Women And The Priesthood

[Yep]

Exactly what in a woman's physiology, or in the nature of her spirit, makes her incapable of leading a church congregation? Or requires her to wear dresses, high heels, and lipstick?

No modern feminist wants women to be the same as men. Your view of feminism is stuck in the 1920s, and you should do some reading on feminist theory. Feminism is about patriarchy: the "centering" of males and the masculine, and the "otherizing" of the female and the feminine. It is about "equality" only in the sense that neither male/masculine nor female/feminine should be the "center."

My opinion is that a "feminist" is someone promoting an ideal that promotes women in some form. I do not hold that it requires a specific form to be considered a feminist, regardless of any written treatise. While the form you claim may be the "doctrinal" position of the "modern feminist" to which you are referencing, idealists are much like those who adhere to a religion, and the personal beliefs and "sects" within the broad group of feminists vary in a similar manner. I believe that your statement is too defining for the "feminist" group as a whole, it appears to me like saying all Christians follow the Nicene Creed.

In my comment I was addressing feminism in the form that I am most accustomed to interacting with. I apologize for not stating clearly which type of feminist views I was speaking to.

As to "centering" and "otherizing", these require perception. My experience has taught me that the intent of feminism, even as you describe it, often results in a switching of the center and not a shift to a neutral center in the perception of the "feminist". I believe that simply having a position labeled "feminist" or "feminism" destroys the ability to remain neutrally centered by placing the focus on the feminine and various impacts on the feminine.

My comments were to a centered view, however I believe that there is an inherent "otherizing" in life that is unavoidable. I don't believe that "otherizing" is inherently a bad thing. I believe that various aspects of existence require the male to be center and other aspects require the female to be center. I believe it is innappropriate to not recognize these aspects. A lack of recognition for when a thing should be centered on the male or female could conceivably cause an undesirable result.

We have not been told the "why" of priesthood authority being held by men, but it has been given to men. We haven't been told why our focus on God the Father is, however it is. What of Heavenly Mother? What is her role? Until we know more about our Heavenly Mother, it seems that a position viewing the position of women and the priesthood is lacking a large amount of information by which an argument as to altering the current view could be held as viable.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Yep

[Garden Girl]

Initiatory, and endowment. In both no priesthood authority is sited and neither are done in the name of the godhead or close in the name of Christ. All other ordinances do at least one if not all three.

Hello Saints Alive...

Your statement that the ordinances of the Initiatory do not cite priesthood authority nor close in the name of Christ is not correct. As an ordinance worker for six years, I can assure you that you must consider all aspects of a particular ordinance, for instance the washing... and the annointing... reflect on the entirety of each ordinance from the beginning words to the ending.

I love the Initiatory and sometimes take an hour to do only initiatories so I can reflect on the blessings that were given to me when I went to the temple for the first time. Beautiful, eternal blessings...

GG

[rongo]

I am going to have to look for it....and my husband took back the Volume 1 of the CHI and it may be in there.

It is absolutely not in CHI 1 (or 2). Not only because I know it isn't there, but because women annointing and performing healing blessings is not a topic that is going to be mentioned anywhere in any manuals or handbooks in 2012-2013. People kind of know that Mary Fielding healed her oxen by the laying on of hands on the trek west, but again, you aren't going to find it mentioned in a "modern" handbook or manual.

It's a really interesting historical and doctrinal question, because women in the past have absolutely successfully performed efficacious healings by the laying on of hands. I have a well-written and bound history of the Morgan Utah Stake, and it records Eliza R. Snow laying hands on and healing scores of people during a cholera epidemic. It is a historical fact. And yet, while there is a cultural folk-belief that this was somehow prevalent and sanctioned back then, there is a clear tension between Church leaders and those who would claim Church sanction for it. The Brethren were clearly not comfortable with and did not sanction openly encouraging women to heal by laying on hands. Here are a few references I can think of:

"Some of you ladies that go abroad from house to house, blessing the sick, having your little circles of women come together, why are you troubling yourselves to bless and lay your hands on women, and prophesy on them if you do not believe the principle [i.e., following the prophet's counsel]? You make yourselves fools to say that that same power should not be on the man that has got the Priesthood, and with sisters that have not got any, only what they hold in connection with their husbands. We can tell what will come to pass; and one of you can talk in tongues and pour out your souls to God, and then one interpret; that is the course you take, and it is all right: go ahead, and God bless you and multiply blessings on you; but do not go round tattling about your husbands and talking against the Priesthood you are connected to. I do not say many of you do it; but you that do it are poor, miserable skunks." (Heber C. Kimball, August 23, 1857. Journal of Discourses 5:176-177)

The Brethren were clear that women hold the priesthood only in connection with and through their husbands, and they sought to clarify the sort of notions that many seem to advocate today:

I do not care so much about the women obeying as I do the men. I am not talking about them, but you, Elders of Israel, that have the Priesthood. Women have not a particle of Priesthood, only what they hold in connection with their husbands; neither have the men, except that which they hold in connection with those who hold the keys of the kingdom at head-quarters. Do not step out on one side and say you have Priesthood independent. You have not a particle in that way. (Heber C. Kimball, November 22, 1857. Journal of Discourses 6:67)

And then there are other things that are very praiseworthy institutions, one of which is the Female Relief Societies. Our Sisters are engaged with us in trying to do a good work. Shall we despise them in their labors? No. Who are they? Part of ourselves. Do they hold the priesthood? Yes, in connection with their husbands and they are one with their husbands, but the husband is the head. (John Taylor, November 30, 1879. Journal of Discourses 20:359

As I have researched the topic of women performing healings, I have never been able to find a clear reference that they did so invoking the authority of the priesthood. It seems that this was done "by the prayer of faith," and that even Eliza R. Snow and others did not see themselves as exercising priesthood authority. I would be very interested in references that correct this understanding and give me a fuller one, but I haven't been able to find any.

To those who dismiss JoD references, I would ask them to provide more recent ones. This is the sort of topic that isn't touched with a ten-foot pole in recent or modern manuals and handbooks. I would also love to be proven wrong on this as well.

[Cobalt-70]

I would say that the patriarchal order is the opposite of patriarchy. They are not the same thing at all, as I understand them. Patriarchy is an invention of the Adversary and/or the world. The patriarchal order was ordained by God.

I don't see how you can say that the "patriarchal order," as defined by Dr. Brent Barlow in 1973, is not pure and unadulterated patriarchy. The idea that "in the home the presiding authority is always vested in the father," and the idea that wives must submit themselves to their husbands and obey them? How is that not full-blown, 1950's-style American patriarchy?

Fortunately, Dr. Barlow was just making stuff up as a reaction against the "women's lib" movement of the early 1970s. Historically, the word "patriarchal order" has nothing to do with ensuring male presidency and female subordination in the home. It refers to what Joseph Smith taught about the office of patriarch. The Patriarchal order is a third branch of priesthood, according to Smith, in addition to the Melchizedek and Aaronic. Smith ordained his father to that order, and it was passed down from father to son until a few decades ago, when Eldred Smith was moved to emeritus status and no successor was appointed. Dr. Barlow was just adopting this biblical-sounding term so he could enshrine his anti-feminist essay with an appearance of scriptural authority.

[Cobalt-70]

Vigorous academic debate, placing pressure on the bretheren to change things to our tastes, polluting The Gospel with the philosophies of men, protesting elements of the church we do not personally care for. Those are just a few examples of how the church does NOT earn further revelation.

I think one of the greatest pollution of the Gospel with the "philosophies of men" has been the attempts to incorporate within the Gospel ideas derived from Greek phallocentrism, machoism, and post-WWII American patriarchy. Unless we get a revelation making it clear that God is, after all, a "respecter of persons," I don't see any reason to keep these anti-feminist philosophical legacies.

[Cobalt-70]

who say all ordinances are manifestation of priesthood?

The lds.org website, for one. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism for another: "The power to perform ordinances whose validity is recognized by God is inseparably connected with the divine authority conferred on mortal man, that is, the priesthood of God." (citing D&C 84:17, 20-21).

[Cobalt-70]

As to "centering" and "otherizing", these require perception. My experience has taught me that the intent of feminism, even as you describe it, often results in a switching of the center and not a shift to a neutral center in the perception of the "feminist". I believe that simply having a position labeled "feminist" or "feminism" destroys the ability to remain neutrally centered by placing the focus on the feminine and various impacts on the feminine.

To center on the feminine, and otherize the masculine, is just a tool to subvert the patriarchy. Only a very, very tiny fraction of radical feminists want to permanently center the feminine. What feminists are ultimately after is to unlink centerings with masculinity, so that they no longer go hand-in-hand, and so that gender is not a factor in the allocation of power.

My comments were to a centered view, however I believe that there is an inherent "otherizing" in life that is unavoidable. I don't believe that "otherizing" is inherently a bad thing. I believe that various aspects of existence require the male to be center and other aspects require the female to be center. I believe it is innappropriate to not recognize these aspects. A lack of recognition for when a thing should be centered on the male or female could conceivably cause an undesirable result.

Like what aspects? The ability to lead and manage other people? The ability to handle church finances (you know, counting and things)? The ability to be nurturing and submissive? For the later, Jesus would have been the biggest gender-bender of them all.

We have not been told the "why" of priesthood authority being held by men, but it has been given to men. We haven't been told why our focus on God the Father is, however it is. What of Heavenly Mother? What is her role? Until we know more about our Heavenly Mother, it seems that a position viewing the position of women and the priesthood is lacking a large amount of information by which an argument as to altering the current view could be held as viable.

We don't need to be "told" why only men are ordained to priesthood offices. We already know, and it is plain from history. It is because our Western culture has historically assigned men to the public domain, and women to the private domain. God didn't do this--it was the Greeks.

[Saints Alive]

The lds.org website, for one. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism for another: "The power to perform ordinances whose validity is recognized by God is inseparably connected with the divine authority conferred on mortal man, that is, the priesthood of God." (citing D&C 84:17, 20-21).

neither are gospel.

[Calm]

I also know that busy work isn't the way because it's become the idol of worship not the Lord.

Repeated for truth. I think this is one of the most difficult habits/obstacles that Saints have to overcome, especially when that busy work tends to be good in and of itself. Functioning on autopilot won't fly us into heaven.

Part of being faithful is working on one's spiritual awareness which means we have to be awake and listening at all times....well, expect when we are actually physically asleep, I don't think the Lord will scold us for shutting down our spiritual awareness at that time.

Edited December 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

It is absolutely not in CHI 1 (or 2). Not only because I know it isn't there, but because women annointing and performing healing blessings is not a topic that is going to be mentioned anywhere in any manuals or handbooks in 2012-2013.

Just to be clear, I am not talking about blessings that involve annointing...no, no, no, no....not what I mean. I am talking about simple blessings that everyone who lived can give, blessings of faith that may or may not involve placing one's hands on the individual, but is not an ordinance of any kind.

Annointing is appointed to solely priesthood blessings at this time, if I understand rightly. It may have been done differently in the past, but currently not so.

Edited December 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

poor, miserable skunks

[Heber C. Kimball]

And people complain about the harsh language that church leaders use today, lol.

[Calm]

We don't need to be "told" why only men are ordained to priesthood offices. We already know, and it is plain from history. It is because our Western culture has historically assigned men to the public domain, and women to the private domain. God didn't do this--it was the Greeks.

This assumes that God has nothing to do with priesthood ordination as it now stands, which is contrary to fact if one believes in the foundational claims of the modern Priesthood.

If JS and OC were ordained to the Aaronic Priesthood and the Melchisedek Priesthood was also restored through ordination, then God has some involvement in the current organization of the Priesthood. And if he has some involvment, then I think it is wisdom to seek his Will first before assuming that something solely done a certain way just because it is traditional or to assume changing the current procedures into something else does not need revelation to accomplish in accordance to God's Will on how he wants things to operate within his Church and Kingdom.

[Calm]

neither are gospel.

But the Doctrine and Covenants is, is it not?

D&C 84:17 Which priesthood continueth in the church of God in all generations, and is without beginning of days or end of years....

20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.

21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;

Edited December 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[Yep]

To center on the feminine, and otherize the masculine, is just a tool to subvert the patriarchy. Only a very, very tiny fraction of radical feminists want to permanently center the feminine. What feminists are ultimately after is to unlink centerings with masculinity, so that they no longer go hand-in-hand, and so that gender is not a factor in the allocation of power.

Ahh, so once the feminists get the feminine centered and the masculine otherized there will be a shift back to a neutral position. Yeah right. They may state such a goal, but what were those proverbs about power? There shouldn't be feminists. There should only be a position of humanist, a group working towards an equal perspective on the whole.

Like what aspects? The ability to lead and manage other people? The ability to handle church finances (you know, counting and things)? The ability to be nurturing and submissive? For the later, Jesus would have been the biggest gender-bender of them all.

I am sorry, but I respond poorly to attacks that are more personal than real. Are you stating that women can't count here? Are you stating that women cannot lead and manage other people? You appear to be well versed in the demeaning of women. Are you stating that these are the only abilities that women have that are of value and should be female centered? Provide a more inellectual response and less deprecating and maybe I will reply more thoughtfully.

We don't need to be "told" why only men are ordained to priesthood offices. We already know, and it is plain from history. It is because our Western culture has historically assigned men to the public domain, and women to the private domain. God didn't do this--it was the Greeks.

Quite honestly, I believe that men hold the priesthood because it is the power of God the Father, and He is male. In the eternities I am sure that the power of our Heavenly Mother will be available to the women, but for whatever reason we have little to no knowledge of her. I simply believe that the priesthood held now is the masculine side of the priesthood given by our Father in Heaven.

Women's main role is childbearing/rearing. I believe that the majority of a women's priesthood function deals with procreation. In the eternities: the creation of spirits and the raising of those spirits up to the gaining of a physical body. Temporally: the creation of physical bodies and the raising of them until they reach adulthood. I believe that procreation is severely devalued and disparaged by the feminist view particularly by their overvaluing of the masculine priesthood responsibilities.

[Maidservant]

I don't see how you can say that the "patriarchal order," as defined by Dr. Brent Barlow in 1973, is not pure and unadulterated patriarchy. The idea that "in the home the presiding authority is always vested in the father," and the idea that wives must submit themselves to their husbands and obey them? How is that not full-blown, 1950's-style American patriarchy?

Fortunately, Dr. Barlow was just making stuff up as a reaction against the "women's lib" movement of the early 1970s. Historically, the word "patriarchal order" has nothing to do with ensuring male presidency and female subordination in the home. It refers to what Joseph Smith taught about the office of patriarch. The Patriarchal order is a third branch of priesthood, according to Smith, in addition to the Melchizedek and Aaronic. Smith ordained his father to that order, and it was passed down from father to son until a few decades ago, when Eldred Smith was moved to emeritus status and no successor was appointed. Dr. Barlow was just adopting this biblical-sounding term so he could enshrine his anti-feminist essay with an appearance of scriptural authority.

Your answer REALLY confused me, so I went back to my post and I realized you were responding to Dr. Barlow, which link I did not read. I was only answering Cal's words.

I still didn't read the link, so I'm sure your summary is an accurate representation of Bro. Barlow's position, then absolutely, it IS patriarchy. I am sure patriarchy creeped into the patriarchal order, however, as soon as patriarchy gets into the patriarchal order it stops being the patriarchal order and is just plain old patriarchy.

"the word "patriarchal order" has nothing to do with ensuring male presidency and female subordination in the home" Bingo. It has nothing to do with a lot of things including this, yes.

So I apologize for the confusion in my communication and can state no-holds-barred that one of my most fundamental truths that I live by is that NO human being should EVER submit to another human being. EVER. -- except in a mutual submission of intimacy which most human beings cannot manage and which type of relationship takes time and many acts of trust in order to create and get to that sublime point.

Nor am I a fan of conceptions of the celestial kingdom that involve a man on a throne surrounded by several wives and a multitude of children of which he is the ruler (with the women's help OF COURSE). I find this image ludicrous and not feasible in any case and I think as members we have mainly gotten past this idea, so I don't think I'm so unique any more. What may make me more unique is that I do not even think that a man is or ought to be the head of the household at least as far as that means making final decisions and similar also unfeasible elements. I think that if two people can't make decisions together, then they have no business being married to each other in the first place. I do love the idea of men's leadership in the home, however leadership is not rulership, as I understand it. And of course, men's leadership does not negate the women's leadership in the home and true leadership from both can only serve to uphold each other as the best of who they are, rather than one up and one down.

But what I'm pretty much going to be doing in eternity is figuring out the best recipe for bbq pork, planting a butterfly garden, reading the entire "online-crossed out-on urim and thummim" library of ancient Alexandria. In between, ummm . . . . . . . with dear hubby. NOT a lot of ruling needed.

[rongo]

Just to be clear, I am not talking about blessings that involve annointing...no, no, no, no....not what I mean. I am talking about simple blessings that everyone who lived can give, blessings of faith that may or may not involve placing one's hands on the individual,

What is the difference between "blessings of faith that may . . . not involve placing one's hands on the individual" and simple prayer? Any mother or anybody can do that.

but is not an ordinance of any kind

If it is not an ordinance, then again, we're talking about simple prayer then. Once the laying on of hands is involved, we are talking about a de facto ordinance (physical, symbolic act).

Once again, I have yet to see any evidence that women who laid hands on in giving blessings in the past invoked the authority of the priesthood in doing so. I would be very interested to see such evidence. I would also love to see handbooks or manuals from any era openly encouraging the practice of laying on hands by women.

[Calm]

What is the difference between "blessings of faith that may . . . not involve placing one's hands on the individual" and simple prayer? Any mother or anybody can do that.

Placing a blessing on someone may be just the same as a prayer, I don't know.

If it is not an ordinance, then again, we're talking about simple prayer then. Once the laying on of hands is involved, we are talking about a de facto ordinance (physical, symbolic act).

So it would not be the same as a prayer then. But not a priesthood ordinance if the priesthood is not invoked.

[rongo]

So it would not be the same as a prayer then. But not a priesthood ordinance if the priesthood is not invoked.

I would say so, yes. That's what I have (unsuccessfully) tried to research to nail down for sure. What wording did the "healing women" use, and did they actually think themselves that they were exercising priesthood? I don't think they invoked the authority of the priesthood, and I think they would be the first to clarify that they were not using the priesthood in giving healing blessings.

As I've said, I would be very interested and excited to find any mention, guidance, counsel, etc. from any era outlining when/when not to, instructing women healing blessings to be "through faith," etc. I am confident that there is simply no counsel or guidance, period, from any era.

[Calm]

The only counsel I am sure of (well, as sure as I can be these days with my memory) is where Joseph Fielding Smith(? or someone close to him) states it is appropriate for a mother to lay her hands on her child alongside her husband's as he gives a blessing.

I have a vague sense that someone expanded on that where they said it was alright for a mother to give such a blessing if the father was not available to do so (lacking the annointing and invoking of the Priesthood)...and that is what I mean to look for probably after Christmas when I have uninterrupted time again.

[rongo]

We gave a name and a blessing to a 4 year-old girl once in sacrament meeting. We invited her non-member grandmother to let her sit on her lap in the chair, and we laid hands on her head. During the ordinance, I felt the grandmother (non-member father's mother) put her hands on top of the pile of hands on top of the girl's head. I just let it go, and we continued and finished that way, and when one of my counselors asked me about it afterwards, I asked him what there was we could have done. Slapped her hands away, or start the ordinance over and make a big scene?

It was an interesting pair of blessings, because it followed her grandfather (mother's father) blessing their newborn. He was Tongan, ancient, and could barely be understood. After addressing Heavenly Father, stating his priesthood, and giving the child a name, he proceeded to bless the child, flawlessly using the exact wording from the initiatory in the temple. I was struggling with at what point do I stop him, as he worked his way down through the progression, but then he stopped and gave the remainder of the blessing in a satisfactory manner. I told my counselor that I was touched that the ordinance meant enough to him for him to want to bless his grandson with the same blessings. The blessings of the initiatory ordinances are special to me, too.

[Calm]

We gave a name and a blessing to a 4 year-old girl once in sacrament meeting. We invited her non-member grandmother to let her sit on her lap in the chair, and we laid hands on her head. During the ordinance, I felt the grandmother (non-member father's mother) put her hands on top of the pile of hands on top of the girl's head. I just let it go, and we continued and finished that way, and when one of my counselors asked me about it afterwards, I asked him what there was we could have done. Slapped her hands away, or start the ordinance over and make a big scene?

It was an interesting pair of blessings, because it followed her grandfather (mother's father) blessing their newborn. He was Tongan, ancient, and could barely be understood. After addressing Heavenly Father, stating his priesthood, and giving the child a name, he proceeded to bless the child, flawlessly using the exact wording from the initiatory in the temple. I was struggling with at what point do I stop him, as he worked his way down through the progression, but then he stopped and gave the remainder of the blessing in a satisfactory manner. I told my counselor that I was touched that the ordinance meant enough to him for him to want to bless his grandson with the same blessings. The blessings of the initiatory ordinances are special to me, too.

Oh My....but rather special and touching as well. I can well imagine wanting every child and grandchild to have that blessing from the moment they open their mouths to breathe. That the grandmother wanted to add her own "amen" in that way is sweet as well and is one reason that I hope one day there will be something that women can participate in outside of the temple that gives that type of experience. (not insisting it be the Priesthood or parrot the Priesthood ordinances...I trust God has something planned for us that is unique to women and very, very satisfying).

[treeface]

What is the difference between "blessings of faith that may . . . not involve placing one's hands on the individual" and simple prayer?.... Once the laying on of hands is involved, we are talking about a de facto ordinance (physical, symbolic act).

There is another difference between a blessing and a prayer. In a prayer, you are petitioning God to take action. In a blessing, you are the one taking the action, even though you are doing so in the name of (as an apprentice of?) Jesus Christ. One might say that you're a lot more invested in giving a blessing than in giving a prayer; in other words, giving a blessing is sticking your neck out quite a bit further.

As I've said, I would be very interested and excited to find any mention, guidance, counsel, etc. from any era outlining when/when not to, instructing women healing blessings to be "through faith," etc. I am confident that there is simply no counsel or guidance, period, from any era.

I have read that there was a First Presidence message in the early 1900's that counselled the sisters to follow the pattern taught by Eliza R. Snow, but do not have access to the books that might have a record of such. I do not know whether the pattern was reiterated in the message or not. My recollection is that message was issued to correct the practice of women "sealing" the anointing (the second part of the blessing), when they were supposed to use the word "confirm" instead of "seal". But I'm going by an old grainy memory here, so don't take my word.

Here is what we have on the foundational instruction on the subject, found in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 224-225:

He [Joseph Smith] said the reason for these remarks being made was, that some little foolish things were circulating in the society, against some sisters not doing right in laying hands on the sick. Said that if the people had common sympathies they 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 fully organized, in its proper order, and cannot ee, until the Temple is completed, where places will be provided for the administration of the ordinances of the Priesthood.

"President Smith continued the subject. by quoting the commission given to the ancient Apostles in Mark, 16th chapter, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th verses: 'Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shalld be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name... they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.'

"No matter who believeth, this signs, such as healing the sick, casting out devils, etc., should follow all that believe, whether male or female. He asked the Society if they could not see by this sweeping promise, that wherein they are ordained, if it is the privilege of those set apart to administer in that authority, which is conferred on then; and if the sisters should have faith to heal the sick, let all hold their tongues, and let everything roll on....

"Respecting females administering to the sick, he further remarked, that there could be no evil in it..."

And from page 229: "President Smith then gave instructions respecting the propriety of females administering to the sick by the prayer of faith, the laying on of hands, or the anointing with oil... Who are better qualified to administer than our faithful and zealous sisters, whose hearts are full of faith, tenderness, sympathy and compassion. No one. Said he was never placed in similar circumstances before, and never had given the same instruction..." (emphasis mine)

Sadly, we do not have the details of what those instructions were.

What wording did the "healing women" use, and did they actually think themselves that they were exercising priesthood? I don't think they invoked the authority of the priesthood, and I think they would be the first to clarify that they were not using the priesthood in giving healing blessings.

I think we can infer from Joseph Smith's remarks above that it would be okay for the sisters to follow the pattern laid down in the book of Mark: "In my name... they shall lay hands on the sick". So instead of saying "by the authority of the Melchezidek Priesthood...", the sisters could (and imo still can) very legitimately say "as a disciple of Jesus Christ...".

Since Joseph Smith clearly made these remarks after some of the sisters had already initiated the practice of laying hands on the sick, I can't help but wonder who that cutting-edge sister was who first figured it out and had the guts to try it.

Edited December 22, 2012 by treeface

[Calm]

Since Joseph Smith clearly made these remarks after some of the sisters had already initiated the practice of laying hands on the sick, I can't help but wonder who that cutting-edge sister was who first figured it out and had the guts to try it.

Perhaps it was a practice that was brought from outside the faith when they converted.

[treeface]

Perhaps it was a practice that was brought from outside the faith when they converted.

I don't think so, but I could be wrong.

I have read that the Mormons were the first American religion to practice "faith healing". I believe that was one of their claims to fame - they were the only ones where the spiritiual gifts of the original Christians were alive and well. My understanding is that this changed in the late 1800s when the Christian Scientists and others also began to practice "faith healing". I believe this was one of the causes of the LDS Church moving away from the practice of women giving blessings, because the emphasis was shifted to the priesthood and what it could do, and by contrast none of these other religions have the priesthood. If women (non-priesthood-holders) continued to heal people, that undermined the claim of the Priesthood having exclusive god-given powers that weren't available to the rest of the world. This wasn't the only factor in the LDS Church moving away from women giving blessings, but it was one of them, again just my opinion.

Edited December 22, 2012 by treeface

[Calm]

I don't buy that, would really like to see some evidence of that. My understanding was that many of the new religions of the time were seeking for restoration of the gifts and LDS were neither the first or the last in that category.