Women of the Priesthood
There’s something that puzzled me for a long time when I was Mormon: women officiating in the ritual washings and anointings in the temple. Women are forbidden to hold the priesthood which allows a man to perform the religious rituals which are necessary to gain exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom. Yet, in the temple, women perform rituals which are considered essential to exaltation exactly as though they were members of the Mormon priesthood.
When I first noticed this, I presumed that men didn’t officiate in these rituals in order to preserve feminine modesty during a ritual that was historically received in the nude (as suggested by the photograph of the ritual washing tub in the Salt Lake Temple circa 1912). Even so, this pragmatic solution didn’t explain how women could perform what must be a priesthood ordinance without being a member of the priesthood. I then realized that other temple rituals promise women that they will become “priestesses”, albeit just “priestesses to [their] husbands”.
Up to that point in my life, I had been staunchly against women priests. It seemed presumptuous that people desired to change what God had ordained. I speculated based on this new evidence provided by the temple that women would indeed be inducted into the priesthood in God’s own time.
I know that I’m not the only one who has ever noticed this inconsistency, but until now, I’ve never had anyone to share my ideas with. The irony is that now that I feel free to share, I don’t care about it much, though the idea of women holding the priesthood still causes angst and controversy even among feminist Mormons. It seems to me like people are fighting over a gorgeously wrapped gift full of nothing.
Tags: feminism, LDS, Mormonism, priesthood, religion
![[Earth Flag]](../../../../wp-content/images/earth-flag.png){kind=small}
![[Gadsden Flag]](../../../../wp-content/images/gadsden.png){kind=small}
![[Old Glory]](../../../../wp-content/images/old-glory.png){kind=small}
m&m said,
November 15, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
It’s actually not an inconsistency. There is a difference between priesthood and authority. Women can perform ordinances in the temple with authority, but they have not received the priesthood. All that is done in our wards and temples is done under the direction of the priesthood, and the authority to perform different responsibilities in any capacity is delegated authority.
November 15, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
That seems to be a distinction without a difference. The Sunday School answer for the question “What is the Priesthood?” was always “The authority to act in God’s name.” Divine authority and priesthood were synonymous. And this isn’t like the Relief Society President acting under the authority of the Bishop to organize visiting teaching; it’s an ordinance. Using your distinction, we could justify women doing every other ordinance (e.g. baptism) “with authority”.
Seth R. said,
November 16, 2007 @ 7:58 am
Oh, I think there is still a reason to care about it, even if you no longer believe in the “Priesthood” in question.
It represents some very real things about how women and men view each other and themselves within the LDS faith (an obviously central part of their human identity). It matters to them and impacts their own self-image. So why wouldn’t you want the ordinance to change in a way that you feel more beneficial to the people within the religion? After all, I assume you have a few acquaintances still active in the religion that you actually like. Correct?
November 16, 2007 @ 8:08 am
You’re right; I do care, which is probably why I responded to m&m’s comment. Now that you mention it, I don’t want my daughters to grow up feeling like second class human beings because of their gender or to feel beholden to a patriarchal community. Despite all the preaching against those attitudes, it is natural to feel like a member of an underclass when you see your male friends start to take on community responsibilities that you are forbidden from holding. For a number of reasons, I don’t think motherhood makes up for the lack of priesthood and all that represents in the Mormon community.
November 16, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
More discussion at the Sunstone blog.
m&m said,
November 17, 2007 @ 12:33 am
Using your distinction, we could justify women doing every other ordinance (e.g. baptism) “with authorityâ€.
Not really, because it’s all about what is delegated and authorized. And we are all subject to such restrictions within the hierarchy. No man can perform an ordinance, not even the sacrament in his home, without authorization from his presiding authority. There is an order, and it’s not about gender competition, it’s about order.
And I guess I’m a bit confused…you are not happy that women don’t have priesthood and yet you acknowledge that they play a significant role in the temple, even without that priesthood. They — we, I should say — play a significant role in many other ways as well. I realize we all have different views of this all, but as a woman, I am fine not having priesthood, even if I don’t understand completely why I don’t.
I do tend to think that we toss around the concepts of priesthood and authority without fully understanding what they really mean. Authority can come through a setting apart, but priesthood comes through ordination. A man could have priesthood, but not have certain authority (or any authority, if there is unrighteousness).
Also, priesthood means different things in different contexts, as far as I can tell. There’s the priesthood that men hold now, which gives them keys over church administration and ordinances. There’s the eternal potential of priesthood and priestesshood, which is a different ballgame, and from what I can tell, incredibly broad in scope and reach. So much of whether we receive that depends on how we respond to what we have and do here.
There is the order of the priesthood that we ALL, male and female, can enter into through temple ordinances.
There is also the reality that the Church organization is only temporary and won’t be carried over into the next life, so much of the argument about the priesthood only focuses on that temporary organization, the Church. All we do points to a man and woman being exalted, together, receiving all that God has. As Elder Maxwell said, there isn’t any more! So at some point, it’s helpful, I think, to take a step back and ask why it matters who does what now, if the end result will be exaltation for both men and women in the hereafter?
What do I know? I’m no scholar, but I have studied this and the more I study, the more I realize that we don’t really touch on the scope of what priesthood means when we talk about men having the priesthood and women not. It’s just a sliver of what it’s all about, methinks. And so, that makes it all the easier for me to not worry so much about it and just try to do my best within my sphere (family, church, community, etc.)
Sorry to go on…just been thinking about it a lot.
November 17, 2007 @ 3:02 am
<mormon-framework>
If women can be delegated the authority to perform one temple ordinance which is essential to exaltation, then it is only a matter of current practice that they couldn’t also be delegated the authority to perform other ordinances. A man must be authorized to perform these saving ordinances, it is true, but he must first be ordained to the priesthood. I can think of no other example where a saving ordinance can be performed by someone who hasn’t been ordained to the priesthood. Indeed the efficacy of the ordinance depends in part on the priesthood of the person performing the ordinance.
If we assume that LDS doctrines and practices in this regard are coherent and inspired by God, I can see only two possible conclusions:
1) Women can be commissioned to act in God’s name and perform saving ordinances (i.e. they can and do hold the priesthood).
2) Washings, anointings and clothing in the Garment of the Holy Priesthood are not saving ordinances which therefore don’t require ordination to the priesthood.
The fact that women perform these ordinances may be a remnant of the idea that Endowed women hold the priesthood. They are wearing the Garment of the Holy Priesthood after all. Who would wear the Garment of the Holy Priesthood if not members of the priesthood?
</mormon-framework>
November 17, 2007 @ 11:14 pm
Another possibility is that Joseph Smith’s personal theology was evolving to the point where, had he not been murdered at Carthage, he would have given women some version of the priesthood. Joseph was remarkably progressive compared to the leaders that followed him. After all, he did ordain a black man to the priesthood. He also formed the Relief Society in a day when women’s organizations were relatively uncommon. And the wording of the temple endowment suggesting that women would become priestesses was created by Joseph Smith. Could he have been contemplating, or on the verge of contemplating, including women within the priesthood?
My study of early Church history gives me the strong impression that Joseph’s theology was continually evolving. It was still evolving at the time of his death in 1844. Had his martyrdom occurred, say, in 1832, we would have a very different church than the one we do today: without some objectionable aspects, like polygamy, but also without some “core” doctrines such as eternal families, exaltation, the degrees of glory, etc.
Had Joseph lived long enough to travel west with the Saints, I think Church doctrines would have continued to evolve, perhaps radically so. It is hard to say whether this would have opened the priesthood to women. It is of course possible that women’s rights would have been further suppressed due to the increasing role of polygamy.
Still, it makes me wonder…
November 18, 2007 @ 1:30 am
It seems to me that the Second Anointing was in fact an ordination to the priesthood for the wife and a fulfillment of the promise made in the Endowment:
This interpretation is further supported by the language of the record of Heber and Vilate Kimball’s Second Anointing:
A “priestess… in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” suggests to my mind that a woman receiving the Second Anointing was considered to be a member of the priesthood albeit with a different public role. Perhaps this is not an equal membership in the administration of the church, but it is suggestive that the current doctrine that women will never be members of a priesthood is a modern innovation.
Seth R. said,
November 20, 2007 @ 5:00 am
I think I agree with Eric actually. I’ve thought about this for quite some time. I’ve heard explanations on both sides. In the end, I think this is just a holdover from when Brigham Young dropped the hammer on the Relief Society. I don’t think it has much to do with God particularly wanting it that way or instructing that it be so.
So why doesn’t God clarify the matter and make changes? Beats me. But it seems that even if you were to give the women of the current LDS Church the Priesthood, they would not be entirely comfortable using it. You need faith for this authority to work. I’m open to any number of explanations about it. Perhaps our current and past church authorities simply haven’t been receptive to the idea, and therefore God has withheld any revelation on the subject. Perhaps it is not given because the women of our current membership would not properly use it. Perhaps it is withheld because of the confused state of gender dialogue in the world today – meaning that a shift on this might send all the wrong signals.
But in the end, I do think that women are meant to hold the Priesthood in the same sense that the men are meant to hold it, although their roles within that Priesthood may ultimately vary.
November 20, 2007 @ 8:34 am
Coming from the godless perspective,
it seems obvious (to the godless) that the doctrine will change when the culture changes. Once members can no longer accept the status quo, once women (re)claim their right to the priesthood, then the leadership will be motivated to seek revelation. Whatever the mechanics of such revelations truly are, without members changing their own hearts, there won’t be any corresponding change in the church. As long as most Mormon women are content to take their place as second class disciples (and Mormon men are content to see women treated this way), call it good (Isaiah 5:20 and 2 Nephi 28:21), and rationalize their situation, I imagine that no revelation will be forthcoming.