Read Segraves on "letting down hair"

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

FTR Big Flatus, I was not speaking of immorality as in sexual immorality... i was speaking of the types of immoral acts oletyme was speaking of. I have heard first hand reports from pastors who I have preached for who are in direct connection with the Ethiopia work, what was left of it after Tek exited, and the persecution of those who reject Tek's "bishoprick" and teaching. I have no evidence particularly... and I am not on any kind of effort to discredit him, have no agenda against him, no dog in the fight. Are you a Tek supporter? If so, your attempts to parallel Tek with LS has lost all credibility, in that you seem to be advocating the type of treatment toward LS that you disdained toward Tek. Speak of hypocrisy! lol....

IF Tek taught something you thought was heretical and or bad for the body, would you speak out about it?

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

IF Tek taught something you thought was heretical and or bad for the body, would you speak out about it?

I would... But I would not be unreasonable about it...

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I would... But I would not be unreasonable about it...

Why not? You've been unreasonable about what LS teaches, whats the difference?

you claimed to be objective with us when the entire time you have been obviously an apologist FOR LS

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Why not? You've been unreasonable about what LS teaches, whats the difference?

you claimed to be objective with us when the entire time you have been obviously an apologist FOR LS

I'm not being an apologist for LS. I am merely trying to argue from what I would think would be his point of view with the resources available to me. I am also giving the man the benefit of the doubt, which is something you are not willing to do. This, IMO, is a reasonable approach. I have attempted to reason with you, or whoever, as to why LS may say things or word things the way he does, and the motivation behind his methodology in appealing to illustrations, anecdotes, resources, and verbiage others are taking issue with him over.

If my "arguments", "spin", and reasoning cannot hold up under critical and objective scrutiny and reasoning (not just debate tactics), I would consider conceding the point. So far, the best attempts I've seen to dislodge my advocating on LS' behalf have been nothing but ad hominem, non sequitur, strawman, red herring, misrepresentation, insult, and attempts at intimidation. Everything you have been crediting me with doing, you are doing as well. I'm not against moving above this kind of tactical exchange, but I perceive that is the extent to which you desire to converse, and if that is the case then it is what it is. Until someone is ready to reason with me, instead of just debate, I'll continue to advocate in LS behalf.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I'm not being an apologist for LS. I am merely trying to argue from what I would think would be his point of view with the resources available to me. I am also giving the man the benefit of the doubt, which is something you are not willing to do. This, IMO, is a reasonable approach.

There comes a point when you have to stop giving someone the benefit of the doubt, and you have to acknowledge facts - what they are teaching is not correct, and they need to be asked to stop. What they are teaching is doing harm in some quarters. It can't continue, no matter what the teacher's intention. If people keep "taking me the wrong way", I need to work on my presentation.

Until someone is ready to reason with me, instead of just debate, I'll continue to advocate in LS behalf.

So, you don't feel that anyone on this very long thread has been reasonable with their approach to your opinions?

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

There comes a point when you have to stop giving someone the benefit of the doubt, and you have to acknowledge facts - what they are teaching is not correct, and they need to be asked to stop. What they are teaching is doing harm in some quarters. It can't continue, no matter what the teacher's intention. If people keep "taking me the wrong way", I need to work on my presentation.

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". Whether he changes position on his interpretation of 1 Cor 11:10 remains to be seen... If his 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.

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

So, you don't feel that anyone on this very long thread has been reasonable with their approach to your opinions?

There have been hints of reasonableness here and there! I think that post you quoted was directed at Prax who seemed to want to debate, appealing to debate tactics, rather than reason. That was the focus of that comment. I am sympathetic to your suggestions here, and appreciate your approach!

[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

[jfrog]

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". Whether he changes position on his interpretation of 1 Cor 11:10 remains to be seen... If his 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.
Finally we have an admission of a problem with what is being said by LS!!!

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.

Here's the problem. Christianity doesn't teach that men and women have different powers and authorities in the Spirit realm. Christianity teaches that men and women have different roles, but that there is one power and authority in the spirit realm, namely Jesus Christ. There is no scripture given anywhere that suggests women have spiritual insight that men don't have access to, for the simple fact that they are women. Every person whether man or woman has varying spiritual insights or wisdom at times. But you cannot show me anything where a woman is said to have a special insight simply because she is a woman. Again there are different roles of men and women, but its the same source of power, authority, insight and wisdom in the spiritual realm.

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...

Even if what you said on 1.) is true... Why does he never preach that a man keeping short hair gives a different but comparable kind of spiritual power and authority as a woman keeping uncut hair?

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.

Maybe it's just the focus. I'm still wondering why HMH is never preached about men's short hair though... EVER. I mean I can see why it might not be preached as often and thats okay. But it's not ever preached...

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.

It's not about this particular message. Who cares. It's that hes NEVER preached a message to men using these same principles that he is using in the womens message. Women get special power and authority due to their submission to the "order of creation". If it's not about the long hair then men do also. And we should have just as many miracles being attributed to men's short cut hair then. I mean wouldn't that make an even more astounding and inclusive message that would bless everyone? But LS isn't preaching the part about men even though it would be easy to tie in. So easy in fact that we must think he is not tying it in for a very specific reason...
...

...