The Burning in the Bosom

Hello and welcome to Inside Out. I am your co-host, Ian Wilkes, and I'm here as always with the mighty Jim Bennett. Hello, Jim.

Hello, Ian. How are you, sir?

I am doing well, Jim. And as always, we are excited to have back on the Inside Out our adopted brother, Greg Prince. Welcome back to Inside Out, Greg.

Nice to be here. Not nearly so mighty as Jim.

Uh, well, you know, it's, it's, it's all the Pilates that I do and the steroids together. That's how I make it happen.

If you get your testosterone up just a bit more, you might qualify for the military.

That's right.

But Greg, you are adopted brother. You're kind of a permanent fixture now, whether you like it or not, on the Inside Out, uh, program, and As always, it's an honor and a privilege to have you back on. We got to get into our topic here. We're going to dive into it. And it's a topic—

before we get into the topic, I need to tell Greg what our guest last night said in the live stream.

Go ahead.

I had Mike Foley, Mikey Foley, who was the MC down at the Thrive conference that you spoke at.

Yes.

And he said, I love Greg Prince. It's really strange. Listening to him is like listening to a general authority, except I'm not bored. And I thought you might enjoy that.

So you're quoting Mikey word for word, Greg. That's exactly what he said.

Yeah. Prince-centered non-boredom.

Yeah, there you go.

Would that be a novelty, eh? Not being bored. So gentlemen, I am really interested, excited about this topic. It's something that I've given a lot of thought to. To, and maybe is the best way to introduce it is to ask it, you know, raise it the topic in the form of a question. Is it dangerous to rely on the burning of the bosom over logic and reason to discern truth? As I think about that, I remember I go back to the time when I was 16 years old and I was investigating the church. I'd just met the missionaries. We were having a fireside in one of the neighbors who were members of the church. And the mysteries were showing that video called Man's Search for Happiness. And that this time in my life, I was unhappy and lost and felt quite alone and was seeking help and guidance, which I was not getting from anyone in my family or in my friend circle. Lots of questions and thoughts, which I had no one to turn to. So when I met with the missionaries, I connected with them on really important issues that were affecting my life. Anyway, in the fireside, they presented this video called Man's Search for Happiness, and I felt something quite profound during and after that video. The missionaries observed that I had felt something, or they thought I'd felt something, and they, after the video, they asked me what I think and how I feel. And I told them, I said I felt a tingling, uh, around my, my, my body at times through the video. I didn't feel a, a burning in the bosom, but I definitely felt a, uh, an emotional, uh, somewhat physical sensation in the form of a tingling. The missionaries were quick to teach me that that was God speaking to me personally, uh, telling me confirming that what I had just watched and listened was from God, and that that message in The Man's Search for Happiness was for me personally, and that God had found me and was inviting me to be part of his church. I thought when I heard that, when I, when they interpreted that experience for me, because I, I, I couldn't interpret it myself when I was trying to explain how I was feeling. I was struggling as a 60-year-old individual to try to explain how I felt. They interpreted it for me in a really simple way, and it made so much sense. It was an emotional time for me. I was trying to hold back the tears as a 60-year-old boy where it's not tough to cry. It was difficult emotional to hold my emotions. But I felt that what they were saying was true, that God had found me and cared for me and had sent the mishas into my life. And that was, um, that physical experience then was the beginning of connecting those experiences to God speaking to me personally and giving me revelation and, and, and instruction. Fast forward, uh, to, uh, not too many years, uh,, beyond that, I remember, and this has happened sometimes, it's happened where I was watching a movie, uh, Jim Bennett, Star Wars. I was watching Star Wars and I remember in Return of the Jedi when, uh, I can't remember the scene, but there's a few scenes where, uh, Yoda is demonstrating his power and I remember distinctly feeling tingly over my body. It was like, wow, this is just amazing. Um, I didn't associate that with the Holy Ghost, but it was the same physical experience. Another moment is when, uh, I'm watching one of the Marvel movies and Thor, uh, arrives to save the day. Um, and I remember feeling a tingling in my body then. Another one is watching One Wonderful Life. And I've had the same, uh, similar experiences when I've listened to certain musical tracks and the, and some of them are classical and some of them are, uh, rock and pop songs where I felt something physical, something inspirational. And those songs have become important to me. And so this is my way of, of, of introducing this topic because there are times where I've had, uh, these profound experiences and felt something physically. I've never had a burning in the bosom, which other people report. And that, those experiences have led to just wonderful, life-changing moments at times. Not always, but often it's been my experience. And likewise, I've had similar experiences which are not related. And the way I interpreted that is that something in those songs or in those movies are communicating good things. And so I have, in where I am in my life, I've interpreted those experiences to be quite universal. So if I'm doing something good, or if I'm watching something good, or listening, or it's, it's, I don't know if it's God speaking to me anymore, but I believe it to be a source of good because I'm feeling good in that moment. This is the best way I can think of introducing the topic. Do you relate, Greg, do you relate to any of that? Have you had similar experiences and how would you characterize, um, these experiences?

I have never had the kind of dramatic experiences that you will hear about. Sometimes you'll hear about them in your own congregation. Uh, I don't disbelieve those. I think the people who report those are reporting something that was authentic for them. But that's not the way it's worked for me. I, I always like to give historical context, and I think there is a very good historical antecedent to what we're talking about, and that was before the church was even organized. Joseph Smith purportedly had a revelation that his brother and others should go to Upper Canada. And there they would be able to sell the copyright for the Book of Mormon, which would then allow them to pay for the printing of the book. Well, the mission was a failure. And when they came back, it was reported, one of the reporters being David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses, that Joseph said, some revelations are of God, some are of man, and comer of the devil. And I think that still is a pretty good example. A second example is what we've talked about in the past that I call the formulaic gospel. If A, then B. If you do this, then this will be the result. And that works splendidly until it doesn't work. And You look at the theology of the Book of Mormon, it's naive in my opinion because the righteous always prosper and the wicked always suffer. And that's just not the way our experience has shown us that life is lived out. It would be wonderful if we could say, yes, if you do A, meaning pray, then you will get B, the burning in the bosom, that C will give you the right direction. And for some, that works most of the time. But for many, it doesn't work all of the time. And therein is the dilemma. How do you navigate your life without having the certitude of knowing what each step is going to be? I think that's just part of life. That it isn't formulaic, that you can't merely surrender judgment and say, well, we just follow this 1, 2, 3, and out pops the answer, and on there we go. It's much more nuanced than that. I understand why people want easy answers. We all would like that to happen. That's not the reality, and that's where we struggle.

Hmm.

Jim, what's your insights into this? You've had some extraordinary experiences. Uh, you, you shared an experience, I think, early on in your life where you were praying and you, you, you'd had an experience and you felt at that point it was, you know, the church was true. Could you, uh, add your insights?

Uh, sure. I, you know, and listening to that, I, I'm struck by a couple of things that Greg, that you just said. The Book of Mormon, the, the, the, one of the themes of the Book of Mormon is if you will keep the commandments, you will prosper in the land. And I think a lot of the prosperity gospel stuff that still is pervasive in the church and really pervasive outside the church as well. You see this in the Christian world. Um, a lot of, a lot of, at least in the church, comes from that kind of idea. It's a very transactional view of God. And the idea that if you do good things, God will give you good things. All of that came into focus, I think, when my daughter was injured, because you spend your entire life in the church and thinking— you don't— you're not necessarily consciously thinking this, but it's constantly reinforced by so many different things. In Primary songs, keep the commandments, keep the commandments. In this there is safety. In this there is peace. And you start to get this idea that if I'm a good person and I do good things and I pay my tithing and I say my prayers— my father would always just say, pay your tithing and say your prayers and it'll all work out— that you're spared from those kinds of traumatic events and from those kinds of terrible things. And I don't know that I had ever consciously thought that, but once I was confronted with an experience that was just awful and was life-changing, certainly, uh, more life-changing for my daughter who had to suffer the injury, but it dramatically transformed our family. It dramatically just transformed our lives in countless ways. I didn't realize that up until that point I had thought, well, that happens to other people. That would never happen to me because I'm living right. I'm living a good life. And, and you start to see it. Once you recognize it, you start to see it in other people, the way other people would try to deal with our, our, our trauma. You know, it's, it's for the best. You'll see the hand of the Lord. You know, there, there, there's a reason for it. Everything has a purpose. I mean, this, that, and the other, and it all falls flat. It all feels hollow. And you realize that's not why we live the gospel. That's not what the gospel is. And this isn't necessarily a specific answer to your question, so I want to get back to your question, Ian, which is, you know, this idea of the burning in the bosom, this idea of all of these things. I think I can count on one hand the number of spiritual experiences that I have had that were undeniably something beyond myself, that were undeniably some kind of divine intervention into my life, telling me things I did not already know, giving me insights I did not already have. And those are, I think, exceptionally rare in life. And in my experience, they only come after I have made a decision. They don't necessarily come— they don't guide me to that decision. The example I always use is the day I was married. I, I was panicking. I had not received the confirmation that I was supposed to be married and I was supposed to marry the woman I married. And I, after I said yes across the altar, I received this overwhelming sense of love and peace and approval. You know, I'm with And I actually there in the temple got angry. I thought, I could have used this 5 minutes ago. I mean, why are you withholding this until now? And the answer, I think, is because that it's— and Greg, you say that's life. That's exactly right. But I would go further and say that is the very purpose of mortality. That is the reason we came here. When we talk about the idea of a grand council in heaven where you have two different plans presented, one where you're not going to have to make any choices, uh, that all that's going to be done for you, not one soul will be lost, and we said no, we're not going to do it that way, we're going to do this other way where we do make choices And some of them are going to be bad choices, and bad things are going to happen, and we're going to screw up. And that's why we need a Savior in order to be able to, to pick up the pieces when we fall down. But that is the only way, I believe, that we can learn and that we can grow. And so we chose that. And so when we expect a spiritual experience to to guide us every step of the way. I mean, there are people in my ward, I always say, that they have so many spiritual experiences that God tells them what brand of toothpaste to use. You know, they sit there and they talk about praying about every little moment in their lives and not moving until they get that kind of confirmation that they go forward. I don't trust that. I don't believe that's what we're here for. I don't believe that's the way it works. Anytime I've tried to do that, it hasn't worked. And I think we are here to make decisions, and some of those decisions are going to be catastrophically bad, and we're supposed to learn from them. All these things shall give thee experience and shall be for thy good, as it's said in the Doctrine and Covenants. But so I look at it, I, I, I think part of the problem, Ian, is that we have cheapened the idea of spiritual experiences by always identifying the spirit when it's not necessarily there. I always roll my eyes at the end of a really boring sacrament meeting when the bishopric member stands up and says, we are so grateful for the wonderful spirit that has been here with us. And I think the spirit of boredom, of Christ-centered boredom, uh, is, is what we've had here. This, we, I, I haven't been fed. I mean, maybe it's my fault. Probably is. But I just think we have a theology that embraces the idea of fallibility, of making mistakes, of not being guided every step of the way in every decision. And at our— at its core, the whole idea of agency, the whole idea that we chose that plan versus Satan's plan is something we run from in everyday life. We say, oh yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, we chose the plan where we come here and we use our agency. Now I'm not going to do anything until the prophet tells me to. And I'm not going to make any decision until I get a spiritual confirmation that it's right. And I'm not— it's like, it's like you're sacrificing the reason we had to come to mortality is we were living in the presence of God where we have the perfect example of what right and wrong is. We don't have to make those decisions when we're in the presence of God, but he sends us here to prove us now herewith, you know, to see what decisions we're going to make when it's our decision to make and it's not God's decision to make. So I kind of feel very strongly on this. Maybe I've ranted a little too long. We're trying very hard to limit our rants. I want to hear Greg talk more. Than me, but, uh, that's kind of my base on this.

Well, let me respond and get back to where Ian started this discussion, and that is the burning of the bosom. We have an LDS scripture that sets up a binary that is a burning in the bosom to confirm it and a stupor of thought that's the opposite. My experience is most of life is between those two. It's the absence of a stupor of thought, which means go figure it out, guy. That's why you're there. And I think, Jim, that's what you're saying, although I did it in fewer words.

Thank you for doing it in fewer words. I need to learn how to do that. A very quick story though. I remember in the year 2000, Orrin Hatch was running for President of the United States. And was talking to my father about it. Orrin firmly believed that he had been called to be president of the United States. And he was going to the temple and praying about it over and over and over again and came back to my father and said, I just, I just can't get anything. I can't get any answer. I just don't know where to go. And my father said, Orrin, do you need to be hit over the head? That's called a stupor of thought. And, uh, and, uh, Orrin ran for president anyway and got like 3 votes and, and, and went nowhere.

But yeah, and I had to write out a check to help his campaign too.

Oh, did you? Did, did you know Orrin Hatch well?

Oh yes.

Oh, okay.

Yes. And I, I liked Orrin on a personal level. We were poles apart on our politics. But I thought he was a decent man and I always considered him a good friend. And I think he reciprocated that feeling.

Good. My father, uh, my father felt the same way about Orrin. And, and when my father was ill, after his stroke, uh, Orrin came to visit him. He was the president pro tem of the Senate and he had his big entourage. He, he had a driver and he had security guys and they all came into the house. And my father made a big, uh, he could barely get out of bed. And when he knew Oren was coming, he said, you've got to sit me up. You've got to, um, put me out in the garden. You know, we were lifting him around. He says, I don't want Oren to see me like this. I mean, he felt very, very, um, uh, it was very important to him in those last few weeks that Oron Hatch thought highly of him. So I think that speaks to their relationship. And anyway, that is a tangent. But when you say— whenever anybody says stupor of thought, I always think of my father telling Oron Hatch, don't run for president.

So anyway, Greg, that binary doctrine teaching you're referring to, which is in the Doctrine and Covenants, I want to read it because I think it's really important. So this is Section 9 of the Doctrine and Covenants. And we're familiar with this, um, all three of us over many, many years. This is revelation given through Joseph Smith, the prophet, to Oliver Cowdery. I think Oliver Cowdery wanted to get involved in the actual translation process. Um, felt that he had some skill there. It's in Harmony, Pennsylvania, April 1829. Oliver is admonished to be patient. He's urged to be content to write. For the time being, at least, at the dictation of the translator, probably Joseph Smith, rather than to attempt to translate. And the Lord is speaking to him and he says here, and then behold, other records have I that I will give unto you of my power that you may assist to translate. Be patient, my son, for it is wisdom in me, and it is not expedient that you should translate at this present time. Behold, the work which you are called to do is to write for my servant Joseph. Um, and behold, it is because that you did not continue as you commenced when you began to translate, that I had taken away this privilege from you. Do not murmur, my son, for it is wisdom in me that I have dealt with you after this manner. Behold, you have not understood. You have supposed that I would give it unto you when you took no thought save it was to ask me. But behold, I say unto you that you must study it out in your mind. Then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right, I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you. Therefore you shall feel that it is right. But if it not be right, you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong. Therefore you cannot write that which is sacred, sacred. Be given to you from me. I've had the experience that is communicated in scripture, but my other experiences, which have been very profound, is where I felt something, I've been impressed or some, something has impressed my mind and my heart so profoundly where I've not heard actual words, but more like a, a, a, a whisper encouraging me to act, to do something. And here's the thing, gentlemen, when I've acted, and I've acted on most occasions, it's become, it's turned into an extraordinary life-changing experience. I'll give you a quick experience because I do want to get into the scripture with you guys as well. Years ago, I'd met with my mom and we still had a strange relationship. And, um, so we, we kind of tried to talk and, and, and we, we weren't really making much progress. On a whole bunch of stuff. I then came home. She was living in Cornwall. I came home and, um, a few weeks later, uh, I kept having these dreams that something was going to happen to my mom. I mean, she was in her early 60s. She seemed fairly tough, resilient lady. Health seemed to be okay. She smoked. She had a few health problems, but nothing serious. I told my wife and my wife said, oh, she's gonna be fine. You know, these are just you know, just the odd dream, but this dream kept recurring over a few days. I even woke up in the middle of the night feeling that something is not right, something's gonna happen. I told my brother, he got mad with me because, you know, why are you saying this? Mum's gonna be fine. Why are you, you know, talking about something so negative? Um, uh, you know, I couldn't really talk to him. Um, anyway, I, I kept having these dreams and they got stronger. I must have had about 5 dreams. I'd wake up and the feeling in the dream just stayed with me through the day. Anyway, I had one dream. I just, I can't remember the details, but the message was something, your mum's not going to be around and you need to go see her. You must go see her. And she's not going to be around for very long. And so I ignored all the advice and I went down to see her. This was the Christmas of, um, 94, a new year. I went down and I spent 2 weeks with her, and for some reason we were able to talk about all the issues going way back, even before joining the church, father, uh, mother-son, uh, relationship issues. And in that 2 weeks, I had for the first time in my life, a, as closest to normal son um, mother relationship as I ever had in my life. We talked about everything. We laughed, we cried. It was just extraordinary. And she seemed as healthy as ever. And I left in, um, it's just a few months before my daughter was born, my first, uh, child. And I left and I came home and I was absolutely on cloud nine. This is just a conversations that I'd never had with my mom. And anyway, uh, the, uh, the dream stopped. I came back, I felt positive. Anyway, in, in early February in '95, so just a few weeks after the New Year, I got this, the, the phone rang and it was a paramedic and he was with mom and he just told me, so Debbie picked up the phone, paramedic. I got to the phone, must have been like midnight, 1 o'clock in the morning, and the paramedic told me that, um, Sorry to tell you this, uh, uh, Mr. Wilkes, but, uh, we, we got to your mom. She'd collapsed. Um, and she'd had a heart attack and we tried to revive her and she, unfortunately we, we couldn't. And the immediate emotional reaction was shock and dismay, extreme shock and dismay. But what happened almost instantaneously after that, uh, it's just strange, extraordinary experience, was a profound feeling of gratitude. It was just, it filled me with love and joy and gratitude. Deep gratitude in a way I've not felt before. And still in the distance, in the background, sad and shocked, but not the prevailing experience at all, emotional experience. It was just this feeling of love and gratitude that I had had that time with my mom. Now, I've had handful of those experiences, not many, very profound. I could count them on one hand. I still think about them. I never forget them. They're written into my soul in great detail. The power behind that for me is very real. Will never deny it. Um, I, you know, Jim Bennett talks about doing something and that makes sense and then getting a confirmation. I've had that experience a lot. But also my experiences where I've been influenced, encouraged, inspired to do something. Most of the time, uh, that might surprise you, but most of the time, not all the time, I've acted on it. And I've learned to act because I've started to recognize them, right? And I've acted and something amazing has happened. Sometimes profound, not always profound. And so there's a real power and influence there. And I think the key is, I think Jim's right. I think he's kind of nailed it that we've got these big gaps between these experiences. And often we don't have those kind of experiences, the small experiences, but they can be, you know, they can influence our lives on a day-to-day basis or, you know, periodically, periodic basis. I don't think we need to have or seek daily instruction from God. I think we have, you know, we, we, we, we know what's right and wrong. We know we have to serve and do good, do good at work, you know, be the best that we can. Any profound or difficult experiences in life, I have no doubt. I have, I know, you know, we hear the word know and we think, well, do you really know? Well, I know that there's a real power and influence there. And I know that if we recognize, I sound like I'm burying my testimony, but, and I am, I am burying my testimony. Uh, when we recognize and understand and interpret these experiences in a way, uh, for me at least, extraordinary things can happen. And I'm so grateful for that. And I've learned, I think for the most part, without trying to sound arrogant here, to differentiate between something profoundly spiritual and something that, that, that isn't. I don't say I have all the answers and I'm not getting it right all the time. There's been times where I've not acted and something has not happened and it's hard to know what that is. But when I have acted, certain things come to pass that wouldn't have come to pass. I mean, that's scientific. I'm a scientist. That to me is kind of logic. And when I followed it, it's happened and something quite extraordinary has happened. So there is a power there. It's real. I don't think it's, well, I know that it's not unique to the church. The bishops said, you know, hey, this is because it's, we think we're the only, you're only getting this, they said, because we're the only true church. Right. They connect these experiences, and this is an important point, to the fact, to the claim that it confirms that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only organization and church that can actually, um, provide these experiences and that when you have them, it's a confirmation that the church is true. It's the only church, and therefore you have to join and commit, et cetera. I no longer believe that. I believe these experiences are universal. They happen to people who are religious and not religious, people who are, um, perhaps were spiritual and not spiritual. Um, do you agree with that, Gregg? And I wanna get your thoughts as well. Do you agree with that? Those experiences can happen to anyone at any time. What do you think is behind those experiences and what do you make to the point where the church, at least the missionaries, try to connect those experiences to a confirmation that it's the only true church and therefore you have to join and, and that's the only path to, to walk.

Yeah, I think—

good questions.

I accept those as valid. I take people at their word on it, even if it's an experience that I haven't shared. I'm thinking of a verse. It may be in Section 1 of the Doctrine and Covenants, but it talks about God speaking to us in our own language and after the manner of our own understanding. And I think that is a profound insight because we're not just talking English versus French or whatever. It's our overall comprehension of language and how do we understand things? How do we interpret the world? That gives a lot of latitude for different people to receive messages from the spirit in way different manner. And I'm okay with that. It also, I think, uh, suggests that for any given individual, there's going to be a broad spectrum of possibilities as they stumble along through life. It isn't going to be the formulaic thing. You do A, you get answer B. Sometimes that'll happen, and that may be a mixed blessing because I think particularly if it comes too easily, It allows that person to assume that it's always going to be that easy. And when it turns out not to be so easy, it can be a real crisis. So I accept as authentic the dramatic stories that I hear other people talk about. I've never had an audible voice. I've never had a dream that I felt had any valid content to to it. We all dream. If we don't, we're in trouble because that's rapid eye movement sleep. That's the deepest and most refreshing type of sleep. But the dreams tend to be rather random and not laden with much meaning. And mine have been laden with not much meaning. But that doesn't mean that I disbelieve what other people report about their dreams. Or their promptings. I was at a— was a— an area young adult conference. It was not long before I got married, so 1973. And Harold B. Lee, who was briefly the church president, was the speaker, and he talked about In his experience, during the day by impression and at night, he said, as clearly as if he were to lift the receiver of a telephone. Those were almost his exact words. I have the transcript of that talk. And that's the way it worked for him. I don't know that it works for everybody the same way, but I accept that as valid. I have no question that that's the way he received communications, but I have no question that it's variable for everybody else.

Right.

And do you think anyone can have these experiences? You don't have to be a member of the church to have these experiences. Absolutely.

Yep.

Do you also believe or accept or not that these experiences don't automatically mean or interpreted that the church of Jesus Christ is the only true church and the only place of revelation, the only source of revelation, the only path to God, that the connection is, that's the only connection that exists and is important to people. What do you think?

I agree with you on that. We don't have a monopoly on it. I also caution. When I was in the Singles Ward Bishopric— this goes back now over 40 years in DC— we would occasionally have a young man who would tell a young woman that it had been revealed to him that— and you can fill in the rest of that one because you're probably familiar with those kinds of stories— watch out, because those tended not to be coming from the right source, and yet they were presented as if they had come from the right source. So there are a lot of qualifiers. It's, it's laden with nuance, and I don't think there's any reliable way of getting around that.

Yeah.

Jim Bennett, you and I know somebody whose name won't be mentioned,, who, who we knew, we've known for a long time, who would receive revelations that certain young women in the ward should marry him.

They were priesthood revelations.

They were priesthood revelations.

And they were— Somehow emphasized that that was important because if you disobey a priesthood revelation, uh, as opposed to your run-of-the-mill revelation, you go straight to outer dark. Darkness.

Yeah.

Not that he's putting any pressure on some poor young girl to marry him or anything.

We served with the same individual.

Yes.

And it was extraordinary, to say the least. I'm being, I'm being kind. And so the, so to, to Greg's point, there are interesting people out there in the church who profess to have a know and have the the ear of God and, and all these revelations. And, uh, you know, with the experience that we've got now, we can, you know, we can see that for what it is. But back then, you know, when you're serving as a missionary, uh, I was like, wow, that's extraordinary, right? You take things on, on face value. But when you get a bit more experience, then I think one thing that you've nailed, Greg, is that it's, um, according to our own understanding, our own experience. I think that's really an important important point because we're all different. We all think differently, feel differently. We have different experiences. By the way, I know a lot of people, and dealt with this as a bishop, who were not experiencing the burning in the bosom. They were not feeling anything tingly. They weren't hearing any voices or inspiration. And they felt, and this is an important point in our conversations, they felt that they were not worthy. And they felt guilty as hell because somehow, for some reason, God wasn't communicating with them, and therefore they were not good enough to be communicated. And when they heard all these experiences in testimony meeting, that I know this and have these amazing experiences, and they weren't experiencing those things in that way, they felt, um, they felt pretty bad. And they would often open up to me and say, Bishop, what's wrong with me? I'm living the gospel. I'm paying my tithing. I'm serving. And I said, there's nothing wrong with it. Everybody's different. We all see things differently. Sometimes I said, it's a scientific engineering logical approach. You know, God is the great scientist of the universe, right? Is he not the great engineer? Is he not the great logical thinker? And to your point, Greg, which I think is a key point in this conversation, is that we're all differently different. And God could communicate to us according to our own understanding. And if we are, um, logical and we're looking for hard evidence and we're scientists and engineers, then God can speak to us in that way. And so these were the conversations I had as a bishop and they would leave. My goal was to help them leave that, uh, my office feeling good and positive and that God speaks to you in, in, in a very different way. And, and isn't that special? And like, yeah, that's awesome. So yeah, so everybody's different and we all experience different things.

Well, yeah, and it's a great service any church member can perform to reassure another church member that the absence of drama is not a marker of unrighteousness.

So when I was writing my reply to the CES letter, there's a section in the CES letter that directly addresses this. Jeremy Runnels, who wrote the CES letter, talks about— it was kind of similar to what you had said at the outset here, Ian. He talks about, for instance, seeing The Lion King and feeling, having this strong emotional reaction to The Lion King. And he said, so am I supposed to believe then going back to the binary we've talked about here versus the burning in the bosom and the stupor of thought. Does that feeling that I had watching The Lion King mean that these are historical figures, that Simba is real? You know, and, and I, I, in my response, I said, uh, it really makes me sad because if You have to ask that question. I think the church has probably let you down. That you, if you can go through your entire experience with the church and then be left confused that if you have a positive emotional response to something, is that the same as telling you that that's a historical, you know, I mean, if you genuinely think that's a problem, then we really have not addressed what the spirit is, how the spirit works. When I say that I have only received a handful of kind of revelations that, um, come from beyond myself, where I had information that I did not have prior to the revelation, uh, I think I need to, based on what both of you have been talking about, I will also say that I have received a number of kind of reassurances, feelings of love, feelings of peace, feelings of comfort that did not come with instruction necessarily. I mean, I've had, Ian, I've had the kind of promptings you've talked about and have acted on them and seen benefits from that. But it didn't come with this kind of, here's exactly what's going to happen and here's why you need to do it. It was just, and I don't know how much of that is me. I don't know how much of that is the spirit. And I don't know how much of that matters to distinguish between the two, because I really do think that mortality is an experience where we're supposed to exercise our judgment. And sometimes we don't know how many of those nudges are coming from outside of us or how many of them are coming from within. But Joseph Smith once said that no man receives the Holy Ghost without receiving revelation. The Holy Ghost is a revelator. And I've thought about that and thought, well, when I'm feeling this sort of feeling of peace and reassurance and love, um, I'm not getting the kind of revelation that I expect revelation to be. I'm not getting information is kind of how I describe it. But what I am getting is, uh, sort of a Gordon B. Hinckley vibe. He always just used to say, it's all going to work out. Everything's going to be fine. You know, and he was kind of, he wasn't specific about it. And a lot of people do that and make me angry. Gordon B. Hinckley had a way of doing that. And, it actually working. You know, you actually believed him. And, and I get the feeling that very often we get these sorts of, it's okay, it's going to be fine. I'm not going to tell you how it's going to be fine. I'm not going to tell you how it's going to work out. I, you know, you're going to have to figure that on your own. But all is not lost. You're not off the rails. I haven't forgotten you. I mean, I get those kinds of things all the time. So maybe that's the spirit that, that, uh, I'm making fun of when I, when somebody says at the end of a meeting, you know, we've helped this great spirit here today. Uh, so I don't know, but I just think when we lean into the binary and when we lean into, uh, the transactional prosperity gospel, expecting this for that, that if I do this thing— we, Ian, on our missions, we would talk about binding the Lord, right? We're gonna make sure we obey all the rules, and that means we bound the Lord. I, the Lord, am bound when you do what I say. And so if we live all the mission rules and we keep our cars filled with gas and we, you know, just check all the boxes, The Lord has to give us baptisms. That was the lesson on our mission, and it's nonsense. Does not work that way. But it— I, I think the whole purpose, part of it is trying to figure this out. We spend our entire lifetime trying to navigate our relationship with God, understanding the relationship with God. And if it were easy, everybody would be doing it and be doing it flawlessly. It's not supposed to be easy. It's supposed to be what we spend our time doing. How do we get ourselves right with God? How do we communicate with God? How do we align our lives with God? And I just think when, when we get frustrated by the lack of certainty around that, I think we're missing the point.

And since we're in the middle of baseball season, my baseball metaphor is that there is frequently this curved ball thrown at us called Job. And none of this can bypass the lesson of Job, which is sometimes shit happens.

Yep.

And we never do in this lifetime figure out why. Because it doesn't make sense to us. It doesn't follow the formula. But if we are in that position wondering, am I the only one this has ever happened to? Go read Job and then go read Section 121.

Well, I don't know if we've talked— how much we've talked about Job here. We've talked about it a little bit. But Greg, I have a question for you about Job. I think the core of the Book of Job is beautiful and wonderful and inspiring. I think the bookends to the Book of Job are atrocious.

Well, yes. Just to give the listeners some context, the body of the Book of Job is an ancient poem. There are appendices on the front and back end. And biblical scholars can tell you what those are and when they came into play. And they do detract from what I think the core message of Job is, which is there's no formula, guys. You have to live by faith, not with the assurance that during this life it's all gonna get sorted out because the appendix on the end is, oh, everything was put back together and all restored, and they lived happily ever after, except it didn't restore to life his dead kids, but he got new kids.

Um, which is just repugnant to me.

It is. It is to me. The 3 core messages of Job are number 1, the righteous suffer. Number 2, the wicked prosper, so deal with it. And number 3, if you want to shake your fist at God and demand a hearing, God's response is, fine, when you get a face, we'll talk face to face. Which is the real slapdown that I think we need to pay more attention to, where Job demands this hearing, and finally the voice of God from the whirlwind says, all right, smarty, you think you got standing? When you get standing, then we'll really talk. And, and I think that's the essential message that we should keep from Job. When things go according to formula, that's wonderful. We love it. But when the tide goes out and all the boats sink, then you look around and say, hey, what just happened?

Why?

And very often we don't have an answer to the why.

Well, I get the sense that the ancient writers, uh, of the, of the appendices, if you wanna call it that, and also the prologue, they just, they were a lot like us in that they just weren't willing to accept.

Yes.

The ambiguity and the difficulty. And they had to make sense out of it. Yeah. And so, so Job becomes a bar bet between God and Satan. Yeah.

They have to live happily ever after in these guys' universe.

And it, it, there is a, there's a television series called Good Omens that David Tennant and Michael Sheen— David Tennant is a devil. Michael Sheen is an angel.

Seen it?

Have you seen it?

Yes. I love it. It's great.

So season 2, they do the Book of Job and, and they, they talk about, okay, we're going to kill all of Job's kids. And David Tennant, the devil, says, that's awful, and hides the kids. And then they go through this, and when it's time for new kids, they unveil the old kids and say, here are your new kids. And he said, well, these look just like the old kids. Yeah, well, you know, we thought you'd like that model. You know, but, but I, it's like, that's the only way that could possibly make sense. I mean, the way that the epilogue of the Book of Job works is, yeah, God will kill all of your kids to prove a bar bet with Satan, but he'll give you new kids when you're done and a new wife when you're done. He'll kill your wife as well. And I mean, it's just so pat and so exactly the opposite of the message of the tone poem at the core of the story that it just always maddens me. And when you talk about the Book of Job, In gospel doctrine classes, when it's the Old Testament year and we— you get to it, uh, 90% of the time is spent in the prologue and the appendices.

Yeah.

And none of the time is spent in the center. That's all just kind of ignored. And the moral of the story is not, Greg, that bad things happen to good people and the wicked prosper. The moral of the story is just wait. You'll get your revenge and it all, you know, bad people will all go back and you'll get new kids.

Yeah. And the other 10% is spent on the verse that's misinterpreted as proof of the resurrection.

I know that my Redeemer liveth.

And though worms destroy my flesh, yet shall I see God.

Yes. Well, we sing that. It's Handel's Messiah has that.

And the best translations I've read basically say that Job is saying in the face of this onslaught, okay, even if you send worms to destroy my flesh, I will not cease to see God.

Which is a different message.

Powerful message.

Yeah.

Well, it has nothing to do with resurrection, which was a concept that was absent in the ethos of that era.

Interesting.

So was the concept of Satan, by the way. Translate that as Satan, and Satan just meant adversary. This was, this was somebody in the divine council. This was not, uh, the Latter-day Saint conception of the devil.

But anyway, there is another side to the question that we started out our conversation with, and I'll read the question again. Is it dangerous to rely on the burning of the bosom over logic and reason to discern truth? So there is a, there is a darker side and a dangerous side, which we must talk about. We have to talk about because it's a serious problem. And that is where bishops and state presidents and leaders call people into positions where they shouldn't have. And individuals, including, uh, predators, and I've seen this from a distance in these leadership callings where certain individuals have been called into callings and they have, uh, placed others at risk. I'm talking about people with a history of, um, sexual abuse of, uh, uh, rather just to qualify that, it's people who have, um, assaulted people sexually, stolen from people, taken money from people, uh, and committed crimes who have been called into callings and, and, and sometimes into, uh, positions of leadership. I, I've not had this experiences, uh, these experiences directly, uh, because I think I've been, um, fairly diligent without, again, sounding overconfident or arrogant in doing background checks on people and really getting to know the history of people, um, in, in the ward. And then serving in Scotland because the wards are a lot smaller is perhaps a lot easier. But if you think about the thousands of bishops and stake presidents that, um, uh, lead the church across the world, where individuals have, um, they're in callings and they've taken advantage of those positions of authority and they've abused children or women or, uh, their priesthood authority. Um, but they were called by God, including when they were committing crimes or committing these, uh, these transgressions, but they were called by God. And they were called into those positions. And when the situation is big enough or serious enough, sometimes, uh, the church doesn't want, uh, the public to know about these, uh, incidents. And I can understand why they'd want to, you know, keep them quiet. Uh, I understand there is a department in the church. I think we've talked about this before in previous conversations, which is organized, structured, dedicated to dealing with, uh,, uh, sexual abuse claims within the church. This happens, and it happens at the hands at times with people who are in leadership, and they were called into these positions, and they continued to, um, commit those crimes in leadership. So, you know, this is the extreme end of, of, of the question, but it's real and it happens, and you both know that. What's your, uh, thoughts on that and what checks and balances, because I think revelation has an important part to play, but how much, uh, let me frame the question here. How much should the leaders rely on purely revelation to call people, especially in the senior positions like in primary or important callings like primary, youth, or the leadership callings? How much should they rely on that revelation and what do you think the checks and balances should be in order to improve the chances that they call people who are not going to be a risk to the members and to the vulnerable groups in the church?

I think, I think your best outcome is going to happen when you combine inspiration, perspiration, and information. That you want to have all of those bases covered. Uh, I'm surprised that the church doesn't take advantage of perhaps the best source of information available, and that's the Relief Society president. If all callings, male and female, were vetted with the Relief Society president, I think we'd have a much stronger church. But we cut that person out from the decision-making process.

Yeah, interesting. I agree with that. I'll give you some time back real quick, but I, I was a— Greg, someone told me, can't remember who it was, um, could have been Stephen Kerr. Jim, you know Stephen Kerr. Sure. Great shape. And I think he said, use your lucid presence. And I did, and I brought her into the bishop meetings, and the other two councilors were like, Bishop, what are you doing? I said, we have a, we have a new counselor, kind of unofficial. And she was amazing. And our experience and getting things right, that's probably why we got things right. You know, I, here I am taking some of the credit here. A lot of it, probably most of it was down to my Raluca, who was just wonderful and kept me grounded and kept me from making mistakes, albeit, you know, with, with good intent trying to call people. I agree. I think we need more of that, um, Raluca's side to influence in those conversations to make good decisions, you know, give people the best experiences, but also to remove any risk or reduce the risk of anyone being called who could be a risk or a predator to the church.

Well, even if you're reducing the risk on the front end, there's always the risk on the back end. That maybe you made the right calling and then that guy goes rogue in a way that nobody could have predicted. That can happen. There's just no simple formula that is going to immunize this church from bad outcomes. What you have to do is be available to understanding that a bad outcome is happening and jump in and fix it and not let it stew. And we've seen an example of that, that you're, I think, brushing up against, Ian, um, that now is going to wind up by somebody being in jail.

Yeah. Uh, uh, uh, is it, uh, any organization, any organization, religious or otherwise, doesn't matter, has a legal professional, uh, obligation to protect its members from predators, uh, and, you know, others who would harm, um, anyone in, in these organizations. In Canada and in the UK and in parts of Europe, in all organizations who work with children, youth, etc., uh, it's mandatory and it's in written into law and legislation that you have to do background checks on these individuals, right? I was involved in implementing that in Scotland back in 2003 when I was called as a bishop, personally involved in that. Why does that not happen in the United States? Why doesn't the church utilize what is, and by the way, we're gonna get one of the biggest organizations in the, in the United States that deal with this privately and provide these technical services and background check services for organizations like the church. They're gonna be coming onto the podcast and talking to us about this, by the way. These are very senior, uh, individuals in these national organi— one of the national organizations that, that provide these services to, to, uh, organizations like the church. But why doesn't the church take advantage, um, in the United States where you, you have to do it in Canada and the UK. And, uh, subscribe, uh, to a national database, um, uh, in order to identify or learn of people's backgrounds, uh, and to learn about that information. Be, you know, you talk about inspiration, information, revelation, et cetera. Uh, before they call these individuals into these, uh, callings with children or, or primary. Why doesn't the church do that? If it's so serious about protecting its members and the children, why doesn't it utilize every tool in the box to increase, reduce risk and increase the chances of success? Surely God's church would do that, would take advantage of that and actually be leading the charge across the United States. To do better, to be an example, to be a beacon, say, look, we've made changes, we're doing better, we're doing all these things to reduce, remove risk to our members. And here's what we're doing. Why don't they do it in, you know, with these organizations or internally? And why are they not leading the charge and influencing other organizations across the United States to raise to that standard?

Good point. I have no objection to that. I think it's a great idea. I, I think also, however, that the organization has to remain ever vigilant. That it, it's like you vet an employee for your organization. You can do all the vetting you want. You can do all the interviewing you want. Get all the recommendations from outsiders, and sometimes it goes south on you. You followed all the rules and it goes south and you wind up firing that employee, or you should. So nothing can replace vigilance as you move forward. Yeah, you do best practices along the way. But you don't do what the military does with its weapons that are called fire and forget. You discharge the weapon and you just make the assumption that the weapon will reach its target. That's not good enough.

Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah.

No, I, I agree. I think the church should be doing as much as it can. There's no system that's perfect. I get that. I hear what you're saying, but the church could be doing more, not just relying on discernment and revelation to—

Yeah, I agree.

Okay. Jim Bennett, what's your thoughts on that, about the church taking a more leadership role in doing, you know, all the multi-layered checks, not just discernment, not just revelation, in order to make better decisions and to reduce the risk, you know, to its members. And I'm not just talking, I'm, I'm, I'm actually talking about those individuals who, um, have been, uh, identified or later be identified as predators who hurt children and women, right?

Well, so the last time I was in a bishopric was about 15 years ago. Um, maybe it's actually probably most longer ago than that. Jeez, we're almost coming up on 20 years. Um, and I thought we were doing that then, and part of that was that the Boy Scouts of America had started to implement some things, and we had to go through some training, and we had to be certified in order to be able to participate in the scouting program. And looking back on that, that was probably something that was imposed by the Boy Scouts of America and not the church. But at around the same time, the church also no longer let men teach primary without a woman present. But I think they've moved away from that now. I'm not, I'm not quite sure on that. Because I know my next door neighbor teaches primary and I don't think he is, he's in there anyway. Um, but so I, I thought this was the direction we were going. And when you had the whole Sam Young incident where you stopped doing youth interviews where, uh, another adult wasn't present, uh, we, we seem to sort of be lurching in that direction every once in a while and then taking some steps backward. We don't seem to be committed to just fully embracing the reality that we have to rely on best practices here. We can't just pat ourselves on the back because we have the gift of discernment and therefore that takes care of it, which seems to be, I think, the the rationale behind avoiding what's necessary here. You, you've seen in the UK and the members in the UK, including now excommunicated members in the UK, you know, our friend Nemo was part of the effort that got the UK church to do these kinds of background checks on everybody that works with youth. And now many of the people that were involved in that effort have been excommunicated for their activism against the church. So you have this sort of fraught landmine, uh, minefield where people, it's like, well, yeah, we need to do this and we need to tell the church to do this, but the church does not appreciate being told what to do. And, and so Sam Young is actually the perfect example of that because they've implemented everything he wanted and they kicked him out of the church at the same time. And, and so this, I think, is the challenge, is that I think everybody, when they're clear-headed, can look at this and say, yeah, that's where we need to be. But the minute you say, well, we're not getting there fast enough, you're identified as an activist and your membership is at risk.

Greg, isn't the challenge Interesting what Jim says, and we're coming up to the end of the podcast here, but isn't there two problems with that, with what Jim's saying, two issues there? One is the church doesn't like activism and will learn from it and take on a lot of it and make those changes and attribute those changes to internal decisions and revelation and then throw the person out. Thank you. We'll take your ideas. Uh, get lost. And, and, and there seems to be some evidence behind that, certainly with Sam Young and some of the people in the UK. I, I, I can speak firsthand from my experience, um, uh, in the situation in the UK, uh, going back a number of years, and, and the reaction from the church to me personally was, was shocking, frankly. Anyway, and the second issue or problem, isn't there a problem that if you do rely on these other best practices, these other measures, these, these other checks and balances, this process, this background checks, that the problem the church has with that, that it dilutes the message of discernment, that if you go too much in that direction, then the church is losing that strand that, hey, well, you know, we are a church of discernment, church of revelation, and your process is not complete without that revelatory process. And if you go too, like I said, you go too far down the mechanics, the operations of it and the background checks and the, logistics, et cetera, et cetera, then it diminishes, um, and weakens the church's, uh, claim and hold on the revelation of the doctrine, the teaching that, uh, a lot of what we do in the church is actually by revelation and by the gift of discernment. So there are two problems there, throwing, taking people's ideas, throwing them out. And the second one is if we go too far down the operations, you know, the best practices, et cetera, Uh, then we, we, we, we dilute the teaching and the message behind this discernment. Does that make sense?

Yeah, I think on that second question, the answer is information is always welcomed. It may not be the final step in determining who gets called, but it should be part of the process and the more information available, including background checks, the better equipped that individual is to seek inspiration for the calling. I don't see the two competing against each other. I think we have suffered in the past because often we have relied too much on burning in the bosom. We see a president of the United States right now who is trying to govern the world by gut instinct. How's that going? And you get into the same problem in any organization when you throw aside reason and information and say, hey, I'm just gonna wing it. I trust my instincts. That's a recipe for disaster.

Yeah.

Yeah, I agree. So gentlemen, it's been another extraordinary conversation. I learned so much from this. Um, and I'm so grateful for this conversation. As we close here, Jim Bennett, would you wanna give us your final thoughts and comments and advice on you know, uh, the direction that we should take, uh, in regards to balancing revelation discernment versus, you know, other, you know, best practices. And then we'll, we'll give, uh, Greg, uh, the final few minutes to, to provide his thoughts and summarize his insight.

Well, and I, I appreciate, uh, both of your insights on this. I've learned quite a bit here. These are the kinds of discussions that I think are really productive in terms of helping me better understand and hone my appreciation for and understanding of personal revelation, what it means, what role it ought to play in my own life. And I'm— I— this is— these are discussions I think that the church and everybody in the church ought to be having on a regular basis, because they're discussions that are never going to reach a final conclusion. Because I think the nature of mortality and the nature of revelation is such that we're supposed to spend all of our time trying to figure this out, trying to navigate this.

This.

And it's helpful to be able to see how others do it, and it's helpful to be able to get other people's insights. And both of your insights are certainly helpful to me. Uh, that does not mean that, that I've got this figured out. I don't think I'm ever going to have this figured out. Uh, one of the, one of the great lessons I remember from my grandfather, uh, Senator Wallace F. Bennett, Um, somebody used to have these family gatherings every Sunday night. We would just, rather than try to arrange a time when family could meet up, there was a standing invitation to go to my grandparents' house every Sunday evening. They just called it family gathering. And we were at a family gathering and, uh, somebody, my grandfather was in his 90s by this point. He died at the age of 95. And they said, well, so Grandpa, what is it like to finally arrive and not have to worry about all of these kinds of things? And he laughed and he said, the lesson of life is you never arrive. This is a man in his 90s. Uh, you never arrive. Uh, these are questions that everybody is going to continue to ask, and it's important to be able to accept that. Back to Greg, to, to Job. One of the great lessons of Job is getting comfortable with ambiguity, getting comfortable with not knowing all the answers, getting comfortable with the reality that God isn't going to give you the answers from the back of the book. You're going to have to muddle through and figure it out for yourself. That's what we signed up for. That's why we all came to this earth. At least that's what the church teaches. And then we get discouraged or perplexed when we— the thing we signed up for, again, to quote Joe Obinze, I think this is probably a proof text that Mormons use talking about the sons of God, sons and daughters of God shouting for joy. And Neal Maxwell famously said, we can be forgiven for sometimes wondering what all the shouting was about when life gets difficult. But that— these are discussions, I think, that are necessary. But I don't want anybody, including myself— I'm talking to myself more than anybody else— I don't want anybody to look at this and go, okay, well, God wasn't faithful. Because he didn't, he didn't clarify all of this. He didn't answer all of my questions. He didn't make it very clear when I'm getting a prompting or when I'm just getting something from myself or when I'm just using my best judgment. Those lines are so blurry, and, and the church can't be true and God can't be real until those lines aren't blurry. Because that's never going to happen, and it's not supposed to happen. This is kind of where I've landed in my own faith, is leaning into the ambiguity, embracing the reality that these are questions I'm going to have for the rest of my life, and I'm never going to arrive. I'm probably going to get better at it. I'm going to better understand it and better appreciate it, but they'll there will always be something more to learn. And the older I get, the more encouraging that is. You know, when you're younger, you're kind of discouraged that, sheesh, there's so much I have to learn. I'm so bad at it. And the older I get, it's like, geez, really? I haven't learned it all. There's a lot more. And, and there, there's something optimistic about that for me. Uh, so I very much appreciate this discussion. I hope to have many more of them. And I thank you all for, for enduring whatever kind of rant that I've launched in the middle of them. But I just really appreciate this and I'm grateful for this opportunity to be able to have this discussion with two people. I can't think of anybody I respect more.

So thank you, Jim Bennett. Greg, your final thoughts?

Boy, anything I say is going to take me downhill. Well, Jim, you, you, you just flunked with flying colors the test of fundamentalism. Welcome to the bench. Uh, I'll close with the quote from Supreme Justice Louis Brandeis about a century ago. Who said that the remedy for abusive speech is more speech, and the remedy for not enough information is more information. I don't think that more information is ever going to be not welcomed in any deliberation in a church council. And sometimes the information is going to overrule the gut instinct, and so be it.

Well, on that note, uh, uh, Jim, thank you again for your insights. And Greg, uh, you know, Jim and I talk a lot, and you've got this knack of summarizing what we say very succinctly in a matter of words with even greater, more profound wisdom than Jim and I, if I may say that. Greg, we're just so grateful to spend this time with you. And we feel confident that this conversation is going to help, has helped us and is going to help others. So I want to thank you both for being part of this conversation, be part of Inside Out. Look forward to more conversations. Jim, thank you.

Greg, thank you.

And, uh, hope you enjoyed this as we did, and we look forward to doing more episodes with the mighty Greg Prince in the future. Thank you, Greg. Thank you, Jim Bennett.

Thank you.