Survey Says: Part Two

Ian and Jim continue to review the Church's recent survey questions and come up with some surprising answers. 

Episode Transcript

SPEAKER_02 (00:00):
Hello and welcome to the latest episode of Inside
Out.
I'm Ian Wilkes and I'm here withmy podcast partner, the
incredible, unbelievable JimBennett.

SPEAKER_01 (00:12):
Hello, Ian Wilkes.
Incredible, unbelievable IanWilkes.
How

SPEAKER_02 (00:16):
are you?
I'm pretty good.
That was a double barrel wordthere.
I thought I'd kind of change itup a little bit.
But when I say unbelievable, Imean, I think you are very
believable, but you're prettyunbelievable as well.
You're a pretty awesome guy.

SPEAKER_01 (00:29):
I would say the same about you, sir.

SPEAKER_02 (00:32):
Well, thank you.
I'm kind of biased.
I've known you for a long time,and I'm just grateful to be a
friend and grateful to be doingthis podcast.
We're here to do part two of areview of a questionnaire that
the church recently commissionedin the last week or so.
The questionnaire was posted.
It would appear that anyonecould have taken it at that

(00:54):
time.
I'm not a member of the church.
And it allowed me to go intosome of the questions.
When I returned to the link witha questionnaire, the link
stopped working.
But because of the geniusness ofJim Bennett, who took the
screenshots of the questions,which are very interesting, we

(01:16):
are now able to have theopportunity to review those
questions.
And the last question that weleft off, Jim, this is the
second part of the Part one thatwe did, we didn't have time to
get through all the questions ofpart one.
This is part two.
And we left off on part one onthe following question, where it
says, a priesthood holder getsblessing simply by holding the

(01:37):
priesthood.
And I think my answer to it wasthat, I don't know, maybe, maybe
not.
Who knows?
I don't have an answer to that.

SPEAKER_01 (01:46):
You know, I kind of felt like, you know, my favorite
calling is, besides being in thetabernacle choir is gospel
doctrine teacher.
And one of the things thathappens in gospel doctrine
classes is you end up focusingon one element of the lesson
when there's so much other stuffyou want to talk about.
And that's kind of how I feltafter our first podcast.

(02:08):
So I'm grateful that we get togo back and finish and go
through all of these becausethese are really good questions.
I think we, we, we, we, Wetalked about this briefly.
I mean, this is one screenshot.
A whole bunch of questions aboutpriesthood.
But I want to flesh it out justa little bit.

(02:29):
I think you could make theargument that a priesthood
holder gets blessings simply byholding the priesthood.
But what are those blessings?
Because very often when peopletalk about that, it's, well, I
have...
this sort of authority, I havethis sort of power.
And D&C 121 tells us thatwhenever anybody thinks they

(02:52):
have authority, it's the natureof all men to exercise
unrighteous dominion.
So I think thinking about itthat way kind of leads in that
direction.
And the next question sort ofleads into that too.
A priesthood leader has theright to make other people do
things his way.

(03:13):
Do you agree with that?
No,

SPEAKER_02 (03:16):
no.
I just want to go back to theother question, if I may.
Your points there raise someinteresting needs.
I'll be real quick here, becauseI know we've got to get through
quite a few of the questions.
I think the question is aboutthe incredibly revealing of the
church's thinking, and we diddiscuss some of that in the part
one of this podcast.
Going back to that otherquestion, does a priesthood holy

(03:36):
get blessings in the name of ourholy priesthood?
To your point, if it's theblessing of having an
authority...
You know, there's two sides tothat.
I think there's that unrighteousdominion side that you pointed
out, but the church makes thisextraordinary claim.
I mean, we've not covered it onthe podcast, and I'd love to,
that it possesses the onlypriesthood authority on the

(03:59):
earth.
In fact, I was taught and Itaught that every other church
and religious organization doesnot, I repeat, does not possess
the true authority of God,period.
that the Church of Jesus Christof Latter-day Saints is the only
organization on earth that hasthe only true, effective,

(04:22):
correct, authorized priesthoodauthority on the earth.
That's an extraordinary claim.
I'd love to get into that at theend of the podcast later, but
going to the next question, apriesthood leader has the right
to make other people do thingshis way.
I did respond to that lastquestion.
I think when...

(04:45):
If they're doing it forcefully,then obviously that's wrong.
But if they're a presidency, andespecially if they're a queue
holder like the state presidentor a bishop, ultimately they're
the ones who make the finaldecision.
If you don't reach a consensusin a presidency, and you've been
in a presidency, you've been abishopric, you and I both know,
and I've been a bishop, been onthe state presidency, we both
know that the bishop And thestate presidency, using those

(05:08):
examples, ultimately will makethe final decision.
Even if the councils counselotherwise, even if other people
say otherwise, they get to makethe final decision.
So yes, they can get the ward orthe individual to do what the
bishop wants and what the statepresident wants.
If they're doing it kindly,respectfully, and spiritually
and thoughtfully, that'sobviously good.
If they're not, then obviouslythat's not good.

(05:29):
And when they're not, of course,the church teaches that the
preacher authority isineffective if they're
practicing or behaving in anunrighteous, demeaning way.
So there's my thoughts on thatquestion.

SPEAKER_01 (05:41):
Yeah, and that whole idea of the priesthood authority
goes away if they're behavingunrighteously.
There's no enforcement mechanismfor that.
So, I mean, you can say, aha,well, you're using your
priesthood unrighteously, butyou don't say, okay, so now your
priesthood is gone.
It just becomes this sort ofnebulous thing disagreement that

(06:05):
has no real consequence to it.
Priesthood as an idea is areally difficult thing to nail
down, and it's something thechurch leans very heavily into
because if you take awaypriesthood authority, you take
away any sort of exclusivityfrom the church and any kind of

(06:28):
reason for people to necessarilyjoin the church.
You just become any other kindof community group, which is
what a lot of churches are,although churches that lean into
their own idea of priesthoodauthority, like the Catholic
Church, like the Greek OrthodoxChurch, or other churches that

(06:50):
claim priesthood authority, havethat same kind of thing.
The next question here, though,all men should be respected and
obeyed because only men can holdthe priesthood.
I Not only am I confident insaying that you don't believe
that and that I don't believethat, I don't know of anybody

(07:12):
other than a handful of reallyscary people might believe that.
We had a guest on this podcast afew weeks ago that might believe
that.
But you don't believe that and Idon't believe that.
Why do you think the church isasking that?

SPEAKER_02 (07:31):
That is a good question.
My goodness, why would they askthat?
And ask that now?
Maybe they're trying to get...
In the church, there is anelement of fear with some in
regards to the power that akeyholder...

(07:52):
I'm talking about the sameperson.
You probably may or may notknow, I think you will know, the
state president ultimately owesalmost all the power on almost
every level in his stake, evenbeyond the bishop.
There are certain exceptionswhere a general authority will
intervene, and the stakepresident's got the option of
counseling with the generalauthorities, but the stake
president can change your lifeon a dime.

(08:15):
Even if you disagree, there's noappeal.
He wants to excommunicate youfor something that he doesn't
think is right, et cetera.
Of course, he can exercise anunrighteous dominion, but...
He has incredible leverage onthe rank-and-file member in the
stake, far more than a bishop.
Bishops over their ownpriesthood, state presidents

(08:35):
over the Melchizedek priesthood.
And, you know, it says all menshould be respected and obeyed
because of what they make in allthe priesthood.
There is that element of fear.
You know, the sucking up goes onto the state presidency, seeing
that, and also the bishop.
There are people that hold thebishop in contempt.

(08:55):
He might have done somethingthey don't agree with.
They might respect him or not,but there is an element of
obeying the bishop and the statepresidents, not his councillors
or the state presidentcouncillors, but those two.
In fact, I would say the onlytwo, really.
The eldest quorum president is akey holder, but of no great

(09:16):
significance, really.
But the bishop and the statepresident, They're the main
players, and they're the ones tostay on the right side of.

SPEAKER_01 (09:23):
All right.

SPEAKER_02 (09:26):
They're the ones to

SPEAKER_01 (09:27):
obey, yep.
Well, so that leads to the nextquestion.
A priesthood blessing from achurch leader is better than a
priesthood blessing from aregular elder.
I

SPEAKER_02 (09:37):
think we touched a bit about that on the part one
of this podcast.
Technically, no.
There's no...
you know, difference in qualityor there shouldn't be.
But there is a perception withmany members that a blessing
from the bishop is, our statepresident is more special
because they're a key holder,you know, they're the leader,

(09:58):
they're supposed to be more intune.
But I don't accept that, butprobably quite a few do.
And often I would have, as abishop, as state president, I
would have people come to me fora blessing and I would say, no,
go see your home teachers, asthey were called back then.
And they would say, well, butit's from you, bishop.
I said, doesn't matter.

(10:18):
That's why they're there.
They're there to give you thepriesthood blessing.
And I said, you would take awaythe blessings, their blessings,
remove the opportunity for themto be blessed if you go to them.
There's no difference, I said,in the blessings.
But there's that perception,Jim, in certain people's minds
that blessing from the bishop ismore special and it's not.

SPEAKER_01 (10:36):
Well, not just the blessing from the bishop.
So this is a story I haven'tthought about for a very long
time.
But when my daughter was in thehospital recovering from her
skiing accident that left herpartially paralyzed from the
waist down, we were on the samefloor as Elder Robert C.

(10:56):
Hales, who was in the hospitalat the same time.
And we had some discussionsabout, jeez, should we approach
him?
He's an apostle.
He's just in a few rooms down.
what if we were to approach himand ask him to give my daughter

(11:18):
a blessing because a blessingfrom an apostle surely would
have the power to heal and I'mnot sure who shot it down but we
were shot down with thatpartially using the kind of
logic that you've just used withbishops and stake presidents but

(11:40):
also partially with Apostleshate that.
Apostles, because peopleconstantly approach them as if,
well, you're the special one.
You're the one who could dothis.
The reality is that a blessingfrom an apostle really isn't any
different than a blessing from abishop or a stake president or a

(12:01):
blessing from a home teacher.
I mean, I look back on that andI find the most sacred blessings
in my life are the blessings Igot from my father.
And my patriarchal blessing isvery special to me, but I've
gotten a number of father'sblessings.
And that's where I feel likewhen you have that kind of a

(12:25):
connection, that you can feelthe spirit, you can feel, but
the whole concept of priesthoodis problematic because people
expect that the higher youroffice is, the more power you
have.

(12:45):
And so an apostle should be ableto walk through a hospital floor
and just bless everybody andeverybody goes home and
everybody's healed.
And it obviously doesn't workthat way.
And I think that's a real trialof faith for a lot of people.
I don't remember it being atrial of my faith.
I mean, this is over a decadeago.

(13:07):
But I don't remember it being ahuge trial back then.
I think I understood that evenback then.
But a lot of members don't.
A lot of members are verydisappointed to learn that
apostles aren't magic.
Would that have been a trial foryou at any point in your life?

SPEAKER_02 (13:29):
Yeah, I think earlier, yeah, absolutely.
Two thoughts come to mind.
Yeah.
I have, and I don't have thisanymore, but for a long time I
had this notion that apostlescan and should heal, right?
They've got the gift of healing.
And there's all the things thatI think comes with an
apostleship calling.

(13:51):
Far more many significantspiritual powers, I think, are
bestowed upon apostles.
That's my understanding.
And I always thought that, youknow, like Elder Hale's in the
hospital.
We went back to Jesus' time andJesus was in the hospital.
He would have the power.
He'd walk around and heal peopleaccording to the faith.
That's what he did.
I don't know if he healedeverybody, but he certainly was

(14:14):
out in the streets and in thefields and in people's homes
healing people.
And then the second point, andyour comment there about
patriarchal blessings triggeredthis in my mind.
I made the mistake in the MTC oftelling people, because I
thought I had special powers.
I was a little bit arrogant backthen, I think.

(14:34):
that I told people that I hadthe gift of healing because it
was bestowed upon me orreferenced in my patriarchal
blessing that I got the gift ofhealing.
And I had three people come tome who had ailments when I was
in the MTC and I used my specialpowers to heal them.

(14:55):
I used words that I didn't fullyunderstand and I thought I had
these extraordinary powers.
Neither any of them were healed,unfortunately.
But that gift of healing, whichis associated with the
priesthood and the Holy Ghost,and exclusive to men, I believe,

(15:16):
priesthood holders.
I don't think women have thegift of healing.
Maybe they do now, but I don'tthink they do to black men.
But yeah, I had the gift ofhealing, and I would bless
people.
But I didn't really go aroundtelling people I have the gift
of healing.
I mentioned it once in the MTCinterview.
But in my own mind, I believethat I had the gift of healing,

(15:38):
that I could heal.
If I had enough faith, he hadenough faith, I could heal
whatever.
I could heal cancer.
That's what I believed.
And there were times in myblessings, certainly when I was
a bishop, that I really believedthat I could heal people.
Did I heal people?
I don't recall healing anyone,to be honest.

(16:00):
If it was a flu or a cold, Ican't say if they got well
because of what I did or said.
I can't connect the two.
But anyway, so yeah, that's mythoughts on that question.

SPEAKER_01 (16:16):
Well, you know, my patriarchal blessing says that I
have the gift of being warned intimes of danger.
And that's always struck me asreally kind of a dramatic one.
And one of the things that cameout as a result of that was the

(16:37):
miracle of the Christmas poo.
You know that story?
I do know the story, and I'veheard the song.
Yeah, I love it.
But when that happened, Ithought back to my patriarchal
blessing, and I said, this isthe fulfillment of my
patriarchal blessing.
So patriarchal blessings can befulfilled, Through the power of

(16:59):
defecation.
And

SPEAKER_02 (17:01):
also just something else, your little story there
reminded me.
I think I lost a bit ofconfidence in my patriarchal
blessing when he called me achoice handmaiden.

SPEAKER_01 (17:15):
Oh, yeah, that would have been a problem, I would
think.

SPEAKER_02 (17:17):
Yeah, he'd just given three girls in the stake
the patriarchal blessing, and Iwas next up.
And he referred me, well, hementioned I was a choice
landmaid.

SPEAKER_03 (17:27):
Really, really?

SPEAKER_02 (17:28):
Yeah, and he wrote it down, and they had to change
it.
And by the way, did you know,and Alyssa might not know this,
you know that the stakepresident is the only individual
in the stake?
because of the key holder, thathas the power and authority to
review and change patriarchalblessings and assess them for
replication.

SPEAKER_01 (17:48):
Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 (17:50):
Did you know that?

SPEAKER_01 (17:51):
I did know that.
I found out later, too, mypatriarch got in trouble for
giving lots of people the giftof being warned in times of
danger.
Right.
My sister got a patriarchalblessing that has that exact
same phrase in it.
And apparently that was justsomething he thought was pretty
cool.
So he put it in a lot ofblessings.

SPEAKER_02 (18:15):
Yeah.
We had a state patriarchy thatwas a lot of repetition, a lot
of flowery language, and thatwas changed.
So my patriarchal blessing wentback, because obviously the
choice I made it.
And also there's a few of thethings that were quite common in
this individual's language thatwere modified.
So yeah, the state president hasgot that authority and they're

(18:35):
required to check them forrepetition.
Anyway,

SPEAKER_01 (18:39):
next question.
Our next question, we moved onfrom the priesthood questions.
These are all sort of worthinessquestions.
So the question is, if someoneis of worth, and they put of
worth in quotes, which is weirdsince I've never ever heard
anybody in church say someonewas of worth.
But okay, if someone is ofworth, that means they do not

(19:01):
need to repent.
What's your answer to that?
Very strange

SPEAKER_02 (19:06):
question.
Of worth, I've never heard thatphrase or those words like that
together before.
Yeah.
I don't know what's behind thatquestion either.
Why are they asking that?
But if someone is of worth, thatmeans they do not need to
repent.
I think it's to the point Imentioned on part one of the
podcast, which I should listento, where people say, look, I'm

(19:31):
imperfect.
Accept me as I am.
I have worth.
The church teaches I've gotworth.
And I'm imperfect, and I'm doingmy best to change.

UNKNOWN (19:44):
Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 (19:46):
and probably don't need to repent because God will
accept me as I am, because Godloves me unconditionally.
This seems to be saying that, orit could be inferring that, if
you don't repent, then you'renot worth as much.
That could be an interpretationthat one could get from this.

(20:06):
Interesting

SPEAKER_01 (20:07):
question.
Yeah, the...
The fun thing and the difficultthing about reviewing these
questions is trying to get inthe minds of the people who
wrote them and trying to figureout what it is they're trying to
find out.
You know, when I worked inpolitics, for instance, when I
ran campaigns and I rancampaigns that had enough budget

(20:31):
to do actual polling, you wouldspend hours coming up with
exactly the right phraseology toput into a question.
And you would know exactly whatyou wanted to get out of that
question.
And for instance, when my fatherran for the Senate the last
time, we did some polling beforehe had any opponents.

(20:57):
And we knew who some of theopponents were going to be.
And so we put them and say,would you vote for Bob Bennett
before you would vote for MarkShurtleff, for instance, who was
the Attorney General of Utah atthe time and who did run against
my father, but then dropped outof the race.
But at one point we put in a guywhose name I made up and just
called him a businessman.
And the reason we put in a fakeguy was, okay, if somebody says,

(21:23):
and we would ask, would you votefor this guy before you'd vote
for Bob Bennett?
And the reason we put in thefake guy was anybody who would
vote for a guy that doesn'texist is clearly someone who
would not vote for Bob Bennettunder any circumstances.
So there was a very specificreason for asking that specific

(21:45):
question.
And that was the case reallywith every question.
That's sort of the one Iremember.
But I look at this and go, Ijust don't understand what
someone would learn from ananswer to that question.
Because it's using a phrasenobody uses.
It's asking a question thatdoesn't make a lot of sense.

(22:06):
I mean, some of these questionsjust aren't really constructed
well.
I mean, the next question iseven more like that.
If someone is virtuous, quoteunquote, that means they have
never had sex.
I don't know anybody thatbelieves that.
And I also don't understand whythey're asking that.

(22:28):
I mean, do you have any, can youread the tea leaves here better
than I can?
maybe I'll just listen

SPEAKER_02 (22:34):
to you and I'm going to put my skeptics at on.
Is it to, is there some power orcontrol behind this in the
thinking, the mindset of, youknow, the leaders of the church
there?
You know, if you look at theother one there, you know, I
think the two are connected interms of the intent.

(22:56):
You know, if someone is ofworth, that means they do not
repent.
Are they saying, look, you know,In order to be of worth, you
have to repent.
And the repentance, let's faceit, is a control leverage
element on the member.
You know, the bishop's got thepower to call to repentance and
state president has, the prophethas, obviously, can call people
to repentance.

(23:17):
Ecclesiastical leaders can dothat.
And are they saying that, look,you're not worthy if you don't
repent?
Well, the church has gotleverage on that.
And I think, I suspect that'ssome intent around controlling
the member behind that maybe theanswer to that question reveals

(23:39):
the member's insights in termsof how much control the church
thinks they have on individualsaround repentance or not and if
someone is virtuous that meansthey have never had sex again I
tie that to you know therepentance you know they had sex
and they've repented it's an oddquestion that isn't it and Why

(24:01):
would they come up with aquestion like that?
What's behind that?
Yeah, what are they trying

SPEAKER_01 (24:06):
to learn?

SPEAKER_02 (24:06):
Are they saying that if you've had sex, you've
repented and you're virtuous, ifyou don't repent?
Because it's interesting howthey've put that question next
to the other question aboutrepentance.
I think that's deliberate, bythe way.
I think those two questions areconnected, and that's why
they're next to each other, Ithink.

SPEAKER_01 (24:28):
Yeah, I mean, all of these, you have to answer a
series of questions before youmove on to the next page.
So I think, and these are allquestions that are on the same
page.
So I think that all thequestions on the same page are
focusing on similar ideas.
But I just don't understand whatsomeone's going to do with that
data point.
They find out that 20% ofmembers think that if someone is

(24:51):
virtuous, that means they'venever had sex.
Okay.

SPEAKER_02 (24:58):
Yeah, is it saying that if you've never had sex,
you're virtuous?

SPEAKER_01 (25:05):
Is it saying that if you've had sex, you can never be
virtuous again?
Is it the idea that you can'treally repent of sexual sin?
Are they trying to find thatout, maybe?
That there are some members whothink that, jeez, once I'm
damaged goods, I can never, youknow...

SPEAKER_02 (25:25):
And then the flip side of that, what about those
people who, and I've kind ofreferenced this a few times,
what about those people who havehad sex, don't feel guilty, feel
okay, quite happy to have sexagain, and feel virtuous?
What's the church think aboutthat?
I think it's a guilt thing.
Again, I put my skeptic hat on.

(25:47):
Is the church trying to gauge,quantify the type and level of
guilt with individuals.
You know, if they don't feelguilt, then, you know, we both
know serving a mission, thatguilt, and you talked about
this, that guilt is a motivator,right?
Guilt is the fuel.

(26:08):
It was

SPEAKER_01 (26:09):
the fuel of my mission.

SPEAKER_02 (26:10):
There we go.
There we go.
And it was partly mine.
There's no way I was going tocome back.
Not a cat in hell's chance,right?
That I was going to come backand fail.
No way.
They're going to carry me backin a coffin before I go home
early, right?
I was going to be absolutelyobedient.
I was driven a lot, notentirely, by guilt.

(26:32):
You can speak about your guiltexperience and how that
motivated you, maybe motivatedyou more than it did me.
I was certainly motivated byother things, but guilt was a
factor.
And you understand guilt on avery personal level, I know
that, from your missionexperience.
And is this a question of, youknow, that they can quantify in

(26:55):
terms of do people feel guiltyfor having sex?
Do they still feel virtuous?
I think these are differentlayers to the question, for
sure.

SPEAKER_01 (27:07):
Yeah, but that question wouldn't give them that
information.
If I'm one of these people thatfeels absolutely no guilt about
any kind of sexual misbehavior,how does my answer to that
question reveal that informationto the questioner?
It's just a clumsy, weirdquestion.

SPEAKER_02 (27:30):
But if you feel virtuous, or you perceive
someone who has had sex who'svirtuous, or do you see someone
else who's not had sex asvirtuous, or do you see yourself
as having had sex but stillvirtuous?
There's four different angles.

(27:52):
But

SPEAKER_01 (27:54):
normal people are not going to answer this
question, are not going to agreewith this statement.
People, no matter what youbelieve, if you're normal, you
know that's not necessarily whatvirtuous means.
Because you would not say, well,geesh, President Nelson isn't

(28:15):
virtuous because he's had sex.
He's been married twice, so he'shad sex many times.
He has, what, eight daughtersand one son?
And so this is somebody who'shad sex.
Nine times.
At least.
But only nine times, because youonly have sex to have a kid,

(28:39):
right?
That's the rule.

SPEAKER_02 (28:41):
That's

SPEAKER_01 (28:41):
it.

SPEAKER_02 (28:41):
And interesting, by the way, that they tie virtue to
sex, to sexual morality.

SPEAKER_01 (28:47):
Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 (28:48):
And that's deliberate.
I think the scriptures talkabout that.
They always tie someone's virtueto sexual morality or
immorality.
That's been my understanding ofthe church anyhow.
If you have sex outside ofmarriage, you've lost your
virtue.

SPEAKER_01 (29:07):
Oh, yeah.
Virtue's the word that's usedthere in that scripture that we
talked about in our very firstepisode, isn't it?

SPEAKER_02 (29:13):
Exactly.
You know, they're no longerlovely and virtuous.
There we go.
There's a connection between sexand having virtue or not, right?
Interesting.

SPEAKER_01 (29:22):
All right.
Next one.
If someone has divine nature,that means they can, with help
from Jesus, become like God.
That's a statement I would agreewith, and I think that's a
statement that's at the heart ofof a lot of what makes the
Church of Jesus Christ ofLatter-day Saints unique.
This idea that we can becomelike God.

(29:43):
I am a child of God.
This is something that somepeople, you know, they published
a Gospel Topics essay where theysort of distance themselves from
some of the More sci-fi aspectsof this.
There's a gospel topic essayabout, well, geez, if you die,

(30:04):
do you get your own planet?
Which is a line in the Book ofMormon musical.
But we don't.
And they said, no, no, no, wedon't believe that.
And yet when you read the essay,it's like, okay, yeah, we don't
believe that.
We don't believe you get justyour own planet.
We believe that you become likeGod.

(30:25):
God has more than one planet.
God has all the planets.
And so we try very hard not tolean into the weird implications
of this, of which there aremany.
And we just try to accept thebroader implication of we are

(30:51):
children of God, we are likeGod, We are of the same species
of God, is how Truman Madsen putit.
And I agree with that statement,and I hope the church agrees
with that statement.
I'm curious as to whether or notthey do, at least in leadership.

(31:12):
I know that when Gordon B.
Hinckley was asked this by LarryKing, he was asked about the, as
man is, God once was, as God is,man may become statement.
And he says, that's just acouplet.
I don't know that we teach that.
I mean, he was trying very hardto just sort of downplay it.
But I can't imagine that at itscore, the church doesn't still

(31:37):
believe this and that we stilldon't teach this.
What do you think?
Yeah,

SPEAKER_02 (31:45):
I agree with it personally.
You know, if someone is divinenature, that means they can and
help with Jesus become like God.
And presuming God is virtuousand kind and divine and good.
So, yes.
I, again, a lot of thesequestions, struggling as to why
they're asking these questions.

(32:06):
I have no reason to, no evidenceto suggest the church does not
believe this or doesn't agreewith this.
I think it does.
And I don't know.
This one is kind of like afiller question.
It's kind of just general.
Maybe it's just there just tokeep the interest of the person

(32:30):
doing the questionnaire.
Maybe it's just a fillerquestion.
I think it's a good question.
It's just reinforcing, I think,what the basic fundamental
principle of the church is,which is someone is divine and
kind and good.
and they get help from Jesus,they become like God.
I think that's a universalprinciple.
I can't think more, Matt, intothis.

SPEAKER_01 (32:53):
All right.
Well, the last question on thispage, do you agree or disagree
with this statement?
I am perfect.
And of course I agree, and Ialso agree on your behalf.
We have pointed out this is theonly true and living podcast on
the face of the earth.
It is.

(33:13):
We are the only two people whocan answer that question in the
affirmative.

SPEAKER_02 (33:18):
Yeah, and a man can get nearer or further away from
God by listening to the podcast.

SPEAKER_01 (33:25):
Why is that there?
Who's going to say I'm perfect?
Go ahead.
You finish.
Go ahead.
No, I finished.
Well, I mean, I'm joking, ofcourse.
If there's anybody out therethat thinks I believe I'm
perfect, then you're not verybright.
I don't believe I'm perfect, butunless you're a complete

(33:46):
psychopath, nobody believesthey're perfect.
Why would that be there?

SPEAKER_02 (33:52):
Well, I have an answer to that.
I think, yes, in the termsyou've discussed, you're right.
You know, the church teachesthat Christ was the only perfect
person.
However, there is a lesson thatdoes exist because I've taught
it at least twice.
I can't remember where it is.
It does exist.
Our listeners might be able tohelp us find it.
And the lesson talks aboutperfection.

(34:14):
And in the lesson, and Iremember this very clearly, the
lesson provided some examples ofwhere, I think it was a lesson
on be therefore perfect.
I think that was the title ofthe lesson.
And there's a scripture in theBible and the Book of Mormon
which the lesson quotes.
I think be therefore perfect,even as I and your Father in

(34:36):
heaven is perfect, or worse tothat effect.
And in that lesson, and Iremember teaching this, it gives
examples of where a member, onlya member in the church, can
achieve a level of perfection.
And it gave an example.
It said that if you pay yourtithing, it gave the tithing
example, consistently, everymonth, for 10 years, you have

(35:01):
reached perfection in that law.
If you go visit home teaching,and you diligently, 100% every
month for three, four, fiveyears or 10 years, you've
reached a level of perfection.
It gave examples where certainthings could be, a level of
perfection could be achieved.
I can't remember the name of thelesson.

(35:22):
I think it's, it could be, beyou therefore perfect.
I'd need to dig it out, but itdoes cite examples where certain
aspects of perfection churchbehavior, action, commitment,
dedication, devotion is, or canrather be, a level of perfection

(35:46):
can be achieved, given thoseexamples.
And maybe it's that.
I don't think anyone believesanyone's perfect or they're
themselves perfect.
But it's interesting that thatlesson did give some examples.
But it's another...
odd question you know if yousaid yes what would the church

(36:08):
do with that i don't thinkanyone's going to say yes you're
going to say no so no is it justto remind people that they're
not perfect and they need thechurch i think there's some
controlling things in thesequestions jim or rather you know
reminding the person that wellthe interest in this
questionnaire was for anyone Ithink at one point wasn't just
for members.

(36:28):
It was a mistake.

SPEAKER_01 (36:29):
I don't think they meant it that way.

SPEAKER_02 (36:31):
Well, okay.
Okay.
But anyone could have taken it.
And I agree.
I think it was just for themember.
And I don't think any member isgoing to say, you know, they're
perfect and therefore they needthe church.
You know, the church, we gavethat, we had that podcast on
that General Authority who said,look, if you live the gospel,
you don't need the church asmuch because you're doing
everything every daywonderfully, serving, loving,

(36:53):
extending your love and yourblessings and helping other
people.
You don't need a program or asystem or a structure or a
building to serve.
I think it's Elder Polman, is itPalman, Polman, that gave that
talk in the early 70s or early80s, I think it was.
We talked about that.
So is this a reminder that thechurch, that the members need

(37:14):
the church in order to becomeperfect?
Maybe,

SPEAKER_01 (37:21):
maybe.
I'm reading too much into that,too many theories.
No, but it's just, so all it'stelling them is what percentage
of our membership are psychotic.
You know, you have to becompletely psychotic or insane
to think you're perfect.

(37:42):
And I do remember that lesson.
I've heard that lesson.
I've heard variations of thatlesson because I've heard very
often, you know, people tryingto wrestle with those scriptures
and Book of Mormon scripture isslightly different from the
Bible scripture in that Jesussays that he is perfect in the
Book of Mormon.
And he only says, be thereforeperfect as your father in heaven

(38:03):
is perfect in the Bible.
So the lesson is, so between thetime before the atonement and
then after the atonement andresurrection, that Jesus
achieved enough perfection thathe was comfortable putting
himself on that list.
But again, I just don't see whatthe church learns from how

(38:32):
somebody answers that question.
Go ahead.
You finish.
Go ahead.
Well, I mean, it may be whatyou're saying.
You know, the church wants toremind you that you need the
church because you're notperfect.
And I think a lot of thelessons, like the ones you
describe about tithing, I mean,you can be perfect.
I remember Paul Dunn.
giving a talk about how he wasperfect in not swearing and not

(38:55):
saying bad words because he wason the pitcher's mound at one
point and at some point he got,there was something and he
started saying all theseterrible words and then felt
terrible and made a promise thenand there that he never would
say those words again and he'skept that promise and so

(39:16):
therefore he's perfect.
The irony in that, of course, isthat Paul Dunn lied about being
a pitcher, a major leaguepitcher.
So that event where he made thatpromise never happened.
So he's perfect at not sayingbad words, but making up huge

(39:37):
parts of his own biography, hestill has something to work on
in that regard.
I mean, the whole idea ofperfection is problematic
anyway.
All the lessons that try totorture Jesus's words into
meaning, okay, I can achieveperfection somehow on my own

(40:00):
merits.
They all fall short because, andthey're all really kind of silly
ultimately, because we are sofar from perfection that all the
idea of trying to achieve aperfection does is discourage

(40:20):
us.
is create guilt.
And maybe that's what the churchwants because that kind of guilt
keeps you in the church.
Well, no, I'm not perfect, so Idang well need to show up every
Sunday and I need to keepwriting my tithing check and I
need to make sure that I'm doingeverything that I need to do.
But again, that's a separatediscussion from why would

(40:42):
somebody put this question in asurvey like this?
But we don't know the

SPEAKER_02 (40:49):
answer to

SPEAKER_01 (40:49):
that.

SPEAKER_02 (40:49):
There may be an answer.
I'm listening to you.
This could be the answer.
I might be reading the tealeaves completely wrong, but how
about this?
There's a correlation betweensome of the words that are
identified or placed in thequestions, right?
Repentance, virtue, sex,priesthood authority.

(41:13):
Obey was a word that was in oneof the questions, right?
And, you know, are you perfect,right?
And so is this theme, thisthread through these questions,
or one of the threads in thetapestry of these questions,

(41:35):
connecting these words acrossthe questions, is that around,
and I think the guilt is inthere as well, repentance was
another word.
These are important andinteresting words that are,
distributed through thequestions, through the carefully
designing the questions, is theintent designed to reinforce the

(41:57):
need and value of the church onone's life.
You know, the church teaches theeternal, the plan of salvation
model.
There are three kingdoms, and inthe highest kingdom, in the
sister kingdom, there are threelevels.
And you can only get in thehighest level, which is eternal
life, is the one way you get tobe with God and be with your

(42:19):
family.
And that also requires, you needto be part of the new and
everlasting covenant ofmarriage, so sealed in the
temple.
You know, faithful tithe payer,attending the temple faithfully.
Is that, you know, if you attendthe temple faithfully,
diligently, your entire life,have you not reached perfection
in that?
The church is constantly, is itconstantly?

(42:40):
Maybe that's a bit too much of aword, but often reminds us of
the need to strive forperfection or strive for the
highest level in the celestialkingdom.
And only there will you findtrue happiness and peace and be
with your loved ones.
You won't find that anywhereelse.
So you need the church as avehicle to get you to where you

(43:03):
need to be.
And so I think that for me, itmight be different for you.
I'm seeing a pattern emerge hereacross these questions.
There are very strategic wordsplaced deliberately and planned
for a number of differentobjectives across these

(43:25):
different questions.
I'm seeing a correlation betweensome of the words.
And is the church trying to geta sense of how much the members
think they need or value thechurch?
and currently in their liferight now, the level of
commitment, devotion.
I think that's interesting, ifI'm correct, because the church

(43:46):
membership commitment overall,collectively, has changed, I
think, Jim, over the years.
As the internet has emerged andall these problems with the
church have emerged, perhapscollectively the church is not
seeing that level of commitment,devotion.
Yes, with traditional members,older, senior members,
individuals who hold on tothose, you know, fundamental

(44:10):
principles.
But the, you know, the youngermembers, and you've talked about
this, this point quite a bit,they're probably not seeing the
need to be as devoted orcommitted.
And I think, well, who gives acrap whether, you know, who
cares about any of these things?
Do they need religion?
So I think I mean, thesequestions, there is a strategy

(44:33):
behind them.
The church doesn't do thesethings or put these questions
out without careful, you know,like political campaigns.
Each question is carefullyspliced together.
Words are put together.
It can take hours to put some ofthe questions together.
Highly strategic, tactical isintent.

(44:53):
But I'm seeing a bit of apattern emerge across some of
the questions.
What's the next question?

SPEAKER_01 (44:59):
So the next question seemed to be focused on the idea
of answers to prayers orblessings that you get from God
or what you should expect interms of blessings from God.
The first one on this next pageis God.
Okay, do you agree, believe ornot believe?
God will give you whatever youwant if you just ask him.

(45:24):
So again, I think every personin the world recognizes that
this is not the case.
I mean, people will say God willgive you, the church leans into
the idea that God will give youwhat is right if you ask him,
you know, we qualify the idea ofasking you shall receive with as

(45:49):
long as you're asking accordingto the will of God.
And there's a scripture in theDoctrine and Covenants that
says, he who prayeth in theSpirit prayeth according to the
will of God, asketh in theSpirit, asketh according to the
will of God, therefore it isdone even as he asketh.
So the idea is God will give youwhatever you want as long as
it's his will.

(46:10):
But a three-year-old child whofirst learns to pray and says, I
want a big, you know, Sportscar, except for three-year-olds
don't want sports cars.
What do you want when you'rethree years old?
I want a big pile of candy.
Well, you just asked for it.

(46:30):
God didn't give it to you.
So, again, when you were talkingabout all these things, you're
seeing specific strategic words.
The strategy is...
that you're describing there isa strategy of the church using
this survey, not to gatherinformation, but rather to

(46:56):
manipulate or teach the peoplewho are taking it, which to me
strikes me as a really sillything to do, because it's one
thing to say, okay, all right, Iwant to remind everybody who
takes a survey that they're notperfect.
And so I'm going to say, put aquestion in there that they're

(47:16):
going to have to say, no, Idon't believe that.
But then they'll know thatthey're not perfect.
That makes absolutely no senseto use a survey in that way.
So I don't know.
But again, that to me strikes meas a really silly question.

(47:39):
Because everybody knows that Godwill not give you whatever you
want if you just ask him.
I mean, do you agree with thatstatement?

SPEAKER_02 (47:49):
I do, and I think you're right when you say that
this is perhaps a tool, aninstrument, a plan to influence.
I do think the church wants tolearn people's thoughts and
opinions.
You know, where are they at?
How much grip do the church haveon the members?
And And what's the generalopinion on certain things?

(48:13):
I think you've got some realinteresting questions which are
deliberate and they wantinformation on.
I think you've got some fillerquestions that are just there to
kind of keep the interest and toeducate and to teach and to
reinforce certain teachings.
I think it's an integrativestrategy.
I think you're right.
I think that's one of theobjectives, not the only one.

(48:34):
With some questions, that'sprobably the only objective with
some questions is to educate andreinforce the church's influence
over the member, to remind themember that they need the
church.
And maybe that's not as silly asit sounds.
Maybe, you know, if they canremind people of the
significance and value andimportance of their relationship

(48:57):
with the church, then they'vegot that influence on them.
You know, this is a wherever thechurch does, there's an element
of influence, isn't there?
So that is, I think you'reright.
I think it's part of thestrategy.
Is it silly or not?
Maybe not.
If you try to hang on to yourmembership and you try to keep a
grip on them and remind them,maybe not.

(49:21):
This is going

SPEAKER_01 (49:21):
through a very specific, I mean, I know they
made a mistake and this went outto the world, but every time
I've gotten one of these, it'sbeen a very specific targeted
thing and it's gone to a fairlysmall audience so if the idea so
maybe they would have identifiedan audience of people that need
to be reminded that they're notperfect and that God doesn't

(49:43):
give them everything they wantjust when they ask for it but
that's a very strange it just Ijust this is either so brilliant
that we just can't grasp it ormaybe it really is kind of
stupid Which it seems to be.

(50:04):
But anyway, the next statement,if you keep a commandment, you
will immediately get theblessing you expect from it.
Again, is there anybody thatbelieves that?
That one probably more than theprevious one.
But the word immediately there,you will immediately get the

(50:24):
blessing you expect from it.
Everybody knows that...
Sometimes you immediately get ablessing you expect from it, but
most times you don't.

SPEAKER_02 (50:36):
I think that you've answered it really well.
There are two answers.
You know, I've had things happento me very quickly, but most of
the time it doesn't happen.
Is the intent behind thisquestion to remind, to your
point, remind members that youdon't always get what you want
immediately?
Yeah, you might get it, but itmight take a while.
You know, God's timing is notour timing.

(50:57):
Or is it to also remind peoplethat they need God and they need
to be patient?
There's quite a lot of talks ontribulation and terrible
experiences that members gothrough.
And the church often teaches,enjoy for the end, be faithful.

(51:20):
God's timing is not your timing.
And even the church said,sometimes those blessings don't
come in this life, they come inthe next life.
And the church is big into that.
They're saying, look, if itdidn't happen here now, keep
living the gospel, be faithful,be perfect, be diligent.
Yeah, you might not experiencethe blessings in this life, but

(51:41):
you will get them in the nextlife.
And maybe there are a number ofstrategies to that question,
similar to multiple strategiesfor other questions.
Yeah, so...
There's two answers to that one.
It takes a long time often.

(52:02):
Sometimes it can happen quickly.
I do know people who expectblessings to happen immediately.
They feel they've got that muchfaith it can happen, and some
have experienced that.
Others have expected it doesn'thappen, and then the bishop will
tell them, look, God's timing isnot your timing.
So, yeah, interesting.

SPEAKER_01 (52:21):
Okay.
Next one.
If God loves you, you will berich as to the things of this
world.
Now, this is a much betterquestion because I bump into a
lot of people who would arguethis is 100% true.

(52:41):
And you see a lot of this inleadership because very often
the people who are called to bebishops and stake presidents are
rich as to the things of thisworld.
And you get the sense thatchurch leaders see wealth as a

(53:08):
sort of shortcut, as ahermeneutic to be able to say,
aha, yes, this person isrighteous because look how
blessed they are.
And I have a real problem withthat because Well, maybe it's

(53:29):
because I'm not nearly as richas I'd like to be.
I'm certainly richer than a lotof people in a world that
people, you know, whatpercentage of people worldwide
live below the poverty line.
They'd certainly look at me andsay, well, gee, he's absolutely
rich.
But I look at everybody in myward and think, well, they're

(53:50):
all richer than I am.
The point being, I just don'tbelieve this.
I can see why this would be avalid survey question because I
have met a number of people inthe church who absolutely
believe this.
So do you believe this?
Do you believe if God loves you,you'll be rich as to the things

(54:12):
of this world?
And if you do or don't believethat, how does that relate to
why the church is asking thisquestion?

SPEAKER_02 (54:21):
I don't believe it.
The second point, there is adark side to that question.
Again, if you look at it, hesaid, if God loves you, love,
you will be rich as to thethings of the Lord.
Does that mean God only lovesrich people?
And does it mean that if you'repoor, he doesn't love you?
I think it's a pretty awfulquestion depending on how you
interpret it, right?

SPEAKER_01 (54:42):
Well, and I think a lot of people interpret it
exactly that way.
It goes hand in hand with thenext question.
I just want to put this in therebecause I didn't catch that
until you said that.
Because I was sort of conflatingit with the next question, which
was, if you keep thecommandments, you will be rich
as to the things of this world.

(55:03):
I didn't catch the differencebecause in the first question,
it's, if God loves you, youdon't have to do anything,
you're going to be rich.
But the second question istransactional.
That's the one that I thinkeverybody believes.
Not everybody.
I don't believe it.
But that's the one that a lot ofpeople in the church believes.
I don't think there are a lot ofpeople in the church that

(55:25):
believe that God doesn't lovepoor people.
But I do think there are a lotof people who sort of buy into
the prosperity gospel idea thatI'm rich because I've impressed
God with my righteousness.
God is blessing me for myrighteousness with wealth.

(55:49):
And there are a lot of peoplewho believe that.
And I don't know that I everbelieved that specifically, but
I certainly believed in a kindof transactional God, a God
that, you know, when my daughterwas injured, for instance, that

(56:10):
was the biggest moment in mylife where I thought, well, wait
a minute, I've been paying mytithing.
I've been going to church.
I've been righteous.
doesn't that mean these thingsaren't supposed to happen to me?
And if you'd asked me beforethat if I believed that the bad
things that happened to otherpeople were because they weren't

(56:32):
righteous, I would haveabsolutely said no.
And I think I would have evenmeant it.
But when bad things happened tome, all of a sudden I realized I
really bought into this ideathat that keeping the
commandments, you sing inprimary, in this there is

(56:54):
safety, in this there is peace.
And I had bought into the ideathat keeping the commandments
was insurance against pain,insurance against poverty,
insurance against bad thingshappening to me.
And then something terriblehappened, and I went, oh, I

(57:15):
really need to reevaluate myentire life idea of god and my
entire idea of a relationshipwith this sort of transactional
god where i do something goodgod blesses me for it he's the
vending machine and if i don'tdo something good god will
withhold those blessings and sotherefore if i'm rich that means

(57:38):
i'm good if i'm poor that meansi'm bad i mean i didn't believe
that consciously but i believedit viscerally Even deeper than
conscious.
Because consciously I couldthink about something like that
and realize how silly it is.
But just viscerally, in my gut,I had believed in this

(58:00):
transactional God and lettingthat go has been in some ways
very difficult and in other waysextraordinarily freeing to
realize that you don't measureGod's love based on the goodies
he gives you.
God's love is unconditional.

(58:20):
God's love is massive.
And you cannot gauge the levelof God's love for you by the
size of your bank account.
So I guess that's a long, messystatement, but I wanted to jump
in there because I wasresponding to the next question
about keeping the commandments,not just God loving you and you

(58:44):
wisely keeping demonstrated thedifference.
Does that make sense?

SPEAKER_02 (58:49):
It does make sense.
And listening to you hastriggered something else I think
very interesting in myexperience and my thoughts.
Quite controversial, but I'mgoing to say it because it's
true.
There is a relationship, acorrelation between callings and
wealth.
Okay?

(59:10):
And therefore the callingsfacilitate or speak to someone's
worthiness.
And I lived and served in verywealthy wards where we haven't
been the richest by any means.
And I've been in wards that arepoor wards.

(59:35):
And there is absolutely, in myexperience, a lot of evidence
where the church in the wardswhere you've got a mixture of
wealth individuals who have gothigh net worth value, that they
do not and will not almostalways, not always, but almost
always, will not call a poorperson, somebody who's not

(59:58):
financially successful, an awardwhere there's a big choice of
individuals who are successfulfinancially.
There's a correlation betweencalling someone, and I've I've
been involved in theseconversations.
I've been privy to theseconversations where if someone
is successfully, financiallysuccessful, they're smart,

(01:00:19):
they're educated, therefore theybring leadership and they bring
capabilities of that calling.
I know that as a fact.
Those conversations happen.
Also, conversations aboutsomeone is, they don't use the
word wealth in theconversations.
But if somebody is doing welland successful in their personal
life, then they're going tobring those qualities and skills

(01:00:41):
and abilities into the calling.
And also, because they are doingwell, it means that they have
prospered.
And they prospered with Godbecause they are close to God
and they have greaterspirituality and closeness with
God, the worthier.

(01:01:03):
and I've heard those words,because they are financially
successful and therefore they'restronger candidates to be called
into leadership positions, forexample, compared to the poor
folks in the ward.
We have a ward where a lot ofmembers are poor, and there are
exceptions where poor people doget called, and I do know that.

(01:01:25):
But my experience, myobservations over the 35, 37
years, is that in a ward whereyou've got people of all
different levels financially,typically the church does not
call someone who is financiallyinferior or less successful

(01:01:46):
compared to those who are moresuccessful.
That's a sad truth, but there'sa lot of evidence, I think, that
supports that.
It's not entirely like that.
But for the most part, that'sthe situation.
If you're poor and you're in arich ward, you will not likely
to be called into a calling asmaybe a bishopric, but not much

(01:02:08):
more than that.
Okay.
Interesting end.
Interesting questions here.
Again, these are questionsaround gender.
A woman who gets an education isrejecting her role in the
family.
In the past, I think if they gotan education or they went out to

(01:02:30):
get work, I think Spencer Kimmeltalked about this, the lady, the
sister, the woman is beingunfaithful and disobedient if
they opted to go get aneducation and go get a career.
The woman's role was in thehouse, in the kitchen,

(01:02:51):
supporting the priesthood,building the home, homemaking.
and things that, you know,public opinion.
I think that was public opinionas well going back.
I think in Britain, that was therole of the woman to be in the
home, homemaker.
So it's not just religiousperspective from a religion.

(01:03:11):
I think that was the thinkingprobably in the United States
and certainly it was in the UKin the, you know, 40s, 50s and
60s.
That was the role of the womanprobably even in the 70s.
But a woman who gets aneducation and rejects her role
in her family, no.
Um, You know, women areindividuals, and they have the
right to do whatever they wantto do.

(01:03:32):
You know, raise a family, go getan education.
Not raise a family, go get acareer.
I think the church is probablytrying to figure out where
people are in thinking on therole of a woman in the church.
And that might speak to thisconcept on the other question
about whether women should havepriesthood authority.

(01:03:55):
Does that...
interest in education and careercan or should that extend to
leadership callings for women inthe church?
So, again, another layeredstrategic question.

SPEAKER_01 (01:04:09):
Well, at least I can understand the purpose of this
question because I canunderstand the mindset of
somebody who's trying to figureout where the membership is
based on this question becausethe church has shifted
dramatically in terms of wherethey are in teaching this.

(01:04:33):
And there was a big kerfuffle.
We've talked about it on thispodcast, and I'm trying to
remember the name of the leader,but it's a woman who was just
called into either the generalprimary presidency or the
general relief societypresidency who talked, who is a
very accomplished woman who gota law degree and is a practicing
lawyer.

(01:04:53):
And she is of an age where whenshe decided to pursue a law
degree, President Benson wasgiving conference talks about
how a woman who gets aneducation is rejecting her role
in the family, to use thelanguage of the survey here.
That that was being activelytaught at the time when this now

(01:05:18):
church leader made the decisionto go to law school.
and is now in the highest levelsof church leadership, at least
as far as women are allowed togo, which is another issue
altogether.
But it is being rewarded formaking a decision that went

(01:05:38):
contrary to what the church wasteaching at the time.
So it's very interesting to seethe church now trying to gauge
where everybody is on this,because the church no longer
teaches this explicitly.
It teaches it implicitly, Ithink, because I think you can

(01:06:00):
interpret the proclamation onthe family, which the church
continues to lean into.
It talks about how women are thenurturers and the men are the
breadwinners, and that those arethe divine roles.
But it also talks about howindividual adaptation may be
needed for differentcircumstances.
And I can't remember the lasttime an apostle or a prophet

(01:06:21):
stood from the pulpit and toldwomen to stay home.
They're not actively teachingthat anymore.
They're quietly teaching itmaybe, but there's no
ecclesiastical sanction for awoman going out and pursuing a
career.
Does that make sense?

SPEAKER_02 (01:06:41):
It makes sense, yeah.
I agree with that, yeah.
The next question is, after awoman gets married, she accesses
God through her husband, notdirectly.
Well, I don't believe that,agree with that.
In the temple, you know, in thetemple, there is that teaching
and position and doctrine of thechurch that, in fact, it's in

(01:07:03):
the video in the temple, whenGod and Christ are having the
conversation with Adam and Eve,that Eve makes a covenant with
God through Adam, if I'm notmistaken.
You are

SPEAKER_01 (01:07:16):
mistaken, but not necessarily.
We talked about this becausethat has explicitly changed.

SPEAKER_02 (01:07:26):
Historically.
In the earlier endowments, itdid.

SPEAKER_01 (01:07:29):
When you went through the temple, that was the
case.
And that was the case up untilmaybe, what, four years ago?
I think it changed either rightbefore COVID or right after
COVID.

SPEAKER_02 (01:07:44):
But it used to

SPEAKER_01 (01:07:45):
teach that.
It used to teach that, didn'tit?
We used to teach that.
We absolutely used to teachthat.
And in fact, so prior to 1990,the language of the covenant was
Adam, the woman's covenant was,Adam, I covenant to obey thy

(01:08:07):
law.
And hearken unto your counsel asyou hearken unto the Father.
And then in 1990, they changedthat to Adam, because she's
addressing Adam.
She's not addressing Goddirectly.
Here, you're in the Garden ofEden.
God and Jesus are standing rightthere, and Adam is talking to

(01:08:29):
them.
But Eve does not talk to Goddirectly.
Eve talks to Adam.
And after Eve talks to Adam,Adam covenants with God.
So the very clear implication isthat Adam stands between Eve and
God and that Eve accesses Godthrough her husband.
But in 1990, the language wassoftened from Adam, I now

(01:08:52):
covenant to obey thy law, as inthe law of Adam, to Adam, I now
covenant to obey the law of theLord and hearken unto your
counsel as you hearken unto theFather.
Now, much has been made of that,and people, I remember actually

(01:09:13):
being at a wedding where thatlanguage was being discussed by
the sealer, and isn't thatwonderful because women are
equal to men now?
And I remember thinking, no, ifwomen were equal to men, Eve
would be talking directly to Godthe same way Adam is.

(01:09:36):
And this didn't, and thatlanguage didn't really change
anything.
Excuse me.
Didn't really change anythingbecause it, I mean, hearkening
unto, because the covenantalways was that she'd hearken to
her husband's counsel as long asher husband's counsel was

(01:10:00):
hearkening to the father's.
So obeying the law of the Lordversus obeying Adam's law as
long as Adam's obeying the lawof the Lord, it's essentially
the same thing.
It's just a way to sort ofsoften it.
And so people now look at thetemple ceremony and people now
say, isn't it great because nowEve makes exactly the same

(01:10:22):
covenant and she does itdirectly with God.
However, there have been otherIf you go to the sealing
ordinance, there's been anaddition to the sealing
ordinance where it was neverthere before, where a man

(01:10:43):
covenants to preside.
And so what people have said is,okay, yes, this looks more
inclusive, but all it's doing isshifting the language from one
place to another.
So that the man is still alwaysin charge, but now we're just

(01:11:04):
gonna use the word preside inthe sealing ceremony so that we
don't have to make it soexplicit in the endowment
ceremony.
And so this is absolutelysomething we used to teach.
There's a very good argument forthe idea that it's something we
still teach.

(01:11:25):
It is not something that Ibelieve.
As you've said, it's notsomething you believe.
And I would argue that it'sprobably not something that the
general membership believes.
So I can see the logic behindputting it in this survey.

SPEAKER_02 (01:11:37):
I agree.
And the strategy to me is quiteclear.
And it's behind the other nextquestion as well that kind of
related, which is it is equallyimportant to educate girls and
to educate boys.
I agree with that.
I don't.
think the church always believedor agreed with that.

(01:11:59):
And again, we see this inBritish society where cultures
around the world, even nowtoday, women don't have the same
access to education like inAfghanistan.
Certain regimes around the worldrestrict women from accessing
education.
It's this position of some menthat women can't or shouldn't be

(01:12:23):
educated because they don't makegood leaders or they can't make
good leaders or for goodnesssake we can't have a good leader
so I think it's really importantI think I think it's an
interesting question the if youjust go back to the question
again Jim just jump back becauseI just thought of something else
if you don't mind so when we'retalking about educating we're

(01:12:48):
talking about not just teachingwe're talking about learning and
We learn through experience andexperience, my take on that is
the experience of a woman or agirl to have equal access to all
the callings and opportunitiesthat a boy or a man would.

(01:13:10):
So is the intent behind thequestion to get an opinion from
the collective rank and filemembers to see where the
member's position is on using avery strategic word, educate.
But if we were to look at thatin a different angle and

(01:13:31):
consider that as a girl or awoman serving in a calling,
we'll get a differentperspective on that.
So if the church, if the membersthink, yeah, girls and boys
should be educated equally andtherefore access to learning
opportunities that you learn andgrow and those learning

(01:13:52):
opportunities are extendedequally between male and female,
is the church trying to get theopinion of the members of what
they think about women goinginto leadership?
I think so.
I think it's a very importantquestion.
I think it's strategic on theirpart.
And if the church comes back andsays, the vast majority say,
yeah, girls should be educatedequally as boys.

(01:14:13):
Well, that gives the church aninsight into where the members
are.
And the church, as you know, theleadership is under pressure to
involve and include more women,like in general conference.
I think they started doing thatto an extent in some of the
meetings and some of the generalconference meetings.

(01:14:34):
There's a pressure on the churchto be much more inclusive and
more equal towards women.
I'm seeing that.
I don't know if you're seeingthat.
So I think those questions are,they're together for a reason.
I think they're important.
I have a better understanding ofwhy they're doing that.
And engaging opinion on wherethe members are in terms of the

(01:14:55):
role of a woman in the church.
So instead of asking whether,bluntly, whether a woman should
have the same access to learningexperiences in the church, like
through callings, which is amore obvious one, it's It's
asked it in a different way toget a similar opinion.
Okay, go ahead.

(01:15:16):
Next question.
Well, so

SPEAKER_01 (01:15:18):
I'm looking at this and there are, we're at an hour
and 20 minutes.
And we have, I think we may behalfway there.
But we haven't even gotten toany of the LGBTQ questions,

(01:15:42):
which are several of them.
I'm just gauging this.
We have one, two, three, four,five, six, seven, eight.
Oh, boy.
Eight.
I don't even think we're halfwaythrough.
And,

SPEAKER_02 (01:16:01):
you know, if our listeners are interested and
they're patient with this, I'mhappy to do a part three.
on this.
I find these questionsfascinating, and I think
hopefully our listeners do aswell.
The conversation's just amazingand fascinating, I think.

SPEAKER_01 (01:16:15):
No, I think it's fascinating too, and I want to
keep going, but I want to,again, I want to give all of
these questions the importancethat they deserve.
So are you willing

SPEAKER_02 (01:16:29):
to A hundred percent.
I mean, the church has gone atgreat lengths to put these
questions together, right?
They're not doing thisovernight.
You said that.
A lot of thought, a lot ofplanning, a lot of strategy goes
into this question.
And you said earlier at thebeginning on part one that this
gives us an insight into, Ithink you said that in your
opening comments, into thethinking and the mindset of the

(01:16:52):
leaders.
And you don't get that often.
And I think this kind ofconversation is kind of
dissecting allows us to exploreall angles, all possibilities,
and get into the psyche of someof the leaders.
Because the church is underextraordinary pressure on women,
women equality in the church,the level of devotion,

(01:17:15):
commitment from the members,etc., LGBTQ, etc., all these
other issues.
And there is design behind thesequestions, and I think they
deserve attention.
thorough examination anddiscussion.

SPEAKER_01 (01:17:29):
All right.
So with that in mind, we'regoing to bring this episode to a
close.
This is going to be the firsttrilogy in the history of Inside
Out.
But Ian, I think your insightshere have been invaluable.
And I want to allow for enoughroom to get more of them.

(01:17:51):
So rather than just sort of rushthrough these.
We're going to leave these nextquestions the next week.
Please be patient with us, butmore is coming.
We very much appreciate youbeing with us, and we look
forward to seeing you on partthree of the Church's Survey
Questions in the next episode ofInside Out.

(01:18:13):
Thank you very much, Ian.
Thank you, Jim.