Garment changes

[Jeanne]

10 minutes ago, Garden Girl said:

 

I suppose I'm being overly touchy this morning, but these two posts just irritate me... I'm pretty used to our critics on this board and can usually roll with it... the wink and smiley face here do little to mask the underlying mocking... Jeanne more than Pete... of us stupid Mormons, foolish enough to put up with the wearing of garments... 

GG

I am so sorry.I did not mean to offend.  Those words came to me because they were a part of a commercial many years ago...ugh...I am old!

[Damien the Leper]

13 minutes ago, Garden Girl said:

 

I suppose I'm being overly touchy this morning, but these two posts just irritate me... I'm pretty used to our critics on this board and can usually roll with it... the wink and smiley face here do little to mask the underlying mocking... Jeanne more than Pete... of us stupid Mormons, foolish enough to put up with the wearing of garments... 

GG

Just remember that the Lord favors the Utes over the BYU kitty cats and all will be made right. You'll feel a calm settle your soul.

Also... y'all aren't stupid Mormons. I appreciate how well nuanced the crowd is here. 

Edited July 7, 2017 by Valentinus

[Jeanne]

19 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

No. I wore good quality underwear by Diesel, Marco Marco and Calvin Klein. Hanes we're horrible and never kept their shape.

Again...I did not mean to offend at all.. it was part of a commercial.  Duh...I respect your beliefs and garments..I take care of Dad's..and I understand them and what they mean to all of you.  Gosh..sorry!

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

I think that'd be a welcome change. The garments in Revelation are symbolic. Any symbol that communicates the meaning will do.

Well, considering you think everything in the scriptures are symbolic I don't think I can agree with you.
The garments are not mere symbols, and IMO the ones in Revelation are literal, just as the ones given to Adam and Eve were literal.

[Damien the Leper]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

Again...I did not mean to offend at all.. it was part of a commercial.  Duh...I respect your beliefs and garments..I take care of Dad's..and I understand them and what they mean to all of you.  Gosh..sorry!

I didn't take offense. Lol. But Hanes are terrible quality. They aren't flattering, either. The most important part of underwear is how it makes my butt look.

Don't roll your eyes at me GG or Calmoriah!! I'm making a valid point.

[Damien the Leper]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, considering you think everything in the scriptures are symbolic I don't think I can agree with you.
The garments are not mere symbols, and IMO the ones in Revelation are literal, just as the ones given to Adam and Eve were literal.

Stop being so stubborn. 😁

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, considering you think everything in the scriptures are symbolic I don't think I can agree with you.
The garments are not mere symbols, and IMO the ones in Revelation are literal, just as the ones given to Adam and Eve were literal.

I think anything in the scriptures can be taken symbolically and only takes on meaning for us when we do. But I think it's clear that the word "garment" is used metaphorically by the author.

LDS garments themselves are of course also symbols for something else.

Adam and Eve symbolize US. They're not real people, and therefore did not wear real garments.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Gray

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Gray said:

I think anything in the scriptures can be taken symbolically and only takes on meaning for us when we do. But I think it's clear that the word "garment" is used metaphorically by the author.

LDS garments themselves are of course also symbols for something else.

The number of visions of heavenly beings described as wearing the garment is in history for all to read.
Revelation 3:5 (He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment) doesn't sound like metaphor to me considering eyewitness accounts of the same.

[Gray]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

The number of visions of heavenly beings described as wearing the garment is in history for all to read.
Revelation 3:5 (He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment) doesn't sound like metaphor to me considering eyewitness accounts of the same.

"Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy."

"Defiled their garments" here is representative of sin and apostasy. It would be a very presentist notion to think it had something to do with actual clothing. Garments or clothing are often used as a metaphor for righteousness. IE "filthy rags" vs "spotless and without blemish"

The author of Revelation was not a Mormon!

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The number of visions of heavenly beings described as wearing the garment is in history for all to read.
Revelation 3:5 (He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment) doesn't sound like metaphor to me considering eyewitness accounts of the same.

Rev 3 isn't an eyewitness account.  It's using the metaphor of being clothed in white as those who have repented.  Indeed the particular passage you quote doesn't say much beyond what those of Sardis will do, if they remain faithful or "worthy" (however you want to term it).

 

 

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

"Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy."

"Defiled their garments" here is representative of sin and apostasy. It would be a very presentist notion to think it had something to do with actual clothing. Garments or clothing are often used as a metaphor for righteousness. IE "filthy rags" vs "spotless and without blemish"

The author of Revelation was not a Mormon!

"Not a Mormon".  That's semantics.
Again, eyewitness accounts of heavenly beings by Joseph, Heber, and others all describe them as wearing garments.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Rev 3 isn't an eyewitness account.  It's using the metaphor of being clothed in white as those who have repented.  Indeed the particular passage you quote doesn't say much beyond what those of Sardis will do, if they remain faithful or "worthy" (however you want to term it).

I didn't say Revelation was an eyewitness account.  I said other eyewitness accounts of heavenly messengers describe them wearing the garment, as mentioned in Revelation.
Given D&C 130:11, if the white stone in Revelation 2:17 is literal, why wouldn't the white garment promised in Revelation 3:5 be literal?

Edited July 7, 2017 by JLHPROF

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, considering you think everything in the scriptures are symbolic I don't think I can agree with you.
The garments are not mere symbols, and IMO the ones in Revelation are literal, just as the ones given to Adam and Eve were literal.

Of course garments are symbolic. They are symbolic of the coat of skins and they also are an "outward expression of an inner commitment", so they are viewed as a symbol of a person's commitment. Garments symbolically represent something else, therefore they are symbols. I'm not sure why that is debatable.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

 

I didn't say Revelation was an eyewitness account.  I said other eyewitness accounts of heavenly messengers describe them wearing the garment, as mentioned in Revelation.

Can I read them?  any links?

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Can I read them?  any links?

A few.  Probably more out there.

• JS History 1:31 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.
   
• The first garments were made by Eliza R. Snow and Zina Young. They were cut out by the Prophet Joseph Smith and under his direction. 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.
   
• There are three corroborating accounts of the visitation of an angel at the dedication of 27 March, and one of those identifies the angelic visitor as Peter. The Prophet Joseph tells us that “Frederick G. Williams arose and testified that while Sidney Rigdon was making his first prayer an angel entered the window and took his seat between Father Smith and himself, and remained there during the prayer3.” Heber C. Kimball also recorded that “During the ceremonies of the dedication, an angel appeared and sat near President Joseph Smith, Sen., and Frederick G. Williams, so that they had a fair view of his person. He was a very tall personage, black eyes, white hair, and stoop shouldered; his garment was whole, extending to near his ankles; on his feet he had sandals. He was sent as a messenger to accept of the dedication.” Truman O. Angell informs us that the angelic being seen by Frederick G. Williams and Joseph Smith, Sr., during Sidney Rigdon’s prayer was Simon Peter, the ancient apostle. “F. G. Williams being in the upper east stand . . .rose and testified that midway during the prayer an Holy Angel came and seated Himself in the stand. When the afternoon meeting assembled Joseph feeling very much elated, arose the first thing and said the Personage who had appeared in the morning was the Angel Peter come to accept the dedication.”
  https://byustudies.byu.edu/file/3585/download?token=gXvAUZ9Q

• During the winter that I boarded with Bro. Joseph, as just mentioned, we had a number of prayer meetings, in the prophet's chamber, in which we obtained great blessings. In one of these meetings the prophet told us if we could humble ourselves before God, and exercise strong faith, we should see the face of the Lord. And about midday the visions of my mind were opened, and the eyes of my understanding were enlightened, and I saw the form of a man, most lovely, the visage of his face was sound and fair as the sun. His hair a bright silver grey, curled in most majestic form, His eyes a keen penetrating blue, and the skin of his neck a most beautiful white and he was covered from the neck to the feet with a loose garment, pure white, whiter than any garment I have ever before seen. His countenance was most penetrating, and yet most lovely. And while I was endeavoring to comprehend the whole personage from head to feet it slipped from me, and the vision was closed up. But it left on my mind the impression of love, for months, that I never felt before to that degree.(John Murdock Journal, typescript, BYU-A, p.13)

 

Joseph F. Smith -  “The saints should know that the pattern of Endowment Garment was revealed from Heaven, and that the blessings promised in connection with wearing them will not be realized if any change is made in their form or in the manner of wearing them.”

[JLHPROF]

40 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Of course garments are symbolic. They are symbolic of the coat of skins and they also are an "outward expression of an inner commitment", so they are viewed as a symbol of a person's commitment. Garments symbolically represent something else, therefore they are symbols. I'm not sure why that is debatable.

Not debating whether they are symbolic.   They are filled with symbolism (more so before the changes were made).   Just questioning the claim that they are ONLY symbolic.

Edited July 7, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Gray]

47 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

"Not a Mormon".  That's semantics.
Again, eyewitness accounts of heavenly beings by Joseph, Heber, and others all describe them as wearing garments.

I'm not sure what Joseph's or Heber's visions would have to do with. Even assuming angels wear white clothing, that doesn't make the word "garments" not symbolic.

 

 

[Gray]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

A few.  Probably more out there.

• JS History 1:31 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.
   
• The first garments were made by Eliza R. Snow and Zina Young. They were cut out by the Prophet Joseph Smith and under his direction. 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.
   
• There are three corroborating accounts of the visitation of an angel at the dedication of 27 March, and one of those identifies the angelic visitor as Peter. The Prophet Joseph tells us that “Frederick G. Williams arose and testified that while Sidney Rigdon was making his first prayer an angel entered the window and took his seat between Father Smith and himself, and remained there during the prayer3.” Heber C. Kimball also recorded that “During the ceremonies of the dedication, an angel appeared and sat near President Joseph Smith, Sen., and Frederick G. Williams, so that they had a fair view of his person. He was a very tall personage, black eyes, white hair, and stoop shouldered; his garment was whole, extending to near his ankles; on his feet he had sandals. He was sent as a messenger to accept of the dedication.” Truman O. Angell informs us that the angelic being seen by Frederick G. Williams and Joseph Smith, Sr., during Sidney Rigdon’s prayer was Simon Peter, the ancient apostle. “F. G. Williams being in the upper east stand . . .rose and testified that midway during the prayer an Holy Angel came and seated Himself in the stand. When the afternoon meeting assembled Joseph feeling very much elated, arose the first thing and said the Personage who had appeared in the morning was the Angel Peter come to accept the dedication.”
  https://byustudies.byu.edu/file/3585/download?token=gXvAUZ9Q

• During the winter that I boarded with Bro. Joseph, as just mentioned, we had a number of prayer meetings, in the prophet's chamber, in which we obtained great blessings. In one of these meetings the prophet told us if we could humble ourselves before God, and exercise strong faith, we should see the face of the Lord. And about midday the visions of my mind were opened, and the eyes of my understanding were enlightened, and I saw the form of a man, most lovely, the visage of his face was sound and fair as the sun. His hair a bright silver grey, curled in most majestic form, His eyes a keen penetrating blue, and the skin of his neck a most beautiful white and he was covered from the neck to the feet with a loose garment, pure white, whiter than any garment I have ever before seen. His countenance was most penetrating, and yet most lovely. And while I was endeavoring to comprehend the whole personage from head to feet it slipped from me, and the vision was closed up. But it left on my mind the impression of love, for months, that I never felt before to that degree.(John Murdock Journal, typescript, BYU-A, p.13)

 

Joseph F. Smith -  “The saints should know that the pattern of Endowment Garment was revealed from Heaven, and that the blessings promised in connection with wearing them will not be realized if any change is made in their form or in the manner of wearing them.”

Nevermind, I see you quoted this. But are you saying this represents LDS garments? A garment can just be a piece of clothing - in fact that's what it normally means. It doesn't read like Moroni was wearing "garments"

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng

Quote

31 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.

 

Edited July 7, 2017 by Gray

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Valentinus said:

I didn't take offense. Lol. But Hanes are terrible quality. They aren't flattering, either. The most important part of underwear is how it makes my butt look.

Don't roll your eyes at me GG or Calmoriah!! I'm making a valid point.

I will have to pay attention to my emojis...I just thought it was a grin.  I am always in trouble aren't I??  My sense of humor gets me in trouble here.  Glad you took no offense.

Actually...I am a Fruit of the Loom Lady...

[stemelbow]

46 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

A few.  Probably more out there.

• JS History 1:31 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.
•  

 

I admit, not seeing garments described here.  Sounds more like a white robe and nothing on underneath--sounds delightfully freeing to me.  Not many garments allow for one to see into the bosom. 

46 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

• The first garments were made by Eliza R. Snow and Zina Young. They were cut out by the Prophet Joseph Smith and under his direction. 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.

THat's less of an eyewitness account--third for fourth hand.  But interesting. 

46 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

• There are three corroborating accounts of the visitation of an angel at the dedication of 27 March, and one of those identifies the angelic visitor as Peter. The Prophet Joseph tells us that “Frederick G. Williams arose and testified that while Sidney Rigdon was making his first prayer an angel entered the window and took his seat between Father Smith and himself, and remained there during the prayer3.” Heber C. Kimball also recorded that “During the ceremonies of the dedication, an angel appeared and sat near President Joseph Smith, Sen., and Frederick G. Williams, so that they had a fair view of his person. He was a very tall personage, black eyes, white hair, and stoop shouldered; his garment was whole, extending to near his ankles; on his feet he had sandals. He was sent as a messenger to accept of the dedication.” Truman O. Angell informs us that the angelic being seen by Frederick G. Williams and Joseph Smith, Sr., during Sidney Rigdon’s prayer was Simon Peter, the ancient apostle. “F. G. Williams being in the upper east stand . . .rose and testified that midway during the prayer an Holy Angel came and seated Himself in the stand. When the afternoon meeting assembled Joseph feeling very much elated, arose the first thing and said the Personage who had appeared in the morning was the Angel Peter come to accept the dedication.”
  https://byustudies.byu.edu/file/3585/download?token=gXvAUZ9Q

Doesn't really describe garments as we call them, it seems to me. 

46 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

• During the winter that I boarded with Bro. Joseph, as just mentioned, we had a number of prayer meetings, in the prophet's chamber, in which we obtained great blessings. In one of these meetings the prophet told us if we could humble ourselves before God, and exercise strong faith, we should see the face of the Lord. And about midday the visions of my mind were opened, and the eyes of my understanding were enlightened, and I saw the form of a man, most lovely, the visage of his face was sound and fair as the sun. His hair a bright silver grey, curled in most majestic form, His eyes a keen penetrating blue, and the skin of his neck a most beautiful white and he was covered from the neck to the feet with a loose garment, pure white, whiter than any garment I have ever before seen. His countenance was most penetrating, and yet most lovely. And while I was endeavoring to comprehend the whole personage from head to feet it slipped from me, and the vision was closed up. But it left on my mind the impression of love, for months, that I never felt before to that degree.(John Murdock Journal, typescript, BYU-A, p.13)

•  

 

Joseph F. Smith -  “The saints should know that the pattern of Endowment Garment was revealed from Heaven, and that the blessings promised in connection with wearing them will not be realized if any change is made in their form or in the manner of wearing them.”

This last one also sounds more like a white robe with nuttin' on underneath.  I'm feeling temped and half justified to wander around in a loose robe with nothing else on, showing my chest hairs, after reading these accounts, I admit. 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Nevermind, I see you quoted this. But are you saying this represents LDS garments? A garment can just be a piece of clothing - in fact that's what it normally means. It doesn't read like Moroni was wearing "garments"

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng

 

I'm not saying it.  George A. Smith is saying it.
He was told by the women who made the first garments that Joseph said Moroni drew aside his robe and showed his marks.

Edited July 7, 2017 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

"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. "
I admit, not seeing garments described here.  Sounds more like a white robe and nothing on underneath--sounds delightfully freeing to me.  Not many garments allow for one to see into the bosom.

The original garment did.

Quote

 his garment was whole, extending to near his ankles
Doesn't really describe garments as we call them, it seems to me.

It describes the original garment.

Quote

" from the neck to the feet with a loose garment, pure white"
This last one also sounds more like a white robe with nuttin' on underneath

Again, it describes the original garment.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The original garment did.

It describes the original garment.

Again, it describes the original garment.

We can't forget that garment has multiple meanings.  There is nothing here to support the idea that the word garment is used in any way other than the typical use of the word.

 

gar·ment

ˈɡärmənt/

noun

 

1. an item of clothing.

[stemelbow]

17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The original garment did.

It describes the original garment.

Again, it describes the original garment.

Well why did it ever get changed?  If the original garment would have us all walking around openly with a robe upon us and nothing underneath, then that seems a great way to show our peculiar-ness.  Hiding it as under-britches, well, that's why it's so weird to other's. 

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We can't forget that garment has multiple meanings.  There is nothing here to support the idea that the word garment is used in any way other than the typical use of the word.

 

gar·ment

ˈɡärmənt/

noun

 

1. an item of clothing.

We also can't forget that the men using the word garment understood it as LDS do in later records.
These experiences were recorded by Mormons.
Truman O. Angell, Heber C. Kimball, John Murdock - recollecting these experiences would not have used the word garment if that was not what they had meant any more than President Monson would today.
 

Edited July 7, 2017 by JLHPROF

[katherine the great]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is "implied" or "instructed" the same thing as promising or covenanting? (assuming that instruction is uniform and consistent across all temples)

Also, I don't recall the temple presidency telling me these things. Of course that was a long time ago so I easily could have forgotten. I doubt a brief meeting before the ceremony would have made a huge impression. Is instruction from a temple worker/presidency 1 time the same as a formal gospel teaching. Seems like a stretch to me

I've wondered about this too. Especially in light of how much detail is contained in some of the covenants (which we verbally agree to). Although, when we receive the covenant of baptism or take the sacrament, there is no part where we verbally acknowledge the covenant or agree to it but there is an action associated with it.  I'm not sure why some covenants require verbal confirmation and some an action. Still, I have a hard time equating an explanation of an expectation to an actual covenant.