Dual Priesthood, Dual Powa’

One of the common Defender of the Status Quo™ arguments for barring women from the LDS priesthood centers around the idea that Mormon women already hold the priesthood through their husbands. Often proponents of this argument will quickly stipulate that this does not mean Mormon women can perform ordinances of the priesthood, nor are they eligible for ordination to offices in the priesthood. Nevertheless, it is asserted, they do hold it in some sense, and therefore women do not need to be granted the priesthood since they already have it.
If you happen to be an American history buff and this argument sounds eerily familiar to you, it should. The anti-suffragists of the late 19th and early 20th century used to argue against giving women the right to vote using the exact same logic, that women already exercised significant political power through the voting rights of their husbands and therefore did not need voting rights of their own. Alas, there are only a limited number of arguments for discriminating against a group of people based solely on an arbitrary genetic trait like race or sex, so wherever discrimination rears its ugly head, history is doomed to repeat itself in dredging up justifications for said discrimination.
There are other significant problems with the idea though:
  1. It has been repeatedly, specifically refuted by LDS leaders throughout the LDS Church’s history, especially from the 20th century onward. I will be covering these quotes in my upcoming series on Mormon Women & the Priesthood: Deconstructing the Apologetics. A few other leaders have supported it, but the fact that leaders have contradicted each other on the matter shows that the idea is highly speculative.
  2. It does nothing to solve the problem where single women are concerned, nor where young women ages 12-18 are concerned. If men get the priesthood at age 12, what is the complement to that for women?1
  3. What is the priesthood good for if not performing ordinances and being ordained to offices? Isn’t that the entire point of the priesthood, at least in terms of practical theology? Telling women that they hold the priesthood while refusing to allow them to perform ordinances or be ordained to offices in the priesthood amounts to shoving one giant spiritual placebo at the problem.
Nevertheless, this placebo is a pervasive one and many Latter-day Saints express belief in it despite its problems.
In a recent conversation over on Tim’s blog, I pointed out a conundrum for proponents of this view using the example of myself and my friend Nicole, who comments around these parts asthat1girl. I am an evangelical Christian woman and a never-Mormon, but I am married to a faithful and active Latter-day Saint man. Nicole is a faithful and active Latter-day Saint, but she is married to a Catholic man. Does this not mean that I as a non-member can lay more claim to holding the LDS priesthood than Nicole can as a faithful and active Mormon woman?
The problem gets more convoluted than that though. As Nicole has discussed here and elsewhere, she had a first marriage in the temple to an LDS man who turned out to be not-so-faithful and not-so-active, which ended in temporal divorce. However, as far as the records of the Church are concerned, the sealing to husband #1 is still active. By the logic of the proponents of this argument, Nicole still holds the priesthood of her first LDS husband; therefore she is the priesthood holder in her current home and the Catholic husband is not. Since the right to preside in the home is connected with the act of holding the priesthood, Nicole should be the one who presides in her home, not her Catholic husband.
The person who was making these arguments, who posts under the handle “shematwater,” was quick to backpedal and assert that his views do not support these conclusions. In regards to whether or not Nicole ought to be the one who presides in her home, he wrote:
[O]n the question of presiding in the home . . . your current husband is still the head and patriarch, and thus still presides. Worthiness and qualificaiton [sic] are not the desiding [sic] factors. . . .
The father’s right to preside in the home does not come from the priesthood, but is a separate part of the law of God that is applied to all people, regardless of religion. As such your current husband is the presiding authority in the house, regardless of anything else.
Let me unequivocally state that I do not believe in a god who gives men authority over women just because they are men, “regardless of anything else” including “[w]orthiness.” That sounds like exactly the sort of deity men would make up to serve their own selfish purposes. And if such a god really did exist, I would have no interest in worshiping him.
Concerning my claim to the LDS priesthood via my husband, he wrote:
If you are not a member than you ahve [sic] not entered the covenant of the church, nor have you been sealed to your husband. As such you have no claim to his priesthood. This is one of the many reasons is taught that we marry only those of our own faith, for a marriage outside the sealing covenant of the temple does not bind the husband and wife together, and thus she does not share in his priesthood.
Well, I guess that’s one person’s take on it, but I decided to get a second opinion.2 I asked my own husband whether or not he thinks I share in his priesthood. Our conversation went something like this:
Him: Yes, of course you do.
Me: Why?
Him: Because you’re my wife by covenant and you share in everything I have, and because the Scriptures say that you’ve been made holy through me even if you don’t believe.
Here he cited 1 Corinthians 7:14, “For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.” (NRSV)
As far as my own beliefs on priesthood go, I believe in the priesthood of all believers as taught in 1 Peter 2:5, 9. It would perhaps be more correct to say that Jesus Christ is the only priesthood holder in my religion (Hebrews 5-7 talks about this), but as a believer who has been endowed with the power of the gift of the Holy Spirit which is available to both women and men (Joel 2:28-29), I hold Christ’s priesthood. In terms of function, it means I am as much of a priest unto God as anyone else in my religion, and I believe that my husband shares in my priesthood in Christ (in at least some sense) as per 1 Corinthians 7:14.
Bottom line: I hold both the LDS priesthood and the Protestant priesthood. Dual priesthood, dual powa’!
—————————-
NOTES
[1] A variation on this argument holds that it is through the endowment that women receive the priesthood. This makes a bit more sense in terms of the temple liturgy and the fact that only endowed women are allowed to perform washings and anointings on other women in the temple, but the only problem it otherwise solves is that it rescues single women from being unable to hold the priesthood and it avoids the creepy parallel to anti-suffragist arguments. All of the other problems with this model persist.
[2] I also think it’s fairly presumptuous to assert that my husband and I are not bound together just because we were married outside of the temple. We are bound together in a holy covenant that we made to one another before God; just not for eternity, and given my lack of interest in exaltation as currently taught in the LDS temple, I’m just fine with that.

Comments

Dual Priesthood, Dual Powa’ — 18 Comments

  1. I’m holding tight to my claim as long as it’s there. If the powers that be are going to insist my sealing is still there, then I’ll insist my priesthood is still there. :)
    I really like your #2. I guess I never really thought about it. I mean, I don’t quite buy that motherhood is the complement to priesthood, but if it is, are 12 year olds supposed to be getting knocked up?
  2. Women don’t hold the priesthood, and I don’t think any of the explanations of how they supposedly do are valid. I am really looking forward to your series as I am always impressed by your scholarship.
  3. kew ~ I completely agree that women don’t hold the LDS priesthood in any way that can be considered meaningful under LDS theology.
    But, so long as people are going to keep insisting that they do via their husbands, I have as much claim to it as anyone else does. ;)
  4. This is off-topic, but based on your beliefs about the priesthood, who do you believe has the authority to baptize? The most logical argument that I can see from your statements is that any believer could, but I don’t know how things are actually done.
  5. In theory any Christian believer can do it.
    In practice it’s usually done by the pastors of the churches. Elders and deacons (or other lay leadership positions) may assist.
  7. I believe that women have priesthood in the LDS faith in two ways, neither of them tied to marriage. (In both cases, the priesthood held by women is not the same as that held by men, but it is priesthood nonetheless (in my opinion).)
    1. The LDS definition of priesthood is God’s power and authority given to humans. Women do have authority in the LDS tradition–to “preach, teach, expound [and] exhort” (and do so every Sunday)(cf. D&C 20:46), as well as lead and administer certain Church entities. That authority, for now, does not include authority to administer certain ordinances, but it is authority from God, and therefore, in my opinion, is “priesthood”.
    Women also have “power” of God (and therefore “priesthood”) to heal and perform other miracles. While the institutional Church has backed away from explicitly endorsing healing rituals by women, a woman’s prayer of healing (or for anything else) has the same power as a man’s healing or other blessing rite, because faith is the underlying power. Formal authorization does not, in my opinion, add anything to the power of faith. See Hebrews 11. See also D&C 121:41 (priesthood itself is not the power, but rather righteousness (v. 36) persuasion, long suffering are the “power”).
    Accordingly, I believe women (as well as men) have power and authority from God. And therefore both have “priesthood.”
    2. Others have made the argument that women (married or not) who are endowed in the temple are provided additional power and authority and therefore are have “priesthood”. I also concur in this interpretation.
    I agree in rejecting the argument that a married woman, by virtue of marriage, holds the priesthood of her husband.
    You may have dealt with these perspectives elsewhere; if so I apologize, but these are my views.
  8. DavidH ~ I addressed your #2 in my Endnote #1. As to the rest of your views, I really didn’t write this post to address all of the arguments concerning women and the priesthood (I’m working on an entire series for that).
    I agree that there are alluring hints of women having certain degrees of power and authority in LDS history and doctrine, but in practical terms, I don’t think they’re enough. It’s especially a shame that the church has backed off on encouraging and allowing women to perform healing ordinances.
  9. I think a problem that has arisen is the idea that sharing in one’s priesthood can be equated with jointly-holding said priesthood.
    Within the LDS faith, I believe it is accurate to say that women share in the blessings of the Priesthood (D&C 84:33-40) held by their husbands, but this does not mean that they share in the ordination or the responsibilities attached.
  10. Jack, but if the LDS church doesn’t have the exclusive and prophetic authority that it claims, then LDS priesthood is just as much a “made up” thing as proxy baptisms in the temples, and in that case none of it would matter.
    I respect your take on how non-LDS should not get upset at LDS proxy temple baptisms; if, as you say, there’s no validity in it, then it would just be a meaningless exercise, a delusion internal to the LDS church.
    So, if the LDS church is not what it claims to be, then the LDS priesthood would not carry any real authority in God’s eyes, and everything done by it or under its aegis is just meaningless exercise.
    So I don’t quite get why you are pushing for LDS women to have some kind of privilege/authority/status that you think is meaningless anyway? Are you trying to get the LDS church to be “less wrong”?
    And if so, why spend your time and effort on the LDS church? Why not go after those religions who are “even more wrong”, or doing worse things including actual physical harm?
    I suppose it’s nice that you’re asking the LDS boys and LDS girls to play nice together in the LDS sandbox, … but it’s not your sandbox. And even more importantly, there are other sandboxes with lots worse going on. Look how the boys are treating the girls in the Muslim sandbox: FGM, and burqas.
    To an outsider, yeah, I suppose it can sometimes look like many LDS men treat LDS women like second class members of the church. But for you, as a good-hearted citizen of the world, is fighting in this cause of equal priesthood-rights for LDS women a wise use of your time when so many other dire causes (even in the realm of sexual equality inside religions) need attention?
    Where’s your outrage that Muslim women can’t be mullahs and imams?
  11. Three reasons, Bookslinger:
    (1) I have a daughter who is being raised in both the LDS church and the evangelical church. The thought of her being regularly told that God’s greatest plan for her in this life is to be a wife and mommy while all of the other possible paths for her are de-emphasized and downplayed really bothers me.
    (2) So long as there are Christian religions that discriminate against women, they will reinforce each other and people will think such discrimination is “okay” in religion, even here in enlightened relatively egalitarian America. So the LDS church’s treatment of women does effect me, if indirectly.
    (3) It’s just something God has laid on my heart. For years, most evangelical Christians have not attempted to reach out to Mormon women who are dissatisfied with the gender system in the church because most of the people in the counter-cult ministry are complementarians themselves. Telling Mormon women that if they convert to evangelical Christianity, they can’t be a pastor or elder when they’re already dissatisfied about the LDS church’s refusal to let them be bishops and elders probably isn’t all that attractive to them. I’m here to make sure everyone knows that other options are available.
    This isn’t religious feminist triage; God simply hasn’t laid Muslim women on my heart like he has Mormon women. And my interests aren’t merely evangelism-centered. I honestly care about religious quality-of-life for them within the LDS church.
    Truth be told, I think the catalyst that drove me to taking an interest in this topic was (1). I spent six years living in Provo and barely ever said a word about it at the time.
  12. I always enjoy your comments Jack even if I do not always agree with you and realise that you always try to be fair . All of us are influenced by our culture and I cannot help but wonder if your views on the priesthood are influenced by yours. I have not been to many evangelical services but it seems to me that the priesthood of all believers is simply a dilution of the priesthood, meaning that any member can feel called to be a pastor. Ordinances also seem to be downplayed in most evangelical churches. Perhaps I am wrong in my impressions. I am sure that you will correct me. Before I became LDS I was Anglican (Episcopalian). Most of the older Protestant churches as well as the Catholic and Orthodox emphasise the priesthood and sacraments. One of the early Church Fathers Cyril of Jerusalem states that”Having been counted worthy of this Holy Chrism,(anointing) ye are called Christians, ….. For before you were deemed worthy of this grace, ye had properly no right to this title, but were advancing on your way towards being Christians.” I wonder if you would explain how you see more traditional Christianity and its emphasis on sacraments and the priesthood. In most of these churches the priesthood is male (perhaps you do believe in an apostacy?) To my mind one of Joseph’s greatest achievements was understanding the importance of the priesthood in a culture which had little emphasis on it.
  13. Jack, would it be accurate to make it this pithy:
    “When it comes to Mormon women, I want things to be fair for them. Right now, I think things are not fair.”
    Something like that?
  14. I don’t know Rob. While I might be okay with that as a summary of my feelings, it seems like every time I try to express my concerns for women in Mormonism in terms of “equality” or what’s “fair,” Defenders of the Status Quo show up and scrunch and twist the definitions of those words and then insist that they do apply to the current LDS system.
    I want women to not be subordinate to men. So long as women are barred from the office of Church President and men are designated to preside in the home, women will be subordinate to men.
    I want women to have access to any callings for which they have the gifts and abilities to perform.
    Those are my top two concerns in a nutshell.
    Martin, I have been really busy lately. I will try to get back to you on this.
  15. The context is this. I noticed (for the first time, since I’ve had no sons in Cub Scouts until this year in about three weeks) that the Cub Scouts meet twice as often as the Activity Day girls’ group.
    I said to my wife, “That’s not fair for girls.”
    She replied, “Rob, it’s never been fair for girls.” Bear in mind that this comes from a woman who actively doesn’t want an ordination to a Priesthood office. (But who did want to do Cub Scouts. And I’d rather the Cub Scouts met half as often as they do.)
    So, um, yeah… at least this time, no scrunchies.
  16. I have definitely heard my share of complaints about how the YW are treated v. the YM due to the inclusion of Boy Scouts. Apparently the CHI fund raising and field trip policies just make it impossible for the YW leaders to do anything fun, while the boys have a loophole thanks to scouting.
    I rarely talk about this though because there’s always someone who comes along and argues “Not in my ward!” It’s definitely something I will be watching for when my own daughter gets older.
  17. I have not been to many evangelical services but it seems to me that the priesthood of all believers is simply a dilution of the priesthood, meaning that any member can feel called to be a pastor.
    Do you really think it’s all that different in Mormonism, where for all intents and purposes everyone (at least everyone male) gets ordained to the priesthood?
    The only “dilution” that I can see between Evangelicals and Mormons as far as priesthood goes is that among some Evangelicals, girls can serve too.
    Your worry about “dilution” just sounds like code for wanting to protect male privilege.
  18. Kullervo,
    i am sorry but I think you misunderstand me. I am not against a priesthood of all believers – I don’t think that dilutes,rather whether the priesthood is empthasised or not. I just think most evangelicals tend to de-emphasise the priesthood to the point where it means very little. I obviously was not as clear as I would have liked to be. My apologies, neither am trying simply to defend “male privileges” though I do want to understand Jack’s view of traditional Christian churches and their interpretation of the priesthood
Categories:

Related Post:



0 коментарі:

Post a Comment

ClobberBlog | Mormonism, Evangelical Christianity