Matt (00:01.368)
Hi everybody and welcome to the Latter Day Lens. I'm your host, Matt. With me today are Sean and Levi, and it's so good to have you with us today. We got so many things. You're going to all be surprised to hear this. Sean just told me he did his homework this week and Sean has come prepared to discuss our topics on the podcast. Come on, you know that. yeah, I forgot about. I seriously I put these things together and then I totally forget about them until I look at them.

Shawn (00:15.504)
You

I always do man Propaganda propaganda you're preaching right now

Matt (00:31.054)
right before we talk about them. I forgot about, I'm excited about this question. Yeah, okay. So one listener wrote in and said, if as Matt says, propaganda is always wrong and undemocratic, how do you explain propaganda that has had a massive net positive effect on global democracy? The Declaration of Independence, Federalist Papers, Common Sense, and many other revolutionary era works garnered much needed support for the cause.

Levi Barnes (00:33.644)
This is a good start. I'm excited about this first one. Yeah.

Matt (00:59.918)
Could the revolution have succeeded and the constitution have been established if these documents had been totally transparent and unbiased? Is the world less democratic because the Declaration of Independence declares that all men are created equal? I mean, this is right after my own heart, right? Calling all of these documents propaganda. Based on the testimonies I heard in church today, a lot of our listeners might be offended that somebody's calling the Declaration of Independence

Propaganda? Like is that propaganda, Sean?

Shawn (01:32.602)
Wait, now you're switching your stance, dude? You're gonna be like, okay, I'm for propaganda now because I agree that all these documents, yeah, is it now good?

Levi Barnes (01:37.164)
Some propaganda's good, man.

Matt (01:39.31)
I don't think that stuff's pro- I tried to argue for that it's not propaganda. Rats, I couldn't do it. I really did want to argue that the Declaration of Independence is not propaganda. Can you make that argument for me, Sean? Are you all going to say that it's propaganda? Because I have to. I have to say it's propaganda.

Shawn (01:42.65)
Yeah

Shawn (01:50.544)
You just attempted.

Levi Barnes (02:03.222)
I'm going to say it's not propaganda. I'll make that case if somebody you know, but I believe it like so so I a lot of this is just semantic right? Like what do we mean by the word propaganda, which is kind of a boring thing thing to debate. But what I'm saying is that if you're saying a thing that you honestly believe and you've done your research and you're not trying to manipulate anybody into believing something that you know to be false, I'm okay with that.

Matt (02:06.731)
Okay.

Levi Barnes (02:31.958)
I don't think there's harm from that, right? So all men are created equal. I think that they believed that and they were saying that to people. so I think that's great. You can call it propaganda if you want, but in my book, that's fine. It's when you come at somebody and you're trying to manipulate them, either by straight up lying to them or just by careful sort of story selection. I think you can do some damage there, but I think if you're not trying to deceive, you're okay.

Shawn (02:58.714)
So, so.

So in the absence of coercion or deception, feel like it's not propaganda. Propaganda has to include coercion or deception.

Matt (03:09.921)
Manipulation.

Levi Barnes (03:10.198)
But yeah, right. And I would say that like, so like one example is right wing media talks a lot about like they'll highlight certain stories that are some crime committed by an undocumented immigrant. And those stories might be very, very true, right? They're telling the true facts of that. Still propaganda because they very carefully selected those stories, right? And the story that they want you to believe

Shawn (03:11.034)
manipulation.

Levi Barnes (03:39.54)
is not this particular person was harmed by an undocumented immigrant. The story they want you to believe is undocumented immigrants are a danger to us. And that's the lie. So even though the story was technically true, the story selection is deceptive.

Shawn (03:57.584)
Interesting.

Matt (03:57.646)
Okay, but the Declaration of Independence is propaganda. When they talk about the tyranny of King George, when they talk about the oppression, when they talk about we need to rise up, what did King George do that was so oppressive? What did he do that was even outside of the regular legal order of the time? A sales tax, really? He put a sales tax on tea. A sales tax on like various goods. And then when the people in Massachusetts rebelled, he arrested them. Like he didn't do anything wrong. King George was

completely within the rights of the king and the rights of the nation. The people in the United States were not being oppressed by the British at the time. So the Declaration of Independence was propaganda, setting up this whole story of like, we're just being loyal citizens and they're attacking us for exercising our rights and how dare they and no taxation without representation. come on, if we really believe that that's a justification to overthrow the government, then how many United States citizens have the right?

to overthrow their government right now today because of taxes that are being passed without representation and without the public consent and all that. It's completely propaganda. And the Federalist Papers, 100 % propaganda. The whole purpose of those is to say, let's ratify the Constitution. And by the way, James Madison argues things in the Federalist Papers that a month later when he's in Congress, he argues back against it and doesn't even agree with himself anymore. I like this idea that they're just being honest in their intent in those documents.

I don't believe it. I don't believe that like to me those documents are by Levi's definition propaganda.

Shawn (05:28.72)
Levi, this is one of those moments where I cannot tell if Matt is debating for debate's sake or if he actually believes what he's saying.

Levi Barnes (05:31.33)
Okay.

Matt (05:36.662)
No, no, I really I tried to argue Levi's side and I couldn't do it like in good faith I couldn't do it because I there's it's all propaganda. It's a total propaganda

Levi Barnes (05:37.216)
No, I think you totally lose it, yeah.

Levi Barnes (05:46.838)
Well, and so, so then here's the question. Do you think that if we define propaganda as something that is they know to be untrue, can a good thing come from deception? Can a good thing come from telling somebody a lie? They were lying to us in the Federalist Papers. Can a good thing, the United States, come from that?

Matt (06:05.112)
Yes.

So my position on this would be no, even though the United States Constitution is wonderful and we're close to Independence Day, so I don't want to be like anti the United States or something like that, but we still struggle today because of the lies they told us back then. Because people today will look in the Federalist Papers and they'll look in the Declaration of Independence and they will see a world in the past that does not accurately reflect what things really were in the past.

And so when today I want to say, let's fix this, they'll say, you're just trying to go back and change history. And people just don't know their history because they only know the propaganda version of history and they don't know what actually happened.

Shawn (06:49.456)
Let me, okay, you guys are taking both sides. So let me ask for a modern example and you tell me Levi if you change your stance on this. The government campaign smoking kills. Propaganda with a good cause, with good intention, right? Because smoking doesn't, that can't be a true statement 100 % of the time. Not 100 % of the time, no it doesn't, but the clear message of smoking kills was if you smoke you'll die. That's absolutely, you'll get cancer and die.

Matt (07:07.734)
It does kill. Smoking kills.

Well, that's not what the statement was.

Matt (07:19.222)
I could also say Sean, if you breathe oxygen, you'll die. Breathing also kills. Everybody's gonna die. So it's not.

Shawn (07:19.428)
So it was propaganda.

Shawn (07:24.944)
Are you telling me that the smoking kills wasn't propaganda? That's what you're trying to say?

Matt (07:27.894)
I think that was good marketing. don't think there was any malicious, like deceptive intent behind that. It was just trying to

Shawn (07:32.408)
You're absolutely wrong because smoking as bad as it is and it does kill people does not kill everyone. So you cannot say that smoking cigarettes will kill everyone. That's propaganda. It was just it was coercive.

Matt (07:41.902)
Another stu-

Levi Barnes (07:42.028)
But I don't think that was their intent. I don't think they intended for anyone to believe that everyone who smokes cigarettes will die from cigarettes. You think that was their intent that people would believe that?

Shawn (07:50.221)
Okay, okay.

Shawn (07:54.468)
Yeah, I think that the campaign was literally say we need to stop smoking in the United States. Let's just let's just squash it

Matt (08:01.623)
Mmm, yeah.

Levi Barnes (08:01.674)
But that's a different message. We need to stop smoking the United States. That's one thing. That was probably a good idea.

Matt (08:07.726)
I'll tell you the-

Shawn (08:07.792)
Therefore, if you smoke, you'll die. Smoking kills.

Matt (08:11.342)
There's another one like milk does a body good. There's the other ones like you need to have breakfast every day, right? Like if you don't have breakfast, it's like a bad thing. There's other messages that they put out there that are more malicious in their intent than smoking kills. Do you know what I'm talking about? Like you need to eat breakfast every day.

Shawn (08:15.504)
Stop.

Shawn (08:27.386)
Okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sure. How about loose lips sink ships?

Levi Barnes (08:31.84)
I was looking for one that...

Matt (08:34.638)
That's true. That's 100 % true.

Levi Barnes (08:37.612)
Yeah, I was looking for one from the left. one thing that I saw this week was, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted out that, in the new budget bill that the Republicans passed, the budget for ICE plus CBP is larger than the budget for the FBI, the DEA, ATF, Secret Service, SEC combined.

Shawn (08:38.233)
Okay, okay.

Levi Barnes (09:03.542)
that all of these federal law enforcement agencies, CPP and ICE, are bigger than all of them. So the one crime we're worried about today is illegal immigration. And that is a true statement. That's true by the numbers. The thing that she didn't say is that that's not a new thing, that that was the case before this bill was passed. So in that case, she's just sort of left out that. She's made it sound like, this new bill created this new problem. It didn't. We've always been...

Matt (09:23.875)
Yeah.

Shawn (09:24.213)
interesting.

Levi Barnes (09:32.832)
sort of over-focused on the border. And she was trying to make it sound like this was a new thing. don't know, propaganda? I don't know, right? That's probably not good. She should have left that in.

Matt (09:35.896)
Yeah.

Shawn (09:36.816)
Whoa, those are interesting facts spitting out there Levi.

Matt (09:40.622)
So then, that's propaganda.

Framing it like the new bill does this, right? As opposed to like the new bill continues this or something like that. Yeah. Well, so Sean, do you say propaganda is always bad or is propaganda ever good? Cause like the constitution, right? I agree like that's a good thing, but I think that if you do it the right way, then you're going to have a better outcome.

Levi Barnes (09:50.465)
Right, right.

Shawn (09:54.928)
Wow.

Shawn (10:08.356)
Yeah, I think it's hard to judge someone's motives in the way that they present a message. So I got to say there's some probably propaganda that's okay. Because because how are you how are you going to know the intention of someone's heart? They're trying their hardest to actually be truthful. They believe in what they're preaching. I'll go with Levi's definition. If they believe what they're preaching, then how can it be propaganda? They could be wrong. But it's not. I think you're right, Levi coercion and deception is is the element. Yeah. And that's wrong.

Matt (10:33.516)
manipulation. My wife, my wife told me that it was mean of me last week, Sean, to say that you're a propagandist because you do marketing and branding. She's like, that's just rude. Sean's not gonna want to hear that.

Shawn (10:46.158)
I'll just add the real word that you are for what you said. You're ignorant. That's all I'm saying.

Levi Barnes (10:53.858)
And I listened to that one and I thought, so, but I guess sometimes leaving out, like, I don't demand that a salesman put their worst foot forward and say, like, McDonald's isn't required to come out and say, heart disease, know, red meat causes heart disease, which kills more people than all the wars in history or whatever, you know, like they don't have to come out and lead with their worst foot, I suppose. I don't know, there's a gray area there when I'm...

Shawn (11:04.112)
Mmm.

Matt (11:08.206)
You're gonna die.

Shawn (11:14.544)
Hmm.

Levi Barnes (11:21.406)
leaving out some facts and when I'm, you know, just sort of telling the best story that I can. I don't know. It's a gray area.

Shawn (11:27.76)
Wow, that's interesting. Yes.

Matt (11:29.838)
I think we need to hold elected officials and representatives to a higher standard than we hold marketing people, business people, salespeople, because they really are in a, they're in a position of trust and they're in a capacity where they're supposed to represent other people. And so I just like the fact that we have truth in advertising laws that say McDonald's can't lie, right? Any business Sean works for, Sean can't lie. He can't say something that's factually like you can prove that that's untrue.

But in politics and in elections, you can lie all you want and there's no penalty and there's no law against that. It should be the opposite of that. Like the elected official should be held to a higher standard, not to a lower standard than everyone else.

Shawn (12:14.34)
Yeah, good point. All right. Yeah, word.

Levi Barnes (12:15.138)
Word.

Matt (12:16.396)
Okay. All right. So the thought provoker this week, I'm just going to have to stay out of this a little bit because the Pareto principle, honestly, the Pareto principle drives me a little crazy, but this is why I framed it this way. So no, it's good. It's good.

Shawn (12:30.554)
I'm gonna do my best here guys, I'm not like dying, dying on my sword to defend this.

Levi Barnes (12:33.39)
yes, so...

So this was something that like Matt and I texted, right? And so I heard that conversation. And as we were talking about waste in the voucher program, it reminded me of the big, beautiful bathroom that we discussed many months ago. We talked about this $2 million bathroom. And I know Rush Limbaugh is just thrilled that the big, beautiful bathroom is getting more airtime. It was in No Valley, San Francisco was the...

Matt (12:36.494)
So the question, yeah, go ahead, Levi. Yeah.

Shawn (12:52.09)
San Francisco.

Shawn (13:07.024)
Levi, Levi, you've got to let Rush Limbaugh go. Do not keep his memory alive. It's only you guys, liberals, that are keeping that man alive. I've I haven't thought of him in 20 years.

Matt (13:07.03)
Rush is dead.

Levi Barnes (13:12.716)
Okay.

Matt (13:17.28)
Rush is dead, but the bathroom story lives on forever and ever and ever.

Levi Barnes (13:17.954)
Okay, good. is dead. Rush is dead. Gravity payments is alive. Rush predicted the end of gravity payments, but it outlived him. there. Okay, so the... But anyway, so those two conversations reminded me of one another. But then I was surprised, Sean, when you said, well, because of the Pareto principle, we expect, you know, whatever. I don't know. Do we expect 20 % waste or do we expect...

80 % waste, what did it mean in that context? I wasn't sure why that was enough to paper over these examples of waste in the voucher program.

Matt (13:46.414)
Yeah, 20 % waste.

Shawn (13:58.138)
Sorry, in the voucher program? I think I was just saying, I was simply trying to say that if it's a true principle, then it's human nature that in any program, government or non-government, you're potentially gonna have that principle apply and you're gonna have a small amount of waste. It's gonna exist. Yeah.

Levi Barnes (14:00.0)
Yeah, yeah.

Levi Barnes (14:15.68)
Yeah. So does that apply to the bathroom, to the big beautiful bathroom?

Shawn (14:20.912)
Potentially, potentially it could I guess. could. So you're suggesting that the government, 20 20 80 rule applies there and only 20 % of the government is wasteful and is that what you're saying? It could apply there too.

Levi Barnes (14:33.346)
Yeah, I would say that because you can find some example of waste does not automatically imply that there's an exorbitant amount of waste.

Shawn (14:42.767)
I'm totally willing to absolutely, yeah, maybe I'm cherry picking. But Matt asks the, I mean, you're gonna ask the question, Matt. You ask it in the right light. Is there any, I guess, what, scientific or scriptural evidence that this principle actually applies? That's more important to me. I'm willing to abandon it if I have no evidence of it, yeah.

Matt (14:57.684)
Is the, is the, Sean is the Pareto principle doctrine and is it consistent with the latter day lens? Because you quote the Pareto principle almost as much as you quote the scripture that says governments should protect private property. Well, how many times do you mention the private property scripture? okay. Wait, you mentioned it more than Jesus. You talk about.

Shawn (15:03.172)
You

Shawn (15:08.576)
All right, all here we go. Shut up.

Shawn (15:14.096)
I've mentioned Pareto Principle three times. That's it. A lot. A lot. A lot. All right. All right. Here we go. Here we go. I'm not going to say it's doctrine. Absolutely not. I'd say it's a useful concept if it's shown to be true. And I'd say there are some evidences that it's true. This being the Latter-day Lens, let me bring some in. How about DNC 121.39? We have learned by sad experience that is the nature and disposition of almost all

Men, as soon as they get a little authority as they suppose, they will immediately begin exercising righteous dominion. Now Matt, when you think, when you hear the word almost all men, is that 50, 50, maybe 70, 30, 80, 20? There you go, there you go, there you go, there you go.

Matt (15:53.516)
No, 80, 20, 80, 20, 80, 20, almost all men in the scriptures means 80, 20.

Levi Barnes (15:58.252)
Exactly, yeah. 80.0.

Shawn (16:02.308)
That's right. That's right. That's right. Almost all, right? Almost all. We're talking 80, 90%. So all I'm saying is this. So if we believe that 10%, only 10 % of the people, if we're believing this verse or if we're applying it correctly, I don't know if we are, if 10 % of the people won't abuse power when they receive the power, doesn't that suggest that really we want only 10 % of our people to run the rest of us?

Matt (16:02.501)
haha

Matt (16:06.273)
I like this.

Shawn (16:26.276)
Don't we think that 10 % you're going to bring up in a minute, Matt, should our leaders, are they delegates or are they trustees? Wouldn't this principle, if it's true, inform us a bit on that? Isn't that kind of a decent example?

Matt (16:32.846)
trustees.

Matt (16:38.99)
Wait, but wait isn't 80-20 Pareto? Pareto's 80-20 right? Not 90-10?

Shawn (16:44.76)
It's no, it's generally 80, 20, 90, 10.

Matt (16:48.112)
okay. That's pretty good Levi. That's like persuasive.

Levi Barnes (16:51.042)
Well, so, here's how the, and so I'm a programmer and when programmers talk about the Pareto principle, we say this way, we say when you have a new feature you need to add and it has to do this number of things. Getting it to do 80 % of those things takes 20 % of the time. And then getting the last 20 % is what takes 80 % of the time. And so.

Shawn (17:19.93)
Yes, yeah, exactly.

Levi Barnes (17:20.418)
programmers even really experienced programmers like Underestimate the time it'll take them to do stuff because they think about the 80 they think oh well the 80 is gonna take me Five days and then the other 20 percent will only take me a sixth day No, no, it's gonna take you like fully another three weeks to get it, you know to get it down So that's how we think of the per peria principle, but maybe it applies in other places,

Shawn (17:39.312)
There you go. Yeah.

Shawn (17:44.816)
So let's apply to some other places in the UK 20 % of all drinkers account for 70 % of all alcohol sales At yes gore I used to work 20 % of all the of the salespeople in the company produced 80 % of all the 80 % of crimes are committed by 20 % of criminals. That's a that's a statistic Well, I'll put the link in there if you want in health care 70. Okay. Thanks 78 % of prescriptions are filled by 20 % of the people

Matt (18:08.758)
We believe you, Sean.

Matt (18:14.092)
What? Like pharmacists? Or like, get prescriptions?

Shawn (18:14.288)
um 20 78 percent of prescriptions filled are by 20 percent of of the of society so 20 yeah yeah

Matt (18:23.79)
of patients? Oh, okay. So like me, who I never get prescriptions, that's how most people are, but there's 20 % that are just getting tons and tons and tons of prescriptions. Okay.

Shawn (18:28.496)
That's right.

Shawn (18:33.959)
Exactly. Right. So in a big study, a longitudinal study, what's a longitude? What is it? How you say that, Matt? Yeah, what is that?

Matt (18:40.088)
a longitudinal study. That means that you measure the same person over time to see how they change over time.

Shawn (18:46.852)
There you go. So 20 % of participants in this study accounted for 81 % of criminal convictions, 77 % of fatherless childbearing, 78 % of prescriptions filled, 66 % of welfare benefits and so on and so on and so on. There's lots of areas and categories where this principle kind of plays out. I'm not saying it's doctrine. I'm saying it would be useful, like in the question you bring up later. It's useful. Now, I can bring in another scripture that kind of applies this, Matt, if you want.

Matt (19:09.016)
Mm-hmm.

Matt (19:13.39)
I I do, I'm loving this, Sean. I'm learning from you. I've like, yeah, go ahead.

Shawn (19:16.93)
Matthew 7, okay Matthew 7 13. Now this will be a little controversial. He said, God says, enter ye in by the straight gate. Why? Because wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction and many there be which go in there at. Because straight is the gate and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life and few there be that find it. Now life I'm interpreting here is exaltation, not salvation.

But isn't this another example of saying, okay, there's a broad road that many of us fallen children will choose, broad, and there will be many, what, 70, 80, 90%, I don't know, who may choose non-exaltation but salvation? And then there's a narrow and very few will follow that road. Does that maybe not apply to?

Matt (20:01.72)
So as I'm trying to think about what I'm hearing from you with the Pareto principle is if, because sometimes it sounds like the Pareto principle means 20 % of the good people are doing most of the good things and 80 % or, and then at some times it seems like only 20 % are the bad people doing the bad things. Okay. But it seems like in the scriptures, many are called, but few are chosen. Most people don't go to heaven, right? It sounds like in the scriptures,

Shawn (20:21.698)
No, I wouldn't say that. I wouldn't say that.

Shawn (20:29.998)
Now they go to heaven, they're saved, they don't go to exaltation.

Matt (20:31.406)
Well, exaltation. Yeah. All right. Okay. So in the scriptures, it sounds like most people are out there doing bad stuff, but there's this select few or 20 % that are doing the good stuff.

Shawn (20:43.296)
I just wanted to find a couple of scriptures. sure, both of those kind of suggested that, but I wouldn't say that that's conclusive. I mean, I can probably find more.

Matt (20:50.882)
But no, that's my question. Is the Pareto principle the way that the scriptures make it sound, that there's a minority doing the good stuff, or is it the way that you make the Pareto principle sound that says there's a minority doing all the bad stuff?

Shawn (21:00.378)
No.

Shawn (21:04.368)
No. No, you're twisting this, man. You're propaganda all over right here.

Matt (21:08.814)
No, not really. I'm just trying to understand.

Shawn (21:12.214)
I wouldn't say either of those. I'm saying is statistically like in Levi's example, those numbers help us. These ratios kind of help us. I think to me they do. Now I'm willing to be proven wrong. I'm not saying it's doctrine. If it's wrong, I'll look, I...

Matt (21:21.582)
Grrrr

Levi Barnes (21:22.688)
Yeah.

Matt (21:26.07)
I have no look. I love your doctrine. I love your doctrine that a small portion of people are doing the good stuff. I love that. Like I'm going to take from what you said and say 80 % of the stuff that's good that happens in the church happens from 20 % of the people. But Sean, think about it. It really is true. I like, like when I move, when I moved to Rexburg, these people would, there was this thing that was an acronym. called it STP.

Shawn (21:31.65)
I didn't have my doctrine, I didn't preach that.

Shawn (21:40.144)
Those are your words. Those are your words.

Levi Barnes (21:42.85)
Do you think it applies to missionaries? you think maybe 20 % of the missionaries baptize 80 % of the people?

Shawn (21:45.925)
Yes.

Shawn (21:49.658)
Yeah.

Matt (21:55.342)
Same 10%. And they said, you've got 10 % of the ward that does everything. They show up to all the activities, they do all of the callings, you can count on them, they show up to all the moves, and you've got 90 % of the ward that doesn't do anything. They say, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. So like they would say the Pareto principle really works in the church as well, that like most people, well, like what percent of your ward is less active right now? Probably at least 30%, right?

Shawn (22:12.132)
Wow, so there you go.

Do you find that or not?

Matt (22:24.044)
And then of the percent that's active, would there be like a smaller proportion that's like really active and then a larger proportion that's not so active? And maybe it is, Sean, maybe it is. Maybe the Pareto principle is doctrine and you've identified the scriptures that show us it's doctrine.

Shawn (22:32.24)
think so, yeah.

Shawn (22:39.984)
Well that's your words, I'm not claiming it's Doc.

Levi Barnes (22:41.356)
Well, so here's what is doctrine. If you are a software executive and you show up and you say, why would that take three months? Chat GPT wrote the pro wrote it for me in in 10 minutes, right? That is false. Don't listen to programming executives software executives that say it should be easy. It's not gonna take three months. No, it's not gonna do that. Pareto principle teaches us different.

Matt (22:58.573)
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Shawn (23:05.434)
Wow, yeah, great point. There you go.

Matt (23:09.25)
No, it's true. In writing, it's the same. Like when I write a book, when I write a paper, writing the first draft, like getting the stuff down, that's 80 % of the work, right? And that's pretty easy to do. Not pretty easy, but not as time consuming as the editing and the revising and the making it like what it has to be in order for it to be publishable. That last 20 % takes a lot of time compared to just getting that first draft out.

Shawn (23:34.596)
Well, it sounds like I've successfully sold you on the concept, Matt Levi, but I don't want to, you know, rest on my laurels. Just call me out if I'm cherry picking. I don't want to just use the idea just to like favor whatever thought I have. Call me out. I don't want to be unbalanced in it and I'm willing to abandon it if it's not true.

Matt (23:51.852)
No, I love it. I feel like you called out the whole church with your defense of the Pareto principle. So from now on, whenever you say, Pareto principle, I won't be grumpy anymore. I'll be like, I understand what Sean's saying. He's talking same 10%. These people that do everything and the rest of us, because I'm not in that 10%.

Shawn (24:08.528)
Matt, Matt, what percent of your joy in life comes from you watching C-SP?

Matt (24:15.132)
zero percent.

Shawn (24:16.863)
why do you spend 80 % of your time watching C-SPAN then? Okay.

Matt (24:20.11)
I just can't stop. It's like an addiction. I get really no satisfaction from it. Also like, it's sort of like sleeping. It's like I'm a half asleep and half awake and I feel good about it, right? Yeah. All right. Let's move on to the next topic. The big, beautiful bill. Republicans just passed a massive tax cut for the wealthy, which raises taxes on the poor and increases the size of the federal deficit.

Most Americans strongly disapprove of the bill, yet Republicans pushed ahead anyway. Is the passage of this bill another sign that the US system is broken and cause for concern, or is this an example of representation at its best? Some argue that the best representatives act as trustees rather than delegates. And I put a link to the show notes if you guys want to read more about it. Isn't the federal budget the perfect policy arena

in which elected officials ought to act as trustees.

Shawn (25:20.132)
So just for clarity, Matt, you're saying that this big, beautiful bill is an example of trustees, not delegates.

Matt (25:25.378)
Yeah, yeah, a trustee form of a delegate would be, I want my representative to do this and the representative just does exactly what I want.

Shawn (25:33.252)
And because polls say that the majority of Americans don't like this bill, then they would have voted that.

Matt (25:38.24)
A delegate would have said, we're not going to vote for this because our voters don't like this. A trustee says, you elected me to represent the best interest of our district or our state. And I happen to know more about this and I happen to be smarter or better or whatever than you guys. And so I'm going to do what's best. Even if you don't like it, it's kind of like a parent where they're like, I'm doing what's in your best interest, even if you don't want it, that would be a trustee. And so yeah.

Shawn (25:40.036)
Gotcha, gotcha.

Shawn (26:01.698)
I Levi.

Levi Barnes (26:05.378)
Yeah, I always vote for trustees. mean, like so this is from Like when George W. Bush was elected and we were counting chads in you know November 2000 and nobody had any idea that 9-eleven was coming right so George W. Bush's whole presidency was defined by something that was totally unknown in it when he was elected And so I do think that we're driven too often by policies and we should be voting for character

We should be looking for somebody who is trustworthy in the tread in the the the crisis that I didn't foresee I kind of want somebody that'll be you know up to the moment when it shows up

Shawn (26:47.184)
Wow, good answer, interesting.

Matt (26:48.312)
So then this would be an example of them acting as trustees, right? This is like representation at its finest. You don't want a representative that's just gonna go, you don't want a Lindsey Graham, right? Who's just gonna go whatever the people say, wherever my vote. Yeah, that's not leadership. That's not what you want.

Levi Barnes (27:02.08)
look at the polls and do whatever they say yeah I don't know

Shawn (27:07.258)
But it backfires sometimes Levi, because I'm assuming you're not a fan of this big beautiful bill.

Matt (27:11.544)
Well, he didn't vote for any of the people that voted for- he voted for different trustees.

Shawn (27:14.144)
yeah, yeah, there you go, there you go, gotcha. Yeah, yeah, but the trustee method could fail us, and it has failed you here. Okay, gotcha.

Levi Barnes (27:15.308)
Yeah, all my trustees voted against it, everyone.

Matt (27:26.296)
So, but when it does fail, so think about Tom Tillis, the Senator from North Carolina, right?

Shawn (27:32.046)
all the time. Matt, all the time I think about him. Thanks for, thank you for reminding me to think about him. Tommy? No.

Matt (27:36.366)
He's a Republican who on principle was opposed to the big, beautiful bill because it was gonna raise the deficit and cut Medicaid and various things he didn't like. But he could tell from the polls that his voters were not gonna be happy with him acting on his principles. So before he voted against the bill, he announced, I'm not running for reelection. You guys can find someone that represents you better because clearly my view of what's best no longer aligns with your view of what's best. So that happens, right? Sometimes you act as a trustee

And your voters say to you, that's not the kind of trustee we want. We want you to act in a different way. And so then they vote them out of office.

Shawn (28:12.432)
So in trying to predict your opinion here, Matt, I have to decide, you like, you know, what I know about you over time, Matt, or are you, I'm in the mood to debate, Matt. I'm gonna guess that you want a trustee, not a delegate.

Matt (28:26.144)
I will always want a trustee more than a delegate. don't trust American voters. I don't trust like, yeah.

Shawn (28:27.801)
Okay. Okay.

Yeah, majority mob, you don't like mob rule. You don't like majority rules.

Matt (28:36.14)
I think that something as complicated as the federal budget is such that we should not seek public opinion about what people think about it. Now, we can ask about various things in the bill, but again, like if you ask your average person to explain to you what Medicaid is and how this bill changes Medicaid, 90 % of Americans could not even explain both of those questions to you. So then why do I care what they think about Medicaid in this bill? Their opinion shouldn't matter on that.

And if I talk to the House Republicans who said, if you cut Medicaid, I'm voting against this bill no matter what. And then within seconds, they changed their minds and voted for the bill. I'm like, that's right, because they have a bigger job to do than just think about their vote on this one particular bill. There's a bigger picture that they're looking at.

Shawn (29:22.34)
Well, you've both persuaded me over time, so we all three agree.

Matt (29:28.354)
But is it frustrating to you, Sean, when they do things you don't want?

Shawn (29:31.332)
Yeah, I want to reserve the power to vote these people out if they don't, if they don't, in my opinion, do a good job, right? Of course, right? But that's, that's a lovely part of our, like, you know, we're on this planet, what, 80 years? And so we get only get so many times where we can vote someone in and vote someone out, but you know, we can vote them out, right? If we don't like them, we can try.

Matt (29:51.148)
You can try. You're in California. You can't vote out the people you like, don't like.

Levi Barnes (29:52.47)
Yeah, I do think that-

Shawn (29:54.286)
That's true. That's true.

Levi Barnes (29:55.458)
I do think that Republicans have lost forever the ability to claim they're the party of fiscal responsibility. Like, they lost that. They lost that for me in, you know, 2005. But now it should be clear to everybody. Like, this is the story of my exit from the Republican Party, as I watched them control the House, the Senate, the presidency, and the first thing they did was give big tax breaks to...

Shawn (30:03.352)
Yeah, well not forever, not forever, but for now for sure.

Shawn (30:11.118)
Yeah, fair, fair.

Levi Barnes (30:22.402)
the rich people and explode the deficit. And I thought, wait, you guys aren't serious people. You're just liars. I'm out of here.

Shawn (30:28.406)
Hahaha.

Matt (30:29.742)
Do know who agrees with you Levi? Elon Musk. Elon Musk is on your side. Count him among the people who used to believe Republicans wanted to cut the size of the federal budget, but Shane doesn't believe him anymore.

Shawn (30:42.628)
Yeah, the American party, isn't that what he's done? Third party?

Matt (30:46.04)
But he's going to get a huge tax cut like all that money he put into the, getting Trump elected. He's going to get all that money back in this tax break. So he can only complain too much, right? As he's cashing those checks from the federal government. But don't you think Levi that both parties, that neither party is truly interested in cutting the debt and cutting the deficit.

Shawn (30:53.382)
You

Levi Barnes (31:08.8)
do think that, but only one party talks as if they are. Only one party pretends, yeah.

Matt (31:11.832)
Pretends. Yeah.

Shawn (31:11.982)
Lies about it. That's good point. Good point

Matt (31:16.288)
Yeah, I don't know. think the Democrats are in a tough spot, Levi, even if they win everything back, they're not there. What they're going to do first is say, Hey, let's roll back these Medicaid cuts. And then, but those tax cuts for the rich people are going to be there for a long, long time because the Democrats won't have the political will to really roll back those tax cuts. Yeah, it's too bad.

Levi Barnes (31:25.708)
Sure.

Levi Barnes (31:36.13)
Yeah. I agree. And the Republicans know that, right? And the Republicans know this is going to be unpopular. We won't get another chance like this for a decade. So let's do this. Let's serve our wealthy constituents. yeah, it's sad.

Matt (31:55.416)
So I'm not on the list of Americans that's upset at democracy and saying it doesn't work. I'm on the list that says this is exactly how it's supposed to work. You vote for Republicans, they're gonna do exactly what they told you they were gonna do. Maybe not every single campaign promise, but they are gonna do exactly what they said they were gonna do. They're gonna cut taxes for rich people. They've always said that. I don't recall them saying that they were gonna reduce spending. I really don't. Did they ever say they were gonna, they said they were gonna cut the federal government, but that's not the same as reducing spending.

Shawn (32:27.022)
Yeah, yeah, good point.

Levi Barnes (32:27.787)
I feel like they definitely said they were gonna cut the spending,

Matt (32:32.858)
okay. All right. So the next topic is BYU. We're all we all love BYU. Sean more than Levi and I because Sean loves loves loves football. I know. But they lost their quarterback because he violated the honor code.

Levi Barnes (32:39.554)
Go Cougars.

Shawn (32:41.136)
Why? I didn't go there. Uh-uh. I didn't go there either, so...

Shawn (32:51.504)
Why is it everyone around me is talking about this and I'm like, stop. Who cares? Like, okay, what? Why is this such a hot topic? Yeah.

Matt (33:03.18)
Who cares? Who cares? Come on, Sean.

Levi Barnes (33:05.58)
Well, I first heard about it in Matt's email, so I had never heard of this either. So I'm with you, Sean.

Matt (33:08.238)
I guess you guys aren't at the BYU, but it's all I hear about at work. There's a Salt Lake Tribune columnist who has argued that it's time for BYU to get rid of its honor code because not everyone is treated the same way when they violate the honor code. He cites stories of people who broke the law of chastity and remained in school while others committed less egregious offenses and were kicked out. So the question is, is it time for BYU to get rid of or drastically change their honor code?

Shawn (33:09.168)
But it's a big topic.

Shawn (33:34.948)
Ha ha ha ha!

Matt (33:36.222)
By the way, I was a YSA bishop and I can tell you that this is true. People are not treated the same with the honor code because yeah.

Shawn (33:43.93)
Well, let me ask you this, Matt, because you've had that experience. Who stays and who goes? Is it based on contriteness and like a willingness to make an effort to obey and commit, or is it based on whatever rule is broken? And it's based on the judgment of some, some counsel that's like, we don't like this guy. So he's out. Or is it based on the contriteness of the person that's involved? Clearly Jake, who's not a member of the church who doesn't, I don't know that he really

believes spiritually in these ideas. He was just like, I want to play football at BYU and I got assigned the dotted line, so I'm going to. He's not like going to be contrite about it and be like, okay, all right, I'm willing to live the law of chastity. Isn't that what it's based on?

Matt (34:21.966)
Well, so there's two systems actually at the BYUs. There's the Honor Code Office that if you do something, somebody can report you to the Honor Code Office and that's separate from the ecclesiastical line of authority and they have a process.

Shawn (34:35.438)
I remember that was what Levi's role was when we were doing it. I just watched him just ratting people out left and right. Levi, you're just like, cop, yeah.

Matt (34:39.182)
They and they have a process that I don't know that well. And then there's then there's the ecclesiastical line that if you go confess something to your bishop, there's a different process. So when I was bishop, I this actually happened. There was somebody came to me. They had not been active in the church for most of their life.

Levi Barnes (34:41.164)
Honor code cop. Yeah. I was like, wait, those shorts are too short. That's a lot of scruff on your face.

Shawn (34:47.137)
Hahaha

Matt (35:05.87)
And when they came to BYU-Idaho, they were ready to change their life and went through this huge repentance process. It was such an amazing, like uplifting experience. But as she was confessing the things, and I'm working with her as her bishop, at no point did it occur to me to say, you know, the best thing to help her grow would be to kick her out of BYU-Idaho. Because she had good roommates that were supportive. She had a great like network and she was growing in her testimony. But she did something at one point.

that the honor code office found out about, I can say it because it'll just, what she did was she took pictures of her feet and sold them on Instagram. And the honor code office was livid about that. And so they called me and they're like, we feel like this is prostitution or something along those lines and we need to kick her out. And I spent an hour on the phone with the honor code office saying, she's repenting of her sins. She's in a really great place. And then she actually got her temple recommend for,

for the first time in her life, she got a temple recommend. The day after I gave her the temple recommend, the honor code office kicked her out of BYU-Idaho and told her to go talk to her bishop to repent. And she's like, I don't understand. Like, what am I supposed to do? I'm like, I don't know what to tell you about that, but you just, have your temple recommend, so you're fine. When you go talk to your bishop, show him your recommend and the date on the recommend and tell him he can call me if he wants to. So there are these two different processes, right? Like,

And there were times as a bishop, by the way, that I would be aware of things and I would call. No, I didn't have to call anybody. I could just withdraw somebody's ecclesiastical endorsement and then they had to leave. So it is true that there's different processes.

Shawn (36:42.192)
So, so Matt, but it's no, but it's no different from any other organization or school. There's a code of rules. You have to commit them, keep those rules. If you break the rules, you're subject to 10 people in a room judging and trying to decide if you're on it. And is that a hundred percent just all the time? Absolutely not. So like, it's no different from any other place, organization or school. So now you don't have to change your honor code, but I would hope that your example, which is a beautiful and perfect example, that that's followed more than not. If someone's contrite and trying

they should get second chances. Grace should be applied. We're a church school. Apply grace. Like that's ridiculous. Give mercy.

Matt (37:18.99)
But don't you think that if you cannot treat everybody the same, you should not have a policy.

Shawn (37:25.68)
No one will ever be traded the same man ever never that's impossible. don't I don't think so. I think there's no assistant impossible. That's just not going to happen.

Matt (37:31.345)
okay.

Levi Barnes (37:36.354)
I feel the same. I think that there's, yeah, and I didn't care much for the Tribune article either. I do think that, yes, there are hiccups in the way that it's applied. Yeah, it's not going to be applied uniformly, but it's a good thing.

Matt (37:52.022)
Yeah, I think that this is the way it is in everything. This is an argument my wife and I have regularly because we don't always treat our kids exactly the same. And she feels like if you don't treat your kids exactly the same, like somehow you're not loving, I don't know, I don't explain her position very well. But I regularly say like, people are different. You can't treat everybody the same. And so the expectation that everybody gets treated the same or somehow there's some kind of like,

inequality in the world. That's not that's not true, right? Because people are different. And so they should be treated differently.

Shawn (38:28.346)
So can I answer something? Sounds like we're, go ahead Levi.

Levi Barnes (38:31.254)
Well, and even having a human face to this justice is actually a really good thing. Like, it's kind of nice that Matt can say, no, I've met her. They're only feet, after all. That was kind of a silly story. But like, you know, Matt can put a human face on this and can say, hey, you know, I know that this is the, you know.

Shawn (38:45.976)
You

Levi Barnes (38:55.168)
This is the rule and we have some leeway. So let's talk about what's the right thing to do in this circumstance. I like having a human face to justice there. Even though sometimes it can feel unfair when you hit the other side, right?

Shawn (39:03.556)
Yeah, love that. Matt, points to you.

Matt (39:11.79)
Yeah.

Shawn (39:12.56)
Points to you, Matt, for being a spiritual leader and advocating for these kids. Like, no, it's a good story. I know sometimes you only tell stories that you can brag and kind of puff yourself up, but that's okay because you deserve it.

Matt (39:24.398)
The parents of the kid I kicked out definitely do not think of me that way. They were very, very mad at me. And I was like, I cannot tell you what I know. Well, our son told us everything we need to know. I'm like, I really don't think that he did. Yeah.

Shawn (39:38.0)
Now Matt, before we go on to the next one, at this stage, was, you know, what I love, a big part of what I love about the two of you is you correct me. You be times with sharpness can correct me. So far, this has been kid gloves. Like these are topics I thought that you guys would be teaching me stuff. You're just agreeing, we're just agreeing on everything. I hope Levi, you're coming with some passion, at least for this next one. Teach me something, dude. Correct me, dude.

Matt (40:04.728)
Well, I put this one on specifically because I Levi would be with us. So, and I don't know what I think about it. So here's the big question. So the Washington Post has a story about how an effort to promote racial unity in Edenton, North Carolina has done the opposite. When the city decided to move a statue of a Confederate soldier from the waterfront to the courthouse, many groups on both sides of the issue became very active and the community is now very divided.

This case, in my opinion, is illustrative of what's happening in many communities in the United States. When well-intentioned people attempt to correct historical injustice, others spring into action to defend the status quo. So the big question is this, President Nelson tells us that we should seek peace in politics. Elder Oaks tells us we should seek moderation and compromise on contentious issues. So what is the best way to do both of these?

while also trying to correct historical injustices. Is it best to leave the fight for another day? Is it best to actively and peacefully promote your position? Is it best to just beat the other side by filling public office seats with people on your side? What should we do in these situations?

Shawn (41:15.408)
Well, first Levi, how long do you think it took Matt practicing in the mirror to say illustrative instead of illustrative? That was impressive. That was impressive. Illustrative.

Matt (41:22.19)
Thank you. I hoped you wouldn't have picked up on that, but yeah, yeah, was most of my shower this morning. Illustrative, illustrative.

Levi Barnes (41:26.604)
Well done, Matt. Points to Matt for pronunciation. Illustrious, illustrious, illustrious.

Shawn (41:34.4)
But Levi, you've got to strong opinions here. Okay, good. Say it.

Levi Barnes (41:37.408)
I have tons to say about this, yes. So I'm married to a very powerful sociologist, very brilliant and smoking hot sociologist. And she teaches me all the sociology that I know, right? So in sociology, there are conflict theorists and there are functionalists. And so the functionalists come along and they say, society has these different institutions and they fit together kind of nicely and they're time tested.

Matt (41:39.619)
Go Levi.

Shawn (41:48.367)
Yeah!

Levi Barnes (42:07.456)
And so when you create change, you want to do it kind of slowly, because if you rock the boat too much, you can break that system, which mostly sort of works. And so they would say, do things really slowly. And the conflict theorists come along. So that would be like Emil Durkheim and Talcott Parsons. And so the conflict theorists like Marx,

Matt (42:26.638)
And the citations on those would be 1951, 1953. They're old, old, old people. Yeah, it's old, old, old stuff.

Shawn (42:31.184)
Yeah

Levi Barnes (42:31.49)
Yeah, or 18. Yeah, are old, old, people. Yeah, Talcott Parsons, yeah, it like the 50s, yeah. So the conflict theorists came along and said, no, there actually is conflict in the system already, right? So they said, these institutions that you say work, they only work if you're in a certain group. And so, you know, like the suffragists would have said, this system isn't really working in 1900. We'd like the vote.

And so they were saying, this conflict is already here, let's make this visible. And so those theorists would be like Marx and Derrick Bell and Cecilia Ridgeway is one that is still alive. And so the question then is, well, my question.

Matt (43:16.126)
wait, wait, wait, real fast. Just so our listeners, because they only have those names know Karl Marx. But just, so just to reiterate, it would also be Martin Luther King Jr., right? When, cause he says, justice delayed is justice denied. So it's not Marxist theory. It's just these people that say waiting isn't the best way to get what you want.

Levi Barnes (43:28.8)
Yeah.

Levi Barnes (43:32.715)
Yes.

Shawn (43:37.05)
Saul Alinsky, would he be in that group?

Levi Barnes (43:37.558)
Yes, that's

Matt (43:39.448)
We're not going to bring in some, we could just say Martin Luther King Jr.

Shawn (43:41.54)
the one I know. my bad, alright, alright Martin Luther King Jr. He's good enough? Okay.

Levi Barnes (43:44.706)
Sure, but probably, but like I was also gonna bring in like Gandhi. Gandhi would be a conflict theorist and he said, and the Brits would have said, everything in India is fine, man. Why you wanna rock the boat? And he said, no, rocking the boat is how we get justice for people who are oppressed, right? And we talked about the sons of Liberty, right? We talked about sort of the founding fathers dumping tea into the harbor is a conflict theorist.

Praxology, right? Like that's, that's praxis, right? That's a, that's something that you do to bring the conflict that's simmering and invisible and to make it visible so that we can have a conversation about it. So then my question is, what is Jesus? Is Jesus a functionalist? Is Jesus a conflict theorist? What are your thoughts there?

Matt (44:33.314)
Right.

Shawn (44:35.374)
That's an obvious answer, right? Isn't it? You don't think it is?

Matt (44:37.504)
No, tell me Sean, because I don't... Tell me what you think... Tell me the obvious answer, Sean.

Levi Barnes (44:37.814)
Why is that an obvious answer?

No.

Shawn (44:42.448)
I mean, he disrupted with, I mean, in his three, he was only three years in his public ministry and it was extremely disruptive, right?

Levi Barnes (44:50.07)
Yeah, there was a lot of disruption.

Matt (44:52.888)
We lost Sean for a second. Maybe this was Jesus's way of saying he didn't like Sean's answer on that one. Okay. I think that what I would add to what you're saying Levi is that a lot of people believe that the word peace means absence of conflict because conflict feels contentious and contention is of the devil. And so if we say conflict is the

Shawn (44:54.758)
my back?

Haha, am I back or no?

Matt (45:22.03)
way to deal with challenges of the past, then it feels like you're saying something other than peace. Or they also might say like compromise, right? That like compromise is the opposite of conflict. And so I think for many people conflict and, conflict and compromise, conflict and contention are like, right? Those two are syn- conflict and contention are synonyms, conflict and compromise are antonyms. Therefore,

Peace means avoiding conflict. So Sean, tell us how Jesus was promoting conflict in society.

Shawn (45:57.636)
No, no, no, no, I said disruptive. didn't say he was promoting conflict, but I like that. I see why Matt got mad at me when I brought in Saul Alinsky because you wanted to stick with Martin Luther King and then Levi, you brought in Gandhi because they weren't conflict, they were disruptive, right? It was peaceful. Their strategy was peaceful.

Matt (46:13.314)
Yeah, yeah, and Alinsky is not peaceful.

Shawn (46:17.104)
Gotcha, that's why you got mad at me. Now I understand, that's good, that's good. But it was disruptive, well it was disruptive, but it was peaceful disruptive. Absolutely, right?

Matt (46:19.672)
But no, we didn't hear what you said about Jesus, so tell us about Jesus being disruptive.

Matt (46:28.148)
Yes. So if I'm understanding what Levi is saying correctly, Levi, you're saying the conflict is already there. And so if you try to avoid conflict in society, you're just, it's like you have a wound that you're trying to pretend like it's not really there. And conflict is just saying, hey, here's a wound, let's do something about the wound. And drawing people's attention to the wound that exists is not creating contention. It's just drawing people's attention to something that needs addressing.

Levi Barnes (46:34.327)
Yeah.

Levi Barnes (46:55.852)
Yeah, and opening the wound is going to be ugly, right? It's going to be bloody and pussy, right? It's going to get worse before it gets better, right? But it's the right thing to do because the problem already exists. Yeah.

Shawn (46:56.078)
Is that right, Levi?

Shawn (47:07.612)
But Levi, do you advocate for the Saul Alinsky approach as well? Like, do you justify it? Does your mind, do you justify, no, wait a minute, this wound is so bad, the problem is so established that we need to do some extreme things in order to reverse the course. Or do you only say...

Levi Barnes (47:25.644)
Well, only people on the right read Saul Alinsky, so I have no idea what that man said, I've heard filtered through the right that he, I don't know, says to accuse your enemy of the thing that you're doing, which I don't know. I don't know, what's Saul Alinsky even saying? I don't know.

Shawn (47:30.574)
Yeah, right.

Matt (47:41.684)
Yeah. Saul Alinsky is, is combative. It's very combative to bring attention. So Saul Alinsky's idea is if there's no attention to an issue, you're going to lose every time. So do whatever it takes to bring attention to an issue, whether it's violent, whether it's deceitful, like no matter what it takes, bring attention to your issue.

Shawn (47:43.116)
No, I'm saying.

Shawn (48:01.808)
Because isn't that the response to this argument Levi and your really eloquent way of describing it is, yeah, but people are going to justify violence and deception because the end justifies the means. You know what I mean? Isn't that the risk?

Levi Barnes (48:23.874)
Yeah, well, but I don't think that pointing out the problem is, I mean pointing out a true problem, doesn't necessarily lead to violence. But also I think that you'll find that I am much more open to say vandalism than other people. I don't think that lighting a waymo on fire, that's not violence, that's, you know.

Shawn (48:41.454)
That's what I'm asking about. That's what I'm asking about.

That's what I'm asking about! What's a Waymo?

Matt (48:48.43)
It's a car, a self-driving vehicle.

Levi Barnes (48:50.146)
It's a self-driving car. In LA, they were lighting waymos on fire.

Shawn (48:51.706)
But that is violence. Wait a minute. That is absolutely violence. That's someone's personal property that you've destroyed. Wow, that's violence.

Matt (49:00.066)
Yeah, Levi.

Levi Barnes (49:00.138)
The violence, can't commit violence against a thing, only against a person.

Shawn (49:04.356)
People own things, and so it's what they own. So that is violent.

Matt (49:09.358)
So I'm going to bring in a different idea here. It's called prospect theory. It's a theory in psychology that says that people are more afraid of potential harm than they are supportive of potential good. And there's a challenge that happens whenever there's a status quo policy that if you say, let's change the status quo, then people become very defensive because psychologically that that says there's risk here and it kind of attunes them to the idea of, wait, why are we changing this? And so

Anytime you want to change the status quo, you make people uncomfortable. So I don't think if you're in a minority group in the United States, I don't think there's any way to change the status quo without making the majority uncomfortable in some way. And so if your position in society is peace means no conflict or peace means never making other people upset or peace means

Shawn (49:57.86)
Good, good, make a markup.

Matt (50:07.852)
Look how many people you made mad about this. If that's your idea of peace, then what you're gonna say is minority groups will never have the opportunity to make changes in society.

Shawn (50:17.52)
Well, hang on. That doesn't make sense to me what you just said. That doesn't make any sense what you just said. Levi, when you presented your two theories, you were saying, I can justify immediate calling out of the problem that already exists, and I can fight that with peaceful urgency. And wow, for example, the Confederate statues. Get them out. Let's make the case, right?

Levi Barnes (50:19.906)
I love that.

Shawn (50:43.246)
I've heard so many cases for get those Confederate statues out of the Hall of Statues, and they make perfect sense to me. And you can pass a law, and the Senate did, and then it didn't go beyond that, which...

Matt (50:53.826)
because the majority is uncomfortable with changes to the status quo.

Shawn (50:57.444)
Yeah, so you're saying, okay, well, because it failed right there, don't try it again. Get violent?

Matt (51:02.54)
No, I'm not saying violent, I'm saying conflict, right? So when you propose to change the status quo, you're gonna make the majority uncomfortable and that's gonna create a sense of, that's gonna create discomfort, which often is conflict.

Shawn (51:05.966)
Okay.

Shawn (51:15.536)
But you're saying peaceful conflict, not, is that what you're saying? Compromise and peaceful conflict. No, see, yeah, Levi, that's what he's... Yeah.

Matt (51:19.82)
Also what Levi is saying in sociology is that the conflict is already there. And what we call creating conflict is all you're doing is exposing the conflict that already exists.

Shawn (51:34.102)
Right, but we have on the latter-day lens conflict all the time. Every episode is conflict. We disagree on so many issues and it never escalates or is justified for us to get mad at each other, to hate each other, to vandalize each other, Levi. Right? Explain that. I don't understand that, Levi, how you can justify, someone could justify vandalism or blowing up someone's property that they've worked so hard for, that they've earned with their sacred sweat and tears. Explain to me how conflict can cross over to that.

Matt (51:47.374)
I'll leave, I explain it.

Levi Barnes (52:01.388)
Well.

Google's gonna be fine. so, I mean, one way I would explain this is I would say, if property is the means of someone's oppression, you can't ask them to make property sacred from the get-go, or they've already surrendered, right? If property is the way that you oppress somebody, you can't make property off limits. It'd be just the way I would.

Shawn (52:27.736)
I don't understand. have to explain that little more.

Matt (52:29.454)
So for example, like if we just take Waymo, these self-driving taxi cabs, right? That self-driving vehicle threatens somebody's way of life, whether they're an Uber driver or they're a cab driver. And so if they see that and they've been trying to do something to like get those off the street, because it's taking away their living, and you say to them, you can never destroy property, then they have no way to win, because they've been trying to win in a different way.

Shawn (52:56.688)
That's absolute lie. What you just said is an absolute lie. There's no way to win. If I'm a taxi cab driver and I'm threatened, if I'm a taxi cab driver and I'm threatened by someone else's property or innovation, I can get out of that profession. I can create my own company. can, let's get Sam Dark in here. He's going to agree with me on this side. You be innovative. You be challenged by it. You don't be scared. don't, guys, this is the fundamental issue. You think of people as losers who can't create a Waymo competitor.

Levi Barnes (53:01.794)
Because property is power.

Shawn (53:26.574)
I think of people as, that's an opportunity. I can't believe that we can justify violence.

Matt (53:34.604)
I'm not justifying violence.

Levi Barnes (53:35.116)
Well, but once again, like I think that the conflict already exists, right? Wealthy people exercise their power all the time and we don't call it violence. But when poor people say, I resist, right? Then suddenly we call it violence. But property is violence. Property is...

Shawn (53:49.488)
That's right.

Shawn (53:55.642)
But if the conflict, that's the disagreement here. Property is not violence. It's absolutely not violence. I don't understand that.

Levi Barnes (54:01.046)
Yeah, yeah. It absolutely is. Property is the curtailment of someone else's negative rights without consent by threat of violence. It absolutely is violence. Sometimes justified violence, but always violence.

Shawn (54:06.416)
Play.

Matt (54:16.588)
Right, so the threat of violence in this situation, Sean, is that if I destroy your Waymo car, I can go to jail and I can lose my rights as a citizen because I destroyed a car. And Levi's saying, property is just property. We shouldn't value property more than we value human beings and human life. So burning a tire is not the same as slashing a person's arm with a knife. We should never promote violence, but destruction of property should never be equated with violence. I think that's Levi's argument.

Levi Barnes (54:45.996)
Yeah, I don't relish property destruction, but I think it's called for sometimes. I think the US labor movements and the suffragist movement all relied on destruction of property and it was good.

Shawn (54:46.894)
destruction of property should never be equated.

Shawn (54:59.408)
So help me square this up with, and I'm willing to change my mind on it with the scriptural or latter-day lens, right? We believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and their property.

That's the scripture, right? We also believe, we believe, 134, we also believe that each individual free exercise of conscious, right and control of property and the protection of life, like equated, equa...

Matt (55:11.982)
It is that is indoctrinated covenant section 134

Matt (55:22.733)
Mm-hmm.

Levi Barnes (55:23.362)
We need to be keeping a tally, Matt. Here we came again. All right. So DNC 134 pulls ahead of Pareto principle.

Shawn (55:28.164)
Yeah, he's tallying it up. It is the latter. We are guys. are called the latter. We are are called mock all you want, but we are called the latter day lens. We are meant to bring in scriptures that you guys have not. And I did.

Matt (55:39.79)
I'm not mocking you, Sean.

Levi Barnes (55:42.106)
I have scriptures to talk about, they're there. mean, so my scriptures are about whether Jesus was a conflict theorist, right? So and I see both things. I see when Jesus, you know, deals with the Pharisees, right? He calls them names, right? He calls them white and sepulchers, and he calls them generation of vipers. And he sees things happening in the temple and he flips the tables, right?

Shawn (56:02.542)
not violence. You justifying that as violence?

Levi Barnes (56:09.59)
destroys property. And so in those cases, he was a conflict theorist because it was a big deal because he was like, that's a big deal. We got to correct it.

Shawn (56:15.792)
And what was he 99 % of the time, except for those two examples? Sorry, 90 % of the time.

Matt (56:20.514)
Wait, let's go to Pareto Principle. 90 % of the time. Jesus was 10 % of the time conflict theorist.

Levi Barnes (56:25.206)
Well, but so the only...

The example that I could find where he was functionalist was maybe when he was invited to pick a fight with the Romans, right? When they said, should I pay taxes? And he says, who's on the money? Render unto Caesar's that which is Caesar's, right? And in that case, that was somebody inviting him to create or highlight a conflict that was there, right? Roman rule wasn't a lot of fun, right? But in that case, Jesus said, that's not a fight I'm gonna pick. Render unto Caesar's that which is Caesar's.

Pay your taxes, that's not my priority right now. My priority is taking care of minorities and the poor.

Matt (57:05.805)
Well, what about when Pilate is talking to him and he says, are you a king? And Jesus says, my kingdom is not of this world. Is that a conflict theorist or a functionalist? He's a functionalist, right? Cause he's just stepping out of it. Yeah.

Levi Barnes (57:19.436)
Yeah, yeah, I think there is functions, yeah. Yeah.

Shawn (57:25.136)
Hey, it was interesting. Thanks for allowing me to kind of fight back and ask questions because I do. I don't understand a lot of that language, but I'm willing to learn.

Matt (57:37.256)
I think the big point I hope all of our listeners will take away from this is that you have to do what you feel is right. You have to stand up for what you feel is right. And the reactions that other people have cannot be the way that you decide whether what you're doing is right or wrong. You do what you feel is best and whatever you feel like President Nelson or Elder Oaks tells you to do, you have to follow your gut on those things. And if that means that the people around you

or going, maybe you've exposed some conflict, right? And they're gonna react in a really negative way. Or maybe your peaceful little town suddenly is in an uproar because you're trying to make decisions and doing something that you feel is best, but you can't let the reactions or the perceived reactions that might happen decide what you're gonna do in the moment. Is that fair?

Levi Barnes (58:26.796)
I love that, yeah. But also light something on fire sometimes, from time to time.

Shawn (58:31.734)
Levi, put your hand out. I'm gonna slap your hand right now.

Matt (58:33.07)
Did you know that I teach a class on interest?

Levi Barnes (58:34.53)
No, Matt, that was seriously really great. I 100 % agree that too often we shrink away from saying a thing that needs to be said because we're afraid of how people react.

Shawn (58:40.496)
I don't know what I did.

Matt (58:47.968)
And too often we avoid protest because we feel like there's something wrong in protest. But in that very talk where Elder Oaks says that we should seek moderation and compromise on contentious issues, he says that protest is a legitimate form of democratic practice.

Shawn (58:48.24)
I don't know if I agree with that, man.

Shawn (59:04.75)
Yeah, but Matt, bet 90 % of the people in America would agree and support and defend protesting, but not rioting and violence. The opposite would agree.

Matt (59:16.224)
Rioting is not a legitimate form of protest. In the political science literature, rioting and protest are not even the same thing.

Shawn (59:22.384)
Levi, do you agree with that?

Levi Barnes (59:26.412)
What about kneeling during the anthem? Do people support that kind of protest? It is protest. Does 90 % of the country support it? No. No. Not even close.

Matt (59:29.678)
100 % legitimate. That's protest. Yeah, that's protest. Yeah.

Shawn (59:32.236)
Absolute, like perfect, perfect, perfect. Great point. Good point. Good point. Yeah, but, but, but, but common sense says that kneeling is not, is not riding, riding and violent, yet burning a car down and graffiti is.

Matt (59:36.578)
hahahaha

No, but that's-

Matt (59:47.01)
Violent, right. Rioting is something totally different. We have riots all over the world all the time and very, very rarely does a riot have anything to do with politics or an issue or anything like that. And I would say Sean in Los Angeles, when they showed the videos of the riots, I would say that that was the media trying to manipulate a narrative to make things appear to be something different than what they were. Because most of what was happening in Los Angeles was peaceful protest with occasional rioting.

Shawn (59:59.268)
Yeah.

Matt (01:00:15.768)
But the rioting is what gets the clicks and the rioting is what makes a fun news story. And the rioting is what shapes a narrative of these people are dangerous. But most protests are very, very peaceful. Even protests Levi goes to where they burn things, mostly peaceful, right Levi?

Shawn (01:00:24.56)
Yeah, Yeah, I would go with that, for sure.

Levi Barnes (01:00:33.75)
Mostly peaceful, totally right, MLK said, riot is the language of the unheard. So I wonder if sometimes when we see a riot.

Matt (01:00:35.852)
Yeah, it's true.

Matt (01:00:42.046)
was he was wrong about that he was wrong about that

Shawn (01:00:44.132)
Yeah, he was wrong about that.

Levi Barnes (01:00:46.71)
I wonder if when we see a riot, should think, I mean, like, I think that we have a very modern perspective on this, right? But riots were an essential part of the American Revolution. They were an essential part of the end of slavery and essential part of women getting the vote and essential part of creating workers' rights. All of these came by destruction of property all over the place. That was definitely a part of all of these things, starting with the Boston Tea Party, right? Which was certainly, you know,

Matt (01:01:14.358)
Not a riot. That was a protest.

Shawn (01:01:16.73)
No, they destroyed property. They destroyed property. That was riot.

Levi Barnes (01:01:16.926)
Okay, destroyed property.

Matt (01:01:19.214)
Sure, sure, Don't know. So now I'm gonna just put on my political scientist hat for a second. A riot is like when you light a match and you get this really big flame and then it goes out really quickly. A riot is a momentary, temporary thing that doesn't really have anything to do with the issue at hand. So you can have a protest and then there will be a riot kind of like on the side of that. It's like when there's a thunderstorm that comes in and there's tornadoes as a part of that.

Shawn (01:01:24.08)
Do it!

Matt (01:01:48.152)
There's the thunderstorm and then the tornado is a separate little thing. A riot is like this conflagration of emotion and energy. And maybe Martin Luther King says it's unheard voices, but really Martin Luther King, if he could choose Martin Luther King Jr. would have never had riots accompany his protest because the protest is organized and it's peaceful and it draws attention and the riots actually detract from the purpose of the protest. And the riots really serve no political purpose. They happen.

But if you're really in charge of a protest, you would prefer there to never be rioting associated with it. But sometimes people are so mad. It's like they'll light a match and then something will happen. It's like a firecracker or something like that. But it goes out as fast as a starter.

Levi Barnes (01:02:25.186)
Mm-hmm.

Levi Barnes (01:02:31.308)
Yeah, and I didn't mean to suggest that Martin Luther King is a fan of riots. He's just saying when a riot happens, pay attention to who's unheard. They do happen from time to time. He doesn't prefer them, but pay attention to who's unheard when a riot happens.

Matt (01:02:35.694)
Hahaha

Matt (01:02:47.576)
And he said that because he was politically astute and said, I can mobilize those people in an organized way and get political power through protest.

Levi Barnes (01:02:54.39)
Yeah. Yeah, I think that's right. think that's right. Yeah, not my favorite way to protest. Much better ways to do it. But yeah, don't light anything on fire. I shouldn't have said that.

Shawn (01:02:59.32)
I love Martin Luther King. We love him.

Matt (01:03:03.98)
Yeah. We're going to leave with that. I've been waiting the whole podcast for Levi to say that. So we're going to end there.

Shawn (01:03:07.544)
HAHAHAHA

Levi Barnes (01:03:12.449)
You

Shawn (01:03:13.572)
love you Levi.

Matt (01:03:14.904)
Hey everybody, thanks so much for joining us. We'll talk to you guys again next week.

Levi Barnes (01:03:15.266)
I love you guys too.