Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Gray

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?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Men in the Church get to make all the important decisions. Like what color of tie they'll wear to Sacrament Meetings. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
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. :)

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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

 

 

Nuh uh! :P

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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?"

 

Share this post


Link to post
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".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

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

 

I don't think I said either of those things was sin.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Calm
      The conference starts Wednesday this year instead of Thursday, hopefully most of us can get that extra day off.
      https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2018
      More info will be following.  With the expansion, things aren't as far along as they usually are.
      From the Nov 2017 FM Journal:
      The Women's Workshop is being put on in partnership with the Church History Department.
    • 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/
       
×
×
  • Create New...