LDS garments and "protection"

[RebeccaJ]

They were not just “long underwear” that everyone wore. An account regarding Elizabeth Warren Allred, relates the first garment she cut for Joseph: Clearly the garment represented much more to Joseph than long underwear that everyone wore.

Joseph was worried about people making fun of the sacred. Certainly you have encountered this? Do not people make fun of priestly vestments? However, a piece of cloth alone is not sacred (same with a piece of bread a bit of water, etc). What they represent is sacred.

Sorry, but Smith was always up for the theatrical flair. “No dear sister, that isn’t the right cut, try again!” There’s only so many ways to cut a garment for the human body.

Temple garment - Wikipedia Temple garment c. 1879.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_garment#/media/File%3AMormon_garments.jpg

Honestly, couldn’t care any less about what people think of vestments. Anyway, priests wear their vestments on the outside, no secret clothing to worry about anyone discovering.

Eta: Lest you think,I don’t care about the sacred, I do. I don’t care what others think about it. If I did I’d have to be on the lookout at all times for offenders, and here in Utah, that could be a full time job. Gotta let some things go.

 

[Horton]

They were not just “long underwear” that everyone wore. An account regarding Elizabeth Warren Allred, relates the first garment she cut for Joseph: Clearly the garment represented much more to Joseph than long underwear that everyone wore.

Joseph was worried about people making fun of the sacred. Certainly you have encountered this? Do not people make fun of priestly vestments? However, a piece of cloth alone is not sacred (same with a piece of bread a bit of water, etc). What they represent is sacred.

I don’t think I’ve ever heard of anyone making fun of a priest in his vestments. Maybe this is an LDS thing? If Joseph Smith was worried folks would mock him for wearing a sacred clothing item, an item he states came from the angel moroni, then maybe he wasn’t so much the martyr the LDS believe him to be.

I understand most faith traditions have items that are sacred to them. Certainly Catholics excel at this, the having of sacramentals.

I will take exception with your statement that the bread & wine used for Holy Communion may start out as bread & wine, but through consecration they truly become the Body & Blood, Soul & Divinity of Jesus Christ, not a mere representation of Him.

 

[Allegra]

They were not just “long underwear” that everyone wore. An account regarding Elizabeth Warren Allred, relates the first garment she cut for Joseph: Clearly the garment represented much more to Joseph than long underwear that everyone wore.

Joseph was worried about people making fun of the sacred. Certainly you have encountered this? Do not people make fun of priestly vestments? However, a piece of cloth alone is not sacred (same with a piece of bread a bit of water, etc). What they represent is sacred.

The bread does not “represent” the sacred. After it is consecrated, it IS the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ.

 

[Janderich]

Sorry, but Smith was always up for the theatrical flair. “No dear sister, that isn’t the right cut, try again!” There’s only so many ways to cut a garment for the human body.

I’m sure there are many ways, just like there are many styles of clothes. But only one cut would be similar to Moroni’s.

 

[Janderich]

The bread does not “represent” the sacred. After it is consecrated, it IS the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ.

You are free to believe as you will.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

They were not just “long underwear” that everyone wore. An account regarding Elizabeth Warren Allred, relates the first garment she cut for Joseph: Clearly the garment represented much more to Joseph than long underwear that everyone wore.

Joseph Smith Jr did describe some sort of connection between his design and his best understanding of what ancient Jews wore under their clothes (presumably with symbols and all, although there’s not a shred of evidence that ancient Jews had Masonic symbols on their undergarments)…

With that being said, the union suit is the closest contemporary cognate, and this was a particular style of underwear that originated in Utica, New York, and was part of a general trend in clothing reform efforts of the 19th century. You can’t help but expect non-Mormons to link Utica, this fashion trend, and Joseph Smith Jr all together in the same thought, right?

I’ll also point out how Smith, and Young after him, basically said that God not only restored an ancient underwear design to them, but that it should also stay the same way indefinitely. And this is where I can’t help but point out that the style of Mormon underwear has updated with the times, it’s a different material and a different cut, you can basically get a regular t-shirt if you want, you can even get it in colors besides white under special circumstances, like for military personnel who may need a little more flexibility with their military dress code. Now, I understand you’ll probably argue that religion is all about believing some amazing things, and you’re free to believe that these undergarments really did have something to do with ancient Jews. But I must ask, if the design really was accurate to something half a world away and not simply a part of the regional fashion trends of the time, why exactly would the Mormon church update the style of its undergarments so that it keeps pace with the general fashion trends of these times as of right now?

It was laid out by the first Mormon prophets as a certain style that always had to be the same way, but now the whole style has completely changed and there’s quite a bit of flexibility with the things you can do with it. Which is good, from a certain standpoint, but it does make it seem like certain parts of what your earliest prophets revealed to you are being ignored, even if they said it was being done on God’s specific orders. Have you looked into the exact nature of events surrounding that shift in style? It was not entirely without controversy within the LDS church.

Joseph was worried about people making fun of the sacred. Certainly you have encountered this? Do not people make fun of priestly vestments? However, a piece of cloth alone is not sacred (same with a piece of bread a bit of water, etc). What they represent is sacred.

Let me see if I follow your logic here. Joseph Smith Jr was worried about the sacred being mocked, so he went to great lengths in order to make sure his sacred things could not be seen by anybody, under any circumstance.

And a priest of any kind might occasionally be worried that their vestments will be mocked in some way, and so they…hide their vestments from view, going to great pains so no one can ever see them?

Wait, no, that never happens. That actually never happens, with anything sacred for that matter. Unless it’s the Mormon church, in which case you’ll say it’s sacred and don’t call it a secret, but then you’ll struggle to find a close cognate that helps us make any kind of sense out of it.

So we’re absolutely clear, the example that you just gave did nothing for me.

 

[Janderich]

Joseph Smith Jr did describe some sort of connection between his design and his best understanding of what ancient Jews wore under their clothes (presumably with symbols and all, although there’s not a shred of evidence that ancient Jews had Masonic symbols on their undergarments)…

With that being said, the union suit is the closest contemporary cognate, and this was a particular style of underwear that originated in Utica, New York, and was part of a general trend in clothing reform efforts of the 19th century. You can’t help but expect non-Mormons to link Utica, this fashion trend, and Joseph Smith Jr all together in the same thought, right?

I’m not sure what your point is here. I haven’t heard Joseph link the garment to what the Jew’s wore anciently. Also, I don’t see how the union suit has much to do with the garment.

I’ll also point out how Smith, and Young after him, basically said that God not only restored an ancient underwear design to them, but that it should also stay the same way indefinitely. And this is where I can’t help but point out that the style of Mormon underwear has updated with the times, it’s a different material and a different cut, you can basically get a regular t-shirt if you want, you can even get it in colors besides white under special circumstances, like for military personnel who may need a little more flexibility with their military dress code. Now, I understand you’ll probably argue that religion is all about believing some amazing things, and you’re free to believe that these undergarments really did have something to do with ancient Jews. But I must ask, if the design really was accurate to something half a world away and not simply a part of the regional fashion trends of the time, why exactly would the Mormon church update the style of its undergarments so that it keeps pace with the general fashion trends of these times as of right now?

The garment certainly doesn’t “keep pace” with the latest fashion trends unless you believe it is fashionable for women to wear shorts down to their knees.

It was laid out by the first Mormon prophets as a certain style that always had to be the same way, but now the whole style has completely changed and there’s quite a bit of flexibility with the things you can do with it. Which is good, from a certain standpoint, but it does make it seem like certain parts of what your earliest prophets revealed to you are being ignored, even if they said it was being done on God’s specific orders. Have you looked into the exact nature of events surrounding that shift in style? It was not entirely without controversy within the LDS church.

Yes changes to the garment came with some controversy. It has always been difficult for people to separate the symbol from the symbolized. The first presidency at the time of the change pointed to what was important, namely, that members remember the covenants made in the temple and what the garment represented. It is the same today.

Let me see if I follow your logic here. Joseph Smith Jr was worried about the sacred being mocked, so he went to great lengths in order to make sure his sacred things could not be seen by anybody, under any circumstance.

And a priest of any kind might occasionally be worried that their vestments will be mocked in some way, and so they…hide their vestments from view, going to great pains so no one can ever see them?

Wait, no, that never happens. That actually never happens, with anything sacred for that matter. Unless it’s the Mormon church, in which case you’ll say it’s sacred and don’t call it a secret, but then you’ll struggle to find a close cognate that helps us make any kind of sense out of it.

So we’re absolutely clear, the example that you just gave did nothing for me.

It doesn’t matter if you care for the example or not. However, it sounds like you are saying the sacred is never mocked. I beg to differ. It is mocked and derided over and over again by the media and by individuals. Christ himself said, “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” (Matt 7:6).

 

[Tarquin]

I for one believe that the most important purpose of the garment is to remind me of sacred promises I have made. In as much as I honor those promises the Lord he will protect me spiritually and temporally according to his will. However, the garment itself is a piece of cloth and is not of itself a protection against harm.

Well certainly everyone is free to believe as he wishes. I doubt anyone at Catholic Forums would argue otherwise. While every Mormon is free to treat his temple garments however he wishes, and ex-Mormons too for that matter, the important issue is what the Church Itself teaches on the subject, what the heads of the Church - Prophets - believe and teach (assuming that what they believe and what they teach are the same thing). What the Prophets have taught is that the garments “can” and do provide some level of specifically physical protection.

 

[Tarquin]

Point of information: I have heard people mock priests and clerics for the clothing they wear.

Different issue:

Janderich’s quote: “It was while they were living in Nauvoo that the Prophet came to my mother, who was a seamstress by trade, and told her that he had seen the Angel Moroni with the garments on, and asked her to assist him in cutting out the garments…”

It seems strange to me that Joseph Smith should have been able to see the Moroni’s garments at all, for two reason. One is that it is prohibited to wear the garments as outer clothing. Two is that Moroni was not wearing garments.

Joseph Smith - History reads: “He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen; nor do I believe that any earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly white and brilliant. His hands were naked, and his arms also, a little above the wrist; so, also, were his feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles. His head and neck were also bare. I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe, as it was open, so that I could see into his bosom.”

If some angel had later appeared to Joseph to show him a garment, that would be one thing. But to have another angel appear to him, and take off his robe so Joseph could look at him in his garment-wear, I don’t think that could happen, because of humility, modesty, and propriety.

So why would Mormons say that Smith got the idea from Moroni? I have often been told not to listen to people who don’t really know Mormonism, who aren’t Mormons, or who espouse things that are “not official doctrine.” In that case, I would like to examine for myself the words that make up the official doctrine concerning Joseph learning how garments were constructed. His was not the first British religion to require special clothing for its members.

 

[lax16]

You are free to believe as you will.

We believe because Jesus said it is so.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It doesn’t matter if you care for the example or not. However, it sounds like you are saying the sacred is never mocked. I beg to differ… (Matt 7:6).

I read it as priests don’t hide their vestments because they fear being mocked. Pretty much we don’t have secret ceremonies or clothes. Our liturgies are public works. Jesus on the Cross, the moment of our Salvation, was not hidden. An incredibly sacred event, given to all, and not done in secret. I’m not sorry to say, your underclothing is NOT more sacred than this public event.

As for pearls before swine, mocking the Eucharist would be the highest form of disrespect to a Catholic. Something that LDS don’t seem to have a problem doing. You can view our most sacred and call them abomination. When you mock them, we’ll just wonder at what force or ignorance is behind your mockery and pray for you.

 

[Tarquin]

You are free to believe as you will.

Why would you say that? Aren’t you free to believe as you will, or does your Church constrain you?

 

[dcana]

Just a simple question:

Do men and women wear these undergarments?

Has it always been so?

Thank you

 

[jane_doe]

Do men and women wear these undergarments?

Yes, people of both genders whom have made these covenants wear them.

 

[dcana]

Yes, people of both genders whom have made these covenants wear them.

Thanks, Jane

God bless

 

[Janderich]

Janderich’s quote: “It was while they were living in Nauvoo that the Prophet came to my mother, who was a seamstress by trade, and told her that he had seen the Angel Moroni with the garments on, and asked her to assist him in cutting out the garments…”

It seems strange to me that Joseph Smith should have been able to see the Moroni’s garments at all, for two reason. One is that it is prohibited to wear the garments as outer clothing. Two is that Moroni was not wearing garments.

Joseph Smith - History reads: “He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen; nor do I believe that any earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly white and brilliant. His hands were naked, and his arms also, a little above the wrist; so, also, were his feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles. His head and neck were also bare. I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe, as it was open, so that I could see into his bosom.”

If some angel had later appeared to Joseph to show him a garment, that would be one thing. But to have another angel appear to him, and take off his robe so Joseph could look at him in his garment-wear, I don’t think that could happen, because of humility, modesty, and propriety.

So why would Mormons say that Smith got the idea from Moroni? I have often been told not to listen to people who don’t really know Mormonism, who aren’t Mormons, or who espouse things that are “not official doctrine.” In that case, I would like to examine for myself the words that make up the official doctrine concerning Joseph learning how garments were constructed. His was not the first British religion to require special clothing for its members.

Moroni appear to Joseph at least 20 times over just a short span of years, so there were many opportunities for him or another heavenly visitor to explain the garment. In fact, another quote we have provides a bit more detail about how Joseph received revelation on the garment. Eliza R Snow and Zina Young, early church members, were interested in the garment and asked Joseph about them.

They then asked him who showed him how, and he said. “An angel of the Lord.” He stood over them while they were cut out. He also said, “The angel Moroni drew aside his robe and showed his marks.” (George Albert Smith; Univ. Of Utah Special Collections; H. Michael Marquardt Papers, MS 36 Bx 74, Fd16.)

You may conjecture, but the quotes I have provided are not mine, I am simply giving you what has been written.

 

[Janderich]

Why would you say that? Aren’t you free to believe as you will, or does your Church constrain you?

All men are free to believe as they will. My statement is simply an acknowledgement of that choice.

 

[Tarquin]

Moroni appear to Joseph at least 20 times over just a short span of years, so there were many opportunities for him or another heavenly visitor to explain the garment. In fact, another quote we have provides a bit more detail about how Joseph received revelation on the garment. Eliza R Snow and Zina Young, early church members, were interested in the garment and asked Joseph about them.You may conjecture, but the quotes I have provided are not mine, I am simply giving you what has been written.

In all honesty, it is you who is conjecturing. Was any of that canonized in Scripture? The quote by George Albert Smith was in a box of papers. I don’t know anything about those papers. Apparently they were not included in Scripture and are not used for teaching or training by the Church.

I do not know that Moroni appeared at all, let alone 20 times. Sufficient witnesses (as in the Law of Witnesses) are lacking. As for as there being “opportunities for him or another heavenly visitor to explain the garment,” I’m sure you would have given the names of witnesses if there had been any, and a citation from scripture if there had been any. To quote an earlier post you made, “Again, this is your opinion. You have given no specifics. Carry your false view if you must but until you try to at least base what you say on scripture you have no leg to stand on, much less a foundation to criticize what I have said.” You should now apply your remarks to yourself.

“Explaining” the garment doesn’t solve the problem. The claim is that Smith looked at the material and told a person where to cut it. Unless Smith had some prior expertise in this realm of women’s work, I doubt he could have done very well pointing or describing where and how the cuts were to be made, unless he had actually seen a garment.

That would mean either Moroni (or your unnamed “other” angel) removed his robe in front of Joseph, or brought an extra robe from some supply house not of this earth. Knowing what I know about Mormons’ attitudes about their garments, it is unlikely that a divine being would have done. Knowing what I know to be alleged about Moroni from the Mormon scriptures (not from a single historian’s notes in a box), Moroni did not even wear garments - ever - just a robe!

You once wrote that you have the Bible, The Book of Mormon, the D&C, and the Pearl of Great Price and would use *them *to establish truth. At least that would seem to be official.as opposed to “what has been written” by way of personal conjecture. If the temple garments were as important as other topics in the Doctrine and Covenants, one would expect a published revelation. Mormons say they vote on doctrine. (Where is a vote recorded on the implementation of temple garments, and doctrines relating to them? Again, Mormons say a thing “was not voted on” if they want to deny its validity, but consider many things valid that have never been voted on.) Good heavens, Mormons can’t even accept what Joseph Smith said (if it contradicts current beliefs and practices) unless it is “canonized”, but when it is to their advantage to do so, they quote seamstresses, tertiary sources (“the Prophet came to my mother … and told her … [and now I’m telling you]”), with their inevitable inconsistencies - no collar because Moroni had none, but then yes a collar because there was a collar on Adam’s garment over which he put animal skins.

I have read some of the accounts of how the garments were introduced, explained, and fabricated. The existence of conflicting accounts is best explained by acknowledging that different stories were told to different persons at different times, similar to the “First Vision” stories varying widely in time and in relation to the persons it was told to. In other words, they are fabrications without solid roots.

Mormons know they are supposed to wear temple garments; beyond that they seem to be clueless, well not completely clueless, but nevertheless in the dark about their introduction, design, proper usage, and purpose.

 

[Janderich]

In all honesty, it is you who is conjecturing. Was any of that canonized in Scripture? The quote by George Albert Smith was in a box of papers. I don’t know anything about those papers. Apparently they were not included in Scripture and are not used for teaching or training by the Church.

I do not know that Moroni appeared at all, let alone 20 times. Sufficient witnesses (as in the Law of Witnesses) are lacking. As for as there being “opportunities for him or another heavenly visitor to explain the garment,” I’m sure you would have given the names of witnesses if there had been any, and a citation from scripture if there had been any. To quote an earlier post you made, “Again, this is your opinion. You have given no specifics. Carry your false view if you must but until you try to at least base what you say on scripture you have no leg to stand on, much less a foundation to criticize what I have said.” You should now apply your remarks to yourself.

I do not provide these quotes as truth etched in stone and of course they are not the final word. I have never said otherwise. However, what sources contemporary to Joseph say has consistency in certain respects. For instance they agree that Moroni explained the garment and Joseph received some revelation on how to make it.

At any rate, if there were modern scripture on this matter would you believe it? If there were witnesses would you accept them? If such were truly sufficient you would accept the Book of Mormon. And if you reject that book then even many witnesses and sources regarding the garment would be likewise insufficient for you.

“Explaining” the garment doesn’t solve the problem. The claim is that Smith looked at the material and told a person where to cut it. Unless Smith had some prior expertise in this realm of women’s work, I doubt he could have done very well pointing or describing where and how the cuts were to be made, unless he had actually seen a garment.

That would mean either Moroni (or your unnamed “other” angel) removed his robe in front of Joseph, or brought an extra robe from some supply house not of this earth. Knowing what I know about Mormons’ attitudes about their garments, it is unlikely that a divine being would have done. Knowing what I know to be alleged about Moroni from the Mormon scriptures (not from a single historian’s notes in a box), Moroni did not even wear garments - ever - just a robe!

You once wrote that you have the Bible, The Book of Mormon, the D&C, and the Pearl of Great Price and would use *them *to establish truth. At least that would seem to be official.as opposed to “what has been written” by way of personal conjecture. If the temple garments were as important as other topics in the Doctrine and Covenants, one would expect a published revelation. Mormons say they vote on doctrine. (Where is a vote recorded on the implementation of temple garments, and doctrines relating to them? Again, Mormons say a thing “was not voted on” if they want to deny its validity, but consider many things valid that have never been voted on.) Good heavens, Mormons can’t even accept what Joseph Smith said (if it contradicts current beliefs and practices) unless it is “canonized”, but when it is to their advantage to do so, they quote seamstresses, tertiary sources (“the Prophet came to my mother … and told her … [and now I’m telling you]”), with their inevitable inconsistencies - no collar because Moroni had none, but then yes a collar because there was a collar on Adam’s garment over which he put animal skins.

I have read some of the accounts of how the garments were introduced, explained, and fabricated. The existence of conflicting accounts is best explained by acknowledging that different stories were told to different persons at different times, similar to the “First Vision” stories varying widely in time and in relation to the persons it was told to. In other words, they are fabrications without solid roots.

Mormons know they are supposed to wear temple garments; beyond that they seem to be clueless, well not completely clueless, but nevertheless in the dark about their introduction, design, proper usage, and purpose.

We don’t have all the revelation that Joseph received on the matter of the garment. I’m fine with that, it does not worry me in the least. I have worn the garment for years and know for myself why I wear them and what they represent.

 

[Tarquin]

If such were truly **sufficient **you would accept the Book of Mormon. And if you **reject **that book then even many witnesses and sources regarding the garment would be likewise **insufficient **for you.

But this garment discussion isn’t about converting me, is it? So whether or not alleged scripture, or even genuine scripture, a trio of witnesses, and sure knowledge of where the garment really came from, had the power to turn me into a Mormon, isn’t the issue. What has not been sufficiently proven are:
**is it genuine scripture?
are they reliable witnesses?
and does anyone really know the origin of the garment design? **

Janderich, you offer a false dichotomy. You say if I (presumably any person) reject the Book of Mormon, then even many witnesses would not convince me of the source of the garments. That is foolishness. It simply is not true. If I “reject” the Book of Mormon (I do not “reject” it; but I do not accept it as “revelation” from God or as Christian scripture), I may nevertheless be convinced of the source of the garment design by witnesses – if … well the same conditions as above – the witnesses must be reliable, they must be honest, there must be no significant conflict of interest, their testimonies must agree within reason, contradictory testimonies must not be stronger than their testimonies, their testimonies are reasonable (somewhat logical), and there is appropriate corroborative evidence of some sort.

Really, you pin everything on the Book of Mormon? If a person doesn’t believe in that, they can’t believe in anything else claimed by the Mormon Church? Conversely, if a person rejects these conflicting stories about garments, he necessarily rejects the Church? I have known Mormons who believe strongly in the Church, but who do not believe many particulars among the doctrines, including what is taught about the garments, both officially and “unofficially”. So it is possible to reject the Book of Mormon yet believe in, for example, some story about the discovery of the garments, or on the other hand to reject the stories about the garments and still believe in the Book of Mormon. Yours is a false dichotomy. There are more than two choices. I also have the acquaintance of people who have rejected the Mormon Church yet still believe in some of its “principles,” such as “Celestial Marriage,” Joseph Smith as a prophet, priesthood authority (although not of the same lineage), Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods (and some an additional priesthood or two), blood atonement, temple clothing and temple rituals.

I do not provide these quotes as truth etched in stone and of course they are not the final word. I have never said otherwise.

Okay then. Not concrete, not final. Okay then. Vague, changeable. Neither official nor reliable. Anecdotal. I have no problem accepting them as anecdotal. “As far as they are reported correctly.”

However, what sources contemporary to Joseph say has consistency in certain respects. For instance they agree that Moroni explained the garment and Joseph received some revelation on how to make it.

The stories, as has been explained, are inconsistent and contradictory, just as the First Vision and other elements of Mormon doctrine and history are contradictory. The First Vision reports, too, have “consistency in certain respects.” For example they all report a “first vision” and they all report Joseph Smith had it, and they all report it was very good. We need more than that. We really could not conclude from those reports specifically who was present, what they said specifically, or what actually happened.

Likewise, with these reports of how the garment design suddenly appeared, we need more agreement than all of them just saying - there was a garment somewhere (not sure where; not sure what it looked like), - Smith told them about it, - he had seen it somewhere or someone had described its construction to him, and - some or another angel either wearing a robe and no garment, or wearing a garment and no robe, may have been involved. Not helpful.

If God thought it important enough to give a revelation as mundane as instructing a man to build a house for Joseph Smith; and another describing the sacred appearance of God and Jesus on the earth to prepare a “simple” holy boy to restore what Jesus failed to maintain and to make it even greater; then I should think how the temple garments came to be or how they were to be constructed and by whom, should be right about up there with Smith’s personal Church-provided home. I cannot imagine that picking up some clothing would be considered “so sacred” that it can’t be discussed. Besides, it already has been.

However We don’t have all the revelation that Joseph received on the matter of the garment. I’m fine with that, it does not worry me in the least. I have worn the garment for years and know for myself why I wear them and what they represent.

How do you know you don’t have all the revelation Joseph received on the matter of the garment? Did he say there was more?

Well, no matter. I’m sure it’s safe to say, nobody has “all the revelation Joseph received” on any matter. Saying that “we don’t have all the revelation” a cop-out.