Survey Says: Part Three

All right, we're recording. Hello and welcome to another episode of Inside Out. My name is Jim Bennett and I am here with world traveler Ian Wilkes. Ian, how are you, sir?

I'm doing real well, Jim. Thank you. I'm just out here traveling the world, but kind of, I'm just in the next province to the to the right, to the east.

Okay, so that's just another part of the 51st state because Donald Trump is taking over Canada, right?

Well, he, he wants to. I'm in Alberta, I'm in Calgary, I'm on Mountain Time, same time as you. Um, there's no chance of Canada joining America in my opinion, and, and I think that's shared widely across Canada. However, here's, here's the, uh, the kingmaker. Alberta which recently the premier of Alberta, the provincial leader, broke off from the, uh, unified position of the other premiers across the, across Canada and went to see Donald Trump personally in Florida about 2 weeks ago. And if there's any, uh, or ever a fit between the United States and a province, uh, which is energy rich, the most energy-rich province in Canada, it would be Alberta. So economically, and from an oil and gas perspective, and I work in the oil and gas sector, that's one of the sectors I work in, and the conservative republic thinking that Alberta has, which is very different to other parts of Canada, there's a really good fit, they're saying, between Alberta and the United States. So it's going to happen. It would mean Alberta breaking off from Canada. And bringing all that energy and all those resources in under the umbrella and the auspice of the United States. And that could happen because Alberta politically is very disenfranchised with, with Ottawa, with the federal government. They've even created the Alberta Sovereign Act. This allows Alberta as a province to pretty much do most things, not defense or tax, nothing like that, but a lot of other stuff it can do autonomously without the involvement or interference of Ottawa, which he does not like at all and can't stand Trudeau, who just recently resigned. So Alberta joining America, yes, I see it. Canada joining America, no. And America doesn't want Canada because a lot of it is socialistic and that doesn't fit with a lot of people think right now, uh, who are leading the, uh, the charge, I guess, in the United States. So that's a quick political response to that.

Well, let's hope nobody in Washington is listening to this because they might get some ideas.

If you're listening, if you're in Washington, just ignore what I just said.

There we go. Well, so we have, uh, we began a few weeks ago answering this survey that the church put out, just as a reminder, and we got to the end of our first episode where we were talking about the survey and we had barely made a dent in the questions. And so we decided we would do a second episode to finish, and we didn't even get halfway through with that second episode. So there are still a whole bunch of survey questions. So I think we need to, you know, just sort of plow through the questions that aren't that interesting. Answer more concisely what we're doing. But we want to conclude this because I think that these are fascinating questions. They give us tremendous insight into how the church is thinking, into how the membership of the church is responding to what's happening in the world around them. And it's really fascinating to sort of get that window into the mind of the brethren. And so we're going to pick up where we left off. So without further ado, I'm going to bring up the questions, and we're starting to get into some really interesting ones. Uh, this is stuff about marriage and the family. And so the way these questions are structured, just as a reminder, is they— you read a statement and then you have the choice as to say, I agree with this statement, I'm not sure if I agree with the statement, I do not agree with this statement. Or I guess they phrase it as, I believe this statement, or I do not believe this statement. So, I am going to read the statement and I want to hear if you believe, not sure if you believe, or if you do not believe.

Sounds good.

All right, so here we go. Getting married in the Temple for eternity is a commandment. Believe, do not believe.

I don't believe that. I know the church teaches, believes that. I know many rank-and-file members believe that.

Okay. I, it's really weird to phrase it that way because when we talk about commandments, I'm not sure how I answered this. I think I may have said this, this is one of the few, or I might've said, I'm not sure because the way we talk about commandments, this is something you have to do or you're in serious trouble. And, you know, this isn't like committing adultery. Not committing adultery is a commandment, although I guess the church would say you're limiting your eternal progress if you don't get married in the temple. But what's interesting are the follow-up questions. The next one says having children is a commandment. Do you agree with that or don't agree with that?

No, it, it, the church teaches it's a commandment. We were taught as a commandment to multiply and replenish the earth. It's actually in the temple. It's a, it's a, it is absolutely. Uh, I don't believe that, uh, but it is. And by the way, on the first one, uh, and I know we wanna skip through these real quick, but, uh, the first one, you can't inherit eternal life without being married and sealed in the temple. So you are damned if you don't go to the temple and get sealed, or if you, you know, if you're not married or sealed in this life, that option is open to you, I guess, in the next life. But to get to the highest kingdom, you have to be sealed in the temple. But the second one, I don't believe having children is a commandment.

No. Well, I think you're right in that the temple ceremony and when you are sealed, part of the sealing ordinance is a command to multiply. I say unto you, multiply and replenish the earth. So they tell you to have children when you are sealed. It's— what I think is interesting about all of these is that what we're finding, I think, in the rising generation is a reluctance or a disinterest in commandments, in the idea of being commanded, in the idea of I have to do this, I have to obey. And this really resonated, I think, with our generation. But the younger generation's like, well, no, I'm not going to get married in the temple if I don't want to. No, I'm not going to have children if I don't want to. And so I think the church is kind of scrambling because the scare tactics aren't working. The idea, oh, you have to, this is a commandment. Eh, so what? I'll do what I want to do.

Yeah, I agree. I agree. Go ahead.

Well, I mean, I just think that's how Gen Z and millennials are sort of wired. They're— you're seeing it across the board, not just in the church, but there's a real, um, reluctance to embrace the kind of centralized and I'd even say authoritarian structure that was just sort of taken for granted by generations before. Because the next question is interesting. Having a lot of children is a commandment.

Can I make a quick comment on what you've just said?

Sure.

I know we're going to be quick here. Two things. We said that there is a purpose, there's an objective behind these questions. Well, certainly, right? Secondly, if you look at that other question, having a lot of children is a commandment. Well, two things on that. One, I think the younger generation, to your point, are interpreting it very differently. I think they're taking a soft approach. And secondly, Jim Bennett, where is the growth going to come from, from the church? Not coming from convert baptisms. It's not coming from traditional conventional missionary efforts. We know it's going to— and they have to measure growth. We know growth, or some of it, has to come from people having kids. They're having smaller families. They're not having big families anymore because it's expensive. And I think this is a church putting out a feeler in terms of where people are in regards to having a lot of children. I think it's a very strategic question.

Good. I think you're absolutely right. And I think, uh, 40 years ago, I don't know if I even agree with that when I got married, but the expectation growing up was, yeah, I mean, I was, I came from a family of 6 kids. In Southern California in the 1970s, and none of my friends, unless they were members of the church, had families anywhere near that big. All of my friends came from families with 1 or 2 kids, sometimes 3 kids, and 3 kids was like a really big family. And when people found out I came from a family of 6 kids, it was really strange. But the expectation in the '60s and '70s, and I think all through most of the 20th century anyway, it was that you had to have as many kids as— the way my mother described it was, you should have as many kids as you can handle, which I always thought was a very strange way to put it. And I couldn't find any sort of prophetic edict that said a similar thing, but that was sort of the cultural expectation. And the whole idea of birth control. The church was very adamantly against birth control for several decades, and they have quietly sort of shelved that. And now they say that birth control is between a husband and a wife, and they leave that alone. But there are statements by David O. McKay that talk about the slime of sensual indulgence that birth control creates because you just have sex just because you enjoy it when you should be having sex to make sure you have kids. And that has gone by the wayside. And in fact, that went by the wayside fairly, I think, before I was born even, because I know President Kimball made the famous statement about we know of no directive from heaven that sex is only for procreation, which was something much more progressive than a lot of the other things that President Kimball said about sex. These next two questions are really weird to me.

I agree.

God loves his daughters but not his sons. God loves his sons but not his daughters. Is there anybody that would answer Uh, did they, did, did they agree with that?

I, I, uh, it's just odd questions, very stupid questions. Now we know this questionnaire was posted 2, 3 weeks ago, right? I, I, I kind of flagged this up to you. I think it was me that flagged it. You then looked at it. I went, it was open to anyone that could take it, right? Anyone, member or non-member, it was open to the public. Then it shut down. The link stopped, stopped working. And I think this, these questions are one of probably several reasons why they shut this question, this survey questionnaire down, because those questions are odd. Why would you ask those questions? What purpose would, you know, what's behind those questions? It's very strange.

Well, the last question on this page I think is actually an interesting question. God loves me. And I would answer yes, I agree with that. But a lot of my faith struggles over the course of my life have not necessarily been, what if there is no God? But rather, what if God is a jerk? What if God loves other people but doesn't love me? That God plays favorites. You can look at the world and see evil rewarded and good people, no good deed goes unpunished. You can see the injustice in the world, and you can conclude that maybe God loves some people more than others. Now, I've sort of come to terms with this now and kind of reached a point where I don't measure God's love in a transactional way. The idea that somebody else is richer than I am is not a sign that God loves them more than they love me. The fact that somebody deals with a chronic illness the fact that somebody is living in poverty, the fact that somebody has lost, uh, a parent and is an orphan, you know, all the terrible things that can happen in real life. I sort of had to confront a lot of that when my daughter was injured, and I realized just how transactional my thinking of God is. But I think a lot of people measure God's love by what they perceive as God's blessings. And if there aren't enough blessings, I think it's very possible to reach a point where you say, yeah, I believe in God. I don't believe God loves me. Because I was sort of there for a while. I'm not there now. But does that make any sense? How would you, how would you respond to that?

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I hope God loves me. I believe he does. I do not understand God. I don't understand a God who can go to great lengths. And there's an example that President Monson talked about in a conference speech a while back, where a whole series of connections were made. So someone who was, I think they were dying actually, sadly, and they wanted to taste some fresh bread that a friend was making. You and I have talked about this on the podcast. He goes to great lengths to help you find your keys. And I've heard those stories. Um, Elder Manson, um, sorry, uh, brother, is it Mattson? Sorry, Hans Mattson. Um, I wanna get his name right. Talked about, uh, some examples where the Lord goes to great lengths to help what seems to be the most, um, the simple things, you know, like finding keys or finding someone that's lost. Yet he won't save a child's life or, you know, save someone from cancer or save someone from a, an injury. Uh, and so I don't, I believe he loves me. I, I hope he does. I don't understand him or her, and I think he's in a bit of a pickle because or she is, because we have a lot of problems, and I'm wondering if or not he can get involved, or does his own laws prevent him from demonstrating that love that we think he has, or hope he has, in a more direct kind of way, and can help us out with the problems that we've got on the planet, on the Earth, with all the issues and his other laws., that he's made restricting him from helping us when we need him the most. So I, I don't understand him or her.

All right. That's fair. Well, so now we dive into a lot of questions about marriage. The next one says, in a relationship or marriage, both partners need to listen to each other and freely come to an agreement about what to do. You agree with that? Yes, I do too. And it's interesting that they would ask that because there's a lot of emphasis historically in the church on the idea of the man presiding in the home. And there are Christian sects and denominations that have wrestled with this. I'm thinking about a group called the Promise Keepers. Have you ever heard of the Promise Keepers?

I have not.

They were, uh, big active Christian group where they talked about Christian marriage and how men need to devote themselves. And they would quote Paul that talks about women, subject yourselves to your husbands. Why no wives submit to your husbands and husbands submit to Christ as Christ submitted to the church or something like that. I'm butchering that. But so what they pointed out was, yes, it's equal until there's a tie. And then the man breaks the tie. The man has— is the presider. The man is the one who has the final say. And I think that has been the model in the church, whether it's been spoken— and I think it has been explicitly spoken. Now it's not spoken as explicitly, but it's still there. Because when they change the temple ceremony to have Eve talk directly to both Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, everybody went, okay, now she's equal to Adam. Yet at the same time, they changed the sealing ceremony and added the word preside to the idea that the, the husband presides over the family. The proclamation on the family that is still used as sort of the gold standard of what the church stands for today has that in there too. It talks about how the husband is to preside. So this model of a relationship where both partners need to listen to each other and freely come to an agreement about what to do, I absolutely agree with that. I can't imagine a marriage succeeding without that, at least not a marriage that I would want to be part of. I would not want to have a wife that didn't feel like she was an equal partner and had an equal say. So the next one says, if you do not, if you do not have sex before marriage and you marry in the temple for eternity, then your family will not have any serious problems. You agree or disagree?

I disagree. I'm glad you read that because the print's small. And I thought you were saying— I thought the question was— there you go. You made it. You made the print bigger. I thought it said if you do not have lots of sex before marriage, And you marry in the temple of eternity, and then your family will have no, not, not have any serious problems. No, I don't believe that. I think you can have sex or not have sex before marriage. It's up to you. Uh, it doesn't mean you're not gonna have any problems.

Yeah. I, I mean, there's a lot of this kind of magical thinking though in the church. I, I actually would very much like to see how, what percentage of people answered this and said that they agreed with this. Because I don't— if you'd ask me this before my marriage, I would have said, "No, I don't agree with it." But I think secretly I did agree with it to some degree. You get this idea that living the gospel, being righteous, it's this transactional relationship with God where he's going to— you're not going to have any problems if you're good. I don't know if I would have tied it specifically to sex, But anyway, it's an interesting—

I wanna throw it back. I wanna have one more thing. It's interesting about the, the sex thing there, but I would argue there is a case, I don't know any studies here, but I'm sure they exist, that you can, you, you don't know anyone unless you will live with them. You know, you don't really, you know, in the church, you, you know, you wanna live with a person after you get married and you wanna have sex after you get married. You've not lived with them or anyone, um, before you get married. Different backgrounds, different perspectives, the whole— you may be compatible, you may not be. I would argue that it would— it's— there's some advantages and benefits for living with someone, including having sex and living in the same house, to, uh, to determine whether they are a compatible fit or not. And I suspect there's a lot of people that after they get married, they think within a few weeks or a few months, What the hell have I done? If only we'd lived together. And then they're stuck in the church if it's not working, because they've entered into a covenant in the temple. Through thick or thin, they've got to make it work. And if there's some serious problems, and by the way, this is where I've been involved as a bishop, where there's been abuse going on, but because they put the covenants first, they've tolerated the abuse. And the woman has been putting up with the abuse and the bishops or leaders have said, well, you're sealed in the temple, you're married, you gotta make it work. You make it work no matter. My advice was not that. In some of the cases, some of the instances, my advice was leave, get out of there. So, you know, you, you get married, you get sealed in the temple, and in, in the, you know, when they're committed, the members are committed and devoted. And really committed, and they, they're trapped. Even if it's not working or they're not happy. My advice is, nope. You get out if it's abusive. If you're not happy, try and make it work. If you're not compatible, you tried everything in the book. You know, it's possible to love the wrong person. You can love or be in love with the wrong person, right?

So, Well, and also the unwillingness to have sex before marriage means that a lot of very young couples get married. I remember talking to a woman who had left the church, but she got married very young and she had 8 children before she left. And she said to me, I thought I was in love. I didn't realize I was just horny.

Oh, that's funny. That's funny.

But there's a lot of that. There's a lot of this, you know, you have this magical thinking that's okay. My entire life I've been told that this is the pinnacle of my faith, that if I get married in the temple, that I've arrived, that I've done everything I'm supposed to do, and then I just endure to the end. And people get married in the temple and they discover There's a whole lot of them. They're just beginning. It's not the end. It's the beginning of a lifetime of trying to build a life together. And it's difficult under any circumstance. It doesn't matter if you're married in the temple or not. And there are people who get married outside the temple who have wonderful marriages, and there are people who get married in the temple who have terrible marriages.

Oh, I totally agree. And there are people in the church, in the temple, and I know this firsthand, where he or she has had an affair, the counsel they've received in the past is, no matter, you forgive him or forgive her. Even if it's happened a few times, you forgive, you forgive, because it's a temple marriage. My advice was not that. I said, if you make it work, if you forgive, great, but you really need to think very carefully about whether you can trust this person again. And if it happens again and again, my advice is, well, you make the choice in the end, but you get out.

Yeah.

If they can't commit to those covenants, um, you know, then you, uh, you need to think, uh, think twice. So yeah, I, I, I think there's a lot of people in the church, or many people in the church who feel, um, they've gotta make it work no matter. And they end up being very sad for their entire life. They don't find the person who's more compatible, who they can be in love with. Um, and they're stuck with this person. And I think that's, uh, That's a terrible, um, loss to one's own freedom and, you know, authenticity and, and finding who you are and being yourself in life. And I think the church, the temple, locks people in permanently, where they feel that no matter what, no matter what happens in the marriage, you have to make it work, no matter. And I, I don't, I don't buy into that anymore.

No, I don't either. I do think that a temple marriage does bring with it a certain degree of heightened responsibility. At the same time, it does not bring a license for abuse, which I think is what you're describing. I think when you get— in other words, when you get married in the temple, you should be taking this very, very seriously. And not very lightly, but if even Christ himself, when he talked about divorce, we don't live the standard of marriage and divorce that's outlined by Jesus himself in the New Testament, because he said that if you marry someone who's divorced or if you get a divorce, you're committing adultery. But he offered one exception to that, which was adultery. If you get divorced for any reason other than adultery, then according to the words of the synoptic gospels, you're committing adultery. But if your spouse is unfaithful, even Jesus in the New Testament says it's okay to get a divorce. So anyway, all right, so this next one is also very interesting. All good people will have eternal families. Even if they choose to marry only for this life. Do you agree with that?

All good people have eternal, will have eternal families, even if they choose to marry only for this life. I didn't used to believe that. I do believe it now. I think all good people, I, I think love transcends anything the church teaches, this priesthood authority, this being sealed in the temple. I believe that people outside the church can marry and have children, and they can be with their families forever without the temple, without the temple. Even if they marry for this life. So if they become married in the Church of England, which is till death do us part, or in the Catholic Church, I believe that their marriage and their family can continue in the eternities forever. I do not, I no longer accept or believe in or buy the teaching from the church that you can only be with your family if you're sealed in the temple and if you keep going to church in the Mormon faith. So, long answer, but— Well, good people. Yeah, there's my response.

I appreciate that response. The reason I think this question is so interesting is because we would go out and tell people as missionaries, your family can be together forever. And I have since talked to people who point out that we're the only people who teach your family may not be together forever. You know, we don't say your family will be together forever. You say your family can be, but it's conditional. You have to do this thing. You have to get married in the temple. You have to do all of these, take all of these steps otherwise your family will not be together in the next life. And I have since found that most people outside the church envision a life in the eternities with their families. It doesn't occur to them that God would separate them based on some kind of ordinance or any other kind of thing. The way I look at this now is I still respect priesthood authority. I still embrace the importance of the temple ritual. I also embrace the universality at the core of temple worship. In other words, yes, this is true. All the people will have eternal families. Even if they choose to marry only for this life, because they will have the opportunity, they will have that work done for them either in this life or in the next. Every— I am a universalist in that I believe even if somebody ends up going to the telestial kingdom, eventually they get to where they need to be. Eternity is a very, very, very long time, and this is what Bruce R. McConkie has called one of the seven deadly heresies, this idea that there is progression between kingdoms, that you can continue to progress. But Bruce R. McConkie is on one side of that argument, and there are many brethren who are on the other side of the argument. I'm pretty sure James E. Talmage was on the other side of that argument, and I think that there are others. I think Daniel Widtsoe is on the other side of that argument anyway. So the point is, I— we tend to scare people and say, okay, if you don't get married in the temple in this life, you're going to lose your family. Yeah. And the older I get, the more ridiculous that is to me, because even you can still respect the authority of the temple and also recognize that God loves all of his children and will find a way for all of them to return to him.

I agree. Yeah, I agree with all that. By the way, I wanna say this. I did something years ago. I said something years ago that I'm very deeply, deeply ashamed about. What was it? I'll tell you what it is here. So I was on the stake presidency and I was visiting a couple. Um, he was not a member. She was. And the way the conversation was going, direction of the conversation led in a way where I was asked a question about whether there'd be, they, this couple would be together forever. And I, I said no. And they said, but we love each other. And I said, that doesn't matter. You can't be together unless you're both sealed in the temple. I, it's, that has plagued me. I'm deeply ashamed. When I left the, uh, the state presidency, when I left the church, I put it right. I called them, I apologized, and I told them I was wrong. Very wrong. I will— this has plagued me for years. I put it right. Um, they appreciated what I said. Um, I felt so bad. I was so wrong. I believe that if you love someone, you know, your partner, your spouse, your children, that love is way more powerful than any temple ceremony, than any priesthood authority, that that love which Christ taught, um, is available to anyone and everyone regardless of religion or background, whether you believe in a God or not, as long as you love each other. Truly love each other unconditionally. So yeah, I, I said, I, that's one of the things I've deeply regret ever saying in the past.

So, well, anyway, if you embrace that idea, I think the church is scared of that idea because it means, well, then what do you need us for?

Yeah. Why do you need the temple? Right.

Why do you need the temple? And increasingly people continue to ask that question, "Why do I need the temple?" And so the church, I think, is doubling down on this because this gives them the sort of exclusive authority to control your eternity. And, uh, and more and more people just aren't having any of that.

And it's very smart because it's tied to tithing and it's tied to the next question, right? Because if you're sealed, um, and in order to see all the other family, immediate and other extended family members, you have to be sealed to them or they have to be sealed.

Yeah. Read that next question.

Yeah. Once you've— it is the question. Once you have been sealed in the temple, everyone in your family will be exalted regardless of what choices they make. Well, I, I believe that. I believe that you can be with anyone who you love, um, you know, in the eternities, within reason. If they're a murderer, I don't know if they, they're gonna be in the same place as you. I just don't understand enough about the eternities to know how that works. But the church teaches very clearly that in order for you to be with your family, your kids, and your grandkids, they have to live worthily. And go to the temple and endure to the end. Otherwise, if they make different choices and they leave the church, well, you're not going to see your grandkids. You're not going to see your kids if they deviate from the church. That's awful. I mean, talk about control. You know, you got to qualify for a temple recommend. One of the questions is tithing. Uh, we want you to be completely committed and devoted. And by the way, if you've got people in the family who are not quite as devoted or committed, you gotta work on them. 'Cause if you don't and they make, put the, they make the wrong choices, then you're not gonna see them ever. I think that's just evil. I think that's destructive. It's awful. Awful doctrine.

Uh, well, I, I choose to I choose to embrace the universalist side of it, but certainly that perspective, or that point of view with regard to the doctrine, is, I think, the dominant point of view in the church today. And so it's very interesting to see that they're trying to measure that with these questions. This idea of being sealed in the temple and you're exalted regardless, comes from— there's a verse in Section 132 that essentially says that. I remember talking to a guy on my mission who was inactive, but he said, but I've been married in the temple, so it doesn't matter. And he pulled out Section 132. And Section 132, I think, and it talks about, you know, once you've been sealed up, uh, in the eternities, then if you don't commit murder, to shed innocent blood, Uh, you can do anything and you'll be left to the buffetings of Satan in this life, but you will eventually be exalted. And I think that actually is a verse that is used in the second anointing, because that's the promise that's given in the second anointing. Interesting. So anyway, um, but there, there are a number of statements particularly by Joseph Smith, where he talks about how when you are sealed in the temple, you are not only saving yourselves, you are also saving your children in the eternities. And, uh, those have been quoted every once in a while, and they're sort of thrown out there to offer some kind of comfort to parents who are seeing their children leave. And through no fault of their own. Because I think the expectation was, if you're righteous enough, your children won't leave. And we just know that's not true. We know that's not true because the children of apostles leave the Church. The children of prophets leave the Church. And so, you know, we know that there's no way that somebody's agency can override somebody else's agency. So I think there are a lot of people that do believe this because they want to cling to that to make sure that they can be extra righteous and that'll save their wayward children. And I agree with you, that kind of thinking, it's just destructive. It's just nothing but a source of pain. There is no comfort in that idea. There's nothing but pain in that idea. All right. Do you wanna read this next one?

Uh, sure. Uh, oh, I think we're the next group of questions, aren't we?

Um, we've got one more at the bottom there.

I'll go by the— okay. Uh, right. Okay. Yeah. Marrying in the temple for eternity is so important that it is better to stay single than to marry for this life only. Oh my gosh. I know a bit about that. Um, so Yeah, the church, the church believes that, that you is taught that, that you, you're better off being single than marrying somebody, say, out of the temp, you know, out of the church. That's what it's taught. That's what I've taught. That's my understanding. I don't, I don't buy that. I don't believe that anymore, but I know, and President Monson used to give lots of talks about single sisters and the widowers.

Yeah. Did I lose you?

And men, uh, some men, many sisters in the church who for whatever reason haven't found someone that they're happy with or is compatible. They've not found someone to marry in the temple, so they've stayed single. And that again is another tragic, tragic mistake and tragic loss. And the notion that you can't find someone outside the church to be happy with them and live happily, that it's best to be single than be, but stay in the church and be temple worthy, but stay single instead of marrying somebody in the temple. I think that's just awful. That's robbing someone of their entire life's experience where they stay single. I know quite a few sisters who have, uh, who are in their 60s, 70s now, who have never married and they've been alone their entire life cuz they haven't found someone to take them to the temple. What a tragic, tragic loss of a life. I think that's terrible.

You know, um, you can see this in the highest leadership of the church. Uh, President Nelson was married to his wife Dansil, I think her name was, and they had 9 children. And then she died, and he remarried Wendy Watson, who was in her 70s and had never married. And it's interesting too, so this is a story I I hesitate to tell it because I'm not sure if I'm supposed to, but I know someone who knows Kristen Oaks, who's Dallin Oaks's current wife. Okay. And his second wife, Dallin Oaks's wife died. And Dallin Oaks, as the story goes, Kristen Oaks had sent almost like a resume to M. Russell Ballard. She knew M. Russell Ballard. She didn't know Dallin Oaks. I don't remember what her maiden name was. And I'm going to, to, I'm not going to tell you who told me this story, but I, I trust my source. So she essentially said, said, gave this thing to Elder Ballard and said, can you give this to Dallin Oaks and tell him that I want to date him? And Dallin Oaks, you know, the apostles get a whole bunch of these. I mean, there are a lot of women that just sort of throw themselves at the apostles. And I mean, they're rock stars to some degree. And so they get all kinds of unsolicited requests to do all kinds of things. And Dallin Oaks was single because he was a widower. And, and at one point, Dallin Oaks was talking to Elder Ballard shortly after Kristen Oaks had given Elder Ballard this info, and Dallin Oaks said, you know, Elder Ballard, I, I need to start thinking about getting married again. Elder Ballard said, well, just so happens that I have this woman that really wants to meet you, and they arranged a meeting in Liberty Park in Salt Lake City, big open-air place in Salt Lake City, and they each had a chaperone with them. So there were 4 people there. It was Dallin Oaks, Kristen Oaks. I'm going to call her Kristen Oaks because I don't know what her maiden name was. And they walk up and they meet each other, and the first thing Dallin Oaks says to Kristen Oaks is, 'Now I'm a man and you're a woman. Are you okay with that?' And Kristin Oaks' response was, 'Only if you're not a crossdresser.' Oh wow. That was their first— I mean, Dallin Oaks just was announced. I mean, they met each other and it was just like, 'Okay, are we going to get married?' And they were married within I don't know, a month or two at the most.

Fast. Yeah.

Quickly. It just, it just happened very quickly. And by all accounts, they're quite happy with each other. But that was Dallin Oaks' response was, I'm a man and you're a woman. Are you okay with that? And, and the joke was, well, not if you're a crossdresser. And I've heard that and I just thought, Wow. And the other thing is that there are a number of, like, there are women that are divorced or widowed that the brethren would not even consider marrying or consider dating. They will only consider dating a woman that has never been married because if they're widowed and they're married in the temple, that means they can't be sealed to them. So it's this eternal polygamy thing that's still out there. So anyway, so I don't know if I'm gonna get in trouble for telling that story, but I don't think I will.

That's an extraordinary first few words on a date. I mean, it's just weird and odd.

It's weird and odd. And there were other people there. There were 4 people there cuz there was a chaperone for each of them.

That's hard. It's weird. But any, any dates, any—

I'm a man and you're a woman. Are you okay with that?

Yeah.

Anyway. All right. So now we're getting into LGBTQ questions. Although they only say LGBT. They don't— Q. Um, okay. So the first one, sometimes a male spirit is placed in a female body and sometimes a female spirit is placed in a male body. Agree or disagree?

Oh boy, that's an interesting one. I agree with that now. I didn't used to be. I held the church's position that, like Elder Packer said, why would God do something like this, you know, do anything like this to somebody? I think the proclamation to the world is male and female spirits. It teaches that.

It's, it does not explicitly teach that. All it says is that gender is— it says gender is eternal, but it doesn't say male and female. It says the eternal part of identity, of your eternal identity and purpose. And many transgender people took that language and said, yes, it's my eternal gender, and my eternal gender is at odds with my physical gender, which required President Oaks to say, no, no, no, what we meant was that we meant your biological sex assigned at birth. But that's not what the actual proclamation says. So that just highlights one of the problems that the proclamation on the family is used to push things that it doesn't explicitly say.

It says that all human beings are created in the image of God as a beloved spirit, son or daughter of Heavenly Father, Heavenly Parents. Each person has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of human identity before, during, and after life on Earth. I'm reading, yeah, the Proclamation to the World there. So, you know, my interpretation from the proclamation is you are either a male or a female spirit. And so the question here is, could you be a male spirit in a female body? I believe that now and know that because the people that I've met who have opened up to me and shared with me that they are a female in a man's body, and knowing these people as well as I do and trusting them and trusting their feelings, I now believe that. I didn't used to believe that. I was completely other end of the spectrum where that, that's just not possible. So I think there are physiological, uh, factors, but I, and psych, and psychological factors. And spiritual factors which have, um, taught me that yes, a male spirit can be placed in a female body. And these individuals, by the way, Jim, they, they share with me that they feel trapped inside, you know, a female or a male body, and it's not them. It's not their body, so to speak.

No, that's, that's what they've said to me too, is said to me as well. And the more you talk to people who are transgender, the more you recognize that the idea that they would just sort of casually decide that, hey, you know what, um, I, I, I, I, I'm going to see what it's, you know, I'm just going to try what it'd be like to be a woman if I'm a man. I mean, because that's the way they're sort of characterized, you know, here in the United States. Our lovely new president has issued an executive order that says that we no longer recognize transgender people. And when Trump was elected, Caitlyn Jenner— you aware of Caitlyn Jenner?

I, I know the name. Yeah, I know, I know a bit about the individual. Yeah.

Yeah. So Caitlyn Jenner, uh, is still a Republican. And just tweeted out, "Oh, America is saved. God bless you, Mr. President." And all these people ended up saying, "Dude, he just made sure that he just said you can only be called Bruce." You know, he's thrown transgender people under the bus. The church, you know, the church's transgender policies, we talked about that for a whole episode. But we, we have reached a point in the church where we are willing to acknowledge the legitimacy of gay people, but we are not willing to acknowledge that there are even transgender people. We just try to pretend that this just doesn't happen, and the weight of evidence is overwhelming that people who feel, uh, that their gender is different from their biological sex at birth. This is such a driving, powerful part of who they are. I mean, I don't know. I think I said I don't know if I agree or disagree because I don't know what the relationship is between the physical biology and the spiritual biology. If you could even talk about spiritual biology, I don't know how that works. I don't think the church knows how that works, and I don't think anybody really knows how that works. So I think we should err on the side of compassion and inclusion rather than just say we know more than we actually do. I just don't think we understand, uh, this phenomenon, but we do understand the suffering of the people who experience it, and we should be erring on the side of inclusion. Uh, I have a transgender relative, and again, I'm going to be vague because This transgender relative has not given me permission to identify them, but they've said, how am I a threat to anybody? Why am I so frightening to people? You know, because transgenderism is just the huge bugaboo right now of the right wing in the United States. I think the right wing worldwide. And certainly in the church, it's just, these are the people that we've decided to otherize and demonize and say, you know, these are scary people that are threatening the foundations of whatever it is. And it's just not true. It's just not true. These are people very often who are in a tremendous amount of emotional pain for most of their life. And transitioning gives them a measure of solace that previous generations— because this isn't something that just was invented a few years ago. Transgenderism has been with us since the beginning. People have felt this way since the beginning, and it's only now that medical science is sort of catching up to offer, to offer different remedies for people. And not everybody medically transitions. Some people are comfortable just socially transitioning. We just don't understand it. And if we don't understand it, why not err on the side of inclusion?

My position on this doesn't come necessarily from studies. It comes from people who have opened up to me, people I know and trust. I've known for— some of them I've known for a long time who don't make this stuff up. This is how they feel. They told me why they feel. They told me why they think they feel like this to the best of their ability. I have no reason to disbelieve them. They're very genuine. This is how they feel, and it's real. At least it's real to them.

And we have no way of measuring it any other way. If it's real to them, then it's real to me. And everybody's like, well, that's— I've heard all the arguments and, and I just, none of them are persuasive at this point.

It'll be interesting to see if now the church, you know, I think it's a bit cowardly, the church putting this out and the questionnaire, because it's like putting the feelers out. What do really people really think? I think he probably knows that already. The questions and the time with the questions, bizarre. Keeping in mind the questionnaire doesn't exist anymore. And the other thing as well, is the church gonna retrench now that Trump has made it official position that there's only two genders? Is the church gonna retract and reposition itself back to its traditional thinking and come out in support and abandon some of its more softer, flexible thinking towards transgender? Then is he gonna take more of a hard line to, you know, in line with Trump. Who knows? We'll see. We'll see if the church does the right thing or not.

Um, church is very happy with, with— when the church— I, I think our current president would be very happy with the church's current transgender policy because it's, it's pretty consistent with what our president, shall not be named, is doing. Yeah, you want to read the next one?

Sure. Um, Okay. It is a sin to feel attracted to the others of the same gender. The church teaches that still.

Uh, it's not that. I don't— the church absolutely does not teach that anymore.

It doesn't.

No.

Okay. Uh, let's just, let me just challenge you on that. It did teach that.

It absolutely did. It absolutely did, and now it absolutely does not. Uh, you can find all kinds of statements, particularly by Boyd K. Packer, uh, in his talk To Young Men Only, which is mainly about masturbation, but also about homosexuality, and talks about a missionary decking his companion because he finds out he's gay. And Elder Packer says, well, I'm not recommending that course of action, but I am not ruling it out either. That was a big laugh line.

I don't agree with you. I'll tell you why. Now, I know our local leaders here teach that to be attracted, certainly to act upon it, is a transgression.

The question is to feel attracted. We're going to get to acted on, but the feeling— we're now told, I mean, the church is very explicit in saying same-sex attraction And I hate that phrase, but same-sex attraction is not a sin, but acting on it is.

Okay. I want to change what I've said because I'm wrong. When I'm wrong, I say I'm wrong. Um, thanks for highlighting it. To feel attracted to others is not, is not a sin. You're right. I interpret it as to, you know, feel is to act and it's not saying that. So I take back what I've said. I was wrong. If you act upon it. Which is the, you know, another situation entirely, then that is a transgression. So yeah, I stand corrected.

So the church is trying to carve out this middle ground that I think is untenable, because if it's not a sin to feel attracted to others of the same gender, then what's God's purpose for allowing people to be, to, you know, when Elder Packer said that thing about why would Heavenly Father do that to anyone? That's actually a really good question. He was asking it rhetorically as if there was no answer, but there has to be an answer. If it's not a sin to be gay, then what is the righteous purpose for those feelings?

So that's a good question.

Yeah. All right, next one says it is wrong to expect someone to live their entire lives without having sex? That's a really interesting question too.

Yes, I know someone, and you know them very well as well, who while they were serving a mission, they were very concerned and worried that Jesus Christ might come before he has sex with his wife. I won't tell you the name. I'll keep the name private. You know who I'm talking about.

I think I know who you're talking about.

Very worried that Christ would come before he finished his mission and that he would never ever have sex.

Does he not think he's gonna have sex in the next life?

Is it the same thing? I don't know. I mean, that's a long time to wait, isn't it? So is it wrong? Is it wrong? It is wrong to expect someone to live their life, entire life without having sex. Yeah. I think so.

There are a lot of people in and out of the church who do live their lives without having sex, and it's not a choice necessarily. So I don't know. I mean, but yeah, I think that sex is very much a part of everybody's life. Or I mean, it's one of the things that I think God has provided to bring people together. It's essential in order to continue the human race. And I think people that go their entire lives without it, that's just, yeah, I don't think it's fair to expect that of anybody.

I agree.

All right. Next one is, God made a mistake when he made people who are gay.

No, no. I don't know why people are gay. They are gay. They feel the way they do. Did God make them that way? I think so. God made them, you know, there's nature, there's laws of nature. They feel the way they do. They're not a mistake. I mean, what an awful thing to teach or suggest to someone that they're a mistake if they're gay. And you know, this is a real problem in the church where someone is gay or they feel gay or they act upon it., and they commit what the church teaches as sin, transgression, if they act upon it, not if they feel, uh, that we addressed earlier, and they feel terrible, they feel guilty, yet they can't deny the feelings, but they're trapped, and some of them sadly turn to suicide because they don't know where to go. Who do they turn to? I mean, they feel these feelings, they can't act upon them, and if they do, they transgress, they've fallen, foul of God's teachings. They're rejected by the Father, rejected by God, yet they feel the way they do. And God made them that way, and they feel they're a mistake, but they're not. They're equal, a son or a child of God, just like you and I, just like anyone else.

Yeah, and that's actually what the church now teaches. Uh, but I, I don't think— what's interesting about these questions is that I'm betting that that has not trickled down to the general membership because there are still plenty of members and plenty of leaders who still believe that that's true.

Yeah.

So, and so the last question on here, this is the big money question.

Yeah, it's a big one.

And it's the question that I, I am asked by, uh, people who consider themselves defenders of the church, who consider me to apostate because I don't hate LGBTQ people enough. I don't hate them at all. So, but they always say, you want the church to seal same-sex couples in the temple. And that's the statement here. The church should seal same-sex couples in the temple. Do you agree or disagree, Jim Bennett?

I used to vehemently disagree with that. Now, on the other end of the spectrum, I'm— if two people love each other and they can serve in the church like anyone else, why can't they be sealed in the temple if they love each other and they're committed and devoted? And they could remain faithful to each other and loyal to each other, just like a man and a woman. Why can't those blessings be extended to same-sex couples? Keeping in mind, you know, gays are not mistakes, they're children of God. We just said that. You just said that.

Mm.

But you know what, what disqualifies them from receiving those blessings if the children of God and if they're not mistakes and if God made them that way? It seems a cruel irony to create, um, people who feel gay, who are in love with each other, but they can't be together for the eternities. That just seems cruel.

All right, so I am going to answer this question, and this may be a bit of a dodge, but my, um, my ques— my answer is I do not want to do anything in the temples that God does not want to do. And if this is what God chooses to do in order to bring about inclusion of gay and lesbian people in the church, then I will fully embrace it. I am not mandating it. I am not demanding it. I am not an activist campaigning for it. I will accept it if it's what God wants to do, if it is the subject of revelation. And I am confident that this is a church of continuing revelation. And so when people ask me this question, my answer is, look, I am confident, I am 100% confident that there is going to be greater inclusion of LGBTQ people in the church. What that looks like is up to God. It is not up to me. And so I, you know, so that's my answer. My answer is, it's not— is, uh, uh, the church should seal same-sex couples in the temple only if God wants it. And there are people who hear that and get angry because, of course God doesn't want it, of course God would never want it. Like, I just don't think that we should be placing limits on what God can and can't do. And we have seen so many changes in terms of inclusion. That if this is a change that is in the future, I will embrace it. If it is not a change in the future, I am committed to sustaining the brethren. You know, people are like, well, what are you going to do if it doesn't happen? It's like, well, what am I doing now? You know, I'm 56 years old. I've lived my entire life in the church. I haven't left yet. I haven't put a deadline on this. I haven't made any demands or insisted that God do something according to my timetable. According to my specifications. And so, I, you know, if this does not happen in my lifetime, I will continue a faithful member of the Church regardless. So, is that too much of a dodge?

I think it's fair. I think it's, you know, you're trying to balance your commitment and your devotion. You're supporting the Prophet, and you're putting it in the hands of God, who understands this way more than anyone else. So, Yeah, I think it's a very fair response.

All right. So now we move on to issues of race. Our friend from a few podcasts ago would have a lot to say about this. And we went into this extensively in that discussion. The first question, do you want to read the first question?

Sure. People with dark skin were not as faithful in pre-mortal life. Now I've been taught that, I've taught that, I used to believe that, I no longer believe that. I think it's, if people think and believe that, I think that's awful, tragic.

Yeah.

You know, people with dark skin are equal to anyone else and can be faithful to anyone else. And the church has addressed this in one of the essays under the Race and the Priesthood, which came out in October 2013. It was the beginning of my Um, I look at it, panell's unraveling, but reconstructing, maybe that's the word. Is that such a word? Just made it up. Reconstructing my faith and actually following, uh, me being honest with myself and being authentic and following what I've always believed and privately rejected the notion that people with dark skin were not as faithful. I never believed it. Even though I might have said that I do, I didn't privately. And so no, uh, people with dark skin, uh, it's, you know, are as faithful as anyone with any other skin. So I don't, I don't believe or accept that as it's written.

No. And, and I agree with you 100%. We don't know anything about the pre-mortal life. We don't know anything about who was righteous, who was unrighteous, what the consequences of our behavior there, uh, what, how that has any bearing on what we do now. We just don't, we don't know anything. And, and to have somebody, as our guest did a few weeks ago, just assert, well, it wasn't that they were less faithful, they chose not to— what was it he said? They chose not to have priests. Yeah, you don't know that.

We don't know that.

How I don't— you don't choose.

But I've never heard that before. I think I was just, um, I have no idea where they—

the church did teach this. We no longer teach it. And the thing that's frustrating about a lot of these questions or statements is that the initial teaching of this was very vocal and very public, and the disavowal of it is very quiet and easily missed by a lot of members. You know, a lot of people— I've had people get angry when I quote the Race and the Priesthood essay. It's like, don't bring that into the gospel doctrine class. Like, this is published by the church. This is the church's position. And people are very uncomfortable because it challenges of a long-standing teaching, and this was absolutely a long-standing teaching in the church. Um, the next one: God does not love one race more than another. Absolutely, I agree with that. You agree with that?

I do.

Okay, the next one: it is a commandment to marry within your race. I do not agree with that.

It used to be a commandment or instruction from, like, Brigham Young, where You know, to marry outside of your race was death on the spot.

Right.

You know, and many, many of the quotes and references, but no, that should— no, that thing has changed now.

So it's changed very quietly. And in fact, language about interracial dating, discouraging interracial dating or interracial marriage survived into manuals into the 21st century. As recently as I think about 10 years ago. Yes. So I just want to read the, the significant paragraph, if I may.

I think it's so important to quote this in the, uh, Race and the Priesthood essay. It says the church today, uh, for our listeners, you can find this in the Race and the Priesthood essay right at the very end of the essay. He says here, today the church disavows The theories, they weren't just theories, they were teachings, they were the doctrine.

Right.

This about the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse. Remember, it's taught in the Book of Mormon. So Nephi believed this, right? Or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a pre-mortal life, that mixed-race marriages are a sin, or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

And how many members of the church have never ever heard that? President Nelson has, I think, been more outspoken against racism than any previous prophet, and yet he's never said anything that explicit from the pulpit. He's never disavowed previous teachings. He's just said we need to root out racism. And Paul Reeve, who's a brilliant and faithful scholar who teaches at the University of Utah, says, how do you root out racism in the church if you're not allowed to look at the roots of where racism took hold in the church? And the roots were these kinds of statements that you have to marry within your race. I mean, the next statement is dark skin is a curse, and we both disagree with that, but that was absolutely something that was taught. And I, I couldn't get our guest to even admit that that had ever happened, that that had ever been taught. So there's a number of people in the church that not only still believe that, but they're not willing to assign any possibility of error ever happening and they're not willing to admit that there has ever been a change. And, and that's the final thing about this here. The final statement here is the church's history with blacks in the priesthood shows that doctrine itself can change. And I think we would both agree with that. But how do you think, how do you think a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles would answer that question?

The last question.

Yeah. Church's history with the priesthood shows the doctrine itself can change. I mean, do you think that Dallin Oaks or David Bednar would agree with that?

Yes, so they couch it differently. I mean, clearly the doctrine has changed. I mean, you can't, you can't argue that. The position of the church has changed. That disavowal statement we just read, you know, that's, that's very clear in my mind, right? There's been a, a change in the doctrine. How would they present that? They would say, well, that up until 19— it's like what you said earlier, up until 1978, that was God's position. And then in 1978, God decided that the church was ready to extend the priesthood to people of all color. So I think that's how the church apostles would address it. They wouldn't throw the prophets under the bus. They would never say— Yeah, they wouldn't, they would never, they would never, uh, say the doctrine changes. They would say, they wouldn't come out and say that. They say God decided in 1978 that it was time for Blacks to have the priesthood. That's as far as you get.

No, but, but so they won't throw Brigham Young under the bus, but they'll throw God under the bus. That's It's bizarre to me.

Yes.

Much easier for me to believe that Brigham Young is a racist rather than believe God is a racist. And the way that they frame it is, well, God can't be a racist because he's God. So obviously it wasn't racist, which is just circular reasoning and begging the question and pretty much nonsense. All right. So there are 3 more pages. We're well, we're past an hour here. Uh, this page I don't think is particularly interesting. Can we just sort of rip through this one?

Great. I think we'll, we can do this in the next 10 minutes so we can zip through it.

Okay. It says it is okay to lie if it leads to a good outcome. I don't believe that. Do you believe that?

No.

Being honest requires that I strive to make sure that others understand correctly. I believe that. Do you believe that? I do.

And I think the church should do a better job following that.

Yeah, I agree. I mean, because the church, I think, thinks that they— we've never been dishonest, we've never hid anything from anybody. Well, you haven't really made sure, you know, all the stuff we just talked about. There are a whole lot of members of the church that don't understand any of that because the church hasn't strived to make sure that others understand it. Okay, as long as I don't lie, I am honest.

No, the church doesn't teach that. The church says if you conceal or don't only get a half truth He says in those lessons that we've talked about that there's other ways of being dishonest. We talk about that on the podcast. Again, the church would do well to remind itself of the basic principles of honesty because it hasn't been honest. It has lied, it has concealed, it has misdirected people, and it has withheld important information and truth, and it has not followed its own principles of honesty outlined in that Gospel Principles manual.

All right, well, the last thing about honesty, it's a, this is a really weird question. The commandment to not bear false witness only applies when one is under oath in a court of law. I don't, I don't know of anybody that would, that would agree with that. Do you? No, I don't. All right, so this last, this is, this is the next to last. Page.

Okay.

This is all plural marriage stuff.

Interesting.

One must enter into plural marriage, polygamy, in order to be exalted. And I don't think either one of us agree with that.

No, but I think the church does privately, personally. Yeah.

Do you think that they, they think that we all have to be polygamists? Yeah.

They, they, they believe it. They've never privately abandoned it. Right? I think this is an eternal thing that they are happy to teach and follow in the next life.

Well, we, they certainly believe that it will be there in the next life. I think Presidents Nelson and Oaks both believe that they're gonna be married to both of their wives on the other side of the veil. I don't think that they believe that everybody has to be a polygamist. I think there was a time, I think Brigham Young believed that. I certainly believe John Taylor believed that. I'm not sure if Wilford Woodruff believed that at one point, but certainly this was something that was believed early on. But I think now, if there are some who still believe that, I would think they're in the minority. Maybe I'm wrong.

I think that's fair. It's a fair statement, man. Yeah.

Okay, some people would be forced into plural marriage polygamy after mortality. I don't know. Uh, you know, we've talked about polygamy here. I don't want to get— I mean, we've already covered a lot of this. Members of the church today practice plural marriage and remain members in good standing.

Yes.

Well, yes, but only eternally, right?

Well, Sure, but it is plural marriage. You're married to more than one person. Sealed, right?

But only one person at a time in mortality.

Sure.

Yeah.

Okay.

There's some hair-splitting here. You know, I read a great book over Christmas called American Zion by Benjamin Park, and he talked about Richard Lyman, who was the apostle who was excommunicated for adultery. And his wife had essentially said, after they'd had children, okay, we don't have to have sex anymore, and had just, just cut him off, uh, for the rest of their marriage. And he fell in love with this other woman and essentially said, okay, we're going to get sealed to each other in the next life. And then it became a physical relationship in this life, and he essentially treated her as a plural wife. But this was long after the Manifesto. This was well into the 20th century, and, and, um, and he was excommunicated. But if any member of the church thinks they can marry in this life more than one living woman, um, they— I, I can't think of any faster way to get excommunicated.

It's not saying that. He says here, one must enter— just scroll down a bit, Jim, if you will, just scroll down a bit more. One must, um, you should make it print a bit bigger, if you will.

Yeah, that was the first question. One must enter into plural marriage in order to be exalted.

Yep.

This question here: members of the church today practice plural marriage and remain members in good standing.

Sorry, repeat the question. I was speaking at the same time. Go ahead.

I'm sorry, members of the church today practice plural marriage and remain members in good standing.

I don't think we're splitting hairs when we're saying that there are people in the church, Oaks and Nelson, who are technically sealed to more than two people, even though it's not in this life. The other person is in the next life. It's still plural marriage in the context of what the church believes regarding eternal life.

No, I agree with that. I agree with that. I, what I'm saying is if, if President Nelson hadn't waited to marry Wendy Watson until after his first wife was dead, he would not be a member in good standing. If he had decided, okay, well, I'm going to marry Wendy while Danzel is still alive—

well, you're right, you're right.

So, all right, this is, this is the Michelle Brady Stone question. Joseph Smith did not institute plural marriage. It was initiated by Brigham Young without divine direction. Um, I don't, I don't agree with that.

No, I mean, the evidence is, uh, we, we had, uh, Brady Stone on there. It was interesting to get her perspective on things, but Joseph Smith did practice, uh, polygamy. Yeah, he hid it, he hid it, he hid it from Emma. Yeah, right. Uh, he practiced it, he said he didn't or wasn't practicing it when he was. He initiated it. It came from him. He was the prophet. He brought it in. Brigham Young carried on.

Yep. And, and I don't see how anybody can stay in the church if they believe that Brigham Young just completely made it up. I mean, but we've talked about that too. So last one, if I enter into plural marriage, I would be committing a sin. What do you think?

Well, it's how you define plural marriage, right? Is it in this life or the next life? If it is in this life physically, yes, cuz the church has abandoned the practice in the flesh in this life, but the church still teaches it and practices it in the next life. So no, it's not a sin if you get sealed to someone else, um, you know, who's living and your first wife has passed away. Nope. But you're encouraged to remarry, but if they're alive, then yeah, that's, uh, that's a problem.

Okay, this is the last page. There are 3 questions, uh, they're all about repentance, and, uh, I think these are actually very thoughtful questions. So to conclude, can you just read all 3 of these questions and we'll just discuss this whole idea Yes. Together.

Okay. Yeah, absolutely. Repenting is repairing a broken relationship with God. Repenting requires coming to think and feel differently. A commandment is something you have to do, and if you don't do it, you are condemned regardless of effort, circumstances, or intention.

Those are very thoughtful questions, I think.

They're some of the good questions, uh, compared to the others, some of the others for sure. So yeah, so repenting is repairing a broken relationship. Yes. You know, we make a mistake, we, we recognize the mistake. It's that pattern again, isn't it? We feel sorry, we make restitution, we seek forgiveness, we're stronger and better for it. We learn lessons, we're closer to God. We feel God's forgiveness, we feel his love. We're closer. I, I like that, that, that, that is familiar. Made to me.

The idea of thinking and feeling differently, I think, is very powerful too.

It is, because, you know, if we're honest and we're humble, we make a mistake and we acknowledge it and we repair it and we apologize and seek forgiveness from other people and make restitution. Well, we see ourselves differently, we think differently, we feel differently. Hopefully we're wiser and we have much more spiritual depth. And spiritual maturity because of the experience. So again, I think that's— I agree with you. I think it's a thoughtful, thoughtful comment statement.

Okay. The last one is interesting too, because this is the idea of if you don't do something, you're condemned regardless of effort, circumstances, or intention. One of the great things that the church teaches and has taught me all my life is that it is your intention that matters. Even more than your action, that it is possible to do the wrong thing for the right reason. It's possible to do the right thing for the wrong reason. And, you know, it's the 133rd section, I think, the one that was added in 1978, but it was Joseph Smith's vision of the celestial kingdom. And he saw Alvin in the celestial kingdom, and he marveled that Alvin would get there because He died before the gospel was restored. And in the course of that revelation, the Lord says, "I judge all men by their actions and by the desires of their heart." And so I think that's what ends up ultimately saving all of us, is that the desires of our heart— this is why I think that there's sort of a universal salvation because we all want the same thing. We all want love. We all want a connection to the divine. We all want a connection to each other. And so there are people in this world that are in circumstances where they will never understand or hear about the restored gospel or any kind of gospel. And yet they have the right desires of their heart. Their intentions are good. They're seeking that connection. And we are taught very explicitly that that's how we're judged. We're judged by where our heart is. Do you agree with that?

I do. I do agree with that. Two thoughts on this. I know we're going to conclude here. You know, if a commandment, for example, is not to have sex before marriage, right? Could you just make it, make the question a bit bigger? Could you go back to the question?

Oh yeah, I took it down.

That's okay. Just, okay. So if it's commandment not to have sex before marriage, let's go into the question. You made the question a bit bigger so I can read it.

Um, Beautiful.

Thank you. So a commandment is something you have to do, and if you don't do it, you're condemned, regardless of effort, circumstance, or intention. So let's say, you know, you have sex before marriage. It's completely against the commandment. You're told not to, commanded not to, and if you do, you're condemned. But you can say, well, I tried not to have sex, but I did. The circumstances were against me. I got myself into a situation. I didn't intend to get myself in that situation. But in the church's eyes, you could say, you know, I made a mistake, but you're condemned. And so, um, but if you are, you know, if you, if you tried your best and you fail because you're human, I don't think you're condemned. In fact, the church says you're not condemned because you can seek forgiveness. So yeah, it's a commandment. You make a mistake, or the church is like, he's made a mistake, you're condemned. That sounds a bit permanent to me. You're not really condemned because you can seek forgiveness. I think murder's the only one that you can't, um, uh, get forgiven by. And even that we're not sure about. And the last comment on that, uh, thought on that is, uh, uh, I remind ourselves of, uh, the scripture, 2 Nephi 25:23, which I think you all asked a few comments, you may have been alluding to, at least reminding me of this scripture, which says here, for we know that it is by grace that we are saved after all we can do. So we do the very best we can. We're human. We hopefully make good decisions. We get ourselves into situations. Or other people put yourself in a situation. We are weak in regards to the flesh. We make mistakes. We're not condemned for eternity because we have the power of forgiveness, and we seek forgiveness, we repent, and we change and improve, and therefore we can restore our relationship with God, and in the end, we can return to God through forgiveness. We're saved by grace, the grace of Christ, the grace of God, after all we can do.

Okay, that is a really powerful way to end this, because that scripture is being employed, usually employed, to say something that is directly opposite of what it was intended to say. There's a guy named Dan McClellan. He has a great podcast called Data Over Dogma, and he used to work for the church as the head of the scriptural translator department. And he wrote a paper for BYU about that scripture. And that phrase, after all we can do, is employed by leaders of the church. It's now part of the temple ceremony. They bring that into the temple ceremony. And the intention behind that phrase, as interpreted in a 21st century context, is, okay, do everything you can do, and then Christ's grace makes up the rest. And what Dan McClellan pointed out in his paper is that in the 19th century, the phrase "after all we can do" is very similar to a phrase like when we talk about, well, at the end of the day. In other words, um, it— what it really means is not after all we can do. It means essentially despite all we can do. Um, like we use the phrase, at the end of the day, what really matters is grace. You know, after all we can do, what really matters is grace, is what this verse means. Uh, we have this idea in the church that we, that we somehow earn our salvation. And that was even— I remember, uh, we would show Man's Search for Happiness. There were two versions of it. There was the 1950s version, and then there was a new version. And in the 1950s version, it made a distinction between salvation and exaltation, and it said everybody is saved by grace But exaltation— salvation is a free gift. We're saved by grace. Remember that. Exaltation, uh, must be earned. I mean, they use the word earned. It must be earned. And they took that out of the newer version, the one with Marvin Payne, who is a friend of mine and is a delightful man. Who hates Donald Trump even more than I do. And, but he, they took that out. And I remember talking to Robert Millet, who was a BYU professor who wrote a number of books with Joseph Fielding McConkie. And I said, and he wrote, he's the one who wrote a couple of books about grace. And I asked him about that. And he said, yeah, that was taken out because it's, it's It's incorrect. We don't earn our salvation. We are saved by grace. And we are so terrified of embracing the universal implications of that that we try to do everything we can to say, but, but make sure you do this and make sure you do that. And if you're not married in the temple and if you're not da da da da da da da da da, you know, to scare people essentially that, that all is lost if they don't you know, as you use this phrase many times, if they don't live with exactness. And the grace of Christ is far more encompassing than that. And that's what I believe. If that makes me a heretic, so be it. I think I'm in very good company, and I think I'm consistent with the scriptures and, uh, with God on that. I, I, I commend the church to anyone, and I think the temple is wonderful, and the blessings of the temple can enrich your life. I think that after all we can do, it's grace that saves us. And, and that's, that, that's where I'm gonna— so hopefully the church learned from this. I've certainly learned a lot. We were coming in at just about an hour and a half. We've gone longer than this before, so— but we've got— we've covered all the questions. Don't you feel a sense of accomplishment?

I do. I find the questions fascinating. There's some thinking behind them. The questions have been put together very carefully. I'm sure some apostles have been intimately involved in the questions. The church doesn't put this stuff out without careful preparation and, you know, being scrutinizing the questions and being, you know, really a lot of effort going into this. And then they pull the questionnaire. This has been incredibly insightful. I've learned a heck of a lot. I hope the listeners have. I've enjoyed it. And I hope, uh, you have, and I hope all of the listeners have had, uh, an interesting experience following this.

I hope so too, and I'm very grateful, uh, to be able to have this discussion with you, and I'm very grateful for all of you who are listening. We very much appreciate it, and we look forward to talking with you again next week on the next episode of Inside Out. Thank you very much, Ian.

Thank you, Jim Bennett.

All right, I'm stopping