Women, Priesthood, and the Awful Monster of Traditional Belief

By Greg Christiansen

I sometimes think that as children we are like wet cement, or molten metal. In our youth, the world around us has great ability to shape and mold our beliefs, and our perspectives. We are heavily influenced by the teachings of our parents, and by the things we are taught in school and in other institutions of learning. Yet as we age, the cement slowly hardens. Beliefs which were once malleable become rigid. The once moldable metal can now only be bent with the greatest force, which bending could easily cause it to break. It is only through applying tremendous heat, that the metal can again be shaped.

So it is with our beliefs as we get older. While they were once moldable, they have since become rigid and unbending. When the world applies great pressure to change them, it can often cause our whole belief system to break. Yet when the Lord seeks to change us and to open up our minds to new truth, he often does so by giving us harsh experience that helps us to be humble, and changeable. Adversity. Tragedy. Pain. Sorrow. Conflict. Crisis.

It is no wonder that the Restoration began with a young boy from a poor family, who suffered greatly throughout his life. It did not come through a wizened and prosperous scholar or philanthropist. It did not come through a lawyer, or a surgeon, or a wealthy merchant, but it came through the child of an indebted farmer on the American frontier. It is no wonder that Christ had to find his disciples among fishermen and publicans, rather than from among the scribes and the Pharisees. He needed wet cement, because those who “think they are wise…hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not” (2 Nephi 9:28). God must work through the weak things of the world, because the weak things are workable, flexible, bendable, and malleable, until he makes them strong in the image that He desires.

Indeed, we could logically conclude that restoring truth through Joseph Smith was much easier for the Lord than it would be to further restore truth through the church which Joseph established. We simply can no longer categorize the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as one of the weak things of the world by default, because its members now number in the millions and hold degrees from prestigious universities, its excess of wealth is counted in the billions of dollars, and its property holdings and arm of influence can be found all over the world. The Church is an organization of great power and influence, unlike the young and unlearned boy that Joseph Smith was. Yet fortunately, there is another way for things to be made moldable and changeable. The way is humility. In other words, the restoration of truth can only continue if we as a people sincerely acknowledge that we still have a long way to go, and that there may still be many ways in which we need to change and grow.

After all, it is evident that the work of restoring truth through Joseph Smith was a slow and gradual process which came line upon line, and here a little there a little. It seems that when we are seeking after truth, the Lord seldom hands us a polished ring of gold. Instead, he guides us to a spot of ground, and we begin to dig in the earth, and after some labor we see a glimmer of gold in the rock, and with crude effort we cut out the ore, and then it is a great labor afterwards to separate the gold from the stone and to refine it of all of its impurities. The Lord did not simply unfold the truth of all things to Joseph in one pure stream of revelation, but Joseph had to seek out truth. He had to ask questions, and if he did not ask questions then he typically did not get answers.

Indeed, it should be meaningful to us that the work of Joseph Smith was triggered by the guidance found in the Book of James, which says, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God.” In other words, if you want the answers, then ask the questions. What Church should I join? Where does one get authority to baptize? What is this that Paul refers to, saying some are of the celestial and others terrestrial? Studying the history of the Church and of the world itself makes it quite apparent that questions usually come before answers, and when no one is asking the questions then usually no one is getting answers.

This is the same in our personal lives, and in our personal relationship with truth. We simply cannot grow very much in light and knowledge if we are not asking questions. Yet it often seems in our current culture of the Church that there is a certain double standard in this regard. We are a religion that claims to esteem the idea of seeking greater truth. We are often counseled in our meetings and in the sermons of our leaders to read and ponder the scriptures, and to pray to the Lord for revelation. At the same time, the moment we question the traditions and teachings of the Church or any of its authorities, there is almost an instant reaction of shock and even horror by those around us. The cry of apostasy is suddenly on everyone’s lips, because despite all of our teachings regarding the need to grow in light and truth, there is an underlying assumption that generally resides in the hearts and minds of many of us. It is the assumption that the Gospel as we have it is already a refined and finished product, and that there is nothing impure left in that lump of ore that Joseph Smith found. And that if the Lord desired for a new truth or lump of ore to be revealed to the world, He would simply show it to the Prophet in that moment. And if He does not show the Prophet any such lump of ore, then there is nothing new which we need to know, and there are no false beliefs which we need to discard. We are just to endure faithfully to what has already been revealed and in due time the Lord will show us everything else.

In other words, please stop asking questions because you are making me uncomfortable.

Well, I for one love the asking of questions, though they can sometimes make me uncomfortable too. They are supposed to make us uncomfortable. I have spent the majority of my career working in education, and I have found that being uncomfortable is a regular condition of anyone who is actively learning. They continually have to go to the borders of what they know and understand and come in direct contact with things which they do not know or understand. They must spend their time on the frontier of their own understanding, where things are often cloudy and confusing. Yet in time, clarity comes, and they are able to connect new discoveries with things they already knew and understood.

The reality is that if we embrace the idea that every teaching, belief, and practice of the Church is perfectly aligned with the Lord’s will, we by consequence become a proud church and not a humble church. To the contrary, if we were to acknowledge that the lump of ore which is the revealed Gospel needs further refining and purifying, and if we were willing to sincerely seek greater light, and to cast out false beliefs, then we would thus be a humble church. Which are we? Are we shackled by the awful monster of traditional belief, including the often embraced traditional belief that all is as it should be in the Lord’s Church? Or are we open minded about truth?

Hugh Nibley summarized this obstacle to growth much better than I can. He said, “Many have noted the strong tendency of Latter-day Saints to avoid making waves. They seem strangely touchy on controversial issues. This begets an extreme lack of candor among the Saints, which in turn is supported by a new doctrine, according to which we have a Prophet at our head who relieves us of all responsibility for seeking knowledge beyond a certain point, making decisions, or taking action on our own.”

Brigham Young also taught that there is a lack of perfection in the things which have been revealed to us, for the simple reason that the Lord must approach us where we are at, and can only reveal what we are prepared to receive. He said, ” I do not even believe that there is a single revelation, among the many God has given to the Church, that is perfect in its fullness. The revelations of God contain correct doctrine and principle, so far as they go; but it is impos-sible for the poor, weak, low, groveling, sinful inhabitants of the earth to receive a revelation from the Almighty in all its perfections. He has to speak to us in a manner to meet the extent of our capacities. “

We must acknowledge that there is more for us to learn in the Gospel, and that the Lord desires that we learn and grow in our understanding. That He respects our agency, and understands how learning works at its best. He understands that we first need to recognize the questions before we are able to comprehend the answers. He helps us to have experiences which open our eyes to questions. He is not a tyrant, forcing truth upon us regardless of our willingness or readiness to receive it. He is a wise parent, allowing us to learn and to grow under the guidance of a gentle and patient hand. 

I am sure many of us have noticed, however, that there are many who struggle upon accidentally discovering that they have doctrinal questions. For example, a good friend of mine who has been a faithful member of the Church all of her life suddenly found herself struggling with her testimony, because one of her children revealed that he was physically attracted to his own gender. Suddenly, her current understanding of truth was no longer sufficient to answer her questions. She needed greater light and knowledge to comfort her in regards to her son, and his salvation, and his eternal destiny, and the pulpits of the Church had no comfort or enlightenment which could satisfy her. 

The truth is that the Lord knows the eternal destiny of my friend’s son, and understands the process it will take for him to be refined, and sees the beginning from the end of all of His creations, and sees these things with such clarity that there is no concern my friend could have that would not be resolved if she were to simply see truth as the Savior sees it. In other words, whenever we are confused, conflicted, and uncertain, it means we are lacking in the light and knowledge that would give us clarity, peace, and conviction. We are not yet seeing things as God sees them, and there is room there for us to learn something new.

The Expanding Role of Women in the Church

With all of that said, I will now be so bold as to raise a doctrinal question which I have noticed can often make people in the Church uncomfortable. I do not see anything wrong with asking questions, but instead see everything right with it, so long as the goal is to seek increased light and understanding and not simply to undermine faith. Indeed, if we discover that the culture of the world around us is troubling to us, then the path to peace of mind can only come by asking questions and seeking answers until all truths relating to our questions are revealed. It is my belief that with understanding comes peace of mind, because when we see truth with perfect clarity it all makes sense, and is comforting, and is as it should be because the things of God exist in a perfect balance and harmony. To the contrary, the things of men are often out of balance and in conflict.

The question I raise is regarding the obvious gender imbalance in the Gospel as it is currently revealed and understood. It does not take very much intelligence to recognize that women have a significantly lesser role in the governing affairs of the Church than men. I find it worthwhile to ask, is this disparity the design of God, or is it a vestige of the era in which the Gospel was first restored, an era where women were legally inferior to men in just about every aspect of society? Is it a vestige of thousands of years of women being oppressed by men in the world at large? After all, it has surely been due to a period of enlightenment in America and other parts of the free world that has seen the standing of women become elevated since that time, having made them closer to equal partners with men. Surely, the Lord has been preparing the world for the Millennium in this regard. Men and women must learn to be equally yoked, if Zion is to be established.

At the same time, it may be wisdom to recognize that the correcting of those wrongs in modern society has also potentially pushed for the promotion of falsehoods, like the confusing of the inherent uniqueness of men and women, and the true nature of each of their divine roles. I would argue that women have their greatest power when they are operating within their divinely designed roles, in harmony with men who are operating within their uniquely designed roles, in partnership. Still, despite some of the negative side effects of women’s suffrage, I would also argue that the most important effect it has had on society has been good. Women have greater agency in today’s America than they did in the early 1800s. They are more free to choose the course of their lives, and more doors are open to them which were once closed.

Yet what about women in the Church? Is all now as it should be in that regard? Would we be in error to assume that all things relating to their place and position in the affairs of the Church have been perfectly established in the years since the restoration began? Did we find the gold in the lump of ore, when it comes to the divinity of women and the truths relating to their divine partnership with men? Have we asked the questions that need asking? Would we be ignorant to assume that the leaders of the Church have not been subject to certain cultural biases that have prevented them from asking certain questions, especially when it comes to the role of women in divine government?

After all, if we were to say that women should have no voice in the highest governing councils of the Church, is it possible that it would be like Adam turning to Eve after they were removed from the Garden of Eden, and telling her that she had no say in where they went from that point on, and what they would do, and how it would be done? Would it be like a husband telling his wife, I preside in the home, which means that I do not have to counsel with you before I make decisions for the family, nor does your opinion have equal weight as mine?

Indeed, could it be possible that restoring women to their divinely instituted station as equal partners in the kingdom is an aspect of the restoration that still eludes us, simply because we are afraid to ask the questions after such a long history of male dominated Church government. Many of us may have noticed that the Church has trended in that direction ever so slightly in recent years, with emphasis being placed on the importance of councils, and wards being encouraged to govern the affairs of the ward through the ward council, which includes some of the sisters.

We may also have noticed that President Nelson has made changes in the practices of the Church which have expanded the ability of women and young girls to take on duties which were once restricted to priesthood holders. For example, it has been the practice in the Church to wait to assign a young man ministering duties until he is ordained to the Aaronic priesthood, and usually not until he is a teacher. Yet now, a young woman of the same age is permitted to be assigned ministering duties, even though she has no priesthood office which identifies any such responsibility.

Similarly, while being a witness for priesthood ordinances both inside and outside the temples was once restricted to Melchizedek priesthood holders, now it is open to anyone. Interestingly, a similar change could technically be made regarding preparing and passing the sacrament. We think of those things as being the duties of teachers and deacons, and yet deacons and teachers have no special authority when it comes to the sacrament. Only priests have the specified authority to administer the sacrament. Yet ever since Church authorities interpreted “administering” to refer only to the blessing of the bread and the wine, deacons and teachers have been permitted to assist with the other aspects of the sacrament. Still, because they do not act with any special authority to pass the trays around, there is no reason that the young women or even the primary children could not pass the sacrament. We have simply relegated that responsibility to deacons and teachers, as they have a duty to assist the priests in their duties and so the task logically falls to them. 

Imagine how some Church members might react if such a change were made, because we have come to associate everything that is done with the sacrament as relating to priesthood. Yet the reality is that passing a tray around requires no special authority, and when we look at the identified priesthood duties of deacons and teachers, we find that they are mostly things which we also allow our young girls to do. For example, the deacons and teachers are “to warn, expound, exhort, and teach, and invite all to come unto Christ” (D&C 20:59). Though they have these duties, it does not prevent us from assigning our young women to teach class lessons, or to speak in sacrament meetings, or to coach them into being good member missionaries, or even to set them apart to serve formal missions for the Church. Ultimately, we recognize that our young girls have a similar need to serve and contribute as our young boys. This applies to the older women as well, who serve as ministers, classroom teachers, auxiliary presidents, and so forth.

We may even be so bold as to ask if there should be a greater representation of women in the highest councils of the Church, even if the men preside in those councils? Similarly, we might ask if women should be ordained to priesthood offices? After all, there is nowhere in the scriptures that prohibit women from holding priesthood offices, nor is there any explanation therein to explain why they do not. Essentially, if we were to ask why women do not hold priesthood offices, we would find no doctrinal answer anywhere in the canon which could put us at our ease. We could only say, Well, it just kind of seems that that’s the way it is. We could not even go so far as to say, Because God said so, because there is nowhere in the written word that gives us such a revelation from the Lord that clearly reveals His will on the matter. Perhaps we could say, Well, God gave dominion over the earth to Adam and not to Eve, and Adam doesn’t have to share if he doesn’t want to. Ultimately, if it pleases the Lord to give the women of the Church duties which the scriptures associate with priesthood, like teaching, exhorting, inviting, and so forth, would it displease Him if they also held offices associated with their duties, whether they were the same offices as those of men or ones which were unique to women? Could it be that God has a whole priesthood structure for women that has not yet been revealed, simply because we have not earnestly asked the question?

As Elder Holland recently expressed, “may I remind all of us that we live in a fallen world and for now we are a fallen people. We are in the telestial kingdom.” The kingdom which we aspire to is celestial, and the millennial kingdom which is upon our doorstep is terrestrial. The restoration we aspire to is the restoration of the earth to the state it was in before the Fall. For example, that is why the New Jerusalem is to be built in the same place as where the Lord planted the Garden of Eden, and why Isaiah expressed that those who dwell there will be called “trees​ of ​​​righteousness​, the ​​​planting​ of the ​​Lord​​, that he might be glorified” (Isaiah 61:3). The Lord means to plant the Garden of Eden once again, and you and I are to be the trees. Could it be that when President Spencer W. Kimball taught the viewpoint that “there is no patriarchy or matriarchy in the Garden; the two supervise each other … and [are] just as dependent on each other,” he was giving us a hint that our current patriarchal structure will not endure into the Millennium?

Do Women Have Priesthood, Despite Not Holding Priesthood Offices?

A study of Church history actually reveals some interesting things in regards to the topic of women and priesthood. There is no other doctrinal topic in the Church which separates men and women more than priesthood. When we think of the priesthood, we think of men. We think of men almost exclusively, to the point where it has been a traditional practice by many latter-day saints to refer to the men of the Church as “the priesthood.” We speak of women as though they have no priesthood, and consider it a matter of doctrine to believe so.

Yet would it startle you to be made aware that such viewpoints which have become traditionally predominant in the Church today are not consistent with the teachings of the Joseph Smith era. For example, on March 30th, 1842, Joseph Smith told the Relief Society that “the Society should move according to the ancient Priesthood” and that he was “going to make of this Society a kingdom of priests as in Enoch’s day—as in Paul’s day.” Surprisingly, this statement by the Prophet implies that women held the priesthood both in Enoch’s day and in Christ’s early church. Although that statement is not consistent with traditional Christian belief regarding Paul’s day, there is a hint of its truth evident in the New Testament. In Paul’s epistle to the Romans, he said, “I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea.” The word servant in that sentence was translated from the Greek word diakonos, which the compilers of the Bible translated to deacon in other epistles, though not in this one. In other words, if we were reading this in Greek and if we were not subject to the belief that only men hold priesthood, we would have thought that Phebe was a deacon.

Still, while it is historically debatable whether women held priesthood offices in other dispensations of the Gospel, it is less debatable whether women hold the priesthood in the restored Church. You might be surprised if I tell you that the most supportable argument is that women hold priesthood, and that it is not exclusive to men, and that they hold it independently without the requirement of a husband (as some might argue who would otherwise acknowledge the validity of the argument that women have priesthood).

Before I elaborate on that, let me first clarify that there is a difference between the priesthood and priesthood offices. The scriptures define priesthood offices as being “appendages” to the priesthood (D&C 84:29-30). That is why when someone is given the priesthood in the Church, it happens in two steps. First, the priesthood is conferred upon them, and then afterwards they are ordained to an office in the priesthood. In other words, there is this small moment in the practices of the Church where a man has the priesthood, yet has no office in the priesthood.

While currently in the Church women are not ordained to offices in the priesthood, it has been argued and believed by many that women are indeed given the higher priesthood, which Church scholars typically equate to the Melchizedek Priesthood. It happens in the temple when they receive their initiatory and their endowment. A little research makes it plain that this was much more commonly believed in Joseph’s era, even though such an understanding is no longer part of the belief system of your average latter-day saint. For example, when his wife received the endowment on November 1st, 1843, Brigham Young wrote: “Mary A. Young admitted in to the hiest [highest] orderer [order of] Preasthood [sic].” It would seem odd to say that Mary Young was admitted into an order of the priesthood if the rights of the priesthood were being withheld from her.

Along those same lines, Bathsheba W. Bigler Smith, who was the fourth general president of the Relief Society, said, “I have always been pleased that I had my endowments when the Prophet lived. He taught us the true order of prayer. I never like to hear a sermon without hearing something of the Prophet, for 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 were in Paul’s day, ‘A kingdom of priestesses.’”

This idea that women hold priesthood in the Church may most abundantly be found in blessings given by early church patriarchs, since those were much more likely to become a matter of record and to be preserved than other teachings or statements made by authorities. Joseph Smith’s uncle, John Smith, served as the church patriarch in the years shortly following the martyrdom, and had been an intimate participant in the months of instruction that Joseph Smith gave regarding the endowment and other temple ordinances. In a blessing he gave to Sister Mehitable Duty in 1845, John Smith said, “The Priesthood in its fullness shall be confer[r]ed upon thee in due time [—] thou shalt have pow[e]r ov[e]r thy relatives & friends & thy husband & children to lead them whethersoever [sic] thou wilt in as much [sic] as you seek faithfully & truly to preserve them in the bonds of the new & ev[e]rlasting covenant.” To another sister he said, “Thou shalt have an Endowment in the Lord’s house [and] be clothed with the Power of the Holy Priesthood [to] be able to redeem thy fathers house …” In a blessing given to Elizabeth Bean in May 1853, he said, “I seal upon you all the blessings of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and all the priesthood that was sealed upon the daughters of Joseph in the land of Egypt …”

There are many more such examples contained in his recorded blessings. At the same time, he was not the only early patriarch to use such language. Patriarch Ola N. Liljenquist told Mary Ann Dowdle that she “was chosen in the eternal worlds to receive the fulness of the holy Priesthood with crowns and principalities and powers.” Stake patriarch Charles W. Hyde blessed a woman in 1875 that she was “a daughter of Ephraim and [had] a right to the fullness of the Priesthood and thy children to the fourth generation.” Similarly, in a blessing Apostle Joseph Young gave to Zina Young Card in 1878, he said, “These blessings are yours, the blessings and power according to the holy Melchisedek Priesthood you received in your Endowments, and you shall have them.” In a patriarchal blessing to Leonara Taylor on July 28th, 1843, Hyrum Smith stated, “You shall be blest [sic] with your portion of the priesthood which belongeth to you, that you may be set apart for your Anointing and your induement [endowment].”

Heber C. Kimball also implied that certain duties in the Plan of Salvation require a woman to have priesthood. Regarding the young Jesus of Nazareth, he said in 1857, “Was every woman qualified to raise that child? No. You will find that Mary was of the Royal Priesthood, which is after the order of God.” Somehow he understood this, even though such a doctrine is not expressed in the Bible as we find it today.

Newell K. Whitney gives us further evidence of the importance of women in regards to priesthood, identifying the woman’s role in priesthood as being an essential part of the restoration of all things. He said, “Without the female all things cannot be restor’d to the earth. It takes all to restore the Priesthood.”

By this point, it should be plain that according to many early authorities women receive the priesthood through temple ordinances, at the very least. As I have mentioned before, since that time some have argued that women only have priesthood when shared with a husband, as if she cannot hold it independently. Yet in many of the quotes used up to this point in this essay, it is apparent that the speaker is most commonly equating the endowment to the point when a woman receives priesthood, which would include women who do not as of yet have a husband. At the same time, some teachings imply that both men and women receive greater priesthood power together than they can independently. This might be most plainly explained in the scriptures, where it says, “In the celestial kingdom there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; And if he does not, he cannot obtain it” (D&C 131:1-4).

It also seems evident that greater priesthood comes through higher ordinances in the temple than are known to be administered today, which are also available to both men and women. As the history of the church informs us, Joseph and Emma became the first couple to receive the “second anointing” or “fullness of the priesthood,” by which ceremony they were each “anointed & ordained to the highest & holiest order of the priesthood.” While the men and women are anointed to become kings and queens and priests and priestesses in the initiatory, it seems perhaps that in the second anointing they become ordained to these offices. It could be for this reason that William Clayton, Joseph Smith’s secretary, had recorded in 1844 these remarks: “All the first quorum with one or two exceptions were present both male and female.” This snippet implies that women belonged to the highest quorum of the Church at one time, and perhaps it related to the ordinance of second anointing. After all, if they belonged to a quorum, then it would seem to imply that they held some sort of priesthood office.

While some might read these things and acknowledge the possibility that women have priesthood, they may still ask a more practical question about what the implications are or what they should be. I would argue that examining the work that Joseph Smith was doing relating to temple ordinances, shortly before his death, should reveal to us his aim at elevating women to their rightful place as equal partners with men. He and others of that day also encouraged women to put the power of God into action in their lives, including in ways which the current traditions of the Church would look down upon. For example, on April 28th, 1842, Joseph Smith “gave a lecture on the pries[t]hood shewing [sic] how the Sisters would come in possession of the privileges & blessings & gifts of the priesthood & that the signs should follow them. such as healing the sick casting out devils &c. & that they might attain unto these blessings. by a virtuous life & conversation & diligence in keeping all the commandments.” Here Joseph taught that women could administer what we would term non-saving ordinances by virtue of their own priesthood which they would receive. On another occasion, he told the sisters, “Wherein they are ordained, it is the privilege of those set apart to administer in that authority which is confer’d on them—and if the sisters should have faith to heal the sick, let all hold their tongues, and let every thing roll on.”

History also records that some women were specifically ordained to use priesthood power in such a way. Elizabeth Ann Whitney recorded, “I was also ordained and set apart under the hand of Joseph Smith the Prophet to administer to the sick and comfort the sorrowful. Several other sisters were also ordained and set apart to administer in these holy ordinances.” Along those lines, in 1842 Joseph said, “Who are better qualified to administer than our faithful and zealous sisters, whose hearts are full of faith, tenderness, sympathy, and compassion? No one.”

Eliza R Snow specifically taught that the power of the sisters to administer came from the endowment. She said, “Is it necessary for sisters to be set apart to officiate in the sacred ordinances of washing, anointing, and laying on of hands in administering to the sick? It certainly is not. Any and all sisters who honor their holy endowments, not only have the right, but should feel it a duty, whenever called upon to administer to our sisters in these ordinances, which God has graciously committed to His daughters as well as to His sons; and we testify that when administered and received in faith and humility they are accompanied with all mighty power. Inasmuch as God our Eather [Father] has revealed these sacred ordinances and committed them to His Saints, it is not only our privilege but our imperative duty to apply them for the relief of human suffering. We think we may safely say thousands can testify that God has sanctioned the administration of these ordinances by our sisters with the manifestations of His healing influence.” Here it is clear that Sister Snow was drawing a connection between women having power to administer to the sick and the endowment ordinance.

It is sometimes debated what is meant by washing and anointing in her words. At the very least, it was the common practice in the Church for many decades to wash and anoint women prior to giving birth. It was also the common practice among both men and women to specifically anoint the part of the body which needed healing, when administering to the sick, and it was not considered appropriate for men to touch many areas of the woman’s body. Instead, that duty fell to the women. Eliza R. Snow, Zina Young, and Sarah Kimball even went so far as to assign the terms “deaconess,” “teacher,” and “priestess” to certain positions in the Relief Society, likely assuming that as the endowment gave them the higher priesthood, they were free to use language connected to the lower priesthood when organizing the women of the pioneer wards. They viewed the Relief Society as an appendage to the priesthood, and that its leaders operated with priesthood authority. At the very least, their usage of such terms reveals the great desire they had for their role in the Church to be recognized as one directly connected to priesthood.

A Generational Shift in the Church in Regards to Women and Priesthood

It was not until 1923 that this perspective of women and priesthood began to permanently change, when President Heber J. Grant discouraged the sisters from participating in healing ordinances. By that time, the priesthood authority of women was much more disputed. The influence of President Grant in discouraging the sisters would ultimately create enough of a shift that over time it would form the traditional views that most latter-day saints have today. His voice echoed many other voices leading up to that point in time. Even Brigham Young had advised the sisters not to use the words “by virtue of the priesthood” when giving blessings, as the doctrine was unclear. And while in the earlier years of the Church the privilege of the sisters to bless the sick was spoken of in connection to the endowment, in later years it would be officially taught that anyone could freely bless the sick, including children, by virtue of faith alone.

Yet although there were many conflicting viewpoints over the years relating to this topic, it seems it was Heber J. Grant’s presidency which most concretely altered the traditional view of women and blessing the sick, as he encouraged the Saints to follow the New Testament practice of calling upon the elders. Despite no official revelation on the subject, it quickly became socially taboo for women to bless the sick because to do so would go against the recommendation of the Prophet. We might say that it was the lack of any canonized scripture on the topic which would ultimately cause the traditions of the Church to shift from encouraging the endowed sisters to bless the sick to discouraging such a practice.

It is an interesting coincidence that increasing arguments against women and priesthood largely coincided with the women’s suffrage movement, as the topic of women’s rights and privileges in society were taking place nationwide. In 1888, two years after the suffrage amendment was defeated in Congress and one year after Congress removed the right of Utah women to vote, Apostle Franklin D. Richards would use some harsh language against some of the men in the Church. He said, “Every now and again we hear men speak tauntingly of the sisters and lightly of their public duties, instead of supporting 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 will get away with some of the blessings of the gospel which only men ought to possess.” He said that because of this “envy and jealousy,” some of the Latter-day Saint men “don’t like to accord to them [the women] anything that will raise them up and make their talents to shine forth as the daughters of Eve and Sarah.” His remarks are interesting, to say the least, as he chose to draw a connection between the suppression of women and the vices of envy and jealousy which can reside in the hearts of men. To me, his words beg the question, Are we men covetous of our traditional authority in the Church? 

Ultimately, the shift that occurred around the turn of the century has had a major impact on women in the Church today. In the 1800s, it would have been completely acceptable for endowed women to participate in healing ordinances, laying their hands on their fellow sisters and upon their children, and sometimes doing so together with the men to add their faith to a blessing. Now if a woman were to attempt such a thing, every person in the room would likely be upset. Yet, would not the Spirit whisper to us, Yes, if we were quiet enough to hear it? And if a man complained to the Lord regarding it, would we not hear the Lord reply, “Forbid [her] not…For [she] that is not against us is on our part. For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward. And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea” (Mark 9:39-42). I might ask, have we offended our women, minimizing their role in the kingdom because of our traditions, at times making complicated arguments to try and explain how women can perform priesthood ordinances in the temple without holding the priesthood, rather than acknowledging that they do indeed hold priesthood by virtue of their endowment, as other authorities have at times acknowledged?

Indeed, I remember being a teenager sitting in a priesthood meeting one Sunday, when a sister came by the room and asked if she could borrow me. She brought me into a room full of young women and said, “Greg, can you please give us your opinion as to why men receive the priesthood and women do not.” I remember standing there with all of those eyes on me, confronted by a question that surely afflicts every young girl when she is first trying to understand where she fits in the kingdom, and how she is viewed in the eyes of God. There was no revelation I could pull from to answer their question, and no scriptural verse I could quote. I could only say something to the tune of, “Because we need it more than you do, so that we can learn to be accountable.” The answer seemed to satisfy them, but I cannot honestly say that it satisfied me.

It is now several decades later, and their question once again troubles me.

Some Concluding Points

As this essay is now very long, let me close by making a few points. While much of this essay might seem surprising to many in the Church who have not examined the history of this topic, several of its main points are consistent with statements which have recently come from authoritative sources. For example, in a recent Church publication, it says, “Latter-day Saints and others often mistakenly equate priesthood with religious office and the men who hold it, which obscures the broader Latter-day Saint concept of priesthood.” Here, it is plainly emphasizing that priesthood power is not limited to the offices of the priesthood.

This same article also states, “The priesthood authority exercised by Latter-day Saint women in the temple and elsewhere remains largely unrecognized by people outside the Church and is sometimes misunderstood or overlooked by those within.” Here it is made clear that women exercise priesthood authority in the temple, which also implies that endowed women hold priesthood. Indeed, the temple is the place in the Church where men and women are most equal, which should inform us that the closer we get to heaven and the further we get from the world, the more we should see the status of women being elevated.

Lastly, I simply wish to quote President Russel M. Nelson, from his address to the sisters given at the women’s session of general conference on October 5th, 2019. He said, “…Every woman and every man who makes covenants with God and keeps those covenants, and who participates worthily in priesthood ordinances, has direct access to the power of God. Those who are endowed in the house of the Lord receive a gift of God’s priesthood power by virtue of their covenant, along with a gift of knowledge to know how to draw upon that power. The heavens are just as open to women who are endowed with God’s power flowing from their priesthood covenants as they are to men who bear the priesthood. I pray that truth will register upon each of your hearts because I believe it will change your life. Sisters, you have the right to draw liberally upon the Savior’s power to help your family and others you love.”

While President Nelson still set men apart here as they “who bear the priesthood,” I have to wonder if that is simply the best way he could communicate the difference between priesthood power and the current organization of the kingdom on the earth, where the men have been ordained to the offices of the priesthood while the women have not. Both men and women are endowed with priesthood power in the temples, and are at liberty to draw upon that power. President Nelson also described that priesthood power flows through endowed women who keep their covenants, and that they can draw upon that power. If that is not having the priesthood, then I honestly do not comprehend what having the priesthood means.

After all, in the temple we learn something of the design of the heavens, which places men and women side by side, where both are ordained to become kings and queens and priests and priestesses, which terms seem to plainly refer to perfectly paralleled priesthood offices. We must therefore logically ask, if it is the design of heaven for men and women to hold parallel offices in the priesthood, why have we not restored that same balance upon the earth? If men require preparatory priesthood in the current telestial design of the kingdom, why do women require no preparatory priesthood before they are called up to be queens and priestesses? Could it simply be that the unrighteous dominion of men upon the earth has robbed the women of many of their rights and privileges, to such an extent that even our scriptures do not contain a single “usage” of the word “priestess,” even though we use that word daily in our temples thanks to Joseph Smith?

Or to put it another way, if the temple gives us overt hints of the celestial design, where men are kings and women are queens, and men are priests and women are priestesses, and if we have been commanded to establish Zion upon the earth, then why would we feel comfortable forever perpetuating a telestial design upon the Lord’s people, where men are deacons, and women are….nothing….and men are teachers, and women are….nothing….and men are priests, and women are….nothing….and men are elders, and women are….nothing….and men are high priests, and women are….nothing….? In other words, there is perhaps no more obvious question we could be asking than this one, and perhaps the Lord is amazed at how long it is taking us to sincerely ask it as a unified body.

That none be confused with my purpose in writing this essay, let me plainly express it. I am not demanding that certain changes be made in the Church. My simple desire is that every member of the Church both high and low consider that perhaps our current understanding of this topic is not in celestial alignment, and that we approach the Lord in our hearts and in our prayers with the greatest humility, in sackcloth and ashes, asking what His will is in regard to these questions. Surely, the question of women and priesthood is a worthy question for us to ask, and surely the Lord who “upbraideth not” is not offended by those who ask such a question in a sincere desire to understand truth. Lastly, it is my desire that the perspectives compiled in this essay will help the endowed women of the Church to better recognize the power which they have access to, because it is my sincere belief that the world has great need of it. Ultimately, priesthood power belongs to God and not to men, and God is Father and Mother, King and Queen, Bridegroom and Bride, because according to revelation the highest degree of the celestial kingdom requires divine partnership.

Let President Nelson’s closing words in the previously referenced talk to the sisters be the closing words to any sisters who are reading this essay. “I pray that truth will register upon each of your hearts because I believe it will change your life. … I would like to leave a blessing upon you, that you may understand the priesthood power with which you have been endowed and that you will augment that power by exercising your faith in the Lord and in His power.”

Amen.