That which was restored and then lost again

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

That which was restored and then lost again

Post by _harmony »

In Women and Authority Chapter 17, it states:

It is essential to recognize that nineteenth-century Mormon women performed healing ordinances by virtue of the priesthood they held, not simply as an act of faith.79 For example, in the previously cited blessing to Caroline Cottam in March 1853, the presiding patriarch sealed on her “the blessings and Priesthood which Abraham sealed upon his daughters, with power to heal the sick in your house. . . .” In the patriarchal blessing to Elizabeth Bean two months later, John Smith also said that her priesthood gave “you the power to heal the sick and to understand all the principles of the priesthood, and mysteries that have been kept hid from before the foundation of the world.”80 Eliza R. Snow and Zina D. Young wanted to limit the exercise of healing ordinances to women who had received the endowment because they believed that endowed women had received priesthood.81


The chapter is too long to post in its entirety here, but here's the link that shows how women were given the priesthood and how men took it away: http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/women/chapter17.htm#Woman

Here's how women then started to lose what Joseph had restored:

In 1878, the Salt Lake stake president both undercut and reaffirmed the priesthood authority of women. “Women could only hold the priesthood in connection with their husbands; man held the priesthood independent of woman,” Angus M. Cannon began, then he concluded: “but women must be careful how they use the authority of the priesthood in administering to the sick.” Aside from being president of the central stake, Angus was also brother of first presidency counselor George Q. Cannon.83

His counselor in the Salt Lake stake presidency acknowledged in 1884 what he saw as the only reason that women performed healing ordinances for women: “There are often cases when it would be indelicate for an Elder to anoint, especially certain parts of the body, and the sisters are called to do this and blessing follows, but in each instance let her act by request of the Priesthood.” The stake counselor next expressed his own discomfort with “sisters who claim they have been blessed and set apart by the authority of God to anoint the sick of their own sex.” He emphasized that each LDS woman “holds Priesthood in connection with her husband, but not separate from him.” He concluded with a tirade against the “vain ambition” and “grave mistakes some of our sisters have made in seeking to raise herself [sic] to an equality with man in all things.”84 This was a significant retreat from the confident affirmations of female priesthood by the men in Nauvoo's Anointed Quorum. These 1884 statements by the Salt Lake Stake counselor were symptoms of a growing misogyny in the guise of male priesthood superiority.


And then those who knew died:
By the early 1880s death had taken all the general authorities who had specifically stated that the endowment conferred priesthood upon women. Joseph and Hyrum Smith died in 1844, and John Smith joined them a decade later. Heber C. Kimball died in 1868, and Brigham Young in 1877. Sidney Rigdon had been excommunicated in 1844 but continued to affirm Nauvoo's “female priesthood” until his death in 1876. In 1881, both Orson Pratt and Joseph Young died.


A few were supportive:
As late as April 1896 Apostle Richards reaffirmed the independent source of women's authority to perform healing ordinances. This senior apostle and church historian instructed LDS women that they have “the right” to say these words in administering to the sick: “In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ & by virtue of the Holy Anointing which I have received.” Until 1900 the First Presidency also authorized women to use the word “seal” in this ordinance.87


And then it was gone:
Although church president Joseph F. Smith endorsed the role of women in performing healing ordinances, he diminished the basis on which they did so. President Smith and his wives jointly performed healing administrations for church members. In 1903, for example, Alice Kimball Smith anointed a stake president's daughter and then President Smith sealed the ordinance.88 Beginning in 1908, however, Joseph F. Smith instructed that it was not necessary for a woman to be endowed to perform anointings and blessings for the sick.89 That statement removed for the first time the ordinance of healing from the priesthood conferred upon women by the endowment.


Then in 1935, directly annointing an afflicted part of the body was discontinued:
In December 1935 the Presiding Bishopric and First Presidency discussed a report that Apostle John A. Widtsoe had instructed missionaries in Europe to “anoint the head only.”


Once that was done,
Consequently when men stopped anointing various parts of men's bodies with consecrated oil for healing, it became possible to exclude women from anointing and blessing the sick. That policy change did not become final for another decade. In 1946 Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith informed the Relief Society general presidency that it was no longer approved “for sisters to wash and anoint other sisters.” Instead, he said that women should “send for the Elders of the Church to come and administer to the sick and afflicted.”92 Thus a century of Mormon women's sacred ordinances no longer had the approval of the church's hierarchy. An era had officially ended.


Today, most LDS women know nothing about what was conferred, nor do they know what we have lost. I suspect most LDS men don't know about it either.

Piece by piece, here a little, there a little, it was taken away.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_cinepro
_Emeritus
Posts: 4502
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:15 pm

Re: That which was restored and then lost again

Post by _cinepro »

It seems the gift of speaking in tongues has also been lost.
_Morrissey
_Emeritus
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:42 am

Re: That which was restored and then lost again

Post by _Morrissey »

cinepro wrote:It seems the gift of speaking in tongues has also been lost.


Hey, what about the Missionary Training Center? :rolleyes:
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: That which was restored and then lost again

Post by _harmony »

cinepro wrote:It seems the gift of speaking in tongues has also been lost.


Well, that certainly puts women holding the priesthood in its place, doesn't it?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_Nevo
_Emeritus
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:05 pm

Re: That which was restored and then lost again

Post by _Nevo »

Harmony,

I thought you believed that Joseph forfeited his prophetic calling in 1833. How then did he manage to confer priesthood on women in 1843?
_Phouchg
_Emeritus
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 2:54 am

Re: That which was restored and then lost again

Post by _Phouchg »

This is another things that testifies to me that the church is under condemnation, and is verging on apostasy. God is not pleased at how those who claim to act in His Name treat His daughters.


fook
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
- Ben Franklin
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: That which was restored and then lost again

Post by _harmony »

Nevo wrote:Harmony,

I thought you believed that Joseph forfeited his prophetic calling in 1833. How then did he manage to confer priesthood on women in 1843?


Interesting concept, isn't it? How much, if anything, that he did after Fanny is valid? How much, if anything, did God authorize or condemn?

What's interesting to me is that those who made the changes had no qualm about changing something Joseph authorized. Sounds to me like they were mega-cafeteria Mormons.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Post Reply