Did Elder Oaks Open The Door For Women To Perform All Priesthood Ordinances?

[Buckeye]

During the April 2014 Priesthood Session, Elder Oaks gave extensive counsel regarding priesthood authority, priesthood power, and priesthood keys.  Very importantly, he stated that the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 do not have authority to extend priesthood ordination to women at this time.  However, he also stated that all work done in the church, including work done by non-priesthood holders, is done under delegated priesthood authority from someone with keys.  This work includes priesthood ordinances performed by sisters in the temple, which are done under the authority of the temple president's keys. 

 

Below are excerpts selected by me from a transcription of Elder Oaks' remarks that I found at mormonheretic.  This transcript appears correct from my memory, but I welcome anyone to point out errors if they exist.  To my knowledge, the church has not yet issued a formal transcription of Elder Oaks' remarks.

 

The understanding that we seek begins with an understanding of the keys of the priesthood. Priesthood keys are the authority God has given to priesthood holders to direct, control, and govern the use of his priesthood on the earth. Every act or ordinance performed in the Church is done under the direct or indirect authorization of one holding the keys for that function.

...

With the exception of the sacred work that sisters do in the temple under the keys held by the temple president, which I will describe hereafter, only one who holds a priesthood office can officiate in a priesthood ordinance. All authorized priesthood ordinances are recorded on the records of the church.

...

In that notable address, President Smith said again and again that women have been given authority. To the women he said you can speak with authority because the Lord has placed authority upon you. He also said that the Relief Society has been given power and authority to do a great many things. The work that they do is “by divine authority.” And of course, the church work done by women or men, whether in the temple, or in the wards or branches, is done under the direction of those who hold priesthood keys. Thus speaking of the Relief Society, President Smith explained, “the Lord has given to them this great organization where they have authority to serve under the direction of the bishops of the wards, looking after the interests of our people, both spiritually and temporally.”

 

Thus, it is truly said that the Relief Society is not just a class for women, but something they belong to, a divinely established appendage to the priesthood. We’re not accustomed to speaking of women having the authority of the priesthood in their church callings. But what other authority can it be? When a woman, young or old, is set apart to preach the gospel as a full-time missionary, she is given priesthood authority to perform a priesthood function. The same is true when a woman is set apart to function as an officer or teacher in a church organization under the direction of one who holds the keys of the priesthood. Whoever functions in an office or calling received from one who holds priesthood keys, exercises priesthood authority in performing her or his assigned duties.

 

(emphasis mine; source: http://mormonheretic.org/2014/04/06/elder-dallin-h-oaks-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood/)

 

My question is this:  Accepting that our leaders do not have authority to formally ordain women at this time, do they nonetheless have authority to allow women to perform baptisms and confirmations (live and proxy), administer the sacrament, receive at the veil, and perform all other ordiances that we associate with the priesthood?  If sisters can perform initiatories under the keys of the temple president, there is no logical reason why sisters cannot also perform baptisms at the temple under those same keys, or perform baptisms and administer the sacrament in their wards under the keys of the bishop, or baptize their investigators under the keys of their mission president.  No special revelation or additional authority would be needed for this change because none was needed for the authorization of women to perform initiatories.  Extending the principle even further, there seems to be no reason why women could not be called in bishoprics and, though not ordained themselves, act in full authority under the keys held by the bishop.

 

Perhaps the "ordination" discussions that have been all the rage of late should shift to discussion of how sisters can better use the authority they already have.  In light of Elder Oaks' remarks, and the long-time practice of sisters performing some ordinances in the temple, I can see no reason our leaders do not have authority right now to extend an invitation for women to perform all priesthood ordinances by virtue of the keys held by others.  The only thing holding them back is policy, not doctrine, and our leaders do have the authority to change policy. 

 

*************

PS - please avoid discussion of OW in this post. 

 

[bluebell]

Isn't ordination required before someone can baptize?

[ksfisher]

Isn't ordination required before someone can baptize?

 

20.3.8

Instructions for Performing a Baptism

Under the direction of the presiding authority, a priest or Melchizedek Priesthood holder may perform the ordinance of baptism.

 

Seems pretty clear.  And no, I don't think Elder Oaks opened the door for anything.

[The Nehor]

Actually a change in policy would also require divine approval.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Keys and authority are 2 different things. No Elder Oaks did not open doors.

[Duncan]

I don't understand why the brethren don't ask God about this, makes some statement about it and be done with it

[stemelbow]

Actually a change in policy would also require divine approval.

 

CFR

[stemelbow]

I don't understand why the brethren don't ask God about this, makes some statement about it and be done with it

 

If only all of this were that easy.  We could have had a whole different history with respect to the priesthood ban.

[The Nehor]

CFR

Every Priesthood leadership meeting I have ever been in.

The leaders in charge of the temples are not going to change policy on a whim unless they are convinced The Lord is okay with the specific change through confirmation via the Holy Ghost.

[stemelbow]

Every Priesthood leadership meeting I have ever been in.

The leaders in charge of the temples are not going to change policy on a whim unless they are convinced The Lord is okay with the specific change through confirmation via the Holy Ghost.

 

 

Sadly divine approval, or lack thereof, is easily mistaken.  So policy could be changed without divine approval, even if its claimed to be divine approval.

[Duncan]

If only all of this were that easy.  We could have had a whole different history with respect to the priesthood ban.

 

I guess but I sustain them as Prophets, seers and revelators not opinionators, dumb analogizers and odd tie/suit wearers! (Elder Ballard, purplie tie with a dark grey suit? really? have to do that eh? )

[The Nehor]

Sadly divine approval, or lack thereof, is easily mistaken.  So policy could be changed without divine approval, even if its claimed to be divine approval.

I disagree.

[Buckeye]

Isn't ordination required before someone can baptize?

 

Under the current handbook and scripture, yes.  But Elder Oaks' talk seems to suggest that that could be changed without any new revelation or authority.  Ask yourself this, "what authority allowed the brethren to extend to women the authority to perform temple intiatories?"  Obviously, those women are not ordained, but they nonetheless can perform priesthood ordiances under someone else's authority.  So why not extend that principle to other ordinances?  Whatever authority allows women to perform initiatories in the temple (a higher ordinance governed by the MP) that authority should also allow sisters to perform baptisms and confirmations in the temple (a lower ordinance governed by the AP).

 

Yes, this would be a change of practice/policy/doctine (take your pick), but my point is that, unlike with formal ordination which Elder Oaks said the brethren are not authorized to extend to women, this change would not require any additional keys beyond those they already possess.  In short, this is a change the brethren could make if persuaded to do so.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Buckeye

[ksfisher]

Sadly divine approval, or lack thereof, is easily mistaken.  So policy could be changed without divine approval, even if its claimed to be divine approval.

 

Church leaders seek personal revelation to help them learn and fulfill the duties of their callings.

Studying the scriptures and the teachings of latter-day prophets will help leaders understand and fulfill their duties. The Lord has admonished leaders to treasure up in their minds continually the words of God so they will be receptive to the influence of the Spirit (see D&C 84:85).

 

- From the Introduction to Handbook 2

 

I believe that the leaders of the church are doing this.  I believe that when they do make changes that it is after much prayer and counseling together.  They do receive revelation from the Holy Ghost and the Lord stands behind the leaders of his church.

[stemelbow]

I disagree.

 

How dare you? 

[stemelbow]

Church leaders seek personal revelation to help them learn and fulfill the duties of their callings.

Studying the scriptures and the teachings of latter-day prophets will help leaders understand and fulfill their duties. The Lord has admonished leaders to treasure up in their minds continually the words of God so they will be receptive to the influence of the Spirit (see D&C 84:85).

 

- From the Introduction to Handbook 2

 

I believe that the leaders of the church are doing this.  I believe that when they do make changes that it is after much prayer and counseling together.  They do receive revelation from the Holy Ghost and the Lord stands behind the leaders of his church.

 

 

I agree.  But that does not ensure infallibility.  So its possible policy could change without divine approval.  It's possible it could be set int he first place without divine approval, it seems to me.  Rest assured though, the nehor disagrees with me.  I'm feeling good about that for some reason.

[stemelbow]

I guess but I sustain them as Prophets, seers and revelators not opinionators, dumb analogizers and odd tie/suit wearers! (Elder Ballard, purplie tie with a dark grey suit? really? have to do that eh? )

 

Good point.  If mistakes are made so be it.  We'll figure it out eventually I guess.  Don't fault the church for the mistakes of men? 

[Duncan]

Good point.  If mistakes are made so be it.  We'll figure it out eventually I guess.  Don't fault the church for the mistakes of men? 

 

 

that's the thing as I hope bad ideas don't get a life of their own and some future day course corrections are needed when they shouldn't have been said in the first place but we'll see I guess!

[ksfisher]

I agree.  But that does not ensure infallibility.  So its possible policy could change without divine approval.  It's possible it could be set int he first place without divine approval, it seems to me.  Rest assured though, the nehor disagrees with me.  I'm feeling good about that for some reason.

 

whether by mine own ^cvoice or by the ^dvoice of my ^eservants, it is the ^fsame.

D&C 1:38

 

No, I don't believe that policy can change without divine approval.  That doesn't mean that policies can't change.  Or that the Lord might approve of a change and then inspire a prophet to change that policy, to something better, 6 months later.  But I do believe that the Lord stands behind what his leaders do, and that they are very in tune with his wishes.

[stemelbow]

that's the thing as I hope bad ideas don't get a life of their own and some future day course corrections are needed when they shouldn't have been said in the first place but we'll see I guess!

 

I expect that we are already in need of some course correction.  We'll always be.  That is the nature of living in this imperfect world, listening to imperfect leaders, directing an imperfect church.  I continue to think our minds will be blown, figuratively, when we're finally able to see things as they really are.  That speaks largely to assumptions we hold and can't let go of.

[bluebell]

Whatever authority allows women to perform initiatories in the temple (a higher ordinance governed by the MP) that authority should also allow sisters to perform baptisms and confirmations in the temple (a lower ordinance governed by the AP).

 

 

 

Why?

 

I'm just really not seeing what you are seeing here.  There is much that happens in the temple that does not translate to what is allowed or how things are done outside of the temple.

 

For example, in the temple the initiatories are likely done by women for a very specific reason (modesty).  Is there any need outside of the temple for such an allowance?

[stemelbow]

whether by mine own ^cvoice or by the ^dvoice of my ^eservants, it is the ^fsame.

D&C 1:38

 

No, I don't believe that policy can change without divine approval.  That doesn't mean that policies can't change.  Or that the Lord might approve of a change and then inspire a prophet to change that policy, to something better, 6 months later.  But I do believe that the Lord stands behind what his leaders do, and that they are very in tune with his wishes.

 

Alrighty.  I disagree to some extent.  I think The Lord largely stands behind what His leaders do, and that they are largely in tune with His wishes.  But I also grant that as in all things leaders are imperfect people not quite getting it completely.  Someday they will.  Someday we will.  It'll be a great day, so until then we'll just have to live with the imperfect.  I don't think the Church or its course was ever set up to be fool proof.  We'll see mistakes continue--even if they are small ones.

[Calm]

Just because some (a very specific and limited set) ordinances don't require ordination, doesn't mean IMO that all ordinances don't need it.

[ksfisher]

Alrighty.  I disagree to some extent.  I think The Lord largely stands behind what His leaders do, and that they are largely in tune with His wishes.  But I also grant that as in all things leaders are imperfect people not quite getting it completely.  Someday they will.  Someday we will.  It'll be a great day, so until then we'll just have to live with the imperfect.  I don't think the Church or its course was ever set up to be fool proof.  We'll see mistakes continue--even if they are small ones.

 

Agreed that the church, it's leaders, and it's members make mistakes.  But divine approval is not contingent upon perfection. 

[Calm]

Why?

 

I'm just really not seeing what you are seeing here.  There is much that happens in the temple that does not translate to what is allowed or how things are done outside of the temple.

 

For example, in the temple the initiatories are likely done by women for a very specific reason (modesty).  Is there any need outside of the temple for such an allowance?

But women also work with the women in the endowment where modesty is not an issue.

Though I do agree with you, one shouldn't assume what is done in the temple in two limited ways (initiatiory and endowment) equates to all ordinances.