The Policy of Exclusion

Hello and welcome to another episode of Inside Out. My name is Jim Bennett and I'm here as always with Ian Wilkes. Ian, how are you, sir?

I'm doing really well and I'm, uh, Calling in here from rain-drenched England, where we're getting too much rain. A little bit of a weather update there for you again.

Well, you know, we're getting some rain here in Utah, which is kind of bizarre considering how hot it's been this summer. But it's been lovely and it's been nice and it's prevented me from having to mow the lawn. So I'm really kind of happy about it.

If you can avoid mowing the lawn, and that's a good thing. Bring on the rain. That's what I say.

There you go. Well, bring on the rain. I'm trying to figure out how to segue to bring on the topic that we're talking about here, because this topic is not a lighthearted topic. It's actually one that has weighed heavily on my soul ever since this happened. We're going to talk about the 2015, the November 2015 policy of exclusion. The policy that required bishops and stake presidents to deny baptism and baby blessings to the children of gay parents. This policy came about right after the Obergefell decision that legalized gay marriage throughout the United States, and I think was a massive overreaction to that decision. I think the church just wasn't prepared for, for something like that. The church had been battling gay marriage ever since 2008, particularly— actually, long before that. The Proclamation on the Family in 1995 was written in direct response to the proposed legalization of gay marriage in the state of Hawaii. So the church had been in this battle for a very long time and essentially lost in every way it is possible to lose. Every time it's come up, I mean, there, there have been sort of some temporary victories, like Proposition 8 passed and gay marriage was illegal in California as a result for about a year before the courts overturned it. So over and over and over again, The Obergefell decision was the final blow, and gay marriage is legal now and will be legal forever. And the church has even gone on to back the Respect for Marriage Act in the United States, which legalizes gay marriage in all 50 states without a Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court decision, uh, people are talking about now with a conservative majority on the court, there are people who are talking about challenging Obergefell decision. And Congress decided to pass a law that would legalize gay marriage, and the church backed that law because the law includes some carve-outs to allow the church to continue to discriminate. Uh, but you look at that law and you see just how far The church has moved on this issue because they continually lost. We've been backed into a corner and have to accept the reality that gay marriage is the law of the land in the United States and increasingly throughout the world. All right. So with all of that as background, we come to 2015 and we have this this policy that comes out sort of in the dead of night. Nobody knew it was coming out. The person who broke the news that it was coming out was John DeLynn. And I remember when I first heard about it and started complaining about it because from the outset it was so clearly wrong. It was so clearly contrary to all of the principles of the gospel that I had been taught my entire life. Suffer the little children that they may come unto me, you know, forbid them not. And yet here we are forbidding them because of who their parents are. And we're talking about, you know, the second article of faith. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam's transgression has always been interpreted to mean that we're punished for what we do, not for what anybody else does. Not just Adam's transgression, but anybody else's transgression. These were so clearly the principles that I had been taught that when this came out to say we're going to deny innocent children not only the right to be baptized, but the right to be blessed as babies, you know, we're going to punish these children because their parents are gay. It was just so, so transparently wrong and so transparently contrary to these principles that I found myself for the first time really in my life confronting the fact that the church was doing something fundamentally wrong. I had to confront the fact that I couldn't make excuses for this. You know, there have been many times in my life where I felt the church was doing something that I didn't like or that didn't feel right. But I was always able to sort of come up with some kind of— I hate the phrase mental gymnastics because it's overused by critics of the church, but it's applicable here and it was applicable in a number of different places, you know, on our missions. When people would confront us about the fact that why didn't your church allow Black people to hold the priesthood until 1978? I had all kinds of explanations and justifications for it. It was, oh, well, you know, in ancient Israel, the priesthood was only held by one tribe. It was, it was only held by the Levites. And so, you know, this is just something that happens. The Lord just gives different people, the priesthood at different times, and it's not that big a deal. And, you know, over and over and over again. And it's, it's clearly come out since then. Anybody that does any historical research recognizes that the priesthood ban was a profound mistake, was not rooted in any kind of revelation. It was rooted in Brigham Young's bigotry. And one of the reasons we weren't willing to overturn it besides the fact that racism was the order of the day for so, for so long. But another reason is that we weren't willing to confront the fact that a prophet could be so profoundly wrong. And, and it was the 2015 policy where I kind of had to confront that firsthand. I kind of had to say there isn't an excuse for this. This is This is absolutely wrong. And what am I going to do about it? And I wrestled with it over and over again and I talked about it publicly. You know, I didn't have as public a profile back then as I do now, but I did have a blog and I, you know, wrote about this and wrote about why I thought it was wrong. And the thing that broke my heart that was just so painful was that the first reaction of huge numbers of people that read what I had said or read what I talked about, it wasn't, oh gee, Jim Bennett, you're really struggling. Let's see what we can do to help you. Oh, let's— it was, well, get lost, you faithless jerk. Get out of the church. We don't want you here. If you can't sustain the brethren, if you can't agree with everything the brethren do, then this is not the church for you. And we don't want you here. We don't want your apostasy stinking up the room. I, you know, I'm paraphrasing, obviously, but not by much. I mean, the hostility was palpable and was stunning to me. It was stunning to me how I'm a 6th generation member of the church. I'm a descendant of 2 presidents of the church. I've devoted my life to the church. I had raised my children in the church. You know, I can give all of the bona fides. And then all of a sudden, the first time I express any kind of frustration with the church, the first reaction is get lost. And you've experienced that certainly to a far greater level than I have. In terms of, of the kind of hostility that you've seen from people who aren't willing to accept the kind of questions and the kind of, of challenges that you pose to the church. But this was really shocking for me. And this was complicated by then Elder Russell M. Nelson giving a talk about this, because when this, when this came out, when this policy was released, at first a lot of people said, oh, it's not legitimate. John Dehlin is releasing it. This is, this is anti-Mormon lies. I saw a lot of that initially within the first day. And then when it was confirmed that, yes, it is legitimate, it then became, oh, well, um, um, this is, this is an act of compassion. This is, this is not forcing people to hear something different at home and hear something at church, which struck me as a really, really flimsy defense because I've had friends who were baptized into the church who were kicked out of their homes. One of them I'm talking to right now. You know, you were in a home where your joining the church required you— well, caused your mother to kick you out of the house. You know, we create those kinds of family conflicts all the time when we baptize people. And yet all of a sudden now we're saying, well, this is different. We don't want someone raised in a family where they're going to be taught something different than what they're taught at church. And then I started hearing all of these people say, it's not a big deal. They can join the church when they're 18 and they disavow their parents. You know, they were being required to disavow their parents. And it— when do we ever ask anybody to do that? You know, people have parents that have never been married. We don't ask people to disavow that situation. But if their parents are married and they're gay and they're in a same-sex marriage, We're demanding they disavow them before we'll baptize them. And I remember talking to a friend of mine who was trying to convince me that I was just up in the night and that this was no big deal. And I remember saying to him, can you imagine a month ago trying to tell anybody that having the gift of the Holy Ghost before your 18th birthday is not necessary? That it's just no big deal, that they can just wait until they're 18 before they get any chance to exercise the priesthood, to pass the sacrament, to bless the sacrament, to do anything, to be baptized for the dead, you know, to have any kind of interaction that requires church membership. And most importantly, the gift of the Holy Ghost. We tell people the gift of the Holy Ghost is the guiding lodestar that leads you through your life. And we're now saying it's not a big deal. They can wait till they're 18 before they get it. Who cares? Why not then raise the age of accountability to 18? You know, we say that 8 years old is the age of accountability, which to many people and maybe to me seems awfully young to make that kind of a decision. But that's the age that we say that you're now accountable for what you do. But then we were saying, okay, but if your parents are gay, the age of accountability is 18 because you can wait until then to get baptized. So this was just extraordinarily frustrating. And I want to come back to it after I play this video here to talk about how I've reconciled it, because I also want to get your feedback and your reaction to it. But President Nelson, he was then President of the Quorum of the Twelve, so I guess it's appropriate to call him President Nelson. President Nelson gave a talk in Hawaii. This was not in conference, but he gave a talk in Hawaii where he talked about revelation.

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together and share all the Lord has directed us to understand and to feel individually and collectively. Then we watched the Lord move upon the President of the Church to proclaim the Lord's will. This prophetic process was followed in 2012 with the change in minimum age for missionaries and again with the recent additions to the Church's handbook consequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries. Filled with compassion for all, and especially for the children, we wrestled at length to understand the Lord's will in this matter. Ever mindful of God's plan of salvation and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children, We considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise. We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration. And then when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, To declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process.

All right, so there you have it. A revelatory experience. All of the apostles were there and they all saw, uh, the Spirit move on President Monson, who then revealed the mind and the will of the Lord. Now, before I throw this to you for your reaction, Ian, I want to point out a couple of things. Elder Christofferson's brother Tom Christofferson, who was a gay man, who is also active in the church, although he at this point has said that he is going to begin dating other men again. So I don't know how long he will be considered an active member of the church. He wrote a book about his experience that was published by Deseret Book and was sort of held up as an example for a while as somebody who was gay and yet able to live gospel standards. But Tom Christofferson, has said that the first time his brother heard about this was in the news, that his brother did not have any kind of experience in the temple as being described here. So President Nelson is, is describing something that is— that contradicts the account of some of the other apostles. Elder Christofferson was also— when, when this hit and the reaction was uniformly negative, the PR department asked Elder Christofferson to sit down for a question and answer to describe the policy and to justify the policy. And if you want to see somebody looking more uncomfortable than any other human being who has ever lived, you should watch that video because Elder Christofferson is just beside himself trying to find ways to justify this. He looks wildly uncomfortable and looks like he would rather be anywhere else than sitting in front of a camera trying to justify this policy. So already it becomes problematic because the scenario that President Nelson is describing there doesn't jibe with other reports of this. And Greg Prince, who is a scholar who has written— he wrote a book called Gay Rights in the Mormon Church: Intended Actions, Unintended Consequences. He describes the fact that right after this policy hit and so many people reacted negatively to it, you had, you know, '70s, and lower-level general authorities who were out in the field reorganizing stakes and going everywhere and talking to people about it and being asked about it. And their reaction was, a lot of them would say things like, oh, well, this is just a handbook policy. It's no big deal. Handbook policies come and they go, and this one probably won't last. And Greg Prince says that President Nelson's comments in Hawaii were a, a direct attempt to tamp that down, to say, look, you don't get to say that this isn't a policy. You don't get to say— I mean, you don't get to say that this is going to change. This is revelation. This isn't just policy. This is doctrine. This is revelation. This is the mind and the will of the Lord revealed to the prophet Thomas S. Monson. The other problem with that story is that by all accounts, Thomas S. Monson at this point was deep in the throes of dementia. He was no longer making public appearances. He was no longer making private appearances. You know, you would have dignitaries coming to Salt Lake and very often every time, you know, a president of the United States or a senator or somebody comes to Utah, they would meet with the First Presidency. I think it was Michelle Obama who came to Utah and she didn't meet with President Nelson. And the Church even put out a statement saying President Nelson would not— I'm sorry, President Monson would not be available because of a condition incident to age. So the Church wasn't even trying to hide it. And yet somehow we had this miraculous moment where a president of the Church who was in the throes of dementia receives this revelation that everybody in the room, all the apostles share this moment. And yet we have reports that all the apostles were not there, and it's wildly unlikely that President Monson was in any position to, to do this. So, so this is all the background. This With all of that said, I want to throw this to you, Ian, for your reaction and what you find striking about this whole situation.

You're— you've aptly characterized the main sticking points in the background, the context of this extremely well. You've provided some specifics, you've given the background, you've even brought in some of the, um, side-related issues and some examples. You've really articulated it extremely well, and rightly so. That's the first thing. The second thing is it should be obvious to our listeners that, um, the strength of feeling that you have on this issue and that you continue to feel the need to discuss this, talk about this, and express your deep concern over this, and that your feeling on this has not diminished, notwithstanding this revelation. And I'm so grateful you highlighted it as a revelation. And we tend to— when we hear the word ban or policy, we associate that with a committee or a government or organization, and it's a man-made thing. Well, this was a revelation from God, and you aptly highlighted that. But, but listening to you and the fervor in your tone, and it's important, I think, for our listeners to know that you've discussed this right at the very beginning of this podcast for some time on this podcast for quite a bit of time. And you've, you've done that because you feel so strongly and you need, and you continue to want to, and feel the need to talk about it. And I think that's really important that we know that and understand that. Likewise, I'm in the same situation. I feel so strongly about this and my feelings have not diminished on this whatsoever. I think, you know, the gay rights movement is a real problem for the church. You know, gay rights is now a civil rights issue. I think you said that. I got that from you a few years ago. It is a civil rights movement. It's not going away. It's going to be here forever., and the church has grappled and wrestled and struggled with how to, uh, deal, deal with it. Um, the church, uh, it's one of the biggest challenges facing the church. It ranks, in my opinion, alongside some of the most significant developments in church history. Polygamy, the overturn of polygamy, blacks in the priesthood, uh, uh, all of the proclamation to the world. If you think about all of the major milestones in the church, and that's come through challenges and changes impacting the church, this ranks close to or probably at the top and continues to be a major issue with the church, and the church is clearly continuing to struggle to define any clear answer. And so, you know, the policy that was, you know, the policy that was initiated by Revelation in 2015, which prohibited children from same-sex couples from being baptized, which is, you mentioned Mormons, members can do that from the age of 8, and from being blessed. You know, you talked about, you know, we talk about really the rites of passage for young male priesthood, or was, you know, passing the sacrament. 12 and blessing and being part of all the young men programs. And the same for young women. As bishop, you have responsibility for helping young children follow the rites of passage through those different programs and all the spiritual and all the blessings pertaining to that. And of course, he talked about the Holy Ghost. And if they are, you know, if they're living with, you know, a parent who's out of a same-sex relationship,, are born into same-sex couples. Um, you know, that is a problem. And, and you— I'm glad that you highlighted, rightly so, the word disavow. When I read that, I, I, I just had almost a double take. I couldn't believe the stupidity and the recklessness of, of anyone in the church, especially at that level, who professes to, um, continue to profess to put the rights of children first, etc., and families first, you know, families are forever, etc. To use the word disavow is just— I have no words for that. It's just extraordinary language, so destructive, so awful.

I just—

it's completely opposite to what Christ, his language that would use. And the other thing, of course, which I don't think you've mentioned, but you've covered some great points, many, many great points, probably most of them actually in your introduction, but the that the parents targeted, they had to disavow the parents, and also they characterized those relationships as being in apostasy and subject to mandatory church discipline council. So, you know, it's just, every step, every comment, every word would just make it worse. And it was all heralded from God. Through revelation. And President Nelson, amongst, along with other prophets over the generations, have taught at different times, at different levels of detail, different lengths, the revelatory process. We're the only true church upon the face of the earth. I go back to that. We're the mouthpiece of God on the earth. We're here to bring salvation to individuals, to families, to receive the temple ordinances, covenants, to be an eternal family. Family is the bedrock, the central piece, if you like, of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It's the keystone of the gospel, and all the doctrines and principles are all— arrive at the family unit and the eternal salvation of the family. And then going into the length of the revelatory process that happened in the 2015 policy. I can only presume that when they decided to initiate that policy, that they followed, and it's clear in my mind they did, they followed the same detailed, painstaking process to receive revelation from God, and they got that, they got that. And then 3 years later, I think it was, they went through the same process and God changed his mind. Um, what on earth was going on? What the heck was going on? So you've got this process, you follow the revelation, God tells you to, to put this policy together. You look at all these different combinations, different scenarios, etc., etc. The policy is initiated, there's a huge reaction. You felt it, I felt it, I saw it, you know, firsthand. There was even situations where Jim Bennett, you've not talked about this, but it happened. I saw this a couple of times where the parents had separated early, and one of them was gay, and the other parent didn't want their child to visit the gay parent because they were following the counsel to disavow that gay parent, and they were limiting time for that child to spend too much time with the gay parent. And there were some questions about, well, how much time are they allowed? To be with their gay parent? Is it 40%? Is it 30% before you get termed as apostasy, or, or you just restrict yourself from the blessings? You know, what— how much percentage, uh, does a child have to limit itself with a gay parent before it— the child becomes restricted from audiences and blessings and priesthood and all the different youth programs? It was, it was extraordinary. I don't think they They talk about these combinations of scenarios. I don't think they thought that through. I don't think they actually projected where this was going to go. So there's this big reaction happened. And then 3 years later, same process, same God told the prophet that through an act of love, if you look at the material there, President Nelson talks about that this was this reversal. He doesn't use that term, but Uh, you know, this is all, um, you know, born out of an act of love here. Yeah, he said here, and he said when he explains the policy changes, says President Nelson's chief illustration for this point for the was a November 2015 implementation subsequent April 2019 modification of the policy. Again, the words are interesting, that prevented children of gay and lesbian parents from being blessed or baptized without first Google, he said this: Our concern then, and one we discussed at length and prayed about fervently for a long time, was to find a way to reduce friction between gay and lesbian parents and children. We want to facilitate harmony in the home and avoid pitting children and parents against each other. And he goes on to talk about that it was guided by love, you know, love of the children. There's quite a bit of very, you know, conciliatory, reconciliatory language. In his response to the change in policy. Mike, this raises some fundamental questions about the revelatory process. So same prophets, same God make decision in 2015, overwhelming feeling that this policy should be implemented by revelation. A few years later, same God, same prophets, same revelatory process, same concerns, God changes his mind. I mean, who changes mind? Is it God changes his mind and said, look, you know, we made a mistake. So God make, did God make the mistake or did God allow the prophets to screw up? And it was a massive monumental screw up on a scale hitherto unseen with the exception of a few historical awful events that happened in church history. And so who was wrong? Was God wrong? Did he make the mistake? Did he give the wrong revelation? Did God not think it through? Is the onus on God? Or was God saying, look, you know, this policy, this is wrong in 2015, do not do it. And the prophet disobeyed God and went ahead with it anyway. The latter obviously is not the case. But someone screwed up. And you talk about infallibility. Well, God didn't screw up, presumably. I don't think God makes mistakes. He's perfect. And there's a whole conversation about that if he did, for sure. And so the Prophet got it wrong, maybe misunderstood the revelation. He didn't think it through and they changed it. And I think we both know, I'm being a bit facetious here, but we both know that the one of the main drivers behind the policy reversal was the pressure, the reaction from the church members, the reaction from the media. It's all over the media. It was a disaster from every angle. If you look at the two sides to this, you've got all the internal stuff, right? You know, the support from the members and the reaction that you got from some members, etc., etc. All of the internal issues and confusion, some people supporting it, some people not. Understanding the internal, the revelation process from the members' perspective, and people saying, look, be faithful, follow the prophet, et cetera, et cetera, he's not made a mistake, just give it time, et cetera. There's all this internal stuff going on. And then the world outside is reacting very, very differently. And so what happens? Well, the church didn't gauge the reaction. And by the way, the church is in a real hard spot because when your organization or a faith, a church that that, uh, very fundamentals rely on revelation, the UFOs, until you can see things, uh, prophetically before anyone else. You— what you don't do is you don't canvas opinions from the members, you don't canvas opinions from the media before you initiate a policy or revelation. That completely undermines the revelatory process because you're supposed to know this stuff before you implement it. You know, he's speaking to God, he knows the future, he You know more than anyone, I mean, the scriptures are replete with examples of how extraordinary powers that prophets have got to be able to foresee things ahead of time. And if you start putting questionnaires together and surveys together and canvassing opinion both outside and inside, then what's the point in having the revelatory process in the first place? And I think in this case, they would have been wise to at least done some of that. And by the way, Jim Bennett, they have done that in the past. I've been involved in at least 2 or 3 questionnaires on gauging my opinion.

I filled one out yesterday.

Did you really?

I did.

So that's good. I think it'd be wise if the church, the leaders on stuff this big, so important, so serious on such an important issue and affecting so many people on such an important civil rights issue and fundamental human civil rights issue like gay rights, if they'd have just gauged, you know, opinion from different, you know, organizations. And I think that's okay, because if you look at the revelatory process that we get taught as bishops and stake presidents and other leaders, they say information precedes revelation. Is that right? Did I get that right? So you go do your research. God expects you to do your research. Go get information. Bring all the facts together. Go to the Lord. You pray about it, and you've done your homework. It's like Brother Jared had a problem with the light in the barges. Remember that, right? And he came to God with a problem. How is like this? And, and God's— and he didn't give him the answer, did he? Uh, he said, go figure it out. So he went away, he thought it through, he got 16 stones. He thought, well, if God touches these stones with, um, uh, his finger, the stones will, you know, great idea, God, touch these stones with your finger, they'll light up and we can have light in the barges because we can't have windows because the water will, quote, dash the windows, right? So he used his initiative. I think that is intelligent, and I think the church has shown a significant lack of intelligence in not reaching out to, you know, the gay community, civil rights, you know, the civil rights gay movement, other organizations outside its members, its leaders, and went ahead with this policy, et cetera, revelation. And has totally and utterly and completely screwed up big time. And there are people still feeling the ramifications of that policy. In my opinion, it shows without doubt another example, not that we need one, that the church, at least at times, if I'm being gracious here, I'm being nice here, at least at times is actually following a man-made program and revelation is absent, God is absent. And that a period of time where God is not leading, revelation is not happening, the Spirit is not guiding and leading, and we've been— the church is being led simply and fundamentally by man, by imperfect people who are not in tune with the Spirit. So this raises so many questions. About the divinity of the church, the revelatory process, um, the, the respect for these rights for these individuals, etc. The impact on families, on children, the, the, the social, the emotional, psychological welfare of these individuals. It impacts so many areas. And it was such a monumental— I won't swear— but monumental, um, screw-up, uh, at the church I don't know if it'll ever recover from this. And it's, it's, I think, uh, there were loads of people, there was a little bit of a small exodus of people that I saw in the UK, uh, to some extent in the US, where people were posting on Facebook and said, right, that's enough, I'm done, this is the, the straw that broke the camel's back, they've gone too far. Especially from people who knew gay people, or they got family members who were gay, etc. It was a, it was a step too far. And, and the church It is trying to recover from that. So, you know, that's my, that's my reaction to, um, to what happened here. Um, it's, um, I, I don't, I don't know if the church could ever recover from this. The church, if you look ahead, I'm not a prophet. You and I kind of quite adventurous and we, we try to predict future. I'm gonna predict it right now. This is easy actually. I, I won't get any points for this, but the church will increasingly accept and change its policies. And you will increasingly see gay members of the church be— what we're seeing now— involved in callings. You know, they'll be able to perform certain callings. At some point, they'll get involved in certain blessings. And this is going to be a real challenge for the church, especially the more conservative Orthodox members. And when it starts going beyond that, and where gay members are performing temple ordinances and covenants, etc., etc., You know, I, I, I, that's going to be a real, real challenge. At some point there's going to be a tipping point and the church is going to have to come down on one side or the other, because if it goes too far on that, you're going to have those traditional, conventional, orthodox members who absolutely can't handle or deal with a gay member who've got the same rights and powers and privileges as they do. Because they won't accept, you know, these rights of these individuals, et cetera. And we're going to have a real showdown, if you like, a little bit of a high noon on that at some point. And then the church is going to have to balance that of maintaining its, retaining those faithful, tithe-paying members who are those, you know, traditional thinkers and how they reconcile it with the more liberal, open-minded, you know, civil rights advocates, if you like, for these gay rights. And so we're going down this road and we're going to have a— it's got to be a head-on collision on some point on some of these principles and practices and policies and some of the rituals. You know, you will have a gay member blessing the sacrament, passing the sacrament, will have a gay councilor, the bishop, or even a gay bishop. Or a gay veil worker, you know, going to the temple. You know, I, that's, it's gonna be the next 10 years, 15 years, it's gonna be very interesting. So anyway, you've been very patient with my response, but they're my thoughts.

No, no, there's a lot to say on this. So, you know, I, you've been patient with me 'cause I spoke for quite a long time too. We already have gay people as bishops, gay people passing the sacrament. But what we don't have is gay people who are in same-sex marriages, who are sexually active, who are doing such things. You know, the church continually tried to steer people who are gay or what, or, you know, non-binary or transgender, the idea is, oh, okay, well, that's okay as long as you don't behave like a gay person. As long as you enter a mixed orientation marriage, marry someone to whom you are not sexually attracted, then, then you're fine, you know. But the church I keep saying we're defending an increasingly shrinking area of ground. I mean, the church— when Spencer Kimball wrote The Miracle of Forgiveness and he talked about gay people as perverts, that's the word he continually uses. He also had the phrase where he says— he says he talks about it as a curable condition. He refers to it essentially as a disease, and it's a curable disease. And he says, for those of you who say that the door remains closed, how can you say that until you have pounded on the door with— until your arms are bloody and your muscles are sore? It can be done. Now, to me, that's a reprehensible thing to say to somebody. Because I know that there have been legions of people who have pounded on that door and been left with bloody stumps for arms. They've pounded with everything they have. The door doesn't open because, you know, and but as reprehensible as that is, it has the benefit of being logically consistent with itself. For instance, if you choose to be gay and being gay is against the plan of salvation, then the church is well within its rights to say, we're not going to give you all of the blessings of the church until you, you stop choosing to be gay. So, but we, we move to, okay, we now understand that people don't choose to be gay. And no matter how long they pound on that door, it's not going to open. Their sexual orientation doesn't change, at least in mortality. We've now said, okay, well, I had a general authority. I'm wrestling with whether or not to mention his name because my encounter with him was entirely unpleasant. And my— this encounter took place within days of the reversal of the policy. And when the policy was reversed, I thought it was going to start a conversation. I thought, this is so clearly an example of the fact that prophets get things wrong that we're now going to have to deal with that. It didn't start that conversation. And that became clear to me when I was talking to this General Authority who said, well, Jesus, in the beginning of his ministry, said don't carry purse or script, and then 3 years later said, okay, now carry purse or script. So these kinds of reversals just happen all the time. And I went, okay, you are completely missing this. But he— the other thing he said to me was, it is scientifically impossible for same-sex attraction to survive in a resurrected body. And I remember I wanted to burst out laughing, like, scientifically impossible. You have some scientific data on what resurrected bodies look like and how they work. I mean, how can you even say that? What a bizarre, stupid thing to say. So, you know, this did not start the conversation that I thought it needed to start. And it was a real source of frustration and pain for me. And by that point, by the time it had been reversed, and the reversal in some ways, in some ways was even worse than the policy because The reversal— there was no acknowledgment that the previous policy was wrong. There was the implication that this was revelation too, and weren't both policies wonderful? And the fact that they are diametrically opposed to each other, well, isn't God great?

He says a modification of the policy, end quote.

Modification, yes. I mean, the closest President Nelson came to admitting error was an admission that this policy had caused pain. But there were all kinds of excuses and it was, oh, we were just saying that you just have to get approval from the First Presidency to get these baptisms. And we granted approval every time anybody asked. And I went, no, you go back and read the language of the policy. And if they were asking for approval, they were in violation of the policy. The policy itself did not allow for that kind of approval to take place. I mean, it was just so frustrating. But, but I didn't, I didn't think of leaving the church when the policy was reversed. And I thought long and hard about leaving the church when the policy was implemented. And I want to share my experience on that because it really is— it's actually one of the most profound experiences of my life and of my faith journey. And it's the reason— it's the reason I'm still a member of the church, because I prayed about this harder and more fervently than I prayed about anything in my life. And these prayers are not— were not prayers that would have fit in well in General Conference. They were not given in King James English. They were long tirades from me, essentially screaming at the sky as I'm walking my dog. I mean, it was this dialogue with God. It was, look, how do I stay in this church? This is wrong. I know this is wrong. I don't want to be complicit with this kind of bigotry. I don't want to be, you know, this, this is hurting people. I don't want to be part of a church that hurts people. I don't want to be part of a church that is that it's filled with bigots. I don't want to be a bigot. And I mean, it was this wrestle that I was having. And, you know, people talk about Revelation in casual ways that make— that baffle me. You know, I have people that talk about, you know, Revelation. They get up in the morning and Somehow they have a revelation as to what, you know, what brand of toothpaste they ought to use or, you know, well, that— I mean, that's silly. I've never heard anybody say that. But people talk about the kind of the spirit guiding their lives in these very specific ways that that has never been my experience. I can count the number of times where I would say that's revelation. I can count those on one hand, and I don't know that I'd even use up all the fingers on one hand. But on this occasion, and I can remember the time and I can't remember the hour of the day, it was during the day, the sun was out and I was walking my dog. And I can take you to the exact place where this happened. Joseph Smith described the process of revelation as pure intelligence flowing into you. And that's what happened to me on this occasion. As I was walking my dog, I felt pure intelligence flowing into me. And as I describe it to you, something is going to be lost in the translation because this intelligence came with, with a feeling of love, with a feeling of acceptance, with a feeling of kindness, gentleness, purity. I mean, all of these things, when you try to clothe these things in language, something is always lost in translation. And it's given me a better understanding of how Scripture works, because Scripture is an attempt to clothe this kind of pure intelligence in language, and something is always lost in translation. But if I have to put it into words, The words I use are, be patient, it will all work out in the end. And there was also an element of please don't leave the church. I mean, it was, it was, it was almost a pleading kind of the God was pleading with, please, please, I beg of you, please don't leave the church. And the message is, this is where I have put you. This is where you can do the most good. And, and I have clung to that in the years since, as I've gone through frustrations and difficulties and challenges. I, you know, I feel I have received a promise from God that things are going to work out. What I did not receive was a confirmation that the policy came from God. Or a rejection of the idea that the policy came from God. That revelation did not include any information about the goodness or badness of the policy. The Lord did not feel— see fit to discuss that with me. But what it was was there was— there's absolutely the sense that God knows what the problem is. God is aware of what's happening. It will all work out in the end. And I don't know how it will work out. You know, I get asked in my big debate with that guy that we talked about a couple of episodes ago, he kept trying to pin me down. It's like, do you think that the Lord is going to allow for gay sealings in the temple? I mean, the first thing he asked was, do you think gay marriage is inherently sinful? And I made the mistake of answering him. I said, no, but I don't know that anything is inherently sinful. You know, Nephi killed Laban. Is murder inherently sinful? Well, not when God commands it. I mean, so you have all those kinds of permutations. But anyway, I am not going to dictate or predict what kind of light and knowledge will make this work out. I have ideas as to what I would do, but God is going to do what God is going to do., and it may very well look very different from anything that anybody currently anticipates. My confidence is in the reality that that light and knowledge will come. And the other thing that didn't happen in this kind of revelation that I'm describing is I did not get any kind of wild confirmation or of any of the church or, or the church. It, it wasn't the church is absolutely true, so you must stay. It was, this church is where I have placed you. This church is where I want you. This church is where you can do the most good. And that has been really an eye-opener for me too, in that leaning into that, I also see, okay, you know, if I feel like, okay, this is too much, I have to leave the church now, I'm going to leave the church because I'm so mad at this or I'm so mad at that, I come back to know this is where God wants me. This is. And so I have to recognize that if this is where God wants me, I'm going to have to work within those boundaries to do this. So, you know, so I'm grateful for that. I wish it hadn't had such an awful catalyst. To do it. But I mean, I look at these men and they're all men. There are 15 men who stand at the head of this church as representatives of the Lord Jesus Christ. And I look at them and I try to have as much charity for them as the Lord has with me. And I recognize These, I think they are all to a person. I really do. I think that they are all good men who are trying to do the best that they can to fulfill what is to a large degree an impossible calling and a calling that requires them to drop dead in their calling. Russell M. Nelson is 99 years old and he is still keeping a schedule that would exhaust a man our age. And so, you know, I have charity for the fact that I think they're believers. I think they're doing everything they can to further the work as they know and understand it. But I also think that they encounter God the same way I do, the same way you do. I think that this, this whole debacle should have put an end to the conventional wisdom that the Thursday meetings of the Prophet and Apostles has an extra seat where Jesus shows up. And sometimes Jesus runs the meeting, sometimes he doesn't. But he's, he's there most of the time unless he has another. I mean, we have this idea that is perpetuated by some of the vague language that the apostles use. Quentin Cook talks about the idea that, well, I have seen, I know his face, I've heard his voice, or I know his voice. It's like, oh, so you've seen him? I know his face. I mean, he wasn't, you can't pin him down. And they want to create this impression that, yes, Jesus in a physical, tangible way shows up to lead this church. I think that if Jesus were to do that, it would defeat the purpose of the church. It would defeat the purpose of mortality. The purpose of mortality— we came here to make mistakes. We came here to learn from those mistakes. And we needed a savior because those mistakes were going to be inevitable. And, and if we can frame the church that way, I think it becomes a much more sustainable faith. You can listen to Russell Nelson in conference and not get as angry when he says something that you don't agree with and just have charity for the fact that this is a man who is doing everything in his power to try to follow the Lord. And like all of us, isn't always going to get it right. But the problems of when they don't get it right are exacerbated by our unwillingness to acknowledge even the possibility of prophetic error. We— that, that becomes— I got into trouble at one point. I'm going to be very vague here, but I got, I got a communication from a church leader who was upset, not because I had a disagreement with an opinion of the— of an apostle, but because I had named an apostle that I disagreed with. And just naming that apostle was sinful because I was— I was evil speaking of the Lord's anointed. And I don't think it's evil speaking at all. To disagree with error. I'm not saying terrible things about these men. I'm saying wonderful things about these men. I'm not speaking evil of them. I am on occasion disagreeing with what they do, but still sustaining them in their leadership calling, recognizing that they have the authority that I do not. And I think that that's when we show our discipleship, is when we are sustaining leaders not because they are perfect, but precisely because they are not. So that's my second rant for this episode. Does that leave time for another rant for you?

Oh, well, I really— again, I appreciate the level of detail and the feeling behind that. I've got a fairly short response and then we could probably close the podcast. I only need a few minutes, so I'll be brief. To those who have asked, including on the Mormon-ish podcast that we did on the last one around safeguarding protected children, where someone asked, you know, why does Jim Bennett remain in the church? You know, when he feels so strongly about so many issues that concern him, and I think you've answered that really well, that you— the Lord has told you this is where you want— you need to be, where he wants you to be. And I, I responded to that comment on that, uh, us, the podcast, um, with Mominish, that I give my opinion that you, you, you can do— people can do a lot of good inside the church by changing from the inside. I really, I really believe that you need voices on the inside to facilitate change and to improve the church. And that's why we, we're doing the podcast, you know, you're inside out. You're on the inside and you, you see, you know, great things happening, uh, you also see opportunities for improvement, um, I'm the same. So that's the main thread that runs through the whole concept behind, you know, inside out. President Nelson said, when he was asked to clarify the change of the policy, he said, quote, we knew that this policy created concern and confusion for some and heartache for others. That grieved us. Whenever the sons and daughters of God weep, for whatever reason, we weep. So our supplication to the Lord continued, and he goes into that process. So, you know, that's the closest you're going to get to acknowledgement that, you know, we'll never use the word mistake or reversal or anything like that. And you're, without trying to diminish, just my second point here, without trying to diminish your personal, deeply personal, private experience in this place that you described earlier and your communication with the Lord and your supplication to the Lord, it was very deeply personal. Wherein you didn't receive confirmation that the policy was right. I think that was really important to acknowledge that or to know that. Notwithstanding that very personal experience, in no way to diminish it, it does raise a number of questions. And that this conversation you had with the Lord, the same God, the same Lord that delivered the revelation to the Prophet in the first place, who doesn't make mistakes, presumably, told you and others, I'm sure, that yes, this— be patient, don't leave the church. 'Cause there seemed to be some impression, my interpretation at least, that yes, the Lord was saying this is a mistake. The Lord delivered the wrong revelation, presumably, knew that he was doing it wrong, that it would cause this, 'cause he can see in the future, knew that the revelation was wrong, the policy was wrong, yet delivered the revelation to the prophet nevertheless. And notwithstanding that, still wants members, faithful members to remain true to the church and not providing spiritual confirmation that that policy was in fact from the Lord, going, you know, listen to your experience. That raises a whole bunch of concerns, issues, and questions in my mind. Or did the Lord— did the Lord— didn't— where he didn't deliver that revelation, that they knelt— and this is what I think happened— they knelt down, had this problem, this this issue regarding gay rights and, you know, and how to tackle, wrestle with that. They talked about that, how to reconcile that, looked at all the different scenarios, all the combinations, went— they had their own biases on this, on personal biases. They went to the Lord together. You've got a mouthpiece, of course, that the mouthpiece already dictates or communicates the position of the church, the principles, policies on this already. And basically they were going to in prayer and they, through confirmation bias, just heard what they wanted to hear or either misinterpreted the revelation or just arrived at that thinking, that mindset, that position, and assumed it was revelation because that's, you know, the church is traditionally since the beginning has always opposed anything like, you know, gay rights. Et cetera. And I think that's what's happened. So, you know, I don't— I believe in God. I don't believe God gave that revelation. That's what I'm saying. I don't believe God is heralded that or is behind that. I think they screwed up. They made a mistake. They won't admit it, of course. And, uh, and it's caused a huge problem. And, um, and that's why he didn't get confirmation, of course, that policy was, was correct. It wasn't. It was false. And it shows what I said earlier, that they, um, The brethren are in fact fallible. They, they're not infallible. They make mistakes and they're human. And, you know, and, you know, I, I'll just finish off this. If they just stood up and said, look, we made a mistake on this, we made a mistake, I would have enormous respect for that. I really would, because we're all human. They will tell you that they're human, they make mistakes. And we didn't understand this correctly, we didn't approach it correctly, we didn't gauge or canvas opinion to really get all the information, get the data, etc., etc. We went ahead and we, we misunderstood, and we, we— it was an error. We're human, and we apologize for all the hurt. And there's a lot of hurt, Jim, a lot of hurt, right? All the pain, the words that we used were insensitive, unkind. When we used disavow, right, that, you know, we make— we— that was a mistake to use that word. If they could just be Christlike men, men of God, to do that, to be like that, to be so humble like that, um, my— and I'm sure a little respect would go up. The problem with that is that you would have another reaction where people would be Now, you know, if they put that in writing or said that, it's like the essays, once the Prophet put stuff in writing, it becomes official because of, you know, the actual words of the Prophet. Then people, I think, would have a problem with that and they would probably even doubt even further that these are men of God, especially something so significant. And how could they make such a colossal mistake and admit it? And are they really prophets of God? So they're really, to your point, they're in a very, very difficult place. But I argue that the only way for the church to be successful and to survive and to do well and to thrive and prosper is just to be honest. Just say that we made a mistake, we messed up, we apologize, it's caused a lot of hurt. Please be patient with us. We're human. The laws allows us— the Lord allows us to make mistakes, for goodness' sake. And continue to have patience, there's enough faith, there's like the Lord told you, etc. Because you said that, you know, you look at the prophets there, the brethren, with some degree of flexibility, understanding, in the same way the Lord looks at you. And I think that's very, very, very healthy. So, you know, I don't know if or when they will come to that understanding of, you know, being open and honest on something like this. I don't— I think we're still a few years away before they'll get there. Um, but I'm so glad we've had this conversation. You got very strong feelings on this, and you've wanted to continue to talk about this, and rightly so. This is so important to so many people. Equally, I wanted to share thoughts and feelings on that. And, um, if I was the prophet— you know, you asked me yesterday on another podcast what I would do if I was a prophet. I don't ruled the church. If I was the prophet, I would apologize frankly to all those people that the policy had hurt. I really would. I'd at least do that. And I'd say, you know, bear with us, be patient with us, and, you know, we're human and we made mistakes. If the Brethren are listening to this, I just don't know why you can't be like this or think like this or realize that there's real value and substance in being You know, just, just saying that you, when you make mistakes and, um, and, and just apologizing when, when you hurt people with such destructive, awful policy. And please, if there's anything you can do, if you listen to this, just never ever use the word disavow in that context again. That's such an awful, awful word to— and the, the, the thinking and the behavior behind that, to disavow these children and disavow these, these parents. It's completely anti-Christ. It's opposite of what Christ would teach. And so I don't know if they'll ever listen to something like this, but that would be my closing remarks, Jim, on this podcast. Again, I want to thank you for wanting to talk about this as much as I have.

No, I appreciate that. And I appreciate those remarks. I want to echo those. Because I think you're right. I think a lot of people— I think the short-term thing that would happen if prophets were to speak that way is that there would be a gasp. There would be a short-term, "Oh." Long-term, I think— and it wouldn't even be that long-term. It would be fairly quickly. Their credibility would go way up because it would be like, "Oh, okay, you're speaking to us as adults." Right. You're telling us the truth. And okay, that's going to take a minute to reorient what we're thinking about how this works. But, but long term, I think it's such— it would be— it would give them so much more credibility than they have now.

I think so. I'd have so much respect for human and I would stick with them and I'd have more confidence in the revelation process because I think, well, 'Hey, they're keeping themselves in check, checks and balances, you know, they're trying to do it right.' I'd have so much more confidence and faith in them. And instead of what they do, they become entrenched in justifying, defending the decision. You know, 'We didn't mess up. Sorry that I hurt you. We didn't mess up. Here's a modification.' I mean, talk about using strategic words there, right? And so why, or why can't they just do be, um, uh, open and honest and, and just say, hey, we made a mistake, we're sorry.

Uh, you know, anyway, no, I, I, I think— I like to think they're moving in that direction, but we've still got an awfully long way.

I hope so. I really do. I think they will. I think, I think, I, I do think they will. Um, so I'm hopeful.

I am hopeful as well. And with that, we conclude another episode of Inside Out. So until next time, thank you very much, Ian.

Thank you, Jim.