Read Segraves on "letting down hair"

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I agree with you here, in that if someone is teaching something incorrect, they need to be corrected. From what I have gathered, there is an effort on LS part to do just what you have suggested, "work on his presentation".

You either don't read what we post or don't get it. What you have admitted LS teaches, not us but you, WE say is heretical,

It's NOT "his approach" or his "presentation"

It's His DOCTRINE.

It's RR's Doctrine

We also oppose the results he has gotten from the various quotes of testimonies from other women

If LS was wrong in his presentation that led to these results, he needs to do more than a simple adjustment in his approach. He needs to publically disavow himself from that approach and tell his hearers everywhere he goes that he was wrong, even put it in the Herald.

What I gather is that LS, like most preachers, are simply preaching the same thing but from different angles to get the desired result.

He knows the results. We all know the results. Woman on the UPC offical website, picture of her letting down her hair to SUMMON ANGELS...

They know the results and have no problem with it. If they wanted to distance themselves from the results they would do much more than have an article by DS. They would come out officially and distance themselves from those sort of results and the teachings that brought them there.

What you have now are people in the UPC divided between the LS camp and the DS camp. They follow LS not DS, until LS fesses up to his false doctrine and his "wrong presentation", they will continue

[DAII]

Originally Posted by DAII

You have to be kidding me ... here we are on page 18 of 3 threads about this discussing admittedly plausible interpretations of what LS HAS SAID ... AS WE POUR OVER RAW VIDEO, AUDIO, TRANSCRIPTS, QUOTES, BOOK EXCERPTS FROM RR and other anectdotal testimony ... and I am to take the word of second-hand, anonymous posters as to your innuendo, rumor and hearsay to the accusations you've made on a public forum about a minister who in your paradigm is Jesus name baptized and Holy Ghost filled ... with out a shred of prima facie evidence ... about his alleged IMMORALITY AND UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR

like a court docket, a newspaper article, etc. for "analysis".

I don't know Oletyme or TEK from a hole in the wall but please hold yourself to the same standard of "scholarly" citation. You say you have made no effort to discredit him after you have publicly stated he has acted IMMORRALLY and UNETHICALLY?

Keeping in mind that such an accusation was not even mundane to the the topic or necessary to throw out except as an ad-hominem attack.

TEK was brought up to show the absurdity of your "greater context and purview" argument where you admittedly think the ends justify the means ... however we are to ignore the "unfortunate", "whacky", "problematic", "misspoken", "poorly presented" details in between. And accept your uninformed apologizing for the DOCUMENTABLE words of a teacher who is being emulated by the masses.

I have had enough insight, especially in South America, to national works and big brother meddling to know that when it comes to these issues there are two sides to every story and then there is the TRUTH. Schisms are never "clean" or "antiseptic".

You sir, have defamed this man with innuendo and UNSUBSTANTIATED evidence ... while pointing fingers at those who choose to put LS public message to the fire ... while not attacking him personally.

Again, BD, will you SUBSTANTIATE THE ACCUSATIONS YOU HAVE MADE AGAINST AN APOSTOLIC MINISTER?
So far here is your evidence for your personal attack and attempt to tear down this man's ministry:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

One itsy, bitsy shred to analyze would be nice.

Dial up, problems?

The duplicity and obfuscation has spoken volumes.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

It's a red herring because it takes the focus of the issue at hand. I am not the issue, my motivations are not the issue... your attempts to redirect the focus of the discussion to me, instead of the points I am making, are clearly red herrings... and it would be redundant to describe why it's irrelevant.

It does not take the focus off the issue at hand. The issue is Stoneking. YOU argue for, I argue against. In doing that I point out the flaws of YOUR argument. That is not a red herring. A Red herring would be ignoring how I detailed LS's doctrine and you interject "But he does not teach magic hair"...over and over you have done that.,

That is why it is not a red herring. Im countering your arguments and pointing out the reasons why you are unreasonable.

See, you started off asking what this doctrine taught, what was it about LS.

And for a week or more, over the course of 2 to 3 threads and hundreds of pages now we HAVE over and over and over told YOU what it was LS taught that we disagree with.

And rather than deal with that you quibbled over the word magic and attempted to explain why LS would resort to the occult.

Then you would ask again what was it LS taught, what does HMH teach and we'd just think you are pulling our chains since we already told you

So what happened? You finally tell us what LS teaches and THAT is what WE have said dozens of times now to you. What YOU said LS teaches is FALSE DOCTRINE.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Heretical, dangerous, false doctrine. Keep reading, I've said the parts I disagreed with since this discussion started in the other thread you started

If LS' emphasis on "compliance", with the directives of uncut hair for women and short hair for men from 1 Cor 11, were presented as issues of obedience and submission giving elevated authority in the spirit realm equally for both men and women, I think I could more strongly advocate for LS's unique interpretation. However, coupling LS's emphasis on possessing uncut hair solely, and his connection with this act and authority in the spirit realm for the woman to the seeming exclusion of the man, I can see are somewhat problematic.

I have offered a couple reasons why he may be doing this: 1.) This message does not "exclude" men from "authority in the spirit realm", but more accurately describes and emphasizes the unique position a woman has in their standing before God that men cannot obtain, and 2.) because the context of 1 Cor 11, the emphasized acts directly related to obedience and submission are uncut hair for women and short hair for men, and 3.) since LS is focusing on the woman's unique position before God and the emphasized act of obedience and submission connected to the context of 1 Cor 11, he therefore focuses primarily on the act of uncut hair as the issue directly connected to the woman's unique standing before God. Allow me to explain in more detail...

1.) Both genders possess unique positions in God's kingdom, and "in the spirit realm", that the other gender cannot possess. For instance, men are equipped to fill positions of authority and influence in the Church and in the family that women cannot fill. And the same is true for the woman. A man is not instructed to a.) have uncut hair, b.) be a keeper at home, c.) honor her husband, d.) keep silent in the church, e.) not teach or usurp authority over the man... etc. My point here being that women possess a position in the family, in the community, and in the Church that men "cannot" fill. To extend this into the "spirit realm" seems to be a natural extention, and I think this is what LS may be doing when he makes statements like "women are entagled with angels and have access to wisdom in a way a man cannot have". (not verbatim, but you know the quote I am referring to here). The same is true for the man, men are also "entangled with angels and have access to wisdom a woman cannot have". These statements may be true becuase of the unique positions each gender fills in the family, community, Church, and in the spirit realm before God.

2.) From LS' message on "Order of Creation" from the text of 1 Cor 11, the sole acts that are emblematic of individual submission to God's order of headship and creation are the acts of a.) uncut hair for women, and b.) short hair for men...

3.) This point is the natural logical flow from the previous two points. Since LS is focusing on the woman's unique standing before God, since his text is primarily the text of 1 Cor 11:4-16, and since this text emphasizes the act of uncut hair for women as the emblem of submission to God's authority and her unique postion, LS therefore seems to focus on the act of uncut hair directly relating to the woman's unique standing before God and her authority in the Spirit realm to the seeming exclusion of the man.

Conclusion: LS is focusing this message on the woman's submission, emblem of submission, and her unique standing before God from the text of 1 Cor 11. Why doesn't he include the man in this message? Because this is not the focus of this particular message. There are countless numbers of messages that are preached that focus on the man's position, authority, and insight into the spirit realm, but in this message is primarily focused on the woman's position. (FTR, when I heard him preach this message recently, he did in fact address man's position before God, AND having short hair, but only briefly.)Why the seeming emphasis on uncut hair? Because this is the emblem of submission to God's order of creation, and woman's unique standing before God in that order, that is prescribed from the text of 1 Cor 11 that LS uses to develop the foundation for his message. I think most of LS's statement that people are objecting to (at least here on this forum) are the result of this approach and focus.

[Praxeas]

Aside from the semantic obfuscations over the moniker "Holy Magic Hair"
Here is the problem

We oppose HMH the doctrine, what they actually teach about women, hair, power and angels

We oppose HMH the method, resorting to the occult and anecdotal stories about women summoning angels and laying hair on bodies for healing

We oppose HMH the results, of the many "testimonies" women have given as a result of believing the doctrine and hearing the methods.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

If LS' emphasis on "compliance", with the directives of uncut hair for women and short hair for men from 1 Cor 11, were presented as issues of obedience and submission giving elevated authority in the spirit realm equally for both men and women, I think I could more strongly advocate for LS's unique interpretation. However, coupling LS's emphasis on possessing uncut hair solely, and his connection with this act and authority in the spirit realm for the woman to the seeming exclusion of the man, I can see are somewhat problematic.

I have offered a couple reasons why he may be doing this: 1.) This message does not "exclude" men from "authority in the spirit realm", but more accurately describes and emphasizes the unique position a woman has in their standing before God that men cannot obtain, and 2.) because the context of 1 Cor 11, the emphasized acts directly related to obedience and submission are uncut hair for women and short hair for men, and 3.) since LS is focusing on the woman's unique position before God and the emphasized act of obedience and submission connected to the context of 1 Cor 11, he therefore focuses primarily on the act of uncut hair as the issue directly connected to the woman's unique standing before God. Allow me to explain in more detail...

1.) Both genders possess unique positions in God's kingdom, and "in the spirit realm", that the other gender cannot possess. For instance, men are equipped to fill positions of authority and influence in the Church and in the family that women cannot fill. And the same is true for the woman. A man is not instructed to a.) have uncut hair, b.) be a keeper at home, c.) honor her husband, d.) keep silent in the church, e.) not teach or usurp authority over the man... etc. My point here being that women possess a position in the family, in the community, and in the Church that men "cannot" fill. To extend this into the "spirit realm" seems to be a natural extention, and I think this is what LS may be doing when he makes statements like "women are entagled with angels and have access to wisdom in a way a man cannot have". (not verbatim, but you know the quote I am referring to here). The same is true for the man, men are also "entangled with angels and have access to wisdom a woman cannot have". These statements may be true becuase of the unique positions each gender fills in the family, community, Church, and in the spirit realm before God.

2.) From LS' message on "Order of Creation" from the text of 1 Cor 11, the sole acts that are emblematic of individual submission to God's order of headship and creation are the acts of a.) uncut hair for women, and b.) short hair for men...

3.) This point is the natural logical flow from the previous two points. Since LS is focusing on the woman's unique standing before God, since his text is primarily the text of 1 Cor 11:4-16, and since this text emphasizes the act of uncut hair for women as the emblem of submission to God's authority and her unique postion, LS therefore seems to focus on the act of uncut hair directly relating to the woman's unique standing before God and her authority in the Spirit realm to the seeming exclusion of the man.

Conclusion: LS is focusing this message on the woman's submission, emblem of submission, and her unique standing before God from the text of 1 Cor 11. Why doesn't he include the man in this message? Because this is not the focus of this particular message. There are countless numbers of messages that are preached that focus on the man's position, authority, and insight into the spirit realm, but in this message is primarily focused on the woman's position. (FTR, when I heard him preach this message recently, he did in fact address man's position before God, AND having short hair, but only briefly.)Why the seeming emphasis on uncut hair? Because this is the emblem of submission to God's order of creation, and woman's unique standing before God in that order, that is prescribed from the text of 1 Cor 11 that LS uses to develop the foundation for his message. I think most of LS's statement that people are objecting to (at least here on this forum) are the result of this approach and focus.

LS himself states that women have a certain insight men do not have because the do not cut their hair. HE says himself it's the woman with uncut hair that affords this special angelic protection over her and her family, not because of a man's obedience.

It's not here obedience, it's her obedience to HAVE UNCUT HAIR. That is why he says there is a spiritual significance in hair.

The Obedience part comes in play when you obey what Paul said you will have uncut hair. If you have uncut hair you have authority and other special things men do not and can not have.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

It does not take the focus off the issue at hand. The issue is Stoneking. YOU argue for, I argue against. In doing that I point out the flaws of YOUR argument. That is not a red herring. A Red herring would be ignoring how I detailed LS's doctrine and you interject "But he does not teach magic hair"...over and over you have done that.,

That is why it is not a red herring. Im countering your arguments and pointing out the reasons why you are unreasonable.

See, you started off asking what this doctrine taught, what was it about LS.

And for a week or more, over the course of 2 to 3 threads and hundreds of pages now we HAVE over and over and over told YOU what it was LS taught that we disagree with.

And rather than deal with that you quibbled over the word magic and attempted to explain why LS would resort to the occult.

Then you would ask again what was it LS taught, what does HMH teach and we'd just think you are pulling our chains since we already told you

So what happened? You finally tell us what LS teaches and THAT is what WE have said dozens of times now to you. What YOU said LS teaches is FALSE DOCTRINE.

Your attempts to disqualify my arguments as logical fallacies, when they are not, are red herrings. You say "obfuscation", and "red herring", or "spin" speak of your intent to debate rather that engage in dialogue. Every logical fallacy you have accused me of, you are complicit in as well. I could argue tu quoque, and we could go round and round and not get anywhere. This is not a formal debate, there are no scores. I'm not interested in debating this for the purpose of debate. I've made points that are worthy of consideration, and you have obfuscated by accusation of logical fallacy. Evidently you aren't capable of handling the reasoning I present, therefore this dialogue is meaningless...

[D. Wright]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Your attempts to disqualify my arguments are logical fallacies, when they are not, are red herrings. You say "obfuscation", and "red herring", or "spin" speak of your intent to debate rather that engage in dialogue.Every logical fallacy you have accused me if you are complicit in as well. I could argue tu quoquet, we could go round and round and not get anywhere. This is not a formal debate, there are no scores. I'm not interested in debating this for the purpose of debate. I've made points that are worthy of consideration, and you have obfuscated by accusation of logical fallacy. Evidently you aren't capable of handling the reasoning I present, therefore this dialogue is meaningless...

What a bunch of bunk!

I think you mean tu quoque.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by D. Wright

What a bunch of bunk!

Now that right there is one of the most profound and intelligent contributions in this whole thread! ROFL...

Originally Posted by D. Wright

I think you mean tu quoque.

That's exactly what I meant, and I think you and everyone else knows it. For you to enter this discussion at this point with nothing more to add that a spelling correction (when there were numerous words misspelled primarily because I am typing on my iPhone), indicates ignorance, obsessive-compulsive tendencies, a desperate need for a sense of self-affirmation, and uhhh did I say ignorance? If you would have presented something meaningful, I may have given you a little more flexibility, but too late for that now! Keep trying though, someone will take note of and acknowledge your efforts!

[D. Wright]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Now that right there is one of the most profound and intelligent contributions in this whole thread! ROFL...



That's exactly what I meant, and I think you and everyone else knows it. For you to enter this discussion at this point with nothing more to add that a spelling correction (when there were numerous words misspelled primarily because I am typing on my iPhone), indicates ignorance, obsessive-compulsive tendencies, a desperate need for a sense of self-affirmation, and uhhh did I say ignorance? If you would have presented something meaningful, I may have given you a little more flexibility, but too late for that now! Keep trying though, someone will take note of and acknowledge your efforts!

I added first "what a bunch of bunk".

Because I haven't posted does not mean I didn't read the thread.

Now, do you feel better spitting out all those Christian things to me?