Read Segraves on "letting down hair"

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Here is the quote you cited, broken down for easy reference:



Interesting. From this passage it can be inferred that LS believes:

1.) women have access to freedom and liberty in the spirit realm because of their "compliance" (read submission, obedience) to scriptural commands surrounding God's relationship with man (read order of creation)...

2.) a woman's "compliance" (again, read submission) somehow advocates for the church community

3.) A woman has unique access to divine wisdom and insight, and authority in the angelic realm, because of a life of "compliance", and particulary in the contextual directive of having uncut hair.

These statements and positions are consistent with LS' declared interpretation of 1 Cor 11:10... But I still do not see anything in this passage that is "Holy Magic Hair"...

He attributes the woman to having a unique access to divine wisdom and insight that men do not and can not have. That is Holy Magic Hair. Other than that you might have a point that he did actually make his statement in 3.) broad enough to avoid an accusation this time of preaching that hair alone grants special authority and power, or even compliance to hair alone does. He actually says compliance (in general) and then (particulary) with uncut hair. However, the real problem is that every indication I see is that he isn't saying uncut hair grants the same kind of power and authority as keeping the other commandments. What I'm seeing is that he is saying keeping uncut gives a particular kind of power and authority that keeping the other commandments do not. This would also explain why he offers 100 anecdotes about uncut hairs power and not one about power in not commiting adultery. This would also explain why he says in 2.) that its a kind of power that men cannot have. Otherwise as Prax has been saying, if its simply about keeping commandments giving you power then why can't men have the same power as women due to their compliance to the commandments that pertain to them?

[DAII]

Originally Posted by oletime

For the record DA ?, not that im in agreement with Bd 's attemps to argue this so called hmh, But yes i would say tek has been guilty of a lot, he and his followers have had another missionary put in jail with false accusations,he was beaten terribly(this is how they roll over there, you lie to a goverment offial and they seize you immediately) and they have stolen property , property that was acquired and buildings were built on, by churches in this country , by making accusations and telling lies ,This property was then seized (i cant remember the name of this missionary, but i have heard him speak more then once ) He refused to accept the teachings of tek and has garnered a huge following of people who have left tek and his followers.

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....

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.

[*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?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I disagree here. I think the "compliance" is with scriptural admonitions, which in itself proves submission and obedience. But we'll keep going around this circle not making it very far...

As far as the woman advocating, LS does not making the case that she is advcocating in the place of Christ, or for the same purpose Christ does. "Advocating" was the word I used to describe LS's statement. Intercede would also be an applicable word, one you may not be as averse to. Women AND men who are submissive to God's authority in their lives, unuquely intercede on behalf of the Christian community in ways the other gender cannot. In this particular sermon, LS emphasises the intercession that is unique to the woman. You could say that Heb 5:9 focuses attention on "obedience" instead of Christ as well... but the issue is still obedience, whether it's uncut hair, or being "keepers at home", or "keeping silent in the Church", not "teaching or usurping authority over the man", and "honoring their husbands". These are unique ways that women show their submission, that a man cannot do. These are unique roles women play in the community of believers, that men cannot fill. This is the theme, IMO, of LS' statements in this regard.



A woman's compliance to have uncut hair, is akin to individual compliance to proper gender roles within the church. It is a submission issue, however you want to frame it. You cannot seperate compliance to have uncut hair from the principle of submission. In the context of 1 Cor 11, the two are inextricable. Uncut hair IS submission for women, and short hair IS submission for men... yes these are emblems that indicate submission, but again, in this context, you cannot seperate the principle from it's most immedate application, which Paul himself ties together in the text of 1 Cor 11:4-16.



I do not agree with you here that LS's position "obliterates" the whole point Paul is making about headship. Non-sequitor.... In fact, I think LS's position develops Paul's point about headship quite nicely. Headship IS about authority in the spirit realm. Immediately following his development about headship, Paul begins to describe and explain the gifts we, who are submitted to His authority, have in the spirit realm. Thus we have 1 Cor 12, 13, and 14, all about the gifts of the Spirit.

"She is given authority that man cannot have", IMO, is akin to saying there are "roles in the community that women can fulfill, that men cannot". It's just a fact. Both genders occupy special places in God's plan and purpose that the other gender cannot fulfill. Men hold positions of leadership and influence in the Church that women cannot have. They have Christ as their head, where the woman has only her man as her head... the unique access clause is inclusive of both men and women, in different ways. I see no problem with this statement when taken in the context of other fundamental truths that we know.



You mean we can really be friends now?

You could say that Heb 5:9 focuses attention on "obedience" instead of Christ as well... but the issue is still obedience,

Your reference here is reaching. Heb 5:9 clearly focuses on Jesus Christ as the author of our eternal salvation.

It is a sign to the angels of her commitment to God and her power with God. - David Bernard

I Corinthians 11:10 says nothing about hair. - Daniel Seagraves

"For this cause ought the women to have power on her head because of the angels." Therefore, the women is indebted or owes her authority on her head with the angels.

"For this cause, the women is owing or indebted to the inward power, which is conferred upon her by a higher court with and by the angels." - Lee Stoneking

LS is reaching in this passage to say that a women "owes", is "indebted" and has "inward power conferred upon her with and by the angels."

If you don't see how subtle this teaching is......It is a very fine line being drawn for a lot of people. Women who believe that her "obedience/submission" is what gives her power with angels. The verse is not giving the women power with the angels.

As DS said, "I Cor 11:10 says nothing about hair." DKB is saying, from the view that the passage is suggesting a covering, i.e. hair, that it only shows the angels a woman's commitment to God. LS is taking it way to far into the spirit realm.

It leads DS to write:

I Corinthians 11:10 is interpreted by some to mean that if women have long hair it gives them some kind of power or authority in the spiritual realm. It has even been suggested that women should let down their long hair, laying it on the altar, on another person, or shaking it in the wind in order to evoke this power. Support for this view is found in anecdotal evidence and reference works related to witchcraft and occultism. To interpret Scripture by anecdotal evidence is dangerous; our final authority is Scripture, not experience. To interpret Scripture by reference to witchcraft and occultism is even more dangerous. Scripture warns us to avoid the influence of these ideas; we are to be simple concerning evil and wise concerning what is good. (See Romans 16:19.)

[Pressing-On]

The dead horse was going to move. I swear! - Andrew Sproule

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I found a transcription of a message that you posted a while back. It is quite revealing about what LS has been saying all along...

Taken from PO's transcription of a LS message given in 1996. The title was" Holiness- Separation from Worldliness" 12/31/96.
http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/sho...looding&page=8 POST 75 (61-78)

So BOB DYLAN, what do you have to say about this?

I didn't know this was posted on this forum! Thanks! Too bad I can't go back and correct my typos! After reading and typing so much, I have a tendency to overlook them unless they are made by someone else! LOL!

[Pressing-On]

It's not denial... I'm just very selective about the reality I accept. -Calvin, Calvin & Hobbes

[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!

[dizzyde]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I wish you would stop. For goodness sakes! Did you even read this? I read this to my husband, in which he replied, "That is just stupid!" And it is!




Are you just yanking our chains or do you actually believe what you are writing in defense of this stupid mess?! Yes, now I am thoroughly ticked off! LOL!

Seriously??? I passed that point a looooong time ago, now I am at this stage...

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

How would you characterize LS and RRH's teachings? If it's not "supernatural power in the hair", (as the HMH nomen indicates), what are their assertions that you disagree with?

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