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
Moral Authority - with Greg Prince
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Ian and Jim welcome historian and author Greg Prince back to the podcast for a searching, urgent conversation about moral authority in the public square—and the growing silence of religious institutions at a moment of profound civic and ethical crisis.
Hello and welcome to another episode of Inside Out. My name is Jim Bennett, and I am here as always with Ian Wilkes. Ian, how are you, sir? I am doing really well. How are you today, Jim? I am doing great. We're very grateful to have historian and scholar Greg Prince back with us.
SPEAKER_00:Greg, how are you? Well, I'm feeling guilty and angry, so let me explain. Okay. That's where the anger comes because it's only today, seven or eight days after the storm, that we've got a clear driveway. Oh my goodness. We don't do snow like you do it in the West. We do it poorly.
SPEAKER_03:No, I know that. I when I lived in DC, I was just always amazed at how the whole city comes to a screeching halt with just a few inches of snow or just a less than an inch of snow. Just kind of thing.
SPEAKER_00:It comes to a halt, not because people slow down. They speed up thinking if I drive faster, I'll get home sooner. And doing that on snow is not a good philosophy.
SPEAKER_03:That's probably true. That's definitely true. So once again, you have established the moral authority here to assert the truth in a way that is undeniable. And I set that up as a clunky segue into where we are in the roadmap for improving Mormonism that we've been discussing over several episodes here. But as we've gone through this, we've arrived at a point where you talk about moral authority in the public square. And we've discussed this in different segments here, but I think right now is a really important time to be able to focus on this. And just to set the stage here, I'm just going to read your words in the roadmap. You say the problem, there is a vacuum of moral authority in this country. No religious leader commands national respect. There have been opportunities for our church to step into that vacuum and raise its prophetic voice in the public square, but it has consistently chosen to stay on the sidelines. One missed opportunity came after the 9-11 attacks when a Center for Islamic Studies was announced for Lower Manhattan. The voices of opposition were loud and domineering, and eventually the plans for the center were scrapped. The LDS Church could easily have been a voice of calmness and moral authority by saying a century ago we were the targets of religious persecution like this. When you are on the receiving end, you learn how injurious and unjust this is. Now, as it is directed to our Islamic brothers and sisters, we condemn such persecution and call for the love and understanding that are the deepest values of all religions. Instead, crickets. This was a big issue for my father as well. I mean, I've told that story many times. I told it on MSNBC that when he was dying in the hospital in Washington, D.C. after his stroke, he turned to me and said, Are there any Muslims in this hospital? And I said, I'm sure there are. And he said, I want to apologize to each of them on behalf of the Republican Party for Donald Trump. And he would, I mean, this was at a time he passed away in in 2016. We're coming up on the 10th anniversary of his passing. But even before his stroke, uh, he was very concerned, particularly as Trump was campaigning and he was talking about a complete Muslim ban. Uh he would go up to um uh to people in the airport, to Muslims in the airport, and just say, I just want you to know we're grateful to have you in this country. And he felt very strongly about that. And I think prior to the ascendancy of Trump, there was sort of a kinship there between other religious minorities and the church, at least on a grassroots level, but not on the leadership level. And you're talking here essentially about the silence at the leadership level. And I think it's probably become more acute as time has gone on. Would you agree with that? Or what would your assessment be of that, Fred?
SPEAKER_00:I agree with that. If you want to try to make the contrary argument, bring the evidence. Where has the church taken a courageous public stand on any moral issue? Now, let me add a caveat to that. Sometimes what the church will call a moral issue, some of the rest of us folks would call a civil rights issue, such as LGBTQ. But in terms strictly of a moral authority voice, not just the LDS Church, but most churches in the United States have been on the sidelines, and I think largely because of fear. And that fear probably takes two forms. One is they look down, meaning at their congregants, and don't want to risk offending them for fear perhaps that they will stop writing checks. The other is that they look towards the White House and are fearful of retribution from a president who basically lives on retribution. But the result, whether it's A or B or both of them, is we are not hearing that prophetic voice coming from the religious sphere in this country. It doesn't need to come solely from the religious sphere, and I hope we'll get into that. But it's been largely silenced throughout our society, and I think we are in grave danger of getting into something so deeply that we'll not be able to get back out. What do you mean by getting into something so deeply? Um selling out, uh there is the old phrase, all that is required for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.
SPEAKER_03:Yeah. And we've been doing nothing for so long that it's going to be really hard to reverse that course.
SPEAKER_00:Yes. If you just look at the political polarization within the country, that alone should have been setting off alarm bells a long time ago that would have caused people to mobilize in response. It's not just a question of one party saying we can do a better job of governing than our colleagues across the aisle. It's that one party in particular is saying of the other, they are the enemy, they should be destroyed.
SPEAKER_03:Yeah. Well, there's a there's a quote by President Oaks that has been circulating, and it's coming from 2011, where he decries the idea of political extremism and that we should not be contributing to it. And that has been making the rounds lately, but it's making the rounds as the result of grassroots efforts, not because of uh any sort of direct statement from church leadership now. And it's really kind of telling that people have to sort of dig to find those kinds of statements because the church isn't putting them front and center.
SPEAKER_00:Yes. Uh and in 2006, President Hinckley came out with a very strong statement in general conference that condemned racism. It was spot on, but then it went away. So there have to be two components to this. Number one is the willingness to speak clearly in that prophetic voice, but the second is the willingness coupled with the realization of the importance that that message has to be repeated early and often. This uh, our entire civilization has a remarkably short attention span. And the only way to get your message through to stick, just look at TV and see how many ads that you're kind of sick of, but they keep repeating them because they understand that unless they repeat at that level, the message won't stick. So to your point, Jim, uh a statement from 15 years ago that was a one-off is not likely to have a lot of penetrating power today.
SPEAKER_03:Well, and it be makes it very easy, I think, for the extremists to find all kinds of loopholes. Uh for instance, when President Nelson gave what I consider to be his finest talk and one of the finest talks I've ever heard in conference about peacemaking and about peacemakers, everybody, I when I first listened to it, I assumed, oh goodness, okay, finally, he's confronting all of these political extremists that are so vicious online, and we're going to see the tenor of those conversations change. They didn't change at all. Because everybody, and I guess this includes myself, if I'm being honest, everybody kind of assumed that he was talking to somebody else.
SPEAKER_00:Well, same thing happened in 2006 with President Hinckley's statement on racism. People were saying, oh yeah, spot on, but it doesn't mean me.
SPEAKER_03:Right. I mean, that there's a loophole. Yes. I mean, there's always the people who are like, yeah, when you say being this extreme and this vicious isn't Christ-like, that come back and say, well, yeah, but Christ overturned the tables in the temple. And and you get the the idea that these people see the entire ministry of Jesus Christ as him brandishing whips and throwing over tables, and the Beatitudes and turn the other cheek and bless them that curse you. All of those are just sort of nice homilies that don't necessarily mean anything. I mean, everybody is capable of restructuring the teachings of Christ to reflect their worldview. And that's one of the reasons why I think living prophets can have and be so essential, and it's really discouraging when they don't use that moral authority that you're talking about, or they don't establish that moral authority.
SPEAKER_00:Yes. Now I think one of the complicating factors in the current church is that they the first presidency got snake bitten by their vaccination letter. Yeah. It was clearly stated, it was right on the money from a medical and public health standpoint. There arguably were a lot of people who died because they turned away from that council. Not only turned away from it, they gave the first presidency the middle finger. Sure. And that may have been unprecedented in our lifetime. I think it was for a substantial part of the church, and now that was in Utah, because that's where the message went, to say, no, we're not buying that. When the injunction comes straight from the top, from a president of the church who happens also to be a physician and who knew a few things about public health. So I think that had a carryover effect that perhaps the men at that level are looking over their shoulders saying, gee, um, maybe the risks outweigh the benefits of taking a courageous public stand.
SPEAKER_03:Well, Ian, you talked about this many times. I mean, this is one of your biggest frustrations with the church, is it not? It is.
SPEAKER_01:I I this is one of my biggest um issues I've got with the church. As I listen to you both, and and we've had uh these conversations uh many times. It's difficult not to see the church as a man-made organization that is very careful about what it does and what it says and what it thinks and and and selects certain things to speak out on and versus other things. If you look at you know, political history, um there's never been a time where there's no not been any major global issues. Uh there's always been something going on uh relevant to the church, uh, standards, values, teachings, principles. That's always been the case, always will be the case. However, um you may agree, both of you, that we perhaps haven't lived or seen lived it at a time that we live in now, or seen the things that we're seeing now uh occurring and happening in the world. I think we are seeing history in the making, we're seeing uh global geopolitics uh changing, the old landscape changing, um, you know, the emergence of of uh China, Russia as the aggressor, it's gonna be uh United States under this Trump administration, and uh countries uh so-called leaders acting uh with impunity, uh seemingly uh ignorant of the laws that they've uh agreed to follow. Uh we're seeing just extraordinary uh reorganization, restructuring. I think uh the pres the Prime Minister of Canada coined it pretty well during his uh remarks at Davos last week. There's a rupture in geopolitical relationships. That's the word he used. And there's certainly significant changes in the uh in the economy, it's affecting everybody. And so at what point does the church uh under the its moral leadership get involved? If you look at um these major uh events happening in the world, uh it seems to uh be more comfortable just remaining on the sidelines, uh quiet. Uh and in contrast, the uh Canadian area presidency have issued a political statement and position of the church on a bill called C9, which is a bill that the um Parliament uh of Canada wants to implement in regards to combating hate crime and how they define hate crime. I won't go into the details there. But the church on uh presuming, presumably with the support of the first presidency, issued a very bold and very direct and defined and structured response on January the 15th, 2026, in response to the C9, uh Bill C9 on religious freedoms. Uh, I won't go into the details there, but it it takes a very strong position and gives uh some advice uh um and uh it urges lawmakers here to retain religious speech defense and um add better language to uh you know affirming that nothing in the law should be interpreted to infringe upon charter protected freedoms of expression and religion done in good faith. So this is worth looking at online, and our listeners who are interested in this can go and search this uh online for sure. But it seems that the church is uh quite selective on what issues or topics it chooses to get involved in. And I don't understand, and I would love to get your both of your opinion, is you know, what is the criteria that the church uses to get involved? Um you can have a situation on a particular topic that's extreme and severe and extremely serious, and the church is silent, and then you can have another issue that's still very, very important, but albeit related to maybe local politics from a geopolitical perspective, Canadian politics is of of little interest, mostly usually to the church, but it's decided to take a position on uh Bill C9. But my question to you book is what's that criteria, if you know it or understand some of it at least, where the church determines, well, this is something that we have to take a position on versus well, this is something that we you we can stay silent on. And so as I've asked myself that question, I I I can't think of what that criteria is with some degree of reliability, other than to suggest, you know, to go along with what you're both saying, that it's when it looks at a situation, looks at an issue, it takes strategic advice from outsiders, including in insiders, and will no doubt take legal advice. And and somebody somewhere is saying, look, if you take a position on this, what's the reaction going to be from the church membership, and in particular uh you know, political groups within the church? And so again, it's hard to see the church being anything other than a man-made semi-quasar political organization that it doesn't respond for all kinds of reasons because it's not strategic or it's not legal or it's afraid, or it's not uh of of importance. So, again, my question is what's that criteria that that determines where the church is responding and what's those triggers, what's the catalyst that that where the church has to respond? Uh, I'd love to get your thoughts on that.
SPEAKER_00:It's tended to be a matter of self-interest when they jump in. Uh, I'm thinking back to the MX missile when it finally dawned on them that this was going to be in their backyard. They said, wait a minute. And I think the church was the decisive voice in killing that. But that certainly was in its own self-interest. On larger societal issues, generally it's taken a pass. Now, there is risk in this. You probably remember a little over a year ago when there was a prayer service at the National Cathedral, and the Episcopalian Bishop of Washington, Marianne Buddy, spoke very forcefully and directly to Donald Trump and urged him to have compassion on the people because they are scared. And he was furious, his base were furious, and a lot of the donors to the National Cathedral closed their pocketbooks. So there is a risk to this. The question is: if you are empowered by God to speak with a prophetic voice, what kind of a risk are you willing to take to do that? And that's more than just a rhetorical question. If you look at the ancient model, the Old Testament, the prophets uh were pretty stark contrasts from today's prophets, meaning uh they weren't affiliated with any group. Sometimes they came in out of the wilderness, they were not in a popularity contest, usually they were feared or hated, or both, and said what they said in fear of their lives. But they made it into the historical record because they had the courage to say that at the right time in spite of the risk to themselves. We don't see that now. Should we see it? That I think is part of what we're debating on this right now.
SPEAKER_01:Jim, what what are your thoughts on you know that um you know, what's that criteria that the church responds and is it the same as Craig? Do you have a different take on that? I mean, you're very much in the political world. You've you've got a lot of political experience. Um, you've got real concerns, uh, as we all have in regards to what's going on in your country. I'm in Canada, and we have our own issues. The United States has got its own issues. But what what's your uh take on where the church decides to take a position or not?
SPEAKER_03:Well, I think Greg is right on the money on two fronts. One, the church responds when there is a self-interest for the church, and two, the church is gun shy uh over COVID. Uh so I it would and I would add a third reason, which may be a subset of the second, which is that the church uh is very um very interested in portraying themselves as an international church and not an American church. And so I think that is also an additional disincentive to speak out, because if they speak out on American issues, then they they may alienate um different countries where they're trying to get more traction. We saw, I think we saw that in the direct aftermath of the launch of the um Russia-Ukraine war when they issued this really Pablum statement about how war is bad and refused to say that they stood with Ukraine because we have members in Russia as well, and I think they were just trying to say, well, you know, war is bad and oh, isn't this bad? But it was a really squishy non-statement statement. And so I think that there are those kinds of considerations as well. And Greg, when you talk about the Old Testament model, there's also the New Testament model. Uh Christ's model, he wasn't attached to any of the religious institutions of the day. And when the apostles went out and started preaching the gospel after the crucifixion, uh, they were rabble rousers and they were martyred because they wouldn't shut up. And Paul was locked up in prison and had to have angels come and rescue him. And, you know, you had all of these things happening because the prophets and apostles couldn't stay silent on the issues of the day and were constantly an irritant to the powers that be. And we see a church that is trying very, very hard to be the direct opposite of that, to be to ingratiate itself with the powers that be. And so I think that there is this there is this hesitation to uh against doing what is right and letting the consequence follow, because they see the consequence being, well, maybe these countries where we're trying to get missionaries in are going to close their doors or they're not going. I mean, that there is this sense of diplomacy, I think, that complicates everything that they do. So I I I don't see this changing uh anytime soon. And I don't know what would have to happen in order to make it change. What do you think, Greg, would have to happen for them to become like the prophets and apostles of old?
SPEAKER_00:To your question about things that might resonate in this country might not resonate in others, my response is the existential threats the entire world is facing are grounded in common flaws that need to be addressed. For instance, the basic virtues of honesty, of integrity, of love, of forgiveness, if those don't play well somewhere, then it's the somewhere that has the bigger problem, not the messengers who are taking that message. If we can't figure out enough of those core principles, the absence of which is threatening society throughout the world, then shame on us as a religion.
SPEAKER_03:Yeah, I well uh is there something that could happen though that could spur that could awaken the conscience that could spur them into action? Is is is there some line that Donald Trump could cross that would have Damilyn Oaks standing up in conference saying this he he's gone too far and we need to stand up against this?
SPEAKER_00:I I don't know what the trigger event would be, but since you mentioned Donald Trump, look at the effect that one man has had on awakening an entire political base in this country. It doesn't take a million or a thousand people stepping forward and saying the right things. It can be catalyzed by even one person who has the appropriate pulpit and who has the appropriate message. People, I think, who are people of good will, who are righteous people, are hungering to hear that voice, and they would coalesce and follow it, but they're not hearing it. And I'm speaking about members of our church or any church. I'm talking about society in general. There is a hunger to hear the prophetic voice that will straighten this out and call people to a higher level of living. It used to come almost exclusively from the churches, but they have largely abdicated the field. It can come from a secular source as well, but we're not seeing much of it.
unknown:Yeah.
SPEAKER_01:I I said earlier that I, you know, when I listen to you both, and I and by the way, I would say that, you know, Jim, you your one of your big uh focus areas is infallibility versus fallibility. You you've thought about that a lot, and it it's something that you have researched and you've got a clear understanding of position, what that means, which is great. I would say uh if there was a particular issue I've got with the church, is this. This is mine. And as I listen to you both and myself, and as I've given this a lot of thought, I've fallen into the trap, as I mentioned earlier, of seeing the church as a man-made organization. And some of your comments um are along the same lines, same way of thinking. Jim, you asked earlier, what would it be that you know, it's something that happened in order for the church to be triggered into a response. And the way the conversation went just there was that Greg reminded us that you know that the people are uh are crying out for prophetic leadership. And we need to remind ourselves that the you know the church has claim to be the only true church upon the face of the earth. I've mentioned that many times. The church has made this bold claim that it is uh the only true church upon the face of the earth and that it speaks for on the behalf of God. And so if it doesn't know what to do, you know, if I don't know what to do, or if I need some information, or if I need some direction, it's simple. I just go and ask the person that knows more than me. And somebody that I trust, somebody who's wise, somebody who's got some insights. Well, in the case of the church, it's God. Jim, you rightly pointed out the life of Christ. You know, he was bold, he was courageous. Um Greg, you talk about uh uh you know uh doing the right thing and and and not being uh fearful, uh, you know, regardless of risk that it could bring to one's own self. Well, Christ's my understanding of Christ is that he put himself second and that he put the people first, no matter about the political situation at the time. He knew the risks. Uh he knew his life would be short. At some point his life would be taken. You know, people saw him as a threat, but that didn't stop him. He stood up and spoke out. He was bold, he did it through love. You know, Alma 42 is one of the most amazing chapters describing the relationship between justice and mercy. Very important to be merciful. Christ was the ultimate example of showing mercy. But if you're too merciful, if you're too soft, and you compromise, you're tolerant on those, and you allow things to happen around you that is plain wrong, then you rob justice. Alma 42 talks about that very clearly. It defines it in a way no other scripture does. It's an extraordinary chapter. And I think Christ was the example of justice as well, you know, the balance between justice and mercy. It's right to highlight Christ's life because the church uh uh claims and professes uh and has done so boldly in the past that it is the only true church of Christ, and therefore it has the spiritual and moral authority. Um, you know, and on the church website, we're reminded, I've got it here, the you know, why we have a prophetseer and revelator. He says, How often do we consider what it means to be a prophecy and revelator? A prophet, according to the Bible dictionary, acts as a messenger of God and is a preacher of righteousness that makes known God's will. Uh, a prophet is also a revelator, means he gets revelation. We know that the prophet today is the only one, it's on the church website, to receive revelation for the entire world. As such, he teaches us that God what what God wants us to know. He guides us and gives us direction in the world today. Often we stop there. That seems sufficient as an amazing blessing in the world we live in today. If only it would, you know, just I would be happy for it to stop there if the church was responding to that, to that um spiritual mandate that it claims to have. He says here, however, we may be missing the most important part of the title, that the president of the church, the first presidency, the twelve apostles, we sustain them as seers, uh, and a seer is greater than a prophet, and the gift which is greater can no man have. And then if you go to the other part of the website, uh again, the church website here, um, it says these members of the church of Jesus Christ, the other saints were blessed to be led by living prophets, inspired men, called to speak for the Lord, as did Moses, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, Nephi, Mormon, uh, and other prophets of the scriptures. Uh, we sustain the present of the church as prophets, sin and revelate, the only person on the earth to who receives revelation to guide the entire church. And that it goes on to say, like the prophets of old, prophets today testify of Christ in his gospel, and they make known God's will and true character. And here's the thing: they speak boldly and clearly, denouncing sin and and uh communicating warnings of of its consequences. It goes on to talk about the significance, the importance of why we need prophets and the role of prophets. Uh, you know, the scriptures, the church website is replete with examples and talks on general conference about the importance of follow the prophet. Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, he won't lead you astray. And so if we connect the dots here, and the dots are, you know, we we talk about really important points, you know, about the example of Christ, who he was, what he did, how he did it, fearless, regardless of the risk. We see his followers, apostles. Jim, you've rightly said that the apostles uh were bold, they were courageous, and they um were seemingly unafraid. Uh, we think about the prophets in the Book of Mormon, you know, Alma, Anulek getting locked up in prison. Look at Samuel the Lamanite. You know, he was um incredibly bold. And then you fast forward in the time machine that we, you know, that to come to today, and you contrast those examples. Actually, you can even compare them with the boldness of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wolf Woodruff. They were incredibly bold. Uh, they were, again, seemed to be uh, you know, fearless uh in in the face of opposition. You go forward to the current day, and we are, what are we? We just um we're nowhere. We're not on these TV channels, we're not in the media, we're not in the press, we're not in front of a camera, we're not being interviewed about key issues that are happening in the in the day, yet we still cling on to that bold claim that we are the only true church upon the face of the earth. And we've got this this spiritual and and uh priesthood authority mandate. The church will remind you it's the only church on the earth with the authority uh of God. No other church has got the same authority that the Mormon church has got. We're the only ones with the correct authority of Christ. It's not saying that for a few years, but it that's his position. And God's uh we're the only ones that God speaks to. Well, gentlemen, that comes with responsibility. With a great power comes responsibility. And if this isn't the time to stand up and speak up and speak out on key issues affecting people's lives, in the way that Christ did, in the way that Pastor Apostles did, in the way that some of the leaders of the restored church did. If this isn't the time, then I don't know any of the time where the you know uh uh they can act. I don't know what that criteria or that that uh catalyst to to trigger uh you know a public debate and for the church to step in and be leaders and to have this conversation in the public square and to have faith and not to be afraid of of the consequences. Do what is right, let the consequence follow. And so again, it's so difficult to see the church as a uh uh you know as a anything other than a man-made church, and if God is speaking, then they're not listening. Or or has the or uh have the heavens closed and God is no longer speaking to his prophet, has the church, and I'm gonna be bold here, I can get away with this, has the church it to some degree apostasized? Because if God is speaking, if God has something to say on what's happening in the world today, and I believe he has, and the prophet is the only one he speaks to, and the prophet's not going to him or not having that conversation or communicating, God is saying these things, prophet's not passing that on, giving us the direction that he claims to have, then has the prophet, has the church um fallen away to some extent? So I feel very strongly about this, uh, as you both do, and many others do. And I'm just trying to connect all the uh the dots. Do you both can can you see the big picture and how the dots are connected uh in the way that I've tried to articulate?
SPEAKER_00:Oh, I think so, Ian. Now, there are some glimmers of hope that are out there. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has been vocal of late in condemning where we're going as a country and getting fairly specific in doing it. Episcopalian bishops are starting to poke their heads up and say some things. Um we've done two events in the National Cathedral to show that the political chasm can be bridged, each with Governor Cox and in the first instance with Governor Moore of Maryland, and the most recent one, which was in December with Governor Shapiro of Pennsylvania. The reason they were willing to reach across the aisle in public is that they all understood the magnitude of danger that we have gotten ourselves into, and they understand that getting back out of that is going to require healing these wounds, and you do that by exercising moral leadership and showing the way.
SPEAKER_03:I'm looking actually at your roadmap here, just to finish some of your language, Greg. You say at a time when the assault on democracy in this country is the most serious since the Civil War, where is the prophetic voice that condemns the lying, cheating, infidelity, and criminality that are centered in the MAGA cult? The very survival of democracy in the United States is at stake, and yet those best equipped to speak in the prophetic voice and condemn its enemies decline to step forward. And I could not agree with that more. It's the thing that that just enrages me. When people, when I talk politics, I'm using air quotes here for people who can't see them. I talk politics, uh, I am talking morality because I remain essentially the same sort of Reagan conservative that I was for most of my adult life, that I continue to be. And yet I look at Donald Trump, I look at the Republican Party, and don't see any vestige of a party that believes in limited government and fiscal responsibility, and the kinds of things that even though the party of Reagan didn't live up to those principles, they at least gave them lip service to the point where they acknowledged that there was a principle outside of a person that deserved fealty. Whereas the Republican Party currently is whatever Donald Trump had for breakfast, whatever it is that popped into his brain at any given moment, whatever's left of that brain. But I see this as an issue of morality, that we are allowing blatant corruption, blatant, you know, that this is a man who tried to overthrow the government on January 6th, 2021. Uh, this is an insurrectionist. This is an adjudicated rapist. I mean, on and on and on and on again. And then now with the release of the Epstein files, uh, this is a very likely pedophile. I mean, the idea that outrage over pedophilia is partisan is just mind-blowing to me. And so I look at this and go, okay, I'm not asking you church leaders to inject yourself into politics in a sort of ideological way. You don't need to weigh in on what you think the minimum wage ought to be, for instance. You need to weigh in on the fact that when someone tries to overthrow the government and someone is a felon and someone is a rapist and someone is a pedophile, that that's not acceptable. That when someone lies every stinking time they open their mouth, the Washington Post has documented uh tens of thousands of lies, documentable, provable misstatements by this president. Uh that somehow this is just political, and we should just respect people who have different political ideas than we do. I fully respect people with different political ideas. I don't respect people who think that pedophilia is acceptable. I don't respect people who think it's okay for a president of the United States to completely ignore the emoluments clause of the Constitution and enrich himself to the point of$1.4 billion personally through uh through corruption and graft that he's not even trying to conceal. I read a thing the other day that said Richard Nixon on his best day wasn't a tenth as corrupt as Donald Trump is every day. On his worst day, Richard Nixon on his worst day wasn't a tenth as corrupt as Donald Trump. Anyway, I I I'm ranting and all people get get upset when I start talking about Trump. But I I just look at all of this and and I hear All of the what both of you are saying is absolutely right. This is a church that ought to be exercising its moral authority. What is it going to take to get us there? Because so many red lines in my mind have already been crossed. And complete silence from 50 East South Temple, complete silence from the leaders of the church. I mean, what would have to happen? Would it have to be self-interest? Would would would uh Donald Trump have to attack Dallin Oaks personally? Is that what it would take? And would that even do it? That's that's my that's my question. Is there Greg, can you imagine, can you give me a scenario that would uh spur church leaders into action on this?
SPEAKER_00:I think what could happen, and this is aspirational on my part, is that when a man moves into the chair of the president of the church, the world can look very different. We've talked about this a little bit in past episodes of this podcast. Will there be a coming to a higher level of consciousness on the part of President Oaks where he feels that there is a mandate for him to speak in that voice now that he sits in the president's chair? Is that something that's going to come laterally as he surveys the country and the world about him? Or will it come vertically in the form of the promptings of the spirit that would say, in effect, it's time to speak out? I don't know the answer to that, Jim. And uh but I could see a catalyst coming from either the horizontal or the vertical. I hope that it happens.
SPEAKER_03:But the thing that makes me nervous about that, among other things, many things make me nervous about that. But I don't know how much time Dallin Oakes has left, frankly.
SPEAKER_00:He's that could work to our advantage. That there's urgency there that there might not be if he were a very young 85.
SPEAKER_02:You know, just just uh spring chicken like uh like Elder Ookdorf is.
SPEAKER_01:I I had high hopes for President Oaks. You know, he interviewed me for my calling, it was a very positive experience. He asked me, I've shared this before, how I want to be remembered in my calling. I I I I think it was the calling or my life, how they took it as both. I really appreciated that. It got me thinking, and I want to remember President Oakes as somebody that that I'm gonna be blunt, had the balls to stand up and take a position, you know, like Mitt Romney did, right? Look at Mitt Romney. My gosh, I mean, what a you know, he was uh was the only one, Jim, at the time, to speak up against Trump. I think he he was one of the few for sure. Um, you know, he showed leadership, you know, intestinal fortitude. He had that uh integrity. I I believe President Oakes has the integrity, he's got the intelligence, he's got the political savvy, he's still uh, well, I think he's relatively together. You might have heard otherwise, Jim, with his health, but I don't know how long we have with him. I know President Banks spoke very highly of him and he told me or the whole, not just me, but the whole other Michra group that keep an eye on President Oakes. I've always respected him, uh you know, a great deal of um admiration in many ways. And wouldn't it be great if uh we could remember him for standing up on and and talking about uh these things? But I suspect that's not going to happen. I think I think that fear is real, by the way. We've seen that. There is a base in you know in the church who voted for Trump. And they knew a lot about Donald Trump, not perhaps as much as we know now, but they knew about his character. And it's not just Trump for the sake of Trump, it could be Bill Smith or Jeff Bloggs. We're talking about, as you're saying, Jim, somebody who we we we've we're supposed to elect leaders who are moral, who are honest, who have integrity, who are not corrupt, regardless of the name. It's not these aren't comments specific. Well, the comments specifically about Donald Trump because I don't know who he is, but but if it was someone else with a different name, we'd be saying the same thing if it if they were behaving the same way. And so I think the the the church is terrified of this group within the membership who voted for Trump because they agree with him on a whole bunch of stuff, right? All these different things, and I I I can get that, I can see why they've got a position on things and the you know, immigration or whatever, that they agree with him on some things, and that's why they've voted for him, and that's why the only thing I can think of is why they look past all these issues that Trump has in terms of his behaviour, etc., and are happy for him to do be the kind of person he is as long as they're ticking his boxes, right? Uh and therefore this group that exists in the church is very formidable, very powerful. Uh, perhaps a significant minority or majority. I don't know what they I wouldn't be interested in how many, get your thoughts, how many Mormons actually voted for Trump? I suspect there's this quite a few, and the church is two-thirds of the American membership voted for Trump. Two-thirds, my gosh, right. So they you know they voted for him for a reason, and they were prepared to look past these issues. And what does that say about them, right? So and the church won't take that on, it's it's financial base, it's a you know, it's it it they will react very aggressively, and the church is terrified. It's in certain areas, it in certain ways it's driven by fear, and the scriptures teach us that you know, where there is fear, there is no faith. And so I I I I you know, we we're coming towards the end of the next 10-15 minutes, but I suspect, well, I I think rather that um I believe the church has lost quite a bit of that moral authority. So, you know, we're having this conversation, three of us, we're talking about you know moral moral authority in the public square. The church, in my view, in my mind, has lost a lot of that. And but then at the same time, there's an opportunity to reposition itself by President Oakes coming out and talking about something that is really, really important, and there's certainly uh um in enough to talk about. So yeah, I I I just expect more from President Oakes, and I I still hold out that he will come through before he leaves this earth.
SPEAKER_00:We are speaking in pessimistic tones of voice, and I get that, but if there is a glimmer of light, it is that that prophetic voice can change an entire culture, even if it comes from one person, if it's the right person from the right pulpit. We we don't need to mobilize millions of people directly. That's what that voice can do. The question is, will it come from Salt Lake? Will it come from Hollywood? Take your pick. I don't know. Well, I'm just hoping that it comes from somewhere because, Jim, to your earlier point, it's not a US centric issue that we're dealing with here. It's not something the church should say, gee, we don't want to offend the people in Portugal or in Brazil with an American message. No, this is a universal message. And if it offends anybody, then that itself is a problem. The things that we're talking about are the very basis of the Judeo-Christian tradition. They're not partisan political. But we have allowed our politics to drive us into fearful corners and we stand in those corners quivering rather than stepping forward and speaking boldly.
SPEAKER_03:No, I think that's absolutely right. And it's interesting, Ian, when you mentioned Mitt Romney, I think that he is a case study in a lot of this because Mitt Romney, uh, I I had the opportunity to speak to him. I've met Mitt Romney on several occasions. Uh he endorsed my father in 2010, back when that was a really politically difficult thing to do. And I will always be grateful for him for that. But when Mitt Romney became the first um person, first elected official in history to vote for the conviction in an impeachment trial of a president of his own party, which he did in the very first impeachment trial when President Trump was impeached for trying to blackmail uh Ukraine. And uh, when he did that, uh I considered that the greatest act of political courage that I had seen in my lifetime or that I expect to see in my lifetime. It was essentially the end of his political career because Utah, filled with MAGA Republicans, just absolutely revolted when he did that and were absolutely furious. And he didn't run for re-election after one term, and that was the vote where Utah voters completely turned on him. And when I was in Peru with the Tabernacle Choir, the Romneys were traveling with us, and I had the opportunity to tell Mitt Romney personally how much I appreciated that vote. That when he cast that vote, it was as if my own father were still here with us. Uh, it was just this act of extraordinary courage. And Ann Romney said to me, Donald Trump is King Noah. Why can't they see that? He's King Noah. And so Mitt Romney is the case study because Mitt Romney did stick his neck out on this. Mitt Romney did during the campaign, when it was clear that Donald Trump was going to get the nomination, Mitt Romney gave a very pointed speech talking about Donald Trump as a guy who plays all of us for suckers, and that you know his word is as valuable as a degree from Trump University. I mean, he would, I mean, he did not pull any punches, and Mitt Romney was absolutely vilified by members of the church. I mean, you're seeing the same thing, you know, Greg, when you talk about the church being just caught completely off guard by their entirely appropriate and I believe inspired COVID response and the rejection of the membership, uh, they can also see how the membership responded to Mitt Romney, who I think was speaking with as much moral authority as anybody could possibly speak with, then the people who rejected that moral authority are the people who should best understand it, the people who have the gift of the Holy Ghost, the people who have the gift of discernment. When the truth is told to them about these kinds of issues, they reject it. At least a good chunk of them do. I mean, there are plenty of members of the church who essentially seek me out now that they know that I'm such a big loudmouth anti-Trumper. But in the halls of the choir, people will come up to me and say, I heard your latest podcast and just want you to know I agree with you. My wife's a big Trump supporter, but I, you know, I'm so grateful to have somebody talking and speaking out. Uh, I mean, some people say that to me in hushed whispers, but others are more than willing to say it to me up front. But then there are plenty of others that are still furious with me. And you go online and there's a whole contingent of people who will, anytime I say anything about Trump at all, will repost it and call for my excommunication and say this is this terrible progmo is the is the epithet of choice for progressive Mormon, and that a progmo and an exmo are pretty much the same thing, and they are all terrible and they're all wicked, and they they've sort of lumped in the Republican political garbage with religion in a way that make Utah politics, in my mind, uniquely toxic. But it and you see this, like for instance, there was a guy, um, what is his name? We talk about this in a live stream. Uh, Brad Edison Bonham, who apparently is a big lobbyist. I don't know anything about him, but when I start talking about him, he went online and he said, Look, the church handbook says that you can't carry a weapon onto a church onto church property. I think everybody should ignore that. I think everybody should conceal carry and everybody should carry God. Uh yes, I know that's against the handbook, but everybody should ignore that. And he can say that knowing that he will get no pushback at all from church leaders, because that is a conservative political position that is acceptable to so many members of the church that he doesn't have to worry that he's going to encounter any kind of ecclesiastical sanction as a result of calling for people to ignore the church handbook. Now, if I stood up and I said, you know what? I know the handbook says that trans people need to use the bathroom of their of the sex that was assigned to them at birth, or they need to clear out the other bathroom and have somebody stand guard while they use the bathroom alone. And if I were to stand up and say, you should ignore that, trans people should use the bathroom of the genitor with which they identify, everybody would probably rightly recognize that as apostasy, recognize that as opposition to the church. But when the opposition comes from the right, the church completely ignores it, completely overlooks it, and doesn't confront it. And it's it's it's becoming more and more difficult to imagine, at least in my mind, a scenario where we revert we start to reverse any of that. Because there are so many positions the church takes, well, people don't realize this, that are very much on the left end of the spectrum. If you read any church statement on immigration, it reads like a direct indictment of the Trump administration. But it doesn't come from the pulpit at general conference, it comes from the press release of the church public affairs department or the church governmental affairs department, and most of the church just ignores it. And if you bring it to their attention, they say, Well, the prophet didn't say this. And they're able to dismiss it. I mean, they're able to dismiss when the prophet does say it, when the prophet said get vaccinated. I had a lot of people would say, Well, he only used the word urge. We urge people. Well, an urge is in a command. It's like, come on, guys, come on. I mean, it just drives me nuts that that if a living prophet only tells us what we want to hear and only tells us things that we'll that we'll accept if it goes along with what we already believe, then really what is the point of a living prophet? I mean, that's a rhetorical question, but Greg, is do you have an answer for it?
SPEAKER_00:Well, it concerns me greatly that so many members of this church would listen to a president and ignore a prophet. Maybe therein is the question we really need to address. How do you fix that?
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, this is fascinating. Um, we we haven't got time to get too much into what I'm going to talk about, but uh just cast your mind back to your studies of the Book of Mormon. The relationship between government and the prophet is interesting, isn't it? And so when the leaders, the civic leaders in the Book of Mormon step over the line as they do from time to time, that the you know that the prophets uh are uh unafraid to take a position and to remind those leaders of the you know the commandments of of God. Um as I listen to you both again, I'm reminded uh of the uh the direction that the prophet has uh uh provided to the to his members um in the teachings, in the position, the principles of the church. He says here we can always trust the living prophets. Uh their teachings reflect the will of the Lord. Um he goes on to say here, our greatest safety uh lies in strict strictly following the word of the Lord given through his prophets, particularly the current present of the church. Lord warns those who ignore the words of the living prophets, will fall. He promises great blessings to to those who follow the present of the church. And it goes on to say that thou will a commandment thou shalt give heed unto all of his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in holiness before me. For his words ye shall receive as if from my own mouth in all patience and faith, and for by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you. Yea, the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you and cause the heavens to shake for your good and his name's glory. So uh so what is it? Uh you know, President Oaks, uh teach us, let we we will follow you. Tell us what to do, tell us what the Lord thinks. Uh we will follow you. You're the prophet. Give us the direction, give us the uh instruction. I love Greg's uh your Greg, your final sentence in that section, the section we're talking about here, uh having this uh conversation in the public square. Uh here you say here in your roadmap to improving mor improving Mormonism, the response, put on the mantle of prophecy and speak speak truth to power, even if it means part of our flock will be offended. It may turn out that we'll wish we had done it sooner. I I I I you know Vitt Romney was on the right side of history. There's been many examples where prophets of the church have been on the right side of history. Uh, these are absolutely fundamental principles that we're talking we're talking about, integrity and honesty, and decency, and dealing with corruption and lies in in public office. And again, we I think we face no greater time in the world than we do now. And now is the time for the uh for you know for the uh the prophet to show leadership and to really take heed to that uh message that's in the uh in the road map. Uh will it happen? Um I'm doubtful, but I I I don't want to be pessimistic, I want to be hopeful, and I still hold out, as I say, that President Oakes will um be bold and courageous and address some of the issues. It's an opportunity. As you said earlier, Greg, people are crying out for good leadership. People uh, you know, leaders that do the right thing, that speak the right thing and act, and the opportunity is here and it's now.
SPEAKER_03:Well, we're coming up on the end here. Um uh Greg, do you have any uh final summation or words of wisdom that you want to conclude this discussion with? Ian just read them. Well, I I'm gonna read some here too. I've read your entire in the roadmap, your entire little section that that's labeled the problem. And your response is two sentences for the solution. The response put on the mantle of prophecy and speak truth to power, even if it means part of our flock will be offended. It may turn out that we'll wish we had done it sooner. I think that's that's absolutely right on the money. I'd put that in the doctrine and covenants if I were in charge. Section 139. There it is. Ian, any parting thoughts?
SPEAKER_01:No, because I don't want to distract from that last statement that Greg communicated in his roadmap for improving Mormonism. So nope. That's it. That's the message right there in Greg's uh in that section. Right there. It's inspired, no doubt.
SPEAKER_03:Well, uh, this has been a wonderful discussion. And Greg, again, we need to have you back, particularly since the next segment in your roadmap for improving mormonism is titled A Positive Philosophy of Sex. And I think that there are plenty of people out there that would love to hear that discussion, including me. So that's a teaser for the future. You willing to come back and talk about that?
SPEAKER_00:I'm willing to come back. We'll make sure it's a PG-rated discussion.
SPEAKER_03:Oh, darn it. Okay. Well then we'll we'll just go from there. But thank you both. Thank you for this discussion, and thank you all who are listening to this. We are grateful for um grateful for all of you who are participating here. Please feel free to reach out to us. You can reach us on the Inside Out Facebook page. Uh, and you can send us a message, and we would love to be able to interact with you. And we will also have a live stream uh coming up this next Tuesday, and uh we hope to be able to see you there. But in the meantime, thank you all for participating here with us, and we'll see you next time on the next episode of Inside Out. Thanks, everybody. Thank you!