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

[_Coggins7]

Now, Packer's comments about "teased hair", simply reflected his age and era. It was a poor analogy.

I disagree profoundly. That counsel is through revelation, and its binding on the Saints. I listened to the entire talk, and parts of it more than once, and one can feel the spirit and the conviction of Packers words, as well as their sincerety, throughout. Further, the General Authorities of the church have been giving precisely this same counsel for decades. It isn't new and it isn't novel and it has nothing to do with thier age or generation. That liz, is nothing but an intellectual cop out, unless you could field for me a substantive argument that would provide a plausible reason to believe that that is all it is and nothing more (especially given the time frame in which such counsel has been given and the fact that much younger GAs give precisely the same counsel in precisely the same settings).

As to my attack, OK, I'm sorry about that. Keep in mind that I've had cheap shots taken at me for upwards of seven years now on the web just for being a Mormon (no need to say anything) and I'm human. I consider Ray's claims nothing but ancedotal, and ancedotes like this are used commonly in an attempt to shut down debate by painting one's personal family, relatives, or friends as outside church standards and saying "See! see! My daughters tease their hair and have nipple clamps and THEY go to the Temple and THEY take the sacrament and THEY'RE nice people and..." and so on. One cannot deny such a claim nor can one see all the dynamics involved. I tend to react to ancedotes intended to confuse the issue this way, as it is maddening.

You also now know why I'm limiting my posting here to every two weeks or so.


Loran

[_Mister Scratch]

Now, Packer's comments about "teased hair", simply reflected his age and era. It was a poor analogy.

I disagree profoundly. That counsel is through revelation, and its binding on the Saints. I listened to the entire talk, and parts of it more than once, and one can feel the spirit and the conviction of Packers words, as well as their sincerety, throughout.

Strange that you condemn Ray below for using anecdotal evidence, and yet here you are using it yourself.

Further, the General Authorities of the church have been giving precisely this same counsel for decades.

That's the point of Liz's remark: the counsel is several decades out-of-date.

It isn't new and it isn't novel and it has nothing to do with thier age or generation. That liz, is nothing but an intellectual cop out, unless you could field for me a substantive argument that would provide a plausible reason to believe that that is all it is and nothing more (especially given the time frame in which such counsel has been given and the fact that much younger GAs give precisely the same counsel in precisely the same settings).

It is something more: it is an insistence that the Saints be perfectly obedient, and that they demonstrate this obedience by dressing and behaving in certain GA-sanctioned ways. It really has very little to do with the Gospel.

As to my attack, OK, I'm sorry about that. Keep in mind that I've had cheap shots taken at me for upwards of seven years now on the web just for being a Mormon (no need to say anything) and I'm human. I consider Ray's claims nothing but ancedotal, and ancedotes like this are used commonly in an attempt to shut down debate by painting one's personal family, relatives, or friends as outside church standards and saying "See! see! My daughters tease their hair and have nipple clamps and THEY go to the Temple and THEY take the sacrament and THEY'RE nice people and..." and so on. One cannot deny such a claim nor can one see all the dynamics involved. I tend to react to ancedotes intended to confuse the issue this way, as it is maddening.

You also now know why I'm limiting my posting here to every two weeks or so.

Yes, I do. It's because, just like Wade, you turn apoplectic at having your butt kicked repeatedly. It must be really aggravating to get so thoroughly trounced time after time in these discussions here.

[_bcspace]

That's the point of Liz's remark: the counsel is several decades out-of-date.

After reading Clement of Alexandria's The Instructor 3 (and Isaiah 3), wherein we see that we are slated to become Gods and what the behavior of a potential God should be, one sees that such counsel is never out of date.

[_Coggins7]

Were done for this round again Scratch. You can'ts sustain an intellectuall substantive arguement past a few paragraphs, and you don't seem to really be interested in anything (such as the intellectual history of radical feminism) except delegitimizing the Church.


Another time...

[_Gazelam]

Is there a website that has that Clement article? The Clementine recognitions are hard to get ahold of at a bookstore. I have to order them online, would be great to know if they are simply posted somewhere online.

[_Coggins7]

Just google it. There should be several excelllent sites that have the complete texts (I'm sure the Church Fathers collection at Wheaton has it). I've had it on disk for several years now.

[_Coggins7]

After reading Clement of Alexandria's The Instructor 3 (and Isaiah 3), wherein we see that we are slated to become Gods and what the behavior of a potential God should be, one sees that such counsel is never out of date.

Indeed. The "old fashioned octogenarian fuddy duddy imposing his cultural beliefs on others" is just fluff. I haven't really seen a substantive agrument yet as to why the counsel is actually invalid. All I've really seen so far are continous questions asking me and others why it is valid, as if people who have already made up their minds a priori about it are asking for a serious explanatin of its value. Are they?


Loran

[_Mister Scratch]

Were done for this round again Scratch. You can'ts sustain an intellectuall substantive arguement past a few paragraphs, and you don't seem to really be interested in anything (such as the intellectual history of radical feminism) except delegitimizing the Church.


Another time...

Bowing out again, eh? No big surprise there. And no: I'm not interested in "delegitimizing the Church." I am interested in seeing the Church achieve its full potential. If you think this includes silly advice banning "teased hair" and manipulating the political process via questionable methods, then so be it.

[_Yoda]

That's the point of Liz's remark: the counsel is several decades out-of-date.

After reading Clement of Alexandria's The Instructor 3 (and Isaiah 3), wherein we see that we are slated to become Gods and what the behavior of a potential God should be, one sees that such counsel is never out of date.

Just to clarify....I never said that President Packer's counsel was out of date. I said that his analogy regarding teased hair was out of date.

I agree with the counsel. My point is, when you are listening with the spirit, you can look beyond the out of date analogies that many speakers utilize and focus on the message. It's as simple as that.

Instead of getting into the constant pissing contests you guys(and I'm referring here to Coggins, Gaz, and Plutarch primarily) consistently get into, if you would just state your point plainly, you would receive a lot less redicule....even from people who differ in your views. The problem is, you guys seem to have such a damned chip on your shoulder that you come out swinging before you fully take the time to compose your thoughts, or truly read and try to understand what other posters are saying. It's embarassing, guys. It's like we don't even belong to the same Church.

How can you claim to be a proponent of Christ's Church when you refuse to display compassion toward your fellow man? And before you give me a load of crap about throwing pearls before swine, don't bother, because it's b***s***. If any of you self proclaimed apologists HONESTLY feel like this place is a "sty", as Pahoran has labeled it, then quit posting here. Don't be a hypocrite.

I don't have any problem with someone being passionate about his/her beliefs. What I DO have a problem with is someone sniping, and attacking a poster in lieu of addressing an issue.

And, if you think I'm picking on the believers here, I'm not. I've taken non-believers to task for the same crap.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

This has got to be just about the dumbest question someone who claims to understand LDS doctrine could possible have concocted. Do you really wan't an answer, or is this just a pretext for more verbiage?

I really want an answer.

Oh, and by the way Rollo, you've admitted to being a very staunch "liberal" in this forum, and so a question has to be asked: just when did liberals begin having problems with coerciing others (except in the sexual realm, where behavioral and moral anarchy reigns)?

"Liberals" (and other lovers of freedom) have always had a problem with coercion, sexual or otherwise.

You're concept of "old fashioned" may be little more than a personal subjective idological predjudice or psychologically driven animus.

My view is not at all driven by "animus" -- rather, by the absurdity of telling women not to tease their hair.

Still no philosophically serious argument as to what is really wrong with the standards, except you're utterly phony and contrived "coercion" claims.

Non-teased hair is now "the standard"? Egads, man, why?

Your personal animus against the age and generation of the GA's isn't relevant.

Again, no animus. But the age and generation of GA's is relevant to understand why they pick battles that the rest of us think are silly and embarrassing.

Its a very interesting subject actually; the intersection between how we adorn, ornament, and symbolize ourselves, and the core principles of the Gospel regarding the nature of "spirituality" and our attainment of it.

Please explain how non-teased hair bestows greater "spirituality" within the core principles of the Gospel.

But, as an expert on LDS doctrine and philosophy yourself, why should I even need to elucidate this to you?

The issue is not "the need" -- rather, the fact is you can't, which illustrates perfectly why the non-teased hair 'unwritten rule' is absurd on its face.