Survey Says: Part Three

Ian and Jim finish answering all of the Church's survey questions.

Episode Transcript

SPEAKER_01 (00:03):
All right, we're recording.
Hello, and welcome to anotherepisode of Inside Out.
My name is Jim Bennett, and I amhere with world traveler Ian
Wilkes.
Ian, how are you, sir?
I'm doing real

SPEAKER_00 (00:17):
well, Jim.
Thank you.
I'm just out here traveling theworld, but kind of, I'm just in
the next province to the right,to the east.

SPEAKER_01 (00:27):
Okay, so that's just another part of the 51st state
because Donald Trump is taking

SPEAKER_00 (00:32):
over Canada, right?
Well, he wants to.
I'm in Alberta.
I'm in Calgary.
I'm on Mountain Time, same timeas you.
There's no chance of Canadajoining America, in my opinion,
and I think that's shared widelyacross Canada.
However, here's the kingmaker.
Alberta, which recently thepremier of Alberta, the

(00:54):
provincial leader, broke off.
from the unified position of theother premiers across Canada and
went to see Donald Trumppersonally in Florida about two
weeks ago.
And if there's any or ever a fitbetween the United States and a
province which is energy rich,the most energy rich province in

(01:18):
Canada, it would be Alberta.
So economically, and from an oiland gas perspective, and I work
in the oil and gas sector,that's one of the sectors I work
in, and the conservativerepublic thinking that Alberta
has, which is very different toother parts of Canada, there's a
really good fit, the saying,between Alberta and the United
States.
So it's going to happen.
It would mean Alberta breakingoff from Canada and bringing all

(01:43):
that energy and all thoseresources under the umbrella and
the auspice of the UnitedStates.
And that could happen becauseAlberta politically is very
disenfranchised with Ottawa,with the federal government.
They've even created the AlbertaSovereign Act.
This allows Alberta as aprovince to pretty much do most

(02:06):
things, not defense or tax,nothing like that, but a lot of
other stuff it can doautonomously without the
involvement or interference ofOttawa, which she does not like
at all and can't stand at all.
Trudeau, who just recentlyresigned.
So, Alberta joining America?
Yes, I see it.
Canada joining America?
No.

(02:27):
And America doesn't want Canadabecause a lot of it is
socialistic and that doesn't fitwith a lot of people, I think,
right now who are leading thecharge, I guess, in the United
States.
So that's a quick politicalresponse to that.

SPEAKER_01 (02:41):
Well, let's hope nobody in Washington is
listening to this because theymight get some ideas.
If you're in Washington, justignore what I just said.
There we go.
Well, so we have, we began a fewweeks ago answering this survey
that the church put out, just asa reminder.

(03:01):
And we got to the end of ourfirst episode where we were
talking about the survey and wehad barely made a dent in the
questions.
And so we decided we would do asecond episode to finish.
And we didn't even get halfwaythrough the with that second
episode.
So there are still a whole bunchof survey questions.

(03:23):
So I think we need to just sortof plow through the questions
that aren't that interesting,answer more concisely what we're
doing.
But we want to conclude thisbecause I think that these are
fascinating questions.
They give us tremendous insightinto how the church is thinking,
into how the membership of thechurch is responding, to what's

(03:49):
happening in the world aroundthem.
And it's really fascinating tosort of get that window into the
mind of the brethren.
And so we're going to pick upwhere we left off.
So without further ado, I'mgoing to bring up the questions.
And we're starting to get intosome really interesting ones.
This is stuff about marriage andthe family.

(04:11):
And so the way these questionsare structured, just as a
reminder, is you read astatement.
And then you have the choice asto say, I agree with this
statement.
I'm not sure if I agree with thestatement.
I do not agree with thisstatement.
Or I guess they phrase it as Ibelieve this statement or I do
not believe this statement.

(04:32):
So I'm going to read thestatement and I want to hear if
you believe, not sure if youbelieve, or if you don't
believe.
Sounds good.
All right.
So here we go.
Getting married in the templefor eternity is a commandment.
Believe, don't believe.

SPEAKER_00 (04:51):
I don't believe that.
I know the church teaches,believes that.
I know many rank and filemembers believe that.

SPEAKER_01 (04:58):
Okay.
It's really weird to phrase itthat way because when we talk
about commandments, I'm not surehow I answered this.
I think I may have said this.
This is one of the few where Imight have said I'm not sure
because the way we talk aboutcommandments is This is
something you have to do oryou're in serious trouble.

(05:19):
And this isn't like committingadultery.
Not committing adultery is acommandment.
Although I guess the churchwould say you're limiting your
eternal progress if you don'tget married in the temple.
But what's interesting are thefollow-up questions.
The next one says havingchildren is a commandment.

(05:41):
Do you agree with that or don'tagree with that?

SPEAKER_00 (05:44):
No, the church teaches it's a commandment.
We were taught it's acommandment to multiply and
replenish the earth.
It's actually in the temple.
It's a commandment.
It is, absolutely.
I don't believe that, but it is.
And by the way, on the firstone, and I know we're going to
skip through these real quick,but the first one, you can't

(06:05):
inherit eternal life withoutbeing married and sealed in the
temple.
So you are damned if you don'tgo to the temple and get sealed.
Or if you're not married orsealed in this life, that option
is open to you, I guess, in thenext life.
But to get to the highestkingdom, you have to be sealed
in the temple.
But the second one, I don'tbelieve having children is a

(06:25):
commandment, no.

SPEAKER_01 (06:27):
Well, I think you're right in that the temple
ceremony, when you are sealed,part of the sealing ordinance is
a command to, I say unto you,multiply and replenish the
earth.
So they tell you to havechildren when you are sealed.
What I think is interestingabout all of these is that what

(06:49):
we're finding, I think, in therising generation is a
reluctance or a disinterest incommandments, in the idea of
being commanded, in the idea ofI have to do this, I have to
obey.
And this really resonated, Ithink, with our generation.

(07:11):
But the younger generation islike, oh, no, I'm not going to
get married in the temple if Idon't want to.
No, I'm not going to havechildren if I don't want to.
And so I think the church iskind of scrambling because the
scare tactics aren't working.
The idea, oh, you have to.
This is a commandment.
So what?
I'll do what I want to do.

(07:31):
I agree.
I agree.
Go ahead.
Well, I mean, I just thinkthat's how Gen Z and millennials
are sort of wired.
You're seeing it across theboard, not just in the church,
but there's a real reluctance toembrace the kind of centralized

(07:54):
and I'd even say authoritarianstructure that was just sort of
taken for granted by generationsbefore.
Because the next question isinteresting.
Having a lot of children is acommandment.
Can I make a quick

SPEAKER_00 (08:10):
comment on what you just said?
Sure.
I know it'll be quick here.
Two things.
We said that there's a purpose,there's an objective behind
these questions.
Certainly, right?
Secondly, if you look at thatother question, having a lot of
children is a commandment.
Well, two things on that.
One, I think the youngergeneration, to your point, are

(08:31):
interpreting it verydifferently.
I think they're taking a softapproach.
And secondly, Jim, where is thegrowth going to come from, from
the church?
Not coming from...
from convert baptisms.
It's not coming from traditionalconventional missionary efforts.
We know it's going to, and theyhave to measure growth.
We know growth, or some of it,has to come from people having
kids.

(08:52):
They're having smaller families.
They're having big familiesanymore because it's expensive.
And I think this is a churchputting out a feeler in terms of
where people are in regards tohaving a lot of children.
I think it's a very strategicquestion.
Who do you want?

SPEAKER_01 (09:05):
I think you're absolutely right.
And I think...
40 years ago.
I don't know if I even agreewith that when I got married.
But the expectation growing upwas, yeah, I came from a family
of six kids in SouthernCalifornia in the 1970s.

(09:26):
And none of my friends, unlessthey were members of the church,
had families anywhere near thatbig.
All of my friends came fromfamilies with one or two kids,
sometimes three kids.
And Three kids was like a reallybig family.
And when people found out I camefrom a family of six kids, it
was really strange.

(09:46):
But the expectation in the 60sand 70s, and I think all through
most of the 20th century anyway,it was that you had to have as
many kids as the way my motherdescribed it was, you should
have as many kids as you canhandle.
which I always thought was avery strange way to put it, and

(10:08):
I couldn't find any sort ofprophetic edict that said a
similar thing, but that was sortof the cultural expectation.
And the whole idea of birthcontrol, the church was very
adamantly against birth controlfor several decades, and they
have quietly sort of shelledthat, and now they say that

(10:32):
birth control is between ahusband and a wife, and they
leave that alone.
But there are statements byDavid O.
McKay that talk about the slimeof sensual indulgence that birth
control creates because you justhave sex just because you enjoy
it, when you should be havingsex, to make sure you have kids.

(10:56):
And that has gone by thewayside.
And in fact, that went by thewayside fairly quickly.
I think before I was born even,because I know President Kimball
made the famous statement about,we know of no directive from
heaven that sex is only forprocreation, which was something

(11:17):
much more progressive than a lotof the other things that
President Kimball said aboutsex.
These next two questions arereally weird to me.
I agree.
God loves his daughters, but nothis sons.
God loves his sons, but not hisdaughters.
Is there anybody that wouldanswer that they agree

SPEAKER_00 (11:38):
with that?
It's just odd questions, verystupid questions.
Now, we know this questionnairewas posted two or three weeks
ago, right?
I kind of flagged this up too.
I think it was me that flaggedit.
You then looked at it.
It was open to anyone that couldtake it, right?
Anyone, member or non-member, itwas open to the public.
Then it shut down.
The link stopped working.

(12:00):
And I think these questions areone of probably several reasons
why they shut this question,this survey questionnaire down.
Because those questions are odd.
Why would you ask thosequestions?
What purpose?
What's behind those questions?
It's very strange.

SPEAKER_01 (12:18):
Well, the last question on this page is, I
think is actually an interestingquestion.
God loves me.
And I would answer, yes, I agreewith that.
But a lot of my faith strugglesover the course of my life have
not necessarily been, what ifthere is no God?

(12:38):
But rather, what if God is ajerk?
What if God loves other peoplebut doesn't love me?
That God plays favorites?
You can look at the world andsee evil rewarded and good
people, no good deed goesunpunished.
You can see the injustice in theworld and you can conclude that

(13:02):
maybe God loves some people morethan others.
Now I've sort of come to termswith this now and kind of
reached a point where I don'tmeasure God's love in a
transactional way.
The idea that somebody else isricher than I am is not a sign
that God loves them more thanthey love me.
The fact that somebody dealswith a chronic illness, the fact

(13:24):
that somebody is living inpoverty, the fact that somebody
has lost a parent and is anorphan, all the terrible things
that can happen in real life, Isort of had to confront a lot of
that.
When my daughter was injured andI realized just how
transactional my thinking of Godis.

(13:47):
But I think a lot of peoplemeasure God's love by what they
perceive as God's blessings.
And if there aren't enoughblessings, I think it's very
possible to reach a point whereyou say, yeah, I believe in God.
I don't believe God loves me.
Because I was sort of there fora while.

(14:07):
I'm not there now.
But does that make any sense?
How would you respond to that?

SPEAKER_00 (14:12):
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
I hope God loves me.
I believe he does.
I do not understand God.
I don't understand a God who cango to great lengths.
And there's an example thatPresident Monson talked about in
a conference speech a while backwhere a whole series of

(14:35):
connections were made.
So someone who was I think theywere dying, actually, sadly, and
they wanted to taste some freshbread that a friend was making.
You and I have talked about thison the podcast.
He goes to great lengths to helpyou find your keys.
And I've heard those stories.

(14:57):
Elder Manson, sorry, is itMattson?
Sorry.
Hans Mattson.
I want to get his name right.
talked about uh some exampleswhere the lord goes to great
lengths to help what seems to bethe most uh the simple things

(15:18):
you know like finding keys orfinding someone's lost yet he
won't save a child's life or youknow save someone from cancer or
save someone from a an injury uhand so i don't i believe he
loves me i i hope he does idon't understand him or her And
I think he's in a bit of apickle because, or she is,

(15:39):
because we have a lot ofproblems and I'm wondering if or
not he can get involved or doeshis own laws prevent him from
demonstrating that love that wethink he has or hope he has in a
more direct kind of way and kindof help us out of the problems
that we've got on the planet, onthe earth with all the issues

(16:02):
and these other laws and thathe's made restricting him from
helping us when we need him themost.
So I don't understand him orher.
All right.
That's fair.

SPEAKER_01 (16:16):
Well, so now we dive into a lot of questions about
marriage.
The next one says, in arelationship or marriage, both
partners need to listen to eachother and freely come to an
agreement about what to do.
Do you agree with that?
Yes.
I do too.
And it's interesting that theywould ask that because there is
a lot of emphasis historicallyin the church on the idea of the

(16:40):
man presiding in the home.
And there are Christian sectsand denominations that have
wrestled with this.
I'm thinking about a groupcalled the Promise Keepers.
You ever heard of the PromiseKeepers?
I have not.
They were...
big active Christian group wherethey talked about Christian
marriage and how men need todevote themselves and they would

(17:02):
quote Paul who talks about womensubject yourselves to your
husbands wives submit to yourhusbands and husbands submit to
Christ as Christ submitted tothe church or something like
that I'm butchering that but sowhat they pointed out was yes
it's equal until there's a tiebetween And then the man breaks

(17:27):
the tie.
The man is the presider.
The man is the one who has thefinal say.
And I think that has been themodel in the church, whether
it's been spoken, and I think ithas been explicitly spoken.
Now it's not spoken asexplicitly, but it's still
there.
Because when they changed thetemple ceremony to have Eve talk

(17:50):
directly to both Heavenly Fatherand Jesus Christ, Everybody
went, okay, now she's equal toAdam.
Yet at the same time, theychanged the sealing ceremony and
added the word preside to theidea that the husband presides
over the family.
The proclamation on the familythat is still used as sort of

(18:14):
the gold standard of what thechurch stands for today has that
in there too.
It talks about how the husbandis to preside.
So This model of a relationshipwhere both partners need to
listen to each other and freelycome to an agreement about what
to do, I absolutely agree withthat.
I can't imagine a marriagesucceeding without that, at

(18:37):
least not a marriage that Iwould want to be part of.
I would not want to have a wifethat didn't feel like she was an
equal partner and had an equalsay.
So the next one says, if you donot have sex before marriage...
and you marry in the temple foreternity, then your family will

(18:58):
not have any serious problems.
Do you agree or disagree?
I disagree.

SPEAKER_00 (19:04):
I'm glad you read that, because the print's small,
and I thought you were saying...
I thought the question was...
There you go.
You made the print bigger.
I thought it said, if you do nothave lots of sex before
marriage, and you marry in thetemple for eternity, then your
family will not have any seriousproblems.
No, I don't believe that.
I think you...
You can have sex or not have sexbefore marriage.

(19:25):
It's up to you.
It doesn't mean you're not goingto have any problems.

SPEAKER_01 (19:29):
Yeah.
I mean, there's a lot of thiskind of magical thinking,
though, in the church.
I actually would very much liketo see what percentage of people
answered this and said that theyagree with this.
Because if you'd asked me thisbefore my marriage, I would have
said, no, I don't agree with it.
But I think secretly I did agreewith it to some degree.

(19:51):
You get this idea that livingthe gospel, being righteous,
it's this transactionalrelationship with God where he's
going to, you're not going tohave any problems if you're
good.
I don't know if I would havetied it specifically to sex, but

SPEAKER_00 (20:09):
anyway.
I want to have one more thing.
It's interesting about the sexthing there, but I would argue
there is a case, I don't knowany studies here, but I'm sure
they exist, that You don't knowanyone unless you will live with
them.
You don't really.
In the church, you only livewith the person after you get

(20:31):
married and you only have sexafter you get married.
You've not lived with them oranyone before you get married.
Different backgrounds, differentperspectives, the whole, you may
be compatible, you may not be.
I would argue that there's someadvantages and benefits for
living with someone includinghaving sex and living in the

(20:53):
same house, to determine whetherthey are a compatible fit or
not.
And I suspect there's a lot ofpeople that after they get
married, they think within a fewweeks or a few months, what the
hell have I done?
If only we'd lived together.
And then they're stuck in thechurch if it's not working.

(21:13):
Because they've entered into acovenant in the temple.
So they've got to make it work.
And if there's some seriousproblems, And by the way, this
is where I've been involved as abishop, where there's been abuse
going on.
But because they put thecovenants first, they've
tolerated the abuse.
And the woman has been puttingup with the abuse.

(21:34):
And the bishops or leaders said,well, you're sealed in the
temple.
You're married.
You've got to make it work.
You make it work no matter.
My advice was not that.
In some of the cases, some ofthe instances, my advice was
leave, get out of there.
So, you know, you get married,you get seen in the temple and
when they're committed, themembers are committed and

(21:57):
devoted and really committed andthey're trapped.
Even if it's not working orthey're not happy.
My advice is, nope, you get out.
If it's abusive, if you're nothappy, try and make it work.
If you're not compatible, youtried everything in the book.
You know, it's possible to lovethe wrong person.

(22:19):
You can love or be in love withthe wrong

SPEAKER_01 (22:24):
person, right?
The unwillingness to have sexbefore marriage means that a lot
of very young couples getmarried.
I remember talking to a womanwho had left the church, but she
got married very young.
And she had eight childrenbefore she left.

(22:44):
And she said to me, I thought Iwas in love.
I didn't realize I was justhorny.

SPEAKER_00 (22:52):
Oh, that's funny.
That's funny.

SPEAKER_01 (22:54):
But there's a lot of that.
There's a lot of this, you know,you have this magical thinking
that's, okay, my entire lifeI've been told that this is the
pinnacle of my faith, that if Iget married in the temple, that
I've arrived, that I've doneeverything I'm supposed to do,
and then I just endure to theend.

(23:14):
And People get married in thetemple, and they discover that
there's a whole lot, and they'rejust beginning.
It's not the end.
It's the beginning of a lifetimeof trying to build a life
together.
And it's difficult under anycircumstance.
It doesn't matter if you'remarried in the temple or not.
And there are people who getmarried outside the temple who

(23:35):
have wonderful marriages, andthere are people who get married
in the temple who have terriblemarriages.
Totally.

SPEAKER_00 (23:41):
I totally agree.
And there are people in thechurch, in the temple, and I
know this firsthand, where he orshe has had an affair.
The counsel they've received inthe past is, no matter, you
forgive him or forgive her.
Even if it's happened a fewtimes, you forgive, you forgive,
because it's a temple marriage.
My advice was not that.
I said, if you make it work, ifyou give, great, but you really
need to think very carefullyabout whether you can trust this

(24:03):
person again.
And if it happens again andagain, my advice is, well, you
make the choice in the end, butyou get out.
If they can't commit to thosecovenants, you know, then you
need to think twice.
So, yeah, I think there's a lotof people in the church or many
people in the church who feelthey've got to make it work no

(24:25):
matter.
And they end up being very sadfor their entire life.
They don't find the person who'smore compatible or they can be
in love with.
And they're stuck with thisperson.
And I think that's a terriblething.
loss to one's own freedom andauthenticity and finding who you

(24:50):
are and being yourself in life.
And I think the church, thetemple locks people in
permanently where they feel thatno matter what happens in the
marriage, you have to make itwork no matter.
And I don't buy into that anymore.

SPEAKER_01 (25:07):
No, I don't either.
I do think that A templemarriage does bring with it a
certain degree of heightenedresponsibility.
At the same time, it does notbring a license for abuse, which
I think is what you'redescribing.
In other words, when you getmarried in the temple, you

(25:29):
should be taking this very, veryseriously and not very lightly.
But if even Christ himself, whenhe talked about divorce— We
don't live the standard ofmarriage and divorce that's
outlined by Jesus himself in theNew Testament.
Because he said that if youmarry someone who's divorced or

(25:51):
if you get a divorce, you'recommitting adultery.
But he offered one exception tothat, which was adultery.
If you get divorced for anyreason other than adultery, then
according to the words of thesynoptic gospels, you're
committing adultery.
But if your spouse isunfaithful, even Jesus in the

(26:15):
New Testament says it's okay toget a divorce.
So anyway, all right.
So this next one is also veryinteresting.
All good people will haveeternal families, even if they
choose to marry only for thislife.
Do you agree with that?

SPEAKER_00 (26:33):
All good people will have eternal families, even if
they choose to marry only forthis life.
I didn't used to believe that.
I do believe it now.
I think love transcends anythingthe church teaches.
This priesthood authority, thisbeing sealed in the temple.
I believe that people outsidethe church can marry enough

(26:58):
children and they can be withtheir families forever without
the temple.
Without the temple.
Even if they marry for thislife.
So if they become married in theChurch of England, which is till
death do us part, or in theCatholic church, I believe that
their marriage and their familycan continue in the eternities
forever.
I no longer accept or believe inor buy the teaching from the

(27:23):
church that you can only be withyour family if you're sealed in
the temple and you keep going tochurch in the Mormon faith.
So, long answer.
Yeah,

SPEAKER_01 (27:34):
there's my response.
I appreciate that response.
The reason I think this questionis so interesting is because we
would go out and tell people asmissionaries, your family can be
together forever.
And I have since talked topeople who point out that we're
the only people who teach yourfamily may not be together

(27:57):
forever.
You know, we don't say yourfamily will be together forever.
You say your family can be, butit's conditional.
You have to do this thing.
You have to get married in thetemple.
You have to do all of these,take all of these steps,
otherwise your family will notbe together in the next life.

(28:17):
And I have since found that mostpeople outside the church
envision a life in theeternities with their families.
It doesn't occur to them thatGod would separate them based on
some kind of ordinance or anyother kind of thing.
The way I look at this now is Istill respect priesthood

(28:42):
authority.
I still embrace the importanceof the temple ritual.
I also embrace the universalityat the core of temple worship.
In other words, yes, this istrue.

(29:02):
All good people will haveeternal families, even if they
choose to marry only for thislife, because they will have the
opportunity, they will have thatwork done for them, either in
this life or in the next.
I am a universalist in that Ibelieve even if somebody ends up
going to the telestial kingdom,eventually they get to where

(29:27):
they need to be.
Eternity is a very, very, verylong time.
And this is what Bruce R.
McConkie has called one of theseven deadly heresies, this idea
that there is progressionbetween kingdoms, that you can
continue to progress.
But Bruce R.
McConkie is on one side of thatargument, and there are many

(29:49):
brethren who are on the otherside of the argument.
I'm pretty sure James E.
Talmadge was on the other sideof that argument.
And I think that there areothers.
I think Daniel Widsow's on theother side of that argument.
Anyway, so the point is, we tendto scare people and say, okay,
if you don't get married in thetemple in this life, you're
going to lose your family.

(30:10):
And the older I get, the moreridiculous that is to me.
Because even you can stillrespect the authority of the
temple and also recognize thatthat God loves all of his
children and will find a way forall of them to return to him.

SPEAKER_02 (30:27):
I agree.

SPEAKER_00 (30:28):
Yeah, I agree with all that.
By the way, I want to say this.
I did something years ago.
I said something years ago thatI'm very deeply, deeply ashamed
about.
What was it?
I'll tell you what it is here.
So I was on the state presidencyand I was visiting a couple.
He was not a member.

(30:50):
She was.
And the way the conversation wasgoing, the direction of the
conversation led in the waywhere I was asked a question
about whether this couple wouldbe together forever.
And I said, no.
And they said, but we love eachother.
I said, that doesn't matter.

(31:10):
You can't be together unlessyou're both sealed in the
temple.
That has plagued me.
I'm deeply ashamed.
When I left the statepresidency, when I left the
church, I put it right.
I called them.
I apologized.
And I told them I was wrong.

(31:31):
Very wrong.
This has plagued me for years.
I put it right.
They appreciated what I said.
I felt so bad.
I was so wrong.
I believe that if you lovesomeone, your partner, your
spouse, your children, that loveis way more powerful than any

(31:55):
temple ceremony, than anypriesthood authority, that that
love which Christ taught isavailable to anyone and
everyone, regardless of religionor background, whether you
believe in a God or not, as longas you love each other, truly
love each other unconditionally.
So, yeah, I said that's one ofthe things I've deep in regret

(32:19):
ever saying in the past.
So anyway,

SPEAKER_01 (32:24):
if you embrace that idea, I think the church is
scared of that idea because itmeans, well, then what do you
need us for?
Yeah.
Why do you need the temple?
Why do you need the temple?
And increasingly people continueto ask that question.
Well, why do I need the temple?

(32:44):
And so the church has, I thinkis doubling down on this because
this gives them the sort ofexclusive authority to control
your eternity.
And, and, uh, and more and morepeople just aren't having any of
that.

SPEAKER_00 (33:03):
And it's very smart because it's tied to tithing and
it's tied to the next question.
You're right.
Cause if you know you're sealed,And in order to see all the
other family, immediate andother extended family members,
you have to be sealed to them,or they have to be sealed.
Yeah, read that next question.
Yeah, here's the question.
Once you have been sealed in thetemple, everyone in your family

(33:26):
will be exalted regardless ofwhat choices they make.
Well, I believe that.
I believe that it can be withanyone who you love, you know,
in the eternities.
Within reason, if they're amurderer, I don't know if
they...
They're going to be in the sameplace as you.
I just don't understand enoughabout the Eternities to know how
that works.
But the church teaches veryclearly that in order for you to

(33:50):
be with your family, your kids,and your grandkids, they have to
live worthily and go to thetemple and endure to the end.
Otherwise, if they makedifferent choices and they leave
the church, well, you're notgoing to see your grandkids.
You're not going to see yourkids if they deviate from the

(34:11):
church that's awful talk aboutcontrol you've got to qualify
for a temple recommend one ofthe questions is tithing we want
you to be completely committedand devoted and by the way if
you've got people in the familywho are not quite as devoted or
committed you've got to work onthem because if you don't and

(34:32):
they make the wrong choices thenyou're not going to see them
ever I think that's just evil.
I think that's destructive.
It's awful.
What an awful doctrine.

SPEAKER_01 (34:44):
Well, I choose to embrace the universalist side of
it.
But certainly that perspectiveor that point of view with
regard to the doctrine is, Ithink, the dominant point of
view in the church today.
And so it's very interesting tosee that they're trying to

(35:06):
measure that.
with these questions.
This idea of being sealed in thetemple and you're exalted
regardless comes from, there's averse in section 132 that
essentially says that.
I remember talking to a guy onmy mission who was inactive, but
he said, but I've been marriedin the temple, so it doesn't

(35:27):
matter.
And he pulled out section 132.
And section 132, I think, and ittalks about, you know, once
you've been sealed up, uh, inthe eternities, then if you
don't commit murder to shedinnocent blood, uh, you can do
anything and you'll be left tothe buffetings of Satan in this

(35:50):
life, but you will eventually beexalted.
And I think that actually is averse that is used in the second
anointing because that's thepromise that's given in the
second anointing.
So anyway, um, But there are anumber of statements,

(36:11):
particularly by Joseph Smith,where he talks about how when
you are sealed in the temple,you are not only saving
yourselves, you are also savingyour children in the eternities.
And those have been quoted everyonce in a while, and they're
sort of thrown out there tooffer some kind of comfort to

(36:33):
parents who are seeing theirchildren leave.
And through no fault of theirown, because I think the
expectation was if you'rerighteous enough, your children
won't leave.
And we just know that's nottrue.
We know that's not true becausethe children of apostles leave
the church.

(36:54):
The children of prophets leavethe church.
And so, you know, we know thatthere's no way that somebody's
agency can override somebodyelse's agency.
So I think there are a lot ofpeople that do believe this
because they want to cling tothat to make sure that they can
be extra righteous and that'llsave their wayward children.

(37:17):
And I agree with you, that kindof thinking, it's just
destructive.
It's just nothing but a sourceof pain.
There is no comfort in thatidea.
There's nothing but pain in thatidea.
All right.
Do you want to read this nextone?
Sure.

SPEAKER_00 (37:38):
I think we're the next group of questions, aren't
we?
Got one more at the bottomthere.
Okay.
Right.
Okay.
Yeah.
Marrying in the temple foreternity is so important that it
is better to stay single than tomarry for this life only.
Oh, my gosh.
I know a bit about that.
So, yeah, the church believesthat, that you, it's taught

(38:02):
that, that you're better offbeing single than marrying
somebody, say, out of thechurch.
That's what it's taught.
That's what I've taught.
That's my understanding.
I don't buy that.
I don't believe that anymore.
But I know, and PresidentMorrison used to give lots of
talks about single sisters andwidowers.

(38:24):
Yeah.
Did I lose you?
And men.
Some men, many sisters in thechurch who, for whatever reason,
haven't found someone thatthey're happy with or is
compatible.
They've not found someone tomarry in the temple.
So they've stayed single.
And that, again, is anothertragic, tragic mistake and

(38:48):
tragic loss.
And the notion that you can'tfind someone outside the church
to be happy with them and livehappily, that it's best to be
single than stay in the churchand be temple worthy, but stay
single instead of you know,marrying somebody in the temple.

(39:09):
I think that's just awful.
That's robbing someone of theirentire life's experience where
they stay single.
I know quite a few sisters whohave, who are in their 60s, 70s
now, who have never married andthey've been alone their entire
life because they haven't foundsomeone to take them to the

(39:29):
temple.
What a tragic, tragic loss of alife.
I think that's terrible.
You know,

SPEAKER_01 (39:39):
you can see this in the highest leadership of the
church.
President Nelson was married tohis wife, Danzel, I think her
name was.
And they had nine children.
And then she died.
And he remarried Wendy Watson,who was in her 70s and had never

(40:01):
married.
And it's interesting, too.
So this is a story.
I hesitate to tell it becauseI'm not sure if I'm supposed to.
Uh, but I know someone who knowsKristen Oaks, who's Dallin Oaks,
his current wife and his secondwife, Dallin Oaks, his wife

(40:24):
died.
And Dallin Oaks, as the storygoes, Kristen Oaks had sent, um,
almost like a resume.
to M.
Russell Ballard.
She knew M.
Russell Ballard.
She didn't know Dallin Oaks.
I don't remember what her maidenname was.
And I'm not going to tell youwho told me this story, but I

(40:49):
trust my source.
So she essentially gave thisthing to Elder Ballard and said,
can you give this to Dallin Oaksand tell him that I want to date
him?
And Dallin Oaks, you know, theapostles get a whole bunch of

(41:10):
these.
I mean, there are a lot of womenthat just sort of throw
themselves at the apostles.
And I mean, they're rock starsto some degree.
And so they get all kinds ofunsolicited requests to do all
kinds of things.
And Dallin Oaks was singlebecause he was a widower.
And at one point, Dallin Oakswas talking to Elder Ballard

(41:34):
shortly after Kristen Oaks hadgiven Elder Ballard this info.
And Dallin Oaks said, you know,Elder Ballard, I need to start
thinking about getting marriedagain.
Elder Ballard said, well, itjust so happens that I have this
woman that really wants to meetyou.
And they arranged a meeting inLiberty Park in Salt Lake City,

(42:00):
Big Island.
open-air place in Salt LakeCity, and they each had a
chaperone with them.
So there were four people there.
It was Dallin Oaks, KristenOaks.
I'm going to call her KristenOaks because I don't know what
her maiden name was.
And they walk up and they meeteach other.
And the first thing Dallin Oakssays to Kristen Oaks is, now I'm

(42:22):
a man and you're a woman.
Are you okay with that?
And Kristen Oaks' response was,only if you're not a
cross-dresser.
Oh, wow.
That was their first...
I mean, Dallin Oaks just wasannounced.
I mean, they met each other andit was just like, okay, are we

(42:44):
going to get married?
And they were married within, Idon't know, a month or two at
the most.
It just happened very quickly.
And by all accounts...
They're quite happy with eachother.
But that was Dallin Oaks'response was, I'm a man and
you're a woman.
Are you okay with that?

(43:05):
And the joke was, well, not ifyou're a cross-dresser.
And I've heard that and I justthought, wow.
And the other thing is thatthere are a number of, like
there are women that aredivorced or widowed that the
Brethren would not even considermarrying.

(43:26):
or consider dating.
They will only consider dating awoman that has never been
married because if they'rewidowed and they're married in
the temple, that means theycan't be sealed to them.
So it's this eternal polygamything that's still out there.
So anyway, so I don't know ifI'm going to get in trouble for
telling that story, but I don'tthink I will.

SPEAKER_00 (43:48):
Extraordinary first few words of the day.
I mean, just

SPEAKER_01 (43:51):
weird and odd.
It's weird and odd.
And there were other peoplethere.
There were four people therebecause there was a chaperone
for each of them.
That's hard.
Any dates.
I'm a man and you're a woman.
Are you okay with that?
Yeah.
Anyway.
All right.
So now we're getting into LGBTQquestions.

(44:12):
Although they always say LGBT.
They don't.
Okay.
First one.
Sometimes a male spirit isplaced in a female body, and
sometimes a female spirit isplaced in a male body.

SPEAKER_00 (44:32):
Agree or disagree?
Oh, boy, that's an interestingone.
I agree with that now.
I didn't used to be.
I held the church's positionthat Elder Packer said, why
would God do something likethis, do anything like this to
somebody?
I think the...
Proclamation to the world ismale and female spirit.

(44:53):
It teaches that.
It

SPEAKER_01 (44:56):
does not explicitly teach that.
All it says is that gender iseternal, but it doesn't say male
and female.
It says it's an eternal part ofidentity, of your eternal
identity and purpose.
And many transgender people tookthat language and said, yes,

(45:18):
it's my eternal gender.
And my eternal gender is at oddswith my physical gender, which
required President Oaks to say,no, no, no, what we meant was
that we meant your biologicalsex assigned at birth.
But that's not what the actualproclamation says.
So that just highlights one ofthe problems that the

(45:39):
proclamation on the family isused to push things that it
doesn't

SPEAKER_00 (45:44):
explicitly say.
It says that all human beingsare created in the image of God.
As a beloved spirit, son ordaughter of heavenly parents,
each person has a divine natureand destiny.
Gender is an essentialcharacteristic of human identity
before, during, and after lifeon earth.
I'm reading the Proclamation ofthe World there.

(46:07):
So, you know, my interpretationfrom the Proclamation is that
you are either a male or afemale spirit.
And so the question is, couldyou be a male spirit in a female
body?
I believe that now and know thatbecause the people that I've met
who have opened up to me andshared with me that they are a

(46:29):
female in a man's body andknowing these people as well as
I do and trusting them, andtrusting their feelings, I now
believe that.
I didn't used to believe that.
I was completely other end ofthe spectrum where that's just
not possible.
So I think there arephysiological factors and

(46:50):
psychological factors andspiritual factors which have
taught me that yes, a malespirit can be placed in a female
body.
And these individuals, by theway, Jim, they share with me
that they feel trapped insideyou know, a female or a male
body and it's not them.

(47:12):
It's not their body, so tospeak.

SPEAKER_01 (47:15):
No, that's, that's what they've said to me too, is
said to me as well.
And the more you talk to peoplewho are transgender, the more
you recognize that the idea thatthey would just sort of casually
decide that, Hey, you know what,um, I'm going to see what it's,

(47:37):
you know, I'm just going to trywhat it'd be like to be a woman
if I'm a man.
I mean, because that's the waythey're sort of characterized.
You know, here in the UnitedStates, our lovely new president
has issued an executive orderthat says that we no longer
recognize transgender people.

(47:58):
And when Trump was elected,Caitlyn Jenner, You're aware of
Caitlyn Jenner?
I know the name, yeah.

SPEAKER_00 (48:07):
I know a bit about the individual, yeah.

SPEAKER_01 (48:09):
Yeah, so Caitlyn Jenner is still a Republican and
just tweeted out, oh, America issaved.
God bless you, Mr.
President.
And all these people ended upsaying, dude, he just made sure
that he just said you could onlybe called Bruce.
You know, he...

(48:31):
He's thrown transgender peopleunder the bus.
The church is transgenderpolicies.
We talked about that for a wholeepisode.
But we have reached a point inthe church where we are willing
to acknowledge the legitimacy ofgay people, but we are not

(48:51):
willing to acknowledge thatthere are even transgender
people.
We just try to pretend that thisjust doesn't happen.
And the weight of evidence isoverwhelming that people who
feel that their gender isdifferent from their biological
sex at birth, this is such adriving, powerful part of who

(49:13):
they are.
I mean, I don't know.
I think I said, I don't know ifI agree or disagree because I
don't know what the relationshipis between the physical biology
and the spiritual biology.
If you could even talk aboutspiritual biology.
I don't know how that works.
I don't think the church knowshow that works.
And I don't think anybody reallyknows how that works.

(49:37):
So I think we should err on theside of compassion and inclusion
rather than just say we knowmore than we actually do.
I just don't think we understandthis phenomenon.
We do understand the sufferingof the people who experience it.
And we should be erring on theside of inclusion.

(49:58):
I have a transgender relative.
And again, I'm going to be vaguebecause this transgender
relative has not given mepermission to identify them.
But they've said, how am I athreat to anybody?
Why am I so frightening topeople?
You know, because transgenderismis just the huge bugaboo right

(50:23):
now of all The right wing in theUnited States, I think the right
wing worldwide, and certainly inthe church.
It's just, these are the peoplethat we've decided to otherize
and demonize and say, you know,these are scary people that are
threatening the foundations ofwhatever it is.
And it's just not true.

(50:44):
It's just not true.
These are people very often whoare in a tremendous amount of
emotional pain for most of theirlife.
And transitioning gives them ameasure of solace that previous
generations, because this isn'tsomething that just was invented

(51:04):
a few years ago.
Transgenderism has been with ussince the beginning.
People have felt this way sincethe beginning, and it's only now
that medical science is sort ofcatching up to offer different
remedies.
And not everybody medicallytransitions.

(51:24):
Some people are comfortable justsocially transitioning.
We just don't understand it.
And if we don't understand it,why not err on the side of
inclusion?

SPEAKER_00 (51:34):
My position on this doesn't come necessarily from
studies.
It comes from people who haveopened up to me.
People I know and trust.
Some of them I've known for along time who don't make this
stuff up.
This is how they feel.
They told me why they feel.
They told me why they think theyfeel like this to the best of
their ability.
I have no reason to disbelievethem.

(51:55):
They're very genuine.
This is how they feel, and it'sreal.
At least it's real to them.
And

SPEAKER_01 (52:03):
we have no way of measuring it any other way.
If it's real to them, then it'sreal to me.
Sure.
And everybody's like, well,let's see.
I've heard all the arguments.
And none of them are persuasiveat this point.

SPEAKER_00 (52:24):
It'll be interesting to see if now the church, I
think it's a bit cowardly of thechurch putting this out and the
question there, because it'slike putting the feelers out.
What do people really think?
I think he probably knows thatalready.
The questions and the time ofthe question is bizarre.
Keeping in mind the questionthere doesn't exist anymore.
And the other thing as well, isthe church going to retrench now

(52:44):
that Trump has made it anofficial position that there's
only two genders.
Is the church going to retractand reposition itself back to
its traditional thinking andcome out in support and abandon
some of its more softer,flexible thinking towards
transgender?
Is it going to take more of ahard line in line with Trump?

(53:08):
Who knows?
We'll see if the church does theright thing or not.
The

SPEAKER_01 (53:13):
church is very happy with I think our current
president would be very happywith the church's current
transgender policy because it'spretty consistent with what our
president is doing.
Yeah, you want to read the next

SPEAKER_00 (53:30):
one?
Sure.
Okay, it is a sin to feelattracted to the others of the
same gender.
The church teaches that still.
It's trying

SPEAKER_01 (53:40):
to teach that.
The church absolutely does notteach that anymore.
It doesn't?
No.

SPEAKER_00 (53:47):
Okay.
Let me just challenge you onthat.
It did teach that.
It absolutely

SPEAKER_01 (53:57):
did.
It absolutely did, and now itabsolutely does not.
You can find all kinds ofstatements, particularly by Boyd
K.
Packer in his talk, Two YoungMen Only, which is mainly about
masturbation, but also abouthomosexuality and talks about a
missionary decking his companionbecause he finds out he's gay.

(54:19):
And Elder Packer says, well, I'mnot recommending that course of
action, but I am not ruling itout either.
And that was a big laugh line.

SPEAKER_00 (54:28):
I don't agree with you.
I'll tell you why.
Now I know our local leadershere teach that to be attracted,
certainly to act upon it.
The

SPEAKER_01 (54:41):
question is to feel attracted.
We're going to get to acted on,but the feeling, we're now told,
I mean, the church is veryexplicit in saying same-sex
attraction, and I hate thatphrase, but same-sex attraction
is not a sin, but acting on itis.

SPEAKER_00 (54:58):
Okay, I want to change what I've said because
I'm wrong.
When I'm wrong, I say I'm wrong.
Thanks for highlighting it.
To feel attracted to others isnot...
is not a sin.
You're right.
I interpret it as to feel is toact, and it's not saying that.
So I take back what I've said.
I was wrong.
If you act upon it, which isanother situation entirely, then

(55:24):
that is a transgression.
So yeah, I stand corrected.

SPEAKER_01 (55:28):
So the church is trying to carve out this middle
ground that I think isuntenable.
Because if it's not a sin tofeel attracted to others of the
same gender, then what's God'spurpose for allowing people to,
you know, when Elder Packer saidthat thing about why would
Heavenly Father do that toanyone, that's actually a really

(55:50):
good question.
He was asking it rhetorically asif there was no answer.
But there has to be an answer.
If it's not a sin to be gay,then what is the righteous
purpose for those feelings?

UNKNOWN (56:06):
Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 (56:07):
So that's a good question.
Yeah.
All right.
The next one says it is wrong toexpect someone to live their
entire lives without having sex.
That's a

SPEAKER_00 (56:19):
really

SPEAKER_01 (56:20):
interesting question

SPEAKER_00 (56:21):
too.
Yes.
I know someone, and you knowthem very well as well, who
while they were serving amission, they were very
concerned and worried that JesusChrist might come before he has
sex with his wife.
I won't tell you the name.
I'll keep the name private.

(56:41):
You know what I'm talking about.
I

SPEAKER_01 (56:43):
think I know who you're talking about.

SPEAKER_00 (56:46):
That Christ would come before he finished his
mission and that he would never,ever have sex.

SPEAKER_01 (56:54):
Does he not think he's going to have sex in the
next life?

SPEAKER_00 (56:58):
Is it the same thing?
I don't know.
I mean, that's a long time towait, isn't it?
So...
Is it wrong to expect someone tolive their entire life without
having sex?
Yeah, I think so.

SPEAKER_01 (57:12):
There are a lot of people in and out of the church
who do live their lives withouthaving sex.
And it's not a choice,necessarily.
But yeah, I think that sex isvery much a part of everybody's
life.

(57:33):
Or...
I mean, it's one of the thingsthat I think God has provided to
bring people together.
It's essential in order tocontinue the human race.
And I think people that go theirentire lives without it, that's
just, yeah, I don't think it'sfair to expect that of anybody.

SPEAKER_00 (57:52):
I agree.

SPEAKER_01 (57:54):
All right.
Next one is God made a mistakewhen he made people who are gay.
No.

SPEAKER_00 (58:00):
No.
No.
I don't know why people are gay.
They are gay.
They feel the way they do.
Did God make them that way?
I think so.
God made them...
You know, there's nature.
There's laws of nature.
They feel the way they do.
They're not a mistake.
I mean, what an awful thing toseek or suggest to someone that

(58:24):
they're a mistake if they'regay.
And you know, this is a realproblem in the church where...
Someone is gay or they feel gayor they act upon it and they
commit what the church teachesas sin, transgression, if they
act upon it.
Not if they feel, that weaddressed earlier.
And they feel terrible, theyfeel guilty, yet they can't deny
the feelings, but they'retrapped.

(58:47):
And some of them sadly turn tosuicide because they don't know
where to go.
Who do they turn to?
I mean, they feel thesefeelings.
They can't act upon them.
And if they do, they transgress,they've fallen foul of God's
teachings, they're rejected bythe family, rejected by God, yet
they feel the way they do.
And God made them that way.

(59:07):
And they feel they're a mistake,but they're not.
They're equal.
A son or a child of God, justlike you and I, just like anyone
else.

SPEAKER_01 (59:17):
Yeah, and that's actually what the church now
teaches.
But I don't think, what'sinteresting about these
questions is that I'm bettingthat that has not trickled down
to the general membershipbecause there are still plenty
of members and plenty of leaderswho still believe that that's
true.

(59:37):
And so the last question onhere, this is the big money
question.

SPEAKER_00 (59:42):
Yeah, it's a big one.

SPEAKER_01 (59:43):
And it's the question that I am asked by
people who consider themselvesdefenders of the church, who
consider me too apostate becauseI don't hate LGBTQ people
enough.
I don't hate them at all.
But they always say, you wantthe church to seal same-sex

(01:00:08):
couples in the temple.
And that's the statement here.
The church should seal same-sexcouples in the temple.
Do you agree or disagree, Ian?

SPEAKER_00 (01:00:17):
I used to vehemently disagree with that.
Now, on the other hand, end ofthe spectrum.
If two people love each otherand they can serve in the church
like anyone else, why can't theybe sealed in the temple if they
love each other?
And they're committed anddevoted and they could remain
faithful to each other and loyalto each other, just like a man

(01:00:37):
and a woman.
Why can't those blessings beextended to same-sex couples?
Keeping in mind, you know, gaysare not mistakes.
The children of God, we justsaid that.
You just said that.

UNKNOWN (01:00:49):
Hmm.

SPEAKER_00 (01:00:49):
What disqualifies them from receiving those
blessings if they're children ofGod and if they're not mistakes
and if God made them that way?
It seems a cruel irony to createpeople who feel gay, who are in
love with each other, but theycan't be together for the
eternities.

(01:01:10):
That just seems cruel.

SPEAKER_01 (01:01:14):
All right, so I am going to answer this question,
and this may be a bit of adodge.
But my answer is, I do not wantto do anything in the temples
that God does not want to do.
And if this is what God choosesto do in order to bring about

(01:01:37):
inclusion of gay and lesbianpeople in the church, then I
will fully embrace it.
I am not mandating it.
I am not demanding it.
I am not an activist campaigningfor it.
I will accept it if it's whatGod wants to do, if it is the
subject of revelation.

(01:01:58):
And I am confident that this isa church of continuing
revelation.
And so when people ask me thisquestion, my answer is, look, I
am confident.
I am 100% confident that thatthere is going to be greater
inclusion of LGBTQ people in thechurch.

(01:02:22):
What that looks like is up toGod.
It is not up to me.
And so I, you know, so that's myanswer.
My answer is the church shouldseal same-sex couples in the
temple only if God wants it.
And there are people who hearthat and get angry because, of

(01:02:44):
course, God doesn't want it.
Of course, God would never wantit.
Like, I just don't think that weshould be placing limits on what
God can and can't do.
And we have seen so many changesin terms of inclusion that if
this is a change that is in thefuture, I will embrace it.
If it is not a change in thefuture, I am committed to

(01:03:09):
sustaining the brethren andPeople are like, well, what are
you going to do if it doesn'thappen?
It's like, well, what am I doingnow?
I'm 56 years old.
I've lived my entire life in thechurch.
I haven't left yet.
I haven't put a deadline onthis.
I haven't made any demands orinsisted that God do something
according to my timetable,according to my specifications.

(01:03:32):
And so if this does not happenin my lifetime, I will continue
a faithful member of the churchregardless.
So is that too much of a dodge?
I think it's fair.
I

SPEAKER_00 (01:03:47):
think it's, you know, you're trying to balance
your commitment and yourdevotion, you're supporting the
prophet, and you're putting itin the hands of God who
understands this way more thananyone else.
So, yeah, I think it's a veryfair response.

SPEAKER_01 (01:04:02):
All right.
So now we move on to issues ofrace.
Our friend from a few podcastsago would have a lot to say
about this.
And we went into thisextensively in that discussion.
Do you want to read the

SPEAKER_00 (01:04:17):
first question?
Sure.
People with dark skin were notas faithful in premortal life.
Now, I've been taught that.
I've taught that.
I used to believe that.
I no longer believe that.
I think it's, if people thinkand believe that, I think that's

(01:04:38):
awful, tragic.
You know, people with black skinare equal to anyone else and can
be faithful to anyone else.
And the church has addressedthis in one of the essays under
the Raising the Priesthood,which came out in October 2013.
It was the beginning of my...
I look at it and I wasunraveling, but reconstructing,

(01:05:02):
maybe that's the word.
Is that such a word?
Just made it up.
Reconstructing my faith.
And actually following...
me being honest with myself andbeing authentic and following
what I've always believed andprivately rejected the notion
that people with dark skin werenot as faithful.
I never believed it, even thoughI might have said that I do.

(01:05:24):
I didn't privately.
And so, no, people with darkskin are as faithful as anyone
with any other skin.
So I don't believe or acceptthat as it's written.

SPEAKER_01 (01:05:39):
No, And I agree with you 100%.
We don't know anything about thepremortal life.
We don't know anything about whowas righteous, who was
unrighteous, what theconsequences of our behavior
there, how that has any bearingon what we do now.
We just don't know anything.
And to have somebody, as ourguest did a few weeks ago, just

(01:06:03):
assert, well, it wasn't thatthey were less faithful, it's
that they chose not to What wasit he said?
They chose not to have priests.
Yeah.
You don't know that?

SPEAKER_00 (01:06:17):
No,

SPEAKER_01 (01:06:18):
we

SPEAKER_00 (01:06:19):
don't know that.
I've never heard that before.
I think I was just, I have no

SPEAKER_01 (01:06:23):
idea what it is.
The church did teach this.
We no longer teach it.
And the thing that's frustratingabout a lot of these questions
or statements is that theinitial teaching of this was
very vocal and very public.
And the disavowal of it is veryquiet and easily missed by a lot

(01:06:45):
of members.
I've had people get angry when Iquote the Race and the
Priesthood essay.
It's like, don't bring that intothe gospel doctrine class.
This is published by the church.
This is the church's position.
And people are veryuncomfortable because it

(01:07:06):
challenges the a longstandingteaching.
And this was absolutely alongstanding teaching in the
church.
Um, the next one, God does notlove one race more than another.
Absolutely.
I agree with that.
You agree with that?
I do.
Okay.
The next one, it is acommandment to marry within your

(01:07:26):
race.
I do not agree with

SPEAKER_00 (01:07:28):
that.
It used to be a commandment orinstruct from like Brigham Young
where, you know, to marryoutside of the race was death on
the spot.
Right.
Uh, You know, and many, many ofthe quotes and references, but
no, the thing has changed now.

SPEAKER_01 (01:07:44):
It's changed very quietly.
And in fact, language aboutinterracial dating, discouraging
interracial dating orinterracial marriage, survived
into manuals into the 21stcentury, as recently as I think
about 10 years ago.
Yes.

SPEAKER_00 (01:08:05):
So...
I just want to read thesignificant paragraph, if I may.
I think it's so important toquote this in the Race and the
Priesthood essay.
It says the church today, forour listeners, you can find this
in the Race and the Priesthoodessay right at the very end of
the essay.
He says here, today the churchdisavows The theories, they

(01:08:27):
weren't just theories, they wereteachings, they were the
doctrine.
The theories advanced in thepast that black skin is a sign
of divine disfavor or curse.
Remember, it's taught in theBook of Mormon.
So Nephi believed this, right?
Or that it reflects unrighteousactions in a premortal life,
that mixed race marriages are asin, or that blacks or people of

(01:08:47):
any other race or ethnicity areinferior in any way to anyone
else.
Church leaders today believeunequivocally condemn all
racism, past and present, in anyform.

SPEAKER_01 (01:09:02):
And how many members of the church have never ever
heard that?
President Nelson has, I think,been more outspoken against
racism than any previousprophet.
And yet he's never said anythingthat explicit from the pulpit.
He's never disavowed previousteachings.
He's just said, We need to rootout racism.

(01:09:23):
And Paul Reeve, who's abrilliant and faithful scholar
who teaches at the University ofUtah, says, how do you root out
racism in the church if you'renot allowed to look at the roots
of where racism took hold in thechurch?
And the roots were these kindsof statements that you have to
marry within your race.

(01:09:43):
I mean, the next statement isdark skin is a curse, and we
both disagree with that.
But that was absolutelysomething that was taught.
And I couldn't get our guest toeven admit that that had ever
happened, that that had everbeen taught.
So there's a number of people inthe church that not only still
believe that, but they're notwilling to assign any

(01:10:08):
possibility of error everhappening.
And they're not willing to admitthat there has ever been a
change.
And that's the final thing aboutthis here.
The final statement here is, Thechurch's history with blacks in
the priesthood shows thatdoctrine itself can change.
And I think we would both agreewith that.

(01:10:28):
But how do you think a member ofthe Quorum of the Twelve
Apostles would answer thatquestion?

SPEAKER_00 (01:10:39):
The last question?

SPEAKER_01 (01:10:40):
Yeah.
Church's history with blacks inthe priesthood shows that
doctrine itself can change.
Do you think that Dallin Oaks orDavid Bednar would agree with
that?

SPEAKER_00 (01:10:51):
Yes, so they couch it differently.
I mean, clearly the doctrine haschanged.
I mean, you can't argue that.
The position of the church haschanged.
That disavow statement we justread, that's very clear in my
mind, right?
There's been a change in thedoctrine.
How would they present that?
They would say, well, up until1978, that was God's position.

(01:11:15):
And then in 1978, God decidedthat the church was ready to
extend the priesthood to peopleof all color.
So I think that's how the churchapostles would address it.
They wouldn't throw the prophetsunder the bus.

(01:11:36):
They would never say, yeah, theywould never say the doctrine
changes.
They would say, they wouldn'tcome out and say that.
They say God decided in 1978that it was time for blacks to
have the priesthood.
That's as far as you get.

SPEAKER_01 (01:11:52):
So they won't throw Brigham Young under the bus, but
they'll throw God under the bus.
That's bizarre to me.
Yes.
It's much easier for me tobelieve that Brigham Young is a
racist rather than believe Godis a racist.
And the way that they frame itis, well, God can't be a racist
because he's God.

(01:12:13):
So obviously it wasn't racist,which is just circular reasoning
and begging the question andpretty much nonsense.
All right.
So there are three more pages.
We're past an hour here.
This page I don't think isparticularly interesting.
Can we just sort of rip throughthis one?
Great.

(01:12:33):
I think we can do this in thenext 10 minutes

SPEAKER_00 (01:12:35):
so we can zip through it.

SPEAKER_01 (01:12:36):
Okay.
It says, it is okay to lie if itleads to a good outcome.
I don't believe that.
Do you believe that?

SPEAKER_00 (01:12:41):
No.

SPEAKER_01 (01:12:42):
Being honest requires that I strive to make
sure that others understandcorrectly.
I believe that.
Do you believe that?
No.

SPEAKER_00 (01:12:49):
and I think the church should do a better job
following that.

SPEAKER_01 (01:12:52):
Yeah, I agree.
I mean, because the church, Ithink, thinks that they...
We've never been dishonest.
We've never hid anything fromanybody.
Well, you haven't really madesure...
You know, all the stuff we justtalked about, there are a whole
lot of members of the churchthat don't understand any of
that because the church hasn'tstrived to make sure that others
understand it.
Okay, as long as I don't lie, Iam honest.

SPEAKER_00 (01:13:14):
No, the church doesn't teach that.
The church says if you...
conceal or don't only get a halftruth.
He says in those lessons thatwe've talked about that there's
other ways of being dishonest.
We talk about that on thepodcast.
Again, the church would do wellto remind itself of the basic
principles of honesty because ithasn't been honest.

(01:13:34):
It has lied.
It has concealed.
It has misdirected people, andit has withheld important
information and truth, and ithas not followed its own
principles of honesty outlinedin that Gospel Principles
Manual.
All

SPEAKER_01 (01:13:49):
right, well, the last thing about honesty, this
is a really weird question.
The commandment to not bearfalse witness only applies when
one is under oath in a court oflaw.
I don't know of anybody thatwould agree with that.
Do you?
No, I don't.
All right, so this last, this isthe next to last page.

(01:14:12):
Okay.
This is all plural marriagestuff.
Interesting.
One must enter into pluralmarriage, polygamy, in order to
be exalted.
And I don't think either one ofus agree with that.

SPEAKER_00 (01:14:25):
No, but I think the church does.
Privately, personally, yeah.

SPEAKER_01 (01:14:29):
Do you think that they think that we all have to
be polygamists?

UNKNOWN (01:14:34):
Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 (01:14:34):
They believe it.
They've never privatelyabandoned it, right?
I think this is an eternal thingthat they are happy to teach and
follow in the next life.

SPEAKER_01 (01:14:47):
Well, they certainly believe that it will be there in
the next life.
I think Presidents Nelson andOaks both believe that they're
going to be married to both oftheir wives on the other side of
the veil.
I don't think that they believethat everybody has to be a
politician.
I think there was a time, Ithink Brigham Young believed

(01:15:07):
that.
I certainly believe John Taylorbelieved that.
I'm not sure if Wilford Woodruffbelieved that at one point.
But certainly this was somethingthat was believed early on.
But I think now, if there aresome who still believe that, I
would think they're in theminority.
Maybe I'm wrong.

SPEAKER_00 (01:15:28):
I think that's fair.
It's a fair statement.

SPEAKER_01 (01:15:30):
Okay.
Some people would be forced intoplural marriage polygamy after
mortality.
I don't know.
We've talked about polygamyhere.
We've already covered a lot ofthis.
Members of the church todaypractice plural marriage and
remain members in good standing.

SPEAKER_02 (01:15:50):
Yes.

SPEAKER_01 (01:15:53):
Well, yes, but only eternally,

SPEAKER_00 (01:15:56):
right?
Well, Sure, but it is pluralmarriage.
You're married to more than oneperson.
Sealed.
Right.
But only

SPEAKER_01 (01:16:05):
one person at a time in mortality.
Sure.
Okay.
I'm hair splitting here.
You know, I read a great bookover Christmas called American
Zion by Benjamin Park.
And he talked about RichardLyman, who was the apostle who
was excommunicated for adultery.
And his wife...

(01:16:25):
had essentially said afterthey'd had children, okay, we
don't have to have sex anymore.
And had just cut them off forthe rest of their marriage.
And he fell in love with thisother woman and essentially
said, okay, we're going to getsealed to each other in the next
life.
And then it became a physicalrelationship in this life.

(01:16:46):
And he essentially treated heras a plural wife.
But this was long after themanifesto.
This was well into the 20thcentury.
And he was excommunicated.
But if any member of the churchthinks they can marry in this
life more than one living woman,I can't think of any faster way

(01:17:12):
to get excommunicated.
It's

SPEAKER_00 (01:17:16):
not saying that.
He says here, one must enter...
Just scroll down a bit, Jim, ifyou will.
Just scroll down a bit more.
One must...
You should make your print a bitbigger, if you will.

SPEAKER_01 (01:17:25):
Yeah, that was the first question.
One must enter into pluralmarriage in order to be exalted.

SPEAKER_00 (01:17:29):
Yep.

SPEAKER_01 (01:17:31):
This question here.
Members of the church todaypractice plural marriage and
remain members in good standing.

SPEAKER_00 (01:17:36):
Sorry, repeat the question.
I was speaking at the same time.
Go

SPEAKER_01 (01:17:39):
ahead.
I'm sorry.
Members of the church todaypractice plural marriage and
remain members in good standing.

SPEAKER_00 (01:17:45):
I don't think we're splitting airs when we're saying
that there are people in thechurch, Oaks and Nelson, who are
technically exalted.
seal to more than two people,even though it's not in this
life, the other person is in thenext life, it's still plural
marriage in the context of whatthe church believes regarding
eternal life.

SPEAKER_01 (01:18:03):
So I agree with that.
I agree with that.
What I'm saying is if PresidentNelson hadn't waited to marry
Wendy Watson until after hisfirst wife was dead, he would
not be a member in goodstanding.
if he had decided, okay, well,I'm going to marry Wendy while
Danzel is still alive.

(01:18:23):
Well,

SPEAKER_00 (01:18:23):
you're right.

SPEAKER_01 (01:18:24):
You're right.
All right.
This is the Michelle Brady Stonequestion.
Joseph Smith did not instituteplural marriage.
It was initiated by BrighamYoung without divine direction.
I don't agree with that.

SPEAKER_00 (01:18:39):
No.
The evidence is we had BradyStone on that.
It was interesting to hear.
get her perspective on things.
But Joe Smith did practicepolygamy.
He hid it.
He hid it.
He hid it from Emma.
He practiced it.
He said he didn't or wasn'tpracticing it when he was.

(01:19:02):
He initiated it.
It came from him.
He was the prophet.
He brought it in.
Brigham Young carried it on.
Yep.

SPEAKER_01 (01:19:09):
And I don't see how anybody can stay in the church
and if they believe that BrighamYoung just completely made it
up.
I mean, but we've talked aboutthat too.
So last one, if I enter intoplural marriage, I would be
committing a sin.
What do you think?

SPEAKER_00 (01:19:31):
Well, it's how you define plural marriage.
Is it in this life or the nextlife?
If it is in this lifephysically, yes, because the
church has abandoned thepractice in the flesh in this
life.
But The church still teaches itand practices it in the next
life.
So, no, it's not a sin if youget sealed to someone else who's
living and your first wife haspassed away.

(01:19:53):
No.
In fact, you're encouraged toremarry.
But if they're alive, then,yeah, that's a problem.

SPEAKER_01 (01:20:00):
Okay, this is the last page.
There are three questions.
They're all about repentance.
And I think these are actuallyvery thoughtful questions.
So to conclude, can you justread all three of these
questions and we'll just discussthis whole idea?
Yes.

(01:20:21):
Okay.

SPEAKER_00 (01:20:22):
Yeah, absolutely.
Repenting is repairing a brokenrelationship with God.
Repenting requires coming tothink and feel differently.
A commandment is something youhave to do, and if you don't do
it, you are condemned,regardless of effort,
circumstances, or intention.

SPEAKER_01 (01:20:42):
Those are very thoughtful questions, I think.

SPEAKER_00 (01:20:45):
They're some of the good questions compared to the
others, some of the others forsure.
So yeah, so repenting isrepairing a broken relationship.
Yes.
You know, we make a mistake.
We recognize the mistake.
It's that pattern again, isn'tit?
We feel sorry.
We make restitution.
We seek forgiveness.
We're stronger and better forit.
We learn lessons.
We're closer to God.
We feel God's forgiveness.

(01:21:05):
We feel his love.
We're closer.
I like that.
That is familiar with me, to me.

SPEAKER_01 (01:21:13):
The idea of thinking and feeling differently, I
think, is very powerful too.

SPEAKER_00 (01:21:18):
It is because if we're honest and we're humble,
we make a mistake and weacknowledge it and we repair it
and we apologize and seekforgiveness from other people
and make restitution.
Well, we see ourselvesdifferently, we think
differently, we feeldifferently.
Hopefully we're wiser and wehave a much more spiritual depth

(01:21:40):
and spiritual maturity.
because of the experience.
So again, I think that's, Iagree with you.
I think it's a thoughtfulcomment statement.

SPEAKER_01 (01:21:49):
The last one is interesting too, because this is
the idea of if you don't dosomething, you're condemned
regardless of effort,circumstances, or intention.
One of the great things that thechurch teaches and has taught me
all my life is that it is yourintention that matters even more
than your action.

(01:22:10):
that it is possible to do thewrong thing for the right
reason.
It's possible to do the rightthing for the wrong reason.
And it's the 133rd section, Ithink, the one that was added in
1978, but it was Joseph Smith'sVision of the Celestial Kingdom.
And he saw Alvin in theCelestial Kingdom, and he

(01:22:30):
marveled that Alvin would getthere because he died before the
gospel was restored.
And In the course of thatrevelation, the Lord says, I
judge all men by their actionsand by the desires of their
heart.
And so I think that's what endsup ultimately saving all of us,

(01:22:54):
is that the desires of ourheart, this is why I think that
there's sort of a universalsalvation, because we all want
the same thing.
We all want love.
We all want a connection to thedivine.
We all want a connection to eachother.
And so there are people in thisworld that are in circumstances

(01:23:18):
where they will never understandor hear about the restored
gospel or any kind of gospel.
And yet they have the rightdesires of their heart.
Their intentions are good.
They're seeking that connection.
And we are taught, veryexplicitly that that's how we're

(01:23:41):
judged.
We're judged by where our heartis.
Do you agree with that?
I

SPEAKER_00 (01:23:45):
do.
I do agree with that.
Two thoughts on this.
I know we're going to concludehere.
A commandment, for example, isnot to have sex before marriage,
right?
Can you just make the question abit bigger?
Could you go back to thequestion?
Oh, yeah.
I took it down.
That's okay.
Okay, so if it's a commandmentnot to have sex before marriage,

(01:24:11):
let's go into the question.
You made the question a bitbigger so I could read it.
Thank you.
So a commandment is somethingyou have to do, and if you don't
do it, you're condemned,regardless of effort,
circumstance, or intention.
So let's say, you know, you havesex before marriage.

(01:24:32):
It's Completely against thecommandment.
You're told not to.
Commanded not to.
And if you do, you're condemned.
But you can say, well, I triednot to have sex, but I did.
The circumstances were againstme.
I got myself into a situation.
I didn't intend to get myself inthat situation.

(01:24:53):
But in the church's eyes, youcan say, you know, I made a
mistake, but you're condemned.
And so...
But if you tried your best andyou fail because he's human, I
don't think you're condemned.
In fact, the church says you'renot condemned because you can

(01:25:14):
seek forgiveness.
So yeah, it's a commandment.
You make a mistake and thechurch says I made a mistake.
You're condemned.
That sounds a bit permanent tome.
You're not really condemnedbecause you can seek
forgiveness.
I think murder is the only onethat you can't...
get forgiven by anything thatwe're not sure about.

(01:25:36):
And the last comment on that, athought on that, is I remind
ourselves of the Scripture, 2Nephi 25-23, which I think your
last few comments you may havebeen alluding to, at least
reminding me of the Scripture,which says here, for we know
that it is by grace that we aresaved after all we can do.
So we do the very best we can.
We're human.

(01:25:57):
We hopefully make gooddecisions.
We get ourselves into situationsor other people put themselves
in situations.
We are weak in regards to theflesh.
We make mistakes.
We're not condemned for eternitybecause we have the power of
forgiveness.
And we seek forgiveness.
We repent and we change andimprove.
And therefore, we can restoreour relationship with God.

(01:26:21):
And in the end, we can...
return to God throughforgiveness.
We say by grace, the grace ofChrist, the grace of God, after
all we can do.

SPEAKER_01 (01:26:34):
Okay, that is a really powerful way to end this,
because that scripture is beingemployed, usually employed, to
say something that is directlyopposite of what it was intended
to say.
There's a guy named DanMcClellan.

(01:26:55):
He has a great podcast calledData Over Dogma.
And he used to work for thechurch as the head of the
scriptural translatordepartment.
And he wrote a paper for BYUabout that scripture.
And that phrase, after all wecan do, is employed by leaders
of the church.
It's now part of the templeceremony.

(01:27:16):
They bring that into the templeceremony.
And The intention behind thatphrase, as interpreted in a 21st
century context, is, okay, doeverything you can do, and then
Christ's grace makes up therest.
And what Dan McClellan pointedout in his paper is that in the
19th century, the phrase afterall we can do is very similar to

(01:27:43):
a phrase like when we talkabout, well, at the end of the
day.
In other words, what it reallymeans is not after all we can
do.
It means essentially despite allwe can do.
Like we use the phrase, at theend of the day, what really
matters is grace.

(01:28:03):
You know, after all we can do,what really matters is grace, is
what this verse means.
We have this idea in the churchthat we somehow earn our
salvation.
And that was even, I remember,we would show Man's Search for
Happiness.
There were two versions of it.

(01:28:23):
There was the 1950s version, andthen there was a new version.
And in the 1950s version, itmade a distinction between
salvation and exaltation.
And it said everybody is savedby grace, but exaltation,
salvation is a free gift.
We're saved by grace.

(01:28:44):
But exaltation must be Earned.
They used the word earned.
It must be earned.
And they took that out of thenewer version, the one with
Marvin Payne, who is a friend ofmine and is a delightful man who
hates Donald Trump even morethan I do.

(01:29:07):
But they took that out.
And I remember talking to RobertMillett, who was a BYU professor
who wrote a number of books withJoseph Fielding McConkie.
And I said, and he wrote, he'sthe one who wrote a couple of
books about grace.
And I asked him about that.
And he said, yeah, that wastaken out because it's, it's,

(01:29:29):
it's incorrect.
We don't earn our salvation.
We are saved by grace.
And we are so terrified ofembracing the universal
implications of that, that wetry to do everything we can to
To say, but make sure you dothis and make sure you do that.
And if you're not married in thetemple and if you're not,
da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da.

(01:29:49):
You know, to scare people,essentially, that all is lost if
they don't, you know, as you usethis phrase many times, if they
don't live with exactness.
And the grace of Christ is farmore encompassing than that.
And that's what I believe.
If that makes me a heretic, sobe it.

(01:30:10):
I think I'm in very goodcompany, and I think I'm
consistent with the scripturesand with God on that.
I commend the church to anyone,and I think the temple is
wonderful, and the blessings ofthe temple can enrich your life.
I think that after all we cando, it's grace that saves us.

(01:30:32):
And that's where I'm going to...
So hopefully the church learnedfrom this.
I've certainly learned a lot.
We're coming in at just about anhour and a half.
We've gone longer than thisbefore.
But we've covered all thequestions.
Don't you feel a sense ofaccomplishment?

SPEAKER_00 (01:30:51):
I do.
I find the questionsfascinating.
There's some thinking behindthem.
The questions have been puttogether very carefully.
I'm sure some apostles have beenintimately involved in the
questions.
The church doesn't put thisstuff out without careful
preparation and, you know, beingscrutinizing the questions and
being, you know, really a lot ofeffort going into this.
And then they pull the questionthere.

(01:31:11):
This has been incrediblyinsightful.
I've learned a heck of a lot.
I hope the listeners have.
I've enjoyed it.
And I hope...
You have, and I hope all of thelisteners have had an
interesting experience followingthis.

SPEAKER_01 (01:31:24):
I hope so too.
And I'm very grateful to be ableto have this discussion with
you.
And I'm very grateful for all ofyou who are listening.
We very much appreciate it.
And we look forward to talkingwith you again next week and the
next episode of Inside Out.
Thank you very much, Ian.

SPEAKER_00 (01:31:41):
Thank you, Jim.

SPEAKER_01 (01:31:45):
All right.
I'm stopping.