The Sacred Garment of Mormon Theology

Beehive Standard Weekly ^ | 02/23/2008 | Emerson Chase

[Rameumptom]

Source material with citations. I have posted it many times before but not on this thread.

http://www.fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/index.html Chapter 6

A simple reading of the passage does not suggest or imply homosexual practices. Unless you have a very amplified gaydar, I suppose. The tradition of esoteric teachings in Christianity has quite a long tradition. It was common in most churches even in America until the 1800's. Again the real question is why have some modern Christians abandoned the long tradition of esoteric teachings.

[Godzilla]

Ah yes, from the good ol boys at FAIR. Highly credable source.

A simple reading of the passage does not suggest or imply homosexual practices. Unless you have a very amplified gaydar, I suppose.

Here is what happens when you simply parrot FAIR and do not do independent research (I gave you a link that provides a non-mormon biased evaluation of this alledged 'gospel). First off, there is strong evidence that the "secret gospel of mark" is a fraud. Secondly, IF it is valid, other scholars indicates that there is a great deal of homosexual content to this alledged writing. So if this is practice is what you want restoring the church, go for it.

I also guess from your silence, you realized the difference between a cloth and a robe?

[sevenbak]

My sources (post 200) were not from FAIR, but rather an Nazarene Essenes collection.

But FAIR is certainly a ‘fair’ counter to the outrageous anti claims that hit these threads day in and day out.

[Rameumptom]

>>Highly credable source.

The link I provide lists the source material with references. It's fine with me if you want to ignore the ancient record. Interesting that you just chose the one document that may or may not be accurate (which "scholars" debate but have ignored the other sources.)

>>>I also guess from your silence, you realized the difference between a cloth and a robe?

Nope just have been limited in my FR time the last few days. Origen (hint, he wasn't one of those "guys" at FAIR) explains the vestments worn in the temple are symbolic representations of the original not exact.

There are also differences in the various Biblical translations. For example the "Coat of many Colors" worn by Joseph from wiki below is translated as robe.

[As an aside, The robe Noah worn that his son Ham tried to take have various translations as well. Ham and his descendants were cursed from the lineage of the priesthood not because he saw his dad naked which had probably happened before anyway, but because he tried to take the symbol of his dad's prietshood unto himself. IE he tried to usurp his dad's priesthood through the taking of his holy garb.]

לִשְׁנֵי-אֶחָיו, בַּחוּץ. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. כג וַיִּקַּח שֵׁם וָיֶפֶת אֶת-הַשִּׂמְלָה, וַיָּשִׂימוּ עַל-שְׁכֶם שְׁנֵיהֶם, וַיֵּלְכוּ אֲחֹרַנִּית, וַיְכַסּוּ אֵת עֶרְוַת אֲבִיהֶם; וּפְנֵיהֶם, אֲחֹרַנִּית, וְעֶרְוַת אֲבִיהֶם, לֹא רָאוּ. 23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. כד וַיִּיקֶץ נֹחַ, מִיֵּינוֹ; וַיֵּדַע, אֵת אֲשֶׁר-עָשָׂה לוֹ בְּנוֹ הַקָּטָן. 24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his youngest son had done unto him. כה וַיֹּאמֶר, אָרוּר כְּנָעַן: עֶבֶד עֲבָדִים, יִהְיֶה לְאֶחָיו. 25 And he said: Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

Coat of many colors - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the Hebrew Bible, the coat of many colors is the name for the (possibly) multicolored garment that Joseph owned. It may be a mistranslation, and the actual nature of the garment is subject to argument.

The problem of translation The Hebrew original of Kethoneth passim for coat of many colors may be translated in a wealth of ways [1], one of which is coat of many colors.

[edit] The Jewish Tanakh The Septuagint translation of the Jewish Tanakh word indicates "many colors," but the Hebrew original may merely mean "long coat with stripes."

[edit] The Christian Bible The "coat of many colours" in English is a question of translation made most famous by the still-in-print King

James Bible of 1611, whose Genesis 37:3 reads Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age: and he made him a coat of many colours. The Revised Standard Bible (1952) translates the same passage as

Now Israel loved Joseph more than any other of his children, because he was the son of his old age; and he made him a long robe with sleeves. One of the oldest translations of the Christian Bible into English, the Wyclif Bible (1380 to 1390), translates the passage as

Forsothe Israel louyde Joseph ouer alle hise sones, for he hadde gendrid hym in eelde; and he made to Joseph a cote of many colours. Hence the "cote of many colours" is extremely old in English.

[edit] The story as related in Genesis Joseph's father Jacob favored him and gave Joseph the coat as a gift; as a result, he was envied by his brothers, who saw the special coat as indicating that Joseph would assume family leadership. His brothers' suspicion grew when Joseph told them of his two dreams (Genesis 37:11) in which all the brothers bowed down to him. The narrative tells that his brothers plotted against him one day when he was 17, and would have killed him had not the eldest brother Reuben interposed. He persuaded them instead to throw Joseph into a pit and secretly planned to rescue him later. However, while Reuben was absent, the others planned to sell him to a company of Ishmaelite merchants. When the passing Midianites arrived, the brothers dragged Joseph up and sold him to the merchants for 20 pieces of silver. The brothers then dipped Joseph's coat in goat blood and showed it to their father, saying that Joseph had been torn apart by wild beasts.

[Godzilla]

But FAIR is certainly a ‘fair’ counter to the outrageous anti claims that hit these threads day in and day out.

[Godzilla]

Pretty dense - The question at hand was whether a cloth (from the questionable secret gospel of mark) was the same as a robe. Starting you out rather simply. Another nice cut and paste job, still didn't answer the question though.

About FAIR (Facts Are Ignored Repeatedly ), oh yes the cybersquatters.

[Rameumptom]

Thought you'd be interested in this piece.

>>>As an aside, The robe Noah worn that his son Ham tried to take have various translations as well. Ham and his descendants were cursed from the lineage of the priesthood not because he saw his dad naked which had probably happened before anyway, but because he tried to take the symbol of his dad's prietshood unto himself. IE he tried to usurp his dad's priesthood through the taking of his holy garb.]

I heard this theory from my seminary teacher (who is now the Stake Patriarch). Also do you have a specific link for your Nazarene source materials? When I google there are a few different options.

The idea that Ham was cursed for trying to take the priesthood clothes, which belonged to the prophet, unto himself is a much simpler and obvious explanation than the one advanced by some that he had committed some modern Christians that he had form of sexual indescretion against Noah. It would also explain why God banned hiis lineage from the priesthood more simply. (If it was sexual immorality it would make more sense for God to destroy him as he does to the Sodomites and other places in the Bible anyway). Noah's other sons walked backward with the clothes on their shoulders not because they were worried about seeing their dad naked but out of respect for the Sacred nature of the symbolic garb. Also Joseph's coat of many "colors" is more correctly translated as many "patterns". Which would give the story more meaning if his father had given him the symbolic representative clothing which got his older brothers jealous. It makes more sense than them getting jealous just because it had more colors of mauve and fuscia than thier coats did.

[Rameumptom]

Poor Grammer....

.....unto himself is a much simpler and obvious explanation than the one advanced by some modern Christians that he had committed form of sexual indescretion against Noah.

[Rameumptom]

For future reference you can get the LDS ping list from restornu's homepage here http://www.freerepublic.com/~restornu/(or just searh user then go to her homepage.)

The Romney ping list is on Unmarked Pacakage's homepage here. While there are some of us, like me on both pages, they are distinct lists.

[fproy2222]

thanks

I did goof in posting the ping lists

[sevenbak]

Hi Rameumptom! Thanks for your post. Interesting indeed.

Here is where I got the Nazorean Essenes documents. This is from a collection about the Pre-Existence from ancient documents, including Enoch. Great stuff all.

The references have no links, but I’ve looked many of them up and they are wonderful indeed. It’s actually a lot of fun to read though the various Apocrypha. Ironically, those same people who discredit the biblical teachings from the bible on the Pre-existence, also discredit all ancient writing teaching the same thing.

No worries though, truth is certainly eternal. Thanks!! Here is the link.

http://essenes.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=740&Itemid=1045

[Revelation 911]

bump

[MarkBsnr]

***Is it true that Marten Luther wanted to take the Sermon On the Mount out of the Bible because Jesus spoke of too many “works” being necessary?***

Yes. The great Scriptural Visigoth wanted to axe a lot more, as well. Firstly though, he added ‘alone’ to ‘faith’ in Rom 3:28 to advance the cause of ‘faith alone’ which he had invented.

So he went after James, Jude, Esther, Hebrews, and Revelation. Maccabees had to go since it taught the doctrine of Purgatory. The rest of the Deuterocanonicals had to go as well, since he couldn’t just axe 2 Maccabees while keeping 1.

So, while the KJV does not erroneously publish ‘faith alone’, many of its readers believe that it is there.

[MarkBsnr]

***I haven’t read much of Martin Luther, who was simply a man with an opinion.

++++++++

like the rest of the men who decided on the cannon of the Bible.***

The canon of the Bible was decided upon by the Doctors of the Church under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. They didn’t simply pull it out of their hats.

[MarkBsnr]

***Of course many priests Catholic, Lutheran and even Born Again pastors have some form of Holy vestment. Our founding Father Geroge Washington and other founders as well. ***

Are you calling the Masonic Apron a holy vestment? I have several and at no time did anyone ever call it a holy vestment.

[MarkBsnr]

This possesses some facts; however remember that Wiki is not credible by itself. Wiki is written by anonymous writers. If you have a Catholic site that says this, then please post.

[fproy2222]

The canon of the Bible was decided upon by the Doctors of the Church under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. They didn’t simply pull it out of their hats.

++++++++++++++++

That made them God's spokesman, God's prophets.

[Rameumptom]

As a non Mason I'll have to defer to your understanding of the meaning and symbolism of the apron. It does appear to be an outward symbol of inner purification. While Masons are non-denominational I believe earlier adherents such as the founding fathers did attach specific religious meaning to it as well as general meanings of virtues such as industry and courage. If the stories of the origin of Fremmasonry are correct. That the origins are from the original Biblical Temple I would guess there is some sort of religious and Holy significance to all the symobls not just the apron. Esoteric teaching in Christianity and Masnory has a long tradition of symbolic meanings that are obscured to the uninitiated. So even if one does see the symobols they would not fully comprehend its meaning. But like I said perhaps you have a better understanding of the meanings attached to the outward symbols.

Brother George Washington's Masonic Apron

http://www.masonictravels.com/2006/08/masonic-apron.html

The third is the rite of investiture or purification; that is, the presentation of the Apron. In a qualified way it bears the relationship to the lodge that baptism does to some churches, it is the external symbol of an inner purification.

Also wikipedia- Freemasonry and History of Freemasonry.

[Campion]

around the same time he (the Pope) declared the newly invented Smallpox vaccination to be in direct "opposition" to God's will because it saved lives that God had intended to snuff out.

Care to document that claim?

I checked your link and thought I was looking at the garb involved in a Roman Catholic mass.

Why don't you compare it with the clothes worn in Masonic ceremonies? You'll find a much closer correspondence.