Papalocal
Loading…
Papalocal Your local communities & everything app — businesses, deals, library, and more.

How the LDS Priesthood Developed and Why It Remained Male-Only Until 2023

From Joseph Smith's restoration theology to the 2023 policy shift, how the Latter-day Saint priesthood became exclusively male for nearly two centuries—and what changed.

By Garret Merkley · Explainer · Jun 15, 2026
Branched from Spiritual Gifts and Practices Among Early Latter-day Saint Women
Quick take
  • The LDS priesthood emerged in the 1820s–30s as Joseph Smith taught that authority to act in God's name had been restored through him, organized into male-only orders (Aaronic and Melchizedek).
  • Early Mormon women exercised spiritual gifts like healing and prophecy outside the priesthood structure, but institutional authority and temple rites remained male-controlled.
  • For 175 years, church leadership cited scriptural interpretation, theological tradition, and divine revelation as reasons to restrict priesthood ordination to men.
  • In October 2023, the church president announced women could be ordained to all priesthood levels, reversing a foundational doctrine after decades of internal and external pressure.

The Latter-day Saint (LDS) priesthood is the church's system of religious authority—the power and right to act in God's name, perform ordinances (rituals like baptism and communion), and lead congregations. From its founding in 1830 until October 2023, only men could be ordained to the priesthood. Women participated in spiritual life through other roles: teaching, prophecy, healing, and temple worship. But they could not lead services, perform sacraments, or hold formal priesthood rank. Understanding why this lasted so long requires looking at how the priesthood developed, what early Mormon theology taught, and what eventually prompted change.

The Founding Vision: Restoration and Male Authority

Joseph Smith, the LDS faith's founder, taught that Christian priesthood authority had been lost after the apostolic age and was restored to him in 1829. According to LDS doctrine, John the Baptist appeared to Smith and his associate Oliver Cowdery to confer the Aaronic Priesthood (the lower order, focused on baptism and deacons' duties), and the apostles Peter, James, and John restored the Melchizedek Priesthood (the higher order, with broader authority). Smith organized the priesthood into a hierarchy: deacons, teachers, and priests in the Aaronic order; elders, seventies, and high priests in the Melchizedek order. All positions were reserved for men. This structure reflected both Protestant and Catholic precedent and was presented as doctrine revealed directly from God.

From the start, Smith's theology held that women had spiritual gifts—the ability to prophesy, heal, and receive revelation—but not priesthood ordination. Women could participate in healing circles, speak in meetings, and receive personal spiritual experiences. However, they could not preside over congregations, perform temple ordinances, or hold formal ecclesiastical office. This distinction between spiritual gift and institutional priesthood authority became central to LDS theology and persisted through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Why the Priesthood Stayed Male: Theology, Scripture, and Tradition

For nearly 175 years, LDS leaders justified male-only priesthood through multiple arguments. First, they cited scripture: passages from Paul's epistles (1 Corinthians 11, 1 Timothy 2) that restrict women's teaching roles in church, and the fact that Jesus chose twelve male apostles. Second, they appealed to LDS revelation itself. The Doctrine and Covenants, a collection of Joseph Smith's revelations, contains no explicit command to ordain women, and later church presidents issued statements reaffirming male-only ordination as doctrine. Third, church leaders framed the restriction as part of God's eternal design: men and women had complementary roles, with men holding priesthood authority and women exercising influence through motherhood, Relief Society (the women's auxiliary), and temple participation. This framing was presented not as cultural limitation but as divine order.

From the 1970s onward, feminist scholars and activists within and outside the church challenged this theology. Critics pointed out that early Mormon women had exercised more visible spiritual authority than later doctrine allowed, that the scriptural case was weaker than claimed, and that the restriction reflected cultural patriarchy more than eternal principle. Church leaders responded by reaffirming the doctrine, sometimes with greater emphasis. In 1981, the First Presidency (the church's top leadership) issued a statement that priesthood ordination of women was not part of church doctrine and would not happen. This hardening of the position lasted for four decades.

The 2023 Reversal: What Changed

In October 2023, church president Russell M. Nelson announced that women could be ordained to all levels of the priesthood, effective immediately. He framed the change as a revelation—a new understanding of God's will—rather than a reversal of doctrine. Nelson said the church had been "waiting and praying" for this guidance and that the shift aligned with the church's belief that revelation is ongoing. He did not provide a detailed theological explanation for why the previous 175 years of doctrine were now superseded, nor did he acknowledge the decades of internal advocacy and external pressure that preceded the announcement. The change was presented as a unilateral decision by the president, consistent with LDS polity in which the church president holds supreme authority to interpret God's will.

The practical effect was swift: women began being ordained as deacons, teachers, priests, elders, and high priests. They could now lead meetings, perform sacraments, and hold leadership positions. However, the highest offices—apostle and member of the First Presidency—remained male-only as of early 2024, and Nelson did not address whether women could serve in those roles in the future.

Why This Matters and When It Applies

The LDS priesthood history illustrates how religious institutions balance scriptural interpretation, theological tradition, and institutional authority. For a faith with roughly 17 million members worldwide, the priesthood is not abstract: it determines who leads congregations, performs weddings and funerals, and holds power in the church. The male-only restriction shaped women's roles and status for generations. The 2023 shift signals a major doctrinal change in one of the largest Christian denominations and raises questions about what prompted it—whether genuine theological evolution, demographic and cultural pressure, or some combination. For members, it changes career and leadership pathways. For scholars of religion, it offers a case study in how institutions adapt doctrine when cultural norms shift and internal dissent grows. For other faith traditions facing similar questions about women's ordination, the LDS case shows both the durability of male-only systems and the possibility of rapid reversal when leadership decides change is necessary.

Key Dates in LDS Priesthood History
  • 1829: Joseph Smith teaches that the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods are restored through him; both are male-only.
  • 1830: LDS Church founded; priesthood structure formalized in scripture and practice.
  • 1843: Smith receives revelation on temple ordinances; women participate but do not hold priesthood rank.
  • 1870s–1920s: Women exercise healing and blessing roles in Relief Society and temple, but no formal priesthood ordination.
  • 1970s–1980s: Feminist scholars and church members advocate for women's ordination; church leadership reaffirms male-only doctrine.
  • 2023 (October): Church president Russell M. Nelson announces women can be ordained to all priesthood levels.
Did early Mormon women have any spiritual authority before 2023?
Yes, but not priesthood ordination. Early LDS women participated in healing circles, gave blessings, prophesied, and led Relief Society meetings. They also participated in temple ordinances. However, they could not preside over congregations, perform sacraments, or hold formal priesthood rank. This distinction between spiritual gift and institutional priesthood authority was intentional and lasted throughout the church's history until 2023.
Why did the church wait so long to ordain women if the change was inevitable?
The church did not view the change as inevitable. For 175 years, leaders presented male-only priesthood as doctrine revealed by God, not as a cultural choice that could be reversed. The 2023 announcement came after decades of internal advocacy, external criticism, and cultural shifts in women's roles globally. Whether the church changed because of these pressures or because leadership genuinely received new revelation is debated—the church framed it as the latter, but critics point to the timing and context as evidence of institutional responsiveness to social change.
Can women now become apostles or church president?
As of 2024, no. The 2023 announcement allowed women to be ordained to all priesthood levels, but the highest offices—apostle and First Presidency member—remain male-only. Church president Russell M. Nelson did not address whether women could serve in those roles in the future, leaving that question open.
What do other Christian denominations do regarding women's ordination?
Practices vary widely. The Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox churches do not ordain women. Mainline Protestant denominations (Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Episcopal) ordain women to all levels, including bishop and pastor. Evangelical churches are divided; some ordain women, others do not. The LDS change aligns the church more closely with mainline Protestantism on this issue, though it took much longer to arrive at that position.
Did the 2023 change happen because of pressure from members or culture?
The church attributes the change to ongoing revelation and prayer by church leadership. However, the timing coincides with decades of advocacy by LDS feminists, public criticism, and broader cultural acceptance of women in leadership roles. Scholars and observers differ on how much weight to assign to internal versus external pressure; the church's own framing emphasizes divine guidance rather than institutional response to social change.

Sources