Jesus Cleansing the Temple

[Roy]

Another temple question I have is how committed Joseph Smith was to the temple ordinances by the time he died. The version of history we hear is that he worked to get the ordinances presented in some form and the temple built, but died too soon and Brigham finished the work. The Community of Christ views it very differently, saying that the temple ritual "phase" fizzled out a few months before his death and he had moved on to different things. Some historians view the whole thing tied up with polygamy and that Joseph abandoned both shortly before his death. I do think it's interesting that Joseph and Hyrum were not wearing garments in Carthage Jail and that Emma did not seem to thing the temple ritual was important after Joseph's death.

I have no doubt that JS would have continued evolving, developing, improvising, and receiving new revelations that would fundamentally change the church doctrines and understandings of the Nauvoo period. I had heard some speculation about JS having turned away from polygamy near the end but if I recall correctly the evidence of such a change of heart is slight and from a questionable source (William Marks I believe).

I am not sure that the earliest garments were intended to be worn all the time as is the intention with modern garments. I read one quote arguing that you should always have your garments on under your clothing in case you are asked to participate in an impromptu/emergency prayer circle. I found that quote funny because that practice of wearing the garment all the time did indeed become the norm but we no longer do prayer circles outside the temple (at least that I know of) so the speaker's point is now moot.

IOW, the reason the speaker gave for wearing the garment at all times is long since obsolete but the practice persists.

[nibbler]

Now I hear people say that wearing the garment all day every day is "an outward expression of an inward commitment." Even though it's underwear so it's not all that outward. Plus when we do things only to be seen doing them we have our reward... which I guess is a TR.

[felixfabulous]

I am not sure that the earliest garments were intended to be worn all the time as is the intention with modern garments. I read one quote arguing that you should always have your garments on under your clothing in case you are asked to participate in an impromptu/emergency prayer circle. I found that quote funny because that practice of wearing the garment all the time did indeed become the norm but we no longer do prayer circles outside the temple (at least that I know of) so the speaker's point is now moot.

That is fascinating. I had not heard that one. I know there is a quote from George A. Smith in 1845 from the Quorum of the Anointed minutes that proposes the "robes" (what they used to call garments) be worn at all times. This was after Joseph's death and would imply that they weren't worn at all times before, which would explain why Joseph, Hyrum and John Taylor were not wearing them at Carthage.

Now I hear people say that wearing the garment all day every day is "an outward expression of an inward commitment." Even though it's underwear so it's not all that outward. Plus when we do things only to be seen doing them we have our reward... which I guess is a TR.

The garment was seen as almost like a magic talisman that offered physical protection. This is what I heard growing up and I think sounded super weird on the 60 Minutes interview when Bill Marriott shared the story of being spared burns in a boating accident. I think around the late 90s we made the big pivot to the outward expression view. That was presented in this Ensign article https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... t?lang=eng. The inner commitment thing sounds less weird, but falls apart because we try to police behavior by asking questions about wearing it in the TR and encouraging judgment and policing of people who are and aren't wearing it (monitoring garment lines, shoulder and knee exposure, etc.).

It will be interesting to see where the Church goes with garments. I would guess with the latest TR interview question change and from what I see and hear out and about in Utah, that people are wearing them less and that the Church will either police it less and allow for more interpretation or just announce that they are not to be worn outside the temple and pull the plug entirely.

[On Own Now]

A tidbit that has nothing to do with anything: I once bought a book from the gift shop in the RLDS/Community of Christ Temple on a Sunday. According to LDS dogma, I may be going to hell, but a can't tell for which part.