Joseph Smith's DNA

 

ornpodestSlc  PeM708b4r24a29lhy1rg i6:a80t7iFt622hhu46i61g ct ·

"The Mormon prophet Joseph Smith Jr. certainly descended from Niall to the Nine Hostages, a fifth-century Irish chief, as discovered by Ugo Perego, senior DNA researcher at the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation... Perego has identified in Joseph Smith's DNA a part presenting a very rare marker called M222. Through this finer analysis, it found that this same marker was present in the north-west of Ireland, and in less amounts in the Scottish Lowlands. »

"Concerning the people of Lehi, Joseph wrote, ""They were mostly Israelites, the descendants of Joseph." "It is possible that Joseph Smith referred to Zoram, stating that he was not a Jew. It may also be that he spoke about those who accompanied the Mulekites (presumably the Phoenicians). But it's also possible that he spoke to other people who were accompanying Léhi... Bottom line: I think Léhi brought in servants and landed in a largely uninhabited area of Florida, among a small population of hunter-gatherers who did not live in an organized society. » ( Jonathan Neville, <i>Moroni's America</i>, pages 84-86)

Léhi = Manassé ; Ismaël = Éphraïm ; Mulek = Juda

I am a firm believer in the words of Prophet Joseph Smith, “We have heard men in priesthood say that they would do whatever their presidents told them to do, even if they knew it was wrong.” But such obedience is worse than madness in our eyes; it is extreme slavery. He who would lower himself so willingly should not claim any rank among intelligent beings until he has turned himself away from his madness. A man of God would despise such an idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their all-powerful authority, have taught that such obedience was necessary and that whatever the Saints receive from their Presidents, they were to do it without questions. When the ancestors of Israel go as far as teaching these extreme notions of obedience to the people, it's usually because they are prone to evil themselves. Joseph Smith son, The Millennial Star, vol. 14, no. 38, p. 593-595)

original temple garments

This proposal can be described as Luddite. Might as well call to renounce use of electricity, automobiles, and all the other technology not mentioned in the scriptures.

_____

Andrew Jacob Joy

seodtnoSrp11uy00ti0Pl:2a67F452eMrm92i2u2u4b7liu  6u ar7 11f2a16 ·

Leaders, Managers, and the Loss of Sacred Pattern: A Call to Return to the Original Garment

When Hugh Nibley delivered his immortal address “Leaders and Managers” at Brigham Young University in 1983, he offered a warning that now feels prophetic. He said that leaders are guided by vision and revelation, while managers are driven by procedure and comfort. Leaders elevate souls toward eternity; managers conserve systems and smooth the path of least resistance.

That warning could well describe our present relationship with the sacred temple garment, a symbol once revealed by God through His Prophet Joseph Smith in 1842 as part of the restoration of divine patterns. Over the years, and especially in recent decades, that revealed form has been altered, abbreviated, and accommodated—sometimes in the name of convenience, sometimes fashion, and sometimes to “meet the needs of a modern membership.” Yet the question Nibley would ask remains: Is this revelation—or is it management?

The Garment as Revelation, Not Design

The temple garment was not a human invention. According to early Saints, the Prophet Joseph Smith received it by revelation, connected to the endowment and to ancient patterns found in scripture. It symbolized not only personal covenants but divine covering—the same “coats of skins” given by the Lord to Adam and Eve. From the beginning, the garment was to be unaltered, full-length, with markings sewn by hand, representing sacred knowledge and eternal promises.

For the early Saints, wearing the garment was not about comfort or conformity. It was an act of consecration. Men and women wore it through toil, heat, and hardship, not because it was convenient, but because it was holy. They understood the Lord’s admonition to “endure to the end” in both covenants and commandments—even when they rubbed against mortal ease.

The Managerial Turn

Over time, however, something changed. As the Church grew, so did the impulse to manage it—to make things standardized, comfortable, and broadly appealing. Out of love and practical concern, managers sought to make the garment “more wearable,” “less conspicuous,” and “better suited to modern life.”

Thus began a series of revisions: the shortening of legs and sleeves, the change from buttons to snaps, the removal of collars, the replacement of natural fabrics with synthetics, and now, most recently, the sleeveless garment. Each adjustment may appear minor when viewed alone, but collectively they represent a profound shift—from revealed symbol to managed convenience.

Nibley once said that managers “move within the limits of the system; they adjust and manipulate, but they do not transcend.” A leader, however, is one who keeps the vision of heaven alive even when it challenges earthly sensibilities. The danger arises when a divine symbol becomes just another product to be improved by consumer feedback.

The Erosion of Symbolic Integrity

Every sacred symbol has a form that communicates its meaning. The bread and water of the sacrament, the anointing oil, the kneeling posture in prayer—these are not arbitrary. Change the form too much, and the symbol itself begins to dissolve. The garment’s original design, revealed in the days of Nauvoo, testified of complete consecration—covering the body as the Atonement covers sin.

When the garment was reduced, the symbolism reduced with it. The full covering—once representing the whole soul under covenant—has been diminished piece by piece. What was once the sign of being “clothed with power from on high” has become a minimal layer beneath modern fashion. What was once a reminder that “we are not of this world” has been adapted until it fits comfortably within it.

Some will say, “The form doesn’t matter, only the covenant.” Yet in scripture, God repeatedly uses form to teach doctrine. He commanded Noah to build the ark by specific measure; Moses to fashion the tabernacle after a heavenly pattern; Nephi to construct his ship “not after the manner of men.” Why would the Lord reveal a specific pattern of sacred clothing through His prophet only to have it redefined by committees a century later?

Nibley’s Warning to Us

Hugh Nibley, ever the defender of ancient patterns, lamented that modern Saints often confuse progress with efficiency. “We are forever refining the machinery,” he said, “and losing sight of the purpose for which the machinery was made.”

In our effort to be accommodating, we risk becoming the very managers Nibley warned of—people who smooth the path so well that the covenant ceases to challenge us. The garment, once a badge of consecration, becomes a convenience product—something to fit our lifestyles rather than something that calls us to transcend them.

True leaders—those like Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and the early brethren and sisters—did not fear sacrifice. They did not demand that sacred symbols bend to mortal comfort. They let those symbols stretch them.

A Call to Remember and Return

It is time for a return—not in rebellion, but in remembrance. A return to what the Prophet Joseph Smith revealed. A return to sacred seriousness, where symbols mean something eternal and not merely functional. A return to garments that teach holiness through constancy rather than through adaptation.

We live in an age obsessed with customization and ease. But discipleship has never been about ease; it has been about endurance. We need leaders—spiritual leaders—who will call the Saints to study the original pattern, to learn its meaning, and to wear it with reverence. This is not nostalgia; it is restoration.

The garment of 1842 was part of the restitution of all things. It was meant to connect us to Eden, to the Atonement, and to the promise of resurrection. To strip it of its form is to strip it of its voice.

Conclusion: Leaders Preserve Revelation

In every generation, the Lord raises up leaders who call the Saints back to covenantal roots. Managers will continue to adjust, redesign, and rationalize—but leaders will remind us that divine things must be learned, not redesigned.

The garment is one of those divine things. Its purpose was revealed, not invented. Its pattern is eternal, not cultural. And its meaning endures only as long as we keep the form that God revealed through His prophet.

As Nibley would remind us, it is not the business of the Saints to be fashionable, comfortable, or admired. It is our calling to be faithful.

Let us, then, be leaders in our own discipleship—students of sacred pattern and preservers of holy things. Let us remember the words given through Joseph Smith in the Temple of Nauvoo, and let the garment once again be what it was meant to be: a covering of covenant, a symbol of sanctity, and a reminder that we are not our own but belong to God.

Andrew Jacob Joy

drSotspeno308:22 2f2tacrc7Pu0g32Mya ft1013 i mbfu062Fr3e91g10 ·

The Everlasting Gospel and the Garment of the Holy Priesthood: A Call to Return to the Original Pattern

The Everlasting Gospel and the Garment of the Holy Priesthood: A Call to Return to the Original Pattern

From the days of Adam down to the present dispensation, the Gospel has never changed. Though the heavens have been opened and closed through the ages, the ordinances, covenants, and tokens of divine power have remained the same. The Gospel, Paul reminds us, was preached “unto Abraham,” and Moses, under divine command, taught Israel to sanctify themselves that they might “behold the face of God.” Yet when Israel hardened their hearts, they were left with a lesser law—a preparatory gospel, accompanied by the Aaronic Priesthood and its outward forms, “which gospel is the gospel of repentance and of baptism, and the remission of sins.”¹

But behind these outward ordinances lies the eternal pattern—the Holy Order of the Son of God, the Melchizedek Priesthood, and the sacred investiture of divine power symbolized by the garment of the holy priesthood. The garment was never a mere piece of clothing; it was, and remains, a sign of covenant—a witness of our faithfulness to that same everlasting Gospel taught by Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and Moses.

The Gospel from the Beginning

The book of Moses records that “the Lord God called upon men by the Holy Ghost everywhere, and commanded them that they should repent; and as many as believed in the Son, and repented of their sins, should be saved.”² This same message was declared by Noah, who preached to his generation, “Believe and repent of your sins, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, even as our fathers did.”³

Thus, the principles of faith, repentance, baptism, and the reception of the Holy Ghost were known from the beginning. These ordinances were administered under the authority of the Holy Priesthood, passed down from Adam through the patriarchs. Enoch’s people, living in purity and unity with heaven, were translated and taken into Zion by virtue of that same power. Noah, ordained “after his own order,” declared the same Gospel and Priesthood “which was given unto Enoch.”⁴

There is no “new” Gospel. What was taught at the dawn of creation is what is taught today. Only men change, never God.

Israel and the Loss of the Higher Law

When Israel rebelled in the wilderness, the Lord withdrew the fulness of His glory. “They hardened their hearts and could not endure His presence,” and so “He took Moses out of their midst,” leaving only the preparatory law with the lesser priesthood.⁵ Yet even this lesser law contained the shadow of higher realities—the temple, the altar, the priestly vestments, and the tabernacle all pointed to eternal truths that would be restored in fulness through Christ and, in this last dispensation, through Joseph Smith.

These sacred patterns were not the inventions of man. The Lord Himself commanded Moses to make “holy garments for Aaron…for glory and for beauty” (Exodus 28:2). Every thread, every color, every mark symbolized divine truths. The garments of the priesthood represented protection, purity, and the covenantal bond between God and His people. When Joseph Smith restored the ordinances of the holy endowment in Nauvoo in 1842, he did so under that same heavenly mandate. He received, by revelation, the pattern of the garment—plain, unadorned, marked with holy symbols, to be worn as a shield and protection and as a constant reminder of sacred covenants.

The Garment as a Witness of the Everlasting Covenant

Paul wrote of ancient Israel, saying that they “were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink… and that Rock was Christ.”⁶ Though their ordinances differed in outward form, the inward meaning was the same: each act, each symbol, pointed to Christ. The garment of the holy priesthood functions in precisely this way. It is both a shield and a type—a visible reminder of the invisible covenant we have entered into, representing our willingness to take upon ourselves the name, power, and protection of the Holy One of Israel.

When a man or woman enters the temple and receives the garment, they receive not a mere article of clothing but a token of divine investiture—an emblem of the “whole armor of God.” It is a memorial of promises made and a symbol of sanctification, protection, and obedience. To alter or discard that pattern is to obscure the very language of symbol through which God speaks to His covenant people.

The Danger of Alteration

In every dispensation, apostasy begins when men presume to improve upon the Lord’s design. Cain sought to worship “the Lord” but offered the fruit of the ground rather than the appointed sacrifice. Israel built the golden calf, claiming it was “the god which brought them up out of Egypt.” The Nephites, in their pride, “set their hearts upon costly apparel,” and corrupted the plainness of their worship. In every age, sacred things are first neglected, then altered, and finally mocked.

In our time, subtle changes to the garment’s form and function have been justified in the name of comfort, convenience, or modern sensibilities. Yet each alteration risks erasing the symbols that once taught the faithful of their covenant obligations. The garment was revealed, not designed. It was instituted by the Prophet Joseph Smith under revelation, and its original form carried deep meaning, closely tied to the temple endowment itself. To simplify or modify its pattern without divine command is to tamper with revelation itself.

The garment must remain what it was at the beginning—a divinely appointed covering, symbolic of the coats of skins the Lord gave to Adam and Eve after the Fall, representing both the atoning covering of Christ and the mantle of priesthood authority.⁷ As those first garments were given by God Himself, so too was the pattern restored in this dispensation by His prophet.

A Call to Return

Moses sought to sanctify Israel that they might behold the face of God, but the people shrank from His presence. Today, many among us similarly shrink from the sacred, preferring the convenient to the consecrated. Yet the call remains the same: to “put off the natural man” and to be clothed upon with light, even as Adam, Enoch, and Noah were. The garment is not a relic of the past but a perpetual reminder that the everlasting Gospel has not changed and cannot change.

The Lord declared that He “is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” Therefore, His ordinances are eternal, and His symbols remain constant. The garment—unchanged, uncorrupted, and unmodernized—is a witness that we have entered into covenant with the Almighty and that we are willing to bear His image in our very flesh.

To those who honor it, the garment is a shield and a promise. To those who treat it lightly or seek to alter its form, it becomes a silent witness of their forgetfulness. The Prophet Joseph received the pattern from heaven, not from man. It is the uniform of the faithful, the emblem of Zion’s holiness, and the mark of those who have entered the New and Everlasting Covenant.

May we, therefore, hold fast to that which was revealed, and not surrender sacred things to the fashions of the world. Let us, like Enoch’s people, walk with God and be clothed with glory; like Noah, build our ark of obedience; and like Moses, sanctify ourselves to behold His face. Then shall we truly understand the power and meaning of the holy garment and the everlasting Gospel it represents.

Footnotes:

Doctrine and Covenants 84:23–27.

Moses 5:14–15.

Moses 8:23–24.

Moses 8:19.

Doctrine and Covenants 84:24–26.

1 Corinthians 10:1–4.

Genesis 3:21; see also Moses 4:27.