A Conversation with Richard Ostler

Hello and welcome to another episode of Inside Out. My name is Jim Bennett. I am here as always with the wonderful Ian Wilkes. Ian, how are you, sir?

I am doing wonderful today, Jim.

How are you? I am doing all right. I'm doing even better because we're going to talk to somebody who I've wanted to talk to for a very long time. One of my absolute favorite people, and this is actually the first time I've met him, or at least that we've had conversations. We've exchanged messages online, but this is a man that I absolutely believe has saved more lives than any of us could possibly know. He is a committed, devoted, active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and he is also just a a fearless LGBTQ ally whose podcast Listen, Learn, and Love interviews people all across, uh, wherever they are in terms of their faith journey, but all of whom deal with LGBTQ issues in very personal ways. And, uh, this man is always there with an empathetic ear, always there, able to be able to find ways, uh, to within the doctrine of the church and within, you know, I mean, this is somebody who is, who is committed to the restored gospel but also committed to the Savior's charge to love our neighbors as ourselves in a way that so few people are. So with that introduction, Richard Osler, welcome to Inside Out. So glad to have you here.

So good to be here with you, Jim Bennett, and Ian. You're doing great work.

Oh, well, and I can't tell you how much that means coming from you, because I really do believe those weren't empty words. I really do believe the work you do is vital and life-saving. Um, so can you, uh, maybe to begin with, just sort of give an overview of how you got to where you are? Because I don't know that this was something that you had planned to do when you were younger, that this would be part of your service in the Church, and I'm very interested to know how this became such a priority for you.

Yeah, great question. I was a singles ward bishop. My wife and I have 6 kids. They're all straight, and I was a singles ward bishop from 2013 to 2016. In the course of that assignment, had a couple gay men talk to me about being gay. And I didn't know, I didn't want to add to their burdens with my uninformed opinions. So in kind of a moment of revelation, Heavenly Father said to me, everything you've learned about queer people is from straight people. And you ought to wipe your hard drive clean of everything you've learned and go talk to a lot of queer people. And realize what the Church is teaching now that I didn't know, and talk to a lot of parents that are raising queer kids. And that was just really transforming to me, as I wanted to support them as best I could as their bishop and recognize their courage to open up. And then towards the end of my YSA assignment, I connected with the mother of a gay son, Allison Paul, and she posted on Instagram the day after her gay son died by suicide, Stockton Powers. And that would be 10 years ago this month. And she said, my son was a square peg trying to fit in a round hole and suffered immensely. And challenges to choose love. And I knew my YSA assignment was ending, and I just felt a spiritual impression to step in this space and be supportive of the church and our leaders in doctrine and do all I could to support LGBTQ people. And that led to writing a book and starting a podcast. The podcast is just a platform where queer people can share their stories. Because that's how my heart changed. I had to listen to LGBTQ people and sort of recognize the complex road they walk. And so that's what I've been doing, just a labor of love. Um, but I felt called. The song that got me on my mission to England was "I'll Go Where You Want Me to Go, Dear Lord." And that song— that— and this is the same song and the same gospel principles and the same discipleship that you two are doing. And I've done in your church service. I recognize that Ian isn't in the church and honor his journey, but that's just what I felt impressed to do, and that's what I've been doing for the last 10 years as an ally to LGBTQ people. My favorite song is Bridge Over Troubled Water because that represents allyship, um, and I love some of the— I can't sing, you guys, but I can love songs. And Your Time Has Come to Shine, I'm Sailing Right Here Behind You. And that's what I think allies are trying to do. We're not trying to step in the limelight. We're trying to use any platform we have to bring voice to other people that walk a harder road, which you both are doing, and to be right there behind them as they make their way forward. So that's, that's sort of my journey. It's an unexpected ministry. It's a labor of love, and I'm just— it's a complicated space, as you two know and your listeners know, but And one of the things I've learned to do in space is I just, I really like the idea of author your own story. So if a young queer person talks to me offline or wants to visit, I just say, you know, you've got to author your own story. There's these various roads you can take, and you've got to figure out what road is best for you and do that when your personal best, and I'll walk with you. And some of those roads are fully to participate in the church, and others aren't. I've learned to just kind of let that go as far as my personal hopes and dreams and feelings and just let them— they've got to own their story. They're the one that's going to answer to Jesus. I won't be there in the next life, and no one else will be there in the next life but them and Jesus. I'll just walk with you, and I won't make you the hero one day for being in the church and the villain the next day, and just sort of love people like we're invited to do by Christ.

That's just so wonderful and so refreshing. And, and I, I really think so rare to a large degree, because one of the things that I found when I sort of got into this space, and I've told this story many times, but my son calls me a D-list Mormon celebrity as a result of my, um, B-list for sure. B-list. I think you're at least on the B-list.

Lost list.

But, but I, you know, it was my reply to the CES letter that I still get, you know, letters from emails from people saying, thank you, you helped me save my faith. But when I started talking to critics of the church, I started to get emails from people saying, you didn't convince me to come back to church, but you did convince me that you did help me better understand my family and friends who are still in. And so when Ian came to me and said, I want to do a podcast with you, that is in this space. I just sort of jumped at the chance. But the thing that has happened is that suddenly the people who push back hardest against me are members of the church.

Yeah.

And I'm betting that's kind of been your experience too. Do you want to talk about that for a minute?

Yeah. And both of you have taken a fair amount of flak. I'm with you on Twitter, Jim Bennett, and you've been there and I've been there. And that's a pretty difficult platform, and I admire your courage to be bold and courageous and stand for your beliefs, and I've really admired that. I think you've helped a lot of people. It is— I think there's an unfortunate sort of part of our culture for some people that instantly when they think of LGBTQ people or being supportive of LGBT people, you're somehow not supportive of the church, and those things are an either/or., and I worry that political ideologies frame that versus Christ's ministry, or even the things our church leaders have said at times that are very kind to LGBTQ people. So that's a really tough space, and there's been— I sort of think if you're— I love the idea that if you're not feeling the stones, you're not close enough as an ally to be a stone catcher, and both of you are stone catchers, and that just represents, I think, the work we're doing to try to extend the borders of Zion so more people feel welcome at church, LGBTQ or straight. I've always felt there isn't a belief or behavior hurdle to feel welcome in an LDS congregation. Elder Uchtdorf said, "Our testimony doesn't need to be this high to enter," and I think he's teaching a principle that scales. Everybody should be welcome at church. The gate is wide at that level. And the narrowing of the gate is more at the temple level where there is a belief in behavioral hurdle. But a lot of people are policing sort of what's appropriate at the ward level or even on social media. And that's difficult. And I wish our leaders led more on that and were more specific on the kind of behavior that isn't appropriate for Latter-day Saints.

No, you're singing my tune. I mean, it's amazing to me how many people can listen to President Nelson's Peacemaker talk and President Oaks's follow-up and think, oh, okay, well, he's talking to somebody else. He's not talking to me. You know, it's okay that I am beating up on Richard Osler online because he obviously is a terrible person because he's advocating for gay marriage in the temple, which is not something I have ever heard you do, and it's not something that I have ever done. But that's the accusation over and over and over again is You're trying to get the church to follow your terrible woke political agenda. How would you respond to that?

Well, I'm, you know, after listening to 1,000 LGBTQ stories, and every story is a little different, I like a book at Desert Book called When Church Is Hard. It's written by a physician. He makes the point that as a physician, We look at pain as our friend to understand what needs to be addressed. And he then pivots and talks about people that are having painful experiences at church, and that could be women, it could be people dealing with complex faith things, it could be queer members, and sort of use that as our friend, that we should have the intellectual honesty to want to understand why people feel pain and then do what we can in our circle of influence to better address that versus gaslight them and say, well, I don't feel that pain. You shouldn't, or point to this scripture. And so I like that. And in the space of LGBTQ, I support current doctrine, our leaders. I don't know God's will, but there's a lot of pain for particularly gay and lesbian Latter-day Saints and trans Latter-day Saints, which is a different category. And so I'm just open for changes in policy, doctrine, teaching, to better eliminate pain. And so straight members are having the same positive experiences as queer members. I sometimes use the analogy the church's relationship with its queer members is like a 40-chapter book. Earlier chapters represent the things we used to teach, we don't teach. Potentially newer chapters represent improvements we'll make in an ongoing revelation to better support queer people. And so people say, well, Richard, what do you think chapter 40 is? Do you think our doctrine will change? And I go, I'm open to our doctrine changing, but I look at it like this: it's like a mom, an LDS mom, that realizes her 15-year-old daughter, son, is queer and/or lesbian or gay. And, and right now she's just full of fear about how that kid fits in the plan of salvation. And chapter 40 is when she has no fear. Between her straight 15-year-old kid and her queer 15-year-old kid. And that to me represents the eternal truths of the gospel. Men are and women are that they might have joy. And the gospel doesn't represent pain, but sometimes our policy and doctrine and culture and teachings do. So that's how I frame it up in my mind. But I'm certainly hopeful for changes to better support queer people.

Well, Ian, if you've got any questions, feel free to jump in, or I can keep peppering. I could go all day. But, uh, uh, I, I'm, I, you know, I'm very interested actually in your reaction to what Richard has been saying.

Thank you, Jim. Richard, as I listen to you, I feel a wonderful spirit coming from you. Someone who is kind and compassionate.

Thoughtful.

I can't think of a better example in the church and in the space that we occupy by having these conversations of someone who is kind and thoughtful and more insightful. I mean, the very title of your podcast, I think speaks volumes. As I listen to you and about your experience as a bishop where you were, I think, getting advice from, uh, non-gay individuals and made the smart choice to go, uh, talk to and listen to, um, gay, uh, individuals who are sons and daughters of God. The scriptures teach that all are alike unto God. All are children of God. And you approach that in a different way, and you were able to be open-minded and to be able to listen and have those conversations and learnt a great deal, you know, uh, listen, learn, and love. Um, and I think that's extraordinary, and I think every bishop should possess those kind of qualities. You are a godsend. I think you're a miracle blessing to many who in the church who, uh, uh, gay or feelings, uh, you know, same-sex attraction who are struggling and going through these experiences with lots of questions. Many are fearful, very concerned. In my experience, there are individuals who have shared things with me, who have asked me, pleaded with me in one case, to not disclose. And of course, I never would, you know, the personal information, but because they're so fearful and concerned about impact on their families. And so to have someone like you who is kind, loving, someone they can go to in confidence. And just to talk about the things and thoughts, I think is just, uh, just wonderful. Um, one question I want to ask you is, um, with those qualities and attributes and your desire to help create safer spaces for, uh, uh, gay brothers and sisters, my question is around the mechanics and around the, the doctrine. What's your position in regards to how far the church should go in regards to providing a complete, full, genuine, equal, uh, opportunities, equal measure experience for, uh, LGBTQ individuals? The church writes stuff and, and talks about the value of, uh, everyone in the church. Uh, doesn't talk about it much at the pulpit at General Conference, has made references in various, uh, articles and journals, uh, to, to at least appear to be inclusive in respect to, um, everyone in the church, that everyone is welcome, uh, no one will be turned away. But my question to you is, is two questions. What can the church leadership do to get to the position that you think it should be to do better, to make these, you know, church, uh, worship a safer place? And secondly, how far do you think the church should go in terms of its operations and, um, in respect to extending, uh, equal callings to individuals, uh, in the church to have the full experience of serving in the church and could be called to leadership positions and even extend the promises of the temple blessings, priesthood blessings to individuals. So the two questions are, what do you think the church could do better to create these safer spaces for these individuals who again are all children of God, equal in every way, And secondly, how far the church should go in regards to extending any and all opportunities for these individuals to serve their communities and serve in the organization of the church.

Great question. And just one framing that your guest, who's been on your podcast 30 times, and I poached him for 3 episodes on our platform and He's back to you for another 30, but Greg Prince talks about the church went from a behavior model to mostly a biological model. In the '60s, when they first talked about this space, the assumption was this was behavior, and now the church is basically, maybe not all the way, that this is biology. In other words, gay people don't choose to be gay. They come hardwired as gay, lesbian, bisexual. And so I don't think our teachings that were developed under the behavior model haven't fully transitioned to the accepting that this is a biological model. Greg Prince makes the point that when the church said this isn't a choice and you can't unchoose it, that the other shoe hasn't dropped. And I agree with that framing. He says, I don't know what the other shoe will be, but it's not a sustainable position for the church. So your question, Ian, fits right into that, and so I would answer that in kind of a couple ways. One is, what could the church do without changing doctrine to better support queer people? And there's a lot of things the church could do. One thing I would love is just a talk from a senior leader at the church at General Conference talking directly to LGBTQ people, not about them, as kind of this other group that poses some veiled threat to us, but talk directly to them that we need them. They are valuable members of our congregations. They didn't choose this. They can't unchoose this. We're asking— and so it's also talking to allies as they directly talk to an LGBTQ person. Frame it up that the gathering of Israel is missionary work and finding people like both of you serve missions, And the Gathering of Israel is helping our own queer members feel welcome at church, and we're actually better off with them. And then, you know, creating more community. There is no community for LGBTQ people in the church. There's no club or support organization at BYU. There's no program in the church. There's no service missionaries that could be a couple that have a gay kid that help other people in a stake met, you know how to support a queer kid. There's no support. I serve in a YSA stake right now as a ministering couple. There's nothing in a YSA stake in the Church to support LGBTQ members. So, there's nothing, you know, and to your— another thing, there's no one to sort of look upward if you're a young queer person and say, oh, there's somebody on the General Officer of the Church that's queer, and they just spoke in state conference, or they just spoke in general conference, and I see people like me in the church. If you're Black, that was not the case in the '70s, and it is the case now. It helps people to feel like they belong if they see people like them. So that's— there's a whole podcast in what we could do in our current doctrine to better support queer people, and that's a pretty low bar, and And I'm disappointed we haven't done any of that. Most of the time we talk about queer people at General Conference, it's about another group of people we're trying to make peace with versus a pastoral approach that these are our own people. And part of that could be the proclamation of the family. We have that hanging in the next room, but it doesn't answer the question of how to navigate your life as a queer Latter-day Saint. It can just remind you of what's not possible for you and powerless to change it. So I think we can create empathy around the proclamation of the family for gay and lesbian people, that unless they feel a mixed orientation marriage is their path, it's pretty triggering for them because they would love to have the proclamation work in their life. Om Gate, man, told me, he says, it's, he said, it's like being locked out of the house on the porch. And I look in the window and all these straight couples are getting on with their lives and, and the proclamation of families in the background and it's joyous in there and it's happy and I'm just, I've got this key, and it's, I'm gay, and I try to unlock the door, and I just can't. I can't make it work with a woman. And eventually they just kind of close the blinds and don't want to deal with the complexity because it makes them uncomfortable. And I leave, and then I get blamed for leaving, for not being committed. You know, this is just a heartbreaking space. David Ardigo would be a great example of someone who got engaged to 3 different women trying to make it work. So that's the first part of your question is just sort of what we can do. And then I'm completely open to doctrinal changes that one day, you know, 10 years ago I would have thought this would be a terrible idea, but now there's just so much pain that I'm completely fine with same-sex temple marriages. I'm not an activist. An activist to me is someone who sort of pushes upward and asks the church to change. That's not me, but I am an advocate, which is more I'm looking sideways to my queer friends and what can I do to support them and advocate for them. So if same-sex temple marriage became, you know, we had a revelation like we did with blacks and the priesthood, and that became church doctrine, that doesn't cost me anything. I don't give up anything. It's not like there's this pie that suddenly got more restricted for straight people. It doesn't create any harm. Um, and so I just am open to further light and understanding because there's so much pain. And, and I have great empathy. You know, I love being married. My wife and I are in our, you know, we're in our 60s now. And we're— marriage sometimes for gay people just gets framed all about sex. But for straight people, there's a sexual component of marriage, but You know, we, we both have had rotator cuff surgery, so we're in this space, this, this sacred space. We're taking care of each other in ways that we never thought would be possible, or— and it's bringing us even closer together as a married couple. But sometimes I think about my gay 65-year-old friend who's celibate, and who's changing his sling after rotator cuff surgery? Who's taking him or her to the doctor's appointment? So Marriage is more just about sexual intimacy. It's sharing your lives together in a wonderful, beautiful way. And so sometimes we just frame, you know, we just think about gay and lesbian people, think about sexual behavior, only the same-sex marriage. So that's kind of an answer to your question.

I think, I think that excellent answers. You understand and articulate these issues extremely well. I have shared on Inside Out before, without disclosing any names, a very profound experience I had with a good friend of ours who I love and respect enormously, who, um, confided in me that, uh, this person was, was gay. And this person, Richard, helped me understand as much as I could, and I Confess, I, I didn't understand most of it, almost all of it, frankly. But this person just helped me understand what they were feeling and thinking in a way that I hadn't understood before. You know, we're using the words, um, listening and, uh, understanding and learning and loving. And these are really important words, especially when there's action behind them. Anyway, this person shared some, information that I wasn't aware of at that time from a quote by Elder Packer that caused immense pain and suffering. And I'm gonna read it here because this speaks to, I think, goes to the very heart of the issue in the church, at least an area that we should be talking about. So in October 2010, Elder Packer delivered one of his more forthright and unfiltered conference talks called Cleansing the Inner Vessel. You probably remember that. And it focused on overcoming a slew of dangerous worldly temptations like pornography, drugs, alcohol, homosexuality, which the church traditionally described as the sins, transgressions and sins, and then offenses to God, specifically addressing homosexuality and gender nonconformity. Said this, and Jim, just check me on this because I think this is correct, but he said, some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies towards the impure and unnatural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, he's our Father. So in your response to my question, you talked about further light and knowledge. I think they were the words that he used. And as I listened to that, my mind caught hold of the temple experience, the temple endowment, the video in the temple. And in there, as this, uh, those relationships are, uh, unfolding, developing with Peter, James, and John, Jesus Christ, and Heavenly Father, the message is clear, uh, to Adam and Eve, uh, in the presentation. That Adam and Eve are required to covenant with God, and as they do and they obey, further light and knowledge will be unfolded to them. And I think about that often, and I think about what's God's position on this? And I think I know some of that, you know, that he loves all of his children. And that is some of his children are, uh, born feeling like this and thinking like this. As it was shared with my friend, he said it was a just as natural experience to him being attracted to same sex as it was for, uh, me being heterosexual, uh, attracted to the opposite sex. And that for me was just mind-blowing. It just, I, I've not seen it like that before. And I'm so grateful to this person who, um, was able to share their thoughts and feelings on this. That certainly enlightened me. And I'm, I'm not saying for one second I understand it fully, but I'm learning and I'm trying to listen and understand. But these comments, uh, from individuals like Elder Packer are so hurtful and damaging to people. The church would do well, I think, to disavow itself from these quotes, these talks, these teachings, this doctrine. To your point, to kind of, you know, deal with that in a very more kind and more thoughtful way. And so my question is, what's the, uh, in your experience, what's the church's official position on this now? I know it's changed. It's not what Elder Packer has stated. Maybe it is. Maybe that is still the unofficial unwritten position of the church that individuals, uh, are born either male or female. May the, maybe the proclamation on the family, uh, as Elder Oaks has talked about recently, one of the conferences, is, continues to be the official position. But is, is that your understanding? And if it's not, what is the position as, as you understand it on this issue that Elder Packer talked about? In such a very hurtful and unkind way. Could you speak to those two points, if you will?

Yeah, um, appreciate you bringing up Elder Packer. I think that's an example of someone that's still in the behavior model and died in the behavior model. And it was very difficult for Elder Packer to believe that God would create people gay. And after meeting with so many people and even giving blessings, I would always often, just as a bishop would, and then as a rank-and-file member would give blessings to people that want to visit. I've just come to feel that straight people are created as intended, and gay and lesbian and trans people are created intended. Everybody needs to look in the mirror and feel they're created as intended. Um, that's one of Satan's greatest tools to create shame. So if you feel shame because you're queer— and all my queer friends have told me they have— it separates them from a belief that God can love them. And Elder Packer's talk who's a senior leader in the church can make that even more so, because when the senior leader of the church creates shame because you feel a certain way, then it makes you think God feels the same way. So we don't disavow. One of the things I wrote down as you were talking, Ian, is we don't unteach things. So here I am in 2013 being a YSA bishop, and no one sat me down and said, Richard Osler, you're a new YSA bishop. Here's all the things we used to teach about queer people that we don't teach anymore. We just want you to know that. No Sunday school lesson, no fist Sunday, no conference talk. So I'm left as, you know, I was in my minfim with everything I picked up as not too engaged in the space because it wasn't real proximate to my wife and I as we were raising our family. I love Elder Uchtdorf's quote, how often has the Holy Spirit tried to tell us something we needed to know but couldn't get past the massive iron gates of what we thought we already knew. And so, you know, I love your stories, Ian, and I know Jim Bennett has some too of just being willing to learn. Pornography, some people would compare all this to an addiction. One of my guests made a really good point one day. He says, porn is— to get addicted to porn, which is another story, because I think a lot of people with a porn problem aren't addicted. You have to try porn first. To sort of have a problem with porn. But same-sex attraction, gay or lesbian, isn't something people try to become gay or lesbian. It's just who they are. It's like being born left-handed or blue eyes or red hair. It's just an— they don't even say, I identify as gay. They just say, I am gay. I am lesbian. I am bisexual. And I think if you really believe in the biology model, and unteach a bunch of things like those earlier chapters represent, then we can get into a much better place in supporting queer people. But the church, as your podcast does a great job, as I've listened to a half dozen episodes, we, we don't unteach things, and so people are left with prior teachings. To answer your question, the best quote I can find about what the church currently teaches is on the church website. It's a comment by Elder Holland, and I'll paraphrase. If I can, I'm saying a little silent prayer to get it right. You know, a change in sexual orientation should not be demanded or expected as an outcome by parents or leaders. And that's pretty close to what he said. So that is, you know, that is clearly biology. We're asking parents and leaders not to tell gay people to pray it away. And in inference, you know, obviously for gay people not to pray it away. Because then they just, I've heard these stories, take my arms, take my hands, I'll get on that plane to serve my mission. I just have to be straight. And then they're not. And they can falsely conclude, well, I haven't done it enough on my mission. I haven't bared my knuckles enough, like President Kimball talks about in his book that's based on the behavior model. And then they just, they get suicidal and they do die by suicide like Stockton did and others have. And so that's just heartbreaking versus, you know, clear messages. This is who you are. And a lot of the queer people I get to the point I say, you know, when they meet sometimes, I pretend is there, would you push this imaginary red button to be straight? And it shocked me at first, but a lot of them would say, no, this is who I am. And this is how God created me. And this isn't something I want carved out of me because all my Christlike attributes, my discipleship, My character, this is part of me, and I don't want it carved out now. These are members fully participating in the church, and I don't want it carved out in the next life. The resurrection is a perfection of my best self, and my queer identity is part of that. Now, others in a mixed orientation marriage might actually wish to be straight in the next life. So every story is different, and my job as an ally is not to write their story. But to sort of listen to them and provide stories so they can figure out the best way forward. But that's just a couple thoughts in on just, you know, this space and the need to do better that you and Jim obviously are doing a great job. But Shane, just, I believe in Satan, listener, your listeners, but I think he gets weaponized sometimes to create an agenda. But I think the part of Satan that I most believe in is his ability to create shame. And that can be around sexual orientation or gender identity, which is just a part of the human family. And I think God creates all these people, and so our policies and doctrines needs to be open, that God is bigger than our current policies and doctrine. And that's what leads me back to your first question. I'm completely open, supportive, privately praying for changes in doctrine and policy, whatever you want to call it, to better support queer people.

Oh, I just, so you said two things that really jumped out at me. One of them was this idea that people who are saying, if you could press the button, would you become straight? And people saying no. And for so long, the carrot that we dangled in front of people, don't worry, because in the next life you will be straight. And I think if someone told me in the next life I would be gay, it's not so much that that idea is abhorrent to me so much as that would be a person I wouldn't recognize. Because my sexuality informs far more, as you say, Richard, than just the act of sexual intercourse. You know, how we talk to people, how we relate to other people. Uh, I, you know, my conversations with women are different than my conversations with men, and my sexuality is part of that. I mean, it's difficult to sort of define granularly, but it's there. Our sexuality is just a basic fundamental part of who we are, and telling somebody you're going to have a different sexuality in the next life It's telling them that they're going to become somebody that they wouldn't recognize. But the other thing, you have boldly said that you want change, and that is crossing a line that so many of these online defenders who think the proclamation on the family should be weaponized for things it doesn't actually say, which is pretty much always the case, right? I mean, Ian, you, you quoted Elder Packer, uh, those quotes have been changed in the written version, which suggests that he gave that talk as the president of the Quorum of the Twelve. So that meant the First Presidency would have been the only ones to tell him, hey, guess what, that's not right, we have to change it. But the other thing that President Packer said on that occasion was that the proclamation on the family is a revelation. And that was taken out, uh, when it was changed, which I think is significant. So when people wield the proclamation as some kind of weapon, uh, they do so in the service of a cause, saying this can never, ever, ever, ever, ever change. And they are so vehement about that stance and I'd be very interested to hear why are they so vehement. For instance, if I were to say, the example I always use is if I were to say, boy, I really wish the church would give up baptism by immersion. It would be so much more convenient just to sprinkle babies the way everybody else does. Uh, people would just sort of look at me, roll their eyes, and get on with their lives. They dismiss me as a kook, but they wouldn't be angry. They wouldn't come after me. They'd just say, yeah, Jim Bennett, he believes silly things. But when someone like a Richard Osler says, I would welcome gay temple sealings, I pray for those kinds of changes, people just lose their minds and start— why is that? Why is it that even the idea that change is possible prompts that kind of a reaction?

It's a good question. I The proclamation, you know, was written out of the Church's legal efforts that started— this is back to your guest, Greg Prince— it was 32 years that the Church, from the first experience in Hawaii, that the Church took legal action to prevent same-sex marriage, that ended 32 years later in 2023 when the Church supported the Respect for Marriage Act and actually sent a General Authority Seventy to White House. So the proclamation of family was developed in that legal battle, and it's become, you know, what our standing is on that. But we ended up not— all the arguments to defend against same-sex marriage, the empirical data of all the bad things were going to happen, didn't— wasn't true. The church still has a right to decide how to define marriage within the church, and I'm not going to debate that. But proclamation doesn't rule out things. It doesn't really say anything about gay people. It doesn't really say anything about what God thinks about a marriage between two men or two women. It just talks about marriage between man and woman is ordained of God, so a lot of people read that and infer that other types of marriages aren't ordained by God. Sometimes, just shifting slightly, I think about eternal gospel truths. To me, that's the core of the gospel, and our doctrine teaching policy is an effort to take an eternal gospel truth and put it into policy, whatever you want to call it. Um, and I've always wondered if the eternal gospel truth is monogamy, and that's actually the core relationship that our Heavenly Parents want for their children, is a committed monogamous relationship. And is it possible the church will recognize that at some point, that that's the eternal gospel truth? And for, you know, and everybody then can choose, then we're going to support monogamous, long-term committed relationships, and we're going to support different type of marriages based on your sexual orientation. So is that the framing that'll eventually happen around this space, that the core thing we actually care the most about as a church is monogamous committed relationships, which is now legally possible. I don't know. I'm just open to that as part of that whole discussion. We have a lot of couples on the podcast in same-sex marriages that want to participate in the church. We had one that, you know, they both love the church. They're active in their wards. They're doing baptisms for the dead as an engaged same-sex couple. Their bishop is giving the same law of chastity requirements he has for the straight people. They're not sexually active, just like the straight people aren't asked to be sexually active. Um, once they're married, they all know they won't have a temple recommend, but they still want to come to church. And just to give you an example of their courage, they love the temple so much that once they're married, they just want— they will go— they told on the podcast they will go to the waiting room in the temple, sit there together, and do family history. Because that, and I admire their courage, but my heart breaks that the very thing that I was able to do as a young, you know, LDS young man was to find my wife at BYU and be married. And there was no trade-off. I didn't, to be able to share my life with someone didn't cost me anything. And they're in the double bind to share their life with somebody. It costs them so much. And then it can cost them a lot of judgment from their faith community for whatever language we're going to use, and instead of just admiring their courage to want to participate in the church as best they can. So the personal stories are part of the narrative here, is just when you hear these personal stories like you both heard, it changes your heart, and you naturally— the other thing I think is helpful for people that don't ever think things can change, and this is why your podcast is great, you go through the history of all the things that have changed. If you read Second Class Saints by Matthew Harris, and you're both very familiar with that book, and the complex nature of President Kimball getting a revelation on the priesthood that prior General Authorities said would never happen, you start to open your mind and heart that it's an ongoing restoration. But you've got to be curious as senior leaders of the Church, and you've got to be open that maybe we're not at the finish line, and you've got to listen to a lot of stories of Black Latter-day Saints that President Kimball did, and, and in the queer space to listen to queer people. Um, so that's just kind of a pattern of revelation. As you guys know, President Kimball just didn't go to the temple one day and sort of in a one-off, wow, I just got this revelation. Years of work that he did to better understand the space and curious. The God I believe in, um, responds to our questions for further light and understanding versus sort of proactively makes that happen.

Oh, that's a great way to frame it. And it's really interesting that so many people, um, in my mind, it, it's just stunning when so many people insist that doctrine never changes. Because to me, it's like, okay, either doctrine changes or we have continuing revelation— or we don't have continuing revelation. There's no point to more light and knowledge if it doesn't change anything. And so we jump through all of these hoops to say, well, yeah, doctrine never changes. And then when doctrine changes, well, that was never really doctrine.

It's—

we find another label for it. Uh, we, we don't really have this sort of fixed point, uh, that we think that we have. And when I've talked to people who very much defend the church's position on LGBTQ issues, and these are the never, never, never, never, never, never change people. It's like, why do you think that the change on this issue, which has been more dramatic and faster than any change in any significant issue that I've seen in my lifetime— it took, what, 125-plus years to, uh, reverse the priesthood and temple ban, uh, and 2008 was Proposition 8, and then the Respect for Marriage Act is, what, is a decade later, or a little more than a decade. But I mean, that's ridiculously fast. And after Proposition 8, that's when the church said you don't choose your sexuality, and you shouldn't expect your sexuality to change with sufficient righteousness. Which are huge, huge changes. But as you point out, Richard, we didn't unteach the old one. So people who want to hold on to the behavioral model have license to do so because we have not trumpeted these changes from the rooftops. And the other change that has been made that we don't talk about very often is the church quietly scrapped the recommendation that gay people were to enter into mixed orientation marriages. It used to be that I had a number of gay friends who were told, just get married, that'll take care of it. And, you know, the statistics on that are just absolutely dreadful. Uh, and the church has quietly stopped doing that. And yet the church— but the church doesn't discourage mixed orientation marriages. It just kind of stays silent, and a lot of people enter into mixed orientation marriages. There are a lot of people in the choir, the Tabernacle Choir, who are gay and admit openly that they are gay, and they are married, and they are in mixed orientation marriages. And what would you say to them if the church were to change? Because These are people that are making a sacrifice and that are making it work in a way that I just, I can't even begin to fathom. Uh, and, and so if they were to be told, hey, uh, guess what? If you would just waited a little longer, you wouldn't have had to do this. You could have been married to somebody that you were attracted to. And I think that they'd be quite angry about that. It's the same thing as that. We— I've talked to people in the church who talk about how angry a lot of women are after they changed, made the sleeveless garments, because they had been taught forever that that was a modesty sacrifice based on some kind of eternal principle. Turns out it wasn't. And now they go, well, I, you know, I, I— my whole wedding had to change because I couldn't find bridesmaid dresses and a wedding gown that covered garments. Now you're telling me that my daughter can do that without any problem? So I think there'd be some kind of resentment there. What do you think the reaction would be and how would we work through that?

Great question. I think, first of all, I did a podcast with a couple in a mixed orientation marriage and in kind of a rebuke of the Spirit during the podcast, I thought all those marriages failed. Because all I was aware of marriages that failed, the ones that sort of blew up. And, and then I, I did this podcast and I've done a lot since, and I've recognized that this is a beautiful love story and it's not easy. And they'll say it's not easy. And they will always say, don't make my story your story, but let— support my story, but don't weaponize my Extroorientation podcast and send it to a young queer person and say, this is how to make it work. So I think you get a range of a lot of people, some that would say, you know, even if the church, when I was young, before married, was okay with same-sex marriage, I still might choose a mixed orientation marriage. And they would be okay. Others would be pretty angry because they felt like the mixed same-sex marriage was off the table. So I think you'd get a range of feelings from mixed couples and mixed orientation marriages. Kind of leads to my, my Dream the Impossible Dream song. One of the other songs I can't sing is, wouldn't it be awesome if the church got to the point and society got to the point where just saying, okay, in your teens and early 20s, that's the time to figure out your sexual orientation or gender identity. You need to fully own that before you make any major decisions in life. And we as a church are here to help you do that. And that is such a sacred part of your creation, an important part of creation. Everybody's created as intended, and there's sexual minorities and gender minorities. And then once you figure that out, here's the paths for you, and we're going to support any of these paths. If you want to be celibate and feel called to be celibate, we've got a path for you and a support system. If you feel a mixed orientation marriage is best for you, you ought to talk to your spouse in the dating process. And both of you get personal revelation to know if a mixed orientation marriage is going to work for you. Or if you feel your best path at the end of the day, when you're your spiritual best and emotional best and sort of processes in a real position of strength to make that decision, we'll support you. So that's kind of my dream, the impossible dream of where the— maybe it's not impossible. Maybe the church can get to that point if we fully accept the biology model. Another comment is, uh, I love the point that it took a long time for Blacks to change. And somebody shared with me a thought is it was harder to have proximity to Black Latter-day Saints for white Latter-day Saints, but for queer people, they're born into your own family.

I was there. Darren Knox, who said that? It was.

And yeah, you're in the choir and we're in the choir with, you know, we have prox— we're proximate. A couple of gay men walked into my office and told me it was like being gay. And so. I agree that things are changing quicker, and maybe because the importance of proximity is increasing as more and more people are comfortable identifying. Another comment I just want to make is, when I'm meeting with a young queer person that feels their path is the same-sex marriage, I'll say, well, don't make that choice thinking the Church will catch up to you one day. Don't make it thinking someday the Church will let you have a same-sex marriage in the temple. That's a possibility as we're talking about, but I think it's dangerous, or maybe isn't the right word, but you've got to make your decision on your life based on current doctrine, current policy, and most importantly, the personal revelation you're getting versus a hope that something changes down the road.

No, that's an excellent point. I mean, I grew up with a girl. She was the— I was the only person in our Sunday school class that didn't take her to prom. Uh, she was just, she was just, I, I've stayed close to her and her family. I love her whole family. Uh, and, uh, she's married and had a, I'm just, I think at least from my perspective, a sort of picture-perfect marriage and picture-perfect family. Uh, it had kids and one son, uh, who came to her and said, I'm gay. And, uh, is now married to another man. And she's been on, uh, there's another pod— Lift and Love, is that other podcast? Yeah, she's been on that podcast. Uh, I, she, she be— I, I don't know if she's not that kind of a personality, so I, I wouldn't, I wouldn't recommend her to you, but I would love to see her on your podcast as well. But, uh, she It just sort of— she had to rethink her entire faith from the bottom up. And, and it was not something she had ever hoped to do or ever thought of doing. And she's still an active member of the church. She's still a believing member of the church. But she says sometimes it's often hard to get through church without crying because she hears these messages and thinks that thinks that this is out of reach for her family. She thinks that her dreams of an eternal family have been dashed to a large degree. And my response to her on that is, look, I've got 5 magnificent children. I cannot imagine them doing anything that would make me cut them eternally out of my life.

Life.

Even if they were murderers, I would go and visit them on death row. I, you know, I, I would— there is nothing they could do that would sever the love between my children and myself. And I have to believe that our Heavenly Father, our Heavenly Parents, are at least as good and decent and loving as I am. And I believe that they are far more loving and kind and wonderful than we could possibly conceive. And I don't think that flies in the face of existing doctrine, because I, I think at its core Mormonism is universalist. If it's not, what are we doing all this temple work for? You know, what, why, why do we bother trying to save the whole world if the whole world can't be saved and won't be saved? Does that— have you become sort of more universalist?

You know, we have several adult children that have left the church. Straight people leave the church, queer people leave the church for various reasons. And we've just decided to do what you're doing is we, we are trying to preserve the relationship and not control the outcome and leave everything at the seat of our Savior. My wife spoke at Women's Conference about this very subject as a mom. So, you know, keeping the family circle together with adult children that leave and She would very much agree with you, Jim Bennett, that she hasn't given hope for eternal family, um, because the Heavenly Parents I believe in want— in fact, Bruce Butcher talked, and our common friend talked about, you think Heavenly Mother's gonna not like every— want to do everything she can to get every one of her children back?

That sounds so much like Bruce.

Yeah, I love that. Um, you know, I think A couple comments. One is back to the resurrection. I'm just reading some notes. It can create, um, a fine— it can create suicide outcome for gay people if the final ace in the hole to become straight is, I will be straight in the next life, so I will die by suicide now. And so it's been a while since any General Authority or leader of the church has said we're straight in the next life, and maybe they recognize we don't know that for sure, or that it can create suicide. But I taught that doctrine in a Sunday school lesson, that everybody's straight in the next life. No one had ever sort of shared with me the nuance of that, that that could actually increase the likelihood of suicide. Another comment is, when we say— sometimes I get triggered with senior leaders of the church— when we say we love everybody, to me, love is a verb. And we have to say to ourselves, if If I have the power in my circle to improve the experience for somebody, and I'm not, then I probably shouldn't say I love them. And so, go back to Ian's question, what can we do even within our doctrine to better love LGBTQ people? And if we're a senior leader of the church and we don't do any of those things, then to me it's hollow to say we love LGBTQ, we love everybody. And that's just difficult space for me as I'm trying to navigate that. And, you know, I think love is what we can do to improve people's experience in the church if we really love them. And we can't just talk about we love marginalized people or we love everybody. We have to get specific examples. What do we do when a trans person walks into church? What do we do with the same-sex couple holding hands walk into church? What are the gospel principles that apply to show we love them? And I'm uncomfortable with sometimes our senior leaders saying, you know, our friends in same-sex marriages will actually be okay because they'll be in a lower kingdom, but it's actually a pretty good kingdom. And it kind of dismisses, I think, their responsibility to improve their experience and fully address it, just to say the next kingdom's actually— the next life, even in the second top kingdom, is pretty good. It's better than earth life. And that's our theology, that to me, that's just not quite addressing the complexity of the issue. And if you're in a position to improve someone's experience, to me, that's sort of dismissing your responsibility.

Richard, I love the way you understand and describe and characterize some of the challenges and issues here. There's two thoughts as I was listening to you, people. One is a revelation that I've had in this conversation.

Ian has these wonderful revelations.

It's a revelation on behalf of the entire church.

Nice.

And I think if the church did this, it would be really intelligent and smart. I think a, the prophet, one of the leaders, one of the apostles should deliver address at conference about change, about what has changed, what has not changed, the whole principle about change, doctrine, policy of a very strategic, intelligent, uh, delivery using an intelligent apostle. I think they're all pretty smart to communicate, uh,, where the church has improved and change, uh, you know, improvement comes from change, more tolerant, kinder, and to kind of lay an important doctrinal policy, um, teaching foundation for, uh, that you could frame appropriately to facilitate change in the church. Imagine a conversation like that. I don't think there's ever been a talk like that, frankly. Very honest, respectful, couched, choreographed, whatever. But important messages around, you know, um, this hasn't changed, this has changed. Use all the scriptures, all the knowledge, further my knowledge, et cetera. Things are changing, things are, and, and to improve, we have to change. And to actually have that very intelligent construct of change, because then you could have You could talk about not just these issues, you could talk about anything. You know, we're getting better, we're improving. You know, we're going from the Law of Moses into, you know, into the higher law that Christ taught, a more universal law of love. I think that would be absolutely breakthrough. I don't, I think it'd be an intelligent move on the part of the church. I think it would help frame and shape conversations going forward and years to come. They could re— refer back to that talk and say, hey, you know, we talked about our attitude towards change and we're following that and we've changed this and we've changed that. That's what it should do. The second thought in hand, which is a question I've got, which I don't think has been asked that I've heard at least on a podcast or asked anywhere. And I'm asking you both this question, Jim as well. And I'll try to frame the question. I'll give you some context first, which Jim Bennett kind of spoke to a little bit before. This is a very important point I want to highlight and a very important question that I repeat, I don't, I've not heard asked anywhere. And if it develops into the conversation, I hope we can have briefly before we end here. I don't think I will have heard this conversation on a podcast. And if it's out there, then anyway, we'll see where this goes. So, um, in 2015, as you both know, the Church backed, um, a fairness for all approach to legislation in his 2015 bill, which was passed in the Utah legislature that both protected religious freedom and banned discrimination in housing and employment against LGBTQ people. It was a federal bill. Um, and it continues to be active in, uh, Utah.

It was a state bill.

Estate bill, sorry. It says here, actually says this new federal bill according to the press release. Okay. Um, and so, and so, uh, so basic, and then the church, uh, had this position and it supported this bill and the church issued the following statement. And my question will follow after this. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints commends the introduction of federal legislation that seeks to preserve religious freedom and protect LGBT individuals from discrimination. We are grateful for the leadership of Utah Representative Chris Stewart and other congressional supporters of this cause.

Is this RFRA? Is this the Respect for Marriage Act, RFRA?

Uh, this is the, uh, um, Well, okay, the bill— this is a bill to preserve religious freedom, protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender from discrimination. And also, Jim Bennett, it's, it's not related to the— what was that title again? The Act?

The Respect for Marriage Act. But that's more recent than this.

It's more recent.

I just, I just remember the big— it was sort of a landmark piece of legislation on a state level where the church endorsed protections for LGBTQ people. And that was sort of a model for a lot of state legislatures. But I, I, I may be, I'm not sure. Richard.

So, so I'll just finish what I was saying, cuz you're right. So the, the, these are two bills, uh, I'm glad you mentioned that cuz you, you, uh, it was something that I wanted to kind of reference here. But basically the church has come out, he talked about the nation's more united when diverse individuals and groups can work cooperatively to advance sound policy alongside other religious organizations and denominations and, and important leaders of the LGBTQ community. The church endorses this balanced approach, and it also took the same attitude towards the bill that Jim Bennett just mentioned, which I'm not intimately familiar with, but the church has come out and these two official political positions on these acts endorse them to protect civil rights, the basic rights, equal rights of LGBTQ people, uh, comprehensively in law. Okay. So my question with that context, those two acts, those two bills that Jim mentioned, one of them, my question is, if an individual, um, if the church leadership discriminates against an LGBTQ individual for a calling, somebody that they, they, they're seeking to serve in the church, or if they're overlooked for a calling because of their sexual orientation, or if they request to have a temple recommend, go to the bishop, bishop, I'd like to have a temple recommend, uh, 'cause I, I want to go to the temple, or I'm available for callings, or I want to serve in these different capacities. What's the church's legal position on that? If, if it refused, if it's found, if the evidence shows that the church has, uh, deliberately, um, discriminated against an individual based on their sexual orientation by refusing a calling, refusing a temple recommend, refusing equal rights, et cetera, et cetera. Keeping in mind these are civil rights. Rights, right? What, from your insights, both of you actually, Jim Bennett and Richard, what's your understanding of the church's official legal position in those situations? Does it have the right, does religious doctrine and teachings override these acts, these bills? And I think it does from what I understand from my own research, but correct me on that. But is the church legally correct to withhold these blessings of serving and going to the temple? Richard, what's your knowledge in prison? And Jim, I'd love to get your thoughts on that as well.

Two comments. I think the stuff that you're referencing that the church supported in Utah was a direct— and this is where Greg Prince talks about this in his book, Gay Rights in the Mormon Church, Intended Action, Unintended Consequences. He talks about the church was really stung by Prop 8 backlash, and then in a way to build peace, reached out to the LGBT community and did these bills in Utah. It was the only Republican legislature that passed such bills. So that's the little bit of background. But to answer your second question, I think that's one of the reasons the church supported the Respect for Marriage Act. In 2013, because it is part of that. It gave the church, which I agree with, complete right to run the church the way the church wants to run it as a religious organization. So if the— so the church can decide who gets callings, who doesn't get callings, how to perform marriages. It's a, it's a constitutional right for a religious organization to run the church the way they want to, including not doing same-sex marriages. So that's what— that would be the short answer to your question that I'm aware of. And Jim probably has some, you know, other thoughts or history on this too.

Well, I, I don't— I, I think that's, that's correct. Um, that's the reason President Oaks came out explicitly and said that's the reason they endorsed the Respect for Marriage Act, because it had such a large carve-out for religious organizations. The religious organizations have free rein to act in any way, or any way they don't want to act. They will never be compelled to perform same-sex marriages, and the church is able to, um, to preserve that right. I always get frustrated when people start talking about religious freedom in the church, because what they're really talking about is the freedom to discriminate. For the most part, that we preserve the freedom not to give equal, you know, opportunities and rights or whatever to our fellow members of the Church. But one of the most interesting and seldom talked about talks on this came from President Oaks, and it wasn't in general conference, and it wasn't at BYU. He gave an address at the University of Virginia that came under a lot of criticism because he was— there was a Q&A afterwards and he denied that he'd had anything to do with electroshock therapy at BYU. And that became sort of the, the story that came out of that event. But you listen to the talk, which President Oaks himself described as the most difficult talk he had ever given. And he says, preparing for this, this is the most difficult talk I have ever given. And he discussed the fact that it's imperative that we figure out how to live in a pluralistic society, that we should not expect other organizations or governments to follow our doctrine, and we should still be able to build bridges with them work with them, support them, and never expect their doctrines to change, or their, you know, the secular organizations, their policies to change, or however you want to describe those. There was a— Richard, do you remember who was the LGBTQ activist that met with President Oaks and told him just how remarkably progressive that was? Do you remember that?

Well, I knew one. He quoted, and this may be the answer to your question, in that talk he quoted Troy Williams.

Well, Troy Williams is Equality Utah. Yeah.

As the executive director at Equality Utah. And I saw Troy Williams tweet out, you know, a few hours later, "Never in my bingo card did I think President Oaks would quote me at the University of Virginia or anywhere." So I can't remember exactly who he met too, but it was a great talk, Jim, and I'm glad you're bringing it up.

No, it—

and I wish it was shared church-wide because it's sort of not a broad talk that the whole membership is aware of.

No, that's true. And, uh, this activist, he wrote an article for, uh, the Salt Lake Tribune, uh, and he was on, uh, Peggy Fletcher Stack's podcast Mormonland and talked about how, how much hope he had for the church and for the church's ability to change on this because of his conversations with President Oaks. And he said that he left the conversation at the end of it with President Oaks saying, well, I want you to know that I am praying day and night that you change your doctrine on this. And President Oaks's response to him is he said, prayer is always a wonderful thing. You know, he didn't try to fight with him. He didn't try to tell him he was wrong. I really think, I've said many times that I sort of see President Oaks as a possible, as a possible Nixon goes to China moment. In Star Trek VI, Spock told Captain Kirk, there's an old Vulcan proverb, only Nixon could go to China. You know, the fact that Nixon was this hardline anti-communist who's also the one that opened up China to the West gave that more credibility than it would have had if it had been somebody else. And if President Oaks makes changes on this, uh, he would have universal credibility on this because all of the people who fight change very often quote President Oaks, and I think to some degree misquote and misrepresent President Oaks. I don't see President Oaks as, as being, um, another Boyd K. Packer in this regard. President Oaks has shown a tremendous wrestle with this issue, and you've seen changes in this issue, uh, even in General Conference. You know, he was the one who first said, well, there's this big tension between the first and second great commandment. And that, in that tension, that's where we can find the right to discriminate against LGBTQ people. So love God and love your neighbor, but not so much that you don't love God and support that doctrine. And he backed away from that. He said, it's more important now that we live these two commandments in tandem and more fully. And then he gave that talk, and you sort of referenced this, where he said, hey, guess what? There's all these kingdoms, and we're aiming for the highest kingdom, but if you're gay, you'll go to a really, really good kingdom. And that didn't satisfy anybody. I didn't hear anybody that went, oh, well, that's just wonderful. And he's backed away from that. And since he's become president of the Church, he has not talked about this issue. In fact, when he was the president of the Quorum of the Twelve leading the Church in the apostolic interregnum Uh, he gave that talk in General Conference where the whole talk was focused on the proclamation on the family, and it did not mention LGBTQ issues once. Not once. He talked all about being raised by a single mother. He talked all about all the different kinds of families, that we all have challenges. It was this remarkably inclusive and positive talk. Embracing the principles of the proclamation on the family and not weaponizing it against LGBTQ people. Now, I'm not saying this is going to happen tomorrow, or even that it's going to happen during President Oaks's tenure. I would like to see it happen, or something happen. And again, I'd never said what I want to see happen. I would not presume to tell the Lord how to solve this problem. I just, uh, absolutely believe there will be further light and knowledge on this. But Ian, as you pointed out, we've gone past the hour mark. We usually do, and we could probably talk, Richard, with you for hours and hours on end and would love to and would love to have you back to talk more on hours and hours on end, maybe give you sort of the Greg Prince deal. But, but I want to— I want to get your final thoughts and, and just sort of wrap this up. Ian, we'll start with you and then Richard, want to give you the last word.

Richard, you are undoubtedly one of the most important voices in this space. I think you're extraordinary. You carry a wonderful spirit and I think you give our gay brothers and sisters hope and your voice and your message and your love is absolutely extraordinary. This. I want to thank you for this great work that you're doing, and it's just been an absolute honor to have you on Inside Out.

Thank you, Ian. I'd just like to go back to David Archuleta as a great example, and an example of how we should treat someone who ultimately leaves the church. I did a podcast with David, and I, at the end of that podcast, I just said David is a rank-and-file member. I want to thank you for all you've given to the church, all the tithing you've paid, all your missionary service, the songs you wrote, the concerts you performed, and recognize that you tried to make it work with a woman you were engaged 3 times. You almost chose suicide because you felt so broken that you couldn't make it work, and now you found your way forward, and I'm just going to walk with you and support you, and I'm not going to make you the hero one day and the villain the next day. So I think I'd say the same thing to Ian. I've listened to Ian talk about his service in the Church as a member of the Stake Presidency of Comfort, and ultimately his decision to separate from the Church. And you're not a hero one day for me and a villain the next day, Ian. You're just making your way forward and contributing back to this space with your friend Jim Bennett and talking about how the Church can improve. You're not a burn it all the way down and everybody should leave. You're honoring people that are in the church, and that's a beautiful part of your discipleship. But I think part of our discipleship is how we treat people that leave the church, and we're sometimes kinder to people that have never been in the church. It's more triggering for us how to handle people that have left the church, and it probably is. It questions our belief, or it's emotionally unsettling for us, but I just hope we support people and love people that leave the church. I got a message after the David Marchioletto podcast. Someone said, "I'm just so mad at David." And I just thought that says probably more about you and your uncomfortableness with people choosing a different path versus just recognizing the complexities that he faces. Being kind to people that leave the church, I don't think opens the door for other people to leave the church, but I just think it's part of discipleship, and it's part of love your neighbor as yourself, the things you're talking about. So you two are doing great work. Um, I want you both to come on our podcast because I want our listeners to connect with you. We would love what you're doing, so we'll set that up.

And I speak for Ian when I say we would love it. He's like, I, I I'm sure, Ian, you would agree.

And I want to say something about my first connection to the Bennett family. Oh, I grew up near Hogle Zoo, and as a 17-year-old or 16-year-old, the best paper route was the condos at the mouth of Immigration Canyon because you got paid a dollar a month for every paper you delivered. But in the Donnercrest Apartments, you could get a lot of papers delivered, um, and one of the— one of the Customers was Wallace F. Bennett, your grandfather. And I still remember he was at the end of the, one of the big halls and one of those corner ones on the fifth floor. I was going to say it was like 506 or something, 501. And anyway, that's when I first got to know the Bennett family as a young paperboy growing up near Hogel Zoo.

Oh, I love hearing stories like that. Wonderful. My parents lived up Emigration Canyon. So when you said Hogel Zoo, I went, oh gosh. Yeah. You met my parents up there, but if you were 17 years old, they were not there, uh, back then. But, uh, Richard, this has just been an absolute delight. I know I said I'd give you the last word, but I just want to highlight something you just said, uh, which is this idea of the people who are angry at David Archuleta and, and the people who just can't accept when people leave the church. One of the things I so admire about you is that your faith is not contingent on someone else being miserable. Because so often we think— I believe we think, okay, well, for the church to be true, then whenever anybody leaves, they have to be absolutely miserable. They have to be evil and wicked. And Ian, you've experienced this firsthand. And I resolved long ago that I would never have my faith contingent on somebody else's misery. And you are such a marvelous, marvelous example of that, that you accept people where they are. You do not compromise your principles. You are in no way, um, you know, you support the church, you honor your covenants. Uh, you are, I think, everything a Latter-day Saint ought to be. And so I am just so grateful for this chance to visit with you, grateful for this chance to be here with you.. And just thank you from the bottom of my heart for all that you do.

Thanks to both of you.

So with that, everybody, thank you all for listening. Thank you very much, Ian, for being here as well. And we will see you next time on the next episode of Inside Out.