Livestream Audio from Wednesday, April 22 - with Greg Prince

I proclaim with all the power that is in me that the Inside Out Podcast is the only true and living podcast on the face of the whole earth, with which I, Bruce Reginald McConkie, am well pleased, speaking unto the podcast collectively as well as individually. Good evening and welcome to Inside Out Live. I'm Ian, all the way from Canada. I'm here with Jim Bennett. Jim, where are you? You're not in Boston now.

No, I'm not. I spent the last few days in Boston. My twin boys ran the Boston Marathon. The first one ran it in 2 hours and 48 minutes, second one in 2 hours and 57 minutes. So both under 3 hours and had a delightful time, stayed in the home of a former Area Authority 70 who also happens to be my cousin. And it was a delightful, just a delightful weekend. And, but I'm glad to be home.

Welcome back to Utah. Wonderful experience. And Jim, who do we have on Inside Out Live tonight?

Well, so my cousin Peggy said, So is Greg just a permanent fixture? And I said, well, he keeps saying yes when we keep asking him back, and we're going to keep asking him back. Uh, Greg Prince is here with us again. Greg, how are you?

I'm fine, as long as it wasn't a criticism on the part of Peggy.

No, it wasn't. I think she loves it. I think she thinks it's delightful, as do we. So, so very glad to have you here.

We're always excited to have you, Greg. It's a real honor. We have utmost love and respect for you, and we appreciate your insights and your with experience. We're excited to welcome all of our listeners and viewers. Welcome, and we look forward to having some very interesting conversations tonight. Two things as we get into this, uh, this evening's conversation. One, we discussed earlier that there's literally no shortage of material when we're talking about the Mormon Church. Things seem to happen almost weekly, if not daily. And tonight, Greg, Jim Bennett, and I are in the mood for a very robust and very direct and blunt conversation. We'll keep it respectful and constructive, but we want to kind of not pull any punches. Not that we pull any punches in our previous conversation. So please provide us with the most difficult, complex questions, because I'm sure if Jim Bennett and I can't answer them, I'm sure Greg Prince-Crown show. So, uh, some of the issues that are happening that, again, there's no shortage in here.

Our first comment, I think, is probably one of the issues we want to talk about here. So let me— why can't I share them? There we go.

Yeah, this is one of the main items we want to talk about. So, uh, like with Greg, I'm sure, and you, Jim, I've been following the, uh, decision by the Mormon Church to, uh, sue John Dehlin, Open Stories Foundation, and Mormon Stories, of course, for copyright infringement, I believe it is.

I think it's trademark infringement, which I think is a bit different because I think a lot of people are framing this as the church is trying to copyright the word Mormon, and I don't think that is accurate.

Yeah, what I've got here in my notes here, the church is suing John Dehlin and Mormon Stories Open Stories Foundation for trademark infringement. Church claims that the Mormon Stories, uh, uses the word Mormon and specific visual elements like certain blue color schemes and themes and light rays imagery, uh, images of the temple, of course, which the church claims it's got, uh, title to copyright infringement. You've just kind of mentioned that, Jim. So complaint alleges that the Lynn has used copyright church images such as photos of earlier temples. I mentioned that earlier. Church official logos in podcast thumbnails and website banners without permission. And the church claims that it has entered or tried to enter mediation in good faith and that those mediations have failed. Before filing, the church reportedly entered mediation, uh, into mediation with Dylan early in 2026. Church requested specific 18-word disclaimer to be added to his content, but talks broke down when the two parties could not agree the terms. I think the church wanted John to communicate or issue a disclaimer at the beginning of each of his podcasts. So the church has made these claims. It's suing John Delenn. John is formulating his response. I've seen mixed comments. I've seen comments online, Jim Craig, that John has breached copyright infringement issues and trademark titleship, etc. And I've also seen the other side of the argument where he hasn't done that, or he has actually provided those disclaimers. What's your take on this, and do you think the church is right to pursue Dallin in these, uh, great— what are your thoughts?

Uh, I don't see it as an action that reeks of security. I think that there's a lot of insecurity there. Uh, to do this acknowledges to the world that they're worried about John Dallin. It also opens a door that I wonder if they want to remain open, and that is that John's legal team would now have the standing to go after discovery and subpoena records, perhaps even including minutes of the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency when the issue of the use of the word Mormon, which makes Satan smile, was discussed. That would be interesting to see what those minutes had to say. And it leaves me wondering if the church really wants to keep going down that road.

That is an excellent, excellent point. I hadn't thought of that. I mean, I hear that a lot. For instance, when people say, why doesn't Donald Trump sue all these people that call him a sexual predator? And the answer is always because that opens them up to discovery.

Absolutely.

Last thing in the world he wants to do. I mean, this is obviously quite different in terms of content and, and subject matter, but, uh, any sort of lawsuit where John Dehlin can get access to church records is not something I think the church would be comfortable with. I mean, Greg, you've said many, many times that the brethren will only go in places where they can control the setting. And if there's one place where you cannot control the setting, it's in lawsuit discovery. And it's— I mean, the church has unlimited resources to be able to deal with this, and John Dehlin does not. But The thing that I keep coming back to is the Streisand effect. Are you both familiar with the Streisand effect? Yes. I mean, that's, that's the, the name that's been given to it. It comes from when Barbra Streisand had a house, had a picture taken of her Malibu house that was published in a newspaper. And she, uh, she sued the newspaper. I think it was the Los Angeles Times and demanded damages and demanded that this picture never be shown again. And of course what it did. Was amplify that picture a millionfold. Nobody who had ever even thought of looking at that picture all of a sudden said, what's the big hubbub about? Somebody had pointed out that John Delenn on average gets about 30,000 views for any one of his episodes. Since this lawsuit, it's bumped up to 70,000. And what the church is doing here, whether they want— I can't imagine it's something that they want to do, But what the church is doing here is platforming John Dehlin. They're giving John Dehlin a wider audience. They're exposing people to Mormon Stories that had never heard of Mormon Stories. I bumped into this in a very small sort of way about 5 years ago, maybe longer ago. This is the whole time when Book of Mormon Central said, hey, we want to advertise your CES letter reply. They had had a meeting with the secretary of the Quorum of the Twelve who told them that my CES letter reply was the only thing that was effective in terms of mitigating the damage done by the CES letter. And so they said, okay, we want to advertise it. And they did that for a while and then they stopped. And I asked one of the people, well, why did you stop? And he said, well, a lot of people were reading your reply who had never heard of the CES. The CES letter. And we realized what we were doing was exposing people to the CES letter that wouldn't otherwise have ever heard of the CES letter. And that's the case with, with what's happening here. And for all of the talk of, okay, well, there's confusion as to whether or not it is church-affiliated— I mean, I think that's way overblown. Um, if you're confused about it, you're not confused about it within about 5 minutes. Of listening to any one of John's at least recent episodes. I guess you can go back to his early, early episodes. I mean, Greg, weren't you his very first guest? I was. Oh, can you describe that experience? Have you shared that experience here?

I had not met John. He reached out to me because the McKay biography had just been published. He called and he said, I would like you to do a podcast with me. And my response was, what is a podcast? This was 2005.

Oh yeah, that's 21 years ago. My gosh.

Yes. Yes. I, I honestly had not heard the word until then. And he had to describe to me what a podcast was. I think I've been on his podcast something like 14 times, but it's been about a decade since my most recent one. It's a wide variety of voices that he gets there. I think over the years it's probably become more shrill than it started. But nonetheless, I think it's fairly balanced. And by the church taking this action, what they're really doing is to not only magnify his voice, but to telegraph to the membership, we're worried about this guy, that he could somehow do irreversible damage to the church. I think the church is a lot bigger and stronger than that. That's why I'm puzzled that they would take this action.

Well, I remember back during the Book of Mormon musical's heyday, when the church decided that the best way to deal with the Book of Mormon musical was to buy an ad in the Playbill that said, "You've seen the show, now read the book." And I thought, that's absolutely the right way to do this. I mean, the church is capable of doing it right. For them to be doing this, it really does. Whether or not they are truly desperate, because I don't— I mean, I don't see it. I don't— even with 70,000 views, this is a church of 17 million people, closing in on 18 million people. I mean, that's, that's the full membership number. Who knows how many of that is active? It's significantly less than that. But still, this is an international church with a large footprint. And the idea that John Delenn can topple it with a podcast, again, yeah, it does not reek of confidence. It reeks of desperation. It reeks of panic. And I don't know that— maybe the church knows something we don't in terms of, you know, when I had that conversation about my reply, they said, yeah, we have— they've done extensive statistics on how many people the church— the CES letter has let out of the church, and they said, we have a number and we will share that number with you, and they never have. I should probably go find out what that number is, but the church does extensive research. The church has massive amounts of data, and they know precisely, I think, what kind of impact John Dehlin is having And so this may be a signal that they are genuinely worried that John Delenn is getting some kind of traction that they think can do long-term damage. Ian, is that your— well, go ahead, Greg.

Well, I think the response, at least in my world, would be, all right, let's do it better. If he is attracting that many listeners to his podcast, Why can't the church do its own podcast that attracts more listeners?

Because the church does do its own podcasts and they're not very good.

That's the what, it's not the why, Jim.

There you go.

I, I, he's fast speaking.

That really is the kernel of the real story here.

Yeah.

That if we can't make what arguably is the most important message in the world interesting enough that we are attracting more than the detractors attract, something's wrong with this picture.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

As I listen to you both, I'm trying to connect the dots here. There's a whole series of different points I want to connect here. The first thing I want to say, this is like a David and Goliath situation. You've got, to Jim Bennett's point, this organization with vast resources, people, organization, structure, process, hundreds of billions of dollars, 18 million people almost, uh, in terms of, uh, membership, taking on a, a, a, a small David, you know, uh, uh, one individual with two employees, a tiny organization. And the stone that is in the sling that Dylan has is the stone of truth. Because if you look at most, many, if not almost all the people that come on to the Mormon Stories podcast, they are what the title is, Mormon Stories, the stories of their, those individuals' lives. They come on, they share their experience, and they're authentic, and they speak the truth, and they open up. And that's the value of Mormon Stories. It's a pioneer, uh, in, in the, in the podcast, you know, post-Mormon field. The church, the other dot here is that the church claims that people have mistaken Mormon Stories to be a podcast for the church or a platform for the church, have gone on to the podcast and learned of difficult truths and have left the church. And I think the church has even quoted a couple of people that had that experience. I'm sure Yolin can, John can quote hundreds if not thousands of people who have listened to his podcast and who probably remain active in the church. I think the different guests and different topics are so broad and so varied, it helps people like Inside Out, whereas much smaller version, of course, but it helps people who are in the church trying to navigate the faith, people on the fringe, people who are out who are trying to get back in, people with all kinds of issues. And I think Marmastour is being the benchmark and the pioneer in this particular space has done extraordinary good for the most part, I believe. Whether it—

Joe, let me revisit something I said in an earlier podcast with you, and that is I have an ongoing conversation with one of the vice presidents at Wesley Seminary who is over their research portfolio. Their major research funding is from the Lilly Endowment. And the focus of that research is how to retain or regain the younger demographics within organized religion. They're not finished with their research, but the interim conclusion is there were two things that were essential. Number one, that the religious community at the local level be welcoming and authentic. But number two, that there be a safe space where they can voice their concerns, ask the tough questions, and be able to be in a dialogue regarding those questions. We have failed on that one. Not only do we not set up that kind of space, we stamp it out whenever we see it arising. And what you're seeing with Mormon Stories and with other podcasts is a result of the vacuum that we have created by not allowing that space.

I couldn't agree more. I think if the church had been, uh, been mature, secure, confident, collaborative, honest, open, been able to create these safe spaces, and yes, a podcast where you, where it allows and encourages people to come on and have those difficult conversations, these conversations that we're having right now, the conversations that happen across all the different podcasts, then it wouldn't feel as secure and it would be able to, um, at least be part of this space and be part of, be on the right side of history where it's made a valuable contribution to creating these spaces where people can feel safe to talk about these issues. It's gone complete opposite. A lot of these conversations that we have, for me at least, it goes back to the question, the first question that President Oaks asked me personally, face to face, in that interview when I was being interviewed for a calling on the stake presidency. The first question that he asked me was, is there anything in my history that could damage the church? It was a question relating to protecting the Institute. I think the church is angry with John Dallin. I think it's personal. I believe it to be partly malicious. I think it's vexatious. Again, I'm using some legal terms. I think it's an opportunity that the church has identified, and there's probably some weaknesses that in respect to John Dallin is probably in some of the imagery stepped over the line in regards to replicating or duplicating some of the material. And I could see maybe why some might be confused. But to Jim's point, as soon as you go onto the podcast, you know, you learn very quickly it's not really affiliated with the church. But to expect to ask John to do a disclaimer, you know, if they asked, I don't know how you feel about this, Jim, but if they asked me to disclaimer that we're not affiliated with the church every time and controlling, uh, this, this podcast. Just, you know, I tell them to piss off. I'm not interested in that. You know, we're living in a, you know, we, we, what about free speech?

What about— Talk amongst yourselves. My wife is at my front door and it's not, it's jammed and not opening. So I'm going to run off. Okay. Talk amongst yourselves. I'll be right back.

We will do that. We'll do that. So, you know, the, the right to free speech, uh, the right to express your thoughts and feelings. The right to be able to ask questions, you know, in the church organization. And it's been my experience where you can't do that and you get labeled and you get shut down. So I think that, again, tying this back to the first question there, I think it was Clayton, I think, said this. Yes, I think the church is behaving like a bully. I think it's sad. It's tragic. I think it's an indication of insecurity, immaturity, It's backfiring. It's been on ABC. I've got another question as well. We'll read some of the comments when Jim Bennett gets back because he's got more direct access to the comments and the questions than I have at the moment, at least. Does this mean, Greg, in your view, does this mean that we can't use the word Mormon? Can we not write it? Can we not talk about it? And also, the second question, Greg, is why is the church not suing The Book of Mormon Musical? Or why is he not suing, uh, Mormon Secret Housewives? Uh, you know, why is he not going after these other organizations? Why is it just going after John DeLynn? Uh, so there's a couple of questions. What are your thoughts, Greg?

I, I think it's because they feel he represents a greater threat than they do. As I'm thinking through this, I don't know if the two of you ever listened to Daniel Schorr. He was a brilliant journalist who spent his later years as a commentator on National Public Radio.

I, yeah, I've heard of him.

Long deceased now, but the most memorable thing I ever heard him say was, don't even ignore them. And I wish that were the stance that the church could take, because by either fighting or openly ignoring, again, as Jim Bennett said, you're recreating the Streisand effect.

Yeah.

Yeah.

You're right. I agree.

Well, not only turning more attention to it, but there's the implicit admission that we're worried, we're insecure.

Yeah, yeah.

And, and for what we say we are, that should never even be on the agenda.

Yeah, yeah, I agree. Uh, Jim, I want you to read some of the comments that have come in, but I want to make just a quick comment. Uh, we've meant— we've made references several times, Greg, and, and Jimmy and I, we've done this together, where the church has a risk management committee. Uh, this is a very sophisticated group of people, very professional, probably comprises no doubt of outside people that come in and assess risk and determine threats, et cetera. And I agree, I think they see Dillon as a serious threat. They can't control the other influences like secularism, declining membership, declining youth, et cetera. There's certain things that they can't control. They can't control the online narrative. They can't control free speech. You can't tell people what to say. But now here, unfortunately for John, they see an opportunity. There's probably some evidence where John has or is in breach of copyright and trademark infringement. There's some, something there that they, they want to go at and they see there's an opportunity to take him down. It is backfiring. It will backfire. And again, I think this is a David and Goliath and the stone is being flung. And in the end of the day, I think the truth will rise to the surface. The church will come out of this really badly. And what little respect I've got for some of these decisions that the church makes, it's, for me at least in this area, it's diminishing by the day. Jim Bennett, could you read some of the comments and thoughts on this? Because this is a big topic.

Disappeared. So apparently if I go too long, I can't get all of them anyway. Oh, that says live viewer comments. Blessed trio. Grateful to be here with you superheroes. I saw your exchange with Peggy. Ha ha. I had no idea you were cousins. I'm allowed to say that now because she's admitted it publicly. If I had the unlimited resources that the church has, why wouldn't I sue detractors even with no legal merit for the love of the game? Kind of like the MAGA playbook. I don't, I think the church is more savvy than that because I don't think they have a love of the game. I don't think they just want to sue for the sake of suing the show. Hey, I mean that Donald Trump. So much of that is, hey, I need to prove I'm a big man. And I don't feel like the church— I genuinely believe these men are good men who are trying to follow the Savior. And I don't think that— well, I don't know. It's possible that this— I know I'm going to start speculating on something that I don't really realize, but I don't think equating the brethren with Donald Trump and say, oh, they just are going to sue because they can. I don't see anyone in their Q15 that's stupid enough to do that. I would love Greg to be a permanent fixture. One more vote for permanent Greg.

That sounds like nailing me on the wall.

Yeah, well, uh, well, we'll, we'll get to the details later, I guess. I don't know any person on earth that thinks John Dehlin's podcast is affiliated with church. Do you? Do either of you? No, no, no, no. I have seen, there is a clip circulating that, so I'm going to be on a panel with, uh, Mormonism with the Murph on Saturday. And, uh, there was a guy in the text thread saying, oh, well, look at this clip. Because John was interviewing somebody, interviewing a couple who had left, and he said, so I was just looking for anything about the Mormons, and I Googled, and I found Mormon Stories, and I thought, oh, okay, great, I want to hear some Mormon stories. And he says, and I thought it looked kind of like the church. And John says, ha, that was not why we chose the name Mormon Stories. Well, haha, maybe a little bit. And he just kind of shoves it off. And this guy was like, aha, see, it's all been part of his grand design. But even this guy who said that, um, was, was said, I, I could tell within 5 minutes as I was listening to it that this was not, I mean, so that not affiliated with the church. And John has changed the colors. I mean, I mean, you can make a case. I think there is a case to be made that without the changes that John Dehlin has made, that there, there could be some surface brand confusion. They both use the same sort of blue. They both use these kind of rays of light in their logos. Somebody pointed out that John actually had rays of light in his logo before the church changed their logo in 2020. But the font is similar. And the use of the word Mormon. So yeah, somebody could very quickly look at that and go, oh, that must have something to do with the church. John has changed the blue to orange. He has added written disclaimers to all of his things. It says this is in no way affiliated with the church. Uh, he has, you know, but he hasn't changed any Mormon stories. I don't think he's changed the font much, but the orange is really quite strikingly different from the blue. And, uh, but the church, from what I can tell, is, is wants a verbal disclaimer at the beginning of every episode. He wants John to say, you know, at the start of an episode, this is in no way affiliated with the church. Uh, that seems a really wild hill to die on and to drag this out on because John has— they, they did go to mediation and John said he walked away when the church was being unreasonable. But I don't know, I can't imagine that that is a massive enough problem for this solution to be implemented. There is a different problem the church is dealing with, and maybe somebody thinks this is somehow going to lessen John DeLynn's influence, and that is extraordinarily naive to think. At least I think on my part.

Well, as you say, Jim Bennett, it's already doubled his listenership.

It's more than doubled, yeah. Why, hello, gents. Hello, Apostate of Mind. The time to be worried about John Lundin was 15 years ago. The church keeps trying to push toothpaste back into the tube on this one. That is an excellent point, because I mean, one of the things I keep coming back to is the idea that there are so many leaders of the church who are still pretending this is 19— 1987, and that the internet is not a thing, and that if they just say don't look, that people won't look, and they won't find it, and they won't pay attention to it, and just stay away from it. And they keep acting like that is a solution, and that is the opposite of a solution.

When we moved back here to Maryland in '75, It was near the beginning of the ERA battle, the Equal Rights Amendment. And we were pretty much in the epicenter when Sonia Johnson was put on trial for her membership and excommunicated.

Was that in the D.C. area?

Oh, absolutely.

Yeah.

She was in Arlington, Virginia, just across the river from us. And what it did was to turn her into a celebrity who now had an axe to grind against the church that had thrown her out. Had they not taken ecclesiastical action against her, I think she wouldn't even have been a footnote in the history books. When the church decided to excommunicate John, They created a phenomenon of their own doing. And I think a lot has devolved from that.

And they keep doing it. I mean, they've done the same thing with Nemo, the Mormon. They've done the same thing with Natasha Helfer. I mean, John is obviously the biggest fish in this pond, but every time they excommunicate somebody publicly, Uh, it, it makes a martyr out of them.

Yes. Isn't it correct that I read online that, and I think I was listening to, it was John, might John been John that said it, but somebody else commented as well on this, that the church, that John learned about this through somebody else's podcast. So is there, I remember the lady's name, the young girl has got a podcast, maybe our, our listeners and viewers can, oh, She, yeah, he heard it on Jasmine Rapley's podcast. Jasmine Rapley, yeah. Is that, is that right? I think that's right. I've read that's right. So, so that, from that, uh, another dot to connect. That sounds like to me that they've been planning this, that they got ahead of the story, they got the information out. John learned it through that podcast, if I understand it correctly. And this is something that they've been planning and positioning. They've seen an opportunity. They've obviously got some substance. And they want to take him, uh, you know, take him down. But this is just going to, uh, well, this is backfiring. I think, I think the worry for John is the financial impact. And right now I, I, I think his counter strategy is to ask for donations. He's, uh, probably needing quite a bit of, uh, you know, a, a war chest to, uh, rely on to be able to respond to this. I think the church should do the right thing here. And kind of put things on hold and try and approach this through mediation. I think John, to me, I've only met him once. We had breakfast together in South Utah a few years ago. Found him to be very friendly, very warm individual. I think it would be fairly straightforward to strike a deal with John. I think he's someone that you could probably collaborate with, or maybe not collaborate, but you could negotiate a deal with instead of, you know, taking him to court and, uh, you know, making an example. I think that's what's going to happen. I think the church is monitoring, tracking this, and I think is likely to, uh, enter into mediation. Uh, but as I say, is, you know, some of the damage is already done.

What we're seeing in the Middle East right now with Iran is the law of unintended consequences writ large. I think on a much smaller scale, but still significant, this is the law of unintended consequences. And I just don't see the church being pleased with whatever the eventual result of this is going to be.

I— if we can all see that, the church can see that too, right? When there has to be something driving this that we don't understand, or else the church isn't as savvy as we're giving them credit for.

And Jim, that's a really important point because behind this insecurity and frankly stupidity and, and this vexatious claim, which can be resolved through mediation. I'm not saying John Dolan is, is, is, uh, completely innocent here, right? He, he's probably, he may have, he may have, uh, breached some copyright. I don't know. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not dealing with this in great detail, but this decision and its insecurity and immaturity, who's behind that? And so, who are the personalities behind that? That's Oaks. Oaks is behind this. You know, the hardliners behind this, the more right-wing hardcore are behind this. The Curtin McConkey advisors behind this. The other people who are seated on that risk management committee. I'd love to know who was on that committee because again, I think they are a big influence here. So you've got this hardcore right-wing, we'll show them. It's like that Fairview Temple spire thing. You know, the church went to great lengths to push its agenda and encourage its members to support its position to have this spire with this at Fairview, with this big design, this big height that, that the, uh, the, the town of Fairview didn't want. So that some of the people didn't want, but the church made a, made an example of that and threatened legal action. The church wasn't gonna get pushed around. Oh, you can't push the church around. We're a $400 or $500 billion organization and we'll spend some dollars. We'll go through rounds with you. We'll spend a few million dollars and we'll show you that you can't push us around. So this is bullying. And the personalities behind that are bullies. And they are, you know, these liberals, these people in the organization have been sidelined. And at the end of the day, these right-wing, more aggressive thinking type people, very prescriptive thinking, et cetera, accessing all, you know, the church has got all this resources and is now flexing its muscles and using John as an example. What are some of the other comments and posts that we've got, Jim?

In President Oaks's first talk as president, this is from Germ Chaser at BYU. He said, I want to help all our members overcome present or future doubts. Is his intention to help doubters by filing lawsuits? You know, I remember when I heard that. May I call you Germ or Mr. Chaser? When I first heard that, I went, uh, that's great. He gets it. He gets it. He's going to help us. But his prescription in that devotional was, so the way to do that is to only talk to believers, stay away from all the controversy, put everything on the shelf, uh, insulate yourself from these questions. Don't try to answer them. Don't try to address them. And that still seems to be the strategy. And see, the thing that really frustrates me about that strategy is that it's not necessary. It really isn't. I mean, I have found, as I have sort of dived straight headlong into all of the messiness, that this faith becomes so much more vibrant and alive and interesting. And human in ways that I think are constructive to acknowledge. And, and the church is terrified that people will dive into this stuff and they won't be able to find a way through it. And because the church hasn't figured out how to provide a way through it, the space that the Wesleyan Seminary points out just absolutely doesn't exist. I will highlight again the conversation I had with somebody who works at the church office building who told me he loved our podcast. And, and I just went, I'm amazed that you would say that because we are sometimes critical. And he said, you are having conversations that we are not allowed to have. And there are people in the church and in church leadership who understand that very, very well. And I think it is— I mean, I don't think, Ian, the way you'd frame that seems a little more conspiratorial than I'd be willing to be, because I really still do believe in the good faith of all of the leaders. President Oaks is an extraordinarily bright man. He's an extraordinarily— you know, you can see that this calling has humbled him in a really significant way. I don't think President Oaks is Donald Trump. I don't think he's petty enough to go, aha, now I'm in the big chair. I can go after John DeLinn. I do not believe that he is that petty of a man. I do believe that he and others are that out of touch. And thinking that this is their only option. There is not an option to say, okay, I mean, this guy I talked to who said he loved our podcast also said, I've asked, I've said, we should do a podcast where we're trying, where we get an apostle to go talk to John DeLynn and we should love bomb John DeLynn. He said, he says, I got shot down every time I tried to bring that up, but I just thought that would be a really great thing to do. And the church is just terrified of doing that.

I want to be clear, I'm not saying Oaks is like Trump, right? I've not said that. That's not my position. But Oaks is behind this. He is a very smart guy. He's very much on the legal side. Obviously, his background is law, conservative thinking for sure. Traditional, old-fashioned. He's definitely in that camp. Again, I think they are really pissed off with John DeLynn. I agree with Greg. I think they see him as a threat. I think they're, it's personal. I think they're angry. I think there's an opportunity for them to clip his wings. I see that my brain sometimes reaches for analogies. We're trying to understand things like this, and I see the church behaving like a frightened, scared animal in the corner, and the church has painted itself into a corner. It has. And so, but what you've got, you've got people reaching out to the scared animal, wanting to help genuine people that the animal doesn't trust or believe. There are people out there and, and they're on this podcast. The three of us genuinely want to help the church to improve. Greg's roadmap is, uh, the most compelling evidence out there, which identifies specific measures to improve the church. We're not trying to destroy the church. We don't want to harm the church. We want to help the church. But when you put your hand out to help the terrified, scared animal, it attacks because it's not understanding, interpreting, uh, the, the, uh, the behavior and it's seeing it as a threat. And, and so this decision to pursue Dolan is made by certain types of personalities, driver personalities. Again, I've described some of the old-fashioned traditional way of thinking. Elder Packer, it's not conspiratorial to say that Elder Packer thought like that either. I think he had the same kind of thinking, saw threats, identified those three threats, didn't he? Remind me, Jim Bennett, what were those three threats to the church that Packer said existed? Intellectualism, LGBT.

So-called intellectuals. Yep. So-called. The feminists, the homosexuals, and the so-called intellectuals.

That was it. Yeah. So the church sees these things as, as a risk and it's got the resources to, uh, to take them down. So I'm glad this came up. Any other comments, thoughts on this?

Yeah, I, I'm sitting here gaming this and I'm thinking, okay, is the issue for them John or is it John's message? They may be able to wound John, but they're not going to be able to control that message. That becomes a game of whack-a-mole. You whack it down on one, two others are going to pop up because that's the nature of the podcast world. So in the long run, where is this beneficial to the church?

Yeah. Yeah.

No, it's an excellent, excellent point. I mean, somebody makes a comment down here, uh, Ian, that I think backs up what you're saying about it's personal. Uh, because they bring up Alyssa Grenfell, who I don't know. You've tried to reach out to her to get her on Inside Out. Uh, but, but somebody, Alyssa Grenfell, this is our good friend Bruce. Uh, uh, in half the age of John Dehlin, has twice the subscribers, about 600K. She has more influence over young members than Mr. Dehlin, in my opinion. Alyssa Grenfell has twice the YouTube subscribers as John Dehlin. She is 30-ish years old. She has much more influence. So I think it just, but, and, and they're not going after her. They're going after John Dehlin, which, which suggests, I mean, Alyssa Grenfell, I, I haven't watched a whole lot of her stuff. I've watched a little bit of it. Have either of you watched any of it?

I have, yeah.

The sense I get is this is somebody that's still sort of working through the anger stage, and I just find that kind of tedious to just be constantly mad at the church. I don't, I don't really don't feel that that's what John Dehlin does. I don't watch a lot of John Delenn stuff though, because it's very much the same sort of story. I mean, it's somebody— I mean, the— bless your hearts, everybody that goes through a faith crisis. But there are some fairly consistent story beats in those stories. And as I listened to them, I thought, I think John is doing a great service to these people to help them work through their religious deconstruction, but it's not a story that resonates with me at this point just because, uh, been there, done that a little bit.

I, I like to analyze things in great detail. I like to look at what's not being said, uh, people's behavior, people's body behavior. I like to read what is being said and I like to read between the lines. And sometimes you can actually see stuff when you read between the lines. If you look at the statement of the church, and this ties back to what Greg said earlier, the church goes out of its way to say, quote, the issue is not the podcast viewpoint, it wrote in a statement. It is the church's protected names and images.

Well, Clayton said that in a comment. The church had an FAQ about this. They said it wasn't about opposition to the church, it's about the trademark confusion.

You know, if you kind of round up all the issues with the church, and there are many, gentlemen, aren't they, right? And you kind of round up all of the gaps and discrepancies and the lack of integrity not everywhere, but in lots of areas where the church has not been honest. It's not been open. It's misdirected. It's not answered questions. There's no transparency on its, on its financial. We don't know what's going on, uh, in terms of its money, where its money's always been spent. A significant lack of financial transparency. We don't know the real numbers of decline. They won't tell us. There's so much secrecy and there's so much lack of trust. How can you believe what they say if there's all this evidence where they have misled people? I think we can agree the church at times, at least if we're being gracious and generous, the church at times has misled people. John talks about that on one of his podcasts in response to the legal pursuit by the church. So when I read that the issue is not, quote, not the podcast viewpoint, I don't buy that for one second. I think it is the content. I think he's a problem. I think it's personal. I think it's malicious. And there are elements in the church leadership that are behind this decision and they want to take him down. Greg's right. They won't destroy the message. You know, if a message is true and it carries the truth based on fact, you can never destroy that. It will always find its way to the surface.

They will amplify it, Ian.

They won't disprove it. Yeah, they will amplify it exponentially. And that's what's happening already. It's happening already. I agree. Yeah.

Uh, we were asked, uh, Greg, Jim, Greg, did you get grief from church authorities for going on Mormon Stories? Not a word. Well, but you went on also. Well, and not a word for me either. Uh, I mean, everybody, a lot of people tell me, oh, Jim's going to get in big trouble. Uh, not a word. Um, I, I mean, I remember when I first went on Bill Reel and, uh, I went and talked to my friend who I was in the bishopric with. He was the bishop and then he was now in the stake presidency. When somebody called me and said, I heard you on Bill Reel, you're in serious trouble, I went and talked to him. And the standard he gave me is the one I've clung to since, is we— he says, you were trying to defend the church, Jim. We don't go after people who are trying to defend the church, even if they do it badly. He said, we, we go after people when they go on the attack. And I thought, you know, that is a really, really good rule of thumb. And I sort of stuck by that ever since. And that, that cuts back to one of my other maxims, which is the amount of tolerance for heretical and different viewpoints in the church is much higher than people realize. You can believe all kinds of loony things and never ever get into trouble. But the flip side to that is the amount of tolerance for specific criticism of specific leaders is much, much lower than people realize. That I would get in less trouble for speculating about, uh, whether there are Quakers on the moon and Heavenly Mother comes to visit them than I would if I started complaining about how ugly Dallin Oaks's ties are. Yeah, I mean, no matter how mild the criticism is, there is zero tolerance for criticism of leaders. But when you engage with ideas, there is actually, I think, a much greater latitude there than people realize. I personally benefited from it.

Yeah, I think you've nailed one of the key issues, and this has been an issue that's really frustrated me this week with what's been going on with the church. And also, I've been contrasting the church leadership, and I've been venting with you both. We've got this little message group going between the three of us, and as you know, through the week I've been sharing my feelings and thoughts, uh, and contrasting the church leadership with the Pope. You know, the Pope's been coming out very boldly and very bravely speaking up on, on global, uh, geopolitical issues. And I've commented and thought about why the church isn't doing that. When I've talked about these issues or read them in my, uh, uh, social media, uh, Facebook locally, I've seen, uh, continued evidence. It just never goes away of a concept that you associate with cults, and that is, uh, groupthink, where you have, uh, people that think a certain way and won't compromise. They won't change how they think or they feel if they see a threat to the church. They all line up to protect the church, even if the church is wrong. You remember that conversation I had in the mall with the two missionaries?

Yeah.

And I asked one of the missionaries that if the prophet said something that was wrong and illegal and you knew it was wrong, would you follow the prophet? He said yes. There's this thing in the church and it's real. And I gotta be careful here because I, there are people I know really, really well, I've known for a very long time., who I love and adore, who manifest the behavior of groupthink. And whenever something's said about the church that's negative, especially about the leaders or a doctrine or a piece of history, even if the accusation or the claim is correct, you know, if the accusation was legitimate, these people double down, have closed minds, and they will not accept or be open to any concept or thought or idea that the church could be wrong. The church is, in these people's minds, cannot do anything wrong and is not wrong. And if it's done something that's questionable, well, it's God. It's God that's doing it. Or we don't know God's mind or the prophet's mind. He knows things that we don't know. He sees things that we don't see. He feels things that we don't feel. And God's law is higher than man's law. And who are we to judge that? So they double down, they rally round, and they will protect the church and the name of the church and the prophet at all cost. There's no deviation, and it's groupthink, and it's, uh, it's, it's, it's real, and it's alive and well for sure in the church.

Uh, yeah.

Any other comments?

Uh, yeah, somebody pointed out that, uh, They did confuse Mormon stories with the church when they were in high school. SLC Vinyl said this, but it took me about 10 minutes of research to discover this was not the case. There's also the Lord Voldemort effect. He who should not be named. It's a thing. Mormons know the name of the modern-day Korihor. They just don't want to invoke the evil magic by speaking his name. And I think Dumbledore's advice with regard to Lord Voldemort is when you increase fear of the name, you increase fear of the thing itself. And I think that's exactly what's happening here. And the idea that John Dehlin is some kind of post-Mormon prophet is really kind of silly for anybody that has spent 5 minutes with John Dehlin up close and personal. He is a very reasonable, moderate sort of guy. He doesn't foam at the mouth. He doesn't scream. He doesn't I mean, the fact that they are so worried about him, I think, is because he is so reasonable, because he does not come across as a lunatic. It would be much easier to discredit him if he were Alex Jones on Infowars, just screaming about turning the frogs gay or whatever, you know. I mean, there are lunatics who discredit their own movements, and John DeLinn is just not one of them. Them. And I think that's what makes him, I think, more of a threat.

It's a far stretch to use the analogy, I think, maybe with the Pharisees and Jesus Christ, probably an extreme example.

John is not Jesus Christ. And John—

not like he's Jesus Christ. Again, that's why I said it's a far stretch. He's not Jesus Christ. I'm not saying the church is the Pharisees, but the principle there, the idea of someone who speaks truth, and John, for the most part, I think, does speak the truth or tries to and speaks facts. And then you've got this big organization trying to topple him. I think that's the idea I was thinking of, but I'm not saying he's Jesus Christ for one second. Any other comments, questions?

Very poor choices of what to be vocal active towards on the church's part. I agree that it denotes admission of the church's actual priorities and lack of vision. Agree with David and Goliath. I still think it's hilarious that the church is fighting to control the victories for Satan. Yeah, I mean, the whole getting rid of the Mormon thing, it didn't ever work, and it's not working now, and this just sort of highlights just how silly it was to begin with. The church had an FAQ about this, yeah, we talked about that. John should start an all-out super-focused campaign to inform the African nations, aka the last frontier. Eh, a la the limited field of the church issues in reply to the lawsuit is a flagrant middle finger. Well, that's one of the reasons why I think maybe the church thinks that the don't-look-at-it strategy works, because it's working in Africa. In Africa, they don't have the same sort of communication access that they have in more developed nations. And, you know, I would bet that 9 out of 10 African converts don't even know about the priesthood ban. And all the church is doing By refusing to talk about these things is postponing the day of reckoning. The truth doesn't go away.

Well, it goes on. The problem grows.

Absolutely. Absolutely. Um, okay, so here's a, here's a change of topic. I mean, we're almost to an hour, but we were going to talk about this. Uh, um, interested to hear your thoughts on the new Young Women class name.

We've got that on our agenda this evening. I know the John Dolan story has kind of dominated, and it's probably not a, a bad thing to have talked, Mark, talked quite a bit about John Dolan. But the church has made some changes to the women's organization, and they have renamed the women's organizations as the following: Messengers of Hope, Builders of Faith, Gatherers of Light. Uh, so what are your thoughts on that? Uh, those changes, quite, uh, interesting.

Um, I don't have a problem with the names, although I would be interested in knowing what the girls think about the names. But to me, it's an interesting lack of parallelism If you look at those names and then look at the names of the young men—deacons, teachers, priests—there is parallel structure there. And in a way, that says to the girls, we're not going to give you a real title like you would have if you were a boy and you were ordained to the priesthood. We're going to give you a description.

It very clearly highlights the inequity. To me, yeah, they could have called them maybe deaconesses, teachers.

They could use teacher for the young women. I don't see a problem with that. And priestesses. I think I mentioned that to you guys on a—

you said that in one of our, in one of our chats, and I went online and, uh, Julie Diaz Vedo, the formerly Julie Hanks, said exactly the same thing. She said those should be, except for as I've thought about it, it's like, well, priest and priestess, still it's not quite the same, right? Why aren't they just all priests? Or just all teachers? Or do they?

In the temple, in the old temple ceremony, we talk about priests and priestesses unto the Most High God. I've not been to the endowment for quite some time, but I, I, I'm learning from you guys, especially with that there is some equality coming into the temple endowment. Right. And so I, from what I'm hearing, it sounds like the priestesses are on the same level or soon to be on the same level, but there's no reason to Greg's point why the women can't have their own equal titles. You know, I, I, I, I think it's, uh, I think Messengers of Hope, Builders of Faith, Gatherers of Light. I mean, it's probably a man that made that decision, eh?

Well, I know how much these titles matter in the 21st century. I mean, when I was growing up, I can remember being a Targeteer and being a Blazer. Uh, those are the two names I can remember from primary. Sunbeams, you had the Sunbeam.

Listen, you go back further and I, when I was in primary, there were the copilots, and then the top pilots, and then the blazers and the trekkers and the guides. Okay.

Those were the boys. Yeah. Oh, so, um, but we have lost so much of the kind of community where that kind of oddity, I mean, it's a little odd, but I think odd is kind of fun. But we've sort of abandoned all of that. And then to just come out with these names sound like they were picked at a corporate retreat. I mean, they don't, there's no spark to them. There's no, I mean, going beyond, yeah, we would love to see more equality. Uh, absent that, uh, how about a little personality?

Well, I, I just had a, A random thought popped into my mind. Do you name a football team the Bears, or do you name it the carriers of the ball?

Yeah, exactly. That's a good point. A good point. Exactly. Yeah. I mean, the football team, the names and the audience, even the oddest names are the ones that people just love. And they're part of you.

Yeah. Have you seen, have you seen the picture of the, the 3 young women on the, okay. So one is the sat down, the holding, there's flowers everywhere. Of course, there's a good part on the stage here. Yeah. Try and share it. I've got it here. If you can share it, Jim Bennett. Again, you've got someone, one of the women sat down with a scroll, one with a harp, one with a basket of flowers. Um, I think today, I think that's just seems, I mean, here I am, a guy talking about this. I'd love to get some comments from. Any of the, uh, ladies who are online here, ask what you think about this. But, uh, I think now under, you know, equality and equal rights, young women can do and be anything they want, right? Any profession. And kind of assign them to like holding a scroll and a harp and some flowers is, um, I don't know, I can think of a number of, uh, women that I know that, that, uh, would like to choose a different profession than that. So Yeah. I wonder if the young women were involved in this. That's what I'd like to know. Were the young women consulted on this?

Are you trying to put that on the screen, Jim?

I am, but I haven't found it. I haven't found, um, okay, let's see.

I've sent it to you through Messenger, the image, but, uh, yeah. Uh, while you're doing that, Jim, we have got a few comments. I can read some of them. Um, can you pull those up? I'll try. I'll try. This is something that you normally do. So, um, just trying to see where I can do this. I've got, I've got to figure this out.

Um, wow. Those young women names are so bad.

It sounds, I can't, right. Okay. You go ahead. I, I'm, I'm struggling to, uh, oh, okay.

No, I've, I've found it. I, I'm not seeing any images with it other than the font. Uh, I'm not seeing like gatherers of, I've not seen like wheat or anything, but I thought I'd seen that earlier before.

So it's, it's in the, I sent you the picture of it in the, in the messenger yet.

And this is a good point. And Shannon Collar, point of order, Jim. Infowars is now owned by The Onion. That's why I thought about the frogs being gay because they've just, uh, their new host that's replaced Alex Jones is a gay frog. And I just think that's delightful. John Dehlin is more, way more diplomatic than Melissa Grenfell, even though I believe she is sincere. I hate the church looking and acting like a bully. Dehlin is not important. We all know that the church has been behind on so, so many things. Is there anything they've been ahead on? I mean that honestly. You know, I had that conversation actually once, and there is an issue where the church has been ahead. Uh, and it's actually come up recently, uh, because somebody discovered that there was a bill that was going to go through the Utah legislature in this last legislative session that was going to strip all protections for undocumented immigrants. In the state of Utah. And they received word from the Church Governmental Relations Department that do not even run that bill. Don't, it's not even, it's not enough not to vote for it, but do not run it. And when my father was in the Senate, the Church's position on immigration is actually quite liberal and quite different from the MAGA position on immigration. I don't know if that counts enough, but there are issues where the church, I think, is more prescient than the culture at large, and I think immigration is the one that comes to mind. Can either of you think of any others?

Oh, immigration is a good one. That's what got Dieter Uchtdorf into trouble. Because after he met with Obama, he went out to the press gaggle and told the reporter from the Salt Lake Tribune, the Mormon Church and the Obama administration are on the same page on immigration issues. And the, the base in Utah went nuts. Yeah, he was right.

And he's still right. And the church is still there. But they are terrified of alienating that base. Yeah, you'd think the Secret Lives Show would be a far bigger target for the church on the use of the word Mormon. I just can't think it's the use of the word Mormon. There are too many things that use the word Mormon. It's— Yeah. It's not— Hello, fellow apostates. Hello, Broody the Apostate. I try to make it very obvious that I'm not affiliated with the church, and I still attract members to my comment section. That's nice of you. The church often frames things as legal issues, but this feels like it goes beyond that. When details show up on insider social media before anything is public, it raises questions about what's real. It certainly raises questions about, you know, people talk about the church paying influencers, and I think that's an overblown story. But I do think the church gives heads up to influencers. The fact that Jasmine Rapley knew about this before John DeLinde did suggests that there is communication. So go ahead.

Sorry, go ahead. There's an echo.

Go ahead, Jim Bennett. No, well, I'm not trying to be conspiratorial because I don't think the church goes out and gives marching orders to these podcasts. But I think the church has an open line of communication with them and that they will give them a heads up that something's coming or something's happening. And, and they'll take the ball and run with it. But I think that makes this very clear that there are different individuals that have a, have an open door to the PR department of the church.

So I've got a question for you both and a question for also for our viewers, listeners here. Um, if we strip all this away, this John DeLinn, you know, the church suing John DeLinn, right? And it can't be Mormon. It can't be the use of the word Mormon. It can't be some of the imagery considering they could get back into mediation and resolve that. I believe John would, uh, come to some agreement with the church. I think that is resolvable through mediation. It can't be controlling the narrative. We've already said through logic on this conversation that, you know, you try to shut it down, you know, you cut one head off and three replace it, right? It's just gonna grow exponentially. So if we strip away all the things that we understand or think we understand, what would you both think is the primary objective of this lawsuit? What is the church trying to achieve, do you think?

I think they're trying to shut down John Dehlin, and I think that they're deluded into thinking that's possible. That's what I—

is that what do you think, Greg?

If they're not going after the word Mormon, then this might be the only handle they could think of to try to gain some control over him, that it was trademark infringement rather than the use of that word. Because as you've already said, that word is so pervasive in so many venues. Are you really going to try to go up against all those people and say you can't use that word anymore, particularly since your former church president said We're not going to use that word anymore. That's what puts them, I think, in a real bind. And so if they want to take action against him, they put on their thinking caps and said, well, we can't go after him for saying Mormon, so what can we do? It looks to me like a fishing expedition.

It's like that, those old mobster movies where they can't get them on the crimes, but they got them on like Al Capone, get them on tax fraud, right?

Right, right.

On a letter, an accumulation of the issues they can get them on. It sounds like Galen John has actually, may have breached some of the copyright trademark laws and they see an opportunity and we've said this and they're going after him because there's some merit there. There's some substance there. I don't think they're doing for the sake of just the legal case itself. And I agree, the only thing I could think of is that they wanna shut him down because the message, the content, which they deny, expressly deny in the article that's been published and, you know, in the Salt Lake Tribune, and they've communicated this online as well, where they've said it's not, not the content. Go ahead.

We've got a commenter in here that's giving us quite a bit of pushback. I want to address to one, one of his comments here. Did Jim Bennett leave the church? Jim Bennett did not leave the church. Jim Bennett is still an active, faithful member of the church. Jim Bennett still sings in the Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square. So, if there's any rumor that I am out or I'm on my way out, I want to quash that right here, right now. But this same guy, Doug T. Pham, y'all missed the point, gentlemen. This is way overblown because of how Dallin poses to lure in. It's not a huge deal except he's the one obsessed about this stuff. Um, anybody want to take that one?

I don't think it's an individual obsession. If it were, he wouldn't have the listenership that he has.

Well, and the idea that he's luring people in dishonestly, uh, just does— doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You, you, you can— you know, within 10 seconds, really, watching anything that John does, where he's coming from, what his position is. The idea that he's trying to pretend to be some kind of faithful member and then lure them— I just think that's nonsense. Yeah. He also says the Q15 and Legal Team know they will have discovery. They aren't obviously worried about it. Or would have calculated. Maybe. I mean, again, I don't think underestimating the savvy of the brethren is a smart strategy. I mean, these are bright men. These are capable men. And so, yeah, I guess they're not too scary on this.

That said, that said, the church has shot itself in the foot before, Jim Bennett, right? Yes, we've said all along they're intelligent, sophisticated people, very smart, but they've made mistakes. Have they misread this? I mean, you know, they've— maybe they have looked in the seer stone and they've actually looked ahead and see how this is going to play out. You know, risk management, you do forecast analysis, right? You look ahead and you look all the different factors, you get people in the room, you look at the different angles and the different scenarios and what hit this and what this et cetera. And those meetings will have taken place for sure. But I don't believe John is luring people in. I think that's inaccurate. I've met John once. And, you know, if I thought, you know, if I thought he was an individual of poor character, I would say so. I think he's a genuine person. I find him, I found him to be genuine, warm, really interested. He's not how to make a million bucks, is he? He's not making millions off this, is he? He's got sweet oil.

He's making a pretty good living.

I mean, okay. Gentlemen, I have to weigh in here. I just got a note from my wife. I'm needed upstairs for our autistic son. So I will have to bow out and say thank you.

Thank you, Greg. Always a pleasure to have you here. Okay. Thank you, Greg. Thank you. All right. Well, we're coming up on the end here anyway.

And I like these pushback comments because this is what, uh, We like to get different opinions from different people. So yeah, I think to kind of wrap this up, Jim Bennett, I think it's, I think it's the content. I think John is a thorn in the side to the church. They want to shut him down. I can't think of any other reason. They found a gap, a loophole in trademark and copyright. There's probably some substance there. I think it's in the interest of John and the church to get back round the table and mediate and resolve this. And then take that relationship with John DeLynn, and you said this before, into a much more collaborative. It's that reaching out to each other, that bridge building. Why can't they build bridges? Why can't they develop that relationship and work together? Why not?

Well, the thing is, when you talk to John DeLynn one-on-one, he has positive relationships with a lot of people. Who are movers and shakers in the church. I mean, he is not— he is not— he's also not a burn-it-to-the-ground guy. He's not trying to burn down the church. He's trying to help people deal with faith transitions. The term that he often uses is informed consent. Says, I don't have any problem with somebody being a member of the church as long as it's informed consent, as long as they know what they're getting into. And so he sees his role as being one of providing information that people wouldn't necessarily have otherwise. Now, again, for the guy who thinks I've left the church and that I'm saying so everybody should be John DeLinn, that is not what I am saying. Because if you go— one of the reasons somebody asked, Jim Bennett, did you, did you get in trouble? One of the reasons I did not get in trouble is because anybody who goes and watches me engaging with John DeLinn can tell that I'm doing so, uh, on the side of the church, and that I'm engaging with him, and I'm not, uh, you know, I'm not belittling him, or I'm not attacking him personally. Uh, I'm trying to engage with difficult ideas.. And the idea that there aren't any difficult ideas and the idea that we shouldn't engage with these difficult ideas is, I think, the strategy that ultimately destroys faith. It absolutely destroys faith when we continue to pretend that we have a choice as to whether or not we are going to confront the ugly legacy of polygamy, the ugly legacy of our racism, and the current challenges we have with feminism and LGBTQ issues, where we are all over the map and we have changed radically. Whether you want to believe it or not, all of you people that want to weaponize the Family Proclamation against me, we have changed radically on both of those issues. In a very short space of time. And for everybody that thinks, don't talk about it, don't worry about it, don't think about it, just— that doesn't work. It just doesn't work. And how come? This is the thing. I'm sorry, I'm ranting now, Ian, but I'm— this, this is probably my final rant, so I'll let you have a final rant afterwards. But How, how fragile are you if you can't sit in the same room with somebody who knows the issues and is on the other side of those issues and talk to them frankly and constructively? Why can't you do that? Why? I mean, that's absolutely what I think the Savior would do and would have us do. And the idea that you're doing somebody a favor by just ignoring that is, I think, long-term— it's one of the reasons why I'm so passionate about continuing this work here, this podcast, is because, yeah, these are conversations that we're not having perfectly, but they need to be had. They need to be had. And And if we don't have them— because, I mean, Greg is also an active, faithful member of the church, uh, and Ian, regardless of your membership, you have tremendous affection for the church and see so much good in the church and see so much good that the church has done you in your life. We are people who love the church. We, we love the church. That's why we're doing this. We're doing this because if people who love the church don't do this and we leave it to people who don't, then that doesn't silence the, the critics. It amplifies them. It gives them more room, more space. If we don't occupy space and go in and have the hard conversations and do so in a way where we say, how can we find the good here? How can we find, uh, the divine, uh, mixed in with the human, which is what all of mortality is? If we don't do that, and if the people who are commenting don't do that, I mean, if we don't create those spaces, uh, you don't get rid of them by just attacking John DeLimb. It doesn't work.

There we go. Rant. No, it's not a rant. You've articulated a lot of my thoughts and feelings. The church is better off with John Delaney, believe it or not. Yes, it absolutely is. And they don't know it. They just don't know it. If I was in church leadership, do you know what I would do? I'd bring you in. I'd bring John Delaney in, probably RFM, Rebecca, other people into the group, into the conversation. Listen to those hard truths. Listen to those ugly truths. Have a constructive, uplifting, honest, mature conversation about the issues and really be humble and listen and build those bridges. And that— those conversations that shape and influence process and policy and doctrine and dealing with these thorny issues, etc., would create a better church. For everybody, more inclusive, kinder, less judgmental. This is what we want with the church. We want the— we don't want to destroy the church. We want the church to get better and improve. What's wrong with that? And John Dallin is not perfect. I don't agree with everything he said. I don't agree with all of his approaches or all of his questions, but he is a force for the good, and I think he genuinely wants to build a better safer space within the church, and he's somebody that you should listen to and not shut out for sure. Jim, do you want to zip through the comments and then we'll close? Can you do like a whistle stop tour of the comments?

Yeah, I will. So there are a lot.

That's right, let's read them so we capture as many people's thoughts as we can. Okay. Can you use that word whiz?

Yes. Yes. There's a behind the scenes story to that. When, when I was not able to do last week, it had to do with, anyway, uh, let's not get there. Uh, uh, let's see. Uh, okay. Someone like John. So sounds like someone on the Q15 was secretly a disgruntled troll that got kicked off John's show once and wanted, wants revenge. Oh, um. Anyway, Oaks with his yes men at K&M. Okay. He could rename his podcast to Gatherers of Light. Haha. Clayton Settle. Hahaha. That's very good, Clayton. We all know church is behind them. So we already talked about that one. Clayton, how about My Maids and Friends Stories as a rebrand to comply with church demands? There's no way this isn't signed off on at the highest levels. That's very true. 3 out of 3. They can't stop us all. Uh, lafala, I was like 2 out of 3. I'm close on this one. I hate the church looking and acting like a bully. Dallin is not important. I think he is important, but that's it. Like Obi-Wan Kenobi, strike me down and I'll become more powerful. And you could possibly— I love that. Too bad I don't love Alyssa's content and I think people are much more well off listening to Dallin or Valerie Hammacher. I mean, that's true. There are toxic personalities out there, uh, that I think the church isn't helpful. And I think there are toxic personalities within the church. I mean, I think a lot of the desnat type stuff, uh, is, is exceptionally toxic and is not helpful. Yes. But, but, and there are, but there are absolutely some outside. I just don't see John as being one of them. Donald is way more diplomatic than Alyssa Grenfell, even though I believe she is sincere. I agree with Jim Bennett. Deconstruction podcasts have their purpose, but I don't watch them. Current events are much more interesting. To me. Uh, you would have to be brain dead not to quickly figure out that Mormon Stories is not affiliated with the church. We are the Xe'olajijif of the Latter-day Saints. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. It's a desert mind. I love the idea of loyal opposition. There has to be a way to respectfully convey constructive criticism without fear of retribution. Y'all follow the Jackson Watchburn adventure this past week? It was obnoxious but highlighted groupthink well. I did. That was the whole RFM. Breaking into the sister missionary's home. I don't want to get into that here. I think it was a whole lot of nothing. Uh, the Barbara Streisand effect— this will blow up the YouTube channel bigly. Point of order, Jim Bennett. Yeah, we've said that. Uh, the trademark renewal is around 2027. This may be part of a strategy to reinforce control over the Mormon trademark ahead of renewal and maintain influence over how the term is used by critics. John Aluna Mormon Stories has saved my life as it is a safe place to ask questions and share thoughts without shame or guilt punishment. You know, I credit John DeLynn with saving many lives because when you leave this church, it can create just a massive void in your soul and everything, your entire foundation of your world crumbles and you've got nowhere to deal with it and nowhere to process it. John DeLynn at least. I mean, there's so many people in the church who do not recognize that, that do not recognize. And Ian, you recognize this because you've lived it firsthand, but recognize just the absolute hostility and shunning that they get from so many church members.

Um, you remember what Elder Ballard said? If you leave, if you find yourself leaving the church, where will you go? What will you do? Right? I took that, that felt threatening to me, right? You can't leave the church. You can't be happy outside the church. We're not going to help you leave. We'll help you join and befriend you, but there's no resources to help you navigate the issues, right? You know, people find themselves completely alone. So what do they do? They go to Mormon Stories and they find the same group of people that they can relate to and they find a safe space. And boy, they're desperate for that. And I found that as well. Go ahead, Jim, you keep reading. All right.

Um, let's see, we had those, those comments we saw before. How about I come up with an actually young men and young women's program and stop worrying about the names of the classes? I mean, that's a, that's a good point. I mean, the reality is the young men's program, I, I, I don't know what it is. It used to be Scouts. It was very clear. Uh, what is it now? Uh, 100% to Goldie Goldie, whatever Goldie Goldie said. I would have hated to be told who I was at that age. Well, those young women names are a product of the Lengthening Names Committee. I love that. New names make them come off as sounding more like Jehovah's Witnesses. Yeah, there's a little, there's a little of that. Uh, the new online merch for the new names has exploded in the last 2 days, similar to the Ponderize debacle. Do you remember the Ponderize debacle? I've heard about that. Oh, Durant, he was a Seventy. He, he, he gave a talk where he says, I'm going to introduce a new word called ponderize, and then his family started selling t-shirts. Jim leave the church? No. Uh, holders of the iron roof. Okay. Uh, I've been ponderizing buying some of that merch. Uh, Doug, Jim, no, he just speaks with integrity. It's hard to tell the difference though. I'll give you that. Oh, thank you very much, Guy McDude. You can be sarcastic, but it doesn't make you correct. Believe as you will. Okay. I'm not being sarcastic. Uh, holders of the iron rod. Is that what he meant? Besides Ruth, uh, it feels cohesive, like leading the witness. I don't know what that was in response to. President Oaks thinks Joseph Smith had a right to destroy the Expositor-Prison Plank Press. Should he be surprised if he thinks it is okay for the church to try to muzzle John Dehlin? No, I don't think it's a question of him feeling like it's okay. He's okay. It's that it doesn't, it doesn't work. It doesn't work. And he should know that by now. Wow. Those young— Good analogy. Say again? Sorry.

That's a good analogy. I like that last comment.

Go ahead. Yeah. With all the focus groups and pilot programs church does, how do those names make it? The sisters I've talked with hate them. Was it men or women who chose the new Young Women names? I think we know the answer to that. Giving someone a definition instead of the word, they are using the dictionary incorrectly. Coercive. I don't know what that— Oaks hates John Allen the same way Nelson hated the word Mormon. Both hatreds are backfiring. I honestly don't believe that, but that's okay. Word of Wisdom is arguably ahead of the curve on some issues. Smoking, effects of alcohol. Well, we've talked about that. They really wasn't to a large degree, but that's okay.

Okay. Have you gone, Jim Bennett?

We've lost Jim. That's so exciting that I bumped myself out.

Okay. See? Okay. Through. We're trying to do the best to get through the comments. Have we got many more left or?

Um, we got a few. I, I, there's a, uh, damn, YouTube's done again. Just get the notification when your bolts are on. Church banned alcohol because of Prohibition, not Section 89, which makes clear it was not a commandment. That's true. The, the ban on alcohol came in during the '30s. Heber J. Grant. Um, uh, Peter Higgs, represent! Jasmine's Visitor Center tour video was very professionally produced. It has a distinct Bonneville media style. Yeah, that's probably true. Church should just let Dylan be, let people listen, decide for themselves. As a member, doesn't feel good not to be trusted to decide what information media to consume. In Romans 16:1, Phoebe was given a title of biokonos, which is translated as deacon throughout the New Testament. Yet the King James translators rendered it servant because she was a woman. That's interesting. We know that Junia was an apostle. If the lawsuit bankrupts John, that might shut him down. It won't bankrupt him. It just won't. There's no— how could it bankrupt him? They can't. The worst it can do is make him change the name completely. It would have to be John DeLynn Presents or something. I mean, there's—

it's going to be costly for him from a financial— it's going to be very expensive to defend this. Uh, okay.

Uh, if they could shut down Mormon Stories, they can shut down about 100 other anti-Mormon brands as a result. Oh, maybe that's true. Maybe this is a trial run. Church's Goliath strategy is to use tithepayer funds to bankrupt John DeLynn David, like they calculated Prop 8. Yeah, Prop 8 was a huge disaster. LDS like a spiteful parent controlling your children. Why would the LDS be worried about MSP given that they're expanding and membership is up? Yeah, it doesn't show confidence. Peter Higgs controlling their adult children, right? They love Greg Prince, as do we. Informed consent, amen. This is why I love Inside Out. Preach, Jim Bennett. Thank you. MSP doesn't have just have folks talking about their faith crisis. He just had some wonderful sessions with the historian author of The Rise and Fall of an American Prophet. We need some inspirational background music to crescendo here. La la la! I laughed but I imagine the church is going to suffer a brain drain. I think that's true. Amen. Thanks. Uh, Mike Drop. That's nice. I feel like everyone here tonight are Mormon in the church out of the church we're all Mormon there's more than one way to Mormon thank you Bruce membership is only up in Africa not in America it's actually they even had to announce a decline in the United States for the first time ever since 2007. Time. Um, uh, not me, I'm a nomrom, says Mr. Rayman Blues. Mormon Stories is a wealth of information to help leaders understand why members leave. The church had a lot more Jim Bennetts, membership retention would be much better. Well, thank you very much, Forever Pegster. Um, I left, but I would like to see the church address these issues, get healthier. And this last one, SNCMC got Jim. Did they? I don't think they did. The Strengthening Church Members committees, I have never heard from the Strengthening from church members coming out. Well, I hope you don't— but those are all the comments, Ian, so we need to end before there are more.

Well, an absolute— Jim, you did an awesome job there. Thank you. Final message before we close here to all of our listeners and followers and viewers. We're so grateful for your support. Here's the message from Jim and I. Please give us the most robust questions, challenges, we're not always right. I know that's a bit of a shock, but this is a space on Inside Out where we can have these conversations. You can ask the most difficult questions. We don't have all the answers, of course, but we want to have these conversations, have these discussions. We want to be challenged. I think if we do it respectfully, in a very constructive way, in a very civil way, and even get people coming on— I'm not saying you do this for the sake of doing it, but coming on and and disagreeing with us, that's good. That's not a bad thing. If we do it in a kind, respectful way, then we learn, and that's how we grow. And that's the point that we've been trying to make. If the church took this approach, this more mature, more secure approach, and was able to have these conversations, at least create the space where we could talk about these things, it would be a better organization, and people would feel safe and talk about these things. That's what we're trying to create here on Inside Out, a little bit of space which the church can and should create given all those resources. So we invite constructive, healthy criticism. Jim might have all the answers. I don't. Greg might have all the answers. I certainly don't. But we extend our love and appreciation to you all. Jim, it's always a great honor to spend this time with you. So on behalf of you and I, Jim, and everybody who's part of Inside Out, thank you for joining us on Inside Out Live this week and look forward to resuming normal schedule next Tuesday, 7 PM. And we will announce who's coming on next week.

Oh yeah, that's gonna be a good one. All right. Yes. Thank you very much. Bye. God bless. Take care.