Garments

Most members believe that wearing the garment entitles them to some sort of protection, as is promised during the initiatory. The question is whether the promise provided applies to any particular garment, or only the garment revealed to Joseph.¹ If the garment has undergone similar changes as the temple ceremonies under similar circumstances, can we really expect God to fulfill the promises recited in the initiatory?

The original garment was a one piece, full body (to the wrist and ankle² ) textile made of only white cotton, flax, or wool. It required being stepped into from the neck. It had tie strings to take out the slack. In 1894, the brethren decided to end the practice of cutting the marks into the garment through the shirt, reversing an instruction from Brigham Young, because “we think this unnecessary” (Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, and Joseph F. Smith to Lorenzo Snow, Aug 31 1894). At that time, they also moved the garment marking from the veil portion of the ceremonies to the initiatory.³ During John Taylor’s administration the original garment material was replaced with a knitted fabric. In 1923, the collar was removed and the tie strings were replaced with buttons. The women’s garments were shortened to the elbows and knees. These changes came “after careful and prayerful consideration,”⁴ —not from the voice of God, but because “the living authority said we might.”⁵ Erroneously, the First Presidency claimed that “no fixed pattern of Temple garment has ever been given,” and concluded that they could change it without regard to Joseph’s garment. Ironically, the author of the commissioned temple instruction pamphlet wrote that same year that:

When Joseph Smith received the endowments and revelation from the Lord to be given to his people by authority, he also received instructions as to how to make this garment. None had ever seen anything like it and the sisters who made it were under his direction and when it was submitted to him, he said that it was right and the way it had looked to him [in his mind] and he accepted it. (Zina Y. Card, “Garments”, Temple Instructions.)

Just eleven years earlier, President Joseph F. Smith had said,

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.

He reiterated in a joint First Presidency statement in 1915, “The pattern of the temple garment was given by revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith.” (Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund, and Charles W. Penrose to Arthur C. Smith.)

Apparently, there was some resistance to the significant changes of 1923. The temple instruction pamphlet recognized the changes from what God had revealed to Joseph, but assuaged concerns by citing the change as a valid use of authority by the brethren:

Thus the Kingdom of God rolls on and the living authorit[ies] are the ones who can make changes in the revealed work of the Lord to answer the purposes of the day in which they live. (Zina Y. Card, “Garments”, Temple Instructions, 1923.)

The “modified” garment, as it was called, was only permitted to be used outside the temple. Somehow in the minds of the people, it was wrong for a private member to fashion their own garment pattern, because it would “not [be] approved of nor accepted by the authority of God.” (Ibid.) At the same time, the modified garment, which came from men and not God, was somehow valid. In 1934, apostle John Widstoe dealt with the issue differently, at once admitting the garment was revealed to Joseph, but claiming that no changes had been made:

The temple ordinances were revealed as many other things have been revealed to the Prophet....There have been no changes in the garment. Fundamentally it is like it was in the beginning. Lengthening or shortening of the sleeve is not a change really. It is just a minor thing, in line with our needs, especially in the summer time; but that does not make any difference to the garment itself. (John A. Widstoe, “Answers to Seminary Teachers' Questions,” 1934 pp. 32-33.)

Widstoe contended, as many do with all temple changes, that the changes made do not affect the vital parts. After all, he reasoned, “It is [still] a covering for my body, representing covenants I have made. We make entirely too much of the so-called changes. There have been no changes to the ideas.” (Ibid). People using this line of reasoning are not surprisingly unable to enumerate the parts that are vital. The cognitive dissonance increases as these same people who contend that as long as the garment is a covering for one’s body (no matter how much or how little of the body) and represents covenants (no matter if those covenants change or not) it is still valid, also claim that any garment that covers the body and represents the covenants but is not prayerfully considered and unanimously approved by the brethren “desecrates the marks of the priesthood.” (Zina Card, Temple Instructions, 1923.) Thus, what is approved or abominable depends not on God’s word on the subject, but on whether the current brethren are currently favorable towards it or not. A telling example of dissent is found in then President of the Quorum of the Twelve Joseph Fielding Smith. One member wrote how on his 21 February 1964 visit,

I asked President [Joseph Fielding] Smith, 'Is it wrong to wear the string tie garments outside the temple?' President Smith looked at me for several moments and then unbuttoning the third button in his shirt, brought out one of the ties on a pair of old style temple garments and said, 'This is what we should be wearing—the Lord gave them to us, and so this is what I wear.' I said, 'I have worn the old style garments for two years now and some of the ignorant brethren have accused me, so now I wear a tee shirt over them.' President Smith then said, 'When the Lord gave the garments to us they had strings. I have never worn a button pair; however, I don't say those with buttons are not garments.' (W. Cleon Anderson, notarized statement, in Buerger Papers.)

Joseph Fielding Smith had inherited Hyrum Smith’s original garment, and thus knew firsthand what the differences were between modern and the original garments.⁶

In 1936, the garments were modified again to include a sleeveless pattern.⁷ The brethren expressed reluctance to the change, but agreed to it “only because we have convinced ourselves that it will tend to bring” more adherence to the instruction to wear the garment day and night without rolling up the sleeves. As with previous changes, it seems to have been instigated by women who wanted to accommodate current styles. The brethren insisted that “we have not been able to see that we are yielding any vital thing in this slight change.” At this time the committee also recommended providing an explanation for the symbols on the garment, something not then provided. The brethren wrote:

The best interpretation which has come to us up to this time has been supplied by President McKay. It is as follows: A. The square: Honor, integrity, loyalty, trustworthiness. B. The compass: An undeviating course in relation to truth. Desires should be kept within proper bounds. C. The navel: That spiritual life needs constant sustenance. D. The kness: Revernce for God, the source of divine guidance and inspiration.⁷

In 1965, the older garment used in temples was updated from strings to buttons, but not fully updated to the outside of temple garment.⁸ The full update to bring them into parity was subsequently made.

Over time, the garment marking process was changed. By 1979, all symbolism of the marking of the garment was lost. Instead of placing the garment on the patron and cutting marks into the garment, the garments were manufactured already containing the marks, which had ceased to be cuts and become mere embroidery.⁹ A December 1979 First Presidency letter announced the two piece garment, citing “due consideration” as the means of the change.

Like the 1877 transcript of the endowment, the church possesses an original temple garment (that belonging to Hyrum Smith). It could duplicate that garment to revert the modern garment back to the one that God revealed to Joseph. However, it defers to the opinions of Joseph’s successors, who never once claimed revelation in their changes, and the requirements of modern style and comfort, rather than trusting that God knew what he was talking about when he revealed the garment to Joseph. Those, like President Joseph Fielding Smith, who would prefer to wear the garment revealed to Joseph are prevented from doing so. They are not given the pattern, and even if they had it, they would be disciplined for creating and wearing the original garment.

If we are to accept that God honors the promises he offered with the garment revealed to Joseph with the current garment, we should also expect he will honor them with any set of underclothing, as the cut, cloth, manner of marking, and meaning of the garment have all changed. You would be hard pressed to change the garment more than it has been changed. Can the modern garment be viewed as anything but a mockery of God?