Matt (00:01.129)
Hello everybody and welcome to the Latter Day Lens. is so good to have you with us this week. I'm your host Matt. With me as always is Sean and you can probably hear Mark put like playing with some candy wrappers or something like that. Yeah, Mark's gonna just so you know, Mark will have very fresh breath on this. If you could be nearby and smell it, it's gonna smell good. So first up, Sean turned 50 years old this week. Sean, how does it feel?

Marc (00:13.871)
I wanted to get some gum, so excuse me.

Marc (00:29.954)
Whoa!

Shawn (00:30.623)
Yeah, the five oh big old five oh, I don't know dude. I've told people in 50 for the last three years Like what's the difference between 47 and 50 or 52 or 50?

Matt (00:33.169)
Yeah.

Marc (00:39.694)
the truth.

Matt (00:41.373)
Did you do anything fun, Sean, for your 50th birthday?

Shawn (00:46.439)
I a couple of lobster rolls, is that? That sounds fun. It was fun. Went furniture shopping.

Matt (00:48.869)
Mmm. Are they Pacific Pacific coast lobster?

Shawn (00:55.007)
I don't know. I don't know. It's a good question. Yeah, it's a good question. Like it should be from the East Coast if it's going to be like authentic, right?

Matt (00:57.283)
Marc (00:57.474)
Or the generic coast.

Matt (01:04.925)
Did you go flying for your 50th birthday?

Shawn (01:08.027)
No, I'm not a psycho.

Matt (01:09.693)
Alright, did you have like a concert like you? You're into music. Did you guys like have get the band together and play like old people songs?

Shawn (01:19.967)
That would be like U2, like that kind of old people songs. That's the kind of stuff you would play, not me.

Matt (01:26.425)
Yeah, I don't For Willie Nelson, for his 90th birthday, he had all kinds of country people come and sing his songs and have a big party. I don't know. It seems like... Yeah, okay.

Shawn (01:37.715)
Yeah, like, Willy Nelson would be

Marc (01:40.621)
He's a lot cooler than you two.

Shawn (01:43.54)
Yeah.

Matt (01:43.687)
Hey, I love you too. Yeah. Well, and Mark likes Bruce Springsteen and so.

Marc (01:44.937)
I said it. I said it.

Shawn (01:49.631)
Matt, there's in college, there is a song called 7475 and I never knew you played guitar or sang, but whenever there were girls around, well, Matt Miles brought the guitar out and sang 7475 and it was pretty dang impressive by the way.

Matt (01:53.969)
Yeah, the Connells.

Marc (02:05.26)
I like to 6-7 myself.

Matt (02:05.393)
Yeah. If the cores were easy enough, I could do it. I couldn't. Yeah.

Shawn (02:07.443)
Hahaha

Shawn (02:12.511)
And you boy, and boy did you do it. If there were girls around.

Matt (02:15.879)
You know, my daughter, my daughter's having her wedding reception this week and I persuaded her instead of doing a dance, a first dance with her husband, she should do a song. So he's gonna play the grand piano and she's gonna sing a song. That's pretty cool, right?

Shawn (02:20.58)
my gosh.

Shawn (02:31.059)
That's cool, I mean, they could have done both, but that's really cool.

Matt (02:34.255)
Yeah. Yeah, I think, I think singing at your wedding reception is a good thing to do.

Shawn (02:40.755)
Did you do that?

Matt (02:42.107)
Yeah, for sure. Yeah, my wife and I were saying, can't smile without you, the Barry Manilow favorite. Yeah, we did. My mom played the piano. I've got video. I was watching it the other day and then I was like, Melanie should sing.

Shawn (02:46.951)
No you didn't.

Shawn (02:51.743)
Why was I not at your wedding?

Matt (02:56.381)
I don't know, you were a little kind of self centered and absorbed at that time. didn't, you were self absorbed. It was in California. It was a time when you weren't willing to travel to California. I don't know.

Shawn (03:05.055)
Seriously.

Shawn (03:10.028)
It's really odd to me. Why was I not at your wedding? I don't understand.

Matt (03:13.627)
It was also in the middle of the semester. was Thanksgiving break. like Thanksgiving was Thursday and then we got married like the Saturday after Thanksgiving. So probably a lot of people, yeah, couldn't come.

Shawn (03:17.585)
is that why?

Shawn (03:23.689)
That might be why. Yeah.

Marc (03:24.169)
I wasn't invited either, so...

Matt (03:26.703)
I know, I'm sorry Mark. I would invite you now. If I got married today, I invite you to my wedding.

Marc (03:28.282)
Okay.

Marc (03:32.422)
I probably still wouldn't go home. It's nothing against you, it's just a long drive. I'm not in the mood.

Matt (03:33.981)
You

Matt (03:38.877)
All right, well, in the mailbag, we had a couple of interesting comments. One listener said, democracy does not require multiple religions. And I just I disagree with that.

Yeah, I mean, I don't, I'm not saying.

Marc (03:55.197)
Okay.

Shawn (03:55.591)
be there would be it's required to have more insight into that that's just a that's too short of a statement.

Matt (04:00.957)
If you live in a democratic society and there are people who practice the different religions, democracy requires respect for religious liberty of people to practice religion. So it's true, I could have a democracy in a community where everyone has the same religion, but if I live in a community where there's different religions, then democracy requires that we respect their religious beliefs. That seems like a no-brainer.

Shawn (04:23.241)
There you go. There you go. just, you, you just made everyone that you, you peace of FIDE that whole discussion. Cause that was perfect way to say it. I'm sure that's what they would agree to maybe. I'm sure. Yeah.

Matt (04:32.22)
Okay, I'm sure that listener. Another says the person who decides what is good speech and what is bad speech is the person in power. Only crazy people give them this power voluntarily. Almost always it is never given voluntarily. It is taken.

Shawn (04:40.691)
Bam.

Shawn (04:47.909)
Bam! Preach it.

Matt (04:49.775)
Okay, yeah. Well, so then those people in American society today who want to say you can't say certain things, they're trying to take power away from us, right? They're trying to.

Shawn (04:59.187)
Mm-hmm.

Marc (05:00.296)
So I'm gonna say the N-word. No, oh no, I'm not.

Matt (05:02.813)
You're free to say anything you want to say, Mark. I'm not going to take that power away from you. I was in class the other day and this student raised his hand and he's like, I don't know if I'm allowed to say this. And I'm like, this is college. Like there's no censorship here. We're not going to cancel you. Say whatever you got to say, man. That's how it is in college, right? Mark, you can say whatever you want to say. Is it not?

Shawn (05:06.131)
Yeah, say it Mark, say it.

Marc (05:07.292)
No, I'm... Alright, alright. No.

Marc (05:25.249)
definitely it'd be where you are, though.

Shawn (05:26.175)
You're not going to tell us what he said,

Matt (05:31.771)
He said something so benign. I was like, you should listen to my podcast. Like there's no way that I'm going to care about.

Marc (05:39.472)
This is real controversial, but I like reading scripture.

Matt (05:43.165)
Yeah, I can't remember the things that you're anyhow. Yeah. And I think also podcasts, we're not going to censor speech. If Mark wants to say anything he wants to say, he's welcome to say it. That's, that's why you join us on the podcast mark because we don't censor you. If, if we did, you wouldn't join us. You'd be like, I feel so shackled. I can't say the things I want to say.

Marc (05:56.688)
Dudukaka.

Marc (06:01.447)
Well, thank you.

Shawn (06:06.975)
There's obviously a difference between people saying, Mark, you can't say these words. You can say the words and there are consequences to say those words. So you can't cry foul if there are consequences to your words,

Marc (06:07.066)
Honestly, I-

Marc (06:21.254)
And honestly, you could censor me and I wouldn't know because I don't listen to the podcast very regularly.

Matt (06:25.597)
Mark like listens to the podcast and everything he says his muted he's like, Wait a minute. Didn't I say something? Like every so often I'll create these YouTube shorts from content of the podcast and some of it gets quite a lot of viewers I imagine when when we're all said and done here. Mark's gonna have some stuff. I haven't done anything with Mark on YouTube yet but I expect

Shawn (06:32.638)
Ha

Marc (06:35.449)
No, no, you didn't say anything. okay.

Matt (06:54.459)
Mark has some funny things to say that YouTube people would love. be like, I mean. All right, so here, let's get to the thought provoker. So here's the first topic this week. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a US law created to stop unfair treatment of voters, especially black Americans in the South. Before this law, many states used tests, taxes, and other tricks to prevent minority people from voting.

Shawn (06:57.705)
Yeah, no pressure, Mark. You gotta say some funny things today.

Marc (06:58.149)
Di-Reticulitis.

Matt (07:22.127)
The law made these practices illegal and allowed the federal government to watch elections in places with a history of discrimination. It also required some states to get federal approval before changing their voting rules to make sure the changes were fair. Overall, the law helped millions of people register to vote and increased participation in elections. Just this last week, the Supreme Court ruled that parts of the Voting Rights Act may no longer be necessary as necessary as they once were and overturned some provisions of it.

They said that Louisiana should not have used race to create a voting district, shifting the way that the law is applied today. President Oaks said in the past, idea that one's own race is superior to others and has the right to rule over them has led to many racist laws and administrative policies. And he's also said that as citizens and as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we must do better to help root out racism. So here's a question.

Do members of our church have a moral obligation to support the Voting Rights Act and other laws passed in the 1960s designed to fight racism?

Shawn (08:30.271)
I mean, it's it's kind of a broad question, but of course we should support laws that fight racism, right? I mean, absolutely we should, but, going into the details, I mean, obviously Matt, it's not as black and white, right? The voting rights act of 1965 is now being debated and interpreted in 2026. So it's not as, I don't think you can say, boy, you're either moral or immoral if you do or don't support this thing. They're debating it. Like, what does it mean? How does it apply? But of course in the end we should.

Matt (08:56.519)
Well, I was...

Shawn (08:58.493)
We should obviously support laws that protect.

Matt (09:04.207)
I would say that the people who are trying to reinterpret the law are the people that are racist and they're trying to bring racism back into American society. So if you have a law that ended racism or stopped racist policies in certain states, to then 50 years later say, there's no more racism in those states, so we don't need these laws anymore. I think that it's racist people that are saying that.

Shawn (09:25.919)
But if you, that's judgmental. Have you read the Tennessee, I mean, what's happening in Tennessee? I mean, why the, why the, Louisiana, sorry. Yeah.

Matt (09:32.261)
You mean Louisiana? Yeah, Louisiana created a, they have, decided that black people were not being adequately represented by the state of Louisiana. So they created another congressional district to increase black representation in Louisiana. And the court said, you can't do that, that's racist because you're favoring black people. But that's the whole purpose of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to help African-Americans increase their representation in states where they've historically not had adequate representation.

Shawn (09:51.775)
It

Shawn (09:59.392)
So.

But again, here's where it becomes really gray, Matt. They did draw a district that had proper, I guess, like proper, like how do you judge what's proper representation of the black vote? And people were like, well, that's not enough. You did it, but it's not enough. So they said, okay, let's do a second one. And so they did a second one, but how do you draw a line? Well, when's enough? Should there be six? Should there be two? Should there be one? You know what I mean? You can't jump to L and people are just racist.

Matt (10:15.677)
Well, that's-

Matt (10:20.785)
Yeah, there you go.

Shawn (10:31.291)
It went, okay.

Matt (10:31.494)
Sure I can.

Well, so President Oaks said that people who are racist sometimes enact racist laws and policies. And like the answer to the question of where I draw the line is, I look at the percentage of Louisiana that's African-American. Let's say it's 40%, okay? All right, so then if Louisiana has six seats in the House of Representatives, two of those should go to black people. So that one third,

Marc (10:43.558)
Ahem.

Shawn (10:49.883)
One third. Yes, like one third.

Matt (11:02.255)
of the population has a seat in the House of Representatives. That's easy to do.

Shawn (11:05.407)
I mean, that's DEI, right? No, that's not DEI. That's...

Matt (11:09.531)
Now that's done.

Marc (11:12.403)
That's There's absolutely racism.

Matt (11:13.575)
That's not racism, that's overcoming historical, tell me how that's racism to say the state of Louisiana is creating congressional districts that under represent African-Americans. So we're gonna create a new seat that allows the equal representation of African-Americans. How's that racism?

Marc (11:34.884)
If an African American is good for the Congress, he will run for the Congress where he is and people will support him because he has good policies and makes a good statesman. If you say, we'll just lump all the black folks together so we get a good black congressman. That's kind of racism and that's segregation and that's Jim Crow 2.0 and it's truest form of, well, the blacks aren't good enough for the white people. So we're going to make the blacks all one group here.

That way they'll take care of themselves. yeah, I don't like that.

Matt (12:08.327)
Well, if the state is, let's say that there are racist individuals in Louisiana. Let's just say that there might be.

Marc (12:13.873)
How much percentage of Louisiana is racist?

Matt (12:19.24)
I mean, I'm going to say of the white people, right? I mean, I don't want to like, I don't want to throw them all under the bus, but I'm going to say like 80 % are probably racist. Of course I've been to Louisiana. If it's 80 % black people, then there should be eight out of 10 representatives in the House of Representatives that are black people. Because

Marc (12:21.777)
Yeah, yeah, I'm not the ho-ho-ho height.

Have you been to Louisiana? It's 80 % black people!

Marc (12:38.461)
So why aren't there? it because the minority white people will just never vote for a black guy because he's black? Or is it because they're just not running for Congress?

Matt (12:45.115)
because yes, they're not running for Congress because they can't win Congress. And it's not just.

Marc (12:52.477)
I can't leave the closet that I'm recording this podcast in because I'd have to open the door and if I open the door I'd have to leave the closet. I just can't do that. It's all the way over there.

Matt (13:01.437)
Well, I mean, the reason they passed the law, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was because, by the way, you know this Mark, because you studied American history. At the end of the Civil War, when they gave the right to vote to all Americans, were there black people elected in the South to the House of Representatives? Uh-huh, and why did that stop?

Marc (13:10.551)
LBJ was racist.

Marc (13:24.409)
almost immediately.

because the, well what's his name, Rutherfraud B. Hayes, that's a bit of a pun, take that listener, Rutherfraud B. Hayes pulled out all the federal troops and said, do what you want.

Matt (13:41.755)
And what did they want to do in the South?

Marc (13:43.937)
not have that forced upon them.

Matt (13:46.429)
huh. And so then all of those African-Americans who were in elected office lost their seats. Boundaries were redrawn and

Marc (13:54.405)
So are you saying that Louisiana in 2026 is as racist as Louisiana in 1872?

Matt (14:03.173)
I have no evidence to suggest otherwise. There's nothing

Marc (14:05.848)
then why make the claim that we must put the blacks into one district so they can have a chance if Louisiana is not as racist?

Matt (14:12.635)
No, that's... I'm saying they are as racist. There's no evidence to suggest that... There's no evidence...

Marc (14:17.166)
Then I disagree with that. When's the last time there was a lynching in Louisiana because a black boy whistled at a white gal?

Matt (14:22.652)
It's-

It's because that's against federal law, right?

Shawn (14:25.887)
You

Marc (14:28.185)
Well, so was it back in the day was against federal law. Didn't stop them then.

Matt (14:31.569)
but they didn't enforce those laws. then we passed new laws that required them to follow those laws. So if we say, what I'm saying is if the only reason that Louisiana is behaving right now is because of the federal laws that forced them to behave, getting rid of those federal laws doesn't remove the racism that exists in society. It only allows that racism to now manifest itself again.

Marc (14:38.689)
Any law can be ignored.

Marc (14:58.808)
why I say let's see it then.

Matt (15:01.093)
We do see it because they're redrawing those boundaries. So if Mark in the midterm elections, the one black person in Louisiana no longer has their seat and we see that across these Southern states, the black representatives lose their seats, then will you agree with me that perhaps the South is as racist as they were in the past? What would you have to see Mark to suggest that there's.

Marc (15:02.606)
I don't see it.

Shawn (15:23.913)
Hahaha

Marc (15:26.978)
I would have to see that there's a really, really good, competent African American congressperson who has done good for their community, has been wise and prudent, and they kick him out and replace him with a ho-ho-ho-white boy who is... ignorant.

Matt (15:47.165)
So that's what I just described.

Shawn (15:47.519)
Matt, Matt, so Matt, so what you're talking about is racial quotas. You're saying, okay, if there's a third black people in society and two thirds white or a third white and then a third Hispanic and a third Indian or whatever the numbers are, you're saying we need to have quotas. There ought to be a, like how, but how could you possibly, like you're gonna leave out someone, which according to your logic makes you a racist.

Marc (15:49.88)
I haven't seen it.

Shawn (16:17.629)
If you leave out, Matt, no, no, Matt, you leave out the Armenians, you're a racist. You're a racist, man.

Matt (16:17.821)
No, I'm saying-

Matt (16:23.163)
What I'm saying is, what I'm saying is in this specific case, there was a set of laws that targeted certain states that had a history of enacting racist policies. And I'm saying that to unravel those policies without evidence of the fact that they are no longer racist is itself a racist policy because you're risking that the racism returns in public policy.

Shawn (16:49.439)
But you have to start from a presupposition. Yours is, they're very racist and therefore that's their intent. maybe the courts are saying, they're not in 2026 racist, that's my presupposition. So this isn't racist intent.

Matt (16:55.025)
They have a history of that.

Marc (17:04.157)
If they were still racist, they'd still be voting Democrat by the mile, because that was the party of racism, historically. And the only reason they started voting Republican is not because the Republicans went racist, as we well know who have actually studied it, but because the Souths kind of moved away from racism.

Matt (17:04.167)
Yeah, but how-

Shawn (17:08.255)
Hahaha.

Matt (17:12.058)
you

Matt (17:23.242)
Are you serious? That's what you're saying? That you're George Wallace left the democratic party because

Marc (17:24.584)
Yes. Uh-huh.

Marc (17:30.262)
That was 60 years ago, so yeah, it's been a minute.

Matt (17:34.417)
He left the Democratic Party because the Democratic, what did the Democrats do that made him leave the Democratic Party?

Marc (17:40.49)
Civil Rights Act. which party had the longest filibuster in the Senate history for the longest time? The Democrats, to oppose civil rights legislation. LBJ was like the one lone guy on his own, and it was just because he could read the tea leaves. The thing is, again, my argument is it's been 60 years since George Wallace. It's been 70 years since, you know, Mobile, Alabama, and the buses. It's been a hundred and

Matt (17:52.934)
Uh-huh.

Marc (18:09.333)
60ish years since the Civil War. We've had some time. I've lived in the South. I've visited the South plenty. The racism is just not what you think it is. There's more racists in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. What? See? So why are we not worried about Coeur d'Alene?

Matt (18:21.105)
Have you been to the conf-

I agree with that. I agree there's plenty of racism I know. But have you been to the... I am worried about Coeur d'Alene. Have you been to the muse...

Marc (18:32.551)
Nah, you're worried about Louisiana. You've never even lived in Idaho.

Matt (18:36.571)
When I was in New Orleans, I thought, wouldn't it be fun to go visit this museum in honor of the Confederacy? And do know what I found in this Confederacy museum in New Orleans? A lot of racist people who were really excited about racist attitudes. really don't.

Shawn (18:36.713)
Hahaha!

Marc (18:48.562)
Okay.

Or did you visit the African American History Museum of New Orleans? RACISTS!

Matt (18:55.813)
No, that was it was the con- That doesn't make sense. doesn't-

Marc (19:00.094)
But also, if I go to a history museum dedicated to Nazi Germany and I happen to hear some anti-Semitic language, I would not be shocked and I wouldn't say, my laws, the national socialists are about to rise again. Any minute, if we don't pull out and put down the laws of Germany.

Matt (19:19.663)
You're telling me more. You're telling me you lived in the South and you do not believe that white people in the South are racist.

Marc (19:26.119)
Definitely not to the degree that you and your friend Hillary Clinton like to think.

Shawn (19:33.213)
Ha ha ha ha!

Matt (19:33.381)
I'm saying President Oaks said that we need to do better as a member of the church and doing better.

Marc (19:37.779)
I agree. We need to get rid of the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Matt (19:44.839)
What? I don't even know what that means.

Marc (19:46.931)
the soft bigotry below expectations. Voter ID is racist because minorities don't know how to get a driver's license.

Matt (19:53.083)
It's not that they don't know how to is that they don't have the financial means to that they. Well, if we're talking about passports, it's over $100. So then you you are well, you will be soon if you talk as its way. I don't know if that's necessarily racism, right? So I'm not saying I'm not saying that every policy is racist. I'm not saying that every policy the Republican support is racist, but I say when there was a policy I'm saying.

Marc (19:56.371)
How much does it cost to get a driver's license?

Marc (20:02.169)
I don't even have a passport. Am I disenfranchised? Racism.

Shawn (20:08.735)
Racism.

Marc (20:10.957)
I am a German American.

Shawn (20:19.135)
It does sound like you say that. It does sound like you say that.

Marc (20:19.833)
Ha ha ha.

Matt (20:21.915)
No, I'm saying when there was a policy that was put in place to stop racism and only one party says, let's get rid of that policy, even though it's been working, that is racist.

Shawn (20:31.881)
But I think, but yeah, I mean, I'm gonna give the points. I'm gonna give the points to Mark because I think you really do cheapen the word racist when you broadly paint it like this. think point out, like point out the intent, Matt. You have to show real evidence. I don't think this court ruling is enough evidence to be like, well, they're still all racist and so this is racism. I think you're being too broad and it cheapens the word racism.

Marc (20:34.426)
I don't think you can. Thank you.

Marc (20:56.555)
And you can't legislate hate out of the hearts of the people.

Matt (21:00.827)
you can say African Americans are one third of the population, they should have one third of the congressional seats. That's a very easy thing to do.

Marc (21:08.913)
That's a very DEI racist thing.

Shawn (21:09.006)
But again, Matt.

Matt (21:11.311)
No, that's something that says that you as a state are not adequately representing black people. And so we're going to force you to do that. That's really easy to do. And by the way, your state.

Marc (21:19.963)
Brother Sean, give you the chance to respond to that, because I've been on a rant.

Shawn (21:22.047)
Mark gets the points. I think you just have to be careful, Matt, with putting meaning behind these things.

Matt (21:26.237)
All right.

Matt (21:30.213)
I'm just, I'm just trying to do better, right? As a member of the church. And I'm just recognizing that racist people put policies in place and that's okay. I didn't think you guys would agree with me on this, but it's a good discussion. I'm going to give the points to Mark. Mark knows his US history and he has a strong defense of racism in the South. Even though he doesn't feel like it's racism in the South.

Marc (21:45.712)
Ha

Shawn (21:46.047)
What are you giving the points to, Matt?

Marc (21:50.469)
Aw, thanks.

Matt (21:59.837)
Mark does as good a job as anyone I've ever met at articulating the position of the people who are from the South, white people from the South, and the ways that they feel about when people like me call them racist. Like Mark does a really, that was a great, good explanation of that.

Marc (22:17.326)
I'm really trying to figure out if that was a compliment or a backhanded one.

Shawn (22:20.627)
HAHAHAHA

Matt (22:21.181)
It's a hundred percent

Marc (22:24.09)
Like you do such a great job of making me feel better about myself. It's like when someone says it that way, you're like, wait a minute, hold on.

Matt (22:29.389)
No, no, no, no, No, I'm not saying you make me feel better about myself. I'm saying that I clearly you and I Mark have strong feelings about this and we're on an opposite side and you do as

Marc (22:42.115)
Yes, I'm on the side of truth and justice and you're with the communists. That's fine. You're allowed to do that.

Matt (22:47.599)
And you do as good a job of defending that perspective as anyone I've ever met. Because you know your history and you know what's going on.

Marc (22:52.697)
Thank you very much. And you do a fine job of challenging and thinking deeply. No. I'm keeping them all. I'll let Sean have a couple just because he's my boo.

Matt (22:58.813)
So I get your points? All right, let's talk here Ron. So the most recent bombing campaign, what are we at 60 days now? It's cost $25 billion, which Bernie Sanders ran the numbers. That's enough to fully fund the Obamacare subsidies that the Republicans recently got rid of. And also a whole lot of other things that's bigger than NASA's entire budget for a year.

So it seems to me at the moment, the best case scenario for a peace deal is something way worse than what the Obama deal was that was negotiated 10 years ago. So here's the question. Is it time for us to just pull out and acknowledge the mistake that we made or is it better to keep at it hoping for something better?

Marc (23:47.405)
Holy loaded question.

Matt (23:49.661)
Well, those are our two choices, right? We can pull out and then we will end up with something worse than the Obama, the deal we already had in place, or we can keep fighting and try to get something different.

Shawn (23:49.747)
Yeah.

Shawn (24:05.385)
Matt, does it depend on what you believe the motive, again, that's my theme today. Do you believe it depends on what you think the motive of the war is? Like the stated motive is we got to prevent nuclear weapons, Iran having nuclear weapons, we have to weaken their extreme oppressive leadership. if.

Matt (24:21.509)
Okay, so if the motive is nuclear weapons, the Obama nuclear deal gave us way better than what we're gonna get out of it right now. Right, the Obama nuclear deal, they had inspectors coming in on a regular basis, making sure that they didn't enrich too much uranium, and they agreed to having no more than 3 % of their enriched uranium, something that they could turn into nuclear weapon. So we had a deal in place that made sure that

Shawn (24:31.303)
Why? Why would that?

Shawn (24:48.479)
Okay.

Matt (24:50.897)
They would never develop a nuclear weapon without us knowing about it way, way, way in advance.

Shawn (24:55.743)
So you believe that this administration is lying about that being effective because what this administration is simply saying is they're not abiding by that. They are very close to having nuclear weapons. So we have to go in and intervene. So you just believe they're lying.

Matt (25:10.717)
I believe that what we have right now, whether or not they're lying, mean, yeah, of course I believe that Trump's lying. I don't think Trump really ever tells the truth, but no, I don't think that they were that close to getting a nuclear weapon because the International Atomic Energy Inspectors had been in there recently and they said that they weren't even close to getting a nuclear weapon.

Shawn (25:29.553)
So what's the motive of the war, do you think, by this administration?

Matt (25:33.103)
I think the motive of the war was Trump believed that he could take out the Supreme Leader and have regime change happen in Iran. And I think that Netanyahu saw an opportunity to take out a whole bunch of leadership and weaken Iran's regime. And so he said, hey, let's do this.

Shawn (25:49.641)
So do you believe that that's a good reason or a bad reason?

Matt (25:52.421)
Well, so what do we, so again, if that was the goal, then the Ayatollah is dead and all those people are dead. So why are we there? Get out of there. If the goal is nuclear deal, we had something better before. So if that was the goal, then we're definitely not getting back to that by staying in the war. So then let's get out of there. I can't see any reason why we should stay in Iran based on any of those goals.

Shawn (26:00.593)
Mm-hmm. I see.

Shawn (26:17.691)
Okay, so you're saying you don't believe the intent, you think the intent was just regime change. So you obviously think that well, the main reason they said was to stop a nuclear weapon from being made and accessed.

Matt (26:23.665)
That's what Trump said. That's what Marco Rubio said.

Matt (26:31.367)
That was like a week later, but yeah, I mean, we haven't succeeded in that and we won't succeed in that. If that's the goal, there's no way to achieve that goal without continuing a much longer military operation.

Shawn (26:46.707)
So is it worth doing? Because let's say that's true.

Matt (26:48.957)
I say that's not worth doing. That's not even, that's not, do you know how many, we would have to send in hundreds and thousands of troops into Iran to try to get to, what they've done is they've buried their enriched uranium so deep. There's no way that we can get that enriched uranium out of Iran. There's the, like if that's our goal, we should get out of there because we can't accomplish that goal. We cannot put an end to the Iran nuclear program.

Shawn (27:13.097)
So that's your belief. The administration maybe believes differently that they can, but you think there's no way. And so they're just wasting money and time there now.

Matt (27:22.397)
Do you think differently, Sean?

Shawn (27:24.895)
I'm agnostic about it, man. It's it's this is one of those

Matt (27:27.517)
$25 billion and you're agnostic. Do know what we could do with $25 billion?

Shawn (27:32.957)
No, no, no. I'm agnostic about the effectiveness of what it's doing. Is it a good thing to have regime change there and to make sure Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons? Yeah. But that's one of the narratives that that's the goal and that's the purpose. And so we're still moving towards that. I'm agnostic about whether or not they're lying about that or not. You have a strong stance that they are lying about.

Matt (27:54.269)
Well, we're at a stalemate right now. Nothing is happening right now. We're blocking the Strait of Hormuz, hoping that there's gonna be something happen. Nothing's gonna happen. If we want to accomplish a new goal, we have to send in more troops and we've run out of military targets. So we'll have to start attacking civilian targets or send ground troops in there to do something. Blocking the Strait of Hormuz isn't gonna put an end to their nuclear program.

Shawn (28:18.333)
What's negotiate? What's were they negotiating right now?

Matt (28:20.669)
They're not negotiating anything. Iran's not even got people at the negotiating table right now.

Shawn (28:26.203)
So that, well, Trump is waiting for something.

Matt (28:30.013)
Exactly. That's why it's called a stalemate. Nothing's happening. What do you say, Mark?

Shawn (28:33.157)
huh.

Marc (28:37.415)
Section 98 of the Doctrine and Covenants, verse 16, Therefore, renounce war and proclaim peace, and seek diligently to turn the hearts of the children to their fathers, and the hearts of the fathers to their children. Verse 34, If any nation, tongue, or people should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a standard of peace unto that people, nation, or tongue. And if that people did not accept the offering of peace neither the second nor third time, they should bring these testimonies before the Lord.

I do renounce war and I do proclaim peace because I also am trying to be a good member of the church. it's a... Well, the whole thing's a shame because we also have Iran. If we understand the administration story to be factual, then Israel's going to hit them anyway and then they were going to hit us just because. So Israel seems to be more the aggressor in the situation, more the...

Matt (29:17.361)
Get him out of there, you say.

Marc (29:37.317)
problem but at the same time is I ran not the problem have they not been the problem for 50 years I

Matt (29:44.029)
Yeah, but then Israel went into Beirut, right? They went into Lebanon and that kept Iran. Yeah, well, OK, so you're saying let's get out of there, whatever, whatever.

Marc (29:47.557)
Tell me where they haven't gone into at this rate.

Marc (29:54.659)
Let's give everything and everybody to stop fighting and have peace, including the brothers of Abraham, the brothers Isaac and Ishmael. They have a shared father.

Shawn (29:58.611)
Hahaha

Matt (30:04.669)
Get them together. I agree with you, Mark. Mark, you get the points on this one because you're right.

Marc (30:10.789)
I'm just, I can't stop winning. I'm getting tired of it.

Matt (30:16.177)
All right, Sean, who you giving the points to?

Marc (30:17.101)
I give you both points.

Shawn (30:18.953)
Yeah, I'll give half to Mark and half to Matt.

Matt (30:21.391)
Okay. All right. I'll share with Mark. Okay. Here's the last topic. For decades, US presidents tried to avoid making money from their position and kept their business interests separate from government work. But Donald Trump and his family are expanding their business deals, including projects in countries like Saudi Arabia and Vietnam. And they have a large cryptocurrency business, which by the way, Eric Trump is terrible at running. Some experts worry these deals could connect to government decisions such as trade or military support.

and May raised questions about the Constitution's emoluments clause, which limits payments from foreign governments. However, Trump and his team say that they're following the law and they say they haven't done anything wrong. The Book of Mormon warns of what can happen when secret combinations capture the government. So here's the question. Have secret combinations taken over the Trump administration?

Shawn (31:13.501)
Matt, I'll agree to that if you agree that they've also taken over Congress.

Matt (31:18.237)
well, first tell me why youth agree that they've taken over the Trump administration. And then we can talk about, cause I don't want to let you change the question. I want to first hear, have secret combinations taken over the Trump administration.

Shawn (31:27.729)
I mean, it's just.

I mean you'd have to define secret combinations, but certainly it's a super

Matt (31:34.045)
The Book of Mormon defines him for us.

Shawn (31:37.311)
Okay, you'd have to express that so that we are on the same page.

Matt (31:39.847)
Well, Mark, what's a secret combination?

Marc (31:42.819)
They are a group of people who use signs and tokens to understand and know each other that they might work together through the blood of innocent people to have power, great glory, and run everything and own everything.

Shawn (31:42.847)
You

Shawn (31:59.359)
Yeah, I don't know that it meets. I don't know that it meets that definition, but it's

Matt (32:02.567)
They punish the righteous to enrich themselves. When they take over the government, they have their secret works that they engage in and they're not interested in the good of the people when they're in government power. They're interested in enriching themselves and helping their friends out. I think in the Book of Mormon it says punishing the righteous and letting the wicked go free, those sorts of things.

Shawn (32:24.605)
I mean, he's pretty, he's pretty non-secret about his combinations. So maybe he's, he's guilty of public combinations.

Marc (32:29.698)
Public combinations is the worst.

Matt (32:33.925)
You don't think that there are people that are enriching themselves off the Trump administration that we don't know who they are. You think that all of them are public?

Shawn (32:40.265)
But again, Matt, okay, but again, that's why I'm saying if you are willing to apply the same definition to Congress, then I'd agree with you because everything you're saying applies to Congress too. But you've never been willing, see?

Matt (32:50.311)
Well, no, it's not true because Congress doesn't have the right to pardon people. So even any member of Congress, if they wanted to let the wicked go free because they're part of a secret combination, nobody in Congress has the power to do that. But Trump has pardoned and Trump has pardoned criminals. Trump has pardoned criminals who went out and committed new crimes. There were the exact same crimes they were pardoned for. Trump has pardoned people. Trump pardons people because of the money that they offer him.

Shawn (33:03.145)
So then most, so is Biden. Is Biden guilty of secret combinations?

Shawn (33:14.879)
But by the standards, but by.

Matt (33:20.475)
or because of the money that they donate to his campaign. So the reason for pardoning people is different with Biden and Trump.

Shawn (33:20.761)
But by this standard.

Shawn (33:27.601)
Really? it's so Biden pardoning his son, there's no self interest involved there. There's no self.

Matt (33:28.996)
For sure.

Matt (33:34.363)
No, I'm not like Biden pardoning his son is, is qualitatively different than Trump pardoning somebody who like, committed crimes and took millions of dollars from innocent people and then gave him money and then he pardons them and they never have to repay the money that they stole from people.

Marc (33:46.538)
Ahem.

Marc (33:53.184)
I'll point out how it's the same, is because Trump is the father of this nation. So whoever he pardons is his son.

Matt (34:01.725)
But again, so I'm just saying like if you want to say that Biden is part of a secret combination, that's different than Congress. That's all I'm saying. Trump has power as president of the United States that Congress doesn't have.

Shawn (34:13.681)
You're making it, yeah, but Congress has different powers to enrich themselves using these combinations and they do it all the time. Of course they do it all the time.

Matt (34:22.791)
but Congress is also 535 people. So for me to say Congress is corrupt, I have to say I can't find a person in Congress who's not corrupt. And there are plenty of not corrupt people in Congress.

Shawn (34:32.211)
fine. There's lots of

Marc (34:34.655)
I would disagree with that. I could say that they're very corrupt in general. It doesn't mean every single person's corrupt.

Matt (34:41.679)
Okay, so if I'm willing to say that a lot of people in Congress are corrupt, which by the way, Congress kicks them out, right? There was that woman from Florida, like in the last month, I can name four members of Congress who were kicked out because of corruption.

Shawn (34:55.571)
But it's such when they do that when it's such a bad look and so blatantly like offensive to the American people. But when they enrich themselves, for whatever reason, they're protecting themselves and they're not getting kicked out. So to me, it's the same issue.

Marc (35:07.824)
Nancy Pelosi.

Matt (35:10.619)
Well, so let's, if we just focus it on Trump, I want to know what Mark says. Mark, is Trump part of a secret combination? Is this the kind of thing we're worried about?

Marc (35:16.766)
Marc (35:22.046)
I don't know, it'd be secret, wouldn't it?

Shawn (35:24.617)
Hahaha!

Marc (35:26.233)
I do not.

Matt (35:26.339)
Sure, but you just hummed the name Nancy Pelosi suggesting that she's somehow corrupt.

Marc (35:29.789)
I say ye to the righteous that it is well with them for they shall eat the fruit of their doings Woe unto the wicked for they shall perish for the reward of their hands shall be upon them our duty is not to Try and figure out who's a secret combination, but to find out the secret combination itself What is happening in the world that is enriching?

anybody. I think it's far beyond, it's the president, it's the congress, it's the big businesses that continue to merge and own everything, it's Walt Disney, it's but but who's killing people? It's Nestle, Nestle killing all the people in South Central America to get water rights so they can have us drink a bottle of water. There's all kinds of truly devastating secret combinations that are slaughtering people wholesale.

Matt (36:10.173)
Tesla. Open AI.

Marc (36:26.734)
and Donald Trump selling a little bit of crypto, I could care less. No, I couldn't. I could not care less. Naha. I can't believe I did that. feel... I'm allowed to say words on the podcast, right? I feel retarded.

Shawn (36:39.881)
Yeah.

Matt (36:43.079)
So what I think you're saying, Mark, is there is a lot of corruption in this world, a lot of secret combinations going on in this world, and a lot of it is tied to corporate America, and Trump might be a part of it, but he's not so much a part of it that it worries you.

Marc (37:00.271)
It's close enough. Also, here's a finger painting thing we did as a ward with Bob Ross.

Matt (37:02.316)
okay.

Matt (37:06.39)
that's beautiful.

Marc (37:08.431)
Thank you. I cheated and used a paper towel a little bit. Thanks.

Shawn (37:08.511)
Beautiful. Beautiful.

Matt (37:12.239)
I love it. Well, so this is what I would say when I was in Ukraine on my mission. I would read Helaman, the chapters in Helaman and all of things that were going on in the Book of Mormon. And I would say, this sounds like the corruption that I see around me in Ukraine. And I would say people are suffering because the government is corrupt and they feel powerless to do anything about it. And the government seems to be taking advantage of them and enriching themselves at the, at the expense of the people. And it felt wrong to me.

Marc (37:16.347)
you

Matt (37:41.711)
And a lot of times today when I read the Book of Mormon and those chapters in Helaman, I think there's a lot of this happening in the United States today. I definitely think it's in the Trump administration. I don't know. I mean, I'm not going to say it wasn't happening in the Biden administration, but I do believe that there's corruption among the Democrats. But I will say this. I think that many Democrats and independents in America said, we will not vote for a person who's a convicted felon.

And the Republicans were willing to vote for a convicted felon and say, that's not disqualifying. And I think that to the extent that Republicans are willing to sort of like say, we don't care about the things that Trump has done that are illegal and have been proven illegal in court, or that might be shady now, I think that Republicans contribute to the corruption in society. Democrats probably do in their own way too, but I think that it's okay to call Republicans out for their willingness to support corrupt behavior.

Shawn (38:32.765)
Whoa.

Marc (38:40.092)
The support of Donald Trump and the convicted felon, always a convict, of what was the felony truly? Who were the victims? Where is the blood versus the Democrat party who supports the wholesale slaughter of innocents in defiance of the words of the prophets?

Matt (38:56.337)
The corruption that Trump was convicted of was electoral fraud. That's the important corruption that he was. Again, if the power of democracy is power to the people and we're gonna look aside, well, a democracy is a government where the power comes from the people. And if we're willing to say, it's okay if you cheat in elections, then you're undermining the authority of a democratic system. You're undermining the idea that the power really is with the people.

Shawn (38:56.657)
good point, Matt.

Marc (39:00.539)
my gosh, the blood! The blood and horror shed all over the earth!

Marc (39:09.08)
but we're not a democracy.

Marc (39:26.444)
When's, are you not the man though with respect who does not vote in presidential elections because it doesn't mean anything?

Shawn (39:32.595)
hahahaha

Matt (39:34.717)
That's right, because I understand what's happening in the system. So

Marc (39:38.474)
So when is the last time that you would have voted historically?

Matt (39:42.949)
I voted in the 2020 presidential election, I think. I voted in elections. I would always let my kids decide who I voted for.

Marc (39:48.255)
I wonder for who.

Marc (39:53.524)
That's power to the people. Yes, that's responsible Republic management indeed.

Matt (39:59.747)
So I'm going to write the fact that Democrats might support policies that are not consistent with teachings of the church. Republicans also support policies that are not consistent with teachings of the church. So I can't judge the two based on that. I can say Republicans are willing to put a felon in office and Democrats weren't willing to. And so to the extent that Republicans will look aside at the individual indiscretions of a person and still vote for them, they have some share in the blame.

Marc (40:27.516)
is proof that they are the Christian party. Because they can forgive. And here you are, entrenched in the guilt game. You gotta calm down, brother.

Matt (40:31.069)
That's not true. my goodness. I love it. I'm going to give myself the points on this one. All right, here's the big question. I don't know if you guys have ever read A River Runs Through It or watched A River Runs Through It, but that movie was like life changing for me when I was a teenager in high school. Yeah, I loved it.

Marc (40:45.064)
Sean and I are going to split up the points, I think.

Shawn (40:57.595)
It was? I didn't know that.

Matt (41:00.891)
When I graduated from high school, my mom said, let's go on a senior trip. Where do you want to go? And I said, I want to drive to Montana and I want to fish on the big Blackfoot River and I want to walk in. I want to go to Missoula, and I want to see all of the. Yeah.

Shawn (41:12.189)
Wow. Dude, I thought I knew everything about you. I didn't know this.

Matt (41:17.917)
I loved it. Well, so that book came out just over 50 years ago and there's an op-ed arguing that that book would not have been published today because today, um, yeah, today publishers, today publishers choose books that can reach large audiences like popular fiction, like romance and fantasy and thrillers, or they like nonfiction self-help books or biographies.

Shawn (41:30.557)
A hurrah. That's a hurrah. That's wrong.

Marc (41:34.984)
Did you say who-rold?

Shawn (41:36.82)
Yeah.

Matt (41:48.005)
And A River Runs Through It is short. It's a story about men and nature and personal life. It wouldn't probably do very well. Like you couldn't have it blow up on social media. And so this is my question. Could a story like that be as successful today as it was 50 years ago? Or is the world just too different?

Shawn (42:09.887)
going to say the evidence that it could blow up and should blow up and would blow up is that one of the biggest books in the last five, 10 years that has blown up is a very similar book called the, where the crawdad's seeing.

Matt (42:22.245)
I thought you were going to say Hillbilly Elegy or whatever the JD Vance book was. Okay. Where the crawdads sing. I haven't heard of it.

Marc (42:25.139)
Ha ha ha ha.

Shawn (42:27.103)
Thanks

Yeah. Same, same. good. Now you can argue anything. I mean, the other books that are just, you know, as popular and bigger, Harry Potter, Diary of the Wimpy Kid, Fifty Shades of Grey, right? Those are all, obviously there's a market for all that, but there's lots of evidence that books similar to River Runs Through It, which is to me that the similarities in the, where the crowd had seen and the River Runs Through It is just the human experience and going in deep to real human behavior.

Matt (42:34.301)
You

Matt (42:41.189)
Yes. Yeah.

Shawn (42:59.739)
Yeah, I mean, is your question about a book focused, a story focused on men and what men go through?

Matt (43:06.619)
men and nature and like, right? That's, that story's about like boys becoming men and the discipline of their dad and fishing and yeah, it's not really.

Shawn (43:18.463)
So your question is about traditional roles, traditional experiences, and you're thinking that wouldn't be accepted today?

Matt (43:24.091)
Yeah. Yeah, I wonder if a book like that would be popular today. seems like, yeah, it seems like stories like that are often, at least this article argues that stories like that are not really like the kind of things that people like to read today. They don't want to know about the poor white man's experience and the struggles they faced growing up in poverty, in nature or whatever.

Shawn (43:29.203)
because of those reasons.

Shawn (43:47.993)
Yeah, OK, I didn't know that you.

Marc (43:51.292)
says the man who disenfranchised every poor white man in Louisiana about 10 minutes ago.

Shawn (43:56.605)
Hahaha!

Matt (43:58.078)
I says the person who said there are no white men left in Louisiana eight minutes ago. So Mark, would you, did you ever read a river runs through it? Would you read something like that today? Did you like it? Did it speak to your soul?

Marc (44:07.228)
white men, yeah, there's a lot of white mambley-pambleys, maybe.

Marc (44:15.053)
Nah, I saw the movie.

That was alright.

Matt (44:21.533)
So you wouldn't read a book like that?

Shawn (44:22.079)
I'm with you. Well, he wouldn't have back then either.

Marc (44:26.086)
Nah. I just don't read a of fiction in general.

Matt (44:31.067)
Yeah.

Shawn (44:31.527)
No, Matt, I'm with you. That's a profoundly important story and movie and book. I didn't know that your whole point here would be, or the article's point would be that because it's a story of men, it wouldn't be, I mean, maybe I can go with you there. Yeah, I think that perhaps there's a whole movement away from the modern man's true lived experience. And so, okay, I'm seeing where you're going. Maybe I'm agreeing with it, that it wouldn't fall.

Matt (44:38.311)
Yeah.

Shawn (44:59.935)
Because where the Krodak seeing is a story about a young lady who has her own real world experience.

Matt (45:08.509)
Oh wait, I saw that movie. She's in the South, lives in a swamp or something like that. Oh, no, no, no, you're right. That's a really good story. Where the crawdads sing.

Shawn (45:11.581)
Yeah, that's right.

Marc (45:13.423)
Well that was true.

Shawn (45:19.177)
And that's one of the biggest sellers, booksellers in the last 10 years.

Matt (45:21.679)
Yeah, yeah. But it's not about a man. Yeah. Well, no, that's where this that's where this author goes in their New York Times piece. This is this Yeah, so that's something that's something I don't know what to think about that. It feels like stories like that people like Mark don't love them, right? There aren't a lot of people out there that love those stories.

Shawn (45:25.149)
So that I didn't know that's where you're going. Okay.

Shawn (45:31.079)
Yeah, I probably agree then.

Do you?

Shawn (45:41.215)
But Matt, that's why there's a whole movement. know you're not going to like this, but like Jordan Peterson, his central message when he got a microphone was young men are being disenfranchised, young men are being attacked and have zero confidence and zero progressive ability. They're not progressing in life. And that's more evidence that maybe the point is true. Maybe the book would fall flat today.

Marc (46:07.117)
Well, or it's point that it would succeed today because Jordan Peterson did do pretty darn good for a while. Charlie Kirk, wildly popular with the rising generation.

Matt (46:19.773)
Ben Shapiro.

Marc (46:22.21)
Yeah, Charlie Kirk did great.

Shawn (46:22.291)
I don't think Ben Shapiro speaks to the young. He's not like what all young men are trying to be. Jordan Peterson and Charlie Kirk literally were like, yeah, young men need to stop being attacked and need to know their worth and need to contribute to life.

Matt (46:26.021)
I don't know.

Marc (46:26.86)
No.

Matt (46:37.405)
The first time I heard of Jordan Peterson was last week or two weeks ago on the podcast. Before that, I'd never heard of him. I'm 100 % serious. Even now, I don't even know who he is except for what you said on the podcast two weeks ago. And today, what you said. I'm 100 % serious. Yeah.

Shawn (46:42.003)
That's not true. That's not true.

Shawn (46:49.917)
Are you kidding, dude? Are you serious?

Marc (46:52.407)
So there might be a chance if you were around 50 years ago you would not have heard about River Runs Through It because you haven't heard about a whole lot.

Matt (47:00.349)
Yeah, maybe. What if Jordan Peterson were to write his bio and tell us his story about the so to me it feels like hillbilly eulogy right isn't that what JD Vance tried to do in his book talk about his tough life and how it was growing up and people. Right and people, but it doesn't seem to be as big as a river runs through it.

Marc (47:01.687)
the same.

Shawn (47:03.007)
That's a good point.

Marc (47:15.433)
and Netflix made a movie with Glenn Close.

Marc (47:23.861)
What's big anymore?

Matt (47:25.437)
Yeah, that's true. I want to I want to read a story about a young African American raised by white people in Hawaii, who finds his way to the White House. That's the kind of story we need more more of in America today. That could be

Marc (47:43.639)
I'm not laughing at the... I figured out who you were talking about.

Shawn (47:48.191)
You think that would be a river runs through a part two?

Matt (47:48.209)
That could be a really moving story.

They could call it dreams from my father or something like

Marc (47:56.829)
Or the river of fraud.

Shawn (47:59.714)
Hahaha

Matt (48:01.125)
Hey, thanks you guys great chatting with you today listeners Thanks for joining us on the podcast this week, and we'll talk to you again next week. Take care everybody

Marc (48:08.724)
Love you all.

Matt (48:13.351)
Sorry.