Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Gray

What if People with Red Hair Were Denied the Priesthood?

Recommended Posts

I read the article last week after it came to my email feed from FAIR. I thought it was really good. I would love to see a follow-up piece about excluding women from priesthood office. It would not take much to tweak Scott Gordon's piece to argue against all the "speculative" reasons we offer to exclude women. I doubt such an article will come anytime soon. However, just having this piece attacking all defenses of the racial ban will help set the groundwork for eventually extending the priesthood to all worthy members.

Share this post


Link to post

I think there were a number of priests in the old testament who were not levites.  In the book of Judges, Gideon builds an altar and offers sacrifices and he was from the tribe of Manasseh.  We have Lehi who was of the tribe of manasseh and he performed sacrifices and his son Nephi built a temple.  Then we have Minoah the father of sampson of the tribe of Dan, Elkenah (father of samuel) from the tribe of Ephraim, and then Jethro himself who was a rechabite - whatever that means, moses received the higher priesthood through him D&Cov 86:6.  Also in the new testament we have Paul who was of the tribe of benjamin, and then finally Christ himself who was definitely not of the tribe of levi - he was of the tribe of judah, Hebrews 7:14, "it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests."  With the priesthood change to Melchizedek through Christ, we no longer look at lineage, and we become of the seed of israel though believing in Christ, "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."  Gal 3:29.  Brigham young didn't understand Gal 3:29, and it's clear that Joseph signed personally Elijah Abel's priesthood ordination certificate, notwithstanding Harold B Lee saying his ordination was a mistake and it was revoked.

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Gray said:

 

Quote

That situation is totally different. With the Levites, only one group held the priesthood and nobody else did. With the modern priesthood restriction, everybody had the priesthood except for one group.

Think of it this way. Everyone understands that in sports there needs to be a team captain to communicate effectively. But, that is totally different than everyone being allowed to play the game except for one player who is forced to sit on the bench. Our brothers and sisters of African descent were forced to sit on the bench. How would that make you feel?

 

I don't see this situation as "totally different".  But a better analogy would be when Peter initially took the gospel just to the jews until the revelation was received to take it to the gentiles as well.  Even Christ with the Canaanite woman expressed similar teachings at first.

  • “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel,”

It's up to the coach which players sit on the bench and which get to play.  Not the players.

Share this post


Link to post

The OT covers a long time frame. When Moses separated the tribes only the first born son of a Priest from the Tribe of Levi could officiate in the Temple.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

What if People with Red Hair Were Denied the Priesthood?

I would say finally, justice is done!

Keep all those Esauites out! He was a porridge lover from the beginning, and doesn't deserve the priesthood....

Anyone with even a recessive red gene in their genes - even one drop - is tainted forever!@#$%!

Let the DNA testing begin! Eww, those recessive red genes. They make me so mad...

I thought you had to have a soul to hold priesthood.
f4d9483e59150c429ed243f34b44f3df--family

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't see this situation as "totally different".  But a better analogy would be when Peter initially took the gospel just to the jews until the revelation was received to take it to the gentiles as well.  Even Christ with the Canaanite woman expressed similar teachings at first.

  • “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel,”

It's up to the coach which players sit on the bench and which get to play.  Not the players.

It is totally different - singling one group out for special treatment vs singling one group out for special mistreatment. But in regards to your specific point, black people are gentiles too, therefore the priesthood ban never should have been implemented. The church already came to that conclusion in the first century. 

Edited by Gray

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Gray said:

Here's a thoughtful commentary on racism and the priesthood ban by Scott Gordon. I think we've discussed each and every point on this forum at some point. 

https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2017/09/25/people-red-hair-denied-priesthood

Some of my favorite comments:

Thanks for the link, I heard something encouraging the other day, I can't remember which podcast it was on, but it was a Darius Gray interview and he said that the church was planning something big for next year's 40th anniversary of 1978 lifting of the restriction.  I hope the church would take the time to articulate the idea that the ban wasn't authored by God, that God isn't racist and never has been.  That the races weren't even created by God in the first place, and that racism is just a human construct, and has no eternal significance, we are all children of God.

Also, I can't help but comment based on your title "What if People with Red Hair Were Denied the Priesthood?", people with red hair are denied the priesthood today.  Women.  

Share this post


Link to post

This thread is funny to a point..but so sad.  I can't explain my sadness...red hair in the family ya know...lots of it!!:(

Share this post


Link to post

This would be a wise move. People with red hair are the chosen of Set and no one can serve two masters.

Share this post


Link to post

In the OT, you would be denied admission to the "congregation of the Lord" if you had injured testicles.  If you were a descendant of a Moabite.  If you were of illegitimate birth.  And more.

Seems that a religion has the ability to define the terms of membership the way it wants.   

Edited by Bob Crockett

Share this post


Link to post

Sounds good to me.

;)

I don't know that I needed the essay though to figure out it wasn't fair, no pun intended.

Ok well maybe it was intended.

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for the link, I heard something encouraging the other day, I can't remember which podcast it was on, but it was a Darius Gray interview and he said that the church was planning something big for next year's 40th anniversary of 1978 lifting of the restriction. 

That seems to contradict a First Presidency letter sent out in January of this year:

"During the next few years, the Church will enter a period of significant anniversaries of major Church history events. The Church will not be commemorating these events at the local level. However, stake and ward leaders may choose to commemorate some of them at the local level. We ask that any local commemorations not place undue burdens on leaders and members."

I was thinking more along the lines of the 200th anniversary of the First Vision when it mentions "significant anniversaries."

I hope the church would take the time to articulate the idea that the ban wasn't authored by God, that God isn't racist and never has been.  That the races weren't even created by God in the first place, and that racism is just a human construct, and has no eternal significance, we are all children of God.

I think it's clear that, whatever may or may not happen with commemorations, that will be the last thing to happen. If the gospel topics essays show anything, it is that the Brethren are going to strive not to drastically "pick a side" with controversial topics. And the priesthood ban is probably the powder keg of them all. 

That essay notably and purposely stopped short of doing what you are hoping for (and that would have been the time and place for that, don't you think?), and left room for those who believe that the ban and the timing of its implementation and lifting were God's will to continue believing that --- even while disavowing past explanations in general.

I think that the Brethren recognize what a land mine doing such a thing would be as far as inflicting permanent harm on how active members think of prophetic utterances. 

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, rongo said:

That seems to contradict a First Presidency letter sent out in January of this year:

"During the next few years, the Church will enter a period of significant anniversaries of major Church history events. The Church will not be commemorating these events at the local level. However, stake and ward leaders may choose to commemorate some of them at the local level. We ask that any local commemorations not place undue burdens on leaders and members."

 

It says they won't be commemorating them at the local level.  I suppose that means they might be commemorating some on a larger, less-local level?

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It says they won't be commemorating them at the local level.  I suppose that means they might be commemorating some on a larger, less-local level?

Typo on my part (the .pdf was too large to attach). It should have read "at the general Church level." I remember being struck by the 24 January letter because it specifically said that the Church would not be celebrating major commemorative events. Since when has the Church not done that (sesquicentennials, etc.)? 

I hoped that it wasn't gun-shyness about First Vision accounts, and not wanting to draw attention to that by commemorating it in 2020. But, I definitely think this applies to a ban-lifting celebration in 2018.

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, rongo said:

Typo on my part (the .pdf was too large to attach). It should have read "at the general Church level." I remember being struck by the 24 January letter because it specifically said that the Church would not be celebrating major commemorative events. Since when has the Church not done that (sesquicentennials, etc.)? 

That makes more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, rongo said:

That seems to contradict a First Presidency letter sent out in January of this year:

"During the next few years, the Church will enter a period of significant anniversaries of major Church history events. The Church will not be commemorating these events at the local level. However, stake and ward leaders may choose to commemorate some of them at the local level. We ask that any local commemorations not place undue burdens on leaders and members."

I was thinking more along the lines of the 200th anniversary of the First Vision when it mentions "significant anniversaries."

 

 

I think it's clear that, whatever may or may not happen with commemorations, that will be the last thing to happen. If the gospel topics essays show anything, it is that the Brethren are going to strive not to drastically "pick a side" with controversial topics. And the priesthood ban is probably the powder keg of them all. 

That essay notably and purposely stopped short of doing what you are hoping for (and that would have been the time and place for that, don't you think?), and left room for those who believe that the ban and the timing of its implementation and lifting were God's will to continue believing that --- even while disavowing past explanations in general.

I think that the Brethren recognize what a land mine doing such a thing would be as far as inflicting permanent harm on how active members think of prophetic utterances. 

Well its probably good since trying to fit the 1st vision story into the 1820 window, as Joseph described in his 1838 account, is near impossible.  I'm beginning to think Joseph had a recurring dream over a few year's span, which resulted in what came out to be his story of the first vision.

Share this post


Link to post

Can anyone explain the purpose of the article?  Seems like self-indulgent speculation and a bit of crying "mea-culpa" to me.   Since we have no revelation as to its beginning we can only speculate. That it took so long to be removed, shows only that men, even Prophets need to overcome their own selfs and actually listen to God.

But then we never made the claim that Prophets are perfect.

Share this post


Link to post

Blogs on FairMormon generally come about because people ask questions and someone decides to add some context to the topic.

Think of the questions that get discussed on the board, very similar ones get sent into us, often from a believer who is being confronted by a loved one.

The writer, Scott Gordon, is not the self indulgent type, btw.  

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, rongo said:

That seems to contradict a First Presidency letter sent out in January of this year:

"During the next few years, the Church will enter a period of significant anniversaries of major Church history events. The Church will not be commemorating these events at the local level. However, stake and ward leaders may choose to commemorate some of them at the local level. We ask that any local commemorations not place undue burdens on leaders and members."

I was thinking more along the lines of the 200th anniversary of the First Vision when it mentions "significant anniversaries."

Yes, thanks for the reminder about that earlier letter.  Perhaps this will be considered an exception to that statement, and since the statement specifies "local level", perhaps this is an event that will be coordinated at the HQ level.  I trust that Darius didn't just make that comment without having some knowledge about plans in the works around the anniversary.  

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I think it's clear that, whatever may or may not happen with commemorations, that will be the last thing to happen. If the gospel topics essays show anything, it is that the Brethren are going to strive not to drastically "pick a side" with controversial topics. And the priesthood ban is probably the powder keg of them all. 

That essay notably and purposely stopped short of doing what you are hoping for (and that would have been the time and place for that, don't you think?), and left room for those who believe that the ban and the timing of its implementation and lifting were God's will to continue believing that --- even while disavowing past explanations in general.

I think that the Brethren recognize what a land mine doing such a thing would be as far as inflicting permanent harm on how active members think of prophetic utterances. 

I think you're dead wrong on this, I think the essay (written primarily by Paul Reeve) especially when you couple it with the recent statement repudiating white supremacy shows that the church is making good progress on the race issue.  The church has already picked the side of condemning racism in all its forms.  Now they just need to acknowledge that the prior policy was racist, and I fully expect that to happen. 

If you look at how history typically progresses with respect to almost every issue, there are gradual moves forward that when looking back at the history its clear what the trend is.  I'm feeling quite confident that the church has put itself on the path of apology and specific clarity on this race issue that will repudiate the prior policy as uninspired.  Its already clear to many of us that it was uninspired (its even implied in the essay), its just a matter of having a church leader say it clearly and explicitly.  

Also, this won't do permanent harm to the church, it will do permanent harm to hero worship and the false doctrine of prophetic infallibility, and towards immature perspectives about the role of prophets.  I can't wait, this will be a wonderful and inspired move forward for our culture, I'm predicting it right now, this will happen in the not to distant future, count on it.  

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

Can anyone explain the purpose of the article?  Seems like self-indulgent speculation and a bit of crying "mea-culpa" to me.   Since we have no revelation as to its beginning we can only speculate. That it took so long to be removed, shows only that men, even Prophets need to overcome their own selfs and actually listen to God.

But then we never made the claim that Prophets are perfect.

Doesn't all revelation begin with speculation?

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

Can anyone explain the purpose of the article?  Seems like self-indulgent speculation and a bit of crying "mea-culpa" to me.   Since we have no revelation as to its beginning we can only speculate. That it took so long to be removed, shows only that men, even Prophets need to overcome their own selfs and actually listen to God.

But then we never made the claim that Prophets are perfect.

it does make ya wonder, are prophets really just of the world and in it?  I mean if prophets are teaching bad things because they aren't perfect and are just using the normal views of their day to teach it and justify it, then it sounds like they are of the world. 

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Gray said:

Here's a thoughtful commentary on racism and the priesthood ban by Scott Gordon. I think we've discussed each and every point on this forum at some point. 

https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2017/09/25/people-red-hair-denied-priesthood

Some of my favorite comments:

 

 

 

This would mean that red heads get the same eternal blessings with a lot less work required of them. Not too shabby a deal there.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By USU78
      At the FAIR Mormon conference a couple of years ago, the following was presented:  https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2015/the-mother-in-heaven-and-her-children
      This commentary was particularly striking:
      So, here we have the Heavenly Mother being presented as a Maker Who wraps us up in a priestly garment woven by her. 
      Her role in creation and in the life of Israel is hidden, however, in apocrypha like Ben Sira or in Proverbs and Psalms (as well as elsewhere).
      The discussion in the linked address on deliberate changes in the Tanakh, like, for example, the switching of an aleph for an ayin [both of which are rough equivalents for "A"], in order to obscure original intent, is especially interesting given JSJr's reference of a deliberate change to Genesis 1:1 [King Follett Discourse] and the BoM's first book's repeated mention of the removal of "plain and precious" things from scipture [Nephi 13:26,28-29,32,34-35,40]. 
      What I find most interesting, however, is the representation of the Mother as creatrix.  What exactly is meant symbolically and ritually by Her weaving and providing priestly vestments for the king and/or initiate will no doubt be a matter for some considerable debate.  In any event, we know from scripture, especially LDS scripture, that both Father and Son are creators, and that is both part of what they are, as well as what they do.  How else should we expect the Heavenly Mother to act and be, other than as engaged in the creative process, represented by weaving in the above references.
      I would love some input from those not of the LDS persuasion on especially Psalm 2:6's mistranslation of nasakh "to weave" and the implicit reference to the Great Weaver.
    • By Calm
       It was decided to put Dan's talk on live streaming for yesterday and then continue on. I can't embed the video, doesn't take, so follow the link please:
      https://www.facebook.com/fairmormon/videos/1675523409125703/
      Transcript will follow when ready.
      Have at least another in the wings waiting for final call, so shouldn't be long (transcript though, paid video...helps cover the conference costs)
    • By DBMormon
      Patrick Mason recently spoke at FairMormon and gave a very progressive Mormon speech.  I thought it would be good to have a dialogue about the actual points he raises.  the video and audio is behinds Fairmormon's paywall so you will have to take my word for it.  But here is a list of things he says.
      1.)  He flatly says we have defined Prophets incorrectly.
      2.)  That there is valid reason to doubt.
      3.)  That belief is "plausible" (his words) 
      4.)  That We made up much of our theology and have put way more in the truth cart then belongs there.
      5.) That we should not blame the doubters and that we would be better looking at ourselves for our problems rather than secularists, feminists, intellectuals, and even Satan
      6.) That the CES letter was an inevitable response to the false dominant narrative we have taught.  And that said narrative is not his mormonism nor the Mormonism that can flourish in the future.
      7.)  He expressed that we must do better to support gender equality and our LGBT brothers and sisters.   He says we aren't loving or inclusive enough
      8.)  He says our culture and leadership have sadly adopted a non-apologizing posture towards its mistakes
      9.)    He says we need to repent as a church and apologize for our serious errors.
      10.)  He says we need to Incorporate more diversity into our church ( race, gender, economic status. sexual orientation, and other differences)
       10.)  He concludes that he is scared of a immature faith never growing up and giving space for nuance and complexity and he fears a fundamentalist takeover
      All this at Fairmormon and strangely this is the very same stuff I say and get blasted for.  I also have it on good account that FairMormon's leadership has said behind the scenes this kind of Mormonism and perspective is where they want to head.  Any comments from FairMormon would be appreciated on whether you liked and agreed with Patrick perspective.
       
    • By Calm
      Since we are having the discussion about the Oregen refuge takeover, I thought this might contribute and help focus the conversation again on Church doctrine as opposed to arguments about what is or isn't appropriate for the government to do:
      http://blog.fairmormon.org/2016/01/06/gospel-hobbies-and-the-danger-of-all-consuming-patriotism/
       
    • By Robert F. Smith
      TheSkepticChristian has asked me to post this new topic based on the extensive debunking by FAIRMORMON at http://debunking-cesletter.com/ of the ever-changing "Letter to a CES Director."
       
      TheSkepticChristian finds that that letter "is full of bad arguments and patternicity," and calls particular attention to what the FAIRMORMON debunking says at the end:

      "By academic standards, The CES Letter is inadequate. It makes numerous non-peer reviewed claims that ignore what the actual peer-reviewed literature has said on these matters. Due to their biases and incomplete representations of the topics they address, such publications are often classified as spin or propaganda by scholars" 
       
      Does FAIRMORMON do an adequate job in this case, or do you find it lacking in some way?
×