Women, Anointing the Sick, and the Laying on of Hands
I have posted regularly at the old Soleil Splendide on women and the administration of the Gifts of the Spirit. I am preparing several more posts on related topics; however, I have received several emails requesting information specifically on women anointing and their laying on of hands. I consequently offer this outline of some historical teachings on the subject. Women also participate in similar ordinances, related to the temple, which will not be discussed in this post. While some of the material here presented has been overviewed in my antecedent posts, most has not.
The Nauvoo Period
At the end of the Relief Society meetings held on April 14th and 19th 1844, the Relief Society Presidency administered to the sisters among them who where sick. Ehat and Cook note:
During the meeting of 19 April, for example, "Mrs. Durfee bore testimony to the great blessing she received when administered to after the close of the last meeting, by Emma Smith and Counselors Cleveland and Whitney. She said she never realized more benefit through any administration, [and] that she was healed and thought the sisters had more faith than the brethren" (Relief Society Minutes, 19 April 1842, Church Archives). This caused some members of the society to question the propriety of women anointing with oil and laying on hands, thinking this was only a priesthood function. At this meeting, however, the Prophet explained that this was entirely appropriate. He sympathized with those who did not understand his larger vision. He said "that the time had not been before, that these things could be in their proper order—that the Church is not now organized in its proper order, and cannot be until the Temple is completed." In the Temple women would with oil and by the laying on of the hands confer on their sisters blessings of greater eternal significance than the beautiful but single effect of healing an illness. (WOJS, pg. 139-140)
Joseph, himself, editorialized on the experience in the History of the Church:
At two o’clock I met the members of the “Female Relief Society,†and after presiding at the admission of many new members, gave a lecture on the Priesthood, showing how the sisters would come in possession of the privileges, blessings and gifts of the Priesthood, and that the signs should follow them, such as healing the sick, casting out devils, &c., and that they might attain unto these blessings by a virtuous life, and conversation, and diligence in keeping all the commandments; a synopsis of which was reported by Miss Eliza R. Snow, as follows:
…He asked the Society if they could not see by this sweeping promise, that wherein they are ordained, it is the privilege of those set apart to administer in that authority, which is conferred on them; and if the sisters should have faith to heal the sick, let all hold their tongues, and let everything roll on.
…President Smith then gave instruction respecting the propriety of females administering to the sick by the prayer of faith, the laying on hands, or the anointing with oil; and said it was according to revelation that the sick should be nursed with herbs and mild food, and not by the hand of an enemy. Who are better qualified to administer than our faithful and zealous sisters, whose hearts are full of faith, tenderness, sympathy and compassion. No one. (History of the Church vol. 4 pg. 602-603; Original account found in WOJS Nauvoo Relief Society Minutes, pg. 114-115)
The Prophet’s sentiments seem to have been shared by others in authority at the time. Brigham Young, at the 1844 General Conference (Special Elders Meeting, April 9) addressed the congregants:
The God we serve is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. There is no need of breaking the law of the land if you keep the law of the Lord. I want a wife that can take care of my children when I am away, who can pray, lay on hands, anoint with oil, and baffle the enemy; and this is a spiritual wife. (History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints vol. 6 pg. 321)
Helen M. Kimball relates an example of Nauvoo administration, when her four year old brother was burnt on a kettle:
I was so frightened that I was upon the point of leaping out of bed when mother heard him scream, but he sprang out before she got into the room and cried for her to anoint him with the consecrated oil. She immediately administered it, and was silently praying, when he cried, "Pray loud." She obeyed him and in a few minutes he was sound asleep. He never cried from the burn after the oil was administered and it was healed from that moment. (Woman’s Exponent vol 9. no. 3 pg. 19)
19th Century Utah
Eliza Jane Merrick wrote to the Millennial Star in 1849, which published her account of administering to a sick sister:
She continued very ill all the evening; her breath very short , and the fever very high. I again anointed her chest in the name of the Lord, and asked his blessing; he was graciously pleased to hear me, and in the course of twenty-four hours she was as well as if nothing had been the matter. (Millennial Star vol. 11, page 205)
Elder Ezra T. Benson remarked at the 1852 General Conference that, "The priests in Christendom warn their flocks not to believe in ‘Mormonism’; and yet you sisters have power to heal the sick, by the laying on of hands, which they cannot do." (Millennial Star vol. 15 pg. 130)
In 1869, President Young taught in the Tabernacle:
Learn to take proper care of your children. If any of them are sick the cry now, instead of “Go and fetch the Elders to lay hands on my child!†is, “Run for a doctor.†Why do you not live so as to rebuke disease? It is your privilege to do so without sending for the Elders. You should go to work to study and see what you can do for the recovery of your children… Study
and learn something for yourselves. It is the privilege of a mother to have faith and to administer to her child; this she can do herself, as well as sending for the Elders to have the benefit of their faith. (JD vol 13 pg. 155)
In Nov 12, 1876, John Taylor dedicated the Kaysville Relief Society House, telling the sister, “…you should lay hands on your sick children and rebuke diseases in faith and power, and God will be near you…†(Woman’s Exponent Vol 5. No. 19, pg. 148-149)
Franklin D. Richards quoted extensively from Joseph Smith’s teachings to the Nauvoo Relief Society in a discourse at a Relief Society Meeting, 19 July 1888 (Woman’s Exponent 17 (September 1, 1888) pg. 53-54). Joseph’s teachings were also reprinted several times during the 19th century. The Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints notes that the message was “printed in the Woman’s Exponent 13:44-55, 62 (August 15 and September 1, 1884); in the Utah Journal for April 14, 1888; the Deseret News for July 28, 1888; and was referred to in an editorial by Emmeline B. Wells in the Woman’s Exponent for September 1, 1888.†It was also reprinted in the Contributor, vol. 3 August, 1882. No. 11 pg. 322 and quoted by Elder Widstoe in Priesthood and Church Government (Deseret Book Co., 1939, pg. 356)
In 1888 the First Presidency wrote a letter (entire text) to the Woman’s Exponent that was later approved for circulation by President Lorenzo Snow in 1901 and Joseph F. Smith in 1910. The letter delineates the practice of washing and anointing the sick and afflicted:
Third question: “Have the sisters a right to seal the washing and anointing, using no authority, but doing it in the name of Jesus Christ, or should men holding the Priesthood be called in?â€
The sisters have the privilege of laying their hands on the head of the one officiated for and confirming the anointing in the spirit of invocation, and in the name of Jesus Christ, not mentioning authority. Therefore it is not necessary to call in the Brethren. The Lord has heard and answered the prayers of the sisters in these ministrations many times.
The 20th Century
In the Question and Answer section of the The Improvement Era (1907, vol. 10 no. 4 pg. 308) Joseph F. Smith Stated:
A wife does not hold the priesthood in connection with her husband, but she enjoys the benefits thereof with him; and if she is requested to lay hands on the sick with him, or with any other officer holding the Melchizedek priesthood, she may do so with perfect propriety. It is no uncommon thing for a man and wife unitedly to administer to their children, and the husband being mouth, he may properly say out of courtesy, "By authority of the holy priesthood in us vested."
This passage was later affirmed and quoted by Joseph Fielding Smith in Answers to Gospel Questions (1957) vol. 1 pg. 149. Bruce R. McConkie also included the passage, albeit with substantial qualification, in Doctrines of Salvations vol. 3 (1956; pg. 176).
The practice of women administering to the sick was again affirmed by the First Presidency in 1914 by a letter (entire text) circulated to Bishops and Stake Presidents:
4. Have the sisters the right to administer to sick children?
Answer: Yes; they have the same right to administer to sick children as to adults, and may anoint and lay hands upon them in faith.
5. Should the administering and anointing be sealed?
Answer: It is proper for sisters to lay on hands, using a few simple words, avoiding the terms employed in the temple, and instead of using the word "seal" use the word "confirm".
Also see Linda King Newell’s article, “A Gift Given, A Gift Taken” on the history of women giving blessings through the laying on of hands. It was originally published in Sunstone and is available for free on the Sunstone website. It’s also been reprinted elsewhere, however.
Comment by John H — June 9, 2005 @ 12:42 pm
John H., I did a search and couldn’t find a link to download it. I look forward to reading it - it is always fun to see how much stuff I missed
Comment by J. Stapley — June 9, 2005 @ 12:49 pm
J.,
When did all this change? I thought there was a shift at some point when the Church decided to move away from the practice (at least for now). Is there a statement (FP or otherwise) on the change?
Comment by Frank McIntyre — June 9, 2005 @ 12:59 pm
I was under the impression there was a FP letter around the 20s signaling the shift away. Can anyone give more info on that.
Comment by HL Rogers — June 9, 2005 @ 1:25 pm
Frank, It seems that there was just a gradual shift. Doctrines of Salvation, though the text is not clear whether it is the words of McConkie or his father-in-law, states:
This is the only thing that I have seen quoted as an abatement of the practice.
Comment by J. Stapley — June 9, 2005 @ 1:26 pm
From what I understand, up until 1970, there has been no first presidency message besides those listed in the post. I’m not certain after that; however, I think not. If there were, it would likely have been cited, and I haven’t seen one…or I could simply be missing something.
Comment by J. Stapley — June 9, 2005 @ 1:30 pm
Thanks for this J.
So just to clarify, is this the last time we have had an official pronouncement on women playing a role in blessing their children? Is it your understanding that the current policy is that a husband and wife can jointly lay hands on a sick child while he administers the blessing.
Comment by kris — June 9, 2005 @ 1:35 pm
Are you trying to get me in trouble, kris?
Actually, to my understanding, the last official pronouncement was the 1914 First Presidency Message. Doctrines of Salvation is not official, though it reflects the tenor of the times, I guess.
I look forward to reading that Sunstone article, as it may delineate the transition to our current cultural antipathy towards women administering.
Comment by J. Stapley — June 9, 2005 @ 1:40 pm
Of course I’m not trying to get you into trouble
You also might want to check out Newell’s essay “The Historical Relationship of Mormon Women and Priesthood” as well as Bettina Lindsey’s “Women as Healers in the Modern Church” in Hanks’ book Women and Authority.
Comment by kris — June 9, 2005 @ 2:00 pm
I saw a posting on either this site or one linked to it that made mention of a pronouncment made in 1946 by an Apostle (can’t remember who) as to what the “practice” of the Church was on this issue.
Since “practice” does not constitute “doctrine” as far as I can tell, I would be very interested if anyone has a link they can post on the 1946 edict.
While I sustain Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators, it is the President of the Church alone that receives revelation for the body of the Church. So if the opinions of the Apostle in question are not in the form a letter from the First Presidency and so signed, then I have a hard time seeing how it can overide the 1914 letter signed by Pres. Smith and councelors Lund and Penrose.
Comment by Talon — June 9, 2005 @ 2:14 pm
J., there is another relevant letter: a circular sent by the First Presidency in October 1880. It’s quoted in the aforementioned Sunstone article (issue 29; September/October 1981) and in Linda King Newell’s longer article, “Gifts of the Spirit: Women’s Share” in Sisters in Spirit: Mormon Women in Historical and Cultural Perspective.
Comment by Justin — June 9, 2005 @ 4:20 pm
Wow, this is amazing stuff. I too would be very interested in reading the sunstone article. If anyone finds a link will you post it?
Comment by fMhLisa — June 9, 2005 @ 5:41 pm
The article is available here:
A Gift Given
Comment by Justin — June 9, 2005 @ 5:50 pm
Thanks for posting that link, Justin. Newell attributes the final “death knell” as being a letter that Joseph Fielding wrote to the General Relief Society President on July 29, 1946. The source that Newell cites only includes this paragraph:
However, my reading of this coupled with the authors pronouncments in Doctrines of Salvation suggest that the practice is not verbotten.
Newell also focused on the practice as an out growth of Temple Ordinances. I tend to disagree. While it seems there was some borrowing from the temple, Joseph’s preaching to the Relief Society and Brigham’s antecedent commentary suggest that it was/is completely proprietary for women to annoint and bless (apart from washing).
Comment by J. Stapley — June 9, 2005 @ 6:39 pm
My second husband and his father, a former stake president, once gave me a blessing because we were being treated for infertility. Then he went to give a blessing to my husband and invited his wife and me to put our hands on his head when he did it. I felt uncomfortable, but I guess it was okay.
Comment by annegb — June 9, 2005 @ 8:33 pm
So, if it’s okay for a woman to lay hands on someone’s head while a priesthood member is giving a blessing to a child, could a woman stand in the circle of brethren and lay hands on her child’s head in fast and testimony meeting when her child is being given a name and a blessing? Or when her child is being confirmed????
Comment by meems — June 9, 2005 @ 10:58 pm
I suspect no. It seems like the difference would be one between ministering and administering. Blessing the sick and afflicted would be an example of the former (as would blessings of comfort and counsel) and would not require administrative authority, but priesthood ordinances would (such as baptism, confirmation, etc). But what about the dedication of a house or grave and consecration of oil, and naming and blessing of babies? I think the first three would fall on the administrative end, but I am not certain about the last. Any thoughts?
Comment by Nate W. — June 9, 2005 @ 11:37 pm
Joseph Smith used Mark 16:17-18 as his justification for women anointing and healing. This was very common in the restorationist thought of the period. The difficulty is when you start looking at things through the lens of the temple.
Comment by J. Stapley — June 9, 2005 @ 11:56 pm
J.
The RS meeting was well after Joseph began performing the temple ceremony. The first endowments were, I believe in 1842. And so it is quite reasonable to belive that Joseph’s views on these subjects (and those of the one’s who had been endowed) were very much tied up with the teachings of the temple.
Even at that time, women performed part of the ordinance work for the temple ceremony. A major hangup in extending the ordinances to more people in Nauvoo was that Emma’s doctrinal hangups (apparently) were a stumbling block to her getting all the ordinances, and Joseph wanted/needed her to get the ordinances so she could help him give the ordinances to other women.
Comment by Frank McIntyre — June 10, 2005 @ 1:10 am
Can I just say that it drives me nuts that the Church can be so inconsistent on certain issues. I sustain all the prophets, from Smith to Hinckley, but when they’re in conflict on vitals issues like gender, race, marriage, and priesthood, the only conclusion I can make is that a lot of what is considered moral/immoral now is not necessarily so in an absolute sense.
Is this feeling freedom or vertigo?
Comment by anon — June 10, 2005 @ 5:47 am
Meems — There is a specific Church policy on women in blessing circles for new babies. Apparently, during the latter half of 1980s many women were requesting to be part of this ritual. In 1990, the official church policy was redefined to exclude inactive fathers, nonmembers and women from standing in the blessing circle.
J. — Do you think that Newell seems to indicate that the 1946 letter is more directed towards the “pregnancy blessing” that women used to give to each other? She seems to use it in this context in the essay in Women and Authority
Comment by kris — June 10, 2005 @ 6:45 am
Nate W.:
I would be hard pressed to accept a baby’s blessing as an ordinace, as I do not believe the case can be made that they are necessary for salvation.
The quote used by Newell is from an Apostle (Joseph Fielding (Smith?)) to the Relief Society, so again, the question is, does this have the authority of overiding the 1914 letter addressed to the body of the church and signed by the First Presidency?
Also, the quote states “While the authorities of the Church have ruled that it is permissible, under certain conditions and with the approval of the priesthood, for sisters to wash and anoint other sisters”, whereas the text of the 1914 letter clearly states that women are inherently entitled to this right, as well as the right to bless children, and that it doesn’t even have to be exercised under the authority or direction of the Relief Society presidency.
This would be in keeping with the belief that healing is a gift of the Spirit available to all faithful members, and does not fall under the sole pervue of the Priesthood.
Comment by Talon — June 10, 2005 @ 11:38 am
Frank – Yes, there was a group of sisters (including the Emma and Elizabeth) that received the endowment late 1843. Moreover, washings and anointings were the primary ordinances of the Kirtland Endowment (~1836, I think – too lazy to look it up). The 1844 pronouncement of Joseph and Brigham and the associated anointings and blessings by the Relief Society Presidency were no doubt effected by the temple. However, the manner to which the sick were administered coupled with the restorationist beliefs of the early saints paints a picture that, I think, is not derivative of the Temple. Temple practice may have been the catalyst to institutionalizing practice, but women had been speaking in tongues, blessing, prophesying and even raising the dead by the laying on of hands (all restorationist practices) since Kirkland. I think the tenor of Joseph’s discourse (as well as the other 19th century discourses) to the Relief Society encouraging the practice has a more restorationist feel to it, though Joseph was explicit that these things were of the same power as the temple:
It seems that after the saints were established in Utah, there was a concerted borrowing from temple practice, e.g., addition of washings and in some cases formalized anointing language. This is the focus of the bulk Newell’s essay (especially in connection with prenatal anointing). It is also important to note that up until the 20th century, men anointed the body parts of the afflicted (See here), which I think can be traced back to the Kirtland endowment.
Kris, Newell cites the letter, however, I’m not sure that she had access to the whole thing. Her source is Messages of the First Presidency, which only includes the paragraph included in comment #14. I think that you may be correct that the letter addresses extra-temple washings and annointings, which is separate issue than the blessing of children discussed in Answers to Gospel Questions and Doctrines of Salvation
Comment by J. Stapley — June 10, 2005 @ 12:18 pm
I find this a fascinating topic, partly because it is _so_ different than our current understanding of how women do/do not exercise priesthood authority and partly because it’s not the kind of thing we get to discuss often since it’s such a taboo subject.
It seems to me that there are two different directions you can go with the materials that J. Stapley presents. One is that (for whatever reason) Church leaders post-Joseph Smith declined to continue down a path that Joseph clearly signaled they should go. This would mean that, right or wrong, Joseph intended women to exercise some kind of priesthood authority that they do not now enjoy.
Another is that these varying and often contradictory practices (and statements about the practices) simply represent a process of trial and error as Church members and leaders (including Joseph Smith) learned how to use priesthood and how to use spiritual gifts (and knowing which was which). This would mean that the Church practice/doctrine as it stands now is basically right.
Anyone see other possibilities?
Comment by Tim — June 12, 2005 @ 4:52 pm
I’m not sure if this is covered by your first scenario, but what if these practices were acceptable in their time but not later?
Comment by Julie in Austin — June 12, 2005 @ 5:47 pm
I would not want to be part of the circle blessing my baby, although I don’t fault anybody else who does. I think there’s something wonderful with a circle of men carefully holding a tiny baby.
Comment by annegb — June 12, 2005 @ 8:23 pm
I wonder if this sort of thing doesn’t happen anymore for the same reason we don’t speak in tongues anymore.
Comment by J. Stapley — June 12, 2005 @ 9:19 pm
First, as an aside, why DON’T we speak in tongues anymore?
Second– when my husband was on a mission in Norway in the late 70s, women regularly held their baby in the center of the circle while it was blessed. When our first child was born, I did not ask to do this. However, there was a non-LDS male in the circle. When our second was born, five years later, I had heard of several women being allowed to hold their baby during the blessing, but only if the blessing was done at home. To me the idea that a non-LDS male could be in the circle, but not the baby’s LDS mother, seemed very silly, at best. I asked my bishop if I could hold the baby while he was blessed. The bishop said only if the baby was blessed at home. Hmm– so is it really ok for a woman to participate in the blessing? If so, why did it have to be at home? (In the end, our son was blessed at my parents’ ward, and I did not hold him.) But I wrote to Exponent II, and asked for women to share experiences with participating in blessings, and this became the first Sister Share column there. ( http://www.exponentii.org , if anyone’s interested in the magazine) A little after that column came out, 1992, or 93, perhaps, then the official pronouncement came out that inactive and non-LDS males were no longer allowed in the circle. I’ve always thought that perhaps the Exponent II article gave the issue too much publicity.
Comment by PJJ — June 14, 2005 @ 10:24 am
Women are still holding their babies during blessings - they are just doing it privately, at home. I know a number of women who have chosen to do it at home so that they can participate in the blessing. My husband and I are expecting to get pregnant soon for the first time - and I am definitely going to be holding that baby!
The tricky thing is that if you want a certificate that says your baby has been blessed, you need to have a bishopric member there. (This certificate is in no way essential - it’s really just something to put in the scrapbook.) Depending on the bishopric member, he might or might not be comfortable with the woman holding the baby. So I’m going to play it safe and not invite a bishopric member.
Comment by Caroline — June 14, 2005 @ 11:14 am
First, as an aside, why DON’T we speak in tongues anymore?
This is a post in and of itself, but a possible short answer is: we stopped and then we stopped beleiving.
Comment by J. Stapley — June 14, 2005 @ 5:25 pm
I’ve heard it said that when missionaries go into foreign countries and preach the gospel in a foreign language that they spent all of eight weeks learning, this is a manifestation of the gift of tongues. I’ve never seen an official pronouncement/denouncement of this belief, and I have to assume it’s folklore. But it makes sense. Why have a gift of the spirit if it doesn’t serve a purpose in the real world?
Comment by Steve — September 26, 2006 @ 9:35 am
Steve, that interpretation is the normative one. It isn’t particularly historically accurate, but it is normative.
Comment by J. Stapley — September 26, 2006 @ 10:20 am