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

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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.

You honestly believe BKP's comment on teased hair came from God? You are even more delusional than I originally thought.

[_Who Knows]

I think you are attempting a fantastic stretch of the English language and the imagination in at attempt to artificially construct a criticism of the church that belies the lengths you feel you have to go to to pull a rabbit out of that hat.

Actually, what I'm saying fits perfectly with the english language. It's you that's trying to narrowly define the term to exclude it from applying here.

It is quite clear to me that the making known or communication of the possible adverse consequences of x behavior is about as far from coercion as one can go. We apparantly disagree on the connotations as well as lexical definitions of the language, and so cannot communicate very well. You have clearly, for psychological or purly polemical reasons, conflated the concepts of coercion and persuasion such that to attempt to persuade you through argument or authoritative explication (if you accept that I have some authority) that adverse consequences may follow from imitation of the styles and manners (and mannerisms) of those in the great and spacious building is tantamount to exercising some kind of coercive power over you.[/quote]

Sorry, I never used the term 'coercion', so this is N/A for me. Nice try though. How about you address what I ACTUALLY said.

The best argument I could muster that your entire position here is bogus is the very fact that you and a number of others here, many of which were once members of the church, are here all taking contrary positions.

So, contrary positions makes the entire thing bogus? Are you really sure you want to go there?

That very fact puts the whole 'coercion" claim about church counsel into the philosophical waste basket where conceptual or logically self negating arguments and claims belong.

blah blah blah...strawman...blah blah blah.

[_Runtu]

You honestly believe BKP's comment on teased hair came from God? You are even more delusional than I originally thought.

One of the things I realized not long ago in rereading BKP's "Unwritten Order of Things" talk is that he tells us that these are the things that "bother" him. Now, one could argue that they bother him because the spirit tells him they're wrong, or more likely, they just are things that bother him. I'm guessing the latter. The problem for me is that if these are really counsel from revelation, then God is a rather petty being who is unconcerned about the major problems of the world and instead worries about the proper amount of hair teasing.

[_harmony]

One of the things I realized not long ago in rereading BKP's "Unwritten Order of Things" talk is that he tells us that these are the things that "bother" him. Now, one could argue that they bother him because the spirit tells him they're wrong, or more likely, they just are things that bother him. I'm guessing the latter. The problem for me is that if these are really counsel from revelation, then God is a rather petty being who is unconcerned about the major problems of the world and instead worries about the proper amount of hair teasing.

And that is why I have such a hard time believing anything Packer says is from God. I mean, good grief! The man is so petty about things that are natural, that don't matter one whit, that are totally innocuous or simply a matter of personal style, yet he completely disregards the real problems of the world, like poverty, starvation, escalating violence, rampant disease, etc. Which is why we get nonsense like this that is supposedly "binding" on the Saints, according to Loran, yet has absolutley nothing to do with anything remotely connected to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

[_Coggins7]

And that is why I have such a hard time believing anything Packer says is from God. I mean, good grief! The man is so petty about things that are natural, that don't matter one whit, that are totally innocuous or simply a matter of personal style, yet he completely disregards the real problems of the world, like poverty, starvation, escalating violence, rampant disease, etc. Which is why we get nonsense like this that is supposedly "binding" on the Saints, according to Loran, yet has absolutley nothing to do with anything remotely connected to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Would you please explain what you mean when you say that things like hair styles, tatooing, body piercing, or clothing styles are "natural".

2. Neither Packer nor the church has ever disregarded poverty, starvation, or violence.

3. Could you explain what you believe the church can do about "rampant disease" and which diseases you have in mind.

4. Root-Te-Toot, Root-Te-Toot...

[_Mister Scratch]

And that is why I have such a hard time believing anything Packer says is from God. I mean, good grief! The man is so petty about things that are natural, that don't matter one whit, that are totally innocuous or simply a matter of personal style, yet he completely disregards the real problems of the world, like poverty, starvation, escalating violence, rampant disease, etc. Which is why we get nonsense like this that is supposedly "binding" on the Saints, according to Loran, yet has absolutley nothing to do with anything remotely connected to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Would you please explain what you mean when you say that things like hair styles, tatooing, body piercing, or clothing styles are "natural".

2. Neither Packer nor the church has ever disregarded poverty, starvation, or violence.

You're right. In fact, President Packer appeared to be advocating violence against homosexuals in his infamous "little factory" speech.

Yet another well-crafted rebuttal from you, Loran. Well done!

[_moksha]

In fact, President Packer appeared to be advocating violence against homosexuals in his infamous "little factory" speech.

Are you saying that President Packer was able to lead a successful boycott against his own little factory? Do you suppose any of the factory was damaged or destroyed during the conflict? Was it shut down?

[_Coggins7]

You're right. In fact, President Packer appeared to be advocating violence against homosexuals in his infamous "little factory" speech.

Yet another well-crafted rebuttal from you, Loran. Well done!

Uh huh. Right. This is just another nail in the coffin of any intellecutal integrity or credibility you may ever have had.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

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

But you are not a "liberal" in that sense Rollo, and you know it. I am the "Liberal" here, not you. You are a Liberal in the late 20th century sense; that is, a leftist. And that kind of liberal has a very selective criteria for his definition of "freedom" that can be quite ideosyncratic and plastic.

Quote:
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.

If it really were not an animus, you could field an actaul critical argument as to just why it was absurd, as opposed to simply repeating that you think it is.

Quote:
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.

Too long, too much thought to go into it at this hour, and it may be over your head.

[_harmony]

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

Too long, too much thought to go into it at this hour, and it may be over your head.

In other words, you don't have an explanation. I'm not at all surprised.