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 Two
Ian and Jim continue to review the Church's recent survey questions and come up with some surprising answers.
Hello and welcome to the latest episode of Inside Out. I'm Ian Wilkes and I'm here with my podcast partner, the incredible, unbelievable Jim Bennett.
SPEAKER_01:Hello, Ian Wilkes. Incredible, unbelievable Ian Wilkes. How
SPEAKER_02:are you? I'm pretty good. That was a double barrel word there. I thought I'd kind of change it up a little bit. But when I say unbelievable, I mean, I think you are very believable, but you're pretty unbelievable as well. You're a pretty awesome guy.
SPEAKER_01:I would say the same about you, sir.
SPEAKER_02:Well, thank you. I'm kind of biased. I've known you for a long time, and I'm just grateful to be a friend and grateful to be doing this podcast. We're here to do part two of a review of a questionnaire that the church recently commissioned in the last week or so. The questionnaire was posted. It would appear that anyone could have taken it at that time. I'm not a member of the church. And it allowed me to go into some of the questions. When I returned to the link with a questionnaire, the link stopped working. But because of the geniusness of Jim Bennett, who took the screenshots of the questions, which are very interesting, we are now able to have the opportunity to review those questions. And the last question that we left off, Jim, this is the second part of the Part one that we did, we didn't have time to get through all the questions of part one. This is part two. And we left off on part one on the following question, where it says, a priesthood holder gets blessing simply by holding the priesthood. And I think my answer to it was that, I don't know, maybe, maybe not. Who knows? I don't have an answer to that.
SPEAKER_01:You know, I kind of felt like, you know, my favorite calling is, besides being in the tabernacle choir is gospel doctrine teacher. And one of the things that happens in gospel doctrine classes is you end up focusing on one element of the lesson when there's so much other stuff you want to talk about. And that's kind of how I felt after our first podcast. So I'm grateful that we get to go back and finish and go through all of these because these are really good questions. I think we, we, we, we, We talked about this briefly. I mean, this is one screenshot. A whole bunch of questions about priesthood. But I want to flesh it out just a little bit. I think you could make the argument that a priesthood holder gets blessings simply by holding the priesthood. But what are those blessings? Because very often when people talk about that, it's, well, I have... this sort of authority, I have this sort of power. And D&C 121 tells us that whenever anybody thinks they have authority, it's the nature of all men to exercise unrighteous dominion. So I think thinking about it that way kind of leads in that direction. And the next question sort of leads into that too. A priesthood leader has the right to make other people do things his way. Do you agree with that? No,
SPEAKER_02:no. I just want to go back to the other question, if I may. Your points there raise some interesting needs. I'll be real quick here, because I know we've got to get through quite a few of the questions. I think the question is about the incredibly revealing of the church's thinking, and we did discuss some of that in the part one of this podcast. Going back to that other question, does a priesthood holy get blessings in the name of our holy priesthood? To your point, if it's the blessing of having an authority... You know, there's two sides to that. I think there's that unrighteous dominion side that you pointed out, but the church makes this extraordinary claim. I mean, we've not covered it on the podcast, and I'd love to, that it possesses the only priesthood authority on the earth. In fact, I was taught and I taught that every other church and religious organization does not, I repeat, does not possess the true authority of God, period. that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only organization on earth that has the only true, effective, correct, authorized priesthood authority on the earth. That's an extraordinary claim. I'd love to get into that at the end of the podcast later, but going to the next question, a priesthood leader has the right to make other people do things his way. I did respond to that last question. I think when... If they're doing it forcefully, then obviously that's wrong. But if they're a presidency, and especially if they're a queue holder like the state president or a bishop, ultimately they're the ones who make the final decision. If you don't reach a consensus in a presidency, and you've been in a presidency, you've been a bishopric, you and I both know, and I've been a bishop, been on the state presidency, we both know that the bishop And the state presidency, using those examples, ultimately will make the final decision. Even if the councils counsel otherwise, even if other people say otherwise, they get to make the final decision. So yes, they can get the ward or the individual to do what the bishop wants and what the state president wants. If they're doing it kindly, respectfully, and spiritually and thoughtfully, that's obviously good. If they're not, then obviously that's not good. And when they're not, of course, the church teaches that the preacher authority is ineffective if they're practicing or behaving in an unrighteous, demeaning way. So there's my thoughts on that question.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, and that whole idea of the priesthood authority goes away if they're behaving unrighteously. There's no enforcement mechanism for that. So, I mean, you can say, aha, well, you're using your priesthood unrighteously, but you don't say, okay, so now your priesthood is gone. It just becomes this sort of nebulous thing disagreement that has no real consequence to it. Priesthood as an idea is a really difficult thing to nail down, and it's something the church leans very heavily into because if you take away priesthood authority, you take away any sort of exclusivity from the church and any kind of reason for people to necessarily join the church. You just become any other kind of community group, which is what a lot of churches are, although churches that lean into their own idea of priesthood authority, like the Catholic Church, like the Greek Orthodox Church, or other churches that claim priesthood authority, have that same kind of thing. The next question here, though, all men should be respected and obeyed because only men can hold the priesthood. I Not only am I confident in saying that you don't believe that and that I don't believe that, I don't know of anybody other than a handful of really scary people might believe that. We had a guest on this podcast a few weeks ago that might believe that. But you don't believe that and I don't believe that. Why do you think the church is asking that?
SPEAKER_02:That is a good question. My goodness, why would they ask that? And ask that now? Maybe they're trying to get... In the church, there is an element of fear with some in regards to the power that a keyholder... I'm talking about the same person. You probably may or may not know, I think you will know, the state president ultimately owes almost all the power on almost every level in his stake, even beyond the bishop. There are certain exceptions where a general authority will intervene, and the stake president's got the option of counseling with the general authorities, but the stake president can change your life on a dime. Even if you disagree, there's no appeal. He wants to excommunicate you for something that he doesn't think is right, et cetera. Of course, he can exercise an unrighteous dominion, but... He has incredible leverage on the rank-and-file member in the stake, far more than a bishop. Bishops over their own priesthood, state presidents over the Melchizedek priesthood. And, you know, it says all men should be respected and obeyed because of what they make in all the priesthood. There is that element of fear. You know, the sucking up goes on to the state presidency, seeing that, and also the bishop. There are people that hold the bishop in contempt. He might have done something they don't agree with. They might respect him or not, but there is an element of obeying the bishop and the state presidents, not his councillors or the state president councillors, but those two. In fact, I would say the only two, really. The eldest quorum president is a key holder, but of no great significance, really. But the bishop and the state president, They're the main players, and they're the ones to stay on the right side of.
SPEAKER_01:All right.
SPEAKER_02:They're the ones to
SPEAKER_01:obey, yep. Well, so that leads to the next question. A priesthood blessing from a church leader is better than a priesthood blessing from a regular elder. I
SPEAKER_02:think we touched a bit about that on the part one of this podcast. Technically, no. There's no... you know, difference in quality or there shouldn't be. But there is a perception with many members that a blessing from the bishop is, our state president is more special because they're a key holder, you know, they're the leader, they're supposed to be more in tune. But I don't accept that, but probably quite a few do. And often I would have, as a bishop, as state president, I would have people come to me for a blessing and I would say, no, go see your home teachers, as they were called back then. And they would say, well, but it's from you, bishop. I said, doesn't matter. That's why they're there. They're there to give you the priesthood blessing. And I said, you would take away the blessings, their blessings, remove the opportunity for them to be blessed if you go to them. There's no difference, I said, in the blessings. But there's that perception, Jim, in certain people's minds that blessing from the bishop is more special and it's not.
SPEAKER_01:Well, not just the blessing from the bishop. So this is a story I haven't thought about for a very long time. But when my daughter was in the hospital recovering from her skiing accident that left her partially paralyzed from the waist down, we were on the same floor as Elder Robert C. Hales, who was in the hospital at the same time. And we had some discussions about, jeez, should we approach him? He's an apostle. He's just in a few rooms down. what if we were to approach him and ask him to give my daughter a blessing because a blessing from an apostle surely would have the power to heal and I'm not sure who shot it down but we were shot down with that partially using the kind of logic that you've just used with bishops and stake presidents but also partially with Apostles hate that. Apostles, because people constantly approach them as if, well, you're the special one. You're the one who could do this. The reality is that a blessing from an apostle really isn't any different than a blessing from a bishop or a stake president or a blessing from a home teacher. I mean, I look back on that and I find the most sacred blessings in my life are the blessings I got from my father. And my patriarchal blessing is very special to me, but I've gotten a number of father's blessings. And that's where I feel like when you have that kind of a connection, that you can feel the spirit, you can feel, but the whole concept of priesthood is problematic because people expect that the higher your office is, the more power you have. And so an apostle should be able to walk through a hospital floor and just bless everybody and everybody goes home and everybody's healed. And it obviously doesn't work that way. And I think that's a real trial of faith for a lot of people. I don't remember it being a trial of my faith. I mean, this is over a decade ago. But I don't remember it being a huge trial back then. I think I understood that even back then. But a lot of members don't. A lot of members are very disappointed to learn that apostles aren't magic. Would that have been a trial for you at any point in your life?
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, I think earlier, yeah, absolutely. Two thoughts come to mind. Yeah. I have, and I don't have this anymore, but for a long time I had this notion that apostles can and should heal, right? They've got the gift of healing. And there's all the things that I think comes with an apostleship calling. Far more many significant spiritual powers, I think, are bestowed upon apostles. That's my understanding. And I always thought that, you know, like Elder Hale's in the hospital. We went back to Jesus' time and Jesus was in the hospital. He would have the power. He'd walk around and heal people according to the faith. That's what he did. I don't know if he healed everybody, but he certainly was out in the streets and in the fields and in people's homes healing people. And then the second point, and your comment there about patriarchal blessings triggered this in my mind. I made the mistake in the MTC of telling people, because I thought I had special powers. I was a little bit arrogant back then, I think. that I told people that I had the gift of healing because it was bestowed upon me or referenced in my patriarchal blessing that I got the gift of healing. And I had three people come to me who had ailments when I was in the MTC and I used my special powers to heal them. I used words that I didn't fully understand and I thought I had these extraordinary powers. Neither any of them were healed, unfortunately. But that gift of healing, which is associated with the priesthood and the Holy Ghost, and exclusive to men, I believe, priesthood holders. I don't think women have the gift of healing. Maybe they do now, but I don't think they do to black men. But yeah, I had the gift of healing, and I would bless people. But I didn't really go around telling people I have the gift of healing. I mentioned it once in the MTC interview. But in my own mind, I believe that I had the gift of healing, that I could heal. If I had enough faith, he had enough faith, I could heal whatever. I could heal cancer. That's what I believed. And there were times in my blessings, certainly when I was a bishop, that I really believed that I could heal people. Did I heal people? I don't recall healing anyone, to be honest. If it was a flu or a cold, I can't say if they got well because of what I did or said. I can't connect the two. But anyway, so yeah, that's my thoughts on that question.
SPEAKER_01:Well, you know, my patriarchal blessing says that I have the gift of being warned in times of danger. And that's always struck me as really kind of a dramatic one. And one of the things that came out as a result of that was the miracle of the Christmas poo. You know that story? I do know the story, and I've heard the song. Yeah, I love it. But when that happened, I thought back to my patriarchal blessing, and I said, this is the fulfillment of my patriarchal blessing. So patriarchal blessings can be fulfilled, Through the power of defecation. And
SPEAKER_02:also just something else, your little story there reminded me. I think I lost a bit of confidence in my patriarchal blessing when he called me a choice handmaiden.
SPEAKER_01:Oh, yeah, that would have been a problem, I would think.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, he'd just given three girls in the stake the patriarchal blessing, and I was next up. And he referred me, well, he mentioned I was a choice landmaid.
SPEAKER_03:Really, really?
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, and he wrote it down, and they had to change it. And by the way, did you know, and Alyssa might not know this, you know that the stake president is the only individual in the stake? because of the key holder, that has the power and authority to review and change patriarchal blessings and assess them for replication.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah.
SPEAKER_02:Did you know that?
SPEAKER_01:I did know that. I found out later, too, my patriarch got in trouble for giving lots of people the gift of being warned in times of danger. Right. My sister got a patriarchal blessing that has that exact same phrase in it. And apparently that was just something he thought was pretty cool. So he put it in a lot of blessings.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah. We had a state patriarchy that was a lot of repetition, a lot of flowery language, and that was changed. So my patriarchal blessing went back, because obviously the choice I made it. And also there's a few of the things that were quite common in this individual's language that were modified. So yeah, the state president has got that authority and they're required to check them for repetition. Anyway,
SPEAKER_01:next question. Our next question, we moved on from the priesthood questions. These are all sort of worthiness questions. So the question is, if someone is of worth, and they put of worth in quotes, which is weird since I've never ever heard anybody in church say someone was of worth. But okay, if someone is of worth, that means they do not need to repent. What's your answer to that? Very strange
SPEAKER_02:question. Of worth, I've never heard that phrase or those words like that together before. Yeah. I don't know what's behind that question either. Why are they asking that? But if someone is of worth, that means they do not need to repent. I think it's to the point I mentioned on part one of the podcast, which I should listen to, where people say, look, I'm imperfect. Accept me as I am. I have worth. The church teaches I've got worth. And I'm imperfect, and I'm doing my best to change.
UNKNOWN:Yeah.
SPEAKER_02:and probably don't need to repent because God will accept me as I am, because God loves me unconditionally. This seems to be saying that, or it could be inferring that, if you don't repent, then you're not worth as much. That could be an interpretation that one could get from this. Interesting
SPEAKER_01:question. Yeah, the... The fun thing and the difficult thing about reviewing these questions is trying to get in the minds of the people who wrote them and trying to figure out what it is they're trying to find out. You know, when I worked in politics, for instance, when I ran campaigns and I ran campaigns that had enough budget to do actual polling, you would spend hours coming up with exactly the right phraseology to put into a question. And you would know exactly what you wanted to get out of that question. And for instance, when my father ran for the Senate the last time, we did some polling before he had any opponents. And we knew who some of the opponents were going to be. And so we put them and say, would you vote for Bob Bennett before you would vote for Mark Shurtleff, for instance, who was the Attorney General of Utah at the time and who did run against my father, but then dropped out of the race. But at one point we put in a guy whose name I made up and just called him a businessman. And the reason we put in a fake guy was, okay, if somebody says, and we would ask, would you vote for this guy before you'd vote for Bob Bennett? And the reason we put in the fake guy was anybody who would vote for a guy that doesn't exist is clearly someone who would not vote for Bob Bennett under any circumstances. So there was a very specific reason for asking that specific question. And that was the case really with every question. That's sort of the one I remember. But I look at this and go, I just don't understand what someone would learn from an answer to that question. Because it's using a phrase nobody uses. It's asking a question that doesn't make a lot of sense. I mean, some of these questions just aren't really constructed well. I mean, the next question is even more like that. If someone is virtuous, quote unquote, that means they have never had sex. I don't know anybody that believes that. And I also don't understand why they're asking that. I mean, do you have any, can you read the tea leaves here better than I can? maybe I'll just listen
SPEAKER_02:to you and I'm going to put my skeptics at on. Is it to, is there some power or control behind this in the thinking, the mindset of, you know, the leaders of the church there? You know, if you look at the other one there, you know, I think the two are connected in terms of the intent. You know, if someone is of worth, that means they do not repent. Are they saying, look, you know, In order to be of worth, you have to repent. And the repentance, let's face it, is a control leverage element on the member. You know, the bishop's got the power to call to repentance and state president has, the prophet has, obviously, can call people to repentance. Ecclesiastical leaders can do that. And are they saying that, look, you're not worthy if you don't repent? Well, the church has got leverage on that. And I think, I suspect that's some intent around controlling the member behind that maybe the answer to that question reveals the member's insights in terms of how much control the church thinks they have on individuals around repentance or not and if someone is virtuous that means they have never had sex again I tie that to you know the repentance you know they had sex and they've repented it's an odd question that isn't it and Why would they come up with a question like that? What's behind that? Yeah, what are they trying
SPEAKER_01:to learn?
SPEAKER_02:Are they saying that if you've had sex, you've repented and you're virtuous, if you don't repent? Because it's interesting how they've put that question next to the other question about repentance. I think that's deliberate, by the way. I think those two questions are connected, and that's why they're next to each other, I think.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, I mean, all of these, you have to answer a series of questions before you move on to the next page. So I think, and these are all questions that are on the same page. So I think that all the questions on the same page are focusing on similar ideas. But I just don't understand what someone's going to do with that data point. They find out that 20% of members think that if someone is virtuous, that means they've never had sex. Okay.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, is it saying that if you've never had sex, you're virtuous?
SPEAKER_01:Is it saying that if you've had sex, you can never be virtuous again? Is it the idea that you can't really repent of sexual sin? Are they trying to find that out, maybe? That there are some members who think that, jeez, once I'm damaged goods, I can never, you know...
SPEAKER_02:And then the flip side of that, what about those people who, and I've kind of referenced this a few times, what about those people who have had sex, don't feel guilty, feel okay, quite happy to have sex again, and feel virtuous? What's the church think about that? I think it's a guilt thing. Again, I put my skeptic hat on. Is the church trying to gauge, quantify the type and level of guilt with individuals. You know, if they don't feel guilt, then, you know, we both know serving a mission, that guilt, and you talked about this, that guilt is a motivator, right? Guilt is the fuel. It was
SPEAKER_01:the fuel of my mission.
SPEAKER_02:There we go. There we go. And it was partly mine. There's no way I was going to come back. Not a cat in hell's chance, right? That I was going to come back and fail. No way. They're going to carry me back in a coffin before I go home early, right? I was going to be absolutely obedient. I was driven a lot, not entirely, by guilt. You can speak about your guilt experience and how that motivated you, maybe motivated you more than it did me. I was certainly motivated by other things, but guilt was a factor. And you understand guilt on a very personal level, I know that, from your mission experience. And is this a question of, you know, that they can quantify in terms of do people feel guilty for having sex? Do they still feel virtuous? I think these are different layers to the question, for sure.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, but that question wouldn't give them that information. If I'm one of these people that feels absolutely no guilt about any kind of sexual misbehavior, how does my answer to that question reveal that information to the questioner? It's just a clumsy, weird question.
SPEAKER_02:But if you feel virtuous, or you perceive someone who has had sex who's virtuous, or do you see someone else who's not had sex as virtuous, or do you see yourself as having had sex but still virtuous? There's four different angles. But
SPEAKER_01:normal people are not going to answer this question, are not going to agree with this statement. People, no matter what you believe, if you're normal, you know that's not necessarily what virtuous means. Because you would not say, well, geesh, President Nelson isn't virtuous because he's had sex. He's been married twice, so he's had sex many times. He has, what, eight daughters and one son? And so this is somebody who's had sex. Nine times. At least. But only nine times, because you only have sex to have a kid, right? That's the rule.
SPEAKER_02:That's
SPEAKER_01:it.
SPEAKER_02:And interesting, by the way, that they tie virtue to sex, to sexual morality.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah.
SPEAKER_02:And that's deliberate. I think the scriptures talk about that. They always tie someone's virtue to sexual morality or immorality. That's been my understanding of the church anyhow. If you have sex outside of marriage, you've lost your virtue.
SPEAKER_01:Oh, yeah. Virtue's the word that's used there in that scripture that we talked about in our very first episode, isn't it?
SPEAKER_02:Exactly. You know, they're no longer lovely and virtuous. There we go. There's a connection between sex and having virtue or not, right? Interesting.
SPEAKER_01:All right. Next one. If someone has divine nature, that means they can, with help from Jesus, become like God. That's a statement I would agree with, and I think that's a statement that's at the heart of of a lot of what makes the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints unique. This idea that we can become like God. I am a child of God. This is something that some people, you know, they published a Gospel Topics essay where they sort of distance themselves from some of the More sci-fi aspects of this. There's a gospel topic essay about, well, geez, if you die, do you get your own planet? Which is a line in the Book of Mormon musical. But we don't. And they said, no, no, no, we don't believe that. And yet when you read the essay, it's like, okay, yeah, we don't believe that. We don't believe you get just your own planet. We believe that you become like God. God has more than one planet. God has all the planets. And so we try very hard not to lean into the weird implications of this, of which there are many. And we just try to accept the broader implication of we are children of God, we are like God, We are of the same species of God, is how Truman Madsen put it. And I agree with that statement, and I hope the church agrees with that statement. I'm curious as to whether or not they do, at least in leadership. I know that when Gordon B. Hinckley was asked this by Larry King, he was asked about the, as man is, God once was, as God is, man may become statement. And he says, that's just a couplet. I don't know that we teach that. I mean, he was trying very hard to just sort of downplay it. But I can't imagine that at its core, the church doesn't still believe this and that we still don't teach this. What do you think? Yeah,
SPEAKER_02:I agree with it personally. You know, if someone is divine nature, that means they can and help with Jesus become like God. And presuming God is virtuous and kind and divine and good. So, yes. I, again, a lot of these questions, struggling as to why they're asking these questions. I have no reason to, no evidence to suggest the church does not believe this or doesn't agree with this. I think it does. And I don't know. This one is kind of like a filler question. It's kind of just general. Maybe it's just there just to keep the interest of the person doing the questionnaire. Maybe it's just a filler question. I think it's a good question. It's just reinforcing, I think, what the basic fundamental principle of the church is, which is someone is divine and kind and good. and they get help from Jesus, they become like God. I think that's a universal principle. I can't think more, Matt, into this.
SPEAKER_01:All right. Well, the last question on this page, do you agree or disagree with this statement? I am perfect. And of course I agree, and I also agree on your behalf. We have pointed out this is the only true and living podcast on the face of the earth. It is. We are the only two people who can answer that question in the affirmative.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, and a man can get nearer or further away from God by listening to the podcast.
SPEAKER_01:Why is that there? Who's going to say I'm perfect? Go ahead. You finish. Go ahead. No, I finished. Well, I mean, I'm joking, of course. If there's anybody out there that thinks I believe I'm perfect, then you're not very bright. I don't believe I'm perfect, but unless you're a complete psychopath, nobody believes they're perfect. Why would that be there?
SPEAKER_02:Well, I have an answer to that. I think, yes, in the terms you've discussed, you're right. You know, the church teaches that Christ was the only perfect person. However, there is a lesson that does exist because I've taught it at least twice. I can't remember where it is. It does exist. Our listeners might be able to help us find it. And the lesson talks about perfection. And in the lesson, and I remember this very clearly, the lesson provided some examples of where, I think it was a lesson on be therefore perfect. I think that was the title of the lesson. And there's a scripture in the Bible and the Book of Mormon which the lesson quotes. I think be therefore perfect, even as I and your Father in heaven is perfect, or worse to that effect. And in that lesson, and I remember teaching this, it gives examples of where a member, only a member in the church, can achieve a level of perfection. And it gave an example. It said that if you pay your tithing, it gave the tithing example, consistently, every month, for 10 years, you have reached perfection in that law. If you go visit home teaching, and you diligently, 100% every month for three, four, five years or 10 years, you've reached a level of perfection. It gave examples where certain things could be, a level of perfection could be achieved. I can't remember the name of the lesson. I think it's, it could be, be you therefore perfect. I'd need to dig it out, but it does cite examples where certain aspects of perfection church behavior, action, commitment, dedication, devotion is, or can rather be, a level of perfection can be achieved, given those examples. And maybe it's that. I don't think anyone believes anyone's perfect or they're themselves perfect. But it's interesting that that lesson did give some examples. But it's another... odd question you know if you said yes what would the church do with that i don't think anyone's going to say yes you're going to say no so no is it just to remind people that they're not perfect and they need the church i think there's some controlling things in these questions jim or rather you know reminding the person that well the interest in this questionnaire was for anyone I think at one point wasn't just for members. It was a mistake.
SPEAKER_01:I don't think they meant it that way.
SPEAKER_02:Well, okay. Okay. But anyone could have taken it. And I agree. I think it was just for the member. And I don't think any member is going to say, you know, they're perfect and therefore they need the church. You know, the church, we gave that, we had that podcast on that General Authority who said, look, if you live the gospel, you don't need the church as much because you're doing everything every day wonderfully, serving, loving, extending your love and your blessings and helping other people. You don't need a program or a system or a structure or a building to serve. I think it's Elder Polman, is it Palman, Polman, that gave that talk in the early 70s or early 80s, I think it was. We talked about that. So is this a reminder that the church, that the members need the church in order to become perfect? Maybe,
SPEAKER_01:maybe. I'm reading too much into that, too many theories. No, but it's just, so all it's telling them is what percentage of our membership are psychotic. You know, you have to be completely psychotic or insane to think you're perfect. And I do remember that lesson. I've heard that lesson. I've heard variations of that lesson because I've heard very often, you know, people trying to wrestle with those scriptures and Book of Mormon scripture is slightly different from the Bible scripture in that Jesus says that he is perfect in the Book of Mormon. And he only says, be therefore perfect as your father in heaven is perfect in the Bible. So the lesson is, so between the time before the atonement and then after the atonement and resurrection, that Jesus achieved enough perfection that he was comfortable putting himself on that list. But again, I just don't see what the church learns from how somebody answers that question. Go ahead. You finish. Go ahead. Well, I mean, it may be what you're saying. You know, the church wants to remind you that you need the church because you're not perfect. And I think a lot of the lessons, like the ones you describe about tithing, I mean, you can be perfect. I remember Paul Dunn. giving a talk about how he was perfect in not swearing and not saying bad words because he was on the pitcher's mound at one point and at some point he got, there was something and he started saying all these terrible words and then felt terrible and made a promise then and there that he never would say those words again and he's kept that promise and so therefore he's perfect. The irony in that, of course, is that Paul Dunn lied about being a pitcher, a major league pitcher. So that event where he made that promise never happened. So he's perfect at not saying bad words, but making up huge parts of his own biography, he still has something to work on in that regard. I mean, the whole idea of perfection is problematic anyway. All the lessons that try to torture Jesus's words into meaning, okay, I can achieve perfection somehow on my own merits. They all fall short because, and they're all really kind of silly ultimately, because we are so far from perfection that all the idea of trying to achieve a perfection does is discourage us. is create guilt. And maybe that's what the church wants because that kind of guilt keeps you in the church. Well, no, I'm not perfect, so I dang well need to show up every Sunday and I need to keep writing my tithing check and I need to make sure that I'm doing everything that I need to do. But again, that's a separate discussion from why would somebody put this question in a survey like this? But we don't know the
SPEAKER_02:answer to
SPEAKER_01:that.
SPEAKER_02:There may be an answer. I'm listening to you. This could be the answer. I might be reading the tea leaves completely wrong, but how about this? There's a correlation between some of the words that are identified or placed in the questions, right? Repentance, virtue, sex, priesthood authority. Obey was a word that was in one of the questions, right? And, you know, are you perfect, right? And so is this theme, this thread through these questions, or one of the threads in the tapestry of these questions, connecting these words across the questions, is that around, and I think the guilt is in there as well, repentance was another word. These are important and interesting words that are, distributed through the questions, through the carefully designing the questions, is the intent designed to reinforce the need and value of the church on one's life. You know, the church teaches the eternal, the plan of salvation model. There are three kingdoms, and in the highest kingdom, in the sister kingdom, there are three levels. And you can only get in the highest level, which is eternal life, is the one way you get to be with God and be with your family. And that also requires, you need to be part of the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, so sealed in the temple. You know, faithful tithe payer, attending the temple faithfully. Is that, you know, if you attend the temple faithfully, diligently, your entire life, have you not reached perfection in that? The church is constantly, is it constantly? Maybe that's a bit too much of a word, but often reminds us of the need to strive for perfection or strive for the highest level in the celestial kingdom. And only there will you find true happiness and peace and be with your loved ones. You won't find that anywhere else. So you need the church as a vehicle to get you to where you need to be. And so I think that for me, it might be different for you. I'm seeing a pattern emerge here across these questions. There are very strategic words placed deliberately and planned for a number of different objectives across these different questions. I'm seeing a correlation between some of the words. And is the church trying to get a sense of how much the members think they need or value the church? and currently in their life right now, the level of commitment, devotion. I think that's interesting, if I'm correct, because the church membership commitment overall, collectively, has changed, I think, Jim, over the years. As the internet has emerged and all these problems with the church have emerged, perhaps collectively the church is not seeing that level of commitment, devotion. Yes, with traditional members, older, senior members, individuals who hold on to those, you know, fundamental principles. But the, you know, the younger members, and you've talked about this, this point quite a bit, they're probably not seeing the need to be as devoted or committed. And I think, well, who gives a crap whether, you know, who cares about any of these things? Do they need religion? So I think I mean, these questions, there is a strategy behind them. The church doesn't do these things or put these questions out without careful, you know, like political campaigns. Each question is carefully spliced together. Words are put together. It can take hours to put some of the questions together. Highly strategic, tactical is intent. But I'm seeing a bit of a pattern emerge across some of the questions. What's the next question?
SPEAKER_01:So the next question seemed to be focused on the idea of answers to prayers or blessings that you get from God or what you should expect in terms of blessings from God. The first one on this next page is God. Okay, do you agree, believe or not believe? God will give you whatever you want if you just ask him. So again, I think every person in the world recognizes that this is not the case. I mean, people will say God will give you, the church leans into the idea that God will give you what is right if you ask him, you know, we qualify the idea of asking you shall receive with as long as you're asking according to the will of God. And there's a scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants that says, he who prayeth in the Spirit prayeth according to the will of God, asketh in the Spirit, asketh according to the will of God, therefore it is done even as he asketh. So the idea is God will give you whatever you want as long as it's his will. But a three-year-old child who first learns to pray and says, I want a big, you know, Sports car, except for three-year-olds don't want sports cars. What do you want when you're three years old? I want a big pile of candy. Well, you just asked for it. God didn't give it to you. So, again, when you were talking about all these things, you're seeing specific strategic words. The strategy is... that you're describing there is a strategy of the church using this survey, not to gather information, but rather to manipulate or teach the people who are taking it, which to me strikes me as a really silly thing to do, because it's one thing to say, okay, all right, I want to remind everybody who takes a survey that they're not perfect. And so I'm going to say, put a question in there that they're going to have to say, no, I don't believe that. But then they'll know that they're not perfect. That makes absolutely no sense to use a survey in that way. So I don't know. But again, that to me strikes me as a really silly question. Because everybody knows that God will not give you whatever you want if you just ask him. I mean, do you agree with that statement?
SPEAKER_02:I do, and I think you're right when you say that this is perhaps a tool, an instrument, a plan to influence. I do think the church wants to learn people's thoughts and opinions. You know, where are they at? How much grip do the church have on the members? And And what's the general opinion on certain things? I think you've got some real interesting questions which are deliberate and they want information on. I think you've got some filler questions that are just there to kind of keep the interest and to educate and to teach and to reinforce certain teachings. I think it's an integrative strategy. I think you're right. I think that's one of the objectives, not the only one. With some questions, that's probably the only objective with some questions is to educate and reinforce the church's influence over the member, to remind the member that they need the church. And maybe that's not as silly as it sounds. Maybe, you know, if they can remind people of the significance and value and importance of their relationship with the church, then they've got that influence on them. You know, this is a wherever the church does, there's an element of influence, isn't there? So that is, I think you're right. I think it's part of the strategy. Is it silly or not? Maybe not. If you try to hang on to your membership and you try to keep a grip on them and remind them, maybe not. This is going
SPEAKER_01:through a very specific, I mean, I know they made a mistake and this went out to the world, but every time I've gotten one of these, it's been a very specific targeted thing and it's gone to a fairly small audience so if the idea so maybe they would have identified an audience of people that need to be reminded that they're not perfect and that God doesn't give them everything they want just when they ask for it but that's a very strange it just I just this is either so brilliant that we just can't grasp it or maybe it really is kind of stupid Which it seems to be. But anyway, the next statement, if you keep a commandment, you will immediately get the blessing you expect from it. Again, is there anybody that believes that? That one probably more than the previous one. But the word immediately there, you will immediately get the blessing you expect from it. Everybody knows that... Sometimes you immediately get a blessing you expect from it, but most times you don't.
SPEAKER_02:I think that you've answered it really well. There are two answers. You know, I've had things happen to me very quickly, but most of the time it doesn't happen. Is the intent behind this question to remind, to your point, remind members that you don't always get what you want immediately? Yeah, you might get it, but it might take a while. You know, God's timing is not our timing. Or is it to also remind people that they need God and they need to be patient? There's quite a lot of talks on tribulation and terrible experiences that members go through. And the church often teaches, enjoy for the end, be faithful. God's timing is not your timing. And even the church said, sometimes those blessings don't come in this life, they come in the next life. And the church is big into that. They're saying, look, if it didn't happen here now, keep living the gospel, be faithful, be perfect, be diligent. Yeah, you might not experience the blessings in this life, but you will get them in the next life. And maybe there are a number of strategies to that question, similar to multiple strategies for other questions. Yeah, so... There's two answers to that one. It takes a long time often. Sometimes it can happen quickly. I do know people who expect blessings to happen immediately. They feel they've got that much faith it can happen, and some have experienced that. Others have expected it doesn't happen, and then the bishop will tell them, look, God's timing is not your timing. So, yeah, interesting.
SPEAKER_01:Okay. Next one. If God loves you, you will be rich as to the things of this world. Now, this is a much better question because I bump into a lot of people who would argue this is 100% true. And you see a lot of this in leadership because very often the people who are called to be bishops and stake presidents are rich as to the things of this world. And you get the sense that church leaders see wealth as a sort of shortcut, as a hermeneutic to be able to say, aha, yes, this person is righteous because look how blessed they are. And I have a real problem with that because Well, maybe it's because I'm not nearly as rich as I'd like to be. I'm certainly richer than a lot of people in a world that people, you know, what percentage of people worldwide live below the poverty line. They'd certainly look at me and say, well, gee, he's absolutely rich. But I look at everybody in my ward and think, well, they're all richer than I am. The point being, I just don't believe this. I can see why this would be a valid survey question because I have met a number of people in the church who absolutely believe this. So do you believe this? Do you believe if God loves you, you'll be rich as to the things of this world? And if you do or don't believe that, how does that relate to why the church is asking this question?
SPEAKER_02:I don't believe it. The second point, there is a dark side to that question. Again, if you look at it, he said, if God loves you, love, you will be rich as to the things of the Lord. Does that mean God only loves rich people? And does it mean that if you're poor, he doesn't love you? I think it's a pretty awful question depending on how you interpret it, right?
SPEAKER_01:Well, and I think a lot of people interpret it exactly that way. It goes hand in hand with the next question. I just want to put this in there because I didn't catch that until you said that. Because I was sort of conflating it with the next question, which was, if you keep the commandments, you will be rich as to the things of this world. I didn't catch the difference because in the first question, it's, if God loves you, you don't have to do anything, you're going to be rich. But the second question is transactional. That's the one that I think everybody believes. Not everybody. I don't believe it. But that's the one that a lot of people in the church believes. I don't think there are a lot of people in the church that believe that God doesn't love poor people. But I do think there are a lot of people who sort of buy into the prosperity gospel idea that I'm rich because I've impressed God with my righteousness. God is blessing me for my righteousness with wealth. And there are a lot of people who believe that. And I don't know that I ever believed that specifically, but I certainly believed in a kind of transactional God, a God that, you know, when my daughter was injured, for instance, that was the biggest moment in my life where I thought, well, wait a minute, I've been paying my tithing. I've been going to church. I've been righteous. doesn't that mean these things aren't supposed to happen to me? And if you'd asked me before that if I believed that the bad things that happened to other people were because they weren't righteous, I would have absolutely said no. And I think I would have even meant it. But when bad things happened to me, all of a sudden I realized I really bought into this idea that that keeping the commandments, you sing in primary, in this there is safety, in this there is peace. And I had bought into the idea that keeping the commandments was insurance against pain, insurance against poverty, insurance against bad things happening to me. And then something terrible happened, and I went, oh, I really need to reevaluate my entire life idea of god and my entire idea of a relationship with this sort of transactional god where i do something good god blesses me for it he's the vending machine and if i don't do something good god will withhold those blessings and so therefore if i'm rich that means i'm good if i'm poor that means i'm bad i mean i didn't believe that consciously but i believed it viscerally Even deeper than conscious. Because consciously I could think about something like that and realize how silly it is. But just viscerally, in my gut, I had believed in this transactional God and letting that go has been in some ways very difficult and in other ways extraordinarily freeing to realize that you don't measure God's love based on the goodies he gives you. God's love is unconditional. God's love is massive. And you cannot gauge the level of God's love for you by the size of your bank account. So I guess that's a long, messy statement, but I wanted to jump in there because I was responding to the next question about keeping the commandments, not just God loving you and you wisely keeping demonstrated the difference. Does that make sense?
SPEAKER_02:It does make sense. And listening to you has triggered something else I think very interesting in my experience and my thoughts. Quite controversial, but I'm going to say it because it's true. There is a relationship, a correlation between callings and wealth. Okay? And therefore the callings facilitate or speak to someone's worthiness. And I lived and served in very wealthy wards where we haven't been the richest by any means. And I've been in wards that are poor wards. And there is absolutely, in my experience, a lot of evidence where the church in the wards where you've got a mixture of wealth individuals who have got high net worth value, that they do not and will not almost always, not always, but almost always, will not call a poor person, somebody who's not financially successful, an award where there's a big choice of individuals who are successful financially. There's a correlation between calling someone, and I've I've been involved in these conversations. I've been privy to these conversations where if someone is successfully, financially successful, they're smart, they're educated, therefore they bring leadership and they bring capabilities of that calling. I know that as a fact. Those conversations happen. Also, conversations about someone is, they don't use the word wealth in the conversations. But if somebody is doing well and successful in their personal life, then they're going to bring those qualities and skills and abilities into the calling. And also, because they are doing well, it means that they have prospered. And they prospered with God because they are close to God and they have greater spirituality and closeness with God, the worthier. and I've heard those words, because they are financially successful and therefore they're stronger candidates to be called into leadership positions, for example, compared to the poor folks in the ward. We have a ward where a lot of members are poor, and there are exceptions where poor people do get called, and I do know that. But my experience, my observations over the 35, 37 years, is that in a ward where you've got people of all different levels financially, typically the church does not call someone who is financially inferior or less successful compared to those who are more successful. That's a sad truth, but there's a lot of evidence, I think, that supports that. It's not entirely like that. But for the most part, that's the situation. If you're poor and you're in a rich ward, you will not likely to be called into a calling as maybe a bishopric, but not much more than that. Okay. Interesting end. Interesting questions here. Again, these are questions around gender. A woman who gets an education is rejecting her role in the family. In the past, I think if they got an education or they went out to get work, I think Spencer Kimmel talked about this, the lady, the sister, the woman is being unfaithful and disobedient if they opted to go get an education and go get a career. The woman's role was in the house, in the kitchen, supporting the priesthood, building the home, homemaking. and things that, you know, public opinion. I think that was public opinion as well going back. I think in Britain, that was the role of the woman to be in the home, homemaker. So it's not just religious perspective from a religion. I think that was the thinking probably in the United States and certainly it was in the UK in the, you know, 40s, 50s and 60s. That was the role of the woman probably even in the 70s. But a woman who gets an education and rejects her role in her family, no. Um, You know, women are individuals, and they have the right to do whatever they want to do. You know, raise a family, go get an education. Not raise a family, go get a career. I think the church is probably trying to figure out where people are in thinking on the role of a woman in the church. And that might speak to this concept on the other question about whether women should have priesthood authority. Does that... interest in education and career can or should that extend to leadership callings for women in the church? So, again, another layered strategic question.
SPEAKER_01:Well, at least I can understand the purpose of this question because I can understand the mindset of somebody who's trying to figure out where the membership is based on this question because the church has shifted dramatically in terms of where they are in teaching this. And there was a big kerfuffle. We've talked about it on this podcast, and I'm trying to remember the name of the leader, but it's a woman who was just called into either the general primary presidency or the general relief society presidency who talked, who is a very accomplished woman who got a law degree and is a practicing lawyer. And she is of an age where when she decided to pursue a law degree, President Benson was giving conference talks about how a woman who gets an education is rejecting her role in the family, to use the language of the survey here. That that was being actively taught at the time when this now church leader made the decision to go to law school. and is now in the highest levels of church leadership, at least as far as women are allowed to go, which is another issue altogether. But it is being rewarded for making a decision that went contrary to what the church was teaching at the time. So it's very interesting to see the church now trying to gauge where everybody is on this, because the church no longer teaches this explicitly. It teaches it implicitly, I think, because I think you can interpret the proclamation on the family, which the church continues to lean into. It talks about how women are the nurturers and the men are the breadwinners, and that those are the divine roles. But it also talks about how individual adaptation may be needed for different circumstances. And I can't remember the last time an apostle or a prophet stood from the pulpit and told women to stay home. They're not actively teaching that anymore. They're quietly teaching it maybe, but there's no ecclesiastical sanction for a woman going out and pursuing a career. Does that make sense?
SPEAKER_02:It makes sense, yeah. I agree with that, yeah. The next question is, after a woman gets married, she accesses God through her husband, not directly. Well, I don't believe that, agree with that. In the temple, you know, in the temple, there is that teaching and position and doctrine of the church that, in fact, it's in the video in the temple, when God and Christ are having the conversation with Adam and Eve, that Eve makes a covenant with God through Adam, if I'm not mistaken. You are
SPEAKER_01:mistaken, but not necessarily. We talked about this because that has explicitly changed.
SPEAKER_02:Historically. In the earlier endowments, it did.
SPEAKER_01:When you went through the temple, that was the case. And that was the case up until maybe, what, four years ago? I think it changed either right before COVID or right after COVID.
SPEAKER_02:But it used to
SPEAKER_01:teach that. It used to teach that, didn't it? We used to teach that. We absolutely used to teach that. And in fact, so prior to 1990, the language of the covenant was Adam, the woman's covenant was, Adam, I covenant to obey thy law. And hearken unto your counsel as you hearken unto the Father. And then in 1990, they changed that to Adam, because she's addressing Adam. She's not addressing God directly. Here, you're in the Garden of Eden. God and Jesus are standing right there, and Adam is talking to them. But Eve does not talk to God directly. Eve talks to Adam. And after Eve talks to Adam, Adam covenants with God. So the very clear implication is that Adam stands between Eve and God and that Eve accesses God through her husband. But in 1990, the language was softened from Adam, I now covenant to obey thy law, as in the law of Adam, to Adam, I now covenant to obey the law of the Lord and hearken unto your counsel as you hearken unto the Father. Now, much has been made of that, and people, I remember actually being at a wedding where that language was being discussed by the sealer, and isn't that wonderful because women are equal to men now? And I remember thinking, no, if women were equal to men, Eve would be talking directly to God the same way Adam is. And this didn't, and that language didn't really change anything. Excuse me. Didn't really change anything because it, I mean, hearkening unto, because the covenant always was that she'd hearken to her husband's counsel as long as her husband's counsel was hearkening to the father's. So obeying the law of the Lord versus obeying Adam's law as long as Adam's obeying the law of the Lord, it's essentially the same thing. It's just a way to sort of soften it. And so people now look at the temple ceremony and people now say, isn't it great because now Eve makes exactly the same covenant and she does it directly with God. However, there have been other If you go to the sealing ordinance, there's been an addition to the sealing ordinance where it was never there before, where a man covenants to preside. And so what people have said is, okay, yes, this looks more inclusive, but all it's doing is shifting the language from one place to another. So that the man is still always in charge, but now we're just gonna use the word preside in the sealing ceremony so that we don't have to make it so explicit in the endowment ceremony. And so this is absolutely something we used to teach. There's a very good argument for the idea that it's something we still teach. It is not something that I believe. As you've said, it's not something you believe. And I would argue that it's probably not something that the general membership believes. So I can see the logic behind putting it in this survey.
SPEAKER_02:I agree. And the strategy to me is quite clear. And it's behind the other next question as well that kind of related, which is it is equally important to educate girls and to educate boys. I agree with that. I don't. think the church always believed or agreed with that. And again, we see this in British society where cultures around the world, even now today, women don't have the same access to education like in Afghanistan. Certain regimes around the world restrict women from accessing education. It's this position of some men that women can't or shouldn't be educated because they don't make good leaders or they can't make good leaders or for goodness sake we can't have a good leader so I think it's really important I think I think it's an interesting question the if you just go back to the question again Jim just jump back because I just thought of something else if you don't mind so when we're talking about educating we're talking about not just teaching we're talking about learning and We learn through experience and experience, my take on that is the experience of a woman or a girl to have equal access to all the callings and opportunities that a boy or a man would. So is the intent behind the question to get an opinion from the collective rank and file members to see where the member's position is on using a very strategic word, educate. But if we were to look at that in a different angle and consider that as a girl or a woman serving in a calling, we'll get a different perspective on that. So if the church, if the members think, yeah, girls and boys should be educated equally and therefore access to learning opportunities that you learn and grow and those learning opportunities are extended equally between male and female, is the church trying to get the opinion of the members of what they think about women going into leadership? I think so. I think it's a very important question. I think it's strategic on their part. And if the church comes back and says, the vast majority say, yeah, girls should be educated equally as boys. Well, that gives the church an insight into where the members are. And the church, as you know, the leadership is under pressure to involve and include more women, like in general conference. I think they started doing that to an extent in some of the meetings and some of the general conference meetings. There's a pressure on the church to be much more inclusive and more equal towards women. I'm seeing that. I don't know if you're seeing that. So I think those questions are, they're together for a reason. I think they're important. I have a better understanding of why they're doing that. And engaging opinion on where the members are in terms of the role of a woman in the church. So instead of asking whether, bluntly, whether a woman should have the same access to learning experiences in the church, like through callings, which is a more obvious one, it's It's asked it in a different way to get a similar opinion. Okay, go ahead. Next question. Well, so
SPEAKER_01:I'm looking at this and there are, we're at an hour and 20 minutes. And we have, I think we may be halfway there. But we haven't even gotten to any of the LGBTQ questions, which are several of them. I'm just gauging this. We have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Oh, boy. Eight. I don't even think we're halfway through. And,
SPEAKER_02:you know, if our listeners are interested and they're patient with this, I'm happy to do a part three. on this. I find these questions fascinating, and I think hopefully our listeners do as well. The conversation's just amazing and fascinating, I think.
SPEAKER_01:No, I think it's fascinating too, and I want to keep going, but I want to, again, I want to give all of these questions the importance that they deserve. So are you willing
SPEAKER_02:to A hundred percent. I mean, the church has gone at great lengths to put these questions together, right? They're not doing this overnight. You said that. A lot of thought, a lot of planning, a lot of strategy goes into this question. And you said earlier at the beginning on part one that this gives us an insight into, I think you said that in your opening comments, into the thinking and the mindset of the leaders. And you don't get that often. And I think this kind of conversation is kind of dissecting allows us to explore all angles, all possibilities, and get into the psyche of some of the leaders. Because the church is under extraordinary pressure on women, women equality in the church, the level of devotion, commitment from the members, etc., LGBTQ, etc., all these other issues. And there is design behind these questions, and I think they deserve attention. thorough examination and discussion.
SPEAKER_01:All right. So with that in mind, we're going to bring this episode to a close. This is going to be the first trilogy in the history of Inside Out. But Ian, I think your insights here have been invaluable. And I want to allow for enough room to get more of them. So rather than just sort of rush through these. We're going to leave these next questions the next week. Please be patient with us, but more is coming. We very much appreciate you being with us, and we look forward to seeing you on part three of the Church's Survey Questions in the next episode of Inside Out. Thank you very much, Ian. Thank you, Jim.