Wednesday, February 28, 2018


Pray for her safety.  Those who oppose the false flag with the truth end up having "accidents": 

You need to take the time to watch this.  It IS important - so, if it is scrubbed and she disappears, you have the truth.  I find that the truth ends up getting scrubbed over time, so you have to assimilate it immediately after one of these manufactured events.

Here is more good info:

Do not cease spreading the truth.

Tuesday, February 27, 2018


This is admittedly WAY out there - but I have been saying for years that there was a Chinese effort to develop contagion directed specifically at white, males.  Something that would effectively castrate the USA's ability to fight a war.  It is most of the reason why the reports are of cities and towns largely devoid of men.  After all, the Chinese have aborted themselves into the abyss with the one child policy (killing the girl babies in order to have a "male" heir).  This plan would effectively give them plenty of women to rape while they pillage and plunder the USA.

I first became aware of this back in 2009 but the net has been scrubbed of the report that was released.

Here is the missing officer's description of work:

He's a lead Epidemic Intelligence Service officer who, according to the CDC link, analyzes differences related to race/ethnicity, gender, and geography.
In the past, he's deployed for Zika, and Ebola. 
Family poster says he was last seen leaving work on Feb. 12. 

Again, I will state that I clearly do not trust the average Chinese person based on quite a bit of interaction.  For those who have taken God as their guide, this obviously is not the case.  I have seen even my best friend just about sell his mother in order to make a buck.  I became quite disgusted and let him know.  He, of course, could not figure why I was protesting over his greed.  Is is cultural and endemic - from what I can see.

There is a reason that they will come here for our land, our oil, our minerals, our soil to grow crops for their people.  They will be ruthless - it has been shown to so many in vision.  Once they have over-run the land - then they will experience the same calamity for themselves, before they attempt to take down the very elect.

Folks, we are in for an epic ride.  If we have followed good counsel, we will be alright.  If not - we simply will reap the rewards for our indolence.


I saw the following on FB and thought it was profound.

At work last week, over lunch, I brought up the possibility that there is a deep state agenda at work with these school shootings, whose agenda is to bring down the 2nd amendment.  One of my fellow workers just wanted to argue any point that was in variance with my opinions.  I had no problem with it - except he just wanted to argue that he was right.  This kind of sums up the crux of the matter:

Discussions are always better than arguments, because an argument is to determine WHO is right and a discussion leads a group of people to discover WHAT is right.

Sunday, February 25, 2018


First of all, I think CNN is corrupt as anything can get and they are complicit, or they fly crisis actors to be on site immediately after the story breaks.  They are ratings whores at the VERY least.  Complicit and criminal in all likelihood.

Here is a woman who regularly shows up at these events to be a "witness" at the following link:

Here is some extremely disturbing information that all need to see in relation to the Florida shooting:

Folks, you likely are seeing and partaking in the greatest delusion that ever existed.

Saturday, February 24, 2018


Was China’s Great Wall...
built as a protection against Gog of Magog to the South?
Answer is YES, but it has deeper meaning and stems from the bitterness of a Son regretting selling His Birthright to His Younger Brother.
Their history of conflict spans the ages and continues even to this day.
This is a detailed explanation of why...
If you simply want to skip to the end that’s OK, China is NOT GOG, neither is Russia, although they both pose a threat to America. There are three interesting links you may enjoy.
The Great Wall of China has been given many names since it was first started as a defensive measure against hostile enemies. It has been associated with the legend of the wall mentioned in the Qur'an,[40] which Dhul-Qarnayn (commonly associated with Alexander the Great) was said to have erected to protect people near the land of the rising sun from the savages of Gog and Magog.
Gog and Magog a prophesied enemy nation of God's people according to the Book of Ezekiel, and according to Genesis, one of the nations descended from Japheth, son of Noah. It ALL started with Esau selling His Birthright to Jacob...his younger brother for a bowl of porridge. Hence the Sons of Esau shall be a plague upon Israel ALL the Days of Her Life!
Debunking the Russia/War of Gog and Magog Myth
By Jeffrey Goodman, Ph.D.
One of the more popular topics among Christians today is the "end times." With each significant news story, a correlation between it and end times events prophesied in the Bible is sought.
Because of recent military activities and tensions in Russia and Israel, the end times event prophesied in the Bible called "The War of Gog and Magog" is now a red hot topic.
Ezekiel 38/39 tells how Gog, the powerful leader from the land of Magog, will lead a confederacy of nations to invade Israel during the end times and start a war of unprecedented size and devastation.
Many end times aficionados believe that Magog represents Russia and that Russia will soon come to invade Israel.
However, the ancient Assyrians had dealings with Magog, and their Court records clearly identify Magog and it is not Russia.
For decades Christians have been deceived and have been unwittingly deceiving others about who is to be involved in the prophesied invasion of Israel. Russia has absolutely nothing to do with Magog and being the nation that will lead an invasion of Israel.
While many may picture Russia as an "evil empire," personal opinions, traditional views, incomplete research, and current events cannot be the basis of the identification of Gog and Magog and the interpretation of Ezekiel 38/39.
The correct identification and interpretation of Ezekiel 38/39 must be based on scripture, with the aid of the archeological and historical context of these scriptures.
While everyone is entitled to their own opinions, everyone is not entitled to their own set of facts. Although opinions may abound, there is not one verifiable fact or any primary evidence to support the belief that Magog represents Russia.
Any interpretation of Ezekiel 38/39 requires recognition of the historical truth.
The brief report below explains the great deception about Russia and the War of Gog and Magog.
While most end times Bible prophecy authors have argued that Russia's origins trace back to the ancient nation of "Magog" described in Ezekiel 38-39, this is simply not true.
This myth that traces back to the mid 1800's is built on historical statements that were deliberately altered, and on the assumption that the similarity of certain words could mean something else in another language.
Although ancient records have been found that tell a different story about the identity of Magog and about Russia's origins, the "Russia is Magog" myth persists.
Assyrian Court Records
The popular identification of the nations of Ezekiel 38-39 is not correct. Despite the traditional viewpoint, professional archeologists know the identity of these nations from the Assyrian Royal Court records. The reliable, clear and detailed records of Assyrian Royal Court show they dealt directly with each of these nations about 100 years before Ezekiel wrote.
These are the same records that are referred to in Ezra 4:15, 19 and 5:17-6:7. These passages tell how the Jews of the fifth century BC 538 BC–457 BC overcame opposition by the local Persian governor to the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem by referring to these same Assyrian cuneiform court records.
They are also the same records Bible scholars now use to provide independent verification and edification of the Bible's historical accounts from about 805 BC to 530 BC.
The Assyrian Royal Court records provide direct evidence and represent an incontestable primary source on this subject, since they were written during the time period in question by people who were directly involved.
Primary sources have greater value than secondary sources, which can include generalizations, speculation and interpretations made long after the occurrence of the events.
On this particular subject, too often what has been written about these countries constitutes secondary evidence and is not based on facts. In some instances statements are the product of mischief, bias or not studying all of the available information.
The Assyrian Court records show dealings with Magog, Meshech, Tubal, and Togarmah (Ezekiel 38:3-6), the nations that stretched across ancient Asia Minor (modern Turkey) from west to east. From these records we also learn that the ancient nation of Gomer (Ezekiel 38:6), an enemy of the Assyrians invaded Asia Minor by coming down from an area around the northeast shore of the Black Sea. Archeologists know that the militant leader called "Gog" in Ezekiel 38/39 led a confederacy of these nations against invading Gomer.
Who and what are Gog and Magog?
Gog is a historical man who the Greeks called Gyges of Lydia. In Gyges of Lydia we have the leader the Assyrians called "Gugu, King of Ludu," and "Gugu of Magugu," who is referred to in the Bible as Gog of Magog. "Magog" simply means "the land of Gog." In Akkadian ma means land, so in Akkadian Ma- gugu means "the land of Gugu," which becomes our Ma-gog. (Just as the Assyrian eponym for the land of the leader called Zamua is rendered as Ma-zamua).
Magog is an eponym for the ancient nation of Lydia that was in the westernmost part of Asia Minor. The Assyrians often referred to a new land by the name of the first leader they learned of from this land. The Assyrians dealt with Lydia through Meshech, who were subsequently defeated by Gomer, and thus the Assyrians finally came to deal with Lydia directly.
In the prophecy of Ezekiel 38/39 Gog is being used as a "historical type" of the "antichrist" who is prophesied to come during the end times, and Magog is being used as a "historical type" of "the land of the antichrist."
It has been mistakenly believed that the ancient nation of "Magog" in western Asia Minor was the ancient "tribal name" of the "Scythians," a group of Iranian speaking nomadic tribes from Central Asia (north of Iran) that traveled across the Russian steppes, and came to live in the territory north of the Black Sea.
Then, in turn, and again in error, it has been believed that the ancient Scythians were the progenitors of the modern Russians. In Foes from the Northern Frontier Dr. Edwin Yamauchi, a professor of history at Miami University in Ohio emphatically explains that none of the ancient nations referred to in Ezekiel 38-39 can possibly be related to modern Russia.
Further, Yamauchi says:
"Even if one were to transliterate the Hebrew rosh as a proper name (as does the NAS) rather than translate it as 'chief' (as does the KJV, NIV, and Hebrew Tanakh), it can have nothing to do with modern 'Russia.' This would be a gross anachronism for the modern name is based upon the name Rus, which was brought into the region of Kiev, north of the Black Sea, by the Vikings only in the Middle Ages."
Daniel I. Block, a professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois in The Book of Ezekiel writes,
"The popular identification of Tubal with Tubolsk in Russia (H. Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth 1970, p.53) is ludicrous . . . The popular identification of Meshech with Moscow (of Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth p.53) is absurd.
How did Russia become associated with Magog?
The erroneous belief that Russia is Magog can be traced back to a small group of 18th and 19th century theologians who wrote long before the primary evidence from the ancient Assyrian records was discovered, translated and made available to the public.
Instead, they based their assertions on secondary sources, historical works written over 500 years after the time of Ezekiel, and to make matters worse some of these sources had come to be purposefully altered.
These altered references include statements attributed to the first century AD Jewish historian Josephus, and first century AD Roman historian Pliny.
In his book The Antiquity of the Jews Josephus says that the Greeks called the "Magogites" the "Scythians" despite the fact that the Greeks did not call the Magogites the Scythians.
In this same passage there are other errors in the identification of other ancient nations of Asia Minor. This passage shows that the author did not understand that Ashkenaz is the Hebrew word for the Scythians.
(Interestingly, the Assyrian word for the Scythians, Ishkuza or Ashguza is similar to the Hebrew word for the Scythians – Ashkenaz.)
This passage also comes into conflict with what the ancient Greek historian Herodotus who after living with each group wrote about the Scythians and the Lydians in his book The History.
Since Josephus used Herodotus' book as a reference, one can only speculate how and why these obviously wrong statements are in Josephus' book.
Were these inaccurate statements the products of Josephus' imagination, or were they the result of alterations to the few copies of Josephus' work that existed in medieval times?
(Jews did not preserve the writings of Josephus because they considered him to be a traitor.) Beginning in the 11th century these surviving manuscripts were copied by Catholic monks, and obviously altered in some places to suit prevailing beliefs.
Ecclesiastical acceptance of the erroneous connection between Magog and the Scythians traces back to Saint Jerome of the late fourth century AD. Unfortunately, the oft quoted statement that has Josephus connecting Magog with the Scythians is an act of document forgery.
Similarly, the oft quoted statement that has the ancient Roman historian Pliny in his work The Natural History that connects Magog with the Scythians is another forgery.
Nineteenth century Scottish Reverend John Cumming is credited as being a leading promoter of the Bible interpretation that calls for Russia invading Israel.
In his book The Destiny of Nations Cumming quotes a passage from Pliny's book about Magog which he purposefully altered.
Reverend Cumming on page 126 wrote: "Pliny says 'Hierapolis taken by the Scythians was afterwards called Magog.'"
Pliny on page 439 actually wrote: "Bambyx (a part of Lydia) the other name of which is Hierapolis, but by the Syrians called Magog."
Pliny's statement has been misquoted by Cumming in a way that makes it seem that Magog was related to the Scythians rather than the Lydians.
Unfortunately, this same misquote of Pliny has been carried forward in time and appears in Hal Lindsey's book The Late Great Planet Earth (page 53). This alteration is easily verified by going to a copy of Pliny's book and seeing how key words were changed and switched around.
It is difficult to believe that none of the many authors of books that discuss Ezekiel 38/39 and the war of Gog and Magog have not discovered this sleight of hand and exposed the deception. (While many contemporary Evangelicals gave Cumming's books on prophecy favorable reviews, an article in the Westminster Review in 1855 about Cumming attacked him for his "intellectual dishonesty, anti-Catholic bigotry, and moral and spiritual perversion.")
The correct identification of Magog with Lydia and not Scythia is consistent with the ancient texts of the Assyrians, who at various times were either the allies or the foes of the Scythians, but had peaceful dealings with the Lydians, who they also referred to as "Magog."
Within academia today, no professional archeologists, historians or serious Bible researchers associate Magog with the Scythians or the Scythians with the Russians.
The truth is that modern scholars have unequivocally documented that a group of Scandinavian Viking traders called the Rus began the Russian state during the mid AD 800's, and gave their name to Russia. Therefore there is no historical or factual basis for any connection of Russia to Magog.
ANCIENT NATIONS OF EZEKIEL 38/39 Ezekiel 38/39 makes reference to a group of ancient nations that are all found in Asia Minor: Magog (Lydia), Meshech, Tubal, Togarmah and Gomer. The correct identification of these nations comes from the "Royal Court Records of the Assyrians"; the primary source on this subject. These same Assyrian Court records are referred to in the Bible (Ezra 4:15, 19).
LYDIAN MIGRATION TO ITALY An early Lydian dynasty experienced a prolonged famine which caused half of the Lydian population to migrate to the west coast of Italy, just north of Rome. The Romans called these Lydian migrants "Etruscans." The Etruscans settled in an area called Tuscany and they helped found the city of Rome and jump start the Roman civilization. Hundreds of years after this migration, the Lydian population in Asia Minor came to be ruled by a militant ruler whom the Greeks called "Gyges of Lydia." To the Assyrians this same leader was known as "Gugu King of Ludu," and "Gugu of Magugu." Ezekiel referred to this same leader as "Gog of Magog" where "Magog" means "the land of Gog."
Why understanding Gog and Magog is important
As for comparing Gog and Magog of Ezekiel 38/39 to Gog and Magog of Revelation 20:7-10, two different wars are being referred to and the terms Gog and Magog are not being used literally but being used as "historical types." As referred to in Ezekiel 38-39, the historical Gog who was a "prince" of the nations of Magog, Meshech, and Tubal, serve as "historical types" of the "antichrist" and the multi-national confederacy over which the antichrist is to rule during the tribulation period. The Bible uses the historical leader Gog as a historical type of the antichrist to come in the exact same ways the Bible uses the historical King David as a type of Jesus' Second Coming (Ezekiel 34:23 and Ezekiel 37:22-24). Similarly, in Matthew 11:14 (also see Malachi 4:5) and Matthew 17:10-13 ("if you will receive it") Jesus in effect says that John is a historical type of Elijah. In other words, "Gog and Magog" (remember in Akkadian "Magog" means "the land of Gog") in their most basic meaning, are taken to be types or references to any "antichrist" and "the land of this antichrist;" just as I John 2:18, 22, 4:3, and II John 7 says "there are many antichrists." Thus, Revelation 20 tells of a second and separate battle involving another Gog and Magog, that is, a different battle involving another antichrist and the lands of this antichrist that takes place around 1,000 years after the battle of Gog and Magog of Ezekiel 38/39. The Gog or antichrist of Ezekiel 38 is involved with one war that is to occur before Jesus returns, and the Gog or antichrist of Revelation 20 is involved with another war that is to occur after Jesus returns and dwells with mankind for one thousand years.
The bottom line for what is said in Ezekiel 38/39 is that just as a real person called Gog led a confederacy of nations around 660B.C., Ezekiel is using Gog as a historical type of the antichrist, and Magog as a historical type of the nations the antichrist is to lead, for a war that Ezekiel is prophesying to occur during the end times. This could be fulfilled by the appearance of an antichrist and a confederacy of European nations representing a revived Roman Empire. Ecclesiastes 1:9 and 3:15 teach that which is to be hath already been and that there is nothing new under the sun. Has such an invasion of the Holy Land and effort to kill Jews by a confederacy of European nations ever occurred before? Yes, deadly invasions of Israel have taken place a number of times. These invasions are called the Crusades of the Middle Ages. A confederacy of European nations has invaded Israel before and according to scripture it seems that these nations will do so again. While Russia's anti- Israel actions regularly appear in the news, it is interesting to note the ever growing anti-Israel attitude and actions of the European Community.
Jacob & Esau
The sons of Esau shall be a plague unto Israel all the days of Her Life!…/
Abraham, father of all nations, Ishmael father of the Muslim world, Esau, father of the Roman/Christian/Western world and Jacob, father of the Jewish world.


Image may contain: text

Friday, February 23, 2018


I have to say here that my best man and life-long friend (though our relationship is now strained due to his belief that all is well in Zion and that government is our friend.....) is Chinese - second generation.

However, I trust few if any of them due to the blatant love of money.  Yes, a massive generalization, I know.  If I owned a company with sensitive tech, I would not let any with strong ties to China work in my sensitive areas.  At Boeing, it always freaked me out when there was a Chinese immigrant who could barely speak any english who had access to any database he wanted - and was spending crazy amounts of time after hours on the premises.  Sorry, but I have this bias.  Most are fine, I am sure - but since Clinton let the Chinese have the plans for our W88 warhead with the Los Alamos breach, I despise those who are here for that purpose.  I despise those who are addicted to Mercedes, casino life, fakery, prostitution and so much else that characterizes their seedy underworld.  This is largely true of most Asians.  I love those who love the truth, despise lies, love family and principles of freedom.  If ever there were a people who would do what has been seen in visions of all kinds, it would be the radicalized Muslims or the "heathen Chinese", as JS once said.  Giving all due deference to the heinous act of my progenitors who strung up the very Son of God......  The lowest of the lows in the embarrassing telestial annals....

Anyway, the Chinese have stolen their way from the stone age after the great purge 50 years ago, to where they are right now.  Using their walmart bux, they are able to buy just about anything they want - and it always floors me how quickly they end up making an exact replica of our tech right after we produce it.

Anyway, I researched this bio-warfare tech that they have been feverishly working on pretty heavily at the inception of this blog and it is true.  When I went to look up all the info we had on their advancements on bio-tech designed to target caucasian males, it had been scrubbed from the net, just a few years later.

I present the following information in light of what Spencer had to say on the matter - and please remember that the scrips also say that "In that day, seven women will take hold of one man....".   Remember that this will be due to most men dying off in war and due to this targeted bio-tech.  Some could argue that this is just propaganda or fake news.  Well, I would say that the designs and objectives stated in this blerb fit PERFECTLY with what Spencer had to say in Visions of Glory, which I just re-read a few days ago.  It fits PERFECTLY with what we are seeing now in the news with the swan-song call to disarm and "do what we did (in China)" after every school shooting......  Sure - because we desire a police state over here and another Tiannamen Square, along with a rigged internet and complicit propaganda press.  Sure, we want that, Chairman Mao......:

China Is Behind The Disarming Of American Population And Upcoming Pandemics!From Chi Haotian Vice-Chairman of China's Military Commission Speech In 2005!
[link to]
Less than 30%
"Only by using special means to 'clean up' America will we be able to lead the Chinese people there. Only by using non-destructive weapons that can kill many people will we be able to reserve America for ourselves.
There has been rapid development of modern biological technology, and new bio weapons have been invented one after another. Of course we have not been idle; in the past years we have seized the opportunity to master weapons of this kind. We are capable of achieving our purpose of 'cleaning up' America all of a sudden. When Comrade Xiaoping was still with us, the Party Central Committee had the perspicacity to make the right decision not to develop aircraft carrier groups and focused instead on developing lethal weapons that can eliminate mass populations of the enemy country. Biological weapons are unprecedented in their ruthlessness, but if the Americans do not die then the Chinese have to die. If the Chinese people are strapped to the present land, a total societal collapse is bound to take place. According to the computations of the author of Yellow Peril, more than half of the Chinese will die, and that figure would be more than 800 million people! Just after the liberation, our yellow land supported nearly 500 million people, while today the official figure of the population is more than 1.3 billion. This yellow land has reached the limit of its capacity. One day, who know how soon it will come, the great collapse will occur any time and more than half of the population will have to go.
It is indeed brutal to kill one or two hundred million Americans. But that is the only path that will secure a Chinese century, a century in which the CCP leads the world."
In hollywood movies like Sunshine 2007 China is shown to rule the whole world in the future.
In Tekken 2009 China was shown to have occupied USA, to have enforced a new global currency with Mao's face on it and Chinese police was shown on american streets speaking chinese, hunting and shooting americans.

Tuesday, February 20, 2018


So, I have so REALLY cool peeps in Cardston.  The best people I have ever met on this little blue space marble....

I had a four day weekend and it snowed all three days leading up to Sunday - so church was definitely cancelled.  I got a call from a Brother and Sister whom I admire for their rock-steady diligence and desire to learn truths.  During what would have been the three hour meeting bloc, we went over the saga of Tamara Tephi and Jeremiah, as well as the royal blood lines - which I believe this husband and wife team are of.

A month prior, in a prepper meeting that they are part of with my wife and I, we were bearing testimony of how we all ended up in Cardston (fascinating stories, I might add...) and I shared my impression that the wife (and likely the husband) was a literal descendant of Christ - through one of His three wives that fled to the nether parts of Europe after the crucifixion.

Here is the rest of the story from a previous blog post I did years ago on Jeremiah and one of the direct descendants of the royal line of Judah:

Folks, when we know and understand the history - our eyes are opened to the fact that we are all sons and daughters of God - some spiritually so, and others physically and spiritually so.


BEFORE  I even get started, I want to say here that this fellow is not in good standing with the Church (and I can tell from part of his writings, that he clearly had gone "anti", even before I knew he had gone tre-dolla bill on everyone - to be sure, Dr. Quinn, medicine woman.....):

D. Michael Quinn
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
D. Michael Quinn
BornDennis Michael Quinn
March 26, 1944 (age 73)
Pasadena, California
EducationYale University (PhD)
Known forMormon scholar
Member of the September Six
Dennis Michael Quinn (born March 26, 1944) is an American historian who has focused on the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). He was a professor at Brigham Young University (BYU) from 1976 until he resigned in 1988. At the time, his work concerned church involvement with plural marriage after the 1890 Manifesto, when new polygamous marriages were officially prohibited. He was excommunicated from the church as one of the September Six and is now openly gay.[1][2]

So, I have to caveat anything he is saying with the above.  When you fight against the majority of the Brethren, you come under demonic influences as you kick against the pricks and fight against the Saints of God.  How odd would it be (just supposing here), that as a member of the infamous "September Six" who were excommunicated for heresy (Avraham Gileadi was part of that posse - but was quickly re-instated upon review of his case), and that it likely had to do with his research into plural marriage, and then he (possibly - just guessing here), is now part of the posse that wants to have marital rights extended to him as an openly practicing gay male in California??  Just a little ironic, wouldn'tcha think?  The ironies seem to abound in these cases.
The whole reason I love studying the spiritual failure modes of apostates - is to pick out the inconsistencies and the ironies in their descents into the abyss.  It also serves as a reminder, that proper care and nutrition of the spirit is the order of the day, lest at any time, I/we become victims of the same failure mode.
Anyway, Dr. Quinn's research is relevant - no matter how you slice it or dice it.  If the quotes are good, it is solid.  The only thing I pulled back on, were the conclusions he came to - which clearly were not in harmony with the Spirit of the Lord.  The ultimate litmus in every situation....  A litmus that let me know he was an apostate even prior to a google search.  I can pick 'em a mile away.
But to get to the crux of the matter in the quotes on healing:  consecrated oil was poured on the afflicted part of the body and then hands were laid on that part of the body and the blessing was given in accordance with the Spirit.
Here are the quotes from Dr. Quinn:
Two factors guaranteed the continuation of these healing ordinances by LDS women. First, consecrated oil was applied directly to the affected part of the body. Second, the Victorian era’s attitudes (despite their repressiveness toward women)82 enhanced Mormon women’s role as healers. It was unthinkable for LDS leaders to allow men to touch any private region of a woman’s body to accomplish healing, especially in connection with pregnancy, childbirth, or a “female problem.”

Think of Washings and Anointings within the Temples.  Women perform this ritual blessing upon other women.  Imagine the hey-day the press would have if it were not so.....  Same principle.

The reason this caught my eye, was due to the description of this man - a personal friend of mine from my Boeing days - who said that three angels showed up to heal him and I asked him, "Did they put oil on your head and then place hands on the head?".  He answered to the negative - that they placed their hands alternately all over his affected areas (he had MRSA on his legs and was septic in his abdomen due to pancreatitis).  Funny, his head was one of the few areas not affected by the infections - but hands were not specifically laid on the head.  Here is his story:

Here is the whole Dr. Quinn chapter on Women and the Priesthood:
Chapter 17
Mormon Women Have Had the Priesthood Since 1843
D. Michael Quinn[365] For 150 years Mormon women have performed sacred ordinances in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Every person who has received the LDS temple endowment knows that women perform for other women the “initiatory ordinances” of washing and anointing.1 Fewer know that LDS women also performed ordinances of healing from the 1840s until the 1940s.2 Yet every Mormon knows that men who perform temple ordinances and healing ordinances must have the Melchizedek priesthood. Women are no exception.3Two weeks after he organized the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo, Illinois, Joseph Smith announced his intention to confer priesthood on women. He told them on 30 March 1842 that “the Society should move according to the ancient Priesthood” and that he was “going to make of this Society a kingdom of priests as in Enoch’s day—as in Paul’s day.”4 In printing the original minutes of the prophet’s talk after his death, the official History of the Church omitted Joseph’s first use of the word “Society” and changed the second “Society” to “Church.” Those two alterations changed the entire meaning of his statement.5 More recently an LDS general authority removed even these diminished statements from a display in the LDS Museum of Church History and Art which commemorated the sesquicentennial of the Relief Society.6On 28 April 1842 the prophet returned to this subject. He told [366] the women that “the keys of the kingdom are about to be given to them that they may be able to detect everything false, as well as to the Elders.”7 The keys “to detect everything false” referred to the signs and tokens used in the “true order of prayer,” still practiced in LDS temples.8 Then Joseph Smith said, “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 …”9 For nineteenth-century LDS women, Joseph’s words were prophecy and inspiration to advance spiritually, intellectually, socially, professionally, and politically.10Mormon women did not request priesthood—Joseph Smith would soon confer it on them as part of the restoration of the gospel. His private journal, called the Book of the Law of the Lord, specified the priesthood promise in his instructions to the women on 28 April 1842: “gave a lecture on the pries[t]hood shewing [sic] how the Sisters would come in possession of the privileges & blessings & gifts of the priesthood & that the signs should follow them. such as healing the sick casting out devils &c. & that they might attain unto these blessings. by a virtuous life & conversation & diligence in keeping all the commandments.” Joseph clearly intended that Mormon women in 1842 understand their healings were to be “gifts of the priesthood,” not simply ministrations of faith.11Apostle Dallin H. Oaks observed in a 1992 general conference talk, “No priesthood keys were delivered to the Relief Society. Keys are conferred on individuals, not organizations.” The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve as organizations are not even exempt from the limitation he describes for the Relief Society. Elder Oaks noted, for instance, that “priesthood keys were delivered to the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, not to any organizations.”12The conferral of priesthood on individual women occurred through what Joseph Smith and associates called the “Holy Order” or “Anointed Quorum” (men and women who had received the priesthood endowment). On 4 May 1842, six days after his remarks to the Relief Society, Joseph introduced nine men to the endowment.13 The following year, on 28 July 1843, Presiding Patriarch Hyrum Smith, an original member of the Holy Order, blessed Leonora Cannon Taylor: “You shall be blesst [sic] with your portion [367] of the Priesthood which belongeth to you, that you may be set apart for your Anointing and your induement [endowment].”14Two months earlier Joseph Smith and his wife Emma were the first couple to be “sealed” in marriage for time and eternity on 28 May 1843.15 Then in September the Presiding Patriarch blessed Olive G. Frost, one of Joseph Smith’s plural wives, that “you shall be blessed with a knowledge of the mysteries of God as well as the fullness of the Priesthood.”16The men who received the Holy Order endowment in 1842 did not constitute a fully organized “quorum” until a woman was initiated in 1843. At 7 p.m. on 28 September 1843, Joseph Smith was “by common consent and unanimous voice chosen president of the Quorum” by eleven other previously endowed men. Next, Emma Hale Smith became the first woman to receive priesthood and its fullness.17 Willard Richards had referred to the men as “the quorum” in their prayer meeting of 11 September 1843, but Joseph did not officially become the Anointed Quorum’s president until the day he admitted the quorum’s first woman.18As newly sustained president of the Anointed Quorum, Joseph administered the initiatory ordinances and priesthood endowment to his wife in an upper room of the Nauvoo Mansion.19 The record of “Meetings of the Anointed Quorum” shows that at this same meeting, Joseph and Emma also became the first couple to receive the “second anointing” or “fullness of the priesthood.” By this ceremony they were each “anointed & ordained to the highest & holiest order of the priesthood.”20 Later church historians in Utah deleted Emma’s name from the 1843 description of the prophet’s “second Anointing of the Highest & Holiest order.”21However, church historians were more direct about the second anointing for Hyrum and Mary Fielding Smith. Apostle and Church Historian Wilford Woodruff specifically called the ordinance a “second anointing,” and the History of the Church describes the ordinance as: “My brother Hyrum and his wife were blessed, ordained and anointed.”22Even in the nineteenth century church publications usually called the second anointing by such euphemisms as “fulness of the priesthood,” “higher ordinances,” “higher blessings,” or “second blessings.” However, LDS publications in both the nineteenth and [368] twentieth centuries sometimes identified the ordinance by its actual name: second anointing.23Of the relationship between the endowment’s initiatory anointing and the second anointing, Heber C. Kimball explained: “You have been anointed to be kings and priests [or queens and priestesses], but you have not been ordained to it yet, and you have got to get it by being faithful.”24 In the second anointing, the husband and wife are ordained “King and Queen, Priest and Priestess to the Most high God for Time and through out all Eternity.”25Thus Emma Smith began the fulfillment of the prophet’s promise to make the Relief Society “a kingdom of priests.” She was anointed to become a “queen and priestess” in the initiatory ordinance of the endowment and was ordained to the fulness of those offices by the second anointing.26 First counselor Sidney Rigdon later commented on this event: “Emma was the one to whom the female priesthood was first given.”27A common misunderstanding claims that women receive priesthood only through temple marriage or through the second anointing—both of which a husband and wife must receive together.28 However, such was not the view expressed by many of the Anointed Quorum’s original members, who learned about the endowment directly from Joseph Smith.
Brigham Young’s 1843 diary associated the endowment of women with receiving priesthood. On 29 October 1843, for example, he noted that Thirza Cahoon, Lois Cutler, and Phebe Woodworth were “taken into the order of the priesthood.” That was the day those three women individually received their endowment. They did not join with their husbands to receive the second anointing until 12 and 15 November 1843, respectively. When his own wife received the endowment on 1 November 1843, Brigham Young wrote: “Mary A. Young admitted in to the hiest [highest] orderer [order of] Preasthood [sic].” She did not receive the second anointing with him until three weeks later.29On 3 February 1844, William Clayton’s diary noted that he “was permitted to the ordinance of washing and anointing, and was received into the Quorum of Priesthood.” On that same occasion, Jane Bicknell Young was also endowed and received “into the Quorum of the Priesthood.” The prophet’s secretary later noted: “All [369] the first quorum with one or two exceptions were present both male and female.”30Joseph Smith’s uncle John Smith subsequently pronounced a patriarchal blessing on Maria Turnbow which specified that it was through the endowment ceremony that a woman receives the priesthood: “Thou shalt have an Endowment in the Lord’s house [and] be clothed with the Power of the Holy Priesthood [to] be able to redeem thy fathers house …”31Bathsheba W. Bigler Smith shared this view. She entered Joseph Smith’s Anointed Quorum in December 1843. “I have always been pleased that I had my endowments when the Prophet lived. He taught us the true order of prayer. I never like to hear a sermon without hearing something of the Prophet, for he gave us everything, every order of the priesthood,” Bathsheba remarked. “He said he had given the sisters instructions that they could administer to the sick and he wanted to make us, as the women were in Paul’s day, ‘A kingdom of priestesses.’”32In February 1844 stake patriarch John Smith told an LDS woman that she had a right to priesthood from her birth. “Thou art of the blood of Abraham thru the Loins of Manasseh & lawful heir to the Priesthood,” he said to Louisa C. Jackson. She was not among the elite Mormon women who received the endowment before the opening of the Nauvoo temple in December 1845.33 Referring to her eventual sealing and second anointing, the patriarch added that this woman “shall possess it [priesthood] in common with thy companion.” Louisa’s blessing showed that any Mormon woman had a birthright to priesthood which depended on no man.34John Smith’s blessings to Maria Turnbow and Louisa Jackson clearly show that a Mormon woman receives the priesthood for herself through the endowment. A Mormon woman and a Mormon man receive the higher priesthood blessings only as a couple through the sealing of marriage and through the second anointing (or “fullness”). As Apostle James E. Talmage wrote: “True, there are certain of the higher ordinances to which an unmarried woman cannot be admitted, but the rule is equally in force as to a bachelor.”35Uncle John Smith’s church standing and experience make it difficult to regard him as misinformed when he affirmed that there is a female birthright to priesthood. A special counselor in the First [370] Presidency since 1837, John Smith became a member of the Anointed Quorum on 28 September 1843, the same day his nephew Joseph received the second anointing. From then until he blessed Louisa Jackson, John Smith received four months of private instruction from the prophet about the Holy Order of the Priesthood during the frequent meetings of the Anointed Quorum.36In fact after his ordination as patriarch to the church in 1849, John Smith also described the ancient dimension of this female birthright to priesthood. In his blessing to Caroline Cottam in March 1853, he referred to the “Priesthood which Abraham sealed upon his daughters.” He also blessed Elizabeth Bean in May 1853: “I seal upon you all the blessings of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and all the priesthood that was sealed upon the daughters of Joseph in the land of Egypt …” He made a similar statement in a blessing to another LDS woman in November 1853.37 According to the presiding patriarch, a female priesthood continued throughout the centuries until the sojourn of the twelve tribes in Egypt.38According to first counselor Heber C. Kimball in 1857, Jewish women continued to have priesthood in the early Christian era. “Was every woman qualified to raise that child [Jesus]?” Kimball asked. “No. You will find that Mary was of the Royal Priesthood, which is after the order of God …” 39 Like her ancestors among the Hebrew women of ancient Egypt, Mary of Nazareth also held the “Royal Priesthood” which is now called Melchizedek.
On 7 December 1845 Apostle Kimball had recorded the names of twenty-three men and nineteen women who “are members of the Holy Order of the Holy Preasthood [sic] having Recieved [sic] it in the Life time of Joseph and Hirum, the Prophets.” Of these nineteen women, three had not yet received the second anointing.40 In the temple a week later, Kimball’s diary noted that Brigham Young “appointed W. W. Phelps and P. P. Pratt to instruct the brethren and sisters … more fully into the nature and importance of the blessings and powers of the Holy Priesthood which they had received …”41 Kimball’s observations that women received the priesthood through the endowment are significant because he usually expressed misogynous views.42That same month Patriarch John Smith made it clear that a woman did not need a man to receive and use the priesthood. To a [371] woman whose husband was a non-Mormon, the patriarch said on 16 December 1845: “thou hast a right to the Priesthood by inheritance from thy Fathers, and if thy companion refuses to take his place and receive the gospel and you abide faithful you shall not be deprived of the privilege of haveing [sic] it sealed upon you in fullness in due time.” Eleven days later, he told Mehitable Duty that she would use her priesthood to bless both her non-Mormon husband and children: “the Priesthood in its fullness shall be confer[r]ed upon thee in due time [—] thou shalt have pow[e]r ov[e]r thy relatives & friends & thy husband & children to lead them whethersoever [sic] thou wilt in as much [sic] as you seek faithfully & truly to preserve them in the bonds of the new & ev[e]rlasting covenant.”43 When he gave these blessings in December 1845, John Smith was serving as the church’s presiding patriarch after Patriarch William Smith’s excommunication two months earlier.44In a published 1845 sermon, Apostle Orson Pratt also spoke of women receiving priesthood, but he did not specify how it was conferred. “You too, my sisters, will take a part therein,” the Times and Seasons reported, “for you will hold a portion of the priesthood with your husbands, and you will thus do a work, as well as they, that will augment that glory which you will enjoy after your resurrection.”45Another member of Joseph Smith’s Anointed Quorum, Joseph Young, also affirmed that LDS women received the Melchizedek priesthood when they were endowed—not through the sealing or second anointing with their husbands. He gave this blessing to Zina Young Card in 1878: “These blessings are yours, the blessings and power according to the holy Melchisedek Priesthood you received in your Endowments, and you shall have them.”46 Young had been senior president of the First Council of Seventy since 1837 and an ordained patriarch since 1873. Zina was his niece and Brigham Young’s daughter. In 1877, Edward Tullidge’s Women of Mormondom reflected the view expressed by general authorities for thirty-five years: “The Mormon women, as well as men, hold the priesthood.”47Several other early LDS general authorities held similar views about women and priesthood. However, they were more tentative than Joseph Smith and those who received the prophet’s personal instruction about the endowment. “They have the Priesthood,” [372] Presiding Bishop Edward Hunter preached in 1877, “a portion of priesthood rests upon the sisters.”48 With even greater reserve, in 1888 Apostle Franklin D. Richards asked of the men “present who have received their endowments” the following question: “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 [Smith] desired to confer these keys of power upon them in connection with their husbands?”49 However, Joseph Smith’s 1842 promise, Hyrum Smith’s patriarchal blessings in 1843, Brigham Young’s 1843 diary, William Clayton’s 1844-45 diary, Heber C. Kimball’s 1845 diary, and patriarchal blessings by John Smith from 1844 on and by Joseph Young in 1878 all show that LDS women receive the Melchizedek priesthood through the endowment alone.
Local patriarchs in pioneer Utah also referred to women’s priesthood rights. For example, stake patriarch Charles W. Hyde blessed a woman in 1875 that she was “a daughter of Ephraim and [had] a right to the fullness of the Priesthood and thy children to the fourth generation.” Hyde was the last man admitted to Nauvoo’s Anointed Quorum and had given similar blessings to women since his ordination as a patriarch in 1853.50 Patriarch Ola N. Liljenquist indicated that this female birthright to priesthood was by premortal foreordination. He told Mary Ann Dowdle that she “was chosen in the eternal worlds to receive the fulness of the holy Priesthood with crowns and principalities and powers. Thou art of the lineage of Ephraim and an heir to all the blessings by birthright and election.”51Patriarch Liljenquist made explicit what is implied in Mormon theology—that women were also forechosen to priesthood authority before birth. In 1844, Joseph Smith made that specific claim regarding LDS men: “Every man who has a calling to minister to the inhabitants of the world was ordained to that very purpose in the Grand Council of heaven before the world was.” This reflected Old Testament and Book of Mormon statements about foreordination of men to priesthood office and to an “order” of the priesthood (such as Melchizedek).52 However, Mormon scripture’s most detailed view of the premortal world did not differentiate between men and women in this forechoosing to authority: “Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these [not just the male ones] there were [373] many of the noble and great ones; and God … said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits [not just male spirits], and he saw that they were good …” (Abr. 3:22-23). This includes females among “all” God’s intelligences and spirits who were noble, good, and forechosen (or foreordained) to be leaders and to receive authority.
Currently for males this foreordination to authority is fulfilled in LDS priesthood office. For females this foreordination is fulfilled in their receiving the priesthood endowment and opportunities for church service. This foreordination is the theological basis for Patriarch John Smith’s blessings during Joseph Smith’s lifetime that women have a “birthright” to priesthood.
For those who marshal other proof-texts that women do not hold priesthood separate from their husbands,53 the earliest example came from Brigham Young. LDS women “have no right to meddle in the affairs of the Kingdom of God,” he preached in March 1845. “Outside the pale of this they have a right to meddle because many of them are more sagacious & shrewd & more competent [than men] to attend to things of financial affairs.” Then he added, “They never can hold the keys of the Priesthood apart from their husbands.”54This earliest limitation on women’s ecclesiastical authority did not deny that endowed women receive a conferral of Melchizedek priesthood. Instead Brigham Young first denied that women had any claim to administrative authority within the church, “to meddle in the affairs of the Kingdom of God.” Second, he denied that a woman “can hold the keys of the Priesthood” by herself, for the reason that this right of presidency comes to women only through the second anointing.
These were not denials that Mormon women receive priesthood through the endowment, as indicated by President Young later. In January 1846, he wrote of “the anxiety menifested [sic] by the Saints [not just men] to recieve [sic] the ordinances of the Endowment & no less on our part to have them get the Keys of the Priesthood …” In 1867 he preached that God was “bestowing upon His sons and daughters, who are worthy, this priesthood, and kingly power to increase subjects and obtain territory, to extend the greatness of their kingdom forever …” In an 1874 sermon he also said: “Now brethren, the man that honors his Priesthood, the woman that [374] honors her Priesthood, will receive an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of God.”55As indicated in Brigham Young’s 1843 diary and the Nauvoo blessings by Hyrum Smith and John Smith, women receive priesthood through the endowment. Women receive the keys of presidency with their husbands through the second anointing. This “fullness of priesthood” confers on women the right to rule and reign as eternal queens and priestesses.56The historical evidence that women hold priesthood is also consistent with the definition of priesthood “keys” in the LDS church’s Encyclopedia of Mormonism. “The keys of the priesthood refer to the right to exercise power in the name of Jesus Christ,” explains the article and then adds, “or to preside over a priesthood function, quorum, or organizational division of the church.”57 In the previously cited, uncensored minutes of the Nauvoo Relief Society, Joseph Smith promised “keys of the kingdom” to women in 1842. As indicated, Brigham Young and Franklin D. Richards reaffirmed the conferral of priesthood keys upon women through the temple ordinances.
In concert with the Encyclopedia of Mormonism‘s first definition of priesthood keys, Apostle Richards also affirmed the right of women to “exercise power in the name of Jesus Christ” (see below). Joseph Smith’s wife Emma presided over the Relief Society, but the record does not indicate whether he promised women the keys of priesthood presidency within the church, which is the second part of the Encyclopedia‘s definition.58As in Brigham Young’s 1845 statement, church administrative power is the real context for all subsequent denials that women have priesthood. If women have priesthood, the often unexpressed fear goes, they might challenge the administrative powers of males who have been ordained deacons, teachers, priests, elders, seventies, high priests, and apostles. Conversely the argument is that since women have not been ordained to one of those offices, they do not have priesthood. First Presidency counselor Charles W. Penrose made this argument specific in 1921: “Sisters have said to me sometimes, ‘But I hold the Priesthood with my husband.’ ‘Well,’ I asked, ‘what office do you hold in the Priesthood.’ Then they could not say much more. The sisters are not ordained to any [375] office in the Priesthood …”59However, such reasoning ignores Joseph Smith’s earliest revelation defining the priesthood in Doctrine and Covenants 84. Ordained offices are not the priesthood but only “appendages” to the priesthood: “And again the offices of elder and bishop are necessary appendages belonging unto the high priesthood. And again, the offices of teacher and deacon are necessary appendages belonging to the lesser priesthood which priesthood was confirmed upon Aaron and his sons” (D&C 84:29-30). According to an 1835 revelation, even the apostleship is an appendage to the Melchizedek priesthood, for “all other authorities or offices in the church are appendages to this priesthood” (107:5).
Priesthood exists independently of church offices, but church offices are appendages which cannot exist without the priesthood. As church president Joseph F. Smith told general conference, “If an Apostle has any authority at all, he derives it from the Melchisedek Priesthood.” He added that “all the offices in the Church are simply appendages to the Melchisedek Priesthood, and grow out of it.”60A woman does not need an appendage to have priesthood. According to Joseph Smith’s teachings to the Relief Society and to the Anointed Quorum, a woman receives Melchizedek priesthood when she receives the endowment. The confusion of priesthood office with priesthood has characterized many contemporary discussions of women and priesthood.61However, just as counselors in the First Presidency were “ordained” by Joseph Smith, Emma Smith was “ordained to expound the Scriptures,” and her counselors were ordained to preside over the Nauvoo Relief Society.62 In the nineteenth century the word “ordain” was also used for appointing persons to proselyting missions and to heal.63 However, I find no evidence that Mormon men ever ordained a woman to a specific priesthood office of the church.
Nevertheless, every endowed Mormon woman has received the Melchizedek priesthood from 1843 to the present. In 1912, Apostle James E. Talmage affirmed: “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. Nevertheless, there is no [376] grade, rank, or phase of the temple endowment to which women are not eligible on an equality with men.”64For the above reasons, the relationship of women to priesthood should not be compared to the LDS church’s pre-1978 denial of priesthood to anyone of black African ancestry. In that case Joseph Smith authorized the ordination of one African-American, Elijah Abel, to the offices of elder and seventy. Brigham Young reversed this and taught that it was contrary to God’s will for anyone of black African ancestry to hold priesthood. This became doctrine and all persons of black African descent were denied priesthood and the temple endowment. A subsequent prophet had to obtain new revelation allowing ordination of blacks to priesthood.65In contrast the documents and leaders of early Mormonism affirm that women receive priesthood through the endowment. New revelation would only confirm this reality not create it.66 However, unaware of the female priesthood theology in Joseph Smith’s Anointed Quorum, current LDS presidents and apostles regard new revelation as necessary to change a twentieth-century definition that is now regarded as doctrinal. For example, President Spencer W. Kimball announced in June 1978: “We pray to God to reveal his mind and we always will, but we don’t expect any revelation regarding women and the priesthood.” This was just after his announcement of the revelation authorizing the priesthood to men of black African descent.67Without an appeal to new revelation about female priesthood office, Eliza R. Snow, Zina D. Young, and Sarah M. Kimball presumed to organize the Relief Societies of pioneer Utah wards with women as “deaconesses,” “teachers,” and “priestesses.”68 Existing records do not show precedent in Joseph Smith’s teachings for ordaining women to church offices of deacon, elder, priest, bishop, or high priest, or for feminizing those titles.69 However, Eliza R. Snow held the honorary title of “Presidentess” as president of the Relief Society. Some women called Eliza, Zina D. Young, and Bathsheba W. Smith by the less appropriate title of “Presiding High Priestess.” This referred to their role as “president of the women’s department” of female ordinance workers in the Salt Lake Endowment House and Salt Lake temple.70The endowment anoints Mormon women to become queens [377] and priestesses. From 1843 to the 1920s, thousands of women also received confirmation as eternal queens and priestesses through the second anointing. Currently some women have received this “fullness of the priesthood” with their husbands. In the Salt Lake temple, the second anointing still occurs in the “Holy of Holies” room which James E. Talmage wrote “is reserved for the higher ordinances in the Priesthood …”71 The second anointing for both men and women is distinct from ordination to church priesthood offices.
Like Miriam of the Old Testament and Anna of the New Testament, any LDS woman may have the gift to be a prophetess. That personal relationship with God has nothing to do with church office. It was not uncommon in the nineteenth century for patriarchs to promise a Mormon woman that “thou shalt be a natural Prophetess in the house of Joseph …”72One church president even maintained that a Mormon woman could be a revelator for the entire church. Concerning the hymn “O My Father,” President Wilford Woodruff told the April 1894 general conference: “That hymn is a revelation, though it was given unto us by a woman—Sister Eliza R. Snow. There are a great many sisters who have the spirit of revelation. There is no reason why they should not be inspired as well as men.”73 This hymn-revelation from Eliza R. Snow to the church is one of the earliest statements in Mormon theology about a supreme goddess, the “Heavenly Mother.”74A church president continued to affirm the role of women as prophetesses into the twentieth century. “I believe that every mother has the right to be a prophetess and to have the gift of sight, foreseeing prescience, to foresee danger and evil and to know what to do in her family and in her sphere,” Joseph F. Smith affirmed in 1913. “They are prophetesses, they are seers, they are revelators to their households and to their families …”75 Without ordination to specific offices of priesthood, women have avoided aspirations and abuses common to church offices reserved for men (D&C 121:34-40).76For a hundred years after Joseph Smith said “I now turn the key to” LDS women, their most common and well-known priesthood activity was in performing the ordinances of healing. The focus on healing may have resulted from Brigham Young’s distrust of nineteenth-century medical practice combined with the fact that Mormon women received gynecological and obstetrical care from midwives [378] and female physicians.77 These two factors spared LDS women the questionable treatment which the male medical establishment inflicted on women throughout the rest of Victorian America.78It 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.81LDS church leaders continued to authorize women to perform healing ordinances even after the hierarchy stopped affirming that women received priesthood through the endowment.
Two factors guaranteed the continuation of these healing ordinances by LDS women. First, consecrated oil was applied directly to the affected part of the body. Second, the Victorian era’s attitudes (despite their repressiveness toward women)82 enhanced Mormon women’s role as healers. It was unthinkable for LDS leaders to allow men to touch any private region of a woman’s body to accomplish healing, especially in connection with pregnancy, childbirth, or a “female problem.”
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.83His counselor in the Salt Lake stake presidency acknowledged in 1884 what he saw as the only reason that women performed [379] 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.
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.
By 1888 Mormon misogyny was linked with denials of women’s authority, and this resulted in a public comment by Apostle Franklin D. Richards. He said: “Every now and again we hear men speak tauntingly of the sisters and lightly of their public duties, instead of supporting and encouraging them.” Apostle Richards added: “There are also some who look with jealousy upon the moves of the sisters as though they might come to possess some of the gifts, and are afraid they [LDS women] will get away with some of the blessings of the gospel which only men ought to possess.” Because of this “envy and jealousy,” Apostle Richards said some Mormon men “don’t like to accord to them [Mormon women] anything that will raise them up and make their talents to shine forth as the daughters of Eve and Sarah.”85 Franklin D. Richards is the only general authority to publicly acknowledge that jealousy and fear are the basis for the opposition of some Mormon men against the spiritual growth of all [380] Mormon women.86As 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.87Although 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.
From the 1890 Manifesto ostensibly banning polygamy to the early 1900s, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve redefined many LDS doctrines. The relation of women to the priesthood endowment was only one of these redefinitions.90However, the First Presidency continued to authorize women to anoint women for healing—only because of the church practice of using consecrated oil directly on the affected parts of the body. 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.” The presidency disagreed with this change and decided that “if the sick person desires to be anointed by the elders on the afflicted part, this may be done and the sick person [be] allowed to drink some of the consecrated oil.”91Consequently 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 [381] 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.
However, some LDS women had been undermining their own priesthood ordinances by questioning whether their gift of healing had institutional approval. As early as 1913 Relief Society general president Emmeline B. Wells expressed hope that “the blessing will not be taken from us” by disapproving general authorities. And in 1935 a woman asked if it was “orthodox and sanctioned by the Church today” for women to perform such healing ordinances. Relief Society general president Louise Y. Robison replied that “it is our earnest hope that we may continue to have that privilege, and up to the present time the Presidents of the Church have always allowed it to us.”93 Female blessings and healings could not long survive such tentativeness expressed from top to bottom in the Mormon women’s ranks.
The Book of Mormon warned that gifts of the spirit such as healing would die only through unbelief (Moro. 10:8, 11, 19, 26). LDS women have the same access to gifts of the spirit as men and can exercise their faith in healing. Anciently the apostles tried to circumscribe the exercise of spiritual gifts by condemning a person who healed the sick but who was not a follower of Jesus. Jesus answered their objection with the words, “Forbid him not; for he that is not against us is for us” (Luke 9:50). Mormon men need this biblical reminder updated, “Forbid her not, for she that is not against us is for us.” No woman needs a man’s permission to lay her hands on her child’s head and utter a blessing. Whether by priesthood endowment or spiritual gift, an LDS woman may give a blessing to anyone, in or out of her family, in or out of the church.94To some LDS men this is a frightening prospect. Several even reportedly threatened to kill a devoted Mormon who recently suggested that women should have the opportunity for ordination to every priesthood office.95 A death threat has no bearing on what God confers on women, but it is unfortunate evidence of misogyny in modern Mormonism.
Such death threats are also an extreme version of the attitude [382] about women expressed in a well-publicized statement by a current general authority. If the female portion of humankind were to receive the priesthood, he wrote, then “the male would be so far below the female in power and influence that there would be little or no purpose for his existence [—] in fact [he] would probably be eaten by the female as is the case with the black widow Spider.”96 Perhaps if persons with that view learn that every endowed LDS woman already has the priesthood, they will not feel threatened by women who desire to exercise the gifts of God to them in faith, power and humility.
In any event the contemporary cliché “Women hold the priesthood only when they hold their husbands” is as demeaning as it is untrue. Neither should priesthood-endowed women be limited by the condescension of one church leader: “We can hold it [priesthood] and share it with our wives.” Nor constrained by his claim that every Mormon husband “needs to feel dominant … Young sisters, if you take that role from him, the one he needs, you reduce his manhood …”97 That is very close to the other general authority’s view of independent women as man-eating spiders. In the contemporary LDS church, there are uncomfortable evidences for Apostle Franklin D. Richards’ century-old observation that jealousy and fear motivate LDS men to limit LDS women. (See above.)
In fact, LDS church president Spencer W. Kimball spoke against gender condescension. “Our sisters do not wish to be indulged or to be treated condescendingly; they desire to be respected and revered as our sisters and our equals,” he told general priesthood conference. “I mention these things, my brethren, … because in some situations our behavior is of doubtful quality.”98 President Kimball also wrote a foreward to the Brigham Young University publication of Hugh W. Nibley’s discourse on the ideal of marriage in God’s Eden: “There is no patriarchy or matriarchy in the Garden; the two supervise each other … and [are] just as dependent on each other.”99In effect, nearly all authoritative statements by modern apostles have been inaccurate concerning the matter of women holding the priesthood. Church historian and apostle Joseph Fielding Smith juxtaposed such an inaccurate perception with its actual contradiction: “Women do not hold the priesthood, but if they are faithful and true, they will become priestesses and queens in the Kingdom [383] of God, and that implies that they will be given authority.”100 As indicated by the earlier quotes from Elder Smith’s own relatives in the Mormon hierarchy, it is through the temple ordinances that women receive priesthood on earth in training for their role as queens and priestesses in eternity.
In 1958 Elder Smith highlighted this contradiction between the official denial that women have priesthood and the actual authority they have through the temple endowment. He began with the unambiguous declaration that “the sisters have not been given the Priesthood.” However, he immediately undercut his argument by describing women’s role in the temple: “And you sisters who labor in the House of the Lord can lay your hands upon your sisters, and with divine authority, because the Lord recognizes positions which you occupy … because the Lord has placed authority upon you.” He added that temple ordinances performed by women are “binding just as thoroughly as are the blessings that are given by the men who hold the Priesthood.” His only resolution for the paradox between modern denial and temple experience: “Authority and Priesthood are two different things.”101 That distinction works only because contemporary Mormon theology gives two meanings to the word “authority.”
“Authority” means both power and permission. In the first sense authority is the priesthood power of God. Through the endowment both men and women receive God’s authority or power of the Melchizedek priesthood. Men also receive priesthood power through ordination to specific office. The second sense of authority is the permission of the church. Neither males nor females can exercise their priesthood without permission of the church.102 However, both males and females have received such permission from the church in various ways.
For LDS males conferral of power and the permission to exercise priesthood in the church come in stages. First, males are ordained to priesthood office which is defined in terms of administering to others. The priesthood that they receive in the endowment is the same priesthood power conferred on them in stages by ordination to office.103 The offices of “king and priest” come provisionally to men through the endowment and in fullness through the second anointing. As Brigham Young preached in 1843, “For any person [384] to have the fullness of that priesthood, he must be a king and a priest … A man may be anointed king and priest [in the endowment] long before he receives his kingdom [in the second anointing].”104 Second, males receive formal permission from the church to exercise their priesthood in behalf of others.
There are two ways in which the LDS church gives formal authority for males to exercise the priesthood they receive by ordination and the endowment. First, through the ordinance of being “set apart”—as a missionary, temple ordinance worker, or church presiding officer such as stake president or auxiliary president. Second, church leaders give verbal “authority” for males to use their priesthood for specific occasions or ordinances such as administering the sacrament, baptism, confirmation, and administering to the sick through anointing, sealing the anointing, and blessing. This applies to Mormon males from the age of twelve onward.
For LDS women Melchizedek priesthood does not come in stages of ordination but in the temple endowment. Historically LDS women also have received church authority to exercise their Melchizedek priesthood power in behalf of others. Like LDS boys and men, females receive the ordinance of being set apart as missionaries, temple ordinance workers, and presiding officers such as auxiliary presidents.105 And as already discussed LDS church leaders have given verbal and written authority for LDS women to perform priesthood ordinances including blessing and healing. Church policy revoked that permission in 1946 but could reinstate it at any time. In addition LDS church leaders could extend permission for endowed women to administer the sacrament, baptize, confirm, and confer the gift of the Holy Ghost, since those ordinances are within the powers of anyone who has received the Melchizedek priesthood.
In today’s church a woman who has received the temple endowment has more priesthood power than a boy who holds the office of priest. However, the priest has more permission to exercise his priesthood than does the endowed woman to exercise hers.
The temple endowment has not changed in fundamental ways since its introduction. The endowment gives today exactly what it conferred from 1842 to 1846. During those four years Joseph Smith and those he endowed all affirmed that women receive the Melchizedek priesthood when they receive the endowment. The docu[385]ments of nineteenth-century Mormon history also indicate that women have been heirs and recipients of the Melchizedek priesthood since the days of biblical patriarchs. Melchizedek priesthood conferral has always been independent of the offices of the LDS church.
Mormon women already have God’s priesthood of spiritual power. Without asking permission they may draw on the power of the Melchizedek priesthood that is theirs by birthright and by divine endowment. However, it is necessary for endowed women to receive permission of the church to use their priesthood in church settings to administer the sacrament, baptize, confirm, or administer temple ordinances. Without ordination to priesthood offices, each endowed LDS woman already has the opportunity to fulfill in her life the prophet’s promise: “I now turn the key to you in the name of God.”106Notes:
D. Michael Quinn holds a Ph.D. in history from Yale University. He resigned in 1988 from Brigham Young University as full professor and director of the graduate history program. Since then he has received fellowships from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis, and the Huntington Library. His recent publications include “Religion in the American West,” in Under An Open Sky: Rethinking America’s Western Past, and “Plural Marriage and Mormon Fundamentalism,” in Fundamentalisms and Society: Reclaiming the Sciences, the Family, and Education. He lives in Salt Lake City. “Mormon Women Have Had the Priesthood Since 1843” is an expansion of his “Response,” Sunstone 6 (Sept.-Oct. 1981): 26-27.