When my faith transition came out at a family reunion a few years ago, I had some family members comment that I was the last person they would ever want to teach their YW about the priesthood. I have to admit I feel a little vindicated by the abrupt change of course brought about by Elder Oaks’ talk about women having and exercising priesthood authority last year [1]:
We are not accustomed to speaking of women having the authority of the priesthood in their Church callings, but what other authority can it be?
- I think it’s important to communicate we do not know why things are organized the way things are right now (men have the priesthood) and it is unwise to teach false justifications for the practice. I would avoid saying that motherhood is the equivalent of the priesthood. There are many who believe that — but what does that say to the portion of your YW who will grow up and never have children or get married? They are active participants in the priesthood, you just have to uncover it. When Elder Anderson spoke in general conference in October 2013 here is how he answered the question:
Some may sincerely ask the question, “If the power and blessings of the priesthood are available to all, why are the ordinances of the priesthood administered by men?”
When an angel asked Nephi, “Knowest thou the condescension of God?” Nephi answered honestly, “I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.”6
Why women don’t have it isn’t an answer we have right now, he doesn’t know; but he did go on to share what he did know about the priesthood. One of those things is that this is just how things have always been done. As Ally Isom from Church PR said in an NPR interview, there is nothing in our doctrine where it says women can’t hold the priesthood. There is no ban on it . . . but it’s not a way we’ve ever organized ourselves.
Fabrizio: …..The question is where does it say in Mormon doctrine that women cannot hold the priesthood? There was an interchange…
Isom: It doesn’t. It doesn’t. [5]
- It’s important to focus on the ways we do exercise priesthood authority. Other than women performing priesthood ordinances in the temple with priesthood authority given to them by the one who holds the keys (temple president), women are also given priesthood authority when they were called to serve missions. Before women went on missions it was explicitly a priesthood duty, just like administering the sacrament. Policy and procedure changed and now women routinely are set apart and given priesthood authority in their calling as a missionary to preach and expound the gospel to the world. Every calling a woman does is set apart and given priesthood authority to perform her stewardship. Right now women do not hold offices or keys of the priesthood – but they do exercise priesthood authority and power.
- I would also be careful to not say that women are “equal” in the church – the definition we see of equality in the workplace/school is not what Mormons practice. Mormons practice a patriarchal structure where men govern and make decisions. Women are valued very highly and they are cherished for the work they do – but that does not meet the definition of equality that YW have been raised with that they practice in the world every day.
Women exercise priesthood authority to perform priesthood ordinances in our temples. FYI the choices of pictures of women by the temple that don’t have to do with being married are . . . sparse. Neylan McBaine, who worked for the church (VP behind the I’m a Mormon campaign at Bonneville Communications) gave a great talk at the FAIR conference about the growing disconnect of gendered participation in the church – it’s worth reading to understand better ways to talk about our “gendered participation” [6].
- If one did want to look into the Nauvoo Relief Society minutes I would also recommend reading the first chapter of The Beginning of Better Days by Virginia Pearce. The Chapter is titled “Angels and Epiphanies” and it is about her prayerful study of the Nauvoo RS Minutes and the personal revelation she received about her place as a woman of God in the eternities and as a full participant in the priesthood. It’s incredibly orthodox (and a bit apologetic for my taste re: polygamy) but the perfect intro to the minutes for the uninitiated.
- I have a friend who blogs over at Juvenile Instructor, and she had the most brilliant insight: in 2010 Elaine Dalton gave the talk “Remember who you are!”[7] and said:
You are young women of great faith. You brought your faith with you when you came to the earth. Alma teaches us that in the premortal realms you exhibited “exceeding faith and good works.” 8The scripture she cites for this is Alma 13:3. Alma 13 is about priests who were foreordained before the world was — what Sis. Dalton does is replace the references to “priests” with young women. That would be a fascinating activity to do in a YW setting. Of course we as women were foreordained to accomplish certain missions in this life – perhaps it is our priesthood duty to prayerfully seek out what the Lord would have us individually do to build the Kingdom of God on the earth. For many Young Women I’m sure it is to become a stay-at-home mother. For all of us whether mothers, childless, and/or single; I like to think it is our priesthood duty to find and fulfill the missions God has sent them here to accomplish. Being a woman of God has no limitations – it can be done in a home, office, classroom, boardroom, and laboratory.
Very nice write up, Kristine. I’m one of those people who would rather feign illness than teach a lesson on the priesthood, but you give me hope.
“I would have been kicked out of YW if I’d said the words “the ways women exercise their priesthood authority” just two years ago.” Slight quibble. I think you misread Elder Oaks. The “authority” women have is not “their” authority but the authority of the presiding officer delegated to them. It may be semantics, but to me, it’s a significant difference. You can certainly phrase it they way you have, but it gives a bit of a false impression. The only analogy I have is: I have been given keys to our local church building. I refer to them casually as “my keys,” but in reality, they do not belong to me. I have possession of them, can and should use them for the purposes intended, but should not throw them in the garbage, break them, etc. At some point, I’ll be asked to give them back to my presiding officer. Likewise, a Primary president or Laurel class president acts by way of delegated priesthood authority. All auxilliaries function by way of delegated priesthood authority. See Handbook 2, Section 2.1.1 “They (auxiliary presidents and their counselors) receive delegated authority to function in their callings.” But, once released, that delegated authority goes away. As a practical matter, aside from the ability to give blessings of healing and comfort, essentially all men serve with delegated authority from whomever presides. Every ordinance is done under the direction and authority of the person presiding (or holding the keys.) I know it’s not “equality” as is typically envisioned, but it might help to think of practically all church callings in this way. Other than a stake president, “keys” and the authority to administer are only given to bishops, Elders Quorum presidents, Teachers and Deacons Quorum presidents. All the counselors, teachers, YM leaders and so forth do not serve by virtue of their own priesthood authority, but by virtue of the authority delegated to them by those who hold the keys, the same as all auxiliary leaders. Again, in Section 2.1.1 “Counselors to PH leaders do not receive keys. They are set apart and function in their callings BY ASSIGNMENT AND DELEGATED AUTHORITY.” (Emphasis mine.) So, we (men and women in the church) are really not that different after all.
My perspective is that we (men and women) should focus are attention on those things the Lord has revealed.
This can be explained in a brief statement:
We worship the Father, in the name of the Son, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
Those who understand revealed doctrine will recognize this statement as being a summation of all that is taught in the Book of Mormon.
Without the Holy Ghost nothing else eternally significant happens. Without the Holy Ghost what is done is the works of men, not God.
Why worry about obtaining the priesthood when the real goal is to obtain the Holy Ghost which opens the door to everything else we could possibility hope for.
Those church members who are agitating for women to obtain the priesthood will one day find that they were climbing a ladder that is leaning against the wrong wall.
@Mahonri Moriancumer
I think there are some that this issue never seems like an issue, and others this feels like THE biggest issue (even after praying about it). I try not to judge either end of the spectrum as the Lord has not hit me with a lightening bolt and told me how it is going to be from now and forever.
Your last sentence is missing, “Thus sayeth the Lord!” It sounds like you are saying that God can’t make such a change. In my opinion, it would be much wiser to put “In my opinion” instead of telling people you know exactly how God and you have it figured out.
IDIAT – thanks for that clarification. I agree with you, priesthood authority isn’t owned that way. I’ll make an adjustment in the OP, but leave my original line so your comment makes sense.
Bro – well since this post has nothing to do with agitating for the priesthood I suppose we can just ignore your comment? This post is about helping Young Women understand and exercise priesthood authority and power that we’ve only recently learned that we have. Also to address questions that come up, that questions aren’t inherently evil, and having questions does not = agitating for the priesthood.
Thank you so much Kris!! I really needed your brain this month. I’m teaching this month and I have seriously been thinking of just picking a different topic all together because teaching about the priesthood makes me want to barf. This helps so much though, now I’m actually not dreading it so bad!
Well said, Kristine. Similar to IDIAT’s comment about all priesthood authority being delegated, when I have taught similar lessons, I always make a point to point out the fact that both men and women in the church exercise authority by the same pattern laid out in the fifth article of faith. Paraphrased, we believe that a man or woman must be called of God by prophecy (inspiration in the calling) and by the laying on of hands (ordination or setting apart, (the dinstinction between them is a relatively recent innovation anyway)), by those who are in authority (those who hold priesthood keys, in order to preach the gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof, or to serve in any other church office or assignment.
I think we sometimes place too much emphasis on the particular ways we do things in the church today, thinking them to be eternal, when in reality, it is more likely that the general patterns are what are eternal, and the specifics adapted to our time and place. I think laying on of hands by authorized men (or women) is an eternal principle. I am not as convinced that particular names we have for priesthood offices, or the way we have the person sit in a chair and stand behind them, etc. are eternal principles.
Years ago, I was similarly anxious about teaching a lesson on priesthood in Relief Society. My study and preparation led to a reformulation of the definition. I kept repeating and emphasizing that *the priesthood is a service organization. The holder can do nothing to benefit himself. The only benefit can come to those who are served.* We can all fully participate as servants in God’s kingdom.
“Our young women need to know they exercise priesthood authority and power even if they don’t hold offices and keys. How can we uncover this for them so they see themselves as active participant in building the kingdom of God with priesthood authority?”
I’m sure it will sound like I’m just being combative, Kristine, but I don’t think there’s any real satisfactory, convincing way to do this. The fact is, women don’t get full access to the priesthood, even if it is conceded that they have access to its power at all. This isn’t just a cynical matter of opinion. It’s the reality in the current church. There’s just no way intelligent, observant, thoughtful young women aren’t going to see this inequality for what it is. Telling them their indirect access to the priesthood is just as good as actually getting the full priesthood, including the say over their own behavior and well being that would go with it, is like men telling women in the 17th and 18th centuries that even though they don’t have the right to vote, it’s ok because they benefit from the exercise by others of THEIR right to vote. They enjoy roads and public utilities, and other direct benefits, as well as the indirect sense of freedom that comes from living in a democratic society that they just happen not to be able to participate directly in. Women never bought that, and many young women aren’t going to buy it in this context either.
#8 Unfortunately, this simply isn’t true, Charlene. It may be true that the priesthood itself cannot be used by someone to benefit himself, but the benefits of HOLDING the priesthood can, and regularly are used to benefit the holders, as well as those similarly situated. For example, growing up, I watched the young men in my wards and stakes regularly have more monies allocated to their projects and activities than the young women EVER enjoyed. It was men who were making decisions about activities and allocations of funds, and the young men travelled to other states, went on lavish camping and rafting activities, played organized sports in established leagues, etc., etc., etc. I never once saw the young women do anything close to these elaborately planned, expensive activities. The most the young women ever did was travel to general conference, and on those trips the young men went as well. This is just one example of how being denied the decision making authority of the priesthood is a real, tangible disenfranchisement of women in the church.
Brjones – I’m not sure if I’m looking for a satisfactory way to do this that doesn’t highlight the inequities. I think I’m looking for a BETTER way to do it than we are doing now. Or has been done before. I certainly went out of my way to make sure we don’t call what women have equal – they’re smart, they see the differences.
But we can do our best; and after Oaks’ talk our best is a lot better than what I got when I was in YW: that our role in supporting the priesthood was helping them be pure and making sure they get on missions.
We might have to dig a little bit but at least we have something more than that now.
Kristine, You are certainly doing a better job than in my 16 year old grand daughters ward. She was asked what she could do to support the priesthood and all they could come up with was do their ironing.
In the explanation to Declaration 2 is the statement “all are alike unto God black and white ….male and female” this combined with the fact that in the endowment women and men both wear the robes of the priesthood, so they can officiate in the ordinances of that priesthood. Combining these two infers that the next world will not be a patriarchy, and this one should not be either.
Perhaps you would not include the bit about this world in YW, yet, though I told my granddaughters.
Do these say the same to anyone else? I do think they offer a more hopeful future for YW.
Fair enough, Kristine. It’s certainly possible to do better. I won’t argue with that.
As a SS teacher of the 12-14 YO class, I struggled the entire month we taught on the priesthood. There simply isn’t enough material there for 4 lessons (using the new manual), and the girls were totally tuned out. The boys also felt it was very repetitive. While I appreciate the effort E. Oaks was making in his talk, it was far from clear, and his remarks seem to be an outlier.
I have long felt that eventually we’ll get to the Dorothy Defense when it comes to how women have the PH: “But Dorothy, you’ve had the power all along.” And in fact, that’s probably more accurate than we admit. Endowed women particularly. The church will do what it will do. I just find it interesting to watch it unfold.
1) having the same theme for SS and YW/YM classes is ridiculous. If it starts getting repetitive I’d totally bring up the nauvoo RS minutes.
The last time I was taught about the oath and covenant of the priesthood (In D&C 121) our instructor, a brilliant and respected high priest in our ward, stated that women should not think they were not fully included in the list of blessings and responsibilities. That made a few of us sit up and blink, and I advanced in my understanding from that. If I was asked to teach this to YW or a mixed group of youth, I would focus on that section, making sure that it was crystal clear that it applied equally to both men and women. There is plenty of specific material of depth there to teach more than one lesson, perhaps more than two. Elder Oaks’ priesthood session address lends itself to such a lesson as well, but it raises many unanswered questions, which could be instructive and not problematic with the right attitude.
Ironing indeed.