Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

What if People with Red Hair Were Denied the Priesthood?


Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

What if people with read hair were denied the priesthood?  The results would be that they would not have to go to as many meetings.  They would have fewer callings and in the end, if they are as faithful as those who have the priesthood, they obtain the same exact blessings in eternity as those who had the priesthood. 

Paternalism is one of the go-to defenses for discrimination against both black people and women. Why not red heads, I guess?

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Calm said:

where would we find it wasn't?

I misspoke.  I should have said I expect it probably has been cancelled.  I doubt it's in public records and genealogy with baptism and endowment dates.

Link to comment
15 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

What if people with read hair were denied the priesthood?  The results would be that they would not have to go to as many meetings.  They would have fewer callings and in the end, if they are as faithful as those who have the priesthood, they obtain the same exact blessings in eternity as those who had the priesthood. 

Exactly.

Or for that matter what if everyone was denied the priesthood?

That would be called "Christianity before the Restoration" and we would have the same results as above. :)

Another distinction without a difference.  I still don't see how red hair is even relevant here since obviously the topic is about the Priesthood restriction and that topic has been hammered to death for centuries.  :beatdeadhorse:

The very question just indicates that some people cannot imagine being discriminated against as African Americans have been.  

Suppose white people were slaves?

Yes, and what?  You cannot fathom such a thing?  Why because you cannot conceive of what it is still like to be African American?

It's wrong it always was wrong and it always will be wrong whenever one human treats another that way.  We know that, we have known that for at least 2000 years.   We need a thread about redheads to make people understand that?

Cheesh!

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
15 hours ago, Gray said:

Paternalism is one of the go-to defenses for discrimination against both black people and women. Why not red heads, I guess?

We need to learn, apparently to have empathy for others without having to imagine that they look like us.   That is very odd to me that some seem not to be able to do that.

The whole premise is based on the idea that the "we" of the church does not include African Americans or any dark skinned folks.  The question becomes : "What if WE were discriminated against as black people were" while excluding black people from the "WE" of the question.  The "WE" implied should already INCLUDE dark skinned people!!  "We" ARE "they"- there should be no "THEY" distinguishing "them" from "us" for either red-heads OR African Americans.

To me even asking the question or raising the issue is itself horribly discriminatory, quite honestly!   Why would we need to ask the question if "we" could actually relate to BEING African American?   I am not red-headed- why is that supposed to help me relate better to African Americans than I relate to red heads?

I am neither red-headed nor African American, yet I would hope I can imagine how tough it would be to be either. :)

I mean what would it be like if Polish Americans born on the East Coast of the USA and who lived most of their lives in California were excluded from the Priesthood?

Do I need to break it down that far to have empathy?

But women are not discriminated against in the church, as has been pointed out.  They fully participate in priesthood blessings automatically.  As I have said for years they are explicitly given better blessings even than men in the temple ordinances, and this perceived "problem" would disappear if we actually attended the temple, performed all the ordinances, thought about them, and discussed them when and where it was proper to do so, meaning within the temple walls.  

But we don't and so we let others tell us what we believe.

I think we need to figure that out for ourselves.

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

We need to learn, apparently to have empathy for others without having to imagine that they look like us.   That is very odd to me that some seem not to be able to do that.

The whole premise is based on the idea that the "we" of the church does not include African Americans or any dark skinned folks.  The question becomes : "What if WE were discriminated against as black people were" while excluding black people from the "WE" of the question.  The "WE" implied should already INCLUDE dark skinned people!!  "We" ARE "they"- there should be no "THEY" distinguishing "them" from "us" for either red-heads OR African Americans.

To me even asking the question or raising the issue is itself horribly discriminatory, quite honestly!   Why would we need to ask the question if "we" could actually relate to BEING African American?   I am not red-headed- why is that supposed to help me relate better to African Americans than I relate to red heads?

I am neither red-headed nor African American, yet I would hope I can imagine how tough it would be to be either. :)

I mean what would it be like if Polish Americans born on the East Coast of the USA and who lived most of their lives in California were excluded from the Priesthood?

Do I need to break it down that far to have empathy?

But women are not discriminated against in the church, as has been pointed out.  They fully participate in priesthood blessings automatically.  As I have said for years they are explicitly given better blessings even than men in the temple ordinances, and this perceived "problem" would disappear if we actually attended the temple, performed all the ordinances, thought about them, and discussed them when and where it was proper to do so, meaning within the temple walls.  

But we don't and so we let others tell us what we believe.

I think we need to figure that out for ourselves.

Women occupy a second class status both in church organizational structure and in temple liturgy. Someday we will repent for this error. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Gray said:

Women occupy a second class status both in church organizational structure and in temple liturgy. Someday we will repent for this error. 

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. :)

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Gray said:

Women occupy a second class status both in church organizational structure and in temple liturgy. Someday we will repent for this error. 

Apparently you misunderstand the role of Mother Eve and the potential exalted position our sisters can reach. 

Link to comment
Just now, JLHPROF said:

Apparently you misunderstand the role of Mother Eve and the potential exalted position our sisters can reach. 

Compare the men's initiatories with the women's, if you can.  One way is to go with your wife and discuss afterwards in the celestial room.

Women are given gratis what men have to work for.  That is why men are the servants of all as "leaders".  Who in his right mind would aspire to be a bishop?

Link to comment
20 hours ago, Gray said:

Paternalism is one of the go-to defenses for discrimination against both black people and women. Why not red heads, I guess?

I don't mind being the target of discrimination if it means less work.  If God was to reverse the current order and ordain all women to the priesthood and release all men from holding the priesthood, I would be ok with it.   

Edited by carbon dioxide
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Gray said:

Women occupy a second class status both in church organizational structure and in temple liturgy. Someday we will repent for this error. 

Is that going to be on the day when the Lord finally sees fit to inspire the Brethren to be as enlightened as vous?

Edited by kiwi57
Link to comment
51 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Apparently you misunderstand the role of Mother Eve and the potential exalted position our sisters can reach. 

Nope, no misunderstanding. Do you understand what second class means? For instance:


 

Quote

sec·ond-class cit·i·zen

noun: second-class citizen; plural noun: second-class citizens

a person belonging to a social or political group whose rights and opportunities are inferior to those of the dominant group in a society.

"women had been denied the vote and been made into second-class citizens"

This describes the status of women in Mormonism to a T. And men are of course are the dominant group. This is sinful. But I'm confident we'll come to our senses eventually.

 

 

Edited by Gray
Link to comment
1 minute ago, kiwi57 said:

Is that going to be on the day when the Lord finally sees fit to inspire the Brethren to be as enlightened as <i>vous?</i>

It's going to be the day when there are enough members of the church who recognize this sin as sin and the dominant culture shifts. For now we'll keep imitating the Roman system, I suppose.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I don't mind being the target of discrimination if it means less work.  If God was to reverse the current order and ordain all women to the priesthood and release all men from holding the priesthood, I would be ok with it.   

Because you're in the dominant group, you currently get to choose one way or the other. Lucky you!

Edited by Gray
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's going to be the day when there are enough members of the church who recognize this sin as sin and the dominant culture shifts. For now we'll keep imitating the Roman system, I suppose.

In which scripture may I find that the ordination of men, or division of responsibilities generally, is "sin?"

 

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Is that going to be on the day when the Lord finally sees fit to inspire the Brethren to be as enlightened as vous?

I once knew a dog named "Vous".

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Gray said:

Nope, no misunderstanding. Do you understand what second class means? For instance:

This describes the status of women in Mormonism to a T. And men are of course are the dominant group. This is sinful. But I'm confident we'll come to our senses eventually.

"second-class citizens: a person belonging to a social or political group whose rights and opportunities are inferior to those of the dominant group in a society."

Thank you for confirming your misunderstanding of the role of women.  If that is how you think women are viewed in the gospel or temple you really don't get it. 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

"second-class citizens: a person belonging to a social or political group whose rights and opportunities are inferior to those of the dominant group in a society."

Thank you for confirming your misunderstanding of the role of women.  If that is how you think women are viewed in the gospel or temple you really don't get it. 

Women are locked out from most leadership positions, and assigned an inferior position to men in part of the endowment ceremony. You can say that it's the will of God but it's clearly a second class arrangement for women.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Is that going to be on the day when the Lord finally sees fit to inspire the Brethren to be as enlightened as vous?

So you think that changing the women's session to the first session of conference was uninspired? Unnecessary since everything was already perfect? Are the Brethren unenlightened each time they take steps to be more inclusive of women? Or is everything perfect as of 8 hrs ago and the enlightenment and inspiration starts now so there are no further changes?

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Reeeeeeally? So while my husband is off working very hard to carry out his priesthood duties, I'm doing nothing? I would argue that without my support and WORK, he would not be able to do a fraction of the church work he does. Just because he gets the credit doesn't mean I get it for free.

Oh come on surely you could not possibly have misunderstood it that badly?

You think about this is about working outside of the home, or like physical labor??   Seriously?  "He gets the credit??"

No women have sins forgiven that men have to go through laborious repentance to achieve the same level.  Go to the temple sometime and figure it out for yourself.

And those who gave you rep points as well.   This is not about women's lib.  Total myopia.

This is a deep spiritual fact about who gets what blessings, and women get more.  Yes, Reeeeeeally.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...