LDS hair standards

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
User avatar
nightlight
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7204

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by nightlight »

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.
11Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. 12There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

Claiming a man's heart is evil because his hair is longer is ridiculous.

You should follow all of the New Testament

Nomanknowsmyname
captain of 100
Posts: 105

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by Nomanknowsmyname »

Robin Hood wrote: July 19th, 2021, 9:35 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)?
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.
We all know that correlation always implies causation. Porter was a bar keeper during the Nauvoo period, and he founded the Hot Springs Hotel and Brewery, the first documented brewery in Utah. It is true that he cut his hair in 1855 and opened the Hot Springs Hotel and Brewery in 1856; but I think it's safe to say that Porter had made things unnecessarily difficult for himself long before he cut his hair. It is hard to imagine that alcohol could not have heavily influenced Porter's lifestyle when it formed the foundation of his livelihood. It also seems hypocritical for an individual committed to obeying the Word of Wisdom to sell alcohol, and so I doubt that he was ever fully committed to obeying the Word of Wisdom. It may be the case that Porter's decision to cut his hair contributed to the struggles he afterwards faced; but even if this is true the significance of the internal factors is greater than that of the external factors. In other words, if he had truly overcome the need for alcohol prior to cutting his hair (or even growing his hair) he probably would not have sold alcohol; and even if he had sold alcohol afterwards he would have been far less likely to yield to temptation.

Nomanknowsmyname
captain of 100
Posts: 105

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by Nomanknowsmyname »

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.
I think you can do better than that. Paul and Christ both made it perfectly clear that not all of Paul's commandments were commandments of God. This is beyond disputation. This fact would be meaningless if there were no such thing as a commandment from God; and if I believed that the Bible contained no truth that is either eternal or applicable at the current time I would not have said anything that I have ever said on this forum. It is plainly evident that neither Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or any other President of the Church in this dispensation has considered everything in Paul's epistles to be strictly applicable to the latter-day saints.

User avatar
Durzan
The Lord's Trusty Maverick
Posts: 3606
Location: Standing between the Light and the Darkness.

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by Durzan »

Nomanknowsmyname wrote: July 19th, 2021, 3:36 pm
Durzan wrote: July 19th, 2021, 8:44 am
TrueFaith wrote: July 19th, 2021, 6:34 am
Nomanknowsmyname wrote: July 19th, 2021, 12:51 am

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.
I think you can do better than that. Paul and Christ both made it perfectly clear that not all of Paul's commandments were commandments of God. This is beyond disputation. This fact would be meaningless if there were no such thing as a commandment from God; and if I believed that the Bible contained no truth that is either eternal or applicable at the current time I would not have said anything that I have ever said on this forum. It is plainly evident that neither Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or any other President of the Church in this dispensation has considered everything in Paul's epistles to be strictly applicable to the latter-day saints.
Just because you think that doesn’t mean its necessarily the truth, so technically, it isn’t beyond disputation.

For the record, I do tend to play devils advocate at times, but what I spoke about earlier is a belief that’s been there for a while now, at least in one form or another, though I may have exaggerated a bit.

Nomanknowsmyname
captain of 100
Posts: 105

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by Nomanknowsmyname »

Durzan wrote: July 19th, 2021, 3:50 pm
Nomanknowsmyname wrote: July 19th, 2021, 3:36 pm
Durzan wrote: July 19th, 2021, 8:44 am
TrueFaith wrote: July 19th, 2021, 6:34 am

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.
I think you can do better than that. Paul and Christ both made it perfectly clear that not all of Paul's commandments were commandments of God. This is beyond disputation. This fact would be meaningless if there were no such thing as a commandment from God; and if I believed that the Bible contained no truth that is either eternal or applicable at the current time I would not have said anything that I have ever said on this forum. It is plainly evident that neither Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or any other President of the Church in this dispensation has considered everything in Paul's epistles to be strictly applicable to the latter-day saints.
Just because you think that doesn’t mean its necessarily the truth, so technically, it isn’t beyond disputation.

For the record, I do tend to play devils advocate at times, but what I spoke about earlier is a belief that’s been there for a while now, at least in one form or another, though I may have exaggerated a bit.
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 (D&C 74:5)

I didn't say it, Christ did.

Nomanknowsmyname
captain of 100
Posts: 105

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by Nomanknowsmyname »

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.
Although you claim to believe that every word of the New Testament should be followed, I'm not convinced that you do. I stand by my interpretation of 1 Cor. 14:34-35; either convince me that I am wrong, or tell me honestly that you don't believe that women should speak at all in church, and that they should not learn anything (or at least ask questions) at their church meetings. Should women be allowed to pray vocally during church meetings? Should they be allowed to sing hymns? Should they be allowed to give talks? What about young women, or females in general? What about children? Perhaps we should abolish the Relief Society and Young Women organizations, and prevent females from attending Sunday School. To be fair, Relief Society and Primary meetings took place on a weekday before the consolidated meeting block was introduced in 1980, so that these meetings might not fully qualify as "church" meetings. Perhaps the consolidated meeting block should be abolished because it represents a greater departure from Paul's "commandment". If you put your money where your mouth is, show me the money.

User avatar
Durzan
The Lord's Trusty Maverick
Posts: 3606
Location: Standing between the Light and the Darkness.

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by Durzan »

Nomanknowsmyname wrote: July 19th, 2021, 4:07 pm
Durzan wrote: July 19th, 2021, 3:50 pm
Nomanknowsmyname wrote: July 19th, 2021, 3:36 pm
Durzan wrote: July 19th, 2021, 8:44 am

*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.
I think you can do better than that. Paul and Christ both made it perfectly clear that not all of Paul's commandments were commandments of God. This is beyond disputation. This fact would be meaningless if there were no such thing as a commandment from God; and if I believed that the Bible contained no truth that is either eternal or applicable at the current time I would not have said anything that I have ever said on this forum. It is plainly evident that neither Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or any other President of the Church in this dispensation has considered everything in Paul's epistles to be strictly applicable to the latter-day saints.
Just because you think that doesn’t mean its necessarily the truth, so technically, it isn’t beyond disputation.

For the record, I do tend to play devils advocate at times, but what I spoke about earlier is a belief that’s been there for a while now, at least in one form or another, though I may have exaggerated a bit.
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 (D&C 74:5)

I didn't say it, Christ did.
Right now, I'm arguing from the perspective of a non-believer or a big skeptic. Quoting scriptures often is ineffectual when dealing with someone like that.

Nomanknowsmyname
captain of 100
Posts: 105

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by Nomanknowsmyname »

Durzan wrote: July 19th, 2021, 4:15 pm
Nomanknowsmyname wrote: July 19th, 2021, 4:07 pm
Durzan wrote: July 19th, 2021, 3:50 pm
Nomanknowsmyname wrote: July 19th, 2021, 3:36 pm

I think you can do better than that. Paul and Christ both made it perfectly clear that not all of Paul's commandments were commandments of God. This is beyond disputation. This fact would be meaningless if there were no such thing as a commandment from God; and if I believed that the Bible contained no truth that is either eternal or applicable at the current time I would not have said anything that I have ever said on this forum. It is plainly evident that neither Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or any other President of the Church in this dispensation has considered everything in Paul's epistles to be strictly applicable to the latter-day saints.
Just because you think that doesn’t mean its necessarily the truth, so technically, it isn’t beyond disputation.

For the record, I do tend to play devils advocate at times, but what I spoke about earlier is a belief that’s been there for a while now, at least in one form or another, though I may have exaggerated a bit.
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 (D&C 74:5)

I didn't say it, Christ did.
Right now, I'm arguing from the perspective of a non-believer or a big skeptic. Quoting scriptures often is ineffectual when dealing with someone like that.
I understand; I was just about to edit my response. I'm also not generally opposed to playing the role of devil's advocate.

TrueFaith
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2382

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by TrueFaith »

Nomanknowsmyname wrote: July 19th, 2021, 4:07 pm
Durzan wrote: July 19th, 2021, 3:50 pm
Nomanknowsmyname wrote: July 19th, 2021, 3:36 pm
Durzan wrote: July 19th, 2021, 8:44 am

*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.
I think you can do better than that. Paul and Christ both made it perfectly clear that not all of Paul's commandments were commandments of God. This is beyond disputation. This fact would be meaningless if there were no such thing as a commandment from God; and if I believed that the Bible contained no truth that is either eternal or applicable at the current time I would not have said anything that I have ever said on this forum. It is plainly evident that neither Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or any other President of the Church in this dispensation has considered everything in Paul's epistles to be strictly applicable to the latter-day saints.
Just because you think that doesn’t mean its necessarily the truth, so technically, it isn’t beyond disputation.

For the record, I do tend to play devils advocate at times, but what I spoke about earlier is a belief that’s been there for a while now, at least in one form or another, though I may have exaggerated a bit.
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 (D&C 74:5)

I didn't say it, Christ did.
This section of D&C has nothing to do with long hair or women keeping silence in the church. It's about circumcision.

I want to see specific quotes from Jesus, Joseph Smith or Paul stating that these commandments didn't come from God.

I'll wait.

Here's a little tidbit to get you started:
"And all scripture given by inspiration of God is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"
2 Timothy 3:16

Oh and everyone notice how the argument has shifted from "that's your personal opinion" to, "those scriptures are not valid". Let's keep this going, where will you move the goal post next?

TrueFaith
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2382

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by TrueFaith »

Not to get off topic, but the spirit of women's role in church is written between the lines in our 5th Article of Faith. Of course we love and appreciate our women, they contribute to so much, and they are NO less than men... but we each have roles. It is Satan's plan to remove our roles, to make us all the same.

Up until the 1890s, only men could serve missions. Preaching the gospel as a calling should be a Priesthood role only. Follow the example of Jesus who called men as his apostles. Women had a major role, not in leading gospel teaching, but in confirming the gospel in comfort and support as a "help meet" for these disciples in their mission.

The young female angel who visited me last year did not preach the gospel to me, she simply thanked me for preaching it and standing boldly for the truth. She told me that there were few "men" left who were. She came to comfort me, not to teach a gospel message. The angels understand the role of men and women even if many of us have forgotten it.

This is what Paul is teaching here.

Nomanknowsmyname
captain of 100
Posts: 105

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by Nomanknowsmyname »

TrueFaith wrote: July 19th, 2021, 4:45 pm
Nomanknowsmyname wrote: July 19th, 2021, 4:07 pm
Durzan wrote: July 19th, 2021, 3:50 pm
Nomanknowsmyname wrote: July 19th, 2021, 3:36 pm

I think you can do better than that. Paul and Christ both made it perfectly clear that not all of Paul's commandments were commandments of God. This is beyond disputation. This fact would be meaningless if there were no such thing as a commandment from God; and if I believed that the Bible contained no truth that is either eternal or applicable at the current time I would not have said anything that I have ever said on this forum. It is plainly evident that neither Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or any other President of the Church in this dispensation has considered everything in Paul's epistles to be strictly applicable to the latter-day saints.
Just because you think that doesn’t mean its necessarily the truth, so technically, it isn’t beyond disputation.

For the record, I do tend to play devils advocate at times, but what I spoke about earlier is a belief that’s been there for a while now, at least in one form or another, though I may have exaggerated a bit.
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 (D&C 74:5)

I didn't say it, Christ did.
This section of D&C has nothing to do with long hair or women keeping silence in the church. It's about circumcision.

I want to see specific quotes from Jesus, Joseph Smith or Paul stating that these commandments didn't come from God.

I'll wait.

Here's a little tidbit to get you started:
"And all scripture given by inspiration of God is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"
2 Timothy 3:16

Oh and everyone notice how the argument has shifted from "that's your personal opinion" to, "those scriptures are not valid". Let's keep this going, where will you move the goal post next?
I've already quoted D&C 74:5 multiple times, where the Lord clearly states that the commandment in question is a commandment of man and not of God. It seemed to me that you were arguing that everything Paul said is the absolute word of God. This position is essentially indefensible. You have at least conceded that not everything that Paul said is the absolute word of God.

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. (1 Cor. 14:34)

The JST version of 1 Corinthians 14:34 uses the word "rule" rather than "speak".

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (1 Tim. 2:11-12)

"Quietness" is a better translation than "silence" in these verses, and there is a footnote in the standard works indicating that this is the case. "Quietness" is the word that seems to be preferred in modern literal translations of the Bible.

"Johanna Southcott professed to be a prophetess, and wrote a book of prophecies in 1804, she became the founder of a people that are still extant. She was to bring forth, in a place appointed, a son, that was to be the Messiah, which thing has failed. Independent of this, however, where do we read of a woman that was the founder of a church, in the word of God? Paul told the women in his day, “To keep silence in the church, and that if they wished to know anything to ask their husbands at home;” (1 Cor. 14:34-35) he would not suffer a woman “to rule, or to usurp authority in the church;” (1 Tim. 2:11-12) but here we find a woman the founder of a church, the revelator and guide, the Alpha and Omega, contrary to all acknowledged rule, principle, and order." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 209)

Joseph Smith is denouncing the idea of women being the leaders of churches, or ruling in churches. The words "Paul told the women in his day" suggests that Joseph implied that the things Paul told the women in his day did not necessarily apply to the women of Joseph Smith's day. Joseph Smith did not quote 1 Timothy verse 11, nor did he quote verse 12 completely or precisely as it is found in the Bible. He omitted verse 11 which states that women should "learn in silence", and he omitted the part of verse 12 which states that women should "be in silence". Joseph Smith's alteration of 1 Timothy 2:12 reinforces the JST of 1 Corinthians 14:34, and uses the word "rule" rather than "teach". If Joseph Smith ever said that women should not speak or teach in church I am unaware of any such statement.

Joseph Smith does not agree with you. At the very least, it seems clear that a belief that women should be silent in church is not correct. Joseph Smith was a proponent of modern revelation, and so am I.

But ye are commanded in all things to ask of God, who giveth liberally; and that which the Spirit testifies unto you even so I would that ye should do in all holiness of heart, walking uprightly before me, considering the end of your salvation, doing all things with prayer and thanksgiving, that ye may not be seduced by evil spirits, or doctrines of devils, or the commandments of men; for some are of men, and others of devils. (D&C 46:7)

Christ is opposed to commandments of men, and so am I.

13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid. (Isa. 29:13-14)

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” (JS-H 1:19)

Nomanknowsmyname
captain of 100
Posts: 105

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by Nomanknowsmyname »

TrueFaith wrote: July 19th, 2021, 5:11 pm Not to get off topic, but the spirit of women's role in church is written between the lines in our 5th Article of Faith. Of course we love and appreciate our women, they contribute to so much, and they are NO less than men... but we each have roles. It is Satan's plan to remove our roles, to make us all the same.

Up until the 1890s, only men could serve missions. Preaching the gospel as a calling should be a Priesthood role only. Follow the example of Jesus who called men as his apostles. Women had a major role, not in leading gospel teaching, but in confirming the gospel in comfort and support as a "help meet" for these disciples in their mission.

The young female angel who visited me last year did not preach the gospel to me, she simply thanked me for preaching it and standing boldly for the truth. She told me that there were few "men" left who were. She came to comfort me, not to teach a gospel message. The angels understand the role of men and women even if many of us have forgotten it.

This is what Paul is teaching here.
At the very least I agree with much of this.

TrueFaith
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2382

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by TrueFaith »

Nomanknowsmyname wrote: July 19th, 2021, 6:00 pm
TrueFaith wrote: July 19th, 2021, 4:45 pm
Nomanknowsmyname wrote: July 19th, 2021, 4:07 pm
Durzan wrote: July 19th, 2021, 3:50 pm

Just because you think that doesn’t mean its necessarily the truth, so technically, it isn’t beyond disputation.

For the record, I do tend to play devils advocate at times, but what I spoke about earlier is a belief that’s been there for a while now, at least in one form or another, though I may have exaggerated a bit.
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 (D&C 74:5)

I didn't say it, Christ did.
This section of D&C has nothing to do with long hair or women keeping silence in the church. It's about circumcision.

I want to see specific quotes from Jesus, Joseph Smith or Paul stating that these commandments didn't come from God.

I'll wait.

Here's a little tidbit to get you started:
"And all scripture given by inspiration of God is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"
2 Timothy 3:16

Oh and everyone notice how the argument has shifted from "that's your personal opinion" to, "those scriptures are not valid". Let's keep this going, where will you move the goal post next?
I've already quoted D&C 74:5 multiple times, where the Lord clearly states that the commandment in question is a commandment of man and not of God. It seemed to me that you were arguing that everything Paul said is the absolute word of God. This position is essentially indefensible. You have at least conceded that not everything that Paul said is the absolute word of God.

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. (1 Cor. 14:34)

The JST version of 1 Corinthians 14:34 uses the word "rule" rather than "speak".

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (1 Tim. 2:11-12)

"Quietness" is a better translation than "silence" in these verses, and there is a footnote in the standard works indicating that this is the case. "Quietness" is the word that seems to be preferred in modern literal translations of the Bible.

"Johanna Southcott professed to be a prophetess, and wrote a book of prophecies in 1804, she became the founder of a people that are still extant. She was to bring forth, in a place appointed, a son, that was to be the Messiah, which thing has failed. Independent of this, however, where do we read of a woman that was the founder of a church, in the word of God? Paul told the women in his day, “To keep silence in the church, and that if they wished to know anything to ask their husbands at home;” (1 Cor. 14:34-35) he would not suffer a woman “to rule, or to usurp authority in the church;” (1 Tim. 2:11-12) but here we find a woman the founder of a church, the revelator and guide, the Alpha and Omega, contrary to all acknowledged rule, principle, and order." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 209)

Joseph Smith is denouncing the idea of women being the leaders of churches, or ruling in churches. The words "Paul told the women in his day" suggests that Joseph implied that the things Paul told the women in his day did not necessarily apply to the women of Joseph Smith's day. Joseph Smith did not quote 1 Timothy verse 11, nor did he quote verse 12 completely or precisely as it is found in the Bible. He omitted verse 11 which states that women should "learn in silence", and he omitted the part of verse 12 which states that women should "be in silence". Joseph Smith's alteration of 1 Timothy 2:12 reinforces the JST of 1 Corinthians 14:34, and uses the word "rule" rather than "teach". If Joseph Smith ever said that women should not speak or teach in church I am unaware of any such statement.

Joseph Smith does not agree with you. At the very least, it seems clear that a belief that women should be silent in church is not correct. Joseph Smith was a proponent of modern revelation, and so am I.

But ye are commanded in all things to ask of God, who giveth liberally; and that which the Spirit testifies unto you even so I would that ye should do in all holiness of heart, walking uprightly before me, considering the end of your salvation, doing all things with prayer and thanksgiving, that ye may not be seduced by evil spirits, or doctrines of devils, or the commandments of men; for some are of men, and others of devils. (D&C 46:7)

Christ is opposed to commandments of men, and so am I.

13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid. (Isa. 29:13-14)

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” (JS-H 1:19)
Again, 74 section of D&C refers to circumcision as it relates to child baptism, not long hair in men. Where have I been arguing for infant baptism or circumsion in this thread??? Men wearing long hair is the "commandment in question" and I'm still waiting for you to provide a precise scripture which which denounces this principle as indoctrinal.

There are several New Testament verses which speak of women keeping silence. Only one was retranslated as "rule". Joseph Smith did not retranslate the others. Logically Joseph Smith understood that women should neither lead nor speak, nor usurp authority. You agreed with my post about this, so you're even contradicting yourself.

"11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."
1 Timothy 2

If you believe in modern revelation as it was received by Joseph Smith then you have to also accept that Joseph Smith read and received revelation for the scriptures above and left them exactly as they were written because it was true and correct. In fact the scriptures above are far more broad and apply not only to church, but everywhere.

They are true principles from heaven, we should be following its direction, not making excuses to discount them. Satanic feminism is so deeply engrained in people (including LDS members) today that they simply refuse to believe God could have a different, more correct way.

Nomanknowsmyname
captain of 100
Posts: 105

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by Nomanknowsmyname »

TrueFaith wrote: July 20th, 2021, 7:12 am
Nomanknowsmyname wrote: July 19th, 2021, 6:00 pm
TrueFaith wrote: July 19th, 2021, 4:45 pm
Nomanknowsmyname wrote: July 19th, 2021, 4:07 pm

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 (D&C 74:5)

I didn't say it, Christ did.
This section of D&C has nothing to do with long hair or women keeping silence in the church. It's about circumcision.

I want to see specific quotes from Jesus, Joseph Smith or Paul stating that these commandments didn't come from God.

I'll wait.

Here's a little tidbit to get you started:
"And all scripture given by inspiration of God is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"
2 Timothy 3:16

Oh and everyone notice how the argument has shifted from "that's your personal opinion" to, "those scriptures are not valid". Let's keep this going, where will you move the goal post next?
I've already quoted D&C 74:5 multiple times, where the Lord clearly states that the commandment in question is a commandment of man and not of God. It seemed to me that you were arguing that everything Paul said is the absolute word of God. This position is essentially indefensible. You have at least conceded that not everything that Paul said is the absolute word of God.

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. (1 Cor. 14:34)

The JST version of 1 Corinthians 14:34 uses the word "rule" rather than "speak".

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (1 Tim. 2:11-12)

"Quietness" is a better translation than "silence" in these verses, and there is a footnote in the standard works indicating that this is the case. "Quietness" is the word that seems to be preferred in modern literal translations of the Bible.

"Johanna Southcott professed to be a prophetess, and wrote a book of prophecies in 1804, she became the founder of a people that are still extant. She was to bring forth, in a place appointed, a son, that was to be the Messiah, which thing has failed. Independent of this, however, where do we read of a woman that was the founder of a church, in the word of God? Paul told the women in his day, “To keep silence in the church, and that if they wished to know anything to ask their husbands at home;” (1 Cor. 14:34-35) he would not suffer a woman “to rule, or to usurp authority in the church;” (1 Tim. 2:11-12) but here we find a woman the founder of a church, the revelator and guide, the Alpha and Omega, contrary to all acknowledged rule, principle, and order." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 209)

Joseph Smith is denouncing the idea of women being the leaders of churches, or ruling in churches. The words "Paul told the women in his day" suggests that Joseph implied that the things Paul told the women in his day did not necessarily apply to the women of Joseph Smith's day. Joseph Smith did not quote 1 Timothy verse 11, nor did he quote verse 12 completely or precisely as it is found in the Bible. He omitted verse 11 which states that women should "learn in silence", and he omitted the part of verse 12 which states that women should "be in silence". Joseph Smith's alteration of 1 Timothy 2:12 reinforces the JST of 1 Corinthians 14:34, and uses the word "rule" rather than "teach". If Joseph Smith ever said that women should not speak or teach in church I am unaware of any such statement.

Joseph Smith does not agree with you. At the very least, it seems clear that a belief that women should be silent in church is not correct. Joseph Smith was a proponent of modern revelation, and so am I.

But ye are commanded in all things to ask of God, who giveth liberally; and that which the Spirit testifies unto you even so I would that ye should do in all holiness of heart, walking uprightly before me, considering the end of your salvation, doing all things with prayer and thanksgiving, that ye may not be seduced by evil spirits, or doctrines of devils, or the commandments of men; for some are of men, and others of devils. (D&C 46:7)

Christ is opposed to commandments of men, and so am I.

13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid. (Isa. 29:13-14)

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” (JS-H 1:19)
Again, 74 section of D&C refers to circumcision as it relates to child baptism, not long hair in men. Where have I been arguing for infant baptism or circumsion in this thread??? Men wearing long hair is the "commandment in question" and I'm still waiting for you to provide a precise scripture which which denounces this principle as indoctrinal.

There are several New Testament verses which speak of women keeping silence. Only one was retranslated as "rule". Joseph Smith did not retranslate the others. Logically Joseph Smith understood that women should neither lead nor speak, nor usurp authority. You agreed with my post about this, so you're even contradicting yourself.

"11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."
1 Timothy 2

If you believe in modern revelation as it was received by Joseph Smith then you have to also accept that Joseph Smith read and received revelation for the scriptures above and left them exactly as they were written because it was true and correct. In fact the scriptures above are far more broad and apply not only to church, but everywhere.

They are true principles from heaven, we should be following its direction, not making excuses to discount them. Satanic feminism is so deeply engrained in people (including LDS members) today that they simply refuse to believe God could have a different, more correct way.
Show me where in your previous post you said that women should not speak or teach in church. You did not say that. That is why I said "At the very least I agree with much of this." If I had meant that I agreed with everything you said without reservation I would have said that. I have not contradicted myself. I said exactly what I meant to say, and suggest that you do the same. It has become increasingly clear to me (and it was quite obvious early on in this discussion) that linguistic precision is not your specialty. In your previous post you said absolutely nothing about women being silent. You also said that the role of women was "not in leading gospel teaching" (emphasis in original), which is a very different thing from saying that women should never teach in church. Paul did not merely say that women should not "rule" or lead in teaching; he said that they should remain silent. Those are extremely different things.

The fact that Joseph Smith did not retranslate 1 Tim. 2:12 even though he retranslated 1 Cor. 14:34 is irrelevant. Joseph's personal teachings clearly indicate that his interpretation of 1 Tim. 2:12 was consistent with his translation of 1 Cor. 14:34. It is also true that Joseph applied his interpretation of 1 Tim. 2:12 to the church. Do you really believe that every verse in the current edition of the King James Bible that was not corrected in the JST is perfectly correct simply because Joseph Smith didn't alter it? Joseph never claimed that the JST was perfect, and if you think that the KJV with JST alterations is absolutely perfect you have not seriously studied the Bible. For example:

And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.
(Gen. 48:19, King James Version)

And his father refuseth, and saith, `I have known, my son, I have known; he also becometh a people, and he also is great, and yet, his young brother is greater than he, and his seed is the fulness of the nations;'
(Gen. 48:19, Young's Literal Translation)

The phrase "fulness of the nations" is found in the YLT, whereas the phrase "multitude of nations" appears in the KJV. In this instance (an in many others) the YLT is a better translation than the KJV. The phrase "fulness of the nations" is synonymous with "fulness of the gentiles" because 'nations' and 'gentiles' are translated from the same Hebrew word, which is transliterated as 'goyim'. The phrase 'fulness of the gentiles' appears twice in the Book of Mormon:

And now, the thing which our father meaneth concerning the grafting in of the natural branches through the fulness of the Gentiles, is, that in the latter days, when our seed shall have dwindled in unbelief, yea, for the space of many years, and many generations after the Messiah shall be manifested in body unto the children of men, then shall the fulness of the gospel of the Messiah come unto the Gentiles, and from the Gentiles unto the remnant of our seed— (1 Ne. 15:13)

And I command you that ye shall write these sayings after I am gone, that if it so be that my people at Jerusalem, they who have seen me and been with me in my ministry, do not ask the Father in my name, that they may receive a knowledge of you by the Holy Ghost, and also of the other tribes whom they know not of, that these sayings which ye shall write shall be kept and shall be manifested unto the Gentiles, that through the fulness of the Gentiles, the remnant of their seed, who shall be scattered forth upon the face of the earth because of their unbelief, may be brought in, or may be brought to a knowledge of me, their Redeemer. (3 Ne. 16:4)

If these three verses are considered collectively, it becomes apparent that the phrase "fulness of the gentiles" literally refers to the "seed" of Ephraim. It would be very difficult to demonstrate this with nothing better than the KJV. In these instances the Book of Mormon references Gen. 48:19, but it does not reference the KJV or the JST.

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
(A of F 1:8)

It appears that you believe that Gen. 48:19 (and every other verse in the KJV not altered in the JST) to be perfect, and this is simply not true.

Just for the record, I am not personally in favor of men having long hair. However, this is my opinion, and this opinion has absolutely nothing to do with Paul's opinion. As far as I am able to determine, essentially nobody of significance in this dispensation has ever quoted 1 Cor. 11:14 in their teachings. We know for a fact that Paul included his own opinions in his epistles. This is to be expected, because Paul was an administrator as well as an evangelist, so that his epistles are concerned with policy as well as doctrine. For example, he said the following to Timothy:

Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities. (1 Tim. 5:23)

Do you think we should teach members of the Church to drink wine every time their stomach doesn't feel good? The Word of Wisdom contains eternal truth (far more than most members of the Church recognize); but it was sent "not by commandment or constraint" (D&C 89:2), so that the fact that compliance with the Word of Wisdom is required for a temple recommend is a matter of policy rather than doctrine. Paul was "the apostle of the Gentiles" (Rom. 11:13), so that he was essentially given the task of creating a new culture for recent converts from scratch. If you read through the entire New Testament it seems quite obvious that the church in Paul's day did not observe the Word of Wisdom, at least not as we know it. Consequently, for practical purposes I believe I can safely ignore verses such as 1 Tim. 5:23 that have been superseded by modern revelation. That verse was meant for a single individual who lived in a very different time and under very different circumstances. It was common for Jews of Christ's day to add wine to the water they drank if they suspected that the water was unclean. Alcohol can sterilize water, but can only reliably do so if the solution is at least 50% wine (and therefore significantly less than 50% alcohol), which is counterproductive since alcohol is a dehydrant.

"In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established" (2 Cor. 13:1, Deut. 19:15). It is extremely rare for an important doctrinal principle to appear only once in the scriptures. Essentially everything of importance in the scriptures can be found in multiple places. Paul is the one person in the scriptures who said in one place that men should not have long hair. I am not generally in favor of men having long hair; but in order for me to believe that no man should ever have long hair under any circumstances I would need to believe that there is a sufficient doctrinal basis for this belief, and I do not. I'm also not in favor of men appearing to be effeminate; but having long hair is not the same as appearing to be effeminate. A large manly man who happens to have long hair will likely not appear to be effeminate, especially if he has a beard. For example, Steven Adams is a 6'11" NBA center with long hair and a beard. To put it mildly, I don't think anyone in their right mind would ever consider him to be effeminate or a woman.

User avatar
Sirocco
Praise Me!
Posts: 3808

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by Sirocco »

How many LDS leaders had awesome beards? I mean I got the George Albert Smith style going on now.
Though no one has bothered me with much of anything to be fair, and that's how I like it.

User avatar
Mindfields
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1493
Location: Utah

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by Mindfields »

This nonsense reminds me of being a kid and arguing which is best a Chevy truck or a Ford truck. It's almost as meaningful.

User avatar
Durzan
The Lord's Trusty Maverick
Posts: 3606
Location: Standing between the Light and the Darkness.

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by Durzan »

Mindfields wrote: July 20th, 2021, 7:51 pm This nonsense reminds me of being a kid and arguing which is best a Chevy truck or a Ford truck. It's almost as meaningful.
Well, to be fair, the make of a car or truck can be very important. Ford's nowadays have a reputation for falling apart.

User avatar
BeNotDeceived
Agent38
Posts: 7781
Location: Tralfamadore
Contact:

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by BeNotDeceived »

abijah` wrote: July 17th, 2021, 5:45 pm
Lynn wrote: July 17th, 2021, 12:25 am When those who take the vows of Nazor, they deem what they will do or not do. In John's case, it was not to touch strong drink or meat. He may also have done the no cutting the hair bit, as well. Jesus did the no cut hair bit, but did not vow not to partake of strong drink. In so, that you had two representatives of the Lights- Sun & Moon, one not taking. By their vows, John did not eat (meat) or drink (any kind of liquor), while Jesus came eating & drinking. Sometimes the vow was to be observed until some specified event or time.
Interesting correlations :)

When the Davidic Herald comes as a forerunner for Jesus's Second Coming, will he come eating and drinking? or will he be an ascetic in hairy animal skins? or perchance some kind of hybrid? 🤔
Thus far he apparently identifies as the Wicker Man; the number fifty-seven appears emblematic of him and coincides with the recent spate of earthquakes, beginning with a 5.7 that landed Moroni’s Instrument 🎺.

Mike as mentioned above and his middle name of James may indicate he be an usurper extraordinaire.

John, but not Josh. 👻 gbng

abijah`
pleb in Zion
Posts: 3482
Location: LOL sif u could ever find me, lmao, good luck haha, go ahead and TRY lol

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by abijah` »

BeNotDeceived wrote: July 22nd, 2021, 5:49 pm Thus far he apparently identifies as the Wicker Man; the number fifty-seven appears emblematic of him and coincides with the recent spate of earthquakes, beginning with a 5.7 that landed Moroni’s Instrument 🎺.

Mike as mentioned above and his middle name of James may indicate he be an usurper extraordinaire.

John, but not Josh. 👻 gbng
I disagree. Mike Sherwin's story rings hollow to me, and I do not think he is who he thinks he is. The Spirit has had much to say to me lately, but I get zero spiritual pull toward Sherwin or the report he has to give about correlations of arbitrary things. Different strokes perhaps.

User avatar
BeNotDeceived
Agent38
Posts: 7781
Location: Tralfamadore
Contact:

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by BeNotDeceived »

abijah` wrote: July 22nd, 2021, 6:04 pm
BeNotDeceived wrote: July 22nd, 2021, 5:49 pm Thus far he apparently identifies as the Wicker Man; the number fifty-seven appears emblematic of him and coincides with the recent spate of earthquakes, beginning with a 5.7 that landed Moroni’s Instrument 🎺.

Mike as mentioned above and his middle name of James may indicate he be an usurper extraordinaire.

John, but not Josh. 👻 gbng
I disagree. Mike Sherwin's story rings hollow to me, and I do not think he is who he thinks he is. The Spirit has had much to say to me lately, but I get zero spiritual pull toward Sherwin or the report he has to give about correlations of arbitrary things. Different strokes perhaps.
Some things are troubling, but

White Boy Summer - https://genius.com/Chet-hanx-white-boy-summer-lyrics

Is enough to make even a sailor blush, :?

me thinks Coincidence Pigeon will be me 5000 post addition. A term that wasn’t even invented when me posting began here. Time will tell likely around the time the moons shadow again crosses the lower 48.

abijah`
pleb in Zion
Posts: 3482
Location: LOL sif u could ever find me, lmao, good luck haha, go ahead and TRY lol

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by abijah` »

BeNotDeceived wrote: July 22nd, 2021, 11:12 pm Some things are troubling, but

White Boy Summer - https://genius.com/Chet-hanx-white-boy-summer-lyrics

Is enough to make even a sailor blush, :?
Lol true enough. I never even heard that song. Indeed, very profane.

My moniker is in reference to the meme that was spawned from the original viral tiktok. Some call it white supremacist (as so many things are these days), but getting into around late June I kept seeing one confirmation after another that it is indeed a white boy summer.

Not sure what it has to do with Sherwin, but make sure and stay festive!

User avatar
BeNotDeceived
Agent38
Posts: 7781
Location: Tralfamadore
Contact:

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by BeNotDeceived »

abijah` wrote: July 23rd, 2021, 9:36 am
BeNotDeceived wrote: July 22nd, 2021, 11:12 pm Some things are troubling, but

White Boy Summer - https://genius.com/Chet-hanx-white-boy-summer-lyrics

Is enough to make even a sailor blush, :?
Lol true enough. I never even heard that song. Indeed, very profane.

My moniker is in reference to the meme that was spawned from the original viral tiktok. Some call it white supremacist (as so many things are these days), but getting into around late June I kept seeing one confirmation after another that it is indeed a white boy summer.

Not sure what it has to do with Sherwin, but make sure and stay festive!
Me was worried about your adoption of such an extreme identification, but apparently there are redeeming qualities, expressed in your linked video, that didn't turn up in me quick google search. 8-)
Michael Sherwin wrote: July 27th, 2021, 11:26 pm Before
2. ARCHAIC
in front of someone or something.
"they began trotting through the city with guards running before and behind"
There's an example of a single word having many definitions; Some may think badly about Mike's musical preferences, but other things are more important. Actually, me spacey trip to the space coast, shortly after his Spaceman post, really kinda blew me away; Suddenly there I was nearly on the doorstep of Deseret Ranch, after coinciding with street names that were eerily reminiscent of his Wicker Man. Seems some elements of the church are good indeed, but where the truth ends, has become an open question.

Memes survive Abijah’s Galaxy, but thar be no monikers. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

User avatar
Michael Sherwin
The Wickerman
Posts: 1957

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by Michael Sherwin »

BeNotDeceived wrote: July 29th, 2021, 10:21 pm
abijah` wrote: July 23rd, 2021, 9:36 am
BeNotDeceived wrote: July 22nd, 2021, 11:12 pm Some things are troubling, but

White Boy Summer - https://genius.com/Chet-hanx-white-boy-summer-lyrics

Is enough to make even a sailor blush, :?
Lol true enough. I never even heard that song. Indeed, very profane.

My moniker is in reference to the meme that was spawned from the original viral tiktok. Some call it white supremacist (as so many things are these days), but getting into around late June I kept seeing one confirmation after another that it is indeed a white boy summer.

Not sure what it has to do with Sherwin, but make sure and stay festive!
Me was worried about your adoption of such an extreme identification, but apparently there are redeeming qualities, expressed in your linked video, that didn't turn up in me quick google search. 8-)
Michael Sherwin wrote: July 27th, 2021, 11:26 pm Before
2. ARCHAIC
in front of someone or something.
"they began trotting through the city with guards running before and behind"
There's an example of a single word having many definitions; Some may think badly about Mike's musical preferences, but other things are more important. Actually, me spacey trip to the space coast, shortly after his Spaceman post, really kinda blew me away; Suddenly there I was nearly on the doorstep of Deseret Ranch, after coinciding with street names that were eerily reminiscent of his Wicker Man. Seems some elements of the church are good indeed, but where the truth ends, has become an open question.

Memes survive Abijah’s Galaxy, but thar be no monikers. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
Doesn't it feel like a game that we don't quite know the rules for? Does God and/or the Devil play games in the scriptures? I can't think of any. And yet my story indicates that I am a future king (not declaring anything) but I feel at times I'm just being played like a pawn. What good has it done anyone that I have this story? Most don't care. And the second biggest group just think I'm deceived. And why here at LDSFF? Nothing I share here seems to develop legs. My post, England, has over 15,000 views for only 6 pages. And yet it seems not to exist anywhere else on the net. Why? The evidence is spectacular and no one seems to care? How is that possible? Is almost everyone being programmed not to pay attention? The whole thing is surreal like it is all part of the game. A game that I do not want to play anymore.

Bronco73idi
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2051

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by Bronco73idi »

Mindfields wrote: July 20th, 2021, 7:51 pm This nonsense reminds me of being a kid and arguing which is best a Chevy truck or a Ford truck. It's almost as meaningful.
I would say dodge but my name is Bronco 😂

User avatar
BeNotDeceived
Agent38
Posts: 7781
Location: Tralfamadore
Contact:

Re: LDS hair standards

Post by BeNotDeceived »

Michael Sherwin wrote: July 30th, 2021, 12:07 am
BeNotDeceived wrote: July 29th, 2021, 10:21 pm
abijah` wrote: July 23rd, 2021, 9:36 am
BeNotDeceived wrote: July 22nd, 2021, 11:12 pm Some things are troubling, but

White Boy Summer - https://genius.com/Chet-hanx-white-boy-summer-lyrics

Is enough to make even a sailor blush, :?
Lol true enough. I never even heard that song. Indeed, very profane.

My moniker is in reference to the meme that was spawned from the original viral tiktok. Some call it white supremacist (as so many things are these days), but getting into around late June I kept seeing one confirmation after another that it is indeed a white boy summer.

Not sure what it has to do with Sherwin, but make sure and stay festive!
Me was worried about your adoption of such an extreme identification, but apparently there are redeeming qualities, expressed in your linked video, that didn't turn up in me quick google search. 8-)
Michael Sherwin wrote: July 27th, 2021, 11:26 pm Before
2. ARCHAIC
in front of someone or something.
"they began trotting through the city with guards running before and behind"
There's an example of a single word having many definitions; Some may think badly about Mike's musical preferences, but other things are more important. Actually, me spacey trip to the space coast, shortly after his Spaceman post, really kinda blew me away; Suddenly there I was nearly on the doorstep of Deseret Ranch, after coinciding with street names that were eerily reminiscent of his Wicker Man. Seems some elements of the church are good indeed, but where the truth ends, has become an open question.

Memes survive Abijah’s Galaxy, but thar be no monikers. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
Doesn't it feel like a game that we don't quite know the rules for? Does God and/or the Devil play games in the scriptures? I can't think of any. And yet my story indicates that I am a future king (not declaring anything) but I feel at times I'm just being played like a pawn. What good has it done anyone that I have this story? Most don't care. And the second biggest group just think I'm deceived. And why here at LDSFF? Nothing I share here seems to develop legs. My post, England, has over 15,000 views for only 6 pages. And yet it seems not to exist anywhere else on the net. Why? The evidence is spectacular and no one seems to care? How is that possible? Is almost everyone being programmed not to pay attention? The whole thing is surreal like it is all part of the game. A game that I do not want to play anymore.
4Joshua8 wrote: July 27th, 2021, 7:00 pm
BeNotDeceived wrote: July 27th, 2021, 4:19 pm
4Joshua8 wrote: July 15th, 2021, 7:20 pm.
… Heavenly objects will fall, igniting fires, sending the waters beyond their bounds, sinking entire cities permanently in the depths, destroying inland rivers and lakes, and threatening even the cities of the latter-day saints in the valleys of the Everlasting Hills …
Reply #57 in They shall NOT deceive the very elect calculates the half hour of silence in heaven will end no sooner than 2025.6 … albeit the veracity of the JST may be an open question.

Fourteen, but not Generations. :mrgreen: dbnp
Why are you calculating from 2010 as a starting point?
The Bible gives many clues which makes it much like a game. There’s some recent clues, based on the seventh seal being opened in 2010. Albeit it’s been quiet going back many years, but how prosperous was King David’s kingdom before the seven years of prosperity?

The 2024 eclipse seems an important clue too, what to do? :mrgreen:

Post Reply