Inside Out with Jim Bennett and Ian Wilks
The format of Inside Out is simple - Jim Bennett is still on the inside of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Ian Wilks is on the outside of the Church. Yet both care about the Church and its future, and both want to see constructive dialogue between those who stay and those who leave. Hopefully, all of us can come to a better understanding of the Church and of each other.
Inside Out with Jim Bennett and Ian Wilks
A Conversation with Marcus Hutber
Ian and Jim are joined by Marcus Hutber, who, as a missionary, brought Ian Wilks into the Church back in the day. The robust discussion largely focuses on why Black people were denied the priesthood and temple blessings prior to 1978.
Welcome to the latest episode of Inside Out, the only true and living podcast upon the face of the earth, speaking collectively and not individually. My name is Ian Wilkes, and as always, I'm here with my partner, the indisputable Mr. Jim Bennett.
SPEAKER_00:There's no disputing it. That's me. And every time you say that, when you say that this is the only true podcast collectively and not individually, I have to recognize that there are only two individuals who are in this podcast on a regular basis. So one of us may or may not be true. But if I'm indisputable, that may be you. That may be a problem you have to wrestle with here. It's
SPEAKER_01:something that I have to wrap my thinking around. Yeah, I think you're the truest person on the truest podcasts. Well, there we go. There we go. And so today, Jim, we have a very special guest indeed, and someone that is very dear to me and very special to me. We have here today Marcus Hooper, all the way from... England. Marcus, welcome. Hiya. That's a very good response. That's fine. You can keep that response like that. I think that's great. And so, Marcus, I don't know you. When I speak to you and when I communicate with you, I don't automatically, immediately think of you as Marcus. To me, you are Elder Hutber. And My relationship with you is very unique and very distinct and very precious to me. So I know Elder Hutbert because back in the 80s, Elder Hutbert was the missionary, along with Elder Southwick, I think it was, who found me and tracked me up as a full-time missionary serving in the England Leads Mission from, what, 82 to 83, I think it was, or thereabouts.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, for me, it was 81 to 83, Ian. That's right,
SPEAKER_01:yeah. Okay, okay. And so this was a council house estate, which I'd spoken to about earlier on the podcast. An interesting place for sure. And Marcus, Elder Hubbert and Elder Southwick, tracked me up and actually taught me the discussions back in the early 80s. And so that was a very... in my life, very significant time in my life. And Marcus shaped my life and informed my thinking significantly back then. And he's somebody that I have a great deal of love and respect for. And I've spoken a little bit about this on the podcast. So our relationship, Marcus, goes back a long way. And I think it would be appropriate if you could share your thoughts a little bit about that experience. And then after that, if you can give us a little bit of a broader, more general introduction about yourself, maybe your family, if you're comfortable, and a little bit about your background in the church. I think you were raised in the church, you grew up in the church. And a little bit about your, just kind of your overall experience in the gospel and in the church. And I think a key event in your life, of course, certainly from my perspective, but a key event in your life, period in your life, was obviously serving as a full-time missionary in England Leeds Mission. So if you can speak a little bit about that. without sharing too much about how, uh, notorious I was, uh, and cheeky I was back then, you know, as a, as a teenager, um, as a disclaimer, what I did back then, I was, you know, a teenager and I didn't, I didn't know all the rules, but if you can speak about that experience and then give it, move into an introduction, that would be great.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, sure. Ian, you were always a very, very intelligent kid, very much so. And, um, Flying Spuds. When I first met you, mate, I was actually leaning over to tie up my shoelaces and a very large D-sized battery comes whizzing past my head on the left-hand side. And I look up and there's this kid grinning at me and I think, I got to talk to this kid. This is kind of interesting. So, wow. Now, I've listened to your podcast and I've listened to them with great interest. I really have, guys. I've listened to them and they're very varied and they're very They're very fascinating. Some of them are a little bit different, but some of the people I listen to are a little bit different than I expected, which is, again, interesting. But I've listened to them, and they have been fascinating. Now, going through it, you bring up all sorts of topics which are really curious. Now, you were a smart young chap. And I don't remember the girl that you came along to see when we were teaching you. I don't actually remember teaching that girl, but it must have been the girl because that's why you came. So that was kind of curious. But anyway, what I do remember is I do remember the baptismal challenge, Ian. Now, that baptismal challenge actually became quite infamous because it was my turn and I actually gave the baptismal challenge and I gave it to you And you sat there, and you looked a little bit perplexed, and I was kind of interested. And you didn't say something for a while. And out of self, it was about to say something. And I looked over him, and I kind of gave him a bit of a stare. So he backed off. And then I looked back at you, and it was happening. And I was thinking, okay, what's the reply? It's either yes or no. Come on, just tell us what it is. It's probably going to be no. It doesn't matter. Let's just have it. And then you still didn't reply. And it went on for a while, and it went on for a while, and it went on for a while, and it kept going. And at the end, when you finally said yes, I thought, you can't say yes. That's not how it goes. You've been so long. You've got to say no. And they've got to give you loads of reasons why it's no. How can it be yes? That's just crazy. So I'm thinking, and I looked at Southwick, and Southwick just kind of gave a blank expression. And we're thinking, this is crazy. And then what happened is it went around the mission that Hutpa, had given a three-hour baptismal challenge and hadn't said anything for three hours. We could use, you know, all these things become kind of inflated. But I do remember going to Eva, to your mum, and saying to her, look, you know, we're kind of teaching your son and he's a really decent chap and we'd like to... We'd like to baptize him. And I can remember your mum actually being not very keen on the idea. So I said, well, look, you know, look, Eva, this is just going to improve his life. It's just going to help him. He'll learn stuff from here, which will enable him to do all sorts of things in life. It will be really good for him. And so she said to me, came back a couple of times. And then when we came back, she finally said that, that she would give permission. Now, what I didn't know, Ian, at the time, was that she would turf you out of the house. And when I heard Flying Spuds, I thought, what the Flying Spuds is going down here? And then Linda Cavell was fantastic, and Jenny Johnson were fantastic, and they really helped you. And then the bishop, I think, in Wakefield, wasn't it, who really helped you? Just to the light, Ian, it was just a pleasure. And then I watched you over the years, oh, what you've achieved and what you've done is just fantastic. You know, you've done so much and it's just a pleasure. And all those certificates on your wall there, they're just great. That just sums you up. And it's just so much, it's just been such a pleasure to watch your life develop. Now, what was kind of curious was that I actually was posted up to Durham and I think it was around Sacristo I was tracked in. Yours, yeah. Yeah. And I heard, And there was some kids around. I think it's me and Elder Daniels. And there was some kids around. And I heard the voice, Mark has called out. Now, when you're on a mission, it's just Elder. Everybody's called Elder. And people say, well, hold on. Why have you all got the same Christian name? But anyway, I said to Elder Daniels, hold on. One of these kids has got my Christian name. And I heard the name again. I heard someone call out my name. And I thought, hold on, Ed. One of these kids really has got my name. And I thought, this is unusual. And then when it happened the third time, I thought, hold on, I've got to look around. So I looked around and there was Eva, your mum, standing in her front door looking at me and just grinning. And I walked up and she said, look, you never told me about your church. I'd like to hear what you've got to say, but let me make it absolutely crystal clear. I'm not joining and neither is Michael. And then a few weeks later they were baptized. So, yeah, just your mum was, I never had a problem with her. I knew that she was very feisty, but my mum was quite feisty as well. In fact, I was six when the mysteries came around to my house and my mother was quite feisty. So we kind of share that, but they were both really well-meaning. So I never had a problem with your mum because my mum was exactly the same. And in fact, I have, On Thursday nights, I have a family home evening with the two guys who taught me the gospel and baptized me every Thursday. So that's a pleasure. One of them lives in... He's just moved down from Payson in Utah, and he lives in Overton in Nevada. And the other chap lives in St. George. A couple of totally really excellent chaps. But when I was young, I actually had loads of questions. That's why I really enjoy... listen to your podcast because they actually raise loads of questions. And I used to read books. I used to read things like Science of Modernism, Coming of the Lord, Book of Jasher. Book of Jasher is a fantastic book. Tempting Cosmos by Nibley. Just love these books. And I got to wondering about stuff and I actually was curious. I mean, for me, guys, the Big Bang is a nice idea, but it doesn't actually give any answers because If the Big Bang is actually just sitting and expanding, what sits outside the Big Bang? A void? But Billy Smith says that where there is space, there is matter. You look in D&C 8837 and 131.7, it talks about where there is matter in every kingdom. And so for me, that idea that you have an extension of dimensions continuing forever is really curious. And I really love that idea. And so for me, the big bang is just postponing the question. It's not given an answer at all. Now, what I love is I love the idea that, in fact, you have dark matter, which is 95% of the universe, and you have gravitational matter, which is 5% of the universe. And so for me, that fits really lovely, in a really lovely way, where the celestial and terrestrial kingdoms are encompassed by dark matter. Sorry, they are dark matter. 5% of the universe is the telestial kingdom, which is the gravitational matter, and it fits really nicely. Now, I actually wonder how dimensions can actually sit on top of each other, and for me, I always looked at physics, was fascinated by it, because in physics, if my house was the nucleus of an atom, the electron which bounds the atom would be over in Winchester, which is quite a distance away. So, for me, matter... most of matter is empty space, which means that dimensions can sit on top of each other. So therefore, we know that the spirit world is around us. We know that from near-death experiences. And Ian, I loved your near-death experience that you described. And as you described your near-death experience, Ian, you actually related, are these just neurons firing off? Are these just chemical reactions that I'm actually having here? And then a little way later, A bit later, you say, no, I actually experienced that. Now, this is a bit of an aside here, but for me, guys, there are list A and list B experiences. List B experiences, I've got 400 of them that I've collected, and over 16 years on the high count, so I went around to different wards, and I'd actually give list B experience. What's a list B experience? List B experience is one that you have to have faith to... understand it or to actually go along with it. Let me give you a little experience. So I came home one day and my wife said, my engagement ring lost the diamond in it. Oh, that's not really good, dear. She said, yeah, but you're going to find it. Goodbye. I'm off. And she ran off upstairs.
UNKNOWN:I thought, what?
SPEAKER_02:No, I'm not. That's ridiculous. Anyway, she called down from the stairs. Yes, you are. Pray about it. Goodbye. Slammed the door. I thought, what? So I thought, all right, then I'll do the religious bin. I'll do the prayer bit. And I said, okay, you know, give the hand. Well, your hand's put me a bit of a spot. Could you give me a bit of a hand? So I had the feeling, go through the rubbish bin. Go through the rubbish bin? What do you mean go through the rubbish bin? All right, fine, I'll go through the rubbish bin. I couldn't find any gloves, so I shoved my hand in the rubbish bin. I'm going through it. I pulled it out three times and emptied it, put it back in again, and my hands were absolutely filthy. And when I put it in the last time, I had the feeling, It's not in here. I thought, what do you mean? What do you mean it's not in here? Don't be ridiculous. I just got through the rubbish bin. And in fact, my son, who'd actually been listening to all this, had the same feeling. And he actually refused to go through the rubbish bin with me. So I thought, right, I'm not listening to any more promptings at all. I had enough. I'm off. And I actually shoved off to the downstairs toilet. And there, underneath the sink, as I'm about to wash my hands, is the diamond to Helen's ring. Can you imagine a guy on the other side here having fun with Hutba, this idiot Hutba? How can we get this moron to actually go to the sink and wash his hands? I'd have to get him to go through the rubbish bin. So look, but this requires faith because when I told this story to a relative, and I won't mention my sister's name, but when I said it to her, she said, oh, it's just coincidence. And I thought, okay, I won't bother telling any more stories then, fair enough. So list B experiences require faith, but list A experiences require don't. Yeah, go on, Ian. Sorry,
SPEAKER_01:go ahead. You continue. I have a question, but go ahead. Continue.
SPEAKER_02:All I was going to say was that list A experiences do not require faith. And I've had probably four or five of those. And list A experiences I will not discuss. Experiences I will say from the pulpit or from anywhere, but I would happily discuss Any of the 400 lists that be experienced I've had. Sorry, what were you going to say?
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, no, this is, this is, uh, this is interesting. Um, and a really important segue into a topic that Jim and I have explored quite a bit, uh, to some extent. And I remember having a conversation with Hans Mattson on the podcast with Jim, and I think you've listened to that podcast. And we spoke to Hans Massen on that podcast about his perspective on revelation and the concept or the principle of the Lord intervening in very personal ways. I mean, I think that the point I'm trying to get to is that the Lord and the Spirit was involved in your prayers and your faith to find a lost diamond. So very personal. personal very involved in that you know and specifically telling you not to look in in a place because it was somewhere else etc so the lord intervening in that process and then the the questions that we get and we talked about this with hans mattson is does that principle apply to other things far more important than finding a lost diamond does the lord get involved in other more serious it's a question that I've been asked many times in the church and not in the church now but post church about where and when and how does the Lord intervene and the different responses where people say well you know why did the Lord allow my child to die or why didn't the Lord respond to my faith and prayers when you know I was sick or someone passed away we had a blessing And they passed away. And where was the Lord in those losses, in those experiences? And then the response that they often get is, well, that's what the Lord intended. That was the plan all along, that the Lord hadn't planned to save the individual. Or maybe they felt that the Lord wasn't involved in the same way that he was involved in finding a lost diamond. When you hear that, and again, I'm sharing this Feedback I've had on a personal level as I've been a leader in the church and also people come to me as a friend. How do you reconcile the principle of the Lord intervening with you, for example, finding a lost diamond versus people feeling that the Lord hasn't intervened or feel at times forsaken from him? Because the brethren have talked about this in conference, you know, about having faith, et cetera. How do you reconcile the two points there? Something really serious, like a life... law doesn't intervene or doesn't appear to intervene from people's experiences versus the intervention to find the lost diamond
SPEAKER_02:okay okay it's a really good question and I really appreciate it okay I've got to be careful here because I might lose it so I've got to be really careful here but in the position where I am right now is where my wife died And it was the right time for her. She had a blessing. And in fact, she had the blessing in the position where I am right now. I've got us a tea here, but there was a bed here. And the blessing said that in the pre-existence, that we agreed as a family that she would go at this time. At that time, not this time, obviously. So... Let me share something else. She actually talked to a guy who was an atheist. And I met this chap a little while after Helen had passed. And he said to me, as Helen was dying, she would have known that there was no afterlife and she would have realized that she was dying, that she was going into oblivion. And I was thinking, I was thinking all sorts of things that I might do. but I didn't, and I withheld myself. Now, let me tell you what really happened. Helen had been in a coma for two weeks, and she hadn't moved. And then she moved her arm, and I thought, wow, hold on here. This is kind of incredible. And she'd always wanted to talk to me. I'd been out for a walk to take the dogs out. And when I was out for 20 minutes and she phoned me four times because she needed to speak to me. Anyway, so I looked at her and I said, are you in pain, dear? And she didn't acknowledge me whatsoever. This was just before she died. She died on the 25th of November at 1.42, 2017. And she looked... passed me over to the mantelpiece that I'm actually looking at now. And she scanned her eyes from left to right. It was about a six to eight foot area. Left to right, right to left. And she did that two minutes. And her breathing went down from once every 10 seconds, once every 20 seconds, once every 30 seconds. And she didn't hear me or actually hear acknowledged me, although she always wanted to talk to me, and then she gave a last breath and she passed. She was looking at something. Now, I don't know what she was looking at, but I'm sorry, that atheist was wrong. She saw something when she was going. Now, I'm not going to share with you my list of experiences, but I will tell you this. I know there is another dimension. I don't have to have fate. I know there is another dimension. And what I know is very specific to me and it is my list A experiences. And I know that there are people in another dimension who interact with this dimension, guys. So in answer to your question, why do people go? Because basically it's their time. It was Helen's time. Why do bad things happen to people? Because it's not Heavenly Father doing it. It's basically it's chance doing it. Heavenly Father had the chance to actually save people from really bad things. And he has the opportunity not to. And if he actually decides, well, look, this guy's had enough. He's been through enough pain. He's been through enough hassle in his life. He's been politically assassinated. So everybody actually goes through different things. We all have different things. So when people have had enough, Heavenly Father says, okay, let's bring them back. They've had enough. Let's bring them back. So he doesn't stop certain things happening. He actually intervenes when it's necessary. He doesn't intervene when it's not necessary. So an answer to your question is Heavenly Father allows chance to take its course. But when he decides that something needs changing, he'll change that course. That's how he does. Yeah.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, no, I appreciate that. I want to bring Jim in here. And then just going forward, we've got a few questions that we're going to ask you in terms of doctrine and want to talk about some of those topics that you and I shared back and forward, if you may. But Jim, when you hear that, you know, because that's such a very significant part of, you know, a religious and spiritual experience, right? They're very different experiences. What are your thoughts on that, listening to Marcus? What's your perspective on that? on that dimension, but also how the Lord, based on that, how he intervenes and doesn't intervene?
SPEAKER_00:Oh, that's a question that has bedeviled philosophers for millennia. This is the theodicy question. Why do bad things happen to good people? Why doesn't the Lord intervene in certain spots? We've had instances in our family where there was a time after my daughter was injured. My daughter was injured at the age of 14 in a skiing accident that left her paralyzed from the waist down, at least partially paralyzed from the waist down. And I used to just get enraged, really, when I would hear these sort of miraculous healing stories. that were, see, isn't God good and isn't God wonderful? He's healed my child. He's healed my wife. He's healed somebody else. And I'd say, well, so am I just not righteous enough that God hasn't intervened? And as time has gone on, my daughter has made a great life for herself. She's currently a medical doctor in her first year of residency. She's when I raised that with some people to say, well, see, it was all for the best. This was, you know, and, and I, you know, and I, I've had discussions with my wife about that, where she's just said that just drives me crazy. I mean, yes, we've seen so many blessings and so many wonderful people who've come in and helped as a result of that, but I'd be willing to throw them away to make my daughter whole again. You know, they're not, they're, That kind of reasoning gets very frustrating. So I've sort of reached the point where I believe that we are the intervention, that we are the body of Christ, that we are the ones that have the inspiration to reach out to our neighbors, to reach out to people in need. And I think the kinds of intervention that My daughter takes a wrong turn down a mountain and somehow the hand of God reaches out and just nudges her away from the obstacle that causes the injury. I don't think that mortality is designed for experiences like that. I'm with Marcus in that he lets chance take its course. And I'm also with Marcus in this idea that we signed up for this. I don't know if I can go all the way to say we knew exactly when we were going to die or exactly what was going to befall us when we came here, but we knew what we would be subject to. We knew what the risks were, and we were willing to accept those risks because mortality and death That kind of experience with opposition is the only way to learn and to grow. So I no longer really believe that, you know, the closest I've had to the finding the diamond experience is finding, there was one year at Christmas, my wife makes homemade stockings. She's made these stockings for all of our kids and we'd lost one of them. And we prayed and we prayed and we prayed and we prayed, and I found them. I found it. And I thought, whoa, isn't this a great answer to prayer? But the older I get, the more I think, jeez, if we can't deal with some sort of lost item, then mortality probably is too big a stretch for us. That's not what the mortal experience is supposed to be. I don't take any issue with anything that Marcus has said, and I actually was reminded, Ian, of your near-death experience when we talk about it on this podcast, and also not just the near-death experience, but the death of your brother, when you talked about that that was just an undeniable moment where you recognized there was something beyond this life. And I, too, have had, we want to call them column A experiences. I have had column A experiences that I don't think are necessarily appropriate for public consumption. But I think that kind of worldview, I can understand it. I share it to some degree. I don't share it to another degree. But I think these are the great questions that keep all of us talking and that keep all of us up at night as we try to figure out what it is that we're doing here and where we've come from and where we're going.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, thank you for that. I think we all agree, and I agree with you, Marcus. I know, like you, Marcus, there is another dimension for sure, based on my own experiences. I really appreciate you both providing your insight. What I'd like to do, if I can, is go into the next stage of our conversation, and we've been sharing and communicating this part of the conversation with Marcus. There's at least two things I know about you, Marcus, amongst many things. The two things are, from my experience, having known you for so long now, is your commitment to the church and the gospel is just extraordinary. I want you to know that. That's how I see you. You're incredibly committed. And the other thing, amongst other things, of course, there's lots of other things, is your knowledge of the gospel and the church. And so when you and I were back and forward and I was trying to keep Jim aligned and up to date on some of your questions, there was a few topics that we wanted to get into with you, if we can, to get your insights and your experience and your knowledge and thoughts on this. And I think this will be very interesting for many of our listeners. And so maybe we could... So if we can, in the interest of time, ask
SPEAKER_00:some
SPEAKER_01:very...
SPEAKER_00:Well, before we do that, can I jump in just very quickly? Because this has been such a lovely conversation and I would hope it would stay a lovely conversation because I know that behind the scenes, Marcus, some of your objections to some of the things that we've said on this podcast, I think have the potential to get very heated and get very contentious. And I would hope that one of the hallmarks of this podcast, when we have people on, is we say, we absolutely want you to feel comfortable. And we want this to be a safe place for people to talk, for people to tell their stories. And I know of Ian's affection for you, Marcus. And I just met you today, but you seem like a very pleasant, lovely human being. And I would just hope that as we discuss things that may become somewhat difficult, some topics that may be somewhat loaded topics, that we can do so with civility, with kindness, and that this doesn't go off the rails into something else. Is that all
SPEAKER_02:right? Can you note that Jim's actually said some really good things about me, and I'd like that posted and actually put on the Facebook. Oh, that's excellent. Oh, well.
SPEAKER_01:No, I think that's a really important point. You know, our feedback we got from people who've been on to the podcast is that it feels safe and comfortable. But at the same time, we are, you know, we're really interested in having a very robust conversation because I think we can get some really interesting, you know, points in here. But I appreciate and value, obviously, what Jim said, and I concur with that. So if you're okay... Marcus if you're comfortable if we could just get into some of the topics uh that we talk as I think your insights are going to be uh fascinating um we've talked for example some of the big topics are like race and the priesthood polygamy you know these are some of the big ones right um you know the Book of Mormon translation process I think you've even talked about a little about evolution uh you know these are some of the the big the big topics there and so if you're comfortable getting to some of these questions. And we can start at any one of these. Maybe I'll just ask one question here. And again, I'll keep it brief. What's your perspective on race in the priesthood, for example? When Brigham Young introduced the restrictions on Black people accessing priesthood authority and temple blessings, Was he right to do so? Was he wrong? Did he make a mistake? And this speaks to an area that Jim's fascinated in, which is prophetic infallibility. Are the prophets wrong? Are they right? Are they speaking as a man? Are they speaking as a prophet? But was Brigham Young right or wrong to introduce restrictions on black people holding the priesthood and accessing the temple of blessings?
SPEAKER_02:Okay. I mean, I think it's really important that anybody in the gospel is actually open to questions. And anybody who fails to answer questions, I think, is missing the point. I think it is very important that we're all able to interact with each other very clearly and openly and happily, and that you do create a very comfortable environment and are very much appreciative of that fact. I think there are tenets that the gospel offers. lays down and I think those tenets are important to define the tenet for blacks and the priesthood is basically that there was no racism there has been no racism and that there was no pre-existent sin that black people committed to not receive the priesthood now my son My youngest son, I've got four kids, my youngest son is actually engaged to a really fun and exciting and vibrant black girl from South Africa. And they're engaged and they'll get married quite soon. So I think this is a really relevant question. My take, having thought about this for a long time, is that between 1852 and 1978, you have a geographical region which was restricted only to Africa. whereby people couldn't receive the priesthood if they were actually born within that geographical location. I can remember teaching a black family, the Browns, and they were just delightful. But I can easily see and completely see and totally understand why someone would not wish to be a judge in Israel. Now, I've been on quite a few disciplinary councils. I was on the High Council for 16 years. That was a continuous stretch when I really enjoyed it. I loved it. But I didn't enjoy going into disciplinaries so much. When I was actually asked to speak for the, to uphold the good name of the church, I always used to find myself swapping sides. And I would actually just put up mitigating circumstances for the guy in the chair. And some of the guys in the high council would give me a little bit of a funny look. I didn't care. I just wanted to continue to put the mitigating circumstances. So guys, I get it why some people would not want to do that. And I personally never wanted to be in that position because I saw the great angst that I had. I was with three state presidents. I saw the great angst that they went through in making decisions and also certain bishops. And I only kept what I say here, but not all leaders are actually fantastic. And I've heard your podcast and I agree with you. Some of them, Yeah, not that brilliant, but that's as far as I'll go with that. But guys, for me, the blacks not receiving the priesthood was a voluntary thing of not wanting to have been compelled to be a judge in Israel because it's not something that I'm comfortable with that idea. Some bishops are fantastic. So for me, it was a voluntary decision. just the same way that it was a voluntary decision that Helen left at the time that she did, not one that I kind of thought I was clever and agreeing to, but anyway. But so for me, that group of people between 1852 and 1978 didn't want to be judged in Israel, but once they die, they can have the opportunity of actually receiving the priesthood after mortality. And after 1978, all that group had gone through mortality, so it wasn't something which needed to be in place anymore, and it wasn't. It was removed. So for me, it was a voluntary action. It's got nothing to do with racism whatsoever. And I cannot agree that a prophet would be racist. And whilst men are fallible, as long as Christ is talking to a prophet, he's not fallible. The second he actually doesn't have Christ chatting to him, then he can make mistakes. But all the time that Christ is talking to him, He's not making mistakes. He's got the guy in the big cheese in the middle actually saying, look, do it like this, guys. Dissemination of information. So there's a big disparate view here between what guys muck up, and there's plenty of local leaders who do some really stupid things. But when the Savior is chatting to the prophet, it's not a problem, and there is nothing to be scared of in terms of listening to to what the prophet is saying. Now, I know that we all have different prophets that we like, and I really like President Nelson. I really do. I really like President Monson, the way he can twitch his ears. But, you know, other guys, I didn't warm to. But those two, I do. I really like them. So that's my answer.
SPEAKER_01:I appreciate that. And I want to get Jim's response here as well. But if I understand you, my interpretation of that is that The decision not to accept the priesthood was from the black people at the time, again, so correctly if I'm wrong. You're nodding your head, agreeing to that, I think. And secondly, Brigham Young didn't get it wrong as the prophet. He was in the Lord's prophet seat there. He didn't get it wrong. His decision to prohibit, restrict black from the priesthood was correct, if that's what you're saying. And he wasn't racist. His decision behind that wasn't based on his discriminating against black people. Is that correct? Did I understand that? Jim, any thoughts, comments on that from your perspective?
SPEAKER_00:Well, many. I'm just trying to figure out the best way to go at it.
SPEAKER_01:Because I think without that, I don't, I've cut you off there, but I think you and I talk about our perspective is somewhat different to that, but go ahead.
SPEAKER_00:Well, okay. Two things jump out at me from your answer. The first being that somehow this is a voluntary decision by black people. You initially said this is, these are people that are confined to a certain geographical area when in fact, you know, This affected people far beyond that geographical area, as in a global society, people of African descent can be found in pretty much any nation in the world, and they could be found in any nation in the world prior to the priesthood restrictions being lifted. But I want to drill down on this idea that this was somehow voluntary, that they somehow chose to not to have the priesthood because I've had conversations with Darius Gray, who was one of the first men who received the priesthood after restriction was lifted. He was one of the founders of the Genesis Group. Are you familiar with the Genesis Group, Marcus?
SPEAKER_02:You give your response and I'll come back with a riposte afterwards, okay?
SPEAKER_00:Oh, okay. The Genesis Group was a group of Black Latter-day Saints prior to the priesthood restriction, and they interacted directly with President Kimball. Darius Gray tells the story of his baptism, that he had received a testimony that he was to be baptized and then discovered that he couldn't get the priesthood. And the idea that Darius Gray or anybody else who had joined the church prior to 1978 didn't want the priesthood or, or chose or volunteered not to have the priesthood, uh, flies in the face of, of the, of any kind. I have not yet met a person who would say that, no, we just didn't want it. We just didn't want it. So I'm presuming that you are talking about that. This was a volunteer sort of thing that happened before this life, which is a sort of an explanation that the church has explicitly disavowed in the race and the priesthood essay. The idea that somehow they're less valiant, that somehow something in their pre-earth life determined that they would not be able to have the priesthood and you attach the word voluntary to that as if this which actually I can sort of understand why you would want to because then it no longer says okay well they were less valiant it was okay well they just chose to not have the priesthood and so that sort of softens the blow but it doesn't remove the sort of underlying assumption of inferiority that comes with that. So, so, so, I mean, I, that's my first foray into this and I'm happy to get to the other part about, um, uh, whether or not Brigham Young made mistakes or whether or not prophets can make mistakes. Cause I think that's a larger discussion, but, uh, That's my response to that, and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts in reply.
SPEAKER_02:Fantastic. I'd love to. Right. First of all, in terms of the passage of people out from Africa, it doesn't make any difference. If people actually were born in Africa, then basically the Heavenly Father made that possible that they were born in Africa, so therefore that was their choice from the preexistence. So that's sort of fair comment, Jim. But nice try, but it doesn't work. The other idea that it's actually connected with valiance, we know that it's not connected with valiance from the essays. That's got nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that it was a free choice. Valiance and free will, and Heavenly Father is very keen on free will, are completely and utterly separate. So it's not a case of dumbing down the blow. It's a case of they're not connected whatsoever. So it doesn't actually impact the idea that people in the preexistence made that as a free will choice. So it's a nice try, mate, but it doesn't actually stack up logically.
SPEAKER_00:Okay. I just want to set some boundaries here a little bit. I mean, nice try. I'm just trying to have a discussion with you. I'm not debating you. I'm not criticizing you. I'm not attacking you. I'm trying to have an exchange of ideas. So when you say things like, well, nice try or this, it's not about me being right or wrong. It's about me trying to understand your position. And I was appalled, John. When you start talking about it's voluntary in the pre-existence, I mean, the geography, well, I mean, the geography, I guess that doesn't matter because people born in the United States for generations, there are people who have been born in the United States for hundreds of years and born in the UK and born throughout the world who haven't ever been to Africa. I guess their genetic ancestry is rooted in Africa, but I guess maybe that's a distinction without a difference. But when I raised Darius Gray, for instance, Darius Gray would have told you in 1977 that he very much wanted the priesthood. And based on the way you are framing this, you would have told him, well, you made a decision before this life where you didn't want the priesthood, and that decision should take precedence over your 1977 decision. Is that an accurate framing?
SPEAKER_02:Well, I apologize for saying nice try. What I'm used to is actually talking like this as a scientist, and I actually debate regularly with other scientists. I'm not trying to be rude, and I really apologize. That's not what I'm trying to do, Jim. I'm actually just coming back, and I'm used to people actually coming back at me and saying nice try. This is the kind of banter that we use, and it's not meant to be offensive. I really apologize for that. But bottom line is that the pre-existent choice was something that people will make, just in the same way that I made a choice about Helen, apparently. And that then has to actually remain in force until you pass through mortality. So it doesn't matter what you actually choose or what decisions you try to change once you're in mortality. Once you're on the... the crazy ride on Fort Park, you're on there until the end of the ride. And once you get off the ride, then that's fine. Once you die, then that's a different story. But you can't change your mind halfway through. It doesn't work like that.
SPEAKER_00:Well, doesn't that sort of defeat the entire purpose of mortality? Isn't the purpose of coming here the willingness to make decisions, to make choices, to learn from our decisions, to learn from our choices? And if we're bound solely by the choices we made before this life, Why do we bother coming here in the first place?
SPEAKER_02:Because we all have to actually have preconditions set in, and actually those preconditions determine where we were born, how we were born, to what families we were born, and therefore we have a partial judgment when we die. All the things that we do have consequences. So when we actually have different choices to make, we make them at the time and we live with them until we get a circumstance where those conditions are changed. So it's not a problem, Jim, in actually deciding, look, I don't want to be a judge in Israel, but I certainly want to go down to mortality and to actually participate. I don't want to go with Lucifer's crowd because that's crazy, but I also don't want to be a judge in Israel. There's nothing wrong with doing that.
SPEAKER_01:Marcus, can I just drill down on this because I think this is fascinating. Is it your... perspective that you know you talk about choice and preconditions before people came to the earth that we individuals some individuals chose to go to Africa for example it chose to go to a certain geography that there were certain decisions that they made under free agency to go to a be born in a certain place in that situation or those conditions in those geographies, et cetera, you know, outside the United States, for example, or UK or whatever. And that those are the series of choices. Was that based on any type or form of faithfulness or balance on their part? For example, when I was investigating the church, certainly just after I was baptized, I learned pretty quickly early on that. And this was in seminary. We talked about this on the podcast briefly where I was taught that that black people weren't allowed to receive the priesthood at that time because they were, quote, less valiant, end quote, before the world was, and that they were restricted to certain geographies, weren't born in white, middle-class Utah, for example. They went to Africa. That was, to your point, their choice based on their agency. But is there a correlation there with those individuals' faithfulness and valiance, which is what I... was taught when I first joined the church. Could you speak to that?
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, I think that's a really important point, Ian. And sometimes I think that local guys actually just get it wrong. I really do. And this is really important. And what's really stark for me here is as soon as you start speaking, Ian, I'm automatically wanting to agree with you. As soon as Jim starts speaking, because I don't know him so well, I automatically want to actually joust with him. So it's crazy. I don't want to do that, but it's just my natural reaction. So automatically I'm thinking, yeah, how can I actually completely find common ground with Ian? And I'm thinking, how can I get in there and give Jim a good blow before he blows me? I mean, that's just how it goes. That's where we are. We guys is what we want to do. So completely, Ian, some local leaders just basically talk utter drivel. And I don't mean that to be rude. It's just But other guys are just a delight to listen to. In the Winchester Ward, it's a pleasure. So I completely and totally disagree with the idea about valiance and the preexistence. I'm completely with you. I think that's completely 100%. It's got nothing to do with people from black ethnicity at all. And I think your point you make is very good, Ian. 100%, mate. Yep.
SPEAKER_00:Well, I want to dive into this idea that the prophets couldn't have been wrong and the idea that they've got Christ whispering in their ear and so they can't be wrong. So this is going to be sort of a two-pronged question. The first, I want to read a statement by Brigham Young made on March 8th, 1863. Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty under the law of God is death on the spot. This will always be so. Now, you, Marcus, you told us you've got a son that is marrying a lovely woman of African descent. And based on the law of God that will always be so, as enunciated by Brigham Young, the punishment, the penalty under the law of God is death on the spot. Do you agree with Brigham Young? And if you don't agree with Brigham Young, because I'm assuming you don't want that punishment for your son and his fiance, how do you reconcile that and say Brigham Young wasn't wrong?
SPEAKER_02:Okay, here's my riposte. Very easily indeed. I was politically assassinated and I actually saw things printed in the press and I know were fabricated. My daughter is a reporter and she's a very accurate reporter and very objective in her articles that she writes. Some reporters, or shall I say, it is the nature and disposition of nearly all men, not only to exercise unrighteous dominion, but also to tell complete big porky pies. actually report in a way which I don't trust as far as I can throw it. So I'm not interested in what someone reported about something that Brigham Young may or may not have said. When I get into the next dimension, I'll ask him myself. And he can tell me. When I get into the next dimension and I see Joseph Smith, if he's got multiple wives, that's fine by me because it would be real. If he hasn't, I don't care. I don't care what somebody actually reports about Brigham Young. I'm not interested in third parties because I've seen all sorts of drivel made up about me. And I know that it's completely fabricated. So I'm getting animated here because I've experienced it. So in answer to your question, Jim, I'm not interested in third-party reports, and I think they're a completely utter fabricated drivel.
SPEAKER_00:So you don't think Brigham Young is wrong because you deny that Brigham Young ever said anything like this?
SPEAKER_02:I don't trust people's third-party reports having had that experience.
SPEAKER_00:Okay, well... I've had a number of experiences with the press as well, and I recognize the press is capable of getting things wrong. Would that this were an isolated sort of statement on the part of Brigham Young. We have his address recorded to the territorial legislature in 1852, which is the first time that the priesthood and temple ban became sort of codified into Latter-day Saint policy. It had been sort of enforced sporadically prior to that, Joseph Smith ordained several men of African descent to the priesthood. But it was in that 1852 address to the territorial legislature that Brigham Young outlined specifically that black people are the descendants of Cain, which we now disavow. The black people were in fact less valiant and less righteous, which we now disavow. And all the kinds of things that we taught prior to 1978, have their origins in that 1852 address, which was well-recorded and which was firsthand. I don't know how you reconcile historical sources. If the game is, okay, we just disregard any kind of historical record that makes a prophet look bad, then this is going to be a fairly unproductive conversation. But the church has readily admitted that Brigham Young taught those things, that Brigham Young taught the inferiority of the black race, the cursed nature of the black race, and whether or not this individual statement that I had read to you is in fact accurate, it is in many ways consistent with the large body of what Brigham Young had to teach on the subject of race. And it isn't just Brigham Young. As it goes down, The idea the black people are the cursed descendants of Cain is something that was taught by every prophet since Brigham Young up to Spencer W. Kimball, who finally lifted the ban. And the idea that they are not cursed did not come into parlance in our theological discussions until essentially 2013. with the publication of the race and priesthood essay, which explicitly disavows all of those things that the prophets had said prior to that. Now, if you're going to say every single prophet is, was misquoted or misunderstood or misheard when they talked about the inferiority of the black race and the cursed nature of the black race, uh, I don't know where we can take this conversation in a productive direction because I think it's undeniable that that's something that was taught at the highest levels of this church for well over a century. And I don't know how you can look at that and then say, well, prophets can't make mistakes.
SPEAKER_02:Okay, right. Okay, my response to that would be twofold. One is that I don't think Brigham Young is stupid enough to actually believe that Cain was the source of the cursing because black people came from Egypt as the wife of Ham. Secondly, I've actually listened to your podcast, Jim, where you actually talk about 2 Nephi 5.21, where you talk about the idea that the Lamanites were cursed with a dark skin. That's not my understanding at all whatsoever. The Lamanites threw off their clothes and got tanned. When my father was actually in Iraq in the hockey team, they were lining up and they said, we thought that you were actually just only going to have British soldiers, British RAF guys. You can't have that guy over there. And they said, well, what do you mean? He said, well, he's not Caucasian. He's a black guy. That was my father. When people actually chuck off their clothes, they get self-cursing because they get carcinomas and they get a really deep tan. So your explanation for 2 Nephi 521, I'm sorry, doesn't actually sit level with me because some of the things that you're quoting, some of these guys can be interpreted in different ways. Justin, we could come on to the Pearl of Great Price. That's another one where we get different interpretations. So whilst you can actually roll out these quotes, Jim, My understanding of them is completely different to yours, I'm afraid. And every time I read one of these quotes that you pull up, I'm actually reading it in a completely different way. So
SPEAKER_00:I'm trying to find out what way you're reading them. I mean, do you deny that the prophets taught that black people bore the curse of Cain?
SPEAKER_02:It's got nothing to do with Cain. It's to do with Ham and Egyptus.
SPEAKER_00:Well, Ham and Egyptus were descendants. Egyptus was scripturally a descendant of Cain. I mean, Brigham Young, and again, I've given you the 1852 reference, the territorial legislature speech. And I can give you the 1949 first presidency statement where they reiterate that black people bear the curse of Cain. That's George Albert Smith. I can find several other statements of it. And when you say, well, you interpret them in a different way, and then you go to 2 Nephi 5.21, which is a different discussion, because 2 Nephi 5.21 was never used to deny anybody priesthood or temple blessings. But the idea of the curse of Cain absolutely was. And so I'm trying to get... See, so from my perspective... The idea of prophetic infallibility, the idea that prophets cannot make mistakes, never make mistakes, they've got Jesus whispering in their ear 24 hours a day, and everything they say is always right and always reliable, that absolutely flies in the face. of the fundamental principle of mortality, which is agency, which is the idea that we chose to come to this earth in order to learn and grow by encountering opposition and learning from our mistakes and knowing that sin and wickedness and mistakes would keep us from living with our heavenly father. We were given a savior in order to be able to pay for that education, if you will. But the idea, it's always interesting to me when people talk about church leaders, and Marcus, you talk about, okay, you're willing to concede that there are local leaders that are lousy. And I commend you for not mentioning them by name, because I do think we are under a covenantal obligation not to speak evil of people who have been given callings by the Lord. But I'm curious that... My mission president after Ian left the mission was Joseph Fielding McConkie. And he was often asked about prophetic infallibility. And he wrote a book called Answers to Gospel Questions. And he wrote a lengthy thing where he said, at what point does infallibility begin? Because we don't expect infallible Sunday school teachers. We don't expect infallible bishops. So at what point do we expect infallible 70s? Does infallibility kick in when you become an apostle? Or is it reserved solely for the person who sits in the big chair at general conference in the center of the first presidency? Is it only the prophet that can't make mistakes? Because the reality is that for a prophet to be infallible, for a prophet to not make mistakes, they need to have their agency extracted from them. They no longer have can have the freedom to choose wrong if all they can do is right. And so that defeats the entire purpose of mortality. It flies in the face of every scriptural example we know about prophets, and everything we know, and the prophets themselves tell us that they are not infallible, and yet we refuse to believe them. And so with that if you say, okay, well, a prophet has never made mistakes, they are infallible, and I've given you, I can give you as long as your arm citations and references of prophets saying extraordinarily racist things, not just that black people bear the curse of Cain, but all sorts of justifications that we now completely and totally disavow as being the truth, and yet we're not And yet somehow we try to reconcile that reality with this idea, well, no, they were never wrong to begin with. If you're just going to say they were misquoted by the press for 100 years, it's just an absolutely ridiculous sort of defense for an undeniable reality.
SPEAKER_02:Okay. My repost to that, Jim, will be twofold. One is that if you look in the Polygraph Price, you actually hear that Pharaoh actually had a cursing And we know that Pharaoh came from the line of black ancestry, but it does not connect the cursing to a black skin. My second point will be that when Christ is talking to the prophet, I will always listen. We know that some apostles have actually fallen away, so I'll always listen with interest, but I'll actually focus my interest on the prophet when he speaks. actually looking at quotes and saying, we can look at each individual specific quotes, if you like, and actually interpret each one individually. But I'm sorry, every time I listen to your podcast, I go to the reference and I read it and I read it a different way. And it's not good enough just to say there are many quotes and there are many apostles and there are many prophets who have actually been wrong. You have to look at every individual case on its merits and actually interpret dissect that particular case and actually see whether those quotes are saying what you're alluding to. And my argument is that what you're alluding to isn't in fact what you're purporting, that in fact they're disparate, and that my actual reading of the same quotes and the same scriptures isn't the same as yours.
SPEAKER_01:It's fascinating. It's interesting to hear both of your different interpretations and perspectives. So I just want to kind of bring it to a bit of a higher level. So do you, Marcus, believe that prophets don't get it wrong? They don't make mistakes? Is that fair?
SPEAKER_02:I think there was a time where, for example, Joseph Smith said that men wouldn't get to the moon. That was clearly incorrect. When he actually publishes something in the Doctrine and Covenants, it's not wrong. Go
SPEAKER_01:ahead.
SPEAKER_02:I've had some business authorities who've come down, and I'm not prepared to mention their names, but they've said things which I thought were completely wrong. And I've actually gone up to them and had discussions afterwards. Now, I won't actually broadcast what I think about their ideas because I think they were completely and utterly wrong. But do I actually think that President Nelson would make a mistake in terms of some key doctrinal points, key tenets of our religion, the answer is categorically no. And when I have a doubt, I will actually shelve that doubt until I find out the answer. For example, I actually couldn't figure out whether bristlecone pine really was, as dendrochronology says, which is basically predating the flood. And I tried for two years to figure it out. And I sat and I sat and I sat and I couldn't figure it out. So after two years, I finally said to Emily, I said, okay, come on and give me an idea because I haven't got a clue. So the idea came to me, where is bristlecone pine? Tops of the mountains. What's the last thing that gets uncovered? Tops of the mountains. What's the first thing that gets uncovered? Tops of the mountains. Can plants survive a little while underwater? Yes, they can. I'm thinking, oh my goodness, I've had an idea within 30 seconds that it's taken me two years that I couldn't figure out. So the bottom line is, if there's a will, there's a way. And we shouldn't be looking for problems and more questions and moaning and being negative about church stuff. We should be looking for answers. And I've got two pages of stuff here. And we've gone on to one subject, Flax on the Priesthood. And I've got two pages of things that we could discuss. I could go through loads of different points. Evolution's a fascinating one. When I actually had a TV, we watched the Sharks series. and the Sharp series, basically, was coming to a brick-ground conclusion. And as it was coming to a conclusion, we were all getting excited, Helen and I, and then the TV stopped working. I thought, you've got to be kidding. I picked up the TV and shoved it outside the door, hoping someone would pick it up. We went to a TV store down the road, and there in the back of the store was my TV, looking fantastic and new. But the TV didn't become a radio. It was still a TV. So therefore... On evolution, as it talks about in the scriptures, species replicates after their own kind. When we get a problem, we have to go to the scriptures and actually try and find an answer, not try and find another problem and moan about what we can't understand. We've got to try and find answers to these problems. And so, no, I won't be negative about the church. I'll spend my life studying and trying to find answers to gospel questions. And that's why I published the book called Evolution Theorem. with two pseudonyms because I didn't want to highlight the fact that I was politically assassinated, and I put it up on Amazon. One, to let my kids know basically what Helen was like, and two, to answer gospel questions that they could pull off at four quid and basically print it off and get answers that they won't get from places which is super negative about the church. So my answer is yes, I will continue to actually oppose any of his specific quotes about blacks in the priesthood, and we can actually look at them and actually dissect them one by one by one, because that's what I've done my whole life. I appreciate you bringing this back to the back,
SPEAKER_00:because I want to talk about President Nelson. I want to do a sort of, we're at an hour and eight minutes, and Marcus, you've said you could go on forever, and I actually would like to go on, so I'm wondering, Ian, if we could I don't know what your schedule is like right now, but I'm happy to go on. And if we have to sort of split this into more than one episode, I'm happy to do that too. What are your schedules like? Is there a drop dead moment where we have, you guys have to go on?
SPEAKER_01:I have to go in like 10 minutes. I think this is a fascinating conversation and I would love to get Marcus back on if you're interested, Marcus, because I really would love to get into some of the topics. And so I appreciate that intervention there. So I do have a hard stop at about 10, 15 minutes max, which is coming up to, you know, where we usually drop off on these, you know, where we end that conversation on the podcast. But so... We've got probably 10, I've only got 10, 15 minutes, but Marcus would love to get you back on if you're interested. And so just going back to the topic of race in the priesthood, which is fascinating. What I'm hearing is that if they're going correctly from wrong, Brigham Young didn't make, did not make a mistake. he was speaking for the Lord, his ban on black soldiers and the priesthood, et cetera, of African descent, whether they were in Africa or not, et cetera, which is their choice, which they made before they came to it. Brigham Young didn't make a mistake. He didn't get it wrong. He was right at the time. Again, correct me if I'm wrong in any part of that, if I misunderstood you or misinterpreted. And also you mentioned something very interesting where the Lamanites were not black. They were suntanned. Does that, thinking extend to uh other people who are non-white are they is your perspective that black people are suntanned and not black uh naturally um you know because my understanding that the lebanites were black uh i've never heard uh the idea that they were suntanned until now so you and i are talking so could you just have two things there on this subject um Before we move on, and if we have time, I'd like to talk briefly a bit about President Nelson. We'll see where this goes in terms of a decision on the LGTBQ decisions that were made there. We may not have time to get into that. But was Brigham Young right then, essentially? It didn't make a mistake on that. And secondly, do you hold that black people are suntanned? Can you clarify that?
SPEAKER_02:Okay, sure. I think there's a distinction here, Ian, between people who actually came from Ham or came from Japheth. So you've got Shem, Ham and Japheth. Shem is Caucasians, Japheth is Asian, and Ham is the black race. In terms of Suntans, the Lamanites weren't Negroes, no, in that sense. And that's a historic term, by the way, when I say It's not a term we use now. I mean blacks by that. And don't forget, my daughter-in-law will be a black girl. I'm just looking at the phraseology that was used at the time. So, no. For me, the Lamanites were suntanned, but they were not from black ethnicity. So no, the two are distinct and separate. So they weren't cursed. They weren't cursed with a black skin. That's what you're saying. I'm saying that they were self-cursed by actually discarding clothing, but I'm saying that they were cursed in the same way that we have factions now. We actually have extremist groups that people will stay away from. So when when Heavenly Father says, don't mix and intermarry, it's something natural in the sense that people look at cults and they don't want to be a part of it and so they keep away from them. In the same way, Heavenly Father said to the Nephites, look, don't mix with this bunch of, this group of people because they're not being, they're not acting in a righteous way. So in that sense, that's only something which is sensible. In terms of a self, in terms of a cursing, it was a self-cursing, Ian, yeah? by just chucking the clothes off and getting deeply tanned like my father was deeply tanned.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah. So the self-curse was, again, if I get it right, understand it correctly, was by that group of people taking their clothes off, they were self-cursed by getting a suntan. And that means then I think that when the Lord in the Book of Mormon said that he placed the curse upon this group in terms of their skin color, That curse was a self-curse, not one that was placed by the Lord, which is what the Book of Mormon taught. You know, I've got the Book of Mormon that you gave to me when I was investigating the church, and it says, white and delightsome, not pure and delightsome as it says now, but the 1981 version talks about white and delightsome. But you're saying the Lamanites were of darker skin because of a suntan and not cursed by the Lord. Is that correct?
SPEAKER_02:Okay, so the cursing is not associated at any point in the scriptures with a change of skin color. They're separate. The Lord said that he cursed them, or he said that a curse was placed upon them, i.e. it was self-cursing, but there is no connection between the change of the color of the skin and the cursing. They are separate and distinct. So therefore, if people choose to throw off their clothes and get carcinomas, that's up to them. Interesting.
SPEAKER_01:We probably haven't got enough time to get into another big topic because we so much explore on this one. You know, we talked about polygamy, LGBTQ. I'm fascinated about your position on evolution. And we're coming up to the end of the podcast. We probably may only have time to stay on this particular topic. And there's so much more to even talk about this. Jim, what's your perspective on... What's your response to Marcus's answers to those questions?
SPEAKER_00:Well, I... I'm looking at it from a larger perspective here in that Marcus is the way you frame this. You said, look, I'm not going to say anything bad about the church, meaning that when we highlight the fact that church leaders have made mistakes, we are somehow attacking the church or we are somehow saying something bad about the church. Because one of the things that I've discovered as I've entered this sort of space that the people who are on the borders of the church, inside out, where they're on the edge of the inside or on the edge of the outside. You're seeing people who are leaving the church in large numbers, largely because they encounter error in our history. And then we have absolutely no tools to be able to deal with it. We look at some kind of statement and say, Most people look at these statements and take them at face value, and again, I think it's really difficult to say that every single racist statement that was made by a church leader up before 1978 has some sort of magical explanation, or didn't really happen, or can somehow be interpreted to not be racist, when the reality is, as President Uchtdorf told us in General Conference, sometimes church leaders have simply made mistakes. He did say that in October 2013. He said that. You're shaking your head. He asked...
SPEAKER_02:Misreading that again. President Uchtdorf said that people in leadership positions make mistakes, i.e. local leaders can make mistakes. He's not saying that the apostles or the prophets made mistakes. He's specifically saying that some leaders can make mistakes. You have to actually... make sure that what you're thinking is the same thing that he's actually tried to convey.
SPEAKER_00:Okay. So, again, we get to this sort of workaround. It's not a workaround. I mean, to try to take the plain meaning of what somebody says and then try to find some other definition of it. So, Marcus, before we go, I want to ask you a series of essentially yes or no questions because we don't have a lot of time and I would love to have you back because I would love to discuss evolution with you, the idea that We have to be young earth creationists, which I am not, which my great-grandfather David O. McKay was not. Sitting just a few feet away from me is David O. McKay's personal copy of Man, His Origin and Destiny, which was written by Joseph Fielding Smith, which is a screed against evolution. And David O. McKay has all kinds of marginalia there. talking about how much he disagreed with them. Because even church leaders, I mean, to say that they never make mistakes, you then have to get into the fact that they don't always agree. So they can't both be right, so one of them has to be mistaken. I mean, this is just sort of fundamentally the way human nature works. But the questions I want to ask you, yes or no, did church leaders prior to 1978 teach that black skinned, was the result of a curse.
SPEAKER_02:Okay, we can get into things like ecruhim, non-ecruhim, models. It's a yes or no question.
SPEAKER_00:It's a yes or no question. Did church leaders prior to 1978 teach that black skin was the sign of a curse? Okay, Jim, are you going to let me answer or are you going to answer for me?
SPEAKER_02:We can get into the answer, but it's a yes or no question. Jim, you can't tell me how to speak and I'll never be told how to speak. We can get into such things as equilibrium, non-equilibrium models, uranium, thorium, lead decay. We can get into dendrochronology. We can actually get into population bottlenecks in terms of mitochondrial DNA. I'm very happy to do that, Jim, because I have a science background and that would do just music for me to actually get into that. But I won't be told how to speak, Jim. I appreciate that you challenge me in terms of in terms of the quotes from authorities, well, I'll challenge you back and say, give me a quote and I'll interpret it. Don't actually say as a generic cause that everything that they say will be a racist
SPEAKER_00:comment, bring out specific quotes and we'll look at them individually. the sky is blue. Would you be able to answer that yes or no? Is the sky blue? Jim, I'll talk in the way that I wish to answer. That's fine. Is the sky blue? Because here's the reason why I'm trying to ask. The difficulty that I'm having here is that you and I do not seem to share a common set of facts. As a scientist, I'm sure you recognize how necessary it is to have an agreed upon set of facts. So if you're sitting there dealing with some kind of rational scientific thesis, and you've got somebody who comes in and says, well, I don't believe gravity is real, you all of a sudden go, well, then we can't really have a discussion because we don't share a common set of facts. And so what I'm trying to establish here is that I think it is factually undeniable that prior to 1978 and even after 1978, church materials, church leaders, and yes, presidents of the church, prophets, as well as scriptures, describe black skin as being a sign of a curse. And this was taught largely universally, and if you want to say, well, I need to look at every single one so I can figure out some way to work around it, if you don't believe, I'm not going to tell you how to speak because you don't seem to be willing to answer yes or no questions, but if you do not believe that church leaders prior to 1978 taught that black skin was a sign of a curse, then you and I do not share a common set of facts. Could you read with
SPEAKER_02:that? Let me answer you again. I've already said it previously. The cursings and the black skin were not connected.
SPEAKER_00:That's what you say. That is not what church leaders said up until 1978 and even afterward. What I'm trying to get you to recognize and acknowledge is a common set of facts, a common reality that this was, in fact, something that the church taught. And since you insist that the church leaders never teach anything wrong, you have to find some way to reinterpret plain language. in a way that flies in the face of the meaning of the words. And once again, it becomes, all right, if you want to talk about some fictional church that did not teach that black skin was the sign of a curse prior to 1978, I'm not the person to talk to because I'd never belonged to that church. I grew up in a church where I was taught personally that black people bore the curse of Cain. And I was taught that, and I was taught that it was a result of black skin. And if you want to pin that on whatever bishop told me that or whatever else told me that, I can come back and tell you that that was taught in my family for generations, a family led by a president of the church who believed that. and taught that and signed a statement in 1949 when he was a member of the first presidency that reiterated that. So if you're not willing to accept that and then you come back and say, well, I won't talk bad about the church, you're not defending the church when you are trying to create a new church. to replace the real one that taught things that we now disavow because we now acknowledge they were wrong. And so for you to say you will never criticize the church, you are refusing to stand with the church today. When the church disavows explicitly that we taught that black skin was the sign of a curse, that we taught that black people bore the curse of Cain, and if you're not willing to accept that, then maybe we don't have you back because we don't share a common set of facts.
SPEAKER_02:Jim, it's down to you guys. If Ian wants to be back or whatever, that's fine. It's an impasse here, Jim. At the end of the day, it's not about workarounds. We see things differently. I disagree with what you're saying. I disagree with your rationales and I disagree with your citations. But it's
SPEAKER_00:not a difference of opinion, Marcus. It's a difference of fact. If you say the sky is green and I say the sky is blue, one of us is right and one of us is wrong. It's not an agree to disagree situation. The sky is blue. And if you don't agree the sky is blue, we can't have a conversation about the sky. And if you don't agree that the church taught that black skin was a sign of a curse, you are wrong. And I am right. And it's not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fundamental fact and reality.
SPEAKER_02:If you talk over me, Jim, it's not a conversation anymore. It's just a monologue, mate, yeah?
SPEAKER_00:All right, yeah.
SPEAKER_02:At the end of the day, I appreciate that you see things differently, and I get it, and that your background is different, but...
SPEAKER_00:I'm done, Ian. You can take it from me here. I'm still frustrated with the fact that that you're trying to dismiss. I mean, you can't look at the sky. I keep using the sky because it's the simplest thing. But you can't look at saying something, well, agree to disagree. I think it's green. You think it's blue. You come from a different background. One of us is right. One of us is wrong. I'm probably getting heated, and so I probably need to step back. So I'll let you finish this up, Ian. Thanks very much, Marcus, for your time.
SPEAKER_02:All right, Jim.
SPEAKER_01:do you want to just any final comments on this before we close the podcast
SPEAKER_02:my final comments it's been really interesting and up to the last point there where Jim is getting a bit frustrated I enjoy interacting with him but the bottom line is that is that we have to just continue to discuss things because that's the only way we'll actually make progress is my thoughts. And I really like chatting to you, mate, and it's a pleasure. And I really enjoy your questions, Ian. They're just excellent.
SPEAKER_01:Just to clarify, you don't, again, for the sake of our listeners, and I appreciate those last comments, I really do. You disagree entirely, it sounds like, with what Jim said.
SPEAKER_02:I disagree with the fact that he's trying to say the church is wrong in certain areas, and I... In this area, where the blacks were cursed, you don't accept that? Not at all, no. No, I don't agree that the black skin was actually apportioned to a person. I believe that they are distinct and separate. And it's actually very clear in the scriptures that they were, yeah. And any
SPEAKER_01:evidence that suggests otherwise, you just don't accept that? from any source.
SPEAKER_02:Somebody wants to present it to me. I'm happy to look at any evidence. I always do and have done my whole life. And science is something which I'll always re-examine again and again and again. I'm happy to see it. But Jim's got to be specific. He can't just get frustrated and say, I'm not listening. But I am listening.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, what he was trying to do, and again, I'm trying to be the middle guy here between this conversation, is just ask me some yes or no questions. And we couldn't get past that. You mentioned, and we'll close here in a minute, you mentioned Elder Uchtdorf's talk in 2013. And for me personally, that was a very significant talk. When I listened to that in conference, Elder Uchtdorf, and he talked about past leaders who made mistakes, I, like you, thought he was talking about And I've shared this on the podcast. I thought he was talking about some rogue local leader, a bishop or state president who made mistakes, as they do, of course. You know that. I know that. I didn't for one second think he extended that to prophets. But in my follow-up research and conversations, what I got back from general authorities, I was on the state presence at the time, that that talk did extend to past apostles and prophets, that they made mistakes. And so, you know, I believe that prophets can, you don't believe prophets can make mistakes, I think, that they're not allowed to make mistakes or the agency is taken away and they are dictated to or told exactly what they should or shouldn't say. You know, they don't make mistakes, especially on this magnitude, like, you know, raising the priesthood, et cetera. I, you know, I don't, agree with that or believe that we have a different perspective on that but i think um you know i think this has been uh fascinating i don't think we're going to agree on you know i think if you cover our different topics like you know evolution like you talk about the earth was created 6 000 years ago and the scientific conversation around that i'm environmental sciences so i'd love to have that conversation with you the position of the church on you know lgdb GDPQ etc and the changes that has been happening around that you know the Book of Mormon translation process I'd be fascinated to you know have a conversation with you about that obviously I need to have this conversation with Jim and seeing if that we can go forward but I you know have to you know my position is and I'm saying this not to come down on anyone's side here but I like to look at the spiritual side of things, obviously, but I also like to look at the facts and what do the facts say. And I try to get this balanced approach in order to arrive at a conclusion or a position or understanding of things. I agree with you that I think this requires further discussion. But Jim and I, we've got a perspective on things and we wanted to get some clarity around these topics. And I appreciate you've got the scientific approach, but the facts, I don't think we're going to agree on some of the facts. And that's just the way it is. So I'll speak to Jim about whether or not we want to have another conversation with you and then come back to you. But I really appreciate you coming on and talking about these things. I think it's fascinating. Um, on a personal note, I want to express my love and appreciation to you. You know, you came into my life at a time when I was very unhappy. I was desperately unhappy and I felt alone and, and, um, very vulnerable, uh, young teenager and your, uh, um, influence in my life and Ellis Arthur was profound and continues to be profound. The church saved my life. I've talked about it on the podcast and I'm deeply grateful for my experience in the church and it influences my life even now. So on a personal note, I just want to say how grateful I am to you for who you are and the commitment and service that you've given and dedicated to the Lord and to the church. I think, you know, doctrinally, historically, policy-wise, I think we're going to have a, it'd be fascinating to get your perspective on those things for sure. So I just want to thank you for that. Any final thoughts or comments before we close?
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, Ian, you're a really good guy and I've liked listening to your podcast and I think Jim is a good guy. I think he's got lots of potential to explore different areas. I actually prefer your style because I think you're a lot calmer. And so I understand that Jim gets frustrated at times. And that's like, we're all a little bit different. I think we could go in all sorts of directions and have really good conversations. But at the end of the day, we have to realize that sometimes there are impasses. And when you reach an impasse, you just need to move on to a different
SPEAKER_01:topic. And I think that's a valid point. I think we're going to do here. So Marcus, thank you again. It's so great to see you. Give my love to your family. It's wonderful to connect with you. I hope we can keep connecting. And then when I come over to the UK, maybe we can get together. It'd be great to see you. It's been a long time since you and I worked together in person. I would love that. I plan to come over in the summertime. But thank you again for taking the time to be with us today. Jim, thank you. You've just left us there. Thank you for your contribution. And to our listeners, thank you for being here with us. and for your interest in the Inside Out podcast. Until next time, we wish you all well. And Marcus, thank you again for this very lively and robust conversation. Thank you.
SPEAKER_02:Cheers, matey.