Women, Priesthood and Levites.
Posted by harpingheather on April 4th, 2006
Priesthood and the Female Believer over at Correct Principles has anticipated me somewhat but I hope that I may still add something to the discussion.
I have grown up in the church and been raised by a mother with strong feminist leanings. I have heard and wondered about the various rationales for a male-only priesthood all my life. “Women are more spiritual than men.” “Women are naturally more community- and service-oriented and men need the practice that the priesthood gives them.” “It’s a division of labor: men have priesthood and women have babies.” My mother likes to say that priesthood is the booby-prize for not being able to bear children.
Sister Julie Beck’s words on Saturday struck a chord with me. I feel that all the rationalizing and complaining about patriarichal priesthood has either missed or not paid attention to a key point: not holding the priesthood does not mean being denied the blessings thereof. Nor does it mean being denied spiritual gifts. We all know the story of the woman who, having lost her husband and older son in the Haun’s Mill Massacre, blessed her younger son. Through their faith he not only lived but grew a kind of replacement for the hip that had been blown away. Eliza R. Snow and many of the early women of the church experience the gift of tongues on a regular basis. We have been told twice — in the New Testement and in the D&C — that prophecy is a gift that not only can we all have, we should be striving to have it.
Many of us in the church today have either lived through the Civil Rights movement and the ERA or grown up in the world those movements have shaped. The culture and zeitgeist we live within holds up “fairness” and “equality” as the highest virtues and we struggle to justify church policies on the priesthood not only to those outside the church but to ourselves as well. We are thankful for the 1978 Proclamation that opened the priesthood to blacks but uncomfortable with its earlier denial and the folk doctorines that were developed to explain it. The question of feminine priesthood is one that is continually chewed over with much pain and passion on both sides.
Fairness and equality are worthy goals and part and parcel of the pure love of Christ in my book, but how do we define them? Some say that denying homosexuals the right to marriage is unfair. Some insist that for men and women to be “truly equal” in our society they must have the exact same goals and opportunities, even in the face of significant differences of ability and temperment. There are points on both sides of these issues; in our human perspective it’s hard to know what’s right and needs to be fought for.
Those who feel denying the priesthood to blacks and women is wrong often bring up numbers. They talk about how much better and stronger the priesthood is now that it’s not denied to such-and-such a percentage of members and how much better and stronger it would be if it were offered to twice as many members. They are not of necessity wrong; however, I must point out that for a large chunk of history it was denied to pretty much everyone.
For roughly a millenium only the male members of the tribe of Levi could could tend the Tabernacle or the temple. Only the descendants of Aaron (who was himself a Levite) could be priests. The entire tribe had been claimed by God for His purpose (Num 3:12). The Scripture Guide has this to say:
The tribe of Levi: Jacob blessed Levi and his descendants (Gen. 49: 5-7). Descendants of Levi ministered in the sanctuaries of Israel (Num. 1: 47-54). Aaron was a Levite, and his descendants were priests (Ex. 6: 16-20; 28: 1-4; 29). The Levites assisted the priests, the sons of Aaron (Num. 3: 5-10; 1 Kgs. 8: 4). They sometimes acted as musicians (1 Chr. 15: 16; Neh. 11: 22); slaughtered sacrifices (2 Chr. 29: 34; Ezra 6: 20); and generally assisted in the temple (Neh. 11: 16). The Levites were dedicated to the service of the Lord to execute the ordinances for the children of Israel. The Levites were themselves offered on behalf of the children of Israel (Num. 8: 11-22); they thus became God’s peculiar property, given to him in place of the firstborn (Num. 8: 16). They were not consecrated but were cleansed for their office (Num. 8: 7-16). They had no land inheritance in Canaan (Num. 18: 23-24), but they received the tithe (Num. 18: 21), forty-eight cities (Num. 35: 6), and a right to receive the alms of the people at feast times (Deut. 12: 18-19; 14: 27-29).
We latter-day Christians tend to regard the idea of a hereditary priest caste with deep discomfort if not loathing but at one point it was part of God’s plan. What was his purpose in doing so? Only He can say. What was His purpose in keeping blacks from the priesthood for a time? Only He can say. What is His purpose in keeping women from the priesthood? Only He can say. His decisions are not always what we would call fair but they are needful.
In the meantime, I will note some things: God likes to do things in threes. There is evidence that some women were given priesthood early in LDS history. So… first the priesthood is restored and opened to non-Levites. Second, it is opened to all worthy males regardless of color. Third…? Well perhaps the gun was jumped a bit and we can take those early female ordinations as intimations of what the third and last part of this cycle will be.
Either way, I trust God. He loves me and wants me to be happy. Maybe that will include priesthood and maybe it won’t. In the end, how well I have served Him will matter more than how.
Harpingheather:
Great post and welcome.
I have long thought that the comparisons we sometimes make are often not very helpful. To say that men have the priesthood because they are inferior is just as bad as saying women don’t for the same reason IMO.
We are all asked to go throughdifferent challenges in life, and God is in charge of all of that.
I might also say that you are right about the blessings. One can’t lay his hands on his own head. Both male and female need to seek the priesthood from someone else to receive any blessing.
I might also say that the bulk of the good we can do in life and in the church has little or nothing to do with priesthood. The number of things I do in the church that requires priesthood are quite small.
Also great call on the gifts of the spirit. As far as I can see the priesthood is not a requirement for the gifts of the spirit. Interesting thought.
Again, nice post.
Comment # 1 left by Eric on April 4th, 2006
Heather:
What was his purpose in doing so? Only He can say. What was His purpose in keeping blacks from the priesthood for a time? Only He can say. What is His purpose in keeping women from the priesthood? Only He can say.
There are those who would claim that church leaders were acting under their own prejudices and racist tendencies during the time of the ban and that by extension, the lack of priestesses is simply a reflection of the last products of prior sexist generations.
Your thoughts on this perspective?
Comment # 2 left by Ryan on April 4th, 2006
There are those who would claim that church leaders were acting under their own prejudices and racist tendencies during the time of the ban and that by extension, the lack of priestesses is simply a reflection of the last products of prior sexist generations.
Your thoughts on this perspective?
My thought is this: you cannot take that position unless you also believe the church to be either apostate or a hoax. Prophets for over a hundred years have talked with God. I know at least one asked God about blacks and the priesthood repeatedly yet He didn’t open the priesthood to blacks until 1978. Our only shame in this matter is the spurious reasons we devised to explain why. Those were the products of our culture and not the Spirit.
It comes down to this: The prophets are guided by God. The decisions they make regarding the whole of the church are made at His direction. He has promised that He will not allow a prophet to lead us astray. When it is important to Him, He will correct the church or institute changes, as He did in 1978. Therefore, having women in the priesthood is either not important or it is not important right now.
I also point out that nowhere do the scriptures read and never have the prophets said that having the priesthood is necessary for salvation and exaltation. The blessings of the priesthood are. Baptism, the Laying on of Hands, the ordinance of the Sacrament, the Endowments and the Sealing Ceremony are all vitally important and from the beginning they have been available to everyone. God has said I need to be baptized to enter into His Kingdom. He has never said I need to have baptized another.
Someone, perhaps Samual Clemens once remarked that ours is an engineer’s religion. It is easy, with the Plan of Salvation, the Restored Gospel and the Prophet to get the impression that the church has the answers to everything. Our gospel does pile up, precept on precept into something that more completely answers humanity’s questions than anything else on Earth. This does not mean, however, that we don’t still have questions! Why was the priesthood only given to the Levites for so long? Is polygyny really the order of marriage in the Celestial Kingdom? God once was as we are now: who was His God? How far does the chain of worlds and Gods go?
For those and all other questions, especially the one of who gets the priesthood, we have this:
We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
Trust in Him. He will give us every needful thing.
Comment # 3 left by Proud Daughter of Eve on April 4th, 2006
I also point out that nowhere do the scriptures read and never have the prophets said that having the priesthood is necessary for salvation and exaltation.
I have always understood that it is a requirement for men. I believe this is based on D&C 84 .
I also understand that the washing and anointing ordiance of the temple is were the ordination for the dead takes place.
Are these things more-or-less right?
Comment # 4 left by Eric on April 4th, 2006
Harpingheather:
After thinking about this and doing a little reading, I think you are right. It does not appear to say explicitly that having the priesthood is a requirement for anything. It seems that this is an implied requirement for men because they must receive the Mel. priesthood in order to go to the temple.
Comment # 5 left by Eric on April 4th, 2006
It seems that this is an implied requirement for men because they must receive the Mel. priesthood in order to go to the temple.
The priesthood is a calling and when you are given a calling it is a requirement to fulfill it faithfully. So in that sense it is a requirement for men. However, as I’ve pointed out, it wasn’t always a calling that was extended to all men. Eleven tribes of Israel could not hold the priesthood and it does not appear to have done them any harm.
The first respondent at Correct Principles broke my heart. She seemed so bitter and hurt and seemed to really believe that the church doesn’t value her because she’s a woman. I have never, NEVER in all my life in the church (more than twenty-five years, btw), gotten that sense. I can’t help but feel that buying into the world’s definition of priesthood=power=value brings nothing but heartache and I encourage everyone, man and woman alike to root that equation from their hearts.
Comment # 6 left by Proud Daughter of Eve on April 4th, 2006
I, too, was saddened by her response. As a male, I can only speak from my perspective, of course. However, I have never felt that the church or the Lord valued anyone more than anyone else.
Ryan, I believe that it is sometimes difficult to seperate out the doctrine from the opinion, but that is part of the trial of this life, I think. I wrote about this in a couple of essays:
Teaching Sunday School and the Weakness of our Leaders
and The Weaknesses of our leaders and their Effect on the Doctrine.
As the author of the Correct Principles essay in question, I have to say, Harping Heather, I appreciate your point of view and enjoyed your post. It wasn’t planned, but I’m glad our essays compliment each other.
The two points I wish I had thought to include in my own essay: 1)the priesthood was denied to all but the Levites for a very long time.
And 2) God does things in threes.
Comment # 7 left by mathoni on April 5th, 2006
Is there any other evidence that “God does things in threes”?
An interesting thought, but I don’t know if it could be substantiated.
Comment # 8 left by Wade on April 5th, 2006
Mathoni: thank you for your comments. I’m glad you liked my essay as much as I liked yours.
Wade: I can’t think of any off the top of my head just now but I do know that God uses significant numbers. 3, 5, 7 and 12 seem to occur very often in the gospel. The number three seems especially significant to me because it holds such weight that just about every human society ever has declared it special in some way. The number nine was the holiest number of the Norse people because it was 3 cubed. The Celts and other pre-Christian tribes believed in a tripartite goddes– maiden, mother and crone.
Whether or not the priesthood is in part of a cycle of three or not isn’t really important anyway. It could be a cycle of five or twelve. Female priesthood could be part of that cycle or not. We believe that He will yet reveal meany things. There is still so much to learn. I’m confident that someday, even if the priesthood isn’t opened to women, we will at last know why. In the meantime, I’m female, I’m Mormon and it doesn’t matter to me. As I said, it matters more to me how well I serve God than in what capacity.
Comment # 9 left by Proud Daughter of Eve on April 5th, 2006
Three witnesses (Of which Elder Holland offers an incredibly moving thesis)
Presidencies of three
Three nephites
Some temple triples in the temple that you’ll have to think of yourself
The three gardens of the atonement (I forget who it was that made this point)
There’s more.
Not to say I agree with the idea, you just asked for some evidence of three’s.
Comment # 10 left by Ryan on April 5th, 2006
ahh yes, Good old McConkie. Love that guy.
As we read ponder and pray there will come to our minds a view of the three gardens of God. The Garden of Eden, the Garden of Gethsemane, and the Garden of the empty Tomb where Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene. In Eden we will see all things created in a paradisiacal state without death without procreation without probationary experiences. We will come to know that such a creation now unknown to man was the only way to provide for the fall. We will then see Adam and Eve the first man and woman step down from their immortal and paradisiacal glory to become the first mortal flesh on earth. Mortality including as it does procreation and death enter the world. And because of transgression a probationary state of trial and testing will begin. Then in Gethsemane we will see the Son of God ransom man from the temporal and spiritual death which came to us because of the fall. And finally before an empty tomb we will come to know that Christ our Lord has burst the bands of death and stands forever triumphant over the grave.
Comment # 11 left by Ryan on April 5th, 2006
Heather:
I actually agree. I think numbers are very significant. Indeed, I have suggested in this forum that there is something significant about the number 40, i.e. Moses in the mount for forty days; Children of Israel in wilderness for 40 years; Christ in wilderness for 40 days; Noah’s ark upon the water for 40 days and nights, and on and on.
So, in short, I think the number three is signficant. Ryan’s citations are good, and there are more. However, whether things are in cycles of three is what I was pressing you to discuss further. I would be interested to see this pattern elsewhere.
As for your post: I really enjoyed it. It’s very refreshing to hear this view expressed. I think it represents what I would call the silent majority in the Church. Thanks for bringing it to BoJ.
Comment # 12 left by Wade on April 5th, 2006
I shouldn’t have used the word “cycles” since that implies not so much a progression as a round.
Thanks to Ryan, I have an idea for something that God has accomplished with threes: the immortality and eternal life of man.
Step one: The Fall
Step Two: The Atonement
Step Three: The Resurrection
I can’t believe I didn’t think of it sooner. Thank you, Ryan.
Thank you all for your questions an input. It’s been a great experience. I just wish we’d gotten some women commenters too.
Comment # 13 left by Proud Daughter of Eve on April 5th, 2006
Thank you for your work to prepare this posting. In a left turn, I’d like to use your historical research to stage a few questions about racial restrictions that I’ve been chewing for a while.
I’m not a scholar on the priesthood’s history, but my understanding is that:
1. our earliest forebearers had it
2. eventually it was restricted to the House of Israel
3. the Levites then held it exclusively for at least a millenium
4. after Christ’s resurrection, it was available to non-Israelites, until lost (except for John the Beloved and 3 Nephites) in the Apostacy
5. it was restored in the 1829 (Aaronic) and -tba- (Melchizedek).
6. racial restrictions were dropped in 1978.
(this recounting ignores the Lost Tribes)
I’m not genetically of the House of Israel (check my blue eyes) so, as I understand it, the 149 years of #5 were the only time in the world’s history when my people could hold the priesthood but black people could not hold it. The recency of #5 skewed our perception so that we’ve acted as though we were more like the Israelites than like our black brothers but counting the years of restricted/not restricted tells a different story.
Now, my questions:
* is my understanding correct?
* why was it that blacks AND MY PEOPLE could not hold the priesthood for so much of the world’s history?
* how can any blue-eyed, or any other non-Israelite, person suppose to be somehow favored over a black or any other distinct type of person?
* do we remember that the Lamanites are part of the House of Israel?
I welcome your thoughts about this threadjack.
Comment # 14 left by manaen on April 5th, 2006
manaen:
I don’t know that what you said was all that much of a threadjack. I’m certainly no expert here, but from what I understand you are more-or-less correct.
Comment # 15 left by Eric on April 6th, 2006