Re: [TruthTalk] Graven images

[Blaine Borrowman]

Blaine:  Noone ever said sacred underwear would be a protection in the same sense as being righteous--But, I don't understand why you are even concerned about the underwear I wear, Kevin?   Are you just trying to be offensive, obnoxious, or what?   The following is conjecture only, but you might want to read it for what it is worth.  When Ham uncovered the nakedness of his father, Noah,  Noah laid a curse on him that was to be passed on to each succeeding generation.   This seems like some kind of major over-reaction, does it not?   If Ham had simply gone into Noah's tent and pulled the bed covers off him, and thus exposed his naked body, I see no reason why such an incidental act would elicit a curse upon Ham.   Men see each other all the time nowadays, in dressing rooms, restrooms, etc., and it is no big deal.  I doubt it was much different then, especially considering they had been in such close quarters together in the Ark for such a long time.  In the Book of Jasher, it suggests Ham not only uncovered the old Patriarch's nakedness, but stole his underwear!!   Apparently, this underwear had been passed down to Noah from father to son beginning with Adam, and was nothing more nor less than the original coat of skins made for Adam by the Lord to cover his nakedness.  As such, this underwear was a much coveted item, one which Noah may have wanted one of his other sons to inherit, as a symbol of the birthright to be given to the chosen son, in much the same manner as Jacob was chosen over Esau, and Isaac was chosen over Ishmael.   In this case the underwear were probably intended for Shem, whom many believe was AKA  Melchizedek, or King of Salem.  But Ham was jealous, so when he found opportunity to do so, he stole these underwear, and passed them on to his eldest son Cush, who in turn passed them to Nimrod, his favorite son, who was the king who built the tower of Babel.  The Book of Jasher suggests that Esau obtained this undergarment when he killed Nimrod, and thus returned the garment to the birthright family--as Esau was a son of Isaac and a grandson of Abraham.  When Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for a bowl of soup, he relinquished these sacred garments to Jacob--who then became the father of the covenant race.  One well known  Mormon writer has even suggested this garment was the coat of many colors given to Joseph--the term "coat of many colors" being a mistranslation of words that meant a garment that still had the smell of the flowers of the Garden of Eden upon it.  As I said, this is all conjecture.  Not doctrine.  But it makes sense to a Mormon, since the undergarment worn by Mormons represent the coat of skins given to Adam by the Lord in the Garden of Eden, to cover his nakedness.  This would also suggest a secondary reason for wearing the garment--to symbolize oneself as being a member of the birthright covenant people--although I don't recall any authority in the church stating this.  Mormons do consider themselves to be mostly of the tribe of Ephraim, son of Joseph, however, and certainly Joseph was Jacob's favorite son, and the one he considered to be the birthright son.  ----- From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 7:38 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Graven images Paul the Apostle tells us to  Put on the whole armour of God... Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:   Does the LDS version add "last but not least put on your Royal Underwear"   If the Temple garments really are an "outward _expression_ of an inward covenant" Why not wear them on the outside?   Where does the Bible tell us about Holy Underwear?   Blaine Borrowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Blaine:  LOL  What magical powers? ----- Original Message ----- From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Graven images Blaine: the problem with graven images has always been that sooner or later, people get (got) around to worshipping them and ascribing living qualities and magical powers to them. Does that mean you do not accept the magical powers ascribed to LDS undergarments? Blaine Borrowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Blaine: the problem with graven images has always been that sooner or later, people get (got) around to worshipping them and ascribing living qualities and magical powers to them. This gave the priests of such images power to make up new rules, and doctrines such as sacrificing children, committing whoredomes, etc., which was the real problem, more than the image itself. Moroni is no threat along these lines, because a) we do not ascribe living or magical powers to the statues, and b) we do not worship them. The statues are simply there to remind us synbolically that the scripture in the Book of Revelations concerning "another angel" flying in the midst of heaven having the everlasting gospel to preach to all nations, kindreds, tongues and people was fulfilled when Moroni (the angel) appeared to Joseph Smith a number of times, and event! ! ually committed to him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. The BoM is believed to contain the everlasting gospel in its original purity, as believed in and practiced by the early saints. By the way, what about the crosses most Christian Churches have? Are these not "images" of things on earth? Yet you don't seem to worship them , although some people seem to ascribe magical powers to them, as they wear these symbols around their necks. Is this correct? Some beliefs even go so far as to assume the crosses themselves can ward off evil spirits?? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 8:44 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Graven images > Blaine and DavidM, > > Can help me to understand the following? > > Exodus 20:4 states the second of the commandments: " Thou shalt not make > ! ! unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven > above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the > earth." > > Now, on every LDS temple I have seen there is a gold statue of Moroni on > one of the spires. Doesn't this violate the "any graven image, or any > likeness of any thing that is in heaven above" part of the second > commandment? > > If not, why not. Isn't the statue a "graven image", or "likeness"? Isn't > Moroni "in heaven above"? > > Thanks, > Perry > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee when you click here. > http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 > > ---------- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. > ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail