Single Women: You have Priesthood Authority in Your Home

[Anonymous]

The visiting 70 at our Stake Conference yesterday, Elder Brian Taylor, said in the general session, to the best of my memory:

“Single mothers and single sisters, I want to tell you that you have Priesthood power and authority in your homes. Elder Oaks said so in a General Conference talk recently. Let me repreat, you have Priesthood power and authority in your homes, even if there is no man in it.”

I thanked him afterward for saying that and said I would love to hear it repeated in a general session of conference, since it was delivered in the General Men’s Session, the women didn’t hear it live, and most of the men didn’t understand it.

It is sanctioned and being said, even if it isn’t being said enough yet.

[Anonymous]

Hoping not to rain on your parade, but this sounds more like, “We don’t need to give you the priesthood, because you’ve had it all along”, i.e. attempting to downplay the concerns by redefining. Oak’s recent priesthood talk (Oct 2014) didn’t mention single sisters, although one did from Oct 2005 (not a priesthood session). Here are the highlights I think the 70 is referencing:

Oct 2014 wrote:

How does this apply to women? In an address to the Relief Society, President Joseph Fielding Smith, then President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, said this: “While the sisters have not been given the Priesthood, it has not been conferred upon them, that does not mean that the Lord has not given unto them authority. … A person may have authority given to him, or a sister to her, to do certain things in the Church that are binding and absolutely necessary for our salvation, such as the work that our sisters do in the House of the Lord. They have authority given unto them to do some great and wonderful things, sacred unto the Lord, and binding just as thoroughly as are the blessings that are given by the men who hold the Priesthood.”

Oct 2014 wrote:

I close with some truths about the blessings of the priesthood. Unlike priesthood keys and priesthood ordinations, the blessings of the priesthood are available to women and to men on the same terms. The gift of the Holy Ghost and the blessings of the temple are familiar illustrations of this truth.

In his insightful talk at BYU Education Week last summer, Elder M. Russell Ballard gave these teachings:

“Our Church doctrine places women equal to and yet different from men. God does not regard either gender as better or more important than the other. …When men and women go to the temple, they are both endowed with the same power, which is priesthood power. … Access to the power and the blessings of the priesthood is available to all of God’s children.”

Oct 2005 wrote:

One important difference between its function in the Church and in the family is the fact that all priesthood authority in the Church functions under the direction of the one who holds the appropriate priesthood keys. In contrast, the authority that presides in the family—whether father or single-parent mother—functions in family matters without the need to get authorization from anyone holding priesthood keys. This family authority includes directing the activities of the family, family meetings like family home evenings, family prayer, teaching the gospel, and counseling and disciplining family members. It also includes ordained fathers giving priesthood blessings.

[Anonymous]

dande48 wrote:

Quote:

the authority that presides in the family—whether father or single-parent mother—functions in family matters without the need to get authorization from anyone holding priesthood keys. This family authority includes directing the activities of the family, family meetings like family home evenings, family prayer, teaching the gospel, and counseling and disciplining family members. It also includes ordained fathers giving priesthood blessings.

….why the last sentence plug? Just to remind everyone there are still some things single-women can’t do that men can do???

We should have “Motherly Prayers” for our children. It would be when the faith and love of a devoted mother wants to pray for their child. And something men can’t do.

…or…we can stop making rules for this and that, and not have to focus on so many exact codified steps to seek the divine help in our homes.

I don’t get it, honestly.

I really like the idea of re-assuring the single-mothers they don’t have to look for a man to have authority in the home. So…since that feels right…can we do away with the same idea in the church?

[Anonymous]

I called this one eons ago. It’s the Dorothy Defense for female ordination. At the end of Wizard of Oz, Glenda tells her to just click her heels together three times while saying “There’s no place like home,” telling her “But Dorothy! You’ve had the power all along!”

It’s probably also a form of gaslighting, but whatevs.

[Anonymous]

I understand everything just said – but I also understand this particular truth has NEVER been said so openly and directly prior to that 2014 talk. Sure, the motivation might be to avoid ordination, but it also might be to soften ordination in the future. After all, there were quite a few “softening” statements prior to OD2 and the change in ordination practice back then with regard to race.

Fundamentally, I really don’t care to try to guess motive. The Church has made some significant changes recently in this general area, and I am happy to see official, public recognition of what I believe to be truth. If it is used “badly” down the road, I can revisit my reaction. Until then, I applaud more truth taught openly.

That always is my default position: Applaud good and truth, and wait to see what is made of it. It is how I want others to react to me, so I try to react that way to others.

[Anonymous]

Old Timer wrote:

I understand everything just said – but I also understand this particular truth has NEVER been said so openly and directly prior to that 2014 talk.

Technically all the “good parts” from the 2014 GC talk were mostly Oaks quoting his priors, including Joseph Fielding Smith. I’m glad the 70 spoke of it, but it’s not what I’d call “open” or without nuance.

[Anonymous]

I understand that, dande48 – but linking them together into one talk is significant, and he used far more direct language than had been used before.

Also, I never said it was without nuance. Elder Oaks, like Paul, was a lawyer. Nuance is their thing. It was direct, however, and Elder Taylor’s summary of it was even more direct in our Stake Conference **general session**. It wasn’t said in the leadership meeting. It was said clearly, directly, and with NO nuance to everyone in our stake who attended the conference.

[Anonymous]

I agree that DHO’s talk was a nice nod to the sisters. I think it was an important talk to give. I appreciate that it was done in Priesthood Session. I understand why many take it as a step forward.

This is just my own opinion: I think it is overplayed as a concession. The talk didn’t change anything. Women still do not get the priesthood or the priesthood keys. They act solely through “delegated authority”; a priesthood leader gives them permission to act. But this is short of performing any priesthood ordinance or native priesthood function. They labor entirely under the keys and direction of their priesthood leader.

DHO’s talk can be reduced to the following statement from the CHI2:

Quote:

All ward and stake auxiliary [non-priesthood quorum] organizations operate under the direction of the bishop or stake president, who holds the keys to preside. Auxiliary presidents and their counselors do not receive keys. They receive delegated authority to function in their callings.

I believe that in the Church the only significant instance in which a man is subject to the “authority” of a woman is in the Primary. But consider how that organization operates. When there is a vacant Primary Teacher position, the Primary President must submit a name to the Bishopric. If they approve, then THEY contact the candidate to “extend a calling”. If accepted, the bishopric puts the name forth in front of the ward for a sustaining vote. If approved, the Bishopric sets the new teacher apart in a priesthood ordinance. Only then does the teacher fall under the authority of the Primary President.

Although I applaud DHO for bringing the “delegated authority” construct to better light, I think it falls pretty short of answering the question of the importance of women in the Church.

DHO, in his talk, quoted MRB: “God does not regard either gender as better or more important than the other.” At the time, I thought of this as very ironic. Around this same timeframe, I was talking to a man/father who was on his way out of the Church. His stated struggle was not wanting to be associated with a Church that constantly stifled women. As he and I walked, he told me the story of his daughter and her younger brother. The daughter asked the question, “Why does God like the boys more than the girls?” Her little brother interjected, “God loves both the same, it’s just that boys are more important.” Of course, this man was aghast at what had been indirectly taught to both of his children. I kind of feel the same way about the DHO talk… according to him, women are equal, women are fully capable, and we know this because we have men give them authority in certain limited organizations.

A key caveat of the DHO talk: “I testify of the power and blessings of the priesthood of God, available for His sons and daughters alike.” Available. In other words both men and women can TAKE the sacrament, but only a man can BLESS the sacrament. “I testify of the divinely directed function of the keys of the priesthood.” A woman might HAND the sacrament to the person next to her, because the Deacon can’t reach, but make no mistake, she does not hold the keys that are given to the 13 year old Deacons Quorum President to ADMINISTER the sacrament.

[Anonymous]

dande48 wrote:

Hoping not to rain on your parade, but this sounds more like, “We don’t need to give you the priesthood, because you’ve had it all along”, i.e. attempting to downplay the concerns by redefining.

I have always taken this line. I believe women are ordained in our church, it’s just not acknowledged as such.

Women are confirmed and partake in most ceremonies in the temple. They don’t officially get AP and MP but do get most of the rest. That last bit should be rectified in some way.

There is some evidence Relief Society was set up by JS to function along these lines.

However to try and weaponize this against those of us who have claimed this is just wrong, because it has not been mainstream thinking, and actually goes against some of gender roles that leaders have imposed on women. We could actually get somewhere with this line of theological argument, and make progress.

[Anonymous]

I hear and agree with what you’re saying OON. But there is an important distinction that was made by DHO. We’re really talking about two things here. There is the priesthood authority to do blessings or perform ordinances (some of which we need authorization from those who hold keys and some we do not) and there is priesthood authority to act in other ways like callings. DHO was specifically addressing the latter.

In the stake, the SP holds the keys (authority) over the stake and in the ward the bishop holds those keys. There are other keys held by the EQP and the deacons and teachers presidents. Let’s use your example of the Primary teacher because it actually works like many other callings, including Sunday School. The SSP also holds no keys and also submits names to the bishop when he needs a new teacher. That’s because all callings in the ward really work under the keys of the bishop – Sunday School presidency and teachers, RSPresidency and teachers, YMPresidency and teachers, YWPresidency and teachers, librarian, greeter, etc. They are all working under the keys, or in other words are authorized by the bishop to fulfill the duties of their calling under his keys/authority. Likewise in the stake. The SP’s counselors and the high council also hold no keys, bishop’s counselors hold no keys, the clerk and executive secretary hold no keys – we act under the keys of the SP as authorized by him. Male or female all callings in the ward or stake really work under the keys of either the bishop or SP, and that includes the EQP who has limited keys. There is also the temple. Only the temple president holds those keys – all other temple workers, including his counselors and any other sealers, work under his authorization. And when the deacon passes the sacrament he is not doing it under his own keys, he’s doing so under the bishop’s keys because the bishop holds the keys of administering the sacrament. (I question that last point and don’t understand why women can’t pass the sacrament because passing the sacrament is not an ordinance, only blessing it is.)

I’m just trying to make a distinction here – there are very few who act under their own authority in the church and even then there are people with other keys who gave them those keys and authorize them to use them. When the bishop is released he still holds the keys but can’t use them but can act under the new bishop’s authority in his new calling. Ultimately we all work under the keys of the President of the Church who holds all the keys and has shared them with the various other authorities as is laid out in the way the church is governed.

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

This is just my own opinion: I think it is overplayed as a concession. The talk didn’t change anything. Women still do not get the priesthood or the priesthood keys. They act solely through “delegated authority”; a priesthood leader gives them permission to act. But this is short of performing any priesthood ordinance or native priesthood function. They labor entirely under the keys and direction of their priesthood leader.

I have felt, even holding the priesthood, that it doesn’t count for much unless you have the right “keys”. It’s felt like it’s used as more of a “call to action” and a responsibility to follow, than an actual “power”. As DHO said, women already have the priesthood in all the ways that matter. But without the right “keys”, is it really what you want?

In all fairness, maybe saying “In areas where there isn’t a presiding priesthood holder, you’ve always sort-of had the priesthood” is a step closer in the right direction. And officially conferring the priesthood would definitely be a step towards holding the keys.

But to quote Rick and Morty, “Give the Earth people a spacecraft so they may head back to their weird planet where women are kind of equal but not really.”

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

I hear and agree with what you’re saying OON. But there is an important distinction that was made by DHO. We’re really talking about two things here. There is the priesthood authority to do blessings or perform ordinances (some of which we need authorization from those who hold keys and some we do not) and there is priesthood authority to act in other ways like callings.

See, here is where it gets sticky. I feel that the phrase “priesthood authority” has gotten meanings uploaded onto it that make it hard to discern what the intent is.

Priesthood Authority = Do Blessings/Perform Ordinances

In theory women can give mother’s blessings. In reality, it is not culturally encouraged for women to give mother’s blessings.

Women do perform specific ordinances in the temple (and get the privilege of holding towels). There’s just a few awkward moments where living men can be sealed to multiple spouses in the temple, but women are not. There is the matter of awkward wording in a few ordinances…

Priesthood Authority = Administer the church organization above a ward/branch level.

In theory, the brethren and our 9 females should represent the needs/righteous wants at the church organization level completely. What winds up happening is that a lot of male-only committees made decisions and/or church policy regarding women and children and make final decisions regarding church organization matters. Granted, the brethren “consult” with the General R.S. leaders, the General Y.W. leaders, and the Primary leaders up until 2015 when women were added to key standing committees – but that means 9 female leaders working with 123 male leaders. This disparity sends the clear cultural message that conflicts with some teachings.

Also in reality, it is culturally accepted that women are not given leadership church assignments that do not explicitly deal with women or children, so brethren are burdened with responsibilities that might be easily shared such as ward membership clerk, Sunday School Presidencies, and so forth.

DarkJedi wrote:

I’m just trying to make a distinction here – there are very few who act under their own authority in the church and even then there are people with other keys who gave them those keys and authorize them to use them. When the bishop is released he still holds the keys but can’t use them but can act under the new bishop’s authority in his new calling. Ultimately we all work under the keys of the President of the Church who holds all the keys and has shared them with the various other authorities as is laid out in the way the church is governed.

I agree with the distinction, I just think that the distinction looses it’s impact when compared with some other meanings associated with “Priesthood Authority”.

[Anonymous]

I my lifetime I’ve seen:

– “all worthy male members of the church be ordained to the priesthood without regard to race or color.”

– temples being built in Africa & other remote parts of the world.

– women taking a more prominent role in sacrament meetings & leadership organizations.

– and recently: combining of EQ & HP quorums.

– changes to HT & VT.

– improvements regarding LBGT issues.

Many of us would say, it hasn’t gone far enough & I agree.

Is it possible that it is building into other issues as well?

For example: women holding the PH. Is it possible?

[Anonymous]

When we talk about Elder Oaks’ talk, it is important to recognize that he said two distinctly different but related things:

1) Yes, he said everyone has delegated authority in their respective positions and callings in the Church. They receive that authority to act in a particular position or calling when they assume a position or are set apart in a calling.

2) However, he also said that ALL temple endowed women have Priesthood authority and power in and of themselves as a result of receiving the endowment. He said, “What other power could it be?” and used female missionaireis as a prime example – and Elder Taylor quoted that statement in our Stake Conference general session. I have said for a LONG time that there is no other reasonable way to interpret the endowment. Women and men BOTH are told they are prepared to officiate in the ordinances of the Priesthood. There is no distinction made in the temple endowment wording.

Elder Oaks went on to say that the difference between men and women and how they can exercise the Priesthood power and authority they possess is that men have been ordained into offices in the hierarchical Priesthood and can perform ordinances as a result of thatbordination, while women have not been. He said the person who holds the keys to do so has not done so. He didn’t state explicitly that the President of the Church could do so in the future, but he didn’t say it couldn’t happen. He merely stated that it had not happened. I think his wording choice was careful and intentional, since he could have been dismissive of the possibility.

What Elder Taylor said in our Stake Conference had NOTHING to do with delegated authority from local leaders. He was talking about women acting within their own homes as holders of Priesthood authority and power, regardless of any position or calling. He said they had Priesthood authority and power in and of themselves. I told Elder Taylor that I would like to hear that talk repeated in a general session of General Conference because the women didn’t hear it and most of the men who did hear it didn’t understand it. He smiled and nodded.

[Anonymous]

it feels like it starts getting very very confusing what it is we are trying to do.

What is the Priesthood needed for if we all have the authority, and then there are just a bunch of rules on who holds keys for this or that to explain old testament male dominance in a modern culture that doesn’t fit that model, yet we are trying to hold on to some literal restoration of all things and claim to be the same church as was on the earth 6,000 years ago :wtf: .

What is it we are trying to accomplish with this Priesthood? What even matters?

It just feels like there are loopholes and reassurances that everyone is equal and everything gets fixed in the afterlife…..and I honestly get lost in what we are trying to do with this Priesthood power and why it is needed instead of just good people trying to follow gospel principles. Too many answers are “because God says so” and we need order and rules, and then later we are tweaking it and saying “God actually never said that” and we just keep trying to make sense of things while trying to have certainty we know the truth of all things.

Can someone tell me why priesthood in the home is different than single-mother authority in the home? Is a priesthood blessing different than a prayer of faith? Is an Elder’s Quorum President different than a Relief Society President in some way? Is a Teacher’s Quorum President different than a Mia Maid Class President? Why does a Deacon have to have the priesthood to pass the sacrament to someone in a row, when that other person then just takes the tray and passes it down the row to others without any priesthood (the girls in that row are passing the sacrament to others, right?)? Women in the temples are doing priesthood ordinances.

What is priesthood getting us that we don’t already have without the priesthood? (apart from the headaches of gender inequality in the church for reasons that are unclear why we cling to traditional roles of the past)

[Author]

Posts