Mormonism and priesthood/Granting priesthood authority

Table of Contents

Granting of priesthood authority in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Jump to Subtopic:


Question: Why do women not exercise priesthood offices in the Church?

During the early years of the LDS Church, no provision was made in the revelations describing the priesthood along with its offices for the ordination of women

In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints positions in the leadership hierarchy are generally connected directly to offices in the priesthood. During the early years of the LDS Church, no provision was made in the revelations describing the priesthood along with its offices for the ordination of women.[1] Consequently, when the Church received revelation describing the authority structure of the Church in terms of priesthood offices and roles, women were not included. This situation changed to some extent between 1842 and 1844. During the last two years of his life, Joseph Smith both organized the Relief Society and began introducing the temple ordinances (in particular the endowment) to the larger membership of the Church. Both of these developments had consequences for the view of women’s roles in the Church and in discussions over the relationship between women and the priesthood. Joseph addressed the Relief Society six times—the only sermons which he delivered exclusively to women in the Church—and these sermons (found in the Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book) continue to frame the discussion of the role of women in the Church and their relationship to the priesthood.[2]


Question: Did Joseph Smith intend to ordain women to the priesthood?

Some have understood Joseph Smith's address to the Relief Society on 30 March 1842 to suggest that Joseph intended to ordain women to the priesthood

On March 30th, 1842, Joseph Smith addressed the Relief Society at their third meeting. Eliza R. Snow recorded in the minute book:

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, virtuou[s] and holy— Said he was going to make of this Society a kingdom of priests an in Enoch’s day— as in Pauls day[3]

Some have understood this to suggest that Joseph intended to ordain women to the priesthood. When the Relief Society was incorporated into the Ward structure (in 1868), Relief Society president Eliza R. Snow expanded on this idea given by Joseph Smith to explain that the Relief Society formed a necessary and integral part of the Church organization:

Although the name may be of modern date, the Institution is of ancient origin. We were told by our martyred prophet, that the same organization existed in the church anciently, allusions to which are made in some of the epistles recorded in the New Testament, making use of the title, "elect lady.:

This is an organization that cannot exist without the Priesthood, from the fact that it derives all its authority and influence from that source. When the Priesthood was taken from the earth, this institution as well as every other appendage to the true order of the church of Jesus Christ on the earth, became extinct, and had never been restored until the time referred to above.[4]

The Relief Society is an essential part of the restoration of the ‘same organization that existed in the Primitive Church’

Viewed this way, the Relief Society isn’t simply an innovation of the modern Church. It wasn’t organized as a way to engage women in the gospel. It is an essential part of the restoration of the ‘same organization that existed in the Primitive Church.’[5] Likewise, in an interview, former Elaine Jack, past Relief Society general president, summed these ideas in this way:

Relief Society is not an auxiliary. The church was never fully organized until 'women were thus organized after the pattern of the priesthood.' It's the Lord's organization for women. And we act as a companion role to the priesthood.[6]

If seen as a companion to the priesthood – as an integral part of the Church organization, the Relief Society shouldn’t be viewed as a substitute for priesthood ordination, but as its partner. That is, women were not being ordained to the priesthood—they were being ordained to their own society—one just as ancient (a part of the primitive Church), restored to help the members of the Church work together to build up the kingdom of Zion on earth.

Joseph Smith described the organization of the Relief Society as being parallel to the organization of the priesthood

At the first meeting on March 17th, in 1842, President Smith offered this (page 4-5):

Pres[ident Joseph] Smith further remark'd that an organization to show them how to go to work would be sufficient. He propos'd that the Sisters elect a presiding officer to preside over them, and let that presiding officer choose two Counsellors to assist in the duties of her Office - that he would ordain them to preside over the Society and let them preside just as the Presidency, preside over the church; and if they need his instruction - ask him, he will give it from time to time.

Let this Presidency serve as a constitution - all their decisions be considered law; and acted upon as such.

If any Officers are wanted to carry out the designs of the Institution, let them be appointed and set apart, as Deacons, Teachers, &c. are among us. … He then suggested the propriety of electing a Presidency to continue in office during good behavior, or so long as they shall continue to fill the office with dignity &c. like the first Presidency of the church.

This language would cause later confusion, perhaps best illustrated by the ways in which it was understood

For example, Sarah M. Kimball, one of the first members of the Relief Society had, in 1868, organized her ward Relief Society to match that of the priesthood quorums - including offices of teachers and deaconesses. In responding to this confusion in 1880, President John Taylor (who had been assigned by Joseph to set Emma and her counselors apart as the first Relief Society presidency)[7] wrote:

Some of the sisters have thought that these sisters mentioned were, in this ordination, ordained to the priesthood. And for the information of all interested in this subject I will say, it is not the calling of these sisters to hold the Priesthood, only in connection with their husbands, they being one with their husbands.[8]

President Taylor’s remarks underscore the notion that the Relief Society was not intended to move women into the Priesthood organization of the Church

But, his reference to a priesthood held “in connection with their husbands” returns us to Joseph Smith’s remarks to the Relief Society on April 28th in 1842 (at the sixth meeting of the Relief Society). These remarks provided an understanding of the function and role of the Relief Society within the Church for the rest of the 19th century. In particular, Joseph connected the future role of the Relief Society to the work of temple ordinances that he was working to present to the Saints at Nauvoo:

He said the reason of these remarks being made, was, that some little thing 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 heal’d: that the time had not been before, that these things could be in their proper order— that the church is not now organiz’d in its proper order, and cannot be until the Temple is completed—— Prest. 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 ask’d the Society if they could not see by this sweeping stroke, that wherein they are ordaind, it is the privilege of those set apart to administer in that authority which is confer’d on them— and if the sisters should have faith to heal the sick, let all hold their tongues, and let every thing roll on.[9]

The issue of healing by the laying on of hands was a practice that was common for Mormon women in the 19th century

Here, Joseph first brings up the issue of healing by the laying on of hands (a practice that was common for Mormon women in the 19th century).[10] This had apparently caused some contention as to whether it was appropriate or not. Healing the sick, however, was one of the signs to follow those with faith, and Joseph Smith compared their organization and the ordination that had been given to the members of the Relief Society to the commission given to the apostles in the New Testament. ‘These signs’ were understood to be a part of the mission of the Relief Society, and healing the sick was one of their primary focuses through the beginning of the twentieth century.

Later, Joseph Smith also noted:

He said as he had this opportunity, he was going to instruct the Society and point out the way for them to conduct, that they might act according to the will of God— that he did not know as he should have many opportunities of teaching them— that they were going to be left to themselves,— they would not long have him to instruct them— that the church would not have his instruction long, and the world would not be troubled with him a great while, and would not have his teachings— He spoke of delivering the keys to this Society and to the church— that according to his prayers God had appointed him elsewhere.[11] While we may see a prophetic foreshadowing here of Joseph’s assassination in 1844, this may also represent Joseph’s intentions seen in his journal entry for July 16th, 1843: “The same spirit that crucified Jesus is in the breast of some who profess to be Saints in Nauvoo. I have secret enemies in the city intermingling with the Saints, etc. Said I would not prophesy any more, and proposed Hyrum to hold the office of prophet to the Church, as it was his birthright. I am going to have a reformation, and the Saints must regard Hyrum, for he has the authority, that I might be a Priest of the Most High God; and slightly touched upon the subject of the everlasting covenant, showing that a man and his wife must enter into that covenant in the world, or he will have no claim on her in the next world. But on account of the unbelief of the people, I cannot reveal the fullness of these things at present.” (See History of the Church, 5:510. Volume 5 link)</ref>

When this was prepared for publication in the History of the Church, this section was substantially rewritten (interpreted) as follows:

He spoke of delivering the keys of the Priesthood to the Church, and said that the faithful members of the Relief Society should receive them in connection with their husbands;[12]

This idea of shared priesthood resulted in the notion of women being able to exercise the power of the priesthood without being ordained to an office in the priesthood. It is this understanding of Joseph Smith’s remarks that serves as the backdrop for President Taylor’s comments as well as the treatment of ritual healing and temple ordinance work performed by the Relief Society within the 19th century.

Keys and the Relief Society

At the conclusion of his remarks to the Relief Society in April of 1842, Joseph made this comment:

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.[13]

President Willard Richards, following the Nauvoo pattern set by Joseph Smith, called and set apart women as healers

What does this mean, when Joseph suggests that “I now turn the key to you”? Elder Bruce R. McConkie asks this question for us in 1950:

What, then, in summary, is the relationship of the Relief Society to the keys of the kingdom? And what was the significance of the Prophet's turning the key in their behalf in the name of the Lord? ... By turning the key the Prophet delegated to the duly appointed officers of the new organization a portion of the keys of the kingdom. Under the Priesthood they were now authorized to direct, control, and govern the affairs of the society. They thus became legal administrators holding the keys of presidency. Under this appointment their lawful acts would be recognized by the Lord and he would work with them in the rolling forth of the kingdom in the sphere assigned to them.[14]

The sphere that they saw assigned to them was this healing of the sick and taking care of the welfare of Zion. President Willard Richards, following the Nauvoo pattern set by Joseph Smith, called and set apart women as healers:

Accordingly he laid his hands upon the heads of a number of the sisters who had prepared themselves to act as midwives and also administering to the sick and afflicted and set them apart for this very office and calling, and blest them with power to officiate in that capacity as handmaids of the Lord. Among the number set apart at that time Sister Presendia was one who received the blessing, and from that day to this she has realized the power and influence it conferred in her daily administerings, not only when she has been called upon to act as a midwife, but when washing and anointing and blessing the sisters.[15]

During the remainder of the 19th century, there was an increasing formalization in healing ordinances and an accompanying liturgy used within the relief society. President Eliza R. Snow, under the direction of President John Taylor visited many of the newly organized local Relief Societies, and encouraged them:

We need not be afraid of doing too much nor getting ahead of our Bretheren and if we did why let them hurry up,” she told women in Santaquin. She taught Gunnison women the same principle, drawing precedent from the Nauvoo minutes: “The Prophet Joseph Smith said to the Sisters: ‘provoke the Brethren to good works.’” Snow described the Relief Society as “self-governing” and sought to cultivate in women a sense of initiative, responsibility, and partnership. “Woman was not only created as a help meet for man but to be one with him in the priesthood,” she declared. Echoing Joseph’s counsel that “all must act in concert or nothing can be done,” she affirmed that men’s and women’s interests “are both in the Kingdom of God and cannot be divided. The Gospel of Christ is designed to unite our labors.”[16]

The response was enthusiastic. So much so, that in 1906, Elder J. Golden Kimball observed in his General Conference address:

The Priesthood quorums ... have become lax in their work and let loose their hold. While the auxiliary organizations have taken the right of way, the Priesthood quorums stand by looking on awe-struck.[17]

In response, President Joseph F. Smith announced his intention for a priesthood reformation in the April 1906 Conference:

We expect to see the day, … when every council of the priesthood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will understand its duty; will assume its own responsibility, will magnify its calling, and fill its place in the Church, to the uttermost, according to the intelligence and ability possessed by it. When that day shall come there will not be so much necessity for work that is now being done by the auxiliary organizations, because it will be done by the regular quorums of the priesthood.[18]

The work of the Relief Society in the 19th century, and in particular the practice of healing by the laying on of hands shifted to the Priesthood during this priesthood reformation (between 1908 and 1920). Attitudes shifted considerably towards these practices. Brigham Young, in 1869 suggested, speaking to the women of the Church:

Why do you not live so as to rebuke disease? It is your privilege to do so without sending for the Elders.[19]

In 1946, a letter from Elder Joseph Fielding Smith shows how policy on this matter had been reversed

Joseph Fielding Smith:

While the authorities of the Church have ruled that it is permissible, under certain conditions and with the approval of the priesthood, for sisters to wash and anoint other sisters, yet they feel that it is far better for us to follow the plan the Lord has given us and send for the elders of the Church to come and administer to the sick and afflicted.[20]

Women and Priesthood in a temple context

The one area where there was little change was in the ordinances of the temple. It was widely recognized that women officiated in ordinances in the temple, and the liturgical language of the endowment recognized women as priestesses. It is in this context that we see references back to Joseph Smith’s teachings of a priesthood given in the temple. After the completion of the St. George temple, and the resumption of temple work, there was a push to formalize the liturgy of the temple, and to make sure that it was consistent across the Church. In this context the question of women’s participation in ordinances both within the temple context and outside it came under scrutiny. In 1888, President Franklin D. Richards provided some additional insight:

I ask any and everybody present who have received their endowments, whether he be a brother Apostle, Bishop, High Priest, Elder, or whatever office he may hold in the Church, "What blessings did you receive, what ordinance, what power, intelligence, sanctification or grace did you receive that your wife did not partake of with you?" I will answer, that there was one thing that our wives were not made special partakers of, and that was the ordination to the various orders of the priesthood which were conferred upon us. Aside from that, our sisters share with us any and all of the ordinances of the holy anointing, endowments, sealings, sanctifications and blessings that we have been made partakers of.

Now, I ask you: Is it possible that we have the holy priesthood and our wives have none of it? Do you not see, by what I have read, that Joseph desired to confer these keys of power upon them in connection with their husbands? I hold that a faithful wife has certain blessings, powers and rights, and is made partaker of certain gifts and blessings and promises with her husband, which she cannot be deprived of, except by transgression of the holy order of God. They shall enjoy what God said they should. And these signs shall follow them if they believe.

Moses said, when some one told him that a certain man was prophesying in the camp, and the people thought he had no right to do so, Moses replied saying: "I would to God that all of the Lord's people were prophets." So I say: I wish all the sisters were so faithful that they were healers of the sick, through the power of God.[21]

In justifying the role of women using priesthood power and authority—particularly within a temple context, President Richards introduced this proof text normally used to justify notions of a priesthood of all believers. It provided an Old Testament context to support this doctrine of priesthood received in connection with temple service.

When asked about such matters and what they implied about women having priesthood ordination, Wilford Woodruff wrote to the Relief Society General President:

Wilford Woodruff: [Answer:] To begin with I desire to say that the ordinance of washing and anointing is one that should only be administered in Temples or other holy places which are dedicated for the purpose of giving endowments to the Saints. That ordinance might not be administered to any one whether she has received or has not received her endowments, in any other place or under any other circumstances.

But I imagine from your question that you refer to a practice that has grown up among the sisters of washing and anointing sisters who are approaching their confinement [i.e., preparing to give birth]. If so, this is not, strictly speaking, an ordinance, unless it be done under the direction of the priesthood and in connection with the ordinance of laying on of hands for the restoration of the sick.

There is no impropriety in sisters washing and anointing their sisters in this way, under the circumstances you describe; but it should be understood that they do this, not as members of the priesthood, but as members of the Church, exercising faith for, and asking the blessings of the Lord upon, their sisters, just as they, and every member of the Church, might do in behalf of the members of their families.[22]

In 1912, Elder James Talmage further expanded this to include single sisters being endowed when he suggested that a single woman being endowed shared the priesthood of her future husband:

"It is a precept of the Church that women of the Church share the authority of the Priesthood with their husbands, actual or prospective; and therefore women, whether taking the endowment for themselves or for the dead, are not ordained to specific rank in the Priesthood."[23]

Connections between women, priesthood and celestial marriage

This connection between women, priesthood, and celestial marriage was reintroduced by Elder Ballard in his August 20, 2013 devotional at BYU:

</blockquote> When men and women go to the temple, they are both endowed with the same power, which by definition is priesthood power. While the authority of the priesthood is directed through priesthood keys, and priesthood keys are held only by worthy men, access to the power and the blessings of the priesthood is available to all of God’s children. ... Those who have entered the waters of baptism and subsequently received their endowment in the house of the Lord are eligible for rich and wonderful blessings. The endowment is literally a gift of power. All who enter the house of the Lord officiate in the ordinances of the priesthood. This applies to men and women alike.[24] </blockquote>

And again, most recently in the April 2014 General Conference by Elder Dallin H. Oaks quoted Elder Ballard and emphasized this statement:

Our Church doctrine places women equal to and yet different from men. God does not regard either gender as better or more important than the other. … When men and women go to the temple, they are both endowed with the same power, which is priesthood power. … Access to the power and the blessings of the priesthood is available to all of God’s children.[25]


Question: Why are there no women prophets in the church today?

Throughout history, women as well as men have developed the gift of prophecy as told and foretold by the scriptures

The Old and New Testaments talk of women prophets. Why are there no women prophets in the church today?

Every one of us should seek the Spirit of the Lord in learning and discerning our paths through life. This interplay between questions and answers from God is one face of the spiritual gift of prophecy. Throughout history, women as well as men have developed this gift as told and foretold by the scriptures. However, the spiritual gift of prophecy is different from the calling the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have to act as "prophets, seers, and revelators" for the Church and the world in general. Still, their callings do not conflict with the blessing we can all enjoy of being prophets for ourselves, our families, and for our callings in the Church.

The Bible mentions a number of prophetesses. In the Old Testament, we have Miriam (Exodus 15:20), Deborah (Judges 4:4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14,2 Chronicles 34:22), Noadiah (Nehemiah 6:14). The New Testament mentions Anna (Luke 2:36). So why do we not see women designated as "prophetesses" today?

The fact that there is a person designated as "The Prophet" for the Church does not preclude others from having the gift of prophecy

A "prophet" is often regarded as an office to which one is formally called and set apart. Latter-day Saints often refer to the President of the Church as "The Prophet," although they are not technically the same thing. In ancient days, it was not possible to instantly communicate with the world as it is today. There were multiple prophets on the earth who communicated the Lord's will to the people for whom they were responsible. For example, there were prophets simultaneously in the New and the Old Worlds. Today, however, it is possible to have one prophet who is responsible for communicating the Lord's will worldwide. The fact that there is a person designated as "The Prophet" for the Church does not preclude others from having the gift of prophecy.

From the Bible Dictionary definition for "Prophet," we read the following:

...In certain cases prophets predicted future events, e.g., there are the very important prophecies announcing the coming of Messiah's kingdom; but as a rule prophet was a forthteller rather than a foreteller. In a general sense a prophet is anyone who has a testimony of Jesus Christ by the Holy Ghost, as in Num. 11: 25-29; Rev. 19: 10.

Bible Dictionary, Prophet

Surely the women called as General Auxiliary Presidency members are forthtellers. They travel the world teaching and testifying; they speak at General Conferences; they produce material for Church publications and do all of it by the spirit of prophecy. Women as well as men in all levels of the church today are blessed with this gift of the spirit to receive revelation. We simply don't recognize them formally.

In a broader sense, all who have a testimony of the Saviour are prophets regardless of their demographic characteristics Joel 2:28-29. Perhaps some of those named as prophets and prophetesses in the scriptures were given the title as charismatic/spiritual designations, not formal/official positions in a church hierarchy. Prophecy is a gift of the spirit, not necessarily a priesthood office.

Along with the prophetesses mentioned above, the word “prophetess” is used in two other ways in the Bible and Book of Mormon: the false prophetess and the consort prophetess.

The False Prophetess

In the New Testament, the word is applied to “that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess.”Rev 2:20 According to the Bible Dictionary, the use here is figurative and is part of a historical allusion used by John to communicate a threat of serious apostasy. This reference to the spiritually disastrous reign of King Ahab and his wife Jezebel warns of a situation early church members should have recognized as dramatic and dangerous.

The negative use of “prophetess” shows there must have been real significance attached to the word. Otherwise, its abuse by a Jezebel figure wouldn’t have been put forward as a sign of an insidious and destructive movement within the early church. John probably wasn’t trying to say there was a woman named Jezebel trying to act as the president of the church in Thyatira. Instead, he was warning of the negative influence anyone’s false claim to the spiritual gift of prophecy can have.


Why are there no female prophets today?

Knowing that any righteous individual can have gifts of the spirit, one really ought to ask: "Why do you not notice the females in the Church who are prophets?" The Lord has asked His people in ages past, and today to be:

Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. (Exodus 19:5-6)

He has also said that this is "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:" (1 Peter 2:9)

Moses desired all the Lord's people to be prophets, he said:

Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord's people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them! (Numbers 11:)


Question: Where did Alma the Elder get the legitimate priesthood authority to baptize at the waters of Mormon?

There were none of the tribe of Levi among them, therefore it was by virtue of the Melchizedek Priesthood that they officiated

In Mosiah, Alma the Elder teaches the words of Abinadi, and assembles a small group of believers, whom he baptizes:

And now it came to pass that Alma took Helam, he being one of the first, and went and stood forth in the water, and cried, saying: O Lord, pour out thy Spirit upon thy servant, that he may do this work with holiness of heart. And when he had said these words, the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, and he said: Helam, I baptize thee, having authority from the Almighty God, as a testimony that ye have entered into a covenant to serve him until you are dead as to the mortal body; and may the Spirit of the Lord be poured out upon you; and may he grant unto you eternal life, through the redemption of Christ, whom he has prepared from the foundation of the world. And after Alma had said these words, both Alma and Helam were buried in the water; and they arose and came forth out of the water rejoicing, being filled with the Spirit. And again, Alma took another, and went forth a second time into the water, and baptized him according to the first, only he did not bury himself again in the water (Mosiah 18:12–15).

Since Alma had been a wicked priest of King Noah, where did he receive the legitimate priesthood authority to baptize?

President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:

We should take into consideration in the study of the Book of Mormon the fact that it is an abridgment taken from the records or history that had been kept by the prophets among the Nephites. Therefore, many of the details are lacking. This is equally true of the history of Israel as it has come down through the years to us in the Bible. We are left to accept the fact that Lehi, when he left Jerusalem, held divine authority and that this divine power was handed down from generation to generation until the time of the visitation of the Savior. Moreover, while the detail is lacking, the evidence is very clear that the Melchizedek Priesthood was possessed by the Nephites.

There were none of the tribe of Levi among them, therefore it was by virtue of the Melchizedek Priesthood that they officiated. There are many passages in the Book of Mormon in which reference is given to the Holy Priesthood. We should also remember that the record that we have received is an abridgment, and therefore many of the details are of necessity missing. Moreover, we are informed that many important things have been withheld from us because of the hardness of our hearts and our unwillingness, as members of the Church, to abide in the covenants or seek for divine knowledge.

In the case of Alma and his priesthood, we are left to surmise that he legally and divinely received it before the days of King Noah. We read that Zeniff, the father of Noah, was a righteous man. Alma evidently received the priesthood in the days of Zeniff, and at no time did he fully accept the teachings nor with full purpose follow the counsels and procedure of Noah and his wicked priests…

Just at what time Alma received the priesthood is not clearly stated, but we may presume that it occurred before Noah came to the throne. Moreover, we must also conclude that Alma at no time truly entered into the wickedness of this wicked king…

Where did Alma get his authority? Evidently he obtained it when he received the priesthood, which through his repentance he had not lost. There can be no serious question in relation to his authority, for it is written – “And it came to pass that Alma; having authority from God, ordained priests; even one priest to every fifty of their number did he ordain to preach unto them, and to teach them concerning the things pertaining to the kingdom of God” (Mosiah 18:18).[26]

LDS author Daniel C. Peterson wrote in a similar vein:

The case of Alma brings up at least two interesting questions: (1) Were the priests of Noah legitimate holders of legitimate priesthood, and (2) Where did Alma get his authority? We have to assume Alma and his one-time colleagues were ordained validly by Noah (Mosiah 11:5), who was also ordained validly by his father, Zeniff. The fact that Noah was not righteous after he was ordained and that Alma himself was part of Noah’s priestly group during his early ministry has nothing to do with Alma’s priesthood authority. Until superior priesthood authority withdraws permission to exercise priestly functions, a legitimately ordained holder of the priesthood continues to hold valid priesthood-however unrighteous he may be, however dead to spiritual promptings, and however unlikely it may be that he will ever actually exercise his priesthood.[27]

Alma, in fact, claimed to have authority from God (Mosiah 18:13), a claim which Mormon implicitly acknowledges as valid (Mosiah 18:18). Alma was a descendant of Nephi (Mosiah 17:2), a fact which may or may not be significant in discussing his priesthood authority since we do not know precisely how the priesthood functioned or was apportioned among the Nephites. Certainly most, if not in fact all, of the priests and kings of whom we know anything in the Book of Mormon up to this point were of the lineage of Nephi. Furthermore, in the power vacuum left by the absence of king Noah, the people implored Alma to assume the royal title and prerogatives (Mosiah 23:6). He turned down the title, but out of necessity, he did carry out some kingly duties. Alma ordained priests and teachers for his outcast people, among whom he was in fact the sole human source of authority (Mosiah 18:18; 23:17).[28]


Notes

  1. The most significant revelations relating to the structure and function of the priesthood are found in D&C Sections 20:, 84:, and 107:. The language is almost entirely gendered. For example, 20:60 reads “Every elder, priest, teacher, or deacon is to be ordained according to the gifts and callings of God unto him; and he is to be ordained by the power of the Holy Ghost, which is in the one who ordains him.”
  2. It is difficult to overemphasize the value of this record. A copy has been placed on-line at the Joseph Smith Papers website of the Church here.
  3. Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book (entry dated 17 March 1842), LDS Church Archives, 22.
  4. Eliza R. Snow, “Female Relief Society,” Deseret News (22 April 1868): 81.
  5. Eliza R. Snow references Articles of Faith 1:6 in her article.
  6. Quoted in Tina Hatch, "'Changing Times Bring Changing Conditions': Relief Society, 1960 to Present," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 37 no. 33, 68-69.. See also Julie Beck’s (then Relief Society general president) remarks in "Why We Are Organized into Quorums and Relief Societies," BYU devotional address (17 January 2012).
  7. See Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book (entry dated 17 March 1842), LDS Church Archives, 9. See also JD 21:368 (below) where he appeals to that experience.
  8. John Taylor, (8 August 1880) Journal of Discourses 21:367-368.
  9. Minute Book, 38-39.
  10. For an overview, see Jonathan A. Stapley and Kristine Wright, "Female Ritual Healing in Mormonism" The Journal of Mormon History 37 (Winter 2011): 1-85.
  11. Minute Book, 37-38.
  12. History of the Church, 4:604. Volume 4 link See also Joseph Smith, Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected by Joseph Fielding Smith, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976), 226. off-site For a discussion of the interpretations of the Minute book see Jill Mulvay Derr and Carol Cornwall Madsen, "Preserving the Record and Memory of the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo, 1842–92" Journal of Mormon History Vol. 35/3 (Summer 2009): 88-117.
  13. Minute Book, 40.
  14. [citation needed]
  15. A Venerable Woman: Presendia Lathrop Kimball, Continued,” Woman’s Exponent 12 (15 October 1883): 75.
  16. Jill Mulvay Derr and Carol Cornwall Madsen, "Preserving the Record and Memory of the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo, 1842–92" Journal of Mormon History Vol. 35/3 (Summer 2009): 99.
  17. Conference Report (April 1906), 19.
  18. [citation needed]
  19. Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 13:155.
  20. Joseph Fielding Smith, letter, 29 July 1946.
  21. [citation needed]
  22. Wilford Woodruff to Emmeline B. Wells, 27 April 1888, Correspondence of the First Presidency, LDS Church Archives.
  23. James E. Talmage, The House of the Lord: a study of holy sanctuaries, ancient and modern (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Deseret News, 1912), 94.
  24. M. Russell Ballard, "'Let Us Think Straight'," BYU devotional address, 20 August 2013.
  25. Dallin H. Oaks, "The Keys and Authority of the Priesthood," Ensign (May 2014).
  26. Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols., (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1957–1966), 4:161–162. ISBN 1573454400. GospeLink (requires subscrip.)
  27. Peterson inserts a footnote here, writing: The ancient Christian church faced this problem in the form of the Donatist schism, which was finally declared heretical in AD 405. The Donatists held that unrighteousness in a bishop or priest invalidated any and all ordinances that he might have performed. However, the Synod of Aries determined in AD 314. that the validity of baptisms and ordinations and the like did not depend upon the worthiness or merit of the officiator. (On the Donatists, and the related Novatianist and Meletian movements, see Christie-Murray 96–97.) Granted, the Christian church at this period was essentially apostate, but Latter-day Saints take basically the same position, and for good reason. If serious sin, as such, invalidated priesthood ordinances, we could never know whose marriage was legal, or who was really a member of the Church. Did the man who ordained you to the priesthood have a secret, unrepented sin? If he did, your ordination is invalid. Your mission was illegitimate, any converts you baptized are actually non-members, and you are living in adultery since you should never have been admitted to the temple. Any of your converts who served missions and baptized are similarly fraudulent, and the consequences ripple onward and outward in utterly unforeseeable ways. How could we ever be sure of anything?"
  28. Daniel C. Peterson, "Priesthood in Mosiah," in The Book of Mormon: Mosiah, Salvation Only Through Christ, edited by Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate, Jr. (Provo: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1991), 187–210.