Why everyone else thinks garments are ridiculous

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_maklelan
_Emeritus
Posts: 4999
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:51 am

Re: Why everyone else thinks garments are ridiculous

Post by _maklelan »

Hades wrote:Good point. There is no common sense in biblical purity laws. No one should ever accuse the Bible God of having common sense.


A portion of the Letter of Aristeas tries to rationalize the Pentateuch's purity laws within an Alexandrian philosophical framework. It's quite entertaining.
I like you Betty...

My blog
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Why everyone else thinks garments are ridiculous

Post by _Chap »

maklelan wrote:
Hades wrote:Good point. There is no common sense in biblical purity laws. No one should ever accuse the Bible God of having common sense.


A portion of the Letter of Aristeas tries to rationalize the Pentateuch's purity laws within an Alexandrian philosophical framework. It's quite entertaining.


I haven't chuckled so much for years:

I particularly enjoyed the bit where it warns us about conceiving through the ears: "The weasel class, too, is peculiar: for besides what has been said, it has a characteristic which is defiling: It conceives through the ears and brings forth through the mouth. And it is for this reason that a like practice is declared unclean in men." Thanks for warning us, pseudo-Aristeas.

139 'Now our Lawgiver being a wise man and specially endowed by God to understand all things, took a comprehensive view of each particular detail, and fenced us round with impregnable ramparts and walls of iron, that we might not mingle at all with any of the other nations, but remain pure in body and soul, free from all vain imaginations, worshiping the one Almighty God above the whole 140 creation. Hence the leading Egyptian priests having looked carefully into many matters, and being cognizant with (our) affairs, call us " men of God ". This is a title which does not belong to the rest of mankind but only to those who worship the true God. The rest are men not of God but of meats and drinks and clothing. For their whole disposition leads them to find solace in these things. 141 Among our people such things are reckoned of no account. but throughout their whole life their 142 main consideration is the sovereignty of God. Therefore lest we should be corrupted by any abomination, or our lives be perverted by evil communications, he hedged us round on all sides by 143 rules of purity, affecting alike what we eat, or drink, or touch, or hear, or see. For though, speaking generally, all things are alike in their natural constitution, since they are all governed by one and the same power, yet there is a deep reason in each individual case why we abstain from the use of certain things and enjoy the common use of others. For the sake of illustration I will run over one or two 144 points and explain them to you. For you must not fall into the degrading idea that it was out of regard to mice and weasels and other such things that Moses drew up his laws with such exceeding care. All these ordinances were made for the sake of righteousness to aid the quest for virtue and 145 the perfecting of character. For all the birds that we use are tame and distinguished by their cleanliness, feeding on various kinds of grain and pulse, such as for instance pigeons, turtle-doves, 146 locusts, partridges, geese also, and all other birds of this class. But the birds which are forbidden you will find to be wild and carnivorous, tyrannizing over the others by the strength which they possess, and cruelly obtaining food by preying on the tame birds enumerated above and not only so, but 147 they seize lambs and kids, and injure human beings too, whether dead or alive, and so by naming them unclean, he gave a sign by means of them that those, for whom the legislation was ordained, must practice righteousness in their hearts and not tyrannize over any one in reliance upon their own strength nor rob them of anything, but steer their course of life in accordance with justice, just as the tame birds, already mentioned, consume the different kinds of pulse that grow upon the earth 148 and do not tyrannize to the destruction of their own kindred. Our legislator taught us therefore that it is by such methods as these that indications are given to the wise, that they must be just and effect nothing by violence, and refrain from tyrannizing over others in reliance upon their own 149 strength. For since it is considered unseemly even to touch such unclean animals, as have been mentioned, on account of their particular habits, ought we not to take every precaution lest our own 150 characters should be destroyed to the same extent? Wherefore all the rules which he has laid down with regard to what is permitted in the case of these birds and other animals, he has enacted with the object of teaching us a moral lesson. For the division of the hoof and the separation of the claws are intended to teach us that we must discriminate between our individual actions with a view 151 to the practice of virtue. For the strength of our whole body and its activity depend upon our shoulders and limbs. Therefore he compels us to recognize that we must perform all our actions with discrimination according to the standard of righteousness - more especially because we have 152 been distinctly separated from the rest of mankind. For most other men defile themselves by promiscuous intercourse, thereby working great iniquity, and whole countries and cities pride themselves upon such vices. For they not only have intercourse with men but they defile their own 153 mothers and even their daughters. But we have been kept separate from such sins. And the people who have been separated in the aforementioned way are also characterized by the Lawgiver as possessing the gift of memory. For all animals " which are cloven-footed and chew the cud " 154 represent to the initiated the symbol of memory. For the act of chewing the cud is nothing else than the reminiscence of life and existence. For life is wont to be sustained by means of food 155 wherefore he exhorts us in the Scripture also in these words: 'Thou shalt surely remember the Lord that wrought in thee those great and wonderful things". For when they are properly conceived, they are manifestly great and glorious; first the construction of the body and the disposition of the 156 food and the separation of each individual limb and, far more, the organization of the senses, the operation and invisible movement of the mind, the rapidity of its particular actions and its discovery of the 157 arts, display an infinite resourcefulness. Wherefore he exhorts us to remember that the aforesaid parts are kept together by the divine power with consummate skill. For he has marked out every 158 time and place that we may continually remember the God who rules and preserves (us). For in the matter of meats and drinks he bids us first of all offer part as a sacrifice and then forthwith enjoy our meal. Moreover, upon our garments he has given us a symbol of remembrance, and in like manner he has ordered us to put the divine oracles upon our gates and doors as a remembrance of 159 God. And upon our hands, too, he expressly orders the symbol to be fastened, clearly showing that we ought to perform every act in righteousness, remembering (our own creation), and above all the 160 fear of God. He bids men also, when lying down to sleep and rising up again, to meditate upon the works of God, not only in word, but by observing distinctly the change and impression produced upon them, when they are going to sleep, and also their waking, how divine and incomprehensible 161 the change from one of these states to the other is. The excellency of the analogy in regard to discrimination and memory has now been pointed out to you, according to our interpretation of " the cloven hoof and the chewing of the cud ". For our laws have not been drawn up at random or in accordance with the first casual thought that occurred to the mind, but with a view to truth and the 162 indication of right reason. For by means of the directions which he gives with regard to meats and drinks and particular cases of touching, he bids us neither to do nor listen to anything, thoughtlessly 163 nor to resort to injustice by the abuse of the power of reason. In the case of the wild animals, too, the same principle may be discovered. For the character of the weasel and of mice and such 164 animals as these, which are expressly mentioned, is destructive. Mice defile and damage everything, not only for their own food but even to the extent of rendering absolutely useless to man whatever 165 it falls in their way to damage. The weasel class, too, is peculiar: for besides what has been said, it has a characteristic which is defiling: It conceives through the ears and brings forth through the 166 mouth. And it is for this reason that a like practice is declared unclean in men. For by embodying in speech all that they receive through the ears, they involve others in evils and work no ordinary impurity, being themselves altogether defiled by the pollution of impiety. And your king, as we are informed, does quite right in destroying such men.' 167 Then I said 'I suppose you mean the informers, for he constantly exposes them to tortures and to 168 painful forms of death'. 'Yes,' he replied, 'these are the men I mean, for to watch for men's destruction is an unholy thing. And our law forbids us to injure any one either by word or deed. My brief account of these matters ought to have convinced you, that all our regulations have been drawn up with a view to righteousness, and that nothing has been enacted in the Scripture thoughtlessly or without due reason, but its purpose is to enable us throughout our whole life and in all our actions 169 to practice righteousness before all men, being mindful of Almighty God. And so concerning meats and things unclean, creeping things, and wild beasts, the whole system aims at righteousness and righteous relationships between man and man.'
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: Why everyone else thinks garments are ridiculous

Post by _sock puppet »

maklelan wrote:
Buffalo wrote:Certain things are common sense.


Or you can't sustain an argument for it, so you have to just assert it's self-evident.

Buffalo wrote:Identify the actions normal people might identify as broadly sacrilegious:

Ejaculating on a statue of the Virgin Mary
Farting on a crucifix
Rubbing your balls on a yarmelke
Douching with holy water
Pressing your genitals up against the Quran.


All actions considered inappropriate because they violate in a rhetorically significant way the very obvious and very clear functions for which those items are designated. When an item is specifically designated for covering the nether regions, you can hardly say the natural or inevitable processes of that region somehow violate the items intended function. You would do well to spend some time looking into ancient concepts of purity before coming here to lecture the stupid Mormons about why people mock their garments.

mak, back in the day, pre-'85, when you checked in at the temple, they'd ask if you needed a new, clean, unsoiled pair of garments to put on in place of those you came in with, before going through the endowment ceremony. So there must be bodily function defilement of the garments that the temple operations were trying to head off by asking if one needed a new, clean pair of garments before going through.
_Quasimodo
_Emeritus
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:11 am

Re: Why everyone else thinks garments are ridiculous

Post by _Quasimodo »

sock puppet wrote:mak, back in the day, pre-'85, when you checked in at the temple, they'd ask if you needed a new, clean, unsoiled pair of garments to put on in place of those you came in with, before going through the endowment ceremony. So there must be bodily function defilement of the garments that the temple operations were trying to head off by asking if one needed a new, clean pair of garments before going through.


This brings up some compelling questions for a Nevermo.

How many pairs (sets) of garments do the faithful need to own?

How often are they washed?

How often are they changed?

How often do they need to be replaced?

Are sweat and "other" stains considered part of the "holy" aspect?

How does one dispose of worn out garments?
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
_maklelan
_Emeritus
Posts: 4999
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:51 am

Re: Why everyone else thinks garments are ridiculous

Post by _maklelan »

sock puppet wrote:mak, back in the day, pre-'85, when you checked in at the temple, they'd ask if you needed a new, clean, unsoiled pair of garments to put on in place of those you came in with, before going through the endowment ceremony. So there must be bodily function defilement of the garments that the temple operations were trying to head off by asking if one needed a new, clean pair of garments before going through.


There "must be," or it just makes sense to you that way?
I like you Betty...

My blog
_maklelan
_Emeritus
Posts: 4999
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:51 am

Re: Why everyone else thinks garments are ridiculous

Post by _maklelan »

Quasimodo wrote:This brings up some compelling questions for a Nevermo.

How many pairs (sets) of garments do the faithful need to own?


As many or as few as they want.

Quasimodo wrote:How often are they washed?


Whenever someone wants.

Quasimodo wrote:How often are they changed?


I would hope members wear a different pair each day. Garments are not like jeans (which can be worn forever).

Quasimodo wrote:How often do they need to be replaced?


That depends on whether you ask a man or a woman, but that's an issue that goes well beyond garment care.

Quasimodo wrote:Are sweat and "other" stains considered part of the "holy" aspect?


No.

Quasimodo wrote:How does one dispose of worn out garments?


One must cut out the symbols and dispose of them and then one can do whatever they wish with it.
I like you Betty...

My blog
_just me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9070
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:46 pm

Re: Why everyone else thinks garments are ridiculous

Post by _just me »

Quasimodo wrote:
sock puppet wrote:mak, back in the day, pre-'85, when you checked in at the temple, they'd ask if you needed a new, clean, unsoiled pair of garments to put on in place of those you came in with, before going through the endowment ceremony. So there must be bodily function defilement of the garments that the temple operations were trying to head off by asking if one needed a new, clean pair of garments before going through.


This brings up some compelling questions for a Nevermo.

How many pairs (sets) of garments do the faithful need to own?

How often are they washed?

How often are they changed?

How often do they need to be replaced?

Are sweat and "other" stains considered part of the "holy" aspect?

How does one dispose of worn out garments?


You can own however many you want. You change them everyday and wash them just like you would gentile undies (after each wearing). The need for replacement depends on the person. There are people walking around in super old ones and there are people who buy new ones every 6 months. The church made them cheaper a while back to encourage people not to wear nasty, holey, stained ones.

In order to dispose of them you must cut out the markings and either burn them or cut them into a whole bunch of pieces. The rest of the garment can be cut so that it is unusable. I also know people who use the leftover as rag, but that might be rare.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden
~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
_Drifting
_Emeritus
Posts: 7306
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:52 am

Re: Why everyone else thinks garments are ridiculous

Post by _Drifting »

maklelan wrote:
One must cut out the symbols and dispose of them...


This is just in case Masons recognise them...
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.”
Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric

"One, two, three...let's go shopping!"
Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
_Quasimodo
_Emeritus
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:11 am

Re: Why everyone else thinks garments are ridiculous

Post by _Quasimodo »

just me wrote:

You can own however many you want. You change them everyday and wash them just like you would gentile undies (after each wearing). The need for replacement depends on the person. There are people walking around in super old ones and there are people who buy new ones every 6 months. The church made them cheaper a while back to encourage people not to wear nasty, holey, stained ones.

In order to dispose of them you must cut out the markings and either burn them or cut them into a whole bunch of pieces. The rest of the garment can be cut so that it is unusable. I also know people who use the leftover as rag, but that might be rare.


Thanks to both you, just and mak!

There is so much I don't know.

When I lived in SLC I knew a couple of people that never seemed to change theirs. One was our TV repairman when I was a kid (back when people needed TV repairmen). He was a very nice man and a very good technician, but you didn't want to stand too close to him.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Why everyone else thinks garments are ridiculous

Post by _Buffalo »

maklelan wrote:
Buffalo wrote:Certain things are common sense.


Or you can't sustain an argument for it, so you have to just assert it's self-evident.

Buffalo wrote:Identify the actions normal people might identify as broadly sacrilegious:

Ejaculating on a statue of the Virgin Mary
Farting on a crucifix
Rubbing your balls on a yarmelke
Douching with holy water
Pressing your genitals up against the Quran.


All actions considered inappropriate because they violate in a rhetorically significant way the very obvious and very clear functions for which those items are designated. When an item is specifically designated for covering the nether regions, you can hardly say the natural or inevitable processes of that region somehow violate the items intended function. You would do well to spend some time looking into ancient concepts of purity before coming here to lecture the stupid Mormons about why people mock their garments.


I didn't realize that the viewpoint that sacred objects should probably be kept away from genitals and body excrement was such a controversial stand to take. I stand corrected!
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
Post Reply