Need research help! Did Church leaders ever consider making garments a "temple only" thing?

[jsimms]

I'm new here, so thanks for having me. Per the title request, looking for relevant sources and research. I'm not talking about Joseph Smith era stuff. I'm currently writing an article about this, and have seen this idea vaguely referenced, but never substantiated. It usually goes something like this: in the [insert era, e.g. 1920s, 30s, etc.], Church leaders considered changing the garment policy/practice so that it was only required in the temple. One permutation I've seen a couple times is that it was in response to changing fashion, and concerns women had about wearing garments and modern clothing.

 

I do know that the alterations made in 1923 were partially motivated by women's fashion. I'm only looking for a source to validate the claim that at some point, the brethren considered making it temple-only, either for women or both men and women. And perhaps such a source doesn't exist, but I'd appreciate any and all info related to this. Thank you!

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, jsimms said:

I'm new here, so thanks for having me. Per the title request, looking for relevant sources and research. I'm not talking about Joseph Smith era stuff. I'm currently writing an article about this, and have seen this idea vaguely referenced, but never substantiated. It usually goes something like this: in the [insert era, e.g. 1920s, 30s, etc.], Church leaders considered changing the garment policy/practice so that it was only required in the temple. One permutation I've seen a couple times is that it was in response to changing fashion, and concerns women had about wearing garments and modern clothing.

 

I do know that the alterations made in 1923 were partially motivated by women's fashion. I'm only looking for a source to validate the claim that at some point, the brethren considered making it temple-only, either for women or both men and women. And perhaps such a source doesn't exist, but I'd appreciate any and all info related to this. Thank you!

Who has made the claim?  That might be a good place to look for the source, since the claim is (hopefully) based on something.

[jsimms]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Who has made the claim?  That might be a good place to look for the source, since the claim is (hopefully) based on something.

I've seen @HappyJackWagon on this forum make that claim, and a few others on blogs and such. I would message that user directly, but that feature is disabled for new members. And I assume there are lots of smart people on here who might have an idea!

[bluebell]

@HappyJackWagon, do you know the source of the claim that jsimms is talking about?

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, jsimms said:

I've seen @HappyJackWagon on this forum make that claim, and a few others on blogs and such. I would message that user directly, but that feature is disabled for new members. And I assume there are lots of smart people on here who might have an idea!

I'm sure he'll respond when he sees my post.  If not I'll track him down for you.  Once you hit 25 posts you'll be able to fully access everything on the board.

[Pyreaux]

In the Apostolic Era the priestly temple robes were worn in public. The point of wearing just a garment was how one could more discreetly continue to wear temple robes in public today. So, I don't believe that it will ever not be intended to be worn outside the temple.

There are sources I know about how there was originally no collar, but it was added for fashion. They now allow tan and green colors for military use.

Edited January 31 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

1 hour ago, jsimms said:

I'm new here, so thanks for having me. Per the title request, looking for relevant sources and research. I'm not talking about Joseph Smith era stuff. I'm currently writing an article about this, and have seen this idea vaguely referenced, but never substantiated. It usually goes something like this: in the [insert era, e.g. 1920s, 30s, etc.], Church leaders considered changing the garment policy/practice so that it was only required in the temple. One permutation I've seen a couple times is that it was in response to changing fashion, and concerns women had about wearing garments and modern clothing.

 

I do know that the alterations made in 1923 were partially motivated by women's fashion. I'm only looking for a source to validate the claim that at some point, the brethren considered making it temple-only, either for women or both men and women. And perhaps such a source doesn't exist, but I'd appreciate any and all info related to this. Thank you!

My memory is this book has a section on garment development and if it was actually a thing, it might be in there. Excellent resource over all too. I gave my copy away last two Christmas ago when I started the Great Purge. I wasn’t using a lot of my books any more, so I passed them on. 
 

But my memory is fickle these days and it is possible the chapter on garments is in another book, so you might want to track down an in-depth review. 
 

https://www.amazon.com/Mormonism-Transition-History-Latter-day-1890-1930/dp/1589581881/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?

[Nevo]

5 hours ago, jsimms said:

I do know that the alterations made in 1923 were partially motivated by women's fashion. I'm only looking for a source to validate the claim that at some point, the brethren considered making it temple-only, either for women or both men and women. And perhaps such a source doesn't exist, but I'd appreciate any and all info related to this. Thank you!

I've never heard of this and have difficulty believing it was ever considered, as it would go against the whole purpose of wearing the garment. Anyway, I can confirm that this proposal isn't discussed in Mormonism in Transition (1st edition) or in The Development of LDS Temple Worship, 1846–2000: A Documentary History (2011).

[Tacenda]

Not much help here, but I vaguely remember that it was wives or wife of some early apostles or apostle that asked if they could discontinue wearing them except for in the temple. But I can't find a reference.

[HappyJackWagon]

On 1/31/2023 at 2:20 PM, jsimms said:

I've seen @HappyJackWagon on this forum make that claim, and a few others on blogs and such. I would message that user directly, but that feature is disabled for new members. And I assume there are lots of smart people on here who might have an idea!

It's been ages since I've read or thought about that so I'm trying to think of where I read it. In addition to the book Calm mentioned I'd look in The Development of LDS Temple Worship, 1846-2000: A Documentary History by Devery Anderson    The Development of LDS Temple Worship — Signature Books

There are also a number of podcasts where it's discussed Year of Polygamy Podcast: Episode 170: The Development of Mormon Temple Rituals, Part Two on Apple Podcasts or 15: Devery Anderson: The Development Of Mormon Temple Worship (Part 1) The Rational Faiths Podcast - Keeping Mormonism Weird podcast (player.fm) and there's probably one from Mormon Stories as well

 

ETA- I see NEVO already mentioned Devery Anderson's book and says it's not in there. The podcasts may be a good starting out point to find it

.

 

 

Edited February 1 by HappyJackWagon

[HappyJackWagon]

20 hours ago, Nevo said:

I've never heard of this and have difficulty believing it was ever considered, as it would go against the whole purpose of wearing the garment. Anyway, I can confirm that this proposal isn't discussed in Mormonism in Transition (1st edition) or in The Development of LDS Temple Worship, 1846–2000: A Documentary History (2011).

It may go against the purpose as it is taught today. But that has not always been the case. Sooooo much has changed with regard to the garment and temple worship

 

[Nevo]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It may go against the purpose as it is taught today. But that has not always been the case. Sooooo much has changed with regard to the garment and temple worship

 Some things have changed. But church teaching regarding the need for endowed members to wear the garment outside the temple has been pretty consistent:

• 1915: "It is not right to leave off wearing the temple garment during the day because of hot weather; it should not be taken off at all excepting to be renewed by another, or for the purpose of bathing, or for work or other purposes requiring the baring of the body." (Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund, and Charles W. Penrose to Arthur C. Smith, March 10, 1915)
   
• 1923: "Garments should be worn all the time. When you understand the covenants, you will understand that you cannot take them off at night." (Zina Y. Card, "Garments," Temple Instructions, ca. 1923)
   
• 1938: "It must be made clear to [young people] that [the garment] is such an indispensable part of the Temple ceremony that if they do not make up their minds to always wear it, and respect it, they are not entitled to the endowments of the Temple." (Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark Jr., and David O. McKay, circular letter, July 20, 1938)
   
• 1950: "The covenants taken in the temple incident and attached to the wearing of garments contemplate that they will be worn at all times. No exception to these covenants is found anywhere in the ceremonies. These covenants run between the one making them and the Lord. These covenants so made take on the nature of commandments of the Lord. . . . The wearing of the garment is the subject of direct covenant between the Lord and the covenant maker, who must determine to what extent he will keep his covenants. To break our covenants is to lose the protection and blessings promised from obedience thereto." (George Albert Smith, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., and David O. McKay, circular letter, October 2, 1950)
   
• 1969: "The continuous calling of men into military service makes it desirable to reaffirm certain observations previously made by the First Presidency in the matter of wearing temple underclothing. Such apparel should be worn at all times unless very unusual circumstances prevent it. Under present-day conditions there are very few such occasions. When military underclothing is required, it should be worn with the understanding that the wearing of the temple underclothing shall be resumed at the earliest possible moment." (Priesthood Bulletin, March 1969)
   
• 2019: "The temple garment is a reminder of covenants made in the temple and, when worn properly throughout life, will serve as a protection against temptation and evil. The garment should be worn beneath the outer clothing. It should not be removed for activities that can reasonably be done while wearing the garment, and it should not be modified to accommodate different styles of clothing." (First Presidency Letter, October 6, 2019)

(Pre-2019 quotes are from Devery S. Anderson, ed., The Development of LDS Temple Worship, 1846–2000: A Documentary History)

Edited February 2 by Nevo

[HappyJackWagon]

12 hours ago, Nevo said:

 Some things have changed. But church teaching regarding the need for endowed members to wear the garment outside the temple has been pretty consistent:

• 1915: "It is not right to leave off wearing the temple garment during the day because of hot weather; it should not be taken off at all excepting to be renewed by another, or for the purpose of bathing, or for work or other purposes requiring the baring of the body." (Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund, and Charles W. Penrose to Arthur C. Smith, March 10, 1915)
   
• 1923: "Garments should be worn all the time. When you understand the covenants, you will understand that you cannot take them off at night." (Zina Y. Card, "Garments," Temple Instructions, ca. 1923)
   
• 1938: "It must be made clear to [young people] that [the garment] is such an indispensable part of the Temple ceremony that if they do not make up their minds to always wear it, and respect it, they are not entitled to the endowments of the Temple." (Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark Jr., and David O. McKay, circular letter, July 20, 1938)
   
• 1950: "The covenants taken in the temple incident and attached to the wearing of garments contemplate that they will be worn at all times. No exception to these covenants is found anywhere in the ceremonies. These covenants run between the one making them and the Lord. These covenants so made take on the nature of commandments of the Lord. . . . The wearing of the garment is the subject of direct covenant between the Lord and the covenant maker, who must determine to what extent he will keep his covenants. To break our covenants is to lose the protection and blessings promised from obedience thereto." (George Albert Smith, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., and David O. McKay, circular letter, October 2, 1950)
   
• 1969: "The continuous calling of men into military service makes it desirable to reaffirm certain observations previously made by the First Presidency in the matter of wearing temple underclothing. Such apparel should be worn at all times unless very unusual circumstances prevent it. Under present-day conditions there are very few such occasions. When military underclothing is required, it should be worn with the understanding that the wearing of the temple underclothing shall be resumed at the earliest possible moment." (Priesthood Bulletin, March 1969)
   
• 2019: "The temple garment is a reminder of covenants made in the temple and, when worn properly throughout life, will serve as a protection against temptation and evil. The garment should be worn beneath the outer clothing. It should not be removed for activities that can reasonably be done while wearing the garment, and it should not be modified to accommodate different styles of clothing." (First Presidency Letter, October 6, 2019)

(Pre-2019 quotes are from Devery S. Anderson, ed., The Development of LDS Temple Worship, 1846–2000: A Documentary History)

FYI- There's about 80 years from the inception of the endowment to where you start in 1915