In my series exploring the point of various aspects to church life, none garnered so much excitement as the Priesthood. I wonder why that is. Regardless, I’ll take a crack at it.
First, let’s start with some possible reasons that we have Priesthood in the Church. According to Wikipedia:
In the Latter Day Saint movement, priesthood is the power and authority of God given to man, including the authority to perform ordinances and to act as a leader in the church.
The function of priesthood in the Church appears to be twofold: administrative function, and an ordinance-performing role. Examples of each follow:
- Administrative: presiding at meetings, conducting meetings, conducting worthiness interviews, heading quorums, making welfare and budget decisions, tracking and auditing finances, completing reports, staffing ward callings.
- Gray areas: These functions are related to specific callings individuals have been given, not to “all” priesthood holders, and women in specific callings also perform these functions for specific organizations. Pres. Oaks has recently claimed that when women perform these types of callings, they are using “borrowed” priesthood from the male leader who has set them apart for that role.
- Ordinances: administering the sacrament, performing baptisms and confirmations, anointing and blessing the sick, performing temple ordinances.
- Gray areas: healing blessings did not used to require priesthood ordination for the first century of the church when it was customary for women to perform blessings by the laying on of hands, particularly for women preparing for childbirth (exclusively done by women).
- Other: there are some functions that are not administrative nor ordinances that are exclusively assigned to members of the priesthood, including witnessing ordinances and overseeing all women’s activities.
I have not included pastoral care or mediation in that list of reasons, although many have used the priesthood roles to fill this need, with widely varying results. In other religions, paid priesthood roles require additional education to ensure pastoral care meets a minimum standard. In our Church, we assume people who have successful marriages and are financial solvent businessmen and dentists can provide pastoral care without professional training or education. But being a “mediator” acting on Christ’s behalf is listed by most other faiths as a primary function of the Priesthood (along with performing rites and ordinances). In our Church, the “mediation” role is replraced by being a “Judge in Israel” for bishops at least (not for Priests doing the sacrament, for example). Depending on the sect, this mediation could be more pastoral or more adjudication-based intercession. In ours, it is primarily “assessing worthiness,” or in other words, more emphasis on adjudication and less on pastoral care.
Our Church is somewhat unique in a few ways Priesthood is discussed:
- Pairing “leadership” roles with Priesthood. While other churches may likewise only assign decision-making roles to those with Priesthood, this is not described as an explicit function or responsibility of Priesthood. Within Mormonism, we do specifically call it a function of Priesthood, even when performed by women who are barred from ordination. [1]
- That all men are eligible for Priesthood (vs. a sub-set of men who specifically attend a “seminary” to become Priests)
Just a quick reminder of the three / four-fold mission of the church:
- Proclaim the gospel
- Redeem the dead
- Perfect the saints
- Care for the poor and needy
Of these, the priesthood is designed to do the ordinance work associated with the first three, and having the priesthood is theoretically supposed to perfect the saints, but only the males, by giving them administrative and leadership experience that can enrich their lives and help them develop the leadership skills required for eventual godhood (maybe). When I was set apart as a full-time missionary, my Visa identified me as a “minister,” a term at that time that was exclusively applied to males. While I didn’t have the ability to perform ordinances, I did plenty of proclaiming the gospel without receiving the priesthood (see again, footnote 1). However, the Church views missionary work as a male responsibility, optional for women. Redeeming the dead is an activity that requires the work of both women and men (since some dead people are women and it is proxy work performed by the same sex as the deceased), but men perform most of the ordinances [2].
Blowing past all that “why the priesthood exists” business, let’s get to the heart of the matter. Why is “priesthood” the vehicle to do these things, particularly an all-male (meaning every male can play) priesthood? Here are some possibilities for your consideration.
Engaging men in church. Idle hands are the devil’s tools, as they say. We wisely recommend that all new Church members have both a friend and a calling. For men who are newly baptized, Priesthood ordination usually follows quickly to fully engage them and make them eligible for male callings. Giving people a responsibility requires that they show up and engage (actively in a good cause, ideally). So why do men get the Priesthood when women only get “borrowed” Priesthood (that nobody told us we got before 2013)? Women don’t seem to need it in the ways men do to feel engaged–and I’m not saying that from experience or personal belief, but simply from the polling data for religious engagement. Women, for whatever reason, engage at higher rates and fall away at lower rates, across all religions. Another way to describe this theory is the “I’ll take my ball and go home” theory; (some) men will only engage if they get to run things. Again, by contrast, many other Churches fail to engage men at similar rates. Even the earliest recorded criticisms of the early Christian Church included that it was a Church “for women and children and slaves” (that might not have even been three separate categories). Origen, the early Church Father and apologist, defended against this charge by detractors.
Domesticating men. This kind of goes along with the first one, but with a twist. In Spain, where I served my mission, most of the men spent the evenings in the bar with their male friends every night. After baptism, that all changed, but it’s a macho culture in which people separate by sex and gender norms (for better or worse–I say worse) prevail. When we visited several years ago, we were having dinner with a group of church friends, and while the meal was cooking, the men said they needed to go do “men things.” Before baptism, that would have meant the bar, but we were amused to find that they went out to do visits to the needy in the ward. Those were the “man things” they were doing. Priesthood is a way to redirect male need for hierarchy, recognition, titles, and male camaraderie into something positive that supports families rather than something negative that only supports their poor impulse control and base instincts. Studies show that if you want to lift people out of poverty, give money to women and not men. When you give money to impoverished men, it often ends up wasted in alcohol, gambling or prostitution. When you give money to impoverished women, it more often goes into micro-businesses, education (usually for their children), and food and shelter for their family. [3] To add to this theory, while all men are eligible for Priesthood ordination, they also must be living the standards to be “worthy” to receive it. So, there are hoops to go through for the men, and those hoops are designed to train them in “correct” behavior that is pro-social and family-oriented.
Bringing priesthood into the home. Here’s where we get to a really unique LDS feature of a “Priesthood of every male.” This approach theoretically puts priesthood into every home, or at least into every home that the Church usually thinks about as being a “home.” The only parallel I could come up with for Catholicism is putting a shrine in the home, and the tendency of large Catholic families to have one son enter the Priesthood.[5] In a way, it franchises Church to each household, meaning that within the walls of the home, if there is a father or adult son who holds the Priesthood, the house functions like a mini-Church with Priesthood oversight and support. In most families I know, this literally means the dad asks people to say prayers, but it might even extend to offering Priesthood blessings. There are plenty of caveats here due to the invisibility of some types of households: single, divorced, and widowed women [4]. Rather than the Church being the focus of worship, every home can be Christ- or Church-centered, but only if it has an adult male in it–of course, as we alluded to in #1, maybe women don’t require that; maybe it’s just for the men. If you have a child to baptize, a sick or injured family member, a demonic possession, or what have you, you have your own Priesthood holder right there, ready to handle it. No need to bake a lasagna to the Parish Priest to coax him into swinging by with a vial of holy water.
Let’s see what you think.
Discuss.
[1] Although this is a novel explanation that originated in a 2013 talk by then E. Oaks, explaining that women in leadership roles were operating on “borrowed” Priesthood authority of the Priesthood leader who set them apart in their assigned calling.
[2] with a notable exception for washings and anointings that should give us all pause before declaring women don’t now and will never have the priesthood, but whatevs.
[3] Studies also show more women than men give to charity.
[4] One recent study I’ve read said that 60% of the women in Relief Society are unmarried, so this is not a small population.
[5] I get most of my Catholic family information from living in New Jersey in 5th grade, watching The Sopranos, The Godfather trilogy, and Veronica Mars’ Fighting Fitzpatrick crime family.
Wheat & Tares 
Great post, hawkgrrrl! I’ve always found it curious that the highly sacred Mormon temple endowment references Priesthood power for women. If women are promised it in the afterlife, then what is keeping them from having it now? Just sayin’……..
From Wikipedia: In Mormonism, the endowment is an ordinance (ceremony) designed to prepare participants to become kings, queens, priests, and priestesses in the afterlife.
Merriam-Webster definition of priestess. 1 : a woman authorized to perform the sacred rites of a religion. 2 : a woman regarded as a leader (as of a movement)
The number of assignments apparently requiring priesthood office is ludicrous. So far as I can see, it is really only makes sense for it to be necessary for performance of ordinances and nothing more.
Was pretty frustrated last time I attended the temple waiting to participate in sealings of male children to parents; something that requires the presence of five males – the sealer, two witnesses, the proxy father and proxy son. The witnesses it seems can be any Melchizedek priesthood ordained male, so no specific setting apart for temple worker required. But not women. Apparently women are incapable of reading along with the script to check the sealer gets the word correct, or ensuring he gets the names right and ticks off the appropriate cards. Or maybe it’s just that they think men can’t tolerate it, if it has to be a woman telling them they got it wrong and need to do it again!
Anyway, we entered the sealing room which was quite busy, we weren’t the only people with male sealings, and the sealer was doing his best to give everyone an equal shot at their family names, and bearing in mind a goodly number of those present had to attend a specific endowment session starting in less than an hour. We’d just got to the point where we were going to be doing our very few names when it was decided a second room could be opened as a sealer became available to which we and others with male child sealings were moved. We waited ten minutes for the sealer to arrive, and found we were back at the back of the queue once he’d sorted through the cards, because we didn’t need to be on that specific session, even though the required number of men would be gone once the others had. Something I did point out when I said we weren’t joining that particular session. This particular sealer went slowly, putting lots of feeling into it, which is all fine and well, but time was passing and I was about chewing my arm off with frustration. Well folks left for the session, and we were short of men and still hadn’t done our sealings. A couple of male temple workers were found as a temporary measure, who couldn’t be there long. Sealings continued and we were still at the back of the queue. The extra men made noises that they needed to go, but given the situation decided they’d be late for their allotted assignment so we could actually finish up. By this time my blood pressure is really quite high. and I am seriously aggravated that here in the 21st century women still cannot be witnesses!!!!
A significant Mormon narrative is that men are such flawed and fallen losers that they need the priesthood to help them to become civilized. And women, who are awesomely spiritual and virtuous, don’t need the priesthood because of said virtue. So really, the priesthood exists in large part to help the church reinforce offensive, outdated and monolithic gender norms. I do think this is its chief function and the ordinances, etc. are secondary. Following the first two commandments (or all of them, really), doing our best to live according to the Sermon on the Mount, and enacting empathy and care for the marginalized (Christ’s chief mandate) can all be done without the help of the priesthood. Therefore, it’s less necessary, IMHO, than we often think that it is. Oh, and men are capable of not being lusty, bar-hopping neanderthals without the priesthood. Don’t get me wrong; if the priesthood ends up helping some men be better people, that’s great. I just don’t think one needs the priesthood in order to improve.
I think some of it is a sense of entitlement, that men get to do the extra, important (or extra-important) things they always have. I had a friend once who had just been rebaptized after being excommunicated, but didn’t have the priesthood back for another year, and complained about how few callings he could hold now. After listing them for me (primary, sunday school, teaching in other meetings like EQ, etc). I cheerfully replied “Oh! You can do all of the callings the women can do!” He was deeply offended, although he couldn’t tell me which other callings he was disappointed in not having. It was just the fact that he couldn’t have them, and that the lowly set of callings available to him was also the same lowly set available to women.
It seems like this is another example of a standard LDS dogma or practice in search of a doctrinal justification. Any justification will do, and they shift over the years. Formally, the priesthood is said to be used exclusively to serve or bless others — you can’t give a blessing to yourself. But — surprise! — the justifications seem to gather around the practical benefit or improvement to the priesthood holder: it makes him engaged or kinder or (let’s be candid) more feminine man (caring, compassionate, mild-mannered). It’s just like serving as a missionary, which is formally about preaching to others and garnering a few converts, but in terms of justifying the expense and time commitment the rhetoric is always about converting the missionary and citing statistics about how RMs stay active at much higher rates than those who do not serve.
Then there is the practice of misinterpreting, suppressing, or simply ignoring any scriptural reference or historical episode where women exercise any authority or spiritual gifts now associated with the LDS priesthood. Women were practically running the early Christian Church (all early Christians met in private houses, and homes were run by women in the Greek and Roman world) but you would never know it from LDS accounts. Just think of missionary work, which was performed exclusively by LDS men in the 19th century and even had its own dedicated priesthood office, being a “seventy,” but then when women were called and sent forth as missionaries starting in the early 20th century the whole priesthood structure of missionary work was simply ignored. Men who served were ordained missionary seventies, women who served were just … missionary women, even though they were doing priesthood things that, for men, required the priesthood. You can come in the treehouse, we just won’t make you an official member of the club.
A deacon is a good example of the difficulties to define the priesthood. Deacons don’t act in administrative leadership roles (unless they are in the quorum presidency) and they don’t perform any ordinances (passing the sacrament does not invoke priesthood).
The most important role of the Priesthood is to lead and teach. The LDS church basically has one Priest: the church president. All other officers are there to reinforce and support that authority. The mainstream LDS belief is that the manifestation of God to the people ultimately derives from that authority.
I basically like the definition that priesthood is the authority of God given to (hu)man. However, the idea that only men can hold it is merely tradition and I see no doctrinal reason it can’t change. The recent claims that women have the priesthood in the temple and exercise borrowed power strikes as somewhat similar to the concept of “separate but equal.” Separate but equal is rarely equal.
My experience in corporate America is that women as are likely to commit fraud as men. I work at a large company that’s been in the news and the highest level instigators of the fraud were women. Both of my college age daughters agree that women do not deserve to be placed on a virtue pedestal.
I remember a dialogue article that talked about the evolution of the priesthood in the LDS church. Deacons were originally adults, and not everyone got the priesthood. Over time policies changed and more structured, but practically always the change has been to allow younger ages. The current system is more equitable, age-wise, as almost every man can get the priesthood, but it can be embarrassing for that young man whose Bishop decides he’s not ready.
As you the point of the priesthood, I have little to say.
First, another engaging, thought-provoking post. Second, what Dave B said, “It seems like this is another example of a standard LDS dogma or practice in search of a doctrinal justification.”
In our church, Priesthood has long been, especially colloquially, viewed as imbued with semi-magical power. As in, “by the power of the priesthood,” or “he invoked the power of the priesthood,” etc. Given that any organization of any size needs an order of things, processes and administration of the organization need to have order. Hence, “priesthood authority” to perform ordinances and preside and hold admin offices. But, as to the efficacy of blessings (the “power” of the priesthood) I think we have long understood (we being those with a functioning brain capable of critical or analytical thought) that faith is the “power” that causes mountains to move (so to speak, whether by our personal faith, or God agreeing to do it). Hence, (unordained) women performed blessings and even invoked the “power of the priesthood” during our earlier (and less administrative) period.
I think Joseph, when he wrote “amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man,” meant the man no longer had either true faith nor God-sanctioned authority to act in God’s name.
I went to the Community of Christ website just to see what was listed for priesthood. Interestingly, the category under Basic Beliefs was simply titled “Ministry,” and included this explanation: “Ministry is humble service offered according to the model of Jesus, who calls every disciple to share in ministry for the world. Some disciples are called by God and ordained to priesthood offices to serve the mission of the church in specialized ways. The Holy Spirit gives complementary gifts and abilities to all disciples to equip the body of Christ for its witness in the world.” Digging a bit further I found this:
What Is Priesthood?
Priesthood is a sacred covenant with God and the church. Priesthood members are ministers dedicated to creating sacred communities that prepare, equip, and send disciples in Christ’s mission. They are called by God for specific ministries and servant-leadership roles. Each role or office represents a different part of Jesus’ ministry.
Finally, the CofC has 5 Mission Initiatives:
Invite People to Christ
Abolish Poverty, End Suffering
Pursue Peace on Earth
Develop Disciples to Serve
Experience Congregations in Mission
I think only men have a priesthood because we don’t take our doctrine of female exaltation and godhood seriously. Despite what is said in the gospel topics essay on Heavenly Mother, we seem to not actually believe that we have a Divine Mother who has the same omnipotence as our Heavenly Father. Or maybe She “borrows” His priesthood power when She needs to perform godly functions too.
Even Her assumed power of spiritual procreation we attribute to our male God with our depictions of the Creation and by telling women they are partners with Heavenly Father in making bodies for His spirit children.
I also think after Christ’s death and in the 19th century, religions or groups that had female spiritual authority were seen as pagan, foreign, and sinful. So being the good Christian’s we are, we don’t want to be associated with any of those incorrect religions. Now that female spiritual authority is in mainstream Christian churches, we have to “defend the family” and maintain separate gender roles, which includes separate religious roles.
While separate but equal doesn’t actually lead to equality, we really have to reconstruct our whole notion of priesthood before including women. If we don’t, we will still keep manhood as the standard for personhood and simply fit women into “the priesthood” a structure by men for men.
I do believe Christ gave power and authority to act in his name to empower leaders of a unified single church when we was here. I believe that power and structure is important. I just think we are missing half of the equation by ignoring half of God’s children and their potential.
The OP states that “Pres. Oaks has recently claimed that when women perform these types of callings, they are using “borrowed”[sic] priesthood from the male leader who has set them apart for that role” and then talks again about women using “borrowed” priesthood (with borrowed in quotes). I don’t remember Pres. Oaks using the term “borrowed”, so I googled “oaks borrowed priesthood” and this post pops up as the #1 result (congrats, unless Google’s algorithm is targeting for me) followed by two Oaks talks on priesthood with the word “borrowed” crossed out. Whether you consider “borrowed” to be an appropriate term to describe what Elder Oaks meant, it doesn’t look like he was the one to come up with it. The way the word is put in quotations in the OP makes it looks like he is.
Personally, I think the purpose of priesthood is to maintain order by making it clear which actions/ordinances/teachings are sanctioned by the church. It’s easy to determine if an ordinance is valid or invalid based on the “exercising of proper priesthood.” I think the concept of priesthood keys further supports this notion.
I couldn’t tell you what the purpose of an all-male priesthood is (which is the real subject of the post) other than perhaps tradition. I believe women will someday soon be conferred priesthood if not ordained to a specific office.
To address some of the other comments, while I agree that “separate but equal” is rare, that seems to be the ideology in Christ’s church, at least according to 1 Corinthians 12. I’m not saying Paul is supporting differentiation by gender; rather, I think Paul was encouraging members to stop comparing themselves and their roles to each other, because even though I’ll never be an apostle, patriarch, or Bishop, the work I do and the role I play is just as valuable in God’s eyes. And that’s probably all that counts.
It would be nice just once to hear that, however things started out down this road, there is privilege and, at this point, it’s being protected.
Interesting read. I don’t think I can agree with any of the reasons you listed. They are much too logical and higher level than the leaders, I believe, deserve. Your argument also assume that God wants it to have men at the head. Remember, dudes get to determine how God really “wants it.”
Men made this Church, so they want to set the rules. This is the equivalent of the Little Rascals. No sissy stuff needed (unless it means we get less women to hang out with, so we can cave a little).
Since men make most of the churches they tend to make most of the rules. I have seen it first hand in many non-denom Evangelical churches. If dudes start it, women have very little formal roles in it. If women help get the ball rolling, they interpret the Bible in such a way to give women more say and roles.
Now mind you, a few bones are thrown in on occasion to help women feel like they are included, or at a minimum at least listened to. This includes now being able to call the Relief Society President, president. Changes in the temple giving Eve a few more lines. I know there are more examples, but honestly, I can’t think of them right now…
Ultimately, God has a penis and since men have a penis, they are like God and should be the leaders like God is. Men can be fathers, just like God is a father too. Sorry if this comes off as crass, but I think this thought process is not far off for many leaders.
Thank you for posting this installment so soon, because I have SO MANY questions about the priesthood!
I asked my teachers about it, and asked them to specifically set aside for now the feminist arguments about equal access to power, and please explain to me what maleness has to do with exercising the priesthood. Those two things do not seem logically linked to me in any way, power aside (I’m not yet convinced the priesthood is about power necessarily; only a very small group of men will ever become general authorities or even move higher up the ranks than local bishop.)
My Middle Way teacher’s answer was that Joseph fully intended women to exercise the priesthood, but he was killed before a lot of the Restoration was ever implemented (she makes a very compelling case for this!), and then church leaders just never changed it because they’re sexist.
My TBM teacher’s answer was what Brother Sky said: That women are actually morally superior to men, so men need the priesthood to achieve moral parity with women. (In feminist thought, this is known as “benevolent misogyny,” where women must be kept unequal because we’re just so darn special. In most forms, it’s disingenuous—men don’t really believe women are superior; they’re just patronizing us.)
HOWEVER—and I raised this point on the “Bridges” thread—I do think if we were to compare Mormon men and non-Mormon men, we would find that, on average, Mormon men are spending more time with their wives and children and doing more to support their families, despite having, on average, more children. And this was my observation going way back to when I lived in the conservative Morridor, not just based on my liberal ward now.
I could be wrong, of course. That’s just my hypothesis. But it’s NOT nothing—not to many, many women—and it might partly explain why (as is my understanding) very few Mormon women say they WANT the priesthood. It sounds like a pretty crappy deal. Sure, you get the super-duper-penis-God-powers, but you have to work yourself ragged, carry all the spiritual responsibility, and your perfectly healthy sexual feelings are demonized—you don’t even get to masturbate! (Or let’s be real: You do, but you’re supposed to feel horribly guilty about it, and I can’t even imagine what that does to the psyche of a 15-year-old boy.)
To be fair, my TBM teacher does believe women WILL get the priesthood, and that, indeed, they MUST for the fullness of the gospel to be restored. She sees it as a progression where, first, white men got it, then men of color got it, and eventually women will. (The bratty part of me thought, “No, you’re thinking of suffrage.”) But she doesn’t see the priesthood as something intrinsically male, only as something to be exercised by men at this present time for reasons we don’t yet understand. (I’m ok with mystery in matters of faith, although, I admit, this one does sound a bit weak to me.)
Oh, geez, this is turning into yet another essay–sorry! It’s personal to me too, though, because my husband is not going to join the church with me. Not any church, not ever. He is not religious. That’s not an issue for me—his spirituality is his—but I do wonder what it would be like to not only be a “part-member family,” but to be “a home without the priesthood.” If I want a blessing, I’ll have to call some other woman’s husband…which feels vaguely like spiritual infidelity… Why couldn’t I just call a close of friend of any gender? (There are currently eight known iterations of the XY chromosomes, which further complicates the matter.)
And—I swear this is my last point—I don’t have anybody to baptize me. The only people I would want to perform my baptism are my two teachers, who are both women. They’re allowed to lead me all the way to the font, but they can’t dunk me in it, because….why? If I do choose to join, it will be largely because those two women did all the heavy lifting. I’ve read all the Scriptures they’ve given me to read about it. I’ve prayed about it. I’ve read this post and all the comments so far, and I still have no answer to that question: Why?
Inertia, and that JS didn’t get the chance to finish his expansion of Priesthood when he turned the key to the RS
I really think it’s tradition that makes it all male, not any reason.
Investi-Jesse, that was a very articulate statement of this particular issue of Mormon culture. You have been paying attention to those Sisters and thinking and praying, haven’t you?
What’s the point of the priesthood? 1) Biblical precedent. 2) To give the illusion to men that they have a magical power (and make them feel extra conscientious about sinning and questioning the church). 3) Secondarily, it provides an administrative function; it is used to situate men within different positions in the church. But many appear to believe in the magical aspect of the priesthood. You can heal disease, protect people from evil spirits, cast out evil spirits, and have special access to the Holy Spirit and revelations and knowledge that other people without the priesthood don’t have. Many seem to believe it a necessity to have the magical power easily accessed and to have a priesthood-holder in the home who can use the magical power to solve problems that couldn’t be solved without it, especially with children’s blessings. For some, the magical power keeps evil spirits out of the home. Priesthood-holding men are instructed to dedicate their homes as if that is going to do something special to the home and the family who lives in it. What perplexes me most, however, is the question posed to a priesthood-holding male who is leaving the church of “who is going to give your family blessings?” Well, the male could keep giving blessings (which seem to provide nothing more than a placebo effect). But what about the male himself if he is the only priesthood-holder there? Who is going to give him blessings? His wife? That would be taboo. His non-priesthood-holding kids? Also taboo. The answer is of course, his assigned ministers and other people in the church. But the issue isn’t really who is going to give blessings to the wife (couldn’t the family’s assigned ministers and other males in the ward do the same), it is nothing more than a passive-aggressive way of shaming the male for questioning the church.
A lot would be solved by allowing women to hold the priesthood. I think that this illusion of the priesthood having some magical power would fade away and it administrative function (its true function) would be more greatly emphasized.
Alice: I haven’t studied this much since grad school–and I’m thoroughly enjoying it! But I do forget to pray about things, and they usually become clearer when I do. Praying isn’t new to me, but the idea of personal revelation is. In Mormonism, my Heavenly Parents answer back!
I’m accustomed to my Mormon friends telling me, sometimes in detail, about their chats with Heavenly Father, but it’s still new to me. So, there’s more to it than just reading and talking to my teachers. Nobody ever won Jeopardy by forgetting the “phone a friend” option.
Brandon: Yes, men founded this church. Or, one man did. But is the all-male priesthood what Joseph had in mind/what was revealed to him? I’m unconvinced. He told the Relief Society—in so many words—that they were priests. And I can’t proof-text this one, but the way my Middle Way teacher explained it to me, he asked them to be patient, that the idea of women being priests in Zion was going to be a hard pill for the guys to swallow, so please be patient while we ease into this.
So did Joseph mean some day WAY in the future, as my TBM teacher believes? Or did he mean some day very soon, which I think the evidence suggests? The Relief Society was organized just like the priesthood and women were performing functions they no longer even perform now. And—the clincher for me—Joseph was baptizing black people. I think it’s hard for us to today to even grasp how radical that was in the 1840s. Even abolitionist churches didn’t want black people in their pews. And here was this scrappy little treasure-digger from a disrespected family, who had—blasphemy!—claimed to talk to God, giving blacks the highest office in his new church!
Joseph Smith did not shy away from socially radical ideas, including making half the godhead female. Taken together, I think all that suggests he meant the women were priests from the get-go. He often tried to ease the members slowly into a new idea that might be uncomfortable, and that usually blew up in his face.
I’m guessing from your handle that you identify as male (apologies if I’m presuming wrong), but I think men don’t quite understand how we don’t have to go to church to find sexism. It’s everywhere. It may be a little easier to SEE in religious groups that codify and make it explicit, but men are writing the rules everywhere. I have yet to see anything in Mormonism that I haven’t seen and felt everywhere else. Only men in government? Look at Congress and the presidency—barely a woman in the whole lot, not even one has ever been president, and local state governments aren’t much better. Porn shoulders and sexualizing women? Just listen to rape victims describe getting blamed for what they did to “cause” it.
Should the church be better than the world? Yeah, probably, but we’re still only human and we screw things up. And from a spiritual perspective, maybe Satan/the adversary/however you envision the forces of evil attack churches more because they’re people who are seeking God/Goddess/how you envision the forces of good. From a female vantage point, there’s nothing in Mormonism or any other church that women don’t experience everywhere, every day of our lives.
John W: I think there’s a danger in saying that a female priesthood would stop being magical and start being administrative. It reminds me of how, when women break into a field, its prestige and pay grade go down. Rather than taking away the idea that priesthood holders can give blessings and baptisms, why not allow worthy women to give them as well? That would sure solve a couple of problems I’m having! I don’t even have anybody to baptize me. I’d rather one my teachers be allowed to do it than see the whole priesthood downgraded to secretary. I’m already allowed to go fetch the mail, thanks.
Just in general, I think it’s important to listen to women’s experiences, because they often don’t align with what men think sexism looks like. Why do so many LDS women not WANT the priesthood? If the priesthood is so great, why do men leave the church in higher numbers than women? I read a statistic recently (maybe on this blog? I don’t recall) that the fastest growing rate of church participation is among women of color in developing countries, and the fastest growing rate of church resignations is among white men in the United States. If Mormon women are particularly oppressed, that becomes a difficult piece of data to make sense of, even when controlling for higher rates of religiosity among women.
“So did Joseph mean some day WAY in the future, as my TBM teacher believes? Or did he mean some day very soon, which I think the evidence suggests? “
‘Not so sure what “evidence” you’re drawing on here. Your particular teachers may be presenting you with the idea that a female priesthood is imminent. It may turn out to be. But I think it’s only accurate to say that there have been, shall we say, occasions when missionaries will say what they think investigators want to hear. I don’t really want to be telling stories outside of school but I think people deserve no less than a clear and complete idea of what they’re signing onto.
If you are interested in the “evidence” that supports a female priesthood it’s only prudent to investigate the Ordain Women movement that left the leaders excommunicated and many many prominent Mormon women writers and thinkers silenced under threat. Or just search on female priesthood in this or any other site and see how far the discussions go back with no more movement than “breakthroughs” like being allowed to hand out towels.
Sorry, Alice, I wasn’t very clear. What I was getting at is: Did Joseph mean that female priesthood was far in the future proximate to 1842, or did he mean it was imminent proximate to 1842? Or, another to say it: Did he believe that he would be still be alive to see it/he was implementing at the time? Or did he mean it as something that would eventually unfold long after he was gone?
I’m not studying with the missionaries. We visit sometimes, and we talk about the gospel, but we’re not doing the discussions. (Honestly, mostly we eat!) But I’m studying with two friends who are about the same age as me. I haven’t even discussed this part with the missionaries. (I know what you mean though. The missionaries keep telling me that sealing is not required for the Celestial Kingdom, just baptism. My friends keep saying, no, that’s not true, but the missionaries say that it is. I think that may be one of those “tell ’em what they want to hear” things, since my husband will not be joining, so they don’t want to say, “Sorry, but you’re not going get to go to the BEST heaven.”)
In fact, one of the reasons I didn’t want to study with the missionaries is that I simply didn’t want a sales pitch, and they’ve been trained in very a sales-type style. I’m not going to get baptized right away. It’s at least another eight months off. One year minimum. It really takes the pressure off with the missionaries. We can just talk without the “invitation to get baptized” at every turn. (And it all counts as discussions for them! Sometimes they practice on me, and I give them feedback as to what that sounds like to a non-member. They run into a lot of people whose only experience with Mormonism is the South Park episode and the Book of Mormon musical, neither of which they’ve watched, so I gave them some ideas of how to maybe work those into the conversation when they’re talking to people.)
Anyway, neither of my teachers are claiming female priesthood is imminent. In fact, my Middle Way teacher isn’t sure it will ever happen, but argues that Joseph intended it to happen within his lifetime; my TBM teacher believes that it must happen eventually, but that is what was always intended to be something far down the road (proximate to Joseph’s lifetime).
Does that make sense? Sorry, I didn’t word that clearly at all.
I’m somewhat familiar with Ordain Women. Kate Kelly was one of many people who I read what they write or listen to what they say, and I think, “Yes! This is great! This is so interesting! Wow, yeah, I really agree with that—oh, they’ve been excommunicated? I see….”
John Dehlin was another. There have been a lot of them. It kind of worries me about joining. Many of the Mormon thinkers I like best have gotten kicked out! And what does that say about my prospects?
Investi-Jesse,
Off-topic, but just to clarify: the common interpretation of the doctrine laid out in D&C 131 is that sealing is necessary to obtain the highest degree of the Celestial kingdom (termed “Exaltation”); but faith, repentance, baptism, confirmation, and enduring to the end (being “valiant” in their testimony of Christ) are all that are necessary for entry into the Celestial kingdom.
So what the missionaries are telling you is in line with what is taught as main-stream Mormon doctrine.
In the grand economy of God, He thinks it’s appropriate that men run things for one hour in a week (Sacrament Meeting). Women run it all the other time.
Investi -Jesse,
In the Old Covenant, there was one High Priest at a time. Only one. And on one day of the year, he’d enter into the Holy of Holies to offer an offering for his sins and for the sins of the people. Under him, he had many priests serving to assist him in his temple labors. To enter into the Holy of Holies, he had to walk through a veil. Only he was allowed to walk through this veil. It was large, and it was thick, and it kept the people separated from the symbolic presence of God. He, as the High Priest, alone had the authority to part the veil and serve on behalf of the people.
At the moment of Jesus’ death when the last sacrifice for sin was made on the cross, the veil in the temple was torn. The separation between the people and the presence of God was torn down. The Letter to the Hebrews explains that Jesus Christ moved through the true veil, the flesh, and entered the true presence of God, not a symbolic presence in the Jewish temple. He now serves on our behalf not in a temple made by human hands, but at the very throne of God. He became the new and last High Priest.
Now…remember….there was only ever one High Priest at a time in the Old Covenant. Likewise, in the New Covenant, there is only one High Priest: Jesus. And like in the Old Covenant, with priests serving the High Priest, in the New Covenant, all believers in Christ become priests to serve the one High Priest, Jesus Christ.
This is what Peter is saying when he calls his audience a Holy Priesthood. He is not speaking only to men. He is speaking to all Christians.
This is the message of the New Testament. This is Christian priesthood. If you believe in Jesus, you already have priesthood. Don’t let anyone ever tell you otherwise.
Dr. Cocoa: Thanks for the explanation! Is it sinful/wrong/offensive for me to think that:
(a) The missionaries not telling me the rather simple explanation you just gave is the kind of “missing information” that results in members (rightly or maybe sometimes wrongly) feeling like they haven’t been given the whole story, in some cases, precipitating a faith crisis? I’m personally not real hung up on the details of heaven, but I know for many the afterlife is a huge part of their tradition and personal faith?
(b)Mormon heaven has more than a passing resemblance to the DMV?
B is a joke. Sort of.
I think your questions are very good and your attitude toward the missionaries is perfect.
The Church teaches that there are also three degrees of glory within the celestial kingdom – I think you referred to this earlier – so to make it all the way to the top, to the highest degrees of glory where God the Father himself dwells, you do indeed need to be sealed in the temple.
This doctrine is problematic for me for two reasons. 1) Only a infinitesimally small percentage of people who will ever live on the planet (not to speak of worlds without end) will be sealed in the temple, especially assuming missionary work on the other side of the veil or during the millennium is as unsuccessful as it is now. What kind of loving Father in Heaven creates a system where the vast majority of his children won‘t make it back to Him?
2) If marriage is such an essential, integral part of the Plan, and if God Father is married – as we believe – why is there no mention of our Mother? Why is God Father never referred to as a husband? After all He is our role model. And in a marriage the relationship between spouses should be more important than between parents and children, so His role as Husband should be equally if not more important than his role as Father.
And for what it‘s worth, if the celestial kingdom is anything like the temple, I‘ll be happy to spend eternity hanging out in a lower kingdom.
Well, Eugene, your concern about success of missionary work in the hereafter was also a concern of early saints. But Wilford Woodruff did not share your assumption He taught,:
“.. Joseph … said: “All who have died without a knowledge of this Gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God; also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom, for I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.”
So it will be with your fathers. There will be very few, if any, who will not accept the Gospel. …” (Messages of the First Presidency, 3:257-258)
”…if God Father is married – as we believe…”
This isn’t firmly established, and not all Latter-day Saints endorse this notion. The notion of heavenly mothers arose in polygamous Utah and has taken firm root in the tapestry of Mormon thought, but this was all human reasoning (the hymn even says so) rather than scripture or revelation. I caution against using “we” as the pronoun for the believers in the notion, if “we” is intended to mean Latter-day Saints generally. One member’s folklore is another member’s doctrine, but regardless, God hasn’t spoken on this matter..
I think it is simple. The culture that Mormonism came out of was patriarchal. Joseph allowing women a little more authority than they norm, just as he did black people, quickly went out the window when Brigham was in charge. Just as Brigham’s notions on black people being descendants of Cain were hardened into doctrine by the 1950s so too were the notions of a woman’s role versus a man’s role. Therefore, it is simply tradition that keeps men as the sole priesthood holders and an unwillingness to change. No surprise given that the leadership of the Q15 is mostly Silent Gen still, at least at the very top.
”[…if God Father is married – as we believe…] isn’t firmly established, and not all Latter-day Saints endorse this notion.”
ji – I concur. In his King Follet sermon, Joseph Smith taught spirits are eternal with God – they aren’t born (he did not make the distinction between “intelligences and spirits that is done today). Somewhere along the line the notion crept in that wives in the eternities would be cranking out baby spirits. Not according to Smith.
JR – I read Woodruff‘s quote differently. He just says everyone who would have received the gospel if the had the chance will receive the celestial reward. That doesn‘t mean people who didn’t have the chance to accept the gospel will be more likely to have accepted the gospel than those who actually did have the chance. That‘s my point.
Ji/Dave C. – the gospel topics essay on Heavenly Mother clearly state that church leaders teach this concept and the concept of heavenly parents. Recent GC talks refer to these concepts as well. Church doctrine and belief evolves over time, and these ideas – along with eternal increase / cranking out the spirit offspring for the lucky highest degree celestial few – certainly belong to contemporary LDS belief. I really don’t think that’s debatable.
And if we have heavenly parents, I assume they would be married, so God Father is a husband too. The only question is to how many spouses – sorry, just another muddled aspect of LDS theology 😦
(My wife is not sympathetic to many feminist issues, but woe unto whomever brings up polygamy)
Eugene, I think we agree with each other. The notion of heavenly mothers (it has to be plural — that’s how the whole idea started) is part of the fabric of Mormon thought — and it is creeping along, or evolving, as you say. And yes, some church leaders in high places seem to believe it. But still, there is no revelation or scripture to support it. It is human supposition, or reason as the hymn says. So I prefer to stop short of endorsing it as established (and mandatory) Mormon doctrine. We really should not say that all Latter-day Saints do (or should) believe it.
Eugene, we are on the same page. I’m just pointing out this adopted doctrine has no historical basis in formal revelation. That is apparent throughout the essay, for instance with this statement:
“While there is no record of a formal revelation to Joseph Smith on this doctrine, some early Latter-day Saint women recalled that he personally taught them about a Mother in Heaven.”
Some of it is fine doctrine, as doctrines go (the God being married part, not necessarily the parts about polygamous marriage or mothers being eternal baby factories). But it lends itself to some observations:
– The church incorporated this doctrine based on statements from past conference talks and periodical writings, but at the same time, it distances itself from embarrassing statements in the same settings. (à la “Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.”) This is cafeteria Mormonism. This is a good thing. The church should allow all members to practice it.
– If the church was this flexible arriving at doctrine about life in the eternities, it certainly sets the precedence that the church could be more accommodating to women or LGBTQ concerns. For instance, there are no doctrinal reasons for women not to be ordained. Why not do it? Joseph Smith’s idea that our spirits are eternal, not born, provides a doctrinal basis that could easily accommodate LGBTQ in the eternities.
LDS doctrine is more arbitrary then the church has been willing to let on. Instead of fighting this, the church could embrace this flexibility. After-all, given church history, changes to accommodate women and LGBTQ issues will happen eventually. The church might want to try to be a leader in such future changes and not a reluctant follower.