Coggins7 wrote:Rollo Tomasi wrote: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 wrote: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.
Coggins7 wrote:I'm not going to waste my time on a well thought out, lengthy discussion of the principles and ideas behind such things as Packer raised in his talk for the simple reason that I have learned over the years that, when dealing with people like those exmos and anti-Mormons who frequent forums such as this, crafting long, in depth philosophical arguments about things such as this will only be met by more smarmy, paternalistic dismissals and mocking sarcasm. The points, logical structure, and philsophical premises will never be substantively engaged, and the dialog from leftist, anti-Judeo/Christian value relativists like Scratch, Harmony, and Rollo will continue at the level of the snide bashing of GAs and highly disingenuous claims of the benign nature of radical Feminism and its policy iniitatives, all of which are founded in its particular form of the traditional cultural Marxist oppressor/oppressed parigdim relative to the relations between men and woman as well as its utter hostility to both classical liberalism, encomic liberty ("capitalism"), and the Judeo/Christian foundations of much of America's law, jurisprudence, and social fabric.
In other words, I have much, much more than a clue, and I'd love to share it with others, especially when they may disagree with me, if, and only if, they are capable of the level of discourse at which I would like to engage theses subjects. My present interlocutors are not, and so I'm not.
You were all, all of you, running on fumes when you began this debate, and the fumes have now become trace gases. The ERA was an attempt to impose radical Feminist ideology on the constitution and on the American body politic by first amending the constitution to reflect that ideology in a vague, nebulous construction that would allow later leftist special interest lawyers and activist judges to interpret and reinterpret the amendment in as creative a manner as they wished, hopefully to the end of destroying the traditional family, marriage, the romantic and long term committed bonds between men and woman, and the disciplines and restrictions upon unbridled sexuality combined with the Boomer generation materialist focus on self encouraged by marriage, family responsabilities, and committments to both the community and nation of which one is a part. This is a focus not just on self and personal sexual relationships, but on future generations as part of a dedication to principles larger than just the self, its personal desires, and the male/female sexual/romantic/emotinal relationship in and of itself.
Coggins7 wrote:I'm not going to waste my time on a well thought out, lengthy discussion of the principles and ideas behind such things as Packer raised in his talk for the simple reason that I have learned over the years that, when dealing with people like those exmos and anti-Mormons who frequent forums such as this, crafting long, in depth philosophical arguments about things such as this will only be met by more smarmy, paternalistic dismissals and mocking sarcasm. The points, logical structure, and philsophical premises will never be substantively engaged, and the dialog from leftist, anti-Judeo/Christian value relativists like Scratch, Harmony, and Rollo will continue at the level of the snide bashing of GAs and highly disingenuous claims of the benign nature of radical Feminism and its policy iniitatives, all of which are founded in its particular form of the traditional cultural Marxist oppressor/oppressed parigdim relative to the relations between men and woman as well as its utter hostility to both classical liberalism, encomic liberty ("capitalism"), and the Judeo/Christian foundations of much of America's law, jurisprudence, and social fabric.
WOW! You got all that from teased hair? I'm don't think even Boyd himself has thought this deeply about it. He just thought teased hair = harlot, but you've taken it to a whole new level that involves radical feminists and even Karl Marx. This is totally deep, man. So what are the socio-economic implications of lambchop sideburns?
Loran, I know at Salt Lake Community College, the students in Cosmetology spend a considerable amount of time teasing the hair of their practice dummies (no, not me - I mean the artificial ones) in preparation for teasing the hair of their women customers. Should the LDS students refuse to participate on the grounds that it violates their newly defined religious principles?
Coggins7 wrote:
The answer is no. As I heard Packer's talk, the counsel was for Latter Day Saints, not those of the great and spacious building. And, as Packer's counsel had no particular moral meaning, in and of itself, nothing precludes Mormon hair stylists from teasing the hair of others, just as nothing prevents Mormon restaruant or hotel owners from serving liquor. Just as alcohol is not in and of itself evil, neither is teased hair, and this was not Packer's meaning. Teased hair, overuse of body ornimentation, such as earrings, jewlry, tattoos, body piercing, to different degrees, are an integral part of the culture of "the world" represented by the great and spacious building, and the Saints don't need to be imitating Babylon, even in small things, because imitation, in time, very often leads to integration.
Gospel teachings try to avoid sin at the periphery so that it need not be dealty with later at the center, or core.
Coggins7 wrote:WOW! You got all that from teased hair? I'm don't think even Boyd himself has thought this deeply about it. He just thought teased hair = harlot, but you've taken it to a whole new level that involves radical feminists and even Karl Marx. This is totally deep, man. So what are the socio-economic implications of lambchop sideburns?
Well, no. This was mostly in response to the continued attempts of both Scratch and Harmony to try to hide what they, the proponents of the ERA and its originators really are: Leftists with an agenda and belief system wholly out of harmony with the founding principles of this nation and the legal document that is the supreme law of that nation. The attempt to whitewash and minimize the effects and original intent of one of the most ideologically extreme political attacks on constitutional government and the classical liberal foundations of it are what brought this on, not the original "teased hair" debate.