The Question of Relevance

Hello and welcome to the latest episode of Inside Out. I'm Ian Bennett, and here with the inevitable Jim Bennett and the wonderful Great Prince.

Hello. So is it better to be inevitable or wonderful?

I think you both bring that, uh, to the table and combined it's, uh, it's very powerful combination.

I would settle for indubitable, but I don't want to get us too enmeshed in words.

Well, it's great to see you both. I always look forward to these conversations. Selfishly, I learn so much, uh, from you both, and I certainly learn from the response that we get from many of our viewers and listeners. And today we are getting into, uh, Greg Prince's, uh, very important Roadmap 2.0. Uh, Greg Prince has written, uh, Roadmap 1.0 for Improving Mormonism. It's a compelling read. Very compelling.

Can you explain to our American listeners what naught means?

Zero.

Zero. One point naught to an American thing, it sounds like, well, it's not one point. So anyway, go ahead. Sorry to interrupt you. I just want to make sure that we don't have any cultural roadblocks to understanding here.

That's true. We are two great nations. Well, I'm in Canada from the UK. You're Americans, right, in America. But we are two, three great nations divided by a common language and we'll try and get through those cultural barriers. So, uh, uh, Great Prince has written just an extraordinary document, uh, original document titled Roadmap 1.0, 1.0. Uh, we've gone through that quite extensively, uh, and it's been an extraordinary journey, uh, for sure. Greg has, has then, uh, conducted further research, um, and deliberation and put together Roadmap 2.0 or 2.0, and we're now reviewing those improvements and those changes. I, I've, I've advocated for a long time now since we've been discussing the, uh, the roadmaps that the, these documents are incredibly valuable and should, and in my view, must be read by the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles. I know that's probably too much to ask coming from someone like me, but then again, it's not. You know, somebody who's got a lot of experience in the church, who's devoted, dedicated, you know, almost my entire life to the church, as you both have. I think it's appropriate to invite the leaders of the church to review such documents because I believe it will actually— those recommendations, those measures, those very constructive, positive, respectful, um, uh, recommendations and ideas in the roadmaps are absolutely valuable, I think, for improving the church. And I believe wholeheartedly that the leaders of the church want to improve the Mormon Church. One thing that we want to get straight into as we look at Roadmap 2.0 is a key topic in there called relevance. As we were discussing this conversation, I mentioned before we, we, we recorded this, I mentioned that my position of the church has changed recently, thinking that from my frustration of why the church isn't doing enough in the world, because, because it has significant resources, huge influence, an extraordinary global network, a, a, an established infrastructure, which is resourced, uh, into the hundreds of billions of dollars, and my hope and expectation that the Mormon Church can do much more than it is right now. I've gone from that position and the frustration around the church not doing enough to a new position that the church could, if it wanted to, uh, wanted to do more. But decides not to because it's intelligent enough to recognize and accept that it is not relevant in the, uh, in the world, in the changing world in which we live today, and that it doesn't speak up and stand out on key geopolitical, uh, issues, for example, especially in today's Uh, war-torn conflicts that are occurring around the world on an increasing size and scale, like Iran, very significant. And the church chooses not to get involved on those major issues because it recognizes it is not relevant and therefore hones and focuses and channels its resources into areas and geographies where it knows and recognizes it is relevant and has and can make a difference. So I've changed my position very recently from these conversations with Greg and with you, Jim Bennett, from, you know, those two very different thoughts. Do you share that thought, Greg Bennett? You know, looking at your roadmap, you've got this section there titled relevance. Is this a thought that you share, or do you see, uh, the church, uh, in a different perspective through that lens of its, uh, its relevance?

Let me go back a few years to really 2011. That was the year that the Broadway musical The Book of Mormon went off like a bomb. It became an overnight sensation, and it catapulted the Church into the spotlight in a way that I don't recall in my lifetime. It created what people started to call commonly the Mormon Moment. It was taken up a notch the following year with Mitt Romney's candidacy for the presidency. And I thought very wisely, shrewdly even, the church, rather than coming out and panning the musical because it didn't treat Mormonism kindly, they attached their fortunes to it for a while. And launched a campaign called I Am a Mormon, which became very visible. I remember a multiple-story-high billboard on Times Square with the title I Am a Mormon, and it had these portraits of a wide variety of church members trying to get across the point that we aren't, weren't all buttoned-down Caucasian people who, where the men wore suits and ties every day. There were people on there of different races. There were people on there with different hairstyles. I thought it was quite refreshing. But once Mitt lost the election for the presidency in November 2012, we found out the Mormon moment was a moment. It went away almost as quickly as it began. And there's not been much that has happened since then to create another Mormon moment. The issue you raise, Ian, is, have they been really smart in deciding not to push the issue, or are they licking their wounds and retreating wondering why nobody is paying attention to them anymore. I favor explanation 2, but I'm open to explanation 1. There certainly is a crying need in the world, and no less in the United States, for the prophetic voice to be spoken and heard. And at a time when I don't see religious leaders in the United States speaking much in that voice, it pains me that our leaders are basically sitting on their tongues. There is a vacuum there that could be filled. I think they have the capability of speaking in that voice. I think that if they addressed the issues and not the people, which is what Pope Leo is doing, that that is in the long run a winning message, even if it offends some of your base along the way. But what I sense is that they are fearful of their base. And because of that, they are afraid to speak up and speak out, to occupy a prominent position in the public square. And as a result, the church has become much less relevant than it used to be. Those are my introductory remarks.

Thank you, Greg. Jim, what's your opening thoughts on this?

Well, listening to Greg on that, I, I, I have been far too preoccupied today with, uh, the current kerfuffle of the moment in the online church world. So what's happened is that the church's official social media accounts, that is the Facebook account, the Twitter account, the X account if you will, the Instagram account, uh, all without a name attached to it. There's no apostle, there's no church leader. It just says, this is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Yesterday, they posted a story about a graduate student, or no, I'm sorry, his wife. This is a guy who tells the story of his wife going to medical school, and he describes how much he is going to sacrifice in order to put his wife through medical school and that he would be the stay-at-home guy while his wife is the primary breadwinner. And the church posted this as just sort of a feel-good, positive example of how church members live their lives. And as is not surprising, a whole host of church members lost their minds and went nuts. And insisted that the Church's PR department had been taken over by rogue elements and that, um, this was in blatant violation of the proclamation on the family, and isn't this terrible, and the Church is in apostasy, and everything is sort of falling apart. And my response to this is— I waded into it as I far too often do has been to say things like, so, you know, these people are all doing this again in the name of following the prophet. We need to follow the prophet and follow the Family Proclamation, so we need to condemn this post that came from the people who produced the Family Proclamation and were hired by the prophets. I mean, they don't see the bizarre illogic of it. But this is kind of where we are, and the reason I raise this is it speaks to exactly, I think, what Greg is talking about, in that when the prophetic voice is silent, then everybody can write the script or the dialogue for what they think the prophetic voice ought to be saying. And it would be so helpful If President Oaks or Elder Stevenson, or for heaven's sakes, even a Seventy were to say, hey, yeah, we, uh, we agree with this and we back this up and we think this is a lovely post, but they won't do that. And so it just kind of hangs out there and church members are saying, and from my perspective, I keep thinking back to that conversation I talked to you about last time with Bill Evans. Where he talked about, as government relations director for the church, how many people thought he would go rogue when he would outline the church's political positions. And all these people think that the PR department is going rogue because even something as innocuous as this is a subject of controversy because the official voice of the church is not willing to say anything that isn't squishy. That can't be taken from both sides as evidence of their position, that the church is so terrified of alienating one side or the other of anybody on any discussion or topic of any import that what they end up doing is pretty much saying nothing at all. And the result is that that prophetic voice was silent, and we all just sort of flounder in the wilderness. Does that make sense? I mean, do you see a connection there?

I do. When you say nothing, you're saying too much. Because then, then as you say, Jim Bennett, that vacuum is going to be filled by everybody saying everything. And it's because you haven't said anything.

Correct. And it's so frustrating because when we go out and we do missionary work and we go out, we talk about what makes our church different. One of the first things out of our mouth is we have a living prophet, we have continuing revelation, and we have a living prophet. The Lord has not left us alone. We've got somebody now that can speak to us and can help us with our problems today. And we don't have to just rely on what the ancients have said. We have some living oracle that can give us that counsel. And when that living oracle is completely silent, it just defeats the whole purpose. And so So I'm just cheering you on, Greg. I think you're absolutely right here.

Well, and the real tragedy in my mind is you could argue this country in particular has never been in greater need of that voice than it is right now. Yeah. Well, why are we on the sidelines? Sitting silently.

No, that is so absolutely correct. And you just— I mean, Pope Leo demonstrates that. I mean, you would suggest that in our last conversation that they invite Pope Leo to speak at General Conference. And I mean, the hunger for that. I mean, people are hungry for it. It's not even that that we're not providing it. It's that people are begging for it, and we're still not getting it.

Well, yeah, there are multiple news stories recently talking about a surge of conversions to Roman Catholicism. You think there's not a cause and effect relationship there?

Absolutely, absolutely, there's a cause and effect. I mean, Ian, you've talked about this many, many times. I mean, this is kind of— we're sort of a broken record on this point.

Yeah, we are. You are both intelligently and in such an articulate way describing my thoughts and feelings that I know I'm not alone at all. I'm so frustrated with this. We need— the world, the church needs good, strong honest, uh, uh, fearless, brave, courageous leadership. We've even said if the church comes out and does some, uh, says something and it's wrong, we're okay with that. At least they're thinking intelligently and independently and they're trying to figure things out. You know, these are very smart people and I believe we'll get most things right. You're not gonna get everything right, but at least come out and do something and, you know, meet and talk and have a conversation, have your meetings with your different think tanks and come, come out with an intelligent solution to address the issues impacting members and the issues, um, you know, impacting, uh, world, uh, geopolitics. I believe that the church is not devoid of intelligent solutions. That they have many answers, that they're enkaikled and they receive inspiration. I don't think that's exclusive. Uh, you've tied it absolutely correctly, both of you, to revelation. You know, we've said, I taught as, as a missionary with you, Jim, in Scotland, that the heavens are open, that revelation continues, that we have a prophet on the, on the earth today with the priesthood authority to receive Ongoing revelation. We teach in the temple that, you know, Adam and Eve waiting for further light and truth. We make the covenants, we pray, we have faith, we fast. The Lord reveals to us his thoughts, his direction. You don't think the Lord has anything to say on the issues of the day? Of course he does. You know, are we listening to him? Are we humble? Are we actually afraid to speak the words of the Lord? Christ wouldn't be afraid on the live podcast on Tuesday, we spent a few minutes talking about or thinking about what Christ would do. Jim Bennett, when you and I were serving our missions in Scotland, and Greg, you'll know the scripture really well, we used to use this scripture from Ephesians 4:14 often. It talks about being tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine. Referring to a spiritual instability and deception that occurs when individuals rely on worldly philosophies rather than authorized revealed truth. We make this bold claim that we have many of the answers, not all of the answers, but many of the answers, that the, the bedrock and foundation of the church is built on the solid principles and integrity of, of Christ's gospel. That's a bold claim, and I believe that is a defensible claim for the most part with the church. Again, it's not exclusive to the church, but I believe that the church for the most part has got that foundational, um, building blocks that align with the gospel of Christ. Absolutely. It's got vast resources, but it's so afraid to act afraid to speak up, even afraid of making mistakes because he's going to get pummeled and criticized. But you can't change the world if you're afraid. And the scriptures go on to say that, you know, where there is fear, there is no faith. You know, the scriptures are replete with examples and references to having faith in God and faith in Christ. And if you have faith, then you don't need to have fear. Be fearless, have faith, do the right thing. And so, you know, you're both articulating my frustrations with the church and my expectations of the church. And my goodness, do we need good moral leadership in the world today. I was thinking about what you said earlier, Greg, when you were talking about the modern moment. I thought that was quite poignant. And while you were having that convers— those conversations around about the same time, of course, and Jim, you were having— you were involved in the Mitt Romney campaign, and you were having your own experiences and your, uh, uh, moments there as you were directly involved in that, um, to, to some extent. At that time when we were all having those conversations, I was serving on a stake presidency. And we met with General Authorities who told us that we're having a Mormon moment in this Mitt Romney, uh, experience. And I was really excited about that. We sat down, we were in the meeting room in the, uh, in the chapel, at the, in, in, in the building. And, uh, we were talking about how we're going to leverage and optimize and maximize this opportunity that's gonna change the, the church significantly. The, the scripture that was used that was that the Mitt Romney, uh, Mormon moment event would, uh, quote— and I paraphrase here— bring the church out of obscurity. You remember that scripture? That's one that we used all the time. We were all, uh, I'm trying to paraphrase it here, but that the church would come out of obscurity. And I was both excited, but I remember as I listened to you, Craig, I remember a thought coming into my mind in that meeting at time, that struck me quite hard. I remember asking myself, and I'd actually, it was a private thought that I didn't communicate openly. I asked myself, does the church really know what it's doing? Because once you put the spotlight on the church, which is what they wanted, you know, we talked about hastening the work and out of obscurity, and this is our moment. Then my thought was, are you ready for that? Because when that spotlight hits you, you're going to be— yeah, you're going to see all the qualities, you know, all the attributes of the church, but you're also going to see all the complexities and the difficulties and the issues. I never asked that question openly, but I did think it. And it, you know, as I look back at those meetings, at those, at that those conversations around the Mormon moment. Greg, you've articulated it and characterized it absolutely on the money. It didn't come to very much. We had a small, brief moment in the spotlight. I think it did raise probably lots of questions about the church, but it was a quick and fast flash of light that dissipated into virtually nothing, and nothing's been done since then.

Well, I think a problem, Ian, was that it was accidental for us, meaning the church didn't control either of those events, the Broadway musical or Mitt's candidacy. It enjoyed the reflected light, but it didn't generate it. And when the reflection dissipated, there they were. And what was the there there? And the answer was, it wasn't there. It went away. What is needed is to it be an intentional Mormon moment that would start from within, not that would be reflected from without. There is such a need for that. The church has the messengers, it has the message, and it has the means of getting it out. There's probably no church in the world that has more financial means right now than we do at our discretion, but nothing's happening. I think for it to be a true Mormon moment where the church becomes relevant, it has to start from within. It has to be authentic. And we can do that. We don't have to invent some type of campaign. We just have to be what we think we are and be that consistently. You, and that means having the courage to speak to power.

Yeah. You've stole my thunder and described it and characterized it in a way better than I could. It's exactly how I feel and think about that. Uh, those events were not created by the church. The church took advantage and it didn't come to great things. Good leaders, strong leaders, visionaries, um, Entrepreneurs in business, et cetera. They create something within. They have a vision, they have confidence, they discover something, they create, they build, they make it happen. They initiate and they lead. That's what good leaders do. I'm taught that often in the industries that I'm working in. And the church possesses these qualities and these attributes. It's an intelligent organization. Got the infrastructure, it's got the resources. I believe it's got the solutions, many of the solutions. I believe it's got the ability to create and to lead and not just to react to events. You know, Elder Bednar talks about, and help me on this, Greg and Jim, talks about we can act or be acted upon. Do you remember that talk? And that we have the power to act. Again, jump in if I'm not characterize that well enough, or paraphrase that enough, but Elder Bednar talks about that we are individual beings, that we can act, we've got free agency, and we can do stuff on our own free will, or we can be acted upon. And I think the church is being acted upon. Events are happening and the church's following, not leading. It's reacting or not reacting. It's reacting to some stuff. A lot of the stuff that's happening in the world, it's not reacting. It's not even doing anything. But the church can change that. It can take the initiative. It can lead in a world void of good leadership. And specifically, uh, can go beyond just writing letters, which I don't think it has done to President Trump or any other world leaders. In the world, it can actually go meet with these leaders. I can't go meet Trump. I don't think I, well, I would, I would want to meet with him. Uh, I once met President Bush and we had a little bit of a, a disagreement in Calgary once. So that's another story. Uh, after Bush, uh, you know, lost that, uh, um, I think it was his first speaking engagement. That's another story. But if I had the opportunity to meet with world leaders, I would, and I would tell them what I think and they can disagree, but I would. I haven't got that power. I haven't got that network, but the prophet does. There are delegates, there are professionals in the church who are commissioned and resourced to go out to world leaders. And, uh, Jim, didn't President Banks, our mission president, wasn't his role to manage and meet delegates around the world?

Yeah, he got to know my father when he became the, uh, head of church hosting. Which was really kind of lovely. My parents, uh, really became very good friends with both Ben and Sue Banks, uh, because they, in what I think was sort of a departure for his career, they were really were sort of equal partners in that, that it wasn't as much of a priesthood sort of thing as it was when he was a General Authority or a temple president. And I mean, he was all of those things., but I remember going to Sue Banks's funeral and they all talked about, oh goodness, isn't it wonderful that she got to be, that she was so content to let him shine and she made all the peanut butter sandwiches and, and everything else. So, I mean, that, that's a, that's kind of an off-topic thing, but yeah, that, that was President Banks's role as, as head of church hosting. And one of the things that was interesting to discover when I would talk to my father about all of this is just how— what is the word I'm looking for— the church would just— obsequious is a negative word. Solicitous, I think, is the word I'm looking for. How solicitous the church was of any world leader or anybody, uh, with any kind of prominence, and they would just go out of their way to do everything they could to accommodate them, and that they were happy with them. And this included people, uh, from, you know, a lot of these governments in Africa, for instance, where the church is growing like gangbusters are ruled by governments that if people— that are essentially dictatorships. And the church doesn't do anything to push back against that because they're very happy that these dictatorships are allowing the church to function in their territories. And when we went on tour, every time we go on tour with the Tabernacle We have a concert for VIPs. Mitt Romney came to Peru with us and was the, essentially the, the show horse that the church trotted out to impress all of these VIPs. Uh, but, uh, the idea that the church would push back on any of them or tell any of them that anything they were doing was wrong. Or was out of line is kind of unthinkable. The church was just thrilled, uh, whenever anybody will allow us to do anything in their country or in their territory. So, we've talked about this many times before, but I think that is a large chunk of this paralysis, is that the church very much wants to see itself as a player on the world stage So it's trying not to alienate anybody, but in the process, they're paradoxically undermining any claims to credibility because they don't have anything to say. They're not, you know, the Pope doesn't have to worry about that because the Catholic Church has been around long enough that if anybody tried to really kick the Catholic Church out, it just wouldn't work. I mean, the Soviet Union tried to kick out the Russian Orthodox Church and it still survived. Survived all through communism, uh, but we don't have that luxury of being around for that long. So we're more than happy to be pushed around, and we're terrified of the consequences of exercising that kind of moral voice. But the end result is that we get a general conference like the one that recently concluded where nothing was said and, and nothing of And we have to pretend like something was. We have to pretend after we walk away from hearing a bunch of empty platitudes that said nothing, that what we heard was amazing and was the kind of prophetic voice that it so manifest was not. So, but I think I'm a little bit of a broken record on this.

Well, Jim, as you're talking, I'm hearing the hymn, Shall the Youth of Zion Falter? You know that hymn.

I do.

This is Zion Falder and Defending Truth and Right. While the enemy assail us, shall we shrink or shun the fight? True to the faith that our parents cherished, true to the truths for which martyrs have perished. There's the implied risk in that hymn. That our forebears took that risk, and for some of them it took their lives. That was a good thing, but that spirit seems to have vanished.

I think that does. It does. That is really poignant. I was just listening. I was looking it up here on the internet. That is so relevant, Greg, in what you've said. Um, I, I've, I, I, I've been sailing since I was 12 years old when I was in Sea Cadets. I was in the Sea Cadets in Ariel Castleford, the only Sea Cadet group not anywhere near water, by the way. We had to travel quite a bit. And so I learned how to sail from the age of 12. And then the age 16, I took a sailing instructor certificate in Sea Cadets and I learned to train people how to sail. I have a sailing boat. And I've been sailing my entire life since I was a kid, and I sailed in all conditions. Uh, I'm thinking about that, um, what you've just shared with us, Greg, but I'm also thinking about that scripture about being tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine. I've been in situations, um, very, uh, scary situations where the wind has changed. Quite quickly, and I've not been able to get back to shore fast enough to avoid what has been at times quite serious, uh, incremental weather, incremental weather, uh, which has capsized the boat on 2 or 3 occasions. I took the training on, on how to survive boats that have been capsized, and that training is On one occasion saved my life for sure. So a lot of experience and sailed in all kinds of conditions and all kinds of weather. And the first few times when I was being trained and, and, and those training moments when I was younger, one of the significant learning, uh, outcomes was to make sure that your boat was prepared. Was I had all the equipment, all the safety equipment, all the tools, all the systems in place, and it was rigged properly. There were times where I, uh, the first few moments I didn't rig the boat well enough, and the, uh, the block and tackle that moves the boom along the, uh, you know, that, um, the tiller rudder system at the back of this, the stern of the boat. Didn't set that up, uh, correctly on one occasion. And when the wind picked up and, and changed, the ropes got stuck and, and, and the, the, uh, the sail, uh, wouldn't move and almost capsizes. I didn't rig it properly. There was quite a few times where I didn't rig the boat sufficiently and even didn't, when I was younger, didn't put the, uh, on one occasion the rudder down. Sufficiently to get traction into the water. These were hard lessons at a very young age of, you know, the age of 12 and 13 as I was trying to learn how to sail safely. Where I'm going with this is that, is that the church is the sailboat. It's got all the equipment, it's got all the resources, it's got a trained crew, it knows, uh, the climate in which it's in. You know, we're sailing in in extremely stormy waters in the world. The church knows that. The church has got a compass, got a captain. It knows how to charter a course. It can plan, it can respond to different changes. It's got the resources, et cetera. It's got everything it needs, I believe, to be a, um, a Ryder Cup level champion crew, in my opinion. I don't think it lacks anything in terms of knowledge, intelligence, you know, compared to any other organization out there. Yet it has been tossed about on the world geopolitical, uh, ocean by every wind of political doctrine. And if I was President Oaks and he asked me how I want to be remembered, and I'll throw that question back at him, you know, how do you want to be remembered? I will be in front of President Trump, however hard that might be, trying to influence Trump's mind. And I might not succeed, but at least I'm trying. And I'd be trying to, uh, uh, I'd be prepared. I have a team and I'd be trying to influence his mind for the better on good, good things. I'd also be out there in the world doing the same thing with other world leaders, even though to Jim Bennett's point. Many of them, or some of them, are dictators. I'd also be collaborating with the Catholic Pope and other organizations much more intensely in a much more structured, organized way than I'm doing right now, mobilizing all my vast resources in the church to build a consortium of religious, uh, uh, and other leaders to influence world opinion on really important issues. I could, because I believe Christ would do that. I don't believe or accept that Christ would go into a country with his apostles and accept, uh, certain conditions on human rights, for example, or look the other way. I can't see Christ ever turning his cheek, turning a blind eye. Jesus Christ turning a blind eye. Operating in, in a country with his apostles, uh, turning a blind eye to, uh, situations that are impacting human rights because the country allows him and his apostles to proselyte in that country. I just don't see it. I don't believe it. I don't accept that. And so I think, well, why is the church doing that? Why is not church doing enough? Because it can. And that's my point. The church can do more. It's got the resources, capabilities, but it refuses to. And it's because, as Jim said, and you said, great, it's afraid to do that. My question is, and this is one of my questions that I discussed, uh, that I wanted to ask, uh, you both. This is a question I'm struggling with. I don't have an answer to, and I'm hoping that you two wise, dare I say, old owls have the answer. At what point does the church stand up and speak up on these critical issues? How far does the world have to go before God's prophet on the earth does something and speaks up? What do you both think about that? What's your response?

I think it needs to happen. I don't know what the trigger will be. And as I'm listening to you, I have a mental image of a lighthouse. The Mormon moment of 2011, 2012 was the church having somebody else's lighthouse shine a light on it briefly. It needs to be the lighthouse.

Excellent. I've used this analogy of sailing because I've sailed and I know it intimately. You know, I know the challenges and issues, right? Described the church as a sailing boat, and he's got the, he's got the crew and the resources just to, to, to address the, you know, the weather issues. Greg has, uh, provided an excellent analogy that the church, um, should be the lighthouse, that beacon, uh, you know, to the world. Um, what do you think about those analogies? Do you share, do you agree that they're good analogies, descriptions?

I think they're excellent analogies. Uh, it's, it's interesting to me that we have seen such a significant change in demeanor in Dallin H. Oaks since he became president of the church. Um, he was accused, and I think maybe unfair though, for being arrogant, of being arrogant and, and sort of thing. And I, I don't necessarily think that was his intention, uh, when he would speak in his sort of very lawyerly, clinical way. But I think now that he is president of the church and feels the colossal weight of the expectation of all of the members that he serves, uh, and he's there and he's now the guy in the big chair And a lot of people who look to the guy in the big chair think that Dallin Oaks walks into the Holy of Holies in the Salt Lake Temple and has a personal priesthood interview with Jesus Christ, who is physically present. I mean, there— I, I mean, if you were to poll members of the church, uh, I think you would find a majority of members who believe that that or something like that happens. And, uh, and I don't think it does happen. I don't think that makes me faithless to say it doesn't happen, because I also— I'm aware particularly even of Dallin Oaks admitting that that doesn't happen, that in, in certain settings he's been willing to say that no, uh, we are very largely left to our own devices on this. And so here you have Dallin Oaks in this now, in his new role with the guy who holds all the keys, and Jesus isn't showing up to tell him, uh, to say all these things. I mean, if you go back to Joseph Smith, Joseph Smith was not at all shy of talking about all of these heavenly visitations that were telling him to do this and telling him to do that. I mean, it began with Moroni telling him to go get the plates, and he would go have a, an interview with Moroni every year while he was waiting for the plates. He would receive instructions then. And I mean, that kind of— that, I think, is the image of what people expect from a prophet. And Dallin Oaks knows that's not what he is. Dallin Oaks knows more than anybody else that he is not having regular face-to-face visits with heavenly messengers, that he has been tasked with the responsibility to, um, to lead the church according to the authority that he has. And I think there is a paralysis that comes with that realization. At least in his case. I don't think that paralysis came in the case of President Nelson because I think he was a different personality type who genuinely believed almost from a, from a much younger age that everything that sort of crossed the transom of his thoughts was a direct revelation from heaven. And that kind of scared me a little bit. I don't think Dallin Oaks is that kind of a guy. I don't think Gordon B.

Hinckley was that kind of a guy.

I think there is a humility there and an acceptance there of the limitations and the realities. But part of it, I think, is that Dallin Oaks is paralyzed by, look, I'm not being told by heaven to get out in front on any of these issues. Jesus hasn't come and told me to denounce Donald Trump. Jeez, you know, so how far am I able to go? How far? I mean, how much of this is just me? How much of this really is that prophetic call and that prophetic authority? And Greg, when we were talking, uh, in the, in the live stream about, uh, priesthood power, reclaiming priesthood power, I think one of the things that you said that has stuck with me since is that we know when people are faking it. And I think that nobody knows more when people are faking it than Dallin Oaks does. And I think he's terrified of faking it. Is that paranoia on my part, or does, does any of that resonate with either of you?

Oh, that resonates. I'm glad that I occupy a space in your brain I would remind you it's rent-free.

Ah, that's fine, that's fine. Stick around as long as you'd like. I would hope you would try to find a nicer place to, to, to live, but, uh, that's all right.

It's not where I spend much time.

So to you both then, with what you've said and what Jim said there, as we kind of contextualize this, how bad do things have to get before President Oaks does something. What are those triggers? Um, by being silent with Trump as an example, right? Does that mean he endorses Trump by being silent in the world? Does that mean, Greg, to your point, that speaks volumes very loud? That's a very loud silence, isn't it? So the question is, How bad do things have to get? How serious do they have to get before someone like Oaks does something or says something of significance?

Well, I see right now a problem in our numbers, that the convert baptism number is soaring. Why is that a problem? Because in my mind, quantity does not necessarily translate to quality. If we are attractive to the MAGA crowd and they start joining in numbers, that doesn't give me a warm feeling. I would much rather see the church do what Pope Leo has done, say the right thing, and let the consequence follow.

Well, yeah, I— and so would I. And but so much of any significant change in the church— I wish it weren't this way, but I think it's undeniable that it is this way— any significant change in the church Church comes reluctantly after a tremendous amount of pressure, and then with an attempt to pretend that no change has happened. Yep. So, so the, the, what you are describing is the polar opposite of that, of a leader in the church not experiencing pressure, because I don't think he's getting pressure, from the general membership necessarily to do any of this. Maybe he is, or I would hope that he feels some of that, but there's really no sort of organized movement, uh, within or even without the church, because without the church nobody cares. No, but nobody's pressuring Dallin Oaks to speak up if they're not a member of the church. They're more than happy to ignore him, and he's more than willing to give them the space to be able to do that.

I don't think, Jim, they're even ignoring him.

They don't even know he's there.

Yeah, that's the point.

Yeah. So, so there's no external pressure and there really is no vehicle for internal pressure. So the only impetus would be Dallin Oaks' conscience and Dallin Oaks' willingness to do that. And I think that's where the paralysis is, because Dallin Oaks is a good man who is saying, do I, you know, do I really have the authority to speak for Jesus on a topic where Jesus has not specifically told me to do so? Does that make sense? Yeah.

Um, no, because I think you have to look at the overall message of Jesus Does he have to keep coming down to earth saying 2.0 is the same as 1.0? The message is there. The problem is that we are asleep at the wheel as this bus is about to run off the cliff. That our entire society is in danger because we have allowed The alternative voice, the voice that says, no, I can't forgive that man. I hate that man. Where is Jesus in that? Where is Jesus in divisive language? Where is Jesus in racism? Where is Jesus in wealth distribution. My gosh, that's one of the big challenges in our church. We have a lot of very wealthy people who interpret that as a sign of their righteousness, whereas maybe that's an indication that they should be looking to redistribute that if they take seriously the admonition of Jesus to the rich man.

Uh, well, it's interesting that you talk about that because all of those were addressed by President Oaks in this last conference, in really the only talk that mattered, which was his talk on Sunday morning, where he said precisely those things. But the problem with him saying precisely those things is that he wasn't able to apply them to a modern setting. It was just, yes, we need to be peacemakers. Yes, we need to, uh, work with people who don't agree with us, and we need to be kind, and we need to, uh, I mean, I mean, the, but it, it all ends up coming out as a platitude if you can't say That means, right-wing Mormons, that you shouldn't trash illegal immigrants and blame them for everything that's happening. This is a direct application, and we have so many members of the church that are doing this and that are being cruel to people on the basis of where they come from and on the basis of their race. Stop doing that. Uh, he, he leaves it to you to draw that inference yourself. And the people who need to draw that inference are the last people in the world who will do it.

Yeah. Think of a projectile, not a difficult thing to imagine at a time of war. The projectile is essential, but if you don't have enough of a powder charge behind it, it's never gonna reach its destination. Doesn't matter what's in the projectile. So there are those two elements. You have to have the message, but you gotta know how to get the message to hit the target so that it makes a difference.

Jim Bennett, you stole the wind out of my sail. I use a sail metaphor just to remind us what Oaks actually said. He said here, living worthy to meet Christ is no easy task. Many current writers characterize the time in which we live as toxic, a time of contempt or hostility towards adversaries. This hostility affects many different relationships in society, involving many whose Christian beliefs should orientate them otherwise. He says our Savior Jesus Christ taught us how to relate to one another, making reference to Christ, the great commandment in the law he taught. Were to love God and neighbor. And he said, who is my neighbor? And he answered the question there. And he also goes into quote Christ there, or the scriptures. But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you. These are very, very important messages that you'd expect a prophet to deliver. But to Jim Bennett's point, you need to provide some actual examples. Otherwise it leaves it wide open to broad interpretation.

It's water off a duck's back.

It is, it is. And so I think interestingly, this, uh, not surprisingly, these commentary marks bring us, uh, by way of reminder to the topic today, which is relevance. And so as I listen to you both, uh, much more wise on this subject than I am, but as I'm trying to understand and interpret, to kind of orientate my thinking to come to some baseline of trying to make sense of why the church does what it does and why it doesn't do certain things. And amidst all that complexity and frustration, I, I'm, I'm still at the position that the church knows what to do. It knows how to do it. It's got the resources. It evaluates and assesses its demographics in the church. It's risk management organization that exists, identifies, uh, captures, quantifies, calculates, uh, risk, quantifiable numerically. I believe these are risk management systems and makes a strategic, uh, go/no-go decision on certain, uh, issues, uh, topics and As it assesses those risks, I suspect those conversations happening internally at that level is the easiest, uh, safest, less problematic route, believe it or not, is to do what the church is doing already. That is not to speak up, not to stand up, to deliver these kind of talks, these placitudes. Which, uh, uh, a broad messages to the rank and file members, which the response I've had from family and friends who are very active, think the conference was the most, one of the best ever. And they are grateful for Oaks's message, notwithstanding the lack of substance and example, but they seem to be quite happy with that and quite happy with the church doing what it's doing. But I think the church wrongfully but intelligently is doing what it thinks is in the best interest of itself. That is not to take a position on certain things because it's not safe to do so, because it will alienate certain demographics within the church. And if that demographic is changing, to your point, Greg, in terms of MAGA and the composition of the demographics that are changing, the church is well aware of that. Then it's acting intelligently, although, um, uh, wrongfully and, and cowardly in my view, because it's identified the only safe thing to do is to do what it's doing, to have these talks and keep things general. Don't be specific. Don't go meet Trump because, hey, you might win these people, but you're gonna lose these people. You have a huge backlash.. And so it's settled on its current strategy. And if you think about it from a technical and strategic perspective, from political perspective, it's probably the right thing to do from that criteria. From that perspective, it's wrong morally, it's wrong ethically, it's wrong from the perspective of what Christ would do.

To do.

It's wrong from the perspective of what the Gospels teach and require followers of Christ to do, absolutely. But politically, strategically, technically, it's walking the path of least resistance. And so listening to you both, I've kind of landed in that position. It canna do, it canna do things, great things, but chooses not to for those reasons that I've just suggested. Do you agree or do you have a different view?

Well, I agree that's what's happening. I think of the scripture in the Book of Revelation that condemns lukewarm. Because you're lukewarm, I'll spew thee out of the mouth. Again, I go back to that hymn we were raised on, Salve, Youth of Zion, Falter. Shall we shrink or shun the fight? No, right now we are not engaging. And we have some of the greatest existential size challenges to our civilization in our lifetime, perhaps in our country's history. There's never been a greater need for the voice of religious authority to speak loudly and continually. Where is it?

No, we're all sitting here preaching to the choir because we all agree on this. But it's interesting as you talk about relevance, I mean, as you use that word, I'm reminded of the cliché that people say— I think Neal Maxwell was the one who coined the phrase— they can leave the church, but they can't leave it alone. And historically, I think that's largely been true, that people leave the church. I mean, Ian, for instance, when you left the church, It was a wrenching, difficult decision for you. It, it was, you know, life-changing in all kinds of ways and painful and difficult. And you still, to this day, feel some sort of connection to it. And I think the very best way that phrase to some degree does apply to you. You're not leaving the church alone. You're still engaging with it. In a very positive way. What I think church leaders ought to be terrified about is the very real reality that almost everybody today who leaves the church is leaving it alone. Uh, the young, particularly young people, uh, young people who grow up and they Maybe they even go on a mission, but they, as soon as they're left to their own devices, they kind of look around and go, ah, yeah, this isn't for me, and move on.

Yeah, they don't look back.

They don't look back. There is no angst. There is no pain. I, I have seen far too many young people leave the church and completely leave it to the point of where they almost don't even remember that they were mem— oh yeah, yeah, yeah. I used to go to church and feel much better for having left it. Exactly. Exactly. And so when you go to them, I sat next to, I sit next to a guy in the choir, really nice guy. Uh, he, uh, is a 6th generation Pickler., he sells Josh's Pickles. And if you go into Harmons in Utah, I don't know, but he sells them in all 50 states, but he sells them online. I don't know if he's in any other supermarkets, uh, but he sells pickles and he's doing that for 6 generations and he's just, they're really good. And I was talking to him and he said, I'm also a former Jehovah's Witness. And I was like, oh gosh, I've never met a member of the church who was a former Jehovah's Witness. And he goes, yeah, well, my parents were disfellowshipped when I was 10. I barely even remember being a Jehovah's Witness. It's like, because, and then we stayed Jehovah's Witnesses. I mean, I didn't really leave until I was 17, but yeah, I don't even remember. I mean, as I would try to push him on, well, what was it like to be a Jehovah's Witness? What? I, uh, there's nothing there. He has no connection to it, even though nominally he was a Jehovah's Witness until he was about 18 years old. And you see that with church members who grow up, I mean, particularly in Utah, where growing up in the church is just kind of a rite of passage because so many people, at least nominally, are members of the church and they, they bless the baby and they'll get baptized at 8 and then they'll never darken the church door. Um, but it's— there is no angst because the church can provide no relevance to the lives of these young people. Ian, I don't think you would ever make the charge that the church was never relevant to you. The church was massively relevant to you for a large chunk of your life. But now with the rising generation who are leaving, they're leaving because the church isn't giving them any reason to stay. It's not giving them any compelling— you know, when I was growing up, it wasn't necessarily the doctrine of the church that got me to stay. It was the community aspect of the church that has completely collapsed. But it's like the church was relevant because these were my people, this was my tribe, and I felt at home there. And if I were to leave there, I would feel like I was without a home. But the Church doesn't provide that for anybody now. So why do they stay? And the theological arguments— well, we only, we have the only true priesthood power, and we're the ones that have the temple ordinances and the sealing ordinance— I mean, you could talk about that all day long, and their eyes are going to glaze over. What does that mean to me? What does that matter to me? I mean, it's— we don't have a compelling answer to that question that is getting people to stay. So I think that is a huge problem, and I don't know what the answer to it is.

Right, right. I, as you know, I devoted, dedicated my life to the church. I'm connected to it spiritually, physically, emotionally. Psychologically. It has such a profound— he saved my life, uh, when I was young. He had such a profound impact and still does in many, many ways. I can't ever let it go. I'm still tied to it and all the good things that it does. The letter that I got when I resigned from the church, one line saying that my name's been removed from the church records, and that was it. Period. Full stop. Sign, membership department was devastating. There was no thank you, no acknowledgement. It was awful. I felt crushed. Secondly, the church doesn't want me. No one has done anything to recover me. You know, when I was called on the stake presidency and we were trained by general authorities, we came up through revelation, by the way, by the way of revelation, a, uh, mandate called Finding the One. That was it. Finding the One was our new stake presidency mandate for the stake. And the objective, the goal and objective was to find and recover the lost souls of Christ. I initiated that within that stake presidency through training and, and, and doing everything we can to minister to people who had been lost. That program I helped put together and initiate does not extend to someone like me. I'm lost to the church. The church isn't interested in me. The church has won. I, I know that, but I'm still tied to it. Um, and, and again, I, I, I still see enormous opportunity for the church, still hanging under that glimmer of hope that, you know, this leadership at the church that I have confidence in, believe it or not. And having met with Oaks and know what an intelligent guy he is, a very insightful, very smart individual with many answers, perhaps not all the answers, but many, I still have open expectations. Of this conversation, the thing that struck me the most, by the way, I mean, there's many things that really struck me. I learned so much from you. It's like the, you know, learning from the feet of two apostles. It really is. I'm the I'm quite happy to be the apprentice, but I learned so much. And I find these conversations are, if anything, helpful to me on a personal level. But the thing that's really hit me is what Greg said, and I want to read it word for word. Craig, he did a really good job in paraphrasing that hymn, True to the Faith, but I want to read it because we're coming up to the end here, and I want to read it because it's really important. This is just extraordinary. If you just read this, it says this. Shall the youth of Zion falter in defending truth and right while the enemy assail? Shall we shrink or shun the fight? No, he says no. Then the chorus is true to the faith that our parents have cherished. I mean, look at the legacy of, of the church, the parents and the sacrifice. It's extraordinary. True to the truth for which martyrs perished. You know, we've given our lives, not physically in almost every, you know, in most individual situations, but look what we've given. We've devoted every ounce of energy and resources in us to building up the kingdom. We've done what Joseph required. We have wasted and worn out our lives for the church. We have. He says here, to the truth, for which martyrs have perished. To God's command, soul, heart, and hand, faithful and true we will ever stand. The church needs to read that. I mean, it's quite arrogant of me saying the church must do this, but I hope the church will remind itself of that hymn that we sing. I used to sing all the time and translate that into action. To do what Christ would do and to be relevant and to, um, wake up and to become this greater organization than it already is, to fulfill that, uh, prophetic mandate to become, um, even more relevant in the church today and to implement those important measures which are identified in the both versions of the roadmap and in so doing. It would be that amazing organization. Not in, not perfect, not have all the answers. I'm not expecting that, but it would be such a greater influence for the good and it would help and bless people's lives, uh, in a way that it, in, in, in a more significant way than it's doing right now. There are my final thoughts. So Greg, I want to thank you for reminding me about that extraordinary hymn, cuz those words really hit me. Jim Bennett, what are your final thoughts and comments, uh, as we've had this extraordinary conversation? And then we'll close out with Greg's final thoughts and comments.

Well, I, I don't know. I don't know that I have a whole lot more to add other than to say, uh, I, if we can see this, I mean, yes, of course we are just unbelievably brilliant people, but Really, anybody can see this. Uh, this, this, this seems so obvious. And yet at the same time, it's so difficult. And I really would like to see some way that we can reconcile those two. So, but very much enjoyed this discussion and appreciate both of you and your insights here.

Thank you, Jim. Greg, you're final thoughts and comments.

My final thought comes from another LDS hymn. It's very brief. It says, up awake, ye defenders of Zion. There needs to be a wake-up call because we are moribund. Yeah.

Yeah, we're nodding our heads. I agree. This, for me at least, has been another, yet another extraordinary conversation. I'm so grateful. Table. I'm so grateful for the insights in the, the roadmaps. I'm grateful because of, um, the substance in these conversations. We don't have all the answers, but in this conversation we've identified— we've not just discussed the problems, we've identified some of the solutions. And I know that the church, um, knows that, you know, what the issues are and has solutions. And we remain hopeful and confident that the church will act to a greater degree than it does. Grateful to you both. Uh, you're such wise, dare I say, old owls. Uh, and I learned so much from you. So thank you so much. I hope our, uh, listeners have enjoyed this conversation. Uh, and if you haven't already, go into the catalog of Inside Out. We've had wonderful conversations with, uh, Greg Prince, I think we've done about 22, 23 now, including the live episodes. So thank you both for your wisdom and your insight. Jim, as always, thank you. It's always a joy and a pleasure to have these conversations. And again, to our resident Greg Point, who we love and appreciate and have immense respect for. Thank you so much, Greg, for your wonderful—

You're welcome.

Till next time.

Thank you much.