The Fullness of the Gospel - with Greg Prince

Hello and welcome to another episode of Inside Out. My name is Jim Bennett and I am here with Ian Wilkes wearing a cool Rush t-shirt, which nobody else can see. But how are you, Ian, sir?

I am doing really well. Life is good. We feel very blessed. I'm really excited. Uh, I, oh, I'm always excited to be having these conversations with you, Jim, and a conversation with easily one of our most favorite people.

Absolutely. We welcome back Greg Prince. Greg, glad to have you here. How are you?

And yes, that you are essentially in my former backyard at the Hollywood Bowl.

Yes, I am. I am recording this from a big room in the Sheraton Universal Hotel where I am holed up with the Tabernacle Choir. We are performing at the Hollywood Bowl this Wednesday night and tomorrow night. This will go out after those performances, but I, um, I, I've been telling everybody, and it's true, that the Hollywood Bowl is where I met my wife. And I went and took a picture of where I think the spot was. There was a USC ward activity. We went and saw Bugs Bunny on Broadway. And it was the LA Philharmonic playing along with old Bugs Bunny cartoons. And it was not love at first sight because this was Laurel's first time in Los Angeles. She was coming to USC to get her master's degree in physical therapy. And she came, this was her first ward activity. And she said, it was really depressing because I knew I wasn't going to fit in here because Everybody was laughing at this big goofy guy that I thought was the most obnoxious person I'd ever met in my life. And that turned out to be me. And we ended up getting married. So it was, I don't even remember meeting her there. Um, but she says that's when she first met me. So, so there we go. So it's a very romantic, not romantic moment, but I just absolutely adore this. Place. I adore the Hollywood Bowl. And anyway, that's not what we're here to talk about though. Uh, we, um, Ian, you've been soloing with live streams. Uh, you apparently in the most recent one talked about, uh, President Oaks's devotional. Is that right? Where he outlined the 3 points of the only true church?

Yes.

Can you summarize that for me?

Yes, I'll try and, and do that. So, uh, there's no shortage of material related to the church. Every week there's something interesting or new. Um, and of course this last week is no different. Uh, so last night on Inside Out Live, we had a fascinating and fairly robust conversation about the, uh, recent, uh, comments, statements by President Oaks reminding the world, not just the members, that there are 3 characteristics Characteristics of the Only True and Living Church. He says here that in an article which is published in Church News, he says that we have a unique and true testimony of Christ. This is the key to everything. And this is in a recent address, I think on June 20th, to a seminar to new mission leaders. I presume that's mission presidents. And so he says some interesting things.

Well, just, just clarification, they now use the term mission leaders because they're trying to include women as mission leaders. They refer to women as mission leaders as well. I think that's kind of a positive step in the right direction.

That's a really good point to highlight. And so that's really good, Jim. I, I, that makes sense to me. That sounds logical. So this again, the small incremental changes in the church, which is good. And so in that address with the mission leaders, President Oaks again reminds the world of the, uh, three, uh, essential, uh, characteristics of the only true church. And I'll give you the headline here, then we can get into some of the detail. One is the Church of Jesus Christ has the fullness of his doctrine. That was number one. Number two, uh, the Church of Jesus Christ has his priesthood authority. And number three, the Church of Jesus Christ has a unique Testimony of Christ. And in this Church News article, it goes into a little bit of detail as, you know, each of those, well, maybe detail is not the right word. I find the article quite vague and quite generic, but there's a little bit of interesting substance there. He says this, um, that, uh, he quotes the revelation given to the Prophet Joseph Smith in 1831, where the Lord referred to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as, quote, the only true living church upon the face of the whole earth. And of course, you know, in our videos, Inside Out, we start that out with the Bruce Almiconkey video, and we kind of have a little bit of light, fun, hopefully not disrespectful thoughts, comments about being the only true podcast. We kind of have a bit of a play on that. But we've said often, Jim, frequently on the podcast, of the— we've talked about the responsibility and the accountability that comes with an organization that Uh, claims to be the only true church upon the face of the earth and has got the only priesthood authority and is the only organization, religious organization that represents God for the entire world. And that comes with very significant responsibility. We've talked about, um, specifics in that responsibility, getting involved in geopolitics like the Pope. We've talked about the role of the Pope and what the Pope's doing, uh, as the head of the Catholic Church and the influence that the Pope has got and the need for President Oaks to get out. Uh, and, and we'll hear from Greg a bit more on that, uh, later, I'm sure. But, uh, just to, uh, kind of get us into some of the, uh, somewhat substance, if you can call it that, uh, President Oaks says the fashionable opinion of this age is that all churches are true. If that is so, then all religious messages that identify differences in religious doctrines like ours are unimportant. He says that, he concludes, he says that conclusion can cause us and others a serious loss of religious freedom. And before I hand the time over to you guys to get into this, and we can discuss it in detail, one of the interesting conversations or threads in the live podcast last night was how does the church reconcile this claim to be the only true church? And Pernod's recently, most recently reminding us that the Mormon Church, the Only True Church, with the need or their interest in trying to reinvent the church, reorganize, maybe restructure is maybe too much, but reinvent and repackage the church into mainstream Christianity. So, you know, in order to grow and in order to advance the work, one of the strategies, one of the threads in the strategies is to appeal to mainstream Christianity. I think this is what's been going on within the church. So how do we revise, improve the strategy amongst a lot of different micro-strategies, you know, going to Africa and trying to find out where we can get, you know, get the members, you know, people to join the church, investigate in big numbers. How do we deal with that? That's an ongoing challenge. But one of the ways of becoming more, sustaining growth or advancing or accelerating growth is to appeal more to the mainstream Christian marketplace, if you can call it that. And to do that, the church is now making, you know, repositioning itself around Easter. It has a figure of Jesus Christ carrying the cross, I believe, at the Tabernacle Square, et cetera. And it's trying to celebrate, you know, and become more mainstream. So how does it The question that came up last night was, how does it do that? How does it appeal to mainstream Christianity to attract people from mainstream Christianity, um, as a revised strategy and at the same time claim to be the only true church? Maybe there's an answer to that. So that was a long, uh, way of probably giving a bit of an intro, but I hope that gives you a little bit of substance, uh, some hooks to jump on and, and kind of comment on.

Well, Greg, I'd love to hear you. On President Oaks's devotional there, or his remarks to the mission leaders?

A long time ago, I read a historical novel about Saint Francis of Assisi, and a phrase that stuck with me is that always and never are words best reserved for use by the deity. We are in a society and in a church that doesn't pay attention to that, that we tend to use superlatives and we keep hiking up the level of the superlatives. That's way above my pay grade. I think if the church is to achieve its full potential, it needs to do well what it can do well and not worry about trying to say we're the one and only. I've spoken on this podcast before about what Rabbi Kushner told me about that kind of statement. He said, think of it as a statement of loyalty and not a fact. And that works for me. Uh, you'd want any child to say, my family's the best family in the world. And for church members to say, my religion is the best, or they can even say it's the only, um, that's what Rabbi Kushner was getting at because he had heard it from multiple denominations, all claiming the same thing. I'm just not concerned. About that kind of exclusive statement. What I'm concerned about is, can we do well what we are best positioned to do? And if you look at it in that sense, there is a unique mission that's available to this church, and I think that's what we should be concentrating on. Does that make sense so far, Jim Bennett?

It does. So, what is it then that we do well that we ought to be concentrating on?

Well, one of the things that President Oaks was talking about is our absolutely extraordinary missionary force—87,000 now. Now, there's a blip in that that will eventually go back down, and that is by lowering the age of young women to 18. You double dip for a while to account for that one extra year in the missionary force. But nonetheless, however you calculate it, 87,000 full-time volunteers is not just extraordinary, it's unique. Now the question is, what do they do when they get out there? We've talked about that before. Uh, I think that the best way to spread the gospel is by engaging in Christian service. And we're doing a bit more of that, but we're still not really embracing the idea that able-bodied, able-minded young missionaries, male and female, should be doing anything other than full-time proselytizing. I had lunch a couple weeks ago with the head of the Pan American Development Foundation headquartered in DC. She met with people in Salt Lake a few weeks ago and brought up the idea that I had talked to her about, even coached her a little bit, of her organization and the LDS Church partnering on what would essentially be service missions in Latin America. And the church people said, oh no, no, no, no, we're, our missionaries are there to preach the gospel. But I still fall back on my statement that the best way to preach is by example. But that's one thing where we have a unique position in the entire world. And we've got a bank account that could empower that missionary force in a way that it has not yet been empowered. The second thing that comes to mind that really is unique for us is the emphasis on families looking backward and forward, genealogical work, that we tend not to use that word as much as we used to. Um, that's unique. And we have created a master database and given it as a free gift to the world without strings attached through FamilySearch. That's a really big deal. And I think if we could spend more time educating the world as to why that's important for them, without worrying about, gee, how many baptisms are we going to get as a result of it? I think that would be a really big deal too. So there are two right off the top of my thinking where we do occupy not just a good position, but I think a unique position without my having to say, yeah, we're the one and only. We got some pretty good stuff.

No, I think we've got some pretty good stuff too. And the way— it's interesting that you would highlight family history like that because that really is a resource that the church offers to the world with no strings attached. It's very impressive. Uh, one way to dazzle any sort of VIP that does anything with the church is to hand them their family history. The church has done that on a number of occasions and people are just blown away. By how good the church is at doing that. And family history to me, uh, is so, um, critical in the sense that it demonstrates, uh, how I can reconcile the sort of statements about this being the only true church and the only true and living church, uh, because I am a universalist at heart. And I think at the core of Mormonism is universalism. If it isn't, then what are we doing all this family history for? For? Why are we bothering to do all of this temple work if we don't believe that everybody eventually gets saved, uh, and gets exalted? You know, there's always the people who try to put some daylight between the words salvation and exaltation and try to sort of distance ourselves from what I think is the core impulse of universalism that's driving all of this. But if you can look at the idea of the only true church as a statement of— Greg, you talk about it as a statement of loyalty, and I think it is to some degree, but it's also hopefully a statement of responsibility. I sometimes frame it as, yeah, um, everybody gets saved, but it's the Mormons that do the paperwork, that we've been tasked with a responsibility to save the world, and that people who are in other religious traditions and doing other sorts of things are going to benefit from our efforts and not be excluded by them. If we can look at it in that regard, then I, I can, I can fully embrace the idea. It does require a certain sort of nuance. I mean, Ian, you would push back at anybody that tried to say that this was the only true church, would you not? Okay. Is there any sense in which that statement is true?

Not for me and for many others. Uh, I, I think the church would do well to reframe that. Uh, it's interesting that President Oaks has resurfaced this. It's quite extraordinary. We've been talking about this on Inside Out. I'm not saying he's been watching our podcast, but we talk about this quite often. And we said, we don't know the last time any leader of the church has even made a reference to this. It kind of went quiet. We talked about that. So it's quite extraordinary. And you have to ask, you know, why has he done this? And I think it's, um, it's part of that strategy that I mentioned earlier where the church is, uh, very smart people reviewing how does it retain members? How does it retain youth? It's hemorrhaging, um, members in, in all, in many areas in the United States and geographies, other geographies are more successful. How does it, uh, reorganize, restructure, and reinvent itself in order to be attractive, appealing to, and to, uh, attract new people into the church and to, um, retain the members? So there must be some kind of correlation between the strategy of trying to attract people from mainstream Christianity, become more at least by appearance, a little bit of substance, become more attractive to other Christians? Because that's a marketplace. There's a big marketplace for sure, even though it's declining. You know, there's a lot of secularism going on and people are moving away from— there's more secular people now in the US probably than there has been in its history. And so, and then how does it do that without diluting too much of the doctrine and its, and its qualities that differentiate the church, that uniquely, distinctly separate the church and differentiate the church from other mainstream religions. And so I think instead of, it would've been better instead of coming out and saying we're the only true church, which is just odd. It is very little substance in that article. And it is, I just find the whole thing bizarre to be honest. It would've been better if it had said, you know, we just talk about what they want to do. And I think if, if, if the President Oaks frankly would have focused on the two areas that Greg has just mentioned, 'cause Greg's nailed it, is service. The church does that extremely well. I mean, phenomenal. I don't know any organization that serves like the church does. The members, I've served with the members side by side. They're extraordinary people. And of course the genealogy, I mean, that is incredibly successful for the church. Very powerful. I can't think of two greater qualities in any organization where there's a personal, you know, the church is very successful at connecting people's historical relationships across the family genealogy. You know, your uncles and your aunts and your great-grandparents. I mean, that is very personal. It's very private. It's very spiritual and it's incredibly powerful. And the church does that extremely well. And that's it. That's fantastic. And then you could argue that the church is spending more on the dead than the living, as I would, frankly. I think there's a bit of an imbalance there. But on the service side, I still think the church has more to do. So instead of claiming to be the only true church, just don't even talk about that. Just say, look, you know, here's who we are. This is what we do. We're focusing on these areas. We're going to be extending and advancing, accelerating these initiatives. We're going to be putting these 87,000 missionaries to good use. They're going to be doing traditional, conventional, modern-day proselyting in the world, of course, you know, teach the message of Christ, but also they'll be doing this. They'll be organizing leading conversations and gatherings with charities and other religious organizations to help the homeless, open up the building, help people who are in need. Actually be part of those groups, lead them, organize them, and have the missionary force get involved in that. I think there's, again, there's nothing more powerful than, and President Oaks does say this in the article, he says this, leading through testimony and example, end quote. This is in the article that came out pretty much the same time as his claim to be the only true church. And he talks about I'll just read some of it here. It's quite interesting. He said, he spoke directly to new mission leaders about the influence of their discipleship. He said new mission leaders and others who will hear this talk are called to demonstrate by a personal example and commitment to serve the Lord and your fellow men. He connected that leadership to the doctrine missionaries teach each day. He says this, your purpose is to lead in proclaiming the doctrine of Christ, which is faith in Christ, repentance and baptism, gift of the Holy Ghost, which witnesses in the Father and the Son. Shows all things that we should do. I mean, Christ was about doing. He was out outside. Uh, he was in the homes, sure, but he was outside. He was in the streets, in the fields. Uh, every day, I believe from the moment he woke up, uh, to the, the moment he, uh, put his head, rested his head, Christ was about serving and about helping, physically helping, speaking to people. And out there all the time. And I think the church does that really well. And I think it could do even greater, especially with this, probably the next few years, this, this bit of a blip in the numbers, which has increased 87,000, could really capitalize on that and utilize that and start to forecast like you do in these big global engineering companies. You forecast people's resources ahead, you know, 3 months ahead and 6 months, and you do a capacity planning, uh, strategy to see what resources you've got. The church does this, I'm sure, very, very intelligent. So by utilizing this amazing missionary force and all the other still existing available capacity that I believe still exists across the entire membership of the church, notwithstanding that the members do extraordinary things and put in so many hours, there's probably, maybe I'm being a bit too, too aggressive there by asking more of the members, but there's perhaps members out there that can be utilized in terms of service. So I think Greg has actually identified the two major— there's many other qualities, of course, but the two major qualities, and the church would do well just to focus on that. Don't tell us that you're the only true church. Show us that you're a great church. You can even be a great church, a good church. Just show us through example and love and getting involved and, uh, supporting people's lives. And yes, that will transform people's lives. And yes, the numbers will come. That's the, that's the solution, I think, to, uh, sustaining the church, uh, uh, position and growth.

Let me dig a little deeper on the Jim Bennett front, cuz I think it's beneficial on two levels. One is We did make a transition. Nobody really explained it from the use of the word genealogy to the use of the term family history. I don't think that was accidental because in my younger years, all the emphasis was let's gather the names and connect them and do the temple work. Family history means that you're putting flesh on the bones. That's when I think the hearts of the children and the fathers get connected, when the stories become living and you realize that you're part of this larger heritage. And that is a big deal. It means something here and now. So that transition from the bare bones genealogy to the full flesh of family history is a critical one, and you really see that— pardon the term again— fleshed out on the church's website, where it's no longer a pedigree chart. It's voice recordings, it's family narratives, it's photographs that all can be appended to that skeleton of a pedigree chart that makes family history become a living thing. The other thing that I think family history allows us to distinguish that's really important for religionists, particularly those who want to make exclusive claims, is the difference between a statement of belief and a statement of fact. The redemption of the dead is a statement of belief. The compiling of a family history is a statement of fact. And we need to be careful about differentiating those two. We have so many of our co-religionists who will get up with the best of intentions and bear their testimonies and say, "I know without," and you can fill up the blanks of that statement. Where what they're really saying is, I hope this is true, I believe it's true, but it's a statement of belief and not a fact. And I think that's what Rabbi Kushner was getting at as well. It is a statement of loyalty, not a fact.

No, I think that's very important to highlight. And as you go through President Oaks's remarks here to these mission leaders. Uh, he, the first thing he says, he doesn't get into family history, he doesn't get into the kinds of things we're talking about here. The first thing he talks about is one of the reasons we are the only true and living church is that we have a fullness of doctrine, which I don't even know what that means. Specifically since we've emphasized in recent years the idea that we— that the Restoration continues. And so a fullness of doctrine sounds like we've got everything, it's, it's done, the Restoration is over, we've got— we're full, you know.

When was the last time we had a course of study on doctrine?

Well, we have gospel doctrine teachers that don't— no, that's a label.

I mean Yeah. Where we are teaching doctrine, we're mostly teaching behavior.

Can you elaborate on that a little bit? What do you mean by that?

Go into whether it's priesthood manuals or Sunday school manuals, they're all directed towards behavior. If you want a really stark example of the contrast, go back to 1907 and the years after that where B.H. Roberts in his 70s courses on theology, spent, for instance, an entire year studying the doctrine of the atonement. We, we don't get anywhere close to that. We haven't really taught church history or church doctrine as a central theme in decades.

No, you're absolutely right. And to some degree, I can understand why we do that, and there's some benefit to the fact that You go to church and they talk, they're focusing on behavior, Christlike behavior, trying to become better people. But what ends up happening is that you just get the same sort of tired clichéd bromides over and over again. And everybody knows what the Sunday school answers are and pray and read your scriptures. And it's just, One of my favorite phrases now that I've gotten from Greg Prince, it's all the Christ-centered boredom that we marinate in on a regular basis. Uh, so you're right, yeah, we don't necessarily focus on doctrine at all.

No. Now, having said that, I will say that most people don't want to hear doctrine. It's not where they're living, particularly the younger people. Their eyes tend to glaze over if you either talk about doctrine or truth claims, and those aren't necessarily always the same. What they're looking for in an increasingly difficult and dangerous world is, how do I make this work? How can I embrace a religion that helps me survive, if not thrive, day to day? And if it has a good fire insurance policy attached to it, that's great, but that's not where my mind and my body are. I'm just trying to live here and now. And I think more and more what the younger folks are looking for is a relevant, pragmatic religion that helps them cope with what Rabbi Kushner called this frightening cosmos. And it is.

No, there is— go ahead.

There is an answer. As I'm listening to you both, my mind is taking me in a certain direction, and I think there's an answer that we all know and the church knows but could do more of is— and I agree, I think a lot of these doctrinal clusters is sharing information and regurgitating old stuff and, you know, repackaging it, and there's nothing new or in-depth. And I agree, I think a lot of people especially the modern, you know, younger folks don't want to probably get into, I can't say definitively this is correct, but they don't want to get into the deep doctrine. But I think the solution is, and I speak from, I know I speak for you both when I say this, I feel pretty safe in saying this, that the full measure of the church and many other good organizations or any organization that you're part of that does good is to create an opportunity to feel something, to experience something. You know, when I'm in the classes and the lessons, I'm thinking, if I'm teaching or if I'm, I'm, I'm a, a student, I'm thinking, well, how does this relate to me? Does it make sense? What do I do with it? And most of the time, you know, it, it, it doesn't go beyond that and I kind of forget what's been taught. But if I was able to, uh, experience it in a personal way through what I'm talking about is service. So if, if I had spent more time, uh, serving, literally serving people, helping people, doing things instead of being in meetings, talking about meetings, about meetings, which was the bulk of the time. And if I'd have got out more and helped people, you know, physically the homeless, which is what it's all about, right? And, and, and helping other, uh, supporting other groups. That, by experiencing that, by witnessing that and seeing the transformation that, uh, people experience when they're being helped, is far more powerful than any doctrine, for me at least, any lesson, any self-professed claim that being under the Only True Church. That's where these principles at the fundamental principle level. That's where it connects because that's the spiritual part. That's the emotional part. It's not in the, you don't get saved just, uh, by listening to lessons and teaching lessons. That's not enough. It's not enough to pray. It's not enough to, um, do a lot of things. You have to do things. Uh, you can't just sit there and, and listen and teach and, and pray and, and, uh, hopefully that, uh, everything will, you that insurance policy will be, will be safe. You've gotta be out there. I'm, I'm a strong advocate and I push back on a lot of, um, uh, Christian evangelicals who argue that you don't need to work. You know, that, that teaching, that faith without works is dead. Well, I'm completely on the other side of that. I believe that to save ourselves, to find yourself, you know, for Jim to find who he is, Greg to find who he is, you know, and you both know who you are. But there's a point in your life, I'm sure, where you discovered yourself. And I can bet you a bottom dollar that it was through a difficult moment, probably a transformational moment, a service experience, probably a darker, difficult moment in your life. And it taught you about you. And at some point you helped somebody and felt something, or somebody helped you and you felt something, and that has never left you. I think that is the universal message of the human spirit. And I think that's where the church could do great things by creating better opportunities, more opportunities. I mean, if you look at the numbers here, you know, President Oaks is in his address. He's got this big visual behind him, 55 new missions, 506 total missions, 76,000 current young teaching missionaries, 4,600 young young service missionaries, 6,000 full-time senior missionaries. To me, that seems very low. And then 87,000+ full-time missionaries. I mean, the numbers are impressive, uh, and, and it's important to know the numbers for sure, but it's helping people. I'll tell you this, and I'll hand the time back over to you, Jim. Do you remember what President Banks said, one of his first, uh, powerful statements, uh, that he, uh, spoke when he first came into the mission, I think in July '87, within a few weeks or months, um, he talked about a generous sprinkling of spiritual experiences, end quote. Do you remember that? I got there in September of '87, so, well, he, he said it often. He said it often and that stuck with me. We went from this regimental President Dunn, this like sergeant major approach, right? To a completely different mission experience with President Banks. And it was all about listen to the spirit, praying, you know, going to the streets, say a prayer at a bus stop and follow the spirit. And that to me was just absolutely amazing. And I felt for the first time I was actually in touch with myself and the spiritual and God. And it was just incredibly, um, uh, inspiring for me. It was a whole different approach. And from that, we had many more spiritual experiences. And I, those experiences have never left me. You know, I could think of some amazing experiences that I've had in my life, in and out the church, and they are part of me now. I'm part of those experiences and whatever I've learned or forgotten over the years, I, uh, it's easy for me to, um, remind me of the purpose of my life and the meaning of my life. Is to serve others because that's where I felt the greatest joy. And the church does that really well. And I think could do even more, um, you know, with its extraordinary capacity. So I think all of the culmination of all this, you know, lessons and talks and, and, and statements, et cetera, and the numbers is to create these opportunities where people can feel those experiences and the church does really well on that. But I think it could even, believe it or not, it could even do greater things where people have more of that. And that's what connects people. It's hard to give that up. And even now I speak fondly of the church and all those experiences that came through the church, even though I don't belong to the church, but I can't deny them. They were amazing experiences.

Well, and I think that kind of sets you apart from a lot of people who leave. Uh, because so often when somebody leaves, uh, there is, you know, and I think maybe you've probably gone through this, but there's always the challenge of just trying to figure out, okay, well, how do I make this work now? To get back to Greg, what you were talking about, uh, because this idea that we need a religion that helps us to make it all work, to make the universe work, uh, And the young people are sort of rejecting truth claims. They're rejecting sort of doctrinal arguments. It just blows my mind to go on Twitter, for instance, and see Mormons debating with evangelicals about the Trinity and what it means to be co-substantial with God. And I just think, is there anybody in the rising generation that gives a fig about any of that? And as President Oaks talks about the fullness of doctrine, he's talking about ways of making things work in a way that I think is probably driving away a lot of the young people, because his example as to what the fullness of doctrine is, uh, was a focus on exaltation in the celestial kingdom through eternal marriage. Between a man and a woman. To quote President Oaks here, he said, there are many political, legal, and social pressures for changes that would change the definition of marriage or de-emphasize its importance, confuse gender, or homogenize the differences between men and women that are essential for us to accomplish God's great plan of happiness. Our eternal perspective sets us against such changes We believe that we must contend for the kind of families that provide the best conditions for the development and happiness of children, all of God's children. So, so Greg, when you're talking about young people looking for a religion that can make it all work for them, what happens when they bump into that kind of a teaching? The way to make religion work for you is to contend for— essentially, it's bizarre to me that he even used that word because President Oaks has backed down from the idea that we need to constantly be fighting gay marriage at this point. And the church endorsed the Respect for Marriage Act of legalizing gay marriage in, in all 50 states. But here we seem to be getting back to that message that we need to fight for traditional marriage and that that's where the fullness of our doctrine is. How does that resonate with the young folks?

I don't think it resonates very well. Show me the data. Uh, let me go back in time. I spent 4 years as an elders quorum president. I can make a case that that's an unconstitutional calling because at least in the United States, the Constitution says there should not be cruel and unusual punishment. We spent a couple of years doing a lot of checking of boxes. Now, to show you how conventional I was, in 4 years, not once did I mention home teaching in a quorum meeting. So at least I felt I got that one right. But we finally figured out that the only measure of our effectiveness that to mend anything, was to be able to say perhaps at the end of a year, this person or this family is here instead of there because we were there for them. I think that's the question that particularly younger people in the church are asking and need to ask, and that is, all right, I'm in this church. At the end of this year, If I've given it a good try, am I there instead of here because of the church being there? You hope the answer will be yes. However, that's a more difficult task than it used to be because for all three of us, we grow up in a church that was laden with attractive programming. That's what defined our experience as Latter-day Saints. It was not the doctrine. It was the programs. And most of those now, I think understandably so because of the pressures of modernity, are gone. So if you are replacing those vibrant programs that really enlivened an entire youth population of a church, with dry sermons about doctrine or about traditional marriage, which I don't think people in the younger demographic give a hoot about, um, that's not a winning hand that you're playing.

It— no, it, it isn't. And that's the thing that's— it's been very interesting to see President Oaks wrestle with some of this, particularly with the whole issue of gay marriage, because I think that President Oaks' position on that is very easily caricatured, and I think it's a whole lot more complex and nuanced than people give it credit for. But then he comes out with a talk like this that doesn't sound complicated or nuanced at all. And I— you go through his three sort of compelling reasons why we're the only true church, The first is that we're fighting against gay marriage, which seems like weak sauce, and we're really not fighting against gay marriage at this point. The second is priesthood authority, uh, which I think is the clearest and simplest thing to understand, is that we have this authority that other churches don't have. And whether you believe that or not, uh, that argument at least has the virtue of being um, logically consistent. Or, I mean, we can say this is a specific thing that we have that other people don't. Because then his third thing is that we have this unique testimony of Christ. And this gets back— I think, Ian, you were talking about this at the beginning— this gets back to the idea of, okay, well, if our testimony of Christ is so unique then why are we aping conventional and mainstream Christianity in a way that we never have before? Why all of a sudden is Good Friday and Palm Sunday and all these other things— why are they on the table in a way they weren't before? Why are we trying so hard to sound like our testimony of Christ is like everyone else's testimony of Christ? And what, what is it that makes it when he just says it's unique? It just feels like getting a cereal box that has new and improved on the COVID And I remember as a kid, it's like, oh, it's new and improved. Well, what's new about it and what's improved about it? Well, they never tell you. They just have the lovely label that says that it's new and improved and you're supposed to—

New and improved Tide. Wasn't that the one?

Yes. Yeah. That's one of them. Yeah. I mean, that's always. It's like, well, if it's new and approved, then I have to get it. But what's new and improved? What is unique, Greg, about our testimony of Christ?

I'm at a loss to answer that, Jim, because hanging around other Christians at the level that I do as a governor of Wesley Seminary, I usually sit in envy of them in terms of their practice of their Christianity. Forget about doctrinal statements. I don't see that I bring anything unique to that table. What pleases me is that at least I'm allowed to sit at the table and be a voice in the choir, but I'm not singing a solo. Right. I could explain that to you, Jim Bennett, but I don't think I need to.

No, I, the, the metaphor works for me. I appreciate that. No, that's it. When people talk about us not being Christians and they try to highlight stuff, one of the things that's always frustrated me whenever anybody's come back and said, okay, you're not a Christian. It's like, well, what do I need to do to be a Christian? Well, you need to let Jesus into your life. Well, you need to, and they list all these things that you're supposed to do. And I'll say, I'm happy to do all of those. And I think I have done all of those. And I can remember at a door approach in Scotland talking to some evangelical where I went through this whole Socratic exercise. Okay, what do I need to do? Well, you need to confess Christ. Okay, I confess Christ. You need to do this. You need this. And finally he said, well, you need to repent of your Mormon faith. What you need to do. And it's like, well, one of the greatest things Joseph Smith ever said is, I'd never heard of a man being damned for believing too little. Are for believing too much. And, and all these other Christians say, well, you don't believe in the same Jesus. And I'm like, well, are we talking about the guy from Nazareth? Are we talking about— well, yeah, but you believe he went to the Americas too, and you believe that he speaks to prophets now. And you— and it's like, well, okay, so you're telling me I believe too much about Jesus. You're not telling me I believe in a different Jesus. And so that doesn't necessarily work. But when you start talking about the uniqueness of our testimony and you don't really offer any specifics other than, well, we're— it's the same sort of thing. How do you respond when, when an apostle— and this become— this has become the line now— the apostles are no longer special witnesses of Christ. They are special witnesses of the name of Christ. And I don't know what that means. I haven't even heard that statement. Oh, it's, it's, it's, it's— go back to General Conference and that's what they lean into now. It's that they are special witnesses of the name of Jesus Christ. I just heard it yesterday. Elder Kosay is here. Uh, he is the— our liaison with the Twelve and he's at the Hollywood Bowl and he talked about, and I bear you my testimony as a special witness. Special witness of the name of Jesus Christ. And I think, well, special witness of Christ means you've seen him, and isn't that great? But all of us have seen the name of Jesus Christ. I don't know what that means other than sort of as a differentiator, saying that I have this sort of special authority. Ian, you've heard the special witness of the name of Jesus Christ, have you not?

I have. I did. I didn't, I missed it. Somebody else kind of highlighted it. It kind of went over my head. Uh, you know, one word can change the entire thing. And to me, it's like backing off away from the idea and the endless, uh, problematic questions that people ask about and have this assumption that, um, you know, every Thursday in the Jordan River Temple, I think it was, the apostles and the prophet at least, uh, are in the Holy of Holies, uh, has, uh, converses with Christ in the flesh, and that's what I always was taught and taught that was a special witness. But being a special witness to the name, you know, I don't know what that means. It's just, I think it's just them backing off this, this, um, um, it's just another odd thing that they're backing off, uh, what they've said in the past. And, and so if they, you know, ask, um, you know, if someone asked them, have they seen Christ? Well, you know, the special witness of the name of Christ, it's just, again, that's, this is the problem. If something isn't true, or didn't happen the way you think it did or said it did, or some doctrine is not based on, uh, real honest exp— truthful experience where the brethren, um, haven't seen Christ in person. Don't say that you have. Um, and if you haven't, instead of changing a word and hoping people may miss it like me, or might come to some of their own interpretation. We've said with Greg often on all these podcasts that the church comes out and does something, says something, and then let's, let's, let's say, filter through the members, and members will come up with their own interpretations. They won't address it head-on but let the members kind of, you know, let it percolate and see where it goes from there. It's just, it's just, um, very weak leadership in my view. So it's just, uh, for me it's just a diluting, watering down of what was at for me, at least, a very extraordinary teaching and understanding in the church that, uh, you know, when I was active and fully believing that the prophet actually saw Christ, I thought that was extraordinary. And I testified of that, uh, you know, in my entire life. I thought that was unique. You know, President Oaks talks about the uniqueness of the church. What's more unique than that? Speaking to Christ face to face. I think that's extraordinary. I can't think of a more powerful experience where Christ is coming down like he did in the, in the temple video experience, et cetera, with Peter, James, and John and Adam and Eve, that the heavens, the heavens are open. Revelation continues. Prophet has a direct, uh, uh, relationship with, with Christ who created this world. And I think that is the most powerful, significant, uh, uh, thing in history. I, I mean, I can't think of anything more significant than that. And now watering it down is just, uh, is just, uh, odd. And the other thing I would say is that I think the church is, it's like a, uh, a V8 engine firing on 4 cylinders. It's still, it's doing well, maybe 6 cylinders instead of 8, but still not doing enough. Instead of trying to put all the resources into arguing whether it's a true church or whether this doctrine's correct. As, and by the way, this arrogance that exists in the church about trying to maintain and protect its doctrinal position is not unique to the church. I see this a lot in the conversations I have with evangelical Christians. They do the same thing. So it's not this arrogance, this, this hardline approach to protect the doctrine or the Trinity, or, you know, uh,, you know, don't need works to have faith, etc. We say by grace, after all, we can do all these basic doctrines and trying to highlight the differences. It's a complete futile exercise. I've tried. I've tried. I did, the last few months I've been experimenting to see how influential I could be. I failed completely. Um, and the church is failing when it tries to protect things that are not true or, or, or, um, argue things that didn't happen or are not true. Instead, it should be focusing on what Greg said, doing the good things that it does good, that it does well at. And it does well at creating opportunities for service where people can experience something emotionally, spiritually. There's nothing more powerful than that, than drawing people close to God through a personal, uh, present banks, a generous sprinkling of spiritual experiences on a daily or weekly basis. I think ministry was daily because full-time, but for members it was weekly. He kind of modified it at the Edinburgh conference one time. So instead of diluting stuff or changing stuff or arguing or holding to a position, differentiate yourself by the great church being a good church by doing the things that Greg mentioned, by doing those great things and doing them well or doing them better.

And A jump, um, because you're too young to have remembered Casey Stengel. He was a Major League Baseball manager who had a gift of words. He walked into the dugout one day when there was only one guy sitting on the bench, so he sat next to him and he said, I'm not going to mention any names, but one of the two of us just got traded to Kansas City. So I'm not going to mention any names, but a leader in DC absolutely insists on telling everybody that he's the one and only, the greatest. Um, it doesn't play well.

Just, just show us who you are by your action, your service. Don't talk about it. Talk about your things in general. But show us, just do it, get out there and just do it. And I tell you, that would differentiate the church instead of arguing this position, only true church, we're going to protect this doctrine, we're going to protect these fundamental principles, etc., etc. Just get out there and apply all that extraordinary capacity that exists, you know, in the church, mobilize it in a way that completely transforms people, and that will change lives. I thought that was the whole point. Of the church.

No, I think it is the whole point of the church, uh, but you know, it's just very interesting to see who emphasizes what and how people focus on this. I'd be very interested in getting from both of you kind of your report card for how well President Oaks is doing, uh, because we get these sort of sporadic little updates from him. I, President Nelson, I remember as soon as he got into office, he was omnipresent. He was, okay, now I'm doing everything I've wanted to do for 30 years and haven't been able to do. And here we're getting rid of Mormon, and here we're getting rid of home teaching, and here we're getting rid of a third hour of church, and I'm just going to change everything, and I'm just going gangbusters, and we're going to build a bazillion temples. And we're not seeing that same level of energy from President Oaks. And so when he does surface and say things, I think it's, you know, it's noteworthy because he chooses his fights and chooses his words carefully. Why is it that he feels this is the important message? That we need to hear right now about the only true church? Because it feels like a huge step backwards, and it feels like a huge step backwards from what President Oaks was saying, um, as he was talking about the idea of living in a pluralistic society and doing all of these sorts of things that sounded like he was trying to be more inclusive than he had been previously. Obviously. This feels like a bit of a retrenchment. Uh, do you get that sense, Greg, that this is a retrenchment, or am I just reading too much into it?

Well, if you look back at church presidents, not all of them are remembered for any particular outstanding thing that happened during their watch. Um, think about George Albert Smith.

Nobody thinks about George Albert Smith. And you probably draw a blank.

Yeah. And yet he was the church president for 6 years. Now he was succeeded by David O. McKay. You can think about David O. McKay, even though you have a familial tie there. It's not being provincial to say that he was the guy who really brought the Church into the 20th century, albeit a half century too late. Yeah. You look at President Kimball, and immediately you think of the revelation on priesthood, but you think of some other things that he did as well that made a huge difference. Um, but you think of others like Ezra Taft Benson, who succeeded Kimball and say, okay, what was, what was the defining thing about his presidency? Well, he emphasized the Book of Mormon. Okay. Number two? And so not all of them have made, in my mind at least, a hugely significant impact on the Church. And it's not necessary that all of them do that. You have to have continuity in administration, and sometimes just keeping the lights on is a good achievement. But I, I haven't seen yet from President Oaks whatever it would be that would result 10 or 20 or 30 years from now in people saying, oh, Well, President Oaks, because of him, and then you fill in the blanks.

I wish I could be prophet for a week. I wouldn't break the vase, so to speak, but I would be much more innovative, entrepreneurial leader. I think I could, again, sounds a bit arrogant on my part, but I think I could do some with the right people or me being leading or co-leading with someone, do some extraordinary things within make some change within a week, even a month. And the church has got the resources to do that for sure. I think the leadership there are constrained by this lane that they've put themselves in. You know, this, um, can't get water too far from the doctrine. We can't address issues too deep or too quickly. It's a very slow incremental, you know, even to the point where we change literally one word in a sentence and don't talk about it, right? It's painfully slow and often, or sometimes backward. And I think this article, um, you know, these statements about being the only true church, it just seems odd and unusual. I go back to my private personal conversation I had with President Oaks. Uh, I was in the Vernon State Building in British Columbia. It was an interview, uh, with 3 people in the room, myself, been called onto a new stake presidency. President Oaks was there to reorganize the stake. Elder Cook, I think it's Mark Cook, uh, Jim Bennett was the, um, uh, President Oaks described him as his junior companion. And I spent about, uh, half an hour, uh, 20 minutes, half an hour, it's quite long actually, in that room having a, just a wonderful conversation with President Oaks. And it was a, there were parts of it that was kind of regular, guy-to-guy talks. He asked me, uh, you know, with the new person that they've called, uh, by the way, the two others didn't know me. I wasn't owning the stake at all. So this is something that I think this is a memory that President Oaks had of me in Edinburgh. I escaped, I think, senior calling in Edinburgh by moving to Canberra. I thought I could go on the road and escape that calling. But anyway, uh, he caught up with me and so we chatted about that. And it was, parts of the conversation was just like a regular conversation. He asked me, will you support the new president? I went, of course. I actually said that. I went, of course. And he was, his response was different. He went, oh, that's good. And he said, tell me about yourself. I told him about myself. And then at the end of it, he asked me this question, which I thought was fantastic. He said, he called me Ian. He said, Ian, how do you want to be remembered? I was like, wow. I said, well, you know, I, he said, I want to be remembered for being a good father, a good husband, et cetera. And, and being, you know, a faithful servant. And I want to help people. I, I want to be remembered by helping people feel better than they do. That was my goal. And, and he, and we had a conversation back and forth about that, but he asked me, you know, how I, how do I want to be remembered? And I, I thought of that in two ways, you know, me personally in my life, but also he also meant, as he said, about the calling, you know, this new calling that I was, uh, was being extended to me. And that his message was that I just have to do my best, the very best I can. Because I did tell him, I, in the interview, I said, I feel, I said, President Oaks, I don't know why I'm here. He was, he said, what do you mean? I said, well, I said, even said, because quite bold with him, or maybe cheeky is probably the word. I said, I said, I don't even know why I'm here. He says, what do you mean? He says, well, I don't know anyone. I don't know. There's been a mistake. I've told him there's been a mistake. Oh, and he said, I don't think so. I said, well, I'm new to the stake. Uh, you know, I really have not known. And he kind of addressed that and he said, well, you're here because God has called you to this position. And so, um, you know, and I told him I felt inadequate, uh, for this calling. You know, I've been a bishop, sure. Uh, that I felt quite inadequate for this calling and that there's probably other people out there that were better than me. I suspect it was not the conversation that he anticipated. I'm talking to him like I'm talking to you both right now, by the way. And I didn't come across disrespectful or unkind. I was just being me, right? And this is what I said. I want to make sure you know what you're getting before you call me. So we had a bit of a, bit of a quip around that. I just didn't want him to think, and I told him I didn't want him to think he was, you know, getting something that he wasn't gonna get, or, and I wanted to be completely open and transparent with him on stuff. So, you know, he asked me anything in my past, um, you know, that could harm the church. I said no. And then at the end, he said, how do I want to be remembered? And so I, I think about that. That was an extraordinary conversation for me. And then we spent some time with him over the weekend. We had dinner together. He was on my right around this big round table and we chatted about stuff. It was just a regular Guy chat. It was great. And then I think about, you know, how does he want to be remembered? To what Jim Bennett and you were saying, how do we remember these individuals apart from maybe one item? Well, I had great hopes. President Banks said to us in the mission that keep an eye on President Oaks. This is back in the '80s. He's gonna do great things. And I think he is doing some good things. I just don't know what they are. And it should do great things, and I just don't know what they are. Instead of kind of, you know, buckling down onto the, you know, the traditional conventional way of trying to protect the institute and protect the investment and hold the ground. The way to differentiate yourself is by doing something better, do something different, break from the group. And by focusing on the two things that Greg has talked about. And doing even better in those areas, you will differentiate, you know, the product, the performance of the product, uh, and the quality is what the experience of that, the personal experience of that is what differentiates it. So when you buy something or you experience it really good, you're like, wow, this is amazing. It really works. Um, I mean, there's a lot of marketing involved in that, but if it does what it says on the side of the tin and does it really well, and the church has got some fantastic qualities, it we could do even better on. So instead of putting resources into doubling down on stuff, uh, uh, realign those resources, which are many, into, um, instead of fighting people on doctrine, uh, go out and collaborate and do some great things. And I, I, you know, I don't know how long Oaks has got, uh, you know, and what will I remember? I'll throw back a question to you both. If Oaks passed away tomorrow, and I hope he doesn't, course. My question to you both is, how do you think Oaks would be remembered if he, if he leaves this mortal coil tomorrow?

What do you think? What do you think, Greg?

You regarded as a footnote, in part because he's not been in the president's chair very long.

Well, I, I, I think over time, yeah, he would be a footnote. I think that his influence has been rather significant and was in, uh, I, because I think that the Nelson presidency, uh, I, I think that Oaks was the brain trust in the Nelson presidency, much in the same way that I think Uchtdorf was the brain trust in the Monson presidency. Uh, but at the same time, uh, I'm looking at, at President Oaks doing something similar to what Elder Packer did, which is that Elder Packer could see his time was running out. And so he said, okay, I've got to make sure that my pet issue survives me. And that was the 2010 disaster where he, he tried very hard to rewrite the changes that the church had made on LGBTQ issues. No, no, nobody's born that way. Why would your Heavenly Father ever do that to anyone? And that's when he tried to canonize the pro— the Family Proclamation on the fly and got slapped down on both of them. But I look at this talk as President Oaks saying, okay, well, I, I just need to mention that it's important that we defend traditional marriage. And I get the sense that he's doing that as a kind of way to protect what he sees as his legacy, and it's kind of in conflict with his own evolution on this issue. Or am I reading too much into that? Has President Oaks evolved on this, or am I just hopeful?

I don't see a definitive evolution.

Do you see a non-definitive evolution or anything?

It may be beating the same horse the same way. To me, that's not evolution.

No. No. Well, if you go back and look at the University of Virginia talk where he first started to introduce the idea that, okay, we need to be more pluralistic. We need to stop fighting to reverse gay marriage. We need to accept that that's the reality. And then we get the Respect for Marriage Act, and we get all these things that demonstrate that we buy the science to some degree, that we don't think people will pray the gay away anymore. And, and then we get this, we get this, okay, we're the only true church, and the main reason we're the only true church is we're the only one that stands up for the recreational family. And I just think, really, that's all you've got? That's your legacy?

That's not evolution. That's retrenchment. It's retrenchment.

We're seeing retrenchment. And I'm wondering if it's, he sees the end coming and it's like, well, I just need to make sure that I make my mark. And so I don't know. I, I, I, I think it will be very easy. To sort of pivot to whatever it is that— well, I was going to say President Uchtdorf, but you still have President Eyring there. And, uh, I mean, what would happen if President Oaks were to die and then President Eyring becomes president of the church for 10 minutes? I mean, have we ever had a footnote followed by a footnote like that before?

We came close.

I can't believe we're describing Oaks as a footnote. I don't disagree with it, but it's astonishing. It really is. One of the most intelligent people I've ever met, told by leaders, including a mission president who we have great affection for, President Banks. Keep an eye on President Oaks. Just an incredible achiever in public life, right? Very smart guy. Innovator to some extent. And we're talking about him as though he, could be a footnote notwithstanding, uh, he's still got some time left, I hope. Um, you know, and how much time does he have and what's he gonna do?

I think it goes to the very nature of leadership, which is a really difficult thing to pin down. Jimmy Carter was arguably one of the most moral presidents we've ever had, and one of the most intelligent. I mean, yes. And yet you look back at his presidency and kind of shrug your shoulders and say, hmm. Now, he became the very model of the ex-presidency, right, to an extent that might not ever be equaled. So a magnificent legacy in that sense. But being smart does not necessarily translate into being an effective leader. Nor being stupid doesn't necessarily preclude you from being an effective leader. It's when you get into that chair, what happens then? And I don't know that that's predictable.

And isn't real leadership not calling or appointing or assigning people that think the same as you, that follow the same patterns, the same rigmarole, the same constrained outlook on the world? You know why? I mean, with the exception of Hu, Kieran, Jim, you can speak to him a little bit more. The others seem to be individuals who are gonna follow the same pattern, the same swim lane, and not do anything bold or innovative. Do you see any of the leaders in the apostleship in the Quorum of the Twelve right now that stand out from the conventional, traditional orthodox apostle thinking? Sure.

Dieter Uchtdorf stands out by a mile. Now, if he becomes the president and actuarial tables say yes, he will, uh, it's still an open question. So what? Will that make a difference? Now, if you want to look at the flip side of that, look at Spencer Kimball, who nobody would have bet on transforming the church. His son described his father to me as the best follower in the church. He said, my father would not have changed anything. And then he woke up one day and realized he was the church president and he had to lead instead of follow. So you don't know if somebody so unassuming as a Spencer Kimball is going to change the church. You certainly wouldn't bet on it, but neither do you know if somebody who seems to have all the tools is going to make a difference once he sits in that chair. It, it's what keeps it interesting for the rest of us., but you just can't predict that.

No. A little bit of a tongue-in-cheek comment. As I was reading the article from President Oaks, I kind of, um, had a little internal joke going on in my mind that, uh, you know, President Oaks may have listened to Inside Out banging on about the only true church and think, oh, we gotta talk about the only true church and let's put some out there. 'Cause it's not Inside Out, of course. Uh, again, I'm completely having fun here. Of course that, that didn't happen, but At least I hope it didn't. But, you know, and then my response is, you know, instead of hearing about people talking about this quite a bit, because not being the only ones, don't write an article or talk about the only true church. Just focus on the good that you're doing. Tell us what the good that you're doing and have people talk about their own personal experience. Don't just, you know, bring, if it had been me, I'd have had some of the who's, uh, you know, come under the pulpit and talk about their, uh, missionary experience, right? Um, they've come back home from a mission and just a personal experience or some service experience that someone experienced, uh, you know, kind of shake things up a little bit and just focus on the good things that you're doing and share some of those stories of how that transformed people's lives. But more importantly, translate that, you know, encourage members or create opportunities for more members, and not just the members, but people in the community. I mean, imagine how powerful that is. It's very powerful to help people in the church experience, have a spiritual experience that will, uh, stay with them their entire life. You, all three of us have experienced. It's quite another to create the conditions for non-members and people of other faiths to work with us directly on a good common cause project and to experience something wonderful together without arguing about doctrine, who's right or wrong, but because we've worked together to help somebody in the community and we've actually been part of it physically, and that becomes part of you physically and emotionally and spiritually. And that's what builds the, that's what builds the ties. That's what connects us to each other as children of God beyond being a member of the church. Right. And so that's the answer. I think again, I, I don't want to sound arrogant or have all these, you know, revelations, you know, for the church. But isn't that the answer is to have those experiences with anyone and everyone who is a child of everybody who their lives will be blessed enormously when they are giving of themselves. They find themselves through service and they help someone, they come home and they're emotional and they've actually helped somebody. You know, if it's a food drive or they help, you know, feed the hungry or anything to help, um, uh, resolve some of the issues that are prevalent in society today. That is way more powerful than, you know, standing up and saying, hey, we're the only true church, and here's the, here's 3 reasons why we're the only true church. It just seems there's a lack of vision, and I'm shocked that President Oaks is someone that, uh, with that, uh, level of intelligence isn't as bold or as visionary as I thought he would be. 'Cause privately I think he is, and I think he's probably constrained with— you've real quick, you've got this new, the Prime Minister of the UK resigned a couple days ago, right? He's a lame duck right now. One of the worst prime ministers in British history. A guy called Andy Burnham from Manchester, the north, from Yorkshire, which is where I'm from, is now position as an MP and, and his position to become the next Prime Minister. But, and everybody's excited about it. Won't make any difference because it's constrained by Labour manifesto, Labour policies, Labour rules. Labour is, is constrained by an entire political system. And 2 years in, there'll be another failed Prime Minister. We've had, UK's had, this is, this, this'll be the 7th prime, 7th Prime Minister, um, in 7 years or 6 years in the UK. It's 8 years. It's getting crazy. So, no, you get this life once, right? And it's an opportunity to be, to be a leader, to, uh, lead. Leadership can be lonely. You don't bring everybody along with you, but you can try. But the success in leadership is by physical results, right? Delivering transformational positive experiences on a personal, private level in people's lives who it will stay with them forever, and they will tell as many people as they can, or not, and they will say they worked with the church and it was an amazing experience. That's the power. Why can they not see that? And we can.

Mm-hmm. Is that, is that, is that the answer, Greg?

Yeah, I keep coming back to the phrase, don't tell me what you are, show me. Yeah. If you have to say we're the greatest, then there probably is a problem. Because people love to listen to that and say, oh yeah, you're the greatest. What you want is to show them what you are, and then if they say you're the greatest, Well, that's the best outcome. Yeah, I, I agree.

Do you remember that band? Uh, you, uh, you, if, if you know this band, Greg, I'll be impressed by the way. I'll like, I'll buy you a coffee. You can refuse me, I'll buy you a coffee. Um, the band, uh, in UK, big band actually called Oasis. You know them, Jim? Oasis, right? Sure, sure. Right. So this band came out in the '90s called Oasis in the UK. Uh, just phenomenal music., um, and very successful. And they came out and they said they're going to be bigger than the Beatles, they're going to be bigger than the Beatles. Um, they weren't, and the whole thing backfired. And, and the lead singer of Oasis, uh, Liam Gallagher, he was quite an arrogant guy actually, had a conversation with Paul McCartney. And Paul McCartney said, well, don't tell us what you had, show us, right? Yep. Uh, and that was it. And that, that conversation, uh, happens, quite famous. And that was a very humbling experience for this, uh, cocky British northern band. Well, Beatles were northern as well, of course, Liverpool. But that was an interesting thing. So just, just, just do it and do it well. Is that old, the, the, the motto of the mission, Jim? You remember that?

Whatever thou art, act well thy part.

Yeah, when you're on stage, give it your best, do the best, right?

So, all right, well, I think that sums it up. We are coming up on the end here, but I very much appreciate the insights that both of you have offered here and our understanding of this and trying to make sense of what it means to be the only true church. But we thank you. Thanks to both of you and thanks to everybody who's been listening to this. We very much appreciate you being part of the conversation. Please feel free to subscribe to the podcast so that you can be updated when a new episode drops. And if you go to our YouTube channel, if you could like us over there, that would be helpful. Uh, but very much appreciate— any final words before we sign off from either one of you?

I think I've said more than enough.

Ah, me too.

Well, there we go. Me too. All right. Well, thank you both very much. Appreciate it. And we'll We'll see you next time on the next episode of Inside Out.