It is currently Wed Nov 21, 2018 4:41 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 186 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:35 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 6:25 pm
Posts: 3679
Location: Kershaw, SC
Quote:
You're right. In fact, President Packer appeared to be advocating violence against homosexuals in his infamous "little factory" speech.

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



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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:42 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 6:25 pm
Posts: 3679
Location: Kershaw, SC
Quote:
"Liberals" (and other lovers of freedom) have always had a problem with coercion, sexual or otherwise.


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

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


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


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


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


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



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


Last edited by Coggins7 on Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 11:14 am 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm
Posts: 18195
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Quote:
Quote:
Please explain how non-teased hair bestows greater "spirituality" within the core principles of the Gospel.


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


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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 11:16 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:27 am
Posts: 4085
Location: Planet Earth
Coggins7 wrote:
Rollo Tomasi wrote:
Please explain how non-teased hair bestows greater "spirituality" within the core principles of the Gospel.

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

In other words, folks, our dear Loran has not a clue ... as usual.

_________________
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:01 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:40 am
Posts: 1183
harmony wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Please explain how non-teased hair bestows greater "spirituality" within the core principles of the Gospel.


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


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


Apparently the deep princilples of teased hair and spirituality require too much thought. This is about as deep as Mormonism goes on the spirituality scale, so it requires some deep, deep thinking.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:17 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 6:25 pm
Posts: 3679
Location: Kershaw, SC
I'm not going to waste my time on a well thought out, lengthy discussion of the principles and ideas behind such things as Packer raised in his talk for the simple reason that I have learned over the years that, when dealing with people like those exmos and anti-Mormons who frequent forums such as this, crafting long, in depth philosophical arguments about things such as this will only be met by more smarmy, paternalistic dismissals and mocking sarcasm. The points, logical structure, and philsophical premises will never be substantively engaged, and the dialog from leftist, anti-Judeo/Christian value relativists like Scratch, Harmony, and Rollo will continue at the level of the snide bashing of GAs and highly disingenuous claims of the benign nature of radical Feminism and its policy iniitatives, all of which are founded in its particular form of the traditional cultural Marxist oppressor/oppressed parigdim relative to the relations between men and woman as well as its utter hostility to both classical liberalism, encomic liberty ("capitalism"), and the Judeo/Christian foundations of much of America's law, jurisprudence, and social fabric.

In other words, I have much, much more than a clue, and I'd love to share it with others, especially when they may disagree with me, if, and only if, they are capable of the level of discourse at which I would like to engage theses subjects. My present interlocutors are not, and so I'm not.

You were all, all of you, running on fumes when you began this debate, and the fumes have now become trace gases. The ERA was an attempt to impose radical Feminist ideology on the constitution and on the American body politic by first amending the constitution to reflect that ideology in a vague, nebulous construction that would allow later leftist special interest lawyers and activist judges to interpret and reinterpret the amendment in as creative a manner as they wished, hopefully to the end of destroying the traditional family, marriage, the romantic and long term committed bonds between men and woman, and the disciplines and restrictions upon unbridled sexuality combined with the Boomer generation materialist focus on self encouraged by marriage, family responsabilities, and committments to both the community and nation of which one is a part. This is a focus not just on self and personal sexual relationships, but on future generations as part of a dedication to principles larger than just the self, its personal desires, and the male/female sexual/romantic/emotinal relationship in and of itself.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:29 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:16 pm
Posts: 1372
Coggins7 wrote:
I'm not going to waste my time on a well thought out, lengthy discussion of the principles and ideas behind such things as Packer raised in his talk for the simple reason that I have learned over the years that, when dealing with people like those exmos and anti-Mormons who frequent forums such as this, crafting long, in depth philosophical arguments about things such as this will only be met by more smarmy, paternalistic dismissals and mocking sarcasm. The points, logical structure, and philsophical premises will never be substantively engaged, and the dialog from leftist, anti-Judeo/Christian value relativists like Scratch, Harmony, and Rollo will continue at the level of the snide bashing of GAs and highly disingenuous claims of the benign nature of radical Feminism and its policy iniitatives, all of which are founded in its particular form of the traditional cultural Marxist oppressor/oppressed parigdim relative to the relations between men and woman as well as its utter hostility to both classical liberalism, encomic liberty ("capitalism"), and the Judeo/Christian foundations of much of America's law, jurisprudence, and social fabric.

In other words, I have much, much more than a clue, and I'd love to share it with others, especially when they may disagree with me, if, and only if, they are capable of the level of discourse at which I would like to engage theses subjects. My present interlocutors are not, and so I'm not.

You were all, all of you, running on fumes when you began this debate, and the fumes have now become trace gases. The ERA was an attempt to impose radical Feminist ideology on the constitution and on the American body politic by first amending the constitution to reflect that ideology in a vague, nebulous construction that would allow later leftist special interest lawyers and activist judges to interpret and reinterpret the amendment in as creative a manner as they wished, hopefully to the end of destroying the traditional family, marriage, the romantic and long term committed bonds between men and woman, and the disciplines and restrictions upon unbridled sexuality combined with the Boomer generation materialist focus on self encouraged by marriage, family responsabilities, and committments to both the community and nation of which one is a part. This is a focus not just on self and personal sexual relationships, but on future generations as part of a dedication to principles larger than just the self, its personal desires, and the male/female sexual/romantic/emotinal relationship in and of itself.


Just a quick question. What criteria do you use to decide whether to post as Coggins7 or as Plutarch?

_________________
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:33 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:40 am
Posts: 1183
Coggins7 wrote:
I'm not going to waste my time on a well thought out, lengthy discussion of the principles and ideas behind such things as Packer raised in his talk for the simple reason that I have learned over the years that, when dealing with people like those exmos and anti-Mormons who frequent forums such as this, crafting long, in depth philosophical arguments about things such as this will only be met by more smarmy, paternalistic dismissals and mocking sarcasm. The points, logical structure, and philsophical premises will never be substantively engaged, and the dialog from leftist, anti-Judeo/Christian value relativists like Scratch, Harmony, and Rollo will continue at the level of the snide bashing of GAs and highly disingenuous claims of the benign nature of radical Feminism and its policy iniitatives, all of which are founded in its particular form of the traditional cultural Marxist oppressor/oppressed parigdim relative to the relations between men and woman as well as its utter hostility to both classical liberalism, encomic liberty ("capitalism"), and the Judeo/Christian foundations of much of America's law, jurisprudence, and social fabric.


WOW! You got all that from teased hair? I'm don't think even Boyd himself has thought this deeply about it. He just thought teased hair = harlot, but you've taken it to a whole new level that involves radical feminists and even Karl Marx. This is totally deep, man. So what are the socio-economic implications of lambchop sideburns?


Last edited by SatanWasSetUp on Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:33 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm
Posts: 19446
Location: Koloburbia
Loran, I know at Salt Lake Community College, the students in Cosmetology spend a considerable amount of time teasing the hair of their practice dummies (no, not me - I mean the artificial ones) in preparation for teasing the hair of their women customers. Should the LDS students refuse to participate on the grounds that it violates their newly defined religious principles?

_________________
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:42 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 6:25 pm
Posts: 3679
Location: Kershaw, SC
Quote:
WOW! You got all that from teased hair? I'm don't think even Boyd himself has thought this deeply about it. He just thought teased hair = harlot, but you've taken it to a whole new level that involves radical feminists and even Karl Marx. This is totally deep, man. So what are the socio-economic implications of lambchop sideburns?



Well, no. This was mostly in response to the continued attempts of both Scratch and Harmony to try to hide what they, the proponents of the ERA and its originators really are: Leftists with an agenda and belief system wholly out of harmony with the founding principles of this nation and the legal document that is the supreme law of that nation. The attempt to whitewash and minimize the effects and original intent of one of the most ideologically extreme political attacks on constitutional government and the classical liberal foundations of it are what brought this on, not the original "teased hair" debate.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:50 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 6:25 pm
Posts: 3679
Location: Kershaw, SC
Quote:
Loran, I know at Salt Lake Community College, the students in Cosmetology spend a considerable amount of time teasing the hair of their practice dummies (no, not me - I mean the artificial ones) in preparation for teasing the hair of their women customers. Should the LDS students refuse to participate on the grounds that it violates their newly defined religious principles?


The answer is no. As I heard Packer's talk, the counsel was for Latter Day Saints, not those of the great and spacious building. And, as Packer's counsel had no particular moral meaning, in and of itself, nothing precludes Mormon hair stylists from teasing the hair of others, just as nothing prevents Mormon restaruant or hotel owners from serving liquor. Just as alcohol is not in and of itself evil, neither is teased hair, and this was not Packer's meaning. Teased hair, overuse of body ornimentation, such as earrings, jewlry, tattoos, body piercing, to different degrees, are an integral part of the culture of "the world" represented by the great and spacious building, and the Saints don't need to be imitating Babylon, even in small things, because imitation, in time, very often leads to integration.

Gospel teachings try to avoid sin at the periphery so that it need not be dealt with later at the center, or core.


Last edited by Coggins7 on Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:54 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm
Posts: 16719
Location: Northern Utah
Coggins7 wrote:

The answer is no. As I heard Packer's talk, the counsel was for Latter Day Saints, not those of the great and spacious building. And, as Packer's counsel had no particular moral meaning, in and of itself, nothing precludes Mormon hair stylists from teasing the hair of others, just as nothing prevents Mormon restaruant or hotel owners from serving liquor. Just as alcohol is not in and of itself evil, neither is teased hair, and this was not Packer's meaning. Teased hair, overuse of body ornimentation, such as earrings, jewlry, tattoos, body piercing, to different degrees, are an integral part of the culture of "the world" represented by the great and spacious building, and the Saints don't need to be imitating Babylon, even in small things, because imitation, in time, very often leads to integration.

Gospel teachings try to avoid sin at the periphery so that it need not be dealty with later at the center, or core.


I guess I'm still puzzled as to why teased hair is more worldly than other hair and how that relates to the periphery of sin.

_________________
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:00 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:16 pm
Posts: 1372
Coggins7 wrote:
Quote:
WOW! You got all that from teased hair? I'm don't think even Boyd himself has thought this deeply about it. He just thought teased hair = harlot, but you've taken it to a whole new level that involves radical feminists and even Karl Marx. This is totally deep, man. So what are the socio-economic implications of lambchop sideburns?



Well, no. This was mostly in response to the continued attempts of both Scratch and Harmony to try to hide what they, the proponents of the ERA and its originators really are: Leftists with an agenda and belief system wholly out of harmony with the founding principles of this nation and the legal document that is the supreme law of that nation. The attempt to whitewash and minimize the effects and original intent of one of the most ideologically extreme political attacks on constitutional government and the classical liberal foundations of it are what brought this on, not the original "teased hair" debate.


Ideologically extreme? You mean the part about women being equal to men and therefore should enjoy equal rights?

Was it the underlying idea motivating the ERA that was extreme, or the method proposed to operationalize it?

_________________
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:02 pm 
Master Mahan

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:13 pm
Posts: 5604
Coggins7 wrote:
Quote:
Loran, I know at Salt Lake Community College, the students in Cosmetology spend a considerable amount of time teasing the hair of their practice dummies (no, not me - I mean the artificial ones) in preparation for teasing the hair of their women customers. Should the LDS students refuse to participate on the grounds that it violates their newly defined religious principles?


The answer is no. As I heard Packer's talk, the counsel was for Latter Day Saints, not those of the great and spacious building. And, as Packer's counsel had no particular moral meaning, in and of itself, nothing precludes Mormon hair stylists from teasing the hair of others, just as nothing prevents Mormon restaruant or hotel owners from serving liquor. Just as alcohol is not in and of itself evil, neither is teased hair, and this was not Packer's meaning. Teased hair, overuse of body ornimentation, such as earrings, jewlry, tattoos, body piercing, to different degrees, are an integral part of the culture of "the world" represented by the great and spacious building, and the Saints don't need to be imitating Babylon, even in small things, because imitation, in time, very often leads to integration.

Gospel teachings try to avoid sin at the periphery so that it need not be dealty with later at the center, or core.


This seems a wrong-headed interpretation, in my view. I think it is more accurate to say (as has been echoed by countless of the Brethren) that heeding this seemingly silly advice is really more a badge of loyalty and obedience. Wearing only one pair of earrings and not teasing one's hair is, in effect, a means of saying, "Yes, I will obey. I will do what you say, Elder Packer."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:04 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:16 pm
Posts: 1372
Runtu wrote:
Coggins7 wrote:

The answer is no. As I heard Packer's talk, the counsel was for Latter Day Saints, not those of the great and spacious building. And, as Packer's counsel had no particular moral meaning, in and of itself, nothing precludes Mormon hair stylists from teasing the hair of others, just as nothing prevents Mormon restaruant or hotel owners from serving liquor. Just as alcohol is not in and of itself evil, neither is teased hair, and this was not Packer's meaning. Teased hair, overuse of body ornimentation, such as earrings, jewlry, tattoos, body piercing, to different degrees, are an integral part of the culture of "the world" represented by the great and spacious building, and the Saints don't need to be imitating Babylon, even in small things, because imitation, in time, very often leads to integration.

Gospel teachings try to avoid sin at the periphery so that it need not be dealty with later at the center, or core.


I guess I'm still puzzled as to why teased hair is more worldly than other hair and how that relates to the periphery of sin.


The same way that drinking a non-caffeneited cola is on the periphery of sin. It is a proven fact that if one drinks non-caffeneited colas, it is only a matter of time before he drinks caffeneited cola, and once this happens, it is only a matter of time before he drinks coffee and tea, and once this happens, it is only a matter of time before he masturbates, and once this happens, it is only a matter of time before he commits adultery, homosexuality, or beastiality, and once this happens, it is only a matter of time before he rapes and kills.

So, silly, decaffeited cola = raping and killing.

Using similar process of sound, logical reasoning, everyone knows that teased hair=prostitution.

_________________
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:38 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 6:25 pm
Posts: 3679
Location: Kershaw, SC
Quote:
This seems a wrong-headed interpretation, in my view. I think it is more accurate to say (as has been echoed by countless of the Brethren) that heeding this seemingly silly advice is really more a badge of loyalty and obedience. Wearing only one pair of earrings and not teasing one's hair is, in effect, a means of saying, "Yes, I will obey. I will do what you say, Elder Packer."


I'm sure this does seem wrong headed to one of your intellectual leanings and psycholgical biases. To a leftist for whom rigorous ideological purity obviates all other considerations, whether those of stark fact or a sincere attempt to understand the theology or philosophy of others when interpretations are called for, anything appears wrongheaded that does not substantiate the preconceived conclusions that have already been reached before any discussion has commenced.


Loran


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:42 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm
Posts: 18195
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Coggins7 wrote:
Quote:
This seems a wrong-headed interpretation, in my view. I think it is more accurate to say (as has been echoed by countless of the Brethren) that heeding this seemingly silly advice is really more a badge of loyalty and obedience. Wearing only one pair of earrings and not teasing one's hair is, in effect, a means of saying, "Yes, I will obey. I will do what you say, Elder Packer."


I'm sure this does seem wrong headed to one of your intellectual leanings and psycholgical biases. To a leftist for whom rigorous ideological purity obviates all other considerations, whether those of stark fact or a sincere attempt to understand the theology or philosophy of others when interpretations are called for, anything appears wrongheaded that does not substantiate the preconceived conclusions that have already been reached before any discussion has commenced.


Loran


54. Work harder, Loran.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 6:33 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 6:25 pm
Posts: 3679
Location: Kershaw, SC
Quote:
Work harder, Loran.



I think its time to go back to the lab and have your bolts tightened Harmony. Then you can make a second try at university and this time, actually try and get an education, in the substantive sense of the term.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:11 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm
Posts: 18195
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Coggins7 wrote:
Quote:
Work harder, Loran.



I think its time to go back to the lab and have your bolts tightened Harmony. Then you can make a second try at university and this time, actually try and get an education, in the substantive sense of the term.


Tsk tsk. Poor Loran. Your envy is showing.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:33 pm 
Master Mahan

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:13 pm
Posts: 5604
Coggins7 wrote:
Quote:
This seems a wrong-headed interpretation, in my view. I think it is more accurate to say (as has been echoed by countless of the Brethren) that heeding this seemingly silly advice is really more a badge of loyalty and obedience. Wearing only one pair of earrings and not teasing one's hair is, in effect, a means of saying, "Yes, I will obey. I will do what you say, Elder Packer."


I'm sure this does seem wrong headed to one of your intellectual leanings and psycholgical biases. To a leftist for whom rigorous ideological purity obviates all other considerations, whether those of stark fact or a sincere attempt to understand the theology or philosophy of others when interpretations are called for, anything appears wrongheaded that does not substantiate the preconceived conclusions that have already been reached before any discussion has commenced.


Loran


Ah, an ad hominem attack. Well done, Loran! Or do you actually have a counterargument?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:48 pm 
Regional Representative

Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:29 pm
Posts: 677
Who Knows wrote:
Runtu wrote:
I know my wife said that the new top for women is just a tank top, without the "support" seams.


A tank top? Really? I haven't heard that either. Can women bare their shoulders now?


Oh my, I can feel a quickening of the pulse!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 186 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 43 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group