Is There An Apologist Response To Quinn's Article About Women And The Priesthood

[rpn]

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=1171

 

Quinn argues in the above and another group of articles apparently done in and around 1993 that Joseph Smith conferred the priesthood on women when he started the Relief Society.    I haven't been able to locate any responses to his arguments.   Are there any?   Has anyone reviewed the cited quotes for context and accuracy?

[Duncan]

I can safely say that Joseph Smith did not confer the priesthood on Women in 1993

[juliann]

Quotes all seem accurate, and he is right, they obviously hold the priesthood in a way, but only in connection with their husbands. Quinn has a tendency to extrapolate/exaggerate sources. (see his Same-Sex Dynamics book or even his response to Hales). I believe this article was the straw that broke his membership's back.

Here are a few sources on both sides of the debate. People can draw their own conclusions on what exactly women "hold."

 

Give examples of what has been "extrapolated/exaggerated" in an article with 106 footnotes rather than dismissing it with a wave of the hand.  That is not a helpful critique....particularly when you then proceed to extrapolate sources devoid of any context of all.  And Quinn's response to Hales addressed legitimate problems. 

 

I found this quote quite timely:

 

By 1888 Mormon misogyny was linked with denials of women’s authority, and this resulted in a public comment by Apostle Franklin D. Richards. He said: “Every now and again we hear men speak tauntingly of the sisters and lightly of their public duties, instead of supporting and encouraging them.” Apostle Richards added: “There are also some who look with jealousy upon the moves of the sisters as though they might come to possess some of the gifts, and are afraid they [LDS women] will get away with some of the blessings of the gospel which only men ought to possess.” Because of this “envy and jealousy,” Apostle Richards said some Mormon men “don’t like to accord to them [Mormon women] anything that will raise them up and make their talents to shine forth as the daughters of Eve and Sarah.”⁸⁵

 

[iamse7en]

And my entire comment was deleted. I presume it was because of a few words from a ritual that is essentially the same exact thing that is recorded in Maria Turnbow's patriarchal blessing. I spent quite a bit of time on that; the least you could have done was just mod edit what you deemed was "objectionable" rather than throwing the entire baby out with the bathwater.

[foster]

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=1171

 

Quinn argues in the above and another group of articles apparently done in and around 1993 that Joseph Smith conferred the priesthood on women when he started the Relief Society.    I haven't been able to locate any responses to his arguments.   Are there any?   Has anyone reviewed the cited quotes for context and accuracy?

 

Does this help?

 

Respecting the females laying on hands, he further remark'd, 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 heal'd by the administration. ~ Joseph Smith 28 April ​1842 (Thursday Afternoon). Upper Room, Red Brick Store.

[rpn]

I just thought that someone might have written something in response to Quinn's women and the priesthood argument, which he has apparently been arguing based on history since around 1993.   I appreciate any suggestions made.

[LordUther]

You might find this an interesting read.

 

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/115-6-30-43.pdf

 

Women don't need the priesthood. They are co-creators with Heavenly father, this is their 'priest'hood. It is called motherhood. Doctrinally there is nothing stopping an LDS woman laying her hands on her sick child, it is only church policy that stops it. As a father I have to have the priesthood and be worthy, a mother just has to be a mother.

[foster]

I just thought that someone might have written something in response to Quinn's women and the priesthood argument, which he has apparently been arguing based on history since around 1993.   I appreciate any suggestions made.

What kind of response do you think there should be? Should the response be a total denial that of Quinns work? Should we endeavor to promote that woman never healed the sick, that Joseph Smith never taught woman could heal the sick? What were you hoping to find, what aspect of Quinn position were you hoping to dispute?

[Calm]

there is nothing stopping an LDS woman laying her hands on her sick child, it is only church policy that stops it. 

It is only church tradition.  Policy allows women to do so as long as they don't invoke the Priesthood.

[LordUther]

They did, but in 1946 Joseph Fielding Smith sent a letter to the then General Relief Society Pres stopping it. Now admittedly I'm 20 years out of sync here but my nan who joined the church in the 60's (in Calgary) was taught by her Relief Society then that they used to but don't any more. I was born in 74 and growing up in the church during the 80's & 90's all the old women in my ward knew about it as far as they were concerned if it was an emergency they could. I know my nan said she most definitely would if there was a car accident and my grandad was unconscious. As far as she taught me she could bless her husband because she shared his priesthood but could only bless women and children otherwise &, as I say, only in an emergency. 

 

She taught me that women had been given the gift of being able to create life, men had been given the gift of the priesthood to balance that out. And I have seen nothing to suggest otherwise. As has been noted women perform priesthood ordinances in the Temple, yet they are never ordained to a priesthood, why not? Because they don't need it, motherhood is their priesthood.

 

ETA: Sorry forgot to say from my chats with this Sisters in this ward, it doesn't seem to be as widely known, but my current ward is mostly converts. Sometimes decades ago they converted, but I don't think many of the older members were born in the church.

Edited September 15, 2013 by LordUther

[CV75]

I haven't been able to locate any responses to his arguments.   Are there any?   Has anyone reviewed the cited quotes for context and accuracy?

I do not know, but I think it is an error to say, “Currently for males this foreordination to authority is fulfilled in LDS priesthood office” since the rest of the paper clearly establishes that this foreordination is fulfilled for men in the exact same way as it is for women—through the highest orders of the priesthood given in the temple.

 

Likewise, I’m thinking the author would not have included the so –called “examples” of contradiction and paradoxes if he wasn’t conflating his own explanations of priesthood power, order, office, etc. as the terms were used in the earlier LDS Church. It appears as if he is as hung up on office, and not the spirit (power), of the priesthood as he is trying to establish others doing.

 

Another area in which the author seems to miss his own point is that no one can be sustained to an office or appendage of the priesthood without common consent, which cannot be achieved without members of both sexes participating fully in the sustaining actions. To me, this is a real expression of priesthood power vis-a-vis the sustained appendages. In addtition, all saints have this right to priesthood power whether they’ve been to the temple, or to what degree they've been there, or not!

 

Yet, the last paragraph as a statement of fact seems spot-on. He just seems to have imputed several inferior motives as to how we got here. So maybe that's why no one has much to say about it--who can really tell what someone's motives were?

Edited September 15, 2013 by CV75

[canard78]

You might find this an interesting read.

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/115-6-30-43.pdf

Women don't need the priesthood. They are co-creators with Heavenly father, this is their 'priest'hood. It is called motherhood. Doctrinally there is nothing stopping an LDS woman laying her hands on her sick child, it is only church policy that stops it. As a father I have to have the priesthood and be worthy, a mother just has to be a mother.

I always find this approach patronising to men and women. If motherhood is a woman's "priesthood" why isn't fatherhood a man's?

A man and woman are co-creators with God. Neither is the man without the woman and the woman without the man etc.

[Calm]

Not sure if this is post '46 or not, but it appears to be from the wiki:

 

The Lord has given us directions in matters of this kind; we are to call in the elders, and they are to anoint with oil on the head and bless by the laying on of hands. The Church teaches that a woman may lay on hands upon the head of a sick child and ask the Lord to bless it, in the case when those holding the priesthood cannot be present. 
A man might under such conditions invite his wife to lay on hands with him in blessing their sick child. This would be merely to exercise her faith and not be, cause of any inherent right to lay on hands. A woman would have no authority to anoint or seal a blessing, and where elders can be called in, that would be the proper way to have an administration performed. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fielding_Smith

 

OTOH, it is not current on lds.org so I may be wrong.

Edited September 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[LordUther]

I always find this approach patronising to men and women. If motherhood is a woman's "priesthood" why isn't fatherhood a man's?

A man and woman are co-creators with God. Neither is the man without the woman and the woman without the man etc.

 

I'm sorry you see it that why, to me it seemed the perfect partnership. She is given the blessing of creating that life within her and of naturing that new life within her body until it can sustain itself somewhat. She gives it physical life. By the power of my priesthood I baptise by water and give the gift of the Holy Ghost starting them on their spiritual life, which compliments the beautiful symmetry of Heavenly Father being the father of our spiritual bodies, and Christ being the father of our resurrected bodies. I feel it is a beautiful thing.

[Calm]

Also:

 In Sep- tember 1979, after Kimball’s first brain surgery for a subdural hema- toma, his son, Edward, recorded in his diary:

Dad had just been given some codeine for headache; he had not said much according to the nurse, but he had asked for a blessing. . . . Pres. Benson was taking a treatment at the Deseret Gym and could not come right away, so the security man had called Elders McConkie and Hanks; Mother was glad. Elder Hanks anointed Dad and Elder Mc- Conkie sealed the anointing as I joined them. At Elder McConkie’s sug- gestion Mother also placed her hands on Dad’s head. That was unusual; it seemed right to me, but I would not have felt free to suggest it on my own because of an ingrained sense that the ordinance is a priesthood ordinance (though I recalled Joseph Smith’s talking of mothers bless- ing their children). After the administration Mother wept almost un- controllably for some minutes, gradually calming down.254+

 

 

 

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1754069

Edited September 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[LordUther]

Not sure if this is post '46 or not, but it appears to be from the wiki:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fielding_Smith

 

OTOH, it is not current on lds.org so I may be wrong.

 

It seems to very much match the principles my nan & her peers seemed aware of. Tbh I didn't know about the 1946 letter till a couple of months ago. When I heard about it I just assumed my nan & her friends were being belligerent, in a "you may say I can't but you watch this space if my loved ones are lying injured in front of me" kind of way. :-)

[LordUther]

 

Also:

 

 

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1754069

 

 

I hadn't heard that one I like it thank you. :-)

[BCSpace]

By 1888 Mormon misogyny was linked with denials of women’s authority, and this resulted in a public comment by Apostle Franklin D. Richards. He said: “Every now and again we hear men speak tauntingly of the sisters and lightly of their public duties, instead of supporting and encouraging them.” Apostle Richards added: “There are also some who look with jealousy upon the moves of the sisters as though they might come to possess some of the gifts, and are afraid they [LDS women] will get away with some of the blessings of the gospel which only men ought to possess.” Because of this “envy and jealousy,” Apostle Richards said some Mormon men “don’t like to accord to them [Mormon women] anything that will raise them up and make their talents to shine forth as the daughters of Eve and Sarah.”⁸⁵

 

I'd be willing to bet that the number of LDS men actually speaking "tauntingly of the sisters and lightly of their public duties" at the time was an extreme minority.  Just as those speaking out about supposed abuses by LDS against homosexuals today are also an extreme minority; perhaps even to be counted on one or two hands in both cases.

 

I would also make a connection to this thread..

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/61776-what-is-causing-men-to-fall-behind-women/

 

...in that men overall are being whipped and beaten by feminist philosophy to the point where culturally, men no longer have an interest in their duties and responsibilities.

Edited September 15, 2013 by BCSpace

[Calm]

 

 

...in that men overall are being whipped and beaten by feminist philosophy to the point where culturally, men no longer have an interest in their duties and responsibilities.

If the men in general are allowing themselves to be so whipped and beaten these days, got to say I don't think much of their stamina about doing the responsible/mature thing after being all those centuries in the power seat.  Men are still physically more powerful than women on their own, still much more represented in the more powerful areas of the business sector (see previous links) and still highly overrepresented in government and I don't see any studies that show that men's intelligence has dropped...so just what is it in men that is making them so susceptible to criticism?

 

http://www.wcffoundation.org/pages/research/women-in-politics-statistics.html

Edited September 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[bluebell]

I always find this approach patronising to men and women. If motherhood is a woman's "priesthood" why isn't fatherhood a man's?

A man and woman are co-creators with God. Neither is the man without the woman and the woman without the man etc.

I am not suggesting that motherhood equals priesthood (I'm fairly neutral on that idea) but when people make that comparison, they are generally talking about women's ability to bear children.

In that way, motherhood does not equal fatherhood. A women is a co creator with God when she is pregnant in a way that a man can never be.

[bluebell]

If the men in general are allowing themselves to be so whipped and beaten these days, got to say I don't think much of their stamina about doing the responsible/mature thing after being all those centuries in the power seat. Men are still physically more powerful than women on their own, still much more represented in the more powerful areas of the business sector (see previous links) and still highly overrepresented in government and I don't see any studies that show that men's intelligence has dropped...so just what is it in men that is making them so susceptible to criticism?

http://www.wcffoundation.org/pages/research/women-in-politics-statistics.html

Women have been whipped and beaten by masculinism for thousands of years, yet we have managed to rise above it.

If men are being similarly mistreated, (and they aren't, they still have a lot of advantages that women don't yet, but that's not to say they aren't being demasculated in some ways) then they have it their power to change that, just as women did.

Men don't have to be victims.

[changed]

What I tell my two daughters - that the best leaders are those who intimately understand and respect their followers ... how do you get that understanding? you live as a follower until you see the respect and glory there is to be had in living "with" others rather than "in front of" them. 

The sleeping beauty story - she lives with the 3 fairy godmothers growing up not knowing who she is, during which time she views herself as a commoner - and that is why we love her, we love the poor humble peasant girl... and everyone hopes that when she one day learns who she really is and becomes a queen, she will keep the sweet humble personality of the peasant girl everyone came to know and love. 

[juliann]

I'd be willing to bet that the number of LDS men actually speaking "tauntingly of the sisters and lightly of their public duties" at the time was an extreme minority.  Just as those speaking out about supposed abuses by LDS against homosexuals today are also an extreme minority; perhaps even to be counted on one or two hands in both cases.

 

I would also make a connection to this thread..

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/61776-what-is-causing-men-to-fall-behind-women/

 

...in that men overall are being whipped and beaten by feminist philosophy to the point where culturally, men no longer have an interest in their duties and responsibilities.

Well, it hasn't been that long since women were literally whipped and beaten by males....but apparently they used it as motivation to achieve.  This sounds more and more like a Darwinian kind of problem than a feminist one.

[splendidsun]

Kris and address Mike's thesis tangentially in footnote 96 of the article, which I think was linked to earlier, "Female Ritual Healing in Mormonism." I have chapter forthcoming in an edited volume that offers a more comprehensive analysis of authority throughout Mormon history.

[BlueDreams]

I haven't checked through and seen if this has been posted. The full quote is in the JS papers and can be found online here

 

 

Here's the full quote:

 

Prest. J. Smith arose— spoke of the organization of the  Society— said he was deeply interested that it might be built up  to the Most High in an acceptable manner— that its rules must  be observed— that none should be received into the Society but  those who were worthy— propos’d that the Society go into a  close examination of every candidate— that they were going too  fast— that the Society should grow up by degrees— should commence  with a few individuals— thus have a select Society of the virtuous  and those who will walk circumspectly— commended them for  their zeal but said sometimes their zeal was not according  to knowledge— One principal object of the Institution was  to purge out iniquity— said they must be extremely careful  in all their examinations or the consequences would be serious

 

Said all difficulties which might & would cross our  way must be surmounted, though the soul be tried, the  heart faint, and hands hang down— must not retrace our  steps— that there must be decision of character aside from  sympathy— that when instructed we must obey that  voice, observe the Constitution that the blessings of heaven may  rest down upon us— all must act in concert or nothing can  be done— that the Society should move according to the  ancient Priesthood, hence there should be a select Society  separate from all the evils of the world, choice, virtuous  and holy— Said he was going to make of this Society a  kingdom of priests as in Enoch’s day— as in Pauls day — that it is the privilege of each member to live long [p. 22]

 

In the historical intro it mentions that one woman later described it as "under the priesthood after the pattern of the priesthood." (sarah kimball) And that these this "document his instructions regarding women’s new responsibilities, authority, and forthcoming temple blessings—the only record of teachings JS directed specifically to women."

 

 

Personally, with my nigh squat grasp of lds history and context and a dry read of this quote I would personally suggest that the immediate purpose of the RS was temple preparation at this time and that there was more of a sense of this being a parallel and equitable role to that given to men and their duties. i don't know much, but the vibe I initially get is that this isn't a great argument for ordaining women in the same sense that men are done, but that there's a fairly good argument to be had that this was seen as a complementary role for women within church and thus the priesthood as well. But again, I know diddly about church history, historical contexts, or any of that on this note. It's just what I get from reading a couple quotes in context. For me, it's indicative of how the RS has changed (we're not very selective on who joins now) as well as gives credence that the uses and strengths of it are falling short in our modern times. But I don't feel its enough evidence for female ordination as the argument is often framed now (after all this was a separate call for women and with no indication that women were called/ordained into male offices such as apostle, elder, bishop, etc).

 

Also here's another one in fuller context:

 

 

As you increase in innocence and virtue, as you  increase in goodness, let your hearts expand— let them be  enlarged towards others— you must be longsuff’ring and bear  with the faults and errors of mankind. How precious are the  souls of men!— The female part of community are apt to be contracted in their views. You must not be contracted, but  you must be liberal in your feelings.

Let this Society teach how to act towards husbands  to treat them with mildness and affection. When a man is  borne down with trouble— when he is perplex’d, if he can meet  a smile, an argument— if he can meet with mildness, it will  calm down his soul and soothe his feelings. When the mind  is going to despair, it needs a solace.

This Society is to get instruction thro’ the order  which God has established— thro’ the medium of those appointed  to lead— and I now turn the key to you in the name of God  and this Society shall rejoice and knowledge and intelligence  shall flow down from this time— this is the beginning of  better days, to this Society

When you go home never give a cross  word, but let kindness, charity and love, crown your works  henceforward. Don’t envy sinners— have mercy on them.  God will destroy them.— Let your labors be confin’d most ly to those around you in your own circle; as far as knowledge  is concerned, it may extend to all the world, but your  administrations, should be confin’d to the circle of your  immediate acquaintance, and more especially to the  members of the Society.

Those ordain’d to lead the Society, are authoriz’d  to appoint to different offices as the circumstances shall  require. 

 

 

 

 

 

If I had to take a guess I'd assume other quotes would be somewhat like this as well.

 

 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited September 17, 2013 by BlueDreams