I have wondered what if the Prophet had a revelation extending the Priesthood to all worthy women. Many of us have said, if that were to happen, we would happily accept it. But since it has not, well……
But if it did happen, how it would work?
- Since adult men who join the church are ordained to the Aaronic Priesthood and ordained to the office of Priest, would women first be ordained that way? And then have to wait a period of time to receive the higher Priesthood? Or would the model be what happened when adult men of color received the Priesthood and were given the Melchizedek Priesthood and ordained as Elders. And what about the Young Women?
- Would the Priesthood be extended to all females 12 and up or to a select few as in the Community of Christ where not even all males receive the Priesthood at age 12?
- If the woman has been through the Temple does that make any difference?
- Would male and female Priesthood holders have different responsibilities?
- Would women now be eligible to hold the Presidency of the Elder’s Quorum with men or would there be a separate women’s Priesthood body? What happens to the Relief Society? Would the youth organizations be combined into an Aaronic Priesthood Organization with both young men and young women led by either men or women?
These are but a few questions that would have to be addressed and I’m sure there are many others.
A Few Other Observations
While I am certain there is a wide variety of women who would accept Priesthood ordination were it to happen, a considerable number, especially those who post profiles on the Ordain Women, appear to have other issues with the Church, its history, doctrines and practices that seem to transcend the priesthood ordination issue.
So, if the Church announces a revelation ordaining women to the Priesthood, do all those issues evaporate and these people, men and women, return to full activity?
- Does the Church suddenly become true again?
- Does Joseph’s first vision become real?
- Is the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham no longer fiction?
- Is Joseph’s Polygamy and polyandry and, polygamy in general, no longer an issue?
- The Church history, as told by the Church, no longer a problem?
- The Temple Endowment no longer sexist?
- Male Patriarchy now OK?
- Local leadership no longer a bunch of jerks?
- General Leadership no longer a bunch of out of touch old men?
The second observation is the expected pace of change that might occur should this revelation be received? Do the supporters of Ordain Women expect an affirmative action program for women Priesthood holders where new women Priesthood holders receive higher leadership callings just because they are female such as we saw in the corporate world in the 80s and 90s? Or will there be a period of time for increasing leadership responsibilities prior to a major leadership position like a Bishop? This is the normal course of action today. While I am sure there are a number of women who could do a wonderful job as a Bishop or Stake President, there have also always been a large number of men who were well qualified, but never called.
And what about the General Leadership? Given the current “track” these leaders have been on prior to a call to the Quorums of the 70 or other higher General Leadership callings, it could be 20 or 30 years before that possibility even exists for a women to reach that level. And the possibility of a female President of the Church? Probably 50 years or more.
And finally, what women would likely be called to Church leadership positions? The women who support Ordain Women? Probably not. It would be the same types of women who are called to serve in leadership positions today. Those who are loyal to the Church, active, temple-going, garment-wearing, and tithe paying with strong testimonies. Just like the men who are called to leadership positions today.
So, in the end, other than the ability to give Priesthood blessings under the authority of the Priesthood, would things really be that different?
Wheat & Tares 
This should be interesting. I like this post Jeff!
Is there a reason you chose a picture where the woman in the center of the photo is using her left hand. Most of us know the right hand is customary. It makes something look “off” about the picture. Something not “right”. Wondered if that was an accident or if you purposely chose a picture that will make some uncomfortable when they might not see why. Or, maybe you didn’t notice.
I see this change being part of a change of culture throughout the church (which has begun, but is being resisted), from obedience is the first law”, to”love is the first law”.
This change is responsible for the more honest representations of the problematic history that are appearing on LDS.org, and will have to extend to removing the sexism from the temple films, and hopefully a retirement age for Apostles, say 80, which would put Uchtdorf as Prophet, and 10 places open for new more balanced (gender, geography and politics) Apostles.
This change would also allow an honest acceptance of the historical problems, this is the biggest problem that many of us have with this. The lies required to defend the undefensible. Those who are now seen as less obedient would be equal under the new culture of love.
I see equality as the answer to most of the questions. There are no positions I can think of that a woman would not be equally able to fulfill.
As the RS and priesthood would be combined, there would probably not be a need for SS so a 2 hour block.
“Is there a reason you chose a picture where the woman in the center of the photo is using her left hand.’
I didn’t notice. It was the only picture I found that didn’t have women in vestments. so I used it.
Geoff-A,
“This change is responsible for the more honest representations of the problematic history that are appearing on LDS.org,…”
I think you are fooling yourself. The history does not change, among other things. As progressive the move might appear, it is still within a very conservative organization.
Thank you , Howard.
Geoff -Aus,
What exactly do you mean by the first law being changed from obedience to love? I have been uncomfortable with what I see as some pulpit pounding “you must be obedient above everything else” for many decades.
I just don’t see very much in the way of “love is the first law.” OK – maybe President Uchtdorf, but beyond that I don’t see much of that changing from above.
I see a much quicker adaptation of women into priesthood callings. My wards call men to bishoprics who are in EQ presidencies or High Priests who haven’t been called to that yet. A YM pres. became a bishop once. So I see any female auxiliary president or in a presidency as capable of serving as a counselor in bishoprics, and then later as bishops. Stake auxiliary leaders could become High Councilors or serve in a stake presidency. Sister quorums could be over the organizations for females and children. Brother quorums could be over organizations for males and children.
I saw a comment once that mentioned the first quorum of the Relief Society Seventy. I really liked that concept. Women who have served at stake levels are able to be Seventys. Women who serve as general presidencies or board members are capable of being Seventys, Apostles and Prophets. Men are called from the quorums of Seventy or presiding Bishopric. Sister Oscarson or Elaine Dalton, or Sheri Dew, etc. etc. would be wonderful Apostles.
Young Women could have their own quorums and still have YW leaders. Men and women are inherently different, so at young ages when they are developing into adults, each gender can focus on gender-influenced insights and uniqueness to honoring the priesthood. I’d love to see both genders preparing, blessing and serving the sacrament.
I see an almost overnight blending into every level of office in the church. But what I really feel most excited about is the family dynamic transformation where both parents bless a child, one baptizes and the other confirms, both ordain, both give parent blessings. And visiting teaching would be even more holy if blessings could be given.
To me, I see brotherhood remaining, as well as sisterhood. Maybe RS would need a separate class for High Priestesses after opening exercises like the guys do. There could still be father/son camp outs with mother/daughter activities continuing–only with priesthood now.
Would some come back into activity? I sure hope so! Would we gain more converts? I sure hope so! Would we be a greater church with greater light to shine? I truly believe we would. I believe such a revelation would bring far more good and bring us closer to Christ than anyone ever dreamed.
Or it could take 50 years. But I sure hope we get to do it—only if and when the Savior thinks it’s time.
Jeff, I may be fooling myself. I hope not. I don’t think that the changes to LDS.org could have happened under the old culture, which just denies the history, so the beginning of a new culture. The old obedience culture does not even see the need for change.
I understand also that the teaching materials and methods for youth , both seminary and the YW and YM have changed and are acknowledging that there were problems in our history. They are also using a more open teaching style that encourages questioning and searching for truth. Perhaps someone who is involved can enlighten us.
Again this is a total change from those who wrote our HP manual of Joseph Fielding Smith and manage not to mention that he was a racist, white supremacist, and probably a believer in macarthy. Would have been a major contributor to the proclamation of 1949, in support of racism. They also infer he received the Aaronic priesthood as young men do now, and that his family was comparable to ours now.
I don’t think you can just give women the priesthood without a great change to the culture, as Jeff points out in the original post, so many other things have to change, either before, or at the same time as “all worthy members can hold the priesthood”
Yes Happy Hubby @6 Uchtdorf is the main voice of the new love is the first law, but there have been a number of others too. As I said there is push back from the more old school Apostles, but I think the cat is out of the bag and can not be put back, so the change will continue.
I must admit my optimism was dinted by the exing of KK, but hope this was a bump on the road. Of course we could have Packer or Oaks as prophet and overturn this, but if you have told a generation the truth, and you have the internet, I don’t know how you could put it back the way it was, without doing a lot of damage to the church.
Conference will be interesting, as will the next few years.
The last message was actually put up at 11.52pm on Sunday 21 Sept. We are 16 hours ahead of you. My Sunday is over.
“if the Church announces a revelation ordaining women to the Priesthood, do all those issues evaporate and these people, men and women, return to full activity?” I have wondered this, too, but I think the disaffected (for lack of a better term) fit into various categories: those who see history as problematic (disbelieve truth claims or miraculous nature of the restoration), those who have issues with the current church culture, teaching, or emphasis, and those who are a combination of the two. If your issues are primarily in the second category, then for the church to take such a progressive step would be an invitation to return.
As to your follow up questions, how would patriarchy flourish if women were ordained? I think it would quickly become a relic of the past. As for local leaders, everyone’s in agreement some are good, some are bad, some are great, and some are horrid, but they change frequently. As to the top leaders being out of touch old men, this would be evidence to the contrary, so again, it would be a step in the right direction to women and men who long for equality in the church.
Hawk,
I do think that the “disaffected are varied in their disaffection. Those that are suffering angst, for lack of a better word, might very well be encouraged by such a move.
However, those who are wrapped around the axles about a variety of things, such as many who seem to have profiles on OW, are apt to find yet another excuse not to be active.
When you consider how much how much re-litigation has gone on about the Blacks and the Priesthood years after what seemed like a very positive change to many, one can only assume the same thing happens if or when women’s ordination may happen.
The actual history can’t change, polygamy can’t change and the words of past leaders can’t change and yet, some folks are still having issues knowing that these things cannot change.
Jeff – I agree that the past cannot change, although plenty of things in the past were so obviously wrong (perhaps less obvious to people in their original time and place). I would love to see enough welcoming of women who don’t fit the mold for a return of women to church who’ve left. Instead, the institutional church seems too prone to invite them to leave. Since many of these women are friends of mine, I feel I have a vested interest in helping them stay.
Jeff, I’m not on ow but I have struggled valiantly to find reasons to stay in the church. My whole life had centered on the church. I think it is shows how little you understand women who are struggling with church issues when you say they are looking for excuses to be less active. I have been hoping to find reasons to stay. Fmh has been the thing that kept me connected. It is insulting, rude, and extremely judgmental to think we are looking for excuses to leave. It shows your ignorance. No one needs an excuse to leave. We need reasons to stay.
And, yes, I know fmh and ow aren’t synonymous. I have interest in them both.
Grace:”But what I really feel most excited about is the family dynamic transformation where both parents bless a child, one baptizes and the other confirms, both ordain, both give parent blessings.”
Me too.
Jeff,
The meta answer to your question about the issues facing the church from a historical or theological perspective (how to deal with polygamy, interpretations and consequences of patriarchy, historicity of the BoM/Abraham) is that they would all still need to be worked through and addressed. However, now we would be able to do so with women in authority and throughout the bureacracy helping address these significant issues that will continue to face our faith. For some women’s perspectives and undertanding will be clearly critical – grappling with polygamy and polyandry and the policies and scriptures that still make it relevant. I believe we won’t be able to address these without women prophets and leaders. For others, their experience and gender would matter less per se but we will all be better off when we have our best people working on them instead of limiting that pool by half and marginalizing the rest of it.
I feel you are begging the question here a bit too much. Lumping everyone in OW with say “Dehlin-style” historicity faith crises is largely indicative of your tendancy to turn everyone that is not as literal a believer as you would like into one big “other”. I think, however, it would be safe to say that the church would hold onto a greater number of people concerned about these topics with strong, big moderizing moves such as integrating women into the institutional governance of the church. My experience is that there are significant number of people who are less than literal believers or build a less “orthodox” faith (as currently defined) that are looking for ways to stay in the church, to express and experience their spirituality through it. It isn’t a single thing that makes them decide to give up but the accumulation of issues that have just built up over time. What many are looking for, and I would include me and my family within this number, is any signficant sign that the current direction of the church toward retrenchment, close-mindedness and stagnation is not our future. I would have great hope that I could return to full activity not because I feel things will change over night but that many of the issues that make me loath to raise my kids within the pervailing culture of Mormonism will eventually be addressed or at least begin to move in a better direction. It would be a process I would be proud and excited to be part of.
As of now we have resigned ourselves to trying to build a full happy life outside of activity because while I think someday, eventually the church will come to grips with the consequences of its exclusion of women as full enfranchised members of Zion, that it looks more and more if it won’t happen until my girls are at least adults and without huge amount of collatoral damage for their and other generations. I am not willing to sacrifice my girls and my wife as collatoral damage to a weakened, floundering institutional church. I sadly see no leader on the horizon with the vision, desire or ability to lead that church in that direction. I really hope I am wrong and will happily come back if there is a “Pope Francis” hiding someonewhere among our leaders that manages to win the death lottery or is created through some prophetic experience. It seems to me that the most positive influence I can have on the church of my birth is vote with my feet because it has become abundently clear that the current brand of Mormonism wants very little to do with families like mine and who see the gospel the way we do. The fruits of the church have become negative for us. I fully support people for whom that is not the case. I count many among my dearest friends. But all we can do is live honestly and with integrity, trying to do what we believe is best for our families and children. But yes we would come back if something like the scale of ordaining women happened even though it wouldn’t “fix” other issues, especially immediately.
IF (BIG IF…) and when the Prophet receives revelation that women ought to be ordained to the Priesthood, certainly a transitional plan will be worked out. Since this would entail a HUGE social change in the Church, likely it’d start out at first as an option, before a new generation of girls was groomed with the expectations that they’d “assume the mantle” much like we do with the lads. There IS a reason we start out with “PH Lite”, aka the Aaronic Priesthood, which of itself is NOT trivial, and at age 12 with ever-increasing responsibilties and scope. Of course, quite a few women have had similar experience in auxilliary positions, especially RS, YW, and Primary presidencies, and would find most of the “nuts and bolts” of a PH quorum quite familiar.
Would it still be segregated by gender? I doubt that it would, or if it was, it’d still be transitional in nature. The Lord’s Church in general is about coming to a UNITY of the faith. Divisions and exclusions have to make sense, else they serve no useful purpose. I have no issue obviously with men not serving in the YW organization and/or RS. As for Primary, though men have taught and typically have exclusive domain over the Blazers, it’s still farily much a distaff thing, and that too doesn’t bother me.
Rah,
“Lumping everyone in OW with say “Dehlin-style” historicity faith crises is largely indicative of your tendancy to turn everyone that is not as literal a believer as you would like into one big “other”. ”
But I didn’t do that.
“I really hope I am wrong and will happily come back if there is a “Pope Francis” hiding somewhere among our leaders that manages to win the death lottery or is created through some prophetic experience.”
It’s easy to admire Pope Francis based on what is reported in the Press. But he still has not made any of the major moves more liberal Catholics have wanted, like ordaining women, eliminating celibacy and allowing birth control among other things.
And, in the grand scheme, his messages are really no different than what you’ve heard from LDS Church leaders. He has not made major doctrinal changes in the RCC.
But most LDS folks don’t know enough about the RCC to understand where they come from and their doctrines other than we do not agree.
Here’s an idea I’ve heard floating around from some intelligent women (not my own idea): make the Relief Society it’s own organization like it was originally (and not an auxiliary as it became later) where the RS president and her 12 counselors (to match apostles) are actually the leaders and decision makers who have final priesthood authority in their callings so that it’s parallel to the current male General Authority. Same thing goes for the Area and Stake authorities, wards, YWs etc.
All these women in leadership would be at temple prayer meetings with the 1st Presidency, or Stake Council meetings with the Stake Presidency, or Ward council meetings with the Bishopric in EQUAL NUMBERS. Women don’t just want 1 voice in the room, they want an equal voice with a variety of women’s prayerful opinions being heard and making decisions for an area/stake/ward.
This way it’s not a slow infiltration of the “men’s” system, but an immediate promotion and advancement of women in their callings that (mostly) already exist so that they can carry out the priesthood authority and dominion that Elder Oaks already said that they have. [https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng] Decisions should be made with all men and women in their callings in agreement, not by women bringing suggestions to male authority figures who can agree or disagree on their own whim.
Lots of this can even be done by just acknowledging the equality of men and women and the need for shared leadership and promoting them to an equal footing without the threat of female ordination, which some reason many people are still scared about.
Thoughts?
To me, the only way this could come about is to have a “First Vision” to a woman, a Prophetess, who would be embraced and confirmed as a Prophetess by the President of the Church. Hierarchical callings, FP, Qot12, Seventy, on down through Bishop, would become callings with both a male and a female individual called, to work together to build their wards and the Church as a whole. We would have new words to describe the quorums in the parallel Priestesshood, both a full and preparatory.
I also think this would be a rough change for some, and an easy transition for others. I can only hope and try to help others prepare for whatever the future brings. No, it won’t make everyone happy (as there will be those who will continue to decry how women will always defer to the man, even if she has equal power and authority), but I think it would help.
I think frosty is right. You have to simply usher all women in as priestesses (the Dorothy defense, like at the end of Wizard of Oz when Glinda says “But Dorothy, you’ve had the power all along!”) and create RS as its own priestess group.
#21 – Hawk, methinks you’re on to something…that’s in effect suggesting that rather than ordain women to the Melchizedek Priesthood with the men or relegate them with BOYS to the Aaronic Priesthood (thumbs down on that one), give them one of their OWN, cloak their de facto abiltiies and leadership skills with the mantle of ‘authority’. After all, are they not to BECOME “Queens” and “Priestesses” someday?
Still, I do have concerns that it’d be perceived as a condescending sop. Take the Star Wars EU. Luke IS a Jedi, and has the Force. Mara Jade has the Force, and though schooled by both Palpatine and Lord Vader, is never accepted as a Sith (“Rule of Two”). In time, she becomes both a Jedi as well as Mrs. Skywalker, and I recall no qualifications as to her gender. And never forget that Leia also had it ALL ALONG…”Into the garbage chute, FlyBoy!” Does Han, the ultimate “male chauvanist pig” of the time (1977) reject her? No, he begins to like her!
“create RS as its own priestess group.’
I guess you could do that, but it doesn’t change the leadership dynamic a bit. If the women are still shunted off in their own group, then the current paradigm holds.
Someday, when the change finally comes, and the transition flows forward easily, folks will look back and wonder why it ever took so long to “see” what had been before us all along. I don’t know how Heavenly Father and Mother put up with our very narrow vision of Their vision for us. We think so very, very small almost all the time. We cut off our noses to spite our faces. Indeed, we are a most peculiar people.
Jeff
I disagree on Pope Francis. He is turning around a church bureaucracy that dwarfs usnin size. He has made real substantive reforms already in church finances including defrocking bishops. He just married cohabiting couples whichbis a huge shift. He has cracked the door open to reconsidering prelate celibacy. He has spoken in official encyclicals regarding socioeconomic inequality in a very thoughtful and sophisticated way. He recently gave a major address and set of directives to the church hiearchy to demphasize opposition to gays abortion as other issues as a defining agenda of the church. I dont expect him to ordain women. In fact i bet catholics and mormons are among the last holdouts. However i do admire his active, bold and proactive agenda along with his careful approach to moving the organization. it is really unclear to even close vatican watchers where he is going but he is going Somewhere.
I read a lot of hopeful comments about how this “change” would have such a positive affect on the church and return some of the fringe element to the fold. What I am not getting is how the feeling that we are lead by a bunch of out of touch old men suddenly change overnight with a possible change in the ordination of women? And why some think that the progress will be rapid? I can see some of that happening outside the US, where leadership is quite challenged, but in the US? not so sure.
Rah,
I can see your disagreement but still, I think while Pope Francis is clearly a breath of fresh air, his moves are a recognition that the Catholic Church has grown out of touch with its members. And that’s its government has been corrupt. The Vatican is a government, not just the HQ for the Church.
I do not think we will see dramatic changes in the Catholic Church doctrine in the near term, Pope Francis in my view is stressing Christ-like love for his flock and that members need to do likewise. Not terribly different than what we hear from Church Leaders.
BTW, our church has married cohabiting couples for many years. It is a typical prelude to a baptism.
Jeff Spector – looking forward to change does not mean that the current leadership is “out of touch”. The restoration is ongoing. Change will come in the Lords’ time. Female ordination may never come in any of the ideas we’ve had about it, but we will still look forward to the revelation of “many great and important things”
As for rapidity, I don’t see how it could not be rapid with the connectedness we enjoy in the world right now. If a woman is ordained outside the US and moves to the US, is she no longer ordained?
Whatever “change” will happen will do so under direction of the Lord via His mouthpiece, the living prophet, and the remainder of the constituted councils of the Church. It will be to do His will…and not necessarily to placate whatever braying voice calls for this or that, mine own included. Sorry it seems so dogmatic and simplistic but it simply is…anything else is just an opinion, which like a certain part of the human anatomy everyone has and no one thinks that their own ‘stinks’.
Frank Pellett can you elaborate on your comment if she is ordained outside the u.s? who would ordain her outside the u.s?
Winfred – working with the idea that ordination could be put out in phases, as more Priesthood holders are needed in non-US congregations, it would be an Apostle ordaining women outside the US. I don’t see it as the ideal, as it would cause problems when ordained women move into areas where female ordination hasn’t been rolled out.
Yeah, making the RS group “priestesses” is a halfway solution, but it’s not bad for a next step.
How would it work? you put your hands on them and say the thing. done.
would it make those other things better / change anything? Yes, there wouldn’t be sexism anymore, just as the blacks revelation helped there be less racism.