Matt (00:01.059)
Hello everybody and welcome to the Latter Day Lens. It is so good to have you with us this week. I'm your host, Matt. With me as always is Sean. Sean, my ever dear companion and friend who's never left my side. And of course, back almost from the dead, David is back with us again. It's been so long. We almost forgot you were here, David, and now you're back. He's back and I've been saving, saving a topic.

Shawn (00:13.015)
You

David (00:22.55)
I'm not dead yet, I'm only mostly dead.

Matt (00:30.725)
for when David would join us again. it's going to be the big question this week.

Shawn (00:35.161)
And David, Matt has been accused in the past of not caring enough about the audio quality in this. So if you could get a little closer to the mic, that's awesome. Because I'm just protecting you, Matt. I'm protecting you.

David (00:42.842)
yeah, gotcha.

Matt (00:45.475)
Whoever's.

Yeah. This last weekend I was with some of my buddies, one of whom is like the most dedicated listener to this podcast. And I was asking him like, first he was like, did you really want to quit the podcast? And I'm like, no, no, no, I would never. And then we started talking about all the hosts and it turns out that our listeners love all the hosts, including you, David. You have fans out there, David.

Shawn (01:09.475)
Yeah.

David (01:10.574)
That's a first for me.

Matt (01:12.825)
Welcome to the world of fame and glory. We hope you enjoy it. All right, so there's a couple of things in the mailbag. I often don't read the people who hate on me from the mailbag, but this is a good friend of mine just emailed me to hate on me. And I just, I'm in a mood where I'm like, I've got to read this hate. So it starts like this, Matt, Matt, Matt.

You really need a conservative voice on the podcast. I'm glad you brought the discussion back to Christlike living, but the, now I'm gonna assume that this is swear words, but there's a bunch of symbols here, but the swear words about Kamala, she is brain dead and full of word salad. When asked what she would have done different than Biden, she replied there was nothing she would have done differently. One would need a screw loose in their head to support her in the next election.

Just letting you know my opinion and it's signed my pal. So I'm really glad it's Bill. Bill wrote in and let me know that you'd have to have a screw loose to support Kamala in the next election, which is fine. think that's the kind of Bill, just to be honest, that's the kind of peace and love that President Nelson is encouraging us to do. So I appreciate it. I know that although I call myself a conservative, a lot of people don't believe me.

Shawn (02:27.897)
you

Matt (02:36.653)
but I feel like I'm the conservative voice on the podcast. Right, Sean? I'm the conservative voice. But do you know what I noticed in what he said, Sean? Before the election, you would say Kamala Harris and say word salad. And so I think that's what a conservative is supposed to say about Kamala Harris, word salad.

Shawn (02:40.889)
And all that matters is how you feel about it. That's all that matters.

Shawn (02:58.531)
I don't think that you need to have any title or label on yourself to recognize that Kamala Harris can't speak very eloquently or articulately. That it's literally a word salad. Just watch any time she talks. It is a word salad. You don't need a label for that.

Matt (03:04.097)
You

David (03:13.966)
I think Matt, you put a lot more distinction between President Biden and Vice President Harris than most people did. I think you felt like this is a whole new game, a whole new story, a whole new push. And for most of us, it's like, well, the face has changed, but this is the same game. And it really didn't change the election story much.

Matt (03:32.569)
But would you agree with me, David, that Joe Biden was more conservative than Donald Trump?

Shawn (03:38.925)
HAHAHAHA

David (03:39.57)
The word conservative is just so flexible and make it be whatever I want as of the last 10 years that I hesitate to use the word with either of those two.

Matt (03:51.523)
I'm gonna take that as a yes. That sounded like a yes to me. All right, this next listener wrote in, now I always find people that say mean things to Sean, but this person also said they really liked our conversation about RFK Jr. And we'll read another one about RFK Jr. in just a second. But at the end of this person's message, they said, on a separate note, Sean's career sounds so interesting. Every time I hear snippets about it.

David (03:53.838)
It wasn't a no. It wasn't a no.

Matt (04:21.357)
Maybe I haven't been listening long enough, but I would love to hear more about Sean's career and experience, especially working in the pharmaceutical industry. Now, I don't think anybody else wants to hear that, Sean, but I did think it would be nice for you to know that our listeners think you're a fascinating person.

David (04:32.767)
you

Shawn (04:40.685)
That is very nice. That's very kind. Yeah, I don't know. I'm not sure which part was fascinating. I could go off on any tangent and be like, maybe that's not what they meant.

Matt (04:46.626)
Yeah.

Yeah, that's true. You do bring in a lot of your personal experiences in the podcast. So I think what I would say to this listener is you should listen to every single one of our past episodes. We've got 137 of them now. Yeah, you're to learn a lot about Sean in those 137 episodes. If you listen to all of them.

Shawn (05:00.025)
to learn more. Nice.

Shawn (05:06.251)
Yeah. Yeah. And if you want to learn about the best branding graphic design website, advertising, marketing builder ever. Yeah. Keep listening. Right. Right. With experience in big pharma. Yeah. Keep listening.

Matt (05:13.697)
It's true. It's true.

He started by selling his soul to Big Pharma and then he found a space for himself doing good things for good people. Is that a good summary?

Shawn (05:29.229)
Was that foreshadowing, Matt? You just yelled at me for not wanting to sing. Matt, there's nothing that triggers you more than me foreshadowing. You just foreshadowed one of our topics. Hypocrite.

Matt (05:37.981)
I'm sorry. I know I've done it twice now just because I said you can't do it. Okay, so let's get to the RFK thing. So this listener wrote in and said, a few things to add regarding RFK Jr. First, he still makes money when Weisner Baum successfully sues vaccine companies. They've paid him $800,000 in referral fees so far. Second, he changed the recommendations for the new COVID booster.

which is the reason you cannot get them without a pre-existing condition, even if you want to. So there you go, Sean. Some of our listeners are watching him closely and are not happy with his track record.

Shawn (06:12.889)
I didn't know that he makes money when law firms sue pharma. I love that point, because that shows him as, that's a sketchy, that's a really sketchy tie there, right? If his whole platform is to crusade against pharma and he also makes money off crusading against pharma, that's pretty sketchy. So I appreciate the listener bringing that up. That makes me want to look into it more, but I'd have no problem with him changing the recommendation for the COVID booster. That's totally fine.

Matt (06:40.237)
Well, what if I want to get a COVID booster and now I can't because I don't have a pre-existing condition?

Shawn (06:44.766)
is this a free market discussion? Are you like, Hey man, let the free market play out. Don't let government. Are you going to argue for free market right here? Is that what you're doing?

Matt (06:51.449)
No, I'm not. I said everything I want to say about RFK Jr. The man can't sell out.

Shawn (06:55.224)
Okay.

David (06:56.396)
You remember that old, that old church movie about the Native American and the rattlesnake at the top of the mountain. And we knew what he was when we picked him up. That's, that's RFK. We knew what he was when we picked him up.

Matt (07:01.922)
Yeah.

Shawn (07:02.615)
I don't.

Matt (07:04.855)
Yeah

Sean, you don't remember?

Shawn (07:07.521)
that's good point.

Matt (07:10.915)
You don't remember, Sean, did you not get raised on like FHE movie, like VHS in your home? What did you guys do on Sunday?

Shawn (07:17.753)
We definitely watched all those. Let's test this. Don't be selective with your rattlesnake ones. Who was the kid? Who was the one? The one that had the famous LDS actor guy and it was like, just to take, you to put the cassette tape in and then you'd click the thing. Who's that kid? There's like, name that, Matt, and then I'll believe you that you know all the old videos. Paul? Something about Paul?

Matt (07:39.139)
I know them all, your description was not at all helpful. Your description was, put in a video cassette and push play. Who do you see?

Shawn (07:45.635)
Ha

David (07:46.594)
Guessing Jimmy Stewart? know.

Shawn (07:48.749)
No, not that famous guy. He was an LDS, the other bald guy that was in all kinds of commercials. That doesn't help? That doesn't help? No, was he LDS?

Matt (07:55.136)
Orville Redenbacher, no no, Wilfred Brimley.

David (07:56.866)
Wilford Grimley, diabetes.

Matt (08:01.955)
Yes Wilfred Brimley's Eld- well I don't know if he's Eldius.

Shawn (08:03.619)
He was on the TV show, KWRC Cincinnati or something like that. No, it's not. WKRP, who is that David? Who's that actor? Okay, all right. Yeah.

Matt (08:07.255)
Yeah, that's Wilfred Brimley.

David (08:08.683)
WKRP, there you go. I don't know, that's all I got.

Matt (08:13.677)
Wait, he was in church movies? Sean, I'm starting to think that your parents lied to you. That they're like, it's Sunday, we can only watch church movies. Did you know that WKRP is a church show? And all these people are members of the church. And they're like, this is the show runner to KSL or something like that. They're like, okay, what? Gordon Jump was in a church movie? Sean.

Shawn (08:19.565)
Yeah

Shawn (08:28.281)
I'll find it.

Shawn (08:33.763)
Gordon Jump, Gordon Jump.

Yeah, he sure was.

It sure was.

Matt (08:43.043)
How is it we were raised in the same church? Like David and I have all these shared youth experiences and you have none of them.

Shawn (08:49.431)
He was LDS dude, Jordan Gump was, whatever his name is, Jordan Gump was LDS and he was in, yeah, yeah.

Matt (08:56.415)
Okay, that makes up for you not knowing the rattlesnake story. I appreciate that. All right, we're gonna talk more Charlie Kirk than I anticipated, but it's not in the way the listeners are expecting. So here's our first topic. Since the assassination of Charlie Kirk, now just note, I said assassination of Charlie Kirk, so therefore I am a conservative because I'm saying the right words. Since the assassination of Charlie Kirk, more than 30 people nationwide have been fired.

Shawn (08:59.843)
There you go.

Matt (09:26.083)
put on leave or investigated because of social media posts they made about him. According to an NPR analysis, conservative activists and public figures are actively compiling and publicizing these posts calling for those responsible to lose their jobs. This campaign has mainly targeted public school teachers, but has also affected firefighters, military members, and other professionals. A man in Idaho was fired from his job at the Idaho Human Rights Commission after making private instig...

Graham comments implying that Charlie Kirk was in hell. He argued that he was in his individual capacity and that his personal opinions never influenced his work. So the question is, is it wrong to fire a person for expressing personal views on social media?

Shawn (10:12.557)
You wanna take this David, before I jump in?

David (10:14.958)
A couple quick thoughts. I think there are there are legal yeses and nos and then there's kind of what happens in the real world and subject to legal proceedings if you want to fight it. I don't know if this is the sort of protected First Amendment speech that you know you can't criticize the government and I don't know how much that applies to private conversations and I think

I think employers are always going to think about whether the, any headache or complication that comes with this person is worth the contributions they're making. I think this kid in Idaho was still in his probationary first couple of months. And, and the employer just said, you know, this is just more hassle than it's worth. And I think in right to work states, that could be the case. I don't know if there's first amendment implications there. And if so, the guy's going to.

decide whether or not the job is worth pursuing that. I think the aggressive, what do we call it, doxing of when you research somebody's online publicized thoughts and connect the dots and if they got this identity over here and this one over here and you publish it and they're addressed, there's harassment there that I think is beyond civil conversation. Again, I don't know if we're into legal waters yet.

I did find as I was looking a little bit into what does constitute problematic hate speech, where we cross the line. This is from Justice Alito about a dozen years ago. And I think he's quoting Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes from a while before that. He says, speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful.

But the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought that we hate. I don't think we take that off the table. I think that is one of our, it's one of those American things we should be able to, there are risks and consequences that might come in your private affairs and employment affairs, but we've got that right to do so.

David (12:37.934)
I think there are some lines that are way out there that indicate harm, that indicate abuse, that directly incite violence. And in those points, yeah, you lose protection. This doesn't quite seem like it reached that threshold to me. I would like to think we give people that breathing room and maybe an employer could have handled it better. I think there's some knuckleheads online that are just throwing gasoline on the fires these days. And that's probably where we should be putting some attention.

I don't think you'd get fired for that sort of thing.

Matt (13:09.091)
What do you say, Sean?

Shawn (13:10.681)
I think it's perfectly okay, Matt. I think it's perfectly okay. If I have an ice cream shop and an employee starts to spout off how pro KKK they are and share that message, I don't wanna be associated with that. It's perfectly okay for me to say, hey, this isn't working out for us. You're not representing the company. Whatever reason I give, it's perfectly okay for me to say, there's accountability, all right? You have to be accountable for the things you do and say, and I don't want to associate with things that are gonna...

hurt me, my family, my business, or draw unnecessary attention. Yeah, I agree with David that there's, the First Amendment does not protect someone saying whatever they want to not get fired.

Matt (13:51.277)
Right.

David (13:52.27)
think that's vis-a-vis the government, that's the way we address the government. I don't know if that's vis-a-vis the way we interact with other private citizens.

Matt (13:59.989)
Yeah, the First Amendment says that the government can't do anything to prohibit free speech. But certainly I could write if people if someone came into our church and started saying stuff, we could have them leave the church or someone comes into my house. I could have them leave my house. But I don't I understand what you're saying, Sean, about an ice cream shop. But should a public school teacher be fired for expressing an opinion about Charlie Kirk? Like it seems like.

Shawn (14:25.453)
Was it a, they were a public employee? You're an employee.

David (14:28.494)
This is a government employee.

Matt (14:29.345)
Yeah, they're government. Some of these are government employees that they're like firing it.

Shawn (14:33.965)
I mean, David said it right, there's a legal precedence. Let that go to court and let's decide. Is it perfectly okay for someone to make a decision while this person's really saying things that are offensive or draw unwanted attention? Yeah, fire them. And I think it's okay. That's all right.

Matt (14:47.949)
Doesn't it seem like a double standard that President Trump can say all kinds of hateful, awful, nasty things and there's no consequence for that but Joe Blow, temporary employee?

Shawn (14:59.001)
We did, we fired him. We did fire him, man. He lost his job. We fired him. then for, and yeah, but that's.

Matt (15:03.853)
But now he's president again. There's nothing that says I can just fire Donald Trump for if Donald Trump said horrible, hateful things tomorrow, I can't just say, you're fired as president of the United States.

Shawn (15:14.905)
Look, he said something this weekend at the Charlie Kirk Memorial thing that just shocked me. He said some of the effective, like Charlie Kirk preached that we should love our enemies and that we should wish the best for our enemies. And Donald Trump said, I don't agree with that. I hate my enemies and I don't wish the best for my enemies. And I was like, I mean, that's.

Matt (15:36.569)
Well, right, or even, or even like, not too long ago, there was elected officials in Minnesota, right? That got assassinated in their home and Senator Lee from Utah tweeted something to the effect of like, I don't know what it was, but it certainly was much worse than saying those people are in hell, right? It was like, he, he said some awful things. Nobody could fire Senator Lee for that. So it just seems like there's this double standard that like, once you get to an enough of a position of power,

You can say whatever you want to say without consequences, but average citizens don't seem to have those same protections. And to me that seems wrong.

Shawn (16:14.093)
I mean, although I disagree about that every relationship should be viewed through the lens of power, I think you're a little bit right here. Yeah, I mean, obviously these politicians have a tremendous amount of power and can get away with much more than, not everything, right? There's plenty of politicians who are knocked off their thrones because of things they say or do. But for the most part, you're right. Compared to my ability to say what I want, yeah, they have more power. I mean, how do you...

David (16:38.69)
How replaceable are you? And some of us are more replaceable than others.

Matt (16:40.929)
Yeah, yeah. I guess the same is true in the NFL, right? If you're really good at playing football, you can get away with more than if you're not good at playing football. Yeah.

David (16:48.182)
Yeah, you'll be cut next week.

Shawn (16:49.379)
That's right. That's absolutely right. And that's not fair, but that's the way the world works.

Matt (16:55.651)
So this would be maybe 10 years ago, but it was when Chick-fil-A was like taking a stand on same-sex marriage and this person, for whatever reason, I just think it was social media was new, they decided to go into Chick-fil-A and do some kind of a rant against Chick-fil-A in the drive-through and they recorded it all. And there was this tremendous backlash against this person for like what they had done. And I remember watching this documentary about this person where

because of what they had said in this rant at Chick-fil-A and because of the things they had done and the way it went viral, they could not get a job after that. And one time they like had to lie about who they were. They finally got a job somewhere, but then somebody like outed them and said, by the way, this is that person who went viral on social media. And then like, you lied on your job application. And then that person got fired. Like in some ways it feels to me like we're not.

doing, even though I agree with you, Sean, that I should have the right to fire somebody that doesn't represent my place of business well. We're not, we're doing something wrong as a society if we like so severely punish people for just saying what they believe, especially when it doesn't harm anybody.

Shawn (18:05.049)
But is it really a big problem? Is it really?

David (18:07.458)
I think there's an illusion of private conversations though, right? These aren't private conversations anymore. If it's in text, if it's an email, if it's a text, if it's Instagram, if it's anything except an unrecorded personal verbal conversation, there's potential it's going to come out and get blown up and distorted. And you kind of have to have your chin strap on if you're doing anything other than an unrecorded verbal conversation these days.

Matt (18:15.161)
Yeah

Matt (18:29.89)
Yeah.

David (18:36.566)
That's the deal. So how private is it? That's a tricky word.

Matt (18:41.591)
Yeah.

Shawn (18:42.297)
Plus Matt, I'm not sure it's really a huge problem like you're saying. Is it really a cultural issue? Is it really a big problem? It happens anecdotally, it happens every now and then, it happens when something big happens in the media, but is it really a problem?

Matt (18:58.935)
I guess the way that I view it as a problem is I grew up believing that I didn't have the right to talk about religion in public school classes. If we were talking about history or whatever and I had a religious, a pro-religious perspective, I felt like I was prohibited and not allowed to say that because of separation of church and state. And it wasn't until many years later that I was like, no, I have every right to share my religious beliefs wherever I am. A school teacher can't.

principle can't, but I can share it with my coworkers. I can share it with my friends and especially as a student, I could share that. And I think what happens is, these, even though they're like, like, like incidents, right? They're not maybe really widespread as it gets talked about in the news. People are like, I better not like say what I really think because this sort of stuff gets policed by society. And then that, then we all lose our freedom. We're all afraid to talk about what we really think because we're afraid of these.

Shawn (19:48.121)
So yeah.

David (19:54.668)
We're afraid to talk about it publicly in permanent digital ink.

Shawn (19:54.841)
So.

Matt (19:59.225)
But that's not good. Like we should, I think we should feel free to say what we think about things, even if it's in permanent digital ink. Like, I don't know. I think it hurts us when people, it makes people tighten their lips and not say what they really believe. And then that makes it so that you never really get to hear an opposing perspective to whatever it is you think.

David (20:06.606)
Yeah.

Shawn (20:18.381)
Yeah, that's true, Matt. That's true. Because also what it does is it kind of causes institutions or people to collect and gather with their own like-minded people, right? Certain universities, certain institutions. And now what you get is a really limited, very, very narrow viewpoint that's fed and refed to people. And now you don't get this. Yeah, I agree. That's a great point.

Matt (20:29.015)
Yeah.

Matt (20:41.219)
Yeah, I was in church yesterday and a sister in the ward who lives across the street from me, she came up to me and she's like, you and I never agree about anything in politics. She's like, but I really, really appreciate that you share what you believe, but also that you allow me to express my perspective. Like there was this thing we had a gathering in her backyard where we're all just talking about issues. And she was like, I think I don't agree with anything you said, but the way you said it,

made me reevaluate what I think about my perspective. And she's like, and I never get that in the echo chambers of social media. We need that. I think we just need that. Yeah. But I think that everybody could do it, Sean. Everybody could do it if they weren't so afraid that if I say the wrong thing or I don't do it just the right way, somehow they're gonna get mad at me or they're gonna try and fire me.

Shawn (21:14.445)
That's right. Yeah. Good point. And you are good at that, Matt. You do. And you're good at modeling that.

Shawn (21:31.225)
But is there also an argument to make for the effects of kind of being wronged in this situation? So when I was in high school in Denver, I had this religion class and I didn't know until you just said it, but the things that this woman was preaching were, I guess, not protected free speech because she was very anti-LDS and made it very vocal. And I always felt like really like, man, she's totally ripping on me and dogging me. And then she assigned this paper that we're supposed to write. And so was like, oh, I'll just preach to her through this. I'll express my religion through this paper. And she gave me an F.

Yeah, she gave me enough. And it was a well-written paper. It was a heartfelt, well-written, like passionate paper. But that just motivated me, Matt, to be like, you know what? I can stand, I can fight. I don't care the consequences. I can fight for the things I believe in. Like sometimes having an unfair response from someone or having your speech shut down or have negative consequences, sometimes it can empower you to be like, look.

Matt (22:01.273)
Whoa!

Shawn (22:28.249)
I'm not gonna let her bring me down. I'm gonna go forth and believe what I believe and preach what I preach.

Matt (22:32.983)
Yeah.

David (22:33.174)
Now that Jimmy Kimmel's back, I guess today we learned that Jimmy Kimmel's back. So he'll get more followers than he had before, right? He had to take a week long time out and pseudo fired and now he'll probably be more. My guess is he's not going to tone down whatever it was that got him. Yeah. So who's, who's laughing at the end of it?

Matt (22:37.689)
Yeah.

Matt (22:50.753)
Right, well so then in that.

Shawn (22:51.417)
And we'll all tune in and we're all going to tune in. I want to see what he says. Yeah.

Matt (22:56.481)
Right, so then in that case, whatever they were hoping to accomplish by firing these people only makes it worse, right? It only emboldens them. All right, you guys both get the points. I actually thought we would all agree on that and I was wrong because I'm always wrong about, I never can predict what people will think. All right, next topic. Zoom CEO, Eric Yuan predicts that the rise of AI chat bots and agents will lead to a three or four day work week. Bum, bum, bum, bum. Our children will be so happy.

Shawn (23:00.953)
There you go.

Matt (23:26.233)
One of my kids is looking for a zero day work week. So this one's three times more than what he would like, but still. There are other prominent business leaders that have the same perspective. While acknowledging that some jobs will be eliminated, Yuan believes that AI will ultimately free up time for everyone, improving productivity and cutting down on employee burnout. This perspective is part of a larger debate among executives about AI's impact, with some predicting a white collar jobs Armageddon

Shawn (23:29.688)
You

Matt (23:55.991)
and others for seeing a golden era of abundance. So the question is, which is the more likely result of AI? White-collar job Armageddon or a golden era of abundance? I'll go first on this.

Shawn (24:08.405)
Abundance. It's you go first. Go ahead.

Matt (24:11.691)
I think it's up to us to choose. We get to decide. That's why I want to have this discussion, because we get to choose. It could be white collar job Armageddon. Yeah, that's right. We as a society get to decide by the laws and regulations we put in place. We get to choose. Okay, you guys go.

Shawn (24:13.837)
Hahaha

Shawn (24:19.213)
Wait, we as a society, we as a society or we as individuals?

Shawn (24:26.361)
Matt! Matt!

government will save us. We can have an abundant life if the government, those wonderful, righteous government officials can come protect us. Is that what it is? Yeah, that was very sincere. I say abundance, but some will definitely suffer. Some will suffer. It's a fascinating world we live in today, man. It is so fascinating. And I don't know if you guys have delved into AI that deeply. I've delved in very, very deeply with the interest of

Matt (24:35.353)
You

Matt (24:41.209)
Sean, I'm gonna vote for you. You just won my vote. Was that, was that sincere?

Shawn (25:03.265)
Not like, do I write a better email, but really diving in to see how we can apply this to actually improve life. And man, it really is, there's some fun opportunities here, really exciting, fun opportunities here. It's hard, it's not easy, but it takes a lot of effort. And I think that many people are not going to put in the effort. And yeah, they will struggle. There's gonna be some side effects and they're coming and they're already happening. But I think overall, most people are going to invest, especially younger people.

and it will be an abundance marketplace.

Matt (25:34.965)
Even if they're only working three or four days a week, Sean, you're not worried about the laziness that's going to come as people aren't working all the time.

Shawn (25:42.441)
I don't think that's going to happen. That's not going to happen.

Matt (25:44.342)
okay. Okay. What do you say, David?

David (25:46.318)
I think it's probably good and fine that the government wasn't there to be the safety net for all those out of work whalers from the early 1800s. But when we stopped burning Whale Blubber in our street lamps and for all those train engineers and operators who dug the coal and when we all got around on trains instead of airplanes, know, somehow we managed, right?

Matt (26:10.125)
West Virginia wishes there was somebody intervening in their world.

David (26:13.174)
So I think these advancements do give us widespread benefit, makes life better, easier, et cetera. And we've got to do some remodeling with our employment along the way. And that's okay. We wouldn't want it otherwise. I do think this three day, four day week, I mean, I'm on this show today to discuss this question because I'm the dentist with the four day work week, right? So I'm already living this dream.

Matt (26:26.777)
So as.

Shawn (26:33.625)
nice.

David (26:37.6)
And it wasn't always that way. used to be five, been able to whittle to four and yeah, work works better. It feels more balanced. Feel like each day I put in is better by all means. Let's look into that, but go ahead workplace by workplace and see how that suits you. Nobody's going to work only three unless they're very financially secured and satisfied with three. Cause chances are you can probably pick up an extra day and, still be happy. So we'd have to be really hitting on all cylinders.

Matt (26:45.571)
Yeah.

Shawn (26:58.009)
Matt works three.

Matt (27:03.033)
If we count a day's...

David (27:06.454)
before anybody goes to three day work weeks as a rule.

Shawn (27:09.059)
haha

Matt (27:09.559)
If we counted a work day as eight hours, and so a work week as 40 hours, I don't think I put in 40 hours in three days or four days. Let me think. I think it takes me eight days to get to 40 hours of work.

Shawn (27:18.625)
You

Shawn (27:24.851)
You know what? And you're a happy person. And no, I'm not against it. Like I love the people we can figure out, become a dentist or become a professor, obviously, and you can work on a three to four day. I have nothing against it. I just think that Americans especially, there's a work ethic, there's an excitement, there's like almost an addiction to work. And is that causing good balance? Probably not. And are you suggesting Matt that AI when will give us back a better work life balance?

Matt (27:27.64)
Yeah.

Matt (27:51.009)
I'm saying that AI has the potential to create abundance for everybody, but I think that unregulated and unfettered, it's going to lead to white collar Armageddon. Like everybody I talked to, I have a friend who's an attorney and we were talking with his son who's trying to decide if he should go to law school. And I kind of like painted this picture of law as like working a lot in documents and making sure that all of the information in there is right contracts and that sort of thing. And he's like,

You know that used to be my job, but AI is going to do all of that stuff, right? Paralegals are going to go away.

David (28:22.966)
Accounting is a good parallel. Like 30 years ago, accounting was getting the numbers in the right columns. And then we got computerized spreadsheets. We got this technological assistance. And so what are the accountants ever going to do when we don't need them to do that? Well, now they're in an advisory and a strategic role because we've got, we've got this technology assistance that can perform part of their job, but then they become almost more valuable as they leverage it. Yeah.

Matt (28:30.647)
Yeah. Yeah.

Shawn (28:39.616)
Systems, yeah, man. Yeah.

Matt (28:40.952)
But there are...

Matt (28:47.929)
But then the bookkeepers have gone away, right? And well, there aren't as many as there used to be. So the real challenge is colleges are not prepared. Colleges are designed to prepare people for jobs that AI can replace right now. And so we have to rethink the way we're doing education because a lot of recent college graduates, those entry-level positions are not there for them because new technologies exist to do that, right? People...

Shawn (28:51.001)
No, they haven't.

Shawn (29:04.418)
Hmm

Shawn (29:14.659)
Now that's a good discussion to have. That's absolutely correct. Like the falling behind of the professors who aren't embracing or teaching AI in university. They're doing a huge disservice to the kids. Now that's a good discussion to have.

Matt (29:26.841)
But it's not just that, right? It's that even starting in elementary school and starting in high school, what we value in a curriculum, we're not valuing the kinds of things, right? When we talk about career readiness, career preparation, our education system is set up on a model to where we're just training people to do things that AI will be able to do in the future. And to David's point, the higher level thinking skills that will allow a human to do things that AI can never do.

We're not training people's minds to do that kind of stuff. And so we have to like, we have to make the choice to train young people in a way so that they can take advantage of AI. Otherwise, I think it will be a white collar Armageddon.

Shawn (30:08.697)
But don't you think the problem is based in the phrase you just said. We have to train other people to be ready. Doesn't AI enable us to not need to be trained? We can all now at our fingertips find out and experience and learn and do things that no one could do 10 years ago. The power is in every individual's hands to go out and learn and create and grow. Just yesterday I was working for a client. They needed some coding done on a website that I built for them.

needed to go hire someone for five grand to build this little piece of code. Literally got it done in 30 seconds on Claude. Absolutely fascinating.

Matt (30:43.191)
Right, so that means that you don't need coders anymore, right?

Shawn (30:47.447)
No, the coders are now moving into programming and in AI work flowing and in AI agent creation. There's plenty of work for all of us. They just go out and educate themselves because the information is there at their fingertips. Yeah, they have to adjust. We all have to adjust. There's no law or rule that says just stay lazy. Don't adjust and grow and learn. Of course we have to, yeah.

Matt (31:08.281)
But there, but you have to train people to understand that opportunity, right? If somebody says, I want to go into photography or something like that, they have to know like what AI can do and what humans can do. Like they have, it's what I'm saying is it's happening at such a fast pace that people are getting moved out of, they're getting replaced by AI and we're not adapting as a society fast enough to say, this is how we have to retrain you to think about AI, right?

Shawn (31:35.009)
I don't think we have to retrain people. think the AI is enabling us to train ourselves. That's the power in it.

Matt (31:40.631)
Yeah, I don't know.

David (31:40.782)
I think, Matt, I'm curious what you think on this. I don't know how much AI time we've got here, but it feels like AI could help in the education process almost as much as anywhere else because it could become so adept at saying, well, okay, this is where you have mastery. This is where you don't. Let's fill in some gaps. Let's customize learning as you go in a way that maybe the broad-based classes right now, 20, 30, 120 people.

are not as specific in particular and especially in getting educated AI has some particular benefit.

Matt (32:16.759)
Yeah, so I'm not sure that I know fully like how to answer that question. I know that I teach my students how to use AI. I can teach undergraduates to do things using AI that you used to have to learn how to do in a master's degree program or a PhD program. And I can require more of them because AI tools allow them to do things that you used to have to go to a library, check out a book, read the book, write down things like you don't have to do anymore.

But there's like this higher order level of knowledge that you have to have to understand how to organize that altogether. And you can't use AI to get you there because AI is unaware of that gap. So like I have this former student who's like, I want to develop an app that's going to allow a person to get this really specialized information from Congress. And he's like, I can hire programmers and I can hire data engineers to help me build the tool.

and I can use AI to like constantly update the tool, but he's the only one that can create this tool because he has this higher level understanding of like what has to go into it that most people don't have. And I don't know if you can skip the steps. That's what I'm saying, Sean. I don't know if you can just use AI to skip those steps or if you have to actually still go through that process of learning and AI is like taking away the incentive to do this. So I just don't know. don't know if.

I don't know if the way we have things set up is gonna allow people to get to where they need to get to take advantage of AI. Like we're all in our careers in a place where we're like, it's awesome for us, but I'm worried about my kids. I don't know if it's gonna be awesome for them.

Shawn (33:53.933)
Yeah, I I guess you do make a good point. You're kind of your point of if I'm an expert at something, AI will enable me and enhance me and give me an abundance life. But if I'm not an expert at anything, if I don't have a specialty or somewhere, then yeah, maybe it won't solve that for me. So I think, yeah, you're right. Society, should encourage our kids to go become expert at something. Learn a trade, work with your hands, sharpen your mind, become good at, specialize at something.

AI will enhance you and give you abundant opportunities perhaps. That's a good point.

Matt (34:24.641)
Yeah, yeah, I look forward to.

David (34:26.04)
So other than universal basic income, Matt, what's the answer to prevent Armageddon?

Matt (34:31.193)
You're not gonna like this. You're not gonna like this. We just give the abundant life to people.

Shawn (34:32.257)
Other than.

Shawn (34:37.517)
hahahaha

Matt (34:39.769)
I believe we can do it. Other than universal basic income, can we just call it a tax credit, a tax rebate? Can we just call it a like, you know, Alaska pays people just for living there. Can we just call it like a living credit? You lived this year, have 50 grand? No, Alaska's great. Like people are fleeing the state. We have to be careful because Linda grew up in Alaska.

David (34:41.656)
So I said other them.

David (34:46.08)
huh.

Shawn (34:54.393)
Poor Alaska.

Shawn (34:58.913)
I know, but they do str- there is-

Matt (35:08.779)
I don't know. I mean, I don't, I don't know the solution. I do feel like, as, as AI takes jobs away from people, the gap, the middle class is going to go away unless we do something to protect them somehow. And I, I'm not enough of a thinker to know the solution to that, but I, I do feel like we have a choice. I do feel like both paths are open to us, the golden age and, the Armageddon. And I don't want us to choose Armageddon.

Shawn (35:35.117)
I'm gonna give you the points, Matt, for saying what you just said, but I'm gonna twist the meaning so that it is actually worthy of points. We all have a choice. We all individually have that choice, right? Go after it. Specialize, be smart, use AI to better, and don't wait for society to solve these for you. We all have that choice.

Matt (35:40.69)
okay.

Matt (35:54.741)
okay, I'll take those points. But I won't agree with what you said.

Shawn (35:58.544)
Yeah, that's a backhanded point you have,

David (36:00.184)
That's the condition.

Matt (36:01.433)
All right, so next up, following Charlie Kirk's assassination, countries like Russia, China, and Iran quickly spread disinformation online to manipulate public opinion and inflame political divisions in the United States. Russian accounts claimed his death was a sign of impending civil war and blamed Democrats, while Chinese propaganda used the event to portray the US as violent and dysfunctional. Pro-Iranian groups in turn promoted anti-Semitic theories claiming Israel was behind the killing, which by the way,

I just heard two conservative people, it doesn't matter. I'm not gonna go down that rabbit hole. These foreign campaigns often amplify existing domestic conspiracy theories to further their own agendas and sow distrust in American institutions. Meanwhile, the first presidency has issued multiple calls for peace. They did one on the day of the shooting and then the first presidency issued another statement two days later. So my question is, which side is winning right now?

And how can we help the first presidency combat Iranian, Russian and Chinese bots?

Shawn (37:03.897)
I

Matt (37:05.379)
Sean, I know you pay attention to social media, so you'll know better than I will. Who's winning?

Shawn (37:10.731)
man, I think it's kind of simplistic to just give it a winner. think there's a constant tug of war. It's a constant tug of war. And I think the answer is to do with the first presidency did amplify calls for peace and unity. We should amplify those calls. We should absolutely. And I hate to say it, but I don't hate to say it. enjoy say it. Charlie Kirk was actually as much as people didn't like him. He was good at sitting down with people who he disagreed with and respectfully having discussions and

in a peaceful way. He was good at it. He really was. Sure, people disagreed with his tact or to disagree with the things that he said, but he was good at sitting down with people who he disagreed with and amplified, let's peacefully talk about these things. And there just needs to be more of that, more and more and more of that.

Matt (37:56.123)
Do you feel like Sean, that anybody on the right is saying that message? Like there, understand what the people on the left are doing and I listened to a lot of the people on the right. But I don't listen really to what people on the right are saying. Are there any people out there on the right that are not just trying to capitalize on this for their own political gains and are saying, let's do what he, let's, let's just be more like Charlie Kirk.

Shawn (38:23.063)
Yeah. I've seen people on the right and the left do that. Not a ton, but I'm seeing people on the right and the left sitting down and going, wait a minute, maybe he was a really good example of how you don't shut down and villainize people you disagree with. You sit at a table and you discuss it in a peaceful and respectful way. There are both people on the left and right that are saying that. And of course there are both people on the left and the right, yeah, just getting clicks and just fueling the flame.

really hard to see, it really is. Which is why again, I think the first presidency's amplify peace and unity, amplify the message I think that Charlie Kirk was really good at. Sit and talk. Yeah, but yes, I am seeing it, Matt, I am. Are you not? Are you seeing it on the left?

Matt (39:07.074)
Okay, I don't pay enough attention to social media. On the left, no, I think the people on the left are still trying to divide America, right? I think that on the left and the right, they use partial truths, partial information to try to build their cause. I think there are people on the left, I will say Charlie Kirk was very good at what he did.

And there are people on the left that are probably glad that he's not around anymore because they didn't like what he was doing. And I think that they're trying in their own way, right, to sort of, I haven't seen anybody out there actually do something to unify people since Charlie Kirk died.

David (39:50.872)
Can I give you a little one, Matt? And the, I think the root cause of the tension is this us versus them. It's, if, you know, if Charles was with me, then anybody that disagrees is evil and wrong and an accessory to murder or vice versa. It's, very dramatically black, white, win, lose, left, right. So, Tyler Robinson, the shooter.

is from my town here in southern Utah. We're in a one-zip code town. He graduated from high school a couple years ago. My mom subs at that high school. His family's in our state. Kind of like Governor Cox, who had a few things to say afterwards. He said, for a few days during the manhunt, we were kind of hoping and praying. I think he was exaggerating for defect, but...

You know, he's praying it wasn't one of us. And turns out it was. And especially like, you know, two miles away from where I live, this is one of us, inescapably so. You know, when it was Paul Pelosi who got attacked or when it's Minnesota or when it's a school shooting somewhere else, can almost draw the stereotyped, well, it's one of those crazy wrong people who do things for wrong reasons.

And certainly I can say there are reasons why Tyler Robinson is very different. I do not support it. I do not agree. It cannot condone. But it's also for us here, we can't put as much space around that as we'd like to, to be honest. And that I think Governor Cox said that in a way that says, we don't

We don't own this, but we can't push this away like it came from outer space. This is a product of our people or our attitudes or our conversations and our tone. So anyway, here's the, here's the little thing. So probably a lot of places, um, you know, a week after the dust is settling, they have a, you know, last Sunday, so a week from yesterday, they're having a little gathering at the city park.

David (42:14.11)
A of people are speaking and, you know, candles and this sort of thing. Lots of people around here are quite attached to Charlie Kirk, very conservative area. And as part of that, they came together and there was a place you could write notes, you could write letters of support to, you know, for the Kirk family and tell them how much we're going to miss them. But they also had a table set up and you could write something similar to the Robinson family.

to the siblings, to the parents, you know, the dad walked this kid over to the sheriff's office knowing the death penalty is coming. People knew them. He was a local builder. The mom had coworkers. They're still siblings at the high school. We can't play the us them game in the case of Tyler Robinson, not down here. And it's...

rotten. It's so tragic. It's distressing to think about any time I think about it. But it is, we can't play that simple game of only those other people are involved with stuff like this. This time, this place, doesn't let us do that. And I guess I can hold that out as a little example of how there doesn't have to be a you, me,

us them, if you win, then I lose sort of this two-party nastiness that we have that amplifies all these things and as a major contributor. And Tyler was tangled up in a lot of messy junk as, you know, the more we look, the more we can see, well, this is where he disagreed and obviously went clearly too far. But I think, I think our doctrine suggests that, you know, once upon a time,

Tyler Robinson and Charlie Kirk on the same team, right? They both kept their first estate. And if we lose sight of that, when we don't slot our identities in the right order, I think we're not winning the peace war from my point of view. President Nelson kind of invites us to slot your identities in the right order. I'm a child of God. I'm a child of covenant. I'm a disciple of Christ. And then from there,

Matt (44:10.309)
Yeah.

David (44:34.35)
You know, I might talk about my employment or my role in the family or my church service or my political identity, but where have you got that slotted? And if that's coming, you know, am I American before I'm a Republican? Am I a Utahan before I'm a Democrat? I think we probably advance our political identities higher on that list than we ought to. And that's

That's part of our mess. I think if we could tune in to President Nelson's ideas there, that would help a lot.

Matt (45:07.033)
Yeah, that was one of the dominant thoughts I had when I would read the first presidency statement. I thought President Nelson talked about this in April. Like he was so crystal clear even in April about being peacemakers. And I just thought, you know, if this young man had just listened to President Nelson in April, then his life would be totally different than it is right now. They, yeah, go ahead. No, keep going.

Shawn (45:27.331)
Matt, you, go ahead, sorry. If you want a story that's kind of hopeful, something to look forward to, go look up the, you know who Van Jones is? He's a CNN liberal party. So go look up the Van Jones, Charlie Kirk story because they were fighting over this very like left right online. They're fighting for weeks over this, something that happened in the news. And it seems ugly, right? It seems typical, it seems just cliche. But then,

The day after Charlie Kirk was killed, Van Jones went on air and he says, look, I got to share with you this thing that he did. says that the day before it happened, he sent me a message that said this. says, Hey Van, I mean it. I'd love to have you on my show to have a respectful conversation about crime and race. He says, I would be a gentleman as I know you would be as well. And to his credit, Van Jones is like, this, this guy, doesn't matter that we disagreed. He really did reach out across the aisle to have a sit down and talk like gentlemen.

and agree to disagree on things in a peaceful way. And so I do think, Matt, that there are some people like Van Jones, you know, I think like Charlie Kirk was, that are trying, they're trying to do it. But I think you're right, the loudest voices are just, it's not good, they're polarizing. But there are some, there's some rays of hope.

Matt (46:34.106)
Yeah.

Matt (46:44.911)
Yeah, so the other thought I have was I was in Missouri over the weekend and so I went to Liberty Jail and I went to the Steamboat Museum and a lot of people might not know this, but the Civil War kind of like began in that area and members of our church and all that stuff that happened in Jackson County, that was just sort of the beginning of the Civil War. And it just struck me that the way we got to the Civil War was the dehumanization. Like everybody in Missouri at that time believed

that they were fighting for a higher cause, fighting for a more righteous cause, and that the things they did there were gonna have eternal consequences, and they were gonna shape the future destiny of the United States. And I think that, to both of your points, we have to find a way, as Americans, to stop thinking about politics in those terms. That we have to start finding a way to say, like, if we don't come together, we really will, like,

the Civil War is the next step, right? And like back to this other question of like, what's more likely? It's just as likely that Charlie Kirk's dying leads to more and more and more of this. Like I just sort of wonder how many more public figures have to get shot at, have to die before we as a society say enough is enough. And if that happens, then we just continue down that path. And so I guess,

It's kind of a weird way to frame the question like who's winning, but it does sometimes feel like we as members of the church have a charge that nobody else has to be peacemakers and we should be doing a lot more to make sure that the peace side is winning instead of the other side.

David (48:26.926)
Are either of you familiar with the name Krister Stendal? Swedish guy. He'd be on my list of, you know, if I ever get to sit down and talk to this person, this would be interesting to do. And he's passed away by now. But so he's born in Sweden about 100 years ago. He's a young adult during the World War Two. He goes on to become a religious scholar. He speaks a couple of languages, writes a dissertation about Paul. He's a Lutheran. That's the predominant.

religion in Sweden. And he ends up, he's on the faculty at Harvard Divinity School. He goes on to become the Dean of Harvard Divinity School and then was appointed Bishop of Stockholm back home in Sweden. And in the early 80s, he's giving a press conference. And this is the latter day lens, not the Lutheran day lens, but the twist is coming. This is a little bit strategic. This is an actual, what could I do?

Matt (49:18.565)
Hahaha

David (49:24.374)
So he's at this press conference and he says, I'm to give you three rules for religious understanding. And this is what he lived. I think he probably had the tension that comes with being an academic and a religious scholar and languages in Europe. And he would later do stuff in the Middle East. But as far as what can I, what are strategic steps? He said, here's three. He says, get your information from the adherence of the religion.

And when I say religion, you could swap in politics these days. The behaviors are very similar. know, we have a conversation with someone who's a Baptist if you want to know about the Baptist. Or maybe check their website or turn into their channel. But don't, you know, if you're going to get information, get it from the inherence of that religion or that belief. Number two, don't compare your best to their worst.

I remember as a missionary in Guatemala and I'm sick and it's hard and I ran into some people and I'm only a couple of months in and I've got year and a half to go. And these people came down and they were doing like, you know, matching t-shirts from some church in the Midwest. They were there for 10 days and I thought, well, that's cute.

You know, arrogant me thinking, well, I'm here with a two year mission and you're just a week or two pretending you're a missionary. And it's just such a, you don't, you can't compare, right? We don't compare the Tabernacle Choir with the home singing of the Amish folks. And we don't compare the way we do missionary work or we collect tithing with how other people do it. You don't compare your best to their worst. And you shouldn't do that politically either. Number three, leave room for holy envy. Meaning.

There might be things, you could say, you know what, I can appreciate the way those folks are a little more enthusiastic when they sing their songs. Those Catholic folks, they may not take the sacrament weekly like I do, but when they do, they seem to be pretty into it. Like that's a special moment. Maybe I shouldn't be quite so routine when I do that. You can appreciate that without being any less.

David (51:35.246)
So the reason he was having that press conference, he was going to bat for our church. We were getting a lot of pushback at the opening of the Stockholm temple. And he had some elitist connections and he, as the bishop of the Luther Church in Stockholm, was trying to make space for us. That was one of the things he had some holy envy for was, hey, you know what this vicarious work you do? That's special.

Matt (51:45.275)
Mmm.

David (52:02.934)
I kind of, you know, that's, that's meaningful. And he wasn't any less for doing that. He wasn't any less committed. He was still qualified and effective in his role, but he made room. So when the first presidency says, and I quote, we all, we urge all to reject violence and build understanding. I appreciate those three steps from Krister Stendle that are built to

Build understanding could be could be religion. He talked about religion, but it seems politics are in that same line these days. So those three things I think are handy.

Matt (52:35.099)
I like it. Thanks David. I'll give you the points. So you can spend them wisely. You guys might've thought that that was the big question, but it's not. The big question is like in a whole different direction. I can't wait for this. In Doctrine and Covenants section 109, I'm going to start in 64 and read 65. There's more we could read, but this is the dedicatory prayer to the Kirtland temple. It says, and the children of Judah may begin to return to the lands which thou didst give

David (52:37.422)
Nice, fold the head.

Shawn (52:38.531)
Hehehehehe

Matt (53:03.995)
to Abraham their father and cause that the remnants of Jacob who have been cursed and smitten because of their transgression be converted from their wild and savage condition to the fullness of the everlasting gospel that they may lay down their weapons of bloodshed and cease their rebellion. So my question is, any student of American history will learn that talking about Native Americans as wild and savage

and the white people coming in to redeem them from that is racist. And so this is my question, is this racist? And if it is, what are we supposed to do when canonized scripture appears to be racist? Because Sean always does this sort of out where he's like, is it canonized? Is it canonized? And in this case, I can say, yes, Sean, it's canonized. It's canonized.

Shawn (53:49.305)
Why are you excited about this question, Matt?

Matt (54:00.696)
It appears to be racist.

Shawn (54:03.225)
Well, there's two, I think there's two really important principles to follow here. One, always look at scripture in the context of all of scripture, right? We have to, can't just isolate one and go, well, that means racism, right? You have to look at the rest of scripture. You definitely have to focus on the abundant verses throughout scripture that say, that all people everywhere, bond and free, black and white, male and female.

are invited to come unto Christ. The messages of all are invited if they'll just repent. All are invited if they, right? There's an abundant of anti-racist messages. Clearly Paul taught, like there's no such thing as a Jew versus a Greek.

Matt (54:40.443)
But this particular verse feels racist. Does it feel racist to you, Sean? okay.

Shawn (54:44.077)
Well, that's the first thing you have to consider, right? So how can it, of course it's dissonant, right? If you're gonna have to go, if you understand that the doctrine preaches that there's no, if you look at black or free, doesn't look at you, or black or white, Christ doesn't look at you differently. And so if you're coming here, then the second thing you have to do, I think, is understand the context of the verse. So are you suggesting that this is speaking about whom? Who are you suggesting this is speaking about? The tribe of Judah?

Matt (55:12.495)
The Native Americans. No, the Native Americans. The children of Jacob in this context, he's talking about the Lamanites.

Shawn (55:16.269)
Why? You're talking about the.

Shawn (55:21.825)
Why would you jump, see that's again, you have to look at the context of the verse. Why would you just assume that? Why wouldn't you assume that he's talking about our fellow citizens in Ukraine and Russia and China and everywhere?

Matt (55:31.503)
Because that's in one in that particular context and that particular moment. The idea was that the Lamanites are going to blossom as the Rose and they were the children of Jacob. They're the remnants of Jacob here in the new world and that they're in a savage condition that will bring the gospel to them and they will no longer be savages.

Shawn (55:44.665)
Yeah, but you, but,

Shawn (55:49.153)
Not just, see that's where I think you're looking at it narrowly. The entirety, no, but you also have to look at the context of the 66 chapters in the D &C before. The commandment was to take the gospel to the entire world. So why couldn't he be talking about the remnants of Israel who have been scattered throughout the entire world? Why is it specifically to one part of the world? I don't think it is, I think.

Matt (55:53.133)
I'm looking at it in the context of that time.

Matt (56:13.871)
because that's how I think it's, that's what I think. Okay. So you're saying it's not necessarily racist. It's just, I'm reading racism into it where it's maybe not there. Okay. What do you say David?

Shawn (56:22.039)
Yeah, yeah, you tend to do that. You tend to do that. Because if I'm right, Matt, then what he's saying is that the children of Gad and Isaacar and Zebulon at times rebelled against God in a wild way, right? They were wild in their, what's the other word? Wild and savage way. And sure, you could go look at the history of the world and look at the scattered people. Let's just assume the scattered Israel is everybody, right? Isn't it everybody?

Matt (56:35.727)
Yeah, yeah.

Savage.

Matt (56:50.395)
I don't think that's what he's talking about in that verse.

David (56:52.684)
This seems pretty targeted at what they would have called the Lamanites in the 1830s.

Shawn (56:57.657)
Why? don't see any, I read the whole thing. I don't see any evidence that they're talking about Lamanites.

David (57:00.694)
Yeah. So this is dedicatory prayer for the Kirtland Temple and among a lot of other people we're giving attention to. I start in 61 through 67, I see scattered on the mountains and, you know, children of Judah and wild and savage and weapons of bloodshed. That does seem...

Shawn (57:20.195)
By the way, the Lamanites weren't the children of Judah. So how could it possibly be Lamanites?

Matt (57:24.399)
No, I know. that particular verse is talking about the children of Jacob, which would be the Lamanites.

Shawn (57:32.478)
But in the verse right before it, says, it just says the children of Judah.

Matt (57:34.905)
Right, that one's about the children of Judah returning to the Holy Land and fulfilling the gathering of Israel in the Holy Land.

Shawn (57:42.445)
Okay, then your argument falls apart even deeper there because if it's just talking about the children of Jacob, the Lamanites were what part of the children of Jacob? Which part? That's right, Manasseh or Ephraim, right? Okay, so why wouldn't he specifically call out Manasseh here? Why would he say the children of Jacob if he's not talking about the entirety of the world and he's not talking about every child of Jacob? Levi, Judah, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher.

Matt (57:53.604)
Manasa.

Manasseh specifically.

Matt (58:06.906)
Well, because they knew what he meant. didn't... because they all knew what he meant. Okay, what do you say David?

Shawn (58:12.793)
Who knew what he meant?

David (58:14.606)
I think the two important points here are anytime you're talking about race and ethnicity and righteousness and scriptural passages, we do need to emphasize that we have gotten it wrong in the past and we have read things into the scriptures and maybe they were even things included by scriptural writers that were

interpretations of the connection between ethnicity and righteousness and we have to emphasize just clearly again and again that there is not a connection between ethnicity, race, righteousness, and favor with God. And we've gotten that wrong in the past and so you got to start there. And if you're looking for it in the Book of Mormon you'll find the place is peeking through

that you know what, the skin got lighter here because yeah, they hung out together for a few generations. And I think the readers, the early readers of the Book of Mormon, and they would have been the ones listening to this dedicatory prayer. And the way that the Book of Mormon is constructed through Nephi, who saw visions of his posterity wiped out by dark skin folks, and Mormon and Moroni.

who spent their lives having to fight against dark skinned folks, wiping them out. We're talking pre-Gregor Mendel. We don't have genetic understanding. We see trouble coming from this. And I think there were at least subconscious assumptions made on what's going on with these people and what color is their skin. And I wish I could find a different word for that, but I think racist would be the right word.

Matt (01:00:03.548)
Yeah.

David (01:00:09.74)
When I say that you believe something about someone based on incorrect beliefs about their skin and that caused you to treat them differently or see them differently. So I don't think we can escape the fact that there are whiffs of potential racism in the either authorship and or reading of of scripture. And so when we run into it, what do we do? And and I don't I don't think we have to explain and

pretzel our way out of that necessarily, and even though it's more comfortable to do that, I think we can call it what it is and say, well, this is metaphorically speaking, but we should say, hey, I think we should recognize that even in gifted prophetic people, we can make assumptions as the gospel comes through imperfect people.

their assumptions, their worldviews are still part of the coloring there. I shouldn't say coloring about a conversation about race, but you know what saying.

Shawn (01:01:16.626)
Look, I have no problem pointing out that throughout the history of all of scripture, go to Moses who murdered a man and buried him in the ground, go to David who was an adulterer, go to every prophet and every, they're flawed, they're humans, they make mistakes. Maybe, yeah, Brigham Young maybe had some races in him. Maybe that was a, we can pick apart every single human being because all of us are sinners, they're all sinners.

Matt (01:01:16.71)
Yeah.

David (01:01:22.424)
Mm-hmm.

Shawn (01:01:42.093)
I have no problem pointing those out. Don't run away from that. would never claim that any of these people were perfect, but there is no evidence in DNC 109 that this is talking about specifically the Native Americans of America. You guys are reading into it something that's not there. Literally the entire chapter that I have read and reread talks about stakes of Zion, talks about the church going to the entire world, establishing these stakes of Zion, and it's talking about the remnants of the house of Jacob of Israel.

Well that's not the Jews, that's not the Lamanites, that is everybody!

David (01:02:12.302)
So we see that differently. So suspend that one. Say somewhere in Canaanite scripture, you can see passages that suggest that if read improperly, could lead to a racist understanding.

Matt (01:02:21.18)
There some racism.

Matt (01:02:31.004)
So here's my take on it. It's in section 100 verse 16. It's the section, it's a little bit before, but it says, I will raise up unto myself a pure people that will serve me in righteousness. And I think that this verse is super important because it suggests that the saints were not there, right? That this is a work in progress and that God's intention is to someday have a pure people.

that will worship him in righteousness. And until then, he's gotta work with us, right? He's gotta work with who we are, with all of our cultural baggage, with all of the stuff that you guys have mentioned. And I think for me, because Sean, canonized scripture is something a little different for him than it is for me. I mean, I believe canonized scripture, but I feel like it's sort of like this. Like one of the reasons like we shouldn't run around sharing our patriarchal blessings with people is because

Shawn (01:03:16.6)
haha

Matt (01:03:27.908)
Like when I'm asked to give a blessing, I feel like I lay my hands on someone's head and I'm trying to convey the thoughts that are coming into my mind that that person should hear. at times in my life, especially when I would do it in Russian, I don't know Russian all that well. And there's like these feelings and thoughts and impressions that I'm trying to convey to that person using language, which is an imperfect tool for expressing that. And then it's the power of the Holy Ghost that

conveys to the person the message that they need to get at that particular time. And I think of the scriptures the same way. God's trying to reveal something to his people. And Joseph Smith, unlearned, I mean, he became more learned, but he's unlearned and he's trying to do his best. And he's just trying to convey the message as he feels like it's supposed to be conveyed. And then the Holy Ghost helps us understand the message the Lord wants us to get from those particular words.

I think that's a little bit how you feel about scripture, Sean. Like, I don't think you believe that every single word is infallible and like exactly what God wants it to be.

Shawn (01:04:32.845)
No, yeah, especially when you're translating it into 500 different languages. people are making decisions and what does this word mean and how do we say it over here? No, I like what you said. Yeah, I like what you said. Certainly if what you're saying is true, which it is, right? Nephi talks about how, or as in Alma, that if these words, these words that we consider canonized scripture,

Matt (01:04:43.076)
And so our job is to be in tune with the Holy Ghost so that we get the message God wants us to get.

Shawn (01:04:58.359)
were given by the power of the Holy Ghost, then they can only be received by the power of the Holy Ghost. And I agree with you, Matt, I like your interpretation. It doesn't matter what the word on paper is. If the Holy Ghost is teaching me the meaning of these words, it doesn't even matter what those words are. The Spirit is teaching me what they mean. And I think you'd, yeah, you definitely would find that, I don't know, but I also think, Matt, that God has the power to preempt problematic words that could be interpreted. think...

Matt (01:05:13.115)
Yeah.

Shawn (01:05:24.405)
Just like you're saying that Joseph Smith used these words because he was influenced by the culture and the colloquial terms of the time. So are you in the colloquial sensitivities of your time putting meaning into it where it doesn't belong.

Matt (01:05:33.5)
How dare you? How dare you, Sean? How dare you?

David (01:05:40.308)
And I think God has different expectations for us in our time. This is going back, Book of Mormon authors had a pretty homogenous tribe around them with a few rare exceptions. And I would say the same thing for most of our DNC folks. whatever we are supposed to learn or prevent or treat, respect, we need to avoid racism. I think the degree of difficulty is different for us. And God has different expectations of how we treat

anybody we run into no matter how they look, no matter where they're from. In our interconnected world where we've been places and traveled and served missions and these folks that contribute to scriptures just did not have that regardless of the inspiration they're experiencing.

Matt (01:06:24.988)
But if I see something in Canaanite scripture, Sean, just to make sure that I'm clear with you on this. If I see something in Canaanite scripture that feels to me like it makes it okay to be racist and the modern day prophets say, don't be racist. But let's say that I read that verse, right? And I feel like, look, Joseph Smith was like racist. That means I can be racist.

Shawn (01:06:34.947)
What?

Shawn (01:06:39.641)
The scriptures also say don't be racist all throughout. Why are you ignoring those?

Shawn (01:06:47.321)
Are you willing to compare that one verse against the 35 others that say don't be racist, that God doesn't not a respecter of persons, that God doesn't look at those things? Are you willing to look at it in the context of the whole thing? And sure, it's dissonant, right? Because in scripture it says these prophets had plural wives. And then it says, you're only gonna have one wife. One wife is the only way to God. That's dissonant, sure. And it does require a lot of deep studying and understanding.

David (01:06:55.02)
black and white, and free, male and female.

Shawn (01:07:14.029)
Are you willing to look at it in the context of all the other verses that teach more truth?

Matt (01:07:19.077)
Even though you phrase that as a question, I'm going to take that as a statement and have that be the last word because I like it. I love it, Sean. Hey David, thanks so much for joining us this week. This is a good conversation. Listener, thanks for being with us. We'll talk to you again next week.

Shawn (01:07:27.128)
I did, that was.

David (01:07:28.728)
That's a good time.