What Is It About White Men?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Is that any way to make a brother feel welcome?

 

I was offering up an honest opinion, from what I have observed. Not trying to drive him away.

Edit: And at least I am offering up a Restoration alternative, instead completely abandoning the Restoration.

Edited March 25, 2014 by BookofMormonLuvr

[CV75]

This thread was NOT about race. It was about OW. I simply used the prior ban as context to demonstrate how there seems to be a continual struggle to extend the priesthood to new groups that is constantly opposed by the dominant group. I simply didn't know how to make my point without bringing up past instances of priesthood bans.

I think the basic "natural" principles in the book I referenced earlier apply to the priesthood vis-a-vis gender as well as in relation to societal developments and that it only "seems" to be a function of planning and foresight. I think the driving factor in this particular question is that the First Presidency, Twelve, etc. are ordained by the Lord to be the "dominant group" (your term)  with regards to conferring the priesthood, ordaining its offices and using the keys for spiritual blessings (D&C 107).

 

But this dominant group is made up of the "weak and simple" (D&C 1:23; also header to D&C 107).

 

Assuming this is a spiritual question, I think that how this group comes across in relation to the "subordinate groups" (borrowing your term) is a function of the spirit in which they are observed and sustained.

[Gray]

Christ, whom LDS  have as part of the Godhead, during his mortal ministry went only to the Jews, and had no women Apostles.

 

He broke his own rule and reached out to Gentiles and Samaritans as well. 

[pogi]

I agree that it isn't really fair to tell the Brethren, "Go ask HF about women's ordination and don't come back until He tells you to grant it!"

 

My suspicion (without any evidence to support it ... what else is new?) is that OW would settle for less than ordination, but is making a strong opening "bid" in an effort to try to persuade the Brethren to pray about it in earnest.  

 

My suspicion is that many of them would leave the church if the prophet declared a revelation stating that women never will hold the priesthood while on the earth.  I don't believe that their mission is to get the prophet to pray about it, I think their mission is to succeed in receiving the priesthood.  I think this movement gives them meaning and purpose, and to deflate that with a revelation would be devastating for them.  I don't think they could bear losing their voice on the matter.  But that is just my suspicion.  Of course I am speaking generally, I don't think they all would leave the church.  Like with any movement, there is a spectrum of devotion and cause, and humility and pride. 

[JLHPROF]

My suspicion is that many of them would leave the church if the prophet declared a revelation stating that women never will hold the priesthood while on the earth.  I don't believe that their mission is to get the prophet to pray about it, I think their mission is to succeed in receiving the priesthood.  I think this movement gives them meaning and purpose, and to deflate that with a revelation would be devastating for them.  I don't think they could bear losing their voice on the matter.  But that is just my suspicion.  Of course I am speaking generally, I don't think they all would leave the church.  Like with any movement, there is a spectrum of devotion and cause, and humility and pride. 

 

This is correct in my opinion.  If the Church ever said clearly that God had answered their prayers and women were not to receive ecclesiastical priesthood I fully suspect these women would leave (and be unable to accept it).

 

What they would be demonstrating IF they were to take this course is a lack of understanding of priesthood.  If President Monson were to lay his hands on a womans head and ordain her an Elder and God did not approve or had not revealed it, she still wouldn't hold the priesthood or be an Elder.  She could go around calling herself and Elder blessing sacrament, baptizing, ordaining others and showing her chain of authority, and none of it would actually be valid in the eyes of God.  And those who accepted her ordinances would be receiving nothing of value and be unfairly duped into thinking they were.

If they are truly sincere then getting the revelation giving God's will should be the ultimate goal.  Not getting the Church to "ordain" them.

[mormonnewb]

I think the basic "natural" principles in the book I referenced earlier apply to the priesthood vis-a-vis gender as well as in relation to societal developments and that it only "seems" to be a function of planning and foresight. I think the driving factor in this particular question is that the First Presidency, Twelve, etc. are ordained by the Lord to be the "dominant group" (your term)  with regards to conferring the priesthood, ordaining its offices and using the keys for spiritual blessings (D&C 107).

 

But this dominant group is made up of the "weak and simple" (D&C 1:23; also header to D&C 107).

 

Assuming this is a spiritual question, I think that how this group comes across in relation to the "subordinate groups" (borrowing your term) is a function of the spirit in which they are observed and sustained.

 

Your last point is very interesting.  So do you think agitation is more or less likely to bring about the revelation that OW is seeking?

[mormonnewb]

This is correct in my opinion.  If the Church ever said clearly that God had answered their prayers and women were not to receive ecclesiastical priesthood I fully suspect these women would leave (and be unable to accept it).

 

What they would be demonstrating IF they were to take this course is a lack of understanding of priesthood.  If President Monson were to lay his hands on a womans head and ordain her an Elder and God did not approve or had not revealed it, she still wouldn't hold the priesthood or be an Elder.  She could go around calling herself and Elder blessing sacrament, baptizing, ordaining others and showing her chain of authority, and none of it would actually be valid in the eyes of God.  And those who accepted her ordinances would be receiving nothing of value and be unfairly duped into thinking they were.

If they are truly sincere then getting the revelation giving God's will should be the ultimate goal.  Not getting the Church to "ordain" them.

 

I'm not so sure I concur that there would be so many defections as the result of a revelation denying the priesthood.  If these women were looking for a way out of the Church, they could just leave (that is still allowed, isn't it?).  I think they simply want the Brethren to "diligently seek" the Lord's guidance on the matter.  And to my knowledge, there has not been a statement released by the Brethren stating that they have recently sought revelation and that the Lord has said, "No" or that they have not received revelation at all.

 

By the way, would the Brethren ever announce such a thing?  For instance, we now know that President McKay told Elder Marion D. Hanks that "he had pleaded and pleaded with the Lord, but had not had the answer he sought."

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Origin_of_the_priesthood_ban

 

But was this something ever announced to the membership?  If not, then how would have agitating saints back then known that their concerns had been taken to the Lord?  And how does OW know that it's concerns have reached the level whereby the Brethren are seeking revelation on this particular issue when they must be continually besieged with requests from people dissatisfied with some aspect of our doctrine/policy?

[JLHPROF]

I'm not so sure I concur that there would be so many defections as the result of a revelation denying the priesthood.  If these women were looking for a way out of the Church, they could just leave (that is still allowed, isn't it?).  I think they simply want the Brethren to "diligently seek" the Lord's guidance on the matter.  And to my knowledge, there has not been a statement released by the Brethren stating that they have recently sought revelation and that the Lord has said, "No" or that they have not received revelation at all.

 

By the way, would the Brethren ever announce such a thing?  For instance, we now know that President McKay told Elder Marion D. Hanks that "he had pleaded and pleaded with the Lord, but had not had the answer he sought."

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Origin_of_the_priesthood_ban

 

But was this something ever announced to the membership?  If not, then how would have agitating saints back then known that their concerns had been taken to the Lord?  And how does OW know that it's concerns have reached the level whereby the Brethren are seeking revelation on this particular issue when they must be continually besieged with requests from people dissatisfied with some aspect of our doctrine/policy?

 

Well, all of this is true.  But just speaking for myself, if there was going to be some question as to the validity of my ordination in the eyes of God, I would want it cleared up before I sat down and had hands laid on my head.  If I were these women I would want to KNOW that God had definitively spoken to change the practice.  The alternative - assuming the receipt of priesthood without God's permission would be a dangerous practice because nobody should take the honor to themselves.

 

I just think that some of these women (particularly the group leaders) would sit down and be ordained tomorrow if it were offered them without any revelation being issued.  They are that determined to receive ordination.

[mormonnewb]

 

With what I have seen of his topics and posts, if he is already this concerned, he will, before to long, likely become dissatisfied with the church not changing. or not changing fast enough to suit his views. If he toughs it out, good for him- I would rather see him LDS than CofC.

 

From what you've seen, do you think I wouldn't find some fault with CofC before long?  I suspect that unless I join the Church of Mormonnewb of Latter-day Saint, I'm going to have some disagreement with church policy/doctrine.  In fact, even in my own church, it would only be a matter of time before I asked, "What idiot is running things around here?"

 

I'm a member of the LDS Church because despite the fact that it isn't "perfect" (i.e., molded in MY image and likeness), it is the most correct of any church that I've encountered.  That being said, if I find a "more perfecter" church, I'm always willing to jump ship.  In fact, I have a call into the Amish and as soon as they call (or text) me back, I'm out of here!  

[The Nehor]

Hate to break this to you but the white Caucasian is not the hero of the Last Days. The Lamanites are. In time we will diminish as John the Baptist did when Jesus took center stage. The Book of Mormon gives the Gentiles their brief time in the sun and then they step aside to aid others who will do greater works.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

From what you've seen, do you think I wouldn't find some fault with CofC before long?  I suspect that unless I join the Church of Mormonnewb of Latter-day Saint, I'm going to have some disagreement with church policy/doctrine.  In fact, even in my own church, it would only be a matter of time before I asked, "What idiot is running things around here?"

 

I'm a member of the LDS Church because despite the fact that it isn't "perfect" (i.e., molded in MY image and likeness), it is the most correct of any church that I've encountered.  That being said, if I find a "more perfecter" church, I'm always willing to jump ship.  In fact, I have a call into the Amish and as soon as they call (or text) me back, I'm out of here!  

I didn't say those things to insult you, but you seem to be of a more Liberal mindset, and the Community of Christ has already moved in a direction you seem to prefer. If I saw someone strongly leaning towards Mormon Fundamentalism there is a group I would recommend.

I more or less give people recommendations so they can arrive at their likely destination quicker and hopefully not loose their testimony of the Book of Mormon. I would never recommend a church outside of the Restoration.

But if the LDS Church is where you are happy to stay, I am happy with you, and hope to see you in Zion one day, when the LORD grafts us all back into the same tree.

[pogi]

I'm not so sure I concur that there would be so many defections as the result of a revelation denying the priesthood.  If these women were looking for a way out of the Church, they could just leave (that is still allowed, isn't it?).

 

I look at it a little different.  I don't think they are trying to find a way out.  I believe that they really do love the church and want to be a part of it.  However, I am afraid that for many of them, their membership has become conditional upon this issue.  They have already stated as much. 

[mormonnewb]

I didn't say those things to insult you, but you seem to be of a more Liberal mindset, and the Community of Christ has already moved in a direction you seem to prefer. If I saw someone strongly leaning towards Mormon Fundamentalism there is a group I would recommend.

I more or less give people recommendations so they can arrive at their likely destination quicker and hopefully not loose their testimony of the Book of Mormon. I would never recommend a church outside of the Restoration.

But if the LDS Church is where you are happy to stay, I am happy with you, and hope to see you in Zion one day, when the LORD grafts us all back into the same tree.

 

One of the things that drew me to the LDS Church was its unity.  I came from a Baptist tradition, where my "non-credal" church had split into 200+ denominations.  Church "families" have split over matters as trivial as the issue of which hand in which to receive the sacrament (thus, the Left Hand Independent Baptist Church).  To its credit, for the last 100 years or so, the LDS Church has been largely immune to this type of endless division.  Some would attribute it to a rigid orthodoxy, but I see an incredible amount of flexibility in our policy/doctrines due to continuing revelation.  The Church was able to make 180 degree turns on polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, blood atonement, etc. because of what I see as an overriding devotion to this particular body of Christ.

 

Take, for instance, someone like Bruce R. McConkie.  He lived to see some of his espoused doctrines be completely reversed, and I don't think I've ever read that he even considered leaving the Church.  In fact, to his credit, in the immediate aftermath of the priesthood ban reversal, he told people to disregard everything he'd ever told them on the subject.  Many people (myself included) would have been much too wedded to their positions to simply give them up and admit error.  I can certainly see how he would have thought, "Hey, the Church has caved to pressure and refuses to stand with the Lord.  It is now in apostasy.  It's time to start the Church of McConkie!"

 

In fact, it is this strength that makes Mormonism such a strong candidate to be the "unifying" Church of the millenium (if any such thing will exist).  My beloved Baptists couldn't make it 1,000 years (or even 1,000 days) before splitting into First, Second, Third and Fourth Horseman denominations.  Someone the saints manage to remain unified despite their differences.  I suspect that this is how HF intended it.

[mormonnewb]

I look at it a little different.  I don't think they are trying to find a way out.  I believe that they really do love the church and want to be a part of it.  However, I am afraid that for many of them, their membership has become conditional upon this issue.  They have already stated as much. 

 

I am probably wrong but I suspect that my sisters are bluffing.  In the heat of "battle," I am prone to overplay my position as well.

 

I don't know this to be true but if all they wanted was ordination, they could have that tomorrow with the Community of Christ.  They wouldn't even have to turn in their Books of Mormon.  There is something about THIS Church that makes them want to stay and agitate for change.  Or maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

One of the things that drew me to the LDS Church was its unity.  I came from a Baptist tradition, where my "non-credal" church had split into 200+ denominations.  Church "families" have split over matters as trivial as the issue of which hand in which to receive the sacrament (thus, the Left Hand Independent Baptist Church).  To its credit, for the last 100 years or so, the LDS Church has been largely immune to this type of endless division.  Some would attribute it to a rigid orthodoxy, but I see an incredible amount of flexibility in our policy/doctrines due to continuing revelation.  The Church was able to make 180 degree turns on polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, blood atonement, etc. because of what I see as an overriding devotion to this particular body of Christ.

 

Take, for instance, someone like Bruce R. McConkie.  He lived to see some of his espoused doctrines be completely reversed, and I don't think I've ever read that he even considered leaving the Church.  In fact, to his credit, in the immediate aftermath of the priesthood ban reversal, he told people to disregard everything he'd ever told them on the subject.  Many people (myself included) would have been much too wedded to their positions to simply give them up and admit error.  I can certainly see how he would have thought, "Hey, the Church has caved to pressure and refuses to stand with the Lord.  It is now in apostasy.  It's time to start the Church of McConkie!"

 

In fact, it is this strength that makes Mormonism such a strong candidate to be the "unifying" Church of the millenium (if any such thing will exist).  My beloved Baptists couldn't make it 1,000 years (or even 1,000 days) before splitting into First, Second, Third and Fourth Horseman denominations.  Someone the saints manage to remain unified despite their differences.  I suspect that this is how HF intended it.

 

I am glad you have found a home there. I left for another branch of the Restored church and feel this is where the LORD has called me. I think the main splits of the church... LDS, RLDS, Church of Christ (Temple Lot), Church of Jesus Christ (Rigdon), have all been preserved for a reason and that each has its errors and unique gifts which will all be made known and placed in order when the LORD calls HIS people to Zion.

[Bernard Gui]

What is it about white men?

 

Not much different than any other man who seeks power over others.

White men have no monopoly on ruthless authority. Where are the most

refugees located today?

 

Idi Amin

Mao Zedong
Tamerlane

Papa Doc Duvalier

Saddam Hussein

Pol Pot

 

Joseph Smith correctly identified the problem. In the Church, unrighteous dominion leads to termination of authority,

but in the world, unrighteous dominion leads to death and destruction. The father of unrighteous dominion rules with

blood and horror and will continue to do so until he is put down by Jesus Christ.

 

We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.... when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

 

Edited March 25, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[CV75]

Your last point is very interesting.  So do you think agitation is more or less likely to bring about the revelation that OW is seeking?

I don’t think agitation has any more of less to do with our LDS leaders receiving revelation. I think this is a lesson from John 5:2-10. Jesus healed the impotent man whether the water was troubled or not, and regardless of the legend that it actually healed people and that people actually believed this—and even believed it was spiritual or of God.  It’s all up to Jesus and the faith placed in Him, and it’s not about seeking power but about being forgiven and receiving all that follows from Him (skip to verses 14 and 19-47).

 

I see agitation for priesthood as the troubling of the water. It really has nothing to do with the Source of the presumed, sought-after blessing, what the actual intended blessing really is, or how the blessing is actually delivered.

 

Even the parable of the importune widow (Luke 18:1-8 ) shows that if we are persistent in prayer to the right Source in the right Spirit for the right reasons, we are seeking the Lord’s will properly. Moroni 6:9 shows a good way for the saints to join together in “supplicating” for blessings, rather than “agitating” for them.

Edited March 25, 2014 by CV75

[slamarwi]

He broke his own rule and reached out to Gentiles and Samaritans as well. 

He "reached out" but that is significantly different than making one of them an apostle 

[Stargazer]

I am one of those who answered that poll in the way that you have a problem with. I also responded with some verbiage in that thread, but I think by that time you had bowed out of the discussion and didn't see what I wrote. I invite you to run it down and read it. I took a few hours crafting it, so it represented some investment on my part, and I was disappointed that you didn't seem to have seen it. But it's not that important, and I am not going to try to track it down either. I did quote a number of black members of the Church who were present in Utah at the time the ban was reversed, and perhaps you might find that of interest.

I will say this: until shown otherwise by authoritative revelation through the proper authority (which would include the Lord taking the trouble to reveal it to me personally), I assume that Lord did not act to end the priesthood ban because HE had good reason not to. Until He did. Likewise, until otherwise revealed, I assume that the ban was instituted by divine authority, and since I sustain the Lord in his calling of His prophets, I must necessarily assume that it was the Lord's will. I also do not assume that the Lord was racist when he restricted the priesthood to men descended from a particular man of a particular tribe of Israel; I assume He had good reason for it.

How can I do less than those black members who were then living as faithful members of the Church in Utah, and who remained faithful until the end, regardless of their personal feelings about being excluded in that way?

You make the completely unwarranted assumption that all those who accept what was evidently the Father's will in the matter are racists -- that they enjoyed their supposed position of superiority. The only ones who you could tar with that particular brush, however, would be those who refused to accept the ban when it was lifted -- and I can tell you that I, as I reported in that other thread, only met one such person in my entire church "career" since 1978.

I have a deep hatred of racism. For someone to call me a racist is much akin to uttering fighting words.

[bcuzbcuz]

This is a sincere question. What is it about SOME white men that makes them so comfortable with the idea of being privileged by God to exercise authority over others? Even 35+ years after the end of the priesthood ban, according to a poll taken on this board, the majority of posters believe that HF instituted the priesthood ban, thus, intentionally placing all black saints under the priesthood authority of their white brothers.

Fortunately, our Church has moved beyond a race-based hegemony (at least, officially), but our patriarchy is alive and well. For most men in the church, it is not even curious that HF rests more ecclesiastical authority in a typical 12 yo BOY than in the most devout woman in the church.

 

[in light of further reflection and comments from posters, I want to modify my position SLIGHTLY as follows:

 

Now, I know that some of you will see this question as being racist and sexist, and I admit that it is.  It assumes that this phenomenon is unique to white men, when it probably would affect ANY group that had established economic/political/social dominance for centuries.  It's entirely likely that a group of left-handed, lesbian, albino Eskimos would began to feel that they were the "chosen people" had if they established dominance over a sustained period of time.   However, since white male hegemony is the current paradigm, I'll continue the rest of this post using the term "white men" as shorthand to denote the current dominant group.]

 

So while this mindset isn't likely one that you share, why is it that so many white men are so comfortable with a concept of God that ALWAYS privileges them?   And why are some of them offended by the idea that others might not accept that God likes them best?  Why do they assume that others should be comfortable with a subjugation that they NEVER experience for themselves?

Don't they at least find it coincidental that "God's will" is ALWAYS for some other group to be content under their righteous dominion? Is it at least POSSIBLE that God finds women and blacks as delightful as He finds white men? If so, then why don't they find it strange that HF is so reluctant to extend the power of the priesthood to anyone but white men, and only after years of agitation and turmoil (inside and outside of the Church)?

[Note to mods: This board is filled with generalized comments about how "gays" are attempting to "push their agenda" and how "women" are trying to "demand the priesthood from the Brethren." Is not acceptable to question why "white men" (who just currently happen to be the dominant group) seem to share a common mindset? If not, then perhaps I have the answer I seek.]

I have read your posts with interest, both to this OP and others, but I can't help but feel that your desire to be heard can only fall on deaf ears. 

 

Several persons here take offense at being called racist, and they may be right, that the term does not apply to them. It is very hard, though, for a white person to see, or even open their eyes, to institutionalized racism. It would be like asking a fish to imagine living out of water.

 

I'm no different. I'm white, middle class and raised in a very white, very British, community in Canada. But I was 12 when I watched the television coverage of black students being bussed to a white high school in Little Rock, Arkansas. The raw, furious, bitter hatred displayed by the white demonstrators lining the steps of the school indelibly printed images in my brain. I have experienced such hatred only once, while traveling on a train in Europe. An old man came up to me and my curly-headed daughter and said, "Hitler should have taken care of your kind when he had the chance." I was crushed, outrageously angered, I wanted to hit him. But I cried instead.

 

It can be said I was born blind to the social constructs, rules and regulations, and the widespread media biases that contributed to the suppression of people of colour. I was re-educated by living 8 years on native Indian reserves (First Nations reserves, in 'Canadjun') and saw and listened to racism in its modern forms.

 

I was equally blind to the institutionalized racism in the Mormon church. I was re-educated by my wife, (who I taught and baptized into the church) when she left the church (prior to 1978) because of this very issue.

 

TBM's can, I think, truly do a flip-flop on the issue of blacks and the priesthood and think nothing of it. It was true one day, false the next.

 

Salman Rushdie said (about racism in GB), "In short, if we want to understand British racism-and without understanding no improvement is possible-it's impossible even to begin to grasp the nature of the beast unless we accept its historical roots. ...... This stain has seeped into every part of the culture, the language and daily life; and nothing much has been done to wash it out."

Salman Rushdie, "The New Empire within Britain"    http://public.wsu.edu/~hegglund/courses/389/rushdie_new_empire.htm

 

If the word "Mormon" is substituted for "British", a dialogue can begin.

[mormonnewb]

I have read your posts with interest, both to this OP and others, but I can't help but feel that your desire to be heard can only fall on deaf ears. 

 

Several persons here take offense at being called racist, and they may be right, that the term does not apply to them. It is very hard, though, for a white person to see, or even open their eyes, to institutionalized racism. It would be like asking a fish to imagine living out of water.

 

I'm no different. I'm white, middle class and raised in a very white, very British, community in Canada. But I was 12 when I watched the television coverage of black students being bussed to a white high school in Little Rock, Arkansas. The raw, furious, bitter hatred displayed by the white demonstrators lining the steps of the school indelibly printed images in my brain. I have experienced such hatred only once, while traveling on a train in Europe. An old man came up to me and my curly-headed daughter and said, "Hitler should have taken care of your kind when he had the chance." I was crushed, outrageously angered, I wanted to hit him. But I cried instead.

 

It can be said I was born blind to the social constructs, rules and regulations, and the widespread media biases that contributed to the suppression of people of colour. I was re-educated by living 8 years on native Indian reserves (First Nations reserves, in 'Canadjun') and saw and listened to racism in its modern forms.

 

I was equally blind to the institutionalized racism in the Mormon church. I was re-educated by my wife, (who I taught and baptized into the church) when she left the church (prior to 1978) because of this very issue.

 

TBM's can, I think, truly do a flip-flop on the issue of blacks and the priesthood and think nothing of it. It was true one day, false the next.

 

Salman Rushdie said (about racism in GB), "In short, if we want to understand British racism-and without understanding no improvement is possible-it's impossible even to begin to grasp the nature of the beast unless we accept its historical roots. ...... This stain has seeped into every part of the culture, the language and daily life; and nothing much has been done to wash it out."

Salman Rushdie, "The New Empire within Britain"    http://public.wsu.edu/~hegglund/courses/389/rushdie_new_empire.htm

 

If the word "Mormon" is substituted for "British", a dialogue can begin.

 

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.  I've actually been pleasantly surprised by some of the responses I received to this post and others, even those where the poster had the "temerity" to disagree with me.  Increasingly, people are beginning to understand that the idea of "white supremacy" is NOT the visceral hatred of non-whites by the 8-10 remaining Klansmen and Skinheads.  In fact, their anger and violence demonstrates that they don't feel so "superior" at all.  White supremacy is a much more subtle belief that whites are "supposed" to be in positions of authority over others, whether due to their "valiancy in the pre-existence" or their "Bell Curvian" genetic superiority.  This assumption lies at the heart of how we organize government, business and yes, churches.

 

To illustrate, I think we would all admit to being "human supremacists."  We believe that people are"supposed" to be in positions of authority over the other animals on the earth.  Now, does that mean that we curse animals and burn down their dog houses of worship?  Of course not.  Most of us attempt to be very kind to our pets.  We buy them chew toys and catnip.  We praise them for being "good dogs," "pretty kitties," and "so well-spoken."  However, they are by no means our equals and therefore, we exercise dominion over them.  At least, that's the way it works in our house.  When we have family meetings, our two dogs don't get a vote (not even 3/5th of a vote).  It doesn't even occur to us to seek their input.

 

If we were to ever question the assumption of human supremacy, it would force us to consider changes to how we treat them as pets, beasts of burden and, of course, food.  The same thing happened in this country when we began to challenge white supremacy.  And it happened in our church, leading the Brethren to seek the revelation extending the priesthood to all worthy males.

 

In my OP, I was simply using our experience with race to prod us to consider whether our church is currently operating under an assumption of "male supremacy."  I think it's easy for us to think that men in our church are not "sexist" because we say nice things to "those sweet spirits."  We even buy them nice toys -- minivans, jewelry, and, in Utah, breast implants (hey, don't shoot the messenger).

 

 

 

Mirror Mirror on the Wall, Salt Lake City is Vainest of Them All ...

www.beautyredefined.net/mirror-mirror-on-the-wall-salt-lake-city-is-vai...‎

Apr 19, 2011 - And while it's well known that statistics can be manipulated or ... In Salt Lake City, residents seek out info on getting breast implants 74% more ..

 

 

However, the underlying assumption is that they are NOT our equals; at least, not in the Church.  When it comes to making major decisions and performing important tasks, we reserve that priesthood power for those best able to exercise it; just as, at least in my house, our pets aren't responsible for paying the mortgage or buying the groceries.  And interestingly, just as with the race issue, we currently have spiritual "justifications" for the separate but equal treatment of women.  However, just as we have come to correct those justifications for white supremacy, perhaps, one day, we will begin to reassess our justifications for male supremacy.

Edited March 27, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Gray]

He "reached out" but that is significantly different than making one of them an apostle 

 

The topic was who did Christ go to 

[USU78]

This board is filled with generalized comments about how "gays" are attempting to "push their agenda" and how "women" are trying to "demand the priesthood from the Brethren." Is not acceptable to question why "white men" (who just currently happen to be the dominant group) seem to share a common mindset? If not, then perhaps I have the answer I seek.

 

The homosexual issue is a political one, far more than it's a religious one.  The fact that the moderators have allowed the other thread to go on as long as it has is a testimony to the mods' longsuffering, patience and desire for the greater good within a framework of give and take.  Politics is supposed to be out of bounds here, yet they tolerate off-topic discussions.

 

I know a goodly share of the mods.

 

Most are white folks.

 

So . . . why is your initial salvo in this thread such a bigoted one?  And why do you reject and mock others while calling for acceptance/embracement of your point(s) of view?

 

[mormonnewb]

The homosexual issue is a political one, far more than it's a religious one.  The fact that the moderators have allowed the other thread to go on as long as it has is a testimony to the mods' longsuffering, patience and desire for the greater good within a framework of give and take.  Politics is supposed to be out of bounds here, yet they tolerate off-topic discussions.

 

I know a goodly share of the mods.

 

Most are white folks.

 

So . . . why is your initial salvo in this thread such a bigoted one?  And why do you reject and mock others while calling for acceptance/embracement of your point(s) of view?

 

 

My initial salvo reflected sloppy thinking on my part.  Given that, in our Church, the dynamic is always white men claiming that HF has imposed priesthood restrictions on others, I wrongly conflated the desire for exclusivity with "whiteness" and "maleness."  As has been pointed out, white men have no monopoly on this type of behavior.  Those in power tend to find justifications to retain power for themselves without regards to race or gender.

 

This error notwithstanding, I have no animus towards white people.  In fact, "some of my best friends are white"

 

As for "mocking," please understand that this is simply my way.  As you will see, just as often as not, I am the target of my "smart alecktry."  And in dealing with issues as sticky as these, I find that humor keeps me from taking myself too seriously.  It also keeps me from slamming my head repeatedly into the keyboard from frustration when some person won't accept my studies on, say, discrimination faced by gays and lesbians ... hypothetically speaking, of course.

 

Seriously, no harm meant.

[Calm]

the dynamic is always white men claiming that HF has imposed priesthood restrictions on others

 

Not only white men….