JS - History 1:31

[askandanswer]

31 He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness.  It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen; nor do I believe that any earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly white and brilliant.  His hands were naked, and his arms also, a little above the wrist; so, also, were his feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles.  His head and neck were also bare.  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.

(Pearl of Great Price | JS-History 1:31)
Does this verse give support to any conclusions that might be made about the use of temple garments by resurrected beings in the post mortal life? I’m not suggesting that this verse on its own is enough to draw any reliable conclusions, I’m just wondering if it might be enough to support any conclusions, and if so, what those conclusions might be.
 

[MarginOfError]

No.

[askandanswer]

Why not? 

[Anddenex]

Yes - they are white.

I would say that the scriptures and teachings highlighted in the temple are probably the scriptures we should think of; however, could these events (like this one and others) be reasons why we wear what we wear? Sure, they definitely could be, but as to what extant I wouldn't know.

I would think that we couldn't exclude any verse of scripture identifying the garments/robes of those who are translated or resurrected who make a visit. At the same time, we will want to be cautious that we don't look beyond the mark.

[MarginOfError]

If we take the scriptures at face value, there are prophets and apostles that have described angels in all kinds of dress. Some with wings, and some hybrid with animals.  Angels are depicted in various ways throughout history, which would suggest that their dress has changed over the millenia.

If we choose not to take scriptural accounts quite so literally, and say that at least some of those visions were figurative, then we have to start classifying which appearances/visions are literal beings and which are not. Those kinds of processes are always subjective and prone to preconceived biases.

There's simply insufficient information in the scriptures to describe any aspect of life after death with any certainty.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

If we take the scriptures at face value, there are prophets and apostles that have described angels in all kinds of dress. Some with wings, and some hybrid with animals.  Angels are depicted in various ways throughout history, which would suggest that their dress has changed over the millenia.

If we choose not to take scriptural accounts quite so literally, and say that at least some of those visions were figurative, then we have to start classifying which appearances/visions are literal beings and which are not. Those kinds of processes are always subjective and prone to preconceived biases.

There's simply insufficient information in the scriptures to describe any aspect of life after death with any certainty.

I agree, but with a caveat:  the scriptures were authored by different people and in different cultural contexts; some of which were more literally-minded than others.  

I haven’t seen any treatment of Joseph Smith’s reported visions that suggests he was apt to claiming to have seen stuff he hadn’t literally seen.

[MarginOfError]

14 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I agree, but with a caveat:  the scriptures were authored by different people and in different cultural contexts; some of which were more literally-minded than others.  

I haven’t seen any treatment of Joseph Smith’s reported visions that suggests he was apt to claiming to have seen stuff he hadn’t literally seen.

That's a fair criticism of my remarks.  But I'd also nuance that with the fact that Smith was pretty prone to believing in fantastic ideas. And many* of the things he taught and described weren't very far outside of the cultural and religious norms of his day. This was a young man who had a stone with "supernatural" powers and a divining rod. Which leads me to wonder if the way that he saw heavenly visitors was an indication of what those visitors tended to wear? Or were they dressed in ways that would be recognizable to him?**

I'm not going to say it was one way or the other, or some combination of both. I only claim that there's enough uncertainty to cast doubt on any strong assertions about day-to-day life after death based on the very, very scant evidence in any scripture.

 

* emphasis on many....certainly not all.

** Perhaps because seeing visitors wearing Tony Stark style nano-technology suits would have freaked the poor kid out

[askandanswer]

3 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

There's simply insufficient information in the scriptures to describe any aspect of life after death with any certainty.

I agree with this idea in general - certainty is too high a goal to aim for. I'm just hoping and thinking that some ideas and conclusions might be more plausible and better supported than other ideas. And I'm thinking that an angel who does not appear to be wearing temple garments on one particular occasion, and possibly on each occasion that he visited Joseph on that one night, might be sufficient to give some plausibility or support to ideas or conclusions about the use of temple garments by post mortal resurrected beings.

[GaleG]

On 12/14/2019 at 10:55 PM, askandanswer said:

31 He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness.  It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen; nor do I believe that any earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly white and brilliant.  His hands were naked, and his arms also, a little above the wrist; so, also, were his feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles.  His head and neck were also bare.  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.

(Pearl of Great Price | JS-History 1:31)
Does this verse give support to any conclusions that might be made about the use of temple garments by resurrected beings in the post mortal life? I’m not suggesting that this verse on its own is enough to draw any reliable conclusions, I’m just wondering if it might be enough to support any conclusions, and if so, what those conclusions might be.
 

How do make a connection with the robe (the only thing he was wearing) with a temple
garment?

Gale

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, GaleG said:

How do make a connection with the robe (the only thing he was wearing) with a temple
garment?

Gale

Oh my gosh!  You got us there, Gale.  I never had any idea about it before, but you’ve exposed for the very first time this fundamental weakness in Mormon theology that rocks my faith and changes my entire world paradigm!

If only there had been an entire thread, running over ten days, discussing that very issue.  If only . . . Sadly, I’ve been floundering in ignorance and see no likelihood that the faith of my fathers will satisfactorily resolve this ever-burning soteriological question.  

Guess I’ll have to abandon Mormonism due to its flagrant failure to develop a solid doctrine about angel undies.  Any suggestions on some religious group that’ll have me?  And can you tell me how *they* handle the theology of angelic unmentionables?  After all, I’d hate to be disappointed twice . . .

Edited December 25, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[Fether]

56 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Oh my gosh!  You got us there, Gale.  I never had any idea about it before, but you’ve exposed for the very first time this fundamental weakness in Mormon theology that rocks my faith and changes my entire world paradigm!

If only there had been an entire thread, running over ten days, discussing that very issue.  If only . . . Sadly, I’ve been floundering in ignorance and see no likelihood that the faith of my fathers will satisfactorily resolve this ever-burning soteriological question.  

Guess I’ll have to abandon Mormonism due to its flagrant failure to develop a solid doctrine about angel undies.  Any suggestions on some religious group that’ll have me?  And can you tell me how *they* handle the theology of angelic unmentionables?  After all, I’d hate to be disappointed twice . . .

Ya man, you are behind! Saw an article titled “tea is healthy”. After reading that title I immediately removed my name from the church.

Edited December 25, 2019 by Fether

[zil]

3 minutes ago, Fether said:

I immediately removed my names from the church.

Exactly how many names do you have?

PS: Wine was declared healthy long before tea was, can't believe you waited. :SMH:

[Queolby]

Wilford Woodruff and   
others were attacked by the powers of darkness while they were in London. They   
were saved when "three holy messengers [came] into the room and filled the room with light. They were dressed in temple clothing. They laid their hands upon our heads and we   
were delivered."

[brotherofJared]

On 12/14/2019 at 7:55 PM, askandanswer said:

31 He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness.  It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen; nor do I believe that any earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly white and brilliant.  His hands were naked, and his arms also, a little above the wrist; so, also, were his feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles.  His head and neck were also bare.  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.

(Pearl of Great Price | JS-History 1:31)
Does this verse give support to any conclusions that might be made about the use of temple garments by resurrected beings in the post mortal life? I’m not suggesting that this verse on its own is enough to draw any reliable conclusions, I’m just wondering if it might be enough to support any conclusions, and if so, what those conclusions might be.
 

You mean our underwear? 

Yes. I don't think we'll need the temple garments that we wear under our everyday clothes in heaven.

[askandanswer]

On 12/26/2019 at 11:38 AM, Queolby said:

Wilford Woodruff and   
others were attacked by the powers of darkness while they were in London. They   
were saved when "three holy messengers [came] into the room and filled the room with light. They were dressed in temple clothing. They laid their hands upon our heads and we   
were delivered."

I wander if there is any significance in the fact that before the temple ordinances had been introduced, Joseph did not see Moroni wearing temple garments, but after the temple ordinances has been introduced, when Wilford Woodruff and others saw these three messengers, they were wearing template garments?

[anatess2]

13 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I wander if there is any significance in the fact that before the temple ordinances had been introduced, Joseph did not see Moroni wearing temple garments, but after the temple ordinances has been introduced, when Wilford Woodruff and others saw these three messengers, they were wearing template garments?

It's like this... before I've seen a Tahitian dance, I would call it a skirt made of grass.  After I saw a Tahitian dance, I would call a skirt made of grass a Tahitian skirt (even the Hawaiian ones).  I think this is the same thing with Woodruff, et. al. but I'm just guessing.