125 Comments

1. Great post. My wife regularly lays hands on children with me when I administer to them. Anyone who has been endowed can surely not argue with doing this.

   Comment by Joe Smith — October 21, 2005 @ 5:58 am

2. Is this “Fullness of the Priesthood” the second annointing? Quinn mentions this in Extensions of Power. He mentions specifically that Russell Nelson and his wife received this before he was called to be an apostle.
   If it isn’t the second annointing, what is it, and is there any material out there to help us understand it?

   Comment by Graham — October 21, 2005 @ 8:29 am

3. J. Stapley,

   Well done. Thank you for you efforts in researching and composing this.

   Comment by Mark IV — October 21, 2005 @ 9:00 am

4. Graham, yes it is.

   Comment by J. Stapley — October 21, 2005 @ 9:34 am

5. Any thoughts on why this isn’t so common any more?

   Comment by Graham — October 21, 2005 @ 10:11 am

6. J. Stapley, I think this is a great post, but in my opinion you’re 10% off on this. Both men and women need the Second Anointing to have the fulness of the priesthood–and few men or women receive it. Hence, not many of us, of either sex, have the fulness of the priesthood.

   But the endowment itself conveys both priesthoods. Think about the symbolism. Also read Quinn’s chapter (”Mormon Women Have Had the Priesthood Since 1843″) in Maxine Hanks’s “Women and Authority: Reemerging Mormon Feminism” book, for the extensive historical evidence showing that Joseph Smith’s contemporaries understood the endowment — and not the second anointing — to be the ordinance that gave women priesthood. One example from Quinn:

   “Brigham Young’s 1843 diary associated the endowment of women with receiving priesthood. On 29 October 1843, for example, he noted that Thirza Cahoon, Lois Cutler, and Phebe Woodworth were ‘taken into the order of the priesthood.’ That was the day those three women individually received their endowment. They did not join with their husbands to receive the second anointing until 12 and 15 November 1843, respectively.”

   In my view, women who receive the endowment have both kinds of priesthood that men have. The difference is that they don’t have an office in the priesthood and they aren’t called to exercise it through hierarchical authority.

   Comment by RoastedTomatoes — October 21, 2005 @ 10:29 am

7. Does the ordinance associated with the fulness (or 2nd anointing) involve a laying on of hands and ordination of the woman independently?

   As RT suggests, women are not ordained to an office of the priesthood, and cannot access or exercise priesthood power independently, so I think it’s somewhat misleading to say that women (currently) “have” the priesthood(s). I think it’s more accurate to say that they’ve been initiated into priesthood rites and have received the blessings of that initiation, and I think this much more limited sense is what both Talmage and President Taylor meant.

   As for Joseph, those quotes are of course honey to my ears, but somehow they just seem so discordant with the otherwise prevailing masculine ethos of early Mormonism—I can’t help but think we’re wishfully misreading them. However most of the time I gratefully accept the interpretation of you and others like you who are far more learned on the matter.

   Comment by Rosalynde — October 21, 2005 @ 10:44 am

8. I’m not sure, RoastedTomatoes. The endowment is quite symbollic (yes, I’m mr. obvious). We know that we don’t literally enter the Celestial Kingdom, but it is symbollic of what may be. I’m familiar with Quinn’s reading, but I think it is rather strained. There seems to be more evidence to suggest that Priesthood is confered by ordination. It is really quite difficult to sepperate what early church leaders fealt about specific ordinances, because they all came together for the at once.

   Graham, I believe the limitation was in response to schismatic polygamists who used the authority to justify their apostacy. Then, history became legend; Legend became myth.

   Comment by J. Stapley — October 21, 2005 @ 10:53 am

9. J. Stapley - I believe it was you that posted the text from a letter from the First Presidency in the early 20th century (1914?) outlining when/how it was proper for women to annoint and bless the sick, independent of the authority of a male priesthood holder being present.

   Can you repost that info again here? I think it is relavant to the conversation, and I also lost the copy I printed the first time it was posted. If it wasn’t you that posted it, and anyone else knows what I am talking about, please post.

   Thanks!

   Comment by Talon — October 21, 2005 @ 11:21 am

10. My wife regularly lays hands on children with me when I administer to them. Anyone who has been endowed can surely not argue with doing this.

    My parents have done this in the past, they may still do. I am endowed and I am very uncomfortable with it, so I make a point of leaving the room if that’s what they are going to do.

    My father, when laying hands on a woman’s head, will often say that she “shares” in the priesthood, or will, if not yet endowed. I am not comfortable with that either. As such, I will not participate with him in giving any woman other than my mother a blessing, unless he promises not to do this.

    Comment by Fratello Giovanni — October 21, 2005 @ 11:29 am

11. Question #3: Do you, a woman, want the priesthood? No.

    #4: Do you think women who want the priesthood are out of their minds, because who needs more to do? Yes.

    #5: Do you think men need something to do on Sunday so they don’t bug you? Yes.

    #6: Do you care if women get the priesthood and be your bishop? No. I will give them equal grief.

    #7: Will you accept the priesthood if it’s offered? No way, Jose. I’m tired enough as it is.

    You know, my second husband’s father, a stake president, asked me to lay my hands on second husband’s head when he was giving him a blessing. I did, but I felt stupid. His mom put her hands on, too. His little brothers peered in through the window.

    Comment by annegb — October 21, 2005 @ 11:31 am

12. “Graham, I believe the limitation was in response to schismatic polygamists who used the authority to justify their apostacy. ”

    My understanding was that a few people who received it started bragging about it publicly. The Church leaders of the last 100 years have been extremely careful to keep any discussion of this ordinance out of the public eye. To have (what should have been) mature members bragging about how they had received higher ordinances and were therefor more righteous were violating that directive.

    In my opinion, it’s not even appropriate to have a post on.

    Comment by Aaron — October 21, 2005 @ 11:34 am

13. “It is for this reason that Joseph F. Smith’s words . . . [seem] so schizophrenic”

    His words seem hallucinatory, paranoid and delusional?

    Comment by Kim Siever — October 21, 2005 @ 11:37 am

14. Kim, guess what? We are reading the Book of Mormon. Yes, I changed my mind. Not happily, but still…

    Apologies for the subject interruption.

    Comment by annegb — October 21, 2005 @ 11:47 am

15. RoastedTomatoes, I also think it is important to consider the Masonic component of the Temples development. When Brighm says, “taken into the order of the priesthood.” it makes sense when you consider that the verbiage is the same for the Masonic order. It would make sense that they used the same term for this new Priesthood order.

    Aaron, There is no question that the Brethren got rather upset with a few folks proclaiming that they recieved it, but this was after the major trend had already begun. And as to the content, I appologize for offending your sensibiliies. However, if you look at public documents from the 19th century, I am being no more explicit (in fact, I’m being less so) than our early church leaders.

    schiz·o·phren·ic: Of, relating to, or characterized by the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic elements.

    Comment by J. Stapley — October 21, 2005 @ 11:56 am

16. Here is a link to a post on women administering to the sick. There is a link in that post to the full text of that letter.

    Comment by J. Stapley — October 21, 2005 @ 12:00 pm

17. Jonathan, that Brigham Young quote was just one of many. I offered it because the dates made it clear that he was talking about the endowment and not the second anointing. But many of the main 19th-century leaders also expressed an understanding that the endowment ceremony conveys priesthood. That’s the reason, for example, that endowed women can carry out specific priesthood ordinances within the temple.

    Comment by RoastedTomatoes — October 21, 2005 @ 12:08 pm

18. “However, if you look at public documents from the 19th century, I am being no more explicit (in fact, I’m being less so) than our early church leaders.”

    Sure. But just because Orson Pratt published the sealing ceremony doesn’t mean you hear President Hinckley talking about it. I gotta stick with the modern sensitivity on this one.

    Comment by Aaron — October 21, 2005 @ 12:17 pm

19. You gotta love Orson.

    RT, I concede that there was more of a conception that women entered into the order of the priesthood, by the endowment, in the nineteenth century.

    Comment by J. Stapley — October 21, 2005 @ 12:42 pm

20. Graham, I think you’ll ref. #9 (Buerger, Dialogue) is a fairly comprehensive coverage of the history of the second annointing.

    Comment by Porteous — October 21, 2005 @ 1:07 pm

21. Thanks Porteous. I’ve found it on the U of U site.

    Comment by Graham — October 21, 2005 @ 1:39 pm

22. Remember also that the latter part of the fulness of the priesthood (2A) ceremony is concluded in the couple’s home. At that point, when the couple decides they want to ratify all of it, the WOMAN washes the feet of the MAN, thereby laying claim upon him in the (supposedly first) resurrection. This is in Buerger’s book as well as Kimball’s “On the Potter’s Wheel.” So the woman may have even MORE implied authority than meets the eye.

    I have a copy of a letter sent to the First Pres. regarding a couple who received the fulness, but the man died before the couple could perform the washing of feet at home, and the answer was “you’re OK, don’t worry about it.” Very interesting.

    One reason I think the 2A has been curtailed somewhat (but is on the rise again–it’s been mentioned in 3 of the last 10 semi-annual general conferences), is because most people (erroneously?) think that their election is made sure at that point, and imagine what a mess it would make if all of Mormonism wrote letters to SLC demanding the fulness of the priesthood for themselves and their posterity. I wish election were that automatic, but personally I don’t think it is. Anyway, I think it’s on the hush-hush because of the mess it would cause for people — most members think they’re ripe and dandy for entrance into the CK, when absence of the fulness of the priesthood would show otherwise. And yes, David J believes it is necessary for full exaltation. If you go to the endowment, listen up right after the lights dim. The narrator talks about receiving a “more sure” anointing which isn’t conditional (like the initiatory).

    Also, women perform the initiatories upon themselves by the power of the priesthood, or so my wife says. So there’s another indication.

    But like it was posted earlier, I’ve pretty much decided to await for the 2A, if indeed I’m worthy (which is unlikely), posthumously. It causes too much stress to worry about obtaining it in this life when I live far away from SLC and the brethren don’t know me, and even if they did they’d think I’m nuttier than anything.

    I’ve also often thought that perhaps priesthood, for women, is still patrilineal, that is, they’re born with it; it’s not “given” them like it is to men…

    Comment by David J — October 21, 2005 @ 2:13 pm

23. Great post. One note of caution — I think that we need to be careful about how we understand 19th century statements about entering into the the order of the priesthood. It seems to me that “order of the priesthood” was sometimes used to refer to a sacral institutional structure, and was sometimes used to refer to priesthood authority itself. I think that there is a danger of a kind of anachronistic reading of the all reference to “priesthood” in 19th century sources as refering to our current concept of priesthood. That said, I have very few doctrinal objections to the notion that priesthood is conferred on women in the temple.

    Comment by Nate Oman — October 21, 2005 @ 4:20 pm

24. Nate: Indeed, your comment is very insightful. I dig it, yo. Sounds like somebody’s been reading Prince’s book on the development of priesthood??? I highly recommend it if anybody hasn’t read it.

    Also, I was wondering the other day if a woman could serve as a GA without priesthood. My mission president briefly had co-zone leaders in one area which was a companionship of sisters. The leadership position only lasted a few days until a particular mess with the normal ZL was cleaned up. But these two sisters were technically zone leaders for a brief time, and they didn’t “have” priesthood. So I wonder if perhaps someday we could have a chick as a GA. If we did, I’m all for it. Maybe Gena Davis would be available???

    Comment by David J — October 21, 2005 @ 4:46 pm

25. I forgot to mention one thing about the fulness of the priesthood. This one made my jaw drop:

    Check out the book of John. In chapter 12, a woman washes Jesus’ feet. Not much is mentioned other than his feet were washed off with oil. Then, in 13, Jesus turns around and washes the feet of the 12 apostles. If read sequentially, it’s VERY revealing…

    Comment by David J — October 21, 2005 @ 4:49 pm

26. “I’ve also often thought that perhaps priesthood, for women, is still patrilineal, that is, they’re born with it; it’s not “given” them like it is to men…”

    This is an interesting concept. The First Presidency letter I was asking about in #9 says that an un-endowed woman can anoint and bless.

    Is this because healing the sick is a gift of the Spirit, and not the Priesthood, or because women are inherently born with some form of Priesthood?

    Interesting.

    “Are sisters who have not received their endowments competent to wash and anoint sisters previous to confinement?

    Answer: It must always be borne in mind that this administering to the sick by the sisters is in no sense a temple ordinance, and no one is allowed to use the words learned in the temple in washing and anointing the sick. Sisters who have had their endowments have received instructions and blessings which tend to give them stronger faith and especially qualify them to officiate in this sacred work; but there are good faithful sisters, who through circumstances have not received their endowments, and yet are full of faith and have had much success in ministering to the sick, who should not be forbidden to act, if desired to do so by our sisters.”

    Comment by Talon — October 21, 2005 @ 5:10 pm

27. Talon, I know that there are a couple of post just waiting to go up that address in part what you raise (something fun to look forward to). It is my understanding that annointing and blessing the sick is a gift of the spirit, though it can be effectuated by the priesthood. The first presidency hs repeatedly taught that sisters that who have taken upon themselves the name of Christ have the virtue to administer in his name.

    Comment by J. Stapley — October 21, 2005 @ 5:36 pm

28. My intent is not to ignite a firestorm, but I do find this an interesting topic to discuss in this type of setting.

    When I was teaching Gospel Essentials we had a lesson on Gifts of the Spirit. I was struck by the notion (which I did not express in class) that many of the Gifts of the Spirit have become tied up as expressions of the Priesthood, whereas I feel they are independent of the Priesthood.

    For instance, are mountains moved by faith, or by the Priesthood?
    Speaking in tongues, healing, discernment, revelation, etc., are these Gifts of the Spirit, or of the Priesthood. I am not trying to downgrade the Priesthood with this line of thinking, and I am sure that the Priesthood helps to magnify these gifts. However, the more these manifestations are pushed into the domain of Priesthood, the less they are emphasised as gifts that are available to all worthy members (and non-members I am sure) both male and female.

    Sorry if this is a threadjack.

    Comment by Talon — October 21, 2005 @ 5:46 pm

29. Talon, I believe you are correct that in many instances the gifts of the spirit have been confounded with the priesthood. Our early sister are inspiring examples. The gift of tongues, prophecy, healing, casting out devils, raising the dead. There are some old posts around that if you are interested in, I can forward to you.

    Comment by J. Stapley — October 21, 2005 @ 5:52 pm

30. J. Stapley, can I make two quick procedural points? 1) There are old posts around about almost every imaginable topic. 2) It’s really hard to get a conversation going in the comments section of an old post. For these two reasons, it’s my preference to let discussion of questions like Talon’s continue in live threads when they come up. You will, of course, do as you see fit in this instance.

    More substantively, if you read the New Testament, you’ll see that everything except administrative and ordinance aspects of what we now think of as the priesthood are described as signs of faith and gifts of the spirit. However, it is germane to the present conversation that endowed women can perform some ordinances within the temple context. This is relevant because ordinances are a unique priesthood domain.

    Comment by RoastedTomatoes — October 21, 2005 @ 7:04 pm

31. lol, RT. Blog on.

    Comment by J. Stapley — October 21, 2005 @ 7:35 pm

32. Jonathan, thank you for your fine research and writing on this important topic. I would appreciate such discourse in our ward communities, and would consider that to be very healthy, but such discourse has never happened in my experience.

    It goes against the understanding of God to think that He would favor His male children over His female children by locking the women out of the Holy Priesthood.

    It also is hard for any observor to miss the institutional message of the Church that God does indeed favor His male children over His female children. Throughout the years I’ve brought a number of non-members to Church meetings, and this is their unanimous observation (although not in those precise words).

    Any introduction of possible murkiness into this otherwise stark division is most welcomed.

    Comment by Laurie — October 21, 2005 @ 9:26 pm

33. Laurie, in all seriousness, what’s wrong with the following statement:

    “It goes against the understanding of God to think that He would favor His female children over His male children by locking the men out of motherhood.”

    Comment by Julie in Austin — October 21, 2005 @ 9:43 pm

34. “It goes against the understanding of God to think that He would favor His male children over His female children by locking the women out of the Holy Priesthood.”

    First off, I don’t think He does lock women out.

    I also reject the idea that one of “the institutional message[s] of the Church [is] that God does indeed favor His male children over His female children.” Indeed?

    Second, it is not clear to me how priesthood would function (as per the quoted statement) as either a mark of favor or reward in the Church today.

    Does it grant status? Depends on your definition, but I would argue it does not.

    Ease? No.

    Lessening of demands on time or money? Certainly not.

    Does the bishop sit on pillows while the RS president feeds him grapes? Can we tell on whom God has bestowed his favor simply by observing who sits on the stand?

    Comment by Ben — October 21, 2005 @ 9:59 pm

35. As usual, Julie has preempted my comment with a less inflammatory response…

    Comment by Ben — October 21, 2005 @ 10:02 pm

36. Julie, I think we agree on many things. However your statement is not one of them. Moreover, I question whether or not you truely stand by the priesthood/motherhood dichotomy (which I believe is false). The male parallel to motherhood is not the priesthood, it is fatherhood. To assert otherwise, is, I believe, to belittle them both.

    Comment by J. Stapley — October 21, 2005 @ 10:27 pm

37. J. Stapley–

    If you perceive this a threadjack, I will desist. But I maintain that to parallel motherhood and fatherhood is to belittle motherhood.

    I do, in fact, stand by the priesthood/motherhood dichotomy *if* we take a broad view of priesthood responsibilities as an umbrella that also covers fatherhood, the requirement to provide materially, etc.,

    Comment by Julie in Austin — October 21, 2005 @ 10:35 pm

38. I understand what you are getting at Julie, but if we are going to expand views, then let’s not only expand priesthood to encompass fatherhood, but also expand motherhood to encompass preisthood as well. So, what we end out with is an appendage to the the Taylor cite in the post (and others like it): Kings and Queens, Priests and Priestesses, Fathers and Mothers.

    Comment by J. Stapley — October 21, 2005 @ 10:52 pm

39. Julie, I’m shocked, shocked I tell you! You’ve done a real about-face on this issue (priesthood-motherhood) in the last few months, haven’t you? I remember your review of “Women in Eternity, Women in Zion” objected to precisely this point.

    Comment by Rosalynde — October 21, 2005 @ 11:32 pm

40. Ben and Julie, I appreciate your comments.

    Ben said: “I also reject the idea that one of “the institutional message[s] of the Church [is] that God does indeed favor His male children over His female children.” Indeed?”

    OK, just from an organizational perspective–and pretend that this is not our Church but any organization. People walk in the chapel and notice men on the stand, men conducting and presiding. Men giving the majority of the talks. Very rarely are women quoted in the talks (and I’m not including scripture here). If visitors look at the pictures of the General Authorities, handing up in most bishop’s and SP offices, all general authorities are men. Rarely do we see pictures of the RS presidents–even in the RS rooms. If visitors arrive during Ward conference, they hear 39 men’s names to sustain before they hear the first woman’s name. (I counted a few weeks ago). If they watch General Conference, more of the same. Stake visitors on the stand are men. Visitors do not get into the ward and stake councils, but if they do, they notice the predominance of men over women.

    With regard to our Church, there are the multiple dynamics of the priesthood yet and its association with men to the exclusion of women (except as recipients).

    In church courts, men who are in transgression have the benefit of appearing before men. Women in transgression have to appear before men with no women.

    Institutional/organizational rewards accrue to men; the social recognition and so forth. Women have fewer opportunities. All bishops, SP, mission presidents, etc., even after release, are typically still addressed in church by their former ecclesiastical title. Former RS presidents, YW presidents, Primary presidents are afforded no such deference.

    These dynamics alone can signal that men are favored over women. I personally find the idea that God favors one gender over the other to be utter nonsense, and this is likely not a controversial statement.

    However, the dynamics can have a surprising emotional dimension. I was surprised- stunned!- when I taught one RS lession. RS was held in the Chapel. I had just purchased a little book of quotes by famous women. All I did the entire time was read from that book and allow the sisters to comment after each quote (if they wished). These women ranged from Eleanor Roosevelt to Mae West to Mother Teresa. The quotes were sometime witty, sometimes profound. I have intended this to be an enjoyable lesson–I was asked to teach it because I was a stake visitor that day.

    Before the lesson was done, much to my surprise, there were tears in the eyes of many of the sisters–they shared that they did not recall ever hearing any woman quoted in a talk in the Chapel–only men. Some offered that this was perhaps the most affirming experience for them in their entire Church experience.

    Julie, I appreciate your point about motherhood and priesthood. The difficulty I have with it is that all males can hold the priesthood but all females cannot become mothers. To become a mother, a woman typically needs to secure the cooperation of a man. Guys can be ordained without such a level of cooperation from a woman/girl. Some women are childless through no fault of their own. The situation is more out of their control than the priesthood is for a guy, it seems to me.

    Now let me be clear with everyone: I know that men and women in the church work very hard. Long hours of service and of keeping home and family together. Single women, single mothers, and all work hard, also, as does the Elder’s Quorum, the High Priests, and all. Members are diligent in their callings. I am not disputing that.

    Comment by Laurie — October 21, 2005 @ 11:40 pm

41. J. Stapley–Fine with me.

    Rosalynde–This story, perhaps apocryphal, is told of Jacob Neusner: a young buck pointed out an inconsistency between something he’d written 20 years ago and something in his newest book and Neusner replied, “When I get new information or insights, I change my mind. What do you do?”

    Laurie–You are absolutely right about those differences between motherhood and priesthood, but I don’t think they undermine the comparison. My point is simply that your statement that I quote suggests that phood is something really valuable that women are locked out of. My point is that motherhood is something really valuable that men are locked out of. When I posted on the idea that the Church discriminates against men at T & S (my very first post, ever), people thought I was joking. I don’t think I was.

    Comment by Julie in Austin — October 21, 2005 @ 11:53 pm

42. Julie, I resonate emotionally with your point. I recall the same feeling after the birth (not right after the birth!) of my daugher, my first child. The poor dad being locked out.

    I became disabused of this emotion as I saw the differential treatment in Church to my son over my daughter (17 months older than the boy). He was being fast-tracked. She was being trained to be sweet, spiritual, married, and the same as the other girls (her words). She would whine to me, “Mom, they don’t care what I think or how I feel.”

    I was further disabused during my years as Stake RS President, working with single women, single mothers, abused women (husbands in prominent church callings), as well as temple-married women, etc.

    Comment by Laurie — October 22, 2005 @ 12:03 am

43. J,
    This is a great post! A series! How exciting!

    !

    Ben,
    I think the excercise of priesthood power does “give status” in a very tangible and basic sense. In my CTR8 class a while back my male students told the girls, “Boys are better than girls, we get the priesthood” I’m sure they’d never been taught that lesson, but they learned it none-the-less.

    And then just try explaining the subtleties of why holding all the visible positions of authority, making all the institutional decisions, performing all the sacred duties, does not make one gender “better” than the other to the black-and-white mind of an eight year old. I tried, but I don’t think they bought it. I’m not sure I bought it either.

    They did however apologize.

    Comment by fMhLisa — October 22, 2005 @ 12:19 am

44. Julie, I was just teasing you a bit, although I am genuinely curious about how and why you changed your mind. Women almost always change their minds in the opposite direction, I’ve observed.

    What is it about motherhood that men are locked out of in their roles as fathers? (I assume you must be talking about something other than the physiological facts.)

    Comment by Rosalynde — October 22, 2005 @ 12:19 am

45. Laurie, you’ve shown that men are generally more visible and I dispute some of your points. For example, in the wards I’ve attended, men don’t give more of the talks. It’s almost always couples.

    “Institutional/organizational rewards accrue to men; the social recognition and so forth.” Really? You may perceive it that way, but as a favored Priesthood holder of the Elder rank, I’m wondering where my special Gold Member card and parking space is, my recognition and LDS Frequent Priesthood User miles are. What can I trade them in for?

    “Women have fewer opportunities.” to spend hours in meetings, yes.

    You have, in my view, failed to demonstrate how visibility constitutes institutional favor or privelege. I’m not trying to be sarcastic. Rather, I am trying to look at what privelege, favor, and rank grant someone in a non-Church setting, and look for similar things in the church. I don’t see any of those trappings present.

    FMHLisa, It’s hard to argue with an 8 year old, I agree. But the bottom line is that it’s an incorrect lesson he’s learned.

    My Dad was set apart as a Stake President in the midwest last December. The GA’s who set him apart *explicitly* instructed him that Mom was to travel with him, sit on the stand with him, and speak at the Sunday meetings he spoke at. She has all of the visibility and none of the responsibility.

    Comment by Ben — October 22, 2005 @ 9:57 am

46. My wife and I were discussing this subject last night. She said something interesting. She said she didn’t feel that women really wanted “the priesthood” in its modern sense, but they do want control over the important stuff.

    She said that she felt that most women are content to let the men have their projects and initiate things and run things. She actually said it’s kind of attractive when men are “anxiously engaged” in worthy causes. But women want to have the executive veto.

    So her point is that a woman is fine with having a man run things as long as she has an “ace up her sleeve” or an “exective veto” to use for stuff that really matters to her.

    I’m not sure I agree (my wife is actually less of a feminist than I am). But it does seem to superficially fit what little I know of the women I’ve seen.

    Comment by Seth Rogers — October 22, 2005 @ 11:03 am

47. Ben,

    I think you have highlighted a problem that face women in the Church, in that they may have visibility but not responsibility, and that most visibility comes only as an extension of their husband’s call

    (I have blogged on this here: http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2005/06/will_the_real_w.html)

    Your mom, may have many valuable insights, spiritual experiences, wonderful ways of teaching people in your stake, but she has no spiritual authority.

    J. I have a question in regards to your statement “that priesthood is always conferred by ordination and the laying on of hands”. This is made murky by our interchanging use of conferring and ordaining to the priesthood — but I’m thinking that priesthood is conferred by the laying on of hands, but an ordination is not always necessary ie. Section 13

    Finally, in the Buerger article, he quotes a temple Presdident as saying that “The second anointing doesn’t do anything more for you than the first anointing and endowment; no special ordination is performed in the second anointing”
    Your response?

    Comment by kris — October 22, 2005 @ 11:03 am

48. Ben, how many times have you seen a woman quoted in the Sunday School manual? How many quotes from women form part of the Priesthood and Relief Society lesson materials these days? What proportion of the talks at General Conference are given by women? How many women sit on the Correlation Committee? How many women are trustees at BYU? How many women are members of the Strengthening the Members Committee?

    Each of the questions I just asked involves direct social and cultural power within the Church. Women definitely have less potential access to social power and influence within our culture.

    Comment by RoastedTomatoes — October 22, 2005 @ 11:05 am

49. FMHLisa,

    I’ve heard eight year olds say a lot of ridiculous things. I’ve also heard the stupid “boy vs. girl” debates that happen on the playground. I’m not sure that these kids are a very good barometer of any societal trend other than natural childish competition.

    Comment by Seth Rogers — October 22, 2005 @ 11:08 am

50. Laurie–

    I’ve never argued that you are wrong about the inequitable distribution of power evident to anyone who visits an LDS meeting. And while I think some tweaking around the edges of that imbalance might be helpful to all involved, I think a better question to ask is why no one is concerned about the inequitable distribution of power in a sphere far more important than church: the home, where the mother (by virtue of her greater time of physical presence) has a much greater power to shape the children than her husband does.

    Rosalynde–Your question in 44 boggles my mind because to me the answer is so obvious. (The last sentence isn’t meant to be mean in any way, just my genuine response.) It is probably worthy of its own post, so I’ll add it to my list.

    Comment by Julie in Austin — October 22, 2005 @ 11:56 am

51. Kris, first RE: Section 13, it is my understanding that Joseph and Oliver claimed to have been ordained by the laying on of hands. Now, I realize that outside of our dispensation, there is evidence for priesthood being conferred in other manners. However, if we take Joseph at his word, then priesthood is conferred by the laying on of hands.

    As to the quote from the Temple President…I take the words of our prophets and apostles over those of anonymous regional authorities. In reality that quote illustrates a major difficulty in the modern era. We want to be heirs of exaltation by being sealed only. So popular culture justifies away the need for anything else. There is also the debate that goes back the original post-Joseph quorum of the twelve - that of whether one’s election is truly made sure by it. I like to side with Joseph on that one.

    Comment by J. Stapley — October 22, 2005 @ 12:34 pm

52. Ben writes,
    “My Dad was set apart as a Stake President in the midwest last December. The GA’s who set him apart *explicitly* instructed him that Mom was to travel with him, sit on the stand with him, and speak at the Sunday meetings he spoke at.”

    I’m very glad to hear this. It’s clearly a new practice and I’d love to know the causal factors for its formal institution.

    I can’t tell you the number of Stake Conferences I’ve sat in over the years when not a single woman spoke. Not one! The most egregious case was the one when the Stake Relief Society Presidency was released and a new Presidency called and none of them was asked to speak.

    Whenever women are unrepresented or underrepresented in such meetings I always ask the Stake President why. I know lots of other women do too. Perhaps our questions over many years have finally moved up the chain of communication?

    “She has all of the visibility and none of the responsibility.” You can’t mean to imply that this is a good thing, Ben. Can you?

    Comment by NotYetPsyche — October 22, 2005 @ 1:08 pm

53. RT, all of those are irrelevant to Laurie’s generalization- that we institutionally favor men. Again, setting the issues related to possession of the priesthood aside (which I don’t view as favor, privelege, or reward, and thus not pertinent) no one has yet brought up a way in which the Church gives men a free pass, lightens their load, or makes it easier for them. I don’t view “power” and responsibility as “favor.”

    If your boss at work came to you and said “hey, I like you. I’m going to double your workload and responsibility,” would you think he truly liked/favored/priveleged/rewarded you? I would’t. The counterarguments that are brought up here against my view relate to responsibility and visibility, not to favor or privelege. Again, where is the Elders Only bathroom? The tithing break for priesthood holders? The get-out-of-Sunday-School-free card?

    “It’s clearly a new practice and I’d love to know the causal factors for its formal institution.” I have no idea if this is institutional or not. I believe my Mom is an exceptional woman- She’s taught parenting classes, seminary and Institute for 15 years in the midwest.

    “You can’t mean to imply that this is a good thing, Ben. Can you?”

    Can and do. She gets to teach, preach and influence. She doesn’t have to sit in judgment on anyone, do interviews for hours on end, weigh someone’s repentance, or drive 4 hours each way to the edges of the stake for these interviews, courts, etc. No one will ever try to excuse their behavior by twisting her public example. No one will call her to ask about why home teaching is so dismal, or temple attendance is falling. No one will sue her if a sex-offense thing gets mishandled. All of the fun stuff, none of the negative stuff.

    Comment by Ben — October 22, 2005 @ 1:45 pm

54. Ben, you seem to be hung up on the word “favor,” and I agree that it’s a poor descriptor of the meaning or consequence of priesthood authority in the church. What word would you use to describe the sociological consequences of having a gender-segregated priesthood? Surely there must be some discernible effect of that arrangement, and surely that effect must have something to say about gender, right? If not, there would seem to be little reason to preserve it, particularly when it’s a stumbling block for so many women (and some men, as well).

    Are you comfortable with RT’s formulation, that the gendered allocation of the priesthood gives men more “direct social and cultural power”?

    Comment by Rosalynde — October 22, 2005 @ 3:47 pm

55. Ben, I think you’re over-emphasizing the idea of “making life easier” as the only possible benefit that someone might get from a specific institutional arrangement. But, apart from laziness and a desire for creature comforts, people have a wide range of motivations. Some want to be decision-makers. Others want the chance to influence millions of people in the present and in future generations by having their ideas preserved and published. Still others like the prestige of being in charge. Any and all of these benefits come with high ranks of formal priesthood leadership–and hence, within the church, are disproportionately available to women.

    Only if you assume that all people ever want is more money, a comfortable bathroom, and less work is your argument valid.

    Comment by RoastedTomatoes — October 22, 2005 @ 4:03 pm

56. By the way, Rosalynde, I wonder if you’re comfortable with the assertion that the gendered allocation of the priesthood gives men more “direct social and cultural power”? If not, I’d love an explanation of why!

    Comment by RoastedTomatoes — October 22, 2005 @ 4:05 pm

57. Like FMHLisa, I was asked a decade or so ago to teach a Primary lesson for boys in the 8-9 year old age group. Since I was substituting, I was given the lesson book and assigned the proper lesson, the topic of which was how to treat girls and women. In the class present that day were sons of members of the bishopric (including the Bishop) and the Spresidency. I knew all their parents well.

    Much to my dismay, as the topic was raised, they began saying that boys were better than girls because girls could not hold the priesthood, some even chanting it in unison. These boys learned of their superiority over girls from somewhere. I don’t know who FMHLisa is, but likely we were not in the same ward.

    Even if the boys did not learn this at home, all they need to do is observe in Church such details as who is on the stand, and whose names are mentioned as making decisions.

    Ben, yes, couples do speak in Church (so much for hearing from the single women who vastly outnumber single men). So to High Councilmen and returned missionaries (predominately men). Do you count the speakers, male and female? I do. I am yet to find a month when women spoke in equal numbers to men (this is not prorated to consider the higher numbers of women members in the wards). Seven different wards in four different states since 1995. But there are lots of wards out there and maybe I was simply unlucky and in the wrong places.

    Back to the lesson I taught to the primary class: It paled in comparison to the published Primary lesson. I made a photocopy of the lesson so that I could mark it for teaching purposes. As I read it I was gripped by a growing unease. It seemed that women and girls were presented as helpless creatures. To test what I was sensing, I went through the lesson and in every reference to girls, women, mothers, sisters, etc., I substituted the phrase “your pet dog.” The lesson read like a charm. No expectation or intimation at all that women were wise, smart, competent, make important decisions, or even worth quoting.

    I even did the same for Conference talks–did it through one issue of the Ensign with the same result, and then abandoned the exercise, reasoning that it was unhealthy for my testimony at the time. Were I do do it again now, I would simply not be surprised anymore and my testimony is fine (thank you very much).

    There is vast national research that finds that for decades, little girls report wanting to be boys, but little boys fail to report wanting to be girls. I have not seen any data for Mormon children, but I would be astonished if the data did not support the national findings.

    I well recall our drive to church when my son was 12, all set to be ordained. He and my daughter (17 months older) were sitting on the back seat. Audra had her arms folded and was looking out the window. Their dad turned to Audra and said, with a sense of positive expectaton, “Audra sweetie, aren’t you excited about Joey’s ordination to the priesthood today?” After a light pause, her reply was terse: “All I have to say is that it is a poor commentary on the priesthood that they would ordain Joey and not me! I’d make a better bishop than Joey anyday!”

    As a former Southern Baptist, I have invited dozens of friends to church over the years. And we still do on occasion. Our professional women friends are used to running things–some run their courtrooms; some run universities; some run multi-million dollar businesses; some run government agencies; some run professional national associations. I brought one (she lives in Washington DC) with me to the Church Office Building to meet with a GA on the issue of welfare reform; he ahd asked to meet with her because of her expertise and she was in SLC speaking at a conference. While she enjoyed the visit, she remarked several times how stunning it was to see the stark roles–women as support secretaries and men running things. She asked if it was different in the local wards.

    Comment by Laurie — October 22, 2005 @ 5:07 pm

58. Just today I received an email from our new Stake Primary President, asking me for our Ward Primary Presidency’s contact information and a few other questions. She asked me whether we were holding a “Priesthood Preview” this fall for the boys. She also asked me how many 11 year old boys we had in our Ward. She did not ask me anything about the girls in our Primary.

    Comment by Primary President — October 22, 2005 @ 5:25 pm

59. Not a lot of time at the moment, but in reading the last few responses, perhaps we’ve been asking different questions.

    I interpreted Laurie’s statement in #32 to be on question of whether bestowal of priesthood on men only indicated that they had favored status. I argue it does not indicate that. In short, men alone have the priesthood because men have favored status.

    The most recent responses, on the other hand, seem focused on the effect of male visibility and power on perception of the institutional church.

    “Are you comfortable with RT’s formulation, that the gendered allocation of the priesthood gives men more “direct social and cultural power”?”

    With the exception of general authorities, no, not at all.

    Comment by Ben S. — October 22, 2005 @ 5:41 pm

60. Just to add to the pile of anecdotal evidence: My husband taught the 8-10 year olds just a few weeks ago and had the same experience fMhLisa and Laurie have already described, and I well remember hearing those sorts of chants when I was in Primary.

    When I was a Relief Society teacher, I was often dismayed by the fact that all of the lessons seemed to be men talking to men, and as Primary President, I was also put off by disparity in the level of concern the ward and stake leadership showed for scouting and other boys programs versus their seeming disregard for the spiritual progression of the girls. Don’t even get me started on YW….

    Ben- For many of us, leadership and authority are not about perks or power, it is about being trusted and respected. I enjoy responsibility, not because I love having more meetings or less sleep, but because I know that I am using my talents for the good of others, and that someone trusts me enough to do the work well. Keeping women from positions of responsibility essentially relegates them to the level of untrusted child, or, as Laurie has so eloquently put it, “my pet dog.”

    J. Stapley- Sorry to participate in what is essentially a threadjack. You’ve written an important and interesting post, and I am very much looking forward to the next installment.

    Comment by Athena — October 22, 2005 @ 5:51 pm

61. J. Stapley - great piece and great comments.

    All of the last several posts by women seem to be talking about the inequality of visability/power/authority between men and women in the church - so what can we do about it? How can we push for participation in blessing of our children (if we want to - most women don’t know/feel like it is even an option)? How can we push effectively to become more visable? The church will not change until it has to. The prophet will not cry unto the Lord day and night for change unless he has to - I am referring to the same type of prayer and fasting it took by David O. and then Spencer W. in order to get the Priesthood given to all men. I’m also not saying that women need to have the Priesthood given to them tomorrow (next month would be ok). But things definitely need to change.

    I, too, feel very excluded by female representation at church, General Conference, learning materials, etc. I never knew about women blessing other women and being part of the family blessing process until I found all of these wonderful blog sites. It took over thirty years of membership before I knew what Mormon women did participate in before compared to what little they participate in now. Hey at least we get to say prayers in sacrament now. It is my understanding that we couldn’t do that before 1970’s - ERA movement times.

    Comment by ProudMary — October 22, 2005 @ 7:31 pm

62. Re: #50. I (and my husband) both think that by so rigorously defining family/church “roles” by gender, women, men, and families(and, by extention, the church itself) are hurt. Growth is inhibited. We ask the question often why fathers are not encouraged as much as mothers to nurture their children… it is, in a word, sad.

    Laurie, I’m glad women like you are RS presidents.

    Ben, its about opportunity. Women do not have the opportunities that men have in our church, whereas there are few equivelent opportunities that women have that men will not have (Men can be parents as readily as women and can nurture their children as much as a mother can–at least, they have the opportunity to do so). That is the biggest issue I have. Not all women (or men!) should be in leadership positions, but to say women cannot lead (beyond leading other women and children) is ridiculous.

    Which leads me to a question, why is administration so tied to gender in our church? Does it have to be? Can women be ward clerks, SS presidents, couselors, etc without being ordained into the priesthood?

    I guess I just wonder if change will occur, and in what order (women being ordained to the priesthood prior to, in conjunction with, or after gaining access to greater administrative roles). Or… If I’ll just have to wait until we are with Christ again, when I KNOW that priesthood (the power of God) will not be gender-dependent.

    Comment by Kayla — October 22, 2005 @ 7:56 pm

63. All of the last several posts by women…

    I don’t know if this post was intended to be included in this, but for the record: I’m a man. J. is short for Jonathan

    Comment by J. Stapley — October 22, 2005 @ 8:13 pm

64. Several posters seem to be expressing something along the lines of “The Church should be more of a meritocracy. Women are capable of doing these jobs. So why can’t they?”

    I’m not disputing capability, and I also wouldn’t mind seeing some traditional things that don’t technically require priesthood be handed off to sisters, such as passing the sacrament. However, lobbying or “pressure” won’t get you there.

    “Ben, its about opportunity. ”

    I would ask you to clarify your comment, because I hear this as aspiration. Do some women *want* to serve, for example, as Bishop? Is there any motivation for wanting a leadership position other than “I can do it better than the person who’s in it now” ? There is no glass ceiling in the church because there’s no rank. If you perceive that Church leadership *is* about rank or position, my response would be that you’ve absorbed too many of the world’s ideas about competition, comparison to others, and pride. “Opportunity” for what? To prove how good you are?

    If you refer instead to “opportunity” to bless your children, for example, bless them at home however you wish to. We blessed my neice at home. My wife has laid hands on my head before. There’s plenty of precedent for it. But there’s no precedent for women to be ordained to priesthood *offices* (which are secondary to priesthood itself acc. D&C 107:5), and many administration positions are directly tied to priesthood office.

    Comment by Ben S. — October 22, 2005 @ 8:53 pm

65. No offense, J., I was responding (when I said women)to Primary President, Laurie, Athena - the most recent comments right before mine. But thanks for letting me know what the J. stands for, I was a little curious!

    I need some clarification: When my husband was given the priesthood he was given all the keys that go with that office. So how do I justify my participation in a blessing when I have never been officially set apart with any keys or any office. When I was endowed what was really bestowed upon me priesthood wise, like wise with the sealing? I understand that I hold the priesthood in an eternal abstract way, but I am looking for the details that give me the confidence to stand with my husband and the facts to validate my standing. I can refer to the past GAs who said things, but they said a lot of things, some very interesting things especially about the priesthood, Adam, marriage, etc.

    Comment by ProudMary — October 22, 2005 @ 10:33 pm

66. There are women who don’t want the priesthood; are there men who don’t want it? If you had the opportunity to give up your priesthood, no questions asked, would you do it, knowing you would never be asked to take on any priesthood responsibilities (or blessings for same) for the rest of your life? If you could lay down your priesthood keys at the door of the chapel and remain an active, participating, yet priesthood-less male in the church, would you do it? Why or why not?

    Ben - Desiring priesthood is not all about aspiring to becoming Bishop/Stake President/GA. There are probably some women who would like to do that, but there are probably fewer women aspiring to be congregational leaders than there are men with similar aspirations, if for no other reason than basic general tendencies of the two sexes. IMHO, any man who thinks that priesthood responsibilities and callings are only about leading congregations and administering justice and conducting worthiness interviews needs to go back to Primary and participate in a Priesthood Preview night to be reminded of what priesthood is all about.

    As long as priesthood is defined as the power of God and the ability to act in God’s name, there will be righteous women desiring those same service opportunities, and no, it is not about proving how good they are, or wanting to show that they can “do it better than the person who’s doing it now”. It might be simply because they know what their talents are and they are looking for ways to best use them in God’s Kingdom. It may be because they feel called to the work.

    Just look at how many sister missionaries there are in the church and the way they successfully serve in the mission field, even though they are not required (or even strongly encouraged) to serve in this capacity, since missionary work is a responsibility given to young men. Nevertheless, these women feel called, and they answer the calls willingly, even though they know they will never be given the opportunity to baptize the converts they teach or even act as official witnesses at the baptisms. The sister missionaries will never be called to lead branches, to bless the sick, to confer the Holy Ghost upon the converts they teach. Sister missionaries will not likely become Zone Leaders or Assistants to the President, even if they demonstrate the spiritual, linguistic and leadership skills that, if they were men, would naturally lead a mission president to make them leadership examples within a mission.

    There are plenty of women who are born leaders, counselors and advisors, and the Church would be well-blessed to allow these women to use their talents within its walls to bless the lives of men and women. As it is, the Church limits itself by limiting the service opportunities of more than half of its active population (and in some places has significant leadership problems because of the lack of faithful male priesthood leaders).

    And for Kayla (#62) women were commonly clerks, executive secretaries, SS presidents, etc. in the 19th and early 20th centuries. I’ve been in wards as recently as the past decade where women served in some of these callings.

    Oh, and one question - how many times have you heard a man referred to regularly as President [Smith]? how many times have you heard a woman referred to as President [Smith]? This small convention of calling men holding leadership callings by their titular status while calling women holding leadership callings as Sister _______, doesn’t do much to reinforce the idea that women’s leadership is as important as men’s leadership. If we called the Primary President “President Anderson” instead of “Sister Anderson”, would that make a difference in how the under-12 crowd learned about women in church? It would be an interesting experiment.

    Comment by LRC — October 22, 2005 @ 11:37 pm

67. Thank you LRC, you’re post was clear and articulate.

    Comment by Kayla — October 22, 2005 @ 11:41 pm

68. ProudMary: When my husband was given the priesthood he was given all the keys that go with that office. So how do I justify my participation in a blessing when I have never been officially set apart with any keys or any office.

    This is worth a post of its own. There are several issues. The first is that of keys. I recomend Jason’s article in the recent Dialogue on how that term has changed (it is available for free at the websight). Simply put, you are asking that question from a 21st century perspective. And from that perspective, your husband wasn’t given any keys when he recieved the priesthood. In current gospel-speak only presidents of quorums get any keys and they are taken when they are released. An exception may be that of the minisitring of angels, and that is even debated.

    Women throughout the history of the church blessed and healed by virtue of faith and in the name of Jesus Christ. Your question exists only because in the 20th century, these practices were overcome by the priesthood and we no longer talk about the alternatives.

    Comment by J. Stapley — October 23, 2005 @ 12:21 am

69. There have been a lot of posts detailing observed inequities at church.

    But the subject is not whether women are discriminated against at church (which I consider indisputable), but whether women ought to have the Priesthood to some degree.

    I mean, the annecdotes are fine. I enjoy them (if that’s the right word). But they don’t answer the main question.

    Comment by Seth Rogers — October 23, 2005 @ 11:17 am

70. LRC right on. The priesthood is more than title and service, it is the power to act in God’s name on earth.

    Seth: Let’s turn the question around: Why shouldn’t women possess such power to act officially in God’s name on earth? Would we do bad things with it, would it complicate church? Would would happen if we did have the Priesthood tomorrow?

    Regarding some of the comments about why should we want it - I’m curious would you have said the same things to African American men in the 1960’s. “Oh, you don’t want to have the Priesthood, it’s not necessary - don’t feel unequal to us white men.” “It’s just about a lot of time in service and lot more responsibility.”

    On a side note, there is a little boy who is being raised by his grandmother and father. His father is not active, but the grandmother takes him to church. He is nine. He was just asked if he wanted to be baptized and by whom. His reponse was yes he wanted to and he wanted his grandmother to baptize him. But, oh alas, we women only want the Priesthood in order to sit on the stand and look important.

    Comment by ProudMary — October 23, 2005 @ 12:44 pm

71. Ok, don’t jump on me for assuming that all responding about the priesthood have been white men. My intention was to compare the agrument of why women shouldn’t care about/want the priesthood to what might have been said to African American men previous to the change in doctrine.

    Comment by ProudMary — October 23, 2005 @ 1:33 pm

72. J-

    Do you have information on who “qualifies” for a second annointing, or what the process is for selecting these couples?

    Comment by Athena — October 23, 2005 @ 3:35 pm

73. “Regarding some of the comments about why should we want it - I’m curious would you have said the same things to African American men in the 1960’s. “Oh, you don’t want to have the Priesthood, it’s not necessary - don’t feel unequal to us white men.” “It’s just about a lot of time in service and lot more responsibility.”

    I don’t think this is a fair comparison, and I resent the implications of this argument. Africans were not allowed to receive temple blessings. Women are and always have been.

    Comment by Ben — October 23, 2005 @ 3:52 pm

74. Sorry again for the threadjack, but wanted to share one positive anecdote with respect to LRC’s comment. After receiving the male-focused email from the Stake Primary President yesterday (which I complained about here earlier), the actual Stake President saw me this morning and addressed me as President [last name]. I was surprised, and thought it sounded very strange, because (in Ward Council, for example) I usually get called Sister (last name), while the male leaders are addressed as President (last name).

    I’m sure this may seem silly to some people reading this, but a few changes in word choice really can make a positive difference in how people in the Church are perceived and treated by members. I’m glad my Stake President seems to be committed to changing these perceptions (his motivation for this could be that he has five daughters of his own).

    Comment by Primary President — October 23, 2005 @ 4:02 pm

75. Athena, to my understanding, a couple has to be recomended by an apostle.

    Comment by J. Stapley — October 23, 2005 @ 5:29 pm

76. Ben (#73) -
    You might want to check your assumption about all women and temple blessings, as African women couldn’t receive temple blessings any more than African men could prior to 1978, if I recall correctly.

    But if you don’t like ProudMary’s comparison between black men and women acting in the name of God, perhaps you could help Seth explain to us all the reasons young boys are told they should aspire to receive the priesthood, hold it honorably, and exercise it righteously, and then you could tell us why all those reasons for righteous desire towards the priesthood apply only to 11-year-old boys and not to 11-year-old girls.

    Seth (#69) - You ask us to continue to address the main question - whether women should have some degree of Priesthood. What is it about the power of priesthood that sets Mormon men apart from other men of the world? Does the priesthood increase Mormon men’s/boy’s ability to commune with God? to discern righteousness? to save lives, both spiritual and physical? to lead with understanding? to be better fathers/sons/etc.? to exercise Gifts of the Spirit? to remind them that they are called to a higher standard than the rest of the world and are therefore to take special care to remain clean, honest, pure, chaste and charitable? to stand in a circle to set apart those serving with/under/advising him in his priestly duties (can you imagine an RS president standing with the bishop to set apart her counsellors)?

    Does it make sense to deny the majority of active members of the church (women and girls) this gift?

    No more than it makes sense to say that in the heavens, parents are single - “the thought makes reason stare”, to quote a prophetess of years past.

    Comment by LRC — October 23, 2005 @ 6:30 pm

77. When I served my mission (in South America, where missionaries have greater responsibility than in the states)–as a sister I was at the apex of my religious authority. The elders were at the beginning of their religious authority. Many of them have gone on to become bishops, and some will no doubt become stake presidents, or mission presidents, perhaps general authorities. I may be the wife of . . ., but never will I be in a position to counsel men (as endless men in the church have counseled me, in interviews, authority positions etc.) This bothers me, not because I would want these positions (I don’t, not for my husband or myself), but for many other reasons–I want women in authority, equality, and opportunity.

    As I returned from my mission, glowing in the wonderful experience, I quickly realized that if my talents were to be utilized, it would never be in a religious setting, but in a professional one.

    Comment by Jenna — October 23, 2005 @ 7:02 pm

78. “You might want to check your assumption about all women and temple blessings, as African women couldn’t receive temple blessings any more than African men could prior to 1978, if I recall correctly.”

    Such was not my assumption. If you understood me to imply that African women had been allowed temple ordinances, you understood incorrectly. African women are still African.

    “Does it make sense to deny the majority of active members of the church (women and girls) this gift?”

    Apparently, the Apostles are senseless, since they have seen fit to do so. When it comes from President Hinckley, I will raise my hand and sustain the Bishopess who will exercise her glorious and heretofore shackled gifts. Unless and until that happens, I feel bound to stick with historical precedent, the scriptures, and the Apostles. And thus we part ways.

    Comment by Ben — October 23, 2005 @ 7:05 pm

79. I understood you to differentiate between African women and men, Ben. If you don’t, your argument is useless. And hers makes more sense.

    Comment by annegb — October 23, 2005 @ 7:34 pm

80. Armand Mauss wrote that the change in the practice of ordaining men with African ancestry came about not because of pressures inside the US from outside the church; but because of pressures from outside the US but inside the church; specifically, the construction of the first temple in Brazil.

    The decades of intermarriage between whites, Blacks, and native South Americans had rendered race irrelevent, and there was no clear way to identify who was permitted to attend the temple and who was not. People had little incentive to search out their family history, lest they find a long-forgotten African ancestor and lose their permission to function in the priesthood.

    I can’t see any possibility of such pressure coming to bear on the brethren in the next fifty years in the matter of ordaining women.

    The decision to allow the ordination of men with African ancestry came about after long months of petitioning the Lord, as well as some careful politics among the Twelve, by SWK. There was no indication that God showed up in his chariot, hurling thunderbolts, and proclaiming His will in the matter. It came about as a petition FROM the prophet TO God.

    Ben’s statement “until the Twelve say so…” seems to assume the former, rather than the latter. Since that is simply not the case, I think LDS women making their case for ordination is the ONLY way that a revelation will be sought. And as long as we have a majority of women renouncing the desire for priesthood, then it won’t happen, because the FP and the QoT have no incentive to petition the Lord on the matter.

    Comment by Ann — October 23, 2005 @ 7:58 pm

81. “Ben’s statement “until the Twelve say so…” seems to assume the former, rather than the latter.”

    You’re not a terribly effective mind-reader I didn’t say or assume anything about internal vs. external pressure.

    If you think lobbying is an effective way to bring about change in the Church, good luck. You may find “Walking the Tightrope,” Sunstone April 1989 instructive. (I don’t think it’s available online. The text is inexplicably missing from the online edition.

    Comment by Ben — October 23, 2005 @ 8:23 pm

82. The similarities between blacks and priesthood and women and priesthood do exist. It’s interesting to read Church leaders’ diaries, and the minutes of meetings when the black issue was discussed. Without fail, they always started with the assumption that the status quo was correct - that the Lord definitely did not want blacks to have the priesthood. They went out from there, asking the question why, disseminating doctrine, having historians look up old speeches and quorum minutes, etc. No one ever bothered to ask the question, what if it’s been wrong all the time? Thanks to the work of Newell Bringhurst, Lester Bush, and Armand Mauss, we know that it was wrong all along. It doesn’t appear to be anything that came about via revelation through a prophet. Only those desperate to believe these kinds of mistakes can’t happen in God’s church will suggest otherwise.

    I can’t help but wonder if we do the same thing with women and the priesthood today. I doubt Church leaders are looking at the issue as closely as they did with blacks, because women’s issues aren’t as PC as race issues. But among discussions like this, we quote past Church leaders, examine doctrine and scriptures under a microscope, and try and find answers. But we always start assuming the status quo is correct, that God clearly doesn’t want women to have the priesthood, and then we go about making up excuses and mining for reasons why that must be.

    To my knowledge, no Church leader has ever claimed a revelation stating women aren’t to have the priesthood. The practice began in the 19th-century - before women could vote, hold property, or do just about anything with equality. Then we wonder why they can’t hold the priesthood? From my perspective, it isn’t a big shock.

    Couple nineteenth-century attitudes towards women with a Church that is notoriously slow to change, and that has members who believe everything the Church has ever done is the will of God, and presto - no women with priesthood.

    Comment by John H — October 23, 2005 @ 8:37 pm

83. Ben, I took Ann’s statement as regarding your assumption that God had to speak to the apostles–when in actual fact 20th-century changes have happened when the apostles ask God for them to happen. That’s the relevant assumption: the assumption that we should passively wait for God to speak. If God is waiting for the apostles to ask, then it makes sense for people to create some reason for them to ask.

    Comment by RoastedTomatoes — October 23, 2005 @ 8:49 pm

84. “Apparently, the Apostles are senseless, since they have seen fit to do so.”

    They haven’t seem fit to do anything but maintain the status quo. How hard is that? Again, where’s the evidence of a revelation denying women the priesthood?

    But on the flipside, we have seen evidence that cultural pressures have led to change in the past. It isn’t a coincidence that at the height of the ERA and feminist movement in the 70s, the Church suddenly starts letting women pray in Sacrament meeting, gives them the women’s meeting before General Conference, and allows women to be endowed without a man.

    When all the evidence points to this being a cultural decision, it doesn’t make sense to assign the reasons to unkown and unheard of inspiration.

    Comment by John H — October 23, 2005 @ 9:28 pm

85. If the Church instituted more inclusive policies for women, such actions would benefit the Church as much as they would benefit women.

    Until such time that women achieve equality with men in the Church, I for one would be thrilled to see deliberate progress towards lessening the negative impacts of current gender policies on the Church. I would favor giving the sisters a voice—not only for the sake of the sisters, but to improve decision making. For those who argue that all decisions at every level come from God to Priesthood leaders, I would point out that part of “studying it out in your mind” is seeking the input of those affected by decisions, such as women.

    As a benchmark for progress, I would like to see removal of all institutional messages that teach false doctrine by teaching boys that they are inherently better than girls, and teach girls that they are inherently lesser to boys.

    This discussion in this thread has been enormously stimulating. Over the past decades, I have had similar discussions on these issues with a variety of Church and Priesthood leaders in authority over me (wards, stakes, and in the Church Office Building). In each case, my concerns were treated with respect and keen interest. Typically, I have been thanked and told that the leader had never thought of things this way. One time a Stake President promised that never again in his stake conferences would I endure a program consisting of talks by men and excluding women speakers, and he was telling his bishops the same for sacrament meetings. This was in 1974. Twenty-six years later a General Authority in his office listened intently and admitted that “we certainly have not been doing well in this regard and we have a long ways to go.” He had been trying to insert material more favorable to women in the RS/Priesthood lessons.

    At no time was I in any way admonished for aspirations, for seeking position, or for any untoward or inappropriate motivation. My logic was never questioned. My testimony was never in doubt. In short, each time, each Priesthood leader, each Bishop, each State President, each GA “got it.”

    Comment by Laurie — October 23, 2005 @ 9:34 pm

86. Re: LRC #76:

    I guess to be perfectly honest, the Priesthood makes me feel distinguished from other men in the world.

    It isn’t really so much that it confers any extra degree of spirituality or anything. In fact, I agree wholeheartedly with the earlier statement that Gifts of the Spirit are not dependant on holding the Priesthood (in fact, I’m not even sure such gifts are even amplified by the Priesthood).

    It’s more the sense of purpose that I derive from having been given a mission that I value. It’s the obligations, not the benefits that I value most.

    I see a real malaise among other men in the US population. They don’t know what they are. They have no sense of mission. The most life guidance they get is from magazines like Men’s Health or GQ. Absolutely pathetic.

    Men used to be men! Men didn’t waste time messing with their hair! They had fields to plow, knowlege to acquire, enemies to conquer, and new worlds to explore.

    Our commercial culture has convinced many of us that the most important decision we can make today is which deodorant to buy. Or which fitness routine to adopt. Or which pair of jeans to buy.

    “Ideal Men” today have been warped into androgynous fashion models devoid of any strength of character, missing any sense of being uniquely male, and utterly lacking in any sense of purpose. A bunch of sallow, indolent, prima donnas who are entirely self-focused and lacking in any real depth.

    The Priesthood pierces through this malaise like a hot knife through butter. It says: You are men of God and more is expected of you! It forces their gaze away from the mud surrounding them and fixes their gaze directly into the sun. We aren’t here on earth today to acquire an extra surfboard or a new flatscreen TV. We are here to usher in the most important development in human history since the world’s creation, excepting the life of Christ himself.

    That’s what I value about the Priesthood. It tells me that I am more than an aggregate of fashion trends, football stats, and conventional wisdom in Newsweek. I am here for the main event!

    Since I’m feeling so honest today, I’ll continue. The main problem I have with literal equality for women (not just legal equality or wage equality) is that it threatens to swallow up what it means to be uniquely male.

    It’s kind of like that statement from “The Incredibles”: the equality people often seem to be seeking a world “where everyone is special! So no one will be!” I don’t want to be like women. I want to keep my identity.

    And I guess it feels like the Priesthood is one of the few remaining guardians of male identity in our society. Every other distinction has been bulldozed in favor of the new egalitarianism.

    Is this zero-sum thinking (i.e. more for women means less for me)? Yes, it is. Am I really comfortable with what I’ve just written? No, I am not.

    But I think deep down, a lot of guys are thinking this and are likely to regard anything that smacks of enforced sameness in religious identity as very personal threat.

    I guess honesty isn’t always pretty. But there it is.

    Comment by Seth Rogers — October 23, 2005 @ 9:59 pm

87. Call it sycophancy, but I adore Laurie.

    Comment by J. Stapley — October 23, 2005 @ 10:06 pm

88. Seth:

    I bet I know where you can get a didgeridoo and find a Men’s Rights circle/camp/whatever. Enjoy.

    The sort of spiritual capitalism you describe fits right into the modern church’s embrace of economic capitalism. I really don’t think the Road to Heaven is paved with profit-loss statements. In all honesty, imho, the perception that “more for someone else means less for me” has undermined the Law of Consecration and kept us from building the City of Zion for 175 years.

    Comment by Hugh — October 23, 2005 @ 10:24 pm

89. Hugh, if you’d actually read my post you’d realize that I already have serious doubts about the kind of zero-sum thinking I expressed in the post.

    And digeridoos wielding male-bonding camps are just the sort of trappings of the new cultural malaise that I dislike.

    Comment by Seth Rogers — October 23, 2005 @ 10:37 pm

90. Sorry, Seth, I wrote too fast. I did notice your discomfort with your own feelings and admired your honesty. Unfortunately, I gave in to my besetting sin: the quick comeback zinger. I apologize for giving offense.

    Comment by Hugh — October 23, 2005 @ 10:48 pm

91. “They haven’t seem fit to do anything but maintain the status quo. How hard is that? Again, where’s the evidence of a revelation denying women the priesthood?They haven’t seem fit to do anything but maintain the status quo. How hard is that? Again, where’s the evidence of a revelation denying women the priesthood?”

    John, where’s your counter-evidence? How do you know it’s not like David O. McKay who asked repeatedly about the priesthood ban, only to be told “no”? We only learned about that after the fact.

    The clear implication of many comments on this thread is that if the Apostles were really in tune, they’d be importuning heaven to get the priesthood (and offices) for women, and the answer would be “yes of course, what took you so long to ask?”

    “Until such time that women achieve equality with men in the Church”

    How would you define this?

    Comment by Ben — October 23, 2005 @ 10:57 pm

92. No problem. And you’re welcome to join me in singing coom ba ya anytime (or however the heck you spell that).

    Comment by Seth Rogers — October 23, 2005 @ 10:58 pm

93. Laurie, way back: “I saw the differential treatment in Church to my son over my daughter (17 months older than the boy). He was being fast-tracked. She was being trained to be sweet, spiritual, married, and the same as the other girls (her words).”

    I’m afraid this comment baffles me. Fast-tracked to what? What’s wrong with being sweet, spiritual, and married? Are those bad things? Examples of weakness? Are boys not taught the same? Is what boys are being taught (whatever that is) greater or more important? I’d be interested in hearing what that is.

    If boys are being “fast-tracked” to something other than being “sweet, spritual and married” then it sounds like the boys are getting the short end of the stick.

    Comment by Eric Russell — October 23, 2005 @ 11:57 pm

94. “John, where’s your counter-evidence?”

    Ben, you and I know you can’t prove a negative. You’re asserting that since women currently do not have the priesthood, it must be because the Brethren are inspired and God wants it this way. All I’d like is some evidence of this.

    My evidence, on the other hand, stems from the cultural influences that have changed how women are treated in the Church. Do you really consider it a stretch to believe women weren’t granted the priesthood because of their 2nd class status in the 19th-century? Or is it just a remarkable coincidence that the Church didn’t give them the priesthood at the same time no one else was granting them any rights either?

    Just like the black issue, church members have invented reasons to defend past Church actions, when it’s clear those actions stemmed from a cultural worldview that accepted women and blacks as inferior. But instead of accept that the Church wasn’t created in a vaccuum and try and remedy the past, today members would rather justify such behaviors through mysteriously unknown revelations.

    I suppose in a Church with continuing revelation, it’s the catch-all safety net. Anytime something happens that can’t be explained, we can just assume God wants it that way, and it absolves us of any responsibility.

    Comment by John H — October 24, 2005 @ 3:32 am

95. On the contrary, John H. It is remarkable that Joseph Smith initiated women into temple/ priesthood rites when the entire religious world of his day said otherwise.

    Seth–I think priesthood is valuable for differentiating women from the world and giving them direction in the same way that it is for men. I think the development of women’s godly power (ie priesthood–or priestesshood, if that makes you more comfortable) can occur (and is occuring–look at Elder Oaks conference talk) without destruction of gender distinctions.

    Personal speculation: I think a lot more equalizing in other areas will happen before the explicit authorization for women to use godly power and direct work of the kingdom will be given. Increasing the visibility and autonomy (again) of our female church leaders, not to mention our foremothers and exemplars is a start.

    Much can be done within the current framework (as Laurie has aptly pointed out). It is difficult, however, that men (including the currently more visible male aspect of God)have constructed the framework itself. Letting women merely decorate it is not enough.

    I love how Elder and President (ie Pat–former YW general president)Holland used to given BYU addresses jointly. Can you imagine if all GA addresses in conference were done thusly? WOW!

    Comment by LisaB — October 24, 2005 @ 9:53 am

96. Here’s an interesting article about greater participation of women (than men) in US churches and the greater success of more conservative (ie male priesthood) denominations. Not that popularity is everything, but an interesting phenomenon to add to the women and priesthood discussion:

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110007439

    Comment by LisaB — October 24, 2005 @ 10:04 am

97. Erik, you remind me of a point I had neglected in Audra’s quote and I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to clarify: Sweet, spiritual, **the same**, and married. Audra saw that in the Church women are more “the same” in terms of their activities, than men. Boys have been explicitly encouraged to go on missions and to complete their education; women are often meeting expectations if they abandon their own degree-seeking in favor of marriage and family.

    She saw the boys going on adventures and doing interesting things, while she and the other girls were back at the meeting house planning fake Temple weddings. Its the sameness that got to her–the lack of individuality. Whenever she offered an independent thought, she was told she should not think that way (she offered no untoward thoughts, according to her reports to me and the reports of her YW leaders).

    Audra saw that boys holding the Priesthood were encouraged to go on missions and to engage in activities that could assist them with in a wide variety of professional and job skill development. Women, in contrast, were all to be the same–Mothers at home. (There was not objection to being a mother at home, it was the expectation of sameness–that all women would do this regardless). Its like the Church mandating that all Priesthood holders be car mechanics…or dentists…or name-your-career.

    She often commented to me that the leaders in church don’t care what she thinks.

    By fast tracked for my son, I am referring to fast-tracked to church leadership.

    Seth, your honesty is refreshing and real. Many thanks to you.

    Comment by Laurie — October 24, 2005 @ 10:51 am

98. J.,

    I disagree with you on the one to one comparison between motherhood and fatherhood. I’m inclined to side with Julie on the motherhood-priesthood comparison.

    I find it helpful to view motherhood as being withdrawn into a space which is generally more sacred than the circles that fatherhood must move in. Without the priesthood men don’t really experience the joy of giving life–and in my estimation there’s nothing more sacred/important/fulfilling than giving life. IMO, the priesthood, in it’s most powerful expression, is about giving Life.

    That said, I agree that women share in the priesthood because of the blessings of the temple. However, I’m not convinced that that means that men and women become equal in their design as “co-creators” of life. I think the idea that women become queens and priestesses *to their husbands* is telling. To me it means (at least in one sense) that equality is struck between the sexes as the women give life to individuals while men give life to a body of individuals by gathering them into one by virtue of the priesthood.

    How’s that for a goofy metaphysical spin on the subject?

    Comment by Jack — October 24, 2005 @ 2:23 pm

99. Jack, if you look at the differences in the John Taylor quotes and what you cite, you will see why I expressly chose them.

    Comment by J. Stapley — October 24, 2005 @ 3:21 pm

100. You’re point is well taken, J.. Though, I’m not convinced that your source is more “authoritative” than mine.

     Comment by Jack — October 24, 2005 @ 4:32 pm

101. This is the weirdest stuff I’ve read about Mormons yet. In Hebrews we’re told Jesus is a high priest after the order of Melchizedek, and you Mormons think there’s an even higher priesthood than Jesus holds? And what’s this hush-hush stuff about temple rites? All that stuff is published for anyone who cares.

     Comment by An Inquirer — October 24, 2005 @ 4:55 pm

102. #95 LisaB

     A couple of recent developments have left me feeling encouraged about the role of wives of leaders in the church:

     -Elder Christensen and his wife, Christine, wrote an article together for the Ensign (Clayton M. Christensen and Christine Quinn Christensen, “Seven Lessons on Sharing the Gospel,” Ensign, Feb. 2005, 36). This is the first time I can ever remember seeing a co-written article, but I would love to hear about any other examples anyone is aware of.

     -Elder Packer and his wife, Donna, both spoke at our “satellite stake conference” a few months back. She actually spoke about doctrine, and actually made affirmative statements.

     I know it’s not earth-shattering, but it’s something, and I think it subtly reflects the leadership’s edging a little closer to given women a slightly expanded role. True, these women don’t have any independent authority, but they are gaining visibility and are implicitly recongized as having something important to say.

     Comment by maria — October 24, 2005 @ 6:14 pm

103. Re An Inquirer:

     It’s just a matter of respect. The temple ceremony obviously isn’t any huge secret (as a quick trip to any number of anti-Mormon sites will confirm). We don’t discuss it as a matter of respect for sacred matters. Not because we’re trying to hide anything.

     If we were being “secretive” about temple stuff, we’ve certainly done a lousy job of it.

     Oh incidentally, who’s to say that Jesus doesn’t also hold this higher priesthood in addition to the Melkezedic priesthood?

     Comment by Seth Rogers — October 24, 2005 @ 7:19 pm

104. …or that Melchezedic didn’t as well.

     Comment by J. Stapley — October 24, 2005 @ 7:25 pm

105. Seth, excellent, excellent comment. I greatly respect your honesty. My friend Peggy Rogers has said in the past that one negative consequence she can see to giving women the priesthood is that woman already do almost everything in the church, and giving them the priesthood will make men irrelevent.

     I think as long as we still have arguments about whether or not married people ought to ride in a car with someone of the opposite sex who is not their spouse, we have a LONG way to go with male/female relationships before we can think about women being ordained.

     That said, this is one of those areas where being a NOM is really a blessing. I believe that God calls whom He will to what position He will, and that the LDS laying on of hands to ordain is at best a confirmation of that and at worst a pointless ritual bestowed by virtue of chromosome structure. If a woman is called by God to minister, I hope she finds a way to do that in the way she feels God has called her to, regardless of how the LDS male power structure would circumscribe her role.

     Ben, I wasn’t talking about lobbying. I was talking about talking. Women ought to be able to talk about how they feel about the church’s organizational structure. That’s not lobbying. That’s speaking the truth to power. If it’s done with respect and humility, it can only bring about good things. Even if nothing changes, mutual understanding is a good thing.

     Comment by Ann — October 25, 2005 @ 12:36 am

106. I wasn’t talking about lobbying. I was talking about talking. Women ought to be able to talk about how they feel about the church’s organizational structure. That’s not lobbying. That’s speaking the truth to power. If it’s done with respect and humility, it can only bring about good things. Even if nothing changes, mutual understanding is a good thing.

     Well said, Ann.

     Comment by Athena — October 25, 2005 @ 8:35 am

107. Thank you, J. Stapley, for this fine thread and for all the thoughtful and articulate responses.

     Thank you, John H., for having the courage to state the obvious. BTW, not wishing to threadjack, however I can’t help but see a parallel to SSM. Of course, we don’t want to go there.

     Comment by MahNahvu — October 25, 2005 @ 5:16 pm

108. …however I can’t help but see a parallel to SSM. Of course, we don’t want to go there.

     I don’t see this in any way effecting that debate. But you are right, let’s not go there.

     Comment by J. Stapley — October 25, 2005 @ 5:56 pm

109. Yeah, Ann, I really like your last paragraph, as well.

     Comment by annegb — October 25, 2005 @ 7:11 pm

110. MahNahvu: …however I can’t help but see a parallel to SSM. Of course, we don’t want to go there.

     J. Stapley: I don’t see this in any way effecting that debate. But you are right, let’s not go there.

     I perceived the parallel in John H.’s comments such as this, among others:

     Do you really consider it a stretch to believe women weren’t granted the priesthood because of their 2nd class status in the 19th-century? Or is it just a remarkable coincidence that the Church didn’t give them the priesthood at the same time no one else was granting them any rights either?

     But, again, I don’t wish to threadjack an otherwise delightful discussion.

     Comment by MahNahvu — October 26, 2005 @ 3:06 pm

111. I guess my point is that they were given the priesthood, inspite of that.

     Comment by J. Stapley — October 26, 2005 @ 3:23 pm

112. I think comparing this to the African brethren recieving the Priesthood is an interesting approach. I tend to believe that they were formally denied the priesthood not because they were unworthy or because of anything else like that, but because the *Church* was not ready and the world was not ready. I think that as the world and the church in general grow, more changes of that nature might happen. The Lord put the church in a situation where it was forced to confront the idea of African men not holding the priesthood (where maybe they should) when construction of the Temple in Brazil began.
     All of the injustices and inequities in the church are made by humans. And I think the Lord lets them continue because the general body of the church isn’t ready. I think many of us tend to live in the delusion that the fullness of the Gospel being restored means that everything the church teaches is supposed to be perfect and fundamentally and eternally true (for example tithing isn’t the highest commandment, but it’s the highest one of that type we are able to obey). So in the meantime innocent people suffer and feelings are hurt. I’m sure the Lord will fix it right when it needs to be fixed. The question is how do we minimize the negative effects and promote the growth needed for things to be fixed?

     Comment by Andermom — October 26, 2005 @ 5:53 pm

113. “The day will come when men will recognize woman as his peer, not only at the fireside, but in councils of the nation. Then, and not until then, will there be the perfect comradeship, the ideal union between the sexes that shall result in the highest development of the race.”
     —Susan B. Anthony

     Perhaps, the same holds true for the Church………

     The day will come when the male priesthood will recongize womanhood as his peer, not only at the fireside, but in councils of the Church. Then, and not until then, will there be the perfect comradeship, the ideal union between the sexes that shall result in the highest degree of glory.

     Comment by ProudMary — October 26, 2005 @ 7:30 pm

114. I like your version very much ProudMary. I hope and pray for women’s ordination. Any organization that so completely denies females the opportunity to contribute to defining