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

[probablyHagoth7]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Keeping something sacred may mean to give it away, but only within specific bounds....

I'm beginning to understand.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, rchorse said:

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. 

 

That's it exactly.

If someone wants to be a jerk, he is free to do so.  It is no more complicated than that.

No polls should be necessary to figure that out.

Edited June 1, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

6 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?

Very common, almost universal.

[The Nehor]

There is a general cultural injunction not to be 'that guy' trying to grandstand at or mock funeral rites.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

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?

I am not wearing my temple clothing after the resurrection. Moroni in Joseph Smith's account was not even wearing garments and seemed quite proud of his presumably well-muscled chest.

[mfbukowski]

7 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)

 

I don't know where you get the idea that some bishops are more liberal than others about getting into the temple.

There's a list of questions, you either answer them correctly or not.

If you want to lie to the Lord, I think that's probably not the best idea

If you don't believe in the first place, why go through the rigamarole to get in?

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

That makes sense given that funerals are for the living to have a chance to say goodbye and pay their respects.  It would also serve as a sign to the living that the person who passed was faithful to the religion.

[Storm Rider]

On 6/1/2017 at 1:30 PM, 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.

Tacenda, I agree with you that many LDS do act very uncomfortable talking about the temple and too many of them just won't say anything at all.  However, just because Joe Schmuck has filmed the temple endowment ordinance and you can find everything you want to know about the temple on-line does not mean members should just start talking about everything in the temple and forgetting the covenants they have made.  The issue is making members feel more comfortable about what they can and what they should not say.  

Edited June 3, 2017 by Storm Rider

[USU78]

5S, when I was in Austria on my mission, we had to use a public laundry. There was no laundromat and our apartment had no laundry.

One day the launderer decided to put a set of temple garments on a double hanger in the window with a sign identifying what they were and generally mocking them.

Years later when I was working in downtown SLC, a woman would wear temple ritual wear while hawking her brand of evangelical antimormon mockery.

You ask today a reasonable question about either day to day temple garments or the ritual gear worn during the endowment presentation in the temple.

One of these things is not like the other.

One of these behaviors ends up with you getting answers and not anger.

[Jeanne]

12 minutes ago, USU78 said:

5S, when I was in Austria on my mission, we had to use a public laundry. There was no laundromat and our apartment had no laundry.

One day the launderer decided to put a set of temple garments on a double hanger in the window with a sign identifying what they were and generally mocking them.

Years later when I was working in downtown SLC, a woman would wear temple ritual wear while hawking her brand of evangelical antimormon mockery.

You ask today a reasonable question about either day to day temple garments or the ritual gear worn during the endowment presentation in the temple.

One of these things is not like the other.

One of these behaviors ends up with you getting answers and not anger.

That is awful..

[The Nehor]

8 hours 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.

Some people take temple secrecy to an extreme. There was a talk given a couple of years back in General Conference about talking with your children about the temple. While some things should not be talked about some things can be shared to encourage people to want to go.

I don't worry about the films of the temple endowment being out there. I am under covenant not to share some things and I do not but someone watching a video on YouTube or whatever is not finding anything out. The Temple is shrouded in symbolism for the same reason Jesus taught in parables. The unready won't understand. The unworthy will learn nothing. Even those who once understood seem to lose that understanding when they fall away. God keeps his mysteries well.

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

 Even those who once understood seem to lose that understanding when they fall away. God keeps his mysteries well.

It reminds me of some divorces where the once partners appear to no longer understand how they could have loved the other, wanted to spend their lives together, raise children.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The Temple is shrouded in symbolism for the same reason Jesus taught in parables. The unready won't understand. The unworthy will learn nothing. Even those who once understood seem to lose that understanding when they fall away. God keeps his mysteries well.

For the most part, modern Christianity has shed itself of deep symbolism and ritual.  Do you think that this could be a reason why people might not understand LDS temple symbolism?  I'm just thinking that if someone who has had little exposure to religious symbolism is suddenly hit with something intensely deep, they might not get it because of their lack of exposure, not necessarily their lack of worthiness or preparation.  It's like handing a high-schooler "Crime and Punishment" and when they don't get it, blaming them for their lack of intelligence, when in fact high Russian literature is so deeply complicated that it requires some good study to understand it.  I have been to LDS Sunday meetings and know they are quite devoid of symbolism and ritual, so maybe a Mormon's normal religious experience doesn't prepare them for the temple, but you would be the expert on that, not I.

I don't know the Mormon temple ceremony and I haven't looked online, though I must admit I have been sorely tempted because of threads and issues here, but I do attend a traditional Latin High Mass every Sunday and holy day of obligation, so I am familiar with deep religious symbolism.  I'm also familiar with people not getting it, which is usually my way of understanding why people might not connect to a Latin High Mass -- they don't get the intensity of the symbolism and what it is trying to teach us about God, most likely due to the lack of intense symbolism in current Christianity.  As an example, the Novus Ordo Mass (the Catholic Mass that was promulgated in 1970 and is the Mass that almost all Catholics experience) has stripped away so much symbolism that was in the traditional Mass, making it more modern and, in my opinion (and 3DOP's, too, I'm sure), a lesser offering to God.

As to your final idea, that holds true in Catholicism, too.  When someone leaves, they seem to forget the experiences they had and seem to lose their connection with the mysteries of God.  God indeed keeps His mysteries.

[Tacenda]

I do like the symbolism of the temple ordinances, well most. I just wish I'd taken a temple class to prepare and that the class offers more than what I've heard it does. The temple was a shock to my system, and I wasn't prepared. But that's enough talk, just think one needs to prepare with more information, things that are allowed. 

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The unready won't understand. The unworthy will learn nothing.

To continue my literary analogies, this is the idea that Joyce was betting on to counter criticism when he published "Finnegans Wake" 

[Calm]

We do not do a good job of teaching symbolism in our faith.  We experience it in our ordinances, but do not really teach to think of it beyond the superficial imo.  Members often like to draw direct comparisons of the sacrament to Christ's death and resurrection...it often can be beautiful that way, but stays limited and tied to the physical.

OTOH, not having been told what symbols mean can allow an individual to create meaning for themselves and this may allow the Spirit to reach them in ways that could not be achieved if they were guided by other means.  

The old mysteries were saved for the initiates; the difference I think was not necessarily understanding the meaning of the symbols, but being at home in the purpose of symbolism.  I think a mix of education and innocence opens the most doors.  Faith can provide enough of a foundation of trust to build a strong spiritual temple of our own where knowledge, charity, hope, and faith allow us to come face to face with our God and ourselves.

In the end all the doors will be opened that we knock upon in faith.  We just need not to give into our fear of failure, feelings of inadequacy, fear of the unknown and stop seeking.

Edited June 2, 2017 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

We do not do a good job of teaching symbolism in our faith.

Do you think this might be a result of the cultural protestant background of the LDS church? I know we've talked about that here before, when it comes to thinking of the Catholic Church as the whore of Babylon, etc.  I could see another connection in the lack of symbolic teaching, too, since protestants tended to jettison symbolism and ritual because they saw it as too connected to Catholicism (and in their view paganism, etc).

A possible tangent: could this also be a reason why LDS Sunday services are minimalist when it comes to symbolism and ritual?

ETA: I'm interested in this because, as I've shared elsewhere, it was symbolism that first brought me to Catholicism.

Edited June 2, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[Calm]

Yes, I think the Protestant background has kept our chapels and nonTemple ordinances barebones for the most part.  Some of the older buildings had stunning stained glass and some of our newer ones look quite lovely from the outside, but inside major blah....

But whatever the cause was managed to be overcome when it came to the Temple, perhaps because it could be approached as a gift or possession of the Lord in ways we could not see the 'everyday' chapel as the House of the Lord, even though it can be...perhaps because we allow mundane activities in them or because they are not uniquely set apart though the chapel itself is limited in ways the rest of the building isn't.

Edited June 2, 2017 by Calm

[RevTestament]

18 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Do you think this might be a result of the cultural protestant background of the LDS church? I know we've talked about that here before, when it comes to thinking of the Catholic Church as the whore of Babylon, etc.  I could see another connection in the lack of symbolic teaching, too, since protestants tended to jettison symbolism and ritual because they saw it as too connected to Catholicism (and in their view paganism, etc).

A possible tangent: could this also be a reason why LDS Sunday services are minimalist when it comes to symbolism and ritual?

ETA: I'm interested in this because, as I've shared elsewhere, it was symbolism that first brought me to Catholicism.

I really think it is because most members do not understand the symbolism of the story of Adam and Eve, nor of the Book of Revelation. To be frank I think a lot of GAs don't understand it either, so aren't in much of a position to teach it. I think it better that way - at least we aren't getting misinformed. If one understands the scriptures, I don't think the things of the temple are that mysterious. It is basically all based on scripture. This is why attempts to compare it to Masonry are nothing more than superficial. It essentially has nothing to do with masonry - at least not anymore. 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am not wearing my temple clothing after the resurrection. Moroni in Joseph Smith's account was not even wearing garments and seemed quite proud of his presumably well-muscled chest.

There are all sorts of temple attire in this life, some of it prescribed for the priesthood in Jewish temples, some for the President of the LDS Church, the usual endowment and sealing robes for men and women, different attire for temple workers.  It may be that celestial robes are such as described by Joseph for Moroni (and presumably for other angels).

In pagan temples, still other attire was worn, and Isis was even described as wearing an astrochiton, a robe covered in stars.

[Robert F. Smith]

38 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Do you think this might be a result of the cultural protestant background of the LDS church? I know we've talked about that here before, when it comes to thinking of the Catholic Church as the whore of Babylon, etc.  I could see another connection in the lack of symbolic teaching, too, since protestants tended to jettison symbolism and ritual because they saw it as too connected to Catholicism (and in their view paganism, etc).

A possible tangent: could this also be a reason why LDS Sunday services are minimalist when it comes to symbolism and ritual?

ETA: I'm interested in this because, as I've shared elsewhere, it was symbolism that first brought me to Catholicism.

In Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Anglicanism, the cathedral is both temple and synagogue in which all the sacraments take place.  They remain very separate places in both Mormonism and Judaism, and already in 1829 both priesthood and the Book of Mormon come forth simultaneously in the Mormon tradition.  In Protestantism, the temple is jettisoned entirely, along with priesthood (considering Anglicanism as an integral part of the Catholic tradition).

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I really think it is because most members do not understand the symbolism of the story of Adam and Eve, nor of the Book of Revelation. To be frank I think a lot of GAs don't understand it either, so aren't in much of a position to teach it. I think it better that way - at least we aren't getting misinformed. If one understands the scriptures, I don't think the things of the temple are that mysterious. It is basically all based on scripture. This is why attempts to compare it to Masonry are nothing more than superficial. It essentially has nothing to do with masonry - at least not anymore. 

I am not convinced it can be taught. At least not by mortals. I have my doubts about the GAs being ignorant. I have heard too many of them talk obliquely about their experiences and seen the light they seemed to embody when they did.

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

For the most part, modern Christianity has shed itself of deep symbolism and ritual.  Do you think that this could be a reason why people might not understand LDS temple symbolism?  I'm just thinking that if someone who has had little exposure to religious symbolism is suddenly hit with something intensely deep, they might not get it because of their lack of exposure, not necessarily their lack of worthiness or preparation.  It's like handing a high-schooler "Crime and Punishment" and when they don't get it, blaming them for their lack of intelligence, when in fact high Russian literature is so deeply complicated that it requires some good study to understand it.  I have been to LDS Sunday meetings and know they are quite devoid of symbolism and ritual, so maybe a Mormon's normal religious experience doesn't prepare them for the temple, but you would be the expert on that, not I.

I don't know the Mormon temple ceremony and I haven't looked online, though I must admit I have been sorely tempted because of threads and issues here, but I do attend a traditional Latin High Mass every Sunday and holy day of obligation, so I am familiar with deep religious symbolism.  I'm also familiar with people not getting it, which is usually my way of understanding why people might not connect to a Latin High Mass -- they don't get the intensity of the symbolism and what it is trying to teach us about God, most likely due to the lack of intense symbolism in current Christianity.  As an example, the Novus Ordo Mass (the Catholic Mass that was promulgated in 1970 and is the Mass that almost all Catholics experience) has stripped away so much symbolism that was in the traditional Mass, making it more modern and, in my opinion (and 3DOP's, too, I'm sure), a lesser offering to God.

As to your final idea, that holds true in Catholicism, too.  When someone leaves, they seem to forget the experiences they had and seem to lose their connection with the mysteries of God.  God indeed keeps His mysteries.

I am not convinced it is garden-variety symbolism that the human mind can unravel through the intellect or through genius. I am not even sure God teaches the same things through the temple to different people. I have four interpretations of the ordinance as a whole and I am not sure any of them are "correct" though all of them edified me to one degree or another. There are many things in it that do not make sense to me and this is actually a comfort. Same with the scriptures. There are passages, particularly in the Bible and the Doctrine and Covenants that I do not understand or even find repugnant. The comfort is that there is more. More mysteries to unfold. A religion I could see to the end of now would be a feeble thing.

I had one friend I used to attend the temple with regularly. We had many discussions there we probably could not have anywhere else about things we had learned or experienced. She fell away and when I tried to reference them to help her back she seemed to have forgotten them. Not just the content but seemed confused at the idea we had even had conversations there. I understand why it must be that way but:  

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

To continue my literary analogies, this is the idea that Joyce was betting on to counter criticism when he published "Finnegans Wake" 

I think Joyce was trying to counter comprehension itself but then I am not a big Joyce fan. Seems like the plots of his novels are only available on a need-to-know basis and he has determined that the reader does not need to know.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Do you think this might be a result of the cultural protestant background of the LDS church? I know we've talked about that here before, when it comes to thinking of the Catholic Church as the whore of Babylon, etc.  I could see another connection in the lack of symbolic teaching, too, since protestants tended to jettison symbolism and ritual because they saw it as too connected to Catholicism (and in their view paganism, etc).

A possible tangent: could this also be a reason why LDS Sunday services are minimalist when it comes to symbolism and ritual?

ETA: I'm interested in this because, as I've shared elsewhere, it was symbolism that first brought me to Catholicism.

Yes, this is it, and I starved for symbolism my first year.

Aaahhhhhhh.

Now it's all better.  Now I actually get to perform ordinances. I wanted to say mass, and now I get to do what even has more meaning to me.

But yes it us still the Protestant heritage we need to lose. It is an Albatross of literalism you see daily on this board. Mormons for the most part have no clue what they have, or the potential of their faith.

The chapel is the European baptistery and sacrament meeting is the mass of the catechumens. The temple is the full high-mass in the  vault of the cathedral and for me even more. Much more.

In the temple we experience full Resurrection in glory and the presence of the Father.

Edited June 2, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Do you think this might be a result of the cultural protestant background of the LDS church? I know we've talked about that here before, when it comes to thinking of the Catholic Church as the whore of Babylon, etc.  I could see another connection in the lack of symbolic teaching, too, since protestants tended to jettison symbolism and ritual because they saw it as too connected to Catholicism (and in their view paganism, etc).

A possible tangent: could this also be a reason why LDS Sunday services are minimalist when it comes to symbolism and ritual?

ETA: I'm interested in this because, as I've shared elsewhere, it was symbolism that first brought me to Catholicism.

Read this

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/catholic-liturgy-and-mormon-temple

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

There are many things in it that do not make sense to me and this is actually a comfort. Same with the scriptures. There are passages, particularly in the Bible and the Doctrine and Covenants that I do not understand or even find repugnant. The comfort is that there is more. More mysteries to unfold. A religion I could see to the end of now would be a feeble thing.

I really connect to this.  There's been a few threads in which I've tried to make this point.  I think they've all dealt with the Trinity.  Mystery is not a bad thing -- it is actually a comfort.