If you ask a Mormon if women they hold the priesthood, they’ll probably say no. Mormon Heretic noted a dispute in understanding temple priesthood. In Michael Quinn’s book Origins of Power published in 1993, the historian explains why the temple endowment grants women the Melchizedek Priesthood. However, Jonathan Stapley said “Equating early Mormon female healing with evidence of female priesthood is folly.”
My question to you is this: Why do women wear priesthood robes of the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthood? Do women hold priesthood inside the temple?
Wheat & Tares 
When we say “the priesthood” we almost always mean priesthood office. Women do not and have never been ordained to offices in the priesthood (obviously this can change, I’m just saying I agree with Stapley here contra Quinn). But Joseph Smith also said, “All priesthood is Melchizedek.” The priesthood is just “the power and authority to act in the name of God” and the offices and orders of the priesthood are nicknames for subsets of duties and functions within the priesthood. When women officiate in temple ordinances, or in leadership callings or missionary work or in the healing rituals in times past, they do so by authority of the priesthood. As Elder Oaks said a few years ago, “What other authority can it be?”
As to why women wear the robes in the temple I can only share my own interpretation of the ceremony. The endowment symbolizes our progression from preexistence through mortality to Godhood. To me the wearing of robes is symbolic of our spiritual progression. As we take upon ourselves more covenants we become prepared to officiate in higher and higher ordinances. Although women do not actually get ordained into these orders and actually officiate in those ordinances at this time, the point is they are prepared to. They could do it if called upon. They progress through this life and the next until they are gods and share in all of God’s power and all authority.
Everything in the endowment is couched in terms of it being preparatory. I take this to mean that women do hold the priesthood in the eternities, and will likely do so here once our geriatric patriarchy finally get around to earnestly asking the Lord about it. Or until other colleges refuse to play BYU over it, etch we all know prompts earnest asking.
I would love to hear what Jared’s fasting a prayers tell us on regards to this question.
We speak of the endowment as being “endowed with power,” commonly understood to be endowed with priesthood power. Physically putting on the robe is a tangible symbol of taking on that power. But, like Bryan H said, it’s easy to argue that this is an ethereal authority as opposed to the more bureaucratic priesthood “office.”
I’ve traditionally interpreted the robes/clothing stuff as symbolic of the journey of mortality. We believe in the necessity of participating in saving ordinances officiated first by Aaronic and later by Melchizedek priesthood. At each point, the ordinances provide us with additional responsibilities and blessings. (In this interpretation, the initial clothing given to Adam and Eve represents us entering mortality in the first place.) Again, while this interpretation allows for robes to represent an endowment of power via participation in priesthood ordinances (both inside and outside the temple), it doesn’t really support an interpretation that women hold any type of priesthood office as we currently understand it.
So, mine is basically a repeat of Bryan’s minus the “preparing to officiate” part.
I think that the comments thus far pussyfoot around the issue. OF COURSE women hold the Melchizedek Priesthood once they are endowed. How could a NON-priesthood holder wear priesthood garments? Priesthood robes? Receive the tokens of the PH? Receive the Endowment of the Holy Priesthood? In the case of female ordinance workers, GIVE the tokens? Wash and anoint? Makes no sense to view it otherwise.
As for the statements that women have never been ordained to an office in the Priesthood – they have been since the days of Joseph Smith. They still are today! There are many hundreds of women alive today who have already been ordained Queens and Priestesses, just as their husbands have already been ordained Kings and Priests.
Listen to the first 4 sentences of the Endowment ceremony. It’s all spelled out. Stop assuming that can only happen in the next life. He that hath ears to hear…..
I believe it means women hold the priesthood. When that is accepted by the 15, women will be able to be called to positions within that priesthood.
JS set up the RS as a kingdom of priests.
He called his wife , who had been ordained earlier as the president. He ordained her councilors.
Perhaps if JS had lived we would not be having trouble with this question, women would be holding the Priesthood already. Though of course Brigham might have stopped it.
I’m trying to think about this from the point of view of a good man who hasn’t been able to put himself in my shoes. What would having the priesthood mean to you if the temple defined you as a priest to your wife, and extracted a promise from you to hearken to her? Quirkier, best-forgotten aspects of the temple make you even more clear – it all depends on your wife to be righteous, to call you up for resurrection, to claim you hers.
In print this looks sarcastic, but I’m truly trying to figure it out . I never understood why Ordain Women, for instance, cared about ordination and didn’t talk about the temple foundation on which the whole endeavor sits. But maybe it’s all going to work backwards and it’s fine.
Church leaders have made it clear they don’t believe any women hold priesthood office. By definition, then, being a queen and priestess to our husbands must not fit their definition of priesthood office. Outside the temple when we talk about “holding” the priesthood, we mean priesthood office. Leaders have attempted to dance around the issue with the priesthood “authority” thing. I’m okay with robes representing priesthood authority and with female temple workers holding priesthood authority, but I refuse to say that women “hold” the priesthood based on existing definitions, inside or outside the temple.
The OW thing was useful in forcing leaders to make these distinctions. Now that the distinctions have been given, though, I don’t feel the “women have priesthood because they wear priesthood robes in the temple” has much strength. Elder Oaks made no distinction between the priesthood authority women exercise in the temple and the priesthood authority women currently exercise in regular church callings.
The theology or cosmology of women is so underdeveloped. It feels like we just throw stuff at the wall and go with what sticks. Gender is eternal and super important but we’ve got no idea what that actually means if you are a woman. I’m going to start making up my own doctrine and if anyone challenges me on it I’ll just say, “You’d understand this if you truly understood the temple” and nod cryptically.
Mary Ann said,
I’m not sure what statements you’re thinking of, but whatever they are I’m pretty sure they’re referring only to mortal women, not women who have attained godhood. Joseph Smith once talked about “the office of the Messiah” in a sermon. I would not be surprised if he considered queen and priestess as offices also.
Usually, but not always. Outside the temple we also refer to the priesthood as “the power and authority to act in the name of God.” By that definition women do hold and exercise the priesthood.
Bryan,
Joseph also talked about ordaining Emma and giving her keys, and that the Relief Society would be a “Kingdom of Priests.” Luckily, a gospel topics essay has clarified that terms Joseph used don’t mean what we think they mean.
“By that definition” – true. In Elder Oaks’ 2014 talk he discussed “holding” (and exercising) priesthood keys, “holding” priesthood office, and “holding” (and exercising) priesthood authority. Then at the end he said, “Men hold the priesthood, with a sacred duty to use it for the blessing of all of the children of God.” Clearly in this context, “holding” the priesthood is more than just authority (otherwise he wouldn’t specify just men) – it means office and/or keys. On lds.org and everyday language, I have never seen “priesthood holder” used in reference to a woman. Can women exercise priesthood power or hold priesthood authority? Sure. I just can’t get on board with stating women “hold the priesthood” without qualifiers.
I echo Geof-Aus and Moss, this is one of those ‘many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of heaven’ which is ‘yet to be revealed’ . Obviously, there are missing steps, missing pieces and clarifications to make. It used to be said that when a woman married, she was “one” with her husband, and had the robes of the PH in conjunction with him. But, many women receive their endowments and are never married, and those same women are allowed to be temple ordinance workers. So, it isn’t “though” your husband, but through endowments.
If one can have the PH or act under the authority of the PH in PH ordinances without being ordained, then we have no right to place ourselves above the Catholics or other protestant denominations and their lack of or differences in PH ordination ceremonies. We accept “loosey-goosey” and “by proxy”- either through a husband or through a temple president.
This really needs to be tied-up, but I fear that now is not the best time to push it with the brethren. Remember that when women pressed about the particulars of PH function in regards to female blessings of comfort and healing? They stopped to think about it, then decided that it was too messy and the work was deemed a male PH role and it was taken away! Right now, I fear that pushing this issue might result in the same male-centric conclusion. I really hope no one from the CoB or the SL Trib reads W&T.
We aren’t going to break anything. Remember when the early saints were doing baptisms for the dead in the Mississippi River, without a recorder and males were doing work for females, and vice versa? We were learning, figuring it out. After a while, God set us straight. I’m sure we’ll get the rest of the instructions sometime.
Very interesting thoughts Mortimer. I may have to do some posts on the topic of female priesthood in temple, and you’ve given me some good questions to ask!
Ahhhh! Rick, really? I just said, nod-nod-wink-wink be quiet about that least the brethren shut down what we have…and you decide to push. I appreciate the compliment, but are you working to revoke the remnants of what women now have? Are you opposed to OW or a separate female PH?
I don’t plan to interview any of the Brethren (although Elder Oaks has written a book on the trial of Joseph’s killers–I’d like to interview him on that, but doubt I could get him to agree to that.) I just want to learn more about these topics from a faithful, believing perspective. I don’t think we should be afraid of it. I’m not sure what to think about OW, and haven’t fully fleshed out whether this is a separate female priesthood or what. I am interested in exploring the different ideas of Quinn and Stapley though. (I’d love to interview them!)
As for the Mississippi River baptisms for the dead (wrong gender), it is my understanding that Brigham Young clarified that people should be of the same gender so as to be able to ordain the men afterwards. Those that were done opposite gender in the river needed to be repeated by the same gender.
I also appreciate the work of historians such as Brian Hales, Juanita Brooks, Lester Bush, Michael Quinn, and others, Despite their mistreatment (in most cases), it seems to me that the brethren have eventually come around to embrace and recognize their legitimate conclusions. Brian Hales, for example, tackled a really tough topic. I might not agree with everything he said, but he has really set the bar for discussion and scholarship and I think these 4 people should be recognized for their contributions to understanding Mormon history.
I see where you are coming from. I agree that there are several historians who deserve credit, especially those who are mistreated in the pursuit of fact. At the same time, not all historians deserve praise, especially those who get sloppy or sensationalize at the price of accuracy and thoroughness. You should add Lavina Fielding Anderson, Margaret Toscano, The Givenses, and Joanna Brooks to your list, especially if you want to flush out your thinking about women’s issues. As for Michael Quinn, I have truly mixed feelings. I don’t want to attack him for raising controversial or anti-establishment perspectives, but at the same time I have serious questions about his methodologies. He cites himself frequently, and uses those citations to build cases and logistical connections. Why even bother creating a progression, if steps are essentially, “because I said so”? I guess I’m just jealous, because I could write a books filled with self-citations too, but my academic peer-reviewers wouldn’t let that slide and my colleagues wouldn’t accept the conclusions.
The gospel topics essay is putting those words back into their historical context, something you have to do if you want to understand what the sources are actually saying versus making a polemical point like Mike Quinn et al. If you read the whole sermon you see he uses office the same way we would use it.
Elder Oaks addresses this in his talk too. He says, “We are not accustomed to speaking of women having the authority of the priesthood in their Church callings.” But that’s all it is. Custom.
Hit the nail on the head Neodan.
The wording relating to the robes is quite explicit as to their purpose as well.
Plus no other ordinance by proxy to confer the priesthood on the dead.
Brain – although Second Anointings are performed for the dead as well as the living, so there, if nowhere else, women are ordained to the penultimate offices of Queen and Priestess , holding with their husband, the Fullness of the Priesthood.