Read Segraves on "letting down hair"

[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...
...

...

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jfrog

...

Jfrog I just want to add first of all unless this man talked to LS he has no way of knowing what LS is doing.

HOWEVER if he realized his hoodoo voodoo presentation of the occult is wrong he NEEDS to do more than making an adjustment to how he presents it but come out and tell his followers "I was wrong to say that, please forgive me. I don't want any of you to be under the impression that we should do this because they do it" etc etc

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Jfrog I just want to add first of all unless this man talked to LS he has no way of knowing what LS is doing.

You are correct, I have no idea what LS is doing, or his specific motivation behind the way he presents his message the way he does. What I have done in my theory, the one that jfrog responded to conderately here, is my attempt to give LS the benefit of the doubt and figure out his reasoning in a way that would put him and his intention in the most noble light. I WANT to give LS the benefit of the doubt here, which is unlike what others want to do. I do not believe LS is trying to overtly encourage any practice outside of biblical instruction. I am trying to prove him innocent, you guys are trying to prove him guilty, thus the fundamental difference in perception and perspective.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

HOWEVER if he realized his hoodoo voodoo presentation of the occult is wrong he NEEDS to do more than making an adjustment to how he presents it but come out and tell his followers "I was wrong to say that, please forgive me. I don't want any of you to be under the impression that we should do this because they do it" etc etc

One time Prax, one time that I have observed, in the Memphis clip from two years ago, has he made reference to "occult"... I do not believe his intention is "hoodoo voodoo"... As I stated many times, I believe his reference of that was to draw the contrast between what the witches feel they have (i.e. power in their hair), and what we have (i.e. the "Word of God", and "more power than anything else in the world"... his own words). You are not giving LS the benefit of the doubt, and are bent on proving him guilty. I, on the other hand, am doing what I can, with as much reasoning and benefit of the doubt that I can offer, to prove him innocent.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

You are correct, I have no idea what LS is doing, or his specific motivation behind the way he presents his message the way he does. What I have done in my theory, the one that jfrog responded to conderately here, is my attempt to give LS the benefit of the doubt and figure out his reasoning in a way that would put him and his intention in the most noble light. I WANT to give LS the benefit of the doubt here, which is unlike what others want to do. I do not believe LS is trying to overtly encourage any practice outside of biblical instruction. I am trying to prove him innocent, you guys are trying to prove him guilty, thus the fundamental difference in perception and perspective.



One time Prax, one time that I have observed, in the Memphis clip from two years ago, has he made reference to "occult"... I do not believe his intention is "hoodoo voodoo"... As I stated many times, I believe his reference of that was to draw the contrast between what the witches feel they have (i.e. power in their hair), and what we have (i.e. the "Word of God", and "more power than anything else in the world"... his own words). You are not giving LS the benefit of the doubt, and are bent on proving him guilty. I, on the other hand, am doing what I can, with as much reasoning and benefit of the doubt that I can offer, to prove him innocent.

How am I not giving him the benefit of the doubt? I admitted that if he did change his message, like you said, he NEEDS to get up everywhere he goes and denounce that previous message.

if the only time he preached this was in Mephis, we still have an issue of a lot of others hearing.

Further if his intent was never to teach that women can let down their hair to release the power or the angels, he needs to denounce that.

As I said before

the ISSUE is 3 fold

What LS teaches

The Methods he used

The actions of those that heard him

We have here on this board entered into evidece what he teaches, his methods AND quotes from people that heard his teaching and his method and what the results are.

If he realizes that method was wrong and the results are wrong, he needs to address that and let them know that was never his intention

I've given LS the benefit of the doubt for years. Addressing the message as I have is not saying LS is bad or evil, is not akin to not giving someone the benefit of the doubt.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

How am I not giving him the benefit of the doubt? I admitted that if he did change his message, like you said, he NEEDS to get up everywhere he goes and denounce that previous message.

if the only time he preached this was in Mephis, we still have an issue of a lot of others hearing.

Further if his intent was never to teach that women can let down their hair to release the power or the angels, he needs to denounce that.

As I said before

the ISSUE is 3 fold

What LS teaches

The Methods he used

The actions of those that heard him

We have here on this board entered into evidece what he teaches, his methods AND quotes from people that heard his teaching and his method and what the results are.

If he realizes that method was wrong and the results are wrong, he needs to address that and let them know that was never his intention

I've given LS the benefit of the doubt for years. Addressing the message as I have is not saying LS is bad or evil, is not akin to not giving someone the benefit of the doubt.

Prax, I appreciate this response. I cannot say that I disagree with you wholly, as I see that the actions you'd like to observe from LS would be noteworthy, and would go a long way to reconciling misunderstanding regarding his teaching.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

the ISSUE is 3 fold

What LS teaches

The Methods he used

The actions of those that heard him

I am going to attempt to crystalize the three areas of concern. You may be able to add more, others may as well:

1.) What LS teaches:

1. A woman ought not cut her hair
2. A woman who does not cut her hair has power (authority, liberty, freedom) because of (by, through, or with) the angels (I think this is near an exact quote of LS).
3. A woman has access to authority in the spirit realm because of her obedeince in not cutting her hair that a man does not and cannot have

2.) Methods LS uses that are deemed objectionable

1. Allusions and references to witchcraft and occultic understanding of the hair
2. Multiplicitous andectodes referencing woman who have laid their hair out on people or prayer requests, resulting in affirmative responses from God on behalf of these prayers

3.)Actions of those that heard LS teaching this message

1. Women laying hair out over prayer requests
2. women laying hair out over people
3. Women in conferences letting their hair down and shaking it
4. Women appealing to God referencing their uncut hair in order to convince or pursuade God to answer their requests affirmatively
5. The phenomenon of women letting their hair down spreading to other areas of the fellowship

Do I have this correct, or am I missing something?

[freeatlast]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I am going to attempt to crystalize the three areas of concern. You may be able to add more, others may as well:

1.) What LS teaches:

1. A woman ought not cut her hair
2. A woman who does not cut her hair has power (authority, liberty, freedom) because of (by, through, or with) the angels (I think this is near an exact quote of LS).
3. A woman has access to authority in the spirit realm because of her obedeince in not cutting her hair that a man does not and cannot have

2.) Methods LS uses that are deemed objectionable

1. Allusions and references to witchcraft and occultic understanding of the hair
2. Multiplicitous andectodes referencing woman who have laid their hair out on people or prayer requests, resulting in affirmative responses from God on behalf of these prayers

3.)Actions of those that heard LS teaching this message

1. Women laying hair out over prayer requests
2. women laying hair out over people
3. Women in conferences letting their hair down and shaking it
4. Women appealing to God referencing their uncut hair in order to convince or pursuade God to answer their requests affirmatively
5. The phenomenon of women letting their hair down spreading to other areas of the fellowship

Do I have this correct, or am I missing something?

.............and you are just fine with all this BD ????

[dizzyde]

Originally Posted by dizzyde

EXACTLY. YOU THINK! That is exactly the problem, YOU have repeatedly ignored what multiple people here have said they PERSONALLY witnessed, because YOU went to one service, and by that think YOU are the master authority on the subject. I wonder how YOU hold your head up, it must be so heavy, with all of the importance and significance YOU give YOURSELF....



LOL!!!! Which people??? Listening is a very subjective word, I stopped listening to you in the sense you are alluding to, when you patently ignored/disregarded what I and multiple others stated we had witnessed.

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I will say this, you offered a very good response! touche! lol...

Originally Posted by dizzyde

WOW!!!! You really do not believe that people have to be accountable for what they say, do you?

I guess that would explain quite a bit, you are operating on a whole different code of ethics than most other humans.

Again, it makes it very clear why it does absolutely no good to argue with you, you just do not have the capability to speak truth or operate within the confines of sane reasoning. It really is very sad.

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Clearly you couldn't argue yorself out of a wet paper bag, thus the preoccupation with obfuscation by tangential issues not even associated with the discussion at hand. Tek this Tek that...

Originally Posted by dizzyde

Just wanted to follow along with your example of quoting our conversation, except I am quoting all of the ones that occurred on this thread before the one that you so self servingly chose to start with.

Bear in mind that there are also multiple interactions between us that are on the other thread that you started, where my tone towards you was very cordial in the beginning. I could go and copy all of them and post them here as well, but I am trying to get to bed, so I won't.

Suffice it to say, you are the one who began on the offense/attack towards me/my statements on the other thread, I was just following your lead. I will admit, not terribly mature of me, but hey, I'm a girl, we get a little bent sometimes. (I hardly EVER use that excuse) BTW, I never did get your apology for calling me "BRO"...

I will close my discourse with you by saying, apparently I hurt your feelings, and for that I am sorry. The general idea on this forum is that if you can dish it, you should be able to take it, but anyway, sorry.

The truth of the matter is that I know who has my back on this forum, and the fact that it isn't you doesn't bother me at all! Go in peace, and if you are planning on staying around here, one note that might be helpful in the future, if you genuinely want people to listen to what you have to say with an open mind, you might consider returning the favor.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I am going to attempt to crystalize the three areas of concern. You may be able to add more, others may as well:

1.) What LS teaches:

1. A woman ought not cut her hair
2. A woman who does not cut her hair has power (authority, liberty, freedom) because of (by, through, or with) the angels (I think this is near an exact quote of LS).
3. A woman has access to authority in the spirit realm because of her obedeince in not cutting her hair that a man does not and cannot have

2.) Methods LS uses that are deemed objectionable

1. Allusions and references to witchcraft and occultic understanding of the hair
2. Multiplicitous andectodes referencing woman who have laid their hair out on people or prayer requests, resulting in affirmative responses from God on behalf of these prayers

3.)Actions of those that heard LS teaching this message

1. Women laying hair out over prayer requests
2. women laying hair out over people
3. Women in conferences letting their hair down and shaking it
4. Women appealing to God referencing their uncut hair in order to convince or pursuade God to answer their requests affirmatively
5. The phenomenon of women letting their hair down spreading to other areas of the fellowship

Do I have this correct, or am I missing something?

I more or less agree with that assessment. So now we are going to hear that none of these things are wrong?

EDIT: for the record 1a has nothing to do with HMH. That is a totally separate issue.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I more or less agree with that assessment. So now we are going to hear that none of these things are wrong?

EDIT: for the record 1a has nothing to do with HMH. That is a totally separate issue.

1a is certainly part of what LS teaches, and is the emphasis behind his message. The other points, depending on how it is presented, or what intent can be contrued, can either indicate problematic statements, or a "perfect storm" scenario. I am leaning toward the perfect storm. If you remember my last response to you, I think it was a three point analysis as to how LS teachings can be construed in other ways than intended, I give a perfect storm
scenario. I want to adress these points as well and describe more thoroughly what I am talking about, when I have time... Probaly a little later this evening. Thanks jfrog for the thoughtful responses....