LDS hair standards

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
TrueFaith
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2382

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by TrueFaith »

When people call Paul and Peter "Pharisees" for their teachings, you know they've gone off the deep end of false doctrine in the other direction.

"By their fruits ye shall know them.". I know your heart by how you dress and how you act. I've worked with a lot of long hair individuals and they were all eventually fired because their work ethic matched their hygiene ethic.

It's not cool, it's not hip, it's not righteous to not cut your hair. LDS and Christian paintings of hippie Jesus is not reality. You can have good hygiene and not be a Pharisee. What utter nonsense. God judges us by "every word that proceeds out of our mouths" and by "our thoughts, words, AND deeds". How we act and how we dress is important to God. Every action of life is recorded in heaven, even those done to our own bodies.

Just keep calling me a "moron". I won't report you. I forgive you.
Last edited by TrueFaith on July 18th, 2021, 12:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Aprhys
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1128

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by Aprhys »

TrueFaith wrote: July 18th, 2021, 12:29 pm When people call Paul and Peter "Pharisees" for their teachings, you know they've gone off the deep end of false doctrine in the other direction.

"By their fruits ye shall know them.". I know your heart by how you dress and how you act. I've worked with a lot of long hair slobs and they were all eventually fired because their work ethic matched their hygiene ethic.

It's not cool, it's not hip, it's not righteous to not cut your hair. LDS and Christian paintings of hippie Jesus is not reality. You can have good hygiene and not be a Pharisee. What utter nonsense.
So I assume that you are a clean cut individual. Therefore, I can say that 1) the long haired engineer I am working with today is a very smart and hard working individual who I enjoy spending time with and is a good hearted and kind person who has a great family and takes great care of his family. 2) The short-haired, hard core LDS individual who is judging others based upon their appearance. Is obviously a narcissist and an unkind person based upon their written statements. Has a superiority complex for those who don't follow their personal understanding of scriptures. Is probably a difficult person to be around in both personal and group situations. Based upon these assumptions I will choose to be around individual "A."

TrueFaith
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2382

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by TrueFaith »

Aprhys wrote: July 18th, 2021, 12:39 pm
TrueFaith wrote: July 18th, 2021, 12:29 pm When people call Paul and Peter "Pharisees" for their teachings, you know they've gone off the deep end of false doctrine in the other direction.

"By their fruits ye shall know them.". I know your heart by how you dress and how you act. I've worked with a lot of long hair slobs and they were all eventually fired because their work ethic matched their hygiene ethic.

It's not cool, it's not hip, it's not righteous to not cut your hair. LDS and Christian paintings of hippie Jesus is not reality. You can have good hygiene and not be a Pharisee. What utter nonsense.
So I assume that you are a clean cut individual. Therefore, I can say that 1) the long haired engineer I am working with today is a very smart and hard working individual who I enjoy spending time with and is a good hearted and kind person who has a great family and takes great care of his family. 2) The short-haired, hard core LDS individual who is judging others based upon their appearance. Is obviously a narcissist and an unkind person based upon their written statements. Has a superiority complex for those who don't follow their personal understanding of scriptures. Is probably a difficult person to be around in both personal and group situations. Based upon these assumptions I will choose to be around individual "A."
It's always the personal attacks when an argument is lost. Like clockwork.

I'd love to hang out with just about anyone on this forum. I have no personal animus towards anyone.

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13111
Location: England

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by Robin Hood »

I avoid pork and shellfish.
Just feels like the right thing to do.

User avatar
gkearney
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5346

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by gkearney »

Just for general information there are 1050 commandments in the New Testament which is a great deal to keep track of. The list is here:

https://www.abc.net.au/reslib/201407/r1 ... 984331.pdf

I am however curious to know if TrueFaith’s wife and daughters really never speak in church? I mean what do the do in Sunday School and Relief Society? What do they tell the Bishop if he asks them to give a talk?

Aprhys
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1128

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by Aprhys »

TrueFaith wrote: July 18th, 2021, 12:54 pm
Aprhys wrote: July 18th, 2021, 12:39 pm
TrueFaith wrote: July 18th, 2021, 12:29 pm When people call Paul and Peter "Pharisees" for their teachings, you know they've gone off the deep end of false doctrine in the other direction.

"By their fruits ye shall know them.". I know your heart by how you dress and how you act. I've worked with a lot of long hair slobs and they were all eventually fired because their work ethic matched their hygiene ethic.

It's not cool, it's not hip, it's not righteous to not cut your hair. LDS and Christian paintings of hippie Jesus is not reality. You can have good hygiene and not be a Pharisee. What utter nonsense.
So I assume that you are a clean cut individual. Therefore, I can say that 1) the long haired engineer I am working with today is a very smart and hard working individual who I enjoy spending time with and is a good hearted and kind person who has a great family and takes great care of his family. 2) The short-haired, hard core LDS individual who is judging others based upon their appearance. Is obviously a narcissist and an unkind person based upon their written statements. Has a superiority complex for those who don't follow their personal understanding of scriptures. Is probably a difficult person to be around in both personal and group situations. Based upon these assumptions I will choose to be around individual "A."
It's always the personal attacks when an argument is lost. Like clockwork.

I'd love to hang out with just about anyone on this forum. I have no personal animus towards anyone.
It was not meant as a personal attack as much as an exposing of hypocrisy. You label those who's appearance is not within your standards as not worthy of this or that. I am saying that your attitude and belief system is in stark contrast with anything Christlike.

Nomanknowsmyname
captain of 100
Posts: 108

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by Nomanknowsmyname »

TrueFaith wrote: July 16th, 2021, 10:01 am
Mindfields wrote: July 16th, 2021, 9:48 am
mcclurf wrote: June 26th, 2013, 7:26 pm Please help me with this hair issue:

A little history of my experience:
1) My temple marriage - my bishop required me to cut my hair and shave my beard to marry in the temple. So I did. But I later found out that others were not required to do so. Why???
2) As a Ward Clerk my hair started to grow out. Then the Stake Leaders ask me to cut my hair again. I did not feel the spirit in doing so. Of course they released me.
3) With my hair long I was called as a Ward YM President. 1 years later at a multi Stake Leadership meeting a church Presidency Leader from Salt Lake commanded my Bishop to release me. My Bishop was sorry and confused.
4) Had multi callings in Ward leadership with long hair e.g. Primary instructor, YM leadership, Elders Q leadership, HP Group Leader.
5) Called into the Bishopric but was informed prior to sustaining to cut my hair but could have a short groomed beard. I complied. The Stake President mention after serving the calling I could grow my hair back. I did.
6) Called to a Stake Assistance Clerk but was not ask to cut my hair.
7) Called to another Bishopric but was not informed by the Stake Presidency to cut my hair. Weeks later my Bishop said I had to cut my hair and shave my beard.

Why are the church hair standards sometimes required and sometime not required in the church. I am so confused with this issue and so are some the leaders of the church.

Should this be a standard in the church that all male members be required to fulfill the hair standards???
Should the Missionaries teach this standard to investigators???
Is this a church doctrine or is it a administration policy???

In the 2010 manuals Handbook 1 "Stake Presidents and Bishops" and 2 "Administering the Church" - I could not find any reference concerning my hair issue.
But in "For the Strength of Youth Fulfilling Our Duty to God" in the "Dress and Appearance: section it states "All should avoid extremes in clothing, appearance, and hairstyle....... Ask yourself, "Would I feel comfortable with my appearance if I were in the Lord's presence?"".

An article in Salt Lake Tribune:

BY PEGGY FLETCHER STACK THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE

PUBLISHED APRIL 5, 2013 11:09 AM

Marostica was the only LDS bishop with a beard at a recent leadership training meeting of 11 LDS stakes in the Bay Area. Mormon apostle Quentin L. Cook led the discussion and said nothing about it.

"I proudly introduce myself to apostles as Bishop Marostica," he writes. "None of them have even blinked at the beard. I certainly haven't been asked to shave it in the five years I've been bishop."

I know this is not a point of unworthiness but a point of being an example.

Can anyone help me out on this subject????
Typically Mormon. Judging by appearance ignoring the true character of the person.

"…the worst sinners, according to Jesus, are not the harlots and publicans, but the religious leaders with their insistence on proper dress and grooming, their careful observance of all the rules, their precious concern for status-symbols, their strict legality, their pious patriotism. Longhairs, beards, and necklaces, LSD and rock, Big Sur and Woodstock, come and go, but Babylon is always there: rich, respectable, immovable… We want to be vindicated in our position and to know that the world is on our side as we all join in a chorus of righteous denunciation; the haircut becomes the test of virtue in a world where Satan deceives and rules by appearances." Hugh Nibley
Hugh Nibley cared deeply about outward appearances.
On 16 February 1989, Nibley delivered a speech titled “Stewardship of the Air” at a Clean Air Symposium held at Brigham Young University.11 He opened the speech by commenting on the “miasmic exhalations” of Geneva Steel that he had been obliged to breathe over the past forty years of his life. He then observed that we learn even from the Word of Wisdom, body and mind—the temporal and the spiritual—are inseparable, and to corrupt the one is to corrupt the other. Inevitably our surroundings become a faithful reflection of our mentality and vice versa. The right people, according to Brigham Young, could convert hell to heaven, and the wrong ones heaven to hell. “Every faculty bestowed upon man is subject to contamination—subject to be diverted from the purpose the Creator designed it to fill.”
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 6451233543
Show me where Hugh Nibley said that long hair or a beard constituted corruption of the body. Nibley was speaking about the Word of Wisdom (which has nothing to do with long hair or beards), and for some reason you are using his words (which have nothing to do with long hair or beards) to justify your own non-doctrinal opinions, even though it has already been shown that Nibley did not share your opinions. I do find it humorous that this statement by Nibley contains an allusion to a statement by Brigham Young. Are you really trying to invoke Brigham Young in order to justify the idea that long hair or a beard are indicative of physical and spiritual corruption? We all know what Brigham Young would think about that. Also, Michael D. Rhodes (who has a rather extensive beard) was a long-time colleague of Hugh Nibley, and co-authored Nibley's book "One Eternal Round" (which was published after Nibley's death, and which many consider to be Nibley's magnum opus). You can see Michael D. Rhodes' beard in this recent video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmvqWFa50Lo&t=685s

24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.
28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. (Matt. 23:24-28)

". . . God has said that the inward vessel shall be cleansed first, and then shall the outer vessel be cleansed also." (Alma 60:23)

Observance of the Word of Wisdom directly affects the internal state of one's physical body, and can have discernable secondary effects that are outwardly apparent. It is not true, however, that having long hair or a beard affects or is a result of one's spiritual state, although the appearance of one's hair can say a lot about one's physical health. I currently have a beard (which happens to be much, much shorter than Michael D. Rhodes' beard). I will gladly shave it off if you can convince me that it is an abomination in the Lord's sight.

abijah`
~dog days~
Posts: 3481

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by abijah` »

Robin Hood wrote: July 18th, 2021, 12:57 pm I avoid pork and shellfish.
Just feels like the right thing to do.
Good thing haggis is kosher. How's the robin hood family haggis ranch doing? Have the experimental biltong strips been successful?

abijah`
~dog days~
Posts: 3481

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by abijah` »

BeNotDeceived wrote: July 17th, 2021, 9:43 pm Two Davidic Heralds; someone please explain this?
Herald, but not Harold? :mrgreen:

Probably anywhere on the spectrum between here and here.

I like the term "Davidic Herald"

HERALD:
1. an official messenger bringing news.
2. a person or thing viewed as a sign that something is about to happen.
"they considered the first primroses as the herald of spring"

both definitions apply, seems to me ;)
Last edited by abijah` on July 18th, 2021, 4:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by Luke »

Robin Hood wrote: July 18th, 2021, 12:57 pm I avoid pork and shellfish.
Just feels like the right thing to do.
So do I
  • "A thorough reformation is needed in regard to our eating and drinking, and on this point I will freely express myself, and shall be glad if the people will hear, believe and obey. If the people were willing to receive the true knowledge from heaven in regard to their diet they would cease eating swine's flesh. I know this as well as Moses knew it, and without putting it in a code of commandments." (Brigham Young, JD 12:192, 6 April 1868)

TrueFaith
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2382

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by TrueFaith »

Nomanknowsmyname wrote: July 18th, 2021, 4:17 pm
TrueFaith wrote: July 16th, 2021, 10:01 am
Mindfields wrote: July 16th, 2021, 9:48 am
mcclurf wrote: June 26th, 2013, 7:26 pm Please help me with this hair issue:

A little history of my experience:
1) My temple marriage - my bishop required me to cut my hair and shave my beard to marry in the temple. So I did. But I later found out that others were not required to do so. Why???
2) As a Ward Clerk my hair started to grow out. Then the Stake Leaders ask me to cut my hair again. I did not feel the spirit in doing so. Of course they released me.
3) With my hair long I was called as a Ward YM President. 1 years later at a multi Stake Leadership meeting a church Presidency Leader from Salt Lake commanded my Bishop to release me. My Bishop was sorry and confused.
4) Had multi callings in Ward leadership with long hair e.g. Primary instructor, YM leadership, Elders Q leadership, HP Group Leader.
5) Called into the Bishopric but was informed prior to sustaining to cut my hair but could have a short groomed beard. I complied. The Stake President mention after serving the calling I could grow my hair back. I did.
6) Called to a Stake Assistance Clerk but was not ask to cut my hair.
7) Called to another Bishopric but was not informed by the Stake Presidency to cut my hair. Weeks later my Bishop said I had to cut my hair and shave my beard.

Why are the church hair standards sometimes required and sometime not required in the church. I am so confused with this issue and so are some the leaders of the church.

Should this be a standard in the church that all male members be required to fulfill the hair standards???
Should the Missionaries teach this standard to investigators???
Is this a church doctrine or is it a administration policy???

In the 2010 manuals Handbook 1 "Stake Presidents and Bishops" and 2 "Administering the Church" - I could not find any reference concerning my hair issue.
But in "For the Strength of Youth Fulfilling Our Duty to God" in the "Dress and Appearance: section it states "All should avoid extremes in clothing, appearance, and hairstyle....... Ask yourself, "Would I feel comfortable with my appearance if I were in the Lord's presence?"".

An article in Salt Lake Tribune:

BY PEGGY FLETCHER STACK THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE

PUBLISHED APRIL 5, 2013 11:09 AM

Marostica was the only LDS bishop with a beard at a recent leadership training meeting of 11 LDS stakes in the Bay Area. Mormon apostle Quentin L. Cook led the discussion and said nothing about it.

"I proudly introduce myself to apostles as Bishop Marostica," he writes. "None of them have even blinked at the beard. I certainly haven't been asked to shave it in the five years I've been bishop."

I know this is not a point of unworthiness but a point of being an example.

Can anyone help me out on this subject????
Typically Mormon. Judging by appearance ignoring the true character of the person.

"…the worst sinners, according to Jesus, are not the harlots and publicans, but the religious leaders with their insistence on proper dress and grooming, their careful observance of all the rules, their precious concern for status-symbols, their strict legality, their pious patriotism. Longhairs, beards, and necklaces, LSD and rock, Big Sur and Woodstock, come and go, but Babylon is always there: rich, respectable, immovable… We want to be vindicated in our position and to know that the world is on our side as we all join in a chorus of righteous denunciation; the haircut becomes the test of virtue in a world where Satan deceives and rules by appearances." Hugh Nibley
Hugh Nibley cared deeply about outward appearances.
On 16 February 1989, Nibley delivered a speech titled “Stewardship of the Air” at a Clean Air Symposium held at Brigham Young University.11 He opened the speech by commenting on the “miasmic exhalations” of Geneva Steel that he had been obliged to breathe over the past forty years of his life. He then observed that we learn even from the Word of Wisdom, body and mind—the temporal and the spiritual—are inseparable, and to corrupt the one is to corrupt the other. Inevitably our surroundings become a faithful reflection of our mentality and vice versa. The right people, according to Brigham Young, could convert hell to heaven, and the wrong ones heaven to hell. “Every faculty bestowed upon man is subject to contamination—subject to be diverted from the purpose the Creator designed it to fill.”
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 6451233543
Show me where Hugh Nibley said that long hair or a beard constituted corruption of the body. Nibley was speaking about the Word of Wisdom (which has nothing to do with long hair or beards), and for some reason you are using his words (which have nothing to do with long hair or beards) to justify your own non-doctrinal opinions, even though it has already been shown that Nibley did not share your opinions. I do find it humorous that this statement by Nibley contains an allusion to a statement by Brigham Young. Are you really trying to invoke Brigham Young in order to justify the idea that long hair or a beard are indicative of physical and spiritual corruption? We all know what Brigham Young would think about that. Also, Michael D. Rhodes (who has a rather extensive beard) was a long-time colleague of Hugh Nibley, and co-authored Nibley's book "One Eternal Round" (which was published after Nibley's death, and which many consider to be Nibley's magnum opus). You can see Michael D. Rhodes' beard in this recent video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmvqWFa50Lo&t=685s

24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.
28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. (Matt. 23:24-28)

". . . God has said that the inward vessel shall be cleansed first, and then shall the outer vessel be cleansed also." (Alma 60:23)

Observance of the Word of Wisdom directly affects the internal state of one's physical body, and can have discernable secondary effects that are outwardly apparent. It is not true, however, that having long hair or a beard affects or is a result of one's spiritual state, although the appearance of one's hair can say a lot about one's physical health. I currently have a beard (which happens to be much, much shorter than Michael D. Rhodes' beard). I will gladly shave it off if you can convince me that it is an abomination in the Lord's sight.
1) I was quoting Nibley because he discusses in great length that God has commanded that we take care of the temporal if we want to be allowed to care of the spiritual. This doctrine is repeated in many places in Scripture. If you cannot even take care of your own body, how can God expect you to take care of his Kingdom?
And just to be clear, I don't agree with everything Nibley has said. He clearly had some wacky false doctrinal ideas.
2) I never said I had a problem with beards.
3) You're saying 1 Corinthians 11 is my "non doctrinal opinion". Think about that a bit more.
4) "It is not true, however, that having long hair or a beard affects or is a result of one's spiritual state".
Ever hear of Samson?

Here is the bottom line. Most here seem to think that throwing out passages of New Testament doctrine is justified. God, through the Apostle Paul (who saw the Resurrected Christ) has commanded men to not wear long hair.

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"

Paul says it's so obviously wrong that even nature teaches it. Long hair in men is as unnatural as gay sex and crossdressing.

You can rage and gnash your teeth against God's word all you like, but you WILL be held accountable for it. God does judge us for our outward actions and dress and for disregarding scripture.

User avatar
gkearney
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5346

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by gkearney »

Oh for goodness sake’s we are now to compare long hair on men with Gay sex!? Just where is this going to end pray tell?

Also so that we are all one the same page here just how long does hair need to be to be considered “too long”? Clearly something so vital to a man’s salvation and eternal welfare as the length of his hair must have exact standards, right?

abijah`
~dog days~
Posts: 3481

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by abijah` »

TrueFaith wrote: July 16th, 2021, 9:38 am I see nothing wrong with a well trimmed beard. However long hair in men is spoken against in the New Testament.

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" 1 Corin 11:14
Its possible Paul was just speaking in terms of then-established Greco-Roman medical and symbolic/ritual frameworks. They thought hair was absorptive, and that having long hair on the head was culturally considered distinctly feminine, them being the "receiving" gender (hence the hair/absorption correlation). "Parabalion" = "testicle".

https://brendansaltvick.wordpress.com/2 ... your-head/
abijah` wrote: October 6th, 2020, 2:23 pm found it, i was right about the priestess connotations: https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/wp-conte ... ians11.pdf

apparently paul was speaking according to the ancient greco-roman's understanding of medicine/science at the time. from hippocrates to aristotle to basically all the top guys in these fields in that culture, they all viewed long female hair as characteristic of female fertility, and why its therefore a shame for man to have long hair etc.

so basically paul seems to be teaching teaching priesthood doctrine through the language & understanding of ancient greco-roman pseudoscience
Last edited by abijah` on July 18th, 2021, 7:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
BeNotDeceived
Agent38
Posts: 8960
Location: Tralfamadore
Contact:

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by BeNotDeceived »

abijah` wrote: July 18th, 2021, 4:33 pm
BeNotDeceived wrote: July 17th, 2021, 9:43 pm Two Davidic Heralds; someone please explain this?
Herald, but not Harold? :mrgreen: nope not dbnp. :(

Probably anywhere on the spectrum between here and here.

I like the term "Davidic Herald"

HERALD:
1. an official messenger bringing news.
2. a person or thing viewed as a sign that something is about to happen.
"they considered the first primroses as the herald of spring"

both definitions apply, seems to me ;)
Good Guess, but not as per DBNP :geek: :mrgreen: x2

Harry, but not Micheal. :mrgreen: dbnp

Why/how the article guy came up Micheal is beyond little, but not me. :geek: dbnp

Haakon but not Harold. :mrgreen: dbnp

abijah`
~dog days~
Posts: 3481

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by abijah` »

BeNotDeceived wrote: July 18th, 2021, 7:13 pm :mrgreen: dbnp
¿Donuts Biscuits Nutella and Pie?

User avatar
Willow
captain of 100
Posts: 275

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by Willow »

abijah` wrote: July 18th, 2021, 7:30 pm
BeNotDeceived wrote: July 18th, 2021, 7:13 pm :mrgreen: dbnp
¿Donuts Biscuits Nutella and Pie?
I like the way you look at the world 🙂

Willow

User avatar
BeNotDeceived
Agent38
Posts: 8960
Location: Tralfamadore
Contact:

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by BeNotDeceived »

abijah` wrote: July 18th, 2021, 7:30 pm
BeNotDeceived wrote: July 18th, 2021, 7:13 pm :mrgreen: dbnp
¿Donuts Biscuits Nutella and Pie?
Good yummy guess, but not as per dbnp. :geek: :mrgreen: :geek: x3

abijah`
~dog days~
Posts: 3481

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by abijah` »

BeNotDeceived wrote: July 18th, 2021, 7:50 pm Good yummy guess, but not as per dbnp. :geek: :mrgreen: :geek: x3
Rats.

better luck next time i guess.

User avatar
BeNotDeceived
Agent38
Posts: 8960
Location: Tralfamadore
Contact:

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by BeNotDeceived »

abijah` wrote: July 18th, 2021, 8:02 pm
BeNotDeceived wrote: July 18th, 2021, 7:50 pm Good yummy guess, but not as per dbnp. :geek: :mrgreen: :geek: x3
Rats.

better luck next time i guess.
Better, but not luck. :geek: dbnp

Nomanknowsmyname
captain of 100
Posts: 108

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by Nomanknowsmyname »

TrueFaith wrote: July 18th, 2021, 5:13 pm
Nomanknowsmyname wrote: July 18th, 2021, 4:17 pm
TrueFaith wrote: July 16th, 2021, 10:01 am
Mindfields wrote: July 16th, 2021, 9:48 am

Typically Mormon. Judging by appearance ignoring the true character of the person.

"…the worst sinners, according to Jesus, are not the harlots and publicans, but the religious leaders with their insistence on proper dress and grooming, their careful observance of all the rules, their precious concern for status-symbols, their strict legality, their pious patriotism. Longhairs, beards, and necklaces, LSD and rock, Big Sur and Woodstock, come and go, but Babylon is always there: rich, respectable, immovable… We want to be vindicated in our position and to know that the world is on our side as we all join in a chorus of righteous denunciation; the haircut becomes the test of virtue in a world where Satan deceives and rules by appearances." Hugh Nibley
Hugh Nibley cared deeply about outward appearances.
On 16 February 1989, Nibley delivered a speech titled “Stewardship of the Air” at a Clean Air Symposium held at Brigham Young University.11 He opened the speech by commenting on the “miasmic exhalations” of Geneva Steel that he had been obliged to breathe over the past forty years of his life. He then observed that we learn even from the Word of Wisdom, body and mind—the temporal and the spiritual—are inseparable, and to corrupt the one is to corrupt the other. Inevitably our surroundings become a faithful reflection of our mentality and vice versa. The right people, according to Brigham Young, could convert hell to heaven, and the wrong ones heaven to hell. “Every faculty bestowed upon man is subject to contamination—subject to be diverted from the purpose the Creator designed it to fill.”
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 6451233543
Show me where Hugh Nibley said that long hair constituted corruption of the body. Nibley was speaking about the Word of Wisdom (which has nothing to do with long hair or beards), and for some reason you are using his words (which have nothing to do with long hair or beards) to justify your own non-doctrinal opinions, even though it has already been shown that Nibley did not share your opinions. I do find it humorous that this statement by Nibley contains an allusion to a statement by Brigham Young. Are you really trying to invoke Brigham Young in order to justify the idea that long hair or a beard are indicative of physical and spiritual corruption? We all know what Brigham Young would think about that. Also, Michael D. Rhodes (who has a rather extensive beard) was a long-time colleague of Hugh Nibley, and co-authored Nibley's book "One Eternal Round" (which was published after Nibley's death, and which many consider to be Nibley's magnum opus). You can see Michael D. Rhodes' beard in this recent video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmvqWFa50Lo&t=685s

24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.
28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. (Matt. 23:24-28)

". . . God has said that the inward vessel shall be cleansed first, and then shall the outer vessel be cleansed also." (Alma 60:23)

Observance of the Word of Wisdom directly affects the internal state of one's physical body, and can have discernable secondary effects that are outwardly apparent. It is not true, however, that having long hair or a beard affects or is a result of one's spiritual state, although the appearance of one's hair can say a lot about one's physical health. I currently have a beard (which happens to be much, much shorter than Michael D. Rhodes' beard). I will gladly shave it off if you can convince me that it is an abomination in the Lord's sight.
1) I was quoting Nibley because he discusses in great length that God has commanded that we take care of the temporal if we want to be allowed to care of the spiritual. This doctrine is repeated in many places in Scripture. If you cannot even take care of your own body, how can God expect you to take care of his Kingdom?
And just to be clear, I don't agree with everything Nibley has said. He clearly had some wacky false doctrinal ideas.
2) I never said I had a problem with beards.
3) You're saying 1 Corinthians 11 is my "non doctrinal opinion". Think about that a bit more.
4) "It is not true, however, that having long hair or a beard affects or is a result of one's spiritual state".
Ever hear of Samson?

Here is the bottom line. Most here seem to think that throwing out passages of New Testament doctrine is justified. God, through the Apostle Paul (who saw the Resurrected Christ) has commanded men to not wear long hair.

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"

Paul says it's so obviously wrong that even nature teaches it. Long hair in men is as unnatural as gay sex and crossdressing.

You can rage and gnash your teeth against God's word all you like, but you WILL be held accountable for it. God does judge us for our outward actions and dress and for disregarding scripture.
1) Once again, you are effectively putting words in Nibley's mouth. If Nibley ever said anything that even remotely suggested that having long hair is an indication that one does not take care of one's body I have not read it, and you have failed to provide any evidence to the contrary.

2) Fair enough.

3) It is an indisputable fact that not everything that Paul ever wrote in his epistles represents the mind and will of the Lord. We know that this is the case because Paul and the Lord told us in scripture that this was the case.

5 Wherefore, for this cause the apostle wrote unto the church, giving unto them a commandment, not of the Lord, but of himself, that a believer should not be united to an unbeliever; except the law of Moses should be done away among them,
6 That their children might remain without circumcision; and that the tradition might be done away, which saith that little children are unholy; for it was had among the Jews;
7 But little children are holy, being sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ; and this is what the scriptures mean. (D&C 74:5-7)

But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. (1 Cor. 7:6)

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. (1 Cor. 7:12-14)

39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.
(1 Cor. 7:39-40)

8 I speak not by commandment, but by occasion of the forwardness of others, and to prove the sincerity of your love.
9 For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.
10 And herein I give my advice: for this is expedient for you, who have begun before, not only to do, but also to be forward a year ago. (2 Cor. 8:8-10)

There are many things that are a matter of policy rather than doctrine.

4) Yes, I have heard of Samson. Samson allowed his hair to be cut although he was a Nazarite.

5 For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines. (Judges 13:5)

17 That he told her all his heart, and said unto her, There hath not come a razor upon mine head; for I have been a Nazarite unto God from my mother’s womb: if I be shaven, then my strength will go from me, and I shall become weak, and be like any other man. (Judges 16:17)

The fact that Samson was supposed to have long hair hardly supports your case. Also, Samson's strength was not derived from his hair; he received strength through his obedience to his vows.

20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—
21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.
(D&C 130:20-21)

Porter Rockwell has been thought of as a modern-day Samson, and many members of the Church have erroneously believed that the Lord protected him because he grew his hair long. This is what Joseph Smith actually said to him:

“I prophesy, in the name of the Lord, you—Orrin Porter Rockwell—so long as ye shall remain loyal and true to thy faith, need fear no enemy. Cut not thy hair, and no bullet or blade can harm thee.”

Porter Rockwell's hair was already long prior to this statement by Joseph Smith. Porter had decided to let his hair grow as a token of the covenants he had made. Many years later Porter's hair was cut so that it could be used to create a wig for the widow of Don Carlos Smith, who had lost all her hair due to typhoid fever. Not surprisingly, Porter was not punished by the Lord for cutting his hair, because he had not broken any covenants. Porter had voluntarily decided to let his hair grow as a token of his covenants; and when his hair was cut it was only to perform an act of service.

5) As for everything else:

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. (1 Cor. 11:5-6)

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. (1 Cor. 14:34-35)

Verse 35 goes beyond saying that women should remain silent in church; it essentially says that women should not attend church at all except to partake of the sacrament. Do you agree with this?

"I am not quite so strenuous as some of the ancients were, who taught that if the women wanted to learn anything, to learn it at home from their husbands. (1 Cor. 14:34-35) I am willing they should come to the meetings and learn, but some of the ancients proscribed them in this privilege, and would confine them at home to learn through their husbands." (Brigham Young, JD 1:67)

If I am under condemnation for not believing that absolutely everything Paul ever said was the infallible word of God, and that it is to be rigidly applied by all members of Christ's church and at all times, then you must also believe that Brigham Young is under condemnation.

1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying. (1 Cor. 14:1-5)

Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. (1 Cor. 14:39)

If it is better to prophesy than to speak in tongues, and if speaking in tongues is not to be forbidden (so long as there is an interpreter, see 1 Cor. 14:27-28), then why would prophesying be forbidden (see 1 Cor. 11:5)?

TrueFaith
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2382

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by TrueFaith »

Nomanknowsmyname wrote: July 19th, 2021, 12:51 am
TrueFaith wrote: July 18th, 2021, 5:13 pm
Nomanknowsmyname wrote: July 18th, 2021, 4:17 pm
TrueFaith wrote: July 16th, 2021, 10:01 am

Hugh Nibley cared deeply about outward appearances.



https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 6451233543
Show me where Hugh Nibley said that long hair constituted corruption of the body. Nibley was speaking about the Word of Wisdom (which has nothing to do with long hair or beards), and for some reason you are using his words (which have nothing to do with long hair or beards) to justify your own non-doctrinal opinions, even though it has already been shown that Nibley did not share your opinions. I do find it humorous that this statement by Nibley contains an allusion to a statement by Brigham Young. Are you really trying to invoke Brigham Young in order to justify the idea that long hair or a beard are indicative of physical and spiritual corruption? We all know what Brigham Young would think about that. Also, Michael D. Rhodes (who has a rather extensive beard) was a long-time colleague of Hugh Nibley, and co-authored Nibley's book "One Eternal Round" (which was published after Nibley's death, and which many consider to be Nibley's magnum opus). You can see Michael D. Rhodes' beard in this recent video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmvqWFa50Lo&t=685s

24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.
28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. (Matt. 23:24-28)

". . . God has said that the inward vessel shall be cleansed first, and then shall the outer vessel be cleansed also." (Alma 60:23)

Observance of the Word of Wisdom directly affects the internal state of one's physical body, and can have discernable secondary effects that are outwardly apparent. It is not true, however, that having long hair or a beard affects or is a result of one's spiritual state, although the appearance of one's hair can say a lot about one's physical health. I currently have a beard (which happens to be much, much shorter than Michael D. Rhodes' beard). I will gladly shave it off if you can convince me that it is an abomination in the Lord's sight.
1) I was quoting Nibley because he discusses in great length that God has commanded that we take care of the temporal if we want to be allowed to care of the spiritual. This doctrine is repeated in many places in Scripture. If you cannot even take care of your own body, how can God expect you to take care of his Kingdom?
And just to be clear, I don't agree with everything Nibley has said. He clearly had some wacky false doctrinal ideas.
2) I never said I had a problem with beards.
3) You're saying 1 Corinthians 11 is my "non doctrinal opinion". Think about that a bit more.
4) "It is not true, however, that having long hair or a beard affects or is a result of one's spiritual state".
Ever hear of Samson?

Here is the bottom line. Most here seem to think that throwing out passages of New Testament doctrine is justified. God, through the Apostle Paul (who saw the Resurrected Christ) has commanded men to not wear long hair.

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"

Paul says it's so obviously wrong that even nature teaches it. Long hair in men is as unnatural as gay sex and crossdressing.

You can rage and gnash your teeth against God's word all you like, but you WILL be held accountable for it. God does judge us for our outward actions and dress and for disregarding scripture.
1) Once again, you are effectively putting words in Nibley's mouth. If Nibley ever said anything that even remotely suggested that having long hair is an indication that one does not take care of one's body I have not read it, and you have failed to provide any evidence to the contrary.

2) Fair enough.

3) It is an indisputable fact that not everything that Paul ever wrote in his epistles represents the mind and will of the Lord. We know that this is the case because Paul and the Lord told us in scripture that this was the case.

5 Wherefore, for this cause the apostle wrote unto the church, giving unto them a commandment, not of the Lord, but of himself, that a believer should not be united to an unbeliever; except the law of Moses should be done away among them,
6 That their children might remain without circumcision; and that the tradition might be done away, which saith that little children are unholy; for it was had among the Jews;
7 But little children are holy, being sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ; and this is what the scriptures mean. (D&C 74:5-7)

But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. (1 Cor. 7:6)

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. (1 Cor. 7:12-14)

39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.
(1 Cor. 7:39-40)

8 I speak not by commandment, but by occasion of the forwardness of others, and to prove the sincerity of your love.
9 For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.
10 And herein I give my advice: for this is expedient for you, who have begun before, not only to do, but also to be forward a year ago. (2 Cor. 8:8-10)

There are many things that are a matter of policy rather than doctrine.

4) Yes, I have heard of Samson. Samson allowed his hair to be cut although he was a Nazarite.

5 For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines. (Judges 13:5)

17 That he told her all his heart, and said unto her, There hath not come a razor upon mine head; for I have been a Nazarite unto God from my mother’s womb: if I be shaven, then my strength will go from me, and I shall become weak, and be like any other man. (Judges 16:17)

The fact that Samson was supposed to have long hair hardly supports your case. Also, Samson's strength was not derived from his hair; he received strength through his obedience to his vows.

20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—
21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.
(D&C 130:20-21)

Porter Rockwell has been thought of as a modern-day Samson, and many members of the Church have erroneously believed that the Lord protected him because he grew his hair long. This is what Joseph Smith actually said to him:

“I prophesy, in the name of the Lord, you—Orrin Porter Rockwell—so long as ye shall remain loyal and true to thy faith, need fear no enemy. Cut not thy hair, and no bullet or blade can harm thee.”

Porter Rockwell's hair was already long prior to this statement by Joseph Smith. Porter had decided to let his hair grow as a token of the covenants he had made. Many years later Porter's hair was cut so that it could be used to create a wig for the widow of Don Carlos Smith, who had lost all her hair due to typhoid fever. Not surprisingly, Porter was not punished by the Lord for cutting his hair, because he had not broken any covenants. Porter had voluntarily decided to let his hair grow as a token of his covenants; and when his hair was cut it was only to perform an act of service.

5) As for everything else:

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. (1 Cor. 11:5-6)

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. (1 Cor. 14:34-35)

Verse 35 goes beyond saying that women should remain silent in church; it essentially says that women should not attend church at all except to partake of the sacrament. Do you agree with this?

"I am not quite so strenuous as some of the ancients were, who taught that if the women wanted to learn anything, to learn it at home from their husbands. (1 Cor. 14:34-35) I am willing they should come to the meetings and learn, but some of the ancients proscribed them in this privilege, and would confine them at home to learn through their husbands." (Brigham Young, JD 1:67)

If I am under condemnation for not believing that absolutely everything Paul ever said was the infallible word of God, and that it is to be rigidly applied by all members of Christ's church and at all times, then you must also believe that Brigham Young is under condemnation.

1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying. (1 Cor. 14:1-5)

Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. (1 Cor. 14:39)

If it is better to prophesy than to speak in tongues, and if speaking in tongues is not to be forbidden (so long as there is an interpreter, see 1 Cor. 14:27-28), then why would prophesying be forbidden (see 1 Cor. 11:5)?
Utter nonsense. The New Testament is the word of God, all of it. We should be following and obeying every word. The idea that some verses are simply to be ignored is pure speculation and excuse-making via logic twisted sophistry because it doesn't conform to modern worldly standards.

Paul says long hair goes against "nature". You think nature only applies to the Romans or a single audience Paul was speaking to?

You simply make things up. It says no such thing about women not taking the sacrament or not attending church.

User avatar
Durzan
The Lord's Trusty Maverick
Posts: 3728
Location: Standing between the Light and the Darkness.

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by Durzan »

TrueFaith wrote: July 19th, 2021, 6:34 am
Nomanknowsmyname wrote: July 19th, 2021, 12:51 am
TrueFaith wrote: July 18th, 2021, 5:13 pm
Nomanknowsmyname wrote: July 18th, 2021, 4:17 pm

Show me where Hugh Nibley said that long hair constituted corruption of the body. Nibley was speaking about the Word of Wisdom (which has nothing to do with long hair or beards), and for some reason you are using his words (which have nothing to do with long hair or beards) to justify your own non-doctrinal opinions, even though it has already been shown that Nibley did not share your opinions. I do find it humorous that this statement by Nibley contains an allusion to a statement by Brigham Young. Are you really trying to invoke Brigham Young in order to justify the idea that long hair or a beard are indicative of physical and spiritual corruption? We all know what Brigham Young would think about that. Also, Michael D. Rhodes (who has a rather extensive beard) was a long-time colleague of Hugh Nibley, and co-authored Nibley's book "One Eternal Round" (which was published after Nibley's death, and which many consider to be Nibley's magnum opus). You can see Michael D. Rhodes' beard in this recent video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmvqWFa50Lo&t=685s

24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.
28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. (Matt. 23:24-28)

". . . God has said that the inward vessel shall be cleansed first, and then shall the outer vessel be cleansed also." (Alma 60:23)

Observance of the Word of Wisdom directly affects the internal state of one's physical body, and can have discernable secondary effects that are outwardly apparent. It is not true, however, that having long hair or a beard affects or is a result of one's spiritual state, although the appearance of one's hair can say a lot about one's physical health. I currently have a beard (which happens to be much, much shorter than Michael D. Rhodes' beard). I will gladly shave it off if you can convince me that it is an abomination in the Lord's sight.
1) I was quoting Nibley because he discusses in great length that God has commanded that we take care of the temporal if we want to be allowed to care of the spiritual. This doctrine is repeated in many places in Scripture. If you cannot even take care of your own body, how can God expect you to take care of his Kingdom?
And just to be clear, I don't agree with everything Nibley has said. He clearly had some wacky false doctrinal ideas.
2) I never said I had a problem with beards.
3) You're saying 1 Corinthians 11 is my "non doctrinal opinion". Think about that a bit more.
4) "It is not true, however, that having long hair or a beard affects or is a result of one's spiritual state".
Ever hear of Samson?

Here is the bottom line. Most here seem to think that throwing out passages of New Testament doctrine is justified. God, through the Apostle Paul (who saw the Resurrected Christ) has commanded men to not wear long hair.

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"

Paul says it's so obviously wrong that even nature teaches it. Long hair in men is as unnatural as gay sex and crossdressing.

You can rage and gnash your teeth against God's word all you like, but you WILL be held accountable for it. God does judge us for our outward actions and dress and for disregarding scripture.
1) Once again, you are effectively putting words in Nibley's mouth. If Nibley ever said anything that even remotely suggested that having long hair is an indication that one does not take care of one's body I have not read it, and you have failed to provide any evidence to the contrary.

2) Fair enough.

3) It is an indisputable fact that not everything that Paul ever wrote in his epistles represents the mind and will of the Lord. We know that this is the case because Paul and the Lord told us in scripture that this was the case.

5 Wherefore, for this cause the apostle wrote unto the church, giving unto them a commandment, not of the Lord, but of himself, that a believer should not be united to an unbeliever; except the law of Moses should be done away among them,
6 That their children might remain without circumcision; and that the tradition might be done away, which saith that little children are unholy; for it was had among the Jews;
7 But little children are holy, being sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ; and this is what the scriptures mean. (D&C 74:5-7)

But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. (1 Cor. 7:6)

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. (1 Cor. 7:12-14)

39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.
(1 Cor. 7:39-40)

8 I speak not by commandment, but by occasion of the forwardness of others, and to prove the sincerity of your love.
9 For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.
10 And herein I give my advice: for this is expedient for you, who have begun before, not only to do, but also to be forward a year ago. (2 Cor. 8:8-10)

There are many things that are a matter of policy rather than doctrine.

4) Yes, I have heard of Samson. Samson allowed his hair to be cut although he was a Nazarite.

5 For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines. (Judges 13:5)

17 That he told her all his heart, and said unto her, There hath not come a razor upon mine head; for I have been a Nazarite unto God from my mother’s womb: if I be shaven, then my strength will go from me, and I shall become weak, and be like any other man. (Judges 16:17)

The fact that Samson was supposed to have long hair hardly supports your case. Also, Samson's strength was not derived from his hair; he received strength through his obedience to his vows.

20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—
21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.
(D&C 130:20-21)

Porter Rockwell has been thought of as a modern-day Samson, and many members of the Church have erroneously believed that the Lord protected him because he grew his hair long. This is what Joseph Smith actually said to him:

“I prophesy, in the name of the Lord, you—Orrin Porter Rockwell—so long as ye shall remain loyal and true to thy faith, need fear no enemy. Cut not thy hair, and no bullet or blade can harm thee.”

Porter Rockwell's hair was already long prior to this statement by Joseph Smith. Porter had decided to let his hair grow as a token of the covenants he had made. Many years later Porter's hair was cut so that it could be used to create a wig for the widow of Don Carlos Smith, who had lost all her hair due to typhoid fever. Not surprisingly, Porter was not punished by the Lord for cutting his hair, because he had not broken any covenants. Porter had voluntarily decided to let his hair grow as a token of his covenants; and when his hair was cut it was only to perform an act of service.

5) As for everything else:

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. (1 Cor. 11:5-6)

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. (1 Cor. 14:34-35)

Verse 35 goes beyond saying that women should remain silent in church; it essentially says that women should not attend church at all except to partake of the sacrament. Do you agree with this?

"I am not quite so strenuous as some of the ancients were, who taught that if the women wanted to learn anything, to learn it at home from their husbands. (1 Cor. 14:34-35) I am willing they should come to the meetings and learn, but some of the ancients proscribed them in this privilege, and would confine them at home to learn through their husbands." (Brigham Young, JD 1:67)

If I am under condemnation for not believing that absolutely everything Paul ever said was the infallible word of God, and that it is to be rigidly applied by all members of Christ's church and at all times, then you must also believe that Brigham Young is under condemnation.

1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying. (1 Cor. 14:1-5)

Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. (1 Cor. 14:39)

If it is better to prophesy than to speak in tongues, and if speaking in tongues is not to be forbidden (so long as there is an interpreter, see 1 Cor. 14:27-28), then why would prophesying be forbidden (see 1 Cor. 11:5)?
Utter nonsense. The New Testament is the word of God, all of it. We should be following and obeying every word. The idea that some verses are simply to be ignored is pure speculation and excuse-making via logic twisted sophistry because it doesn't conform to modern worldly standards.

Paul says long hair goes against "nature". You think nature only applies to the Romans or a single audience Paul was speaking to?

You simply make things up. It says no such thing about women not taking the sacrament or not attending church.
*puts on my extreme skeptic hat*

I could argue that the entire New Testament is bogus and utter nonsense if I really wanted. It’s just a bunch of stories and letters that have been elevated to mythic status and treated as a sacred cow.

No more sacred cows. The Bible is a collection of ancient pieces of literature… that’s it. It ain’t really that more special than other religious texts and mythological pieces.

TrueFaith
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2382

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by TrueFaith »

Durzan wrote: July 19th, 2021, 8:44 am
TrueFaith wrote: July 19th, 2021, 6:34 am
Nomanknowsmyname wrote: July 19th, 2021, 12:51 am
TrueFaith wrote: July 18th, 2021, 5:13 pm

1) I was quoting Nibley because he discusses in great length that God has commanded that we take care of the temporal if we want to be allowed to care of the spiritual. This doctrine is repeated in many places in Scripture. If you cannot even take care of your own body, how can God expect you to take care of his Kingdom?
And just to be clear, I don't agree with everything Nibley has said. He clearly had some wacky false doctrinal ideas.
2) I never said I had a problem with beards.
3) You're saying 1 Corinthians 11 is my "non doctrinal opinion". Think about that a bit more.
4) "It is not true, however, that having long hair or a beard affects or is a result of one's spiritual state".
Ever hear of Samson?

Here is the bottom line. Most here seem to think that throwing out passages of New Testament doctrine is justified. God, through the Apostle Paul (who saw the Resurrected Christ) has commanded men to not wear long hair.

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"

Paul says it's so obviously wrong that even nature teaches it. Long hair in men is as unnatural as gay sex and crossdressing.

You can rage and gnash your teeth against God's word all you like, but you WILL be held accountable for it. God does judge us for our outward actions and dress and for disregarding scripture.
1) Once again, you are effectively putting words in Nibley's mouth. If Nibley ever said anything that even remotely suggested that having long hair is an indication that one does not take care of one's body I have not read it, and you have failed to provide any evidence to the contrary.

2) Fair enough.

3) It is an indisputable fact that not everything that Paul ever wrote in his epistles represents the mind and will of the Lord. We know that this is the case because Paul and the Lord told us in scripture that this was the case.

5 Wherefore, for this cause the apostle wrote unto the church, giving unto them a commandment, not of the Lord, but of himself, that a believer should not be united to an unbeliever; except the law of Moses should be done away among them,
6 That their children might remain without circumcision; and that the tradition might be done away, which saith that little children are unholy; for it was had among the Jews;
7 But little children are holy, being sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ; and this is what the scriptures mean. (D&C 74:5-7)

But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. (1 Cor. 7:6)

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. (1 Cor. 7:12-14)

39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.
(1 Cor. 7:39-40)

8 I speak not by commandment, but by occasion of the forwardness of others, and to prove the sincerity of your love.
9 For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.
10 And herein I give my advice: for this is expedient for you, who have begun before, not only to do, but also to be forward a year ago. (2 Cor. 8:8-10)

There are many things that are a matter of policy rather than doctrine.

4) Yes, I have heard of Samson. Samson allowed his hair to be cut although he was a Nazarite.

5 For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines. (Judges 13:5)

17 That he told her all his heart, and said unto her, There hath not come a razor upon mine head; for I have been a Nazarite unto God from my mother’s womb: if I be shaven, then my strength will go from me, and I shall become weak, and be like any other man. (Judges 16:17)

The fact that Samson was supposed to have long hair hardly supports your case. Also, Samson's strength was not derived from his hair; he received strength through his obedience to his vows.

20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—
21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.
(D&C 130:20-21)

Porter Rockwell has been thought of as a modern-day Samson, and many members of the Church have erroneously believed that the Lord protected him because he grew his hair long. This is what Joseph Smith actually said to him:

“I prophesy, in the name of the Lord, you—Orrin Porter Rockwell—so long as ye shall remain loyal and true to thy faith, need fear no enemy. Cut not thy hair, and no bullet or blade can harm thee.”

Porter Rockwell's hair was already long prior to this statement by Joseph Smith. Porter had decided to let his hair grow as a token of the covenants he had made. Many years later Porter's hair was cut so that it could be used to create a wig for the widow of Don Carlos Smith, who had lost all her hair due to typhoid fever. Not surprisingly, Porter was not punished by the Lord for cutting his hair, because he had not broken any covenants. Porter had voluntarily decided to let his hair grow as a token of his covenants; and when his hair was cut it was only to perform an act of service.

5) As for everything else:

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. (1 Cor. 11:5-6)

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. (1 Cor. 14:34-35)

Verse 35 goes beyond saying that women should remain silent in church; it essentially says that women should not attend church at all except to partake of the sacrament. Do you agree with this?

"I am not quite so strenuous as some of the ancients were, who taught that if the women wanted to learn anything, to learn it at home from their husbands. (1 Cor. 14:34-35) I am willing they should come to the meetings and learn, but some of the ancients proscribed them in this privilege, and would confine them at home to learn through their husbands." (Brigham Young, JD 1:67)

If I am under condemnation for not believing that absolutely everything Paul ever said was the infallible word of God, and that it is to be rigidly applied by all members of Christ's church and at all times, then you must also believe that Brigham Young is under condemnation.

1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying. (1 Cor. 14:1-5)

Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. (1 Cor. 14:39)

If it is better to prophesy than to speak in tongues, and if speaking in tongues is not to be forbidden (so long as there is an interpreter, see 1 Cor. 14:27-28), then why would prophesying be forbidden (see 1 Cor. 11:5)?
Utter nonsense. The New Testament is the word of God, all of it. We should be following and obeying every word. The idea that some verses are simply to be ignored is pure speculation and excuse-making via logic twisted sophistry because it doesn't conform to modern worldly standards.

Paul says long hair goes against "nature". You think nature only applies to the Romans or a single audience Paul was speaking to?

You simply make things up. It says no such thing about women not taking the sacrament or not attending church.
*puts on my extreme skeptic hat*

I could argue that the entire New Testament is bogus and utter nonsense if I really wanted. It’s just a bunch of stories and letters that have been elevated to mythic status and treated as a sacred cow.

No more sacred cows. The Bible is a collection of ancient pieces of literature… that’s it. It ain’t really that more special than other religious texts and mythological pieces.
JST Matthew 1 says that the only way we're going to make it through the deception of the last days is to "treasure up my word". Christ is talking about the Scriptures.

If you want to put all the Scriptures into the category of foolish fables, my only response is, good luck with that. Don't say I didn't warn you.

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13111
Location: England

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by Robin Hood »

Nomanknowsmyname wrote: July 19th, 2021, 12:51 am
TrueFaith wrote: July 18th, 2021, 5:13 pm
Nomanknowsmyname wrote: July 18th, 2021, 4:17 pm
TrueFaith wrote: July 16th, 2021, 10:01 am

Hugh Nibley cared deeply about outward appearances.



https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 6451233543
Show me where Hugh Nibley said that long hair constituted corruption of the body. Nibley was speaking about the Word of Wisdom (which has nothing to do with long hair or beards), and for some reason you are using his words (which have nothing to do with long hair or beards) to justify your own non-doctrinal opinions, even though it has already been shown that Nibley did not share your opinions. I do find it humorous that this statement by Nibley contains an allusion to a statement by Brigham Young. Are you really trying to invoke Brigham Young in order to justify the idea that long hair or a beard are indicative of physical and spiritual corruption? We all know what Brigham Young would think about that. Also, Michael D. Rhodes (who has a rather extensive beard) was a long-time colleague of Hugh Nibley, and co-authored Nibley's book "One Eternal Round" (which was published after Nibley's death, and which many consider to be Nibley's magnum opus). You can see Michael D. Rhodes' beard in this recent video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmvqWFa50Lo&t=685s

24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.
28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. (Matt. 23:24-28)

". . . God has said that the inward vessel shall be cleansed first, and then shall the outer vessel be cleansed also." (Alma 60:23)

Observance of the Word of Wisdom directly affects the internal state of one's physical body, and can have discernable secondary effects that are outwardly apparent. It is not true, however, that having long hair or a beard affects or is a result of one's spiritual state, although the appearance of one's hair can say a lot about one's physical health. I currently have a beard (which happens to be much, much shorter than Michael D. Rhodes' beard). I will gladly shave it off if you can convince me that it is an abomination in the Lord's sight.
1) I was quoting Nibley because he discusses in great length that God has commanded that we take care of the temporal if we want to be allowed to care of the spiritual. This doctrine is repeated in many places in Scripture. If you cannot even take care of your own body, how can God expect you to take care of his Kingdom?
And just to be clear, I don't agree with everything Nibley has said. He clearly had some wacky false doctrinal ideas.
2) I never said I had a problem with beards.
3) You're saying 1 Corinthians 11 is my "non doctrinal opinion". Think about that a bit more.
4) "It is not true, however, that having long hair or a beard affects or is a result of one's spiritual state".
Ever hear of Samson?

Here is the bottom line. Most here seem to think that throwing out passages of New Testament doctrine is justified. God, through the Apostle Paul (who saw the Resurrected Christ) has commanded men to not wear long hair.

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"

Paul says it's so obviously wrong that even nature teaches it. Long hair in men is as unnatural as gay sex and crossdressing.

You can rage and gnash your teeth against God's word all you like, but you WILL be held accountable for it. God does judge us for our outward actions and dress and for disregarding scripture.
1) Once again, you are effectively putting words in Nibley's mouth. If Nibley ever said anything that even remotely suggested that having long hair is an indication that one does not take care of one's body I have not read it, and you have failed to provide any evidence to the contrary.

2) Fair enough.

3) It is an indisputable fact that not everything that Paul ever wrote in his epistles represents the mind and will of the Lord. We know that this is the case because Paul and the Lord told us in scripture that this was the case.

5 Wherefore, for this cause the apostle wrote unto the church, giving unto them a commandment, not of the Lord, but of himself, that a believer should not be united to an unbeliever; except the law of Moses should be done away among them,
6 That their children might remain without circumcision; and that the tradition might be done away, which saith that little children are unholy; for it was had among the Jews;
7 But little children are holy, being sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ; and this is what the scriptures mean. (D&C 74:5-7)

But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. (1 Cor. 7:6)

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. (1 Cor. 7:12-14)

39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.
(1 Cor. 7:39-40)

8 I speak not by commandment, but by occasion of the forwardness of others, and to prove the sincerity of your love.
9 For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.
10 And herein I give my advice: for this is expedient for you, who have begun before, not only to do, but also to be forward a year ago. (2 Cor. 8:8-10)

There are many things that are a matter of policy rather than doctrine.

4) Yes, I have heard of Samson. Samson allowed his hair to be cut although he was a Nazarite.

5 For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines. (Judges 13:5)

17 That he told her all his heart, and said unto her, There hath not come a razor upon mine head; for I have been a Nazarite unto God from my mother’s womb: if I be shaven, then my strength will go from me, and I shall become weak, and be like any other man. (Judges 16:17)

The fact that Samson was supposed to have long hair hardly supports your case. Also, Samson's strength was not derived from his hair; he received strength through his obedience to his vows.

20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—
21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.
(D&C 130:20-21)

Porter Rockwell has been thought of as a modern-day Samson, and many members of the Church have erroneously believed that the Lord protected him because he grew his hair long. This is what Joseph Smith actually said to him:

“I prophesy, in the name of the Lord, you—Orrin Porter Rockwell—so long as ye shall remain loyal and true to thy faith, need fear no enemy. Cut not thy hair, and no bullet or blade can harm thee.”

Porter Rockwell's hair was already long prior to this statement by Joseph Smith. Porter had decided to let his hair grow as a token of the covenants he had made. Many years later Porter's hair was cut so that it could be used to create a wig for the widow of Don Carlos Smith, who had lost all her hair due to typhoid fever. Not surprisingly, Porter was not punished by the Lord for cutting his hair, because he had not broken any covenants. Porter had voluntarily decided to let his hair grow as a token of his covenants; and when his hair was cut it was only to perform an act of service.

5) As for everything else:

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. (1 Cor. 11:5-6)

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. (1 Cor. 14:34-35)

Verse 35 goes beyond saying that women should remain silent in church; it essentially says that women should not attend church at all except to partake of the sacrament. Do you agree with this?

"I am not quite so strenuous as some of the ancients were, who taught that if the women wanted to learn anything, to learn it at home from their husbands. (1 Cor. 14:34-35) I am willing they should come to the meetings and learn, but some of the ancients proscribed them in this privilege, and would confine them at home to learn through their husbands." (Brigham Young, JD 1:67)

If I am under condemnation for not believing that absolutely everything Paul ever said was the infallible word of God, and that it is to be rigidly applied by all members of Christ's church and at all times, then you must also believe that Brigham Young is under condemnation.

1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying. (1 Cor. 14:1-5)

Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. (1 Cor. 14:39)

If it is better to prophesy than to speak in tongues, and if speaking in tongues is not to be forbidden (so long as there is an interpreter, see 1 Cor. 14:27-28), then why would prophesying be forbidden (see 1 Cor. 11:5)?
Following Porter Rockwell cutting his hair, an enemy did indeed afflict him. He pretty much became an alcoholic and just couldn't resist strong drink.

User avatar
nightlight
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8407

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by nightlight »

Durzan wrote: July 19th, 2021, 8:44 am
TrueFaith wrote: July 19th, 2021, 6:34 am
Nomanknowsmyname wrote: July 19th, 2021, 12:51 am
TrueFaith wrote: July 18th, 2021, 5:13 pm

1) I was quoting Nibley because he discusses in great length that God has commanded that we take care of the temporal if we want to be allowed to care of the spiritual. This doctrine is repeated in many places in Scripture. If you cannot even take care of your own body, how can God expect you to take care of his Kingdom?
And just to be clear, I don't agree with everything Nibley has said. He clearly had some wacky false doctrinal ideas.
2) I never said I had a problem with beards.
3) You're saying 1 Corinthians 11 is my "non doctrinal opinion". Think about that a bit more.
4) "It is not true, however, that having long hair or a beard affects or is a result of one's spiritual state".
Ever hear of Samson?

Here is the bottom line. Most here seem to think that throwing out passages of New Testament doctrine is justified. God, through the Apostle Paul (who saw the Resurrected Christ) has commanded men to not wear long hair.

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"

Paul says it's so obviously wrong that even nature teaches it. Long hair in men is as unnatural as gay sex and crossdressing.

You can rage and gnash your teeth against God's word all you like, but you WILL be held accountable for it. God does judge us for our outward actions and dress and for disregarding scripture.
1) Once again, you are effectively putting words in Nibley's mouth. If Nibley ever said anything that even remotely suggested that having long hair is an indication that one does not take care of one's body I have not read it, and you have failed to provide any evidence to the contrary.

2) Fair enough.

3) It is an indisputable fact that not everything that Paul ever wrote in his epistles represents the mind and will of the Lord. We know that this is the case because Paul and the Lord told us in scripture that this was the case.

5 Wherefore, for this cause the apostle wrote unto the church, giving unto them a commandment, not of the Lord, but of himself, that a believer should not be united to an unbeliever; except the law of Moses should be done away among them,
6 That their children might remain without circumcision; and that the tradition might be done away, which saith that little children are unholy; for it was had among the Jews;
7 But little children are holy, being sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ; and this is what the scriptures mean. (D&C 74:5-7)

But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. (1 Cor. 7:6)

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. (1 Cor. 7:12-14)

39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.
(1 Cor. 7:39-40)

8 I speak not by commandment, but by occasion of the forwardness of others, and to prove the sincerity of your love.
9 For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.
10 And herein I give my advice: for this is expedient for you, who have begun before, not only to do, but also to be forward a year ago. (2 Cor. 8:8-10)

There are many things that are a matter of policy rather than doctrine.

4) Yes, I have heard of Samson. Samson allowed his hair to be cut although he was a Nazarite.

5 For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines. (Judges 13:5)

17 That he told her all his heart, and said unto her, There hath not come a razor upon mine head; for I have been a Nazarite unto God from my mother’s womb: if I be shaven, then my strength will go from me, and I shall become weak, and be like any other man. (Judges 16:17)

The fact that Samson was supposed to have long hair hardly supports your case. Also, Samson's strength was not derived from his hair; he received strength through his obedience to his vows.

20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—
21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.
(D&C 130:20-21)

Porter Rockwell has been thought of as a modern-day Samson, and many members of the Church have erroneously believed that the Lord protected him because he grew his hair long. This is what Joseph Smith actually said to him:

“I prophesy, in the name of the Lord, you—Orrin Porter Rockwell—so long as ye shall remain loyal and true to thy faith, need fear no enemy. Cut not thy hair, and no bullet or blade can harm thee.”

Porter Rockwell's hair was already long prior to this statement by Joseph Smith. Porter had decided to let his hair grow as a token of the covenants he had made. Many years later Porter's hair was cut so that it could be used to create a wig for the widow of Don Carlos Smith, who had lost all her hair due to typhoid fever. Not surprisingly, Porter was not punished by the Lord for cutting his hair, because he had not broken any covenants. Porter had voluntarily decided to let his hair grow as a token of his covenants; and when his hair was cut it was only to perform an act of service.

5) As for everything else:

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. (1 Cor. 11:5-6)

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. (1 Cor. 14:34-35)

Verse 35 goes beyond saying that women should remain silent in church; it essentially says that women should not attend church at all except to partake of the sacrament. Do you agree with this?

"I am not quite so strenuous as some of the ancients were, who taught that if the women wanted to learn anything, to learn it at home from their husbands. (1 Cor. 14:34-35) I am willing they should come to the meetings and learn, but some of the ancients proscribed them in this privilege, and would confine them at home to learn through their husbands." (Brigham Young, JD 1:67)

If I am under condemnation for not believing that absolutely everything Paul ever said was the infallible word of God, and that it is to be rigidly applied by all members of Christ's church and at all times, then you must also believe that Brigham Young is under condemnation.

1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying. (1 Cor. 14:1-5)

Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. (1 Cor. 14:39)

If it is better to prophesy than to speak in tongues, and if speaking in tongues is not to be forbidden (so long as there is an interpreter, see 1 Cor. 14:27-28), then why would prophesying be forbidden (see 1 Cor. 11:5)?
Utter nonsense. The New Testament is the word of God, all of it. We should be following and obeying every word. The idea that some verses are simply to be ignored is pure speculation and excuse-making via logic twisted sophistry because it doesn't conform to modern worldly standards.

Paul says long hair goes against "nature". You think nature only applies to the Romans or a single audience Paul was speaking to?

You simply make things up. It says no such thing about women not taking the sacrament or not attending church.
*puts on my extreme skeptic hat*

I could argue that the entire New Testament is bogus and utter nonsense if I really wanted. It’s just a bunch of stories and letters that have been elevated to mythic status and treated as a sacred cow.

No more sacred cows. The Bible is a collection of ancient pieces of literature… that’s it. It ain’t really that more special than other religious texts and mythological pieces.
You could argue that .....lol but I would mean nothing to reality.

It teaches the words/way of Christ. If you don't believe the New Testament.....you don't understand or know Christ.

Post Reply