genders, so I don’t see why god cares if a woman baptized you. that seems to be a little inconsistent reasoning I see with your tribal priesthood.
MH:
You know me too well.
In short, there are specific blessings that are associated with my personal worship [personal relationship] with God.
There are also specific blessings that come only thru congregational [group] worship of God.
Though each dynamic is separate — they can and do affect each other for the positive or the negative.
For example — if I am not personally justified by the Spirit, then I can obtain no benefit from congregational worship. Likewise, justified believers in Christ can find themselves feeling spiritually drained [instead of filled] after lack-luster congregational meetings.
Tribal ordinances have value insofar as they can provide a fulfilling group worship dynamic if one finds that their current one is lacking. Or in other words — there are more blessings for a group worship dynamic then being able to say that “I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints!”
If you attend a church [group worship dynamic] that exhibits temporal inequalities, then you can bet that the abundance of the manifestations of the Spirit are not going to be present [According to D&C 70:14].
So now you may say that there isn’t any church or group that lives with all things common according to the scriptures, etc.
This is then where tribal organization has “value“.
Among a family where members are bound by both shared belief and kinship bonds and where members have all things common — one can claim the blessings God has offered to those who obey the law given for that blessing.
In re: to “I don’t understand why a female couldn’t baptize you into a tribe.”
The reference I made to section 20 says:
This is a rare scriptural instance of the gender inclusive pronouns being used.
Generally, when referring to a group of both genders — the scriptures will still use the term “him” or “man” or “men”. Such that we do not interpret that God’s work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of males only.
This aspect of language makes the issue of female priesthood ambiguous. There is no scriptural passage explicitly stating that women either should or should not be conferred with the rights of the priesthood.
The scriptures may refer to priesthood holders as “he” or “him” — but this just may be an example of a gender inclusive “he” [we can’t say for sure].
However, the above quoted scripture from section 20 uses a mix of gender inclusive terms for the baptized [all those, person, himself or herself, you, him or her] — but it uses a masculine term for the baptizer [“Then shall he immerse him or her…”].
Since this passage uses gender inclusive language — I cannot infer out of ambiguity of the language that the “he” who “is called of God and has authority…to baptize” can be a female.
So, though while I believe that women do receive the rights of the priesthood at the time of their initiatory and receiving of the key-words of the priesthood — this reference in section 20 leads me to believe that women cannot have authority [or the keys] to baptize. And since this duty belongs to the offices of priest and elder — “women cannot perform the functions of priests or elders — which is why I’m talking with another male priesthood holder from the church to baptize/confirm me, and not just having my wife do it.“
I think silverrain’s concerns are well founded. without you at least claiming angelic authority, I would strongly hesitate to recognize your tribal priesthood as legitimate. (heck, I will admit that even if you claimed angelic authority, I would still hesitate.)
regardless of that fact, I have stated before that I think joseph intended to make the relief society a priesthood quorum. would joseph have allowed women to baptize? we will never know. if joseph knew that women baptized in ancient christianity, then I believe he would have allowed that as well. joseph was very liberal (and said god was liberal). joseph encouraged women to use the gifts of the spirit to heal, and joseph allowed elijah abel to baptize. I have no question that joseph would have allowed elijah abel to participate in the full endowment. it is my belief that joseph would have allowed women to baptize.
as a footnote, after sidney rigdon left the church, he claimed that emma was the first woman with the priesthood. sidney went on to ordain women to the priesthood in his church. while this evidence is up to interpretation, I think it is persuasive enough to conclude that god is fine with women holding the priesthood and baptizing.
MH:
Just give me time — considering the role of angels in the Nephite church, a visititation is what I’ve recently been asking to receive.
Though, you’re right — I’d expect most LDS is reject the notion of angelic visitations.
Also, MH — I’d be interested in your comments on the posts from which my comments are based. Considering you’d have the time/interest to do so.
Further,
I agree that the keys of the church are curretnly firmly in the hands of the LDS church and those keys have not left the church, as yet.
Therefore, your comment to angelic directive applies only if one is attempting to establish their own church — and starting a home church goes against the doctrine of the keys of the church.
I follow the keys which were held by the church. Nevertheless, I administer tribal ordinances. And it is these tribal ordinances that allow me to obtain the gifts and spiritual feeding that I desperately need.
The principle is that the Lord embraces the one and the all at the same time. We are to worship Him individually, but also as a group.
If the group worship is lacking [church], then the Lord has provided other [tribal] options so that group worship can be accomplished.
Starting one’s own church is an act of dissension, as long as the keys are intact in the main body — thus I too would doubt a person claiming angelic authority to establish a new church.
But tribal councils and worship services are outside of the jurisdiction of church keys. Tribal keys are not church keys. There is no dissension involved, for these are fundamentally different organizations.
But by saying that you have keys for tribal ordinances, Justin, you are essentially starting a “home church”. You may parse that differently, but I perceive a vast quantity of mental gymnastics necessary to justify your position and still believe you subscribe to the tenets of the LDS Church.
If you want to believe what you’ve espoused here, do so by all means. The issue I have is that you seem to be masquerading under the illusion that the things you are teaching are in line with the LDS church.
No — “But by saying that you have keys for tribal ordinances, Justin, you are essentially starting a “home church”.” By saying that, I’m saying that I have received the rights of the priesthood — b/c the priesthood comes with the associated keys of the same.
Those keys are then authorized by the keys of consent by vote.
You overestimate the mental work it took me to read the scriptures.
justin, you seem to be following the same type of reasoning of mormon fundamentalists in the 1930s, and this led to the formation of the flds church (and other groups.) it seems to be dangerous ground you’re treading.
I read your first post. do you remember my post on mormon schismatic groups? otto fetting and w.a. draves claimed angelic visitations from john the baptist. these 2 men were instrumental in forming a new church separate from the rlds and temple lot churches. with angelic ministrations, I would support their authority if I believed their visions. do you believe their visions?
“I read your first post”
Thanks — it was LDSA’s post FWIW, but I appreciate you checking it out.
“do you believe their visions?”
No. My take on all of this is:
There are two sets of keys that the Lord has given to His children in the establishment of His kingdom on the earth:
* Keys of the priesthood
* Keys of the church
The LDS, the FLDS, the C of C, and the other schisms — may all lay claim on priesthood keys.
The only thing that removes the rights of the priesthood from a person who has been ordained is the section 121 verse 37 “Amen to the priesthood” clause.
However, the second set of keys is what makes only one of the group’s keys valid/active — and that’s the keys of the church. These are manifested by the vote of common consent.
Since the current LDS church is still in a unified state — the vote of our members represents a majority [a hefty majority according to the numbers]. Someone who starts their own church is not justified by God in this b/c the keys of the church are not there.
When one is claiming to start their own church — they are dissenting from the keys of the church that the Lord has given to validate/activate the priesthood keys.
However, the tribe and the church are two separate organizations — which each having jurisdiction of its own.
Further, were we to favor one organization over the other — the Lord seems to favor the family. It is the “basic unit of the church”, it predates any other form of human organization, and its members are bound to each other by covenant [not just by shared belief].
This is why, for example, the church [missionaries, etc.] must submit to non-member husbands. By virtue of their marriage to the women, these men hold a tribal office [single mothers hold this same tribal office]. The church officers must submit to these tribal officers.
These concepts are discussed in depth on the Alternate view of the keys post and the Tribal worship services post — among others [I can only provide two links at a time].
So you don’t believe their visions because the majority of Mormons are in the LDS church? That doesn’t make sense.
You say that there are no angelic visions because the LDS church isn’t faithful enough for angelic visions. Ok, I can see that point of view. But if you receive an angelic vision, as you’ve been praying for one, how do I distinguish yours as different from Fetting or Draves? From what I can tell, the LDS church’s common consent is probably not going to support you, so I’d therefore have to throw your vision out as invalid, right?
Perhaps I’m missing something.
I’m not disbelieving the existence of a visitation.
The message of their angelic visitation is contrary to my understanding of the Lord honoring the keys of the church.
I expect to receive an angelic manifestation in which the angel will declare the word of Christ unto me. This is not a church-based message and will have nothing to do with justifing me to establish another church.
The purpose of the visitiation would be as a trial of my faith [confirming the word of Christ to me personally] as well as for me to go on and bear testimony of Christ — going on a mission.
I will have falsly interpreted my mission in response to the angelic visitation if I organize my own church — instead of directing converts who desire to join the church to church-authorized preachers.
I’m not invaliding the vision of these other men by virtue of the church’s general non-acceptance of them — but on the basis that the angel told them to start their own church.
I have written a Letter to the Editor of the Journal of Mormon History, in response to Stapley and Wright’s recent article on LDS women and priesthood.
It’ll be awhile of course before that comes out (if it does!) so I am going to briefly recap what I had to say here.
Augusta Adams Cobb, Brigham Young’s second plural wife, believed in the late 1840s that she held the priesthood and made two clear references to that in her writings. This was after she had been endowed, and then received the second anointing in the Nauvoo Temple from John Taylor. In an 1847 letter she wrote to a Mormon friend of hers, Augusta gave her what I can only call a Matriarchal Blessing in writing – sans the tribal designation. She then “sealed up this blessing” by “the power of the Priesthood vested in me.” In 1848, Augusta wrote in another curious document a plea to the First Presidency. She made her plea “by the power of the Holy Priesthood vested in me.” This document was signed by witnesses Heber C. Kimball and Willard Richards. To my mind, this implies they too believed Augusta Adams Cobb Young held LDS priesthood, since they had no qualms about leaving that sentence intact in the document. Full academic citations to these documents and more background detail on this fascinating, yet little known woman will be included in my Letter to the Editor.
Connell
Santa Cruz CA
Connell, it is so great to hear from you!!!! I look forward to reading your article. (I’d be happy to do a review of your article–you have my email address I believe, but if not, I am mormon heretic at gmail dot com.)
So, am I correct that you seem to agree with Quinn more than Stapley/Wright? Do you see any common ground with this cosmological priesthood that Stapley mentioned (it’s highlighted in comment 34) with Quinn?
Do I know you? In any case, I am not writing an article – just an Letter to the Editor in response to the Stapley/Wright article.
I am a member of the United Church of Christ and we believe EVERYONE (including non-believers) holds priesthood. That’s a part of God’s grace bestowed on all, regardless.
But as far as Mormon theology is concerned, I firmly believe that Mormon women were taught that they receive priesthood by endowment, by process, rather than by whir-stir-thankyousir ordination.
My personal speculation is that had Joseph Smith survived at least a year or two more, and had Emma not turned the Relief Society into an anti-polygamy crusade (and I’m WAY over-simplifying that), the RS would have become an administrative priesthood quorum in the LDS Church, possibly structured similar to the M & A priesthoods, with different offices, etc.
I do agree with Stapley’s comment in 34.
Connell
Thanks Connell. Perhaps you don’t remember me, but you helped with with my post on Early Black Mormons, and Was the Priesthood Ban Inspired?. I really enjoyed your comments on the Nobody Knows DVD.
@ FireTag #20,
FireTag, be honest here. Aren’t you just expressing the CoC doctrinal point of view and wouldn’t you admit that Silver Rain is honestly (and correctly) expressing the LDS point of view? It’s clearly not a popular point of view with this blog. But I think you’re wrong to imply that she has somehow misunderstood the LDS doctrinal view point on this.
Silver Rain,
I must say you are one of the most courageous people I’ve had the pleasure of meeting here on the Bloggernacle. You are valiantly expressing opinions that are unpopular here and the spamming of ‘dislikes’ aimed at you (currently as of this moment, 8 dislikes and no likes on most of your comments — though I just changed that to 1 like.) is nothing short of rude, especially considering that most of us are LDS and so we know better than to punish you for agreeing with what we all know really is current Church doctrine about how authority works.
Thank you for standing up for your beliefs and offering an alternative voice amongst those that just wanted you to shut up. I wish people could at least accept your voice as legitimate diversity of opinion and be a bit less rude to you for being willing to share. It saddens me that you were treated this way.
Bruce:
I usually express MY views; I may speak about the Community of Christ, often critically, but I never speak FOR the Community of Christ.
I think Silver Rain presents her arguments cogently, and she’s not earning any “dislikes” from me.
If we don’t explore points of disagreement, we don’t learn anything.
I can see where SR is coming from but I still disagree with her. Hope she can also see where others are coming from and understand their position also.
I don’t use the like or dislikes so don’t know who have been putting them there.
Thanks, Bruce! Don’t worry too much about the thumbs down. I knew it wouldn’t be a popular opinion when I expressed it.
FireTag, #81—Agreed with the points of disagreement statement!
Jon—I believe I can see where people are coming from. I don’t have any issue with people believing whatever they want to believe. But I also don’t think that people should delude themselves that there opinions are in line with the Church’s doctrine when it isn’t. For FireTag to express the CoC’s way of seeing things is interesting to me. For Justin to act as though his “tribal priesthood” ideas are part of the LDS church’s understanding of priesthood is something that I felt I should address. Justin can believe that if he wants, but don’t try to teach it as part of LDS doctrine.
As far as the OP goes, I think it’s fully possible that women could have had a form of the priesthood in the past, and it is fully possible that they simply misunderstood the way baptisms for the dead were misunderstood for a time. Either way, it is absolutely not in line with the Church doctrine for women to perform priesthood functions in any way.
And I, for one, am content to wait upon the Lord and His Apostles on that matter.
There should be “Their”. What a Monday!
“Either way, it is absolutely not in line with the Church doctrine for women to perform priesthood functions in any way at this time.”
I’m not even going to address the other inconsistencies in my post. Maybe I should fully wake up before posting, eh?
Fascinating discussion. Thanks for pointing it out, MH. I’m reminded what a newcomer I am to the discussion, but happy in my humility to press forward anyway. 🙂