The Garment Of The Holy Priesthood - Not To Be Changed

[Luke]

“In lighting him to bed one night he [Joseph Smith] showed me his garments and explained that they were such as the Lord made for Adam from skins, and gave me such ideas pertaining to endowments as he thought proper.” (Benjamin F. Johnson, My Life’s Review, Chapter 6)

“My Father and mother were well acquainted with the Prophet Joseph. Mother said * * * she was at the meeting at Nauvoo when he 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.” (Benjamin F. LeBaron, quoted material found in H. Michael Marquardt Papers, HBLL and J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah)

“We here state a few facts which came under our personal observation. As early as 1843 a secret order was established in Nauvoo, called the HOLY ORDER, the members of which were of both sexes, in which, we are credibly informed, scenes were enacted representing the garden of Eden, and that the members of that order were provided with a peculiar garment called a robe. ‘It was made in one piece. On the right breast is a square, on the left a compass, in the centre a small hole, and on the knee a large hole.’ This was the description of that garment as given to the writer in Nauvoo, in Joseph Smith’s life time. It was claimed that while they wore this ‘robe’ no harm could befall them.” (Editorial, The Return, Vol. 2, No. 4, pg. 252, April 1890)

“He [John Taylor] said it was the pattern of the garment given to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, and it all had a sacred meaning. The collar: My yoke is easy and my burden is light. (Crown of the Priesthood) the strings on each side have a double meaning, the strings being long enough to tie in a neat double bow knot, representing the Trinity; the double bow knots the marriage covenant between man and wife. The Compass: a guide to the wearer as the North Star is a guide in the night to those who do not know the way they should go. The Square: representing the justice and fairness of our Heavenly Father, that we will receive all the good that is coming to us or all that we earn, on a square deal; the navel mark: meaning strength in the navel and marrow in the bones. The Knee Mark: representing that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ. The whole garment to be a covering and a protection from the enemy. The sleeves reaching to the wrist, and the legs to the ankles. This pattern was given to Joseph Smith by two heavenly beings.” (School of the Prophets Salt Lake City meeting minutes, 1883, CHL)

“The following is to be regarded as an established and imperative rule. The garments worn by those who receive endowments must be white and of the approved pattern; they must not be altered or mutilated, and are to be worn as intended, down to the wrist and ankles and around the neck. Admission to the temple will be refused to those who do not comply to these requirements. The Saints should know that the pattern of endowment garments was revealed from Heaven and that the blessings promised in connection with wearing them will not be realized if any unauthorized change is made in their form or in the manner of wearing them.” (Joseph F. Smith, 28 June 1906, as quoted in Messages of the First Presidency 5:110)

“The Lord has given unto us garments of the holy priesthood, and you know what that means. And yet there are those of us who mutilate them, in order that we may follow the foolish, vain and (permit me to say) indecent practices of the world. In order that such people may imitate the fashions, they will not hesitate to mutilate that which should be held by them the most sacred of all things in the world, next to their own virtue, next to their own purity of life. They should hold these things that God had given unto them sacred, unchanged and unaltered from the very pattern in which God gave them. Let us have the moral courage to stand against the opinions of fashion, and especially where fashion compels us to break a covenant and so commit a grievous sin.” (Joseph F. Smith, Improvement Era, Vol. 9, No. 10, pg. 813, August 1906)

“On the 27th of September, 1886, I was at an eight hour meeting at John W. Woolley’s home in Centerville. In that meeting the importance and sacredness of the Garments were explained by President John Taylor. Part of the time he stood in mid-air with a halo of light around him. President Taylor told us the time would come when changes in the Garment would be made, and it was necessary for the brethren to have the correct understanding of the pattern and meaning of the marks so as to be able to teach the Saints at that time. He told us that it was the pattern of the Garment given to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, and it all had a sacred meaning.
* * *
Adam and Eve, he told us, were without clothing and the Garment was also given to cover their nakedness and for protection from the enemy. The sleeves reaching to the wrists and the legs to the ankles; not fitting tight, but flowing. THIS PATTERN WAS GIVEN TO THE PROPHET JOSEPH SMITH BY TWO HEAVENLY BEINGS.” (Daniel R. Bateman, 20 June 1932, as quoted in Truth, Vol. 2, No. 2, pg. 35, June 1936)

[Reluctant Watchman]

So when a person dies in an accident wearing their garments, are they unfaithful/unworthy?

"...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."

[ransomme]

Are there some who construct and wear their own after this pattern?

[ransomme]

So when a person dies in an accident wearing their garments, are they unfaithful/unworthy?

"...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."

Legit question. I don't know what part of that had grown into legend or not. But yeah I think one would have to be actually endowed with power and have become an real saint (is sanctified).

[Luke]

Are there some who construct and wear their own after this pattern?

Fundamentalists

[Reluctant Watchman]

So when a person dies in an accident wearing their garments, are they unfaithful/unworthy?

"...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."

Legit question. I don't know what part of that had grown into legend or not. But yeah I think one would have to be actually endowed with power and have become an real saint (is sanctified).

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, but I'm not sure if Daniel was wearing anything like this in the lion's den. Or how about Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego and their fireproof garments... were they the same?

[Luke]

So when a person dies in an accident wearing their garments, are they unfaithful/unworthy?

"...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."

Legit question. I don't know what part of that had grown into legend or not. But yeah I think one would have to be actually endowed with power and have become an real saint (is sanctified).

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, but I'm not sure if Daniel was wearing anything like this in the lion's den. Or how about Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego and their fireproof garments... were they the same?

Quite the limb. I believe they more than likely were wearing the Garment.

Hugh Nibley did some brilliant research on the ancient origin of the Priesthood Garment. I highly recommend his work.

[Reluctant Watchman]

So when a person dies in an accident wearing their garments, are they unfaithful/unworthy?

"...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."

Legit question. I don't know what part of that had grown into legend or not. But yeah I think one would have to be actually endowed with power and have become an real saint (is sanctified).

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, but I'm not sure if Daniel was wearing anything like this in the lion's den. Or how about Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego and their fireproof garments... were they the same?

Quite the limb. I believe they more than likely were wearing the Garment.

Hugh Nibley did some brilliant research on the ancient origin of the Priesthood Garment. I highly recommend his work.

Read the story of Adam/Eve. This was to cover their naked bodies. The Lord gave them clothes. The whole point of this was to help them live virtuous lives. The body is sacred.

We could also ask the question, why weren't Joseph and Hyrum protected by their garments? It is just the parts covered by the garment. I mean, Hyrum was eventually shot in the head, but what about the other wounds? I used to scoff when people would treat garments lightly, but today I have to wonder about the mysticism placed upon them due to these early quotes.

[Shawn Henry]

Hey Luke, in order to help keep the big picture in mind you could include the quotes where Joseph told the saints a couple weeks before his death that he and they had been deceived and they should take their garments off.

[Luke]

Read the story of Adam/Eve. This was to cover their naked bodies. The Lord gave them clothes. The whole point of this was to help them live virtuous lives. The body is sacred.

Not sure what you're trying to get at here.

We could also ask the question, why weren't Joseph and Hyrum protected by their garments?

They weren't wearing them when they were killed. Neither was John Taylor. Willard Richards was the only one who wore his Garment on 27 June 1844.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Hey Luke, in order to help keep the big picture in mind you could include the quotes where Joseph told the saints a couple weeks before his death that he and they had been deceived and they should take their garments off.

Maybe that's why Joseph died, no garments.

[Luke]

Hey Luke, in order to help keep the big picture in mind you could include the quotes where Joseph told the saints a couple weeks before his death that he and they had been deceived and they should take their garments off.

He said no such thing.

He allegedly said that he had been deceived as far as polygamy was concerned. Allegedly. Furthermore, nothing to do with the Garment. As far as the Garment is concerned, they were told to take their Garments off so the enemy couldn't get them and desecrate them.

[Shawn Henry]

We could also ask the question, why weren't Joseph and Hyrum protected by their garments?

Are you really asking this? You don't know this part of our history? Wow!!

They weren't wearing their garments. A couple weeks prior Joseph had told many that he and the saints had been deceived and they should take their garments off. Even John Taylor had taken his off. Willard Richards is the only one who apparently kept them on. This is why the genesis for all the faith promoting stories of keeping them on, "Look what happened to faithful Willard Richards".

[Luke]

We could also ask the question, why weren't Joseph and Hyrum protected by their garments?

Are you really asking this? You don't know this part of our history? Wow!!

They weren't wearing their garments. A couple weeks prior Joseph had told many that he and the saints had been deceived and they should take their garments off. Even John Taylor had taken his off. Willard Richards is the only one who apparently kept them on. This is why the genesis for all the faith promoting stories of keeping them on, "Look what happened to faithful Willard Richards".

Provide the relevant sources to show that he said such things in connection with Garments.

I don't believe he even said it at all - but at least show some evidence to support the idea that he said such things in connection with Garments.

My question for you - why would the Garments be a deception?

[Shawn Henry]

He said no such thing.

He allegedly said that he had been deceived as far as polygamy was concerned. Allegedly. Furthermore, nothing to do with the Garment. As far as the Garment is concerned, they were told to take their Garments off so the enemy couldn't get them and desecrate them.

Oh come on, Luke! You can pull random quotes out the backside, but you somehow missed all those. I'm not buying it.

This was common knowledge at the time. This is why there developed cover stories like, "It was the summer heat" or "They didn't want them desecrated".

They're cover stories and that's all. None of them make any sense. Garments are to protect, but you take them off when actual danger presents itself, so that you instead can protect the garment. Ridiculous! Talk about a reversal, now we exist to protect the garment.

[Luke]

He said no such thing.

He allegedly said that he had been deceived as far as polygamy was concerned. Allegedly. Furthermore, nothing to do with the Garment. As far as the Garment is concerned, they were told to take their Garments off so the enemy couldn't get them and desecrate them.

Oh come on, Luke! You can pull random quotes out the backside, but you somehow missed all those. I'm not buying it.

This was common knowledge at the time. This is why there developed cover stories like, "It was the summer heat" or "They didn't want them desecrated".

They're cover stories and that's all. None of them make any sense. Garments are to protect, but you take them off when actual danger presents itself, so that you instead can protect the garment. Ridiculous! Talk about a reversal, now we exist to protect the garment.

I know the quotes that you're talking about, and you're conflating two different quotations (and then overlaying your own opinions on top).

If you think you have it right, show me the quotations.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Are you really asking this? You don't know this part of our history? Wow!!

No. That's why I stated my response the way that I did. But your response... I'll make sure to take any of my church history questions to someone who doesn't have that big of a chip on their shoulder.

[Bronco73idi]

He said no such thing.

He allegedly said that he had been deceived as far as polygamy was concerned. Allegedly. Furthermore, nothing to do with the Garment. As far as the Garment is concerned, they were told to take their Garments off so the enemy couldn't get them and desecrate them.

Oh come on, Luke! You can pull random quotes out the backside, but you somehow missed all those. I'm not buying it.

This was common knowledge at the time. This is why there developed cover stories like, "It was the summer heat" or "They didn't want them desecrated".

They're cover stories and that's all. None of them make any sense. Garments are to protect, but you take them off when actual danger presents itself, so that you instead can protect the garment. Ridiculous! Talk about a reversal, now we exist to protect the garment.

I could never knowingly reply like this. It’s a clever reply, not a factual reply.

This topic is an interesting read. I hardly ever wear my garments.

[Dusty Wanderer]

Legit question. I don't know what part of that had grown into legend or not. But yeah I think one would have to be actually endowed with power and have become an real saint (is sanctified).

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, but I'm not sure if Daniel was wearing anything like this in the lion's den. Or how about Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego and their fireproof garments... were they the same?

Quite the limb. I believe they more than likely were wearing the Garment.

Hugh Nibley did some brilliant research on the ancient origin of the Priesthood Garment. I highly recommend his work.

Read the story of Adam/Eve. This was to cover their naked bodies. The Lord gave them clothes. The whole point of this was to help them live virtuous lives. The body is sacred.

Perhaps it’s not the whole point. There also seems to be a figurative lesson in there.

These scriptures seem to be referring to something beyond modesty:

Notice the language here alluding to Genesis 3:7:
Hebrews 4

13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

Notice the language in this one pointing back to Genesis 2:25:
Revelation 16

15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.

Just something to think about.

[JK4Woods]

Legit question. I don't know what part of that had grown into legend or not. But yeah I think one would have to be actually endowed with power and have become an real saint (is sanctified).

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, but I'm not sure if Daniel was wearing anything like this in the lion's den. Or how about Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego and their fireproof garments... were they the same?

Quite the limb. I believe they more than likely were wearing the Garment.

Hugh Nibley did some brilliant research on the ancient origin of the Priesthood Garment. I highly recommend his work.

Read the story of Adam/Eve. This was to cover their naked bodies. The Lord gave them clothes. The whole point of this was to help them live virtuous lives. The body is sacred.

We could also ask the question, why weren't Joseph and Hyrum protected by their garments? It is just the parts covered by the garment. I mean, Hyrum was eventually shot in the head, but what about the other wounds? I used to scoff when people would treat garments lightly, but today I have to wonder about the mysticism placed upon them due to these early quotes.

Naked in the Garden there was no lust.

Naked and out in the lone and dreary world, there was.

[Shawn Henry]

Are you really asking this? You don't know this part of our history? Wow!!

No. That's why I stated my response the way that I did. But your response... I'll make sure to take any of my church history questions to someone who doesn't have that big of a chip on their shoulder.

No, you misunderstand. My response of surprise was actually complimentary. I was surprised because you know much and because you write much. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Are you really asking this? You don't know this part of our history? Wow!!

No. That's why I stated my response the way that I did. But your response... I'll make sure to take any of my church history questions to someone who doesn't have that big of a chip on their shoulder.

No, you misunderstand. My response of surprise was actually complimentary. I was surprised because you know much and because you write much. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

Ok, I see. I know probably far less than a lot of people on the forum. I only dabble in a few specific church history segments.

[Shawn Henry]

I could never knowingly reply like this. It’s a clever reply, not a factual reply.

It was intended to be either, it was just an emotional expression of disbelieve that the man who has mastered pulling JS quotes out of hat has never heard of JS saying that. I should probably try to better temper my emotions though; I'll grant you that.

[Luke]

I could never knowingly reply like this. It’s a clever reply, not a factual reply.

It was intended to be either, it was just an emotional expression of disbelieve that the man who has mastered pulling JS quotes out of hat has never heard of JS saying that. I should probably try to better temper my emotions though; I'll grant you that.

At this point, perhaps I should let out "an emotional expression of disbelief" that you are still completely misrepresenting what Joseph Smith said (allegedly, at that).

William Marks claimed (falsely, in my opinion) that Joseph Smith confessed that he had been deceived regarding polygamy. But he never made ANY such claims with regards to Garments. Neither did anyone else, ever.

Time to concede on this point. By continually ignoring this point whilst you, I, and everyone on the forum can see that I have repeatedly pointed this out to you (as well as you refusing to provide any evidence), you are showing yourself to be quite dishonest.

[Shawn Henry]

Michael D. Quinn says in "Origins of Power" on page 146, "Smith had already given orders for members of the Quorum of the Anointed at Nauvoo to destroy their endowment garments."

He list his source for that in the back of his book, for those who care to follow it up.

Val Brinkerhoff in his book "The Secret Chamber" states that Joseph on 20 June, a week before his death, instructs the 12 to remove their garments.

His source he lists are: Heber C. Kimballs diary, Dec 21, 1845 (as recorded by William Clayton), An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton, p. 224, and HC 6:519

I'm pretty sure it's in Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling as well, but I listened to that on Audible so I can't go back and look up things.