What if People with Red Hair Were Denied the Priesthood?

[juliann]

4 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Quaere: After we have listened and respected women's experiences (quite apart from the fact that you don't really know how much listening and respecting we, or any of us, have done away from this forum) are we then permitted to respectfully dissent from your view, or are we merely to assent to it?

Now you are just harassing. And you are on ignore. These topics are not a game. If you can't handle women talking to each other perhaps you could put all of us on ignore as well. 

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

For example?

While you are finding examples, here is a little quote for you:

“I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom,” Joseph Smith taught the Saints in 1839.  “It is an eternal principle that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.” — Daniel Peterson, “Dealing with issues that are secondary,” Mormon Times, Deseret News, June 16, 2011, p. 2; Joseph Smith, History of the Church 3:385

 

For example, discrimination against women. Classic example.

While you're pondering that, here's a little quote for you.

Quote

Romans 2:5

But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.
 

Am I doing this right?

[kiwi57]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

For example, discrimination against women. Classic example.

You keep throwing out these vague and undefined slogans, and as soon as anyone tries to pin you down to specifics, you become as slippery as an eel in a bucket of oil.

What "discrimination against women" are you talking about?

6 hours ago, Gray said:

While you're pondering that, here's a little quote for you.

Am I doing this right?

No.

But thanks for trying.

Poster removed

[kiwi57]

11 minutes ago, juliann said:

Now you are just harassing. And you are on ignore. These topics are not a game. If you can't handle women talking to each other perhaps you could put all of us on ignore as well. 

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realise that a topic started by a male participant about an article written by a man was "women talking to each other." Silly me!

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Quaere: After we have listened and respected women's experiences (quite apart from the fact that you don't really know how much listening and respecting we, or any of us, have done away from this forum) are we then permitted to respectfully dissent from your view, or are we merely to assent to it?

If you knew someone listened to others, but did not believe they were listening to you, would you not speak up to correct them?

[Calm]

10 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

This is an interesting statement and is applicable to all individuals regardless of gender.  The problem is that it is difficult for most of us to recognize when it is time to listen to another regardless of their gender.  It is fascinating when each gender wants to tell the other gender they are not listening and that they need to be heard. 

Almost every individual can be benefitted by first listening rather than demanding to be heard. 

I agree.  It doesn't mean that every person demanding to be heard has been listened to or hasn't been listening all along however.

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

You keep throwing out these vague and undefined slogans, and as soon as anyone tries to pin you down to specifics, you become as slippery as an eel in a bucket of oil.

 

 

Quote

What "discrimination against women" are you talking about?

I thought it was pretty obvious. Women are locked out of most leadership roles in church. 

 

Quote

No.

But thanks for trying.

Right, these kinds of things can only be weaponized against people ypu disagree with. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I'm in the same boat. I think maybe in that case we'd be limited to the Aaronic priesthood only

Indeed...  

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I agree.  It doesn't mean that every person demanding to be heard has been listened to or hasn't been listening all along however.

Looking at my own self and how often the "ego" wants to speak or wants to make demands of others teaches me that the same thing exists in others.  When ego motivates I question the value or import of whatever is being desired or wanted.  I am not convinced that just because an individual wants or demands to be heard that it is the best thing for everyone else to stop and listen to them.  I know when a small child is demanding attention that there are times when it is best not to pay attention out of a desire not to encourage poor behavior. 

If we are seeking to have an eye single to the glory of God when is listening to our ego the best thing?

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Looking at my own self and how often the "ego" wants to speak or wants to make demands of others teaches me that the same thing exists in others.  When ego motivates I question the value or import of whatever is being desired or wanted.  I am not convinced that just because an individual wants or demands to be heard that it is the best thing for everyone else to stop and listen to them.  I know when a small child is demanding attention that there are times when it is best not to pay attention out of a desire not to encourage poor behavior. 

If we are seeking to have an eye single to the glory of God when is listening to our ego the best thing?

But there are times when the small child is actually hungry or needs to get to the potty right now....or is being harmed by others.  You have to listen first to determine appropriate behaviour.  If you ignore without listening, harm can occur.  Even the boy who cried wolf eventually was screaming in reality (ignoring him was not the right response, they should have removed him as shepherd and put a more reliable kid in charge).

Edited October 18, 2017 by Calm

[Storm Rider]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

But there are times when the small child is actually hungry or needs to get to the potty right now....or is being harmed by others.  You have to listen first to determine appropriate behaviour.  If you ignore without listening, harm can occur.  Even the boy who cried wolf eventually was screaming in reality (ignoring him was not the right response, they should have removed him as shepherd and put a more reliable kid in charge).

Calme - I was not speaking in absolutes. Just because an individual, regardless of age, is asking to be heard should we ignore them. That is not the message I was seeking to portray.  The point was that just because an individual is demanding to be heard does not mean that we must listen every time.  There are times that we should immediately respond; immediately engage by listening. Conversely, there will be other times when it is best not to engage and not to listen. Additionally, I was attempting to identify what is motivating the demand - specifically those demands that are related directly to the individual's ego; their view of their self-importance, etc. 

[kiwi57]

 

2 hours ago, Gray said:

I thought it was pretty obvious. Women are locked out of most leadership roles in church. 

Oh, so that is your idea of "discrimination against women." And that is what you think is a "sin."

And who is responsible for that "sin," Gray?

“I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom,” Joseph Smith taught the Saints in 1839.  “It is an eternal principle that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.” — Daniel Peterson, “Dealing with issues that are secondary,” Mormon Times, Deseret News, June 16, 2011, p. 2; Joseph Smith, History of the Church 3:385

And so, what next?

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Right, these kinds of things can only be weaponized against people ypu disagree with. 

No. They only get to be used where they actually apply.

You are clearly saying that the Church is "sinning" by not calling women into the leadership positions from which they are presently "locked out" - no doubt by using some kind of gender quotas, or something. Thus, the Joseph Smith quote applies to your position.

[rodheadlee]

On 10/12/2017 at 7:47 AM, 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:

 

 

 

It's interesting that you chose red hair. Do you realize that the tribe of Dan is left out of the 144,000 sealed in Revelation 7? Is God a racist?

[Glenn101]

19 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

It's interesting that you chose red hair. Do you realize that the tribe of Dan is left out of the 144,000 sealed in Revelation 7? Is God a racist?

No, because that is lineage based.

 

[Gray]

9 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

It's interesting that you chose red hair. Do you realize that the tribe of Dan is left out of the 144,000 sealed in Revelation 7? Is God a racist?

What does that have to do with anything?

[Gray]

10 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

 

Oh, so that is your idea of "discrimination against women."

Yes, that's a textbook example. This isn't my subjective judgement call. Women are discriminated against in the church. You can claim that God is cool with it, but the fact that women are discriminated against is  undeniable.

 

10 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

And that is what you think is a "sin."

Yes, of course it's sin.

 

10 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

And who is responsible for that "sin," Gray?

Most of the church. Just like most of the church was responsible for sins against its black members.

 

10 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

“I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom,” Joseph Smith taught the Saints in 1839.  “It is an eternal principle that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.” — Daniel Peterson, “Dealing with issues that are secondary,” Mormon Times, Deseret News, June 16, 2011, p. 2; Joseph Smith, History of the Church 3:385

And so, what next?

No. They only get to be used where they actually apply.

Here's a few scriptures that no doubt you will not find instructive, yet are highly applicable to your arguments.

Quote

"He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy." - Proverbs 28:13

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;" - 2 Tim 4:3

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" - Isaiah 5:20

"but 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" D&C 121:37

 

10 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

You are clearly saying that the Church is "sinning" by not calling women into the leadership positions from which they are presently "locked out" - no doubt by using some kind of gender quotas, or something. Thus, the Joseph Smith quote applies to your position.

Nothing erodes moral discernment like excessive in-group loyalty.

 

[rodheadlee]

10 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

No, because that is lineage based.

 

The curse of Ham was lineal too.

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

The curse of Ham was lineal too.

Agree

 

[BlueDreams]

On 10/17/2017 at 12:35 PM, mfbukowski said:

Thanks.

Another method is simply to have a male and female do enough initiatories to learn the blessings (like perhaps a husband and wife?) and then discuss them in the temple.  That has the added benefit of actually helping those on the other side as well as personal involvement and drawing one's own conclusions without reliance on other sources- something I always favor.  AND it can help marriages.   We are building our own worlds here, as couples, not someone else's.

I am an ordinance worker and have memorized the ordinances, and my daughter is also an ordinance worker on the women's side and we have had many long discussions on this subject.  Many.

I know this is about a week old, but my week entailed a tsunami of new clients and work. So this was the first time I could really come back and respond in full. 

On the other methods of learning....None of those are really available to me. I a single sister whose male friends are all married. The only other person I have is my brother....but that would mean years more till he was familiar enough to have it down. Plus, I prefer the words to be as exact as possible with minimal personal interpretation. I don't mind hearing interpretations, I just want to have the space to make my own conclusions....which is harder if the desired info is being filtered. I am glad that you have had the privilege to have someone you could have many in-depth discussions with. For many it's just not as readily available. So though your first thoughts are nice, I don't find them all too helpful in my situation. 

Quote

 

Another area for research is the phrase "blood and sins of this generation" many of which are perpetrated by men against women and have been for generations, and it would make sense that men have a great need to repent of those sins whereas of course women as the victims are faultless.  There is probably not a man on earth that is not guilty of objectifying women at least in thought if not in deed- hence the admonition that to "lust after a woman" is a serious sin tantamount to "denying the faith".  At first glance that seems quite harsh- that lust alone is a sin which "denies the faith".  And in our age of pornography that becomes of tremendous importance.  Of course that also relates

 

I'm not comfortable with this line of reasoning. It assumes that women have had no/little input into the blood and sins of this generation. We are by no means faultless. I think of some of the sins that have most deeply effected my life (that weren't mine to begin with). They most certainly were not from just one gender. Yes, some of the most disruptive power moves have been men....but those are often more about socialization and access to power than inherent quality of gender. Since we are not necessarily qualified to weigh out the position of a single person with righteous judgement in regards to God, I doubt either of us are really qualified to weigh out the position of an entire gender. I'm skeptical of any model of reasoning that entails elevating one gender or another above the other in any manner. I feel that what you're proposing here inevitably leads to such. 

Quote

 

Another odd idea that has been implied on this board is that somehow prophets should not be seen as "men" and so that the temple ordinances are somehow God-Breathed and infallible and immune from being dictated and interpreted by red-blooded human males though time and eternity.

Like those facts or not, if they are seen as "benign sexism" so be it.  That argument does not fly if you look at more contemporary views of prophets as put forth by current thinkers like Mason and backed up even by Conference talks indicating that prophets are not infallible, but are men with their own prejudices.

 

I've read these three times and still have no clue how this applies to the topic at hand. No one implied this on this thread (that I can tell). So what is the relevance that you are seeing here?

Quote

That is how I have seen it anyway.  But of course if one insists that men and women are not different one cannot possibly understand that men have sins to repent of that women do not.  But of course that is probably a "sexist statement" in these times where freedom of speech is assaulted even by members of the church who are supposed to uphold the Proclamation which clearly spells out that there are gender differences.   I don't care at this point- I am going to call it as I see it and face whatever hits the fan.

Frankly I have found this entire discussion quite disturbing in the reaction I have gotten to all this.  I never expected it.  I had never thought that the idea that men had to repent of persecuting women where women do not have to repent of persecuting men would be controversial.   Of course I did not put it that way because I was focused more on not revealing temple content.

 

 I don't think anyone here, nor I, am disputing that men and women may have a greater outward propensity to committing varying sins. But having a propensity doesn't not mean a sin is exclusively male or female. And it doesn't mean that ALL men need to repent of something a few men were likely to commit...such as genocide. Or that all women are victims and ergo faultless. The problem with this is that it comes against some of our most fundamental beliefs such as that men (and women) are not accountable for the sins of other but their own. Even with your use of the proclamation....what it should mean to me is that because there are equitable differences in stewardship as outlined in the Proc...there should be equitable degrees of sins that both may be subject to in failing in their roles. What ever there is, I'm not seeing how one or the other becomes more or less accountable to sins perpetuated in this life.I'll take you to your word that that is what you meant in this discussion, but that was honestly unclear in all of this. 

 

Which is why I brought up benevolent sexism. The argument that you were postulating fit heavily into this framework. The example that kept coming to my mind was the YW lessons or testimony meeting examples I've seen. Where the values and attitudes of the women are compared to the men in a way that's meant to extol women. Men are seen as significantly less than or in need of so much more to reach the glorified position of womanhood...which is the basic assertion to this line of reasoning. I never felt the spirit when these things were being told to me. I felt uncomfortable and unseen. I've seen that attitude in my office sometimes...after I've really gotten to know the wife and some of her many sins as well. It doesn't matter. It's still the "better half."  The implications for what you're suggesting can also go in more angles than the one you're presenting. Such as the attitude I'd see again and again from elders on my mission that assumed that sisters were either the salt of the earth or horrible. There was no middle ground. Because we were so exalted, when we do falter or have problems they can be seen as PROBLEMS. As opposed to a normal variance in human concerns. I haven't fully figured out why that is...but I think part of it is that the pedestal effect means that what's really going on in women's lives often has a colossal blind spot for men who in someway believe in this idea. Either way, the idea hasn't born fruit in my life. I haven't found scripture to back it. I see nothing to assume it's correct beyond the adamant assertion of usually men. I've found it no more significant than a platitude thrown to women in a way that ignores female experience, sins, as well as potential problems in the governance of the church as a whole. So I'm loathe to believe it now.

Quote

 

Another area for serious discussion would be to discuss that passage in which Jesus tells Peter that he is not clean "every whit" as it is translated in the King James.

Since I do not speak Greek I cannot tell if that refers to him personally or if some of the pronouns are plural and apply more to the group of the apostles personally or males in general or Peter as an individual.  English translations vary on this and how it is to be taken because it was not even an issue.  Strong's is not much help on this one either, so if there are any Greek scholars who can analyze the syntax of the grammar, that would be useful.

I have referenced that earlier.

But there is another scriptural passage about pearls and porcine creatures which may apply at this point anyway.  

But between you and me, I would suggest you factor that into your contemplation of the issue.

Thanks again for a rational approach to this discussion and for the acknowledgement that there is actually something valuable in this area to learn about.

 

I will place the scripture on one of my temple scripture lists that I keep. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited October 24, 2017 by BlueDreams

[Calm]

"hey most certainly just from one gender"

I think you meant for there to be a "not" in that.

[Calm]

http://biblehub.com/john/13-10.htm

Assuming it is meant generically, all males, then why wouldn't it be just as logical to assume it meant all humans?

"(10) He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet.--Better, He who has bathed . . . St. Peter's words have implied that he was wholly unclean, and needed for feet, and head, and hands, for the whole man, a moral cleansing. Christ answers that this was not so. The man who has been bathed is clean, but his feet coming in contact with the dust of the road need to be washed. It was so morally. They had been cleansed; their whole moral life had been changed, but they were liable to the corruption of every-day life through which they walked, and needed to be cleansed from the pollution of it. That day had furnished an example; their pride and self-seeking was of the spirit of the world, and not of the spirit of Christ; His act was a cleansing from that, but it did not imply that they were not clean. The lesson is that all, from Apostles downwards, need the daily renewing of the grace of God; and that none should find in failure, or even in the evil which clings to his daily path, reason for questioning the reality of the moral change which has made him the child of God.

And ye are clean, but not all.--This is the moral application, accompanied by the mournful thought that it was not true of all. One there was among those who had been bathed who had allowed evil to enter into his heart and pollute it. For him cleansing had been neglected, and the daily corruption of the world had remained; evil thoughts had been harboured, until at length they had made corrupt the whole man. (Comp. Note on John 15:4.)"

[Alan]

Joining this discussion late.

I would just like to point out that people with red hair are, in fact, denied the priesthood. My sister has red hair and has never been given the priesthood. 😉

[changed]

On 10/16/2017 at 7:04 PM, mfbukowski said:

try being a bishop and see how much of an honor it is if you thinks bishops are not the servants of all

sorry, I have not had great experiences with my bishops.  

[Tacenda]

On 10/12/2017 at 2:23 PM, hope_for_things said:

Yes, thanks for the reminder about that earlier letter.  Perhaps this will be considered an exception to that statement, and since the statement specifies "local level", perhaps this is an event that will be coordinated at the HQ level.  I trust that Darius didn't just make that comment without having some knowledge about plans in the works around the anniversary.  

I think you're dead wrong on this, I think the essay (written primarily by Paul Reeve) especially when you couple it with the recent statement repudiating white supremacy shows that the church is making good progress on the race issue.  The church has already picked the side of condemning racism in all its forms.  Now they just need to acknowledge that the prior policy was racist, and I fully expect that to happen. 

If you look at how history typically progresses with respect to almost every issue, there are gradual moves forward that when looking back at the history its clear what the trend is.  I'm feeling quite confident that the church has put itself on the path of apology and specific clarity on this race issue that will repudiate the prior policy as uninspired.  Its already clear to many of us that it was uninspired (its even implied in the essay), its just a matter of having a church leader say it clearly and explicitly.  

Also, this won't do permanent harm to the church, it will do permanent harm to hero worship and the false doctrine of prophetic infallibility, and towards immature perspectives about the role of prophets.  I can't wait, this will be a wonderful and inspired move forward for our culture, I'm predicting it right now, this will happen in the not to distant future, count on it.  

I wish the church had come out against the march in Charlottesville with the white supremists. I don't understand their silence, better yet many churches' silence. It's not too late to say something now too. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/10/07/richard-spencer-leads-another-torchlight-march-in-charlottesville/?utm_term=.c982020e86a6 Is there a reference for the bold? I guess I missed this.

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I wish the church had come out against the march in Charlottesville with the white supremists. I don't understand their silence, better yet many churches' silence. It's not too late to say something now too. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/10/07/richard-spencer-leads-another-torchlight-march-in-charlottesville/?utm_term=.c982020e86a6 Is there a reference for the bold? I guess I missed this.

The church did come out against white supremacy after the Charlottesville event, I just assumed most people knew about this, so I didn't reference it specifically.  Actually they issued a first statement on Sunday Aug 13th, and it didn't very explicitly condemn white supremacy, so after some online critiques they issued a second more explicit statement on Aug 15th, which many people were very happy about including myself.  

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-statement-charlottesville-virginia

Also, the essay that Paul Reeve wrote on racism is the church's essay on Blacks and the Priesthood.  

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Rick Bennett did an interview with Paul Reeve it was on his Gospel Tangents podcast where Paul acknowledged he was the author of the essay and I believe he said the original he submitted to the church was over 50 pages in length, but the version we have today published by the church was whittled down to just 8 pages from that original submission.  If you haven't read Dr. Reeve's book, Religion of a Different Color, its a must read for Mormons interested in the topic of race.