Don't Read the Comments!

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

I'm very good today. How are you?

I am doing just fine. As an old-time political hack, the first rule whenever you're dealing in politics is don't read the comments. You're never ever going to find anything in the comments that is going to make you happy. Or even if you do find something in the comments that makes you happy, there's going to be one comment that just drives you crazy and you end up fixating on it. You know, when my father passed away, I would read the news articles about my dad, and almost all of the comments were just very kind and glowing and nice to the family. And then I read one that said, "Ding dong, the witch is dead." And I was so furious. You know, people seem to be able to believe that they can be ruder and nastier online when they're hiding behind a fake name. They would never ever say anything like that to you in person. And so the comments are not necessarily representative of the general reaction to you or to what you're doing. And I think that's true of our podcast as well. So this is the first time we've gotten a whole lot of comments. We went on Stephen Pynecker's show Mormon Book Reviews, and he introduced our podcast. And on the YouTube, there are to date 164 comments. Looking at them, I just thought this would be fun to be able to respond a little more at length, a little more in context, and respond to some of the funny ones, respond to some of the serious ones, uh, but just sort of break the rule of don't read the comments and do it in style. You on board for that?

100%.

Well, so I, I'm going to kick it to you then. You pick a comment that, that you want to respond to to begin with.

I'm okay about reading these comments. I actually welcome and encourage constructive, you know, hard feedback. If it's personal, that's different. And I think if it's personal or if it's unfounded, or if people read negative comments and it's a very, of a very personal attack in nature. I think most people are pretty intelligent, they can see through things like that. The second thing I want to say is that the whole intent of the podcast is to— we have a number of different objectives. One is to help people for sure, to help people navigate and maybe answer some of the more pressing questions. Three, another one was to get into some stuff that perhaps hasn't been discussed or explored in detail, new, fresh insights, experiences, perspectives, doctrines, policies, history, etc., that really needs more discussion, more airtime, which have yet to date haven't been discussed or explored. That was one of the other objectives. Another one, of course, is to look at the, um, all things in balance, look at the strengths of the Church, and there are many, but also look at the opportunities for improvement and growth. You don't learn really unless you get good constructive feedback. When we're humble enough and we listen and we learn, and we think, oh, I never saw it from that perspective, and we can learn from each other. I think that's really, really good. It's important to know and to remind our listeners that we all come from a different background. We have different perspectives. We have different learning experiences. In particular, when you're a leader in the church, you see things, Jim Bennett, and you hear things that perhaps some members don't. You have very difficult very different types of conversations in a senior leadership capacity. That doesn't make any leader any, any, you know, not better than anyone else, but it's a very different perspective on the church. And, and, and as someone told me years ago before I, uh, was called into these, uh, before I was called into being a bishop, he said, Ian, the more senior you go, uh, sometimes the uglier that it can get. And so he was talking about not just the bishops level or the stake presidents level. He was talking even higher, uh, in the General Authority, that those, uh, conversations between the General Authorities— I knew exactly what he meant— do get, as you'd expect, pretty robust and very blunt and very direct about all kinds of stuff. And we shouldn't be surprised at that. So just with that in mind, let's pick one of them here. Again, they're all great constructive feedback. I want to pick on one of the, uh, comments here about whether the church conference talks actually translate to the rank and file, uh, members. And so these, this comment here was, this person was saying that we've all got access to the conference talks, we have direct access to the materials, et cetera, which is great, direct access to the lessons. And the person said that they would, um, I, my comment I think was that it doesn't all get translated to the rank and file members in terms of changing people across the rank and file members at a fundamental level. I think it does, and it sometimes often doesn't. And then they go on to talk about that they've never encountered anyone that still believes blacks can't hold the priesthood. So I wanna just, that's in one comment. I wanna address those right now. So yes, we have lessons, we have talks, we have, we, we have training sessions and, and a lot of stuff does get translated to rank and file members. But a lot of it doesn't. For example, I, I've lost count how many people I've met who don't accept the essays. The church hasn't talked about the essays directly, or as, or as extensively as I think they should have done at the church conference. They've made quotes that you should read the essays. There was a, there was a, a period of time where the essays appeared to be, have, have been hidden. Or how can it be gracious? Perhaps not as easily found as they could have been when they first came out. There was a, a very strong negative reaction from the people that I knew. I was in leadership position at the time, and there were even people that thought that those essays were— I had one person thought that the essays were, um, anti-Mormon literature that had been uploaded to the website. And I'm not making that up. A lot of members that I knew wrote them off. They just thought it was some historian writing an opinion and that that we should understand it as such. And then we got some comments or quotes from General Authority saying that we should read them. They haven't discussed them extensively at the conference or even at the state conference or world conference. They just don't. That's just been my experience. That's, that's my perspective. If you look at them individually, they're important. If you look at them collectively, it's a, it's a evidence of a, an attempt to shift the church away from some of the more difficult, complex, darker underbelly issues that the church, not race and oppression, that the church is grappling with even today because of its history. In this example, there are many that intent by the church to shift the minds of the members to move away from these more difficult, complex historical issues. It's a long way from being achieved. There are many, many people even now that either extreme don't accept them at all, or think they're anti-Mormon. That's on the extreme end too. Well, it's just an opinion of the church and you can read it and come to your own opinion, et cetera, et cetera. And so things like that haven't really, you know, the direction, the instruction that we've got to read them, understand them, et cetera, hasn't, in my opinion, translated equally. You know, if you picked randomly members from a ward or a stake and asked them what their perspective is or their opinions of each other, you'll get something very, very different. You won't get an official stance, you know, like For example, I know people that are not ready to disavow the quotes that Brigham Young spoke about race and the priesthood in the past. And that ties to the second part of that comment there. And it was written in the same comment that we're talking about. Um, the last point, I've never quote, I've never encountered anyone who still believes blacks can't hold the priesthood, and I live in the South. And so. The reality is, unfortunately, that there are people in the church today that hold prejudices and discriminatory views against Blacks. I know people who have been incensed that a Black person has received the high call to the priesthood. I know people who have, who think that the Blacks are not ready to receive the priesthood, and they hold on to those past prejudices. So is the church free from those kind of prejudices? No, it's not. And we, we have to remind ourselves that the church members are a cross-section of society. I think it's naive to think that we don't have prejudices and we don't hold discriminatory views, or we don't make judgments just like society does in general. And so there are people in the church that have old-fashioned, archaic views. They still subscribe to those original teachings. There are not many of them, but they do exist. And until, for example, if you look at the race and the priesthood, until the church really takes a more bolder step, in my opinion, and, and goes beyond disavowing its relationship with those past cults. And by the way, when people say, well, it was different back then, it was different back then. The policy was different back then. I get that. But I know and believe that there, there are people who lived back then that didn't think like that. They didn't feel like that towards Blacks. You know, there were people back then that were against slavery. They wanted equality and, and, and thank goodness. And so I feel very strongly about this thing. I think this feedback is great. I, 'cause we get into it and we can, uh, we can provide some evidence of, um, you know, where we think differently. And if someone hasn't seen this, you know, Racism in the Church or seen these issues or seen somebody being excluded, then that's okay. That's their perspective, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Very good point. You went heavy to begin with. I was looking at more of the sillier ones and you went into the substance. So you are a far more substantive person than I am. I was looking at this one from a guy named Paul Black who said, I'm not that familiar with Jim, Does he always shout like that? Is he just partially deaf or does he just shout all the time? If so, I'll pass on the new podcast. Just too confrontational and angry. And that just cracks me up because I am a loud fellow. There's no question about that. But I don't think that I'm shouting. Does it sound like I'm shouting to you when I'm talking like this?

I've always, since the time I've known you, I've known you for over 35 years, you've always been animated. You've always been a little bit louder, you know, and I think that's just because you are, you know, it can be quite boisterous and quite funny loud, not in a negative way. It's just you, right? We're all different people and we all have different volumes and you're just you and it's not, you're not angry. You're just being, it's just who you are.

This is not an angry and confrontational podcast. But I am loud. My wife tells me I'm loud all the time. She always says, okay, drop your decibels. If you— I remember when I got to Scotland, Americans are louder than Scots just by nature. And it took me quite some time to be able to sort of tone that down to the point where I wasn't obnoxious or maybe where I was less obnoxious. But, you know, so that one's kind of fun. But some of these, they really kind of go after me.

I put it down— just a quick comment— I put it down to the fact that the rule on loud laughter, prohibiting loud laughter, has been quashed. And I think you've now got a free rein to be loud and boisterous because that rule's gone now. So you're okay, you're safe.

So this one came after me a lot harder. There's a guy named Jonah Barnes who took issue with your use of the phrase enemy of the church. You had said at one point that people are labeled enemies of the church, and he said, enemy of the church, not a term. Besides, with friends like Jim Bennett, who needs enemies? And as we went down, he calls me a boomer, and he says all these things, and I actually responded. See, this is the thing, you should never respond to these kinds of things. They don't necessarily go anywhere. That's positive. But he, he got really personal with both you and with me. And later on, I'm going to read this comment. He said, Ian, you're fine, Ian. I don't know you, but you're very right about your experience in the church. It's all you. That's in capitals. All you. I can't even recognize which church you two are talking about. It's like people with zero experience in the church were using what they read online to write a Hollywood movie script in a place where everyone seems happy.

He has that in quotes.

So my view on the church is totally incompatible with yours, but hey, tomato, tomato. It's hard to hear people like Jim standing up as representing my family and then do absolutely nothing but slander it. Jim can't find one hard word for the devil but he's got a million grievances with the church. Some people actually love the church. It saved their life and it saved their family. It's the dearest thing in the world to them. For Hanoi Jim, it's a political piñata upon which he can showcase his open-mindedness, his reasonability, his intellectual superiority to those plebs in the pews. For him, every sin is forgivable except for being unenlightened. I don't think you're arrogant, Ian. I'm sorry you had a bad experience, and I'm sad you somehow thought your way out of Christ's circle. But if you're looking for a counterpoint to your experience, Jim's not the guy. He hasn't said a positive thing about Christ's kingdom in a long time. Maybe if all those little people left, then he'd be comfortable uttering a kind word about it. Those are the comments that are the reason you don't read the comments, because it would be very easy to take great offense at that, because I don't think this is constructive criticism. I think this is somebody with an ax to grind who's very upset about the fact that you and I are having conversations outside the kinds of boundaries that he would like to see set, and it's vicious. I mean, I'm Hanoi Jim, and you're lying because you're the only one who's ever had this experience in the church, and you've thought your way out of Christ's circle. I went on to respond, but say, your total lack of empathy for Ian and your rude dismissal and harsh judgment of me paradoxically make it encouraging that you don't recognize my faith as being in any way similar to your own. It's because people like you make boorish comments like this that our podcast is necessary. And I firmly believe that when he says things like, uh, Jim can't find one hard word for the devil, but he's got a million grievances with the church. I have to wonder what he thinks, uh, the devil is doing. Or where he thinks the devil is. Does he not think that members of the church do things, as you talked about, that are wrong, that are influenced by things that are not of God? And, you know, I think I've got nothing but strong words for the devil. I just see the devil in places that he refuses to see the devil. He refuses to see that there's anything within the church that deserves commentary or that needs to be brought out into the light. And to call me Hanoi Jim, and some people actually love the church, he says, saved their life and saved their family. I think you, Ian, would say the church saved your life. And that I love the church. If I didn't love the church, I wouldn't be a member of the church. I wouldn't have devoted my life to the church. The fact that I express my love for the church in ways that make him uncomfortable actually delights me to no end. I just don't think we do the church any favors when we try to brush things under the rug, when we try to pretend there aren't problems, when we try not to solve them, when we try to pretend we have a choice as to whether or not we're going to confront all of the hard issues. So it, it's really been remarkable to me that online The people that have been cruelest to me and most vicious are the people who consider themselves to be the most righteous members of the church, that hold themselves up as a light to the world, that, gee, we are the people that everybody should be like. These are the Desnats. These are the people who subscribe to the Deseret Nation Christian white nationalist philosophies. That I think do the church far more harm than any critic of the church could ever do. That when you are somebody who represents the church and is— are trying to say, hey, I am a paragon of church values, and then lives a life that demonstrates racism and bigotry and all the kinds of things that the church needs to get away from, then people see that and say, geez, if that's the church, I don't want any part of it. So I push back as hard as I can on this kind of stuff and just say, look, you know, if you think that my religion is nothing like yours, then I'm going to count that as a win and walk away. Because if your religion is about belittling people and mocking people and being vicious to people who disagree with you and treating people who leave the church like dirt, then that's a religion I'm not interested in. I'm interested in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, which I believe teaches precisely the opposite of that kind of behavior. So I guess I got a little heavy there too, but that, that was the one comment that rankled me more than any of the others.

I read those comments and I just saw this as somebody who is deliberately maybe twisting or trying to give a different interpretation or influence, uh, readers to arrive at a different interpretation of what we were trying, intending to do. We see many wonderful things in the church. You know, I'm out of the church, I see extraordinary things in the church, and I want the church to improve. Uh, you're very positive about the church. You're also appropriately critical with the church, where the church needs to improve. You said that it doesn't do us any favors when we brush things under the carpet. I think it damages the church, actually, when we're not open and honest. You know, the scriptures, the lessons are replete with references and quotes for being honest and being open. And let's talk about the issues, and, you know, let's have those open discussions. And so some people, unfortunately, this individual, I think, and I don't know if this is genuine on their part, but I don't know if they really think that there's nothing wrong with the church. Do they actually think that everything in the church is functioning right? That we all are lined up with, you know, with, um, saintly views on everything and, and, uh, that we're all, you know, like angels or, uh, all is well, all is well. I mean, the scriptures warn against that kind of thing, you know. And so if things are so great, why are we reminded constantly? Every conference we're reminded for decades, you know, over 100 years, we always go back to those fundamental principles that the leaders always remind the members of the basics of the church because we're not there yet on some things. So if this person thinks that, you know, all is well in Zion and there's no problem, we're making a big hoo-ha out of it, I agree with them that their experience is completely different to mine. That is not my experience. And to suggest— and the church did save my life, absolutely. And to suggest that I fought my way out of the church, I— when I read that, I was like puzzled by that because I didn't want to leave the church. I didn't want to leave the church. It broke my heart. I actually cried. I pulled to the side of the road. I couldn't drive. I completely sobbed my heart out when I realized there were these issues that I realized were real, real, Jim Bennett, real issues, real problems that hadn't, that had been covered up. It absolutely devastated me. I'm one of those people, like perhaps many, that not only wanted the church to be true and right and all these things, I needed it to be because those things that actually saved me in the beginning and I wanted those things to remain true and, and honest. And some of them, not all of them, some of them were not. And so to suggest I fought my way out of the church is completely false. It's entirely untrue. You know, I, I, I fought to stay in. I fought to stay in. I left because I, I needed to maintain my integrity. And I even said to my family, you know, that look, you know, I'll keep quiet on these issues. I'll go to church, I'll keep quiet, I won't ask the questions. But my family said, we can't have you being like that. We can't have you not being yourself. We can't— it is wrong for you to, to keep that in and not to be authentic and to be open and to, you know, and to sit there quietly in, in pain. And it was a mental anguish for me. And not being able to ask questions or, or have an open conversation was absolute hell. But I was prepared to do that in order to keep my family. So talking about fighting to get out, it's an absolute, uh, it's a complete joke. I'm not insulted by it because I choose not to be, you know, to be insulted by it, but, but it's, it's absurd.

Should we pick another one? Sure.

Uh, just a quick one here. There's somebody that I know from my old stake in England, and this person suggested that because they know somebody who's Black, who is from South Africa and is a leader in the church. They knew somebody from South Africa who were Black and they were in leadership, and therefore that means there's no people in the church that, you know, that are against Blacks or have any, you know, uh, negative racist views, etc. So I kind of pushed back pretty hard on that. I won't get into that too much because I think we've covered quite a bit already. A few other comments that they They were, I think they were impressed with the conversation, recognized the good in the church, uh, but they didn't recognize that I'd been shunned. Very surprised, he says, they are very surprised and disappointed that without Ian has been treated by his former church members. He should be treated with the same love and respect in which he was treated before leaving. I'm surprised because I just don't see that kind of negative attitude towards those who left the church in my ward and stake. So I, I, I respect that and, and that I don't disbelieve that. I'm sure this person hasn't seen that. And, and I think that's great. So if you've got a ward or, or, um, you know, a stake that is very supportive where you've got that leadership and the— because the leaders follow the members at that level, I think that's great. If, if people can show love and kindness to people who are leaving and just be a friend, I think that's wonderful. And, and, and it's good that that person's not seen that. However, in my experience, and I'm not alone, um, there are there is lots of evidence where people have been shunned. They've been cut off, they've been shunned, they've been discredited. And in my case, I've had a few pretty awful negative comments about me as an individual and, you know, failed father and failed husband and leading my family astray and, and I'm going to go off the rails, etc., etc. I've had some pretty awful comments said about me. Sadly. Well, I'm not saying that's everybody's experience in leaving, but that's my experience. And I know other people who have left, who have been cut off. And I've even had comments from leaders, not about me, although I wouldn't be surprised, where I've been in a room where someone said, got pretty angry with this person actually, got pretty pissed off with them. They said, we're better off without them. 'Just think about that for a minute. Better off without them because they brought too many problems or they were too much of a burden on, you know, on the church.' And I pushed pretty back, you know, pretty hard back on things like that. So again, it's all down to our own perspective, our own experiences.

No, it's so amazing to me how many people come back and say, 'No, this couldn't have happened because it isn't my experience.' how many people are cocooned in their own preconceptions of what the church is and what their experience is. And it's really remarkable how personal they're willing to get to lash out at those who dare to challenge that. I've got this one comment, I am pretty, pretty, pretty sick of Jim retreading the same story about modeling something he's no model for at all. It's as jarring to me as Sports Illustrated telling me that 81-year-old Martha Stewart is a supermodel. Enough. He's as internetty as people get and wholly uncharitable about whatever he gets back. He's the epitome of the meme of someone shoveling crap onto the internet, then crying when it comes back. And I read that and I don't know what I'm supposed to do with that. I mean, how do I take that and, and be better as a result? All that is is just nastiness. People think that because, uh, there's a comment later on, there's this one guy who follows me around all over the place, and he made a series of comments and he didn't even watch the video. And so I don't really want to respond to him because I've responded to him in a bunch of different places. And then somebody in response, when I finally said, look, You'd probably be better off not stalking me and getting on with your life. And then some guy, uh, Metroid1402, at the end of this whole thing, he says, you can't make yourself a public figure and then complain when detractors point out to your audience your hypocrisy or fallacious thinking. And my response was, yes, I can. I can't. Of course I can. First of all, I don't know what defines a public figure. I'm not an elected official. I'm not a, um, I don't have a high ecclesiastical calling. What qualifies me as a public figure? At the same time, also, because I'm a public figure, does that mean you have the right to be rude to me? Does that mean that I don't have the right to defend myself? Or push back against people who are dumping garbage on my head. People don't realize very often, and I see this in politics as much as I do in the church, they don't realize that there are real people behind the faces or the voices that they hear online. The people, you know, my father was so good at letting that roll off his back because I remember in his final campaign that he, that he lost. There were a lot of people that were really upset with him and just said the nastiest possible things to him, not only online, but to his face. And Dad was so good at just letting those go. And I wasn't. I would get frustrated on his behalf. I think you can beat up on me a lot and I'll be fine. You start beating up on my dad and I really get hot under the collar over that. And I've sort of gotten better with that too over time. But it's just stunning to me how many people see a public figure as somebody where you have a license to be rude, you have a license to be unkind. And I just don't think that's the case. And what's kind of fun is that whenever I find that there's somebody talking about me or my CES letter reply or something else in some kind of forum, The minute I wade into the forum and say, hi, I'm Jim Bennett, I'm the guy you're talking about, the comments invariably get kinder. It's a lot harder to hate somebody when you get to know them. And once they're actually there and they show up, people realize, huh, maybe I ought to tone this down just a little bit. So when I read these comments and I, and I think about this, uh, I have to recognize that there is something performative happening here, that these guys are sort of putting on a show for not me, but for a whole bunch of other people. And they look better, they look like bigger heroes if they take Jim Bennett and Ian Wilkes down a peg. And I have to recognize that there's that element of it, that this isn't necessarily entirely directed at me. It's also trying to sort of puff out your chest and look like a big man in front of the world.

So I think those comments are very appropriate, and I think it's the very balanced comments. I think these comments that are made against you or I personally, they've probably got issues in their own life. Maybe it's because they, they are not, not targeting Uri specifically to just the intent of discrediting us. But they're speaking to the audience that we're trying to reach to help, you know, try to influence those people's thinking as well. As I said at the very beginning, most people are smart. They'll see through it. And they will understand, especially because they don't know you or they don't know me, that they'll, they'll, nothing you can do with some people, they'll arrive at their own conclusion. You can't influence them. All you have to do is like your dad, you know, grow a thick skin, brush it off, try to respond, you know, positively, constructively, respectfully, not go down to their level. If they've got a valid point, an absolute substantive point they want to make about something, great, you know, bring it on, absolutely. You know, we're going to get hopefully constructive comments, but you're going to get those personal things as well, for sure. Just going to a couple more, a couple of other things if I can, Jim Bennett here, which I think are really important. There was a comment I made in the podcast, uh, with Steve Heinecke and yourself, uh, and someone said, who exactly was in the church who suggested that missionaries should stay away from poorer areas because they can't pay higher tithes? Was it a joke in passing or an actual point being made to the missionaries? Because that is an absolute abominable thing to say about the poor. So again, it's different perspective, different experiences. So I've been in conversations or been receiving end of conversations and comments in the church a couple times at the leadership level where people from poor areas, and it's been stated, could be a burden on the welfare program, right? So when we're talking about working class, I'm from a, extremely poor working class neighborhood where we had nothing. We had to borrow money to live, government-funded, heavily subsidized housing. My school uniform for school, cuz we had in UK you have school uniforms, was paid for by the government. The source is deep embarrassing for me. My school meals were paid for by the government. There's only, there's a few of us that in school that had that. And everybody knew who was who is poor. Um, so often quite a dysfunctional community, and it's naive to think that you do not bring those in the church. And it's naive, especially from a leadership perspective, it's naive to think that those issues—personal, financial, emotional, physical—do not have a burden on the church. It's completely naive to think that there's no, uh, impact to the church resources whatsoever. The opposite is true. So when, you know, when I joined the church, I had no clothes, I had no money, no income coming in. The members that I stayed with were extraordinary, but there was a period of time where I was on welfare and I was a burden to the church and I hated it. I couldn't stand it. It was a short period of time, very full of pride, and I found it very difficult to accept help, frankly. But I was a burden on the church. When you've got that in those communities who are joining the church in, in decent numbers, that is a burden on the church. And there's conversations about, you know, church welfare funds and can we afford it and can we support people from these poorer communities from a welfare perspective. It's naive to think that those conversations don't happen. In fact, the training around working with individuals who require welfare support is very thorough now compared to what it used to be. You— the bishop meets with the member, they have to provide their source of evidence of income and outgoings, they have to provide evidence of what they're doing looking for work. There's a lot of, uh, uh, uh, responsibility on the member who needs the welfare before they, the bishop approves support for welfare, that they, the member has to go through lots of hoops that they have to jump through, questions they have to answer before they qualify for welfare. It didn't used to be like that. It was a situation where the bishop knew the person was struggling and therefore helped them, you know, and often it was from poor areas. So, you know, these people that come from poor neighborhoods, They can be a burden to the church. There are also places that can be unsafe. You and I know what we talk about. We've served the mission in the UK. Like anywhere in the world, there are places where the missionaries shouldn't go because they're unsafe. And one of my neighborhoods was one of them. The missionaries were told not to serve in my neighborhood because of crime. And so the church does, is, is, does track how much he's spending on welfare. He tracks, uh, the safety of his missionaries, which he should do. There's another aspect that came into the conversations, and, and again, this, this won't be believed by some, but folks— and I include myself— just to a great extent come into the church and they're not educated. They haven't done well in school. They can't get into college. They've had to work, they've had to leave school and work to provide for the family because the family's struggling financially. They haven't performed at school and they don't have the education and the knowledge or the skills, and they don't have the leadership skills. And they, they're not seen at times as being a, as a, as a leader. And this is me, I'm describing comments that were made about me and comments that were made against me specifically. Or about me specifically. I can understand why they were said. I can understand where they were coming from, and I can accept, understand that someone like me joining the church was a burden. You know, I wasn't— was kind of average educated, and I can understand a judgment that, you know, Ian is, is perhaps not somebody we should spend some time on because it, it— this is not an area that you get leadership from or you get, uh, strength from. In my case, you know, it turned out very different. And because we don't hear about those conversations or see them or come across them, doesn't mean that, you know, they don't happen. And again, I'm speaking from things that I heard about me joining the church. That's my response to that comment. Do you want to do another one yourself?

Sure. Well, I Just in response to that, I remember when I was serving in Dundee in Scotland, the bishop was concerned about the area we were tracting in. I think it was called Beechwood, if that makes any sense. Okay. And he said, you really shouldn't go to Beechwood. And he didn't say anything about money, but he said you shouldn't go there because you're not going to get a lot of leadership there. However, I'm from Beechwood and I do okay. I thought, what is the message here? Uh, you know, you were, you were tractored out in Beachwood and you're now a bishop and you're holding yourself up as the person that we should be looking for. We kept tractoring in Beachwood. We didn't find anybody, but we kept tractoring there. Now, some of these were very strange. I mean, there was this one comment, some people need public housing where rents or private rentals were beyond their paycheck of the average worker. 'Why bash the poor? Are they lazy?' And I listen to that and I go, 'Where on earth did we bash the poor?' And I think they were talking about your experiences where you were talking about your own poverty and the difficulty that you had and seeing that as bashing the poor. It's just really remarkable to me that people listen to this and they hear whatever they want to hear. Or they mishear whatever they want to hear. Not all the comments are nasty. There are a lot of them that are very kind. Great episode, guys. Thanks for interviewing Ian and Jim Bennett and introducing their new podcast. I think it will be very useful. I will definitely subscribe to it and listen on it to it on occasion. This was an interesting one. So why can't you speak with other leaders in private? Not everyone is ready spiritually to hear those things. And I thought that nobody responded to that, but I think there are a lot of people who think, geez, look, I know there are problems in the church. I know that there are these issues, but why do you have to take them public? I had a conversation with a family member where I was really excited about the fact that Deseret Book had published Let's Talk About Race and the Priesthood by W. Paul Reeve. Which is a short book that outlines the history of the priesthood restriction and makes it very, very clear that it was a mistake, that Brigham Young was buying into a Protestant justification for slavery. And the mistake went uncorrected because no one was willing— well, for, for the most part, at the beginning, no one really disagreed with it. It was in line with the social mores of the time. But as time went on and it became very clear that this was discriminatory and inappropriate, it was very difficult for church leaders to publicly admit that Brigham Young had made a mistake. And so they perpetuated the mistake, which became a mistake in and of itself. Anyway, this book is published by Deseret Book, and it acknowledges that the church has made mistakes and that the priesthood restriction was a mistake. And I was talking to a family member about this, and he says, well, geez, if you say that publicly, if you admit that publicly, it's just going to set off this huge firestorm. And I just looked at him and I said, do you— have you looked online? Do you think there isn't a huge firestorm already? And Paul Reeves' comment was, look, President Nelson is telling us to root out racism. How do you root out racism in the church? If you're not allowed to look at the roots, if you're not allowed to see where it came from, why it took root, and why we have to get rid of it. Yes. And this kind of an attitude is really one of the main reasons why I think this podcast is necessary and why we're going to continue to do this, why I'm going to continue to do this, is because this idea that 'Oh, people aren't ready to hear this.' 'Oh, why don't you just talk about this in private? Why don't you talk about this behind closed doors and not bring it out into the open?' We don't have a choice anymore, folks. We do not have a choice. People are already talking about these things. The question is, do we want to be a constructive part of the conversation or not? Do we want people to talk about the church with or without input from faithful, thoughtful people who are trying to do everything they can to advance the cause of Zion. Because when we just sort of say, okay, we're not going to talk about this stuff publicly, then we're leaving the conversation to the people who don't have anything nice to say about us. We don't have a choice. There is no other path. That leads to a productive and helpful and healthy church than having open conversations.

I concur with all of that. The internet changed everything for the world, not just the church. It certainly changed it for the world. The church has been— controlled the narrative, as you know, for a long time, and now the internet arrived And all the stuff, a lot of the anti-Mormon stuff, or so-called anti-Mormon stuff that came on, a lot of it, or some of it, turned out to be, uh, historical fact. And the church has— there's evidence. And this is, this is one of— this is a really important point to make for me, at least. I learned independently from all the research that I'd conducted in determining whether I should stay in the church or whether the church was really what it claimed to be. Lots of research, podcasts, conversations, desperately wanting to be, uh, true, desperately wanting to be right, uh, desperately wanting to stay in, fight my way to stay in with every fiber of my, of my being. And then realizing that the church, even to a small extent, if I'm being extremely gracious towards the church, which I probably being too gracious here, but the evidence that the church has deliberately covered up, concealed, misdirected, hid, tried to, uh, manage facts and truth and contain it, et cetera, does exist. You could argue, sure, there's only a little bit of it, but for me, any attempts by church leaders past or present to deliberately cover up facts and truth, however uncomfortable that may be, and we have in various aspects of our history, Jim Bennett, uh, and, uh, uh, uh, history, which is dark. It's a, a dark underbelly of, of problems and complexities. The church is fraught with all kinds of issues historically over the years. I, I can understand why the church has tried to limit the information, control it, control the narrative. Perhaps, you know, not perhaps, but absolutely try to cover it. I can understand the, the, the motive behind it. I really do. I, I get it. But that doesn't justify that the church has, and to some extent continues to do that. And I could never get away. I think one of the, the, the fulcrums of, um, my decision of leaving was the absolutely undeniable, undeniable unquestionable evidence that the church has behaved like this on some things. And I'm being gracious here. You know, I could say many things and I, and I should say many, cuz it's been, it is quite a few things for me, but even just a few things are the most important on the most important truths and facts, the fundamental of the church, et cetera. The fact that it, it, it still continues, it has to, and it continues to try to, to cover up and try to manage that narrative. Is for me at least not of God. God doesn't behave like that. God's honest, open, and truthful. God doesn't hold back. We know that God and Christ do not hold back. They've nothing to hide. The pleats plain, plain truth. The truth speaks for themselves. They don't hide stuff. They don't lie. They don't cover up. They don't conceal. They don't misdirect. They're not like that. We know that. We know that they're not like that. Otherwise, if they are, we're all in trouble. The whole universe is in trouble. They're not like that. This behavior, this behavior is man, man-made, man, man, man perpetuated. It's not of God. And so there, there are significant elements in the church where the church is lost its way. It's not followed the, you know, the truthfulness. And as it continues to, in certain elements of leadership, try to control or at least manage the narrative and not move in a healthy way, in a more progressive way towards having open discussion, open dialogue, and say, hey, look, like the book that you referenced earlier, we made mistakes. You know, what's so wrong about putting your hand up and saying, you know, we made a mistake, we screwed up, we got it wrong. It was, and we made some big mistakes, right? I respect that. And I say, great, let's talk about them. Let's look at the roots. What do we learn from that? How can we get better? You know, this conversation that we're having right now, you and I, this right now in this podcast or at this stage in the podcast, why can't the leaders have this conversation which I'm sure they, some of them do, but why can't they act upon it? Why can't they say, look, you know, let's be more open about this, let's talk about these issues, let's get it in the open. And the reason why is, I believe, I think a big part of it's financial. I think it's, they would lose some of the Orthodox members. I think they are shifting, but they are strategically positioning, repositioning, shifting their, positions on things slowly over time in order to optimize and maintain retention of members, not, uh, have any, uh, outrageous shifts or too sudden, you know, uh, tsunami-type events, you know, in, in, in the church. And they're trying to do it gradually, you know, make the changes gradually over time. And eventually, 10, 20, 30 years from now, uh, they will say, probably, you know, we've always felt like this, always had this position, and, and, you know, they were wrong and, and, and, and they will, you know, probably disavow more things in the future. I, I, I think it's, um, a lack of leadership. I think it's a lack of integrity. I, I think it's sad that we're not talking more openly about these issues, you know, you know, from a church leadership perspective and really taking them head on. But, but I see what's motivating them, you know, behind the leaders, why they're trying to do it in a gradual way. I, I understand what they're doing. I think I understand why they're doing it. I don't agree with it. And these books, you know, by, published by Desirée, I think they are helpful. And, but I think the church has to take a, a more clear, defined position on all kinds of issues and just stand up. The prophets stand up and say, look, you know, there are issues. There are some real issues in the church. And it's okay to have these questions because we messed up, and it's not bad or normal. You shouldn't be shunned. You know, these questions are normal, they're natural, given on some of these issues, some of these topics. And to have that bold leadership instead of, you know, keep the faith, stay in the boat, where will he go, what will he do if you leave the church, only ask faithful questions— it's just, it's just archaic, and the church has lost its way. There's one other comment I want to touch upon before we probably break here, unless there's something more pressing that you want to share.

Well, I just want to comment on all of that because I think the church— I think it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater to say the church has lost its way, it's over, the church has done all these things. The church has, has made mistakes. There's no question about that. I am encouraged by many of the things that the church is now doing to correct some of the errors of the past, particularly with regard to history. The Joseph Smith Papers Project is a massive undertaking of incredible transparency that few organizations would be able to willingly subject themselves to that kind of scrutiny. Now, at the same time, people in the rank and file members aren't reading the 12 different Joseph Smith Papers volumes, and they aren't combing through that. Uh, so the, you know, the essays, the things that are moving towards transparency have not been highlighted by church leadership to the extent that I would like to see. But for the members who are interested in them, they are there. And I think we're going through a very sort of uncomfortable transition period. You know, there are people who will quote the essays in Sunday school classes and be told to stop quoting anti-Mormon material. And you say, no, this is, this is from the church's website. You know, the church is putting out the information, but they're doing it quietly and they're doing it without trying to ruffle feathers, thinking that they have this sort of choice. And I think ripping the Band-Aid off quickly is a much better approach. But I am still optimistic that we're going to get where we need to be, but it's going to require hard conversations and difficult— but, but I, I am not willing to just say, okay, well, church has lost its way, it's over, let's just toss this out and move on. Because I, I still feel, uh, I, I, I, I believe very strongly the Lord's hand continues to be in this church. Despite the weaknesses of its members, despite the weaknesses of its leaders.

And again, I acknowledge that. That's what I love about this podcast. When you and I, we, you know, we're inside out, we see it from different perspectives, different background. You know, I've made some comments there from my perspective. You've come back constructively from your perspective. We both write, I think, to some extent. But the fact that we can have this civil discourse, you and I, disagree maybe on some things and agree on some other things. I think it's really healthy. You know, we're not all, you and I are not always going to agree. And I think that's the quality of the podcast where we can challenge each other constructively. And there's no reason why, you know, people online can't, we can't have this civil discourse. In a constructive discourse, you said earlier about some of the negative, very personal comments. I think we're living in a time of, of, um, great divisiveness. You know, the society is divided. It's everywhere. You know, you just, you, you just look at the news or you read something or you have a conversation with it. Is the society across the world, not just in the US, but see this in the UK, divided on so many things. There's so much, uh, vitriol and so much anger online. And, and that will come through into, you know, the podcast that you and I are going to do. And that's an important element, uh, to understand that people's personal and professional perspectives and ideologies and philosophies come into their responses in regards to the stuff that you and I are doing and will continue to do. And I think it's healthy, and it's important to have— bring that level of civil discourse back into society. Let's, let's, let's agree to disagree. Let's let's not be personal. Let's not issue any personal threats or any, you know, personal insulting comments. Let's try to have a balance. Let's try to have good constructive discussions. And if we disagree on some stuff, you know, I think the church has lost its way on, on not everything, on many, on some things, quite a few things. You don't, and that's okay. And, and, and that's fine. You know, we have different perspectives and I, I respect that.

Well, as soon as I start shouting, all bets are off.

Well, I don't know, because the law or the rule prohibiting loud laughter is gone now. So I think you can shout. You should shout from the rooftops. All right.

You've got one final comment there.

Yeah. And I quite like— I know of all these. Again, I welcome really good, constructive, hard cold-eyed comments on anything that we say, because I think that we learn from that. And I think we could talk about that. And as we do, people, we all get our own different perspectives and share our own experiences. This comment was about a question about how do you reconcile the spiritual guidance you've had in your calling? So we're talking about feeling the spirit, understand it correctly. This person says that I've been in the state primary presidency, was set apart, felt a tangible difference. Gifts of the Holy Ghost were manifest. I, I love people I'd never met. That's just wonderful. Uh, automatically it was just there. It was there. It was real, of course. Um, of course, I don't doubt that the spirit was strong throughout the calling. I was so blessed with extra capacity, so much love. It was real, and there was no way I could deny it. When I was released again, it was tangible. Everything Um, those blessings that I'd had given, been given for that calling left immediately. I grieved for it, not because I desired a certain calling, that's not my personality at all, but because I missed the extra connection with God and I missed the feelings of promptings and all the tremendous love for mankind, but especially for the children of my stake, even the ones who weren't members. I love them too. It was very real to me. Did you ever experience this like this in stake? Yes. A, a, a, um, source of heartbreak for me, Jim Bennett, and it devastated me and it continues to break my heart, is the loss of community, but the loss of the opportunity to be able to serve members in the same spirit, in the same way that that individual described in that message there. You know, if you've not gone through what I've gone through, or someone like me has gone through, where you've been completely immersed in helping people for the sake of helping, not because of a position or a title. I never cared for stuff like that. I actually never wanted that. Uh, I never wanted the bishop. I was a branch president on the mission, still am, never released me. That was a very bad experience for me. It was tough. I was only a missionary. I, I couldn't deal with the membership issues at that time as a young kid on a missionary. It was my first taste of leadership. It, it wasn't a good experience. I didn't seek leadership. I didn't want it. Anyway, came my way. I put my heart and soul into it, wanted to help, love people, support. And I think hopefully, for the most part, I made a difference, a positive difference, I hope. And so I— that is gone now for me, that's all disappeared. And so my— well, from the church perspective, I still serve in the community. And I still do what I can, but it's not the same. The church is an extraordinary vehicle, as you know, for providing, delivering extraordinary support and help for people in a way that, uh, perhaps many or most other organizations can't provide. And I miss that. And, and I miss that spirituality of being able to serve and help in no matter what calling it is. I don't care, uh, in the church, because it was extraordinary. One of the sources of, of, um, experiences that was absolutely devastating to me, uh, personally was the, the food drive, the state food drive that I initiated, helped initiate in the area where we are. For the first time, I was the chairman of the— I was assigned on the state president— I was the chairman of the, uh, food drive committee for the entire community. That was wonderful, working with all these organizations and actually helped set that up, was leading that, building that across the stake and, and elsewhere, working collaboratively with other stakes, etc. So a number of years of, of wonderful experience building that food drive program. And then when I left the church, I was hoping that the church would retain my— our family. You know, we would drop the bags off, uh, and then we'd go around in the pickup truck around the community and pick up the bags. The kids would run to the houses and pick up all the, the bags with all the food in. It was fun. We drive slowly around the, these neighborhoods, you know, with the tailgate down and we'd be collecting 10, 20, 30, 40 bags, you know, back of the pickup and then take that to the food drive. I was saddened a couple years ago not to be, to be uninvited to the food drive event. And then I decided, which is a foolish thing to do, I think, drive down, and at the same time I drove to the neighborhood where our route was, where we, we do, it was our same route that we'd have every year. And I saw a family on our route driving around with a pickup and the kids there, and they were doing what we, we did in the same streets, the same neighborhood. I, I could see they were serving and they were having a, uh, it was a really positive experience for them and I felt that. But I see that, and not to be part of that was very difficult for me to experience that because I felt excluded. And, um, um, I'm sorry, being a bit emotional, but it was very painful to see. I don't see why we couldn't have been part of the You know, that experience, we could still give, we can still provide, we could serve, and we could still help even though we're not, you know, going to church. And I, I, I felt quite foolish driving around and, and, or driving to that neighborhood at that time and watching someone else, um, on our route with, you know, a route, uh, do, do the thing that we did. And, uh, it, it broke my heart and, um, So, you know, I think, you know, this is my experience. I think if others don't have that experience, if they feel loved and supported and still connect to this, I think that's great. And I, I miss that. So to that question, I do feel a big difference in some ways, you know, not having that opportunity to serve. However, stay positive, stay in the position of giving. We do other things in the community now. And so that opportunity to serve has been replaced, not to the same extent by any means. But we still do what we can to help others. And, you know, we, we do that in our own way now. And so You know, if people are struggling, my counsel, my advice is to love them, to be the friend, to listen. Don't judge them too harshly. Don't pressure them to come back to church. Just give them some space. Be a friend. I would say, you know, it's what Christ taught is, is, uh, you know, he talked about them, be ye my friends.. And I think that's a really important positive message, probably to, you know, to highlight here. Just, just be a friend, be a real friend. So I just want to kind of respond in that way to that message.

I think that's a great way to end this. So appreciate you sharing that, Ian. You're a good man. I appreciate everybody who was listening to this. If you like our podcast, Please subscribe to it wherever you get your podcasts, and until next time, we will see you on Inside Out. Thank you, Ian.

Thank you, Jim Bennett.