Reading Joseph’s words here in the manual can be tricky, because Joseph is speaking in a received discourse of patriarchy, and yet their are textual indications that what he is ultimately talking about points toward this “redeemed family” that Joe discusses. For example, on p. 109 we have “The power of the Melchizedek Priesthood is to have the power of ‘endless lives;’ … that priesthood is a perfect law of theocracy, and stands as God to give laws to the people, administering endless lives to the sons and daughters of Adam.” Endless lives implicitly suggests both male and female participants, as does the end of the paragraph. Later on that page we have “I advise all to go on …”, with the emphasis on “all.” And on page 111 we have Eliza R. Snow reporting on teachings concerning the priesthood, which begins with Joseph giving instructions “respecting the different offices, and the necessity of every individual acting in the sphere allotted him or her.” These little “gaps” in the text leave room for the possibility of a more inclusive or expanded understanding of both the priesthood and the individual responsibility of everyone, regardless of gender, to seek after further light and knowledge.

Adam and Eve are taught together; I prefer to assume that promises of messengers, revelation, etc., are contingent upon my desires, my seeking and asking, as opposed to my gender. Jose makes a cry for more “Huldahs, more Abishes, more Deborahs, more Emmas!”, which I second. We know there were prophetesses–I add that they sought, knocked, asked, and then received. How often do I ask the Lord to teach me, or send me a messenger? How often do I recognize when He has done so (and realize the implications of His response)? Probably not often enough … (all right, descending from soapbox …)

I should also clarify that “feminist thought” for me means something like “French philosophical feminist thought”: I don’t know whether Joseph or LDS scripture answers questions put forth by American or “political” feminism, and for two reasons: (1) I don’t follow American/”political” feminism at all; (2) it wouldn’t particularly concern me that there is no good Mormon response to American/”political” feminism (note the word “particularly”…).

All of this is to say that Mormon feminism is yet to come of age (again, that is: Mormon feminism was quite a thing in the 19th century). I’d love to see that happen—and I hope I’m doing all I can to promote it, push it along, etc. (a friend and I… Kim M. in fact!… are working up a feminist reading of Helaman 1-2 right now, hopefully for publication, and I’ve just submitted last week for publication a paper on how the feminine structure of the reticent prophet gives way to prophetic narrative history, based on a Lacanian reading of Jonah…).

So… short answer: I think you had better watch for messengers! We need more Huldahs, more Abishes, more Deborahs, more Emmas! I wholeheartedly believe there “is room for Heavenly Mother” in LDS discourse, but we have got to begin to do the feminist hermeneutics that will lay a groundwork for developing a faithful Mormon feminism.

I can’t help but see the woman’s role of receiving messengers as nothing more noteworthy than what we typically call “personal revelation.” Are women’s messengers primarily revealing information of building Zion in their own homes?

For example: an inspired Visiting Teacher brings a fantastic message that teaches me about the importance of peace in the home and keeping my children from fighting. Isn’t that the message I should be looking for? There is a messenger who delivers something vital to me that improves my parenting, etc.

Or are we talking about something more significant (although what could be more significant)?

there is an exalted, redeemed, atoned for order of the family, something radically other than the fallen (Oedipal) order of the family (something that can be said to be an answer to the feminist, Marxist, Freudian critiques—what takes them seriously but presses beyond them).

Please expound! You are saying that messengers are coming to give keys which will transform the family, but what is the role of woman in all this? You must have some idea, since you say this order answers feminist critiques. To my feminine eyes, you seem to have written the entire post from the point of view of a male, with the woman asleep in the back bedroom, babe in arms. Are we to wait patiently while angels interact with men on our behalf, bringing to pass our salvation? What place have I in this rewritten family of God, which you describe as “the Father and the Son bound by the Holy Ghost?” In other words, what is the use of me watching for messengers?