Saturday, May 14, 2022

Richard Earl Brown


Richard Earl Brown

April 29th, 2022

11/25/1943 ~ 4/29/2022

Richard Earl Brown, 78 of Mt. Pleasant, Utah, passed away April 29, 2022 surrounded by his loving family. Born November 25, 1943 to Eugene Lester & Ruth Elva Braithwaite Brown in Manti, Utah. Married Marilyn Shepherd April 29, 1966 in the Manti Temple. They had two sons Todd Brown and Rick (Tera) Brown. Funeral services will be held May 7, 2022 at 1:00 p.m. in the Mt. Pleasant 4th Ward Chapel (49 S State). Viewings Friday May 6, 2022 from 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. at Rasmussen Mortuary and Saturday 11:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. at the church prior to services. Interment in the Mt. Pleasant City Cemetery. Online condolences and Live Zoom link at in his obituary.

Friday, May 13, 2022

Caren Frandsen Dixon


Vera Caren Frandsen Dixon Obituary


It is always difficult saying goodbye to someone we love and cherish. Family and friends must say goodbye to their beloved Vera Caren Frandsen Dixon (Lehi, Utah), who passed away at the age of 81, on October 26, 2021. 

She was loved and cherished by many people including : her parents, Roy Frandsen and Opal Frandsen; her children, Denise Brown (Randall) of Richfield, Stephanie Gray (Neil) of Lehi, Utah and George Richard Dixon (Richy); her great grandchildren, Chloe and Cruz Mitchell Jorgensen; and her siblings, Leon Frandsen, Elvin Frandsen and Valoy Smith (Arthur Richard Dixon). She was also cherished by Grandchildren (9) and Great-Grandchildren.


Early Years: She was the youngest of four children to parents Roy and
Opal Frandsen. Mom grew up on a farm in Birch Creek,
later moved to Mt. Pleasant, Utah. Attended North Sanpete
High School where she was on the student council. Being
a cheerleader and a natural beauty, she caught the eye of
many. She soon met a football player, Richard Dixon, who
became her life's sweetheart. She and Richard married in
December, 1957.

Wendover: Considered a prominent and cherished resident for over 60
years. Became part of the fabric of community, church, and
civic service and volunteerism. choreographer of the high
school Junior Prom promenade for over 15 years. Served on
Wendover City Council and several community and church

Business Enterprises:
Dixon's Dairy Freeze and Motel; S&D Supermarket
and Chicken Stand; Dixon's Rentals; Dixon's Salt Flats
Service Station; Bonneville Speedway Museum; various
rental property. In the later years, she helped "jumpstart"
other businesses for the good of Wendover.

Lehi: Moved to the Villas at Pioneer Crossing in 2017, where she
was loved by her neighbors.

Hobbies: Music and singing ... Mom had an incredible voice she
willingly shared at many events.
Dancing ...she enjoyed dancing and also teaching it to others.
Travel ...from Europe to Africa and throughout the US, she
journeyed the world.
Service ...Mom enjoyed serving and assisting others, especially
her family and friends.

Greatest Joy:
Her children Denise, Richy, Stephanie; Grandchildren (9) and
Great-Grandchildren (13)

Survived By:
Daughter Denise (Randall) Brown of Richfield, Utah
Daughter Stephanie (Neil) Gray of Lehi, Utah
Grandchildren and Great Grandchildren
Chloe, her companion little dog

Preceded in Death:
Parents: Roy and Opal Frandsen
Siblings: Brothers Leon Frandsen and Elvin Frandsen
Sister Valoy Smith
Husband: Arthur Richard Dixon
Son: George Richard (Richy) Dixon
Great-Grandson: Cruz Mitchell Jorgensen

Service: Celebration Service on Friday, November 5, 2021.
Location: 118 East Main Street, Lehi, Utah 84043
Viewing: 10am with Celebration Service to follow at 11am
Burial: Same day in Wendover Cemetery, Wendover, Utah
at approximately 3pm

Family Group Sheet of Rasmus Madsen


Monday, May 9, 2022

Junket ~~~ What Is it?

 Taken from Recipes of Carrie Nielsen Hafen 

Junket: a noble rise and fall...and repeat 

Junket isn't a new thing. Apparently, predecessors of junket were made as early as Medieval times, where a cream-and-rennet mixture, sweetened and flavored with rosewater, sugar, and spices, was an upper-class food, served to those among noble ranks. 

Alas, along with the Tudor era came a taste for the next big thing, syllabub. Syllabub took over like cupcakes taking over cookies in the early 2000s. Junket was no longer a noble food, but it did trickle down to the masses--as it fell from popularity in genteel circles, it became an everyday food for commoners. 

Then, in the late 1870s, junket went stateside. Christian Hansen, an owner of a lab in Denmark which made rennet extract for the cheese making industry, relocated to Herkimer County, New York; apparently, at that time, New York was the center of the US cheese industry (this is also the same era in which cream cheese became a Big Deal, btw). While the company's products expanded over the years, junket is the heart and soul of their offerings. 

By the 1930s, junket had become a popular convenience food. For many, it was considered a food for the infirm: gentle on digestion for sick children's sensitive stomachs. For others, junket was an easy gateway to making homemade dessert. It's possible that perhaps the manufacturer was going for an elegant, European effect, though; as I learned from this article.

ingredients reveal little: Salt, Calcium, Lactate, Corn Starch, Rennet, Tricalcium, Phosphate, Calcium Stearate (Food Grade).  
New York Times 1991

According to the company website, Junket is "for making easily digested milk foods". 

Sunday, May 8, 2022

Saturday, May 7, 2022

History of Nylon Hosiery ~~~ taken from Wikipedia and Smithsonian Magazine

Yellow box in which stockings were sold 

Historically, even though the word sock is at least as ancient in origin, what men normally wore were often referred to as stockings, probably especially when referring to longer hose.[1][2][verification needed] The word stock used to refer to the bottom "stump" part of the body, and by analogy the word was used to refer to the one-piece covering of the lower trunk and limbs of the 15th century—essentially tights consisting of the upper-stocks (later to be worn separately as knee breeches) and nether-stocks (later to be worn separately as stockings). (See Hose.)

Before the 1590s, stockings were made of woven cloth. The first knitting machines were for making stockings.[3] The stockings themselves were made of cotton, linenwool or silk. A polished cotton called lisle was common, as were those made in the town of Balbriggan.

Before the 1920s, stockings, if worn, were worn for warmth. In the 1920s, as hemlines of dresses rose and central heating was not widespread, women began to wear flesh-colored stockings to cover their exposed legs. Those stockings were sheer, first made of silk or rayon (then known as "artificial silk") and after 1940 of nylon.

Kronenberg brand stocking from mid-20th century

The introduction of nylon in 1939 by chemical company DuPont began a high demand for stockings in the United States with up to 4 million pairs being purchased in one day. Nylon stockings were cheap, durable, and sheer compared to their cotton and silk counterparts. When America entered World War II, DuPont ceased production of nylon stockings and retooled their factories to produce parachutes, airplane cords, and rope. This led to a shortage and the creation of a black market for stockings. At the end of the war DuPont announced that the company would return to producing stockings, but could not meet demand. This led to a series of disturbances in American stores known as the nylon riots until DuPont was able to increase production.[4]

A precursor of pantyhose made an appearance in the 1940s and 1950s, when film and theater productions had stockings sewn to the briefs of actresses and dancers, according to actress-singer-dancer Ann Miller[5] and seen in popular films such as Daddy Long Legs. Today, stockings are commonly made using knitted wool, silk, cotton or nylon (see hosiery). The introduction of commercial pantyhose in 1959 gave an alternative to stockings, and the use of stockings declined dramatically. A main reason for this was the trend towards higher hemlines on dresses (see minidress). In 1970, U.S. sales of pantyhose exceeded stockings for the first time, and has remained this way ever since.[6] Beginning in 1987, sales of pantyhose started a slight decline due to the newly invented hold-ups, but still remain the most sold kind of hosiery.


Stockings are still sometimes preferred to pantyhose in North American English, for a number of reasons. These may include the perception that stockings, and the associated use of garterslace, high fashion, appliqué and the exposure of the thigh, are more aesthetically pleasing, or sexually attractive and alluring than pantyhose.

Both nylon stockings and pantyhose in being sheer share the advantage of being quick-drying compared to pants. Spare pairs are also easy to carry if they are ruined. If laddered they can be replaced 'one at a time' which provides a cost advantage over tights.

However, stockings have a drawback in colder weather, because more skin is exposed to the cold compared to pantyhose. Also, pantyhose do not require garters or garter belts, and do not need to be adjusted as much, whilst also leaving a smoother line under form-fitting clothing.

The following comes from Smithsonian Magazine:,sold%20out%20in%20four%20days.

Nylon stockings made their grand debut in a splashy display at the 1939 World’s Fair in New York. By the time the stockings were released for sale to the public on May 15, 1940 demand was so high that women flocked to stores by the thousands. Four million pairs sold out in four days.

In her book Nylon; The Story of a Fashion Revolution, Susannah Handley writes: “Nylon became a household word in less than a year and in all the history of textiles, no other product has enjoyed the immediate, overwhelming public acceptance of DuPont nylon.”

The name may have become synonymous with stockings, but hosiery was merely the market of choice for nylon’s introduction. According the American Chemical Society it was a well calculated decision. They state on their web site:

The decision to focus on hosiery was crucial. It was a limited, premium market. "When you want to develop a new fiber for fabrics you need thousands of pounds," said Crawford Greenewalt, a research supervisor during nylon development who later became company president and CEO. "All we needed to make was a few grams at a time, enough to knit one stocking."

The experimental stockings were manufactured by Union Hosiery Company for Dupont with a cotton seam and a silk welt and toe. They were black because scientists hadn’t yet figured out how to get the material to take flesh-colored dye. One of the other hurdles to be overcome was the fact that nylon distorted when exposed to heat. Developers eventually learned to use that property to their advantage by stretching newly sewn stockings over leg-shaped forms and steaming them. The result was silky smooth, form-fitting hosiery that never needed ironing.

Nylon’s impact on fashion was immediate, but the revolution sparked by the invention of what was originally called fiber-66 rapidly extended its tendrils down through every facet of society. It has given rise to a world of plastics that renders our lives nearly unrecognizable from civilizations of a century ago.

Friday, May 6, 2022

Debate: That Short Men Make Better Husbands (from our archives)


Debate: That Short Men Make Better Husbands ~ Artopic Club 1935

Honorable Judges, Worthy Opponents, and fellow Club Members

1. That Short Men make better husbands because:
    a. They are more even-tempered than tall men.
    b. They are more economically dressed.
    c. You have a better chance of happiness with a small man.
    d. You will keep your youth and beauty longer.
    e. Your own work is more easily and more quickly done.

These points I have just given may now sound irrelevant and preposterous just now.  However, I shall prove every single word I have said to your satisfaction.

Let us look at the small man's stature to be outstanding in the world because of his inherited size.  But they have been all the mightier for it.  Let us look at Napoleon Bonaparte.  Never did there exist a greater general than he.  He was defeated you say-- of course, he had indigestion.  Look at Confucius the greatest mind in Chinese history.  We know that he was described as being "as slight as a small woman".  Yet his words are as a religion in the world today.  It has been written that a man's greatness cannot be judged by his stature.  And so I say that I will prove to you on the above points that even as in history the small man triumphs in the matter of fitness as a husband.  Surely this fact matters more to us, the women of this generation, more than does his capacity for pulling trees, throwing bulls, or rubbing the paint off the ceiling with his hair.

I shall not prove my points with any stories from my own experience.  The fact that I am married to a man who could not be called tall, does not color my faith in the cause for which I argue.  Moreover, I feel that to bring personal experience and opinion into this debate would be to give my worthy opponents an unjust advantage.  You see, good friends, both my opponents are married--and my worthy colleagues is not.  So that to count experience as proof of argument would leave us in the dust.  And most unworthily.  However, it would not go too easily with our worthy opponents if I were so minded to speak from experience.  There is not one woman in our club who has more experience living with a tall man than I.  I have lived with a taller man than is any  other man in town.  So were I to produce as evidence my experience with him, the result would be so shattering as to preclude any necessity for further debate.

But Now To My Argument:

   Small men are more  economically dressed.  This statement  almost goes without argument.  But just supposing for instance, that you were contemplating a pair of pajamas.  We all know that inexpensive ready-made pajamas are made in conservative sizes and that for a very  tall man, they will hit him at the ridiculous point, just above the wrists and ankles.  And when they are washed and shrunk, you will begin to wish that you had ordered one of those hideous monstrosities--a nightshirt.  However a small man may be fitted perfectly--and if they are a little long, you can cut the sleeves and legs off and provide yourself with some lovely quilt blocks, dishrags, or any such little items they may suggest, of course you perceive the argument.  Supposing you decide to make your husbands pajamas.  The same argument holds good here also, a small man will sleep comfortably in a pair made most lavish from four and one half yards of material but your lengthy better half will require at least five yards or maybe six.  Since I said I would not stoop to speak from my own experience I could not do so.  But if I should speak I could tell of buying nearly seven yards of cloth for one pair of pajamas--but I will not speak from experience.  Contemplate, that I have only mentioned one item of clothing.  Everything else may be considered in the like manner.  Then there is the matter of shirt tails,  Did you ever see the shirttail of a tall man waving in the wind?  Of Course you did.  Lots of times--he is most always too long between shoulders and waist to allow more than a half an inch to tuck in--therefore it flies out every time to he exerts himself--much to the embarrassment of his wife--or every woman in the vicinity.  But a small man always has inches to spare and tucks his shirt tails snugly about his knees so that he does not catch cold--and thereby saves on cough remedy and aspirin.  He needs feel no draft about his middle to keep you awake all night by his coughing.

The second point tells us that you have a better chance of happiness with a small man.  Just supposing that you were married to a burly six footer and the doors to your house measured exactly five feet and one half inches.  Your husband must concentrate each time he entered his house, else he will bump his head which would put him in an ill humor.  His brow will become wrinkled and corrugated with thought because of his intense efforts to concentrate.  He will no doubt become hunchbacked from going in and outdoors too small for him--what will be the result--away will fly romance and love--who could love a cross, wrinkled faced man with a hunched back?

Our third point proves that you will keep your youth and beauty more easily married to a small man- think my good friends of the long legs and arms  of your burly big bruiser.  Think of the long cold nights when time after time you will waken to find yourself uncovered because he has moved an arm or a leg.  You will not get your rest, your beauty sleep that is so vital to your youth and beauty.

My last point proves conclusively that your work will be easier if your mate is small.  Your washings will be smaller--A small man cannot dirty as large a piece of clothing.  Your darning will be easier, his socks will not have such big holes because the socks are not as large.  His appetite is not so large and his smaller feet cannot drag in so much dirt.  His trousers are more quickly pressed--his legs are not so long.  I have not spoken from experience.

Finally,  I shall prove to you that WHO of the greatest men in history and in modern times would not make suitable husbands for you nor me--nor any other woman in this town.

In history let us take Abraham Lincoln.  He was a great man, I grant you that there is probably not a greater man in history.  He was a tall thin man well over six feet--just the type our worthy opponent would have you believe makes the best husband--and yet why would not you or I want Abraham Lincoln for a husband?  Because he is dead.

Now let us take a man of modern times.  Who better could I choose than Franklin D. Roosevelt, our President.  He is a large active man, with a charming personality, and not, I say Not one of you could bring yourself to marry him, charming and tall as he is-- Why? My dear friends-he is already married.  Thank You!