Matt (00:01.144)
Hello and welcome back to the latter day lens. You're here today with Sean and Matt. Sean, I almost forgot how to start the podcast because Sam's not with us. I'm like, what do I even say now?

Shawn (00:09.435)
Yeah.

Well, and your and your your naming, you know, crisis, your identity crisis over the years, changing the name to this and that we are the latter day lands. Sure. We're an RM podcast with the latter day.

Matt (00:20.302)
Matt (00:23.778)
Yeah. Yeah. That part wasn't hard. It was just, I didn't know how to say like, I'm so used to saying with Sean, Sam and Matt, but no, it's just Sean and Sam with you today. We're happy that you guys are joining us. I'm happy Sean, that even though I've tried to kill this podcast many, many times, you keep talking me into coming here each week and recording the podcast with you. Cause we, we have some really good content and we have a lot of fun.

Shawn (00:28.004)
It's just us two.

Shawn (00:41.851)
I like that you've given me a five-year commitment. That's awesome.

Matt (00:51.062)
I like the feedback that we get from our listeners and so it would be sad to make this die just because it's like winter time and I'm feeling down and it doesn't does this happen for you Sean like when the winter comes you just start feeling sad inside.

Shawn (01:06.243)
What is winter, dude? I live in San Diego. How do you spell that? What is that?

Matt (01:08.422)
man. When I woke up this morning, it was negative one outside and then I'm looking out my window and it's just snow as far as the eye can see. Snow, snow, snow.

Shawn (01:17.519)
Are you serious? So did you get that weird winter depression in Ukraine when we were there?

Matt (01:23.318)
I think I did, just, but we were outdoors so much in Ukraine, so it was a little bit different. But yeah, I have to, on the top level of my house, I have this room with this giant window. I had to move my desk up there, so it's next to this big window and I can look out and see the sun and then it helps me to feel better inside. But if I don't have natural light shining on me through the winter, I get depressed. I get down and sad. And it's-

Shawn (01:49.403)
How, why live there then?

Matt (01:51.938)
This is where my job is, Sean. This is where my job is. This is how I provide for my family.

Shawn (01:57.281)
You are so talented you could go anywhere and do anything and that's the truth.

Matt (02:00.46)
Yeah, but I believe in the mission of the church. I believe in what we're trying to do here at BYU-Idaho. If they would up and move it to California, I would probably transfer to BYU-California, but I've thought about trying to do it remotely, but it's not the same. It's not the same doing it remote as doing it in person. So I have to be here in Rexburg with my students to fulfill my mission, fulfill my purpose at BYU-Idaho.

Shawn (02:04.955)
dang.

Shawn (02:25.615)
Well, then the only thing I can say is when winter comes and the snow hits, choose not to get depressed then. Just choose it.

Matt (02:32.174)
That's really good advice. I'm going to take that advice to heart. I'm going to make it my St. Patrick's Day resolution for this year to not get depressed when winter comes. We had some fun feedback from our co-host Mark about our co-host Mark last week. A lot of people texted in to tell us that they liked Mark and that they wanted us to fix the audio because they didn't like it was sort of choppy and

Shawn (02:42.693)
Ha ha.

Matt (03:02.294)
You know, Sam helped us a lot on the hosting side, making sure that everybody's audio works just right. And I'm still learning, so we'll get better at that. That part will go better. What did you think about Mark Sean? Did you like having him on?

Shawn (03:10.893)
That was good.

I love Mark. That guy's so awesome. you know, you know, we only got a little taste of what his politics are. I'm excited to learn more what his politics are. I'm excited to see if we can get him riled up and get him a little excited because he seems to be a little more even keel. Right. You and I can get pretty. Yeah.

Matt (03:19.224)
Yeah.

Matt (03:23.835)
huh.

Matt (03:30.062)
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think the first time a person hosts a podcast, there's always a little bit of this getting used to it and getting used to the, the cadence maybe, I don't know how you would describe it, but like the flow and the rhythm and all of that stuff. So I imagine Mark will get better with time. And we also Sean have other people that have co-hosted in the past and other friends that we have that

will probably be joining us as co-hosts in the future. Listeners, if you're interested in jumping on as a co-host, let us know. Sean is good at vetting people. We'll vet you and we'll decide. And if we think you're worthy, we'll give you a shot.

Shawn (04:09.797)
Yeah.

Shawn (04:14.583)
You know who else we got great feedback on was your incredible daughter. And I can't wait to talk to Melanie again, especially because she provides such a great perspective. Like she is so perfect age. She's such a faithful person, yet she has your wife's intellect and your wife's common sense. And yeah, I love Melanie.

Matt (04:20.113)
Melanie.

Yeah.

Matt (04:39.246)
And willingness to push back on me when I say things that, this is what makes me uncomfortable about Melanie. She knows me for a very long time. And so sometimes I'll say things and she'll be like, well now dad, 20 years ago you said something different than that. And I'll be like, that's kind of tough.

Shawn (04:53.753)
Mmm. Ugh.

I can't wait to have her back on for that reason.

Matt (05:00.876)
We did have one listener that messaged us a question about something that Mark said. And of course, Mark isn't here to defend it, but we'll still talk about it because the listener texted in. This person said, Mark told a story about a young woman who went to BYU and was inculcated with feminism, feminism, feminism, and no longer goes to the temple. So the question for you, John, and for myself is, do we think that there's some kind of a connection between feminism?

and losing faith in the restored gospel?

Shawn (05:31.589)
Before we go directly to feminism, let's just take anyism, right? Any theory or philosophy. And I wonder if you agree that so Paul in Ephesians said, we are henceforth to be no more children, tossed to and fro, carried about with every wind of doctrine by the slight of men in cunning craftiness whereby they may lie in wait to deceit. Do you agree that anyism could fall into the category of a doctrine of man, either mingled with scripture or not, that

Matt (05:35.87)
okay.

Shawn (06:01.307)
kind of changes with the wind, it changes with the times. Like if I were to say to 50 people, define feminism, it would be a different answer. Sure, there are some common principles, but so to really ask the question, is there a connection between feminism and losing faith? You have to answer or ask, well, what principles of feminism do you think would challenge faith in Christianity or faith in the Restoration?

Matt (06:25.802)
None, I would say none of them. That would be my perspective. Yeah, so anything, right? Anything can lead you away from the church. It doesn't mean that that thing is in and of itself bad. I do think it's important to point out historically, did you know that the first woman to ever vote in the United States was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and she voted in Salt Lake City? I don't know her name, the voter.

Shawn (06:28.246)
Good answer. Good answer.

Shawn (06:48.411)
Kimble? Kimble?

Matt (06:53.942)
historians will know her name, but it was in 1870. And women who were polygamists, members of our church who were in polygamist relationships, they were among the first suffragists. Suffragists? Suffragists in the United States, right? The federal government passed a law that was restricting the rights of polygamists and women in Utah organized, and within two months,

Shawn (07:07.621)
Suffer jets, suffer drifts, okay.

Matt (07:23.33)
the state of Utah granted women the right to vote. So women in our church would be among the earliest feminists in the United States and have been fighting for the rights of women in the United States for almost as long as the church has existed. there's nothing, there's nothing inherently evil about feminism and women saying we want equality. And it's even in, it's in our doctrine. Feminism is in our doctrine. So it's not feminism. Yeah, it's not feminism that's evil.

Shawn (07:48.685)
for sure, for sure. Like our doctrine, well, I'll take two comments, one issue, one agreeing. Right? To God, to our Father in heaven through our doctrine, men and women are absolutely equal heirs, bound by covenant for salvation and exaltation. Like that is a clear doctrine. My wife enters into all of her covenants with God directly and she receives salvation and exaltation or has the opportunity to.

the same way that I, a man, will go through the same fact. That is a unique doctrine to this Church to Restore Gospel.

Matt (08:21.838)
And we believe that God is no respecter of persons. And we believe that God doesn't favor members of one gender over another gender. So to the extent that anybody is advocating for inequality based on gender, that's not consistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Shawn (08:31.533)
Absolutely. Yeah.

Shawn (08:39.599)
And I think there are failures over time that, you know what, we can fight against, but also forgive because humans are humans, whether you're a member of the church or not, right? And there are mistakes that get made and you can conflate certain things. You can read certain scriptures and it can be confused by them. But I think the end doctrine is so clear. Exaltation is offered to everyone individually.

Matt (08:58.894)
So then, so what was your second point?

Shawn (09:02.671)
My second point is, I don't think you can say, take an ism, let's take feminism and say, of course, blanket statement, there's nothing in feminism that would lead someone astray or attack someone's faith. When in fact, the ism that you're talking about is not a defined set of principles. It's different for everyone. I'm sure there are some things that some feminist or some communist or some socialist or some what, Republican, right?

Matt (09:30.676)
Republican. Yeah.

Shawn (09:32.315)
does say or does believe in that surely would attack faith in the restored gospel. So I don't think you can say, no, no, feminism or republicanism or whatever, it's safe. But I think you've always preached, Matt, that no, no, no, there's all kinds of, there's doctrine and then there's us living in the world and if you're part of an ism, you can still be a faithful member of the church and be a part of that ism. Haven't you always said that?

Matt (09:59.544)
Yeah, yeah. And I don't think that there's anything wrong with women or men fighting to make society more equal in terms of gender equality or racial equality or any kind of equality.

Shawn (10:08.333)
100%. No, if those are the principles that define, I mean, that's how we define that ism, then of course, of course, it's just going to build faith, right? Yeah.

Matt (10:17.612)
Yeah. So thanks listeners for letting us know what you think about Mark and for asking that thought provoking question about feminism. Sorry, Mark isn't here to give us his perspective. Maybe he would have had a different take on that, but those of you who agree with him, feel free to message in and let us know what that other side of that is. Yeah.

Shawn (10:30.009)
You

I mean, he may, I mean, he maybe will, right? His anecdotal story was about someone who, and he mentioned feminism. And yeah, I think he'll get the opportunity to defend that, which is totally fair.

Matt (10:43.234)
Yeah. Okay. So let's start with the thought provoker. So the first topic this week is the special counsel.

Shawn (10:49.947)
Okay, hang on. Before you say this, I curse you Matt for making me almost read through the entire freaking report. I didn't do it this time, because no dude, and I know you haven't either, but, Okay, all right, go ahead, sorry.

Matt (10:57.655)
Uh-huh.

Well, you should have.

No, I haven't. But I know what's in the report, it's, anyhow. Okay, so the special counsel released their findings from their investigation into Trump's behavior on January 6th, 2020. We now know that Trump broke the law in his attempt to overturn the 2020 election. And by the time this episode drops, Trump will have been sworn in as president of the United States. So my question is, how will future members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

look back on this time. At present, we look back on decisions members of the church made and judge them. Will future generations find fault with us for electing someone who tried to overthrow a U.S. election? That's a fair question.

Shawn (11:44.475)
Okay. So it is a fair question. Here's what I think. They're going to look at it. The future people will look back and look at this the same way they look at Watergate, Bill and Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, no WMDs and George Bush, Biden pardoning, yeah, Biden pardoning his son, the LA fires. They're going to look at it.

Matt (11:59.256)
Mm-hmm.

Matt (12:02.67)
Teapot Dome Scamital.

Matt (12:07.822)
These are not equivalent events, Sean. These are not equivalent. Okay, okay, okay. Okay, okay.

Shawn (12:12.097)
Hear me out. Hear me out. not saying they're equivalent. I'm saying there's a, but there is, they do fall into a category of a historical event that was problematic. Okay. You agree they all fall into that category? Okay. I'm not saying they're equal. No, I'm not. But here's how people will look about it. Some people will be embarrassed by them. Some people will be disgusted by them and there will be lots and lots of ignorance about them. Right?

Matt (12:24.982)
Okay. Yes. Yes. Okay. Okay.

Matt (12:39.724)
I know, because people don't know their own history. Okay, let me throw, let me.

Shawn (12:43.375)
That's right, and they won't bother to do it. Then my last point though is this, here's really how I think people look at specifically this instance. And this is how I've looked at it. And this is not in defense of Donald Trump. I'm not trying to do that. Here's how I look at it. I am happy and proud that the guard rails held. I'm so happy to go look, the element of the balance of power that was put into our constitution, which either was inspired by God or not, it's.

It saved us, like it works. The guardrails are there. And I know you disagree with that, but I have, did my research and I've got the counterarguments.

Matt (13:18.066)
No, no, of course, Mike Pence saved us on that day. Mike Pence is the guardrail you're talking about.

Shawn (13:22.715)
Okay, but listen to this. Well, but here's the truth, right? Vice president's role in electoral certifications is really just ceremonial. He has no constitutional authority to unilaterally reject or alter electoral votes. so, had he, who? Donald Trump.

Matt (13:34.115)
Yeah.

Matt (13:41.592)
But guess who said, guess who said he did?

and Senator Mike Lee, who's a member of our church.

Shawn (13:49.259)
Here's why it doesn't matter. And they were wrong. And here's why it doesn't matter. Because if Pence would have given in and done what Trump wanted him, that would be unconstitutional. It would not have held up in court. And so the Supreme Court, which is that balance of power, would have done the right thing. And it would have...

Matt (14:06.476)
You hope, you hope, you hope that they would have because they don't always do the right thing. We can go through their history too and see all the times where they got it wrong.

Shawn (14:16.005)
But I guess my point is the guardrails have a number of defensible, and there's a number of defenses. There's a line of things you have to go through, right? If you go through Pence, Pence saved us. If Pence would have failed, you would have had to probably go through Congress and they would have voted or done something. And if that would have failed, then you have to go to the Supreme Court. That's the beauty of the government we live in.

Matt (14:38.102)
Yeah, no, I understand what you're saying. in terms of the question, well, first I'm going to say this. I don't know if I've said this before. The reason that we think of George Washington as the best president in the history of the United States is

Shawn (14:51.993)
He quit the presidency and said, I don't want to be a king.

Matt (14:55.98)
That's right. When he stepped down, right? When he could have kept the state in power. And had he not stepped down at that time, it's questionable whether we would have the kind of democracy that we have today. So then conversely, who's the only president in the history of the United States to lose an election and to not step down? That would be Donald Trump. So if the argument for Washington being the best is that he stepped down, then that has to be an argument for Trump on being the worst.

Shawn (15:21.636)
Hang on.

Matt (15:24.694)
Because he refused to step down.

Shawn (15:24.793)
Hang on, let's, but we have to be a little more objective, right? Because we might, probably the first presidential election that I remember was George Bush and Al Gore. And I'm not in 2000. And I wouldn't say anyone stepped down in that case. It had to go through after a very contested legal process, he stepped down. It's okay for him, it's okay for him or Bush to have questioned the election result.

Matt (15:35.904)
in 2000.

Matt (15:41.844)
Al Gore's

Matt (15:49.175)
Okay.

Matt (15:53.59)
Okay, but Trump didn't step down after the contested legal process. That's why. So Trump didn't step down. He put all those cases in court. He lost 60 cases in court and he still tried to overthrow the country. And then January 6th happened. then people stormed the Capitol and then the National Guard came in and those people left.

Shawn (15:54.479)
That's okay.

Shawn (16:06.383)
And then what happened? And then what happened?

And then what happened?

Shawn (16:15.641)
I know what happened. Okay, and ultimately what happened.

Matt (16:20.43)
Trump still hasn't conceded that he lost the 2020 election. And he's spent most of the last four years telling people how he really won that election. At no point did Trump ever concede, Sean. He left because they made him leave. That's his rhetoric. It's his rhetoric.

Shawn (16:23.809)
Of course...

Shawn (16:28.333)
Okay.

Shawn (16:32.123)
That's just rhetoric. He may not believe that he lost. It's clear to the rest of us that he did. He may not believe that he lost, but he definitely did participate in the peaceful transfer power after all of the crap that went on.

Matt (16:40.769)
Uh-huh.

Matt (16:44.716)
He knows that he lost.

Matt (16:51.316)
No, did. because he went to the inauguration of Joe Biden to cheer on the successor. No, because he didn't do that. What in the world did Trump do to assist in the peaceful transfer of power? What did he do? Uh-huh. okay. After an attempted coup.

Shawn (16:59.195)
Are you gonna... Why does that matter?

Shawn (17:08.377)
He left the White House and he went back to civilian life. I'm not defending Trump. I'm not. I'm just saying you have to be a little more objective because another way to look at it is then why aren't you so mad at George Bush and Al Gore for questioning election results? Because that's what he was doing. Trump has a right to question election results and he can take it as far as he wants to take it.

Matt (17:19.999)
I know. Right.

I feel like I'm being objective.

Matt (17:37.558)
No, you can't, you cannot take it as far as you wanna take it. You can take it as far as you wanna take it within the law. But Trump broke the law. That's what the report is from the special counsel. Trump broke the law in trying to push his narrative and trying to not leave the White House. So that's where you go too far is when you break the law.

Shawn (17:44.699)
But that's my point. The guardrails are there.

Shawn (17:58.905)
Well, so.

First of all, you agree that a special counsel putting a report together is not due process of law. You agree, right?

Matt (18:07.598)
no, that is due process. Okay, wait. Okay. It was put before a judge. Sure. All of this, all of this evidence was put before a judge and he was indicted on these crimes. Okay. I do agree that the trial did not happen. Yes. But I also know that you can read all of the testimony, the sworn testimony in the report and see what happened. well, if you want, can.

Shawn (18:10.201)
It is not. It was not taken to trial. It was not put before it's a judge before. There's no due process. Not the trial wasn't.

That he wasn't trying I know but because

Shawn (18:31.899)
That's not due process, but that's not due process of law. You have to let...

Matt (18:35.628)
You can like have a mock trial in your high school and you can cross examine witnesses and you can see the evidence, Sean. It's not like the evidence needs and like there's any kind of question about whether these people were lying when they were testifying before Jack Smith. We know.

Shawn (18:48.251)
I mean, that's why when I cursed you in the beginning about making me, I stopped reading this whole report because in the end, it kind of doesn't matter because what happened was he got elected and now he has the, pretty much immunity, right? It's kind of the way it is. Which,

Matt (19:02.978)
Well, he's the head of the justice department and they have a rule that says you can't prosecute a sitting president. And so.

Shawn (19:07.419)
Right, which I think is lame. I agree. It's lame. like if it could have gone to trial and it would have been shown that he did break laws, he should be punished for those laws. So I do think it's lame. I agree with you. But I think looking to answer your original question, when we all look back on this, again, ignorance, embarrassment, some people are going to fight for it and against it. In the end, though, I think the real takeaway is the guardrails worked. He's not he didn't stay in office because the guardrails worked. The Constitution is strong.

Matt (19:37.644)
I think that future generations will be critical of some members of our church. I think it's wrong for future generations to look back and say, everybody who voted for Trump did something wrong. I don't think that that's a fair assessment. But if you are a member of our church who tried to help overthrow the 2020 election, then I think future generations will rightfully condemn that behavior from members of our church. can't say as a church,

Shawn (20:00.921)
I disagree. I disagree completely.

Matt (20:04.908)
We believe that we have this special role in society in upholding and defending the Constitution and then do things that attempt to overthrow the Constitution.

Shawn (20:13.751)
See, but that's, but there's your flaw there. Half the people in the United States will say someone tried to overthrow it. The other half will say, no, he just questioned the results and tried to take it through a legal process.

Matt (20:24.17)
evidence is what the evidence is right the evidence is that he the evidence is that he broke the law it's clear and

Shawn (20:26.587)
and it didn't go to trial, it didn't.

But again, again, you have to hash that out and you have look you can't just say here's the evidence without being able to defend yourself against that evidence because it doesn't go to trial you don't get to hear both sides you just hear the one side you hear the side of the prosecutor and I agree we can read through that dang document which again I refuse to do all the way and you're gonna Read through the

Matt (20:50.19)
His story, historians will write historians. That's what historians do. They look at these primary documents. They look at the evidence. It's not hard to figure out what Trump would have said. It's unclear what he would have said under oath, perhaps.

Shawn (21:02.693)
But what's, am I, okay, which amendment are you now just kicking, kicking to the sand right now? Which one gives us due process a

Matt (21:12.434)
14th Amendment. I'm not kicking that to the sand. I'm saying we have evidence. I'm not saying that he should have been convicted of crimes and sent to jail. That's right. I'm saying that he did this, that he attempted to overthrow the government. And that's evidence is clear.

Shawn (21:14.807)
You are because you're coming to generate.

Shawn (21:23.94)
What?

Shawn (21:30.253)
According to a report by a special counsel

Matt (21:32.128)
No, according to all of the people who were involved in it.

Shawn (21:37.111)
No, that's not true because there are plenty, again, half the people involved in it make that claim. Guess what the other half who were involved say? No, we were following a legal process to challenge the election results, which is just fine in America.

Matt (21:43.32)
They went.

Matt (21:48.024)
they don't say that under oath under oath for some reason they take the fifth amendment and say i don't want to testify because it might incriminate myself okay

Shawn (21:56.537)
I just don't think anyone's going to remember, especially the Latter-day Saints that did anything, because again, this is one of so many of these big events that are questionable and problematic, and most of us in the future are going look back at it in ignorance, don't you think?

Matt (22:11.478)
I think Sean that it's the, say the guardrails held and I say that's not for sure. That's yet to be determined. Hitler lost elections before he won the election that made him chancellor in Germany in.

Shawn (22:25.391)
He didn't have a United States, God-inspired constitution that put in place the right guardrails. They clearly didn't have the right guardrails. In fact, the argument would be, according to scripture, almost no government has those guardrails that are correctly put in place. That's why Ukraine struggled so much.

Matt (22:29.825)
I mean...

Matt (22:40.91)
I love that you have that faith in the constitution. But if you just look at historical examples, 1905, the revolution in Russia failed before it succeeded in 1917. what

Shawn (22:51.663)
because it had no guardrails. The guardrail, the print. So here's the scripture I'll go through.

Matt (22:55.042)
The guardrails only hold when the people in power are willing to uphold and follow those guardrails. And the people who did that in the past are no longer in office and no longer in power.

Shawn (23:01.979)
It's a but remember that quote you helped me put out last week from who? The president, second president. Who's the second president? John Adams. We are a government of laws, not of men. We're not a government of Donald Trump. We're a government. Here's DNC 101 77. What do you think of this? According to the laws and constitution of this people, which I have suffered to be established,

Matt (23:15.256)
John Adams?

Matt (23:22.254)
That's the hope. That's the hope.

Shawn (23:31.001)
and should be maintained for the rights and protections of all flesh. Now this, according to just and holy principles. I think the idea of the balance of power are just and holy principles.

Matt (23:41.88)
that require people in our church and other law abiding, other American citizens to hold up those values. And if you choose not to, which some members of our church chose not to, there's not a promise there that it's gonna last forever if people choose to not uphold the law. He broke the law. It's clear that he broke the law. And

Shawn (23:58.448)
I like your-

Yeah, it's a great thing to debate. I hope people will debate this going forward forever and ever. I think half the people will always stick on one side. The other half will stick on the other side. I'm not defending Trump and what he did. Hang on, there's a little piece of Trump. I don't mind at all that Al Gore, George Bush, or Donald Trump would question election results. That doesn't bother me that anyone questions election results. Go pursue it. I don't care. That's fine. I agree that if they broke laws,

But again, you're just jumping to the side of this council, this report.

Matt (24:33.43)
No, Sean, no, it's not. He lost 60 court cases. lost, yeah. Yeah. Listen, people.

Shawn (24:37.813)
I agree. Yeah, no, you're right. You're right. You're right. You're right. You're right. Yeah, but that's right. Hang on here. But that's different from breaking the law. If you if you lose 60 court cases. If you you

Matt (24:45.324)
Right. You break the law. You break the law when you put into place a scheme to send fake electors to Congress and have your vice president do something that's not in their power to do.

Shawn (24:54.011)
Okay, but...

But again, Matt, that was never brought to court and that has never been defended. And therefore you can't conclude that that's 100 % correct. That's just a report. The 60 failed lawsuits are fine. You didn't break a law. You can pursue that and fail. That's fine. Yeah.

Matt (25:00.95)
Okay, okay, so you're so you're

Matt (25:11.074)
huh. I'm fine with that. That's right. I'm fine with that. That's not the part I'm worried about. And Sean, I hope that you're right. I hope that that the guardrails held and they will always hold in the future. I just as a political scientist have no faith in that because that's not usually what happens. Usually there's a failed coup attempt before there is the coup that overthrows the country.

Shawn (25:35.407)
Well, I am definitely points to you because I'm glad that you have that. What are the people always say? It's a fragile democracy. It's a fragile constitution. We really have to be vigilant. That's probably a much healthier attitude than mine, which is just, I believe because it's inspired. I believe that the DNC says that it's inspired. I'm just going to believe in it. So I'm with you. Okay. I'm with you. You get the points. You do. It's the right attitude.

Matt (25:52.876)
All right, all right. I'll take the point, Sean. Okay, here's our, this topic is right up your alley, Sean. So you're familiar with Ruby Frankie, right? And the lawsuits with Jodie Hildebrand and all that stuff.

Shawn (26:06.521)
I don't know why this is at my alley, but yes, of course. Yeah.

Matt (26:08.99)
okay. Well, not that part. I did though, the other day I was turning on, there was like a movie on lifetime or something all about this. It was like a dramatized thing. Anyhow, so her daughter, her daughter Sherry, Frankie,

Shawn (26:11.547)
You

Shawn (26:20.111)
You're kidding me. I don't know what I'm more disappointed by the fact that that exists or the fact that you were watching it.

Matt (26:27.288)
Well, I didn't watch it for long. It was like, you know what, you know, when you're in a hotel and there's like the TV guide and you're like looking for things to watch. And so I was like, look, Ruby Frankie. But then I saw that it was like this dramatized lifetime story, but you don't ever watch though, Sean, the dramatized stories of like true crimes.

Shawn (26:47.163)
I trust HBO Max or Max to put those out, but, maybe Netflix. Anyway.

Matt (26:52.558)
I forgot that you hate true crime as a genre. Okay, well, Ruby Frankie's daughter Sherry has just released a memoir. For those who don't know Ruby Frankie, she had a YouTube channel in which their family life was documented for more than a million of her followers. I think she had way more than a million, but millions of followers, I guess I'll say. In one video,

Shawn (26:56.196)
Yeah.

Matt (27:16.703)
Ruby waxed her daughter's eyebrows for content. This was to celebrate their one millionth subscriber to their channel. So Sherry has become an opponent of these kinds of YouTube channels. She says children cannot consent and she regrets that so much of her private childhood moments have been documented for the world to see. So my question is, should it be illegal for parents to make videos of their children for public consumption before the kids are old enough to consent to that?

Shawn (27:44.731)
Wow, what a great question, Matt. You always do good questions. I'm gonna preface my answer with this real quick. I wanna praise my wife because some of us in this world, think including you and including me, we require a lot of study and correcting and repentance and discipline in order for us to get closer to the right, the right principles, right?

Matt (28:09.267)
Yeah, yeah, Yeah, I don't start in the right place.

Shawn (28:14.541)
There are some people on this planet that God put on here and he references, remember when he references in, I don't know, somewhere in the Book of Mormon where women and, he said, some women and children are extremely chaste and tender or something like that. Okay. Well, my wife was, yeah, my wife has this uncanny, I don't know, goodness and right. So anyways, whenever she always just seems to intuitively land on the right. I'm not saying she doesn't have to work for that, but

Matt (28:27.618)
This is in Jacob chapter 3 or maybe 2.

Shawn (28:42.435)
Whenever, so for the last 20 years, whenever she sees children put on social media, viscerally she reacts with anger. Like, yeah, she always has. And at the first I was like, why it's cute, it's fun. What are you? And she always would respond with, you are exploiting and you are putting these kids in danger. You are exploiting their feelings, their future view of themselves by putting them in public for your own gain. This is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Matt (28:50.455)
Shawn (29:11.993)
And over the years, she's absolutely right. So I'm tempted to answer your question. I'm tempted to betray my libertarian values and say, yeah, make it illegal. But I don't think I'm going to. I don't think I'm going to agree to make it illegal.

Matt (29:23.497)
because you think people should be allowed to do things that hurt their... I think the words Kirsten used was exploit their children. People should be allowed to exploit their own children for their profit.

Shawn (29:27.675)
shhh

Shawn (29:33.111)
Here's my fear. If government, and here's the thing, you always, you're really good at asking such great questions and making the most important topics at the forefront. You always go to government being the solution to solve it. You're always wrong. Government's not the way to solve this. Here's why. Yes, because how far, if you give government the power to say it is illegal, punishable by law,

Matt (29:51.03)
Really? Really?

Shawn (30:00.421)
to put your children on social media or on YouTube, how far are you willing to go? They could also then say, it's illegal for these kids to have a phone at a certain age. It's illegal for the, like you can't give government, a bunch of bureaucrats, the power to run and dictate all the little elements of our lives. It's too risky. You can't trust these people.

Matt (30:18.414)
Well, we have, we do have child labor laws, right? Where the governments dictate what children can and cannot do at work. And these are regularly enforced. There was a, I think it was an ice cream shop in our local community that was fined by the government because they were breaking child labor laws. They were having teenagers work too many hours and having teenagers do things that they're not allowed to do by law. And so it's, and we do it even in the, Hollywood, right? If you want to be a child actor.

Shawn (30:42.403)
But it's

Matt (30:47.086)
There are a number of laws that regulate that that say your child has to go to school for this many hours in the week, or they have to get these kinds of grades.

Shawn (30:54.651)
But here's the thing, I think it's a pretty common sentiment that children in Hollywood are not very protected. mean, so many of them end up pretty traumatized and pretty messed up in their lives. I don't blame government for that or Hollywood for that. I blame their parents for that.

Matt (31:14.03)
But even there, there's at least some regulation, right? There's no regulation. Of course it works. Sure it does.

Shawn (31:19.193)
Yeah, but it doesn't work, right? It does not work. It's not in Hollywood. Name me two healthy child actors, just two. Name me two. Totally not healthy. That guy has been so much. No, no.

Matt (31:27.702)
Ricky, Ricky Schroeder. Yes, he is. Sean, Sean, he's a member of our church. You be careful how you talk about Ricky Schroeder and.

Shawn (31:37.147)
I just watched Lonesome Dove for the first time. That's fascinating you brought up Ricky Schroeder.

Matt (31:41.822)
Ricky Schroeder, I was on a flight with him, a Southwest flight to California one time. He seemed like a very well adjusted, normal guy. Ricky Schroeder, like tries, he had his children with him, like he's trying to be a good dad.

Shawn (31:50.843)
just Google. Okay. Just, but just Google. literally just watched Lonesome Dove for the first time. And so I Googled Ricky Schroeder. There's half good that comes up and how bad that comes up. had issues.

Matt (32:03.542)
Okay, Jason Bateman, who does the smart list podcast, right? he talks about how there was, was definitely hard for him to be a child actor, but he had to go to school. And, I would say he's like a decent fellow. I mean, I don't know.

Shawn (32:07.195)
you

Shawn (32:12.443)
Yeah. Okay. I don't even know if he's a decent fellow. I'll take your two examples.

Matt (32:19.81)
But I'm just saying like we regulate child labor in every other marketplace.

Shawn (32:24.667)
Pretty loosely. Pretty Don't you agree? It's pretty loose.

Matt (32:27.21)
At least there's something, Sean. We've got to start regulating social media companies. We've got to start regulating YouTube and the content that they put out there.

Shawn (32:30.821)
Okay.

Okay. I, I might be okay with some like reasonable regulations, but again, it's a slippery slope. the same way that you're vigilant about, the last topic, I want to be vigilant against free speech, controlling humans in the way that they do things. Like, let me, here's, here's a good example in DNC, DNC 83. All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they're of age. And after that, they have claim upon the church.

Matt (32:47.636)
controlling social media.

Shawn (33:03.927)
Again, it was so much as parents have children designed on any other stakes which are organized that teach them not to understand the doctrines of repentance and faith in Christ, the Son of Living God, and baptism, gift of the Holy Ghost, blah, blah, blah, then the sin

Matt (33:15.128)
When they reach eight years old and the sins are on the heads of the parents.

Shawn (33:18.299)
Right. And I know this is specifically talking about maintenance and spiritual things and also physical things. Obviously this would apply to emotional and mental health and every area of a child's upbringing. It is the responsibility primarily upon the parents to protect them. If a parent is a bad parent is going to abuse children. Sure. I guess you're right. There are regulations in place. Like you can't beat your child. The government will come in, take that child away, put them in foster care.

I guess that's a good thing in society. So if you're saying that this YouTube influencer putting children in harm's way crosses over to that, I'm open to regulations, I guess.

Matt (33:57.646)
Sean, did you see that CNN a jury awarded a man $5 million because he was doing something when the United States was pulling out of Afghanistan. He was doing something and he had, had some image on the screen and they had some text on the screen that he says defamed him in some way. And so the jury said CNN has to pay him $5 million. Okay. Do you know how much, if that's what we're going to call defamation or attacking someone's character?

Shawn (34:08.581)
Yeah, I saw that.

Shawn (34:19.803)
I that.

Matt (34:25.806)
Do you know how much of that happens on social media and on YouTube and on these other spaces? And we're not holding those people accountable. We're not holding YouTube accountable for saying you allowed that content to get out there.

Shawn (34:28.365)
Now, now, now that Okay, so

They shouldn't be. They shouldn't be, no. But the people that do any defaming, that's a favorable part of our society. Take them to court in civil lawsuits, make them to pay heavy damages. Sure you can. Well, hang on. You can't take YouTube, but you can take the person that's being accused of defaming you.

Matt (34:45.302)
You can't! You can't! No, you can't!

Matt (34:52.524)
Well, Sean, these people don't have any money, right? So if the person who just, the guy who just got $5 million from CNN, if we said to him, you can't sue CNN, you can sue the producer of the show who put that image up there, you can sue that person, or you can sue the reporter who put the story out there. You're not gonna get any kind of like change in society. They sue CNN because CNN has the money.

Shawn (34:56.237)
I would love-

Shawn (35:15.002)
I know.

Shawn (35:18.403)
Okay, but if Sherry Franke sues her mom and it's this very public civil lawsuit and overwhelmingly they favor inside of Sherry, even though maybe her mom doesn't have any money, that is a beautifully symbolic win to show that you can't.

Matt (35:35.022)
symbolic when how about how about she sues YouTube and says you paid my mother money to exploit me my entire childhood and I want all of the money back that you earned off of my exploitation that's not symbolic when that's a win that changes things

Shawn (35:44.451)
No, then if.

then the, okay, then if Ruby Frankie made money off of YouTube, Ruby Frankie's the one that did the defaming, she should be, she should give all that money back to Sherry. That's the win.

Matt (35:59.114)
YouTube, YouTube also made money off of that. So how about YouTube gives all that money back to? That's what I'm saying. Facebook makes money off of this.

Shawn (36:05.243)
Well, that's a good point. Okay, so you're saying, hang on, hang on, hang on. You're saying, okay, but here's the order it needs to go in. Then I'd agree with you. Sherry sues Ruby in a civil lawsuit. If the judgment comes through that Ruby defamed or abused or whatever the breaking of the law was, and Sherry gets a settlement, then you could then take it based on that precedence.

Take it and say, well, YouTube, you profited X amount of dollars off of this defaming as well, so that should be settled too. I'm willing to go in that direction.

Matt (36:38.2)
Hey, Sean's in favor of some laws that create liability for social media companies. mean, Sean, you can't have a lawsuit if the law's not in place. The reason, no, can't. The reason that CNN can be sued is because there's a law that says that CNN can be liable for defamation. Those laws don't exist for YouTube.

Shawn (36:42.263)
I say that. I didn't say that. I said lawsuits, not regulation and laws. I said lawsuits.

No, you can! The law would be defamation, if the law is defamation.

Shawn (37:03.439)
Right, right, right.

Matt (37:05.954)
Those laws don't exist for Twitter or X or any social media company. So you have to have the law in order to have the lawsuit.

Shawn (37:09.211)
You're right, right.

Okay, I see what you're saying. You're right. You're right. Why? Tell me why. Let's see if I'm getting authentic points or if it's backhanded. Why are you giving me points, Matt?

Matt (37:15.116)
Hey Sean, I'm giving you the points. That was awesome.

Matt (37:24.076)
You made a really good argument about why Sherry Frankie should be able to get money from YouTube if she wins a lawsuit against her mom.

Shawn (37:31.515)
Let's see you give me points because I sneakily agreed with you. You're giving yourself points. You don't know how to do this. You don't know how to give a compliment. You just complimented yourself. I love it.

Matt (37:38.23)
No, no!

Matt (37:45.036)
All right, Sean, I'm excited about this big question. Okay, so I read this story in the Washington Post. There's a group out there that's been studying dementia for a long time. And so the Washington Post had a story where they're kind of going through some of the results of this study. So according to this study, after age 55, four in 10 American adults are gonna develop dementia. And one of the scientists quoted in the story said that,

once you hit the age of 55, you basically have two choices. You either die before you get dementia or you're going to live long enough that eventually you're going to develop dementia. And so as part of this, they've looked at like, what is it that makes it more likely that a person will develop dementia versus not? And they find that it's the same stuff that right. Red meat, eating fatty foods, sugary foods, all that stuff is going to make you

Shawn (38:35.419)
process, ultra processed foods.

Matt (38:41.332)
less likely to develop dementia later on in life. the current structure of the U of U S society incentivizes companies to provide food options that are unhealthy. Bad food tastes food that's bad for you tastes great, has a long shelf life, but ultimately is going to kill you or help you to develop dementia. So my question is, shouldn't we as a society find a way to incentivize healthy food choices? Ultimately, American taxpayers pay for

the burden of these unhealthy lifestyle choices. Most of the people who are getting long-term care, who are in nursing homes and all of that end of life care is paid for by American taxpayers through Medicare. So ultimately we're paying a whole lot of money for people's unhealthy lifestyle choices. My question is, wouldn't it be better to spend that money more wisely earlier on in the life cycle to help people develop a better quality of life?

Shawn (39:37.563)
So once again, Matt, you're 100 % right on your message and your method of implementation is very, very wrong. Government is not the right way to solve all of our problems, including this one.

Matt (39:46.424)
But they are the ones, but they are causing it, Sean. The government.

Shawn (39:49.219)
Are you then a big? Well, I see that's again, I think you attribute so much power. You, don't know why you like to take the power away from the individual and you like to attribute the power to groups and entities. I don't think that they're causing it. Matt, you know very well, you know, you, Matt Miles know without any government involvement, that McDonald's is very unhealthy and you eat it not because government caused you to eat it. You like the taste because

Matt (40:13.069)
Yes.

Shawn (40:18.713)
and you eat it even though it's unhealthy and you know it.

Matt (40:20.984)
That's one part of it, but also it's the least expensive food option out there, right? It is, no, that is government's fault. How is it that you can make buns and a Big Mac and all of that stuff? How is it you can make it so, so inexpensive that a person can purchase like, think, I don't know, a hundred percent that's government's fault.

Shawn (40:25.465)
Okay, but that's not government's fault, that's your choice.

Shawn (40:39.683)
You're saying that's government's fault? Why is it government's fault that McDonald's makes a cheap, unhealthy bun?

Matt (40:46.382)
because the government subsidizes certain kinds of crops to be produced. Last year, the federal government spent $2 billion that they paid just to people who grow corn, right? And there were, in total, it was $10 billion in subsidies that goes to the Corn Growers Association. And what's the most common kind of form of sugar you see in the United States, Sean? Right, so high fructose corn syrup.

Shawn (41:11.759)
High fructose corn syrup. Hang on, hang on.

Matt (41:15.662)
cost less than it should because the federal government is paying people to grow that.

Shawn (41:19.971)
Okay, so then the solution is not more government involvement, it's less. So they should stop subsidizing high fructose corn syrup, is your point? Say yes. Say yes. Say yes.

Matt (41:26.862)
So if you look at the top three, well, wait, wait, I gotta finish this idea, right? So the top three, Sean, is corn and then it's soy and then it's just sugar cane. that's politics, that's politics.

Shawn (41:40.315)
Okay, so why are they subsidizing that? So you're making my point for me. Government is not the solution. Government is the problem. They need to stop subsidizing those things. That's ridiculous.

Matt (41:50.824)
Or, or Sean, how about we take some of that money that's being subsidized for corn and for soy, and we subsidize other things. Sean, you know how delicious it is to eat fresh fruits and vegetables, and you could subsidize the production of those foods, and then people would want to eat them because they would be cheaper than McDonald's. Okay.

Shawn (41:57.167)
No. No.

Shawn (42:04.283)
K, hang on.

Let's look at your.

Let's follow your logic here. makes a decision, Big Daddy, big important government who knows what's best makes a decision that we are going to subsidize certain types of foods for whatever reason, political reasons, altruistic reasons, whatever you think their reasons are, they decide to subsidize certain foods. Now fast forward however many years later and we are the unhealthiest nation dying and we're all gonna get dementia, right? So government,

Matt (42:16.792)
you

Matt (42:39.608)
Yes.

Shawn (42:41.273)
decided to get involved, they screwed it up, and you're saying government should stay involved and continue to screw it up. That's the logic you're saying.

Matt (42:49.356)
No, no, no, no, you just say, look, there was maybe good reasons 50 years ago for them to subsidize corn. We subsidized beef production, right?

Shawn (42:57.123)
Or you say there weren't any good reasons, there were bad reasons, and they shouldn't do that. They should get out of it completely. That's not a rule of government!

Matt (43:00.494)
Maybe I don't, I don't know, based on what Sean told me previously, I can't possibly know the truth about the past unless it was adjudicated in some court of law. So it's unknowable why they did what they did in the past. But what I am saying is we could make a better choice going forward and we could say, we're going to take that money and some of the money that we spend on research and development for pharmaceutical drugs, or maybe some of the money we spend on Medicare. I don't know, take some of that money.

Shawn (43:09.989)
You

Shawn (43:16.964)
Shawn (43:29.719)
Or, okay, or.

Matt (43:30.474)
and subsidize, make good food cheap.

Shawn (43:34.093)
or you could tax people less, have less of a budget to subsidize a politician's favorite industry, get government out of it, and then I'll give you the real solution. Here's the real solution. Here's the real solution. If you look at all the scripture, when God sees there's a problem, his method of changing society is what? He picks smart people, faithful people, and he sends them to preach it. Okay, now listen, preaching.

Matt (43:45.492)
okay, okay.

Shawn (44:02.885)
through advertising or through various different methods, through activism, that is the better method. Let me give you good example. Sure.

Matt (44:10.84)
And then I'm going to come at you because you told me a different story when you went to Boston.

Shawn (44:15.095)
Sure, come at me. Okay, Morgan Spurlock, you know who that is? Skurlock, Spurlock, do know who that is? He made a hugely influential movie called Super Size Me. Remember that? yeah, Yeah, I know, I know. So he made this movie and the impact that this movie had not only immediately and specifically, but then broadly is incredibly fascinating.

Matt (44:21.006)
Uhhh no.

Matt (44:26.699)
yeah, yeah, I love that show. He's dead now, by the way. Yeah.

Shawn (44:41.231)
Right, so he basically shows that if you consume McDonald's, he basically started consuming McDonald's three days a week. If they ever asked for him to supersize something, they would supersize it so it was more food, right? And then he would go to the doctor and show progressively how it was killing him, like literally killing him. So the immediate effects of that were within months, McDonald's stopped magically providing or offering supersizing. And then within months, they offered a healthy menu. So they started making changes based on the

Matt (44:50.442)
Yeah. Yeah.

Matt (44:56.13)
Yeah. Yeah.

Matt (45:08.365)
Yes.

Shawn (45:10.651)
preaching of Morgan Spurlock. think that's the name. then, no, yes it did. Then broadly what happened is the entire, um, the entire country started to open up more and more healthy restaurants, started to talk more and more about organic foods, started more and more defining the difference between what is a food product and what is a food. And that was the biggest result of the preaching of this, of this amazing

Matt (45:13.452)
Yeah, but it didn't last, Sean, it didn't last.

Shawn (45:38.635)
advertising campaign, this movie that came out, was defining the difference between what is a food product, which is an incredibly unhealthy thing for us, and what is a food. In fact, it even spilled over into Steve Jobs on his deathbed. Remember what he said? He said, yeah, he said.

Matt (45:52.588)
I remember you've told me this before. If you eat food for sickness, you'll eat sickness for food. yeah.

Shawn (46:00.219)
Eat your food as medicine, otherwise you have to eat medicine as your food. In other words, he literally is saying, my whole life I ate fast food that was cheap, easy, tasted good. In other words, food products, same that Morgan Spurlock exposed in that movie, in that preaching. And he said, because of that, my food now is just medicine. To stay alive, I have to feed myself with drugs and drugs and drugs. Whereas if it would have been the opposite and he would have eaten real food as taught by Morgan Spurlock, preached through that.

effective message that would have solved it. Now that's way to solve it. It's not government.

Matt (46:34.702)
Do you know what's even better than messaging, Sean? The free market. And so if you can dip your finger in the free market and just stir it up a little bit the way that you want it to be and make it so that healthy food costs less than food that's bad for you, then people will choose to eat the healthy food because it's the least expensive option. And at first they might be like, ah, this is so gross, I don't like it. But when they go to the store and they say, oh my heavens, that butterscotch candy,

cost $15 for one butterscotch candy. They'll stop eating it because it costs too much money to buy that butterscotch candy. And instead they'll choose to eat an apple. They'll choose to eat an apple.

Shawn (47:11.267)
You've got a narrow paradigm right here. Your paradigm is that people make all their food consumption decisions based on cost. That's not for everybody. That's not true for everybody. There's so many...

Matt (47:25.198)
but you could make it. Okay, so you'll agree with me we should get rid of the subsidies for sugar. The federal government should not be making it cheaper to produce sugar.

Shawn (47:34.031)
That's the easiest decision I'd ever have to make, yes.

Matt (47:36.928)
Okay, well I'll take that as a win if we can agree on that.

Shawn (47:41.275)
Okay, then we have to go further and stop subsidizing any food industry or any, there's no point in government doing that. Let the free market.

Matt (47:49.398)
Maybe, maybe I'll go with that, Sean. Maybe I can just say no more government subsidies for food of any kind as a starting point, right? But if, if we start to see that like carrots are good, maybe we could subsidize carrots.

Shawn (47:59.771)
I would shake your hip.

would shake your hand. I would shake your hand right now for the same room.

Matt (48:06.958)
Okay, Sean, what about this? Because when I go to California, I love, love, love purchasing citrus fruits because they're just fresh. They just taste so much better than what I get off of the trucks by the time they get to Idaho. What if the government was able to find a way to just put greenhouses all throughout North Dakota and grow fresh citrus or like really good produce? Would that be?

Shawn (48:31.289)
It would fail. No, it would fail because government is not gonna do that right. How about you and your friends? How about you and I figure out to grow fresh citrus?

Matt (48:39.374)
It's too expensive. It's too expensive to put greenhouses out all throughout North Dakota. But the government could do it.

Shawn (48:47.311)
There's other solutions. There's other solutions. I promise you in the middle of winter in Utah, there's a way to get fresh fruit. That is organic, that isn't a food product. I promise you.

Matt (48:57.336)
Did I tell you the way, the time that my boys and I drove to Barstow, California, just so we could get some fresh produce in January? I used to have oranges delivered to my door, a whole box of them. I think I paid $50 for a box of oranges that would come from somewhere near Bakersfield, California. Every year my oranges would show up and I'd be so happy because I had fresh produce. Now that there's a Costco nearby, I can get pretty good produce from Costco.

Shawn (49:05.775)
haha

Matt (49:25.826)
But for years, Sean, I would drive to California. I would order from California.

Shawn (49:30.447)
And you're saying you can't do that because it's too costly and too to time consuming. Remember.

Matt (49:33.195)
It's too expensive. There's a man, there's a man on the corner in Idaho falls who has a truck full of oranges that he says are organic from California. And he sells, eight pound bags for $20. So yeah, you can get it. but you pay a lot for it and it'd be a lot better if you could just grow it in a greenhouse nearby.

Shawn (49:52.891)
I mean, I definitely agree that it's costly to get healthier food now, especially you go to a healthier restaurant and it's more costly. But that's not across the board. That's not. There's ways to get healthy food without it being super, super costly. Remember in our beloved Ukraine on our mission, what did every single family do? They would take a break from their apartment. They would drive out to their little, what do call them? Their dacha. I'll never forget, dude, the first time I went to someone's dacha, Ukraine is the breadbasket. That's soil service.

Matt (49:59.607)
Yeah.

Matt (50:12.024)
They... to their daughter, to their little garden.

Shawn (50:22.457)
The guy said to me, hey, hold that shovel up and just drop it in the soil. And it dropped and sunk like three feet in the soil because it was so fertile. It was so amazing. But anyway, they would all, and it was all natural. were no garbage in it. There were no food products. It was all food.

Matt (50:27.462)
I know, I know. And the food was so good.

Yeah.

Matt (50:37.304)
But you know what they did? They had to can and bottle their vegetables for the winter, right? So you'd go visit somebody in the winter and they'd give you a pickled tomato that tastes just awful because it had been put in like pickle juice to preserve the tomato or they did it with boiled eggs, maybe they would pickle everything. are you kidding me? A pickled tomato? You like that? Man. Hey, well, Sean, I don't think we solved all of the world's problems, but we did.

Shawn (50:53.435)
But that tasted, I thought it tasted great. I loved that. I loved it. I did.

Shawn (51:05.115)
You

Matt (51:06.21)
We did show the world that we can agree on, would that be a compromise solution? That'd be a compromise, right? Just get rid of food subsidies. Agriculture, okay. Yeah, see?

Shawn (51:14.211)
I'm this. That's definitely a compromise. Yeah, because then then you get what you want because then a lot of that money then goes towards health care or something. And then I get what I want because now the free market is able to solve how to get healthy foods, not food products to the the mass.

Matt (51:32.492)
Yeah, I get what I want because the unhealthy foods are no longer the cheapest option. That's how that's where I get what I want. Okay.

Shawn (51:37.403)
There you go.

See, look at that, look at that. We compromised, we came together. I love it.

Matt (51:44.812)
Listener, you should follow our example. You don't have to serve a mission together in order to love your neighbor as yourself. You just have to be like a member of our church trying to follow Jesus and you can find compromise on contentious issues. Sean and I are not gonna agree on everything, but we show you that like there is a way. You can find a way to like have love. You can disagree with people. I know that I'm inauguration day is a super happy day for so many of you.

And I know that for many others of you, it's a super very unhappy day. Don't let that stuff consume your life. That's not the most important thing that will happen in your life. And remember that until we talk again next week. Talk to you later.