BKP's latest rant: Evils of TV and Teased Hair ....

[_Coggins7]

Of course people are free to make their own choices. But old men determining the consequences for those choices is what I consider control: You're free to tease your hair, but if you do, you're considered as being in the 'great and spacious building'. Only Satan's minions reside in the great and spacious building. You're not one of satan's minions are you?

Tease hair - or go to hell. Hmm, great choice.

How about this as a hypothetical example: I'm going to punch you. You're free to choose whether I punch you in the face or in the stomach.

Great options eh? But hey, you're free as a bird to choose. So which is it?

This is the best you can do? A nonargument? What old men are determining anything here? Who is Packer "determining" anythning for anybody? As a ecclesiastical leader, he is counseling and referencing the consequences that may pertain to consorting with the world in the great and spacious building by wearing their clothes, adopting their attitudes and cultural patterns, and melding itno their world (a rereading of The Pearl is in order here). The consequences are, of course, that in time, one patten and one incremental adopition at a time, we become more like them and eventually, share their fate of being across a vast and deep gulf from the righteous and alienated from Christ. Even if one is considered to be in the great and spacious building, this changes nothing about one's agency; one can still tease hair, wear baggy pants, big silver necklaces, and wear your baseball caps backwards and sideways and look like an inner city street thus, pierce one's flesh with pieces of metal, tattoe yourself, or whatever, and understand that the church considers one to be in the building and their degree of freedom has changed not one whit. Oh, I get it. What you object to is just being told that these things are wrong. Being apprised that someone doesn't see the world as you see it. That's what makes you mad. Its those damn standareds...

I'm sorry, but logically, I do not see your point. He's giving counsel to members of the church based on church principles. Apparanty, you cannot tell the difference between force and persuasion nor between freedom and the consequences of its use. When anyone makes clear the consequences of your use of freedom, you panic.

If you could show me where Packer said anyone was going to Hell for teasing their hair, It would be appreciated.

[_Who Knows]

This is the best you can do? A nonargument?

Is this the best that you can do?

Wow, that was easy.

What old men are determining anything here? Who is Packer "determining" anythning for anybody?

He's determining people's spirituality/closeness to god by how they style their hair, or how they dress.

As a ecclesiastical leader, he is counseling...

Counseling's not bad. I don't see anything wrong with that.

...and referencing the consequences that may pertain to consorting with the world in the great and spacious building by wearing their clothes, adopting their attitudes and cultural patterns, and melding itno their world (a rereading of The Pearl is in order here).

See, now there you go. He's determining what certain consequences are for how one dresses, how one grooms, how one does their hair. That's not just counsel.

The consequences are, of course, that in time, one patten and one incremental adopition at a time, we become more like them

Who is 'them'? Oh, you mean the evil people?

and eventually, share their fate of being across a vast and deep gulf from the righteous and alienated from Christ.

Now you're doing it too. Telling people what the consequences are for how they decide to dress, or whether they tease their hair or not.

Even if one is considered to be in the great and spacious building, this changes nothing about one's agency; one can still tease hair, wear baggy pants, big silver necklaces, and wear your baseball caps backwards and sideways and look like an inner city street thus, pierce one's flesh with pieces of metal, tattoe yourself, or whatever, and understand that the church considers one to be in the building and their degree of freedom has changed not one whit.

I already agreed with that. Punch in the face or in the stomach? You're free to choose.

Freedom to choose does not equal lack of control. You can give someone choices, but still control how they act. You can make your own choices, but still be controlled.

Oh, I get it. What you object to is just being told that these things are wrong. Being apprised that someone doesn't see the world as you see it. That's what makes you mad. Its those damn standareds...

No, you don't get it. What I object to is someone giving the false impression to young minds that they have to act, dress, and groom in a certain way, or they are living in the G&S building. And if you're in the G&S building, you're not pleasing god. And if you're not pleasing god, you're not going to the CK. And if you're not going to the CK, you're not going to be with your family forever. Thus - you're in HELL.

Yours (and packer's) standards are bullsh!t. Counsel people to be great people. Counsel them to be kind, honest, caring people. That's great. Tell them that if they dress or groom a certain way and they're going to hell? Bullsh!t. It's control. There's no denying it.

Here's the applicable definition of Control:

To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over.

That's exactly what he (packer - person of influence) is doing here. If you can get people to believe that they're going to hell (see above) if they do a certain thing, then you're exercising dominating influence over them - whether you like it or not. They still have a choice - I agree with you, please stop pulling that strawman.

I'm sorry, but logically, I do not see your point. He's giving counsel to members of the church based on church principles. Apparanty, you cannot tell the difference between force and persuasion nor between freedom and the consequences of its use. When anyone makes clear the consequences of your use of freedom, you panic.

If you could show me where Packer said anyone was going to Hell for teasing their hair, It would be appreciated.

I believe I've covered that above.

FYI, you might want to calm down - you're anger is showing in your spelling.

[_Who Knows]

Oh, and you seem to have this problem with how we are using the word hell, and how we are defining it.

Take it up with the Book of Mormon, not me.

[_Coggins7]

Quote:
What old men are determining anything here? Who is Packer "determining" anythning for anybody?



He's determining people's spirituality/closeness to god by how they style their hair, or how they dress.

Incorrect. He's determining nothing. He's reminding others of the potential consequences of flirtation with the great and spacious building. One's spirituality and closeness to God is determined by oneself. About ten more years educating yourself in LDS doctrine and may be ready to discuss this stuff intelligently.

Quote:
As a ecclesiastical leader, he is counseling...



Counseling's not bad. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Quote:
...and referencing the consequences that may pertain to consorting with the world in the great and spacious building by wearing their clothes, adopting their attitudes and cultural patterns, and melding itno their world (a rereading of The Pearl is in order here).



See, now there you go. He's determining what certain consequences are for how one dresses, how one grooms, how one does their hair. That's not just counsel.

He is deterniming precisely nothing. The determination as to conwequences of our choices are a part of the fabric of the universe and its laws, as made known by the gospel of Jesus Christ. Packer, is dong nothing more than reminding or making clear to his listeners what those consequences can be. Those listeners are free tio accept or reject his claims.

Quote:
The consequences are, of course, that in time, one pattern and one incremental adopition at a time, we become more like them



Who is 'them'? Oh, you mean the evil people?

I mean the people of the "world", spiritually speaking.

Quote:
and eventually, share their fate of being across a vast and deep gulf from the righteous and alienated from Christ.



Now you're doing it too. Telling people what the consequences are for how they decide to dress, or whether they tease their hair or not.

But what if those are the consequences? And what then, if I fail to tell you of them if I know them?

Quote:

Even if one is considered to be in the great and spacious building, this changes nothing about one's agency; one can still tease hair, wear baggy pants, big silver necklaces, and wear your baseball caps backwards and sideways and look like an inner city street thus, pierce one's flesh with pieces of metal, tattoe yourself, or whatever, and understand that the church considers one to be in the building and their degree of freedom has changed not one whit.



I already agreed with that. Punch in the face or in the stomach? You're free to choose.

The logical irrelevance of this incomprehensible analogy staggers me, but never mind...

Freedom to choose does not equal lack of control. You can give someone choices, but still control how they act. You can make your own choices, but still be controlled.

This is pure sophistry unless to can develop some pretty compelling extended argument, both philosophically and psycholgically, that would provide a reason to believe such a claim, and why or how it would be relevant to ecclesiastical leaders counselling the members of their faith community on that communities cultural standards. Freedom to choose does indeed equal lack of control if by that one means any overt use of force to prevent or obtain some desired behaviour or lack thereof. Your human-being-as-puppet worldview (except for enlightened, liberated liberals such as yourself) is both condescending and intellectually slovenly, in my view. Try something else.

Quote:
Oh, I get it. What you object to is just being told that these things are wrong. Being apprised that someone doesn't see the world as you see it. That's what makes you mad. Its those damn standareds...



No, you don't get it. What I object to is someone giving the false impression to young minds that they have to act, dress, and groom in a certain way, or they are living in the G&S building.

That's a circular assumption on your part. You have no idea whether or not Packer is correct or not, but you love to play let's pretend that you know something Packer doesn't

And if you're in the G&S building, you're not pleasing god. And if you're not pleasing god, you're not going to the CK. And if you're not going to the CK, you're not going to be with your family forever. Thus - you're in HELL.

Its time to start learning a little basic, fundamental LDS doctrine who...before you make a further fool of yourself.

Yours (and packer's) standards are bullsh!t. Counsel people to be great people. Counsel them to be kind, honest, caring people. That's great. Tell them that if they dress or groom a certain way and they're going to hell? Bullsh!t. It's control. There's no denying it.

Typical. Cornered within one post, hissing and spitting and mewling in rage. You didn't last very long on this one did you? The church, does in fact, counsel people to be exactly what you mentioned above. Oh, but you didn't know that did you?

The rest is the same chasing of the same plastic decoy and so I'm through.

Loran

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I frankly see nothing, nothing whatever, wrong with the church's standareds as expressed by Packer.

That's because, at heart, you are a Pharisee. Get over it.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

He's giving counsel to members of the church based on church principles.

Pray tell, how? What does teased hair have to do with any Church principle?

If you could show me where Packer said anyone was going to Hell for teasing their hair, It would be appreciated.

A good example of just this type of coercion was David Bednar's recent praise of the RM who dumped the girl he considered marrying because she wouldn't remove her extra pair of earrings after GBH's "counsel" on the subject.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

He's reminding others of the potential consequences of flirtation with the great and spacious building.

Pray tell, how does teased hair constitute "flirtation with the great and spacious building"?

One's spirituality and closeness to God is determined by oneself.

Precisely. And not by very old-fashioned octogenarians with no fashion sense.

The determination as to conwequences of our choices are a part of the fabric of the universe and its laws, as made known by the gospel of Jesus Christ. Packer, is dong nothing more than reminding or making clear to his listeners what those consequences can be.

For the umpteenth time: pray tell, what is the relation between teased hair and the gospel of Jesus Christ?

[_Who Knows]

This is pure sophistry unless to can develop some pretty compelling extended argument, both philosophically and psycholgically, that would provide a reason to believe such a claim, and why or how it would be relevant to ecclesiastical leaders counselling the members of their faith community on that communities cultural standards. Freedom to choose does indeed equal lack of control if by that one means any overt use of force to prevent or obtain some desired behaviour or lack thereof. Your human-being-as-puppet worldview (except for enlightened, liberated liberals such as yourself) is both condescending and intellectually slovenly, in my view. Try something else.

Let's back up a bit. I want to find out what you think control IS. The way i'm reading you, you think an 'overt use of force' is required. Is this correct? And is this ONLY physical force? Or could it possibly be some type of psychological force?

What about a threat of ADVERSE consequences? IE., do this, or you're going to hell.

Let's look at the MAD board for example. Do you think they 'control' their board? Do you think they control WHO posts there, WHAT is posted, the TONE of posts? I think they do. However, are posters FREE to post what they like? Are they FREE to dictate the tone of their posts? I think they are. However, obviously, there are consequences for ACTING on that freedom - potential banning, deleting of posts, etc. The adverse consequences for CHOOSING to act in a specific was ARE A CONTROL. That is how they control their board.

So, what do you think?

[_harmony]

Wait a minute. Back up a bit.

Teased hair = the G&S building? Then half my ward (all over 50) are in trouble. They all tease their hair. They've teased their hair for the last 30 years. They all attend the temple, so teased hair cannot be a criteria for the G&S building.

Packer needs to remove the stick from his ... spine.

[_moksha]

Wait a minute. Back up a bit.
Teased hair = the G&S building? Then half my ward (all over 50) are in trouble. They all tease their hair. They've teased their hair for the last 30 years. They all attend the temple, so teased hair cannot be a criteria for the G&S building.

Oh no, perhaps President Packer was referring to some other practice than teased hair due to unfamiliarity with or lack of inspiration regarding women's hairdos. That is understandable. Learning all that women stuff is like some obscure form of physics to us men. They actually know what words like mauve and taupe mean. Perhaps he was referring to some hippie-beatnik chick style that didn't involve the beloved beehive. He could have simply confused the two hairdos. Hey, if I got a nickle for every time I didn't know what I was talking about, I would have a lot of nickles.