Joseph Smith and Priesthood for women.

[annewandering]

30 March 1842 • Wednesday

Minutes of the Proceedings

of the

Third Meeting of the Society —

Lodge Room March 30th 1842.

Meeting opened with Singing—

Prayer by Prest. Joseph Smith—

The house full to overflowing.

Prest. J. Smith arose— spoke of the organization of the Society— said he was deeply interested that it might be built up to the Most High in an acceptable manner— that its rules must be observed— that none should be received into the Society but those who were worthy— propos’d that the Society go into a close examination of every candidate— that they were going too fast— that the Society should grow up by degrees— should commence with a few individuals— thus have a select Society of the virtuous and those who will walk circumspectly— commended them for their zeal but said sometimes their zeal was not according to knowledge— One principal object of the Institution was to purge out iniquity— said they must be extremely careful in all their examinations or the consequences would be serious

Said all difficulties which might & would cross our way must be surmounted, though the soul be tried, the heart faint, and hands hang down— must not retrace our steps— that there must be decision of character aside from sympathy— that when instructed we must obey that voice, observe the Constitution that the blessings of heaven may rest down upon us— all must act in concert or nothing can be done— that the Society should move according to the ancient Priesthood, hence there should be a select Society separate from all the evils of the world, choice, virtuous and holy— Said he was going to make of this Society a kingdom of priests as in Enoch’s day— as in Pauls day — that it is the privilege of each member to live long [p. 22]

This is from this site:Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book - Details View

So what do you guys think about this? I am surprised myself.

[Guest]

30 March 1842 • Wednesday

Minutes of the Proceedings

of the

Third Meeting of the Society —

Lodge Room March 30th 1842.

Meeting opened with Singing—

Prayer by Prest. Joseph Smith—

The house full to overflowing.

Prest. J. Smith arose— spoke of the organization of the Society— said he was deeply interested that it might be built up to the Most High in an acceptable manner— that its rules must be observed— that none should be received into the Society but those who were worthy— propos’d that the Society go into a close examination of every candidate— that they were going too fast— that the Society should grow up by degrees— should commence with a few individuals— thus have a select Society of the virtuous and those who will walk circumspectly— commended them for their zeal but said sometimes their zeal was not according to knowledge— One principal object of the Institution was to purge out iniquity— said they must be extremely careful in all their examinations or the consequences would be serious

Said all difficulties which might & would cross our way must be surmounted, though the soul be tried, the heart faint, and hands hang down— must not retrace our steps— that there must be decision of character aside from sympathy— that when instructed we must obey that voice, observe the Constitution that the blessings of heaven may rest down upon us— all must act in concert or nothing can be done— that the Society should move according to the ancient Priesthood, hence there should be a select Society separate from all the evils of the world, choice, virtuous and holy— Said he was going to make of this Society a kingdom of priests as in Enoch’s day— as in Pauls day — that it is the privilege of each member to live long [p. 22]

This is from this site:Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book - Details View

So what do you guys think about this? I am surprised myself.

That through these mothers/aunts/sisters lie the future of the priesthood. I got 2 of them almost ready... yeay.

[Suzie]

Hi Anne, I don't know if you saw this thread but you may find the reading interesting:

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/36422-women-priesthood.html

[Mormonfanboy]

Seeing as how this meeting took place in a "lodge room", you can assume he is speaking of an initiatory society perhaps similar to the masons, or the rosicrucians. I think that Joseph Smith and others were hoping to present the church and priesthood as such an order.

All of these secret societies share common traits in that they are all usually based on the qabballah. In particular, masonry relies of a mythological framework built upon old testament lore. The rosicrucians are a mystical type of christianity, and have their roots in a fabricated document from 1604.

Joseph Smith has an interest in these things and perhaps shaped the "mormon myth" into something resembling these societies. He hoped to win over many masons, by promising to be in posession of their "lost words". I personally believe he fabricated the book of mormon to serve this agenda... but this is speculation on my part.

As for: "that none should be received into the Society but those who were worthy— propos’d that the Society go into a close examination of every candidate"

Obviously the church has a long standing history of racism and sexism. Women and non-white people were to be excluded... Echoes of this primitive mentality can still be heard in the modern LDS church.

[Vort]

Obviously the church has a long standing history of racism and sexism. Women and non-white people were to be excluded... Echoes of this primitive mentality can still be heard in the modern LDS church.

The first word is "bull", and the second word rhymes with "crap".

(Technically speaking, a word does in fact rhyme with itself.)

[Just_A_Guy]

Seeing as how this meeting took place in a "lodge room", you can assume he is speaking of an initiatory society perhaps similar to the masons, or the rosicrucians. I think that Joseph Smith and others were hoping to present the church and priesthood as such an order.

All of these secret societies share common traits in that they are all usually based on the qabballah. In particular, masonry relies of a mythological framework built upon old testament lore. The rosicrucians are a mystical type of christianity, and have their roots in a fabricated document from 1604.

Joseph Smith has an interest in these things and perhaps shaped the "mormon myth" into something resembling these societies. He hoped to win over many masons, by promising to be in posession of their "lost words". I personally believe he fabricated the book of mormon to serve this agenda... but this is speculation on my part.

As for: "that none should be received into the Society but those who were worthy— propos’d that the Society go into a close examination of every candidate"

Obviously the church has a long standing history of racism and sexism. Women and non-white people were to be excluded... Echoes of this primitive mentality can still be heard in the modern LDS church.

Hi Mormonfanboy -

1) There was a Masonic Hall in Nauvoo, and it still stands (more commonly referred to as the "seventies hall", but it's the same building and was used for community functions as well as lodge buildings). I would guess that "lodge" in the context cited above, refers to that building.

2) Not sure if you're aware, but the "Relief Society" to which the above-stated minutes refer was exclusively an organization for women.

3) I don't think Smith looked to Masonry as a means to recruit Masons into Mormonism (though he does seem to have hoped it would result in some friendships with influential non-Mormons in his community); rather, he seems to infused Mormonism with a dose of Masonic liturgy.

4) The Book of Mormon, while not mentioning Masonry directly, is if anything distinctly anti-Masonic in nature. In fact, later in life, Smith married the widow of William Morgan. So it's dangerous to try to pigeonhole the relationship between Mormonism in general, and Smith in particular, with Masonry. It's a complicated thing.

5) Discussions of racism and sexism in Mormon history are kind of a loaded phrase (stick around for a while! You'll see what I mean). Suffice it to say that Joseph Smith himself was remarkably liberal-minded for his time. He did ordain blacks to the Mormon priesthood, and created a temple liturgy in which women as well as men could participate and even, in specific roles, officiate. In fact, female participation in Mormon temple liturgy (which drew on Masonic rites) led Illinois Masons to accuse Smith of administering Masonic rituals to females.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

30 March 1842 • Wednesday

Minutes of the Proceedings

of the

Third Meeting of the Society —

Lodge Room March 30th 1842.

Meeting opened with Singing—

Prayer by Prest. Joseph Smith—

The house full to overflowing.

Prest. J. Smith arose— spoke of the organization of the Society— said he was deeply interested that it might be built up to the Most High in an acceptable manner— that its rules must be observed— that none should be received into the Society but those who were worthy— propos’d that the Society go into a close examination of every candidate— that they were going too fast— that the Society should grow up by degrees— should commence with a few individuals— thus have a select Society of the virtuous and those who will walk circumspectly— commended them for their zeal but said sometimes their zeal was not according to knowledge— One principal object of the Institution was to purge out iniquity— said they must be extremely careful in all their examinations or the consequences would be serious

Said all difficulties which might & would cross our way must be surmounted, though the soul be tried, the heart faint, and hands hang down— must not retrace our steps— that there must be decision of character aside from sympathy— that when instructed we must obey that voice, observe the Constitution that the blessings of heaven may rest down upon us— all must act in concert or nothing can be done— that the Society should move according to the ancient Priesthood, hence there should be a select Society separate from all the evils of the world, choice, virtuous and holy— Said he was going to make of this Society a kingdom of priests as in Enoch’s day— as in Pauls day — that it is the privilege of each member to live long [p. 22]

This is from this site:Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book - Details View

So what do you guys think about this? I am surprised myself.

Looks very obvious to me. Not sure what you find surprising, unless it is the bolded portion above. But it should not be surprising. Women are already referred to as priests (specifically, "priestesses"). This has nothing to do with holding the Priesthood in the sense that men hold it; rather, women can exercise power and authority, and all divine power and authority is based on the Priesthood. Thus, women who exercise such power are properly called priestesses.

Hi Anne, I don't know if you saw this thread but you may find the reading interesting:

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/36422-women-priesthood.html

Sadly, that thread is full of falsehoods, with purest conjecture presented as "historical fact" and contributors openly jonesing for female ordinations. For example, it is no kind of historical fact that Joseph Smith ordained women to the Priesthood, as claimed in that thread. Such lies and misinterpretations serve only to obscure what should be obvious.

[Suzie]

Sadly, that thread is full of falsehoods, with purest conjecture presented as "historical fact" and contributors openly jonesing for female ordinations. For example, it is no kind of historical fact that Joseph Smith ordained women to the Priesthood, as claimed in that thread. Such lies and misinterpretations serve only to obscure what should be obvious.

Vort, yes in your opinion. I invited you to join that thread a few times to do a rebuttal of some of those points you find as "lies" but you kindly refused. I would like to extend the invitation once again if you are interested to discuss it rather than just rant. If you do not wish to do so, I respect that. Thanks.

[Vort]

Vort, yes in your opinion.

"In my opinion" it's not a fact? So then, in someone else's opinion, it is a fact? That's not the meaning of the word "fact", Suzie.

[Suzie]

"In my opinion" it's not a fact? So then, in someone else's opinion, it is a fact? That's not the meaning of the word "fact", Suzie.

Oh come on Vort, you are a smart guy (and I mean it). I am ONLY saying if you want to do a rebuttal of those points in that thread and not just "rant" about the "lies" that you saw over there. I am VERY open minded so if you have historical evidence to provide in that thread to refute some of those points, it would be great.

[Vort]

Oh come on Vort, you are a smart guy (and I mean it). I am ONLY saying if you want to do a rebuttal of those points in that thread and not just "rant" about the "lies" that you saw over there. I am VERY open minded so if you have historical evidence to provide in that thread to refute some of those points, it would be great.

You are utterly missing my point. I do not care to join a thread where participants willingly lie about "historical fact". I don't care to play policeman, certainly not any more than I already find myself doing at times.

It is not a "historical fact" that women held the Priesthood. The statement is a lie, and perhaps more importantly betrays the open biases of those who maintain the lie and would try to change the Church, not by revelatory means, but by popular pressure. The very idea is loathsome, something I would expect out of the membership of some other "Christian" churches but not from the membership of a Church that claims to be led by revelation.

I disgrace and embarrass myself quite enough on this forum without participating in such ugly-by-nature discussions. Thanks for the invitation -- seriously, thanks -- but I'll pass on contributing to threads founded on lies and intentional misrepresentations.

[annewandering]

I have no idea about the priesthood ever being given to women in the Bible or elsewhere. Mostly, I am interested in more about Joseph Smiths ideas on this.

So one idea is that it is about women being priestesses but not holding priesthood authority? Is that correct, Vort?

[Suzie]

You are utterly missing my point. I do not care to join a thread where participants willingly lie about "historical fact". I don't care to play policeman, certainly not any more than I already find myself doing at times.

It is not a "historical fact" that women held the Priesthood. The statement is a lie, and perhaps more importantly betrays the open biases of those who maintain the lie and would try to change the Church, not by revelatory means, but by popular pressure. The very idea is loathsome, something I would expect out of the membership of some other "Christian" churches but not from the membership of a Church that claims to be led by revelation.

I disgrace and embarrass myself quite enough on this forum without participating in such ugly-by-nature discussions. Thanks for the invitation -- seriously, thanks -- but I'll pass on contributing to threads founded on lies and intentional misrepresentations.

Okay Vort

[Vort]

So one idea is that it is about women being priestesses but not holding priesthood authority? Is that correct, Vort?

Not sure what you're asking, anne. It is undeniable that women can be priestesses; anyone who has received his or her endowment knows this. And the term "priestess" suggests (I would say "implies") the exercise of Priesthood authority. In my mind, this much is beyond dispute.

But there is no evidence that women "hold the Priesthood" in the same way men do. There is no reliable record, ever, anywhere, that a woman held a true Priesthood office, Junia's "apostleship" notwithstanding. On the other hand, we have numerous records of people having the Priesthood conferred upon them and being ordained to an office. And in every case, without exception, they are men.

If not for our present sociopolitical climate, this would be nothing but an exercise in "What if?", a gedenkenexperiment. But the present reality is that many openly campaign for women's "equality", which in their minds and speech means ordination to the Priesthood. It is simultaneously foolish and apostate to hold out the idea that women "may someday hold the Priesthood", as much so as the notion that the Church may someday receive revelation to sanctify homosexual "marriages".

I mean, I suppose it's possible that God will eventually direct his leaders to ordain women to Priesthood office, or sanctify homosexual unions, or pretty much anything else you can think of. But I see no value in seriously considering any of these scenarios.

Edited December 12, 2012 by skippy740
Edited more graphic elements out of the post.

[annewandering]

Hi Anne, I don't know if you saw this thread but you may find the reading interesting:

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/36422-women-priesthood.html

Thanks for the link. I have never wanted to get into this before at all so avoided such threads.

[annewandering]

After reading Joseph Smiths statement I want to understand what he meant. There is no denying that women holding the priesthood would be revolutionary in the church now. So was the idea of black men holding the priesthood at one time even though Joseph Smith ordained several himself. Makes me wonder if perhaps we are more into cultural prohibitions than is good for us. I dont KNOW that we are. I just am wondering. He also seemed to see nothing wrong with women, even Emma, being sealed to more than one man which confuses me no end. lol.

[Gargantuan]

Dear AW, I know that your understanding of God is well founded on the principle of faith and that you have strong faith in His wisdom and foresight for the business of this earth. There have been many times when I have questioned the wisdom of God until I learned that He alone knows all things and that His ways are sometimes unknown to us. Rest assured, however, they will not always be unknown and mysterious, but as we test our faith and become more confident in His ways, we will gain a better understanding of His ways. Edited December 12, 2012 by Gargantuan
spelling

[Guest]

After reading Joseph Smiths statement I want to understand what he meant. There is no denying that women holding the priesthood would be revolutionary in the church now. So was the idea of black men holding the priesthood at one time even though Joseph Smith ordained several himself. Makes me wonder if perhaps we are more into cultural prohibitions than is good for us. I dont KNOW that we are. I just am wondering. He also seemed to see nothing wrong with women, even Emma, being sealed to more than one man which confuses me no end. lol.

I must be really thick or maybe I'm seeing something you guys are not. When I read that statement - and Vort bolded out what I think you're getting at - it seems really clear to me that our role as mothers who - as outlined in the Proclamation to the Family - are tasked with teaching our children to understand the doctrines is where the Kingdom of the Priesthood is founded. We are ultimately responsible for our sons to be ready to receive the Aaronic Priesthood at age 12.

And of course, Relief Society membership is exclusive to those who are worthy enough to be baptized LDS.

[MarginOfError]

I must be really thick or maybe I'm seeing something you guys are not. When I read that statement - and Vort bolded out what I think you're getting at - it seems really clear to me that our role as mothers who - as outlined in the Proclamation to the Family - are tasked with teaching our children to understand the doctrines is where the Kingdom of the Priesthood is founded. We are ultimately responsible for our sons to be ready to receive the Aaronic Priesthood at age 12.

And of course, Relief Society membership is exclusive to those who are worthy enough to be baptized LDS.

In reality, the sources people point to to justify that women held the priesthood are kind of ambiguous and can be interpreted in a few different ways.

Michael Quinn wrote an essay on the subject that is available here. But the conclusion is somewhat dependent on your interpretation of the word "keys."

Another interesting point is that, even though there are some historical scholars that think the evidence points toward women holding the priesthood, I don't currently know of any credible scholars that argue that women held priesthood office.

The conclusions people draw from the source documents range from the current implementation to the interpretation that women should be full equals in priesthood responsibilities, with everything in between. I've found it a rather fascinating debate to follow.

[Guest]

In reality, the sources people point to to justify that women held the priesthood are kind of ambiguous and can be interpreted in a few different ways.

Michael Quinn wrote an essay on the subject that is available here. But the conclusion is somewhat dependent on your interpretation of the word "keys."

Another interesting point is that, even though there are some historical scholars that think the evidence points toward women holding the priesthood, I don't currently know of any credible scholars that argue that women held priesthood office.

The conclusions people draw from the source documents range from the current implementation to the interpretation that women should be full equals in priesthood responsibilities, with everything in between. I've found it a rather fascinating debate to follow.

I don't get it. In what way are we not full equals in holding priesthood office? Are they saying that for women to be fully equal with men, we have to be ordained to the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood? Are they also saying that men have to be implanted a uterus and made to have babies?

[annewandering]

Dear AW, I know that your understanding of God is well founded on the principle of faith and that you have strong faith in His wisdom and foresight for the business of this earth. There have been many times when I have questioned the wisdom of God until I learned that He alone knows all things and that His ways are sometimes unknown to us. Rest assured, however, they will not always be unknown and mysterious, but as we test our faith and become more confident in His ways, we will gain a better understanding of His ways.

I am not questioning God in any way. Just want to be clear on that. :) Not questioning the leadership of the church either. I am simply wondering what Joseph Smith meant. :) Perhaps we wont really know any time soon or perhaps he only meant that we are priestesses in partnership with priests. That actually makes sense to me. :)

[MarginOfError]

I don't get it. In what way are we not full equals in holding priesthood office? Are they saying that for women to be fully equal with men, we have to be ordained to the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood?

Yes, there are some people that argue that men and women alike should be ordained to the offices in the priesthood.

Are they also saying that men have to be implanted a uterus and made to have babies?

Proponents of the above view generally think this argument is logically flawed. The natural complement to motherhood is not priesthood. The natural complement to motherhood is fatherhood.

In the other direction, the natural complement to priesthood (in gender terms) is not motherhood. The natural complement to priesthood is priestesshood.

[Guest]

Yes, there are some people that argue that men and women alike should be ordained to the offices in the priesthood.

Proponents of the above view generally think this argument is logically flawed. The natural complement to motherhood is not priesthood. The natural complement to motherhood is fatherhood.

In the other direction, the natural complement to priesthood (in gender terms) is not motherhood. The natural complement to priesthood is priestesshood.

I understand that... and you're making my point here.

What I don't get is why they think that to be equal everything has to be the same... just like to be a father complement to motherhood, everything has to be the same - like for men to have a uterus as well.

Women priestesses to be equal to Priests have to be ordained to the priesthood as men are.

A complement does not mean it is exactly the same. It means they work together with differing roles of equal importance to support the same office. So, the argument just doesn't make sense to me.

[MarginOfError]

I understand that... and you're making my point here.

What I don't get is why they think that to be equal everything has to be the same... just like to be a father complement to motherhood, everything has to be the same - like for men to have a uterus as well.

Women priestesses to be equal to Priests have to be ordained to the priesthood as men are.

A complement does not mean it is exactly the same. It means they work together with differing roles of equal importance to support the same office. So, the argument just doesn't make sense to me.

But that isn't the argument the Church makes. Church leaders for years have been making the case that women are equal partners in the priesthood by a) being mothers, b) with their husbands, or c) through their husbands.

So a woman who is not married cannot be an equal partner to the priesthood, while a man who is not married can be a full beneficiary and executor of the priesthood.

If, on the other hand, women were ordained to a priestesshood, independently of men, then they would be capable of being equal partners in the priesthood. As the Church currently operates, this is either not possible, or so downplayed as to be unrecognizable and impotent.

[Guest]

But that isn't the argument the Church makes. Church leaders for years have been making the case that women are equal partners in the priesthood by a) being mothers, b) with their husbands, or c) through their husbands.

So a woman who is not married cannot be an equal partner to the priesthood, while a man who is not married can be a full beneficiary and executor of the priesthood.

If, on the other hand, women were ordained to a priestesshood, independently of men, then they would be capable of being equal partners in the priesthood. As the Church currently operates, this is either not possible, or so downplayed as to be unrecognizable and impotent.

Because, if you are an LDS Church person, you will understand that Priesthood and Family are not separable. The Family is the rock of the Priesthood Office. The Family is where the Priesthood resides. The Family is the Priesthood Office. The Family is the rock of the Kingdom of God.

A Catholic Church person does not have that.

Edited December 12, 2012 by anatess