Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Gray

What if People with Red Hair Were Denied the Priesthood?

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
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  I was simply giving an interpretation of scripture and other unpublished revelations which is impossible to do without being quoted directly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 by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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! :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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 :P ). 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 by BlueDreams

Share this post


Link to post
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 by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
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 :P ). 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.

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   1 member

  • 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?
×