Elder Holland and the BBC

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

I'm fine. Good morning to you, Jim. How are you?

I'm all right. Let's talk about this interview with Elder Jeffrey R. Holland that was conducted by the BBC in 2012. It was conducted by John Sweeney of the BBC, and I remember watching it at the time and just being floored by a number of different things in it. John Sweeney Um, just a little bit background on him. Uh, I have long followed John Sweeney's coverage of the Church of Scientology, which has occupied a great deal of his time and a great deal of his output. And he got into screaming matches with the Church of Scientology representative that he's quite embarrassed by, that he's, he's owned up to and admitted that that was inappropriate. But his coverage of the Church of Scientology focuses on Scientology's excesses and how it's a cult and how it's out to destroy everybody. And there's a lot of material there. And so when it was clear that he was going to come after the church, it was also clear that he was going to sort of use the Scientology template. He tries to frame the church very much as the Church of Scientology. And that even comes up in this interview with Elder Holland. He says you're just like the Church of Scientology, only you're smarter. Uh, I don't think that's a fair assessment. I, I really don't. I know it's easy, it's, it's, it's kind of fun to make fun of the Church of Scientology when they talk about Xenu, the evil galactic emperor that is frozen for thousands of years, and all the weird silliness But you can make Mormonism sound just as strange, so that's not the part that, uh, that I've been interested in as I followed this. The Church of Scientology very much engages in official disconnection from members who leave. They're labeled as suppressive persons, and you're not allowed to interact with them even if they are members of your own family. That comes up in this interview. A few other things come up in this interview that make it clear that John Sweeney is approaching the church as if it is just sort of another manifestation of Scientology, and I don't think that's a fair assessment. However, uh, the interview with Elder Holland is problematic on a number of levels, as we'll see. We're going to actually go through the audio, but my understanding is that you've wanted to do this because Even though this is, this is an interview that's over a decade old, this interview was a seminal experience for you as you were wrestling with the church as to whether or not you were going to stay. Is that correct?

It is correct. The, the interview with Ella Holland and John Sweeney was a major factor in my decision a few years later to leave. I'd met Elder Holland a few times. I found him to be professional, businesslike, a little bit prickly, very blunt, which is fine, but very strong in terms of leadership. As you know, his son Matt served in our mission before you came out on the mission. So Matt and I—

he was, he was there when he was the AP when I got there.

He was, yeah. And prior to him being the AP, him and I tracted in Edinburgh. We, uh, we We weren't companions, but we did tract frequently when I was, I think, a district leader. He was the zone leader in Edinburgh. We shared the same flat apartment and we would do trades and we'd tract in the rainy city of Edinburgh. And I found Matt to be extremely kind, loving. I've heard some very negative things about him, which I think are unwarranted, but he was a very effective, a tremendous leader, wonderful young man. Very honest, very sincere, hard worker, and just a wonderful individual to, to work with. Elder Jacobs and I worked extensively with President Dunn and Elder Holland and Elder Samson, who we call our last companion, to develop what was the Doctrine of Charity, which was the 7th installment of a monthly learning program that Elder Dunn had initiated. I think one of them was repentance and Holy Ghost, and that the one that the piece that they, the mission was trying to understand and develop to accelerate and advance the proselyting efforts of the church. We worked with Elder President Dunn and Elder Holland and Elder Sampson to develop the doctrine of charity, which was, you know, to love the people of Scotland, to love the members I love the investigators. And it was through love, it was that whole month focus of conversation on charity that was the, if you like, the final piece in Elder Dunn's program of trying to understand how we could live with more exactness and live with more focus on how we could accelerate and balance the pros and cons. I received a personal letter from Matt, Elder Holland. I think Jacobs did as well. In regards to, uh, uh, that work that we did. And he promised to buy me a slush drink. What do you call it?

A Slurpee?

A Slurpee. He didn't use that word. He didn't use it. It was a slush something. You might want to take, take this out, please.

Slushie. A slushie or a Slurpee.

A slushie or a Slurpee, uh, drink if I ever found myself in, in Salt Lake. Matt was an amazing, uh, guy. He's a personal friend, and I love him and respect him. He was a wonderful missionary and just a wonderful guy to be with. Um, the Holland family, I, I've, um, again, I have a lot of respect for. And he was— Elder Holland was the General Authority over the Europe West Mission. He ruled it, uh, quite, uh, quite strictly, but I found him to be a very effective leader. And so I do have quite a lot of affection for the Holland family, and mostly through that. But it was a major factor in, uh, in my decision to, uh, to leave. Uh, just a bit of context and background. This interview was, uh, happened, uh, not only on the back of the Scientology, uh, research that, uh, John Sweeney did, um, but it was also on the back of what Elder Oaks described to us when we were on the Stake Presidency, um, which was the, what they call the Mormon moment. So Mitt Romney was running for the presidency You were involved directly or indirectly with that campaign, my understanding, that's my understanding. It was the Marvin moment for the church. Al-Holland gave very clear instructions to all the state presidents that this was an opportunity to, quote, "advance and accelerate the cause of the church," end quote, and that we were to be involved in activities that were maximizing, optimizing this particular opportunity. In fact, he said that the spotlight was on the church.. And I think in hindsight, you probably wished, uh, over the last decade or so, you probably wish that the church had less of the spotlight now, especially with the development and, and emergence further of the, of the internet. But the Mormon moment was on the back of the Elder, uh, sorry, Mitt Romney, uh, presidential campaign. And again, the church was trying to bring the leaders, trying to bring the church out of, uh, obscurity. And it was in that context, that background, that this interview took place on the back of Scientology. He made a comment earlier about, uh, that it was perhaps a little bit unfair to characterize the church similar to what John Sweeney had done with the Church of Scientology. I, I think from a non-member's perspective, I think it's not an unfair, uh, perspective to take on the church. I think it's quite easy for non-members to see the church in a very similar view as the Church of Scientology. There's some very unique and very peculiar— we call ourselves a peculiar church, but there's certainly peculiarities about the church that non-members find cultish. And so I think it's, um, it's understandable that non-members take that view, similar to Scientology. When you're inside the church and we can see it from both sides, then yeah, we can see that the church is, um, you know, that Swedenborg has been a little bit too harsh. And considering the church as a cult me being on the outside now, you're on the inside, I actually see both sides a little bit more clearer. I do see that aspect of the church, again, similar to what non-members see of the church. And so without further ado, I think that the idea is to show excerpts of the video. And again, do you want to highlight something as well when you show this? Under the advice of somebody, a good friend of mine, they said, Ian, listen to— watch the video rather, watch the video again, and this time don't focus on what Elberhorn is saying. Watch and observe his body language. And when I did that, I found that quite, quite striking and quite disturbing.

Well, we're an audio podcast, unfortunately, so no one's going to be able to see the video. The video— the entire interview was online for a long time, and it's since been pulled down. So I've culled this audio from pieces where other people have responded to this. So, so we're going to— unfortunately, our listeners will only be able to hear the audio. And I don't have the video here for us to look at the video. But you've had that experience of watching it. And I want you to, to comment on that. So without further ado, I'm going to dive into this. I'm just going to play here at the beginning. This is— this was part of a 1-hour discussion of the church, but we've got in here in this audio, we've got all of the exchanges that John Sweeney had with Elder Holland. John Sweeney was in Elder Holland's office in the church office building, which is a really unusual, remarkable thing to happen. That doesn't happen I don't think it's happened since, and I think part of it is that they were embarrassed by how badly this went. But you don't have apostles sitting for interviews like this, uh, very often, if ever. There is also a snippet of a, of a conversation with Michael Purdy that I've put in here. Michael Purdy at the time was the church spokesman, and he's asked about the Strengthening Church Members Committee and gives a really awful answer. And John Sweeney ends up taking that answer to Jeff Holland. So I wanted to have that included in this. But let's just start with the first question and let's listen to it, and then I want to get your reaction to it.

Apostles rarely speak to the media, but I get to meet one of the Quorum of Twelve.

Alder Holland.

So that's John Sweeney.

Joseph Smith got these papyri and he translated them. And subsequently, as the Egyptian Egyptologists cracked the code, something completely different.

All I'm saying, all I'm, all I'm saying is that what got translated got translated into the word of God. The vehicle for that, I do not understand and don't claim to know. I know no Egyptian.

So that's in the first question is in reference to the Book of Abraham. He says we've got the— I mean, we just heard it. He says we had the papyri. What got translated has no relationship to what's on the papyri. And Elder Holland's response is, I don't know the vehicle for that. I don't know how that works. I know no Egyptian. I just know it was translated into the word of God. Do you find that a satisfying answer?

I think it's a very smart answer. I do, within the context of what, you know, the interview and the position that I think he finds himself in very quickly. I think within minutes he realizes this is a big mistake. In hindsight, I think that's been confirmed, but I think it's a very smart answer. He does know about the issues with the, the great prize. They've been around for quite some time. He's not an Egyptologist. He said that they, it got converted or translated into the word of God. You can't argue with that. How do you argue with that? Right? So I think it's a very smart answer. I have no major problem with that. I think that's a very, uh, appropriate answer given the complexity and the difficulty with the Pearl of Great Price. What else could he say? I think, I think right now he's on his toes and at this point is doing, is doing well. Is going okay, notwithstanding, notwithstanding his probably doubt creeping in that this was— whether this was the right thing to do or not to have this interview.

Yeah, I really wish people could see it because it is very clear as the interview progresses that Elder Holland is increasingly uncomfortable. But one of the things that question, that answer highlights— well, two things. One is it's very clear that the church is leaning into what's called the catalyst theory. With regard to the Book of Abraham. They published an essay about the historicity of the Book of Abraham and had all of these theories as to why the book doesn't match the papyri. And the only one that is tenable going forward is this idea of a catalyst theory, which is, yes, this papyri had nothing to do with Abraham, but it was a catalyst to allow Joseph Smith to receive a revelation about Abraham. And there are still some Egyptologists in the church, John Gee particularly, who insists that it's the missing scroll theory that we ought to be looking at, that, that, that yes, we have pieces of what Joseph Smith had, but there is this other scroll out there that was burned up in the Chicago fire. And that is where the Book of Abraham was. And it was written on this papyri. I, I— fewer and fewer people even in the church find that to be a defensible position for a number of reasons. And the church has published the Joseph Smith Papers volume about the Book of Abraham that flatly dismisses that, which was a huge controversy. And I think it drove Brian Hogglet out of the church. But that's another— I'm not sure if he's out of the church entirely, but He was one of the editors. I've since met him, and that was very frustrating for him because the more he got into it, the more he realized, no, you can't defend the idea that the Book of Abraham was on the papyri Joseph Smith had. You have to— if you're going to accept this as revelation, you have to do what Elder Holland just did and just say, look, I don't know anything. All I know is this is the word of God. This is a revelation from God, and the papyrus was a catalyst to receive that revelation.

But okay, and how can you argue against that, right? It's like the stone in the hat, right? How can you argue that that wasn't revelation? So I think that where the church can do that, position itself and use those kind of arguments, it's safe, it's very clever. How can you argue against that, right? So, so far I think his response is smart, but as we get into a becomes increasingly uncomfortable with the way the line of questioning—

All right, let's continue the line of questioning here.

As a historical fact, was Joseph Smith convicted of being a con man in 1826?

I have no idea.

There's a court record in New York.

They—

we've got an email that there's a, there's a, a good deal of difficulty in the, in the early frontier life in America, but that's an incidental matter to the character and integrity of the man.

Since that interview, the church has written saying no charges against Smith ever prevailed.

Okay, so we stopped there. They're bringing up the 1820— said 1826. I thought it was earlier than that, but, uh, it's bringing up the, the— I'll use John Sweeney's date, uh, 1826. There was a hearing where Joseph Smith was charged with being a disorderly person. And as he says at the end, the church finally said no charges prevailed. It's a little messier than that. We don't really know exactly what happened. For, for decades, even centuries, or at least over a century, we did not have the record of this. And Hugh Nibley, in his book The Mythmakers, makes fun of people who bring up this trial. Because he says, we don't have any documents about it. We don't even know about this. This is nonsense. This is something that the anti-Mormons made up. Well, I'm not sure when it happened, but I think it was in the early 21st century, around the turn of the century. They uncovered the, the court records for the trial, and he was charged with leading people to treasure and not having treasure. But the witness that got him not dismissed because we don't really even know the outcome of the trial. Or it wasn't even a trial, it was a hearing. I mean, it becomes very confusing. But the person who testified on Joseph's behalf was Josiah Stowell, who had hired Joseph Smith. And Joseph Smith talks about this in his own history that's actually in the Pearl of Great Price, where he says, we're looking for an abandoned silver mine and this old man hired us and we finally told him to stop digging. And thus began my reputation as a money digger. And Joseph Smith just sort of dismisses that anybody could have any problem with this. But the fact is, he was actually charged with a crime of being a disorderly person. And I don't know what the full implication of a disorderly person is, but it's not good. John Sweeney characterizes it as a con man. And I don't know if that's a fair characterization, but this trial absolutely happened. But Josiah Stowell testified on Joseph's behalf and said Joseph actually could do these miraculous things with his seer stone, and so he shouldn't be charged. And the fact that Josiah Stowell wasn't willing to throw Joseph Smith under the bus is probably the reason Joseph was never convicted of anything here. But you hear Elder Holland respond to it, and the first thing he says is, I have no idea, as I've never heard this before, essentially. And then it's like, well, you know, this was frontier America and da da da da da da. I think a lot of people would listen to that. And the Book of Abraham before, we tend to infuse our apostles with superhuman abilities. Right? These are the men who have all the answers. They have all the priesthood keys. Why don't they have all the answers? My daughter was a student at Brigham Young University, and in one of her teachings of the Living Prophets classes, the teacher got up on— wrote on the chalkboard LDS and then a greater sign. LDS is greater than PhD. And said, you know, the prophets and apostles are the smartest men in the world. President Monson was the president of the church at the time, and this teacher said, Thomas Monson makes Stephen Hawking look like a chump. And my daughter just thought that— I mean, and I remember I posted something about that in a Facebook group and said, oh, Thomas Monson's the smartest man in the world. Is he the strongest too? Can he lift a car? You know, we— so I think a lot of people, even though Elder Holland here hasn't said anything dishonest or even incorrect, the fact that he doesn't know, the fact that he— I've never heard of this. I don't know anything about Joseph Smith's 1826 trial. I don't know anything about the Book of Abraham. I don't have any idea how that happened. I think that lets the wind out of the sails pretty quickly. That these guys don't have the superhuman abilities we attribute to them. Jeff Holland knows as much about the Book of Abraham as you or I do, probably not as much about the Book of Abraham as you or I do. So was that your reaction to it?

It is. Yeah, mostly. Most of that I give them the benefit of the doubt. I, I'm not going to add to what you said because I agree with it. I think it's fair to say that he was probably being honest there. He doesn't know. I think he knows it might— at best, he might know a little bit about it. I heard about it, but that's it. He won't know the detail. And as you said, there's more detail has come out, you know, since this, since this interview. He does talk about the— there's a great deal of difficulty with the, the history of the church, the early stage of the church. I think that's honest as well, because, you know, the church has been restored. You know, it wasn't established like it is today. It's a very different organization back then compared to today, Jim, as you know. I don't even know if the Joseph Smith of Brigham Young would recognize the church today. It's a very, very different organization. But back then, as the restoration is unfolding and rolling out, they're trying to figure things out, trying to organize a structure, how it's going to be organized. There's a priesthood, there's all these revelations, there's polygamy, there's so much happening. There's the blacks and the priesthood. There's a lot of things going on there which presents a great deal of difficulty in from today's view, for sure. And he does reference that. He also mentioned, used the word incidental. And that's the bit that I struggle with. I don't accept that these events that were happening were incidental to the character of Joseph Smith. I think they do speak somewhat directly and indirectly to Joseph Smith's character. The fact that he was in court, he was charged to be, for being disorderly, There's other elements of his character which are questionable. I won't go to this right now, but is it incidental? No, I think these are major events and factors which do speak in some way, in some parts, to the character of Joseph Smith and the subsequent prophets and apostles. And so I don't accept that they were incidental. I think they are very significant and very major. And the church continues to struggle with the character of Joseph Smith today. Yeah, that's not, that's not changed. If anything, there's a greater spotlight, especially through the Joseph Smith Papers project and other research being done, that we learn more about Joseph Smith. We only learned a few years ago that Joseph Smith officially had more than one wife, 32, 33 wives. It was denied repeatedly. Certainly when I was investigating the church and when I was on my mission, the church, I was asked repeatedly or told repeatedly that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. And I said, no, that was Brigham Young and others. It wasn't Joseph Smith. So, you know, as time goes on, we learn more and more about the character of Joseph Smith. And it's not incidental. It's major significant issues related to the character of the man in question. So again, I think Holland at this point is doing, is doing okay. I think he's doing his best. I think he's doing actually doing better than that. He's doing well. But, um, as you'll see, it, it gets, it starts to get a little bit more.

All right, let's keep going.

Mitt Romney.

Okay.

The man who may well become the most powerful man on earth. Mm-hmm. As a Mormon in the temple, I've been told he would have sworn an oath to say that he would not pack on what happens in the temple. That's what he just wrote. Is that true?

That's not true.

Okay, let's just stop right there because he expands on that and fixes that. But by saying that's not true, that's not true. Elder Holland is not telling the truth. Romney absolutely took that kind of an oath.

Pre-1990. Yeah.

And you can start to parse it. I mean, and this is what I did when I first watched this because when I first saw it, this is 2012. I'm, I'm as non-nuanced a member as anybody, you know, and I'm looking to— I'm cheering for Elder Holland. I want him to do well here. And when he said that's not true, I started to say, okay, how could— I started to do the mental gymnastics necessary to justify that statement. And this is what I came up with. What I came up with was a parsing of the language of John Sweeney, because Mitt Romney did not ever take an oath saying, I will slit my throat, or lest I slit my throat. That was not how the penalty was presented in the temple prior to 1990. We talked about this when we talked about the temple changes, the recent temple changes. But prior, I don't know the evolution of the penalties. Before their final elimination in 1990, uh, is a very interesting study because they began as purely Masonic penalties using all of the language of the Masonry. You know, I will not reveal these. If I do, may my tongue be ripped out of my mouth and thrown to the birds of the field. May my bowels gush out. I mean, this is all language that's in Masonic oaths. And it was just lifted lock, stock and barrel and brought into the temple oaths for the church. But as time went on, they were softened and softened and softened until when I went through in 1987, the penalties were still there. But what I— what I— the oath I made was rather than reveal this information, I would rather my life be taken. Uh, I would rather my life— I'm trying to remember what the exact wording of it was. It was something along those lines. But, uh, so, and I was told that the penalties, the movements you were doing in the penalties were simulations of different ways life could be taken. You know, it's like, how is this better? I guess it's better, but you know, it's not too hard to do the math or to do the physiology to determine how your life will be taken. So, so I leaned heavily in my apologetic sort of reaction to this, heavily into the fact that I think there is a legalistic way to parse John Sweeney's language that has Elder Holland coming out not saying something untrue. But the reality is Of course, Mitt Romney went through the temple and participated in the penalties, and the penalties were disturbing to just about everybody. And they essentially said, you know, I'd rather have my throat slit than reveal the secrets of the temple. I'm assuming this was probably the first answer to a question in this interview. That really rocked you.

It was, this was where it began to unravel for me. You know, there was an opportunity there to provide a different answer, better answer with context, which I think he, he, he tried to qualify and correct as he went on. And, but I think that straight out, you know, that no, he did, you know, he didn't do that. Mitt Romney didn't do that. The fact is that he did. And, and my interpretation of the pre-1990 endowment, when we used the words that rather than do so, I would give up my life, or whatever those words are to that effect. At that point, when you're actually doing that, again, my memory's a bit, little bit vague, but when we actually speak in those words, or those words have been spoken to us, I enacted symbolically by raising my right hand across my throat, and then I think the same hand across my, my bowels, my, my stomach, depicting or symbolizing a cutting of my throat and disembowelment of my body in the event that I revealed the tokens and the penalties of the temple. That was very clear in my mind that that would happen to me literally, not, not just figuratively, that would be literal.

I was—

I discussed this in the Celestial Room on the day of my endowment, and I was feeling quite in shock, actually. That's the best way to describe it, in shock and quite frightened. And it was explained to me by one of the temple officiators there, that that should be taken literally, that that would happen if I revealed anything about the temple. And so I was pretty— that was my interpretation. I don't think I was alone in coming to that interpretation. So yeah, I bet Robert E.

Howard demand that of you if you revealed this, that the church would kill you?

Well, submit that— there was no understanding on my part of discussion on where that would come from. But I would experience a slipping in my throat and disemboweling, literally, that was my understanding. And if that wasn't the case, then, then, then I wish somebody had told me contrary, it was more because I was terrified. It was absolutely frightening. I was— it was just awful experience. And so anyway, that was my experience in the temple. That's my interpretation. So Mitt Romney went through that. And he did you know, do the same thing that you and I did. And he made the same covenants, and he made the same, you know, statements, and he reenacted visually with his hands the same slit in the throat and the disemboweling. So he did that. And I think for Holland to come out and say that, you know, he didn't do that— but again, if we've got to be a little bit gracious here, let's give Bilderholm a little bit of benefit of the doubt, because he does try to qualify it in his Lädti kommet.

He backpedals here, and, and, uh, but only sort of under pressure from John Sweeney. So let's continue here.

We do not have penalties in the temple.

You used to.

We used to.

Therefore, he swore an oath saying, I will not tell anyone about the secrets here lest I slit my throat.

Well, the, the, the vow that was made was regarding the ordinance, the ordinance of the temple.

It sounds Masonic, sir. It sounds Masonic.

Well, it's similar to a Masonic relationship.

Okay, let's just stop there. I don't understand that. So Elder Holland says, first of all, it's not true, and then he says we do not have penalties in the temple. And that's very sort of Clinton-esque. You know, when Bill Clinton was interviewed and he says there is no sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, it's grand jury. They kept— he said, well, depends on what the meaning of the word is, is, you know, if there is no relationship right now, doesn't mean there wasn't one. And so you're seeing Elder Holland do the same thing and lean on the present tense. We do not have penalties in the temple, which was true in 2012 when this interview took place. It was not true when Mitt Romney went through the temple and, and had those penalties applied. So, but then he says this has to do with the ordinances of the temple. And I don't know what the heck he's talking about. I mean, I, I mean, I do. I know he's talking about the ordinances of the temple, but the word ordinance outside of a Latter-day Saint context means law. Or, I mean, people don't realize that when Mormons talk about ordinances, they're talking about rituals. And, and so that's a word that John Sweeney wouldn't really have understood. And what I don't understand is how he thinks that makes this better or justifies it. So what? So, so why? Who cares? He's still doing these things that are really disturbing. The fact that it has to do with the rituals of the temple. So what? And then John Sweeney says it sounds Masonic, and you get an admission from an apostle on the record that, yes, it sounds Masonic because it is Masonic, because the temple ceremony was lifted from Masonry to a large degree. That has never disturbed me, by the way. I've always felt like Joseph Smith, the way he sort of worked in terms of revelation, in terms of inspiration, was to draw— was to take something that was in his environment and reapply it in a way that would advance the kingdom of God. And so I think any attempt to try to pretend that the temple ceremony isn't rooted in the Masonic temple ceremony is a lost cause from the outset. I think it's a silly thing to do.

So I think Elder Holland at this point is struggling. His comments are misleading. If you remember the Gospel Principles teaching manual going way back under, I think, lesson 10 or 11, we talked about honesty. We dishonest when we misdirect or mislead or we don't give the full facts or the full truth. And I think Elder Holland is being disingenuous and is misleading, um, the, uh, you know, the, the, his comments in the conversation. And, and I can see why he, he wants to do that. I mean, it's a very difficult, um, you know, conversation. In regards to your comment about the penalties, the word penalties was used, I understand, Although the, the symbolism, the physical symbolism associated with the penalties was removed, uh, at the time of this interview, before this interview, but my memory is that the term, the word penalties was referenced.

I think that's the case. I mean, we could go back, but, but I, I remember going through for the first time in 1990, I was with Jaron Hinckley because he had heard that the temple ceremony had changed. And we went through together and we kept looking at each other with wide eyes when everything was kind of removed and taken out. So I— and the reason why I'm pretty confident that the word penalty was not used is one of the things that has bugged me in every subsequent temple revision So in 1990, they take out the penalties, but they leave not, not the word penalty, but they leave sort of contextual clues about penalties. For instance, at the end of the temple ceremony— and I want to be careful because I, I, I don't want to make anybody uncomfortable or violate my own temple covenants in terms of revealing anything— but near the end of the temple ceremony, it used to be that when you received the last sign. They said this— the last token, I'm sorry. They said this token has a name and a sign, but no penalty is mentioned. However, you will be under the same obligation to, you know, maintain the secrecy of this sign. I don't know the language after that. But after they removed the penalties, they didn't remove all of that language. They said this token has a name and a sign. And they leave out the phrase, "but no penalty as mentioned." And then it says, "You will be under the same obligation to hold this sacred the way you do the other signs and tokens of the priesthood." And I remember thinking, well, of course it has a name and a sign. All of them have a name and a sign. And why haven't we scrubbed the language out of the ceremony that is making reference to a penalty because this is just a redundant— I want to go through the temple ceremony myself and just edit the whole thing and take out— they're just sort of dangling pieces of ceremonies prior. A lot of people have gone in and said, okay, the original temple ceremony was entirely about justifying plural marriage, and you still see sort of strands of that in the existing temple ceremony over 100-something years, 130, 40 years after plural marriage was rejected by the church. But we still haven't sort of purged all of that, those references. So I think it's a problem in the temple ceremony that this is something that is sort of written by committee. We treat it as if it came as a full revelation, and yet it has been modified and changed and altered in so many different ways that if you can't accept that, if you can't recognize that that's how it works, you're going to have a hard time staying in the church.

I hear what you're saying. Again, my— your memory spoke better than mine, but I need to just check this to check my memory. I don't want to give any misinformation, but my memory is that at least one or two references to penalties in and around about this interview. But again, I need to check that. It might be just my vague memory there. The last part where you said absolutely, you know, I concur with that. And then the other comment that you made about Freemasonry, like you, I had no problem with that. You know, I grew up around Freemasonry. That was in the Church of England. I don't know if people know about the history of Freemasonry in England and the Crusaders and the history of the Freemasonry and the relationship between the UK government and the judiciary system and all the other institutions between, in the UK in particular, from my experience at least, between those organizations and Freemasonry. I knew somebody really, really well who was a Freemason, and I saw what they were wearing, and I, I researched a, um, a lot about Freemasonry. I have a book on the church and Freemasonry. I've got it on my shelf. We should probably delve into that at some point. And, um, and Elder Hall is right that there is a, a relationship between Freemasonry and the church. I have no problem with that. Um, I found it, uh, quite uplifting and spiritual, that there were— you had to do physical things. You know, in our church is not unique, uh, compared to other faiths and religions like the Jewish faith, where they have a, um, you know, a, a, a box on the forehead which remind them of the, of the prayers inside the box. There is a piece of paper with the prayers and covenants inside the box. You know, if you look at most religious organizations, uh, ancient and some modern, um, there are symbolism used, all kinds of peculiar, um, physical symbolism is used. So, so I didn't have a problem with that whatsoever. I think my, my issue was having my throat slit and be slit and being disemboweled. I just found that, uh, a little bit— yeah, a little bit too, uh, too close for, for comfort. But again, I think that Comet Vale of Holland Freemasonry, you don't get those kind of admissions, but it's kind of obvious, you know, the relationship is, is very similar. So I've, you know, aside from this, you know, we don't have penalties. Well, we do, uh, or we, we did. I think it's a little bit misleading. So yeah, and I think it goes downhill, uh, from here for me.

All right, let's, let's go downhill.

The most powerful brother in the world today, the Sworn and Oath. Which he meant at the time, whatever it is now, that he must not tell anyone about what he's seen, lest he—

that he would not tell anyone about his personal pledge to the Lord. I'm assuming that any religious candidate, an evangelical, a Roman Catholic, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Osama— I mean, President Obama, I'm assuming that anybody who has a relationship to God has made a pledge of some kind to God. There'd be some kind of loyalty to God, or what kind of a God is that?

Okay, that is a really awful answer. I mean, there's just no way around it. And I love that it's Osama— oh, I mean Obama. It's like, come on.

Is his thinking on when he's thinking about Obama, you know, President Obama. I mean, it just reveals his thinking, where he is. So yeah, it's pretty awful. I think what's significant as well is that Sweeney cleverly identifies Mitt Romney as potentially the most powerful man on the planet, which he, you know, from a number of perspectives, he would be if he became the president of the United States. Who was made, who was, who was taking out these, um, oaths and penalties and covenants that he would slit his throat. I mean, people don't, they wouldn't know that if, if this didn't come to light. You know, the president of the United States has, has, uh, reenacted the, you know, slitting his own throat in this ritual, disemboweling his own body in this strange, peculiar ritual. The president of the United States. I mean, the context is extraordinary. I think that's an important, significant point to make in the context.

Well, but for him to say, oh, this is just like anybody making any kind of a promise with God, it's like, it really isn't. The vast majority of Christians in the world don't go through a ceremony where they do anything like this. I mean, maybe they're baptized, And that's where they make a commitment to God. You know, we call on people to make that kind of a commitment, and we don't inform them that in a year they're going to have to make these other kinds of commitments in the temple. You know, so he's trying to downplay the strangeness of the temple, the disturbing nature of temple penalties in a way to make the church look less strange, to make Mitt Romney look less strange, to make himself look less strange. It's just— even if it's not factually dishonest to say what he just said, it's disingenuous because this is so far removed from the kind of pledge or commitment that other religious people make. And Elder Holland knows it's removed and he just doesn't want to admit it. He doesn't want to embrace it. He doesn't want to hold it up to ridicule. So that's kind of frustrating. I can see how that would be frustrating to anybody who's watching this and seeing an apostle try very, very hard not to confront the truth. So even if he's not being, you know, deliberately dishonest, he's not willing to confront the reality that's being presented to him.

I, I, I hear what you're saying. I want to qualify something, Jim, um, and you— I, I have referenced this earlier. In the Church of England and in Freemasonry and a lot of institutions and organizations and agencies in the UK, there is the Freemason, um, uh, fraternity. And so to elevate yourself in certain circles in British society, and this is, this is the fact, people or some individuals, and I'm talking about judges, police, and other senior government officials, including within the British government and including the royal family, Prince Charles or King Charles now, and, and prior to Queen Elizabeth's, uh, uh, death, she was a member of the, I think it's the Eastern Star, which is the female version of Freemasonry. So Freemasonry has and continues to play a very significant part in British life of certain professions, of certain individuals. It's not discussed openly, but it's a fact. To elevate and to advance, there is that Freemasonry organization that you can join and belong to. It's it's not necessarily a religious or marketed or promoted as a religious experience or a spiritual experience. It's more of a fraternity of an organization that has certain values, not necessarily religious or spiritual. If you come away from those experiences having a religious or spiritual experience, then that's fine, but that's not what its intent is. Whose intent is to uphold certain values, certain principles. And yes, it is a network for certain professions to advance their careers by meeting in these rituals, non-spiritual rituals. And again, it's, it's easy to find on Google. And you can participate in these rituals and meet people in very powerful decision roles in again, in British society, and it's not exclusive to British society. We have Freemason buildings and organizations all around the world, the United States, Canada, for sure. And certainly, you know, across, across UK. And we met, and I met a lot of people who were active Freemasons while serving on the mission. And they reminded me, you know, what they, what they went through, what they experienced, I couldn't respond in terms of what the church did in the temple. But again, those, uh, if you want to use the Freemasonry to achieve a certain, um, career objective and you're in a certain profession, then that's one way that people do that. And I just wanna be, be clear that that organization, Freemason, still is alive and well and active, and you have some very interesting people who belong to that. I, I think the right word is fraternity as an organization.

Yeah.

Well, there are members of the church that are both members of the church and Freemasons.

And Joseph Smith was. Joseph Smith was it.

Clearly Joseph Smith was, but certainly all the early church leaders were. I think Brigham Young was. I'm not sure when it stopped. But yeah, the church historically has not seen a contradiction between being a Mason and being a member of the church. But let's continue here because John Sweeney We are now in the uncomfortable bits where John Sweeney is really making Elder Holland squirm.

I want to find out more about the mysterious Strengthening Church Members Committee.

May I go to the other compound? So now he's going to talk to Michael Purdy.

Yeah, thanks, Gordon.

Heading up off to the church to meet its chief spokesman and the mastermind behind the I Am a Mormon campaign, Michael Purdy. What's the Strengthening Church Members Committee, and does it still exist?

I don't know, and I'm not— I guess that's a question not for me. I, I couldn't tell you that.

I don't know.

You will—

they came and stop there because he ends up answering the question and telling him exactly what it is and where he can find out more about it. But what is it about it that he has to say first words out of his mouth, "I don't know, I don't know anything about it." I mean, that's dishonest. That's not true. He knows about it. He knows it exists. And yet he says, "I don't know." John Sweeney just absolutely handles this brilliantly. He just walks him through it and gets him to admit that he's just told him a lie.

Head of media relations for the church, and I've spoken to people, um, ex-members of the church who say, um, the Strengthening Church Members Committee does exist. Does it still exist?

I, I, I've heard that, yeah, there is a Strengthening Church Members Committee, but I couldn't tell you the details of how that works, but we'd be happy to provide someone that can. Sorry for my confusion.

What I originally asked You weren't sure, but I mean, you do know that it exists, and you will give me somebody who knows something about it. Absolutely. So on the Strengthening Church Members Committee, the spokesman for the Mormon Church couldn't give me a satisfactory answer.

Maybe the Apostle could.

What is the Strengthening Church Members Committee?

The Strengthening the Church Members Committee was born some years ago to protect predatory practices of polygamists.

But I asked what is it?

Well, that's what it is. It is to protect—

So it does still exist?

It does still exist. It does still exist.

And it looks at, it's there to defend the church against polygamists?

Principally. That is still the principal task.

And what is its subsidiary task?

I suppose just to be protective generally, just to watch and care for any insidious influence. But for all intents and purposes, all that I know about it is primarily to guard against polygamy. That would be the substantial, essential part of their work. I'm not on that committee, so I can't speak.

Does the Mormon Church shun people?

Okay, jumped ahead there. Yeah, Michael Purdy, just so embarrassing. So you told me you didn't know about it and now you're telling me you do know about it and you'll give me— oh, absolutely. So it's Elder Holland and Elder Holland's answer here. He doesn't try to pretend it doesn't exist. He doesn't try to sort of send it into the past. He does mess up his answer because he says it's to protect predatory polygamists. And I think he meant protect from predatory polygamists.

Yes, I noticed that.

Yes.

So I think that's just an innocent slip of the tongue. But as he talks about it, he tries to downplay that he knows anything about it. I think he clearly knows more than he's saying here. And he tries very hard to say, oh, the main focus is polygamy. And oh, if it does anything else, it's just to watch out for bad stuff. And I don't think that that is an accurate description of the Strengthening Church Members Committee, do you?

No, it's not, it's not. Purdy is a, Purdy's response is a PR disaster for the church. It's absolutely terrible. It's unforgivable. I presume he was fired after that. That was just, I don't know if he's part of the organization, Um, it, it's just extraordinary. And then, um, you know, the, uh, the, again, I wanna highlight, Jim, that although this is an audio, uh, uh, podcast, of course, is to invite and recommend people to go and watch the video. And yes, listen to the words, but more importantly, watch Håland's physical response with his hands, his shoulders. Is, is reaction on his face extremely uncomfortable at this point. I think that body language is really, really important. The church— strength of the church members committee is extremely active and is even more active today than it ever has been. In August 1992, in the early '90s, and I don't know if the church has put out a statement since, The First Presidency made the following statement, which I think is quite, quite significant. He says here that generally the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not respond to criticism levied against its work. But in light of extensive publicity recently given to false accusations of so-called secret church committees and files, the First Presidency has issued the following statement. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was established in 1830 following the appearance of God the Father and Jesus Christ to the Prophet Joseph Smith in Upstate New York. This sacred event heralded the onset of the promised restitution of all things. Many instructions were subsequently given to the Prophet, including Section 123 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Quote, and again, we would suggest for your consideration the proprietary of all the saints gathering up a knowledge of all the facts and sufferings and abuses. Put upon them, and also of all the property and amount of damages which they have sustained, both of character and personal injuries, and also the names of all persons that have had a hand in their oppressions, as far as they can hold, get hold of them and find them out. And perhaps a committee can be appointed to find out these things and to take statements and affidavits, and also to gather up the libelous publications that are afloat. And all that are in the magazines and the encyclopedias and all the libelous histories that are published. Verses 1 to 5. Leaders and members of the church strive to implement commandments of the Lord, including this direction received in 1839. Because the church has a non-professional clergy, it's, um, that's another conversation. It's a stake, it's the stake presidents and bishops of varied backgrounds and training in order to assist their members— who have questions, these local leaders often request information from General Authorities of the Church. The Strengthened Church Members Committee was appointed by the First Presidency to help fulfill this need to comply with the cited section of the Doctrine and Covenants. This committee serves as a resource to priesthood leaders throughout the world who may desire assistance on a wide variety of topics. It is a General Authority committee comprised of Elder James E. Faust, Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, They work through established preacher channels and neither impose nor direct church disciplinary action. That's completely false in my opinion. Members who have questions concerning the church doctrine, policy, procedures have been counseled to discuss those concerns confidentially with local leaders. These leaders are deeply aware of the obligation to counsel members wisely in the spirit of love in order to strengthen the faith in the Lord and this great Latter-day work. So that was a statement put out by, by the church. I don't believe the church has provided a response since 1992, from when that came out. But the church does provide either— it works two ways. And I'm aware of this directly. If there's a member in the stake or the ward that has a threat, or deemed an enemy of the church, you know, I've been described as an enemy of the church by someone. In our stake. And so if an individual has— is identified as an enemy or a threat to the Church, that information could come directly from the Church General Authorities, or it can come often from the Church, you know, local units, the stake, etc. If the person has got political aspirations and they're making progress and they're advancing, the Church researches these individuals. I don't have a problem with that. I could see why they're disinvolved in that, to make sure that, you know, are they any threat, are they aligned to church principles, etc. You know, any business practices, or any people coming out professing revelations, and they're having visions of Nephi or Moroni, or, you know, having these experiences on behalf of the stake or the ward or the church. Again, these are real and perceived threats to the church. So there's a two-way channel between this committee and the stake president. It's only the stake president who's got the keys for this, by the way, the counselors don't have matters. And, uh, that is, uh, a, a two-way process. And, um, again, it's to, is to protect the church against predatory practices, not just related to polygamy, but anything that the church deems or identifies as a potential risk politically, financially, or reputationally. So that's, that's my understanding of the church, uh, protecting the church members committee.

So do you think that the Tim Ballard debacle is a product of the Strengthening Church Members Committee?

I think it's absolutely important to know that that committee is directly and continuously involved with the, with that Tim Ballard event and the rolling events that continues to happen. So yeah, this is, you know, the church, there are threats to the church, serious threats to the church, and it makes sense. I can see the logic behind having a very professional, robust team organization with resources to put countermeasures in to deal with those threats. That makes sense. If you're a corporation and you do a SWOT analysis, excuse me, you look at the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats of the business. You know, how do you, as a business, how do you counter those threats, those risks to the business? Well, it's just good business practice to understand what threats, if it's financial or inflation or investment, What threats are, you know, that exist to the business? I think it's risk, essentially, in a nutshell, it's risk management.

Well, and again, I think you have Elder Holland trying to make this sound like it's quaint, that it's only dealing with polygamy, that it's not dealing with everything else, when in fact, I think polygamy at this point is a very small part of what it does. Uh, you know, we mentioned Tim Ballard. I just— I found out since our last podcast that my sister was in Tim Ballard's mother's ward and got to know that family. And Tim Ballard, in one of his bizarre little books where the angel Moroni appears to Joseph or to George Washington and others, Tim Ballard submitted one of those books to my father, trying to get my father to write a foreword to the book. And my father read the book and said, this is garbage. I can't put my name to this, and had to turn him down flat. And Tim Ballard confronted my sister and said, what's the deal with your dad? What's wrong with your dad? And it's like, I've never been prouder of my father. Right. In fact, he was willing to do that. So, all right. So all of this that John Sweeney is setting up is all setting up for sort of the denouement of calling the church a cult. And I— so I want to play that here and get your reaction to it.

No, no, of course we don't. We don't use that word, and we don't know that.

Oh, oh, oh, I'm sorry, take it back.

Not on that committee, so I can't speak.

Okay, so now Elder Ballard is being asked if the church shuns people.

Holland.

Elder Holland. Okay. Let me back up. Gonna kind of— so now Elder Holland is being asked if the church shuns people.

Does the Mormon Church shun people?

No, no, of course we don't. We don't use that word and we don't know that practice. If I had a son this very day, given the office that I have and the visibility that means, if I had a son or a daughter who left the church or was alienated or had a problem, I can tell you I would not cut that child out of family life.

Okay, that's his answer. Does the church shun people, Ian?

It does, yes. If you are— again, let's be real here. There are threats to the church. There are threats. They come in all different forms, different individuals, different events, et cetera, et cetera. And if someone is asking the wrong questions or the right questions or whatever, uh, depending on who's, uh, interested, and the church sees that as a threat to the unit, to the ward, to dividing— because all the activity happens at the ward and the stake level, right? You know, all the important stuff happening at the, um, in terms of membership retention and all the, the harmony and the cohesion really needs to happen successfully at the ward and the stake level. So if you are having visions or you're dividing a ward or a stake or you're causing problems, you are a threat to the church. If you leave, does the church shun you and cut you off? In my experience and in my family's experience, absolutely. We've been shunned and cut off and ostracized on a, you know, wholesale level. Vast majority of members have disconnected with us, and we've even had pretty awful comments said about us in, in conversations and, and referenced at least once or twice in a talk, is my understanding, in a, in a very, in a very negative way. So there's, there's no policy in the church which, um, shuns people. You won't find anything in a book, you know, disconnect or disavow. Well, usually disavow, but in terms of ostracize people It continues to use the language of love and, and openness and, and let's maintain a good relationship with those people who have left and let them leave with dignity. The reality in my, in my experience is completely opposite, that we have literally been shunned and cut off and ostracized, and the church wants nothing to do with us whatsoever. That was also manifested in the letter that I got when I resigned my membership, basically just confirming that I am no longer a member the church. That was it. There's no kindness there, no love, there's no warmth there. It was, uh, no acknowledgement of the service that we devoted over many, many, many years. So in my experience, that's a completely false statement. He could— if you, if you challenge Elder Holland on that, with my experience, he might say, well, you know, with Ian, it's an isolated instance. That's not true either. In, in many, many instances— not every instance, but in many, uh, people's experience— they, they have felt got often ostracized and shunned. And even, I even had people in our stake and ward say to each other that they want nothing to do with my kids, that their kids can no longer associate with ours because we are apostate, we've left, we've resigned, etc., etc. Or I have resigned, rather. So it happens. It's real. I think it's dishonest of Elder Holland to say that he knows this happens. The, the, the church, in my opinion, looks to the way because it wants to send a message to those who are thinking of leaving or having questions that if you do leave, you will in fact lose an entire community overnight, which has been my experience. I think for many that's a real, uh, important consideration in determining whether they want to stay in the church or not. For many, I believe people do not leave the church, Jim, because they fear that they will be cut off and ostracized by family, by friends, and by the community. And I think a lot of people stay in the church for that. And the church knows this. I think it uses this, and I think it looks the other way. And I think it's dishonest and more than disingenuous. It's dishonest because he knows this. He knows this stuff goes on.

It does go on. It is also correct that the church There is no official church policy of shunning. I mean, that's a word that comes from religious traditions outside of the church. The Jehovah's Witnesses talk about shunning apostates. Uh, the, the term that the Scientologists use is disconnection. You, you use that a little bit— they disconnected from you. But officially, there are official church policies in those traditions. That the church instructs people to shun the apostates. We don't have that in the church. We have something that may be even more effective at doing that, which is a massive cultural expectation that has been created, is that if somebody has left the church, uh, they have done so for illegitimate reasons. There can be no legitimate reasons to leave the church. Clearly you are a sinner. You are wicked.

You are lazy.

Lazy. I mean, I mean, there isn't a positive adjective that can be applied to you, and there are a host of negative ones that can be. So that expectation feeds into a cultural practice that is every bit as destructive as the official practices of these other traditions in, in many instances. But in many other instances, you know, I think Elder Holland is telling the truth. I think if Matt Holland, who's now a General Authority, but if Matt Holland had left the church, I don't think that Jeff Holland would have cut him out of his life. Um, and you have the examples of Elder Christofferson, for instance, when his brother Tom left the church and had a and, and had a male partner, uh, he was still part of the family. And his mother said the expectation that we're not going to ostracize anybody. So I mean, you do have these examples where that doesn't happen, but unfortunately I think it is very much the exception and not the rule. And so I, I think you're right. I think Elder Holland knows very much, very well that this happens. And I wish he had given it a little more credence.

And I agree, and I want to add to this, if any leader, John Forte, is listening to this podcast, please, please, I beg you, address this issue. Address the issue of the difficulty that people experience in leaving the church. Afford them some dignity, a little bit of kindness, a little bit of respect. Let's show a little bit more love. You know, let's be slow to judge, let's be quick to love. Please talk about this in General Conference. Talk about it, have the same constructive conversation or talk that President Nelson gave recently. Let's be kind, let's be loving, and let's understand that perhaps for some at least, that there are good reasons at times to not remain in the church, and that it is not a bad decision at times to leave and to want to go in a different direction. We have free agency, but let's not cut people off. Let's not ostracize them or behave in a way where they lose an entire community overnight. Let's show love and kindness, and please, please address this issue more openly, more transparently, more constructively, and get that message and that behavior down to rank-and-file members at the unit and the state levels. Let's start to behave like Christ behaved with loving and forgiving and understanding and patience. Let's be like Christ, because Christ would not shun people or cut them off. He would never do that.

That's absolutely right. Shutting people and cutting people off is considered a mark of a cult, and I think that's where we are here. This is where John Sweeney is going.

You baptize people after death.

Uh-huh.

Why?

Because we believe that in the justice and mercy of God, everybody ought to have a chance for salvation.

But you baptize Holocaust victims.

Not anymore. For the same reason, the same conversation would be held with anyone. This is an invitation.

But if you were Jewish and your grandfather or grandmother was killed in the Holocaust, forced because they were Jewish. Doesn't it seem somewhat insensitive to rebaptize them as a Mormon?

We've already been through that, and we've agreed to the insensitivity, and so we've ceased. We've ceased doing that. But it was never meant to be an offense. It was never meant to be anything that would claim them away from their Judaism in time and in eternity. The freedom was to choose if you chose to have this offer. It's the same offer we'd make to a Jewish citizen or a Muslim or anybody else today is, if you were interested, if you wanted this, you may step forward and claim it.

Some critics say you still—

we're not, not, not with our blessing, not with our effort. We're not.

Okay. We talked about this in another podcast about the idea of growth, that the church is going to start claiming membership of people who've had their work done. And that's the thing that John Sweeney is complaining about here. But you listen, you, you, I mean, if you watch it, it's even more uncomfortable, but you just listen to Elder Holland squirm here. He doesn't want to address this. He doesn't want to answer it. He's embarrassed by it. Uh, he's wildly uncomfortable with the question and tries to pretend that there's no reason why anybody on Earth could possibly have a problem with us doing vicarious ordinances for Holocaust victims. Uh, and the, the fact that the church eventually had to back down from doing that— it's not that we don't do it anymore, because if somebody in the church is related to a Holocaust victim, they can do the temple work for them. What we're not doing anymore is using records of the Holocaust to find names. And I think that's a distinction for many people outside the church. I think that's a distinction without a difference because the whole practice just seems so bizarre to people outside the church that why are you doing this at all is sort of where the question is. And Elder Holland kind of tries to deflect that into, well, we're not, we're not doing this anymore, even though we really are doing it if someone's related to a Holocaust victim. But I'm going to lean into my own cultural understanding of what this means. It's— I don't think this is his worst answer in terms of honesty. But I think it's the answer that made him the most uncomfortable.

Yeah, I, I, I think he's doing the best he can. Uh, you know, this wasn't— clearly the interview wasn't rehearsed. You know, these were— these are questions that hit him, uh, completely, uh, out of the blue, unprepared. And at this point, and long before this point, you realize this is— this has been a, uh, what could become a PR disaster, as it— as it, in my opinion, it has been. And so the church has got into hot water many, many times because he's baptized victims of the Holocaust. He's even baptized Adolf Hitler several times.

I mean, many people have discussed this. Yeah.

And I don't know if Frank has been baptized multiple times.

I mean, Stephen Colbert, I think, was the guy who went and dug up actual records and you can determine how many times they've had their work done. Famous people. I mean, Elvis has had his work done multiple times.

I give Elder Holland the benefit of the doubt that they don't practice this anymore. However, I've never— in my experience in leadership, I've never seen any instruction, direction, or advice, or conversation in our stake or the units, whether I was a bishop or on the stake presidency, to deal with this. If it goes on, and I think it still does, I don't see any, or haven't seen any direction or countermeasures that the church has installed or to deal with it or to stop rank and file members from performing these inappropriate vicarious audiences. How are they enforcing the policy? How are they tracking that? How are they enforcing that? I just don't see it. I've never seen it. I'm not saying it doesn't go on, but I've never seen it. So do people baptize Holocaust victims? I don't know. Do we know that? I just don't know.

Well, we're now coming up on the end of the interview, and this is where we get the cult issue.

We did talk to a number of people who'd left the church, more than 30, And there is a massive gap between what they've told me and what you're telling me.

Well, when we all get together, that'd help. If you'll give me that list, and if you want to sit with us, let's go get them together and let's talk.

What they said to me, that they believe the Mormon Church is a cult. They believe it's a cult like Church of Scientology, but actually it's smarter and more powerful.

Well, I guess if that's what they believe, it's probably a good thing they chose to leave it. Because we're not a cult. I'm not an idiot, you know. I, I've read a couple of books and I've been to a pretty good school, and I have chosen to be in this church because of the faith that I feel and the inspiration that comes.

No, I don't call you a cult. I'm just saying that I've met people who used to be in the church.

I've met people, and, and if people want to call us a cult, they can call us a cult, and you can call us a cult. But we are 14 million and growing. And, and I'd like to think that your respect for me would be enough to know that this man doesn't seem like a dodo.

That's his last word. This man doesn't seem like a dodo.

Yeah.

There's so much, so much problematic about that answer. I mean, the first thing that, that jumps out at me is he's like, well, let's, let's round all these people up. And sit down with them. That's like, you're not going to round all these people up and see them.

He would never do that. He would— he just wants to get out the interview like fast. He wants to— he wants to wrap this thing up, tell John Sweeney what he wants to hear. He— it's an absolute disaster. He's not going to follow through on that. Um, it actually— I, I get a sense of, uh, a little bit of frustration and anger that, you know, if you're going to call it a cult, just don't be in it.

Leave.

Whatever, if you want to be like that, you know, get lost, piss off, you know, we don't, we don't care, you shouldn't be part of the organization anyhow. So, uh, a little bit of, um, you know, frustration, I think, there on Elder Hall's part there. And, uh, and he talks about, um, John Sweeney having— if you have any respect for me— well, come on, this is an interview, it's, there's no relationship other than a, a journalistic interviewee relationship, that's it. There's no personal relationship there. Don't expect, you know, to be one, uh, he's going to extend any, any respect that, uh, you think you deserve. I think that's a little bit too, um, um, too much to expect, I think.

Well, but it's all he has. It's all he has left, uh, after John Sweeney has sort of just stripped him of all of these illusions that he's trying to perpetuate. Finally, all he can say is, look, I'm not stupid and I'm in this church.

And it's like, he, he, he also says, Jim Bennett, you know, we're not a cult, we're 14 million members and growing. So there's that. What do you think of that then? So we're not a cult because we've got 14 million members and growing. So there you go. So there you have it, right? So as we grow, we got 16 or 18 million, you know, we not, we're not a cult because we've got all those people. I think it's absurd. It's, it's And I'm embarrassed. Well, I cringe in my skin when I, when I listen to Al Holland's unprepared responses, completely caught off the hoof and completely and entirely unprepared for this interview.

Well, I absolutely think that in some ways that was his most honest answer when he says, well, if they think we're a cult, they might as well leave it. Which shows, I think, one of the great weaknesses of the church today, which is that the instant anybody starts to question, the instant anybody starts to have doubts, the first reaction of so many people, even at the highest levels of this church, is, well, then you should leave and get lost, and I don't want anything to do with you ever again. I mean, that was just sort of this visceral thing that comes out of Elder Holland when he's talking. And it's like, because this first thing that he's like, well, no, we can get together, we can talk, we can— it's like that never happens, Elder Holland. When somebody leaves, they are shunned or they are ignored or they are ridiculed or they are labeled lazy learners or whatever else you want to call them. We don't have the tools in the church to deal with people who leave. We don't have tools to deal with them respectfully or kindly. We don't hear conference talks. We, we hear snippets. I mean, the Peacemaker talk sort of went here, but not nearly far enough. We hear snippets of if your children leave continue to love them, uh, you know, uh, treat people with kindness and treat them with respect. You know, you don't hear explicit instructions to mock, ridicule, and shun people who have left, but you hear plenty of cultural kinds of context, and you hear it in Elder Holland here. It's like, well, if they think we're a cult, it's because they're not as smart as I am. I went to a good school. I've read a lot of books. Um, and so clearly there's something wrong with them and that's why they had to leave. They think this is a cult. It's their fault. It's not our fault. We haven't done anything wrong and they ought to just get lost. And maybe you, John Sweeney, ought to get out of my office because You're a lost cause too.

In contrast to what you're saying, the church commits extraordinary resources at every level across the world to proselyte, engage, have people commit, join the church, retain them, callings, et cetera, to, to help them become entrenched in the church. Extraordinary resources. And then to leave It's like trying to cancel an encyclopedia application or registration. It's quite straightforward to apply, but it's difficult to leave, you know, or any organization that makes it extremely difficult to cancel a policy. If you look at these insurance policies that, you know, these life insurance policies, what you have to do to unsubscribe or to cancel a policy, they make it extremely difficult. And the church takes that, I think, to a whole new level. The thing is all about the intelligence versus the dodo thing. If Elder Holland's as smart as he's saying he is, and he is a very smart guy for sure, surely, Jim Bennett, he would know that from a certain perspective, from a certain angle, whether he agrees with it or not, there are people out there that sees the church as a cult. Okay, whether you like it or not, you can disagree with that, that's fine. You can argue against it even. Nevertheless, there are people out there that see the church as a cult. A smart person would know and understand that. A dodo would, would see it and, and either not accept it, understand it, or acknowledge it. I don't think Elder Holland's a dodo for one second. Very smart, articulate individual. Let's be honest about that. But he knows that yes, the church is perceived by some, you know, as a cult. And I want to jump back just very briefly to the last, uh, before this last section here with the— on the podcast about, uh, performing baptisms for the dead. He made a comment that the, the process, the ordinance, makes no claim on the salvation of souls of those that they're doing the work for. He, he, he, he makes references to the agency in that we don't claim, uh, these individuals that is false because the reality is, and in my experience, that we do, the church is making a spiritual claim on those souls. When you do baptisms for the dead, baptisms and the ordinances, washings, anointings, you are, you are making a claim or an application for that soul, an invitation to have that, uh, Holocaust victim, Jewish Holocaust victim, or member of the Jewish religion or other faith, to actually come into the fold of Christ. That is the invitation. That's the purpose, is to be reborn, to be redeemed. And yes, to give up your Jewish faith and effectively become a Mormon, because that's the only way, path to God. Mormonism is the only path to God. That's it. It's very clear. So there is a claim that we, we teach and we practice through those very sacred ordinances on that very spiritual level. So That was something that he mentioned in that part of the interview that I, uh, you know, I have a problem with. But going back to the cult thing, um, I think right now in this, at this point in the interview, Holland just, you know, this is a, a train crash and he is completely unprepared. Again, I, I recommend people look at the body language. Just look at the hands touching the scriptures, the shifting in the chair, the movement of the eyes. Look at the cues and, and, and the, the, the, the changes in, in the, um, you know, in the, um, reactions in the face and the body. It, it, it, to me at least, it speaks more, um, far more than what he's saying. He's really uncomfortable in that suit, in that chair. And it, it, it, it— I can't— I, I can only imagine after the interview, um, he, he thinks that was an absolute disaster. And people will have, will have told him that they won't do that again. The Church will never do that again, ever.

No, the Church, as far as I can tell, has not done that again over the last 10 years. The closest it's come, and it's not even close, but they've had, for instance, Elder Christofferson sit down with Michael Purdy as Michael Purdy asked him questions about the policy of exclusion in 2015. And so the church will only do this if they can control the interviewer as well as the interviewee. I miss President Hinckley because President Hinckley used to go on things like this and handle himself so well.

He did.

You know, he went on Larry King, he went on Mike Wallace and 60 Minutes and a bunch of other people. And, and I think we've lost that. And I think The thinking was Elder Holland is, he's a lot of people's favorites, favorite. He's, you know, warm and cuddly to a lot of people. I think up close and personal, that's not always the case, but that's the reputation he has. And I think the church thought, oh, he'll put a beautiful face on this and he's not a dodo. He's a smart man and he'll know how to answer this. Didn't realize that when you don't control the questions, it's a lot harder to give the answers that you want to have out there. And the church continually neglects that lesson. So hopefully we're teaching them that lesson. We have gone way long on this episode, but I think it's— I think it's worth discussing. And I very much appreciate your insights in this. I want to give you the final word here in terms of, can you sort of frame this in your own faith journey as to how this led you to some degree out of the church?

Yeah, thank you for that. One comment would be that having watched, observed the interview on video repeatedly and watch an apostle at best be disingenuous and misleading and at worst outright lying, uh, was a big moment in my transition outside of the church. Here was an apostle of Jesus Christ, Elder Holland, who we had met, you know, 2 or 3 times, knew his son, uh, reasonably well, great deal of respect and love for this individual and the family, and was misleading and misdirecting in the interview. And it was, it was shocking. It bothered me enormously. I tried to talk about it with certain people within the church, within a very small circle, and got shut down pretty, you know, pretty quickly. This is back in 2000 2012, I think it was. So it was a watershed moment for me, along with the Blacks in the Priesthood, um, and the essays. There were other moments in my transition, but he was an apostle that was lying for the Lord. And he, notwithstanding his lack of preparedness— I think you can be, you know, prepare for it, whatever, you might not know the questions, but at least be honest. And, um, and, and, and don't try to mislead. Just follow the same principles that you, you teach at the, at the pulpit. And that's not the first time Elder Hall has been found lying for the Lord. So very quickly, I lost a lot of respect for, uh, for him. And, um, I think overall he's a good man. I think he was trying to do what he thought was best. It went really badly. And I, I think the one reason for that, apart from the lack of preparedness, is just not, not being straight with them with the truth. So that would be it. I, I, I can't really add more to that. I think it was a— see, seeing— oh, one thing listening to an audio of Elder Holland, if that was just an audio interview, it's quite another watching it on video. Because the, again, the highlight this, the physical responses for me was very, very revealing. And the body was saying something different to what the, what the mouth was saying. And it's quite noticeable, actually. You don't have to be an expert to a lie detector to see how uncomfortable.

Well, so we will direct people to go to watch the video, but Hopefully they will also come back and listen to our audio as we continue, uh, with our podcast. Uh, I think this has been a good discussion. Very much appreciate your insights. Until next time on Inside Out, thank you very much, Ian.

Thank you, Jim Bennett.