30 years ago this week, the RLDS Church canonized D&C section 156, allowing for the ordination of women. Mormon Heretic asked Rich Brown and Markag to offer their perspectives on the 30th anniversary of this occasion. Rich offered his insights in our previous post, and Markag, who was formerly RLDS and is now LDS shares his perspective.
The RLDS Church has had divisive issues throughout its history, but none more so than the subject of the ordination of women to the priesthood (OWP). First, a little background.
Because the RLDS conferences resemble a legislature, several attempts were made through resolutions to authorize OWP as far back as the early 20th century. The last such resolution was at the April 1982 conference (which I was present) and called for an end to all discussion on the matter while waiting on prophetic guidance.
That came at the next conference (April 1984). The document which, in part (verses 7-10), sanctioned OWP, received a majority of delegate votes and was ordered to be included in the RLDS Doctrine and Covenants(D&C) as Section 156. There was an admonition to current priesthood for not taking their calling seriously, and mentioning a system of periodic evaluations; later known as priesthood reviews.
An immediate backlash of various degrees began. It was rumored that 25% of the total membership were disaffected. Some leaders wouldn’t consider OWP; others couldn’t do it fast enough, and neither viewpoint was heeding the counsel that the process be done “in all deliberateness”.
In my local area reactions were mild in comparison. I was more interested with Section 156 instructing that the Temple in Independence be built (more on that later). By November 1984 our local congregation had 2 female Priests; one was my sister-in-law. We served together visiting homes (I was a Priest also) and made a good team. Some women’s first priesthood office was Elder; not without precedent but a little unusual.
OWP is a common thing now for the Community of Christ. There were 2 resolutions in 1986 attempting to remove Section 156 from the D&C; both were ruled out-of-order and not presented to the conference for a vote. Women have been called to all priesthood offices including Apostle and First Presidency. No Female Prophet yet!
Since 1999 I’ve been an LDS member but my extended family are active members of the COC. They agree that the loss of members was the most obvious negative result of OWP. The church no longer conducts priesthood reviews, and they didn’t know of any female priesthood holder having been dis-fellowshipped.
On the positive side, they say Female Priesthood offer a perspective on ministries that differs from men. I recognized that as I attended and served alongside them. But an important point to realize is that the RLDS chose not to incorporate the Female Relief Society into their church structure. The “Female perspectives” of ministries are accomplished there; the exception being performing of ordinances. Had the Relief Society been a part of the RLDS from 1860 onward, the path that led to OWP might have been very different. We will never know for sure.
Since 1984 the RLDS/COC has had a half-dozen new contentious issues that try the faith of its members. They are to be commended for getting through “The Big One”.
What are your thoughts about women and priesthood as you reflect on the past 30 years and the experience of the Community of Christ?
Wheat & Tares 
Rlds womens ordination
you cannot give what you do not have.
Genhy, CofChrist can trace their priesthood back to Joseph Smith, same as LDS.
Maybe because I’m a convert to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I have seen the sincerity of other people in their other churches. I appreciate their sincerity. I sustain the principle of allowing all persons to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience. In that regard, I wish the Community of Christ well. Maybe we’ll convert some of them, maybe not. In the meantime, I give patience and respect in our pluralistic society in hope of receiving the same.
Why would God restore the gospel and then allow a splintering unless he wanted multiple seedlings? What justifies judging one of these offspring true and the others false? Perhaps we are being given a choice of formats. The exclusive LDS legalistic building builders and the progressive inclusive CoC would make a good partnership. Work out a deal to allow CoC to meet in LDS buildings and be the progressive wing. To silence the authority argument cross ordain the top leaders and pass the double ordination down the organizations. Then attend the service that best represents your temperament even split famlies!
Howard, I sincerely hope you don’t consider *all* Mormon splinter groups God-approved. I’m not referring to CoC when I say there’s been some crazies (putting it mildly).
I don’t know much about the Community of Christ, so I’ve appreciated these two posts. Many of the 19th century Mormon pioneers I’ve studied went over to the RLDS church, even those who traveled west. Some went back to the Midwest, but it seems that RLDS congregations weren’t uncommon in the Western U.S.
If I was to leave LDS and move to COC, I would have less concern about OWP and more concern about de-emphasis of the BOM.
I like pictures of female apostles. I have no doubts they are as capable and wise and inspiring.
I am just not so sure I place so much importance on the outward office of the priesthood when I think God works in our hearts.
My wife will bless my kids with her faith just as much as I will, regardless of church office.
I applaud the CoChrist for showing how it works just fine with women, as I do with other churches. I guess I just don’t believe it is necessary for equal rights, but can understand when some think it does.
Being LDS, I guess I believe God has given it to men until there is a revelation to change it, which is totally plausible. Until then, we don’t have that.
It doesn’t make my priesthood more powerful than CoChrist priesthood. Just like my Sunday Sabbath is not more powerful than my Jewish freind’s Saturday Sabbath.
It is just how we do it as LDS.
I don’t think it works better or the women in the CoChrist priesthood works better.
They are just tools to express faith.
By the way, I’ve always like the CoChrist have more D&C sections. Why did we stop doing that? I wish LDS D&C scripture was recorded and canonized like we used to do. “Proclamations”, “Manifestos”…psh…make ’em D&C sections!!
In case anybody might be interested, the eight CoChrist apostles in the photo are: (l. to r.; some partially obscured) Susan Skoor Oxley (USA; now retired), Bunda Chibwe (Zambia), Mareva Arnaud Tchong (Tahiti, French Polynesia), Richard James (Wales, U.K.), Barbara Carter (USA), Stassi Cramm (USA; recently called to First Presidency and as Presiding Bishop), Art Smith (Canada), and Carlos Enrique Meija (Honduras).
Of those not in the photo, three are from the USA: Linda Booth (C12 president), Ron Harmon, and Rick Maupin; Andrew Bolton (recently retired) is from the U.K.
Heber13: The LDS has added material to the D&C before (Sections 137/138) and may do the same for the Proclamations eventually.
The COC has more sections because a large portion of their documents include changes in their General Authorities. The documents are presented only during a conference so it can be given a prompt vote to accept or reject. Any guidance or statements from their 1st Presidency not in the D&C are not considered scripture and therefore not binding on the members.
Fortunately, President Grant McMurray changed the practice of including personnel changes for general officers of the church, back in the 1990s. They are now dealt with in a separate Letter of Counsel.
More recently, President Steve Veazey began the practice of presenting Inspired Counsel during World Conference but not immediately asking for consideration in the Doctrine and Covenants. He wants the church (and himself) to live with the Counsel he presented at the Conference in April 2013. I expect at the World Conference in June 2016 he may well bring a document based on that previous one for D&C consideration.
D&C 137 was 1837.
D&C 138 was 1910.
It’s been a long time and we don’t add to them, it seems.
Maybe that is good. I can disagree with a handbook policy that is a guideline easier than I can reject a section of the D&C.
I like whatever gives me more freedoms to stay Mormon.
Heber, even though both revelations are dated as you show, I believe both sections were added in 1979 along with OD2.