In a previous interview with Dr. Jonathan Stapley, he stated that when early Mormon women healed, it wasn’t through Priesthood. Dr. Margaret Toscano disagrees with Jonathan’s position.
Margaret: I think that there’s quite a bit of evidence to show that. Again, I think that the big difference [between Jonathan and me is how we connect God’s power with priesthood power]. And it’s funny. I said this in my 1984 essay [that Joseph’s view of priesthood is different than how the Church views it today]. I think today in the Church, when we talk about [that] it’s the power of God, we think about the organization. It’s the power of God, where you can have an office in the Church or have a calling in the Church or whatever. But we don’t see it as–and even though, obviously, we acknowledge that you have to have spiritual power– I don’t think we see it as this necessary power that is part of the process of sanctification. The more I studied Joseph Smith’s statements about priesthood, I became convinced that for him, priesthood was kind of this series of ordinances, and that the ordinances are both a conduit to connecting to spiritual power, but they’re also an outward expression of what should be happening in the interior for us. So, I mean, even if you think about the whole idea of the power of godliness, it’s the power to make you godly. I think that’s partly what it means. So, we kind of focus on the church ecclesiastical function.
Margaret: I think Joseph Smith was more concerned with the spiritual cosmological aspect of it. So even though Joseph Smith didn’t use the term cosmological, he used, again, the fullness of the Melchizedek [priesthood], the priesthood of Elijah, the Messianic priesthood. Those were terms that Joseph Smith used, and he connects that. He used the term the fullness of the priesthood. You have this full power of the priesthood to bring you into the presence of God, which, of course, the temple does symbolically. It represents that journey of the soul from the pre-mortal world to go back to God. I see the endowment of priesthood as being part of that.
Margaret: I want to say one more thing about this, I think for Joseph Smith, he saw the fullness of the priesthood as residing in individuals, that when you are given priesthood, God plants his power in you. Whereas, I think in the Church, we think of priesthood as the power residing in the institution. Then the institution can grant you power to act within the Church structure. But I think Joseph Smith saw priesthood, it was an endowment of power. It’s called an endowment. You’re endowed with power, and it’s internal. Now, obviously, you cannot act. You can’t ordain yourself to be an elder or you can’t say, “No, I’m really called to be the bishop.” But again, that’s an ecclesiastical thing. But I think from Joseph Smith’s perspective, that that spiritual power was the center, and that was the most important part of it.
GT: Well, that’s interesting, because I think the issue, especially when I was talking with Jonathan, but I think with the essay as well is, in modern times, we have kind of conflated priesthood with priesthood office. I know Jonathan’s point, and I think the essay’s point, too, as well is, women were not ordained teachers, priests, deacons, elders, high priests, etc. I think everybody can get on board with that. The problem is, this definition of priesthood–today we equate priesthood with priesthood office. But that’s not necessarily how Joseph viewed priesthood.
Margaret: No, I don’t think he did.
GT: When we say that women have priesthood, or even Joseph Smith, when women have priesthood via the endowment, or even you said earlier, baptism, which kind of surprised me when you said that. That use of the word is completely separate from priesthood office. So, is that the issue? Is [the issue] that modern people equate priesthood with priesthood office rather than spiritual power? I mean, is that a way to view this issue?
Margaret: Well, I think that that’s part of the problem. But I think it’s more complicated than that in the sense that, again, if you go back to these women, Eliza Snow, Bathsheba Smith, Sarah Kimball–people called Eliza Snow, a High Priestess–I think that those women really did think that the Relief Society, which was a Church organization, it’s not as though they saw it as a separate organization, or it wasn’t part of the Church. But I think that they saw their roles in the Relief Society as a kind of church function. Now, again, that didn’t make them Elders in the Church, right? So that’s one issue. I do think that in those 19th century women, [they] saw more of an overlap than we ever would.
The Gospel Topics essay on women and priesthood references a 2014 talk by Elder Dallin Oaks. Dr. Jonathan Stapley said this talk was groundbreaking by saying that women in the LDS Church exercise priesthood power as they perform their callings. Does Dr. Margaret Toscano agree with that interpretation?
Margaret: First of all, the idea that Dallin Oaks emphasizes that– and I’ll quote my own essay here–he emphasizes that “the authority women have is only delegated authority deriving from the priesthood authority of male leaders, and that such delegated priesthood authority has a limited scope, only relating to women’s church callings while they serve in them.” Now, in a way, you could say that same thing holds true for men. But the idea is that [the power] it’s not in you. I think the endowment and Joseph Smith [contradict that]; he was interested in that priesthood power being internal. Now again, yes, you have to have delegated authority in order to serve in an office. You can’t call yourself. I’ve never argued that you should, or that you should ordain yourself or call yourself or anything else, because there has to be a structure of the Church. But I think it’s important that he [Oaks] says, “It’s only delegated authority.” So it comes from male leaders, whereas I think the power of priesthood comes from God, Himself, that the ordinance symbolizes that. So that’s one thing where I don’t see it as groundbreaking. But again, I think it’s really important.
Margaret: The other thing is that that the Church–they still want to make this really strong distinction between only men have keys, only men have offices. Only men have these outward signs. Women can have authority and power, but they cannot have keys, they cannot have anything else. I think it’s really interesting. The term “keys” is one of the things that the Church essay discusses. So, Joseph Smith said to the women in Nauvoo. He said, “I turn the key to you. I turn the key to you.” I don’t have the full quote with me right now. I could dig it up. But I won’t take the time. “I turn [it],” he said, “to you.” “I turn the key to you.” And “better times are ahead for you women, that you’re now going to enjoy blessings you haven’t before because I turn the key to you.” Interestingly, in 1908, when B. H. Roberts was editing the History of the Church, he changed that phrase, “I turn the key to you.” He changed it to, “I turn the key on your behalf.”
Margaret: It’s just one little preposition, right? Who cares? But it’s really important. Because I think when Joseph Smith said, and I think I mentioned this before in our other interview, and I actually could dig up the picture here. There was a 1936 Relief Society picture where you have Joseph Smith giving the key. He’s giving the key [to women]. It’s right over there. I could dig this up. He’s giving the key to women. Why did B. H. Roberts change that? Actually, they had been arguing about this before. We think George A. Smith, in the 1850s may have started that, because it says, one is, again, delegated. Okay, I turn the key in your behalf. That’s kind of like Dallin Oaks’ statement, “I turn it in your behalf. But I’m the one that has it.” Because the keys are only in males. Whereas Joseph Smith is saying, “I give you the key. You women can open the doors for yourself now.” I think that’s very significant. It’s interesting that B. H. Roberts also changed another phrase.
Did Joseph give the Relief Society keys? What are your thoughts?
Wheat & Tares 
I’ll admit that my small mind can’t grasp the idea that women exercise priesthood power without holding the priesthood. Seems very Orwellian to me. But I don’t see that it matters. If I have a sick child and I’m out of town, the idea that my wife’s prayerful pleading via prayer is less powerful than the priesthood blessing of a couple of local elders seems very strange. There are actually members who believe a 12-year-old deacon has more power than a seasoned faithful adult. 1984.
The question presupposes an erroneous view of what priesthood is and what keys are. Priesthood is an association between mankind and those on the other side of the veil. It is a brotherhood. It is also, potentially, a sisterhood. It is a fellowship wherein mortals are connected with the “Powers of Heaven.” The “Powers of Heaven” are the angels themselves. There are two brotherhoods. One is between men (or women, as the case may be), and it is here among mortals. There is a second one between mortal man and the Powers of Heaven. It is the fellowship, association, or priesthood with the Powers of Heaven that gives to man the power.
The word keys is misunderstood. Foolish and vain ideas have accumulated around it. Joseph used the term in a variety of ways: for example, to mean authority, or opportunity, and in others it refers to a correct idea. This is the most important meaning. The term in the context of priesthood is completely absent from the Book of Mormon. Although Joseph used the term often and meant many things by it, the challenge is to understand priesthood without being distracted by a poorly defined, and often used term. Mormon institutions now use the term most often to connote their exclusive right, license or control. Mormon institutions in general all use their preferred meaning of the term keys to denounce anything or anyone they view as a rival. The notion that someone can obtain keys without receiving a Dispensation from the Lord and successfully completing the work of God is a false idea that should be rejected.
Keys are knowledge. A particular key is knowledge or instruction received from the Lord on how to do something. If one has the key, then one has the ability or power to do something. And conversely, if one is powerless to do or accomplish something (bind and loose, request ministering angels, command the elements or spirits, etc.), then they do not possess a key. Joseph Smith also used the term keys to mean understanding, the greatest key being the ability to ask God and receive an answer.
The focus of attention on priesthood skews what may be most important; it distorts the whole picture: All of the miraculous things that Melchizedek accomplished — quenching the violence of fire, closing the mouths of lions, causing rivers to run out of their course — all of those things were accomplished by Melchizedek without the priesthood. When Paul listed the things that got accomplished by faith, he was not talking about priesthood, ordination, office, or authority. Most of what people think belongs to the franchise called “priesthood” really should be viewed as the evidence (or the absence) of faith.
That men think that they get to control who accesses God’s power, how much of that power they get to access, and how they can use it is pure hubris.
I certainly think it’s interesting to consider what Joseph Smith did or meant and I also did appreciate that Oaks expanded an understanding of the priesthood somewhat, but in general I don’t really care what they did or didn’t do and did or didn’t say. It’s just made up stuff. I know it’s important because it impacts the way women and men experience Church and hurts both, but the sooner women realize that men don’t control their access to God and shouldn’t be able to tell them what to do the better.
There is just so much confusing BS circulated and recirculated about LDS views of priesthood.
Keys: There are no keys. It’s a metaphor. Within the Church, it’s simply a metaphor for anyone authorized to exercise organizational authority that’s connected to the LDS priesthood office holders. The metaphor ought to be broadened a bit to simply refer to any person who exercises organizational authority in any office within the Church. So the RS President has keys (she is authorized to run the Relief Society). The ward HP Group Leader (now a defunct position, I know) had keys.
Priesthood: There is no priesthood, at least not like LDS talk about it. Leadership and membership talk about “priesthood” like it’s The Force, some power that’s just out there and that God uses to do God-like things. And that LDS priesthood holders use to do LDS priesthood-like things, but hey only LDS priesthood holders can tap into this LDS Priesthood Force. That’s all just silly. If there’s any power, it comes from God, not outside of Him. If you are an orthodox LDS member, you may belief that LDS priesthood holders are somehow a conduit for an exercise of God’s power, but even 100% orthodox LDS don’t think God’s power acts exclusively through LDS priesthood. If God answers prayers, that’s God’s power at work. If God acts unilaterally in the world (providence), that’s an exercise of God’s power. God’s power simply cannot be limited to the LDS priesthood the way LDS leaders and members think. And there simply is no “priesthood” the way LDS talk about it.
Technically, priesthood was a term to refer to the assembled body (or the universal body) of priests. A brotherhood of priests, if you will. That’s a much better use of the term than the confusing and misleading LDS use of the term. The LDS use of the term is so confusing that LDS critics talking about it sound as misguided as LDS defenders.
@Dave B, I thought it was pretty interesting that a Dialogue article written by a BYU professor basically concluded that our definition of / doctrine around “priesthood” is gobbledygook.
Click to access Dialogue_V51N01_1.pdf
Elder Bednar gave a talk a few years ago and he explained that quorum presidents are the only people that have priesthood keys: Deacons Pres, Teachers Pres, Priests Pres, Elders Pres, Stake Presidents, Apostles, Prophet. That’s it. So the old High Priest Group leader didn’t have keys, neither did Relief Society, neither did any other organizations. (The Stake President is the keys holder and head High Priest in a stake.)
Now that makes more sense when deacons, teachers, and priests were adult men. It make little sense for 12 (or now 11)-year old deacons quorum presidents. The kids can’t even use keys to drive a car, so how do they know what to do with priesthood keys? As Elisa said, it’s basic gobbledy-gook.
However, Bednar made a big deal about priesthood keys. He asked the question, how can a General (or Area) Authority Seventy give keys to a Stake President when the Seventy does not hold keys? The reason is because the keys are delegated by apostles to seventies to ordain a specific stake president. But technically, Seventies do not hold any priesthood keys, and those keys are “returned” to the apostles after the ordination.
I don’t know what arelius11 is getting at with keys, but I know that’s exactly how Bednar explained it.
Yes he ordained them and set them apart and gave them keys.
This at a time when women could not vote, and were not able to own property.
Now when there is much more power for women in the enlightened world, the church is still so mired in the conservative culture of misogyny. (misogyny is not about male hostility or hatred toward women — instead, it’s about controlling and punishing women who challenge male dominance. Misogyny rewards women who reinforce the status quo and punishes those who don’t.)
From what I’ve read, women were originally given authority (I don’t know if it was officially called Priesthood) to heal. But over time, the circumstances that it could be used in were slowly reduced until by the early to mid 20th century, it was stripped away entirely.
Fraternal priesthood and it’s silly oaths remind me of Lamech, who slayed a man for oath’s sake. The lingering fraternal motifs in the LDS temple are corrupt Masonic dross.
When all of the fraternal emblems are removed from the LDS temple, we will see in purity that the temple itself is feminine: the Ark, the Grail, the Cup, the Basin, the Womb, the Water, the Tree, Mother Earth and Creation, point to Eve as the central hero of the narrative.