Satan no longer has 'powers & priesthoods'?

[_floatingboy]

Please call that being (?) as "the satan".

Calling his/her/it as "Satan" (without definite article) shows kind of respect/reverence/honour/ ADORATION.

Thanks for the English lesson. I'm sure it works in Hungarian, but our system of articles is undoubtedly quite different from yours. It's like comparing the apples and the oranges. ;)

[_ludwigm]

Please call that being (?) as "the satan".
Calling his/her/it as "Satan" (without definite article) shows kind of respect/reverence/honour/ ADORATION.

Thanks for the English lesson. I'm sure it works in Hungarian, but our system of articles is undoubtedly quite different from yours. It's like comparing the apples and the oranges. ;)

As a non-english, I didn't start out to teach Your language. Far from it.

But please explain, is there some difference using the expression
- "In the Temple ceremony Satan wears an apron"
or
- "In the Temple ceremony the satan wears an apron"

???

[_ludwigm]

MODERATOR NOTE: Do NOT evade the word censor. This is the second time I've had to tell you.]

1. I am a revolutionary type. Sorry.
2. I am a researcher type. Up to now, I've found two way to circumvent the word censor. It should be more.
3. I am a sportive type. It was a small play only.
These are not mutually exclusive ...

(For those who didn't get a sight of the crime: I wrote a four-letter word with accented foreign characters. Looks weird but readable.)

[_Danna]

But please explain, is there some difference using the expression
- "In the Temple ceremony Satan wears an apron"
or
- "In the Temple ceremony the satan wears an apron"

???

It really depends on the context, and now that I think about it, English is so confusing.

We usually use Satan as the name of the devil.

If the word satan is used to describe something, say a statue, a person might say "the satan [statue] is made of wood". Or if you were talking about the characters in a play, "the satan [role] was played by Fred".

Which makes me wonder why we treat God as a name, since his name is not God, God is a title. But then God is special. You can irritate christians, when it becomes necessary, by using 'god', or even worse "your god"

[_ludwigm]

...
English is so confusing.
...

Yes.

[_Danna]

Yes, I asked while in the Temple. First saw it going through in Manti and Salt Lake City both. SLC in the mission home and David O. McKay and Marion G. Romney were in there with us during the session, not just afterward in the upper room.

Crickey! Just out of interest, did they go through the washing and anointing phase?

Adds interest and the dinosaurs make it a good thinking room as you see them painted contemporaneous with the animals we know alive today.

You have to be kidding! I thought the dinosaurs were either pre-adamic, or from the earlier planets that got recycled to make this one. Wasn't it Talmage who identified fossils (wee ones) in the stones that made up Adam's altar in Adam-ondi-ahmen? Some GA must have approved the artwork for the temple. Young Earth creationism is endorsed by God's university.

When were the pictures painted? What were they? I can just imagine a 'brontosaurus' complete with tail dragging on the ground and chewing on flowering plants.

Daniel is absolutely right about LDS art, and its effect on the believing mind. Pictures remain long after the words are forgotten.

But, back to the Apron. A blank apron with 'symbols' doesn't make sense. If it was there before, why remove it now?

Could you specify some of the symbols? maybe it would be possible to 'recreate the apron' so-to-speak.

It is just like Jesus giving Joseph Smith the plans for constructing the early Temple. Nothing like today. No big ceremonies, no room to room jaunt to keep you awake and the public was allowed in. The first one was accepted by Jesus himself, Joseph said so. Funny most of the others don't have that legacy?

Kind of like Joseph saying every high church leader should have a personal visit with Christ. Today you hear that kind of thing strongly discouraged. Has even one of the current leaders said they have had it? Any of them? For Josephs Apostles it was a requirement, now it is frowned on and actively preached against. What has changed?

If I recall correctly personal relationships with Jesus Christ are strongly discouraged. Given the importance of 'the spirit' in advising the untrained leadership at branch/ward level, it is an odd policy. Jesus is pretty picky about following correct channels of communication.

[_floatingboy]

...
English is so confusing.
...

Yes.

Yeah, sorry. Articles are always one of the hardest things to learn about a language. I shouldn't have given you a hard time. I was feeling a bit rambunctious (have fun looking that one up!) when I posted that. I just thought it was funny that you were telling us English speakers the proper way to say it.

Although there could be some possible exceptions to be found, you will essentially never say "the satan" in English. "The devil", yes. (Using the definite article "the" signifies that you're talking about Satan, whereas "a devil" could be any lesser demon/devil). "God", as was pointed out, is an exception. It is a title that somehow works as a name. Hope that helps.

[_Alter Idem]

But, back to the Apron. A blank apron with 'symbols' doesn't make sense. If it was there before, why remove it now?

The apron is a symbol of Satan's power of deceipt (whether it sports lucky charms or not). He didn't stop wearing it because that is who he is.

What has bothered me tremendously for many years was that, as an endowed Mormon, I was required to wear the apron (a symbol of my deception before the Mormon God) after I had repented and covenanted with the Him that I would no longer do such things. So much for the miracle of forgiveness.

I even had to wear it during the marriage ceremony between my wife and I. We all did as MIT Mormons. A little deceipt doesn't hurt any marriage, right Joseph?

I am glad my body will never be buried with it now.

It is pretty sad that you were upset by something that was not even true. I guess now that you are out of the church, it doesn't matter, but for others who may not be aware, I will point this out.
You did not understand the symbolism of what you wore. It represented the power of procreation that was part of the gift of a mortal body and the charge that God gives to Adam and Eve. It is not Satan's.
I can see why some who have not been to the temple might think this, because it is one of the incorrect charges made in the God-makers about the temple.

[_harmony]

It represented the power of procreation that was part of the gift of a mortal body and the charge that God gives to Adam and Eve. It is not Satan's.

See, you are naked. Take some fig leaves and make you aprons. Father will see your nakedness. Quick! Hide!

On the contrary, the green apron has never represented the power of precreation. It was and is about hiding sin.

Try to remember that some of us here have been around a long time.

[_Inconceivable]

You did not understand the symbolism of what you wore.

It represented the power of procreation that was part of the gift of a mortal body and the charge that God gives to Adam and Eve. It is not Satan's.

I can see why some who have not been to the temple might think this, because it is one of the incorrect charges made in the God-makers about the temple.

A.I.,

I never saw the GodMakers.

I took out my endowments in 1981 and had been an active temple attender until about 3 1/2 years ago. Many years ago, I asked the question concerning the fig leaves.

As Harmony stated above, fig leaves do not represent the power of procreation (CFR, A.I.?).

Satan deceived Adam and Eve into presuming that they could hide their transgression from an all seeing God. This is the symbolism and irony of the fig leaves.

God saw through the leaves - or their ill-advised coverup.

After repentance and forgiveness Adam and Eve had nothing to hide from God. Besides, later God also made garments to cover their nakedness.

How does a flock of fig leaves go from covering sin (or even literal nakedness) into a symbolic power to make baby Mormons for time and all eternity?

Satan has no and will never have power to procreate and yet his apron symbolized his power and priesthoods.

You might take note that God wears no apron (symbolic or otherwise) and yet he is still your Father.