menu icon in the top, right corner of the screen.
icon above to close this box.
icon at the bottom of the screen below the browser—if you don't see it, swipe up to unhide it.
Joseph, Moroni, and the “Priesthood Garment”
A Latter-day Restoration of “Covenantal Clothing”
Alonzo L. Gaskill and Seth G. Soha
Alonzo L. Gaskill and Seth G. Soha, "Joseph, Moroni, and the 'Priesthood Garment': A Latter-day Restoration of 'Covenantal Clothing'," in Joseph Smith as a Visionary: Heavenly Manifestations in the Latter Days, ed. Alonzo L. Gaskill, Stephan D. Taeger, Derek R. Sainsbury, and Roger G. Christensen (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2004), 169–94.
Alonzo L. Gaskill is a professor of world religions in the Department of Church History and Doctrine at Brigham Young University.
Seth G. Soha is an independent researcher in the field of religious studies. He is also a board-certified physician assistant with an established practice in the state of Utah.
The use of symbolic clothing associated with the making of covenants is common in many religious traditions. The clerical collar of a Catholic priest, the monastic robes of a Buddhist monk, or the leather phylacteries of an Orthodox Jew—these are familiar visuals associated with various persons’ efforts to connect with God and to be in a committed covenant relationship with the Divine.
Less obvious, but no less meaningful, is the prevalence of sacred underwear associated with covenants—also found in many religious traditions.[1] For example, the priests of the ancient Jewish Temple wore “linen breeches” or underpants and a “coat” or “shirt” beneath their other liturgical vestments (Exodus 28:42; Leviticus 6:10).[2] Zoroastrians, after being initiated, wear (throughout their lives) a sudreh[3] or “sacred undershirt”[4] as a reminder of their daily duties to God.[5] In the Sikh tradition, initiated or baptized[6] practitioners wear kacchera—a specific pair of underpants (most often white) that remind the wearer of his or her obligation to exhibit “moral strength” and to live a chaste life.[7] It has even been suggested by various scholars that the “seamless undergarment”[8] Jesus wore on his way to Calvary’s cross—the garment that was “woven as one piece from the top to the bottom” (John 19:23, Common English Bible)—was a “priestly garment”[9] associated with covenants and having “some divine connection” to the veil of the temple.[10] One of the twentieth century’s foremost biblical scholars, Raymond E. Brown, argued “that the garment [Jesus wore] had a sacral character, and the superstitious soldiers feared they would destroy that [sacral nature] by tearing it.”[11]
Owing to the commonality of such articles of covenantal clothing in various traditions, including their prevalence in both the Old and New Testament eras, perhaps it is no surprise that the restored gospel of Jesus Christ manifests this same practice of having its members don sacred underclothing once “initiated” into their highest rites in the holy temple. However, what is less known is the history behind how Latter-day Saints came to wear such sacred clothing.
The Question That Provoked the Vision
As with so many components of the restored gospel, the temple garment was revealed to Joseph Smith in a vision. And, like a significant number of the Prophet’s other revelatory visitations, this one apparently came in response to a question he had been pondering.[12]
Some readers will be aware that Joseph Smith had a brief foray into Freemasonry—a fraternal order that (in the Prophet’s day) claimed to trace its origins back to the “earliest of times”[13] and to the ancient biblical temple.[14] The Joseph Smith Papers Project has indicated that the Prophet “was never as involved with the [Masonic] lodge as other church members.”[15] Similarly, in analyzing Joseph’s total lodge attendance, one independent scholar concluded, “It appears that his attachment to Masonry may not have been as great as some commentators have believed.”[16] Regardless, Freemasonry’s claim that its ceremonies had origins in the ancient biblical temple intrigued the Prophet, and, as a result of the several times he engaged in the actual rites of the lodge, he concluded that if Masonry really did have ties to the ancient temple (as it claimed), then it clearly had been “corrupted.”[17] Consistent with Joseph’s assumptions, one Masonic text noted that “the ‘true secrets’ of the [Masonic] Order are admitted to have been lost, with ‘substituted secrets’ being used in their place in [the] Masonic ceremony, ‘until such time as they are rediscovered’ . . . [or] until time or circumstances should restore the genuine ones.”[18] One influential nineteenth-century Masonic text informs us:
Though Masonry is identical with the Ancient Mysteries, it is so in this qualified sense; that it presents but an imperfect image of their brilliancy; the ruins only of their [former] grandeur, and a system that has experienced progressive alterations, the fruits of social events and political circumstances. . . . [The] Mysteries were modified by the habits of the different nations among whom they were introduced. . . . They were . . . changed by the religious systems of the countries into which they were transplanted.[19]
This was Joseph’s view of the fraternal order as well. He saw in Masonry kernels of something potentially very old but unquestionably corrupt. Consequently, after his initiation into the third degree of the York Rite (Blue Lodge) tradition, Joseph explained: “Freemasonry, as at present, was the apostate endowments, as sectarian religion was the apostate religion.”[20] This was a common view among early Latter-day Saints.[21] As historian Glen M. Leonard pointed out, “Latter-day Saints came to believe that the ancient priesthood rituals first revealed to Adam and to successive Old Testament prophets had been dispersed widely, with portions imperfectly preserved among . . . [the] Freemasons.”[22] Thus, while the Prophet Joseph perceived the Latter-day Saint temple endowment as something very different from the fraternal order of Freemasonry, it was nonetheless his view that Masonry sought to “imitate” the ancient “mysteries”—mysteries that Joseph himself would be called upon by God to restore through revelation.
There is little question that the 1830s and 1840s were a time of temple-related revelations, and Joseph’s mind seemed continually occupied with questions related to the higher ordinances that would become foundational to the restored gospel.[23] Various things seemed to provoke Joseph’s queries, including his translation of the Book of Mormon, the Church’s purchase of the Egyptian papyri (from Michael Chandler), and even his work on the “Inspired Version of the Bible.” Interestingly, in an April 1899 meeting of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, President Franklin D. Richards—then President of the Quorum—pointed out that “the Prophet [Joseph] was aware that there were some things about Masonry which had come down from the beginning and he desired to know what they were. . . . The Masons admitted some keys of knowledge appertaining to Masonry were lost.[24] Joseph enquired of the Lord concerning the matter and He revealed to the Prophet true Masonry, as we have it in our temples.”[25] Thus, President Richards (who knew the Prophet personally) believed that Joseph’s brief foray into Masonry was provocative enough to make him want to inquire of God as to what was true (or truly “ancient”) about it and what was potentially a perversion of ancient rites and rituals.[26] Consequently, Joseph prayed and (according to the First Presidency of the Church) “[t]he pattern of the temple garment was given” to the Prophet “by revelation.”[27] While the Masonic Fraternity has no temple “garment” (or anything comparable to the Latter-day Saint temple garment),[28] one historian pointed out that, for Joseph, this article of sacred clothing revealed by God was “a restoration of the ancient priesthood clothing worn preparatory to officiating in priesthood ordinances . . . during the Mosaic dispensation.”[29]
In the end, it matters little whether President Richards’s recollection is correct, though there is nothing to suggest he was wrong. While what he taught the members of the Quorum of the Twelve offers us a sense of the approximate time frame during which the garment may have been received, it is enough to know that Joseph received the temple garment by revelation prior to May 4, 1842—a fact that we know for certain because from that day forward it was being given to those receiving their endowment.[30] Additionally, President Richards’s teaching, if accurate, gives us a sense of what provoked Joseph Smith to pray about ancient temple rites. It highlights what it was that may have caused his vision of the angel who revealed to him the temple garment.[31] Nonetheless, even though President Richards was an adult when Joseph received his vision, and even though he was ordained an Apostle less than five years after the Prophet’s martyrdom, his singular witness is not sufficient to state dogmatically what provoked the Prophet to pray and receive his vision. Thus, though there is nothing that contradicts President Richards’s recollection, we offer the aforementioned details for the sole purpose of informing the reader of what one nineteenth-century Apostle (who knew the Prophet) had taught regarding the provocation of the vision that revealed the temple garment.
The Vision
So far as we can ascertain, Joseph Smith did not record the details of the vision in which he received the temple garment. However, we do have the accounts of numerous people who say that the Prophet spoke about the visionary encounter in which he received the sacred garment, and who say that he shared various details about the vision.[32] Indeed, several members of the First Presidency have confirmed that “the pattern of endowment garments was revealed from heaven.”[33]
We know that Joseph called a “meeting at Nauvoo” and “presented the garment to the Church.” He “held it up before” the select group present and indicated that “it was the exact pattern of the one the angel” Moroni “showed him.” Joseph explained “all the features pertaining” to the garment and told the members it was to be called “the Garment of the Holy Priesthood.” He indicated that those who receive their temple endowment would be expected to wear it “all through life.”[34] Having held the garment “up before the people,” Joseph “instructed them to go home and make their garments and begin to wear them.”[35]
While some accounts simply speak of “an angel” revealing the garment’s pattern to Joseph, the Prophet indicated that it was the angel Moroni who appeared to him to restore that sacred article of clothing.[36] James Allred was a Nauvoo Legion bodyguard for the Prophet at the time of the vision, and Joseph specifically told James’s wife Elizabeth that “he had seen the Angel Moroni with the garments on.”[37] Similarly, in the presence of Eliza R. Snow and Zina D. Huntington, Joseph stated, “The angel Moroni drew aside his robe and showed [me] his marks.”[38] Oliver Granger—who was a trusted adviser to Joseph Smith on financial matters (Doctrine and Covenants 117:12–15)—saw the angel Moroni (in vision), much like the Prophet had, and Moroni informed Granger about those very same garments as well.[39]
The Date of Moroni’s Appearance
Much like the date of the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood (which is unknown),[40] the exact date of the restoration of the temple garment has been lost to history as well. Indeed, in 1915 the First Presidency of the Church (consisting of Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund, and Charles W. Penrose) noted that while the “pattern of the temple garment was given by revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith,” the “exact date” of the vision in which he received it is “unknown.”[41] Up to the present time, that remains a true statement—and it may be the case that we will never know for sure when Joseph received this visitation. However, from what historical details we do have, it is likely that Moroni revealed the garment pattern to the Prophet sometime between March 15 and May 4, 1842. The logic behind this conclusion is based on a couple of factors.
As noted above, President Franklin D. Richards informed the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles that it was Joseph’s brief involvement in Masonry that led him to pray about ancient temple rites. If that be the case, then Joseph would have begun praying about this on or after March 15, 1842—when he first learned the details of what takes place in the Masonic lodges of his day.[42] Brigham Young indicated that when he received his endowment (on May 4, 1842), “the Prophet Joseph . . . had our garments placed upon us.”[43] Thus, looking at the various accounts in the aggregate, Joseph’s increased curiosity about ancient temple rites and his vision of Moroni wearing the temple garments would most likely have been between mid-March and early May of 1842.[44]
The Creation of the Garment
According to individuals in whom Joseph confided (like Emma Smith, Elizabeth Allred, Eliza R. Snow, Zina D. Huntington, and Esther Melita Johnson LeBaron), the angel appeared to the Prophet and showed him a sample of the garment. Moroni then explained to him “all the features pertaining to it”—including the sacred symbols that were to be part of it. “Accordingly Joseph had a garment made after the exact pattern the angel showed him, and took it to the meeting” where certain invited Saints were gathered. Joseph held up the garment for those in attendance to see while he explained its various features and the purpose of the sacral article of revealed clothing.[45]
Having learned from Moroni the details of the garment, Joseph first went to the home of sister Elizabeth Allred and commissioned her to help him re-create what he had seen in vision.
It was while they were living in Nauvoo that the Prophet came to my mother [Elizabeth], who was a seamstress by trade, and told her that he had seen the Angel Moroni with the garments on, and asked her to assist in cutting out the garments. They spread unbleached muslin out on the table and he told her how to cut it out. She had to cut the third pair, however, before he said it was satisfactory. She told the prophet that there would be sufficient cloth from the knee to the ankle to make a pair of sleeves, but he told her he wanted as few seams as possible and that there would be sufficient whole cloth to cut the sleeve without piecing [it].[46] The first garments were made of unbleached muslin and bound with turkey red[47] and were without collars. Later on the prophet decided he would rather have them bound with white. Sister Emma Smith, the Prophet’s wife, proposed that they have a collar on [them] as she thought they would look more finished, but at first the prophet did not have the collars on them. After Emma Smith had made the little collars which were not visible from the outside of the dress, Sister Eliza R. Snow made a collar of fine white material which was worn on the outside of the dress.[48] The garment was to reach to the ankle and the sleeves to the wrist. The marks were always the same.[49]
After that initial pair was created, apparently Eliza R. Snow and Zina D. Huntington sewed garments for some of the others who would receive the endowment. “They were cut out by the Prophet Joseph Smith [or] under his direction.” Joseph “stood over them while they were” cutting the fabric—just to ensure they were made properly and according to the pattern Moroni had given him.[50]
The Revealed Pattern
A number of sources indicate that there was frequent mention about “the exact pattern” Moroni “showed to Joseph Smith” in his initial vision of the garment.[51] President Joseph F. Smith repeatedly spoke of this and in 1906 wrote the following in the Church periodical the Improvement Era: “The Lord has given unto us garments of the holy priesthood, and you know what that means. . . . [Endowed members of the Church] should hold these things that God has given unto them sacred, unchanged and unaltered from the very pattern in which God gave them.”[52] Some have drawn from this statement, and the fact that Joseph Smith appears to have tried very hard to re-create the “exact” garment Moroni showed him, that the temple garment should never change. For example, one second-generation Latter-day Saint, Benjamin F. LeBaron, expressed his concerns, saying, “I felt very bad when the Church Authorities allowed a change” to the temple garments.[53] LeBaron was not the only “pioneer stock” Latter-day Saint to express concern about changes in the temple garment.[54] While this sentiment is understandable, it should be recognized that the garment has changed—not just over the course of this dispensation, but over the course of history.
For example, when Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden, God made for them “coats of skins” (Genesis 3:21; Moses 4:27), which were the original “pattern” for the temple garments that would be worn by God’s covenant people.[55] These initial sacred coverings were made of animal skin,[56] whereas the temple undergarments of the priests of the Mosaic tabernacle were made of linen—as commanded by God (Exodus 28:42, 39:28). While we cannot say with certitude what the covenantal undergarments Jesus wore were made of,[57] we know that the initial garments that Joseph Smith commissioned a sister to make (based on Moroni’s pattern) were made of muslin.[58] The point is that the garments in every dispensation have been different from the ones of previous dispensations; and, even in a given dispensation, the fabric, design, and fit of temple garments have evolved, in part because the materials available change, but so do the needs of the people.[59] Speaking specifically about the temple garment, Brigham Young’s daughter Zina noted, “The Kingdom of God rolls on and the living authorities 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.”[60] Similarly, Joseph Smith taught:
[T]he Lord has never given them[61] to understand by anything heretofore revealed that He had ceased to speak, forever, to his creatures, when sought unto in a proper manner.
I should say for the salvation of his creatures in these last days, since we have already in our possession a vast volume of his word, which he has previously given.
But you will admit that the word spoken to Noah was not sufficient for Abraham, or it was not required of <him>[62] to leave the land of his nativity, and seek an inheritance in a strange country upon the word spoken to Noah, but, for himself he obtained promises from the hand of the Lord.[63]
Essentially, Joseph is acknowledging the need for ongoing revelation in the Church, including revelation for a given era in Church history wherein past revelation was insufficient for the present. President John Taylor likewise explained:
And from the time that Adam first received a communication from God, to the time that John, on the Isle of Patmos, received his communication, or Joseph Smith had the heavens opened to him, it always required new revelations, adapted to the peculiar circumstances in which the churches or individuals were placed. Adam's revelation did not instruct Noah to build his ark; nor did Noah's revelation tell Lot to forsake Sodom; nor did either of these speak of the departure of the children of Israel from Egypt. These all had revelations for themselves, and so had Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Jesus, Peter, Paul, John, and Joseph[.] And so must we, or we shall make a shipwreck.[64]
In support of each of these comments, in 1923 the First Presidency of the Church sent a letter to stake and temple presidents, indicating that though “the garment is . . . designed by the Lord” and “was revealed to the Prophet Joseph” at the beginning of this dispensation, it is not a “fixed pattern.”[65] In other words, as needs change, God has every right to change the pattern of the temple garment, and history shows that is exactly what he has done.
Drawing of a nineteenth-century garment, minus traditional symbols. Courtesy of J Keaten Gaskill.
If all of this is the case, then why would Moroni need to reveal a “pattern” for the garment, and why would Joseph seek to copy that initial pattern shown to him in his visionary exchange with the angel? For all the stress that Joseph put on getting the garment right, it should be remembered that some of this was his own preference, and not Moroni’s command. In fact, we know that Elizabeth Allred created the first pair of garments, after which Emma Smith, Bathsheba Smith, Eliza R. Snow, and other sisters fashioned an updated or improved version, which they “presented . . . to Joseph Smith for his approval.”[66] Thus, Joseph clearly perceived that there was some flexibility in how the garment looked. He initially wanted to make it with “as few seams as possible”[67]—but that component was not retained. A collar was not part of the garment that Moroni showed Joseph but was added because the sisters making them “could think of no other way to finish [them] at the top.”[68] The original garment had three sets of tie strings down the front that were tied in double bow knots.[69] (Emma and her female associates “added [the] ties because they had no buttons.”)[70] As already noted, the first garments were made of muslin, but when winter came, the Saints started wearing garments made of wool.[71] In the years immediately following the introduction of the endowment, garments made of mesh or “nets and similar materials” were forbidden, but by the late twentieth century, mesh garments (and garments of fairly sheer fabric) became authorized.[72] The initial pattern, copied by those present in the meeting where Joseph introduced the garment, had “turkey red” binding[73] and “scarlet” stitching[74]—and would only later be entirely white. Starting in the mid-1980s, a military garment would be authorized that would be produced at different times in a drab brown or olive color.[75] The earliest garment covered the entire body from ankle to wrist, but in recent decades that too has changed—as God’s prophets (in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries) have received their own revelations about the divinely authorized garment pattern.[76]
With so much evolution in the garment since its initial manufacture in Nauvoo, what exactly did the First Presidency mean when they announced, “The Saints should know that the pattern of endowment garments was revealed from Heaven”?[77] Well, the components that have been fairly consistent from the beginning have not been the fabric, the length, or even the color. What has been consistent has been the covenant associated with the wearing of the garment, the promise of spiritual protection for wearing it,[78] and the symbols sewn (or incorporated) into the garment as a reminder of the covenants made. Those have not, in any significant way, changed since Joseph received them from Moroni, presumably in early 1842.[79] Indeed, Joseph is purported to have told James Allred, “The marks were always the same” from Adam and Eve’s day down to the present.[80] Joseph received, in vision “from Heaven,” the restoration of ancient temple garments—first introduced in the days of Adam and Eve.[81] As history has shown, the form of those was never the “pattern” God revealed. The covenant associated with that ever-evolving “garment of the holy priesthood”[82]—and the symbols utilized to remind the wearer of his or her covenants—appear to be the “pattern” Moroni revealed.[83] All else has been ancillary and subject to change. What Moroni revealed was a “pattern” or, better put, “purpose” for the garments, a connection between those garments and the temple covenants, and certain symbols that would make them meaningful.[84]
Conclusion
Like so many other truths of the restored gospel, the pattern for the temple garment was given through revelation, and in response to a question posed by the Prophet. Joseph prayed and received a visitation from the angel Moroni as part of his ever-expanding calling as a latter-day visionary. In addition to his Sacred Grove experience, he frequently “received revelations, entertained angels, and was given keys and powers from on high.”[85] In so many ways, Joseph Smith was “the preeminent witness of Christ in this final dispensation.”[86] And part of that witness was the restoration of a temple garment—that was itself a symbol of Christ.[87] The story of Joseph’s vision and the consequent wearing of the garment, along with the adaptation of that garment to present circumstance, are not signs that the Church has “strayed” from Joseph’s initial vision. Rather, they are all marks of a living, revelatory church. Angels appear, God reveals, covenants are made, and refinement takes place. All of this is a testament to the existence of living prophets, to a restored Church filled with ongoing revelation, and to the fact that “the Restoration continues.”[88]
Notes
[1] See Alonzo L. Gaskill, “‘Clothed upon with Glory’: Sacred Underwear and the Consecrated Life,” Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue, no. 12 (Spring 2013): 9–22.
[2] Douglas R. Edwards, “Dress and Ornamentation,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman, 6 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 2:234; Philip J. Hyatt, “Dress,” in Dictionary of the Bible, ed. James Hastings, rev. ed. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1963), 223; Janet Mayo, A History of Ecclesiastical Dress (London: B. T. Batsford, 1984), 153; and Arnold Van Gennep, The Rites of Passage, trans. Monika B. Vizedom and Gabrielle L. Caffee (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1960), 29–30.
[3] The word sudreh is often translated as “protection” because the sudreh is “an armor, a protection against which all attacks of demon or evil forces become futile. Thus [the wearer] becomes the real conqueror of evil powers.” Behman Sorabji Banaji, “The Warfare of Zoroaster,” Advocate of Peace Through Justice 86, no. 1 (January 1924): 35.
[4] William Darrow, “Zoroastrianism,” in Worldmark Encyclopedia of Religious Practices, ed. Thomas Riggs, 3 vols. (New York: Thomson Gale, 2006), 1:561.
[5] See Gherardo Gnoli, “Zoroastrianism,” in The Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Mircea Eliade, 17 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1987), 15:587.
[6] Some Sikhs avoid referring to the Amrit Sanskar (or initiation rite) as a baptism because its meaning and purpose are not the same as Christian baptism. See W. Owen Cole, review of The Chaupa Sing Rahit-Nama by W. H. McLeod, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland,no. 1 (1989): 184.
[7] See Sikh Missionary Center, Sikh Religion (Detroit, MI: Sikh Missionary Center, 1990), 200; Hew McLeod, “The Five Ks of the Khalsa Sikhs,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 128, no. 2 (April–June 2008), 327; and Pashura Singh, “Sikhism,” in Worldmark Encyclopedia, 1:512.
[8] Of this garment, Johannine scholar Raymond E. Brown explained: “John 19:23–24 attaches considerable importance to a ō. . . . ō, most often rendered as ‘tunic,’ would normally be a long [under]garment worn next to the skin.” Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 2 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 2:955. See Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 669; William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1953), 429; John W. Pryor, John: Evangelist of the Covenant People (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992), 80; F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), 370; Leon Morris, The NIV Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel According to John, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 715n55; Bruce R. McConkie, The Mortal Messiah: From Bethlehem to Calvary, 4 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1980), 2:301–302n2; Merrill C. Tenney, “The Gospel of John,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, 12 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 9:181; and James D. G. Dunn and John W. Rogerson, eds., Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 1206.
[9] See Brown, Death of the Messiah, 2:956–57; Raymond E. Brown, The Anchor Bible: The Gospel According to John XIII–XXI (New York: Doubleday, 1970), 920–21; Peter F. Ellis, The Genius of John (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1984), 270; Pryor, John, 80; Leon Morris, Reflections on the Gospel of John (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000), 663–64; and William Barclay, The Gospel of John, vol. 2, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975), 253–55. See also Heber C. Kimball, in Journal of Discourses (London: Latter-day Saints’ Book Depot, 1853–86), 9:376, 10:237; Alfred Edersheim, Jesus the Messiah (London: Longmans, Green, 1890), 187; Bruce, Gospel of John, 370; Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel and Epistles of John: A Concise Commentary (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1988), 94; Morris, NIV Commentary on the New Testament, 715; Alan Richardson, The Gospel According to Saint John: A Commentary (New York: Collier, 1962), 202; and R. V. G. Tasker, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 210.
[10] See Thomas J. Lane, “Jesus as High Priest: The Significance of the Seamless Robe,” St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology, July 19, 2019, https://
[11] Brown, Death of the Messiah, 2:956.
[12] Of course, Joseph Smith’s First Vision came in response to a question he had (Joseph Smith—History 1:13–14, 18). However, classicist Thomas W. Mackay pointed out, “Several of our most notable sections in the Doctrine and Covenants have [also] been given in response to specific questions.” Thomas W. Mackay, “Content and Style in Two Pseudo-Pauline Epistles (3 Corinthians and the Epistle to the Laodiceans),” in Apocryphal Writings and the Latter-day Saints, ed. C. Wilfred Griggs (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1986), 234–35.
[13] William Preston Campbell-Everden, Freemasonry and Its Etiquette (New York: Gramercy Books, 2001), 10–11.
[14] See Alex D. Smith, Christian K. Heimburger, and Christopher James Blythe, eds., Documents, Volume 9: December 1841–April 1842, vol. 9 of the Documents series of The Joseph Smith Papers, ed. Matthew C. Godfrey et al. (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2019), 273–74 (hereafter JSP, D9), where the minutes of the Nauvoo Masonic Lodge repeatedly reference “Ancient York Masonry” and the “ancient usage” and “ancient landmarks” of Freemasonry (emphasis added). See also Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas, The Hiram Key (Boston, MA: Element, 1997), 4; and Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma (Charleston, NC: 1871), 12, 325. Pike states: “The Deity of the early Hebrews talked to Adam and Eve” as well as Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and others. “But their doctrines . . . were esoteric; they did not communicate them to the people at large, but only to a favored few; and . . . they were communicated in . . . the greater mysteries, to the initiates. The communication of this knowledge and other secrets—some of which are perhaps lost—constituted, under other names, what we now call Masonry. . . . It would be folly to pretend that the forms of Masonry were the same in those ages as they are now. . . . But, by whatever name it was known” in the past or in “this or the other country, Masonry existed as it now exists, the same in spirit and at heart, not only when Solomon builded [sic] the temple, but centuries before” (207–8). While Pike’s text is an older source, it well represents the views of nineteenth-century Masons. Thus, in some ways, it is more germane than more recent sources, since Masonry has gone through a great deal of evolution over the centuries, including since the nineteenth century.
[15] See JSP, D9:272.
[16] Matthew B. Brown, Exploring the Connection between Mormons and Masons (American Fork, UT: Covenant, 2009), 77. Much has been written regarding the degree to which Freemasonry has informed, inspired, or served as a foundation for Latter-day Saint temple rites. Not all that has been written is of equal value. Nonetheless, what follows is a list of some of the more commonly referenced texts on the subject: Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Freemasonry and the Origins of Latter-day Saint Temple Ordinances (Orem, UT: Interpreter Foundation, 2013); Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, An Important New Study of Freemasonry and the Latter-day Saints: What’s Good, What’s Questionable, and What’s Missing in Method Infinite (Orem, UT: Interpreter Foundation, 2023); Cheryl L. Bruno, Joe Steve Swick III, and Nicholas S. Literski, Method Infinite: Freemasonry and the Mormon Restoration (Sandy, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2022); Jay Hawkinson, Freemasonry Threaded through Mormonism (Suffolk, VA: Lime, 2021); Michael W. Homer, Joseph’s Temples: The Dynamic Relationship between Freemasonry and Mormonism (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2014); S. H. Goodwin, Mormonism & Masonry (self-pub., 2014), CreateSpace; E. Cathy Burns, Mormonism, Masonry, and Godhood (Mt. Carmel, PA: Sharing, 1997); Mervin B. Hogan, Freemasonry and Mormon Ritual (Salt Lake City: self-pub., 1991); Jerald Tanner and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism, Magic and Masonry, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1988); William J. Schnoebelen and James R. Spencer, Mormonism’s Temple of Doom (Boise: Triple J, 1987); Mervin B. Hogan, Freemasonry and the Lynching at Carthage Jail (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1981); Mervin B. Hogan, The Origin and Growth of Utah Masonry and Its Conflict with Mormonism (Salt Lake City: Campus Graphics, 1978); Mervin B. Hogan, What of Mormonism and Freemasonry? (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1976); Cecil McGavin, Mormonism and Masonry, 4th rev. and enlarged ed. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1956); and Anthony W. Ivins, The Relationship of Mormonism & Freemasonry (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1934).
[17] Lodges have several functions. In addition to initiating individuals into the various “rites” of the Order, they often gather for other purposes, including service and socializing. After his initiation into Nauvoo’s Masonic Lodge, Joseph served for a time as its chaplain—primarily responsible for the spiritual well-being of the Lodge’s members. One Masonic lexicon points out that the office of chaplain is frequently more honorific than anything, “often conferred by courtesy” (see Albert G. Mackey, A Lexicon of Freemasonry [London: Richard Griffin and Co., 1860], 51). Because of its honorific nature, “the Master of a Lodge in general performs the duties of a Chaplain” when the latter is needed (Albert G. Mackey, An Encyclopaedia of Freemasonry, vol. 1, rev. ed. [New York: The Masonic History Company, 1914], 157).
[18] Knight and Lomas, Hiram Key, 4, 15, 18; Pike, Morals and Dogma, 161; and W. L. Wilmshurst, The Meaning of Masonry (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1999), 171.
[19] Pike, Morals and Dogma, 624–25; emphasis added. See pp. 23, 325–26.
[20] Joseph Smith, quoted in Benjamin F. Johnson, My Life’s Review (Independence, MO: Zion’s Printing & Publishing Co., 1947), 96.
[21] Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and Willard Richards each made this same claim. See Richard S. Van Wagoner, ed., The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, 5 vols. (Salt Lake City: Smith-Pettit Foundation, 2009), 4:2417; Brigham Young, quoted in Homer, Joseph’s Temples, 265, 300; Devery S. Anderson, The Development of LDS Temple Worship, 1846–2000: A Documentary History (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2011), 75; Heber C. Kimball, quoted in Larry H. Dahl and Donald Q. Cannon, eds., The Teachings of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997), s.v. “Masonry”; Willard Richards to Levi Richards, March 15, 1842, in Joseph Grant Stevenson, ed., Richards Family History (Provo, UT: Stevenson Genealogy & Copy Center, 1991), 3:89–90; and Heber C. Kimball to Parley and Mary Ann Pratt, June 17, 1842, in Devery S. Anderson and Gary James Bergera, eds., Joseph Smith’s Quorum of the Anointed 1842–1845: A Documentary History (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2005), xxii.
[22] Glen M. Leonard, Nauvoo: A Place of Peace, A People of Promise (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo, UT: BYU Press, 2002), 315.
[23] As examples, in Kirtland, Joseph learned through revelation about washing and anointing rites what would become the initial (or “initiatory”) portion of the later Nauvoo temple endowment. At some point he received revelation on eternal marriage, though the date of the initial revelation is hotly debated by historians. In the Nauvoo period, he revealed not only baptism for the dead but also the endowment (with its accompanying garment) as well as the “second anointing.”
[24] See Knight and Lomas, Hiram Key, 4, 15, 18; Pike, Morals and Dogma, 23, 161, 325–26, 624, 625; and Wilmshurst, Meaning of Masonry, 171.
[25] See Franklin D. Richards, in A Ministry of Meetings: The Apostolic Diaries of Rudger Clawson, ed. Stan Larson (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993), 42. In the diary of Joseph Fielding, he indicates that the endowment revealed to Joseph was the “true Origin of Masonry” (see Andrew F. Ehat, “‘They Might Have Known That He Was Not a Fallen Prophet’—The Nauvoo Journal of Joseph Fielding,” BYU Studies Quarterly 19, no. 2 [1979]: 145n26, 147). While Joseph’s experience with Freemasonry apparently provoked his prayers on the matter, Elder B. H. Roberts of the Seventy was quick to point out that “the beginnings of God’s revelation to” the Prophet regarding temple “ceremonies began with his getting possession of the Book of Abraham. . . . A careful examination of facsimile No. 2 from the Book of Abraham . . . shows that the signs and figures thereon refer to matters concerning the grand key words of the Priesthood, with the assertion that some of the writing cannot be revealed unto the world, ‘but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God,’ . . . all of which doubtless refers to the sacred mysteries of our Temple ordinances. . . . The Saints may rest assured that what we have through the Prophet, in relation to the Priesthood and its sacred mysteries, resulted from the revelation of God to Joseph Smith” (B. H. Roberts, “Masonry and Mormonism,” Improvement Era, August 1921, 938; see also John Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham [Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2017], 164–66). If Elder Roberts and President Richards are correct, Joseph’s curiosity about “temple stuff”—including the temple garment—were piqued by things like figure 7 in Facsimile no. 2, but also by his encounter with Freemasonry, which shared a few similar symbols. These combined elements provoked the Prophet’s prayer on the matter, and the related revelations that would follow.
[26] JSP, D9:273–74.
[27] First Presidency (Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund, Charles W. Penrose) to Arthur C. Smith, March 10, 1915, cited in Anderson, Development of LDS Temple Worship, 171.
[28] It is the case that the candidate for the Masonic Entered Apprentice degree removes his street clothes (with the sole exception of his shirt) and dons a pair of modest “drawers” provided by the lodge. Nonetheless, these underdrawers have no association with covenants, contain no incorporated symbols, and have no parallel with the Latter-day Saint temple garment. The candidate for the Entered Apprentice degree is presenting himself before the Lodge to be judged acceptable to be initiated and have conferred upon him the degree he is seeking. Consequently, the reason for the removal of his worldly apparel is to ensure the following: “Because Masonry regards no man on account of his worldly wealth or honors” as is often perceived by the quality or nature of his apparel, “it is, therefore, the internal and not the external qualifications that recommend a man to Masonry.” William Morgan, Freemasonry Exposed (Chicago, IL: Ezra A. Cook, 1827), 40. Thus, the idea of a “covenantal” undergarment finds no place in York Rite (Blue Lodge) Masonry of Joseph Smith’s day.
[29] Andrew F. Ehat, “Joseph Smith’s Introduction of Temple Ordinances and the 1844 Mormon Succession Question” (master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, 1982), 111.
[30] Jennifer Ann Mackley, Wilford Woodruff’s Witness: The Development of Temple Doctrine (Seattle, WA: High Desert, 2014), 262.
[31] While it seems that the combination of Joseph’s various experiences—including his brief participation in Freemasonry—led to his inquiry and subsequent vision regarding the temple garment, we acknowledge that all we have are secondhand accounts that inform us as to what provoked the Prophet. So we remain tentative on the matter. However, the date of the vision is less important than the fact that there was a vision; and there are numerous individuals who claim to have heard Joseph refer to the angel appearing to him in order to reveal the garment.
[32] See, for example, George A. Smith, “Garments,” in H. Michael Marquardt Papers, MS 0900, box 43, folder 5, Special Collections, J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah (hereafter Marriott Library); Elizabeth Ann Whitney, “A Leaf from an Autobiography,” Woman’s Exponent, December 15, 1878, 105; Maria Jane Johnston Woodward, April 21, 1902, Joseph F. Smith Papers, 1854–1918, MS 1325, Church History Library, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City (hereafter CHL); Zina Y. Card, “Temple Instructions,” circa 1916–18, pp. 1–2, MSS 1421, box 2, folder 16, L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT (hereafter Perry Special Collections); Zina Y. Card, “Garments,” circa 1923, in Anderson, Development of LDS Temple Worship, 205; Benjamin F. LeBaron to Rosella Luke Johnson, June 13, 1937, https://
[33] See, for example, Joseph F. Smith to ward bishops, circa 1912, cited in Anderson, Development of LDS Temple Worship, xi, 160; Joseph F. Smith, statement issued June 28, 1916, and subsequently published in the Improvement Era, August 1916, 812; First Presidency to Smith, in Anderson, Development of LDS Temple Worship, 171; “Temple Instructions to the Bishops,” in Messages of the First Presidency, comp. James R. Clark, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1971), 5:110; Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., “Notarized Statement” (giving the details of a conversation had with W. Cleon Anderson), February 24, 1964, in Anderson, Development of LDS Temple Worship, 344; and Joseph F. Smith, “Fashion and the Violation of Covenants and Duty,” Improvement Era, August 1906, 814.
[34] See LeBaron, “How We Obtained Our Garments.” LeBaron received his information from his mother, who was present at the meeting in which Joseph Smith first presented the temple garment to the Saints. In another account, LeBaron wrote: “My mother . . . attended all the meetings when she could; [and] was at the meeting when Joseph presented the garments to the church, and she related the incident to us children about as follows: He had Emma, his wife, make a pair as he directed and when they were finished he called a meeting and held them up so all could see them perfectly, and told the people they were the pattern which the angel showed him, and they must wear them as such, with the promise that they would be a protection for them against . . . the power of the devil, and that they must always wear them undefiled.” LeBaron to Johnson, June 13, 1937.
[35] See LeBaron, “How We Obtained Our Garments.” While twenty-first-century Saints might naturally assume that Joseph would show the garment only to those who had already received their endowments, it is important to avoid looking at this through the lenses of “presentism.” We know that Joseph employed unendowed persons to create the first temple garments. Had those present at this meeting already received their endowments? At this point, there is no way of saying. We simply do not know exactly when this meeting was held, who was present, how many were present, or whether the attendees were endowed or unendowed members of the Church. Thus, drawing dogmatic conclusions about those present at this meeting is pointless. One source points out that the “marks on the garment . . . were originally cut into the garment through the outer clothing during the first part of the endowment ceremony. After returning home from the ceremony, the endowed individuals would then sew the marks that had been cut into their clothing and garment” (Mackley, Wilford Woodruff’s Witness, 263; see William Clayton, An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton, ed. George D. Smith [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1995], 217, 221, 227–28). Thus, in the earliest days of the restored endowment, things were not done as they are today, nor in the order in which they are done today.
[36] For example, Elizabeth Ann Whitney (the first counselor to Emma Smith in the Church’s first Relief Society presidency) spoke in these generic terms, telling how “Joseph received a revelation pertaining to . . . the ordinances of the House of the Lord” from an “angel who committed these precious things into his keeping.” Whitney, “ Leaf from an Autobiography,” 105. If Joseph told her the identity of the “angel,” she does not reveal it.
[37] See Early Pioneer History of James Allred, comp. Eliza M. A. Munson (1959 transcript), copy in authors’ possession. See also Biography of James Allred, 2.
[38] This claim has been attributed to President George A. Smith (see Smith, “Garments”). While Elder Parley P. Pratt did not see the angel Moroni, more than a decade before that divinely sent messenger revealed the details of the garment to Joseph Smith, Elder Pratt had a relevant vision “in the autumn of 1830,” which he described as follows: “My attention was aroused by a sudden appearance of a brilliant light . . . above the brightness of the sun. I cast my eyes upward to inquire from whence the light came, when I perceived a long chain of light . . . , very bright, and a deep fiery red. It at first stood stationary in a horizontal position; at length bending in the center, the two ends approached each other with a rapid movement, so as to form an exact square. In this position it again remained stationary for some time, . . . and then again the ends approached each other with the same rapidity, and again ceased to move, remaining stationary . . . in the form of a compass; it then commenced a third movement in the same manner, and closed like the closing of a compass, the whole forming a straight line. . . . It again remained stationary . . . and then faded away. I fell upon my knees in the street, and thanked the Lord for so marvelous a sign. . . . Some persons may smile at this, and say that all these exact movements were by chance; but, for my part, I could as soon believe that the letters of the alphabet would be formed by chance, and be placed so as to spell my name, as to believe that these signs (known only to the wise) could be formed and shown forth by chance” (Parley P. Pratt Jr., ed., Autobiography of Parley Parker Pratt, Edited by His Son, Parley P. Pratt, 5th ed. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1961], 44). We express our appreciation to Dr. Philip A. Allred for suggesting that we include Elder Pratt’s vision in this paper. One might wonder why Moroni didn’t have temple garments on when he first appeared to Joseph Smith in 1823 but wore them when he appeared to the Prophet nearly twenty years later when the endowment was being revealed. Elsewhere, we have pointed out: “The temple, its ordinances, and clothing, are but earthly vehicles to get us back to the celestial kingdom or presence of God. . . . Once we return to the Father many of these earthly vehicles will likely be done away with or will be replaced by the heavenly things which they represented (Revelation 21:22). Perhaps this explains why Joseph stated of Moroni, when he appeared (on Sept. 21, 1823): ‘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’ (JS—H 1:31). Joseph describes Moroni [in his first appearance] as . . . [being] ‘lighter than at noonday’ (JS—H 1:30). But there is no mention of the earthly ‘coat of skins’ that fallen [persons] are required by covenant to wear. In the Nag Hammadi’s ‘Dialogue of the Savior,’ Judas and Matthew are recorded as having said to Christ, ‘We [want] to understand the sort of garments we are to be [clothed] with [when] we depart the decay of the [flesh].’ To this the Lord replied, ‘Not with these transitory garments are you to clothe yourselves.’ Jesus added, ‘You will clothe yourselves in light and enter the bridal chamber’ (‘Dialogue of the Savior’ 143:84–85, 138:50; brackets in original)” (Alonzo L. Gaskill, The Lost Language of Symbolism: An Essential Guide for Recognizing and Interpreting Symbols of the Gospel [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2003], 345n58). When Moroni first appeared to Joseph Smith, he appeared as a celestial being, with all the accompanying glory and light that such beings have. The garments given to Adam and Eve in Eden are said to have replaced the “garments of light” that they had before their fall and that all celestial beings have when they receive their exaltation (see Gaskill, Lost Language, 70–71; and Alonzo L. Gaskill, Sacred Symbols: Finding Meaning in Rites, Rituals, & Ordinances [Springville, UT: Cedar Fort, 2011], 164). Moroni’s later appearance while wearing the garment was likely to show Joseph both what the garment should look like and how it was to be worn. Wearing it during his first appearance to Joseph would have been pointless, as the garment would have been meaningless to the Prophet at that stage. Additionally, had Moroni been wearing the garment in previous appearances, it may well have sent an erroneous message that exalted beings wear such garments throughout eternity. Thus, Moroni dons the temple garment only to demonstrate to Joseph what they should look like and how they should be worn by those who would shortly receive the temple endowment. Curiously, this is not the only time Moroni has appeared in clothing besides his robe. For example, David Whitmer told of a time when Joseph Smith saw Moroni dressed in “a suit of brown wollen [sic] clothes” and carrying “on his back a sort of knapsack with something in” it (see “Report of Elders Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith,” Deseret News, November 27, 1878, 2). Thus, there is hardly a contradiction between Moroni appearing on one occasion in just a robe, on another occasion with temple garments on, and yet on another occasion in a brown suit.
[39] See the account of Granger’s vision of Moroni, recorded by his daughter Sarah M. Kimball, in Augusta J. Crocheron, Representative Women of Deseret (Salt Lake City: Graham, 1884), 24. Granger’s vision of Moroni, promising the coming forth of temple garments, lends credibility to Joseph’s claim that Moroni appeared to him to reveal the sacred temple clothing. That being said, it seems odd that Moroni would appear to Granger, who was not a general authority or leader in the early Church—though it is worth noting that the vision came to him in answer to his investigation of the Book of Mormon and the Church, confirming for him that the Church was indeed “approved of God.” According to Granger’s daughter’s account, Moroni appeared to Granger possibly “a few months after [the Book of Mormon’s] publication.”
[40] While no sources record the exact date of the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood, the Church’s official position has been (and remains) that it was restored by Peter, James, and John. Larry C. Porter argues that it was most likely restored between May 16 and 18, 1829 (see Larry C. Porter, “The Restoration of the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods,” Ensign, December 1996, 30–47).In a revelation given circa September 1830, we read: “Peter, and James, and John, whom I have sent unto you, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles and especial witness of my name.” Matthew C. Godfrey et al., eds., Documents, Volume 4: April 1834–September 1835, vol. 4 of the Documents series of The Joseph Smith Papers, ed. Ronald K. Esplin and Matthew J. Grow (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2016), 411; emphasis added (see also Doctrine and Covenants 27:12). The Church’s official website states, “The appearance of Peter, James, and John to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery is attested to in numerous sources” (“Restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood,” ). Another essay on the Church’s website, “Restoration of the Priesthood,” states, “Sometime after John the Baptist’s appearance, the ancient Apostles Peter, James, and John also appeared to Joseph and Oliver, again under the direction of Jesus Christ, and conferred upon them the Melchizedek Priesthood” (Doctrine and Covenants 128:20; ?).
[41] See Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund, and Charles W. Penrose to Arthur C. Smith, March 10, 1915, cited in Anderson, Development of LDS Temple Worship, 171. While some have argued that Joseph could have received this “pattern of the temple garment” as early as Kirtland (when he built this dispensation’s first temple), that seems unlikely. First, we have at least one Apostle who says it was in 1842 that Joseph began to pray about the specifics of ancient temple rites. Additionally, it seems unlikely that God would have given Joseph a vision of an article of clothing that he would need to make with specificity eight to ten years hence. Giving the vision so far in advance of the actual creation of the garment would increase the likelihood that details would be forgotten or misremembered. Finally, giving Joseph the vision before revealing to him the endowment would leave him with a garment that had no context and, therefore, limited meaning. However, revealing it alongside of the other temple rites would enhance his understanding of both the purpose and the symbolic meaning of the garment. Thus, the idea that the vision of Moroni wearing the garment came in 1842, rather than in the early 1830s, makes more sense.
[42] On Tuesday March 15, 1842, Joseph was initiated into the first degree of York Rite Masonry (i.e., the Entered Apprentice degree). The following morning he received the second degree (Fellow Craft degree), and later that evening he was raised to the third and final degree of York Rite Masonry (Master Mason). See Minutes, 15–16 March 1842, in JSP, D9:274–75.
[43] L. John Nuttall Diary, February 7, 1877, Perry Special Collections. See also L. John Nuttall Papers, June 3, 1892, Perry Special Collections, cited in Anderson, Development of LDS Temple Worship, 36; and Anderson and Bergera, Quorum of the Anointed, xxi–xxii.
[44] In support of the mid-March to early May 1842 window, it will be noted that Elizabeth Ann Whitney indicated that it was while she and her family were living in the Nauvoo Red Brick Store that the Prophet received “the ordinances of the House of the Lord” and organized the Relief Society (Whitney, “Leaf from an Autobiography,” Woman’s Exponent, December 15, 1878, 105, and November 15, 1878, 91). Also, Zina Young Card indicated that Joseph received the garment at the same time he received the endowment (see Card, “Temple Instructions”; see also Card, “Garments,” in Anderson, Development of LDS Temple Worship, 205). The Whitneys appear to have been living in the Red Brick Store by March 22, 1842, since they celebrated their daughter Sarah’s birthday on the second floor of the store on that date, which would be odd were they not living in the store at the time (see Andrew H. Hedges, Alex D. Smith, and Richard Lloyd Anderson, eds., Journals, Volume 2: December 1841–April 1843, vol. 2 of the Journals series of The Joseph Smith Papers, ed. Dean C. Jessee, Ronald K. Esplin, and Richard Lyman Bushman, 46). Whitney said in her autobiography that it was “up stairs [sic] over the brick store” (on its second floor) where they lived (see Whitney, “Leaf from an Autobiography,” 89). Owing to when Joseph was first initiated into Freemasonry, when the endowment was first instituted, and when we know the Whitneys were living in the Red Brick Store, it seems reasonably certain the garment was revealed to Joseph by Moroni somewhere between mid-March and early May of 1843. This approximate date is supported by the conclusion of one present-day expert of Nauvoo history. Based on census records, the Nauvoo Land and Records database, and the Nauvoo Community Project, Rita Souther (head of the Nauvoo Historical Society) indicated that the Whitneys “did not live in the Red Brick Store in February 1842, but probably did by May 1842 and perhaps through July 1842” (Souther, personal correspondence, January 14, 2024). Thus, the mid-March to early May of 1842 window is the most likely one.
[45] See, for example, LeBaron to Johnson, June 13, 1937; LeBaron, “How We Obtained Our Garments”; “Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin LeBaron,” in Miscellaneous Mormon Diaries (1946), vol. 10, p. 1 of LeBaron diary; and Smith, “Garments.”
[46] As a possible confirmation of Joseph’s desire to make this first pair of temple garments with as few seams as possible, Oliver Granger’s granddaughter said that Moroni had told her grandfather, a “time will come when the Saints will wear garments made without seams.” Whether that referred to this same temple garment, or so some heavenly garb, is unclear. See Kimball, in Crocheron, Representative Women of Deseret, 24.
[47] The former Secretary of the Utah Territory, Benjamin G. Ferris, spent six months residing in Salt Lake City, “observing” the Saints. He wrote a book describing what he observed. In it he wrote: “In their initiation into the [temple], the novitiates are invested with a mysterious garment. . . . These curious [garments] may be seen on the clothes-line in the afternoon of every washing-day, and consist of a white garment, made up of common shirting, with strips and crosses of scarlet stitched in, emblematical of some of their temple mysteries.” Ferris appears to have noticed the red ribbing that was eventually discontinued but may have been worn by some for a number of years because of their continued use of their original garments. His mention of “scarlet” stitching “emblematical of some . . . temple mysteries” is an apparent reference to red thread utilized in the stitching of the sacred symbols of the garment. Benjamin G. Ferris, Utah and the Mormons (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1854), 311–12. See William Clayton, diary kept for Heber C. Kimball, Sunday, December 21, 1845, cited in Devery S. Anderson and Gary James Bergera, eds., The Nauvoo Endowment Companies—1845–1846: A Documentary History (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2005), 121.
[48] President George F. Richards, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, wrote in his journal that “a group of sisters led by Emma Smith and including Bathsheba Smith had fashioned both the garments and the temple clothing [based on Joseph’s description of Moroni’s garment], and presented them to Joseph Smith for his approval. The collar on the garments had been put on because the sisters could think of no other way to finish it at the top, and they added ties [to the front of the garment] because they had no buttons.” See George F. Richards journal, October 11, 1922, and April 5, 1923, cited in Thomas G. Alexander, Mormonism in Transition: A History of Latter-day Saints, 1890–1930 (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1986), 301n94. See also Anderson and Bergera, Quorum of the Anointed, 48.
[49] The Early Pioneer History of James Allred (1959 transcript), copy in authors’ possession. See also Biography of James Allred, 2; George F. Richards, journal, October 11, 1922, cited in Anderson and Bergera, Quorum of the Anointed, 48; and Mavis Greer Clayton, “Elizabeth Warren Allred: Pioneer of 1851” (unpublished biography), 2–3, copy in authors’ possession.
[50] Smith, “Garments.” Another early convert to the Church, Polly Bunker, indicated that she “heard the Prophet’s instructions on the Garments and seen him cutting out a pattern.” Bunker, in Musser, Book of Remembrance, 92. Musser refers to Polly Bunker as “Aunt Polly” (p. 92), though she does not appear to be the sister of his father or mother.
[51] See, for example, Joseph F. Smith, “Letter to Ward Bishops,” December 31, 1912, cited in Anderson, Development of LDS Temple Worship, 162; “Temple Instructions to the Bishops,” in Messages of the First Presidency, comp. James R. Clark, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1971), 5:110; First Presidency (Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund, and Charles W. Penrose) to Arthur C. Smith, March 10, 1915, in Anderson, Development of LDS Temple Worship, 171; Joseph F. Smith, “Editor’s Table,” Improvement Era 9 (1906): 813; “Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin LeBaron,” 1; Statement by Maria Jane Johnston Woodward, April 21, 1902, Joseph F. Smith papers, 1854–1918, MS 1325, CHL; and Ethel R. Jensen, Beneath the Casing Rock: The George Smith Rust Family (Provo, UT: Stevenson’s Genealogical Center, 1981), 81.
[52] Smith “Editor’s Table,” 813; emphasis added. It is worth noting that one early Latter-day Saint—who claimed she had “received instructions on several occasions, in the temple and elsewhere, from President Joseph F. Smith”—indicated that he told her that “the garments . . . would not be changed in his day, but would later.” See Bunker, in Musser, Book of Remembrance, 92.
[53] “Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin LeBaron,” 2.
[54] For example, in a 1923 letter of the First Presidency to stake and temple presidents, they noted, “Some of the pioneer stock look upon any deviation from the old order as a departure from what they had always regarded as an inviolable rule.” The letter continues, “One good woman of long membership in the church, hearing of the change that has recently come about, went to the church offices and uttered firm objection. ‘I shall not alter my garments, even if President Grant has ordered me to do so. . . . The pattern was revealed to the Prophet Joseph and Brother Grant has no right to change it,’ she said.” Heber J. Grant, Charles W. Penrose, and Anthony W. Ivins to stake and temple presidents, June 14, 1923, cited in Anderson, Development of LDS Temple Worship, 199. See also Rosa May McGie, “Looking into the Past and Future,” September 11, 1924, M234.5 M145L 1924, CHL, in which McGie claims that President “Heber J. Grant had mutilated the temple garments and [thereby] broke the everlasting covenant.”
[55] Temple Minute Book, St. George, December 7, 1910, cited in Anderson, Development of LDS Temple Worship, 156.
[56] Franz Delitzsch, A New Commentary on Genesis, translated by Sophia Taylor, 2 vols. (Minneapolis, MN: Klock & Klock, 1978), 2:170; Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1980), 657; The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, ed. Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010), 736.
[57] Heber C. Kimball did say, “The Savior’s under garment [sic] was knitted.” Heber C. Kimball, June 27, 1863, in Journal of Discourses, 10:237.
[58] See The Early Pioneer History of James Allred (1959 transcript); see also Biography of James Allred, 2. Muslin is a thinner fabric than linen and is softer (because of its higher thread count).
[59] As an example of the evolution of the “authorized” garment pattern in this dispensation, on July 20, 1938, the First Presidency (then consisting of Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark Jr., and David O. McKay) issued a “circular letter” to stake presidents, bishops, and mission presidents. In that letter they authorized certain changes, including removing requirements for the garment to be ankle and wrist length, not requiring that there be a collar, allowing for buttons instead of tie strings, etc. This was a fairly dramatic shift from the original pattern, and yet this letter emphasized that one component certainly must not be changed: the “marks” of the garment. The letter called these the garment’s “most sacred feature” and stated that “in reality the sacred markings . . . convert underwear into garments” (see Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark Jr., and David O. McKay, “Circular letter,” July 20, 1938, cited in Anderson, Development of LDS Temple Worship, 249, 251. See also “Committee Report to the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles,” April 22, 1936, cited in Anderson, Development of LDS Temple Worship, 242–43; and letter to European mission presidents from the First Presidency, November 4, 1955, cited in Anderson, Development of LDS Temple Worship, 299). So central were the marks in creating a temple garment that President Brigham Young wanted the Saints to not only wear those markings in their underwear but cut them into the shirts endowed men wore on top of their garments as well (see “minutes of a meeting” of the First Presidency and Twelve, October 10, 1869, cited in Anderson, Development of LDS Temple Worship, 29–30). During the presidency of Wilford Woodruff, this latter practice was discontinued (see Abraham H. Cannon diary, August 16, 1894, CHL; and First Presidency to Lorenzo Snow, August 31, 1894, in Anderson, Development of LDS Temple Worship, 98, 99). For a summary of major changes, see Anderson, Development of LDS Temple Worship, xxxix–xli.
[60] Card, “Garments,” in Anderson, Development of LDS Temple Worship, 206.
[61] Them refers to “the world”—according to the 1845 version of Lucy Mack Smith’s history of her son Joseph. See Lavina Fielding Anderson, Lucy’s Book: A Critical Edition of Lucy Mack Smith’s Family Memoir (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2001), 588. See also Gerrit J. Dirkmaat et al., eds., Documents, Volume 3: February 1833–March 1834, vol. 3 of the Documents series of The Joseph Smith Papers, ed. Ronald K. Esplin and Matthew J. Grow (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2014), 303n680 (hereafter JSP, D3).
[62] Him has reference to Abraham, according to Lucy Mack Smith. See Fielding Anderson, Lucy’s Book, 588. See also JSP, D3:304n682.
[63] See Joseph Smith to Silas Smith, 26 September 1833, in JSP, D3:303–4, 306–7. The quotation continues:
Isaac . . . was not required to rest his hope alone upon the promises made to his father Abraham, but was privileged with . . . the direct voice of the Lord to him.
I may believe that Enoch walked with God and by faith was translated. I may believe that Noah was a perfect man in his generation and also walked with God. I may believe that Abraham communed with God and conversed with angels. I may believe that Isaac obtained a renewal of the covenant made to Abraham by the direct voice of the Lord. I may believe that Jacob conversed with holy angels, and heard the voice of his Maker, that he wrestled with the angel until he prevailed and obtained the blessing. I may believe that Elijah was taken to Heaven in a chariot of fire with fiery horses. I may believe that the saints saw the Lord and conversed with Him face to face after His resurrection. . . . But will all this purchase an assurance for me, and waft me to the regions of eternal day and seat me down in the presence of the King of Kings with my garments spotless pure and white?
Or must I not rather obtain for myself . . . an assurance of salvation for myself? And have I not an equal privilege with the ancient Saints? And will not the Lord hear my prayers and listen to my cries as soon as he ever did to theirs, if I come to him in the manner they did?
See Joseph Smith to Silas Smith, 26 September 1833, in JSP, D3:303–4, 306–7.
[64] John Taylor, The Gospel Kingdom: Selections from the Writings and Discourses of John Taylor (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1998), 34.
[65] See Heber J. Grant, Charles W. Penrose, and Anthony W. Ivins to stake and temple presidents, June 14, 1923, cited in Anderson, Development of LDS Temple Worship, 197–202. In 1936, Elders George F. Richards, Joseph Fielding Smith, Stephen L Richards, and Melvin J. Ballard made a report to the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve stating, “Although modified somewhat from the old garment, it is still the garment of the holy priesthood just as much as the old form of garments is.” Committee Report, April 22, 1936, cited in Anderson, Development of LDS Temple Worship, 241.
[66] See George F. Richards journal, October 11, 1922, and April 5, 1923, cited in Alexander, Mormonism in Transition, 301. See also Early Pioneer History of James Allred (1959 transcript); see also Biography of James Allred, 2.
[67] See Early Pioneer History of James Allred (1959 transcript); see also Biography of James Allred, 2.
[68] See George F. Richards journal, October 11, 1922, and April 5, 1923, cited in Alexander, Mormonism in Transition, 301. See also Anderson and Bergera, Quorum of the Anointed, 48.
[69] See Letter of the First Presidency, Heber J. Grant, Charles W. Penrose, and Anthony W. Ivins, June 14, 1923, cited in Anderson, Development of LDS Temple Worship, 199; Card, “Temple Instructions”; and Saral Louise Elder statement, September 22, 1940, H. Michael Marquardt Papers, BCC 900, box 43, folder 7, Marriott Library.
[70] See George F. Richards, journal, October 11, 1922, and April 5, 1923, cited in Alexander, Mormonism in Transition, 301. See also Anderson and Bergera, Quorum of the Anointed, 48.
[71] See Heber C. Kimball, June 27, 1863, in Journal of Discourses, 10:237.
[72] See Hebrew J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark Jr., and David O. McKay, “Circular letter,” July 20, 1938, cited in Anderson, Development of LDS Temple Worship, 251.
[73] See Early Pioneer History of James Allred (1959 transcript); see also Biography of James Allred, 2.
[74] Ferris, Utah and the Mormons, 312.
[75] “The First Presidency has approved a dyed and specially treated two-piece temple garment for members serving in the US Army that meets both Army and Church standards. The garments are available through garment distribution outlets” (Bulletin, no. 22; October/
[76] See, for example, Joseph F. Smith, “Letter to Ward Bishops,” December 31, 1912, cited in Anderson, Development of LDS Temple Worship, 162; Joseph F. Smith, “Temple Instructions to the Bishops,” 1918, in Messages of the First Presidency, 5 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1971), 5:110; First Presidency (Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund, and Charles W. Penrose) to Arthur C. Smith, March 10, 1915, in Anderson, Development of LDS Temple Worship, 171; Early Pioneer History of James Allred (1959 transcript); and Biography of James Allred, 2.
[77] Smith, “Temple Instructions to the Bishops,” in Messages of the First Presidency, 5:110; emphasis added.
[78] See Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1998), 539; Boyd K. Packer, The Holy Temple (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1980), 75; and McConkie, Mortal Messiah, 2:295.
[79] See Biography of James Allred, 2, where it states, “The marks were always the same.” Benjamin F. Johnson, in My Life’s Review, 93, states that the garments always “had the same marks.” See Smith, “Garments.”
[80] See Biography of James Allred, 2.
[81] See Ehat, Joseph Smith’s Introduction, 111.
[82] See report of Benjamin Franklin LeBaron, in Miscellaneous Mormon Diaries, 1.
[83] See Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark Jr., and David O. McKay, “Circular letter,” July 20, 1938, where they state that “it is . . . the sacred markings . . . that convert underwear into garments.” Cited in Anderson, Development of LDS Temple Worship, 249. See also Priesthood Bulletin, February 1971, pp. 3–5, where it states, “When . . . the marks of the priesthood [are] removed . . . [t]he fabrics of which [the] garments . . . were made then have no further significance as sacred clothing of the Church.” Cited in Anderson, Development of LDS Temple Worship, 392. George F. Richards, Joseph Fielding Smith, Stephen L Richards, and Melvin J. Ballard, Committee Report to the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles, April 22, 1936, states that “no underwear becomes a temple garment until after it has been marked by those having authority to do the markings.” Cited in Anderson, Development of LDS Temple Worship, 242–43. Once the “marks” are removed, the “remaining fabric of the garments then is no longer considered sacred.” See General Handbook of Instructions (1983), 28. President Brigham Young stated that some in his day “have marked the garments wrong . . . which is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord.” Seventies Record, Book B, cited in Anderson and Bergera, Nauvoo Endowment Companies, 212; see also p. 30. Heber C. Kimball likewise stated that the “garments should be properly marked.” Anderson and Bergera, Nauvoo Endowment Companies, 115. This suggests that it is specifically the marks that make the underwear a “sacred garment.” If they are improperly marked, they are just cloth and have no power or authority.
[84] While it is likely that symbols, representative of covenants, have been used on the “Garment of the Holy Priesthood” in every dispensation, we can only speak to the consistency of those employed in this dispensation. In other words, in every dispensation, symbols representative of covenants were almost certainly incorporated into the garment used in that specific dispensation. However, what symbol was employed most likely varied from one era to another. For example, the symbols incorporated into the “Garment of the Holy Priesthood” in the Mosaic dispensation are described in this way: “Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself” (Deuteronomy 22:12; see also Numbers 15:37–41). These twisted and knotted tassels are called ẓiẓi (or tzitzit)—meaning “fringes.” The 613 knots in the four tassels or cords are symbolic of the 613 commandments in the law of Moses—commandments that observant Jews, anciently and today, are expected to keep (see Gaskill, “Clothed upon with Glory,” 11). Thus, part of the “unchanging pattern” would be sacred symbols (as a reminder of covenants and commandments), but not necessarily the same symbols in every dispensation.
[85] Bruce R. McConkie, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1985), 705.
[86] Robert L. Millet, “Joseph Smith among the Prophets,” Ensign, June 1994, 19.
[87] See Margaret Barker, The Gate of Heaven: The History and Symbolism of the Temple in Jerusalem (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Phoenix, 2008), 104, 111; Blake Ostler, “Clothed Upon: A Unique Aspect of Christian Antiquity,” in BYU Studies 22, no. 1 (Winter 1982): 35; and Hugh Nibley, Mormonism and Early Christianity (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo, UT: FARMS, 1987), 75.
[88] See Russell M. Nelson, “Go Forward in Faith,” Ensign, May 2020, 116; Ronald A. Rasband, “Fulfillment of Prophecy,” Ensign, May 2020, 77; Book of Mormon: Study Guide for Home-Study Seminary Students (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2021), 76; and “Restoration of the Gospel,” www.churchofjesuschrist.org.
