New Handbook Updates

Hello and welcome to the latest episode of Inside Outs, the only true and living podcast upon the face of the earth, with which I, Ian Wilkes, am well pleased. Guten Tag, listeners. Collectively, but not individually, as of once and for time and all eternity, I'm here with the exponential, Mr. Jim Bennett. Jim, how are you today, sir?

Well, I just love that you're pleased with the podcast collectively, but not individually. There are only two individuals in the podcast, so you're either upset with me or yourself, but that's just fine. I think that's the life.

Anyway, welcome to our latest episode, Jim. It's great to have you with us. I've just described you as exponential, and I know you're a very smart guy. You'll know what that means.

Yes, yes. I'm not quite sure how it applies to an individual, but exponential, I contain multitudes.

Okay. Well, no, you certainly do. Here's my take on that. Uh, Jim Bennett, you are exponential in that your greatness is accelerating. Ah, yes, I think exponential rate.

Nice.

How about that?

I'll take it. Jeez.

Wow. And I thought I would shake up the intro a little bit because I kind of have a little bit of monologue, but I thought I'd bring a little bit of fun there. But getting into our podcast conversation here and just keeping it on the general intro, as you know, and our listeners will know, we do our very best, I think, to try to take a balanced and pragmatic look at the church. And we see and we talk about many great things the church does. And a lot of the time the church comes out in our conversation, discussion, and through our— some of the folks that join us comes out really well. And other times not so much. And today, on this discussion, this episode, on this topic, I don't know how the church is going to fare. And so, you know, you and I were talking about this. It's a significant episode, and I'm wondering if you could kind of lead us into it and give us a little bit of context and background and take us into the conversation from here, if you will.

Well, sure. And, and I think I think probably the easiest way to do this is for me, I'm just going to— we're going to be talking about the changes in the handbook that have gathered, garnered a lot of attention. Most of them focus on transgender individuals, although there are some that focus on a few other things that we can touch on if we want to. But what I want to do is just sort of outline the changes without editorial comment. And then I want to hear in your reaction to them., and then I will be happy to provide my reaction. I've had a lot of people online essentially saying to me, oh geez, Jim Bennett's head must be exploding as a result of this. And it's always amazing to me when people say things like that, as if I don't know what it is that the church teaches, and as if this, this would come as a surprise to me. In some way. But anyway, that's editorial comment, which I will leave to the end. So there are a few things in this that, that don't have to do with transgender. I'm going to start with that. One is that young women are now able to be greeters, ward greeters, you know, people who come in and, and people who are there essentially as ushers. But they stand there and they welcome people. The handbook now allows that to be an assignment for young women, which I think is kind of interesting. There, there is a sealing policy that has changed. I don't know if you were, you were still in Scotland, but we— I remember President McConkie introducing a policy in Scotland where we were able to baptize people who were in common-law marriages. So they hadn't been legally married, but they were living together as husband and wife, and that was considered a common-law marriage. And I remember being shocked as a young missionary when they said, that's okay, they can be baptized with a common-law marriage. Well, there's now a sealing policy that you can be sealed or at least posthumous sealings can be done for people in common-law marriages who don't have a legal marriage. And I think— thought that was kind of interesting. Um, holiday church services. Uh, in our ward for years and years, on Christmas and on Easter, we only meet for an hour, and that's now codified for the entire church, which is interesting. Young single adults used to be anyone. Now it's anyone between the ages of 18 to 35, and older than that, they are just considered single adults. And I'm not sure how that is a change because I don't remember what the previous ages were. I just— this kind of hits home because I remember I spent the last weekend down at, uh, in Southern California. My daughter is now a doctoral student at the University of Southern California, which is where I met my wife, in the USC ward, USC student ward, which was my absolute favorite ward of all time. It was just this wonderful ward, and it doesn't exist anymore. And student wards don't exist anymore. And in fact, in Los Angeles County, there's only one singles ward. There used to be a number of them. I think, I don't know how much that has to do with the fact that there are fewer members. I talked to the Institute Director and he said that there are just far fewer Latter-day Saints who are attending USC, and so he's now a part-time Institute Director. We used to have full-time Institute Directors. Paul Dutton used to be a USC Institute Director, and that's now a part-time position. Anyway, there have been 1-hour church pilots. There are stakes that are experimenting with just 1-hour church, and that's coming out as a result of this. So I don't know a whole lot more about that. But though— okay, so those are the policies that are kind of interesting, but don't make the bulk of, I think, what we're going to talk about here. In this episode, the main, the main changes focus on transgender people. And the, the, the overriding counsel is, quote, treat individuals and their families with love and respect while teaching gospel truth, end quote. So all of these are supposed to be All these policies that I'm going to outline here are to be implemented, implemented with love and respect and while teaching gospel truth, as if there's tension between those things. I'm getting into editorial here, but the idea of gospel truth, how is love and respect in any way in conflict with gospel truth? Okay. Next, consider the needs of the individuals and other ward members, which again is a kind of a tension— not a tension, but a kind of a tension, as if the, the needs of the transgender individuals and the needs of other ward members are somehow in conflict. And you see that idea of conflict in the policies. And this is And this is a quote, quote, ensure that the church's doctrine on gender is not undermined or misunderstood, end quote. So there's nothing in there that I think is, is hard to understand. Okay, so probably the most egregious part of this policy is how transgender people use church restrooms. And it's so bizarre to me that we even have to talk about this. But okay, I'm editorializing. I said I wasn't going to editorialize. Okay. If a transgender person is to use a restroom, they have 3 options. One, they can use a gender-neutral restroom, a single toilet restroom. I have never been in a church with a single toilet restroom. I'm told they exist. I don't know where they are, but they're supposed to use those as their first choice. If that is not available, they are to use the restroom that corresponds with their biological sex at birth. Uh, if they don't want to do that, they are to use the restroom with which provided for the gender with which they identify, as long as there is no one else in the restroom and some trusted individual, quote unquote, is standing guard outside to make sure that nobody comes in. So that, I think, is probably the most controversial of these. They punt largely on the idea of preferred names or pronouns. They insist that— okay, so I'm just going to read this. Official church records reflect a member's biological sex at birth. The use of preferred names and pronouns should be a matter left between individuals and their family, friends, and church members. Local leaders should not determine or prescribe how members address an individual. If a member has a preferred name, it may be noted in the preferred name field on the membership record. So we can discuss what that means. It— I think it does allow for using pronouns that are appropriate to how they identify, but it also allows church members to refuse to use those pronouns and, and to engage in a process people refer to as deadnaming. That is, you know, calling Caitlyn Jenner Bruce Jenner sort of thing. If I'm a transgender person, many people refuse to use the name I've chosen and use my deadname, use the name of the gender that I have transitioned from. So that, that is kind of an interesting thing. The other thing here is they are restricted from pretty much holding any calling of significance. They cannot hold callings that have anything to do with children. They cannot hold callings that have any kind of gender-specific role. They cannot be teachers. They cannot work with children or youth. I don't know what that leaves. Maybe hymn book coordinator. I don't know. Could they be ward greeters? I just— the number of callings that they are able to hold are very few. There's also a section that talks about overnight activities. Uh, uh, for overnight activities that are for a specific gender, individuals attend only the camps that align with their biological sex at birth. Examples of such activities include Young Women's camps and Aaronic Priesthood Quorum camps. For overnight activities that are not for a specific gender, Individuals who are in medical or social transition away from their biological sex at birth leave the activity at night. So in other words, you can't do an overnight activity if you are a transgender individual. If you've made any steps towards transitioning, even social transitioning prior to medical transitioning, you can't do anything overnight. And so that's the bulk of them. I said I wasn't gonna editorialize. I engaged in some editorializing. I would like to hear your editorializing. What do you think of these policy?

Boy, it's extraordinary. I can imagine the conversations at the highest level, you know, the time that's probably gone into this and the advice from, uh, uh, is it the law firm, uh, in, uh, Salt Lake? Is it Curtin and McConkie? I'm sure they were involved. Yeah, go right in this. You know, there's, there's legalities all over this. Um, remind ourselves and hear our listeners, Jim, a lot of this goes back to the church's, um, Proclamation to the World, uh, a lot of it hinges on that. That was, um, published in, um, in September 1995, where it talks about all human beings, male and female, are created in the image of God. Each is beloved spirit, son or daughter of Heavenly Father. Um, and basically it, uh, talks about, um, you know, the plan of salvation and, uh, basically that, uh, you know, biological Identity is foreordained, you know, before we came to the earth, et cetera. You know, each is a beloved spirit and daughter of Heavenly Father. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal and eternal identity and purpose. And so, you know, that's the anchor, if you like, to which the church, you know, position yourselves on. Um, and, uh, you know, many folks out there foresaw, uh, years ago— you'd have to be a prophet to foresee the difficulty that the church is going to get itself into in regards to LGBT, LGBTQ, transgender, etc. And it's been trying to walk this fine line with balancing the— and it's clear it comes in this, in this policy as well, where you reference the, you know, the need to maintain the integrity of the doctrine and the need to, uh, respect, you know, the members, um, of the church relating to other members. And throughout this, all these policies, including the disaster, the mess that they made in regards to, uh, children of, you know, relating to same-sex, uh, families and, and, uh, parents, and then the reversal of that It's struggled and made a mess throughout all of these, or many of these changes, and it's still struggling trying to find a balance between protecting and maintaining its position with traditional members, you know, people who've been in the church for a long time, senior members, where a lot of these issues are difficult for them., but also how do they, uh, balance that with the, uh, you know, the needs of these, uh, individuals and, uh, people who have transgender rights. There's also a question about human rights, you know, what is the, you know, the human rights of, of these individuals. The church, uh, job is to help people to get back to live with God. That's the goal. It's to bring to pass the immortality, immortality, the eternal life of of people, men and women. And so it has a spiritual duty and obligation to save everyone. That's its purpose, that's its mission, that's its goal, that's its invitation. And it needs to, uh, want and extend that invitation and provide that support to everyone and all. Yet at the same time, it's clear in this policy that it does not, uh, want people who, uh, who are transgender, um, You know, and so reading that there, you know, it has a position on same-sex attraction. It talks distinction between same-sex attraction and homosexual behavior. We're not getting into that right now, of course. But this, you know, there's lots of policies and comments in regards to its position on same-sex attraction. And this is just a, you know, a an extension to that conversation. Uh, his position on transitioning— it's got a position on that, and it says those who feel their inner sense of gender does not align with biological sex at birth often face complex challenges. They and their family and friends should be treated with sensitivity, kindness, and compassion, quite a lot of love. Yet this policy, in my opinion, is contrary to that. It goes against It's insensitive, it's unkind, it lacks compassion, and I don't think it possesses much, you know, Christ-like love. It's very divisive. I think these individuals will not feel welcome. You know, when you talk about examples of restrooms, for example, in church facilities, you know, it says a restroom should provide private and safe environment, implying that if a transgender individual would use that, that others using it at the same time, or you are not safe, um, which is quite offensive. Like, that's what I get from that. Uh, care must be taken to respect the privacy and dignity of all individuals. Okay, individuals pursuing surgical, medical, or social transition away from their biological sex at birth should use a single occupancy restroom when available. And to your point, I've never seen that in the church. I was in the church, went to the church in England, and they don't have them there for sure. If a single occupancy restroom is not available, local leaders counsel with individuals and the parents or guardians of youth to find a solution. Options include a restroom that aligns with the individual's biological sex at birth. Does that mean they have to leave the church and go to a local restroom? Uh, I don't know. Using a restroom that corresponds to the individual's feelings of their inner sense of gender with a trusted person ensuring that others are not using the restroom at the same time. So they'd have to identify and interview a trusted person, whatever that means, you know, call somebody in, you know, somebody they trust, and that they would have to accompany that transgender person. I mean, that would be— that's humiliating. You know, you can imagine how they feel, uh, that they can't use the restroom without being accompanied, you know, escorted, um, guarded by somebody who's so-called trusted. And then the overnight activities, that you've read it, there's absolutely no confidence or trust in the individual at all. Severe restrictions on overnight activities. And of course, the preferred names and pronouns, I think it's really struggling with that. It doesn't have a— it's very confusing in terms of what the church's position on that. And again, it It talks about, you know, it says here very clearly that across this policy, the church is really not interested in supporting individuals. I mean, I'm kind of paraphrasing and I'll quote it word for word here as well. Individuals who pursue surgical, medical, or social transition away from their biological birth, biological sex at birth. And so it really is quite alienating, is quite hostile It's intimidating and it's offensive and it's insulting. And it's certainly not Christlike. It's certainly not compassionate. The church does not want these individuals anywhere near its members. And this policy, probably instigated by Elder Oaks— Elder President Nelson, I'm hearing, is limited in terms of his health. Elder Oaks is probably behind this. Uh, Curt McConkie's probably written this. They've looked at all the legal issues, but it's very divisive and it's a step back in the Dark Ages. I just, oh boy, I just, um, it, it, I just can't understand why they're going, you know, backwards, uh, in time. So that's my general response. I've got some specific points that I'd like to probably bring up later in our conversation, but I'll hand the time over to you to get your— I'll get more thoughts from you on that.

Well, I want to take a step back a little bit and take a broader view of this, because one of the things that's being said is that this is November 2015 all over again. And I'm seeing a lot of people online saying, okay, who's going to resign their membership now as a result of this terrible policy? Because this is just like the 2015 policy. That was so egregiously wrong and generated so much outrage that even after it was announced as being the product of Revelation, it was reversed, uh, in 3 and a half years later. Uh, I don't think this policy is going to generate that same kind of outrage, and that's because this policy, for good or ill, is consistent with what the church is currently teaching about transgenderism. The thing that was so egregious about the 2015 policy, at least to many people and to me, essentially, I almost left the church over the 2015 policy because it wasn't just targeting lesbian and gay people in same-sex relationships. It was targeting their innocent children. Who had done nothing wrong except be born to gay parents. And that was so outside the bounds of anything that the Church had taught. I remember when it broke, I was talking to a member of my ward who said, "Oh, the Church would never do that. Church would never do that. John Dehlin broke this news. This is anti-Mormon lies. This isn't real." And then, of course, it was real. And then this member then backpedaled and said, "Oh, well, this is no big deal. It's great. It's positive.", and I just rolled my eyes and, and really struggled with it. And we've talked about that policy enough that I don't want to revisit that so much. But this, I think, accurately reflects and, uh, what the church currently teaches about transgender people, and it targets transgender people specifically without targeting people outside of that specific community. So I think it's unlikely to generate a similar level of outrage. And yet it, you know, the fact that this is where the church is, is kind of where the problem is. And what this policy does essentially is declare that transgenderism is entirely illegitimate, that there is no such thing. I mean, it keeps talking about biological sex at birth. You're not really transgender. You have to use the bathroom of your biological sex at birth. You have to go to the activities of your biological sex at birth. If you do anything to move away from your biological sex at birth, We will essentially marginalize you to the point where you cannot participate in the church in any way. You can sing hymns, I guess, but you can't hold any kind of calling of any significance. We're going to assume that you're going to corrupt our children somehow. We're not going to let you anywhere near our children. I mean, it essentially says there is no such thing as transgenderism. And this is interesting because when you look at how far the church has evolved with regard to homosexuality, with regard to gay and lesbian members, I think back to the battle days of the miracle of forgiveness when Spencer Kimball insisted that being gay was a voluntary that you chose to be gay, that it was a curable condition. That was the word he used. And he said that if you are just sufficiently righteous, it will go away. And the quote that I've mentioned repeatedly where he says, how can you say the door will not open until you have pounded on it until your arms are bloody and your muscles are sore? It can be done. That's the direct quote from Spencer Kimball. And as loathsome, I think, as that counsel is, and the fact that we have rejected that counsel now, we no longer teach that. The Church explicitly teaches that being gay is not a choice. You do not choose which gender you will find attractive. I have yet to meet anybody, gay, straight, anybody who has made a conscious decision about what gender they will find attractive. That attraction comes naturally to everyone, and to those who are gay and lesbian, it's an attraction to someone of their own gender. So the church now says, okay, you do not choose your attractions, and the attractions do not go away with sufficient righteousness. We acknowledge essentially the existence, the legitimacy of gay and lesbian people. We still are not willing to acknowledge any kind of righteous purpose for being gay or lesbian. We insist, okay, yeah, you didn't choose it, you can't change it, but we're still going to punish you for something you didn't choose. And so that's still a problem. But I, but I see movement in that direction, right? We now have a policy with regard to gay and lesbian people that is ultimately untenable, that we're eventually going to have to resolve it one way or another. If we acknowledge the legitimacy of the existence of gay and lesbian people, then we ultimately will have to acknowledge that there is a righteous purpose for the existence of gay and lesbian people, and we're going to have to include them fully in ways that we currently do not, or we're going to have to go back to the battle days. We're going to have to go back to the Spencer Kimball days where they're going to be pounding their bloody stumps of arms against the door that will never open. But as loathsome as that policy was, it was logically consistent. The current policy is not, and eventually it's going to have to be. The church, with regard to transgenderism, has not gotten that far. The church has not gotten to the point where they say, yes, transgender people exist. Yes, they do not choose to be transgender. Yes, they, they can. I mean, this is how the Lord has made them and it is appropriate for them to live their lives authentically according to the gender they, they know themselves internally to be. We are not that far as a church. We are not able to acknowledge that that is a reality. So these policies are essentially, be courteous and kind to these people as you kick them out of the church. That's essentially what it is, because I can't imagine anybody— I can't imagine anybody— I mean, God bless you if you are a transgender person and you can look at these policies and say, I still want to be a member of this church, because this church is saying in every possible way, we do not want you here. As long as you are transgender, we do not want you here. What we want you to do is just not be transgender. Just wake up in the morning and say, this was all a mistake. I'm silly. What a— what a goof. Just kidding. I was born a man. I really am a man. I am not transgender in any way, and I'm just going to live my life that way. And it's just so frustrating because science And there has been so much information that has come forward about this, this part of the human condition that is not new. I mean, everybody seems to be acting like this is new. What's new is that we now have medical science that can accommodate people who go through these transitions. In ages past, people who identified as genders other than their biological sex at birth just that they could socially transition. We had words like transvestite where they would dress like the other genders or they would do all these kinds of things. But we didn't have any kind of medical resources for them to make any kind of a medical transition. But transgenderism and the idea of identifying with something other than your biological sex at birth is as old as the human race. And we know this now. We have this information in front of us. And the church in denying this and the church in insisting, no, this is not a reality. We do not offer any other options. I mean, one of the things that I hear from Latter-day Saints and also from people, this isn't just In the United States particularly, this has become sort of a hallmark of political conservatism. It's not just a religious issue. This idea of fearmongering that, you know, your children are going to be mutilated and their teachers are pushing on them life-altering surgeries and making them into transgender people is the kind of fearmongering we're hearing from the Trump campaign. And we're hearing from sort of the right wing of, of, of in America. And I assume that this is the case in Canada and elsewhere, and you can probably speak to that. But, but, but those people that talk this way continually talk about transgenderism as a mental illness. You know, we should not be accommodating these people in their mental illness. And every time somebody tells me transgenderism is a mental illness, I say, okay, if it's a mental illness, then what is the treatment? You know, mental illness is illness. I've wrestled with depression all my life and I've sought treatment. That treatment has come in the form of therapies. That treatment has come in the form of medication. We have medications. We have science. That backs up, okay, if you're ill, let's see what we can do to help you. Let's see what we can do to cure or at least treat your illness. So every other mental illness that is a legitimate mental illness, depression, anxiety, even more serious mental illnesses like schizophrenia, schizophrenia, and all these kinds of things are things that we treat. We don't just say, oh, you're mentally ill and throw you to the side of the road. We say, okay, here are your options. If you are mentally ill, here are the treatments that are available to you to alleviate your symptoms. So what is the treatment, Latter-day Saints, for transgenderism? Because you're not offering one. What you're saying is it doesn't exist. These people, whatever it is they're experiencing, is completely illegitimate. They're making it up. It just doesn't exist. It will go away if we just ignore it, if we do not accommodate it in any way. And that, I think, has been humanity's approach to transgenderism until recent decades, when we have gotten more and more information about the fact that this is a legitimate human condition and the way I— I don't want to say treat it, but the way to accommodate it, the best way to allow these people to live happy, healthy, productive lives is to allow them to medically and socially transition. All of the data that we have on this points in that direction, that, that everything we do to say, no, you're illegitimate, no, you can't transition, no, you're not No, I mean, all of that science tells us, all the research we have tells us that doesn't work, that doesn't help, that leads to suicidality. You tell these people, no, you're nonsense. You are not a woman. You are a man. So live with it. They say no thanks and they kill themselves. Transgender people. I don't have the statistic in front of me, but it's, it's— I think it's somewhere around 20 times more likely to take their own life than other people. I mean, we talk about, okay, we got to make sure that they're not going to be in the bathroom. I was listening before our podcast began to another podcast. It was the Salt Lake Tribune's Mormonland podcast where they were talking to a transgender man who's a former member of the church. And he said the bathroom scenario is one where it's the transgender person who is far more likely to be assaulted. You are far— 4 times more likely to be assaulted in a bathroom if you are transgender than if you are not. The idea that someone in your ward who is transgender is going to lie in wait in a bathroom and do something to you is just absolutely ludicrous. There is no data to support any of that being anything other than fearmongering nonsense. So I just look at all of this and I say, okay, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you want us to treat these people with respect and love, and yet you couch that and say, however, teach them the gospel truth. What is the gospel truth? Is the gospel truth you're telling me that transgender people just don't exist? Are you just saying that's the gospel truth? I— because I don't see anything in the Book of Mormon, in the Doctrine and Covenants, in the Pearl of Great Price, in the Old Testament, in the New Testament that makes that case, that says transgender people just aren't legitimate. That isn't real. There isn't any. I mean, you can, you can try to proof-text it, you could try to cobble something together, but it's just not there. So the idea that this is sort of a bedrock gospel principle, that transgenderism is completely illegitimate, cannot be sustained by any revelation that has ever been canonized in our standard works, and it just doesn't make any sense. So What I think is likely to happen, I think you're probably absolutely right that this is likely the product of President Oaks. Every report I'm hearing is that President Nelson, President Nelson turns 100 years old on September 9th, and the church put together a birthday card for him that was signed by more people than any other birthday card in the history of the world. And in fact, that has been certified by the Guinness Book of World Records. And there was a big ceremony where they certified this record had been broken, and President Nelson did not attend, which suggests that he is too frail to attend. Everything I'm hearing is that actually mentally, you know, we've had many presidents of the church that have mentally declined and deteriorated to the point where they have been incapacitated for the last few years of their presidencies. I, what I'm hearing is that President Nelson is not in that state mentally, that he is still mentally alert, but that physically his body has just deteriorated. I mean, he's 100 years old. That this is the human condition. I mean, I said this online and somebody was like, how dare you spew such bile about the prophet? Like, I'm not spewing any bile about the prophet. The man is 100 years old. The man is a mortal man. And he's at the end, near the end of his life. And the people that I'm hearing are telling me that it's 50/50 or less that he's going to make it to September 9th. There's a big birthday bash planned for him. So all of that is to say that the church, we— I mean, we have redundancies built into the system to accommodate this kind of thing. This is the reason why presidents have counselors. And President Oaks is of the two counselors in the First Presidency. We've had times when we've had more than two counselors when the counselors themselves have been incapacitated. Gordon B. Hinckley was a third counselor for a very long time. But President Eyring is very frail at the moment. President Oaks seems to be in good health. And so I think this is very this feels and sounds very much like something President Oaks would do. And this is— and the kind of legalism that I'm seeing in it is reflective of President Oaks, who, as we know, is a former Utah Supreme Court justice. He is a brilliant legal mind, and he sort of approaches the gospel from that kind of a perspective. And so I kind of see his fingerprints on there. I don't think there's anything in this policy that President Nelson would disagree with. I don't think President Oaks is pushing something through that President Nelson wouldn't put his stamp of approval on. He probably has. But what I ultimately think this— where I think this is going, I mean, this is not going to cause me to leave the Church. First of all, because again, I know what church I belong to. I know all of the goodness in the church. I have made my peace with the fact that this is where the Lord wants me. And, and, and nothing in this policy comes as a surprise. That may be a cynical way to put it, but this isn't a surprise. This is what we've been teaching. This is the position we've been taking. It's not a position I agree with, but it's a position that I accept as being the position of the church. There are so many people in this church who not— are not just transgender, because actually transgender people will always be, I think, a very small percentage of the general population. That's always been the case. The idea that everyone's turning transgender is just absolutely nonsense. This is something that it has always been a, a relatively small part of the population and it will continue to be a relatively small part of the population. But what is not a relatively small part of the population is the percentage of people who know and love transgender people. And the number of parents in this church who have transgender children just in the Tabernacle Choir alone— and I want to be very careful here because I know some of my friends at the Tabernacle Choir listen to this podcast, and I don't want to out anybody— but there are several people actually in the Tabernacle Choir that I have talked to who have transgender children. And I mean, these are people in the Tabernacle Choir. To be in the Tabernacle Choir, you have to hold a temple recommend. You also have to get an additional bishop's approval on top of that. And you have— I mean, you can't be in the Tabernacle Choir and not be a fully engaged member of the church. There are too many hurdles you would have to leap through to do that. So I'm talking— I'm not talking about people who are on the margins of the church. I'm talking about people who are participating in the church just as, as fully and as vigorously as anybody can be. And these people in the Tabernacle Choir have transgender children and they love their transgender children and they know their transgender children are legitimate. That they're not making this up, that they're not choosing this to get attention, or that it's a phase, or it's whatever other kind of silly, ridiculous dismissal we will apply to it. They know and love their children, and the church continues to move in a direction where eventually they have to choose between whether they're going to accept and love their children or whether they're going to fully participate in the church. And what policies like this will do— I don't think this is going to spur a massive new round of resignations, but I think it will spur a large number of what is now— what are now called quiet quitters, people who are now saying, okay, church, you are pushing me and pushing me and pushing me to a point where I have to choose between you and my child. And I don't know anybody who's in that situation who wouldn't choose their child. I just don't know anybody who would do that. Maybe there are some that won't. In fact, I know that there are some that won't because I hear horror stories about transgender children who are ostracized, rejected by their parents. But I know the ones in the choir that I know The people I know who have transgender children, I was talking to a transgender relative just today. I don't want to identify this person either because they didn't give me permission to do so. I'm trying to get them on our podcast, but I mean, they just look at this and they just— their reaction was just, you know, the church, they can't even imagine coming back to the church, participating in the church, because the church doesn't want them. The church has— this is so clearly a way to say, okay, as we fire you from the church, we will be polite, we will be kind, we will do it with a smile, but we don't want you here. If you are transgender, we don't acknowledge that you exist. And so get lost. Very sweetly, we say that with love. Get lost. I don't think you can say that with love. I don't think you can say that we're showing love and respect for anybody that we're not willing to make a place for you. We're not willing to say, hey, how hard would it be even just to say, yeah, okay, you could participate. And you know what? Well, use your pronouns of choice. And you know what? You can teach primary and you can lead the singing and you can do all of these things and you can participate. And we will leave it to God to determine your eternal fate. But we don't have to judge you. We just have to love you. I don't understand why we can't do that. In fact, I know that we can do that. And one of the reasons I stay in the church is I think eventually We will do that. It's just so slow and painful getting there. It's just so painful. And I don't have anybody in my direct sort of— well, I did this transgender relative again. I'm being vague, but this is not someone I see on a regular basis. There are none of my children are transgender. None of my children are gay or lesbian, you know. So this is not something that is directly blowing up in my face on a daily basis. But so many people I love experience this. So many people I know and love know and love these transgender people, and the church just isn't giving them anywhere to go. So there, that's my rant. Maybe I think my rant was probably longer than your rant. But where does this leave us, Ian? What do we do?

Jim Bennett, that, that was one of the most significant responses to this policy, these changes to the handbook policies, that I may ever hear. And, you know, you talked at length and expressed your views and your feelings, uh, very, uh, strongly. And I'm grateful, and all listeners are grateful to that. I do have some, some thoughts, uh, in respect to that. Um, I remind you, Jim Bennett, myself, and our listeners that in May 2021, President Nelson gave an interesting talk or made a statement titled "We Are All Children of God." And he says here that the creator of us all calls on each of us to abandon attitudes of prejudice against any group of God's children. Just listen to that for a minute. Any group of God's children. This is the prophet Honestly speaking, any of us who has a prejudice towards another race needs to repent. He goes on to talk about during the Savior's earthly mission, he constantly ministered to those who were excluded, marginalized, judged, overlooked, abused, and discounted. As his followers, can we do anything less? The answer is no. We believe in freedom, kindness, and fairness for all of God's children. He goes on to say, let us be clear, we are brothers and sisters. Each of us, child of a loving Father in Heaven, his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, invites all to come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female. There's that male and female again. It behooves each of us to do whatever we can in our spheres of influence to preserve the dignity and respect every son and daughter of God deserves. We need to foster a fundamental respect of the human dignity of every human soul. Regardless their color, creed, or cause. That's an interesting word, cause. And we need to work tirelessly, he says, to build bridges of understanding rather than creating walls of segregation. Just hear that for a moment. He then goes on to say, final comment, I plead with us to work together for peace, mutual respect, and for outpouring of love for all school children. That is not consistent with these changes into the handbook. You've said rightly that, you know, if you look at the church's November 2015 policy where the church implemented a policy that barred children from same-sex couples from being baptized and joining the church unless they denounced the parents by the age of 18, you know, that was known as the November policy. That was an extraordinary policy with a significant reaction And I agree with you, I don't, I don't think this will be the same reaction as that one. But that policy back then was the first time any Christian church had put a baptismal ban on children of same-sex couples. And then of course in April 2019, the church reversed that policy requiring same-sex parents to give permission for the children to be baptized, knowledge of the child's commitment to the church. And for context and for background, if we were to see these changes, policies over a period of time from the proclamation to the world in 1995, November 2015, the different policies including to the latest changes to the handbook, I believe, and you might disagree with this, others might disagree, I think there is an overall, yes, it's a train crash. If you look at the graph, it's up and down, you know, the sharp edges to it, there are crash after crash after crash in terms of policy analysis development. The difficulty and the struggle the church has got to balance its interests with the traditional conventional orthodox member with the new modern age of transgender and LGBTQ, et cetera, and the difficulty around that. But I think if we were to see this as a form of a graph, and it'd be interesting to do this. I think there is a general trend upwards towards, albeit slowly and in train crash style, a general trend towards overall improvement and changes. The fact that we're having this conversation, the fact that the church has put a policy together of this, means that it's thinking about it and taking it seriously. I think it's shot itself in the foot again. I mean, just imagine You cannot go to the bathroom unless you're accompanied by somebody who's trusted because you're going to do something in the bathroom. I find that extraordinary. But I think overall, if I'm being devil's advocate here, I think if you go back enough in time, right back to the pamphlet by the little factor by Elder Packer that you talk about, right? Where you have to tie your hand to the bedpost so you just stop yourself masturbating. To interviews where, you know, Bishop told me that, you know, if I'm masturbating, um, I'll be— I will turn gay. Again, if you go right through the proclamation, etc., right through to the current policies, I think overall there's a general trend, um, in the right direction, albeit it looks absolutely messy. Uh, the treatment— you've said the church doesn't have a treatment. I think the church does have one treatment, and that is to repent. And so I, I— that's one of the treatments, one of the pills that I think it would like these people to, to take, um, and that would be to, uh, you know, either leave— you know, we're going to make it difficult for you here, so either leave or you conform to our rules, etc. If you don't like it, get lost, uh, or you repent and change and you, uh, you know, you you make the necessary changes and you go back in the opposite direction from transitioning, you know, away from your biological sex at birth. And again, just to provide more context, reading 38.6.238, Individuals Identify as Transgender. I've talked to you about the, you know, that gender is an essential characteristic of Heavenly Father's plan, you know, reference the fact that the population of the world to the world there. I think it's important. Again, it says here some people feel that in a sense of gender doesn't align with biological sex at birth. The interesting here, Jim Bennett, the church does not take a position on the causes of these feelings. And I think this is part of the problem because you've spoken very strongly or referenced strongly in regards to the science, the data, you know, what, you know, as we, as we improve our knowledge of, of, um, uh, individuals with transgender and the biological chemistry of individuals. And, you know, they feel female or they feel male. And I have a friend who is somebody I deeply love and respect who has shared with me that he is gay. He's attracted to men. And I asked— I didn't— this is going back a few years, I didn't understand what that meant, or what that was, or what that felt like. That's completely alien to me. But he said, Ian, just as you are attracted to a woman, or a man is attracted to a woman, that's how he feels towards a man. That was the best explanation I've ever had. And this individual, somebody I have huge amount of love and respect for, is a close friend of mine. He is, um, he won't come out because he will, he will lose everything, um, and I, I think he would, he would prefer to transition towards, um, I believe he feels he's a woman, um, and so not just gay, he's transgender, he's transgender. So his is, as he's read about the science and research, his position, I believe, my understanding is that he now believes he is a woman inside a man's body, that his chemistry, his biological chemistry is different than, you know, a man. I don't fully understand all the science of this at all, even a little bit of the science, but the church is failing to educate the members on the science. And it, it, it can't do that because it will be a way of justifying, or, you know, how can it reconcile this, these policies and this policy, and at the same time say, hey, look, you know, we, we support the science and the technology and the, you know, all the, the new knowledge that's, and the data that's out there on, you know, the chemistry, the biological chemistry and the chemicals inside someone and, and why they feel and think differently, et cetera. He doesn't talk about that. You know, what's his position on that? The fact that the only true living church on the face of the earth does not, quote, take a position on the cause of these feelings. Someone says, some who experience the feelings identify as transgender, and individuals often face complex challenges. They and their family and friends should be treated with sensitivity, kindness, compassion, Christ's love. We talked about that. Well, this policy doesn't do that. Goes against what President Nelson said earlier, my comments earlier. Ordinance of salvation and exaltation are received according to a person's biological sex at birth. So they're restricted from that, you know, baptism, confirmation, priesthood, ordination, temple ordinances, they're restricted from that. Worthy individuals who do not pursue surgical, medical, or total transition away from biological sex at birth may enjoy all the privileges of church membership. So, you know, I guess you could be or feel transgender my friend does, but if they doesn't formally transition socially, you know, surgically, medically, biologically, you know, away from the biological sex at birth, and I guess they are worthy. I mean, there's a whole conversation about what does worthy mean now. You know, you can have attraction to the same sex, you can feel like you're transgender, but I guess if you don't act upon that, if you go against your feelings, go against The chemistry, the spiritual and biological chemistry of your makeup, as long as you don't pursue that, then I guess technically you worthy, you can go to the temple. It says the leaders advise that taking these actions will result in some church membership restrictions. Some is putting it mildly. You said earlier that those callings that they're restricted from fulfilling or serving in, as almost all the callings, you know, it might be a greeter or an usher or some activity role, but it restricts them across, you know, all of, or most of the callings of significance across the church, and essentially restricts them from serving. You know, what if they've got talents, extraordinary talents that they can bring and serve and help other people? Um, but they can't because they are not worthy. It's extraordinary, isn't it? And then it says here, uh, individuals who transition away from a biological sex at birth are welcome to attend circuit meetings and participate in many other ways. Doesn't talk about other ways, Jim Bennett. Uh, it's not specific, it's quite general. So you can serve, but it's quite— it didn't tell you any, any examples. I presume they can pay tithing, of course. Uh, that's me being a bit cynical, but these individuals and their families are encouraged to counsel with local leaders regarding the church participation. Um, church— again, it's like a, like a, um, they got a plague, you know, you got this plague and you need special treatment and you got to counsel, um, with leaders to find areas of where you can serve. How awful is that? Imagine how you'd feel on that. Leaders should consider the needs of all involved. To your point earlier about the divisiveness and like us and them, you know, we've got the members to protect and look after. You've got this condition, but, you know, we need to consider all the needs. And I think they're right. I think the church is failing to educate its members on the science and the data, you know, around this. And so it's just a, He says, members who have taken steps to transition and then transition back to their biological sex at birth and are worthy and committed to keeping God's commandments may enjoy all the privileges of church membership. And of course, it goes without saying that if you don't do that, then you don't have any of the privileges. It's just awful. And I just— you can't serve, you can't go to the bathroom by yourself, which is just unbelievable. I don't know how to I don't know what to say about that. I guess they're going to watch you all the time. You've got to take special counsel and advice from the leaders. There's no overnight, you know, activities, nothing like that. You can't do that. Then the preferred names and pronouns is interesting here. So, you know, the use of preferred names and pronouns should be a matter left between individuals and their family. Local leaders should not determine or prescribe how members address individuals. If a member has a preferred name, it may be noted in the preferred name field on the membership record. I guess that's, that's a good thing. I mean, you could be his/her or she/him, etc. And then gender-specific meetings, activities, you know, individuals attend gender-specific meetings, activities that align with their biological sex. But what, what do you think that means, Jim? What's your take on that?

Well, My take on biological sex at birth, I mean, you said a few things that—

Sorry, gender-specific meetings, activities, says it, individuals attend.

Right. Gender-specific things, yeah. That means you can't— You can't go to Relief Society. Yeah, you can't participate in the Relief Society, you can't participate in the elders quorum. You know, almost every calling of significance has some gender specificity to it, particularly the male callings, because they're almost all priesthood callings. And you clearly can't hold the priesthood or you can't do anything in the priesthood. So you said a few things that I want to return to because I think they're interesting and merit discussion. One of the things you said is the treatment is they need to repent. So the fact that they identify as transgender, that in itself is somehow sinful. It's really interesting because we have reached a point in the church where that is no longer how we treat homosexuality. It used to be that just being homosexual— Ernest Wilkinson, the president of BYU, said, if you are, if you have homosexual tendencies, we do not want you on this campus. We do not want you infecting the other students, that it was some kind of disease, that just even the orientation, independent of any action, was sinful. I have a relative who was gay, and again, I'm going to be generic 'cause these people did not give me permission to discuss them, but went to serve a mission and had no sexual experiences whatsoever, told people in the MTC that he was gay and was sent home from the MTC. Hadn't done anything, hadn't had sex with a man, hadn't dated a man, hadn't kissed a man, But just saying, "I'm gay." Now, this is many years ago. I don't think this would happen now because the church has now said, "Oh no, it's okay. You can even be gay, and there's nothing sinful about that." But we haven't reached that point with transgenderism. We haven't said, "Okay, the fact that you identify as transgender isn't sinful." We say, "Repent." Repent, be your biological sex at birth. Even if you, if you are, you identify as a woman and you start to wear women's clothing, even if you don't do anything medical, that even that is, is not acceptable. Even that brings down all these restrictions upon you to the point where you can't really participate in the church. In any significant or meaningful way. The other thing that you said that I thought was interesting, and I think you're right, is that if you look at the trajectory of the church on these issues, we are— it may not feel like it, it may not seem like it, particularly when these kinds of policies are introduced in the handbook— we are moving towards greater inclusion. We have moved towards greater inclusion in ways that are significant and I think irreversible. I don't think we can go back to saying, just kidding, you really did choose to be gay. You really can pray it away. Keep pounding on the door. I don't think we can go there. I mean, I offer that as saying we'll need to go there, we need to go the other direction. But I think that door is closed. I think we have moved to the point where we can't go back. We can't go back to the idea of— to the Dark Ages of saying just being gay itself is a sin. So, but the movement towards greater inclusion has not been a straight line. It's been filled with reversals and setbacks, and, and what, what I find encouraging is that many of the movement, much of the movement that takes place going towards inclusion comes after the retrenchment. So Proposition 8 in California was just a devastating loss for the church on every front. I mean, it was an embarrassment to the church. It did tremendous damage to our reputation. It was just a debacle up, down, and sideways. And it actually was the catalyst. Oh, that was my watch talking to me. It was actually— we actually won the battle and lost the war because Proposition 8 passed., and the backlash was so significant that it ultimately led to the legalization of gay marriage in all 50 states in the United States. Proposition 8 was one of the cases that was considered by the Supreme Court that ultimately resulted in going in that direction. After Prop 8, the church realized that it was damaged, and so began all of this outreach And that's the moment when the church launched the website MormonsandGays.org, which is now a Victory for Satan because can't say Mormon. But they launched that website where the admission that people don't choose which gender they find attractive and people don't stop being gay if they pray hard enough, if they're righteous enough. That admission only happened because the church was trying to clean up after the mess left by Prop 8. So you have these moments where the church retrenches and there's blowback, and so then the church moves towards greater inclusion. And we were moving in that direction, and then came the November 2015 policy, and the blowback on that was so fiery and intense that the church had to back down, and the church had to change, and that was extraordinarily embarrassing. But it moved us towards greater inclusion to the point where the church eventually endorsed the Respect for Marriage Act, which codifies the Supreme Court decision to legalize gay marriage into law. The church explicitly endorsed legislation directly contrary to Prop 8, you know. So, so the inclusion comes after the retrenchment. And the whole issue of transgenderism is such a political hot potato right now that it is not surprising to me that the church would feel like now is a time to retrench, because I think they also feel like, okay, this is a good time to retrench because the nation is with us. The world is with us. The world is equally as concerned about transgenderism as we are, and so we can do this without expecting any backlash. And I think, I just think that's naive. I just think that's not going to be the case. And I think this is the precursor to the church is now going to see not just the transgender people leave the church, but they're going to see more and more quiet quitting. They're going to see parents who love their children decide to choose their children over the church. And so you're going to see more and more of that. I don't know if that's going to be high profile enough to sort of create a significant backlash that moves us forward. But it's going to be significant. And the thing is, you and I have talked about this many times, but I stay in this church because I do believe the hand of God is in this church. I absolutely believe the hand of God is in this church, and that the mortals who are members of this church and are leaders of this church have to slowly, painfully learn how to get where God wants us to go. And I absolutely have confidence that God wants us to be inclusive and kind and loving. I believe God creates transgender people and that they are legitimate people and their transitions are legitimate. And, uh, and that God is aware of them and loves them and accepts them for who they are. I believe he creates gay and lesbian people and loves them and accepts them for who we are. And I believe the church eventually— and I wish it would be faster, but it's not going to be— but I believe the church eventually gets there. I really, really believe that. I come back to, and I've talked about this on this podcast, but I come back to what I consider the personal revelation I received when I was very actively contemplating leaving the church in 2015 in the wake of the November 2015 policy. And that revelation essentially said, be patient, it will all work out in the end. I don't know what that means. I don't know when the end is. I don't know what it will all work out means. But I do know that God loves all of His children, that what President Nelson said there about God loving all of His children are not empty words. They are true words. They're absolutely right. And eventually, we're going to get there. But it's going to require switchbacks and setbacks. And, you know, 3 steps forward, 4 steps back.. And it's, it's not going to be a straight line. And I have to have as much patience and give enough grace to the church leaders who are learning this. It's really interesting because we, as we talk about Oaks, and I want to say this too, as we end, because a lot of people who are upset about this policy are demonizing Dallin Oaks. And I can understand why they're doing it. I'm not willing to go there because what I am seeing in Dallin Oaks— Dallin Oaks is undeniably a brilliant, brilliant man and undeniably has a sort of set position on LGBTQ issues that he sees as immovable. What I am seeing in Dallin Oaks when he talks about LGBTQ issues is a wrestle, is he is aware of these kinds of tensions. He is aware of all of this and he's trying to find some way to reconcile it. I mean, I really think he is intellectually engaged with this in a way, and I don't think he has reached a point where he's willing to even consider the possibility that the basic central premise needs to change. I think he's saying, okay, yeah, transgenderism is illegitimate, okay, and lesbianism is pretty much illegitimate. Uh, how do I sell that? How do I, how do I get the people to recognize that? And he's tried a number of different things. He's tried, well, there's tension between the two great commandments, and then he backed off from that when he realized, no, that really doesn't work, that isn't working. No, it's more about, well, the lower kingdoms are for those guys, and the lower kingdoms are great. Those are good. That'll work. And no, the church didn't buy that either. And then he, he went to the University of Virginia and he said, you know what, maybe we shouldn't be fighting all of these gay rights initiatives everywhere. Maybe we need to learn to how to live with them. And that's when we started to get— that's what we got, the endorsement of the Respect for Marriage Act. And so what I am seeing with President Oaks is I'm willing to give grace to President Oaks because he has agency and he is now soon to be charged with an unbelievably weighty calling as he is called to be the leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, at least the leader here on earth. I accept that Jesus Christ is our leader. But he is to be the prophet, and he is to be the one who is going to guide this church. And I, I think the Lord is working on him. I think the Lord is at the head of this church and is working on his leaders. And I think we're in for some very interesting surprises. I don't know what they're going to look like. I don't know how that's going to work. And certainly this policy doesn't feel like the kind of surprise that I, I am looking forward to, but I think it could lead to one as we start, as we slowly, painfully, you know, you talk about this is the only true and living church. I lean more and more into the living part of that phrase. Every living thing learns and grows. From its mistakes. The whole mortal experience is about making mistakes. It's about coming here and learning through pain, through suffering, through setbacks, the good from the evil. And I think the church is in that process, actively engaged in that process, and I think we're going to learn lessons we need to learn. Uh, so that's kind of where I am. I, I really am sort of hopeful that this policy doesn't It's disappointing to me, but it's not devastating to me because I know, John Lennon always used to say, "Everything works out in the end. If it hasn't worked out, it's not the end." And we're not at the end. There's, the church has a great and bright, beautiful history ahead of it, as well as a history behind it. And as we get there, there are gonna be stumbling blocks, there are gonna be difficulties, but I still think we're gonna get there. Am I too Pollyanna-ish?

No, I think that you are following the principles and the values of Inside Out. You know, you're looking at it from a balanced perspective. You're on the inside. The church is your tribe. It's your life. It's your beliefs. You support the fundamental principles of the gospel. Notwithstanding the painful and complex and difficult, difficult the church is going through to understand these issues and respond to them, often in a very inappropriate way and sometimes a very harmful and very dangerous way. But you know, you are on the inside, I'm on the outside. I see that trajectory, that line that I've referenced earlier as being in the general overall direction of improvement and change, even though it's very painful and very slow. You know, the reversals with November 15th, which is very significant, and I don't know if the reaction will be the same on this one, although I think it's quite significant. And the church is learning through trial and error. It's trying things, it's making mistakes. You've made reference to Elder Oaks. As you know, Elder Oaks, uh, set me apart on the stake presidency. He provided some training. I had the opportunity to spending a day with him or a weekend. He is a brilliant man. He's very smart. I believe he's trying to do the right thing, even though he isn't at times. I believe that he actually believes that he's trying to walk that fine line. You know, he's a traditional thinker, very conservative, orthodox, very right-wing in some ways. You know, he's from the Packer group. You know, he had a relationship with Packer. Packer trained him as an apostle. The two were very close and very tied together. And, you know, he has the the remnants and the thinking, the mindset of some of Elder Packer at least. I think he's really struggling with this. He's a smart guy, but he's trying to walk that fine line. As we close here, I want to just kind of put on my prophet hat here. So I'm going to prophesy, it'd be interesting to come back to the podcast. Within a year to 18 months, there will be a softening of this policy. That, you know, in the policies here that we've talked about, there's no, he says that leaders have gotta find ways and means for these individuals to serve. He doesn't give any specifics. I believe within a year, 18 months, probably within a year, that we'll get more clear instructions and specificity around where and how these individuals can serve. I believe the policy will soften. I think it'll be relaxed over the coming, year, 2 years or so, uh, going, you know, going forward. I, I think there's going to be a big reaction to the, you know, going to the bathroom with trusted person. I, I'm absolutely stunned by that. I can't find the words to, to, um, to describe how awful that is, you know, something insulting that is. And this is going to attack somebody in the bathroom, or you're going to turn them into transgender, you know, you're going to catch a disease. It's just weird. It's very Strange. But I do believe the church is on a general, uh, positive, uh, uh, trajectory. Um, I also prophesy that, um, that there's going to be more, uh, uh, involvement with women and girls. I think the decision to, uh, assign girls to, uh, women to, um, greeters— I think that's just the beginning, a precursor for other improvements and changes. I think they must be listening to our podcast because we've said previously that there's no reason why women or girls cannot serve. Women can serve in Sunday school auxiliaries, stake or ward level, because it's not an ecclesiastical calling. They can— there's no reason why they can't serve. I think you're going to see more changes, you know, for women receiving leadership callings, more involvement in that. I think we're going to see measurement of I was in the UK, as you know, just come back. Um, and I'm hearing again from people who, uh, work quite high up in, uh, the church there in, in the UK that the church is closely looking at measuring temple activity in downness, Washington, IT, ceilings, etc., and talking about a goal for each of the units to essentially endow baptism for the dead an entire ward per year, if you understand what I mean by that. So the ward is tasked with baptizing the same number. You know, if it's a 200-size ward, it has to, you know, endow and baptize and seal at least 200 people per year. And that will be measured. I think we're going to see, you know, further changes. I think the church is on this again, is on the wrong side of history as it was with the No Plunder 15 policy and the Prop 8. It completely screwed up there. I think it's messed up here. It's on the wrong side. You know, what about the rights of these individuals, human rights of these individuals, right? You know, these are civil rights, Jim Bennett. You know, LGBTQ rights and gay marriage now are civil issues. These are civil rights. You know, the right for someone to feel legitimate in their own body. You know, whatever they feel and think is what they, you know, they truly feel. If they feel so strongly, that they're willing to change their, you know, away from their biological birth, that, you know, that's driven by important factors and important reasons psychologically, spiritually, physically. And they should be treated with, with kindness and respect and understanding. Again, I want to emphasize that the church is failing to even talk about the science of the data. Where's the reference to what's, um, what the, the scientists saying there? You know, Elder Packer said that, you know, if people are, you know, why would God allow people to be born gay? Why would he allow that? Um, you know, suggesting that God wouldn't allow that. And if he gays, the condition is a disease, it's a plague. And this is of the same ilk. It's, um, You know, it's treating these people like they have a disease or a plague, and it's awful. But I think it will change. You know, I'm on the outside, and I have confidence and hope that it will change. And I prophesy, um, kind of joking there, but I predict that it will change, and we're going to see a change. I use the word exponential at the beginning. I, I believe the church is going to change exponentially, that the rate of change will in the next 2-3 years will increase, and it will move towards positive change a little bit faster. I'm not saying lightning speed, nothing like that. But I think the rate of change will, will occur a little bit faster. And as we— the leadership changes out beyond Elder Oaks. And again, I've worked with Elder Oaks, and I have a lot of respect for him. I think he's basically a good, decent man. I believe that, you know, people make comments about him, but they've not met him or worked with him. And I don't know him that well, but at least I've had a little bit of, you know, glimpse into his thinking. But as the leadership changes and we get perhaps more modern progressive leaders, I think that's going to run in parallel to softening of these policies and changes. 10 years from now, 15 years from now, we'll be looking back and thinking, wow, what— look what the church has gone through. We'll look at that line again. We'll see— I think we'll see a lot more changes in a shorter period of time. And we've talked, you know, our hope is that the church will improve and change, become more inclusive, and will live the principles in practice that I referenced in President Nelson's talk that was in May 2021. Because that's what this church is about. It's about love and kindness and being like Christ and being inclusive and helping all of our God's children, um, to return to Heavenly Father. Because that's the purpose of the mission of the church, is to bring to pass the immortality, the eternal life of man and everyone. That's his goal. So they're my, uh, final remarks. I'm very grateful to your, um, to you, Jim Bennett, for your passion and your strength of feeling. Comes through very strongly. And I didn't want to interrupt you, but I appreciate the, um, the compassion that you have and, um, the strength of feeling that you've got on this. And you, you extraordinary in terms of maintaining your faith and belief, and you hold on to the revelation. You don't forget that revelation that you experienced, that personal inspiration. That was, was— that really happened. That meant something to you, uh, that, that cannot be, um, um, swept away. That's, uh um, you know, burn into your soul. And so I, I think, um, that shows a lot of your integrity, notwithstanding, uh, your frustration in terms of these, um, these policies in the, in the handbook, which are divisive and exclusive and, um, potentially dangerous and quite harmful. But we— on a positive note, I think the church will improve and change, and I think we will see that at a faster rate over the next few years.

Well, just very quickly, because I think those are great last words, but I just want to add one other thing. One of the reasons why I think you'll be proven a true prophet, because I think you're right, I think all of those things are likely to happen. And I think the main reason is because I trust in the goodness of the members of the church. When the November 2015 policy happened, one of the reasons why it was reversed was that there were so many bishops and so many local leaders that ignored it, that went, no, no, we're not going to worry about that. And they just sort of quietly worked to essentially do the right thing. And this policy, one of the reasons why I think it's going to be softened and changed is it's, it's large, it's largely unenforceable. And the idea of Utah passed a law that said you could only use the bathroom of your biological sex at birth. And they set up a hotline where people could report, they could call in and report if they'd seen something where somebody was breaking this law., and the state auditor finally came out and said, this is ridiculous. None of the calls. He says, we, we've received thousands of calls. 6 of them. We've investigated all of them, wasted all the state money and resource to investigate these thousands of calls. 6 of them had some basis in fact. Uh, it, it, it's completely unenforceable. The idea that anybody in any ward is gonna start paying attention to which bathroom anybody is using. Is ludicrous. I mean, so these policies, and the thing is, the policy is a blanket sort of policy, but the people that it impacts are real people in real wards that are loved by real bishops as well as parents. I mean, we've talked about the parents that love them, but the ward communities love them too and include them. I was talking to another relative who talked about this transgender child in their ward and all of the things that were done in that ward to include this transgender child, including letting them go to Relief Society even though they were a biological boy at birth. You know, so it's my, my hope is that the goodness, the goodness of the members very often overrides the missteps of bad policies. And, and I think that that will happen here, too. So, and you've said very kind things about me, and I think all of those and more can be said about you, because your innate goodness here, the fact even that you have left, that you are still willing to give the benefit of the doubt to President Oaks, to the Church, that you recognize that the Church is still a force for good, even if it's not something that you yourself feel you can continue to participate in. I just think your integrity speaks volumes here. So, so we can, we can go on forever. We've gotten way past. So I'll just wrap this up here. I think this has been a really productive discussion. I'm sure we'll talk more about things related to this. But until then, we will, we will bring this episode to a close. And thank you all for listening. We hope you will join us again in our next episode of Inside Out. Thank you, thank you again, Ian.

Thank you, Jim Bennett.