Religion News Service: 100 years of Mormon temple garments
FEATURES
-
Your Hardest Family Question: When Ecclesiastical Support Isn’t Supportive
-
Femme Faithful: Upending the Narrative of Women’s Education
By Carol Rice and Breanne Su'a -
Highlighting our Latter-day Saint Musicians—Daniel Beck and Elder Dansie
-
Cartoon: Surround Sound
-
Outstanding New Readers and Early Chapter Books
-
General Conference by the Numbers: Important Phrases from Last Conference
By Scott Brown -
A Bad Scent
By Daris Howard
Comments | Return to Story
KateJuly 1, 2019
No, H North and the other commenter, children were not endowed. However, garments were essentially union suits (they were basically normal underwear with markings added), because to the Victorian mores of the time it seemed much more appropriate to show women with children in their underwear rather than women alone. It was also considered perfectly fine to sew your own temple garments up until mid-century and my MIL, who worked for years at JC Penney in Provo, said she remembers when temple garments were sold at Penney's. When Rose Marie Reid redesigned women's garments and the Church took over all production, everything changed. You could still buy "union suit" garments at least into the 1970s, and of course the garments worn in the temple itself had to be long-sleeved and -legged until then as well. Thankfully, times change!
June 26, 2019
No , these ads are for”UnionSuits” or, regular long underwear! Children were not endowed, but they did wear long underwear , everyone did!! I
H NorthJune 26, 2019
Are those children wearing garments in those ads? Were children receiving their endowments 100 years ago?
ADD A COMMENT