This was one of the most memorable General Conference weekends I can remember in quite some time. High Priests Groups were dissolved into Elders’ Quorums, leaders were released worldwide, two apostles were called from outside the traditional mold, and home teaching and visiting teaching was changed! Wow. President Nelson didn’t waste any time waiting around to make some pretty significant changes.
When I interviewed Dr. Bill Smith in February, we discussed some possible future revelations, which we called Official Declarations 3 and 4. Would Official Declaration 3 deal with Gays?
GT: You mentioned a couple of things that were very interesting to me, especially in light of the Family Proclamation. D&C 132 is kind of the foundation for forever families. But you mentioned singles and you also mentioned gays. How do those relate to section 132?
Bill: Well I think that section 132 is by evidence, at least by internal evidence, it’s very much in the vein of thinking of sex as being in terms of heterosexual sex, of course not necessarily one-man and one-woman sex, but one-man, multiple-women. So, I think that’s the point of the revelation. It doesn’t really speak to the possibility of gay marriage. It doesn’t open that possibility at all. Whether that can be addressed in some other way, I don’t know, but the revelation, that’s not on anybody’s mind.
GT: Right. So, do you see that as being a possibility of a future revelation?
Bill: Anything is possible. I don’t know. Whether people would feel that there is dissonance with section 132 and any further revelation that expanded some kind of approval of gay relationships, gay marriage, I don’t know. That’s for another generation, I am guessing. But yes, that might be something that would be addressed. I don’t know.
Of course we do this in relation to Section 132 of the Doctrine & Covenants, which is one of Mormonism’s most important revelations: The New & Everlasting Covenant of marriage. Is there room in this revelation to accommodate gay marriage? In our next episode, Dr. Bill Smith will answer that question, and discuss how it might impact future revelations dealing with not only gays, but women as well.
Bill: Well there’s something of equal probability I think is that we have an official declaration that says that women can be ordained.
GT: Would that be more likely?
Bill: Boy I don’t really know. I think yes, it probably fits better with the current paradigm than say gay marriage would be, recognizing gay marriage.
.,.
GT: Do you see 132 being compatible with say female ordination?
Bill: Yeah, the polygamy parts seem to partake of the typical sort of patriarchal kinds of views of the 19th century, the 18th century and back. In terms of incompatibilities, that’s where that would lie. In terms of ordination practices, those kinds of things, I don’t see an incompatibility there, structure. I mean it would be easy to enfold women into priesthood structures if that was to take place. I don’t see a problem there. I don’t think it would be possible to stop that because you had the same kinds of issues with blacks and the priesthood when the ‘78 change was announced. They were very clear that this meant that there weren’t any restrictions on their participation in any way.
Is this Official Declaration 4?
We also talked about a historical understanding of the sealing ordinance. Sealing was considered much more permanent than it is today, and we even make comparisons to the idea of Salvation for Protestants. Some Protestants, such as Born-Again Christians, believe that one can be saved in heaven—assured salvation. Did early Mormons believe in something similar? Was polygamy a ticket to heaven, not just for the man, but for his wives and children as well?
Bill: The idea is that the elite Mormon men, those with—maybe I should use the word assured salvation, like Joseph Smith, it was a great thing to be a child of somebody like that theoretically. It was a great thing to be their child because as Joseph says, “On the other side of the veil, I will claim what I seal.” In other words, anybody he is sealed to is guaranteed to go into heaven with him. Because he is guaranteed in the revelation in fact that he’ll be going to heaven. So, this is important. It’s an important story for important people.
That sounds doubly bad I guess in the present day. It sounds sexist. It sounds elitist, but in fact that’s the way it worked out. A lot of people engaged in polygamy, a lot of women engaged in polygamy, not as many men of course, but it was really a story in terms of descendants, a story of elite Mormon men, because they are the ones that had 30 wives, or 15 wives, or 25 wives, or more. Most of those men had children with most of those wives.
Dr. Smith talks about how the theology of assured salvation has changed over the years. We will also talk about one of the major justifications of polygamy: raising seed. If that was so important, why didn’t Joseph have children with wives other than Emma?
Bill: I can’t really answer that except to say that the record on the ground seems to suggest that at least with some women, other than his wife, he was having sex. But I think it is impossible to argue beyond reminiscent accounts and that sort of thing, whether or not that was really going on. I think it’s probably a sure thing that it did happen, but with who and how often? That’s really hard to say.
Check out our conversation! Some questions:
- Were you aware polygamist sealings guaranteed exaltation for not only the husband and wives, but children as well? Do modern polygamists think this too?
- What are your predictions for the next revelation? Will it be women, gays, or something else?
Wheat & Tares 
In the explanation attached to Dec 2 they quote 2 Nephi 26.33 “all are alike unto God, black and white, bond and free, male and female.”
When it was written black,bond,and female were very much second class . If it were written today it might include gay and straight, and refugees and secure.
I think this scripture already being associated with including others in the priesthood, and saying none should be discriminated against, if we are to be in line with God, allows / requires that women and gays be treated as men are, alike/ equaly.
I am not up at 2.13, I am in Australia where it is 5.15 on Monday afternoon.
I understand sexual assalt is reduced when power is equalled. Another reason for women to be treated equally. Be ordained.
After this weekend Pres Nelson might be the man for the job. Would certainly be remembered for it.
I think lifting the priesthood ban for women has to come first, or at least a reemphasis and formalization of the matriarchal/patriarchal priesthood hinted at in the temple and in one of DHO’s recent-ish conference talks. Otherwise, with SSM approved, there would be Mormon families with no priesthood at the head.
You could say that with this weekend’s changes to lay ministering and PEC, and other recent changes, that the groundwork is being laid for a recognized female priesthood. It could be that by the time we get there, ordination is just a formality.
I don’t think there’s going to be any more revelation. You can’t get what you don’t ask for, and as DFU says, you don’t ask when you think you have all the answers already.
“On the other side of the veil, I will claim what I seal.” In other words, anybody he is sealed to is guaranteed to go into heaven with him. Because he is guaranteed in the revelation in fact that he’ll be going to heaven. So, this is important. It’s an important story for important people.
This came off as so much folklore to me. Or folkmagic. Or the thinking of a rather un-eductated, primitive, frantic culture. I can also see the power of group dynamic reinforcing it. Who would want to be the family left out of salvation because they were not tied to an important man? That social pressure then hits hard on the women who then had to sacrifice a normal marital relationship to tie themselves, their children, and sometimes their first husbands to Joseph, etc.
I thought Sister Oscarson’s talk this weekend was very telling on the state of women in the church today (and I love how totally straight-forward she was about it). She seemed to be implying that there is a huge gaping hole of ‘place’ for girls. A lot of adult women feel the same. I think this will be dealt with first in the church. I don’t know that I like the idea of ordination for women into the male priesthood as the solution . Yes, something would be gained, but something would be lost as well. I’m hoping God has some better ideas I haven’t thought of yet.
I don’t see Pres. Nelson as being the one to open up a ‘place’ for LGBTQ. We probably have a long wait on that one, which is a tragedy for all those LGBTQ youth and adults who want a place and have to go elsewhere to find it.
All those who assume that women must wait to “get the Priesthood” are just as mistaken as those who don’t think they should!
Women ALREADY get the Melchizedek Priesthood when they are endowed, but to say so is not yet the practice of the church, which has yet to catch up with the Temple teaching, just as it has yet to catch up with so many other aspects of the Gospel. Furthermore, women have been ORDAINED to the Priesthood offices of Queen and Priestess when they receive their Second Anointing alongside their husband who, of course, receives the corresponding offices. That began in 1844 and continues today.
So let’s get our facts and thinking straight. There’s no need for opinions or speculations on this subject. The fight must be for recognition of the Priesthood roles of women that they ALREADY have. Then we can move on to the related areas of our institutionalized neglect of Heavenly Mother and the equally destructive myth of “eternal polygamy” – the latter one in which Eugene England surely had the last word while he was still with us.
The General Conference just ended gives me hope that a revitalization of the church is underway after decades on autopilot.
Warren – Out of curiosity, what is materially (or spiritually in this life) different for a woman once she has the Melchizedek Priesthood in the temple? Where do we see that she or her service is different because of this addition of Priesthood (especially different from non-endowed sisters in the church)?
To ReTx – aside from the obvious fact that she can perform Priesthood ordinances in the Temple (give PH tokens and perform initiatory ordinances etc.), serve a full-time mission and then receive the higher PH sealing ordinances, not much else changes because the current church structure doesn’t allow for it. If church members understood that women hold the Priesthood and not just the men, that PH is not based on gender and that the Book of Mormon teaching that “all are alike unto God, male and female,” is literally true. I think we would see a huge drop in the level of abuse of all kinds in the family and in the church and an empowering of women in their roles. It is a necessary step on our way towards returning Heavenly Mother to our theology and lead to a greater understanding of who She is.
Well, as long as we’re speculating, let’s make it Heavenly Mothers, plural.
I think 2 Timothy 4:4 applies.
Warren, perhaps we could let women exercise priesthood outside the temple by ordaining them to an actual office and allowing them to be bishops, elders, priests, and deacons. Then they would be “all are alike unto God, male and female,” both inside and outside the temple.
I grew up recognising my mother’s priesthood authority in the home. interesting to me.
The priesthood that some LDS women want would be equal in authority to male priesthood. Ordaining women as priestesses unto their husbands in the temple creates a subordinate priesthood and doesn’t ensure that women are treated equally with men in the church.
Andy – you are correct that it creates a “subordinate” level of Priesthood, but that is simply because the church has yet to catch up to the Gospel. Until that happens women function perhaps in ways that we don’t yet fully understand as being a Priesthood calling, but which is superseded in any case when she is ordained an actual Queen and Priestess in the Second Anointing ordinance, not just to become such.
Mormon Heretic – why not?
JI – anyone who believes that polygny or polygamy or plural marriage is an eternal principle, needs to read Eugene England’ s classic, “On Fidelity, Polygamy, and Celestial Marriage” at http://eugeneengland.org/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/1987_e_001.pdf. I have yet to see a rebuttal of it that makes any sense.
Living in hope