Ensign's Article on the Temple Garment

[theplains]

I was reading the article entitled "The Temple Garment: An Outward Expression of an Inward 
Commitment" by Elder Carlos E. Asay in the Ensign Magazine, August 1997).

There is a quote that says, "Prior to their expulsion from the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve 
were clad in sacred clothing. We read: "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make 
coats of skins, and clothed them" (Gen. 3:21)."

Would you consider the fig leaf apron as non-sacred because it represented a fallen effort 
to cover their shame and nakedness?

Jim

[InCognitus]

It's all part of covering the body for the sake of modesty.  From the lesson on Modesty and Chastity:

Quote

Encourage Modest Dress

Since the time of Adam and Eve, the Lord has asked His children to cover their bodies. Until Eve was tempted by Satan in the Garden of Eden, she and Adam did not know they were naked. After eating of the forbidden fruit, they became aware of their nakedness. They tried to cover their most sacred parts with aprons of fig leaves. However, the Lord’s standards for modesty are greater, and He gave them coats of skins to cover themselves—even though at that time they were alone in the world. (See Moses 4:13, 27.)

 

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

I was reading the article entitled "The Temple Garment: An Outward Expression of an Inward 
Commitment" by Elder Carlos E. Asay in the Ensign Magazine, August 1997).

There is a quote that says, "Prior to their expulsion from the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve 
were clad in sacred clothing. We read: "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make 
coats of skins, and clothed them" (Gen. 3:21)."

Would you consider the fig leaf apron as non-sacred because it represented a fallen effort 
to cover their shame and nakedness?

Jim

In the Garden it may only have served as an effort by Adam and Eve to cover themselves, so at that moment may not have been considered sacred. 
Depends on how literal one takes the Garden of Eden story.
But it's symbolism has been made sacred by the inclusion of it in the Temple ordinance.

[Hamba Tuhan]

To me, the white garment is symbolic of the effectiveness of the Lord’s ability to remove sin. The fig-leaf apron symbolises my attempts to cover my own sins. It’s a good reminder about what really works. 

Edited April 25, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

[teddyaware]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

I was reading the article entitled "The Temple Garment: An Outward Expression of an Inward 
Commitment" by Elder Carlos E. Asay in the Ensign Magazine, August 1997).

There is a quote that says, "Prior to their expulsion from the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve 
were clad in sacred clothing. We read: "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make 
coats of skins, and clothed them" (Gen. 3:21)."

Would you consider the fig leaf apron as non-sacred because it represented a fallen effort 
to cover their shame and nakedness?

Jim

The aprons of fig leaves worn by Adam and Eve indicate they were no longer existing in a state of childlike innocence in which they were too lacking in wisdom and maturity to be able to fully appreciate the blessings of God. In addition, the aprons were made of the leaves of a fruit bearing tree and strategically worn around the loins, symbolic of the fact that upon entering mortality Adam and Eve had also gained the the great blessing of being able to bring children into the world.. Therefore, the aprons are not just an outward sign of the first human experience with feeling shame, but are also symbolic of lost naivety, newly gained wisdom, and the bestowal of the miraculous divine power to bring forth children.

Edited April 25, 2020 by teddyaware

[Duncan]

Keep in mind that fig leaves shrink so our attempt to cover up on our own sins, pride etc. amount to not much, the Lord has a better way, i.e. making new garments

[Robert F. Smith]

18 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Keep in mind that fig leaves shrink so our attempt to cover up on our own sins, pride etc. amount to not much, the Lord has a better way, i.e. making new garments

You might not want to take the story too literally.  That's not its purpose.

[Robert F. Smith]

25 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

The aprons of fig leaves worn by Adam and Eve indicate they were no longer existing in a state of childlike innocence in which they were too lacking in wisdom and maturity to be able to fully appreciate the blessings of God. In addition, the aprons were made of the leaves of a fruit bearing tree and strategically worn around the loins, symbolic of the fact that upon entering mortality Adam and Eve had also gained the the great blessing of being able to bring children into the world.. Therefore, the aprons are not just an outward sign of the first human experience with feeling shame, but are also symbolic of lost naivety, newly gained wisdom, and the bestowal of the miraculous divine power to bring forth children.

Brilliant, Teddy.

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Keep in mind that fig leaves shrink so our attempt to cover up on our own sins, pride etc. amount to not much, the Lord has a better way, i.e. making new garments

And then there is the possible burning sensation they could impart. 
 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6340245/#idm140157957238416title

Quote

Phytophotodermatitis is a condition which is caused by contact with some plants containing furocoumarins. Furocoumarins in sap of fig tree are the main cause of its irritability when come in contact with the skin. The main symptoms are burning sensation and pain, itchy erythema, and edema, which usually begin 24 h after exposure. The leaf and root sap of the fig tree are the most potent parts causing irritant reaction. We report four children who were playing with fig tree leaves during a family picnic. They were referred to a burn center with second-degree burn in about 10% of total body surface area, due to phytophotodermatitis. 

 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You might not want to take the story too literally.  That's not its purpose.

More fun that way. 

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, theplains said:

I was reading the article entitled "The Temple Garment: An Outward Expression of an Inward 
Commitment" by Elder Carlos E. Asay in the Ensign Magazine, August 1997).

There is a quote that says, "Prior to their expulsion from the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve 
were clad in sacred clothing. We read: "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make 
coats of skins, and clothed them" (Gen. 3:21)."

Would you consider the fig leaf apron as non-sacred because it represented a fallen effort 
to cover their shame and nakedness?

Jim

According to Anglican Bishop Tom Wright, the Creation & Garden Story is a "temple story," because it is a temple created by God, in which a primary esoteric story takes place.  Everything there is sacred, including each of the guides (mystagogues or hierophants) who assist the initiants through the sacred process.

[teddyaware]

35 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Brilliant, Teddy.

Thank you, Robert.

[Robert F. Smith]

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

And then there is the possible burning sensation they could impart. 
 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6340245/#idm140157957238416title

 

On the other hand, in Akkadian the same word as "fig" in Gen 3:7 is used for fig leaves mixed with milk to make a bandage or healing compress.

[Robert F. Smith]

54 minutes ago, Calm said:

More fun that way. 

Yeh, but if you were sitting zazen, the Zen master might hit you in the head with a long pole if you started having too much fun.  That's what Christian deacons used to do to keep you awake during meetings.

[strappinglad]

A child doesn't feel shame when naked unless the idea of covering up has been taught. People who are raised in tribes that mostly live naked are not ashamed to live that way. Only when taught , usually by outsiders, that being naked is ' bad '  does shame enter into the picture. 

To me , Adam and Eve had to be taught about clothing and nakedness ( by Satan ?) before shame arrived. The temple narrative suggests as much. 

[strappinglad]

Sorry , I forgot it is all a metaphor. Naked stands for -----------------------, 

[mfbukowski]

I feel this is inappropriate to discuss here.

The purpose of the entire liturgy is for us to seek and find our own answers for the symbolism.  Discussing it by a group of alleged "peers" CREATES "truth" socially, and in this case it misses the whole point of receiving all our revelations personally.

"Oh no- the green apron doesn't mean that- it means THIS"

That is the total opposite of its purpose.

Any direction you take it will be automatically wrong.

Edited April 25, 2020 by mfbukowski

[teddyaware]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I feel this is inappropriate to discuss here.

The purpose of the entire liturgy is for us to seek and find our own answers for the symbolism.  Discussing it by a group of alleged "peers" CREATES "truth" socially, and in this case it misses the whole point of receiving all our revelations personally.

"Oh no- the green apron doesn't mean that- it means THIS"

That is the total opposite of its purpose.

Any direction you take it will be automatically wrong.

It’s interesting because while formulating my comments I remember that in my mind I was specifically trying to focus in on the accounts of the aprons of fig leaves found in the book of Genesis and the Book of Moses, while simultaneity trying to blot out thoughts of the temple endowment. So this brings up an interesting question: If portions of the temple endowment are also featured prominently in the scriptures, are we not supposed to discuss those scriptures because they’re featured in the temple endowment?

Edited April 25, 2020 by teddyaware

[JLHPROF]

In the Creation account the fig leaves represent the fall and the purpose of the fall as explained by Mother Eve in Moses 5.  That's why the symbol of the fig and the placement of the apron.

For those familiar with the temple the fig leaves are later covered with something.  This represents redemption from the fall through Jesus Christ.  Also represented in Christ cursing the barren fig tree.

Edited April 25, 2020 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I feel this is inappropriate to discuss here.

The purpose of the entire liturgy is for us to seek and find our own answers for the symbolism.  Discussing it by a group of alleged "peers" CREATES "truth" socially, and in this case it misses the whole point of receiving all our revelations personally.

"Oh no- the green apron doesn't mean that- it means THIS"

That is the total opposite of its purpose.

Any direction you take it will be automatically wrong.

Then view it as a discussion of the Creation account in scripture.  The parts of the temple we covenant to keep private are not the Creation account which is already in 3 places in scripture.

[alter idem]

18 hours ago, theplains said:

I was reading the article entitled "The Temple Garment: An Outward Expression of an Inward 
Commitment" by Elder Carlos E. Asay in the Ensign Magazine, August 1997).

There is a quote that says, "Prior to their expulsion from the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve 
were clad in sacred clothing. We read: "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make 
coats of skins, and clothed them" (Gen. 3:21)."

Would you consider the fig leaf apron as non-sacred because it represented a fallen effort 
to cover their shame and nakedness?

Jim

In the symbolism of Adam and Eve's time in the Garden, I believe the fig leaves represent their mortal state; their ability, after partaking of the fruit, to follow the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

It’s interesting because while formulating my comments I remember that in my mind I was specifically trying to focus in on the accounts of the aprons of fig leaves found in the book of Genesis and the Book of Moses, while simultaneity trying to blot out thoughts of the temple endowment. So this brings up an interesting question: If portions of the temple endowment are also featured prominently in the scriptures, are we not supposed to discuss those scriptures because they’re featured in the temple endowment?

You could not "blot them out" could you?

Gosh I wonder why.

Perhaps you did not understand my objection. 

You can discuss the scriptures all day and not link them to the temple. People who have been endowed will recognized the parallels, but that is from their own discovery.

That is between them and their maker.

I believe it is important we do not have a particular interpretation published of the temple rites. Talking about them inside the temple one to one between two people is another subject entirely

I was trained this way in the temple by Temple presidents, multiple Temple presidents, who said when we are doing a person's own endowment, we should never coach them on "what it means."

I have been on the "own endowment team" for years, helping people their first time in the temple

If it's good enough for several Temple presidents it's good enough for me.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Then view it as a discussion of the Creation account in scripture.  The parts of the temple we covenant to keep private are not the Creation account which is already in 3 places in scripture.

But the discussion was not about creation accounts, it was about interpretation of the endowment itself, offering opinions on what "means"what.

I believe we should go ahead and talk about scripture all you want. Obviously the parallels will be instantly noticeable to anyone who has been endowed.

Go ahead. I can't stop it. If the mods are okay with it there's not much I can do anyway.

 

Edited April 25, 2020 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

43 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But the discussion was not about creation accounts, it was about interpretation of the endowment itself, offering opinions on what "means"what.

I believe we should go ahead and talk about scripture all you want. Obviously the parallels will be instantly noticeable to anyone who has been endowed.

Go ahead. I can't stop it. If the mods are okay with it there's not much I can do anyway.

 

My only point is that we can speak of the symbolism of the apron of fig leaves because it is scriptural and the fact that it is present in the temple liturgy while meaningful doesn't put it off limits for discussion.

We speak of the Genesis account and its symbols and meaning beginning in primary.  The topic is not restricted to the Temple.

[teddyaware]

43 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You could not "blot them out" could you?

Gosh I wonder why.

Perhaps you did not understand my objection. 

You can discuss the scriptures all day and not link them to the temple. People who have been endowed will recognized the parallels, but that is from their own discovery.

That is between them and their maker.

I believe it is important we do not have a particular interpretation published of the temple rites. Talking about them inside the temple one to one between two people is another subject entirely

I was trained this way in the temple by Temple presidents, multiple Temple presidents, who said when we are doing a person's own endowment, we should never coach them on "what it means."

I have been on the "own endowment team" for years, helping people their first time in the temple

If it's good enough for several Temple presidents it's good enough for me.

Because I understood the aprons are mentioned in both the scriptures and the endowment, I was careful in my comments to cite only those insights that are easily arrived at by focusing only on the scriptures. Do you deny the insights I shared can be arrived at by using only the scriptures as the source of information?