The Legacy of Jeffrey R. Holland - with Greg Prince

Hello, welcome, and happy New Year. My name is Jim Bennett, and I am here with the latest episode of Inside Out with my partner in crime, Ian Wilkes. Ian, how are you, sir?

I am doing well. I'm excited about the new year. Uh, we had a wonderful Christmas. Happy New Year to you, Jim Bennett, and excited to be doing a lot more, uh, stuff and activity and conversations on Inside Out for throughout the whole year of 2026 and beyond.

Absolutely. Well, we will introduce our other partner in crime here. Uh, we welcome back, uh, historian and scholar Greg Prince, uh, Very glad to have you back here with us in the new year. How are you, sir?

I'm well, thank you. Happy New Year to both of you. Jolene and I were awakened on New Year's Day at about 4 AM by an alert over our cell phones, the alert being for an approaching snow squall in Maryland. And when I got up, a few hours later and looked outside, it reminded me of what Hugh B. Brown said of his time in the British Isles. He said, I stood by the alleged fire. If you knew where to look, you might have seen a couple of snowflakes. That was it. But I'm not complaining.

All right. Well, that's kind of been the weather here in Utah as well. We did have a little bit of snow, the first snow of the season, but it's just been wet and rainy and sort of miserable, but, but not particularly cold. So with the weather report out of the way, we have so much we need to talk about here. So much, so much is going on. But I think the most pressing issue is the passing of Elder Jeffrey R. Holland. And that's top of mind for me as the Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square was called out of our vacation. You know, we're supposed to at the, at the end of right before Christmas until the new year, the Tabernacle Choir has the only break it has for the entire year. And we got a text saying, please come and sing for Elder Holland's funeral. And so I had the opportunity to go to the Tabernacle. The funeral was in the Tabernacle and not in the conference and it was, you know, very intimate in terms of the choir. Mack Wilberg is standing right in front of you in a way that he isn't when he's conducting otherwise. He's usually down with the orchestra far away from you, but the apostles were all lined up right next to him. So I was about 20 feet away from Elder Uchtdorf, President Uchtdorf now. We can call him President Uchtdorf again because he's the new president of the Quorum of the Twelve. And Elder Bednar were both right in my just direct line of sight, uh, but I watched all of the apostles coming and going, and as well as the president of the church. And one of the first things that I noticed is that both President Oaks and President Eyring are remarkably frail at this point. I mean, it's so they wheel— President Oaks came in on his own with— he was not in a wheelchair, whereas President Eyring was. And they wheeled him in, and I think they kind of got stuck. And so President Eyring had to stand up, and he just looked unbelievably frail as they walked him to his seat. And I just kept thinking, uh, you know, I— President Oaks, if he's going to make any kind of big changes, uh, he— I think he recognizes he doesn't have a lot of time to do it. He is ironically the same age that President Nelson was. When President Nelson became president of the church, but President Nelson was in far better health, I think, than what President Oaks is. So I guess we're not talking— I'm not talking about Elder Holland. I'm talking about the frailty of the two men at the— in the highest offices of the church. And Elder Uchtdorf, President Uchtdorf, looks very healthy, waiting in the wings. And I can't help but think that we're in sort of a bit of an interregnum and that President Uchtdorf is going to be taking charge much sooner, I think, than a lot of people expect. So before we dive into the Elder Holland stuff, I kind of want to get both of your perspectives on that in terms of, I mean, Greg, you had talked about before we started recording what President Oaks has and has not done as the new president of the Church. Is he fulfilling any of your expectations, or what are you observing in these first few months?

Uh, what I am observing has surprised and greatly pleased me, and what I have not seen and heard has also surprised and pleased me. On the latter, we have not heard any rhetoric about LGBTQ issues. Now, I wonder on a good day if that may reflect his choosing of Todd Christofferson to be his second counselor, because Elder Chris— President Christofferson's views on the subject certainly are different, he having a very devout an amazing brother, Tom, who is openly gay. So, uh, on the silence side, that's a big plus. On the other side, everything that I have seen in the last couple of months, and it's only been that long since he's been president, uh, has really been surprising and pleasing. Let me go down my list. I haven't memorized it. I've got it sitting in front of me. We embraced the Modern English Versions of the Bible. For decades, we have clung to the King James Bible, and any biblical scholar will point out that it's not just the language of the King James Bible that is archaic—archaic enough that many of the people can't understand some of the crucial passages of it, but the theology of it is not right because it doesn't take advantage of all of the modern scholarship that has gone back to the earliest known manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament to incorporate those into the newer translations. So the Revised— the The New Revised Standard Version, which is the one I really enjoy and the one most of my colleagues at Wesley Seminary embrace, is now endorsed by the church for the adult classes. Kudos to them. They haven't totally abandoned King James, and that's okay because some of the language, even though it's archaic, is beautiful. Uh, things like the Christmas story, uh, aren't going to sound quite the same regal way that they sound now if we translate those into modern English. So that's number one. Number two, lowering the age of female missionary service from 19 to 18 years was a surprise, and I think a very pleasant one. There's not been an explanation by the church of either the young men or the young women going out at 18 now instead of 19 or 20. Uh, the thinking that I hear is that they're trying to get there first before higher education pollutes their minds, hoping that they can imprint the gospel on them fresh out of high school. Going out at 18 has pluses and minuses. I think that a young woman at the age of 18 is probably mature enough. I don't know many young men at the age of 18 who are really mature enough to be missionaries. It's, it's biology. It just hasn't kicked in for them yet. And you see some of the problems that we are experiencing. A lot of missionaries are going home prematurely, and I think that's part of it. But nonetheless, It sends a positive signal that they're, even though they're still saying, well, women only serve 18 months instead of 24 months, we now have age parity in missionary service, which we've never had before. Uh, the next one is what I mentioned earlier, the elevation of Todd Christofferson to the First Presidency. Uh, many people I've spoken to had dreaded that it might be another unnamed apostle who would go into the First Presidency, who would certainly bring a different flavor into it. Kudos to President Oaks for doing that, because I think it not only sends a good signal to the rest of the Church, I think it's going to bring something important and beneficial into the First Presidency. Todd was a bishop in our stake back here in DC way back when, uh, when he was a clerk to Judge Sirica during the Watergate hearings. Yeah, yep, he was front and center on those from the inside. So, um, he, he brings, I think, a lot of outside experience and good judgment to the position. Next is the calling of Elder Causé to the Quorum of the Twelve in filling the vacancy that was created by the death of President Nelson. Everybody wondered, okay, who the next Apostle is going to be. Now we have, um, 3 Europeans, 1 South American, and 1 Asian by birth out of the 12 members in the Twelve. I think that's a very, very healthy trend rather than it being stacked with East Bench white Mormons as it has been for decades. Uh, another one is that in one of his first statements, President Oaks put the brakes on new temple construction. Yeah, that was really surprising to me. Yes. And when he lifted the foot slightly from the brakes, he changed the rules. There's been one temple announced since then in the state of Maine, but rather than being announced by the President of the Church in General Conference with millions of people watching, it was delegated to a member of the Area Presidency to announce on site rather than from Salt Lake. I think that's a very healthy trend of decentralization. It was, in my mind, becoming something of too much of a scripted show that every 6 months people would say, all right, what are the dozen new temples going to be this time? And I think this is a much better way of doing it. Most recently, we have seen quietly a rewriting of part of the Church Handbook of Instructions relating to abortion and rape.

Yeah, that was very surprising and again very welcome, at least in my mind.

Yes, both softening the rhetoric and the really the doctrine about abortion and acknowledging what to women has always been obvious but to men wasn't, and that is you don't need to say forcible rape, right? Rape by definition is forcible, and so they took the F word out of that, and kudos to them for that. So you put all that together, that is an extraordinary track record so far in only about 2 months.

And all done really very quietly without a lot of fanfare, which I think is a good sign. I've commented on this before, but You know, I remember the days of President Hinckley when President Hinckley would walk into the conference center and everybody would stand up and he would be almost embarrassed by that. He'd be like, oh no, no, no, sit down. He'd get to his chair quickly and go sit down. Whereas President Nelson just sort of luxuriated in that. Yes. He'd walk into the conference center. We'd all stand up. He'd go over and talk to somebody on his way. And I just remember in the choir just thinking, could you please sit down so that we can all sit down? You have 21,000 people here who are waiting for you to sit down, and you're not sitting down. Yeah.

And let me say one other thing about President Oaks. It, it relates to Elder Holland's funeral. We'll get to that. Sure. But watching him as he spoke at that funeral. I was thinking, number one, this is not the usual persona that we have seen from him, where in General Conference talks he usually sounded like an attorney reading a legal brief. Yeah. This was an authentic, compassionate tribute to a good friend.

Well, that was my per— I mean, that was my perception too. I mean, the whole, I'm seeing a humility from President Oaks that is delightful and surprising. Yes. Yes. And it came, he's very much back to the Hinckley mode of everybody please sit down. I'm kind of embarrassed by this. Yes. But his talk at the funeral was absolutely this lovely sort of tribute to a friend. You know, he says he's always been my teacher, even when he was, I was his senior in the quorum. He was still my teacher. Just really lovely and human in a way that I had hoped for, but was not quite sure would happen. And I'm really delighted to see it happen. Ian, I want to bring you into here. What's your reaction?

Let me say one more thing about that. Perhaps that put an end, his speech, put an end to the aborted micromanagement of funerals that we saw with Boyd Packer. I hope so. Insisted that we not even speak of the departed, that this was an occasion to preach the gospel. Um, I think that one's gone forever, and it couldn't have come too soon.

Well, I, I remember reading the article, uh, A friend of mine talked about this yesterday and sent me the article where Elder Packer said that jokes offend the Spirit. And I thought, I'm so glad that we don't believe that anymore, or we don't seem to teach that anymore. So yeah, the quicker we can put that to rest, the better. Ian, let's bring you in here. What's your reaction to the first months of President Oaks and to the the things that Greg has raised?

Generally positive. Having worked with President Oaks briefly when he reorganized our stake and set up a new stake presidency, there are two faces to Elder Oaks, President Oaks. There's the public side, which can come across prickly and perhaps somewhat fixed and maybe belligerent. And strict. And then there's the personal side, which I've seen, and I have seen his humility when I, you know, when he set us apart and we spent some time with him over the weekend. And I found him in some ways to be a regular, albeit a very intelligent man. And I think we're seeing now some of those personal qualities come through in his presidency. If you remember his physical reaction when he was called and sustained. If you remember, the camera, um, turned to, uh, President Oaks, and there was a physical, uh, natural, um, uh, somewhat, uh, humble reaction when he was called. And I, uh, in some ways not surprised by that because I have seen that very close up. Him and I, we were around this table as a new stake presidency, and he sat immediate to my right, and him and I chatted for quite a bit and we got along. He's a very, very smart individual and I have a lot of, uh, respect for him. And so yeah, I think we're seeing a, a, a, the world is seeing a different side to President Fuchs. So I, I think Craig summarized a lot of these things extremely well, uh, in terms of, you know, the, um, uh, the change and improvements, very important improvements actually. Um, and I'm, I'm happy, unlike some, for the church to broadcast and promote its successes. I think that's fine. I'm okay with that. You know, where it's getting things right and making improvements and changing language and becoming more inclusive and more thoughtful and constructive. Absolutely. It should highlight that. And I'm okay with that. If he wants to kind of broadcast a little bit. What I'm not okay with is that when it's significant, perhaps negative things that are occurring, you know, with the church, when it's doing things behind the scenes through the back door and not putting a spotlight on to some of the other issues. For example, you know, we talked about the leadership transitions and 2025 has been a, in many ways, a watershed year for the, for the church, you know, with President Nelson passing. And I'm convinced, by the way, that President Nelson's, uh, personal, um, uh, uh, drive, uh, about temples was, uh, him driving almost the entire, uh, train with all the carriages behind it. And going too fast, too aggressive. This is my take on this.

Do you think it was him trying to outdo Hinckley?

I don't, perhaps there's an element of that, but I think he always felt strongly, and I can understand this, that his calling, he looked at different prophets. They, you know, like President Benson was the Book of Mormon, right? You know, each prophet has a particular focus or two, and President Nelson, his focus, and he believed this completely to the core, was to oversee what has been the greatest expansion in temple planning and preparation and construction in the history of the church. I think it went too fast, too far, too aggressive, and Elder Oaks who is much more moderate and probably had an opposing voice in that conversation. And I'm convinced of this. I have no evidence to back this up other than my short time experience with President Oaks. I find him to be a very logical, very rational, very down-to-earth fella. I think he probably tried to put the brakes on, didn't get anywhere, couldn't get anywhere. I don't think President Nelson was listening to anyone. He was gung ho for all the temples. And I think President Oaks, uh, did the right thing to kind of slow things down. He didn't, he didn't stop, you know, announce a complete stop. It was more like a moratorium, temporary slowdown, uh, more of a strategic, uh, you know, decision. And I, and I, and I welcome that. Uh, the other, uh, and we've, we've spoken with Craig, um, on, uh, gerontocracy on a particular episode about the issues relating to age. You know, you mentioned when you were at the gym earlier, when you saw President Oaks and President Eyring, that these two gentlemen are very old, and I think that's a challenge with the church. Greg's talked about this eloquently and articulated the issues extremely well on earlier podcast conversations where the church continues to face the challenge with aging leaders, and we've talked about the need to bring in new blood and younger blood, you know, people who are leaders who are younger and have fresher ideas and, you know, kind of, you know, share the workload. I feel sorry for these, for the older gentlemen there who have all this extraordinary weight on them to lead the church. Physically, it must be extremely demanding, mentally excruciating. They've got all these demands on them spiritually. I just can't imagine how life is on a personal level for these individuals, and I think it's time that we had some younger folks in the leadership, and I think probably we will see that. I think Matt Holland, who you and I know quite well, I've worked with Matt closely on a mission, I think he would make a great apostle. He's perhaps inexperienced right now as a General Authority, but in the next 5 years, perhaps Matt would be a good candidate to be an apostle. Just real quick on some of the other items, key events, I think, in 2025, and Greg's articulated them really well. There were some legal victories and some setbacks. There were some financial wins between the church and the Huntsman case. The church won that case, Jim, as you know, and you know that, Greg, in terms of the claims that the church was misusing the, the, the tithing funds.

Well, one, one is strong. I mean, the case was dismissed, but it never went to court.

Yeah, it was an out-of-court settlement, I think, wasn't it? It, it never went to court.

It wasn't even a settlement. It was just sort of dismissed. Huntsman didn't get anything.

Did he not? Okay. So the, the case was, uh, was dismissed. Trial.

Did not go to trial. Was, was there a financial settlement? Did Huntsman get some kind of— I'm not aware of. Not that I'm aware of either.

I'm gonna look into that a little bit more. I, I'm, I'm, uh, allegedly there might have been some, uh, payment of his, uh, legal costs, but I, I'm very interested in, in that case and I'll look into that a bit more. Other, other issues like abuse liabilities where the church moved, according to my resources, they allegedly moved towards mass settlements, including 100 cases in California. Regarding historical sexual abuse cases. There's the Arizona landmark case, the appeals court rule that the clergy penitent privilege is not absolute. It found the privilege is waived if abuse is discussed outside of a private confession, i.e., disciplinary councils, and questioned if the church's help-blind non-reporting policy aligns with its own religious doctrines. And the other ones, of course, is the other milestone, which is, um,, and issues, uh, sadly included the tragedy in Michigan where there was a, a deadly, um, attack on an LDS church meetinghouse in Grand Blanc, uh, Township, sadly resulting in 5 deaths. Um, and the other one of course is the— and that's, that's just awful, that what happened there. We've talked a bit about that on the podcast. Um, the church has made some changes to its, uh, handbook of instructions and policies around generative AI and the caution around using AI for inspirational sources and also the enforcement of the word Mormon. It owns the protective rights of the word Mormon and has issued letters to various organizations and podcasts that use the word Mormon in their titles to cease and desist that. That's my understanding. And, uh, again, uh, uh, Greg's mentioned the church announced 50 new temples, 55 new missions, um, and the Desert News celebrated the 175th anniversary. So lots of stuff going on there. There's a lot of detail behind all of that. Greg, you mentioned about the, um, and Jim, we talked earlier about the interesting and significant shift, uh, to use different versions of the Bible. I've always been comfortable with the King James Version. I think we've been told repeatedly by the leaders of the church, and I think earlier apostles and the prophets have advocated the use of the King James Version of the Bible because it was the closest to the inspired version. That was my understanding. That was my interpretation. And now we are advised that we can use different versions. Of the Bible. And my question then is, 'cause all these changes generate questions and, and other issues and concerns, is how do you, you know, you can easily come to a different interpretation. If I'm using one version of a Bible and you are using another one, we could easily come to a very different interpretation. I was taught, and I've taught, that the King James Version was the closest to, uh, God's inspired word. But that change now I think opens up, uh, uh, questions to, well, what Bibles can we use? And what about the interpretation of those different versions of the Bible? So between Greg's excellent summary, my few additions there, I think, um, yeah, the church has experienced quite a bit and the first 2 months, yeah, I think it's generally quite positive.

Well, I mean, quickly on the King James Bible before we dive in, I want to dive into Elder Holland's funeral a little more deeply here. I think you've both provided some excellent summaries of what's happened this first year, and I agree with essentially everything that's been said. But the King James Bible is married to a language of the Book of Mormon, which explicitly draw— I mean, explicitly The Isaiah passages particularly are almost entirely from the King James Bible, and also the commentary on the Isaiah passages uses the King James language. Joseph Smith clearly saw that King James language as sort of the language of deity, because you see that all through the Doctrine and Covenants, all of the these and thous and everything else. Nobody spoke that way. In the 19th century, but Joseph Smith framed all of the revelations in that kind of language. The thing that I'm interested in seeing is whether or not this is going to impact how we pray, particularly how we pray publicly. I, in my personal prayers— I, I've admitted to this— I no longer in my personal prayers use any vestige of King James English. I decided at some point in my life, look, if I— I said, Lord, if you want me to be close to you, if you want me to confide in you, this kind of language to me creates distance, and I don't want to have that distance. I want to be able to share my most intimate thoughts with you, and I can't do that if I'm constantly trying to translate it into King James English. And I felt very comfortable about that. I'll still pray in King James English in public, you know, when I'm called in sacrament meeting. If I gave the kind of prayers that I do personally in sacrament meeting, I'd probably get drummed out of the church. But very quickly, Greg, do you think there's anything to that? Do you think this will change how we pray? What are going to be the implications of not holding the King James Bible up as the gold standard anymore?

I think it will change gradually and it will be trickle up, not trickle down. Yeah. One of the things that I've seen in some of the Protestant worship services I've gone to is when they recite the Lord's Prayer, very often they will begin by saying, our Father and Mother who art in heaven.

Oh, interesting. Yeah. Uh, well, it, it'll be interesting to see where, where this all goes. So as we talk about the future of the church, uh, the funeral of Elder Holland, I think, gives us— gave a really remarkable window into the history of the church, or the recent history of the church, at which Elder Jeffrey R. Holland was at the center for a very long period of time, uh, as the director of, uh, the commissioner of church education, as the president of BYU, and 30 years ago called as an apostle. I first met Jeffrey R. Holland right after his call. He was ironically just sort of walking the streets of Jackson Hole, Wyoming when I was running a theater there, and I ran into him and I said, "Hey, Elder Holland!" "Oh, yes?" I said, "Hey, I served a mission with your son Matt." And that opened the door and we had a lovely little conversation there on the street. Uh, lasted about 5 minutes. Uh, I've met with him several times since, particularly when I was the artistic director at the Tuacán Center for the Arts in Southern Utah. He was a frequent patron there, and he even came to some of our fundraising dinners. And I had a— none of my conversations with him went beyond any sort of pleasantries. Uh, so I wouldn't say that I know him well or that I even know him. I'm not sure if he would even know who I am. Uh, but I know a number of people who know him quite well, and I think that's going to figure into the conversation here as we go forward. So my re— watching the funeral, I had a few thoughts. The first was that this was the funeral of a company man. Uh, the emphasis was on— so the people who spoke, the— his 3 children spoke, including Matt., and I very much got the sense that Matt was auditioning for his father's position. In fact, after the funeral, the guy next to me, uh, in the choir who doesn't know that I know Matt Holland and doesn't know— he just turns, says, sounded to me like we're going to get another Elder Holland in the Quorum of the Twelve. I mean, he was that impressed with Matt's talk there that, that he just sort of unprompted just offered that to me, that this is where— I don't think that's going to happen, at least not this time. Uh, I think that's a little too precious. Uh, and I think President Oaks is mindful of his legacy and mindful of the short period of time he has. I think we're going to probably see some, uh, more— that, that would be very much calling back to the nepotism of the past and to the East Bench kind of pedigree that we've expected from apostles up until recent history. But this was, this was the funeral. His daughter particularly, uh, was talking about how committed Elder Holland was to Jesus Christ and was using the terms Jesus Christ and the church interchangeably, that that Elder Holland's commitment to Christ is measured entirely by his commitment to the church. And she told the story of when Elder Holland was dying in— I'm not sure how recent that was. It's relatively recent. Both he and his wife were hospitalized. He came out of the hospital, she did not. But he was in the fighting for his life, and one of the nurses was in there with him and he felt it necessary to talk this nurse into going back to church. That, that really is sort of just the full measure of anyone's commitment to Christ is their commitment to the church. That came through in all three of the children's talks as they talk about it, that just how wonderful the church is, how, how devoted Elder Holland is to the church. And that, that was interesting to me and a little bit frustrating to me. Uh, Greg, Greg, you watched the funeral, did you not? Or did you watch pieces of it?

No, I watched the whole thing.

Uh, what was the whole thing?

Let me back up a bit and try to give some context. Uh, I met him in 19— 1973. I was the regional president of the Latter-day Saints Student Association.

Oh, I was an LDS SA president once. All right. Go ahead.

We put together a 2-day conference retreat. Jim Bennett, you may know of the place. It's called Idlewild. It's It's up in the mountains near, not far from Lake Arrowhead, I think.

Yeah. My, my sister is a cellist and she goes, she went to the music institute up there.

K'ol. So I had written to Elder Hinckes, who I had met because he spoke at our commencement ceremony at Dixie College when I graduated in 1967. And he was one of our go-to guys for the youth. He was just a marvelous orator. But I had written to him inviting him to come to that conference. He wrote back a very nice letter and said he wasn't able to commit to it, but he had assigned the new executive secretary to the Melchizedek Priesthood MIA. You remember that one when we were going through all those alphabetics? Jim Bennett's soups.

Youthful in action.

Yeah. Who was Jeff Holland? Now, Hanks knew of Holland because Holland was one of his missionaries in the British Mission. Holland started his professional career as the director of the Institute of Religion at the University of Washington in Seattle. His next step was to be the executive secretary of the MPMIA. So he was assigned and my fiancée at the time and I picked him up at LA International Airport and we were in the car, just the three of us, for over 2 hours driving up to Idlewild. But it didn't take long to establish a relationship because he almost immediately talked about Uncle Anton and Aunt Valate. Those were my grandparents. Oh wow. He grew up in St. George, and my grandfather was the Washington County Sheriff since before Holland was born. So my relationship with him goes back over 50 years. My brother and sister-in-law who live in Midway live directly across the street from his weekend home in Midway.

Did you keep in touch with him over the years? Uh, yes.

I never tried to broach any topics of doctrine or policy, and he never brought them up. Um, in 2005 My brother was diagnosed with a very aggressive form of lymphoma. At that time, the 5-year survival rate of that particular flavor was about 5%. I was in Utah because that was when my McKay biography came out, and I was staying with my brother and sister-in-law in Midway. So after I'd done with the day's activities, I drove up there, walked into their living room, and there were John and Beverly and Pat and Jeff. Uh, Jeff had come across the street to give John a blessing and asked if I and my uncle, who was also in the room, would join him in doing that. He stopped and he kind of looked at himself because he was wearing a lumberjack shirt and Levi's and socks. He left his boots outside. And he looked at us and he said, you know, I've never given a blessing wearing Levi's before. And then he paused and said, but I don't think it'll make any difference. And then he gave him a blessing and in our minds, there was a cause and effect relationship between that blessing and the fact that John is still alive and well 20 years later. So, yeah, I'd had not repeated contact with him, but a fairly close indirect association through my brother and then occasional, uh, in-person contact with him all those years. One of the things that always impressed me, actually irritated me, was his phenomenal memory for names and details. I can be introduced to somebody and 20 seconds later I can't remember their name. He saw us at some, I, I think it was BYU Management Society dinner in DC. This was years and years ago, but it had been probably 15 years since I had last seen him. And we went through a little reception line and when I got up and he says, Greg, how's the pathology work going? Wow. But that wasn't him singling me out. He was that way with everybody. He had a phenomenal memory and he had also a phenomenal ability to focus on whoever he was talking to, not be looking over their shoulder and wondering who's the next person he wanted to play in the room.

He really did have that gift of making you feel important. I mean, that, that was talked about at the funeral. Yeah. Yeah.

I called him Ellard Holland once and he kind of bristled and he said, it's Jeff. Hmm. Now he didn't say that to everybody in the church, but he said that to a lot of people. And every time he would respond to an email, and we had, and my wife in particular had frequent email exchanges with him, he would always sign it, Jeff. And I think that said a lot about his self-identity. Uh, the one other thing I want to talk about with him, because it plays into what I know we're going to be spending some time on in this discussion, and that is LGBTQ issues. I spoke with a gentleman whose daughter had a— was in a mixed orientation marriage. Her husband was gay, but that they were trying to make this thing work with difficulty, as generally is the case. And they met with Elder Holland in his office. And the, the gentleman I had interviewed, who was the father of this woman, said he was most compassionate, non-judgmental, But what really stuck with me is that he said, and this was the quote from the father, quote, A, the brethren here have come a long, long, long way on this issue in the past few years. B, we have miles and miles and miles to go.

That, that's, that's, so that's what I've heard behind the scenes as well. Um, uh, several people who know him fairly well have talked to him about this, uh, and have seen him as a sort of compassionate voice on this. So that of course leads to, uh, the musket fire talk in August of 2021. And that was not at all mentioned at the funeral. At least in my mind, it was sort of informing a lot of what was mentioned. The emphasis was this was— they kept calling him an apostle of love. And there are so many people— I remember on Twitter when he passed away, I said he's a— He's a kind and compassionate man. And somebody says, oh no, he's not, he's a firebrand. Yeah. And it's like, well, he's a firebrand. That, that really isn't, uh, the reputation that Elder Holland had until the musket fire talk. And now the musket fire talk, I'm assuming everybody who's listening to this knows what that is, uh, but just by way of quick summary. He was called upon to speak at BYU, and he was speaking— he wasn't speaking to the student body, he was speaking to the faculty. And he was talking about how important it is for the faculty to defend the idea that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. And it seems like he was so late to the party on that because in By 2021, um, BYU had just fairly recently changed its honor code and briefly allowed for same-sex romantic expressions on the BYU campus, and then that, that was shut down within days. But you could see the progression, um, from the reversal of the 2015 policy in 2019 2019 and that BYU Honor Code change, and you could see that we were going further and further and further down that road that Elder Holland, uh, said to you, Greg, that we have miles and miles and miles to go. Uh, and every indication I've had from behind the scenes is that Elder Holland very much wants to travel down that road, wanted to travel down towards greater inclusion. Told one friend of mine is that that's not going to happen until there are a couple of deaths. You know, so you're the— behind the scenes. And Greg, I've quoted you several times where you've said the brethren are deeply divided on this issue, probably more deeply divided on this issue than any other issue in our lifetimes. That's— is that Still a statement you would stand behind?

And I've heard similar statements from other people with whom I've never conversed who are drawing on their own contacts to come to the same conclusion.

Yeah, yeah. So, so in August 2021, Elder Holland, who thinks we should be more inclusive, uh, behind the scenes, in front of the scenes, gives this talk that is scathing in a lot of ways. Uh, it's because it not only just sort of said— so the muskets, the reason muskets keep coming up is he was talking about the people who were building the, is it the Nauvoo Temple, with a trowel in one hand and the musket in the other to protect themselves. Yes. I want to see a little more musket fire from this institution of learning in defense of this doctrine. But he also went farther than that. Further, farther, I never know the difference. When he talked about a student commandeering a podium at BYU to announce that he was a gay son of God. And that's the part that really rankled me because that just seems so unnecessary. That was Matt Easton, who was a valedictorian. Who had gotten his speech approved ahead of time. He wasn't commandeering anything. Everybody knew he was going to say what he said. All he said was, "I am a gay son of God." I mean, they're— and for Elder Holland to single him out and just— it seemed to me to be just unnecessarily cruel and out of character of Elder Holland's character. That this was not something that Elder Holland would ever do. And so the more I've talked to people about this, and some people have publicly said the same sort of thing. So again, like Ian had said before, I can't cite specific evidence here, but I can say with a fair amount of confidence that I think this is how it went down. President Oaks approached, likely approached, then-Elder Holland and said, look, we're seeing all of this erosion in terms of the church's position on LGBTQ issues, and if I were to go to BYU and try to put a stop to it, I wouldn't have nearly as much credibility as you would. And so the assignment came from President Oaks Again, I don't have hard evidence, but this is— this is— I'm fairly confident this is what happened. Assignment comes from President Oaks: you are to go to BYU and you are to deliver this, this message. And if you watch Elder Holland delivering the musket fire talk, uh, his tone varies wildly. In the beginning, he starts talking about his time at BYU and how much he loves it, and he's really kind of energetic about that. And then he says, well, now, but I gotta get down to business. I mean, that's an actual line. It's, I've gotta do the business for which I came here. And you can see in his delivery just kind of how miserable he is as he's delivering the sort of red meat that the hard-right wing of the church was thrilled by.

Who does he repeatedly quote? Quote in that talk. Dallin Oaks.

Yes, the musket fire metaphor comes from Dallin Oaks. He's quoting Dallin Oaks, and he quoted him by name several times. That's right, that's right. And so, I mean, so you see that in the talk. And I think— so I've talked to many people who have spoken with Elder Holland, who've written to Elder Holland since then, many of whom wrote to him saying, "Your talk was really troubling. I really had a hard time with this," and got words of compassion one-on-one in reply. I am very much of the opinion that that musket fire talk did, I think, permanent damage. I mean, now that he's gone, he can't repair it.

Well, and all the news reports, Jim, that I read referenced the musket fire speech, which— Yeah. It's a gross injustice if you knew the totality of the man, that for so many people that will be his legacy.

And I think he knew that and was deeply haunted by that in the last years of his life. Life.

Yeah, let me read you something. I rarely go on Facebook, but I was on yesterday. Uh, actually, I was looking up some of your episodes on Inside Out, which are on Facebook, but there was a story there from a David Cook who is a former Area 70. I've not met him.

I have not either. He messages me. He, he listens to this podcast, So he will hear what you're going to say.

It's a paragraph he wrote. He says, a final story from a dear friend captures the essence of Elder Holland's humility. After his musket fire remark at BYU, he faced substantial criticism. My friend, who had no personal connection to him, wrote a gentle but direct letter explaining the hurt the comment caused among vulnerable youth, in particular some of his children. One evening, shortly after returning from service in the Palmyra Temple, the phone rang. An operator asked if he would accept a call from Elder Holland. When Elder Holland came on the line, he thanked him for the letter and acknowledged, quote, "That talk was not my finest." our, end quote, and then asked, quote, how can I do better, end quote. That single sentence reveals more about the man than most eulogies can. A global religious leader calling an ordinary member not to defend himself, but to seek counsel.

And I wish that that legacy is the one that will stick, and I fear it isn't. I fear that the musket fire talk is going to be, uh, if not written on his tombstone, because— but essentially how he's remembered in perpetuity. And I think it's such a distortion of who he was. Uh, Ian, you're squirming over here a little bit because you had an interaction with Elder Holland that wasn't necessarily pop—

Was that right? Yeah, we, we, I'm struggling with this part of a conversation. I, I, I, I don't know if I'm not convinced that the criticism of Aalto Holland is not deserved, frankly, in, in the UK from the people that I know and the people that worked with him, it was a very mixed experience. And here's the problem I'm having with this part of the conversation. I don't doubt for one second, and I've met Aalto Holland., on occasion. And I've seen, you know, like with President Oaks, I've seen, you know, in some ways two different sides to these individuals. Um, so here's the problem I'm having. If, let me go back. I, I, I don't disbelieve that, uh, Elder Holland was a good man and that he, I believe he was, uh, uh, uh, uh, an extraordinary man, a man that deeply cared for people and important issues around him, and, you know, including but not limited to LGBTQ issues, etc., etc., and was probably more of a moderate voice on a personal, private level. But publicly, uh, the musket fire, if it did go against his personal instincts, why would you not demonstrate integrity and kind of share your, you know, have the boldness and the integrity and the decency to share what you really think and feel about the issues that he was talking about. You know, when he gave the musket fire, you mentioned Matt Easton there, and Matt was assigned to give those comments. He wasn't he didn't commandeer the graduation.

He wasn't assigned, but he got it approved. He got it approved.

And so, I mean, the process of that talk or those comments, we don't know the details of, right? But yeah, I just think it's disingenuous on President Arlo's part to stand up and to say that. And again, I'm not, you know, I don't want to speak ill of the Lord's anointed in the context of the church. And of course, I don't want to speak ill of the dead. I don't want to be disrespectful here, but I think as we go forward and we look at Elder Holland's track record, I think it's mixed at best. I think it was a mistake to give that talk. I think if he felt that that was a mistake, and he probably felt that before he was delivering it on behalf of President Oaks, then why didn't he share his real feelings and thoughts about that? Because clearly it was, in hindsight, he had regrets, clearly, from what Greg was saying here. And he probably wished he either didn't do it or did it completely different. I think that was an absolute, um, disaster of a talk. And I think what's, what the other thing is, is, is I'm struggling with, and this is important context. If you look at the interview that Elder Holland gave, with John Sweeney, who we are in touch with, by the way. John Sweeney is off.

Is that the BBC interview, Ian?

That was the infamous, notorious BBC interview that was conducted between the BBC journalist John Sweeney and Elder Holland in Elder Holland's office. I think it was back in 2012, June, when President Romney was running for the US presidency. And I've read that, I've gone over that that interview this morning. This was a, um, by the way, President Holland used an advocate group, a company, a lobbying company to issue a letter to the BBC complaining that President Holland felt he was set up in that interview. I don't believe that. But if you look at that interview, which was a raw interview, um, and you've seen it, I think both of you've seen that. If you haven't, I know you have, Jim Bennett. Craig, you may have seen it. Elder Holland is giving a raw reaction response. If you look at his body language, he's clearly uncomfortable. His comments and responses, in my opinion, are not entirely accurate or as truthful as they could be or as transparent as it could be. And I think that's the other side of Elder Holland. I think there is a side that is not as, um, um, open and transparent as it could be. Uh, you know, he's protecting the institution there. He's clearly, if you look at that interview, is under intense pressure. He looks very uncomfortable. It, it looks deeply uncomfortable in that interview. He's being hit with these questions, clearly not prepared for the questions. Mm-hmm. Uh, he's not been set up, you know, he didn't, you know, he didn't have to accept that interview. Interview. And I think that, that interview shows another side to Elder Holland, which people I know who know Elder Holland have also seen on a, on a private level. So yes, was he a good man and a man of Christ and, and somebody that loved people and remembered people? Absolutely. I, I don't doubt for one second he had those qualities. Um, but at the same time, I, I just don't think he, uh, I, I, I just think there's another side to him that is perhaps not as, um, constructive or as helpful. And that comes through the musket fire, which he clearly regretted. And it certainly comes through the BBC interview. And I think it also comes through a little bit in that talk that, that now, depending how you look at it, that infamous, famous talk on the Book of Mormon. Do you remember that talk that he gave on the Book of Mormon and I do. Complicated that, that became, I mean, that, I mean, by the way, great orator, one of the finest orators, you know, Greg, we talked and Jim, we've talked about, um, some of the great orators of the church, the ones that were the few that we remember that, um, you know, just gave these profound, uh, talks, you know, President Monson, uh, you know, Neal A. Maxwell, I think has been mentioned as well. Well, Elder Holland is one of the great orators historically of the church. Man, that boy, that man could give a story. He can give a talk. It just was compelling, very emotional, just one of the finest speakers ever in the history of the church. And, but at the same time, I think he came unstuck when he didn't understand the audience. He maybe didn't, wasn't as accurate or as reliable with his information on his comments, his talk, his responses, et cetera. And again, for me, I lost a lot of respect for the man when I watched that interview with BBC. I mean, it's right there. You know, why can't we just be honest with the questions and say, hey, you know, yeah, this is what we do in the temple, or we did this, we do this, we don't do it anymore, et cetera, instead of having to, you know, pull, you know, all this information out of him. So I think there are two sides to Elva Holland. And again, from the conversations and the people I know who know him, have worked with him in the UK when he was the, he led the, I think it was Europe West area. So he was the senior general authority for Europe West based in Solihull in England and worked directly with the leaders of the church who I worked with very closely. So there's a little bit of insight there.. And again, I think that was mostly positive, but at times quite, quite mixed. So did he deserve all these wonderful things? Perhaps, but he's not off the hook in my, in my mind for a lot of the problems that he's caused, frankly.

Let me parse a couple of things there, Ian. First, I think both you and Jim Bennett earlier hit it on the head. The line connecting the Musket Speech and Company Man is a short, straight line. I don't have any doubt that he gave that speech on assignment, and the ethos of that body is, "Yes, sir, how high?" The Book of Mormon, I think, is an entirely different issue. I see this as deep down personal with him. And I sensed as I was watching that General Conference talk that there was a deep, almost existential anxiety, maybe fear on his part that maybe the Book of Mormon isn't what he had been brought up to it was, and the way to try to set that straight was to say it loudly and emotionally, but didn't work. Uh, I suspect that more than a few of the men sitting at that level are still wrestling with the Book of Mormon. I'm not sure that they know exactly what to do with but what I see is primarily a telling silence in that we are not talking about an ancient Book of Mormon in General Conference anymore. We're talking about theology of the Book of Mormon, not historicity of the Book of Mormon. Jim Bennett, you're shaking affirmatively. No, that's true.

It's interesting because that talk on the Book of Mormon, so I have a weird behind the scenes on that one. That talk on the Book of Mormon was given around the same time that Ida Smith, which is a name that may— do you know Ida Smith or knew Ida Smith?

I knew Ida Smith fairly well. Her younger brother was Hyrum Smith, who you knew.

Who I knew, I knew very well. Yeah. I worked for Hyrum at Tuacán for many years and and knew him fairly well. Ida fell in with a guy named— I'm scared to mention his name because my father was sued by this guy for a private letter he wrote to Ida Smith. But this is a guy who translated, quote unquote, I'm using air quotes, the lost 116 pages as well as the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon. Yep.

I know who you mean.

And Ian, have you heard this story? Do you know who this guy is?

Briefly. I've heard a little bit.

So, so Ida Smith fell in with this guy and was absolutely convinced that, that he had in fact translated the lost 116 pages and the sealed portion. And she reached out to my father and said, I want you to read this. You are a seeker of truth. Surely you will see how true it is. And my father wrote a devastating letter, uh, just ripping it apart point by point as to why it was absolute nonsense. And then this guy ended up suing my father and it cost him, uh, quite a bit of money in legal fees. I mean, it was dismissed as soon as it finally got in front of a judge, but getting there. So I just don't want this guy to be like, oh no, I'm being attacked and I'm going to sue Inside Out. So I'm not mentioning that. But Ida Smith called Jeff Holland and, and spoke to him and said, I want you to do this. And, and Jeff Holland said, well, you're not recording this, are you? And she said no, despite the fact that she was recording it. Oh, and we had the transcript. And this guy put the transcript of the phone call on his website. And he wrote a book because his book was called The Man from Joe's Bar and Grill, because in the middle of the conversation, Jeff Holland said, look, if we're going to translate the seal portion of the Book of Mormon, it's not going to come to some guy from Joe's Bar and Grill. It's going to come to the leadership of the church. And this guy said, okay, no, this is Joe's Bar and Grill. Anyway, but In that conversation with Ida Smith, Jeff Holland, you get, Greg, exactly what you're talking about, that sense that he is wrestling with challenges to the historicity of the Book of Mormon, is uncomfortable, sort of is trying very hard to make as strong a case as he can, not only for the Book of Mormon's historicity, but for the church's authority to sort of establish that historicity and give the sort of definitive interpretation of what the Book of Mormon says and what the Book of Mormon is, that it is an ancient record, that, you know, Joseph Smith had this sort of unique access to these gold plates, to, you know, on and on and on and on. So that talk, I saw that talk sort of as a direct reaction to that conversation with Ida Smith.

Do you know how long before the talk his conversation with her was?

I don't. But it was before. But it was before. Yes, it was before. I think they're fairly contemporaneous. Somebody brighter than I am may figure out that I'm totally wrong. But, but I, because I remember thinking about the Ida Smith conversation when I watched the talk, and I actually thought the talk was remarkable at the time. I did not see it the way Ian saw it, but it has come under fire and has come under criticism for things that it really— he was sort of going out on a limb and making assertions that he really couldn't necessarily back up. But I did not see that talk as sort of out of character for him in the way that I saw the musket fire talk as being out of character. I want— I know we've gone over an hour and we should probably start winding this up, but I want to reference a couple of things about the musket fire talk. It was in Sept— this is from an article published by the Salt Lake Tribune on September 11th, 2024. Which is when Elder Holland came out and made his first commentary on the musket fire talk since it had been given. He was in a pod on a podcast with Sherri Dew, and he said, now, if anybody was hurt, and I know some were in that exchange, then I was hurt, and I have wept. I have wept for those 3 years. And he said that he doubted that anybody has had more people in an office, in a chair, weeping with them than I have in that administration building with kids who were struggling with gender issues. No one can say that I do not love them, but I am also, and was then, responsible for the direction of a university. I just wanted to get the supporting doctrine of the church across. And this, this actually echoes some language that was in the actual Musketfire talk where he said, look, I've wept with these people, you know, you can't tell me I don't love them, I've wept with them, and so therefore cut me some slack. And to me this kind of a statement, which is not an apology, and in fact in some ways is the opposite of an apology because it's saying, look, look, yeah, this hurt me too. Oh, I— this is like a parent who spanks their child and says, this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you. I had to do this. I had no choice but to do this. I mean, he— and he's not saying that in terms of, uh, I was assigned to do this by somebody more senior than I was. It was, I just had to defend this doctrine. And so to me, that's like anybody looking for an apology. He's saying, look, look, I, I'm, I was hurt by this as much as you were, but I can't apologize because the principles in this talk were so rock solid and I had to do this. And that to me, Ian, you said you don't want to let him off the hook. That to me, uh, it, it demonstrates why I think the musket fire talk is going to be his legacy long term. Yeah, because he could have said no. He absolutely could have said to Dallin Oaks, if it was Dallin Oaks that gave him the assignment, I'm not comfortable with this, President Oaks, and I'm not going to do it. Uh, what would they have done had he said that? Would they have kicked him out of the quorum? Absolutely not. Nonsense. He could have said no, but being the company man that he was, uh, he— that was the top priority. And you go back to the funeral and you go back to the equation of the church and Jesus. They are the same thing. To President Holland that they were absolutely the same thing. And for Dallin Oaks to say, you need to give this talk even if it goes against everything you actually personally believe. Yeah. President Holland's highest priority was, I'm a company man. The church is Jesus. Jesus is the church. The church wants me to do this. I have to do. And so you see him in that statement The other thing that that article talks about, he wrote a letter not to Matt Easton but to Matt Easton's still active father. Uh, Matt Easton has since left the church. His father has not. He wrote a letter to his father apologizing for how harsh he had been to Matt Easton. Uh, and which again, why don't you reach out to Matt Easton? Well, Matt Easton has left the church. And so therefore has sort of left Elder Holland's stewardship, so to speak. Maybe I'm, maybe I'm reading too much into that, but you clearly see somebody who deeply regretted that talk, and yet his loyalty to the church prevented him from saying no when he was given the assignment and prevented him from apologizing. Yeah, because apologizing, which you It's so clear he desperately wanted to. It's so clear that it's like, uh, but apologizing would undermine the church. Yeah, would undermine— I mean, we had the policy of the church is we do not seek apologies or give them. And the man who said that is now the president of the church. And so Elder Holland is sitting here wrestling, how do I make peace with this when I can't apologize for it and I can't excuse the fact that I didn't say no when I was assigned to give it. And the other way we know it's going to be his legacy is that Brigham Young University now has a course for all incoming freshmen that orients them to life at BYU, and the centerpiece of that course is the musket fire talk. Yep. It's being taught now in perpetuity to all incoming BYU freshmen. There isn't another talk of Elder Holland's that gets that same treatment. There isn't another talk by any General Authority that I know of that's going to be taught for years to come, uh, at Brigham Young University to all incoming freshmen, whether he likes it or not, whether the family likes it or not. That talk has become his legacy for good or for ill. And I think he knew at the end of his life that that was not the legacy he wanted, but that legacy that he has.

I, I agree. Let me throw out a teaser for what I hope will be a subsequent discussion on this podcast, talking about church presidents who have apologized, because I have, from my interviews a couple of very good things to say about that.

Oh, I would love to talk about that. Ian, we need to have Greg Prince back again. What do you think? I think we do.

I think we've joined at the hip with you, Greg, and how honored and delighted we are to say that. We're looking forward to so many of the conversations. I know we're out of time here. I want to make a quick response, if I may. I'm so grateful have this conversation because it, it, it, um, it helps me try to understand and figure out certain things from my position, even though I'm not in the church anymore, but it helps me kind of reconcile some things. Jim Bennett, you've, you've, the last few minutes there, you've articulated my thoughts and feelings extremely well. I couldn't have put it any better, frankly. The only thing I would add to what you said is that, you know, when I joined the church, and I've said this before, and when I was serving in the church, I felt, uh, so grateful that finally, uh, I belong to an organization that put integrity and honesty above everything else. And finally, and thank goodness we had this organization on the planet that was honest to the bone. And, and, and we didn't have to rely on any other organization. Yeah, we had to work with other organizations. Do you remember they all saying that? We're in the world, but not of the world, right? You know, we have to work with all the institutions and all the corruption that's out there and all the issues that affect so many other organizations, but not with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, because it was the true church. And we did it right. We were honest. And if we felt something, we said it. And if we felt we needed to do the right thing because it was integrity, we did it. We didn't do it for the sake of the company. Necessarily. Yes, we protected the name of the church and the name of Jesus Christ, you know, for good or for evil, right? Which Joseph Smith said. But in the end, we did the right thing. We said the right thing. And I, for a long time, felt that the church embodied all of the best side of human nature. All of the right things, all the integrity, and notwithstanding the weaknesses of the imperfections of the people in the organization, in the end that we would do the right thing and we would say the right thing. Here we have Elrond. We see this on the BBC interview as well. Uh, going into the, into this talk, reluctantly having different feelings and thoughts before he gave the talk. I'm convinced of it. I don't believe he woke up the next morning or the next day or whatever, uh, with all the criticism from the Musket Fire talk thinking, you know, what have I done? I think he had these doubts beforehand and he said things, uh, during the talk that he regretted during the talk, probably. I don't know what was in his mind, but if he didn't think, um, uh, these things when he was giving the talk, and he didn't feel this way when he was giving the talk, and he only felt them afterwards. I think that's just very sad. And it's just an example of the church, in my view, now being assigned to virtually most of the organizations, or good, or let's, let's be gracious to the church, most of the good organizations on the planet, but still a man-made organization, which is what I didn't want it to be. I had, I had greater expectations and hopes of the church because it's the only true church upon the face of the earth and that we do things differently. And here we see with so many other examples, the leaders not doing the right thing and not saying the right thing and actually saying things that are harmful and dangerous and quite hurtful. And then we know that, I'm not guessing here, gentlemen, we know that because what you've just said, what Elder Holland said about his regrets of giving the talk. And now he's assigned, you know, this talk's been assigned to him as being the one that we'll remember him by. And that's sad because I think he was a great man in many ways, and he did extraordinary things in so many ways that perhaps will be overshadowed now by this talk. I don't know if it'll overshadow everything he's done. I think the BBC interview and the Book of Mormon, which part of it I found really inspired, by the way, you know, when he gave that talk, my goodness, what a talk that And then when you get into the details, you can see some of the problems. I just think, look, if you're going to give a talk at BYU or a general conference, and if it contradicts how you think and feel, just have the conversation with the prophet or the apostle. Say, look, this is what I really— I'm sure these conversations happen all the time. This is how I really think and feel. Don't make me get up and say stuff that I just don't believe in or I feel because it's just not right. It's just against the spirit. So where's that emotional intelligence happening at that level where you can speak the truth and have integrity and share your feelings and thoughts, but do it in a way that is, uh, you know, balancing the doctrine, um, which in certain parts I think needs to change anyhow, you know, needs to be more progressive and more inclusive. But don't get up and say things that you don't really think or believe, because in the end, that compromises your integrity. And when, and I'll just close here, but when President Oaks interviewed me for my calling on the stake presidency, and I've shared this with you both before, he said, uh, uh, Brother Wilkes, how do you want to be remembered? He, he wasn't just talking about the calling. He was also talking about me as a, as a priest at all, as an individual, as a father, husband, uh, as a member of the church. Well, I want to be remembered, uh, as having somebody having with integrity and integrity. This is my definition of integrity is doing the right thing, whether people are looking or not, just being honest with your thoughts and feelings. And if you don't agree with something, don't get up and say that you agree with it, or you say something that you just know is in your heart is wrong, or he's going to cause offense or hurt. And I think this is the, uh, this, this, this shadow effect with, with President Arnold. And it's sad because he was a great man and did many great things. We don't know what his legacy will be. We're making predictions here that the Muskie Fire will be, you know, his legacy. You'd probably be right. I hope not. You know, I'm trying to be favorable to him now, you know, and, and gracious and respectful because he did many great things. And I hope he'll be remembered for things, uh, you know, other talks and other services that he delivered in a very kind, Christlike way, far beyond what, you know, from the musket fire. So yeah, they're my, they're my final thoughts on President Holland. I, I think he was overall just a, a good man.

Greg, do you have some parting words of wisdom for us?

Well, I don't know whether it's wisdom, but I have parting words. The last time I saw him was in his office. I have a friend whose wife was converted by Jeff, and he was in town. I was in Salt Lake. We happened to meet up, and he said, "Hey, I'm going to see him later today. Why don't you come with me because I know you know him." Well, it was the last day prior to them coming back from their month-long vacation. They, all the General Authorities take the month of July off. And he made a special trip into his office just to have a reunion with this guy. Uh, so we walk in, he has a large desk and it is piled. The entire thing is covered with piles, maybe up to a foot high. Of correspondence, of various kinds of papers, of journals, whatever. But on the top of the pile nearest to his chair was the current issue of Dialogue, a journal of Mormon thought. And I thought to myself, yes, Jeff, you still got it.

How long ago was that?

Mm, and that was pre-COVID.

Oh, I, you know, I, I really, really, I, I loved Jeffrey R. Holland. I just thought he was, there are so many of his sermons that I adored. Uh, particularly the, the one that I wish he were remembered for instead of the musket fire talk is when he talked about his own personal battle with depression. Yes. He was the absolute first general authority to talk about mental illness as a physical medical condition. You likened it to having high cholesterol, and you did not hear that kind of thing from other general authorities. You did not hear that kind of thing from the church. I remember when I was off the mission struggling with what I am now convinced was very much a clinical depression, uh, uh, listening to Elder Gene R. Cook. It was the same talk, Ian, where Gene R. Cook met Mick Jagger. Ah, there you go. But he talked about, hey, if you're feeling down, the Book of Mormon tells you why you're feeling down. Oh, reads— he read a passage in the Book of Mormon where it talks, and they must needs be in despair, and despair cometh from iniquity. So if you're in despair, it's because there's something wrong in your life. You've done something wrong. It's your fault. And that was the model until Jeffrey R. Holland was able to get up and say, no, mental illness is a real thing. It has nothing to do with your righteousness. I've suffered from it. I've dealt with it. I mean, that to me is how I will remember. Jeff Holt. And I will— I mean, the musket fire talk makes— just makes me sad. I think it probably made him much sadder than it's making me now. But, uh, it's just very sad to me that that is how so many are going to remember him, because he did so much good and blessed so many lives. Uh, the, the other son— I don't remember any of the names except for Matt. David. David, David spoke and he said, look, it's not every day that someone would approach me and say, your father's words changed my life. But there hasn't been a month that's gone by where somebody hasn't said that.

It's also worth noting, Jim, where David works. Do you know where? I don't. He is on the faculty of the Harvard Divinity School.

Interesting. Oh, that's, that's wonderful. I mean, if Matt Holland or David Holland were called as apostles, I would be thrilled to sustain them. I think the Hollands are just outstanding human beings. And like all of us, you know, good— we all have made terrible mistakes. We've all done things that we are not proud of. And Jeff Holland knew that, that that one speech was not his finest hour and said so. But, uh, it's, I don't know, uh, rest in peace, Elder Holland. Blessings to, uh, the entire Holland family. This is a, you know, it's never easy to lose a loved one. It's never easy to lose a father. And I've offered several prayers on behalf of Matt, particularly since I know how difficult it is to lose your dad. And even if you're expecting it, it's not, it's not easy to do. So with that, Greg, we have to have you back because there's way too much more to talk about here. So looking forward to that. Thank you all for listening. Thank you, Ian, for your insights here. I think you've offered a perspective that is necessary and important as we consider this. And thank you to all all of our listeners, happy new year, and we'll see you on our next episode of Inside Out.