The Church, the Constitution, and the Cult of Trump

Hello and welcome to another episode of Inside Out, a special bonus episode, if you will. We released an episode yesterday and we're releasing this because there's just too much going on in the world. For Ian Wilkes and Jim Bennett not to weigh in on it. So I have brought Ian Wilkes back here with me and we are going to, uh, we're going to shake everything up and remake the world in our own image. It's going to be wonderful. And I can't think of anybody I'd rather do that with than Ian Wilkes. So Ian, how are you, sir?

I am well considering this crazy, crazy world.

This crazy, crazy world. You know, we saw this yesterday. Uh, the bromance between Elon Musk and Donald Trump has been kind of on rocky ground for a week or so, but it exploded yesterday with Uh, with him— your name's Ian— Elon Musk, uh, tweeting out that the reason all of the Epstein files have not been released is that Donald Trump is in them, which is an explosive and at the same time unsurprising allegation. We have several Epstein files. We have flight logs that show Donald Trump was on the plane. Uh, we have Donald Trump's quote where he talks about what a great guy Epstein is, and, but he has a lot, he dates a lot of young women, that women that are on the younger side is the term that Donald Trump uses. And we also know that Donald Trump is an adjudicated rapist, that he has 28 different credible allegations of sexual harassment or assault against him., we know his character, we know what kind of human garbage he is. And so it is not surprising to have this allegation, but it is stunning to have Elon Musk making the allegation for a number of different reasons. One, if Elon Musk knew this and yet he still decided to align with Donald Trump, what does that say about Elon Musk? And two, the cult of personality around Donald Trump and the cult of personality around Elon Musk was almost a perfect circle in terms of the Venn diagram that you would draw. Uh, and as this divorce happens, what's going to happen to the cultists? Are they going to go with Elon? Are they going to go with mom, who is Ethan? They're going to go with dad, who is Donald, uh, or where are they going to go? Now, those are all fascinating questions, and we could spend an entire hour talking about all of that, but that's not what this podcast is about. We do dip into politics, but we do so when we talk about the intersection of politics and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And we have long lamented on this podcast the reality that the Brethren, uh, the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve, do not speak out publicly about issues they consider political, or really about anything that is going on contemporaneously in the world. With what's happening. The talks in General Conference that are delivered, you could send them in a time capsule back 30 years and deliver exactly the same talk, and it would probably still, uh, it wouldn't sound out of place because there is very little in what they say that is tied to what's happening in the moment. And what's happening here, and the reason why, uh, Ian, you said let's do this, let's do this right now. And the reason why I think both of us feel so strongly that this is a conversation we need to have is that this kind of an explosive disruption between, uh, and, you know, and an unstop— what is it? What happens when an immovable force meets an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?

You got it.

Yeah. And that's kind of what is happening here to the point where Utah's Senator Mike Lee, who has spent the last 2 years doing everything he can to get in Elon Musk's good graces, and, and Mike Lee, who is also a member of the church, is now posting all kinds of things saying, what do we need to do to get Elon and Donald back together again, to rekindle the bromance, is the phrase he's using. And yeah, and what, what's happening here is of note, particularly because so many members of the church have aligned themselves with Donald Trump. And there's, there was a, um, article in the Salt Lake Tribune not long before this whole explosive thing happened. And the headline was LDS voters are getting less Republican, but they like Trump more than ever. And you go through the article and it talks about the fact that only 58% of American Latter-day Saints identify as Republicans. And that's down from 75%. In, in 2012. But the number of independents is growing, but the approval rating for Donald Trump among Latter-day Saints continues to rise. Donald Trump got a larger percentage of the Trump vote— of the, of the Latter-day Saint vote, I'm sorry— in 2024 than he got in 2016, and then he got in 2020. So Latter-day Saints are falling in line behind Donald Trump. And there was a post on Facebook that caught my eye. A friend of mine reposted it. It's a guy named John Hatch, and I don't know who John Hatch is, but my friend said, John Hatch says out loud what we're all thinking. And this is what John Hatch said: If you're LDS and like this man, then just admit the only real values you have are making teenagers feel guilty about sex. All that stuff I was taught as a kid about honor, integrity, serving others, loyalty, fidelity, and sacrifice is meaningless to you, and all you really care about is feeling smug about not drinking coffee and making some poor 15-year-old feel like garbage because he masturbated. And I read that and it just hit me like a ton of bricks because this all along has been my opposition to Donald Trump. My opposition to Donald Trump is not political. My opposition to Donald Trump is 100% moral. That this is a man who is so patently immoral, so demonstrably evil, not just in his personal life, but in terms of the policies that he's trying to enact that are antithetical to so much of what I have been taught in General Conference. And so much, even if you want to go with the political policies, the church during Donald Trump's first term had to make several different, um, public statements decrying his draconian immigration policies, which run counter to the, to the church's policies. Patrick Kiran, before he was an apostle, gave a beautiful talk about refugees, and Donald Trump, Trump has cut off all refugees coming into the United States. Just over and over and over again, you can find things that Donald Trump does and you can find characteristics of the man that are just so loathsome and so antithetical to the moral framework that is ingrained in my bones as a result of a lifetime in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that it just floors me that members of the church can overlook all of this and can say, yes, this is fine. Yes, this is my guy. Yes, this is what I want. And so, and here we now have an explosive— I don't know if it's going to be backed up with any more hard evidence. Donald Trump will not release the Epstein files if they do in fact implicate him. We know he can stonewall forever. We're still waiting for his tax returns, which he promised to release in 2016 after a routine audit was finished. Apparently that audit has been going on for 10 years or so. I mean, it's just ridiculous. Donald Trump will sit on this forever. There is no way to legally pry this information out of him. As far as I know, I'm, I think Congress could probably try to do that, but since Congress has a Republican majority in both the House and Senate. Republicans have demonstrated repeatedly that they will not stand up to Donald Trump under any circumstances. Uh, there's gonna be no way to validate this, but even if there were, even if we could prove that Donald Trump is a pedophile, and even if we had video and indisputable evidence that nobody could ignore, I am of the opinion that MAGA will find a way to justify it. MAGA will find some way to say this is just the deep state, or that we don't care, or that it doesn't matter. I mean, there is no depth of depravity to which Donald Trump can go, uh, that would alienate, uh, his base and his core. Now, it may alienate people on the fringes, but his base and his core— and again, this is the purpose of this podcast— his base and his core are made up of a good chunk of Latter-day Saints. And Latter-day Saints in large numbers are part of that, um, would be part of the attempt to somehow justify the unjustifiable. They already have been. There are so many things that Donald Trump that has done that are unjustifiable. And I think of the guy who dressed up as Captain Moroni and stormed the Capitol to try to overthrow a free and fair election in a riot that left 6 people dead. Uh, and the fact that You know, that didn't— it didn't occur to him that maybe as a disciple of Christ, this isn't something you ought to be doing. This isn't something you ought to be participating in. And so I see the moral compass of so many Latter-day Saints being so skewed by this patently evil man that I, I look at it and I say, okay, how much of this has to bubble up to the surface? How much damage has to be done before the brethren say anything? Because the silence of the brethren on this is seen by many as consent, as support. As, yes, Trump is our guy too. Now, every report I get— and I'm sounding very cryptic and very, ooh, I know things, and so you can take this for whatever grain of salt you want, uh, but I do talk to people who know the Brethren, uh, I, I, uh, every report I get is that the Brethren are appalled by Donald Trump, that the brethren to a person— I had one guy, I mean, I kept saying, well, what about this apostle? What about this apostle? And they said no to a person. Every single one of the apostles did not vote for Donald Trump. And one apostle wrote a family letter to all of his children and grandchildren saying, please don't vote for Donald Trump. And also, please don't talk about this publicly. So I am— so privately, uh, I, I, I believe the brethren are good, intelligent, kind, decent men. And good, intelligent, kind, decent men cannot justify the evil that is Donald Trump. You cannot at this point consider yourself a disciple of Christ a good person, I mean, set aside the church membership, set aside any of that. Basic human decency requires you to be appalled by Donald Trump. It's, it's like, it's like saying, okay, you can't look at a murderer and say, well, he dresses well, or I like his politics or whatever else and not say, well, yes, but this is, this is a murderer. This is somebody that, I mean, has done something so deplorable that everything else that they have possibly done cannot compensate for this vile evil. And Donald Trump just over and over and over and over again has demonstrated— I mean, I don't have— I mean, he famously said, I could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue. And I wouldn't lose any voters. And, you know, I don't have, uh, I, I have— don't have any evidence that Donald Trump has personally shot anybody. I do have evidence that he incited a riot where someone was shot because they were, uh, following the lie that Donald Trump was trying to peddle. Uh, and I mean, but there is no depravity too low for this guy, and no depravity that his supporters won't justify. And you have to— as, as Latter-day Saints, we have to ask, where are the brethren on this? And if they do consent— I don't believe they do— if they do support this— I don't believe they do— but then come out and say so. Let us know. Because your silence, your unwillingness to talk about this publicly, is sending a message. And if it's not the message you want it to send, then you need to actively send another message. So that is my opening rant. And I, I, I sense that I'm going to get some agreement from you on a lot of this. Is that right?

Yes. I, I feel so strongly about, well, along with so many of the people on this planet, I feel so strongly about what's happening in the world. Here you have United States, the most powerful economy. You've got the most powerful man fighting the richest man. There's been a big fallout. It's riddled with corruption and it's, um, affecting so many people's lives in profound ways. There's so much at stake. I think we're at a crossroads globally, geopolitically on issues of morality, decency, uh, whether we choose to do the right thing, integrity, which is doing the right thing when no one's looking. What we have here is corruption and, uh, the murky world of, uh, corrupt politics and money. Colliding with these two extraordinary thin-skinned narcissists who are now fighting for public opinion. It reminds me of that quote from Sir Walter Scott. Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. There's deception here at every level. It's permeating across all of the United States, politically, economically. There are significant ripple effects across the world. Other countries, whether America knows it or not, or likes it or not, looks to America as an example, Jim Bennett. It just does. There's been— America's done great things in the world over decades. It, yes, it's made mistakes. It's made some terrible mistakes., but for the most part, I believe, and I'm sure many others out there agree with me, America has been a force for good. You could say that about the UK. I think that's changed quite radically with the UK, but you could say that about the UK, about, uh, you could certainly say about the United States. And we, it's important to feel strongly about these things and to speak up and more importantly to act. When something that is terrible happening, wrong or illegal or just morally wrong, it's important to speak up and to say something and to do something because our silence speaks volumes. One question I come back to in regards to the relationship between the church, the world, the relationship between the church and politics and between the church and American politics and the relationship with the church's fundamental principles, its doctrines, its teachings, the articles of faith, which are very clear. In, uh, the 12th article of faith, it says, we believe in being subject to kings, president, rulers, magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. And 13 says, we believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men. And in the church's newsroom, it makes a very clear statement on what it states as political neutrality and participation. And I recommend our listeners go and check this out. This is on the newsroom of the church. Of Jesus Christ and the Latter-day Saints, uh, looking at political neutrality. It's all there. The church does not endorse, promote, or oppose political parties and their platforms or candidates for political office. I won't go through the whole thing, but it's certainly worth, uh, worth reading. But it's a statement of political neutrality. It quotes some scriptures there, etc., talks about humanitarian assistance, but it's quite, um, in parts of it in part loosey-goosey in terms of being very careful of its statement here and its communication around political neutrality. And I find it very difficult to read and understand in the context of what's happening in the world and in the United States and how that's impacting all of our lives. And it's difficult to understand when we think of Christ. So I ask myself, was Christ neutral? Christ was not neutral. His actions and teachings demonstrated a preference for God's kingdom, for decency, for honesty, for integrity, for justice, for mercy, for forgiveness. But like in the Book of Mormon, in, uh, Alba 42, there's a fantastic chapter on the relationship between justice and mercy. And we've talked about that early on podcast, on early podcast, that mercy can't rob justice and justice can't rob mercy. That it's really important that all of us, and this is the demands and requirements of the church at the micro level. When we get interviewed by the bishop, There are 15 yes or no questions, and one of them is, are you honest in your dealings with your fellow men? I think that the question's not changed. There's a whole series of questions around faith, spirituality, morality, chastity, uh, integrity and honesty. The church holds its individual members to a very strict code of, um, morality. And when those codes are breached and when it's known to the church, there is a punishment. When someone's transgressed and they've confessed, usually there is some form of penitence on a personal level. And if it's serious enough, it's on an ecclesiastical level where you can have a church membership council, as they call them now, which happens at the stake or the ward level. So the church and the church leaders hold the individual members, uh, to a very strict, a very detailed prescriptive code, and it, it enforces that and it's required. The policies are there to enforce that at the ecclesiastical level. You know that, I know that. And so with all that's going on, the absolute train wreck that's happening right now in American politics, and we could talk, you know, we won't get into the big beautiful bill and the threat to deport Musk and the public spat, which is happening as we speak where they're both posting interesting comments on Epstein and, and just the ugly, ugly, murky world of all the hidden things now coming, coming to light or might come to light. Who knows? It, it's impossible for me to not track or watch or follow what's going on with concern. I'm not alone. We are not a political podcast, but there's a distinct relationship between the members and what's going on in the world. And we have to care about what's going on in the world. We have to care about who leads us politically, morally. There's a moral obligation, a spiritual obligation to, as it's very clear in the church's statement there on its website, to participate and contribute to politics and political life. That we have a vote. That's a fundamental right. Not all countries afford its citizens the right to vote. In America, UK, other places, we have— in Canada, we have the right to vote. We have an individual responsibility to make sure— the church is very clear on this— to vote for the best and right people who have got honesty, intelligence, integrity, and who come into office and Live to the highest standards of public office. There are very clear guidelines in America, in Canada, and in the UK around this. Very specifics about disclosure, honesty, and openness, and rules of how to conduct and govern oneself, and what to disclose, uh, in, in the, in the hope that, uh, those running and acting in public office understand, accept, the importance and value of those rules and live them. You know, the church government has the same principles, principles, laws, rules, members, leaders required to live those rules. Same in political life and in public life. And so individual members of the church, individuals, period, and certainly individual members in in the church, in the church, have a moral responsibility to choose the people with the best qualities. And from the church perspective, church members' perspective, people with the best Christlike qualities, because that's who you want in office. You want the best of the qualities of the church in public life, don't we? We do. The church teaches that, advocates for that, notwithstanding, uh, its, its, um, sharp contrast with its neutrality on politics, which again, you can read on the website and the contrast with Christ who was not, um, neutral. He wasn't partisan, but he certainly wasn't neutral and he spoke up. He, what he, Christ taught in the fields, in the homes, in the streets. When he saw injustice, he called it out. When he was required to be merciful, he was merciful. He had integrity. He had honesty. And it, it, it, it, it was, it permeated his, his life and his soul and his, in every fiber of his being. I, I believe he couldn't be dishonest if he is the way we understand him as the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of mankind. I mean, that's extraordinary. You know, somebody who's perfect or as close to perfection as, as, as could be ever, which is what the church teaches. He'll have lived, uh, uh, with exactness, especially, you know, in regards to morality and integrity. Someone you could trust to do the right thing. And to speak up and stand up and say, and, and, and call out injustice. That's completely opposite to the church. We're supposed to represent him. If Christ was here right now, describing him in the way that I, in the best way I know how, and I don't know him personally, of course, but I know a little bit about him from the scriptures and from what, you know, I understand about him. What would he say right now? In the world? Would he be silent? Would he be, uh, you know, would he be tacit, uh, silence, um, just let things, um, pass, uh, look the other way? No, we both know that he would be vocal, even to the point of losing his life. And we know that because that's what he did. He was vocal, he stood up and he had enemies and people wanted to quiet him. He even brought people back from the dead and they, they, uh, I think they did, they not kill Lazarus again, did not kill him because he was evidence of Christ's power to redeem people. And they did everything they could to destroy Christ and to unsubstantiate and to question the miracles that Christ performed. Notwithstanding, he countered that and fought to the very end with complete honesty, integrity. And what do they do? They crucified him. And if he was here today, Christ would probably get assassinated. I, I just don't think he would. I don't know if he would survive very long. Maybe he would. Maybe we're a bit more civil than people were back then, but I know that Christ wouldn't be silent. And so what is the role of the church? And this conversation, this podcast ties to so many other important principles and points that are spread across all the podcasts, right from the very first one where we talked about the scriptures. I think this connects to almost every podcast is what is the role and responsibility of the church, and especially in times, in situations like now. I'm, that's my response to your opening comments. I, I agree with everything you said. You've got a president in the United States who I just, I, you know, I could describe him, but my words probably wouldn't be appropriate, or some of the words wouldn't be appropriate here. It's an absolute mess. People deserve better. We need leadership. We need someone to step up and stand up and speak the truth, no matter what the consequence. What did President Monson say? Do what is right, let the consequence follow. Where is that? And I believe, here's the thing, we talked yesterday or on the earlier podcast about why the church doesn't do certain things and why it behaves in certain ways. And as I've been thinking about that since yesterday's podcast, I think there's a tax exemption and a, a, a problem for a legal problem for the church that it can't speak up about certain things because if it gets too involved, you could have Trump threatening to remove its tax exemption. And I've got an article here, uh, on that. You could have like Trump is now threatening Musk and Trump who threatens anyone who challenges him and every relationship Trump has had in political life. Especially on, on this first term, has, has ended in an absolute train wreck, every single one. And we are seeing that now, albeit it's taken longer for those relationships to collapse. They will in time. Every relationship that Trump's been in will fail at some point. And what's the role of the church? Where's the prophet on this? Why can't the church make a statement, do something? Say, and it can't because it's afraid. It's afraid of its membership base because Mormons, a lot of Mormons support Trump. And by the way, how on earth can a faithful, active member of the church, and I realize this is a controversial question, but I need, I'm gonna say it. Anyhow, how can an active, faithful member of the church reconcile the fundamental principles of the gospel and the church and who Christ was and what he stood for, and the lessons on honesty that we teach in the church, integrity, and all those fundamental principles that President Hunter spoke about when you and I were on our missions? How can they reconcile those teachings and the need to live with those teachings in holding a temple recommend and vote for someone like Trump? Now I realize that is going to be a very controversial question, but it's a question that needs to be asked and a question that needs to be discussed and answered because I couldn't personally, um, rec— I can't reconcile the two and I can't reconcile with anyone in politics who is corrupt, uh, you know, uh, murky, dishonest, deceiving. Uh, this goes all the way to the Royal Family, by the way, with Epstein. Prince Andrew has got an absolute explosive interview on the BBC where, uh, during that interview and since, the relationship between Prince Andrew and Epstein has come to light. So you've got all this, uh, hidden information. Been kept hidden in the dark to support people in power. You know, Andrew, Prince Andrew, not a prince, but this individual settled out of court, £12 million in order to stop that, uh, stop that lawsuit. But it is hard not to feel so strongly, Jim, about these things. But I'd tie it back to the church, its leadership. Where is it? How can we reconcile as members, you know, our relationship with God, with Christ, and the church teachings at the basic level? And not— okay, you might have voted for Trump, but where are you now? You know, what do you have to say about what's going on as members of the church? So you've been very patient with my with my rant, my, my responsive, uh, my response rant. So yeah, I think we agree. And I don't know, I just, maybe I'm hoping for too much. I think I am. I don't think the church is going to respond. I think there are, I think it's terrified of its members, terrified of Trump, and it will be shot down. It'll, and, and it doesn't want the media attention. It will, it, it will be at risk. And we talked yesterday about Is it easier, less risk to not say anything or say something? I think the answer's easy. Easier to stay neutral. Don't say anything. Get some criticism from people like me and you and maybe a few others, but hey, they can handle that.

Well, the thing is, this is one of the things that I have said over and over again about Trump. Is that he has normalized things that should not be normal. You know, it is now normal to throw a riot at the Capitol when you lose an election. That's now considered acceptable. There were no consequences for Trump doing that. Uh, the case has been dismissed. Trump was reelected. Nobody cares. So now that's acceptable. Now that is normal. And so much of what Trump is doing is just so blatantly abnormal and blatantly corrupt. You know, the Constitution specifically talks about bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. When you're talking about, uh, when you're talking about impeachment and people leave out the fact that the Constitution specifically identifies bribery as one crime that merits removal from office. And the Constitution also talks about emoluments, that you can't accept money from foreign governments for personal use. And Donald Trump has accepted a $400 million airliner that is going to be used as a new Air Force One and then be donated to the Trump Presidential Library at the end of his term so Trump can continue to use it. This is a personal gift of $400 million from the government of Qatar to the president of the United States. And if that isn't a violation of the Constitution— the Constitution that Dallin H. Oaks within the last 3 years stood up and talked about in general conference as being an inspired document and that Latter-day Saints have a unique responsibility to uphold it. If that isn't a violation of those principles, nothing is. We have— and so I think that church leaders are just kind of like the frogs in the boiling water. The heat of Trump has gone— has been turned up to the point where it's boiling now. And we look at our— look around and say, well, how did we get here? Well, we got here because we started saying things that were not normal are normal and are acceptable. There's an interesting thing. So I want to go back to an experience I had in 1995. So 30 years ago, in 1995, I was an intern for Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming, who just passed away this last month. A great man, funny guy, just a marvelous human being. He and my father were very good friends in the Senate. And, and, uh, at the time when I was working on Capitol Hill, Elder M. Russell Ballard made a trip to Capitol Hill and said, I want to meet with all the staffers who are Latter-day Saints. And we booked a room in the Capitol and we had lunch, and Elder Ballard spoke to all of us. I don't remember what his prepared remarks said. They were somewhat off the cuff. And I remember thinking, this is kind of fun, this is kind of informal. And then he opened it up for questions, and that doesn't happen very often. And so I raised my hand, and this was not long after the Church— so, so, um, I'm sure the proclamation on the family must have come out by then because The Church had already announced its opposition to the same-sex marriage initiative in Hawaii, and the proclamation on the family is inextricably linked with that. That was drafted as part of the Church's amicus brief in support of the campaign to defeat that initiative. And I raised my hand, and I asked the question something along the lines of, Uh, well, I'm looking at what the church is doing in Hawaii, and they're weighing in on a political issue in the United States. And as the church is more of an international church, is the church willing to do that in other countries as well? I think I've talked about this, but, uh, on this podcast, so if I'm repeating myself, I apologize. But Elder Ballard's response to me still haunts me because he got visibly angry. I mean, here I was, I was a 25-year-old, 26-year-old kid, just, you know, working as an intern. And he just ripped into me. The church never gets involved in political issues. Well, we've never once been involved in a political issue. We don't do that here. We don't do that anywhere else. This was a moral issue. This was not a political issue. And, and, and just, it was so heated that I just wanted to fall into the floorboards. I just felt about 2 inches tall and I just, it was, it was really kind of a scarring experience. But that was the line that the church has drawn and continues to draw. If I pull up the statement, I've got it here. Um, I pulled up the statement that talks— that's the Political Neutrality and Participation Statement, and it says in the very first paragraph, the church is neutral in matters of politics within or between the world's many nations, lands, and peoples. However, as an institution, it reserves the right to address issues it believes have significant moral consequences. Or that directly affect the mission teachings or operations of the church. If the kind of corruption and the kind of wickedness that Donald Trump advocates and practices is not a significant moral consequence that merits church, uh, comment, I don't know what is. I can't imagine what that could possibly be. If, if the church can look at this and say none of this merits any kind of moral consideration, then what would? And the answer seems to be two things: same-sex marriage, which the church has capitulated on politically. We endorsed the Respect for Marriage Act that made same-sex marriage legal throughout the United States in all 50 states and in all territories and in the District of Columbia. The church endorsed that legislation. And the other one is abortion. And again, we've talked about that here too, that that's sort of the get-out-of-jail-free card for Trumpers who think that, well, I can overlook all of these terrible excesses because Donald Trump is going to make abortion illegal and has made abortion illegal. And isn't that great? And aren't I I'm saving the lives of all these babies, regardless of the fact that the abortion rate has spiked by 11% since Roe versus Wade was overturned. That's another discussion. You do not hold the moral high ground if you think somehow voting to make abortion illegal is preventing abortion because it is not. But that's another, that's another discussion altogether. One of the interesting things about this statement. That was— if you look on the website, it says this page was updated on June 1st, 2023. Members— this was, this was, this was a First Presidency letter that was issued at the same time that this policy was posted. Members should also study candidates carefully and vote for those who have demonstrated integrity, compassion, and service to others regardless of party affiliation. That statement, that sentence cannot be found on the website. That statement was read from the pulpit. That statement existed in previous versions of this policy. That statement has been removed from the online version of this policy., and you have to ask the question, why? Why was this removed? And I can't think of any other answer than the fact that they know that that sentence disqualifies Donald Trump from public office. Uh, to say he has demonstrated integrity is just absolute nonsense. Donald Trump has never demonstrated a scrap of integrity in his entire life. Uh, to say he's demonstrated compassion is absolutely ridiculous. Donald Trump is the most vindictive person in the United States, regardless of what office he holds. Vindictiveness is what he does. It's who he is. And every relationship he has is transactional. And when he was asked what his favorite Bible verse was, He couldn't cite a single Bible verse. He made it very clear he doesn't know the Bible at all. When he was asked to talk about the Bible, when he was reading something, there was a quote from 2 Corinthians and he read it and it says, "As it says in 2 Corinthians." I mean, he doesn't have any idea what the Bible is. But finally, in an interview, somebody said, "You gotta have some kind of idea in the Bible that means something to you." He says, yeah, there's one. I'm an eye for an eye guy. I really believe in an eye for an eye. Well, Christians don't believe in an eye for an eye anymore. We believe that you're supposed to love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you and despitefully use you and persecute you. The Sermon on the Mount said, you may have heard of old time, it was said, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you, That we don't do that anymore, but that's where Donald Trump is. So this sentence, I mean, to say that, that, uh, he's done any service to others. I mean, this is a guy who is just antithetical to everything the church stands for. And if he were a member of the church and he were not a public figure, he would be excommunicated. If he isn't excommunicated, I don't know anybody who would be or anybody who would deserve to be. I mean, this is a guy that does not do that. And so the fact that, that this sentence cannot be found on the church's website, cannot be found in the current statement, demonstrates again that we're timid. We're not willing to stand up for principle. We're not willing to stand up to evil if it comes in the form of something that looks political. So I, I mean, can you see any other justification for excluding that sentence other than the one I've described?

No, no, I can't. However, Jim Bennett, fear not, little Jim, because do good Let earth and hell combine against you, for if you are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail. So fear not, because a white knight in shining armor is going to rescue us. Da da da da da da. And here it is. And I was listening to you and I thought about this last night. There is a solution and the church has got it. Here it is. Have you ever heard of the White Horse Prophecy?

Oh, golly.

This is it. The white knight in shining armor is going to rescue the United States and the world. So that prophecy was, uh, given by Joseph Smith, allegedly, uh, who have, who is alleged to have uttered a prophecy, this prophecy in 1843. Alluding to the four horses in the Book of Revelation. And there's a bit of emphasis on the, and the white horse there and its role of the white horse. And that prophecy is also attributed to a vision. So the white horse prophecy is a controversial, widely discussed statement, not officially accepted, accepted as doctrine of the church. And it's attributed to an alleged vision and statement by Brigham Young and earlier by Joseph Smith that I just referenced. Um, in and around and before 1843 or thereabouts. Here's a summary. So again, the only true church upon the face of the earth is going to rescue the Constitution of the United States. And we've been taught that. You've taught— you've been taught that. I've been taught that. And the key elements of the prophecy are as follows. The US Constitution will one day hang by a thread. Is it hanging by a thread, Mr. Bennett?

Uh, I, do you want me to jump to the end where I quote the church?

Yeah.

Yeah. Do you want me to continue?

Continue. Continue. So there's some, some questions there. United States government and its constitutional framework are on a verge of collapse due to internal strife, corruption, or calamity. I, to me, what's going on right now meets that, uh, criteria. It, it just does, right? Let's, let's be frank here. Latter-day Saints to the rescue. The Latter-day Saints, often depicted metaphorically as the white horse, will step in to save the Constitution and restore order to the nation. That's the United States. That's not the UK or Canada or Bulgaria or Peru. It's the United States, the truest country upon the face of the earth, right?, and so will step in to save the Constitution, restore order to the nation. This intervention is often envisioned as providing wise leadership and principles to guide the country back to its founding-inspired Constitution. And we know that the earlier leaders of the, of, uh, presidents of the United States, they appeared to Wilford Woodruff because they, the work had been done for them in the temple. I remember reading this in July '87, Ensign, on my mission, that the early presidents of the United States appeared to Woodruff accepting the work that had been done on their behalf in the temple. Two more things. Other nations in conflict. Some versions also include elements about other nations being involved in conflict, possibly aligning against the United States and the Latter-day Saints playing a role in global events. And then the other one is Zion's role. 'cause we teach that we are a, a people of Zion, aren't we? That's the fundamental, um, bedrock, uh, as a, uh, identifiable religious Christian community. We, we are Zion. The prophecy ties into the concept of Zion, a righteous community and a gathering place for the saints in its eventual preeminence. So right there, and there's more to the White Horse prophecy. You can go read it on, uh, Fair Mormon and You can read it on the internet. The church has a, um, uh, position, uh, teaching some doctrine. I've been taught this, I've taught this, that one day the church, the prophet, and the righteous members will come to the, come, will actually rescue the Constitution of the United States. So despite all of our anguish, and our frustration, uh, we have a solution. The church will save the Constitution, Constitution of the United States. So why are you worried? Why am I worried? Why are we so concerned? Perhaps we should have faith in the White Horse Prophecy, and perhaps the brethren have forgotten about the White Horse Prophecy. So if they can hear this podcast, maybe this reminds them. And hopefully they can have a meeting about it and review it and say, my goodness, what's going on right now meets the criteria of the White Horse Prophecy. It's come to pass. The prophecy is being fulfilled and therefore we must act. And as members of the church, stand up and be bold and let's go march on Washington with our banners like Moroni. Let's tear, let's tear, let's Let's carry our banners.

The standard of liberty.

The standard of liberty. Let's take this. You've got it. Thank you.

The title of liberty. Sorry. Title of liberty.

You've nailed it. Title of liberty. Thank you. Reminding me about that. Let's take our title of liberty and take it to Washington and let's stand up and let's, uh, fulfill the White Horse Prophecy and we will save the United States and save the world. So why are we so worried?

Uh, I hope your tongue is firmly in your cheek.

It is. It is.

In saying all of that.

Help me tell a little bit of, a little bit of, uh, sci-fi. British sci-fi.

So, having made my living for a number of years in Republican politics in Utah, I can't count the number of times the White Horse Prophecy has been invoked in political settings. I remember once, uh, during my father's final campaign, that a Republican came to a Lincoln Day dinner, which is one of these big, just where all Republican mucky-mucks get together. It's a big fundraiser for the party and candidates all are on display like peacocks. And he walked up to the microphone and he took out a pocket version of the Constitution., and he poked a hole in it with a hole punch and then tied a string in the hole and then hung the pocket Constitution from the microphone stand. And his only words were, any questions? Like, here it is. It's hanging by a thread. Uh, Mike Lee explicitly leaned into that when he defeated my father in 2010. And this has been an undercurrent of Republican politics in Utah for as long as I can remember. It was an undercurrent when my father first ran in 1992, uh, every election since. And every election, the Constitution is hanging by a thread, and it's up to the church to save it, and it's up to the Republican voters in Utah to elect me whoever me may be, uh, in any given circumstance, to elect some guy tying themselves to that and wrapping themselves in, uh, the rhetoric of the church, uh, they're the ones who are going to save. Now there are two problems. Well, there's one problem and then it gets even more complicated. The church has explicitly repudiated, ironically, in 2010, which was the year where I saw the hole punch, they issued the following statement on the 6th of January, 2010. It's still on the church's website. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is politically neutral, does not endorse, but this is all. Then it says, the so-called White Horse Prophecy is based on accounts that have not been substantiated by historical research. And is not embraced as church doctrine. Now, that should be the end of it, but the problem is, uh, everyone— and I think you've, you've done this unwittingly, but, but you're not alone in doing this— everyone conflates the statement about a constitution hanging by a thread with the White Horse Prophecy. The White Horse Prophecy involves a whole bunch of other specific things. There's going to be a white horse. There's going to be a black horse. There's going to be, I don't know, a purple polka-dotted horse or something. I mean, it's this long, lengthy— it was reported by two guys named Edwin Rushton and Theodore Turley. It was recorded in 1853. Saying that they overheard Joseph Smith talking about this in 1843, and it's very detailed and lengthy and mostly ridiculous. The problem is that, that what survived is this idea of the Constitution hanging by a thread, and that has been quoted from the pulpit by Brigham Young, by John Taylor and as recently as Ezra Taft Benson. And the quote is, the time will come when the Constitution and government will hang by a brittle thread. And, you know, so it's, it's the idea of the Constitution hanging. And the elders of Israel— I don't have the full quote here, I'm trying to pull it up here— but the elders of Israel will carry it off on their backs and save it and bring the United States back from the brink of ruin. And whether or not Joseph Smith said it, because we don't have a firsthand account, uh, Brigham Young believed he said it, Ezra Taft Benson believed he said it, and when they were presidents of the Church, uh, I don't think President Benson said this as president of the Church, but President Benson's content when he was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve was so overtly political that it made a lot of the brethren uncomfortable. And he was trying very hard to align the church with the John Birch Society, which is a far-right organization. And, uh, I take credit, or at least I, I am very proud of my grandfather, David Lawrence McKay, uh, the oldest son of David Ollman McKay, David O. McKay. Uh, my grandfather is the one who stood up to President Benson and stood up to his father and said, you need to repudiate the John Birch Society. And in David O. McKay and the Rise of Mormonism, uh, there's a note that, uh, President McKay wrote in his journal where he said, Lawrence really hates the John Birch Society. Lawrence being my grandfather, his name was David Lawrence, he went by Lawrence. And it's just, you know, so that in 2010, here's another inside baseball story. 2010 is my father's last campaign. I ran his campaign. Uh, he lost that campaign. I thought when I took that job, I would feel guilty for the rest of my life if we lost. I haven't had a day's worth of guilt. Because the reason my father lost is he refused to compromise his integrity. I remember saying, if you don't back down from your position, I mean, we told him, if you don't back down your positions on immigration, and if you don't back down and apologize the way Orrin Hatch did for your sponsorship of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which kept the entire worldwide financial system from collapsing, if you don't apologize for that, you're going to lose the election. And his response was that I'm going to lose the election. And I, I am just so proud of the integrity that he showed, that he was not willing to back down from principle, even if it meant that he didn't get one last term in the Senate. But in 2010, after my father lost, I ended up working for the Democrat in that race against Mike Lee.

He—

Sam Granado, who has since passed away. Sam Granado was very good friends with Thomas S. Monson. And one morning he said, hey, you want to come with me? Uh, I have a surprise for you. It's like, uh, okay. I got in his car and we drove to church headquarters and we walked in the secret entrance that only apostles can walk in. And we went and had a meeting with the second counselor in the First Presidency at the time, who was Dieter F. Uchtdorf. And I sat in President Uchtdorf's office, and we just sat there and talked about the race. Now, President Uchtdorf was not going to endorse us, and he made that very clear, uh, but he did say that we very much want to support moderate voices. And we're very concerned that people think we are a Republican church, and so we want you to know that we are not a Republican church. But he did sort of emphasize political neutrality. And I said to President Uchtdorf on that occasion, well, part of the problem is that in Republican politics, every election cycle, every candidate stands up and talks about how the Constitution is hanging by a thread. And I will never forget the look on his face, his eyes rolled up into the back of his head. And he said, well, of course that's nonsense. And I said, well, can you say that publicly? And he just chuckled. So that was it. I mean, there was no more discussion. So privately he was willing to say to me, Of course, that's nonsense. Publicly, he wasn't willing to say anything about it. And for, I think, for all of these reasons, President Uchtdorf, now Elder Uchtdorf, has came under fire because it became clear that he donated to and supported the Joe Biden campaign. I think that was in 2020. It might have been 2024. But I think it was 2020 and people were up in arms. People were furious. He insisted that it had been a member of his family, that he— because the instruction is that you cannot, as a general authority, endorse a candidate. You can't come out and do that. So, so, but he, it's very clear that he supported Joe Biden and he donated money to Joe Biden., but they're just timid. They're not willing to step out and they're saying, okay. And, and what I want to say to that is I 100%, 100%, 110% if that were possible, support the brethren's decision to stay politically neutral. Absolutely support that. Absolutely. No qualifications, no exceptions to that rule. I do not support their silence on moral issues, which is what this is. I mean, I go back to M. Russell Ballard berating, uh, 26-year-old Jim Bennett for suggesting that the church was involved in a political issue when it opposed the same-sex marriage initiative in Hawaii. Because that was a moral issue, Elder Ballard informed me. And the church, again, on its website says it's a moral issue. Uh, we, we will stand up for moral issues. Okay, there is nothing more immoral than I can think of than blatant bribery, uh, of the President of the United States. Of a $400 million jet, of the president of the United States creating his own cryptocurrency and then having foreign governments buy $20 million worth of that cryptocurrency that goes directly into Donald Trump's pocket in order to be able to get a dinner invitation. That has also happened. I mean, back when Dick Cheney became vice president of the United States, he divested himself of all of his Halliburton stock and was still accused of corruption because Halliburton made a killing. That's an unintended pun, or a rather gruesome pun, but Halliburton made a fortune. I'll say that instead, during the Iraq War. And, and everybody said, well, that's lining Dick Cheney's pockets. But Dick Cheney had divested from Halliburton by then because every president of the United States before Donald Trump divested themselves of private investments because they didn't want to even have the appearance of bribery. And Donald Trump now is like, well, let's bribe me, go nuts. I don't care. What are you going to do? Uh, is it not a moral issue that we are, uh, that he incited riots? Is it not a moral issue that a court of law found that he sexually assaulted a woman? I mean, this is the thing is that people will say, cause I'll call him an adjudicated rapist. And they'll say, oh gosh, uh, the, the court that found that he'd sexually assaulted her was given the option to say whether or not it was rape. And they only said it was sexual assault. So you can't call him a rapist. It's like, okay, can we, can we dissect this just a little bit? What happened is Donald Trump assaulted E. Jean Carroll in a department store dressing room. That is not. Uh, I mean, a court of a jury of 12 people determined that that was the case. The reason they didn't check the box that said it was rape is because while he penetrated E. Jean Carroll, she was not sure whether or not he did so with his penis or with his fingers. And so not knowing that, the legal definition of rape has to have penile penetration. And so I'm sitting here going, do you listen to yourself and hear what you are defending? That, that's, I mean, I mean, that you're defending, well, no, it wasn't rape because he only assaulted her with his fingers. I mean, come on, come on. There has to be a line. There has to be a line. And throughout all of Trump's participation in the political process from the beginning. Everybody. I mean, I remember when Donald Trump announced, everybody thought he was a joke and everybody thought, well, sooner or later he's just going to mess up so bad. And there, and then that Access Hollywood tape came out. Remember that?

Yeah.

The Access Hollywood tape where he's like, you grab them by the, and he says, I do this. They let you do it. I mean, he essentially describes what he did to E. Jean Carroll. I mean, he describes, he says, I just start kissing them. You know, I don't even wait. And, and, you know, when that came out, the church, and I know I've talked about this, but it bears repeating too. Uh, the Deseret News. I used to write editorials for the Deseret News, house editorials for the Deseret News. The Deseret News— I had stopped by this time. I had run for office myself and I couldn't— they wouldn't let me continue to write editorials while I was running for office. But the Deseret News issued an editorial after the Access Hollywood tape came out calling on Donald Trump to withdraw from the race and saying what he— that, you You listen to that tape, it was evil. They used the word evil and all of this. And the Deseret News went out of its way to say, oh, but nobody in the church told us to write this. We did this all on our own. And I just, I mean, I wanted to swear at the top of my lungs, bullsh— You know, absolute— When I wrote for the Deseret News, it was always, okay, we need to be They were always well aware that anything that was in the editorial pages of the Deseret News, which is owned by the church, that anything in those editorial pages would be perceived as the position of the church. And the idea that the editorial board stuck their neck out that far without clearing it with church leadership is absolutely ridiculous. I'm sure they absolutely did. I'm sure that represented the position of the church. Well, that was— but, but that came and went. It was like, okay, here's the line. Clearly we can't— this guy's unfit for office. Well, that came and went. And then more and more things just came and went. January 6th came and went. And, and everything— there is no bottom. There is no line that he can cross. And this is why it's like if Elon Musk is right, if there is incontrovertible evidence that Donald Trump assaulted, sexually assaulted young girls, MAGA won't care. MAGA won't do anything. And the Republicans in Congress won't hold him accountable. You can take that to the bank. I mean, they have made it absolutely clear that they are morally bankrupt, that the Republican Party is morally bankrupt. This is the same Republican Party that I swore fealty to, essentially, in the 1990s, back when Bill Clinton was accused, rightfully so, of having a consensual affair with a, with an intern. And that was just so disgraceful that I believed it was so disgraceful. I still believe it was so disgraceful, but the Republican Party doesn't anymore. The Republican Party's like, yeah, that was disgraceful back when it was somebody who was on the other side of the political aisle. But when it's our guy who's actually found in a court of law To have sexually assaulted someone, eh, who cares? I mean, the rank hypocrisy, the rank abandonment of moral principle is astonishing to me. And this is a moral issue. It has nothing, as far as I'm concerned, nothing to do with politics. It has everything to do with the kind of moral principles that the church in its own political statement reminds us that they have the right and the authority to speak out on. And so I don't think there is a line where the— where MAGAs will say, okay, this man is so loathsome, we can't stand by him anymore. I don't think there's the line, but there has to be a line where the church says We can't stand for this anymore. We can't sit idly by and let two-thirds of our members think that this is morally acceptable and that we aren't troubled by this and that we find it acceptable that this is the man who is the most powerful man in the world and has, you know, every— I mean, one of the things in that statement about moral issues is that they also talk about the fact that they can speak out on moral issues and also speak out on things that have to do— that will impact the operation of the church. I mean, the president of the United States, he's calling on— he's trying to remove the tax exemption from Harvard University. He's told them they can no longer have international students. Uh, you know, this is a, this is a nonprofit that hasn't done anything in violation of the law, but that Donald Trump has just decided to be punitive about, uh, what's to stop him from doing exactly the same thing to the church? Uh, I mean, the Latter-day Saints who think that evangelicals who form so much of Donald Trump's base are going to side with us and are our buddies are in for a rude awakening the moment We do anything that they don't like because they hate us more than they hate Democrats. And certainly they love Donald Trump more than they tolerate us. So where's the line? What line would Donald Trump have to cross for the church to say something? Do you have any idea as to what that line would be?

I think you've articulated this very well. It's difficult for me to disagree with anything you've said. I feel very strongly, try to articulate my thoughts and feelings, try to understand the role, responsibility of the church, role, responsibility of the members. Um, I'll make a prophecy of my own here, and the church, based on a conversation on the last podcast, won't do anything. I, I don't know if the church— I don't know. I know what the line is. You know what the line is. Is way, way, way beyond the line.

Way beyond.

It's like way past, um, uh, light years ahead of the line, right? Um, does the church know? I think privately, personally, yes. Uh, but they're not— they will— my prophecy is that they will not do anything, and they won't do anything because If they speak up as they should, as Christ would— I tie it back to what Christ would do— they will be— the media will get a hold of it, the members will get a hold of it, the Trump supporters in the membership will get a hold of it, and the church will be dragged through the media and ripped apart by its own members and definitely targeted by Trump, will call it out. And on his Truth Social will make all kinds of threats and allegations about the Mormon Church, of which the Mormon Church, uh, doesn't want to talk about. And it will get ripped to shreds by Donald Trump on Truth Social. It will. Especially when he reaches that level, you know, the Mormon Church comes out and condemns Trump.

Bum, bum, bum.

Okay. That will, that's a national thing, right? The church is a US national organization, not anywhere else. Only in America. It's not here in Canada. You know, people aren't talking about the Mormon Church here in Canada from a national federal perspective, right? But in US, it's a national recognized organization entity with a lot of influence, a lot of resources. It's a very different, um, environment down in the US compared to anywhere else. And the church would be ripped to shreds publicly. We know this by Trump. And it, it, if you do a risk assessment, would it, would it rather have that or remain silent? The answer's easy. Remain silent. And to your question, what would Trump have to do beyond what he's doing right now to, for the church to react? And maybe there is a line and maybe this is it. What if those Epstein, Epstein, Epstein files are made public? You say they won't be made public. I, I, I tend to believe you, but I hope now enough attention's drawn to them And by the way, Prince Andrew wants to keep them quiet, and as many of the people who are named in that document that want to keep that document sealed. It's not just Trump or Prince Andrew, the royal family. There are others that, uh, would go white at the prospect of that, those files being revealed to the public. They'll do everything in their power to keep that quiet, right? Even Musk said I'm gonna drop the biggest bomb, or words to that effect, right? That Epstein file could be the biggest bomb, which provides evidence that Trump was involved in child trafficking, just like Prince Andrew was, right? They will do everything with all the resources they've got to keep those files quiet. And if they are released and it's found that Trump has sexually molested children. Perhaps that's the line for the LDS Church leaders. Perhaps that is the time that they come up and speak out. I, I hope they should have spoken up and acted earlier across a whole range of issues, but perhaps that is the line. Perhaps the church will wait to see what public opinion is if those files are released. Or as we said on the other podcast, kind of monitor which way the wind's gonna blow, right? See what the, you know, all this survey from membership opinion. What's the public think about what's going on? What's the, uh, LDS membership Trump supporters think about Trump? And if they're quiet, perhaps. The LDS leaders should remain quiet in order to keep its base. It's, it, I know the answer to that from my perspective, but, and I think the church does privately, but it's afraid, Jim. It's afraid. And it will wait as it does so often for public opinion and membership opinion to sway in a certain direction. And when it sees those early signs in those trends, where the public opinion's going, where the general membership opinion's going, uh, and it will kind of, kind of map that and kind of understand that, then it will come out and we'll call it revelation. Forgive me for being cynical. We'll call it revelation. We've been revealed to us that the Lord's displeased with what's going on and we have a moral duty to elect people into public office and they'll go back to the early teachings, but they won't do it, um, first. They won't act first cuz they don't know which way public opinion's going. That's why it's afraid. And that's why this part of the church is manmade. This is the fallibility that you talk about. This is the weakness of the church. It's fear. It's men. God's not afraid. Christ wasn't afraid. He gave his life. And Christ is not neutral, especially on issues of morality, integrity, and decency. And on, on a global level, you know, back then when Christ was here, we weren't connected globally like we are now. These things that are going on affecting our lives and we as, as, as people, as humans. We need to get involved. We need to speak up and stand up for things that we believe in. And I would, I don't quite agree with what you said earlier from my perspective. Agree, maybe not the right word. I don't, I'd go further than what you said earlier about you're okay about the leaders being neutral. I'm okay about the church leaders taking a position and being open to say, hey, I voted for Biden. I could, I might disagree with him or I might agree with him. They might vote for Trump and we can have a conversation about that. I'm saying, um, declare your vote. You've got a voice as a, as a citizen. Um, you know, you, uh, you, you, you've got a right to vote. Tell us who you're voting for. We trust you. You're intelligent. You lead us. Maybe we need to rethink who we're gonna vote for, cuz if you are voting for these, these, and these, maybe we should, uh, think about that very carefully. I'm okay with knowing who they're voting for. I might disagree with them, but fine, make a decision and don't be afraid to get it wrong or make mistakes, right? So I'm okay with, with supporting them and, you know, if they are public about who they're gonna vote for. Anyway, the church, I think if the Epstein files are released and it's found that Trump has molested children, the church will still wait. But public opinion, once they know that it's going in a certain direction and this kind of speed and the rate of opinions going that direction, it will come out, make a stance, and connect it to some kind of revelation. Forgive me if I'm being a bit cynical. I know we're— this is probably the longest podcast we're ever going to do. Probably need to wrap this up.

Yeah. One, one quick thing to, to follow up, because I want to offer a sliver of hope or maybe a sliver of evidence. That that may not be the case, that the church is capable of doing something that is maybe a little, you know, going to be unsettling to certain members of the church. Do you remember the whole Tim Ballard episode?

A little bit. Yeah.

So Tim Ballard was the darling of the far right. There was a movie about him that dominated the box office. I can't even remember what it was called. Underground Railroad or something. Um, any, anyway, something freedom. Anyways, a big huge movie, uh, about him and about how he saved the world from child traffickers and isn't he a great hero. And he announced that he was going to run for the Senate, uh, to, to replace Mitt Romney. And all then all of a sudden Uh, it started to trickle out that he was a fraud and that all of the things that he said he was doing, he wasn't actually doing. What he was doing was having affairs, particularly with women that he would bring in as operatives and say, well, when we're going to go talk to these child traffickers, uh, we're going to do the couples ruse, which means that we have to pretend to be married. And so it needs to look authentic. So we need to make out, we need to shower together. We need to do all these things to prove that we're doing this. And while he was the darling of all these people, he was also buddies with M. Russell Ballard, to whom he was not related, but they got to know each other. Elder Ballard would quote him in some of his talks. Elder Ballard was on the board, I think, of Operation Underground Railroad. The Smell of Freedom. What was the name of that movie? Anyway, anyway, um, and then all of a sudden, out of nowhere, came a statement, uh, completely condemning, um, uh, Tim Ballard and saying the church has no affiliation with him, the church distanced itself from him, Elder Ballard has no affiliation with him, Elder Ballard condemns what he's doing. And when he did it, there was this huge uproar. And they said, well, who did this? Because it's an unsigned statement, so clearly it's not from the Brethren. So maybe the church's PR department went rogue and released this statement. And it became clearer and clearer and clearer that no, this was an official church statement. They were condemning Tim Ballard. And then public opinion came out and, and realized that the church had been ahead of it, and the church had gotten wind of all of this, realized that Tim Ballard needed to be condemned, and issued that statement. Uh, I think they are capable of doing that. I think they are capable of doing the right thing. Uh, I would hope that there is a line that the church, uh, would not allow Donald Trump to cross. I have lost hope that members of the church who support Donald Trump have a similar line. But I, I still have faith. I still have confidence, uh, in the decency and goodness of the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency. And, and so we'll just have to wait and see. But these are fraught times, and that's the reason why we felt compelled to do two different Inside Out episodes in one week. So I think we're wrapping up here and it looks like Ian is having some kind of power problems. So I'm going to wrap up solo, but I'm very grateful for all of the input Ian has given here. Very grateful, uh, that you have been listening to this and that hopefully you've been listening to two episodes of Inside Out in one week. Uh, we hope you will join us when we return to our regular, regular schedule next week. And until then, we will see you. We look forward to talking with you next time on Inside Out. And you're not here, but thank you, Ian.