Read Segraves on "letting down hair"

[DAII]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Is it accurate to say that "a woman is connected to her emotions in a way that no man is connected to, nor cannot be connected to"? Or "men, among us, have a position and authority in the church that ladies cannot obtain or fill, because of the man's unique place in the Church"? The opposite is also true, that "ladies among us, who do not cut their hair [are obedient and submitted to God's order] are entangled with angels and the wisdom and power of angels that men are not connected to and they cannot be connected to it".

I personally do not like the verbiage here... but there is nothing in this quote that describes LS as teaching magical powers in the substance of uncut hair. This is his interpretation of 1 Cor 11:10, goes along with the theme of submission and authority in the spirit realm, which both men and women have access to. Clearly some may disagree with his interpretation, and righfully so. IMO, LS interpretaion does not constitute the rhetoric that has been levelled against him, inaccurately decrying him as teaching "magical powers in the substance of uncut hair".

Red HERRING ALERT >>> NO ONE HAS SAID AS MUCH ...

You're rambling.

The Mark Bassett strategy ... deflect, accuse, deflect, accuse, deflect ... peeters out. *puff*

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Wrong question. Ask them if they've ever heard the teaching that a woman's uncut hair gives her special favor with God and power over the angels.



The first mention was from a sermon in the 90's, giving the 15 year time span. I've heard comments from Stoneking from multiple sermons, where he repeats his views multiple times, and at great length--not just in passing. You obviously haven't gone to the trouble to research this adequately. I have actually sat and listened to his entire sermons, either on cassette, or online via video clips. He didn't just say this one time, and he has NOT calmed down the language. There was a clip from a church posted recently where he basically reiterated the whole thing all over again. I'm sure someone can give you the link, if you want to check it out.

As far as RR goes, it's not even worth discussing. I was in a ladies' conference where she taught back in 2001 (or so), and it was PAINFUL. The last time I went, LaJoyce Martin taught, and it was SO much more pleasant. That woman is a joy to hear.

I read RRH's book back in 99, and didn't think of it as problematic. I do see, in retrospect, how some statements she made are problematic. There is nothing in her book, however, that teaches holy magic hair, or laying hair on people.

I have only heard LS twice in person, and you are correct, I probably haven't done adequate research on this. But I did hear him teach on the hair issue as recently as two weeks ago. I thought he did a great job, this my motivation to enter the fray. If you get a chance, read the last couple paragraphs on my last response to Prax, it explains my motivation a little. I do thank you for the courteous responses, even in disagreement!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I read RRH's book back in 99, and didn't think of it as problematic. I do see, in retrospect, how some statements she made are problematic. There is nothing in her book, however, that teaches holy magic hair, or laying hair on people.

I have only heard LS twice in person, and you are correct, I probably haven't done adequate research on this. But I did hear him teach on the hair issue as recently as two weeks ago. I thought he did a great job, this my motivation to enter the fray. If you get a chance, read the last couple paragraphs on my last response to Prax, it explains my motivation a little. I do thank you for the courteous responses, even in disagreement!

I just posted the text from one of his messages, BD. I think, somehow, you are intentionally missing the point.

Point One:

"Do you know why she got a hold of that and he didn't? Because ladies, among us, who do not cut their hair are entangled with angels and the wisdom and power of angels that men are not connected to and they cannot be connected to it."

It would be hard for me to take this as I know God speaks to my husband and that I have no more special privilege or access to God than He does. If that were true, the Bible is a lying - Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

I didn't see that a woman's uncut hair gave her precedence in Galatians.

Point Two:

"Only eternity will reveal how many times in our homes and in our churches, where our women have not cut their hair, only eternity will reveal how many times an angel of the Lord has stepped out and pulled a child back from oncoming traffic. How many times your husband, on the way to work, suddenly and angel stepped between him and an oncoming car. Only eternity will reveal that."

I'm still looking for a reference to the part that Jesus plays in my life. After all He is the Author and Finisher of my faith. When we focus on angels, we can really go off on some tangents. That is idolatry.

Point Three:

"That is the presence and power of angels. "For this cause ought the women to have power upon her head because of the angels." Power with the angels. Power!!!"

He is reverting back to "dunamis - miraculous power" here. It so magical, you almost don't want to stop yourself! LOL! But, please do! Stop yourself!

Point Four:

"Life your hands for a moment. I prayed, today, that angels would come in among the people, tonight, and touch you in such a way that you would be so transformed in your thinking and in your mind that you would never be the same again."

Romans 12:2 "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."

This scripture implies that it is MY job to renew my mind.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by DAII

Red HERRING ALERT >>> NO ONE HAS SAID AS MUCH ...

You're rambling.

The Mark Bassett strategy ... deflect, accuse, deflect, accuse, deflect ... peeters out. *puff*

Red herring? ROFL!!!!


You're the one that made the website: "HOLY MAGIC HAIR", ....

You are the KING of red herring! lol... Actually, that's more of a strawman. You are attacking a doctrine that NO ONE HAS EVER TAUGHT. You are building up some mythical doctrine by using clips, snippets, and quotes from books, anecdotal testimonies, etc. and saying "here is the false doctrine of Holy Magic Hair, akin to divine flesh, that is being propogated by LS and the UPC.

Again, YOU are the KING of red herring AND strawman! lol...

BIG STRAWMAN!!!! ROFLMHO!!!!

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Red herring? ROFL!!!!


You're the one that made the website: "HOLY MAGIC HAIR", ....

You are the KING of red herring! lol... Actually, that's more of a strawman. You are attacking a doctrine that NO ONE HAS EVER TAUGHT. You are building up some mythical doctrine by using clips, snippets, and quotes from books, anecdotal testimonies, etc. and saying "here is the false doctrine of Holy Magic Hair, akin to divine flesh, that is being propogated by LS and the UPC.

Again, YOU are the KING of red herring AND strawman! lol...

BIG STRAWMAN!!!! ROFLMHO!!!!

[*AQuietPlace*]

BobDylan, you keep focusing on Dan as being the main objector to this doctrine, but he's not. He's one objector, but not the only one. You seem to think that because he doesn't believe I Cor. 11 teaches uncut hair that he has an agenda, and therefore his opinion doesn't carry much weight.

Well, regardless of how you feel about Dan or his motives, he's not the only one objecting. I recently, WITH MY OWN EYES, saw a woman take the pins out of her hair, and lay it on top of someone who was praying. My dad was there, and he is a STAUNCH "uncut hair is a heaven or hell issue" person, and he thought that was LUNACY. He strongly objects to this "power in the hair" or "power with the angels" teaching.

Numerous people have been present when women were "taking down their hair", and pictures have also been posted. They are getting this idea somewhere. Many churches believe the Bible teaches that women shouldn't wear gold or pearls, but you don't hear messages about laying your "non-jewelried" hands on people because there is power there!

This is a mistaken doctrine that is gaining a foothold, and it needs to be corrected.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I did answer your question... The language of 1 Cor 11:10, which evidently you have a problem with, IS directly connected to any message preached from the text, and whether he uses that language in messages about gossip, or adultery, or other areas of obedience is irrelevant. We aren't speaking of those areas of obedience regarding this particular sermon of LS. We are speaking of the areas of obedience directly addressed in 1 Cor 11, and that is the distinct and proper grooming of hair for the relative genders. In that context, which is directly associated with authority and submission per the immediate context, the language of 1 Cor 11:10 is introduced. It is absolutely appropriate to cite, exegete, and preach the language of 1 Cor 11:10 in this context, whether or not he does so in another context. Your question is irrelevant, and is a blatant attempt to obsuscate while trying to accuse me of obfuscating...

You made this whole thing about what LS teaches and the authority about obedience. You obfuscate the fact or spin doctor it, that LS makes authority NOT about obedience but about uncut hair. Again this is made acutely obvious when he cites resources on witchcraft and the hair. He does NOT make it merely about obedience for if he did he would in his sermons on obedience to other issues like not committing adultery, mention that if you are obedient you will have authority.

Let me try to explain this in kindergarten terms...

Everyone here realizes that the only reason you resorted to sophomoric attempts at being pejorative above is you really have a losing case.

From the context of 1 Cor 11, uncut hair on women and short hair on men is the direct application of the principle of submission and authority.

prove it! This man, BobDylan, has made several assertions and has been asked to prove it and not once has he. Further the context here is not about hair but headship. BD doesn't catch the error he just made as well...if it's really about what you just said and this is the correlation with authority, Paul would have argued WE have authority because WE obey this law of short hair on men and uncut hair on women. He does not.

You cannot seperate the two issues. At the beginning of LS message, he lays a foundation of order of creation, authority, and submission to that order and authority.

Quote him please.

This is the basis and foundation of his preaching on "uncut hair".

The issue isn't that women should obey and not cut their hair. The context however in 1cor is headship and order of creation, the hair stuff follows THAT.

HE MAKES THE CONNECTION WHEN HE FIRST DEALS WITH THE SUBJECT. That inextricable connection carries through the message. From that point on, when LS speaks of uncut hair on women and short hair on men in his message, obedience and submission to authority is implied. Uncut hair and short hair on men cannot be seperated from the principle of authority and obedience any more water baptism for the remission of sins can be seperated from the blood of Christ.

Quote him please. You say "implied" but really that to everyone here means "This is how Im spinning it". It's your assertion but you can assert all day long. You might as well assert LS was teaching that green cows with wings fly out of his rear end on the last day of each month...PROOF is essential. All you are doing is telling us what LS "really meant"...good grief I can spin what anyone says...that does not make it true. Was LS really, in your opinion, THAT vague, that you can tell us what he IMPLIED contrary to what it seems to everyone else here? Not to mention the myriads of women OUT THERE that are posting how they have supernatural power in their hair, that it's not their obedience but their uncut hair?

LS does NOT say ANY TIME "Ladies, you have POWER because you have obeyed"

He makes an emphatic argument that Ladies have POWER due to uncut hair AND that it's really all about the hair. How do we know? Because as part of his "setting up" for his delivery he quotes sources on witchcraft who all say there is something special about the HAIR! Not that there is something special about obeying God.

BTW, how do you know exactly "why" LS quoted witchcraft? Did you ask him if this was why?

how do you know exactly why LS starts with a foundation of obedience and submission? Did you ask him why? Gee...you know you could be right, Maybe LS just threw that stuff in about a witches hair for absolutely NO REASON related to his message on hair.

Good grief

Or are you making assumptions? I already explaing "why" I think he appealed to witchcraft, and thas was to show that their feable magic that they try to perform and manipulate by appealing to God's order in nature is nothing because "we have the Word of God", and "we have more power than anything else in the world" (these are verbatim quotes approx 23 min into the Memphis message).

"why I think"? Eh...so you did not ask LS why? Hey. LS did not quote anything saying "witches have power" he quoted the resources where witches believe they have special powers IN THEIR HAIR, HAIR. Get it? HAIR.

Before we get back into what LS said and why he quotes sources on witches. Consider also this OTHER proponent on this doctrine of power in uncut hair

“I decided to go directly to the public library to look in the witchcraft section. As I approached the occult section you could just feel the demonic spirits. First I prayed against the wickedness I sensed and anointed the area with oil where the occult books were so that I could think clearly to start my search. To my surprise, I found many references concerning hair. I was amazed; and at times dumbfounded!”
I thought to myself, “If only Christians knew what the witches knew.”
-Juli Jasinski

How do you spin that? What do witches know that we should? Hmmm?

Here is what LS says
"Let's talk about the spiritual significance of hair"..why? What POSSIBLE reason could LS want to talk about that in this message on a woman's uncut hair? That was certainly unfortunate to interject something that has NOTHING to do with his message? Clearly this is a PART OF HIS MESSAGE

It pertains to what he wants to get across about HAIR.

The Spiritual significance of HAIR..what does he quote? He quotes extra biblical sources on the occult.

"Let's talk about the SPIRITUAL significance of hair. If only Christians knew what witches and new agers know"

Tell us Mr Spindoctor, what do witches and new agers know that we do not.

"They don't seem to get the message but they KNOW THINGS" huh? LS is saying they know things...what things do THEY know that Christians do not? Unfortunate? Yes it is but it was also a part of his message. He introduces it to set up what he wants US TO KNOW about hair.

"They (witches) know there is power on the head because of what we do with our hair"

He does not say "they know there is authority in obedience"

He does not say "They are mistaken"

He says THEY KNOW! THEY KNOW!

"What God meant for good (power on the head because of what we do with our hair) the devil wants to use for evil"

Nothing there about obedience

Consider the last thing LS says

"Think of the “classic image” of a witch … it is a woman with long, scraggly uncut hair. WHY? Because the evil side of the supernatural realm knows there is power associated with hair!"

LS says the evil side KNOWS there is power associated with hair..They KNOW that. LS does not say "they are mistaken in that, the power is associated with obedience".

BD it's obvious to anyone that can read WHY LS quoted all that junk.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Bobdylan

He was making an attempt to appeal to a cliche model that is commonly used by preachers. It's almost identically parallel to the cliche, "if they can jump and shout, and hoop and holler and cheer their team to victory at the football games of this world, what can some Holy Ghost filled saints of God do if we'd come into this place and worship God like there was no tomorrow... we've got the Word of God and we have more power than anything else in the world!"

It is absolutely NOTHING like that. LS is making statements of fact about HAIR and the supernatural. The cliche you refer to is simply, "if they can do it for that how much more should we worship God"

That is a cliche. LS does not use a cliche nor coin one. Rather he quotes several sources on the occult's KNOWING something. Never once does LS saying or imply the occult is wrong about power in hair.

If you are going to quote LS, quote him verbatim, and consider offering a link to the source, and the approx. time he supposedly made the statement, otherwise I'll consider what you say "he said" and heresay and inaccurate, and with libellous intent. There is no reason to immediately jump to the worst possible way of interpreting LS intent... which is exactly what you are doing? Why? Why would you not give a man who has given his life to this gospel and movement the benefit of the doubt here without jumping to the most ignoble of conclusions? It speaks more of your character than it does his... I am sure if you had some ideas, or approaches, or cliches, or misspoke on a few occasions, he would give you the benefit of the doubt as well, I think it would be appropriate to do the same for him. If you want to know exactly "why" he cited witchcraft resources, don't try to offer your opinion, ask him. If you didn't get the motivation from him, you do yourself well to refrain from judgment.

I've already several times done that as has everyone else. The more we do it the more obtuse you act and say we need to quote him verbatim. The link and the quote was already posted

I am trying to take an objective look at this as I am reasoning through this as I go along, examining the evidence, reading articles, engaging in the discussion, attempting to give LS the benefit of the doubt, arguing on his behalf where I think I can, and as I have done often over the last week or so, acknowledging problematic language, illustrations, and acts that have and are taking place surrounding this issue. If you want any more information, PM, I'll give it to you... but any personal information you would like from me, I would simply ask you to provide the same about you!

That's the deal in a nutshell...

I doubt anyone here views your spindoctor approach as an objective look. You have from the beginning played the apologist. You never once let on that you were objectively considering our opposing view points.

One final note.

1Co 11:10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels

Forget your disagreement with how exousia should be translated

Where do you see "uncut hair" there?

Let's look at a more HMH friendly translation

1Co 11:10 For this reason the woman ought to have authority on her head because of the angels.

Where do you see "uncut hair"?

Where do you see "if a woman obeys by not cutting her hair she shall have authority in the Spirit world"?

It says she is to have authority ON HER HEAD. It does not say she HAS authority IN the Spirit world. It does not say SHE personally has authority. It says she OUGHT to have authority ON her head.

BTW would you be interested in a formal debate on either the text and what it says or your view of what LS supposedly means?

By formal I mean I can arrange for just two persons to debate. It will have an opening, a middle and an ending that is definite.

It won't ramble on and on and on for weeks but will have a definite limited scope so each person can make their point and let those of us that can read judge

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

So if he is only speaking of obedience, why did he make this statement:

"I've watched this year. I know some men that are powerful in the Spirit. Powerfully used by God. But, I've watched a couple of them, even this year, they came up against a problem and they could not find an answer to. They couldn't come to any kind of an answer, but the wife, who is in the background, usually, they had never cut their hair. One day he walked in just twisting his hands, one of them in particular, and she came to him and she said, "This is the answer here." And she mapped out an answer that was so perfect, he staggered at the wisdom in it. Do you know why she got a hold of that and he didn't? Because ladies, among us, who do not cut their hair are entangled with angels and the wisdom and power of angels that men are not connected to and they cannot be connected to it."



He has stated numerous times that women have a power that MEN DON'T HAVE, because of their long hair.

That is not problematic for you????

Oh my. I just got it! BobDylan is right! Don't you guys see? This was really LS being funny. Notice he said "entangled"? LS was not teaching HMH, he was MOCKING IT!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Wrong question. Ask them if they've ever heard the teaching that a woman's uncut hair gives her special favor with God and power over the angels.



The first mention was from a sermon in the 90's, giving the 15 year time span. I've heard comments from Stoneking from multiple sermons, where he repeats his views multiple times, and at great length--not just in passing. You obviously haven't gone to the trouble to research this adequately. I have actually sat and listened to his entire sermons, either on cassette, or online via video clips. He didn't just say this one time, and he has NOT calmed down the language. There was a clip from a church posted recently where he basically reiterated the whole thing all over again. I'm sure someone can give you the link, if you want to check it out.

As far as RR goes, it's not even worth discussing. I was in a ladies' conference where she taught back in 2001 (or so), and it was PAINFUL. The last time I went, LaJoyce Martin taught, and it was SO much more pleasant. That woman is a joy to hear.

Exactly. BD has been obfuscating this whole thing from the beginning. It seems the ONLY thing he disagrees with is the title HOly Magic Hair. But other than that he seems to have drank the Koolaid