The Only True Church

Hello and welcome to another episode of Inside Out. My name is Jim Bennett, and I am here after much effort. We have Ian Wilkes here with us as well. Ian, how are you, sir?

I am feeling good today, and I'm really excited to be having this conversation with, uh, one of our most favorite guests who we're just so grateful to have come on as often as he does.

Absolutely. Greg Prince, welcome back to Inside Out.

Well, thank you. I appreciate the endorsement, Ian. It may be more a question of quantity than quality, however.

Uh, I think it's— we've got quantity and quality. So, and I think this is going to be a really important, wonderful discussion. We've had all kinds of technical difficulties trying to get off the ground here. And we've decided that this must mean that this is such an important discussion that Satan doesn't want this episode to go out. Would you agree with that, Ian?

I would agree with that, sir. Yeah.

So there we go. Um, but, uh, when we, when we do a live stream, we have this goofy AI version of Bruce R. McConkie. Gave him a different middle name. So everybody knows that it's not Really Bruce R. McConkie. But he does a play on the idea of this being the only true and living church. Bruce McConkie's AI guy says, this is the only true and living podcast on the face of the earth, speaking under the podcast collectively as well as individually. But in trying to figure out what we were going to talk about in You, uh, you wanted to focus on the actual scripture, on the idea of this being the only true and living church, this being the only church with priesthood authority. Do you want to expand on that a little bit?

Yes, yes.

Just so— thank you.

Um, first, context, and I'm so grateful to be having this conversation, and I cannot think of any two better people to have this conversation with than Greg Prince and Jim Bennett. Many years ago, while serving as a young missionary in Scotland, in Dumfries, southwest of Scotland, in the winter of 1987, within the first few days, we were, as you know, Jim, we were knocking on doors, I don't know, 8, 9, 10 hours a day in the rain. It was a shock to the system. Most people, almost everyone, were not remotely interested in talking to us. I felt at the time I'd made the biggest mistake in my life only because it wasn't for me just about going and, you know, that rite of passage going on a mission, but I actually wanted to make a difference and I wanted to bring people close to Christ and introduce them to the gospel because it was so wonderful. And we had many of the answers, if not all of the answers. And I think within 3 days of being out in the field and, uh, with my trainer, you know, very new, very green. We knocked on this door, uh, in, uh, in Dumfries, and this lady came to the door, um, late 20s or something like that. And then we went, we came, we managed to get into the house, which was just a miracle. And we, we were in there and we did the Holy Ghost dialogue, which is that pre-prologue to the first discussion. And my companion, Elder Rockwood, started getting into the first discussion., and it went really well. I was doing most of the listening. I was inexperienced, lacked any scriptural knowledge, and my companion was very well versed in scriptures. And the couple shared with us, uh, that, or, or said to us that they just got married recently and they were absolutely, um, grateful for each other. And you could tell, uh, from the, you know, from the whole experienced that they were in love with each other. And this was a very important relationship and they dated when they were younger. And, um, but they'd been thinking about something that, uh, had rested on the mind for quite some time. And they were thinking about what can they do to strengthen their marriage? And is there a possibility that marriage, their relationship could extend beyond death? Well, I thought that was great. You know, I was just listening to this and Elder Rockwood said, yeah, He said, of course, God has the power and authority on earth to bind people together for time and all eternity. You know, we're the only church on the earth that teaches that you can be married for time and all eternity. Most other religions teach till death do you part, which is— that made sense to me because it resonated with me because growing up in the Church of England, that's what we taught, right? You're only married until you're together until you until you die, and then that's it. So as we were having the conversation, this couple, they were absolutely intrigued by this idea of being sealed together. And Elder Rockwood said, well, they asked, you know, what does that entail? And he said, well, you have to, you know, accept the ordinances and the covenants of the church and the temple. We talked a bit about the temple. Oh, what's the temple? So give a simple explanation of that. And they said that, only through the authority of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can one be sealed. And they said, uh, what do you mean the authority? So Rockwood talked a bit about the priesthood authority, the restored authority. And they said, so they're saying, they said then, are you saying that the only way to be together forever is to be a Mormon? And Rockwood said, well, yeah. And they said, oh, well, what about if you just love each other? They said, what if you just love each other and the love is so strong It transcends death and the love is what binds you. And he went, no, no, that's not how it works. You can't be sealed together forever unless you are sealed by the holy priesthood. And he explained a bit more about what that was. They looked quite puzzled by this and quite shocked, actually. And that, so we, the conversation continued. It was a bit more difficult, the conversation as it continued. They were seeing as it continued, they seemed to be less interested in what we were saying. We never got a return appointment, uh, to go back and teach them. We went back a few times and, and they weren't in, or they came to the door and said they were too busy. They clearly were no longer interested. But that experience rested with me, and I've struggled with it for many, many years because, you know, since that, that conversation, you know, many, 40 years ago almost, and I have this problem that the church claims this divine exclusive priesthood authority that you can't be with your families forever without the priesthood authority of God, that love and service and sacrifice and relationship is not enough. And so this whole idea that the church has exclusive authority for the entire world, Jim, uh, Greg, not just the church members. You know, that's, that's an audacious claim, not only to be the true church, or by definition of claiming to be the only true church, uh, it's because it has the only true authority. So this restoration of the priesthood, uh, that happened, that is mentioned and covered really well in the Roadmap for Improved Mormonism that Greg has put together tirelessly. The extension of that means that, uh, our relationships on this planet, everything we do, we say, how we behave is all influenced and governed by this level, this exclusive divine authority that the church claims. It's the only organization that, uh, that has this. And it, it's incredibly powerful and significant. I can't think of anything more significant in terms of a control system. If you look at the church, within the church system, how it's organized and structured, you can't do anything without priesthood authority. What you say, how you say it is controlled or influenced. What you wear, you dress, et cetera, is given or instructed by someone in authority. Blessings, ordinances, covenants, callings, releases, councils, it's all done under this umbrella of, this, this, um, unique, uh, exclusive level of authority. Uh, individuals who want to go to the temple to witness the marriage of their daughter or their son can't experience that. You can in the UK because you can go to, you have this formal marriage, uh, ceremony in the church building. It's open to the public and, and the church encourages that, but then you're not really sealed, uh, in your marriage until you go to the temple. That was our structure that my wife and I went through in the UK. In America, the United States, of course, and in Canada here, uh, you go to the temple and if you haven't got a recommend, you can't get in. So this idea that the church controls, uh, every aspect of the, uh, member's life in this way is, uh, worrying and makes me feel very uncomfortable. And I just don't agree with it. As I reflect back on that conversation with that young couple, um, who were very genuine virgins here, I now believe that you do not need to have any authority, any Melchizedek or any priest authority to, um, you know, for an individual or a couple to be with their family or their wives or the spouses forever. I just don't believe it anymore. I don't believe the church has a monopoly on truth. Our authority, uh, our inspiration, or the spirit. I think God, when we humble and we are thoughtful and we kind and we genuine, God speaks to those people through inspiration. And the authority comes from how we are inside ourselves, how we live, how we live our lives and serve and help others. And it comes from the love that the pure love that we have for our family members. Which is Christ's love. And I now believe that that is sufficient, easily sufficient authority for to bind our relationships on this planet. And that you don't need the laying on of hands in order to give someone authority or to control what they do, what they can or can't do. I've moved away from that claim. I mean, it's quite a claim, right? The only true church on the earth. And we are the only church on earth with the exclusive authority to get back into the kingdom of heaven. I mean, what a control system that is. Maybe I'm being too cynical, but I just think it's impacted so many people's lives. It's so controlling and it's so narrow, and you have to go through all these different hoops in order to do certain things or to qualify, you know, when you're a member of the church. And it, it always made me feel uncomfortable. So that's my, they're my thoughts, my feelings. That's the backstory to this. And I would love to get your perspective on this and why you think, if you do, that, you know, in order to be with each other forever, that you have to have this exclusive divine authoritative blessing pronounced upon people. And without that, then we are not with each other forever. I just, I just don't believe or accept that anymore. Um, so I'd love to get your thoughts and feelings on this.

Craig, uh, what do you think?

As in so many things, my good friend Lester Bush gave me some guidance on this. He said, having been through innumerable testimony meetings, when people get up and say, I know without a shadow of a doubt, or I know with every fiber of my being, those being, I think, the two most frequent expressions of it. He said, what they're really saying is, I really hope this is true. Because it's not an objective truth that they're bearing witness to. It's a spiritual aspiration. I hope it's true too. Uh, but I also know that there's a difference between the outward sign and the inward reality. And too often we trivialize religion and reduce it to a series of boxes that we have to check. So you go through the ordinance, check that one, we're fine. Next one. And I don't think for a minute that that's the case. So, uh, one way of looking at this is to say authority is as authority does. It's not an automatic thing. Another mentor with whom I only had brief contact, meaning one afternoon together was Rabbi Harold Kushner. And when I brought up the idea of our religion saying we are the one and only true church, he chuckled and he said, I hear that from many. And he said, think of it as a statement of loyalty and not a fact. So I think both those concepts probably enter into this discussion. When you start to stake out ground that is exclusive and not inclusive, you not only put yourself in the position of not being able to defend what you're asserting, but you're really complicating the politics of getting along with others who are not of your tribe. We don't spend enough time talking about that. Let me put a period on that for now, and we'll keep going with the discussion.

Well, it's really interesting that you would frame it that way, particularly in light of the fact that the church is spending so much time or so many resources trying very hard to— it seems, and maybe they have a different different purpose for doing this, but it seems like they are trying very hard to look like mainstream Christianity. This is the first time I ever remembered the fact that we now celebrate all these Christian holidays. We lean into Palm Sunday and Good Friday and all of these things that Bruce R. McConkie said were some symbols of apostate Christianity. Well, now they're a part of our church too. And in the political world, I, it's always amazing to me that these people, um, that so many members of the church try very hard to pretend that they're in the same tent as the evangelical Christians that have so much political power in the United States when they absolutely don't think we're in the same tent. And as soon as our money or our votes don't matter anymore, we'll be kicked to the curb. So, Greg, do you think then that if we were to somehow abandon that, do you think that would make us more accepted? Abandon the idea of exclusivity, would that make us accepted by the Christian world at large? Do we want to be accepted by the Christian world at large? And is it possible to abandon this? I mean, I, I don't know. How the church gets away from this, even if it wanted to. And I don't really see much of an indication that it wants to. It's happy to sort of put on the window dressing that makes us look more Christian. But if Franklin Graham were to come to Dallin Oaks and say, would you please stop saying that yours is the only true church and that all of us are equally Christian? I can't imagine Dallin Oaks giving him an answer that he would like.

I don't recall that we have said it as forcefully and as frequently as we used to. And I think to your point, Jim, there has been a growing realization that there is much to be gained by our being in a cooperative relationship with other religious traditions, Christian and otherwise, and that we are self-defeating if we put out there in advance of our arrival, we're the only ones in this business. We've done a lot of that in the past, and I think it's always been counterproductive in terms of standing shoulder to shoulder with other people, other traditions, as we confront what are existential crises facing this world, crises that I think can best be addressed by people of faith.

Well, sure. I think that's, that's probably true. And we've talked about how frustrating it is that we don't seem to be directly engaging with those crises. We speak in generalities. We don't speak in specificities. The way Pope Leo seems to be doing. Uh, there's a rumor that Pope Leo is going to be Stephen Colbert's final guest on his final show, uh, which would just be fascinating. The idea of Dallin Oaks going on to a late night talk show is just— I remember when Gordon B. Hinckley went on Larry King and just how groundbreaking that was. And we've, we've gone backwards. In that regard, with regard to that kind of accessibility. But I, I, I, I—

to, to get back to your prior point, Jim, the church generally doesn't say we are abandoning such and such. What they will do is stop talking about it. Yeah, you've seen this with the historical Book of Mormon. That used to be a frequent theme in General Conference addresses. What you hear now is the theological Book of Mormon, which is great. That's where the discussion should be. They've never said, you know, we're abandoning the idea that this is an ancient document. I don't think they will say that. They came close with the papyri and the Book of Abraham. I don't think they're ready to make that leap to the Book of Mormon. So by just looking at when the dog doesn't bark, I think you can often get an idea of what's going on. And I think that's what's going on. Certainly it's off-putting to non-LDS to hear those claims of exclusivity? And where do they get us anyway?

The Church actually, in the Joseph Smith Papers, has published a volume about the Book of Abraham that admits essentially that the Book of Abraham is not a translation of the papyrus that Joseph Smith had, that the papyrus that is currently existing, uh, is in fact what he thought he was translating. And the Kirtland Egyptian Papers demonstrate that all of these things— I, I— so in other words, an official church resource that very few people know about has quietly conceded that the Book of Abraham is not a historical translation of anything.

Well, and a condensed version of that, Jim, is in the Gospel Topics Essays. On that.

Well, the Gospel Topics Essays leaves open the idea that there is a missing scroll, which is kind of ridiculous, uh, and also the possibility that, um, oh, I, I don't know. But, but, but then it all— it presents the only, I think, viable way forward, which is what they call the catalyst theory, that this was a catalyst for Joseph Smith to receive a revelation that was not in any way connected to the papyrus that he thought he was translating. But, but, but you're right. I mean, the church, the church is never going to say that in conference. And the church is never going to— we were talking about this in our livestream last night, in that the church constantly changes and then constantly ignores the necessity of acknowledging that change. So it allows people who want to hold on to previous sorts of things to do so, and the church doesn't stop them. I mean, the church has not ever talked about, for instance, uh, the fact that we no longer counsel gay men to marry women. It used to be that that was how you would fix it. You know, you just, just get married and that'll take care of it. And the wreckage of so many mixed orientation marriages collapsing has had the church quietly change its counsel. But nobody knows that. They've never announced that, and they've never certainly acknowledged that the previous council was problematic. Ian, this is one of your biggest bugaboos, is it not?

It is.

Last night was fascinating, Craig. We had this live episode about change and managing change and the church not changing and changing this, et cetera. It was quite extraordinary, and I see how this ties to that. There's an old Scottish saying, goes like this, the big print giveth the small giveth and taketh away. And the church is this glorious building with these wonderful, uh, analogy I'm going with here, this wonderful mural. And outside it presents this extraordinary lifestyle and promises and blessings and families and eternity and love and happiness, which is, which I get. It's the packaging. It's that, you know, look at this, you know, look what we are selling here. This is extraordinary. On the other side of that, Muriel, uh, is a different story, uh, in a certain way and to an extent. There's much more of a controlling aspect inside that, um, resistance to change. When change does happen from an outside influence, there's no, uh, acknowledgement or, uh, uh, attributing those changes to outside influences. When influences happen or things change rather,, it's down to the direction of the brethren. Some, again, this divine revelation, this authority, and these changes are coming through revelations, nothing to do with outside external influences. And you've got those changes that happen, uh, that are not communicated. And I'm not saying the changes are bad. I mean, many of the changes are actually good changes. Uh, but it's this message to the inside members that any change that happens, happens as a result of the Lord changes. When he changes things in his time, the brethren will respond, you know, when they're, you know, when they, uh, the changes are necessary. And it's relative within the confines of that inner circle, you know, the church's sphere of influence is restrictive, restricted to that inner group, you know, within the membership, rank and file. Outside, not much influence beyond Salt Lake and Utah. And as you extend beyond that sphere, less and less influence. And if we look at the church as not being the only true divine authority on the earth, and we look at it as a, you know, a well-run business corporation or other type of religion that doesn't make that claim, it is acting intelligently. If you think about it, it is changing. It's changing strategically. There are people advising the church on, you know, where to change and how to change. It's changing those things that it can. It's measuring incremental, those changes. It's doing its research. You know, it conducts a whole series of questionnaires internally. About the changes that I think it wants to make. I think it, in the question designs in these questionnaires, it strategically hides its intent. I believe it's not as open and as forthright as what it's trying to achieve with these questions in these member questionnaires that it's conducted. It'll have some general questions. It's like the questionnaire, the family questionnaire Jim Bennett mentioned. You'd start off with, Are farmers important to you? So it asks these generic questions which are very safe and secure, but then it kind of couches some of the words in some of the questions in order to find out what the members really think. And, and it, it measures that. And any changes that it makes, um, it does so within the confines of its own control system and is acting very intelligently to control the members and the narrative and will only make strategic changes. On the outside, it presents a very different picture of an organization that is inclusive. You know, inside it's the only true church, only got the authority. Outside, that's not the message anymore. It doesn't say that anymore, does it? When was the last time it says the only true church, or other churches are false, or it's only got the, you know, it's only church with the exclusive authority? It doesn't do that. I can't remember the last time it did that. And so outside to the world, it presents itself as this inclusive, comprehensive, engaging, collaborative, accepting organization. And in reality, that's just not the case on the inside. And so it's very intelligent at being able to package itself in that way. You mentioned the Pope coming on to Stephen Colbert. As the prophet of the true church, and we've talked about this, and we've talked with Greg about the conversation in the public square, I love that. Where is President Oaks in these conversations? Wouldn't it be great to have a conversation about change and, you know, just talk about change and how the church is embracing change, all the things that are going on in the world and technology and AI and what's the church's position on this? I remember speaking to Oaks about a whole range of issues that were happening in the world back Jim Bennett having lunch. And it was great conversation. He was very, very smart individual, very engaged, just a regular, albeit very smart fella talking about the stuff that's going on. It was the Arab Spring that was going on in the world. And I was asking about that and what's happening. And he felt that the Lord had some influence on that. It was just wonderful. To have this conversation with him as a regular guy, right? And wouldn't it be great to be able to have just a normal conversation with the Prophet? Just, you know, no tricks, no gimmicks, just a regular guy conversation like we're having here about his thoughts and feelings about certain things. And it's, you know, he might know this, he might not know this. And I think that's the problem here. I think we don't see that human side to some of these leaders in a kind of official capacity. It's all choreographed, it's all packaged, it's marketed, et cetera. There are distinct choreographed messages. And I want more than that, and I need more than that. And I know I'm not alone. And I would love to be in a position where we can have just this regular conversation with these leaders. And really get to know and understand what they really think and feel, because that would have— that will be very unique and distinct. Will that happen one day? I don't know. I just think they're driven by the worry that they're going to screw up, you know, by coming onto a podcast or coming onto a program. But isn't the, isn't the priority to, uh, invite people's interest in the church by having these normal, regular human conversations beyond General Conference where all that's controlled and all the talks are checked and that's a problem. You can't, can't say that. Well, you can say that, that's okay, et cetera. It's just so synthetic and plastic and what a missed opportunity to be able to connect with people, you know, across the world. He's such a wonderful man in many ways, inspiration. He's so much more to give, yet he is, is the rules and the structure, it constrains and restricts them. And it's just, it's just sad and disappointing. I expect more and hope for more.

Do you expect more and hope for more, Greg?

Oh yeah. I've been sitting here thinking about a historical novel I read more than 50 years ago on Saint Francis of Assisi. And it's strange how in a 500-page book you remember one sentence, but it stays with you. And the sentence was, always and never are words best reserved for use by the deity. The attractiveness of fundamentalist religion is the absolutism. We have the only, or we have the very best. But when you drill down to the reality, it's much more nuanced than that. Way back when computer security was first becoming an issue, And that goes back decades. There was a security program called Pretty Good Privacy. And it gets back to the saying that perfect becomes the enemy of good enough. And what we're really looking for in life is, I think, what was encapsulated in the New Testament, where it said the law was to, the schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ. The whole point is not which card do I carry saying that I joined the one and only true religion. It's whatever religious tradition you have subscribed to, is that getting you to where you want to be? During and after this life. And that often gets lost because we're shouting at each other as to who's best. When you sit around the table, and I've talked about this many times, with religionists of other stripes, um, you get an appreciation for maybe backing off a bit from your absolute claims. Now, as a scientist, that's much easier for me to do because scientists don't work in absolutes. We always understand that whatever level of knowledge we have today, we hope it'll get a little bit better tomorrow and the next day. You don't find many scientists of repute who will say we've got it all. To them, it's a continuing journey. And so I think for any organization to say, ah, we're the one and only, is counterproductive because that goes against both reality and our concurrent claim of continuing revelation, which means we're changing. We hope we're getting better. Uh, and for me, pretty good religion may be good enough if it's getting me where I think I need to go. Now for the younger generations, I think that's the whole game. Is it working for me? And they don't care what your claim is about, this is the one and only. They want something that's gonna work for them, and if it doesn't work for them, they're gonna walk away from it. We've all seen that. We've probably seen that in our extended families.

Yeah. That, you know, that makes absolute sense. I just wrestle with it in the sense that I'm trying to find some way to have my cake and eat it too. I think it's very difficult theologically for the church to just sort of say Doctrine and Covenants section 1 doesn't mean what it says it means. And you see that when you sort of poke the bear a little bit. You see that in Dallin Oaks speaking about Heavenly Mother or mothers, saying he's not abandoned, theologically anyway, the idea that heaven is polygamous. And we certainly never, ever explicitly talk about that in conference or in large settings, but we live in a world where everything is a large setting now because everybody has a phone and everybody can film the president of the church saying mother or mothers. So the undercurrent here, I don't see any evidence that the church is abandoning a historical Book of Mormon theologically. I see them abandoning it in practice and hoping that nobody really pokes the bear or digs any— but you dig into it and you realize, no, the church is still really believes that or still is kind of teaching that. And I look at this and say, okay, well, is there any possible way to integrate DNC section 1, verse 30 into something that is also inclusive. And, and where I have sort of landed, and it's probably a little too convenient, is this idea that, uh, everybody gets saved and the Mormons do the paperwork. In other words, the, the temple ceremony And the idea that we're baptizing everybody and that we're giving everybody their endowments, uh, is a way to sort of give Latter-day Saints an appreciation for the responsibility they have. It is not a way— it is the opposite of a way to be exclusive. I mean, if everybody doesn't get saved, then what are we doing all this temple work for? Why bother? Uh, I, I firmly believe that Mormonism is universalist at the core. And so you can sort of preserve this idea of exclusive priesthood authority if you recognize that everybody is the beneficiary, that, that the exclusive authority is not exclusive blessings necessarily. Is that just a little too precious for you guys? What do you think, Greg?

I think it works for you. I keep going back to Rabbi Kushner that a statement of loyalty makes a lot of sense. How does that hold up with the rest of the world, particularly as you see God working within other religions, which I do see, and I see it early and often.

Yeah, I, I think everybody sees it, and everybody, when, when you try to shoehorn the only true church into that, everybody tries to find a way to explain it away, and that's really stupid, I think. Uh, Ian, is there any way to wreck, to shoehorn both of these things into the same thing?

Oh boy, this is, I mean, this is the heart of the problem, isn't it? If you strip away all the different layers, it's like a, the church is like an onion, you strip an onion, if you strip away all the different layers, it, it comes down to instead of claiming to be the only true divine authority on the earth, exclusive, and that we're the best and everything, we have to be there and yeah, they're, yeah, they're doing well, but hey, we're the number one, right?, in the world. And that's our message. Can't we just focus on being a good church, a great church, a church that collaborates, which it does? I mean, it collaborates, um, in extraordinary ways, uh, to bless the lives of, of millions of people around the world. And so I, I think, um, you know, again, if you strip this right down, it's what are we trying— and I just love how Greg phrased earlier, you know, what do people want? What do we want in our lives? People who are, uh, looking for meaning and purpose and, and, and, um, the full human, full measure of our experience. And not everybody feels like that. I understand that. I think at some point in life we do, no matter what we're going through, we come to the point where there's a realization that, you know, life is more than work or, material things that, you know, there's some purpose or meaning that has to be, you know, their lives. And I think it strips right down to love and hope, you know, where we go to the church, to church, because we, we get something from it. It's, it's feeds our soul and it gives us hope and purpose and meaning. We're with people that love us and we love them. And it, and to me, that's, it's how you feel. It's an emotional and spiritual thing. And if we can get that through being a good church, a great church through kindness and service and not being prescriptive on everything, and you got to follow this rule, you can't drink coffee and you can't go to the temple to be, you know, as a bishop, I have this awful experience of advising or telling a mother of a Uh, she was a non-member mom of a young woman who was going to the temple, that she couldn't go to the temple. I can even bring it, make it more personal. My mother, who was not in the church, was very upset and hurt that she couldn't go to the temple to, uh, you know, go through, or at least experience my experience in the temple when I went through for the endowments, or even, uh, go to the temple sealing. She couldn't be, she couldn't be present when Debbie and I were sealed in the London Temple. She couldn't understand that. It devastated her. And the bishop didn't have the courage to tell her because she's quite outspoken lady. And I had to tell her that, Mum, you just don't, you just, oh, stripped down to that, she wasn't worthy. She wasn't worthy to have a temple recommend. She couldn't get a recommend unless she was, you know, active. She was inactive being the church and What do I need to get a temple recommend so I can go to your sealing, Ian? I said, well, you have to be in the church for a year. You've got to serve. You've got to pay tithing. It was, she wasn't there for my sealing. She was devastated. My mother, my own mother. So I thought the church was just, you know, inclusive and bigger, broader, you know, and moving towards, I think at least my interpretation of how Christ was. This is how he felt and thought, I believe, that he was inclusive and did everything in his power to extend as many blessings as he could to people, to build them up and to make them feel good and give them purpose, meaning that you are worth something. You're a child of God and you can find who you are and find your purpose. And here's how to do it, in loving people and loving God. As simple as that, as simple as that. We've become so prescriptive and so regimented and so much about the word instead of the spirit. You know, you've got to follow all these instructions. It's like on the mission, every Thursday we'd have to do what? Was it Thursday, Jim, on the mission? You have to do these, fill out these reports. He was only the district leader. And are you going to bed on time? And are you getting up and reading the scriptures? And and doing companion inventory and doing checkbox, checkbox, checkbox, checkbox. I don't think life is like that. Life is not like that. And the gospel of Christ is not like that. Christ wasn't filling out all these forms and checking this and reporting back, returning report to God and God saying, well, Jesus, did you do this? Did he get up on time? Boom, boom, tick all your checkboxes. It's not like that. I don't see them like that, those relationships like that. And so I just think in some ways, in many ways, or in this way at least, the church is lost. I just think it's lost and it's moved away from the very fundamental principles that it was trying to teach and advocate and encourage people to live in that very basic way. It's gone more controlling and more corporate. It's just, It's just sad and it's so, it, it could be so much more. And if they could just see it, yeah, there'd be some loss of some people might decide not to come out if they make all these changes. But as we discussed last night with Colby, me and Colby having that live conversation, I think if the church was this bigger, broader tent of being a good organization, a church that was committed to helping people and inclusive and doing the right things and leading these conversations for goodness sake and getting out there and, and, and being in the public eye and starting these conversations about equality and dealing with issues in the world like the Pope's doing. I think thousands would flock to the church because they would get the very thing that would feed their soul, the very essence as to why we are human and why we live. And it would be so enriching. And it's just, they've got these blinkers on and they just can't see it. There's a comment last night. I got one of my first criticisms that I've had. I don't attract as many negative criticisms on some of my comments. And I got one last night saying I was, Ian thinks he knows more about the church, comment on YouTube. Messaging last night. Well, I don't know more about the church. I don't have all the answers, but in it, these things I'm talking about are not exclusive to me. I'm not the only one that thinks like this. I don't have all the answers, but I see certain things in a way that's so plain and simple. And sadly, the church has moved away and it's all about apologetics and defending the Book of Mormon and, oh, the, you know, the different first visions and Oh, we defending this policy. Oh, we've been attacked. Oh, we've been challenged. It's coming from the outside. Uh, okay. These are important, uh, uh, input that we've got. We will kind of hold our ground for now. And then at some point we'll make some changes and we'll say those changes are eternal, right? They've come from eternal revelations. There's no acknowledgement, uh, to any, we said last night, polygamy was changed because of pressure from, uh, the American government, the US government at the time. The church never acknowledged that it came from a revelation. The pressure to change, um, Black— extending Blacks and priesthood temple blessings to Blacks, uh, was through God. It wasn't through pressure from any source. I think you need to embrace change and accept positive ideas from anywhere you can get it. In a business or in life, um, we want, you You know, a humble, professional, well-rounded person accepts critical input and feedback from anywhere. We want that. Look at us right now. We're saying stuff. We could be criticized, and that's okay. By having constructive criticism and feedback, that's how we improve and get and change. And the prophets, the apostles should open themselves up to the world. To have this bigger, broader conversation, to be man enough and adult enough to take criticism and to learn from it and listen. Because that's how— I love that comment. I think last week with Greg, you mentioned, Greg, about being in a room with angry people. I thought that was amazing because that's how we listen and learn. And it's the person who's got humble confidence that seeks out those people who are frustrated or angry because they can learn. So the church has become very narrow thinking, I think, and that's not who Christ is. I don't think Christ is like that at all. I think he's bigger than that and broader than that and has a bigger outlook and more embracing. And so the church is shrinking. I think financially it's growing exponentially, but in terms of moral authority and leadership and guidance when we need it the most, it's shrinking and not stepping up to the challenges, also the opportunities that are out there.

No, I think that makes a lot of sense. And I think, you know, you talk about at the beginning of that, you were talking about your mother not being able to go to your ceiling. And I remember when, uh, my sister got sealed, I was, how old was I? 17, 16? Didn't have, hadn't been endowed. Got sealed in the LA Temple and I had to sit outside. And I just assumed, okay, yeah, that's what I have to do. And she was sealed to a man who was a convert and his mother was not allowed to go in. And so we were sitting outside with my sister's future mother-in-law, who was not allowed to see her son get married. And Howard Anderson, Greg, wrote multiple letters to the brethren saying there is no, um, there is no purpose for this policy because we know that overseas where they don't recognize sealings as marriages, They demand that you have a civil ceremony before the temple ceremony. So we know there's no doctrinal reason for this. You need to stop doing this. And he finally got a letter back saying, we've gotten plenty of letters from you, Howard. President Anderson, we know your point of view on this. Don't write us anymore. But, um, that, that's a smaller point though, I think, than the ones you're making, Ian, in that, in that we— I, as a 17-year-old kid, assumed there was some great important reason for this, and there wasn't. It was just kind of an arbitrary decision and an arbitrary policy. They've now lifted it. They've now changed it. Although I find it interesting that I, I assumed that, oh, okay, great, that everybody's going to have a big, big ceremony before their sealing so everybody can be included, and that doesn't seem to be happening. Culturally, we're still holding on to what we used to do. But, but just over and over and over again, these changes happen without any acknowledgement of the sacrifices made to sustain the status quo before the change. And, and I think that's a problem. And, and Greg, when, when you talk about all of the, you know, we're maturing, we have to move beyond this. Can, can the church genuinely survive a transition into being just another good church, the kind of good church that Ian is describing here?

If I don't think any question that it can, it can. Sure, it can. I, I keep thinking of the statement of Jesus, by their fruits you shall know them. And sometimes I just want to scream, don't tell me what you are, show me.

Well, the fruits of Mormonism, by objective standards, are really quite good.

They are good. And so why get ourselves into that rabbit hole of the one and only? Let's just go out there and show that what we have is not even just good enough, it's pretty good. Well, so here's a lot that, that puts us in a different category than many, if not most, of the religious traditions. Let's show our stuff. That's why I keep coming back to the power inherent in service missions. Because then, then we're showing it, we're not telling it. And I think that's what's needed most.

Yeah.

Yeah. That same sister that I wasn't able to see her wedding, uh, Ian and I talked to her and her husband, and they are serving a service mission in Australia right now and doing remarkable, wonderful things that have nothing to do with proselyting. So yeah, I listen to that, and it sounds wonderful. But here's where I'm not quite sure how to get there from here. If we say, okay, yeah, the Book of Mormon, it's a lovely inspired book, and there are marvelous principles in it. There were never any gold plates. There was never any Moroni. This was Joseph Smith's own vision, and he's whatever. We do that. We, yeah, this is the revelation that says we're the only true church. That was Joseph Smith too. That was just Joseph Smith. The reality is, uh, you can't really take that seriously. That really isn't important. Essentially what you do, at least in my mind, is you turn Joseph Smith into an absolute fraud. Terrell Givens makes this point in An Inconvenient Faith. He said if there were no plates and if there was no Moroni, then Joseph Smith was a liar and Joseph Smith was a fraud. And, and can you build? I mean, by their fruits ye shall know them. Clearly the church that was founded by this, in this scenario, this fraud, uh, has produced good fruits.

But Jim, if you go down that road, you've already been down it with the Book of Abraham to a different destination, and that didn't blow up the church.

Well, the Book of Abraham is a little different though, because, because Joseph never claimed that an angel appeared to him.

No, but he claimed that this was the signature of Father Abraham.

Yeah, it's a whole lot easier for me to say, okay, he made a mistake about that, than it is for me to say, well, he made a mistake when he said an angel appeared to him 4 times in one.

Well, the difference is with the Book of Abraham, you have concrete objective things from which to measure. With the Book of Mormon, the 2 elements you talk about, an angel and gold plates, we do not have access to. So you can still talk about those as matters of faith. I'm fine with that. But in terms of a provable statement, what you come down to is what's the effect of that book. You cannot prove the ancientness of it because it hinges on subjective, not objective, elements. And I'm fine with that. I don't think we need more than that. What we have is a church as with many fundamentalist churches, that wants everything to be concrete and literal, and it's not. So if you, if you are upset by the possibility of an allegorical Book of Mormon that has strong religious content, um, that's not a problem because that puts it in very good stead with many of the books of the Bible.

Jim Bennett: Jim, Greg's thoughts really work for me because here I am, I resigned from the church. I want the church to improve and get better. I have no control over the church. I don't have all the answers. I want the church to be a good, even great organization. It is in many, many ways. I love the, I agree completely that the church is at its best when its members are serving in the way you describe. It's just, there's no organization like it on earth, I don't think. It's so much, so powerful in those areas. Um, I don't believe that, you know, I believe Joseph translated or, or, uh, received revelation to develop the Book of Mormon, including from help from other sources, which we haven't got time to get into, using stone in a hat. Plates, I don't believe existed. Was there an angel? I think he had this profound experience in the grove of trees. I think he saw something in his mind. I think it was real to him. You know, that I've had similar experiences like that that were very real to me. I didn't physically see an angel, but my goodness, it was profound experience for me. And you've got this extraordinary physical piece of evidence in the Book of Mormon that I don't believe or accept anymore., as I used to, that it is a literal historical text. However, and I've shared this many times before, uh, in private and in public, I believe the Book of Mormon to be inspired. A lot of it, not all of it, a lot of it. There's passages in that book in Alma that when I read even now are incredibly uplifting, inspiring. There's a spirit there which is The language, the experiences, the stories in Alma and, you know, 35:17 and 32 and 34 and, you know, 42, it talks about mercy and justice. There's no, I've never read a text like that to describe the relationship between justice and mercy like in Alma 42. The Mosiah, I mean, the Book of Mormon is replete with its extraordinary allegories and and rich messages, which I find inspiration. It's like Aesop's fable, you know, the race between the tortoise and the hare. That never literally happened, but my goodness, what an important message to communicate and deliver. And I think it'll— Holland touched upon this years ago, and I've been trying to find his talk on this, his comment on this, where he talked about And maybe I got this wrong, but I don't think I have. He made some kind of indirect reference in the Book of Mormon where sometimes things may have not happened literally in the way we read in the scriptures. You know, it's to Greg's point, it's more allegorical, but there are important truths to be learned in these stories, which are just across the entire Book of The Mormon. And so if the church were to come out and say, look, this is not an historical text and he used the stone in the hat exclusively, et cetera. And then there was an angel that visited him in his dream or his imagination. I am all right with that. I just want the church to be a good church. And if there's some gray areas or even things that Joseph Smith made a mistake on, And by the way, I'm not excusing Joseph for his, uh, attitudes towards women and young girls. I think that must be called out for what it is. I think that was a, a, a terrible thing. Polygamy is a big mistake in my opinion. Withholding priesthood from, from Black people is an awful, uh, uh, blemish on the church's history. Runs contrary to everything that Christ taught. And I think we have to be, you know, put our big pants on and own that and kind of admit, look, we made some big mistakes. We got these things wrong. We acknowledge them, etc. These things, uh, we, you know, we made some mistakes on, um, and kind of be open and honest about that and then focus on all the great things that the church does. You know, not still have the conversations and deal with honestly. But hey, look at what we're trying to do. We're trying to become and get out there. Like I said, President Oaks to get out there and to lead, be a leader outside in the public and to lead these conversations. And people will, I think a lot of people think like I do, if you make a mistake and you own up to it and you get it wrong, but you're learning, I'm all right with that. I think that's great. I respect that. But when you try to hide it and, hey, we didn't make a mistake, or let's not talk about it, let's kind of, you know, let's kind of control it and not talk about it and stay silent on it, to me that's just disingenuous and it's just, it's just sad and it's a missed opportunity again. The church could be so much more and it does so many things so well and needs to kind of, you know, build on its extraordinary, uh, good legacy that it has. It really has an extraordinary resume of wonderful, uh, people doing great things. And it'd be even better if it could be grown up and adult enough to at least admit that some mistakes and that we're learning from that and we're going in a much better direction.

Okay, yeah, I can accept all of that. I can. I think you're both making a whole lot of sense. Um, I still have a problem. I still can't quite get there. Uh, and this sort of awakens the apologist in me. Dan McClellan likes to talk about the fact that Christian apologists particularly, their job is not to prove something happened. It's only to prove that something could have happened. It's to prove that something is plausible, or if not plausible, at least not impossible. And so much of religion, that's as wide as you can crack the door. That it's not impossible that Christ was resurrected. Actually, it kind of is. You have to accept that that was an impossible thing, and that's why it's meaningful. But I just think, I think you have to leave open at least the door, and not even the not impossible door, but the plausible door, that Joseph Smith really did see angels, really did have gold plates. The Three Witnesses really did see this angel and the gold plates. And this whole sort of milieu that Joseph Smith created, um, was a real thing and not a fantasy. Because the direction that both of you— it feels like both of you are pulling me is the direction of, look, none of that really matters. Uh, and yeah, Joseph Smith— and Ian, you're the one— you're Greg, you say, yeah, we just don't have access to them. But Ian, you say they didn't exist, there wasn't an angel, there weren't gold plates. Uh, if, if I were to just fully embrace that, it would be very hard for me to say Okay, well, yeah, then it matters if I stay in this church. Uh, you, you destroy sort of the value proposition of the church at all. If we're just another church, is it because we have more money than other churches? Is it because, I mean, what is it that makes this church important in any way for anyone to stay? And maybe the answer is nothing, and it isn't.

Jim Bennett, I can't disprove the truth claims, and I'm not trying to.

Right.

They are beyond the tools of scientific proof. I'm comfortable with that. So I'm much more concerned not about what it says, but what it does. And that's where you get down to the pragmatism of religion. Is it getting me and those I love to a place that I think is the better place to which we aspire? It's not to say there were no gold plates. I don't know if there were or not. We don't have them. Yeah, you can take that as a statement of faith, or you can deny that as a statement of faith. And in either case, You don't forfeit your honesty. But to me, that now long ago became an irrelevant question.

But as a scientist, you can look at the evidence and the evidence strongly suggests, for instance, Deutero-Isaiah appears in the Book of Mormon, and almost every scholar says that that was written after they left Jerusalem.

Yep.

Um, Mormon, at the end of the Book of Mormon, quotes Paul— doesn't attribute it to Paul, but that, that language is lifted verbatim from, um, from the New Testament, from the King James Bible, version of the New Testament. Now, there have been all kinds of contortions to try to explain that. Hugh Nibley says there's very clearly— there's just some lost source that both Paul and Mormon had access to. I, I mean, that just seems like nonsense to me. Uh, and I, I have sort of constructed my own sort of plausible thing in that I believe that it's possible to not make Joseph Smith a fraud if you say, yes, there was a Moroni, yes, there were gold plates, yes, there were Nephites and Lamanites. But in much the same way that papyrus was a catalyst for the Book of Abraham, so was— I don't have any idea what the relationship between the printed Book of Mormon and what was ever on those plates is. And I am very much open to, I think they now call it the expansion theory, the idea that this was a launching point for midrash. You, Greg, you've used the word midrash a whole lot. That it's not an accident, for instance, that the Book of Mormon specifically answers every pressing 19th century theological question. And, you know, it just seems it's just a little too convenient to think Alexander Campbell wrote in 1831 what— that it's answering every single theological question.

Absolutely. Yeah, publish that.

So, so, so So the scenario that works for me again, and I'm— everybody always accuses me of creating my own Mormonism. The scenario that works for me is, yes, this is real in the sense that it's based on something. I mean, I think a great deal of the Bible and the stories in the Bible have a kernel or a nugget of historical truth that is a launching pad for this broader tale that, you know, I think you could make the case that there was some kind of flooding that prompted the story of Noah that expanded into this global flood where every animal— but there, there's a kernel there of some kind of historical truth, or there may be, or there may not be. But I want to say there's a kernel of something that matters with these plates, with this angel but it was also a launching pad for Joseph Smith to answer every pressing theological question in his favor. Is that a position of intellectual integrity? I want to think that it is, but I— listening to both of you, I'm wondering if, if you would see it that way.

I think ultimately You're best off if you reach a position that works for you.

Yeah.

How many people do you know in this church who will go to their graves believing everything that they are taught and doubting nothing, accepting everything including the Bible as factual, literal, unerring, and it works for them? I'm not gonna try to tip 'em over. There are a lot of times when I wish I could see the world in such simplistic terms and make it work, but I can't.

I can't either.

So I'm trying to be true to what I am and the way that I see the world and somehow make it work. And I, I think it's working. I think it's been working for a long time. But the rules of engagement for me have changed over the years, and my current rules of engagement might be very different than the person sitting next to me. And that's okay, because again, I come back to it, if it works for me, then it's a good thing. If it doesn't work for me, I probably won't stick around. Why do something that's counterproductive when I have other alternatives out there?, and that's what the youth are facing. That's why we're losing so many of them because that narrative, you've talked about it before, Richard Bushman said the founding narrative no longer works.

Yeah. Can't be sustained.

Can't be sustained.

Yeah.

As I listen intently to you both, I just had a thought that I don't know if it's a—

Ian's having revelations again.

Revelation. I don't know if this is a revelation, but it's something I might have thought before and forgotten, but it might be an epiphany revelation. So here's the thing. Here's, is, I just love this conversation, uh, because I learned so much from it. Joseph Smith. I have a problem with Joseph Smith on, you know, polygamy, his attitude towards, uh, Emma was dishonest with Emma. Let's just call it as it is, right? Wasn't the most honest was the, let's just say it, it, it, I'll say it, my opinion. I don't speak Hebrew. In my opinion, Joseph Smith was not— was dishonest with relation in regards to his, uh, polygamy practices with, um, young girls and not telling his wife. Uh, there are other instances where he was dishonest, I believe. Um, either didn't tell the truth, denied it, or only told part truths, uh, to cover up, to, to achieve his objectives. And just, let's just talk about that. I believe his goals, objectives included but not limited to financial gain, influence, authority, uh, prestige, uh, privilege. I, I believe those were, uh, part of his motivations, maybe not early on and, you know, when he was a teenager, but later on in life, he just started having a lot of success with people following him, became quite pious and made mistakes, and deliberate mistakes. I don't think he was completely honest in, in quite a few things. But then as I look at that, in, in that kind of, um, uh, context, I'll look at the Book of Mormon, right? Here's a document that's real. We can touch it. I've got it right here next to me on my shelf. It's physical. You can see it. You can open its pages and you can read it. And even without criticism, when I read that book, notwithstanding my, uh, new position that it, it, those characters in the Book of Mormon, I don't believe were real or ever existed. But when I read that book, when I was a believer and since, there are passages in that book that motivate me to be a better person. And I believe Joseph, despite his weaknesses and his mistakes, some accidental, some deliberate, I believe at some level Jim Bennett, even throughout his life, wanted to help people become better people. Otherwise, why write that stuff?

Why write that?

Why write something so inspirational? Even he had all the different sources, let's say, right? Why compile a book like that? And it's been developed over years, but why write that? In such a way that independent of what happened, you know, those problems that happened and all those issues that we were kind of touching upon briefly, the book or parts of the book make people or encourage people, uh, like me to be a better person. And they're inspirational. They help me reflect on my relationship with God. They help me discover myself. That reading that book, certain passages, is so rich and deep for me and so philosophical and spiritual and multidimensional. I get so much good from it. Why not accept that that was one of the key motivations of Joseph Bennett? So going back to your point, to kind of circle back, Jim Bennett, how do you make sense of some of the arguments with, like, Joseph and some of the positions of the church. Uh, I can accept that he did some terrible things and made these big mistakes, but I also have to accept, because it's my experience, I can't deny it. I could, you know, I'd be dishonest if I were to say that the Book of Mormon and, and many other talks and materials and lessons which are on my Shelford, Beyond the Book of Mormon, even The Pearl of Great Price. The Pearl of Great Price, Moses 7. Have you read Moses 7? It's amazing. It's just, I get so much from that. And I know it's not real, but it inspires me and encourages me to be, to think into the universe and to think beyond. You know, I'm a scientist, you know, engineer, scientist, right? I deal with science, environmental science all the time. I see the beauty and majesty in, in, in science, but I can accept despite these weaknesses and these frailties and these mistakes, that extraordinary inspiration has come from Joseph Smith and even Brigham Young, believe it or not. I think he was a racist, but even he said things that I found quite inspiring. I think you can get good from complex sources, and I think that's our, I think that's part of our meaning and purpose is to find the good. In things, to seek it out because it does exist. It's there. For me, the Book of Mormon is just a wonderful physical example of messages and inspiration that if we look for it, if we can get it, we can apply it to ourselves. When I'm reading that, I don't think of the mistakes, you know, Joseph Smith made or Brigham Young. Those pages, the message on those pages, they they become real for me. They stand out and they, it's like I'm there and I'm like, wow, this is amazing. I learned so much about myself and the talks and the lessons, as I say. And so as I think about this and I try to articulate my thoughts here, that makes sense to me. I can work with that because I get, I'm getting something even from those sources that are very, very human. Does that make sense? I'm struggling to try to find the words to describe how I feel, but by approaching it in that way, for me at least, that's how I make sense of it. So I can get great things from people that are very human and far from perfection, Joseph Smith included.

Craig, your reaction to that?

My reaction is for those who have a problem with the fallible Joseph myth, grow up and read about King David. And there's a story that has 2,000 years of redactors who had chances to sanitize it and probably did, but look what's still there, right? God works with what God has to work with.

No, fallibility is, is not a problem for me. A fallible Joseph, a Joseph Joseph himself said, I don't want people to think I'm very righteous, for I am not very righteous. Um, the, the, the way we idolize and essentially worship our leaders, I think is one of the biggest problems we have. Uh, it's, you see it in how we confront our history of racism. We're far more willing to say God was a racist than Brigham Young. And clearly the racism was Brigham Young's, not God's. So yeah, I, I think you have to grow up and accept fallibility. There's no question to that. I just think there are a number of avenues to the idea of just saying, no, no, all this isn't there, we're not the one true church, we, we were, you know, we're moving beyond that. I think there are a lot of problems with that. And not just in the sort of fallibility problems, uh, but in the value proposition problems. We currently send missionaries to every corner of the world that we are allowed to send them to tell people that you need to join this church because this church is going to bless your life in a way that no other church possibly can. So if we abandon the idea or completely that this is somehow— that there is some sort of unique authority in this church, what becomes the value proposition for those missionaries? And maybe there just isn't one, and maybe we just accept that. We've always talked about how service missionaries would be more effective and more productive than proselyting missionaries. Do we just abandon the idea of a value proposition and say, Yeah, it'd be great if you join this church, but if you want to join a church that doesn't, uh, tell you what underwear to wear, it doesn't cost you 10% of your income and doesn't have all these demands on you, you'll be fine there too.

Jim Bennett, you said an interesting phrase there. You said some kind of unique authority. I think that's key. If you allow us to have some kind of unique authority and don't disallow others to have authority, I'm fine with that. I think that God has multiple ways of getting the work done, and I don't think it's all going to be done by a denomination that accounts for 1/10 of 1% of the world's population.

Well, so what's the difference between unique authority and other authority?

Well, you—

when you say some kind of unique, maybe it has to do with the role that ours is called to play, and it's a different role than others would be called to play.

Well, that has biblical roots in it, the idea that each tribe—

sure—

has its own responsibilities.

Well, and the other sheep I have that are not of this fold. Yeah, we don't know how many folds there are, how many sheep. Uh, I, I, it's way above my pay grade to tell God to do what to do with his time. I'm satisfied if he drops in occasionally on this one. I wish it would happen more frequently. Maybe it does and I'm just blinded to it.

I think we've found, discovered something here. Well, I have at least. You guys may have known this all the time, but instead of going out and being, you know, we're the only true church and the only organization that can, you know, bless your life like in a way that no other church can. Let's just focus on being a great church, being the best church of what we do, not what we claim to this divine exclusive authority, but by what we do. And by doing things and by being expansive and by being really effective and efficient at doing great things, which we do mostly, I think, but being even better, more inclusive, more kind, and just this wonderful organization to focus on being the best, um, and less control and people coming in having that full, full human experience and just enjoying it and having fun and getting, you know, feeling loved and accepted. That's what people want. That's the, that's the recipe for life and, and, uh, love and success and fulfillment and satisfaction in life. Just think what I said earlier, Tom.

Tell me what you are, show me.

Yeah, and absolutely. And again, the whole thing just comes back to what you said, Greg, about buy their fruits. Just do this great thing and people will come. You'll hear about it. And you'll have this wonderful experience and we can all be part of the same experience. That's how That's how you sustain this, this organization.

Well, we're coming up to the end here. Um, so I, I don't want to open any more cans of worms. Uh, and I absolutely love and appreciate what both of you are saying here. Um, I still, I, I remember going to Washington State. Which is where my wife's family is from, and taking a tour of the Gates Foundation. Bill Gates. Bill Gates is now wrapped up with Epstein and has since gotten divorced, and there are all kinds of problems. So this, this, this comparison would have worked better back when people had a much higher opinion of Bill Gates. Uh, but I went through this and Bill Gates. Decided that the thing that would benefit the world more than anything else that he could do with his wealth is to, is to design a toilet that doesn't require connection to a plumbing system, because so much of the world's illness comes from people drinking out of the same water source where they relieve themselves. And, and he said, if we could find a toilet that could manage all of this, then, then we're going to save all of these lives. And he showed all of these different prototypes and had all that. I mean, that's doing a lot of good in the world. What separates the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from the Gates Foundation? We're just another group of people doing a lot of good. Uh, what, maybe, maybe nothing is the answer, but that's not an answer that I personally find satisfying.

No, and it's not the answer I'm trying to give, Jim Bennett. I just cringe when people speak in absolute language when I know that the reality is not absolute. We take a lot on faith. I'm fine with that. That's what I do as well. What causes me trouble is when people speak of things that should be matters of faith as if they were objective reality and take it or leave it, and if you leave it, you're screwed. We've heard that.

Okay, well, and I agree with that. I mean, I'm not trying to disagree with anybody. And I don't know that I'm going to get a resolution here, particularly since we're coming to an end. But you've both given me an awful lot to think about because I still think I, I, I, you know, I, I, I am a member of this church because I had a very clear subjective experience that I can't prove to anybody that told me that God wants me in this church, that this is where he wants me. This is where I can do the most good. And for many people, that's not enough because I have to go up and sort of swear fealty to all the truth claims and all of the this, that, and the other. And I have very, you know, my own personal interpretations of those in the same way that both of you do. Even if they're slightly different. But, you know, I, so I just feel like, okay, I'm in this church. This is where God wants me. This is where I have found God. But I am certainly now of the opinion that I was not of when I was a missionary with you, Ian, that other people find God elsewhere, that this is not the only place where God can be found. And that seems to run roughshod over the kind of strict literal interpretation that Greg is rightfully, I think, decrying. So I don't know that I'm going to figure out how to resolve that tension here, so I'm not going to try. I want to get Ian— can you just kind of give me your summation of this conversation and then we'll go to Greg and then we'll wind up.

Pure, sincere, honest love is the only authority you need to be with your family forever. One and two by their fruits, quoting Greg Prince. That's it.

Okay. Greg. Bring it all home.

Amen.

All right. Perfect. Uh, well, thank you both for this. Thank you both for a really insightful conversation that is going to give me an awful lot to think about and hopefully will give the people listening an awful lot to think about. Uh, I just love having these conversations. I can't think of anybody else who I would rather have them with. And, uh, I just thank you both and thank you all who were listening to this. Um, we very much appreciate your input. We very much appreciate your participation and we look forward to visiting with all of you again on the next episode of Inside Out.