LDS garments and "protection"

[Tarquin]

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.

• Why are you asking me these questions?* That has nothing to do with evidence for the introduction or design of the garments or how they are used and misused.

But allow me to attempt to address the witnesses question. If there were witnesses would I accept them? I answer with a very definite, firm “yesno”! “Witnesses”? Give me a witness and five dollars and I’ll have five dollars. The testimony of a witness can never, ever stand alone. Unless the testimony is immediately obvious, e.g. “The sun rose this morning”.

But a witness who says, “I read a book” or “I saw hammered gold flatware” or “an angel appeared to me” – like Joseph Smith, James Strang, Warren Jeffs (but not Thomas Monson), and a host of others – that witness is due for cross-examination to see if the witness is
**reliable **(not drunk at the time, no history of mental instability),
**honest **(never indicted for perjury, fully trusted by neighbors and merchants),
and **without conflict of interest **(uncle, brother, cousin, investor, opportunist, or next-door neighbor of the accused – like Oliver Cowdery or Martin Harris, perhaps);
and to see if the testimony itself is reasonable, and as some Mormons would add, “contributes to our salvation”;
as well as to make comparison with the testimonies of other witnesses, seeing where they agree and where the disagree, along with corroboration – or invalidation – by other available concrete evidence.

When a person does a ride-along a few times, or listens to actual witness statements, or sits through a few court trials that have witnesses giving their testimonies on a particular matter, that person gains invaluable insight into the worth of witnesses’ testimonies that is not had by an innocent who gullibly accepts the first thing that is said at the moment.

Modern scripture

?? What does “modern scripture” have to do with it?? If I accept the Pope’s encyclicals as scripture, and some of them, I believe, are worthy of that level of respect, then I do in fact believe in “modern scripture.” But if they are not worthy of scripture, what kind of modern scripture do you mean? The unrevealed revelations to Joseph Smith, that you believe exist somewhere, about the garments?

Do you mean the Book of Mormon!? But I am not Mormon, so of course I do not believe that. Do you mean an as yet unrevealed scripture? But you do not accept them, so why should I? There have been so many – Urantia, Ofudesaki, Divine Principle, Science and Health with a Key to the Scriptures, Warren Jeffs revelations (far outnumbering Thomas Monson’s revelations, and far more specific than his), and so many more. Do you accept these “modern scriptures”, some even more modern than the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants?

If you reject this multitude of “modern scriptures”, perhaps it is because the Spirit has informed you that they are not true. Well, I certainly can empathize with you on that. I know exactly what it is like for the Spirit of God to indwell and tell me that an alleged scripture is a man-made fabrication.

 

[Janderich]

• Why are you asking me these questions?* That has nothing to do with evidence for the introduction or design of the garments or how they are used and misused.

But allow me to attempt to address the witnesses question. If there were witnesses would I accept them? I answer with a very definite, firm “yesno”! “Witnesses”? Give me a witness and five dollars and I’ll have five dollars. The testimony of a witness can never, ever stand alone. Unless the testimony is immediately obvious, e.g. “The sun rose this morning”.

But a witness who says, “I read a book” or “I saw hammered gold flatware” or “an angel appeared to me” – like Joseph Smith, James Strang, Warren Jeffs (but not Thomas Monson), and a host of others – that witness is due for cross-examination to see if the witness is
**reliable **(not drunk at the time, no history of mental instability),
**honest **(never indicted for perjury, fully trusted by neighbors and merchants),
and **without conflict of interest **(uncle, brother, cousin, investor, opportunist, or next-door neighbor of the accused – like Oliver Cowdery or Martin Harris, perhaps);
and to see if the testimony itself is reasonable, and as some Mormons would add, “contributes to our salvation”;
as well as to make comparison with the testimonies of other witnesses, seeing where they agree and where the disagree, along with corroboration – or invalidation – by other available concrete evidence.

When a person does a ride-along a few times, or listens to actual witness statements, or sits through a few court trials that have witnesses giving their testimonies on a particular matter, that person gains invaluable insight into the worth of witnesses’ testimonies that is not had by an innocent who gullibly accepts the first thing that is said at the moment.

Let me just subject the written testimony of the gospel writers to a few of your requirements.

Reliable
The gospel writers contradict each other on how many women came to the tomb on the morning of the resurrection. John says one, Mathew says two, Mark says three, Luke indicates there may have been even more.

The gospel writers contradict each other about how many angels were seen at the tomb. Matthew and Mark say one, Luke and John say two.

The gospel writers contradict each other on weather or not Mary Magdalene recognized Jesus. Matthew says that she did, Luke and John say she did not.

The gospel writers claim that 500 people saw Jesus resurrected (1 Cor 15:6). Where are the crucial witnesses?

Honest
Luke says that Christ appeared to people over a period of forty days (Acts 1:3). But he elsewhere writes that he ascended into heaven the same day as the resurrection (Luke 24:51).

Without Conflict of Interest
The gospel writers are practically the definition of conflict of interest. They were with Jesus as his disciples and helped him gather followers. After he left, they continued to preach his resurrection and gain followers for their church.

According to your logic we can now safely reject the written witnesses testimony of the resurrection. Thanks Tarquin! We now know the entire foundation of Christianity is based on compromised and faulty witnesses.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Let me just subject the written testimony of the gospel writers to a few of your requirements.

Reliable
The gospel writers contradict each other on how many women came to the tomb on the morning of the resurrection. John says one, Mathew says two, Mark says three, Luke indicates there may have been even more.

The gospel writers contradict each other about how many angels were seen at the tomb. Matthew and Mark say one, Luke and John say two.

The gospel writers contradict each other on weather or not Mary Magdalene recognized Jesus. Matthew says that she did, Luke and John say she did not.

The gospel writers claim that 500 people saw Jesus resurrected (1 Cor 15:6). Where are the crucial witnesses?

Honest
Luke says that Christ appeared to people over a period of forty days (Acts 1:3). But he elsewhere writes that he ascended into heaven the same day as the resurrection (Luke 24:51).

Without Conflict of Interest
The gospel writers are practically the definition of conflict of interest. They were with Jesus as his disciples and helped him gather followers. After he left, they continued to preach his resurrection and gain followers for their church.

According to your logic we can now safely reject the written witnesses testimony of the resurrection. Thanks Tarquin! We now know the entire foundation of Christianity is based on compromised and faulty witnesses.

First, Biblical historians (authors of the Books of the Bible) began with the conclusion that God is working in history to save his people. They then used the facts to illustrate this truth. The meaning of events was more important than accurately recording them. As long as the main story line was clear, names and facts might be added or omitted here and there. A story about Abraham would be repeated of Isaac; Goliath’s death could be attributed to two different people; the cleansing of the Temple could be situated either at the beginning or at the end of Jesus’ public career. This different concept of historical writing has caused modern readers to raise problems where the biblical authors saw none.

Second, modern Biblical scholarship shows us that the Gospel authors came from a community of believers. Catholics are not required to believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the literal writers of the Gospels that bear their names. Their authorship comes from an oral Tradition, which conveys history in the sense I already explained above. The events literally happened, placing them in different orders has never been a problem for us.

This is not so with Mormon history. Mormon history has always been taught as literal. Mormons approach Biblical history, as literal. It is only very recently that the LDS Church has taught that parts of Mormon history don’t really need to be taken so literally! Quite amazing, if you ask me. But it creates problems for Mormonism.

1. Should unique Mormon scripture be taken less literally? The Community of Christ has taken this approach to the Book of Mormon. Doing so resolves the historical claims of the Book of Mormon, that can be proven as false.
2. This list (which has secular roots) is part of the Mormon mantra that the Bible is corrupt. This is because of the Mormon (and secular) literal approach to scripture, and a modern approach to history. Taking this new non-literal approach to Mormon history, without doing the same for Bible history, is inconsistent. A corrupt Bible is integral and required for the Mormon story of its own creation. Is the Bible no longer corrupt then, to Mormon eyes? What does this do for the Mormon creation story of itself?

Catholics understand that Jesus had thousands who witnessed his miracles, before and after the resurrection. His life, ministry and death didn’t exist only in a clique of close friends and family. Strangers recognized him as the messiah. A thief on the Cross was witness to his saving power. The synoptic Gospels emerged from a community of believers. They are a community’s witness to the Gospel. That community is Christ’s Church. Us, and our forbearers.

 

[Horton]

First, Biblical historians (authors of the Books of the Bible) began with the conclusion that God is working in history to save his people. They then used the facts to illustrate this truth. The meaning of events was more important than accurately recording them. As long as the main story line was clear, names and facts might be added or omitted here and there. A story about Abraham would be repeated of Isaac; Goliath’s death could be attributed to two different people; the cleansing of the Temple could be situated either at the beginning or at the end of Jesus’ public career. This different concept of historical writing has caused modern readers to raise problems where the biblical authors saw none.

Second, modern Biblical scholarship shows us that the Gospel authors came from a community of believers. Catholics are not required to believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the literal writers of the Gospels that bear their names. Their authorship comes from an oral Tradition, which conveys history in the sense I already explained above. The events literally happened, placing them in different orders has never been a problem for us.

This is not so with Mormon history. Mormon history has always been taught as literal. Mormons approach Biblical history, as literal. It is only very recently that the LDS Church has taught that parts of Mormon history don’t really need to be taken so literally! Quite amazing, if you ask me. But it creates problems for Mormonism.

1. Should unique Mormon scripture be taken less literally? The Community of Christ has taken this approach to the Book of Mormon. Doing so resolves the historical claims of the Book of Mormon, that can be proven as false.
2. This list (which has secular roots) is part of the Mormon mantra that the Bible is corrupt. This is because of the Mormon (and secular) literal approach to scripture, and a modern approach to history. Taking this new non-literal approach to Mormon history, without doing the same for Bible history, is inconsistent. A corrupt Bible is integral and required for the Mormon story of its own creation. Is the Bible no longer corrupt then, to Mormon eyes? What does this do for the Mormon creation story of itself?

Catholics understand that Jesus had thousands who witnessed his miracles, before and after the resurrection. His life, ministry and death didn’t exist only in a clique of close friends and family. Strangers recognized him as the messiah. A thief on the Cross was witness to his saving power. The synoptic Gospels emerged from a community of believers. They are a community’s witness to the Gospel. That community is Christ’s Church. Us, and our forbearers.

But this would mean the LDS must follow their own logic except when they don’t. They want it their way, all ways, and there is no room for anyone else’s interpretation of things. The BoM means what it says, except when it doesn’t. The presidents mean what they say, except when they don’t. Leadership mean what they say, except when they don’t.

 

[Tarquin]

Let me just subject the written testimony of the gospel writers to a few of your requirements. …

Red herring. I suppose you are doing this because you do not wish to respond directly to my observations on the weakness of arguments presented about the introduction and design of the Mormon temple garment.

According to your logic we can now safely reject the written witnesses testimony of the resurrection. Thanks Tarquin! We now know the entire foundation of Christianity is based on compromised and faulty witnesses.

Appeal to [Bad] Consequences. As in, “If you reject testimonies about Mormon temple garments, then you must reject Christianity itself.”

And ad hominem. You say, “Thanks . . . Christianity is based on compromised and faulty witnesses”! If you are not being serious, if you are being sarcastic, please use a sarcasm emoticon, okay. E.g. :s or ;s or ^o) - I guess a lot of people get upset at sarcasm, but if it is pointed out as sarcasm, it doesn’t bother me too much, as I know it is not to be taken personally, nor as a genuine argument.

You may “safely reject” Christianity if you wish, but few genuine Christians will be swayed by such nonsensical reasoning, by *your *illogic There is far more corroborative evidence for the life of Jesus and the consequences of following his teachings (over a period of some 2000 years), than there is for divinity in the temple garments (whether divine introduction, divine design, or divine use) and following the teachings of either Joseph Smith, Jr., or Brigham Young (over a period of *less *than 200 years).

 

[Tarquin]

Let me just subject the written testimony of the gospel writers to a few of your requirements. …According to your logic we can now safely reject the written witnesses testimony of the resurrection. Thanks Tarquin! We now know the entire foundation of Christianity is based on compromised and faulty witnesses.

*Fallacy of Revelance.*The alternative to the silliness proposed for rejecting Christianity is something like “According to Tarquin’s logic we must reject the Gospels, but since we cannot (or do not wish to) reject the Gospels, therefore Moroni showed Joseph Smith his undergarments, and Smith told a woman how to make them."

Referring to the “fallacy of relevance” in logic: “Fallacies of relevance are attempts to prove a conclusion by offering considerations that simply don’t bear on its truth. In order to prove that a conclusion is true, one must offer evidence that supports it. Arguments that commit fallacies of relevance don’t do this; the considerations that they offer in support of their conclusion are irrelevant to determining whether that conclusion is true. The considerations offered by such are usually psychologically powerful, however, even if they don’t have any evidential value.”

Although I don’t want to fall for this typical attempt at side-tracking, I will point out that, as I indicated above, contradictory testimonies must be taken into consideration. There is corroborative testimony for the life of Jesus, even outside the Christian community. They may not speak kindly of him, but they do not deny he existed. They may not speak kindly of baptism and the eucharist, but they do not deny their existence. They may crucify Christians, but they do so without denying the life and ministry of Jesus.

Re: “conflict of interest.
It is not just “conflict of interest” in the positive testimonies. Those who reject Jesus also have a “conflict of interest” when they refute testimonies about Jesus. But most stay within bounds. For example, for one who rejects Jesus (speaking chiefly of rival religious leaders of his day, and of historians since his day), his “conflict of interest” could easily lead him to say “there never was a Jesus,” or “he taught bad behavior,” or “Jesus didn’t really die.” But that doesn’t happen.

However, those who reject Jesus, despite their “conflict of interest”, admit that Jesus did live, he was opposed by Jewish leaders, he did teach noble principles, he did die. So in the case of Jesus, his life and teachings are corroborated even by those who reject him. One might say that despite conflicts of interest on both sides, the degree of honesty on both sides join to provide a positive testimony of Jesus.

This cannot be done with the introduction and design of the temple garments however. Those who reject the stories about the introduction and design of the temple garments do not say that Moroni did live, that he showed his garments or took them off and gave them to Smith, or that the design of the garments is divine.

Rebecca J’s post is very important to understand clearly, from a Christian perspective. If one cannot read and begin to understand it from a non-sectarian *Christian *perspective, one simply cannot progress in understanding the life and mission of Jesus. Thank you, Rebecca J.

 

[Janderich]

Tarquin,
I’m not attempting to prove that Joseph Smith saw Moroni with the garment or that it was revealed from heaven. You may take or leave what has been written as you will. What I am doing is pointing out inconsistency in your own beliefs about witnesses.

Do you not see that it matters little if Josephus or anyone else says that a person named Christ lived and died in and around Jerusalem? The crux of the Christian religion, is not that a good man lived and died, it is that Jesus atoned for our sins and was resurrected. If he failed to do these things than Christianity is false. No non-Christian source tells us that Christ atoned for our sins and was resurrected. See, you take the key truth about Christianity and base your belief on faith, not iron clad witnesses. So when I do the same with the garment you have no leg to stand on.

Religion is not about finding the truth through pure logic and fact. Certainly these are important, but at the end of the day it is about exercising faith and confirming that faith through action as Christ himself said, “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself” (John 7:17). Go and do likewise.

 

[Horton]

Tarquin,
I’m not attempting to prove that Joseph Smith saw Moroni with the garment or that it was revealed from heaven. You may take or leave what has been written as you will. What I am doing is pointing out inconsistency in your own beliefs about witnesses.

Do you not see that it matters little if Josephus or anyone else says that a person named Christ lived and died in and around Jerusalem? The crux of the Christian religion, is not that a good man lived and died, it is that Jesus atoned for our sins and was resurrected. If he failed to do these things than Christianity is false. No non-Christian source tells us that Christ atoned for our sins and was resurrected. See, you take the key truth about Christianity and base your belief on faith, not iron clad witnesses. So when I do the same with the garment you have no leg to stand on.

Religion is not about finding the truth through pure logic and fact. Certainly these are important, but at the end of the day it is about exercising faith and confirming that faith through action as Christ himself said, “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself” (John 7:17). Go and do likewise.

John 7:15-18 15 The Jews were amazed and said, “How does he know scripture without having studied?” 16 Jesus answered them and said, “My teaching is not my own but is from the one who sent me. 17 Whoever chooses to do his will shall know whether my teaching is from God or whether I speak on my own. 18 Whoever speaks on his own seeks his own glory, but whoever seeks the glory of the one who sent him is truthful, and there is no wrong in him.

Once again a single verse taken out of context of the whole chapter then twist it’s meaning to validate your point. While you feel verse 17 somehow proves the LDS true, verse 18 pretty much proves the LDS is not.

 

[Tarquin]

Tarquin,
I’m not attempting to prove that Joseph Smith saw Moroni with the garment or that it was revealed from heaven. You may take or leave what has been written as you will. What I am doing is pointing out inconsistency in your own beliefs about witnesses.

Ah, yes, the seemingly neutral, “I’m not really trying to convince anyone. I’m just telling them what I believe and letting them decide.”

As a matter of fact, you *were *trying to prove – support and defend your belief – that the temple garment was divinely revealed (whether by a showing or a giving or a describing) to Joseph Smith, rather than that it was a fabrication of Smith personally. For, among other things, when I pointed out that Smith’s description of Moroni was of a man (or angel) in a robe, and not temple garment, you offered a counterargument: (Janderich;13970093) “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.” Why provide additional “evidence” if you are not attempting to prove this?

You offered this in hopes it prove persuasive: “*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.” * However, they do not seem to agree. For you also provided a quote saying “… 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…” If he said that Moroni received some revelation on how to make it, it was not in the quote you gave, nor do I find it in the Doctrine and Covenants. So apparently he had no such revelation.

In saying that even “many witnesses and sources” would not convince me, it is implicit that they - your witnesses and sources plus others *should *convince me. Whether they should or not, they do not, because the evidence is weak.

Do you not care whether people believe the garments are of divine origin? You wrote, “Clearly the garment represented much more to Joseph than long underwear that everyone wore. Joseph was worried about people making fun of the sacred.” I have yet to find any statement of Joseph Smith expressing concern over “people making fun” of the garments. If he did do so, I hope someone will provide the exact quote. Otherwise I’ll take it as one of those “fill in the pause” moments that many religious people engage in (guessing) when they project what they believe into the mouth of their founder or leader, making him say what they believe, a probably mostly harmless and unintentional deception. I am aware that modern Mormons are hyper-sensitive about their garments and about being made fun of. So it’s natural they would feel that Joseph Smith felt similarly. But he didn’t. He was more down-to-earth about them.

I wonder if the sacredness matters as much to modern Mormons as much as it did to Smith. Does it not matter to you whether or not people recognize that the garments are of divine origin?

If not, where do you draw the line between what sacred things you don’t care whether people know about or not, and what you do care about? You don’t care about how temple garments are viewed. Do you care whether people think Mormon temples are sacred, rather than just kind of a meeting place for secret church services? If not, do you care whether people believe the Book of Mormon is true? If not, do you care whether people believe Joseph Smith was a fraud? Do you not care whether people believe in Jesus, or in God, or in goodness or righteousness, or that Mormons are viewed as Christians? I suppose these questions must be rhetorical as they go beyond the subject of temple garments. But your comments do bring those questions to my mind. I will see if I can make sense through other threads and discussions, how Mormons prioritize the sacred.

I do actually worry about Mormons who say it doesn’t matter to them what other people believe, when they also believe that those who reject Joseph Smith will not reach their full potential in the afterlife. As some Mormon leader said whose name I do not remember, “Hell is any place where God is not.” So every “heavenly” kingdom below the top of the three Celestial sub-kingdoms is in effect hell. If one doesn’t care whether people believe the Mormon teachings, such as those related to the temple garment, that will get them to that pinnacle of kingdoms, then one doesn’t care whether people go to hell. By comparison, Buddhism teaches compassion for others, and considers the salvation of others of prime importance. Understandably, therefore, Buddhism is more popular than Mormonism. Mormonism would benefit by adopting Buddhism’s principle of compassion.

 

[Tarquin]

Religion is not about finding the truth through pure logic and fact. Certainly these are important, but at the end of the day it is about exercising faith and confirming that faith through action as Christ himself said, “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself” (John 7:17). Go and do likewise.

You are mistaken. Religion certainly is about finding truth through facts. Maybe you do not know what truth and facts entails? They include (among other things, so you don’t think I am being all-inclusive here, too) eye-witness testimony, comparison, and reason.

I don’t know what you mean by pure logic. I believe you brought that up. I am not a logician. I do not know proper logic. I avoid it when I can because it seems very complicated to me. The word I have tried to use is “reason” (or “reasonable”). Which can be but is not necessarily the same as “logic.” I refer to terms from logic when they seem simple enough to understand, and when they express what I mean better than I seem able to do. Sorry if my explanations about relevance (often misspelled ‘revelance’!), consequences, and red herring made it look I was employing pure logic. I was not.

 

[Tarquin]

What I am doing is pointing out inconsistency in your own beliefs about witnesses.

Again, you are mistaken. There is no inconsistency in my view regarding witnesses for the temple garments. However, if an inconsistency in that regards is shown to me, I will most sincerely make every effort to correct that inconsistency.

… we can now safely reject the written witnesses testimony of the resurrection. … We now know the entire foundation of Christianity is based on compromised and faulty witnesses…

You have said that if you try to apply what I said about your evidence for the introduction of temple garments were applied to the Bible, then you would have to reject Christianity. Goodness! You terribly misrepresent what I would say regarding the reliability, honesty, or harmony of testimonies, pro and con, for and against: Jesus, his life, ministry, death, resurrection, power of salvation or other Bible matter. Listen carefully, the Book of Mormon is not the Bible, Moroni is not Jesus, Joseph Smith is not Moses. They are not the same! They cannot be examined in the same manner.

apply what I said about your evidence for the introduction of temple garments were applied to the Bible

But there is no need to do that! Temple garments are not the Bible. They are not from the same century, the same place, the same religion, and have utterly different histories. They have neither the same origin nor the same purpose. Their character and features are different. Different tools are required to examine them.

Although I didn’t want to be drawn off track, I allowed myself to give you an example by way of comparison how one could accept Christianity while rejecting Mormonism, based on analysis of witnesses and sources. What I said was certainly not inclusive, for Heaven’s sake. There is far more evidence than the tidbit I gave by way of example.

I see now I should not have responded at all to your misdirection. How foolish I was to allow myself to be drawn off on this tangent! Suffice it to say, again, the recorded testimonies and corroborative sources for those episodes in the Bible where we find the only True Gospel – testimonies and sources *not *limited to the ones you and I named, along with such things as textual analysis, cultural congruity, sound reasoning (and whatever else bears on the issue) – are a thousand times more reliable and conclusive than the untested mere anecdotes of individuals that you have offered in regards to the temple garments.

But let’s say that I actually were “inconsistent” in my analysis of witnesses. That would only mean that I am inconsistent. It would not mean that my analysis of temple garment stories is in error. Get it? - How I analyze the Bible is “irrelevant” in considering critiques of garment anecdotes.

 

[Janderich]

Well, this conversation has degraded. I say, I do not believe that the quotes I provided prove that Joseph saw Moroni. And I further state that proof was not my intent. While you, based soley on the few comments I have made and your perception of Mormons tell me that such was indeed my purpose. I see we can go no further.

So I’ll step out of this thread. You may have the last word if you wish.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

Apologies for not replying sooner, I’m finally back.

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.

It’s always about restoration with JS. His claim was that Masonic symbolism pre-dated the Masons and Christianity itself, and that key elements of Jewish Temple worship (now lost to history) were restored by him in Mormonism. Symbols on undergarments are a part of what he claimed was practiced by ancient Jews and then lost to history until he restored it. He also tied it in with some sort of garment that God gave to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. As for the union suit, the original design of Mormon underwear was pretty much as close to that as they were able to get it with what was on hand, and it seems like a more likely inspiration for the original design than God telling JS.

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.

The women’s garments have actually been behind the curve from the very beginning- there was originally only one design that everyone had to wear, and the ladies faced an uphill battle in order to get clearance for any kind of female-specific garment. The men’s garments have kept pace better though, especially when it comes to the shirts. They’re basically cotton t-shirts, and under the right circumstances it’s possible to be flexible with the cut and the color.

Yes changes to the garment came with some controversy. It has always been difficult for people to separate the symbol from the symbolized.

That actually wasn’t the issue at all. The controversy was over the changing story of how the first design was decided upon. According to JS, God told and showed him specifically how it should look, and then he had his seamstress cut it three different times until it looked just right to him. However, there was a conflicting account in the early-ish 20th century…

The conflicting account is mostly known to us through the diary of Temple President George B. Richards. Rather than the story of Elizabeth Warren Allred and the three-tries version, this is a story of a group of sisters led by Emma Smith and including Bathsheba Smith who worked together, as a group, away from JS initially, in order to create a design. They showed it to JS, and he approved of everything except for one thing with the cap- it looked sort of like a crown initially, but he wanted it to look more like a baker’s hat. Also, and this is crucial, in this version of the story the ladies didn’t do everything they would have liked- the collar was added because they had no other way to finish it at the top, they would have liked to use buttons but had none so they used ties. (From Pres. George F. Richard’s journal, October 11, 1922, and April 5, 1923).

So about a week after that later entry in 1923, Pres. Richards discussed changes that could happen to the garment. They unanimously decided to take the sleeve from the wrist to the elbow, the legs from the ankles to the knee, replace the strings with buttons like the ladies wanted to do in the first place, they got rid of the collar which was an afterthought from the beginning, and the crotch was closed up. This modified garment did not supercede the old design, and they claimed that there had never been a certain fixed pattern in any official capacity, which is a bit like when Donald Trump says he’s always been very respectful to women. Speaking of women- it wasn’t until 1965 that women finally had a distinct design for them.

Relevant material here comes from a letter signed by Heber J Grant, Charles W Penrose, and A W Ivins, First Presidency. Oh, and they said they would advise bishops of your stake on these changes, carefully avoiding publicity, and this letter should not pass from your hands, nor are copies to be furnished for any other person. So…I guess they didn’t get their wish when it came to that part.

Here’s a link. i4m.com/think/temples/mormon-garments.htm

It doesn’t matter if you care for the example or not.

It matters that your example was terrible.

However, it sounds like you are saying the sacred is never mocked. I beg to differ.

Actually, if you read what I said more carefully, I said no such thing. The sacred is mocked all the time.

But there is something else that I said never happens, except when it comes to Mormons. I need you to pay attention to what that is.

Cowardice.

You’ll never see the sacred things of other religions hidden from sight and spoken of in secretive fashion for fear of being mocked, that is some utterly cowardly nonsense that is basically unique to Mormons. Everyone who has sacred stuff gets mocked for it, that much is true, but it takes a special kind of cowardice to hide it from view and prevent people from knowing much of anything about it. Cowardice in the face of being mocked- that is actually what I said is truly unique to Mormons.

With any given type of Christian, the use of sacred symbolism and especially anything that you might wear (openly) on your person is strictly optional and only done voluntarily out of a personal love and dedication for some particular thing. But the Mormon underwear is required for all Mormons of all ages, and at some point it has to cross your mind that you’re a fully grown adult who has someone telling you what sort of underwear you should wear, when and how to wear it, and when you are not worthy of wearing it. This is just weird. Yes, all sorts of religions have things that are sacred, but the compulsion combined with the cowardice is a really strange set of circumstances that you have to deal with.

 

[Chris-WA]

Yes, there are 4 markings, 2 that are Masonic. One over each breast, at the navel and the knee.

They serve as reminders of the 4 names, signs, tokens(handshakes) and penalties (though the penalties are not really stressed anymore) that members make when they go thru the temple and make their convenience (things like chastity, obedience, consecration of everything to the building up of the kingdom etc)

Joseph Smith was Mason, and he introduced the temple endowment, if my memory serves me right, not too long after (a few months) he became a Master Mason. The temple endowment is Masonic in nature, if one knows about both.

And therein lies the rub—Masonry. I didn’t watch the two videos, but I’m willing to bet they didn’t really concede the Masonry origins. The honest truth is that LDS temple ceremonies are modified Masonic ceremonies. That’s it. As you so clearly pointed out, Joseph was a mason and he simply incorporated Masonic ceremonies and symbols into Mormon temple worship. Names, signs, and tokens? What it the name of all that is holy do any of those things have to do with Jesus Christ? Absolutely nothing. These things are not divine in origin—they are man-made, silly ceremonies that have little to do with genuine Christian worship. The LDS temple endowment ceremony was so bizarre the church had to eventually change it to get rid of some of the more offensive parts. Pure nonsense.

Yet most LDS can’t see it because they are so thoroughly indoctrinated in just how sacred and wonderful the temple is before they ever get there that they can’t see the forest from the trees.

 

[Tarquin]

(quoting someone):*“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?” *(end quote)

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.

Garment styles do keep pace with fashion changes. “Keep pace” does not necessarily mean “fit with” or have the borders match exactly. Original garments were wrist and ankle length and one piece. It looks like one could relieve oneself without removing them. This fits in with doctrine, teaching, belief, and practice, which is that ideally they should “never” be removed. (Of course there are exceptions!) Some would not remove them even when taking a bath, if only keeping on sleeve on, and then the other as they took turns washing their arms.

When skirt levels rose and when short sleeves became fashionable, Mormon temple garments “kept pace” by reducing the length of the garment sleeves and legs. The resulting length was not as short as the shortest acceptable attire, but it was short enough to be culturally acceptable. Both one-piece and two-piece garments are currently available. It is noteworthy that the woman’s blouse-garment is (or can be) nearly completely sleeveless, but long enough that cap-sleeves are not permitted unless covered by something with a longer sleeve. The fact that the length of sleeves and leggings are not as short as what is sometimes seen does not negate the fact that a certain “pace” is being followed. Although the design itself does not perfectly overlay all current fashion styles, nevertheless the ongoing change in the design keeps pace with ongoing change in worldly fashions.

Finally, the military requires various colors of underclothing. In fact it was in the military that I learned that the Church allowed two-piece garments at least sometimes. The Mormon Church assures that its garments “keep pace” with these requirement by providing colored garments. lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/callings/military/military-garment-special-orders.pdf?lang=eng