From the Archives: Mormon Women and Pants, circa 1856

By December 13, 2012

I’ve watched with interest the ongoing debates this week over the proposed “Wear Pants to Church Day” spearheaded by a group of Mormon feminists. I’ve little desire to wade into the treacherous waters that conversation has become, but thanks to our resident Strangite expert Robin Jensen, I now know that the history of Mormon women and the controversial wearing of pants extends back much earlier than the late 20th century.

Not many people know of the history of Mormonism and pants, or more specifically, James J. Strang and Bloomers (actually a bit before Amelia Bloomer first wore her costume that eventually bore her name). By the time Strang and his followers were living on Beaver Island, the women regularly wore a modified version of the bloomer. Several reminiscences state that Strang forced the women to wear this costume, which became a marker of Strangite Mormon orthodoxy. Following is a brief editorial in the 1 May 1856 issue of the Beaver Islander:


The Mormon ladies have their own style of dress, convenient and very beautiful. We should call it an improvement of the Bloomer, but that it preceded that; but there is now and then a lady who deems it beneath her dignity to wear a Mormon dress.

Who are these dignified ladies? What has been their past life, that they will not demean themselves by stooping to Mormon styles?

Here passes one, who, three years ago, stole a dress pattern from Elder Bacon, which, on search, was found in her possession, and she confessed the theft, and promised restitution, but has never made it. About six months earlier she was caught in the act of adultery, and her paramour was publicly flogged by the injured husband, who put her away, and she was cast out of Society. It is right that such a one should not wear a Mormon dress. They don?t belong to that set. But is it not a little curious to see them put on airs about it? Who keeps such company? Look and see, and judge them by the company they keep.

Neither the current debate over women wearing pants nor the controversy that developed around Strang’s decree  in the 1850s, of course, took place in a cultural vacuum, and each was and is part of a much broader conversation. For those interested on the 19th century context, see  Gayle V. Fischer, Pantaloons and Power: A Nineteenth-Century Dress Reform in the United States (Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 2001). (Chapter 3 consider the Strangites at length). For the most recent and best researched volume on Strang and his followers, see Vickie Cleverly Speek, “God Has Made us a Kingdom”: James Strang and the Midwest Mormons (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2006). (Speek briefly discusses the bloomers on pp. 160-61).

Article filed under Categories of Periodization: Modern Mormonism Categories of Periodization: Origins Cultural History Current Events From the Archives Gender Material Culture Miscellaneous Popular Culture Women's History


  1. Thanks for a timely and entertaining retrospective!

    Comment by anita — December 13, 2012 @ 11:20 am

  2. A timely reminder on how everything, especially clothing, can become political within a religion.

    Comment by Ben P — December 13, 2012 @ 11:29 am

  3. Very interesting post. I’ve never heard about this and am now going to read more. Thank you.

    Comment by Jim — December 13, 2012 @ 11:48 am

  4. What I said on Facebook…

    Why teleology of “progress” fails. 19th century Mormon women, I think we can all agree, were pretty amazing.

    Comment by Max — December 13, 2012 @ 12:02 pm

  5. We still are, Max, except the way the guys usually phrase it these days is that we’re “incredible.”

    Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — December 13, 2012 @ 12:19 pm

  6. Thanks, Christopher, for the fun reminder that a historical perspective is always a good idea.

    Comment by Andrea R-M — December 13, 2012 @ 12:25 pm

  7. Thanks for this, Chris! It’s also useful to note that in the 19th C Mormon women’s periodicals were often in favor of dress reforms – lampooning the cramped and unhealthful styles that women adopted at the time to appear feminine. Oh how things change.

    Comment by Amanda HK — December 13, 2012 @ 1:44 pm

  8. This is why I love historians. Thanks for this post.

    Comment by Saskia — December 13, 2012 @ 4:10 pm

  9. Thanks, everyone. Robin Jensen deserves a lot of credit, though, for bringing this to my attention and providing the citation to the newspaper article.

    Comment by Christopher — December 13, 2012 @ 7:18 pm

  10. Just as important, I own an image of Brigham Young’s wives going to Church in 1857. The junior wives are all wearing pants, the senior wives are all wearing hooped dresses. I will try to get it uploaded later this afternoon. I had it on my Facebook a few months ago, with the caption, “Why is this image important?” and nobody noticed the pants.

    Comment by John Hajicek — December 16, 2012 @ 12:35 pm

  11. See my Facebook profile picture for the day.

    Comment by John Hajicek — December 16, 2012 @ 4:18 pm

  12. Thanks, John!

    Comment by Christopher — December 16, 2012 @ 7:29 pm


Recent Comments

Ben S on Attending MHA as an: “This, exactly, is why I enjoy conferences :) Nice post. "MHA goers are interesting people who know cool stuff. You are an interesting person who…”

Kevin Barney on What to Expect When: “I'll be there. I first started subscribing to the Journal circa 1995, because I was teaching a stake church history class and thought I ought to…”

Edje Jeter on What to Expect When: “Great comments, y'all.”

Jeff T on What to Expect When: “Thanks, Edje! In case anyone else is as unorganized as me: the conference hotel doesn't have any more rooms at the MHA rate ($122 per night),…”

Ardis on What to Expect When: “I see the First Timers’ Breakfast is on the schedule this year, which is another place to break the ice, have questions answered, and recognize…”

Curtis C on What to Expect When: “Thanks for the great writeup! I've always wanted to attend MHA, but never seemed to have the time to do it. Now that it's in…”