Lessons from the Community of Christ

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

I am right here looking forward to having this conversation with you and bringing in all of my endless talents into the conversation.

Yeah, we had an interesting conversation before this where you said you don't think you have any talent.

No, I don't have any. I don't have any talents. Well, I can't think of any.

I just think that's absolutely ridiculous. There was— I need to call your attention to this on— I think it was on Blue Sky. Somebody said this was the best episode of Inside Out yet, referring to the Terrell Givens episode. Uh, and then they said, and there was so little of Jim Bennett in it, which made it better. So you have a fan out there. I do have many fans out there, but, uh, thank you.

Thank you. I just, I put it down to Terrell Givens. Uh, it was just amazing. And and you, I'm okay with just kind of going along with it. So yeah, I, I, I see people around me, including yourself, incredibly talented. I, I just don't have very many talents. I can't think of any.

Well, well, I, I, I can think of legions of them. So we could do an entire episode on the talents of Ian Wilkes.

It would last about 2 minutes.

Well, there's also something else going on out there that I think we need to talk about.

There is that show.

So very recently, the Community of Christ, which used to be the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, they changed their name to the Community of Christ quite some time ago, actually. But they just ordained a new, what they call, prophet president. It's the title of the leader of their church. I mean, we talk about Russell M. Nelson as the prophet, uh, but we also talk about him as president of the church, and we also sustain him as well as the whole First Presidency and all 12 apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators. So there are a lot of titles at play here, but the Community of Christ designates the leader of their church as the Prophet President. And for most of its history, the leader of the church was a direct descendant of Joseph Smith. Emma Smith was contacted after, um, Brigham Young took the majority of Latter-day Saints west and went and settled the Salt Lake Valley. Emma Smith was contacted by people who wanted to reorganize the church around, um, her son Joseph Smith III, and Emma resisted for a very long time. And part of it was that, uh, she was traumatized by the death of her husband. Uh, she had remarried and she just didn't want anything to do with it. And she also felt like her son was too young. But then decided, okay, uh, the time was right, and Joseph Smith III was sustained as the first president of the Reorganized Church. And the time frame— this was probably about a decade after the death of Joseph Smith. And the Reorganized Church has always sort of followed the beat of a different drummer from the Utah Church. For one thing, they insist, or they insisted— they've changed on this now— but they insisted for a very long time that Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy, and they rejected polygamy. And I think scholars now have come to accept the reality that yes, Joseph Smith did practice polygamy. But the Community of Christ has also theologically sort of gone as far as it can to integrate Restorationist ideas and doctrines into a much more traditional Christian, Orthodox Christian— I don't mean Orthodox like Russian Orthodox, but, but Protestant, essentially— theology. And they have also explicitly abandoned the idea that they are the only true church. They no longer say that, and they consider themselves, uh, one of many Christian churches. They are the Community of Christ, and their focus is on peace. They built a temple that does not have any of the kind of ordinances that are in Latter-day Saint temples. Their temple is open to the public. It is a place of reflection, it is a place of worship, and it is a place where they pray for world peace. So it's, it's actually, I think, quite different now from the, the Utah-based church. They call us Brighamites, or they used to call us Brighamites, but now the relationship between the two churches is very positive, very friendly. Uh, there was a sale of historic church sites that the Community of Christ sold the Kirtland Temple and sold, um, a number of the, the Mansion House, a number of Nauvoo properties to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And that has given them an infusion of cash because they're much smaller than the Utah-based church. They were struggling financially, and I think many of them were heartbroken that they felt like the only way forward was to sell these, these assets. So all that is background to the fact that, uh, the, the leadership was, was Joseph Smith lineage, uh, up until then. They decided in the '80s that, uh, that they weren't going to do that anymore, and they called a man named Grant McMurray to be the president of the church. And then in the mid-'80s, they also started ordaining women to priesthood offices. And, uh, Stacy Cram— I think I'm pronouncing that correctly. It's spelled oddly, S-T-A-S-S-I, so it might be Stassi Cram, but I'm going to call her Stacy Cram. If I'm in trouble, somebody will point out that that's probably not what I should be calling her. But Stassi Cram— Stacy Cram was ordained to the priesthood in 1987, and she was ordained full-time to work for the church in the year 2000. And she gave a lengthy interview to Peggy Fletcher Stack of the Salt Lake Tribune. I consider Peggy to be a national treasure. I think that she does tremendous work in terms of discussing all of the issues in a very journalistic and non-biased way. And her only interview, Stacy Cram's only interview, was with Peggy Fletcher Stack. And as I read through it, they were talking about, um, a number of different things. And then they got to a point that I did not realize was true. Uh, I did not realize this, this was an issue. Um, Peggy interviews President Cram about the hurt from the sale of those properties and all of the frustrations within the Community of Christ over it. President Cram says, we have tried to be very intentional about sharing information in different forums. Some people were most upset because they did not get to participate in the decision-making process, and that felt counter to the way we try to make big decisions. Which I thought was interesting because our church makes all kinds of big decisions without direct member participation. There are surveys and things, and we've talked about that, but the idea of the president of the church saying, "We're going to get a forum together where everybody can help us make decisions," that's just unheard of in the Utah-based church. But anyway, the next question in the interview was, going back to women's ordination in 1984, a step that Utah, the Utah-based faith has not taken. Some say the church lost a lot of members over it, right? And President Cram's interview had, uh, answer is just 4 words long and it floored me. I had no idea that this was the case. Her answer was, we estimate about half. In other words, half of the members of the Community of Christ, then the Reorganized Church, half of the membership left when women were ordained to the priesthood. That's a stunning, stunning number. And the next question: Some historians argue that the Church didn't prepare the people enough for that move. What do you think? And President Cram answers, it was an act of faith. There are those moments where the Spirit's calling is so profound that all you can do is present it to the body and then see what the body does with it. In talking to then-President Smith, it was no longer deniable to him. He sensed it for quite a while that we cannot continue to become who we are called to be without making this decision that God was saying, "It's now, and what will you do with this invitation?" The leadership and those who remain demonstrated an amazing willingness to take a risk along with profound Courage. I just pray that if I come to one of those crossroads, that I have the discernment and the faith and the humbleness and the courage to make that choice. Okay, so that's where I want to launch this discussion, because when I read that, I started thinking about a number of things and a number of changes that the church has considered either behind closed doors or there have been discussions about them out in public. But there are a number of things that, uh, people inside and outside the church would like to see the church do. I, I look at the Ordain Women movement with Kate Kelly, and she was excommunicated as a result of her efforts to get the church to ordain women. And there hasn't been anything quite as big as that since then, but the discussion will not go away, and the pressure continues to mount. And a lot of millennials who leave very often do so over this issue. Women leave and say, "Look, I am a respected professional everywhere else in my life. I go to church and I have less authority than the 11-year-old boys who are passing the sacrament." And there's something wrong there, and I, I'm just not willing to do that. And so women, particularly younger women, leave the church over this issue. And many, many people have said, okay, we need to stem the tide of that. The way to do that is to ordain women. And we had a lengthy podcast discussion where we discussed the role of women in the church. It's always great when two privileged white guys talk about women. You know, I mean, so we recognize our privilege. We recognize just how problematic it is that we're talking about this. But I looked at that and thought, okay, if half of the membership left the church in the '80s, left the reorganized church in the '80s, did our church leaders look at that And do they have data? I mean, they have all kinds of data. Do they have data telling them that something similar might happen if they were to make that move now? And it's not just women getting the priesthood. If the Church were to allow same-sex marriage, not even allow temple sealing, same-sex temple sealings, but say, okay, You can't go to the temple and get married, but if you get married civilly to someone of the same gender, we will not take any ecclesiastical action against you. There are a lot of people who have advocated for that. They could do that today without any kind of revelation, and they don't do that. And as I look at the podcast world, I look at people like Jacob Hanson, who I had the big debate with about a year ago. Somebody picked that up on Reddit, and I've been getting comments on my year-old debate with Jacob Hanson. Jacob Hanson has said if the church were to do that, he would leave. And other podcasters have said the same thing. If the church were to be more accepting of gay, of LGBTQ people, they would leave. And, you know, so you go down the list And you go down all the hot-button issues. You say, okay, women getting the priesthood, greater LGBTQ inclusion. Uh, what about, you know, politics? And I know you, you've talked about how frustrated you are with the fact that church leaders don't do what Pope Leo is doing, which is weigh in on the issues of the day and weigh in on the political scene. And there was another article in the Tribune the same day this article ran that talked about the fact that fewer Latter-day Saints are registered Republicans, but support for Donald Trump is at an all-time high in terms of the polling and in terms of the support. And you look at that and go, okay, Donald Trump is antithetical to so much of what the church teaches, But how much of the church's reticence to point that out or to engage with the fact that we have an adjudicated sexual offender in the White House, that we have a convicted felon in the White House, that we have an insurrectionist in the White House— I mean, you can just go down the list of all the things Donald Trump has done that are just absolutely the opposite of everything I have ever been taught in the church. And you look at church support for that, you think, gosh, somebody in church leadership ought to be able to say something about this. How much of their unwillingness to engage on issues like that is motivated by this kind of fear? Is motivated by the idea that if they take a controversial stand— it can be women in the priesthood, it can be LGBTQ, it could be political— if they take a principled stand on anything like this, how many people will leave? And I have to think that that is a huge consideration, particularly after COVID, when even mild suggestions that members be vaccinated, that members wear masks, were greeted with all kinds of opposition and resistance. And I have to believe with a number of resignations, or at least quiet quitting, where people just stopped coming to church because they felt Russell Nelson was a fallen prophet because he had been vaccinated. So, uh, so that's the broad question of this podcast. And I'm going to pose it to you, Ian, and you need to give the definitive answer here. How much, how much of this reticence to engage on controversial issues is motivated by fear?

That's an interesting, that's a multifaceted question. It is requiring a multifaceted response. I, I think this conversation. This podcast is another example of where we identify and connect the dots. If we pick any issue or problem with the church, any topic, any doctrine, uh, policy— most, maybe not any, but many— um, and you strip away why the church does what it does, why the church behaves the way it does, I come back to a number of key points that essentially came up very clearly and obviously in my interview with Elder Oaks and Elder Cook, and that is the church will do anything and everything to protect its reputation and to protect the institution. And I would add my own thought, that is to protect the investment. In, in financial terms, professional terms, when you protect your investment, you invest into something, you see that you can yield a strong return if it's managed properly and if it's built and expanded and you add value to it, then of course your shares increase in that asset or that product. The church does an extraordinary job at every level, most levels internally, in terms of how it's organized and structured. Uh, it connects policies and doctrines to behavior. So it has processes. Processes determine behavior. If you— the church is clear about what to do and how to do it. There's a sequence in the process. There's certain things that you have to do in a certain way. There's a ritual tradition and there's a process, and that influences how people behave. The church itself is organized, structured, and governed around systems, structures, and processes, which is underpinned by doctrine, teachings, and policies. These are operating policies, but also doctrine policy developed from doctrines. We're told to believe a certain way, to think a certain way, to dress a certain way, to behave a certain way. And all this, if you strip away all of the, any element of this organized religion, which is a, I would describe it, Jim, as a theocracy, which is from the Greek word, which means government by God, where you've got like a government religious organization that gets its authority from religion or from a deity, from God. And it has a type of authority which based on beliefs and its laws and religious texts. And I think under that definition, the church meets that criteria, say a theocracy. And if you look at any aspect of the church at any level, holistic, strategic level, right down to to operational, right down to its processes. It's all organized and structured to protect the institution, protect the leaders, protect the reputation, and to protect the investment. And anything that threatens any pillar, any one of those pillars, they're at least the 4 pillars. There might be other pillars, but they're at least the 4 that I can think of. If any of those pillars that are the foundational pillars of the church are impacted or threatened or at risk, then the church mobilizes significant resources in order to counter that threat. And so if you look at the Community of Christ Church, which reading about this in preparation for this conversation, Actually, it really appeals to me. If you look at, um, you know, their words and if they, they live what they say here, uh, on their website, that the Community of Christ is welcoming, loving faith community that values the worth of every person as a child of God. We provide a safe space. How important is that, uh, to, to us for you to explore and deepen your relationship with Jesus Christ and each other. Come discover renewed purpose for your life. Through compassionate Christlike service that ends suffering and fosters justice and peace. I just think that's amazing. If the, presumably the Community of Christ follows its principles and that comes through in its organization, its structure, its policies, its procedures, its processes, and it's centered around an inclusive model where people feel included, accepted, loved unconditionally. In a true community sense without judgment, then that's the kind of organization that I want to belong to. It sounds like I've joined the wrong church. If I'd have been in the Community of Christ, I probably would still be a member. So the two are very different organizations. You talked about the origins of the churches and the two are connected, of course, through history, but they took very different courses. Different paths. But to your question, the, the, the church is very concerned about its reputation at the leadership level. So any leader at the general authority level, a state president level, that is, um, walking out of line and that's known to the public and is potential for getting into the media, the church is really, really nervous about that. And will do whatever it takes in order to remediate that threat. And it will go to any lengths legally, financially to protect the institution at all cost. Look at the value of the church. What is it worth? $200 billion, $300 billion. It's a colossal investment built up over years, over tradition, uh, rituals. It governs itself in a certain way. And there is an intrinsic value in maintaining most of the system and changing or appearing to change, albeit over a longer period of time, in order to protect that baseline, that foundational baseline that is the traditional rank-and-file member who have grown up you know, you've got different, um, generations living right now, uh, but you still got the traditionalists, you've got, um, the baby boomers, you've got the Generation Xs, et cetera. People like me who've grown up in a certain, an earlier version of the church, and that thinking has, uh, embodied our mind and soul. It's permeated every aspect of our life. And so we think a certain way, we feel a certain way because, uh, we've been instructed to do so. We've been taught to think a certain way, behave in a certain way. And behind that is the intent. The strategy is if you follow the rules basically, and everyone's following the rules and we're all following strictly, living with obedience, then that protects the church. It protects the investment. And the church could sleep at night knowing that its rank-and-file members are toeing the line, living within the rules. And if you step out of that, you could be identified as an enemy of the church or a risk or threat, and they will come after you. And there's lots of examples where they've done that. But the church is not in a timeframe right now where it is wanting to make any significant churches, unlike what the Community of Christ has done. And so right now you've got, in the Community of Christ, you've got Stassi, uh, Dikram, if I pronounce the name right. You've got, um, uh, people of different backgrounds, different colors, um, uh, making a very rich tapestry of leadership at the apostle level, which is fantastic. You've got male, female, you've got younger, older people. It's a— the dynamics is just very representative of the world. You know, the church talks about being a world church, a church for the world. It isn't really. Look how old the senior leaders are of the church, mostly white, senior, mostly American, and the Community of Christ have gone in a different direction that it looks much more representative of the world and the communities in which we live. So that's a long answer to your question, but anything that threatens the baseline of the church, the foundational pillars, its reputation, its— anything that's gonna affect it financially, or bring it in front of the media or bring it in front of a judge or a jury. It would rather keep that quiet and settle that quietly, uh, and pay money to do so than, than expose its, um, you know, its cracks, if you like, in the foundation. Is it driven by fear? Yeah, it hates stuff in the media. I don't, I'd be interested to get a, would it be great leadership on the church part to have Peggy Stack do an interview with an apostle of the regular church and get our leader's response to what the Community of Christ is doing? Wouldn't that be great? Wouldn't it be innovative to have that conversation? And maybe Peggy Stack, if she's listening to this, could invite a senior leader, apostle level ideally, because she interviewed the prophet of the other church, Wouldn't it be great to get President Nelson or Elder Oaks on record to tell us what they think about this prophet being— female prophet being called in the Community of Christ, what they think about the Community of Christ and what they can learn from that. So, but anyway, the church won't do that. It will stay within its lane because it has a strategic and financial interest to do so.

Well, Peggy has interviewed apostles and prophets, probably more than any other journalist that I know of. And I know that back when President Hinckley was president of the Church, she accompanied him on his tour of Africa and had a number of different interviews with him. And he gave her a great deal of access. To him. And I think that speaks to the difference between President Hinckley and many of his successors. I know President Monson was not nearly as, as accessible, and I think maybe that was because fairly early on he recognized that he was dealing with some cognitive issues that, uh, that President Hinckley never had any problem with. Uh, but President Nelson, who I think is cognitively all there still, even at the age of 100, does not seem to have that same kind of ease or fluidity with the media that President Hinckley did. I keep going back to President Hinckley and just being amazed at how much we took for granted in terms of the way he operated and the way he just kind of Uh, took everything, uh, and rolled with it and, and really was very effective at communicating with the media. He did that 60 Minutes interview with Mike Wallace that Mike Wallace said until the end of his life, how impressed he was with Gordon B. Hinckley. And we haven't seen, I don't think we've seen any of that since that one interview we talked about on this podcast. And you know which interview I'm talking about, don't you?

Remind me.

Jeffrey R. Holland with the BBC.

Oh, yes.

Jeffrey R. Holland was interviewed by the BBC and frankly did a terrible job. And we have not seen any kind of hard-hitting interview with any high-ranking church leader since.

That interview was a train wreck, an absolute train wreck.

Well, and I think everybody recognized it as such. So I, I think you have now church leaders who are not as comfortable with the media as previous church leaders were. Uh, and so the goal is to just kind of insulate them and not expose them to that. But I think there is, I think the fallout from that interview with Elder Holland was larger than we know behind the scenes. I think that a lot of people, a lot of church leaders looked at that and went, oof, we're never making that mistake again. I remember when President Hinckley in general conference announced that he was going to be on 60 Minutes. And he says, and if it doesn't go well, I'm never going to put my hand in that mousetrap again. And it did go well. And so he did put his hand in the mousetrap and he, he went on Larry King. He, you know, he did all kinds of interviews and was, was far more open. But, but now, you know, church leaders are really skittish about that. And, and part of that too, I think, is the kind of honesty and frankness that you see from President Cram here. I'm now thinking it probably is pronounced Stassi, as you say, Stassi. I think that's probably right, but I'll refer to her as President Cram to make sure that I'm not mispronouncing anything. But, uh, the more, the more I see that, I look at this and I read this interview. I can't imagine a current member of the First Presidency giving an interview like that, because there's a vulnerability there too. There's a, okay, yeah, we kind of stepped in it here. We should have prepared people more for the sale of these properties. We should have prepared people more historically when we decided to give the priesthood to women. I mean, there is— and there are tacit admissions of fallibility. They're not overt. They're not, oh yeah, we screwed up. Oh yeah. But it's— they demonstrate that the decision-making process in the Community of Christ is one that people outside of the Community of Christ could recognize. And can see in the way they make decisions and the way they live their lives and the way they counsel together. And our Church tries very hard to pretend that that isn't the case, that the Quorum of the Twelve does not have heated discussions behind the scenes, that there's just this sort of perfect unity and they float on this lovely cloud and that that doesn't happen. And the reality is that that's just not true. We know that's not true. We know that's not true in our history. We know that— I mean, even from the beginning of the church, for heaven's sakes, Joseph Smith tried to kick Sidney Rigdon out of the First Presidency, and all of the church refused to let him do it. They voted opposed. He could not get common consent for it, and so he was stuck with Sidney Rigdon in the First Presidency. You know, so there are all kinds of examples when you examine— and they've, they've started to make them open— that you examine the meeting notes. The Joseph Smith Papers have made the meeting notes of the Council of Fifty available to the public. All of this can be reviewed. You see division, you see discord, you see arguments and strong points of view. And the Community of Christ doesn't try to hide that. Our church does. But again, you say, Ian, okay, if you were a member of the Community of Christ, you'd still be a member of this church. And sort of the conventional wisdom is, okay, the Community of Christ is doing all of the things that liberal and progressive members want our church to do, and yet the Community of Christ is barely hanging on by the skin of their teeth. Their membership is in— has always been a tiny fraction of the membership of the Utah Church. Uh, their finances— the only reason they would ever part with the Kirtland Temple is because they're— they were in dire straits financially and they needed that infusion of cash to be able to go forward. Our church, for whatever problems or weaknesses we have, uh, we are still a growing church. Even though you're seeing declines in different places, uh, we are growing in the developing world. That's offsetting the numbers to a large degree, and there are very few churches in the world that are growing at all, most are in radical decline. Mainline Protestantism has seen something like 80 to 90% of its membership leave in one generation. So our church, we're growing financially. We are on— we could have zero members and we would still be on solid financial footing based on how much money we have in reserve, how much money we have in investments. And I know that that's a controversial thing to say, but it's a reality is that the church is set financially in perpetuity. The church is never going away because the money will always be there. So, so, okay, great, we can applaud the Community of Christ for taking all of these steps. So why is it that they've taken all these steps but— and we haven't— but their church is in decline and ours isn't? That, I mean, I don't have an answer to that question. Do you?

Maybe. Have you heard of the burger chain McLafferty Burgers?

I have not.

Exactly my point. Compared to, what about McDonald's?

I have heard of McDonald's.

Okay, so if you look at the, there we go, if you look at Community of Christ versus the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I won't use the word Mormon because I don't want to hand Satan a victory.

Uh, there you go.

Fun there. But, um, look at what the church has done, Jim, over the years in terms of building up its infrastructure, its capacity, its resources. It's like two corporations. Look at them as businesses. One invested heavily, had a really good strategy, exponential growth, what, in the '60s, '70s, and '80s and '90s? Pre-internet, you and I, I think we're at the peak of growth, were we not, serving as missionaries in Scotland?

Yeah. I mean, there was a lot of talk that this was the beginning of a new world religion, that you would have Islam and Christianity and Judaism and Mormonism.

Absolutely. So it reached a peak, what, in the '80s, probably early '90s, and certainly, you know, had phenomenal growth in the '70s. How did it do that? Well, very smart people. Let's give the church some credit. Look at it as a business. Invested heavily, bought land, bought business and invested in shares, kept a lot of that information from the members because it has to appear as a religious organization. But we know that it does private investments. We know that it makes interest on its tithing. We know that that interest is invested. We believe, or I understand, that some of the tithing is invested it's been very intelligent when it comes to financial investment on major portfolios. I think it's got shares in Nike and, and other, and Apple and other international enterprises. It invests successfully in private enterprise. And that you said earlier, church is not going away because of its financial strength. Look what it did to mobilize the missionary resources. Under Elder Ballard, who I think had that portfolio as an apostle since I was on my mission. He taught that was his role in the '80s. I think he held that position up until his death, you know, a few years ago. And so the church has invested heavily in the missionary effort, going out using all kinds of techniques to teach people, convert people, and get them to pay tithing and get them to serve. Look at how the church is organized and structured internally. It is, without being too cynical here, it is an amazing organization for serving other people. It's got a lot of genuine, sincere value that it brings, but strip those things away, it's invested intelligently to build its infrastructure and build the organization to what, 16 million people. You don't get to 16 million people unless you've got a clear defined strategy for growth. Now the internet came online in mid-'90s, and since that time, the emergence of the internet, the, the challenge that the church has faced, uh, I think the internet is one of the big challenges where people post stuff freely. They can't control it. They can't control the narrative, and this is having a significant impact on the hearts and minds of active members in the church. The internet has changed everything, not just for the church, but every other organization on the planet. We could argue for better or for worse, and the church is at risk. It's under threat from the internet. And, but we have to give it credit for building a massive enterprise through intelligent leadership in contrast to the Community of Christ. So as a business, phenomenal growth, and they brought in and called, appointed very smart people and have access to consultants and other professionals. Who know how to retain, uh, success and build on that success. It is exponential. It has a, uh, cumulative, cumulative effect. More success leads to more success. So that is the difference, I think, one of the difference between the Community of Christ and the church in terms of the size, the scale, and the success. The other thing that you, you've pointed out earlier, which I find interesting, and I've never thought of it like this before, we talk about, um, if you look at the Book of Mormon, it's replete, and as is the Bible, replete with examples of great prophets who have done extraordinary things in public, openly trying to convert large groups of people. And I'm thinking of, you know, Alma, Nephi, other prophets in the Book of Mormon, Samuel, who stood on walls, gone out into the public, sat or stood unafraid in front of large crowds, publicly advocated for the gospel of Jesus Christ. Unafraid. Contrast that with apostles who belong to a church that claims to be the only true church upon the earth, who is seemingly afraid to go onto Fox News or ABC or BBC. And I can understand the deep nervousness over the Elder Holland debacle, 'cause that was an absolute disaster. If our listeners don't know what we're talking about, just Google this. And put in, um, Elder Holland BBC interview. It's extraordinary reading, actually, watching. Um, but if the church is so true and the message is so important to get out, and the church is very good at using media for certain things in certain ways, why doesn't it go on more frequently and tell the world that we're the only true church and we're doing this and we're doing that and we want to support this and we don't support that? And we don't support Trump, or we do support Trump. We have a position on these things. And this is the position of the church with all this wealth, all this vast wealth and resources, and the importance of doing this, of saving every soul. Every soul needs to be saved. And every, um, um, the gospel was sounded in every ear. Why doesn't the church, um, position itself in the media and get some, be unafraid and get onto the media and tell the world all about the only true church upon the face of the earth. Why didn't it do that? Because it's afraid. It's afraid of scrutiny and it's afraid of transparency. We don't know what the financials are like in the church. Do you know what the financials are like in the church? Have you seen a balance sheet? Do you know where any investments are? Do you know where your tithing goes? Do you know how much the profits make?— any general authorities, you know, what's the budget for each auxiliary? Where's the detailed financial accounting for tithing that's received by the church and invested from the church? Do you know that? I don't know that.

I don't know that.

No, no, we know some, we know snippets, but we don't know the details. Contrast that with the Community of Christ, which has a more of a democracy where they do value and listen, input from members. And the fact that the members were concerned about the Kirtland Temple sale is a good thing. You're actually consulting with the members, you're getting feedback. Notwithstanding, you've got people who are concerned about that, but at least you have the— at least that means something. At least you have a policy and a structure and a process for engaging input and feedback from members and making that open and transparent and making yourself accountable. If you read that interview, the Peggy Stack interview there, it's clear that the prophet of the Community of Christ wants to be transparent and accountable and is listening and inclusive. I don't think we get that anywhere near from the only true church upon the face of the earth. And so two very different organizations, different sizes, different scale. One is entrenched in all these established rituals and policies. Others, the Community of Christ is more progressive, more inclusive. That comes at a risk. And by the way, the other point that he made, really important point he made earlier at the beginning, he talked about this church didn't doing these surveys. It does these surveys because it wants to know which way the wind is blowing. It wants to know the opinion of members and non-members and the media and the public on certain things because it's screwed up so many times. It's put its foot in its mouth so many times and is desperate, desperate to avoid any embarrassment in public or in the media. Again, Elder Oaks's statement to me is clearly from the conversation, they want to protect the reputation of the church. And I, I understand that. If you've got a, if you've got a business, you want to deliver a good service, be honest, have integrity, charge an appropriate fee, deliver quality, and protect the reputation of your business. I get that. And I think we have to look at the church as, uh, as a business. But the surveys, the data, the surveys they do, the data is driven by fear. And how does it change? The church is very slow to change. Look at the Community of Christ, they're changing, um, in contrast, they're changing quite rapidly in the context of the longer timelines compared to the church, which makes small incremental, fairly generally, usually low-risk changes because it's frightened of the reaction from its members. It's afraid to come out and stand up and say certain things. So it does a survey, gets a secret hidden opinion. Is it secret or is there, there's strategy to it? Let you say that. And then uses that to inform, uh, decisions. So again, more evidence that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is run by, by men, businessmen, smart businessmen, albeit. And at least in part and not entirely by God. So there are my thoughts to that last, you know, piece of information that you shared with us. And again, we said at the beginning, this, like so many other conversations, connects the dots because you're talking about fear in the church. Why does the church behave a certain way? And you said in preparation for this conversation, we talked about change and the church's reluctance and, uh, and is reticent to change. Too much change, even good change, can be a bad thing. I believe it's got a 20-year, 10, 20-year strategy with incremental operational tactical level, but strategic level change management plan. It has to have that. It has to look at public opinion on certain issues like LGBTQ. Uh, it's, it's issue around race in the priesthood, polygamy, politics, and it's so smart and run by smart people. They'll have all this mapped, Jim, in a strategic plan. How do they, excuse me, how do they retain members? How do they retain youth? Um, the temple, engaging the youth in the temple, very smart. Let's get, let's get the youth involved in the temple early on. Let's connect those minds to those, uh, temple experiences. Uh, it, it's doing it because of, of a spiritual purpose. Yes. I'm not, I don't wanna be too cynical, but I believe there's other strategies, uh, involved here. That it's focused on in order to retain the youth base, which is losing and hemorrhaging young people in big numbers. It has to hang on to its core membership, but you also have the challenge of an aging membership population. So eventually, 10 years from now, 15 years from now, when those, traditional, um, baby boomer, uh, people of getting old and, and leaving us. Eventually this whole new mindset is coming through, but I believe that the church will have this in their plans. All this is mapped out. And so yeah, it's a very sophisticated, organized, well-structured private enterprise based on a theocracy model.

Well, okay, so you said something in that that I want to touch on because I think maybe this is the difference to some degree about for being inside and being outside, at least for me, because you said, okay, this is just one more evidence that this is a church led by men. And not by God. And I think a lot of people look at the church and come to that conclusion. And I look at the church and I come to the conclusion that those two things are not mutually exclusive and that the error of the church is in pretending that they are. I believe a church run by men can also be a church run by God. I believe, uh, in the doctrines of the restored gospel that talk about the fact that we come to this earth in order to learn and to grow, and that we rejected a plan where it would all be laid out for us. And we came here to struggle and to look through a glass darkly, to use Paul's phrase, uh, that we only know a fraction of it and we have to struggle and do what we can. And that it is with that struggle that, uh, God helps us and guides us and nudges us, but he will never interfere with our agency. And the idea that we're waiting for a church where God is going to just give us all the instructions and lay it all out in a way where human error is no longer possible. And that, I mean, that to me, I remember I have this conversation with my father after I watched the Presiding Bishop Brick meet with my father about buying Martin's Cove. I talked about that, I think, in a previous episode. And I was astonished at how contentious that meeting was and how very much these were men who had very strong opinions that were different from my father's, that were different. I mean, the whole focus of the meeting was, okay, Harry Reid, who is the Senate majority leader, is not doing what we want him to do. He's not church broke. That was the phrase they used. And they said, "How do we roll Harry Reid?" And I just sat there going, the Presiding Bishopric sitting— how can this be a church led by God? And I remember talking with my father about it afterwards and saying, "What the hell?" Essentially. I'm not sure if I had the courage to say hell back then. But he said, "Well, what would you What would you prefer? And I said, well, I would prefer if God made his— if there was absolute unanimity and God made his will known so clearly that nobody would be able to disagree with it. And Dad's response to that was, oh, okay, well, that's one more vote for Satan's plan. And that really shook me, and that really sort of reframed how I look at this. Because I see God's hand in the kinds of struggles that church leaders go through as they do all of this. I think a church led by men is also a church that can be led by God. I think a church led by women, the Community of Christ, can also be a church led by God as a result of all of this. And I want to come back again to Staci Cram's comment when she was asked about giving the priesthood to women, and she just said, "We cannot continue to become who we are called to be without making this decision. God was saying, 'It's now, and what will you do with this invitation?'" The leadership and those who remain demonstrated an amazing willingness to take a risk along with profound courage. I mean, you're right, it's a risk. And I think we have become to some degree, not just even the church leaders, but even in the membership, we become somewhat risk-averse. And we, I think, have deluded ourselves into thinking we can do that. We can be risk-averse. We don't have to take a stand on difficult issues. We can just sort of ride it out. I had one person say, I think some of the brethren are just white-knuckling it until the Second Coming. They're just gonna ride it out. They don't want to ruffle any feathers. They don't want to upset the apple cart. They're just waiting for Jesus to come and fix it all. And I think maybe there is some— it's kind of an element of that. But I just think it's like with everything in the church, you know, why do we talk about these difficult issues on Inside Out? Why are we confronting all of the difficult, thorny parts of our history? And the answer, at least for me, on the inside— and I've given this answer so many times as I've talked to critics of the church, and as I've talked to supporters of the church, the answer is always the same. We have no choice. We have no choice but to address all of the thorny issues in our past. We have no choice but to confront all of the pressing questions. Okay, you're not gonna give women the priesthood? Why not? We can't, we have no choice but to answer that question. And we're not answering that question. We don't, I mean, if we don't want to give women the priesthood, and it seems right now that we don't, and I don't know if that's part of the long mapped plan that you're talking about, Ian, but if we're not going to give women the priesthood, we have no choice but to justify that decision. Just by just staying silent is no longer enough. And that's kind of what we're doing. What we're doing is just kind of, nope, well, this is where we are. You know, you don't want to have further LGBTQ inclusion in the church? Why not? You know, and we have no choice but to answer those kinds of questions. And so The fact that we're discussing them and the fact that we're bringing them up, I just think this is a reality that the church— I said for a very long time, for instance, that the church didn't realize it was in the midst of a transition on missionary work. You know, for a very long time, the church kept thinking, okay, we can continue to sort of knock on doors. We can continue to use the same models that we used in the '60s, '70s, and '80s. Even though they're not working. And finally, the church kind of now recognizes that doesn't work. They focused on an online social media model, uh, that I think is, is more effective. And the church kind of was dragged kicking and screaming into that model because they had no choice but to adapt. It's getting harder and harder and harder for the church to stay silent. You know, the church, it's just more and more people are looking at it and they're saying, look at this world, don't you have something to say about it? What is the prophetic counsel for what's going on in the world? And what we get is timid kinds of— we don't get any kind of overt statement at all. We get timidity. We just don't want to have to answer these questions. We think that we can get by without having to do that. And the time is coming— this sounds prophetic— but the time is coming when even church leaders are going to have to recognize that doesn't work. More and more people are just saying, "This isn't enough. You have to take a stand." You have to do what is right. You have to stick your neck out. You have to show courage. The church was forced into showing courage during COVID and I think was startled negatively by the response. But the time is coming where we're just not going to be able to hide anymore. And not deciding and ignoring it That's an answer all in and of itself. If we're not going to stick our necks out, then more and more people are going to say, well, then what's the value of a prophet, seer, and revelator who isn't willing to confront the issues of the day the way the prophets of old did? Who isn't even willing to do what the prophets of 20 years ago did? Gordon B. Hinckley— I remember Gordon B. Hinckley being asked about the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Larry King. I thought his answer was kind of goofy, but at least he gave one. I mean, he was there, he was putting himself out there. We don't do that anymore. And we're, we're, we can't get away with that anymore. We have no choice. We're going to engage whether we like it or not. I would like to see us engage voluntarily on our terms rather than being dragged into the court of public opinion. On their terms because that's what's coming. And there's— I just don't see any way we can avoid it. I mean, is that too alarmist? Is that silly? Is there a way we can avoid it?

Yes, because I think you're wrong. Oh, I'll explain why. I'm going to give you— I think is a compelling argument counter to what you said. Like so many times on a podcast where you know, you and I from our backgrounds, you know, you're in the church, I'm out the church, very different backgrounds. We kind of complementary, you know, the opposites attract. I see progress where perhaps you don't see some progress. You see, sometimes you can be critical of the church in a very healthy way. And I can be positive, you know, I can see actually some of the virtues, if you like, in what the church is doing. So I'm going to put my LDS apostle hat on right now. Okay. And And by the way, I, the, the Community of Christ with a living female apostle versus the, and, and very small, uh, tiny in comparison to the LDS mighty church with its structure, its organization, its sophistication, its wealth, and its vast, vast unfathomable resources. You know, two very different organizations for, for reasons that we talked about earlier. Including transparency, accountability, some level of democracy. One's open, progressive, one's closed. But I'm gonna put my LDS apostle hat on, and if you were in the room with me right now and you were saying, you know, why did you do this and why did you do that? I would have what is called a risk register. In risk management, that's an important, uh, tool for identifying, assessing, and quantifying numerically risk. And you're saying, why doesn't the church do this? Why doesn't the church change? Why doesn't it change fast enough? Why doesn't it give the women priesthood? Why is it so fearful? Is it fearful? So if I put all that into the risk register, if I'm this apostle consultant person, I would identify all the risks and the threats, and I would quantify them numerically, and I'd weigh it all up. And I have like a bit of a scorecard, like a go/no-go risk register kind of thing if you're going to make a decision on something. And by the way, these tools are real and they exist in the engineering world, right? So these are risk management tools that have been established for a long time. And I think they came out of the United States way back in engineering. And so to counter your response, if I acquiesce to what you're saying, and start doing these things because the Jim Bennetts of this world are putting some pressure on me to be open and transparent on and have a conversation around women in the priesthood and inclusion and finance and going into the world on interviews and be speaking openly about the important principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I have to calculate and weigh those risks up versus being quiet and not doing anything. And if the risk register indicates numerically that there's more risk by being more progressive and more adventurous and responding to people like Jim Bennett, and yep, doing the right thing and the best thing and being more inclusive and dealing with gay rights and other civil rights and dealing with authority subjects like Trump and politics. And I could tell you right now, listening to myself here, that those risks are significantly higher, likely and probably much higher than not doing anything about it. And that's what the church is doing here, Jim Bennett. It's less risk, less threat, less risk by doing nothing or changing incrementally very slowly instead of making big dramatic changes. And so Yes, there's risk, but it's less risk. And I calculate that and I quantify it. And it could have a risk of 8 factor versus a risk of 3, because I have to hang on to my base. And I made a note here while you were speaking, my base, primary base or audience is my membership. Because it's through the members that I have that relationship. And, you know, my members are my clients. That each one is an account and I have to nurture and cultivate the account. I've got to protect my investment, not just financially, but in terms of the church. We know that the church is— without the church volunteerism, the member volunteerism, the church would collapse. Without members volunteering all the time through those callings, through the kind acts of service, et cetera, from an operational perspective, the church just simply wouldn't function in the way that it does now. That's a given fact. But if I get your questions as a concerned member, why we're not doing these things and as progressive as the Community of Christ, I have to calculate those risks versus doing nothing, right? And if you look at that argument, it stacks up because the church has a pattern of doing either nothing are doing some things, albeit in a very slow measure and in a very careful, methodical, in a very lengthy, slow way. And that's its strategy. So yes, there's risk, but not compared to coming out and doing all these amazing things that you and I, you know, taking my hat off now, you and I are advocating for. The church can do this and can do that. And be this even amazing organization. It can't and it won't for those reasons because, uh, look at, look at the Community of Christ. Look what, um, the, the prophet said. Uh, she said that when they gave priesthood to the women, they lost half the, uh, membership. And you emphasized that earlier. That's huge. 50%. If the church starts doing stuff like that, it's gonna lose millions. It won't do it. It will never do it. It will continue on the current strategy and change when it has to, only when it's forced to. And it will not for the foreseeable future, not while Oakes is here and some of the old-fashioned, um, um, antiquated thinking and mindsets, it's not going to be, um, bold and brave and courageous. And it will calculate risk. And sorry to say, yours questions, albeit that you're asking in good faith with good intent, uh, it will give lip service to, give rhetoric to, but don't look to the church for making any big, bold, courageous, progressive steps. It's not going to happen for at least 10 to 15 years, if not longer.

Well, I'm not arguing that, and I think you're right. My point here also is that this is going to be taken out of the church's hands to some degree. Reality has a way of forcing people's hands. And more and more, we look, for instance, at the internet. And for a very long time, and even, I think even until now, the church is trying to pretend that the internet hasn't changed everything. I mean, you can go back and look at several of the talks about people in faith crisis where they say, oh, well, don't look at that yet until, no, it's Elder Corbridge's talk where he says you can't look at secondary issues like polygamy or the temple ban until you've considered the primary issues, which are, is Joseph Smith a prophet? And, you know, and is the Book of Mormon true? And, and I look at that and go, you keep thinking like you have a choice, Elder Corbridge, as to what a primary issue is for me or for somebody else. I mean, if somebody looks on the internet and finds out that Joseph Smith— they find out from the church's essay Joseph Smith is a polygamist who married 14-year-old girls, uh, I'm gonna have a very hard time, uh, confronting the primary issue of whether or not Joseph Smith is a prophet unless you can tell me some way to reconcile that behavior with the prophetic calling. You have to meet me where I am, otherwise you're going to lose me, you know. Not me specifically. Someone's going to take a snip, that snippet, and say, oh, Jim Bennett is saying he's going to leave the church. I am not saying I'm going to leave the church. I am going to stay in the church. This is where I've been called to be. This is where I'm going to be. Uh, but other people who look at these issues, uh, are, are not— people are just going to walk away more and more and more. It's going to get impossible. For the church to avoid confronting all of these. That's all I'm saying. I, I think you're absolutely right. The church is doing all kinds of risk assessments. The church is well aware. I think the church looks at not just the Community of Christ, but they look at all kinds of things that are happening in the world and realize that the safest way to keep their base together is to sort of chart this safe course and not make any big bold steps one way or the other. But reality has a way of catching up. Uh, the internet has caught up with our, with our history and with our doctrine, and we no longer have the choice as to whether or not we're going to confront those issues. And reality is going to catch up with, okay, you've got to give me a better reason for why a woman who is a respected professional has less authority than an 11-year-old boy in your church? I mean, that question is not going away. It's going to become more and more pressing. I mean, you look at the 1978 revelation, uh, and that came finally when the church eventually— we didn't have an answer for why aren't we giving the priesthood to people of color, uh, why aren't we allowing people of color to go attend the temple, and eventually the church had to change. That's coming. The church is going to have to change whether it wants to or not. That, that's all. Is that consistent with what you've just said or—

it, it, it is. It is. And I was just kind of being devil's advocate there. It will change. Remember, the church can regulate what it does and what it says and how it behaves and how it responds. It can kind of push things out quite a bit. It can give concessions, it can give either the appearance that it's changing and listening and being inclusive, make some small concessions, kind of manage that over time, keep you in, keep, not you, Jim Bennett specifically, but keep people in who have questions, etc., and say, you know, thank you for your question, that's a great question. We have some answers, we don't have all the answers. The church has made a lot of progress over the years, continues to make progress, is led by a prophet,, and we continue to be inclusive. At the same time, we have to maintain and uphold the commandments of God. And keeping in mind, you have a testimony, right? So you have to reconcile the imbalance, the need for progress versus the fixed doctrines of God. Because the doctrine of the church is that no prophet in our church is female, albeit I think there were 5 women in the Old Testament that carried the title of prophet, by the way. Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Noadiah. Sounds like no idea, but maybe I mispronounced that. Noadiah, and an unnamed woman in Isaiah 8:3. But in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the doctrine is that no female can be a prophet. No female can hold the priesthood. So, you're right, but it will continue to change at the pace that we've seen. If you look at the— you want to look at in the future of the church where it's going to be the next 10, 15 years in terms of pace and change, etc., just look to the past, you know, 10, 15 years. The things that really concern it are the damage that's been done to the reputation, keeping in mind my interview with Elder Oaks, uh, by the, the charges laid by the Securities and Exchange Commission back in 2023, where the Church of Jesus Christ was charged, um, in regards to investment management for its failure to disclose where it was putting its money and the value of that money in those, uh, uh, shell LLC accounts and misstated filings. You can find that at the sec.gov Newsroom press releases 2023-35. It's, it's, it's things like that where the church has been found guilty and at fault by a US federal, uh, government branch agency for not being transparent and actually in viol— in violation of several of its regulations. And it was fined for, uh, Inside Peek, which was the, um, the nonprofit entity operated by the church was fined $4 million and church agreed to pay a $1 million penalty. So, you know, things like that, if you contrast between Community of Christ and the Church of Latter-day Saints, you've got one organization that's very seemingly open and transparent and listening and accountable, inclusive, people of color, female prophets, and it, it's in stark contrast to the church, which is closed and hidden and will only drip feed you what it wants to drip feed you and will make changes, uh, sometimes painfully when it has to. And so I, I want to connect also to your point you made earlier. Yes, I believe a man-made organization can be led by God. I, I don't doubt that, that can be, not just in our church, but in other churches. I acknowledge that and I respect that. And that's been my, you know, a lot of my experience in the church where there's been extraordinary levels of inspiration and just wonderful spiritual experiences, you know, from people who are ordinary people, just regular people who are doing wonderful things. But I'm also talking, Jim Bennett, about And I want to highlight this, where the church has deliberately done things wrong, deliberately gone against its own teachings, against the spirit of Christ and the gospel of Jesus Christ, and actually done things to hide stuff and to lie and be dishonest and to conceal and to misdirect. There is absolutely that side of the church, and I don't think I've said it in these stark terms before on a previous podcast, But there is evidence where the church has behaved atrociously. It's behaved dishonestly, contrary to its own teachings and principles, and tried to conceal and hide certain things, notwithstanding the other side where it's brought extraordinary blessings and support and service through, frankly, its membership who do extraordinary work in terms of serving others. But as a corporate side of the church, it's got a long way to go, I think, to be more transparent and accountable, which the Community of Christ appears to be doing and behaving in a very different way to our church. So I'm not talking about or questioning your understanding that God speaks through fallible people and gives inspiration. I know that, you know that, that is in abundance in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We both know that. But I'm also talking about where the church deliberately goes against the teachings of Christ and is, for many times, is not transparent and is not accountable. And then, uh, ends up getting fined, uh, by not disclosing the value of its, uh, investments, which was, I think in this case it was $32 billion. Uh, according to the order, the church was concerned that the disclosure of its portfolio, which by 2018 grew to $32 billion, uh, would lead to negative consequences. So it was concerned about the appearance. So we talk about fear. And transparency, accountability between the two churches. He's concerned about how that would appear. But I thought Christ was open and honest and would give full disclosure. And if Christ was at the helm, he'd disclose everything and say, look, we're doing this and we're doing that. I don't think he would be investing in— maybe he would be, I don't know. I don't know the mind of Christ, but maybe Christ would be a very smart business man to invest. He probably would be, but I think he would, he would do a lot more, uh, with that wealth and those resources than what the church is doing. And I don't believe for one second it'd be actively trying to hide stuff because of fear. And I believe any opportunity that he would have to speak to the world, um, regardless of, you know, criticism— you know, you talked about Hinckley going on, on to 60 Minutes, I think it was. And saying stuff and you might disagree with him, but at least he had the balls to go on. At least he had the courage to go on. It did something, right? Go on, say something, get criticized and get some things right, get some things wrong, but at least go on and tell the world what you think about certain things, right? That our church can't even do that. So, you know, I'm trying to counterbalance this, you know, in this context of the Community of Christ and our church. And one last thing I think at this point is that both churches, Community of Christ and the LDS Church, I think they assess each other very closely. I think they examine each other and they research each other. I think the LDS Church looks at what the, what the Community of Christ is doing, how it's doing it, and the reaction from its members as a a test case, if you like, like a survey. Oh, they've done that. Oh, what's the reaction? Oh my goodness, they lost half the membership.

Oh wow.

Okay. They're doing this, but that's a good thing. So I think they look at them as a, um, like a SWOT analysis, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats. And I think that the community of Christ is one source of important research and information for decisions that the elders church uses amongst surveys and other sources in order to make what it tries to do, what I would call risk-smart decisions based on risk assessment. And how do they counter, uh, the, the pressure for being more progressive and inclusive and, and, um, uh, engaged, et cetera, across a range of topics. At the same time, how does it maintain its base? Its accounts, its clients, its members, its financial base, its reputation. So it's, it's a, it's a tricky, uh, rope to walk. But if you've got the right people in place, which I believe the church has— these are phenomenally talented risk management. In fact, they've got a risk management department. They've even said they've got that one, right? They've got a risk management group. Official. These are smart cookies who understand all these risks, and they take qualitative data and they quantify it numerically. And you have a— they have a scorecard. This is what big corporate businesses do. They take, uh, phenomenological data and they use positivistic tools to quantify it numerically in order to assess the, um, uh, and value the risk. And that's what they do. These are risk-assessed decisions, and then the advice is given to the apostles and the prophets. I know the church has got these systems in place because they're very smart, sophisticated organizations. So I hope I've not kind of— I hope I didn't burn your shit down too harshly there. I was just trying to give a counter-response to you know, try to give— have an understanding of, of how the— what the mindset is when it deals with, you know, progressive issues and the pressure to change and deal with all these different things. Because the pressure must be intense. Imagine those meetings and the pressure and keep it— keeping it all bottled in, or bringing something up on the Apostle meeting and talking about these issues and then being shot down. And we're not ready for that, Elder Uchtdorf. It's a good idea, but you're not ready for that. Just kind of, let's just toe the line for now. Let's do, let's be, let's be incremental in our change management strategies. I would love to be in one of those meetings. I can't imagine how challenging they are.

No, I'd love to be in those meetings too. I, you know, no, I, I, your, your point is well made and, and I think well taken. Um, I, I mean, I, I don't think there's any question the church at times has done things that are wrong. Uh, I know I personally have done things that are wrong. And I don't know of anybody who hasn't. And we have enough grace to realize, okay, the wrong things that a person does are not the full defining measure of who that person is, and that we allow people to grow and change and repent. And I look at the church kind of in the same way. I want to have as much grace for the church as I hope my Father in Heaven has for me. Oh, I— no, not just hope, I know. I firmly believe that there is a God. I have experienced a connection to the divine, whereas I know that there is divine grace for me as an individual. And I think the church merits that same grace. I don't think that the church should be fully defined by its mistakes, although its mistakes are part of who— of what the church is. And acknowledging those mistakes, accepting responsibility for those mistakes, is something the church still doesn't seem to be willing to do, and that's very frustrating. But it does not rattle my faith to know that those mistakes are there. And when I say mistakes, I don't just mean— I mean, the church has done wrong things, and you've outlined some of them. But that does not rattle my faith to know that, because I know that's how mortality works. I know that's how every institution works. I know that's how even the Church of Jesus Christ works. I know that's how the church that Jesus Christ established when he was on the earth worked. When you look at the apostles who were arguing over who gets to sit at the right hand of God, and, you know, Jesus picked 12 apostles and one of them was Judas. I mean, you have— there has never been a religion, an organization. I mean, you go back even further to the children of Israel, and there were all kinds of problems and messes. And things that are on full display when you read the Old Testament. But that's what mortality is. And, and I just look at this, I, I just want to bring it all the way back to where we started, which is the, the Community of Christ has picked a woman to be its leader, which is a bold move. And, and a lot of people look at that, including me, with some holy envy. And go, my goodness, when is our church going to get to a point where we could do that? I think that day is coming. I don't know when it will be here. It's not up to me to determine that. But I just think we're living in a world where those kinds of things— the church isn't going to be able to dodge forever. The church isn't going to be able to bury its head in the sand. And so I think that's where we're going. So I think we've covered this, and I think that this has been a really productive and fascinating discussion, and I've learned quite a bit listening to you. And I am grateful to everybody out there who is listening to this. We appreciate you more than you know. We are grateful that you have joined us, and we hope you will join us next week. For another discussion here on Inside Out. So thank you very much, Ian.

Thank you, Jim Bennett.