A New Pope!

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

I am doing fabulous, Jim.

How are you? I'm all right. And do you want to explain to the world why I'm calling you Pops?

Yes, absolutely. It's an honor, actually. Uh, I have the, uh, a new title. Uh, I'm a— probably the most important title in my life aside from being a father, uh, the husband, of course. And that is I'm Grand Pops. So over the weekend, my amazing daughter Maddie gave birth to a wonderful baby girl, Wren. Wren MacRae McDonald, very Scottish. And mom and baby are doing well. And it's an absolute amazing experience. And it's quite surreal to learn that I've turned into a grandpops. Or Pops, they want to call me Pops. So I, it's just, it's just amazing. I have no words to describe what it's like to be a granddad. I didn't think I was old enough, but I guess I am. Yeah, so that's, that's what's been going on in, in our lives these last couple of days. So yeah, big, big changes to our family.

Well, that is wonderful. I, I, I am very envious. And I think it's kind of exciting. And besides you having a new grandchild, we have the topic of our podcast here today. We have a new Pope. What do you think of our new Pope?

We have a new granddaughter and we have a new Pope. Amazing. I, from what I understand, I hear good things and I'm looking forward to having this conversation. I mean, you chose this subject, which is great. I'm looking forward to, you know, comparing some, you know, making some comparisons between, you know, the Pope and the Catholic Church and our church. I'm looking forward to getting into that. But I hear good things. I don't think he's a big fan of your president, from what I'm hearing.

No, I don't think he is. He took potshots at J.D. Vance on Twitter when he was a cardinal. His name is Robert Prevost, or Prevost, I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing that correctly. He's from Chicago. He's the first American Pope in history. And many people said that America would never have a Pope because America's footprint was too large on the world stage. And there are some commenters who are saying that it's America's sort of diminished stature now that has called for an American pope to bring America to repentance. And I think there may be some merit to that. And so I want to talk a little bit about that. But as we talk about this, I'm reminded of the very first time that I was cognizant of the need for a new pope. It was back in the late '70s. I think it was 1978 when Pope John Paul I was called as a pope or was selected as a pope. And I was really upset because it interrupted Saturday morning cartoons to watch the smoke coming out, the white smoke. And then I was really, really upset 30 days later when John Paul I died and they selected John Paul II. But it had been many, many years since then after the— John Paul II was in office for a very long time, uh, all the way until Pope Benedict, and then Pope Benedict stepped down and Pope Francis in 2013 took over. And I was very happy with Pope Francis. I thought he was very, uh, progressive, very engaged in a number of different causes, a number of different ideas, and The reason I frame this in terms of the history is that for most of my life, I was taught essentially that the Catholic Church just doesn't get it, because we have all the answers. We know how to select a successor to our prophet. All we have to do is see who the oldest apostle is, and that's clearly who the Lord has chosen by keeping them alive long enough to assume the presidency of the church. And the popes, the Catholics, they actually vote on this. They sit there and they go back and forth and they negotiate and they bargain and they have ballots, and the ballots fail because the pope doesn't get enough, or the potential pope doesn't get enough votes. And so I was always sort of taught See, that's how the world does it, but look how the Lord does it. And the Lord does it without any of that confusion, and isn't that wonderful? And the older I get, the more holy envy I get for how the Catholics do it, because first of all, that's not how we did it initially. We did not have, and we still don't have, a succession plan codified in scripture. When Joseph Smith died, nobody knew what to do, and there were a bunch of people who were, who were vying for the office of President of the Church. Brigham Young, when he finally— the majority of Saints went with Brigham Young, but he did not take He did not reorganize the First Presidency until he got to Utah many years later. When they crossed the plains, they did so under the leadership of Brigham Young, with Brigham Young as president of the Quorum of the Twelve. There was some speculation that the First Presidency would never be reorganized and that this is just the way it was going to work going forward. So, you know, and then you had Sidney Rigdon making his case that His idea was that he would sort of be the steward of Joseph Smith, that Joseph Smith was still the president of the church even from beyond the veil, but Sidney Rigdon would sort of be his spokesman here on earth, which was a little bizarre given that Sidney and Joseph were estranged when Sidney came back to try to take over the church. Uh, you also— speaking of Stranges, you had a man named James Strang who had a letter likely forged, uh, from Joseph Smith saying that he was to be the successor. Then you also had people saying that Joseph Smith had ordained his own son to be a successor, Joseph Smith III, and he eventually did become the president of the Reorganized Church. Emma waited several years for all of the Brighamites to be out of the way before she consented to back her son's bid for the presidency of the church. So, but the point being, the idea that we've got this all figured out and that it's all simple and straightforward for us is just doesn't— it just isn't supported by the historical record. The reality is we really kind of messed it up., and we still— there's still a great deal of controversy among a number of different groups as to whether Brigham Young is the legitimate successor of Joseph Smith, and on and on and on and on. But to avoid that, we have now just sort of adopted the tradition, and it is a tradition. It is not outlined in scripture at all. The tradition is the senior apostle becomes the president of the church. And there's no controversy, there's no suspense. I mean, we all know who the next president of the church will be. It's going to be Dallin H. Oaks unless Dallin Oaks passes away before Russell M. Nelson does. So the older I get, the more I see the value in how Catholics choose their leader because it actually gives the Holy Ghost an opportunity to work on these men. They have the opportunity to say, okay, let's discuss what it is that the church needs. Let's discuss who it is that is best suited to meet those needs. And in those kinds of discussions, that's where revelation comes. And that's how it comes in our church too. And we try to downplay that. We try to pretend, no, revelation just sort of falls out of the sky. It doesn't come as a result of individual preferences or individual negotiations. It's when the reality is just the opposite. The reality, you know, I have all kinds of family stories from both David O. McKay and Heber J. Grant about how heated some of these discussions behind the scenes can get. That when the Quorum of the Twelve, you know, Hans Mattson, when we interviewed him, he talked about how the Quorum of the Twelve is a minefield because everybody has very strong opinions and sometimes very different opinions. But as those things are discussed, that gives the opening for revelation to inform what's going on. And yet, when we select a president of the Church, We assume that's not necessary, or we assume that that process diminishes. Or at least I was always sort of— I don't know if I was taught this officially, but this was always the assumption, is that the way the Catholics choose a pope, it diminishes the influence of God in the process, and it becomes a selection of men and not of God. And the older I get, the more I think No, it gives an opportunity for God to act through men because that's the way it works. It gives an opportunity for the voice of the Spirit to be heard, and I would very much like to see that in how we select our leaders. And one of the things that I really appreciate about this Pope and about Pope Francis is that— and about actually their predecessors, Pope John Paul II particularly, Pope Benedict wasn't really in long enough to make much of an impact as far as I was concerned, but all of these men were actively engaged on the world stage in all of the controversies of the day. Pope John Paul II, I think, has— gets more credit, or should get more credit, than almost anybody else for bringing down the Soviet Union. For the fall of the Iron Curtain, for the fall of the Berlin Wall. He was actively negotiating and actively working as the first Polish pope. You know, Poland had been under Soviet oppression since the end of World War II, and he was part of the resistance. John Paul II was actively encouraging standing up to the Soviet Union, to the evil empire. And was actively engaged in that. Pope Francis was actively engaged in social causes. Pope Francis was actively commenting on the war in Ukraine, on the war in Gaza, calling for peace and working for peace, working with world leaders to do all these things. And here we have Pope Leo, who has made his political opinions very, very clear. He's talked about how one of the focuses of his papacy is going to be climate change. You know, when was the last time we ever heard a president of the church talk about climate change? I mean, they don't. They don't talk about these things. They don't focus on pressing world issues. And I know that this is something that has troubled you quite a bit, is it not? Isn't it? I mean, this has been a big deal for you.

It has been a big deal for me, yes. I have said frequently on Inside Out Podcast of the importance of the church, the Mormon Church, with its resources and its claims to unique, distinct revelation its claims to being the only true church upon the face of the earth, its claims to knowing the mind and will of God, and its claim to have access to revelation, to receive further light and knowledge, and its responsibility in the world to stand up, to speak up about global issues, including but not limited to climate change. You know, Jim Bennett, our experience informs our perspective, our outlook. On life. Same for our parents and our siblings. You know, when we're being raised by our parents, their perspective and outlook shapes and informs our young minds as children. And growing up in the Church of England, you know, you're coming from— you're looking at the Catholic Church from the Mormon perspective, the inside track, if you like, from the Mormon Church. And that itself is a unique, distinct perspective. But there are other perspectives, perhaps bigger, maybe broader in terms of the populace, because growing up as a Church of England, which was created by King Henry VIII back in the— was it the 16th, 17th century? The big fallout he had with the Pope at that time over Anne Boleyn and the rights to marriage and entitlements and titles and other politics going on at that particular time. And I'm no historian, At that time, the Church of England, or the— Henry VIII broke off from the Catholic Church and formed the Protestant movement or the Church of England. And so we were raised in the Church of England, very different to your background and experience. And we were taught, or I was taught in my home to essentially frown upon the Catholic Church, that the Catholic Church, we never questioned its divinity or any religious exclusivity or divinity in regards to access to revelation or anything doctrinally. There was no question in our household about that with regards to the Catholic Church, but we did frown upon the Catholic Church because it was different and it wasn't the Church of England. If it wasn't the Church of England, and it wasn't in our own clan. That's what I was taught growing up. It's a very backward type of thinking, but that thinking, that mindset was quite common. And some of our listeners will recall the conflict in Northern Ireland that was political. If you look at the history between Great Britain and Ireland, if you go back and look at some of the reliable sources there, there's a long history of conflict between Great Britain and Ireland. Of course, we've got Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom right now, and our listeners can research the history of that. But my brother fought, or rather was involved in the British Army in Northern Ireland as a young Marine positioned and stationed in Northern Ireland during the conflict. And this was a very serious conflict and there was a Protestant Catholic element to it, which I don't fully understand. I'm not privy to all the history, but my brother was involved in that and we would get his perspective. But there was definitely a Catholic-Protestant component in that. And we see that today, that there was longstanding underlying historical issues between Catholics and Protestants have not entirely disappeared at all. We see that at football matches at times, and we see that, or soccer matches as North Americans call it, and we call it too. And so our perspective on the Catholic Church was quite different. We also, when I joined the church at 16, I read Mormon Doctrine written by Bruce R. McConkie, and he talks about the Catholic Church being the abominable church He makes a reference to 2 Nephi 28. I remember being taught in seminary and in the MTC, and at times from fellow missionaries and other church leaders in the Mormon Church in Scotland, that the Catholic Church was the church of the devil. It was referred at times that I heard from certain people as the church of the devil, the great abominable church on the earth.

Yeah, that's the first edition of Mormon Doctrine right there.

Right. And I was also, I remember that at times some of the leaders of the Mormon Church in Scotland referred, said that the, well, I won't provide, go into too much detail 'cause it'd be quite offensive maybe to some of the listeners, but the Catholic Church was the anti-church. Let me put it that way. And our church, the Mormon Church, was the only true church because it restored with the fullness of the gospel. So for many years, including growing up, which you didn't have, I don't think, I had this very negative view of the Catholic Church. And then joining the church, our church, going into the MTC, being trained as a missionary, and understanding the perspective of our church on the Mormon Church and reading some of the material, the Catholic Church was not discussed in a positive light at In fact, there was even within our church teachings that the Catholic Church had no access to God and no access to the revelatory process. In fact, the Mormon Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was the only church upon the face of Earth that had a fuller, a complete total understanding of the revelatory process between God and man, and that that was ours and ours alone. We had the priesthood authority and exclusive rights and full access to God in a way that no other religion, not just the Catholic Church, but any other religion had. We had it all, everything, the fullness of the gospel. And others had variations, but the Catholic Church held a special place, certainly from what I was taught, as being actually part of the church of the devil or the church that had been deceived. And had deceived all his people. Keeping in mind the Catholic Church has about 1.5 billion members, and I think our membership is right now, what is our membership right now? Is it 16 million, 15 million and declining? Is that, is that what it is?

Something like that.

And so my perspective on the Catholic Church was quite negative actually. And on, in regards to our revelatory processes, I, when I was in the church and fully active, didn't see anything wrong and wasn't aware of the succession issues between Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, and just assumed, like probably so many members, that the revelatory process was established. It established from the very beginning when the church was restored, we knew who the prophet's going to be, you know, the next prophet's going to be Dallin H. Oaks right now, we know that. When President Nelson dies, we know Elder Oaks will become the president or the prophet of the church. And so on and so forth. There's a chronology to that, and we know who's gonna be the next prophet. Looking at the Catholic Church now, many years ahead, and being outside of our church and seeing it from a different perspective, I now believe that the Catholic Church for replacing a pope is much more rigorous. And actually appears to be much more inspired. It appears that there is a competitive process, that there's a criteria that has to be followed. There's lots of prayer, perhaps lots of fasting. They're looking at a number of different candidates, looking at the qualities. And yes, I believe that they look at the qualities of the, the new Pope's outlook on the world and his position on certain things, not just on climate change, but on social issues, geopolitics, because I think the Catholic Church, it certainly is obvious to me, does want to play a positive role in the world and is unafraid, seemingly unafraid, to speak up and to stand up and speak on global issues. In contrast to the church's system, which I thought was unimpeachable and perfect in every way, notwithstanding I wasn't fully understanding of the revelatory process that we follow in the church and never questioned it actually. I now see a stark contrast between the process of replacing the Pope and the rigor and robustness in those conversations that I know take place and in the, you know, the changeover in the prophet in our church, which is a general, let's say, it's just a, you know, one prophet dies, the next person in seniority becomes the prophet. I'm not trying to take away from a point that you've mentioned at times where the apostles and the Prophet have healthy, I'm sure robust, rigorous debates on issues. I know that happens. It should happen. I believe it does happen frequently. And at some point they reach a consensus, speaking of our apostles and the Prophet, and they'll come to an understanding and they'll get behind the Prophet who will make the final decision or whoever has the prevailing opinion and and there's consensus behind that prevailing opinion. So I do believe there is a level of democracy and rigor within the Mormon Church, but not, I repeat, not to the extent of the Catholic Church. And then going, circling this back to your point, why can't our church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, with all of its claims, why can't it be courageous enough and bold enough and assertive enough to be like the Catholic Church, which is not perfect by any means and has made many, many, many mistakes and had lots of problems and issues over the years. We know that. But why can't we be as bold and, uh, and speak up on global issues like the Catholic Church does and has? A church that we've said, that our church has said repeatedly in the past is this abominable church. Our church has gone quiet on that now. I don't think we refer to the Catholic Church like that right now, but we have this unique claim. And where's the courage and the intestinal fortitude and the spirit and the leadership in our church to speak up on climate issues and social issues and what's going on in the world? Surely now is the time to do that. We've talked about this frequently. Look what's happening in the world. We've got major events happening and unfolding in the world. What is the role of our church in that? It seems that our silence is a fear of our own members, perhaps a fear of politics, fear of fallout. Maybe the Mormon Church is afraid of reaction from Trump, doesn't want to go on the wrong side, but it just seems to lack courage that other churches seem to have. So that—

so my whole—

to summarize this part of the— my comments, thoughts here, my whole perspective on the Catholic Church— and I know it's not perfect and there's major issues in, in the Catholic Church, we know that, you know, covering up child sex abuse claims, of which the Mormon Church has done as well, by the way, uh, notwithstanding all of that, I think the Catholic Church is trying to be a force for the good and probably does a much better job, or in my opinion, does a much better job than our church despite all of our true claims.

Well, you ask that question as if it's a rhetorical question that doesn't have an answer. I mean, do you have an answer to it? Why do you think the church doesn't do that?

Yeah, I do. Yeah, it's not a rhetorical question. I ask it like a rhetorical question, but I think our church is afraid of political fallout. I think it's afraid— it certainly is. I think it doesn't know— you've got the Republican Party and you've got the Trump version of the Republican Party, which doesn't look like the Republican Party from where I'm standing. So it's the Trump Party from where I'm standing. So I think the church is afraid of political fallout locally, regionally, and nationally. He has to tread very, very carefully. I think it's confused on some of its doctrine and policy. You know, what's its position on LGBTQ, for example? It's confused on that. It lacks leadership and direction. Where is it on that? It likes to keep its members guessing. I think it's afraid of member fallout. You know, I think the members are Utah, US, probably, and you can speak to this more than I can, more Republican than not. I think Utah is a Republican state, I believe, and I think many of the members are pro-Trump and Republican. The church is concerned about the reaction from the church members like it got during COVID where the Prophet said, you know, you've got to take these, you know, go take the tests and, you know, take the treatment, etc., for COVID. And there was a reaction, a fallout from that. I think it's just trying to satisfy as many of the voices it can, but in so doing, it's lost, it's confused, it moves from left to right. It's like that scripture. Do you remember that scripture we taught? We were taught as missionaries where, in fact, we were referring to the Catholic Church, where it was tossed about by every wind of doctrine.

Do you remember that scripture? Yeah.

And I can't remember the full verse. It You know, I'm sure I could dig it out, but when I was using that, I was referring to other religions and other faiths, other churches that moved with the opinion of people. And now that scripture applies to the Mormon Church. It does surveys, it tests the wind and which, where's the prevailing thought and what's the reaction going to be if we put this out or say this? In my opinion, the Mormon Church is lost on so many issues, and it's afraid of, again, politics, its member fallout, and it's probably not unified at all. I think when you— we talked earlier about a consensus. I think on lots of different subjects or areas, it doesn't have a consensus. And I understand the rule is that if it doesn't achieve or reach a certain understanding on a certain position, it will just shelve it until it'll revisit it until they're clear about what it is they're going to say. So yeah, I don't claim to have all the answers, but they're my best guesses as to why the church lacks that courage where other churches seemingly, some of them don't.

Well, I agree with that to an extent. But I don't think it's entirely cowardice. I mean, I think there are probably some elements of cowardice here, but I think you're probably more accurate when you focus on disunity. Because again, the church, the church, the other scripture that comes to mind when you're talking about these things is Be one, and if ye are not one, ye are not mine. This is a very powerful scripture, and the importance of unity, and how much emphasis the current Church places on total unanimity among the Twelve and among the First Presidency, trickling down to the Quorum of the Seventy. Uh, the, the Church absolutely wants to project an image of complete and total unity and feels, I think, a responsibility to do so because they're condemned to some degree by that scripture and by other scriptures, the idea that if they're not united and if they at least don't put on that veneer of unity, that they can't possibly be the Lord's church. And it goes hand in hand with this idea that revelation is this sort of perfect, flawless thing that falls out of the sky and is not subject to multiple interpretations and is straightforward. So I mean, so there's— it all comes back to, at least for me, this whole concept of infallibility that the church tries very hard to project an image that there are no flaws, there are no disagreements, that the church is functioning perfectly and is a perfect representation of the voice and will of the Lord, and feels like the only way to do that is to do it in this total unanimity. And so that's where, if cowardice enters in, that's where it comes in. Because anything that sticks your neck out can be shot down. And so everybody is, okay, well, I'm going to give the answer. I'm going to give a talk that I know no one's going to be offended by. And so the result is you get this sort of watered-down stuff where no one's willing to suck, to take a stand. I think I've talked about this before, but it reminds me of my time when I was a columnist and an editorial writer for the Deseret News, which is the church-owned newspaper. And in my column, I attached my name to it, and so I could take strong opinions, and I did. I stuck my neck out and said, this is what Jim Bennett believes, and my name was right there, and I wasn't Nobody was expecting me to represent anything larger than myself. But when I wrote editorials, these were house editorials, which back in the days when newspapers were actually a thing, you would open the editorial page and there would be an editorial that would say, in our opinion, and it would be the opinion of the entire newspaper. And.. And these were the editorials I would write. I would write the opinion for the entire newspaper. They were unsigned. You didn't know who wrote which editorials, and you weren't supposed to know. But as a result, you also were very limited in the positions you could take because particularly the Deseret News, they were very nervous that anything in the editorial page would be, and maybe rightly so, would be interpreted by people reading it as the position of the church. So the result was we could only write editorials on very, very safe topics. And I remember on one occasion being asked to write an editorial about human trafficking. And the thesis of the editorial was human trafficking is bad. And I remember, okay, these, this had to be 450 words long. Is there, I mean, is there a flip side to this? Are there people arguing that human trafficking is good? I mean, nobody, I mean, so I, I don't remember how I got to 450 words, but it was all filler. I couldn't get to anywhere. Now, the exceptions to this were on issues where the church had taken strong positions, and there were several, one of them being immigration. The church's position on immigration is very pointed, very anti-Trump, although they're downplaying that now, now that it's become more controversial, because back when I was writing these, Trump wasn't president yet. But they've since written editorials decrying Trump's call for a wall, decrying Trump's draconian attempts at deportation. You know, so when the church sticks its neck out on something, we at the Deseret News were able to sort of follow suit and stick our necks out there too. And so those were the fun editorials to write because it was like, oh, okay, we can do this. We don't have to hide. So, so here you have 15 men in the top offices of the church, all of whom are very bright, very capable, and have come from backgrounds where they are used to making decisions and being in charge. And now all of a sudden they're one of 15, essentially. I mean, there's, there's a difference in degree between the First Presidency in the Quorum of the Twelve. And I think the only person that can essentially do whatever they want is the President of the Church. You know, I look at President Nelson and Wendy Nelson talking about how he's been unleashed and how clear it is that he was sitting on this whole idea of getting rid of the nickname Mormon for 30 years, sitting on it in silence until he got to the big chair. And he gets to the big chair and he can do it. And everybody else sort of follows suit. But so, so you have this power dynamic where 15 very strongly opinionated men have to look like they're always in agreement with each other. And the result is that nothing gets through that, that isn't really watered down. Unless the president of the church has a really strong opinion the way that President Nelson did about the nickname Mormon. But to me, that doesn't necessarily let the church off the hook. Because, okay, if you can get through because you have a strong opinion about the name Mormon, why don't you have a strong opinion about climate change too? Why don't you have a strong opinion about what's happening in Gaza? Why don't you have a strong opinion about what's happening in Ukraine? Why don't you have a strong opinion about how Donald Trump is introducing authoritarian measures that fly against the rule of law and fly against church policies, particularly with regard to immigration? You know, it's just, it's maddening to me that none of those things seem to be of concern, not necessarily to all 15 of them, because it's very possible that it's of concern to many of them. I think of Patrick Kearin before he became an apostle, giving a talk about refugees, which was a very pointed political talk and got a lot of attention, and it stood out because It was actually weighing in on a real-world issue in a way that all the other talks just didn't and just don't. And, you know, so I think those strong opinions on world topics do exist among those 15 men, but the only person that can give voice to them is the president of the church. And to me, President Nelson, I think this is actually where the emphasis on temples comes from, because the message I get from President Nelson very often is, "Yeah, the world is going to hell, so go to the temple. Go hide in the temple. Shield yourself from the world. Step away from the world. All that matters now is going to the temple and doing temple work because the world is lost." And the world is so wicked and don't take counsel from those that don't believe and just, you know, live in this bubble. And, and I don't find that message particularly appealing. I, this is where the holy envy with the Catholic Church comes from because the Catholic Church really, actually the Catholic Church has no choice but to engage with the world because they've got such a huge global footprint. How many Catholics are there in the world?

Uh, 1.4, 1.5 billion approx. I looked it up.

Yeah, so I mean, that's— and there are 17 million nominal members of the church, far fewer active members of the church. We're just a sort of footnote in terms of the global population. Mm-hmm.

We are.

And the Catholic community is massive, and so they have a responsibility, and they're stepping up to that responsibility, and I'd like to see the church step up to the same responsibility. Yeah. Does any of that make sense?

Yeah, absolutely makes sense. As I listen to you intently, an epiphany. I just had epiphany, which you, you probably realized all along. You know, we're actually Inside Out's been going for 2 years now, over 2 years, and we'll be doing a review of the last 2 years. I'm looking forward to that. But if you look at all of the podcasts, I don't think there's one podcast or any topic or subject which doesn't connect directly or indirectly to what you have been talking about a lot, which is this thing about infallibility. You know, I would have way more respect for our church if it did stand up and speak up and stand out on a subject and got it wrong and said, hey, you know, we've got it wrong, or we, as more information comes, we have the right to change our opinion of you. We're not We're not perfect. And this, it must be so exhausting trying to stay as close to perfection as you can, or the exhaustion in the effort to be as unified as you can where they don't see the value of and the importance of having multiple opinions and position on things. You know, in my work, we have a pretty good culture where we actually help each other on our work. If we're writing a proposal or doing some work for a client, we are open about the work that we do. We share it with our colleagues, our team members. We ask and invite scrutiny and constructive criticism in our work because we want our product and our service to be absolutely 100% quality for our client. And as a colleague said to me and the team years ago, Ian, would you rather screw up in your company in front of your colleagues and make a mistake there or in front of the client? And I remember that. And I think the strength in vulnerability, the strength in disclosing your strengths and weaknesses professionally, politically, although I think you can get destroyed politically if you talk about And if you're honest about your weaknesses, but professionals in business are the ones who've reached a position of emotional intelligence and vulnerability strength where you can talk about your strengths and demonstrate your strengths, and you can share openly areas where you are weak, and then you know your strengths and weaknesses of your team. In that way, you can identify opportunities to strengthen the team And so you work with the people who've got those skills. And at the end of the day in business, your product and your service is optimum quality, which is what the clients want. If the church was bold enough and brave enough to take a position on things, to understand its vulnerability, the strength in vulnerability, and even if it got it wrong on some things, I'm all right with that, and I don't think I'm alone. You know, in Mormon theology, infallibility refers to, and you've talked about this a lot, to the church's divinely guaranteed protection from error when teaching definitively on faith and morals. You know, it's a supernatural gift. You know, the church's definitive teachings on faith and morals are free from error. Position. But not in reality, it's not from human error. That's why they have that disclaimer in the Book of Mormon that if there are any mistakes in the Book of Mormon, they are the mistakes of men. I think that's just the most powerful, significant, and strategic disclaimer I've ever heard in Mormon theology. You know, look, we've written this Book of Mormon here, it's been produced through revelation, but if there's errors, it's the errors of men and not of God. I think there's strength in the church taking the position and being unafraid to get it wrong. I believe that modern religions, organized religions like the Mormon faith and also Church of England, Methodist, Catholic Church are mostly man-made with elements of inspiration. I think there's lots of inspiration in the Catholic Church and other faiths, and there certainly is lots of inspiration in inspiration in our faith as well. As I was listening to you, I did a quick search on what the Pope is focused on, the new Pope is focused on. It was an American-born Pope with ties to Latin America in Peru, I believe. And there's some new headlines come up here about the new Pope. And if you want to understand the difference between the two churches, look at what President Nelson is talking about on the geopolitical stage versus the new Pope. Well, the young Catholics are saying that the new Pope is gonna be introducing some reforms and modernize the church, and young Catholics are excited about that. There's also, he's met with many of the leaders. You know, new Pope is now engaged in meeting with many of the Catholic leaders. He also has met Zelensky after the inauguration mass. He's already been out there and he's actually increasing his visibility. He's going out there meeting on the world stage people like President Zelensky. I think this is going to be— I think we're going to see this Pope who's going to be very active on the global stage across a whole range of topics and issues. Why can't President Nelson do that or President Oaks do that? Get out there and speak up and take a position. And it's because of the, you know, the reasons that I said earlier. And so I think the church is— our church is afraid. I think it's lost. I think it's not unified. You know, when you are afraid to take a position, to me, that's not unity, Jim Bennett. Unity is, look, you know, what is the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ? What's the right thing to do? And what's the best thing to do, and then to take, you know, take a position on that. Again, just in summary, if you look at the new Pope's focus here, and I've got it here, his focus is on unity and diversity. He's going to modernize the church to be more inclusive, more diverse. He also has a strategy developing for a call for peace and going to be more active in the world at calling on governments and trying to hold them account to move towards peaceful resolutions in regards to the conflicts. He has an interest in AI. I find that amazing. We use AI all the time. You do use AI. AI is— I don't know how we got through in life without AI. I'm a huge fan of it. I love it. And we use it all the time across different technical disciplines in the businesses that we're in. He's got a focus on marriage. He says he has reiterated the Catholic Church's teachings on marriage as a union between man and woman and has affirmed the dignity of the unborn, has affirmed the dignity of the unborn. And the people are going to be disagreeing with that, but at least he has a position on that and he's unafraid to speak up on those topics. And of course he's talking about continuing Pope Francis's legacy. You know, what he's done to be more inclusive, have a more inclusive spirit under Pope Francis's direction. And he's also going to focus on marginalized people. And so looking at, you know, how do we include and involve others to, you know, to support other needs and causes of lots of other different groups and people. So I think we have a very progressive pope. Unafraid to speak up, speak out on key issues. And that is in many ways, not in every way, but in many ways, a very stark contrast with the only true church upon the face of the earth, which President Nelson is the head of.

Yeah, I mean, I wonder if part of this is too, it's like, if even if President Nelson wanted to, have that kind of a global footprint, would Zelensky take his calls? Right? I mean, does our church have a big enough global footprint that the leader of Ukraine or of a war-torn nation is interested in talking to us?

No, no, but it could at least try, or it could at least put out a statement in writing on the newsroom, on the Church of Mormon Newsroom, right?

Right. I mean, so the church could take positions and whether or not, you know, I mean, you raise a whole lot of very important points. I am very interested to see actually where President Oaks ends up going with this when he becomes president of the church. I mean, I know a lot of people are terrified that President Oaks's only interest is in beating up on LGBTQ people. And, but at the same time, President Oaks, if anybody in recent years has given talks that reference the world around us, it's been President Oaks. And he's talked about, I mean, he, he talked about, for instance, Even before January 6th, he talked about the importance of Latter-day Saints accepting the results of the election. Uh, he, he has actually directly referenced real-world events in ways that his other brethren just haven't done. And, uh, I remember listening to a podcast by an LGBTQ rights activist activist who talked about how impressed he was with President Oaks' thoughtful approach to this, because he's given talks, particularly one at the University of Virginia, where he talked about how we shouldn't necessarily be battling this, battling with the gay rights initiatives everywhere, and we should be making accommodations. And this activist said it was President Oaks who spearheaded the church's acceptance of the Respect for Marriage Act in the United States, which has codified legal gay marriage throughout all 50 states. So President Oaks, he's obviously a very, very bright man, very capable man, and a man who comes from a somewhat political background, having been a Utah Supreme Court justice. This is somebody who has been actively engaged in the political world in a way that a lot of these other men maybe have not. So I'm wondering if maybe this will change, or maybe we will grow and adapt. The other thing about the difference— there are so many differences between our church and the Catholic Church, and I'm not necessarily even talking doctrinal differences, uh, one being obviously that 1-point-something billion is a whole lot larger than where we are. But the other is that they have, they have gone through 2,000 years, essentially, of transition, of growth, of adaptation. And the Catholic Church that exists in 2025 is very different from the Catholic Church that— I guess 2,000 years is strong, but they've been around for at least, you know, 1800 years or so.

Okay.

And that we're still a relatively young church. And so we're learning how to grow and how to adapt and do all of that. So I think part of this is also growing pains.

Jim, as you know, I had the privilege and honor of being set apart by Elder Oaks and Elder Cook back in '09, I think it was, or '10. Uh, here in Canada, I met with Elder Oaks during a personal interview. We spent some time over the weekend together with him. I sat next to him having lunch. We had a long conversation about all kinds of things. It was the time of the Arab Spring back in 2010, and a lot of the governments in the Middle East, or some of them, were falling. I think Libya was one of them. It was called the Arab Spring. I remember having a conversation with Elder Oaks about what he thought about that. And his response was, well, we're watching things, we're discussing it, we're not sure how it's all going to unfold, we know the hand of the Lord is involved, etc. And, and it was clear that this man was very— when I spoke to him and listened to him, was very intelligent, fully aware what's going on in the world, and had a position on certain things. And I know that's the case with the Brethren. You know, they've got positions on things and they've got opinions, and I think, and they have those conversations, and I think that's for the most part probably really, it goes really well. And then it seems to stop that those positions or opinions on certain things like in geopolitics or climate change, for some reason it doesn't get out into the world. If you look at the— how the world sees the Pope and the Catholic Church. The world, politics, geopolitics, multiple faiths, expect a response from the Pope, from the Catholic Church, on key issues, even if they disagree with him. It's not surprising for the Pope to come out and take a position on certain things. And you can criticize him, and people do, and that's okay. But the fact is, the Catholic Church, the Pope speaks up and stands out from time to time and does so quite strongly. And we're going to see that, I think, more and more from the new Pope as the Catholic Church continues to modernize. You mentioned earlier that the Catholic Church has been around for 2,000 years. It's much more established. Ours is less established, although we claim to be the restored church and we have the fullness of the gospel. We've got the— we've got everything. And there's a connection between the early church with Jesus Christ and the apostles and going right back to Adam and Eve. We claim to have all or most of the information on that. Yes, there was a gap, there was an apostasy, but now the church is fully restored. And we have the fullness of the gospel. That, to me, implies a little bit of a heads up on any other religion or faith in regards to the plan of salvation, who we are, our destiny, our purpose and meaning. A very deep understanding of the purpose of mankind and the claim to divine revelation, exclusive divine revelation directly from God, puts the Mormon Church in a very unique and distinct position Even though there was a gap in regards to the apostasy and the Catholic Church seems to have had this long period of time, 2,000 years without any succession gaps. And we fill that gap in because we've got access to revelation in a way that no others have. So I think that defines us and distinguishes between ourselves and any other religion on the earth in regards to the claims that we, we make. Uninterrupted, 24-hour, 7-day access, if you like, to heaven to receive revelation on all kinds of topics. And that gives us an advantage which we are not leveraging or using or deploying to the extent that we should based on our true claims. The church, the Catholic Church has got 14, 1.4 billion rather, members. We've got 16, 17 million, but we have significant financial resources and we could hit above our weight in terms of the financial and other resources that we've got where we can stand up as the only true church upon the face of the earth and take a position and hold a view on some things and be unafraid of the fallout and— as the Scriptures say, not be as we've claimed other churches do in terms of how they behave. In that Scripture in Ephesians 4:14, that we henceforth be no more children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men and cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive. We've used that label to apply to other churches. I now think that applies to the Mormon Church because of our fear to take a position on certain things because we're afraid of the fallout and how that's going to impact the membership. So yet we're tiny in comparison with the Catholic Church. The world does not look to President Nelson for a position on things or or a policy or an opinion. The world still sees the Mormon Church as a church of polygamy or a history of polygamy, history of racism, Joseph Smith and the First Vision, and the confusion around that. The Book of Mormon, is it a historical book or not? Aside from those key elements, I think most of the world doesn't have an understanding, even has a care for the Mormon Church because he doesn't see the Mormon Church as being remotely influential on anything, frankly. It has a— it has a, you know, the bubble in Utah and Salt Lake is very different. Um, the world doesn't, doesn't see that and doesn't really care so much about that. But I will close these, these comments on this point by saying that the church can and should take a more proactive, assertive position on the global stage, considering its significant financial and other, uh, resources and connections that it could leverage far more than it does, and I believe gain more respect in the world. I have respect for people who speak up, stand out, unafraid. They'll say something. I might not agree with them, but at least they've got the balls to speak up and stand out. And I guess one final thought would be this: I can't for the life of me understand how the regular Republican rank-and-file Mormon can reconcile church policy, church history, church doctrine, and your— and President Trump's position on certain things. I don't know how they can balance that. I don't know how they can reconcile that. And I think that's the dilemma of the church. And if it speaks up on certain things nationally, locally, it runs the risk of some political fallout with its members. And I think that's the dilemma that the church, the Mormon Church, faces, amongst others.

No, I think that's probably accurate, uh, and I'm just very interested to see where President Oaks takes us, because I think President Oaks may very well be the man for the job to bring the Church into a more active role in participating in the events of the world. You know, for all of my holy envy for the Catholic Church and how they pick their, pick their Pope, I also recognize the hand of the Lord is in this church, and the Lord knows what he is doing. And I am hopeful that President Oaks can be the man who brings the church into a more active engagement with the world at large, because I think the Catholic Church is modeling that in a really wonderful way, and I would like to see our church follow lawsuit. But time will tell. We'll see what happens. It's just interesting to see what's going on in the world now and to see if that's going to have an impact on the church going forward. And so I'm just kind of in a wait-and-see mode to see where we go. But do you have any other final Words of wisdom to sum this up as we come to an end of this episode?

I think, yeah, I think the church would like to do more, but it comes down to the crunch, it won't. And you go into Elder Oaks, might do a little bit of variation, a little bit of boldness, because he's certainly a bold, assertive character, certainly from my experience with him. So you'll get a little bit more, I don't think you'll get these statements that President Nelson said that, you know, you ain't seen nothing yet. And I suspect that was to do with changing the name, you know, not using the word Mormon. That was his biggest thing, probably. I don't know. I'm being a little bit sarcastic there. But I don't think you're going to see much more than what you're seeing right now, maybe a little bit more, but not much. So mostly, not entirely, same old, same old.

All right. Well, time will tell. We'll see what happens. But I very much appreciate having this discussion with you and very much appreciate all of you who are listening to this discussion. We look forward to further discussions. And as we continue into the third year of Inside Out, thank you very much, Ian.

Thank you, Jim Bennett.