A Shadow Faith Has Risen Within The LDS Church

I really think this is a very important episode, and this paper written by Professor Jurgensson needs to be read, addressed, and discussed.

Now, this episode is brought to you by Go and Do Travel and the Wavemakers podcast for cruise. We're running down the Baja in Mexico. We've got Jacob Hansen of Thoughtful Faith, Cardinal Ellis of Ward Radio, Jasmine Rapolley, Hayden and Jackson Paul of the Stick of Joseph, David Boyce of 52 Churches in 52 weeks, and Dave Butler of Plain and Precious Things. It's going to be a great chance to interact with everyone, ask questions, have breakout sessions, great presentations, and really talk about what's going on in the online community as we build testimony and bring that online community face to face. This cruise is November 15th through 22nd. Go to quickdia.com, cwycia.com, up to trips and events, and scroll down to wavemakers. Would love to see you there.

[Music]

There's a shadow faith that is growing, developing inside of the restored church with its own ideas, its own doctrine in some cases, its own rituals, its own gatherings. It seems to be the case for those that hold up the banner of pride and the tenets of its movement, which are obviously against the doctrines, principles, and tenets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. What do you need to do to coexist within the structure of the church? And as this movement grows, and it is, and gains more steam, more energy, more excitement for those that participate in it, what is the inevitable outcome? The way I typically frame this is it is a rivalry between a hope in change, which ultimately gets to the temple and same-sex marriage in the temple. Of course, it goes beyond that, but that's the ultimate idea, the iconic goal in mind, the energy that is infused in those that participate in this versus a hope in Christ. There is a disparity here.

Now, I want to say something. I want to qualify this. That doesn't mean that those that are involved with these organizations and movements and online groups that are supporting a pride agenda—and I do mean agenda, not just support for the individuals—it doesn't mean that they don't have a hope in Christ. You can read some of the organizations we're going to talk about—Gather and others here—where their websites talk about a faith in Jesus Christ. But ultimately the faith in Jesus Christ is about repentance and going through that straight and narrow gate and way. "I am the way, the life, and the light," right? Or I can kind of pull things back a little bit, loosen things and say, well, we can change some of these doctrines. Some of the reasoning is, well, polygamy changed, or blacks and the priesthood. Neither of which are very good arguments for changing the order of the family. I feel for those that go through these problems that have these strong identity issues, fomented by our culture, and I think there needs to be a real love and outreach to them. However, mercy cannot rob justice. And creating this idea that, hey, if you just wait a little bit longer, the church is going to change like they have on these other issues, I think is incredibly damaging to youth especially, but to everyone who might struggle with these types of issues or their families that struggle with these issues.

You see this agenda growing within the church. There are some areas where perhaps it's not. I get messaging back that it's not, but hundreds, maybe thousands now of contacts and emails from those who give examples of what they've seen in church. We had a bishop here recently in a local ward on the stand wearing a pride flag. You have things mentioned in your auxiliary meetings, in Relief Society, in priesthood, and in young men and young women's classes, and even at FSY. I know that a lot of people are worried, think that the great evil is atheism, and ultimately it does come to that point. But the Book of Mormon is not about fighting against the atheists. It's about fighting against the dissenters. People that still had a religious belief, still believed in many core principles of the gospel, but those dissenters all eventually break off from the Nephites. Is that the ultimate end for this? Are people in those organizations going to face a choice? Because the changes to the ordinances between men and women being sealed together for eternity is not going to change. It's not going to change. That has nothing to do with my opinion. That has nothing to do with biases. That has to do with truth, eternal truth. That has to do with the order of the family and the doctrine of Christ. You would have to rip the guts out of the entire gospel if you were to change these things. And sometimes you'll get the argument, well, if you don't make these changes, almost like a threat—it is a threat—if you don't make these changes, look, these people are going to leave. And that might be true, and it's happened many, many, many times. But stop and think about how many people would leave if it did change. If you're just looking at more practical, non-prophetic, non-doctrinal issues, how there would be a massive exodus from the church. And where is the church growing the most? It's growing in the poorer, conservative, family-oriented areas of Africa, the Philippines, still in Latin America, where none of this indoctrination of a pride movement has infiltrated their society. Very little. What would it do to the growth of the church? We just had the numbers come out for the last 12-month period. The most amount of converts, number of converts in any 12-month period in the history of the church, what would happen there? So, those types of threats mean nothing. And ultimately, it doesn't even matter. What matters is the truth. And substituting a hope for change and an energy for liberation of our sexuality outside of the order of God might work with several Christian denominations as it has and will continue to have successes, but it's not going to happen here. You don't need to just wait until these old white men die off until new people come in with new ideas and now it's going to all change. Are we going to change the doctrine of Christ as well? The core of the doctrine of Christ. That's what they did in the Book of Mormon.

I've talked to several people that think there will be a change, believe strongly there will be a change in this, and they talk about, you know, concentric circles where you have these core beliefs in the very center that that won't change. But then these other doctrines on on these outer rings of this concentric circle, well, those are those are pliable. Those can be changed. The problem is is those things continue to expand, and those core doctrines continue to expand and have more concentric circles within them with that kind of an attitude, that type of a view of truth. So, is there a shadow faith growing? Yes, I believe there is. And it's organizing, it's building leadership, and it's codifying these hopes and this energy similar to what happened with the ordained women movement that are setting people up for a spiritual crisis that I think goes far beyond, much more foundational than even an idea of your sexual orientation, your identity. I've invited Brent Jurgensson on to talk about this growing development, this shadow faith. He wrote an 82-page paper that's been published on the developments and the growth of these organizations within the restored church.

All right. So, do you think that there is a movement, a shadow faith as you call it, within the church that focuses on their own set of doctrines? And if so, where is this going to lead?

Yeah, that's the right question. Um, I I think there's two outcomes with this. The first is what already happens when people—I guess we could say—uh, leave the church. They do it individually. It's individual frustrations. It's whatever it may be. And uh, they leave individually. We've seen—I guess we could call it—mass gatherings, not necessarily of of of the resignation moments in in pre in previous years.

Mhm.

So that is already on tumbling with this movement. Uh, but uh, it depends on the leadership that that that—and I wasn't able to get into that with the with the study, which I hope I can expound upon a little bit more. A leader needs to emerge. A leader needs to emerge who has the different kind the characteristics of what it takes to say, "We are going as a group." Now, if you look at the analysis, you'll see that I think that there are some individuals who have strains of that. It's not there yet because the main—I guess we could say—material under—they see it as negotiation within the church—is the church's doctrine. We'll just add enough pressure. We'll have enough people. We'll have we'll have a big enough group that church leadership will have to simply adjust to us. And we're expecting it, and we're praying for it. You saw two prominent members of the church—Ed Gathers' event. It was covered by the Salt Lake Tribune—saying, "We're praying for this. We're expecting it. We've done it before with with the the blacks in the priesthood thing—kind of a thing." But it needs to—a leader needs—I wasn't able to elaborate on this. Leader needs to emerge that has the different kind of characteristics that would suggest that they're they're brazen enough, that they will—agitated enough—and that they will be ready to say, "I'm receiving revelation. I am um chosen to do this, and everyone follow me." We've seen over 80 different breakouts from the church in church history. Um, and uh, most of them have been very very small. Some of them were larger. And so you you—there needs to be a leader that has that personality to do it. Whether or not the current leadership and influencers can do that, we don't know yet. It depends how frustrated they get and how much they believe their revelations. Uh, and I I cite that in the study. There's descriptions of receiving revelation of how things need to adjust. And so I I guess the short answer is I think that it will happen. I do think there's going to be a breakoff. I I don't know if that's a few years or decades down the road. And the reason why I think it will is because we're talking about a human impulse. We're talking about one of the the the senses of of the biology in the mind, human sexuality, that will never be subsumed. So as long as people are are are wanting liberation and as long as the larger culture is drastically different than what uh the church is teaching and the church expects and the the moves of the church is making, there will continue to be this rhetorical rift and differentiation uh probably down the road unless other things intervene.

So we're looking at this in a way that, okay, if there's if there is eventually a split off—it's happened as you said 80 times in church history before. We're in an environment where there's a strong focus on a gathering of Israel, right? It's pulling everybody together. We're building Zion. It's it's bringing everybody from different, you know, from different cultures, from different countries, from different races. There's an excitement kind of about that in the church right now. All the growth in Africa and the Philippines and continued growth in Latin America, you know, everybody loves that. It's great. And there's this sense of gathering Israel there. Yet on this issue, it's it's almost—well, let me put it this way. Let me kind of—between the thought of gathering Israel and and a breakoff somewhere.

Yeah.

There is a bridge thought I would say that that is—well, for LGBTQ members of the church and for their families and those that support them, their friends. This is a way—say, example—for example, Lift and Learn. Is it Lift and Learn or Lift and Love? And it's Love—Gather—that's the same organization, I think. Yeah, it's the same organization as Gather. And so it's that this kind of an organization allows people of—that are like-minded—have the same issues, the same problems and helps them in a sense stay within the church—almost this little bridge that says, well, yeah, they're the way they are—the the the Orthodox church—and we're the way we are, but here's this bridge because you—Look at the at the language of the websites, for example. It's it's—"Let's focus on Christ. Let's focus on Christ and gather together." Yet underlying all of this—there is the way I distinguish it—is is there is still a hope for change over a hope for Christ. And and it's it speaks to this liberation that you're speaking of.

What do you say to someone that says, 'No, this is something that helps my child, for example, who is LGBTQ, stay in the church and find a a a uh—what—a a vernacular, a group, a a a doctrine that allows them to stay in the church?

Yeah.

Um, well, first initially is is the importance of of Gather or any influencers' message about compassion and the the the elements that people are going through with this—whether it be and uh sexuality or what we what we're commonly defining as identity. Um, and we all share that. Both of those who I would say are doctrinal loyalists or covenant path loyalists versus those that kind of are are pushing for a doctrinal change. And so I would more assertively say, and this is from my analysis, is uh the long-term outcome isn't that this is encouraging necessarily the covenant path because if if you listen to the rhetoric, you listen to the discourse of these influencers and and I guess we could say watch the the Gather events, they're establishing a conditional faith uh in in doctrine and and in church leadership uh especially with what's happening—at some point I want to talk—I hope we can talk about the the inflection points—particularly the policy changes in August 2024—but there the the only real shared element between—I I think we can say—these two elements of of these two different types of members of the church—of what's happening—maybe covenant doctrinal loyalists and I I maybe we could say uh activists—is on these very basic things he already mentioned that of of love, of of a testimony of Christ, then it gets very very different very very quickly. All right? And so there's an element of—continue to pray, continue to hope that the church leadership is going to adjust, continue to pray that church leadership is going to awaken to these types of things and how they need to better minister. Ministering resources are already there. All right? And there's different kinds of compassion there as well. But then there's this conditional faith of—don't fully embrace, don't fully uh um—I guess we could say—um engage in—maybe the family proclamation—and the family proclamation and the temple endowment is essentially the same thing. If you look at the details of what we're talking, it's kind of the same thing. Talking about resistance to the temple endowment at the same time. So it's that—put that on the shelf with your faith. Uh, we we don't know how how necessary that is. It's a conditional faith that's established—kind of a thing. So it'll last a while—kind of a thing. But conditional faith is distrusting faith. Distrusting faith leads to disappointment. Disappointment leads to regret and frustration. Frustration leads to leaving. And when you have enough people that are sharing the same discourse, particularly sharing the same organization over time, eventually there's going to be a rift. And so there's really two messages in this uh the poll—I guess we could say—for for members in this study is—first, realize the power of these discourses and the or the organizing power of these discourses. Second is realize how differentiated uh uh they really are—and you've probably seen in your life. I've seen in my life—and these types of things—the more you get agitated—a small thing—and then you find a new camp that's offering an alternative—it's probably not sustaining long time—and that's something to be compassionate and to be kind about—people saying Gather provide this particular kind of thing. At the same time, if it's reliant upon a criticism of the proclamation on the family and I I guess we could say the church's focus and on heterosexual marriage and the policy clarifications in August 2024, you—it's it's it's a small piece at a time. These small little moments that that are differentiating and leading away uh from what President Nelson and what other church leaders are pursuing. So it's it's a very subtle thing. You won't see yourself doing it initially of of being critical. It it it it'll happen over years and and it—what what these uh—I guess we could say—activists are really doing is saying—have faith in the basic things—expect larger changes um and uh over over time it it it creates a a psychology of frustration—and and what my analysis goes into is—as those are shared more and more and more and more—particular as people gather physically—which is happening—and as people—I guess we could they—uh gather under—I guess following influencers—type of a thing.

Mhm.

Um, it uh it it changes the way that you see the church. Uh, yeah. Yeah. It it's you know the—it's it's critical theory. I mean, it's you you you you step—you put a toe into it for a little while—and and before you know it—and I see this especially with youth, especially college age, you know, young adults, is is you start moving in that that that victim versus oppressor dynamic. And before you know it, because you're such a part of the church and it's so much a part of your life, you start looking at the 15 older, mostly white men.

Yeah.

as the oppressors and and they're oppressing LGBTQ individuals. They're oppressing women. They're oppressing whatever other dynamic you want to throw in there to divide between the victims and and the oppressors. And it it's a natural—a very natural conclusion to end up at with the church. And and I I see this and and once you get to that point, that's usually where you say, "Well, I I may I may be done with the church, at least for now, right?" And and it's it's a real wedge to put between you and the church once you get there.

Um, I was going to ask you then on—what about—you talked about the family proclamation. Let's go back to 1995, you know, and and most most Orthodox members of the church are going to say, "Okay, well, yeah, I remember that," and we talk about how it seemed so um obvious at the time in 1995. Um, this was just a few years actually after Kimberly Crenshaw comes up with critical race theory and intersectionality, which is really interesting because that is a a a movement—a philosophy—that is pushed directly against the family proclamation. But what is this going to be even more of a lightning rod in the future? I I look at BYU, which I know has changed its hiring practices. They're actually using the family proclamation in interviews and and and annual interviews and hiring practices. It it just seems to me like it is a litmus test, not just for BYU, but for members of the church, as you say, it it parallels the endowment and our and our temple rituals. Is this going to become more and more of a lightning rod for us?

Yes. And I think that that's one of the main things of why I wanted to write this—is the the the Gather group and and its associated influencers. They say that there's more in common with their discourse uh with with what they're teaching uh than there is differences. They—at least they imply that. I don't want to put words in their mouth. It's actually the opposite. And and so one of the things I expound upon in the article is that Don H. Oaks is in line to be the next president of the Catholic Church. And at least President Nelson in previous general conference said he will replace me. Uh, he said he will replace me. And um and so you have that—I had the the quote from my article from from President Oaks here. I have so much—so many notes, Greg. There's probably got a moment where you're going to uh edit it.

You're good.

But the the difference is so uh contrasted that President Oaks recently said, "Those who don't understand or are critical of the family proclamation do not understand how foundational this is uh to the doctrines of the church." So when you—when you—so you talk about a lightning rod—that this—the strike is going to be over and over and over again. And that's why uh the one of the main reasons I wrote this was the policy clarifications in August 2024. The church said uh—not only if someone transitions uh medically but socially—there will not be a temple recommend—kind of a thing. Go to the bathroom according to your uh birth. I guess we could say uh your biology—presented in biology. And so the the church is is pulling away from from this—I guess we could say—a critical approach. And that sounds like I'm saying the church adopted a critical approach. It didn't. But but there's there's—there has been—operates much more a local level—this kind—

Of dance with critical theory, with all of these elements of justice. And I think we could say of empowerment, but I think over the last two years, we've seen a whoa, whoa, whoa, and particularly in a lot of general conference talks and particularly with those policy clarifications in August 2024. The church is not going to be influenced an inch by these movements, uh, kind of a thing.

And so I cite a scholar in there who describes the element of sexuality and the sex drive. And I don't want to make the topic about that, but that's something that's permanent. It's like hunger. It's like thirst. It's going to always be there. So those that would say those who demand change eventually will either fizz out—this won't be an important thing—or that it'll succeed could not be more wrong. There's been a line drawn in the sand. Ben Shelotti, who I cite a lot in the study, years ago said the brethren have drawn a line in the sand. In August 2024, they drew a line in the sand, and Oaks has been particularly influential with this that I don't know how else to explain it—that the church is responding to these particular efforts in an assertive way. You still need to talk about and embrace compassion, but the covenant path is not what these influencers are promoting and pursuing. And that will lead to severe disappointment.

Because within the theoretical framework that I talk about, fantasy themes—people start talking about the same thing—oh, you had that experience, I had that experience—and so we share that frustration; they end up with a rhetorical vision that is what they want to do. When there's rhetorical vision, people form formal organizations and they pursue change; they start their own company, um, I guess we could say in a business type of setting. And so we're looking at a very stormy future for members of the church following these influencers, of trying—I call it covert—these covert shadow elements of trying to subtly change things versus, I think we could say, church leadership saying absolutely not, there will not be change. And so those August 2024 policy clarifications were so upsetting, so frustrating to—I keep saying Gather as if Gather represents everybody. They don't represent everyone. My editor wanted me to have a specific organization to study. So Gather's there, but versus those voices basically coming to understand we will not persuade the church. I think right now they still think they can. I think with enough pressure, I think they think they're going to convince the church.

Well, it seems to me that it's kind of like, you know, if you're an influencer, you've kind of already made that assumption, and a number of them have already made that assumption, and the following is based on that. To me, is a lot of what the energy is, right? Again, is that hope of change, and so to come back and say, well, we're not ever looking at that, that's never going to be a thing. Once you start building conferences and a following and everything else, you've now put at peril that following and those organizations and those events in place because there is that certain energy that is very obvious in this. I mean, you had—I don't remember if it was Gather or who—but you had an emeritus 70 recently who just came in and said, "Yeah, we're, you know, I have a grandchild that is this way, or a couple of them, and I'm hoping for a change. I'm hoping that this changes." And so you can see that this is starting to infiltrate very high levels of the church even. And it's—I think people have their opinions on this—and the church has chosen, which I fully support. I believe that they're probably right. They know a lot more about this than you or I do. But they've chosen not to be brazen on this, whether it's an issue for the members or specifically in the Western world as compared to the rest of the world, because the rest of the world isn't going to have a problem with it. But they're caught between a maybe a rock and a hard place right now. Yeah, this is I think this is the hardest time—well, in I maybe we could say in the last hundred years—for church leaders to navigate something. Joseph and other presidents of the church, you know, temples being burned down, moving from state to state, the difficulty there. And so I think to a degree there was this element of peace. There's still criticism, but the last 15, 20 years, the task of church leadership has been railroaded with cultural revolutions that have been so significant and so powerful that you end up with these physical gatherings.

And that's a particular thing I'm glad you mentioned that because you can go to these Gather conferences. They do them regionally, but I think they do their larger annual conference in June. I think it's associated with Pride Month. And you mentioned that there was an emeritus 70 who was there. I think he was the keynote speaker and saying everything that he could to essentially let's pray for the toppling of the family proclamation. Essentially, he didn't say that; I don't want to misquote him, but that was the implication. We can say that that was the implication. And so when people gather physically these types of things, it's essentially church service based on their priorities and their gospel type of thing. And second, when you get particularly powerful voices speaking that way, people start to believe that these things are going to change. They start to believe that there's going to be a massive change in the church. I cite the BYU Hawaii affirmation chapter president because I read that article years ago where the young man said—I guess because this was after the honor code clarification under Paul V. Johnson—that same-sex dating, and the young man said, "I guess I'll just have to wait a bit longer." Wait a little bit longer for the church to change. And we're thinking, "What is this young man reading?" No, it's a very common phrase. It's a very common thing to see out there. Wait a little bit longer. And so then fast forward to August 2024, plus so many other addresses that I go over in the study, these inflection points of the church is very, very clear. There will not be changes.

So those that support—I guess we could say I don't like to throw out the word conservative and liberal. I think things are much more nuanced than we think. But I think we could say that kind of conservative angle on sexuality and identity. And the for people that really embrace that, I guess we could say right-wing angle, the church is doing exactly what they would want with these inflection points, particularly some of these key addresses. And as I mentioned, I mentioned in the study and at the end of the study, Oaks is in the way. There couldn't be an apostle with a more assertive voice who clarifies elements of what's regarded in the church's morality than Oaks. He addresses it all the time. He gave almost the same speech in 2022 that Holland did in 2021. He just worded it differently than Holland did. The title of his talk at BYU was almost the same as Holland's fiery speech. And so the church isn't going to adjust the church, but it's an impossible balance of still wanting to be included and wanting to be the compassionate and the understanding voice. But if you don't do it the way that influencers and the way that I guess we could say advocates, activists do, you can't win, kind of a thing.

So a group like Gather and others that have the same sentiment on this—I mean, this is kind of a movement. It really is a movement I would say within the church—is, are we in a state right now where that movement would be trying to reform the church from within, or is it already in a place where it's a kind of a rival ecclesiastical structure? It doesn't want to be a rival structure. It is, by its teachings, but it doesn't want to be. And this is my conclusion. I kind of only lightly talked about this in the study and why I answered earlier that I don't think that there's going to be an immediate, I guess we could say, alternative that emerges. The church has a lot of members. The church has a lot of resources. And so why go start new when you can simply cause internal change? So they see that their request from church leadership is small: Change these doctrines, make these alterations, and everything is going to work. They think that doctrine is up for negotiation. And that's what they're doing. And so they'll do everything they can to not be a rival. And so they're very, very good in their rhetorical approach to talk about basic principles, kind of a thing. But then they'll talk about how, if I'm a man, I'm receiving revelation to date men, kind of a thing, or I'm receiving revelation of what's going to happen. Or on my podcast, I am celebrating the end of a temple marriage between a man and a woman so that someone can go rediscover their true partner, kind of a thing. That can't contrast more than what Russell M. Nelson and Dallin H. Oaks, from Jeffrey R. Holland and Aman Corbett, and so many others are saying along with the proclamation and deeply embedded—if I can add this, Greg—what is more deeply embedded with the doctrine of, I guess we could say, the plan of salvation than the temple endowment? And we don't talk about the details of the temple endowment, but anyone who's been through there and studied it, it's beginning to end, kind of a thing, of of the earth and throughout our lives and has everything to do with man and woman, has everything to do with that union, has everything to do with what's defined in the church as chastity, kind of a thing. So at the very heart of the church's doctrine, these influencers are juxtaposing their message and their followers to be pinned against that type of a thing. It can't last. It won't last.

You bring up the law of chastity. It just is so interesting in watching this, and you know, because I've kind of got my ear to the ground on all of this, and you have this denial of the law of chastity to begin with, but then you almost have a reformation of the law of chastity. Okay, it's saying, well, you know, it's moving the goalpost on this and saying, well, adultery is bad, but outside of that, right, you know, having sex with a man and a man or a woman and a woman, is that okay? I mean, it's blatant. It's very blatantly changing what we believe is the law of chastity, which is something we focus on in the temple into something else. And and that's always the question I have. Well, do you believe in the law of chastity? And it's usually yes, but kind of an answer. It's tweaking it. And it goes along with a lot of other things that I see that are basically taking the top end of that. You referenced the plan of salvation, the top end of that of exaltation and just kind of slicing it off and leaving everything else there. And that's what I see with all of this. It's, yeah, this is good in some ways. You want to have good virtues. You want to have good characteristics. It's about following Christ, but ultimately it's about slicing off that top end of the plan of salvation and putting it to the side. Does that make sense?

Yeah, it does. And that's why—that's why even though right now I'm making the case that it's an organizational shadow, kind of a thing, it's operating among members, temple recommend holders, kind of a thing, but things like pins on Bishop Rick's suit, kind of a thing, doing a shout-out in sacrament meeting, comments in Gospel Doctrine, kind of a thing. And so it's—I think these more, I guess we could say, covert efforts are more powerful than the overt ones because it's a belief that we can slowly change the dial, and it's also a belief that church leadership is going to be very persuaded by these kinds of things. But at the same time, as you march and march and march towards that, you'll realize that you're not going to get what you want. And that's why I use organizational theory throughout this. This is why some companies, for example—will you explain that a little bit?

Yeah. The organizational theory. Yeah. So I'm using Orus Borman. He was a very, very influential scholar in my field. He predated what we would call the critical and the postmodern turn, as you mentioned. He was interested in why people gather, why people get together, why people become frustrated, and why new organizations emerge or new nations emerge. So he studied the Revolutionary War, and it starts with people sharing stories, and so that's what those—that element of those fantasy themes are, as you go through the study. Fantasy themes are when people share these stories of having the same type of experience. And so, oh, your bishop said that to me, that upset me. The same thing happened to me, type of a thing. And so the fantasy themes are that there's a distressed irreconcilability among these members—that is, they're never going to reconcile the elements and the efforts of Gather with the core of church doctrine. It's not going to be put together. And so that's a permanent frustration, that's a permanent lack of, I guess we could say, fake, kind of a thing. So then these alternative beliefs and these alternative different kinds of discourses emerge. You start to see a new leadership structure, and when—and that's what Borman was talking about. When you see new leaders emerge of this group that's sharing their frustrations, they start to have a new vision, and that new vision creates a brand new organization. And so that's why I'm saying we might—they might be headed there. We might be headed towards—I don't want to say Gather. Gather could maybe be the precursory element to this. Gather might be dissolved at some point, but down the road with the current trajectory of, we could say, what the—I guess we could say secular, non-Latter-day Saint beliefs and assumptions about what needs to happen in the world—as those continue to unroll, the church is going to continually be pinned against these things, and that it's going to go further and further and further.

Well, when you see that, when you see the world saying this is compassion and this is what's true and this is what we're supposed to do here on earth versus Russell Nelson and Dallin H. Oaks over here, it's easy to say, "Let's copy that, and we'll do it over here, and guess what? We could probably get a lot more people following us," that type of a thing. And so that's I think that's what we're seeing the beginning of it. And so that's what Borman essentially argued. He studied the American Revolution. The American Revolution came because people started getting ticked off about little things. Why am I paying these stupid taxes to people that were kings across the sea, kind of a thing? So he studied all these speeches and these conversations that took place. Ultimately, you end up with leaders that emerge—all right, the founding fathers—that say, "We're done. We're not paying taxes. Leave. If not, we're going to fight you." And that's what happens everywhere. That's how new countries emerge. That's how new—I mentioned new organizations emerge. And that's why I think sometime down the road, if groups of people decide to continue this path, there will be an abandonment. And we don't see ourselves doing that initially. We don't see ourselves saying, "I would never," well, we always say, "I would never," until we don't get what we want long enough or until someone says something or does something that's frustrating enough that we say, okay, we need to make an alteration. And those August 2024 policy clarifications were a—they operated, they functioned as a whiplash to Gather's type of efforts and initiatives. And I don't want to say that everyone in Gather has the same focus, kind of a thing. There's different kinds of voices emerging, but I think we'd say the leadership of it.

Do we see with social media now a—I mean, you look at Osler and Shelotti as an example—and are we seeing more of a populist spiritual insurgency with this, where you have again that energy of change, right, through social media and gathering, right, versus a prophetic narrative that we have already in the church? Oh, yeah. And so that word populace that comes with so much negative baggage, but I think it does capture what's happening here. If you were to give church leadership the resources and give those same types of resources and voice to, we could say, these influencers and these YouTubers and have them force everyone in the world to listen to these two voices, probably the only group that would prefer the maybe the, I guess we could say, the Russell Nelson voice would be the people in Africa, kind of a thing, because it's that focus on traditional, what we would call, morality that's there. And so, yeah, the populist element of liberation, no more oppression, LGBTQ pride, and the church can go hand in hand—that is driving and driving and driving these elements, kind of a thing. And so it's very, very attractive. There's a swagger that comes with it. There's a style that comes with it. We could say that there's a pop culture that comes with it that's entering the church, type of a thing. And so yeah, you have the church functioning in and of itself, and then you have this shadow organization, and it's not necessarily unified, but it has its individual warriors that are embedded in wards, kind of a thing. And I think we could say that the whispering that emerges in these small little ways—come to our LGBTQ Book of Mormon study, come to our LGBTQ devotional that we're going to have, type of a thing—and that implants in other members of the church this element: The church doesn't love these people enough. The church isn't doing enough. The church isn't ultimately willing, because of the August 2024 policy clarifications, the church is never going to understand these people. And that's when you start the clock of frustration. And that's when you start the clock of conditional faith, which leads to frustration, which leads to anger, and ultimately leaving.

You have—in the paper you reference someone with Gather that compares Gather the organization to the early days of the church. Yes. Right. Starting off early on. Right. And he says—or Dalton says—"We're going to create a Zion that includes everybody." Okay. This is such a fascinating deal because, yeah, you know, again, it goes back to the idea of inclusion, which is a nuanced doctrine within the church. Because when we talk about inclusion in the church, if you're looking at the scriptures and you're looking doctrinally, what you're saying is the inclusion is that God's love, God's invitation is for everyone. But that doesn't take away our agency. That doesn't take away the consequences of our agency. And so this whole idea of inclusion becomes this feel-good comforter blanket that we put on ourselves to say, well, regardless of what I do—and this isn't just the LGBTQ stuff here, right? This is everything. It's regardless of what I do, I'm loved and I will be included in, you know, Zion, in building Zion, which are…

However, of one heart and one mind. So if you have different hearts and different minds, but you all want to be included, there's a problem there that is not Zion. Right? So we we know, for example, the the way that Jesus talks about is narrow, right? The gate is narrow; it's straight; it's narrow. There is it is not inclusive in that it broadens itself all the way out for everybody regardless of decisions and the the the exercise of agency for everyone.

So, isn't this a a direct challenge when they use the term inclusive? Isn't that a direct challenge to doctrine? And even further, yes. And even further, what you mention, uh, and it's Claire Dalton. I I I I mean respectfully. I hope I'm saying the person's name correctly. It's it's Claire Dalton, uh, talking specifically when she's when she teaches youth. I can't remember if she's a seminary teacher or a se or a a seminary teacher or or Sunday school uh teacher, but she's been, if if I remember right, I don't want to misrepresent, teaching youth to pray about these things, that kind of a thing. And so that creates this element of you can receive revelation. You can re and we we're supposed to receive revelation for our lives, right? But you can receive revelation of what this particular thing is supposed to be and what it's supposed to do. And as part of that effort, as part of that effort, if if if you see, and I think I discuss it later in the article, there's now GFY, like FSY, gather for youth, a summer camp that focuses on particular elements of church doctrine and associated and connected uh to LGBTQ activism. So there you have preparation for the next generation of of uh activists, type of a thing. And so and I'm glad Greg Greg I'm glad that you mentioned, kind of a thing, there's this element of of see receiving different revelations from different sides.

All right. And so it's Ben Schlotti that I I cite in here, and he had a a big post that says I'm I'm up to date, uh, which is a kind of kind of a clever play on words and up to date about my life. But then he describes that he's receiving revelation to date men. And so you have Ben Shelotti performing gay marriages and receiving revelation uh that he's supposed to date men uh all the while being a key speaker at at I sometimes lo and congregations. And so what we're seeing here is a very very key principle of that's in the Book of Mormon. We often wonder why are these particular things in the Book of Mormon? Why are these war chapters? Why was this description in here? Uh, when I was a kid growing up in the 90s, I remember thinking that, you know, this is great. Why is there so much attention to this? And there's one particular phrase, I'm going to misquote it here, but you'll know what I'm talking about, that said there began to be a warm contention in in the church, kind of a thing. This isn't church leadership. This isn't Salt Lake City. This isn't church headquarters. This is happening within congregations particularly. It's happening uh between in in social media between church members. There's this ongoing and growing contention, kind of a thing.

And so we're entering this state where Gather or maybe groups like Gather, I don't even know if there's groups like Gather, but at least they're your favorite influencer, your your favorite YouTuber that you follow, establishing these new personal expectations, your own personal angst that you that you should put front and center of your testimony. And front and center, my testimony is, yeah, I believe in these basic things, but I'm frustrated about this and this and this and this, kind of a thing. That warm contention starts to operate in hearts and starts to operate in frustration discourse.

So, one thing I hope that I'm not doing is uh maybe you want to edit this out is uh stirring the pot with activists uh uh because I share the concern about what the LGBT LGBTQ community faces. It's a it's a tough life. It's a tough life to to choose the covenant path. Nonetheless, those that are leading those that are that are leading them and being the voice for that that is so differentiated and that's not the covenant path that that Russell and Nielsson uh is emphasizing. It's it's it's almost a perfect opposite.

All right, Brent, you you cite organizational theory and and you show how shadow systems and subcultures often precede full breakaways as you discussed. What other signs should we we be looking for where we see a line might c be crossed with these organizations?

Um, boy um that's a that's actually a tough question. Other signs other than those uh particular things um I I don't want to start making something up and so I I I'm I'm a rhetoric by trade and so I study rhetoric. I study organizations as well, but those are connected. uh the follow the rhetoric of what's uh happening uh uh see what's happening there. It's really I don't I sound critical. I don't want to be critical of people. It's really really easy to say I I I believe and uh spend 30 seconds in your YouTube video talking about that you believe than spending the next 20 minutes talking about your frustrations. And so there there's persuasion is so powerful. Persuasion is so powerful. So I guess one thing to note there is uh is for for your listeners um and and I would say for those that that choose kind of this covenant path element um be aware of euphemisms. uh be aware of of invitations to to look at things through a specific lens. And then where there's I think we could say a bait and switch and that bait and switch is is effectual and is useful for um uh activists and so be aware of those particular things. There's one part of the study that I go into that and one of the one of the key gather addresses a speaker I think they said spend four minutes talking about a biblical narrative then spend I think it was the next 11 minutes talking about those particular things, understand rhetoric, understand rhetoric and it's it's very very uh tricky and very very powerful and it's easy to to to pick up a sound bite or a brief description and say, "This is ex exactly um um what I what I want." And then you often don't realize that something's not what you thought it was until you're in too deep and you've been stirred. Yeah, that's not very deep. That's not helpful, but it's No, that is helpful. It's helpful. I And we don't want to assume too much, you know, and it keeps it more real if we don't.

Um, what why do you think that these types of movements these critical movements based on these critical theories are so appealing to the elite right there there is a certain strata of of what any organization or any population that seems to lean toward these movements a lot. Why why do you think that is? Can I ask you a quick question and not I just want clarification not continuing with you. What do you mean by elite by by the elite getting do you mean just big organ?

Um, okay I I guess I would say the more privileged.

Ah, okay. Um and so so the yeah why are these voices appealing and why are they having the impact and the strength? Yeah, because a lot of these individuals they may have nothing to do they may not have a family member or a close friend that are in the circles of LGBTQ. Um and yet they they they move toward it. It's it's a, you know, it's it's, you know, I call it an untethered empathy that seems to be very appealing to certain individuals and and and wi-i without bringing truth with that empathy. Yeah. And so there's a few things that we have to uh this is a fantastic question. If I can take a note uh for for just a um a minute here work to to try to expound this first is is we can never separate ourselves from mass culture uh popular culture kind of a thing and the pride movement um or or any kind of critical movement is now dominant. And so uh a wise philosopher will say if if you want to see what's really happening look what's happening at a mass level and we don't necessarily fight for hearts we fight for voice we fight for whatever is the mass distribution of beliefs assumptions perspectives over the last 20 years that uh flipped on itself and key to that was I think 10 years ago Obama Obama's sweeping element across all states kind of thing.

All right. And so that that drastically changed everything. But pride is attractive. Pride is um it's it's rainbowy. It's empowered. It's a way to say that you love other people. It's a way to say that you are a a good person kind of a thing. And if you don't go march kind of a thing and and you don't wear a pin or or or a hat or or whatever it may be, you're not you're not performing that compassion uh kind of a thing. And so that becomes important. The second thing we is we have to see the the precursor to that which is uh critical theory. As as you mentioned a critical theory isn't taught everywhere but it's it's enormous and it's powerful. The key person in the change that we're seeing right now in uh all of these movements is Michelle Fuko kind of a thing the the French philosopher and I think you've you've covered him uh many times but uh Fuko was ex was very very extreme he got a lot of people uh to follow him kind of a thing but ultimately former Fuko was arguing with uh the French government to allow uh adult male and boy sexual relations that that wasn't necessarily a problematic kind of a thing. So, we've had a Fuko effect. There's been other elements that are connected uh to that as well. But I think we could say empowerment philosophy has really driven this this integration of popular culture. So, those are actually two different things. There's a philosophy that has just emerged kind of a thing of of empowerment which has then driven a new popular culture uh that we have. The third thing and I think this is the most important thing and what I've already been talking about is biological or psychological impulse. That is everything. And so we have our five senses or or we we have our particular I guess we could say things that biologically that we that we need. All right. Uh water um or we need like this is getting way too this is getting silly. Water, food. Um and this is why I mentioned why it won't go away and why it's so powerful. The sex impulse is just as strong as those other things that I those other two that I just described. And so to be human is to be a sexual creature. Well, when that sexuality isn't geared towards what the proclamation on the family and uh the president of the church is pursuing, that's a that's a new issue for me. I have pop culture and I have philosophy. All right, these these these great things on the back of my mind pursuing that. And so you you'll see the church continue to be so separated from from mass rhetoric from from pop culture and and it won't come back together. Uh the these two elements won't come back together. The church will be increasingly uh isolated from these particular things. So one thing to note is the more consumed we are by uh popular culture. I write a lot about pop culture till then uh the more consumed we are by popular culture and popular culture performance the more easily we're going to be integrated into these things and think that Russ M. Nelson and Don Hokes's uh um teachings rhetoric is not for me. And so that's they don't always say that directly.

All right. Uh activists aren't going to go out and say that in in in that kind of framework, but that's what they're getting at. So you conclude the essay by saying that you know we may be looking toward a a formalized alternative church.

Mhm. You're talking about how these things are not going to come back together that there there is such a firm strong worldview of these individuals that it is again it is a matter of well the church is going to change if the church stands firm and I believe it will. It may get to the porch of the temple, but I don't think it's getting in. What what what does that mean then at that point? I mean, are we are we looking at you think you you do you believe that there is no possible reintegration of those organizations and that movement?

Uh um or is there still just going to be an internal defiance of the current doctrine that is going to be I I I don't know how does that exist within the church at some point on once this becomes so codified fulmented as an alternative view and and a hope in something that is going to be different that is never going to happen where where do we go? I think that for the immediate future and and and uh years maybe decades ahead we're going to see um the I I guess we could say the the shadow version continue to exist and continue to grow. Um activity in the church will decline among people that uh embrace that uh they they'll come less and less and less and then they'll leave and then they'll resign which is which is already happening. It really depends on how frustrated they get. And so what I mean by that it depends on individuals. And so if I can make a comparison, a couple of comparisons here is uh maybe just one. Um Sam Young the the and and and we talked about that right right before the show started. Sam Young's had the personality to do this kind of a thing. He wanted these changes of how youth are interviewed. Tried tried tried. Didn't get what he wanted. Okay. And so that's what Gather and and and and other activists are doing right now. Try try try try and and his um patience was was thin through that. And so you can look in what what Sam Young decided to do is he moved into having a a bullhorn or a microphone outside of Temple Square and he started washing. He took all his clothes off other than swimsuits and washed himself clean of of of church procedures. Then he had all these people. He started washing uh their feet and he had all of these signatures type of a thing. And so it depends on the emergence of a leader and a personality that will say I'm going to do this now. I don't know if that happens in 2026. I don't know if that happens in 2076. uh but nonetheless it it it takes a very particular uh personality to do that and here's what's significant why I think it will be a long period of time even though I think there are strains of personalities that do that already gathers holding GFY type of events and there's a younger generation being taught right now to um uh to to prepare to to to be I guess uh uh advocates for for gather and its purpose and as they grow up and as they become what they become. All right, the new Richard Osers and the new Ben Shelottis type of a thing. They'll have an element of receiving personal revelation of its time. It's time for us to break off type of a thing. So, personality means everything. But for now, the most important and significant thing is to play nice, speak up in Sunday school, uh do shout outs from the pulpit when you bear your testimony. Uh it Trojan horses and uh taking over internally in the city is so much more attractive and uh believed. The other thing that they could that is at their disposal is perhaps the belief that uh we'll just wait for a president of the church that isn't has a strong personality of these things. That won't ever happen. You're never going to have a a president of the church that that isn't that fixated. And so with that being said, that's that conditional faith. That's that uh angx. That's that same believing that doctrine is up for grabs that we have all of these members and we have all these pi payers or whatever it may be. Um we're expecting something uh from you up there and that's why if I can mention again those August 244 policy clarifications it was uh boy talk about a a strong response. You talk about the youth that are it's almost like there is a this shadow faith we talk about right where you you have these gatherings where like a general conference you have uh the the influencers and and and and how they communicate with with their followers this group this movement you've got youth events uh like uh what is it called now? FSY. Yeah. GFY. Um so you've got the sh The problem with that is it's not just a matter of a messaging of support and love for those individuals. To me, it's a message of schism, right? It it's it's saying, "Oh, okay. If I'm teaching hope in change to this group of youth, when these discussions come up, a family proclamation in Sunday school and young men's and priesthood, then then where does that conversation go? Because you've already been told in one sense and internalized as a youth that this hope and change is where things are going to go. And that energy, that looking forward, you know, that the the triad of faith, hope, and charity is is a real thing. It is what it's what Mormon and Moroni ended up teaching about in the Book of Mormon after everything. Their civilizations are falling apart. This idea of hope is something that you are set on because of your faith in Jesus Christ, right? It's it's it's sequential. It's faith in Jesus Christ. Then it's a hope in a future and a state of being and a hope for those around you. And then it's charity and how you're going to implement that. And if that hope is directed at this change, we're going to go after this change, then then it's going to remove the hope away from the actual doctrines of of the church. So this schism grows in in what hope really is meaning and where your heart is going.

Um, I'm not saying, for example, that that those that are involved with Gather or other organizations that that they don't have a hope in Christ. I'm just saying you may be putting a hope and change above everything. Then that's that's what it is. It's it's uh it's this much that aligns with Russell M. Nelson and it's this much which which aligns with right with with I guess we could say gathers elements. Yeah. So you've got essentially I mean in a in a certain sense when you when you have a values hierarchy that at the highest levels of that those values they are tweaked or turned yeah on its head. It it's fine if it's at the lower level you know disagreements that's fine. But when you go up to the highest level of family and the doctrine of Christ and and and you tweak that and you turn it so that one is dropped down below the other, your world view changes, your practice changes, your hope changes, your faith changes, it all changes. And you've got these two groups that are having this change in their values hierarchy at the top levels trying to work together and in in a in using cor the department of correlations manuals and interpreting them completely differently. That that seems very difficult to me.

Yeah. Yeah. Um and and that's why I I make the case that that they can never uh ever be reconciled when you have when you have a discourse from such as Elder Corbett's uh uh talk against activism and Holland's uh and then you have the the policy clarifications. It couldn't be more contrasted. And it's it's really e they're really really good. I mean that's the power of rhetoric. That's the power of persuasion. They're really good at saying this is this is right this aligns so well aligns so closely. Then you have uh Don H. Oaks in April 2024 saying anyone who speaks out against the family proclamation does not understand the doctrine of the gospel kind of a thing. And so what they do is is they they criticize but in this very very subtle way type of a thing. But if I can add something you mentioned there the the gather. I've never been to gather um and and and so I need to put that out there. But nonetheless, I watch and see uh their the addresses at least that they put on YouTube kind of a thing. They're not talks. They're they're they're they have speakers, but they're very much rallies. They they they seem like rallies kind of a thing. And there's almost like an activist rally to some degree. And we could talk about group euphoria with that kind of a thing of the of I I think we'd say the goosebumps and the emotion and the power that you feel at any kind of rally. I mean uh that's what politicians have always been able to do. I feel so good. I feel so inspired. I feel so empowered by this kind of a thing. That becomes my faith. That becomes what what's

significant. And I am the manifestation. I'm the expression of love. Look at my rainbow shirt, uh, kind of a thing. And it sounds like I'm being critical of them. That's the discourse, and that's the adoption, kind of a thing.

And so my leader is, gather my leader is my influence. My leader is this podcast of, of, of bringing people in who have, I guess we could say, left their spouse, ended their temple marriage. And uh, what a beautiful thing that is. Do you understand how different that is compared to what Russell M. Nelson is teaching?

Yeah.

Well, Brian, appreciate your time. This is a fascinating topic. It's something that I think everybody experiences to one degree or another. Oh, wait. At least most people in the US, for example, are going through this. It's, it's you have these discussions at the dinner table. You have family members that are, uh, have, have a different sexual orientation. You have so much of this is becoming more and more a part of the church and being able to walk the edge of the sword on this so that there's a clear understanding that everybody is loved and should be loved. They're certainly loved by God, should be loved by every individual.

Um, but there are certain doctrines, and whether we like it or not, those are truths that we cannot change, and that is where, that is where, that is the lightning rod, right? That is where what we're dealing with this time. The paper is in the Journal of Religion and Society, uh, 2025, with, uh, I believe that's affiliated with Creighton University, is that right?

Yes, it is. Okay, with Creighton University. We'll put the link in the description box so you guys can look at the full thing. Very meaty, lot of references in there, and a great job by, by Brent. So Brent, appreciate you coming on. Means the world.

Thanks so much, Greg. [Music]