There’s a new exegetical school of thought that women do in fact have the priesthood. Most prominently Dr. Morgan Gardner in the BYU Religion Department wrote a book developing the idea, and there is some First Presidency commentary (specifically, President Oaks and President Nelson I believe) supporting the notion.
First, as an aside, I adjuncted a religion class at BYU way back when I was a loud, opinionated, boisterous postgrad, where I was in several meetings with Dr. Morgan Gardner. I like her, appreciate her work (she produces good content, check out her site), and nothing in the below should be seen as reflecting negatively on her.
At the outset, I don’t have any kind of a problem with the actual substance of the argument. It sits well with me, and there’s some historical precedent and theological reasoning for something like “women do have the priesthood.” Rather, there are two related points I wanted to make about this new exegetical strand of thought.
- It is, in fact, new.
While “women actually do have the priesthood” has some precedent to draw from, on the whole it is an innovative theology, and that’s fine. I understand the skittishness of seeing this as an innovation. There are all sorts of theological ideas coming from lay members that fit in the category of people getting ahead of their skis and steadying the ark. While he could have phrased it better, I actually do sort of sympathize with aspects of the infamous McConkie letter to Eugene England on this point. Lay theologians can play with different possibilities, but their speculations have their limits that should be recognized.
Of course what sets Dr. Morgan Gardner’s approach apart here is that this interpretation does in fact have explicit support from the authorities. I don’t know enough about the time sequence of Dr. Morgan Gardner’s work and the First Presidency talks to be able to suss out the provenance of the idea, but regardless of where it came from it is in fact a new interpretation, or at least new for something that has the support of the First Presidency.
Now again, this is completely fine. However, if this interpretation becomes widely adopted I’m going to push back a little on any attempt to frame it as “this has always been there and it’s our fault that we didn’t interpret the texts and theology correctly.” There’s something a little “we’ve always been at war with Eastasia” to that, since this would have been considered an eclectic interpretation among both leaders and laity not that long ago.
I think an analogy here could be drawn with the limited geography model of the Book of Mormon. The fact is that until population genetics research came along the predominant, quasi Church supported view (e.g. “primary ancestors of the Native Americans”) was different from the view today, and to be honest we should recognize that instead of trying to artificially force a continuity that simply is not there. One benefit of having living prophets is that policy and interpretations can change.
- I doubt this will do much to resolve people’s concerns about women and the priesthood.
I realize I’m sort of mansplaining squared here. First, not a woman. And second, I’ve never had a problem with women and the priesthood. I’m not lowkey bragging, it’s just never really been a thing for me. If I ever leave the Church that particular item will be pretty far down on the list of why.
However, I spend enough time around people for whom this is an issue that I doubt it will help retain people who would otherwise leave the Church over the issue. For people who have this concern priesthood is a stand-in for structural “power” (queue doom music, although I always thought the social and political “power” of Church leaders was overrated: President Nelson can’t even get Utahns to vaccinate).
This kind of liturgical-but-not-hierarchical priesthood doesn’t do anything to address that. Women still report to men and have to officially get approval for things from men. The gendered authority structures are still there even if we are more capacious in our understanding of priesthood power, so for people for whom who reports to who in ward council is very important, the operating characteristic remains the gender of the person where the institutional buck stops, and this doesn’t change that. Of course, the validity of any theological position is completely orthogonal to whether it retains people, so again this shouldn’t be seen as criticizing the idea itself.
Comments
25 responses to “Do Women Actually Have the Priesthood?”
To me, what this new “women do have the priesthood” suggests is that there is a recognition on some level that excluding women from priesthood is wrong. It doesn’t directly change the reality but it denies the reality while also opening space for change.
I would turn your question around and instead ask whether men truly have the priesthood in the “structural power” sense. We know from D&C 121 that “[n]o power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood…” And yet we have to listen to “follow the prophet” talks every conference that are nothing but advocacy for allowing the prophet to exercise power and influence by virtue of his priesthood. Until we get the “structural power” concept right (patience, long-suffering, etc.–and I have seen progress at the local level over the last 20 years), giving priesthood to women will just allow more people to exercise unrighteous dominion, simply by following the priesthood example that has been set for them.
Of course, one could argue the opposite–that women would exercise their priesthood righteously and set an example for the men to follow. That may be half right, but I think men who are inclined to follow righteous leadership examples set by women, albeit in nonchurch roles, are already doing so–hence the improvement in their behavior in the last 20 years. I’m not saying it would be a mistake to start explicitly ordaining women to the priesthood. I am saying that it is not obvious that it would quickly improve the church experience.
If the Church keeps going in this direction, it needs to apologize for several of the September 6th excommunications.
I’ve had similar thoughts as Mr. Lemming. I maintain that if the Church started explicitly ordaining women to the priesthood, those women would be sorely disappointed in how little things would change and how slightly their Church experience would improve. Because…the priesthood isn’t the problem. The problem is the men and their structural privilege. If men are no longer able to maintain that privilege by virtue of the priesthood they’ll find other ways. Would things improve over time, sure, but that probably (hopefully) happens, anyway. Don’t get me wrong – let’s definitely start explicitly ordaining women to the priesthood. Let’s just not think that will solve the problem of women’s reduced role and influence in the Church.
I get stuck at understanding what specifically is different for a woman who (already?) has the priesthood (or a man for that matter) compared to someone from outside our church who also believes they act with the power of God. What miracle, revelation, kindness, behavior, power, draw on the heavens, etc., only exists in the LDS priesthood that isn’t also claimed in other versions of Christianity / non-Cristianity? My only answer is ordinances and structural power within the church.
Which makes me just not care all that much about who has priesthood and who doesn’t, since I have zero interest in structural power and avoid it, preferring to stick to the more Love-My-Neighbor aspects of church.
Hello all. Some folks here will remember my name from years ago when I was a frequent commenter. I’ve just lurked here for years due to time and health issues. To the point of the op, I do not believe women have priesthood, but I do believe they have priestesshood. For the best explanation of this concept, see here: https://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleCasslerWomenPowerAuthorityChurch.html
Aside from the fact that “having” the priesthood is a strictly modern (post-1835) Mormon concept that developed over several years, we can simply ask one question to settle this matter: Can a woman serve as bishop or stake president or apostle in the Church? Well, why not? Because she does not “have” the priesthood, other than in some nebulous manner the Brethren have cooked up to try to make their wives and daughters feel better about their second-class status.
I believe the fulness of the priesthood includes a matriarchal order that has yet to be fully revealed. But we won’t get there by seeking parity between men and women in purpose and design. It will only come in an environment we’re complementarity is exalted as a result of both cherishing and respecting each other as Adam and Eve respectively.
And so, without pretending to know anything about the future — except the final triumph of the Kingdom — I hope and look for the day when the earth will be cleansed in a way that will shift governance from secular systems to large familial systems (contained within the Lord’s Kingdom) that are governed together by priests and priestesses–both cherished and respected for their indispensable but differing innate qualities.
That said, I wouldn’t be surprised if we begin to see some of these elements emerge within the church in the not too distant future. As the church continues to build temples who knows but what we might see a change in structure wherein a temple district encapsulates the stakes that pertain to it in a way that creates a “tent of meeting” so to speak — again, I don’t pretend to know what the future really looks like — with the temple itself as the center stake and the stakes as, well, stakes.
That (and that) said, I can imagine in a such a scenario–wherein the temple literally becomes the structural centerpiece–that the matron could be set apart as a priestess to work alongside her husband who is the presiding high priest over the temple. I can also imagine the same shift happening with mission presidents and their wives.
And so I guess what I’m really saying is: I think it’s possible that, as the Kingdom continues to grow, certain elements having to do with the fulness of the priesthood — elements that we learn about in the temple — will begin to emerge, becoming more visible in the church–albeit, a little at a time.
When Pres Nelsen gave his “Spiritual Treasures” talk, I went away wondering somewhat the opposite — as an ordained Elder, what does my ordination really mean? Based on the way we currently talk about women and the priesthood, almost nothing I have done in my family or the church has actually required ordination. All of my callings (except maybe executive secretary in a bishopric and Aaronic quorum presidencies as a youth) have been performed under delegated authority from the bishops that called me. Blessings of healing could just as easily have been prayers of faith. All of the good I have done in the world is an outgrowth of my “believer” status and not my ordination. The only things I have done that have truly required ordination have been administering the sacrament in Sacrament meetings (still something nebulous about what administer means) and administer a handful of baptisms and confirmations to family and friends (who could have easily found someone else to administer those ordinances if I wasn’t ordained the way that other Christian churches do). Ordination also seems to be a key indicator that I am eligible in some way to be called into church government callings (assuming I am willing and able to be ordained a high priest).
Somewhere while discussing this topic, someone made a comparison to the Protestant concept of a priesthood of all believers. IMO, the way we talk about women holding priesthood is similar to the way others talk about all believers holding priesthood. At some level, I agree with those who say this sometimes feels like trying to placate women into not seeking real ordination.
1986.
2018.
204X?
MrShorty is right that the bulk of what we do depends on priesthood authority and not priesthood offices, but that doesn’t make it a vague “priesthood of all believers.” Priesthood authority is given to specific people to do specific things, even if we don’t always think about it. The Primary president of my ward has been given priesthood authority to run the Primary; if she asks me to substitute teach she confers upon me the priesthood authority to teach that class that week. But if I try to walk in the next week and teach again without being asked, I will have no authority to do so. (The fact that I hold a priesthood office and she does not is completely irrelevant here.)
That doesn’t make the Church a feminist utopia, of course. Most of that priesthood authority is tied to callings, and critical callings are only given to those who hold priesthood offices, making them unavailable to women. As a thought experiment, consider what it would look like if the Church decreed that it was no longer necessary to hold a priesthood office to serve in a bishopric or stake presidency, so women can serve in those callings. Outwardly, not much would have to change–if we brought back women giving blessings, even setting people apart would be the same. I honestly don’t know why a bishop must hold a priesthood office (and a specific one at that) but it does seem to be important.
On the other hand, much of the work of a ward is supposed to be done by members of the Relief Society and Elder’s Quorum presidencies working together as equal partners. Culturally, we’ve been very slow to move away from seeing the bishop as the most important person in the ward and the one who makes everything happen, and the fact that that paradigm limits the influence of women is just one of the problems with it.
I don’t see recognizing that women hold and use priesthood authority as just a way to placate women though. Young men have it drilled into them that holding “the priesthood” gives them an obligation to serve and the right to receive power from on high in doing so. Well, that really is a function of priesthood authority, so it applies to women as well. In his seminal April 2014 talk, President Oaks quotes Joseph Fielding Smith telling Relief Society leaders “You can speak with authority, because the Lord has placed authority upon you.” I want to see more women speaking with authority, whether that’s in stake councils (where in my experience they already do), ward councils, or Primary classes. I also want to see more men taking women’s authority seriously.
As for this being new, I agree it’s something few members thought about before 2014 (except Joseph Fielding Smith, apparently). But there’s an obviousness to it (“What other authority can it be?”) that makes me feel like it’s something that was always true whether we recognized it or not.
“she confers upon me the priesthood authority to teach that class that week. But if I try to walk in the next week and teach again without being asked, I will have no authority to do so.”
I guess the word ‘authority’ for me used in the context of your post is just rhetoric when it comes to the Power of God.
I’ve been teaching primary for 7ish years. I’ve never been set apart to do so, so I don’t really have the authority to do the job. I can’t see that this makes any difference to anything I do for the kids, the class, or for the primary board.
Even if I had been set apart, it’s just formalizing an agreement of structural power, as in me having a title and an agreement between me and the ward. I have an assigned job that I am going to accomplish as agreed between me and the ward leadership. (and feel the responsibility of it regardless of being set apart.)
Same way I have an assigned job with a school PTO where I’ve agreed to accomplish certain things for them.
Same way one of my friends has agreed to the responsibilities of teaching the kids class at a church where her dad is the pastor.
It’s just normal organizational management.
Where is the Power of God in any of this? What is it that LDS priesthood (authority, callings, however we look at it) provides to me that is different than my friend teaching her children’s class when she and I have the same experiences, revelations with our kids? I just don’t get it.
ReTx, delegating priesthood authority doesn’t require being set apart, and can be really informal. I’m not worried that you haven’t actually had authority to teach Primary for seven years. (Though I’d encourage you to go to your bishop and say, “I never did get set apart when I was called as a primary teacher, and I want the blessing that goes with it.”)
Receiving authority means I’m acting on behalf of someone else, and they care about the results at least as much as I do. It’s not just me doing my best anymore. I get what you mean about rhetoric but I see it as a mindset: when I remember that I’ve been given authority from God to do something–and that absolutely includes teaching a Primary class–then I have more faith I can get his help and work harder to get it, and the results are different.
I see the issue more along the lines of RlD and ReTx. I think the discussion from General Authorities about women exercising priesthood authority is much more about trying to make women feel like their service is on par with men’s service rather than being about any meaningful delegation of God’s power. For example, I have known nonmember men who attended regularly and were extended and accepted callings. By President Oaks’ logic, weren’t they exercising delegated priesthood authority?
I will add that most of the women I know at church seem to have really bought into this concept of priesthood authority. During our discussion of D&C 84 a few weeks ago, the question was asked whether the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood applied to women. Women enthusiastically responded that yes they had entered into the covenant, apparently through the covenants they made in the temple. I guess if you squint that makes some sense, but leaders are far from fleshing out the doctrine, and I think that’s because they don’t really have any clue (and maybe no desire) what to ask the Lord to do about it beyond keeping the status quo as long as possible.
John Mansfield,
I got a little help from AI vis-a-vis those dates–and yes! The church changes the operational aspects of the priesthood as needed–or even, perhaps, as fast as we’re able to receive it.
It’s sad that we’re conflating priesthood with hierarchy/organization management. This doesn’t seem to be the same priesthood that Abraham so eagerly sought.
Thanks for this thoughtful post, Stephen C. This language certainly is an adjustment, and if I’m understanding you correctly, I think your highlighting a peculiar tendency in how the leadership had done policy changes over the last several decades. Not call it a policy change, just start talking differently.
To ReTx and RID: I have been set apart on many occasions during my life. I don’t look to the setting apart in order to receive authority. I do it to receive guidance.
For example: “I’ve been teaching primary for 7ish years. I’ve never been set apart to do so, so I don’t really have the authority to do the job. I can’t see that this makes any difference to anything I do for the kids, the class, or for the primary board.”
My response is this: I want to know if there is a specific reason I was called, or just why the bishopric or SS President, or Primary President, or YM President has asked for me to be in their organization. This information may help me approach my calling. This information may also be obtained by simply talking to the person who extends the calling, or a discussion with the president of whatever organization I am called into.
I am not looking for “authority.” I actually dislike the very idea! I am looking for guidance.
I think the best question is “where are the women in this discussion?” This to me seems like a bunch of guys who don’t really get the problem discussing something from a perspective of not suffering from the problem.
The second best question was asked by a guy, who ask if men really have the priesthood.
So, from an old women’s perspective,
1. There is a problem of structural power that excludes women and it IS meaningful even if it also excludes some men. That problem can be summed up with it is a problem because the power structure contains zero women and we are not even represented in that structure.
2. The problem is not solved by saying women have some non-ordained “priesthood power” borrowed from who ever sets us apart. That isn’t “the priesthood” but assigned authority. This is just patting us on the head and saying we are not missing anything when we can see that we are. It is called gas lighting.
3. There are still things that your average man can do that women cannot, so the problem is *not* just the power structure. Covid shut down was an example of this. Many women do not have priesthood in the home and went a year with only taking the sacrament by risking exposure to a deadly disease. My husband was taught that pressing the sacrament takes two priesthood holders, so we went without for that year. Women cannot bless their children when they are sick and are often alone with children. After all the work and risk to life of giving birth, we cannot even hold our babies when they are blessed. This exclusion for the child’s first social introduction hurts. We are pushed aside while men who don’t even have any relation to the child barge in because they are this months “home ministers” but have never even met baby of mother. Then the men pat us on the head and say that our prayers are just as effective with our sick children, while still insisting there is some magical connection to God that heals the sick given through the blessing.
4. The question of what really is priesthood really has no good answer. So, do men really have priesthood? It sure sounds to me like priesthood is something men made up to make them special. And “when everyone is special, no one is special,” as one of my favorite villains says. So, of course men don’t want everyone to be special, because then they won’t be.
“and the results are different.”
This is my whole point. The results aren’t different. Which is how I answer StephenChardy as well, as I also could care less about authority, but it’s the only thing I can find that IS different.
If Priesthood claims it has more meaning/revelations/guidance and the results are different, then it actually has to have more meaning/revelations/guidance and produce different results.
It doesn’t.
I receive the same guidance, revelation, spiritual support from God in the work I do in the church as I do in the work I do outside the church. I’ve found more meaning in the work I do in a non-LDS youth organization than I do in my ward (which likely is demographics of the kids/youth themselves). Even more, my non-LDS friends who participate with their kid/youth programs in their own churchs (so zero LDS priesthood influence) are also having the Exact. Same. Meaning. Revelations. Guidance. that I am.
I can’t find anything unique about working within LDS priesthood and working without. This is where I am stuck.
(I’ll quit now. I’m just repeating myself at this point.)
ReTx, I can only speak for myself and my experience. When I focus on the fact that I’m on the Lord’s errand, doing his work with the promise of his help, then I do better than if I don’t focus on that. That’s what authority means for me–it absolutely does not mean having authority over anyone else.
We do tend to talk in the Church like we have a monopoly on guidance or help from the Lord. We don’t. That doesn’t mean the Church doesn’t add anything, but that’s a whole other topic.
Others have already discussed the ambiguity between priesthood authority, power, and ordination. To repeat the obvious, as women and girls are excluded from ordination, they are also excluded from performing (most) priesthood ordinances and serving in priesthood leadership positions.
The one question I’ve never had answered, and which I believe could offer the most room to move forward, is where the authority derives by which women perform certain ordinances in the temple (invitatories and endowment) but not all. Why can sisters perform those? How does the authority flow? There’s no canonized revelation or even a basic explanation from the church.
I ask because it stands to reason that whatever authority already exists for sisters performing invitatories and endowments, the same authority should allow for women to perform all ordinances. If a temple president can set apart a woman with authority to perform an initiatory, he can also give her authority to perform baptisms, confirmations, and even sealings. Likewise, it stands to reason that a bishop could delegate his priesthood authority for young (and not young) women to administer the sacrament, perform baptisms and confirmations, bless their babies, and so forth.
The cat is already out of the bag. We (collectively) just don’t want to admit it. Either sisters are performing temple ordinances without proper authority, or there is a line of authority available now that can be leveraged for women to perform all ordinances.
Pretty sure that women who have the second anointing ordinance have the priesthood or some other authority to perform a blessing on their husbands. As most here know, early church women performed healing blessings all the time. The priesthood is not a prerequisite (sp) to heal/bless someone through prayer. There would be nothing wrong with women laying hands on there kids and asking God to heal them through faith. Or just praying for them to be healed, no hands needed. I get that there are no lessons and talks on women in the church doing this recently but in the early church they got the green light. (yes someone changed that but it can be changed again)
An interesting thought that comes from the ancient Nag Hammadi writings is that the Holy Spirit is Mother in Heaven. That is a cool concept for me. Father, Son and Mother being the trinity. I could get behind that.
I thought for sure that women were going to prep and pass the sacrament by now, as they are duties assigned to certain quorums. Much like you had to be an ordained priest to witness a baptism in our recent past. If that can change, it all can change.
I believe Dr. Morgan Gardner’s writings on women holding the priesthood all post-date President Oaks’ landmark general conference address in 2014, so I don’t think this is a case of a lay person getting out ahead of those in authority (at least in the basic idea, if not in specific interpretations).
RLD said, “As for this being new, I agree it’s something few members thought about before 2014 (except Joseph Fielding Smith, apparently).” But Joseph Fielding Smith explicitly taught the *opposite* of what President Oaks taught in the very address that President Oaks quoted in his talk! Joseph Fielding Smith said, “While the sisters have not been given the Priesthood, it has not been conferred upon them, that does not mean that the Lord has not given unto them authority. Authority and Priesthood are two different things.” When President Oaks asked in his talk, “What other authority can [the authority given to women] be [but priesthood authority]?” he was innovating. Which is fascinating and exciting! But as OP rightly points out, a completely new take that should be recognized as such.
Nice catch, Jack of Hearts. This is not the first time theological innovation has come by reading an older text to mean something very different than the original author intended.