Commenting on the Temple Apron used in the LDS temple ceremony and the garments of Adam and Eve in the book of Genesis, one anti-Mormon author wrote the following:
It is clear from the Genesis account that although Adam and Eve did indeed make fig-leaf aprons, God immediately rejected them. Instead, He made them “coats of skin.” (Ed Decker, Decker’s Complete Handbook on Mormonism [Eugene, Oreg.: Harvest House Publishers, 1995], 54)
This particular argument has been answered a number of times by Latter-day Saint apologists.
Responding to a similar argument from Walter Martin, Stan Baker and John Tvedtnes wrote the following:
The Fig-leaf Apron And The Temple
The LDS hold the things they learn in the temple to be sacred. Rather than discuss sacred things, we will comment on two incorrect assertions that appear in the question. With the elimination of these incorrect assertions, the question becomes irrelevant.
Incorrect Assertion Number One
"God rejected the fig-leaf aprons"
Genesis 3:21 says:
Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
There is nothing in this scripture about God "rejecting fig-leaf aprons." It is simply the critic's opinion that God's making the coats of skins for Adam and Eve constitute his "rejection of fig leaf aprons." It could easily be argued that this scripture teaches that God provided a better long-term solution to the covering of Adam and Eve's nakedness than they did, especially given that they were about to be driven from Eden into the harshness of the outside world.1 As John Tvedtnes has pointed out, coats of skins were certainly more durable than the fig-leaf aprons mentioned in Genesis 3:7 (see Responses to CARM).
Incorrect Assertion Number Two
"The fig-leaf apron" is used "to memorialize the Fall."
The definition of memorialize is:
To honor or keep alive the memory of: A plaque at the base of the bridge memorialized the workmen killed in its construction. Syn: Commemorate.2
The use of "memorialize" in the question seems to imply that the purpose of the fig-leaf apron in the temple ceremony is to commemorate Adam and Eve's disobedience (the Fall) as something that the LDS honor. This is simply not the case. One purpose of the temple ceremony is to remind us of Adam and Eve's disobedience in the Garden of Eden, how God dealt with the situation, and how we can progress to become more like our Heavenly Father. The aprons serve as a small reminder of the fig-leaf part of the story as described in the Bible.
Earliest known discussion:
John Tvedtnes, 1996
Notes:
Responding to Matt Slick on this particular issue, John Tvedtnes wrote:
The aprons are mentioned only in Genesis 3:7. Nowhere does the text tell us that God "rejected" them, only that, in place of the temporary fig leaf aprons (fig leaves dry up and blow away), God provided more permanent skin clothing (Genesis 3:21). The Latter-day Saints recognize the symbolic nature of the fall, represented by the fig-leaf apron and of God giving mankind a probationary time in which to repent, as represented by the "coats of skins."
Slick tried to respond, writing the following:
I am sorry, but you fail to understand the significance of the biblical account. Adam and Eve covered themselves with their own works and God rejected it by replacing their works with His: animal skins. This is significant because it involved the shedding of blood (in order to get the skins, typifying the atoning work of Christ.)
Theologically, the fig leaf aprons symbolize their own efforts to be covered before God. This is not sufficient and is rejected by God.
Additionally, from what I understand of the temple ceremony, the aprons are the same as the one worn by Lucifer. After Lucifer is asked by Adam, "What is that apron you are wearing?" Lucifer replies that it is the symbol of his power and priesthoods. Immediately afterwards, the people going through the temple ceremony are asked to put their aprons on.
Please let me know if I am incorrect about this.
LDS apologist, Russell Ashdown, refuted Slick on this attempted "response":
I am sorry Matt but I was have to agree with Tvednes again. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God rejected it. Your adding to the Bible now Matthew. Your inserting your views in a text where it does not demand it to be inserted. Nowhere does it say anything like "Adam and Eve covered themselves with their own works and God rejected it by replacing their works with His: animal skins." Where in the world are you getting this from? Yes God gave them animal skins, which actually would be a sacred holy garment to Adam and Eve by the way but that is in addition to the fig. I love your statement "Theologically, the fig leaf aprons symbolize their own efforts to be covered before God. This is not sufficient and is rejected by God." Don't know where your getting this from but theologically speaking, this is BS. Sorry but that is true. Just because you think that God rejected it does not make it so. WHere does it say this in the Bible or anywhere else? What "theology" are you referring to? I have no idea.
It is rather clear that there is nothing anti-biblical about the Latter-day Saint use of the fig-leaf apron in our temple ceremonies.