General Conference: Part 1

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

I'm doing really well. It's good to be with you, Jim. Excited about this latest podcast that we're about to do.

Yeah, we got a lot to talk about. We were going to do a conference report. I almost went rogue yesterday and wanted to record sort of response on my own because somebody had, had put out a video saying, okay, we have a screen capture of Jim Bennett's face at the time that President Oaks gave his talk. And then they sort of botched the joke and the screen capture was a picture of Elmo from Sesame Street. Looking at a nuclear bomb with President Oaks's head in it, and it didn't make a lick of sense to me. And the guy who set it up said, I don't get it. And then I realized I have a TikTok account that I never, ever use. And so I decided to put together a quick response to that. But the assumption was that I was sitting through conference scowling, angry and furious. As all of my progmo dreams were being dashed by the brilliant President Oaks and President Nelson. And that was not my reaction to conference at all. I sang in conference. I only sang Sunday morning and Sunday afternoon. Saturday morning, actually, when President Oaks gave that talk, I was on standby. Because they had all of these international visitors who were singing with the choir. So there wasn't room for the entire choir to sing. So I was waiting in case somebody got sick. And I actually ended up sneaking out and I watched conference. I watched that session at my mother's house, which isn't too far from the conference center. But the highlights for me and this is going to sound self-serving, but the highlights for me were the music. I feel God in music more than I do in almost anything else. And we sang two numbers that are really, really wonderful. We sang Consider the Lilies, which has this wonderful verse about consider the sweet, tender children who must suffer here on Earth. And how Jesus carries their pains. It's just such a beautiful, lovely melody and a beautiful message. And the other one that's a real favorite that we sang was "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing," which was removed from the hymnbook in 1985. And I'd be very surprised if it doesn't make a comeback in this new hymnbook. But we just had a beautiful arrangement of that. And so it's just pure joy. To be able to sort of marinate in that music. So, so it's very hard for me to get angry at a conference when I'm, when I'm experiencing that. And there were some real highlights for me in this conference. There was an elder, Robert Daines, who gave a talk where he used this metaphor about the river of God's love and that you wade in there and as you're helping others, you're splashed with the love yourself and talked about this. It was full of inclusion and grace and it was just a beautiful talk. There was also a talk by somebody. I was in the car. This was Saturday evening, but his name was Alan Phillips, and I could have sworn it was Patrick Kieran, who is— both of them are Brits like yourself. Patrick Kieran spent several years in our ward and is as beautiful and wonderful, lovely a human being as you could possibly ask for. And this talk was very Kiranesque in terms of it's talking about refugees, in terms of it's reaching out to the marginalized. And it— if people know how much I adore Patrick Kiran, they will know that me calling it Kiranesque is the highest praise I can muster. The apostles were hit and miss for me in a lot of their talks. Elder Ballard's talk, everybody was watching because of the Tim Ballard mess. And his reaction with it. And Elder Ballard has reached the point where he can no longer see the teleprompter. And so he gave a talk where he talked, he spoke off the cuff, and it called to mind— I remember David B. Haight being very old and not being able to see the teleprompter. He gave these sort of lovely warm messages. And my son listening to Elder Ballard said, I think he's begging for death, which is not a charitable way to describe it. But you could, you could feel, I think, the tension and the pain that he's been through these last few months. He talked his last few months. I've been very troubled. And we all know why he's been troubled. He's been drawn into a real mess. But then he ended up talking about the Prophet Joseph Smith. Didn't make any reference to Tim Ballard. Nobody did. The closest that we came to was Bishop Waddell gave a talk saying avoid hero worship. We shouldn't be worshiping heroes. And a lot of people took that as a direct reference to Tim Ballard. I think it was an oblique reference to Tim Ballard, if anything. I don't think it was all that, all that significant. One of the best talks by the apostles, I thought, was— came from Elder Bednar, who opened the conference, and he talked about the last wagon. You know, we celebrate the people who arrive in the pine— in the Salt Lake Valley, but we should celebrate those who were in the last wagon to get to the pine— to the valley. And they're the unsung heroes. They're the people we don't talk about. It was really kind of uncharacteristic for Elder Bednar. And I thought really kind of a lovely talk. Elder Uchtdorf gave a lovely talk about the prodigal son and saying that that relates directly to us. Which it does. And the other apostles, I mean, we got a tithing talk. There are people who are concerned about whether or not tithing would come up in the wake of the SEC fine, but it did come up and they emphasized that you pay tithing as an act of faith, not because the church needs the money. And there were, there were some talks that were just kind of confusing. There was one Seventy who gave a talk where all I got from it was that his wife was short and was afraid of the dark. We talked about my wife is short and she's afraid of the devil. Like, thanks for sharing.

You know, so I'm just wondering if there's a correlation between the height and turning off the light switch.

That might be it. That might be it. So overall, I think there was, there was a lot, lot of positive stuff. I felt spiritually fed by much of it. We're going to focus, I think, primarily on two talks. And they're the two most prominent talks that everybody's talking about. And that's President Oaks' talk and then President Nelson's talk. President Nelson did not come in person to conference, but I remember sitting next to the guy in the choir loft and I said, well, do you think he's prerecorded something before we actually saw his prerecorded talk? And he says, I know he's prerecorded something because there were members of the Tab Choir that were singing at an emeritus dinner for emeritus General Authorities. President Banks apparently was at this dinner, and they had to get into their choir outfits, and our changing rooms are in the Conference Center. And they were told, you need to show up to the Conference Center early because we're going to lock down the Conference Center at 4:30 on Friday when President Nelson's going to come into the Conference Center to tape his talk. So I had a little bit of advance warning that we'd be getting some of that. But you say you— I'm assuming you did not watch conference, but you have done some research on conference and you've discovered, you say, some interesting themes overall. Is that right?

Yes, yes. I don't go to church anymore, and I just want to highlight a reminder to our listeners that in keeping with the principles and values of The Inside Out podcast, we look at the church through the, the prism of where it can improve, you know, where it needs to be accountable, including but not limited to conference. And we also discuss areas and aspects of the church which are really good. And that's the same here. So we're keeping in the theme of that. We're looking at conference through your perspective, through my perspective. And I think that looking at it from my perspective compared to my historical perspective is quite different. I don't go to church anymore, as you know. I do and have listened to conference talks. I tend to think more critically now of the talk, actually listen more, I think, to the talk than I ever have. In the past. Like, at times I listened and a lot of it just went through or over my head. Now I actually, when I do attend or when I do review the talks, I think, listen, critique, question. There's a lot of really good inspiration that comes through conferences, no question about that. Wonderful inspiration. I tend to see that being quite universal, those messages of inspiration coming through general universal principles like love, forgiveness, kindness, service, Jesus Christ, uh, repentance, you know, change. I see the word— I think of the word change and improvement when I think of the word repentance. So those inspirations or those messages that come through those different, those particular universal topics, I, I see inspiration coming through that uniqueness of the church. I see less inspiration through the unique distinction of the church. And Elder Oaks talks about the— what makes the church unique and different. We'll get into that in a few minutes. So from my non-member, post-Mormon perspective, I see conference very, very differently. So I see some interconnected themes and connections across the talks, quite a few of the talks. And they include tithing, they include some elements of guilt. So I like quite a bit, got some examples of that, uh, judgment, risk, the afterlife, and the responsibility to follow the prophets and follow the truth. And doubling down on the, uh, fundamental principles of the gospel, including the proclamation to the family, which Elder Oaks and others spoke about during conference. But several threads on tithing for sure. Again, I've got some examples of that which I'd like to, uh, like to highlight. There is one other talk outside of Elder Oaks and, uh, President Nelson that I this one I highlight here, which caused me quite a bit of discomfort. And it's the talk delivered by Elder Callas, a Godoy of the President of the Seventy. That was gone through, gone through that. And I find that quite disturbing. He talks about this experience when he was in South America, when he gets into a cab during the taxi journey, the cab journey. There's a call from the cab, the taxi office saying that it was in the wrong taxi, if I understand it correctly. A different car was reserved for me and the supervisor asked him to take him back to the airport. If you wanted to change cars at all, it wasn't necessary. After a few minutes of silence, this is with his existing taxi driver, who looked at him through the rearview mirror and asked him very strangely, in my opinion, you are a Mormon, aren't you? I don't know how you would randomly ask that question. I just see that being very, very odd. But the talk gets very odd for me, and I know it's outside of the Elder Oaks, President Nelson, but I thought it was interesting. He says here that in the same talk, he says, it's so sad when we come across inactive members, non-members, or non-members of the Church who at one time had the gospel within their families and lost it because of their parents. Etc., a decision to take a break from the church, that decision could have an impact on their prosperity forever. I thought that was pretty, um, significant and a little bit of— quite a bit of guilt there. Um, he talks about them breaking, you know, if you're going active or less active, you're breaking a, um, a legacy of faith that's been broken. Later on in the talk, he said some may think we don't need to attend church every Sunday, or we will Oh, oh, oh, will we pay? Oh, we will. Oh, we will pay tithing when things get better. Or I will not support the church leaders in the subject. I think that's highly deliberate language. Of course, I think this has all been correlated and deliberately inserted. Very, by the way, all the talks are very, many of the talks are very, very smart and deliberately couched in, in specific language like this. And he says here, oh, I will not support church leaders in this subject. But they say, we know the church is true, we will never leave the gospel. Those with thoughts like these do not realize the negative impact of this lukewarm type membership will have on their lives and on the lives of their prosperity. The parents may remain active, but the risk of losing the children is high in this life and eternity. So if you question the leaders, if you can't afford tithing, or you can't— you're saying you can't afford tithing until things get better, or you don't need to attend the church you are putting your salvation on the line and you're not being truly valiant. He says, the regarding those who will not inherit it. So he's very clever. He's saying, look, if you think like that and you behave like that, you're putting it all on the line. And, uh, for those who do that, they will not inherit the celestial glory with their families. The Lord says, these are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus, wherefore they obtain not the crown of the kingdom. And then this is, this is This is a really disturbing question, very guilt-loaded question. Is that what we want for ourselves or our children? Should we be more valiant and less lukewarm for our own sake and for the sake of our prosperity? What I get from that is that if you love your kids, you'll be completely valiant, you won't question. And if you don't go to church or you don't pay full tithing or you question anything with the leaders, you don't love your children enough. To want to be with him forever. I find the talk very, uh, quite disturbing, quite grotesque. And just to finish off some, uh, comments here that he made in that talk: the decision to walk— he quotes Elder Ballard, who gave that, I think now infamous talk about, you know, where will he go, what will he do. I, I find that, I find that extraordinary. I, I, I think about that a lot. The decision to walk no more with the church members and Lord-chosen leaders will have a long-term impact cannot always be seen right now. What a sad legacy to pass along, and for what reason? Whatever it is, it isn't enough to ignore the negative spiritual impact it will create for generations. And then he closes it by saying, my dear brothers and sisters, if you are going through one of these situations I mentioned in my message, please reconsider your course of action. You know there is a plan for us. You know that promise can be eternal. Why put yours at risk? Don't— listen to this— don't be the weak link. In this beautiful chain of faith you started, or you received as a, or you started, or you received as a legacy. Be the strong one. It is your turn to do it, and the Lord can help you. I think it's a pretty awful talk. It's guilt-laden, loaded, whatever. And it references the tithing, you know, don't question the brethren, pay tithing, keep going to church. Otherwise you're screwed basically, and you're going to hell. That's what I get from it. You don't, you don't want to be chilled. So that's— I didn't research all the talks, but I did go through some of them, and that one stood out to me as being pretty awful. But I know that we want to focus on primarily on to Nelson and to Oaks, and I have done some research. I've looked at their talks and made some notes.

All right. Well, that talk, yeah, that stood out for me as well. It came right after Elder Daines's wonderful talk. And I, as I've looked at the reaction to that talk online, it really hit home hard in a negative way with mixed faith marriages, particularly at this conference. I think was very, very hard on mixed faith marriages.

I agree.

I mean, to some degree, every marriage is a mixed faith marriage, right? I mean, everybody believes in their own way, in a different way, even from their own spouse.

Of course.

But, but increasingly we are seeing in the church people who get married in the temple and are going through the entire template that they've been taught since primary. And then one spouse decides they no longer believe. And, and we have not developed the tools necessary to figure out how to do that or how to navigate that. And this conference really took a huge step backwards in terms of figuring out how to do that. And this talk is cited as one of the primary examples. It— yeah, I have to believe that my Heavenly Father loves my children at least as much as I do. And the idea that he's going to throw them away if, if they don't do what Elder Godoy tells them they ought to do. I, I mean, I reached a point in my own faith where fear just doesn't work for me. It just doesn't work. That's all. I mean, I can listen to that and go, no, no thanks. You know, if you can't If you reached adulthood and you can't accept the reality that the leaders of the church, as good a man as they are— and I think they are good men, as wise men as they are, as inspired men as they are— are also mortal men who have their own preconceptions and their own ideas. And, you know, we always go with this: are they speaking as a man or are they speaking as a prophet? There is never a time they are not speaking as men. They are men. They are capable of error. If you're going to stay in this church, you're going to have to confront massive errors that have happened in times past. And so as I listen to a talk like that, I just kind of shrug it off. I just kind of say, yeah, no thanks. But that's hard for a lot of people to do. And it's really weird to me that this emphasis on if your children leave, It's because you did something wrong. It's because you were lukewarm. And I have to think, well, what do you tell that? What do you tell the children of the apostles who have left? Each of them have children who have left. The General Authorities all have children who have left. All, you know, is this because they were lukewarm? Is there something about your personal righteousness that can override the agency of your children? And the answer is no. You know, I look— Joseph Smith, the first prophet, the first president of the church, did not have a direct descendant as a member of this church until about 10 years ago. Okay, are you going to say Joseph Smith was lukewarm? About 10 years ago, one of his direct descendants ended up joining the church. He's the guy, incidentally, who had the locket that has that picture The one photograph that we have of Joseph Smith that most scholars believe is genuine and is Joseph Smith. But, you know, for generations, Emma Smith wanted nothing to do with Brigham Young, kept her children and kept her family away from Utah and started the Reorganized Church that's now the Community of Christ. You know, so are we to say then that the problem was that Joseph Smith was just a lukewarm father? And just wasn't faithful enough. I mean, it breaks down under even the slightest examination. And for me, guilt and fear and, and that kind of stuff, they just don't resonate with me at all anymore. And I can just listen to that and go, hmm, no, this guy, this guy, this is a misstep. Let's get on to the next one. And so that's kind of what my reaction to that talk was. I mean, It hurt a lot of people. It didn't particularly hurt me because I'm at a place in my own faith where I can accept the fact that, hey, sometimes they get it wrong. And that was a talk where I think he absolutely got it wrong.

No, I concur with that. You know, in the last conference, and it's not every conference, but increasingly from time to time, there's a pattern of guilt and fear You talked about, you know, we talked about lukewarm and the responsibility as parents to remain faithful. And if we're not, we are breaking the legacy of faith, as Elder Godoy has put it. And yeah, you've got agency, but you can only use it in this way. If you look at Elder Oaks's talk and President Nelson, they make specific references, which I've made notes on, you've made notes on, the free agency. Yes, you say it's your choice. You know, Elder Oaks talks about the three kingdoms, ultimately your choice. President Nelson talks about being addicted to certain gods, which we'll get into hopefully. And at the end there, he says, you know, that's your choice. So yes, you have agency, but the church is very clear about how you should use that agency. And if you don't conform exactly to that, you know, cookie cutter shape. You've got, you've got to think and behave. This is how this, this is how I feel. This is my perspective now looking from the outside in to the church, into conference, that you have to conform exactly and think a certain way and even feel a certain way and behave a certain way and live a certain way. There's references to the Covenant Path, there's now references to You know, think celestial, think celestial. There's that repeated comments there in Elder— in President Nelson's talk there. So you have to conform. And if you don't, if you're having a bad week or you're having a bad day, or you can't afford tithing, or you have a question that maybe it's a little bit too sensitive, if you start going in that area, direction too much, then you are absolutely deviating from the covenant path. You're not allowed to think freely. You said earlier, and I want to kind of highlight this as well, you said several times or a few times across the different podcasts, and rightly so, I see where you're coming from with this, but the church, quote, doesn't have, quoting Jim Bennett here, doesn't have or hasn't developed certain tools or resources, end quote, to do certain things. And I've thought about that and I thought about that comment during my review of the conference talks, some of the conference talks, and I believe that I've been too skeptical or a bit too negative or pessimistic. Please challenge me on this, Jim Bennett, but I don't think the church wants to develop those tools or those resources. If you look at Elder Oaks's doubling down against, you know, couples and unions and reinforcing the proclamation on the family, you can look at President Nelson's, you know, comments that align really well with what Elder Oaks is talking about. No, they're the primary talks. I think everything else, mostly, not entirely, every other talk rolls up underneath of the Elder Oaks and President Nelson stuff. And that's done deliberately. That's by— that's no mistake. And so that, that, uh, that thinking, that doubling down, that, that reminding the rank-and-file members that we, we still hold true to that core traditional conventional values, I see why they're doing that and how they're doing that. But they don't want to develop the tools, Jim Bennett, or the resources, because if they did, they would have. These are not stupid people. These are very smart people. I was set apart by Elder Oaks. I was trained by him. There was some time that we spent with him where we got some training. He is as smart as he comes across. He's incredibly smart, even smarter. He's got a brilliant mind. Is a legal expert, as you know, very astute, one of the smartest people I've ever met. He's not stupid. He's not a, uh, uh, he's like Elder Holland, is not a dodo. And you know, the language is strategic, it's deliberate, it's couched, it's very, very smart language. It's all correlated. And they're not interested in developing the tools or the resource because they have a position they hold and they're in a very, very tight spot. And so they have to steer and navigate this very delicate line. I think the other speakers, like the lesser leaders, I think their messaging is allowed to be a bit more flexible or seemingly flexible, a little bit of nuances here, a little bit of flexibility here. But the main message to the rank and file, couple of elder oaks and else, is that look, This is the path that we walking on. This is the covenant path. Yeah, these other talks that might go slightly outside of the periphery, but essentially, you know, this is where we're going. And we see that entrenchment, that's again bringing the rank and file back onto the path, onto the lane. We see that very clearly in Elder Oaks' talk and in President Nelson's talk.

No, I wouldn't disagree with any of that. I, I, and I think that's a good segue to launch into talking about President Oaks's talk, because you're right, they don't want to develop those tools. And they're trying very hard to navigate a perspective that would allow them not to develop those tools, even as they recognize the demand for them. They recognize the need for them. But you're right. You're right. I mean, President Oaks, I think, is a brilliant man, understands exactly what he's saying, chooses his words very, very carefully. And the idea that I would go ballistic at this latest talk presupposes the idea that I haven't heard President Oaks say things like this before. He has very specifically. And this talk, it was very interesting to me because this talk, he quoted himself a number of times. I mean, his reference to the Proclamation on the Family, there was only one reference to it in that talk. And he talked about it once again being founded on irrevocable doctrine. And everybody who uses the proclamation as a cudgel to beat up any, any LGBTQ allies, Says, "See, President Oaks says that the proclamation is doctrine and it's irrevocable doctrine." But look at the words he is using. This is not a man who chooses words lightly. He didn't say it's irrevocable doctrine. He says it's founded on irrevocable doctrine. There is a distinction there, uh, you know, that matters enough to President Oaks that he said that twice, that he has repeated that language twice in reference to the proclamation. Um, President Oaks has given 3 talks since he became, um, a member of the First Presidency that reference directly LGBTQ issues. Ironically, I'm saying this is one of the talks, one, but in fact, I mean, the words, you know, LGBTQ, gay, same-sex attraction, you know, the kinds of language that they use, none of that is in this talk. It's all by inference. You know very well that that's what he's talking about, but he never specifically comes out and says it. The first of those three talks he gave in 2019, right after I had joined the choir, and I was— it was actually on a Sunday evening, which was part of a women's conference. And he gave this talk and it was the talk where he introduced the idea that the first great commandment, love God with all your heart, might, mind, and strength. Is in conflict with the second great commandment. You know, Jesus said, upon these two commandments hang all the laws and the prophets. You know, the first great commandment is love, love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, mind, and strength. And the second is like unto it, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. And in 2019, President Oaks gave a lengthy talk where he said, look, that's all well and good, but the first commandment comes first. We have to love God first, and loving his neighbor, uh, if it comes in conflict with loving God, we need to love our neighbors less. And the example he used as to how it would come in conflict is if we are too accepting of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters. And I listened to that talk and my head exploded. I mean, the meme of Elmo looking at the nuclear bomb would have applied there, although it's still a stupid meme and I still don't understand it. And I remember being in the tunnel that leads from the church office building to the tabernacle and bumping into Tom Christofferson, the brother of Elder Christofferson, and who was also a gay man, and saying, please talk me off the ledge here, Tom. I don't know how I can stay in the church after that talk. I mean, that talk was just about as depressing. And he said, you know, I haven't listened to it on purpose. He says, I knew it was coming and I went out to dinner and had a lovely dinner and didn't pay any attention to it. And but the next day Elder Uchtdorf gave a talk about the journey of life and he compared it to The Hobbit and it was this sort of lovely thing. And I went, okay, once again, I have to recognize that there are there are tensions within the Twelve over these kinds of issues. This is not a talk that Elder Uchtdorf would ever give, but it's a talk that Dallin Oaks gave. Okay, so fade in, fade out. In 2021, Dallin Oaks gives another talk that's a bit softer, and he once again references this conflict between the first two great commandments. And in the, in the interim, several other people, including Elder Christofferson, and a number of '70s pick up on this idea that this is how we're going to justify not being inclusive to LGBTQ people. This idea of tension between the first two great commandments. And it just rankled me to no end because it's very clear to anybody who reads in context what Jesus is saying there that these are the same commandment. The way you show your love for God is through loving your neighbor. The book of 1 John says that if you can't love your neighbor who you have seen, how can you love God who you have not seen? You know, the scripture also— there's also scripture that says anybody who says they love their God and loves God and hates their neighbor is a liar, and the truth is not in them. You know, they are the same commandment. That's how we love God. Inasmuch as you have done it unto the least of these, my brethren, you have done it unto me. When we serve others, it's in the Book of Mormon. It's all over the Book of Mormon. Now, when you are in the service of your fellow beings, you are only in the service of your God, you know. And so this weird tension between the two commandments just doesn't hold up. It doesn't make any sense. And I was so frustrated with President Oaks for that. Okay, so 2021, he gives his second talk. Where he reiterates the proclamation, and he, he touches on the idea of the tension between the first two great commandments. But he introduces a new idea, and that's the idea that, look, the church is all about aiming for the highest degree of the celestial kingdom. That's what the church is about, uh, but the Lord has made gracious offers to people with these lower kingdoms. And these lower kingdoms are pretty good, right? And so some of these gay people and it's interesting and maybe this is a tangent, but they never talk about LGBTQ people in totality. They're really just focusing on gay people and specifically gay men. You know, we don't hear about a lot about lesbianism. We don't hear about transgenderism. I have yet to see any mention of intersex individuals who are biologically neither male nor female. They refuse to sort of acknowledge they exist. But anyway, the idea is, okay, if you're gay, well, okay, you can't really live up to this high celestial standard, but the Lord's got you covered. We've got these other kingdoms They're lovely consolation prizes, happy parting gifts as you end the game show of life. And so it's really not that bad. And that just sort of fell flat as well. And so here, what's happened since, since that 2021 talk, 2 years later, President Oaks is giving a talk where he's quoting both of those talks. And there are elements of those talks that are not in this talk. We have completely lost the idea of tension between the first two great commandments. And in fact, in a YSA fireside, President Oaks essentially came as close as he comes to in making an apology where he essentially says, I think we've been focusing too much on the idea that there's a— there's a— I'm pulling up the actual quote. He said somebody brought it up in my Twitter account and said, the YSA devotional, I have previously referred to our continually trying to balance the dual commandments of love and law, but I now believe that goal to be better expressed as trying to live both of these commandments in a more complete way. And I think what happened is he floated that as the, as the way to justify continued discrimination against LGBTQ people. And it fell flat. It did not resonate with the church membership. And the way we know that is that Polling USA just this last week released a poll showing that in 2014, only 27% of active members of the church supported gay marriage. In 2023, that number is 50%. That— and that is the biggest increase of any faith group in the world. Uh, Latter-day Saints are increasingly becoming more and more accepting of LGBTQ inclusion, and this despite President Oaks's attempt to continually tamp it down, to continually stamp it down, it hasn't worked. And it's why he continues to return to this. You know, President Nelson gave a talk when he first became president of the Church about the full name of the Church. You know, did we get rid of the term Mormon? We have to embrace the full name of the Church. He has never revisited that issue because the Church, by and large, has complied, has obeyed, has embraced even this idea. I still find it problematic, but I, out of respect for the prophet, do what I can to make sure that I try to use the full name of the church and use Latter-day Saint instead of Mormon whenever possible. Uh, but, uh, the fact that, that President Oaks has to keep coming back to this and then just sort of subtly revising what he said before demonstrates that it's not working, demonstrates that the membership of the church are continuing to embrace LGBTQ inclusion, and it also demonstrates, I believe, a continuing wrestle in President Oaks as to how to deal with this. I mean, you say he's not an idiot, and he isn't an idiot, and he recognizes this, and he recognizes the problem and does not know how to be able to protect the church's position in a way that will endure after he's gone, because he sees it slipping away. And this talk, he leans into what he had given in the last talk about the three kingdoms and how it's better for everybody, but he frames it far more inclusively. The first half of the talk, he talks about this idea that Mormons believe in universal salvation, which is one of the things that I love about the church and love about the gospel, is we really do. We are universalists. We don't believe in the kind of hell that Orthodox Christianity will preach, and we believe everybody will inherit a kingdom of glory. He does not get into the controversy as to whether or not you can progress through the kingdoms of glory. I don't know that he believes that. I'm pretty sure President Nelson does not believe that. I know Bruce R. McConkie called it one of the seven deadly heresies. But this idea of eternal progression, I just don't see— I think eternity is too long a time for anything to be stagnant. Things are always going to be moving. And so I think everybody— it takes billions upon billions of years. Everybody will progress to where they need to be. But that's another discussion. The point is, he's trying to frame this as inclusively as he can in a way that will appease, uh, the membership of the church who are not willing to accept half measures when it comes to LGBTQ inclusion, particularly among the rising generation. You know, I think if you were to break down that 50% by age The baby boomers would be 90% opposed to gay marriage and Generation Z would be 90% in favor. The rising generation is changing the church in a way that President Oaks is not comfortable with. And I liken this to my own faith journey on this issue and also on the public's faith journey on this issue. You know, in 2008, Barack Obama ran for president of the United States in opposition to gay marriage the same year that Proposition 8 passed in the state of California with full church support. And 7 years later, uh, the Supreme Court of the United States strikes down restrictions on gay marriage and makes gay marriage legal in all 50 states. And the church lost every battle and every war they had on that in every way it is possible to lose. And President Oaks is now left with, okay, well, how do we salvage this? What do we do about this? And the other thing that has happened is that the church has made a critical and I believe very positive change in terms of how we view homosexuality. We now admit that people do not choose to be gay. That sufficient repentance and prayer and mixed-orientation marriages will not make you not gay. And yet, and that has put us, I think, in an intellectual cul-de-sac. You know, when President Packer, when Elder Packer, he was president of the Quorum of the Twelve, gave that talk in 2010, right near his death, he said, of course nobody's born gay. Why would your Heavenly Father do that to anyone? You know, he was sort of flailing, saying, I got to, I got to tamp this down. People are now saying you're born gay. No, no, no, no, you're not born gay. Absolutely. It's a choice. Absolutely. It's sinful. And yet he was smacked down by the First Presidency, and that was changed in the actual talk. And so the ground we are left to defend is really kind of tiny. It's, yes, we know you're gay. Yes, we know you didn't choose to be gay. Yes, we know you can't change being gay, but we're going to continue to punish you as if you did. And that hasn't worked. And so here you have President Oaks offering this sort of, okay, here's the beautiful plan. Here's how you fit in the plan. Yes, you'll never make it to the celestial kingdom, but that's okay because everybody gets saved and it's I mean, it's still kind of the same thing as last time, only trying to be more inclusive and trying to put it in the full idea of, of universal salvation. And it reminds me, does the term civil union mean anything to you?

Yes.

You remember the term civil union?

Yes.

In the evolution of gay rights, somebody struck upon the idea of, okay, Here's a half measure that might work. Instead of allowing gay people to marry, we will allow gay people to enter into civil unions, which have all of the benefits of marriage, all of the legal benefits of marriage, all of the inheritance rights. You can visit your civil union partner in the hospital. You can do all these things. What you can't do is call it marriage. We're just not going to call it marriage. The governor of Utah at the time, Jon Huntsman Jr. Proposed civil unions in, in Utah. And the idea was, okay, this is enough. This will be enough. This will placate everybody here. You, you get everything. You just don't get to call it marriage. And we still get to look down on you and say you're not really married and you're not really equal to us. Separate but equal, essentially, in terms of gay marriage. And there, is that enough? Does that appease you? And it didn't appease anybody. It made everybody who hated gay marriage angry because they didn't wanna see them get any kind of rights. And it made the people advocating for gay marriage angry because they said, no, we want to be on equal footing with everybody else. And I see President Oaks essentially being in kind of the civil union zone here, that this is sort of a last attempt to kind of appease and say, okay, well, here, how about this? How about this? You get a nice shiny terrestrial life. And isn't that enough? And it's not going to be enough. Of course it's not enough. And, you know, so, so what I'm seeing is a wrestle, an internal wrestle. And it's a wrestle that I personally went through. You know, you can go back and find my old blog where I rail on the idea of gay marriage up, down, and sideways. And I give all kinds of justifications as to, well, you know, gays can already get married. They just can't marry someone of the same sex because that's not what marriage is. And other kinds of things. And, and I— it, it did not occur to me that the church could be wrong on this. And so I had to find a way to make it look right. And it wasn't until 2015 when I had to confront the absolute wrongness of the church's policy of exclusion where that dam broke. And I went, nope, church is wrong. There's no other way to look at this. The church is doing something wrong. And if the church is wrong about that, then it's possible for the church to be wrong about a number of other things, including gay marriage. And so I don't know that President Oaks has— I, I'm fairly sure he hasn't reached the point where he, he is willing to even consider the reality that the church has been getting this wrong and that he has been getting this wrong. I mean, he's the one in 1985 who wrote the memo that described the, the fact that gay marriage is going to eliminate humanity in a generation because sexuality is so fragile that if we allow gay marriage and we allow, you know, acceptance of homosexuals to flourish, everybody will be gay, nobody will have children, and the human race will die. That's essentially the justification. It's nonsense. And it's nonsense. And everybody can see it's nonsense because we've legalized gay marriage. And, and heterosexual marriages are in no danger of going away. And people are not becoming gay to the point where the human race is at risk of dying out. I mean, it's just nonsense. And so I think we're seeing the endgame here, where President Oaks, he has been backed into a corner, backed into a corner, backed into a corner, backed into a corner by all of these defeats on gay marriage that the church has suffered. He's now seeing the rising generation accepting it in record numbers. And nothing he has said in the past has had any kind of an impact that's stopping that. And what we're seeing is, okay, well, here's, here's a half measure. Will this, will this satisfy you? And I think ultimately the answer will be no. And I think, I think in my optimistic optimism that we're being set up for what I call a Nixon to China moment. You know, every— everybody said only Nixon could go to China. Nixon opened mainland China to the West, and Nixon, uh, gave more— President Nixon gave more credibility to that effort because he had been such a virulent anti-communist. And if Nixon is willing to accept China, then maybe everybody else will. If it's President Oaks who eventually offers us, um, a, a dramatic change in how we include LGBTQ people in the church, uh, he will have far more credibility in doing that than any other leader would because of how outspoken he's been on this in the past. And it would be impossible to say this came from Elder Oaks just his own personal kind of biases or opinions. Everybody would have to acknowledge that it came from God. And I am hoping— I don't know this for sure, but I am hoping that that seems to be where we're going. And I am encouraged that that's where we're going. And that lengthy diatribe is my reaction to President Oaks' talk. Does any of that help you at all, or is your reaction different from that?

I share some of their views and have different perspective and different views as well. Looking from the outside in, I see things, uh, again differently in some ways. So for context, if we want to know and understand the church's position on certain principles like gay marriage, gay rights, we should look, in my opinion, primarily at what and how Elder Oaks thinks. I believe that Elder Oaks is leading this church with Nelson and the others supporting him. I believe that is happening. And I believe that we should take very careful note of the exact and precise words Elder Oaks uses, uh, in these talks, whether it's BYU or General Conference. There's lots of inferences. The language is carefully, strategically, intelligently put together. Deliberate. It's— each word is, is very important, and most words are very important. And we see that pattern of thinking and mindset, which I believe is shaping and leading and influencing the church in many, many ways. We see that pattern here in Elder Oaks' talk. Also, for context, and again, having worked with him He has a legalistic mind, of course. He sees, he's familiar with laws and regulations and compliances. A lot of it is black and white. If you look at, uh, in business, you look at any regulatory compliance verification, uh, processes and activities. So whether you determine whether a company or an operation or project is compliant with laws, that's been his job. You know, a, a, a, a people organization business, are they compliant with the law? He's a lawyer. He's a. He's a, he's a judge, he's a legalistic mind, and the church has policies and procedures, it has principles and standards and values that were developed during the restoration of the church. And a big challenge, I think, now is how does the church and how does Elder Oaks reconcile that and navigate that through his traditional conventional thinking, this legal mind, And we see that playing out with some, I think, frustration on his part in this talk and in previous talks. Again, to be clear, I think to understand the church position, we need to understand how people like Elder Oaks is thinking and their perspective in their, in their position, because that's very important that we, we, we understand that his influence on the church is very significant, significant hold of the church. And we know that his relationship with Alapaka was very close and that they were entrenched on these topics for many, many years. And to your point, if he does change, and I, I see the very slight changes, if he does change, then I think that is going to be a, a significant, uh, breakthrough. Also in the context of the legal thinking, the legal mindset thinking, Gay rights, as we know, has now become a civil rights movement, and those civil rights are now enshrined in US law, certainly here in Canada and certainly in the UK. And they'd gone beyond the civil union, um, regulations or laws that were first introduced, and they were introduced in UK as well, probably in a similar vein as sort of the US, and they didn't, they didn't wash, they didn't, uh, they didn't fly. And understandably, gay folks wanted and expected the same rights as any other person within the marriage. And that's what we're seeing. We're seeing a clash of principles between the elder Oaks thinking and the new thinking that's coming up in a very accelerated fashion. This thinking, this change, and this liberal thinking is like a train that is continuing to move forward. It's like an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object, but the church is the immovable object, and we see it changing, albeit struggling to change. And we see that manifest so through Elder Oaks's comments. We're seeing a clash of principles and values and a clash of thinking, a clash of the old and the new. And we're seeing that the old has been pushed aggressively by this unstoppable force to the side. And we're seeing Elder Oaks and the church's position and diminishing footprint, small surface area diminishing, increasingly so as we see these liberal, liberal rights roll over through and around the church through this new and modern thinking, this young thinking that's coming into the into the conversations. So looking at his talk here, he starts out by saying that it distinguishes the Church from other organizations. This is my interpretation. He says, how is, you know, members of the Church of Jesus Christ, like I said, it's a frequently asked, how is your church different from other Christian churches? It's a very intelligent way of opening a talk, in my opinion. Amongst the answers we give is the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. So he's now setting the stage We're different, we're unique, you know, this is the context that we come from, et cetera. And that, that's a very smart way of, of introducing this. Um, and so I've gone through the talk and I've highlighted some, um, some points here. These very— spends about 2 paragraphs here really kind of laying the land and, and, and providing some context and, and where it came from and revelation and, and the relationship with God, the nature of God and, and the divine commandments, or it's revealed through the Church of God's day. Talks about Interesting, subtle glory, three levels. And he starts now by going into the three different distinct levels. He says that this, it's not a binary thinking in the church. It's not like, um, you know, we, we either go to hell or we go to heaven. Uh, he, he quotes that in our, in our, my father's house, many mansions. And he then uses that as a pre, you know, that, that binary and, and other context as a precursor to, to reminding us about the three glories of 3 different kingdoms. And so, um, uh, he said in God's plan is found that our internal truths requires exaltation, requiring that exaltation can be attained only through the patronage of the covenants of an eternal marriage between a man and a woman in the Holy Temple, which marriage will ultimately be available to all faithful. Now I thought that was interesting because, uh, one of the one sense that I think any prospect of same-sex couples getting sealed in the temple is gone, shot down. And then he talks about which marriage will ultimately be available to all through the faithful. I get that, that again, I think that's consistent with the church's traditional position and the proclamation of the family that you can only be eternal if you're a man and wife and you get married in the temple and only available to, faithful men and women. I don't get same-sex couple from that. That's if you're, if you're a man and a woman, you want to get married, that, that, and you're faithful, that's it. There's no room for any, any other type of partnership. He says, hey, that's why we teach that gender— and he's quoting Proclamation of the Family— is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, eternal identity and purpose. So he's, he's not moved from that position. A uniquely valuable teaching to help us prepare for exaltation is that man and wife— Proclamation of the Temple Talks about the declaration, etc. Those who do not fully understand the Father's loving plan for his children may consider this family proclamation, uh, no more than a changeable statement of policy. In contrast, we, we affirm that the family proclamation, founded on irrevocable doctrine— to your point earlier, Jim— defines the mortal family relationship where most, the most important part of our eternal development can occur. So he's doubled down, he's gone back to that. And I think that's a message for the, for the rank and file, those older, more traditional individuals. I think that will reassure them that the church at the moment at least is not going to be diluting any of that. That right now we're not gonna see any same-sex couples get sealed in the temple. He talks about 3 different kingdoms and he says here, for example, those in the Trestle Kingdom compared to the popular concept of heaven, are they who receive of— I thought this is interesting doctrinally, by the way. It's probably what you weren't expecting in the podcast, but I did see this as a doctrinal conflict where he says, are they who receive of the presence of the Son but not fullness of the Father? They were honorable men of the earth who were blinded by the craftiness of men. I always struggle to correlate that or reconcile rather those two that if you receive the presence of the Son, that means the fullness of the Son in my mind, that you're in the presence of Christ and all the glory of Christ. And Christ is the same as the Son. And remember when God the Father, Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith, they're exactly the same. Truman Madsen said in those tape talks that we, uh, used to get that, um, he says, uh, no man can, uh, differentiate between, or rather the only the Holy Ghost can help you differentiate between God the Father and the Son. They're so alike in every way. I mean, I'm paraphrasing there and I'm trying to do my old Truman lesson.

If you've got any money, Donald's, I will send both you and McDonald's to hell. That was my favorite Truman Madison quote.

No, I love that one. Yeah. So we used to, we used to have, we used to listen to those tapes often and I remember very clearly, used to listen to them all the time. They were amazing. And you can only separate God the Father and Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Ghost. Even the heartbeats were the same. They were the same. The paintings, the images are the same. So if they're the same in everything, and Jesus Christ is God, is God and is a God in every way, why can you be in the presence of Christ and not the fullness of God? Anyway, that's a doctrinal thing that kind of I picked up on. Uh, he also talks about the lowest kingdoms. So we're seeing, look, there's three kingdoms, uh, the highest of the high. He talks about the celestial kingdom. It then talks about exaltation being the highest of the kingdom. You know, it's reserved for, you know, faithful members of the church. I can't remember if he talks about faithful marriages in the church. I think he infers that in his comments earlier that, you know, we know the church's position. You can only, uh, enter the highest level of the celestial kingdom if you are in an eternal marriage and you're faithful in that eternal marriage. Church's position has not changed that, changed that. And he infers that, I think, in— at least that's what I get from this. And then he says, um, you know, uh, that, uh, it says a terrestrial glory that describes those who reject the Savior and, and have observed no divine limits on their behavior. I, I, it's very intelligent the way he writes. He's done this talk, he's still about this talk, and that he's had some help. I think most of this is his words. I don't think he needs much help with his talk, frankly. This is the kingdom. He told me that once. He does most of his talk. This is where, this is the kingdom where the wicked abide after they've suffered for their sins. And then he talks about, uh, these are described in modern revelation as they who will receive not the gospel of Christ, neither the testimony of Jesus. These are they who are liars, sorcerers, adulterers, and all mongers. Whoever loves and makes a lie. And I was thinking about, have there ever been an apostle now or in the past who have lied or deceived or misdirected? Because I think that applies to them as well. He quotes President Nelson. He says, mortal lifetime is barely a nanosecond compared with eternity. What a crucial nanosecond it is. Consider carefully how it works. During this mortal life, you get to choose which laws you are willing to obey. Again, I think there's a double side to this. Look, we've got the gospel, we've got the principles. Follow it and you're fine. If not, you're screwed. And if you do, you'll get in the celestial kingdom or the terrestrial or the celestial, and therefore in which kingdom of glory you will live forever. What a plan, he says. It is a plan that completely honors your agency. So it's up to you. If you wanna pick the celestial kingdom, that's your choice. If you wanna pick the terrestrial kingdom, that's up to you. Here's what we teach, here's the standards, and you, if you want to get to the highest, uh, of the highest, you, you can only do that by living exactly, you know, how we tell you and what, and what we tell you. And, and not talk about, uh, not focus necessarily on what we have done, end quote, but it's based, quote, on the final effect of our acts and thoughts of what we have become. I thought that was interesting as well. Uh, he talks about the, uh, profound change in our nature. Again, very careful words. If you wanna know what's going on in the church, read, listen, and watch every word this man says because the significance— there's some layers in his language which that you'll miss, I, I think, and we do often miss. It says here, as used here, the words of many meanings signify profound change of nature. So he drops those in, and what does that mean, um, in terms of, of the context of this talk? And then he talks about the covenants. And then at the end, he, he says some interesting things. He talks about, um, salvation again, uh, being a— salvation is, um, an individual matter, but exaltation is a family matter, implying, inferring that you can only receive exaltation, which he, he defines and distinguishes as the highest level. And it's something me see that earlier. And you can only get there with your family, basically. That's what I get. So you want exaltation, it's— you can't get there without your family. You've got to get there with your family. And then at the end, he said, and this is interesting, the blessings of a sealed relationship are assured for all who keep their covenants, but quote, never by forcing a sealed relationship on another person who is unworthy or unwilling. I I was fascinated by that, and I'm not sure what that entirely means. But basically, this talk is, uh, in, in, in, in one sense, it's doubling down on those, um, you know, the proclamation to the family. And, uh, I, I, I see that satisfying, you know, the rank and file. Uh, but I also see that as some aspects of that is to the changing nature, as he signifies the changing nature not just of us but of him personally. Uh, you might not see that, others might not see that, and, and that's fine. But I see, having worked with him, he's referring to the nature of the leaders of the church, his nature, and that as time goes on, we, we see things differently. You know, you use that example in his BYU talk where it re— he, he, he goes back and, and, um, reverses on the principle of the relationship between loving God and loving a fellow man. You've aptly identified that. I see elements of that in his talk, and I see aspects of this where he's signifying or signaling changes in our nature because new revelation comes to light, new information. And I think he's trying to— I think he knows he's lost the battle. And then how do you recover yourself or recover some ground without losing too much face? And you can only do it in very, very small tiny increment, especially the old oaks who's been in this corner and entrenched so hard, so, so solidified and so immovable in a particular position on lots of things. How does someone like that move themselves and reposition themselves and realign themselves with this force that's coming through and around the church, etc., without losing credibility, without losing face, without losing some of the rank-and-file members? But your question was, what was my take on this talk? That was my take.

Well, I think you're absolutely right. It's— I mean, I keep coming back to the fact that he's repeating— the fact that he's repeating himself over and over again now is cheering on the people who think I'm Elmo looking at a nuclear bomb, who have made anti-LGBTQ feelings the centerpiece of their faith. And they are heartened by this. And the fact that he's— he continues to reiterate this over and over and over again, it vindicates them, and their bigotry is justified. And let's go forth and let's dump on progmose like Jim Bennett and completely ignore exmose like Ian Wilkes. And I see weakness, not strength. I see somebody You know, when someone continually tells me this can never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever change, that comes from a position of weakness, not strength. I just keep thinking, who are you trying to convince? Because you're not convincing me, and I don't think you're convincing yourself. And I see President Oaks trying to convince himself to some degree, trying to say the light and knowledge we have on this is sufficient, and the fact that we have lost all of these battles on this doesn't really matter. Here's the framework in which all of this really makes sense. And I don't see anybody appeased by it, and I don't see anybody actually even listening to it. I think both pro and con are listening to this and they're hearing dog whistles. They're hearing, oh, no, what he really means is go beat up the gays. Which is what Elder Packer explicitly said in 1976 in his For Young Men Only talk. Made a big joke, big laugh line about how this guy floored his missionary companion, punched him in the face and knocked him onto the ground. And he's like, well, General Authority couldn't do that. So I'm glad you did it. You know, I mean, ha ha ha. And the whole tabernacle just laughed. I mean, that's where we were in '76. Under President Kimball, who called homosexuals perverts with a curable condition, and all they had to do was knock on the door until their arms were bloody. You know, that's where we were. We're not there anymore. And Elder President Oaks knows that probably better than anybody, and he sees where we're going, and he's trying to stop it. He's trying to hold out his arm and stop the flow of the Missouri River. You know, that's the Joseph Smith quote: As well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the flow of the Missouri River than to stop the Almighty from pouring down knowledge upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints. And, uh, that's what I see in this. And it's fascinating to watch because if you think that this is static If you think the church is standing still, if you think there can never be any change or there never has been any change, I mean, a lot of people are like, well, we've never changed, we've never ever changed this, this is irrevocable doctrine. The sand is shifting underneath our feet, and it's only a matter of time.

Yeah, no, you are right. I see, I think Elder Oaks, I see some glimmer of hope in his talk. Again, I'm on the outside looking in, I can see why people would be very concerned and Oaks is delivering the same message and as entrenched as ever. I see aspects having again worked with him, um, or met him and been set apart and, um, had some initial training and, uh, I'm not in his mind, obviously I don't know the man that well, but have a little bit of perspective on, on him and where his, um, come from, and, and he's a lawyer, et cetera, et cetera. I see aspects of change, references to changing nature, and some elements of, of, um, of hope. And I think it wouldn't surprise me if he privately told people that, look, the church is changing. I've done my best to kind of stop it or slow it down in terms of the impact on the church. I've not been effective. It's not working, but I'm not going to be part of, uh, uh, encouraging it to move forward at a faster, more accelerated rate. Not while I'm on this Earth. And any changes you want to make— and I think it wouldn't surprise me if he's, uh, consigned himself to, uh, accept that there's nothing he can do or even wants to do. You know, talk about tools and resources. Not gonna— he's not interested in developing tools and resources to encourage the movement that we speak of, this mighty flow of the river, if you like, that we talk about. That's analogy. Not while he's not— I don't think he wants to be known for that either. I think he— I think he is, and he can't— he can only go so far from where his very strict entrenched position is to what we now support gay marriage. I mean, how does that work in his mind, in a mind like that? Black and white, legalistic, prophetic, black and white. This is our position, we're not going to change it. And then even over a space of years, we now accept and acknowledge gay marriage, et cetera, et cetera. How do you do that? I don't think he is or even wants to be the person to usher in the changes. How old is he? What is he, 80?

No, he's in his 90s. He's 92.

Right. And I do know, 92, you're not gonna be around that long. He knows that. Nelson looked very frail. If he's lucky, he's got a, you know, 99— Nelson's 99, isn't he? They've got a few more years in them. Why would you fight? Why would you die on that battle, on that hill, on something that you'd been so opposed to? At this stage in your life, known for these traditional conventional views, why would you be the one to usher in those changes? They're not interested, they're not going to do it. The next— so you're not going to see any major change whatsoever, even significant incremental changes while Nelson and Oaks are here. The good news, um, if, if there is a light at the end of the tunnel, is that they're not going to be around for very long, and then we see a new emergence of new leaders People like Holland, uh, people like— who I think has changed quite a bit, uh, people like, uh, Bednar and Oogdorff, I think will have a bigger say. I think Oogdorff has been pushed to the side. You've got this right-wing traditional conventional thinking. Oogdorff, I see him more liberal, a little bit more open-minded. And I think you're not going to see any changes till Nelson and Oaks have gone. That I feel sure. And then the new leaders coming in, I think you're definitely going to see some, some changes, not significant, but bigger than what we've seen today. I really believe that.

Well, Holland didn't come to conference because he's too ill. And the report seemed to be that the idea that Holland will ascend to the presidency of the church seems unlikely based on his health. Ballard is old and ill. Um, I don't know how long Eyring's going to stand to be around, so it'll be Eyring after that. Um, but anyway, we will see. We have talked now for, uh, we've gone well over an hour and we haven't even gotten President Nelson's talk. So, uh, I think we, we've, we talked behind the scenes here that we're gonna break this up then into two podcasts because President Nelson's talk is worth a podcast in and of itself. And we focus primarily on President Oaks. But I think this has been a good discussion. I really appreciate your insights, particularly with regard to your personal experience with President Oaks. But I, I continue to be hopeful that this is the Lord's Church. And therefore the Lord— this is my uncle who was a stake president in L.A. that I lived with while I was in college. He kept saying, it's the Lord's name over the door. Let him worry about it. And I see the hand of the Lord in how he is dealing with the biases and the entrenched positions and the humanity and weakness of the people who are trying to serve him. And I do think they're trying to serve him. And I think that eventually we're going to get where we need to be. But only time will tell. That's not a controversial thing to say.

So, and I agree, I think we're going to see positive change after Oaks and Nelson.

Well, we will let that be the last word. And until next time, we will see you. We will discuss President Nelson's talk in our next episode of Inside Out. Thank you very much, Ian.

Thank you, Jim Bennett.