Women’s Priest(ess)hood
WOMEN and PRIEST(ESS)HOOD — By Gaia
A perennially fascinating and controversial topic, i can’t resist offering my entry: hope someone finds it interesting and helpful. Please don’t hesitate to make any comments, ask any questions, clarifications, or whatever –
I think we may all be so accustomed to the negative statements regarding women and Priesthood that perhaps it would be fun to start with a quote that’s sure to wake everyone –
Eliza R Snow Smith, Joseph’s plural wife, referred to most of her life as “High Priestess, Prophetess (and even) Presidentess Snow” –
“The sisters were also apostolic in a priestly sense. They partook of the priesthood equally with the men. They too “held the keys of the administeriation of angels.”… Woman also soon became high Priestess and prophetess. She was this officially…The genius of a patriarchal priesthood naturally made her the apostolic helpmeet for man. If you saw her not in the pulpit teaching the congregation, yet was she to be found in the temple, administering for the living and the dead! Even in the holy of holies she was met. As a high priestess she blessed with the laying on of hands! As a prophetess she oracled in holy places! As an endowment giver she was a Mason,of the Hebraic order, whose Grand Master is the God of Israel and whose anointer is the Holy Ghost. She held the keys of the administration of angels and of the “sealings” pertaining to the heavens and the earth” –
(Women of Mormondom 22-23 )
First, i think it’s important to put this discussion in context with LDS doctrine on the Priesthood, as revealed by Joseph Smith, the head of the Dispensation and the one who restored the Fulness of Priesthood and educated the saints on it.
Joseph Smith said there are Three Grand Orders Of PRIESTHOOD(from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (from now on, TPJS) 322:
“There are three grand orders of priesthood referred to here. 1st. The King of Shiloam (Salem) had power and authority over that of Abraham, holding the key and the power of endless life. …What was the power of Melchizedek? ‘Twas not the Priesthood of Aaron which administers in outward ordinances, and the offering of sacrifices. Those holding the fulness of the Melchizedek Priesthood are kings and priests (or “Queens and Priestesses“) of the Most High God, holding the keys of power and blessings.”
This Third Order of Priesthood is perhaps the least discussed, but most important — it is the “perfected order in which man could receive a fulness of the Melchizedek Priesthood and be exalted as a priest and a king in eternity.”
(Hyrum L. Andrus, Doctrines of the Kingdom [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1973], 157.)
A “King” or “Queen” is one who disseminates temporal blessings to others; while a “Priest” or “Priestess” is one who disseminates spiritual blessings.
The kind of Priestesshood we’re talking about refers specifically to this Third Order of Priesthood.
Joseph Smith recorded a promise which he gave to the Relief Society regarding the priesthood in his instructions to the Relief Society on 28 Apr 1842:
“gave a lecture on the priesthood shewing how the Sisters would come in possession of the privileges & blessings & gifts of the priesthood & that these signs should follow them, such as healing the sick, casting out devils &c. & that they might attain unto these blessings….”
(Book of the Law of the Lord, (Joseph Smith’s journal) 28 April 1842; also in Dean Jesse, ed “The Papers of Joseph Smith, Vol 2, 378-79.)
The conferral of priesthood on individual women ocurred through the Temple Endowments and other advanced Temple rituals; and the exercise thereof, through what Joseph Smith called the Holy Order or “Anointed Quorum” (men and women who had received the priesthood endowment and were members of the elite Quorum).
Joseph and Emma became the first couple to receive the Second Anointing (by which they made their Calling and Election Sure and thus received the Second Comforter) or “fullness of the priesthood.” By this ceremony they were each “anointed & ordained to the highest & holiest order of the priesthood.”
PLEASE NOTE: “They were each anointed and ordained”, not just Joseph.
(”Meetings of the Anointed Quorum- Journalizings,” 28 Sept 1843, also slightly different entry in Joseph Smith diary, 28 Sept 1843, in Faulring, “An American Prophet’s Record” p 412.)
Sidney Rigdon, First Counselor in the First Presidency, testified years later that “Emma Smith was the one to whom the female priesthood was first given,”
(Sidney Rigdon to Stephen Post, June 1868, LDS archives (Rigdon had left the church more than 20 years earlier), quoted in Ehat, “Joseph Smith’s Introduction of Temple Ordinances,” 103; Buerger, “The Fullness of the Priesthood,” 23; HC 6:363, 392. Also Ian G Barber, “the Ecclesiastical Position of Women in Two Mormon Trajectories,” _Journal of Mormon History_ 14 (1988): 63-97; Meetings of Anointed Quorum-Journalizings, 28 Sept 1843, Joseph Smith papers, microfilm at Special Collections, Harold B Lee Library, BYU).
The ordinance by which Hyrum and Mary Fielding Smith received their Second Anointing is recorded as “My brother Hyrum and his wife were blessed, ordained and anointed.”
PLEASE NOTE: “and his wife were blessed, ordained and anointed.”
(Wilford Woodruff, “Historian’s Private Journal,” 26 Feb 1867, LDS archives; LDS MIllennial Star 22 (7 April 1860): 214; HC 6:46.)
When Brigham Young’s own wife received the endowment on 1 Nov 1843, he wrote, “Mary A Young admitted to the hiest order of the Priesthood ” [sic] [emphasis added]
PLEASE NOTE: It does not say that her husband was admitted, it says that SHE “was admitted”. She did not receive the Second Anointing with him until three weeks later.
(Brigham Young Diary 29 Oct, 1 Nov 1843, copies in Donald R Moorman papers, ARchives, Weber State University; “Meetings of anointed Quorum - Journalizings,” 29 Oct 1843; Faulring, “An American Prophet’s Record,” 444; Ehat, “Joseph Smith’s Introduction of the Temple Ordinances,” 103.)
The popular idea that women receive priesthood only through their husbands was not the view expressed by the Anointed Quorum’s original members, who learned about the endowment directly from Juseph Smith.
Brigham Young’s 1843 diary associated the endowment of women with their receiving priesthood. For example: On 29 Oct 1843, 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 endowments. They did not join with their husbands to receive the Second Anointing until 12 and 15 Nov 1843, respectively.
On 3 Feb 1844, William Clayton’s diary noted that Jane Bicknell Young was also endowed and received “into the Quorum of the Priesthood.”
(William Clayton diary, 3 Feb 1844, 7 Dec. 1845; in Smith, “An Intimate Chronicle,” 125, 193; “Meetings of the anointed quorum” Joseph Smith diary, 3 Feb 1844, in Faulring, “An American Prophet’s Record,” 444; Ehat, “Joseph Smith’s Introduction of Temple Ordinances,” 103; Buerger, “The Fulness of the Priesthood,” 23.)
Joseph Smith’s uncle John Smith, a special member of the First Presidency since 1837, member of the Anointed Quorum since 28 Sep 1843, having received four months of special instruction from the Prophet about the Holy Order of the Priesthood during the frequent meetings of the Anointed Quorum –
(Deseret News 1991-1992, “Church Almanac” 46; HC 6:173; Faulring, “An American Prophet’s Record” 416; “Meetings of the anointed Quorum,” 28 Sept 1843; Ehat, “Joseph Smith’s Introduction of Temple Ordinances,” 102);
–Patriarch Smith pronounced a patriarchal blessing on Maria Turnbow which specified that it was through the Endowment ceremony that women receive Priesthood: “Thou shalt have an Endowment in the Lord’s house [and] be clothed with the Power of the Holy Priesthood….. (John Smith patriarchal blesing to Maria Louisa Turnbow, 7 Nov 1845, in William S Harwell, “The Matriarchal Priesthood and Emma’s Right to Succession as Prsiding HIgh Priestess and Queen” 7.)
In fact after his ordination as patriarch to the church in 1849, John Smith also described an *ancient* female priesthood.
In his blessing to Caroline Cottam in Mar 1853, he referred to the “Priesthood which Abraham sealed upon his daughters.”
He also blessed Elizabeth Bean in May 1853: “I seal upon you all the blessings of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and all the Priesthood that was sealed upon the daughters of Jacob in the land of Egypt…”
(John Smith patriarchal blessing to Caroline Cottam, 26 Mar 1853, LDS archives; John Smith blessing to Elizabeth Bean, 1 May 1853, Goerge Washington Bean journal, Book 1, 79-80, Archives, Lee Library, BYU, and his blessing to Sophia Pollard, 9 Nov 1853; all are quoted in Irene May Bates, “Transformation of Charisma in the Mormon church , Ph.D. diss., UCLA 1991, 281-82.)
For more information on this ancient dimension of women’s Priest(ess)hood, please see the following:
FEMALE PRIESTHOOD in Biblical times:
- Antony Hutchinson, “Women and Ordination: Introduction to the Biblical Context,” in _Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought_ 14 (Winter 1981): 58-74;
- Melodie Moench Charles, “SCriptural Precendents for Priesthood,” _Dialogue: A JOurnal of Mormon Thought_ 18 (Autumn 1985): 18-20;
- Savina J. Teubal, _Sarah the Priestess_ and _Ancient Sisterhood_
- Elisabeth Schussler-Fiorenza, “Women in the Early Christian Movement,” in Carol P Christ and Judith Plaskow, ed. _WomanSpirit Rising_, 84-92;
- Toscano and Toscano _Strangers in Paradox_, 167-78.
NOTE: Please be aware that these are *not* all by LDS authors, nor are they necessarily considered official LDS doctrine.
* * * *
Years later, Bathsheba W Bigler Smith (plural wife of Joseph Smith) testified publically:
“I have always been pleased that i had my endowments when the Prophet lived…he gave us everything, every order of the priesthood….he said he had given the sisters instructions that they could administer to the sick and he wanted to make us, as the women in Paul’s day, ‘a Kingdom of priestesses.’”
(Bathsheba Smith Statement, 9 June 1905, Pioneer Stake Relief Society minutes, LDS archives, quoted in part by Derr, Cannon, and Beecher, “Women of Covenant,” 53-54; Ehat, “Joseph Smith’s Introduction of Temple Ordinances,” 103.)
In Feb 1844 stake patriarch John Smith told Louisa C Jackson that she had a *right* to priesthood from her birth:
“thou art of the blood of Abraham through the loins of Manasseh & lawful heir to the Priesthood,“(John Smith patriarchal blessing to Louisa C Jackson, 6 Feb 1844, RLDS archives).
Even Brigham Young — that paragon of women’s rights — (and yes, that was just to make sure you’re paying attention! *g*) referred to the fact that women did indeed hold the Priesthood when in a discourse he told the Saints:
“Now Brethren, the man that honors his priesthood, the woman that honors her priesthood, will receive an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of God.” (JD 17:119)
Apostle Orson Hyde read and distributed to the Saints in the Nauvoo Temple a revelation wihch he had received that morning:
“The Priesthood holds the power and all have been ordained or ought to be. It is necessary that it should rest upon all, not upon men only but upon women also that ye may be all one. …”
(Bullock Minutes, 15 March 1846, BYU Studies Vol. 31, No. 1 p 61.)
So WHAT HAPPENED — Why don’t we hear more
of women’s “Priestesshood”???
First, By the end of the early 1880’s, death had taken all the General Authorities who had specifically been taught on the nature of Priesthood by the Head of the Dispensation — Joseph Smith; and those who had themselves taught that the endowment conferred priesthood upon women.
Second, By 1888, Mormon misogyny was linked with denials of women’s authority,which resulted in a public comment by Apostle Franklin D Richards:
“Every now and then we hear men speak tauntingly of the sisters and lightly of their public duties, instead of suporting and encouraging them….There are also some who look with jealousy upon the moves of the sisters as though they might come to possess some of the gifts, and are afraid they [LDS women] will get away with some of the blessings of the gospel which only men ought to possess.”
Because of this “envy and jealousy,” Apostle Richards said some LDS men “don’t like to accord to [the sisters] anything that will raise them up and make thier talents to shine forth as the daughters of Eve and Sarah.”
(”LDS Women’s Exponent” 7 (1 NOv 1878): 86.)
Elder Richards is the only General Authority to publically acknowledge that jealousy and fear are the basis for the oppositon of some LDS men against the spiritual authority of women.
Secondly, It is also likely that some of the women, themselves, were responsible for this diminishment of their power and authority — by constantly asking the men if it was *alright* for them to use their power.
Such doubt and insecurity could not have bolstered confidence on either side, and may well have undermined women’s authority.
The Book of Mormon warned that gifts of the Spirit would die out only through unbelief. (Moroni 10:8, 11, 19, 26)
And finally, In 1946, then-Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith wrote the letter to the Relief Society Presidency, which ended the era during which women freely exercised the Gifts of the Spririt, including Healing — to which they’d always had access and which Joseph Smith had approved.
Instead of women continuing to exercise this Gift, Elder Smith said that women should “send for the elders of the Church to come and administer to the sick and afflicted.”
(Joseph Fielding Smith Letter to Belle Spafford, Marriane C Sharpe and Gertrude R Garff, 29 July 1946, in Clark, _Messages of the First Prsidency_ 4:314; also Derr, Cannon, Beecher, _Women of Covenant_ 220-221.)
ON PRIESTHOOD, WOMEN, and “AUTHORITY” :
“Authority” means both power and permission. In the first sense authority is the priesthood power of God. Through the Temple endowment, both men and women receive God’s authority or POWER of the Priesthood. Men also receive priesthood power through ordination to specific office.
The second sense of authority is the *permission* of the church. Niether males nor females can exercise their priesthood without permission of the church. However, both males and females have received such permisson from the church in various ways:For LDS males, conferral of power and the permission to exercise priesthood in the church come in stages.
There are two ways in which the LDS church gives formal authority for males to exercise the pristhood they receive by ordination and the endowment:
1) First, through the ordinance of being “set apart” — as a missionary, temple ordinance worker, or church presiding officer, such as stake president or auxiliary president.
2) Second, church leaders give verbal “authority” for males to use their priesthood for specific occasions or ordinances such as administering the sacrament, baptism, confirmation, and administering to the sick.
But For LDS women the priesthood comes not in stages of ordination, but in the temple endowment — which gives today exactly what it gave in Joseph Smith’s time.
Historically, women also have received church authority to exercise their priest(ess)hood power in behalf of others: they receive the ordinance of being set apart as missionaries, temple ordinance workers, and presiding officers such as auxiliary presidents. And as already discussed, LDS leaders have given verbal and written authority for LDS women to perform ordinances including blessings and healings. Church POLICY revoked that permission in 1946 but could reinstate it at any time.
In today’s church, a woman who has received the temple endowment has more priesthood POWER than a boy who holds the office of Priest. However, the priest has more PERMISSION to exercise his priesthood than does the endowed woman to exercise hers.
Priesthood power has always been independent of the offices of the LDS church. LDS women already have God’s priesthood of spiritual POWER. Without asking permission, they may draw on the POWER of the Priesthood that is theirs by birthright and by divine endowment.
However, it is necessary for endowed women to receive PERMISSION of the church to use their priesthood in specifically *church* settings. Without ordination to priesthood OFFICES, each endowed woman already has the opportunity to fulfill in her life Joseph Smith’s promise: “I now turn the key to you in the name of God.”
(D MIchael Quinn, “Mormon Women Have Had the Priesthood Since 1843″, in _Women And Authority_ edited by Maxine Hanks.)
REFERENCES:
- Hanks, M. ed. _Women and Authority_
- Schussler-Fiorenza, E. _In Her Name_
- “Women in the Early Christian Movement,” in _WomanSpirit Rising_ Carol P Christ and Judith Plaskow, ed.
- Scott H. Faulring, ed., An American Prophet’s Record: The Diaries & Journals of Joseph Smith, 2nd ed.
- Ehat, A. “Joseph Smith’s Introduction of Temple Ordinances,”
- Buerger, David John. “‘The Fullness of the Priesthood’: The Second Anointing in Latter-day Saint Theology and Practice,” Dialogue 16 (Spring 1983):10-44.
- Buerger, David John. “The Development of the Mormon Temple Endowment Ceremony,” Dialogue 20 (Winter 1987):33-76.
- Harwell, William G. “The Matriarchal Priestesshood and Emma’s Right to Succession as Presiding High Priestess and Queen”
- Quinn, D Michael. “Mormon Women Have Had the Priesthood Since 1843,” in _Women and Authority_ by Maxine Hanks, ed.
FEMALE PRIESTHOOD in Biblical times:
- Antony Hutchinson, “Women and Ordination: Introduction to the Biblical Context,” in _Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought_ 14 (Winter 1981): 58-74;
- Melodie Moench Charles, “SCriptural Precendents for Priesthood,” _Dialogue: A JOurnal of Mormon Thought_ 18 (Autumn 1985): 18-20;
- Savina J. Teubal, _Sarah the Priestess_ and _Ancient Sisterhood_
- Elisabeth Schussler-Fiorenza, “Women in the Early Christian Movement,” in Carol P Christ and Judith Plaskow, ed. _WomanSpirit Rising_, 84-92;
- Toscano and Toscano. _Strangers in Paradox_
PS — If anyone wants to discuss this more but in private, please feel free to email me Gaia_d@yahoo.com –
Blessings to All –
~Gaia
Excellent post.
Posted by Kim Siever
Comment by Anonymous — February 15, 2005 @ 10:45 am
I just posted this under Gaia’s previous post, “Men’s Nightmare Plan of Salvation,” but have just realized that it’s probably more appropriate in response to this post of Gaia’s. Here it is again.
I thought I might put forward a few ideas for women who do feel somewhat marginalized and alienated by the gender division in the church (as was so effectively highlighted in Gaia’s first post).
As a feminist who has struggled for years with questions about the priesthood and women’s deliniated roles in the church, I wanted to share some insights that have really helped me personally. Just so you know, I am an active member of the church and I want to remain so. However, these suggestions will not resonate with everyone, and I have no doubt that many of the Times and Seasons men we’re getting here will be uncomfortable with it.
What has made me feel more empowered in a church in which, institutionally, women do not have much power?
I have decided to take control of my own personal, spiritual life and expand the traditional use of the word priesthood in my private life. Like Gaia suggests, I think I do have priesthood in some sense and am willing to act accordingly. Here are a couple of examples:
I have decided to hold my baby blessing in my own home, where my husband and I will hold our child together and both prounounce blessings.
I have decided to put my hands on and bless people around me who need it and are willing for me to do it.
I have just come to believe that acting with good intentions in ways which are meant to help others and increase my connection to the divine cannot be evil. Untraditional, yes. Threatening to the established power structure, probably. But evil, no. I cannot imagine my God punishing me for trying to get closer to him. And besides, as Gaia has pointed out, there is historical precedence for this sort of thing. It’s pretty clear to me that these strictures against women blessing and healing are current church policy, not doctrine. I personally have come to believe that following my conscience, even at the expense of policy, must be acceptable - or at least excusable - to God.
Posted by Caroline
Comment by Anonymous — February 15, 2005 @ 12:04 pm
Nice post, Gaia, but LOOOOOOONG!!
Posted by Steve Evans
Comment by Anonymous — February 15, 2005 @ 3:04 pm
great post. keep up the good work.
Posted by michael
Comment by Anonymous — February 15, 2005 @ 6:28 pm
Ok, I read the post — nicely put together overall.
I’m not going to read many more posts like this unless they’re formatted better, however. Way too long, way too busy. Don’t let the presentation get in the way of your point.
Your “So What Happened” section is not convincing. You make some large leaps without much support.
Posted by Bryce I
Comment by Anonymous — February 15, 2005 @ 9:58 pm
Thought provoking. But it sort of begs the question–what is the priesthood?
My rule of thumb is that the priesthood is, as you imply, the authority and power to act in the name of God in various capacities. That we have so limited what we think is an act of God seems to me the true crux of the problem.
We proudly say that a 12 year old boy passing the sacrament has priesthood authority. But we don’t ackowledge that a woman serving in a calling or (to be a bit extreme but probably more to the point) 6 months pregnant with a child of God is doing the same? Myopic.
Posted by ccobb
Comment by Anonymous — February 16, 2005 @ 2:58 am
Not to get hung up on formatting, but ccobb’s comment makes me realize that it’s not entirely clear that the last section is an extended quotation from Michael Quinn. You should blockquote it, at least, or otherwise set it off.
Posted by Bryce I
Comment by Anonymous — February 16, 2005 @ 8:03 am
Two issues that you (and Quinn) do not address, but which I feel are very important, are lines of authority and accountability.
I can trace the priesthood that I hold through my father, who ordained me, back to Jesus Christ. This is a very real and significant chain for me, one that is central to the whole concept of priesthood power. How this works for women in the endowment is not clear, however.
Priesthood holders also operate in an organization that provides accountability as well. The quorum structure of the priesthood can change as circumstances dictate, but there’s always a way to trace the authorization of any usage of priesthood power back to the Savior. You may claim that priesthood holders may receive this authorization directly, as opposed to through the priesthood hierarchy, but that’s a claim that would have to be proven to me pretty rigorously.
Posted by Bryce I
Comment by Anonymous — February 16, 2005 @ 8:17 am
“But it sort of begs the question”
That would be “raises the question”.
Begs the question
Posted by Kim Siever
Comment by Anonymous — February 16, 2005 @ 9:27 am
Couple of comments: First, the three orders of the Priesthood are the Aaronic, the Melchizedek, and the Patriarchal. The Patriarchal order operates only partially in this dispensation and is that which is used in the Temples to seal families together.
Second, the reason there is friction between men and women regarding the Priesthood is because people do not really understand what the Priesthood is. The Priesthood is the means God has given to men to bring about the spiritual birth of others. All of the ordinances, rights, and responsabilities of the Priesthood are intended to facilitate the spiritual rebirth and growth of others. Women provide the physical birth, men are to provide the spiritual birth. United together, they can do both as a family, and that is the ideal.
Posted by Kurt
Comment by Anonymous — February 16, 2005 @ 1:54 pm
Question: why weren’t black women allowed to get temple endowments until 1978?
Posted by wendy
Comment by Anonymous — February 16, 2005 @ 1:59 pm
Because they were black.
Posted by Kim Siever
Comment by Anonymous — February 16, 2005 @ 4:22 pm
Wendy,
That’s a good question. The official line was that blacks were cursed as to the Priesthood. So why would that preclude a black woman from being endowed, if the Endowment does not itself bestow priesthood.
Don’t know.
Posted by Ronan
Comment by Anonymous — February 16, 2005 @ 6:06 pm
Unless Margaret Toscano is right and some priesthood is bestowed on women in the Endowment.
Wendy, thanks, to my shame I have never thought of that before.
Posted by kris
Comment by Anonymous — February 16, 2005 @ 6:13 pm
Unless Margaret Toscano is right and some priesthood is bestowed on women in the Endowment.
Wendy, thanks, too my shame I have never thought of that before.
Posted by kris
Comment by Anonymous — February 16, 2005 @ 6:20 pm
Interesting stuff, I’ve been wondering about parts of it since the 70s when I read some of the source quotes. And, of course, the three volume set’s language on the equality of men and women and the fact that it is society’s fault, not that of individuals.
Posted by Stephen M (Ethesis)
Comment by Anonymous — February 16, 2005 @ 6:48 pm
Since people are cross- posting ….
What I find interesting is that when we discuss problems with socializing young men and male activity levels in general, the only rejoinder is “you guys are worth more than that” and no discussion about the real and significant problems faced by all denominations.
Glad to get a list of Gaia’s influences. When I read the pagan, having studied way too many groups, the ritual slaughter (well, castration and human sacrifice) of males did come to mind, while her influences don’t seem to include those groups (neopagans, on the other hand, seem to go back thirty or forty years and completely avoid their roots, which is fine by me. I much prefer the Walt Disney version of many of the traditions. Though I winced when I read a prayer for peace that invoked the Morrigan.).
Two completely different threads go on with men and the priesthood. The first is the traditional role that goes back to historical roots (and yes, I’m aware of female deacons, etc. that tangent the histories, and Huldah, Miriam and others). The second is the modern experience, relatively long standing, of the difficulty socializing and keeping men in religious settings.
Practical issues include the number of times people get into real, serious, emotional and sexual problems when you mix men and women in Church callings. Or why your wife or husband isn’t out home teaching with someone of the opposit sex on a regular basis. That is a constant problem or issue that comes up every time it is tried.
So you have two historical trends (with counterexamples) and a real social-sexual issue that repeats itself over and over again. It is why men can teach in primary, but not preside there.
What remains is what you call the womens’ organization and authority structure in the Church and how you label participation in it.
A significant issue, mind you, but one that lends itself to a certain circumscription.
Maybe someone can find Marcella and get her to post. We can go over some more topics if she shows up.
Posted by Stephen M (Ethesis)
Comment by Anonymous — February 18, 2005 @ 11:20 am
STEPHEN:
Glad to get a list of Gaia’s influences. When I read the pagan, having studied way too many groups, the ritual slaughter (well, castration and human sacrifice) of males did come to mind, while her influences don’t seem to include those groups
GAIA:
Yknow, i can’t help but wonder whether this whole thing about my “influences” isn’t just a tad hypocritical —
Are we not ALL “influenced” by everything we see, hear, think, and are exposed to, all of our lives? Wht guarantee do *I* have that any of YOU are not “influenced” by things i would find unacceptable and inappropriate? *g*
Of course anyone who actually studied the writings of the church leaders would know that THEY considered LDS responsible for ALL truth, regardless of its source:
“by proving contraries, truth is made manifest” (1, citing History of the Church 6:428).
“A truth is a truth, though spoken or written by a person who may previously have been known to have stooped to twist, garble or falsify other matters. Coming from such a source, however, it would be likely to carry less conviction than when uttered or written by one whose integrity had never been impeached, and whose honor was above reproach.”
(Contributor, vol. 3 (October 1881-September 1882), Vol. Iii. January, 1882. No. 4. 100.)
“But we also acknowledge our obligation to accept truth from whatever source it comes . All the sacred writings will some day be gathered together.”
(George Reynolds and Janne M. Sjodahl, Commentary on the Book of Mormon, edited and arranged by Philip C. Reynolds, 7 vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1955-1961], 1: 412 - 413.)
“We are willing to receive all truth, from whatever source it may come; for truth will stand, truth will endure.”
(President Joseph F. Smith., Conference Report, April 1909, 6 - 7.)
“There is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding,” and whatever understanding we have it comes from the Almighty. There is no other source of knowledge. He is the great fountain of all truth, the inspirer of all discoveries; they all come from him. I am aware that sometimes we find inventors, discoverers and scientists that are not always willing to admit the source of their inventions and their discoveries, but nevertheless it is true. We do not always appreciate when the Lord is making known his truth.(29532954elder Rulon S. Wells, Conference Report, April 1934, Second Day—Morning Meeting 56.)
WE ACCEPT TRUTH FROM EVERY SOURCE.
“This is one reason among many why I have great confidence in you, my own people. We believe in accepting truth, from whatever source it comes. If there is anything virtuous, honest, upright, holy, good, and true, we, in accordance with the fundamental principles of the gospel, seek after these things.”(Elder Richard R. Lyman, Conference Report, October 1919, Afternoon Session 108.)
Posted by Gaia
Comment by Anonymous — February 18, 2005 @ 4:06 pm
Gaia:
Wht guarantee do *I* have that any of YOU are not “influenced” by things i would find unacceptable and inappropriate? *g*
Absolutely none whatsoever.
Gaia:
hypocriticalGee, I hope not. I deal with a lot of neopagans, and get along rather well with them. The moment curiousity gets to be hypocritical I’m in more trouble than the cat.
Gaia (quoting):
We do not always appreciate when the Lord is making known his truthindeed.
Though you left out the part of the quotes that refer to the Methodists having truth. Having listened to Jan Shipps recently (she filled up the Chapel and the overflow and the cultural hall at the Legacy Chapel), I’m pretty sure that they have some …
Anyway, not sure what the point of your response to me was, if you were actually responding to me.
Do wish we could find Marcella. I do think that she would make a fine addition to this conversation.
Regards,
Steve
http://adrr.com/living/
Posted by Stephen M (Ethesis)
Comment by Anonymous — February 18, 2005 @ 4:51 pm
And, if you found my reflectings “a tad hypocritical” I regret that is where they led you.
I was noting that there is a difference between gnostic, neopagan, historical pagan (meaning Northern European Indo-European systems, including the Vanir) and other groups.
Pagan is a tad panoramic for what appears to be correct, though I could be wrong.
Comment by Stephen — February 18, 2005 @ 4:54 pm
BTW, if you really want to investigate my influences:
http://adrr.com/faq.htm#Three
I’ve had to deal a lot with the “context is everything” crowd.
Also see:
http://adrr.com/wusage/
Comment by Stephen — February 18, 2005 @ 4:57 pm
Gaia –
settle down. Remember that you’re new in the bloggernacle — we’re getting to know you, you’re getting to know us. Most of the frequent commenters and posters know where the others are coming from, or at least we think we do. You’re a relative unknown, and your self-description is quite a bit different from most of the rest of the group. I don’t think you should be attacked for being who you are, but you should recognize that the way things happened, it’s natural for people to react the way they did.
Over the long haul, people with insight who can put forth good arguments are recognized for doing so in the bloggernacle. Give it some time.
Posted by Bryce I
Comment by Anonymous — February 18, 2005 @ 8:54 pm
Gaia –
settle down. Remember that you’re new in the bloggernacle — we’re getting to know you, you’re getting to know us. Most of the frequent commenters and posters know where the others are coming from, or at least we think we do. You’re a relative unknown, and your self-description is quite a bit different from most of the rest of the group. I don’t think you should be attacked for being who you are, but you should recognize that the way things happened, it’s natural for people to react the way they did.
Over the long haul, people with insight who can put forth good arguments are recognized for doing so in the bloggernacle. Give it some time.
Posted by Bryce I
Comment by Anonymous — February 18, 2005 @ 8:57 pm
To BRYCE —
Hi Again.
Actually, i would expect — or perhaps, “hope” — that even folks who are as yet unregenerated (ie, “the natural man”) unacquainted with the Atonement and Gospel — to be curious, concerned, quesitoning, cautious, skeptical — but basically respectful and cordial –
[Do you think i “expect” / hope too much?]
— And many certainly were — for which i am extremely and thoroughly grateful.
* * * * * *
Posted by Stephen:
hypocriticalGee, I hope not. I deal with a lot of neopagans, and get along rather well with them. The moment curiousity gets to be hypocritical I’m in more trouble than the cat.
GAIA:
Steve, i hope you didn’t honestly think i meant that mere curiosity was hypocritical —
Of course it is NOT.
What *could* be hypocritical (please note i am accusing NO ONE and asserting NOTHING specific) *might* be someone using a “Guilt by Association” tactic in such a discussion — casting themselves as “shepherds” defending the “flock” from ravening (”evil Pagan”) “wolves” — while their own motives and methods might be suspect.
STEPHEN:
And, if you found my reflectings “a tad hypocritical” I regret that is where they led you.
GAIA:
Was not speaking of/to you there.
STEPHEN:
I was noting that there is a difference between gnostic, neopagan, historical pagan (meaning Northern European Indo-European systems, including the Vanir) and other groups.
GAIA:
That is certainly true.
STEPHEN:
Pagan is a tad panoramic for what appears to be correct, though I could be wrong.
GAIA:
I’m sorry, perhaps it’s the hour and all, but i don’t understand what you’re getting at here –
~Gaia
Posted by Gaia
Comment by Anonymous — February 18, 2005 @ 10:44 pm
Sorry, Perhaps my above statement still needs a bit more clarification:
What *could* be hypocritical (please note i am accusing NO ONE and asserting NOTHING specific) *might* be:
– Someone using a “Guilt by Association” tactic in such a discussion —
— Casting themselves as protective “shepherds” defending the “flock” from ravening (”evil Pagan”) “wolves” —
— While their own motives and methods might be ultimately less honorable, and yet LESS *SUSPECT* because their religion is more *aceptable* –
Comment by Gaia — February 18, 2005 @ 10:53 pm
Gaia,
GAIA:
Was not speaking of/to you there.
Thanks for the clarification. On the one hand, you posted STEPHEN, with a quote and then followed it directly with GAIA and the “tad hypocritical” comment, which bothered me a bit — especially given the context in which you have responded vigorously to others.
On the other hand, I really didn’t think I had posted anything that deserved that sort of response and thought that perhaps you were quoting me and then responding to the general concept rather than to me.
I litigate for a living, and, quite frankly, get enough of that at work (though it is fun in its place). I’m more interested in learning things when I visit LDS blogs, and exploring, than to engage in harshness. You can track my general posts over time, visit my website or my blog, and I hope get a feel for my perspectives.
Though, I admit, I’m envious of those who live in Santa Barbara, which may color my perception of your posts (but only after I checked your profile last night looking for it to have links to other essays or information for perspective on the close juxtiposition of my name and the “tad hypocritical” comment).
Well, on to the next post, should be interesting and definitely feminist.
Posted by Stephen M (Ethesis)
Comment by Anonymous — February 19, 2005 @ 7:01 am
I’m coming to this a little late, but I thought I would add a reference that was not given. Joseph Smith was recorded preaching the Nauvoo Relief Society in the upper room of the Red Brick Store on 28 April 1842 (Thursday Afternoon) [Ehat & Cook, Words of Joseph Smith]. The point is most notably made in footnote #2 (emphasis added):
At the end of the two previous meetings of the Relief Society, held 14 and 19 April, ladies who were ill were administered to by the Relief Society presidency. During the meeting of 19 April, for example, “Mrs. Durfee bore testimony to the great blessing she received when administered to after the close of the last meeting, by Emma Smith and Counselors Cleveland and Whitney. She said she never realized more benefit through any administration, [and] that she was healed and thought the sisters had more faith than the brethren” (Relief Society Minutes, 19 April 1842, Church Archives). This caused some members of the society to question the propriety of women anointing with oil and laying on hands, thinking this was only a priesthood function. At this meeting, however, the Prophet explained that this was entirely appropriate . He sympathized with those who did not understand his larger vision. He said “that the time had not been before, that these things could be in their proper order—that the Church is not now organized in its proper order, and cannot be until the Temple is completed.” In the Temple women would with oil and by the laying on of the hands confer on their sisters blessings of greater eternal significance than the beautiful but single effect of healing an illness.
Posted by J. Stapley
Comment by Anonymous — February 19, 2005 @ 10:31 pm
I might as well add a Nibley reference or two.
“For the deaconess is to be honored by you as the type of the Holy Ghost.” Page 16 of Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity.
He reprised that, somewhat (originally delivered as part of a lecture in 1954 before I was born) in a talk given at the BYU law school around 1980, when questioned about women and the priesthood. In the 1954 lecture he is citing without necessary approval the Apostalic constitution. In 1980 he cited the same document as support of deaconess’ beyond the references in the New Testament and as proof of the N.T. meaning.
Interesting stuff, not often used in discussions on the topic.
Posted by Stephen M (Ethesis)
Comment by Anonymous — February 20, 2005 @ 7:23 pm
Still at it after all these years eh Gaia?
Posted by Nghthawke
Comment by Anonymous — February 26, 2005 @ 6:15 am
Guess she is.
History here?
Posted by Stephen M (Ethesis)
Comment by Anonymous — February 27, 2005 @ 8:22 pm
Where is Gaia’s Harwell reference found?
Harwell, William G. “The Matriarchal Priestesshood and Emma’s Right to Succession as Presiding High Priestess and Queen”
Is this what Emma meant in the Benjamin F. Johnson quote where she says she would only come to Utah if she could be the leading spirit?
Thanks,
Randall Larsen (member PH elder, Manoa Ward, Honolulu).
Comment by Randall Larsen — January 5, 2006 @ 7:44 am
RE: Women and the Priesthood: the fact that Brigham Young disbanded the Relief Society after the Martyrdom gets little play in Mormon Enigma. The authors mention that Young had “effectively removed the relief society from the church a year earlier [than the departure of the Saints in 1846].” (228). However again taking Emma’s side, they argue that “Emma had not used her position as Relief Society President as a springboard to full church leadership.”
The authors seek to minimize Benjamin F. Johnson’s recolletion that:
“nearly all night we labored with her [Emma], and all we could learn was that she was willing to go with the church on the condition she could be the leading Spirit. So we left her, and she did lead all who would follow her
so long as she lived.”
I speculate that what Emma meant by “the leading Spirit” was that she wanted to be President of the endowment council or Holy Order. She wanted to lead the prayer circle of men and women that governed the church by Prayer at the time of Joseph’s martyrdom.
Newell and Avery suggest that “Benjamin F. Johnson’s choice of words is misleading. If she had wanted to head the church surely Johnson would have said so. Emma most likely said that she would go with the church if they abandoned plural marriage. In the eyes of Benjamin F. Johnson, for her to suggest doctrinal influence would have seemed an outrageous attempt to lead the brethren.” (228).
Newell and Avery project a “modern view” of gender relations in the church on Benjamin F. Johnson. The authors forget that this modern view that the sisters should be lead quietly by the brethren had been done away by Joseph’s inauguration of the Holy Order at Nauvoo.
The governing council or prayer circle that “ruled” the church at the time of Joseph’s martyrdom indeed included sisters who voted as equals in the priesthood along with their husbands. Of course D. Michael Quinn got in trouble for pointing this politically incorrect idea out in his Holy Order article. Benjamin F. Johnson knew of the Holy Order and would NOT have seen Emma’s proposal as “outrageous” at the time. In my opinion her proposal was rejected mainly because of her opposition to the course Joseph had set and not that it would have beem outrageous for a 2nd anointed widow to preside in the prayer circle.
It appears that Emma frankly told Brigham she would only come to Utah if she could be the leading spirit or virtual leader of the church.
Brigham knew that Emma rejected plural marriage, because of this she was unworthy to lead the church. She was a “wolf” that had to be kept out of the fold. Brigham took back the reigns of the church from the holy order. He convinced a majority that the twelve stand next in authority to Joseph (in the event of his death). The sisters because they followed Emma in fighting plural marraige would have little to do with church governance in the future and the recollection that females once had something to do with the governance of the church would be suppressed from that moment on. Newell and Avery relegate Brigham’s illuminating remarks to a group of women who wanted to restart the relief society 9 March 1845 (LDS archives) to footnote 27 on page 352:
“….relative to things in which any of our Sisters have been engaged [the HOLY ORDER or Endowment Council -rl]
they have no right to meddle in the affairs of the kingdom of God [the all male political council of L, council of YTFIF]….the(y) never can hold the keys of the Priesthood apart from their husbands. When I want Sisters or
Wives of the members of the church to get up Relief Society I will summon them to my aid but until that time
let them stay home & if you see Females huddling together veto the concern and if they say Joseph started it tell them it is a damned lie for I know he never encouraged it… I am determined to stay these proceedings [the Relief Society and the Holy Order -rl] for by it our best men have been taken from us. One ounce of prevention is worth
a pound of cure.”
Contrary to the opinion of Pres. Young, Joseph did encourage the Relief Society and it appears he intended to organize the society along priesthood lines. According to the documents, the sisters would get the “keys of the Priesthood” through the holy order or endowment council.
According to Newell and Avery,
Emma and Joseph together outlined the purposes of the society, which were “to provoke the brethren to good works…to look after the wants of the poor…[to] do good…[to] deal frankly which each other” and to “correct the morals of the community.” There would be no arguments about doing good and caring for the poor, but women
dealing frankly with each other and correcting the morals of the community would become explosive issues in the city of Nauvoo.
unquote.
[In 1869 the Presidentess Eliza R. Snow prevailed on President Young to reestablish the Relief Society but not the Holy Order. Eliza by virtue of her marriage to Joseph for eternity and Young for time became
a “leading spirit” of sorts in Utah. Eliza administered as a High Priestess in the Holy of Holies of the Salt Lake temple. Eliza did take part in the governance of the church.
Young would see to it that the priviledges
Joseph had accorded women would NOT be regained.
He may have thought the restoration of permission to women to use their “priesthood” could be postponed until Zion was built –something Brigham hoped to accomplish in his lifetime by moving some of the Saints back to Jackson county. ]
I will be interested to read what Harwill wrote about Emma’s
request that she be the leading spirit!
kind regards,
Randall Larsen
Comment by Randall Larsen — January 5, 2006 @ 7:55 am
do you think female priest are a good thing i’m not sure i’m not against female priest but being brought up with a male priest i’m so used to man reading the gospel. what are your opinions?
Comment by lia — September 27, 2006 @ 5:06 am
I know I am only about 3 years late in reading this, but I really enjoyed it. This sentence got me thinking: “The Book of Mormon warned that gifts of the Spirit would die out only through unbelief. (Moroni 10:8, 11, 19, 26)”
We know that the law of consecration was given and then removed because the saints were not righteous enough to live it at the time. I admit that I don’t understand polygamy and am not crazy about the idea, but it is identified as a “celestial law” and was given and then removed. It doesn’t seem so far-fetched to me that some elements of priesthood power could have been given to the early women Saints and then removed due to unrighteousness on the part of both men and women.
Comment by Stephanie — March 17, 2008 @ 12:42 am
Hello — Does anyone have a digital copy of…, “Harwell, William G. “The Matriarchal Priestesshood and Emma’s Right to Succession as Presiding High Priestess and Queen?” I’m very interested.
- J.
Comment by Joshua — July 23, 2008 @ 3:37 pm