Religion News Service: 100 years of Mormon temple garments
FEATURES
- “Crawling Over, Under, or Around Section 132”: The Debate Over Joseph Smith and Polygamy by Daniel C. Peterson
- An Open Letter to the Mayor of Fairview, Texas by C.D. Cunningham
- The Trojan Horse of AI by Marianna Richardson
- The Man Who Entered Alone: How Israel’s High Priest Pointed to Christ by Patrick D. Degn
- Looking Upon the Serpent by Paul Bishop
- Your Hardest Family Question: How can I say “no” and still be Christ-like? by Geoff Steurer, MS, LMFT
- How We Learn to Be Strong and of Good Courage–Come Follow Me Podcast, Joshua 1-8, 23, 24 by Scot and Maurine Proctor
- Stepping into Moses’ Shoes: Joshua’s Divine Commission by Daniel C. Peterson
- Fooling the Supercomputer (Part 1) by Daris Howard
- Your Grand Connections Are Both Powerful and Tender by Mary Bell
















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