What Otterson Got Right: “We don’t know all the reasons”

Last updated on: May 31, 2014 at 10:51 pm by TT

What Otterson Got Right: “We don’t know all the reasons” 2014-05-31T22:51:12-05:00 TT

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

There is a lot to like about Michael Otterson’s recent letter. It is a cause for hope that the issue of women in the church is being taken seriously. It is honest, heartfelt, transparent, and reaches out directly to a community who often wonders if anyone cares at all. I am grateful for this gesture and am pleased to see that he is an active part of the conversation.

There are lots of things to critique about the letter too, many of which have happened in other blog posts and comments. There is also cause for disappointment in the explanation that reportedly years of conversations about women in the church have lead to so few and so minor actual changes. But I want to specifically point out one thing that stood out to me. When explaining the issue of women’s ordination in the LDS tradition, Otterson attests:

I suppose we do not know all the reasons why Christ did not ordain women as apostles, either in the New Testament or the Book of Mormon, or when the Church was restored in modern times. We only know that he did not…

Only one argument is given for why the priesthood is restricted to males: precedent. Even on this point, the precedent is given no rational defense. “We do not know all the reasons…We only know that he did not” This statement strikes me as among the most significant in the letter, and I am deeply appreciative of his candor. Otterson is not saying that there is no reason. Rather, Jesus may have had a reason, but we do not know as a matter of doctrine what the reason is.

When discussing women’s ordination, Otterson does not, thankfully, appeal to gender roles, nor does he suggest that women’s current contributions are as much as they are capable of offering to the church. He does not say that men “need” the priesthood but that women do not. He does not say that only males can represent God or Christ. He does not compare the priesthood to motherhood. Basically, he guts the hackneyed apologetic defenses of the status quo. Otterson’s rejection of these arguments shows me that he is paying close attention, and that he is attuned to the weaknesses of these arguments. For that, I am thankful.

As many have pointed out, the argument from precedent on this issue is pretty weak too, and may actually create the space for women’s status as deacon, apostle, prophet, and other roles. The early Christian record does not really support an idea of priesthood ordination, certainly not for males alone, and the question of offices, including what the Twelve were, is quite unclear. Contrary to Otterson’s letter, Jesus does not “ordain” anyone in the Book of Mormon, let alone any apostles. The evolution of church offices and roles in the Restoration is similarly inconsistent, and the modern organization of the church looks quite different from anything Joseph Smith ever produced.

But what strikes me most is that precedent is the only argument. Have we abandoned any rational defense of this practice? Does it make simply no sense anymore, and we only have tradition? The most pressing question that remains is, in the absence of any rational reason for the current doctrine, why exactly is it non-negotiable?

Uncategorized

Previous Post

May 30, 2014

Women, Blacks, and the Priesthood in Recent LDS Church Rhetoric

Next Post

June 14, 2014 Unanswered Questions about the Priesthood

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2013 Scriptures Administrative Apologetics Atonement Bible Book of Mormon Book Review BYU Doctrine Extra-Biblical Literature Family Feminism Guests History LDS Church History Leadership Marginalia Metaphysics Mormon Culture Mormon Studies Personal Issues Political Philosophy Politics Scripture Sexuality Speculation Spotlights Studying Religion Ten Tidbits The Tenure Track Theology Tips on Applying Series Tips on Being an Independent Scholar Uncategorized

Select a Month June 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 July 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz