Why put off his shoes?

[zil2]

From today's scripture study / GC reading:

Quote

Exodus 3:5 And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.

Why put off his shoes? It can't be to not track in dirt: he's already on dirt. It can't be because he's going from cursed dirt to holy dirt (as some say): it says he's already on holy ground. Shoes can't be inherently irreverent: we wear them in the house of the Lord. So why?

This thought came up while reading Elder Soares' talk "Reverence for Sacred Things". I paused to ponder why...

How does removing shoes show reverence, beyond obeying God? We wear shoes at church. We wear shoes when we pray. We wear shoes in the house of the Lord, even if they're different shoes. I could think of only one answer: The shoes were separating Moses from the holy ground.

Then I continued reading and found these phrases in the talk:

• connected Moses to his divine identity
• connection to holiness
• connection to the divine
• connection with God and His Son
• connect to the perfect love of our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ

Put off whatever is separating you from your divine identity, holiness, God and Christ, and their perfect love. Put off those things and connect!

[Traveler]

19 minutes ago, zil2 said:

From today's scripture study / GC reading:

Why put off his shoes? It can't be to not track in dirt: he's already on dirt. It can't be because he's going from cursed dirt to holy dirt (as some say): it says he's already on holy ground. Shoes can't be inherently irreverent: we wear them in the house of the Lord. So why?

This thought came up while reading Elder Soares' talk "Reverence for Sacred Things". I paused to ponder why...

How does removing shoes show reverence, beyond obeying God? We wear shoes at church. We wear shoes when we pray. We wear shoes in the house of the Lord, even if they're different shoes. I could think of only one answer: The shoes were separating Moses from the holy ground.

Then I continued reading and found these phrases in the talk:

• connected Moses to his divine identity
• connection to holiness
• connection to the divine
• connection with God and His Son
• connect to the perfect love of our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ

Put off whatever is separating you from your divine identity, holiness, God and Christ, and their perfect love. Put off those things and connect!

I think this is a formality of the ancient era.  In Japan no one wears their outside shoes in any place of importance – ie a home or place of work.

In our home we do not wear shoes.  I have found that people with pets in their home seldom if ever consider this behavior for themselves – I believe this is mostly for their convenience.  On occasions I have needed to remind some guests that certain language is not appropriate or appreciated in our home.  I have never had a guest leave because our standards are too strict.  I have some children that have strayed from our religious and other culture but they understand that when they come to visit our home, certain things do not have place in our home.  But we never complain about what is happening or in their home when we visit.

I assume the L-rd has similar feelings about places in which he resides.   And yet he is also willing to allow his children to govern their places or residence as they would.

 

The Traveler

[CV75]

48 minutes ago, zil2 said:

From today's scripture study / GC reading:

Why put off his shoes? It can't be to not track in dirt: he's already on dirt. It can't be because he's going from cursed dirt to holy dirt (as some say): it says he's already on holy ground. Shoes can't be inherently irreverent: we wear them in the house of the Lord. So why?

This thought came up while reading Elder Soares' talk "Reverence for Sacred Things". I paused to ponder why...

How does removing shoes show reverence, beyond obeying God? We wear shoes at church. We wear shoes when we pray. We wear shoes in the house of the Lord, even if they're different shoes. I could think of only one answer: The shoes were separating Moses from the holy ground.

Then I continued reading and found these phrases in the talk:

• connected Moses to his divine identity
• connection to holiness
• connection to the divine
• connection with God and His Son
• connect to the perfect love of our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ

Put off whatever is separating you from your divine identity, holiness, God and Christ, and their perfect love. Put off those things and connect!

I think it is a symbolic, cultural norm.

[zil2]

37 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I think this is a formality of the ancient era.

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think it is a symbolic, cultural norm.

Are you two suggesting that the Lord adopted Moses' culture?  I suppose He could have, in order to communicate something to Moses, but I suspect there was more to it.  Whether there was or not, I think my conclusion is useful.

[mikbone]

There have been many changes to the temple endowment ceremony.

Back in the day we used to take off our shoes…

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

There have been many changes to the temple endowment ceremony.

Back in the day we used to take off our shoes…

That's just what I was going to bring up.

[CV75]

13 hours ago, zil2 said:

Are you two suggesting that the Lord adopted Moses' culture?  I suppose He could have, in order to communicate something to Moses, but I suspect there was more to it.  Whether there was or not, I think my conclusion is useful.

I don't think the Lord adopted Moses' culture, but spoke to him in his language according to his understanding. As a result of the interviews, Moses' spiritual language and understanding undoubtably advanced. We are being trained to adopt God's culture in the long run, not He to adopt ours.

 Yes, your conclusion is useful. Do you think permitting Moses to physically touch holy ground is similar to touching the Lord through the veil, that this action is literal (the last day) as well as symbolic (temple ritual), and if so, what happens with that location of holy ground today?

[zil2]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I don't think the Lord adopted Moses' culture, but spoke to him in his language according to his understanding.

This is synonymous with what I said, but allow me to be more specific: you seem to be suggesting that the Lord instructed Moses to enact the cultural norm which Moses knew indicated respect and/or reverence for something sacred (or perhaps just something that outranked him), or perhaps humility, or some other thing that we're not aware of - because (duh), Moses was approaching the presence of God.  In other words, the Lord used (this is what I meant by "adopted") Moses' culture to inform Moses.

16 hours ago, mikbone said:

Back in the day we used to take off our shoes…

Yes. This is a temple experience for Moses, so the parallel makes sense.  Did we stop because the act has no meaning in our culture?  (Suggesting there's nothing inherent in the act itself that gives it importance.) Or ...?  (I don't know, I'm just posing the question as something to consider.)

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Yes, your conclusion is useful. Do you think permitting Moses to physically touch holy ground is similar to touching the Lord through the veil, that this action is literal (the last day) as well as symbolic (temple ritual), and if so, what happens with that location of holy ground today?

I do not know. Let me address it from another angle. In US culture, it's considered polite to speak when encountering another person in an indoor environment with somewhat restricted access.  For example, when you pass someone in the hallway at work, it's considered polite to say "hi" or "hello" or some other thing.  No one - not one person I've ever asked can explain to me why this is polite.  As you pass each other, assuming neither of you is blind, you know you're passing each other and that the other knows it as well.  If neither of you intends to engage the other in discussion, why is speech necessary?  Why is even a nod or lift of the head necessary?  Why can you not pass each other in silence, without even making eye contact?  (I know that you physically can, but why is it not polite?)  No one has any idea, yet everyone seems to know and believe that the verbal acknowledgement is the polite thing to do.  (NOTE: This may have changed as younger people, accustomed to sitting together and ignoring each other while they used their phones, entered the workforce - I don't know.)

My pondering was an effort to figure out whether there was an inherent reason why Moses should put off his shoes?  Is there an explanation for why this is the cultural norm? Is there an explanation for how this shows respect / reverence / humility / whatever?  (I don't even know that it shows those things - I'm just assuming.)  What is it about bare feet, or the act of setting aside footwear, that demonstrates reverence, or that respects the holy, or....?

As I mentioned above, many of the things that we do in worship or in an attempt to approach deity do not involve being barefoot or ritualistically removing and setting aside footwear.  One difference is that we aren't literally approaching God, as Moses was. But then, as far as I know, Joseph Smith wasn't instructed to remove his shoes at the start of the first vision (but then, God wasn't on the ground, as far as I know - and if we're going to continue, I don't know that God was touching the ground in Moses' encounter either).

All that suggests that the instructions to Moses may very well have been the use of his culture to inform Moses of just how sacred the experience was. I don't know.

In short, I was pondering, exploring, seeing if I could find reason, meaning, or something more, because though I've read it many times before, this question never struck me before. I figured it struck me for a reason, and I wanted to explore it.

As I said in the OP, the only additional reason I could come up with was that this action brought Moses into closer, or direct connection with the holy. Whether that's symbolic or literal, or both, I don't know.  I do know that the analogy - to put off whatever separates you from the holy - is of God (the Spirit is telling me this as I type).

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

what happens with that location of holy ground today?

I don't know what you're asking here.  Are you posing the possibility that the literal bits of dirt at that location were holy and asking about the state of that location, or the dirt that was at that location at that time?  Or are you asking about those coordinates of planet Earth where Moses was located in this event (which I think we don't know, but have theories about)?  Or are you speaking in allusion to the temple being "that location of holy ground today"?

My initial thought is that the location was holy because God was present, and once God left, it didn't necessarily remain any more holy than the rest of the planet. It may have, for all I know, but I don't know that of necessity it did.

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

I do not know. Let me address it from another angle. In US culture, it's considered polite to speak when encountering another person in an indoor environment with somewhat restricted access.  For example, when you pass someone in the hallway at work, it's considered polite to say "hi" or "hello" or some other thing.  No one - not one person I've ever asked can explain to me why this is polite.  As you pass each other, assuming neither of you is blind, you know you're passing each other and that the other knows it as well.  If neither of you intends to engage the other in discussion, why is speech necessary?  Why is even a nod or lift of the head necessary?  Why can you not pass each other in silence, without even making eye contact?  (I know that you physically can, but why is it not polite?)  No one has any idea, yet everyone seems to know and believe that the verbal acknowledgement is the polite thing to do.  (NOTE: This may have changed as younger people, accustomed to sitting together and ignoring each other while they used their phones, entered the workforce - I don't know.)

I do not have enough knowledge of Mose's culture or expectation to understand a why the removing of shoes meant what it did to him.  But I can take a stab at why passing in the hallway acknowledgement is considered polite.   

Humans are social animals.  Even the most introverted needs some social interactions to maintain mental health.  To the point that studies on prisoners subject to prolonged solitary confinement develop serious issues.  Leading to the idea that solitary confinement should be considered cruel and unusual punishment.  Anyways  with us being social critters the minimum response is "I acknowledge that you are there" when there is someone else nearby.  If you do not do that then you are saying in effect "You do not exist."  That is kinda of rude and a bit hurtful.  Thus at least in the US before Cell phones it was considered polite to acknowledge someones existence or really the reverse... Very rude and hurtful to act like someone does not exist.

Edited yesterday at 04:07 PM by estradling75

[mikbone]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

Yes. This is a temple experience for Moses, so the parallel makes sense.  Did we stop because the act has no meaning in our culture?  (Suggesting there's nothing inherent in the act itself that gives it importance.) Or ...?  (I don't know, I'm just posing the question as something to consider.)

The temple endowment in my opinion has been ‘dumbed down’ multiple times during my lifetime.  

Likely for many reasons: time efficiency, accommodation for the handicapped, lawsuits / complaints of patrons being inappropriately touched.  Mis-understanding of the dialogue.  Women’s veils perceived as a symbol of oppression and patriarchal control…

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, zil2 said:

Yes. This is a temple experience for Moses, so the parallel makes sense.  Did we stop because the act has no meaning in our culture?  (Suggesting there's nothing inherent in the act itself that gives it importance.) Or ...?  (I don't know, I'm just posing the question as something to consider.)

Because we as members of the Church are being more rebellious, the Lord has no choice but to remove certain knowledge from us.  The things are changing now beause we refuse to accept that our idea of right and wrong has fallen from the Lord's Ideal.

He wants us to seek Him.  We should not be demanding that He seek us.

[zil2]

You could be right.

35 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Anyways  with us being social critters the minimum response is "I acknowledge that you are there" when there is someone else nearby.

If so, it's absurd.  (But as far as I can tell, it's absurd regardless.)

36 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

If you do not do that then you are saying in effect "You do not exist."  That is kinda of rude and a bit hurtful. 

This is more absurd.  I know you're there, you know I'm there, I know you know, you know I know, we know the other knows we know...   Turning your back, refusing to respond if the other does speak, refusing to nod or smile or otherwise "imitate" an offered gesture, sure, that's rejection and therefore rude.  But the requirement for verbal acknowledgement is just saying "I know you know I know and you know I know you know, but we'd better say it in case one of us doesn't know we know..."  It's absurd.

[zil2]

15 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Women’s veils perceived as a symbol of oppression and patriarchal control…

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Because we as members of the Church are being more rebellious, the Lord has no choice but to remove certain knowledge from us.  The things are changing now beause we refuse to accept that our idea of right and wrong has fallen from the Lord's Ideal.

I'm no longer convinced of these, though they may be possible (with one wording exception, which I think was made for this very reason).  It seems obvious to me that God doesn't need to change anything for the rebellious to misunderstand. I think it may well be about time (for most changes) - as in, we have a lot of work to do and not much time.  And I suspect more changes will come to speed things up further.

As to the veil, one woman pointed out that in various marriage traditions involving the bride wearing a veil (which stem from antiquity), there are two variations for lifting the bride's veil: one is by the groom, after the bride and groom complete their vows; the other is by the father of the bride, when he presents the bride to the groom, before the vows are made. The Church membership are the bride. This woman suggested that perhaps the Father is now presenting the bride to the Groom, and thus we no longer veil our faces - another type of symbol - in other words, perhaps we're that close.

Anywho, I'm not convinced the Lord has removed knowledge - it's there, if you're willing to receive.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, zil2 said:

This is synonymous with what I said, but allow me to be more specific: you seem to be suggesting that the Lord instructed Moses to enact the cultural norm which Moses knew indicated respect and/or reverence for something sacred (or perhaps just something that outranked him), or perhaps humility, or some other thing that we're not aware of - because (duh), Moses was approaching the presence of God.  In other words, the Lord used (this is what I meant by "adopted") Moses' culture to inform Moses.

Yes. This is a temple experience for Moses, so the parallel makes sense.  Did we stop because the act has no meaning in our culture?  (Suggesting there's nothing inherent in the act itself that gives it importance.) Or ...?  (I don't know, I'm just posing the question as something to consider.)

I do not know. Let me address it from another angle. In US culture, it's considered polite to speak when encountering another person in an indoor environment with somewhat restricted access.  For example, when you pass someone in the hallway at work, it's considered polite to say "hi" or "hello" or some other thing.  No one - not one person I've ever asked can explain to me why this is polite.  As you pass each other, assuming neither of you is blind, you know you're passing each other and that the other knows it as well.  If neither of you intends to engage the other in discussion, why is speech necessary?  Why is even a nod or lift of the head necessary?  Why can you not pass each other in silence, without even making eye contact?  (I know that you physically can, but why is it not polite?)  No one has any idea, yet everyone seems to know and believe that the verbal acknowledgement is the polite thing to do.  (NOTE: This may have changed as younger people, accustomed to sitting together and ignoring each other while they used their phones, entered the workforce - I don't know.)

My pondering was an effort to figure out whether there was an inherent reason why Moses should put off his shoes?  Is there an explanation for why this is the cultural norm? Is there an explanation for how this shows respect / reverence / humility / whatever?  (I don't even know that it shows those things - I'm just assuming.)  What is it about bare feet, or the act of setting aside footwear, that demonstrates reverence, or that respects the holy, or....?

As I mentioned above, many of the things that we do in worship or in an attempt to approach deity do not involve being barefoot or ritualistically removing and setting aside footwear.  One difference is that we aren't literally approaching God, as Moses was. But then, as far as I know, Joseph Smith wasn't instructed to remove his shoes at the start of the first vision (but then, God wasn't on the ground, as far as I know - and if we're going to continue, I don't know that God was touching the ground in Moses' encounter either).

All that suggests that the instructions to Moses may very well have been the use of his culture to inform Moses of just how sacred the experience was. I don't know.

In short, I was pondering, exploring, seeing if I could find reason, meaning, or something more, because though I've read it many times before, this question never struck me before. I figured it struck me for a reason, and I wanted to explore it.

As I said in the OP, the only additional reason I could come up with was that this action brought Moses into closer, or direct connection with the holy. Whether that's symbolic or literal, or both, I don't know.  I do know that the analogy - to put off whatever separates you from the holy - is of God (the Spirit is telling me this as I type).

I don't know what you're asking here.  Are you posing the possibility that the literal bits of dirt at that location were holy and asking about the state of that location, or the dirt that was at that location at that time?  Or are you asking about those coordinates of planet Earth where Moses was located in this event (which I think we don't know, but have theories about)?  Or are you speaking in allusion to the temple being "that location of holy ground today"?

My initial thought is that the location was holy because God was present, and once God left, it didn't necessarily remain any more holy than the rest of the planet. It may have, for all I know, but I don't know that of necessity it did.

I believe there is an inherent reason for Moses (and all of us) to learn and express sacred reverence. The Lord teaches us in various ways. I do not know what it is about bare feet that inherently accomplishes that universally, but we find bare feet in Eden before the Fall and then as part of washing, dusting and courtship rituals as described in scripture.

You addressed what I was asking in the last question – thank you!

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

You could be right.

If so, it's absurd.  (But as far as I can tell, it's absurd regardless.)

This is more absurd.  I know you're there, you know I'm there, I know you know, you know I know, we know the other knows we know...   Turning your back, refusing to respond if the other does speak, refusing to nod or smile or otherwise "imitate" an offered gesture, sure, that's rejection and therefore rude.  But the requirement for verbal acknowledgement is just saying "I know you know I know and you know I know you know, but we'd better say it in case one of us doesn't know we know..."  It's absurd.

The rules of society are usually setup by extroverts... 

This usually leads to us introverts complaining about interactions we consider pointless or absurd.  We can usually make a very good point about their absurdity and pointlessness.  But the extroverts don't care.  More often then not the introverts protest are more about preserving what what limited social bandwidth we have for things we consider much more important and valuable.  A limit extroverts really do not understand.

 

 

[zil2]

26 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

The rules of society are usually setup by extroverts... 

I highly doubt this was consciously established. Somehow, we all subconsciously came to just know.  How that happened is beyond me.

[zil2]

And here's the answer - or at least, more of one, for anyone willing to read for a while...

"The “Ceremony of the Shoe”: A Ritual of God’s Ancient Covenant People"

[laronius]

On 5/15/2025 at 1:16 PM, zil2 said:

From today's scripture study / GC reading:

Why put off his shoes? It can't be to not track in dirt: he's already on dirt. It can't be because he's going from cursed dirt to holy dirt (as some say): it says he's already on holy ground. Shoes can't be inherently irreverent: we wear them in the house of the Lord. So why?

This thought came up while reading Elder Soares' talk "Reverence for Sacred Things". I paused to ponder why...

How does removing shoes show reverence, beyond obeying God? We wear shoes at church. We wear shoes when we pray. We wear shoes in the house of the Lord, even if they're different shoes. I could think of only one answer: The shoes were separating Moses from the holy ground.

Then I continued reading and found these phrases in the talk:

• connected Moses to his divine identity
• connection to holiness
• connection to the divine
• connection with God and His Son
• connect to the perfect love of our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ

Put off whatever is separating you from your divine identity, holiness, God and Christ, and their perfect love. Put off those things and connect!

Elder Rasband after quoting Exodus 3:5

"Putting off our shoes at the door of the temple is letting go of worldly desires or pleasures that distract us from spiritual growth, setting aside those things which sidetrack our precious mortality, rising above contentious behavior, and seeking time to be holy." Oct 2020 GC

I think shoes are specified because they so easily get dirty with the filth of this world but it's representative of putting off this world entirely (changing into white clothing) and like you said, connecting with the divine.

[Just_A_Guy]

From the NET Bible app:

”The removal of sandals was, and still is in the East, a sign of humility and reference in the presence of the Holy One. It was a way of excluding the dust and dirt of the world. But it also took away the personal comfort and convenience and brought the person more closely in contact with the earth. “