What if People with Red Hair Were Denied the Priesthood?

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, changed said:

The greats among you are your servants....

The last will be first, and many who are first will be last....

As a female, the greatest glory is not obtained by being a leader, it's better to be "with" others, than to be "in front of" others.  If God wants to make us all into humble servants, what could he do to make someone feel like a servant?  perhaps the priesthood honors are not really honors after all - perhaps the greater honor lies in more humble circumstances. 

try being a bishop and see how much of an honor it is if you thinks bishops are not the servants of all

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

Except it doesn't even require them to be as enlightened as you to know that institutions suffer without input from women. And yes, when we have a church that teaches women have talents, interests, and views that are unique to them, I don't see further reducing their access to decision making and limiting their visibility as a viable direction. And then there is that practical matter of women leaving the church....and taking their children....at an accelerated rate. (And the only source I am going to offer on this is the leaked video of the meeting discussing the high rate of males leaving with a comment made that even more women were leaving and I'm not going to go search for it.)

 

 We are no longer in a society that accepts men telling women what "exalts" them or what they are supposed to think and feel about such things. That a well respected "coterie" is telling you the same thing and you are ignoring and even insulting them doesn't speak well for you. I agree with you on many things, but that stops when you start instructing women about things you do not experience and never will. 

I never said any of these things.

Since you do not listen to men on what exalts women perhaps it is time to find another church taught exclusively by women,  which preaches exaltation.  That is more a comment on the church than it is on me.  I am not responsible for who is in priesthood leadership.  Accepting or rejecting male prophets who teach exaltation is your decision.  I was simply giving an interpretation of scripture and other unpublished revelations which is impossible to do without being quoted directly

The stupidity to try on this board was all mine apparently.

Edited October 17, 2017 by mfbukowski

[juliann]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I never said any of these things.

Since you do not listen to men on what exalts women perhaps it is time to find another church taught exclusively by women,  which preaches exaltation.  That is more a comment on the church than it is on me.  I am not responsible for who is in priesthood leadership.  Accepting or rejecting male prophets who teach exaltation is your decision.  I was simply giving an interpretation of scripture and other unpublished revelations which is impossible to do without being quoted directly

The stupidity to try on this board was all mine apparently.

Except I didn't mention prophets and such, did I. I specifically said "men" in the context of a message board discussion.  Do you really think that "prophets" agree with you rather than the women who are objecting to demeaning comments, even if unintentional,  on a message board?

[juliann]

8 hours ago, DJBrown said:

Using your logic, Beyoncé is a second class citizen when compared to the armed guides who protect her- they have guns, and I assume she doesn't.  A completely unbiased, objective perspective with focus only on physical force and power would have to conclude that since they have the guns, the guards are the first class citizens and Beyoncé is the second class citizen.

 Oh my. That doesn't work on so very many levels. 

[juliann]

2 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

 

So you can scoff when a man says women aren't second-class citizens in the Church, but the situations aren't symmetrical. You may feel like the Church treats you as somehow less than a man, but I don't feel like the Church treats me as somehow more than a woman. And I don't know any man who does.

 

 

 

First, I didn't use the term "second-class."  Second, if only women being given parity in decision making and opportunities was a "feeling." Unfortunately, it is a black and white flow chart. 

Quote

I'm not sure how we'll ever come to a meeting of the minds on this; but I'm pretty sure it won't happen by women telling the men to shut up when a woman is talking.

And this is why talking to you is chasing strawmen. No one has told men to shut up when a woman is talking. 

[mfbukowski]

22 minutes ago, juliann said:

Except I didn't mention prophets and such, did I. I specifically said "men" in the context of a message board discussion.  Do you really think that "prophets" agree with you rather than the women who are objecting to demeaning comments, even if unintentional,  on a message board?

Thanks for the womansplaining.  Now I completely understand!

 

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, juliann said:

And this is why talking to you is chasing strawmen. No one has told men to shut up when a woman is talking. 

Not too sure about that one.

[BlueDreams]

4 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

 

After reading the above presumptuous and self-satisfied comment, I went to LDS. ORG and found quite literally scores of examples where the leaders of the Church use the expressions of CLINGING to the word of God, CLINGING to the gospel, and CLINGING to the Savior as extremely positive and essential things for the followers of God to do. In all of theses examples, it's obvious the leaders perceive the words CLINGING and HOLDING FAST mean precisely the same thing. Here's just one example:

O"Brothers and sisters, I nearly lost my life learning a lesson that I now give to you. As we go through life, even through very rough waters, a father’s instinctive impulse to cling tightly to his wife or to his children may not be the best way to accomplish his objective. Instead, if he will lovingly cling to the Savior and the iron rod of the gospel, his family will want to cling to him and to the Savior.

This lesson is surely not limited to fathers. Regardless of gender, marital status, or age, individuals can choose to link themselves directly to the Savior, hold fast to the rod of His truth, and lead by the light of that truth. By so doing, they become examples of righteousness to whom others will want to cling." Russell M Nelson, October 2001 General Conference)

So what is Lehi telling us? All he's saying is that some of those who make it to the tree of life and partake of its gloriously fulfilling fruit, but only after pressing forward toward the tree while keeping a firm grip on the word of God, will end up losing their souls in the end because they won't be able to withstand the shame they feel because of the mockery of the worldly wise. Meanwhile there will be others who will also press forward while maintaining a firm grip on the word of God who will not allow themselves to be shamed into walking away from the tree of life. Both groups kept their grip and obtained the fruit by righteousness, but those in the first group make the fatal mistake of not enduring to the end. 

But if you still believe you're right, you'd better contact the Church leaders and let them know that clinging to the word of God is a bad thing. Perhaps after you have amply warned them they will cease and desist from making fools out of themselves like an ignorant rube on a pretentious LDS discussion board?

Sure I'd contact them...I'll start with Elder Bednar. It was listening to his talk that first qued me to the difference a few years back. It's one of those distinctions that stuck with me.  I found this ironic because you were using Gray's spiritual stance as a means to de-legitimize his stance or perspective. That's a form of ad hom attack. And in doing so, ya placed yourself in a doctrinally superior position about scripture....when the scriptural reference to the iron rod talks of clinging to a group that ends up falling away. Don't get me wrong, there's plenty I disagree with Gray on and obviously I think I'm more right (sorry Gray  ). But I don't usually have to bolster my claims by becoming judge of his spiritual journey while pointing out how hard I "cling" to the gospel....particularly when the original scriptural reference doesn't have the best end for those clinging. And maybe that's not what you meant, but it's how it reads and the irony of it just tickled me pink. 

 

9 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Speaking generally and putting specifics aside for a moment, do you believe the following verses from the Book of Abraham are speaking of a specific lineage of human beings who were denied the right to hold the priesthood during the time Abraham lived in mortality? 

26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry; (Abraham 1)

Putting specifics aside in these circumstances and scriptures can be a really poor idea. It's what helped get us to the priesthood ban in the first place. The context is vital for a correct understanding. For example this ignores that at this time there's a strong likelihood that priesthood was in large part determined on birthright. As the first article points out there's a world of difference between one having something and all other's not....versus all having something but one not. This was a patriarchal order to priesthood which meant several more didn't have the priestly duties/ties. And pointing out that they didn't have this patrilineal claim is pertinent for the story of Abraham because his father was led to follow their competing order of patriarchal authority and Abraham would end up seeking the true order of God rather than the earnest but corrupted order of the pharaoh. 

Lineage at that time really counted because it decided who had right to lead the people or partake in certain orders. You see that in modern scriptural orderings around the role of bishop, where the right to be called a bishop is still tied to who descended from Aaron OR those who were ordained the Melc. Priesthood. My claim isn't that lineage doesn't have effect or weight in scripture or even today. But that HOW we went about interpreting that pertinence was misapplied, misconstrued, and clouded over by racism and reading race into lineage. For example I'm described as as in the tribe of Ephraim by birthright (and it specifically say by birthright) in my PB....but you better believe that if I were born to the same parents 50 years back that would have never been written. Our understanding of lineage drastically shifted as removed falsehoods from our understanding of it, opening us to see better. Prior readings also ignored that lineage only went so far in determining who had access to the blessings and partaking in the priesthood...which was far broader than just the primary patriarch or priest class of that time. There is more fluidity determined by righteous turning towards God's ways even in the times of lineage-based priesthood found in scripture than was/is given credence.

 

 With luv,

BD  

Edited October 17, 2017 by BlueDreams

[Calm]

7 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

but I'm pretty sure it won't happen by women telling the men to shut up when a woman is talking.

It definitely won't happen when "you need to listen" is interpreted as "you need to shut up".

Edited October 17, 2017 by Calm

[Bobbieaware]

7 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Sure I'd contact them...I'll start with Elder Bednar. It was listening to his talk that first qued me to the difference a few years back. It's one of those distinctions that stuck with me.  I found this ironic because you were using Gray's spiritual stance as a means to de-legitimize his stance or perspective. That's a form of ad hom attack. And in doing so, ya placed yourself in a doctrinally superior position about scripture....when the scriptural reference to the iron rod talks of clinging to a group that ends up falling away. Don't get me wrong, there's plenty I disagree with Gray on and obviously I think I'm more right (sorry Gray  ). But I don't usually have to bolster my claims by becoming judge of his spiritual journey while pointing out how hard I "cling" to the gospel....particularly when the original scriptural reference doesn't have the best end for those clinging. And maybe that's not what you meant, but it's how it reads and the irony of it just tickled me pink. 

 

Putting specifics aside in these circumstances and scriptures can be a really poor idea. It's what helped get us to the priesthood ban in the first place. The context is vital for a correct understanding. For example this ignores that at this time there's a strong likelihood that priesthood was in large part determined on birthright. As the first article points out there's a world of difference between one having something and all other's not....versus all having something but one not. This was a patriarchal order to priesthood which meant several more didn't have the priestly duties/ties. And pointing out that they didn't have this patrilineal claim is pertinent for the story of Abraham because his father was led to follow their competing order of patriarchal authority and Abraham would end up seeking the true order of God rather than the earnest but corrupted order of the pharaoh. 

Lineage at that time really counted because it decided who had right to lead the people or partake in certain orders. You see that in modern scriptural orderings around the role of bishop, where the right to be called a bishop is still tied to who descended from Aaron OR those who were ordained the Melc. Priesthood. My claim isn't that lineage doesn't have effect or weight in scripture or even today. But that HOW we went about interpreting that pertinence was misapplied, misconstrued, and clouded over by racism and reading race into lineage. For example I'm described as as in the tribe of Ephraim by birthright (and it specifically say by birthright) in my PB....but you better believe that if I were born to the same parents 50 years back that would have never been written. Our understanding of lineage drastically shifted as removed falsehoods from our understanding of it, opening us to see better. Prior readings also ignored that lineage only went so far in determining who had access to the blessings and partaking in the priesthood...which was far broader than just the primary patriarch or priest class of that time. There is more fluidity determined by righteous turning towards God's ways even in the times of lineage-based priesthood found in scripture than was/is given credence.

 

 With luv,

BD  

Aside from the fact that on LDS.org one can easily find scores of examples of the Church leaders, including many of the present and past 15, testifying that CLINGING to the 'iron rod' of the word of God is the right thing to do, it's difficult to imagine why anyone in Lehi's vision would have obtained the right to freely partake of the fruit of the tree of life, the most precious and wonderful of God's gifts, by exhibiting only sporadic bursts of spiritual activity punctuated by at least just as many periods of halfhearted inaction. But the bottom line is that, based on the words of many of the modern prophets, my use of clinging to the word of God as being exactly synonymous to holding fast to the word of God is well justified.

My problem with those who say that the modern priesthood ban was a mistake that never should have happened is that this claim negates the inspiration of the prophets of God from Brigham Young to Spencer W Kimball on a matter of great importance and also makes the following canonized words of the living prophets of God in 1978 appear to be generated by either delusion or dishonesty.

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.

We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel. (Official Declaration 2)

I believe it's a very dangerous slippery slope to believe and propagate the idea that the prophets of the Church were uninspired on a matter where they most solemnly testified that they were inspired. Such thinking is dangerous and sets the stage for widespread disobedience and rebellion when during the days of great tribulation and persecution that lay ahead the prophets of the Church give inspired guidance that will be unpopular with the world.

[Storm Rider]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

It definitely won't happen when "you need to listen" is interpreted as "you need to shut up".

This is an interesting statement and is applicable to all individuals regardless of gender.  The problem is that it is difficult for most of us to recognize when it is time to listen to another regardless of their gender.  It is fascinating when each gender wants to tell the other gender they are not listening and that they need to be heard. 

Almost every individual can be benefitted by first listening rather than demanding to be heard. 

[BlueDreams]

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"every whit"

There is a difference, and yes of course women do not have a "get into heaven free" card- I did not mean to imply that.  But the blessing for obedience is different.  Of course obedience is always required.

John 13:10

If I am wrong, I will be glad to retract it.  Research continues.  Thanks for your reasonable and logical response.

As am I still learning. I knew my temple shift was today, so I went and talked to the temple recorder about the differences between the women and men's initiatory for about 20 minutes. It was a great discussion and obviously most of it I can't share here. He had his conclusions (which were similar to some of the ones you mentioned), I had my own thoughts, and there were several of both our thoughts that intersected and had common ground. The actual ceremony still doesn't ring right to me when interpreted in the way that you've ascribed. It feels like folk doctrine to me. Such an interpretation lends to or maintains placing women on pedestals and benevolent sexism. I think that's continued because in part we live in a sexist world and in part because men, in callings such as recorders, have often been the ones with major access to both ceremonies in full and the ones told to turn to if there's questions about it (women are sometimes told to go to the matron....but I've heard it more to the presidency or the recorder). What that leads to is a male-dominated orientation to understanding the temple ceremony.  Tying this to the first article, it's just as problematic as having a white dominated perspective on the gospel and race. Not only does this effect the faith oriented interpretations of the temple, I think some of the criticism of the temple is actually more so criticism of this male-dominate lens that we all in some ways have been led to peer through. 

My initial thoughts I can share is that to me the structure indicates that women are given a specific gift in cleansing that is necessary for our role on earth in direct tangent and partnership with the men's specific duties and roles....all under the power and order of our Heavenly Parents or the Priesthood. This gift for women is needed for their direct roles that are correlated in scripture to Christ's purpose and the plan of salvation overall.  I also find it a particular mercy to women. The blessings of cleansing and power within our bodies particularly touched me as I've thought about the disproportionate amount of abuse, assaults, injury, perpetual beratement about our bodies, and general degradation women face in this fallen world. To be told what we are in washing to me felt like a mercy. Like having the inordinate amount of hidden tears, scars, and filth forced upon our bodies from this fallen world be removed here and now...to partially have Christ wipe away the pitfalls of inequality there as He will fully do in our resurrection to come.

 

Anyways, what I've learned today was helpful and will be something that I'm pondering for a while to come. 

 

With luv,

BD

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

As am I still learning. I knew my temple shift was today, so I went and talked to the temple recorder about the differences between the women and men's initiatory for about 20 minutes. It was a great discussion and obviously most of it I can't share here. He had his conclusions (which were similar to some of the ones you mentioned), I had my own thoughts, and there were several of both our thoughts that intersected and had common ground. The actual ceremony still doesn't ring right to me when interpreted in the way that you've ascribed. It feels like folk doctrine to me. Such an interpretation lends to or maintains placing women on pedestals and benevolent sexism. I think that's continued because in part we live in a sexist world and in part because men, in callings such as recorders, have often been the ones with major access to both ceremonies in full and the ones told to turn to if there's questions about it (women are sometimes told to go to the matron....but I've heard it more to the presidency or the recorder). What that leads to is a male-dominated orientation to understanding the temple ceremony.  Tying this to the first article, it's just as problematic as having a white dominated perspective on the gospel and race. Not only does this effect the faith oriented interpretations of the temple, I think some of the criticism of the temple is actually more so criticism of this male-dominate lens that we all in some ways have been led to peer through. 

My initial thoughts I can share is that to me the structure indicates that women are given a specific gift in cleansing that is necessary for our role on earth in direct tangent and partnership with the men's specific duties and roles....all under the power and order of our Heavenly Parents or the Priesthood. This gift for women is needed for their direct roles that are correlated in scripture to Christ's purpose and the plan of salvation overall.  I also find it a particular mercy to women. The blessings of cleansing and power within our bodies particularly touched me as I've thought about the disproportionate amount of abuse, assaults, injury, perpetual beratement about our bodies, and general degradation women face in this fallen world. To be told what we are in washing to me felt like a mercy. Like having the inordinate amount of hidden tears, scars, and filth forced upon our bodies from this fallen world be removed here and now...to partially have Christ wipe away the pitfalls of inequality there as He will fully do in our resurrection to come.

 

Anyways, what I've learned today was helpful and will be something that I'm pondering for a while to come. 

 

With luv,

BD

Thanks.

Another method is simply to have a male and female do enough initiatories to learn the blessings (like perhaps a husband and wife?) and then discuss them in the temple.  That has the added benefit of actually helping those on the other side as well as personal involvement and drawing one's own conclusions without reliance on other sources- something I always favor.  AND it can help marriages.   We are building our own worlds here, as couples, not someone else's.

I am an ordinance worker and have memorized the ordinances, and my daughter is also an ordinance worker on the women's side and we have had many long discussions on this subject.  Many.

Another area for research is the phrase "blood and sins of this generation" many of which are perpetrated by men against women and have been for generations, and it would make sense that men have a great need to repent of those sins whereas of course women as the victims are faultless.  There is probably not a man on earth that is not guilty of objectifying women at least in thought if not in deed- hence the admonition that to "lust after a woman" is a serious sin tantamount to "denying the faith".  At first glance that seems quite harsh- that lust alone is a sin which "denies the faith".  And in our age of pornography that becomes of tremendous importance.  Of course that also relates

Another odd idea that has been implied on this board is that somehow prophets should not be seen as "men" and so that the temple ordinances are somehow God-Breathed and infallible and immune from being dictated and interpreted by red-blooded human males though time and eternity.

Like those facts or not, if they are seen as "benign sexism" so be it.  That argument does not fly if you look at more contemporary views of prophets as put forth by current thinkers like Mason and backed up even by Conference talks indicating that prophets are not infallible, but are men with their own prejudices.

That is how I have seen it anyway.  But of course if one insists that men and women are not different one cannot possibly understand that men have sins to repent of that women do not.  But of course that is probably a "sexist statement" in these times where freedom of speech is assaulted even by members of the church who are supposed to uphold the Proclamation which clearly spells out that there are gender differences.   I don't care at this point- I am going to call it as I see it and face whatever hits the fan.

Frankly I have found this entire discussion quite disturbing in the reaction I have gotten to all this.  I never expected it.  I had never thought that the idea that men had to repent of persecuting women where women do not have to repent of persecuting men would be controversial.   Of course I did not put it that way because I was focused more on not revealing temple content.

Another area for serious discussion would be to discuss that passage in which Jesus tells Peter that he is not clean "every whit" as it is translated in the King James.

Since I do not speak Greek I cannot tell if that refers to him personally or if some of the pronouns are plural and apply more to the group of the apostles personally or males in general or Peter as an individual.  English translations vary on this and how it is to be taken because it was not even an issue.  Strong's is not much help on this one either, so if there are any Greek scholars who can analyze the syntax of the grammar, that would be useful.

I have referenced that earlier.

But there is another scriptural passage about pearls and porcine creatures which may apply at this point anyway.  

But between you and me, I would suggest you factor that into your contemplation of the issue.

Thanks again for a rational approach to this discussion and for the acknowledgement that there is actually something valuable in this area to learn about.

Edited October 17, 2017 by mfbukowski

[kiwi57]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

It definitely won't happen when "you need to listen" is interpreted as "you need to shut up".

When "you need to listen" is the response to any questioning of the preferred position, then "you need to shut up" seems like a reasonable interpretation thereof.

[kiwi57]

19 hours ago, juliann said:

First, I didn't use the term "second-class."  Second, if only women being given parity in decision making and opportunities was a "feeling." Unfortunately, it is a black and white flow chart. 

And this is why talking to you is chasing strawmen. No one has told men to shut up when a woman is talking. 

Let's see.

I began by challenging Gray's accusation against the Church (remember "This is sinful?" ) and you came back with:

Quote

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?

But I'm the one introducing "strawmen?"

I see.

[rongo]

26 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

When "you need to listen" is the response to any questioning of the preferred position, then "you need to shut up" seems like a reasonable interpretation thereof.

I've been told in the past by juliann and others that I and others, as men, may not talk about things because we're men. If that isn't "you need to shut up," I don't know what is.

People have been better about that lately, for the most part, as this has been pointed out to them, but "womansplaining" is at least as prominent in discussions like this as "mansplaining."

[juliann]

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

I've been told in the past by juliann and others that I and others, as men, may not talk about things because we're men. If that isn't "you need to shut up," I don't know what is.

People have been better about that lately, for the most part, as this has been pointed out to them, but "womansplaining" is at least as prominent in discussions like this as "mansplaining."

No, it is only going to get worse for men who think being told to listen and respect women's experiences is being told to shut up. 

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

When "you need to listen" is the response to any questioning of the preferred position, then "you need to shut up" seems like a reasonable interpretation thereof.

Or perhaps one could interpret it as they have a habit of not listening they need to work on.

[rongo]

11 minutes ago, juliann said:

No, it is only going to get worse for men who think being told to listen and respect women's experiences is being told to shut up. 

But we're not allowed to participate in the discussion --- even while and after listening, and even while respecting women's experiences. I've been actually told that before --- by you and others.

That is a form of being told to shut up. How is it not?

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

But we're not allowed to participate in the discussion --- even while and after listening, and even while respecting women's experiences. I've been actually told that before --- by you and others.

That is a form of being told to shut up. How is it not?

I believe that Juliann has clarified in most, if not all cases where someone has made it clear they have misread her that way.  I don't remember other occasions so I can't comment on those.

Edited October 17, 2017 by Calm

[Gray]

On 10/16/2017 at 4:05 PM, kiwi57 said:

Then what is the "sin" of which we are guilty and for which we must repent?

Being respecters of persons.

[Guest]

On October 12, 2017 at 10:47 AM, 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:

 

 

 

On a lighter note...I am Scot-Irish, so does "red facial hair" count? It almost all white now, but there was a time. 

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

On a lighter note...I am Scot-Irish, so does "red facial hair" count? It almost all white now, but there was a time. 

I'm in the same boat. I think maybe in that case we'd be limited to the Aaronic priesthood only

Edited October 17, 2017 by Gray

[kiwi57]

46 minutes ago, Gray said:

Being respecters of persons.

For example?

While you are finding examples, here is a little quote for you:

“I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom,” Joseph Smith taught the Saints in 1839.  “It is an eternal principle that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.” — Daniel Peterson, “Dealing with issues that are secondary,” Mormon Times, Deseret News, June 16, 2011, p. 2; Joseph Smith, History of the Church 3:385

 

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

No, it is only going to get worse for men who think being told to listen and respect women's experiences is being told to shut up. 

Quaere: After we have listened and respected women's experiences (quite apart from the fact that you don't really know how much listening and respecting we, or any of us, have done away from this forum) are we then permitted to respectfully dissent from your view, or are we merely to assent to it?