Discussing the Temple with Greg Prince - Part II

Hello and welcome to the latest episode of Inside Out. I am your co-host Ian, and I'm here with the glorious Jim Bennett and the mighty Greg Lentz. Welcome to you both.

Thank you.

Instead of Inside Out, maybe we should be called Mighty and Glory.

Yeah, that sounds like a title of a book. The Mighty and Glorious, edited by Ian.

There we go.

It's great to have you both back on Inside Out. Jim, always loved doing these conversations with you. Just really proud of what we've built with Inside Out. And we have extraordinary people that come on and Greg, is one of those just wonderful people, and we're honored and privileged to have you back on, Greg. And we've been— we've had maybe 25, 30 episodes with you, and you're still with us, which is a wonderful thing. So thank you. The last time we met, we've had our summer vacations since. We all took our vacations pretty much at the same time. I don't know if that was planned or not, but we've now come back refreshed, hopefully spent time with the family, and looking forward to Continuing our conversations on Inside Out. The last conversation we had, we were reviewing something, but we're reviewing the temple recommend questions that bishops and stake president members ask of members before they go to the temple. As our listeners and viewers will know that in order to enter the, an LDS temple, you have to possess a, and qualify for a Temple Recommend. And there are 15, what used to be yes or no questions. And the questions we know have changed quite significantly in parts. So we've been reviewing the questions as they were and as they've changed over the recent time. So the last question that we asked was around do you agree with, do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the church? That was the earlier question, and the question that's replaced that is, do you support or promote any teachings or practices or doctrine contrary to those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? That was the last question that we asked, and you both gave your answers to that, and so anyone listening to this second part of the podcast and go back to the early podcast and get that. So the next question that I wanted that we pick up here is, do you strive to keep the covenants that you've made? This is the earlier question. The older question is, do you strive to keep the covenants you have made, to attend your sacrament and other meetings, and to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel? That question has changed to, do you strive to keep the Sabbath day holy? both at home and at church, attend your meetings, and prepare for and worthily partake of the sacrament, and live your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel. I've sent you a copy of this. You've seen that. What do you think about the question, and what do you think about the changes to the earlier question?

I'm not sure how much of a change in substance it is. They've They've taken out the word covenants. Um, I don't have a strong feeling on this, Jim. Let me bounce it off you.

Uh, I don't have a strong feeling on this. It's interesting that they've added something about the Sabbath day. Uh, they'd never had that sort of thing before. And one of, one of my big frustrations with the temple questions is, uh, they're checking boxes That I think have very little to do with sort of the principles of the Sermon on the Mount. That, that, you know, do you pay your tithing? Do you go to church? Do you, do you do all of these things? And very few of them are, are, are you kind? None of them are, you know, are you kind? Do you live the Golden Rule? Do you do that sort of thing? Salt Lake Tribune recently did. An article about the temple recommend questions, and they had done a survey where they were asking what the questions should be. And overwhelmingly, the responses came back focused on the sort of Sermon on the Mount principles that we pay lip service to, but when push comes to shove, you're far more interested in more measurable and more tangible sorts of indications of righteousness that I don't think necessarily are indications of righteousness. Does that make sense?

Yeah, I can, I can see 2 philosophies that are not blending here. One is the temple as a place to help you get to where you want to go. The second is the temple as a place to reward those who got to where the church thinks they need to be. And there's a big difference between those. My inclination would be door number 1.

I think we've leaned pretty heavily into door number 2, though.

Yes, we do. Yes, we exclude more than we include. And I think the whole point of the church is to be inclusive, to help people to get to a better place, not to punish them because of where they are.

Your 2 thoughts there, your thoughts and your comments from both of you have got me thinking about something. And I've been thinking about this while we were preparing for this conversation. I've come to the conclusion that I don't see any point to the Tempora Commend questions, to the entire process, which is a complete shift away from where I used to be. I see it now as a prescribed approach to entering the temple, like a questionnaire, almost like a survey, like a checklist to determine someone's worthiness and whether they qualify. And I just don't see the value in the questions anymore because surely if someone wants to go to the temple, that's enough, isn't it? To want to go to the temple and to live a higher law and to get closer to God and to renew the covenants that they've made. And the fact that they want to meet with the bishop and say, you know, I'd like to go to the temple, could we organize a schedule? Why do we even need the questions in the first place? Surely going to the church and serving and being kind and committing to service and helping your fellow men and being close to Christ and reading the covenants at the sacrament table, surely that's enough. Surely the questions are not necessary. Why would you— surely your life and your example and what you actually do is enough to enter the temple and not go through all these very prescribed you know, very organized, albeit some changed, softened down questions. And I just don't see the point of it anymore. What, I'll go back to the question in a moment, but what do you think about that? Do you agree with that or do you still think there's value in even having these questions?

I would much prefer to see the doors of the temple opened Because I think that there is a self-correcting influence there. In other words, aside from your first visit when you may go out of curiosity, you're going to go back to the temple because somehow it does something for you. Now, maybe the something for you is the feeling that you're helping somebody who is deceased. Mm-hmm. That's great. That's the major reason we keep the temples going the way we do. But I don't think that somebody who really is unworthy, who shouldn't be there, is going to keep going. I just think that's a self-defeating proposition. I would much rather have it be more inclusive so that it can offer its tangible benefits To those who otherwise would feel marginalized.

Oh, I would agree with that 100%. And, and one of the things, one of my frustrations with the temple is that I've got a lot of, you know, whenever I'm dealing with some kind of big life decision or any kind of thing where I'm really actively seeking spiritual guidance. Uh, bishops and other teachers and leaders will say, well, take it to the temple. Go to the temple. If you've got some big question, take it to the temple and then you'll get it answered. And that has never been my experience because the temple is not the kind of place where you are contemplative in the way that you would want to be. You go through this entire ritual and this entire, it's been cut down in terms of time. Overtime. It used to be much longer, uh, and now it's just a little over an hour. But I think, when am I supposed to take this to the Lord? When I'm standing up and sitting down and changing clothes and, and going through all this and watching this movie? And, you know, and then you finally get to the celestial room and it's always for me, okay, well, I've been here long enough. Uh, I, uh, you're kind of in a hurry. You don't, you really have the kind of feeling of, okay, now I'm gonna sit here. for any length of time and meditate. I mean, you're always mindful of the fact that there are other temple workers there, there are other people coming through. And if you were to actually sit there for an hour or so, I think somebody would probably end up asking you to leave. It's just not what the temple is described as or sold as, to be crass. I don't think it's what it actually is. And so I, I just look at that and go, I think we really need to rethink kind of from top to bottom what the purpose of temple worship is. And Greg, you talk about door number 1 and door number 2. I mean, right now it really feels like it is that kind of a reward. It's, it's a, it's just a Good Housekeeping seal of approval. You are a good member in good standing. You have a temple recommend. But the actual experience of the temple, uh, doesn't necessarily seem to matter to anyone. It's just, okay, good, you can go to the temple. And people seek temple recommends, I think, very often—

Mm-hmm.

Not necessarily because they just love that experience of the endowment, but because they feel they're not gonna be able to participate in the ward fully if they don't have that recommend. And there's also the whole issue of weddings and marriages and parents who don't want to be excluded from their children's weddings when they have a temple wedding. And, and I think that those kinds of things weigh far more heavily on the experience than any kind of benefit people get from the endowment. Is that too cynical a take?

No, I don't think so at all. Many years ago, gee, it's almost 50 years ago now. I was called to be an elders quorum president. I spent four years in that job. Our stake, the Washington D.C. stake, includes the D.C. temple, and one of the high councilmen made the mistake of coming into the quorum and talking about temple activity. Which led me then to poll the quorum and ask the question, what would make the temple more appealing to you? Got some really interesting answers, but one of them was, we'd like to have instruction there that would take us to a new place. Shortly after the Logan Temple was dedicated, which was in 1884, They started to have lectures in the Logan Temple. Some of those were published.

Wow.

With the creative title of Logan Temple Lectures, would you believe it? And they were on a variety of topics, not all of them overtly religious. But wouldn't it be interesting if rather than being told, we don't discuss these things here, Wherever the here is, create the here and say, all right, come in and let's dig into the questions you really have in the right venue and try to give you some real answers. Wouldn't that be refreshing?

That would be, that would be amazing. I remember when we had a Grant family reunion. In the upper rooms of the Salt Lake Temple. Uh, the, the Grant family, Heber J. Grant's family, have these reunions. They're kind of dying out as the people who actually knew Heber J. Grant have pretty much all died out by this point. But we had this, this was right after my grandmother had passed away. She was the last surviving daughter of Heber J.

Grant.

This was in 1995. And I remember we had it in the upper, in the assembly hall in the Salt Lake Temple. And, you know, I'd been a member my entire life and I had no idea that that room existed, but that literally half the square footage of the Salt Lake Temple is that one huge, massive room that looks like a finished version of the Kirtland Temple. And I didn't even know that room existed. And I asked. my father, what is this room used for? And he said, these days, not much.

Yeah, when I went on my mission, which was sep— let's see, June of '67 is when I went into the mission home. A part of our temple experience as missionaries, we all stayed in the mission home in Salt Lake, which they don't do anymore. There is no mission home in Salt Lake. Uh, we would go through a session of the temple, and then they took us up to that room. And they did have a question and answer session, though some of the questions, the answer was, none of your business.

Yeah.

Which wasn't very satisfying, but they did use it for that in those years, Jim.

But they don't use it for that.

Well, they don't take missionaries up there now, and they have so many missionaries, I doubt they could pack them in there anyway.

That's true. But what do they use it for at all? I, I, I think it just sits empty. It's this big, huge, beautiful room. Yeah. That doesn't seem to have a purpose at this point.

Yep.

And so I, I just, the, the whole temple experience, I just think there are so many things we do just because we have always done them. And there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of other reason to be doing them. And I, I, every time they change the temple questions, every time they change the ceremony, you get these sort of lingering pieces of previous ceremonies that no longer matter. The, the, the one I always cite is, you know, when I, when Ian, you, when you and I first went through. They still had the, the temple penalties, and they removed those in 1990. And when you got to the last token in the temple, the instruction said, this token has a name and a sign, but no penalty as mentioned. However, you will be under the same obligation with regard to this token as you are with the other. Tokens of the priesthood. And now you go through, it says this token has a name and a sign, and then it says you will be under the same obligation and repeats that instruction. And that instruction about this be— you being under the same obligation has no purpose anymore. Of course you're under the same obligation. Why wouldn't you be under the same obligation? But nobody thought to edit that little snippet out. I mean, so, I mean, just look at, as I go through the ceremony, it feels a little bit like sort of a Frankenstein's monster. There are pieces here and pieces there that are kind of disconnected and then some that are no longer important or no longer necessary, but they're still there. And I, and I don't understand why we do it that way.

Yeah, Jim, my grandmother. Died in her 80s, my grandfather, who I think was a closeted polygamist at heart, remarried. So now he's an octogenarian. His new bride is a septuagenarian. And my brothers and I are sitting in the sealing room as the sealer conducts the ceremony. This goes to your point where he commands them to multiply and replenish the earth, people are hard-pressed to suppress the giggles.

It's no surprise that the review of the changes to the temple recommendations generate these other questions, these other issues. It's fascinating to hear you both. You know, what's the point of the temple? What's the purpose? What's its function? The endowment has changed significantly. And has it changed? I've heard the question, has it changed to the point where it's not as meaningful or significant as it once was? It's changed over generations. One of the key changes you mentioned, Jim, is 1990, and there's been changes since. And at what point does the temple experience become so diluted and so changed that we miss those earlier covenants, at least the interpretation, understanding those early covenants associated with the signs and the tokens and the penalties. And I think the changes, I mean, I've not been to the temple for a while, but from what I've heard, you two could speak about this, the changes have been improvements, that it's improved, it's been a better experience for people. But did they understand what they're doing? Do they understand the covenants that they're making? Do they understand the obligations that they're under? And do they understand the sacredness of the, and the fullness of the covenants? I've not been there for quite some time. One question I want to ask you both before I get back into the questions is something that I think is interesting in this context. You know, when you had your, you know, when you go through your temple recommend interview with your bishop, And there is a motivation there to listen to the questions and answer them honestly. And by the way, no surprise, not everybody answers the questions honestly. I do know that having interviewed many, many people over the years. I won't go into details on that, but My question to you both is, what motivates you in respect to going to the temple? Is it a need to answer the questions appropriately, or is it a hope that you're going to obtain some revelation or inspiration in the temple, in the celestial room, albeit I agree you can only be there for a limited period of time? Or is it something else that is attached to the covenants where you are personally recommitting your lives on a personal level to Christ, to commit to become better, to be more Christlike, to be kinder? And isn't the motivation, doesn't it lie in that spiritual experience more than answering the questions or going through the process? And wearing certain things and behaving a certain way and performing certain rituals isn't the true experience in living a life closer to Christ as a result of being inspired by the covenant. So there's a question there. What motivates you to go to the temple? Greg, you first.

There are 2 questions that sound similar but have very different answers. One is, what do you do for the temple? The other is, what does the temple do for you? The first one has long been a moving target, but I doubt that very many church members even are aware of that. I've been looking at the temple endowment history for over 50 years now. One of the quotations that jumped off the page at me was in the 1940s when then Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith was asked, so are we going to redeem all the dead? And he said, absolutely not, no way. It was for relatives only. And that later shifted so that now the goal is we're going to save the world. That's one big example. What you would do for the temple, though, changed dramatically from the earliest years of the church where the idea of endowment even preceded the idea of a sacred space. Now, what does the temple do for you? I have a dear friend. His family was the first family we met when we moved to Maryland. They lived just a half block from us. He later became a stake president, a mission president. Um, he is now a widower. He lives in Arizona, and he virtually lives in the temple. Every day the temple's open, he's there doing endowment work. It's his life, and it clearly is the centerpiece of his life, and there's nothing but good that comes to him from his devotion to it. I think he represents one end of a spectrum for other people. I think what the temple does for them can be all over the map. For some, as Jim alluded to earlier, it becomes a place of refuge, a sacred space that's apart from the bustle of the world. For some, they want that space simply because it centers them, it calms them. I get that. That's what sacred spaces of any type tend to do. When you walk into a great cathedral, if you're paying attention at all, you realize you're changed when you walk into that building, and that change remains with you after you leave it. Others go to the temple because they want answers to questions, and there are enough testimonies borne that that has happened to people that I don't question that. It's not an experience that I've had, Jim. It doesn't sound like an experience that you've had.

But I agree with you, it's an experience that many people have had.

And I do not doubt the validity of their testimonies of that.

Nor do I.

So there are many things that you can bring away from the temple, and I think that if we allow people to approach it on whatever basis works or doesn't work for them, then the whole thing is going to be a lot healthier. For some people, it just doesn't resonate at all. Maybe they go once and that's it, one and done. If that's the case, um, so be it.

Right, right. Well, as you were talking about that, I just started thinking about my mother, who is, she was a volunteer in the Salt Lake Temple before it was closed for remodeling. And now she goes to the Bountiful Temple all day, every Friday, once a week. And it's the most important day of the week for her. It, it, it really does ground her and center her. You know, she's a widow now. And my my son lives with her, and she has a whole family around. She is—he's missing her husband, and she is looking for some kind of solace, and she absolutely finds that in the temple and in temple service. It's not just that she goes and does endowments; she's going and she works in the baptistry, and she. Works in different places where she's assigned, but she, she gets it. She finds great meaning in that and great satisfaction in that. And the temple does provide that for a lot of people. I, there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that that's the case. And so that's one of the reasons why when I've gone to the temple, I thought, what am I missing? What am I doing wrong?

But for other people who I think are no less Righteous, if you can use that word, it doesn't resonate the same way. It's not the same thing to all people. It took me a long time to figure that out. And when I did figure that out, it brought me a little bit more peace because it never resonated with me the way it does with so many people I've known.

Jim, what is your motivation for going to the temple, if I can ask?

Ah, well, I'm trying to sound a little less cynical than I think I'm going to sound, because generally my motivation for going to the temple is obligation. Is I feel like I'm supposed to go to the temple, so I go to the temple. I don't have this sort of call to the temple. I don't feel drawn to the temple. Uh, and, and now that I'm in the choir, I don't spend as much time in my own congregation where I feel an obligation when the bishop will stand up and say it's ward temple night. You know, and so Laurel and I usually go to the temple when we essentially feel obligated to go, but I don't know that neither, that either of us really feel drawn to it. And, and, and I want to point out again that this makes me an outlier, not just necessarily in my ward or in my experience, but in my own family.

Mm-hmm.

My siblings, for instance. Love the temple. Ian, you and I interviewed my sister and her husband that are serving a humanitarian mission in Australia right now. They come home in November. But they adore the temple. And they work in the temple. And I remember Marty, the husband, uh, there was a big family thing and he's like, I've got to fly back and then I'll come back. You know, we were all doing some big family event. He said, I got to fly back on Wednesday morning and then I'll come back Wednesday afternoon. So So I can keep with the family reunion because he had a temple shift and he was terrified that if he skipped too many temple shifts, that eventually he'd be replaced. And that was just absolutely terrifying to him because he just loved serving in the temple so much so that he's willing to, you know, get a flight to Arizona and back to Salt Lake in a single day just so he can go work in the temple. So again, I think, Greg, you've nailed it, that it's very much different things to different people. And I don't want to, um, in any way doubt its significance to others, but I have really throughout my experience yet to have found the kind of draw to the temple that I see in so many others and that I see in members of my own family.

Well, and it can change for any individual over time.

Yes.

When I was going to dental school at UCLA, it's a 4-year curriculum. The home I grew up in was 3 miles away from the campus. I was single, so I was living at home while I was going to dental school. Um, without fail, one night every month, my father and I would go to the LA Temple for an endowment session. It was at a time when we were hearing an incessant message: the men are falling behind. Well, yeah, the reason the men were falling behind is men die at an earlier age, and so all the widows were the temple patrons, and they were pushing through all the female endowments, and the men were constantly getting flogged because we were falling behind. There were fewer of us, but that was why he and I would go and my mother wouldn't go. Um, and that was a great experience that lasted for 4 years. And then I got married and moved to Maryland and life changed. But I think for my parents, uh, it always had a significance that may have skipped a generation. And I think there are generational changes. I have heard many reports over the years that for younger women, it does not have the attraction that it had for their parents, particularly for their mothers. I don't know if you two have heard that same type of report.

Well, I have heard quite a bit about how much the temple has changed in order to, uh, be more accommodating to women. I watched just recently an interview with Jean Bingham, the former Relief Society General President, where she talked about being called into the First Presidency's office to review language changes in the temple. And she talked about that being one of the sweetest experiences of her life, that she was asked for input on that. I, I got a little frustrated when she said, but of course the doctrine didn't change at all. I thought, this is, this is so typical, is we change things and then we insist that we haven't changed anything.

Yeah.

But the, the changes in the temple, particularly with regard to how women covenant with the Lord, I think it's a very significant change, and I, I think it's a doctrinal change. Because it used to be that women did not directly covenant with the Lord; they would covenant with their husbands, and originally they would covenant to obey their husbands. And then that language was softened to they would hearken unto their husband's counsel as long as their husbands were obeying. But but the interaction was between the wife and the husband, and the husband's interaction was directly with deity. And now in the temple, the woman makes exactly the same covenant. directly with deity, but the, that the man makes. And then there's Gene Bingham saying, well, that's not really a change in doctrine. I, am I wrong in thinking that is a change in doctrine?

I, I don't recall if I mentioned this in an earlier episode of this podcast, but oh, probably 20 years ago, I was speaking at a symposium, Jim, at your alma mater, USC. Now, being a Bruin, I had to go in disguise, of course. But preceding me was, um, Bruce Porter. He was a— I think he was in the presidency of the '70s.

Yeah, I remember Bruce Porter.

And he knew what my talk was going to be on, which was doctrinal evolution. And he got up to try to preempt me and said, Mormon doctrine has not changed one millimeter. His exact words. And I thought, boy, I'd like to sit down with you and go through the data. I have yet to see any significant doctrine within Mormonism. That has not changed.

There is a— there is a, uh, when we were having our preamble before our podcast here today, there we discussed the opportunity to get into the history of the temple endowment. Um, you were talking about that, Greg Ely, and I, I see, uh, just an ongoing, uh, rich conversation about the temple. I mean, we started off with the questions here, and it's normal and natural to understand all these different connections and different tentacles, and there's so many different rabbit holes. I'm just fascinated by the whole thing. Before we get back into the questions, I just want to say, just kind of adding to what you both have said, my experience with the temple endowment and the whole temple experience has changed significantly. I went through a period of feeling frightened from the first time I went there pre-1990. It was quite cultish and terrifying. It was just an awful experience through to feeling intimidated and lack of knowledge and understanding and lack of preparation. We talked earlier about the limitations of the so-called temple preparation classes that I felt didn't prepare me. And when I was teaching them, I didn't feel they were preparing those people that I was teaching either. And then I went from that through to often very rich experiences, Jim, when I was in the Cecil Room and I was getting inspiration and revelation. Even in that, you feel a bit obligated to kind of leave, right? After 15 minutes, you can't sit there for too long because people are coming through and people meet you and you recognize people, you start talking. It's difficult to experience that personal revelation. However, I did experience it and had profound experiences. Now I see the temple as being, I almost wonder whether Christ would actually go into the temple. And what I mean by that is, and that sounds quite extraordinary thing to say, I think, but I see the temple as being extremely, this rich building adorned with chandeliers and expensive carpets and paintings and, you know, $100 million temple with all this you know, gold and the richness and the appearance of it and in a very wealthy, rich palace-type building. And now as I look back and as where I'm in my faith and my relationship with God and Christ, I just increasingly see a disconnect between who Christ was, humble, you know, serving in the streets, knocking on people's doors, in the fields, even condemning certain things that were happening in the synagogues. I remember that experience that I had with the Pharisees at that time. And I wonder whether Christ would be comfortable going into an LDS temple, whether he would see it in the way that I see it. Maybe I'm not in tune enough, maybe I'm not worthy enough or spiritual enough, or maybe Christ would see it as His house, you know, at the, you know, when you go into the temple, it says, House of the Lord, holiness to the Lord. We taught repeatedly that it's the Lord's house. It's his place that he would return to. We'd be, you know, when he comes back to earth, he would go back to his temple. And I just doubt that now. I just don't think that, I can't speak for him, of course, but I don't know if he would be comfortable. being surrounded of all that wealth and all that richness, which is opposite. It's like the Indiana Jones movie, Jim, that you and I like. I think you like Greg. You know that scene where there's, is it King Arthur? And Indiana Jones asked to select or pick a cup that Christ drank from. And I think one of the actors there picks the wrong cup. and he chose poorly and the outcome is not very good. And then Indiana Jones is asked the question and he picks a cup that he thinks Christ drank from. It was a very kind of a little bit chipped and a bit broken and quite dull. And he picked a cup that looked quite humble, one that Christ would drink from. And I think about that and I just don't know if such a prestigious and palace-type structure with all of its adorning and painting and its richness, etc., and flamboyance and materialistic, that I now see it. I didn't used to see it like that. And its wealth would actually be a place that Christ would go to. Before I get into the question, back to the Templo Archeum questions, do you have any comments on that last thought? Do you agree with it, or do you think differently?

I think that there would be general agreement that the centerpiece of the temple is the endowment. But the question that I think derives immediately from that is, with what are you endowed? And the answer to that over time has changed Radically. Very few members of the church would even know that there has been change, much less what that change has been and what it means. I think that's something that should be a centerpiece of discussion within the church because it really gets back to the so what of the whole thing. Yeah, the, the endowment came before the building in which to house it. So the building is a place in which to house this thing that we don't understand. And in part, we don't understand it because it's changed so much over the centuries. Right, right. But I think we should understand it.

That's an excellent point. And, and again, just again, keen to get back into the questions here. Going back into the history of the endowment, going way back, Greg, Jim, didn't Moses have a tent? Abraham have a tent in the desert, right? Where they performed these, the temple endowments and, you know, ancient prophets, they had tents and they had other more humble structures. I think, I'm not a historian, but isn't that correct that they had much more humble structures back then?

Well, if you go back into the Hebrew Bible, you see that there is no resemblance between the tabernacle in the wilderness and the temple rites of today in the LDS Church. We try to say there is. We, we tried for over a century to claim that the temple ceremony, with its clear relationship to Freemasonry, Masonry, was a restoration of the temple of Solomon and its ceremony that had become corrupted within Freemasonry. And after defending that school of thought for well over a century, the church finally came out a few years ago in its Gospel Topics Essays and said, well, actually Freemasonry started as a trade union in the Middle Ages, which is correct.

Right.

So that shot to pieces the idea that this is a restoration of an ancient ceremony that was brought through the ages in corrected form, or in corrupted form rather, through Freemasonry. It just doesn't hold water. So you've got to go back to square one and reconstruct the whole thing.

Thank you for that. And for our listeners and viewers, we are, um, planning on having a, a very interesting conversation around the relationship between the, uh, the LDS temples and the endowment and Freemasonry. We're going to be discussing that in the near future. I would argue, and we'll jump into the questions here, but argue that you don't need a prestigious structure like a temple to have a complete full temple covenant renewal endowment experience, that you can have a much more humble structure building. And not spend so much and spend that money on the poor and those that need it and spend more on the living, frankly. Yeah. Who need it.

Uh, Ian, there is an ancient antecedent of the Mormon endowment. It doesn't go back to the Hebrew Bible. It goes back to Jesus. And it's in the 24th chapter of the Gospel of Luke where the resurrected Jesus says to the disciples, You got to go out and convert the world, but you can't do it yet. You've got to stay in Jerusalem until you are, quote, endowed with power from on high, end quote.

Right.

And that endowment took place in the 2nd chapter of Acts with the day of Pentecost. That was the endowment that the early Latter-day Saints emulated before they even had a building in which to place it. So there is that continuity with the ancients, but it doesn't go back to Solomon's Temple. It doesn't even go back to an Old Testament predecessor.

Yes. Thank you. So back into the questions here, we've got maybe half an hour left, so let's get into these. Uh, the last question talked about We did a cross-reference between the questions around covenants and the other question about keeping the Sabbath day holy or sacraments. So we said that they removed covenants, and I thought they were moving towards covenants, so they removed that. They mentioned Sabbath day. Jimmy talked about that. They've added the home comment, which I quite like. You know, a lot of stuff that we, how we live is what we do in the home. And prepare for the sacrament. So I like the revision, the improved version of that particular question. It's a long one, but, and they've extended it somewhat, but it's a pretty fair question. The next question I have a problem with, and it says here, the old question was, are you honest in your dealings with your fellow men? You know, it used to be 15 yes or no questions, and that was a yes or no question. And the next version, or the latest version, is, Do you strive to be honest in all that you do? Greg, what do you think about that? Is this significant? And then to you, Jim.

I think what you have said is versions 2.0 and 3.0, because my recollection is that 1.0 said, are you totally honest with your— in your dealings with your fellow man? Jim, do you remember that one?

I do. I do. And I had a really, I had a negative experience that turned into a positive one because that is always the question everybody would hem and haw on. You would go through the entire questions. Yes, no, yes, yes. Well, I try. That was always the answer to the totally honest one.

Yeah.

And I remember, um, being in Port Angeles, Washington. Going through the temple recommend interview for my wedding. I, I, I had a temple recommend, but apparently you had, maybe you still do. I haven't gotten married in 30-plus years. Uh, but you had to go through and do some kind of direct interview before a temple wedding. And we were doing this, uh, up at, up in Port Angeles, which is where Laurel's parents. Lived. And, um, the stake president had a reputation for being a really hardline stake president. My mother-in-law would, uh, gripe and groan about how much she didn't like him. And anyway, but went through and got to, uh, the stake president's part of the interview. And they go through exactly the same questions and he gets to, are you totally honest? In your dealings with your fellow man? And I start to hem and haw, and he just gives me this blank look. He doesn't— he just stares at me. And after I'm done hemming and hawing and explaining, he says, the question is, are you totally honest in all your dealings with your fellow men? It is a yes or no question. And I was a little taken aback by that. And maybe a lot taken aback by that. But as I thought about it, it didn't take me long to realize that's exactly right. That's exactly right. It is a yes or no question. And I need to know whether or not I'm comfortable giving the answer that will get me into the temple. And it brought me back to the Howard Anderson idea of this is more about Self-reflection on my part than judgment on the stake president's part. I think exploring nuance when you're in a temple recommend interview is absolutely the worst time and place to do that, to try and say, "Oh, what does this question really mean? Is it really acceptable to say I'm totally honest if I do this, if I do that, the other?" Because all the bishop or stake president is going to do is give you their opinion, which isn't. Really any more authoritative than yours as far as the entire church is concerned. And ultimately, you have to take responsibility for each of your own answers and accountability for each of your own answers. And so that's a lesson I learned in that very black and white setting of that particular question. But yes, it has been softened repeatedly, uh, to the point now where it's much easier To answer yes or no, because the question allows for a whole lot more wiggle room.

Yes, and I wonder if some of the softening is because church members, including me, have wondered sometimes out loud, how would the church answer that question if I asked it? And The whole basis of faith crisis, which we saw when we did the major survey in 2011, was, I left the church because it was not being honest with me. I really wonder if that caused them to rethink that question in addition to the difficulties that individual members had Because it was almost a, do you beat your wife question? Can you really answer that? Yes. And if not, then you sound like a scoundrel because you're answering no and you're not given a third option.

Yeah. Yeah.

Greg, you've hit for me one of the major issues. You kind of stole my wind, which is great. Because I, you know, this question, the change is, do you strive to be honest in all that you do? I perhaps cynically, I don't think so, has been changed to deal with your point. I think the church changed it for itself, frankly, as well as others, right? You know, strive is, well, hey, you know, anyone can say that, right? Anyone can strive to, you know, to be honest, we're all striving, maybe. It's a very broad and, you know, it's a yes or no, but it's very, very open. For me, the reality is the church has not been honest in its dealings with its fellow men, and that's one of the reasons why I left. You know, the church holds— it's a high-demand faith, holds its members to a very high standard, You know, you can't even— the hope of salvation is impossible without meeting all, complying with all the church standards and processes and answering these questions affirmatively, you know, to enter the temple. The church has got incredible control over that and holds its members to extremely high standard. And that's a great way of, you know, your question, if you put that to the church, how would he answer that question. I think it's extraordinary. And if the church was honest in answering that question, it would say no, it hasn't been honest. And it's kept things back and it's misdirected. And, you know, in that, I think it's lesson 31 in the Gospel Principles book that I'd made reference to several times, which is titled Honesty, gives a definition of what honesty is. and what dishonesty is. You know, when we only teach half-truths, it says in there, we are being dishonest. That's what it says. And I think the church is guilty of not telling the truth, only telling half-truths. And because it's worried or concerned that if it gives a full answer, members will leave instead of having confidence. And maybe there's some truth in that, but surely there is Uh, a spiritual sacred obligation on the part of the church to be honest in its history, its policies, its doctrine. And when it changes things, to explain what it's changed and why it's changed it and how it changed it, and to communicate those changes instead of just making the changes and letting people kind of work it out. So I— go ahead.

You've both heard the phrase in not too distant a past, the church does not apologize. Now, if that's because the church and its leaders never make mistakes, never tell untruths, then that would be great. But if that's not the case, then we got a problem. And it's the mirror image of what we're talking about here. What happens when you ask the church the same question that it asks you?

Yeah, this specific issue has become so top of mind for so many people who have left recently because there are public egregious examples of the church falling short here. The, the one that comes to mind, of course, is the SEC fine, uh, $5 million for how the church used shell companies to hide its wealth. And the church's response to that was, mistakes were made and we consider the matter closed. There's not an apology. Uh, there's an acknowledgement that there were mistakes made, although they don't want to specify who made them. They don't want to hold anybody accountable for those mistakes, and that's just it. And and it really does. At the end of the statement, it said we consider the matter closed. We're not allowed to talk about it. We're not allowed to bring it up in any kind of you know. I'm bringing it up now, so maybe I'm getting into trouble for that. But but in an official capacity, they're done talking about it. They're done, and they're not going to. Accept any sort of accountability for it. And that is a bridge too far for a lot of people. They look at that and say, that's not honest. And I don't see an answer that says that it is. And at the same time, it's important that— yet I still stay in the church because I don't have this expectation of infallibility. I've lived long enough and studied this long enough and engaged with the church long enough to recognize that the only way to have a sustainable faith is to be able to recognize, uh, the role that fallibility plays, not just in church leadership, but in mortality, that fallibility and weakness and mistakes are the purpose for why we came here. And so I come to expect it rather than, um, try to overlook it.

Hmm.

But there are so many members of the church that don't see it that way, and I don't blame them for not seeing it that way because the church very much wants them to see it as, yes, we're infallible, yes, we never make mistakes, and if we do make mistakes, we're not going to talk about them, we're not going to apologize for them, and we're going to pretend they never happened.

Yeah, Jim, we've talked before about what Harold B. Lee said to your father, right? I wish we could put that in bold letters of a church office building because I think the members would be both relieved to hear the institution saying, we're not perfect, but we're still trying, because that would then, I think, strengthen their resolve not only as individuals to keep trying, but as a collective to help the church keep trying.

Yeah.

That's, eventually the church has to get there. Uh, I mean, I, I don't say that, uh, by way of, um, demand. I say that by way of inevitability, that things that can't go on forever and eventually stop. This cannot go on forever. It is very clear that the church is not infallible. The church pays lip service to the idea that it's not infallible. They'll say, yeah, we make mistakes. But then when you ask them which mistakes and who made them, no, no, no, no, no, we're not going to talk about that. And the church keeps operating as if they can go on forever and never ever own up to any of that. And it's the reality of the world we live in and the democratization of information that the internet has provided. Means that can't go on forever. Eventually, the church is going to face some kind of a reckoning in this regard, and it would be better if we faced it on our own terms rather than be forced to face it by some massive scandal or just huge mistake and error that they'd have no choice but to acknowledge when they're forced to do it.

Yeah. Have you ever gazed out either in a sacrament meeting or a Sunday school class or a priesthood class and seen people looking at their iPhones? Maybe they're reading the newspaper or watching a football game. Some of them are fact-checking in real time, and that's the reality now.

Yeah.

You can't get away with it anymore.

Yeah. Yeah.

And if you try to pretend that you are getting away from it, you've lost all credibility and you won't get it back.

Yeah. Yeah. The, Jeremy, these are excellent points. This is such a big issue for me and, and, and so many other people as well. If you look at the issues and problems of the church, it can, the, the, and you, and you delve into the issues and problems, they can be traced to whether the church has been honest or not. You know, or whether it's made some mistakes or not. And it, it leads back, for me at least, it leads back to those 2, uh, points amongst other things. And then with AI, you can check live whether something is, is correct or not. The church is living in la-la land if it thinks it can continue this current, um, narrative, uh, position that, you know, it can be, um, you know, make these claims to be accurate and reliable and the only source of, of true revelation and the only religion, the only true religion on earth, and that it has the highest of integrities, honest in dealing with all its fellow men. It's just simply not true. And Jim, you made an excellent point. Instead of fighting it, and it's lost the fight. I mean, people at church won't get up and criticize the church for obvious reasons, but privately, secretly, many know that the church is not handling this in the way that it should. And instead of trying to fight it or resist it, which is inevitable, to use your word, Jim, why doesn't it lead the conversation, take the initiative, show some leadership, and have influence over the conversation by leading it? And And bringing it up first and having that conversation. I think it's a difficult but a necessary action to take. And so going back to your point earlier, Greg, I'm thinking on the back of that point that you made earlier, I believe personally the church has changed this question, not just for the member, but for itself. Do you strive to be honest in all that you do? Well, the church can say, hey, we We strived, you know, we like the SEC fine, Jim, that you made reference to, many other things that the church has got wrong. We say, well, I strived, you know, I did my best and we, you know, we missed some things, but hey, I was striving. So I just think that the church is trying to win a losing fight, you know, fight that is already lost. Um, the next question is interesting. Uh, it's, it's a question about chastity. The earlier question, again, a yes or no question. Uh, well, they're both yes or no questions, but—

Before we leave this, I wanna jump in because we, we've taken this break and we haven't had a chance to talk about something that, that, uh, it's kind of faded a little bit in the last week or so, but Um, I, I want to briefly mention, uh, Elder Corbridge's video. Do you remember? You recall that?

I do, yes.

This was not a— this was not a video from the church, and Elder Corbridge is an emeritus General Authority, but he made this video on behalf of Scripture Central, which, while not officially part of the church, is very much And it's a— I think it's even been quoted on the church website a number of times. It's an organization that's supportive of the church. And he made this video where he said, he began by saying, even if Darth Vader were your bishop and the church culture was like Alcatraz, you will stay because the church is true and truth trumps discomfort. I mean, those are— that's a condensation, but those are all exact quotes from what he said. And, and so when you, when you start talking, Ian, when you're saying this, Elder Corbridge reflects, I think, the current thinking of the church in that it's, look, the church is true, so your questions don't matter, your concerns about our mistakes don't matter. Everything we do wrong doesn't matter. We can torture you like a murderer. Like, I mean, Darth Vader blew up planets. I mean, that's a terrorist. You know, he's fictional, obviously. But Alcatraz is not fictional. Alcatraz was the highest, um, you know, this is where they incarcerated the worst of the worst. And And, uh, and he's saying, look, even if the church is just like that, if the church is a terrible, terrible place led by terrible people, you've got no choice but to stay because we're the true church. And that seems to be the tack that they are taking to answer your question, Ian. And it's a terrible answer. Elder Corbridge, I've talked in the past when he was still an active member of the church, he gave What still remains sort of the definitive talk, authorized talk about faith crisis. He was asked to go and speak about faith crisis, and he broke his talk down into two parts. The first part was, okay, I have read every piece of anti-Mormon literature that exists, and it hasn't caused me any problems. Although it did make me feel dark and nasty because it was all written by Satan. So therefore, you should not read any of it and just trust me that there's nothing there that need to concern you, and you don't want to feel those dark feelings. So just trust me and don't look at any of it. That was part one. Part two was you. Do not ask secondary questions before you answer the primary questions. And he listed what he considers the primary questions, and they include things like, is the church true? Is the Book of Mormon a historical document? Was Joseph Smith a prophet of God? Once you answer those questions, the primary questions, then the secondary questions all take care of themselves. So don't be asking about polygamy. Don't be asking about the blacks in the priesthood. Don't be asking about all of the problematic issues in the history of the church. You have to ask these questions, provide the right answers to these questions, and then the other questions go away. And both of those sections just fly in the face of just Of everything that any reasonable person understands the way the world works, Elder Corbridge. Bless your heart, you do not. Even if you are a general authority, you do not have the authority to determine what I determine to be a primary question for me. You don't get to say, "Yo, you're asking the wrong question. You shouldn't be concerned by this." And if you ask me a primary question like, okay, is Joseph Smith a prophet? And my primary question is, why did Joseph Smith marry 14-year-old girls against Emma's wishes? I mean, that's a big deal. I want to know why. No, no, you can't ask that question until you determine whether or not he's a prophet. Well, I'm never going to determine he's a prophet. Uh, if I can't get past the idea that Joseph Smith's polygamy is deeply unsettling, you have to deal with me where I live. You don't get to choose what's a concern to me. And the church keeps acting like it can. And I think that, Ian, when we were missionaries in 1987 through 1989, to a degree, the church could. The church Was capable in that kind of a media environment where the only way you could find out troubling issues was to go dig through libraries and know what you were looking for. That was the only way to find out about Fannie Alger or to find out about you know the the I just blanked on his name Elijah Abel, the black. Member of the church who held the priesthood given to him by Joseph Smith. And all of these kinds of things that just are chinks in the armor of, of the historical narratives. And, and the church keeps acting like it can say, don't look at those things, don't read those things, don't pay attention to those things. You can't do that. You just cannot do that anymore. It's not going to work. And that's why I say the church has to reckon with this because this is unsustainable. It cannot go on forever. So sorry, I just think that that bears mentioning on your, on your point there with honor.

It does. It does. I want to comment on that, Greg. I want to give you— do you want to respond to what Jim said?

Oh, I'm in total agreement with him. Jim, you registered pretty high on the Richter scale on that one.

Yeah, a little bit. That really got under my skin.

It's not that I'm trying to impose my will on the church, and I think I can speak, Jim, for you as well. I think what both of us see is this kind of institutional behavior is self-damaging. And we don't like it when the institution we love is damaging itself when it needn't do so. Jim, I'm putting words in your mouth. Am I okay on that?

You're putting words in my mouth that are better than the words that I put in my mouth.

Well, I wasn't going to put it that way, but now that you said it, okay.

You can do that anytime, Greg. You, you absolutely, that you nail it. That's exactly right.

Jim, I'm glad you stopped me before I went to the next question because you've articulated my thoughts and feelings, and you as well, Greg, in a very, very compassionate and a very passionate way, in a very balanced way. I feel so strongly about this. When I listened to Elder Corbridge's video, and I think you watched it, I sent it to you both, but I think you watched it before I send it. I was absolutely just flabbergasted and astonished. And my first reaction was, piss off. You're not going to tell me what I think and how I feel. You're going to control me or tell me what questions to ask. And if I'm not comfortable or happy being somewhere, you know, in Alcatraz, I'm ambitious Darth Vader, or, you know, I have to, I can't ask certain questions in order before I can answer these other questions. You're controlling me. You're not going to control me, and I don't want to be a part of it. And it just, I was astonished. I even asked whether that was a legitimate video. I went to my own sources. I went, this can't be right. This guy's gone rogue and it's not official. And it wasn't official on behalf of the church, but it was kind of semi-official because, you know, it was allowed to be put out and it wasn't shut down. And the idea of being part of something that is, damaging or hurtful or living in the dark ages, not able to have these democratic conversations. I mean, that was my issue. I couldn't ask questions at church. I was told not to ask questions. I was, you know, see, state presidency, I'm presenting a— I'm being a bad example. I should know better. President Wilkes, you should know better. You shouldn't be asking these questions. I said, well, I have questions, but other people are coming to me with their questions. And so it was, it was just crazy situation.

This was vintage Boyd Packer. The good news was that after his death, his name disappeared really fast. You do not hear many, if any, of the brethren quote him these days. The bad news is that clearly the memory has not faded because this guy was channeling without mentioning his name.

Yeah. Yeah. I, I, I, you've, your comments, both of your comments are just absolutely on the nail. And I, I, I just, I just cannot get my head around why these intelligent people that are leading the church don't see what we're talking about. That just, it's so basic and so simple and it's such an easy way, difficult but also easy way to address the issues by, it's just living in the dark ages and I just don't, who are they listening to? I just don't, anyway.

Ian, there is the right question to ask since you live north of the border, Maybe I need to give you a tutorial on what's happening in the White House these days.

Right.

But comparing Trump 47 to Trump 45, he got rid of all of the guardrails, all of the people who would remind him that what he wanted to do was illegal. Yeah. And without that, There's now nobody who can give him the corrective. If you don't have smart people penetrating your bubble saying, just a minute, then that's a problem.

Right.

You may think when you're in the middle of that bubble that all is well and good because, gee, I'm not hearing any of the naysayers anymore. Yeah, you're not hearing them because you blocked Yeah, yeah, yeah. But their message is no less relevant and important, even though it's not penetrating that bubble. And I think this is what we get. We see so much in the church, right from the local level all the way up, of protectors. Protect the brethren. Don't send bad news up the ladder. If they don't hear bad news, then they don't fix it. And I think that's what we're dealing with. Jim, correct me on that if you think I'm astray.

No, I do not think you are astray. I think you are infallible, Greg.

I'll go back to you on that one.

And gentlemen, do you know what the tragic thing, the heartbreaking thing about it is for me at least? Is, um, and for you both, maybe, I don't know. I don't wanna put words in your mouth. When I joined the church and served in the church, I believed that the church naively, maybe not at the time, was the only organization on the earth that I could trust completely with everything. My tithing, the doctrine, the history, the lessons, the teachings, the principles.

Yeah.

I had such certainty. I've used that word with you, Jim, before, certainty, right? I was so sure, so confident that the church had the fullness of the gospel. It had the answers to most, if not all, of the questions, certainly most of the questions, and placed my complete confidence and devotion and faith into the church, and even said publicly, privately, and at church meetings in those Senior callings that it's the only organization you really can trust because led by a prophet and the prophet won't lead you astray and will always be honest and always be truthful and transparent and provide disclosure. And thank goodness I thought that there's an organization on the planet that can be trusted because where would we be without that in politics or in other institutions or other organizations? or businesses or enterprises that are dishonest or corrupt. There's so much corruption. But thank goodness that we have an organization led by a prophet and, and led by Christ that is free from all that. Thank goodness that we have that. And now my heartbreak, my tragedy is to learn that that is not the case. And that is, that was devastating to me. It absolutely devastated me where I, I cried over that because I had so much hope and faith and trust in the church, and the fact that the church couldn't even be truthful and honest with me, having put me— put my innocent faith into the church. Innocence. Call it naivety, but I was innocent, and I meant it, and I needed and wanted the church to be true and to be honest and it wasn't for me. And for me, that's the heartbreak. And just, we're gonna go to the other questions here. We're probably out of time. We haven't had time to finish the questions. When I was thinking about honesty, you know, do you strive to be honest in all that you do? Does that extend to members who, and we probably shouldn't get into this, but does that extend to members who voted for Trump? A convicted felon. Does that qualify as being striving to be honest in all that you do, assuming politics is an important part of social life and community life, which it is, obviously?

I have no strong opinions on that, so I'll just have to leave that to both of you.

But you see my point, right? Surely this extends to everything that we do and everything that we are. you know, striving at everything, but hey, you know, I do all these things, but I'm going to vote for someone like Trump or vote, you know, you know, I just, I just, it's a question of all the questions in all these 15 years of no questions. It's the one that I struggle with the most. So I'm so grateful that both of you've added critical additional context and perspective to this question. Now we're about an hour and 15 into About halfway through the last part of the questions. I don't want to rush the last part of the question because they're so important and they're so important for ongoing conversations with you, Greg, in regards to the work that you are doing and have done. We also have planned a conversation I can't wait to have, which is the relationship between Freemasonry and the temple experience. And of course, Greg, you've talked earlier about your research into the history of the endowment and the other, uh, parts of the, of the temple. So my question to you both at 1 minute, sorry, 1 hour, 18 minutes into this, having not completed the second half of the questions, which are, uh, they talk about, um, chastity, uh, uh, working, uh, we talked about working with different groups. It talked about, uh, family conduct here to do with, know, being in harmony with the church, Sabbath day, Word of Wisdom, garments. Uh, there's probably another podcast conversation just on those questions. Do you agree? Or— I just don't want to rush these questions because they're so important.

Yeah, I agree. This reminds me of my physics professor when I was in college. It was at Dixie College in St. George, and we knew that during hunting season All we had to say in a lecture was, tell us about deer hunting. And the next thing he knew, he'd shot the whole hour and he said, damn it, you guys did it to me again. So Jim and I are expert at dissuading you from getting to the goal of your questions. I feel pretty good about our capability in that line.

Oh, you're very effective and rightly so. I think Uh, the, the, the conversation is so rich and so important to so many, including myself. Uh, they need time. We need time to properly to review them and discuss them because they're so, um, so important. There's so much depth. There's so many.

We have, I've done 1,000 interviews over the years that started with my McKay biography. Right. And I found out very early in the game. If I tried to bring the interviewee back to my list of questions, I would kill the interview.

Right.

The best material I got was when the interviewee went to an aside that yielded a golden nugget. So don't feel badly that Jim and I have deflected your attention because Sometimes that's good.

Yeah, thank you for that. And I don't, and again, your comments from both of you are so valuable, so rich, and so necessary. And we have guidelines, you know, we have a topic to talk about, notwithstanding we've got so many tentacles and very rich experiences and stories that go off in different angles, but in time we'll come back. And again, I don't want to rush this because it's so important. And we need to feel we have the time to explore all these different thoughts and ideas. So what we will do then, gentlemen, is that we will revisit the remaining questions, the 10 Broken Week questions, because they're so important. After that, we can go into the— talk about the relationship with Freemasonry. And then from there, Greg, I think you've got a bunch of things that you'd like to share with us from research that you've done in the history of That'll take more than one or two sessions. No doubt, no doubt. They will be powerful and rich and layered, and looking forward to those conversations as well. So what we'll do, gentlemen, as the facilitator for this particular podcast, I will give some time to you, Jim, to summarize your thoughts and feelings on what we've discussed, and then I'll hand the final time over to our mighty great prince to give his final thoughts And then we'll close.

Jim? Well, I think I summed myself up pretty well, and then I think Greg summed up my summing up even better. So I, I want to just give Greg the final word here, and I think this has been a great discussion, and I look forward to continuing the discussion because there's a lot more meat here that we need to talk about.

When my kids were little, there was a movie called The Neverending Story. I don't know if you ever saw that. Uh, that's kind of the road we're going down, and by the time we get done thoroughly discussing the temple recommend questions, we'll probably have a new version of the questions that we can begin to discuss. So there you go, the never-ending story. I like it.

Uh, Jim, As always, thank you. You're just wonderful insights. Your experience is just so, so important, so valuable. And Greg, a very special thank you to you as well for being part of these conversations and being interested in continuing these very important conversations. I know they help people. They certainly help me. And I dare to say they help you both too as well. So thank you to you both. And thank you to all of our listeners and viewers. We're grateful that you are with us and Thank you for supporting us, and, uh, we look forward to revisiting these topics, new topics, with Jim and Greg on future episodes of Inside Out. Thank you very much. See you both.