‘Something had to give’

Jacinda Ardern, the former progressive prime minister of New Zealand, talked in a recent podcast about the “cognitive dissonance” that prompted her to step away from the church.

“I was always aware of the fact that here I was in my 20s, campaigning for civil unions, campaigning for our LGBTQI+ community, and, on Sunday, I was going to a church that didn’t believe in that, and something had to give,” Ardern told the Australian Broadcasting Corp. “And in the end, I made the decision to leave.”

After her exit, she “wasn’t cut off from anyone,” she said. “My family [was] very kind.”

Ardern won public acclaim for her compassionate response to mass shootings at two mosques and personal praise from then-church President Russell Nelson for her peacemaking and leadership abilities

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2026/10/01/why-former-prime-minister-left-lds/

Credit u/missedinsunday

Creation: the sixth day

Man was given dominion over all things on the earth. A garden was planted for him. He was commanded to multiply and replenish the earth. He/him only.

After 1990, woman was included and they/them pronouns were used.

Conditions of the fall

The following section was present pre-1990, but removed after:

> ELOHIM: Eve, because thou hast hearkened to the voice of Satan, and hast partaken of the forbidden fruit, and given unto Adam, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception. In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children; nevertheless, thou mayest be preserved in childbearing. Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee in righteousness.

The law of obedience

> Pre-1990, ELOHIM: We will put the sisters under covenant to obey the law of their husbands.

> 1990, ELOHIM: We will put the sisters under covenant to obey the Law of the Lord, and to hearken to the counsel of her husband, as her husband hearkens unto the counsel of the Father

> 2019, ELOHIM: We will put each of you under covenant to obey the Law of the Lord.

> 2023 ELOHIM: Adam, Eve, we will now put you under covenant to keep the Law of Obedience, which is to obey my commandments.

Previously discussed: https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/s/qIIyc55jHP

The messengers' reports

> ELOHIM: Jehovah, instruct Peter, James, and John to go down in their true character, as apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the man Adam and his posterity in the telestial world and to cast Satan out of their midst.

After 1990 changed to "Adam and Eve and their posterity"

Prayer circle

> The sisters in the room will please veil their faces.

This continued until 2019

The covenant for women to obey husbands, as part of Law of Obedience, was finally dropped in 2023.

> Pre-1990, ELOHIM: We will put the sisters under covenant to obey the law of their husbands.

> 1990, ELOHIM: We will put the sisters under covenant to obey the Law of the Lord, and to hearken to the counsel of her husband, as her husband hearkens unto the counsel of the Father

> 2019, ELOHIM: We will put each of you under covenant to obey the Law of the Lord.

> 2023 ELOHIM: Adam, Eve, we will now put you under covenant to keep the Law of Obedience, which is to obey my commandments.

Additional discussion of the changes:

> In the version prior to 1990, female patrons were made to covenant to obey “the law of their husbands” and to “keep the law of your husband and abide by his counsel in righteousness.” As in the preceding section, the 1990 revision preserves this patriarchal covenant and gives it a new name—the Law of the Lord. The revised version explained that the Law of the Lord is “to hearken unto the counsel of your husband as he hearkens unto the Father.” Also notice that the 1990 version still had male and female patrons entering into separate covenants that go by different names. Women covenant to the Law of the Lord; men covenant to the Law of God.

The 2019 version preserves the patriarchal nature of the covenant

> The 2019 revision hides the patriarchal covenant by having both men and women enter into the same covenantal agreement—the Law of the Lord—and omitting the elaboration of the terms of this agreement that used to accompany it. Men do not covenant to the Law of God because their obedience to Elohim is incorporated within the terms of the Law of the Lord. Both men and women covenant that wives will obey their husbands as the husbands obey God

The 2023 version appears egalitarian, but there is still a possible caveat

> Finally, the 2023 revisions remove the Law of the Lord entirely. Both men and women now covenant to “keep the Law of Obedience as it has been explained to you.” The last clause is incredibly important. As I will elaborate further below, there are ways that one could argue that the 2023 revisions still preserve the patriarchal theology of the covenants just under one additional layer of euphemistic obfuscation. Namely, that the Law of Obedience is a catchall for the previous system of women covenanting to obey their husbands (i.e., the Law of the Lord) and men covenanting to obey God (i.e., the Law of God). However, none of that is explained in the 2023 version, which now explicitly stipulates that patrons agree to the Law of Obedience “as it has been explained to you.” That’s a potentially big deal.

https://tokensandsigns.org/2023-temple-changes/

News coverage of the Mormon Leaks video from 2009:

> In a presentation that has provoked some criticism, former Senator Gordon H. Smith, a Republican of Oregon, shared with the apostles that he voted in favor of the Iraq War partly because he believed it could open the region for Mormon missionaries.

> “If that succeeds, there will be an opportunity to begin building the church in the Middle East, which is a deeply troubled place,” said Mr. Smith, who at the time had recently lost a re-election campaign after two terms in the Senate.

https://www.opb.org/news/article/mormon-leaks-video-oregon-senator-gordon-smith/

https://web.archive.org/web/20200108194529/https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/mormon-videos-leaked.html

Knowing what you know now, do you feel like Mormon politicians can balance their covenants to the church with their duty to represent all their constituents? Do you feel like there is an inherent conflict of interest?

The pre-1990 oaths and penalties are uncomfortable to talk about, and for good reason. Instead of being forthright and honest, Holland is left scrambling after being caught in a lie. We don't see many media interviews with the q15 anymore.

I think the line of questioning from the BBC was fair. If you have a presidential candidate (Mitt Romney) who has made oaths under the penalty of death to another organization, then the voting public deserves to know and vote accordingly. A central theme of The Book of Mormon is that secret societies can undermine the government and society.

Of note is the example of the Oregon senator who relished in doing favors for the church. (Thank you Mormon leaks)

https://www.opb.org/news/article/mormon-leaks-video-oregon-senator-gordon-smith/

https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/s/pffWIumfSD

In the original temple endowment, oaths were made while promising not to reveal each token's name, sign, or penalty. Each of the described penalties was accompanied by gestures known as the "execution of the penalty" which had the oath taker simulate the actions described in the oath (see images).

In the 1920s, the church removed the explicit descriptions of the three methods of execution and replaced them with the phrase, "rather than do so, I would suffer my life to be taken." The gestures remained.

In 1990 the Church eliminated the oaths and the gestures from the endowment.

The current endowment still includes holding the hand in cupping shape, which was understood to represent holding the organs cut out, and the thumb extended, which was understood to represent a knife. These are the last remnants of the original grim symbolism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LDS_Endowment_infographic.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penalty_(Mormonism)

Does the church benefit from activism and pressure to change? Do you think prophetic revelation and change would happen at the same rate without activism?

https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders/2022/11/1/23424931/brother-ahmad-s-corbit-activism-discipleship/

Would my mother have been better off ignoring teachings from the Prophet in 1987?

Prophetic teachings do not age well. Most Mormons will admit that past prophets should be ignored. However, this talk provides a good example of a teaching that should have been ignored even in the moment it was given.

The highest ranking woman in the church, Camille N. Johnson, ignored the prophet's counsel in 1987 (the same year she was married and started her family). She graduated law school in 1989, and worked outside the home for nearly 30 years as a lawyer. She is now the General Relief Society President. She was apparently very blessed for ignoring the prophet's teachings in 1987.

My mother had career aspirations, but she listened to the prophet and became a stay-at-home mom. She is approximately the same age as Camille.

Not only is it often necessary to disregard the teachings from past prophets, but you may be better off ignoring prophetic teachings even as they roll off the tongue of the mouthpiece of the Lord.

Camille's Bio:

> President Johnson graduated from the University of Utah in 1985 with a bachelor’s degree in English followed by a law degree from the University of Utah in 1989. She practiced law for nearly 30 years.

Benson teachings:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/womens-divine-roles-and-responsibilities/to-the-mothers-in-zion-institute?lang=eng

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/kevin-w-pearson/the-abundant-life-2/

BYU Speeches, October 18, 2022

Kevin Pearson, general authority

My young friends, I plead with you to take your temple covenants seriously! Keeping our sacred covenants with God is crucial, not optional. We are deeply dismayed by the casual and even cavalier way some treat their temple covenants, including the casual and inconsistent wearing of the temple garment. There is among some a growing sense of spiritual apathy and casual covenant keeping that is becoming increasingly common among those who should know and do better.

Bill Marriott of the Marriott hotel chain told CBS 60 Minutes interviewer Mike Wallace in 1996 that his garment miraculously protected him in a boat fire.

>In 1996, as a recognizable Latter‑day Saint, Bill was invited to add background to an interview of President Gordon B. Hinckley by CBS’s 60 Minutes reporter Mike Wallace. With Bill on camera, Wallace raised the sensitive topic of Latter‑day Saint temple garments. “Do you wear the sacred undergarments?” Wallace asked.

>“Yes, I do,” replied Bill. “And I can tell you, they do protect you from harm.” He then related the story of the fire. “The boat was on fire. I was on fire. I was burned. My pants were burned right off me. I was not burned above my knee. Where the garment was, I was not burned. . . . My undergarments were not singed.” Though not everyone who wears garments has an outcome like Bill’s, the opportunity to share his experience caused him to think back on Elder Packer’s blessing. The terrible accident on the boat had allowed him to testify on national television about the tender mercies of God and the power of the priesthood.

https://www.ldsliving.com/3-times-following-the-spirit-saved-bill-marriotts-life/s/92210

*Bonus: watch to the end of the clip to see what other famous Mormon was interviewed

The original Temple garment is described in the 1840s was a one-piece garment extending to the wrist and ankles. The garments contained the four marks relevant to the endowment ceremony. In early church history, the garment itself was considered a revelation from God, that was not to be altered or changed.

“It was while they were living in Nauvoo that the Prophet [Joseph] came to my mother, who was a seamstress by trade, and told her that he had seen the angel Moroni with the garments on, and asked her to assist him in cutting out the garments. They spread unbleached muslin out on the table and he told her how to cut it out. She had to cut the third pair, however, before he said it was satisfactory.” (The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship, 142)

Early Mormon apostles Heber C. Kimball and George A. Smith, and member of the First Presidency Frederick G. Williams, all testified that a heavenly personage (one said Jesus himself) was wearing a temple garment when He allegedly appeared to Joseph Smith in the Kirtland Temple in 1836.

(The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship, 144-145)

"The Lord has given unto us garments of the holy priesthood, and you know what that means. And yet there are those of us who mutilate them, in order that we may follow the foolish, vain and (permit me to say) indecent practices of the world. In order that such people may imitate the fashions, they will not hesitate to mutilate that which should be held by them the most sacred of all things in the world, next to their own virtue, next to their own purity of life. They should hold these things that God has given unto them __sacred, unchanged and unaltered from the very pattern in which God gave them.__ Let us have the moral courage to stand against the opinions of fashion, and especially where fashion compels us to break a covenant and so commit a grievous sin."

Joseph F Smith, 1906 October General conference

"The garments worn by those who receive endowments must be white and of the approved pattern. They must not be altered and mutilated and are to be worn as intended, down to the wrist and ankle, and around the neck. Admission to the temple will be refused those who do not comply with these requirements. The Saints should know that the pattern of endowment garments was revealed from heaven, and the blessings promised in connection with wearing them will not be realized if any unauthorized change is made in their form or in the manner of wearing them” (Joseph F. Smith, “Temple Instructions to the Bishops,” Messages of the First Presidency 5:110. Quoted in Buerger from Improvement Era, June 1916).

The first changes to the garment occurred in 1923, approximately 80 years after the original garment was revealed.

Do you think it is a good idea to re-publicize a deceased person's controversial work? Her answers will certainly draw criticism, but it's hard to want to push back when she tragically passed away unexpectedly at a young age.

What other modified cuss words have you heard Mormons use?

The 405m model has known trigger button issues. It looks like these were addressed a few years back with changes to the buttons and the internal hardware. I just received another 405m and it has the older L pattern for the trigger buttons. Does this indicate that this device is the older model that is more prone to problems? Or do I need to open it up to look at the internal components to know for sure.

To phrase this another way, did Anbernic go back to the L-shaped trigger buttons but keep the fix on the internal components?

Previous post:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ANBERNIC/s/EK41vAsuOO

The last two days of our cruise are in Reykjavik. Will we be able to disembark early (~5 am) to catch a flight?