Do the “unworthy” have a duty? (Witnessing temple attire in a funeral)

[Five Solas]

Earlier this week someone authored a thread about LDS temple attire.  On it, I shared my experience seeing my late grandfather in LDS temple garb, open casket viewing at a funeral home in Provo.   I provided some detail as I remembered it and I also shared my perspective that the sight was incongruent with the man I knew.  Further, I speculated he would have found it amusing to have rented his attire and thereby racked up late fees and interest from six feet down in Provo cemetery.  (If you’d known the man—you might appreciate the humor here too.)

I was never able to do the LDS temple endowment ceremony, so that funeral was the closest I ever got to such things.  (My bishops were all sticklers when it came to temple recommend interviews and I was deemed “unworthy”—although I held many callings throughout my LDS years.)

That thread has since vanished completely.  But before it shuffled off its mortal coil, one LDS poster therein chastised me severely for my views and told me if I didn’t show due reverence, I’d quickly find myself on “limited” status.

So with such warning received, I don’t wish to explore any of the details of LDS temple dress, in a casket or elsewhere.  Nor will I share anything further of my deceased grandpa.

I merely wish to understand whether LDS think their unworthy counterparts and/or non-LDS have some duty, some obligation to not disclose or discuss temple attire publicly (be it on this forum or any other).  And if so, what is the basis for that obligation (e.g., to honor the memory of the departed, to show respect for the sensitivities of worthy LDS, some inherent obligation all people have to the LDS Heavenly Father)?  What is the basis (if there actually is one)?

--Erik

______________________________________________________

Well, you wonder why I always dress in black
Why you never see bright colors on my back
And why does my appearance seem to have a somber tone
Well, there's a reason for the things that I have on

--Johnny Cash (1932 - 2003)

 

[Gray]

I wouldn't use the term "unworthy" to describe you or really anyone else. Beyond that, I personally don't have a problem with anyone discussing the temple clothing. I think we're far too sensitive about it. Very little about the temple is actually supposed to be held secret.

Edited June 1, 2017 by Gray

[stemelbow]

I'm with Gray. 

[MiserereNobis]

If there is a public viewing at a funeral and the deceased is wearing temple vestments, then everyone gets to see them.  It would be odd to have everyone looking at something and then a prohibition against talking about it.  Or maybe I'm misunderstanding something.

How common is it for there to be a viewing with the deceased wearing temple clothing?

[thesometimesaint]

I open to almost any questions about the Temple/Temple clothing being asked. A lot depends on how it is asked.

[rchorse]

I don't think there's any duty, per se, for those who haven't made covenants to avoid discussing temple attire publicly. Having said that, though, if you know that such discussion is likely to be offensive to those who hold the attire sacred, I find it in poor taste and discourteous to go ahead anyway. 

 

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I'm with Gray. 

Me too.  Actually the burial temple clothing look nice..but in any case, temple clothing is online..so it matters not. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

But before it shuffled off its mortal coil, one LDS poster therein chastised me severely for my views and told me if I didn’t show due reverence, I’d quickly find myself on “limited” status.

I think this exchange seems to have been over the perception of reverence, not content. Are you finding a pattern in how you feel people perceive the way you come across? If not, why did this exchange impact you enough to start a thread about it?

Edited June 1, 2017 by CV75

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Earlier this week someone authored a thread about LDS temple attire.  On it, I shared my experience seeing my late grandfather in LDS temple garb, open casket viewing at a funeral home in Provo.   I provided some detail as I remembered it and I also shared my perspective that the sight was incongruent with the man I knew.  Further, I speculated he would have found it amusing to have rented his attire and thereby racked up late fees and interest from six feet down in Provo cemetery.  (If you’d known the man—you might appreciate the humor here too.)

I was never able to do the LDS temple endowment ceremony, so that funeral was the closest I ever got to such things.  (My bishops were all sticklers when it came to temple recommend interviews and I was deemed “unworthy”—although I held many callings throughout my LDS years.)

That thread has since vanished completely.  But before it shuffled off its mortal coil, one LDS poster therein chastised me severely for my views and told me if I didn’t show due reverence, I’d quickly find myself on “limited” status.

So with such warning received, I don’t wish to explore any of the details of LDS temple dress, in a casket or elsewhere.  Nor will I share anything further of my deceased grandpa.

I merely wish to understand whether LDS think their unworthy counterparts and/or non-LDS have some duty, some obligation to not disclose or discuss temple attire publicly (be it on this forum or any other).  And if so, what is the basis for that obligation (e.g., to honor the memory of the departed, to show respect for the sensitivities of worthy LDS, some inherent obligation all people have to the LDS Heavenly Father)?  What is the basis (if there actually is one)?

--Erik

______________________________________________________

Well, you wonder why I always dress in black
Why you never see bright colors on my back
And why does my appearance seem to have a somber tone
Well, there's a reason for the things that I have on

--Johnny Cash (1932 - 2003)

 

FS, I think some members are just hyper sensitive about anything having to do with the Temple and its discussion being held publicly. More importantly, such discussions are verboten on this Board and thus the warning.

Regardless, just talking to your neighbor, etc., discussing temple clothing you saw at an LDS funeral is perfectly acceptable.  As others have said, it is shown to the all that attend the funeral therefore it does not seem to be a problem for the public to discuss what they saw.

Lastly, joining with others, this idea of calling others "unworthy" is not something I have heard in the Church.  "Oh, yeah they are unworthy" or "Those unworthy people over there"; these kinds of things I have not heard as a classification of people.  On the other hand, in Bishopric meetings it is more common to state, "They do not have a temple recommend" when it is germane to the topic. 

It is not a difficult to be "worthy" to enter the temple.  If you did not ever attend the temple I suspect it was because you weren't interested in going.  I don't see a need to act as if it was the Bishop's sole choice in the matter; you were the only one who had a choice and the Bishop delivered the consequences of your choice.  

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

If there is a public viewing at a funeral and the deceased is wearing temple vestments, then everyone gets to see them.  It would be odd to have everyone looking at something and then a prohibition against talking about it.  Or maybe I'm misunderstanding something.

How common is it for there to be a viewing with the deceased wearing temple clothing?

If they are temple endowed members they will almost always be dressed in their temple robes for the viewing:
"If possible, deceased members who were endowed should be buried in temple clothing. If cultural traditions or burial practices make this inappropriate or difficult, the clothing may be folded and placed next to the body in the casket.  Only members who were endowed in life may be buried in temple clothing. An endowed person who stopped wearing the garment before his or her death may be buried in temple clothing if the family so requests." (Church Handbook)

[Tacenda]

31 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

FS, I think some members are just hyper sensitive about anything having to do with the Temple and its discussion being held publicly. More importantly, such discussions are verboten on this Board and thus the warning.

Regardless, just talking to your neighbor, etc., discussing temple clothing you saw at an LDS funeral is perfectly acceptable.  As others have said, it is shown to the all that attend the funeral therefore it does not seem to be a problem for the public to discuss what they saw.

Lastly, joining with others, this idea of calling others "unworthy" is not something I have heard in the Church.  "Oh, yeah they are unworthy" or "Those unworthy people over there"; these kinds of things I have not heard as a classification of people.  On the other hand, in Bishopric meetings it is more common to state, "They do not have a temple recommend" when it is germane to the topic. 

It is not a difficult to be "worthy" to enter the temple.  If you did not ever attend the temple I suspect it was because you weren't interested in going.  I don't see a need to act as if it was the Bishop's sole choice in the matter; you were the only one who had a choice and the Bishop delivered the consequences of your choice.  

 

I think the 'bold' needs to stop, especially when anyone can go online and look at the full temple ceremony filmed undercover by a pretty sad guy, IMO.

If it's kept too hush-hush it becomes cultish, IMO.

Edited June 1, 2017 by Tacenda

[thesometimesaint]

I don't believe it is necessary to profane the Temple just to not appear cultish.

 

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

 

I think the 'bold' needs to stop, especially when anyone can go online and look at the full temple ceremony filmed undercover by a pretty sad guy, IMO.

If it's kept too hush-hush it becomes cultish, IMO.

I'm not sure how it can stop completely, seeing as how many members have made covenants not to discuss some parts of the temple and to hold them sacred.

It being on the internet does not change those covenants in the least.

Edited June 1, 2017 by bluebell

[Tacenda]

47 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure how it can stop completely, seeing as how many members have made covenants not to discuss some parts of the temple and to hold them sacred.

It being on the internet does not change those covenants in the least.

I wish I would have been told more about the covenants beforehand. 

Edited June 1, 2017 by Tacenda

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

I wish I would have been told more about the covenants beforehand. 

Hopefully none of them were a surprise, since they are in the scriptures and are extensions of previous covenants.  But sometimes temple prep classes leave a lot to be desired.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

If there is a public viewing at a funeral and the deceased is wearing temple vestments, then everyone gets to see them.  It would be odd to have everyone looking at something and then a prohibition against talking about it.  Or maybe I'm misunderstanding something.

How common is it for there to be a viewing with the deceased wearing temple clothing?

Quite common, and I have never found anyone scandalized by it.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Five Solas said:

....................................................

I merely wish to understand whether LDS think their unworthy counterparts and/or non-LDS have some duty, some obligation to not disclose or discuss temple attire publicly (be it on this forum or any other).  And if so, what is the basis for that obligation (e.g., to honor the memory of the departed, to show respect for the sensitivities of worthy LDS, some inherent obligation all people have to the LDS Heavenly Father)?  What is the basis (if there actually is one)?

............................................................

I know of no such obligation, except for good manners.  Mormons have experienced the same sort of mockery which Jews have suffered for their distinctive religious regalia and methods of worship.  I think that we should respect the world's religious traditions, whether Hindu puja, Buddhist meditation, Coptic Christian liturgical practices, etc.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

Sure we must be respectful and that is always good practice.  Not to change the subject, but why is it important to dress those who passed on in temple clothing when the clothing will just deteriorate like the body it dresses?

[probablyHagoth7]

I believe we might benefit from taking a moment to parse a few things here.  The word "sacred" gets stretched beyond its intended meaning. As do the words "hold" and "keep."

Hold/Keep

Keeping the Word of Wisdom doesn't by any means bar one from discussing it.

Sacred

We hold the Book of Mormon sacred. Yet we discuss it at length, and extend it to others, willingly.

Giving due respect for sacred things allows us to discuss and share them with those who may benefit. That is *part* of our duty to keep something sacr-ed/holy. Part of what makes a sacr-ifice holy is the very act of giving it away. 

Promises

That said, if one promises not to give or discuss something specific, great. Don't.  

And if some people feel best avoiding giving or discussing anything in the remote vicinity of any such promise, fine. They could set a perimeter 31.27 miles beyond whatever small space of things or topics they might deem sacrosanct, as an outer-court buffer zone, if that makes them feel better. But they shouldn't expect everyone else to abide by their arbitrary *extra* boundary line.  

In the past, I have gotten the impression that with such things, some have set arbitrary bounds that make it difficult for *any* of us to help when others have valid concerns/questions.

Edited June 1, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

I believe we would benefit from taking a moment to parse a few things here.  The word "sacred" gets stretched beyond its intended meaning. As do the words "hold" and "keep."

Hold/Keep

Keeping the Word of Wisdom doesn't by any means bar one from discussing it.

Sacred

We hold the Book of Mormon sacred. Yet we discuss it at length, and extend it to others, willingly.

Giving due respect for sacred things allows us to discuss and share them with those who may benefit. That is *part* of our duty to keep something sacr-ed/holy. Part of what makes a sacr-ifice holy is the very act of giving it away. 

Promises

That said, if one promises not to give or discuss something specific, great. Don't.  

And if some people feel best avoiding giving or discussing anything in the remote vicinity of any such promise, fine. They could set a cone-of-silence perimeter 31.27 miles beyond whatever small space they might deem sacrosanct, as an outer-court buffer zone, if that makes them feel better. But they shouldn't expect anyone else to abide by such an arbitrary extra foul line.  

Keeping something sacred may mean to give it away, but only within specific bounds.  Intimacy between a man and a woman is often referred to as sacred, for example, but only if is shared under very specific and limited conditions.

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Earlier this week someone authored a thread about LDS temple attire.  On it, I shared my experience seeing my late grandfather in LDS temple garb, open casket viewing at a funeral home in Provo.   I provided some detail as I remembered it and I also shared my perspective that the sight was incongruent with the man I knew.  Further, I speculated he would have found it amusing to have rented his attire and thereby racked up late fees and interest from six feet down in Provo cemetery.  (If you’d known the man—you might appreciate the humor here too.)

I was never able to do the LDS temple endowment ceremony, so that funeral was the closest I ever got to such things.  (My bishops were all sticklers when it came to temple recommend interviews and I was deemed “unworthy”—although I held many callings throughout my LDS years.)

That thread has since vanished completely.  But before it shuffled off its mortal coil, one LDS poster therein chastised me severely for my views and told me if I didn’t show due reverence, I’d quickly find myself on “limited” status.

That thread was started by Poptart who was trying to ask in a respectful manner.

The poster you are referring to was me, and no, I was not chastising you. I was trying to warn you not to step over the line of respectfulness in Temple matters. I am not a board mod. Here is the pertinent warning strait from the Board guidelines:

"Do not post sacred LDS temple content or links to LDS temple content
• Do not use offensive terms for things others hold sacred"

My concern was you were joking about running up rental fees for Temple robes in a burial. Perhaps your grandfather would have thought that funny, but I don't think LDS in general find humor in it. My concern is that this type of thing not be taken further. 

 

"So with such warning received, I don’t wish to explore any of the details of LDS temple dress, in a casket or elsewhere.  Nor will I share anything further of my deceased grandpa.

I merely wish to understand whether LDS think their unworthy counterparts and/or non-LDS have some duty, some obligation to not disclose or discuss temple attire publicly (be it on this forum or any other).  And if so, what is the basis for that obligation (e.g., to honor the memory of the departed, to show respect for the sensitivities of worthy LDS, some inherent obligation all people have to the LDS Heavenly Father)?  What is the basis (if there actually is one)?"

see above.You can view temple clothing. There was link to a video on that thread which plainly shows them. If you start poking fun of things of the temple tho, just be aware of the rules of the board. That is all I was trying to let you know.

I think the thread getting removed did not have to do with you. My guess is the discussion was heading off on to Masonry, and so it got the axe. I really don't know tho.

 

[cinepro]

59 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Sure we must be respectful and that is always good practice.  Not to change the subject, but why is it important to dress those who passed on in temple clothing when the clothing will just deteriorate like the body it dresses?

I suspect it's related to the idea that the person will be resurrected in whatever they were buried in, and we'll be wearing Temple clothes in the Celestial Kingdom.  If you think about it for more than 6 seconds, it quickly becomes obvious that the practice is probably closer to "formalized superstition" than anything else, but if it helps the grieving to feel better, then who's to argue?

[rpn]

Your poll doesn't have an answer I can chose.

I didn't read  your earlier thread.

I do not see anything wrong with people discussing the clothing that everyone sees in the casket when those who have been to the temple are buried, whether or not they are members with or without TRs, or believing with or without a TR.  It is not the clothes that temple participants are commanded not to repeat.   And it seems pretty silly to refuse to address questions from those who have them, when temple garments are required wear (though still voluntary such that next of kin decides what the deceased will wear who may or may not share the view of the deceased).

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Sure we must be respectful and that is always good practice.  Not to change the subject, but why is it important to dress those who passed on in temple clothing when the clothing will just deteriorate like the body it dresses?

Probably merely symbolic ritual for the benefit of the living -- which is also the purpose of cemeteries.  That was the same intent in bringing special ointment for Jesus' body on Sunday morning.  All of those who are prepared will come forth in the morning of the first resurrection with immortal bodies and glorious robes.

[probablyHagoth7]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Sure we must be respectful and that is always good practice.  Not to change the subject, but why is it important to dress those who passed on in temple clothing when the clothing will just deteriorate like the body it dresses?

It's one way of sending someone off with honor. (A way of being respectful.)

Beowulf comes to mind, when it resonates with a very similar message...at least twice. As key bookends for the narrative. (The bookends may be more valuable than the narrative.)

Edited June 1, 2017 by probablyHagoth7