Richard Bushman Returns!

Hello and welcome to Inside Out, the program in which we talk to extraordinary people about the Mormon Church and faith. I'm your co-host, Ian Wilkes, and as always, I'm joined by Mr. Jim Bennett. Hello, Jim.

Hello, Ian. How are you?

I'm doing really well, sir. Our guest today is someone quite extraordinary. He is a leading scholar, a Harvard-trained historian, an award— and an award-winning author. He is someone who has redefined how we look at the foundations of the Restoration. Richard Bushman is a Columbia University professor emeritus. And the preeminent biographer of Joseph Smith. With his landmark work, Rough Stone Rolling, Richard Bushman did something quite revolutionary. He applied the rigors of world-class research to a story often shrouded in myth and mystery. By leading into the rough edges of the past, uh, Richard Bushman mapped out a faith that is intellectually honest as it is deeply felt. It is a real honor and a privilege to welcome Richard Bushman back to the Inside Out program. Hello, Richard.

Hi.

Well, thank you for joining us today. Um, you are arguably one of the most important minds and voices in modern Mormonism. As a historian, you spent decades, uh, deep in the archives, trawling through thousands of names and stories, diaries, and multiple first and second-hand accounts of the Prophet Joseph Smith. You've spent years researching, analyzing, and comparing the conventional traditional narratives with the facts. You're a deeply respected scholar and historian whose opinion carries significant weight, and when you speak, people listen. In that context, and at this stage in your life, is there anything you'd like to share with the world about the Prophet Joseph Smith that you haven't yet shared?

Well, there are layers and layers. It'll take many generations to get through to his true inner character. He's very mysterious. Um, reaches so far beyond his natural background, uh, things he was born with. That, uh, I think he'll always remain a mystery to, uh, observers at all levels. So, um, I would say that, um, I feel very grateful that, uh, people were willing to take my work seriously. It, uh, was a labor of love. I was trying to write for a broad audience, write in a way that, um, people on the Columbia faculty could read and benefit as well as Latter-day Saints all over the world. But I still don't feel like I've got through to the very heart of Joseph Smith. There's just more there. So I hope I can keep on digging and had an insight or two even now in the final stages of my life.

Right. So it sounds like there's still, it sounds like you still have some way to go from your perspective to teach us a bit more about the Prophet Joseph Smith.

I think so. Um, I, and, and I don't think it's a one-man labor. I think we're gonna need a lot of people from a lot of angles. Uh, I, I welcome new biographies coming along. John Turner's is, uh, going to be helpful. I think, uh, Richard Turley is working on a, a very massive study of the Prophet. And we welcome everyone who studies his life to tell us what they find. So it's, it's kind of a theme project that, uh, I think will have to go on for a long time.

Right, right. Uh, when I joined the church in the early '80s, the, the narrative, uh, was established, you know, the Joseph Smith First Vision accounts, why he went to the grove of trees, the Book of Mormon, the translation process. When I was researching, investigating as a young man, later trained as a missionary at the MTC, went on mission, etc., became a bishop. There was always that common and traditional narrative that we all knew and we got used to. Later on, especially when the essays came out, which you are familiar with, the narrative seemed to change and people had lots of questions and many had concerns, including myself. Is there any justification with all of your extensive research and knowledge of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon and the translation process and other items in there as well, do you think it's justified at times that some people have difficulty when they hear new information come to light that in the past, uh, used to be defined or labeled as wrong or, um, false about Joseph Smith, but in light has now become a fact about Joseph Smith. So things in the past that were, uh, unreliable and, and even at times anti-Mormon where people came across his material, they were told, hey, it's anti-Mormon, it's not correct. And, and that happened to me on my mission, by the way. There was some stuff like the stone in the hat came up on my mission and I was told very clearly that was, uh, unreliable. Fast forward to now, it now is part of a new narrative. Do you think there's some, just justification in why people leave or why they have doubts or difficulty when they come to learn new facts about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon?

I think it's inevitable. And that's true for any kind of history. There's been a terrible shock at Monticello when new work came out on Thomas Jefferson. Showing them, uh, showing that he had taken advantage of his slaves and they actually had children with other slaves. And there were people there, you know, who honored this great master of language and, um, uh, great statesman, uh, and could not bear to remain guides at Monticello when they said, to the guides that they must tell the story of Thomas Jefferson's relationships with, with some of his slaves. Uh, it's, it's, I use that as an example because this is particularly true with people we revere, not just someone we are interested in, but someone we turn to for leadership or personal guidance in some way. We vest a lot in those characters. And when, uh, anything changes, and especially if something that's hard for us to understand, there's bound to be that kind of disruption. I've, um, when Rough Stone Rolling first came out, people said, well, it's a very interesting story, but I wouldn't want to give it to a new member of the church. I felt just the reverse, that, um, it's the people who have a developed idea of Joseph Smith, who've sanctified him and learned to honor him, love him, who are going to be shocked. For new members of the church who haven't had any of that, I think, uh, I think the story seems perfectly reasonable. It doesn't, isn't very disruptive at all. But it's for those who've learned to love him who are, uh, most likely to be disrupted, uh, by learning things that they didn't know before.

Well, just to jump in here quickly, I mean, one of the things I, I remember reading, and I think we talked about this in our last conversation, but I want to see if you have a little more perspective on it. Uh, one of the things that you had written at some point is that when you give scholarly presentations about Joseph Smith, and you do so in church settings, that there's always this sort of, I don't want to say pushback, but there's this desire on the part of the audience to say, okay, well now bear your testimony. Now show us that you're one of us. And I have to imagine that there's a sort of tension there, isn't there?

Uh, yeah.

More pronounced over time, or is that something that you've sort of come to manage or live with?

I don't know that it's become more pronounced. I haven't had those problems, uh, more recently because, um, I think, um, uh, there are a lot of people who have struggled with these issues and are beginning to arrive at some kind of stable point where they reconcile themselves to things they didn't know before. But, um, you know, when someone stands up, someone we don't know, scholar somewhere, that's the number one question that not only believers want to know, are you with us? But unbelievers, the skeptics want to know, uh, are you really critical of him or are you just pretending to be objective? Um, so I think it's, it's, it's bound to be part of the, of the curiosity and the question is, is quite natural.

Well, with, with all of that then, I mean, do you, do you see a tension? I mean, do you feel a tension? Between the, you know, a lot of the things that you have brought to light, particularly about Joseph Smith, sort of the hagiographies that I was raised with and that so many members of the church were raised with, uh, they don't really line up with, with the narrative that, uh, in your biography, uh, which, which I think is certainly more historically accurate.

Yeah, well, you know, it's strange to say It's never been a problem for me. Writing the book was not a tension, um, where I had to say, boy, am I getting in trouble here? Wow, how can I say this? It all flowed very naturally. And I think that's because, um, you know, I didn't go to BYU. Um, I'd been brought up in a stable family. But, uh, as soon as I left for college, I entered an atmosphere where objective truth and debate was just a way of life. And then I entered a profession where, uh, debate and criticism is a way of life. So, uh, I think probably I was sort of solving problems little by little myself. Long before I had to put it down on paper. So, um, and you know, I'd circulated with church historians and church historians have always been discussing these things quite, quite openly.

So there never was a moment of shock for me in, um, 1987, in July, Elder Ballard came to Scotland. Jim Bennett and I were serving a mission. This is before, Jim, you came out to the Scotland mission. And he reorganized the mission. President Banks replaced President Dunn. It was quite an event. And at the end, Elder Ballard spent some time, about an hour or so, with all the missionaries from the mission and invited questions. I had a question that I wanted to ask him. You know, I was a convert to the church, hadn't grown up in the church, very different background, um, et cetera. Had gone to college already before I came on a mission, went on a mission a bit later after college. And I asked him, uh, I had, I said I had some questions about the geography of the Book of Mormon. And he said, we won't take those questions on geography of the Book of Mormon right now. We'll cover them at some later time. But I've always been interested in in that I took, I took geography and that's part of my engineering and science background is some of the, uh, geological, uh, components. I've always been interested in that. Um, and so with Joseph Smith, we have, uh, we, we, we weren't around when Joseph was here. We never met him. We haven't met him. We weren't around the people that knew him, you know, with 200 years on or so. And we reading first and second-hand accounts of Joseph Smith. It's quite different with the Book of Mormon text. We have this record, we can touch it, we can feel it, it's physical, we can read it. And I've read that book, uh, many times and still, even though I don't attend church, I still find sections of the Book of Mormon incredibly inspiring and I always will. However, I've come to the position of, uh, that the Book of Mormon is not and you've, you've been asked this thousands of times, I'm sure, but I don't believe anymore that it is an historical text. I believe it is inspired. It's allegorical. Were Moroni and Nephi real? I suspect not. Uh, there's insufficient hard evidence that, you know, you talked earlier about debate and criticism and, uh, objective facts, et cetera, et cetera, where professionals, uh, um, researchers can see things and test things, et cetera. We have, uh, very little, if anything, in respect to the Book of Mormon. Um, knowing Joseph Smith as well as you do, do you still hold to the position that the Book of Mormon is historical, that those characters were real and those stories and accounts did in fact happen? Uh, because in the past you've made reference to parts of the Book of Mormon at least being a 19th century text. Do you have any new light that you can shed on the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and how you would characterize it at this stage in your life?

Mm-hmm. Well, that's never been a problem for me. I've always felt like it was a authentic historical document. I mean, as I read through it, it just sounds like something that really is happening. But where I've come recently in the last 10 years or so is to think more about the process of translation because there's are lots of things in the book that of necessity are 19th century. I mean, the book cannot be understood if, um, if it isn't adapted in such a way that, uh, 19th century people can, can read it. That's always a problem for translation. Uh, what, what language do you use for the Bible passages? Do you use ancient Aramaic or Hebrew? No, you use King James English, even though Nephi could not possibly have known King James English. So, um, uh, I feel like in the process of translation, prophets are able to make fairly drastic alterations in the interests of communicating with those who are reading the book at another time in another culture. So I, I would say it's a very loose and free translation. There's going to be a lot of 19th century material in it simply because, uh, we not only, the prophets not only want to make it understood, they want it to be believable. They want people to say, yes, I can understand this. Uh, and I believe it, and scripture. So, um, I won't go on any further with that, but that's, that's the basic change that, um, I've gone through in the last 15 years or so.

Does that kind of a change make Joseph Smith more of an active participant in the translation process?

Um, I really don't know the answer to that question. Uh, if you just take who Joseph Smith was and what we know about him, it's almost impossible to explain how he could have written that book, a thousand-year history. He'd never written anything before, turns it out so quickly. Um, it's, uh, it's just beyond belief in that sense. So I don't think it was Joseph Smith. I think, um, he's inspired. He's given the words he's going to write. So whoever is making the adaptations, it's not from Joseph Smith's mortal mind. It's— there's something miraculous, something magical. Behind that kind of translation.

Do you see the Church moving away from defending that view of the Book of Mormon? There's, there's been a lot of speculation that the Church is, is trying to move away from a historical Book of Mormon. I don't see how the Church can move away from a historical Book of Mormon. I, I, I'm— we've had conversations with a lot of people on this podcast who— and, and Ian, to some degree, is in this camp, although Ian's no longer a member of the Church. The idea that, well, the Book of Mormon is inspirational, the Book of Mormon is, um, you know, has some sort of inherent inspired value to it as And I don't like to focus on the idea of fiction because I'm less concerned as to whether or not it's fiction as to whether or not it's ancient. You know, there's a lot of the Bible I think that is fiction, but it's ancient fiction. And so if there are fictional elements in the Book of Mormon, that doesn't trouble me. But if there wasn't a Moroni who appeared to Joseph Smith, if there wasn't a set of gold plates, and I love your book about the gold plates, uh, if those weren't real tangible things, I don't, I don't see a way for the church narrative to be sustained in that regard. Do you see that the same way? Do you see— is there room for believers who reject any kind of historicity but still find value in the book?

Well, I have people like you, Ian, ask me, can I be a good Mormon and still not believe the book is factual? And I say yes to that because there are a lot of good Mormons who have gone to that position. But I don't think the church officially, or as a majority or any large part of it, will move to that position. I, I don't think there's any need to, um, and I, I think it would disrupt the narrative so much we'd have a different kind of church than we, than we have now. We have, you know, a Unitarian church or something like that.

Are there, uh, elements or parts of the Book of Mormon, Richard, that you might change, uh, that are a reference to— well, they're scriptures that talk about, uh, uh, blacks being cursed, for example. It's still in there. You know, if you look at the earlier versions, I think the version I got when I joined the church at '82, I think it was 1981, there was, um, again, the language is somewhat different. There's been a number of iterations of the Book of Mormon even in the last, you know, 30, 40 years, uh, some difficulty with some of the scriptures. Would you, right now with the church, um, saying that it's okay to use different versions of the Bible, which you, you probably heard, I think we're allowed to use different versions. Jim, I think they've listed some of those other examples of Bibles that we, we can use. So you don't just have to use the King James Version anymore, which is, that opens up a whole series of questions for Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, but And I think the intent of the church is to help people read the Bible and to get a better understanding of the Bible. And the Bible in the King James Version at times is difficult to understand. Um, so the church is trying to help people understand it. I get that. Would you change any aspect of the current version of the Book of Mormon? Remove scriptures, replace, update?

Well, there's two answers to that question. I'd be much happier if those passages weren't there. You know, they're very painful for us. But, uh, I don't think you can change them. That's, that's contrary to the origin story of how the book came to be. Um, I don't know. It's, it's very interesting. There's always this question. Will a prophet translator ever come once more on the scene? That was one of Joseph Smith's assigned identities, was as a translator. And presumably a prophet translator could say it's being misinterpreted and we have to change it and make the change. But I don't think it could be done simply because we're uncomfortable. We don't like it. Uh, there's a lot of passages, uh, in the Bible I'd like to change too. And I just don't think that can be done.

Well, so there's, there are a lot of people who are saying now that the church is allowing for greater use of different Bible translations other than the King James. Uh, there's one commenter that we've had on our show a number of times, Stephen Pynaker, who says a modern language version of the Book of Mormon is inevitable.

Bible.

And I know that the Community of Christ, back when they were the RLDS Church, updated some of the language in that. I don't see how— I don't see that that's comparable to talk about a different translation of the Bible where you're taking language from different— from, you know, ancient Greek and Hebrew and other sorts of languages and translating them into English versus taking an English translation where we don't have the source materials and then just sort of paraphrasing it. I wouldn't see it as a translation. I'd see it as a paraphrase. Do you think that there is any room for that kind of a paraphrase that doesn't involve you know, removing scriptures necessarily, but trying to update the language. Do you think that that's something that would require a prophet translator, or is that something that we could do without that?

Well, I'm trying to recall. I vaguely feel that someone has done something along those lines. You know, I can see that that happening, but it would have to be a good faith effort to express the sentiment that's there without trying to just beautify it, you know, take out the parts that rub us the wrong way. I, I don't think that's fair. You'd have to really try to understand what the text is trying to say and Stick with that, though maybe using a modern idiom.

And, and, and the other side to that, and again, this is someone, uh, myself speaking from the outside of the church, who continues to find, uh, aspects of the Book of Mormon inspirational. For example, Alma 5 is just extraordinary. Alma 32, Alma 34, Alma 36, which is the repentance experience with Alma. Third Nephi 17. You know, the Book of Mormon is just replete with extraordinary inspired passages, which, again, if there was a modern English version, Jim Bennett, that you might lose that. There's some, there's some spirit there that you, that the language delivers when you're reading those passages that you wouldn't want to lose. And again, I'm coming out in defense of the those inspired passages in the Book of Mormon. Um, could we just talk a little bit about the translation process, Richard, for a few moments? And this is an area of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon which I'm sure you've been asked many, many times. Um, again, joining the church at age 16, there was this, uh, general narrative that, uh, the Book of Mormon was translated Uh, you know, the Moroni delivered the plates, um, uh, through that process, uh, Joseph Smith found the plates, um, and essentially translated the ancient language from the plates and that there was a scribe opposite him and that at times the plate, my understanding back then that the plates were not covered. This is going back to the '80s. Later on, it sounds like the plates were covered in the cloth. And then that idea that a stone in a hat existed back then, at least, was, I was told, was false. Um, but now fast forward that we now have the stone in the hat, um, component to it. Um, again, with all of your research and at, at this stage in your life, as you look at back all the work that you've done. Can you provide some clarity on the translation process? Were the plates on the table covered in cloth and was there also a stone in the hat? There's also the Urim and Thummim, uh, devices as well. Can you provide some structure, some clarity around those different tools and devices to give us a more reliable, trusted understanding of the translation process, if you can?

I'm not sure that question has been settled by scholars. You know, there is very good evidence from David Whitmer and from Emma Smith and others that Joseph Smith had a stone, he had a nat, he looked in it and repeated these words. That's sort of Roy Skousen's argument. And I'm not sure I fully grasp the argument, even just as a technical matter, follow his reasoning. But there are a lot of people that go along with it, and I'm, I'm not going to contest it. So I think the stone in the hat theory still, still works. But there is another good scholar, a man named Jonathan Neville. Who's saying it cannot be true that he had, um, a Urim and Thummim. He had this instrument and the words just came, uh, into Joseph's mind. Uh, he could read them off the stone. So, um, um, that's just sort of the technical side. I think for me, the real question is Um, the one that, Jim, you were raising, did Joseph Smith see something and then translate it? Did he make the variations and insert the language that made it more comprehensible to modern people? Or were those words just given to him? Which leads to a very peculiar, funny hypothesis, but it's taken seriously by a lot of people, that there's a third person in the equation. It's not just Nephi writing and Joseph Smith interpreting, but someone else in that series who is adapting Nephi's words. For Joseph Smith's time, and Joseph Smith is just fed those words and he dictates them. So that seems like far-fetched and unlikely, but Skousen believes that, and, and, um, there, there are others who, um, go along with him on that point. So for me, It's all a big question mark. I really don't know, and I don't at present think we have a way of knowing the technology of translation.

Well, you mentioned Jonathan Neville. Uh, I'm— I've had some exchanges with him. Uh, if I'm correct, he's one of the Heartlanders, is that right? He insists the Book of Mormon took place solely in the continental United States, particularly on the East Coast of the continental United States.

I think he is, and he's got sort of a bad reputation for that, but in the books he writes about translation, and he's written two of them, he doesn't bring in the Heartland Theory. That's, that's not part of his, um, his apparatus, his metal equipment when he's doing it.

Well, the Heartland Theory, I think the only reason to believe it is sort of presupposing an agenda that doesn't really engage with the text on its own merits. Yeah. So I, I assume you're— you are not a Heartlander, are you?

I'm not a Heartlander. I've never really looked in it. I've never tried to evaluate it. For myself, but I'm just going on the recommendations of others I know that I don't take it seriously. But his stuff on translation, I think you do have to look at.

Blake Osler, I think, is the person who put forward what he called the expansion theory of the Book of Mormon.

Right, right.

Which is this idea that there is a kernel of historical truth Or, I mean, they're real events, but that this was in some ways the catalyst for Joseph Smith to have his 19th century questions answered, which would sort of explain why suddenly you have Mormon telling Moroni about the evils of infant baptism, which seem far more appropriate concerns for a 19th century audience than they do for an ancient American audience. Do you, do you want to address that a little bit?

Well, Blake Austin is a very smart guy, and that article he wrote in 1985 was a very learned piece. It wasn't taken seriously. It seemed so far out then, but the church, church scholars, not the church, but church scholars are moving more and more in that direction. So on any given point, there would be disagreement, but that general process of adaptation, radical adaptation, far more than modern translators could tolerate, was common. Nibley said the same thing.

Nibley kind of believed in sort of an expansion theory?

Well, he didn't develop it, but he said Oster quotes him, others do, saying that prophets have the right and authority to alter texts to suit their message. It's the, the, we, I've written a book on, written an essay on translation. Um, I could send you, but, um, it's the way that Christians reread the Hebrew Bible. They find in the Hebrew Bible all sorts of things that point to Christ. Well, uh, so it becomes an Old Testament, uh, another testament of Christ. And, um, of course, they disagree with Jewish scholars who say, no, you can't get Christ out of that, that has other meanings entirely. But the feeling that prophetic, that translations by seers are much looser, much, serve many different purposes than just translation by a scholar.

Gentlemen, I'm having a bit of a problem with this. I'll explain. If you will, see it from my perspective, you know, being on the outside of the church. And I'm speaking to you both. You're both very active and very faithful members of the church. So we have a church of, uh, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims to be the only true and living church upon the face of the earth, Doctrine and Covenants section 130, and carries the authority of Christ handed down through ancient and modern prophets and has the fullness of the gospel and the organization and the structure to, to lead, uh, mankind, humankind to salvation. Um, that if members of the church, faithful members of the church, follow the teachings and principles taught by the church, uh, whose founder is Christ, whose legacy in history and lineage goes right back to Jesus Christ himself, an organization that claims to be the mouthpiece and a prophet who's the mouthpiece of God. With so much at stake. We're talking about people's salvation, people entrusting their lives, their entire lives, and committing and devoting all their energy and all the resource to this organization, the prophet, and the, um, the teachings of the doctrines in order to be together with their families forever. I mean, there's nothing more serious than that. And then the claim that the— is in the Book of Mormon, that the Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book on earth. And the keystone of our religion, and a man will get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book. With so much at stake, with it being the most serious thing ever in the history of mankind, why is there so much confusion and multiple interpretations of what happened with the restoration of the gospel? You know, we have people saying this, people saying that. Maybe this happened, maybe that happened, we know this, we don't know that. With such an important organization and relationship to God, which salvation is resting upon, why do we not have a clear understanding of what happened in the Restoration with Joseph Smith, with the Book of Mormon, Surely if we are translating something and we get it wrong, someone somewhere corrects that and says, no, it happened like this. I, you know, I, I've struggled with this, uh, for quite some time. I don't think I've ever asked this question of anyone. I feel it appropriate to ask it right now, especially with, uh, you, Richard, being, uh, in, you know, meeting with you and, and Jim Bennett right now. I'm, I, I, I just think it seems to be very, um, it just so much part of this guesswork on something so important and so serious as, as the salvation of humankind. Am I making any sense here? So you've got this, this serious situation. Um, people are committing all their lives to it, and yet it's confusing. There's different interpretations. Maybe it happened, maybe it didn't. I'm just lost as to why there's no clarity on certain things and why the modern prophets and leaders haven't stepped up, and including a general conference at the pulpit and informal meetings, and actually provided some clarity and direction and say, hey, this is how it happened. I mean, we even have President Nelson,, seemingly putting his face in the hat on video, right? I found that quite, quite useful, helpful. I think others had a different reaction, but, but I, I, you know, God is not a God of confusion. He's a God of order. And there seems to be so much, um, at least parts of it, which is confusing. So this is my frustration and I don't think I'm alone. You know, I just think the story would be nice if it was at least the baseline, the baseline was clear and reliable and trustworthy. And it seems like the baseline of the Restoration isn't reliable. Am I, does that make any sense?

Well, this is a problem for all religions. It's certainly a Catholic, Roman Catholic problem. Maybe not a Unitarian problem, but a Roman Catholic problem. It's an evangelical problem. It's an Islamic problem. Islam cannot agree on how their story goes, and yet they live by it. It's absolutely essential to their salvation. I mean, you could make the argument, you probably heard this or thought of it yourself, that The uncertainty is part of the whole process. That is, there has to be, if everything was just laid out, here it is, buddy, this is what you do and you're saved, then it would be just a matter of, like in the army, obeying the orders, and you just do the best you could. But there's a space for human striving or human faith for making leaps in the dark, that that's all part of the learning process of life on Earth. I mean, his problem of uncertainty, you know, is what about the problem of evil? How has God allowed all this evil to appear in the world? Why do little children die? Why is there so much suffering? So, I think the life of a Christian or of any religious person is never going to be based on absolute certainty and a lack of ambiguity anywhere. In the whole system.

No, I appreciate that. And so, I mean, you can sense from my tone and my frustration that, but on the other side of that, Richard, the Church says, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it's the only way, right? It's the only way. President Nelson talked about the covenant path. The only way to get to eternal life, to be with God, is to become a member and live faithfully. Go to the temple, take out your ordinances, covenants, et cetera. It's the only path. So if we're saying that, um, even the baseline of religions, uh, is up for broad interpretation, you can see how it's easy then for people to go in whatever direction they feel they need to go in, depending on their interpretation. And surely then there is some flexibility that if people don't find the path, the true church, et cetera, because of so much misinformation out there, even on the basic stuff, right? I'm not talking about this is all the details, but even that the basic roadway of getting back to Heavenly Father, getting back to God. If we're missing, uh, or going out on different paths or different roads, et cetera, and not the Church Jesus Christ of the Saints, then there is some flexibility to allow people to, um, to do that and not judge them necessarily. And I agree, it's a problem for all religions. You know, I grew up as a Protestant in the Church of England and there was so many different variations. I went to the Methodist Church version and I think I went to a Presbyterian Protestant version. Even in the Protestant movement, there's so many different doctrines. It's so confusing. But I think my point earlier was that the church claims to be the only true church upon on the face of the earth, and that the prophet has the same authority as Christ, and that the church is the only way, I repeat, the only true church. And I mean, that was the question that Joseph Smith asked God and Heavenly Father in the grove of trees. You know, he went there, I think, for repentance was one account. Another account is, you know, which church should he join? And he was told in the early narratives to join none of the churches, for they're all false, essentially, and therefore he had to restore the church, the true church. And now we learn that the true church, the Restoration, restored church, even some of the baselines, some of the basics are not, are confusing and not aligned with the early narrative. So, you know, people who are seeking, you know, inspiration, direction, seeking that salvation for them and their families, they are struggling. And even people who are in faith who come across difficult things and now wondering, you know, are they, are they on the right path? It's, um, it's a problem for all religions. I, I agree. Do you have any thoughts on that, Jim? Have you, have you struggled with this at all? Have you considered this?

Uh, well, yeah, I've considered it and talked about it and I'd probably want to get Richard's perspective on this, but I mean, just very quickly, my, my, I've become something more of a universalist. Uh, I think that universalism is at the core of Mormonism to some degree. There's always been this sort of tension between exclusivism and universalism. And Joseph Smith, in my estimation, kind of went back and forth between the two and sort of tried to reconcile the two. And I think the temple, to a large degree, is that reconciliation. If we don't think everybody's going to eventually be saved, then what are we doing all this temple work for? Why are we, you know, why do we think that, why are we extending this to the entire world? One of the ways I've heard it framed that sort of resonates with me is that everybody gets saved, but it's the Mormons who do the paperwork. But I don't, what do you think of that perspective, Richard? Is that any? Similar to yours, or do you have something?

Well, that's, I think, a growing sentiment in the church. Terrell Givens strongly believes that, that eventually everyone will be saved. And it's just a matter of taking time and having more opportunities and being coached and guided. And eventually everyone will be in that, that position. Uh, I think, that, you know, as you were saying, even the Catholics say, we have it, and if you're not a Catholic, give up on it. But I don't think there's any of these religions will say, if you pray to your God, God's not gonna answer it. That is, if Catholics do their rosaries or pray, is God hearing their prayers? I don't think there's a Mormon in the world that says God is not listening to them. So I think that, um, God is accepting all. He ministers to all. Anyone who turns to him is going to be helped. I think Mormons have always sort of felt that way. So it's not a matter of exclusion. It's a matter of holding on to what you can get. Life is very confusing, and it really is a matter of trying to find out something you can hold on to. And, um, I think the church offers a way that gives us all hope that we can be better. And sometimes What's—

from your perspective, do you lean more towards universalism, or had you?

Yeah, I do.

Have you moved more in that direction, uh, as time's gone on?

I think so, yeah.

Uh, what— so you're a historian, and historians are not necessarily great prophets. You know, you, you look at the past and you understand the past probably better than anybody does. But if I may be so bold, can I ask you to sort of predict the future? Are you optimistic about the future of the church? Where do you see the church going in the next generation?

Well, I'm very optimistic. I mean, considering what we started with, It's just, uh, remarkable, uh, how far we've come. The Church is getting more and more global, more broad in its outlook, finding more and more ways to do good. Um, I think our next challenge will be not how we thrive as a people, but how we become the leaven in the lump. We have to be more and more concerned for the well-being of the world. Not just as salvation, but as well-being. And, uh, we're moving in that direction in a big way with our philanthropy. I think there's lots more to come. I think Mormons should become leaders of people of goodwill. The world is filled with good people, and we should be there as their allies and working on them, not just in baptisms and rituals, but in well-being and peace and family harmony and kindness. Um, so I think we have a long ways to go in that, that direction, but I think that's where our future lies in years to come.

Well, you, you mentioned Terryl Givens, and one of the things that Terryl Givens has said that I find really interesting. Is he says it's not enough to the young people now for the church to be true. It also has to be good, right? And he talks about the fact that young people look at the temple and say, why would I spend hours inside the temple when I could be spending this time in a soup kitchen, when I could be actually out in the world making a difference? And you're right, I think we are seeing more movement in that direction. And I would like to see— I know Ian would like to see even more movement in that direction. Uh, one of the things that also impinges on is that we are in, I think, in my mind, a sort of fraught environment, at least in the United States, with the kinds of political divisions that we're seeing. And I've gotten, uh, quite a bit of pushback because I, my opposition to Donald Trump, for instance, is based not necessarily on political ideology, but about what I consider to be basic morality, that Donald Trump has kind of given license to the worst of us to express the worst of us. And I'm told, okay, don't talk about that in a church setting. Politics, it's not welcome and it's not appropriate. And I don't wanna turn this into a political discussion, but when you talk about being the leaven in the lump, we have sort of meticulously avoided any sort of political discussion just on its own basis, even when I think there is sort of a moral component to that, that some of the things that are happening, it doesn't necessarily have to do with ideology, right or left, Republican, Democrat. It has to do with, you know, if you're a president who We've just passed the 5th anniversary of a president trying to overthrow the government. That's immoral in my mind, and I think the church should engage on those kinds of issues. Do you think that that would be appropriate for the church to do, or is that just something we should stay out of?

Well, I'm actually in your camp on Trump. All the way. I think he's a very dangerous man and a coarse man. Um, we don't want those kinds of political leaders. But, um, there's a great problem that Mormons do best when they're talking a language of love, a brotherliness, and goodwill. And anything that destroys that atmosphere makes your goal hard to achieve. So, so long as we raise a furor when we talk about politics, it's very, very hard for us to talk about it because we step outside our true character. Which is civil people, kind people, uh, trying to work together with others. So, um, there are people, I don't know if you know Tom Griffith, but there are other fairly significant people in the church who are taking the lead in finding forms of dialogue that speak generously to even to our political enemies. And I think in that way, if we use that tone of voice, um, then we can, we can manage it. My example is when Joseph Smith does a political platform, he's against slavery, but he doesn't just, he's not an abolitionist saying, let's go in and free those slaves. He finds a way of freeing them that can be done peacefully. You use the sales from the public lands to purchase the slaves, so they're purchased rather than just ripped away by, by fiat. Um, so I'm with you, but only if we can find discourse that is brotherly and not harsh.

Well, I'm with you on that too, to be honest. I would love to see discourse that is brotherly and not harsh. And the reason why I think Trump is kind of an outlier on this is that, um, so just a little bit of my, you know, you, you, you knew my father, Senator Bob Bennett. Uh, and when he lost in 2010 to Senator Mike Lee, Um, I was the one guy who was managing his campaign and I was deep in the heart of Republican politics and was trying very hard to sort of demonstrate that the Republican Party was not the caricature that a lot of people thought it was, that it wasn't this sort of terrible racist, awful thing. And then along comes Trump and not only embraces all of those things, uh, but he allows the elements of the party, uh, to be able to say them out loud. And so political discourse in the church— I'm not just talking about nationally, which is, it's already a disaster nationally, but in the church, uh, people say things and do things and say, well, this is just my political opinion. When in fact what they're saying, I mean, they'll say something terribly racist or they'll use an ableist slur. I mean, the R-word has made a return in discourse, which just drives me absolutely crazy. And when you push back on it, it's, well, you're not being tolerant of my political beliefs. And there has to be a moment when we're not talking about politics anymore. More. We're talking about morality. We're talking about decency. And the current political environment has blurred that line so much that I, I am eager and anxious and hungry for a church leader who is willing to come out and say, look, I don't want to manage your politics, but I do want to say that politics does not give you a license to be indecent.

I think, Jim Bennett, you want to hunt down, um, the name of Tom Griffith.

I wrote his name down earlier, Richard.

He is, um, he was a, um, general counsel for BYU for a while, then eventually became a federal judge in the I think it's the Fifth Circuit anyway, the Washington, D.C. Circuit, retired because his wife has illness. He had to care for her. But he has been organizing discussions between Governor Cox and some Democratic governor. I don't know this.

Oh, I've seen that. So that's Tom Griffith doing that. I have seen that.

And I know you've seen that.

Well, Governor Cox has done a lot of things, his whole Disagree Better initiatives that are encouraging, but he's also really silent on a lot of the extremities, extremities and extremism, I guess that's the word, that's coming out in his party.

Yeah. Well, I think that's right in the problem. Do you condemn everything at the cost of having a combat form of discussion, or do you work in areas where you can maintain civility and see how far you can go in that atmosphere?

Uh, we just coming up to the end of the, uh, podcast here, Richard. And again, I want to thank you so much for taking time to be with us. We're so grateful to you, uh, for your, for this conversation. With the knowledge that you have of Joseph Smith, and maybe this is a difficult question to answer, but I'm interested. I wanna ask it anyhow, if I may. If Joseph Smith came back, um, what would he make of the political landscape? Because he was, he was also a political figure. He was a religious figure. Uh, but he also had political ambitions and aspirations as you know. Yeah. President. Ran for president. Right. So though, so it, it took politics very seriously. What would he make of the political landscape and the religious landscape? And my part B to that is that would he join the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or would he restore a new church?

Are those—

those are serious questions, but I'm not sure I could take them seriously. They're too, uh, too far, far out. Um, I think he would be thrilled with what the church has become. It's large, it's growing. We have lots of problems, lots of people who join and disappear. That's always been true, certainly true in his time. It's filled with opposite people. Um, I, he was disgusted with American politics. They couldn't seem to appreciate the infringements on human rights, religious rights that, uh, the Latter-day Saints were, were suffering. Um, I think he would be proud of our brethren though, because, uh, he's assembled, or we have assembled what he never could, and that is men of competence, of training, of standing. In human society were also humble people striving to, um, do the will of the Lord. He had a— there's a great leadership vacuum in the church in those days. Strong men, but not particularly well established. And he would be amazed at the Quorum of the Twelve today, their education, their accomplishments. Um, he probably would send us off in a new direction. He always, uh, was extraordinarily imaginative in the things he, he could set out to do. So, um, I would say two things then: pleasure at what he saw and new directions for us to head. Okay. Let me say to you two, brethren, I think you're doing a terrific job here. Your questions are right on target. They're hard questions. You know, you're not just fiddling around with details or trivial matters. You're really— and I think the combination of the two of you is perfect, and your particular outlooks on life. So I commend you for what you're, you're doing. I feel privileged to be I've been on the show.

Gosh, you've just made my day. You've made my week, my year, probably. Now that's high praise indeed. Thank you so much.

Well, I knew your father and I loved him. I thought he was really a big heart, marvelous man. His book on faith, which he wrote in his last years in the Senate, I thought that's a book that deserves much more attention than it's getting.

Well, you're a blurb on the back of the book.

Yeah.

That's your name there. So, well, President Eyring at his funeral said it was the best defense of the Book of Mormon ever written or probably will ever be written. And I thought, okay, well, I'll take that. So, but thank you so much. And this is, at least for me, this has been an absolute delight. And Your insights are just so valuable, have been so valuable for so long, but you continue to add to the conversation and to enlighten people with your scholarship, with your wisdom, and with your faith. And I am just so grateful to have had this time with you, and thank you so much for sharing that with us here.

And Richard, from my perspective, people like me who have struggled and had difficulty and had questions and have been labeled or shut down and not felt safe to ask questions. It's good men like you that give me hope. It really is. You're a wonderful man. You have a big heart. You're very genuine, very sincere, very truthful. I have enormous respect for your work that you've done. And as I mentioned, you know, those, that context that I shared at the beginning of the podcast, was actually very much how I felt about you and your work. So thank you so much for taking time to come on to Inside Out. Richard, we'll give you the final say. Do you have any other comments or thoughts you'd like to share with our audience before we leave? Any final inspiration, direction, advice?

Well, I think We need to be patient with the problems that come up to us regarding the Church. I would also say this. We debate about doctrine, history, so on, but there's one underlying goal that I think we must put foremost, and that is to be a good person. That's what we all are, sires. And that's, for me, that's the promise of the gospel, what's called redemption, that we can rise above our tawdry ways and become something that's useful in the world and a blessing to the people we know.

Well, we will, on that Note, we will close our podcast here. Uh, I want to thank you both on behalf of our listeners and our audience for taking time to come on to the Inside Out program. Jim Bennett, thank you as always for your valuable contributions, and, uh, the Richard Bushman, thank you. It's been a great honor.