Introduction and Episode Overview

Part 1 of 3 · Ep. 886

Bert Fuller [00:00:00] We like to throw rocks at the people who don't see the world in the way we do.

John Dehlin [00:00:11] Mormon Stories is a production of the Open Stories foundation and relies solely upon the support of people like you, its listeners to help keep the podcast alive or to become a member of the community. Please become a monthly subscriber by visiting MormonStories.org and clicking the donate button on the top right side of the page. All contributions to Mormon Stories are completely tax deductible and go towards producing the podcast and building communities and programs of support for Mormons like you. Thanks for your support. It is March 13, 2018, and we have a twofer for today. We just got done interviewing Dr. Tara Westover about her amazing book, Educated. Phenomenal Interview. A reminder that we'll be having Tara Westover in Salt Lake City March 29 for a book signing and a Q and A. We're really excited about that book. It's a very powerful book. Go buy it. Go read it. Educated. It's taking the nation and the world by storm. And we loved interviewing her. We are doing a twofer, though. We're interviewing someone else as well today. This is my friend, Bert Fuller. It turns out I went to BYU as a freshman with Bert's.

Bert Fuller [00:01:47] I think it's my dad's cousin, Bert's

John Dehlin [00:01:49] dad's cousin, Ron Fuller. Ron was raised in a home where he wasn't raised as an active, devout Mormon by sort of post Mormon or ex Mormon parents. And Ron was one of the first people to ever introduce me to doubts and questions about the church. I remember him theorizing that the church may have given blacks the priesthood out of pressure or threats to lose their tax exempt status. That was Ron.

Bert Fuller [00:02:14] And it was actually from Ron that I heard about you. Oh, yeah?

John Dehlin [00:02:18] Yeah. So Ron. Ron definitely challenged my testimony as a freshman. I ended up overcoming those challenges serving a mission. Ron also served a mission. Now it's sort of crisscrossed. Ron has become very orthodox or devout as I, as I conceive of him. He called me just the other day, in fact, and, well, you know what happened to me. So anyway, Bert is from the Fuller family. This is Bert Fuller. And I just want to tell everyone at the outset, every once in a while I meet someone who is incredibly both insightful and intelligent and prescient about everything that's going on. And I'm going to say that Bert's going to come across as one of the most credible, thoughtful people I interview on Mormon stories. That's my bias. That's my opinion so please know that ahead of time. He has appeared on Mormon stories at least once before. Right.

Bert Fuller [00:03:15] With Dan and Lloyd.

John Dehlin [00:03:16] With Dan. With Lloyd Erickson. Erickson and Dan Witherspoon, where we talked about neo apologetics a little bit. But this is sort of, let's just say, a bit of a conclusion to my series on neo apologetics. The reason why we're interviewing Bert is because Bert, for two and a half years, worked for the Maxwell, Neal A. Maxwell Institute of what? Religious Studies scholarship.

Bert Fuller [00:03:40] I think it's the full title.

John Dehlin [00:03:42] So he worked with. Was Daniel Peterson there at the time or.

Bert Fuller [00:03:47] No, I was hired right after all of that had taken place.

John Dehlin [00:03:50] So Bradford was still there? Jerry Bradford.

Bert Fuller [00:03:53] Jerry Bradford was the director the entire time I was there.

John Dehlin [00:03:55] Morgan was there. Was Blair Blair there yet?

Bert Fuller [00:03:59] Blair was hired right after me.

John Dehlin [00:04:00] Okay. And. And then would you have been there when Spencer Fluman started or.

Bert Fuller [00:04:05] I wasn't. I had started my PhD in Toronto by that time, but I met him just after his appointment because I was at BYU for a summer seminar, and he was one of our lunch guests that spoke about it.

John Dehlin [00:04:19] Yeah, and I actually met Spencer Fluman first when I was invited to attend one of those luncheons at summer seminar back when Bushman was involved.

Bert Fuller [00:04:27] Oh, okay.

John Dehlin [00:04:27] Way, way back in the day. That was my introduction. Anyway, we've been talking about neo apologetics for many, many episodes. We interviewed Tom Christofferson, who I think, in some ways fits in that camp. You know, we've talked to Dan and Lloyd about this. We've interviewed people like John Ogden, and, you know, we've tried to sort of discuss and review the church's new approach to apologetics. And now it's time to do a critique of it. And since Bert worked at the Maxwell Institute for two and a half years, he now has a lot of very strong feelings about. Or strong feelings or opinions.

Bert Fuller [00:05:04] I have a lot of strong feelings about a lot of things.

John Dehlin [00:05:06] Yeah, he has opinions about, specifically about neo apologetics. He has critiques of neo apologetics, and he has experience from within Mormon apologetics and the Maxwell Institute. So that's why we're interviewing Bert. And we're also going to hear his story and his insight because it's definitely worth exploring. So I'm really excited about that. I want to welcome everyone who's joining us live on Facebook Live. We are going to have plenty of time for questions and comments. Please like this episode, please share it on your wall. If there's anyone you think has experience with Spencer Fluman, with the Maxwell Institute, with Daniel Peterson or Lewis Midgley or Apologetics. We want to get any of those insights here. So please message Facebook that this episode's happening and invite anyone to join us to make comments, to share impressions, to share experiences, because we just think it's so much more fun and interesting when these interviews are interactive. Just to take care of a tiny bit of business before we begin. These podcasts are made possible by people who donate to the Open Stories foundation and Warmer Stories Podcast. If you appreciate this programming, if you're not a donor, if you are a donor, thank you. If you're not a donor, please consider subscribing. We can't do this for free. We have an entire staff now with Amy Grubbs and Cody Layton and Sharon Price and myself who are trying to keep the nonprofit alive and sustainable and to plan for his future. So just know that you're your donations are tax deductible. We are transparent in our finances. We'll be releasing our end of year report very, very soon. And most importantly, we spend all that money, literally all of it, in support of our mission as a foundation, which is to inform people about Mormonism, to help people make informed decisions about their lives, and to provide people who are transitioning away from Mormon orthodoxy, either towards progressive or liberal Mormonism or outside of Mormonism, to provide them with support and community workshops, retreats, content that will be meaningful. So please support us. We do have several events coming up in the future. Again, we have TARA WESTOVER Coming March 29 here to Salt Lake City. She will be doing a book signing and a live Q and A with our audience. So please come to that. It's at First Unitarian Church in downtown Salt Lake City. We also have workshops and retreats coming up in June 8th through 10th. We're going to have one of those amazing Mormon stories retreats in Salt Lake City that really does transform lives, save marriages, help people raising their kids, finding community, helping them communicate with believing family members. It's just they're phenomenal events, rated 4.8 or 4.9 out of 5 every time. And people say it really transforms their lives. So we've got Salt Lake City, June 8th through 10th. We've got Houston, July 13th through 15th. We've got Idaho Falls August 10th through 11th. And then we've got the cruise October 24th through 28th, which is going to be more fun, just requested by our listeners, a lot less clinical or pastoral. And then finally, if you want us to bring a workshop or a retreat to your area, you just have to reach out mormonstoriesmail.com We've heard a lot about Denver and Colorado Springs, Fort Collins area, wanting another event. We just did Phoenix and Las Vegas. Those were phenomenal. Actually, we did Phoenix, but we think we could probably do las Vegas again. St. George was great. We also want to do Boise, but if you want to bring a workshop or retreat, we just need your help organizing it, so please consider that. All right, so without any further ado, again, we want to welcome everyone and Bert Fuller, we want to welcome you back to Mormon Stories podcast.

Bert Fuller's Background and Upbringing

Bert Fuller [00:09:10] Thank you for having me.

John Dehlin [00:09:11] Yeah, it's great to have you. So let's begin by talking a little bit about your. Your Mormon upbringing and the extent to which the church played a role in your formative years. Sure.

Bert Fuller [00:09:25] My father's a pioneer stock, and as I always understood it growing up, his grandmother, who was born in the year 1900 around Colonia Juarez, I assume into some kind of polygamous family. I was born in 1988, and when I was very little in San Dimas, California. We lived right next door to my dad's parents. And my great grandma was getting pretty old, so she was there as well. So I kind of feel like that pioneer past was very present for me. My mom was born and raised in Oklahoma as a Presbyterian, and then she joined the LDS Church, as I think she might have been 25, 26, somewhere around there, served a mission, met my dad at ou. They got married and. And I've got two older sisters, one younger sister, and we grew up for the first part of my life in San Dimas, California. Then we moved for four years or so, lived in Oklahoma, moved there around the same time as the Oklahoma City bombing. And then when we moved back to California, it was to the high desert in San Bernardino County. So I was 11 and grew up in Apple Valley, California, and attended middle school and high school there. And I felt like, in terms of my conscious, aware awareness of the church, that didn't start until I was in Apple Valley as a. As a high school student particularly.

John Dehlin [00:11:09] Okay, so. So the religious dynamics. Anything you're able to say about the religious dynamics with your parents or early, early in those years, were your parents orthodox? Were they mixed?

Bert Fuller [00:11:20] Well, here's one story I remember. I said it was high school when I started becoming consciously aware of things. And in a Sunday school class, somebody said that you're not supposed to eat out on Sunday. And I didn't know that was a rule. And the way my mom tells it, I don't remember this. Apparently I came out of the class. Church was over. I see her in the hallway. She's just getting out of Relief Society. And I say, just in front of everybody, mom, did you know we're not supposed to eat out on Sundays? Because I didn't think anything of it. I thought, oh, well, if I didn't know, then maybe they don't know. And so I didn't feel like we were particularly orthodox. But the thing that was most orthodox is that we did attend every week. I don't remember a single. I don't remember ever missing church two Sundays in a row. Like, I might have missed it once because I was sick or we were traveling or something like that, but I never remembered missing twice. I mean, it's just something you did every Sunday. So.

John Dehlin [00:12:21] Okay. And so religion is pretty important in your family?

Bert Fuller [00:12:25] Yeah, growing up. Yeah. Yeah, I'd say so on both sides. Right. And so my Presbyterian side, because, I mean, spoiler alert, I don't go. I don't attend the LDS Church anymore. But so they, they were understanding of that, but they wanted. They were very concerned that I still believed in God or that I, you know, I didn't kind of give up faith altogether. And so, yeah, I'd say that religion was just an important part of my extended family fabric. Yeah, I think that's fair.

Intellectual and Spiritual Awakening in High School

John Dehlin [00:12:57] Okay, so you. It seems like you kind of had a Mormon intellectual and maybe even spiritual awakening kind of in high school.

Bert Fuller [00:13:04] Yeah. Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:13:05] How did that happen?

Bert Fuller [00:13:07] Well, first thing is I go to early morning seminary first day, and they say you got to read your scriptures every day. I didn't know that people read the scriptures. I just thought they were around long enough. Sort of like Bill Murray on Groundhog Day. He's like, I am a God. You know, he's just around long enough, you start, it sort of seeps in by osmosis. And I'd always been a good student, so I was like, okay, I'll read the Scriptures. But I did read the Scriptures, the Book of Mormon, primarily on and off as a freshman. But it wasn't until my. The fall of my sophomore year where I felt really kind of depressed and unhappy with where I was spiritually. And I wanted to figure that out. And when I spoke with my bishop, he gave me the advice that he was a convert as well. Just reading the scriptures daily and saying your prayers daily. He's like, yeah, you'll still have two bad hair days a month, but that can really make a difference. And I took that seriously. And so, so from the time I was 15 till just the last few months, I read my scriptures and prayed every single day. I mean, you miss some days obviously, but probably on an average between 30 and 60 minutes every day for 13 years. And when I started, I became aware very quickly that I did not know anything about what the scriptures actually said. Because my first time through the Book of Mormon, the thing that hit me the strongest was when King Benjamin said, if you see like a homeless person or a beggar, it's not your place to judge how they got there, it's your place to help them. And that was the opposite of what I had been taught by the church, by my family, by school, by tv, by just friends. In my experience, I'm not speaking for everybody's that, you know, I was 14 at the time. My experience was limited, obviously. And so when I realized that my understanding of the world could be turned completely upside down, I stopped assuming that I or I didn't have assumptions or pretensions that I understood like who Jesus was or what the doctrine was or Joseph Smith or church organizations. So yeah, I just devoured this stuff because I really wanted to understand it.

John Dehlin [00:15:31] Yeah, so what, what, you know, how did you form and kind of, what, what did you build during that intellectual and spiritual awakening? What type of gospel worldview did you put together?

Bert Fuller [00:15:44] That's a good question. So for me, always the, the basis was scripture and personal revelation. And so I read that always. But by the time I'd graduated high school, I'd read the New Testament, the Book of Mormon several times. I'd read the Doctrine and Covenants, read the Old Testament, so I'd read the entire standard works by the time I had graduated high school, and I continued to do so. But I also listened to those Truman Madsen lectures on Joseph Smith. My brother in law gave them to me once he got home from his mission. And I read Rough Stone Rolling as a freshman at byu. It had just come out a few months before, but I also read a lot of Bruce McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith, James Talmadge, John Widzo, Hugh Nibley. I just read a lot. To me, it felt like a lot because growing up I'd never really read much at all. I'd rather play video games or something like that. And so the takeaway that I got was a strange mixture because I was really piecing it together myself. I didn't feel like I belonged to some camp, you know, like somebody might be more of a McConkie Mormon, whereas somebody might be more of a, like a sterling McMurran Mormon or something like that. But I never felt like that. I was just. My approach was always like, take what is good, leave what is bad. Which is kind of the missionary mentality that George Albert Smith said to new converts, and which I appreciated because my mom received a lot of good from her Presbyterian upbringing. And it seemed very reasonable to me. And so if I ever read something and I didn't like it because Hugh Nibley said it, and I didn't dislike it because Bruce McConkey said it or whatever, I just cared about what it was and then test it that way. And so I felt like it was. My worldview was very hodgepodge, but it was. It was very individualistic. You know, I valued personal revelation and personal searching, but it wasn't anti community. It was very pro community. Right. Like we need each other because salvation is individual and exaltation is communal. We need each other, but we don't need each other to all be the same. We need each other to be ourselves. And then working in concert, like, I felt like that's the. The picture that I. That I developed. Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:18:21] And so in what ways would your beliefs and behaviors have been sort of normal, orthodox, versus sort of unorthodox? Well, say up before your mission?

Bert Fuller [00:18:32] Before my mission. I mean, maybe this is weird to say, but I think even just reading the scriptures every day was pretty heterodox. I feel like most people don't do that. And so there's kind of like an orthodox level where it's like, oh, this is what we should be doing. But then there's an orthoprax level of this is what we're actually doing. So maybe it was heteropraxis or something like that for me to be studying as much as I was, because I found that that's kind of unusual. But I remember taking very seriously anything that general authority said. I didn't just assume it was right, but I felt like it was. I did assume that it was worth taking seriously. And then I would test ideas out with friends or family members or whatever. What do you think about this? Or what do you think about that? And it was. It became apparent to me very quickly that. Excuse me. That people would agree or disagree with something for reasons I didn't find compelling. Like I read the Miracle of Forgiveness, right? And in it, Spencer Kimball says women shouldn't wear. I think he says they shouldn't wear pants. Or maybe he says shorts. I don't remember. Just in public or something like that. And so I asked my bishop at BYU and his wife it actually turned out being Truman Madsen's son, which I thought was, like, providential, because Truman Madsen was so influential on me as a teenager. I asked him, what do they think about that? And they're like, oh, well, that was just his culture at the time, you know, and that's pretty undeniable, satisfying for me as an explanation, but it would happen all over the place. Like, I'd listen to a Bruce McConkey talk where he'd say, you're not supposed to have a personal relationship with Jesus. And at the time, I felt like I understood where he was coming from. And then if I talked to people, like, what do you think about that? And they would just feel, like, deeply offended by it. And I wondered why, because my high school there was a lot of evangelicals, and they were all about, like, having a personal relationship with Jesus. And I was taught we were the one true church. Like, I believed that very deeply. And how could we be the one true church if all you need is a personal relationship with Jesus and you need to, you know, accept him in your heart or whatever? And so I thought that this doctrine or this idea was very flimsy, and it didn't res. You know, So, I mean, now I'm to a point where I just, like, don't particularly care what LDS general authorities say, but at the time, I very much did. Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:21:03] So in terms of, like, anthropomorphic God, would you have believed that?

Bert Fuller [00:21:06] Yeah, sure.

Bert Fuller [00:21:07] Yeah. Why not?

John Dehlin [00:21:07] And literal resurrection? Yeah, of course.

Bert Fuller [00:21:09] Yeah, sure.

John Dehlin [00:21:10] Atonement. And how would you have viewed Joseph Smith? Did you have a nuanced view of Joseph Smith at the time?

Bert Fuller [00:21:15] So I. I really had two sources of learning about Joseph Smith because I didn't assume that anybody around me was right in what they said about Joseph Smith because they were wrong about the King Benjamin thing. And so I didn't assume that. Like, whatever people told me, I'd be like, okay, I'll look into that. And that's been my always been my attitude. And so I had two sources. Number one was those Truman Madsen lectures. I think he gave a series of eight, and then they were so successful, he gave an additional series of eight. And, you know, that's very much sort of the heroic, boyish, innocent type Joseph Smith. And then as a freshman at byu, I read Rough Stone Rolling, like I said. And I remember feeling a little let down by it. Not because Joseph Smith is. How do we want to phrase it? A morally complex figure in some respects. It wasn't that. I just cared like I just wanted to know, like, who he was. And I wasn't in a mood for judging him, like saying, don't do this or don't do that or whatever. I just want to know what he did. And. And so, yeah, I learned a bunch of stuff like that he had wine or that he was polygamous or this or that. But I didn't really feel affected by it. I don't know. I think that reflects poorly on me, but I'm just. That's just how it was. That's just the truth.

John Dehlin [00:22:50] So you were pretty. I mean, this sounds a little bit precocious.

Bert Fuller [00:22:54] Yeah, yeah, I'm extremely precocious and pretentious. I've been called both of those things many times. Yes. And I think it's accurate. I don't think people are wrong when they describe me in these ways. Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:23:02] So for a high school kid to be listening to the Truman Madsen tapes or learning about Joseph Smith and wine and reading, like you said, taking the scripture seriously.

Bert Fuller [00:23:11] Right?

John Dehlin [00:23:12] Yeah. That's abnormal.

Bert Fuller [00:23:13] Right. And I remember, I quite enjoyed seminary, actually, and I had wonderful seminary teachers all four years. And it got to the point where my senior year, that was Old Testament, and I was reading it at the time. My teacher, who's just the sweetest. I love her. If I could. Can I say her name? Lori Faler. Lori Failor. She's just so wonderful, you know? And she would prepare a lesson, like, it would be on the Book of Daniel or something, and I would. And we. She'd be teaching the lesson out of the manual, and I'd ask a question, and she never, ever shut me down. Never shut me down. But she would. She just said, I knew as I was preparing this lesson, you would ask about, you know, like, the guy with the writing on the wall of the temple or see, and she's just like. And I wish that I could help you understand it more. I just don't. And she was always very, like, upfront about that, and. And she was really complimentary of. She's like, how do you remember this and that and whatever. And to me, it just. I've only ever lived my own life, so it didn't seem abnormal. Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:24:16] Okay, so you. You. It sounds like this studying as a high school kid didn't lead to a faith crisis for you.

Bert Fuller [00:24:22] No, no, of course not. Yeah, because. Because for me, my faith was not handed to me. For me, I began with the premise like, okay, I am going to study this out in my mind, pray about it, taste the fruit, all of that, you know, jazz, and I'm going to keep the good and let go of the bad. And so, no, I didn't have a faith crisis, because I didn't. I mean, in a way, you could say that I was a little like. Like a. Like a nihilist as a kid or something. Like, I didn't have faith in anything. You know, I just. I started developing faith, but it was always on my own terms. Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:25:00] Okay.

Bert Fuller [00:25:00] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:25:01] So was there a moment where you, like, did the Moroni 10:4 thing and prayed to know if the church was true? Like, wanted to really know?

Bert Fuller [00:25:11] I mean, I did it because they told me to, but it. But I never had special experiences with that that I could talk about. No, it was. It was much more like spiritual illumination that I experienced. Sometimes it was the flash in the pan, but most of the time it was just like the rising of the sun, you know, very subtle. But the difference between day and night is obviously clear when you consider them both. It was more like that.

John Dehlin [00:25:35] Okay. Yeah. And some of the intellectual concerns that maybe you would have stumbled onto later, like historicity, the Book of Mormon.

Bert Fuller [00:25:43] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:25:43] Book of Abraham, polyandry.

Bert Fuller [00:25:45] Yeah, yeah.

John Dehlin [00:25:46] You know, racism, sexism, homophobia. Would any of that have occurred to you? And if. How did you avoid reading the Book of Mormon closely and not starting to have those.

Bert Fuller [00:25:56] Yes. Yeah, yeah, yeah. As far as historicity went, I was always of the opinion that the Book of Mormon mattered more as a source of spiritual guidance and enlightenment. And I. I assumed the historicity because that seemed valid given what I was taught growing up, but I never investigated it because I was never preoccupied with it. I didn't. Yeah. I just didn't care.

John Dehlin [00:26:28] Yeah.

Bert Fuller [00:26:28] I didn't care.

John Dehlin [00:26:29] And the Book of Mormon didn't trip up. The archaeological or historical stuff didn't pop out to you when you were reading it?

Bert Fuller [00:26:35] No, no, I don't think so. 1. Because I was just, like, profoundly ignorant. Right. Like, I never read books or had any sense of what is taken, you know, largely for granted, you know?

John Dehlin [00:26:45] Yeah.

Bert Fuller [00:26:46] You know, so he just believed it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And because there was a quote that I heard by Joseph Smith, and I think I heard it first through Hugh Nibley, but he said that a man would never be damned for believing too much. Right. He'd be damned for not believing enough, not having faith. And so I really liked that, because what for me, it meant in practical terms was, I'm not going to assume the worst about a thing. I will take it on its own terms. And this is actually A type of. Do you know what I mean when I say, like hermeneutic, like an approach to interpretation that a Mormon guy named Wayne Booth, who's actually. Let's see, it would be my wife's grandfather's cousin.

John Dehlin [00:27:33] Passed away in the past.

Bert Fuller [00:27:34] Yeah, right. Yeah. And. And he was born in American Fork, but became like a major literary critic, and that's my field, literary criticism. He became a major literary critic with the University of Chicago. And he had kind of a little saying. He said, we have to first seek to understand before we overstand. Right. And that was always my approach. And then I forget who it was. It's a non Mormon guy. I'd have to look it up. Richard Bushman is fond of quoting this, but he talks about Mormon hermeneutic of generosity. Right. Which is. Which is in counterweight to what was known as the hermeneutic of suspicion, which was, you know, dominates literary theory and criticism for many, many decades. And so that was an attitude or approach I always appreciated. So when it comes to these issues that you're talking about, I always felt like I'm not going to have a hard opinion about something unless I look into it. But once I look into it, and I'm still open to people correcting my opinions, but if the people trying to correct my opinions clearly have not looked into it as deeply as me, then as far as I'm concerned, they do not carry the same weight and authority that they think they might. So that's very important to me. I'm open to it. I'm open to being corrected.

Bert Fuller [00:28:54] I.

Bert Fuller [00:28:54] But make sure you're in a position to correct. You know, that's. I'm sensitive about that.

John Dehlin [00:28:59] Sure. So you served a mission?

Mission to Poland and Early Adult Faith

Bert Fuller [00:29:02] I did. To Poland, yeah.

John Dehlin [00:29:04] Anything you want to share about that?

Bert Fuller [00:29:05] I loved it. You know, I mean, it was tough. I think anybody that has a mission knows that it's tough.

John Dehlin [00:29:09] That was post lech. How do you pronounce that?

Bert Fuller [00:29:13] Lech.

John Dehlin [00:29:14] The guy who sort of liberated Poland or is known. Am I getting the wrong country?

Bert Fuller [00:29:19] Well, I don't. You're not getting the wrong country.

John Dehlin [00:29:21] Okay.

Bert Fuller [00:29:21] But I, at the time, like, all up until about, like three or four years ago, I was always very apolitical. Like, it was just not something I knew anything about. So.

John Dehlin [00:29:31] Yeah, for those of us Cold War people that saw Eastern Europe fall, that was a name that popped out of my mind.

Bert Fuller [00:29:38] Yeah. So I served. I entered the MTC. I think it was June 10th or 12th of 2007. And then, yeah, we. I got home, July 1st of 2009.

John Dehlin [00:29:49] Okay.

Bert Fuller [00:29:49] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:29:50] And you enjoyed it. Anything worth mentioning about your mission that would play into your story experiences or doubts or questions or, you know, anti Mormons you ran into? Anything like that?

Bert Fuller [00:30:00] Well, I mean, it's. Anti Mormon discourse in Poland is pretty pathetic as you might imagine. So I think folks that serve English speaking missions run into that a lot more. But for me, okay, here was something that was very important to me when I was at BYU that, that first year, academic year of 06 07, my first semester, I signed up for a couple religion classes because I liked so much. And one of them was world religions. Roger. I forget his last name. Keller. That's the guy.

John Dehlin [00:30:32] I took him too.

Bert Fuller [00:30:33] Oh, did you really? Yeah, he was, he might be retired now, but he did it for many, many years.

John Dehlin [00:30:36] He wrote the manual.

Bert Fuller [00:30:36] Yeah, yeah, he was one of the class.

John Dehlin [00:30:38] I thought it was a great class.

Bert Fuller [00:30:39] Yeah, I thought so too. He was convert to Mormonism. And that class taught me this sort of openness towards other religions which I wasn't necessarily opposed to, but I really got to appreciate like the, the beauty and the interest of studying comparative religion and all that kind of thing. And so when I got to Poland and Poland's, I think polled at the most religiously country, religious country in Europe, I know there were a lot of missionaries who like just hated the Catholic Church for this or that other reason. And for me I was like, I don't have a problem with the Catholic Church until I learn there's a problem. Like I'm not going to assume that, you know, all these things you're saying are so bad. And so I remember being a trainee and you know, shout out to my trainer because he was very patient, I think, as most missionary trainers need to be. But he was very good and very wonderful and patient with me and I was not an easy companion to have. But I remember we were just walking and you know, he was kind of dissatisfied with the overwhelming presence of Catholicism. And I liked the architecture and the things like that. And he pointed out that gargoyle on churches, like, why would you have monsters there? And, and to me, this like didn't bug me, you know, but it seemed to bug a lot of other people.

John Dehlin [00:31:59] The gargoyles didn't bug you?

Bert Fuller [00:32:00] No, I thought it was cool, man.

John Dehlin [00:32:01] Yeah, just baroque architecture.

Bert Fuller [00:32:03] Yeah, like, I just thought like, I like. Well, I kind of have an appetite for like all sorts of strange things or differences or something that doesn't quite fit. It's like, that's a good Question, why are there monsters on churches? You know, But I. But for me, it's not. Yeah. It doesn't feel at first blush, like, offensive. It feels at first blush, like, kind of weird and interesting. Like, let's look into this.

John Dehlin [00:32:28] And we should say you're getting your PhD in what?

Bert Fuller [00:32:30] Medieval studies. So that's.

John Dehlin [00:32:32] Yeah.

Bert Fuller [00:32:32] And that was kind of an accident, actually. It just happened that way. Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:32:36] Okay. So. So anything else about your mission that's worth mentioning?

Bert Fuller [00:32:42] I mean, you know, I kept a journal every day and there was a custom book binder who turned my journal into this beautiful book. And I didn't miss a day, I don't think. You know, and so it's the. My journal is like 700 plus pages. I could talk about my mission for.

John Dehlin [00:33:00] Okay.

Bert Fuller [00:33:00] Yeah. Ever.

John Dehlin [00:33:01] But I don't feel like your faith transition and apologetics.

Bert Fuller [00:33:06] Well, I mean, I'll tell this because I just thought of this story recently. My mission president, he was from Denmark again, he was a convert to the church as well. And I think it was near my exit interview. I had a doctrinal question for him and I just said, you know, president, can I ask you a question? And his response was like, my seminary teacher. It was. He said, well, you can ask it, but I'm not going to, like, presume that I know the answer. And it was a question about, like, blood, kind of the doctrine of blood. How is it that Jesus's garments are made white in blood? Like, this doesn't make any sense to me. And, you know, he offered his opinion and. But nothing authoritative, you know. And so this is how I thought. I always had good priesthood leaders. I always had good teachers. I always had people who I felt like encouraged my curiosity and admitted their own ignorance if they couldn't answer a question. So my experiences were always very positive.

John Dehlin [00:34:03] Okay.

Bert Fuller [00:34:03] Yeah.

Path to the Maxwell Institute

John Dehlin [00:34:04] So you get home from your mission and maybe talk us, you know, take us to the point where you started getting interested in the Maxwell Institute.

Bert Fuller [00:34:13] Okay, sure. Yeah. I was like, broker than broke, as a lot of returned missionaries are. And they just happened to be opening up an In N Out Burger in Orem that same fall that I got home. Well, I worked at In N Out as a high school student in California. And so my old boss, he had moved up here to be a manager, and he got me an interview and I got the job. And it was so nice because then I could actually, you know, like, eat food and pay my rent and whatever. And at the same time, my wife and I met. So we met October of 09. And then we got married in June 2010.

John Dehlin [00:34:50] This wasn't that long ago, man.

Bert Fuller [00:34:52] Well, what is it, 2018 now? Yeah, I've been married like, nine years ago. Yeah, yeah.

John Dehlin [00:34:58] You're at BYU working for in N Out.

Bert Fuller [00:35:00] Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's true. And a lot of. Yeah, lots change, but it's really true. And. And so I always worked in and out to pay the bills, but I always wanted other jobs, things that could help me leverage a career. And my wife and I, we really had to have that deep talk of, am I going to go the law school route or am I going to go the scholar route? And she boiled it down to, there's a million reasons why the law school route is better, but I know that you going the scholar route is what you need to do. And she was very supportive, and she still is. And so that's the route that I took. And I think my first semester back from my mission, because I was an English major, I signed up for Zaina Peterson's class. And that's Hugh Nibley's youngest daughter. She's a medievalist, and I loved it. She's zany and fun and wonderful. And then that next semester I took her Chaucer class. And so I kind of feel like my interest in Mormon stuff just kind of accidentally led me into a career path for medieval studies. And it so happens that the other medievalist I worked really closely with in that department, Miranda Wilcox, also publishes on Mormon topics. So both her and Zina do. Miranda was one of the editors of. I think the book was called Standing Apart. And it's sort of revisiting the apostasy narrative. Right. And that's something that a medievalist would be very interested in, of course, because you actually read these texts and you realize, like, oh, the Medieval Catholic Church. I mean, sure, it has problems, but it's not like this Evil Empire or something like that. And so just revisiting a lot of that. But, yeah, I'm working at In N Out. All told, including my high school years and BYU years, I ended up working for In N Out for a total of four years. And through most of that time at byu, I was trying to find other work, something that could help me leverage more into a career direction. Well, it never happened that way. So I took a leap of faith and I just submitted my two weeks at In N Out. I'm going to guess this was the spring of 2012. I'd have to double check the dates, but that sounds right to me. And I was just going to decide, okay, well, once a day, I'm just going to try to apply or find one job, and I'll just keep doing that until I get one. And I get it. At my first day, I get to work with one of my high school buddies at the service station at byu, which was fine. I took a pay cut, but it was a change of pace, and I liked it. And I could do homework. I could study Greek while I was there, which was awesome. And so to me, it was a better move, because in n out, you're busy 100% of the time at this job. I was busy, like, 10% of the time, and I could use 90% of that time to study Greek or whatever that would help me leverage my career as a scholar. And after I'd been there five months, my cousin, my very close cousin, said, bert, you know these things that you're always talking about, you got to meet my neighbor. You got to meet my neighbor. And so he introduced me to his neighbor, who was Christian Heal and Christian. I did bring a resume because Spencer asked me to, but I didn't know there was, like, a job. I just sat down to meet with Christian, and Christian was like, all right, well, when can you start? And he's at the Maxwell Institute, and so he hires me.

John Dehlin [00:38:32] What does he do at the Maxwell Institute?

Bert Fuller [00:38:33] So at the time, okay, this might not make a lot of sense, or maybe a lot of people don't know this, but the Maxwell Institute is an umbrella institution, and within that umbrella, it has a lot of autonomous or kind of discrete research initiatives. Now, the exact makeup of it today has shifted somewhat, and I'm not as familiar with it, but at the time, you had something like the Laura F. Willis center for Book of Mormon Studies. You had Sea Part, which was the center for the Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts, which is what Christian. He was the director of. And that's who I worked with.

John Dehlin [00:39:11] Is that where Morgan works?

Bert Fuller [00:39:12] No, Morgan works with Mehdi, which is the middle. I think it's the Middle Eastern Text Initiative, which is what Dan Peterson, I think, founded. And then. And then. Then it's a. It's a publishing house as well. So you have the production team. You also have the endowed chair, which is John Gee. It's. I think it's the Robert Gay Chair endowed chair. And I don't know if it's specifically for Egyptology, but that would make sense, given John Gee's expertise.

John Dehlin [00:39:39] Kind of just a chair to protect the Book of Abraham. I mean, is that fair to say? I mean, well, I Don't think that reductionistic.

Bert Fuller [00:39:45] Well, it's. It's mildly reductionistic because I don't know how many people like, really use John Gee as a go to. For defending their own faith nowadays. I think back in the heyday of

John Dehlin [00:39:55] farms, it was like Spencer Fleming mentioned it in his inner. In his. In the recent.

Bert Fuller [00:40:00] What did he say when.

John Dehlin [00:40:02] When he was doing an inter. When he was. So I had a. Just recently, the Miller couple, which I

The Maxwell Institute Under Daniel Peterson

Bert Fuller [00:40:10] didn't get a chance to listen to,

John Dehlin [00:40:11] which I'm sad about. They. They were. They shared with us their experience speaking with Spencer Fluman, who heads the Maxwell Institute now.

Bert Fuller [00:40:19] Right. Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:40:19] And yeah, in that interview, Spencer refers. He says We've got a PhD down the hall who went to Yale and he's super familiar with the Book of Abraham and he could go into depth with you.

Bert Fuller [00:40:30] He said this?

John Dehlin [00:40:30] Absolutely. That's a little surprising to me. Why are you laughing?

Bert Fuller [00:40:34] Well, because you don't take he seriously

John Dehlin [00:40:37] as a scholar who can really defend the Book of Abraham.

Bert Fuller [00:40:40] Well, like, I don't have a particular opinion as far as that question goes, but like, look, this is public knowledge that before I was hired, there was a fallout between Dan Peterson and the Maxwell Institute leadership at the time. And I don't know what I can and can't say, but my understanding was it had something to do with you and your podcast. And without getting into all of that, people were really glad that the dust settled, you know, because, look, the people at the Maxwell Institute, genuinely, most of them, like, almost all of them, don't want to do apologetics. They just want to do scholarship. Like, that is. I mean, that was absolutely my experience when I was there. That's what they want to do. And so they felt like, you know, focusing on kind of attacking people who are detracting from the church or whatever was unbek. Number one, unbecoming of a university research institute. But number two, kind of a waste of time.

John Dehlin [00:41:43] Like, like, how about counterproductive?

Bert Fuller [00:41:45] Yeah, I mean, very counterproductive as well. And, and so, and you're saying people

John Dehlin [00:41:51] in the Maxwell Institute that you've spoken with didn't like that that was going on.

Bert Fuller [00:41:55] Yeah, that seems very clear. And you can read this. Like, I mean, you can read this on the. I don't need secret knowledge to be able to, you know, come to that opinion.

John Dehlin [00:42:03] And I, and I, I'll just break in. I think this history is kind of important and it does relate to me. But, you know, we've talked about this in prior episodes, but for those who don't know. You know, the Maxwell Institute was farms before it was the Maxwell Institute.

Bert Fuller [00:42:16] Kind of. Yeah, kind of.

John Dehlin [00:42:18] Right. And I think it was Hugh Nibley who kind of set that precedent with, with Von Brody of attacking.

Bert Fuller [00:42:25] That's right, anyone who's, that's critics.

John Dehlin [00:42:27] And so then Daniel Peterson comes on, Lou Midgley comes on. People like Greg Smith came on. And while Peterson was heading the institute, he was commissioning things like the 100 or 200 page hit pieces that were done against me. They would make personal critiques of Brett Metcalfe, insults of other scholars, the attacks on, you know, Simon Southerton when he did his DNA work. And it was just this long, multiple decades long history of maligning anyone who happens to ask a question that they deem inappropriate and. Yes. So when I caught wind from a source within the Maxwell Institute that Daniel Peterson and Greg Prince and Midgley were.

Bert Fuller [00:43:12] No, not Greg Prince. Right.

John Dehlin [00:43:13] Greg Smith were working on this piece about me, I let Marlon Jensen and Elder Holland know.

Bert Fuller [00:43:21] I'm glad you did, by the way. And I think a lot of people at the Maxwell Institute were really glad that you did because they were. I mean, they just wanted to do their scholarship. They're kind of fed up with all these shenanigans, right?

John Dehlin [00:43:30] Yeah. And my argument was, first of all, I'm helping you guys. You know, Greg, you know, we pulled together that survey that the Church used to justify Marlon Jensen used to help justify the essays that later come out. We're the ones who surveyed the 3,000 non believing disaffected Mormons. We put that research together and Marlon Judson literally asked us to sit on those results so that he could use that research to convince the brethren to do the essays. So after having helped the Church so much, I'm like, you're really going to attack me? Like you're going to write you're going to use tithing dollars at byu, my alma mater, to try and attack me personally.

Bert Fuller [00:44:11] And I would add, one little important, important shift is, okay, clearly we don't know where the money comes from to fund certain things. But my understanding is all Maxwell Institute initiatives are donor funded. But that doesn't make it better in my mind, it makes it worse because they, you know, people were basically receiving money to attack specific individuals that sometimes donors said, I want you to attack this specific individual. And I think that was the case in your case, but this is hearsay.

John Dehlin [00:44:46] Donors gave money to the Maxwell Institute to go after me.

Bert Fuller [00:44:49] That's, that's my understanding.

John Dehlin [00:44:50] Yeah, I've heard that in Fact, I know family members of the. One of the main couples that gave money.

Bert Fuller [00:44:54] Okay, so that's pretty seedy.

John Dehlin [00:44:56] It's just seedy and gross.

Bert Fuller [00:44:58] And, and that's why the, the leadership of the Maxwell Institute didn't want to have anything to do with that, because.

John Dehlin [00:45:03] Meaning who?

Bert Fuller [00:45:04] So, like, I mean, everybody who was at the Maxwell Institute after that took. After Dan Peterson was fired. And by the way, I've only met Dan Peterson once, and he was really nice to me. He doesn't know. He doesn't know me from Adam. You know, super friendly. Yeah, yeah. But so, of course, Jerry Bradford, Morgan Davis, and I don't know who did what, but I know that the. I know who the people were that were there when I was there who were happy that the institute could focus much more on scholarship rather than apologetics. Carl Griffin, Christian Heel. I don't know what Paul Hoskisson's feelings were on it, but he wasn't there very long. And then Brian Hoglid came, and he's kind of like this as well. I know. Blair Hodges. I mean, like, pretty much everybody that was there were, like, really happy. Like, okay, we can focus on, like, you know, making this a more kind of mainstream research institute for religious scholarship.

Peterson's Dismissal and the Institute's Transformation

John Dehlin [00:46:02] And as I understand it, they asked Dan Peterson not to publish those pieces. He threw a tantrum on the Internet and was fired.

Bert Fuller [00:46:10] I mean, I, that's what I, that's. That's what makes sense to me.

John Dehlin [00:46:13] Okay.

Bert Fuller [00:46:13] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:46:14] So.

Bert Fuller [00:46:14] So, well, anyway, so coming.

Bert Fuller [00:46:16] So.

Bert Fuller [00:46:16] So with this background, the, the difference about John Gee is that John Gee has an endowed chair. And the way an endowed chair works at a university is that a donor will, you know, put up like 5 million or 20 million or whatever. And then the, the person in that chair, I mean, depends on how you set the founding papers, but they live on the interest of that money or whatever. And that's normally how an endowment works. And so if you become an endowed chair, you are an institution unto yourself. And so you have this institution, which is the, you know, John Geese position within the umbrella of the Maxwell Institute. Now, I think it's pretty clear that John Gee was much more in favor of the Dan Peterson, Bill Hamlin style type thing. Now, I don't know about his personal relationship with any of these individuals, but in terms of just like, which kind of side you'd associate that person with, like, John Guy was definitely more. But, you know, it's not like they have the power to fire him. Right. The way that they can fire Dan Peterson as an editor of one of their journals. You can do that. And so my entire time that I was there, I hardly ever saw John Key and like actually in the office every once in a while. And, you know, I did interact with him. I'd be surprised if he recognized me, though. I never got the impression that I made an IM like that I made an impression on him.

John Dehlin [00:47:44] But why are we surprised that Spencer would refer to him as an apologetic source?

Bert Fuller [00:47:49] Right? Well, because would be like Spencer referring to Dan Peterson as an apologetic source.

John Dehlin [00:47:56] Like what way?

Bert Fuller [00:47:57] Because it's like, look, you're referring to somebody. Now, Spencer wasn't part of any of this. Right. He was in the, I think the history department at the time. At the time, yeah. As far as I know, I don't think he had anything to do with this. But it would be, it would be as if the people at the Maxwell Institute at the time who were instrumental in removing Dan Peterson from their midst were then to say, a few years down the road, oh, why don't you use Dan Peterson as a resource for understanding? Like how, like, our faith is true or something like that. Like, that doesn't make any sense, right?

John Dehlin [00:48:32] John Gee. What?

Bert Fuller [00:48:33] Because John Gee is more in that, like that camp of Dan Peterson and those folks.

John Dehlin [00:48:38] So you're saying not a credible scholar when it comes to defending the historicity.

Bert Fuller [00:48:43] No, it's not. It's not that he's not a credible scholar because, number one, I'm not an Egyptologist, so I can't speak. And as far as I understand, he is internationally recognized for work that he does on Egyptology. But as far as the Book of Abraham goes, that's a separate issue. I think it's bizarre that people whose tactics and their concerns and their investments, which are completely antithetical to what the Maxwell Institute is trying to do today, would be leaned on as a resource for somebody who doesn't know what to do with their faith. It would be like, okay, so after there was a parting of the ways between the Maxwell Institute and Dan Peterson started the Mormon interpreter. Are you familiar with this?

John Dehlin [00:49:27] Yes.

Bert Fuller [00:49:28] Okay, so it would be like, why would Spencer recommend going down the hall to talk to John Gee? Well, number one, he can do that because he knows that John Gee is not going to talk to this couple. Probably because he's, I mean, he's not the cuddliest of personalities. But number two, why doesn't he just recommend they read interpreter articles?

Bert Fuller [00:49:52] Right?

Bert Fuller [00:49:52] You know, like.

John Dehlin [00:49:53] Well, like, again, because they're not credible.

Bert Fuller [00:49:56] I mean, I mean, you don't want

John Dehlin [00:49:58] to say that, but that's kind of what you're saying.

Bert Fuller [00:50:00] Okay, well, look, I. I don't have a dog in their fight anymore as to which is credible and which isn't. Like, if the Maxwell Institute is Sunstone south, and if the Mormon interpreter is some kind of, like, I don't know, extremist publication, like, I don't have a dog in that fight right now. And so I don't want to say who's credible or who's not credible, but if I were in Spencer's position and I had the values that I understand him representing being the director of the Maxwell Institute, it doesn't make any sense for me personally to say, go and look at these people who are doing something like, in some ways, the opposite of what we're trying to do. That's my opinion.

John Dehlin [00:50:43] Which is what. What would the opposite be?

Bert Fuller [00:50:47] The opposite is sort of this distinction between that. That you've made between traditional apologetics and more neo apologetics. That would be.

John Dehlin [00:50:55] But he's not doing ad hominem stuff. So he's doing what just.

Bert Fuller [00:50:59] Is guy never done ad hominem stuff? Maybe.

John Dehlin [00:51:01] No. Maybe he has, but, I mean, he's most known for just trying to provide, I'll put it, you know, Egyptological sort of.

Bert Fuller [00:51:09] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:51:09] Justifications for.

Bert Fuller [00:51:11] So the Maxwell Institute is a publishing house. I think they're kind of scaling back on that right now, last I heard. So I don't know the current status. I got to be, you know, clear about what I know and what I don't know. But John Gee just published a book called An Introduction to the Book of Abraham. The Maxwell Institute did not publish it, the Religious Studies center did, which is the publishing house for religious education. Now, John Gee has published Book of Abraham stuff with the Maxwell Institute in the past, but that was before the parting of ways. So, like that. It's weird to me that you would recommend somebody to go consult with a person who you wouldn't even publish. That's weird to me. Okay.

John Dehlin [00:51:53] Right.

Bert Fuller [00:51:53] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:51:53] Okay. So back to you. You. So you're interviewing with this neighbor of your friend, and he pretty much offers you a job, is that right?

Bert Fuller [00:52:03] Oh, yeah, yeah. Christian Hill does. And it was awesome.

Bert Fuller [00:52:05] Oh.

Bert Fuller [00:52:05] And it was actually because I was working on a minor in editing. I also got hired at the Religious Studies center as an editor there. And so I worked there for a semester, but it ended up because when the summer came around, Christian said he had more money for me. And so I was like, I want to work full time for the Maxwell Institute, rather than splitting my attentions. And so I gave up the editing job and I just did the research job.

Bert's Work and Projects at the Maxwell Institute

John Dehlin [00:52:26] So what were the main projects you worked on during your time at the Maxwell Institute?

Bert Fuller [00:52:29] I had three main projects. The number one was, so the center for the Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts. Cpart, which Christian was the director of, Christian is an expert in ancient, what they call late antique. So kind of, you know, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th century Syriac literature and looking at Christian literature in the Syriac language. And that was his expertise. He wrote his dissertation on a Syriac retelling of the Joseph story from the book of Genesis. And so seapart has lots of research projects, including the digitization of Vatican manuscripts. I mean, there's tens of thousands of Vatican manuscripts. You know, they, I think they also. Sorry if I'm getting this wrong, but they played a huge part in the Dead Sea Scrolls project, which. And then another project that Christian had was the reception history. I can explain what that term means, the reception history of the Book of Genesis. And reception history just basically means like, instead of focusing on the time period in which the book was created, let's look at the impact of that book on theology, philosophy, art, institutions, whatever, over time. And so he hired me as a medievalist to look at the Book of Genesis in Anglo Saxon England. So the period about 600 AD to about 1100 AD. And that's what, that's what I spent most of my time doing.

John Dehlin [00:54:07] It seems like super cool experience.

Bert Fuller [00:54:08] Yeah, it was for an undergrad. Yeah, I was hired as an undergrad and then I worked as a graduate student there. It was amazing. And not only that, because Christian Heal was an amazing. I felt employer.

Bert Fuller [00:54:20] He.

Bert Fuller [00:54:21] He let me. He just said, look, this is the, this is the project. Kind of like a God in the book of Ether. I think I've heard Stephen Covey maybe even use this example before, you know, but he's like, okay, you need light, you know, you need light in the, in the boats. What are you gonna do? And so he brings the stones and God touches them. I felt like Christian was like that. He's like, look, this is what we're doing. Book of Genesis 600 to 1100 in England in Latin and Old English texts. What are you gonna do? Like, and he just left me into my advices and it was awesome. Like, I loved it. I felt it was one of the most formative experiences I had as a scholar. And then. And I ended up putting the research online and I've. I feel like I heard recently that CPART was Discontinued, which is a real shame, but I can get into that. And. And if it is, I don't know if my research is still on the Maxwell Institute website, but it was about that.

John Dehlin [00:55:16] So two things about this. Number one is it doesn't seem. This isn't what most people, they think, the Maxwell Institute, they think of apologetics.

Bert Fuller [00:55:22] Right.

John Dehlin [00:55:23] A ton of this stuff has nothing to do with apologetics.

Bert Fuller [00:55:25] Yeah, most of it does. Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:55:26] Most of it.

Bert Fuller [00:55:27] Right. Yeah, that's right.

Bert Fuller [00:55:27] And then.

John Dehlin [00:55:28] And then the second thing is, you wonder why the Church would want to pay so much money and time to invest in these sorts of things.

Bert Fuller [00:55:36] Okay. And to be clear, it's not the Church per se.

John Dehlin [00:55:38] Digitizing Vatican manuscripts, housing it in the maximum state.

Bert Fuller [00:55:42] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:55:43] You assume that it fits under the mission of the. Of BYU and the Church in some way, that it advances the values of the Church in some way.

Bert Fuller [00:55:51] Yeah, Well, I mean, something that is kind of hard to appreciate is that Mormons are different from other religious fundamentalists in the United States in that they really do value education. And now what that means, it manifests in different ways. But this is something that is like a core value of the culture and of the religion. And so I think it just falls into the mission of the Church as far as that's concerned. The second project that I worked on, which was very brief, I looked at libraries in the Carolingian period, so the reign of Charlemagne Christian wanted me to look into that, to help him out with something for a project he was working on. And then the last thing I did was, I don't remember if it was Christian Heel or Carl Griffin who contacted me first, but this was right before I went to the University of Toronto to start my PhD. They said, hey, we have an issue of our journal, the Studies in the Bible and Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, I think the journal was called. And we're going to kind of focus on Hugh Nibley for this issue. And Hugh Nibley had an unpublished book manuscript in the special collections of byu, excuse me, the Harold Bailey Library. And so it was my job to take that, a portion of that manuscript, probably like 25, 30 pages, and then go through all of the Greek and Latin and whatever other English sources that he was using to make this argument, because it was unpublished manuscript. He hadn't filled out all of the references and stuff. And then I had to do that and offer little commentary or translations or whatever. And then I wrote a little three or four page introduction. So that showed up in that issue. So those were the three projects That I did.

John Dehlin [00:57:42] So none of your work was apologetics in any way? No. Okay.

Bert Fuller [00:57:45] No.

John Dehlin [00:57:45] So did you have any experiences there? You know, for those who are interested in truth claims, for those who are interested in pro apologetics or neo apologetics or anti apologetics, any of the controversies that would sort of relate to someone having faith, not having faith, staying the church, leaving the church? Did you have any interactions or experiences during your time at the Maxwell Institute that would be interesting to those sorts of people?

Bert Fuller [00:58:11] Let me think about this. I mean, obviously they're concerned about the status of the church right now. Right. Because who. Like people who work at the Maxwell Institute. Now you'll get people who work. And that's not just because they work at byu, because you get people who work, like, in the engineering department that probably do know or care about this stuff that's going on, unless they have a personal, like, family member who's involved. And that has happened, you know. So with the Maxwell Institute, though, I think they do care about this stuff. I think they care about the fact that the, you know, a lot of faith crises are going on or whatever, faith transitions or what, you know, what have you. And so that's why they did start that miniseries. And I forget the. What. The title that they gave it, but the first book in it, if I remember correctly, was Letters to a Young

John Dehlin [00:59:01] Mormon out of Miller.

Bert Fuller [00:59:02] That's right. Yeah. And so. And. And also you get, like, they have some kinds of public outreach, like they have their podcast or they'll have. I think probably the most important thing is not the. The Maxwell Institute just houses the summer seminars that Richard Bushman or Terrell Gibbons that they do. But I don't think they, like, sponsor it. I think they just give a space for people to talk about it and stuff like that.

John Dehlin [00:59:39] Just describe that really quick. So what happens every year.

Bert Fuller [00:59:42] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:59:43] Promising young scholars.

Bert Fuller [00:59:45] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:59:45] Are brought to Provo.

Bert Fuller [00:59:47] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:59:47] Along with, like, Bushman or a Givens.

Bert Fuller [00:59:49] Yeah, that's right.

John Dehlin [00:59:50] Lead the seminar.

Bert Fuller [00:59:51] That's right.

John Dehlin [00:59:52] And everybody writes a paper.

Bert Fuller [00:59:55] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:59:55] And shares the paper.

Bert Fuller [00:59:56] That's right.

John Dehlin [00:59:57] And then they'll talk about ideas, you know, weekly. Is that.

Bert Fuller [01:00:02] Yeah. And I think. I don't know for sure, but the impression I always got was that Terrell and Richard used this as an opportunity to work with kind of bright young minds on a research project they were currently writing about. And then a lot of the research that the students came up with they were able to incorporate into, you know, a book manuscript.

John Dehlin [01:00:24] So some of the people that may have gone through that program Might be who. Oh, that our listeners would know.

Bert Fuller [01:00:30] I heard once that ever, like, pretty much every major scholarly voice in Mormon studies, I think, like, I can't say, like, I don't know for sure who did or who didn't, but. But I wouldn't. I would be surprised if, like, it would be more normal if you said a voice that they went through it than if they didn't. Like, if they didn't go through it. I would be a little surprised. Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:00:53] So some of the names of people

Bert Fuller [01:00:54] who, like, I know Jared Hickman did. Yeah. So, yeah, I don't know. I think. What's his name? I don't. I don't remember the guy's name. You would know it. He's the other. Shoot. I know Josh Weed was kind of something of a poster boy for a time, but now that he and his wife are getting divorced.

John Dehlin [01:01:18] Clay Mansfield.

Bert Fuller [01:01:19] Yes, that's the guy.

John Dehlin [01:01:20] He was part of it.

Bert Fuller [01:01:21] Yeah. Yeah, yeah. And not when I. I was never a part of it. I, you know, I was in the office when they were having it, and I'd walk by and I'd see some friends and we'd chat and go to lunch or whatever. But.

John Dehlin [01:01:30] Yeah. So the books I'm looking at the Maxwell Institute now, the Living Faith books.

Bert Fuller [01:01:34] Living Faith. That's the series.

John Dehlin [01:01:36] Is that the series you're talking about?

Bert Fuller [01:01:37] That's the one.

John Dehlin [01:01:39] So that's Letters to Young Mormon Planted by Patrick Mason is listed.

Bert Fuller [01:01:45] And I consider pretty much all of these books apologetic in nature in some way or another.

John Dehlin [01:01:49] Yeah, yeah. So Stephen Pex.

Bert Fuller [01:01:51] But it's a very different type of apologetics than the old FARMS Book Review. I think anybody who opens up either could see the difference.

How the Maxwell Institute Changed Course

John Dehlin [01:01:57] Right, well, let's talk about that. So the Maxwell Institute has clearly gone through a transformation. They used to publish the Mormon Studies Review. Book of Mormon Review. What was it called?

Bert Fuller [01:02:09] As I remember, there are basically like three. There have been primarily three journals. One has something to do with Bible, one has something to do with LDS scripture, and one has something to do with Mormon something or other, like studies or whatever. But they've gone through so many different changes that off the top of my head, I couldn't say when, what was which. And so, like, the FARMS Book Review, I think Daniel Peterson was editor for, like, 20 years. So, I mean, that's significant.

John Dehlin [01:02:35] And this would be. If anyone like Michael Quinn or Brett Metcalf wrote a book that the church didn't like, it would kind of be massacred.

Bert Fuller [01:02:42] But also. So you can kind of feel the weight of Dan Peterson getting like fired or whatever. It would be as if your nonprofit Open Stories foundation were subsumed into a larger institution. And then the people who came in after you got rid of you and said you can't do.

John Dehlin [01:03:02] Which could happen, you know, like someday

Bert Fuller [01:03:05] it will happen, you know, just so you can kind of feel the weight of it. Because the FARMS was a non profit before it was ever associated with the church and then it was subsumed into the church, I think in 2006.

John Dehlin [01:03:15] Yeah, so he kind of lost his organization when.

Bert Fuller [01:03:17] And it was Jack Welch's organization. He founded it. But. Yeah, but you know, people who got in early, people like Dan Peterson and those folks. Yeah. So in a way they were sort of oustered of their own game, I guess. Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:03:29] And do you have, do you have any way to describe the way that the Maxwell Institute has moved? We, we try to get them to come on Mormon stories and they won't come on. So it's, yeah, it's kind of absurd that we have to sit here and try and vaguely describe their, their movements. But they fear that if they came on, bad things could happen to them. So they don't come up.

Bert Fuller [01:03:47] Well, and just a little insight into that. Okay, so you get. So the way that the power hierarchy works is that the Maxwell Institute is itself, but now it's under the university directly. There's not a department or a college in between them and the university administration. So they deal with the university directly and then the university leadership deals with, I don't know, people in Salt Lake.

John Dehlin [01:04:13] Board of directors.

Bert Fuller [01:04:14] Well, the board of directors I think is mostly apostles, but I don't know what they actually do on a day to day basis as far as the university is concerned. And so a lot of that work I think gets delegated out to other 70. And was, what's his name, Cecil Samuelson? Was he the first? Like he was a general authority and then that was his assignment. I think a lot of the presidents before that became general authorities afterwards. But he might have been the first one who was actually like a general authority when he was assigned to byu. And I think Kevin Worthen, is he a general authority? I don't know either. And so depending on who the academic vice president is now if it's somebody like John Tanner, who, you know, he, I mean, he's a very generous and magnanimous individual versus somebody else who will be like, if any, you know, BYU professor publishes in dialogue, I'm going to have their, you know, resignation on my desk in the morning or whatever. I mean, there are political wins and. But to give you a general feel. Somebody that I worked at the ma, worked with, at the Maxwell Institute once said to me, an exchange they had with somebody in a position of power, I don't know if it was a general authority. I don't know if it was at the university level. I don't know if it was a Salt Lake person. I don't know. But they asked, okay, could you help spell out what the boundary lines are so that we know not to cross them? And the response was, no, no, no, no. You do not understand. It is not your job to know where the boundaries are so that you don't cross them. It is your job to be so far from a boundary line that you can't even see it. Right. And so I have no idea if there are special directives given to people at the Maxwell Institute that say, don't affiliate with, you know, group X, Y, or Z. I have no idea. But I do feel like there is a general sense of, look, let's not do anything stupid. And stupid, from their perspective means something that could hurt our donor base, hurt our credibility in the LDS community or in the eyes of the church or university leadership. And so they're not going to. From their institutional perspective, they don't see themselves primarily as a public outreach group or, you know, doing PR or whatever. They have to do a lot of pr, but they don't want to do that. And so they don't really see themselves as being like. Like obligated or responsible to talk to podcasters or whatever.

John Dehlin [01:06:42] Yeah, well, part of when. When Daniel Peterson was making a lot of noise in this regard, he would talk about why it was set up to begin with, and he made quotes that, I think, from some Neal A. Maxwell talk that was given early on.

Bert Fuller [01:06:56] Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:06:57] I think there's a term. No layups. No one contested layups or something to that effect.

Bert Fuller [01:07:01] Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:07:01] That you. You get the critics. You know what I mean? And so when. So I guess I'm trying to get you to talk about the shift away from apologetics and that homonym.

Bert Fuller [01:07:11] Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:07:11] And then. And then, you know, it's worth noting that.

Bert Fuller [01:07:15] Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:07:15] That many of the founders of the Maximal Institute feel like it has strayed from the original mission.

Bert Fuller [01:07:19] Well, right.

John Dehlin [01:07:20] For which it was established. For which Neal A. Maxwell himself.

Bert Fuller [01:07:23] That's right.

John Dehlin [01:07:24] Endorsed.

Bert Fuller [01:07:24] So in that perspective, don't they have something to say? Right. But then the name Maxwell just becomes a political football for different tactics. And they say, well, you know. Yeah, it's true he wanted us to not let the critics get slam dunks or whatever it was. But I'm sure Elder Maxwell would not have wanted us to do it in the way that you, Dan Peterson or Bill Hamlin or whoever else did. And so they can use that as just like a name, like a. To say, well, what we're doing more fully represents what Neal A. Maxwell says. And, you know, 100 years from now, nobody's going to care what Neal A. Maxwell.

John Dehlin [01:07:58] People may not care now, right? Yeah, a lot of people. Honestly. It's weird because five, 10 years ago, this stuff seemed to really matter.

Bert Fuller [01:08:05] Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:08:06] And in 2018, apologetics in the Maxwell Institute, frankly, seemed to matter very little in comparison. Now, that's my. My perspective, but I've got a pretty good finger on the pulse. I don't know what you see.

Bert Fuller [01:08:19] Well, yeah, and also, I mean, it's the same problem with BYU because Hugh Nibley has this collection of essays called Brother Brigham Challenges the Saints. And I think in one of the essays or the intro or something, he was just saying, like, I am not going to shy away from what the prophet Brigham Young taught. You know, speaking from a place which is a university that carries his name right now, it's kind of unfortunate because Brigham Young was like, you know, a racist and like, in some ways kind of like this totalitarian and like, you like all of these bad things. And so you're kind of like, well, and actually a lot of institutions are in this awkward place right, where they. They exist because some terrible person exploited resources, labors, and native populations and then gave a portion of their wealth to these institutions of learning or whatever. And so now they're in the awkward position that universities, I guess, are getting more of a conscience or something or trying to do this. They're like, oh, should we like, rename this stuff? And so then you kind of come up with a weird like. Anyway, I won't get into that.

John Dehlin [01:09:34] Thank you for joining us today on Mormon Stories.

Bert Fuller [01:09:36] If you.

John Dehlin [01:09:37] If you enjoyed this episode, please help us make more like it by becoming a monthly subscriber@mormonstories.org. Rocks is a featured single on Angela Soph's upcoming album Second Wind. Inspired by her struggle with the faith journey out of orthodox religion. You can find and follow her on social media at Angela Sofbam. That's S o F F E on Spotify or AngelAsof.com.

Bert Fuller [01:10:21] So judge me Cast me o stones I will lay them back at your feet Take my hand let's walk among we like to throw rocks at the people who don't see the world in the way we do I don't know why we all stand in a circle and point a finger or two Tell me how can you see what is buried beneath a mountain of smiles? We're all thrown in the same blue water of the unknown so leave your rocks at. The truth is not what it seems we are told to just be believing the story has never been told and we all need someone to listen to hold hearts is there beating with so much more than we see.

Traditional Apologetics Versus Neo-Apologetics

Part 2 of 3 · Ep. 887

Bert Fuller [00:00:00] We like to throw rocks at the people who don't see the world in the way we do.

John Dehlin [00:00:11] Mormon Stories is a production of the Open Stories foundation and relies solely upon the support of people like you, its listeners to help keep the podcast alive or to become a member of the community. Please become a monthly subscriber by visiting MormonStories.org and clicking the Donate button on the top right side of the page. All contributions to Mormon Stories are completely tax deductible and go towards producing the podcast and building communities and programs of support for Mormons like you. Thanks for your support. Describe what it went from and what it seems to be going to to the best of your ability.

Bert Fuller [00:01:04] Well, as far as I'm concerned, like you could say there is a world of difference between a Dan Peterson and a Spencer Flumman, like, personality wise approach. Well, I feel like you've done this very thoroughly, but you know, a. More okay, the, the traditional apologists were much more literalistic in what they were trying to defend. Like the Book of Mormon is literally like historical what it claims to be, that sort of a thing. And for that reason, because they put it in an ancient setting, they have to be trained in ancient languages. And as far as I'm concerned, as far as the traditional apologists go and their education, I mean, these people are trained in places like, you know, Hebrew University and they, you know, do work in Egypt and they also study in like European. I mean, I feel like in a lot of ways they are much better trained as scholars. They work in multiple languages. They do, you know, various historical periods across different cultures and countries. They're very. But, but something that they're not hip to, I guess, is the development of postmodern literary theory that really started taking over humanities departments, you know, in the late 60s and 70s and even continuing to this present day. And also they don't care about the traditional apologists, don't care about like in their scholarship at least they don't care about social justice. Like, that's just not something they're preoccupied with, which I don't particularly fault them for. And so they're a lot more antagonistic, combative. They are willing to call a spade a spade. I guess the, it's, it's just a different type of scholarly culture. Whereas the more.

John Dehlin [00:02:50] And they're trying to kind of, if not prove the church is true through science or whatever their discipline is, they're at least trying to erect as many plausible opportunities for plausible deniability so that you could still leave open the possibility for Belief from an archaeological, anthropological, linguistic standpoint. Is that not fair?

Bert Fuller [00:03:18] I think that's probably pretty fair.

John Dehlin [00:03:21] It's the old way.

Bert Fuller [00:03:22] Yeah. And I think it's very important to say that they are not, excuse me, trying to prove the church is true. Like, they are not trying to do that. What they're trying to do is when it's not false. That's right. When other people come up with arguments, whether they're ex Mormons or evangelicals or secular thinkers or whatever, whenever those people come up with arguments that make the church look false, they are primarily preoccupied with dismantling those arguments. So I think that's an important distinction.

John Dehlin [00:03:52] It's defense.

Bert Fuller [00:03:52] It's defense, yeah. And it's a type of defense that can feel very offensive. Right, but that's what they would. Yeah, I think so. Now, the. But it's combative. I think that's the important part. Now, these kind of calling it traditional versus new also mars the historical record a bit. And anybody who wants to understand better how these things came to be, and we can get into it, but I don't know if it's too technical for this podcast, but John Charles Duffy wrote a great master's thesis about the development of Mormon apologetics that I think is really helpful. But he. One thing that he points out which is really helpful for me, and this point will be relevant in a minute, is that what we call traditional apologetics and what we call, you know, maybe neo or new apologetics really came out of the same, like, intellectual contingent and. And defeated the other three combatants, whether it was the anti modernists or the kind of the historical naturalists, like someone like Mike Quinn or Leonard Arrington or something like that. And to get this full picture, I think John Charles Duffy, his MA thesis is very clarifying. And so for me. Okay, well, let me describe first what the new apologists are like, and then let me take a step back and compare them. From my perspective, the new apologists are much more. How do I put it? Okay, well, almost all of them are Americanists. Almost all of them specialize in the modern world. Almost all of them really only work comfortably in English. As far as their scholarship goes. Almost all of them focus on a particular country, usually their own, and that's why I say Americanist. They are sensitive to social justice issues or identity politics, or they're very. They tend to be well read in a lot more postmodern theory. But here's. Here's the weird thing I have to say real quick, is that the quote, traditional apologist if you include somebody like Lou Midgley in that, which I would. Back in like the, I don't know, the late 70s or so, he was using postmodern theory to say the anti modernist people like Hiram Andrus or Bob Millet at the time or Joseph McConkie or whoever, like they were backwards. Right. And so even the traditional apologists had a strain of this postmodernism, like kind of back in the day. But now I think the, like, it almost feels like you can't even go to like a discussion about Mormonism with these more kind of liberal minded folks without having read like Foucault or Baudrillard or Bataille or Derrida or Lacan or Kristeva or.

John Dehlin [00:06:52] And give us the two minute prime Agamben, or give us a two minute primer on postmodernism. Oh, Gol, really? No, I mean, just what are they? What's the basic approach?

Bert Fuller [00:07:01] Okay, the number one thing, the first

John Dehlin [00:07:02] rule about postmodernism, something about words not meaning what you think they mean. That's got. I just know the. That's something that you're gonna say. Yeah, well, words don't mean what we think they mean.

Bert Fuller [00:07:14] The first rule of postmodernism is don't talk about postmodernism.

John Dehlin [00:07:17] Okay?

Bert Fuller [00:07:20] And postmodernism is by no means a homogenous like school of thought. When you have thinkers as different as like, you know, Deleuze or, you know, but they also use other thinkers, you know, German thinkers like Heidegger or they'll go back to Husserl or, you know, and this I should specify, I am not an expert in any of this stuff. It just gets splashed in my face as I take literature classes when what I'd rather be doing is reading poetry and literature. I know this sounds bizarre, but. And so you almost like have to become somewhat conversant in it to even speak the lingo. It's sort of like, you know how there's legalese, Right, Sure. It's like there's academies and in the humanities nowadays, the overwhelming language of academies as postmodern thinkers, book titles, buzzwords, stuff like that. And so. But yeah, I think that whether or not it's primary value or concept or whatever, I think the idea that words don't really mean what you think they mean is pretty common theme. And so that's how you're actually able to use in kind of like a more liberal apologetics, the idea like didn't. At Utah State, they had that whole day discussion about Joseph Smith and Translation. You're able to have an entire day where nobody cares what translation actually means. And a translation can mean, like, a lot of things, except for what. Whatever it is you think it means.

John Dehlin [00:08:55] Yeah, because wasn't it pretty clear what Joseph Smith thought or said he was doing and what everyone around him, you know, heard him say? Right.

Bert Fuller [00:09:05] Well, I'll put it this way. That was the impression I had growing up, that there were plates in a different language. Joseph Smith used the power of God to make it available in English, whatever was written on those plates.

John Dehlin [00:09:18] But to translate is what we wrote for.

Bert Fuller [00:09:19] Yeah, I mean, that's how I understood it. And this is why kind of the more traditional apologetics, they really care about what words actually mean. So they're philologists. Right. They're lovers of language and words and things like this. They really care what words mean. And so they spend tons of time in dictionaries and, you know, and just trying to parse the fine meaning of words, whether it's some Hebrew syllable or whatever else. They really care about that because they believe that words have meaning. But when you. So they read texts very closely. I, I sometimes, whereas I feel like the new style is more interested in kind of like broad gestures about, like, you know, it's not as per. It's not as concerned with the particularities of, you know, the historical meanings of a word or something and how that might be relevant and whatnot. And so they're. They'll talk about how something is bold or something is a wager or something is like. And to me, this is all a little dramatic, you know, like, it's like. Well, I mean, if you feel like this is a bold move, then get some excitement in your life.

John Dehlin [00:10:34] You know, that's how I feel a lot of times, but. So give an example of what they might call bold or exciting or creative.

Bert Fuller [00:10:41] So Richard Bushman, there was a, Like a symposium one or two days, I think the Maxwell Institute actually did sponsor this a year or two ago. And like, all these scholars came, both Mormons and non Mormons, and they gave a talk on what they're good at, whether it's philosophy or literature, history or whatever else. And, and then. But. But they also were connected to Richard Bushman in some way because Richard Bushman has been, like, overwhelmingly influential on this group of thinkers. I mean, you can't overstate it. Like, what Hugh Nibley is for, the traditional apologist, that's what Richard Bushman is for. This group over here. Like, it is really that strong of an influence.

John Dehlin [00:11:24] Let me pause you for a second. So we have a listener. Eric says, this is all really fascinating, but it's starting to get confusing.

Bert Fuller [00:11:30] Okay.

John Dehlin [00:11:30] I'm not really following a line of thought. I know that someone else joked, haha, like two minutes. It took me an entire year to kind of understand postmodern theory.

Bert Fuller [00:11:40] Right? Yeah, but it's like we could be in this quagmire for a while.

John Dehlin [00:11:43] But I think there's a way to. I mean, we've kind of touched on it, but isn't it sort of just saying everything as a context? Words don't have inherent meaning, everything that we do. Can you fill in the gaps of just sort of what a postmodern approach would sort of be towards religion and scripture and faith versus a more literalistic, relying on science and evidence approach?

Postmodernism and Its Role in Neo-Apologetics

Bert Fuller [00:12:08] Well, postmodernism is obsessed with power. And there's not actually, like, positive qualities known as truth or goodness or beauty or something like that.

John Dehlin [00:12:17] So there is no truth.

Bert Fuller [00:12:19] They're not positive qualities. So truth does exist as a manifestation of, like, social or institutional arrangements.

John Dehlin [00:12:29] Like truth of like, you know, the church is true or the scriptures are true or. No, postmodernism would say, what?

Bert Fuller [00:12:38] Well, like Adam Miller said on some podcast, I'd have to find it. I think they were pitching his book Future Mormonism or something. And he said, for Joseph Smith's day, it made a lot of sense to ask the question, which church is true? But for us today, that's not a very valuable question. So let's not focus on it. Right. So, yeah, yeah.

John Dehlin [00:13:01] And I hear I even wrote this in that original essay I did on how to stay in the church after crisis of faith. Would you ever call a ham sandwich true? Right.

Bert Fuller [00:13:10] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:13:10] Okay, so what's the value of calling a church true? Book of Mormon true.

Bert Fuller [00:13:14] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:13:15] And this is something Dan Witherspoon was talking to me about as recently as yesterday. Just this basic idea that forget about truthfulness and this. Even Bushman said, if you. If you listen to my interview with Bushman way back in the day, he said, I don't like to. This is just me paraphrasing. Yeah. You may have transcribed these words recently, but I remember something to the effect of, I don't think of my testimony in terms of truthfulness. My testimony of the church is rooted in its goodness. Right.

Bert Fuller [00:13:42] Yeah, but okay, and this happens all the time, right. If somebody says that they believe the church because it's true, and you say, well, what about X, Y, or Z? Then they'll say, well, I don't believe in it because it's true, but because it's good. And then you say, well, what about X, Y or Z? And they say, well, I don't believe in it because it's good, but I believe in it because it's true, whether I like it or not. And it's just like, okay, I'm bored with this.

John Dehlin [00:14:04] Right. But it's a binding force for me. Many people's lives.

Bert Fuller [00:14:07] Yeah, sure. Well, because it creates. So I think cognitive dissonance is possible in part, not because you have this thing over here and this other thing over here, that conflict and their intention. It's like you're not dealing with both of them at the same time. Right. It's like you can deal with this issue in one season of your life and you come around to this issue in another season of your life. But the primary responsibility I see of what I call liberal. Liberal apologetics is to sort of, like, displace this stuff, to not let it concentrate and focus in a moment of crisis. It's just to kind of like, keep it. And actually, like. Is her name Laura Hales? So she was explicit about this. When I went to the association of Mormon Letters last year, I presented on poetry, and she was on the same panel and she was presenting on writing and rhetoric and things like that. And I think she was also the editor of a recent collection of essays, apologetic Essays. And she said, like, it's literally like, it is our job as, like, liberal members of the church to help our more conservative brothers and sisters come to our point of view, to write, to kind of like, bury something which is shocking or upsetting in, like, in all this other prose. And she said, the idea is build the bomb shelter before you drop the bomb. Right. And that's the idea. But to me, I'm like, I don't, like, I can understand if you take in too much information too quickly, that can just, like, shatter your life, and that can create a lot of problems. But I didn't feel like what Laura was saying was coming from a place of concern for people's. Well, individual well being. I think she was coming from a place of concern that they keep their faith intact.

John Dehlin [00:15:56] Right. It's sort of like we there. There's what seems to be underpinning it all is that there's this authority structure.

Bert Fuller [00:16:03] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:16:04] That collects money and demands things of people.

Bert Fuller [00:16:07] Yeah. Don't look at that. Don't look at their time and their money.

John Dehlin [00:16:10] I mean, that's, you know, don't look at this. That's the corporation that's the tithing, that's the money, that's the apostles, that's the general authorities, that's the patriarchy. And then what postmodern sort of neo apologetics wants to do is instead of having this wall where if I punch the wall, it breaks my hand.

Bert Fuller [00:16:29] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:16:29] Because it's too hard. Words, words, if they actually mean something, well, that can hurt. And if some things can be really true or false, then when the fist meets the wall, the fist can break.

Bert Fuller [00:16:41] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:16:41] So instead, postmodernism wants to turn this wall into a waterbed. Yeah, Water balloon. Where if you punch it with evidence or truth or. Or even an expectation of truth, it's like true. What is true? And translation. What is translation? It's all murky. It all has a context. And so it's trying to sort of make the target as nimble and as flexible and as mushy as possible so that nothing ever gets broken. Standing up against it.

Bert Fuller [00:17:12] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:17:12] When confronted with it.

Bert Fuller [00:17:13] Yeah. And I can have like a couple quick anecdotes about this. So. And when I say somebody's name, like I just mentioned Laura's name, and I'm not saying it because she and I had a private communication or something like that, it was like, you're literally presenting at a conference. Like, if I can't talk about this, I don't know what to say. And the other thing the Maxwell Institute does, at least used to. It's been a while since I've attended. They have like a brown bag lunch where once a week they'll come, they might have a speaker, they might have a piece of literature they want to discuss or whatever. And so one week they were discussing an essay by Rosalind Welch in the Mormon Studies Review about Mormonism and what she calls materialism or something like that. And this is a very relevant discussion for her, for Joe Spencer and for Adam Miller. But it's also relevant, oddly enough, for Ralph Hancock, who critiques it and doesn't like it. And for those who don't know, Ralph Hancock is a right wing conservative political thinker, I think very influenced by Leo Strauss, and he's political science right at byu, as far as I understand. And so here we are in a room, there's like 15 of us probably, and Ralph is trying to say, like, what you just said, like, there are rules, and if you violate those rules, there are consequences. He was speaking specifically about the authority structure of the church. And I got the feeling that everyone else in the room was just like, I don't really know, you know, it's more of like a. I like the waterbed image, you know, and so I honestly agreed with Ralph. It's just that Ralph thinks it's a good thing, and I think it's a terrible thing, you know, but I think that he's describing it accurately. And so I was trying to push on this, and people were saying, well, yeah, I mean, you might get shocked or punished or something like that, but the rules are always moving. They're always shifting. You never really know where they are. There aren't anything. There's nothing really hard line. And, you know, I don't particularly want to call this individual out, but somebody who was saying this, and I disagreed completely, but I was like, okay, well, your last book that you wrote, you told me that 200 people bought the copy, and obviously this is something you care about. Did you ever think to send it up to general authorities at Salt Lake? Like, this might be some good advice? And as far as I know, I haven't read the book, but as far as I know, he probably does have some good advice. And just the response just, you know, I was just like, exactly. He said, I haven't sent it because that's not how things work. And I'm like, yeah, no, duh. You know, like, there are rules.

John Dehlin [00:19:57] And this goes back to why we wanted to interview the Millers, Brooke and Josh Miller, why we. Why we feel like it's important to talk about Spencer Fluman and the Maxwell Institute at Neo Apologetics. And we're going to get to your critiques, but I just want to give a foundational critique, which is this, that when Joseph Smith, you know, claims to start the church, he's telling people real plates were delivered by an angel. I translated those plates into English. This is a real civilization. He's pointing at Native Americans calling them Lamanites. People are joining the church because In D and C1, it says, you know, the only true church on the face of the earth with which God is pleased. And so people are joining the literal, one true church with literal authority from God, with a literal historical Book of Mormon, with literal plates. And that's why they're joining it, and that's why they're giving their lives to it, because it literally is solid and it's true.

Bert Fuller [00:21:00] And.

John Dehlin [00:21:00] And, you know, the. You know, I was always taught growing up that the Gospel is plain and precious. Plain meaning it's simple and precious meaning that it's very valuable. And it's valuable because it's the only way to the celestial kingdom. And so when you look at our history of people sacrificing and literally bleeding and dying and giving money and time and their children and their lives to the church. It's because it's literally true. It's because the scriptures are literally true. They are translations. And Joseph was a. Was a prophet and a seer and a revelator, and when the prophet speaks, he's speaking for God. And that's the whole value proposition. And so that's the foundation of why then and today so many people remain Mormons. And when the missionaries are going out and preaching this stuff to investigators, this is the message they're giving, not what is truth. We don't even know what's translation. Who knows what that is? You know, they're giving that a formal narrative. And people are basing their lives, their money, their time, their children, their decisions on education, who to marry, when to marry, all on this assumption, not that it's good and there's value there, and it's because it's true. And so that's, I think, where the problems really, really begin is if. Is if all that narrative is actually not legitimate or valid.

Bert Fuller [00:22:29] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:22:30] Or what people are basing the gospel on, then all of a sudden, there's been a bait and switch. Yeah, yeah, right.

Bert Fuller [00:22:36] Yeah, yeah.

John Dehlin [00:22:37] And a bait and a bait and switch. A very significant consequence, because I can bet there are literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Mormons that would make very different decisions if they knew the evidence and the truth and that the narrative is being changed. And then to conclude.

Bert Fuller [00:22:55] That's right.

John Dehlin [00:22:56] All the official conference talks, given a general conference, support the literal founding narrative. Yeah.

Bert Fuller [00:23:05] Unless. Unless, you know, some individual pressures, a general authority, then that general authority will respond in one of two ways. They'll say, well, I have authority over you, and, you know, this is the truth. You know, like Bedner says, I am Scripture. Or they'll respond by saying, we'll go talk to these really nice scholarly people who are versed in all of these complexities, and hopefully they can help you. It's like, I mean, I don't find either of those particularly compelling myself. I think scholars ought to be taken, you know, seriously. I think they should be looked into. I don't think they should be written off. But something that one literary critic said that I really appreciated. It's like, if you need to be open to try something, you reserve the right to, you know, get rid of the stuff that doesn't give you nutrients, if you follow what I'm saying. And so there's no reason why anybody who reads a book, whether it's by John G. Or Spencer Fluman, can't come away with that and say, I don't agree and to have their reasons for not doing so, you know?

John Dehlin [00:24:11] Yeah, so. So what we want to kind of advance to is your critique of neo apologetics. Yeah, I will. But let's read some comments and kind of wrap up this first or second segment with just a few comments or questions from the listeners. I want to invite listeners who are currently listening to write any comments or questions and I'll ask them. There's been a few. David writes, this neo apologetic argument breaks down real quick for me. Every Mormon prophet since its inception has made the claim that this is the only true church or God on the earth. This word mastering just does not make sense in the Mormon world.

Bert Fuller [00:24:52] Word mastering.

John Dehlin [00:24:53] Yeah, yeah. Do you have a response to David?

Bert Fuller [00:24:56] Well, I agree with him.

John Dehlin [00:24:57] You know, what does he mean by word mastering?

Bert Fuller [00:24:59] Oh, I don't know. You'd have to ask him. But if it means, like, why? If God wants me to. Okay, first off, God's like one church or whatever is pretty ineffective at actually converting people when you look at the overall human population. But then if you add on top of that, that in order to really, quote, get it, you have to study all of these arcane things, whether it's the traditional apologetic kind of philological track or the neo apologetic, postmodern, post structuralist track. It's like, I have better things to do with my time. I think a lot of people would

John Dehlin [00:25:33] say, but isn't that the secret sauce to people's level of commitment to Mormonism is that they believe it's the true church? It certainly was for me.

Bert Fuller [00:25:41] Yeah, yeah, that mattered for me. And I actually remember working through these problems because I never lived in the, quote, traditional apologetics world. I read their books, but I never, like, went to the fair conference or, you know, followed interpreter closely or anything like that. I lived in the liberal apologetics world. And yeah, I felt like once people start talking about how the church isn't really like the true church, I'm like, what the hell am I doing? Then? Why was I a missionary trying to get the word out. And I would read statements from people like John Taylor saying, you will be held responsible not only for the people that you convert and taking care of them, but for all the people you would have converted if you lived up to your duties and responsibilities. I remember pulling that off a members. I think it was in a Neal A. Maxwell book off of a member Shelf in Poland and feeling like super stressed about that. I was like, I better get to work, you know, like. And actually, but I will say it is the secret sauce because I've studied a lot of different languages, I'm bad at all of them. But the one that I studied the most effectively, like hands down, was Polish. Because when I studied Polish I was like, people's literal salvation is on the line. And so like I was from that perspective, like a religious fundamentalist, right? Like, you have to hear my words or you'll be like damned. Whether you get the soft damnation that eternal just is God's name or the hard damnation of outer darkness or whatever. But to me it like it mattered. The stakes were high and they were real. And for that reason I had a moral obligation to become as good at Polish as I possibly could. And people in my mission will say that I was good at Polish, but I wasn't just because of some like, vague scholarly interest. It's like, no, I have an existential commitment to this. But when you're, when you kind of take that out, you're kind of like, why do I care? And this is actually, you know, because I stopped going to church maybe a year or so ago and a lot of my critiques I feel have really dulled just in that 12 month period because there was a time when I was very sharp. You know, I could, I could refer to this or that publication, this name, the, you know, paraphrase the verbiage pretty well. But I feel like now it's kind of becoming this, like I'm getting on with my life, you know, like I don't, I don't really care.

John Dehlin [00:28:08] But the stakes are high for those in it.

Bert Fuller [00:28:10] Absolutely, absolutely. Yeah, they were for me. Yeah, very high.

John Dehlin [00:28:15] So, yeah, I think it really does matter. Let's see. Rick. Rick writes Jackson Washburn. Are you listening? Obviously, Jackson is a young pre mission neopologist that many people feel strongly about. I think he's a lovely kid, really smart, precocious. But we got a shout out to him. Colin writes, to ease the cog, dis apologists will challenge the very construct of reality.

Bert Fuller [00:28:40] That's right, yeah.

John Dehlin [00:28:41] In order to justify their bias.

Bert Fuller [00:28:43] Yeah, well, I mean you can call it bias, I guess, but yeah, yeah, they will, they will say, and this is, there's a term for this. I think the feminists were the ones who coined it brilliantly. So is called gaslighting. Right. It's where you get somebody to question their own sense of reality so that then they will Trust your sense of reality, and you use that as an advantage. Whether you personally advantage from that is not. I mean, I think traditionally that's what the term means. But if an institution. Advantage gains the advantage from that, I think that's also important to note.

John Dehlin [00:29:17] That was beautiful. I love that description of gaslighting. Thank you. Jake writes postmodernism, quote, all that exists is the text. That's Derrida.

Bert Fuller [00:29:28] Something like that.

John Dehlin [00:29:29] Since literature can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways, reality being much more complete complex than. Wait, being much more complex than reality can also be interpreted in an infinite number of ways. Do you get what he's saying there?

Bert Fuller [00:29:45] Yeah, I get what he's saying. I don't know if that's what Derrida says, but I think what he's. What he's pointing out is, you know, a fair observation that.

John Dehlin [00:29:51] That you can always interpret text in a million different ways.

Bert Fuller [00:29:54] Yeah, that.

John Dehlin [00:29:55] So we can't ever take any word too seriously.

Bert Fuller [00:29:58] Yeah. And so. And so what they say, though, kind of this is the effect or the impact anyway, is because you can do it in any number of ways. What it boils down to is who's the strongest, who's the most charismatic, who's the most, like, institutionally empowered, and their way matters most. And in a way, there's some truth to that. Like, why should one. Like, why should an apologist who has zero institutional standing but has put just as much work into something be taken less seriously than somebody who has done the same amount of work, but they just happen to have, like, the certain credentials or position or friends and network? I mean, like, it's a. It's a good question, I feel.

John Dehlin [00:30:43] Yeah. You know, I feel like the value of religion is that it just. It provides, you know, at its best, in many instances, it just provides solid answers to many of the vexing questions of life, about meaning and purpose and identity and morality and spirituality and truth and the afterlife? And so when it's true, or if it's true, then it's great that it provides that solace and comfort. But if it's not true, and if it's just misleading people or deceiving people, then it could appear as taking advantage of people's vulnerabilities and giving them false hope and filling up their lives and taking their money for sort of through deception, it's not true.

Neo-Apologetics, the CES Letter, and Faith Crises

Bert Fuller [00:31:27] Right. And if I could say, I don't particularly mind if somebody is deluded or wrong about something, because I know that I am about many things, or even if they have to put their faith in something because they haven't been able to investigate it more thoroughly. That doesn't matter to me. Especially what matters to me if that is going on and they are suffering because of it. And instead of somebody coming along to help them work through that suffering or to become more understanding, they compound the. The maybe a false sense of reality or something like that, which in turn compounds their suffering. Like, that's what I have a problem with. Right. And that happens, I feel like, in the church a lot. So.

John Dehlin [00:32:11] So if a woman is struggling with her role as a woman defined by the church, or a gay person is struggling with being gay.

Bert Fuller [00:32:18] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:32:19] And. Or. Or someone's. The church isn't working for them. They're feeling so much sexual shame or whatever.

Bert Fuller [00:32:25] Right. Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:32:26] And then apologists come to try and say, hey, there's still a way for you to stay in. Let's. Let's redefine words so that you can stay in a system that is possibly harming you.

Bert Fuller [00:32:39] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:32:40] Is that an example?

Bert Fuller [00:32:40] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:32:41] Yeah.

Bert Fuller [00:32:41] And I'll. And I'll use an example from my own time, like from my personal life. I remember my wife looking into the ERA stuff and feeling frustrated. And frankly, a lot of her professors, her female professors and feminist colleagues and stuff are frustrated. And I was like, huh, yeah, that is weird. Because what's. Like, what's wrong with ERA that seems like a good thing. Right. And I'm basing this not on my own opinion, but what I read in the Book of Mormon. Right. Neither black nor white, neither male nor female, neither free nor slave, whatever. And so I look into it, and I find a little paragraph from Spencer Kimball where he says, like, he. He, like, prophesies, basically, if you want to call it that. And he says, you know, if this were to pass, like, bad things would happen. Sort of like the family proclamation of the world, what it says. And when I read that, I said, well, Charlie, my wife, I was like, the prophet said this. And the question is, do we trust him or not? At the time I did. Now I don't. Yeah, yeah. So I was, quote, guilty of this as well.

John Dehlin [00:33:46] Yeah. So I'm going to hold questions and comments till the end in our discussion of your critique of neo apologetics. I want to get back to your story. So anything else you experienced at the Maxwell Institute that's worth mentioning before we talk about your change of faith?

Bert Fuller [00:34:05] Okay.

John Dehlin [00:34:05] And then your critique that led to your critique of neo apologetics.

Bert Fuller [00:34:09] Okay. So I was hired in December of 2012. I believe I did My work just kind of did it. And then August of 13, I remember there was an institute retreat, and we went as institute employees and rafted down the Provo river, and it was a lot of fun. And I remember talking to Blair and to Morgan and to Carl and to all of these guys and feeling this weight lifted off of me that I didn't even know was there. And I felt like here, like, I felt like these are my people, you know, like, these are people who have a lot of the same values, a lot of the same assumptions about, like, how the gospel ought to be lived or what it is or how we deal with problems when we encounter them. And I just. I just felt like I. I didn't realize that I was carrying that weight and that I felt a little bit lonesome. But when I went on that retreat with them, and there were also female employees as well, but not in research positions. They were office staff or something like that. But, you know, I was on friendly terms with them as well. And. But it was the same thing. Like, I was like, this is good, you know. And so I myself, when. I don't know, some months after that, I was living in Taylorsville, and my elders quorum president shows me the CES letter and I'm reading it. And at the time, you know, I've since spoken with Jeremy, and I quite like him. At the time, I kind of laughed at it. Not because I thought it was unfair or ridiculous, but I laughed at the idea that somebody would take something as serious as their commitment to an institution they considered, like, quote, the one true church or to their salvation or whatever, and that they would read a 80 or 90 page document and feel like, well, I'm out. Like, I was laughing, like, because that didn't compute to me. I was like, if this is serious, you need to take time. And then I learned in retrospect that most people who read the CES letter really do take that time. They just refer to the CES letter as a shorthand for all the research that they really do. And so I was laughing a bit at, like, at a ghost that doesn't really exist. Anyway, I.

John Dehlin [00:36:53] You were mad at Jeremy or you were frustrated at Jeremy for writing it?

Bert Fuller [00:36:57] I wasn't frustrated at him for writing it because I felt like people can write what they want. I was frustrated that it seemed to generate a response. My understanding that people would, like, on Friday be active at Latter Day Saints and on Monday be ex Mormons. Like, that didn't make sense to me. Now, whether that happened or not, I, I don't know.

John Dehlin [00:37:19] Happens all the time.

Bert Fuller [00:37:20] Oh, it does. Okay.

John Dehlin [00:37:21] Four hours, you know.

Bert Fuller [00:37:23] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:37:23] 30 minutes. CES letter can right people out of Mormonism.

Bert Fuller [00:37:26] Yeah, well, and, and just from my temperament, because I really enjoy reading and everything like that. I, I. And looking into things and knowing it for myself, I did not appreciate that approach. I knew I couldn't take that approach. But in retrospect, I'd no longer judge people who have that experience. I think that's totally fine and legitimate and. Yeah. Yeah. So.

John Dehlin [00:37:46] Okay, so you did. Was that a crack in your shelf then, the CES letter?

Bert Fuller [00:37:51] I thought there were some weird things that I hadn't heard of before, that I was like, oh, okay, you know, I should maybe think about that. But really, I was more concerned about my elders correspondent at the time, you know, because the way I felt was, look, I've had a great experience in the church. I have benefited hugely from it. And I, I don't want there to be something in the way of somebody experiencing enjoyment and everything like that, because there is a document which is not very thorough that could, you know, instead of being a conversation ender, it could be a conversation starter is kind of how I felt. Right. And so, but, you know, I didn't know this at the time, I don't think. But looking back, my same friend, this Elders Quorum president, I think, was far more disturbed about the premature death of his father and the impact that on his faith. And then, like when reading the, the CES letter, it almost was just like that was the match that lit the, the dry grass. I feel in my, in my work

John Dehlin [00:39:02] with people who lose their faith, there's. Usually we talk about the writer and the elephant with Jonathan Haidt from the Righteous Mind. Usually the elephant represents your emotional mind, your emotional self. And the rider on top of the elephant represents your logical brain. And I found that most people experience a deep emotional shift that starts leading them out of the church. And then the evidence that becomes available, like the CES letter or Mormon stories or whatever, becomes the reasoning by which they justify their shift. So in many instances, we use evidence to justify the positions we arrive at emotionally.

Bert Fuller [00:39:39] Yeah, I agree with that. And I would also say in my own life, that was my experience. So. And I bring that anecdote up because you asked me about the Maxwell Institute, and I was working there at the time. And in the CES letter, Jeremy says some things about the Maxwell Institute that I felt did not accurately portray what it is we were doing, because, like, you know, most people understand they See it primarily as an apologetics institution or something like that, and it has that element. But I said to him, it's kind of like you go to Ikea and they sell meatballs. But it would be absurd to refer to it as a meatball factory. Right. I mean, it's like a furniture store. And to my mind, the Maxwell Institute was. Was a scholarship house. And so I, you know, corresponded him with him a little bit in August of 2014 about that, and, you know, had some back and forth, and I thought I was kind of, you know, doing the good thing or whatever, but I don't know. Whatever.

John Dehlin [00:40:35] So what happened? What happened in your. Oh, one quick question. So when you think about some of these career apologists, like Daniel Peterson or Lewis Midgley.

Bert Fuller [00:40:43] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:40:43] And I know they have other careers, but. But let's face it, that's a big part of what. What they do in life. Yeah. Or even people like Bushman or Givens, where maybe. Maybe they're retired and they don't draw. They didn't always draw a significant portion of their income from being apologists, but now they get fame or reputation or popularity or attention from their apologetics. Can you say whether your employment with the Maxwell Institute, you know, served as a binding force for your defense of the church? I mean, it's pretty logical that if you're drawing a paycheck, it's going to buttress your defenses of the church.

Bert Fuller [00:41:25] Yeah, but I hope it can also be said that is true, but I hope it can also be said that I wasn't doing it because of that. Right.

John Dehlin [00:41:35] Like as an influencer.

Bert Fuller [00:41:36] Yeah, yeah. How could it not be?

John Dehlin [00:41:38] Okay. Yeah. So what happened in your own faith journey?

Bert's Own Faith Crisis and Departure

Bert Fuller [00:41:42] So I leave to Toronto, fall of 2015, start my PhD program. First year goes by, I don't think with any problems. I'm just early morning seminary teacher. A dug it. You know, it's fun and it's a cool church environment. Most places, like here in Utah, it's very uniform culturally, whether socioeconomically or racially or, you know, just aesthetically or whatever. But in Toronto, they have over 130 different nationalities represented. I think Canadian whites are in a minority. Like, the stake president was Finnish. My bishop was Chinese. His counselors were Filipino and Cuban, and the Cuban guy had a Hungarian wife. I mean, it's cool, you know, to experience that. And you. And Toronto is just like that everywhere you go. I mean, like, there was a. I think my bank teller my first week was a guy named like, Vladimir Velasquez or something like that. So he's got Russian on one side, but Latino on the other. And so, yeah, that was pretty good. And then it was the summer of 16, about a year and a half ago, that I went to BYU for a three week summer seminar. And this was not the Bushman Givens Seminar, which is housed at the Maxwell Institute. This was Jim Faulkner, who's a philosopher there. It's with the Wheatley Institution, which I don't know too much about it, but my understanding.

John Dehlin [00:43:16] Evangelical Christian right?

Bert Fuller [00:43:19] No, the Wheatley. My understanding is that the Wheatley Institution sees itself as what the Hoover Institute is for Stanford. The Wheatley Institute wants to be for. Institution. Wants to be for byu. Kind of like a right wing conservative think tank sort of a thing. And there was probably 10 or 12 of us in that seminar. It was a blast. Still friends with a lot of people there. Well, I'm. I'm on friendly terms with all of them, I believe, and, you know, people from Europe or one guy was Haitian, or it was just. It was a cool experience. But a couple friends. This is gonna sound really silly, maybe, but a couple friends really recommended to me that show True Detective. Do you know this? I think it was HBO. First season was with Matthew McConaughey, and I can't believe I'm forgetting his name because I love him so much.

John Dehlin [00:44:16] Doesn't matter.

Bert Fuller [00:44:17] Yeah, sorry.

John Dehlin [00:44:18] Faith crisis.

Bert Fuller [00:44:18] Yeah, sorry. But it's about, like, satanic ritual abuse.

Bert Fuller [00:44:22] Oh. Oh, wow.

Bert Fuller [00:44:23] Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

John Dehlin [00:44:25] Okay.

Bert Fuller [00:44:25] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:44:26] All right.

Bert Fuller [00:44:26] Okay. Thanks for clipping me along, by the way. I have that disease that academics suffer from. I'm happy do that at any time. And so my wife and I, we watch it and thought it was really good. And then we see a friend of ours that my wife did her master's with, and we couldn't believe we ran into this friend, because first off, she doesn't live in this country. And second off, my wife and I were on a flight from LAX to Provo, and what are the odds of running into our friend that we haven't seen in several years who's not even in this country? So we said, you got to come over tonight. And she did. And I kind of asked if she was still going to church just because a lot of my friends weren't. And she said she wasn't. And she said because she grew up in a household that's kind of like a ritual abuse household. And I had never heard of any of this. Right. I didn't encounter it in the CES letter. I didn't see it. In, you know, like liberal apologetics. I never heard of this. It was a hot topic in the early 90s and you can even find some things discussed or written about it. And I know that it's very controversial because didn't Martha Beck talk about this in her book? Book and you know, like, whatever. I'm not going to weigh in on any of this.

Bert Fuller [00:45:41] Yeah.

Bert Fuller [00:45:42] Okay. I'm not sure.

John Dehlin [00:45:43] There was a time period in the, let's just say 80s 90s where it was rumored that satanic ritual abuse was happening with Mormons, by Mormons, some even rumored to be in Mormon temples and Mormon chapels. And some think it's real, some think it's like recovered memory garbage.

Bert Fuller [00:46:03] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:46:04] And then there's people in between and most have never heard of it. Right.

Bert Fuller [00:46:07] And so I'm not gonna make, I'm not gonna make like hard statements about it one way or another, but the way my friend described it and from what I did study, and then more importantly, once I learned about how the church settles out of court abuse cases, you know, talking with, I think I heard a lot of this stuff from your podcast, like with Matt Long or later with Natasha Helfer Parker kind of alludes to it a little bit. And you learn a little bit about like how Curtin McConkie operates and the non disclosure agreements and stuff like that. That was my emotional break. That was the elephant.

John Dehlin [00:46:42] Why was that so impactful to you?

Bert Fuller [00:46:45] Well,

Bert Fuller [00:46:47] it was an, it was an emotional break for me to learn that not only is abuse taking place, like, and I'm not talking about like this metaphorical like, oh, people feel microaggressions or things. I'm talking about like really bad stuff.

John Dehlin [00:47:05] Right.

Bert Fuller [00:47:05] Like, not only is that taking place and not only does the church know about it, the church is also involved in actively covering it up. And you try to talk about not even just this stuff, not even stuff that's like extreme over here, but you talk, try to talk about kind of some more basic stuff and you get iced out quick. So it was once I had that emotional break, then I started listening to all the Mormon stories episodes, which I didn't really like, wasn't particularly interested in before Grant Palmer, Brent Metcalf, whoever else. And then I also listened to a lot of John Larsen. I listened to some infants on Thrones because John Hamer is in Toronto and I got to know him there. And then once I was like, okay, now I've got a much more complete view of what's going on in the church and what is not discussed in the scholarly literature. Because scholarly literature does not touch everything. It's not comprehensive as far as topics go, which was my impression before then I was like, okay, like, no way. I can't do this. And even though the emotional break was that ritual abuse stuff that I heard and learned about, like, what I. And that's, like, way out here, what I learned was, is that this is the limit of acceptability for, like, you know, if you work at the Maxwell Institute or whatever. And maybe over here is, like, traditional apologetics, but then there's like, this whole field of stuff that you just cannot talk about, you do not acknowledge publicly or whatever. And they have their little rhetorical strategies.

John Dehlin [00:48:42] If you're an apologist, you're saying, like,

Bert Fuller [00:48:44] if you are a active LDS Church scholar who in some way depends on the donor class.

Bert Fuller [00:48:55] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:48:56] So that's Patrick Mason. That's.

Bert Fuller [00:48:58] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:48:58] You know, Kathleen Flay. That's right. That's Spencer Fluman. That's Blair Hodges. That's any of those people. And probably Bushman and Givens.

Bert Fuller [00:49:10] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:49:11] Are.

Bert Fuller [00:49:11] And they depend on it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And they depend on it in a different way. So it's not all kind of, you know, a uniform fabric. There are different dynamics at play that need to be considered. But, yeah. Yeah. Generally speaking.

John Dehlin [00:49:24] And what are. Can you describe some of those areas? Some. Those third rails, so to speak.

Bert Fuller [00:49:29] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:49:29] Where you touch it, you get electrocuted.

Bert Fuller [00:49:31] Yeah. Don't talk about gays. Not in any extensive meaningful way. And why Greg Prince can do it is because he is an institution unto himself. He's built a lot of wealth, a lot of reputation, a lot of connections over the years, so he can do it. And he also happens to be a straight white dude, so that helps, too.

John Dehlin [00:49:48] But he has no institutional affiliation. He's not, like you said, he's not beholden anyone's money.

Bert Fuller [00:49:53] Right. But he doesn't get in trouble either.

John Dehlin [00:49:54] He can fly himself around. He doesn't have rich people like. Like Terrell Givens or Patrick Mason or Spencer Fluman or Richard Bushman. He doesn't need rich people to fly him around.

Bert Fuller [00:50:04] That's right. So he's, like, kind of separate from the donor class.

John Dehlin [00:50:07] And he's also not invited to speak in these firesides.

Bert Fuller [00:50:10] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:50:10] You know, so in some ways, he's made himself Persona non grata at that level of neo apologetic, I think.

Bert Fuller [00:50:17] Yeah, I think that's probably fair to say.

John Dehlin [00:50:18] At the Salt Lake County Library, present his research. But I've never heard of a Greg Prince fireside where he's in the Oklahoma City 7pm at night, where liberal or questioning Oklahoma City members are invited to hear Greg talk about this.

Bert Fuller [00:50:33] Right?

John Dehlin [00:50:33] Yeah, he's excluded from that.

Bert Fuller [00:50:35] I think that's probably fair to say. And actually Greg Prince's book was for me, like The David O. McKay one, very disturbing on a lot of levels. And when I brought it up with somebody who is a BYU professor, he had nothing but contempt for Greg Prince. So I think, you know, I think that's an instance of what you're talking about.

John Dehlin [00:50:55] So gays don't talk about that. Yeah.

Bert Fuller [00:50:58] Oh, do not, do not talk about. Because I was gonna say race, but actually it's very chic and vogue to talk about race, but you cannot talk about, like how race means that the prophets are full of bunk. Like, you cannot talk about that.

John Dehlin [00:51:16] Yeah, the most sacred thing is the authority, the truth claims, the Brethren's authority. You don't criticize the Brethren.

Bert Fuller [00:51:22] And the way you do this is like in the Race in the Priesthood essay is you say we disavow theories. Well, I learned in my linguistics class, which was taught actually by Dallin Oaks, which is Dallin Oaks son, that a presupposition is when you state something in such a way that it presupposes a reality. And so if you say we disavow all theories, now you're presupposing the word all, meaning we're being all inclusive, but also the word theory, as if everything stated before this was all at the level of theory, which is not true. And so, yeah, you cannot talk about race as far as that. You cannot talk about the. You can't talk about finance and legality, where these things are sketchy and put the church in a bad light. You can talk about it where it's neutral or where it's positive or whatever.

John Dehlin [00:52:14] There's no Book of Mormon historicity essay, by the way, so that's certainly got.

Bert Fuller [00:52:17] Oh, is that true?

John Dehlin [00:52:18] Are you aware of one?

Bert Fuller [00:52:19] Well, I don't. Like I said, I'm kind of, you know, my tools are dulling with time, but.

John Dehlin [00:52:24] So I don't think they ever touched that.

Bert Fuller [00:52:25] No kidding. Huh. That shocks me. So, yeah. Now there are things that you can touch if you want to destroy your emotional well being or your career prospects. Like Book of Abraham, like, leave that alone. Right. But I don't think the church would get mad at you if you, if you got into that. But for me, for my money, the kernel from which all of these other problems stem is the patriarchal gerontocratic. Authority is do not openly question or defy the power structure. And, and then I can understand, though I might have a different opinion if I were composed of different colored skin or biological organs. But my sense is, whether it's the gays, the women, the trans, the race, I mean, the money, the legality, all of these things is you are questioning the people who are in charge and you are not allowed to do that. That's my sense anyway.

Critiquing Church Authority and Sacred Cows

John Dehlin [00:53:35] That's the most sacred cow is never question the brotherh and never challenge their authority.

Bert Fuller [00:53:39] Right. And so what I've found is that most kind of like generous liberal type folks, when you complain about something that, you know, X, Y or Z apostle says publicly, they will come back by saying, yes, but I know this person personally. They're very kind, they're very generous, they're very helpful, long suffering, all of these things. And so for some strange reason, the apostles are like, like, I don't know, St. Teresa in private, but they're just like terrible, ignorant, bigoted, like jerks in public. I have no idea how this transformation takes place, but that's kind of the idea, right?

John Dehlin [00:54:15] St. Daniel Peterson.

Bert Fuller [00:54:16] Well, it's true, and this is actually true, I think, of most people who are in power and that use that power very abusively. They're not there because everybody hates them. Right. Like, they're there because they're nice and respectable and probably charismatic and, and, and, and they look after their own and you know, you know, so it's, and

John Dehlin [00:54:38] they're probably strategic, diplomatic, yeah.

Bert Fuller [00:54:40] But, but they're not like these like curly killed, melodramatic, you know, villains that are just so obviously evil. Why would anybody take them seriously? It's like, you know, human beings are complex and you kind of need to, you know, look at this from a lot of angles.

John Dehlin [00:54:54] Right. Okay, so you, you now notice that there's, there's two narratives, which is the orthodox, traditional literalistic narrative. There's this emerging neo apologetic, progressive, postmodern

Bert Fuller [00:55:09] narrative which was, which has been there for many, many decades.

John Dehlin [00:55:11] But now that, now it's becoming the official apologetic narrative.

Bert Fuller [00:55:14] Yeah, I think it's much more common.

John Dehlin [00:55:16] It's pastoral in nature.

Bert Fuller [00:55:18] That's right.

John Dehlin [00:55:18] It's not relying on ad hominem attacks. It's not trying to use science to defend the church. It's basically relying on postmodernism to say, what is truth? It's about goodness. Don't worry about historicity. How boring. Truth is such a boring thing. You know, evidence is so boring. Let's talk about the ways that it enriches your life. Yeah, and. But then you're also saying there's this huge field of, of landmines where you're still not allowed to go, not allowed to talk.

Bert Fuller [00:55:47] Oh, of course, yeah, absolutely.

John Dehlin [00:55:49] And, and that, that's a dynamic.

Bert Fuller [00:55:52] Well, I mean, and then there's some really like mundane stuff like don't go to Sunstone. I mean if you're like at byu. Right.

John Dehlin [00:55:59] Or publishing dialogue.

Bert Fuller [00:56:01] Yeah. Don't let you know. And you know, those like these little more mundane things change from year to year, you know, whatever. But another thing is very important is don't validate non scholars. So if John de Lind says something or if Brent Metcalf or if Jeremy Runnels or you know, Sandra Tenner, whoever, non approved scholars, well, they don't even consider them scholars.

John Dehlin [00:56:24] I have a PhD. Like there are scholars. Right. But it's not, it's, it's. Well, go ahead.

Bert Fuller [00:56:31] Because for them your, your credentials as a scholar are as important or more important than your ability as a scholar. And so Michael Quinn publishes all his books except one with signature. They go like, don't bother with that. Right. So it's kind of like this hierarchy of who you should take seriously. The more grants they get, the more prestigious universities they work at, the more. But the thing that's so laughable about this is they're all publishing, most of them. I think Spencer Fluman is an exception. I think he published with the University of North Carolina if I remember correctly. But most of them publish their books with Oxford, including things that are just like not very good.

John Dehlin [00:57:09] Oxford sounds fancy.

Bert Fuller [00:57:11] Well, yeah, it is. But any university publishers press is going, look, okay. And this is, this is very complex. We don't have time to get into this. But universal presses, for the most part all work in the red. They don't make money, they lose money. But with the corporatization of the university System since the 1970s, there has been a sense that all of these institutions, their funding needs to be cut unless they are financially self sustainable. And so all presses, all academic presses have this as a concern and as an anxiety. Now, oddly enough, BYU doesn't and we could get into that, but it's because it's funded by the church, which is extremely wealthy. And so all academic presses have this problem. So if you tap on a topic or a series or a gold mine that people besides scholars and university libraries will buy this book. Why wouldn't you publish it like Oxford publishes, I don't know how many hundreds, if not thousands of scholarly books a year. It's like if they publish, you know, three or four or five Mormon books and one or two or three of them are a bit like scholarly, shoddy. It's not going to impact their reputation, but it is going to give them increased revenue. And so you're saying it's not necessarily

John Dehlin [00:58:24] a prestigious thing to publish with Oxford?

Bert Fuller [00:58:26] Well, okay. I'm just saying that if it says Oxford University Press on the title, that doesn't necessarily mean the book is substantive. Right now, there are books that are very good about Mormon topics published with Oxford. So I'm not saying it's a knock against it. I'm just saying it shouldn't give you a green light. However, if you. But, but in like, the scholarly world, like the Mormon liberal scholarly world, if you publish a book with signature versus you publish a book with, with Oxford, the person who publishes with Oxford is a step up. Like they're more of a scholar or shouldn't they be?

John Dehlin [00:58:57] Is that a fair value?

Bert Fuller [00:58:59] I disagree.

Bert Fuller [00:59:01] Well,

Bert Fuller [00:59:04] I mean, now you want to get into my, like, personal biases and things like this.

John Dehlin [00:59:08] It doesn't matter. Yeah, okay. Yeah, but you. But you think I don't care.

Bert Fuller [00:59:11] Look, if something. So a monograph, which means a book on a technical topic, I don't care where it's published, if it's good.

John Dehlin [00:59:17] Okay.

Bert Fuller [00:59:18] If it's published from Harvard and it's

John Dehlin [00:59:19] garbage, does that happen?

Bert Fuller [00:59:21] Yes, it happens all the time.

John Dehlin [00:59:24] You know, just checking.

Bert Fuller [00:59:25] Yeah. Yeah. So anyway, and that's the other thing, actually. That's kind of funny. I should say. This is a critique against both liberal kind of faithful Mormon scholarship, but also a critique of ex Mormon scholarship. They kind of use this idea of peer review as a way of, if I can use this jargony term, fetishizing the quality of work. When peer review is kind of the US academic, it's not equivalent to LDS correlation, but it serves a similar function. It filters out the stuff that is not okay to say. And so that's not all peer review does, but that is something that peer review does. And, and if. Oh, sorry. Yeah, we can move on.

John Dehlin [01:00:05] Okay.

Bert Fuller [01:00:06] Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:00:06] So. But you were just saying about people like Spencer Flumen, they publish in journals. What was your point? That the books they publish are not particularly reputable or not particularly scholarly or.

Bert Fuller [01:00:17] We were just talking about things that you can't say. The landmines. Right. And. And one of the landmines is there are certain people you can't take seriously. Paul Toscano. Margaret Toscano. Don't even. Don't even take them seriously. Which is laughable, you know, because it's like, who's writing as much theology as Paul Toscano and who's writing as much like Mormon theology and scholarship and things like that, like Margaret Toscano. But, you know, if you're.

John Dehlin [01:00:39] And history. Michael Quinn. Right. Who's more.

Bert Fuller [01:00:41] Yeah. And who's a better Mormon historian as far as somebody who gathers all of the material and tries to look like, synoptically at it? I mean, he's very, very good, you know, but that's not. Look, in academia, maybe this sounds weird, but the point of history is not to tell what happened. Now you get good historians like D. Michael Quinn and Don Bradley and people who don't have stellar academic, like, credentials in terms of their positions and grants and so forth and their chumminess with the donor class, who really. As historians. And they're excellent. Just say, I just want to know what happened. But for most people, that's not what. Like most historians, that's not what writing history means. For most people, writing history means having a thesis and defending it.

John Dehlin [01:01:27] Right.

Bert Fuller [01:01:28] So it's different activity.

John Dehlin [01:01:29] Got it?

Bert Fuller [01:01:29] Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:01:30] Okay.

Bert Fuller [01:01:30] Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:01:34] Thank you for joining us today on Mormon Stories. If you enjoyed this episode, please help us make more like it by becoming a monthly subscriber@mormon mormonstories.org. Rocks is a featured single on Angela Soph's upcoming album Second Wind, Inspired by her struggle with the faith journey out of orthodox religion. You can find and follow her on social media as Angela Sofbam. That's S O F F E on Spotify. Or Angela. Sophie,

Bert Fuller [01:02:23] Cast me your stones I will lay them back at your feet Take my hand let's walk we like to throw rocks at the people who don't see the world in the way we do I don't know why we all stand in a circle and point a finger or two Tell me how can you see what is buried beneath a mountain of smiles? We're all thrown in the same blue water of the unknown so leave your rocks at home. The truth is not what it seems we are told to just be believing the story has never been told and we all need someone to listen to hold our hearts is there beating with soul.

Part 3 of 3 · Ep. 888

Bert Fuller [00:00:00] We like to throw rocks at the people who don't see the world in the way we do.

John Dehlin [00:00:11] Mormon Stories is a production of the Open Stories foundation and relies solely upon the support of people like you, its listeners. To help keep the podcast alive or to become a member of the community, Please become a monthly subscriber by visiting MormonStories.org and clicking the donate button on the top right side of the page. All contributions to Mormon Stories are completely tax deductible and go towards producing the podcast and building communities and programs of support for Mormons like you. Thanks for your support. All right, so now I think it's time to turn in the interview and this probably should be its own segment to talk about neo Apologetics and what your critiques are, because we now have moved. Many of us would celebrate the fact that we moved away from Daniel Peterson, Lou Midgley, you know, Bill Hamblin. They're pretty much irrelevant now. I mean, Daniel Peterson might publish a editorial in the Desert News every once in a while, but nobody really listens to them anymore. And you know, part of that's just that they're old, but part of it is they've been de. Institutionalized and, and I think all of us kind of celebrated when that happened. Not that we wish any personal ill on any of them, we don't, but, but in that sense, the way that Apologetics has moved into this new neo apologetic sphere, there's so much to celebrate about it. It's not mean spirited, there's no ad hominem, they're, they're, you know, it's less distasteful in the sense that it's not offering, you know, bad, shoddy scientific arguments. It's not even playing in the realm of truth claims. And so, and the people are just generally nicer and there's much more empathy. So this pastoral idea of like, be empathetic to doubters, be empathetic to those who are struggling, be kind to them, show compassion, show empathy. We're getting that in spades now. So you would think that we should all just sort of be celebrating and just say, hooray, victory. We got rid of bad, evil, old style apologetics and now we've got new apologetics that's kind and gentle and loving and good. Yeah. And maybe that's how most people feel. But I started this series because I think, number one, it's important for us to understand the change that has happened and it's important to understand what is happening. And then it's also important to look at the effects of what these changes might have. And so you, you know, we discussed before sort of any critiques you might have of neo apologetics.

The Future of Neo-Apologetics in Mormonism

Bert Fuller [00:02:59] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:03:00] And you can compliment it as well, but I'm just wondering if you want to share that now.

Bert Fuller [00:03:05] So my critiques of neo apologetics come from two angles. One is about Mormonism and the other is just about how universities work in general. And I have to be honest, like, I've been on a leave of absence from my PhD. I started working in real estate. I don't really look at Mormon books or blogs hardly at all these days. And so the precision with which I could make these arguments 10 or 12 months ago has definitely. That's blunted.

John Dehlin [00:03:37] Thank you. Disclaimer.

Bert Fuller [00:03:38] Yeah, and so, but like you're. So you're asking me what are my general critiques of like, neo apologetics?

John Dehlin [00:03:50] Why isn't it just something to be celebrated and even followed?

Bert Fuller [00:03:54] Okay, this is a little tricky to articulate, but like, politically and religiously, I see myself as being like, of the left, if you will. Like, I'm not right wing. And so I'm not talking about personal relationships. I'm talking about the way institutions function and policies and the way money flows and laws are made and everything like that. I feel like the values and principles of right wing ideologies is like a pretty clear and present danger or enemy, if you will. The thing that's really awkward, and I'm only barely beginning to discern, is that whatever represents kind of like the establishment liberal contingency in the church or in our nation seems more preoccupied with quashing, like left wing activism against right wing policies and institutions because they are in a position of power. And so if you threaten the dominant power structure, it will impact them.

John Dehlin [00:05:11] So give your general reasoning for being a left wing. What is your general critique about power in institutions we can apply to Mormonism and neo apologetics.

Bert Fuller [00:05:21] So, you know, like, I'm a medievalist. Right. I specialize particularly in the late medieval England. We good? Okay. And I think we're taught like in like middle school about the Magna Carta, which was basically saying the king. I mean, I haven't read the Magna Carta in full, just a little bit here. But what I was taught as a kid was the king can't just do whatever he wants. Like the king is subject to some kind of rules. Right. Rather than everybody else being subject to the king. And so I think they instituted habeas corpus then in English common law. But during the Bush administration, habeas corpus in the United States was actually repealed. And I don't know how aware people are of this. And also with something like the Patriot act, the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens from search and seizure and the Snowden revelations, I mean, like, it doesn't exist in practical terms. It still has, like a law. It's on the books, but. Or when it comes to freedom of assembly. And you look at the Occupy movement and they're literally just like hanging out in Zuccotti Park. But then cops show up. This is under the Obama administration, okay? Cops show up and break people's wrists. They grab women's breasts and bruise them, they throw them in jail. I mean, like, it's just like bad stuff is happening. And so I. I value these civil liberties. And I do not come at it from a position which I would consider right wing, that whoever is in the institution of power, whether it's the presidency of the nation or the presidency of the church, or the director of some institution, research or university, whatever, that what they say is just like. Right, because they say it because of the position that they hold. Like, I don't value that. I know a lot of people who do.

John Dehlin [00:07:19] Anymore. What's that anymore? I guess I did it one time with the truth.

Bert Fuller [00:07:23] I must have. Yeah, I must. But I feel like.

John Dehlin [00:07:26] Well, like the era. Like the example with your wife.

Bert Fuller [00:07:28] That's right. No, that's true. I definitely had it in me. But I don't ever feel like I was dyed in the wool that way. I felt like it was more elements of me. And so I felt like as I become more aware of that in different aspects of my life or opinions or values I might hold, I tend to try to root that out. Cause I don't. I don't like it.

John Dehlin [00:07:47] So you don't like absolute authority. You're suspicious of too much power. Concentrated.

Bert Fuller [00:07:53] Concentrated. That's right.

John Dehlin [00:07:55] So that's a general critique concern.

Bert Fuller [00:07:58] And so now that's a right wing perspective among the left wing. And I distinguish left wing political and left wing religious. So when I refer to liberal apologetics, I'm not assuming that they have left wing politics. Liberal in the United States or Democrat is kind of the mainstream form of what gets called left wing. But if you compare it with left wing politics or religion in the United States historically, over the last hundred years, then it actually looks centrist. But even right wing of center. Or if you compare the United States to other countries as well in the west, or even in places like Kurdistan, if you want to go there. And so the people who are. If we can call it establishment left wing, whether they are the ministers and churches like liberal churches, or they are the mainstream left wing media, msnbc, a lot of people, I mean, I think Alex Jones watchers consider Fox News left wing. So it's kind of, there's a sliding scale here, but, or whether it's at universities. Right. We're taught to understand these are the powers that are trying to put pressure on the right wing tyrannies. And I think that that's partially true. But what I've come to see is that these left wing institutions by and large depend on right wing power for their very existence in our country. They do because the US empire allows like the CIA, like government grants or whatever. And so that's what traditionally has been science.

John Dehlin [00:09:59] And so like that's why Democrats might support war as much as Republicans.

Bert Fuller [00:10:03] That's right.

John Dehlin [00:10:04] Why corporations might give to Democrats as much as they give to Republicans.

Bert Fuller [00:10:07] Right.

John Dehlin [00:10:08] And in some ways the ideological differences are just cosmetic to.

Bert Fuller [00:10:12] Right, yeah.

John Dehlin [00:10:13] They're both being controlled by power. Is that.

Bert Fuller [00:10:15] Yes, yes.

John Dehlin [00:10:15] Okay.

Bert Fuller [00:10:16] Yes, yes. And, and, and how I see it is that we do have a political structure. But you know, there's research like out of Princeton, I saw. If you look at the last 30, 40 years and you look at policies that were popular, meaning they had, you know, 60, 70% of popular support, but they went against corporate interest every single time. Corporate interest is what became policy. So, so I see power being in corporations primarily. And then politicians are largely like brands or things that people feel loyalty to.

John Dehlin [00:10:55] Democracy can become a myth. Where we really are. It's really not the people that are in charge, it's the power.

Bert Fuller [00:11:00] Right? Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:11:01] So tie this to the church.

Bert Fuller [00:11:02] Okay, so the way that I tie this to the church is that if you are, if you're, if you're economically useless, I'm not saying you're useless as a person, but you don't produce something that increases the economic wealth of, you know, of a, of a space or whatever, then you depend on producers for your well being. And the fact is historians are not economic producers. They're useless from an economic perspective. Now they can play a useful role. And there are, there are historians that are. So I don't have a, like a general critique about history, but I'm just pointing out like there are historians that are good at telling about what happened in the past and there are historians that are good about keeping their jobs. And they're, and sometimes they're the same person, sometimes they're not. And so it actually this is how it works in churches with paid clergy, as far as that liberal institution goes, but as far as it works in universities, it's very useful to hire people who, number one, are not willing to speak about certain things, number two, are willing to speak about other things. And number three, because they're willing to speak about those other things, it looks like they are the force of transparency and they are the force of like, unmasking power for what it really is when ultimately they're using that as a shroud to cover all this other stuff that power is up to intentionally or unknowingly. I think oftentimes unknowingly, but it's kind of a thing where it's like, why would you look into the thing that could threaten your livelihood when you have a million other things to be doing ahead of that?

John Dehlin [00:12:52] So we look at a Spencer Fluman, who obviously is employed by BYU in the church.

Bert Fuller [00:12:58] That's right. Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:12:59] But then we also have people like Patrick Mason or Philip Barlow who are, yes, they're part of public institutions or private institutions that are independent from the church. But we know that the. The funding for their chairs, whether it's Patrick Mason's chair at Claremont or Phil Barlow's chair at Utah State, is funded by wealthy Mormon faithful donors.

Bert Fuller [00:13:22] That's right, yeah. Who are right wing politically.

John Dehlin [00:13:24] Yeah.

Bert Fuller [00:13:25] Almost always.

John Dehlin [00:13:25] Right. But also more importantly, are. Have a very strong interest in the church's. All the stuff that shouldn't be talked about, according to the church that. That continues to be not talked about.

Bert Fuller [00:13:37] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:13:37] And then that the church is defended in whatever way it can be defended.

Bert Fuller [00:13:42] And so this is actually a really key point because at no point do I think there's a contract or a conversation where the donor says, now just so let's be clear, these are the topics you're not supposed to talk about. I don't think that happens. It's like that story I told where the.

John Dehlin [00:13:58] It's signaling, It's. It's social signal signaling. You learn over time. You see what happens to Michael Quinn. You see what happens to Greg Prince. You see what happens to John Dehlin. You see it happens. You see what people get in trouble for and what they don't. And through social codes and indirect anecdotes, you know what lines to cross and what lines not to cross.

Bert Fuller [00:14:17] Yeah. And some scholars are very conscious about this. Others are very intuitive about it. But, you know, both of them depend on this is what I mean. If, If Patrick Mason is. Or Paul Reeve or whoever is invested in pushing progressive causes they can only do it because they pull a paycheck from right wing sources. And look, I think there are worse things that a person could do in their life. Okay. You could actually be the type of, like, openly racist, bigoted, sexist, like, patriarch, whatever. Like, I think, you know, understandably that's a problem. But.

John Dehlin [00:15:02] And if we know Spencer or Patrick or Richard Bushman or Terrell Givens, because there's the official sort of people sitting in dabbed chairs, and then there's the other neo apologists like Bushman and Givens, who are running around receiving money from very wealthy donors, being flown to cities and countries all over the world to do this neo apologetics thing at these firesides, to publish these books sponsored by Deseret Book and others. So there's those two classes of neo apologists, right?

Bert Fuller [00:15:31] Yeah, yeah. And then there's also kind of like the up and comers or the people who recognize there's money. They could make a career out of this. Now I just need to learn everything I need to do in order to, like, turn that tap on.

John Dehlin [00:15:43] Who might that be? That's Adam Miller.

Bert Fuller [00:15:45] I mean, I couldn't say, like, Adam doesn't seem to me terribly materialistic or, you know, I think he's. I think that his investment is very genuine, actually. Probably all these people. It's very genuine.

John Dehlin [00:15:57] No, they're not racist, they're not sexist, they're not homophobic. They want transparency, they want truth, they want openness. They care about people. They want.

Bert Fuller [00:16:06] But they want all that stuff up to a point.

John Dehlin [00:16:08] Okay, so that's where we get to your critique, right?

Bert Fuller [00:16:11] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:16:11] And so we stipulate they're good hearted people who are. Want to be honest and truthful as much as they can. They want to see the church make positive changes. They want to see less LGBT suicides, they want to see women treated better. They want to see those who question their faith not be marginalized and punished. Like, they want all the same things, Bert, that you and I want.

Bert Fuller [00:16:30] Yeah, sure, yeah, yeah, but, but let's be clear about something. I think a lot of right wing people want those things too. And they, they feel like, okay, the way we can and, you know, the way that women can be treated better is if we could just take them all out of the workplace. Right. Like, the way that, you know, society would be safer is if we just brought back prohibition, which I literally heard like a Mormon, you know, scholar say a couple weeks ago, like, you know, so it's hard to be against, like, things that are so obviously. Good. But the question is they want these things very privately and then they want it publicly up to a point of challenging the church. But beyond that point. They'll go beyond that point privately. Right. They'll share. They'll share their.

John Dehlin [00:17:15] Spencer did in this private exchange.

Bert Fuller [00:17:17] Yeah, yeah.

John Dehlin [00:17:18] With the Millers.

Bert Fuller [00:17:19] But, but, but publicly, it's like you have a sense of where you will not go past. Right.

John Dehlin [00:17:25] What's wrong with that? What if someone were to say, well, they're just being diplomatic, they're just being smart, they're keeping their job, they're fighting from within.

Bert Fuller [00:17:31] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:17:32] Why would you critique that? Well, what would. What might the critique be of that? If they're fighting for the same things, but we are, they're just trying to keep their job and use their influence from within, versus they would say a Bert or John Dehlin doesn't have influence because they're outside and they're dismissed.

Bert Fuller [00:17:51] Okay, so two things. Number one, I think it's totally fine. Like, from a progressivist model, if you want to help change an institution, there needs to be pressure from the inside and from the outside. That's cool. I'm down with that. But the other thing, and this is the thing that gets me super uncomfortable and super unhappy, is that if they truly, like, if the internal people and the external people really do want the same thing, when the external people start doing stuff, why do the internal people come and attack us or discredit us or, you know, say, why we shouldn't listen to you because you're not a real scholar, or we shouldn't listen to you because you're just a podcaster or, you know, like, stuff like that, like, that's not particularly helpful, I don't feel. And so either we really do want the same thing and we're just, like, working, like, at odds with one another, or we don't. Which would seem like more like a more reasonable assumption, I think. And so what I want is very different from what they want, and I'm explicit about it. Okay. And so that's my critique. Now, I will say I'm not saying everyone needs to feel the way that I feel. I think, you know, you think about it yourself. You consider what you want to feel invested in. You do that. But just because you keep the kid gloves on and no longer behave like, you know, a ferocious animal the way maybe some traditional apologetics at times did, just because you keep the kid gloves on doesn't mean that I have to. So.

John Dehlin [00:19:26] Yeah, so. So some of the examples might be ordained. Women.

Neo-Apologists and Progressive Mormon Concerns

Bert Fuller [00:19:33] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:19:33] Mormon Stories podcast.

Bert Fuller [00:19:34] Right, right. Oh, here.

John Dehlin [00:19:35] CES Letter.

Bert Fuller [00:19:36] Let's go through all of these. Okay. So when Ordained Women happens, Valerie Hudson Katzler publishes a long. Like. Like, I. Like, this is really silly. Like, why are these women doing this? Right. And she's supposed to be, like, a feminist or something like that. And so I think. I mean, theoretically, she and Kate Kelly want similar things in sense of, like, we want the church to be more feminist, friendlier. I don't know. Like, that's at the level of, you know, abstraction. But then the people who actually try to make the church more, like, open to women or whatever, the commissar class, if you will, these liberal scholars and whatnot, have to prove that when something controversial happens, they are on the right side of the line and say they will not attack the power structure. They will attack the people who are trying to make the church or wherever more habitable for more people.

John Dehlin [00:20:27] So. So Kate Kelly and Ordained Women is one example.

Bert Fuller [00:20:31] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:20:31] How about Jeremy Runnels?

Bert Fuller [00:20:32] Oh, well, because.

John Dehlin [00:20:35] Because there are scholars that are very snooty, very disrespectful to Jeremy's work.

Bert Fuller [00:20:39] Yeah. Yeah. I think. I think, Jeremy, the clearest kind of problem I see with the. The quote, liberal apologist response to Jeremy Runnels is that they just completely ignore it. I feel that they sometimes ignore it

John Dehlin [00:20:59] or they dismiss it as poor scholarship.

Bert Fuller [00:21:02] I don't think they engage it at all. And it's kind of like, I can understand why you don't want to, but at the same time, if what you say is you care about people, their faith and their interaction with the church and everything like that, to ignore the CES letter, like, it would be more important to read the CES letter than it would to read the Book of Mormon. Honestly, like, as far as, you know, all of these people who are on the edge of. Or on the fence about their faith or whatever, they. Most of these people are not going to read, like, a verse in the Book of Mormon and be like, oh, thank you, that solved my problem. You know, it's like, they're going to be concerned at that. And so if you just like, you know, you know, pass him aside because you're like, oh, he's not a. He's not worth taking seriously. That's. I mean, these other folks aren't going to buy that. Right. They're just going to be like, that just feels a bit. I mean, it's kind of a dumb word, but elitist, you know, so. Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:21:52] Okay, so what are some of your Other concerns with. So they don't. They don't speak out enough. They throw under the bus those.

Bert Fuller [00:22:02] Well, let me. Let me be clear. Let me clarify that. I don't have a standard for them that they need to speak out about, like, so much. I'm just saying they seem to present themselves as trying to fix things or solve problems or whatever. And so I find it a little bizarre when they seem to contribute to the problem rather than alleviate the problem. That's what I.

John Dehlin [00:22:30] And how do they do that?

Bert Fuller [00:22:31] Well, like, okay, when Patrick Mason speaks at fair, and I think you said this to me, this was like a year or two ago, you're like, this is revolutionary for fair, and you know it is. It's true. Patrick Mason says, I. I don't want to see what happens in our church. What happened in the Southern Baptist convention in the 90s where there was a fundamentalist takeover. And I'm thinking to myself, I'm like, okay, here's a guy who says, like, he's an expert in studying religion. I mean, I assume that that's, like, his job. Right. I think he knows what fundamentalism means. And when you. When you kind of compare American religious factions, whether it's Mormon or Jehovah's Witness or various strands of evangelical or whatever, and you compare these against mainline Protestant, you're like, we are a fundamentalist religion. So it's. Again, goes back to that presupposition thing. If you say, I don't want to see a fundamentalist take over of our church, you presuppose that it hasn't already happened or that it hasn't always been this way. And so I find that. I find that misleading.

John Dehlin [00:23:31] You're saying we're objectively fundamentalist.

Bert Fuller [00:23:34] I don't know about the word objectively, but it seems from like, a sociological or anthropological perspective. Yeah, we're religious religiously for what that word means.

John Dehlin [00:23:42] Deceptive, you're saying a little bit.

Bert Fuller [00:23:43] Well, and. And he might be making that deception unknowingly, or he might just disagree with me, but I reserve the right to disagree with him.

John Dehlin [00:23:50] Yeah.

Bert Fuller [00:23:50] Right. So, yeah.

John Dehlin [00:23:52] Okay, so what. So when you think about. So what do you think about this idea? Just speaking very concretely, when. When Spencer's talking to this Miller couple and he's saying things like, Joseph Smith, you know, inspired eclecticism, that he's just this sponge that's looking around him.

Bert Fuller [00:24:15] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:24:16] And he's, oh, masonry. And, oh, there's King James and, oh, there's really Hebrews. And he's just. That somehow that, number one, that's what he's doing. They're admitting that. And then it's somehow beautiful and inspiring that that's the process. That in some ways that's more inspiring and faithful than actual translation. And he gives those sorts of answers to people in private.

Bert Fuller [00:24:39] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:24:40] What's your.

Bert Fuller [00:24:41] Well, if he feels that way, I think it's a subjective experience and he's welcome to it. I don't feel that way.

John Dehlin [00:24:45] Why'd you laugh so hard?

Bert Fuller [00:24:46] Well, because it's kind of like the Sizzler approach. It's like, you know, we got Italian, we got, you know, Mexican, we got, you know, all of these different things. We've got all the desserts. Bring your kids. There's room for everybody. And I'm just like, no, look. Okay, the thing that was very disappointing for me once I started studying. Oh, well, in my PhD, I'm studying medieval Christianity, and I come to realize Mormons are not Christian from, like, the normal usages of those words. Okay. And I can hear a kind of postmodern monkey in my brain saying, how dare you say normal usages of those words? You know, But. But Mormons weren't Christian. I was like, okay, well, you know, I've always worshiped Jesus and Christ and stuff like that. The Book of Mormon is very Jesus heavy book. What am I? What is Mormon? And as I look into just about everything, I realize we're not anything unique or particular. We are an amalgamation of a lot of things. Right. And that can be good. But when a lot of those things that are brought into the hodgepodge are, like, awful and toxic and you want to get rid of those, like what? Well, I mean, like the race thing or the. Or, you know, hating these. Or.

John Dehlin [00:26:02] Yeah, homophobia.

Bert Fuller [00:26:03] Yeah, yeah. The patriarchy stuff and the. The. The secret, the secretive nature, you know, the. Yeah. So, I mean, you kind of want

John Dehlin [00:26:14] to look at commercialism.

Bert Fuller [00:26:16] Yeah. I mean, I'm not crazy about that myself. Yeah. So if. If what you're saying is we're good because. Or like, Joseph is good because he brought all this stuff together. But then you look at Joseph and you're like, well, there's some stuff I don't like. Your response can either be, well, maybe I need to change my opinion about the goodness or badness of those things, or maybe I should even question the reality of what is good or what is true or whatever. Or your response would be like, well, I don't like these bits. And so I just. I think Joseph was wrong here or whatever. And speak about this publicly. That's another thing you can't do is just be, you know, be like, nope, that's wrong. And so then you take it off and then you're kind of like damaging the idea that what so beautiful is that he brought all these things together. If you find value in taking some of those things out. And so, like I say, if somebody feels that way, of course they're welcome to it. But I don't think it's a very. I don't like if, if they, if they feel it subjectively and they're just expressing this is how I feel, that's fine. But if they're saying, like, this is how I feel and I think it's a serious position, that is what. You maybe ought to consider feeling that yourself. I mean, it's kind of. I think it's kind of ridiculous. So.

Bert Fuller [00:27:31] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:27:32] What about, you know, when the Millers are trying to decide whether or not to use Spencer Flubin's name, whether or not to mention the Maxwell Institute, whether or not to release the audio and. Or the transcript of their conversation with Spencer? There were a lot of people who expressed concern to me privately. You know, don't do that. Spencer's one of the good guys. You know, he gave these conversations in secret and private. He didn't know he's, you know, he knew he's being recorded, but he didn't give permission. And you're gonna hurt him. There are all sorts of enemies, like, you know, you know, Midgley and Peterson that are still out there nipping at the heels of the Maxwell Institute in Spencer. And all you're giving them is ammo to hurt Spencer. And by the way, if Spencer's in there trying to do good, you're. If you speak publicly about him or what they're trying to do, it could compromise his power and his influence. So leave him alone, basically. Okay, do. What are your. What would your response to that be, even to the Miller's choice of naming him, you know.

Bert Fuller [00:28:39] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:28:40] As the person that they spoke with when they got these answers that for them were just not satisfactory.

Bert Fuller [00:28:45] Yeah. So I don't feel in this instance like playing the morality referee, but the way I feel is kind of like, you know, if they do something and he doesn't like it, and he has good reasons not to like it, that's not. I mean, they can still do what they're gonna do.

John Dehlin [00:29:12] You said something to me at Taco Bell about, in an authoritative organization, who says something is actually all that matters.

Bert Fuller [00:29:19] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:29:20] So in other words, the Fact that Spencer said. The fact that Spencer sits as the chair of the Maxwell Institute and is giving these really neo apologetic answers like the Brethren are flawed. Revelation comes from the grassroots, you know, inspired eclecticism. The Book of Mormon does contain forgeries. It is plagiarized from the New Testament. You know, these are very significant things, mainly because he's saying them and he's sitting in the institution. He is. Now, I'm telling you what to say, but I got that from you.

Bert Fuller [00:29:54] Yeah, no, that's true. No, that is true. So like I say, the. The kind of a classical distinction between right wing and left wing is that right wing is who says the thing is what matters more than what is being said. Right. And in the left wing perspective, what is being said matters more. And the Church is definitely, without doubt, a right wing institution. BYU is certainly in all universities, are certainly some more than less but authoritarian institutions. I mean, there's no doubt about that. I don't think. And so if the way you unmask it is to catch the difference between the PR machine, the propaganda engine, and what is actually said behind closed doors, I mean, okay, if somebody's gonna say that's like ethically ambiguous or something like that, then they also consider investigative journalism ethically ambiguous. And I find the institution of investigative journalism morally very clear. It seems very clear that it's a good thing. Now, if you want to take certain things on a case by case basis and kind of judge and weigh them, if you want to say somebody like Edward Snowden is more ethical than somebody like Julian Assange, it's like, okay, those are kind of more subtle distinctions that we can talk about and discuss. But if you'd want to say that, like, people shouldn't even be doing that at all. Like, that. That seems really wrong to me. That seems really, really wrong to me.

John Dehlin [00:31:35] So you have these families, these couples like the Millers, where, let's just say the husband loses his faith, but the wife believes. And so for years, the husband's suffering in silence, you know, being disrespected by the wife, being disrespected by extended family. Maybe the marriage is frayed and on the rocks, and maybe there's just deep stress and tension that's spilling out all over, that's kind of breaking up families.

Bert Fuller [00:32:03] Is that what was happening in their situation? I'm sorry, I wish I could have listened to it. Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:32:07] Yes. So. And so then, then they go to the wizard, they go to Spencer to get sort of this last ditch. Like Brooke finds out, she starts Studying. She's like, oh, my gosh, these issues are legitimate. We've been lied to. So then they go to Spencer and they say, help us. And then Spencer gives these sort of neo apologetic, what is truth? You know, it's all messy. The Brethren are just figuring out, like us, they stand shoulder. We need to forgive them just like they need to forgive us. Revolution can off or inspiration can often come, you know, through peer pressure. He said, yeah. That peer pressure can often be the impetus for a revelation. He admits that the Brethren are often 30 years behind the times on major social issues. These are all things he's saying to them privately.

Bert Fuller [00:32:56] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:32:56] Is there any problem with that or is that a good thing?

Bert Fuller [00:33:00] Okay, I'll put it this way, because I have close relationships to people at the Maxwell Institute. I don't have a close relationship with Spencer. He knows who I am. I know who he is. But I wasn't working there when he was there. I feel like my personal opinion about this will be like, I'm too close to the issue, I guess. Now, if you were to ask me the same question about somebody like Mike Norton and him going into temples and recording it. Sandra Tanner said she wouldn't do that herself. I applaud Mike Norton for doing what he's doing. Okay. Now that's going to be an unpopular opinion, I think, but I'm totally behind it now in an abstract way. Totally. I think this couple you're talking about, I would never criticize them for what they did. I would never.

John Dehlin [00:33:47] And I'm actually. I'm actually not talking about that. I'm asking about, is there any problem with neo apologists, number one, having.

Bert Fuller [00:33:53] I'm sorry, I misunderstood.

John Dehlin [00:33:54] Having a second unofficial narrative.

Bert Fuller [00:33:56] Yeah, I think there's a problem.

John Dehlin [00:33:57] I want you to talk about that. What's the problem with number one? A second unofficial postmodern narrative.

Bert Fuller [00:34:03] Yeah, yeah.

John Dehlin [00:34:03] And that they're only willing to share it selectively in private or in these secret firesides.

Bert Fuller [00:34:09] Yeah, yeah.

John Dehlin [00:34:10] So what are the problems with that?

Bert Fuller [00:34:11] So there was this book called the American Religion, written by a fellow Yale, Harold Bloom, that I don't think most Mormons think liked, but some people do. Mike Quinn liked it. Margaret Toscano likes it. I like it. And he talks about the American religion more broadly, but Mormonism being the best example of this. He talks about it as being Gnostic, and there are problems with his characterization. But one thing that is really clarifying is Gnostics believe in a kind of secret gospel. Okay. So in order to be saved, you have to know, like the, the hidden knowledge. And the word gnostic, it has the same word as to know. That's just what the word comes from in Greek. And so I find it extraordinarily problematic for somebody to champion himself as a leader of transparency, which I get the impression Spencer does, and then to also simultaneously be agnostic if he is that. I'm just using this as a way of, you know, exploring this idea of saying, well, there's kind of this truth, but once you get closer to the inner sanctum, there's this truth. Which is why I found that Tom Phillips interview with you so unsettling. And I'm really glad he did it is because it's like, wait a second. My whole life I'm told that I'm supposed to be sealed to my spouse in the temple and this is the crowning ordinance. And I hear that verbiage from, I don't know, people like John, by the way, or whatever at EFYS and those sorts of things. And then I learned there's actually one on top of that. Now, I don't have a problem with there being one on top of it, but the fact that they have their own little, like, private salvation process is, like, really, like religiously offensive, I feel. And I think that the idea of having scholars who say one thing in their books, but they feel something different in private, and, you know, they're working on this behind closed door type network, they would call me gossipy, right? They would call me gossipy for shedding light on this stuff. But for them, that's just normal. That's just how you survive in this institution. That's not gossip, apparently. And so I have a huge problem with. I mean, how could it not feel somewhat duplicitous if in private you're willing to say to somebody that, I don't know the Miller's relationship with Spencer Fluman, I don't know how well they know each other, but if, But I know from personal experience that professors that don't know certain people even all that well, they're willing to say things in private to people they don't even know that well. And they would. Things that they would never say on a blog or on a podcast or whatever. It's kind of like, I don't know, like, I mean, we all have that. And this is a line I do like from Neal A. Maxwell. I read in one of his books the idea of reducing hypocrisy in our lives, because I do feel like we are hypocrites in the sense that our values and our words and our actions don't always line up with how they ought to be. But I don't. I feel like it's wrong to defend a practice which would increase hypocrisy in people's lives. That doesn't seem. Yeah. Did I respond to the question better?

Bert Fuller [00:37:22] Sure.

Bert Fuller [00:37:22] Okay.

John Dehlin [00:37:23] The other. And this is just me again, restating what I said last episode with the Millers. When Josh Millers left for years to suffer in silence or his marriage is threatened because everyone around him, all the traditional orthodox believing Mormons, are marching in step with the official narrative. But then when it's time for him and his wife to sort of seek support, they're given this unofficial postmodern neo apologetic narrative just to assuage the few liberals that might be questioning or fraying from the church. It seems like it sacrifices on the altar tens or hundreds of thousands of families.

Bert Fuller [00:38:04] Oh, absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. And so. Okay. Something you'll hear again and again and again in these circles is the terrible things that families will do to each other, like what you just described. And they say, oh, well, they don't know the real gospel. They don't really know the teachings of the church, otherwise they wouldn't have done those things. Which is another kind of gnostic move, right? Like, oh, we really get it, but they don't get it. And you're like, well, if we're just looking at it statistically, demographically, of people who are active in the church and everything like this, and this is actually more common than whatever weird intellectual stuff you do, then wouldn't they be the normative and you would be the exception? And so they have to play the tightrope not just of keeping people in, but they have to play the tightrope of not displaying exactly who in private. A lot of times they claim to be. Because if so doing, then people would say, right, like how. You know, how dare the church employ. Like in this Tara Westover book, she. Is it called Educated? I've been listening to it on Audible. And her dad always talks about the socialist professors at byu, Right? Like, how dare, you know, how dare the church pay people that have liberal ideas at BYU and all this stuff. And so you can't. You can't megaphone that. You megaphone that you get the ax because it causes problems for the church and for you and your standing in your local community or whatever. Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:39:32] I'm getting two criticisms from Jerlee Renshaw, who is always so good to tune in. She's one of the main moderators for thoughtful faith. First of all, she's saying that one of the problems with the Miller interview is that they agreed not to share the interview. And that's true. And they didn't share the interview. What they did is they talked about the interview. So, Jerry, my. My understanding is that the Millers agreed not to share the recording, which they didn't, outside of their private, you know, friends and whoever they wanted to share it with, but they never agreed with Spencer to. To not talk about the things that Spencer said to them. So my understanding is they did not violate their agreement with Spencer. And to infer that they did violate their agreement with Spencer, I think, is to misunderstand what they've said and to read more into the situation. Would it be fair for Spencer to say, I'm going to give you all these answers sitting at BYU in the Maxwell, but don't tell anyone I told you this?

Bert Fuller [00:40:28] Well, and this is what I was going to say is, let's say they. Let's say they broke their word completely and shared the interview. Okay? That is something of a moral crisis, I guess. But I think it's very small by comparison to this bigger problem that we're talking about, which is this double narrative idea, right? Like, the people who the church is literally employing to help, like, shore the tide of folks leaving apparently, in many cases believe pretty different things privately than what they are willing to talk about

John Dehlin [00:41:08] publicly, and certainly very different than what's taught at General Conference.

Bert Fuller [00:41:12] I mean, like, without a doubt.

John Dehlin [00:41:13] So it's like almost two different churches.

Bert Fuller [00:41:15] Because if you look at. If you look at, like. And I'm not saying the church should be all uniform, right? But. But because that contingent is so small within the church, they feel like, you know, their. Their positions of power are very threatened and. And they need to be afraid because they should. But if you look at something like Letters to a Young Mormon, last I heard, I'm sure, because it has a second edition now, but when I heard a couple years ago, it had sold like 9,000 copies, which, if you're an academic and you sell more than like 500 copies of a book, that's amazing. But Letters to a Young Mormon was not an academic book, and it was distributed by the church's own book company and all of this stuff, and you're just like, it's just not that much. When you look at the numbers for the first volume of the Joseph Smith paper, this is documentary record, Okay? I think it sold, like, in its first year, like 60 or 70,000 copies. Okay. When you compare these things and people don't even read that book, but they just know, like, they care about it because it's Joseph Smith and the church is publishing it, whereas some, like little, you know, like, you know, kind of more liberal type publication to help people with faith crises. It's like the overall church just their way of dealing with is just to ignore it, just ignore all of that.

John Dehlin [00:42:31] So.

Bert Fuller [00:42:32] But they did it for so many generations that. Did I hear you say, did I hear you quote Marlon Jensen saying that they're losing the church, is losing the best and brightest and that. So when you have a brain drain like that, I mean, who's going to be the next donor class? Now there are, you know, right wing millennials, but overall they seem very progressive, just as a generation, it seems.

John Dehlin [00:42:52] So a second thing Jerry Lee wrote was a concern that we're making it look like Spencer has a second set of beliefs. He's got sort of public beliefs and private beliefs.

Bert Fuller [00:43:03] No, he has cognitive dissonance, which, I mean, you know, I had two.

John Dehlin [00:43:08] So I don't, you know, when I, I was able to listen to the recording and read the transcript.

Bert Fuller [00:43:12] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:43:13] And I got the sense that Spencer was very secure in where he was.

Bert Fuller [00:43:18] Okay, maybe that's unfair.

John Dehlin [00:43:19] Maybe I shouldn't say, but I, I will say that what, what was the second narrative that I heard isn't him being fractured in his beliefs. It's him, him being willing to say things in private. Like revelation comes through peer pressure. Revelation through peer pressure, brethren 30 years behind the times, the church being wrong on the LGBT issue. This whole idea of inspired eclecticism where Joseph plagiarizes from the New Testament for the Book of Abraham and for the Book of Mormon. I doubt that he's willing to say these things in a commencement speech at byu.

Bert Fuller [00:43:55] Can you imagine?

John Dehlin [00:43:56] Or in his public speeches at FAIR or, you know, wherever he would talk.

Bert Fuller [00:44:01] And, and I should.

John Dehlin [00:44:02] That's the double narrative that I'm talking about.

Bert Fuller [00:44:04] And mine. And my knee jerk reaction to say that he has cognitive dissonance. You know, I, I, I now feel that was unfair to say I shouldn't have said that. So I feel like I.

John Dehlin [00:44:12] No, that's fine.

Bert Fuller [00:44:13] Mischaracterized.

John Dehlin [00:44:14] But that's, I'm just, I'm just sort of, you know, I'm just trying to make it. Sure. We understand what we aren't. Yeah, yeah. So we've got this, this Neil Apologetics thing now. Bushman's running around, Givens is running around, Mason's running around Spencer Fluman's doing his thing. Are there any other, you know, is it good, is it bad? Are there any other thoughts you have about it before we kind of wrap up? I don't know. You kind of tired?

Bert Fuller [00:44:38] Yeah. No.

John Dehlin [00:44:39] Does it wear you out?

Bert Fuller [00:44:40] I just. No, it's just like, you know, it gets to a point. Point where you stop caring, you know?

John Dehlin [00:44:44] What does it mean for the church? That. That this is clearly the direction they're going. They're. They're still maintaining the official narrative, but they're slowly.

Bert Fuller [00:44:53] I don't know that they are clearly going this direction.

John Dehlin [00:44:56] Well, you know, Terrell Givens had three book contracts with Deseret Book.

Bert Fuller [00:45:00] Okay, but look at. Look at all of the books that are at Deseret Book. You know, they're not. It's not. Okay.

John Dehlin [00:45:06] Deseret Book is the direction you're saying?

Bert Fuller [00:45:08] Maybe. I mean, maybe it's more of, like, an outgrowth or something.

John Dehlin [00:45:12] It's just like a rifle.

Bert Fuller [00:45:13] But in terms of, like, steering the old ship Zion, this big oil tanker, and, you know, we were going to the North Pole, but now we're going to the South Pole and we're turning around to go that direction. That doesn't seem like what's going on.

John Dehlin [00:45:25] Okay.

Bert Fuller [00:45:26] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:45:26] So you don't. You don't. So does this matter? Does Neo apologetics matter?

Bert Fuller [00:45:31] I think it matters a lot to the people who are involved with it. Sure.

John Dehlin [00:45:34] But does it matter to. Is there a net positive or negative good that's used or bad that you see happening to the people impacted by Mormonism?

Bert Fuller [00:45:48] I don't know. I wouldn't know how to do that math, I guess.

John Dehlin [00:45:50] It's complex math.

Bert Fuller [00:45:51] Yeah. No, I mean, where I'm at now, because I am, you know, thinking a lot about a career in academia and the bleakness of that prospect. And so I am just reading what I want, lots of different things. And lately, because I never really learned much about it, I've been studying up on the Israel Palestine conflict, which has been going on a long time. And I wasn't expecting this. It just happened that so many of the rhetorical moves, the false directions, the garden paths, the non sequiturs, the ad hominems. So much of this stuff happens in the discussion of Israeli apologetics, and that's like the same as in Mormon apologetics. Like, it blew my mind that we're all using the same tools for these different causes. But when I started learning about, you know, Gaza or the, you know, Palestinian rights or the lack thereof, I realized that okay. They're using the same discursive tools, but the stakes are so much higher when it comes to that conflict than they are in. In Mormonism. Now, Mormonism has some serious stuff. Like, you know, it matters if your family kind of, I say, ices you out and isolates you and everything like that. That matters. It matters that people are killing themselves. That matters. Okay. I'm not saying those things don't matter, but it's just like when Joseph Smith started the church and where he lived was sort of a backwater of what's going on in the world. I oftentimes feel that's what Mormonism is. You know, I like it in the sense of this is what I grew up with. It's the language that I speak. It's. It's always going to be a part of me till I die. But I have a hard time focusing all my time, energy, and attention on it the way that I once did.

John Dehlin [00:47:54] Sure, yeah, that makes sense. I'm just gonna. And. And I. You know, I obviously could have. You know, I had my faith crisis in 2001, so that's like 17 years ago. And this is now, like, the 13th year of Mormon stories. I could have left it behind a long time ago. It's really.

Bert Fuller [00:48:12] I will say, however, I'm sorry to interrupt you. I love what you're doing. I don't feel like I could create what you have created. And what Open Stories foundation is seems to me worth growing and continuing. I mean, I donate. You know, I do. I donate to the. To the osf. I mean, you saved me a ton of money on tithing. And so, you know, it's like, I'm paying, you know, very little money to you guys. I'm helping you with this book project that we got coming out. I'm happy to be kind of like a sideliner and everything like that. And in a way, I'm a little jealous that you can have this level of commitment to something that I really agree with. And I like what you're doing. So I don't have a problem. That's not a judgment.

John Dehlin [00:48:55] I appreciate that.

Bert Fuller [00:48:56] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:48:56] No, I just want to tell you what keeps me going. And I'm curious if you agree when you think about any major issue, whether it's gun control, poverty, women's rights, abortion rights, environmentalism. Right. Arab, Israeli conflict. Pick, you know, even Trump.

Bert Fuller [00:49:17] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:49:17] Or Obama or whatever. You know, food. Whatever the political issue is.

Bert Fuller [00:49:24] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:49:25] I think about. Are there underpinning philosophies or worldviews that either make someone Very rigid to learning new views or that literally bolster those worldviews that may not be.

Bert Fuller [00:49:38] I see what you're saying.

John Dehlin [00:49:39] Helpful.

Bert Fuller [00:49:40] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:49:40] And so from my point of view and that we got this from Tara Westover. It was like I asked her, how do you go from like not being educated in public schools, not knowing basic math to freaking a PhD at Cambridge.

Bert Fuller [00:49:53] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:49:54] And she says, I got introduced to other worldviews and other worldviews were transformative for her.

Bert Fuller [00:50:00] That's right.

John Dehlin [00:50:01] And helping her become what was one of the most conservative, sort of coming from one of the most conservative fundamentals frameworks to one that I think would, would maybe make the world a much better place if more people followed.

Bert Fuller [00:50:14] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:50:14] And it's the disentangling of toxic or unhealthy or unrealistic or ill founded or even some kind, some cases fraudulent worldviews that are the binding forces to all these other political concerns that you might really care.

Bert Fuller [00:50:29] Okay, so is that possible or not? Yes and no. So I want to be very. Okay. This idea of other worldviews is, is very traditionally a left wing value. It's the idea of imagination. And if you can imagine something other than what you've experienced or seen and then reconstitute organizations according to those things, I think that that's very valuable. But coming from a leftist perspective, as I am, something that you have to acknowledge, which is problematic, is becoming deeply ideological in the sense that unless you have the right ideas, you are an enemy to the cause. And that just has not been my life experience. I feel like a lot of people with a lot of wrong ideas oftentimes are doing things better than people who aren't. Like in the 80s, a lot of right wing churches were very instrumental in reporting on the Reagan administration war crimes in Latin America and why they did it or why they didn't do it, I couldn't really say, but I felt like they were doing something that mattered. And so I believe in education. You know, I planned my whole life to be an educator primarily. And I think that that absolutely should be a core value to introduce people. But something I do not believe that education is, is just teaching saying like, okay, I've got, I've kind of learned the right ideas and now it's my turn to like kind of download it into your young mind so that you can understand that. I think it's important to present these ideas and not be nihilistic about it or kind of cynical where you say, well, it's all relative or something like that. But to be. To present these different ideas, to have your own convictions, to be able to defend your convictions, but not to expect your students to necessarily line up with your convictions. And unless they do, you'll punish them, Right?

John Dehlin [00:52:33] Of course.

Bert Fuller [00:52:34] Right. Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:52:34] But I.

Bert Fuller [00:52:35] Now I have to say this not because it's a problem for Mormons. It's not. I have to say this because it's been a problem historically in leftist thought, like in the. Over the last century or more, is that unless you are willing to tow a party line, then you need to be punished. So that's why I'm saying it, not because of you.

John Dehlin [00:52:54] Sure. And the only point I'm making to summarize is, is there a chance that fundamentalist religion historically has bound people to all sorts of political and social ideologies that we would do better to part from?

Bert Fuller [00:53:09] Yeah, but I think there's also fundamentalist political ideologies as well. And so escaping from a fundamentalist religious worldview does not necessarily give you an eject button from a fundamentalist political worldview. So I am. I'm personally not a fundamentalist in the sense of, like we've been talking, the religious sense, but there is this kind of philosophical idea of foundationalism which I do find quite compelling. So, I mean, they use very similar words, but I see them being quite different really quickly.

John Dehlin [00:53:41] I always have. You have the postmodern voice in your head.

Bert Fuller [00:53:44] Well, yeah. I mean, you hear it so many years.

John Dehlin [00:53:46] I have the Dan Witherspoon voice in my head that's always reminding me, john, you're putting up a false narrative. He basically says that you don't evaluate religion with the tools of science. Religion is a totally different category. You're making a categorical error when you try and hold it up to intellectual scrutiny. And he makes the argument that religion is about the work of soul forging. It's becoming more moral, it's serving more. It's becoming more spiritual. And this whole thing about is it true and is it historical? And even if it does harm or not, he would argue, kind of like Eugene England did, that, you know, engagement with a religion makes you a deeper and a wiser and a more spiritual person.

Bert Fuller [00:54:39] Okay, I think that's true, and not in the sense that you need to go to church on every Sunday and you need to pay your tithing or say your prayers every day or anything like that. But to write religion off is very foolish. I think it's something that needs to be taken very seriously. But if the idea of religion is to let somebody Be more in the mind or in the mode of a Dan Witherspoon or Eugene England or whatever. These people are so rare that world religions are a colossal failure if this is their purported aim.

John Dehlin [00:55:08] Yeah, but Dan. But Dan, basically, his. His angle in life is don't. Don't leave Mormonism. Oh, stay in Mormonism.

Bert Fuller [00:55:17] Okay.

John Dehlin [00:55:18] I mean, no, but.

Bert Fuller [00:55:18] No, leave it or don't.

John Dehlin [00:55:20] So if I'm Dan and I'm saying, Bert, yeah, stay in Mormonism. Stay.

Bert Fuller [00:55:25] Why?

John Dehlin [00:55:25] It'll make you richer spiritually. It'll make you wiser.

Bert Fuller [00:55:29] He can't do that.

John Dehlin [00:55:30] More kind. It'll make you more compassionate.

Bert Fuller [00:55:32] No, not necessarily.

John Dehlin [00:55:33] It'll make you a better person.

Bert Fuller [00:55:34] No, it's a. I mean, like, it's just not true. I mean, it might, but it's not guaranteed.

John Dehlin [00:55:40] He's saying it's got a better shot than just going off and doing your own thing. Like, why.

Bert Fuller [00:55:46] How can he claim this? I mean, you know, and I. And Dan and I, we talk from time to time. I quite like it. But I mean, is this literally what he claims? I've never heard him claim quite this.

John Dehlin [00:55:55] Okay, I'm. I'm going to be putting words in his mouth, but I think that's what. That's what I understand the Mormon Matters podcast to be all about. It's basically saying there's. There's a cheap. There's a cheap, flimsy, false, categorical Mormonism, which is. Is it true or not?

Bert Fuller [00:56:12] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:56:13] And if it's not true, which is

Bert Fuller [00:56:14] the one that most Mormons like, like active Mormons are, like, into. Right. So they don't have the.

John Dehlin [00:56:19] The real gospel or something superficial, false narrative, sort of false dichotomy. Mormonism.

Bert Fuller [00:56:25] The.

John Dehlin [00:56:25] Dan.

Bert Fuller [00:56:26] The general authorities seem to believe that Dan would agree.

John Dehlin [00:56:30] That Dan would agree, but he's basically saying that's not. There's a deeper, richer experience that religion facilitates. And I think Dan would say more often than going off on your own, he would say you've got a highest probability of becoming your best self through staying in the religion and having it teach you deep, spiritual, enriching things through engagement. Okay, but why isn't that compelling to you?

Bert Fuller [00:57:00] Why is it not?

John Dehlin [00:57:01] Yeah.

Bert Fuller [00:57:01] Okay. Number one, which religion?

John Dehlin [00:57:05] Okay. Mormonism. Because it's the tribe you grew up in.

Bert Fuller [00:57:07] Okay. Okay. Well, what if the tribe you grew up and abused you? So.

John Dehlin [00:57:12] Okay, that's hard.

Bert Fuller [00:57:14] Okay.

John Dehlin [00:57:14] Yeah, but, you know, hard things happen.

Bert Fuller [00:57:17] Well, and I don't mean abuse in, like, a strict legal sense. I mean in, you know, other ways. Humiliation, embarrassment, that sort of a thing. The gaslighting we've been talking about. And so if something is your native tongue. Just because something is your native tongue doesn't mean that you're. You're bound by your birth to die in it. That's a more. That's a very Mormon idea. Sure, that's a Mormon way of thinking, but I don't think there's anything that necessitates that the next is if, okay, religion. Why should religion pull a lot of your attention and focus? I mean, there are other things that you can focus on as well, that you belong to a group that you're trying to do good and all of this other stuff. So it gives you an identity, it

Religion, Community, and Life After Mormonism

John Dehlin [00:58:07] gives you morality, it gives you a source for spirituality, gives you a chance to serve, it gives you a community, it gives you solace about the afterlife, it resolves many of the existential concerns, and it gives you adversity that helps you become stronger.

Bert Fuller [00:58:21] Yeah, adversity is something that just exists. It's never something I'm looking for more of. But. But I don't understand, like. Like, it's not even coherent to me that Mormonism or a major religion would have monopolies on any of these things that you just listed. Like, that just. I just. I just don't even follow, you know? So. Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:58:47] So for you, you don't feel like there's an advantage to staying engaged with the religious tradition?

Bert Fuller [00:58:53] I mean, there might come your. There might be, but for you. Oh, for me, personally, no. Yeah, I don't think so.

John Dehlin [00:59:00] Like, how are you gonna become a good person, Bert?

Bert Fuller [00:59:03] Yeah, so I'll go to Community of Christ. They meet in Provo twice a month, and I'll go maybe once a month, because. But for me, primarily, what I care about is that churches offer a social space where you interact with folks that you don't normally get to in your work or in your family or something like that. And so I just, like. I just like interacting with people. But I go to Community of Christ. They have their apostle there. They're talking about Jesus. And I asked the question, like, what makes Jesus special? Like, I don't get it. Could you explain this to me? And they were, like, super generous, and they were like, yeah, like, I mean, it's because it's my native tongue. And I was like, well, Christianity is not my native tongue. I'm Mormon, so why should I learn this other tongue instead of Islam or Baha' I or, you know, whatever? Like, why? Like, you just. The thing about religion, I really feel in the idea of kind of the hero's journey and the myth quest is that you feel drawn to it. Right. You feel. You feel this. This call to it. And if you don't have that, I don't think there's anything wrong with you. In some ways, I feel like you're lucky. So I don't feel. Feel like the burden another person feels called to bear. Part of that burden is convincing other people that they should also feel the burden or also feel that calling. Maybe. Don't know.

John Dehlin [01:00:28] Got it.

Bert Fuller [01:00:29] Yeah. It's just not in my bone.

John Dehlin [01:00:30] So for you, it's not. So where are you now? Religion wise? Faith wise.

Bert Fuller [01:00:35] So I. Religion is largely an intellectual thing for me. Meaning it's something I think and read about, but it's also a community thing in that it just affects the lives of literally every single person that I know that I interact with. And so to me, I'll hang out with. There's this group I like to call the High priests. They, you know, they'll meet at Jim's Family Diner or whatever in Riverton once a month and I'll go. And all of them are active lds. All of them. Okay. But I go to talk with them and oftentimes we talk about religion, but I don't do it because we're talking about Mormonism. I do it because I like them. Okay. And this is the thing, right? When we come back to the ideas, I don't gravitate towards other people because they have the same ideas as me. I gravitate towards them because I like them or I don't. And us having the same ideas is not going to predetermine either of those outcomes.

John Dehlin [01:01:39] So

Bert Fuller [01:01:41] as far as my beliefs and religion go, I really enjoy entertaining, like, really heretical, bizarre ideas. You know, like going to remnant groups. You know what I'm talking?

John Dehlin [01:01:53] Snuffer.

Bert Fuller [01:01:54] Yeah. Yeah. I mean, he's definitely a key player. But going to remnant groups, hearing their logic applied to the president of the church, and then I applied. And I don't do it at the group because it maybe is not appropriate to do so. I don't know. But, you know, I just apply that same logic that they apply to the presidency of the church and the authoritarianism. I apply it to God. I'm like, so what's the difference? Like, God is in the office of godhood, and just because he's in that or she or they or whatever are in that office, they get to just say stuff. And you just have to be obedient with It. And they're like, oh, no. Well, God will reason with you. It's like, okay, but in terms of reasoning with me, I can understand sometimes I would come to his position, his way of seeing things, but other times, what if I didn't? Do I just get punished? It's like, how is that any different than being in the LDS Church and praying about the November 5th policy and just praying and praying and praying until you get the right answer? You know, I don't find that compelling. So I've actually, I'm serious about this. I've, you know, been looking into different kinds of Satanism or paganism or things like that because largely they're not. They're not what they are portrayed to be. I mean, they tend to be very secular. They tend to be very political in orientation. They tend to be very imaginative and creative and artistic. And so I'm curious about those things. I'll look into them. Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:03:20] All right.

Bert Fuller [01:03:20] Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:03:21] So are you. Are you happier now than you were before? Are you. Are you glad you went through this faith transition?

Bert Fuller [01:03:28] Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:03:28] Are you happier, healthier out of the church than in. Do you even have a.

Bert Fuller [01:03:33] So I heard John Larsen once say on a podcast that he estimated for every year of your life in the church, you would have, and once you've left, you've got to spend about a month kind of leaving the church, if you will. And so far, that's felt pretty accurate. I mean, I was in the church for 28 months. I've been out of. Or 28 years. I've been out of the church about, I don't know, 15, 16 months. And I definitely feel it's kind of like getting better each day. But those first nine, eight, nine months, man, that was some brutal stuff. You know, I had to take time off for my PhD, right. Because my entire worldview was cratering. And, yeah, it's very hard. It's very difficult. You know, I saw a psychologist. I thought that was very helpful. So I. I don't. My wife is a better barometer as to my happiness level because she has to deal with whether I'm grumpy or not. She tells me I'm happier now than I was, like, 12 months ago. So we'll go off what she says, but I don't really pay too much attention to that myself. Yeah, yeah.

John Dehlin [01:04:47] But overall, do you feel better about where you are?

Bert Fuller [01:04:50] Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:04:52] Out of the church?

Bert Fuller [01:04:53] Yeah, yeah, absolutely. For sure. Yeah. But I mean, like, in the church, I didn't feel particularly dissatisfied until I started learning all the stuff that I was like, whoa, wait a second. And then I had about a two month period where I was trying to be more like of an outreach, you know, help people. And then I felt very uncomfortable in the church and so then I left.

Closing Thoughts and Farewell

John Dehlin [01:05:14] Yeah, but so if you were to share with, with the audience any closing thoughts about life or your worldview or your perspective, any advice or just wisdom or feelings, what would you share?

Bert Fuller [01:05:32] So I, I really like reading books by anarchists and I like a lot of it. I think it's really good. I think that anti authoritarianism is very good. Anti authority is a different sort of a thing. I think authority ought to be respected where it's genuine. I started becoming very concerned about just the state of society and any of the millions of things that could go very, very wrong. And then I, after I kind of learned a lot of these different issues, I decided, well, I can't focus on all of them. Let me just like focus on one first. And so I've been focusing a lot more on like environmentalism, which I care a lot about. And so my wife and I were, we eat vegan and we like. I walk to work because I'm able to like, I understand that other people are not in that position to do so, but as far as like beliefs and things like that, I've really had to wrestle with a lot of right wing ideas that I was never exposed to in my university classes that I felt it's good that I wrestle with these. And like, you know, I kind of a guiding philosophy for me the past few months and it's very simple and very unexciting, which normally I'm not into this, but I read the One Thing by Gary Keller. So I work with Keller Williams Real Estate and he's the president or CEO or something. And I really try to guide my life according to that principle, which could be, it basically means rather than trying to master things simultaneously, just pick one thing, focus on it and master things sequentially. And so I'm working a lot at my job and you know, just trying to have some fun. You know, I think having fun is really important. I don't, I feel like I don't have any grand wisdom or anything though to impart.

John Dehlin [01:07:56] In your job you're a real estate agent, helping people buy and sell homes or what?

Bert Fuller [01:08:00] Yeah, so I am a licensed agent and I can do that, but I spend most of my time handling logistics and operations for our, for our team, you know, just making sure we spend money in the right place or we Market this or that or whatever, and it's a blast. It really is so much fun. And you know what? Half the people on the team are very active LDs. They're raising their kids that way because this is in Orem, Utah. The other half are not the. Well, I don't know if it's fully half, but a chunk of them are ex LDS or whatever. And, you know, we get along fine. We're having fun, and I really see this as a desirable. A desirable situation. You know, just. We don't let religion get in the way of our lives, and. But religion is something there, and we don't try to ignore it either. Yeah.

Bert Fuller [01:08:53] All right.

John Dehlin [01:08:53] Well, Bert, it's been really fun to have you on Mormon Stories podcast. I really respect your intellect and your wisdom, especially. You're so freaking young.

Bert Fuller [01:09:02] Hey, I turned 30 this week.

John Dehlin [01:09:04] Okay.

Bert Fuller [01:09:05] Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:09:05] So now you're old.

Bert Fuller [01:09:06] Yeah, now I'm old.

John Dehlin [01:09:06] Super old.

Bert Fuller [01:09:07] Now I gotta do my, like, Jesus thing, right? The ministry or whatever.

John Dehlin [01:09:11] Yeah, no, but. But thank you for coming on. Thank you for sharing your thoughts, your experiences, and I hope you'll come back and give us analysis another time as well.

Bert Fuller [01:09:20] Okay. Well, thanks for having me, John. And, you know, I like. I like you. You seem like a good guy to me, from what I can tell. Thank you.

John Dehlin [01:09:29] Thank you.

Bert Fuller [01:09:30] Yeah.

Bert Fuller [01:09:31] So, you know, and. And I don't. The people that I've criticized in this podcast, most of them I do not dislike personally. Almost all of them I like at a personal level. But when you're a public figure, you know, literally publishing things, you're putting it out there in the public forum for people to discuss and to weigh and to critique and everything like that. And so I feel like each of us has a responsibility to be involved in that sort of a thing. I'm happy to do it.

John Dehlin [01:10:00] Beautiful. Well, I want to thank all our listeners for tuning in today. All the people who commented or asked questions means a lot. I want to thank the Millers for their willingness to share their experiences with Spencer Fluman, the Maxwell Institute, and all the people who participated in this sort of series on neo apologetics, including Jackson Washburn and. And John Ogden and Tom Kristofferson and just everyone. Patrick Mason. Yeah. And Lloyd. It's been a really good series. I think we're kind of winding it to a close.

Bert Fuller [01:10:34] Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:10:34] But I just think it's been important to talk about these things and. And it's going to be interesting to see how that all shakes out in the long run, how it affects the church, whether it's going to stem the tide. Whether it increases and accelerates people's disaffection, whether it weakens the church or strengthens the church, we don't know. But I think it's important to observe it and talk about it and to note it because I think Mormonism matters to a lot of people. It affects a lot of lives.

Bert Fuller [01:11:01] Yeah, it does.

John Dehlin [01:11:02] And so kind of calling things and talking about it, I think it's useful. So thanks everyone who supports us. Thanks everyone who donates to the Open Stories Foundation Mormon Stories podcast. Your donations make all this possible. If you really do value this work, there's lots of ways you can support us. One is to make a donation, go to MormonStories.org, click on the donate button in the top right. 10, 20, 50, $100 a month.

Bert Fuller [01:11:26] And can I say just briefly, like anybody, that Mormon Stories played a major role in your decision making to no longer be actively engaged in the LDS Church. And if you were a tithing payer before, I feel like, I mean myself, I felt a moral responsibility to support this institution financially, which is why I donate monthly. Because on the one hand, it was great financially that I saved so much money in tithing dollars. But you know, I just started off at 10 bucks a month and just I hope as I make more money, I can give more money to you guys. So thank you. Sorry to interrupt, but I feel like, you know, I feel like, you know, there is a kind of moral obligation that we owe all the work that's gone into all of this through all the years.

John Dehlin [01:12:08] So, yeah, thank you. He said it. In addition to supporting us financially, check out our events. You can go to mormorstories.org events. We've got upcoming events, retreats and workshops to support people in their religious transitions coming up in Salt Lake, in Houston, in Idaho Falls. We're looking to do Boise. We're looking to do possibly Las Vegas, possibly Colorado, Denver or Colorado Springs, Fort Collins areas. So if you want to attend an event, you can email us at staffopenstoriesfoundation.org or mormonstoriesmail.com Support our events and then finally realize that Tara Westover is coming to actually, Greg Prince is coming to Salt Lake City this Saturday on St. Patrick's Day. We're going to be honoring and celebrating Greg Prince. Is it not Friday, Friday morning he's going to be interviewing with us about his Leonard Erickson book. I see Saturday night he is going to be speaking to us. So please check out the Greg Prince event. We're going to honor Greg. 175 people have already signed up, so we're pretty sold out. But we're going to be honoring Greg at Community of Christ in holiday Saturday night. But also make sure and come to the Tara Westover book signing and Q and A, which is going to be March 29th at First Unitarian Church in Salt Lake City around 7 o'.

Bert Fuller [01:13:33] Clock.

John Dehlin [01:13:33] It's going to be a great event. Tara's book educated. Go out and buy it, share it. It's a powerful, important book and we're really honored to be able to bring her to Salt Lake City.

Bert Fuller [01:13:43] Yeah, that's wonderful.

John Dehlin [01:13:44] And then finally, there are all sorts of other ways to support us. Please like us the Mormon Stories podcast page on Facebook. Please give the Mormon Stories podcast page a positive review on Facebook. We have meanies come on all the time who don't listen to Mormon Stories, just want to malign us and they give us one star ratings just to bring our ratings down when we know they haven't in many instances ever listened to us. But it's just through reputation or some authoritarians, authoritarian regimes.

Bert Fuller [01:14:15] You're the boogeyman, John.

John Dehlin [01:14:16] Yeah. So we need positive reviews on the Mormon Stories podcast page to keep our rating at 4.9 stars out of 5. We also need, you know, follow us on Instagram, follow us on Twitter and then finally please go to itunes and give us a positive review, five star review with a positive review because those reviews, you know, help spread the word about this podcast. Thanks again to everyone who supports us. Thanks to Amy Grubbs, director of operations, Cody Layton, our producer, podcast producer Sharon Price for her work with events and of course the Open Stories foundation board that keeps our train on the tracks. Appreciate everybody. Thanks to all our listeners. Please share these episodes with friends and family that also makes a big difference. And please take care and join us again soon for another episode of Mormon Stories. Thanks, Bert.

Bert Fuller [01:15:09] Yeah, thank you, John.

John Dehlin [01:15:09] Take care, everybody. Thank you for joining us today on Mormon Stories. If you enjoyed this episode, please help us make more like it by becoming a monthly subscriber@mormonstories.org. Rocks is a featured single on Angela's sofa upcoming album Second Wind. Inspired by her struggle with the faith journey out of orthodox religion. You can find and follow her on social media as Angela Sofbam. That's S o f f E on Spotify or AngelAsof.com.

Bert Fuller [01:16:01] So judge me Cast me your stones I will lay them back at your feet Take my hand let's walk among we like to throw rocks at the people who don't see the world in the way we do I don't know why we all say Stand in a circle and point a finger or two Tell me how can you see what is buried beneath a mountain of smiles? We're all thrown in the same blue water of the unknown so leave your rocks at home. The truth is not what it seems we are told to just be believing the story has never been told and we all need someone to listen to hold our hearts is there beating with so much more than we.

Transcript © 2026 John P. Dehlin. All rights reserved. Brief quotations are welcome with attribution and a link to mormonstories.org; all other use requires written permission.