- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
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.
Thanks for that point Mackay. Can you help me understand how the dividing compass is symbolic of “An undeviating course in relation to truth. Desires should be kept within proper bounds.”? Thanks again!
Compasses were used not just to draw circles, like the ones used in school geometry now (although that use is interesting in relation to temple wording regarding truth and circumscription, as well), but also, as the description with the picture says, to measure distances from one point to another – to map the path between two points and estimate how long it will take to get from one point to another. “Undeviating” and use in charting the stars (the heavenly firmament) . . .
As a shop teacher, the compass and square have meaning to me. I wish the church wouldn’t have been so damn secretive in the 80s-90s and taught me what those symbols on the garments actually meant.
Learn church.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Sorry…forgot to post the link. It is a 4 part podcast and I believe he mention this in part 3.
http://exploringsainthood.org/devery-anderson-development-of-lds-temple-worship-part-1/ I have not heard about the movement to reduce the G’s wearing in the 20’s or 30’s, but I did find this description of a similar attempt in the 50’s under president McKay. It’s not a primary source, but makes a good story. Quote:
Source info:http://bycommonconsent.com/2012/09/27/i-do-so-wear-underpants/#more-38847 Margaret Blair Young
Comment 16, Sept 27 2012
You know there is one easy solution to this garmy obsession. According to my mother, God rest her soul, who worked as a secretary in the church offices in the early 1950′s, President McKay and 10 of the 12 apostles had every intention of getting rid of them. Wear them only during temple sessions. The older generation could do as the pleased. But two apostle hold-outs, I won’t name them, refused and they didn’t want to take any action of this sort without 100% support. It really is a shame that two stubborn old men from half a century ago are the primary reason we have not abandoned this silly relic of the past.
For the record, being raised in Utah with an irrepressible congenital obsession of spotting immediately who is wearing them, I can tell you that very few people wear garments outdoors in Georgia where I now reside, especially during about 6 months of summer, including local leaders in bishoprics, stake presidencies, etc. The wearing of the garment could only be perpetuated in a cold dry climate by physically inactive men with uninterrupted access to good air conditioning. It is not very practical at all for physically active people living in humid tropical and subtropical climates where the majority of the church now resides.
I do not find it surprising in the least that Joseph Smith was not wearing them when he was murdered on a hot humid summer day. Strict garment wearing is rather incompatible with the realities of intense sexual activity typical in early marriage that often continues for years thereafter, pregnancy, lactation and also with the entire inherently disgraceful process of growing old and sick and dying. Hardly ‘family friendly.”
I don’t think the garment represents any obstacle to sexual infidelity; the LDS with LDS cheaters probably don’t think twice about them except in mockery, and the LDS with non-LDS cheaters probably find them intriguing. Much like tattoos some have placed in strategic locations to enhance their seduction.
I recommend a sensible course of action, not wearing them when it is not practical which might be most of the time for many circumstances and stop obsessing over it. Establish boundaries. If leaders or anyone else wants to obsess over undies, put it back on them.
johnh wrote:Sorry…forgot to post the link.
It is a 4 part podcast and I believe he mention this in part 3.
http://exploringsainthood.org/devery-anderson-development-of-lds-temple-worship-part-1/ Listening to these is therapeutic. Devery Anderson ranges over a lot of material and it helps get me out of “love it” or “hate it” thinking. (Can anyone today imagine hiding behind shrubbery ala Adam and Eve or actually eating fruit?) Still, I think a lot went awry in the development of the endowment.
Quote:(Can anyone today imagine hiding behind shrubbery ala Adam and Eve)
Sure, if I had lived in a state of child-like innocence and suddenly was told by someone else that my condition was shameful. I have children, and I have seen them hide when they thought they had done something they shouldn’t have done, even when nobody told them they shouldn’t have done it.
I think there are all kinds of lessons available in the Garden of Eden narrative (like the idea that nakedness is wrong, in and of itself, comes from Lucifer and, therefore, is an apostate concept), when it is taken symbolically and allegorically – but I tend to see different lessons in lots of things than many other people.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:(Can anyone today imagine hiding behind shrubbery ala Adam and Eve)
Sure, if I had lived in a state of child-like innocence and suddenly was told by someone else that my condition was shameful. I have children, and I have seen them hide when they thought they had done something they shouldn’t have done, even when nobody told them they shouldn’t have done it.
I think there are all kinds of lessons available in the Garden of Eden narrative(like the idea that nakedness is wrong, in and of itself, comes from Lucifer and, therefore, is an apostate concept), when it is taken symbolically and allegorically – but I tend to see different lessons in lots of things than many other people. I agree. I just meant that the ceremony was soooo different then. “Campy” almost comes to mind when I hear the descriptions on the podcast, but I don’t have bad feelings towards it. Setting aside the (HUGE) issue of women in temple then and today, I admire the effort that went into making a transcendent experience. They were hard-working builders with the available materials. The physical work alone is impressive. We’re very removed from it all now. (My husband’s parents from a time when they built their own chapel, my parents from a time when we raised money for our own chapel, me from a time when we do neither. So I have to ask myself if I
ama hard worker. Am I “building the kingdom in righteous ways”?) When I see the new film I wonder if I’ll feel more like a participant or a consumer. Part of me likes the idea of a big space partitioned by canvas curtains and props brought in for the play. (And I’ve never seen a live session. Will those continue?) I think that’s why I enjoy the initiatory (minus gender issues) – it’s so low-tech.
Apologies for wandering so far from the OP.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:(Can anyone today imagine hiding behind shrubbery ala Adam and Eve)
Sure, if I had lived in a state of child-like innocence and suddenly was told by someone else that my condition was shameful. I have children, and I have seen them hide when they thought they had done something they shouldn’t have done, even when nobody told them they shouldn’t have done it.
I think there are all kinds of lessons available in the Garden of Eden narrative (like the idea that nakedness is wrong, in and of itself, comes from Lucifer and, therefore, is an apostate concept), when it is taken symbolically and allegorically – but I tend to see different lessons in lots of things than many other people.
Ya that one always struck me as odd. Here we have a god creating a couple in sin by creating them and them not telling them they were sinning by having no cloths and in order to find out it was a sin they had to sin and eat the apple.
:wtf: I never got it because that’s what passes through my head every time. The logic is baffling. Thanks.
Also many tribes through out time and even now apparently don’t feel shame for being naked or half naked to one another their entire life. Not that I would want to join them lol. But it makes it perplexed situation. What apparently made it wrong was the teaching or idea itself. Many parts of Asia also don’t feel a shame for what we would feel strongly shamed for in this aspect. I can’t bring myself to believe they are ignorant or don’t have a conscious, that’s absurd. While I except of my culture, the teachings are conflicting. Sinning in order to correct a sin.
:wtf: Remember that it was Satan that told them they were naked and needed to hide…he is the father of lies. Maybe that is the origin of our sexual repression and guilt…its a big lie invented by satan that gives guilt its biggest power
Forgotten_Charity wrote:Old-Timer wrote:Quote:(Can anyone today imagine hiding behind shrubbery ala Adam and Eve)
Sure, if I had lived in a state of child-like innocence and suddenly was told by someone else that my condition was shameful. I have children, and I have seen them hide when they thought they had done something they shouldn’t have done, even when nobody told them they shouldn’t have done it.
I think there are all kinds of lessons available in the Garden of Eden narrative (like the idea that nakedness is wrong, in and of itself, comes from Lucifer and, therefore, is an apostate concept), when it is taken symbolically and allegorically – but I tend to see different lessons in lots of things than many other people.
Ya that one always struck me as odd. Here we have a god creating a couple in sin by creating them and them not telling them they were sinning by having no cloths and in order to find out it was a sin they had to sin and eat the apple.
:wtf: I never got it because that’s what passes through my head every time. The logic is baffling. Thanks.
Also many tribes through out time and even now apparently don’t feel shame for being naked or half naked to one another their entire life. Not that I would want to join them lol. But it makes it perplexed situation. What apparently made it wrong was the teaching or idea itself. Many parts of Asia also don’t feel a shame for what we would feel strongly shamed for in this aspect. I can’t bring myself to believe they are ignorant or don’t have a conscious, that’s absurd. While I except of my culture, the teachings are conflicting. Sinning in order to correct a sin.
:wtf: Actually there are many areas here where people don’t feel any shame about being naked, to whit
http://www.ldssdf.org/v2/ And I am definitely not ignorant and my conscience is most assuredly intact. And now back to the OP.GB, I was tempted to provide the link to that group, but I knew you would, so I didn’t look it up. Old-Timer wrote:GB, I was tempted to provide the link to that group, but I knew you would, so I didn’t look it up.
It’s a comfort to know you’ve got my back. ‘preciate it.
🙂 Seems nearly all old men have no qualms about being naked Sent from my XT890 using Tapatalk 4
johnh wrote:Seems nearly all old men have no qualms about being naked
Sent from my XT890 using Tapatalk 4
Define “old”.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.