What if People with Red Hair Were Denied the Priesthood?

[Rain]

13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

If you think I repped her for "women's lib" reasons then you have missed the point of my rep. 

Women are not forgiven without repentence. I've been to the temple. I usually do initiatory when I go. Nowhere does it say we don't have to repent for sins, nor is it implied.

Edited October 16, 2017 by Rain

[juliann]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

You seriously think that women don't have to repent as "hard" as men do? CFR from any printed official church source or scripture.  And this is totally about "women's lib." Can you be anymore dismissive and disdainful of women? 

[BlueDreams]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

I think it's a fairly common misunderstanding of the temple initiatory blessings. In each part of the initiatory (washing, anointing, and clothing) all blessings promised to women is on the condition of adhering to the gospel of JC and living ones covenants. I should know. I have it memorized.

Women don't get more. To state such and the other adage that I've seen on this thread about women being ordained to the priesthood just means more work are both forms of benevolent sexism to me. It's not true, it's just something said to make our current problems among gender roles more palatable. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited October 16, 2017 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

On 10/12/2017 at 9:25 AM, 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.

I'm a sucker for accuracy and this parallel always drives me a little nuts. Plus the parallel underplays the pain and greater forms of discrimination experienced from the racism and ban in the church at that time. I describe it as cake. Male priesthood access is like a fully decorated cake. Female priesthood access and implementation of said priesthood gifts is like a cake with little to no decorations. Black priesthood access and implementation pre-'78 is like having no cake, but picking up the crumbs and thin slices that were handed from the other cakes. 

It also ignores what women DO have in terms of priesthood authority and power. Such power and priesthood power to me needs to be recognized to understand the direction we should take as a church to better respond to gendered inequity. 

 

With luv,

BD  

[BlueDreams]

On 10/12/2017 at 5:29 PM, Bobbieaware said:

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?

Yes it would still be objectionable for these points:

1. It's maintaining a false understanding of priesthood curses in the scriptures.

2. It ignores that New Testament edict about access to the gospel.

3. It ignores now and current revelation.  

4. It creates an unnecessary stumbling block to the ultimate purposes of the Gospel: to bring all to Christ and to receive all that He has and is. As well as to receive the gospel in to our hearts and to grow line-upon-line in knowledge. The temple and priesthood blessing being imperative for such edicts

5. It would be a breeder of false doctrine and misapplication of obscure scriptures to justify a false practice. 

On 10/13/2017 at 6:37 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. 

You're not clinging to the iron rod, you're clinging to common historical misreadings of the scriptures. I've read those scriptures very thoroughly more than once. In fact I've read all the ones that entail a cursed lineage more than once. In the BoM especially the curse was removed simply by repentance. In the PoGP the curse was maintained in large part as the people continued to follow the false doctrinal traditions of Cain. You see that in the story of Lamech...who is a decsendent of Cain, but is cursed once he enters into (and tries to enhance) the secret combination started by Cain (see Moses 5:52-54). I don't deny that they were cursed. All were cursed as to the blessings of God if they followed derivatives of this wickedness (Moses 5: 55-57). 

I believe the BoA/M, BoM, and Bible. I believe that it hold no actual relevance to African-based populations pre-'78 and now. I believe that the priesthood ban was bolstered by a common false misinterpretation of said scriptures. It was holding fast to the iron rod that led me to the conclusion that how those scriptures were used were because of racism and the errors of man. 

 

Just an ironic aside: in Lehi's dream those who clung to the rod were those who became ashamed of partaking. Those who held fast were those who stayed with partaking in the delights of the fruit. Just saying, if you're going to use scriptural phrases to bolster one's scriptural claims and general piety in knowledge over someone else....ya might want to choose the correct phrasing.  

 

With luv,

BD

Edited October 16, 2017 by BlueDreams

[Rain]

Thinking more on the idea of priesthood meaning more meetings etc.  I read this talk by Elder Pingree this morning.  

 

Quote

As God works through us, the adversary may tempt us to take credit for any accomplishments. However, we can emulate the Savior’s humility by deflecting personal praise and glorifying the Father (see Matthew 5:16; Moses 4:2). When a reporter tried to recognize Mother Teresa for her life’s mission to help the poor, she retorted: “It’s [God’s] work. I am like a … pencil in his hand. … He does the thinking. He does the writing. The pencil has nothing to do with it. The pencil has only to be allowed to be used.”¹⁰

Is this what those of you who talk about priesthood meaning more meetings are trying to do?  Deflect from personal praise?

Several years ago on another message board a wise woman said that when people tell her that she is lucky to be a stay at home mom she agrees with them.  She recognizes that some have it harder to stay at home than others. 

It made me realize I didn't have to discount my blessing of staying home with my kids. I didn't have to make less of the blessing by telling others that we sacrifice things to do it, thereby putting the praise on myself.  I could acknowledge that I was blessed.   That helps me to see how much more God has given to me than I saw before.  

 

[DJBrown]

19 hours 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.

 

 

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.

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Rain said:

If you think I repped her for "women's lib" reasons then you have missed the point of my rep. 

Women are not forgiven without repentence. I've been to the temple. I usually do initiatory when I go. Nowhere does it say we don't have to repent for sins, nor is it implied.

Compare it to what is told the men.

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, juliann said:

You seriously think that women don't have to repent as "hard" as men do? CFR from any printed official church source or scripture.  And this is totally about "women's lib." Can you be anymore dismissive and disdainful of women? 

I am speaking about what is said in the temple which as you well know is not available from those sources.   I suggest you seek out those materials which are available if you are willing to jump through the hoops to do so

And those who think I am dismissive or distainful of women should speak to my wife.

I am surprised that you of all people would make such a personally insulting post about something which you obviously have no understanding.  What I have said exalts women and you and your coterie cannot even see it.

The level of discourse on this board becomes more banal by the day.

Edited October 16, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Gray]

1 hour 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.

That argument would only make sense if someone said she couldn't have a gun. Newsflash: she can if she wants to 

[Jeanne]

On 10/15/2017 at 11:06 AM, thesometimesaint said:

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

Well...in my observation and just my opinion...they get a lot of say in what happens in RS.

[Bobbieaware]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Yes it would still be objectionable for these points:

1. It's maintaining a false understanding of priesthood curses in the scriptures.

2. It ignores that New Testament edict about access to the gospel.

3. It ignores now and current revelation.  

4. It creates an unnecessary stumbling block to the ultimate purposes of the Gospel: to bring all to Christ and to receive all that He has and is. As well as to receive the gospel in to our hearts and to grow line-upon-line in knowledge. The temple and priesthood blessing being imperative for such edicts

5. It would be a breeder of false doctrine and misapplication of obscure scriptures to justify a false practice. 

You're not clinging to the iron rod, you're clinging to common historical misreadings of the scriptures. I've read those scriptures very thoroughly more than once. In fact I've read all the ones that entail a cursed lineage more than once. In the BoM especially the curse was removed simply by repentance. In the PoGP the curse was maintained in large part as the people continued to follow the false doctrinal traditions of Cain. You see that in the story of Lamech...who is a decsendent of Cain, but is cursed once he enters into (and tries to enhance) the secret combination started by Cain (see Moses 5:52-54). I don't deny that they were cursed. All were cursed as to the blessings of God if they followed derivatives of this wickedness (Moses 5: 55-57). 

I believe the BoA/M, BoM, and Bible. I believe that it hold no actual relevance to African-based populations pre-'78 and now. I believe that the priesthood ban was bolstered by a common false misinterpretation of said scriptures. It was holding fast to the iron rod that led me to the conclusion that how those scriptures were used were because of racism and the errors of man. 

 

Just an ironic aside: in Lehi's dream those who clung to the rod were those who became ashamed of partaking. Those who held fast were those who stayed with partaking in the delights of the fruit. Just saying, if you're going to use scriptural phrases to bolster one's scriptural claims and general piety in knowledge over someone else....ya might want to choose the correct phrasing.  

 

With luv,

BD 

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)

[Jeanne]

22 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Apparently you misunderstand the role of Mother Eve and the potential exalted position our sisters can reach. 

How come they don't know to this extent...that they feel the way they do in church sometimes because they feel that 2nd class syndrome.  Because they are told?? 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I think it's a fairly common misunderstanding of the temple initiatory blessings. In each part of the initiatory (washing, anointing, and clothing) all blessings promised to women is on the condition of adhering to the gospel of JC and living ones covenants. I should know. I have it memorized.

Women don't get more. To state such and the other adage that I've seen on this thread about women being ordained to the priesthood just means more work are both forms of benevolent sexism to me. It's not true, it's just something said to make our current problems among gender roles more palatable. 

 

With luv,

BD

"every whit"

There is a difference, and yes of course women do not have a "get into heaven free" card- I did not mean to imply that.  But the blessing for obedience is different.  Of course obedience is always required.

John 13:10

If I am wrong, I will be glad to retract it.  Research continues.  Thanks for your reasonable and logical response.

Edited October 16, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Rain]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

There is a difference, and yes of course women do not have a "get into heaven free" card- I did not mean to imply that.  But the blessing for obedience is different.  Of course obedience is always required.

John 13:10

If I am wrong, I will be glad to retract it.  Research continues.  Thanks for your reasonable and logical response.

When you said, "No women have sins forgiven that men have to go through laborious repentance to achieve the same level" and "Women are given gratis what men have to work for" it seemed like you were flat out saying that women get a free "card" more than an implication. 

Obedience and repentance are required for women. 

There is more to it than what you are stating.

Edited October 17, 2017 by Rain

[changed]

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. 

[kiwi57]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Well...in my observation and just my opinion...they get a lot of say in what happens in RS.

I don't.

[kiwi57]

16 hours ago, Gray said:

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

Then what is the "sin" of which we are guilty and for which we must repent?

[kiwi57]

15 hours ago, juliann said:

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?

I'm astonished that you think any of those questions follow from anything that I wrote.

But let me ask you a question, Juliann: if there were no further changes - or at least (because there will always be changes of some form or another) not the ones you want to see, would you assume that the inspiration has dried up?

Are you, like Gray, assuming that the changes you've mentioned merely show that the Brethren are progressing in a direction where one day they just might be as enlightened as vous?

[Jeanne]

39 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I don't.

I don't know you very well and  don't know  that you have wife/family...but if a bishop was to want a woman to hold  a position in the RS...does he not go through the husband first?  This happened to me when they wanted me to be a cub scout teacher...they asked my husband first for permission..then he handed the phone to me.....huh...must not have repented hard enough to just answer for myself...

[juliann]

55 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I'm astonished that you think any of those questions follow from anything that I wrote.

But let me ask you a question, Juliann: if there were no further changes - or at least (because there will always be changes of some form or another) not the ones you want to see, would you assume that the inspiration has dried up?

Are you, like Gray, assuming that the changes you've mentioned merely show that the Brethren are progressing in a direction where one day they just might be as enlightened as vous?

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.)

 

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

I am surprised that you of all people would make such a personally insulting post about something which you obviously have no understanding.  What I have said exalts women and you and your coterie cannot even see 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. 

[juliann]

33 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I don't know you very well and  don't know  that you have wife/family...but if a bishop was to want a woman to hold  a position in the RS...does he not go through the husband first?  This happened to me when they wanted me to be a cub scout teacher...they asked my husband first for permission..then he handed the phone to me.....huh...must not have repented hard enough to just answer for myself...

No. There will, of course, always be that bishop but this no longer happens as a routine. Of course, there may be some callings that do require both spouses' support. 

[Bobbieaware]

 

7 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Just an ironic aside: in Lehi's dream those who clung to the rod were those who became ashamed of partaking. Those who held fast were those who stayed with partaking in the delights of the fruit. Just saying, if you're going to use scriptural phrases to bolster one's scriptural claims and general piety in knowledge over someone else....ya might want to choose the correct phrasing.  

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?

Edited October 16, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[kiwi57]

59 minutes 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 that addresses, what, exactly, that I wrote?

59 minutes ago, juliann said:

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.

Who has suggested doing that?

59 minutes ago, juliann said:

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.)

I'm unaware of that, and I tend not to trust sources like that.

59 minutes ago, juliann said:

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. 

Of course, you are right. No man can know what it's like to be a woman man in the Church, because we don't live your experience.

And in exactly the same way, and for exactly the same reasons, no woman can know what it's like to be a man in the Church, because you don't live our experience.

Not only do we not live each others' experiences, we don't even see the world of men and women in the same (or even analogous) ways. I was once told that, even though I have no position of special status in the Church, it must somehow make me feel better - "superior," in fact - to see a man standing up in General Conference and presiding; because, after all, he's like me, right?

Well, not right. That assumes that I see men the way women see women; but I don't. And not just me; most men don't. Women show an automatic own-group preference based on gender; men, however, do not.

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.

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.

Just a thought.

 

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

No. There will, of course, always be that bishop but this no longer happens as a routine. Of course, there may be some callings that do require both spouses' support. 

Thanks...this is good to know.  That was the oddest thing I have ever had happen...