Comments on: Ads You’re Not Going to See Again Anytime Soon – Chapter 5

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:37:14 +0000

Thanks for the general discretion in this discussion. I’ll refer you to comments added to the post of 29 August for further information on the last few comments (although we’ve called a halt there to further discussion of that topic). And since we’ve said all there probably is to say about the novelty of seeing printed ads like this, I’m closing discussion here.

Always fun to see who we were and where we’ve been, isn’t it?

By: Justin

Justin — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 04:09:23 +0000

Re 51, got it now.

Re 50, yes, I understand the timing of that particular change in similar terms.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 00:13:35 +0000

Justin, I think Mark B. means the change from serving as proxy for one person for all work (except perhaps baptism) on one day, to today’s way of doing the first steps for 5 or 10 people in a half hour’s time, then returning at later dates to complete the work one name at a time.

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 23:58:51 +0000

I’m traveling, so can’t double check, but I thought that change in sequence was discussed in the Kimball bio…if it is not there, I’ll have to dig, but I seem to remember that it was somewhat controversial and there was some evolution over several years, back to the McKay years. Though I have September 29, 1975 in my notes for the final decision.

By: Justin

Justin — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 23:29:00 +0000

Wow, that’s quite the welcome back. “Separated” as in the ordinances could be performed in any order or are you referring to something else?

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 19:47:07 +0000

Hurray! Justin’s back! (Remember that commercial for Life cereal? I feel like Mikey’s brother, saying “Let’s ask Justin! He can find everything!”)

By: Mark B.

Mark B. — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:52:22 +0000

Good job Justin. Now go track down the dates that the different proxy ordinances were “separated”. Thanks!

By: Justin

Justin — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:41:22 +0000

An article in the Ensign dates the approval of the two-piece garment as December 15, 1979.

By: Mark B.

Mark B. — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:04:15 +0000

Regarding dates: it was sometime after October 1979 and before August 1980 that the announcement of the change got to the Hyde Park Branch in Chicago. We had three different branch presidents in our three years in Chicago, and I was an assistant clerk or executive secretary during the third year, which put me in the PEC meeting where the Branch President came in and announced that “we could get a suntan and be half righteous.”

Neither of the previous BPs would have come up with that line.

By: m&m

m&m — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 04:52:12 +0000

Wow, Ardis. You do deliver, don’t you? It’s so interesting to see how much some things have changed.

FYI – $2 in 1920 was about $22-23 today, $2 in 1940 would be about 30 dollars today. (Yes the the trend was deflating!) $12 for silk garments would be $120 to $180 today! Just goes to show the declining cost of real goods.

The prices amazed me. Makes me feel like we get a pretty good deal these days. (All the more so thanks to Pres. Hinckley!)