Transgender Baptism

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

I'm feeling mighty today, Jim.

How are you? I've called you mighty before, but I just think that's an adjective that works.

Well, thank you very much.

Well, I stick with what works. But you actually had proposed the idea of discussing our topic today, which is a mighty important topic, if you notice the segue there. But you had noticed, you messaged me. There's been a whole lot of noise in the Mormon blogosphere, Twitterverse, if you will, about, um, we've talked about Aaron Sherinian and all of that kind of thing, but one of the things that's happened in recent days is that, uh, a transgender woman in Arizona was recently given First Presidency permission to be baptized. And she went on a podcast with Richard Osler, the Live, Love, and Learn podcast, and discussed the fact that she has been baptized, she has gotten approval, she has gone through medical transition in her gender transitioning, and she is on the records of the church as female. And you think this is a very big deal.

I absolutely do. I think this is very significant, in fact, one of the most significant developments in the history and the evolution of the church for many reasons that I think we, we can discuss here today on the podcast.

Well, what are some of the reasons?

So baptism in the church. Well, first of all, we claim to be the only true church upon the face of the earth. We claim, as you know, as a full-time missionary, that we're the only ones who have authority to teach and baptize and bring people to Christ. You know, many, many times we'd knock on people's door in Scotland there and they'd say, I'm already, you know, belong to the Church of Scotland or Catholic, already been baptized. And we would somehow in some way have a conversation and say in a nice, respectful way that that baptism essentially is not valid, that we are the only ones that have the authority to baptize you. So the authority part of the church is, is really important. And I think we need to hold the church, um, uh, uh, is on the hook for making the, the statement and claims that it's the only true church of Mother Teresa, basically, and the only church with the authority from Christ teach baptism, repentance, um, you know, faith, baptism, repentance, and the Holy Ghost, which are the first principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ. But baptism, uh, is done by immersion in water by one having authority, uh,— it's also the first ordinance of salvation and exaltation in the gospel of Jesus Christ. It's also necessary to become a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and receive eternal salvation. All who seek must follow the example of Christ, the Savior, who was baptized and he received and gave the gift of the Holy Ghost. In the church doctrine, it says baptism is the Lord's way. Joseph Smith talked about it extensively, making it very clear that an ordinance was being performed by one having priesthood authority, and that it must be done by immersion. So these are all the principles and practices and rites of passage that were associated with any person joining the church. The church talks again about the authority to baptize people, and they also say that it's a— by baptizing using the immersion method, that is symbolic of the death of a person's sinful life and the rebirth into a spiritual life dedicated to the service of God and his children. It's symbolic of death and resurrection. So it's very important to know and understand that baptism is seen as a gateway to the gospel of Jesus Christ, and it's also associated with repentance and the forgiveness of sins. So this raises a lot of questions about this individual, which I think is great that they've got baptized and extending all of the equal rights and opportunities to this individual and equally to any of the member. But the process to be baptized, as you well know, you know, serving on a bishopric, you have to interview the person. You have to find them worthy. There's the discussion around what baptism is. You know, we have these conversations with children, with youth, with adults who are getting baptized to explain what that is, meaning the importance of it, etc. We also teach that it's a gateway to the church. There's a talk by Elder Devin Cornish, and he talks about baptism being the gateway, and he quotes Nephi from the Book of Mormon, who says, "Wherefore do the things which I have told you, who I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do." So baptism is following the example of Christ, Jim Bennett. Very important that, to know that. "And for this cause has been shown unto me that ye might know the gate by which you should enter." But the gate by which you should enter is repentance and baptism by water. "And then cometh the remission of sins by fire and the gift of the Holy Ghost." So presumably that the, this decision to change one's gender is not a sin perhaps, or it was a sin. I don't know what the church's position on this, and through baptism, this person has been forgiven. I'm interested to know more about the interview process and if the church or the bishop identified the decision to change one's gender was a sin or not. And if so, does that mean they had to repent? And if it wasn't a sin, the baptism still is associated with repentance, but it means that the person has been found worthy of being baptized. You don't get baptized unless you're worthy. And then of course you get baptized and a week later you get the gift of the Holy Ghost. So, you know, you're entitled— that's important as well because equally for everyone in the church who joined the church through baptism by one having the right authority, the very sacred gift of the Holy Ghost is extended to that person that, you know, the hands are laid upon their head by one having the right authority. And the words that we use is receive the Holy Ghost, and we have the authority. And so presumably they're entitled to all of the spiritual gifts, all of the blessings, all of the rites of passage in regards to serving in the church, callings, taking the sacrament, passing the sacrament. If they're a, you know, transgender, you know, from male to female, female to male, it is female to male, then presumably they are a priesthood holder that they could— they become a deacon perhaps, or a teacher or a priest or an elder, Aaronic priesthood, Melchizedek priesthood. There's a whole process around that. They can serve callings. The bishop, when someone's baptized, James, you know, stands on the pulpit typically, doesn't always happen, but they say that we have interviewed so-and-so and they've been found worthy and they've been baptized. And also they put the name to the membership and they're sustained, not in a calling necessarily, although you can add a calling at that particular time, as you know, but they're basically, the names are put forward to the membership and is sustained as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the so-and-so ward in the so-and-so stake. And you've seen this many, many times, and their names are added. And this is taught in the Book of Mormon, added to the membership records. So they become a fully fledged member. They've repented, they've had faith in Christ, they've repented. You know, we all need to repent. You know, the Church teaches that. We get baptized, we receive the Holy Ghost. The gateway is important, Jim, because it's the first step in the ordinance process to go and perform other ordinances. In fact, there's an obligation, a sacred obligation on the individual that the first ordinance is just a— is an important step, a key step to other ordinances in the church, including priesthood ordinances, and also ordinances in the temple. Presumably, if you are worthy to get baptized, a year after you've been baptized and joined the church, I think this is the same policy, the policy has not changed. After a year of being active in the church, full-time prayer, serving the church, being devoted and committed, the individual who is interested in going to the temple, that those sacred blessings and ordinances would be available, just like it is to anyone else in the church, to a person getting baptized, transgender or not, who would essentially be able to go to the temple.

Well, I need to interrupt you here just a little bit, just because they— one of the conditions of this woman's baptism was that she will not be able to go to the temple. So, right, so the First Presidency has put a ceiling existing on how much she can progress within the church.

I'm glad you interrupted me because as I was going through the process with, you know, with that people go through when they join the church, which you're familiar with, you know, going to the temple, et cetera, et cetera. It's interesting now that you have interrupted me and rightly so and said that there is a stopgap or a limit, if you like, on how far a person can go in the church who have— who has changed their gender. Do we know anything behind that limit?

Well, so she is not the first transgender person to be baptized. I think she's now got the largest profile because this is happening in the midst of a number of things. That the church is doing that are making the people who hate the idea of LGBTQ inclusion, they're actually threatening to leave the church. This came to my attention when Jacob Hanson made a video, and John Delenn has done this big response to the video. I don't really want to play pieces of it other than to say when I had my debate with Jacob Hanson, He kept saying, you know, the church cannot change on this. The church will not change. There is no change. It cannot happen. And it's been bizarre to me to watch these guys talking about this because Jacob Hanson has now explicitly said that if the church were to— and he hasn't even given the the catalyst for what would be a bridge too far. But what he is saying is if the church continues to move in this direction and continues to be more inclusive to LGBTQ people, he's going to leave the church. He says, I won't be a member of the church at that point. And it's just so— it's so maddening to me that all of the people who get mad at me, when all I have said— I have never said the church is absolutely going to do gay sealings. I've never even said I want the church to do gay sealings. I've said we're moving towards greater inclusion, and I am confident that more and more greater inclusion will come. And just saying that is— I'm not the faithful member. You're terrible. You're awful. You don't believe in the family proclamation. You don't believe in the prophets and the seers and the revelators and all these And over and over and over again, just this sort of reflexive terror that the church is going to change. And I just think I posted on Twitter that most of the criticism of the church that we're hearing in recent days begins with the sentence, I'm not criticizing the church. These are people who say, well, I'm not criticizing the church, but the church is baptizing a transgender woman. I mean, Jacob Hanson just kept misgendering her, refused to call her a her, refused. You know, why is the church baptizing a man and letting her pretend to be a woman is what he continually says. And it's just repugnant. But these are the guys that insist they're the faithful members and the rest of us who are looking at the church as the church continues to change and continues to move towards greater inclusion. And they look at that and say they're the faithful ones who are threatening to leave if the church doesn't do what they want. And so that's the thing that I'm finding most interesting about this. But with regard to specifically the transgender woman, the church continues to excommunicate people who socially transition, not just medically transition, but they'll be willing to baptize a woman like this person. And I need to look up her name because we're talking about her, but I'm not sure what her name is. But the church is willing to baptize somebody who has transitioned prior to coming to the Church, but they put restrictions on their membership. They can't, you know, I don't think a transgender man, for instance, would be allowed to hold the priesthood. This woman, however, is being allowed to go to Relief Society. I think she is going to be allowed to have a calling, but she's not going to be allowed to go to the temple. But there are all kinds of ripples out there that show. For instance, Charlie Bird. Do you know who Charlie Bird is?

No.

Charlie Bird was Cosmo the Cougar. He was the mascot for the BYU football team. He'd run around in a cougar outfit and cheer everybody on. And then he came out in the Deseret News, a church-owned newspaper, as a gay man. And he's written books about his experience as a gay man in the church that have been published by Deseret Book. And then he has since married another man, and he and his husband are both active members of the Alpine Ward or in the Alpine Stake in Utah. And they both have callings. They're both— they're joint ward activities chairman. So here you have a same— so you're hearing sort of these onesie-twosie examples of the church allowing for things that the Jacob Hansons of the world insist the church will never change, will never allow. And yet slowly, quietly, the church is doing this. And they insist— and I think they have a point in this— that it contradicts some of the heated rhetoric we've heard, particularly from President Oaks, about the unchangeable nature of all of these things. I, you know, it The whole idea that anything in the church is unchangeable just because somebody says it is, is just laughably silly if you look at church history. I always bring back the quote from Brigham Young where Brigham Young said, shall I tell you the law of God when it comes to the African race? And the law of God is apparently that anybody that mixes their seed with the seed of con— of of Cain, I said, con, that's Star Trek talking. But if you mix your seed with the seed of Cain, then the law of God is death on the spot. And this will always be so. And I just hear all of these. This can never change. This will always be so. This will always this, this, this. I've said it before and it bears repeating. That is such a sign of weakness and not strength. That is a sign of terror, of fear, of panic. Jacob Hanson can see change is coming and is scared out of his mind. And, and he's threatening to leave the church. And I don't think you get credit for being a defender of the church when you are threatening to leave the church. That's the thing that is driving me nuts is the guys, you are not in anything that resembles a faithful position on any of these issues. So, yes, I mean, Aaron Sherinian is, is sort of been the catalyst for a lot of this. But Aaron Sherinian got everybody to start looking around and seeing, hey, wait a minute, you know what's happening on the ground in the church. Is a whole lot more inclusive than what we're hearing in General Conference. What's going on? And that's leading a lot of people to panic. And it's leading me to say, this is how the Lord works. This is what happens here. A little there, a little line upon line, precept on precept. This, this— the rising generation is a generation that didn't grow up with Boyd K. Packer and the miracle of forgiveness and the idea that, you know, you can, you can electroshock the gay away and all of the terrible things that the church has done incorrectly in addressing all of this. They're growing up in a world where gay marriage is the law of the land and civilization hasn't come crumbling down. And they're not willing to just sort of embrace the kind of exclusion that we just saw as the status quo for most of our lives. The status quo for them is a world full of inclusion, and they're bringing that to the church, and the church is slowly, painfully, haltingly, um, adjusting. As a result. So it's— I, I just think, I, I hear this kind of news and I'm just thrilled to my toes that, uh, that on the ground the church is, is doing what it can, um, to, to bring greater inclusion, and I just love it. So That'll— there's my rant.

All right, thank you for that. I, um, I, I, I regret to say, um, disappointingly, I used to think very similar, identical in some ways, to those leaders that would always come out and give this, you know, you're either this or that, the black and white, you know, and, and, and quote and, and think like this, not just quote but talk about using language, erect it around unchangeable. I took strength and comfort in that. I taught that extensively, and I, I regret that. Um, I regret some of the things that I believed actually when I was an active member in terms of lack of tolerance and understanding. My thoughts and feelings have changed in, in many areas quite significantly. Um, I think it's, you know, individuals who are claimed to be prophets, uh, who put themselves in that use that rhetoric, like language around changeability. And I was gonna be bloody, I think there's a lack of prophetic ability by making such statements. And also I would even go as far as to say it's quite stupid to come out in any situation, in any organization to say, look, we are not gonna change. If there's anything inevitable and guaranteed in life is that things change. It's just the way nature is, the universe is. It is just who we are as people. Things change. So to say that we don't change is, is a little bit, a little bit silly. Just going back to— and it's important, I think, we get this individual's name. We're talking about a person here. We want to be respectful and kind to this, to this individual. And so I'm a bit confused by some of this. First of all, I'm encouraged that this is this individual has got— been able to get baptized, and I'm sure it's been a very positive experience. There's a level of inclusion there, but it comes with certain constraints, certain conditions. You said earlier that if you go from female to male, that you're not allowed to become a priesthood holder. So there'll be some conversations of policy around that, which is interesting. But, you know, going from male to female, allowing to go to the meetings, you know, can they hold callings? Can they pray? Can they do everything everybody else can do in the church? And also you've said that there's a limit now on whether the person can go to the temple, which confuses me because if you're worthy to go to the, if you're worthy to be baptized, then you've received remission of sins, you've been baptized and you've received the gift of the Holy Ghost. You're worthy to pay tithing. I don't know if the person is paying tithing and you're worthy to serve in the church, your callings, pray, et cetera, et cetera. And then after a year, what's that? What's the difference between being worthy to be baptized and serving in the Church of Great Tithing and living faithfully devoted life in terms of worthiness, and then becoming worthy for a temple recommend? What's that? What is it from a worthiness perspective? What's that gap?

I—

my understanding is that there is no gap. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever why this— any individual cannot go forward because we said earlier, baptism is the gateway and it's the first ordinance. It is an obligation in the baptism and the, and the covenant to go forward and receive all that the Lord has bestowed upon those who are worthy, upon, upon the certain, including all the ordinances and all the covenants. And therefore, and, and by not opening those opportunities, allowing those individuals to, um, go and receive their endowment and be sealed in the temple and washings and anointings, they're essentially being held back. They're not able to progress. The baptism is for exaltation. It's very clear. It's on the church website. It's in the Doctrine and Covenants. It's a pathway to exaltation. And exaltation is being with God physically and with Christ in the highest level of the celestial kingdom. That's what we teach. And so you can't get there, you can't get to that level to be with your family forever, be with God in Christ through the gateway of baptism if you don't have the sacred ordinances in the temple. And so I'm quite puzzled, quite confused why the church decided to kind of put a ceiling, a limit, uh, on, on, uh, for this individual. And they're not able to, I, I just don't understand why you're worthy to get baptized and do all these things and then not worthy to go to the temple. I can see the issue with it. And by the way, we both know that the church has lost on this. It's gonna win if it changes, it's gonna win. But there's a winning element if it continues to go down this strategic path, albeit quietly. And the church can't do anything quietly. Eventually things get out. You should know that by now. But it will lose the traditional older perhaps generations who are unchanging. Again, using that language, unbending, unchanging, unyielding in regards to the doctrine. And so the church will win in some respect, lose in others. And again, if it does go in this— well, it has gone in this direction, it's taken that step. It can't reverse it. It would be disastrous. It's caught between a rock and a hard place. It stopped at the temple. It needs to continue. It will have serious implications., and, and it will open up, you know, whole conversation around policy changes, etc. And God's changed his position on this. And you're now able to go to the, you know, God's clearly changed position on transgender people getting baptized. So there must have been some revelation received by the prophet. You know, you said he went to the First Presidency. They'll have gone to the Lord. Of course, some associate living, they'll have knelt. In the Holy of Holies or wherever, and they'll receive the revelation. And the Lord surely must have revealed to the Prophet, who is the mouthpiece on the earth, that yes, this individual, you know, transgender, you know, going from male to female, you know, can be baptized. I don't know, I don't think the Lord in those experiences would be so prescriptive, right? And so saying, look, only a male to female can get baptized and they can do this, this, and this specifically. And you gotta, for now at least until we have our own council meeting, this person can't be, you know, can't go to the temple to receive the ordinances. I don't think it works like that. That's, you know, if it does, I'd be something that, something that I don't understand. But I don't think the Lord is that prescriptive. I think the Lord wants everybody to come unto him. Everybody, you know, we said last week, God loveth all. Thank you.

Right.

So a whole bunch of questions.

I have found her name.

Okay, good. Thank you.

Lauren Harrigan.

Lauren. Lauren Harrigan.

Yes.

Okay, Lauren, respect to you, Lauren.

Yeah. So, no, everything you're saying is absolutely right. And this is the challenge that the church has. Because, and we've talked about this before with regard to President Oaks, you know, President Oaks continually hammers home, uh, he continually returns to the family proclamation as the justification for denying, uh, greater inclusion for LGBTQ people, and he continually comes back to different arguments You know, the argument initially was, okay, well, the reason why we can't be this inclusive is because the two great commandments are love God and love your neighbor. And if we are inclusive to transgender people, yes, that's loving your transgender neighbors, but it's not loving God. Talks about the tension between law and love. Well, that sort of fell flat. I mean, nobody was buying it, including President Oaks. President Oaks has since said that that was, you know, maybe we shouldn't be thinking of it that way. We should be thinking of living both commandments more fully, which is the way everybody thinks of those commandments. Those commandments are the same commandment. We show our love for God by loving our neighbor. Trying to carve out some tension between the two completely misses the point of what Christ was trying to say. So President Oaks has moved away from that and then gave another talk where he didn't mention that tension and instead focused on the idea that, well, okay, yeah, we can accept transgender people and we can accept gay people. Just accept the fact that they're just not going to the highest level of heaven. They're going to go to the lower levels of heaven. And those levels aren't that bad. In fact, they're really quite good. And, you know, you listen to that and I'm thinking, who on earth is he convincing? Because I don't see anybody going, oh, well, well, that's good news. So I get to be terrestrial, I get to be terrestrial, but that's still great. You know, so, so you can see President Oaks, for whatever you may think of him, President Oaks is an extraordinarily bright man. And you can, if you watch him closely, you can see him wrestling with these issues in ways that defy the caricatures that both sides place on it, right? The, the, the, uh, the progressives will look at President Oaks and say, oh, well, he's just a bigot and he's just, you know, he's just all of these things and he doesn't even think about any of this. And all he wants to do is hate on gay people. Whereas the conservatives will look at him and go, right on, he's telling everybody up yours. And, you know, he's not doing either of those things. And he's carved out a middle position or is trying to carve out a middle position on a number of different issues. I remember how people lost their minds when he gave a talk that said Black Lives Matter, insisted that that was an eternal principle, that Black lives matter. And the Desnats looked at that and said, well, he didn't really mean that. What he means is— what he meant was all lives matter. No, listen to the talk. What he actually said was very thoughtful and defies the kind of conservative stuff. He's the one who said We shouldn't vote straight party. And the Desnats are losing their minds over that and just sort of dismissing the parts of what he says that they don't like. So, I mean, I mean, that's all sort of background to say that the church is ground. I mean, you say the church has lost on this. You're absolutely right. The church has lost on this in every possible way it is to lose. We have lost legally. We have lost, you know, the polls of church members show that a majority of church members support legal gay marriage. You know, so we are losing hearts and minds of the church. The church has lost on this issue. The church has endorsed the Respect for Marriage Act, which legalizes gay marriage throughout the United States. Which is something that would have been unthinkable as recently as 2008 when the church was backing Proposition 8. And so what you are seeing is the church trying to find a middle ground, trying to find something that will satisfy both sides enough that nobody's going to be too upset. Jacob Hanson won't run off and leave the church. But we have to accept the fact that gay marriage is now a civil right and it's the law of the land. So how do we do that? And so what you're seeing with President Oaks is an attempt to navigate this ever-shrinking space. And I think back to the Book of James after, you know, Joseph Smith reads, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering, for a double-minded man," is unstable in all his ways. We never quite get to that when we're quoting the—

I know that verse. I know it. Yes.

Yeah. And I think the church is double-minded here. The church is double-minded in the sense that we, in the days of Spencer Kimball, when being gay was a choice and the people who chose it were evil, and if they would just repent and be righteous, and maybe marry somebody of the opposite sex, then, then we won't have any problem. As awful as that is, it has the virtue of being logically consistent with itself. If you choose to be gay and being gay is against the law of God, then the church is justified in withholding its blessings from you. However, we no longer teach that. We have changed. Folks who say change can never happen, we have changed. We do not believe that being gay or being transgender is something that you choose, uh, and we do not believe that sufficient righteousness makes it go away. Okay, well, so then what is the logical conclusion with that? If you don't choose to be gay, if you can't stop being gay by praying a lot and being righteous, then what is the logical conclusion? Well, the logical conclusion is we accept you for who you are, and the church isn't willing to do that. So the church is trying to have it both ways and straddle that line. Okay, yes, you can be gay, but you can't act on it, which is ridiculous. I mean, I, I act on being Being gay isn't just about the act of sex. It's, it's part— your sexuality is part of your entire identity. And, you know, when I hold hands with my wife in church, I'm expressing my sexuality in ways that nobody would find offensive. If a gay couple were to hold hands in church, a whole bunch of people are going to freak out. And they're not having sex, you know, they're not doing anything wicked. But, you know, so, so the church is trying to navigate this because we have already conceded the basic premise that being gay is not a choice and that it doesn't change. So we're trying very, very, very, very hard to say, oh yes, you didn't choose it, but we're still going to punish you for that which you didn't choose to be. And that, that can't last. That can't last. Jacob Hanson is right that it can't last. So what has to happen is one or the other. We have to go full inclusion or we have to go full Spencer W. Kimball. We have to go back in time. We have to reverse all of this and we have to say, nope, we were right the first time. People choose to be gay. They're wicked because they're gay. Boyd Packer had it right with his little factory talk. And it's okay to beat up your gay missionary companion, which is something he advocated in that talk. You know, so I don't think we're— the church is scared to death of what it means if we go forward. Do you think that's an accurate assessment of what's going on here? I do.

I think that's really well articulated. We know that transgender rights are human rights. We know that transgender rights are civil rights and we know that those rights are enshrined in law in Utah and at certain states in the US, UK, Canada, and a few of the places, not many, but a few of the places we know that, and we know that these individuals' rights are protected under law. And so I think you're right. I think the church is trying to be strategic. I've used that word a few times and position itself or reposition itself on something that it knows and accepted. And I think this acknowledgement has already happened quite some time ago that brethren, we've lost the case, the argument against gays and against transgender. These are, you know, these are civil rights now and we need to figure out how do we reposition and position ourselves as a church. So by doing these pilot or trial, forgive me for sounding a little bit, um, uh, clinical on this, but, uh, in regards to testing the reaction of the church, the church has done that before. Inoculates people, uh, when it introduces doctrines into, like, the essay material, into the seminary material, into youth material. We know that. We, we know that the term that they use is inoculation to, um, the test and try out. It'll, you know, it just trials and tests on doctrine and bringing it into seminary, bringing it, you know, doc new doctrines like to the priesthood and the stone in the heart and all this stuff into lessons and it tries to inoculate and I believe it's doing that. And I think that's it. I think that's good. I think it should be applauded, uh, you know, for doing that. I, I don't think it's enough. I think it should go, uh, you know, the, uh, faster, uh, be more progressive. But you know, the church doesn't do it like that. It does it in incremental change and improvements. I, I don't think it's gonna go back to the little factory dark ages. Uh, I don't believe that for one second.. And I have full confidence, especially from hearing about something that I had no knowledge of, frankly, and I suspect a lot of people in the church had no knowledge that somebody— and again, please, the name of the individual—

Lauren, it's her first name.

Lauren. Lauren has taken this amazing step to decide to be baptized. And I think that's incredible. And it's now out there for people to know about, and I suspect many members are not aware of this, and they're going to react in different ways. But I believe wholeheartedly that the Church will go forward, will be more inclusive, and eventually everybody, regardless of their sexuality, will be allowed or enabled to participate and contribute, you know, and be involved in and receive any and all of the ordinances and covenants in the church, including and not limited to baptism and the Holy Ghost and callings and priesthood, but also in the temple. And this is going to happen. And this is going to happen in the next— I'll make a prediction here. I'll try to be a prophet here. I think it's going to happen in the next 5 to 10 years that someone is going to be sealed in the temple who is transgender. And I I think that's, uh, I think that's great. The church is struggling with this. How does it, how does it hang on to that base? You know, money's involved, let's face it. Tithe payers, traditional rank-and-file members, they've grown up with that thinking, you know, that you described earlier. They've also grown up, uh, Jim Bennett, with repeated statements, doctrine, teachings that, um, not only does God not change, but our laws are not man's laws. Our laws are higher laws. We know more, we know better. We have a prophet. We have most, if not all of the answers. These are how many times even in the past, the history of the church. Well, you know, like polygamy, uh, it's a higher law, right? So polygamy is living a higher law because we are God's chosen people. We are the church of Mother Teresa. We are the covenant people. No one else is. And therefore God requires a higher standard and we are living above and beyond the standards and the laws of telestial, and that's what it is really, telestial laws. Because this world, according to the temple, is the telestial world. It's taught in the temple very clearly. And we're living telestial laws as a church members. And the brethren will teach that we're living a celestial law. Ours is the higher law. And so, and so, you know, that we've, we've been taught many, many times that not directly recently where we need to look the other way in regards to the celestial laws, but, you know, we've been taught that, you know, God's ways are his ways and man's ways are his ways, et cetera. And we are living, we are living God's ways and we have a higher law, therefore you're justified to, to think like that. But I think that's going to change. So, if the Prophet received the revelation for Lauren again, sorry, forgive me, Lauren. How do you mean? To keep her baptized, then God has revealed his position, his will in regards to this very important development. The other question I've got is how does this impact, if anything, the proclamation to the world? You know, it's very clear that we're born male and female. You know, we're either male or female. There's nothing in between. Very clear. The previous doctrine and talks and very strong rhetoric from previous apostles and prophets have made it very, very clear. You're male or female, will never change. We're made in the image of God. President Elder Packer said, God doesn't make gay or transgender people. Why would he do that? And so what impact, if any, does this very important development have in respect to the proclamation to the world? Are transgender people made in the image of God? Are transgender people now protected? And, you know, President Benson talks about there is safety and protection in the gospel. And so are transgender individuals in this conversation now protected under those sacred covenants? And are they now protected under the proclamation of the family? Because the whole family dynamics, as you know, has changed significantly over the last 30, 40 years. Are those people now afforded those blessings? Do they feel part of that proclamation that Yes, I'm transgender, but that proclamation now applies to me. I feel I've arrived, I belong, I'm accepted. And that proclamation, which is a very significant milestone in the church revelation, is now— I imagine it'd be like the Blacks receiving the priesthood where after 150 years or so, finally, finally, Black members of the church can receive the sacred ordinances and covenants of baptism, priesthood, go to the temple, and they now feel accepted, included, and equal to every other member of the church. Why is this different? Because the Black members went to the temple. So to summarize this part, I think it's a really important step, a very significant development. Does the proclamation apply? And what's that difference between worthy, being worthy to get baptized, but not quite worthy to go to the temple? Could you talk to that? Sure.

Well, I, I want to go back to the proclamation because a lot of transgender people embraced the language in the proclamation that refers to transgender people. It actually doesn't explicitly say it's referring to transgender people. All it says is gender is an essential of our eternal identity and purpose. And a lot of transgender people embrace that language and said, "Yes, my gender is eternal, and it is my eternal gender that I'm trying to express with my mortal gender." And that was happening so much that President Oaks had to come out and say, "No, no, no, no, no, that's not what we meant. What we meant was—" the gender with which you were born, and that's eternal and you're not allowed to change it. And I thought, you know, it's interesting that you have to clarify that, President Oaks, because that's not what the document says. If you take the, the actual words of the proclamation, uh, the, the specific words, it can be interpreted far more inclusively. Than we are currently interpreting it. And the thing that prevents us from doing that is everybody saying, no, no, no, no, no, no, we know what they meant. And I know exactly what they meant. I know that that was written as part of an amicus brief to prevent gay marriage from becoming legal in Hawaii in 1995. The landscape has changed. It is now legal in Hawaii as well as every other state, as well as most of the of the developed world, uh, everywhere the church is. So the landscape has changed drastically, but the language of the proclamation, uh, if you take the proclamation at face value, it does not present the kind of obstacle that a lot of these people frankly want it to present. They brandish the proclamation as a weapon a weapon against greater inclusion, a weapon against, you know, allowing a transgender person to go to the temple. Proclamation says you can't do that. No, it doesn't. It doesn't. It may have been written because they wanted it to do that. But if you read the words of the proclamation, it does not say that. So, you know, you— what you are asking for, Ian, is doctrinal consistency. You're asking, okay, you're doing this, church, so doesn't that mean you have to do this? If this person is worthy to be baptized and their sins are forgiven, aren't they worthy to go to the temple? And it's an entirely appropriate thing to ask. It's an entirely difficult, problematic thing for the church to deliver. Until it resolves the tension between its new position with regard to understanding that people don't choose to be gay and people don't choose to be transgender, reconciling that position with the ongoing exclusion that was unquestioned in the church for most of its history. You know, it didn't occur— when you and I were missionaries 1980s. It didn't occur to us, and I don't think it occurred to most of the people on whose doors we were knocking, that gay marriage could possibly happen, let alone be a good idea. You know, in the 1980s, the idea of gay marriage was such a fringe idea that, that it just— we all know that it's not okay to be gay. We just— the world knew that. You know, the world has changed and the church has changed to a degree and is now trying to see, are we going to go where logically these changes should retreat? Are we going to retrench? And you're actually seeing both at the same time. You know, um, I don't want to name names here, but, uh, We have a friend, a mutual friend who teaches at BYU, who has talked to me about the difficulties and what's happening in church universities. You have a guy at the head of the church educational system who is retrenching all over the place at BYU. BYU is doing it. So in order to teach at BYU, it used to be that you had to sign the honor code, and then they changed it to, no, you have to have a temple recommend too. And then they changed it to, you have to answer questions saying, do you affirm the church's teachings on the family? Specifically, are, you know, are you sufficiently exclusive of LGBTQ people for BYU's liking? And so BYU is absolutely retrenching. Then you have Aaron Serenian. Then you have Lauren Day at Deseret Book that has diversity, equity, and inclusion seminars with her employees. Then you have, you know, so you're seeing sort of the church, you're seeing both of them. They're trying to go both ways. And, and it's, it's going to have to resolve itself one way or the other. And I'm hopeful that it's gonna resolve itself in a consistent way on the side of inclusion and not exclusion.

I concur. I'm encouraged by this. And we've talked a bit about the Proclamation of the Family, and I just wanna, there's a couple paragraphs there, 'cause I think this is really important that we include this in this podcast, 'cause we've made reference to it. Again, you can find this on the church's website, written Revelation to the First Presidency. In the second paragraph, it says that all, all humans, male and female, are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents. And as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic, characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity. And purpose. And so for a transgender person, and I can't speak in details about this because I don't fully understand, I think speaking to somebody who has gone through that process, who does identify— it was a male or identifies as a female— I think only those individuals really know, understand, you know, how they think and feel. I can't speak to that.. But if it's, if they feel that the male and the female are their spirits, female. And if the church accepts somebody through the gateway baptism, so there's a physical ordinance there, Jim, as you know, there's also a spiritual covenant. So there's a physical and a spiritual component to getting baptized. And we know that. And does that mean that the individual spirit, the person has been accepted in full fellowship, which, yes, if we're going to be consistent with the doctrine, then, then the answer is yes. But does it also mean that that individual is actually, as they feel, female? Are they a female spirit, essentially, in a male body? And I don't know if that question's ever been asked on a podcast. It may have been. I don't think we've ever asked that question. I think that's one of the key questions worth thinking about. So if they're, if they're, you know, have a male body, and from conversations I've had with friends of mine who feel female inside, trapped is the word used, in a male body, are they a female spirit? And so my question is, does that Will the proclamation on the family change? Will it be modified? Does it need to be changed? You know, you've said earlier that members reading this can get different interpretations of what the proclamation on the family is. They arrive at different understanding, different interpretation. Does the church need to come out and clarify now what its position is in regards to transgender and spirits who are transgender individuals and transgender spirits? Is there any clarity needed for that? And I suspect there might well be. That might come in the form of a policy. I don't think they're going to change the— what could be argued as a canon-type revelation here. I don't think they're going to change that. It'd be like changing scripture almost. But does it mean they come out with a policy? This information is now out there. People are talking about it. We're talking about it, which is great. We're bringing this bringing awareness on this. Does it mean the church is going to develop a policy, uh, in regards to transgender individuals getting baptized? I, I suspect it will. So I, I see this as a very important, significant, positive development. There's still a long way to go, of course, but I don't think it's going to go back, um, regress. Um, even though those things are happening at BYU and it's going to be happening elsewhere, I do think overall the church mostly is going to go forward and, excuse me, address these issues and be progressive. And I suspect this development is going to— now it's out there— is going to hopefully potentially accelerate— advance certainly, but potentially accelerate churches a direction that I think it knows it has to go in. The question I think the church is, how fast? How does it pace itself in terms of these changes?

Well, the church doesn't do anything quickly. Uh, maybe it did in the days of Joseph Smith. As time has accreted, uh, church practice and church doctrine and church teachings, it becomes harder and harder to turn the ship quickly. And so this isn't going to happen overnight. It hasn't happened overnight, although the changes with regard to LGBTQ issues have happened more quickly than anything else in my lifetime. You know, it took 125 years for the church to finally recognize it was racist, but it's now You know, it's been maybe 15 years since the Church moved from Proposition 8 to where we are now. So, I think this is certainly not going to take the 125 years that it took the Church to reverse course with regard to denying priesthood blessings and temple blessings to people of African descent. But you ask, is the proclamation on the family going to have to change? And that's a really interesting question only because the proclamation on the family's outsized influence on the debate is really strange given the proclamation's official status. Proclamation is not part of our standard works. It has never been presented to the church by common consent and adopted as a proclamation. It is— or as scripture. You know, when you talk about it as revelation, um, you are— there's no indication, uh, officially that we have accepted it as revelation, and there is a great deal of indication that we have not. Most specifically, Boyd K. Packer's 2010 talk. It's the same talk where he said, why would Heavenly Father do that to anyone, with regard to gay people. He also said the proclamation on the family qualifies according to the definition as a revelation, and the First Presidency made him remove that when he was president of the Quorum of the Twelve. You don't publicly and embarrassingly correct the president of the Quorum of the Twelve lightly. That was problematic enough— calling the proclamation revelation was problematic enough for the First Presidency to intercede and change that. So the status of the proclamation comes largely from its usefulness as a bludgeon for those who are trying to deny inclusivity every chance they get. Because the, you know, there was a proclamation issued in 2020 where it's called the Restoration Proclamation. And unlike the Proclamation on the Family, we were— we adopted it with the Hosanna shout. In the middle of COVID we all took out our handkerchiefs and said, yes, we love this proclamation. It still wasn't sort of sustained as a revelation, but there was a great deal of ceremony that we treated it as if it was significant as a new temple. And that proclamation has been almost entirely forgotten. Nobody remembers it. You know, when I bring it up, sometimes if I'm being obnoxious on Twitter, they'll say, well, how do you feel about the proclamation? And I said, yo, you mean the Restoration Proclamation? What? No, no, I mean the Proclamation of the Family, of course. Like, well, yeah, of course, because church proclamations historically haven't carried any weight at all. There are 5 that preceded the Proclamation of the Family— is the 5th— but the ones that preceded it, I mean, one of them was a proclamation that all copies of Orson Pratt's book need to be burned. We don't ever talk about that one. Because it's useless. It's not doctrine. It's not revelation. It was a proclamation for its time that was kind of obnoxious, and it's been quietly forgotten. So the only thing about, oh, does this interfere with the proclamation? I mean, I had one guy today on Twitter, uh, what I posted, the sentence was, you either believe in continuing revelation or you believe doctrine can't change. You can't believe both at the same time. And he responded was, well, you either believe that the Family Proclamation is the only way to heaven or you don't. You can't believe both at the same time. And I went, geez, I always believed Jesus Christ was the only way to heaven. Family Proclamation doesn't figure into that journey at all. And you, you have a number of people that have made this the Family Proclamation an idol. You know, it is in violation of the first commandment of the Ten Commandments. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. The family proclamation is more important to many members of the church than the gospel of Jesus Christ, than the atonement of Jesus Christ. The most important central figure of the gospel of Jesus Christ that will save me is the family proclamation. I mean, that's just garbage. That's just nonsense. And, and the church has a real problem because in times past, I think that that has been sort of helpful. To them when they thought that this was still a fight they could win. It is now a fight they have lost. And it feels like these guys brandishing the proclamation are like the Japanese on tiny islands after World War II who insisted the war was still going on. You know, that went on for decades. And so you— we've got a real challenge here because the church has to make a decision one way or the other. And the church is trying to straddle a line and is a double-minded man that is unstable in all his ways. So, you know, but the idea that, oh geez, well, we can't do this because the proclamation says we can't, that's just such an extraordinarily weak position. I agree.

I don't know many people that hold such a strong view on the proclamation. Notwithstanding, many people that I, including myself, and I'd say many of the members that I worked with and served with, do hold, don't remember, let me go back, remember the proclamation of the Pamlik because of its, how it was introduced and significance, frequent referencing, and has become one of the most significant, memorable, and serious proclamations compared to the other ones And I'm sure many of those that we've never even heard of, but we make reference to it for a reason. Yes, you're right. It's not in the standard works, it's not in the canon of scripture, but it is very significant. And there's frequent references to it by the apostles and the prophets over the years. And it is seen, at least by me, and I'm certainly not alone. There's been, okay, it's been revelation. Absolutely. And I don't think I speak just for myself on that. Yes, it's not scripture, but it's close, or it's not far away from being something that is quite scriptorial because of its significance and the whole context behind it and the frequent references. And we remember it because we are taught to remember it. We, we have it on our walls, for goodness sake, in our home. We were taught to do that. We were asked to do that, encouraged to do that. I did it. I don't have that on my wall anymore, but, you know, as a bishop, I said, um, this is something you should have on your wall. You don't have other proclamations on the wall, uh, but you have that. So it's important to know and understand that there's a lot of significance attached to the proclamation. Do the— does, uh, transgender individual being baptized, does it change that? I have no idea. I suspect it's not gonna change. I'm not gonna change the wording, but they'll, let's say the puzzle will come out and there'll be some information that they'll have to come out with. Because if this, if people get to know about this and it happens more and more, questions are gonna be asked. Bishops are gonna ask questions. State presidents are gonna hear. There's state presidents and bishops out there that have no idea this is happening. They'll be talking to members. You said, you know, we share a relationship with somebody at BYU, and BYU is comprised of all kinds of people, of all backgrounds, all experiences. And so is the membership of the church, cross-section of society dealing with, you know, people living and thinking and feeling all types of experiences that everyone else is in the world mostly. And the bishops and state prince will be having those conversations with youth who maybe have questions about their own sexuality, or an adult. And, you know, what's the support that bishops get and the state prince get for a transgender individual wanting to get baptized? If they don't know about this, um, what are they teaching right now? What's their position right now? I suspect it's the default position of the church that no transgender— if you're going to become, you know, a trans transition to a male or female, then you'll be excommunicated. We'll hold a court for you. Or if you are a non-member, no, you're not worthy to get baptized. So where's the church in teaching it and training its leaders? Where's the policy? Where's the leadership on this? There are a lot of people going through a lot of personal pain and anxiety on this, Jim, in terms of their sexuality. They want to be included, they want to feel included, they want the proclamation on the family, for example, to include them because they're home, they've arrived, you know, welcome home, we accept you, we love you for who you are and what you are. You know, where is that consistency to your point? And other bishops and stake presidents, have they got a memo from the Area Authority Seventy and the General Authorities that, look, This is happening. We're trialing and testing it. Someone's getting— someone's been baptized, some folks have been baptized, etc. This is what we're thinking. This is the direction that we're going in. And by the way, we provide training and support to bishops and stake presidents who are dealing with very important, very significant feelings and thoughts of these individuals who want to transition to male or female. Where is that? Is that happening? Is it out there? Is anyone out there that knows that there's memos happening or some directions, some training? You know, I'd be fascinated to get any feedback in regards to what bishops and state presidents are receiving in regards to transgender-related issues.

Well, I mean, there is the handbook of instructions which says, for instance, if you're transgender, you can have your preferred name and pronouns used in the ward. Which I think is significant. But I don't think the kind of training you're talking about is there yet. I think the church is still stumbling in the dark, and I think we're going to get there, but it's going to take a little while. So anyway, uh, with that said, I think we will be continuing to talk about these issues, I'm sure. But, uh, I think we've reached the end of the hour. And so if you're listening to this, please subscribe, and we look forward to seeing you next time on Inside Out. Thank you very much, Ian.

Thank you, Jim Bennett.