Matt (00:01.174)
Hello everybody and welcome to the Latter Day Lens. I'm your host, Matt, with me as always is Sean and joining us again is Porter. Porter, it's good to have you back. Hey everybody, I want to apologize.

Porter (00:09.954)
Thank you.

Shawn (00:13.252)
Wait, wait, Matt, before you apologize, I wanted to tell Porter how beautiful your audio sounds. Thank you, Porter, for making your audio sound so good.

Porter (00:23.086)
You're welcome.

Matt (00:23.414)
We really appreciate it when you put in the effort to, I don't know, have a microphone and not cook breakfast while you're recording a podcast. Yeah, so last week I actually did a really good job of editing the audio, getting all the levels balanced just right. But there's a group that edits the podcast for us and they had uploaded an audio file and I thought I had replaced it and it wasn't until...

This would be Friday night. I was listening. was like, Whoa, why is the audio so bad? So if you downloaded the podcast before Friday night, you would have heard some really bad stuff. But if you want to hear good stuff,

Shawn (01:01.175)
When you say bad stuff, Matt was talking naughty. That's what he means by bad stuff.

Matt (01:06.046)
no, no, no. I don't know if I was talking naughty. Like you couldn't even hear half the stuff Mark was saying and

Shawn (01:12.695)
Yeah, the audio quality was bad. You did fix it, which is the sad thing. then it, but it's up now. So

Matt (01:17.834)
Yeah, go back and listen to it. Like if you don't like changing your volume up and down as you listen to the podcast, I promise you, I have audio files where they're fixed and I messed up. I thought I had changed the audio file and I didn't, but I did Friday night. So now it's really good. My wife was listening to it with me and she said, wow, Mark was really bad.

That's the listener comment for the week. Wow. Mark was really bad and Mark, you know.

Shawn (01:45.725)
Hopefully, hopefully, hopefully Mark feels guilty enough to go invest in a microphone and not cook dinner while he talks to us.

Matt (01:49.622)
You

Matt (01:53.814)
I love Mark. Listen, if you know, the only requirement to be on this podcast is I have to love you. And I love, love, love Mark. He is a great man and he loves the Lord. And, some of you out there say, Hey, I want more MAGA in the podcast. Why don't you get me somebody on the podcast who loves Donald Trump and is willing to defend him, not in the silly way Mark does, but in like a real and meaningful way. And I'm sorry, I can't find those people as far as I can tell.

Porter (02:22.279)
Matt (02:23.006)
I can't find faithful members of the church that are willing to publicly defend Donald Trump. So if you don't

Shawn (02:28.811)
I mean, I've got a couple, but you don't know them in order to love them. And so, you know, we could try a few if we wanted.

Matt (02:33.972)
Yeah.

Yeah we could. Yeah maybe. Maybe we will. I don't know that we need that. Porter do you think we need more of that in the podcast? More MAGA loving hosts?

Porter (02:44.883)
I don't know, if you want more views it sounds like maybe...

Matt (02:49.238)
I don't want it.

Shawn (02:50.455)
I mean, we're pretty, okay, good, yeah. I'm gonna say we're pretty middle of the road. We're pretty authentically real as people here, right? Of course, there's gonna be a few outliers to the left and to the right, but I guess we could try and find them.

Matt (03:00.96)
Yeah. I have to tell you Levi, every time he listens is does not feel like we adequately represent the left very well in this podcast. So if you want more MAGA, I promise you there's people on the left that want more on the left. And I'm really sorry. Like that's not the purpose of the podcast to make sure that every extreme view or on extreme view is represented. We're just going to talk about important issues from a faith promoting perspective and it's informed. It's informed good content. Levi wrote in a comment.

This was from a while back. He said, I think that's facetious. I don't think he actually thinks that that was a good point.

Porter (03:43.389)
Yeah, when I read that question, was thinking, wow, I am so happy someone asked this question genuinely. And then you said it was Levi. I think Levi's teeing us up.

Matt (03:53.942)
Yeah, he's just trying to poke the bear. Sean, what do you think? Why do think somebody might live here for 30 years and not fill out the paperwork to become legal? Let's see. Let's let's list the reasons. Too busy, expensive. They don't know what the paperwork is. Like

Shawn (03:56.385)
Yeah.

Shawn (04:07.041)
Just.

Porter (04:15.847)
No, these are part of the reasons. But I think this goes to a fundamental misunderstanding that most people have about the United States immigration system. You would assume as a rational person that it would be fair that we would let people in unless there's a good reason not to let them in. And so that you could just go, if you're like a hardworking person who's been here for long time, you could just go, you know, pay the money, which it is expensive.

and take the time and do that and fill out the paperwork. the reality is inversed. The assumption in the US immigration system is that we are not letting you in unless you meet a very certain criteria to fit in a certain visa category, of which there are many, and then you have to be lucky enough to get one of the limited number of visas that they give out every year.

It's a dense and complicated system, but the reality just is that most people do not qualify for a visa and nobody qualifies for a visa that's currently in the United States without documentation. can't apply for a visa from within the country. You have to, from without the country, either apply for a family-based visa if you have family here. If you don't have family here, an employer has to apply for you. They have to apply

prove to the Department of Labor that a U.S. citizen couldn't take your job, which is an incredibly expensive and difficult process for your employer to do, and then they on your behalf have to send a Form I-40 to the Department of State to request a visa, and then it's going to get denied because there aren't enough visas to go out for that, and then everyone just wasted their time.

Shawn (06:05.719)
Dude, we need Porter on whenever Levi brings in fake, facetious comments. That was great, Porter. That was awesome. And if that's all true, I'll believe you. I believe you, Porter. That sucks. Like, come on, man. Make the process easier. There's gotta be way, like your first comment, if the purpose is let's just keep criminals out or nefarious characters, but let's give the blessings of America to everyone, which should be the attitude, then make it easier.

Matt (06:19.594)
Yeah.

Shawn (06:35.777)
That's crazy.

Matt (06:36.0)
But not only that, it's not like you can just show up at the immigration office and say, hey, I would like to fill out the paperwork. Can you help me do that? Because number one, they don't list addresses that you can go to. Like try to find their address. It'll give you some PO box in Washington, DC or something like that. You can't call them on the phone and ask them how to do it. The only way that you can like figure out how to do it is you have to go through this process where you request an appointment.

And then you have to wait like two or three months to for the specific appointment time that they gave you. And then when you show up, they're going to say, you don't have any of the proper documentation. Then you say, well, how do I get all that proper documentation? They're like, it was on the website. You should have read that in advance.

Porter (07:14.596)
They're going to say, too late, and then they arrest and deport you.

Shawn (07:14.849)
So

Shawn (07:18.369)
Okay, so but to just now, since Matt, complained or people complained about not having the MAGA side represented, wouldn't the MAGA side or wouldn't logic also say, well, wait a minute, I know people who go through that process and become American citizens through the legal process. I do, I know people and they did, they weren't patient and they got in line and they actually did the work. Isn't that fair to say that those people aren't any smarter or

Matt (07:18.454)
in the current environment.

Matt (07:43.433)
Everyone.

Matt (07:48.384)
They have lawyers. Everyone I know who did that had a lawyer help them either pro bono or they forked out a lot of money for that lawyer. And if you're in another country and you say, help me find a lawyer, odds are you're gonna find a scammer who takes your money and doesn't actually give you the legal help you paid for.

Shawn (08:04.791)
Okay, I'm going to ask my friends who went through the process if they use lawyers and I'll report next week. If that's the case, that's an interesting nuance. If it's not the case, then you're wrong,

Matt (08:09.578)
Yeah, that'd be good.

Porter (08:13.397)
Yeah.

Matt (08:15.968)
then you can tell me and I'll be like, wow, I was wrong. I feel horrible.

Porter (08:18.596)
Yeah, most of the people I know who immigrated here legally either did it a long time ago when it was a little bit easier or more recently they're either here on a non-immigrant visa, a temporary visa for like students or temporary agricultural workers or don't even get me started on the H2A nonsense, the H2B. A lot of them are here on non-immigrant

Shawn (08:19.467)
Yep, that's right.

Matt (08:35.871)
refugee status.

Porter (08:46.968)
visas that they're not allowed to stay. There's no path to citizenship. You can come in for a certain amount of time. Usually those are your employer before they were your employer. They just need more workers. There's not enough people in the labor force in the United States. So they go through this very expensive and difficult process, either the perm if they're trying to get immigrant workers, but more more common is the temp, the temporary labor certification to approve all this so that they're allowed to

try to recruit foreign workers. And then there are whole agencies that take care of this whole process. like I lived in North Florida. There was a big like aerospace engineering company down there. I would open bank accounts all the time for people from all over the world that they would recruit. They're all going to be coming here legally because that company needs them and brought them here. But if you live somewhere else and you just want to come here,

very very different story.

Matt (09:48.832)
Yep. Okay, first topic. Thanks, everybody. Thank you listener Levi for texting us.

Porter (09:56.246)
Thank you very much Levi. I sit around waiting all day for someone to ask me that question.

Shawn (10:01.751)
That's a great answer, Porter. That was awesome, dude.

Matt (10:03.518)
Okay, so first up on the thought provoker, the Department of Justice recently published some missing Epstein files that include allegations that Trump may have sexually assaulted a teenager when she was between 13 and 15 years old. Two weeks ago, Google searches for Trump and Epstein hit an all time high, but since the US began bombing Iran, public interest in the Epstein files is way down.

Republican Representative Thomas Massey tweeted that bombing a country on the other side of the globe won't make the Epstein files go away. The Trump administration has given at least five different explanations for why the bombing in Iran started last week, but they've never said it was to divert attention away from the Epstein files. here's the question. What is the real reason that the Trump administration is bombing Iran?

Shawn (10:56.595)
So you don't want us to talk about political red herrings and distractions in the way that politicians often use different stories or different events to try and distract from their problems and their woes. You want to talk about Iran, why we're in Iran.

Matt (11:09.3)
No, actually, I think the reason we're bombing Iran is because Trump knew that they had to release these Epstein files that show that he was alleged to have sexually assaulted a teenager. And what better time to release those files than when we're bombing Iran and all the news is focused on Iran. So I actually think that Thomas Massey is right. I agree with the Republican in this case. But I don't want to make you like, if you think there's a better reason or a more logical reason why it is than that, I don't want to force you down that pathway.

With the question, I thought I was pretty clear. I think it's because he wants us to stop talking about his name in the Epstein files, and so why not bomb Iran? But maybe there's a better reason. Maybe one of those other five reasons is the true reason and not this one.

Shawn (11:52.129)
haha

Matt (11:53.158)
Do you think it's a red herring, Sean? What do think it is?

Shawn (11:58.167)
I mean, what are you basing that on? What's your evidence? What are the other five reasons do you think are closest to being true or not true? For example, I'm assuming one of the reasons is the influence that China and Russia have in Iran is it bolsters them to continue to seek an aggressive stance against our allies. And so let's just take that out.

Matt (12:01.62)
I'm basing that on the way that-

Matt (12:22.62)
Okay, I think the next most likely explanation is Benjamin Netanyahu knows how to manipulate Donald Trump and Netanyahu wanted to bomb Iran and take it. I think that the Israeli intelligence said, hey, here's a chance to take out a lot of leaders in Iran and we're going to do this with or without you. And Trump was like, well, I would rather take the credit than have you take the credit. And so I think the next most likely is there was an opportunity to kill the leadership in Iran.

and Trump couldn't pass it up or let Netanyahu take the credit for that. wanted the credit. That's the next most likely.

Shawn (12:55.447)
Would you like that reason better than the first?

Matt (12:59.056)
No, I don't like either of those reasons.

Shawn (13:01.783)
Okay, what's the reason that you would like? Because last week I was surprised to hear you pretty supportive of the Iran war that's just happened. Well, I asked you your opinion a little bit and you're more like, you know, it's for the people, man. They're freeing the people. Now they have a chance to set up their own democracy. And it sounded kind of like...

Matt (13:09.686)
I don't think I was supportive, I think I said a-

Matt (13:19.688)
I think that's what you said. I think you said it was to help them set up Daman. Yeah.

Shawn (13:22.539)
I may have misread you, but the feeling I got was you're fine with what's going on. And I usually look to you to at least start my opinions in a political situation. So I was like, okay, all week I'm going to be like open-minded about Iran. Porter, what do you think?

Matt (13:28.697)
Matt (13:34.102)
Well, Porter, what do you think is the reason, Porter?

Porter (13:39.311)
Well, I think first of all, I have a moral obligation because I recently did an assignment for a certain professor in which I wrote an essay about conspiracy theories and how they impact how the, you know, the development and the precipitation of conspiracy theories is harmful to democratic institutions.

Shawn (14:05.838)
Nice.

Matt (14:06.998)
That was your position on that paper?

Porter (14:08.825)
I took the position, yeah, that it is is harmful and it's wrong to do that. I think that's part of the reason why, part of the reason why the Trump administration is in this messaging predicament. They have lacked messaging discipline. Like, I think this is a consequence of that. They've never really been on the same page.

Shawn (14:16.256)
like it.

Porter (14:38.649)
And I think their strategy has depended a lot on the propagation of conspiracy theories. You know, with the 2020 election and January 6th and with immigrants and with the Middle East and with Russia and all these things, the administration is constantly pumping out conspiracy theories. And they know very well that they are very effective at... They're not easily dismantled by like...

actual evidence. So I think while the conspiracy theory is attractive, that that it's the definition of a conspiracy theory. As attractive as it is, I think the more likely explanation is just we have a very close allied relationship with

Matt (15:17.322)
You're saying it's a conspiracy theory. This Epstein, this Epstein.

Porter (15:36.126)
Israel who has a vested interest in killing all the leaders in Iran and that relationship I think has a lot to do just with domestic politics like the the big evangelical Christian voter block of the Republican Party really really cares about us really being close to Israel. It's become a very important part of being a Republican in America is that you need to support them. I think that has a lot to do with it.

Shawn (16:05.729)
Well, Matt, don't you yearn for the yesteryear of the Republican hawk party that would go out and be the police of the world and make the world a safer place? Do you or do you not? You do too!

Matt (16:16.096)
I do not. I do not yearn for that. Okay, if Russia invades Ukraine, yes, I think we should defend them. Iran posed no threat to us in any way at all. We were in the middle of negotiations with Iran. We had a meeting scheduled with Iran where they were gonna go before the IAEA and finalize the agreement for Iran to dismantle their nuclear program. And we bombed them and killed their leadership on Saturday.

Shawn (16:28.673)
What? Really?

Matt (16:44.948)
You don't end a meeting on Friday and say we've had very productive negotiations and then bomb them the next day when you have a meeting scheduled for three days later on like.

Shawn (16:53.985)
mean, you could also argue though, that like, none of us are war experts or government officials. You could also argue that the success of what they just performed was genius timing. You know what mean? if it's working, right? They are winning with decisive, like no losses on our end except for six poor souls.

Matt (17:06.655)
Really?

Matt (17:10.26)
Did you hear?

Matt (17:13.91)
Did you?

Did you hear when Trump said that we might have killed the people we were hoping that would take the next leadership after Ayatollah? We accidentally killed not only some people we thought they were kind of on our side, we blew up a school with 140 Iranian school girls in it. And that was US missiles that did that.

Porter (17:22.388)
Thank

Shawn (17:29.067)
Okay, let me ask you this.

Let me ask you this, Let me ask you this, Matt. If a year from now, Iran has truly democratic elections, no, no, what? Why not? This is a good question. If a year from now, there are truly democratic elections and the people of Iran, and there's a huge block of Iranians who yearn for the sixties and the seventies or whenever they had their real, you know, a real life.

Matt (17:44.566)
Oh, it's Sean. Oh, Sean.

I know.

Matt (17:58.954)
They didn't have democracy and they had a Shaw. That's why they overthrew the Shaw. was a dictator just like Ali Ahmany is. He was just not an Islamic dictator. The Shaw wasn't like Mr. Love and Peace and Freedom.

Shawn (18:08.277)
Okay, let's say I'll accept that. Okay, then I'll accept that. Let's say they do successfully establish a democratic election and they vote someone in who's secular or then will you be like, well, despite the reasons, it was a good move because the people of Iran now have freedom and they're not constantly trying to kill their neighbors in America.

Matt (18:27.262)
If this leads...

If this leads to democracy in Iran, that would make me happy. If it happens in a year from now, I will be in shock. I think that the second coming of Jesus Christ is more likely to happen within a year than a democratic, peaceful society in Iran. Sean, you are-

Shawn (18:45.719)
Okay, so you just don't trust or believe in the people of Iran to be able to set this.

Matt (18:49.334)
Do you remember George W. Bush on the aircraft carrier in Iraq that said, mission accomplished? Yeah, okay, the exact same thing happened in Iraq. We went in Iraq, we captured Saddam Hussein, we gave them freedom. We were like, woohoo, this was so easy. And then what happened in Iraq, Sean? There was a counterinsurgency and there was a prolonged war. Why would we think that anything different is gonna happen in Iran? They have a paramilitary group there.

Shawn (18:56.279)
Yeah.

Matt (19:18.026)
that's in control of all of their ballistic missiles. So the fact that they're not shooting at the United States right now doesn't mean that we've defeated them. It means they're waiting for the right opportunity to strike. And this isn't the best time.

Shawn (19:28.503)
Okay, so you feel like, just like Iraq or Afghanistan, there's...

Porter (19:31.383)
I don't think we have missiles that can reach the United States.

Matt (19:35.946)
No, they're gonna hit us in Europe or they'll hit us in Turkey or they'll hit us in, yeah, they're gonna bring us into a war in some way, some kind of a protracted war. Not only that, but all of the missile defense that we're using to protect Israel right now has been moved away from Taiwan, has been moved away from Ukraine. So that means that the missile defense that we've been using to protect Israel is no longer protecting other places. So China, we know, wants to go into Taiwan.

Porter (19:38.467)
Yeah.

Shawn (19:59.969)
Well, listen, I'm with Porter and you need to abandon your crazy conspiracy theory talk and talk like this. Talk like this, man. You're giving reasonable arguments for how pragmatic or non-pragmatic this move was.

Matt (20:11.906)
I see.

Porter (20:17.142)
And you can speculate a lot and theorize a lot about why they did it or why they're doing it or how it's going to end up. Like, I don't know. For me, none of the explanations, not even all the explanations, if they were all true, justifies even one child dying for it. And there's been many.

Shawn (20:41.591)
Well, if it ends up in a year, same question to you, Porter. If in a year, the people of Iran have a free election and actually elect someone that they choose, the people choose, and all of a sudden it's not a crazy regime and a dictatorship, and Islam's, yeah, let's say it's not that anymore. It's a secular government that the people have now control over. Is it then worth it to you?

Matt (20:59.262)
an Islamist and a holy Islam.

Porter (21:09.981)
no, probably not still.

Shawn (21:13.618)
What the heck? Why?

Matt (21:15.35)
This is like an unpopular opinion Sean, but when I need Yeah

Porter (21:17.388)
I have a child. Would I sacrifice her life for democracy in Iran? No, I wouldn't.

Shawn (21:21.121)
Yeah, but but but that's it

Shawn (21:29.463)
But if your child was Uranian, would you prefer she live under a dictatorship that will kill her for exposing 10 % of her skin?

Porter (21:38.918)
The thing is though, they didn't kill her, we did.

Matt (21:42.666)
Yeah, with our missiles. Yeah. So here's the challenge, Whenever students, whenever we study Iran in comparative politics, and I try to explain the Iranian political system as it is now, do you know the best way to make sense of what their political system is, is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? They actually have a religion in Iran with 12, they call them clerics, but they're 12 people that are called of God who sit in a council. And that council of 12 people chooses

Shawn (21:43.263)
In the war.

Porter (21:44.49)
Yeah. Like, we paid for that.

Matt (22:12.106)
the supreme leader, which is the same as what we have where our 12 apostles choose the prophet. And then they don't actually run the country politically. They decide which candidates are eligible to run for office, which because they want to protect the spiritual nature of society. so Iranians, many, many Iranians look to the leadership of Iran as inspired leaders called of God. And if we say to them, yay, we killed your prophets.

Shawn (22:15.329)
Yeah. Yeah, right.

Matt (22:41.194)
Don't you want to replace them with someone you choose? They're going to say, we choose the people that are there because they're chosen by God.

Shawn (22:45.857)
Yeah, but the key understanding is how many, you said many of them accept these as religious prophets. How many of them don't? I mean, we see how many of them don't. We saw in the sixties and the fifties and the forties, how many of them don't. We see a few months ago, how many go to the streets and get killed because they don't, right?

Porter (23:05.162)
.

Dubious. Dubious democraism process.

Matt (23:06.006)
The government that's in Iran right now was chosen through a democratically elected process. was a democratic, there was a, compared to what they had with the Shah, the Shah was somebody chosen by us and the CIA.

Shawn (23:15.083)
Yeah, it was a-

Shawn (23:21.629)
So Matt, your opinion is give them free elections. They're just going to choose another Ayatollah. Okay, if that happens, if that happens, then that's a really interesting outcome that we can discuss on the podcast because that would be horrible. But in the end, if they're democratically free, then you're going to eat crow.

Matt (23:26.858)
what they have. course, yeah, they're going to see what have.

Porter (23:34.749)
Yeah, I think

Porter (23:38.793)
I think all this is a good case for the argument of self-determination. Like, the military, the United States military is not a great tool for helping people establish stable democracy.

Matt (23:38.934)
Yeah, I will definitely.

Shawn (23:55.351)
That's true, huh? History tells us that that's true, right?

Porter (23:57.97)
Yeah, people who live in their own country, like if you get enough people in the country who really want it that bad, they'll make it happen. And if you try to make it happen too early, they're not ready for it. It's not going to work.

Shawn (24:05.623)
So you guys go-

Porto, you're saying look at Panama, look at Iraq, look at Libya, look at Afghanistan. That's what you're saying. Yeah, that's a great point. It's a great, great point. And so Matt, I guess that would suggest that there are these ulterior motives other than freedom and spreading democracy. I mean, but can't you argue that it is probably like looking at Donald Trump, knowing how he behaves, if he, he did weaken Russia and China in this move potentially. So maybe that's his ulterior motive.

Porter (24:13.865)
Yeah.

Matt (24:38.314)
You what I would do to weaken Russia? I would put troops in Ukraine and we can rush on the. I would if we like everything he did in Iran, he could do to Russia if he wanted to do to Russia. We know where their nuclear weapons are kept. We could blow those up if we wanted to. That's that's nothing about weakening Russia and China. I don't think.

Porter (24:43.888)
Yeah. Yeah.

Porter (24:55.656)
Yeah, I think a big part of it is back to our original question is I think a big part of it is messaging people get excited Some people get excited to see violence and very successful violence, you know I'm getting Fox News headlines about the details of like how our We did a historic strike. It was only the second time ever that a nuclear-powered submarine has blown up a warship and

Shawn (24:56.212)
Okay.

Matt (25:24.616)
Jeez. And do know that that warship was just peacefully returning home from the Indian Ocean? Like, they were doing war games in India. And we blew them up. Yeah, that's crazy. They were at least footage of that. Yeah.

Porter (25:25.477)
It's

Porter (25:33.094)
But people get excited about this.

People read that and they're like, aw yeah. Heck yeah, Pete Hickseth. He's a man.

Matt (25:41.992)
Yeah. All right, I'm going to give Porter the points on this. Porter came to play. He was well informed and he brought up an assignment he had to do in my class to make me feel good.

Shawn (25:47.265)
Yep.

Let's see how well informed Porter is about Darrell Hannah.

Matt (25:55.702)
Yeah, Darryl Hannah.

Porter (25:56.327)
I idea who that is.

Shawn (25:57.751)
Yeah, I knew it!

Matt (26:00.086)
She's a famous actress who is depicted in the fictional series Love Story about JFK Jr. She recently wrote an op-ed in which she states that the character Daryl Hannah portrayed in the series is not even a remotely accurate representation of her life, her conduct, or her relationship with John. The actions and behaviors attributed to her are untrue. She then details the many things that she has never done that are depicted in the television series. She is upset.

that she has received many hostile and threatening messages from viewers who believe the portrayal is factual. Now setting the law aside, cause I don't want to get into a legal argument about this from a moral standpoint. Is it wrong for a fictional series using the names of, is it wrong to write a fictional series using the names of real life people?

Shawn (26:37.555)
Uhhhh

Shawn (26:48.981)
Matt, for years and years and years, as I've taught thousands of kids about like preparing them for missions and on the podcast, I've told countless stories about this legendary missionary by the name of Matthew Miles, Elder Miles. Legend. Well, I'm telling stories from my point of view, from my perspective, right? I'm telling it from, you know, I didn't consult you with your journals and your real life experiences. You didn't come and testify and tell the true story.

Matt (27:01.91)
Well, you didn't make stuff up, right? Did you make up stuff?

Matt (27:09.524)
Yeah?

Shawn (27:18.279)
I'm telling it as I remember it, as I saw it, as I believed it. And it could, a lot of it could be untrue, right? Could it not?

Matt (27:26.422)
Well, what they do in this show is they say it's fictionalized. So it doesn't matter if it's true or not true, because it's just a work of fiction. Yeah.

Shawn (27:30.911)
Okay, I would never claim that. Okay, so that's a category error because I would never claim that. I really truly believe this is true. So they're saying, we made it up for entertainment's purposes. In that case, she should sue them for defamation. She should, for libel. Dang it! Dang it!

Matt (27:41.259)
This is

That's a legal argument, Sean. That's a legal argument. Right, right. So what they're saying is, look, the story is more interesting if there's a bad guy and Darryl Hannah, you fit a good bad guy character. And so we're going to create this arc around you that really makes people hate you because it makes the story more compelling. And she's like, but that's my name. And I didn't.

Shawn (28:02.549)
Yeah, that's that's dishonest. That's that's immoral. That's telling that's selling out. That's the same thing that Taylor Swift has been making the movie. She did the music. She did. I'm just kidding. She's selling out. Yeah, I think that's selling out. And it's

Porter (28:09.943)
Ha!

Matt (28:10.838)
Hahaha

Porter (28:14.381)
Dick Dunehall was a good guy.

Matt (28:17.11)
Okay, well here's my take. Have you guys seen the Weird Al Yankovic biopic? Okay. Yeah. Like he like, that's right. He dates Madonna. Like everything in that biopic is Weird Al Yankovic fake, right? You start out watching the movie and you're like, this is kind of fun. There's like Wolfman. That's a guy I know. Like, okay.

Shawn (28:25.013)
Yeah, it's awesome.

Porter (28:26.455)
Yeah, and they have Madonna in there, right? Yeah

Matt (28:42.708)
And then by the end of the movie, you're like, this is so insanely absurd. There's no way this actually happened, but he's using real people, characters based on real people, doing things they never would have done. And it makes it for a really fun and entertaining movie.

Porter (28:54.92)
Okay. Okay, I'm gonna I came into this with one thing and you've expanded my scope a little bit. I think and these are by no means discrete categories, but I think when you're producing any work that is includes real people, it could be journalistic. It could be for entertainment or it could be parody, which is a, you know, distinct form of entertainment. If it is parody.

If it's to the extent like the Weird Al movie where clearly this is meant to all be a joke, I don't think there are very many limits there to how far you can take it well, you know, and it to still be morally OK. If it is for journalism, I think you have a really strong moral and ethical obligation to present

whatever you're presenting as factually as you can, obviously. And then for entertainment, I think it's morally wrong to present, you know, real people for the purpose of entertainment without consulting them and without them being okay with what you're putting out.

Shawn (29:56.119)
So.

Shawn (30:11.937)
So sounds like Porter, you are a big fan of, see that what you just described has been the example for that is Elon Musk and his X platform. That is the exact policy that they have. As long as you disclose that this is satire, then go ahead and be Donald Trump all day long. As long as you disclose that this is for entertainment purposes and as long as you disclose that it's journalism, then free speech, free speech, do whatever you want.

Porter (30:39.248)
Yeah, but like I said, those are not discrete category. Those lines can get blurry. And I think people should err on the side of caution when doing those things. Like I, I it's very wrong what they've done to Darrell Hammett. You cannot, you cannot be in the right while making a work that is like based on real events, but it's clearly not parody. People watch these historical fictions and

you know, get a lot of ideas about historical people from them without her being okay with whatever it is that you're putting out. That's wrong.

Shawn (31:16.939)
Yeah, you're right. It violates Christian principles. You have to love your neighbor. This is profiting off of defaming your neighbor. So yeah, it's wrong. It's morally wrong.

Porter (31:22.993)
This is, it's burning through the sweat, is what this is.

Matt (31:26.614)
Well, have you guys seen the movie Song Song Blue? Okay, so that's okay. Of course, yeah. By the way.

Porter (31:29.895)
No.

Shawn (31:31.807)
you have you know that's the Celine Dion and this guy are the only two music musical bands you listen to in college. Bye. About

Matt (31:41.952)
Song Sung Blue is a touching, touching show. It's not even about Neil Diamond, it's about a tribute band. It's about a Neil Diamond tribute band. But what's beautiful is the love story between the two main characters of it. And again, anytime I watch a biopic, I have to like try and Google what's true and what's not true. And that's a story that like most of that is true, but he has a son that's completely left out of the movie because it doesn't fit the story. It doesn't fit the thing they wanna tell.

Shawn (31:50.707)
Okay

Shawn (32:00.267)
Yeah.

Matt (32:11.336)
Even though they paid him to be a consultant, he's like, I feel like you like hurt me in some way by not including my story as part of that story. And so, so I, he's not sued them because he was paid to be a consultant on the movie. Yeah.

Shawn (32:19.051)
Yeah. Wait, did he sue them, he said?

Porter (32:25.659)
And you can't sue them any- you wouldn't be able to sue them anyway, they just didn't say anything about you.

Matt (32:30.89)
He's just telling everybody, hey, I exist too and I hate that movie.

Shawn (32:30.999)
that interfere with

Porter (32:34.077)
It's like suing somebody for not being famous.

Matt (32:39.83)
So I think there's not, I don't think it's morally wrong to use real people and tell a story and include especially a fictional story. I think what's wrong in this case is that they, what they did was hurtful. And I think that's the morally wrong. It's not that they use Daryl Hannah. It's that they created hurtful content about Daryl Hannah.

Shawn (32:58.583)
If they would have made

If they would have been like, and Darryl Hannah tried everything she could to make his life better. And it was a lie. You would have been like, that's better. That's okay. Make her look good. Lie about her looking good.

Matt (33:06.357)
You

Matt (33:11.37)
Well, so again, like we go to the old Testament, 10 commandments, right? The commandment is, thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Okay. It's only a problem though, if you're doing that in a mean way, right? If I tell everybody my neighbor is super cool and I like how he dresses and I'm bearing false witness.

Shawn (33:20.843)
Yeah, there you go.

Shawn (33:30.359)
depends on your motives. No, that's not true, Matt, because if your motive was, I'm going to profit off making Darryl Hannah look bad, or I'm going to profit off of lying about Darryl Hannah looking good, you're still, your motive is profit driven and not love your neighbor.

Porter (33:42.682)
And you know what? I agree. You know, a great example of this is the movie The Greatest Showman. I hate that movie because P.T. Barnum was a horrible, terrible, awful person who was abusive to his employees who were unpaid. So you can't really call them employees. Some of them were children. And then they make this story where he's Hugh Jackman and he's awesome and everyone loves him and he just sings and dance and gives people purpose in life.

Matt (33:49.438)
Yeah?

Shawn (34:05.399)
There they go. Didn't look good.

There you go. Well said Porter.

Porter (34:12.342)
I think that's wrong. I think it's wrong.

Matt (34:15.284)
It's wrong to do a bio pic where you make a bad person look good.

Shawn (34:15.489)
Thanks.

Porter (34:19.513)
Yeah.

Shawn (34:19.777)
That, I agree with Porter. I totally agree with him. I totally agree.

Matt (34:21.667)
man. Okay. All right. Well, I'm gonna give, Porter and Sean made the same arguments. I have to like split my points.

Shawn (34:28.513)
Give it to Porter because he dogged that dumb movie. I love it.

Porter (34:30.656)
I hate that movie. And it's because it it disservices the victims. There were people who were real victims of P.T. Barnum and it spits in their face to make this movie where he's the good guy and he just uplifted them and made their lives beautiful.

Matt (34:34.603)
Ha

Shawn (34:48.289)
Now, Porter, to be, let's see if we're honest throughout the whole thing. Now, Quentin Tarantino does an amazing thing by making movies about historical figures and makes them look even worse than they actually were and gives very satisfying endings that didn't really happen.

Porter (35:01.581)
You talk about inglorious bastards?

Shawn (35:04.659)
Yeah, or and that and the Brad Pitt one, story about what was it? The Marilyn Manson story. No, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, that one too. Yeah, how the like those are such satisfying endings. Knowingly, they're not true. But this is same thing, right? It's it's they're making

Matt (35:05.462)
Django Unchained.

Porter (35:07.031)
Yeah

Matt (35:12.989)
burn after reading?

Porter (35:14.667)
Once upon a

Porter (35:20.974)
Yeah.

Porter (35:26.68)
Uh, I don't think it's the same thing. I don't think it's the same thing because because like I said the lines between parody and uh and drama are are blurry. I think you're pretty safe when it comes to like Hitler. Which is the case here. Yes, think that's the case. Uh, didn't he kill her?

Matt (35:29.836)
supporters not consistent.

Matt (35:47.222)
You can make him look worse than he was. And Hitler had a lover. He had people that cared about him.

Matt (35:57.171)
I don't know. We could bring Mark in. could tell us all of, if we need Hitler information, Mark's the guy for us.

Porter (36:00.459)
Yeah, we're still killed ourselves.

Shawn (36:04.375)
But then we wouldn't hear him because his audio would be so bad. So I'm satisfied with Porter.

Porter (36:07.126)
Yeah.

Matt (36:09.246)
I don't know. like the idea that it's morally fine to embellish and talk about people in good ways. You just can't do it in bad ways. You can make people.

Shawn (36:15.487)
No, I think you're wrong. That can't be right,

Matt (36:18.442)
I don't know. All right. Next topic. So after the close of the Senate Republican primary in Texas, for listeners who don't follow Texas politics, the Republican Senate primary, it's going to go to a runoff. It's going to be between John Cornyn, who's the incumbent and attorney general Ken Paxson, just the Republican. On the Democrat side, James Tallarico won the Democratic primary in Texas. So.

Shawn (36:37.431)
This is just the Republican primary, this is not the general election.

Matt (36:45.834)
There are a lot of Republicans who are worried that if Ken Paxson becomes the nominee, it'll be really expensive to try to beat the Democrat in that Senate seat. There's a lot of, I would call them establishment Republicans that would prefer to have Ken Paxson drop out and let the incumbent keep that seat. recently Trump has announced that he will soon endorse a candidate. He then stated that he will be asking the candidate that I don't endorse to immediately drop out of the race.

Porter (37:10.575)
you

Matt (37:13.972)
I remember people being upset that Kamala Harris became the Democrat nominee without going through a primary election process. So here's the question. Is it wrong for Trump to ask someone who is involved in a runoff to drop out of the race if they do not receive his endorsement?

Shawn (37:28.823)
Yeah

Matt (37:30.154)
By the way, Ken Paxson today announced he would drop out if, and then he put all these demands out there, what the Republican party would have to do. And the party's like, well, we're not doing any of that stuff, but yeah. So I, I'll go first. There's.

Porter (37:36.228)
Okay.

Shawn (37:40.095)
No way. that's interesting. Is this like the happiest day in the life of a political scientist when stuff like this happens? Because you get to sit and analyze it and people are making decisions daily. This seems like your cup of tea.

Matt (37:54.871)
Well, this stuff happens all the time, but I'm going to say there's nothing wrong about it. This is politics. The political parties choose the nominees they want to have as nominees. And so the idea that voters should somehow have a voice in who the nominee is, is just silliness. Like that's not the way it is. And Trump's the...

Shawn (37:59.877)
yeah. Uh-huh.

Shawn (38:10.155)
Now you always clarify this point as a political scientist, but you never judge this point. You never share with us, is this the best way to do it? You don't, is it?

Matt (38:21.014)
I believe that it is the best way to do it because I believe that the political parties, we're not communist China where the political parties will tell you you can't be a part of their party. Anyone who wants to can go be a part of the political party.

Shawn (38:24.673)
Okay.

Shawn (38:35.319)
And on the other extreme, we're not a democracy.

Matt (38:38.28)
Of course not. We're definitely not a democracy.

Shawn (38:39.575)
We're a democratic republic, which means we vote in people and we give them the power to make all the decisions to write or no border.

Matt (38:46.228)
So go ahead Porter.

Porter (38:48.694)
yes, but also, man, I take too many of Brother Miles classes. Reading. Everyone go just read Hans Nassl. But we, yes, we do that. But also, we don't really have as much control as we think we do over the people who are allowed to run for those seats, over the nominees.

Because we have, you know, first past the post, single district, single member district elections, you will always only have two parties. It's a mathematical certainty. So since there are only two parties, two serious parties, you know, you can have occasional anomalies, but since there are only two serious parties, those two parties can work within whatever bounds exist for them, which right now, that's no bounds, there are none.

Shawn (39:44.481)
Yeah.

Porter (39:47.614)
Because and I don't know when I started to read the historical stuff about this, James Madison talking about in the Federalist Papers, we don't really need to worry about national parties because I don't think they'll be possible, as well. He said our country is too big, it's too diverse. But then a couple of years after that, he himself started and was elected president under a national political party. So I think maybe some shrewd people in the beginning

understood that this may be what happens in this system and set it up in a way that would allow them to exercise that influence.

Shawn (40:26.071)
Okay, so you guys are saying that the leader of the Republican Party, Donald Trump, should play the political game and have this kind of influence, and that's okay. In fact, I did the research. Do you guys know what his percentage is in a primary election, a win rate when he endorses someone? Yeah.

Matt (40:36.501)
Yes.

Matt (40:44.022)
in a Republican primary, it's gotta be over 80%. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Porter (40:45.949)
It's gotta be over 90.

Shawn (40:50.042)
95%. That is crazy. And if that's the case, and if what you're saying is true, then yeah, don't be dumb. Go ahead and do it. Like go and endorse your party's people. Yeah. I mean, I think the biggest issue most of us laymen, not you political scientists nerds will take on this is no, man, we need more say from the people, right? This whole representative stuff feels very undemocratic, but you're both teaching

us and the world that no, that's the better system. A democratic republic is a better system than pure democracy because majority rule most of the time or oftentimes leads to ill-informed decisions and like bullies winning out, right?

Porter (41:22.696)
Yeah, well...

Porter (41:36.265)
Yeah. Do you know why you say that? Why you say you want more say in the election is because Andrew Jackson told you to. Before Andrew Jackson, they didn't have primary elections. had, you know, caucuses. They would just get together the members of Congress that were part of that party and they would decide who their candidates would be. And then that resulted in Andrew Jackson getting kind of shafted at an election.

Matt (41:42.774)
You

Porter (42:06.26)
That in all fairness, you probably should have won. What was it? John Quincy Adams? depo, baby

Matt (42:11.592)
Yeah, yeah, Jackson did win that and the House of Representatives chose John Quincy Adams.

Porter (42:16.327)
Yeah.

Shawn (42:16.599)
Okay, but we're concluding, we're all on the same page, that we live in a democratic republic that's better than a democracy and therefore it is okay that the Democrats said we're not going to have an election to see who our presidential candidate should be, we're just going to pick Kamala and it's okay that Donald Trump says drop out if I don't endorse you.

Porter (42:31.988)
Well, I'm seeing this reality that we live in and it's the prerogative of the people in those parties to say whatever they want. I think it would be better if we had a system that had tighter limits on what parties are allowed and not allowed

Matt (42:34.678)
It's a good thing.

Shawn (42:40.074)
Okay.

Shawn (42:47.361)
That's not the question Porter.

Matt (42:47.51)
But think about your governor's race in California, Sean. The last I looked, there was like 15 Democrats running for governor of California right now, and there's two Republicans. And the way that California law is set up is the top two vote getters, regardless of party, are gonna go to the general election ballot. So the Republicans are being smart because they're only letting two Republicans run.

That's the most that could be on the ballot anyway. So they're saying if you're a Republican in California, choose between one of these two and the Democrats are letting 15 people put their names out there. Well, they're going to split all of that vote among all of the Democrats in the state of California. And the Democrats might end up with no Democrats in the final election for governor. So of course it could happen, Sean. Of course that could happen if, okay.

Shawn (43:29.153)
Yeah.

Interesting that's not gonna happen. But yeah seriously That would be amazing

Matt (43:40.842)
There's what, like 40 % of California is Republican, right? So let's say that that 40 % of California that's Republican splits their votes between those two Republicans. Yeah.

Shawn (43:48.873)
No, get the math, but it just seems like there's too many Democrats here to make that possible, but that would be incredible.

Matt (43:55.927)
Unless somebody steps in and coordinates in some way and persuade some of those 15 Democrats to get out of the race, that definitely could happen because unless one of those Democrats gets above 20 % or closer to 30%, then that other Republican could take that other spot. so maybe I don't, someone's going to have to drop out. So that's the thing. Like people might not love the idea of the parties telling candidates you're in, you're out.

Shawn (44:12.265)
Interesting,

Porter (44:13.507)
People probably will jump out.

Matt (44:24.064)
but somebody has to fill that role because if they don't, the voice of the people is too spread out in order to, something has to organize the vote in a way that reflects the will of, I don't know, like the party or something like that.

Shawn (44:39.159)
Matt, we're all on the same page on this, but one day you ought to do a topic to teach us all about, like, why is democracy bad? Oh, that's what you said. Those are your words. And why is a democratic republic good?

Matt (44:48.116)
Yeah.

Matt (44:54.088)
Okay. I don't know if I would go Democratic Republic is good, but I could tell you why democracy is bad. What I would say is good, Sean. I think I've advocated for this from the very beginning is theocracy is good. want a King, King Jesus to rule the world. don't want, I don't, I don't think, I don't think any voting is good. Get rid of all that voting stuff. It's just leads to bad.

Shawn (45:00.448)
Later!

Shawn (45:10.387)
Yeah, there's no way you're right up. There's no way you're right-

Porter (45:15.537)
Theocratic totalitarian communism is what what

Shawn (45:16.021)
No!

Shawn (45:20.855)
You idiots! sorry, I say that? We voted the lord-

Matt (45:21.204)
Yeah, yeah. I want...

Porter (45:25.296)
You need to declare that as your party affiliation when you register to vote.

Matt (45:29.302)
I want the kind of democracy where it's like so-and-so has been called to be this all in favor say aye like do you sustain them you can raise your hand or you can oppose

Shawn (45:37.131)
Matt, you do not want that until the Lord comes. You do not want that today. You do not.

Matt (45:44.097)
This is why I have so much sympathy for the Iranian leaders and the Iranian system. I'm like, that's not so bad. It's not so bad to have a theocracy. All right, here's the, wait, do I get point? No, I'm really not joking. I'm fine with Iran system.

Porter (45:47.396)
Hahaha!

Shawn (45:47.991)
Shut up!

Porter (45:51.022)
Shawn (45:51.927)
Oh dude, don't. Don't. Jeff, Jeff, is joking.

Porter (46:00.6)
My future, you have to tell them you're joking. My future voters might listen to this podcast. I don't want to get put on blast in 20 years for endorsing authoritarian theocracy.

Matt (46:06.417)
Hmm.

Matt (46:13.748)
I will make it clear that my views do not reflect the views of Sean or Porter. Alright, so do I get the points for saying something you both strongly disagree with and don't want to be affiliated with?

Shawn (46:24.533)
Maybe you get kicked in the face for saying that, but no vows. No points.

Matt (46:26.358)
All right, here's the big question. Now in fairness, this global survey is like not just developed nations, right? There's undeveloped nations in this global survey as well, but it's still worth talking about. Okay, so a recent global survey that had 23,000 participants found that 31 % of Gen Z men agree that a wife should...

Shawn (46:48.439)
thought this was just American. Now my answer's all skewed. I thought this was just American Gen Z.

Matt (46:53.724)
okay.

No, it's global, Gen Z.

Porter (46:57.359)
I'll go look at the data.

Shawn (46:57.623)
That's a hugely important distinction because of culture. Culture affects this in a huge way, religion and culture does.

Porter (47:04.815)
Well, I'll tell you, I was really surprised by the data across countries, but finish the intro.

Matt (47:09.782)
Yeah, okay. So 31 % of Gen Z men agree that a wife should always obey her husband. And one third say a husband should have the final word on important decisions. So attitudes in places like the United States are much less supportive of these kinds of ideas than they are in other countries. The number in the United States is 15%, just so you know. contrary to what many might believe, younger men are more sexist than older men.

Shawn (47:10.006)
Yeah, sorry.

Shawn (47:31.58)
thank you for bringing that in.

Matt (47:38.336)
So here's the big question, does our theology support traditional gender norms?

Porter (47:43.279)
And I have to start with, I told my wife about this data and she said, wisely, it's probably just because most of these Gen Z men have not been married long enough, if at all.

Matt (47:58.743)
That's probably true.

Porter (47:59.671)
Because what we haven't stated is not just a generation, it's also age.

Matt (48:04.01)
Yeah, right. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, so yeah, old men seem to understand that the wife shouldn't always obey her husband. And old people seem to agree that a husband should not have the final word on important decisions.

Shawn (48:05.825)
Well said, Sister Porter!

Shawn (48:18.231)
But your question is what's the doctrine regarding gender roles? That's your question. That's a big question.

Porter (48:18.895)
and

Matt (48:21.343)
Yeah.

I know a lot of people that will quote to me the proclamation to the world on the family and they'll say that it says the father's place is to preside and sure it says equal partners but sometimes somebody's got to make a decision. and by the way the Bible says wives submit yourselves unto your husbands and so they'll say look this is theology. What they're saying isn't sexist, what they're saying is consistent with our theology and I wonder is it?

Shawn (48:49.633)
You know how in Scripture sometimes when it says, he, it's referring to mankind, right? So for example, your first point, should man, should have trended the gender norm, or like I looked up, what are the traditional gender norms? Like for example, we all agree that a traditional gender norm would be men should be the primary provider. Is that a pretty traditional gender norm? Okay, so if I look in Scripture, I mean, I see a Scripture in Timothy 5, 8, but if any provide not for his own, and especially for those

Matt (49:10.142)
Yeah. Yep.

Shawn (49:18.739)
of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

Matt (49:23.03)
So that's a biblical support of a traditional gender norm.

Shawn (49:28.023)
That's your question, is what scriptural evidence or what's the latter-day lens on this? But I think you can take the scripture, it talks about he, but I think oftentimes he is referred to mankind. And so I think it's clear that a woman who is the primary provider is under the same obligation, would be an infidel not providing, right?

Porter (49:49.568)
Yeah, as you were reading that, was thinking it sounds like this is condemnation against allowing your children to go unprovided for.

Shawn (49:56.257)
Exactly, Yeah.

Matt (49:58.711)
But the Doctrine and Covenants says that a man is supposed to provide for the spiritual and physical needs. I should have looked up the verse.

Shawn (50:06.519)
Ephesians 5.23 says, the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church.

Matt (50:12.246)
Yeah, so what do you guys think about this idea? I feel like as I was growing up, especially when I was young and early in my married age, I felt this need to provide for my wife and provide for my future family. And there were things I wanted to do, like you might not remember this Sean, but there was a time when I was like, we should have a rock band. And I was gonna learn to play bass guitar, because I wanted to be in a rock band and perform. But then at some point,

Shawn (50:37.899)
What?

Matt (50:38.75)
I know, right? You might not remember because it was a fleeting thought because then I was like, but really I should probably finish college and prepare for a life where I'm going to provide for my future family. And I think that there's something in men that if they feel this need to provide for their family, it helps them to grow up and become the kind of men they should be and set aside some of their childish like, like weird. And I don't feel like women need that same thing. And so I do think there's something there where God's telling men,

It's your job to provide that actually helps them to become the kinds of people they should be. But I think for some people that gets twisted into you should be in charge and you should be in control. And that's the part where I would say, no, our theology ends there.

Shawn (51:24.171)
I like that. I can go with that. Yeah, I like that. Yeah, I mean, those who twist it to think that they are somehow have dominion over, that's a blatant misunderstanding of scripture. There's nowhere that it says, like if you study the traditional meaning of the word head, like the first words of the Bible, the head God of all the gods gathered the people.

Matt (51:45.056)
Mm-hmm.

Shawn (51:49.431)
you're going have a better understanding of what for the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church. There are councils and then like you said, are, so anyway, so I agree with you that, that, people are taking tape. Those who take this and justify abuse or dominion, that's an evil. Yeah. That's, that's infidel actions right there. Yeah.

Matt (52:08.874)
Yeah.

Porter (52:10.999)
Yeah, you know, I read all these especially biblical scriptures about this and the language can be bothersome. It can, especially once you get into like Timothy that women should just be quiet. I don't know. I don't pretend to have a good explanation for how that reconciles into our our theology.

Shawn (52:35.285)
I've got a good one there, but that's it. I've got a really good, think reading on that, but I think it's a tangent. but if you look at all the, but again, this list of you asked the question, Matt, the traditional gender norms. I did kind of what are the typical ones. Another one is show strength and independence and protective abilities. Do you, I do agree that physically, generally men are more physically strong than women. And so I do think that we ought to have an obligation. Our job is to protect.

our spouses. you agree with that one or no?

Porter (53:06.759)
Yeah, I mean, I I know fathers with, you know, physical disabilities or who are in wheelchairs or.

Shawn (53:16.023)
Yeah, they still should protect physically. They should protect their spouses.

Porter (53:17.734)
I guess, yeah. Here's how I read these scriptures. I read them, I read them, and then I think about D &C 121 41, like what you were saying, Sean. No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood or by husbandhood or fatherhood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned, by kindness and pure knowledge which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy and without guile.

Matt (53:18.806)
you

Shawn (53:22.839)
You

Porter (53:46.997)
I feel like I read these scriptures and I think it is my responsibility to become a leader, a spiritual and physical leader for my family. Not that it is my family's responsibility to obey me. And as soon as you get that mixed up, you are exercising unrighteous dominion and God will not be with you. But if you stay on the side of, OK, this is the type of person that I need to be.

I need to be wise and I need to be loving and I need to be, you know, a source of spiritual guidance or steadiness. know, you know, if we're not reading scriptures every day, that's on me. You know, we need to be doing that.

Shawn (54:32.427)
Well said. Yeah, I love that. redefine the definition of what a leader, what it means to lead, right? You just defined it by the doctrine of covenants. Yeah, you have to be patient and kind and long suffering. know, D &C 6825, as much as parents have children designed, they shall teach them and understand the doctrine of repentance and faith. So as a leader, you're supposed to teach faith and repentance. So that definition of, that scriptural definition of leadership has nothing to do with who has a final say and who's the decision maker and who's the boss.

Nothing. There's no definition in scripture about that. So I love that you just redefined it according to truth. That's great.

Matt (55:05.354)
Well, and that's why I think our theology is the best theology because you can look in the Bible and you can be a mainline or Protestant Christian, right? And you can look at the Bible and say God is telling me to be dominant and men are in charge and things like that. But it's really hard to do that if you look at the whole of revealed scripture, especially the standard works, the latter day revelation. So I don't see any place in our theology for this idea that men are in charge. Women need to obey the

Shawn (55:14.515)
Absolutely.

Matt (55:35.37)
the husband should have the final say. I think that that stuff would be stuff where Christianity, like mainstream Christianity has gotten lost and the Lord doesn't want us to think in those terms. And so that's why I say our theology is better in that regard.

Shawn (55:47.787)
Well, but they're also all gonna go to that one verse that Porter referenced that does say that like in the church situation, the women should be quiet and men should, you know, listen, don't question them. And that needs some explanation. So maybe later, Matt, in a different topic, we could do a deeper dive into that, because I think there's a good explanation for that. But that is the one that most evangelicals will take to conclude, I'm the boss, you must obey me.

Matt (56:13.632)
Well, and that's why I say if there are members of our church who think that they're the boss of men think that they're the boss, then I think that they need to read more modern day, latter day revelation because that's something that's not part of our theology.

Shawn (56:24.161)
Do you, but also Matt, do you also agree that there are differences between men and women and that there are roles that the Lord intends us to play? For example, the protective role, or do you not agree with that?

Matt (56:37.386)
Well, I believe that the proclamation to the world on the family is an inspired statement of inspired principles, right? So I 100 % don't find any fault with where it says like a father's place is to preside, provide, and that a mother is primarily responsible for the nurturing of the children. But I think equally important in all of that is that these are things that a couple shares as equal partners. Like that's the most important thing. so to what Porter was saying before,

Shawn (57:01.205)
Yeah, absolutely. Most important part. I love that.

Matt (57:06.762)
there are men that are probably better at nurturing than their wives. And so why wouldn't you as a couple say, you know what, in our family, the husband is the better nurturer. So we're going to let him take care of that. Or

Porter (57:17.459)
Yeah, I think sometimes we'll look at these as like instructions for the other person in that relationship. You know, I'll see, you know, my responsibilities to provide, responsibilities to nourish. I think, OK, that means I don't need to nourish and she doesn't need to provide. But what it's really doing is instructing you to become and do certain things. That's what this gospel is all about. When it's saying the Father's purpose is to preside and provide, it's saying become yourself a

Shawn (57:17.921)
Totally beautiful,

Porter (57:47.249)
a presider and a provider. It's not saying anything about what your wife should or should not do. And same with being a nourishing parent.

Shawn (57:52.823)
Nice.

Matt (57:56.896)
Yeah. Awesome.

Shawn (57:57.601)
reporter gen z the report that gen z is a bunch of weirdos with weird ideas you just saved him dude you just came

Porter (58:01.887)
And you know it's because I've been married I'm about to have kid number two I've been married for five years these

Shawn (58:09.674)
before you got married you- before you got married you were this like weird like I'M THE BOSS OF ALL WOMEN

Porter (58:13.855)
Before I was married, I was an incurable misogynist. No. It's probably because I was not that I did get married.

Shawn (58:26.327)
So that's an honest take.

Matt (58:26.536)
I would love, I'd love to see the man on the third date. He's like, so when are you going to start obeying me? Because that's when this relationship is going to start moving forward.

Porter (58:31.613)
Maybe the Gen Z being more sexist is that we've had a lot of prophets talk about how these younger people really need to get serious about finding a spouse, especially young men. Maybe there's a correlation there.

Shawn (58:51.031)
But Matt, when you clarified that this survey was international and only 15 % of Gen Z men think this in the US, that means we don't have a problem with this in the US. Internationally, we have a problem with this.

Matt (58:59.08)
In the US. Yeah.

Matt (59:06.102)
But we have a global church. It is a global problem.

Porter (59:08.209)
Yeah.

Shawn (59:09.555)
great point. Thank you. Okay. Good point.

Porter (59:12.188)
15 is enough. 15 % is enough for me to not like that.

Shawn (59:15.915)
Yeah, good point too. That's true as well.

Matt (59:16.055)
Yeah, that's pretty high. Yeah. Hey, well, thanks you guys and listeners. Thanks for joining us. Let us know what you think of the podcast and we'll talk to you again next week.