- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
So listening to the Devery Anderson Podcast about his book Development of LDS Temple Worship, 1846-2000: A Documentary History He said something that excited me….there was a story on this board a year or so ago about someone knew someone who said at one point we almost got rid of the garment.
Nobody could find any citations…well…
Devery mentions this in his interview and says it is in the book. Apparently it was in the 1920’s or 30′ and the entire quorum voted in favor but Joseph (F?) Smith was not there and was quite upset and came back and talked everyone out of it. Supposedly Mathew Cowley and Ballards wives were so thrilled when their hubbies told them they went out that day and bought new underwear.
I know several here wanted to know…thought I would pass it on.
Thanks for the info!!! It is sad to see how the culture takes over and things become set in stone and “doctrinal” in the lds church. Soon it will be scandalous to see an lds woman or child’s knees or shoulders regardless of being endowed or not. A few people’s desires and fears set the rules for everyone else to be judged by. 
Quote:Soon it will be scandalous to see an lds woman or child’s knees or shoulders regardless of being endowed or not.
Not if my daughters have anything to say about it – and they will.
Some things, notwithstanding, I believe we are moving in the opposite direction right now.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:Soon it will be scandalous to see an lds woman or child’s knees or shoulders regardless of being endowed or not.
Not if my daughters have anything to say about it – and they will.
Some things, notwithstanding, I believe we are moving in the opposite direction right now.
The opposite direction of what? Towards or away from obsessive modesty? That’s something that’s even tainted the UK. Kids in ‘strappy’ dresses getting tutted by others. If a young woman goes to a prom/dance in a dress that wouldn’t cover garments (even though she doesn’t wear them) she is asked to leave or to put a shawl over shoulders. I’ve known YW leaders who take a few ‘just in case.’ I see it getting worse.
I have seen it get worse in my lifetime, and I believe I have been seeing it change recently. I really dislike the way we handle “modesty” in the Church, since we don’t do so comprehensively and modestly (in moderation), and I can trace that back to the time of Pres. Kimball (whom I LOVE in so many other ways), especially. I think the pendulum swing is slowing and, in some places, starting to swing back.
Something as simple as the diversity now in dress standards for female missionaries is one indication, but there are more.
We will have to agree to disagree on the modesty police lightning up culturally Ray though I pray you are correct. Between the For Strength of Youth being viewed as scripture now and people/the church laying blame for any sexual thought of males squarely on YW/women I do not see this swinging back. The Friend and New Era are pushing the garment standard for kids and with the lower age for female missionaries now it will be one more reason to dress all YW as if already in garments. The sister missionaries coming back will not push for any substantial changes in garments due to fear of not upholding covenants and priesthood council. So I truly fear this ship has sailed as those with the loudest voice ie FEAR have shifted the church culture at large once again. johnh wrote:So listening to the Devery Anderson Podcast about his book Development of LDS Temple Worship, 1846-2000: A Documentary History
He said something that excited me….there was a story on this board a year or so ago about someone knew someone who said at one point we almost got rid of the garment.
Nobody could find any citations…well…
Devery mentions this in his interview and says it is in the book. Apparently it was in the 1920’s or 30′ and the entire quorum voted in favor but Joseph (F?) Smith was not there and was quite upset and came back and talked everyone out of it. Supposedly Mathew Cowley and Ballards wives were so thrilled when their hubbies told them they went out that day and bought new underwear.
I know several here wanted to know…thought I would pass it on.
Where was the interview? I’d like to listen. Skimming my (just-bought, not-read) book, I’m not finding a page number yet.
Where I first read about it was in a bycommonconsent post by Margaret Blair Young titled, “I Do So Wear Underpants.” I think the post was reacting to some stuff in the news about garments during Romney campaign. The comment about this infamous meeting of most of the Twelve, (and maybe it never happened?) was made by Meldrum the Less not too far into the comments. My impression was that the decision you’re talking about was to
require themin the temple and on the Sabbath, and that, beyond, members were free to wear when they chose. The only two things re. garments that jump out this minute are:
“We recommend that we authorize the wearing of garments without sleeves….” (p. 241) Don’t know what became of that recommendation.
I thought it was interesting that in 1936 (so late!) a small committee submitted recommendations for making garments more uniform, respected by members and meaningful. They wrote, “We recommend that a definition be given in the temple of the significance and symbolism of the various marks in the garment. . . . .The best interpretation which has come up to us at this time has been supplied by President McKay. It is as follows: A)The square: Honor, integrity, loyalty and trustworthiness.
The compass: An undeviating course in relation to truth. Desires should be kept within proper bounds. C) The navel: That the spiritual life needs constant sustenance. D) The knee: Reverence for God, the source of divine guidance and inspiration. To this last one might be added that which is now in use: That every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ.The first part of D isn’t in there now, is it? I like it.
Ann wrote:I thought it was interesting that in 1936 (so late!) a small committee submitted recommendations for making garments more uniform, respected by members and meaningful. They wrote, “We recommend that a definition be given in the temple of the significance and symbolism of the various marks in the garment. . . . .The best interpretation which has come up to us at this time has been supplied by President McKay. It is as follows: A)The square: Honor, integrity, loyalty and trustworthiness.
The compass: An undeviating course in relation to truth. Desires should be kept within proper bounds. C) The navel: That the spiritual life needs constant sustenance. D) The knee: Reverence for God, the source of divine guidance and inspiration. To this last one might be added that which is now in use: That every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ.What? The markings weren’t explained in the temple before 1936? Isn’t that the main reason for the garments, the markings? Were there markings in the garments from the beginning, or was that added later at some point? The more I hear about changes to the temple experience, the less inspired it seems.
journeygirl wrote:What? The markings weren’t explained in the temple before 1936? Isn’t that the main reason for the garments, the markings? Were there markings in the garments from the beginning, or was that added later at some point?
Sorry! The book’s nearly 500 pages and I was just skimming to look for a record of johnh’s incident. (And I liked the additional wording for the knee mark.) I don’t know how the marks were explained before that because I haven’t read
😳 , but maybe the 1936 recommendation was an effort to standardize how they were explained?Personally I really like the fact that the endowment has changed a lot. Some of Isaiah makes no sense at all to me because the symbolism he uses has no context I can understand. Symbols are only useful if they mean something. Baptism is an easy so no need to change it. Endowment obviously has lots of symbols. Some of them I get and some I don’t. The idea that they decided to clarify the symbols is good news. Maybe one day they’ll do the same for others.
A square and a compass (it’s not a magnetic north compass, it’s the type used on ships and on star charts for navigating) would have been an easy symbol for the early saints. No explanation needed. A square is used for building houses and buildings. They did a lot of that. Many of them also sailed to the states and would have been more familiar with the use of compasses.
By the 1930s we were all in offices and factories. No use for squares and compasses so fewer would know the symbol.
The Chinese ancient creation stories have a lot of use for squares and compasses. A square is to have been used to build the foundation of the world while a compass the stars. It’s a symbol of heaven and earth.
Amen, mackay11. Those symbols can be powerful if understood, but without the basic understanding, clarification is necessary. mackay11 wrote:
A square and a compass (it’s not a magnetic north compass, it’s the type used on ships and on star charts for navigating) would have been an easy symbol for the early saints. No explanation needed. A square is used for building houses and buildings. They did a lot of that. Many of them also sailed to the states and would have been more familiar with the use of compasses.
In case I’ve not described it well, I mean one of these:
[img]http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/drafting-compass-3268750.jpg [/img] Quote:Distances can be measured on a map using compasses with two spikes, also called a dividing compass. The hinge is set in such a way that the distance between the spikes on the map represents a certain distance in reality, and by measuring how many times the compasses fit between two points on the map the distance between those points can be calculated.
And in case you’re interested, here’s Fuxi and Nuwa, the Chinese ‘Adam and Eve/Noah’ replete with their compass and squares: Quote:According to legend, the land was swept by a great flood and only Fu Xi and his sister Nüwa survived. They retired to the mythological Kunlun Mountain, where they prayed for a sign from the Emperor of Heaven. The divine being approved their union and the siblings set about procreating the human race. In order to speed up the process, Fu Xi and Nüwa used clay to create human figures, and with the power divine entrusted to them made the clay figures come alive.[1] Fu Xi then came to rule over his descendants, although reports of his long reign vary between sources, from 115 years (2852–2737 BCE) to 116 years (2952–2836 BCE).
Here’s a post summarising what Nibley’s said about Fuxi and Nuwa:
http://www.templestudy.com/2008/09/17/nuwa-and-fuxi-in-chinese-mythology-compass-square/ mackay11 wrote:A square and a compass…
Yeah, you know, it’s funny, because I’ve never given this a second thought, as someone who has used both a square and a compass, it all makes sense to me.I have used and continue to use a square a lot more, and, no surprise, I think the symbolism is “right on”.
A square is used in construction to ensure that what you are building keeps right angles. This concept is where terms like “you are right”, “right with God”, “righteousness”, “rights”, “just”, “justice”, “justification”, “straight”, “fit”, and “true” come from. If you are building something and you get “out of square”, it will cause you extra work and it may never look “right”.
No need to apologize, Ann. I should look it up myself if I want more details! I guess I was surprised because I thought if they didn’t have explanations for the markings, then it meant that they were going off of the masonic meanings of those symbols and I wondered why were they ever on garments then. But maybe it is the same meaning anyway, I guess I don’t really know. Thanks Mackay, for explaining about Fuxi and Nuwa. I had assumed the markings were purely masonic, but perhaps there is more to that story (for the masons as well).I guess I am just not one of those people who enjoy symbolism much.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.