{"id":43483,"date":"2022-09-02T19:22:36","date_gmt":"2022-09-03T00:22:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.timesandseasons.org\/?p=43483"},"modified":"2022-09-07T17:24:38","modified_gmt":"2022-09-07T22:24:38","slug":"women-and-the-priesthood-with-lisa-olsen-tait","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/2022\/09\/women-and-the-priesthood-with-lisa-olsen-tait\/","title":{"rendered":"Women and the Priesthood with Lisa Olsen Tait"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u201cDo women have the priesthood?\u201d\u00a0 You would think the answer would be a simple yes or no for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.\u00a0 The reality, however, seems to say differently, with people arguing for a whole spectrum of answers while discussing this topic of perennial interest.\u00a0 In a recent interview at the Latter-day Saint history and theology blog <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">From the Desk<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fromthedesk.org\/women-and-the-priesthood-lisa-olsen-tait-open-questions\/\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Lisa Olsen Tait<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u00a0shared her historical perspective on how we arrived at the current state of women\u2019s relationship to the priesthood in the Church, drawing on her research that was presented in an article in <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/byustudies.byu.edu\/article\/what-is-womens-relationship-to-priesthood\/\"><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">BYU Studies<\/span><\/i><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u2019 \u201cYet to Be Revealed\u201d issue.\u00a0 What follows here is a co-post, a shorter post presenting and discussing excerpts from the interview and related materials.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In the original article, Lisa Olsen Tait divided the history into sections with inflection points between them, as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">1840s: \u201cThe Ancient Priesthood\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">1850\u20131900: \u201cIn Connection with Their Husbands\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">1900\u20131940: \u201cThe Blessings of the Priesthood\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">1960s: \u201cThe Home Is the Basis\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">1970\u20132000: Feminism and Responses<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Twenty-First Century: Priesthood \u201cPower\u201d and \u201cAuthority\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In the interview, Tait explained some of the evolution through those eras, specifically related to the temple.\u00a0 To quote in relation to the 1840s:<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The revelation commanding the Saints to build the temple (Section 124) repeatedly spoke of it in terms of priesthood. \u201cTherein are the keys of the holy priesthood ordained,\u201d it said. In the House of the Lord the \u201cfulness of the priesthood\u201d would be restored. The Lord would show Joseph \u201call things pertaining to this house, and the priesthood thereof\u201d (D&amp;C 124:28, 34, 42, emphasis mine).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Joseph Smith\u2019s teachings about the temple \u2026 were permeated with language about priesthood. The temple was understood to be the ultimate site and expression of priesthood.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Now, we have to understand that their definition of priesthood was much less abstract than ours has come to be. In the article, I call it the \u201ccollective sense\u201d of priesthood\u2014that is, priesthood requires priests and priestesses.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Those who have made covenants and received ordinances are the priesthood. (Think of \u201cpriesthood\u201d in the same sense as \u201cmotherhood\u201d or \u201cfatherhood.\u201d) And \u201cthe priesthood\u201d is the order of the celestial kingdom. In this sense, we are the priesthood\u2014we are of the order of the Son of God (see Alma 13).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">During Joseph Smith\u2019s time, the priesthood was understood as the state or condition of being a priest or priestess.\u00a0 That being said, however, it is not entirely clear whether women were considered to be fully a part of the priesthood by Joseph Smith during his lifetime, with a few points of language on record that muddy the water.\u00a0 One is that the original Relief Society presidency was ordained, a term we are used to thinking of as a priesthood term.\u00a0 Tait explained her understanding of how that was used in context:<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Terms that now have very definite meanings for us were often used more broadly. To \u201cordain\u201d something or someone, in the usage of Joseph Smith\u2019s day and even now, could mean simply to appoint them for a particular purpose.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Over time, this term came to mean specifically that someone had been given priesthood authority and office, and since priesthood is conferred only upon men in the church, \u201cordain\u201d came to mean giving priesthood to men.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">It certainly meant that in 1830, but not only that. \u2026<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">John Taylor, acting at Joseph\u2019s direction, laid his hands on [Emma Smith\u2019s] head and \u201cconfirm\u2019d upon her all the blessings which have been confer\u2019d on her.\u201d He also laid hands on her counselors, Elizabeth Ann Whitney and Sarah Cleveland, and \u201cordained\u201d them to their offices.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">These terms and actions implicitly invoke authority that originated in the priesthood, but there is no indication that anyone present that day understood the women to have had priesthood conferred upon them in the same sense that men received it.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Her description here is pretty close to what is described in the <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.churchofjesuschrist.org\/study\/manual\/gospel-topics-essays\/joseph-smiths-teachings-about-priesthood-temple-and-women?lang=eng\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Church\u2019s official essay<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> on the subject. Not everyone agrees with Tait&#8217;s assessment here, of course, but her i<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">nterpretation does seem to match what the Church has followed through most of its history.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Lisa Olsen Tait did go on in the interview to describe some developments through the remainder of the 19th century, as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This \u201cpriesthood of the temple\u201d did not create or bestow ecclesiastical office to act in the church, but that ecclesiastical meaning and function of priesthood continued\u2014and expanded\u2014throughout the nineteenth century even as the understanding of a connection between priesthood and temple lingered.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This gave rise to an expression that women held the priesthood \u201cin connection with their husbands\u201d or that they held \u201ca portion of the priesthood.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In 1888, for example, Elder Franklin D. Richards insisted:<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u201cOur sisters share with us any and all of the ordinances of the holy anointing, endowments, sealings, sanctifications and blessings that we have been made partakers of.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u201cIs it possible,\u201d Richards continued, \u201cthat we have the holy priesthood and our wives have none of it?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">All such assertions made a positive claim\u2014women had \u201cpriesthood\u201d\u2014alongside a qualification of the claim\u2014\u201ca portion of\u201d or \u201cin connection with.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The question that went begging, of course, was if women did have some \u201cportion of\u201d or \u201cconnection to\u201d the priesthood, what did it mean?<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">What authority did it give them?<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">What did it enable them to do?<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">No one really had an answer other than insisting that women did not have authority to exercise any priesthood functions or offices on par with men.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Meanwhile, women\u2019s organizations became firmly established within the church, and women held visible positions of authority within them. Everyone agreed that this was not \u201cpriesthood\u201d in the same sense as men\u2019s offices, but they also affirmed that the ultimate source of women\u2019s authority was the male priesthood\u2014the Relief Society had been organized by Joseph Smith, and women leaders continued to be called and set apart by bishops and stake presidents.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Priesthood continued to be understood as meaning priests, with women sharing in that role as partners to the priests. Where exactly that placed women in relationship to the priesthood\u2019s rights and responsibilities, however, was a bit ambiguous.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Going on to the early 20th century, Tait wrote that:<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Around the turn of the century, Joseph F. Smith initiated a priesthood reform movement seeking to better define, organize, and codify priesthood functions and offices throughout the church.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">He formulated and taught a definition of priesthood as \u201cthe power of God delegated to man by which man can act in the earth for the salvation of the human family\u201d\u2014a more abstract definition of priesthood than the collective sense understood by earlier generations.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The ecclesiastical sense of priesthood became even more ascendant. Smith adamantly insisted that women did not \u201chold the priesthood in connection with their husbands.\u201d Instead, they jointly enjoyed all the blessings of the priesthood\u2014the implication being that those blessings were ultimately realized through temple ordinances.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Thus, the collective sense of priesthood was obscured, and priesthood became something separate from the people who held it. Now it was understood that ecclesiastical priesthood authorized and enabled the work of the temple, and the sense that the temple was a place where priesthood \u201chappened\u201d faded.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This priesthood reform movement paved the way for our current understanding and practice when it comes to priesthood.\u00a0 Tait explained that:<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The priesthood reform movement served to diminish the sense that women had any direct claim or connection to priesthood in their own right and instead established the understanding that women did not hold the priesthood, but they shared in all its blessings. This formulation has remained remarkably stable for over a century.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Now, culturally, I think we have to acknowledge that the strong emphasis on priesthood\u2014especially priesthood as the governing, administrative power in the church\u2014meant that there was a lot of emphasis on men and boys, with both implicit and explicit implication that women were subordinate and less favored.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And this was happening at the time when the first wave of the women\u2019s movement in the United States was achieving its greatest victory in the passage of woman suffrage. Trying to make sense of these complexities, Susa Young Gates and her daughter, Leah D. Widtsoe, formulated the idea that men have priesthood and women have motherhood. That is, women couldn\u2019t possibly do all the priesthood things because motherhood is so all-consuming.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Gates-Widtsoe equivocating of priesthood and motherhood remains influential to explain why women are not ordained in the Church.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">For more thoughts on women and the priesthood, head on over to the Latter-day Saint history and theology blog <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">From the Desk<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> to read the full interview <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fromthedesk.org\/women-and-the-priesthood-lisa-olsen-tait-open-questions\/\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Lisa Olsen Tait<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u00a0(there\u2019s much more to it than what I\u2019ve fit in here).<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>\u201cDo women have the priesthood?\u201d\u00a0 You would think the answer would be a simple yes or no for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.\u00a0 The reality, however, seems to say differently, with people arguing for a whole spectrum of answers while discussing this topic of perennial interest.\u00a0 In a recent interview at the Latter-day Saint history and theology blog From the Desk, Lisa Olsen Tait\u00a0shared her historical perspective on how we arrived at the current state of women\u2019s relationship to the priesthood in the Church, drawing on her research that was presented in an article in BYU Studies\u2019 \u201cYet to Be Revealed\u201d issue.\u00a0 What follows here is a co-post, a shorter post presenting and discussing excerpts from the interview and related materials. In the original article, Lisa Olsen Tait divided the history into sections with inflection points between them, as follows: 1840s: \u201cThe Ancient Priesthood\u201d 1850\u20131900: \u201cIn Connection with Their Husbands\u201d 1900\u20131940: \u201cThe Blessings of the Priesthood\u201d 1960s: \u201cThe Home Is the Basis\u201d 1970\u20132000: Feminism and Responses Twenty-First Century: Priesthood \u201cPower\u201d and \u201cAuthority\u201d In the interview, Tait explained some of the evolution through those eras, specifically related to the temple.\u00a0 To quote in relation to the [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10397,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[17,2890,32],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-43483","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-church-history","category-from-the-desk","category-women-in-the-church"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43483","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10397"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=43483"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43483\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":43514,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43483\/revisions\/43514"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=43483"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=43483"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=43483"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}