A friend of mine noticed something interesting when doing the initiatory for the dead. During the final step of the initiatory, we are clothed in the holy garment. The wording notes something to the effect of that the garment will be a shield and a protection to us until we have finished our work here on the earth. But when we’re doing this for the dead, they’ve already finished their work on the earth. (1) why do we do this for the dead? (2) Will we wear garments in heaven? After all, we will have finished our work here on earth. Presumably there won’t be the power of the devil in heaven, right? (3) Will we need a shield and a protection in heaven against the power of the destroyer?
LDS, Modesty, Mormon, Priesthood, Temple, theology
Garments in Heaven?
Wheat & Tares 
Could it even be Heaven with garments?
Moroni visits Joe Smith. Isn’t wearing any. So my obviously hopeful answer is nope. Won’t be garments in heaven.
Or are we in Hell if we are still wearing them?
Is that a rhetorical question, Jan, or are you soliciting individual’s answers? …because we’re in at least our second week of triple-digit temperatures in my part of the Valley in Los Angeles and I have a distinct opinion on that. 😓
A look at the history of the endowment can give some understanding to this question. The endowment as we relate to it today was first given on May 6, 1842 in the Red Brick store in Nauvoo, Illinois. It was only intended for the living. That was generally the case until 1877 ( with a very few exceptions) when the St George temple became functional. It was at that time that a very limited number of ordinances for the dead were allowed. It was also the first time, again with some very few exceptions, that a regular person would ever see the endowment performed more than once. For a time people would just stand along the walls to watch, without participating. There is still a distinction made today in all temples between “live” and regular sessions. The “live “just meaning there are participants who are going for the first time. Of course, those participants do the whole thing at once, with a small number going through to the sealing ordinance. I believe that the thinking is that it would be too confusing and fraught with errors if distinctions were being made on which parts of the endowment apply to whom. Thus the whole thing is done and the parts that don’t apply, for whatever reason, become non-effective. Another line of thought could be all of the ordinances are done in the spirit of “as if this person were alive , on the earth , this day.” Personally, I would be glad to continue to wear the garment. It has become fundamental part of my belief system and world view. I see it as a privilege, not a burden.
We also dress in robes for the endowment, but do we worry about having to wear funny hats and veils for eternity?
I have no answers to your questions, but I have long been perplexed by descriptions of heavenly beings and clothes. See, for example, the description of Moroni given in the Joseph Smith’s Testimony in the Book of Mormon.
On a less canonical note, there is this mural in the Celestial room of the Idaho Falls temple, in which it appears
According to http://thetrumpetstone.blogspot.com/2010/11/celestial-room-murals.html, this depicts an angel talking to John the Revelator, but not something that would cover temple garments.
(Perhaps angels, not needing protection, do not wear temple garments, leaving them more able to labor in the heat of Southern California).
1. They need to wear garments.
2. Some will and some will not contingent on their innocence. Yes, there will but restrained by grace. Otherwise, who could actually be there?
3. Unfortunately, you and I are each our own destroyer as revealed in the greatest commandment in the law and its anthesis.
It may help to view this topically spiritually and not through a natural lense.
My mother worked at the church office building as a secretary during the 1950’s and part time in the 1960’s. She was Scottish a couple generations removed and David O. McKay used to hug her and call her is little Scottish lass. He told all the secretaries they were the best in one way or another and those young women would probably lay down their lives for him. Back then secretaries sat in on important meetings to take short hand notes and they answered phones at a time it was easy to listen in on conversations. They loved to gossip about the discussions at the top.
Many years ago my mother told me of a series of discussions during the late 1960’s when styles had raised women’s skirts quite high. The proposal was that the garments only be worn in the temple or perhaps be eliminated completely. Two of the apostles would not budge and so they kept them. But for the practice of requiring complete agreement or but for the opinions of 2 stubborn old men (she named them) we would not be discussing garments at all.
I find it impossible to believe they have anything at all to do with the eternities if they are a custom confined to a very small segment of God’s children over a short span of time.
A lot of the stuff we do as Mormons in this world won’t be necessary in the eternities and I think garments will be one of them. In fact, there will be no church in the celestial kingdom either, since the church is designed to get us (earthly, imperfect beings) to the celestial kingdom (where we’ll be perfected) and therefore will not be necessary in the eternities. I personally find garments confining and uncomfortable and don’t like wearing them. I take my temple covenants seriously and I don’t really need to wear hot, uncomfortable underwear to remind me that I made the covenants and I’m not quite convinced of their ability to spiritually “protect” me. That’s what a sound mind and a conscience are for. And I’ve written this before and don’t want to beat a dead horse, but I can’t think of any reason why we’ll need any clothes at all in heaven. Clothing/covering the body is associated with shame and disobedience (Garden of Eden) and so I assume the celestial kingdom will be full of nude, perfect bodies. So I suppose all the time I spent on South Beach as a young adult and all the time I spent studying renaissance paintings as a grad student ironically ended up preparing me for the celestial kingdom. Too bad I’m not likely to make it there.
Mike,
Please you have to tell us who the two holdouts were.
It’s an interesting question. I think it points to the garment being purely symbolic of God’s protection (meaning that when we make covenants, we receive his protection). But then the real problem is that we even have a physical garment that we wear daily. I mean, it can still be viewed as a symbol but it’s not worn in that way, and something else could be used just as effectively (e.g. a piece of jewelry) to symbolize a covenant. But no, there wouldn’t be garments in Heaven because either 1) “Heaven” would be the protection or 2) we no longer need protection because we aren’t mortal.
Good questions. What they point out to me that JS and subsequent brethren were making it up as they go along and never really sat down and thought it through.
BB and other curious boys and girls:
You can guess.
They were senior and they were often opposed to DOM.
And none of this is verifiable and my mother died from dementia- just to give the defenders of the faith the ammo they need- to defend their own faith.
A much more interesting question, Brother Sky.
Will there be any cloths in heaven? Why do we wear cloths in this life, anyway?
Like, we are all going to be given these perfected glorious bodies in the resurrection and we might all be far more attractive than any man or woman alive today. And if we learn to keep it zipped in this wicked world controlled by Lucifer, we might be able to keep it clean even in our thoughts in another world ruled by Christ. And there might be additional celestial hormones that help regulate these things better. Who knows?
Let’s face it. The message that garments are protection is completely secondary to today’s notion that garments protect modesty and serve as a “mark” of “good/bad/better/best” Mormon’s depending on how often and for how many different activities during the day they are worn.
No, garments are not worn in heaven. They have become a Man-made ( frequently altered over the course of LDS history) tradition. . Whatever original commandment from heaven to wear them (and likely not full-time under clothes outside of the temple) has virtually been lost by many policy/culture/survey/cost-effective changes along the way, none of which can be traced back to a “Thus saith the Lord” commandment permitting the change.
They’re symbolic, and any protective power they might have is from covenants we’re making with God, not intrinsic to the clothing itself. Also, having a physical shield and protection from the destroyer kinda makes sense in this life with the veil, where we can’t always see the war going on around us, but like Angela says, it could also just be jewelry. Once we’re resurrected, we’d be able to see spirits (or other types of resurrected bodies), theoretically have a memory of the premortal realm, so we could recognize the enemy ourselves (without needing assistance from Holy Ghost). Our resurrected body itself will reflect the type of glory we have. I just don’t see why we’d need the symbolism of the garment at that point.
Judging by the language of the initiatory, we won’t. If garments are to be a shield and protection from the destroyer until we have finished our work on the earth, why would we need them in heaven?
JSF and ETB as the two apostles. That’s what everyone’s thinking, no? Keep in mind that BRM was still a Seventy at this time.