Porter 0:01

If we reduce the number of professional lawyers, is it better if we're replacing them with a lot more bad lawyers and robot lawyers? I don't think so.

Matt 0:15

Welcome to the Latterday Lens, your home for faith promoting, unscripted discussion of current events. If you'd like to contact us, you can send us a text message through the link in the show notes. You could also email us, latterdaylens at gmail.com. If you want to know more about the show, please visit our website, latterdaylens.com. Hey everybody, welcome to the Latterday Lens. We are so glad you are with us this week. I'm your host, Matt. With me as always is Sean and nobody else, Sean, just you and me this week.

Shawn 0:47

Bang. Yeah, that's right. Because these because these topics are these are near and dear to you and I, and you and I only. So we're gonna go deep here.

Matt 0:54

Yeah, we are. Uh okay. I actually remember how last week I called out the listeners and said write better emails or better messages?

Shawn 1:03

They answered.

Matt 1:04

Yeah, they did.

Shawn 1:05

They did.

Matt 1:06

This is from Clayton. Really good, really good job, Clayton. You win on this. He wrote in and said the discussion on housing was entertaining, but lacked boots on the ground knowledge of local and national trends of what municipalities are doing about the housing crisis and what caused the crisis in the first place. Mortgage rates and NIMBYism are absolutely part of the equation. That's what we talked about. Yeah. Uh what wasn't discussed was the impact of the 2008 housing crisis. Home builders couldn't make money building starter homes anymore, so they pivoted to the expensive home market. They built fewer homes, but still pulled in profits. It was actually a very profitable pivot for them. Over the next 10 years, hardly anyone was building starter homes. So the housing stock didn't keep up with the oncoming demand as millennials began to look for starter homes. Couple that with the rise of short-term rental units like Airbnb, then not only were new homes not being built, but the existing supply was being scooped up by corporations and individuals building their passive income portfolios. This is why many towns across the country started banning short-term rentals in their zoning laws. I have more to say, but this is probably enough for now.

Shawn 2:18

That's a well-written comment into the podcast. Yeah, the interesting uh element that we didn't discuss was the effect of the two things. Now, why is it though that the 2008 crisis he didn't explain why that's causal to contractors not being able to afford to build or not being profitable in building like starter homes? I don't understand that connection.

Matt 2:39

I can explain it.

Shawn 2:40

Okay.

Matt 2:41

After the 2008 crisis, the federal government passed really strict regulations about lending, who could borrow money for homes and things like that. So there were not as the the market for starter homes had dried up because people didn't meet the savings requirements and the income requirements, the more strict requirements that you needed to get into a starter home. So who has the who has the money and the means to be in that new financial market? The more expensive homes, the richer people. And so builders are like, well, let's target the people that can actually borrow money right now, which wasn't starter homes.

Shawn 3:19

Wow, good explanation.

Matt 3:20

But also what happened is as price housing prices crashed, then like this would be my uncle. Actually, two of my uncles did this. They had retirement money, and they're like, Oh, look, condos in St. George are dirt cheap. Let's buy ourselves a condo in St. George. And so a lot of people bought second homes. A lot of the boomers bought second homes.

Shawn 3:40

The have and have nots. So the haves said, Oh, look, cheap real estate. Now that everyone's like defaulting, let's buy it all up. And the have nots were like, Well, shoot, that adjustable rate mortgage was nice until it adjusted. Now I can't afford it. And now they're not offering adjustable rate mortgage mortgages without any any requirements for me to prove my income or doing it. Now I can't get a home. And now so that kind of separated the class. Okay, that makes sense.

Matt 4:03

Yeah. So there's not as much supply. And then those people who have their my uncles who have their second homes in St. George, they're not selling those, they're holding on to those. And yeah. So there's nobody. If you wanted to buy something in that price range, there's not as much supply.

Shawn 4:18

I mean, I mean, it does, it is a supply-demand, yeah. Absolutely. Yeah, it's crazy. Yeah, we were watching closely this LA mayoral race here, and they're talking heavily about a number of things, including like how absolutely restrictive it is in California, for example, to it's so heavily regulated. You can't build new homes. And so there's just there's just no supply. The demand is way too high. Thanks, Democrats.

Matt 4:45

That's right. The Democrats did that. The Democrats said you can't buy houses.

Shawn 4:49

It was no, they overregulated, so you can't afford to you can't get a house.

Matt 4:53

I love how Sean says like man-made parties, la la la la la. And then he blames the Democrats for the housing crisis.

Shawn 5:00

We're a little sensitive in California because it's all Democrat run. And so, you know, what's easy to just blame them for everything?

Matt 5:06

You know, I was I don't know the news source I was looking at, but for whatever reason I get news about San Diego County and city government in San Diego from time to time. Anyhow, San Diego County was like finalizing their budget and it was like nine billion dollars. I'm like, are you kidding me?

Shawn 5:25

I mean, we're like the 12th largest city in the country or something like that.

Matt 5:29

That's just an insane amount of money for a county to have for their buttons. I mean, I'm sure that there are expenses, but that's crazy. That's huge. There's probably like, I don't know like what state budgets are, but I would can imagine that there are states that don't have that large of a budget.

Shawn 5:46

Yeah. Maybe they do, but now compared to LA, and it'll really blow your mind.

Matt 5:50

Like LA is they spend more in LA. Oh, geez. It's crazy. Well, that's good because then when there's a fire and everybody's house burns down, you can count on your city government to be there and help get things cleaned up.

Shawn 6:04

See, listeners, Matt's Matt's being facetious because the guy that's about to win a win. Oh, he's not.

Matt 6:12

No way he's gonna win, Sean. Okay, but go on, go on. The guy who's who's who Sean really likes, and Sean would is real willing to commit a felony to vote for.

Shawn 6:21

What does that mean?

Matt 6:22

You're willing to go to LA and try and vote.

Shawn 6:27

Yeah, I mean it's an interesting story. He's just a regular guy, he's not a politician. I mean, he was a on a reality show, but his house burned down, and then his mom's and his mom's house burnt down, and they're still not in those houses because it's and it's been what four, three, four years? So anyway, it's easy for him to stand up and be like, look, all of these existing politicians, and he calls them Democrats, they failed us. I promise we'll never let the you know houses burn down again. And people are like, Yeah, we'll save our house, he's gonna save our houses.

Matt 6:56

I love that the qualification is just simply to recognize the problem that exists. I have no qualifications to fix it, but I'm angry about it. So vote me vote me for mayor because I promise I can fix it. Well, he's shout at people.

Shawn 7:11

No, no, no, he's smart because the after that happened, all the Republicans came out and were like, well, if they would have done just these three things, then it would have we would have avoided the whole city burning down. And so this guy's whole platform is we're gonna do these three things. Yeah. You should be proud of Mr. Mr. Political Scientist. He's playing the game.

Matt 7:30

I'm really proud that he's got you engaged in local politics. Yeah, I think that's good. Okay, let's go to our first topic this week. Okay. Eagle Ridge Academy, a public charter school near Minneapolis, Minnesota, uses a classical education model that emphasizes great books, moral values, and respectful behavior. Students engage in thoughtful discussions, listen carefully to one another, and demonstrate respect during class. The school teaches virtues like citizenship, integrity, perseverance, honor, excellence, and respect, while also maintaining clear expectations through uniforms and structured behavior. Teaching virtue in schools can be controversial because some people worry it may limit individual freedom, but supporters believe schools should help students develop strong moral character, especially in a society that often feels divided and disrespectful. The idea of teaching virtue has deep roots in American education, as early leaders believed democracy depended on citizens with good character. So here's a question, Sean. What subjects should public schools focus on today? What is important enough that taxpayers should be happy to make sure that future generations learn these things in school?

Shawn 8:46

You started the whole thing in the like a method of how to teach something. And then you jumped to let's talk about the subjects that get taught. But I don't know how I don't know how to separate how you teach something versus the subjects. Like I'm open to I have a bigger, a wider, like okay, I'm okay with many different subjects if they're taught in the right way.

Matt 9:07

Okay. Well, we can focus on you can focus on what it is, Sean, that education should do. You can tell me. Okay, because I don't know what education do.

Shawn 9:15

Because I know you'll have good, interesting answers on what topics should be taught. I'm honestly open to a really wide range of topics if they're taught in the right way. So, for example, we've got a similar charter school here in California, and super hands-on, and everyone's just just loving it, and everyone's like, this is so great. My kids are learning and they're they're actually doing things. And then they all graduate and they get into college and they're all failing, failing, failing. Because this charter school did not prepare them for the system that is the established system of uh throughout high school and and college, which is I've got a teacher, I've got a syllabus, learn the syllabus from the teacher, learn how to get a grade, pass a test. There you go. And it's less about learning something or or walking away, being able to do something, and it's more about just solve the system. Learn what the teacher wants and solve the system.

Matt 10:07

Well, I feel like these charter schools are actually doing more of just teaching students the system. Because I get these students that come to college and they want me to just hold their hand and walk them through everything that we do.

Shawn 10:17

That's right. That's what these guys expected in this charter school because they're like, well, wait a minute, all these professors aren't giving me any time. How do I learn from if I've signed up to learn something from someone, then I want to learn from them. I don't want to just be lectured at and then go have to do my own studying. Like, I agree with you, that was the reason they're failing, is because these professors weren't giving them any time. Whereas the high school hands-on approach was they get all the time in the world.

Matt 10:39

Yeah. Well, that's not helpful, right? Learning, learning is something that a person chooses to do on their own. Learning is an individual process, and you have a professor that helps guide you through the learning process. But you learn by, it's going to shock you, Sean, by reading and then by trying to express in words the things that you've read and having somebody say to you, try to defend that more, try to explain that better, try to communicate that better.

Shawn 11:05

You say, Matt, you say it as if all teachers do it. You do that. You're a genius at that. You do it naturally. I bet you're the two percent.

Matt 11:15

I don't know. I feel like a lot, I mean, I'm not gonna say all of my colleagues are good at teaching. I think that they try to be, and people have different learning styles. But here's what I'll say this is my example of so my students had to write uh, let's just say a big research paper. And I said to them, this paper is due on Monday. I'm gonna give you feedback on Monday, and then you're gonna make some edits and some changes, and you're gonna hand it in on Saturday as your final exam. And so I had some students on Monday handed basically nothing in. And then I gave them some feedback, a ton of feedback, saying, You've handed nothing in. These are the things you need to do for this assignment. And then students would email me back and say, Here's some here, I've I've created another outline. Here's my idea of what I want to do. Can you give me some more feedback on that outline? And I'm like, I wrote like this mean message back to them where I was like, What are you talking about? You had an assignment to do, you handed in nothing at all except for some vague ideas. I gave you way more feedback than you deserve based on what you gave to me. And now you're asking me for more feedback before you've even created anything. Go create something, and then I can give you feedback on the something you create.

Shawn 12:23

Okay, I've got it, Matt. Based on what you just said. I've now I'm gonna answer the question exactly the way you've asked it. So the scriptures, latter day lens, the scriptures teach us that we should hunger and thirst after righteousness. Well, I think a part of that should be knowledge, hunger and thirst after knowledge, and have that desire. I think I'm gonna answer your question. What topic should be taught? You know what I think the very first topic in every grade school should be? Autodidactism 101. Do you know what autodidactism is? Do you know what autodidact is? Okay. Okay, here's what an autodidact is. An autodidact is someone who does not want or require a teacher or a system or a program. An autodidact is someone who thirsts and hunger after their own education. And so they are so motivated they will go learn themselves. They'll go hands-on, they'll go build a car, and then they know. I guess nowadays they'll go on YouTube and just hear 30 different voices and then take what they want. They'll go to the streets, they'll learn. I think the topic that should be taught is autodidactism. They should be able to teach people how to learn themselves. They don't teach us how to learn in high school.

Matt 13:30

Well, that's I agree with that. Well, could I call it curiosity? Is it more than curiosity?

Shawn 13:36

You will call it autodidactism, or you'll call it nothing.

Matt 13:41

Uh okay, but also they need to people need to learn like basic writing skills, communication skills, right? And maybe some basic math skills.

Shawn 13:50

But I think no, yes, of course. But if if I would have had a teacher who taught me the love of how to like I never once had someone sit down with me and say, hey, I'm gonna, I'm gonna, we're gonna write something, but I but uh, Sean, all I want, like it's not graded on a structure, it's not graded on how long it is and how many words are in it, or if it follows a makes a logical argument. I just want to hear your voice. I'm just gonna teach you how to write in your own voice. I'm gonna teach you how to like expressively be you. That never happened. And I never had the like passion or desire to do that until I was older. But I wish there were I had teachers who were like, all we're gonna talk about this this class is how do you find that curiosity and that deep desire and knowledge on how to learn yourself? Because then I would have started writing.

Matt 14:39

I agree. I look, you get autodidactism 101. Okay, that's good. I'm fine with that. But I I also think that there should be some kind of, I feel like if you cannot express yourself in written communication, then you really can't express yourself.

Shawn 14:53

Matt, I will default to every subject you want to teach in high school, I don't care what it is, if we can succeed at getting them to be autodidacts, to want to learn to to learn on their own. Because then when they take your reading class, your math class, your science class, your all the soft sciences, all the hard sciences sciences, they'll know how to go and learn that on their own instead of relying on a teacher who doesn't know how to teach or uh a system that only rewards grading.

Matt 15:23

No, I understand what you're saying. There is a lot of value in having a teacher with who's passionate about a subject, knows the subject deeply, so well that when a student tries to to fake their way through material, this the the teacher says, No, I know where you're coming from with that. And that's not that's like garbage. I know where you got that garbage from, I recognize that. Like, there's value in having a wise, but you're so rare. Like that we're not rare.

Shawn 15:52

You are rare. Like, I can't, I can name two out of the 40 teachers that I've had in grade school and in college, maybe two that that that were what you described.

Matt 16:02

The problem is that we call um a high school degree a high school degree, no matter where you get it from. And so there's some exceptional high school out there, some exceptional teachers, and then there's some horrible ones. And in the end, everyone gets the same degree. And so there's so much variation in what happened. Same with a college degree now, right? You can do an online degree, you can do a like a garbage degree, you could do a Harvard degree, and we treat them all as if they're the same thing, but they're not even remotely close to the same thing. So people as consumers don't know how to select, they don't know how to say, where am I going to get the kind of education I'm looking for? And where are all the people who are just trying to get easy A's in a piece of paper? Let's just have a place for them. And people don't know how to, as consumers, find those places.

Shawn 16:46

You know how we can help people. You know who does know how to find those places? Autodidacts.

Matt 16:53

I don't maybe okay, but can I also say we have to teach morals? We have to teach virtue.

Shawn 16:58

I was wondering if that's what you were setting it up to teach. Um I see, I don't, I don't think so. No, because now you're putting it in the hands of someone who is always gonna have different morals than you. And so they're gonna be teaching the morals, their own morals, their own set of morals. Matt, there should be, if you're gonna go into that category, you have to teach an extremely wide range and be required to teach all morals, but that's not gonna happen.

Matt 17:22

Well, that's why we have the great books, right? There's like, it's called the great, like there are these hundred great books, but you maybe don't have to do all hundred of them. But the idea is this, Sean, that um human nature, human experience is virtually the same, generally, right? Like I can read the Book of Mormon, and even though those people lived in a completely different context, completely different social structure, there's things that Nephi experienced that are similar to things that I'm gonna experience in my life. And over the course of human history, people have all pretty much dealt with the same sorts of struggles. So great thinkers, great philosophers have written books where they talk about that stuff. And so you read the books of these big ideas, the big thinkers, and you say, let's sit down as a group and like just kind of chew on these ideas and let's think about these ideas.

Shawn 18:10

That sounds magical. Like I do that with my adult friends, like I love it. But in a high school setting, you're only gonna be able to limit to 10 books, and now you have to decide which 10 books are we gonna put out there, and someone's not gonna agree with those books, and someone's gonna insert a book that isn't teaching proper principles or morals.

Matt 18:29

There's ways you can do it, Sean, especially if they're autodidacts, right? They can choose the one that they want to, they can choose the idea that they want to focus on. Like, we don't all have to read everybody's book, we could do a group discussion or some kind. But I think, but I honestly think, Sean, that we do not require enough of high school students. We've made high school so easy that students are not coming out of high school with any real skills that are super valuable for them. So then we're failing people. That's what I'm saying. Like, if we're gonna put this kind of money into taxpayer education, we should be getting a better return on investment than what we are. And part of that is because we don't require enough of our high school students.

Shawn 19:07

All right, that's good. I like it.

Matt 19:09

All right, you get the point, Sean. Because do you know what I learned from you autodidact? I didn't know what that was. All right. I I don't know where this next topic's gonna go, but I'm gonna give a lot of details in it because it's all the it's all of the rage at the moment.

Shawn 19:26

Yeah, yeah. I'm gonna need you to do some explaining because it's yeah. I didn't know this was all the rage, all the rage amongst witch uh humans, witch people.

Matt 19:33

Hey everybody.

Shawn 19:34

Porter decided to jump on with us.

Matt 19:36

So we're excited to have Porter with us today. Yes as we started on this second topic. Welcome, Porter. Thank you. Porter, you're free to tell them all the things I messed up while you jumped on late, but you don't have to tell anybody if you don't want to. That's okay. We'll give you we'll give you a pass. I messed up. All right, so here's the second topic. Senator Patty Murray strongly criticized the Department of Justice during a Senate hearing, arguing that a new $1.8 billion fund created under the Trump administration could allow taxpayer money to benefit the president's allies. She called the fund a slush fund and accused the administration of using government resources for political purposes. While acting Attorney General Todd Blanch denied the accusation and said the fund was legal and similar to previous programs, Murray also criticized the Department of Justice's handling of the release of the Epstein files, saying the department exposed victims' private information, including names and photos, uh, while protecting alleged abusers. She repeatedly pressed Todd Blanch to apologize directly to the victims and meet with them personally. Blanche acknowledged that mistakes were made, said the department tried to correct them quickly, and agreed to meet with victims if contacted through their lawyers. So here's the question. Of these two groups, which is more entitled to taxpayer reimbursement? The victims of the Biden Justice Department or the Epstein victims whose personal information was released by the Department of Justice earlier this year?

Shawn 21:09

Anyone who thinks that they've been wronged by the government has the wonderful American right to file their own individual lawsuit. And if it's found that they were wronged by the government to get just compensation for it.

Matt 21:25

You don't think there should be a separate fund set up that the Trump administration gets to just decide who gets the money and who doesn't get the money?

Shawn 21:32

I think that that might be the single most corrupt thing I've ever heard in my entire life. Well, the question is attorney, acting attorney general Todd Blanche correct in saying that this has been done plenty of times and is also legal? Is that correct or not? Um No. No. There's a sort of a similar like background to this got kind of a little bit popular during the Obama administration. They would call it the sue and settle. Technique where a lot of the time it was like environmental organizations or things would sue the government, and the government, which was very friendly to them, would just settle out of court and give them compensation. There's never been a situation where the president sued himself. Or his own treasury department. Yeah. Uh, and then settled to have two billion dollars that he can give to whoever he wants, and nobody never has anything even remotely like this happened.

Matt 22:37

Also, as part of the settlement, is uh the Department of Treasury agreed that the Trump family can never be audited ever again for their taxes. That's also part of the settlement.

Shawn 22:48

So obviously, so this is like this is an old brainer that obviously this is like corrupted self-interest. Like, of course, so your question who who deserves the the taxpayer reimbursement more? Clearly, the Epstein victims whose personal information is released by the DOJ. Of course, that's the answer.

Matt 23:03

Are you guys would you be in favor of a $1.8 billion fund to reimburse victims of the Epstein release?

Shawn 23:10

I mean, Porter, you said it right. There's a process for that, right? They need to sue, they need to sue, and then judges and juries will help mediate what the proper compensation should be.

Matt 23:21

Do you remember when we were talking about whether or not the Epstein files should be released? And I said, no, don't release them because you guys said, no, no, they're gonna protect the victims. And we see now they didn't protect the victims. That's because I thought, how could I be so stupid to think?

Shawn 23:36

I thought it's so easy. I could do that. You just run a little thing that read you know their names, you run a little thing, put a black box over every name, but no, yeah, good. That's a different capability of the United States government to do that.

Matt 23:48

They did redact the names of all of the people who were being accused. We don't have any of those names in the Epstein files, but somehow those victims' names got out there.

Shawn 23:57

Hey Matt, this is why smaller government, man. Smaller government, inept.

Matt 24:03

If you had smaller government, you would have no Epstein files because nobody would have ever investigated him. Because small government doesn't have the capacity to go after billionaires.

Shawn 24:13

So the names, so that so those names launch government, apparently. There you go. There you go.

Matt 24:20

Yeah, I don't know. I want I thought maybe somebody would make the case that uh Biden had like persecuted these poor conservatives. Well, I'm gonna say maybe there was somebody.

Shawn 24:30

I don't I don't know of anybody personally who's been like seriously unjustly prosecuted by the Biden administration, but maybe there was someone.

Matt 24:39

I don't know. Rudy Giuliani, perhaps? Or the pillow guy? Am I pillow guy?

Shawn 24:44

Yeah. All those J6 people, the guy's like there's a difference between being like between government weaponization and just being more likely to be prosecuted for crimes you actually did because you have unpopular political opinions, also. Those are not the same. Uh but maybe there are some people who legitimately the government was weaponized against them. I know there have been some in this administration, and I wonder if they were very adamant that anybody who feels the government was weaponized against them can apply. It is some of this money going to James Comey, yeah. Letitia James, Letitia Brown, the the Letitia James, yeah, you got a right name, right?

Matt 25:35

Yeah, or E. Jean Carroll. They just announced that they're investigating her. Yeah. Do they get some of this money? Wow. Well, it's up to the Trump administration. It's up to that board. The impartial board that they're going to appoint.

Shawn 25:49

That's crazy, man.

Matt 25:50

Well, we all agreed on that. That's good to hear.

Shawn 25:52

We definitely agree.

Matt 25:53

Okay, here's an here's the next question. A recent study found that older adults who vote may live longer than those who do not vote. Researchers analyzed data from thousands of people over many years and found that voters had a 45% lower risk of dying within five years compared with non-voters, even after considering factors such as income, health, and other forms of community involvement. The study does not prove that voting itself causes people to live longer, but it does suggest that voting may reflect a stronger sense of purpose, community connection, and belief that one's actions matter. Researchers found that the results were similar regardless of political party or whether people voted in person or remotely. Experts believe that the feel that feeling connected to a community and participating in civic life can improve well-being and may contribute to better health and a longer life. The first presidency has encouraged us to vote. So here's the question: Is voting in elections the right thing to do?

Shawn 26:55

How are you gonna answer? Matt, this is gonna be a test of your humility and this is gonna be a test of your humility. Because you've always said no. Well, no, wait, you've always said yes in it just not for president, right? It depending on certain states.

Matt 27:10

Wait, you say no in general? I think voting in I think voting in local elections is the right thing to do. Okay, I would say that. Voting in local elections is the right thing to do. Not though, not because it would make me live longer.

Shawn 27:24

Yeah, you don't believe in your in your poll, in your survey poll?

Matt 27:30

100% we'll ask Porter. Porter knows a little bit about statistics.

Shawn 27:33

No, you answer the dang question, Matt. Do you or do you not uh believe in this poll study that says that you will live longer if you vote? Do you agree?

Matt 27:43

I do not believe that that is uh they've identified a causal relationship between voting and living longer. I don't think that's true.

Shawn 27:51

Thank you for being a critic and a skeptic of the higher education uh world. Thank you. That makes me feel so good, dude.

Matt 27:59

I think they did the study the right way. I I think that there perhaps is an association. There might be something there, but I don't think that they have the data sufficient to say that it caused there's a causal relationship there. Okay. Yeah. It's not, but but maybe, maybe voting, maybe people live longer when they vote because they're it's just the right thing to do, and people who do the right things like have a happier life.

Shawn 28:24

Matt, this to me, this goes to our first subject. Let's just test Porter. Porter, real quick. Do you know what an autodidact is? No, no, Matt, tell them what an autodidact is.

Matt 28:36

An autodidact, I learned today, is a person who knows how to teach themselves things.

Shawn 28:42

Okay. Instead of relying on a teacher or a system or a grade or anything, like a porter's an autodidact for sure.

Matt 28:49

Okay, so definitely an autodidact.

Shawn 28:51

Good. No? Oh, maybe. Well, so this is I would say I'm one who uh seeks out being taught by others a lot. Oh, not a pure autodidact, no, no, no, no, but I would say, Matt, that that applies to this. If nothing else, the love to love the diligent study that that voting might require. Like I enjoy with my wife sitting down when the local elections come and we talk about each one, we dive in, and we do our studying, and we be like like that autodidact approach, that approach of becoming knowledgeable, it makes us more well-rounded, right? It makes us more interesting, it makes us a better citizen. So if voting, close your eyes and just like tick a box that your your party says to vote for, absolutely not. But if you actually will be an autodidact and go and research and study and know what you're voting for, that's that's good for us. That's good for society. Then I become a more well-rounded uh citizen.

Matt 29:43

Well, I'll say this, Sean, because I don't believe in voting. I think voting is uh not good generally. But uh about a week ago, it was primary election day, and I was driving my wife to vote, and I was like, you know what? I think I'll just go in and vote too. And I knew that I didn't want to vote for the incumbents in the Republican Party, and I brought my phone in to do some research, and I was like, this is too much. Like, I don't know who any of these people are. But there was a guy whose name was Giles, and I was like, Giles, Giles, that sounds like Miles. I'm gonna vote for that guy. Okay, shame. Shame on you, shame. And there was a question about should we raise taxes to build a new police station? And I was like, Well, if it passes, then I've seen all of these really clever things on social media from the police department about why they need a police station. And if I vote yes, then they're gonna stop doing that because they will have gotten the money they won't. But if I vote no, maybe I'll see more of these clever ads on social media where they're like, hey, we need a police station. So I was like, I think I'm gonna vote no because I want to see them keep these ads going.

Shawn 30:41

Okay, so that little teeny, tiny little ex thought exercise that you did. You know, if you would have put a little more time and effort into that and to the other things you voted on, then maybe what the prophets, the first presidency saying is this vote in elections because it is going to make you a smarter, more interested uh member of your society and your community. That would have done that more if you would have done that. So maybe the act of voting isn't the right thing, but maybe the process behind a vote is the thing that makes it a good good part of our society. I mean, I generally understand that your vote in most situations, especially a national election, doesn't do anything. But the prophet and the apostles have been very clear that you should vote. So I feel like now, uh like when uh when COVID happened and President Nelson said you should get vaccinated, I had already uh been in favor of getting vaccinated, and I was like, ooh, all these all these people who uh think vaccines are pointless must be really silly right about now, and they just gotta go do it anyway, because the prophet said so. I feel like I'm on the other side of that now. Yeah, now now I was like, uh, I don't know. Maybe I'll show up to vote if I have time. Uh the you know, like, especially in Idaho, my vote's not really gonna do anything. It's a done deal here. But then the prophet said, Yeah, you should vote. So uh so I'm like Matt and Porter, I hear you guys all the time echo what the prophets say in politics about we want you to be involved, be better citizens, go get involved. Although you believe that the vote itself counts for nothing, I'm gonna stick with my my spiel here, Matt, and try and convince you. What do the scriptures teach us about learning religious wisdom? You have to have a hunger and a desire and a diligent effort to actually learn the things. Look at Nephi, man. His dad taught him everything. He didn't just close his eyes and go, oh, my dad said it's true. It's good. He had a desire to go learn for himself. So to me, Matt, you I'm trying to convince you of this.

Matt 32:44

Well, I'm gonna I'll read the letter because that it supports what you're saying, Sean. This is the letter from last election, right? From the first presidency. We urge Latter-day Saints to be active citizens by registering, exercising their right to vote, and engaging in civic affairs, always demonstrating Christ-like love and civility and political discourse. We urge you to spend time needed to become informed about the issues and candidates you'll be considering. Some principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties, and members should seek candidates who best embody those principles. Members should also study candidates carefully and vote for those who have demonstrated integrity, compassion, and service to others, regardless of party affiliation. Merely voting a straight ticket or voting based on tradition without careful study of candidates and their positions on important issues is a threat to democracy and inconsistent with revealed standards. So Porter. That is so good.

Shawn 33:48

So Porter, when you're in line, a three-hour line for your to get your favorite whatever vaccine is your favorite, you should be studying all the topics of the day in your local municipality to vote for and become informed, and therefore you would be a better citizen.

Matt 34:04

So I'm saying voting in elections is not the right thing to do unless you do it the right way. Because they were pretty clear in that letter. Oh, okay. If all I do is show up on election day and vote a straight party ticket, if all I do is show up on election day and vote for what all all of my friends and family are telling me, they actually called that a threat to democracy.

Shawn 34:23

Excellent point.

Matt 34:23

So it's not voting. Voting isn't enough. What I did on election day was a threat to was a threat to that's true.

Shawn 34:32

I didn't stop voting randomly is not voting traditionally or a party ticket. Voting randomly is probably fine for democracy, actually. Net neutral effect.

Matt 34:42

Yeah.

Shawn 34:43

Because if everyone else votes randomly, then you've canceled each other out, basically. Porter, don't find ways around being obedient to this. So that's mine.

Matt 34:51

That's that's the way I interpret the first president. What the what the church is telling us to do is we have to study candidates, we have to vote for people whose integrity, morals, all of that stuff align with our own. And if we're not doing that, then we really shouldn't be voting. And we really shouldn't be like you either do it the right way or you shouldn't do it at all. And you know what I like about the letter?

Shawn 35:14

I it doesn't say, and I know that the church leaders have expressed something like this before, that you should think about what issues are most important to you when you are voting. But I like that this letter didn't say that because I feel like just voting based on issues, and for a lot of members of the church, it comes down to like just one. A lot of time it's just abortion for a lot of members of the church, is what they're doing.

Matt 35:41

Or gay marriage or transgender marriage or guns.

Shawn 35:45

Yeah. And I like that this letter said, think about the integrity and the personal character of the person you're voting for. That I feel like a lot of time we get so caught up in issues because that's what candidates want us to do, because it's very easy to take a position, it's very hard to be a good leader. So I think if you if you forget about that aspect of trying to discern and exercise the spirit and learn about these people, you are much more easily controlled by propaganda.

Matt 36:16

This morning when I was in the shower, I decided I don't like Senator Rish of Idaho. I have to be careful because Porter interned for him. But I was like, I don't like him anymore. I'm gonna try and get him voted out. And this election seemed like a great time to just disrupt the establishment and show him. And um, so then I was like, okay, I'm maybe I'll reach out to the Democrat running against him, see if I could like help him out, help him. And then I started looking into the Democrat, and I was like, oh, I don't like this guy either. Like, there's no way I'm gonna spend my time helping that guy. So maybe I'll look at the other candidates and see if I can help them. But I think it's important to not let the two parties divide us and say I've got to pick either a Republican or a Democrat, and to not say I'm gonna vote the lesser of two evils because maybe I don't like Rich, but I also don't like the Democrat. So I don't have an obligation to go vote for one of those two. I can like choose who I want to vote for.

Shawn 37:07

But you've done the work, you've been obedient, and you've done the work to kind of do your research, and that's what the prophet's saying we should do.

Matt 37:13

And so it's okay if on election day, if I don't like either one of them, I can go vote and not vote for anybody, or I can write in somebody.

Shawn 37:20

If saying that helps you feel good about this whole thing, then sure.

Matt 37:23

But don't you think that's true? Yeah, I do.

Shawn 37:25

Yeah, I do.

Matt 37:26

You can't let them just force you to pick between one of two. I agree. In 2020, in 2024, uh, two-thirds of Americans wanted neither of the candidates. They didn't want Biden or Trump, they didn't want Harris or Trump, and yet they all chose between those two. Yeah, and that's not good for them. That's not what the Lord wanted.

Shawn 37:44

Well, well, but who whatever that person's reasons were for choosing, maybe they did choose the lesser of two evils, maybe they did the research that you're talking about that you did. It's okay that you conclude not to vote, but it's okay that they conclude to vote the lesser of two evils. That's a choice they make. That's a choice they make based on what the prophet's saying is your own study, your own research, your own conclusion. They think it's better for the country to do the lesser of two evils. That's the you can't do that.

Matt 38:10

It had me until you said that, Sean. That's where you lost me. You lost all my points with that statement.

Shawn 38:14

That's because you're looking for any excuse not to vote.

Matt 38:17

Lesser of two evils can never be the right choice in voting, it can never be that. You have to have your vote be for the the person who best represents your integrity, your morals, and all of that other stuff. If you vote for somebody that is not a good person because they're not as bad as the other person, that's the threat to democracy situation.

Shawn 38:37

I don't want to be hypocritical because that is exactly what I do. If if I've never voted for Trump and I've never voted, yeah, no, that's exactly what I do, but I don't judge people for saying You should judge them, Sean.

Matt 38:51

He should judge them, right, Porter? That's not okay.

Shawn 38:54

Um, but also I need to say on the record, I would vote for Senator Rish. I think he's cool.

Matt 39:02

There you go. Okay, there you go. It's okay. It's uh Porter. Look, my reasons, everybody knows my reasons for voting for who I vote for aren't all that complicated, right? There was a picture in the Trump uh impeachment hearing of of Senator Rish sleeping, and I was like, never again, he's out. You cannot sleep while you're a U.S. senator.

Shawn 39:23

That's going to uh that's gonna rule out quite a few of them.

Matt 39:28

Quite a few of them. Porter's like, I sat through those meetings. Do you know how many people are asleep in those meetings? Let me tell you, not exactly riveting all the time. If sleeping on the job disqualifies someone, I can't vote. There's like nobody I can vote for. Oh, there are some. Okay.

Shawn 39:50

Uh I would say uh like Lisa Murkowski's probably not sleeping on the job very often. All right. That guy, he's famously energetic now. That's true. Uh but none of these are people that you can vote for because of where you live. We've got, you know, Rish or Krapo. Or culture. I don't know. There was kind of a no, maybe I shouldn't, maybe I shouldn't say anything. Never mind.

Matt 40:14

We don't want to ruin your career for it. Stick with your candidate. We'll move on to the big question. Okay. So a growing number of people are using artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT and Claude to help them file lawsuits without hiring a lawyer. Courts are seeing more of these self-res self-represented, or sometimes Sean likes these Latin terms, pro se cases, because AI can quickly create long legal documents, research summaries, and arguments. While AI can help people who cannot afford legal representation gain access to the court system, judges say it is also creating problems by increasing the number, length, and complexity of court filings. I'm just gonna pause and say, poor judges. I have so sad for things they have to repeat. Some AI generated documents contain weak arguments, incorrect information, or even fake legal citations, forcing judges and court staff to spend more time reviewing them. Experts believe AI has the potential to make the legal system more accessible, but they also warn that it can overwhelm courts and mislead people into thinking they have stronger cases than they actually do. So here's the big question The Book of Mormon can be quite harsh about lawyers. If AI can do the job of a lawyer, maybe we'll have fewer lawyers. Is artificial intelligence something sent by God to help rid the world of an excess of lawyers?

Shawn 41:42

That's such a Matt Miles question.

Matt 41:45

Well, so in state conference today, the visiting general authority, his name's Elder Bragg, he said that he sees divine like he's like, I AI is like this divinely inspired tool to help with family history research. And he was very passionate in his idea that like God has sent us AI at this time and place to help us with this family history stuff. And I just can't help but think maybe it's also just to get rid of lawyers.

Shawn 42:13

Matt, how many how many lawyers are currently in the first presidency and the corner of the Twelve Apostles?

Matt 42:18

Well, probably none because they had to quit their jobs in order to be valuable.

Shawn 42:22

That's no answer, dude. Which ones were made their careers lawyers?

Matt 42:26

Let's see, President Oaks, President Christopherson, Cook, uh, or uh let's see, who else is left in the 12 that was a lawyer? I think that's all. Oaks, Christopherson, is Cook a lawyer. I think Cook is a lawyer. Oh yeah, Cook. Cook's a lawyer, yeah.

Shawn 42:40

Well, I've got an answer for you, Matt. You ready? Okay. Yeah. So wasn't the Sixth Amendment added to the Constitution because the like the idea was that the the intricacies of the law are too complicated for the average citizen. And so it kind of guarantees the right to a specialist, a lawyer, someone who knows the law to help protect them because it's so, so, so complicated. Isn't that the whole point of that Sixth Amendment?

Matt 43:08

The right to an attorney?

Shawn 43:09

Yeah, the right to attorney. That's the reason behind it, right? It's so complicated that you need a specialist to actually navigate you through and make sure you're protected. Okay, so if that's the case, then I would say either you need to simplify the law or shut up about how using AI to make it more complicated. It's already crazy complicated. Let AI do it. Let AI be involved. I don't care how much you have to read as a judge. Like the if the law is so complicated that you require a staff of 50 people and one needs a lawyer, if it's that complicated, then yeah, use the tools at our disposal, absolutely. So shut up and let AI happen.

Matt 43:44

And the best lawyers never represent themselves, right? Even a great lawyer hires a lawyer to represent them in court. They never do it themselves. Which, if AI is encouraging everybody to just become a lawyer, then is it better?

Shawn 44:00

If if we reduce the number of professional lawyers, is it better if we're replacing them with a lot more bad lawyers and robot lawyers? I don't think so. I'm actually doing a research project right now about AI on the other side of the bench, AI being used in like um pretrial sentencing or uh like civil triage. And I think sometimes we would think that robots would be like the fairest way to decide things like this, to decide the law, or that like it might be the most efficient way to navigate the law because you know they're impartial. They're impartial, right? It's just a machine, it doesn't have biases. But what we found is that yes, they do have biases because these machines are based on the data from the world, and the world has biases, and they're also not impartial or faceless because they're made by giant corporations. Do we really want like Google and uh like Grok? Yeah, do we want Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk? Sam Altman seems like a good guy injected into our legal system at this scale. Do we think that's gonna make it more fair and accessible? Now hold on. I don't think anyone would argue that you replace the humans and put accountability on to the to the AI. I don't think that's what the the argument would be. Like if like one your example, Matt, was a big long argument is is submitted and it's full of like a few uh mistakes, mistakes, yeah, bad citations. Well, then it's it should be a proper thing in the law for that judge to have to spend 10 hours to go through that and to find that there are three bad citations, then that that's a consequence that that person like if you submitted some bad citations, there's a consequence to that.

Matt 45:53

So the human should be accountable for what they submit.

Shawn 45:57

Yeah, so you can't blame. We're not saying uh Elon Musk made Grok and therefore look, he made my argument. The Grok made the argument for me, blame Elon Musk. No, the human is accountable for using it. And so you those citations, sure, the judge, spend your time studying it. I need to be accountable for the citations. I can't blame Grok.

Matt 46:14

Well, I also so there's so many times on this podcast where I say, here's an injustice, and Sean will say this. We'll then sue them. We'll then take them to court. And I say, most people can't do that. Like, there aren't a whole bunch of lawyers out there saying, please let me work for you for free. And so I think personally you're talking about like a civil case? Yeah, a civil case. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Or or like or like let's say that the police like do something that I don't think they should be doing to me, right? And so I want to get evidence thrown out in a in a court case or something like that. Like, you don't always have great legal representation when you're getting a public defender or something like that, right? So I think that I personally believe that this is a a gift from God to make it so that the world has this opportunity that you don't need the lawyers anymore, that you can do whatever the lawyers did without them and just file those lawsuits. Trump files more lawsuits than anyone the world has ever known. I should be able to do the same thing, and now I can with AI. And maybe there'll be good briefs and maybe there'll be bad briefs, but at least AI is fighting for my rights, or I can use it to fight for my rights.

Shawn 47:18

Here's the problem I I think this would be awesome if it wasn't for something that you're missing, Sean, which is that if if every Joe Schmo that thinks that they've had some injustice done to them that really hasn't, uh, but now they can just ask AI, and AI is gonna say, oh yeah, yeah, yeah, for sure, for sure.

Matt 47:36

And here's a legal brief with a bunch of fake stuff saying, yes, something did illegal happen to you, that the volume of cases that's gonna come into courts now is going to force courts to also use AI to keep up with the quantity, or they could hire more judges, or we could increase the size of the Supreme Court, we could increase the size of all of the yeah.

Shawn 48:02

I agree that's a problem, Porter, but it it is the reality we live in, right? There's gotta be a private sector of our most human branch of government.

Matt 48:13

I want to be an immigration lawyer at the border with Mexico with an AI bot just on my phone, and I say, give me your name, give me your date of birth, we're gonna file a legal brief to get you in the country and give you asylum for now. And then and then I don't want that bot to like all of the ICE people when they're chasing people saying, get these people out of the country and deport them. I want them to be able to just have a little phone, just open their app, and they file the legal brief as the police are taking them to the detention center. They've already filed their legal brief that says let me out of this detention center. I want it to be just as fast for their legal brief as it is for them to get arrested.

Shawn 48:49

Deporter, you gotta like that. No, the there are already not enough immigration judges to handle the amount of cases. Also, I don't see how it's gonna help in that situation. They give asylum to nobody now, unless you're from South Africa.

Matt 49:08

Um uh well, just similar kinds of things, right? I want somebody walks on my sidewalk and I say, Please get off my sidewalk, and they give me the finger. I want to be like immediately, you're served. Like, here's my my legal brief. Oh man. I'll see you in court. I think that it would be good for Americans to be able to if everyone could exercise their legal rights to the same degree that Donald Trump can, it would be good for everybody in the United States.

Shawn 49:34

And will there be tons of fallout from that and tons of problems? If of course, but I I agree, man. Give give the legal access to the masses. If if it continues down the path we're on, here's what I'm doing as a as a judge. I'm appointing one like intern, and their only job is every single thing that comes in, they put it through like the turn-it-in AI checker. If it's more than 5% AI, I throw out the case. You do not get to do it.

Matt 50:04

That's horrible. Then no, but then AI is no good for anybody. The lawyers, by the way, are all right.

Shawn 50:10

AI will be no good for anybody. They can come in. We can order where the we're the two old guys supposed to be taking that stance. You're the young guy supposed to be embracing AI.

Matt 50:22

He's got you afraid. I have a friend who's a lawyer. He spends most of his career is suing casinos in Las Vegas for things that they've done wrong. He's made a really pretty penny, like suing casinos with like accidents and things like that. He told me almost all of his legal briefs now are AI. So it's like like once you get your template down, once you know what it what you need to do, why reinvent the wheel? Just keep using it, just use AI to change a few things here and there. If you're gonna kick them out because they're using AI, then that will that will just stop the legal profession.

Shawn 50:54

I'm gonna say I'm not gonna say there's no use for AI in the law. I think AI can be an incredibly helpful research tool or a tool to develop your argument. But once we start allowing machines, which means we're allowing uh giant corporations to just like submit all of our writing and arguments for us, like the whole point of the legal of the judicial system is to like reason through things. This is like a uniquely human thing that we do.

Matt 51:29

I feel like you didn't read my Book of Mormon verse here, Porter. The purpose of lawyers is to get gain and stir up controversy and stir up anger, because they make their money by how much employment they have, right? The more work they get, the more money they get. So if you go to a lawyer and say, Do you think I have a case? Their answer will always be yes, for $500 an hour, I'll help you with that case. Because there's always like that's what lawyers want.

Shawn 51:56

But the point of lawyers it you want your lawyer to be incentivized to win. And the other lawyer is also going to be incentivized to win, and it creates an adversarial trial, and that's the whole point. Porter, Porter, I think what you're pointing out is an actual very, very um important point that if we embrace AI in any category, including the law, where we're literally just turning our brains off and allowing the accountability or trying to let the AI be accountable, then we're failing as a society. I think the point though, Porter, is whether it's this legal realm or any other realm, we as humans have to be accountable to them. We can't turn our brains off and just let them do the work for us. We have to be the ones accountable. So if if any of the scenarios you guys put out there, if the AI, if we are letting the AI do everything for us, it's it's it is gonna fail. Yeah, it'll fail. Yeah, you're right, Potter. We can't turn it over to them. But I think that's the voice that we I think the church has had a good voice. Really kind of at the forefront, right? They've said you can't use AI, but you can't replace God, right? You cannot go to AI, turn your brain off, and let it tell you, let it answer your prayers and teach you what wisdom is. You can't treat it like that. You are the ones accountable. You have to practice our agency. But we can use it to get rid of lawyers. I think. We're not at we're not at the forefront anymore after the Pope's encyclical. Did you see that? Yeah, he said he said get it get rid of it, didn't he? You said you didn't see that, Matt? I didn't see it. Did he say get rid of AI? He didn't say get rid of, but he released a a very extensive encyclical almost entirely about AI, um, like giving a lot of direction about how to um not lose your humanity, how to um you know stay connected with God, to not let it replace your ability to interact with him, to not try to use it to eliminate like divinely ingrained human weaknesses that bring us closer to Christ. He copied the pro our pro he copied the living prophet.

Matt 54:02

Or Sean, the Pope gets guidance from the same God that our prophet gets guidance from. And it's multiple sources, it's triangulation saying, So when we hear some imams saying the same thing, then we'll know, okay, God's trying to send a message to everybody through our living through our living prophet, and then they get it taken he had some specific lines that he said we shouldn't cross, so he was like, We need to not use it for weapons, because it like violates the ideas of human dignity.

Shawn 54:28

We need to not use it for and uh I think he said surveillance maybe. Um but he didn't say lawyers, he did not say I didn't read the whole thing, it was like it was like 45,000 words, but um that's something that has not really done as much of is saying, like, hey, we shouldn't use it for these particular things, except for they've said, don't use it to try to find answers to prayers. Yeah, which again is our prophet's message. And Matt, you know, it's exciting that you're on this board, you're on this train, right? You're embracing AI. It could replace lawyers, one day it could uh replace professors, one day you're on this train, yeah.

Matt 55:12

I would love to see AI try to do my job. Um I'm happy to compete. I'm like no says said no lawyer ever. Like I'm like Paul Bunyan and the against the train and like putting in I'll I'll beat that AI, I'll show everybody.

Shawn 55:27

Yeah, and that's the right attitude. That is, and you're gonna even use AI to make yourself a better human teacher. And that's the point Porter with the lawyers. I can use uh AI to make my lawyer better or or make myself close to I don't I don't know what trying to say, but yeah, the point is the humanity and the accountability needs to stick with humans, that needs to be the focus. Yeah, if we ever turn it off, we're dead. And guess what? We are competing against a world of so many of the masses who are just turning their brains off and letting AI tell them everything. You know, I look at my kids and go, hey, you're competing against those guys, you're gonna be okay.

Matt 56:01

I agree. All right, that's awesome. Hey guys, thanks so much for joining me this week. And listeners, thank you. Thanks for listening. Good job writing good messages. Keep it up. We'll talk to you again next week. New episodes drop each Wednesday. In the meantime, subscribe to the podcast, give us a like, and visit our website for past episodes. You can comment on the show at realmormonism at gmail.com. Thank you for making us one of the most listened to podcasts. We love our listeners.