Introduction and Welcome to Part Four

John Dehlin [00:00:00] Hello, everyone, and welcome back to part four of my interview with Jim Bennett, author of A Faithful Reply to the CES Letter. I have to say that this has been a very well received series. I was expecting it to be very good, but I think I'm pleasantly surprised by how positive this interview series has been received both by, you know, progressive Mormons, liberal Mormons, ex Mormons, believing Mormons. You know, there's obviously critics on both sides, but overall people are, you know, if you're a believer or a liberal progressive Mormon, you're super grateful that I brought Jim on and you're very happy with the things Jim has said. And even if you're an ex Mormon or a post Mormon or non believing Mormon, you're super grateful for Jim for coming on, for having a direct conversation, for the thoughtful way that Jim has comported and presented himself. And of course, there's a lot of, you know, disagreement on the evidence and the facts, but overall, the reviews have been raving positive. And, and I'm just thrilled that it's. It's my fourth sit down. Third technically, but four sit down with Jim and then he's willing to come back for more. So. Jim, I can't shut up.

Jim Bennett [00:01:31] That's the problem.

John Dehlin [00:01:32] Welcome back to Mormon Stories.

Jim Bennett [00:01:34] Oh, thrilled to be here. I really enjoyed this. I can't emphasize just how much fun I find this, and maybe it's because I'm a glutton for punishment, but I just think it's. I really enjoyed how respectfully you've conducted yourself, and I just think these are the kinds of discussions people ought to be having.

John Dehlin [00:01:52] So this is the first interview we've done since I actually released. And you've been able to watch.

Jim Bennett [00:01:57] Right.

John Dehlin [00:01:57] Two of the premieres for, for parts one and two. Part three hasn't aired yet. In part three, we talk about LGBT stuff and racism, primarily, and polygamy.

Jim Bennett [00:02:08] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:02:09] So that's going to be, that's going to be premiered on Monday after, Before this is going to be premiered. But. But you've been able to watch the first two.

Jim Bennett [00:02:17] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:02:17] Well, what are your reactions so far? Or one.

Jim Bennett [00:02:20] Well, well, I've watched them both, but the second one I watched while it was premiering and it reminded me why you probably should stay away from the comments because I was watching the live chat throughout and this was not a group that was particularly enamored of anything I had to say. And I kept being tempted as to what would be a great way to jump in. I thought at one point I thought, I'll Just jump in and say, yeah, look how fat he is. What a fat guy that guy is, you know, or something like that. But. But that was clearly a group of people that. That, you know, I don't know.

John Dehlin [00:02:57] Well, it. You know, if. What I was trying to encourage you is not to allow the comments to. To discourage you, because if. If you know this, these interviews were premiered on a fair Mormon website or on an orthodox Mormon website, the overwhelming feedback would be, john's a bad person. John is evil. John, your questions are unfair.

Jim Bennett [00:03:21] People say nasty things about you. I didn't realize.

John Dehlin [00:03:24] No, but I mean, but. But because it's on the Mormon Stories podcast page, and most of those people are. Are believers and critics, you know, they're going to be critical of you, but that doesn't necessarily reflect the caliber, the quality of the interview or the average person's response, you know?

Jim Bennett [00:03:42] Well, and I have been. I have been very grateful for the people who have reached out to me. I've met some delightful people through this who've reached out to me. This one woman sent me a message saying, I really enjoyed your perspective, and it was wonderful. I'm gonna send you a friend request on Facebook. I know you think I might be an axe murderer or something, but I'm really not, you know, and I thought, that's great. I mean, I'm not doing this. I want to reiterate that I am not doing this to sort of convince people to come back to church necessarily. I mean, if they. If they decide to come back to church because of this, then great. I would love that. But the people that are reacting negatively in that live chat are probably not people who are at a place in their lives where they're really considering whether or not they want to come back to church. I think they've probably made up their minds that they see the church as a fraud, and they see me as a defender of a church that is a fraud, as somebody that they don't really have a whole lot of time for. What I try to do, What I'm trying to do here is. Is just demonstrate my own personal experience as to how I have come to terms with these thornier issues and how I feel like I am, you know, how I remain faithful, how I remain a believer. And if I think that has been useful to some people and it is not at all useful to others, and I don't see any problem with that, I'm fine with that. And if you're watching this and you're saying, I am so sick, you know, I Read the comments. I'm so sick of just even listening to believers because they're all such deluded idiots. You know, God bless you and keep you. I am where I am and you are where you are, and that's wonderful. But I'm not under any delusion that I have some kind of, of magical or that I have all the answers or that I'm somehow going to say something so brilliant and so powerful that even the most hardened disbeliever is going to decide, hey, I got to go to church on Sunday. That's, that's not where I'm coming from.

John Dehlin [00:06:09] Yeah.

Jim Bennett [00:06:10] So.

Listener Questions and Comments Overview

John Dehlin [00:06:10] Well, today, thank you for that and thanks again for coming back. Thanks to all the listeners and viewers that have shared comments and questions. Let me tell you how the rest of this series is going to go. I've assembled a bunch of questions and comments from listeners and viewers and there are also a few other topics that I wanted to cover, including women in the priesthood, feminism, porn, the church's policy on porn and masturbation and sexual transgressions, one on one interviews, the handling of abuse, and then just the treatment of intellectuals and excommunication. So kind of a few final issues that I had hoped to cover with you last session. And then I've just got a bunch of responses, some critiques or, you know, concerns with, with some of the framings either in our interview or in the document that you created. And so we'll just go through as much as we can today and we, there's a chance we'll come back for a fourth or fifth sitting to do a final Q A. Is that okay?

Jim Bennett [00:07:14] Sure.

John Dehlin [00:07:15] And, and I'll invite listeners and viewers if, if your questions or comments don't get asked today, then then still send them in and we'll try and cover them in our final sit down. Is that all right?

Jim Bennett [00:07:26] Yeah. I went on to Facebook and tried to answer, actually some of the questions that people had, had posted there when you posted a call for them. So I don't know if we're going to go through any of those. But, but I've tried to engage some people on social media on some of these.

John Dehlin [00:07:39] We'll cover, we'll cover some of these and they'll always be time for more. You can't have enough Jim Bennett, as far as I'm concerned.

Jim Bennett [00:07:46] Glad you feel that way because I think there are plenty of people who have had enough.

John Dehlin [00:07:49] JIM Bennett okay, so we don't, we don't have to dig into these in any detail. If you don't want, but let's just start. You know, we talk about racism and LGBT stuff, but, you know, that leaves out a big chunk of the church. There's basically just the question of why are women, you know, not allowed at the highest levels of decision making in a substantive way? Why aren't half of our apostles women? Why aren't half of all bishops and bishopric members and stake presidency members women? Is our exclusion of women from decision making and the highest levels of leadership at all the levels simply a holdover from a patriarchal society that goes back millennia? And, you know, do you have opinions about that? And do you. Do you wish that would change, and do you see it changing?

Women and the Priesthood in the Church

Jim Bennett [00:08:46] I have opinions about it. I have a lot of opinions about it. And I think certainly traditionally, when the brethren are questioned about women in the priesthood, they cite tradition more than anything else. They cite the fact that Christ did not call any female apostles. They cite the fact that the prophets throughout the Bible and throughout the Book of Mormon have all been men, and cite the fact that the priesthood historically has been given to men and not to women. And that is correct. I push back and say, all right, but where is the revelation that limits the priesthood solely to men and not to women? And the fact is that revelation doesn't exist. The weight of the tradition and the weight of the patriarchal history is so massive that I don't think that a lot of people have been looking for that revelation to exist. So, you know, I remember when Kate Kelly was at the forefront with ordained women, reading a lot of apologists statements saying, oh, I'd be happy to accept women with the priesthood as long as that revelation comes, that gives the priesthood to women. And as we've talked about here over and over again, those revelations don't come unless people are eagerly asking those questions. And I don't think we're seeing a lot of eager asking of those questions. And I think part of that, too, and I don't know if this is Stockholm syndrome or anything else, but I don't think you're seeing a huge clamor from the women in the church to get the priesthood, which is very frustrating to Mormon feminists who insist, you know, you're being oppressed, you need to do this. And a lot of women in the church are saying, that's, we're good, we're good, you know, so I don't see. I think where we are with LGBTQ issues is such that you are seeing so many people who are actively pressing for change that I think you're going to see changes in action in that regard far more quickly than you're going to see a shift in the willingness to grant authority to women, because you are not seeing that kind of a grassroots movement from the women in the church, for good or for ill. I'm not trying to say that's a good thing or a bad thing. I'm saying it is what it is. So, yes, I would like to see. I have. My two oldest children are women. They're not girls. They're both women. They're both adults. My oldest is in medical school. And they're very much feminists, and they very much are pointing out to me how patriarchal the society they've been raised in is. And so I think I'm gaining a greater insight into that from that experience with my own daughters and seeing how they look at the church and they're frustrated that they see there isn't a leadership path for me at all in this church. I was talking to somebody who has left the church, who was a good friend of ours when we were in our ward. They've left the church. And I was talking about the idea that one of the things that I think about quite a bit is,

John Dehlin [00:12:24] are

Jim Bennett [00:12:25] people better or worse for being in the church? For instance, I used to talk to my father about my frustrations growing up. I'd say, this guy's terrible. And his answer would be, yeah, but would he not be terrible if he weren't in the church? You know, is it the church that has made him terrible? And this response from this woman who has left the church was, people are women. Every woman in the church is worse off for being in the church because the church is so oppressive, because the church does not allow them to stand equal to men. You know, in the documentary that we're making, we, one woman says, there's never a circumstance where a man in the church can be overridden by a woman, where a man ever answers to a woman in any kind of a leadership capacity. And in the world, women are making great inroads in terms of being leaders of captains of industry and everything else. And so there's this increasing disconnect between. From professional, capable women who go out into the world and are respected for who they are and have every opportunity for leadership. Then they come in the church, and there's absolutely no possibility of them ever serving as a bishop or ever serving as a, you know, that they can serve as presidents of auxiliaries. But that always feels, you know, and rightfully so. It always. It's not it's not appropriate to say that that's the. That's the same thing. A Relief Society president has power and influence in the Relief Society, but she is. She answers to the bishop. She always answers to a man. So, you know, I don't know. I'm not even. I think I may have wandered too far afield. From what. No, that was perfect.

John Dehlin [00:14:19] No, that was perfect.

Jim Bennett [00:14:20] But.

John Dehlin [00:14:21] So in your. In your world, in your ideal, would do you think that. That. That eventual revelation would come? Would you. Would you welcome that sort of revelation?

Jim Bennett [00:14:32] I would absolutely welcome that revelation. I. I'm not on the front lines picketing for it.

John Dehlin [00:14:39] Partly because you don't believe that's effective, right?

Jim Bennett [00:14:42] Well, largely because I don't believe that's effective. Yeah, I do. I don't know that that revelation is. Is going to come quickly unless the women of the church are eager for it to come quickly.

John Dehlin [00:14:56] Yeah.

Jim Bennett [00:14:57] And, you know, what's the job of a bishop? Well, that's another story altogether. I've never been a bishop. I've been in two bishoprics, and it's always been a huge commitment just to be in a bishopric. And the amount of time. Time and energy that I spend as a member of a bishopric is dwarfed by what the bishop actually has to do. So, yeah, it's a huge. But at the same time, every bishop I've ever talked to or the good bishops that I've talked to, and I guess every bishop that I know personally, I feel like has been a good bishop, I've been blessed in that regard because I know there are people who have bad experiences like that. But the bishops I have talked to, there is a spiritual fulfillment in that level of service and that level of sacrifice that, yes, it's a huge, huge job and difficult and all that, but the reward, the spiritual reward is so great that all of them recognize that they have been given an opportunity and a blessing that they wouldn't have had otherwise. And the fact that a woman doesn't have that option makes me very, very sad. And I. And I would like to see it change, but I don't think that petitioning for change is effective. And I don't. And I don't see that change coming if the women of the church are not clamoring for it. And I don't see them clamoring for it on a large scale.

John Dehlin [00:16:31] That appears to be true. Okay, next topic. Thank you for that. I love that answer, personally. Next topic is a delicate one. For some, it's this issue of masturbation, pornography, and sexual transgressions. I, we, we often, in 2021, you know, and past 10 years, we talk a lot about LGBTQ issues. I think this issue of masturbation and pornography is, is kind of a more silent killer in the sense that it is causing a huge amount of anxiety and depression and even suicide in the church. But, but we don't talk about it and everyone's afraid to talk about it and, and it's a big deal. So do you have thoughts just to begin with, and I have a couple of follow up questions around interviews and abuse.

Jim Bennett [00:17:30] Right.

John Dehlin [00:17:30] But do you have thoughts about how the church handles pornography and masturbation?

Jim Bennett [00:17:34] I have many thoughts. We've discussed off camera. I'm trying to figure out how much of that discussion we've had that I want to share publicly because it. Let me, let me give you a little background of my personal experience. And, and you are absolutely right, talking about the anxiety, the silent killer. Because even now, as I'm sitting here trying to talk to you about this, I'm more uncomfortable than I have been talking about anything else we've discussed because I've had personal experiences here that I think led to a great deal of unnecessary anxiety as a teenager, even, you know, even as a missionary. So this is a really fraught topic for me. So if I fumble, that's why when I was 12 years old, I was given a copy of Boyd K. Packer's Talk to Young Men Only. Or is it for Young Men Only? I'm not sure which the preposition it is. It was a little pamphlet and it was handed out to everybody in our deacons quorum. It was right after he had given it in conference. And people make fun of this talk because this is the little factory talk. I was 12 years old. I had no idea what he was talking about. Genuinely no idea. He talks about masturbation and then never uses the word. And he is describing something, talks about this little factory and everybody has a little factory and you don't want the little factory to go into overdrive. Until the time that I'm 12 years old, I'm completely sexually, you know, I'm prepubescent at this point. I'm not sure exactly when puberty begins, but I had no idea what he was talking about and I didn't know who to ask about it. And I asked my mother about it and I love my mother. I don't think she really didn't know how to approach that with me either at that point in my life. And as I figured out what it was that he was talking about. I to some degree developed a fear of my own body. I thought is that any kind of contact with my genitals constitute putting the little factory into overdrive. I mean even as I say this, it's just so embarrassing to me to even think about this because there was so much shame and so much guilt surrounding my exploration of what this was. I mean I didn't even know what it was.

John Dehlin [00:20:29] For listeners, can you explain the little factory kind of metaphor for our non Mormon listeners? Because we have a lot of them.

Jim Bennett [00:20:37] Well, we have more than I thought that we got this wonderful message from a pastor saying that he's enjoyed this.

John Dehlin [00:20:44] When I'm Mormon passed in the Midwest.

Jim Bennett [00:20:45] In the Midwest it's like, thank you Reverend, I appreciate that. Gosh. And see this. I'm so embarrassed. I'm sitting here flushing. I'm just so embarrassed. The little factory. Oh gosh, you know, there's a valve.

John Dehlin [00:21:07] It's just. Do you want me to try and summarize it?

Jim Bennett [00:21:10] Yeah, please.

John Dehlin [00:21:14] Boyd K. Packer, Apostle, eventual president the Quorum of the twelve of the Mormon Church gives a talk where he basically likens the male reproductive system like a little factory, basically saying that the, it's like a factory that produces some sort

Jim Bennett [00:21:32] of product, a life giving substance.

John Dehlin [00:21:35] Meaning, meaning semen or you know, meaning semen I guess. And if you do anything to accelerate the production that, that's sort of this almost self fulfilling, self feeding thing where you're, where you're accelerating the production in a way that isn't natural and you're bringing, you're bringing on. Oh man, I don't even know how to, how to justify the logic. But if you do anything to accelerate the production of the little factory, then it, that it like escalates into really bad things. And so basically the, I guess the argument is that if you don't do anything to accelerate the production, it stays in this lower functioning mode until you're meant to have babies and then there's this natural process that happens. But it's something about spilling the seed and it's something about never doing anything to accelerate the production or you reap this whirlwind of kind of like the, the production going into overdrive and causing you all sorts of problems. And I, and I think whether it's Spencer B. Kimball former Mormon prophet or Boyd K. Packer, there's this idea that if you, if you masturbate then that leads to being gay or that leads to becoming a rapist or a murderer. An axe murderer. And so if you don't do anything to stimulate the production, you're going to have the right level of passions and of product production. But if you stimulate it, you're going to reap the whirlwind of evil and you're going to become Ted Bundy, basically, or worse, a gay person.

Jim Bennett [00:23:17] I don't mean worse.

John Dehlin [00:23:18] You know, if you do anything to stimulate the production. Tell me where I got that wrong or does that convey it?

Jim Bennett [00:23:26] Well, you actually used some sexual. I mean. I mean, when I was 12 years old, I didn't get any kind of sexual anything out. It didn't even seem sexual. You know, there's a factory and you need to not. You can't open the valve prematurely. And it's like, what the hell? What. What are you talking about? I genuinely didn't know what it was. But as I came to understand what it was, and of course, understanding everybody else's shame and embarrassment to even talk about it, there was not really a healthy environment where this was discussed, certainly not in any kind of a church setting. I mean, you were handed this pamphlet almost in a brown paper envelope. You know, this is. We don't talk about this. Just read this quietly on your own. And, you know, and really the way I describe it is it made me terrified of my own body. It made me terrified that I was. Was going to do something. And this is just so embarrassing to even talk about, but I went through my adolescence not disturbing my little factory.

John Dehlin [00:24:37] And

Jim Bennett [00:24:39] in retrospect, I look at that and go, boy, you really, Jim, you really had a whole lot of tension and all this kind of stuff that I think it was completely unnecessary. It was completely unnecessary. And so much shame and so much embarrassment and so much discomfort from something that I wasn't even willing or able or had the confidence or ability to talk to anybody about. So, yeah, it's remarkable to me, too. The little factory pamphlet is no longer distributed, so much so even, that if you go back to the church's website, to the conference where Boyd K. Packer gave that talk originally, the talk is quietly removed. It's as if Boyd K. Packer never gave that talk. The church has quietly allowed that to just kind of fade off into the background, which is good, I believe. But, gosh, there's so much pain and frustration and embarrassment that we have not dealt with. And I don't. I mean, this is not something I talk to with my friends about. This is not something I've had any conversations with. So let's fast forward to My mission interview, and I don't want to name names because I think people would know some of the names involved here. I will just say that I had. When I was going on my mission, I was interviewed and was asked questions about masturbation and the leader did not believe my answers. And the questions were repeatedly invasive, made me extraordinarily uncomfortable. And here I was actually having paid attention to, to the pamphlet I'd gotten when I was 12 years old. Even at the time I was 19 years old and I was giving the answers that supposedly they wanted and I wasn't being believed. And that created a cloud of uncertainty and difficulty while I was serving my mission. And I didn't even talk about that interview for at least 20 years after it took place. It felt abusive to me. I mean, I was 19, I wasn't a young kid. I don't recall any interviews as a young kid being asked about this. Actually, none of the bishops I had growing up ever asked me about masturbation or pornography. Pornography has never held any interest to me personally. It's just never been an issue for me. I think that's maybe strange or unusual and I know it's something else for other folks, but it's just never ever. My father always used to say sex is not a spectator sport. So I don't know anyway, So I don't have any kind of clean answer to that other than to say that with my own sons particularly. I've been very open about this with them, to discuss this with them. I don't want them to experience this same kind of self loathing in some ways, and the same kind of shame for things that they don't need to be experiencing shame and self loathing over. I think you're absolutely right. Just my discomfort here in your raising, it demonstrates that this is not something that as a church we have come close to dealing with adequately and confronting adequately. And that's where I am.

Worthiness Interviews and Sexuality

John Dehlin [00:28:43] Do you have any type of idea of how to more effectively handle it? I remember when a family member came to me and said, well, what am I going to tell my kids? It's okay to masturbate, that it's healthy and normal, like that doesn't feel right. There's a lot of parents that are just terrified about that or, or this idea of like, well, if you're permissive about pornography, then you make kids feel like it's okay and you don't want that. Right. And so, well, what is a more effective way?

Jim Bennett [00:29:09] Well, I see a lot of problems with pornography that don't necessarily have to do with how pornography is produced, how it exploits women, particularly pornography, I think can be extraordinarily destructive. So I don't think the answer is, oh, well, okay, no, pornography is great and all of that kind of stuff. With masturbation, I don't want to offer any kind of blanket advice to the church, nor do I want to get specific in the discussions I've had with my own sons about it. If that's a cop out, that's a cop out. I don't have an answer to that in anything in any way that I think is helpful. I think that's something that we as a family are navigating. You know, I know other people. I remember having a conversation with one friend and she was talking about, she said to her sons, she said, oh, of course you masturbate. Just don't make it your full time job. And she says, and that's all. As long as they don't make it their full time job. I'm like, well, if that's where you're landing with this, you know, when I was in the bishop, when I was in my first bishopric, now they put both handbooks online, but that's the first time I was given what was then the sort of secret handbook, the handbook only for leaders. And I searched that handbook based on my own history. I wanted to know, okay, what exactly is the church's position on masturbation? And what I found in that handbook was pornography use is discouraged. That was the only reference to pornography. And there wasn't a single reference to masturbation anywhere in the handbook.

John Dehlin [00:30:57] That's right.

Jim Bennett [00:30:59] And so I looked at that and go, the word.

John Dehlin [00:31:01] I couldn't find the word when I.

Jim Bennett [00:31:03] Well, the word certainly isn't in Boyd K. Packer's little factory talk or in the mail. Or in the mail. But no, it's not, it's not in the handbook of instructions. So the idea that anybody's getting kicked out of the church over this, I mean, the fact that I would be asked in a mission interview solely about this. I'm a 19 year old kid about to go out and spend 2 years away from my family lonely and all that kind of stuff, going out into a hostile world and knocking on doors and, and the most important thing you have to talk to me about is masturbation. Really? That's it. That's what it's.

John Dehlin [00:31:43] It's slightly worse than that, though. And I don't mean to pile on, but for me, you, you get this. There's this idea we, we in the ex Mormon community or post Mormon community or even the progressive Mormon community refer to as leadership roulette or ecclesiastical roulette.

Jim Bennett [00:31:58] Yep.

John Dehlin [00:31:59] Where you'll get, you'll get some bishops or stake presidents that are like, hey, everyone does it, don't worry about it.

Jim Bennett [00:32:05] Right.

John Dehlin [00:32:05] You know, you're fine. And then you'll get these bishops that will keep, literally keep you from, keep you from going on a mission.

Jim Bennett [00:32:12] Right.

John Dehlin [00:32:13] And alter the entire trajectory of your life.

Jim Bennett [00:32:16] Right.

John Dehlin [00:32:17] Make you delay your mission or cancel your mission altogether. And that disparity just gives these leaders so much power and it's so disconcerting that there could be such a disparity of responses. Because if you get denied a mission, if you get sent home from the MTC early or told you can't go on a mission or told you have to wait six or 12 months. Right. That can wreck your life or at least seriously damage your life.

Jim Bennett [00:32:44] It absolutely can. Yeah, absolutely does.

John Dehlin [00:32:47] And that happens. I hear about that quite a lot. So, so that's a problem. You know, so, so that's a, you know, I had a second, I had a second thought trailing that. So there's the ecclesiastical roulette thing and then there's just kind of the impact that it has on people's lives. Both those things just seem just like way too much power. Especially when you adjust for the fact that the word doesn't even appear in the manual. How is it that such carnage is being wreaked on people when it's not even something that's officially encoded in the Handbook of Instructions? And couldn't this be fixed very easily? Right. With just like a don't ask about it, stop asking about it.

Jim Bennett [00:33:35] That's where we're going. But we're not getting there with any kind of. It's happening the same way that the shame and the embarrassment and all of that happens silently and quietly with nobody talking about it. The fact that we're sort of letting it go is happening with that same kind of silence and shame and embarrassment. It would be so refreshing if a church leader could come out and say, there, there is no ecclesiastical consequence to masturbation. You don't have to endorse it, you don't have to say, you know, it's healthy, wonderful, and everybody does it. Just say there is no ecclesiastical consequence, period. And then let people deal with it. But this is one of the reasons, incidentally, we're going to get to youth interviews.

John Dehlin [00:34:29] Let's do that now.

Jim Bennett [00:34:30] Well, sure.

John Dehlin [00:34:31] One on one interviews. So I'm sure you were paying attention when Sam Young was kind of leading his Protect the children movement. Yes. Where he was talking about, number one, the inappropriate nature of one on one interviews with kids as young as 12. You know, a bishop asking a young girl, do you touch yourself? Where do you touch yourself? There's that and then there's like, you know, leaders asking teens and young adults, again, women alone, where did he touch you? How did he touch you? Did you enjoy it? Did you orgasm? And I, I know these things are being made up. There are.

Jim Bennett [00:35:08] They're not being made up.

John Dehlin [00:35:09] There are bishops and stake presidents and stake high councils all over the world that feel like they have license to ask these super invasive, inappropriate questions that are often very explicit to children alone, young girls alone, young boys alone, women alone, men alone. And so your thoughts on number one, one on one interviews that have sexually explicit questions and just the appropriateness or inappropriateness of such, of worthiness interviews in general and of sexually explicit questions specifically.

Jim Bennett [00:35:48] When, when the church changed its policy to allow parents to sit in on interviews with their children, I was there sitting next to my sons with their first interview. And to his credit, my bishop didn't bat an eye, was very welcoming and said, this is great, wonderful. And the bishops that I've had growing up, the bishops that I had, I was never asked any of those kinds of questions, but I know people who were. And I was asked those kinds of questions when I left on my mission in that interview that I described, there is no doubt in my mind that this is a pervasive problem. And I certainly believe that having a parent or an adult there is a great step forward. Would I like to see worthiness interview interviews disappear? I would. I absolutely would. I would not like to see teenagers not have a resource to turn to if they want to talk about these things. I mean, if somebody growing up is have. And I think bishops can be a lifeline, particularly in families where a parent isn't necessarily going to be a sympathetic ear. The bishops that I have known growing up are bishops that I would have been entirely comfortable turning to if I didn't feel like I had the kind of support at home. But that conversation, first of all, should be initiated by the person seeking help rather than initiated by an authority figure who's going to sit there and grill you over things that I just, you

John Dehlin [00:37:50] know,

Jim Bennett [00:37:52] I don't see anything positive coming out of asking a young girl those kinds of questions. I mean, I don't even want to repeat the questions. It's just so it's just so invasive and wrong and abusive to me. And I've always, I've always felt that way. So. So yeah, I think that is a, a great step forward to allow a parent to be in that room. But yeah, I would like to see those kinds of interviews go away. I'd like to see, I'd like to see interviews and conversations between ecclesiastical leaders initiated by those who are seeking help. I think that's, that's the direction we ought to be going. Love that.

The Church's Handling of Sexual Abuse

John Dehlin [00:38:38] One step further, and it's a really difficult issue is the Church's historical handling of cases of abuse, of pedophilia, of incest, of family abuse, of ward member to ward member, abuse, of Boy Scout leader abuse. And I've just, over the years, part of the most difficult aspect of my job is reading these accounts of either bishops who are actual sexual or physical abusers to bishops or stake presidents, protecting abusers, not, not reporting them to authorities, not reporting them to the police, encouraging victims to stay silent and not speak out about their abusers, and then even forgiving abusers and then putting them in a position where they're able to reabuse children or boys or girls or women. And this just really heavy handed involvement with Curtin McConkey, the law firm where the Church just seems, you know, it remind, it reminds me in a slightly different way of the movie spotlight. Just where there's this systemic cover up of abuse, where the engines seem to be oriented towards protecting the abusers and the Church's assets legally and the Church's reputation. Far more concern over that than prosecuting abusers and protecting the victims. Super sensitive topic. Do you have thoughts on that?

Jim Bennett [00:40:20] My wife will very much appreciate you plugging the movie spotlight. She's watched that something like five, six times. It's a great movie. It's a great movie. It's a great movie and it demonstrates how essential it is that we shine light on this spotlight, that we bring this out into the open and deal with it. The Church absolutely is not unique in the challenge that is facing. I think all kinds of hierarchical religions and the Catholic Church certainly has been the most high profile have to deal with this. But I look at the Catholic Church and I say, okay, the vast majority of Catholic priests don't abuse their congregants, don't abuse their parishioners. But those priests that don't are completely tainted and damaged by the large number that do. And the vast majority of leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are entirely appropriate with their members. And so as a service to those leaders that are good, we need to root out and bring to light the ones that are not the ones that are destructive, because it damages all of us. It damages the entire church. And again, we're getting better at it. But there's no question this is a problem, and there's no question that we should take any effort necessary to be able to bring it to light and make sure it doesn't happen anymore. And the idea of eliminating, you know, sexually. I didn't experience this firsthand, but I remember used to be a question in the temple recommend interview. They would ask questions about sexual behavior between married couples. Oral sex, I think, was. Was raised as an issue. And. And that quietly went away when it became clear that that isn't helpful to anybody. It's none of your business to ask about the sexual practices of a married couple. That is covenantally, you know, that's not appropriate at all. But that change happened quietly. It didn't happen. It didn't say we were wrong, we made a mistake. And we're going to bring this out into the open. I really feel like to root out the evil of sexual predation, that we need to root it out as publicly and apologize and put in place procedures necessary to make sure that never happens. So I feel very strongly about that. And I don't think that's an indictment of the church as a whole. I think this is something that. That we are wrestling with as the mortal family. Sexual predators are with us and organizations where people under color of authority can abuse people with less authority. You find that in and out of the church, but you absolutely do find it in the church. And we need to root it out and bring it to light and get rid of it.

John Dehlin [00:43:34] Thank you.

Jim Bennett [00:43:38] So as we.

John Dehlin [00:43:41] As we kind of think about the issues we. We've been covering today and that we've covered on past episodes, I.

Jim Bennett [00:43:47] And.

John Dehlin [00:43:48] And this is going to be slightly repetitive to themes. We're kind of revisiting some themes we've already discussed. But, you know, whether we're talking about Jeremy Runnels and the CES letter and. Or me, you know, or Bill Real. Right. Those are three people who tried hard to speak openly and publicly about problems with the church's treatment of history and. Or other issues. And they were, you know, we were all excommunicated. Right. Or in Jeremy's case, he resigned right before he was excommunicated. We're talking about Kate Kelly and how she tried to bring attention to, you know, the church's Treatment of women. You know, she was excommunicated. We talk about Sam Young and his attempt to bring to light the church's handling of sexual matters. And of these one on one worthiness interviews, Sam Young was excommunicated. This kind of brings me back to a question I asked you earlier, and that's just this idea of how the church. On the one hand you will, you seem very, in such an encouraging and refreshing way, willing to acknowledge all the problems, you know, all these problems that, that these sort of activists have brought to light. You sort of say, I share all these concerns. And, and yet these issues weren't really on the, on the radar as much. They weren't part of the public discourse before each of these people kind of did their work. And then at a minimum now these issues are either great changes have already been made, like in the, like in the example of one on one interviews or the essays or the Joseph Smith papers project or, you know, improvements around women in the church, whatever. We've seen progress as a result of a lot of these activists in, you know, efforts. But then, but then, you know, it has to give pause to an orthodox or believing member to say, wow, how can I be so grateful for those changes, acknowledge that the changes happen as a result of these activists doing what they do and yet acknowledge that the church's. Thank you. The church's response to these activists for making efforts that led to this positive change was to excommunicate them. And I know you've already addressed this, but I just want to ask you again, what are, you know, what are your thoughts or feelings around the excommunication of people like me, Jeremy, Bill, Sam, Kate Kelly and others? And do you have thoughts or feelings around the church's treatment and, or excommunication of the very people that are helping to be responsible for the change that is happening? And do you wish that the church would handle these sorts of people in a different way?

Feminist Activists and Excommunication

Jim Bennett [00:46:58] I don't think you're going to like my answer. I'm just warning you in advance. I think a lot of people aren't going to like my answer because I'm not, I'm not willing to second guess the leaders who took action against you or Sam Young or Kate Kelly or anybody else. I'm not willing to say they shouldn't have excommunicated you. And I recognize that's a cop out.

John Dehlin [00:47:26] Why is that a cop out?

Jim Bennett [00:47:27] Well, well, because based on what I know of you personally, I don't know Kate Kelly, I don't know Sam Young but based on our conversations, if you were to come to me and say, would you, Jim Bennett, if you were the stake president, would you excommunicate John Dehlin? My answer would be, no, I wouldn't. But I'm not your stake president, and I'm not in that position, and I don't feel it's appropriate for me to judge your stake president. So I don't think that's satisfying enough to people who go, well, Jim Bennett, you're willing to acknowledge that John Dehlin is a good guy and that you wouldn't excommunicate him, so why won't you come out and say he shouldn't have been excommunicated? Because, again, I don't think that's a productive way to engage with the church. I think the church, the challenge of the church and challenge of dealing with leaders is dealing with the messiness that comes with the kind of leadership roulette that you've described. So I'm not willing to put myself out on that limb. So maybe it's cowardly of me to say that, but that's kind of where I am on that. In bishoprics, in the two bishoprics I've been in, I've been involved in several disciplinary councils. And it's remarkable to me that, and maybe even somewhat ironic, that I consider those councils to be some of the most spiritual experiences I've had serving in the church. I never had a counsel for apostasy, never had a council that was disciplining anybody that hadn't sort of even reached out to deal with challenges they were having in their lives. And the leaders in those councils, the bishops, both bishops in those councils, were so clearly trying to seek the mind and the will of the Lord in how they would handle them, and were doing everything they could to minister to the people who were involved. And that ministry didn't stop when the council was over. These were people that the bishop, after it's done, reaches out to them and is doing all they can. Okay, so how can we get your life back on track? That was the goal. The goal was not, okay, how can we punish you for the terrible things you've done? How can we, you know. And so I saw those as extraordinarily positive experiences, which I don't think a lot of people would think of. So I'm coming at it from that context, too. I think that disciplinary councils should always be that kind of a positive thing. I don't see a lot of value in punitive disciplinary councils. When I was a missionary. There was a circumstance in a tiny, far flung part of Scotland where there were essentially competing congregations. They met in a community center and the branch president would set up. Would set up a meeting on one side of the community center, and then the followers of this other guy would come into the same room, set up chairs with their backs to the chairs of the rest of the congregations, and try to set up a competing sacrament meeting. And that ended up in a lot of people being excommunicated. And I look at that and say, okay, that kind of makes sense to me. If your goal is to attack, to destroy, then excommunication becomes the last resort. I would like to see excommunication only be a last resort. And I think there have been too many times where it has not been. Where it has been, okay, this is somebody we don't quite know what to do with. Okay, this makes us uncomfortable. Much easier just to sort of toss them aside. And I don't appreciate that approach. I wouldn't take that approach were I to be a church leader. I don't anticipate being a church leader, actually. That would.

John Dehlin [00:52:04] Especially now.

Jim Bennett [00:52:05] Yeah, maybe not now. Maybe I'm too radical. Well, actually, I remember one of the comments reading on YouTube was like, you're talking to this guy, but he's, he's going to be excommunicated soon, so watch

John Dehlin [00:52:15] out for coming on the podcast.

Jim Bennett [00:52:16] Coming on the podcast, I think is silly. I. Well, I know my bishop and I know my stake president, and I've had conversations with them. And if somebody excommunicates me for coming on here and trying to defend the church, which I, you know. Well, my primary goal is to represent where I am in my faith, but where I am in my faith leads me to defend the church. And if I'm going to be excommunicated from that, then I don't know what else I can do, you know, so

John Dehlin [00:52:59] when you were, when you were explaining the cut, you're what you call the cop out. I. What I was worried that you were basically saying was that maybe there are other reasons we were excommunicated beyond our activism. And you don't want to second guess that. Like, like, like maybe we're secret adulterers.

Jim Bennett [00:53:18] No.

John Dehlin [00:53:19] You know, pornographers or cheating on, you know, whatever it is.

Jim Bennett [00:53:22] I'm not trying to give that implication.

John Dehlin [00:53:24] No, no, I didn't think you were. And I'm, I'm, I'm, I. I'm glad I didn't get that sense. What, what I really. I Got, I got the sense if I looked at all these excommunications, Lee and Cody Young included, I get, I got two impressions. One is that, is that basically if, if that talking openly about church history in a way that isn't framed faithfully, like let's say, like obviously Richard Bushman and Terrell Givens and you and others can talk about church history, but they're always framing it in a, couching it in a faithful context. And so yes, you can talk openly about, you know, difficult topics as long as you couch it in, it's all true. The church is true and Joseph Smith was still a prophet and the Book of Mormon is still true. So here's how I reconcile that. And then you could talk about difficult things, but if you openly talk about difficult things in a way that is like either neutral or skeptical, one, and then two, if you have, if you, your, what you talk about has too much of an impact, if it reaches too many people, if it starts to have an influence. And I don't want to say that Jeremy's ever caused people to leave the church, that I've ever caused people to leave the church. And I don't even think most of the people I know that I've mentioned that our desire was ever to cause people to leave the church. It was more to say, oh, we've run into problems and we think these are serious problems and we don't understand, we don't find satisfying answers to these problems. And as a result people are start. And our platform started to have a really big impact of people leaving, not because of us, but because of the problems, then the church is uncomfortable with the open expression of those concerns in a non faithful context. And then that's when the excommunication comes. Or that's one problem. One reason I felt for these excommunications is too big of an impact in a non faithful way. And then the second is that the brethren, if you had to say that the brethren have one superpower in the minds of faithful members, or if they have one really root or source of power, inspiration, it's their claim that they have privileged access to God and that their decisions are led by God. And so if, if there are changes to be made regarding women or LGBT people or you know, the way the church talks about history, it or race, it can never be viewed that the brethren are responding to social pressure, that they're caving to activists or criticism. And so if they are to make a change with regards to race or LGBT or its treatment of history or women. It has to do this unsavory sort of move of making the change, but never making it look like they were doing it in response to social pressure. And so you have to excommunicate Sam Young before you make the change regarding one on one interviews, you have to excommunicate Kelly before you ever make a change regarding women. You have to excommunicate John or Jeremy or Bill real as you're making changes so that it never appears like you're caving to social pressure. And so that's honestly my most objective and even charitable interpretation of why people like us have been excommunicated. Not because of any hidden sins or even because we are trying to tear down the church. Any thoughts on those two things?

Jim Bennett [00:57:52] Yeah, I think the concern that the church doesn't want to look like it's caving is real. And I think it's unnecessary. I really feel like it's unnecessary. We've talked about this over and over.

John Dehlin [00:58:11] Because your whole premise is that revelation

Jim Bennett [00:58:14] comes when it's needed.

John Dehlin [00:58:15] Exactly. And it's the activists or the critics.

Jim Bennett [00:58:18] Often if the critics are raising something that causes leaders to ask a question and get an answer, they shouldn't be

John Dehlin [00:58:26] punished for that in theory.

Jim Bennett [00:58:26] Well, but there shouldn't be any effort to pretend that something else is happening. Right. A lot of people who talk about the priesthood ban, for instance, they exalt the fact that it came in 1978 after the heat of the civil rights movement. So clearly it wasn't happening as a result of this kind of pressure. It happened in a vacuum. It happened. This revelation just sort of came out of the ether. That's not helpful. It happened because of extraordinary amounts of pressure that were brought to bear on the church as the church tried to justify racism and exclusion. So I just look at that and I just get exasperated by the idea that it's an ideal to somehow claim that any change hasn't been precipitated by something that has happened, that there hasn't been a catalyst, and that the catalyst might have been somebody that you don't like or somebody you know. I just see that as why is that something we're even trying to do? And that's a question independent of whether or not you or anybody else should have been excommunicated. It's why are we even pretending that Sam Young raising the issue of one on one interviews had no bearing whatsoever on church leaders asking questions to the Lord about one on one interviews? Why? What do we benefit from that? What is the gain from that, I. I just don't see one. So.

Impact of Church Disciplinary Councils

John Dehlin [01:00:10] And then following that, if you. Not. Not again, not. Not to condemn the. The. That decision, if you were to give your observation as to the impact on church membership, to excommunicate me, Kate Kelly, Jeremy Runnels, Sam Young, Lee and Cody Young and others, what do you. What do you observe? Do you think that has helped the church? Do you do or do you observe some negative or. Or even really damaging consequences to that. That treatment?

Jim Bennett [01:00:43] I think. I think. I think there are visible, immeasurable consequences to it, but I think the intangibles make it more difficult for me to say. To say conclusively.

John Dehlin [01:00:58] I'll tell you the argument, because there's a lot of people that, you know, there's no question that starting in 2014, the church started losing people, you know, it in an accelerated fashion, as far as I'm concerned.

Jim Bennett [01:01:11] Why that year.

John Dehlin [01:01:12] That's the year K. Kelly's excommunicated.

Jim Bennett [01:01:14] Okay.

John Dehlin [01:01:15] And then I was excommunicated in 2015. And then, you know, after that, I mean, there's Rock Waterman, you know, there was the Calderwoods. There was this whole host of excommunications kind of plus or minus 2015.

Jim Bennett [01:01:28] I don't know the Calderwoods. I may be related to them. I'm a Calderwood somewhere.

John Dehlin [01:01:31] Oh, cool. Yeah. Carson and Marisa Calderwood. They're great. But anyway, the. What I heard by. By thousands of people is that if the Church doesn't want John De Lin, they don't want me. Right. Or if the Church doesn't want Kate Kelly, then they don't want. I'm a feminist. If the Church doesn't want Kate Kelly, they don't want me. And. Or if the church, you know, excommunicates its. Its earnest critics like Bill Real or whatever, then. Then the Church is actually acting like it has something to hide or it's acting like it's afraid or it's insecure. You know, that's. That's kind of the argument. And I think there's a lot of evidence that that was the. These excommunications were the final straw for a lot of people. I would say thousands, if not tens of thousands of people. All these resignations that have come through quit Mormon. Starting around, you know, that time,

Jim Bennett [01:02:27] I.

John Dehlin [01:02:27] I would observe that the church would have been a lot more effective to work with people like us than to kick us out, because it just sends a message to a lot of people that if. That they're not wanted either. That they're that. That, you know, and that the Church has something to hide or that it's acting in a medieval or a barbaric way, a way that isn't fundamentally Christlike.

Jim Bennett [01:02:54] You know, I think you can make that argument. I think the church's challenges with people leaving the church, I think the excommunications are symptomatic of an underlying challenge. And the underlying challenge is that in the age of the Internet, people are discovering things and learning about things in a way that the Church does not have the capacity to mediate. So I would take a broader look at that and say it's not just that John Dehlin is being excommunicated or that any of these other people are being excommunicated. It's that people are discovering information that they find troubling, and they don't see the Church having an adequate vehicle to confront it and to deal with it. And then they can point to people who, okay, well, these people are trying to deal with it, and they're not dealing with it in a way that the Church finds acceptable. And so maybe I'm not acceptable, and I can't stick around for that. I can absolutely see that happening. I think things like that would be likely to happen even without excommunications. I mean, when I say, why that year? It's just because I think. You're seeing in the age of the Internet that kind of a difficulty and a challenge that I think is not tied to an individual. I think it's tied to just the general infrastructure and framework of how the church functions. And the church is having to adapt to figure out how to do that. I think I mentioned on here before that there are half as many active members in the church in Scotland as there were when I served there as missionary 30 years ago. I don't think that has to do with your excommunication or anybody else's excommunication. I think all throughout Europe, you're seeing the church essentially implode. And it very much has to do with the fact that we have not figured out a way to engage people where they are in their doubts and their questions and in their frustrations with the church. And we can't just wave it away and say, you know, it's Elder Ballard's great talk to the CES leaders. You know, gone are the days when, you know, someone comes to you with a question and you can just bear your testimony and shut them down. Gone are the days when you can just say, don't worry about It. I think the church has been slow to recognize that, and we are in the process of recognizing it. But I think it's a larger problem than any individuals. I think. I think it's a. It's a systemic problem that we're. We're being forced to come to terms with whether we like it or not,

John Dehlin [01:06:09] to kind of close out this, this part. And then I want to go to the Q and A. There, there's two. There's two kind of final questions I want to ask. One is, when you hear Elder Snow, the church historian, talk about the Gospel topics essays that were released there, there was an explicit acknowledgment that the church felt really torn about these Gospel topics essays. There's almost a sense that it was a legal maneuver, that they needed some sort of public evidence acknowledging these problems so that they wouldn't be subjected to lawsuits about people not. Not being informed, not having informed consent that they wanted, that they were almost released under some sort of motivation of plausible deniability, where it's like, hey, nope, look, we talked about peep stones and we talked about polygamy. Kinderhook plates. Here's the. Here's the place on the website where we talked about it. But the elder Snow and others have acknowledged that these essays were intentionally not advertised to the general membership. They were not. They've never been mentioned in a general conference ever. And by any. By the people who follow this, they're buried several levels deep, you know, in the church's navigation structure. They are on the app.

Gospel Topics Essays and Church Transparency

Jim Bennett [01:07:33] So you could have come up very quickly in a Google search, you Google race. But you have to know.

John Dehlin [01:07:37] But that's.

Jim Bennett [01:07:38] You have to know it exists.

John Dehlin [01:07:39] Yeah. And you have to know. And, and I think the, the strongest evidence of this is that if you go to most like people write me every day in 2020, you know, it's 2021 now, but in 2020, I would get emails all the time saying I had a faith crisis. I went to my bishop to talk to him about it. He had never heard about these issues. And then I said, well, you know, then the person says, we'll read the Gospel topics essays. And then the Mormon bishop says, what are the gospel topics essays?

Jim Bennett [01:08:06] So.

John Dehlin [01:08:07] So that even to this day in 2021, I would venture to say most Mormon bishops in the United States have possibly never heard of the Gospel topics essays. And. Or if they have, they've never really read them. And if they have, they've never really thoughtful considered them. So this is a problem that the Church, I think, could solve. They could blast it all, put it on the front page of their home website. They could talk about it at any general conference. They could bring you and Brian Hales and Terrell Givens, you know, create training where they educated all the bishops and the bishoprics and the Stake High Councils and the Relief Society presidencies. They could do a mass education of the problems and not just historical stuff, but LGBT stuff, race stuff, you know, and not just in the US but also globally. They could solve this problem or at least go a long ways towards solving the problem. But my understanding of why they haven't done that is because it's, it's viewed like a virus, that if you, that the only way the Church sees to address this problem is on a once they're infected basis, that you only want to vaccination. Yeah, well, not. I'll get to that in a second. But it seems like the way that the Church has chosen to handle this up until now, not counting Seminary Institute, but I'll just say with the membership 20 years and above, right. 30 years and above for sure, is to only handle it on a once you have a crisis basis. And it's not by training the bishops, because the bishops aren't trained. It's like, well, we'll send Terrell Givens or TV on a fireside, or we'll send Richard Bushman to a fireside. We'll only invite those people who need to know, or we'll bury these essays in a place where people can find them if needed. But it's in a very reactive way and not a proactive way, because if you try and handle this in a proactive way, you end up spreading the virus. Because if you start training bishops and bishoprics and stake presidents and stake presidency members and Stake High Councilmen and Relief Society presidents and mission presidents, if you start proactively training them, you're going to sprinkle. You're going to spread the virus a lot more fast than if you just wait, wait for it to spread kind of in a reactive way. So that's a separate question from the, from the inoculation sort of changes in curriculum that we're starting to see with the book Saints that we're starting to see in, in the changes to the seminary and institute curriculum. But do you, you know, how do you respond to that fear that the brethren, by many accounts have, that they can't be proactive about addressing this problem lest they risk spreading it on, on a pandemic level?

Jim Bennett [01:11:01] On a pandemic level, throughout the membership. How do I respond to it? I do.

John Dehlin [01:11:07] Do you think there's some.

Jim Bennett [01:11:09] Oh, sure. Well, possibility to. Well, I've gotten that. I've gotten pushback on my CES letter reply even from Jeremy about the Streisand effect. You know, the idea Barbra Streisand had a picture of her house. If anybody doesn't know what this is. Yeah, tell us. Well, I don't know if I remember the details correctly, but she had a picture of her house that she didn't want anybody to see and she sued to make sure it wasn't seen. So of course everybody went to find it. You know, if she had just kept her mouth shut, no one would have known that this picture existed. And I've been accused of a sort of Streisand effect by and Jeremy in his first email to me when he was really kind of mad at me, he says, you know, people, your CES letter reply is introducing everybody to the issues that are in the CES letter. And the issues in the CES letter are so compelling that you, Jim Bennett, by calling attention to it, are driving people out of the church. And my reaction to that and my reaction to the broader question you've just raised is we don't have any choice. We don't have any choice. I mean, I think that there are well intentioned people who want to sort of keep this information from being viral and being spread and being out there. And I think their intentions are entirely honorable in doing so. But the genie is out of the bottle. We don't have any choice. Everybody has access to this information now. So are they going to get this information from Mormon Think, which probably isn't as charitable in how they're going to present the information as the Gospel Topics essays would be. Where are they going to get this information and how are they going to get it? And the conversation can't be anymore, you know, how do we shield people from this information or how do we introduce it to them in a way that, you know, fact is, it's there. It's there and it's so easily accessible. When I was a missionary, you'd be teaching somebody and in a little brown paper bag a minister would give them a pamphlet telling them about all the terrible things about the church. And in 1988, that's the only way you got terrible information about the church. You know, in 2021, you type the name of the church into Google and it's all there in the first search. It's all there, you know, so I Listen to that. And I just think the reason I'm doing what I'm doing is because eventually people who are uncomfortable having these conversations with a John Dehlink or with a Jeremy Runnels or somebody else, they're going to have to have those conversations. You're postponing them. You are not avoiding them. Those conversations are going to happen because these are real questions that people have, and they're going to be asking them. And we need to figure out not how to avoid them, but how to answer them. And if I'm not answering them perfectly or even adequately, that's on me. But we have to make that attempt. We just have to get out there and we have to engage. So I just feel very strongly and passionately about this, that we just don't have a choice. It's so bizarre that people think it's like Donald Trump challenging the election. It's like, well, should we acknowledge or not acknowledge that he. He lost the election? Well, it doesn't matter what you acknowledge or don't acknowledge. He lost the election. Right. This is objective reality. And the objective reality is that there are issues in the history of the church that people have questions about and they're looking for answers, and we need to be willing to provide them. I think it's as simple as that.

John Dehlin [01:15:20] Yeah, that. My guess is there's this calculus that goes on where they. They've basically made the decision that to handle it the way they've handled it is the best way to lose the least amount of people. So I imagine them sitting in these sort of strategy meetings where they say, okay, we're either going to lose, you know, 40,000 members a year to this kind of stuff, or we could lose 80 or 100,000 members a year to this stuff. So by going the slow route, by putting the essays in kind of a hidden place, by not broadcasting them in general conference, we're going to lose 20 to 40,000 a year, but we won't lose a hundred thousand. And so they. They've basically made the decision that this kind of piecemeal slower approach is, Is. Is the most effective way to minimize the damage that's inevitable. And my question to you is, in your observation, is there is this kind of piecemeal reactive approach, the right path in your estimation of losing the least amount of people versus accelerating the amount of people. Because there is the community of Christ approach where it's like, make too many changes too quickly, and then you get this mass defection. Do you feel like the way the church is handling it is actually potentially. Do you see evidence of the possibility that the way the Church is handling it in a slower, more piecemeal, more indirect, more reactive way is actually creating more problems for itself in the long run? Or do you even have enough evidence to speculate in that way?

Jim Bennett [01:17:09] Well, the last part of your question is where I was going because, you know, if I. You make Jim Bennett president of the church, there are going to be some changes. Right. And my rant just a minute ago is how I personally would approach this the way.

John Dehlin [01:17:30] Is it?

Jim Bennett [01:17:30] Is it? Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:17:32] With the goal of minimizing the defections.

Jim Bennett [01:17:35] No, no.

John Dehlin [01:17:36] I mean, or just doing the right thing because there is a lot of people are like, well, John, what would you do if you could talk to the Brethren? And, and I have talked to the brother. Sure.

Jim Bennett [01:17:45] I have too.

John Dehlin [01:17:45] Yeah. Oh, okay. Well, we can talk about that if you want. But, but, but, but I know rule one of wanting to talk to the brother more than once is to never talk about your conversations with the Brethren. And that. But, but when, you know, when I've tried to think about if I were to talk to Elder Holland, what advice would I give him? But I always had the rule, it's gotta be advice that's actually good for the church. And when I say good for the church, I mean butts in seats and tithing. And that's not to say that that's all the church cares about, but I think those are things the church can track if tithing goes down or if attendance goes down or if resignations go up. You know, you maybe have made some bad decisions. And I honestly don't know that I could look Elder Holland or Uchtdorf or Nelson or Oaks in the face and say, legalize same sex marriage. Do same sex marriage in the temples and, and come 100% clean proactively. With all your history, I could not look them in the face and say that's going to be the best way to minimize the defections. I think that might accelerate defections. And so anyway, that's just my disclaimer. Now what's yours?

Jim Bennett [01:18:55] No, my disclaimer or your answer? Because I begin by saying, you know, you put Jim Bennett in charge of the church and he's going to do it this way, but I'm not in charge of the church. And not only am I not in charge of the church, I don't have access to the amount of voluminous research because I don't think these decisions are made on the basis of pettiness. The Church does an Extensive amount of research. I've received a number of surveys. I received one that talked all about grace that I thought was just beautiful. They made all these, they gave me all of these statements. Do I agree with this statement about grace or this statement about grace? And I went, somebody in church leadership wants to know what the membership thinks about grace. And isn't that wonderful?

John Dehlin [01:19:47] Yeah.

Jim Bennett [01:19:47] And I thought that's great, you know, but so you go through that. And so I am sure that, that the, the approach they are taking can be justified by a great deal of research. That this is not just any apostle or any 70 or anybody in church leadership flying by the seat of their pants. I think they firmly believe they have data and evidence to which I do not have access. So I qualify my sweeping kind of call for total transparency like that with an understanding that they clearly on this case, not just even sort of in a spiritual way, but they have hard data that I don't have. So if I had that hard data, I might change my mind. I look at that though, when you start talking about in terms of accelerating the defection or how do we do this in terms of, I mean, do you want to bleed slowly or do you want to rip the band aid off all at once? Because if people are going to defect from the church, if they're going to leave the church over these issues,

John Dehlin [01:21:08] how

Jim Bennett [01:21:08] much of a difference does it make if they leave them slowly over time or they all leave at once? I mean, what I think we don't have any choice but to do is if people are going to defect over these, They're still going to have access to the information. Right? You're not, by giving it to them and doing your best to frame it for them in a faithful context up front, are more people going to leave than if they are left to sort of discover this on their own? Well, I don't think in aggregate in total that more people would leave. I think more people would leave. The people who are going to leave will leave quickly. You know, they'll leave now as opposed to later. But I don't think those people who are going to leave later wouldn't leave later if we, you know, if we were up front with them now. So, so, you know, second guessing the church and doing all of that. I absolutely believe that these men are operating with the best of motives and I absolutely believe they have access to hard data that I do not have access to. So any kind of sweeping change that I advocate is qualified by the fact that I'm ignorant to some degree. But the broad principle applies, and the broad principle applies to what I personally feel like is my responsibility in how I've engaged in this world with my CES letter reply and with these kinds of conversations, is that I feel like I have no choice but to directly engage with people with the hardest possible questions. And I think the only way we save people in the church and keep people in the church is to model and demonstrate that people with integrity can stay, can confront these issues and stay. That's what caused me to stay. You know, I look at that Gilbert W. Sharfs book. I had a chance to meet Gilbert W. Sharfs after I came home from my mission, and I thanked him profusely for his book.

John Dehlin [01:23:19] This is the response to the Godmakers.

Jim Bennett [01:23:20] This is the response to the Godmakers. I've never seen the God Makers movie. I've read the book.

John Dehlin [01:23:26] It's on the Internet.

Jim Bennett [01:23:26] It's great. It's only an hour. I've seen the. The cartoon where God has gazillion wives and comes from Starbase collab and blah, blah, blah, blah. But. But what Gilbert W. Sharfs did for me was not. He was a model, he was an example. He was okay. He did it. This guy's smart. This guy has integrity. This guy seems like a good guy. If he can do it, then maybe I can do it. I think that's the only approach that works. I don't think any approach where it's like, well, we're going to not tell you some information because we're going to skewer it. That approach doesn't work. That approach doesn't stop doubt. What stops doubt is a doubter seeing somebody who has wrestled with doubt come out on the other side and seeing a path forward. I really don't believe that people want to leave the church and are eager to doubt. No, I don't think that's been your experience. I don't think that was Jeremy's experience. Jeremy talks about reading this stuff on the Internet and just, I need answers now. It's why he reached out to a CES director. It was not because I want to leave the church. It's I want to stay. I desperately want to stay. How do I stay? And that's the question we need to answer. This is how you stay. Not, oh, you're wrong for even questioning. You're wrong for even doubting. What do you mean, how do you stay? You know, when I expressed public frustration with the 2015 policy, the reaction largely was, get out. It's like, I don't want to get out. I want to stay. How do I stay? You don't stay. Get out. You're faithless, get out. That's not an approach that helps the church in the long run or the short run or doesn't help anybody really quickly.

John Dehlin [01:25:24] And then I have a final question for this segment. What is your reaction to the Gospel topics essays and the book Saints and Other? Well, I guess I should start by saying your response to Jeremy's CES letter has been at least indirectly endorsed by the Church a little bit. Right. Weren't you. Wasn't it advertised, I guess by Fair Mormon?

Jim Bennett [01:25:50] Well, fair Mormon, yeah. Fair Mormon came to me and it was actually Book of Mormon central. I went and met with Book of Mormon central and they told me they would like to advertise my reply, that they had some information that the CES letter, that my reply was the most effective response to the CES letter. And so there were a few months where they spent some money and, you know, you saw advertisements for my reply. I saw precisely $0 of any of that money. Like, do I get paid for this? No. Okay. All right, then, off we go. But the essays I remember reading, the first essay I read was the Race and the Priesthood essay. And I saw that it had come out. They didn't hide it from me. I think I run in circles where people talk about these things. So I read it right when it came out and I braced myself for it because I thought, oh, really? Are we going to get into

John Dehlin [01:26:52] all

Jim Bennett [01:26:52] of the excuses, the torturous excuses that I tried to make on my mission for why we really weren't being racist and why it really was an exclusionary look. That's the document I was expecting. And so when I read the actual essay, I was thrilled. I was thrilled. It struck me as being. It acknowledged racism. It acknowledged that there isn't a revelation that authorized this. It acknowledged that the black people are not bearing the curse of Cain and that. That. And I was flabbergasted. I know so many people point to those essays as catalysts for faith crisis, but it was a huge boon to me. I loved it. And the other essays that have come out, I have loved, I could do without. A few months shy of her 15th birthday, I read that and just went, oh, really? Kind of.

John Dehlin [01:27:53] No.

Jim Bennett [01:27:54] Yeah, yeah. They talk about Joseph's marriage to a 14 year old as marriage to Helen as being. She was a few months shy of her 15th birthday. A friend of mine who's left the church said, yeah, that means she was 14. So, yeah, you have some of that, but not nearly as much as I was expecting. I thought they were candid. I thought they were upfront, which may be why they don't want to advertise them as widely. But. But the Saints, the book, Saints I devoured, I haven't read the second volume yet, but I devoured the first volume in installments as it was released online. I eventually got the printed version, but I was reading it because they were releasing it chapter by chapter online. And I just thought, this is a breath of fresh air. This is absolutely how we deal with this. I mean, you acknowledge the Rock in the Hat, you acknowledge the challenges of polygamy. You acknowledge all of them, and you put them in the broader context of the church. Because I don't think we should be ashamed of our history. I think we should embrace our history in its totality, because there is so much beauty there. There's so much sacrifice, there's so much faithfulness. And, yes, there are also so many problems and so many things that are messy. That is the human, mortal experience. That is it. You know, growing up, We talked about church history in the context of our pioneer history, and we would just celebrate and embrace all of that, and look how much sacrifice and look how noble these people were. All of that is still true. All of that is accurate. All these people were amazing, remarkable pioneers, and we can celebrate them so much more when we acknowledge them as people and not as these sort of demigods that came down from Mount Olympus and did all these things. These were people with problems, and they made a mess of some stuff. I've made a mess of some stuff. Everybody does. That's what life is. But, you know, so I look at what the Church has done with that and just. I can't. I'm thrilled with it in terms of the content. I am not thrilled that it's not getting the wider audience that it should. Although Saints. Actually, Saints is kind of being pushed. There was a guy in my ward who came up to me and said he was reading Saints, and he says, are you related to John C. Bennett? I went, absolutely not. Absolutely not. John C. Bennett's the worst. Oh, he is. Oh, I haven't gotten to that part yet. Oh, yeah, he's just come into the story, and he seems like he's a good guy. I just wonder if you were related. I'm like, okay, keep reading, keep reading. You won't like him as you get further in.

John Dehlin [01:31:02] So.

Jim Bennett [01:31:03] And the Joseph Smith papers. The Joseph Smith papers, I think, are really Spectacular. The other thing that I think is spectacular, I checked out a copy of Richard Turley's book Mountain Meadows Massacre, or Massacre at Mountain Meadows, I think it's called that doesn't pull any punches at all. And, you know, I spent three years in St. George when I was the artistic director at Tuacan, and I had grown up completely ignorant of all of the stuff in southern Utah. You know, the. The Tuacan did, the story of Jacob Hamblin. I had no idea who Jacob Hamblin was. And the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I remember driving out to the site of the Mountain Meadows Massacre was about 45 minutes from where I lived and just being. Had the same kind of feeling I had when I went to the Holocaust museum in Washington, D.C. there's a feeling of reverence there, but also just this abject recognition of horror of all that kind of thing. And Richard Turley's book, Authorized by the Church, written by the church historian at the time, lays out just the. It's like watching a movie where, you know, the ending, the tragic ending, and you keep wanting to tell the characters, no, no, no, don't do that. No, no, no. And they do do that. And they go there, you know, so, yeah, this is a long answer to your question, but I'm very happy with a lot of what we're doing now.

John Dehlin [01:32:45] Sure.

Jim Bennett [01:32:46] And I think it's a vast improvement over what we have done, moving in the right direction. But I am not as happy with the pace at which it is being rolled out and introduced to the membership. Yeah.

Demonization of Critics and Closing Reflections

John Dehlin [01:32:58] Okay, last question for this section. You know, oftentimes I'm demonized, Jeremy's demonized. And I'm really grateful for how you've been willing to stand up for people like me and Jeremy and denounce our demonization. I really profoundly appreciate that. But, you know, oftentimes so many people accuse me and Jeremy of, like, leading people out of the church, destroying testimonies, destroying faith. You know, there's even this Cardinalis guy who's like, john's a home wrecker for profit. That. But, you know, and one of the. One of the. One of the things that I often think about is what does it say about God and what does it say about his plan of salvation for his children? And what does it say about his one true church if, in the case of Jeremy Runels, some, you know, 30. Something with a laptop, some.

Jim Bennett [01:34:08] Some how fragile a God that is?

John Dehlin [01:34:10] Yeah. Some deaf. Some deaf kid, some deaf middle aged white kid with a laptop can create a PDF and Just with that kick tens of thousands of people out of God's one true church, or in my case, some tall goofy kid from Texas can buy a microphone and start a podcast and literally devastate the, the salvation, you know, in terms of like celestial kingdom of like tens of thousands of, of Mormon families. The church is already the more the LDS church already is such an incredibly low percentage of the world's population, less than one half of 1%. You know, we talk about 16 million members. There's only 5, 5 to 6 million active members at best. And only a third of those are really temple attending, tithe paying. So I mean, we're talking about a couple million people in a world of billions. Like we're already kind of really behind the curve. What does it say about God, the one true church and the plan of salvation, this narrative that just a podcast or a PDF posted to the Internet can devastate not just, you know, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of families, but their posterity as well. Like that argument that Jeremy and I are powerful enough, or Bill Real or RFM or Kate Kelly or whatever, that we're powerful enough to literally destroy the future salvation of tens of thousands of the Lord's children and their families. What do you make of that argument?

Jim Bennett [01:36:00] What do I make of that argument?

John Dehlin [01:36:04] Are we that powerful? Is that what's going on?

Jim Bennett [01:36:10] Well, is that what's happening?

John Dehlin [01:36:12] Is it our fault?

Jim Bennett [01:36:13] Well, are you that powerful? I think the other question is, is the church that fragile, right? Is God that fragile, right? Is God that weak?

John Dehlin [01:36:21] Yeah. And is the hatred towards us, the demonization of us, justified? I want both answers.

Jim Bennett [01:36:30] I don't think demonization is justified because let's say that it is. Let's for argument's sake, say you are the worst person who has ever lived. Adolf Hitler's got nothing on you. Right.

John Dehlin [01:36:40] And that's. Some would argue that's the church's position.

Jim Bennett [01:36:43] Out of darkness, who gets it?

John Dehlin [01:36:45] Not Hitler.

Jim Bennett [01:36:46] Right?

John Dehlin [01:36:46] Not Jeffrey Dahmer. Mass murderers, rapists, they're in the telestrial kingdom.

Jim Bennett [01:36:50] We're violating Godwin's law now.

John Dehlin [01:36:53] But I'm just saying it's the. You could make an argument that Joseph Smith's theology is the only people that go to true Mormon hell are the ones who believed and then turned away. The apostates, basically.

Jim Bennett [01:37:04] Well, Joseph Smith's statements about outer darkness are very encouraging, I think, because essentially he says you have to look at the sun and say it doesn't shine while you see it. I mean, you have to essentially Know exactly that Jesus Christ has died for you and know a pert knowledge of. And reject it anyway.

John Dehlin [01:37:22] Yeah.

Jim Bennett [01:37:23] So I really don't think I've ever met anybody that's in danger of outer darkness or come close. I mean, I. I really feel. I really. I think the scriptures back me up that we are a universalist faith. I think the likelihood of you or Jeremy spending any time in out of darkness is nil. I could be. I don't. That's not a production.

John Dehlin [01:37:47] So then we're at least equal to Hitler.

Jim Bennett [01:37:49] And you're easy. Okay. No, but for argument's sake, let's say you are the worst person who's ever lived. How does that change the information that you have provided? Right. If Hitler tells you the sky is blue, does that make the sky green? You know, so the people aren't leaving the church because of Jeremy Runels or John Dehlin as people. They're leaving the church because Jeremy Runnels and John Dehlin have called their attention to things they find very disturbing. And the reason I really resent the demonization, not just because you're a good guy, which you are, but because it represents a fragility on the part of the demonizer. It represents a weakness on the part of the argument of the faithful. You mentioned Cardinalis. I don't know when this is going to be broadcast or when this next thing is going to be broadcast, but I spoke to Cardinalis yesterday. He called me out of the blue. I've been trying to get a hold of him since they started doing those awful videos. And I let him have it in the phone conversation, but he invited me on his podcast. And so I'm, you know, they can't shut Jim Bennett up. I'm going to go everywhere, but I'm going to go on Cardinalis and I'm going to confront him on this. Because I think the Cardinalis approach demonstrates a weakness in Cardinalis argument. If you can't keep people in the church, and that.

John Dehlin [01:39:21] That includes Kwaku.

Jim Bennett [01:39:22] Right. I don't know if Kwaku is going to be in this podcast.

John Dehlin [01:39:24] No, no, no. I mean in terms of him also using the demon. Demonizing people like me and Jeremy.

Jim Bennett [01:39:30] Well, demonizing. And they literally demonized you. They put your face on a demon's body.

John Dehlin [01:39:34] On someone they thought was a demon.

Jim Bennett [01:39:36] Someone they thought was. Yeah. What? But, you know, that demonstrates weakness, not strength. That comes from a place of cowardice. You know, when I did Jeremy's, my reply to Jeremy, it was, look, if I have to resort to telling everybody that Jeremy Runnels is Hitler or Satan or the worst person. It means that I can't answer his arguments. And I wanted to demonstrate I can answer his arguments. I can't answer his arguments in sort of a definitive way that will ring true to everybody or that. But he's asking good questions. Here are my answers to those questions. And if people go, well, okay, but we need to discredit the messenger first so that nobody even looks at the questions. That's a fragile God. It's not the God I worship. And I believe part of the reason I'm willing to do this and try to answer these questions and on occasion fail miserably. I mean, I know that when I engage in these kinds of things, I'm going to say stuff and step in it, and, oh, I shouldn't have said that, Knew that was wrong, and that wasn't the best way to represent the church or any of that. But the reason I'm willing to do that is that I have confidence in the church's destiny. I have confidence and faith in the future that this is not a fragile God and this is not a fragile church. And the thing that Jeremy has in his introduction from J. Reuben Clark is that if we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation, and if we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed. That's a true principle. That's a true principle being taught by a member of the First Presidency, by a prophet, seer and revelator. I absolutely believe that and have confidence in that. And I would like to see people defending the church have confidence in that. Because if they have to attack you and say, well, John Dehlin eats babies for breakfast or whatever else, they've already lost the argument before it's begun. They're not building the kingdom. They're not doing the church any service by doing that. It doesn't help. It hurts. It does nothing but hurt. And it diminishes you. I mean, it diminishes the person making the argument. It diminishes if I sit here and attack you as a person and call you names and say nasty things and put your face on a demon's body. I'm the one that looks petty and small. And if I'm representing the church while I do that, I'm making the church look petty and small. And we're better than that. We should be better than that. Everybody should be better than that. So that's where I am on that.

John Dehlin [01:42:30] And then for God, why? And this comes back to the problem of evil and, you know, the theodicy. But why is God creating this plan where so few of his children. I should say thank you for what you just said. I appreciate it. I'm sure Jeremy appreciates it too. But, but then just ending with kind of God and it's hard to guess God. It's hard to second guess God. It's hard to know God's mind and will. But why? What's your thinking for why God? It's, it's tough enough to be a Mormon. Why? How do you make sense of, of a plan where a PDF or a podcast seems to be taking so many people, by some people's perception seems to be taking so many people out. What? Wouldn't you have hoped that God would have put some sort of plan together where either prophets would have foreseen this and dealt with the history much differently in 1910, 1920, 1930.

Jim Bennett [01:43:34] Right.

John Dehlin [01:43:34] You know, or just not mishandled it all along the way or would have taught the history differently? Like how did we get in this mess with an all powerful, all loving, all knowing God? And I know we're gonna touch on some themes we've already touched on.

Jim Bennett [01:43:49] No, I mean, I, I think, I think we, we've, we kind of, we have handled this to some degree because I consider myself a universalist. You know, I consider the fact that we all get there eventually. I don't know how long it will take. I don't know how long it will take for Hitler if he's going to be punished for 6 billion years for each of the 6 million Jews that was murdered under his watch on his direct order. Eternity is a very, very long time. Right? And even those 6 billion years and all those kinds of things, it's a drop in the bucket to eternity. So the idea that. I think I'm answering a different question than the one you just asked,

John Dehlin [01:44:33] I'm

Jim Bennett [01:44:33] sure that's part of it.

John Dehlin [01:44:34] Well, in other words, there's nothing to worry about in the long term.

Jim Bennett [01:44:38] In the long term, I believe there's nothing to worry about. Yes, I take issue, I depart ways with Bruce R. McConkie's Seven Deadly Heresies where he talks about the heresy of progression between the kingdoms. I just think, how can there not be progression between the kingdoms? How do you stop progression over a course of eternity? How do you live eternity in front of a brick wall? Does that mean that the terrestrial kingdom eventually becomes like the celestial kingdom? Eventually? I mean, nobody knows any of that. We don't know. And I don't think Bruce R. McConkie knew either. I think he firmly believed what he believed. But I would disagree with him on that point. And I think I'm in good company. There are other brethren that have disagreed with him on that point. So then you come back to the question, okay, well, why hasn't the church unfolded differently than it has? Why has God allowed the church to progress the way that it has? And. I don't think there is an answer to that question. I just don't think there's an answer to that that anybody can provide in any substantive way. You know, it's the candide talks about Dr. Pangloss who says, this is the best of all possible worlds because there is no other world, so this must be the best of all possible worlds. And that's kind of sort of where we find ourselves, is this is the way it has unfolded. And if I were God and I were to go back, would I have chosen to have it unfold differently? Would I have gone and warned, you know, in the CES letter reply, this example might be helpful. Jeremy gets into the whole Mark Hoffman thing and he says, why didn't the Lord scream in the ears of these prophets, seers and revelators that they were dealing with a fraud and a murderer? How were these men able to be deceived by somebody like Mark Hoffman? And shouldn't we expect a prophet, seer and revelator to not be duped like that? And I think I lay out, at least in one of the versions of my reply, I say, okay, all right, let's. Let's say Mark Hoffman shows up on the doorstep of the church and he's got these fraudulent documents. And the church leadership meets in the upper rooms of the temple. And Moroni shows up and he says, don't mess with this Mark Hoffman. He's terrible. And this is a fraud. And this is terrible. Okay, great. So they're warned. What happens next? Well, what happens next is they come out and they say, oh, well, Mark Hoffman, he's a fraud. Moroni told us so. Well, what does Mark Hoffman do? Mark Hoffman says, you guys are nuts. I mean, Mark Hoffman is still lying and deceiving, but Mark Hoffman is a very good forger. And he gets the entire world to say these religious nuts are refusing to look at their own history based on some weird thing they're saying happened in their temple. The way that unfolds, does that unfold better than how it unfolded as it was? I'm not convinced that's the case. I'm convinced now we learn that the brethren are not perfect. And the brethren, Dallin Oaks talks about the fact that he's like, we have to deal with everybody in good faith. And we took Mark Hoffman in good faith. This speaks to our good faith. And it's like, yeah, that's right. It does. It does speak to your good faith. So to sit here and restructure history according to how I think God should have handled it differently from the way that he did is not a productive exercise because I think you can go down all kinds of rabbit holes and there are things that we don't know that would have happened if things had happened differently. We don't know what all the unintended consequences of anything would be. So, you know, I think the mortal experience was designed for us to come here and screw up and to learn these things the way we have learned them and the way we are learning them. God could absolutely step in and sort of give us the cheat codes for the video game of life. He doesn't do that. I don't think he ever does that for anybody. For. I don't think he does that for prophet seers and revelators, and he doesn't do that for me. And that I think that's, that's, that's the point. That's the purpose. So, anyway,

John Dehlin [01:49:15] Beautiful. All right. Well, this concludes the, the introductory or the, the substantive portions of my interview with Jim Bennett, son of former U.S. senator Bob Bennett and author of a faithful reply to the CES letter. This concludes the formal poll portion of my sort of believing after the CES letter. I think it's been wonderful and I'm so grateful. And Jim, I want to thank you, but don't go away. I have one thing to say before we end. But, but Jim, I just want to thank you. This has been so good and so many people have loved it, and I've enjoyed every minute of it.

Farewell and Final Thoughts with Jim Bennett

Jim Bennett [01:49:58] I've enjoyed every minute of it as well.

John Dehlin [01:50:01] Thank you so much. Now, this, believe it or not, this may not be over because I still have pages of questions and thoughts from you, our listeners. So I'm going to talk to Jim right now about do we, do we start right now, another couple hours, or do we wait and do that later? Are we just too exhausted? But, but there's a decent chance we're going to have a part five and maybe even a part six of like a Q and A where we actually go into some detail, just about questions from you, our listeners. So stay tuned. Don't go away. I'm I'm thinking there's a really good chance we're going to have at least a part 5, if not more. But for those of you who joined us for this main section, thank you so much. Thanks for your support. Thanks to Jim. Thanks to Jeremy runnels. Go to CS letter.org to read the CS letter. Jeremy's a great guy. Go to just Google Jim Bennett. That's NNETT CES letter response and you'll find the Canonizer website which then has Jim's response. Read all three or four hundred pages of that to read his response. And go to Bill Real his podcast to hear 14 hours of Bill and Jim talking about things as well. Lots of good content out there. Check it all out. Thank you for listening. Thank you for supporting us. Everyone who supports Mormon Stories podcast, your donations have made this possible. Please donate. If you don't support us, less than one out of a thousand of my listeners actually donate. If you want to see this content, continue. If you value this content, please become a monthly donor. Just go to mormorestories.org, click on the donate button and you can support future this interview and future interviews with your support. Jim, if somebody wants to support you financially, what can they do? Or do you even take donations for this kind of work?

Jim Bennett [01:51:49] I haven't set anything up for donations.

John Dehlin [01:51:52] You should, I think.

Jim Bennett [01:51:54] I, I, I, that's a good question. I have to think about that. I don't have an answer for that. Okay, so, so Jim Bennett is free for the moment.

John Dehlin [01:52:03] Okay, so all right, well, for the moment, we'll let you know if there's a way for you to support Jim Bennett going forward. But I will say support rfm, support Bill Real, support Jeremy, support Open Stories foundation, and if you're Mormon, support the LDS Church. And so anyway, thanks.

Jim Bennett [01:52:24] They'll take donations even if you're not Mormon.

John Dehlin [01:52:27] So anyway, so anyway, thanks for your support. Please support us if you can. Thanks again to Jim. And if people want to thank you for your contributions, how do they reach out to you and thank you?

Jim Bennett [01:52:41] Well, I'll give you my email address.

John Dehlin [01:52:42] Okay.

Jim Bennett [01:52:42] What I mean is jim@canonizer.com c a

John Dehlin [01:52:45] n O N C A N O

Jim Bennett [01:52:47] N I Z E R and no

John Dehlin [01:52:50] mean nasty emails, only kind, thoughtful, encouraging, supportive emails.

Jim Bennett [01:52:55] I've gotten some mean, nasty ones too. I if you get, if you send me a mean, nasty one, you might get something snarky on the way back. So anyway, we'll see what happens.

John Dehlin [01:53:04] All right. All right, thanks Jim. Thanks everybody. And we'll see you guys on the flip side, don't go away. Come right back. And we're gonna have part 5, a Q A where I give Jim your questions and give him a chance to respond to some of his critics and those who have compliments. There's good and bad criticisms and compliments in those interviews. Thanks, everybody. See you guys again soon. On another episode of Mormon Stories podcast. Take care of.