Unity in an Imperfect Church

Hello and welcome to another edition of Inside Out. I'm Jim Bennett and I'm here as always with Ian Wilkes. Hello, Ian.

Hello there.

How are you, sir?

I'm doing fine. How are you?

I'm doing well. So the way we're recording these, uh, is that we're recording a whole bunch of them before we actually release, and I think by the time this is released the heat around this subject will probably have dissipated somewhat. But I wanted to talk today about Elder Kevin Hamilton's speech at BYU, where he talked about— well, let me just put it in Elder Hamilton's words here. I'm going to play this here quickly.

As I visit with members across the Church, I sometimes hear things like I don't support the Church's policy on, and then you fill in the blank. Or I don't agree with the way the Church does this or that. Could I suggest an alternative approach? Substitute the word Savior or Lord or Jesus Christ in place of the Church, as in I don't support the Savior's policy on 'You fill in the blank,' or 'I don't agree with the way Jesus Christ does this or that.' What do you think of that alternative approach, Ian?

I'm, uh, disturbed by it. It makes me feel uncomfortable. I think intellectually, spiritually, I think it's dangerous. If we substitute Jesus Christ for the church, we're saying or agreeing that everything that the church does and says and thinks, doctrine and policy, is the same, exactly the same, that Jesus Christ would do and would agree with. And I'm very, very uncomfortable with that. We're saying that everything the church does, the leaders do, is perfect because we say Jesus Christ is perfect. The Savior says that, you know, be ye therefore perfect even as I am and even as the Father is in heaven. And I think when you have a perfect being— and there's a whole conversation about whether or not Christ was perfect or not— but if we assume that Christ was perfect, by substituting the word Jesus or Jesus Christ for the church, we're saying that we accept that the church is perfect. And if we understand what perfection means and the standard, uh, and, and the principle perfection, the church frankly falls well short of perfection. The leaders are not perfect. The leaders themselves have said they're not perfect. The church isn't perfect. The church has made mistakes. Leaders have made mistakes. If we're saying that everything that the church does and says is perfect as Christ is perfect, then I think that's extremely dangerous, and you're getting into thought control, groupthink. It's very dangerous where people think and feel are told to think and feel and told to respond in a certain way and accept things in a certain way. And you're getting into communism, you're getting into the thought control, you're getting into, um, a form of brainwashing really, where you have to think and feel and a certain way and substitute— told to substitute certain words, and your freedom of thinking and expression and thought is somewhat diminished. So I think it's a very dangerous— I heard the talk, I listened to it, I made some notes on it, and it made me feel very uncomfortable. And I think it's quite a reckless talk, frankly.

Well, you know, as you're talking about it that way and putting it and framing it in terms of groupthink, you're absolutely right that it feeds into what I have said repeatedly is the biggest problem of the church, which is this idea of infallibility. If the church is the Savior, I worship the Savior. Am I supposed to worship the church? I don't worship the church. Am I supposed to worship Russell Nelson? I don't worship Russell Nelson. I sustain him, I recognize his authority, but I don't worship him. And there should be a very clear line. One of the biggest criticisms that I encountered when I was a missionary, and that I've encountered since, is you Mormons worship Joseph Smith. And we always say, no, no, no, no, we don't worship Joseph Smith. Well, in saying that the Savior is the church and they're interchangeable, well, if Joseph Smith is the first president of the church, then yes, we worship Joseph Smith. We worship Russell Nelson because Russell Nelson is the head of the church on earth. It's, it's dangerous, it's frustrating, but it's interesting. I've got another clip here because he talks about— he recognizes the infallibility issue and he frames it this way.

Occasionally I have heard people say that those who serve in the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve are only human and are capable of making mistakes. While it is true that we are all fallible human beings, the safety net for all of us is the council system that we use at every level of the Church. Decisions in the Lord's Church always require a unanimous council. When the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve speak in unity, they speak on behalf of the Lord Jesus Christ.

So there you go. So he gets around it by saying, okay, yeah, one person is fallible, but when they speak in unity, when all 15 of them get together, they represent the Lord Jesus Christ, which in and of itself are kind— that's kind of a weasel wording of saying something, because I believe they represent the Lord Jesus Christ even when they're not in unity. But representing someone and being as perfect and exactly like someone are two very different things, and he's conflating both of them there and hoping that nobody notices. But it's really interesting to me. I, I, I wanna— I wanna take this in a different direction because I think a lot of people have talked about some of the problematic issues of this talk, but I want to frame it a little bit differently because I've got a little more insight— well, that sounds very arrogant, but I've got some info here on a subject that I think a lot of church members don't know a whole lot about, and that's the unity or lack thereof among the members of the Q15. You talked about the fact that Elder Bednar at one point said, oh yeah, we have robust discussions behind the scenes, but when we come out publicly, we're united. And I think it's, it's very interesting to dive deeper into that and discover that the unity that we think is there may not be as as placid and pleasant as we are led to believe. And the example I want to use here— do you remember the 2010 talk? I'm sure you do— that Boyd K. Packer gave? It was called Cleansing the Inner Vessel, and it attracted a whole lot of attention because in the course of the talk, Boyd K. Packer insisted that homosexuality is not You are not born homosexual. And he asked the question, why would Heavenly Father do that to anyone? And it, it generated so much controversy that the printed version took that sentence out and changed the idea that you are born with tendencies to the idea that you are born with temptations, and softened the language and brought it back down into something that wasn't nearly as heated. You recall that talk, I'm assuming?

I do, yes.

Well, many people, they focused on the fact that that wording was changed, and it was, but there was another segment of the talk that was changed, and that didn't get nearly as much attention. Early on in the talk, Elder Packer mentioned the proclamation on the family. And the Proclamation on the Family has become a flashpoint as people use it as a cudgel against anybody who wants to see greater inclusion of LGBTQ people in the church. I think the Proclamation on the Family, actually what it actually says, is open to far more inclusive interpretations than we apply to it, but I think that's a separate podcast. But anyway, there's a lot of heated discussion among members of the church and online and in social media about whether or not the proclamation on the family is scripture or is revelation, whether it's just a statement of policy that can change, or whether it is scripture and revelation that ought to be included in the standard works. And, you know, I've had conversations with people who say, well, not— it's not only scripture, it's super scripture. How many other verses of scripture do you have framed and posted in chapels or in people's homes, the way people frame and post the Proclamation of the Family on their homes, in their homes? And it is clearly the centerpiece of a lot of people's faith. So why hasn't it been canonized and put into the Doctrine and Covenants as Official Declaration 3? We canonized the revelation on the priesthood. We've canonized the manifesto. Why don't we canonize this? And Elder Packer's talk gives us some insight into that. So I'm going to play this segment, and I want to get your reaction to it, because this audio is what he actually said, but it is not what is in the written transcript of the talk. Here it is.

15 years ago, with the world in turmoil, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued the family proclamation to the world, the fifth proclamation in the history of the Church. It qualifies according to definition as a revelation, and it would do well that the members of the Church to read and follow.

It qualifies according to the definition as a revelation, and it would do well— I mean, his exact wording there, did you notice anything strange about that?

That it is— well, what you said, he qualifies as revelation, that the members would do well to, to read and to follow that.

Except for he doesn't say that. He said— listen again—

and, uh, it would do well that the members of the church to read and follow.

And, uh, it would do well that the members of the church to read and follow. That isn't a sentence that makes grammatical sense, which doesn't make any sense if he's reading it off a teleprompter. And I had a conversation with Greg Prince, who is a Mormon scholar. He wrote David O. McKay and the Rise of Rotten Mormonism. And he pointed out and said, that's not Boyd Packer. Boyd Packer would rehearse his talks for hours on end. And for him to get up there and fumble through something, you hear an, uh, in the middle, he stutters and stammers and stops. And then he issues a sentence that doesn't make any grammatical sense. The indication is that wasn't on the teleprompter. He's making that up on the fly. And that comes out of the printed version. Now, when Elder Packer gave that talk, he was the president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Who has the authority to tell the president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to change his talk after the fact in a very embarrassing public way? And the only answer to that is the First Presidency. And what's so very clear here is that Elder Packer wants to canonize the, the Proclamation on the Family, wants the membership to think it's a revelation, and the First Presidency wasn't willing to do that. And I believe firmly that the reason the, the Proclamation on the Family has not been canonized, is not part of our scriptures officially, is because there is division among the councils, highest council of the church, and the Quorum of the Twelve, the Q15, as to whether or not it qualifies as revelation. And we're not going to see it, uh, canonized unless people on one side or the other, uh, either change their mind or die. Is that how you see this, or, or do you see that there's a Am I being too conspiratorial?

No, no, no. I think behind the scenes, I think there are heated arguments, and there are entrenched positions—political, doctrinal, policy—and this is one of them. This is very, very controversial. I've learned working with the General Authorities, including Elder Oaks, that Elder Oaks was the junior companion to Elder Packer. I don't know if you're aware of that. Elder Packer trained Elder Oaks personally. Um, I remember having this conversation with Elder Cook, or having something along this conversation with Cook.

Every time you say Elder Cook, I think of Quentin Cook in the Quorum of the Twelve. You're talking about a Seventy.

I am, yes. Yeah, I gave you the name. Is it Dean Cook? I think it is. Yeah, Dean Cook. You got a great— it's not—

I, I just don't want anybody to jump in here and think you're talking about the member of the— or the—

no, no, no, no, this is a member of the Seventy. Uh, I think his first name is Dean. Uh, he was presented as the junior companion to Elder Oaks. And we had an interesting conversation about that, about how that works. And so, um, I think Elder Oaks privately has said that this, uh, his position that this proclamation which I'm looking at right now should be part of the Doctrine and Covenants, you know, like the, the change with the Blacks in the priesthood, you know, should be canonized. If you think about all of the significance, uh, behind leading up to this, this was a a major proclamation to the world, right? This is— if anything should be canonized, it should be this. And there's a reason why it isn't, and it's because of what you're saying. There's this deep disagreement amongst the leaders, even more now since the reaction of this proclamation, and that's what's keeping it back, you know, from going into the scriptures. The other thing as well, if you look at the proclamation, because the words are very important here, It says right from the outset, and you know, marriage is ordained of God. But in the second paragraph, all human beings, male and female, are created in the image of God. And here's an interesting line here: each is a beloved spirit, each is a beloved spirit, son or daughter of heavenly parents, and as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. And it goes on to say gender is an essential characteristic of individual pre-mortal Mortal and Eternal Identity and Purpose. So, you know, this has been on our walls for a couple decades, and it's clear, position is very clear, that spiritually you are either male or female. And the conversations that I've had as a bishop, or people who come to me who've had same-sex attraction, is, you know, listen to the talk that Elder Packer gave that you're referring to, is these people, these individuals feel attracted to the same sex And does that mean that their spirit is a male spirit inside a female body? And I had no one— I had no answer to that. When I tried to get answer to that, there was no answers at any level in respect to that. And I think what happens is that the— what's happening is that the church, when someone is born physically, biologically a male but inside feels female, or, or even a male attracted to another male, they associate that with, with psychological processes going on in the body, chemical processes going on in the body. They feel differently, they think differently. And the question they've asked is, you know, is their spirit male or female? And here it's very clear, you know, a spirit is either male or female. And the question is, you know, Elder Pak, I think, is referring to why would a male spirit be born into a, into a female body? And there's been conversations that I've been involved in around that. And I've, I've had no answers to give and I've sought answers and not received any answers. So I think there's a lot of confusion at the leadership level in respect to the science, you know, versus the, the policy and the spiritual perspective here. Science is saying, you know, this is proven science in this area, but it conflicts with with what these statements are saying. If you look at the, you know, the specific wording here, and I think that's the reason why it's not got into the doctrine of the common good, it's not been canonized, because there is deep disagreement. There is concern about the reaction from the secular community in respect to science and, you know, the human evolution in this respect. And I can't see them ever agreeing, uh, on this. You'll have different entrenched positions. I can't ever see this going into the Doctrine and Covenants. It should have, and I believe, um, and I know that Elder Oaks, uh, thinks this should have gone in. Elder Packer thinks it should have gone in, but it's very controversial. It's very— there's so many questions with proclamation to the world from a scientific perspective and from a psychological and human evolutionary perspective. And it would generate, you know, have it canonized. It's a very big step, Jim, as you know, having this placed into, into the scripture, which is a permanent fixture of the church doctrine, would present significant problems for the church and perhaps legal issues as well, legal challenges. So, and I think that's the reason why it's not going in, a whole series of reasons, you know. Intellectually, you know, spiritually, scientifically, etc. And I think you've got different opinions and positions which are quite entrenched. And I don't think— I think there's deep disagreement on this within the leaders of the church, for sure.

I think that's exactly right. And so then the parlor game becomes trying to figure out, okay, well, who is it that's on one side and who is it that's on the other side? I had always assumed, for whatever reason, I mean, you and I served our missions with Matt Holland, who's the son of Jeffrey Holland. Matt Holland himself is now a General Authority. And I always thought, okay, when Elder Holland gets to be president of the church, we're going to see significant changes here because he's the man with so much compassion. Everybody loves his conference talks because he's so inclusive. And he's the one who's talked about things like depression and mental health that other General Authorities aren't willing to do. Clearly, he's a guy that sees how problematic some of the things in the Family Proclamation are. And then he gave the musket fire talk, and I went, oh my gosh, no, he's not that guy at all. So trying to figure that out, trying to read the tea leaves, is very difficult. I do know from family conversations the history of David O. McKay and Heber J. Grant, both of whom are my great-grandfathers. They talk about behind-the-scenes discussions. You know, if Elder Bednar characterizes them as robust, he's using a euphemism because they would talk about the word you used, heated. They were heated conversations. They were often angry conversations. They were conversations that would result in long-standing grudges and members of the Twelve that do not like each other and have not liked each other for decades and are stuck with each other. You know, there's nothing you can do if there's somebody in the Twelve that drives you crazy. You have to work with this person for the rest of your life. And so doesn't surprise me because that's the way human beings are. And if you put 12 people in a fishbowl and lock them up there for the rest of their lives, the odds of all of them just getting along swimmingly are not great. I had one, I'm gonna be very vague here because I don't wanna reveal my source, but I have a source that deals with apostles quite frequently and says that on one occasion, this person was in a room with at least 2 other apostles. And these two apostles were so angry at each other that they would turn to my source and say, you tell Elder So-and-so, who was standing 5 feet away, that he's wrong about this, this, this, this. And then the other elder would say, oh yeah, well, you— again, to my source and not to the other apostle— tell Elder So-and-so that he's full of crap. You know, this person said they were so petty Yeah, it was like junior high school, right? Right. And, and I've told that story to people who— other people who know my source, and they say, oh, I can't believe that. That's— I mean, they can't be that petty. Yeah. And the reality is, you know, you served a mission and you were stuck with somebody for 24 hours a day, and when they got on your nerves, they got on your nerves. And sometimes you let that out. And the same is true for these apostles. But we create this false veer of perfection around them. And we have talks like Elder Hamilton's talk that say, well, when they're all united, then they're perfect, and the church is perfect, and the church is the same as the Savior. And we are doubling down on all the wrong things, you know. As we see people leaving the church, as we see the rising generation, 70% walk away from the church before their 18th birthday. The brethren are getting justifiably nervous, and they're trying to reverse it. And this talk by Elder Hamilton is an attempt to do that, and I think it makes the problem far, far worse.

No, I, I, I agree. I think what frustrates me and puzzles me is that who are these people listening to, right? If you've got this close circle of people think a certain way and they've got these different positions and some similar positions and they're not getting any critical constructive input and feedback as to, you know, a more effective way of, of teaching truths and being honest and open that, you know, we are human, we do disagree, we even argue, and sometimes we fall out. People like me and you, and I'm sure most of the people would be fine with that, right? We're human, we have different opinions, we disagree, sometimes we disagree strongly, sometimes we argue, uh, sometimes we, we fight, um, not physically hopefully, but, um, although I've heard some stories between two apostles. I might get time to come on to that, but, um, stories of apostles getting in physical fights? Yeah, pushing, uh, the other person, um, out the way for a photograph or something. So, um, and, and just two side points, by the way, just while we, while we're talking about what we've heard along the, the lines of, um, disunity. I work closely with an area authority, 70, that I knew very well when he was a, a state president. I was one of his, uh, councillors. Uh, great guy. He said that the higher you go the more often, the more disunity amongst the brethren that you see. And I agree with that, you know, the rank and file members won't see this, right? Elder Hamilton is speaking to, he's speaking to different strategic audiences. He's, I think, he's speaking, without being too cynical, speaking to the brethren to say that he's in line and he's trying to toe the line. But he's also, I think, primarily speaking to the rank and file and, you know, keeping them in line and, and putting across the message that, you know, we're all unified, you know, we, we 'Once we all come together, we all agree.' It isn't like that, and this leader who I worked with, who I respect, has alluded to that very clearly when I was serving with him. In fact, the other counsellor that I worked very closely with, who's left the church, him and I, he shared some things with leaders of— with general authorities that he'd had, and he was shocked at the disagreements that were happening at that level. The other experience as well is that when I was a bishop I had a— one time I had an American counselor. He was an elder missionary couple in our ward when I was the bishop. A great man. He was a counselor, very experienced. He actually trained me to be a bishop. He'd been a bishop before and in the United States, and I used him to train me essentially to be a more effective bishop. He had somebody that he knew very well, uh, I think— well, I won't share too much information. Somebody that he knew very, very well, uh, a relative actually, who worked directly in the church headquarters for the apostles. And this person, um, was— were leaving their job. They, they couldn't stand it anymore. They were fed up with the arguments and the disagreements between the apostles and the general authorities. It was very political, a lot of backbiting. A lot of snide remarks, gossiping, making horrible comments about, uh, apostles. It was very toxic. I think that's the word. And this person essentially had handed their notice in and was unwilling to, you know, work in that kind of environment. They described an environment of disunity and anger and, you know, again, a lot of gossiping and backbiting and sniping remarks.. And that was going on across a number of General Authorities and Apostles. The source was extremely reliable because this person that I knew knew this person extremely well who worked directly for the church in a senior administrative position in Salt Lake. I was actually quite shocked to hear that as a serving bishop and an unquestioning bishop, man, I was quite shocked to hear that that was even going on. And I I said, is that really happening? He went, yeah. And, you know, this counts as these people are human. They, you know, they, they, they get angry, they fall out, and I'm okay with that. And what I'm not okay with is, is getting up and saying that, you know, everything is, is seemingly going well and, and, and we, we have a system that, that is perfect and we all get lined up behind it. Yeah, we might have different opinions, but there's a lot more anger, a lot more disunity. You know, we're human, we have feelings. You know, humans hold grudges, we get angry, we say things that we mean, we say things that we don't mean, we hurt people. Some people forgive, some people don't. And I think just being honest and open about, you know, the human, uh, element of these leaders and the, the, you know, the, the fallibility of these people. I think that if they— if I was going back to what I was saying earlier, who the heck is advising these individuals? To, to put out these talks like Elder Hamilton's done. Is there not anyone that actually, like you or I or anyone else, is saying, look, guys, um, this is not the way to go. We've gone down this path to present ourselves as unified, and we write on this and write on that, and if you're not in that frame of thinking or you don't think like that, then, then you're not of the law, you're not of the kingdom, and yet you need to repent and change and get back into the boat, get back into the fold. Why can't they just be open and honest about the issues and about being human and being infallible, and they make mistakes, but they wrestle with God in terms of the, you know, the questions, and they try to figure it out? That is human. I would have so much more respect. I think a lot of people would react and respond like me, naturally, that they would have so much respect and understanding and more inclined to follow instead of following under certain rules and conditions where they're saying that, you know, what we say is essentially Jesus Christ, what we do, what we say, what we write, you know, as a church, replace that with the, uh, you know, the word Jesus. And, and the other thing I struggled with, Jim, is that you can't accept Jesus without fully accepting Jesus and being saved and receiving salvation through Jesus without following, you know, the prophets, uh, with exactness. You know, you can't have one without the other. Uh, you're either with Jesus and us— it's like an us and them, right? You're either with us all completely, you're either all in, you know, uh, hook, line, and sinker, totally, every word, every doctrine, every policy, without question. And if you're not, if you're slightly out one iota, then, then, you know, you're not, you're not with God, you're not with Christ, and your salvation's at risk. It's extreme. And in a modern world of progressive, pragmatic thinking that we live in today, it's like going back into the 17th century. It's just odd. And I don't know who's advising these people. Why can't they get somebody in to, to say, guys, it's not working, this is not working, try this. They're just— I think they're afraid of upsetting, um, that status quo, right?

So yeah, I think you're right. And I— but I think there are also scriptural problems that they see. I think the most misquoted scripture in the church, and I think we've talked about this, is in the first section of the Doctrine and Covenants where it says, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. And people say that as, okay, well, that scripture backs up what Elder Hamilton is saying, because whether it's by the Lord's voice or by the voice of his servants, it's the same. So the church is Jesus. Except if you read that verse in context, that it's saying precisely the opposite. The whole first section of the Doctrine and Covenants talks about servants in their weakness. It talks about that if they err, it may be made known. It talks about all of these things, and it says, look, it doesn't matter though, because what I have spoken, I have spoken, and it shall all be fulfilled whether I have spoken it by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. In other words, everything that the servants— that God says through his servants will be fulfilled. That is very different from everything one of God's servants says is exactly what God says. Those are two very different things, and a clear reading of that scripture makes that clear. But But we focus now on the one part of it. The other one though, we're talking a lot today about unity, and there's Doctrine and Covenants section 38, verse 37 that says, "If ye are not one, ye are not mine." How would you reconcile that scripture with the kind of disunity you're talking about?

Yeah, it's a great question. Yeah, we know that scripture very well. We used that a lot on our missions, didn't we? Right? Uh, so, uh, companionship unifiers. Yes, absolutely. Companions, companion inventory, used to call it unifiers, etc. Be one, etc., etc. Uh, you know, be one with Christ. And so the Elder Bednar— I think it's Elder Bednar— about, you know, we have these robust conversations about when, when he, when the prophet speaks, and we, we all line up and, and, and toe the line. I think publicly, you know, they have to be seen as, as, um, as one, right, as being unified. But privately, truthfully, and factually, they are not unified. And it's quite hypocritical and, um, disingenuous to suggest that they are at one with Christ and they're unified, because the reality is, the truth is that they're not. But they're afraid to say that, uh, because again, anything that they say If you look at the essays, right, there's one thing researching something before the essays came out, right, and getting different sources and, you know, this, that, and it might be reliable, etc. It's quite another when the church actually comes out and, and, and writes it in an essay, right, or it's— or, or in an article. It's an admission, it's confirmation of something that you already knew, you thought. So if they come out and say look, we're not unified on some things, we do disagree, we argue, etc. There's a, you know, we're not always unified. And at the end, when it comes down to making a decision, we're still not unified because we can't reconcile our positions. That would send a very dangerous message, or a very clear message— dangerous for them— clear message that the brethren are infallible, that they do make mistakes, and they can't be seen, Jim, to be men. I mean, the question is, when is a prophet not a prophet? Right? When is an apostle not an apostle? When is he speaking for the Lord? When is he not? Um, there's confusion over that. The church hasn't addressed that. But to suggest that they're unified internally when we know that they're, they're not is misleading. It's disingenuous. It's, uh, it's frankly dishonest. But the cost to admit that they're not unified is far greater than keeping you and I guessing and other members guessing that Hey, look, you know, the human, but in the end, the unified, and the unified privately. The reality is that— is that there certainly are. I also find it very interesting that this talk was given at BYU. I think BYU's motto is— one of the unofficial mottos is that, you know, the glory of God is intelligence, right? There's a talk actually, um, a research for this, right, given by Cecil Samuelson, given in, um— he's a presidency of the First Seventy, given in November 13th, 2001. President of BYU too, wasn't he?

President BYU.

And he says here, I'm grateful, uh, to be at BYU. He said, uh, great admiration, respect for those who really understand the mission of BYU, etc. And he said, um, you know, although all the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are motivated to learn, gain knowledge, increase in wisdom and intelligence, those who have the privilege of being associated with this remarkable institution, etc. It talks about the, the importance and value of education. And he says here, one of the key ways that we learn is not only here at BYU, but throughout life, is by asking questions. I'm sure that your parents can attest to the fact that you've been asking questions, some of them difficult to answer. And then he quotes Sir John Lubbock, who is an English banker and a prolific writer, born in 1834 in England. Um, and he— and Elder Lubbock says this, he says, there are three great questions in— there are three great questions which in life we have over and over again to answer. Is it right or wrong? Is it true or false? Is it beautiful or ugly? And Ella Simelson quotes him. It's a remarkable talk on the value of education, the value of intelligence, the value of the importance of asking questions, which, if I remember correctly, isn't that what Joseph Smith did when he went to the grove of trees? He had questions, right? How do you, how do you learn something if you, if you, you know, if you don't ask? You know, being told what to ask, being told what to think in order to keep the rank and file, you know, in a certain groupthink, in a certain mindset, I think is extremely dangerous. If you question things, if you question the unity of the brethren, if you question a policy or proclamation of the world, and you're trying to understand what is very confusing, uh, at times, certainly to me, um, about, you know, whether a spirit is born male or female and you're questioning your divinity or your, your spirituality based on Elder Packer's talk, and you feel a certain way, I think a certain way, I'll talk towards, um, you know, a member of the same sex, you know, and then you read that comment, Elder Packer, why would God do this? In other words, God doesn't make a mistake, you know. When you're born, you're born with a male or female spirit, and when you're born and you're biologically a male, you're a male. Right? You're assigned the male at birth, biologically male. Doesn't matter how you think or feel, you know, otherwise internally, but if— but your, your biological condition, male or female, is— means or implies that your spirit is male. So male body, male spirit, right? And so many questions around whether someone is spiritually male or spiritually female which is confusing for many, including for me, and not clear. The church has not clarified its position. But to ask questions, um, you know, the wrong questions, and to question the unity and not to act in, uh, you know, in faith— he talks about blind faith. It's not blind faith, it's just faith, end quote. That they were his words. I listened to the talk. Well, it is blind faith if you're not asking questions, if you're not learning and you're not trying to figure out, well, you know, why is it like that? Why do the Brexiteers say this or think this? You know, if we can't ask questions, then we, you know, we're becoming robots and we're getting to that groupthink. And so it's a very dangerous, reckless, disingenuous, and a very controlling talk, and designed to, you know, to keep rank-and-file members— I think I'm cynical here, I think— but keep rank-and-file members from you know, wandering off into areas which the church doesn't approve, or starts to question things and questions the, you know, infallibility or fallibility of the Brethren. Because they, you know, when the Brethren speak, uh, in unity, then it's the Lord. But again, I repeat, internally, uh, you know from your sources, um, and I know from my people, sources that I've worked with, that is simply not the case. It isn't.

And, and I, I, I keep getting frustrated by the fact that the brethren continue to think they have a choice as to whether or not they can confront all of this. They continue to think that a talk like Elder Hamilton's will solve the problem, and, and it won't. The problem isn't going to go away until we confront it head on. I mean, I believe, for instance, that you can reconcile DNC 3837, "If you are not one, you're not mine," with the reality of the sort of disunity that all of us have. And the idea is, okay, what unity is the Lord talking about? I mean, does it mean, for instance, If you and I don't have the same brand of toothpaste, are we not united? Uh, you know, I mean, that's the most ridiculous thing I can think of, but there, there's so many aspects of our lives where we, we are not only diverse and have different opinions and different tastes and different interests, but we celebrate that. It's wonderful. You know, I, my, my family is, they're all sports nuts except for me. You know, all of my children watch football, and my wife watches football, and they love it, and I can't think of anything more boring than a football game. Does that mean I'm not united with my family, or does it mean I can celebrate the fact that they're different and I'm different and it's great? The unity I think that matters is the unity of kindness and love and faith in Christ as our Savior. And I think we need to be united in that as a church, and we can have that unity and still be wildly different people with wildly different opinions on just about every subject. If that weren't the case, then God really can't be perfect because he made a really, really weird world. He's expecting us all to be identical to each other, then he created exactly the wrong circumstance for that to happen. And so you have to look at how the world works, how God works with each of us, uh, in order to be like Christ. He's not asking us to grow a beard and to wear sandals and to live exactly the same way he did. He's asking us to be like Christ in— Christ is asking us to be like him in the only ways that really matter, in the kind of kindness and compassion and empathy and love, as I have loved you, love one another. That's what Christ wants from us. He does not necessarily want us all to have the same opinion about where the lost tribes of Israel are, or anything else. The rest of it doesn't matter.

I've got a thought, you continue. I've got a— Oh, go ahead. So, you know, as we— if you look at, um, the aspect of human nature, right, and, and how we communicate, what we communicate, etc., when we're speaking our truth based on our understanding of facts and we're honest and we say, look, we're not perfect, we've read something, we've written something, we've said something, this is our thoughts and feelings, and when it's done with sincerity and kindness and with good intent notwithstanding that it might not be, you know, a perfect understanding. I think we, when we write stuff, I say we're safe to be able to do that and take that approach. And we shouldn't be too worried about criticism because we've said it in truth. And criticism is a good thing. Criticism is, you know, to improve something, to get good feedback, good constructive criticism to improve our understanding. Our knowledge is a good thing. It's a healthy thing. And it should be encouraged and recognized and even rewarded. In contrast, when you get leaders telling you to think and feel a certain way, and they write and script things along very certain positions, and you get the lawyers involved— because I think the Proclamation of the World is written partly by lawyers, by the way, But when you get this very prescriptive, very narrow thinking, which is partly based on lack of education and knowledge, and you write it carefully, or so you think you've written it carefully, and then expect people to fall in line, I think that becomes extremely dangerous. Let me give an example. If you look at the proclamation to the world, and remember, words, each word is important. Whenever we say something or read something, especially when it's almost canonized like this, we've got to be very careful what we write. I've heard several sources actually that one of the words that they wanted to pull out of the proclamation to the world was that in the second paragraph where it says that gender is an essential characteristic of individual pre-mortem, pre-mortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. The word individual is problematic because, uh, as individuals we are uniquely different. We were made like that, we think like that, we don't buy the same toothpaste, we don't support the same soccer team, right, a football team. You know, we're individuals. That's who we are. That's how we were made. And that's the— that was the intent of God, that we're all unique. And yeah, we've got similar characteristics, sometimes, you know, less so, you know, physical characteristics. We're different in many respects. But in terms of those universal principles like love and service and and kindness. I think when we live like that and feel like that and we're doing things to build the people and to be kind and loving and forgiving, then we are united, we are one, we are one with Christ. And that's what, what they mean. But when you're talking about, like they're talking about here, and it's very clear, the proclamation of the world, which I did put on my wall very proudly, by the way, was a strong advocate for this without really looking into it. And without really understanding. And there's still aspects of it I do not understand. I struggle to articulate because I don't understand certain aspects of it. But when you're looking at the tightness of the language, you know, and the keywords, I think there's some— there was a lot of deliberate wording in there. But I think they— now looking back, I think they would write it differently. They certainly would remove the word individual. And so they can't— they can't agree on it. They never go to the Oaks.

Even came out because there were transgender people who were embracing the language of the proclamation, because, you know, since gender is part of my eternal identity, but it makes no distinction between a mortal gender and an eternal gender, and transgender people were saying, yes, my gender is a part of my eternal identity, and my eternal gender is at odds with my mortal gender.. And President Oaks came out and said, no, no, no, the intent here was the gender that is assigned to you at birth. And it's always interesting to me when I get into it with people on the Proclamation on the Family, when I say the Proclamation on the Family is weaponized for things that it doesn't actually say. It's things that people infer from it, and certainly the intent behind it is what people are using. But for instance, the Proclamation on the Family never once— not only does it not condemn gay marriage, it never mentions gay marriage. No, no, no, no, it says marriage is ordained of God. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. Okay, great. Is marriage between a man and a woman the only thing in the world ordained of God? I can tell you all kinds of things that are ordained of God. Why can't same-sex marriage be ordained of God? Well, no, you know what they mean. Well, yes, I do, but I also know what the words say, and the words don't say that. The closest they get to it is there's one phrase where it talks about the powers of procreation should only be used between a husband and wife who are legally and lawfully wed. And but the thing is, even that language is open to a more— so by using the euphemism powers of procreation, because you know what they meant was you can't have sex unless you're a married couple and you're a man and a woman. What the words they use, powers of procreation, last time I checked, two men can't have a baby, two women can't have a baby. They don't have the power of procreation in a same-sex relationship. And so I can read that sentence to be saying you should only have children within wedlock. And I point that out, like, oh, you're just being blah blah. It's like, okay, I know what the intent is, but I also know what the words say. And so I am grateful for the fact, uh, because I am— I, I, you know, I, I— and I want to be very careful here because I, I, I think I get myself into trouble if I start saying the church needs to do this, the church has to do that, the church this, that, and the other. And so I couch it this way: I say I am eager to receive more light and knowledge on this subject because what we're doing now isn't working and isn't helpful and is harming a great deal of many of the Lord's most precious children. And, and that light and knowledge, if it comes and allows for recognition in the church of same-sex relationships, the family proclamation does not have to be changed to make that happen. Uh, it can be done within that existing language, and I like to think that that's the Lord's hand in it. Because he's able to sort of work around the weakness of his servants by creating a document to which we have become attached and allow for ways for that document to expand to include with kindness and acceptance, uh, so many people that that document is now being used to exclude. And so You know, the other interesting thing on this, and this, this may be a little bit of a tangent, but you know, Elder Packer and that thing that we talked about, he mentioned 5 proclamations in the church. There are now 6 because the church in 2020 issued the Restoration Proclamation, to which we accepted it with the Hosanna shout. And I would bet you 90% of the church have no idea what's in it, have completely forgotten about it. It's came and went, and it's nowhere. But, you know, we were not willing to put this proclamation into the Doctrine and Covenants. And when I was thinking about this, I was thinking, okay, well, what about these other 5 proclamations, the other 4 before the proclamation on the family? And there's a reason we don't talk about them, because they're kind of awful, or at least one of them is. There was one in 1865, uh, says, hearken, O ye Latter-day Saints and all inhabitants of the earth who wish to be saints, to whom this writing shall come. Are you familiar with this proclamation, the Third Proclamation? I'm not, no. I'm just going to read you some select segments of it. From— this is the beginning. Happening lately, while on a preaching trip to Cache Valley to pick up a book which was lying on a table in the house which we were stopping. We were surprised to find that it was the book bearing the title on the outside of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and on the title page, biographical sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, his progenitor by many generations, by Lucy Smith, mother of the Prophet, published by Orson Pratt, blah blah blah blah blah. Are surprised that finding a copy of this work may be accounted for by the fact of our having advertised some time ago that the book was incorrect and that it should be gathered up and destroyed so that no copies should be left. And from this we had supposed that not a single copy could be found in any of the houses of the saints. And so this entire proclamation is about making sure that this book is gathered up and burned. Uh, this is the way the book came into being. It was smuggled, juggled, and foisted into existence as a book. The church was so concerned about this book that they wanted all copies. And so this whole thing, and this is, it's very, very lengthy, but that's the whole thing. The whole thing is this book is terrible. It's the worst book ever. It stinks. Please burn it. Please make sure nobody reads it. And I think what better example of the fact that these men are wildly fallible and that, that we have long— burning a book doesn't make the knowledge in the book or the ideas in the book go away. Maybe it did in 1865, because if you were to burn all these copies of this book, then no one will be able to read it. But we're still acting in 2023 as if you can do that, as if, you know, you could say, oh well, you know, don't look at this material, don't pay attention to this, don't ask these questions. Make sure, you know, the church still is operating as if it's 1865 and books we don't like and questions we don't like and ideas we don't like can be gathered up and burned and can disappear. And it's just so telling to me that as we battle over proclamations and we battle over, uh, the, the idea of fallibility, infallibility, that the questions and the problems haven't changed in 150 years. And the solutions unfortunately haven't changed in 150 years, and they desperately need to.

I think the leaders are on the hook for deliberately at times, and at times not, diluting a lot of the sacred important values and teachings and doctrines, universal doctrines doctrines that the church, um, uh, subscribes to at its very, very core. And just think about that, you know, you know, Christ— uh, Hamilton talks about organized religion. Well, Christ's church wasn't organized the way the church is today. It's a fact. It just isn't. You know, the processes, the procedures, the policies, the buildings, the structure, you know, everything else, almost every aspect Christ didn't have that. He, he was a church without walls. He taught in the fields, in the homes, right? Yes, he set apostles and prophets apart, and evangelists— evangelicals— evangelists, evangelists. There we go. Um, thank you. And so, you know, it didn't have the structure of the organization that the church is today. It's very different compared to when Christ was on the earth. It wasn't organized. Back then like it is now, and, and for good reason, um, you know. And I think we get— I think Elder Packer said to Elder President Banks, and President Banks shared this with you and I at the reunion in 2016— again, correct me if I'm wrong here, please correct this— I think, uh, some of the last words Elder Packer said before he passed away was that they've gone too far on the programs. Yeah, far on the procedures. It's too organized, right? Organizing people to do and to behave a certain way— where's that spirit of individuality, the spirit of, uh, you know, behaving freely and openly and spontaneously and following the spirit? You know, when I was on the mission with President Dunn there, you had to fill in all these boxes every night. You know, you say your prayers and this, this, and this, and this, and have you read this and read that, and have you had this, etc. It was a checkbox every night and every week. You had to phone in and send them in, and you had a checkbox to see you did everything. President Banks came along and said, we're not going to do that anymore.

We're going to—

he said, we're going to do something, it's quite unique. We're going to follow the Spirit, he said. We're going to kneel, we're going to pray. You're going to take time. And if you're knocking on doors through the day, it's not getting anywhere. Go somewhere 'Pray, just take a moment, feel the spirit, and just be— forget the boxes, just be yourself and feel the spirit. And whatever the spirit tells you to do and where to go, uh, you know, just, just do that.' And it was like night and day. It was a, you know, a breath of fresh air. It was, it was extraordinary. That actually, that one thing, one of that one— that's one of the things that transformed my mission from a very, um, ritualistic and robotic experience to a much more meaningful human experience. And I think sadly that some of the leaders of the church are going so down the prescriptive route— think this, do this, this means this, interpret it this way, etc., etc. If you're not this, you're that. You know, it's this pigeonhole, right, and this categorization, etc., and the covenant path, etc. You can't deviate from it, and you can't think outside of this, this, you know, this thinking, uh, position, this process. And so that, that's where it becomes extremely dangerous. If they, if they took a different approach and, and, and a more universal, accepting, and inclusive approach, it will be far more successful on every metric— financial, you know, retention, baptisms. And why is someone not saying this to them is beyond me. Maybe they are, maybe they are saying it, and maybe that's where the disunity comes from. Maybe you do have people in there that are saying these things. I suspect you are, who's saying it like this, saying, saying it with strength and fervor and with, with commitment and passion. But because it goes against the the traditional orthodox thinking, um, that's what's causing the disunity. You know, talking about this right now, I think that's part of the problem. You've got, um, a number of camps there, different people that think in different ways, and that's causing disunity. And I think it will get worse than better.

Uh, I, I think there will be essays, although I remember talking to Greg Prince where he said He said, I think these things will change and the essays will begin with the sentence, of course, as we've always taught. Yeah. The goal is to continue to pretend that things don't change when they do change. But I'm gonna let yours be the last word there. We're running up on the end of time, but I think this has been another productive discussion. If you're listening to this wherever you get your podcasts, be sure to like and subscribe and join us next time on Inside Out. Thank you very much, Ian. Thank you, Jim Bennett.