The temple garment

Answers portal
Temples
RESOURCES
General: Always face east? Temples/Baptism for the dead Elias vs Elijah? Temples/Garments Obsolete after Christ? Endowment: Changes to endowment Penalties Oath of vengeance "Lecture at the Veil" Masonry: Relation to Freemasonry? Nauvoo temple symbols All Seeing Eye
PERSPECTIVES
MEDIA
OTHER PORTALS
Early Christianity Joseph Smith, Jr.

Important note: Members of FAIR take their temple covenants seriously. We consider the temple teachings to be sacred, and will not discuss their specifics in a public forum.
This article is a draft. FairMormon editors are currently editing it. We welcome your suggestions on improving the content.

Criticism

Hostile critics often mock the LDS practice of wearing temple garments. They refer to these parts of our worship as "magic underwear" to shock, offend, or hold up to ridicule.

Source(s) of the criticism

• Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101. Examining the Religion of the Latter-day Saints (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), Chapter 15. ( Index of claims )

Response

An anti-Mormon protester at April 2004 LDS General Conference criticizes the LDS use of the temple garment.

Members of the Church are often subjected to critics—generally conservative protestants—who picket their meetings and temple dedications. It is not unusual for such protesters to display LDS temple garments, hold them up to ridicule, or treat them with disrespect. Protesters and authors often disparage the LDS wearing of the garment as "magic underwear," and insist that doing so is a unbiblical practice. (See here for photos and videos of several anti-Mormon demonstrations. Click here] for a graphic example of disrespect to an item considered sacred by Latter-day Saints.)

Such actions are grossly offensive to Latter-day Saints. Only an attack on the character or name of Jesus would be worse, since the garment is tied closely to the LDS worship of Christ.

This section will explain the meaning of the garment in LDS theology and practice, and address charges that the use of clothing with sacred significance is "unChristian" or "unbiblical."

Critics' misrepresentation

Under the heading of Pre-endowment Instructions, McKeever and Johnson enter into a discussion on the nature of the 'temple garments.' In regards to this garment, the authors write: "By wearing the garments at all times, it is taught that the individual Mormon, depending on his or her faithfulness, is protected both physically and spiritually."^[1] It is clear from the ensuing discussion that rather than focusing on the fundamental belief in a 'spiritual protection,' that McKeever and Johnson, in trying to sensationalize their account, are much more interested in the 'physical protection.' From the end of the section, where they end up comparing the garment to a "proverbial rabbit's foot or talisman," we see that they have little interest in accurately portraying Mormon beliefs. To begin with, they take a quote from a prominent LDS leader, Spencer W. Kimball, which might support such an interpretation. The quote reads:

Temple garments afford protection. I am sure one could go to extreme in worshiping the cloth of which the garment is made, but one could also go to the other extreme. Though generally I think our protection is a mental, spiritual, moral one, yet I am convinced that there could be and undoubtedly have been many cases where there has been through faith, an actual physical protection, so we must not minimize that possibility. ^[2]

President Kimball here expresses his view that the protection is generally spiritually, though one cannot rule out the possibility that God would grant physical protection. Surely God can do as he chooses?

McKeever and Johnson misrepresent this statement, however. They introduce the citation with the words: "For instance, President Spencer W. Kimball said on 31 May 1948:" First (and this is also dealt with in the second part of this review) Spencer W. Kimball was not the President of the Church in 1948 when these remarks were written. He was, however, an apostle, having been ordained to that calling in 1943, and would become the President of the Church in 1973. Second, while McKeever and Johnson suggest that this was spoken by Kimball, in fact, this is excerpted from a personal letter written by Kimball in 1948 and a copy kept by him in his personal things. So, while it is true that it was written by Kimball, this hardly seems to carry the degree of authority which is lent to it in Mormonism 101 and some other critics' use of it. We are left with the realization that this is a personal opinion and not a doctrinal statement. We could recognize from his statement that while he sees the garment as having acted as a physical protection in many cases, he certainly never goes so far as to suggest that it does in all cases, nor, that we should expect it to function in that manner.

The reason for the garment

Boyd K. Packer, in his book, The Holy Temple, is explicit in what he feels this protection is:

Members who have received their temple ordinances thereafter wear the special garment or underclothing. … The garment represents sacred covenants. It fosters modesty and becomes a shield and a protection to the wearer. … The garment, covering the body, is a visual and tactile reminder of these covenants. For many Church members the garment has formed a barrier of protection when the wearer has been faced with temptation. Among other things it symbolizes our deep respect for the laws of God-among them the moral standard. ^[3]

McKeever and Johnson also make the remark: "Mormons who remain true to the faith and wear the garments believe they will be protected." ^[4] While all LDS believe that there is a spiritual protection afforded by the garments, and some believe that there is a physical protection as well, the fact that this protection is in part dependent on the faith and worthiness of the wearer is merely another indicator that the garment cannot be compared to a 'lucky talisman.'

Not Biblical?

At this point, McKeever and Johnson change course and attack the practice of wearing the garment by trying to show how its use in the LDS Church is inconsistent with the use of similar garments in the Old Testament. They write:

There is also no Biblical support for this unusual practice. In the Old Testament, only priests from the line of Levi and not the common Jew wore the linen undergarments. Still we find no biblical support for the notion that the priestly garments offered any special protection as described by various LDS authorities. … It appears that the idea of protective undergarments falls into the same category as the proverbial rabbit's foot or talisman." ^[5]

Although McKeever and Johnson do not mention this fact, Latter-day Saints assert that the garments of the priesthood received in the house of the Lord are representative of several things. First and foremost, we learn that these garments are representative of the coat of skins God gave to Father Adam to cover his nakedness. Theodore M. Burton said the following in a speech given at BYU on August 8th, 1966:

Adam was given a garment of the Holy Priesthood as a sign of this endowment of power which he received from God. Eve, his wife, was given him of the Lord. She also was clothed in a garment of power. She was not to be the servant of Adam, …

Traditionally LDS have believed that the garment which Adam was given by God in the Garden was symbolically this same garment of the holy priesthood.

Why was it given to Adam? To cover his nakedness. As it is recorded in Genesis:

And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. … And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. … Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins and clothed them.^[6]

There is a repetitive theme in the Old Testament where nakedness and shame are associated with sin, and a covering, or a garment with righteousness. In Zechariah 3:3-4 we get a narrative describing the calling of Joshua the High Priest:

Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel. And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment.

In Isaiah 47:3, speaking prophetically to wayward Israel, we read these words of the Lord: "Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man." There are many more instances, but perhaps the most significant to this discussion is the treatment of the special garments given to the Levitical priests.

A brief description of these special garments made for the priests is found in Exodus 28:. Especially relevant are verses 42 and 43:

And thou shalt make for them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even to the thighs they shall reach: And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy place; that they bear not iniquity, and die: it shall be a statute for ever unto him and his seed after him.

Critics might read this passage differently, but if taken literally then indeed there was some 'special protection' afforded by these garments. One of the points of interest here though, especially to LDS, is that this protection was only necessary when the Israelite approached God. As McKeever and Johnson pointed out, these garments were only required of the priests. In the LDS Church, the priesthood is offered to all worthy male members. The LDS practice is rooted in a similar theology.

The D&C makes this statement (DC 107꞉18-19) "The power and authority of the higher, or Melchizedek priesthood, is to … enjoy the communion and presence of God the Father and Jesus the mediator of the new covenant." In other words, this symbolic imagery of pure garments now necessarily covers our sins at all times, not just when we go "to minister in the holy place." Christians are to be a nation of priests, under Christ. It is therefore not surprising that LDS wear the reminder of their priestly duties—which are also reminders of Christ's all-covering atonement—at all times. They do not display them outwardly, for the reminder is for the individual member, not others.

In any case, it is the spiritual protection and reminder that remains at the forefront of LDS beliefs and practices regarding this garment. It is a reminder that we put on anew every day. It is a covering which sets a certain standard of modest dress. It is also a covering which would have to be removed before breaking many of the covenants of the temple. To this end, whether we believe that it serves us as a physical protection or not, its value to us is far above that of a mere protective covering. To us it is both a reminder and to the faithful, a witness of our willingness to obey our Father in Heaven. And it is from this context that LDS authorities' comments are drawn.

Early Christian vestments

LDS scholar Hugh Nibley detailed the sacred clothing described by early Christian literature:

[In] the Pistis Sophia, a very early Christian writing, written in the third century but sounding as if it belongs to the forty-day literature [we learn more]. When the Lord spoke to the disciples after the resurrection, he formed a prayer circle: his disciples, men and women, stood around behind Jesus, who himself stood at the altar, thus facing, as it were, the four corners of the world, with his disciples who were all clothed in garments of linen (quoting the disciples). Jesus proceeded to give the prayer. The Pistis Sophia claims to be derived from 2 Jeu, a book allegedly written by Enoch and then hidden up in the cleft of a rock. Second Jeu says: "All the apostles were clothed in linen garments, . . . their feet were placed together and they turned themselves to the four corners of the world." And Jesus, taking the place of Adam, proceeded to instruct them in all the necessary ordinances. The point is that when they formed a prayer circle, they always mentioned "clothed in their garments" or "clothed in white linen."

Next comes the passage I cited from Cyril of Jerusalem; it is the fullest description we have, the only definite mention of particular garments. We see why it was not well known and was not followed through: "Yesterday, . . . immediately upon entering you removed your street clothes. And that was the image of putting off the old man and his works. . . . And may that garment, once put off, never be put on again!" "As Christ after his baptism . . . went forth to confront the Adversary, so you after your holy baptism and mystic anointing [the washing and anointing] were clothed in the armor of the Holy Ghost [a protective garment], to stand against the opposing . . . power." "Having put off the old man's garment of sorrow, you now celebrate as you put on the garment of the Lord Jesus Christ." "Having been baptized in Christ and having put on Christ (cf. Galatians 3:27) [notice the imagery that follows: you put on Christ, you put on the new man, you put on the new body; this is very closely connected with the putting on of clothes], like a garment, you come to resemble (symmorphoi gegonate) the Son of God."

The next day Cyril continues, "After you have put off the old garments and put on those of spiritual white, you should keep them always thus spotless white. This is not to say you must always go around in white clothes [these clothes were real; furthermore, we know of the baptismal garments, for we have references to them], but rather that you should always [be] clothed in what is really white and glorious." Then he cites Isaiah 61:10: "Let my soul exult in the Lord, for he hath clothed me in a robe of salvation and clothing of rejoicing."

This is the fullest of early Christian references to the vestments. But these are not vestments in the modern sense at all. They are worn by all Christians — but not all the time, not as a sign of clerical vocation within the church, and not as a public sign.

The combination of the items that make up the full clothing comes from the description of the high priestly garments at the beginning of Exodus 28.^[7]

It is ironic that the early Christians used sacred clothing based upon Exodus 28, and it is exactly this which modern conservative Protestant critics attack in the Latter-day Saints (see above).

Parallels to other religious traditions

Latter-day Saints and early Christians are not the only religions who use an article of clothing to remind them of important religious principles. Other examples include:

1. The use of the "scapular" in various monastic and other devotional orders in Roman Catholicism:

A scapular (from Latin scapula = shoulder) is a length of cloth suspended both front and back from the shoulders of the wearer, that varies in shape, colour, size and style depending on the use to which it is being put, namely whether in Christian monasticism or in Christian devotion.

The monastic scapular is part of the garb, the habit, of many Christian religious orders, of both monks and nuns, at least since the time of St Benedict. In its basic form it is a shoulder-wide floor-length piece of cloth covering front and back, and worn over the traditional tunic or cassock, almost like a sleeveless surcoat, traditionally in the case of some orders even during the night. It is the equivalent of the analavos worn in the Eastern tradition. From its mention in the Rule of St Benedict it may be argued that according to his mind the purpose of the scapular is solely of a spiritual nature, namely like an "apron" to be a sign of the wearer's readiness to serve, in this case that of the workman in the service of God. This understanding of the purpose of the monastic scapular as a purely symbolic apron is supported by the fact that monks and nuns, when engaged on some manual labour, tend to cover it with a protective apron or carefully tuck it up or throw the front length back over their shoulder to prevent it from getting in the way and possibly soiled and maybe even damaged….

In various Christian traditions the term scapular is also applied to a small devotional artifact worn by male and female non-monastics in the belief that this will be of spiritual benefit to them. The Roman Catholic Church considers it a sacramental. It consists of two small squares of cloth, wood or laminated paper, bearing religious images or text, which are joined by two bands of cloth. The wearer places one square on the chest, rests the bands one on each shoulder and lets the second square drop down the back. Some scapulars have extra bands running under the arms and connecting the squares to prevent them from getting dislodged underneath the wearer's top layer of clothes. In lieu of it, the "scapular medal" may be worn.^[8]

2. The Jewish "tallit kattan" (or "tallis kattan") which is separate and different from the "tallit/tallis gadol" (the Jewish so-called prayer shawl). The "tallit/tallis kattan" is an undershirt made sacred by fringes in each corner. Wearing it is a matter of Jewish law (see, for example, Kitzur Shulchan Arukh 9:1). While a "tallit/tallis gadol" is worn during most morning prayers, the "tallit/tallis kattan" is worn every day, throughout the day.

3. The Sikh are obligated to wear breeches, known "kacha", as part of the Five Ks which Sikhs wear to distinguish themselves (the others being a steel bangle ("karha"), not cutting the hair and preserving it with a turban ("kesh" (hair) or "keski" (turban)), dagger ("kirpan"), and comb ("kanga").

4. Zoroastrians wear an undershirt known as "sudra", which is obligatory for Zoroastrians initiated into the faith. There is a special pocket to remind the person to fill his/her day with good deeds.

5. In Islam, those performing the hajj wear special clothing:

During the Hajj, male pilgrims are required to dress only in the ihram, a garment consisting of two sheets of white unhemmed cloth, with the top draped over the torso and the bottom secured by a white sash; plus a pair of sandals. Women are simply required to maintain their hijab - normal modest dress, which does not cover the hands or face.[8]

The Ihram clothing is intended to show the equality of all pilgrims in the eyes of Allah: there is no difference between a prince and a pauper when everyone is dressed the same. The Ihram also symbolizes purity and absolution of sins.^[9]

Conclusion

 ^{[needs work]}

Endnotes

1. [note]  McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 210.
2. [note]  This citation is referenced in Mormonism 101 as "Kimball, Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 539." This is actually a composite work edited by Edward L. Kimball after President Kimball's death. The original text came from a personal letter dated May 31, 1948.
3. [note]  Boyd K. Packer, The Holy Temple (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1980), 75ff.
4. [note]  McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 212.
5. [note]  McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 212.
6. [note]  Genesis 3:7,10,21.
7. [note]  "Scapular," on Wikipedia (accessed 14 December 2008). Internal references silently removed. (italics added) off-site
8. [note]  "Hajj: Preparations," on Wikipedia (accessed 14 December 2008). (italics added) off-site

Further reading

FAIR wiki articles

FAIR Answers—back to home page

The temple garment

Temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are sacred places where Church members participate in sacred ceremonies (ordinances) that help them come closer to God and prepare to live forever in an eternal family.

To view articles about Latter-day Saint temples, click "Expand" in the blue bar:

V

Articles about Latter-day Saint temples

Baptism for the dead	Overview Baptism for the dead in early Christianity Opposition to baptism for the dead
The temple endowment	The temple endowment Similarities between ancient and modern temple rituals The temple garment Temple ceremonial clothing Changes to the temple endowment Relationship between the temple endowment and Freemasonry Source of the temple endowment Application of the endowment
Temple sealings	Temple sealings and exaltation Latter-day Saint interpretation of "neither marry nor given in marriage" Paul on marriage in 1 Corinthians 7
Other topics	Money spent on temples Symbolism in Latter-day Saint Temples Elias and Elijah at the Kirtland Temple Spiritual manifestations at the dedication of the Kirtland temple The temple in Independence, Missouri Temples in early Christianity Temples facing east

Videos below from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Load video

YouTube

YouTube might collect personal data. Privacy Policy

ContinueDismiss

Load video

YouTube

YouTube might collect personal data. Privacy Policy

ContinueDismiss

FAIR web site

FAIR temple articles

•  ^{[needs work]}

External links

Printed material

Temple printed materials

• Matthew B. Brown,The Gate of Heaven: Insight on the Doctrines and Symbols of the Temple (American Fork, UT: Covenant, 1999), 1.
• Matthew B. Brown, Symbols in Stone: Symbolism on the Early Temples of the Restoration, 2d ed., (American Fork, UT: Covenant, 1997).
• William J. Hamblin and David Seely, Solomon's Temple: Myth and History (London: Thames and Hudson, 2007), Chapter 3.
• Hugh W. Nibley, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment, 2nd edition, (Vol. 16 of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley), edited by John Gee and Michael D. Rhodes, (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Company ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2005), 1. ISBN 159038539X. 1st edition GL direct link
• Temple and Cosmos: Beyond This Ignorant Present (Vol. 12 of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley), edited by Don E. Norton, (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Company ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1992), 1.
• Boyd K. Packer, The Holy Temple (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1980), 1. ISBN 0884944115.