The Curious Case of the Cut in the Knee

"Garments are considered sacred by Church members and are not regarded as a topic for casual conversation." - from Newsroom.LDS.org, the official LDS Church resource for news media and the public

Since I understand well the sensitivity many LDS have toward discussing garments, I'm going to avoid an introductory explanation of their purpose and significance and direct the curious reader to the entry on garments included in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, available on BYU's website here, but I will address a rather curious historical claim made about garments that might prove uncomfortable for the Mormon unaccustomed to candid discussions of the sacred not tailored to the promotion of faith.

Now, I'm not the most well-read bloke when it comes to Mormon history, but I have been following the debates had between believers and critics long enough to have become familiar with a good many of the controversial events in LDS history, so I was a tad surprised when I recently happened across something I had managed for so long to remain ignorant of, and it comes from what is probably the most famous and widely read biography of Joseph Smith ever, Fawn Brodie's No Man Knows My History (told you I'm not the most well-read bloke). She writes, on page 281 of the 1971 edition:

The... square and compass were cut into the garment on the breast and a slash was made across the knee. In the beginning the cut across the knee was apparently deep enough to penetrate the flesh and leave a scar, but this practice was eventually abandoned as a result of protests from the Mormon women.

I was positively dumbfounded to find that, according to Brodie, the symbols in the garment, or at least the mark found near the knee, apparently used to be cut into the garment while it was actually being worn by a temple attendee. Brodie cites no reference for this but does list in her bibliography what appears to be her source: Fifteen Years Among the Mormons, by Mary Ettie V. Smith. That work gives more detail of temple related goings-on than what I am comfortable relating here, but the relevant passage, and, indeed, the entire book, can be read online here.

More shocking to me than the description of the cut made to the knee is the virtual silence (online, at any rate) on this nugget of history. For example, Hugh Nibley, in his famous critique of Brodie's book, "No, Ma'am, That's Not History," makes absolutely no correction to Brodie's account of the garment/knee cutting, and the FAIRWiki response to this chapter of Brodie's book stops a page short of where the practice is mentioned. I realize that to suggest that Ms. Smith's/Fawn Brodie's account must be true because I can't find any apologetic response refuting the claim is a fallacious argument from silence, but I can't help but feel that if Smith/Brodie was off base here, LDS apologists would have been more than willing to point out the error and would have done so long ago (Smith's book was published in 1858; Brodie's in 1945). But, as it stands, I can't find a peep. Is it perhaps because Mormons are reticent to discuss temple related topics, even to correct misunderstandings or even gross fabrications? Maybe, but, I believe, unlikely. Hugh Nibely wrote extensively about the temple, and the FAIRWiki has a multi-topic "Temple" portal.

And so I appeal to you, Droppings readers: if you have any information that calls into question the reliability of Ms. Smith's account of the cutting she describes, please let me know. My ego is having a hard time accepting that something this fascinating has eluded me during all my years of study, and, frankly, I would accept this all being an anti-Mormon lie a satisfactory excuse.