Mormons are generally familiar with division of the priesthood into the Melchizedek priesthood and Aaronic priesthood. In this blog post, I will suggest that both of these priesthoods are a subset of something called the priesthood of all people.
Priesthood is the power to act in God’s name. What does it mean to act in God’s name? Our Heavenly Parents’ motivating force is love: They love us and They ask us to love Them and each other. I therefore propose that anyone who can act in a loving way toward others (i.e. any being with moral autonomy) has the capability of acting in God’s name or, in other words, holds the priesthood.
The priesthood of all people is divisible in as many ways as people themselves are divisible into groups. There is a priesthood of mothers, of fathers, of children, of spouses, of siblings, of friends, of ecclesiastical leaders, of musicians, of construction workers, of astronauts, and so on. These categories of priesthood are not meaningless: people in each of these roles can perform loving acts in ways that are specific to that role.
What then of the Mormon priesthood? I propose that when our Heavenly Parents were organizing the church in various dispensations, they carved out part of the larger priesthood for people who would perform specific functions within the church. For example, ancient temple priests could act in loving service (i.e. use the priesthood) by following the instructions for priests set down in scripture.
In carving out priesthood for the church in this dispensation, our Heavenly Parents specifically stated that it could be exercised only through love. In Doctrine and Covenants Section 121, God states that priesthood has no authority except to persuade “by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned.” Those who exercise their priesthood with love will have an “everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.” (vv. 41-46). In other words, when Mormon priesthood holders act out of love, others may feel an increase of love that will naturally incline them to follow. This is true, of course, for all people.
I suggest that the Mormon priesthood is not more important than the priesthood of all people. Mormon priesthood holders are given opportunities to show love to others in a particular context, but I suggest that our Heavenly Parents are concerned not so much with context in which we show love but that we do show love where we can.
Finally, what implications does the priesthood of all people hold for Mormon women? Should they be allowed to exercise the Mormon priesthood? It is not my place to make decisions for the Mormon church. It seems to me, however, that priesthood is given to people based on their ability to exercise it. The priesthood of all people is available to those beings who have moral autonomy because beings without moral autonomy are incapable of exercising it. The priesthood of, say, musicians (or of mothers or fathers) is given to them because they are capable of exercising their priesthood in a way that other people cannot.
The question, then, is whether women are capable of performing the functions that Mormon male priesthood holders perform. Are women capable of administering the sacrament? Making decisions for an entire ward or stake? Witnessing of Jesus Christ to all people, as do apostles? The answer is obviously yes. This position is supported by the scriptures—which speak of prophetesses and female apostles—and Mormon church history, which shows that Joseph Smith organized the Relief Society as a “kingdom of priests” to “move according to the ancient priesthood” and ordained Emma Smith and other Mormon women to the priesthood.
If the scriptures and church history support a female Mormon priesthood, why are Mormon women not currently allowed to exercise it? Again, I would not presume to say. One possible explanation, however, is that in the social milieu of past times, women seemed less capable of performing priesthood functions and were therefore not allowed to. Looking about the world now, however, we have ample evidence that women can lead and serve at the highest levels. To the extent the exclusion of Mormon women from the priesthood rests solely on historical rather than doctrinal grounds, I personally see no reason why it ought to continue.
Hey Ed,
I wrote this a couple of years ago after thinking a little about some of the cases (including in my own family, in the 1930s) where, in rare instances, and in the absence of a worthy male priesthood holder, righteous LDS women ministered or gave blessings, which appeared to be effective:
“The man is not without the woman, neither is the woman without the man before the Lord. We are only saved jointly. Man and woman, sealed together eternally as husband and wife, is what constitutes the fulness of the priesthood. Without this, there is not the fulness of the priesthood. This is why, for many callings in the Church–usually a bishop’s counselor, a branch president, or a high councilor, and certainly any higher offices than those–a man must be married to hold these callings. This is why my father often invites my mother to be present when he gives a priesthood blessing. This is how temple work can be performed by women. The priesthood is bestowed upon men, but it is not intended for it to be done so singly. It is intended for it to be held jointly, though in different roles, so that both the man and the woman, sealed together as husband and wife, may be exalted as a single unit.”
What do you think?
(I realize that some of this doctrine has further implications on other issues, and, while I don’t know the whole history of your journey over the years, I do respect you enough to discuss these matters).
That idea, Ryan, idea bothers me a lot, since it seems that we’re desanctifying the beauty of marriage. No longer is marriage two individuals that love each other and wish to spend the rest of their lives together. Now it’s just a means to an end.
Not only that, but how degrading to women, which appear to be nothing more than an accessory to one-up the man’s priesthood authority, priesthood authority that is withheld from them just for their lack of a Y chromosome.
Curtis, VERY good point! Well said in very few words! I am a gay Mormon man who believes that the sanctity of marriage is between two people, and is a freely God given right, held sacredly between two human beings. Involved in the gift of free agency is the right to choose. Same-sex attraction is not a choice, thus I would consider it to be offensive to Gods divine purposes of making us this way, in his image. Free agency, by the way, came after we where created; thus not the choice of being same-sex attracted of opposite-sex attracted; we didn’t get to choose that. Remember, choices came after we where thus created.
The mythology of ignorance that exists with some people, is that somehow, same-sex attraction and or marriage might somehow trump opposite-sex attraction and or marriage. In the middle of all of this non-sense of who can marry who is [fear].
As a gay man, I’m not going to enter into a marriage with a person whom I can not make a [sincere] fully vested sacred and binding covenant. Since being LGBT is “now” not the sin; not a choice; then a person would have to admit that same-sex attraction would inherently be be part of a persons nature and thus, part of the divinity of those two people forming a sacred union such as marriage. The sanctity of marriage binds two people together, spiritually, mentally, emotionally, and let’s not forget physically. All of those elements are inherent in the sacredness of marriage between two people.
Mankind can’t change Gods inherent truth; it doesn’t work that way. The person created can not change the creator.
Curtis, I have known Ryan long enough to know that he has a good heart. It seems to be that he is acknowledging women’s role in the Mormon priesthood as it currently stands, in a way that official rhetoric does not. In my opinion, that’s a big step.
Ryan, I agree with you that Mormon institutional priesthood is given to men and, in some contexts, also exercised by women. The question I raise is why it is not given to both men and women directly. The pat answer is “because God said so.” That answer is not satisfying to me, however, because it doesn’t seem to account for the way the church changes over time to include wonderfully positive aspects of wider cultural change.
I think we’re all quite glad the priesthood is now available to all worthy males. I personally see no reason why it should not be exercised by all worthy people. If I am correct that institutional priesthood is available to people according to their capabilities, it is now abundantly clear that men are not somehow superior to women in their ability to carry out the duties required of priesthood holders.
Once we accept that women can hold and use the Mormon priesthood independently of men, we no longer require a heterosexual couple as a priesthood unit. That warms my heart, in part because I know that homosexuality is just as much a gift from our Heavenly Parents as is heterosexuality. I also look to great priesthood holders of the past who were unmarried and see that their lack of the obligations associated with couplehood in fact enhanced their ability to perform their mission.
I am very interested to hear your thoughts on this, Ryan! Am I a complete apostate?