After a two-week vacation, I am back to writing reactions to the 2021 Come, Follow Me curriculum—just in time to cover “The Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood” found in Doctrine and Covenants § 84. The lessons this week are focused on directing members to identify the ways they are blessed by restored priesthood authority and the rituals and ordinances pertaining thereunto. As I’ve highlighted briefly in earlier responses, there are problems with the narrative of the priesthood restoration—namely, that the story of restoration through angelic ordinations appears to be a narrative developed in 1834–5 that was retconned into 1829 by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery to bolster their leadership claims. While that discussion is interesting, I want to focus on what I perceive to be the biggest rhetorical message in this week’s lessons (at least for the adults)—gender complementarianism and gaslighting women into accepting the policy of male-exclusive ordination in the LDS church.
All Are Blessed, But Some Are More Blessed
The Come, Follow Me manuals try to present this message in subtle ways, but it’s pretty obvious what they’re doing if you pay attention. In the manual for Individuals and Families, members are taught via a quote from Elder Paul Pieper of the First Quorum of the Seventy to not focus on ordination, but on how everyone is enabled to “obtain” and “receive” the blessings of the priesthood. It is emphasized explicitly that women are not excluded in this framework. Of course, this is the point of distracting from the principle of ordination, because that’s precisely where women are excluded.
Elder Paul B. Pieper taught: “It is interesting that in the oath and covenant of the priesthood [Doctrine and Covenants 84:31–42], the Lord uses the verbs obtain and receive. He does not use the verb ordain. It is in the temple that men and women—together—obtain and receive the blessings and power of both the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods” (“Revealed Realities of Mortality,” Ensign, Jan. 2016, 21). As you study Doctrine and Covenants 84:31–42, look for the words “obtain” and “receive.” Ponder what they might mean in this context. How are you “receiv[ing]” the Lord and His servants? You could also note promises in these verses associated with the oath and covenant of the priesthood, which God “cannot break” (verse 40). What do you find that inspires you to be more faithful in receiving the Father, His servants, and His priesthood power? Come, Follow Me — Individuals and Families Manual, 1 August 2021, emphasis my own.
Something else I want to highlight is how the concept of “receiving the Lord’s servants” is repeated throughout these lessons and interwoven with the narrative of receiving the blessings enabled through the priesthood. Embedded in this messaging is the assumption that those ordained to the priesthood are called as the Lord’s representatives, and that receiving, hearkening, and obeying their leadership is the same as receiving, hearkening, and obeying the Lord. Consider the following from the Sunday School manual:
The oath and covenant of the priesthood (see Doctrine and Covenants 84:31–42) has special application for those who are ordained to a priesthood office. But many of the promised blessings in these verses are available to all. To help class members see how these promises apply to them, you could invite them to read verses 33–42 and talk about ways we can “receive” the priesthood (verse 35), the Lord’s servants, and the Lord. They could also read the statements in “Additional Resources” to find out what we need to do to receive the blessings of the priesthood. You might help class members think about what could be included in “all that [the] Father hath” (verse 38), such as His attributes and the kind of life that He enjoys. What else impresses us about these verses and statements? Come, Follow Me — Sunday School Manual, 1 August 2021, emphasis my own.
Note that the lesson focuses on verses 33 through 42, which make very explicit statements that one receives the Lord by receiving his servants, who have received the priesthood:
33 For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies. 34 They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God. 35 And also all they who receive this priesthood receive me, saith the Lord; 36 For he that receiveth my servants receiveth me; 37 And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father; 38 And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him. 39 And this is according to the oath and covenant which belongeth to the priesthood. 40 Therefore, all those who receive the priesthood, receive this oath and covenant of my Father, which he cannot break, neither can it be moved. Doctrine and Covenants § 84:33–40, emphasis my own.
These verses are an echo of similar messaging in Matthew 10:40–42, Luke 9:48, and John 13:20 wherein Jesus instructs the Twelve Apostles after empowering them to perform miracles. The Doctrine and Covenants makes explicit what is only at best implied in the Gospels—that receiving the Lord’s servants is equivalent to receiving the Lord himself by virtue of the priestly authority conferred upon them. Recipients of the priesthood are recipients of the Lord, and those who receive such men as the Lord’s servants also receive the Lord.
Importantly, those to whom this passage is referring are described as becoming “the sons of Moses and of Aaron,” which makes it clear that this is referring specifically to men. Thus, it’s disingenuous for the lesson manuals to attempt to use these verses in a rhetorical narrative that men and women are equally blessed through the priesthood, when the blessings detailed in these verses are specifically reserved for those who are “faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods.” Despite what Elder Pieper may suggest, this refers clearly to ordination. This is why the Sunday School manual begins with the acknowledgement that these verses have “special application for those who are ordained to a priesthood office” before peddling the message that “many of the promised blessings in these verses are available to all.”
This is further highlighted by another section in the Individual and Families manual. After devoting discussion to how the blessings of the priesthood aren’t just for men, the manual invites members to learn more about the importance of the priesthood by asking a man to share his experiences with ordination and tracing his line of authority. The latter is a genealogy of the authority of a man’s ordination through the chain of men who received their ordination from other men in a patriarchal chain stretching back to Joseph Smith and the alleged restoration of the priesthood by male angelic ministers.
After reading about how Moses received his priesthood authority, a priesthood holder in your family or a ministering brother could share his experience of being ordained to a priesthood office. If possible, he could share and discuss his priesthood line of authority. Why is it important that we can trace priesthood authority in the Church today back to the authority of Jesus Christ?
Come, Follow Me — Individuals and Families Manual, 1 August 2021, emphasis my own.
The “Additional Resources” section of the Sunday School manual is likewise devoted to defending the practice of male-only ordination. It presents two messages I want to explore in greater detail: 1) that LDS female Relief Society organization is an equal and companionate organization to the male-only priesthood, and 2) that women and men in the LDS church hold different but equal and complementary roles in the church and in the Mormon cosmology.
The Women’s Relief Society
The following except is taken from the “Additional Resources” section of the Sunday School manual, which elsewhere in the lesson members are directed towards with the prompt to “find out what we need to do to receive the blessings of the priesthood.”
The first Relief Society presidency of the Salt Lake Stake wrote in 1878: “We feel truly thankful that through the blessing of our Heavenly Father, we, His handmaidens are called to be co-laborers with our brethren in building up the kingdom of God upon the earth, in assisting to build Temples, wherein we can receive blessings for time and eternity. In all the ordinances received in the House of the Lord, woman stands beside the man, both for the living and the dead, showing that the man is not without the woman nor the woman without the man in the Lord” (Mary Isabella Horne, Elmina S. Taylor, and Serepta M. Heywood, “To the Presidents and Members of the Relief Society of Salt Lake Stake of Zion, Greeting!” Woman’s Exponent, Jan. 15, 1878, 123). Come, Follow Me — Sunday School Manual, 1 August 2021, emphasis my own.
Inasmuch as the church often uses the Relief Society organization as an example of how it empowers women and treats them as equals to men, I want to take a brief moment and review some history of the organization that I believe challenges this common rhetorical narrative.
Joseph Smith and the Nauvoo Relief Society
The Relief Society was first organized in Nauvoo in 1842. Originally, it was proposed by Sarah Granger Kimball to organize an effort to sew clothing for male workers building the Nauvoo Temple. The creation of a women’s society similar to the benevolence societies common in antebellum American was envisioned, and Eliza R. Snow was tasked with drafting a constitution outlining the bylaws of their organization. When these were presented to Joseph Smith for approval, he praised them saying they were “the best he had ever seen,” but also said, “this is not what you want.” He had other ideas for the organization. He declared, “I will organize the women under the priesthood after the pattern of the priesthood.” Part of this was to serve his own ends.
Joseph Smith also had an ulterior motive for supporting the organization: he hoped it would defend his reputation as polygamy rumors began to spread—in part, by controlling the spread of the gossip, as illustrated by an episode surrounding a young girl named Clarissa Marvel. At the Relief Society's second meeting, on March 24, Emma Smith accused Marvel, who had recently immigrated to Nauvoo alone, of spreading rumors about Joseph and Agnes Smith, the widow of the prophet's deceased brother Don Carlos Smith. Agnes had secretly become a plural wife to Joseph a few months before, and word was seeping out. The society appointed two women to personally interview Marvel. One, Elizabeth Durfee, objected to interrogating the girl, which she thought to be a harsh measure. Emma, however, was quick to reprove Durfee, reminding her that it was the society's obligation to root out iniquity. The investigation concluded two weeks later, when it was determined that Marvel was innocent. But while the case seemed settled, the society's leaders claimed that the ordeal was a warning to others who might spread gossip about the prophet. Benjamin E. Park, "Kingdom of Nauvoo", 101–102.
An interesting twist in this story is that Elizabeth Durfee was one of Joseph Smith’s secret plural wives, and may have been by March 24, 1842. Durfee was one of Smith’s older plural wives and often served the role of introducing other, younger women to the principle. While the dating of her marriage to Smith is cloudy, we know that she was wedded to Smith before John C. Bennett left Nauvoo in June 1842. Todd Compton seems to believe that she was probably wedded to Smith by the time of the investigation of Clarissa Marvel, which adds an interesting dimension to her opposition of the interrogation of Marvel. He writes:
Emma was concerned about polygamy-related rumors proceeding from Clarissa Marvel. Sarah Cleveland, Emma's counselor and probably a plural wife of Joseph Smith by this time, proposed that Elizabeth [Durfee], with a Mrs. Allred, interview two women who had spread rumors second-hand from Clarissa, and report back at the next meeting. Elizabeth "objected," but Emma was not to be dissuaded. [...] These entries show Elizabeth as one of the influential women of Nauvoo, articulate and enthusiastic in meetings. She was well known to the Relief Society presidency, and they gave her responsible assignments to perform in that organization. We also see here a perhaps conflicted friendship with Emma Smith who undoubtedly did not know of her husband's marriage to her friend. Todd Compton, "In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith", 261
This story reveals much about the origins of the Relief Society and the conditions under which it operated. The women of Nauvoo sought to create their own society and immediately it was snatched up by a man—Joseph Smith—and turned into a tool to reinforce his patriarchal agenda. What’s more, he recruited the women of the organization themselves into performing this duty for him, as many of the leading women in the organization were his secret plural wives and were thus invested in keeping his secrets—especially from Emma Smith. However, the organization grew too quickly began to operate too independently for Joseph to control.
Joseph therefore urged his wife, Emma, not to admit too many women into the order, as it could quickly become hard to manage. He hoped he could grant the society just enough autonomy while still retaining, through Emma, control. Meeting in his own store, within sight of his own office, Joseph needed the society to buttress his own agenda. [...] The prophet frequently cautioned [the women] to be gentle when it came to identifying a member's sins; he mostly wanted the society to defend his character, but soon feared it might discover his own clandestine polygamous actions. Benjamin E. Park, "Kingdom of Nauvoo", 103
Smith continued to marry more polygamous wives in secret and Emma continued to use the Relief Society to investigate the rumors that were continuously spreading. In March of 1844, Emma had commissioned a document denouncing all deviations from traditional moral standards—especially regarding marriage—and had the document read aloud in four separate meetings of the Relief Society. In these meetings, she denounced the practice of “spiritual wifery” and instructed her followers to follow her husband’s teachings as they received them “from the Stand,” as opposed to what they might hear in private. As a consequence, Smith lost patience with the organization and its activities.
As public pressure grew, Joseph Smith blamed, in turn, his wife, her society, and the document she had commissioned and then spoke aloud. When dissenters skewered Smith in nearby presses and helped organize efforts to expose Smith's activities, the women in Nauvoo proved an easy scapegoat. In late May, he declared he had never had any problems until the Relief Society commenced their reformation mission. He saw to it that this agitating thorn was removed from his side by publicly subverting their authority within the city. Benjamin E. Park, "Kingdom of Nauvoo", 196
Indeed, the Nauvoo Relief Society never met again and Smith ended his flirtation with empowering women through leadership opportunities. When he created the Council of Fifty, colloquially known as “the Kingdom,” he invited no women to join.
The timing of the Kingdom's founding was significant, as the same week the Relief Society was holding its meetings denouncing the evils of polygamy, Smith was establishing a new organization rooted in patriarchal authority. The men were specifically directed not to share details with their wives. As a result of the public controversies over polygamy, Smith had given up on his brief experiment with ruling bodies that included women. Benjamin E. Park, "Kingdom of Nauvoo", 201
Smith was murdered in Carthage jail only three months later. After the majority of the Saints in Nauvoo accepted the succession claims of the Quorum of the Twelve, Brigham Young sought to maintain a tighter control on the affairs of the church and managing dissent within its ranks. Young believed that the Relief Society was partially responsible for Joseph and Hyrum Smith’s deaths and he disbanded the women’s organization entirely.
As he saw it, internal dissension had led to Joseph Smith's death, and he blamed Emma Smith's anti-polygamy crusade for stoking those fires. In early 1845, Young banned the Relief Society from holding official meetings, forcing them to gather informally and in private. "I say I will curse every man that lets his wife or daughters meet again," he proclaimed to a gathering of priesthood leaders in March. "What are relief societies for?" His answer was less than supportive: "To relieve us of our best men," just as "they relieved us of Joseph and Hyrum." Whereas Joseph Smith's vision for a divine kingdom involved a limited form of shared governance, Young's was even more explicitly patriarchal: "I don't want the advice or counsel of any women—they would lead us down to hell." Young rarely minced words. Benjamin E. Park, "Kingdom of Nauvoo", 260
Brigham Young and his fellow apostles would dogmatize their views on patriarchal authority through the most sacred ritual ordinances of the faith. In the winter of 1845, he began leading members through their first endowments in the Nauvoo Temple. In late December, Young taught to an assembly of the Quorum of the Anointed regarding the principles of the endowment:
After his fall, another name was given to Adam, and being full of integrity, and not being disposed to follow the woman nor listen to her was permitted to receive the tokens of the priesthood. [...]
Woman will never get back, unless she follows the man back. If the man had followed the woman he would have followed her down until this time. Light, liberty, and happiness will never shine upon men until they learn these principles. The man must love his God and the woman must love her husband.
Brigham Young, 28 December 1845
Quoted in "An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton", p. 239
In this same setting a week earlier, Orson Hyde and Heber C. Kimball taught:
We want the man to remember that he has covenanted to keep the law of God, and the Woman to obey her husband and if you keep your covenants you will not be guilty of transgressions.
Orson Hyde, 21 December 1845
Quoted in "An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton", p. 226
The man was created, and God gave him dominion over the whole Earth, but he saw that he never could multiply, and replenish the Earth, without a woman. And he made one and gave her to him. He did not make the man for the woman; but the woman for the man, and it is just as unlawful for you to rise up and rebel against your husband, as it would be for man to rebel against God.
When the man came to the veil, God gave the keywords to the man, and the man gave it to the woman. But if a man don't use a woman well and take good care of her, God will take her away from him, and give her to another.
Heber C. Kimball, 21 December 1845
Quoted in "An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton", p. 227
Reviving and Leashing the Relief Society
After its dissolution, the Relief Society would not be formally reorganized for another twenty-two years and after Brigham Young had successfully led the church to settle the Salt Lake Basin. By this time, Brigham had also thoroughly established the primacy of patriarchy authority and proclaimed it as a central component of Mormon theology. The Relief Society was reorganized in a context where men ruled as priestly patriarchs over their polygynous families. This second incarnation of the Relief Society would not fight against plural marriage—it would explicitly champion the system that enshrined patriarchal dominance as the divine order of the cosmos.
However, it is important to recognize that women in Utah were not devoid of authority. In many ways, Mormon women in 19th-century Utah engaged in many activities that warrant recognition. For instance, Mormon women were encouraged in their efforts to fight for suffrage, and the Relief Society was a vehicle for some of these efforts. The female Relief Society also enjoyed a level of financial and editorial autonomy that it no longer has in the present day. Furthermore, Mormon women gave blessings of healing, comfort, and encouragement by virtue of the priesthood authority of the temple. As some scholars have argued, Mormon women were considered as wielding the priesthood in these activities. However, even in these respects, women’s authority was always treated as subservient to that of the male leadership. Over time, these limited privileges enjoyed by Mormon women were slowly restricted or stripped entirely.
A nineteenth-century woman could also attack the Victorian cult of the family and still be rewarded with high church office by the Mormon leadership. For example, as editor of the Mormon suffragist publication from 1875 on, Emmeline B. Wells publicly ridiculed the Victorian image of womanhood as being the equivalent of "a painted doll" or "household deity." [...] However, from the 1920s on, Mormon women experienced an erosion of their autonomy and status. In this complex development, general authorities increasingly adopted Victorian ideals of domesticity and ignored earlier teachings and examples of female authority. Administratively, the process was complete by July 1970 when the First Presidency ended the financial autonomy of the Relief Society and dismissed the organization's traditional fund-raising bazaar as "a noisy, carnival-like or commercial atmosphere." D. Michael Quinn, "The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power", 374
As the roles and authority of women in the church were diminished, LDS leadership increasingly emphasized teachings on the divinely-appointed Patriarchal Order. A critical element of these teachings was the Deutero-Pauline admonition in the New Testament regarding the need for wives to submit to their husbands. The maintenance of this Patriarchal Order was considered critical for protecting against the erosion of the family and of divinely-designed gender differences. Especially post-WWII, American Christianity became increasing concerned with protecting gender roles and the maintenance of “traditional” norms regarding the patriarchal nuclear family, and Mormons were no exception.
Sexual difference was established through practices and acceptance of boundaries, especially for men, who, it was feared, might become too effeminate if their wives led in the home. Indeed, failure of patriarchal leadership in the home was among the greatest threats to manhood. Church leaders made the well-ordered home the primary concern over the next several decades, invoking what they called the "patriarchal order of marriage" as the divine model for household governance. LDS leaders looked to the Bible to define these normative family relations. There they saw a benevolent patriarchy as the system of home governance, which included the submission of wives to their husbands' authority as well as a responsibility of husbands to rule justly. The 1950s Mormon best seller (republished numerous times) A Marvelous Work and a Wonder by apostle LeGrand Richards quoted approvingly Ephesians 5:22: "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord." He explained that in the order of the family, "the husband is the head of the wife." [...] The commandment for wives to submit was often repeated during this period in General Conference, far more than had been done before. Taylor G. Petrey, "Tabernacles of Clay: Sexuality and Gender in Modern Mormonism", 35
In the 1960s, increasing numbers of America’s women were beginning to pushback against the patriarchal systems that relegated their roles in society. Writers and activists like Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem published influential works that sparked increasing enthusiasm in what would be termed the “women’s liberation” movement. Observing these developments, conservative Christians responded by intensifying their rhetoric on the importance of the maintenance of stereotypical gender roles and the sanctity of the patriarchal organization of the workplace and the family. Again, Mormons were right there alongside them:
In 1965, Helen B. Andelin, a Latter-day Saint and graduate of BYU's home economics program, began selling her book Fascinating Womanhood out of her garage. (The book has since sold millions of copies.) [...] Andelin believed that happiness could not be found in feminism but in connecting with one's "feminine nature." Her self-improvement program was not based on woman's "liberation" but on just the opposite. In her writings and workshops, she taught women how to have a happy marriage and to enjoy housewife duties by cultivating feminine "dependency" and "childlikeness." [...] Her advice to wives included, "Don't act, look, or think like men"; "Don't be efficient in men's affairs, such as leadership, making major decisions, providing a living, etc."; and, "Revere your husband and honor his right to rule you and his children." Taylor G. Petrey, "Tabernacles of Clay: Sexuality and Gender in Modern Mormonism", 36
Apostle Spencer W. Kimball was a strong advocate of these new programs as a mechanism for instituting proper male leadership in the home. In a 1965 sermon, he taught, "In the great Home Teaching Program and Family Home Evenings, the responsibilities lie first and properly on the head of the father. The wife will assist." [...] These programs also institutionalized the submission of wives. Quoting the relevant New Testament passages on submission of wives, Kimball noted, "Certainly no sane woman would hesitate to give submission to her own really righteous husband in everything. We are sometimes shocked to see the wife take over the leadership, naming the one to pray, the place to be, the things to do." Taylor G. Petrey, "Tabernacles of Clay: Sexuality and Gender in Modern Mormonism", 38–9
It is in this context that the LDS Priesthood Correlation program really began to exert its influence in reorganizing the structures of the church. While versions of the correlation program operated in the first half of the century, it was really under the direction of David O. McKay—and especially his successor, Harold B. Lee—that the correlation program became a driving force within the LDS church. It was through the efforts of correlation that the Home Teaching and Family Home Evening programs were developed and instituted as we know them. The Sunday School was also reorganized and instructional materials across all the organizations of the church became more tightly controlled. Importantly, the Relief Society was brought more directly under the control of male priesthood authority:
In the 1960s, Correlation leadership slowly weakened the Relief Society, stripping it of its budget, its independent publications, and its active Social Services agency. A goal of this movement was to diminish women's authority in the church in deference to the male priesthood. According to [Harold B.] Lee, "The whole effort of correlation is to strengthen the home and to give aid to the home in its problems." One of his employees wrote even more pointedly, "The whole tone of Priesthood Correlation seems to be the establishment of the divine Patriarchal Order." the Correlation movement was dedicated to patriarchal leadership in the church and in the home, under the guidance of the "Priesthood." Taylor G. Petrey, "Tabernacles of Clay: Sexuality and Gender in Modern Mormonism", 37
Restricting Rights and Privileges
Among the casualties of the Priesthood Correlation Program for Mormon women was the loss of opportunities to participate in the administration of ritual ordinances. Previous to this time, and especially in the 19th century, Mormon women administered anointings and blessings to the sick for the purposes of healing. They would also anoint and bless women in preparation to giving birth. However, correlation put an end to these practices in the late 1960s.
Female participation in the healing liturgy, on the other hand, remained well documented for decades, and the Relief Society handbook made provisions for women performing healing rituals until 1968. Ultimately, church liturgy was formalized within the priesthood ecclesiology during the twentieth century, and church leaders isolated performance of the healing ritual—or healing "ordinance"—to men holding a Melchizedek Priesthood office. Jonathan A. Stapley, "The Power of Godliness: Mormon Liturgy and Cosmology", 92 See also: Stapley & Wright (2011), "Female Ritual Healing in Mormonism," 81–82, fn. 249–250.
Over the course of the twentieth century, Mormon women lost the right to participate in the administration of other ordinances as well. Prior to 1976, women were previously permitted to be witnesses of baptisms.
Throughout the twentieth century priesthood ecclesiology generally subsumed church liturgy. For example, baptisms have traditionally included official witnesses. Up through much of the twentieth century, these witnesses could be any church member, male or female, ordained or not. However, in 1976 church leaders ruled that all baptisms must be witnessed by two people "who hold the Melchizedek Priesthood." Requiring a priesthood officer for this ritual act was one of many similar changes initiated as part of the priesthood reform and priesthood correlation movements in the church.
Jonathan A. Stapley, "The Power of Godliness: Mormon Liturgy and Cosmology", 94
Emphasis my own.
As late as the 1950s, women were helping prepare the emblems of the sacrament.
As part of the priesthood reform movement, the sacrament of the Lord's Supper was recast as a renewal of baptismal covenants, replacing rebaptisms in the church, and was restructured around priesthood offices. [...] Women often prepared the bread and water (or wine) and cared for the linens, cups, and trays associated with blessing and passing them. The priesthood reforms formalized priests as the regular officers to break the bread and bless the sacrament, teachers (and sometimes deacons) as the officers to prepare the emblems to be blessed and manage the vessels and linens, and deacons as the officers to pass the sacrament to the congregation. Some members and leaders questioned whether such arrangements were proper in light of the Articles and Covenants' [i.e. D&C § 20] prohibition against teachers and deacons "administering the sacrament." Church leaders responded by indicating that passing the bread and water was not "administering" and consequently was not technically a priesthood function, noting that women regularly passed the trays down the benches during service. [...] While the Presiding Bishopric had to remind local leaders not to have women prepare the sacrament table as late as 1957, over time church members and leaders began to refer to the entire process of preparing, blessing, and passing the emblems of the Lord's Supper as "administering the sacrament" and to view these duties as exclusive priesthood functions. Jonathan A. Stapley, "The Power of Godliness: Mormon Liturgy and Cosmology", 95–6 Emphasis my own.
Until the late 1940s, Mormon women could dedicate graves.
Latter-day Saints began dedicating homes by 1860, and dedicating graves the following decade. Like all aspects of Latter-day Saint liturgy in the nineteenth century, the practice of grave dedication was neither formalized not codified. It was not until the early to mid-twentieth century that liturgical texts became normative. The first general missionary handbook, printed in 1937, was the first church document to include specific instructions on how to perform a grave dedication. It stated that "though one holding the Priesthood is generally chosen, any suitable person may dedicate a grave. This may be done either with or without authority of the Priesthood." The 1940 General Church Handbook of Instructions similarly stated that anyone could offer the dedication, "whether he be a bearer of the priesthood or not." [...] [In 1948, the editor of the Deseret News wrote:] "In the new handbook issued by the General Melchizedek Priesthood Committee of the Church, with the approval of the First Presidency, instruction is given that graves are to be dedicated by the authority of the Holy Melchizedek Priesthood and in the name of the Savior. Inasmuch as this is the instruction, naturally one holding the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood should perform the ordinance. Dedication of graves is considered one of the ordinances of the Church." In less that eighty years, Mormons had developed a grave dedication ritual, available to be performed by any member of the church, which leaders had then transformed into a formal priesthood ordinance of the church. Jonathan A. Stapley, "The Power of Godliness: Mormon Liturgy and Cosmology", 97–8 Emphasis my own.
For many years, women were not permitted to pray at all in sacrament meetings. This was reversed but shortly followed with an unofficial policy restricting women from giving the invocation, which wasn’t officially ended until 2010.
In 1956 the First Presidency wrote to the Presiding Bishopric that "our sisters may participate in offering prayers in the meetings of the auxiliary organization when desired, but we feel that the brethren holding the Priesthood should offer the prayers in sacrament meetings." The Presiding Bishopric then wrote to all local church leaders to "commend these instructions to all bishoprics and branch presidencies and suggest their careful observance." The instruction that only "brethren holding the Melchizedek or Aaronic Priesthood" were to pray in sacrament meetings was reiterated in the Correlation Committee's Priesthood Bulletin in 1967, in the first General Handbook for church leaders produced by the same committee in 1968, and in Ensign magazine for the entire church in 1975. [...] On September 29, 1978, Church President Spencer Kimball stood up in front of a gathering of regional church leaders. Before beginning his address, he made several announcements. As the first announcement, Kimball declared that "the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve had determined that there is no scriptural prohibition against sisters offering prayers in sacrament meetings." He stated that women were authorized to pray in all church meetings, including sacrament meetings and stake conferences and during visiting teaching, a change noted in church and Utah news outlets. This policy remained in place until the early 1990s, when, before his death, Church President Ezra Taft Benson apparently made a comment that led several members of the Quorum of the Twelve to believe that only male priesthood officers should offer the opening prayer in sacrament meetings. These apostles then orally instructed local and regional leaders that women were not to offer invocations for sacrament meetings. This policy was never codified in the church handbooks, but regional leaders encouraged local leaders to maintain the exclusion, both orally and by written letter, resulting in uneven application of the policy, at least in the United States. In 2010, the General Handbook was edited to include the instruction that "men and women may offer both opening and closing prayers in Church meetings." Jonathan A. Stapley, "The Power of Godliness: Mormon Liturgy and Cosmology", 99–100 Emphasis my own.
In this same book, Jonathan Stapley mentions that “the temple prayer circle is also another ritual as part of which Mormon women have in the past led prayers but currently are not authorized to do so” (p. 163, n. 83).
The Fight Against the ERA and Soft-Egalitarianism
Concurrent with the efforts of the Priesthood Correlation Program to diminish the autonomy of the Relief Society and other church auxiliaries, the male LDS leadership continued to emphasize the importance of maintaining the patriarchal order, and of women and men performing their gender roles in “traditional” ways. The contours of this preaching took on increasingly fearful tones featuring dire warnings of the degeneration of society if men were not the providers and heads of their families, with submissive wives devoted to homemaking duties as their companions. The Relief Society cooperated in this with “homemaking meetings” as a fixture among church activities for women. These would later be rebranded as “enrichment meetings” and later simply as “Relief Society meetings.”
In 1970, Correlation shut down the fifty-year-old Relief Society Magazine, and with it any independent venue for women and women's leadership to write and publish according to their own editorial priorities. [President Harold B.] Lee's stance on gender issues defined the church's message. In 1972, he published an article in the new church magazine the Ensign titled "Maintain Your Place as a Woman." Lee taught, "To be what God intended you to be as a woman depends on the way you think, believe, live, dress, and conduct yourselves as true examples of Latter-day Saint womanhood, examples of that for which you were created and made." Womanhood was vulnerable to dissolution if not practiced. Among these practices, encouraged by Lee, were starting families without delay and having as many children as women were able. Lee warned of divine retribution for those who did not comply and blessings for those who did. If a married woman must work outside the home, she "should not neglect the cares and duties in the home." He reprised the teachings about the patriarchal order of the family, explaining that "the wife is to obey the law of her husband only as he obeys the laws of God . . . The good wife commandeth her husband in any equal matter by constantly obeying him." Lee admonished that spousal submission and clear roles maintained boundaries between men and women. He believed that any weakening of these boundaries, even in seemingly trivial matters, might incur greater occurrences of lesbianism. "For a woman to adopt the mode of a man's dress," Lee warned, "is to encourage the wave of sexual perversion, when men adopt women's tendencies and women become mannish in their desires." [...] Another apostle explained that women's liberation and the sexual revolution are "Satan's way of destroying women, the home, and the family." Working women not only were unfaithful and disobedient and at risk of lesbianism but also advanced satanic purposes. Taylor G. Petrey, "Tabernacles of Clay: Sexuality and Gender in Modern Mormonism", 109–110
The 1970s also saw the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) by both the House of Representatives (1971) and Senate (1972) with enthusiastic bipartisan support and Richard Nixon’s endorsement. However, as it was passed to the states for ratification opposition was rallied primarily among conservative Evangelical Christians. The LDS leadership followed suit and organized its own opposition to the ERA. The coalitions formed between conservative religious groups in opposition to the ERA, as well as the 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, is largely what gave rise to the power of the “religious right.”
Arguably, opposition to the ERA is also where the LDS church first flexed its muscles, as a part of the assimilated American mainstream, in terms of organizing activism among its members to further its political interests. However, in its opposition to the ERA and with the change in social currents brought on by the women’s liberation movement, the LDS church began to soften its teachings regarding the acceptable roles of men and women in society. From the 1970s onward, LDS leaders deemphasized earlier teachings on the submission of wives and the Patriarchal Order, and increasingly adopted the language of a “soft egalitarianism” rooted in the “different but equal” ideas of gender complementarianism. This also paralleled general trends among conservative Evangelicals.
It is easy to see how the patriarchal teachings of so many LDS leaders led them to oppose social and legal changes that would grant women and sexual minorities more autonomy and legal protections. What is less easy to see is how their opposition to the ERA refined and transformed Mormon patriarchy. Paradoxically, some church leaders began to adopt a more egalitarian doctrine of marriage just as the church was opposing the Equal Rights Amendment. Their support for patriarchy had always qualified it as a benevolent institution, but increasingly this benevolence was giving way to egalitarianism as its ultimate expression. [...] Sometimes, this new egalitarian rhetoric was deployed strategically to oppose equal rights. Recalling the defense of racial segregation, church leaders emphasized the importance of divinely established gender roles but also insisted on equality in that difference. The First Presidency issued a statement at the end of 1976 opposing the ERA, arguing that the amendment threatened the traditional family and that it would thwart sexual difference. Men and women were "equally important before the Lord, but with differences biologically, emotionally, and in other ways." The claim that men and women were equally important to God and biologically different was really a non sequitur in terms of the legal questions. But it capitalized on the strategy of nullifying the need for the ERA by invoking a "separate but equal" doctrine. Taylor G. Petrey, "Tabernacles of Clay: Sexuality and Gender in Modern Mormonism", 119–120
Importantly, the Relief Society was at the forefront in these developments. It served as both the vehicle through which opposition to the ERA was primarily organized while also promoting the rhetoric of soft-egalitarianism.
In a 1976 interview for the Ensign, Barbara B. Smith began to put forward a more egalitarian notion of marriage: "All that the Brethren have taught me says that we have a companion relationship—not inferior or subordinate, but companion, side-by-side." She did admit that the "priesthood presides" but suggested that the cooperative relationship did not require women's submission. The message was full of contradictions. Her appeal to male authority to support her teachings and her claim that men presided in the relationship undermined her assertion that women were not subordinate to their husbands. Still, statements like this charted new doctrinal ground for soft egalitarianism in Mormon homes—companionate patriarchy. Taylor G. Petrey, "Tabernacles of Clay: Sexuality and Gender in Modern Mormonism", 120
Patriarchal Growing Pains
While some LDS leaders were softening their language on gender roles, others doubled down on the defense of the Patriarchal Order. Thus Latter-day Saints of the 1970s, 80s, and early 90s were often confronted with conflicting messages, especially regarding the proper place for women. Conservative holdouts like Boyd K. Packer and Ezra Taft Benson continued to preach sermons rich with fear rhetoric warning against the perils of disrupting the patriarchal order of the home and workplace.
Not all LDS church leaders were accepting of soft egalitarian possibilities within marriage. The idea introduced a lasting struggle between patriarchal and egalitarian impulses among the highest-ranking church leaders. [...] In 1977, apostle Boyd K. Packer travelled to Pocatello, Idaho, to a gathering of various opponents of the ERA. In his remarks, he warned, "The more strident supporters [of the ERA] will view it, no doubt, as symbolic support for antifamily and unisex values." These arguments were based on a rhetorical production of the masculine woman or feminine male to conjure a backwards "unisex" world. He emphasized difference in the character of what makes a man and a woman: "These differences make women, in basic needs, literally opposite from men. A man, for instance, needs to feel protective, and yes, dominant, if you will, in leading his family. A women needs to feel protected, in the bearing of children, and in the nurturing of them." [...] He explained, "I am for protecting the rights of a woman to be a woman, a feminine, female woman; a wife and a mother. I am for protecting the rights of a man to be a man, a masculine, male man; a husband and a father. . . . I am for recognizing the inherent God-given differences between men and women." The ERA, he insisted, was not an extension of rights but an attack on the rights to be a man or a woman. Taylor G. Petrey, "Tabernacles of Clay: Sexuality and Gender in Modern Mormonism", 122
Surprising to absolutely no one, Ezra Taft Benson was particularly outspoken on this subject. His fear-based opposition to the Civil Rights movement was translated into opposition of the women’s rights movement and the ERA. In his John Birch Society-informed worldview, feminism was just another tool in the satanic communist plot to weaken the nation by attacking the patriarchal order of the nuclear family. According to Benson, woman’s place was in the home, and her role was to serve her husband.
[Ezra Taft Benson] transformed his earlier opposition to civil rights into antifeminism (he never spoke about race publicly again after 1971). [...] Gender replaced his focus on race, but the segregationist impulse to maintain purity animated both concerns. Benson's teachings in a 1979 BYU address captured the idea of segregated roles: "It is divinely ordained what a woman should do, but a man must seek out his work. The divine work of women involves companionship, homemaking, and motherhood. . . . Brethren, it is your role to be the leader in the home. While the wife may be considered the heart of the home, you are the head. You are the provider, and it takes the edge off your manliness when you have the mother of your children also be a provider." For Benson, masculinity was explicitly tied to male headship in the home, not only as decision maker but as economic provider. To have a wife who worked outside the home would indicate that a husband was unmanly. [...] In 1981, still in the context of the anti-ERA campaign, Benson warned in his address "The Honored Place of Woman" that "beguiling voices in the world cry out for 'alternative life-styles' for women. They maintain that some women are better suited for careers than for marriage and motherhood. . . . They also say it is wise to limit your family so you can have more time for personal goals and self-fulfillment." He warned women not to pursue education and work outside the home "for an unforeseen eventuality." He read from women's letters to him saying how much they enjoyed being a housewife—and he cautioned against the "experts" that told a different story. He encouraged mothers to hold regular Family Home Evenings "under your husband's direction." This language of hierarchy described a wife as subordinate partner: "Support, encourage, and strengthen your husband in his responsibility as patriarch in the home. You are partners with him. A woman's role in a man's life is to lift him, to help him, uphold lofty standards, and to prepare through righteous living to be his queen for all eternity." Women had a place—to serve their husbands—but Benson branded it a place of honor. Taylor G. Petrey, "Tabernacles of Clay: Sexuality and Gender in Modern Mormonism", 122-123
In 1985, Ezra Taft Benson became the President of the Church. Wearing the mantle of prophetic authority, Benson continued to preach on the sanctity of the Patriarchal Order by specifically admonishing working women to return to the home and see to their domestic duties. In back-to-back general conferences, Benson exhorted men and women to perform their divinely-appointed gender roles by relegating women to the duties of homemaking and men to providing for and presiding over their families as a benevolent patriarch.
In his controversial 1987 address "To the Mothers in Zion," Benson taught, "God established that fathers are to preside in the home. . . . But a mother's role is also God-ordained. Mothers are to conceive, to nourish, to love, and to train. So declare the revelations." This divine division of roles—with father presiding and providing and mothers nurturing and nourishing—admonished women to have many children and not work outside the home except in cases of serious necessity. [...] Pleading with women to "come home" from work, Benson outlined the specific role and duties of women, including "cooking meals, washing dishes, [and] making beds for one's precious husband and children." Women's spiritual contributions were defined in terms of housekeeping. [...] In a companion talk a new months later, Benson delivered the address "To the Fathers in Israel." Just as femininity required economic dependence, masculinity required providing for wife and children. "An able-bodied husband," Benson explained, "is expected to be the breadwinner." [...] He advised husbands to love their wives and show them kindness: "Help with the dishes, change the diapers, get up with a crying child in the night, and leave the television or newspaper to help with dinner." [...] He explained, "Mothers play an important role as the heart of the home, but this in no way lessens the equally important role fathers should play, as head of the home, in nurturing, training, and loving their children. . . . You must help create a home where the Spirit of the Lord can abide. Your place is to give direction to all family life." While the mother's nature was limited to the home, the father actually held significant domestic responsibilities as well. There were not two independent spheres; the husband also presided over the wife's domestic domain. Taylor G. Petrey, "Tabernacles of Clay: Sexuality and Gender in Modern Mormonism", 135-136
“The more things change, the more they stay the same.”
After Gordon B. Hinckley succeeded Benson, the church increasingly adopted complementarianism and soft-egalitarianism in its teachings on the roles of men and women. However, men are still taught that they preside in their homes, with their wives functioning as a partner or counselor. This is particularly true regarding the spiritual direction of the home. Women are not encouraged to forgo careers and remain homemakers with the same emphatic energy. Men are still expected to oversee the spiritual direction of their home as a priesthood responsibility, with assistance from their wives.
In a 2004 General Conference address, apostle L. Tom Perry (d. 2015) reiterated, "The father is the head of the family." For Perry, patriarchal leadership consisted of leading worship in the home, blessing and performing ordinances, teaching the family, and providing financially. Perry approvingly quoted the patriarchal teachings from Benson's "To the Mothers in Zion" talk and cited LDS president Joseph F. Smith's 1902 instructions on the patriarchal family, "The Rights of Fatherhood." From that document, Perry reiterated, "The patriarchal order is of divine origin and will continue throughout time and eternity"; "no other authority is paramount" to that of the father in the home. The husband's role was as "leader" and the wife's as "companion." At the same time, Perry undercut this argument with an egalitarian view: "There is not a president or vice president in a family. The couple works together for the good of the family." Perry's talk did little to work out the contradiction, letting both statements stand. The incoherence of the soft egalitarian and patriarchal governmentality had become the official rhetorical position. Taylor G. Petrey, "Tabernacles of Clay: Sexuality and Gender in Modern Mormonism", 142
The ecclesiastical structure of the church still confines women to leadership positions only over children or other women. The general officers of these female led “auxiliary” organizations are recruited into producing articles and videos rooted in complementarian apologetics supporting patriarchal structures. The church makes incremental progress, while simultaneously continuing to preach complementarianism and peddle patriarchy apologia organized through the priesthood correlation program.
Responding to Ordain Women
Also featured in the “Additional Resources” suggested by the Come, Follow Me manuals are a couple of talks given by M. Russell Ballard in 2013. The timing of these talks is notable because it coincided with the emergence of Ordain Women, which was formally founded in March 2013. These talks were given in the April 2013 General Conference and at an August 2013 BYU Devotional. The latter was subsequently published in the September 2014 issue of Ensign magazine—just a few months after the excommunication of Ordain Women founder, Kate Kelly. Thus, Ballard’s talks should be seen as a response to developments within Mormonism surrounding the heightened attention that Ordain Women and others had brought to the leadership roles of women in the church.
Ordain Women’s mission is pretty self-explanatory: “Ordain Women believes women must be ordained in order for our faith to reflect the equity and expansiveness of [its] teachings. Ballard’s talks were written to specifically address why LDS policy bars women from ordination. The answer? The divine design of the Patriarchal Order, defended through gender complementarianism. Immediately below are the two quotes from Ballard’s talks that can be found through the Come, Follow Me materials.
Women Participate in the Work of the Priesthood President M. Russell Ballard taught: “In our Heavenly Father’s great priesthood-endowed plan, men have the unique responsibility to administer the priesthood, but they are not the priesthood. Men and women have different but equally valued roles. Just as a woman cannot conceive a child without a man, so a man cannot fully exercise the power of the priesthood to establish an eternal family without a woman. In other words, in the eternal perspective, both the procreative power and the priesthood power are shared by husband and wife” (“This Is My Work and My Glory,” Apr. 2013 general conference). Gospel Topics, “Priesthood,” accessed 29 July 2021, emphasis my own.
President M. Russell Ballard taught: “All who have made sacred covenants with the Lord and who honor those covenants are eligible to receive personal revelation, to be blessed by the ministering of angels, to commune with God, to receive the fulness of the gospel, and, ultimately, to become heirs alongside Jesus Christ of all our Father has” (“Men and Women and Priesthood Power,” Ensign, Sept. 2014, 32). Come, Follow Me — Sunday School Manual, 1 August 2021
The first except perfectly highlights the “separate but equal” rhetoric that the church employs to justify discriminatory policies against women in its ecclesiastical structures. It also provides a quintessential example of the sort of false equivalences that complementarian apologists employ in justifying patriarchy. However, I want to focus primarily on the second talk, because what the Come, Follow Me manuals present is a version that was edited and stripped of its original context for the Ensign. The full talk is much more informative than this brief quote that blithely suggests that all are equally blessed by the priesthood.
The original talk was given at a BYU Devotional in August 2013, entitled “Let Us Think Straight.” As we will see, that title is a jab demeaning the sanity of the women who were agitating for ordination at the time. That this talk was in response to such concerns is evidence from the talk itself:
There are those who question the place of women in God’s plan and in the Church. I’ve been interviewed enough by national and international media to tell you that most journalists with whom I have dealt have had preconceived notions about this topic. Through the years many have asked questions implying that women are second-class citizens in the Church. Brothers and sisters, nothing could be further from the truth. Elder M. Russell Ballard, “Let Us Think Straight,” BYU Devotional, 20 August 2013 Partially reprinted as "Men and Women and Priesthood Power" in Ensign, Sept. 2014, 32 Emphasis my own.
Ballard continues to address the question at the core of Ordain Women’s mission—why is ordination restricted to men? The answer: we don’t know why but God wants it that way. Who are we to question God? Do we think we are smarter than him? No, it was the Lord’s will—definitely not man’s—that women be directed by man’s leadership. You just have to have faith that this is the “greatest possible blessing” for men and women alike.
Why are men—and not women—ordained to priesthood offices? President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910–2008) explained that “it was the Lord,” not man, “who designated that men in His Church should hold the priesthood” and who endowed women with “capabilities to round out this great and marvelous organization, which is the Church and kingdom of God.” The Lord has not revealed why He has organized His Church as He has. This matter, like many others, comes down to our faith. Do we believe that this is the Lord’s Church? Do we believe that He has organized it according to His purposes and wisdom? Do we believe that His wisdom far exceeds ours? Do we believe that He has organized His Church in a manner that would be the greatest possible blessing to all of His children, both His sons and His daughters? Elder M. Russell Ballard, “Let Us Think Straight,” BYU Devotional, 20 August 2013 Partially reprinted as "Men and Women and Priesthood Power" in Ensign, Sept. 2014, 32 Emphasis my own.
Ballard continues by testifying that the policy of a male-exclusive priesthood is God’s will. He affirms that “women are integral to the governance and work of the Church through service as leaders in Relief Society, Young Women, and Primary.” That is, organizations for women and children. But they are also integral “in the home, where the most important teaching in the Church occurs.” He then acknowledges that “approximately half of all the teaching in the Church is done by sisters.” He acknowledges that “some men, including some priesthood leaders … do not include our sister leaders in full partnership” and “that some men oppress women,” and warns that “any priesthood leader who does not involve his sister leaders with full respect and inclusion is not honoring and magnifying the keys he has been given.” Yet from there, Ballard reiterates that in church councils, women are only to play a supporting role to male headship:
Now, sisters, while your input is significant and welcome in effective councils, you need to be careful not to assume a role that is not yours. The most successful ward and stake councils are those in which priesthood leaders trust their sister leaders and encourage them to contribute to the discussions and in which sister leaders fully respect and sustain the decisions of the council made under the direction of priesthood leaders who hold keys. Elder M. Russell Ballard, “Let Us Think Straight,” BYU Devotional, 20 August 2013 Partially reprinted as "Men and Women and Priesthood Power" in Ensign, Sept. 2014, 32 Emphasis my own.
Ballard then turns to “separate by equal” complementarianism. He accuses those who see gender inequities in church leadership as being confused and failing to think straight. He makes the false claim that women are endowed with natural gifts for child-rearing and nurturing that men do not possess in equal measure. He repeats his false equivalence from his April address between ecclesiastical authority and procreation without acknowledging that men participate in both, while women only in the latter. He invokes the patriarchal nuclear family as justification for the organization of church governance and warns against those who would “tamper with out Heavenly Father’s plan.”
Men and women are equal in God’s eyes and in the eyes of the Church, but equal does not mean the same. The responsibilities and divine gifts of men and women differ in their nature but not in their importance or influence. God does not regard either gender as better or more important than the other. President Hinckley declared to women that “our Eternal Father … never intended that you should be less than the crowning glory of His creations.” Some become confused and fail to think straight when comparing the assignments of men to those of women and the assignments of women to those of men. [...] Women come to earth with unique spiritual gifts and propensities. This is particularly true when it comes to children and families and the well-being and nurturing of others. Men and women have different gifts, different strengths, and different points of view and inclinations. That is one of the fundamental reasons we need each other. It takes a man and a woman to create a family, and it takes men and women to carry out the work of the Lord. A husband and wife righteously working together complete each other. Let us be careful that we do not attempt to tamper with our Heavenly Father’s plan and purposes in our lives. Elder M. Russell Ballard, “Let Us Think Straight,” BYU Devotional, 20 August 2013 Partially reprinted as "Men and Women and Priesthood Power" in Ensign, Sept. 2014, 32 Emphasis my own.
Ballard closes his address by contending that agitating for change is a waste of time and pointless exercise. He invokes the Lord’s headship of the church while telling members to get in line. He repeats his insinuation that those agitating for change are confused and have no regard for the things of God. Elsewhere in the talk, he petitioned “particularly the sisters throughout the Church” to “let their voice of faith and testimony be heard” and to not “stand by and watch the purposes of God be diminished and pushed aside.” In his closing, he again petitions the sisters to speak up, urging that “the Church needs your voices now more than ever.”
Do not spend time trying to overhaul or adjust God’s plan. We do not have time for that. It is a pointless exercise to try to determine how to organize the Lord’s Church differently. The Lord is at the head of this Church, and we all follow His direction. Both men and women need increased faith and testimony of the life and the Atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ and increased knowledge of His teachings and doctrine. We need clear minds so that the Holy Ghost can teach us what to do and what to say. We need to think straight in this world of confusion and disregard for the things of God. Sisters, your sphere of influence is a unique sphere—one that cannot be duplicated by men. No one can defend our Savior with any more persuasion or power than can you—the daughters of God who have such inner strength and conviction. The power of the voice of a converted woman is immeasurable, and the Church needs your voices now more than ever. Elder M. Russell Ballard, “Let Us Think Straight,” BYU Devotional, 20 August 2013 Partially reprinted as "Men and Women and Priesthood Power" in Ensign, Sept. 2014, 32 Emphasis my own.
The Whole Truth
As one final example of the deceptively incomplete manner in which the LDS church presents information to suit its immediate rhetorical purposes, I want to highlight one more quote from M. Russell Ballard’s talk. This quote comes shortly after the snippet included in the Come, Follow Me lesson for the Sunday School. However, the manual quotes from the 2014 Ensign article, which doesn’t include the following passage at all—it was edited out from the original 2013 address. In this passage, Ballard quotes James Talmage’s article in the October 1914 Young Woman’s Journal. Sorry, I know that’s a lot to track. In short, Elder Ballard quoted James Talmage in his 2013 address, which quote was edited out for publication in the 2014 Ensign, from which the Come, Follow Me manual draws an immediately proceeding passage in the service of defending the practice of male-exclusive ordination. We’re admittedly deep in the rabbit-hole on this one.
In Elder Ballard’s 2013 address, he leaves out several key phrases in his quotation of Talmage, which I believe alters the interpretation. Importantly, his listeners at the BYU Devotional would have no clue to their exclusion. In print, editorial exclusions are indicated by ellipses but no such clues are available to the audience of a spoken address. The passages he leaves out, I believe, were intentionally omitted because they were problematic to the case he was trying to make that excluding women from ordination is a just policy instituted by God, and reflective of the divinely-designed order of the cosmos.
The passage immediately below is what Ballard quoted from James Talmage, with the portions he omitted highlighted in red and marked with strikethrough. Read the passage once by skipping these portions; you can also listen to this segment here.
It is not given to woman to exercise the authority of the Priesthood independently; nevertheless,in the sacred endowments associated with the ordinances pertaining to the House of the Lord,woman shares with man the blessings of the Priesthood.When the frailties and imperfections of mortality are left behind,in the glorified state of the blessed hereafter, husband and wife will administer in their respective stations, seeing and understanding alike, and co-operating to the full in the government of their family kingdom.Then shall woman be recompensed in rich measure for all the injustice that womanhood has endured in mortality.Then shall woman reign by Divine right, a queen in the resplendent realm of her glorified state, even as exalted man shall stand, priest and king unto the Most High God. Mortal eye cannot see nor mind comprehend the beauty, glory, and majesty of a righteous woman made perfect in the celestial kingdom of God. Elder James E. Talmage, "The Eternity of Sex,” Young Woman’s Journal, October 1914, 602–3 Quoted in Elder M. Russell Ballard, “Let Us Think Straight,” BYU Devotional, 20 August 2013 Emphasized portions were left out by Elder Ballard in 2013. Entire passage was left out for publication in the 2014 Ensign.
Now read the passage again, except include the omitted passages. How do these passages change what is being said? How might their inclusion have been interpreted by an audience familiar with the arguments being made at the time by Ordain Women?
Here is what I see…
Female Authority and the Temple Endowment
The first omitted passage caveats the statement that “nevertheless . . . woman shares with man the blessings of the Priesthood” by signifying that this pertains explicitly to the temple endowment ritual. This is important for a few reasons. First, Ordain Women was agitating for the blanket ordination of women, not limited to administering the endowment ritual in limited capacity. For those unaware, women perform the washing and anointing portion of the endowment (termed the “initiatory”) for other women. The reasons for this in the modern incarnation of this ritual may not be obvious, but prior to 2005, participants in the initiatory were naked apart from a loosely-fitting white linen “shield” that was fully open at the sides. This allowed the officiator to touch various parts of the participant’s body as they washed and anointed each part as part of the ritual. In even older versions of this ritual, participants experienced this ritual entirely naked, without even the linen “shield.” Because of the intimate and sensitive nature of this ritual, only men administered it to men, and women to women. As such, this represents one of the only instances today in which women—without ordination—administer a priesthood ordinance. This provides context to Talmage’s statement.
Why would Ballard want to omit this part of the quote? My hypothesis is that he wanted to 1) make a stronger statement that women share in the blessings of the priesthood generally, not just in the temple, and 2) he didn’t want to invoke that fact the women are permitted to administer certain priesthood ordinances in the temple, even if in a limited capacity. These facts would undermine his arguments in responding to Ordain Women, who would be familiar with these facts and have referenced them in support of the ordination of women. Additionally, including a reference to women’s participation in administering the temple rites might also invoke memory of the fact the Mormon women administered other rituals presently associated with the priesthood—such as blessings of healing or comfort—and did so (at least according to Eliza R. Snow) by virtue of the authority of their temple endowment. Furthermore, a highly influential 1992 essay by D. Michael Quinn entitled, “Mormon Women Have Had the Priesthood Since 1843,” basically indicates the temple endowment ritual as the source for female priestly authority. Ballard would be familiar with all these things, as would many of those he was looking to rebut. Therefore, omitting the reference to temple endowment served his purposes of defending the prohibition against ordaining women.
Mortal Injustices and Female Authority in the Next Life
The other pair of omissions are even more illuminating. In his usage, Ballard quotes Talmage to connect the statement that “woman shares with man all the blessings of the Priesthood” to the notion that men and women will enjoy the same degree of glory and authority in the Celestial Kingdom. He omits references to “the frailties and imperfections of mortality” and—more importantly—that recompense shall be given “for all the injustice that womanhood has endured in mortality.” Indeed, given the context of Talmage’s original statement, he appears to be acknowledging that exclusion from priesthood ordination is among the injustices women endure in mortality. After all, he links the recompense woman will receive in the Celestial Kingdom with her receiving the privilege to “rule by Divine right” as a “queen.”
Ballard opted to omit these passages probably because he did not want to invoke the idea of women experiencing injustices in mortality in connection with the priesthood. After all, the crux of very arguments to which he was responding is that it is an injustice to exclude women from ordination and equal ecclesiastical authority to men in the church. It certainly would not serve the purposes of his argument to quote an earlier apostle’s acknowledgement of the injustice endured by women in the context of priesthood authority. The combination of Ballard’s editorial omissions, in my opinion, appear intentional and designed to present a narrative that women experience no injustice in the church but are already treated as equals—though differently equal—to men. Ballard’s omissions dishonestly presented the statements of an earlier apostle into saying something different from what he originally said.
This distorted quotation was presented in the context of Ballard’s own statement that “all men and all women have access to [God’s] power for help in their lives,” which continues into the snippet included in the Come, Follow Me materials. Here it is used to support a rhetorical narrative that while the blessings described in D&C § 84:31–42 have “special application for those who are ordained to a priesthood office,” many of the “blessings in these verses are available to all.” This is followed by an image of a group of mostly women receiving the sacrament from an ordained young man.
“Priesthood ordinances bless all of God’s children.”
While the editorial decisions regarding the 2014 Ensign publication and the Come, Follow Me materials are not necessarily the product of intentional obfuscation, the misquoting of Talmage by Elder Ballard in 2013 surely seems like one. This is ironic because in a 2017 fireside, this same Elder M. Russell Ballard said the following to a group of Young Single Adults:
We would have to say, as two Apostles who have covered the world and know the history of the Church and know the integrity of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve from the beginning, there has been no attempt on the part of the Church leaders to try to hide anything from anybody. ... Just trust us, wherever you are in the world, and you share this message with anyone else who raises the question about the Church not being transparent. We’re as transparent as we know how to be in telling the truth. We have to do that; that’s the Lord’s way. Elder M. Russell Ballard, YSA Face-to-Face Fireside, 19 November 2017
To Elder Ballard: is intentionally misquoting previous church leaders, in the service of your rhetorical agenda against women seeking equal treatment in the church, being “as transparent as we know how to be in telling the truth?” Is this really “the Lord’s way?”