Jeff Spector recently asked what would happen if women received the priesthood. I have a question about what would happen at the temple. Currently men are ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood immediately prior to the initiatory rite, but women do not need to be ordained at all. If the prophet received a revelation extending priesthood to women, what do you think would happen with regards to the temple?
[poll id=441]
Wheat & Tares 
I’m not sure which way things would cut, but they would need to cut so that men and women are treated equally. Rights and responsibilities have to be correlated to a reasonable degree. It will not work, at least over the long term, for one women to be allowed participation in priesthood ordinances without a need for ordination, while men must be ordained (and thereby receive a lot of priesthood “duties”) in order to similarly participate. Many men would rebel at such a system. And the system would not be logically sound.
As one example, say that beehives are now allowed to pass the sacrament, though they are not ordained. Their authority for doing so is that they are working under assignment from the bishop and therefore their work is a priesthood function. In that situation, what logic would prevent a 12-year-old boy from similarly receiving an assignment from the bishop to pass the sacrament even though he has not been ordained? I can’t think of one.
But, you may say, what about women’s performance of the initiatory? IMO, that is the key to moving forward on the topic of female ordination. Women, today, already are performing this one ordinance without being ordained themselves. Elder Oaks called this an “exception” in his April 2014 conference address, but unfortunately failed to explain the authority that allows the exception. I believe he chose silence because there is no good explanation. Either women are doing something they do not have authority to do, or there is a separate source of authority for priesthood ordinances (being set apart by a temple president) that logically would open the door to women performing other ordinances than just initiatories.
So here is the $64,000 question: by what authority do women performed the initiatory? Whatever that authority is, what logic prevents its from allowing women to perform additional ordinances? If being set apart is enough for temple initiatories, why not for temple proxy baptisms and confirmations? If a temple president can give authority to women to perform temple ordinances, why can’t a bishop give authority to women to perform ward-level ordinances (sacrament and baptism)?
Which raises the question for me Dave K., is the requirement for ordination simply a form of control exercised (currently) over men?
Hedgehog, in my experience as a priesthood holder, I believe that priesthood does create a control system over men (controlled by both men and women, btw), but that system also provides direction and blessings that would not come to the holder outside of it. Most members I know believe that many (most?) men would do less and become less if ordination were voluntary. I tend to agree with this view. So from a pragmatic standpoint, I think that any extension of priesthood to women would need to be mandatory on them as well. It would be a big enough to change to say, “Sally, you can now pass the sacrament.” It would be an even bigger change (perhaps too much to handle) to also say, “and Jimmy, you can still pass if you want, but you don’t have to any more and we’ll love you the same regardless.”
That said, from a theological standpoint, making ordination mandatory for women presents its own significant dilemmas. If God is no respecter of persons, and if the saving ordinances have to be the same across time (else why do work for the dead?), then mandatory ordination for women going forward would necessarily mean (i) mandatory ordinance for women in the past (i.e., a whole lot of new temple work), and (ii) a lot of head scratching as to why ordination is necessary for a woman’s salvation and yet Joseph did not mandate it. FWIW, I’m fine with the notion that the restoration is ongoing, but many members would struggle.
Simply put, all authority is delegated by the one who holds all the keys. From being set apart as Nursery leader to RS President, all serve under delegated authority. Even a priesthood holder must receive authority by one holding keys to do many things – ordain others, bless/pass sacrament, etc. What can a priesthood holder do without “permission” from a presiding officer? Give father’s blessings, blessings of comfort, administer to the sick, consecrate oil, dedicate a home. Just about everything else requires the permission/authorization of another presiding officer. I think the handbook makes it clear that even men serving in non-key holding positions function by assignment and delegated authority, as do all women serving in auxiliaries. (Handbook 2, 2.1.1).
This is where the priesthood thing gets tricky – the requirement for male priesthood ordination is defined as a saving ordinance, meaning it is absolutely essential for salvation. It would be incredibly unusual for the church to suddenly declare that women would need an additional saving ordinance for exaltation when they never had to receive it before.
Dave K, the authority of Temple Presidents seems to be tied to a higher echelon of Melchizedek Priesthood authority — tied to the keys that both Elias and Elijah restored in 1836. Some people refer to this subset of the Melchizedek Priesthood as the Patriarchal Priesthood. It’s under the authority of this priesthood that both men and women become clothed with both Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthood power (and the garments of the Holy Priesthood), even though women have never been ordained to any offices in the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthood. It’s this unique authority that I think gives Temple Presidents the right to set apart women for those particular priesthood ordinances. Temple baptisms require the permission of this special authority, but the form of those ordinances are very similar to baptisms and confirmations done outside the temple, and those can only be performed by male priesthood holders that have been ordained to certain offices. If God has somehow designated men to provide the ordinances of baptism and confirmation to living people, I don’t know why he would suddenly let women to do them in the temple for dead people.
Posted before I saw Dave K’s second comment — sorry, the first part of my comment is essentially the same idea as his.
Ordination for women probably wouldn’t cause all female work for he dead to need to be redone, even if going forward it’s required for the living. There was a time all male confirmations included ordination to the Aaronic Priesthood, but now they no longer do. It’s possible Melchezidek Priesthood has not always been part of the male initiatory.
Priesthood is not necessary for salvation, for anyone, male or female. It is currently required of all worthy men in the Church, but that doesn’t make it follow that it’s necessary for salvation.
Thanks Frank. Can you provide a source for the change regarding proxy ordination? When I go with youth groups to do proxy baptisms/confirmations there is no proxy ordination. But I guess I assumed that someone else was doing that afterwards because the introduction to the endowment still explains that preparatory proxy work for a deceased has been performed, including ordination on behalf of deceased brethren.
Mary Ann,
Thanks for engaging the subject. If I understand you correctly, you are positing that women are given then Aaronic priesthood (and higher priesthoods) through the temple ordinances, but because baptisms outside the temple require a priesthood office (ie Priest) that women are excluded from, that same form limits a woman’s ability to act inside the temple even though she has the authority? That just doesn’t make sense to me. Why would a higher priesthood would be limited by the forms of a lower priesthood? And if it is, where is the revelation or instruction from God setting this out? Without any scriptural source, it seems like we’re just making this all up.
Source for temple changes? Good luck finding those. Best I have is memories of doing baptisms as a YM, which then included ordination, and doing it now, which does not.
“So here is the $64,000 question: by what authority do women performed the initiatory? Whatever that authority is, what logic prevents its from allowing women to perform additional ordinances? If being set apart is enough for temple initiatories, why not for temple proxy baptisms and confirmations? If a temple president can give authority to women to perform temple ordinances, why can’t a bishop give authority to women to perform ward-level ordinances (sacrament and baptism)?”
Ultimately, all priesthood offices, powers, authorities, and keys–whether they be part of the Aaronic, Melchizedek, or Patriarchal priesthoods–are delegated elements with their ultimate derivation being the President of the Church (at least if we keep our focus on mortal beings). It is entirely within the President of the Church’s position as the keeper of all offices, powers, authorities, and keys to say that a temple president may authorize women to perform initiatories and no one may authorize women to perform anything else. This isn’t to say that I agree-or disagree-or even care. But the logic that allows it to happen is fairly straightforward. Bishops simply haven’t been granted the authority to authorize women to perform ordinances.
“Dave K, the authority of Temple Presidents seems to be tied to a higher echelon of Melchizedek Priesthood authority — tied to the keys that both Elias and Elijah restored in 1836. Some people refer to this subset of the Melchizedek Priesthood as the Patriarchal Priesthood.”
I’m not sure we have enough information about the Patriarchal priesthood to claim that it is a subset of the Melchizedek Priesthood. There are a number of configurations it could take. I once had ambitions to write a blog post about those configurations, and the repercussions of each of those configurations, but I got side tracked by–well, by life I guess. Ultimately, the Patriarchal could be a subset of the Melchizedek, it could be a superset of the Melchizedek, or it could be a separate entity altogether. What’s really interesting, though, is that the Patriarchal priesthood could be a sort of get-out-of-jail free card for the church on women and priesthood issues precisely because it _is_ so poorly defined*.
* I’ll add the caveat that I don’t have a great deal of resources available to me about the Patriarchal priesthood, so there could be valuable information out there that would change my opinions.
“Without any scriptural source, it seems like we’re just making this all up.”
Thus has it ever been?
The ordinances women perform in the temple are performed under the authority they receive when they are set apart as temple workers. The same is true with respect to the exalting ordinances performed by men–only set apart temple workers may perform them (and even then, sealers are set apart separately from ordinary temple workers). With respect to saving ordinances, however, the Melchizedek Priesthood (and a valid temple recommend) is the operative authority–men do not have to be set apart temple workers to perform those ordinances. That distinction would prevent women from performing proxy baptisms and confirmations.
As for ward-level ordinances, a bishop could arguably assign the preparing and passing of the sacrament to young women, but not the blessing thereof. That is explicitly reserved for ordained priests, as is baptism. Still, any bishop who did so in the absence of extreme extenuating circumstances would not likely remain bishop for very long.
Ben,
I agree that all priesthood authority, offices, and keys exercised in the church eventually tie back to the FP/Q12, specifically to the President of the Church who alone is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys. Where I get confused though, is that Elder Oak said in his conference remarks that (i) additional keys would be needed in order to ordain women to priesthood offices (ie the church doesn’t have this power so stop asking) and (ii) with the exception of the female initiatory, all priesthood ordinances require a priesthood office.
That just doesn’t add up. What authority was given to the President of the Church which flows down through temple presidents to ordinance workers whereby women can perform initiatories? Or did we just make up that authority because women were not comfortable with men performing the initiatory?
Assuming the authority is real, why is it limited only to initiatories and where is that limitation written down? I could understand if Elder Oaks had said “we have authority to confer offices on women, but we just don’t want to do it.” But what is said is “we don’t have authority, except for initiatories.” Why the heck not?
Last Lemming,
Under your logic, can women be set apart to perform sealings?
Why is ordination to the MP necessary to perform saving ordinances but not to perform exalting ordinances? I still can’t see why women can be authorized to perform higher ordinances, but we have no authority to allow them to participate in lower ones too.
What is the distinction between saving and exalting ordinances? Is that the difference between ordinances that are needed to get you to the Celestial Kingdom and those that are needed to get you to “the highest level” of the Celestial Kingdom?
its an easy fix – just make the second annointing church wide, instead of for a select few wealthy, and indicate that once a woman has participated, she has the priesthood. that would make priesthood only available to married women, but exaltation is already restricted to the married, so that will be NBD>
Dave K,
There are a couple of different ways your questions can be answered that are all plausible and internally consistent.
So for ease of context, I’m going to rephrase your question as follows (and you can tell me if it’s an unfair characterization):
How can we claim the necessary authority to authorize women to perform initiatories and also claim we lack the authority to confer upon them the priesthood?
Explanation 1.
We can claim that authorizing the performing of ordinances is distinct and separate from authorizing the conferral of priesthood. There was a big stink several decades ago about whether the proper way to give the priesthood to a man involved saying “ordain” or “confer.” Ultimately, the language that has survived to today requires that we ‘confer’ the priesthood. But for a period of about 30 years, ‘confer’ wasn’t used. There were some that claimed (in fact, there are some that still claim) that all of those ordinations that didn’t use the word ‘confer’ were invalid. The Church made the statement that the ordinations were valid irrelevant of the wording used, because what made the ordinance valid was the approval of the presiding authority (either a bishop or stake president). In that respect, we can claim that, when necessary, a presiding authority _may_ authorize a woman to perform a priesthood ordinance. The ordinance is valid, not because the woman holds priesthood, but because the presiding authority sanctioned the ordinance. The caveat is that the only ordinance for which this privilege of delegation has been authorized by the President of the Church is the initiatory.
Beyond authorizing ordinances, and recognizing ordinances and conferral of priesthood as separate issues, the claim is that not even the President of the Church has the authority to confer the priesthood upon a woman. By extension, if the President of the Church doesn’t have the authority to do so, then he lacks the authority to extend such a privilege to any other leader.
Explanation 2.
We don’t actually have the authority to authorize women to perform initiatories. The fact that we do is a historical relic that we maintain out of convenience.
In the early days of the church, it wasn’t uncommon for women to receive blessings from women. Blessings were also administered differently, with anointing being performed on the affected parts of the body. As you might imagine, there was a sense that perhaps men shouldn’t be anointing women’s perineal regions prior to child birth. Overtime, priesthood leaders began reforming procedures for blessings so that anointing was done on the head for everything. As the need for propriety diminished, the need for women performing ordinances also diminished. We’ve almost reached a point today that you could actually abolish the practice of women performing initatories. Now that we aren’t doing as much touching, the clothing is more discrete, etc. about the only thing preventing the discontinuation of women performing initiatories is the fact that the initiatory rooms are all in the women’s locker rooms. Under this line of thinking, you could argue that we don’t actually have the authority to allow women to perform initiatories, but that we do it for lack of a better option and hope that Christ will accept the ordinances even though it runs counter to his designs.
So, if you’re of the opinion that this inconsistency is an argument for ordaining women, be careful what you ask for, because remedying the inconsistency could easily go the other way.
Thank you Benjamin. Really, thank you.
Your characterization of my question is fair, but a little off. I would phrase it this way: “How can we claim the necessary authority to authorize women to perform initiatories and also claim we lack the authority to authorize them to perform other ordinances?”
While I am interested in the ordination question generally, I mostly care about the ordinances and members’ ability to participate in them. My rub is that, according to the church (as best explained by Elder Oaks), the reason that my wife and daughters cannot perform ordinances is that ordinances require a priesthood office and the church does not have keys to give women priesthood offices. In other words, “our hands are tied until an angel comes and gives additional keys; so stop asking.”
Both of your explanations strike me as consistent (and more helpful than you can guess). But both explanations fundamentally explain church leaders’ actions, not a divine order. If the principle were simply that “church leaders can sanction whatever practices they want and God will bless their good faith efforts” or “church leaders can make exceptions where societal norms interfere with the divine order,” well, I may not like those decisions but at least I could understand and deal with them.
FWIW, I think the real reason we don’t have a clear answer is because the FP/Q12 cannot come to agreement and will not speak until there is agreement. Our leaders inherited an inconsistent system. They are tying their best to work with it, but there is no way to adequately explain the situation. If leaders can make an exception for initiatories, they can also make exceptions for other ordinances (e.g., maybe young women would be more comfortable being proxy baptized by the YW president than by some creepy guy). But they don’t want to admit this power, as it would invite requests for exceptions and open the question as to why offices are needed for anyone.
Final note – at the risk of invading privacy, I looked up your blog through your name link. We’re neighbors. My stake is just west of yours. I’m also an avid scouter (just went through my OA ordeal), am involved in my ward’s troop (ASM/YMP), and am a supporter of scouts for equality.
What is the distinction between saving and exalting ordinances? Is that the difference between ordinances that are needed to get you to the Celestial Kingdom and those that are needed to get you to “the highest level” of the Celestial Kingdom?
That’s one way to put it. Another way is that saving ordinances are strictly individual, while exalting ordinances have a collective aspect to them. The collective aspect is obvious with respect to sealings, reasonably clear with respect to the endowment (although I could make it clearer if I used temple language), and pretty obscure with respect to initiatories, but try comparing D&C 88:138 with the second Article of Faith to see what I’m getting at. (If you are female, it still might not make sense.)
Under your logic, can women be set apart to perform sealings?
That’s why I noted that sealers are set apart separately from other temple workers. The fact that all are men suggests that the sealing authority is limited to them. For those not familiar with the temple, only a small percentage of male temple workers are set apart as sealers.
By the way, you should recognize that women actively participate in administering the endowment by virtue of their status as set apart temple workers. It’s not just initiatories.
Isn’t a more salient question than Jeff Spector’s — “What would happen if women received the priesthood?” — what would happen if there were simply no priesthood? What would happen if God revealed the priesthood as a construct of man’s evolution of self discovery, valuable in process but obsolete now? Perhaps priesthood is a vestige of the natural man — the man who from mortal onset took advantages of his evolved sex, asserting that God created woman from his rib to satisfy him, to be his possession, calling her a weaker vessel who succumbed to temptation, etc. — and the priesthood simply needs, in the course of our evolution, to be put off. Let’s face it, God has allowed a lot of adjustments as we progress. They love us. What does it mean to all be alike unto God?
This also presupposes that endowed women don’t have some form of priesthood that can simply be recognized as holding priesthood rights. So many LDS women believe they hold some form of the priesthood or jointly share their husbands priesthood after endowment/marriage.
Of course, if we are to take BY interpretation and teachings seriously (given that he shaped and wrote down the original modern version that might be wise) then we would believe that women don’t recieve the rights or responsibilities of the priesthood which also means they can’t be Daughters of Perdition. They simply have a lesser range of agency and responsibility then priesthood holders and they always work under the direction of priesthood holders. BY designed the temple ceremony with a God – Man – Woman hierarchy represented at every stage, in every symbolic action and with every word. And this structure still exists throughout the temple even after 1990. So there would have to be far more changes to the ceremony (mostly small but consistent ones) that would undo this hierarchy if women were to get equal priesthood with men. It would require an entire different logic and structure to the temple – at least if we cared about maintaining an internally coherent temple liturgy.
Dave,
It’s always a pleasure to meet someone from the less holy of our stakes 😛
But thanks go to you as well. I enjoy these kinds of discussions. I like being able to evaluate what we do and what we don’t know. And I enjoy exploring the implications that follow when we consider what we think we know might not be completely accurate.
Also, yay for Scouts for Equality. I will probably be joining our local chapter soon, so perhaps our paths may yet cross.
Women,in the endowment, wear the robes of the Aaronic and the Melchizedec Priesthood so they can officiate in the ordinances thereof (just like the men do). Which could be why many women believe they have the priesthood.
And women are authorised to officiate in the ordinances thereof. So they should be able to do those things that do not require priesthood keys, and they should be able to do the others if the person with keys delegates. The handbook (scripture?) says priesthood required for some ordinances? STRANGELY THE CHURCH DOES NOT SEEM TO ACCEPT/RECOGNISE THE PRIESTHOOD THE ENDOWMENT SAYS WOMEN HAVE.
When men are ordained they are ordained to the priesthood and then called to a position in that priesthood. So when you become a HP you do not need to be ordained again.
When the priesthood is extended to all worthy members, I would expect all to be treated equally, so women would also be required to hold the M priesthood before they could get a TR.
It would not seem to be that large a step to recognise the priesthood we already recognise that women have in the endowment, outside the temple. And it has nothing to do with their husband it is their own.