Read Segraves on "letting down hair"

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by DAII

Prax,

You and the rest of the Apostolic world are not getting our friend who understands the prophet from Schenectady because he heard him speak in person.

Bro, I was at a large conference in the last week... The last night I asked probably a dozen people, mostly ministry, mostly pastors, if they had ever heard of HMH. I just asked a young lady friend of mine from MS yesterday. The answer they all gave me was "no". The reason I asked this question, was because the last night of conference, we had a HG howdown, and the pastor took the plants from the platform, which were palm branches, and people were grabbing them and waving them around. There were literally HUNDREDS of people dancing, shouting, and waving palm branches. I thought to myself, "DA would get a kick out of this... holy magic palm branches". lol... The "rest of the apostolic world" DOES NOT get your assertion about HMH. The attention has primarily been drawn to it by detractors who disagree with the 1 Cor 11 uncut hair teaching, and who seemingly are personality and agenda driven. HMH has been propogated online through forums... but "the rest of the apostolic worlds" are mainly ignorant there is any problem. Enough hoopla has been raised to solicit concise responses by esteemed theologians, but for the most part people are unaware of the ruckus.

Originally Posted by DAII

Disregard the unfortunate, problematic language and attempts to validate this erroneous presentation of doctrine with uncut hair miracles because in the end message is about obedience and submission (uncut hair) and we know God rewards our prayers in the affirmative when we are both.

Finally seeing the light... I'm getting through!

Originally Posted by DAII

It really doesn't matter that LS felt that there is a continual angelic protection and wisdom that flows from the obedience of aposotolic women who through their compliance cover the whole community with a spiritual freedom unique to "our people" - LS' interpretation of exousia.

What matters is LS ... felt this for years ... dug it up in the Greek and is teaching about obedience and submission (uncut hair) and its rewards and benefits.

Ps 34:7
7 The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them

Originally Posted by DAII

In like manner, everytime Tek says "divine flesh" we need to hear "Jesus is God". I mean , is He not? And Tek deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Sure there is problematic language and illustrations that could be presented better ... but doesn't divine mean godly or possessing God-like qualities. Ultimately, we know Jesus is God ... in the end that's what this message is about .... in the greater context and purview .... is the Oneness of God , the deity of Christ and he preaches the Acts 2:38 New Birth message ... you can't separate these from the message.

I feel a confirmation in my spirit and there has been a move of God over Ethiopia ... see Billy Cole revivals that confirm this.

Tek does/did deserve the benefit of the doubt... but he has rejected admonitions from leadership, has published and insisted on his doctrine, which is contrary to sound theology and scholarship. Finally he has subverted an entire movement in Ethiopa and has behaved unethically and immorally toward those who reject his ideas.

There is hardly a parallel between Tek and LS. You're attempt to draw the parallel speaks of your own inability to objectively handle considerations as they presented, and speaks even more loudly that you are blinded by your own agenda and the attention you are garnering for yourself from your absurd attempts to compare these two.

Originally Posted by DAII

You see BD may not realize among his logical fallacies are:

Moving the Goal Posts, Pious Fraud, Hypothesis Contrary to Fact, Red Herring and Non Sequitur.

Here's the deal:

You are confusing logical fallacies with debate tactics. LS may make leaps in logic in his presentation, but he is not debating. You are the one debating, and using said tactics to advance your agenda, garner attention to self, accomplish the marginalization of the uncut hair teaching of 1 Cor 11 which you do not believe, and destroy the person of LS.

Originally Posted by DAII

BD ... the ends don't justify the means. The language and presentation for 15 years is indeed problematic, as you readily admit, and it needs to be addressed. Misspoken, as you seek to paint them .... or not. And no, saying "it's not magic" is not tweaking or calibrating ... that's an accepted premise. Nor are your attempts to fill the gaps for LS necessary, warranted or accurate in light of voluminous record left behind by the likes of LS, Reider, Jasinski and Woodward.

Sorry kid, you have bought a bag of goods. Still the option of dropping them. It's not your burden. That's the deal in a nutshell.

When you get a chance you may want to consult a lawyer about the legal meanings of libel and slander ... I know I have ... WORDS MEAN THINGS.

Have Sean Hannity's oft-deceptive montages of Pastor Jeremiah Wright been given the worst possible interpretation? Probablys so ... but that in no way exonerates the language of Pastor Wright. Nor does it make Sean's thoughts or analysis. libelous. Nor do you and other cons think Pastor Wright or Obama deserves a free pass for them. In your words, "THINK"!

Are you serious? The language for 15 years? I have seen one clip in one message from nearly two years ago that I think MAY BE problematic when taken out of context. There are a couple sentences in RRH's book that are less that accurate theologically... and that constitutes 15 years of parallel to Teklemarian and divine flesh teaching? You are making absurd assertions and are clearly bent on defaming and destroying people and their ministry. You're actions are not couched in concern for the movement, or for the doctrinal correctness of LS or RRH... you do not even believe the 1 Cor 11 uncut hair teaching. You're intent is to diminish and marginalize the traditional uncut hair teaching, destroy LS or RRH's influence in encouraging the uncut hair practice. You have an agenda, and are advancing your agenda by whatever means necessary, regardless of people, and especially regardless of accurate attempts to present their case as objectively as possible. Dan, I do think, and that's why I'm not drinking your koolaid, not taking the bait, hook line and sinker, like many who are in your camp have done. People here are listening to me, and that bothers you more than anything! lol...

[Justin]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I question Stoneking's reasoning here that "For this cause" is referring to the angels and not referring back to verse 9. If I read verse 10 and it says, "For this cause", I'm going to back up and find out what that cause would be. "For this cause" indicates that something has been said previously that I need to pay attention to. I think that is where the disconnect has come in on this issue.

It seems to me that if she "owed authority on her head" to anyone, it would be the man. Even though we have equality in Christ, the word does speak of submission and it does have an order.

Col. 3:18; Eph 5:21-25. Notice Eph 5:21 opens with submitting ourselves one to another. It then goes on to explain how we handle our individual responsibilities to accomplish that.

We are admonished to submit ourselves to our elders in I Peter 5:5, YET, the Word also instructs BOTH to be subject one to another being clothed with humility.

Hebrews 13:17 instructs us to "Obey then that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves." But, we remember in verse 7 that we have been instructed to "remember them which have the rule over you....whose faith follow, considering (look again, attentively) the end of their conversation (behaviour).

That allows me to know that even though I have freedom and equality in Christ Jesus, there is still an order that must be in place. I am not bound to follow the wrong, but submit to the things that are right.

I've read David Bernard's chapter on Hair in "Searching for Holiness". He does not agree with Lee Stoneking in that uncut hair gives a woman angelic protection... In that book, Bernard teaches, and I agree with one exception, that verse 1 Corinth 11:10 should be interpreted as ...

"Verse 10. The angels are involved with this subject, as they observe the obedience or disobedience of humans to God’s plan. The angels desire to look into our salvation (I Peter 1:12). Pride and rebellion caused the fall of Satan and many angels (I Timothy 3:6; Isaiah 14:12-15). Thus, a woman should have “power” on her head on her head as an example to the angels. The Greek word here is exousia, meaning “authority,” and in this context it indicates a mark or sign of authority. The angels look to see if women have the sign of consecration, submission, and power with God, or if they are rebellious like Satan. Women’s hair shows the angels whether or not the church is submissive to Christ, the head of the church."

Within the context of this chapter, I would argue that it's not the women's hair that shows the angels whether or not the church is submissive, as Bernard states, it is whether or not they are submissive to their husbands by following Paul's guidelines to appear modest, and not as the pagans and harlots of the day.

I would break it down like this... Verse 10: For this cause (what cause? cause = submission and proper order of headship, see verse 7, 8 and 9 not uncut hair) ought the woman to have power (authority) on her head (her husband) because of the angels (their rebellion).

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by dizzyde

I have questioned this on several occasions and the best answer that I can give is that I think for the most part it is one of those issues that most people are hoping will just go away.

Right, wrong or indifferent, I think the org. has been through so many battles the last few years, and this particular situation does have some supporters obviously, so it is probably going to have to be a fight. I think a lot of people are just trying to avoid another war.

I'm not saying it's right, but I do understand it to an extent. I think the ones who disagree, for the most part just stay away from the situation so it doesn't really touch or affect their congregations. I have huge issues with the whole thing, but I am not the one who would have to fight the battle, or deal with the fall out. So it is easy for me to say what I would or would not do, but I have learned in life that if I don't have to wear the shoes, I don't really know what I would do if I did.

I just don't understnd the people who are still promoting and pushing this, how do they not see the fallacy of it?

Good post, Dizzy!

This is what I see going on as I questioned the words that night. The person looked at me like I was totally confused. The person, who was raised UPC, thinks that their obedience to the "uncut" hair is the power and that it was not wrong for KH to say, "There is power in our uncut hair."

They didn't understand that "for this cause" is not pointing to the angels, but to the order of creation in the previous verses. So, I see this is huge and needs to be addressed in a District Board Meeting. It is a huge mistake - huge!

[DAII]

TEK what?

Finally he has subverted an entire movement in Ethiopa and has behaved unethically and immorally toward those who reject his ideas.

Care to support these accusations?

Hole getting deeper, champ.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by DAII

TEK what?

Care to support this accusation?

Hole getting deeper, champ.

Or this one ...

using said tactics to advance your agenda, garner attention to self, accomplish the marginalization of the uncut hair teaching of 1 Cor 11 which you do not believe, and destroy the person of LS

Is this the best you can come up with?

I want to destroy the person of LS?

BD ... You're a novice and it's showing.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Bro, I was at a large conference in the last week... The last night I asked probably a dozen people, mostly ministry, mostly pastors, if they had ever heard of HMH. I just asked a young lady friend of mine from MS yesterday. The answer they all gave me was "no".

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.

Are you serious? The language for 15 years? I have seen one clip in one message from nearly two years ago that I think MAY BE problematic when taken out of context. ...

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.

[dizzyde]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Are you serious? The language for 15 years? I have seen one clip in one message from nearly two years ago that I think MAY BE problematic when taken out of context.

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....

Originally Posted by BobDylan

People here are listening to me, and that bothers you more than anything! lol...

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.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

So this statement does not bother you:

"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."


I find that mind-boggling.

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".

[BobDylan]

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.

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

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Justin

I've read David Bernard's chapter on Hair in "Searching for Holiness". He does not agree with Lee Stoneking in that uncut hair gives a woman angelic protection... In that book, Bernard teaches, and I agree with one exception, that verse 1 Corinth 11:10 should be interpreted as ...

"Verse 10. The angels are involved with this subject, as they observe the obedience or disobedience of humans to God’s plan. The angels desire to look into our salvation (I Peter 1:12). Pride and rebellion caused the fall of Satan and many angels (I Timothy 3:6; Isaiah 14:12-15). Thus, a woman should have “power” on her head on her head as an example to the angels. The Greek word here is exousia, meaning “authority,” and in this context it indicates a mark or sign of authority. The angels look to see if women have the sign of consecration, submission, and power with God, or if they are rebellious like Satan. Women’s hair shows the angels whether or not the church is submissive to Christ, the head of the church."

Within the context of this chapter, I would argue that it's not the women's hair that shows the angels whether or not the church is submissive, as Bernard states, it is whether or not they are submissive to their husbands by following Paul's guidelines to appear modest, and not as the pagans and harlots of the day.

I would break it down like this... Verse 10: For this cause (what cause? cause = submission and proper order of headship, see verse 7, 8 and 9 not uncut hair) ought the woman to have power (authority) on her head (her husband) because of the angels (their rebellion).

I agree Justin and I did see that DKB does not agree with LS. That is a good thing. I believe I stated that at some point.

I think that when the Word in I Cor 11 speaks of a women with long hair and a man with short hair is being discussed, DKB would be well within his rights to say that it is also a part of submission/obedience. Not only to the man, but to the ordinance spoken. If it was not important, it wouldn't have been written.

What he does not do is place the power in our hair, but on the submission/obedience. That is where LS ran off on a rabbit trail. He puts more emphasis on the hair then on the submission/obedience. DKB doesn't focus on the hair.

Coming back to add - the references DKB gave, on the angels, would be the only point made that could make any sense, IMO. Nothing more, nothing less.

The angels desire to look into our salvation (I Peter 1:12). Pride and rebellion caused the fall of Satan and many angels (I Timothy 3:6; Isaiah 14:12-15).