Approaching Priesthood: Its Legalism and Generosity
Fewer topics trouble, challenge and galvanize my soul more than exclusive priesthood authority. In mainstream religion priesthood authority is bedrock. All religions claim divine legitimacy. All profess their laws, rites, rituals and commands to hold heavenly authorization above the next, making it clear that only those duly ordained to their specific church canâŚ
Have genuine contact with the divine
Claim real spiritual power
Priesthood authority in general has inherent tensions that are created by the traditions that surround it. These tensions raise formidable questions that are not altogether easy to answer. What exactly is priesthood? How is it related to church? To ritual? To salvation? To spirituality and spiritual gifts? What can be done with priesthood that cannot be done without it? In Mormonism, these questions are no less difficult to answer than in other religions. Sunday school, for example, might make it easy enough to state that priesthood is nothing more than an exclusive right to act for Christ and to perform certain functions in His name, transmitted by outward ordinances such as the laying on of hands and the temple endowment. But the churchâs own historical record and scriptural canon concerning priesthood has been nothing short of revelatory, not to mention complex and richly nuanced.
Significant changes have grown out of distinctive views on priesthood since the early churchesâââwho can wield divine power and suchâââsuggesting that the narratives framed around âpriesthoodâ have not always been uniformly consistent but instead finite, fallible and subject to revision in light of continuing revelation. The early nineteenth-century church, for example, first emphasized charisma and spiritual gifts as evidence of priestly power, only later to stress the necessity of office and ordination. It was Joseph Smith who taught, on the one hand, that we might as well baptize a âbag of sandâ if we lack inner spiritual commitment, which seemed to downplay the significance of ordination.[i] And yet it was equally Joseph, on the other hand, who said that through the ordinances âthe power of godliness is manifest.â[ii] The interconnection points to a paradox: For Joseph priesthood was both inward spiritual powerâââandâââoutward ritual orordinance. One was the key that unlocked the door; the other was the power that enabled you to walk through the door.
This paradox lies at the heart of Joseph Smithâs teachings and is something Iâve fiercely wrestled with for a long time. How could Josephâs theology on priesthood allow for both a generous dispersal of divine power/authority extending beyond the Saints (reflected in his desire for all people to become prophets, to speak with the Holy Ghost) while at the same time place legalistic bounds and borders upon its usage (shown by his lack of sympathy for those possessed by disorderly, extravagant spirits at the camps)?
In reexamining our priesthood doctrines, we can turn to church history to unpack this paradox of simultaneous legalism and generosity. We can explore the unique qualifiers and discrepancies between what Joseph, the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants each teach about priesthoodâââandâââwhat some Mormons now believe about priesthood. We will begin by unpacking our previous questions: What exactly is priesthood? How does it relate to ritual? To salvation? To spirituality and spiritual gifts? To the exclusive claim, âonly true and living churchâ?
The priesthood, as Joseph Smith explained, is âthe channel through which the Almighty commenced revealing His glory at theâŚcreation of this earth, and through which He has continued to reveal Himself to the children of men to the present time, and through which He will make known His purposes to the end of time.â[iii] Priesthood, in other words, is a passage or conduit through which the divine is made manifest to us. It is the great eternal power and authority of God delegated to humans, authorizing them to preach the divine news, administer the sacraments, establish the heavens on earth, and heal and bless human families.
Foreshadows of âpriesthoodâ in the early nineteenth-century âchurchâ at first existed without being linked to the need for ritual or ordination. The 1828 revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants expressly stated in non-institutional terms what was required of people to not only enjoy divine presence and approval, but to be carriers of divine power and influence. Section 10:67 reads: âBehold, this is my doctrineâââwhosever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is of my church.â To further confirm that baptism and other rituals were not required for divine sanction, the revelation immediately followed up: âWhosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church.â For early Mormons, it was not ecclesiastical ritual that qualified someone for the Lordâs work. Instead, requirements centered on light-of-Christ righteousness: âFaith, hope, charity and love, with an eye single to the glory of God, qualify him for the workâ (D&C 4:5). âTherefore,â the Lord says, âif ye have desires to serve God ye are called to the workâ (D&C 4:3).
The essence of the âpriesthoodâ in the early church, even when it hadnât yet been articulated or hierarchically structured as such, was predominantly spiritual (less ritualistic) in nature. Joseph would later reveal that the ârights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heavenâ (D&C 121:36). Divine authority, in other words, is like the biblical wind. It âbloweth where it listeth,â gives breeze to those who âwork according to the faith and diligence and heedâ of its directionâ (John 3:8; 1Nephi 16:28). One reading of Section 121 might imply that priesthood power is not strictly limited within the confines of the Mormon Church itself. For it âcannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness,â and when pride, ambition, or coercion is used to dismiss other true and good traditions, rituals, and beliefs, âin any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or authority of that manâ (D&C 121:36â37).
The priesthood, or any responsibility within it, cannot be purchased or commanded. The use of the priesthood cannot be compelled by position, office, or ordination status, nor monopolized by an institution by mere membership alone. It is a spiritual power that operates by heavenly law, granted to those who live righteously regardless of race, creed, or custom. We may very well then belong to the Mormon Church, or the Catholic Church, or the Muslim or Evangelical Church, and still not belong to the true church of the Lamb of God if our full-bodied desiresâââincluding our heart, mind, and mightâââare not in the right place. Divine power, and the ability to speak and act authoritatively, is contingent upon personal strivings, or light-of-Christ righteousness. In these teachings, as Paul and Margaret Toscano point out, âJoseph reflected to a certain extent Martin Lutherâs notion of a priesthood of all believers.â[iv]
Such an egalitarian view of âpriesthood,â however, is not quite sufficient to explain the legalistic framework that Joseph would eventually hedge around this sacred power. Historically, the fledgling scaffold that soon developed, defined and anchored this power would best be understood retrospectively from the ecclesiastical threats that took place during the summer of 1830.
Hiram Page, one of the Eight Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, used a seer stone to dictate revelations that many prominent church members were taken in by, but which Joseph believed âwere entirely at variance with the order of Gods house, as laid down by the New Testament, as well as in our late revelations.â[v] Joseph sensed the danger of competing revelations, even though âup to that time none of [his] revelations prohibited other Saints from declaring Godâs will for the church.â[vi] In fact, the concept of âprophet, seer, and revelatorâ among the early Saints was viewed as non-exclusive. All were encouraged to voice scripture and speak with the tongues of angels. Joseph wanted everyone to see and experience God as he did. But the Page incident, as Richard Bushman has rightly pointed out, demonstrated that âacknowledging every visionary outburst could splinter the church.â[vii] D. Michael Quinn put it in similar terms, stating how ânon-hierarchical charisma could fragment an institution.â[viii]
Joseph was sensitive to rival revelations after Hiram Page, and soon saw it necessary to establish procedures and leadership structures that would prevent his little church from spinning wildly out of control. It wasnât much later that he dictated another revelation in 1830: âNo one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this Church excepting my servant Joseph, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Mosesâ (D&C 28:2). Joseph used his priestly gifts to subordinate what he believed were ungrounded expressions of human charisma, binding them within institutional forms. Another revelation firmly announced that âthere is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until [Joseph] be taken, if he abide in me ⌠none else shall be appointed unto this gift except it be through him: for if it be taken from him he shall not have power except to appoint another in his steadâ (D&C 43:3â4).
As sole revelator for the church, Joseph was slowly unveiling that âpriesthoodâ was more than just a generous dispersal of spiritual power. It was also an authorized method of church governance infused with legalistic functions, rights and keys to perform certain services in Christâs name. âThere is no salvation,â Joseph declared, âwithout a legal administrator.â[ix]The rights and authority of the priesthood thereforeââânot to be conflated with its powersâââbecame transmitted by specific rituals, such as baptism, the laying on of hands and participation in temple ordinances. The emphasis on the necessity of these rituals were, in Josephâs teachings, meant to provide continuity and order to our relationship with the divine. They were meant to facilitate genuine spiritual transformation.
Paradoxically, the ritualistic introduction of transmitting priesthood found Joseph caught up in, and yet resisting, certain shifting impulses of revelation. For example, that particular rules, rituals and performances were meant to be obeyed in Josephâs theology appeared conflicting with his earlier desire to be âuntrammeledâ by âcreeds [that] set up stakes,â and that otherwise constrained divine influence.[x] Upon closer examination, however, Josephâs legalism might better be understood as his recognition of the stakes and dangers pertaining to cheapened universalism. Terryl Givens has insightfully noted that Josephâs adherence to law and order should be seen âas a gesture in the direction of putting on the brakes of excessive [freedom]⌠What at times could appear [to be] legalism, might in a broader context be seen as his resistance to the well intentioned but disastrous illusion of an ungrounded human autonomy.â[xi] Certainly, Joseph was weary of little Hiram Pageâs running amok, and so was torn between the impulse to obliterate the creeds yet sanction them within a legalistic vocabulary. He understood that transcending both would require a balance of both generosity and law.
What I find most interesting about Josephâs generous liberalism on the one hand, including its âuntrammeled freedom,â and his uncompromising legalism, with its laws and ordinances on the other, is how replete the scriptures are with examples of those who received the priesthood both with and without the intercession of any human agency. In other words, there exists both inner (charismatic) and outer (institutional) forms of priesthood that have been transmitted to various prophets throughout the ages, and some of those transmissions, as far as we know, have been transferred charismatically without ordination.
The New Testament, for example, mentions no physical ordination for the apostle Paul. Rather, he received an unmediated calling to the apostleship when Jesus Christ appeared to him on the road to Damascus. In the Book of Mormon, Alma the Younger similarly did not wait to be ordained by human authority. The text mentions nothing about his ordination, only his dramatic-angelic vision that led him âfrom this time forward to teach the peopleâŚpreaching the word of Godâ (Mos. 27:32).[xii] Alma the Elder is another example, who, without any mention of ordination, was commissioned to baptize others (Mos. 18:12â14). BYU religion instructor Lyndon W. Cook has observed: âthese apostles had received their callings charismatically [through vision] rather than institutionally [through ordination to office].â[xiii] The Toscanoâs poignantly add: âWe must assume that [an] unmediated calling of God is sufficient to transform a false priesthood into a true one.â[xiv] Put differently, a person with no ordination can still be called by God to perform certain services in His name, barring not even outsiders as âpartnersâ unaware in the work of theosis.â[xv]
The existence of a charismatic priesthood authority transmitted directly to individuals by God without mediation has important implications for good, honest, divine-seeking people outside of Mormonism, who culturally have been determined within as having no legitimate priesthood due to their lack of institutional mediation and ordination. This posture is somewhat ironic, not only because there are scriptural examples (like above) that teach the opposite, but because it misses the mark of what specific Mormon rituals have always pointed towards, namely, a genuine spiritual transformation.
Elder David A. Bednar, for example, has significantly instructed that the transmission of divine, priesthood power âdoes not become operative in our lives merely because hands are placed upon our heads.â[xvi] Outward ordination does not guarantee inward spiritual power, however necessary it might beââââFor what doth it profit a man if a gift is bestowed upon him, and he receive not the gift?â (D&C 88:33). Although those powers might be conferred upon us, if we neglect the âsacred and ongoing responsibility to desire, to seek, to work, and to so liveâ for that gift we confuse the performance of outer, perfunctory rituals for inner, genuine discipleship.[xvii] We equivocate our membership in a church for equal membership in the true church of the Lamb of God, which is misguided.
The Toscanoâs have rightfully expanded upon this point: âFailure to live the gospel and retain the spirit separates the rights of the priesthood from the powers of heaven so that the priesthood no longer has any spiritual authority.â[xviii] For without the power of the priesthoodâââthe Holy Ghostâââthe legalistic function of the ordinances are dead, good for nothing. Or, as Joseph taught, we might as well baptize a âbag of sand.â
None of this is to suggest that institutional priesthood is not important, albeit necessary for protecting the church from internal chaos. The Book of Mormon verily teaches that the priesthood is dual-natured, both charismatic and institutional, and that both should operate together. This is suggested through continual examples of prophets being called directly by God, getting ordained with a holy ordinance, and hence establishing a church for members to flourish (Mos. 11â17; Al. 31â35; He. 13â15). However, on occasion prophets with unmediated callings are presented as not waiting for ordination before embarking on their missions; they seem to have been spiritually reborn without the need for outward ordination, though at some point they may need to receive this priesthood as Christ did, having no need of it, in order to âfulfill all righteousnessâ (Matt. 3:15).
From my personal experience, many members of the Mormon faith seem to conflate priesthood with this outward institutional ordination, and only this kind of ordination. Someone who has received institutional authority (outward priesthood) but lacks spiritual gifts (inward priesthood) can be a common circumstance, if one reason being we donât typically view priesthood in terms of inward spirituality. This might be due to the fact that admitting that there are many chosen people, many lost tribes, and many promised lands and divinely-inspired records outside our faith contradicts the need for our particular brand of ordination. Or that it opens the door to a kind of cheapened universalism.
While there may be some legitimacy here, we seem to confuse our claim for divine authority with the claim that no spiritual authority or power whatsoever can exist in any other organization. We seem to forget our own history, that the priesthood was restored and established before our church was even organized and can exist independently without an official structure in place. Admitting that other religious and secular traditions can possess inward priesthood is no different from claiming that God bestows spiritual gifts and callings upon all cultures and people.
In consideration of such priestly gifts, the 1978 First Presidency under the direction of Spencer Kimball, Eldon Tanner, and Marion Romney, announced the divine role that outsiders will play in the work of theosis. Here their official, worldwide, multicultural declaration states:
âThe great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of Godâs light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.â[xix]
Orson Whitney would go even further to support the notion that outsiders can possess a certain kind of inward priesthood. Here he tells us that other faith and secular tribes are our âpartnersâ in the work of salvation:
âGod, the Father of us all, uses the men of the earth, especially good men, to accomplish his purposesâŚThey are among the churchâs auxiliaries, and can do more good for the cause where the Lord has placed them, than anywhere elseâŚGod is using more than one people for the accomplishment of His great and marvelous work. The Latter-day Saints cannot do it all. It is too vast, too arduous for any one peopleâŚWe have no quarrel with the Gentiles. They are our partners in a certain sense.â[xx]
It should be clear from our reading of the Book of Mormon, most notably 2Nephi 29, that though Christ is our great Savior and Redeemer, he is not our God alone. He is the God of âall men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the seaâ (2Nephi 29:11). He has, as Jacob 5 instructs, many trees in his vineyard. Such powerful declarations are no cause for arrogance or complacency. We are taught that being in possession of distinctive and sacred priesthoods by no means invalidates the spirituality, vitality, and priestly callings of others. After all, we can hardly validate institutionally the authority of those called by God directly without knowing their fruits. And mere ordination alone does not presuppose good fruit. The Doctrine & Covenants 12:8 expressly states that no one will be barred from being carriers of divine influence, granted they are âhumble and full of love, having faith, hope, and charity, being temperate in all things.â
The Toscanoâs elaborate further: âWe ought to be compassionate and humble enough to admit that God will not require others to accept the truth he has given to us without requiring us to accept the truth he has given to them. We cannot simply export our religion but must also import from others.â[xxi] President Gordon B. Hinckley has expressed this same truth in different terms: âBring with you all that you have of good and truth which you have received from whatever source, and come and let us see if we may add to it.â[xxii]
Joseph Smithâs priesthood was truly expansive as it was narrowly lawful, granted in piecemeal to those who would walk the divine walk. In one sermon he went as far as to say that âall who would follow the precepts of the Bible, whether Mormon or not, would assuredly be saved.â[xxiii] He later would add: âGod hath made a provision that every spirit can be ferreted out in that world that has not sinned the unpardonable sin.â[xxiv]Whether this means all people will need to receive at some point a Mormon baptism, or a Mormon temple endowment, I am currently agnostic about.
Initiation rites are much less interesting and important to me than genuine spiritual development. Rituals seem hollow and unnecessary if they do not encourage inward, existential transformation. Of course, rituals can lead a person to spiritually-motivated acts, but I have read about and met far too many good, honest, divine-seeking people who seem to have already experienced this spiritual rebirth, without our institutional trappings. From a Christian standpoint, however, the need for some kind of ordination seems imperative given Jesus Christâs baptism. That Buddha, Gandhi, Muhammad or Aristotle would eventually need to be baptized, let alone receive a Mormon baptism, would, from my estimation, have to come from Christâs power and influence alone, not from the tumult of noise of those who vie for His authority.
In closing, it is my current belief that Josephâs priesthood is a divine power that is incredibly flexible, generous and tolerant, while at the same time guarded by ecclesiastical structures that maintain and protect against its false and dangerous uses. This paradox of simultaneous legalism and generosity requires careful and ponderous and solemn thoughts to fathom its mystery. I readily admit I have only begun to scratch the surface. It is a power, above all, that cannot be used for personal gain, but must be used to serve and uplift others. As President Dieter F. Uchtdorf has challenged, âIn order to exercise His power, we must strive to be like the Savior.â[xxv] And my approach here has been merely thatâââto approach, to reach, to strive slowly towards His truly marvelous, sensitive power, one degree at a time.
[iv] Toscano, Paul & Margaret. Strangers in Paradox. US: Signature Books, 1990. 144
[v] Bushman, Richard. Rough Stone Rolling. New York: Vintage Books, 2005. 121.
[vi] Quinn, Michael. The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power. US: Signature Books, 1994. 8.
[ix] James Burgess Notebook, 23 July 1843, in Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith (Orem, Utah: Grandin, 1991), 235.
[xi] Givens, Terryl. Joseph Smith, Romanticism, and Tragic Creation. Richard Bushman Mormon Studies Symposium. 14.
[xii] Alma the Younger was eventually ordained by his father, but his holy calling and ministry came before this ordination (Alma 5:3)
[xiii] Cook, Lyndon. âJoseph Smith and the High Priesthood.â Sunstone Theological Symposium. 1987, SLC.
[xv] Whitney, Orson. âPeople Outside Faith Can Promote Lordâs Cause.âhttp://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/30459/People-outside-faith-can-promote-Lords-cause.html
[xvi] Bednar, David. âReceive the Holy Ghostâ General Conference talk.https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/receive-the-holy-ghost?lang=eng
[xix] First Presidency statement, Feb. 15, 1978.
[xxii] Hinckley, Gordon. âThe Marvelous Foundation of Our Faith.âhttps://www.lds.org/general-conference/2002/10/the-marvelous-foundation-of-our-faith?lang=eng
[xxiii] Matthew L. Davis, MS History of the Church, C-1, 194.
[xxiv] William Clayton Report, 7 April 1844, Ehat and Cook, Words, 360.
[xxv] Uchtdorf, Deiter. âThe Joy of the Priesthoodâ General Conference talk. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/the-joy-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng#5-10491_000_34uchtdorf
