I'm not sure how modern it is, I think it dates back to the idea that Willard Richards emerged unscathed because he was wearing his. I'd have to do some digging to see how early that connection was made.Hyrcanus wrote: The claim of protection from the garment is a modern contrival: it is not original, so I'm not sure how that could precede the changes, which it does not.
RE: Marks, I don't think his remarks are entirely without merit, but they did come after he had already affiliated himself with the Strangites and then what would become the RLDS movement, so that has to factor into possible motivations. Just as you would factor affiliation with the Utah church into remarks by the others. Long story short, they're not bulletproof.[/quote]
I think you are correct, Heber C. Kimball, in his journal, expressed the idea that the garments protected Richards. That was 21 Dec, 1845. But that succeeds the original garment of course, which was changed a few times after the JS murder.
Keep in mind that Marks was against polygamy from day one. He seems to be one of the few level headed individuals that emerge from that time. I guess now would be a bad time to introduce JS's attempts to get Marks' wife into a union while Marks was away. Whatever group Marks was in, as you call it Strangeite, it matters not, whether he affiliated with that group or the Brighamites (now modern LDS), is meaningless.
As for bulletproof, sure, nothing is. A journal is good though, but if we even attempt to begin to use that as a standard, we should do it universally, and if we do, then it immediately casts not light, but a shadow on JS's "first vision" itself.