Dr. Jonathan Stapley has written a new book called the Power of Godliness, which talks about LDS priesthood. Jonathan introduces a new term into LDS lexicon: cosmological priesthood. What does that mean?
Jonathan: I called that in the book, the “cosmological priesthood.” Now that I’ve done several book events, I’m tired of that, and I find it annoying and it is a little idiosyncratic and silly. I’m not saying that there was the Aaronic Priesthood, the Melchizedek Priesthood, and the Cosmological Priesthood. It’s a heuristic device that we can use to understand the dynamics and what was the work that these rituals were doing in the community that performed them. And so, we have an ecclesiastical priesthood and what I’m framing is the cosmological priesthood, the Nauvoo temple liturgy. And there’s how Mormons viewed them and how they interacted with these concepts, a shift and change with successive waves of converts and generations of Mormons.
We’ll also talk about the trite phrase about priesthood and motherhood.
Jonathan: When I talk to people about this, Mormons have created a dichotomy oftentimes between priesthood and motherhood, which I talk about in the book and I think isn’t particularly a historical. It is historical in the sense that it’s been around for a while, but it doesn’t make a tremendous amount of sense within our tradition. But I will often ask, what is “the motherhood?” And that’s a phraseology that doesn’t really sound familiar to us. It doesn’t have an obvious meaning, because what motherhood is, is being a mother. That’s what it means. So, if you were to say, “the motherhood,” you could conceive of it as perhaps a group of mothers. That would be “the motherhood” perhaps.
But priesthood is a similar construction. So, early on, the earliest revelations and the earliest documents we have, construct a priesthood that it is essentially the capacity of a priest, just as motherhood is the capacity of a mother. So, you would ordain somebody to be a priest or an elder and that would be priesthood. And quickly, Joseph Smith has subsequent revelations that create larger cosmological valances to what priesthood is. But what I tried to do is create a framework in the book that makes all the shifts in bicycle dynamics within Mormon discussions of priesthood, sensible and, and the way I do that is by framing one area of priesthood as an ecclesiastical priesthood.
In part 2 of my conversation with Jonathan, he cites plenty of evidence in the 19th and early 20th century of Mormon women healers. These women used to lay hands on the sick. By what power did they do this?
GT: I remember as a priest growing up and having the lesson over and over: priesthood is the power to act in the name of God.
Jonathan: Okay.
GT: Okay.
Jonathan: That is a common definition.
GT: A common definition. So, what I heard you say was that women in the 1800s especially, but even into the 20th century, healed both men and women, probably more women than men, but it happened with both genders. They healed by the power of God. But it’s a mistake to call that priesthood. Is that correct?
Jonathan: Yeah. So, using today’s definitions to describe historical practice doesn’t work.
GT: Okay.
Jonathan: It just doesn’t work.
GT: So, it’s hard to talk about then.
Jonathan: So it’s consequently challenging. Right? So, well then how do we talk about it?
Honestly, this was a fun and challenging conversation. Stapley says that the term “priesthood” used today, while a definition is “the power of God”, priesthood also implies ecclesiastical authority. Women can freely utilize “the power of God,” but since they don’t have ecclesiastical authority, it is a mistake to call the healing blessings they did “priesthood.” For me, the terms “power of God” and “priesthood” were so synonymous, that I didn’t understand the distinction Stapley was making. Check out how Jonathan clears up my misunderstanding.
He also gives us more information on baptisms for health, and temple healers. I was not familiar with temple healers. It turns out that women often fulfilled this (now defunct) practice healer, and many people were baptized for health in the temple.
Jonathan: There are examples of people being baptized in the Kirtland era and being healed upon their baptism, but an actual healing ritual, a designated ritual, baptism for health occurs in Nauvoo. It’s designed to be, I think it envisioned as part of the temple. So, the temple is a place for healing, specifically Joseph Smith envisions it as a place where the sick would come and not only receive an endowment of power and create heaven, but also be physically healed. Baptism for health was an integral piece of that healing liturgy, but it is immediately and ubiquitously performed outside of the temple.
So in the rivers and wherever the Latter-day Saints go from that point forward, baptisms for health are common. As soon as the temples are built, there are regular days for baptisms for health. So, if you’re feeling unwell, you could make a pilgrimage to the temple. One of the temple healers could baptize you for your health.
GT: In the temple?
Jonathan: In the temple, and they kept records. In fact, the single most common temple ritual for many years in the 1880s was baptism for health. So there was more baptisms for health for the living. I should qualify that. The most common ritual for the living in the temples was baptism for health.
Don’t forget to check out our conversation on priesthood with Greg Prince! What are your thoughts concerning women laying hands on the sick and anointing with oil as used to be done? Would you welcome a return to this practice? What are your thoughts concerning “cosmological priesthood”? Do you understand Stapley’s use of the term liturgy?
Wheat & Tares 
I think “cosmological priesthood” is a term that helps Mormons in 2018 talk about the Nauvoo liturgy and what it meant to those early Mormons who participated in it. To directly invite modern Mormons to talk about “the Nauvoo liturgy” is a non-starter for several reasons: (1) Modern Mormons don’t think in terms of liturgy. They hardly know what the term means. (2) Modern Mormons don’t want to talk about what goes on in the temple. They’re told not to do that. (3) Modern Mormonism has distanced itself from most of the doctrine Joseph developed in Nauvoo, including much of the Nauvoo liturgy. Digging up details on discarded doctrines and practices always makes Modern Mormons nervous.
But talking about “cosmological priesthood” is less threatening, because “priesthood” in modern Mormonism is a safe concept to discuss and is used to explain so many things. “The Nauvoo liturgy was to Nauvoo Mormons what priesthood is to modern Mormons” might be a good way to express what I think Jonathan was trying to get across in the first quotation you gave above.
I asked Jonathan if he was ever concerned about treading on sacred ground with regards to the temple, and he said no. We didn’t talk about the sacred things that went on in the temple, but rather the outcome of the ordinances, which is perfectly fine. I think Jonathan gives some eye-popping interpretations with regards to female participation, as well as the sealing ordinance, that is both interesting, and highly orthodox.
Great interview segments Rick and Jonathan! I’ve read The Power of Godliness in the last month or so and enjoyed it very much. This experience of trying to grapple with our modern views and the historical practices of 19th century and early 20th century Mormons has really added to my understanding of priesthood development. I was hoping to ask Jonathan and/or Rick two questions:
1. Based on the interview commentary regarding temple healers and perhaps other reading I have done elsewhere, I’m gathering that the baptism for health was not the only ordinance for the living oriented around helping the saints feel better physically and spiritually. My limited understanding was that during the original endowment sessions, members could request a blessing by the laying on of hands. I’ve never been able to confirm this and I’ve always had a theory that this very option could be one reason why the time spent in original sessions would be variable in length (depending on how many patrons actually requested a blessing). Along the way, I’ve wondered if this is how we might have shifted our tradition to the notion of a prayer roll as a more pragmatic solution. Since the temple healers who were female were most likely not baptizing, were they assisting with the laying on of hands? Any thoughts or insights in this historical area?
2. I was also curious if Jonathan has considered researching and writing about the notion of Mormon last rites? ( I was first made aware of the tradition from an article in BYU Studies several years ago.)
Thanks again for the great research and follow-up interviews!
The expansive use of baptism with people being rebaptized for various reasons including healing or further repentance actually ends up making early Mormon baptism much closer to Jewish mikvah ritual washing. When that expansive use gets systematized and replaced by healing by Elders with oil or repentance through renewing covenants with the sacrament in a certain sense we removed that Jewish parallel.
I wish I could answer your questions Richard P, but I’ll see if I can get Jonathan to comment.
Thanks for all the interest! While there are many documented instances of people being physically healed during the endowment liturgy, healing rituals were performed separately. Both male and female healers performed healing rituals in the temples. In Nauvoo before the temple was complete, however, when the temple quorum met, they often performed healing rituals as part of their regular temple related activities.
I do have an interest in last rites. In fact, I write that BYU Studies article. I’m glad you enjoyed it!
Clark, that is a good point about the Jewish parallel.
Wow! I hadn’t realized you were the author of the last rites article, since I read it at least six years ago. Thanks Jonathan for helping me understand a little better the logistics of healing rituals in the temple.
I was just curious about the previous comment I made regarding the notion of the prayer roll. Is it possible this was a pragmatic replacement for temple healers or are you aware of its existence in temple traditions from the outset? (I’ve been making a list of changes made in Mormon culture, liturgy, policy, etc. that seem to have a significant root in pragmatism and I was very interested in the history of our prayer roll tradition and whether I could add it to my list or not.)
Thanks again for all you do to help move the historical research forward.
Thanks Richard! There is documentation in the 19th century that temple prayers mention people by name, and that some people sent names to the temple to be prayed for. I haven’t found, however, any documentation for the introduction of the prayer roll.