New Garment Design for Women being Tested (and for Men Too)

[MiserereNobis]

22 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

At this point they might as well replace them with phylacteries or rosary beads or some other "symbolic reminder" of covenants because the garment of the holy priesthood is long gone.

It no longer has the same symbolism in its overall design.

Do a google image search for "brown scapular." That's what I wear. Mark made the point at some point that it was a remnant (or something similar) of temple garments.

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It's meant to represent several things scripturally that it no longer does (and in may cases hasn't for years).

Please share as if it is in scripture it should be fine to discuss. 

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It seems clear (if we take visitation descriptions to be accurate) that no one wears garments in the next life. 

Joseph Smith 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.

Luke 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

D&C 133:46 And it shall be said: Who is this that cometh down from God in heaven with dyed garments; yea, from the regions which are not known, clothed in his glorious apparel, traveling in the greatness of his strength?

Revelation 6:11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled

3 Nephi 11:8 And it came to pass, as they understood they cast their eyes up again towards heaven; and behold, they saw a Man descending out of heaven; and he was clothed in a white robe; and he came down and stood in the midst of them; and the eyes of the whole multitude were turned upon him, and they durst not open their mouths, even one to another, and wist not what it meant, for they thought it was an angel that had appeared unto them.

[bluebell]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

Joseph Smith 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.

Luke 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

D&C 133:46 And it shall be said: Who is this that cometh down from God in heaven with dyed garments; yea, from the regions which are not known, clothed in his glorious apparel, traveling in the greatness of his strength?

Revelation 6:11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled

3 Nephi 11:8 And it came to pass, as they understood they cast their eyes up again towards heaven; and behold, they saw a Man descending out of heaven; and he was clothed in a white robe; and he came down and stood in the midst of them; and the eyes of the whole multitude were turned upon him, and they durst not open their mouths, even one to another, and wist not what it meant, for they thought it was an angel that had appeared unto them.

Sorry if I was confusing.  It's obvious they wear clothes.  They just don't seem to wear garments as they were first worn, or as we wear them now, depending on how much of Moroni's bosom could be seen.  We especially don't get to have dyed garments, but maybe that will be the next change.  Then you couldn't say it wasn't scriptural at least.  

(Sincerely though, I think Calm's question was really interesting and would love to hear your thoughts on what the garments used to mean scripturally that they don't anymore.  I so wish we could pick an apostle's brain and hear his thoughts on it as well.  Because that would be an amazing discussion).

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Please share as if it is in scripture it should be fine to discuss. 

I could write an entire paper walking people through the scriptures and principles behind this step by step but I won't.  This isn't some random theory, it's literally the plan of salvation exactly as we've been taught in Sunday School.

But you have to see the connections.

First you have to recognize the connection between the temples (which teach the plan) and our mortal life/body.  Look how many scriptures compare our bodies to temples, mostly in the Savior's teachings.

Then see the similarities between them in scriptures.

In the case of the garment it is specifically connected to the veil and EVERYTHING that entails.  (Endowed members should be very aware of that the veil of the temple and the garment are connected).

Take the original garment design, compare it to JS History 1:31 and Luke 23:45.  

Understand that the veil of forgetfulness placed on Adam and Eve as well as the veil we use to describe the separation between us and God when fallen is parted by Christ.  Just as in the temple.  Just as the garment provides the separation between the fallen world and the cleansed person after the initiatories.

The plan of salvation (fall to exaltation).

The temple endowment from creation to exaltation.

Our mortal lives from creation to fall to passing through the veil.

The original garment represents the entire process, its original design and symbols included the whole plan from beginning to end.

There is a wonderful quote from Pres. John Taylor that I won't post but even Wikipedia has it.

You just have to see the connections.

[bluebell]

43 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I could write an entire paper walking people through the scriptures and principles behind this step by step but I won't.  This isn't some random theory, it's literally the plan of salvation exactly as we've been taught in Sunday School.

But you have to see the connections.

First you have to recognize the connection between the temples (which teach the plan) and our mortal life/body.  Look how many scriptures compare our bodies to temples, mostly in the Savior's teachings.

Then see the similarities between them in scriptures.

In the case of the garment it is specifically connected to the veil and EVERYTHING that entails.  (Endowed members should be very aware of that the veil of the temple and the garment are connected).

Take the original garment design, compare it to JS History 1:31 and Luke 23:45.  

Understand that the veil of forgetfulness placed on Adam and Eve as well as the veil we use to describe the separation between us and God when fallen is parted by Christ.  Just as in the temple.  Just as the garment provides the separation between the fallen world and the cleansed person after the initiatories.

The plan of salvation (fall to exaltation).

The temple endowment from creation to exaltation.

Our mortal lives from creation to fall to passing through the veil.

The original garment represents the entire process, its original design and symbols included the whole plan from beginning to end.

There is a wonderful quote from Pres. John Taylor that I won't post but even Wikipedia has it.

You just have to see the connections.

I do love how they mention the connection between the veil and the garment now with the added teaching in the initiatory and endowment. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Take the original garment design, compare it to JS History 1:31 and Luke 23:45.  

If we were going by that description, then why was the bottom part of garments originally pants rather than a robe?  And why isn’t it open to the bosum?  Why were there ties used?  If the garment can be altered in such a way, why is it an issue to alter it differently?  Serious question, not a challenge.

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.

Are you saying the garment on Moroni was open because the veil was rent? (I am in a literal frame of mind because the other verse is a physical description rather than a symbolic one).

Quote

45 And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.

 

Edited October 18, 2024 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I do love how they mention the connection between the veil and the garment now with the added teaching in the initiatory and endowment.

The garment used to symbolize the entire plan of salvation. Our creation/birth, our fallen mortal nature, our redemption in Christ, the restoration of our ability to part the veil and enter his presence, and our future eternal lives and exaltation.

All of it.  Just like the endowment did.

Eternal families and the sealing link, priesthood, the godhead, the parting of the veil and the removal of the barrier between men and God, and since all of those principles connect to the Savior it also directly represented the Savior.

What remains is a nice reminder of covenants we made but diminished in every other way.  

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The garment used to symbolize the entire plan of salvation.

And why can it not symbolize it now in that way?

Or are you talking about temple robes?

Edited October 18, 2024 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

If we were going by that description, then why is the bottom originally pants rather than a robe?  And why isn’t it open to the bosum?  If the garment can be altered in such a way, why is it an issue to alter it differently?

The garment wasn't originally pants.  The very first two part version (1842 based on one Hyrum had) was replaced almost immediately (1842-43) by the union suit held by strings even before the martyrdom.

It was split top to bottom down the bosom and usually held by strings that represented certain things - things that perfectly fit the idea of connecting two sides of the veil.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The garment wasn't originally pants.  The very first two part version (1842 based on one Hyrum had) was replaced almost immediately (1842-43) by the union suit held by strings even before the martyrdom.

It was split top to bottom down the bosom and usually held by strings that represented certain things - things that perfectly fit the idea of connecting two sides of the veil.

Where is this information?  And how was it worn with pants?

Do you have an issue that collars were added by Emma?

Edited October 18, 2024 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

And why can it not symbolize it now in that way?

Or are you talking about temple robes?

No, I'm speaking of the "old" garment used from 1842-abt 1922, and then almost exclusively in the temple until about 1975.

And the modern version can't because there isn't anything remaining of those symbols to represent anything.

[Calm]

Is this incorrect info?

Quote

I Benjamin Franklin LeBaron, was born in the 15th ward, Salt Lake City, 22 August 1860...My Father and mother were well acquainted with the Prophet Joseph. Mother said.., she was at the meeting at Nauvoo when he (Joseph Smith) presented the garment to the Church, and held it up before them and said it was the exact pattern of the one the angel showed him, and was called "The Garment of the Holy Priesthood," and must be worn all through life, and would be a protection to them against all physical and spiritual dangers if they were always faithful to the covenants they made with the Lord. He explained all the features pertaining to it, and told them it should never be changed from that pattern. She was so impressed that she made union suits for us children and had us wear them so that we should be used to such a garment when we became eligible to wear it. I have always worn the original garment, the exact pattern of the one an angel showed to Joseph Smith, and have learned to love it, and I felt very bad when the Church Authorities allowed a change. --Benjamin Franklin LeBaron, found in H. Michael Marquardt Papers, MS 36 Bx 74, Fd 16.

According to this, the original pattern was like union suits.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, I'm speaking of the "old" garment used from 1842-abt 1922, and then almost exclusively in the temple until about 1975.

Why was it okay to change it to a union suit style of design?

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why was it okay to change it to a union suit style of design?

I believe that was the intended original design as Joseph began restoring the temple ordinances.

Bottom line is this - the original garment symbolized the entire plan of salvation.

• Collar - removed
• Strings - removed
• Split bosom - removed
• Covering - just barely, less each year
• Small changes to markings format and location.
• Seams - more added (Joseph taught there should be as few as possible)

All the associated symbolism of these elements is virtually lost to the ages in the Church today.  And just like the endowment nobody cares anymore.

Matt 22:11-14

 

[Calm]

JLProf, given the garment and rituals were only given to a select group at the beginning, before Joseph’s death, do you believe that allowing any member keeping the temple standards to be contrary to the original purpose of the garment and the rituals?

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

believe that was the intended original design as Joseph began restoring the temple ordinances.

Why did it start out the other way then?

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why did it start out the other way then?

Why did the Kirtland temple not have family sealings, baptisms for the dead or a Celestial Room?

Joseph hadn't been shown it all yet.

In 1842 the first endowments were in the Red Brick store attic with curtains.  He knew how things were supposed to be but not how to set them up.

I'm sure the garments were just as improvised in the Red Brick Store endowment.

He was given the garment design by heavenly messenger but he still needed seamstresses to figure out some details for assembly.

He was given to know about plural marriage before the sealing keys were even restored so we get the Fanny Alger situation.

Edited October 18, 2024 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

Thank you.  I am finding this very interesting, though I would love to know where you got the info on the parts of the garment symbolizing certain things that I don’t see it directly in the scriptures.

What was the purposes of the collar and the ties?

I can see the links for the no seams, the rent bosom, the covering from neck to feet, the importance of placement of marks (knee should bend, etc), but not those two.

Also in your study, do you believe garments marks were originally cut, rather than sewn on, even intentionally drawing blood (thus the turkey red thread substituting for actual blood) and scarring the member in the ritual with the marks as well as the garment or was that antimormon exaggeration in your view?

Edited October 18, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

Aunt Bathsheba Smith told me that she helped Emma Smith and Aunt Eliza R. Snow make the original Endowment clothes for the Prophet Joseph Smith. I asked her why they made strings for the garments instead of buttons. She said they were too poor to buy buttons, so they tore strips of the cloth for strings.

Maria Dougal, Statement, in George F. Richards, Diary, October 11, 1922

What do you think of this statement?

Also this one:

Quote

. “It has been the practice to mark the shirt, but we think this unnecessary as it is not
strictly a part of the Temple clothing. The marking of the garment should be done in the
washing room and not at the veil;” (Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, and Joseph F.
Smith to Lorenzo Snow, Aug 31 1894)

https://uncorrelatedmormonism.com/a-history-of-the-mormon-temple-garment/

Edited October 18, 2024 by Calm

[Tacenda]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

I think the vast majority of older will be fine with it. One can still wear sleeves (I will, not for modesty, but comfort) with one’s clothing even if the garment is sleeveless. 

Well I need to get better at lifting weights then, because I like sleeves to cover flabbiness, haha.

I think the younger generation and now maybe the older too, are gym rats and very into looking great and have those defined muscle galore upper arms that can now show them off guilt free. So pretty good, but the stigma of needing to cover the shoulders will need to take time to get over. At least, in my neck of the woods. 

[smac97]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

Sorry if I was confusing.  It's obvious they wear clothes.  They just don't seem to wear garments as they were first worn, or as we wear them now, depending on how much of Moroni's bosom could be seen.  We especially don't get to have dyed garments, but maybe that will be the next change. 

"Dyed" garments are available for members of the military.  Brown for Army, green for Marines, not sure re: Air Force/Navy.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

(Sincerely though, I think Calm's question was really interesting and would love to hear your thoughts on what the garments used to mean scripturally that they don't anymore.  I so wish we could pick an apostle's brain and hear his thoughts on it as well.  Because that would be an amazing discussion).

I am also interested in this.

IIRC, in the early Church the Saints used wine in the Sacrament, and over time changed to the use of water. 

Also, the congregation all drank from the same sacramental cup.  The change to individualized cups perhaps came from hygiene concerns.

Also, the Sacramental Prayer:

Quote

Joseph Smith provided us with three different variants of the baptismal prayer (see D&C 20:73, compare 3 Ne 11:25 and Mosiah 18:13).  If there is some absolutely “perfect” script for an ordinance and that script must never be altered in any way, then does that mean that our baptisms are ineffectual?  Or Alma’s?  Or the ones done after Christ’s appearance to the Nephites?

As for the Endowment:

Quote

Second, we should consider what it really means to “alter” the ordinances.  This is particularly hairy in the case of the endowment.  Did you know that there was no written endowment text for over thirty-five years?  Until the St. George Temple was dedicated in 1877, endowment ceremonies were all done from memory–and, we may presume, were all slightly different from each other.  As the St. George temple neared completion Brigham Young worked with his secretary, L. John Nuttall, to commit the ceremony to paper for the first time.  During this process Brigham Young told how, back in 1842, after the presentation of some early endowment ceremonies, Joseph Smith turned to him and stated:

Brother Brigham, this is not arranged perfectly; however we have done the best we could under the circumstances in which we are placed. I wish you to take this matter in hand: organize and systematize all these ceremonies.  Diary of L. John Nuttall, February 7, 1877.

Historians tell us that even after the written text was developed, minor differences in the ceremony persisted from temple to temple until the early 20th century, when the First Presidency insisted that all temple presidents conform to the same written text.

So how do we account for changes to the ordinances (and garments, and administration of the Sacrament, etc.) authorized by those in authority?  I think this approach may work:

Quote

In 1840, Joseph Smith dictated a “Treatise on Priesthood”, which he had a scribe read at a church conference on October 5 of that year.  (It appears in in History of the Church 4:207-209, and parts of it are cited in Chapter 8 of the Teachings of the Presidents of the Church:  Joseph Smith.  You can also read the full text online at this link.)  It’s an interesting and important sermon, and I strongly recommend you take some time to digest it.  For our purposes, I will simply quote the following:

God will not acknowledge that which he has not called, ordained, and chosen. . . .

 

This then is the nature of the priesthood, every man holding the presidency of his dispensation and one man holding the presidency of them all even Adam, and Adam receiving his presidency and authority from Christ. . . The power, glory, and blessings of the priesthood could not continue with those who received ordination only as their righteousness continued, for Cain also being authorized to offer sacrifice but not offering it in righteousness, therefore he was cursed. It signifies then, that the ordinances must be kept in the very way God has appointed, otherwise their priesthood will prove a cursing instead of a blessing. If Cain had fulfilled the law of righteousness as did Enoch he could have walked with God all the days of his life and never failed of a blessing.

In other words:  For God to recognize a priesthood action, the required elements are authority and personal righteousness on the part of the priesthood holder.

Clearly, man does not have the right to unilaterally change the forms of the ordinances and ceremonies that God has established (see, for example, Isaiah 24:5).  We follow the current forms because we respect the divine authority of those whose responsibility it is to “preach the gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof” (5th Article of Faith).  However, we should not therefore conclude that God Himself lacks the power to change those forms in order to maximize their spiritual or symbolic benefit to the participants, so long as the Church attempts to ensure that those performing the ordinance are duly ordained and making a sincere effort to live righteously and so long as the substance of the ordinance is preserved.

What God will not do, is allow the ordinance to be changed to the point its core essence is no longer present.  For example, coming back to the ordinance of baptism:  While minor alterations to the baptismal prayer might be permissible, God would never authorize baptism’s degeneration to the point where its covenant aspect would be undermined or even denied (as is unfortunately the case in some Christian denominations today), or where Jesus Christ would be fundamentally written out of the rite (as is the case in a Jewish mikvot).

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

59 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Dyed" garments are available for members of the military.  Brown for Army, green for Marines, not sure re: Air Force/Navy.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think that’s pretty well known. I also don’t think that’s what the scripture is referring to. 

[smac97]

I like this:

Thanks,

-Smac