- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I have wondered why it is that in the initiatory a woman places her hands on my head and gives a blessing. How is this done without her holding the priesthood? I have asked this before and wasn’t satisfied with the answer. I was told that she is authorized to do this by the temple president…but was told that she doesn’t hold the priesthood. Wha? Can someone explain this one to me. It seems that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. So the question is…why does a woman place her hands on my head and bless me yet she doesn’t have the priesthood to do so? I think this is something most men don’t often consider because obviously they have never had the experience over on their “side” of the temple. They have a man performing this ordinance on them. Perhaps there would be more discussion on this if suddenly men had women placing their hands on their heads and blessing them. Thoughts anyone? I don’t know if my thoughts count since I’m on the fringe for this one. This is one of those things that has changed a lot over time. I’ve actually been asking for an answer to this very question over on the mormonapologetics forum this week. LOL Nobody has touched my questions with a 10 foot pole.
When I put my believer hat on the answer is, either women have the priesthood but hold no office OR we are practicing priestcraft.
There is no way around it. She is using the power and authority of the priesthood. Period.
When we travel back in time we see that it used to be believed that a woman received the priesthood when she received her endowment. Remember we are clothed in the garment and robes of the PH just like the men. We also receive all the signs and tokens of the priesthood. What are we endowed with?
Women used to give blessings and do special washing and anointings in preparation for childbirth. They always did them “in the name of Jesus Christ” but that is how I think everything should be done anyway.
Good question Daisy, and though my answer may not be worded the same way as a more official church response, it’s what makes sense to me. In this specific case women are given the authorization and even authority to perform this ordinance. It can be said that they don’t hold the priesthood, but they do act as an agent through which the priesthood functions. Personally, I don’t see much difference between this and how men use the priesthood. Only men are authorized to use it for blessings and such on any day at any time. The real authority lies with God, and He ultimately will decide what, where, and when things will be granted – no matter what was voiced.
So as far as official church operations, this is the way it works. In the personal lives of members women can “lay hands” and pronounce a blessing of faith to her childern or anyone else for that matter, any time she wishes. True, this practice is not widely accepted in our modern church culture, but there is no doctrinal problem with it. Ultimately in these cases as well as with standard priesthood blessings, God decides what will actually happen. So in the church men hold the administrative title, but in my mind God blesses all his children with the same blessings according to their faith.
I couldn’t agree more with Daisy’s concern. I can only offer my own fundamentalist viewpoint:
Yep….you are correct…a woman that has not had her second annointing does not have the right to administer temple ordinances. In the second endowment a woman is annointed as a queen and a priestess and absolutely has priesthood authority…until then…. “frayed knot”.
All is not well in Zion I’m afraid…but will be set in order at some point.
My 2cents ….
Mormon Heretic has a post on women and the priesthood
This is a quote from Brigham Young:
Quote:Then Young continue his remarks to a gender-inclusive audience: “Upon who[m]ever are bestowed the keys of the eternal Priesthood, by a faithful life, [they] will secure to themselves power to see the things of God, and will understand them as plainly as they ever understood anything by gazing upon it with their natural eyes…” It is in this theological context of priesthood that Young later declared: “Now, brethren, the man that honors his Priesthood, the woman that honors her Priesthood, will receive an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of God.”
Orson wrote:In this specific case women are given the authorization and even authority to perform this ordinance. It can be said that they don’t hold the priesthood, but they do act as an agent through which the priesthood functions.
This is exactly the answer that confuses me. Joseph Smith said, “Wherever the ordinances of the Gospel are administered, there is the Priesthood.”
It seems to me that women would HAVE to be given the priesthood to perform that ordinance. Otherwise, wouldn’t I want to go to the other side of the temple and have to done by a man, who has the priesthood? Isn’t the very definition of the priesthood the authority of God given to man?
What I really want to know is how it is possible for a woman to be given the authority but somehow that authority isn’t the priesthood?
It is confusing Daisy, and it is kind of playing with words. Yes, women are given the priesthood to exercise in that setting, the difference is they are not authorized to exercise it anywhere else. If that makes sense. If they were considered a general priesthood holder they would be able to exercise it outside of that specific function. Again, my personal views and understanding only.
Orson wrote:In this specific case women are given the authorization and even authority to perform this ordinance. It can be said that they don’t hold the priesthood, but they do act as an agent through which the priesthood functions. Personally, I don’t see much difference between this and how men use the priesthood. Only men are authorized to use it for blessings and such on any day at any time. The real authority lies with God, and He ultimately will decide what, where, and when things will be granted – no matter what was voiced.
I believe that this answer is in harmony with current church ideas and doctrine and will probably make sense to most members. In my mind this is similar to the way D&C 132 is interpreted. Without the context of the 2nd anointing, the modern church has a different way of interpreting these things.Bruce in Montana wrote:Yep….you are correct…a woman that has not had her second annointing does not have the right to administer temple ordinances. In the second endowment a woman is annointed as a queen and a priestess and absolutely has priesthood authority…until then…. “frayed knot”.
This answer feels a bit more authentic to me. That is, it feels more true to what early saints probably would relate to. A lot of these kinds of strange questions have very valid answers from the fundamentalist perspective. In that sense (the sense that they have satisfying answers) I can totally sympathize with the fundamentalist POV.Which answer is correct, or is there another one? I’m not sure.
Orson wrote:It is confusing Daisy, and it is kind of playing with words. Yes, women are given the priesthood to exercise in that setting, the difference is they are not authorized to exercise it anywhere else. If that makes sense. If they were considered a general priesthood holder they would be able to exercise it outside of that specific function.
Again, my personal views and understanding only.
It seems to me that if this were the case, there seems to be some FEAR of saying or admitting that women hold and exercise the priesthood in the temple to perform an ordinance. Why would that be so? Because we aren’t supposed to talk about it? And what priesthood are these women given? Aaronic? Melchezidek?
Bruce in Montana wrote:..a woman that has not had her second annointing does not have the right to administer temple ordinances.
What is the second annointing?
Daisy wrote:Orson wrote:It is confusing Daisy, and it is kind of playing with words. Yes, women are given the priesthood to exercise in that setting, the difference is they are not authorized to exercise it anywhere else. If that makes sense. If they were considered a general priesthood holder they would be able to exercise it outside of that specific function.
Again, my personal views and understanding only.
It seems to me that if this were the case, there seems to be some FEAR of saying or admitting that women hold and exercise the priesthood in the temple to perform an ordinance. Why would that be so? Because we aren’t supposed to talk about it? And what priesthood are these women given? Aaronic? Melchezidek?
I think you’d be hard pressed to find a church official who would admit that these women hold and exercise the priesthood (someone correct me if I’m out in left field). I think the answer would be that they are given authority to do that specific thing by the Temple President. I think it’s clear that in the church we separate priesthood power from authority (although they are related). Authority == keys of the priesthood. Priesthood == God’s power. So to modify Orson’s response slightly I would say:Yes, women are given the authority to administer this specific blessing in that setting. They act under the direction of the Temple President (a priesthood holder) who acts under the authority of the President of the Church.
From a priesthood perspective, I can tell you that in the last 10 years there has been a push to modify some of the language in blessings. For example, it used to be that when giving a blessing a priesthood holder would say “by the power of the Melchizedek priesthood….” It is now quite common, and even recommended to say “by the authority of the Melchizedek priesthood…” (see
hereI appreciate all the responses but I’m still in the dark how an ordinance can be performed without the performer holding the priesthood. Am I just dense? 😳 Daisy wrote:I appreciate all the responses but I’m still in the dark how an ordinance can be performed without the performer holding the priesthood. Am I just dense?
😳 They can’t be done without the power and authority of the priesthood. The woman officiating claims to do so “having authority.”
You’re not dense. The church does not offer a satisfying answer. Sorry.
It’s a duck. That is what I think. I really don’t get how temple endowed Mormons argue that women do not hold the priesthood (priestesshood?). IMHO this was what Joseph intended. It was the direction he was going. I also think the idea that only men have divine “power” or “authority” is slowly being pruned away as a cultural falsehood. There’s almost no difference between men and women in the temple rituals. They are both given the same blessings and symbols of the same priesthood. Daisy wrote:What is the second annointing?
Welcome to a new can of worms to sort out. What a complex and interesting history we have.
There used to be (and probably still is in limited practice) an additional endowment-style ceremony in the temple. It is no longer openly practiced. Few members receive it. It was the final sealing of all the blessings in the temple. Our current wording still hints at and points towards this ritual.
BTW, when we were packing our house a couple months ago, I came across some family history things from a dear old great aunt who was very much into genealogy. I had never really paid much attention to the stuff. Being side-tracked, I flipped through one of the notebooks she had given me. There was a very cool photocopy of a eulogy from an ancestor of mine in the late 1800’s. It said something about how he had served as a missionary for
SEVENyears without purse nor script, and later in his life had been ordained as a High Priest and received his second anointing. I found it fascinating that this was printed so normally and publicly in a eulogy at his death. The concept of women being priestesses was extremely radical (progressive) for its day. It may not seem like as big a deal now after so many decades of advancement socially for gender equality. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem our Mormon culture has gotten there yet where we are ready … at least not enough people. Soon. That’s my opinion.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.