Matt (00:00.984)
Hello everybody and welcome to the Latter Day Lens. It is so good to be with you this week. I'm your host Matt, with me as always is Sean and Melanie is joining us because she's feeling righteous and holy this post-general conference episode. She wants to let us know what she thought. Melanie, you actually got to go to general conference, right? Why did you get to go and everybody else had to watch from home?

Melanie (00:21.587)
Yes I did.

Melanie (00:26.69)
I have a grandma with connections.

Matt (00:29.39)
You had good seats, right?

Shawn (00:29.96)
you

Melanie (00:32.892)
I had really good seats, yeah. She's a music reader for the Tabernacle Choir. I don't know exactly what the job entails, but something along the lines of reading music. So my dad also gets the advantages of free tickets to all sorts of cool events the Tabernacle Choir is performing at.

Matt (00:34.958)
Yeah.

Shawn (00:35.624)
That's right. What does grandma do?

Shawn (00:41.362)
Music greater.

Shawn (00:53.576)
but only one of you takes advantage of seeing living prophets and apostles and is more righteous. And that is Melanie.

Melanie (00:59.762)
Mm-hmm. My dad just doesn't sustain Elder Gilbert yet.

Matt (01:00.206)
Yeah, that's

Shawn (01:03.61)
Matt!

Matt (01:04.126)
I went to General Conference a year ago, but know, Melanie's at BYU and her fiance hasn't had a lot of opportunities to do that kind of thing, so we're sacrificing, sacrificing for the new member of our family.

Shawn (01:18.076)
Melanie, see how you made it all about him?

Matt (01:20.622)
Well, we'll talk more about General Conference at the end of the episode. But first, somebody wrote in and said, Relegating FDR to the lowest tier based solely on Japanese internment feels like a strawman argument that ignores his massive role in ending the Great Depression and defeating fascism, while internment was a moral failure comparing it to the far more systematic property liquidation

Melanie (01:20.894)
Yeah, it always is.

Shawn (01:21.896)
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Yeah.

Matt (01:50.454)
and deportations in Canada suggest that FDR actually provided more restraint against public panic than he is being credited for. So there, you guys.

Shawn (02:00.382)
That's reaction to your comment though. What do you?

Matt (02:04.438)
Yeah, Yeah, this listener was not happy when I said, I think that FDR should be one of the worst presidents on that list because of internment.

Shawn (02:13.49)
Does this change your mind at all?

Matt (02:16.333)
I feel like it's I feel like the like okay, so what if the rest of the world is doing bad things? It doesn't make it okay for for FDR to do bad things I mean I understand like you're constrained by the the fanaticism or whatever of the times I suppose we should judge people at the time that they're in But it's pretty bad in my opinion. It's pretty bad to round up US citizens and put them in internment camps because of the their nationality or their

nation of origin. so I have a hard time forgiving that stuff.

Shawn (02:47.196)
Yeah.

Shawn (02:50.706)
Yeah, yeah, Good. I'm with you. Okay.

Matt (02:53.386)
Okay, but thanks listener. Thanks for writing in. We're really happy to hear that perspective. Okay, here's the first thought provoker. Melanie, did you want to say anything about FDR and internment camps?

Melanie (03:04.716)
I not really know.

Matt (03:06.474)
Okay. Alright. So there's two stories.

Shawn (03:06.556)
Yeah, Leave that to the political scientists.

Melanie (03:10.932)
Yeah, not a fan of internment camps, but like I'm not a historian.

Matt (03:15.575)
Yeah.

Shawn (03:15.614)
Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait,

Melanie (03:25.128)
I think I can straight up say I'm not a fan of internment camps.

Shawn (03:27.026)
The end.

Shawn (03:31.833)
And I'm not a historian.

Melanie (03:35.158)
I think it needs to be a but because this listener was bringing up historical context, right? And I don't have the knowledge to weigh like how important is this historical context? I think even if I were a historian, I'd still not be a fan of internment camps, but it might be a more nuanced and educated opinion.

Shawn (03:37.149)
Okay.

Matt (03:40.716)
Yeah, this list are probably...

Shawn (03:46.654)
I

Shawn (03:51.262)
You

Shawn (03:55.248)
Okay, that's good clarity.

Matt (03:55.81)
Okay. I'm I'm glad that we have educated listeners that like to point out facts and, yeah. Okay. So there were two stories this last week that caught my attention about sports and religion. So in the first one, I think her name is Delaney Gibb, Delaney Gibb. don't know. She's a, a BYU women's basketball player. She explained her team's decision to skip Sunday practice during

the women's NIT by stating that her faith in Jesus Christ is simply more important than basketball. The sports world responded with accommodation and respect to this, even adjusting national tournament schedules to honor her beliefs. In contrast, there was another basketball player named Jaden Ivy. He described his religious awakening and labeled the NBA's support for Pride Month as unrighteous and condemned various cultural behaviors as wicked.

the Chicago Bulls cut him for conduct detrimental to the team. So here's my question. Is the difference in how these two people were treated based more on the style or the substance of their content? Is society punishing Ivy for what he said or for how he said it? This is right up Sean's alley.

Shawn (05:11.838)
What a good question. Why? It's a great question. No, this is one of those genius questions that Matt brings up. Millie, did you have an opinion before I offer mine?

Melanie (05:14.91)
you

Melanie (05:21.43)
I don't know, Sean, you seem really excited, so you should start.

Shawn (05:24.03)
Well, to me, remember, okay, what era did we live in where cancel culture became the fad? That was just COVID era, right?

Shawn (05:36.25)
You're muted.

Melanie (05:37.622)
Dad, you're muted.

Matt (05:39.532)
I think maybe cancel culture predated COVID by maybe just a couple of years.

Shawn (05:44.456)
So would you consider with the NBA players, that cancel culture?

Matt (05:50.446)
I don't know that it's cancel culture. You're not saying you're not saying an answer you're answering asking a new question, Sean.

Shawn (05:56.702)
I know I wanted to lead it to see if it went into a discussion. Fine. I'll give you an answer. I think that during that whole cancel culture time, was everyone. A lot of people got confused. Well, there's a big difference between unjustly canceling someone because you don't like what they're versus natural consequences to saying things. For example, if I'm employed, if Matt, if you're employed by BYU and you start saying

Billy's doing all wrong. They're actually having, taking some evil stances on these things. You're literally talking against your employer. Your employer is a private company. It has a, you know, an organization. It has the freedom to take a stance as you want. So there's going to be a natural consequence if I start fighting against it or attacking it, right? So I don't think this is cancel culture. I think this is just probably a natural consequence to someone deciding to take a stand for what they believe in. And that's okay that there's consequences to it, right? Take them, take them.

Matt (06:51.246)
So what is the... So the conduct detrimental to the team, I'm guessing, is that he said stuff against the NBA's support of Pride Month, right? He's saying, he says in his thing, NBA should not be supporting that because the NBA is supporting sinful behavior and that's wrong. So that's what they're saying is detrimental to the team. But I would say that that's not conduct detrimental to the team. That's him expressing his personal beliefs, his personal faith.

Shawn (06:51.282)
Like if you believe what you're saying, take them.

Matt (07:20.248)
How does it hurt the Chicago Bulls if he says that he doesn't support Pride Month? That doesn't hurt the Bulls or the NBA.

Shawn (07:26.93)
Yeah, I mean, I agree with you, of course, but I think if the MBA's stance is we as an organization support Pride Month, and one of my employees goes, no, we don't. No, we don't, it's evil and you're stupid for doing that. Doesn't that, I mean, that's right. If I choose to work for a private organization, it's a free exchange.

Matt (07:43.5)
Yeah. Okay.

Melanie (07:44.611)
Because I think we've been able to see a lot of the value of athletes and public sports figures is their ability to be used as a symbol. And so the minute you have one of your symbols, your big name basketball player saying, I don't stand for what this organization stands for, then they lose some value inherent is to like part of their job is to be a symbol and they can no longer be used that way, which is harmful.

Matt (07:54.072)
Mm-hmm.

Matt (08:09.784)
Well, what I think, I think they're actually being punished. I think that Jayden Ivy is being published, punished not for the substance of what he said, but for the style of how he said it. He's right, because what what, what Delany Gibbs says is, look, I'm not going to do this because I believe that, religion comes before basketball. And if, Jayden Ivy was, if it was about himself,

Shawn (08:19.55)
I can agree with that though. Yeah.

Matt (08:39.66)
Right? This is my belief. like if you were to say, for example, I'm not going to listen to rap music anymore because the lyrics in it, they, it glorifies things that I think are evil. Nobody's going to get mad at him. What's that?

Shawn (08:50.802)
Which is what he does say. That is what he does say. He says that.

Matt (08:55.542)
No, he says, he doesn't say, that's in his rant, right? But he doesn't put it on him, he puts it on you. You shouldn't do that, you shouldn't listen to that, this is bad. So that's what I'm saying, it's the style where he's telling, he's like preaching to other people, telling them what they should or shouldn't do, rather than putting it on himself, saying, I've decided, if he wants to come out and say, I'm not gonna support Pride Month anymore because I think it's evil, that's different than saying, the NBA shouldn't be doing it. And that's why I think he's in trouble.

Shawn (09:23.938)
I don't know if I agree, Matt. There she's saying the same thing. She's just because she's got a softer approach. She's still saying I have a belief system that goes against what you guys believe in. I'm right and you're wrong. She's still saying that it's still an attack. It's just a soft more kind kind attack, but it is still about her her personal beliefs and it is judging the organization. I think it's the same. Yeah, he was more direct not as not as tack his tactics weren't as good.

Matt (09:37.376)
Yeah? Hmm.

Matt (09:47.32)
So do you.

Shawn (09:58.098)
You're here. Yeah, that's gone. What do you think? Any possible way? Let's just assume that he was going to say that he could have said it differently and not gotten fired. Like, how would he have said it?

Melanie (10:01.41)
You

Melanie (10:11.746)
I kind of wonder if what my dad was asking instead is whether there's any way what she was saying wasn't intended as an attack. Right? Like, is there a way we could interpret her statement as being, I'm not here to try and change the whatever tournament she plays in. I'm just here to practice my beliefs.

Shawn (10:21.319)
okay.

Shawn (10:29.554)
Yeah. Yeah.

Matt (10:33.86)
Well, or do you think there's any possible way he could have said, I think Pride Month is wrong? And not been a, do you guys already say that?

Shawn (10:41.694)
No, no, no, we guessed what you saying.

Melanie (10:41.802)
I think that's what Sean was saying you were saying and not what I was saying you were saying.

Shawn (10:45.118)
We were guessing though. How could you though? Like if I say, you've got a belief system, my company, my organization, my tournament has a belief system and I've got an opposing belief system and I believe that I'm right and I believe that you're wrong. Now it doesn't matter how softly I say it, you're still signaling that I'm right and you're wrong. That's what she did.

Matt (10:45.591)
okay. I see. I got it. Yeah, okay.

Matt (11:06.808)
Yeah. Well, if, if the NBA is punishing him for saying that he believes that pride month is wrong, then that's wrong. Like I personally think that there's even, doesn't matter who you are as a business, individuals have a right to publicly express their beliefs and you shouldn't be able to fire. When you, when you sign a contract that says I won't engage in conduct detrimental to the team, in what circumstances that ever

Shawn (11:14.695)
Okay.

Matt (11:33.612)
I will never express my own personal religious beliefs. Like that should be something that.

Shawn (11:37.267)
So would you support a civil lawsuit for violating his freedom of speech then in this case?

Matt (11:44.002)
If I were Jayden Ivey, I would 100 % sue my employer for unlawful termination. I would say, what did I do that hurt the Chicago Bulls in any way? And by the way, if he was a great basketball player, there's no way that, like imagine Sean, think about all the things we see NBA players do that they don't get cut for, right? So the fact, that's, yeah.

Shawn (11:59.73)
Yeah, Yeah, yeah. Like I saw a meme that highlighted all of the NBA players who have been either accused or convicted of basically punching, beating, abusing their spouses or their girlfriends with no consequences. And then this guy comes out and says this and he's fired. Yeah.

Matt (12:16.44)
Yeah. Yeah. Right. Kobe Bryant was accused of rape, right? And he had to end up.

Shawn (12:24.306)
Yeah, so was Derek Rose, like both of them.

Matt (12:28.152)
Yeah, right. So I have a real problem if you're going to fire somebody because they express their belief. It just becomes dangerous in society if I can't express my own personal belief. Now, you can disagree with that person, right? There's no problem with somebody saying, well, fundamentally, I disagree with you, right? I don't think that like, and even the team or the coach or whoever can say, well, we disagree about Pride Month. But I was thinking, because what the BYU basketball player said,

It just seems softer. It just seems less combative. That's why I think she was treated differently. If it's just about the LGBTQ stuff, then yeah, that's wrong.

Melanie (13:07.996)
I think there might be room for nuance between implied calls for change and explicit calls for change, right? Like, was it Delaney? Delancey? She was like, in her statement, there was an implied we shouldn't have to play on Sunday, but she wasn't telling people that, right? She was just saying, I'm not going to play because I feel like my faith is more important. And I think just generally, if you're willing to stand up there and say, I will take the fall for my actions, even if I don't think that I should.

Matt (13:14.323)
Mm-hmm.

Melanie (13:38.112)
I'm willing to do that, then it opens the door for more genuine communication and change. Whereas if you're saying you have to go my way or the highway, then there's less room for a conversation.

Matt (13:51.684)
I was watching the comments on the guys' videos on Instagram and people were like, I'm more concerned that you're recording this video while you're driving a car. Please put the phone down. All right, Melanie gets the points on that one.

Melanie (13:59.299)
Amen.

Shawn (13:59.878)
you

Shawn (14:06.927)
congrats Melanie.

Matt (14:08.154)
Ha!

Melanie (14:09.354)
You just gave me points because I talked last.

Matt (14:11.802)
Um, okay. All right, so there's a current Supreme Court case. It's challenging a 2025 executive order from President Trump that seeks to end birthright citizenship by reinterpreting the 14th Amendment. This amendment states that all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens. The administration argues this phrase should should exclude the children of undocumented immigrants.

Melanie (14:14.175)
You

Matt (14:40.282)
Representing the government is Solicitor General John Sauer. The Solicitor General is the top lawyer who explains and defends the President's legal positions before the Supreme Court. During the hearing, Justice Neil Gorsuch asked if Native Americans are birthright citizens under this new law. Sauer struggled to answer, first suggesting they are only citizens because of a 1924 law. However, he eventually admitted that they should qualify because they are

lawfully domiciled in the United States. This confusing exchange raises an important question. Is this legal challenge based on a consistent view of the Constitution or does it reveal a specific desire to exclude certain immigrant groups? Melanie's first. Go Melanie.

Shawn (15:26.664)
There you go. Ow. Yes.

Melanie (15:29.25)
I'm not a legal scholar, but it feels like it's based on a desire to exclude.

Matt (15:36.495)
Why?

Melanie (15:38.178)
I think because I imagine the case they're building against immigrants is based off of the clause subject to the jurisdiction thereof, right? And I think we know that Native American reservations sometimes exist under slightly different laws than the general federal populace, right?

Matt (15:47.064)
Yeah. Yep.

Matt (15:57.431)
They are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in all ways. They are independent sovereign nations within the United States.

Melanie (16:07.102)
Right? So if we're willing to allow them birthright citizenship, then when they're not subject to the, I think it's a complicated issue and it feels like this case is being used to target immigrant populations. And I don't necessarily think it should be used that way. Like if they're going to really hammer home the subject to the jurisdiction thereof, then they should hammer it home equally, right? Against the native natives.

Shawn (16:16.478)
You

Melanie (16:36.158)
against the immigrant populations, against people homesteading out in the middle of nowhere and not paying their taxes, it should apply to everyone trying to live outside of the jurisdiction of the federal government, not just a targeted population.

Matt (16:48.474)
That's a strong case, Sean.

Shawn (16:50.398)
When you guys assume immigrant groups are targeted for exclusion based why based on what evidence and why why Yeah, but why why immigrant group like what do you mean by immigrant groups? Do you mean minorities? Do you mean anyone from Ireland? Do you mean?

Matt (16:58.828)
on the executive order based on the executive order.

Matt (17:06.072)
Well

Undocu... Undocumented immigrant groups.

Shawn (17:14.374)
I mean, don't you have

Melanie (17:14.786)
Because you said it was focusing on birthright citizenship, right? Which is the idea that children born in the United States to undocumented immigrant parents are automatically citizens.

Matt (17:17.358)
Right.

Shawn (17:22.362)
Yeah, but your question is, but your question is reveal a specific desire to exclude certain immigrant immigrant groups. So what do mean by that? Do you mean like racism like

Matt (17:28.921)
Yeah.

just undocumented.

Shawn (17:35.154)
So not certain immigrant groups, but immigrant groups in general.

Matt (17:38.4)
No, well, no, just in this case, it would be just undocumented immigrants, right? They want to split. So what I'm saying, the question is, they're not really concerned about the constitution. What it is, is they're really concerned about saying, we want to make sure that undocumented immigrants children are not legal citizens. Like they really want to target that group.

Shawn (17:58.992)
Okay, so what can we think of as would be a motive for that? I can think of one. Like one realistic one that doesn't come from the limited viewpoint of just people, everyone's racist.

Matt (18:05.698)
Matt (18:12.634)
Well, I personally think that ultimately, it depends on who we're talking about, but I think the Republican party, let's just say the MAGA crowd, I think that they don't like any non-white immigrant groups. So they want to restrict all non-white immigrants to the United States.

Shawn (18:24.956)
So racism.

Okay, so you believe, okay, that's what I was looking for. You believe that it's a racist based on racism. They hate, they hate brown and black people and Asian people.

Matt (18:34.628)
For sure.

I wouldn't say hate. you don't, doesn't have to be hate to say we don't want you here.

Shawn (18:43.365)
What is it? What would you say it is?

Melanie (18:43.724)
There is a fear in their minds of a different demographic.

Matt (18:47.79)
Right.

Shawn (18:48.04)
See, I don't know why we can go there. Couldn't you argue that birthright citizenship gives motive to people to get here by any means possible instead of going through a legal or an orderly process? Isn't that a more realistic drive instead of just concluding that people within a certain political party are extremely racist?

Matt (19:06.008)
they are racist. But no, what I'm saying, the question isn't, the question isn't, Republicans doing this because they're racist? The question is, are they doing this because they really care about the Constitution and they're trying to follow the Constitution? Or are they more interested in making sure that, are they more interested in the policy outcome and so they'll argue whatever they need to argue just to get the Constitution to fit the thing they're trying to do? You see what I'm saying? So the question isn't,

are Republicans racist? And I'm trying to hide that. The question is, are Republicans, when they say, we love the Constitution, we revere the Constitution, we want to follow the Constitution, are they sincere in that? Or are they just trying to now use the Constitution to twist it so that they can get what they want in terms of policy?

Shawn (19:56.382)
I mean, can it be both? mean, the Constitution isn't like the it's not clear in every in every doctrine. It's not clear in every rule or law. So there's all kinds of judgments that come across that switch the meaning of the Constitution in various ways, right? Is it is it possible that they revere the Constitution and think that this is a gray area that needs some judgment?

Matt (20:11.556)
Sure, but this one.

Matt (20:18.176)
If so, why would they not, then if you really revere the constitution, right? And if you really say, okay, we've got to do what the constitution says and follow it, like to the letter. And by the way, let's do the original intent, right? Cause they say we have to go to original intent of the document. So if you really want to say, we're going to argue the original intent, then why do you now say, Native Americans, it doesn't actually apply to them because original intent.

Native Americans would not have qualified as citizens at that time under the original 10. If they were talking about subject to the jurisdiction means that you're the way that they're defining it now. Like to me, it feels like the Republicans are trying that they've decided they don't want undocumented immigrants children to be US citizens. Somebody goes through the constitution and tries to find some like legal ambiguity so they can twist it in a way to make it fit. And now they're trying to make that argument, but it's not logically consistent.

with what they're making the argument to be.

Melanie (21:19.733)
I feel like if they cared about the Constitution, there's an established amendment process, right? And yeah, it sucks and it's kind of complicated and convoluted. But if you're talking about the citizenship of actual living people, maybe a complicated process is far more necessary than governing by executive order.

Matt (21:39.418)
There you go.

Shawn (21:39.528)
if it is a gray area, then there's room for debate. And isn't that what's happening? The debate is happening.

Matt (21:44.686)
Well, if it's a gray area and there's room for debate, then you have to take your side of the debate and stay consistent in your side in the debate and not change your position based on the group that you happen to be talking about, right?

Shawn (22:00.571)
That doesn't sound like what any politician does. That seems like all politicians, the opposite.

Melanie (22:03.426)
So maybe the question shouldn't be, do Republicans care about the Constitution, but do politicians care about the Constitution?

Matt (22:05.614)
Well...

Shawn (22:12.03)
Great question. I think that's a better question.

Matt (22:13.475)
Yeah.

Yeah, well, so the reason I bring this up is because Mike Lee is a member of our church, right? An active member of our church and calls himself a constitutional scholar and says he reveres the Constitution. And he's a proponent of this particular view of the Constitution, which by the way, I don't think the 14th Amendment, it even suggests anything close to that. And so I just think it's like, I think that there are a lot of members of our church that are following this debate. And I just think it's important to point out that

that even conservative Republicans who say they love the Constitution don't stick with their position if it implies something that they don't want it to imply. They suddenly change their interpretation of the Constitution.

Shawn (22:56.734)
So Matt, you know better than me, does the Constitution of the United States, is it explicit and clear about birthright citizenship? It is. Is it?

Matt (23:02.584)
Yeah, well, in my opinion, it is even this phrase here subject to the jurisdiction thereof, right? It says everybody who's born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a lawful citizen of the United States. To me, that's clear.

Shawn (23:16.03)
So then I guess if their argument is then it's not clear and we're going to debate it to try and get something we want, you're going to judge that as well that's inconsistent and hypocrisy, right?

Matt (23:26.252)
No, no, I'm fine if you want to say the phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof. If you want to argue that that means that if you're undocumented, you're somehow not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, I don't even know how you make that legal leap. But if that is what you want to say, is that somehow an undocumented immigrant in the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then don't you have to argue that Native Americans are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States since they live in sovereign nations?

Shawn (23:40.477)
Yeah.

Shawn (23:45.286)
is not subject. Yeah.

Shawn (23:54.62)
Yeah, that is logical.

Matt (23:56.492)
And then, and then if you want to go historically and say, what did that amendment mean at that time? Well, we know that Congress stripped all Native Americans of their US citizenship 20 years after this 14th Amendment was passed. So there's no way you could argue that at that time when they passed the 14th Amendment, they intended that Native Americans born on reservations would be US citizens. So what I'm saying is,

Melanie (23:56.803)
And furthermore, sorry, go ahead.

Matt (24:23.8)
If you want to make that argument in the conservative framework, you have to conclude that Native Americans as well are not birthright citizens, but they're not making that argument. Yeah.

Shawn (24:33.374)
That does seem logical. That does seem logical. are you going to say, Melanie?

Melanie (24:38.58)
I just think like if you want to make the argument that undocumented children are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then you can't be deporting them because they aren't subject to your jurisdiction.

Shawn (24:47.184)
Yeah, right. Right, they have no authority, right? Yeah, that makes sense. That's logical. That is logical. It seems like they have no way to justify this. Yeah, that makes sense. You've convinced me, both of you.

Matt (24:48.029)
You

Yeah. Yeah.

Matt (25:00.228)
Sean gets the points on this one.

Shawn (25:02.446)
submitting. Thank you.

Matt (25:03.702)
No, not for submitting, Sean. You get the point, Sean, because this is something I learned. You remember when you sent me that thing on Instagram about the changes in party identification over the years? I was like, I think on this podcast, I talk way above the level of the listening audience from time to time. And so you get the point, because you force me. I'm like, I feel like I'm explaining this super well, but you're like, no, no, no, no, no. You got to explain it in a way that you're not just saying everybody.

Shawn (25:31.646)
to a two year old like me, right? the, yeah, to the layman. I like that that's my value.

Matt (25:33.579)
You

Melanie (25:35.788)
Sean, you get my points because you make me think about what I'm saying. I don't often change my mind, but at least you make me think about it.

Matt (25:39.266)
Right, right.

Shawn (25:39.294)
Listeners, that's an example of a backhanded compliment and a kind of direct compliment. But that's okay. I love you for it, man. I love you.

Matt (25:43.982)
Hahaha

Matt (25:51.63)
Hahaha

Well, I mean, no, but I will also, Sean, I'll give you the points because you did your best to try to defend the conservative position on that. Right? And listeners, well.

Melanie (26:03.042)
It was the last cause, but you tried.

Shawn (26:06.918)
No, I think you're right, Matt. I misunderstood the intent of your question and started arguing the motive of the Republican Party. And then I finally understood what the question meant and agreed with you. Yeah. But it did require you to dumb it down to my level.

Matt (26:18.36)
Yeah, but-

But listeners sometimes complain and they're like, there's nobody on there that's MAGA. And it's like, well, I'm sorry. We're trying, like, Sean does his best to try to represent like what a conservative Republican member of the church would think. It is a very, huh?

Shawn (26:34.984)
But I'm trying to be, yeah, I'm a little more traditional Republican though. Like the MAGA, I mean, we're about the next topic we're gonna talk about, LDS and MAGA, right?

Matt (26:39.224)
Yeah.

Matt (26:42.874)
Yeah, that's right. Okay, so there's a recent study based on surveys that have been done for the last, I don't know, 15 years. It shows that members of the LDS Church are moving towards the Democratic Party faster than any other group in the United States. While most members of the Church still support the Republican Party, the gap between the two parties has narrowed significantly over the last 20 years.

This shift is partly due to a Trump effect, as many voters feel the current MAGA movement conflicts with religious values like kindness and civility. Additionally, younger and more educated members are becoming more progressive on social issues such as immigration and racial justice. And I would add the LGBTQ stuff, although the people didn't say that. Experts believe this trend may continue if the Republican Party maintains its current style or

if church members continue to achieve higher levels of education. So this is the big question, or this is just the question with this. Is the Republican Party moving away from the church and its values? Is MAGA inconsistent with the moral teachings of the church? Go first, progressive young Melanie.

Shawn (27:55.41)
Hahaha

Melanie (27:56.546)
This is a hot topic for me because I have found that for myself my political leanings do lean significantly more progressive than MAGA and for me it feels like all of my beliefs are deeply deeply rooted in the morality taught by the church. But I have a number of friends who are part of the MAGA movement and who are also faithful members of the church and so

Shawn (28:01.258)
good.

Melanie (28:24.637)
I don't know if I can say for sure that the Republican Party is not aligned with the church. Like that's definitely, that's how I feel. Like if it were a world of just me, I would say that. But I have enough friends who are faithful members that I don't know if I can make that as an umbrella claim.

Matt (28:36.185)
Okay.

Matt (28:41.562)
So what I'm hearing from you is in your head you can't see how anyone could be MAGA and align with the moral teachings of the church. But since you know some people who do, you are willing to accept that it must be possible.

Shawn (28:50.322)
I didn't hear her say that. No.

don't think she said that. is that she said?

Melanie (28:55.553)
It's... Yeah, it is kind of what I said. Like, I don't get how they are that way, but they are, and I trust them.

Shawn (29:00.328)
it is. okay, good, good, good. Okay.

Matt (29:07.194)
Mm-hmm.

Shawn (29:08.426)
I mean, what a humble and wise, honestly, Melanie, like impressive answer. Seriously, I don't mean to joke because that means that you are going, like, I have a belief system politically that is driven by my belief system religiously. And I'm willing to look at other people who have the same faith that I do and they come to different political conclusions. And so I'm going to judge them on the religious level, not on their political level. Yeah. I mean, I mean, that's awesome.

Melanie (29:34.75)
Yeah, that's what I try to do.

Shawn (29:37.406)
That's it. The world would be such a great place if they were all Melanie's honestly, that's incredible

Matt (29:40.857)
Ha ha ha ha ha.

Melanie (29:41.951)
Thank you, Sean. Thank you.

Matt (29:44.278)
Okay, Sean, I'm gonna just answer the question since you didn't answer the question.

Shawn (29:48.218)
Okay. okay. I was just praising your daughter.

Matt (29:52.159)
okay. Okay. Go ahead and answer them.

Shawn (29:54.384)
Okay. Okay. I think the leader of the MAGA movement is clearly an example of exactly what you said. Like everyone that I talked to who is Republican and an active member of the church, most of them, not all, but a lot of them say the same thing. Like how can we support a guy who is so immoral? That goes against, he himself lives against every standard of our belief system. There are a few.

active members of the church who I know that are very supportive of his policies, not his behavior, but his policies. And that's the most common thing I hear. But that doesn't explain this shift. That doesn't. So yeah, I've scratched my head. I can't say, Matt, that the Republican Party is moving away from the church and its values. Donald Trump is an example of moving away from the church and its values. But and you could argue that he is the Republican Party. But I don't know. I think the MAGA movement itself isn't necessarily

inconsistent with the moral teachings of the Church. Can you really say that?

Matt (30:53.112)
I can say that there are elements of where the Republican party is going today, led by the MAGA movement, that is definitely inconsistent with the church. I think that the MAGA position on immigration is inconsistent with the values of the church. I think that the MAGA position on race and equality, the anti-DEI stuff, is inconsistent. I think that the...

Shawn (31:04.648)
So go ahead. What is it?

Matt (31:21.102)
the willingness of the MAGA movement to...

Shawn (31:23.752)
Hang on, hang on. Are you suggesting that the church practices DEI? Is that what saying? What? What? What? What evidence do you have of that? There's no way.

Matt (31:28.93)
Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, for sure.

So in my opinion, in my opinion, DEI is the same as belonging. And so when the church says we all belong to the church and there's a place for us all in the church, to me, that's what DEI is.

Shawn (31:47.144)
But you can't just change the definition of DEI. The world and the Democrat definition of DEI is explicitly putting quotas together to bring in people, whether they're qualified or not, to tick a box for basically racism. They have to be a certain race no matter what.

Matt (31:49.85)
But that's.

Matt (32:00.696)
Okay, but the Republican approach to DEI at the moment is to fire everybody who's a racial minority. Or to fire everybody. Yeah, that's what they... Yeah.

Shawn (32:08.168)
What? Whoa, whoa, whoa. You're my political scientist, so I'm gonna be open-minded, but how can you possibly make that claim? Where is the evidence of that?

Matt (32:17.644)
I mean, there are at least a hundred stories in the news of people that Doge fired for DEI things simply because of their race, because they were a woman or because they were minority. They have it all throughout the federal government. And then you look at what Pete Hegseth is doing in the military.

Shawn (32:31.75)
Wait, wait, wait, hang on, hang on, hang on. Did they get fired because they were Latino or a woman or did they get fired because they were hired under a unjust DEI law and because they dismantled the DEI standards.

Matt (32:43.778)
I mean, unjust.

Melanie (32:47.49)
But should it matter why they were hired or it should shouldn't matter the work they'd done since they were hired?

Matt (32:49.54)
That's what saying.

Right. It doesn't matter if you're firing somebody by the of a certain.

Shawn (32:53.886)
True, But how do but whatever it is, but whatever it is to you. So you've just jumped to a conclusion though. Maybe they did keep on the people who were performing no matter their skin color or sex or gender. Maybe they did. You don't know that. How do know that?

Matt (33:05.802)
They didn't. Well, I just did a survey of like, let me think, 800 federal employees asking them what happened. And according to them, they were firing racial minorities and women.

Shawn (33:14.246)
huh.

Shawn (33:19.422)
Okay, all right.

Matt (33:19.98)
Yeah. Well, so anyhow, so I think that that's wrong, right? If whether or not that's happening, I guess we could disagree. if that's

Shawn (33:28.198)
I agree that it would be wrong. It would be absolutely dead wrong if it was happening. Yeah.

Matt (33:31.682)
Yeah, I think that the MAGA movement and the Republican Party at the moment, I think that what they're doing in terms of military, where they're just killing people in other countries, I think that that's wrong. think...

Shawn (33:43.518)
Melanie agreed? Did you agree Melanie?

Melanie (33:47.611)
have thoughts about what's going on militarily right now.

Matt (33:50.874)
Trump's discussion of war crimes, their willingness to excuse, right? Like some people get blown up and destroyed. So there are definitely things where the Republican Party is moving that are inconsistent with the moral teachings of the church. What I can say is, I would say though, I have friends that are Republicans that because they feel like that society has gone too far in pushing, in promoting

Shawn (33:50.948)
Yeah.

Shawn (34:05.992)
But how can you sit? go ahead.

Matt (34:20.398)
the LGBTQ agenda, specifically transgender rights. I could see how somebody would say that that's consistent with the moral teachings of the church, being concerned about that. I think that there are people who support Republicans because they're concerned about the moral decay of society and the erosion of the family, and they feel like the Republican party is more supportive of families. And I can see policies in which Republicans

seem to be more supportive of the traditional nuclear family. And so I can understand why some people would say some aspects of the MAGA Republican Party are consistent with the church. So my ultimate conclusion is like all political parties, there's some plagues where the Republicans are consistent and there's things where they don't support the church.

Shawn (35:09.566)
I mean, that's the right answer, right? These parties are manmade. They are power influenced. They are money and profit driven. There's no way they're going to be consistently right on moral issues. They're going to follow the votes, follow the money.

Matt (35:22.394)
Yeah. But I will say, I believe that most members of our church who are MAGA were raised Republicans. They were raised in an environment where the church and the Republican party fit together and they're not, I'll just say maybe politically sophisticated enough to see how maybe they don't need to support the Republican party and everything. And young people,

are not raised in the same kind of environment in the church today. have more, like Sean, when you and I were growing up in the church, almost all the church members came from this Utah world and it was gradually sort of spreading out. But that's not the world of today. Today, you have people joining the church all over the world and they're coming to the BYUs and the BYU Idahos. And they're bringing those views with them. And as they interact with other people at those places, that's what's making people more progressive.

it's that Melanie's experience at BYU is completely different than our experience at BYU was because Sean, if we met a Democrat at BYU, what would we have said to them? We would have been like, what's wrong with you? Like, what, do you hate God? Do you hate Jesus or something?

Shawn (36:35.294)
Do you you would have? Do you think you would have back then?

Melanie (36:35.382)
you

Matt (36:38.104)
for sure I would have back then. Do you remember Elder Katen in the MTC? Where we were all talking about like, real hardcore conservative stuff. And he's like, I would actually call him a conservative, but he was from Iowa. And he had like a little bit different views. I remember he said something about like the artwork in the N-Sign magazine wasn't the best art he'd ever seen in his life. And we were like, you heretic, you horrible person. How dare you question the N-Sign mag?

Shawn (36:39.9)
Are you serious?

Yeah, I sure do.

Shawn (37:04.446)
I wasn't reacting that way. Maybe you were, but I wasn't. That's crazy. Okay, but you're okay. But you're now you've now shifted to a bit of a tangent on the question and you're suggest you're trying to now discover what is the reason that there's this 20 % or 10 % shift left in the church and you're suggesting it comes from a more diverse culture in the younger generations of our church. That's what the reason is. That's what you're thinking it is. Melanie, what do you think?

Melanie (37:07.948)
Yeah.

Matt (37:08.162)
Well, he would say stuff and we'd be like, what? Yeah, anyhow, I...

Matt (37:30.18)
That's what I think. I, yeah.

Melanie (37:34.177)
think there's something to be said for what my dad's saying. think like, I don't know, we live in the information age or whatever where there are so many connections all over the globe and all over the country. And I think a lot of people's political ideals, especially in my generation, depend on the social media sphere you fall into at the ages of like 12 or 13. And excuse me.

Shawn (37:58.718)
So you guys are sheep. So millennials and Gen Zers are sheep.

Melanie (38:02.942)
Everyone's a sheep. It's not just us. We're all sheep.

Matt (38:08.549)
Right. Right. And Sean, you were, you didn't like it before when I said something about political sophistication, but this is the thing. If you grow up in a world where Republican party and church are the same thing, and then you encounter this other world that tells you like, some of these things are the Republican party that you've had tied to your religious belief systems are not true. It actually ends up attacking your faith in Jesus Christ. I've learned, cause I teach political science at BYU Idaho, so I have to be so cautious and

Shawn (38:35.73)
Yeah, you see that. Yeah, you see it.

Matt (38:37.794)
and how I like, yeah, how you peel back those layers. so, like the fact that there's so many members of our church that are Republican and that it's shifting, I'm just saying what's happening is that people are not coming with things so tightly connected as young people today, as they were when we were younger. And so you can peel things back a little bit more, but you still have to be really, really cautious.

Shawn (39:02.076)
I'm glad you're in that position, Matt, honestly, because I think one of the biggest problems, right? The scriptures teach us about, I know they works, they know they're hot and cold, but they're lukewarm. And I would that they're hot or cold. Cause if they're lukewarm, I speak out of my mouth. I think what you're suggesting is if I'm raised a certain way, a sheep, Melanie, a sheep, and I'm attaching my politics to my religion just as a sheep, just cause that's what everyone does. And that's what everyone believes that is lukewarm mentality. And you're right. I like when.

Melanie (39:29.762)
you

Shawn (39:30.144)
That gets challenged. Go belly. What?

Melanie (39:33.079)
I think that it's very hard for most people to separate politics and religion. I think it's not inherently a sheep mentality because I think our political stances, we take our political stance based off of what we believe is morally right, the majority of us at least. And I think our morals are inherently shaped by our religious beliefs. So I think it's not necessarily wrong to say, I think most people don't sit down and say,

how have my religious beliefs shaped my morality and how has my morality shaped my politics? Because that's a mess. And I think not everyone has the time and resources to sit down and sift through all of those things. So while like, yes, I wish everyone would, I don't think it's fair to call people sheep for having those connections in their heads.

Matt (40:21.082)
I'll give you an example, Sean. This is, I had a conversation with a BYU-Idaho student today and they were saying, we were talking about these, because President Oaks gave that beautiful talk and he was talking about how the world's not quite so toxic and he was in a fight with somebody and he's like, he's like, I'll admit it, I'm a little bit homophobic. I'm a little bit sexist. He's like, I'm maybe a little bit racist. He's like, but I'm not really racist. I just think racist jokes are funny and.

Shawn (40:21.215)
Good defense, good defense, Mellie.

Matt (40:48.717)
there aren't really any other jokes that are funny. There's like basically dad jokes that aren't that funny. And the racist jokes are the only jokes that are really funny. And I was like, you know that like President Meredith spoke about that specifically saying we shouldn't tell racist jokes, they're not funny. And he was like, it really took him back. And he was like, yeah, but they're the only jokes that are funny. Like, it's not like I really believe that stuff. It's not like I really think that stuff, right? And so.

I know Sean, when I say to you like Republicans are racists, that you're like, no, they're not. But what I'm saying is like, it's this stuff that people are raised with. It's the way that they feel, the way they experience the world and it's all tied together in their faith. And to say to them, your religion teaches you racism is wrong. They're like, well, I know racism is wrong. It's wrong for me to hate people of another race. But to say,

But that also means racist jokes are wrong. Then they're like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Now you're like making me feel uncomfortable about like, like that's just the world a lot of people live in.

Melanie (41:50.883)
Can I provide another example of this? I was talking to one of my friends in the physics major the other day, and I'm in a course on the Middle East right now. Awesome, great time. But I was talking to my friend and he was like, well, I really think that Islam as a belief system is inherently less moral than Christianity because it's not based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. And he and I ended up having like this whole conversation about it. And like, all I wanted to do was help him see

Shawn (41:51.154)
Go ahead, Nolan. Yeah, yeah.

Melanie (42:21.012)
that that belief is inherently dangerous. Because the minute you believe Islam as a belief system is less moral than Christianity, then suddenly it's an easy generalization to make about all people who practice Islam. And it was a really hard conversation to have with him because in his mind, it was so true that Christ is the source of all truth and truth is the source of morality. So Christianity must be more moral than any religion that doesn't believe in Christ. And it's like,

Matt (42:49.486)
And then it's just a baby step from that to saying we can restrict the religious liberties of Islam because it's a less moral religion than ours.

Shawn (42:57.736)
Ha

Melanie (42:58.558)
Right, and that wasn't the claim he was pushing for in that moment, but it was a very scary foundation to have.

Matt (43:01.228)
Right, right.

Matt (43:06.414)
But in fairness, I have Democrat friends too, we have Democrat listeners, for you Democrats, same same you guys, Democrats are supporting plenty of things that are not consistent with the values of the church. And Melody, who's super progressive, can tell us what they are, but there's definitely things that Democrats support that's not consistent with the church.

Melanie (43:28.98)
You overestimate my knowledge of politics.

Matt (43:31.448)
You can't think of a single thing the Democrats support that's inconsistent with the values of the church. It's okay if you can't, because Sean will jump in and help you.

Shawn (43:31.483)
Uh-huh.

Melanie (43:40.553)
Yeah, I need to phone a Sean.

Shawn (43:43.144)
Matt named a bunch of them. I don't even need to name them, Matt. You're the ones that named them. You said the Republican values that are against all the whole big list you gave. Those are Democrat stances for sure.

Matt (43:47.066)
Yeah.

Matt (43:54.886)
Mm-hmm. I would say this, I want to be careful how I say it, but I have, I think that the Democrat party makes people believe in a utopia that can't possibly exist. And they make people believe that if everybody could just come along and see things the right way, that we could all live in this utopia and everybody would love each other and everybody would be equal and there would be no problems and, and

Shawn (43:55.25)
Yeah, you name them.

Matt (44:23.438)
And that's not a reality. situations where I'm in where the Democrats are running everything, some people are still feeling left behind, but they feel silenced about it along the way. And so there's sometimes this dream of like this Democrat socialist utopia that doesn't feel so utopia-like. Would you agree with that, Sean?

Shawn (44:44.21)
Yeah, yeah, for sure.

Matt (44:46.042)
because you're living in a wonderful, your state is dominated by Democrats. You know what it is when Democrats get what they want. Does it feel utopian?

Melanie (44:53.954)
And it's a utopia, right?

Shawn (44:56.35)
I live in the very conservative end of this utopia. Remember San Diego is very conservative. And you've been to San Francisco, Matt, is that the utopia you're talking about?

Matt (45:00.706)
Sure, sure, but you're...

Matt (45:07.364)
Well, I want to know this, Sean, what is gas prices the last time you looked in your area?

Shawn (45:12.136)
nearing six bucks

Matt (45:13.466)
Right, and it's probably like four or something like that where I'm at, right?

Melanie (45:13.827)
Shawn (45:18.75)
And that Melanie is your Democrat liberal utopia.

Matt (45:23.224)
Right. It prices some people out, right? It prices some people out of not everybody gets to experience the joys of the Democrat utopia because

Melanie (45:24.458)
I know, I know.

Shawn (45:25.874)
Hahaha!

Shawn (45:33.374)
It's an exclusive utopia, that is for sure.

Matt (45:36.282)
That to me is not consistent with the values of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Okay, let's move to the big question because it was general conference and I want to know what are your takeaways from general conference and anything we should do differently moving forward?

Shawn (45:41.794)
Hahaha

Shawn (45:51.634)
Wow.

Melanie (45:51.841)
Yeah, I want to pose a question to follow up this question because as I was listening to President Oaks' remarks in the Sunday morning session where he talked about loving our neighbor and practicing charity, I was getting a lot of like politically affirming pro-democrat messages, you know, like we just talked about. So Sean, I'm curious as someone who doesn't have the same instinctive political leanings that I do, what were your takeaways and like calls to action from that talk?

Matt (45:54.755)
Okay.

Shawn (46:22.758)
Same as yours. I think it was not concluding that a Republican or Democrat party had anything to do with it. I don't conclude that. But I think that was a theme throughout most of conference and most of the talks was God values the individual, whether it's your neighbor, whether it's the least of us. And we need to make a shift to value the individuals more so than their party affiliation, more so than their

Melanie (46:24.416)
Okay.

Shawn (46:50.238)
Skin color or their financial status, whatever. so yeah, i've heard that a lot melanie that that only democrats care about the poor or their neighbors I don't understand that here's here's here's my lived experience with that melanie Whenever in my ward that is 90 Republican and I have 10 of my friends who are democrats Whenever someone is in need and this is over speaking it maybe a little bit. This has happened five or ten times the republicans

come together and start giving of their own stuff, the Democrats go, the church will take care of them. I know that's a generalization, but they don't show up and they don't participate. literally go, look, the reason we pay our tithing is because we have a system where we are contributing and the government or the organization will take care of these people. The Republicans go, what organization to take care of the people? We are the people that take care of our people.

Melanie (47:25.491)
Mmm.

Shawn (47:44.146)
But that's just an anecdotal experience, Melanie. I know that. I know that's not everywhere. But I do see that in real life.

Matt (47:52.666)
Hmm.

Melanie (47:52.746)
This is an interesting observation. I like this observation.

Matt (47:57.178)
I think it's interesting and important. The two messages that were repeated from President Nelson was number one, peace, and then number two, the importance of personal revelation. And President Oaks just said it in a little sentence in a BYU devotional, this idea that Satan is getting good at deceiving people. And if you don't know how to get revelation, you'll be led astray.

And that was a bigger theme in conference. A lot of people were repeating that. I think it's really instructive that like those are the two things because I think that is what people struggle with. It is hard to make peace. And I think that's why we do this podcast because I think that it's important for people to see you can disagree about stuff and still be peaceful. But also I think it's, I think the other reason we do it is because the more you can kind of peel away at some of that stuff.

the easier it is to make peace with those around you. So like, I was thinking about, on another podcast I do with my sister, we interviewed an active member of the church who's gay, and we also interviewed an active member of the church who's transgender. And I think some, yeah.

Shawn (49:08.456)
Palestinian. Yeah, you did an active member who's Palestinian, right?

Matt (49:13.41)
Yeah, that's right. And I think sometimes it's really, really helpful for us to see that these people we see as adversaries, right? That's the use of the word that President Oaks used. These people we see as adversaries are members of our church. They're among us. And as soon as we start putting people in boxes and saying, you're my adversary, you're not welcome here, then we're messing up.

Shawn (49:36.382)
So question, Melanie, why do you associate everything or do you that Matt just said with the Democrat party? Why do you associate that with a political party or do you not?

Melanie (49:49.955)
I think my experience thus far has not been perfect by any means, right? But from what I've seen in my life, the people I know who are like hardcore MAGA Republicans are far more likely to make... Okay, actually, I think what it is, I know way more Republicans than I know Democrats. So...

Matt (50:16.89)
Hmm.

Melanie (50:19.081)
Every fallacy of humanity, right? Every harsh judgment or overstatement or violent reaction, I associate with a Republican because I don't know enough flawed Democrats.

Shawn (50:28.574)
Amazing!

How insightful, Melanie. Okay, so you've got an... That is really insightful. That sounds like an epiphany.

Melanie (50:38.285)
But I also think the Democratic Party markets itself as the party of inclusion, right? Because in some ways it is. Whether affirmative action or DEI, I think is what you guys were calling it, whether it's the perfect approach or not, it is the approach that works on targeting the racism that's ingrained in our society, right? The Republican Party doesn't have an alternative to that. And the Democratic Party has more welfare programs, right? So if I say, let's take care of the poor, which party do I see doing that as a party?

I see the Democrats doing it.

Shawn (51:09.672)
So what do you think of my anecdotal reaction to that? Literally what I see, the Democrats, uh-huh, go ahead.

Melanie (51:13.695)
So I think what it is, the Democrats are used to trusting the institutions. They say, if we want to take care of the poor, let's fund programs to take care of the poor. So they say, tithing is the program we're funding to take care of the poor. The Republicans would rather do it themselves.

Shawn (51:25.436)
Yeah, and then they, but then, and then they don't get him. But then they don't get him. That's right. So they don't get involved in taking care of the poor ever.

Melanie (51:36.841)
Everybody's flawed. I will say.

Matt (51:38.99)
Well, I wouldn't say so you have a generalization there too, Sean, because you do know Democrats that give to the poor. yeah, Levi's a Democrat who we know helps out poor whenever he gets a chance.

Shawn (51:50.012)
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, but Levi is one of the most special people I've ever met. That guy is like, like I told you is anecdotal. I told you is anecdotal. I know it's anecdotal.

Melanie (51:57.695)
you

Matt (51:57.882)
So you're doing the same thing as Melanie in reverse.

Melanie (52:04.579)
Can I provide another conference takeaway though? I think another message I got, I can't remember if someone said it in a talk or if it was in a book I was reading. I don't know, this weekend's been a blur. But I got a very strong message that if you want to change a society, the best thing you can do is change as an individual. And I think with President Oaks' message to love our neighbor and take care of those around us, and with Sean's anecdotal evidence, I think we can say,

Matt (52:06.862)
Yeah.

Melanie (52:34.359)
We have these parties that are proposing these grand societal changes, but which party we align with matters way less than how we are choosing to live in our personal lives. Are we taking steps to see people who aren't normally seen? Are we taking steps to love the people who are hard to love? Are we listening when someone may point out a gap in our understanding? And I think if all of us as members, regardless of our political parties, focus a lot more on what we are doing and who we want to become,

that's like the best solution.

Matt (53:06.542)
Mic drop Melanie. Awesome.

Shawn (53:08.254)
Beautiful. Love that.

Melanie (53:09.899)
Thank you, thank you.

Matt (53:11.022)
Hey everybody, I'm sure that we said something that made you mad this week. Probably it's because we want to let you practice loving your adversaries. But also, we're happy to hear from you. Let us know what you think. We'll read your comment, even if it's nasty and mean. I'll just soften it a little bit. Okay everybody, thanks for joining us. We'll talk to you again next week.

Shawn (53:16.124)
Hahaha