What if People with Red Hair Were Denied the Priesthood?

[Bobbieaware]

7 hours ago, 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:

 

 

 

The ban was based on blood lineage, not on one's skin or hair color. In fact, while the modern priesthood ban was in effect very dark-skinned East Indians had the right to hold the priesthood In spite of the fact that many people from that part of the world have much darker shades of skin color than do many people of sub Saharan African descent. It's therefore theoretically possible that the priesthood could be withheld from a particular blood lineage and yet have it be absolutely impossible to be able to physically differentiate between a person who is of the banned lineage and one who is not. Under such circumstances, genealogical records and DNA testing would be the only way to determine those who are not able to hold the priesthood. 

The above indisputable facts bring up a very interesting question: Would some still consider the concept of a priesthood ban to be unacceptable if there iwas absolutely no outward physical way to identify individuals who are under the curse without resorting to genealogical records and DNA? Another way of asking the same question is this: Is it solely the differences in physical characteristics between those those of the cursed lineage and those who are not cursed that causes the concept of a priesthood ban to be objectionabl?

[kiwi57]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Doesn't all revelation begin with speculation?

No.

It usually begins with asking the Lord, and a genuine willingness to accept the answer; including, or especially, when it doesn't match our wishes.

As the Lord's already-given answer on SSM doesn't match the wishes of some.

The lesson of the 116 pages is that we don't ignore the answer we've been given and keep clamouring until we get the answer we want.

 

[kiwi57]

8 hours ago, Buckeye said:

I read the article last week after it came to my email feed from FAIR. I thought it was really good. I would love to see a follow-up piece about excluding women from priesthood office. It would not take much to tweak Scott Gordon's piece to argue against all the "speculative" reasons we offer to exclude women. I doubt such an article will come anytime soon. However, just having this piece attacking all defenses of the racial ban will help set the groundwork for eventually extending the priesthood to all worthy members.

Well, that's an interesting idea, but the two situations are not parallel.

The former Priesthood ban prevented those under it from receiving all the necessary ordinances (in their lifetimes.) Faithful LDS women are under no such disadvantage.

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

No.

It usually begins with asking the Lord, and a genuine willingness to accept the answer; including, or especially, when it doesn't match our wishes.

As the Lord's already-given answer on SSM doesn't match the wishes of some.

The lesson of the 116 pages is that we don't ignore the answer we've been given and keep clamouring until we get the answer we want.

 

Rep point! (until you hit 25).

If the Proclamation really is the revelation on SSM then according to the example of the 116 pages AND the teachings of Joseph Smith we should not be looking for or expecting another different answer.
Some would also say that between Leviticus, Romans, and the Proclamation isn't that enough?  You can pick each one apart, but if we start picking inspired documents apart to meet our beliefs we aren't likely to get too many more inspired documents from God.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, kiwi57 said:

Well, that's an interesting idea, but the two situations are not parallel.

The former Priesthood ban prevented those under it from receiving all the necessary ordinances (in their lifetimes.) Faithful LDS women are under no such disadvantage.

And another rep point.
Women receive all the same priesthood ordinances and authority necessary for exaltation to Godhood.

The fact that they aren't called to minister in the earthly Church or hold ecclesiastical office in no way hinders their progression.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

The ban was based on blood lineage, not on one's skin or hair color.

It sounds like you didn't read the article. And in reality it wasn't based on lineage - all of us have African ancestry and so no one should have gotten the priesthood, technically.

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

The above indisputable facts bring up a very interesting question: Would some still consider the concept of a priesthood ban to be unacceptable if there iwas absolutely no outward physical way to identify individuals who are under the curse without resorting to genealogical records and DNA?

Yes, obviously, not withstanding your disputable "facts"

[Glenn101]

On the topic itself, if all people with red hair were denied the priesthood in this life, according to LDS theology, it would in no way impact their eternal lives.

If only people with red hair were allowed to hold the priesthood, according to LDS theology, it would in no way impact the eternal lives of those who could not hold the priesthood in this life.

The above supposes that there would also be the expectation that at some future point in time those from whom the priesthood would be able to receive it and all other blessings. What is incumbent on all who accept the gospel is that they increase faithfully the the talents they are given in this life.

So, what if the priesthood was also restricted to only those who had no physical blemishes? Would that be wrong?

Glenn

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

It sounds like you didn't read the article. And in reality it wasn't based on lineage - all of us have African ancestry and so no one should have gotten the priesthood, technically.

Yes, obviously, not withstanding your disputable "facts"

The LDS scripture are at odds with your thinking, as usual. The scriptures say the descendents of a specific individual named Cain were cursed as to the priesthood, not the entire human race. 

I'm still trying to understand why you identify as LDS when you don't seem to actually believe any of it? What do you find to be the most compelling aspect of Mormonism?

[Gray]

8 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

The LDS scripture are at odds with your thinking, as usual. The scriptures say the descendents of a specific individual named Cain were cursed as to the priesthood, not the entire human race. 

Black people aren't descended from Cain (that goes against both LDS doctrine and science), but if they were, we'd all be cursed because we all have black ancestors.

 

8 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

I'm still trying to understand why you identify as LDS when you don't seem to actually believe any of it? What do you find to be the most compelling aspect of Mormonism?

Why are you still LDS when the church has abandoned doctrines you obviously still think are important?

[Gray]

10 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

On the topic itself, if all people with red hair were denied the priesthood in this life, according to LDS theology, it would in no way impact their eternal lives.

If only people with red hair were allowed to hold the priesthood, according to LDS theology, it would in no way impact the eternal lives of those who could not hold the priesthood in this life.

It would affect their exaltation

 

10 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

So, what if the priesthood was also restricted to only those who had no physical blemishes? Would that be wrong?

Glenn

Yes

[Bobbieaware]

57 minutes ago, Gray said:

Black people aren't descended from Cain (that goes against both LDS doctrine and science), but if they were, we'd all be cursed because we all have black ancestors.

 

Why are you still LDS when the church has abandoned doctrines you obviously still think are important?

The LDS scriptures say a specific individual named Cain and also his posterity were cursed as to the priesthood. Do you deny that the Book of Abraham says that only Cain and his posterity, not the entire human race, were forbidden to hold the priesthood? Excuse me ifor deciding it's best to cling to the iron rod

Since I believe the Book of Abraham is historical, it's not possible for me to deny the possibility of a divinely-ordained priesthood ban. It's easier for you to cast aside the possibility of a God ordained priesthood ban because you believe the restoration scriptures are all fairytales. 

The essay on the priesthood ban validates the following words of Church President Spencer W Kimball.

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 trust President Kimball more than I do you.

Edited October 13, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[katherine the great]

18 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

 The above indisputable facts bring up a very interesting question: Would some still consider the concept of a priesthood ban to be unacceptable if there iwas absolutely no outward physical way to identify individuals who are under the curse without resorting to genealogical records and DNA? 

Yes. All human bloodlines go back to Africa. 

[Glenn101]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

It would affect their exaltation

How so? According to LDS theology all of those who accepted the gospel but were barred from holding the priesthood will receive it and be able to have all of the attendant blessings ordinances and opportunities in the next life as those who were able to receive it in this life. The hypothetical ban on red haired people would have the same effect.

Now, as to your belief that it would be wrong to ban people with physical defects from holding the priesthood, maybe you need to take it up with God. 

Leviticus 21:
16 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 
17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.
18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, 
19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, 
20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; 
21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. 
22 He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy. 
23 Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them.

Glenn

[Marginal Gains]

Wasn’t there a letter dated in 1949 from, and signed by, the First Presidency explaining that the Priesthood ban was official doctrine and from God?

[Gray]

On 10/13/2017 at 7:37 AM, Bobbieaware said:

The LDS scriptures say a specific individual named Cain and also his posterity were cursed as to the priesthood. Do you deny that the Book of Abraham says that only Cain and his posterity, not the entire human race, were forbidden to hold the priesthood? Excuse me ifor deciding it's best to cling to the iron rod

Since I believe the Book of Abraham is historical, it's not possible for me to deny the possibility of a divinely-ordained priesthood ban. It's easier for you to cast aside the possibility of a God ordained priesthood ban because you believe the restoration scriptures are all fairytales. 

The essay on the priesthood ban validates the following words of Church President Spencer W Kimball.

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 trust President Kimball more than I do you.

If you're rejecting current church teachings and interpretation of Abraham, you could always join the FLDS group, which shares your views on Cain and black people.

[Gray]

18 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

How so? According to LDS theology all of those who accepted the gospel but were barred from holding the priesthood will receive it and be able to have all of the attendant blessings ordinances and opportunities in the next life as those who were able to receive it in this life. The hypothetical ban on red haired people would have the same effect.

Not necessarily. Jane Manning was sealed as a servant to Joseph Smith, not as a goddess.

 

 

 

18 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Now, as to your belief that it would be wrong to ban people with physical defects from holding the priesthood, maybe you need to take it up with God. 

Leviticus 21:
16 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 
17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.
18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, 
19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, 
20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; 
21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. 
22 He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy. 
23 Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them.

Glenn

You're confusing God with the anonymous author of Leviticus. God does not write scripture.

[kiwi57]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

Not necessarily. Jane Manning was sealed as a servant to Joseph Smith, not as a goddess.

The sealing ordinance does not call anyone a goddess.

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

The sealing ordinance does not call anyone a goddess.

Subtext is important. The promise is there to the faithful. But apparently not available to Jane Manning - the promise made to her was eternal servitude.

Edited October 14, 2017 by Gray

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, Gray said:

Subtext is important. The promise is there to the faithful. But apparently not available to Jane Manning - the promise made to her was eternal servitude.

One sealing does not preclude another.

Being sealed in that relationship with Joseph and Emma did not prevent her being sealed to her husband and parents when that time came.

All of us will be in eternal servitude to God in terms of presiding; God is in eternal servitude to his family in terms of giving one's life to caring for/serving others.

Edited October 14, 2017 by Calm

[CA Steve]

This whole thread is a red herring.

 

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

[JLHPROF]

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

One sealing does not preclude another.

Being sealed in that relationship with Joseph and Emma did not prevent her being sealed to her husband and parents when that time came.

All of us will be in eternal servitude to God in terms of presiding; God is in eternal servitude to his family in terms of giving one's life to caring for/serving others.

Actually I am very surprised that that sealing as servitor hasn't been cancelled.

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Actually I am very surprised that that sealing as servitor hasn't been cancelled.

where would we find it wasn't?

[Glenn101]

8 hours ago, Gray said:

Not necessarily. Jane Manning was sealed as a servant to Joseph Smith, not as a goddess.

That was before the 1978 revelation. I understand all of her work has been completed now. If so, she will be eligible for all blessings.

8 hours ago, Gray said:

You're confusing God with the anonymous author of Leviticus. God does not write scripture.

I am not confused. If God is not the originator of the command as set forth in the Old Testament (where they are translated correctly) then we are spinning out wheels. What do you believe about the Bible and the restoration?

Glenn

[Gray]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

One sealing does not preclude another.

Being sealed in that relationship with Joseph and Emma did not prevent her being sealed to her husband and parents when that time came.

All of us will be in eternal servitude to God in terms of presiding; God is in eternal servitude to his family in terms of giving one's life to caring for/serving others.

I was being a bit circumspect in my language. Slave is another word I could have used. It's one thing to be a slave to God, quite another to be one to a church leader. Manning was given a special position of celestial inferiority by virtue of being black. One would hope that this would be cancelled eventually 

[carbon dioxide]

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.