Joseph Smith on Women and laying on of hands
Posted by Matt W. on April 25th, 2007As there has been much discussion in the bloggernacle about Women and the ordinances of the church, I thought it would be appropriate to post some excerpts of a sermon of Joseph Smith, given on the subject to the relief society in Nauvoo. It is hoped that this information will be a means of easing contention, and not an addition to it.
He said the reason of these remarks being made was, that some little things was circulating in the Society, that some persons were not going right in laying hands on the sick, &C. Said if he had common sympathies, would rejoice that the sick could be healed, that the time had not been before, that these things could be in their proper order–that the Church is not now organized in its proper order, and cannot be until the Temple is completed. President Smith continued the subject by adverting to the commission given to the ancient apostles “Go ye into all the world” &C. No matter who believeth; these signs such as healing the sick, casting out devils &C. should follow all that believe whether male or female. He asked the Society if they could not see by this sweeping stroke that wherein they are ordained, it is the privilege of those set apart to administer in that authority which is conferred on them–and if the sisters should have faith to heal the sick, let all hold their tongues, and let every thing roll on.…
Respecting the females laying on hands, he further remarked, there could be no devil in it if God gave his sanction by healing– that there could be no more sin in any female laying hands on the sick than in wetting the face with water It is no sin for any body to do it that has faith, or if the sick has faith to be healed by the administration. He reproved those that were disposed to find fault with the management of concerns–saying that if he undertook to lead the church he would lead it right–that he calculates to organize the church in proper order &C.…
The charitable Society–this is according to your natures–it is natural for females to have feelings of charity–you are now placed in a situation where you can act according to those sympathies which God has planted in your bosoms. If you live up to these principles how great and glorious–if you live up to your privilege the angels cannot be restrained from being your associates– Females, if they are pure and innocent can come into the presence of God, for what is more pleasing to God than innocence; you must be innocent or you cannot come up before God. If we would come before God let us be pure ourselves. The devil has great power–he will so transform things as to make one gape at those who are doing the will of God…
If any have a matter to reveal, let it be in your own tongue. Do not indulge too much in the gift of tongues, or the devil will take advantage of the innocent. You may speak in tongues for your own comfort but I lay this down for a rule that if any thing is taught by the gift of tongues, it is not to be received for doctrine. President S. then offered instruction respecting the propriety of females administering to the sick by the laying on of hands–said it was according to revelation
–Instructions delivered to the Relief Society on Thursday April 28, 1842, Relief Society Minutes. available in full online here.
So Matt, you are good at searching for things. I believe there have been instructions (I think it came from JFS) regarding women healing. If I am remembering right it goes something like:
They should not give a healing blessing if priesthood holders are available.
If they do they should not claim any authority, just give a blessing.
If they do they should not consecrate with oil.
I may be way off base with this, but I think there is a First Presidency message that addresses this. Happy hunting.
Comment # 1 left by Eric Nielson on April 25th, 2007
I think Stapely posted on this First Presidency message at Splendid Sun about a year ago.
Comment # 2 left by Eric Nielson on April 25th, 2007
Interesting quote, I hadn’t come across that before. I agree with Eric’s recollection, that in absence of Priesthood authority they can give a blessing and draw upon the powers of heaven themselves.
Comment # 3 left by Connor on April 25th, 2007
Here’s the link to Stapley’s fully expanded post at BCC
Comment # 4 left by Kristine on April 25th, 2007
Alas, it does appear that there is nothing new under the sun.
I could not find the comment at Spledid Sun, but this comment somewhat affirms what you are saying.
Comment # 5 left by Matt W. on April 25th, 2007
I need to note that that my BCC post is quite incomplete (I’ve had more than two years of collaborative research since that post). To answer Eric’s question, Women could indeed use oil and were encouraged to do so by Church leaders. The excerpt from Joseph Feilding is here; however, this excerpt has been abused in the literature and was definately not the final word.
Comment # 6 left by J. Stapley on April 25th, 2007
J., Will your MHA article be published? Will it address what the current “final word” is on this in the church?
MHA is soon right? You should see if you can podcast your lecture, or something. (Though that would sadly rob me of the footnotes I hope you will have in a written addition.)
Comment # 7 left by Matt W. on April 25th, 2007
Unfortunately, Matt, we will be able to over only a small portion of our material at MHA. We hope to have a manuscript out this summer though for the whole shebang.
Comment # 8 left by J. Stapley on April 25th, 2007
I’ll put it on my christmas list.
Comment # 9 left by Matt W. on April 25th, 2007
I think this is interesting to consider in this discussion as well:
The Prophet Joseph Smith told the early sisters that he had something better for them than a written constitution. Being organized under priesthood authority, they were to reject worldly concepts of power and seek the power that flows down from heaven for those functions and to those individuals who are using their time and talents in the Lord’s way.
In considering the Prophet’s instructions to the first Relief Society, we should remember that in those earliest days in Church history more revelation was to come. Thus, when he spoke to the sisters about the appropriateness of their laying on hands to bless one another, the Prophet cautioned “that the time had not been before that these things could be in their proper order—that the Church is not now organized in its proper order, and cannot be until the Temple is completed.” (Minutes, 28 Apr. 1842, p. 36.) During the century that followed, as temples became accessible to most members, “proper order” required that these and other sacred practices be confined within those temples.
(Dallin H. Oaks, “The Relief Society and the Church,” Ensign, May 1992, 34)
Comment # 10 left by Michelle on April 25th, 2007
Thanks Michelle, good pull.
Comment # 11 left by Matt W. on April 25th, 2007
Excellent clarification, Michelle. That changes the nature of the blessings given with the laying on of hands. Interesting.
Comment # 12 left by Connor on April 25th, 2007
Unfortunately, Michelle, if Elder Oaks’ comment is to be considered reflective of reality, then he can’t be talking about healing. Joseph and all authorities after him were emphatic that women could heal the sick by the laying on of hands and use of oil, especially when the temples were built.
Comment # 13 left by J. Stapley on April 25th, 2007
J., temples weren’t as widespread in the early 20th century, though. You also know that such practices are not formally supported now (and even in the first half of the 20th century began to be discourged and basically stopped, right?) so we ought to be careful about advocating things that our current leaders don’t. IMO.
Comment # 14 left by Michelle on April 25th, 2007
J. has a good point of course. I would love to sit down with Elder Oaks and ask for his clarification. Of course, I would need J. as my wing man, because I’m a bit of a neophyte to this material, and wouldn’t know enough to adequately frame the question.
Comment # 15 left by Matt W. on April 25th, 2007
Michelle, there were more temples in proximity to a greater percentage of the saints at the begining of the 20th century than there was for much of the latter part of the century. As to your question about when it officially stopped, it was not in the first half of the 20th century. As to your last statement, I don’t think anybody here as advocated anything that our current leaders haven’t. I at least haven’t.
Comment # 16 left by J. Stapley on April 25th, 2007
J., thanks for your response. I wasn’t saying you encourage it, but some people do, and I think we need to be careful.
I, too, would be interested in that hypothetical visit with Elder Oaks. And I, too, recognize that I am a “bit of a neophyte” regarding this material.
Comment # 17 left by Michelle on April 25th, 2007
Michelle, who encourages this, and where?
Comment # 18 left by Kristine on April 25th, 2007
Kristine, I’ve seen lots of people who advocate an increased role for women in ordinances such as in laying on hands. Try the comments at BCC, FMH, or Ex2… I’m sure you can find some examples.
Personally, I like J.’s approach of just letting the history speak for itself. It is much more couth.
Comment # 19 left by Matt W. on April 25th, 2007
I still think those who make such accusations should be the ones responsible for producing specific evidence. The kinds of broad-brush insinuations that get tossed about are unfair, and not fit for Saints. There’s a big difference between trying to imagine what it would be like if women were allowed to fully exercise their gifts, expressing a wish to experience such things, and “advocating” disobedience.
Stapley is, indeed, the model of couth. He doesn’t sling around unfounded accusations of his fellow saints, either.
Comment # 20 left by Kristine on April 25th, 2007
Kristine: You make a valid point of course. Of course, I honestly don’t care enough to back up any sort of accusation that there are people within the bloggernacle who advocate giving blessings of healing by women at this time. Which I think is the “acto fo disobedience” we are here referring to. In any case, I don’t think anyone is going to hell for wanting to heal someone.
Personally, I wish we could all be healers and healed, and I don’t mean with the laying on of hands.
Comment # 21 left by Matt W. on April 25th, 2007
Sorry for losing my temper–it bothers me a lot when different interpretations of history, different approaches to authority are cast as failures of faith or righteousness, things to “be careful” of. I’m not even sure Michelle was doing that; I just have a hair trigger there. Sorry, all.
As you were.
Comment # 22 left by Kristine on April 25th, 2007
Hmmm…leave for an evening and miss a fun little interchange about me, without me. Suffice it to say, Kristine, that there are things about this whole thing (not just this specific issue, BTW) that bother me, too, and I feel I should be able to have general concerns (which I do) without having to produce specific examples (which I won’t). We may have to just be patient with each other buttons along the way, eh?
Comment # 23 left by Michelle on April 26th, 2007
p.s. I do think you broad-brushed what I was saying just a bit, though. Maybe more than a bit.
Comment # 24 left by Michelle on April 26th, 2007
p.s.s. That said, I can see how my earlier comment might have been phrased more carefully, so I’m sorry for that. I will say, though, that you and I don’t share the same point of view on the value of discussing/focusing on history. Something I am considering writing about sometime.
Comment # 25 left by Michelle on April 26th, 2007
Personally, I like J.’s approach of just letting the history speak for itself.
The challenge is, Matt, that history doesn’t and can’t “speak for itself.” It’s only spoken through someone — affected by someone’s perspectives, frame of reference, biases, purposes, experiences, and a whole host of other factors. That means you can get different pictures of the same history, depending on who is giving history a voice, and what part/angle/details of the same historical events, etc. are being shared. And experience shows us that history’s voice sounds different to different people, depending on all the factors that affect their understanding and perception. History is not a clear-cut photograph; it is more like a coloring book page that can be colored in lots and lots of different ways, with different media, with different details emphasized depending on the color-er. Sometimes the whole picture isn’t colored; sometimes there is coloring outside the lines.
The outline might be the same for each artist, but the picture will necessarily vary by individual…sometimes widely.
Comment # 26 left by Michelle on April 26th, 2007
Michelle, In General I agree. What I meant was that typically J. just posts the quotes from the leadership at hand, and keeps his commentalia to an absolute minimum, and when he does comment, he couches his language in non-authoritative language like “I believe”, or “my opinion is”. J. is aware that there is such a thing as selection bias (A great example is to look at any given post on evolution. You have your “fors” and you “against” and ne’er the twain shall meet.) but personally, I believe he attempts to rise above that.
Comment # 27 left by Matt W. on April 26th, 2007
OK. My comment was about more than J., but yeah for J., if he is able to rise above selection bias.
Comment # 28 left by Michelle on April 26th, 2007
Michelle, it simply can’t work this way and I don’t know why you would want it to. How can we ever come to an understanding if we don’t know what we are arguing about? We can always throw baseless accusations around, but that isn’t helpful to anyone’s argument and it is hurtful to people who aren’t intended. I remember a few months back, when J wrote his post about angst, how some people saw themselves in the post for whom it wasn’t intended. They were caught in the rhetorical crossfire, as it were. You need to understand the potential for unintended consequences when you make these broad statements.
Matt, speaking as a permablogger at BCC and as someone who likes what you write, I was blindsided by your comment. What is it specifically that leads you to believe that anyone at BCC wants to encourage disobedience? That is a shameful accusation and I respectfully request an apology. There is nothing farther from our hearts than the implication of that comment.
Comment # 29 left by HP on April 26th, 2007
HP, I apologize if offense was given, I was referring to within the comments, not the content of the actual posts themselves. I have seen people who “advocate an increased role for women in ordinances such as in laying on hands.” in the *comments* at BCC.
I do not believe any of the “staff” at BCC are in anyway trying to encourage disobedience. (Except maybe Levi Peterson advertising the “coolness” of drinking Coffee…)
Further and for the record, while I respect the current general policy of the church, I do not know personally that “advocating giving blessings of healing by women” is in actuality an act of outright disobedience, so much as it is a general policy which contains within it a cultural escape clause (the Mary Fielding folk story).
Comment # 30 left by Matt W. on April 26th, 2007
Thank you for your apology, Matt.
Comment # 31 left by HP on April 26th, 2007
mea culpa ad nauseum
Comment # 32 left by Matt W. on April 26th, 2007
HP,
I am not sure it accomplishes much, though, to have specific examples flying around, either. I don’t want this to be about calling specific people on the carpet. But as Matt has said, comments have been made in various places that encourage things that I think are inappropriate, in an inappropriate way. But the reason I didn’t/don’t want to bring in specific comments is twofold: one, I don’t have the time or energy right now to do it and two, I don’t want this to turn into a personal attack war.
Please also note that I have said I am sorry if my generalizations hurt individuals. Please try to understand that I don’t want to do that. My heart should matter, too, no?
Comment # 33 left by Michelle on April 26th, 2007
Michelle, bringing in specific examples means we can have a focused, productive disagreement about people’s *ideas* and *words*, rather than general accusations about the darkness that lurks out there somewhere, in the hearts of people who might or might not think similarly to your current interlocutors. It’s perfectly possible to interrogate people’s specific statements respectfully; it’s impossible to respond productively to broad, general accusations. If it’s civil and productive discourse you want, then careful discussion of actual examples is what you need.
Comment # 34 left by Kristine on April 26th, 2007
The problem I have with your coloring book analogy, Michelle, is that for the most part the data is there to have solid pictures that are easily interpretable. Sure there is crappy history, but what exactly does that have to do with this discussion? Further, this whole tangent about apostates, is just mind boggling. Why did you bring it up in the first place if you didn’t want to discuss it? Obviously, as you later said, there was no danger of what you warn against here and you obviously don’t want to talk specifics, why did you do you bring it up at all? There is a chasmal difference between telling women to bless their children and reading the history, seeing that all the prophets up to President McKay blessed with their wives, and wishing that you could do the same.
Comment # 35 left by J. Stapley on April 26th, 2007
J., I said I was sorry. You are right, it was a general statement that shouldn’t have been made. What more do you want me to say? If it’s productive discussion that is the goal here, folks, it would be nice if you would let it go when I’ve apologized more than once.
I do want to discuss my concerns, but I will find a different time and place. Maybe. This wasn’t the place, and once again, I’m sorry.
Kristine, if you think the specifics are important, you really could find them. Since I shouldn’t have discussed my concerns here anyway, I don’t think it’s worth it to find them right now. I’m trying to back away a bit from what I said for the sake of this discussion, since it has been pointed out that it wasn’t really the place to bring up my concerns. I have heard what you have said in a general way about what you think helps generate productive discussion. Thanks for the feedback.
Comment # 36 left by Michelle on April 26th, 2007
seeing that all the prophets up to President McKay blessed with their wives This is an exciting commerical for your upcoming publication. Any idea who you will publish through?
Comment # 37 left by Matt W. on April 26th, 2007
And, J., you are really putting words in my mouth to say that “apostates” have been brought up in this discussion. There is no “tangent about apostates” going on here. I have seen people, in discussions where history is brought up, then extrapolate the history to encourage what is no longer encouraged. That is a concern of mine. That’s what I was saying. That is the connection to this post. Sorry that the generalization seemed out of place and inappropriate (I’m apologizing again. That’s four apologies now, if anyone is interested.
)
Comment # 38 left by Michelle on April 26th, 2007
J., I would be interested to understand a bit more about your focus on early history with regard to women, if you ever feel like sharing.
Comment # 39 left by Michelle on April 26th, 2007
“I have seen people, in discussions where history is brought up, then extrapolate the history to encourage what is no longer encouraged.”
I’d also be interested in knowing what you make of the history, Michelle–as you rightly point out, it does not interpret itself. What would you extrapolate from it? How do you reconcile this history with current practice, or do you not feel a need to?
Comment # 40 left by Kristine on April 26th, 2007
Kristine,
I’m mulling over a post that will probably get to that. If I don’t soon, I’ll answer you here. Fair enough?
Comment # 41 left by Michelle on April 26th, 2007
of course.
Comment # 42 left by Kristine on April 26th, 2007
This thread has become somewhat disappointing to me. I hope no one is offended, but as the initiater of this post, I feel somewhat responsible for it’s following. It’s not anyone who said anything or what was siad by anyone, it’s just a certain general feeling of frustration this has given me. As such, I am closing comments at this point.
Comment # 43 left by Matt W. on April 26th, 2007