If deception is an art form, the LDS Church is fast becoming Botticelli.
The people who brought you the Mormons-don’t-believe-they-get-their-own-planet canard are at it again. And this time, it’s about the temple.
In a recently released video (and accompanying essay) on its official website, the LDS Church discusses both temple robes and the garment of the holy priesthood. The video likens the “garment of the holy priesthood” to “the nun’s habit, the priest’s cassock, the Jewish prayer shawl, the Muslim’s skullcap, and the saffron robes of the Buddhist monk.”
Crossing the Line
While the comparison may be apt in some respects, the video crosses the line into duplicity when it states:
Some people incorrectly refer to temple garments as magical or “magic underwear.” These words are not only inaccurate but also offensive to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There is nothing magical or mystical about temple garments, and Church members ask for the same degree of respect and sensitivity that would be afforded to any other faith by people of goodwill.
Now, I get the fact that the main thrust of the paragraph is to try to keep people from calling the garments “magic underwear,” an admonition repeated in the closing paragraph. 
But pretty much every Mormon knows that there is, in fact, something very “magical or mystical about temple garments.” And that something is that they are a protection from harm.
In a famous 60-Minutes interview aired April 7, 1996, Willard Marriot recounted a personal experience in which he was protected from injury by his temple garments.
Mike Wallace: Do you wear the sacred undergarments?
Willard Marriott: Yes, I do. And I can tell you they do protect you from harm.
Mike Wallace: Really?
Willard Marriott: Uh-huh. I was in a very serious boat accident. Fire–boat was on fire, I was on fire. I was burned. My pants were burned right off of me. I was not burned above my knee. Where the garment was, I was not burned.
Mike Wallace: And you believe it was the sacred undergarments?
Willard Marriott: I do. Particularly on my legs, because my pants were gone, but my undergarments were not singed.
Though Mike Wallace may appear to be suppressing a smile at Williard Marriott’s account, his story is not remarkable to Mormons, whose culture is full of such folklore. I have heard such stories off-and-on for over thirty years as a Mormon, and I doubt my experience is unique. Within the past year, our high councilman related a story to our ward in sacrament meeting that was strikingly, if not suspiciously, similar to Willard Marriott’s. The approving gasps of the faithful in the congregation were audible.
If such stories are not “magical or mystical” to some degree, I don’t know what is.
Where Do These Stories Come From?
But these are not stories that have arisen in a vacuum, separate and apart from any doctrinal foundation. It is in the temple itself where initiates are told the garment “will be a shield and a protection to you against the power of the destroyer” so long as the initiate is “true and faithful to your covenants.”
Now, those who wrote the script for the garment video are perfectly aware of this information; 
they know of the “protective powers” of the temple garment. And it is virtually certain that if they were confronted on this, their response would be that the “protective powers” of the temple garment are not “magical or mystical,” but some other adjective that would make it so they weren’t being deceptive. I am sure they already have their response mapped out, if and when it should need to be put into use.
But isn’t that the hallmark of deception? To say something in order to give a certain impression while knowing the truth is something else? And then banking on the other person not having enough specialized knowledge to ask the question that will bring the deception to light? And then having a ready-made response to show that the deception was not really deception at all, but just a disagreement about definitions?
It Depends On What The Definition of “Is” Is
Which reminds me of another famous deception—“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”
Well, that turned out to be a blatant lie.
Or was it?
When it came to light that President Clinton really did have “sexual relations” with Monica Lewinsky, his ready-made response was that he did not consider what happened to be “sexual relations.” He likely had his ready-made response in mind when he first made the statement, hoping he would never have to use the response, but having it tucked away in case he should need it.
And he did need it.
And he used it.
And nobody believed him.
The LDS Church should not be going down this same path. 
Of course, it was easier to confront President Clinton about his denial later when certain evidence came to light. It is not so easy with the LDS garment video.
Why? Because it is anonymous.
As with the recent spate of essays produced by the LDS Church, there are no names attached—no one to take credit; no one to take responsibility for its contents; and most importantly, no one to be held accountable.
The idea promoted by the recent temple clothing video is that the LDS Church has now entered a new age of openness and transparency. And there is some truth in that. But the overriding reality, to my mind, is that the LDS Church is giving the appearance of openness and transparency while simultaneously using deception to hide information it considers sacred.
It is one thing to be opaque, and it is another thing to be transparent. But the worst thing the LDS Church can do is pretend to be transparent while practicing deception.
So how can the LDS Church publicly proclaim there is “nothing magical or mystical about temple garments” when every day and around the world, the same LDS Church is telling its temple patrons the temple garment “will be a shield and a protection to you against the power of the destroyer”?
The answer seems to be in a double-standard that it is acceptable to practice deception when: (1) It is used on outsiders to protect sacred things; or, (2) When it is used to protect the LDS Church or its leaders.
The New Essays on Plural Marriage
Which brings us to the two new essays on plural marriage recently released by the Church, Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo, and The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage. And yes, like the rest, these are also anonymous.
My view is that the new essays are not written as an attempt by the LDS Church to voluntarily enter a new age of transparency. Rather, they are written to counter certain factual information painting the Church and its leaders in a negative light; information that is resulting in the disaffection of many Mormons from the Church; 
information that is finding its way into the public discourse in spite of the best efforts of the LDS Church to prevent its members from finding out about it.
While the LDS Church should be congratulated on finally being more open about these aspects of its history, it should not be congratulated on the amount of deception that still manages to be shot through these essays. Some habits are hard to break, it seems.
Due to space limitations, I will focus on only one aspect of one of the essays. The essay is Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo. The aspect is the denials of the same.
Deception Upon Deception
Many scholars believe Joseph Smith practiced deception in denying he was engaging in plural marriage at a time he had many wives in addition to Emma. The Church essay addresses the issue because many Mormons are troubled by this when they find out. But the way the essay deals with the issue is not to simply admit Joseph Smith was being deceptive, but to add a new coat of deception over the old in an attempt to keep the old deception alive and well. Here is the pertinent paragraph from the essay:
The rumors (about plural marriage) prompted members and leaders to issue carefully worded denials that denounced spiritual wifery and polygamy but were silent about what Joseph Smith and others saw as divinely mandated “celestial” plural marriage. The statements emphasized that the Church practiced no marital law other than monogamy while implicitly leaving open the possibility that individuals, under direction of God’s living prophet, might do so.
First, we note that no specific names are mentioned—it is only anonymous “members and leaders” who issued the denials. The fact is we are talking about Joseph Smith.
Second, the essay describes them as “carefully worded denials.” Why does a denial have to be “carefully worded”? Because it is a deception. Because it is a premeditated attempt to get the listener to understand something different than the truth. (See, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” another “carefully worded denial.”)
Third, we note the Clintonian shifting of definitions. President Clinton resorted to defending his denial by saying he did not consider what happened with Monica Lewinsky to be “sexual relations.” 
Similarly, the essay would have us believe that when “members and leaders” issued their “carefully worded denials” denouncing “polygamy,” that did not mean that “Joseph Smith and others” were not practicing “plural marriage.”
Only people who believed Bill Clinton’s explanation would buy this. Or, perhaps more realistically, and more unfortunately, many Mormons who did not believe Bill Clinton’s explanation will buy this. Why will they believe one and not the other when both rationalizations are cut from the same piece of specious cloth? It presumably has less to do with the transparent falsity of the explanation and more to do with who is giving it.
But the deception in this one paragraph continues.
The essay refuses to give us actual examples of these “carefully worded denials.” This refusal is likely because the examples themselves would not jibe with the essay’s explanations. And the authors don’t want to take any chances. They are banking on the fact that the reader is not familiar with the examples and (hopefully) won’t find them. As bad as the essay’s explanations sound, they ring even worse when placed side by side with the denials themselves.
Which I will produce here.
There are two primary denials referenced in the essay. Well, they are not really referenced. In fact, they are not quoted or even cited. But these appear to be the denials for which explanations are given in the essay. The first is from Joseph Smith himself. The second is from the original edition of the Doctrine and Covenants published in 1835.
Joseph Smith’s Denials
Joseph Smith denied on several occasions he was practicing plural marriage when he was, in fact, doing so. One of the most famous is this from May 26, 1844, one month before his death: “What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one.” (History of the Church, Volume 6, p. 411.)
What is the straightforward message of this denial? That Joseph Smith is not practicing plural marriage and has only one wife.
Only by a legalistic parsing of terms could one come up with something different. 
But being a lawyer, here goes: (1) Joseph Smith was not practicing adultery because he was actually married to these women; (2) Joseph Smith did not have seven wives; he actually had upwards of thirty wives at this point; and, (3) Joseph Smith could find only one wife, because under the laws of the land, he did have only one wife, all subsequent marriages being illegal.
Now, nobody in their right mind would accept this rationalizataion as being anything other than deceptive. But it doesn’t prevent LDS scholars such as Brian Hales from making such explanations with a straight face.
And the thing that makes this endeavor particularly troublesome is that, while none of these proposed explanations comport with the idea of being honest, the careful reader will note that explanation number 1 actually contradicts explanation number 3.
These are dangerous waters. Here be dragons.
Official 1835 Church Denial
The second denial of plural marriage is found in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, which in 101:1 states:
Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.
Now, that seems straightforward enough. The Church in a statement of belief published in an official book of scripture publicly declares in 1835 that “one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband.” No room for equivocation here.
Or is there?
This appears to be the statement the essay seeks to explain away with the justification: “The statements emphasized that the Church practiced no marital law other than monogamy while implicitly leaving open the possibility that individuals, under direction of God’s living prophet, might do so.”
So when the Doctrine and Covenants states that “we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband,” it leaves open the “possibility that individuals, under direction of God’s living prophet, might” have more wives than one?
And not only that, such a statement “implicitly” leaves open such a possibility? Orwell, anyone?
Tangled Webs
By publishing this one paragraph in this one essay on its official website, the LDS Church may be revealing more about its current modus operandi than about peccadilloes and predilections of prophets past.
Why?
Because it means that the Church can officially publish its belief in one course of conduct while 
“implicitly” sanctioning the exact opposite.
And not only sanctioning the opposite, but leaving wide the door to actually do the opposite.
So if the Church declares its belief that people should not steal, it “implicitly” sanctions theft?
And if the Church declares its belief that people should not kill, it “implicitly” sanctions murder? (See, Mountain Meadows.)
And most significantly in this context, it can only mean that even though the Church declares its belief that people should be honest in all their dealings with their fellow men, it “implicitly” sanctions deception.
So what should we expect when the Church releases unprecedentedly open, honest and transparent essays on troubling aspects of Church history?
The answer, dear reader, is implicit.
Corbin Volluz
Corbin Volluz lives in the beautiful foothills of the Cascade Mountains in western Washington state. He has been practicing law for 25-years with a focus on criminal defense and personal injury. Corbin joined the LDS Church in June of 1978, shortly after the lifting of the priesthood ban, and has been studying Mormonism ever since. He has been published in several venues, including the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies and BYU-Studies.
All posts by Corbin Volluz
What I always wonder is, if garments aren’t magical or mystical, why do I have to cut them up and burn them when they get worn out? Normal underwear gets thrown in the trash.
Joni,
I was taught that it is because of the sacred nature of the markings that we are to cut up the garments rather than just throw them away …. they are not for the casual viewing by the non-endowed individual.
I guess she means the non-endowed dumpster-divers.
What you say makes sense…unfortunately it is also what makes it so hard. i went to original sources with my questions and the truth was hard. I thought posts like yours would have been to deceive the very elect at one point in my life. Now it is all just muddy water and posts like this feel less deceptive than the topic essays as you mention. Just more rabbit holes for members who finally question to discover.
How to navigate these waters is hard for me. I see shame from family at even thinking or saying that the church could have practiced deception. This last week I have seen what expressing my beliefs have resulted in with my calling release and no temple recommend (not from any sin as per questions but from historicity and prophet beliefs). I can't go back to my nice correlated box when the wold is so much more beautiful than I ever imagined (not talking about slothfulness but the beauty of all people, races, religions, cultures, etc.)
My comfort recently is in blogs that see things not so black/white helps, my husband who has also began questioning, and….guess that is it right now. Oh, I also take comfort in my inner peace….wow, not something I found at church as I did search for 20 years there. So I have been going to church but now I have no calling and neither does my husband (he said if you are releasing my wife, release me to….he says he is just questioning, which is ok to do and keep calling but he finds himself falling out of the box too).
Not sure how to stay and not sure how to leave….kind of a limbo state. 5 Kids and extended family make it more challenging. Just me I would….good question…not sure…
Wow, Sue.
Thanks for sharing your experience.
It can be very hard having questions and then being honest enough with ourselves to finally stop suppressing them, and then be honest enough with others to tell them how we feel.
A Church that puts such a high value on “truth” should not penalize its members for seeking after it, nor for expressing it.
Unfortunately, it seems the LDS Church has a definition of “truth” that means whatever the correlated Mormon doctrine of the moment may happen to be.
In some weird Orwellian way, the Church has managed to equate “truth” with “obedience.”
And “obedience” means not only what you do, but what you believe.
In fact, I think a case can be made for the proposition that the most important thing in the modern LDS Church is not so much what you do but what you believe.
Thoughtcrime is the cardinal sin.
That is what you are being punished for, I think.
And good for your husband for standing up for you that way! It sounds like his way of saying that you are more important to him than the Church.
Which is another of the cardinal sins.
Nothing should be more important to the member than the Church. Not money, not time, not sacrifice, not family, not spouse.
The members exist for the Church, not the Church for the members.
Which is why I think the apocryphal Thomas Marsh milk-strippings story gets so much play.
Just know you are not alone. There are many in the Church who share your sentiments.
And maybe, just maybe, as our numbers approach critical mass, we can make a change for the good.
And for truth.
I did bring up to the bishop that what Joseph Smith was famous for was questions and seeking answers. Yes, I was a by the book girl. FEAR – false evidence appearing real was my guiding light. I have history of seeeing answers to birth control, caffeine soda drinks (bad I was taught), and then decided if it came out of salt lake it was important cause they knew stuff I couldn’t find and would follow their words and never look else where for help. That is when the depression peaked and I started therapy as a last ditch effort. Even my lds therapist can see the damage. We need more competent training for our leaders. This is crazy how we are discouraged from growing-up in the church. The depth of our doctrine is very childlike and mostly taught in obedience or else thinking. Tough to have your best friends in the church see you as an apostate in many ways. I just see greater love and hope and faith in a loving God, who I am not sure looks like, but feel in my heart and gives me peace.
You are right that in the LDS Church, we never really graduate from Primary.
Growing up should be encouraged.
More and more the Church is being confronted with “adolescents” who are tired of being treated like children.
Adolescents who are questioning and challenging.
It is all part of growing up.
It is a good thing.
It should be encouraged.
But the Church’s response seems to be to tell the ones who want to grow up that they need to remain as a child.
Wholly dependent on the Church, by which they tend to mean priesthood leaders.
“I Am a Child of God” takes on an eerie cast when considered in this light.
Thanks for the validation. Needed it!!!
“Teach me all that I must BE.” original version. God is all about the Kingdom of God within us as taught by Jesus. That is my God that encourages inner growth and not outward performances. Thanks again!
Knocked it out of the ballpark again Corbin, thanks for this post and the comment you make here. Home runs both of them.
Great point, Joni!
I think the implication is that it is the “marks of the priesthood” that give garments their special (and protective) nature, and that, once those marks are removed, garments lose that special nature and become just ordinary cloth.
I know Mormons who use old garments for polishing furniture after the marks are removed.
Sort of like how the sacrament bread is considered to lose its “sacred character” once the meeting is over.
Isn’t the whole premise of why we wear garments outside the temple today based on the fact that a few believed that Joseph Smith would not have been martyred had he had the protection of wearing his garments? Were they ever intended to be worn under your clothing outside the temple? If they aren’t protective or magical, what is the point? I don’t look at my underwear all day long to be reminded of covenants. In fact, I think it’s ironic that we sweat, etc all over sacred covenants.
Hi, Jennifer.
I think that the garment was, in fact, originally intended to be worn outside the temple as an undergarment.
It was originally made from “long johns” underwear.
It seems that Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith and John Taylor elected to not wear their temple garment to Carthage, likely because of the hot weather.
Long johns in June? In Illinois?
Willard Richards was the only one of the four who did wear his garment to Carthage.
And Willard Richards was the only one who escaped unscathed by the attacking mob.
The original garment did not have legs but was more of a tunic/robe that had a collar and the markings in the garment. The promise given to Willard Richards regarding “without even a hole in his robe” was given when he received his garment.
This more than anything else (in my opinion) has led to the belief of protective powers of the garment. Heck, mention of the promise is written directly in the D&C section 135.
Thanks for your comments, John.
I see the end of D&C 135:2 referencing Richards’ escape “without even a hole in his robe,” but am unable to find anything else suggesting that the original garment was, in fact, patterned after a robe as we commonly think of it today.
To the best of my knowledge, the original garment was in the fashion of what later came to be called a “union suit” with arms and legs.
Indeed, it would be hard to imagine how Richards would put on his trousers over a robe.
If you have any citations to this, I would be interested in seeing them.
Thanks again for your comments!
I also wondered why no author, and immediately thought the plan was to either deceive or pacify. That, and the fact the essays were buried in the website so deep the sleeping faithful could not find it.
You are right, Maryann! These essays are buried deep in the LDS Church website.
As with all potentially dangerous things, the admonition applies, “Keep it secret. Keep it safe.”
These essays are not meant to be found.
Especially not by the “sleeping faithful.”
If the general membership of the Church were to read these essays, the leadership might ultimately feel to rue with Isoroku Yamamoto, “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”
Except that they are now all over the national news, or at least the websites of the national news.
See;
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/11/us-usa-mormon-idUSKCN0IV13S20141111
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/11/mormon-leaders-admit-church-founder-joseph-smith-practiced-polygamy/
as examples.
Ruh roh.
Lots of words. No actual points to be made.
?
Few words. Nothing helpful added to the conversation.
Good point Corbin. So that means thereally is nothing magical or mythical about the garments, it’s the markings ON the garment that contain the magic.
I think you are correct, Flyingratman.
Or at the very least it seems the power of the garment to be a shield and a protection comes from the marks.
Without the marks, the garments are just cloth.
What fears me most is that members will find it safe to reference the essays as a legitimate source.
Laura Hale’s does a fine job of this in her responses to those who commented on her “LDS.org Essay on Nauvoo Polygamy: The Pain Still Remains” post. She refers her readers to lds.org 8 times in her responses.
Also, when a reader asked if her husband authored the essay her response was “My husband was not asked to write the lds.org essays. I have just co-authored my first book on polygamy, so I certainly wasn’t consulted.That would have been humorous. The lds.org essays are written by committee. There is no single author hence there is no author name given. The essay I was referring to is this blog post. I encourage you to check out josephsmithspolygamy.org for answers to polygamy questions by Brian Hales or consult Joseph Smith’s Polygamy: History and Theology. Those were both written by Brian Hales.”
Corbin, my question is; When essays are written by a committee, does that exempt them from stating who is on the committee?
Maryann
I will answer your question with another question, Maryann.
Did the fact the Declaration of Independence was written by committee prevent the signatures of all involved from being subscribed to it?
Or closer to home, does the fact The Proclamation on the Family was written by committee prevent the signatures of the fifteen apostles being subscribed to it?
What about the Declaration on the Living Christ?
The evidence suggests that signatures will be included whenever the Church feels they want to take credit for something.
The fact these essays are anonymous suggests nobody in Church leadership wants to get within a hundred miles of having their names associated with it.
The phrase, “plausible deniability,” comes to mind . . .
This answers my question, loud and clear
thank you
Maryann
Of course, you understand that my views do not necessarily represent those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I do not speak authoritatively for the LDS Church.
And you know what?
I am not sure anybody does . . .
I recently heard that a new book containing the teachings of President Monson even has such a disclaimer.
If President Monson doesn’t speak for the Church, who does?
Images of the Bismarck come to mind . . .
Maryann,
Brian Hales directly states that he was asked to review the essays by the Church and he gave his feedback on them. I can’t remember exactly where, but it is in this Mormon Matters Podcast – http://mormonmatters.org/2014/10/27/256-the-churchs-new-articles-on-plural-marriage/
Thanks for the link, Matt.
I listened to that podcast a week or so ago.
My recollection is that Brian said he made a number of suggested changes–that some of them were accepted and some were not.
Beyond that, he did not go into detail.
And the other two historians on the podcast challenged him on his “theological” approach to church history.
Garments offer spiritual, not physical protection. I think this is the position of the church based on their new post, and I’m grateful for it. I too have heard many physical protection stories, but I don’t think it’s wise to put our faith in such things. I think the church is intentionally distancing itself from some of the folk lore of the past.
Some members may feel like this takes away from the power of the church, but I don’t believe we should put our faith in the fairy tale stories of the miraculous and unexplainable. The power of the church lies in its people and their ability to serve and love others as Jesus loved. Power does not lie in the supernatural; it lies in the daily sacrament of selfless service. I’m grateful for the change.
Loved your comments on deception and the polygamy issue, keep up the good work!
Thanks for your comments, Hope!
I know what you mean about putting faith in folklore.
I end up being of two-minds on the issue.
On the one hand, I think it unwise to rely on faith-promoting rumors.
On the other hand, there are a number of things that are unique about the LDS faith–things that make us different from other denominations.
One by one I see those things being thrown under the bus by the powers that be. (Note that the priesthood ban is one that SHOULD have been done away with a long time before it actually was. In fact, it should never have been instituted by Brigham Young after Joseph Smith died.)
But it seems to me sometimes like the only things that remain unique to Mormonism are those things that are just waiting their turn to get tossed.
I think that’s one of the reasons the Barker Brothers have “Keeping Mormonism Weird” as the motto for this website.
Corbin,
I can understand what you’re saying. I guess I’ve undergone quite a faith transition. I used to take such comfort in the supernatural examples of God’s grace, but as you start to see the way stories are embellished, the psychological and natural explanations for many things begin to sound more plausible.
I don’t give God credit for as many unexplained phenomena anymore, and I don’t tend to think that God is withholding blessings from those that sin. I tend to align more with natural consequences and natural explanations for things nowadays. Doesn’t make religion as fun as it used to be though, maybe I need to be a little weirder!
Corbin, this was excellent. I don’t have any other comments; I just wanted to thank you for eloquently stating what’s been on my mind for a while.
Thanks, Joshua!
Sometimes it’s good just to know other people are thinking the same things.
Sort of like Winston Smith and Julia in “1984.”
And hopefully not like Winston Smith and O’Brien in Room 101.
Sorry.
For some reason these essays have me ruminating on George Orwell . . .
Thank you for your profound words and thoughtful commentary. It feels comforting that I am not the only one shaking my hands in the sky and shouting to God “What the Hell is happening?!” As I have come to my knees and had many long conversations with Him, I have come to understand that I need to take a step back and watch the implosion. Doubt has brought me to my knees and provided me with a deeper understanding of my Father in Heaven. I will watch from the sidelines with my fellow adolescents. I used to think that sin was the precursor to people having doubts about the church. Now I know that it rarely has to do with that, but merely a growing up and discovering that milk is no longer sufficient….meat is needed and it is so hard to find in the church now…..I want Jesus!!! What happened to Him in this church?
Thanks for your comments, Emily.
I think the short answer to your question is that Jesus IS present in the LDS Church–in fact, Jesus IS the LDS Church–or at least its priesthood leaders.
If everything the priesthood leaders say is what Jesus would say, and if everything the priesthood leaders do is what Jesus would do, what the heck do you need Jesus for, anyway?
He just gets in the way.
Okay. All snarkiness aside, I hear what you are saying about “watching the implosion.”
It looks like the story about the new Church essay on Joseph’s polygamy hit the New York Times today and is going viral.
Now every Mormon who doesn’t live under a rock is going to find out that Joseph Smith had between 30-40 wives, some of them as young as 14, and many of them already married to other men.
And they’re not going to find out about it from the Church. They’re going to find out about it from a newspaper or newscast.
This is going to have a massive impact on the faith of the rank and file members of the LDS Church who have no idea Little Boy is falling from the sky right now over their heads.
The Church has known this essay was going to come out for at least a year in advance.
My question is why didn’t the Church do anything to prepare its members for the Sharknado it was getting ready to unleash on them?
I have a feeling that Brian Hale’s deceptive approach to these issues is going to cause a lot of shelves to break in the future. Too bad the Church relied on him so heavily
It would be so much better to be 100% frank and forthright about this stuff.
Brian Hales is in a position to really contribute to the literature. And he has done so, if only by having Don Bradley scour the country in search of every available document relating to the LDS practice of plural marriage and publishing them.
Having done so, I think Hales tries to understand the documents from a predetermined theological position that Joseph Smith did not have sex with his wives who were already married to other men.
This is why he (and the essay, coincidentally) argues that these polyandrous marriage were “for eternity only,” in spite of a complete lack of evidence on the subject, and even, as I understand it, in the face of contrary evidence that would tend to undermine his position.
(This contrary evidence is not referenced in the essay.)
It seems strange to me that, though admitting Joseph Smith married the wives of other men, and married girls as young as 14, Brian Hales (and the essay) want to quibble about whether Joseph Smith was dishonest in denying it publicly.
It’s like saying the guys who flew the planes into the twin towers weren’t that bad–at least they didn’t lie about it.
Corbin,
Your thoroughness is respectable. Good thoughts.
I, however, did not feel that the church was duplicitous in saying that there is nothing magical or mystical about the garments.
You stated
I have heard a few anecdotal stories over the years, John Taylor’s wearing of the garments during the martyrdom of Joseph Smith comes to mind, but none of these stories have caused me to “know” that garments are a protection from harm. I take the word/role of “destroyer” as meaning Satan or a negative spiritual force rather than a physical one.
I do feel that the garments can have a spiritual influence on us, but to say that the garment in and of itself contains some sort of supernatural power is not something I agree with.
I guess it comes down to the level of literality you associate with the temple rights.
Am I misunderstanding you?
Thanks for your comments, Matt.
Mormons are certainly feel to have their own interpretation of things.
But it has been my impression (as well as that of Willard Marriott, apparently), that when temple-Mormons are told the garment will be “a shield and a protection to you against the power of the destroyer,” it is usually taken quite literally.
Even if we say that it is a spiritual protection rather than a physical protection, it is still a literal protection–only shifted to the spiritual realm.
This is why I think the LDS Church was being deceptive in saying there is nothing “magical or mystical about temple garments.”
I would have been fine if they had said the garment is “a shield and a protection against the power of the destroyer.”
Or if they had said nothing at all in this regard.
It is saying one thing while knowing the truth is something different to which I object.
And I think you may have meant Willard Richards instead of John Taylor.
John Taylor was almost killed at Carthage.
Willard Richard was the one who miraculously escaped injury in the hailstorm of bullets (balls).
And the only one of the four who was wearing his temple garments that sultry June afternoon in 1844.
Corbin,
Yes, I did mean Willard Richards. Good catch.
What I am trying to get at is that there can be a type of power that is obtained through the garment, but wholly dependent upon the wearer of the garment. I think you could liken it unto the power of a wedding ring. Its symbolism and constant physical companionship can be life changing, in other words powerful. The day in and day out wearing of the garment can be powerful, spiritual, and considered a shield. In a way you could say it saves lives, spiritual lives (eternal lives?)
i rally like your wedding ring analogy!
Totally agree Matt. My garments have never protected me from physical harm, but they have certainly protected me from moral and spiritual harm on more occasions than I can remember. Sometimes as members of the church, we need to be a little better at understanding the true meaning of things rather than putting our own interpretation on it because some guy somewhere claims his garments saved him in a fire or something.
I like your wedding ring analogy, too, Matt. I can see you have given this a lot of thought.
Thanks for your insights!
hope_for_things,
Hope: when you say that you “don’t believe we should put our faith in the fairy tale stories of the miraculous and unexplainable” does that exclude the Book of Mormon coming directly from a man looking at a rock in hat? Because I can’t figure out an unmiraculous, nonmagical explaination for that. Unless the man happened to be a decent fiction writer.
There is evidence on both sides, but I think the stronger evidence suggests that the BoM isn’t historical. We also know the BoA is not historical and much of the Bible. So I don’t have a problem with Joseph being a midrashic reinterpreter and creator of inspired scripture. That he believed the seer stone helped him to receive revelation is likely more a remnant from his treasure digging and folk magic background.
Uh dude, you do of course realize that garments are a “shield and protection to you” in a spiritual and moral sense right? The church isn’t trying to deceive anyone with that statement. Perhaps as a member of the church, you should do a better job of understanding the true meaning, rather than putting your own incorrect interpretation on it.
Tell it to Willard Marriott …
… Dude.
Is the church justified in being a little deceptive in order to protect the faith of its members, or the institution? I don’t think that is addressed in this analysis.
Also, hard to argue many members actually think the temple garment is a PHYSICAL protection, except to the extent that you physically wear it. I would not rule out Marriott’s story as false, just because it is ridiculous.
Hey!
Just because it’s ridiculous doesn’t mean it isn’t true!
But I like your question about a “little deception.”
The question I have is why church leaders should think any deception at all is necessary to protect the faith of its members.
If deception is necessary to “protect faith,” what does that say about the faith itself?
And in most instances, I would think the use of deception destroys faith rather than protects it.
Just some thoughts.
Thanks for replying. I might have been a little cheeky with the Marriott garment comment. It may seem naive to think like that, but as a faithful person, I never like to rule out sincerely held beliefs. Do I think it could have happened? Very unlikely but maybe some thing like it happened and he just embellished the heck out of it. We’ll never get to cross-examine him on the witness stand about the subject so I guess I won’t ever know for sure. Meanwhile, if we believe any number of the ridiculous stories in the bible, then I think I have to allow Marriott the same latitude for his miraculous/ridiculous story.
I agree that no deception is ideal. But everyone lies. I don’t go around broadcasting all of my faults and painful mistakes. In fact, I, like everyone else, obfuscate them. I show my best work and my best self and minimize the bad stuff. Since people make up the institution, it seems reasonable to think that the same pattern of deception will be followed. Corporations lie. Governments lie. Should the church keep a higher standard, especially since we are saying it where the saving ordinances are found? Definitely. Is that a reality in our world? Probably not. I give them some latitude in this regard also. This is my thinking.
You are very charitable, then, Alex, and I understand that is a good quality.
To me, it isn’t just about showing our good side as a church. If the church doesn’t want to mention something, okay, don’t mention it.
But if the church is going to say something, I think they should tell the truth about it.
Especially when they require me to certify I am honest in all my dealings in order to get into the temple.
It seems like a double standard to me.
I think it is very hard to communicate complex, interconnected ideas within the constraints of our soundbite world. The temple is for the initiated, and explaining it to the uninitiated has many difficulties. Similar things can be said for each of the topics covered in the essays you mention. Joseph Smith and polygamy were multifaceted. Things could be said more boldly regarding polygamy or the temple, but would doing so increase understanding of the broad and deep gospel for the majority of readers, or would they distract down unfruitful side paths?
Maybe you deal with more straightforward topics in your life. I try to teach thermodynamics and quantum mechanics to students that barely passed college algebra. By the standards you have set in this post, I could be accused of lying to my students about the facts of chemistry, and doing it artfully. I make them think they actually understand a little bit about something that is truly only accessible to the initiated–and initiation takes years of hard study.
I would like improvements in the essays and greater transparency in the church in general. That said, I fail to see the value or justification in this sort of accusatory evaluation of the unknown people who produced these essays. I expect it’s much more likely that they are doing a difficult job, and that they are trying to communicate a consensus understanding as best they can to a diverse audience that places competing demands on their product. I bet many compromises were made in the production, and that not a single person was seeking to deceive. Of course, I’m only guessing, but I tend to favor less black and white, and more charitable, interpretations of human action.
Hi, Jonathan!
I didn’t know you teach quantum mechanics. And thermodynamics.
Wow!
No wonder your comments (and blogs) are so thoughtful.
(I am being serious, here.)
I understand what you mean about teaching things line upon line to students, and I think that makes sense in an academic setting.
What I see going on here is people who know about quantum mechanics saying things to the algebra students that they know are not true, and counting on the algebra students to not call them out because the algebra students don’t understand quantum mechanics.
But at that point, the analogy probably starts falling apart.
It is more like a political organization engaging in this kind of conduct–telling the people one thing while knowing the truth is something else–but keeping the truth carefully hidden so nobody finds out.
Hence the (apt, I think) reference to President Clinton in the blog.
You and I will probably differ on the “value” of blogs such as this. And that’s okay.
But I see calling an organization out on the half-truths and deceptions it is publishing as having “value” unto itself.
I sent a copy of my blog to Peter Van Sant of CBS-News.
He thought it was “brilliant.”
So reasonable minds can obviously differ.
The “group/committee” nature of those who produce the essays is problematic to me, and largely for the reasons you cite. When people work in a group, and none of them have to take credit or responsibility for the final product, experience shows that ethics tend to break down.
And that an anonymous group is more likely to do things a single individual acting alone would never do.
I think these essays are a case-in-point.
Take care, my friend.
Wow, I would love to have the logic of the first part of this video explained to me:
The mormon church is lying, because they say temple garments arent magical, yet mr marriot, who is not in any position of power claims, says they are, so……
LOLOL
Also, the "protect you from harm" part in the temple is refering to warding off temptation from satan. Theres nothing mystical, or even divine about it. Garments can remind the wearer of the promises hes made, which CAN, if he so chooses, help him avoid breaking them.
Who wrote this article, a two year old?
LOLOLOLOL
“Temple garments afford protection. I am sure one could go to [the] 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.”
–Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p. 539
When calling out a persons maturity, it is probably best to leave out things such as “LOLOL” and “LOLOLOLOL.” It tends to throw any valid discussion points or interpretations you have out the window.
Growing up in the church in the 60’s and 70’s, I heard all the time about the mystical properties of garments. All. The. Time.
“They will protect a woman from rape.” Cue slide-show and music. Bring in the stake YW presidency to bear testimony that wearing garments will protect you from rape; adding stories about women who were attacked and those men could not remove the garment!
I was told that wearing the holy gament would protect me from all enemies; even fire, physical attacks and harm. More faith-promoting mystical stories to support those claims.
To say, or imply that the protection promised is purely spiritual is a lie.
Possibly, young women heard different messages than men. In this church, God knows that’s very likely.
Who made up those nonsense stories is the question.
A two-year old?!
The company I work for requires all kinds of certifications and promises that I will be ethical in my dealings related to company business. I agree to those terms as a conditions to receive the benefit of my employment. At the same time, my company goes to great lengths and spends a lot of money to put only their best foot forward when doing business. The company proceeds knowing it will make mistakes. They spin those mistakes when they are made to allow for plausible deniability, and only admit to negative facts when when absolutely necessary, among other measures. They do it for the good of the company.
For me, the double standard is in place for sure, but it is not too different than everywhere else we look.
That is not to say that church should not be honest. It should, and the essays are great progress compared to the whitewashed sunday school lessons you and I probably went to. (to your credit you do acknowledge such progress in your essay) For an old-school, patriarchal church to admit what it is admitting, it is remarkable, for others it is not nearly enough.
Is the church going to admit that Joseph Smith was a megalomaniac as some evidence suggests? Nope, I think it is too much to ask. I definitely don’t blame them for spinning the essays to the best possible light. I guess maybe I am very charitable as you say. Or, maybe I recognize that the church is justifiably protecting the institution/membership while giving sources so folks can come to their own conclusions. This seems likely since the evidence is lacking on many of the issues and reasonable minds can differ on the subjects of plural marriage, teenage brides, etc.
For the record, I also wish the essays were attributed. I guess I am just not questioning the entire credibility of the church based on a few unattributed essays which that teach the reader about concepts that he/she wasn’t likely studying about anyway.
Alex,
Ah, but your company is 1) out to make a profit and 2) does not claim to be led by a prophet of God or influence a person’s salvation. and then you say deception is everywhere, so no big deal. Personally, I felt that I could and should expect more from the institution that claims divine connection. I must’ve missed the parable in the Bible where Jesus taught the use of deceptive spin tactics to gain/retain followers….
Verl_S,
Never said it is was no big deal. Clearly my comments say that no deception is ideal, especially for the institution claiming the divine connection. We would hope that those in the church would tell the truth all the time. But, shocker, they don’t. But when they don’t, is it much different than every other institution? Are we really saying that the church should not put its best foot forward in these types of matters? Especially when some of the historical conclusions are in dispute? I think that is asking too much. As Shakespeare said, “The world is your oyster!” Go out there and find the original sources and make your own conclusions based upon the available evidence. If your conclusions make you lose your testimony, then so be it, at least you know for yourself. But you should not expect the church to make that conclusion for you. The essays are useful, make the most of them.
I agree with pretty much everything you have to say in your even-handed comments, Alex.
The only difference I would have might be subjective, in that I would think that the church “putting its best foot forward” should entail telling the truth.
Whether that truth is good, bad or indifferent.
I think you are approaching it from a more pragmatic viewpoint, though, and that is fine. I understand that.
But I expect more from a church that claims to be God’s only true and living church on the face of the earth. (I think you suggest you do, too.)
And I certainly expect honesty from the leaders of a church that has been telling me for over 35-years to be honest in all my dealings with my fellow man.
Which raises an interesting question.
Could the current leaders of the LDS Church pass a temple recommend interview?
Corbin,
While some individual members might think that garments are intended to offer physical protection, you intimate that the church’s position has always been that garments offer physical “protection from harm”. Worse yet, you suggest that the church is “being deceptive” by saying garments aren’t magical or mystical (implying this is the real position of the church).
You support your thesis by citing Willard Marriot. In a CNN interview. You know perfectly well that he was speaking at least for himself, and at most for a segment of the members of the church, but certainly not for the church itself. The church’s official position is not dictated by rich lay people on TV, but by the general authorities. While Marriot (and apparently yourself) interpret the temple instructions (“shield and protection unto you against the power of the destroyer”) as a promise of physical protection, your assumptions do not constitute the interpretation by church leaders.
Eight years prior to Marriot’s interview (10 Oct. 1988) here is what the First Presidency said in an official letter about the purpose of the garment:
“Endowed members of the Church wear the garment as a reminder of the sacred covenants they have made with the Lord and also as a protection against temptation and evil.”
What is the protection offered by the garment?
It is protection “against temptation and evil,” not boat fires, or bullet fire.
You cannot accuse the church of lying or deceiving in this regard because this has been (at least since 1988) the message and position of the church on the purpose of the temple garment.
What then constitutes “evil”?
People under the influence of Satan? A rapist? Terrorist? Arsonist? “Evil-doer”? A demon?
Muddy waters, where church leaders, yes leaders, push members into, quite frequently; all in the name of promoting faith. The LDS church certainly fostered all the mystical stories concerning garments. It’s not news that there is a great deal of Mormon mythology. Myths arise when church leadership foster stories.
But let’s stick with one word. Their one word:
Evil.
Hmmmm…physical or spiritual…One Little Word can encompass SO much.
Mermaidmood,
So an accidental boat fire is “evil”?
I think I understand where you are coming from, Devin.
Here is how I see it.
When temple Mormons are told the garment “will be a shield and a protection against the power of the destroyer,” either that means something or it doesn’t.
If a garment is a “shield” against “the power of the destroyer,” does that mean the faithful wearer is in some sense “shielded” from the temptation of the “destroyer”? If so, the “shield” must in some sense be mystical.
In other words, does the garment provide some sort of “protection” above and beyond what a good person not wearing the garment would have?
If the answer is yes, the garment is in some sense “mystical” or “magical.”
If the answer is no, the words spoken in the temple become meaningless.
I think the words spoken in the temple have meaning. And whether one understands the “protection” as being against physical evil or harm, or spiritual evil or harm, or even if it is just protection against the power of temptation, then the inescapable conclusion seems to be that the garments have some sort of supernatural power.
They must in some sense be “mystical.”
They must in some sense be “magical.”
At least that is how I see it.
Did I say it was? Geez, throw out the boat with the seawater. You miss all the abundant points.
Cherry-picking much?
Russell, the author mentioned Marriot as an example of the belief from a very prominent mormon that the garments do have supernatural (or magical if you prefer) properties. The only reason Marriott have been specifically mentioned is because he declared this belief in public. The degree of power he has in the LDS hierarchy is irrelevant. I've myself heard countless stories about garments protecting missionaries from rape, from bullets or from fire. If you've spent any amount of time in the LDS Church, you certainly have heard them too.
While it's hard to find any post-correlation leader talking about it, the belief is widespread. It's an interesting technique used by the LDS Church. They allow the spread of false but faith-promoting rumors and conveniently remain in silence, allowing these lies to perpetuate for generations. In case you don't know, this specific belief originated from the fact that the only one wearing garments in Carthage was Willard Richards and he was the only one to scape unharmed. Joseph, Hyrum and John Taylor had taken them off before delivering themselves to the police.
What the words "shield and protection" in the endowment means are open to speculation. That they're to ward off temptation is YOUR interpretation. The majority of the people understand them another way and the video is deceptive in failing to mention that fact.
Mormons have an interesting way of understanding belief. They somehow think only their leaders can define what they believe. Actually, the leaders can say what members SHOULD believe, but they can't change what mormons believe.
Your use of "LOLOLOL" and your reference to a "two years old" merely because you don't agree with the premise of the author is a LOT more childlike.
Heber Val Magalhães I appreciate your thoughtful response.
You say "They somehow think only their leaders can define what they believe." Well, that is the only thing the LDS can really take responsibility for. There is a huge difference between what the LDS church officially teaches and "mormon culture myths" that are the natural product of having any group of people with similar beliefs that discuss their religion with each other. The church can't be responsible for every mormon folklore tradition that falls in and out of style, they are inevitable in any culture. All that they can do is stick to the basics. The LDS church has never taught anything mystical about garments, even though it is a common folklore tradition in many joseph-smith based churches.
Russell Ollerton , I agree that the hierarchy is not responsible for what the random member think, but they're responsible for what they've taught in the past. This specific belief that garments may offer physical protection is so widespread that a handful of general authorities supported them. As the author said in the comments, even current correlated material has it:
“Temple garments afford protection. I am sure one could go to [the] 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.” – Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p. 539
Oh, but that's not actual Church doctrine, even if it was said by the highest authority in the hierarchy and is in a Church manual approved by the leadership. Neil Andersen's definition of doctrine in GC Oct2012 illustrates how the GAs refuse to take responsability for anything:
"A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find."
He's saying doctrine is only what ALL the twelve and FP teach. If eleven apostles teach something, it's not binding. He expects people to go and check in the Internet if all apostles and FP have taught something before believing it? No, of course not. He knows it's an absurd standard and he only said that to provide plausible deniability. "Oh the Prophet, Seer and Revelator said that? You can't take him seriously untill you've heard each one of the twelve confirm it."
So, the LDS Church is not responsible for what the members believe, they're not responsible for what the General Authorities teach. What are they responsible for? It's easy to run a Church like that. You can claim a direct link to heave but you don't even have to teach correct stuff. You can say whatever you want, and when it becomes inconvenient to maintain that position, you simply retract by saying it was just leader so and so speaking, it was never doctrine.
Either they speak for God or they don't. If they don't the Church isn't any different from the others.
Heber Val Magalhães , I see and appreciate your point. I still think its way out of the ballpark to say that the LDS church is intentionally lying to the masses though. I know the whole correlation movement the church started decades ago was meant to put to rest lots of speculative ideas, but sometimes things slip through the cracks. As a member of 25 years, I have never been taught in a church setting that garments protect people from physical harm, although I have, like you, heard it talked about in more casual settings. I think the church tries its best to correct things as they become relevant. For example, I can find various correlated materials talking about how we shouldn't drink caffeine, yet 2.5 years ago the church released a newsroom message saying caffeine has nothing to do with the WoW. I think the church declaring that there is nothing mystical about garments in a new, widely-accessible church media publication was a great way to put to rest that silly idea, even if leaders decades ago felt otherwise. I think it would be unreasonable for the church, every time it needs to clarify some iffy pseudo-doctrine, to say "so, some leaders might have taught this in the past, but this is actually our stance on it now." I think it's just kind of a given, since the church is made up of fallible humans, even in the upper positions of leadership. However, I can understand why some members find this kind of thing disturbing, especially those with rigid fundamentalist paradigms about how church leaders are nearly flawless.
Russell Ollerton I'm a member of 33 years and I've heard the physical protection story in many Church settings, including ward talks and from the president of the MTC. I took them on face value at the time as the Church expects you to do. This rigid fundamentalist paradigm you mentioned was created by the Church itself and is maintained by GC talks and lesson manuals. People with alternate views, like the ones you apparently hold, are viewed with distrust by the mainstream membership and local leaders. You can't blame the member that can't reconcile the fundamentalist views he learned from the Church with reality. Is the member wrong at trusting the leadership and supposing the Church would teach him correct stuff?
The leaders put themselves on a pedestal and promote an infallible view of themselves, but when their mistakes become obvious, they get an easy out by saying they're not perfect and their actions don't represent the Church. However, when they want you to do something, they will bring on all the weight of the "apostolic authority".
I agree with the author that a lie is a lie, even if it's to protect the Church. Their public teaching on honesty is that circunstances don't matter and that you can't be wrong doing the right. However, when it's not expedient to do the right, they use weasel words, like in the essays. They feel above right and wrong.
Anyway, leaders of the Church taught many times that the garment may protect you physically. Most members in a random ward believe that. No one, ever, has denied that in public, GC or Church publications. Therefore, I think it's the very definition of deception to say in a PR video "Oh, mormons don't believe garments have any supernatural propriety, you silly! I'm not lying by saying that because we of the PR department just decided that from this moment on, this is not doctrine anymore, just for the purpose of this video."
Yes, for me (and for the teachings I received in Primary, YM, Elders quorum, bishopric, etc), that's a bald faced lie.
The funny thing is, Elder Andersen’s definition of “doctrine” is itself not doctrine, having been taught by only one apostle …
I think you’re being a bit hard on the garment video and this takes away from what is otherwise a great article. Really, you shouldn’t have mentioned the garment video at all. You are right that there is some mysticism with regards to the garments, but there is no official teaching that they are literally “magical,” the protection spoken of in the temple is understood to be spiritual. I suppose it might have been nice if the video went into more detail and explained where the myths have come from, and dispelled them, but I’m not really going to get twisted over this.
The essays however, especially the polygamy ones, well, they create some real problems. I’d love it if someone did a thorough comparison between the admissions in the essays vs. the material on josephsmith.net, vs the Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration movie. The essays basically admit that the church has been lying about these things for over a century and continues to. The whole narrative in the joseph smith movie is false. Rather than getting hung up on petty things like this garment video, we should really focus on the meat.
Hi, Peter.
Thanks for your comments.
I agree with you that the issues relating to the plural marriage essays are more significant than those in the temple garment video.
The blog evolved as being just about the temple garment video initially, but then I added in the part about polygamy.
I kept the garment part because I already had such a catchy title!
Glad you enjoyed it, though.
Corbin
At the BYU devotional in which Mitt Romney spoke today, Romney said:
“As best as I can remember, when I was here, a lot if things were different. The Beatles were the only boy band. Bell South wss the only phone company. BYU cafeteria food was the only thing to buy at the Cougareat. And…..
Emma was Joseph’s only wife.”
If even Mitt Romney can joke about this being a big change, apologists can’t claim that this stuff has “always been known and admitted.”
Interesting and thought provoking as always Mr. Volluz. You never disappoint!!
There IS nothing mystical or magical.
The garments themselves are not objects to be venerated, worshiped, or prayed to. They should not be held up, or held out, as amulets of any sort. They should not be used to tempt fate, or as an excuse to take additional risks.
They ARE give to us as a protection of sorts. Protection to wear more clothes, for one, and to refrain from attire that is too revealing. They serve as a reminder of your covenants if you're taking clothes Off. They also provide mental protection, i.e. to think before you jump in water that is more than knee-deep.
There is no magic or mysticism in any of this.
Corbin,
The Development of LDS Temple Worship, 1846-2000: A Documentary History mentions men bringing a long shirt (reaching the knees at least) to wear for their endowment. The symbols were cut in the shirt and then stitched closed afterward at home. I could easily see a long shirt being referred to as a robe.
Being LDS yourself, I’m sure you’ve also been taught that reading the Book of Mormon provides spiritual protection, right? Does that make the Book of Mormon a magical or mystical book? At General Conference a few years ago, I remember Elder Ballard saying that by performing temple work for the dead, we would be protected against the Adversary. Does that make temple work “magic”? When we take the sacrament every Sunday, the sacrament prayers say that by eating the bread and drinking the water in remembrance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, we’ll have the Holy Spirit with us and the Holy Spirit always provides spiritual protection. Does that make the sacrament bread and water magic? And how many times have we been taught in the church that following the prophet brings spiritual protection? Does that make Thomas S. Monson a magician? So, unless you’re willing to call all these other aspects of our church “magic,” the garments are not magic either simply because they are associated with spiritual protection. In the story of Lehi’s dream in the Book of Mormon, we’re taught that we will be spiritually protected from the “mist of darkness” by following the iron rod and following the iron rod includes everything from wearing garments, to following the prophets, to reading the scriptures, to attending church, and so forth. So, the church was absolutely correct in saying that there was nothing magical or mystical about the garments. Unless one is willing to consistently apply the pejorative “magic” to all spiritually protective aspects of our Church, the idea that spiritual protection is equivalent to magic when it comes to garments is simply asinine.