In the last General Conference, Elder Oaks gave a talk about the priesthood. During the priesthood session. To a group of men. Since then, many members of the church have claimed that his talk holds the answers to why women can’t have the priesthood. Now, whether or not the talk actually answers that question is debatable, but that is not the purpose of this post.
During his talk Elder Oaks said: “…they are not free to alter the divinely decreed pattern that only men will hold offices in the priesthood…” in reference to the presiding authorities. There are a lot of interesting things in this sentence. Saying that the presiding authorities “are not free to alter” who can or can’t hold the priesthood goes along with what President Hinckley said when asked about women and the priesthood during an interview with ABC:
RB: Is it possible that the rules could change in the future as the rules are on Blacks ?
GBH: He could change them yes. If He were to change them that’s the only way it would happen.
RB: So you’d have to get a revelation?
GBH: Yes. But there’s no agitation for that. We don’t find it
Both Elder Oaks and President Hinckley are saying it would take a revelation to make this change, that they as men cannot change this on their desires.
Another phrase from Elder Oak’s talk that caused me some deliberation was “divinely decreed pattern.” When I first heard this phrase, I asked myself, “Where is this divine decree?” I was focusing on the adjectives of this sentence and not the noun – pattern. After recognizing this I had my big aha moment. I knew why women couldn’t have the priesthood!
First, tradition. As explained by Ally Isom, a representative of the LDS Church, during an interview with Doug Fabrizio, there is nothing written in our doctrine that says women can’t have the priesthood. Anywhere. So this “pattern” Elder Oaks describes is simply tradition. Because we have always had an all-male priesthood, women can’t have the priesthood. To question this “pattern” would be like questioning past leaders and traditions.
Second, status quo. The majority of Mormons “know” that the LDS Church is the one true church. They also think that the Church established is perfect. Many will testify that it is led by Jesus himself. “The Church is perfect, but the members are not.” So the status quo of the Church is often mixed with perfection. For someone to come along and show that improvements could be made can easily be seen as blasphemy. It almost gets the response, “How dare you – don’t you know this church is led by Christ himself?!” Sometimes we are quick to forget our Articles of Faith: “…we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.” And remember when Elder Uchtdorf said that the restoration is still occurring? (Are You Sleeping through the Restoration, General Conference, April 2014)
In order for change to happen, we as members and leaders must be self-critical – critical of our beliefs and traditions and history. This can be very difficult. And sometimes painful. In regards to the priesthood-temple ban the LDS Church said this: “Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent (INSERT TRADITION), Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done.” (Race and the Priesthood) So they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done. They did this not only through prayer but also through actively examining church history. It was a self-examination.
Another perfect example of self-examination is the Last Supper. Think back when Jesus told his apostles that one of them would betray him. What was their reaction? Did they say: “Who here is stirring the pot” or “Who here is asking uncomfortable questions”? No of course not! “The response was immediate self-examination. “Surely, not I?” they asked (Mark 14:19). They did not point fingers at each other but instead looked inside themselves.”(The Challenge of Honesty, Frances Lee Menlove, 137-138)
“As people of faith, we have a moral obligation to raise difficult questions.” (The Challenge of Honesty, Frances Lee Menlove, 137) I believe one of those difficult questions is why not? Why can’t women be ordained? May we own our struggle and overcome the stigma of tradition and the status quo. If you think Jesus came to reaffirm the status quo, then most likely you have made Him in your own image and put Him in a tiny box. Gracie Allen said, “Never place a period where God has placed a comma.” (The Challenge of Honesty, Frances Lee Menlove, 123)
Pablo
Born and raised in Northern California, Pablo received his education at Ricks College and BYU with a BA in Spanish, minor in PE Coaching. Pablo served his LDS mission during the years 94-96 in Rosario, Argentina. He now runs a skate shop and batting cages in Orem, UT. He's married and has 4 boys.
All posts by Pablo
I think that Oaks’ statement is really interesting too:
“The First Presidency and the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, who preside over the Church, are empowered to make many decisions affecting Church policies and procedures—matters such as the location of Church buildings and the ages for missionary service. But even though these presiding authorities hold and exercise all of the keys delegated to men in this dispensation, they are not free to alter the divinely decreed pattern that only men will hold offices in the priesthood.”
I think it’s interesting that the seemingly standard interpretation of his statement is that a revelation is required for women to receive Priesthood offices. This interpretation seems to be shared by conservative and liberal alike (at least from the sources I’ve seen). However, nowhere does he actually say that. In fact for his statement to mean that the change requires revelation, he must be saying that the Priesthood missionary age was NOT changed by revelation. An alternative interpretation is that Oaks is in fact saying that men-only Priesthood offices is an eternal God-given doctrine and in fact cannot be changed. Or in other words, a revelation giving women Priesthood offices could not happen. I don’t think his statement is clear at all. I wonder what Oaks thinks about people interpreting his statement to mean that a revelation could give women the Priesthood. He could have been a littler clearer in his talk.
Nice job, Dude.
I agree with this assessment.
L Thomas,
Have any apostles claimed that the missionary age change was revelation? I thought it was pretty clear that it was a policy and procedure change.
Are you claiming that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve do things without revelation? Or are you differentiating between everyday “inspiration” and greater “revelation?”
Of course they do things without revelation. Do you think it was revelation that changed the period of missionary service for men from 2 years to 1.5 years a while back and then revelation that not much later changed it back to 2 years? I mean no disrespect for our Church leaders in pointing this out. Fact is they are human and human beings can and do make mistakes as Elder Uchtdorf pointed out in his Saturday morning talk during the October 2013 general conference. His exact words are, “And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine. I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes.”
What does he mean by only men can hold ” offices in the priesthood.” Why didn’t he say only men can hold “the priesthood.” I know how attorneys think, they use words very precisely. There must have been a reason he worded it like he did.
Sher,
In the modern church there is no priesthood without priesthood office — they are intrinsically tied. This was not the case during the early days of the restoration. And it was (and is) still contested by ‘fundamentalist’ Mormon groups who still believe that priesthood exists apart from office in the priesthood. I don’t believe Elder Oaks is mincing words here but rather expressing the churches current (though debate able) understanding of priesthood.
In sacred spaces, women administer priesthood ordinances identical to those performed by those holding priesthood offices. What do they exercise if not the authority of God granted to those authorized to exercise it on his behalf, or, in other words the priesthood? Women exercise the same authority except without the office. So if they can exercise the authority, then why not hold the office?
By the way, I loved the Gracie Allen quote. Brilliant.
Thanks for that explanation, Heath. Could you tell me where you get that info from? Thanks!
Women have been holding the priesthood since the Old Testament. The tribe of Levi was charged with all the priestly duties. Daughters of a Levite were called ‘Bat’ Levites in those days. These women were born with the priesthood and had the same priestly duties that of their brothers regardless of marriage and gender roles did not apply. This means that ANY women born in the tribe of Levi were born priestesses and had the same responsibilities as men. Therefore since we believe in the pattern of the old testament before the second coming, we also believe in this same pattern and divine decree. Not all has been restored yet in the church so I would imagine the tribe of Levi, just like all of the other tribes will be gathered together to complete the restoration of all things. This would therefore conclude that God will make known to those women that are of this Levi tribe that they indeed have a priestly obligation to the church. Since they are born into priesthood, there is no need for the church leaders to ordain women. Anyone that holds the priesthood knows that when they meet someone that also holds the priesthood, can sensed and the spirit will testify of the priesthood presence. The Church leaders will know when they have met one of these women of the tribe of Levi. That will be the moment of revelation. Until than everything is in God’s time….
Jesus came as high priest not in the order of Aaron or by birth to the tribe of Levy. He came as high priest in the order Melchizedek, the high priest of the Most High God, the only one high priest who had this title prior to Jesus Christ.