Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

What if People with Red Hair Were Denied the Priesthood?

Recommended Posts

I believe he mentioned this during his FairMormon presentation as well (that he was the primary author and submitted about 50 pages article), but that might have been in the Q and A and not in the transcript if someone is looking for easy documentation.

Share this post

Link to post

What if People with Red Hair Were Denied the Priesthood?


Poor analogy...

It should be instead, what if a particular lineage of "red hairs" were denied the Priesthood.
Clan MacLeod was denied the Priesthood, but all other red hair clans were allowed the Priesthood.
Note also how not all MacLeod's are red hairs, but they are still denied the Priesthood.

This is how the Priesthood ban was.  "Racism" was irrelevant to the issue, for plenty of other red hairs could still have the Priesthood.

Leftist women and men use the same type of argument about the Priesthood, but it's not about "Gender Inequality", it's something entirely different.
I wish Scott Gordon and others would stop misrepresenting the Church and its people as being racist in the past.  Most weren't.
We don't have the accept the popular narrative about the past which paints the church falsely when it's simply not the whole truth.

Edited by williamsmith

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:
      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:
    • 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?