Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: January 01, 2012 09:18PM

--The Mormon Underwear: A Story That is More Than Skin Deep

In a previous post, RfM contributor "anagrammy" wrote:

"Some years ago I did extensive research about the garments, just having a hunch that there must be more to the symbols than I knew. This is what I learned:

"The original stolen ceremony from the Masons included actual cutting of the symbols with a knife through the garment and the flesh. The marks were the scars.

"Joseph Smith insisted that female members go through this ceremony because he felt the oaths and threats would keep them quiet about polygamy . . . . When Emma learned that her breast would be cut, she said absolutely not. She said she would do it symbolically and showed Joseph how she had created the symbols using red thread on the appropriate spots where the cuts would have been. If you wear this and never take it off, she suggested, you would have accomplished the same thing.

"Joseph agreed, liking the idea that he could have everyone 'in uniform' in his army of saints.

"The red thread was replaced by white as the garment began to evolve so that it wasn't visible under white blouses, and it began to change and evolve to keep up with fashion."

"If you want sources, the academics among us might post them for you here."

("Re: References about Eliza Snow/garmie slits and garments having been created for polygamy oaths?," posted by "anagrammy," on "Recovery from Mormonism" bulletin board, 31 May 2011, 6:47 p.m.)

While I have not come across verification of some of the more lurid claims mentioned above--such as Emma allegedly not wanting to be physically cut and scarred in her breast area during her secret endowment as a warning to bend to polygamy--mention has been found (through assistance from other RfM posters, thank you) of actual physical cutting of the primitive LDS garment during the secret Mormon endowment ceremony, as well as of deliberate physical scarring of early Mormon temple goers involved in these barbaric rituals.

--Prelude to Cutting the Secret Mormon Underwear: Cutting a Hole in the Secret Mormon Endowment "Shirt," Then Faithfully Hiding It Away

In the earliest reference to the secret ritual of garment slitting, George W. Robinson (the first secretary to the First Presidency and a member of the Danites) wrote that in the beginning version of the Mormon endowment ceremony (a ritual heavily purloined from Masonic temple rites and personally administered by Joseph Smith to a small, select circle of male followers), there were not only washings and anointings--but also the literal cutting of the special underwear worn by those participating--underwear that was supposed to keep those adorned with it from ever dying at the hands of evil forces.

The garment slitting was so secret, in fact, that only dutiful Mormon wives of devout Mormon husbands who wore these "shirts" could handle them once they had been cut.

In his letter, Robinson wrote:

"After they were initiated into the lodge, they have oil poured on them, and then a mark or hole cut in the breast of their shirts, which shirts must not be worn anymore, but laid up to keep the Destroying Angel from them and their families, and they should never die. . . . No one must have charge of their shirts but their wives."

What, exactly, were these "shirts"?

They were, in fact, an undergarment.

Excommunicated Mormon historian D. Michael Quinn notes that "[f]rom the eighteenth century to the 1840s, 'shirt' referred to an undergarment which was often worn with a separate, tight-fitting underpant reaching to the knees."

(George W. Robinson, letter of 8 August 1842, quoted in John C. Bennett, "The History of the Saints; or an Expose' of Joseph Smith and Mormonism" (Boston: Leland & Whiting, 1842], p. 247, reprinted in David John Buerger: "The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship," Chapter 3, "Joseph Smith's Ritual" [San Francisco, California: Smith Research Associates, 1994], p. 38; and D. Michael Quinn, "The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power," Appendix 7 [Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1994], p. 635)

--The Cutting of the Mormon Garment With a Knife Reportedly Draws Blood, Cries of Foul and an Eventual Discontinuation of That Part of the Ritual

Author and former Mormon Martin Wishnatsky writes:

"In the nineteenth century the knee mark was cut into the garment with a knife during the [Mormon] endowment. The cut occasionally slashed the flesh of the endowee, prompting an eventual outcry from the scarred participants that halted the procedure."

(Martin Wishnatsky, "Mormonism: A Latter Day Deception," Chapter Two, "The Princeton Stacks," at:

Another RfM poster, "Fetal Deity," offers further evidence that garment slashing did, in fact, occur in early Mormon temple rituals and that in the process not only were marks cut into the garments, the skin of the temple goers was purposely cut in order to leave an identifying scar--and it was all done at the veil:

" . . . [T]o satisfy my 'morbid' curiosity I decided to try to find the earliest published references to the former, flesh-cutting practice carried out in the original Mormon endowment. I found a source . . . that dates to 1858. It is a book that contains the recollections of a woman who went through the temple then left the church after discovering some of the many despicable acts carried out by Brigham Young, et al.

"The relevant quote is as follows:

"'A man behind the veil examined us, as to the passwords and grips Brigham had given us, and to whom we gave our "new name," received at the first anointing. Holes through the veil enabled him to see us when we could not see him, and also, to cut with a small pair of scissors, certain marks, beside others, the Masonic square and compass, upon the right and left breast of our 'garments,' and upon the right knee, a gash, deep enough to make a scar, by which we were to be recognized as Mormons. This gash upon the right knee is now often omitted, because many of the women object to it.'

"(Green, Kelson Winch, 'Fifteen Years Among the Mormons: Being the Narrative of Mrs. Mary Ettie V. Smith,...,' Chapter IV, 'Endowments,' pp. 48-49, at:

"The above passage basically confirms the Wishnatsky quote, but makes the slashing of the knee an INTENTIONAL part of the endowment (which was purposefully discontinued), and not an occasional 'accident' by an overzealous veil worker."

("Thanks, Steve, for that nice summary of the early history of the Mormon temple garment," posted by "Fetal Deity," on "Recovery from Mormonism" bulletin board, 1 June 2011, 7:17 p.m., original emphasis by poster)

Significantly, Masons do have a reported history of physically cutting candidates petitioning for admission into the Lodge.

This cutting ritual is said to be done within the Mason tradition (like the Mormon tradition which derives directly from the Masons') of warning of bodily mutilation, should initiates reveal the secrets of their rituals:

"Masonry swears its members to secrecy with grisly, anatomically explicit oaths. A Master Freemason must 'promise and swear, that I will not write, print, stamp, stain, hew, cut, carve, indent, paint, or engrave' the mysteries of his order "under no less penalty than to have my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by the roots, and my body buried in the rough sands of the sea,' according to one version of the oath. Tenth- degree Masons 'consent to have my body opened perpendicularly, and to be exposed for eight hours in the open air, that the venomous flies may eat my entrails' if they talk. Even the Shriners, a 'fun' order, may incur 'the fearful penalty of having my eyeballs pierced to the center with a three- edged blade.' . . .

"Successful candidates are invited to the lodge for initiation. There are three basic degrees: Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft, and Master Mason.

"Each has its own ritual.

"Entered Apprentice candidates begin by taking off their clothes to prove their gender (women may not become Masons). In practice, this means taking off the pants and any jacket. Underwear and shirt are kept on, but the shirt is unbuttoned and pulled down to bare the left arm, shoulder, and breast.

"The candidate is hoodwinked (blindfolded). A cabletow (rope) is placed around the neck. (The Lauterer catalog's hoodwink is simply a standard, black satin half-face mask--without eyeholes -- secured with an elastic string. The cabletow is a heavy blue rayon cord with tassels at both ends.) Ideally, the cabletow is supposed to have four strands to symbolize the four senses (they don't count touch). The candidate is escorted to a room where three candles are burning. One of the lodge members takes a mason's compass or other sharp instrument and pricks the candidate's bared skin. The candidate is instructed to recite a formula to the effect that what he desires most is light. The other lodge members remove his hoodwink and cabletow. Before the candidate are three candles. He is told that the candles represent the sun, the moon, and the master of the lodge."

("How to Crash the Freemasons," by "Klark of the Kent Team," at:

--Starting Up the Practice of Slitting the Mormon Garment During the Endowment Ceremony

The so-called "marking" or cutting of the primitive Mormon temple garment was carried out in early Mormon temples, as award-winning Mormon historian David Buerger notes:

"Shortly after the Salt Lake temple's dedication in 17 October 1893, [Mormon Church president Wilford] Woodruff met with the Council of the Twelve and the church's four temple presidents, spending 'three hours in harmonizing the different m[odes] of ceremonies in giving Endowments.' The following year the First Presidency sent a letter to all temple presidents, portions of which read:

"'It has been the practice to mark the shirt [i.e., undergarment], but we think this unnecessary as it is not strictly part of the Temple clothing. The marking of the garment should be done in the washing room and not at the veil; and the greatest care should be taken to see that no person is permitted to leave that room wearing an unmarked garment."

That's right, as the First Presidency subtlely admitted here: Mormon temple workers used to slit the garment at the veil (the same place where, as indicated by the testimony above, "upon the right knee, a gash [was made with a pair of scissors], deep enough to make a scar, by which we were to be recognized as Mormons."

(Buerger, "Mysteries of Godliness," Chapter Five, "Developments in Nineteenth Century Utah," pp. 128-29)

--The Physical Appearance of Early Mormon Garments in Those Bygone Garment-Slitting Days

According to a description by Elizabeth Warren Allred (spouse of one of Smith's bodyguards), the original, secret Mormon undergarments were made of "sufficient quantity to produce an outfit that met Smith's directive that it contain "as few seams as possible," which would allow for the "whole cloth [to be] cut without piecing. The first garments were made of unbleached muslin and bound with turkey red and were without collars. Later on the prophet decided he would rather have them bound with white. . . . Emma Smith . . . made . . . little collars [to give the garments a more finished look] . . . . The garment was to reach to the ankle and the sleeves to the wrists were always the same."

The initial production model of the Mormon temple garment was male-only, even though females were required to not only produce but to wear it, too, as described below:

"'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 and he accepted it.

"'This garment had a collar and it had strings to tie it and sleeves that came to the wrist, not to the hand, but about an inch above, and the leg came down to the ankle joint. This was the pattern given and it is right for Aunt Eliza Snow was the governess and seamstress in his house at the time the first garments were made and heard the instructions to the sisters.' (Zina Y. Card, 'Garments,' in 'Temple Instructions')"

This original garment was designed expressly for the male body, which eventually led Mormon women who were required to wear it to refashion it according to their own feminine tastes--a move that was stymied by the Mormon patriarchs in charge of what women were allowed to wear:

"Because women were not originally intended to be a part of the endowment ceremony; when they were finally admitted, women received the same garment as the men. Women and men in the church wore the very same garments until 1965. Thus, all Mormon pioneer women wore the men's garment, which were 100% cotton long-johns.

"As early as the 1890s, LDS women tried getting their own garment pattern, but to no avail:

"'Sister Zina D. H. Young submitted a knitted garment something like our garments which is made in the East and asked if such may be marked & have a collar put on it and used as our temple garment. It was decided by the First Presidency that such garments should not be used in lieu of the pattern given.' ("L. John Nuttall Journal," Vol. 3, p. 227; 8 December 1890)

"Church priesthood leaders made it very clear that there was only one pattern for making and wearing garments and they must never be altered:

"'Each individual should be provided with the endowment clothing they need. The garments must be clean and white, and of the approved pattern; they must not be altered or mutilated [i.e., changed by the women], and are to be worn as intended, down to the wrist and ankles, and around the neck. These requirements are imperative; admission to the Temple will be refused to those who do not comply therewith. (President Joseph F. Smith, 'Instructions Concerning Temple Ordinance Work,' President of the Salt Lake Temple 1898-1911)"

As if the early Mormon garments weren't bad enough for women's tastes, Buerger goes on to describe its early versions as being made of "old style, coarse, unbleached, irritating material . . . ."

Eventually, some style changes were made to the garments, but they were still being marked up, so to speak (i.e., slit) in the temple:

George F. Richards, president of the Salt Lake temple from 1921 to 1927, describes in his personal diary the physical description of the garment, as it was discussed and modified in a meeting with the First Presidency:

"The subject of the garment was again brought up and considered and certain changes thought favorably of. The permissibility of dispensing with the collar, using buttons instead of strings, using the closed crotch and flop, and for the women, wearing elbow[-]length instead of wrist-length] sleeves and leg length legs just below the knee."

Buerger provides a further breakdown of the above First Presidency directive to stake and temple presidents which dictated, in list form, that "certain modification" be done, to "the temple garment, . . . namely:

"'(1) Sleeve to elbow.
"'(2) Leg just below the knee.
"'(3) Buttons instead of strings.
"'(4) Collar eliminated
"'(5) Crotch closed. . . .

"'It is the [unanimous] mind of the First Presidency and the Council of Twelve that this modified garment . . . should be carefully preserved from mutilation and unnecessary exposure, and be properly marked.'"

Buerger provides further description of the uni-sex garment as originally conceived by Smith and faithfully produced and worn by faithful LDS men and women for years thereafter:

". . . [Former editor of the Mormon periodical the 'Times and Seasons'] Ebenezer Robinson recalled what he heard in Nauvoo before Smith's death:

"'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 were credibly informed, scenes were enacted representing the Garden of Eden, and that the members of that order were provided with a peculiar undergarment called a robe. "It was made in one piece. One the right breast is a square, on the left a compass, in the center a small hole, and on the knee a large hole." That was the description of that garment as given to the writer in Nauvoo, in Joseph Smith's lifetime.'"

(Elizabeth Warren Allred, recollection published in history of Eliza Monson (whose great-grandmother was Elizabeth Warren Allred], LDS archives; George. F. Richards, personal diary, 14 April 1923, and Ebenezer Robinson, published in "Return," 2, April 1890, p. 252, all quoted in Buerger, "Mysteries of Godliness," in Buerger, "Mysteries of Godliness," Chapter Six, "The Twentieth-Century Temple:" pp. 142-43, 137-38, 149, 152); see also, "Mormon Underwear Garments," at:, the latter which includes artist renderings of the early Mormon temple underwear)

--Slicing the Garment Was Part of the Early Mormon Endowment Ritual That Supposedly Made It a Shield Against Harm for Its Wearer

Buerger writes:

"The topic of the garment's protecting and healing powers became the subject of discussion during the winter months of 1845-46 when ordinances were performed in the Nauvoo temple. William Clayton recorded remarks about the garment made during the 21 December 1845 meeting of the Quorum of the Anointed. First, George A. Smith spoke of the importance of wearing a properly made garmetn night and day:

"'[George A. Smith speaking]: . . . Our garments should be properly marked and we should understand those marks and we should wear those garments continiually, by night and by day, in prison or free and if the devils in hell cut us up, let them cut the garments to pieces also, if we have the garments upon us at all times we can at any time offer up the signs.'"

(quoted in Buerger, "Mysteries of Godliness," pp. 146-47)

--In Addition to the Square and Compass Markings, Physically Slitting the Mormon Temple Garment Was Secretly Taught by Early Mormon Leaders as Representing the Crucifixion Wounds in the Body of Jesus

In the December 1845 meeting dealing with Nauvoo temple ordinaces, Mormon leader George Miller declared that "the apostle] Paul said he bore in his body the marks of the Lord Jesus Christ, which was as plainly as he dare allude to thdse things in writing. But the marks Paul alluded to were just such as we now have on our garments."

(quoted in Buerger, "Mysteries of Godliness," pp. 147-48)

--The Early Temple Garments (Complete with Slits and Other Marks Alike) Were Part of the Officially-Required Identification for Recognizing Faithful Mormon Polygamists

"[The] creation and wearing of secret garments . . . were a result of Smith's polygamous affairs. It started with the secret circle of men that accepted and practiced his plural wife doctrine. It was his way of setting them apart from monogamous men.

"It was originally the 'uniform' required for men to perform spiritual wifery. ('Emma Hale Smith Biography,' p. 140: 'After being involved in the construction and design of the garments, the building of the temple, and hearing about their place in the endowment in the Relief Society (by Smith), why had women not been admitted to the Endowment? Joseph taught that a man must obey God to be worthy of the endowment and that a wife must obey a righteous husband to merit the same reward. Until Emma could be obedient to Joseph (see D&C Sec. 132) and give him plural wives, she could not participate in the endowment ceremonies, yet Smith taught her that the endowment was essential for exaltation.'

("Mormon Underwear Garments," under, "The Mormon Temple as a Lasting Relic of Polygamy: Creation and Wearing of Secret Garments," at:


--Those Irksome "Points" of History

Exposing the slitting of Mormon temple garments and the deliberate physical scarring of endowment participants might be considered, well, a knife in the back to true believers, but what it really was was a knife in their knee.

No wonder Mormons have changed their secret underwear fashion statements over the years.

After all, what Mormons would want to 'fess up that:

(1) temple Mormons, behind their temple walls, used to slice their sacred temple underwear in order to guarantee themselves divine protection; and

(2) did the cutting of both cloth garment and human flesh in order to secretly identify faithful Mormon men to fellow temple LDSers as devout multi-wifers, as well as to identify faithfully-scarred Mormon women?

Lordy, the truth cuts deeply, don't it? :)

For a related thread, see: "Great (and Not So Great) Moments in Temple Garment Design," posted by "cludgie," on "Recovery from Mormonism" bulletin board, 1 January 2012, 1;12 p.m., at:,381427,381427#msg-381427

Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 01/02/2012 02:35PM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: jessica ( )
Date: January 01, 2012 09:40PM

Steve, I noticed on post mormon there is info about the phrase "Pay Lay Ale", do you happen to have more info on it? It seems to me JS ripped off everything..what a unique church indeed.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: January 01, 2012 10:15PM

--in the Regular Temple Endowment

" . . . [S]imilarites with Masonic rites include the [LDS temple] prayer cricle which required Masonic initiates to assemble around an altar, place their left arm over the person next to them, join hands, repeat the words of the Most Excellent Master, and give all the signs from the initial ceremonial degrees."

--in the Second Anointing Ceremony

"In practice today, . . . ['the first part' of the Second Anointing Ceremony]--being anointed and ordained a king and priest or queen and princess--is admminstered in a Holy of Holies or special sealing room and is performed in the sealing room . . . is performed by or under the direction of the President of the Church. There are usually, but not always, two witnesses. Only the husband and wife need to dress in temple robes. The husband leads in a prayer cirlce, offering signs and praying at an altar."

(David John Buerger, "The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship" [San Francisco, California: Smith Research Associates, 1994], pp.55, 66)

--Comparing the Mormon Prayer Circle "Pay, Lay, Ale" to the Masonic Grand Hailing Sign and Due Guard

". . . [The] Masonic Grand Hailing Sign and Due Guard

"'The sign is given by raising both hands and arms to the elbows, perpendicularly, one on each side of the head, the elbows forming a square. The due guard is made by holding both hands in front, palms down.'

"[The] Mormon Pay, Lay, Ale

"The sign is made by elevating both the arms above the head . . . [T]he arms dropped to the square, . . and then to the sides."

("Commonalities between Freemasonry Initiations and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Endowment Ceremony," at:

Before the Mormon Church made several fundamental changes to its secret temple ceremony in 1990 "that 'diminish[ed]' a number of 'elements resembling the Masonic rituals,' . . . the prayer 'Pay Lay Ale' [was] said while performing hand gestures borrowed from the Masonic 'grand hailing sign of distress' . . ."

(James Walker, "Mormon Temple Ritual Changes," at:

Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 01/02/2012 04:35AM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: jessica ( )
Date: January 02, 2012 07:55AM

Thanks! Here's the link to postmormon with what appears to be more information, is there a connection to the Enochian Magic Ring for both Pay Lay Ale and the garment symbols or is it purely Masonic origins?

Options: ReplyQuote
Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: jessica ( )
Date: January 02, 2012 12:19PM

Thanks! I used to think (even after reading Quinn's book) that Mormons didn't do any of the occult stuff anymore until I saw that post about Pay Lay Ale--whether it came from Mason's or not it is STILL currently practiced in temples (the wording changed most recently to "Oh God Hear the Words of my Mouth" the fact is however it was Pay Lay Ale for a very very long time and the change is so recent that people living today remember Pay Lay Ale).

It's interesting the comments about the Book of Enoch being similar to the Book of Moses too..

Nothing was "restored" to JS, it was all a rip off from other sources.

I'd be interested in knowing more about these two connections, if you ever get the time to research it.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: January 02, 2012 01:27PM

"'Enochian PELE ring (year 1583) and the LDS Mormon Temple'

"This is the most likely source of the LDS temple garment markings: V, L and the horizontal line on top of the O (navel/belly button). the word PELE is also identical to what was chanted in the endowment session: PE LE EL ('EL,' which means 'God' in Hebrew. the phrase was also written by some as 'pay lay ale' before it was changed to 'Oh God hear the words of my mouth,' which is also just a rewrite of Psalms 54:2:

"[The Mormon] temple endowment content is not secret or revealed by God; it s based on occult sources and existing scripture.

"[T]he ring was supposedly revealed to John Dee in 1583, by angels, to give Dee power to control demons (the same way King Solomon supposedly did).

"[S]ee also: "

Source for the above:

Edited 10 time(s). Last edit at 01/02/2012 04:32PM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Odell Campbell ( )
Date: January 02, 2012 11:16AM

The words may have been Smith's attempt to add a Hebrew sounding phrase to the ceremony he lifted from the Masons. Some believe it was derived from the Hebrew phrase "Mouth to God"- "pe le-El

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: January 02, 2012 11:18AM

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: santa ( )
Date: November 12, 2015 02:40PM

any good bible scholar or mason would tell you this Solomon and the king of tire hired the masons to build the holy temple they had to know the secret passwords n grips to enter to do work also a guard with a sword stood outside if you didn't give the right word or grip he would cut off your head an apprentice main would have to live and learn with a master for seven years and prove worthy to be advanced once the building was finished the masons turned it over to the prophet so he could dedicate it to god for sacred use not secret but sacred every master mason knows this Joseph Smith was a mason yes but I guarantee the work he did came from god not from masons this is where so many people go wrong they believe people who have not done their homework and take what others say as gospel masons have no priesthood authority never have never will read the bible in kind and Samuel get the truth it says exactly what I'm relaying to you study well god bless

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: November 12, 2015 02:54PM

. . . the Masons built Solomon's Temple. None. Zilch. Nada.

Just because someone may be a "good mason" doesn't make them a decent historian.

No offense, but your assertion in this regard is laughable.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/12/2015 02:55PM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: gemini ( )
Date: January 01, 2012 11:00PM

wow...if someone had tried to cut ME in the temple, I would have been out of there immediately.

Also, how did the whole garment thing go over with the wives of these men back in Joseph's day????

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: RPackham ( )
Date: January 02, 2012 12:33AM

Be careful about relying on this "former Mormon and author." I have the book cited, and it is, in my opinion, one of the worst books I have seen about Mormonism. Wishnatsky was only Mormon for a very brief time. He went through the endowment ONCE, ten years before writing this expose (which he claims is the FIRST expose of the endowment). His book is full of mistaken representations of facts.

Don't quote him. Don't buy the book.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: January 02, 2012 03:31AM

. . . one can read his book online without having to buy it, thereby allowing one the opportunity to preview it before deciding whether it's worth purchasing or not:

Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 01/02/2012 01:15PM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anagrammy ( )
Date: January 02, 2012 02:19PM

The idea that the temple ceremony was for and about polygamy seems to have atrophied in that same mysterious vanishing-ink way we see with so many Mormon doctrines which were at one time deemed to be essential to salvation.

The capricious Mormon god wanted the followers of his required polygamy to shut their GD mouths about it. For some reasons, the average citizen seemed to feel that the promise of fidelity and the centuries-old Christian tradition of monogamy was more likely the will of God for his children.

The wearing of the garment was the way to identify those who could be trusted, much as the handshakes and special phrases for the Freemasons. This was why Joseph Smith wasn't wearing his when he was arrested. He feared being identified as one of his own followers! He didn't want to be in danger of being killed for following his own teachings.

So we see that Gordon Hinckley had a cowardly precedent for denying his beliefs in public.

Joseph Smith was the first to not stand for something.

Thanks, Steve, for your always-comprehensive research.


PS. My sources for my long-ago research had to do with the sewing history of the garment (yes, for Homemaking in Relief Society)

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Nightingale ( )
Date: February 25, 2012 06:48AM

anagrammy: "Joseph Smith was the first to not stand for something."

Good one, anagrammy.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: tensolator ( )
Date: January 02, 2012 04:25PM

In the Masonic ceremony, PeLe-Ale (I think I'm on to something here) was, Oh God is there no help for the Widow's Son? I might be one of a few who has been through the temple ceremony before they removed penalties, the ceremony after the penalties were removed, and the ceremonies of Masonry. Actually, the Masonic ceremonies are much more aesthetic in my opinion. However, regardless, the two ceremonies are the same as far as symbolism is concerned, what is very different is the dialogue.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: nowI'mfound ( )
Date: February 24, 2012 10:45PM

Interesting and very bizarre stuff. Reading about people presenting themselves at the veil for slitting makes me think of something my mother said years ago regarding the anti film "The Godmakers." I remember her scoffing at the accusations that people were naked or in their underwear in the temple ceremony, and saying, "That's so ridiculous. That's not what happens at all." Of course, when I went through the temple (1992), I WAS basically naked for the initiatory (except for the sheet/shield thing), and then was "dressed" in the garment. However, the account of the slitting implies that patrons were wearing nothing but their garments when they got to the veil. So does that mean that everyone was just in their underwear for the whole endowment?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: santa ( )
Date: November 12, 2015 02:52PM

In sorry to disagree but you are mistaken read in kings and Samuel in the old testemant you will see temple ceremonies and garments are the same then and now obviously you haven't read it or you would know better all that was then is the same no change if you disagree with the modern church then you disagree with the ancient church and are not a Christian its always been the same always will be

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ificouldhietokolob ( )
Date: November 12, 2015 03:45PM

santa Wrote:
> In sorry to disagree but you are mistaken read in
> kings and Samuel in the old testemant you will see
> temple ceremonies and garments are the same then
> and now

In those bible books, there is not a single mention of anything resembling mormon "temple garments," nor of anything of "temple ceremonies" resembling anything mormons do.

The "temple ceremonies" referred to largely consisted of animal sacrifices and burnings for ritual cleansing of "sin."

> obviously you haven't read it or you would
> know better

Obviously YOU haven't read it. So, please -- go ahead and post verses from those bible books backing up your claim. We'll wait. Of course, you won't...because there aren't any.

> all that was then is the same no
> change if you disagree with the modern church then
> you disagree with the ancient church and are not a
> Christian its always been the same always will be

Nobody was "christian" then, genius. And NOTHING that went on in a Jewish temple resembles anything mormons do. Not a single thing.

And no, I'm not a christian. I tossed ignorant ancient myths when I left the mormon cult.

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In

Screen Name: 
Your Email (optional): 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
  ******   **     **   ******     ******   ********  
 **    **  ***   ***  **    **   **    **  **     ** 
 **        **** ****  **         **        **     ** 
 **        ** *** **  **   ****  **        ********  
 **        **     **  **    **   **        **        
 **    **  **     **  **    **   **    **  **        
  ******   **     **   ******     ******   **