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!
No , these ads are for”UnionSuits” or, regular long underwear! Children were not endowed, but they did wear long underwear , everyone did!! I
Are those children wearing garments in those ads?Were children receiving their endowments 100 years ago?
Email (will not be published)
Daily news, articles, videos and podcasts sent straight to your inbox.