A Conversation with Gustavo Hernández

Hello and welcome to another episode of Inside Out.

My name is Jim Bennett.

Andy Wilkes will be joining us in less than a minute.

Um, I just need to explain what this episode is and how it's working.

Ian and I have been traveling in the UK I was recently in Los Angeles. My daughter is pursuing a doctorate in public policy at the University of Southern California, where I went to school. I got my undergraduate degree there and, uh, spent the weekend down in Los Angeles. It was absolutely delightful, a fun trip down memory lane, although it was kind of sad to go to the USC Institute where I was on the LDS SA council and where I actually met my wife. We were— we team taught gospel doctrine in the USC ward. And the USC ward no longer exists. There are no student wards anymore. There's no USC ward. There's no UCLA ward. There was a singles ward in Los Angeles, the LA First Ward, that no longer exists. There's only one singles ward down there in Santa Monica. And so that kind of made me sad, and I want to have a conversation with Ian about that. But that's not what this episode is about. Uh, one of the things we were able to coordinate— and I actually recorded this in Los Angeles while Ian was in the UK— we had been contacted by Gustavo Hernandez, who has a Spanish-speaking podcast, and he wanted to interview both of us for his podcast. His podcast will not be released I think for another couple of months, but he said, uh, my podcast is for Spanish speakers. Gustavo is also kindly translating my CES letter reply into Spanish, which, uh, just thrills me to no end. He's a wonderful person. I talked to him, uh, for his podcast when the Tabernacle Choir was down in Mexico City. And, uh, and now this is the second time we've been on his podcast, but, uh, Ian was smart enough to say, hey, can we use this audio for, for our podcast? And Gustavo was gracious enough to, to agree to that. And he also said we— that we could release it, uh, now. So you're getting a head start on, on a podcast that is going to go down to Central and South America in a couple of months. So you're getting a sneak peek at Gustavo's podcast. So I'll let Gustavo take it from here.

Welcome, Jim Bennett, and welcome Ian Bennett, and thank you for being here today.

Thank you for having us.

And thank you.

Thank you.

I was telling our audience that you have a podcast and it talks about some of church, maybe issues, maybe doctrine-wise, maybe recent events and things like that. And I think that it plays an important part in interfaith dialogue with people who stay in the church and people who have left. But before we talk about that, could you briefly introduce yourselves?

I'm just going to jump in here. I think Ian might be having some connection issues. My name is Jim Bennett. Ian and I do the Inside Out podcast. I— a lot of people know me for the reply to the CES letter, which Gustavo, you are translating into Spanish, are you not?

Yeah, slow paced, but working on it.

I'm just very impressed and very flattered that you'd be willing to do that. But, but that's how a lot of folks know me. But Ian and I have known each other for over 30 years, about 35 years. We were missionaries together in Scotland, and I'll let Ian give you a little more about his background.

Yes, thank you, Jim Bennett. So Ian Wilkes, uh, just attending this meeting from England, which is where I'm from originally, Yorkshire, uh, although we live full-time in British Columbia in Canada. Joined the church as a convert again here in England, uh, when I was 16 years old through the missionaries, uh, to my displeasure of my family, um, but joined, uh, it was a good experience overall, served a mission Served different callings, different leadership callings, um, and, uh, basically served and devoted, committed my entire life. Was very, uh, involved in the church, very entrenched in the church. And a few years ago, discovered some issues that, um, raised some questions for me and a lot of, uh, discomfort and a very challenging experience for me as I discovered those issues. And then I, uh, left the church. I resigned, uh, to— in order to maintain my integrity. And then over the years tried to reconcile my faith, arrive at some position of faith. Uh, kept in touch on and off with Jim and, uh, had an idea of creating a podcast and approached Jim, and Jim was interested. And we called it Inside Out. And the purpose is to help people. There's a few other reasons, including it was a podcast that helps me enormously, and it was like therapy for me in many ways. And then decided to, to launch this with Jim Bennett. We've done about 35 or 37 podcasts, I think, Jim Bennett, maybe more. I've not counted them, but quite a few. Never got more than that, which is great. So really enjoying them, uh, we get a lot of great feedback, um, it helps people. That's the primary reason we're doing this. And so yeah, we, we cover all kinds of topics. Um, Jim's on the inside of the church, fully active, uh, you know, faithful active member of the church. I've left, resigned, and, uh, but still believe there's a great deal of good— goodness in the church, um, and want the church to improve and get better. And, you know, there's some of the objectives of the Inside Out podcast.

Listen, thank you, uh, Jim Bennett. And I discovered the podcast a few months ago, and ever since then, and even in preparation for this interview, I've been trying to catch up as much as I can. And something that I really like about the podcast that I think is, is pretty unique is the dynamic between the two of you. And some people that I know who have done YouTube videos or maybe even debates and they talk about a topic, it's usually the believing member just trying to present all the apologetic answers and then the nonbeliever sharing all the maybe criticisms to the topic or to those apologetics. Your dynamic is pretty different. So for those who have not heard of the podcast or maybe don't know about it, what would you say is the dynamic? And it's not that— why have you chosen to not do that approach?

From my perspective, I think that you do not do the church any favors by refusing to talk about the hard issues. And there are so many podcasts out there that are adversarial, that are us versus them. And so you have the people inside the church that are just spending all of their time berating a straw man of what they think people who have left the church are like. And at the same time, you have podcasts out there that are very critical of the church and that don't give anybody any credit if they, if they are actually staying in the church. I think, I think the adversarial relationship between people in and out of the church is just a massive, massive problem. And particularly from the inside, we really don't have the tools to communicate with people on the outside. And it's been really interesting to me in my experience, you know, when I started sort of entering this world, it was as an apologist talking about the problems with the church. And the emails I used to get were from almost entirely from faithful members of the church who thanked me for helping them through a faith crisis. But what's happened since I've started having these kinds of conversations, and particularly since Ian reached out and created this podcast is that I get more emails from people who say things like, you didn't convince me to come back to church, but you helped me to better understand my family and friends who are still in. And there is, there is a space out there that we ignore inside the church. It's the, it's the mixed faith marriages. It's the how do parents deal with children who have left? It's how do we talk to family and friends who have left? And so often from the inside, we just don't. Sometimes those marriages end in divorce. Sometimes those kids are ostracized and sometimes those friends are lost forever. And I just think that's a massive tragedy. And so what I think— and Ian can correct me if I'm wrong here— but what I think is so valuable about our podcast is that it models how these conversations ought to be taking place. Ian is an extraordinarily thoughtful and brilliant and spiritual guy who has left the church, and all of the goodness that Ian had when he was in the church is still there. You know, he didn't become some kind of transformed, evil, wicked, desperately wanting to sin guy. And, and yet so many of the people who knew and loved Ian when they were interacting with him in the church now have decided that they can't do that anymore. And that's a massive tragedy. And that's something that I think we need to rectify from the inside. And I think building those kinds of bridges is the central purpose of what we're doing. Would you agree with that, Ian?

100%. I think you've articulated it really well. And just to add to what you've said, um, you know, you and I, Jim, are from very different backgrounds. You know, your legacy, your history with the church— I mean, you come, your grandfather is David O'MacKay, on your I think on your mother's side, on your father's side, Heber J. Grant. You have extraordinary deep spiritual legacy and historical connections with the restoration of the church. It's quite extraordinary. You're in the United States, you've got a lot of experience in the church in the United States. Many would argue that the church is an American church. Inside, they would argue it's an international church. So your background is very different to mine. You know, I grew up in a working-class coal mining community in Yorkshire, where I am right now, convert to the church. You know, our backgrounds couldn't be more different and distinct, and I think that adds to the dynamics of the podcast as well. You're active, I'm not. I think that's an important dimension. There are things that you feel strongly about the church, where the church is doing really well, and there are times where we agree and disagree on that, and we do so respectfully. And there are times where you feel, Jim, that the church could improve, and on those points we often agree, and sometimes we don't. Sometimes I see that the church actually is doing a good thing where Jim might think it needs to improve. So we have that yin-yang balance, um, you know, in terms of, you know, how we understand and address the issues and the concerns that we have and others have in the church. Uh, we— one thing that we do agree on, um, uh, and it's the thread, if you like, that rules over the tapestry of our Inside Out podcast, and that is we believe the church is inherently good. We believe for the most part it's a good organization, wants to do good, intends to do good. The members overall are extraordinarily wonderful, kind, loving, serving people. And that's our baseline. And we come at the— look at the topics and the issues through that prism of hopefully positivity. And but also when we look at the issues, the concerns and problems with the church, we genuinely, sincerely want the church to improve. We even offer ideas, suggestions. I don't know if they're ever heard or understood by the church leadership, but we see opportunities for improvement, opportunities for growth. But overall, we— to Jim Bennett's point, that very important principle and practice of maintaining good relationships with people who are in the faith, have questions, and creating a safe space for members who are active who have got questions, concerns, doubts. We want the church and would encourage the church to create a space where people feel, again, safe, that they're not going to be labeled or misjudged or frowned upon by asking legitimate questions, and also those people who are leaving or in the process of leaving and who have left, for them to do so with dignity and respect and kindness and love. There's no reason why we can't have good, positive relationships, you know, with the church as people leave. We've said a few times that the church invests extraordinary resources to encourage and help people, you know, join the church, you know, the missionary effort, etc. The membership effort encouraging people to join the church is extraordinary. Resources to attract and retain members is significant, but the resources there for helping people navigate their faith and, and at times leaving the church, uh, there is very little resources. It's clear that the church does not want or doesn't make it easy, not for me at least. In my experience, hasn't made it easy for me to leave the church. Especially losing out. My experience was I lost pretty much an entire community within a very short space of time, which is very, very painful for me. So the Inside Out podcast is intended to be, again, be positive, look at the issues from all angles. We have people coming onto the podcast who are active, very committed, very devoted, active members. It's great to get their perspective. We have people who are Navigating the Faith with people who, who come on who've left the faith and they give us their perspective. And again, their stories are— it's many positive experiences, uh, there are, there are negative experiences. It's, it's a mixed bag of, um, different people, different backgrounds with different experiences. So we've got a very— I agree, I think our Inside Out podcast is very unique, is very distinct, and, and I think it's for those reasons that Jim Bennett mentioned and the ones that I've just mentioned as well.

You know, as you have mentioned that you try to have these conversations, honestly, in my case, for many years I encountered people in and out of the church that were only interested in debating. And as a teenager, I grew up convinced that that was the only type of dialogue that you could have with other faiths or people who have left the church. And as I started to see examples of this dialogue online, I, I was very impressed and I tried to have that. Sadly, in my case, at least here in Latin America, I faced a lot of pushback when I've attempted to Bill Bridges. So I wanted to ask you about that, about the reception of your podcast. Do you know, have you received any feedback from members or non-members? Do you think it's having the intended effect?

Feedback has been almost universally positive, but a lot of it is from non-members or from former members, although I've had a lot of positive responses from active members as well. But the, the criticism is almost universally from, from members. It's from the inside. And it's, it's, it's a phenomenon. I've discussed this with people in church leadership. I've discussed this with people who point out that the most difficult and most vicious critics of this kind of a dialogue are, are almost always active members of the Church who consider it their responsibility to be the gatekeepers to determine who is and who is not a faithful member. I was just on another podcast, Mormonism with the Murph, and I was on a panel discussion where we were talking about the McKinney Temple, and I went and read the comments which you're never supposed to do. Never read the comments. But I read the comments and this guy said, well, Jim Bennett, he isn't a faithful member of the church. And I said, well, you know, until the tabernacle choir kicks me out, I think your only options are to cope and seethe. And he says, well, you can call yourself whatever you want, but just don't delude yourself into thinking you're a faithful member. And I just was reading these comments and they went back and forth and they got snarkier and snarkier. And I just thought, I don't understand the faith of someone who feels like the Lord wants to be unkind to somebody else, particularly to another member of the church. And you know, I, I've had people complain particularly about politics, uh, that, that they get mad that I'm not politically You know, American politics are probably going to be a little foreign to a good chunk of your audience, but my father was a very prominent Republican politician. He was United States senator for 18 years, and I worked in Republican politics professionally, and I no longer am a Republican. I have left the Republican Party primarily over Donald Trump. I don't want to get political here, in terms of, of arguing my politics. What I want to point out is we've talked about political issues on our podcast and we get pushback again from active members who insist that if you're not a Republican and if you're not supporting Donald Trump, you can't be a faithful member of the church. And there is so much self-appointed gatekeeping, I think is the best word for it, for people who think it's their responsibility to make the church smaller, to purge the church of anybody who thinks differently than they do, who may have different political opinions than they do, which is directly contrary to the Council of Trent, uh, explicitly said We should never say that a faithful Latter-day Saint can't support a specific party or a specific candidate. And they've also warned against straight party voting in the United States. You know, so I think we're on pretty solid ground. It's not that, that I'm doing anything that is putting my membership in jeopardy, but I am saying things that a certain segment of the church, of the online church, You know, the people who are online are really a whole lot, I think, different from your rank-and-file members that you see every Sunday. I think most of those people you see in real life are some of the greatest people on earth. I think they're lovely, kind, friendly people. That's one of the reasons why I stay an active member is I really enjoy the community of the Saints. And, but when you go online, the, the most vicious and the loudest voices are, are this group of people within the church who I consider to be not just sort of the worst members of the church, but some of the worst people you could encounter because they're so unbelievably vicious. So, um, that's the reaction. The reaction has been almost universally positive. Except for that sliver of people in the Church who insist on this sort of rigid right-wing orthodoxy in order to be able to accept people as members. And I think that's direct contrary, particularly to President Nelson's Peacemaker talk and to a lot of the things that we're being taught The church is becoming— the church is a worldwide church. And the idea that we're going to sift this based on our ideas of what's politically appropriate and also, you know, what we think a Latter-day Saint ought to think or believe or say, I think that the time has passed where that's even possible anymore. So that's my very long-winded answer. Ian, do you have anything to add to that?

Yes. I attended a ward here while I've been over in England. So, I attended church here recently, and that's the first time I've gone to church, attended church in the last 5, 6 years. The ward I attended was one of the wards I used to attend when I was here, when I used to live in England. And it's a ward that knows me extremely well. It's in a town where I was born and it's the same ward when I was baptized. And I know most, almost all of the members who've known me for 40 years since I first joined the church. And one of the lessons, uh, when I, after sacrament, uh, we had the priesthood lesson and during the lesson the teacher basically, well, said very clearly that anyone who has left the church or is leaving the church wasn't ever really committed or devoted to Jesus Christ. I found that comment insulting, offensive, and hurtful. And I, I spoke up because in my life, I completely devoted myself to the church in every way. Committed, devoted, sacrificed, and did everything I could to be obedient and, uh, be, be a full and faithful member of the church in every way. I served diligently, faithfully in all my callings. I'm not trying to say I was perfect at all, uh, but I I want to be clear that I gave everything. Uh, as a whole tithe payer, I was a bishop, I've been a branch president when I was on my mission, and I served in a stake presidency. And I've worked very closely with senior general authorities including Elder Oaks and Elder Cook and, and other general authorities over the year, and have completely, utterly devoted my life to the church. Until I discovered issues that really, uh, concerned me. Uh, during that time, all that time, all that experience and extraordinary number of hours that are countless, I developed what I thought what was lifelong, um, solid, uh, extraordinary deep relationships. When I resigned and I left, I learned very quickly how how, uh, limited those relationships were and how shallow they were. I lost a community almost overnight. Um, almost everyone that knew me in my life, in the— who was active in the church, have in some way disconnected or turned away from me and my family. At the ward that I attended recently here, Again, these are members who've known me for a long time. Uh, sadly, many of those members in the ward, um, it didn't come up to me or shake my hand. They did— they weren't interested in talking to me. I did try to connect with some of them while I was there. It was clear from the look on the face, uh, the behavior, um, their actions that they weren't really interested in me, and they'd given up. They, they knew that I'd left, they knew I'd resigned. I think there's a difference between resigning and being inactive. In my experience, I think if you're inactive and if there's a prospect that you could reactivate it, then the church and the members feel obligated, committed to trying what they can to reactivate people. If someone has resigned like I have, um, and it was determined as I am to, you know, in that decision. And it was, was the right choice. I think they've given up. Um, and so it's clear in my mind that my relationships, my friendships that I thought were lifelong, were actually conditional upon my activity in the church. And that breaks my heart. That makes me very sad. And I've, um, I've cried, I've wept over that. And it's been a very painful, difficult experience. The church hasn't helped. It's, uh, its behavior and its actions towards me, and manifesting some of the members that I knew or thought I knew, has been, been quite hurtful. Hurtful comments been said about me and my family, quite cruel and unkind and not at all Christ-like, you know, nothing to do with who Christ is or how he lived. And certainly these, these words that I've heard about me and my family wouldn't, um, and didn't come from Christ or, or the Spirit. I can't imagine Christ saying that about me and my family, sadly. And so it— the church makes it very— I think it's the culture. It's, it's, it's, it's, it's in the actual culture of the members to behave like this. Because I think if people leave, and when people leave, uh, the church and the many of the members— not everyone— I think they take it personally. I think they take it as a rejection that when you leave, you reject the members. And that's not what— why I left. I didn't reject the members, but it's interpreted as, as a rejection of the members. So that relationship is now, uh, those relationships, sadly, I think many of them are, are lost. And I, I repeat, the church, it doesn't make— you can't— it's difficult to leave with your dignity intact. Um, and so it makes it very difficult to, to, to leave. So my experience has been very painful, it's been very emotional, but we have found, um, peace and happiness. We maintain some relationships with members in the church, um, people who have not given up on us, thank goodness, who still see the goodness in us as, as people, who still see that we, you know, we, we, we're inherently good and We still want to serve, and we do serve. We serve in the community, we serve in other ways. But it's, um, it's, it's, it's an area that the church really needs to be thinking about in terms of, um, the doctrine and the policies which affect the culture and, you know, how we behave in the church towards people who, you know, who leave the church.

So I—

it, again, notwithstanding that there's a lot of greatness and goodness in the church, and I've not lost that, I still believe in that. But I also believe that there's opportunities for the church to improve and to change, and I think it will. I think it will over time. You know, the church behaves and responds in different ways under different pressures, different circumstances, you know, media or court case or maybe a reaction from the members. You know, it changes, but it changes very slowly over time. But I hope, uh, and I still believe firmly that the church is becoming better over time and will become safer and eventually will maybe take a more kinder, softer approach to, and a more considerate and thoughtful approach to those people who've got questions, who've decided to leave, and that they can maintain a good relationship with those people.

Thank you for sharing that, Ian. And, you know, I, I listened to your story on your podcast. It's maybe, I don't know, maybe 5 episodes which you talk about your story. And I— it really opened my eyes to the experiences some people have who, who maybe no longer feel welcome in the church. And when they decide to leave, that experience is not as Christ-like as some would expect. Right now I'm teaching Sunday school for the adults, and we've been covering— come follow me— right now we're covering Alma, and Alma's— we're covering Korihor, the Antichrist. We are talking about the wars. And I'm new to that, so I didn't really know how to properly do it. But I realized that war is obviously a specific system because you're trying to kill each other, right? And some people can say, well, the Cory whore is a template for absolutely everyone who doesn't believe in the church. The Nephite and Lamanite war are a template for believers and anyone else. So I think, as you mentioned, the culture sometimes does emphasize that. And I wanted to ask you, Jim Bennett, as a member of the Church, would you say that maybe this harsh treatment that can come from members of the Church Do you think this comes from a purely cultural perspective, or do you think that doctrine-wise, or maybe words from the pulpit, do you think they endorse that behavior, even if not on purpose? What are your thoughts?

That's a very good question. And the fact that you raise Korihor, I think, is, is part of the issue because I describe this as the Korihor template. When someone leaves the church, faithful members of the church look at them through a Korihor template. When you read the Book of Mormon and you read about the antichrists that show up in the Nephite civilization, the idea is they're all people who claim to be just thoughtful, intelligent seekers of truth. But when you get down to the, the crux of it, all of them are lying and all of them secretly knew there was a God and decided to fight against him. Or certainly that was the case with Korihor. We get that he struck dumb. He admits that, yes, Satan had appeared to him and he'd fallen for Satan and decided to fight against God. But he always knew there was a God and And so members read those kinds of stories and decide that everybody who leaves the church is a Korihor. So when Ian Wilkes says, no, I left the church because I found issues that were very troubling to me, or I left the church for family reasons, I left the church— any kind of reason that would sound legitimate, a lot of members, uh, sort of apply that template of Korihor and say No, secretly, secretly, they're all just leaving because they're wicked and they want to sin and they're terrible people. And so I, I think it is, it is sort of a doctrinal thing, but I think it's a misinterpretation of doctrine because I don't think Korihor or Nehor or Gadianton or any of the bad guys that you find in the Book of Mormon are representative of everybody who leaves the church. That's just ludicrous. And it's— but it's this Korihor template that creates a wedge between loved ones, between a husband and a wife, one who believes and one who does not, between a husband and a wife and their parents or their, or their children. I mean, it's, it's the messages that we are getting in general conference have been vast improvements over the past. I think in this regard, I keep coming back to President Nelson's Peacemaker talk because I think that was the most inspired message I've heard in conference in my lifetime. And he expressly talked about how important it is to reach out to people no matter where they are, no matter whether they agree with you or disagree with you. He talks about when, when somebody leaves the church or somebody comes home from a mission early, they do not need your judgment. And so I want to see more and more of that. But even President Nelson has sent some mixed messages in that regard because the very next conference he gave a talk where he said, don't take counsel from anyone who doesn't believe. And I thought, I think that's just going to be taken by people who— I mean, if you're in a mixed faith marriage, does that mean if my wife is still an active member of the Church, but if she weren't, does that mean that I can't take any counsel from her, that I, that I have to ignore her? I don't think that's what President Nelson meant, but I think that's what some people heard when they heard that kind of a message. So yeah, there are cultural issues with this, but I do think that there is a doctrinal sticking point, and I think it's that Korihor template.

Thank you.

I would—

oh, go ahead, Ian.

Sorry. Yeah, I would agree with that wholeheartedly. I was listening to Jim Bennett, and then I was reading some of the versus in, uh, in Coriole, reminding myself of that. It is— I think when you leave the church, it can't possibly leave the church for any good reason. You're either lazy, uh, you, you're committing sin, or you want to commit sin, you want to lead an alternative lifestyle, or you really weren't committed or devoted to the church. Um, in my life, none of those, in my opinion at least, apply to me. You know, when I left, um, the church. As I mentioned earlier, I heard some pretty awful things said about me, and they said that I'd fallen from a great height, and, you know, someone on the stake presidency should, should really, um, have known better, should have been wiser, that I've led my family down the, the path of unrighteousness, that Satan has got my heart. And because I held senior callings and received much light in my life and the greatness of the light, because of the greatness of that light and the seniority in the callings and being able to work with leaders of the church because I was relatively senior and I therefore fell from a great height and therefore my punishment will fit my transgression. And so I will be found, I will not be found in the celestial kingdom. Or the terrestrial or the celestial, but a special place, uh, will— has been reserved for someone like me who experienced a new such great light and have, um, rejected it, opposed it, and I'm now in league with Lucifer and will be found essentially in the same place as Lucifer's, in hell, a special place reserved for someone like me. Which is, which is extraordinary. I don't believe that, but I, I still think it's a very insulting and a very offensive gossip, if you like, which I heard within the first few weeks and months of me leaving the church. So, and this comes from the doctrine. A big part of the culture comes from the doctrine, it comes from the policy, it comes from the mindset of the leaders, you It's a historical relationship with the culture. You know, the members think quite uniquely, quite distinctly in many ways, and it is the korea. And if you leave, and the label that I've been given by some is that, and it's an official label by the way, I think it was phrased by Joseph Smith or Brigham Young, I can't remember the name of the prophet, but it was phrased by the past leader, that I, people like me, are an enemy to the church. So there are those people in the church that see me as an enemy, even though I advocate a lot, not always, for the goodness of the church. I don't think I'm anti-Mormon. I disagree with the church when I disagree with it. I criticize it when I think it's right to do so. But again, I speak of the values of the church.. And so even Inside Out podcast is, um, seen by some in the church as being a potential threat to the church. Um, and, uh, it's, it's sad. Uh, you've got this very distinct mindset that's very set, um, in some of the members who are very hardcore. And if you deviate one inch you're one iota from the official line, then you are not a faithful member. There's no room for, um, you know, any nuances or variations. You either— it is— it's, uh, you're in or you're out. You're with God, you're with the devil. There's no— there's no gray areas. And even if you're in the church, and I've seen this from a rank-and-file level but also from a leadership position, if there are members who are active and they manifest different levels of faithfulness, i.e., part tithe payer, or they come to church in a checked shirt or not the right, without a tie, or a lady sister comes to the church in trousers, pants, or they're not, they don't conform precisely exactly to how they should look in a white shirt, tie, suit, et cetera. And there are those sadly in the church, not everyone, but some, there's an element in there that think that those people, they're not living right because they don't dress right, they don't sound right, they're not a full tithe payer, and there's something off about them. They're not quite as righteous as they should be. And so you've got this, I think this right-wing hardcore unyielding expectation, if you like, of how a member should be. Yeah, not in terms of dress, but how they should behave and how they should speak. You know, if you look at the church doctrine, it— and, and the teachings of the doctrine, and if you're really immersed in the church, deeply devoted to the church, it influences every aspect of your life. It shapes how you think, how you feel, what you say, what you don't say, what kind of questions you ask. Um, it, it, it, it, uh, influences how you dress, influences your, um, and affects and impacts every aspect of your life, from waking up, you know, from your prayers, even the content of your prayers, everything. There's no part of your life that the church and, and religion in general, uh, not just the church doesn't impact a faithful, devoted member. It controls and influences and shapes and informs, I, I think, every aspect of the life. And if you're not, um, church broke, or you're not as, uh, conforming to every single aspect of the church, then you are not seen by an element of the church, at least, to be as committed, as devoted. And then again, there are different degrees of levels of faithfulness. I think that's partly to do with, you know, the doctrine again, like Celestial Kingdom and the three levels in the Celestial Kingdom, right? And then the terrestrial and the terrestrial. Yeah. And, uh, you know, there's space there for everybody apart from someone like me, um, who is, uh, you know, amongst the worst. I'm considered to be an apostate. Um, an apostate definition is anyone who doesn't follow the doctrine to the letter, not just the spirit. Somebody who accept every fundamental principle and teaching of the church, even those principles where the church now, the deep teachings where the church now is trying to, um, quote, disavow, end quote, its position with, um, earlier teachings like race of the priesthood as an example. And so, um, so yes, I think the, the history, the policies, the doctrine The Coriol example is a really good one. And if you look at that scripture in Coriol in verse 17, it's interesting. And I remember asking a question about this in the stake presidency. It's in verse 17, it says in Alma 30:17, it says this, it says, and many more such things did he say unto them, speaking about Coriol, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature. Therefore, every man prospered according to his genius and that every man conquered according to his strength and whatever man did was no crime. Well, I don't, never taught that, but I did say that and teach that our performance or our success in life is in a big way governed by how we manage ourselves and how we prospered in terms of— he says, "Prosper according to our genius." Well, I'm an advocate for education. You go get a degree, go learn a trade, become a master of something, develop your intelligence, and you can succeed according to that strength. And the Lord teaches that. So when I taught things like that, I think I was probably labeled as a bit of a curio as well. This was a time when even I was, um, had concerns and doubts about the question. So, and again, I, I referenced earlier that anyone who's got doubts can't ask questions. You know, once you cross that threshold in the church, this is how I felt, you cannot ask certain questions because you're judged or labeled to be unfaithful. I was asking questions in a senior leadership calling, and I was pulled aside and told 'Um, President Wilkes, that's not the questions that we need to be asking.' And so I felt unsafe in that calling. I can't imagine how others felt. And so you sit there, you hear this, um, this information, and if you have a question, you have to bite your tongue. And I couldn't do that. It was, it was killing me mentally, emotionally. My mental health was suffering, and I couldn't sit there. And, and having read, um, certain facts. If you look at the essays, the church has published 12, 14 essays. I tried talking about the essays which the church had published and put on the website, albeit they made it difficult at the beginning to find those essays. And I remember talking about the race and the priesthood essay that just came out, which I thought was great. Finally, the church had acknowledged that past leaders like Brigham Young and others, I think they referred to that, had made mistakes about the doctrine and the position on Racing the Priesthood, the church published the essay on that in October, November 2013. I tried to talk about that and was quickly and firmly shut down. And so it's very difficult to, you know, to have that, to feel that freedom and safety to be able to ask those questions. And so I think the church has got a long way to go still to be able to create those safe environments where someone like me would, you know, would return. It's labeled me already, I can't change that. But I did take control into my own hands, and I did resign, and I did so under my own terms. And similarly, like, joining the church when I was 16 was the best decision I ever made at that time. Like, the church literally saved me, and I will never— I will always acknowledge that and always be deeply grateful for that. At the same time, in contrast, um, the best— another best decision I've made was to leave the church in order to make time, maintain my health, my mental health, my family, my integrity, which is so important to me, and, um, and my authenticity. You know, I, I need to be true to myself. And so those are two, uh, very significant decisions which appear to be conflicting, but they were the right decisions at different times in my life. And now we're in a place of happiness and peace. We don't have to— I don't have to deal with these issues, you know. If it doesn't make sense, it's probably because it doesn't make sense. If something doesn't sound right, it's probably because it isn't right. Often, not always, if a doctrine is wrong or a policy is wrong, I can say so. And it's often, not always, it's wrong, you know. The church has messed up. And so it's, you know, it's run by people. It's run by people that make mistakes. I don't think God instructs and governs the church leaders in every single thing. I think they make mistakes. They do make gaffes. They screw up. They Yes, so, and I think they privately, they know that, but they can't say so, obviously. They don't want to lose the confidence of the members. So I think the church has a long way to go, but I remain hopeful and confident that it will change and improve and it can become a safer place, you know, a safe place for people like me.

Thank you, Ian. And now that you, you've shared this, both of you, I, I— some quotes and some devotionals come to mind. Recently I just took an institute course that was called Navigating a Faith Crisis. So each week we read talks and devotionals that talk about people who struggle with faith. For different reasons. And as I, as I mentioned to you guys, the one of the main reasons why I'm doing episodes like this is because I think there's a lot of maybe strawman arguments, at least, um, in the Spanish content I've encountered about this topic, about people who leave, about questions about the church, and in criticisms, historical issues, and things like that. And I, I want to share a few of these devotional ideas or teachings and just get to know your thoughts on it, just so we can know if whether what they are talking about is a straw man, a good criticism, or what what would you add or what would you take from it? So, um, the first one that comes to mind is a devotional. I don't remember the name, but it was by Elder Stevenson, if I'm not mistaken. And at one point of the devotional, he talks of the story of a young man who had a question. I think he had a question about First Vision accounts. And then he says, well, I have this friend who works for the Church History Department, and then he can get to answer your question. So they talk about that. He gets that issue resolved. And then he comes up and says, well, I don't have questions about that, but I have questions about race and the priesthood. And then it's like, okay, let me help you with that. Here's someone who can give you more information on it. And then he said that he kept coming back and he said, well, now I don't have a problem with either of those two, but I do have a problem with polygamy. And at this point, Elder Stevenson stops and says, uh, do you see what happened? He chose to become a perpetual questioner. I don't remember if that was, uh, the correct term, but he said that— well, maybe I'm paraphrasing— but instead of being satisfied with those answers and then choose to have faith for the rest, he kept asking questions. And the, the lesson was that you could go into a rabbit hole and it would never stop until you stop asking questions, basically. So I wanted to ask, as someone who, who had questions, Ian, what are your thoughts on that idea? And also you, Jim Bennett, what do you guys think about what Elder Stevenson said?

I mentioned earlier, I think it's really important that we create a safe place for people to ask questions. People are interested in history. You know, we go to, we go to university to become historians, you know, we get a master's degree in history, we teach history. You know, every organization that's been around for a while has a history and, you know, religious history, natural history, political history, general history, you know, the specific disciplines within the, you know, within the area of history. And I think it's normal and natural for people in the church to have an interest in the history of the church. And it's normal and natural for people to have questions. And it's important that the church acknowledges that the church history is colorful. It's not black and white. It's certainly not all white. You know, the church at times, in my opinion, has tried to whitewash stuff. The church has a complex history. And a difficult history at certain points. And it has failed, in my view, to acknowledge those issues earlier and in a more transparent, open way, and has been pulled and pushed, kicking and screaming, into acknowledging, acknowledging, um, issues like race in the priesthood and polygamy, etc. And even now, it's— these are subjects it doesn't like to talk about. Uh, it, it, you look at the essays, it's, uh, I would even say it's weaseled its way through some of the language there to try to, um, offset or reduce the impact of the, uh, people's, you know, opinion or negative opinion on the church by talking about, well, that's how it used to be, and, and polygamy wasn't that bad, and it was a different time, a different place. And slavery and race and racism. It was a different time, you know, and people thought differently, behaved differently. And it tries in some ways, in some language in the text, to justify that doctrine or teaching. Then later on it says it disavows with anyone that's got those kind of views. And so it doesn't go far enough. It is an improvement. Overall right step in the right, in the right direction, a good step in the right direction where it does at least try to talk about them and address them to some extent. It doesn't go far enough in my opinion. And so if it was more transparent, had it been more transparent and open and said, look, we've got issues, these are problems, these are people we saw in the church, they had some answers, there was lots of things that they didn't know and understand, they lived at this particular time, they were wrong, they made mistakes. Here's the history. I don't know, I don't— the church's word that had it given that, um, meat before the milk, as it would say, that people would have left the church. And that might be true, but now look what's happening. You've got the internet, you've got, um, people leaking information, you've got people like me who've held senior callings, you've got people who held even higher callings than I have who've seen things that even I haven't seen. And are talking about them, you know, on podcasts, etc. And the church has failed to be transparent and accountable, and it still struggles with people who've got questions. And it's, it's, it's just weird because it's normal and natural for people to ask questions about the church history. I would love for the church to have a more balanced view in terms of the, you know, how we create a couple of topics class to talk about the issue of the church. I've met people here I've known for years, 40 years, in my stake and ward here where I came from, and they don't know about the essays. That might shock Jim Bennett even here. Or they know about them and won't read them because it's not seen as being faithful. So the church has got a real problem with transparency and accountability, and it should encourage questions. I think when it's open and honest and it encourages questions and open dialogue and say, yeah, we made a mistake, it was wrong, we got that wrong. I think that for many generates respect and understanding and said, yeah, we got it wrong, but look at us now, you know, we've improved so much and we've come a long way and we were learning and we were growing and some leaders made mistakes. So, Ludolf said that in his talk in October 2013, that past leaders made the Past leaders have made mistakes, but I think the church is still yet to mature to a position where it can encourage questions. I mean, that's an interesting word, isn't it? Would it encourage questions of, of, of, um, you know, regarding its history? I think we're a long way off that. But if you ask too many questions, and certainly too many of the, of the wrong questions, then you become this, um, what was the term that you used, this repetitive questioner, this this eternal questioner, always asking questions. But that's what historians do. That's how we learn. That's how we learn about the sciences. That's how we learn about the engineering that I'm involved in. That's how we learn about technology, by asking questions. When you shut down questions or you control those questions, then you stifle innovation and you become a little bit cultish and quite dogmatic and quite fixed in your way. That's my, that's my response to that.

Well, I would jump in and say, you know, this particular fireside by Elder Stevenson is reminiscent of an earlier fireside by Elder Rasband. No, I'm sorry, Elder Renlund, that described a boy who was in a shipwreck. And is picked up by an old fisherman. Gustavo, do you remember this fireside? Yes.

In fact, I think it's the same fireside. I think I— I can—

so this was— this is not Elder Stevenson. This is Elder Renlund.

Yes, I think that's him, because I also remember reading about that with his wife.

Uh, because this is— this is sort of a very famous fireside. Um, and it came on the heels of a talk by Elder Forbridge, who's a Seventy, and he gave a talk where he talked about the idea of primary questions and secondary questions. Don't ask the secondary questions until you've answered the primary questions. And the primary questions involve: Is there a God? Is Joseph Smith a prophet? Is the Book of Mormon true? Is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, God's church on earth. You know, these are the primary questions, and the secondary questions all go away once you answer the primary questions. And the problem with that is that Elder Corbridge, with all due respect, doesn't have control over what somebody considers a primary or a secondary question. If I'm online and I start reading things about polygamy and I start reading about how Joseph Smith treated his wife Emma with regard to taking additional plural wives, and I find that problematic, as many people do, and I take that question to somebody, you don't get to say to me, that's not a primary question. Now, that's— you should be asking these questions instead. Also, The primary question, is Joseph Smith a prophet, is not going to be answered positively if my only exposure to Joseph Smith is something that I consider to be deeply problematic. So one of the things that I have found is I've sort of started this journey in terms of my own faith and in terms of who I talk to about the church. One of the things I keep hammering home is the idea that we have no choice. We have no choice but to hit these— every question head on, confront all of the difficult questions head on. You know, I think we can do that and come out with a stronger faith on the other side. But the problem is we refuse to do that. We demonize the questioner instead of answering the question. And, and we create not just a faith crisis, we create a trust crisis. We create a crisis in trust, particularly among young people. You know, if, if, if you're a teenager and you've been active in the church all your life and then you stumble on something on the internet that just discombobulates your world, and then you take it to your church leader and you say, I just found this information about Joseph Smith and I don't know what to do. And your leader tells you, that's from Satan, how dare you, you shouldn't even be asking those questions, ask the primary questions first. I mean, what happens is you create distance between the institutional church and your leaders and the people who are who are desperate to stay. I mean, I've told the story over and over again of my experience when I was at the University of Southern California and I read a copy of The Godmakers, which was the big anti-Mormon book at the time, and my faith was shaken. I was terrified. I didn't know what to do. And I took my questions to people who were kind to me and patient with me and help me work through them together. Had I taken those questions to people telling me, you're asking the wrong questions and how dare you have even read anti-Mormon material and you're following Satan and you're a lazy learner. If, if, if that had been the message to me, I would not be speaking to you today because I would have left the church as a teenager and be gone. We, we are at a critical moment in the church where all this information is available to anyone who wants it, who looks for it. It's just a Google click away. And we can't respond to it by waving it away, telling people not to look at it, or if they do look at it, telling them that the problem is them rather than their concern. We don't have that luxury. I think we did have that luxury when I was a missionary 35 years ago, when there was no internet and there was no real way for anybody beyond a serious scholar to find out issues like this. But we don't live in that world anymore. And so Elder Rasband— keeps confusing Elder Rasband and Elder Renlund— was Elder Renlund who gave the fireside, Gustavo, that you're referencing. That fireside it, it, it was equally frustrating to me because the entire model, the entire metaphor of the boy who comes into the fishing boat, fishing boat's a little beat up. He's given a canteen. What he really wants is Perrier. He's given a canteen of rusty water. And so rather than do that, this stupid kid just jumps over the side of the boat and gets eaten by a shark. He didn't say he gets eaten by a shark, but there was an illustration. This was all that— there was these cartoons and there's this illustration of the kid. And as he jumps out, you can see a shark fin out in the distance. And I remember watching that and going, this whole metaphor is designed to demonize the questioner, the person at fault. The problem is you asking questions. That's the problem. The problem isn't anything you're asking questions about. Uh, that's— that can be entirely dismissed. You're asking the wrong questions. You shouldn't do this. And that is, I think, the approach that will continue to drive young people away from the church. Because over and over and over again, you know, the young people that are leaving, they're not like Ian, they're not like me, uh, in that You know, if I were to leave the church, it would be a wrenching, you know, it would be ripping out just a lifetime of roots and heritage from generations. And it would just be gut-wrenching and difficult. And I think that's exactly— I mean, Ian doesn't have that same kind of, you know, generational legacy, but he has a lifetime of devotion. And it was such a wrenching and difficult process for him The young people who are leaving are just shrugging off the— shrugging the church off. They're just, nope, I'm sorry, this isn't for me, thanks. And no amount of demonizing them, no amount of telling them that they're spoiled brats who just want Perrier water when, when they've just been saved from being shipwrecked, none of that kind of shame and fear is going to keep them in the church. And in fact is going to eliminate trust in the church and drive them away. So that's, that's where we find ourselves. And so, I mean, I'm not— I— Elder Renlund has given some of the most wonderful talks in conference that I have heard. He's a lovely, lovely human being. He is a devoted disciple of Christ. He is an apostle of the Lord. I also think that his approach here is not one that is proving effective because this was given a few years back now. I think this is like at least 3 years ago. And you're still seeing that this kind of, this kind of departure from the rising generation. And it's not a departure that is being stopped by these kinds of metaphors and these kinds of lectures. That, hey, the problem is you. The problem is you. You just aren't asking the right questions. You just aren't accepting the church and embracing the church. And the response is not combat. The response is, oh, really? Well, no thanks. And off they go and they leave the church and they don't look back. And that's what's terrifying. That's, I think, the biggest challenge we have in terms of building the kingdom going forward is, okay, this doesn't work, guys. It just does not work to shame the people who leave, to shame the people who question. We have to take a different approach at helping people confront their doubts and answering their questions with respect and, and meeting them where they are. You know, if somebody has a question and you come back and say you're asking the wrong question, I would say to them, well, it's the right question for me. And if you don't have an answer for me, then I'm going to go somewhere else, or I'm— and I'm certainly not going to come back to you and I'm not going to come back to the church. So that's the challenge we have. And that's the approach that I think Ian and I are attempting. Is to, is to just confront all these issues head on, follow the facts wherever they may lead us, and, and just, and take people where they are. You know, when we have people on our podcast, some are, they run the gamut. People who have left the church, people that are sort of lukewarm about the church, people who are still fully invested in the church and love the church. You need to accept people where they are, and you have no choice. The church has no choice. We have no choice but to confront all of the difficult issues that are driving people away.

Thank you, Jim Bennett. And now that we've talked a little bit about this, it reminds me of one of your newest episodes, and in which you, Jim Bennett, read from a book that you're working on. Could you tell us a bit about that?

Sure. Yeah, I feel that Ian was traveling and we couldn't connect, and so I ended up just sort of reading this. I finished a draft of this book and I'm not quite sure where to go with it. It's called Fallibility: A Love Story. And I think that the central problem that we have in the church at the moment is the false doctrine of prophetic infallibility. The old joke is that Catholics teach that the Pope is infallible, but Catholics don't believe it. Mormons teach the prophet isn't infallible, but Mormons don't believe it. We do not believe in infallible leaders. We do not believe in infallible scripture. We do not believe that infallibility and perfection are part of the mortal experience. And so I try to frame this in my book as a feature, not a bug, that this was the point for mortality. This was the purpose. We came to Earth specifically to make mistakes. We were in a situation before we came to this Earth where we were in the presence of God at all times. And so therefore we didn't have to be— we didn't have to make any decisions for ourselves. We didn't have to navigate good versus evil. We didn't have to struggle. We didn't have to do anything. And each of us essentially, we took the place of Adam and Eve. I mean, this is the thing I frame it as, you know, when we go through the temple, for so much of my life, I had thought of Adam and Eve as, okay, this is a historical story. This is a story of the first people. And it's become more and more apparent to me that, no, this is a story about me and about you. But every individual, we're supposed to liken ourselves to Adam and Eve. And we all lived in the garden in the presence of God. And we all deliberately chose, just like Adam and Eve, to leave the presence of God and experience sin, experience pain, experience separation from God in order for us to be able to learn and grow from the— in the process. Fallibility is, is the very central essence of what the mortal experience is supposed to be. And agency and infallibility are wholly incompatible. You cannot have agency and be infallible. And at no point is anybody's agency extracted from them. That includes prophets. And I mean, when people talk about, about agency and prophets, they say, oh yeah, prophets can have bad breath and prophets can forget your birthday and prophets can do these things. It's like, well, yeah, they can do all those things. They can also make mistakes. Even when they're standing at a pulpit and speaking. And that— no, As-Tafar! No, no, no, no, no. That "the Prophet will never lead you astray." Whether by my own voice or the voice of my servants, it is the same. Both of those statements have been wildly taken out of context at every level of the church, and they do not guarantee prophetic infallibility. So So the book is designed to— the minute you can say you can allow for the possibility that something in church history that is troubling was a mistake, you suddenly have a sustainable faith. For instance, I can quote to you things that will turn your hair white, as white as my hair, I guess, that Brigham Young said on the subject of race. Brigham Young said horrifically terrible racist things. He talked about the idea that if you mix your blood with the seed of Cain, the law of God, which will always be so, is death on the spot. Well, that's garbage. And we've disavowed that as garbage. But if you can't say, well, geez, Brigham Young was just really wrong, on that point. He was— he got it wrong. If you can't say that, then you have to contort yourself into all kinds of mental pretzels to figure out some way to justify it. And fewer and fewer members of the church are willing to do that. Members of the church look at that and go, I don't want to stand with that kind of a sentiment. I mean, I've been taught Brigham Young is a prophet and Brigham Young brought the Saints west and You know, he, he held the church together after Joseph Smith died, and he did a lot of really remarkable, wonderful things. But if I also have to say that he was perfect and that he was inerrant and that when he spoke about race, that he was reflecting the mind of the will of the Lord and that the Lord is a racist, not Brigham Young, if I have to do that, I'm not going to do that. And the rising generation, particularly, that aren't as invested in the church just say, "Uh-uh, I don't want to be involved in a church that tries to pretend that's okay." And so the church would be so much healthier if we'd be willing to admit our mistakes. And the good news about it is that the church's theology, the church's doctrine allows for it in ways that other Christian groups do not. We have a theology, we have teachings. The restored gospel is rooted in the idea of agency and agency and fallibility go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other. And it's so— so my book is an attempt to frame the restored gospel as, as a love story about fallibility. It shows God's love for each of his children that he allows us to make mistakes. He came— we came here in order to make mistakes, and he provided a Savior for us to pay for that education. And when you think how dearly Jesus paid for our spiritual education, you start to recognize just how important fallibility really is.

So thank you, Jim Bennett. And, you know, the reason why I ask you about that is because I think that at least in my case, for believers, that opens the idea to, to even be willing to, to talk. And I also don't want to sort of show that interfaith dialogue is only talking about what the church does wrong. I think that you, Ian, for example, you emphasize that it's a bit of both when it does right, when it does bad. And I had this question for you, Ian. When it comes to having dialogue, when it comes to maintaining relationships, to nurture them. Um, on the other side of the spectrum, people who have left the church, people that I know, I've heard them share a concern, and I wanted to hear your thoughts on this. And the concern is basically that they believe that the harm that the church has done in different areas for different reasons at different times is just— it's just too much for me to even want to try to have a sort of dialogue. And I know there's pain behind that, and I want to approach that respectfully. But I wanted to ask you, Do you think that interfaith dialogue is always necessary? And what would you say to someone who has that concern that keeps them from, from maybe maintaining relationships or having dialogue?

Well, that's an interesting question. People who serve in the church enjoy extraordinary relationships across all the rank and file relationships in the church, across leadership. And the church is an extraordinary vehicle for service. There's no way I would have been able to serve or extend my, uh, implement my interest in serving others without the church. Not, not to that extent, you know, serving as a mission, serving as a bishop, And so these are, you know, relationships are forged over many years. You know, when you're a bishop or a leader in the church, members entrust the bishop with some of the most personal and often the most difficult personal issues. And they talk and open up to someone they can trust, hopefully, and they share their innermost feelings and thoughts. They shed tears, they express love. A bishop or a colleague like that gets to— gets a glimpse into the depths of one's soul when they open up and share those often very profound and very personal, and again, as I say, at times very difficult, problematic experiences. And the job of the bishop is to help, to love, to serve. So even though the bishop might not have all the answers, Those experiences forge extraordinary relationships on a very, very personal level. And so you get intertwined with the church through those relationships. Jim Bennett referenced legacy, generational legacy, etc. And those relationships— church teaches this, of course, in the temple— that the hearts of the fathers will be turned to the children and the children's hearts will be turned to the fathers. You know, these are generational relationships, not just current relationships and they're deeply networked and connected. The capillaries extend across generations and extend across, you know, wards and stakes. And so, you know, when people have questions or they want to leave or they want to have, you know, more of an open dialogue, a respectful dialogue, their expectation for many of them is that they hope that they're able to do that. Jim referenced too that he was able to go talk to people who loved him and was kind to him and was respectful and patient and tolerant and understanding, et cetera. And the questions that Jim, you know, Jim had, that wasn't my experience. My experience was opposite. So it was like electric shock. I quickly was shocked into the painful realization that I couldn't have those kind of interfaith questions.. And so I saw very quickly early on in the, in the process, those relationships that were hemorrhaging, that, you know, I was going to lose those relationships. And I saw that, as I say, very early on in my, in the process that I went through. But even though I saw the risk of losing those relationships and the pain that that would come from, from those, I still couldn't um, my body, my mind, a whole soul couldn't and wouldn't, even if I tried, uh, turn away from wanting to ask questions and wanting to know the truth and get to the facts, get to the bottom of things. It's just, um, how I'm made. I, I can't live in ignorance. I want to live authentically and be myself. If I have questions, uh, these are important questions to me. They might not be important questions to other people, or to the church, but they're important to me. And Jim Bennett talked about that. And, um, I, you know, I, I, it just was painful because I didn't really have very, very many people to turn to. It wasn't safe. I, I could see that I was going to lose these relationships, almost all of them, at some point. Yet I still continued and I asked the questions, did my own research, found the facts, and eventually that led me to asking questions, more questions, and coming across, in my opinion, some very disturbing things. And that led me out of the church. And the fact that they couldn't answer, couldn't or wouldn't answer the questions was not helpful, you know, but absolutely, um, was made it easier actually. In some ways. In some ways it was hard to leave the church. In other ways it was easy because of the behavior of some of the members and the reluctance to have a, you know, mature, constructive dialogue on some of these things. And so being able to talk about, you know, interfaith questions and, um, and other, all the kinds of questions, that just became, um, it just became impossible. I remember one time I was in church and I'm going to say presidency, and I made a priesthood lesson. I'll ask a question about, um, I think it was the, uh, race in the priesthood, actually. And I, I, and again, I was— look, even the looks and the behavior in the lesson, I got this frowns from some of the leaders in the meeting, and even a brother actually shook his head, you know, that I You know, shouldn't be asking those questions. And then after the meeting, uh, there was 3 or 4 brethren approached me, um, and it was a very difficult question. Uh, my wife who was looking on in the corridor could see my— I was, you know, I just looked flustered. I looked really, um, uncomfortable. And I was surrounded by these brethren who were, um, grilling me actually and, uh, condemning me and and criticizing me and was so disappointed in my, um, the fact that I shouldn't be asking those kind of questions. And even one was saying that I should be released from the calling. So the church has got a long way to go, and it needs to— it's not just enough to teach from the pulpit. I think you have to have some brave leader there stand up and, and talk about the things openly, in the spirit of which Jim spoke earlier. You know, just be a leader. You know, President Nelson, in one talk, gives us some encouragement, and then another one gives a different message. And so we need consistency. And we also need to see that at the stake and the ward level, to help people and support people. And I think I would end on this note as well, is Think about Jesus Christ. Who is he? What kind of person was he? How did he show love? Was he patient? Was he kind? Was he tolerant? Would he be open to, uh, listening to questions? Would he do his best to answer the questions? Perhaps he didn't have all the answers himself. I think he probably would, or many of them. But how would he behave, you know, with somebody who's got questions or doubts or concerns, who is struggling? What would he say? What would he do? How would he show love and kindness? You know, as a church, you know, we carry his name, Church of Jesus Christ. You know, the scriptures, Jesus Christ is in every aspect of the church and every level, I believe, or at least most levels. And we make all these claims and profess all these things to be, you know, the church makes that very bold claim in section, uh, doctrine and covenant section 130, with that it is the only true and living church upon the face of the earth, speaking collectively, not individually. But that's quite a bold claim, which I don't think the church has actually repeated for, for quite a while, but it's still in there, it's not changed. And so it professes to, um, you know, President Nelson is the only mouthpiece on the earth who speaks for the Lord, not just for the saints, but for the entire world. That's quite a bold claim. And so, you know, if that's true, the question should be asked, you know, well, what's Christ's role in all of these issues? What does he think about the church's behavior on its finances, on, you know, covering up or influencing child sex abuse claims? Are hiding doctrine or concealing this and not being transparent on this and not creating safe places for people to ask questions and a myriad of other questions and issues. What's Christ's position on this? What does he think about all this and how would he respond and behave to, to these issues? I don't know him, you know, Jesus Christ personally. I have a testimony of him. I know that he— I believe that he's real. I have my own relationship with him. But I do believe that he is an extraordinary individual of goodness and kindness and love and patience and understanding. And I just don't think— I think he would be uncomfortable with some of the words and the actions of some of the leaders of the church and parts of the culture of the church. And I think he would be— I can't speak for him, of course, but I think he would be advocating, you know, more transparency, you know, more accountability. And I think he would be angry, actually. You know, would he be, go to the, go to as far as, um, that he did, you know, when he went into the temple, when the Pharisees and Sadducees were in the temple and using the temple, the Holy Temple back then, in those sacred places for trading and for, you know, market purposes and selling this and selling that. And, um, you know, would he behave towards the church in that way? Perhaps he would. I don't know. Would he be so displeased that, um, You know, he would shake things up. So I don't believe that this is the only true church upon the face of the earth, um, at all. I think there's many paths to God. Uh, I think, um, the church is influenced by inspiration. And again, when he gets it right and it, it, it's doing really well and, and behaving well and just being kind and loving, absolutely. It's the one of the best religious, uh, organized religions on the on the earth for sure. But I think the church has lost its way on lots of, in lots of ways, not in every way. And I think it needs to remind itself as, you know, its relationship with Christ, the nature of Christ, and how would Christ respond, you know, to people with these concerns and issues. And I think it has, um, at times I think it forgets that. So I would, I would close my messages on, um, You know, I think that relationship between member, less active, resigned member, it should be built on the principles of, of what Christ taught: love, understanding, patience, respect, agree to disagree, integrity, forgiveness, etc. And I think if the church moved more effectively in that direction and actually practiced what it preached and was kinder, more loving towards people that had left, it would have so much more respect and it would, it would be greater than it is. It would be even greater than it is right now. And so that would be, uh, you know, that's my, that's my parting message, I guess, my closing remarks to your question.

Thank you, Ian. And the, the question for you here would be pretty much the same. But I think the only thing I would add is that sometimes I've heard a few members of the church— I've been guilty of thinking this myself at some point— asking, what's the point of interfaith dialogue if at the end of the day we will still think differently, we will still have disagreements? So sometimes people say that having these conversations are either are a waste of time if we're not trying to defend the church or convert. What would you say to that? And what would be your concluding thoughts?

The idea of interfaith dialogue is one that I don't know. I don't know if the church is ready for it. That makes sense. I— when we were on our missions, Um, there was the— a big, uh, newspaper in the UK, I think the Sunday Times or something. And you remember that, the insert that we were given to hand out to people?

It was a— it was a Radio Times. The— the gentleman, the brother on the— on the beans, the can of beans, I think it was.

Yeah, the guy sitting in front of all the beans, he was Elder Grant's father.

Elder Grant, that's it, that's it.

Yeah, yeah. Um, yeah, so— so there was this insert in a big newspaper that we were instructed to pass out to everybody and it turned them off actually, because it said nice things about Margaret Thatcher, who was not popular in Scotland at the time. But, but at the end of it, it talked about interfaith dialog. I've always remembered this. And this, this spokesman for the church in the UK said, when you have the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, You don't have a mandate to horse trade it away. So the idea was, no, we don't want to engage in interfaith dialogue. We don't want to engage in ecumenical dialogue. We're right. Everybody else is wrong. So, so what's there to talk about? Has essentially been the attitude of the church for most of my life. I think we're starting to see that soften. I don't think we're very far down that particular road because the things that I've been talking about, that Ian's been talking about, are less interfaith, but more, okay, how do we deal with people in the faith or people who have left the faith but are still sort of part of the Latter-day Saint community, if only culturally or, you know, through their heritage or whatever. But the idea that, okay, well, how do we relate to Catholics? How do we relate to Muslims? How do we relate to people? I mean, not just other Christians, but, you know, in a worldwide church, Islam is, is a massive religion with, I think, a quarter of the of the world's population as its adherents? How do we relate to Judaism? How do we relate to the Eastern religions like Buddhism? We haven't even started to really have those kinds of conversations yet. I think those conversations can be very helpful. They certainly have been in my life. I remember when I went to the University of Southern California, one of my best friends was an evangelical Christian, and we had some really wonderful conversations, and a lot of them involved me trying to convert him and him trying to convert me. And those weren't wonderful conversations. Those got kind of exhausting. And when we both kind of figured out, okay, yeah, we're not converting each other, then we were able to have sort of open and honest conversations. And it was really sort of lovely to discover how much common ground there was. This guy has since become a Catholic, and we've had some interesting conversations since. And, you know, at one point I had a book called Are Mormons Christians? by Stephen Robinson, BYU professor, and I gave it to my friend and he wrote all kinds of really helpful comments in the margins that helped me understand why anybody would say Mormons aren't Christians. And I thought, geez, I've never been taught this in a church setting. I've never had a conversation like this in a church setting. In a church setting, the conversation is always the church is 100% right. And anybody who thinks otherwise, it's the Korihor template all over again. And it was really refreshing to me in that experience to go, oh, geez, this is what they're saying when they say we're not Christians. They're not being Korihor. They're saying, okay, we don't— we're not part of the historical Christian tradition, which is true. We don't believe in the Trinity. That's true. I mean, there are all of these kinds of things that they're applying their own, you know, idea of what these words mean to the way Latter-day Saints use them and say, well, you're not part of this tradition. And, and when you're able to sort of meet them on their ground, um, you could have productive and positive conversations. Uh, we are seeing, uh, at least in the United States, a really interesting and I think troubling phenomenon with regard to interfaith dialogue. Having been a political guy from way back, in the United States, one of the most powerful movements is what used to be called the religious right. It's now called, I think, Christian nationalism. And it's this idea that, you know, America is a Christian country and needs to have a Christian leadership. And the, the conservative Latter-day Saints have identified with this movement without realizing that these people hate us. They love our votes, they love our money. So they've kind of made it a taunt. But a lot of these people say just horrific things about the church and about Latter-day Saints from their pulpits. And so there's this sort of illusion among a certain group of Latter-day Saints, right-wing Latter-day Saints, that they are included in this sort of ecumenical dialogue when they're not. They're being exploited for their political, um, value. But they're not— you're not respected. They're not part of the Christian community as far as they are concerned. So I just don't even know that we've started having on an institutional level any kind of a healthy dialogue, uh, that's— that could be considered interfaith. And I would like to see that happen down the road.

Thank you, Jim. And, you know, once again, uh, Jim Bennett, thank you for, for taking the time to, to come on and talk a bit about your show and about how we can have these conversations. And, you know, just before we wrap up, uh, there are a lot of topics that I, I really like on, on your podcast. I think that anyone who who can speak or understand English, I would recommend that they go check out your podcast. Would you let us know in which platforms they can find you?

They can find us anywhere on— I mean, we're not on YouTube. I think maybe we need to be. The problem, reason we're not on YouTube is because it's not a video podcast and we edit it. So So maybe, Ian, maybe we need to get dressed up and make a video podcast too. But right, it's on Spotify, it's on Apple Podcasts, it's on Google Podcasts, pretty much any platform, any audio platform for podcasts, you could find us. It's called Inside Out with Jim Bennett and Ian Wilkes because there are a number of podcasts called Inside Out. So if you add our names, you'll be able to find it just fine. And with that, we conclude this episode. Thanks for listening.

We'll see you next time on Inside Out.