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
Survey Says: Part One
Ian and Jim take a Church survey that was mistakenly sent to a larger audience than the Church intended. Part one of a series...
Hello and welcome to the latest episode of Inside Out. My name is Ian Wilkes and I'm joined with my extraordinary podcast partner, the stupendous Jim Bennett.
SPEAKER_01:Yes, stupendous is a good word. Always think of Calvin and Hobbes. Do you remember Calvin and Hobbes? I don't know those two. Is that just an American comic strip? It's probably the best comic strip ever written. Calvin's like a five-year-old boy and his stuffed tiger, Hobbes, and his alter ego was stupendous man.
SPEAKER_00:Nice. I like it. Notice I said stupendous and not stupid.
SPEAKER_01:Well, I think they're quite close. I think the line between them is really kind of blurry. Yes. Yes.
SPEAKER_00:Well, uh, not in your case, you're a very wonderful individual. And as always, I'm grateful to be having these conversations with you. Remind our listeners, you know, about inside out, uh, what we're about. We want to help. We want to have the conversations that are going to help people wherever you are in your experience in your life in the church. If you're out and you're trying to, you're still connected and you want to hear these different conversations and they're helpful, great. If you're in or you navigate in your faith, you have questions, again, the podcast is designed to bring these issues, the challenges, but also a lot of successes that the church achieves as well. We We are focused on being a balanced voice, if you like, about the church, talking about a range of different topics and issues. Some of them are very challenging. You know, the church is going through, as it always has done, extraordinary change. Sometimes that change is fast. Other times, often it's slow and it takes time. But overall, our hope is the church continues to improve and be increasingly a safe place for people who are navigating at different levels across all kinds of experiences, all kinds of backgrounds. Hopefully that reminds us a little bit about one of the objectives, if you like, of the podcast. Today's an interesting conversation because recently the church appears to have commissioned a survey. On the podcast, Jim, as you know, we've talked often about the revelatory process in the church, right? We've said repeatedly the church claims that in Scripture and on the record repeatedly, less so the last decade, I think, but makes a bold claim that it is the only true church upon the face of the earth and that President Nelson, or the living prophet at the time, is the only exclusive mouthpiece for God and Jesus Christ upon the entire earth in the history of revelations between God and man. So that's quite an extraordinary claim and a very significant responsibility that rests upon the shoulders of President Nelson. So he speaks, communes with God, and God directs and instructs the prophet on the earth who is the leader of the only true church. And so all that information, all of the direction, instruction, revelation, decisions, confirmations, et cetera, and lots of other things are included revealed to the prophet directly from Jesus Christ and from God through the power of the Holy Ghost. And so why, if you had such an extraordinary source, which I believe they have, not exclusive, I don't believe the church has got exclusive authority on revelation or inspiration at all. I think you know my thoughts on that. But I do believe they do have access to the same inspiration that we do as individuals in the world and rank-and-file members in the church. And so why would, with making that kind of claim and having that extraordinary power and authority and direct hotline, if you like, to God to discuss and pray and and ponder about all kinds of challenges and issues, why would you need to commission a survey? Why would you need to ask members of the church for their feedback and input? But that's what the church has done, and it's done that recently. It's not the first time, Jim, that the church has commissioned a survey. I remember when I was in the UK years ago, it wasn't online back then, but it was a a survey that we were asked to do in the Joint Priesthood Relief Society that was commissioned by the church on all range of issues. I think I've participated in a number of surveys that the church has commissioned over the years. Before we get into the details of this more recent survey, have you been part of any surveys, Jim, in the past, historically?
SPEAKER_01:I have been a part of several surveys. They've always been targeted surveys in that I wasn't able to forward them on to anyone else. I was the only one who was able to answer them. I'm not quite sure what the technology is that does that, but these were targeted surveys. And one of them I remember being very interesting because it was talking about teachings about grace, which is a subject we don't hear a lot about in the church, subject that we're a little bit afraid to talk about in the church. And the questions, I thought, were really thoughtful, and I was really interested in the fact that the church was considering, or the suggestion was, the implication was, that the church was considering teaching grace in a way that I would have really liked, and which is not consistent with how they taught grace. And since the survey, I haven't seen any real change. So I don't know what kind of impact the survey had, what the purposes were. But the thing that was interesting about all these surveys, of course, is that they're targeted, that they're given to a limited audience. And I don't know why I was chosen to participate in them, but a number of other people are chosen to participate in them. And I remember talking to a researcher who will go unnamed, But who said, next time you get one of these, could you please screenshot them? Because not everybody can see what they are. So it was last week, I think, where you sent me a copy of this survey. And I was surprised to learn that I could take it. I mean, it wasn't aimed at me because you had forwarded it to me. But I took it and I screenshotted it. And then I said, you need to take it. And by the time you tried to take it, It was by invitation only. And a number of other people have talked about this particular survey because apparently somebody made a mistake and sent the survey out and anybody could respond to it for a while. And so a lot of people took it. But I'm the only one that I've seen online who actually captured the screenshot. So I think that we can talk about them in detail because we know what the questions were. So, yeah, I've taken a survey is the short answer, but that leads us to where we are today.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, so thank you for that. So you've been involved in a number of surveys. You've given us some, you know, your experience on the more recent one. Yes, I did say to the link, I did try answer a couple of the first questions and they worked for me. I was surprised because I'm not in the church anymore. And I thought... It was interesting getting my opinion. And then to your point, I didn't send you the link. You then did the questionnaires. Did you do the entire questionnaire? Did you? I did the entire questionnaire, yes. That's fantastic. And then the link... stop for me i i went back to the link and i couldn't access it and you can't get onto it now the um i think the the holy ghost told them out i'm an apostate and that ian is not worthy i'm not worthy enough to to take the questionnaire but jim's worthy which is great because you you've always been worthier than me so worthy just the worthy is all crap because of your geniusness, that's a word, you did the screenshots. So we have proof that it existed, otherwise people might think we're making it all up. And I've got the screenshots, and we'd like to go through them together, and hopefully our listeners will find this absolutely interesting. I also want to say, before we get into this, we said earlier, why would the church feel the need to do the survey? considering the extraordinary source of inspiration information. And it's said in the past often, God's ways are not man's ways. God operates differently. The church operates to a higher law. We obey the laws of the land, but the church operates to a much higher law. The prophet, President Nelson, has said that not long ago. God's ways are his ways. We operate to a higher law. etc. And the other point I kind of highlighted in our back and forward messaging, why would the church feel the need to obtain or gather the opinions or canvass the opinions of men? In the temple, pre-1990, they talked about, I think in the ceremony, the temple ceremony, about the opinions of men. I think it was some kind of reference in the temple that the church really doesn't canvass the opinions of men or doesn't so much consider the opinion of men. It's the view of God that the church considers. So why on earth do a survey? I think it's good to do a survey. It's good to canvass the opinions of the members. But anyway, without further ado, let's get into some of the questions here. So the first question that comes up is as follows. And maybe you and I could take it in turns on each of the different screenshots. Sure. If you're okay with that.
SPEAKER_01:Well, very quickly, I want to jump back. I want to tell a quick story. Sure. Because in the age of the internet, these surveys are something that are simple to do. But back in the 1980s, before our missions, my father and my uncle, who was the stake president in Los Angeles, were commissioned by... by... Elder M. Russell Ballard to figure out ways to use the media and conducted a number of surveys back then and figured out ways to use the media to teach the gospel. And what they came back with was personal testimonials on cassettes would be really effective. And that sort of morphed into The plans that we had when we were on our mission, you know, the Together Forever cassettes that we gave out, our Heavenly Father's plan cassettes that gave out. And my father was really kind of frustrated with the fact that they didn't do what their survey results had told them they ought to do. That's neither here nor there, but it points out that this is not a new approach. This is something the church continues to do. And the way my father would justify it, he said, look, God knows how to cure every disease. He can cure hematomas. He can cure aneurysms. He can do all of that, and yet he still expects us to seek medical technology. And so he says, so he also expects us to exercise every tool at our disposal to understand the best ways to teach the gospel. He was focused primarily on missionary work, but he never saw a problem with surveys being used and these kinds of research being used in order to tailor the gospel message. And so that has kind of tempered... I think you have looked at this and said, well, why on earth would the church, the only true church that's directed by God, have to take surveys? And I don't really have that strong a reaction to it because... I think God expects us to do everything within our power to find the answers using our own abilities, using our own judgment, and then maybe take those answers to God for confirmation, but not have those answers handed to us at the outset. So that's kind of my perspective here at the beginning of this is that I think I'm not quite as I don't want to use the term frustrated, but I don't see anything inherently wrong with the only true church on the face of the earth taking surveys of its members.
SPEAKER_00:Does that make sense? It does make sense, and I appreciate that. I should have been clearer in my comments earlier, and I wasn't. Forgive me. Your explanation there is my position too. I was being, you know, figuratively speaking, I was being devil's advocate, and I was also citing comments and feedback I've had on this subject of surveys from people who do, who are not happy with this survey. They would say that, you know, why do a survey? So I don't necessarily share that view. I'm with you that I think information helps inspiration. If you look at the Book of Mormon example with the brother of Jared, where he's building the barges. He couldn't have any windows in the barges and traveled across those vast, turbulent waters. They needed light. And instead of God giving the answer, Brother Jared, he said, what do you want me to do, essentially? And then Brother Jared thought about it. He had these 16 stones, and he asked God if he touched these stones with his finger, the stones would illuminate. And he could then take those stones into the barge that was completely sealed in the dark. Because it had to be like that because it would be dashed, I think, by the rocks. And of course, these 16 stones would illuminate and provide light inside the dark barges. And so that was God putting it back on Brother Jarrah saying, look, what do you want me to do? Brother Jarrah came up with a solution. thinking for himself. And that's where I've always been with the church. However, there are those people in the church that, and I've met them, even met them in my calling as bishop and state presidency, where they don't put any value at all in the surveys. Who cares what people think? It's ultimately what God thinks, right? What God says will follow. These are very strong, orthodox, unquestioning, you know, non-doubting believers in the church who are really not into critical thinking. So I just want to qualify that. So let's, we'll get into the questions here. The first question is, or the first statement is, personal inspiration from the Lord will never contradict the revelation God gives through his prophets. And you have the option of, I do not believe this statement. I'm not sure whether I believe this statement. I believe this statement. And that's interesting because you're going to get different answers to that, right? I think if you look at the composition of the member, you know, the rank and file members, you get people who are from one spectrum who don't believe black should have the priesthood, for example, even now. And we've met some of those people, right? People, yeah, we've got someone on the podcast who holds... I think at least some extreme views on certain things. But those people exist in the church. That's an element of the church. And they will probably say, you know, they'll answer that question according to their strength, if you like, in their beliefs, you know, in the church. And the other one is, I'm not sure whether I believe this statement or I believe this statement. So personal revelation from the Lord will never contradict the revelation of God, God gives through his prophets. Do you have an answer to that, Jim? Or can you share an answer to that? Do you agree with that? I've
SPEAKER_01:been a little nervous about this in terms of sharing my own answers because there are a lot of Desnat types who very much want to trap me into answering questions that uh will label me as an apostate particularly as we get to the questions later on about lgbtq issues there's even one question that says same-sex marriages should be performed in the temple and i am well aware that if i were to publicly say yes or publicly advocate for that kind of change uh that could get me into trouble and so it's really interesting so I am going to reserve the right not to answer some of these questions. I did answer all of them in the survey, although I was a little nervous too, because not so much on this one, because I don't think they even knew who I was, but in all the targeted surveys, some of the answers might be considered apostate. And I thought, well, geez, if I tell the church that I, I think this when in fact, um, that's not something that the church looks kindly on, am I going to get in trouble? And I never did. That's because my answers were perfectly faithful and wonderful. So I'm just a little reluctant. I want to reserve the right to be able to not answer some of these publicly. I'm fairly comfortable answering publicly, even though I think my answer probably is considered a little bit heretical. in that I absolutely think that personal revelation can contradict counsel from church leaders. If that were not the case, then everybody who was praying and hoping for the 1978 revelation to extend priesthood and temple blessings to people of African descent, every single one of them that got an assurance that that was going to happen was clearly out of step. Anybody that disagreed with that policy and got inspiration that told them that, yes, this is a good thing, you should believe that all people are equal, that contradicted the teachings of the church at the time, and yet those people were later proven right. So I think you can point to all kinds of different examples of when the church has made mistakes, that there are people in the church that have got an inspiration that shows that they were right and the church was mistaken or an error. So I can... Bet that I know what your answer to that question is. I'm assuming you agree with that statement.
SPEAKER_00:Totally, I am. And I really appreciate you highlighting the sensitivities around your own opinion on these questions. And I understand and respect that. You know, you're active in the church and you've got your own thoughts, personal thoughts and feelings. On the survey, it doesn't ask you for your name, right? So it's an anonymous questionnaire and blind in respect to that. But I think it's interesting. The answers that the church will get, I think, will be quite fascinating. Yeah, I don't believe that statement. I've had personal experience where my personal inspirations differed quite significantly with the church. Like the... What ended up being the reversal policy on the LGBTQ children, you know, gay parent issue that happened. And the church was very fixed on its policy announcement in 2015, I think it was. Was it 2016, 2015? And then reversed it again. not long after. So, and went into great detail about the revelry process when the church introduced that policy. President Nelson walked us through that revelry process. And to me, it's like, you know, it was absolutely fixed and assured that that policy was from God. People saw that. I never felt comfortable with that at all. And, you know, I've got friends who are gay and it caused a lot of hurt and harm and the church thankfully reversed that. So, Yeah, no, I don't believe that statement. The other thing as well that you highlight, the church will get a snapshot of where members' opinions are on the apostasy line, right? You talked about some of the questions that you may answer may be closer to that line than other questions, and that's what the church will get. It will get an interesting perspective on where... a sample of the church membership where they are in respect to what that apostasy line is, which is quite gray and confusing and tends to move. That causes a lot of concern for people. Are they in apostasy if they don't accept or agree certain things? So the church will get this fascinating insight into the thinking of the members through the survey. The next question, Jim, if you can see that, do you want to read that? Yeah.
SPEAKER_01:The words we use to express doctrine can change without the doctrine itself changing. That seems a really weird sort of purposeless question to me. What are they trying to find out with that question?
SPEAKER_00:I said, yeah, what's the intent behind that? I don't know. That's interesting. You know, when we hear a doctrine or a spoken, we have interpretation, right? You know, we interpret it in a certain way. We understand it a certain way. It means different things to different people. And we can explain and describe it in different words. You know, we're not robots. You know, we have our own cultures, our own biases, our own beliefs. perspectives and opinions on life and our own experiences. And we see things differently, but still not less important in terms of what the doctrine is. So, yeah, we can use language to express doctrine, and that can vary, but the doctrine doesn't change,
SPEAKER_01:yeah. Well, there are later questions, I think, that get into the idea of doctrine changing. Because I think one of the big errors that people have is this idea that doctrine can never change, when in fact we have all kinds of examples of doctrine changing. And then we explain it away by saying, well, it was never really doctrine, it was only a policy, which I just think is ridiculous. I think that's very silly. But this question doesn't even get to that. Of course the language we use to express doctrine can change. It always does change. Every person uses different—so I don't really understand that question. The next question, though, is—
SPEAKER_00:I want to make a comment. Sorry, before your next question, I'm listening to what you're saying, and it's a question that I've never thought about before. You know when a doctrine comes out and there's an intent by the church to have a certain understanding of the doctrine—and I'm trying to think of an example— And then it's spoken in conference or it's in some lesson material. And then people have their own perspective, their own experiences. The question I have in my mind is if those experiences become quite common across the church, those perspectives, those interpretations are quite common, which could vary from the original doctrine. Do those interpretations change the doctrine and become the doctrine? If that's the intent to find out from the church that where a doctrine was this, and then over years where the church membership generally has a understanding or a perspective on it that might be better than the original doctrine, has that doctrine changed or morphed to align it with the more common interpretations of the members? Am I making sense here? No, I
SPEAKER_01:think it's making sense. Well, I think so. Maybe that helps to understand, helps to inform us as to what the intent here is. Because I think the church is looking for ways to look like doctrine isn't changing.
SPEAKER_00:Yes.
SPEAKER_01:And so this could be an excuse. It's like, oh, we're just using different language. The doctrine hasn't changed, even though The doctrine has changed.
SPEAKER_00:It's very clever. If that's the intent of the approach, it's very clever. Because if you teach a doctrine, right, and 80% have this understanding or interpretation of the doctrine, it's not quite what the church was hoping or anticipating or even expecting. But nevertheless, most members take this understanding from it. And that could be a better understanding. And then the church kind of... moves in that direction with the opinions of the majority of the members, if that's the intent, it's very smart because it keeps the church aligned with the general current of opinion and positions and thoughts of the vast majority or the majority of the church members. Maybe that's the strategy.
SPEAKER_01:Maybe that's the strategy. I'm not quite sure what they're trying to do, but...
SPEAKER_00:Yeah,
SPEAKER_01:yeah. You want to read the next one?
SPEAKER_00:Sure. The words we use to express... Oh, sorry. The Scriptures are the only infallible authority for what to believe and do. Well, my answer to that is no. Our first episode was on problematic Scriptures, if you remember. That's right. Going back quite a bit, there are scriptures, verses in the Bible and the Book of Mormon which I have a problem with. You know, Blacks in the Priesthood, Mormon 9-9, I think it is about virtue of young women. I can't remember all the details of that first episode, but there are a number of scriptures and verses in the Bible, certainly the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon, which I have a problem with.
SPEAKER_01:No, well, I have a problem with the assumption behind the... I don't believe scriptures are an infallible authority. We don't believe in scriptural infallibility. The Book of Mormon says on its title page that there are the mistakes of men, or at least there's the possibility of the mistakes of men within the scriptures. So to frame this as scriptures are the only infallible authority for what to believe and do... is to assume there is such a thing as an infallible authority for what the believers do. I don't believe there is. So I answered this one absolutely no. But I would also answer scriptures aren't infallible either. And
SPEAKER_00:you'll get members who say, yeah, the scriptures, the canon of works, the works of God are absolutely fixed and are... and perfect and not, you know, they're not infallible. So, yeah, again, you'll get different response from different people. Next question. Go ahead. Next question. You want to go with this next one? Sure. God's love is unconditional. I do not believe the statement. I'm not sure whether I believe the statement. I believe the statement. And I believe God's love is unconditional.
SPEAKER_01:And it's a very interesting question to be asking because there are a number of sermons by President Nelson, particularly. Most of them, I think all of them from before he became president of the church, but they suggest that God's love is conditional. And a lot of people have a lot of problems with that, including me. I don't think he's said anything that explicit since he's become president of the church. I do think there have been teachings from General Conference by other general authorities that could be interpreted as the idea that God's love is conditional. But it's very interesting that they're asking that question because I think they recognize that there's a certain amount of controversy among the membership over statements that are interpreted as God having conditional love. And it's really, the thing that the survey makes clear to me, at least, is the fact that the brethren know what the problems are. The brethren are aware of the divisions within the church among people who say God's love is conditional. No, God's love is unconditional. And so I think this survey is, isn't necessarily an attempt to alter whatever it is the Brethren believe, but rather to gauge where the membership is. Because I think very often the Brethren are nervous about doing something that they know is going to be largely rejected by the membership at large. I think they learned that lesson to some degree during COVID. when they pushed vaccines and they pushed masking and saw a big contingent of the church push back hard. And these are supposedly the members of the church that are the most faithful and the most conservative and the most zealous. And yet when President Nelson's council contradicted their political opinions, all of a sudden President Nelson was only speaking as a man and President Nelson was a fallen prophet and the church was going woke. and every other nonsense argument you can think of. So I think part of this is them trying to gauge just how well their messages are resonating and also warn them against pushing messages that don't resonate. Do you think
SPEAKER_00:that's part of it? I think that's part of it. I've got pretty strong feelings and views on this. I'm quite disturbed by this question. And I do remember that talk that President Nelson gave and others gave, which brought into question the conditions for God's love, right? And I think behind it, one element behind it was the concept or the notion that as individuals, we're fallen, individuals fallen from God, and that we're imperfect. And the notion that We can say, look, all my faults and failings, just accept it. God will accept me. This is who I am. I think President Holland talked about this at some point. I can't remember who the John thought it was that talked about it. Just accept me as I am with all my faults and failings. God loves me anyhow. Don't expect too much from me and do the best I can. And I think the church had a problem with that. And to bring that up as a question is concerning and ridiculous, frankly, absurd. And a false statement and position by whoever speaks about that in the church leadership, including President Nelson. I believe that God's love is unconditional. He doesn't accept or agree with a lot of our actions and behaviors, but the opportunity to repent and seek forgiveness and to change, notwithstanding our many faults and failings, et cetera, is always there and driven, I believe, and still believe and motivated by the love of God that we ultimately, the thing that motivates us to change and improve and put off the natural man is the love that we have for God and Christ and the love that we have for our fellow men. And that love is the ultimate power and motivating power to make the changes. It's the very center of the gospel. It's the very fulcrum of the gospel. You know, the charity, the pure love of Christ, unconditional, notwithstanding our problems. And to even suggest, which was suggested, that God's love may be conditional is offensive, insulting, cowardly to even suggest that if you don't meet a certain standard or live a certain live with exactness, like we were taught on the missions, then it could compromise your relationship with God and actually compromise the love that God has for you. I think it's anti-Christ. I know that's a very strong thing to say, but I feel strong about it. I mean, the very heart of the gospel is love, isn't it? What's the ultimate... experience is to love and to be loved and and and to have that loving relationship with the heavenly father and to know that he loves you unconditionally we've always taught that yeah i've always felt that so i think that's one of the more uh interesting primarily questions uh and any general authority prophet um who holds those views that god's love is is conditional is I don't accept that. I think it's false. It's absurd. It's a stupid thing to believe in my opinion. So go ahead.
SPEAKER_01:Well, the next one very simply says Jesus is God. Do you
SPEAKER_00:agree? Disagree? Not in the theology of the church. Jesus is a God. You know, Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are gods. The Holy Ghost is a God in spirit. We achieve Godhood status, if you like. But God is the Father, Jesus Christ is the Son, Holy Ghost is the brother of Christ, is my understanding. But Jesus is not the God, he's a God. What's that? The Holy Ghost is the brother of Christ?
SPEAKER_01:That's been my understanding. Is that another podcast? Well, we could do a whole podcast on the fact that nobody's been able to define who or what the Holy Ghost is. My understanding is that the Holy Ghost is the Son of God, the Father. There are those who argue that the Holy Ghost is Heavenly Mother. Oh, wow. Okay. I've heard that. That actually got Fiona Givens into trouble. She was a scholar with the Maxwell Institute. Wow. She wrote a paper where she said that she speculated that the Holy Ghost is Heavenly Mother. Interesting. Yeah. So anyway,
SPEAKER_00:well... I've heard the Holy Ghost is Michael the Archangel and Adam, or Adam.
SPEAKER_01:Or Adam, or I've heard that the Holy Ghost is, it's a rotating calling. That Joseph Smith has served as the Holy Ghost since he died. Oh my goodness. Wow. So yeah, it's a whole other podcast. But the whole idea of Jesus is God, you know, if you read the title page again of the Book of Mormon, it says the... It's unto the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations. You know, we try very hard not to sound Trinitarian, and yet the Book of Mormon sounds more Trinitarian than a lot of Bible scriptures in talking about how Jesus is the Father and the Son. And you read the statement of the three witnesses, it talks about It's essentially a Trinitarian sort of statement. So it's very interesting to see what they're trying to gauge here, because I know that there's a lot of sensitivity around the idea of us being Trinitarian. And I personally just don't think it's relevant anymore. It doesn't make any difference to me. whether we're Trinitarian or not. Is that terrible to say? It's just not even... I mean, you have the Father, you have the Son, you have the Holy Ghost. Trinitarians believe you have all three. We believe we have all three. But they also believe that they are sort of one in substance, and we believe they are one in purpose. And yet, the distinction just doesn't... I just don't care. Did I care? Is there a reason I should care?
SPEAKER_00:Kachosmi says we should care. You know, when he discusses the nature of God, right? You know, the nature of God, our understanding of the Godhead is fundamental to our theology and our doctrine. You know, God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost. You know, God the Father Elohim is an individual and looks exactly the same, according to Truman Madsen, looks exactly the same as his son Jesus Christ. And only the Holy Ghost can separate them. If you look at the images, the first vision, God looks exactly like Jesus Christ. But they're two distinct, separate personages, end quote. So God the Father Elohim is the Father of Christ, who is also a God. Jesus Christ is his name. And then the Holy Ghost, who I thought was Adam or Michael, the archangel, or a brother and the son of God comprises the Godhead. And Christ created this earth under the direction of God the Father, which is taught in the endowment in the temple. So Jesus is God? No, if we're being strict, at least in my thinking, if I'm being strict in terms of what I understand the doctrine to be, Jesus is a God, is part of the Godhead.
SPEAKER_01:Well, then he's God. If he's a God, then why isn't he God?
SPEAKER_00:I don't know.
SPEAKER_01:My answer is, I just don't think this is a salient issue in the 20th century church. Why is the church asking it? I think they're trying to see if it's still a salient issue, if there's concern about it or where they are. You want to read the next one?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah. Maybe the church has done this questionnaire specifically for the Inside Out podcast.
SPEAKER_01:I think they have.
SPEAKER_00:Because they're listening to the Inside Out podcast, and that's where they get a lot of their inspiration from. Yeah. Is that being too presumptuous? No, not at all. I'm having fun here. God's primary role is to accept me the way I am. Hey, what did I say earlier? Okay. You agree with it. Yeah. It's love. Yeah. Accept me who I am in a loving way. Yes. But also wants to encourage change and improvement. Will he accept me the way I am? That's my response. Loves us. for who we are as we are, but of course, wants us to change and improve.
SPEAKER_01:Well, so I think I answered no to this, that I disagree with this. To say God's primary role is to accept me the way I am is, in my mind, sort of a rejection of the atonement. God's primary role is to save us and to make us like him. And I think there's an element where he has to accept us where we are and who we are, but at the same time, the whole experience of mortality is for us to grow and to improve. So I wouldn't say that his primary role is to just be static and let me be whatever I am, although I do think that you can reconcile the idea that God wants us to grow and improve with the idea that he still has unconditional love for us where we are. So anyway, that's
SPEAKER_00:an interesting one to me. Yeah, no, that's a fascinating one. If you change, remove the word out, switch the word accept to love, and I'm changing it here, but God's prime rule is to love me who I am. I would agree with that as a primary role. You know, love, in my experience, my understanding, is the primary goal in life and in the universe and in everything to do with God is love, right? To be loved, to love. If the word accept could be interpreted as love, then yeah, I see that as being his primary role is to love us. I kind of cheated there by changing it, but that's my take on that.
SPEAKER_01:Interesting, because it says God's primary role is to do what I ask. And I said no to that. I'm
SPEAKER_00:with you on that one, no.
SPEAKER_01:Just the last two on this page, because I think they're very simple and easy to go through. God loves each of his children, and also God's primary role is to punish me if I do something wrong. I think those are very straightforward. Yes, God loves each of his children. No, his primary role is not to punish me or to punish anybody. Would you agree with that? I would agree with that, yes. All right. So that is the first page, and we've taken quite a bit of time, so we probably need to zip through some of these because there are quite a few pages here. Or we could do it across a couple of podcasts. We might do it across a couple of podcasts. But the next
SPEAKER_00:one, I'm going to bring it up here. God will answer my questions immediately when I ask them. No, I don't believe that statement. He gives the option of saying
SPEAKER_01:no. Yeah. Just from experience, I've asked God many questions that I have not gotten immediate answers to. So I don't know anybody who would answer that yes, unless they're a little bit strange. A God who would cannot allow suffering to exist. And that's the question of theodicy, right? We've talked about that extensively. Uh, and I think you have to figure, you have to figure out a way to say, you don't believe that if you're going to maintain any kind of faith, because if you believe suffering exists. So if you want to believe that there is a God who is good, um, you have to figure out some way to reconcile a good God with the existence of suffering. Would you agree with that?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, this is the question of the ages, isn't it, for people who have a faith or have belief or want to believe in God. You know, we make decisions. We bring, or other people make decisions, and that impacts our lives for the good or for the bad. You know, bad stuff happens to everybody. We suffer often through our own decisions. But then there are other events like earthquakes and tsunamis and other natural occurrences and events which... and not the choice of man, which causes untold destruction on mankind and extreme suffering, famine, etc. It's an interesting and a difficult question, for sure. Why would God, it's that age-old question, why does God allow so much unnecessary suffering of the innocent that didn't bring that upon themselves? And I don't have any answer to that. I don't know anyone who does. I hold to the belief that God can intervene, and he does at times. Does he intervene as much as I would like? No. I'm confused, puzzled, bewildered, frankly, to understand why a God who is good doesn't intervene more often. I mean, look at the world right now, Jim. Look at what's going on, right? And I don't see things getting better, and we need help. We lost, in many ways, as a, you know, race, as a species, we are, we're lost. We're making very poor decisions. We need help. Clearly, a lot of it, not all of it, we're making good decisions often, but a lot of it is really a lot of screw-ups on our part. And we've forgotten some of the basics and some of the fundamentals. What tends to happen, even what's happening with the fires in Los Angeles, which is terrible right now. Right. And I know you've got people that you know down there, and my heart breaks for what is a very significant event impact on human life right now in Los Angeles. These awful experiences, people losing their lives, people have lost their homes, lost their livelihoods, etc. The other side to that, and I've listened to some interviews where people are, communities and people are rallying together. They're helping each other and saying, hey, come and stay at my place. We'll put you up, we'll feed you, we'll clothe you, we'll look after you. And so these events can bring out the best in us where we can work together and through military and love and unconditional love, we can help others. And sometimes, and probably often, those calamitous events that are happening like that brings people together. So good can actually come from suffering. I don't begin to understand all of the elements of this question maybe some of them that I try to reconcile with a loving God. But the things that happen, like in Auschwitz, for example, I do plan to go to Auschwitz at some point where extraordinary suffering was experienced by innocent individuals and there was no respite and they were not, well, they lost their lives through extreme circumstances in those awful, awful conditions. Why God would allow that is beyond me. There's an understanding there that I just don't have. But it's a really interesting question, and I think a very pertinent question as well. Go ahead. All right.
SPEAKER_01:The next two, we kind of had that discussion when we talk about Jesus as God. They're asking, the Holy Ghost is God, Heavenly Father is God. Your answer to this question? is, the Holy Ghost is a God, but not the God, but that Heavenly Father is the God. Would that be your answer? That would be my answer,
SPEAKER_00:yes.
SPEAKER_01:Okay. Again, this is the sort of Trinitarian thing that I just don't know that it matters. But, next one. Okay, now we're getting into the controversial stuff. You want to read that?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, interesting stuff here. So the church should ordain women to preach in offices. My answer, historically, no. Now, absolutely. Women, why can't they be as equal to a man in terms of authority in preaching? Why? I can't think of any reason why they wouldn't make excellent priesthood leaders.
SPEAKER_01:You know, again, and this is one where I'm going to be a little cautious. I don't want women to be ordained to the priesthood if God doesn't want women to be ordained to the priesthood. That makes sense. I mean, I don't think that we can ordain women to the priesthood without a revelation saying that women should be ordained to the priesthood. That said, point me to the revelation that says women can't have the priesthood because there isn't one. I don't know of any scripture, I don't know of anything that explicitly says the priesthood is for men only. And whenever this question comes up, there's always an appeal to tradition. Well, Jesus only called 12 apostles who were men, although there are some records that suggest that's not necessarily true. There are some gospels that suggest that Mary Magdalene may have been an apostle. Paul refers to someone named Junia, which is a female name, and Junia is referred to as an apostle in the New Testament. So I think you can make an argument that there were female apostles in the early church, and you can't point me to a scripture that explicitly denies the priesthood to women. So whenever... The ordination of women comes up. It's always controversial, and people get excommunicated when they push it too hard. Kate Kelly, who created the Ordain Women movement and the organization, was excommunicated when she organized a huge march on the priesthood session. She got a bunch of women that wanted to go and attend the general priesthood session. in general conference and they were turned away and there was a huge embarrassing news story about that. So I think that's when you get into trouble is when you start demanding this. But my reaction to it is I want to do it if the Lord wants to do it and I don't see any clear indication that the Lord forbids it. Am I missing something? Is there one that I don't know about?
SPEAKER_00:Well, maybe. It's an interesting perspective. I would add to that, maybe this is the thing that we should be thinking about as well, to what you're saying. Your response there in terms of, yes, if God wants this, speaks to the nature of God and his relationship with women. Is God equal? If the Holy Ghost is Heavenly Mother, and a God equal in every way to Heavenly Father, Elohim, does that not make a woman entirely and completely and fully equal to a man, to a male God? I would argue now, yes, men and women are equal in value, different biologically, different physically, but in terms of spiritually and emotionally, we're the same. We feel the same things. We think the same things. There are variations in how females think versus males. I understand some of that, not all of that. But the principle of equality, the fundamental principle of equality and value of a man and a woman in my new thinking now, didn't use anything like this, are the same. a woman is equal to a man in value. So why can't a woman hold authority? Women hold authority in businesses and politics all the time. Why can't we modify and change that to include women? Why don't they call women a Sunday school presidency? There's no ecclesiastical requirement there in state courts towards Sunday school. That's a really good stepping stone, I think, to listen to this. I would do that. I would make... If you want to change in this direction, I'd make a strategic move and allow women to be called into stake and ward Sunday school. That, I repeat, doesn't require the preacher's authority. I have no problem going to a woman bishop. As long as they keep it in confidence and give me the best counsel like a man would. What's the difference? I think the church is living in the... in the dark on this. And I think it needs to move forward a lot quicker and open up more opportunities for women. And yes, ultimately, allow women, allow is an interesting word, isn't it? But ordain women to the priesthood. I have no problem with that. In the past, I would. I had that very traditional thinking and, you know, one is a woman and a man is a man and we have our own different roles and responsibilities. I can't think of one calling in the church that a woman couldn't perform equally as well as a man. Could you?
SPEAKER_01:No. I remember being in a gospel doctrine class where somebody said, you have to understand that the brethren are operating on such a high spiritual plane that we can barely comprehend it. And I said, no, I think there are 15 people in this room, men and women, who are just as righteous and just as spiritual and just as capable as the 15 men who stand in the highest offices of this church. So,
SPEAKER_00:all right. Women, by the way, women, studies have shown that women are better communicators than men and often more emotionally intelligent than men. So, you know, there are strengths and weaknesses, if you like, but in terms of value and equality of that human spirit That's equal in my book.
SPEAKER_01:Whenever this comes up, there is always this sort of pedestalization of women. Very often people will say, oh, well, jeez, women don't need the priesthood because they're so righteous and they're already so spiritual that only men need the priesthood because we're just so weak and... And the older I get, the more I hear those arguments, the more I'm disgusted by them. Because I don't think anybody who was making that argument genuinely believes it. I think there is a lot of rationalization attached to that argument. And it's, I mean, men and women, I mean, yes, there are, fundamental differences between men and women, biological differences. And I think there are, in fact, inner differences between masculine and feminine. But at the same time, it's not... There isn't a clear line in terms... I mean, there are women who are, you know, that have traits that would be described as masculine and men that have traits that would be described as feminine. And I think just saying, well, women... all women are more emotionally intelligent even. It's like, well, no, that's not true. There are men with great emotional intelligence and there are women with... I mean, I just think drawing any kind of strict general line in terms of a man or a woman's capacity just based on their gender, it's a fraught exercise. I think that men and women individually... are vastly different, not just in terms of men and women, but from man to man and woman to woman. We're all different. We all have strengths and weaknesses, some which would be considered masculine, some which could be considered feminine. But the reality is that on the whole, we've seen in the world that women can be great leaders. Women can fulfill all the roles. I don't know that women can be great Football players, because of the biological differences. I don't think the reason why women aren't playing in the NFL is strictly because the NFL is sexist. You know, so it's a little bit difficult just to say absolutely their entire, because they're not the same, but they are equal. But then that gets to the separate but equal thing that was struck down by the Supreme Court decades ago. Anyway, that's a long, messy answer to this.
SPEAKER_00:Well, yeah, it's interesting. I agree with a lot of that. There's some of it I do not agree with. And the studies show that very typically, fairly extensive studies show that men are, in terms of numbers, volume, and not as well as... Of course, there are men who are great communicators and incredibly intelligent emotionally, of course. But the studies show that women generally are... stronger by numbers in that area. And men are more physical. And that comes from the hunter-gatherer experience, right? Where the men went out and hunted and gathered and tended to communicate differently. Men communicate differently. That's been my experience as well, outside of the studies. And women can often typically communicate differently, understand things differently. Doesn't mean they're not equal. So I don't agree completely. One of the couple things that you said, I don't agree with that we can't draw some assumptions or some lines along those differences. And, you know, without getting into the studies, that's another conversation. There are differences in the way men and women communicate. And again, I can speak from experience. There are also men who are intimidated by women being leaders, right? They don't like reporting to a woman, right? I've worked with people that don't like, I've even been told that, oh, she's a woman. He didn't know what she's doing. She can't lead that group, et cetera. And it turns out she did a fantastic job. I think you can call a woman to a bishop and she could do a lousy job or do a great job. Yeah. But I think that opportunity to serve in those callings should be extended to women. And instead of, you know, not calling someone because they're a man or a woman, but just call them because of you feel through inspiration they're the right person to do the job. That's how I think it should be. So let's consider women for these leadership callings and priesthood, extending the priesthood authority to them. And let's give them the equal opportunity to serve in these callings. And then when a bishop's praying about an individual, let's, through inspiration, select the right person, not just because of, you know, based on qualities and inspiration and the value that they would bring and the positive experience that they would bring to that particular calling. So, yeah, so I agree on a lot of things, but some things that we have a different opinion on. What's the next question, Jim?
SPEAKER_01:A priesthood holder gets blessings simply by holding the priesthood. I don't even know what that means.
SPEAKER_00:Hmm.
SPEAKER_01:I think I said I didn't agree with it. I don't think just holding the priesthood is enough. I think you have to actually serve. Yeah,
SPEAKER_00:that's my position. I don't agree with that.
SPEAKER_01:The next one I think was an easy one. A priesthood leader has the right to make other people do things his way. That's absolutely against Section 121. That's the idea of unrighteous dominion.
SPEAKER_00:There's another interpretation of that. It could be unrighteous dominion, but if the priesthood leader, state president, bishop, presidency, and the president, especially keyholder, state president, keyholder for the state, bishop's a keyholder for the royal priesthood, state president for the royal priesthood. Ultimately, the council's council, as you know, ultimately it's the president that makes the decision. And then you have to get behind the president. That's it. You've got to be united. So a prescient leader has the right to make other people do the things their way. So ultimately, yes, is the other side to that coin. I can think of many experiences where that's happened, where the president makes a final decision and that's it. That's the deal.
SPEAKER_01:Well, okay. Yeah. Section 121, though, in talking about unrights, I guess it's the word make that I'm focusing on.
SPEAKER_00:I don't like the word make. I mean, our initiative, our focus as a state presidency in this state was finding the one, right? Now, as a council, I came up with something similar. The other council came up with something similar. The president, I think it was, came up with finding the one, if I'm not mistaken. And we had some debate, discussion around that. We all, I think the state president deciding then that's what it would be. That was the main focus of the presidency. I think that came from the president and we got behind the president. That was it. That wasn't unrighteous dominion. That was him, us sustaining him, supporting him. Yeah, we had variations. I can think of calling him when we're looking at people for callings where we have different opinions on people, different understanding and et cetera. We come with different names. Ultimately, the state president or the bishop makes the final choice. That doesn't mean it's unrighteous dominion, just that he's the key holder, you know, and they ultimately make the final decision. That's the structure and organization of the church. Someone has to make a decision. The bishop makes the decision. I say, all right, counselors get behind it. It doesn't mean it's unrighteous necessarily. It could be, but it doesn't necessarily automatically mean it's an unrighteous dominion.
SPEAKER_01:All right. All men should be respected and obeyed because only men can hold the priesthood. I think that's nonsense. That's nonsense, isn't it? So that's pretty easy. A priesthood blessing from a church leader is better than a priesthood blessing from a regular elder.
SPEAKER_00:Technically, no, but there are people in the church that would come to us as a state presidency— Or a bishop is one. A blessing from a bishop is more special from a blessing from the elder's quorum counselor. Oh, he's the bishop, right? He's more in tune because he's the bishop. Yeah. That's just not correct.
SPEAKER_01:I think there are a lot of people who believe that, though.
SPEAKER_00:Yes, they do believe that.
SPEAKER_01:So... Yeah. All right. Well, okay. We're about an hour and 10 minutes.
SPEAKER_00:We should split this into two podcasts.
SPEAKER_01:Well, so I want to give the rest of these questions the time they deserve. So I think we're deciding here that this is the first of a two-part podcast. So all of you listeners listening right now, we haven't even gotten halfway through the survey, but we're going to get through the rest of the survey in the next installment. But we're going to leave this one right now and And I'm excited because I'm really looking forward to discussing the rest of it with you. I think this is going to be a lot of fun. I
SPEAKER_00:agree. I'm fascinated by these questions. I'm interested in the intent behind the questions. What's the church trying to do? I think there's so many layers to these questions. Some are easy to answer. Some are kind of odd. Some are extraordinary. It's quite a mix of questions, and they deserve enough time and discussion to get through them. So I think breaking it up into two podcasts is a good idea.
SPEAKER_01:All right. Well, then that concludes part one. And we thank you very much, Ian, for your thoughtful answers. And thank you all to listening. And we look forward to having you join us next week for part two of survey questions on Inside Out. So thank you very much, Ian.
SPEAKER_00:Thank you, Jim.