Matt 0:01

There's so many things that come up that you can't possibly know, like what's the right thing to do as a citizen. So all you can do is say, I'm gonna vote for good people and trust them to do the right thing when those situations come up. 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. Hello everybody, and welcome to the Latter Day Lens. It is so good to have you with us this week. I'm your host, Matt. With me as always is Sean, and I'm super excited that Mark is with us again. Welcome back, Mark. Thanks. All right, let's just jump into the mailbag. So this would be a couple of weeks back. We talked about adoption. And um, so this listener wrote, I'm so sorry to that gentleman for feeling that people may not may feel less of him for not being a biological father for his child. I personally have a great respect for people that adopt. On the other hand, I feel like he also might be misunderstanding the reason that there may be an emphasis on the biological parent. The reason is to emphasize that mothers and fathers need to step up. They need to assume responsibility of their biological children. There are too many parents that choose to eat, drink, and be merry rather than care for their children. Rehabilitation should be available for those that are troubled or afflicted, affected by addiction. Again, thank you for being a wonderful father to a child in need. I don't know why people focus on biological children. Maybe that's why. People need to step up. You think that's what it is, Sean?

Shawn 1:47

Uh I think you need to step up, but not yeah, I don't understand. I've never uh come across anyone who who who makes adoptive parents feel bad. I don't I don't know. I've never never experienced that. So if that's actually happening, shame on them, I guess. I don't know. I've never really felt that.

Matt 2:07

Yeah, that's no good. Mark, do you have a lot of biological children out there, Mark, that you're not taking care of?

Marc 2:13

Well, uh, that's that's what my old co-worker Bob would say. I've got a lot of kids, but not too many I'm claiming.

Matt 2:20

Do you know what my daughter-in-law says? She says, My dad always said to me, I brought you into this world, I can take you out of this world. I'm like, that's a horrible thing to tell a child.

Marc 2:31

An old Bill Cosby there, isn't it?

Shawn 2:33

Yeah, that's a good thing. That is, that's a Bill Cosby reference.

Matt 2:37

Oh, okay. I was like, what a horrible thing to say to your child. Like, yeah, the idea that I can kill you if I want to kill you, that's crazy.

Marc 2:44

I can't believe the Bill Cosby references. This is a great drink. Oh.

Matt 2:51

Well, thanks, listener, for writing in. Um, we didn't know the answer to why people say that. And I'm sure that Levi is grateful that you feel sorry for him, that he the people are mean to him. Because no one should be mean to Levi. Or to anyone for that matter.

Shawn 3:09

Amen to that.

Matt 3:11

Okay. Let's start with the thought provoker. So, a lot of people don't know this, but next month we are going to be celebrating the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. That part people that part people knew. Most people don't know this. There's going to be two distinct entities organizing frameworks for this national celebration. The first is called America 250. It was established by Congress as a bipartisan, non-political commission in 2016. It is run by the U.S. Semi-Qentennial Commission and supported by America250.org. It focuses heavily on history, inclusive storytelling, education, and large public community events like America's Block Party. There's another group out there called Freedom 250, a quasi-government organization created out of the White House under President Donald Trump's administration, operating under the Salute to America 250 task force. This one focuses heavily on patriotic rallies, specific executive branch agency highlights, and a traveling tour all under the banner of a new era of American greatness. And that's the the UFC fight that's going to be at the White House. That's under this Freedom 250 group. The church is officially partnering with America 250 and is not involved in the Freedom 250 festivities. So here's the question: Should members of the church follow the church's lead and support America 250?

Shawn 4:47

Matt, is the question should we follow one and not the other? Is that the question?

Matt 4:50

Well, the church is following one and not the other. I love what the church is doing for America 250, right? They're sending food to uh food shelters or food banks. They're donating like tons and tons of food to 250 different food banks around the country as part of the America 250 celebration. To me, that seems like a really cool thing that we should support and get behind. A UFC fight, a grand prix race around the National Mall, a fair, I don't know, some concert with vanilla ice.

Shawn 5:19

I don't know if that's I mean, if at first, Matt, you're you're the question seemed a bit loaded, and I was like, no, man, like the the church doesn't care how you celebrate the 250. Just because they're doing it, that's like a probably a PR move. They don't care how like don't don't we shouldn't try to guilt people into doing it one way or the other. Let everyone celebrate how they want. Then I did a little research on the America250.org, and I was like, oh, these guys are branding it really well. Like they did, they're doing two things, and me being a branding guy, I'm like, okay, maybe I will support this thing because the branding is really well. To me, I found the two things they're wrapping it around. The first thing is they call it give give forth. So on July 4th, they say, let's make this whole campaign celebrate 250. Let's make July 4th the single most donated, like charitable donated day in American history. It's like, oh, holy cow, that's a really cool campaign. They call it give the fourth. And then the second one is 350 for 250. They're calling this campaign 350 for 250. And what they're saying is let's uh let's make let's try to get all hundred all 350, what is it, million people in America?

Matt 6:30

Yeah, 350 million Americans.

Shawn 6:32

Yeah, on that day to celebrate the 250th. In other words, we're all Americans. All of us, every single one of us, we're Americans. Let's celebrate all of our lives. A great campaign. I'm like, those are great campaigns. So I'm like, all right, I can support this. But again, Matt, don't try to guilt people into celebrating it the way that No, I don't want to guilt them.

Matt 6:53

It's just like, why? If I'm the president of the United States, why do I have to have my own celebration? Why can't I just celebrate the American celebration? Like, why do I have to create my own stuff, put things on the White House?

Shawn 7:07

Hold on, hold on. This seems a little biased from Matt's part. You're Mr. Government, you're Mr. Political Science. You like it when the government does good things. Maybe this president isn't doing it the way that you would want, but you're telling me that if they were maybe not doing UFC and race cars, you wouldn't be like, that's what our government should be doing.

Matt 7:26

They should be promoting our What I'm saying is the government ten years ago created the America 250 Commission to say, let's celebrate America as Americans in a oh, you left that out.

Shawn 7:40

I thought this the America 250 was just some nonprofit.

Matt 7:43

No, no, no. It was organized by Congress, bipartisan 10 years ago. You didn't say that.

Shawn 7:50

I thought he did.

Matt 7:51

Yeah, I felt like I said that.

Shawn 7:52

Oh, maybe I missed it. Sorry. Oh, it does say that. Established by Congress as a bipartisan unpolitical. Yeah. So whoops. Yeah, yeah. Whoops is right.

Matt 8:01

Yeah, so then why do we need to so we don't need to celebrate both. We just celebrate the one and then say, what is like whatever Trump, any other private person who wants to create some other celebration, more power to them. I don't care. But I don't like the idea of one group saying, we're gonna call it Freedom 250. And if you say you don't want to be a part of this, we're gonna call you not patriotic, we're gonna say we have nothing to do with you. Yeah, go ahead, Mark.

Marc 8:25

Yeah, well, I think I know what the problem is you say it was done in 2016. That's when Obama was president. So this whole thing was poisoned from the start. Okay. And the church the church is just drinking in that poison, right? The church is just like I'm telling you, ever since that that old Nelson.

Shawn 8:44

All right, Matt, but hang on, hang on though. This kind of proves back on my point, even though I misunderstood it. If in 2016 this thing was uh created and all through today it was doing things that the church didn't agree to, then they they wouldn't follow it, they wouldn't support it. And it's gonna change based on who's in power.

Matt 9:02

It's doesn't have to change. Trump doesn't have to start his own new thing and say, do you know what I want to have a rally where we celebrate myself. I want to have statues built to myself and my followers, I want to build an arch. I want to change the like the looking glass, the the pond in like the the Lincoln Memorial, right? I want to change the like all of this stuff. Like we have an American celebration, like you said, Sean. It's once it's inclusive, so all 350 million Americans should participate in it. If you want to do the Trump one in addition, that's fine. But mostly I just want our listeners to know because the information is sort of confusing at the moment. There's different kinds of messaging, and I imagine it's only gonna get worse in the next month. I just want Americans to know that there's an official celebration that's inclusive and nice and focused on service and focused on giving back. And then there's another one that feels like a Trump rally. And if people you know say, I'm not participating in the Trump rally one, that's not them saying I don't love America. That's just them saying I'm gonna celebrate it in the way that Congress intended.

Marc 10:11

Either celebrate America with Donald Trump or be a communist. I get it. All right.

Matt 10:19

Well, Sean, I'm gonna give you the points on this because you helped clarify for everyone that there was an official act of Congress 10 years ago.

Shawn 10:27

This is this is that backhanded compliment that comes from that sometimes.

Marc 10:32

I'm gonna split the points to both of you because you're both correct.

Matt 10:36

There you go. That was that was a soft topic leading into something that I think could be a little bit more contentious. And we have loyal listeners from Texas, and so this is come I'm coming at you, Texas listeners, just to kind of see what you think about this topic. So I noticed a pattern in recent primary elections. In Texas, Republicans voted out a Senate nominee, John Cornine, who was conservative, principled, and experienced, and they replaced him with a nominee, Ken Paxton, who has been indicted on multiple fraud charges, impeached by the Republican-controlled House in Texas, and has been accused by whistleblowers of misusing his office for personal gain. In California, Eric Swalwell was the front runner for the Democrats and the governor's race, but after multiple women accused him of sexual harassment, misconduct, and sexual assault, he lost that support and dropped out of the race and dropped out of Congress. Last week we talked about how the first presidency wants the encourages us to vote for people of character, regardless of their party affiliation. So the question is this does this show that Californians are doing a better job of following church leaders than Republicans in Texas?

Marc 11:49

Yes. I think the question answered the question.

Matt 11:55

All that information.

Marc 11:57

Yep.

Matt 11:58

All right. I love this. That makes me so happy to hear Mark say Californians are following the prophet better than Republicans in Texas. That's awesome.

Marc 12:08

In this one thing. One out of was it 614 commandments? Yeah. What do you say, Sean?

Shawn 12:18

Yeah, I mean, obviously, this guy. I mean, isn't this right out of the Trump playbook? Trump's flexing his power endorses a guy because this guy's pretty Trump, right? This Republican camp uh yeah, yeah, Trump liked him.

Matt 12:32

Trump endorsed him.

Shawn 12:33

Right. And this guy kind of seems like a Trump guy. Like, like it's it's all about politics. It's not obviously not a religious dude. He's not a I I so I mean this doesn't seem nor like you're not surprised by this, right? This is this seems to be what Trump does. He picks whoever he thinks can win and he pushes them, and they end up winning a bit.

Matt 12:56

Yeah. Yeah. So you're saying the the Republicans of Texas are not following the first presidency?

Shawn 13:02

Well, I guess, I guess not. I'm I mean, he was he was accused of all these things, but he was not held found guilty on all these all these things. He settled one of these things. So I don't know. I'm on the other pen, I got plan I can or side I can play devil's advocate.

Matt 13:15

But no, I'm gonna tell you the other side because I actually believe the other side.

Shawn 13:18

What other side?

Matt 13:19

I believe that there that Republicans in Texas are doing a fine job of following the first presidency.

Shawn 13:24

Oh, you disagree with Mark?

Matt 13:26

Yeah, yeah, I disagree with Mark on this one.

Shawn 13:28

Tell us.

Matt 13:29

Well, so first of all, it's the way I phrased it, right? So in Texas, there are six million Republicans, and Ken Paxton got 600,000 votes in that primary election. So to me, it's a hasty generalization to say Republicans in Texas aren't following the first presidency just because 10% of them voted for a guy that maybe the first presidency wouldn't want them to vote for. So I'm gonna say it's a hasty generalization to say Californians are doing better than Republicans in Texas. I don't know if this was a gotcha, is what it is. Oh, okay. But this is the other thing I want to say. We'll see what happens in like in in these elections going forward. But um, I think that the the first presidency, like Porter suggested last week, if we vote for people based on policy, based on saying, hey, this guy's like John Cornine, right? He's a conservative. I agree with his approach to government. Um I think that that the first presidency also said is the wrong thing to do. If we vote for anybody based on the policies we think that or the issues that we think that they're gonna take positions on, they said that's the wrong thing to do. We should vote for people based on their character and based on who they are as people.

Shawn 14:47

But hang on.

Matt 14:48

And I I don't know that the the people in California chose people of higher character than Ken Paxton.

Shawn 14:54

Uh but but I mean, don't our church leaders also say study the topic, study the the the legislation, study the the takes that these candidates are taking? Like, does it don't they do they don't just say if a communist is a moral man or woman, then put him in office?

Marc 15:11

Voting. Hold up now. Ezra Tav Benson just entered the chat. Ezra Taf Benson died 40 years ago. Does that mean that okay? Hey, guess what? Joseph Smith died. Oh! So we don't listen to him. He has nothing to say.

Matt 15:28

I'm going with the first presidency letter from three years ago. But Matt, but Matt, the first presidency letter.

Shawn 15:33

The first presidency letter does not say don't look at any topic, don't look at any stance that the candidate takes, just trying to determine if they're righteous or not. It doesn't say that.

Matt 15:42

That's what it says. It says that 100%.

Marc 15:44

It doesn't say don't do that, though.

Matt 15:46

It says that if it says we should not vote for people based on okay, I want to tell you my my personal anecdote. So I had a neighbor, and by the way, he and I disagree about everything in politics. But he is a good man, he's a righteous person, and he said to me, I want to run for Congress. And I said to him, I will do everything I can to help you get elected to Congress, even though I disagree with him about everything, because he's a righteous and a good person, and that's who we elect to Congress, righteous and good people. And I don't care, it doesn't matter if he and I disagree about politics or issues or things like that, because I know that he's gonna seek the Lord's guidance. There's so many things that come up that you can't possibly know, like what's the right thing to do as a citizen. So all you can do is say, I'm gonna vote for good people and trust them to do the right thing when those situations come up.

Marc 16:41

But you cannot be a good and wise person and be a communist.

Matt 16:46

Of course you can.

Marc 16:48

Of course you can. Now, name me one good communist who isn't dead, because that's the only good communist, and maybe we'll have a conversation.

Matt 16:56

Okay, I mean there's not a communist party in the United States because they got rid of it, right? Back in the past, before we used to be a country.

Shawn 17:05

So, Matt, I like your anecdote, but I'm gonna I'm gonna call you out a little bit on it because I don't know if I believe you 100%. So if this neighbor of yours, good, righteous man, faithful member of the church, and you're supporting him, and let's say day one he has a press conference that says, all right, my platform I'm gonna run on is no more immigration. No more, no more people into the country. This is the policy I want to run on. I I believe in it, I think it's the right thing to do. I don't think foreigners should come into our country anymore. You would immediately, no matter how righteous or faithful this guy is, withdraw your support of this guy. Immediately.

Matt 17:41

I mean, this was 10 years ago, so it wasn't as contentious an issue as it is now, but I can guarantee you that right now he is on the side that says no more immigrants in the country. Like he's like hardcore, he would he would probably vote with Trump on every single issue. And I would still fight to get him elected because he's a good man.

Shawn 18:00

But even though he's gonna fight for a policy that you are like, that's not a good policy, that's not a righteous policy, that's not a principled policy. You're willing to let a guy who fights for his convictions, though some of those convictions are wrong, be like, Yeah, it's okay.

Matt 18:16

I'd rather have a righteous guy who's wrong be in there than a guy who's how could he be righteous and be wrong if he believes, if he's a righteous person, because he hasn't we just disagree about an issue.

Marc 18:28

I think you're rage baiting us right now. No, I'm not you gotta be. This is rage bait. I'm tired of it.

Matt 18:34

This is totally true. Yeah, if you're Mark and I disagree about probably everything in politics. I would do everything I can to get Mark elected to office because when he's when he's sitting down and he's looking at an issue, looking at a policy, I trust Mark to try to do the right thing. And he and I might disagree on policy, but who cares? That's just policy. We need good people running the country, not people who agree with us on all of the issues or even on any of the issues.

Shawn 19:03

I mean, counter counter-argument, Matt. The your neighbor, good as faithful and righteous as he is, is still a mortal human that does not is not all powerful, all-knowing. I don't think that I don't think the church is saying solely on your judgment of how righteous or faithful a person is, because no one's faithful or righteous, right?

Matt 19:22

Now I have to pull up the letter. I have to pull up the letter and read it again. That's exactly what they say.

Shawn 19:29

But you have to read of course you should, but you also have to read it in context of all the millions of other things that they've said. And they say all the time be actively engaged in politics, care about policies, care about laws that affect your society and community, care about laws that are righteous and policies that are righteous, not just about people that are righteous. So, in that context, of course, we're supposed to consider the the focus and the work that they're doing. Of course, we are.

Matt 19:55

All right. I'm gonna try and step back just a little bit on this. If you look at, you can go to congress.loc.gov, or you can go to Tom. Anyhow, you can look at every single bill that's been passed by Congress from the history of Congress.

Shawn 20:10

Okay.

Matt 20:10

And if you look at that, that's exciting.

Shawn 20:12

That sounds fun.

Matt 20:13

And you look at most bills passed by Congress are bipartisan. Democrats and Republicans agree on about 90% of what comes out of Congress. Okay. And they are divided on, let's just say, 10%. Right now, 10%. Usually maybe it's 5%. So if Democrats and Republicans largely agree on almost everything, then why would I make my decision about who to support on the 10% where they don't align? It's way more important to focus on who is that person and do I trust that person when they're making a decision on that 10% to do what they think is right than or to represent their constituents or something like that. That matters so much more because most of government is about there there already is consensus on the issue. So don't let those be what you decide how you're gonna vote for somebody.

Shawn 21:06

But you had the same argument, you made the same argument when it came to like a year ago, when it came to what news sources should I listen to? And you and Levi made a list for me of people to listen to. And one of them was the NPR lady, what's her name? Um Tabitha Sword.

Matt 21:21

Nina Totenberg, I really like it.

Shawn 21:22

No, not Nina Totenberg, another one.

Matt 21:24

Oh, uh, I can't remember her name back. I know who you're talking about, though.

Shawn 21:28

Lady McLiberal. So I went, but I followed you. You're like, this is a righteous woman. This is a person.

Matt 21:35

I did not say she was righteous. You did.

Shawn 21:37

You said she's honest and she's like direct and she's non biased, and she's roll back. Yeah, I've got her right now.

Matt 21:43

I don't think I said I don't think I said you did say she was probably gonna say honestly unbiased. Yeah, that's unbiased, honest, unbiased. I don't think I said righteous.

Shawn 21:56

I'll I'd have to go look. I don't remember the I remember you saying she's really honest.

Matt 22:00

She's definitely a good reporter. Yeah. She's a good reporter.

Shawn 22:03

Yeah. So so you did your job to try and judge that a human is righteous enough or or good enough or honest enough. Well, when I studied her, I'm like, wait a minute. She is a completely biased reporter. She works for MPR and she has literally one stance. Nothing that Joe Biden did was ever criticizable from her. It was just great, great, great. And then I looked into her history at what she would say about any Republican, you know, president, and it was just criticism, criticism, criticism. And I was like leftist non-biased.

Matt 22:38

But to be clear, we're not talking about Nina Totenberg. It's this other one. I forget her name. Yeah.

Marc 22:42

Yeah.

Matt 22:43

Nina Totenberg is the best. I like the evil. You will not impugn her integrity on the podcast.

Marc 22:52

Love you, Nina. But your coworker's an idiot.

Matt 23:00

But Sean, that's the thing. Like you and I can disagree about whether somebody is of character. Yeah. I don't mind if you vote for someone different than me because you disagree with me about their character. That's a I think that's where the debate and discussion on all candidates should be. We might evaluate that differently, but it shouldn't be about policy. Because by the way, their true positions on policy are even more unknowable than their actual character. Character reveals itself in the way they behave.

Marc 23:29

I give Brother Matthew the points on this one. Nice. Wow. It's close. He had us in the first half. I ain't gonna lie. It wasn't rage baiting, was it, Mark? It was for a minute. There's a little in there. I can tell. Your smile changes a little. I love it.

Shawn 23:49

Alright, I'll give you the points, Matt, for making me think. I gotta think more deeply about that. Because if that's really the case, then I've not that hasn't been what I've fully committed to. I I appreciate you being passionate about it, so I'll think about it more.

Matt 24:02

And by the way, have you guys seen this guy running for Democrat in for Senate in Maine? The Democrat Graham something. Oh, with the Nazi tattoo and sex women and all that. Yeah. We'll find out on Tuesday if if the Democrats in Maine are gonna put character above, I don't know. I don't know why they like the he's an oyster. Okay. So let's talk about socialism and uh communism. Go ahead, Mark.

Marc 24:31

I actually, before we move on, I have it just a section of a small poem that is from 1727 that may give us some charity towards our congresspeople. Oh First, methinks, as here I squeeze, with both my hands fixed on my knees, as I with terrible grimace torture each muscle of my face, till happily at last I vent the painful load of excrement. So statesmen too, with equal pains and like advantage rack their brains, till big with projects duly weighed the ponderous burden they unlaid. Sometimes indeed, when ill designed, their plots evaporate in wind, as bloated guts with colic swelled, with only emptiness seemed filled, till through back door of fundament, the airy pain expires and sent.

Matt 25:21

Is that Henry David Thoreau?

Marc 25:23

No, it's uh it's it's from this book here, The Benefit of Farting Explained by Don Farton Hando Puffendorst, the professor of Bumbass in the University of Krakow.

Shawn 25:33

Mark, you you deceived. Now now you're the one being accused of rage baiting because that was not a short poem.

Marc 25:38

It was a the the poem is longer. I read just a paragraph.

Matt 25:43

What year was this published?

Marc 25:45

1727.

Matt 25:48

Out of Poland, University of Krakow?

Marc 25:50

No, no, no. That that's just the joke. It's Don Fart and Handel Puffendorst, Professor Bombass from University of Krakow. Like it's just Oh, I see.

Matt 25:57

So it's not it's not really, it's not a real poem.

Marc 26:00

No, Don Fart and Handel? Mark, I was I was excited. I was like, wait a minute. It's a real poem.

Shawn 26:07

It's just I was like, Mark, did Mark really find the Mad magazine of 1760? I didn't know.

Marc 26:12

This is this is a real thing, it's a reproduction, but I figured you'd be a fan of that in 1760 or whatever, the Mad magazine.

Matt 26:25

It's just it's the good stuff right there. The poem is like there was a rich kid whose parents bought a printing press, and he's like, What could I print? What could I print? I've got a printing press in 1700s. Nobody can do this. Let's see what they can put together.

Marc 26:39

This reproduction's actually a repro of the seventh edition of this book. Oh, okay. It's sold out bigly.

Matt 26:46

I'm sorry I didn't include that on the rundown, but that was a nice interlude, Mark. Thank you.

Marc 26:50

Yeah, it was very serious. Politicians are working hard.

Matt 26:55

All right, so Gen Z, it turns out is enamored with socialism. Some conservatives out there are like, hey, we need to rebrand our conservative message so that the Gen Z people appreciate what it is we have to offer. So these guys argue that the best way to combat this Gen Z socialism is with market liberalism, which is not pure laissez-faire capitalism. In market liberalism, governments play an important role in creating conditions for markets to work well. Some of the policies they endorse are changing zoning laws and regulation to build more housing, taxing inheritance or property, and finding ways to share the benefits of AI through taxes, broader ownership of capital, and support for workers. So here's my question to you two conservative market anti-socialism people. Is this really more in line with the teachings of the church than socialism? Explain the question. What do you mean by that? This market liberalism approach, where we say, hey, let's like mix a little bit of socialism in with our capitalism so that these young workers will see the beauty of capitalism.

Shawn 28:04

So it's not you're asking if that's closer to our church doctrines than socialism. What social is social? You're asking maybe is socialism closer to our church doctrines than this uh market liberalism?

Matt 28:15

Yeah, I actually think socialism is more in line with church doctrine than capitalism. But these guys love capitalism, and so they're like, let's mix a little socialism with capitalism. And so I'm asking you, does this feel closer to the church teachings because it's got a little bit of market stuff in there? Or is it still just socialism?

Marc 28:34

This is uh not for the listeners, only for the viewers, but here's the answer to what that sounds like a Nazi flag. We will put ourselves into the market a little so that it's for the people. We're here to help you. The government is your friend in the market.

Matt 28:52

And so is that not in line with church teachings? No. What?

Marc 28:57

How is that in line with church teachings?

Shawn 28:59

Church has no teachings. Which article of faith talks about the zoning laws and how many houses we should build?

Matt 29:08

This is what I say. The scriptures are very clear. What is property to me, saith the Lord. The Lord doesn't care about property, he cares about equality, he cares about treating people fairly, he cares about that there's not going to be in Zion there were no rich and poor, but everybody had all things in common. These are all consistent with the principles of socialism.

Shawn 29:29

In Zion, where? Which zion, which Zion are you reporting?

Matt 29:32

Well, that would be the city of Enoch, Zion, right? The Lord called the people Zion because they were of one heart and one mind, dwelt together in righteousness, and there were no poor among them.

Shawn 29:41

So your your opinion has always been that we should be striving for the Zion of Enoch, right? That that that's what the desires are of the Lord on this on earth, especially in 2026. We're supposed to be striving for that.

Matt 29:54

Yes, of course.

Marc 29:55

That's why I agreed Moses chapter six, it talks about zoning laws.

Matt 30:01

Well, you don't have to. That's why I say I don't need these zoning laws in order to get there. If if people don't own private property, I don't need zoning laws at all. So I don't understand why, like, somehow this approach that says, hey, let's have some market in some government intervention into the market so we can allow markets to thrive is somehow better than just saying, look, just let the government own it. It's a matter of fact. I'm never concerned about AI, let the government own it. And then we'll make sure that everybody has equality.

Shawn 30:30

I never intentionally bring in DNC 134. You always do this and force me to bring in DNC 134. Why do you do this? I know you don't like DNC 134, but you always do this.

Matt 30:41

Go ahead.

Shawn 30:42

I believe that all governments can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate, as will secure that each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property and the protection of life. In fact, where personal abuses are inflicted, we have the right of property, and when it's and when it's infringed, basically it says we have the right to defend ourselves physically. So yeah, so you can't, I don't know. It's hard for me to hear you say, wait a minute, I I've interpreted that in the city of Enoch, the Zion that existed, no one owned property. Therefore, I'm not gonna look at DNC 134. I'm just gonna say that we're supposed to live in a society where no property is owned. How do you conclude that, really, honestly?

Matt 31:24

Uh, I can go back to the the monarchies of of Israel, where God owned everything.

Marc 31:29

Oh, that was a good time.

Matt 31:31

People didn't own anything.

Marc 31:32

I'm just saying for every scripture killed every man, woman, child, ox, lamb, ew, everything of the Ammonites because they pissed me off the other kid. I want to slaughter every single one of them. That's a good thing.

Matt 31:46

So what I'm saying is, if the idea is let's find canonized scripture that justifies our position, there are more scriptures that don't talk about private property as in this like inviolate thing. Sure, there is. We just talked about it in the Old Testament.

Shawn 32:02

No, no, no. You didn't quote a scripture like I did. All you did was suggest or think maybe in the city of Enoch no one owned property. There's no doctrine or scripture that says they didn't own property.

Marc 32:12

Plus, if we're going to appeal to scripture for these important levels, we should go to the triple combo because the Old Testament has been corrupted by the Deuteronomists. So it's hard to tell for sure. What can we really depend on 1 Kings for something? Because now you're preaching Mark, now you're preaching non-doctrine. There's no doctrine that says the Old Testament isn't scripture. No, I'm not saying it's not scripture. I'm just saying it's corrupted by the Deuteronomists. Why do you think Lehi had to leave Jerusalem? Was it because the Deuteronomistic reforms of Josiah were running rampant and killing a lot of people and removing Jesus and Heavenly Mother from the scriptures?

Shawn 32:49

Matt, Matt, I think I think that this idea, and I could be wrong, I would love to hear more preaching. I think this idea that socialism is good because it talks about taking property away from people is a righteous principle. Like there's no really not much scripture. I'm open to learning. There's not much scripture that supports or defends that. There's really not.

Matt 33:10

I think I was just reading 2 Kings chapter 8. I can't. I'm reading in the Kings right now in the Old Testament, and what I see is a continual pro uh this is like the process that happens. Somebody becomes king, they go into the neighboring territories, they kill all of the royalty and all the ruling family, they kill all their slaves, they take all of their stuff, they bring it back to their palace, and then it becomes theirs. And then it's a sign of righteousness. The sign of righteousness in the Old Testament is God gives you power to conquer other people and take everything that's theirs. And then at some point they're gonna come and conquer you and take everything that's yours and take it into so this idea that somehow property and I own this and it's mine and it should be protected, it's a very, very modern idea. And I don't think it's in the scriptures. But what I do see in the scriptures are phrases like there were no poor among them, that we should make sure that their wants are taken care of, and that we should have all things in common among us, the law of consecration.

Marc 34:12

But was it civil government that did that, or is it the fact in Fourth Nephi that everyone was converted on the face of the earth to Jesus Christ? And that's how it came to pass. You cannot force righteousness, because then that would be a Luciferian principle, whether that's exactly what his intention was or not. But it's well, I can also be voluntary.

Matt 34:33

I can also argue that before Fourth Nephi, all of the wicked people were killed.

Marc 34:38

And in the city of Enoch by God, not by the government, and in the city of Enoch, all the wicked people were killed. Okay. So that's what's going to happen with your socialism, is we would just have to kill all the farmers in Ukraine, and then we'll be fine. The Soviet Union will rise in glory and point, Matt. It's a good point.

Matt 35:00

If the idea is that we have to wait around for God to kill all the wicked, because once the wicked are gone, then people will righteously choose the law of consecration. Another less violent path is to say we can force them into the law of consecration now. Less violence from killing them. Less violence.

Shawn 35:28

Matt, when has the seizing of personal property ever been nonviolent? What are you talking about?

Matt 35:33

Well, we could do it nonviolently in the United States.

Shawn 35:37

Why? Name one instance where it's ever been done nonviolently. One time, just one time in the history of the world.

Matt 35:42

Did you pay your taxes a year ago, Sean? Did you pay your taxes on April 15th? It's so different. Property seized. It's the same thing. Well, so what I'm hearing from you is that anything, even remotely close to government ownership or government intervention in the markets, is wrong and evil. Even this market liberalism doesn't uh doesn't fit with the the church teachings for you guys.

Shawn 36:11

I didn't say that. No, but you have to look at the principles taught through scriptures that talk about freedom and and account and accountability or uh agency. And certainly the history shows us that when governments seize power and have property rights, agency goes out the door. It does. Like name one example where it doesn't.

Matt 36:32

I'll give you an example. Please. Back in the day when we decided we wanted to have radio and television in the United States, the government put television antennas and radio antennas all over the country to facilitate the development of this new technology. Or sometimes the government built freeways and highways and connected cities all throughout the country. And as part of that, they had to seize property from individuals. But it's okay. They took some property, they built a freeway, it was better for everybody. They took some property, they built an antenna, it was better for everybody.

Shawn 37:06

It wasn't better for everybody. Was it better for the people to seize their got their property seized?

Matt 37:11

I mean, if if if Yesco has anything to say about it, those people put billboards on their land that was adjacent to the freeway, and their property went up in value, even though they lost a little chunk of their land. The fact that they had a freeway going through their previous land was a good thing for them, and they could put up billboards and print that out.

Shawn 37:28

It is a very like big government kind of socialist thing to say, what you're saying. It's like, oh, we know what's better for that guy who wants his property over there and wants to do what he wants on it. I know what's better. You don't know what you want. It's a very socialist thing to say.

Marc 37:42

I think if God wants to kill wicked people so that there can be law of consecration, let him do it. And if he wants us to do it voluntarily, he will let us know. But thus far, the prophet's word has been chill out, baby cakes. Okay, Mark gets the points for that.

Matt 38:00

That's a pretty good way to say it. Like God can kill people and we can't.

Shawn 38:05

Oh, that took a weird turn. Yeah. I did not think that conversation was going in that direction, but you two just went all in.

Matt 38:11

You decided to bring in the doctrine of covenants, Sean. And so how dare you bring a Latter-day Lens to us?

Marc 38:17

Wait a minute. Hey, thanks for tuning in to Latter-day Lens, everyone.

Matt 38:22

Okay, so this this other story comes from the uh Massachusetts Institute of Technology, like this review of technology. So there's a little bit of a story about like a company that implants computer chips into people's brains, but it's leading to a bigger question. Okay, so China and the West differ in their approach to brain computer interface technology in three main ways. First, the Chinese government produces heavy financial and political backing to make BCI a national priority, while Western development relies more on individual companies, right? They're a little more communist and we're a little more capitalist. Second, Chinese patients are enthusiastic about testing this technology on the human body, whereas Westerners feel an ick factor that makes them resistant to being guinea pigs in this technology. Finally, the US focuses on being the first to create the most advanced technology, while China focuses on making it accessible to a huge number of consumers to solve societal problems. So here's the big question Does China have a better definition of success than the West?

Shawn 39:37

No, the answer is no. And let's focus on your item number two, principle in the idea that uh the communists, the society in communism has a general, like very like good, like high outlook on this thing. Whereas in the West, people are still like, wait a minute, you're gonna put plant, you're gonna put chips in my brain. Hold on, hold on, hold on. Like, remember, Matt in Ukraine when we were on our mission? We would ask people, what was it like during communism? But remember, I remember one the most common story I heard was, well, we'd be in school as little kids, and they would come in and they'd say, How many of you have grandparents that pray to God? And they'd raise their hands and they'd say, Now, we want to teach you something. We want you to close your eyes. Everyone close your eyes, all the kids, and pray to God to give you some candy. And they would close their eyes and they'd pray to God and they'd open their eyes and guess what happened? No candy. No candy. And then they'd bring a big picture of Lenin in and they would say, Pray to Diadia Lenin, pray for this candy. Close your eyes, don't open your eyes. And then they would go around and put the candy on their desk and they'd open their eyes and go, Diadia Lenin, I prayed to Lenin, and candy came. So, in a situation where communists are in control of what the people think through propaganda, where they control so much, they are going to influence the way that the general public. For example, right now in Russia, how many of those weird, sad Russians believe that this war in Ukraine is an okay thing, it's a great thing, it's a patriotic thing because they control the media. The government is controlling what the people will think. So I like a society whose government isn't trying to control what we think, but instead says, let's see what the market can bear. Can the market convince you that this is profitable and this is a good thing for us? Instead, let's let society be very skeptical of things like putting computer chips in our brains until the market proves that it is a good, valuable thing. Don't just trust the communist Chinese government saying BCI is really, really, really good for us. We tell you so, so believe us. Like, don't just believe the government in teaching these things, let the market bear it out. It'll eventually bear it out.

Matt 41:38

But Sean, have you heard about these like billionaires that get sick or I don't know, get paralyzed? The guy who played Superman, right? He got paralyzed. Christopher Reed? And yeah. And they seek out treatment. And do you know they don't get the treatment in the United States? They go to other countries where there's experimental drugs, experimental treatments. Like Mexico. Sometimes it's Mexico. It's different places that they go to. Yeah, sometimes it's China. Sometimes it's like a European country. There's somebody, oh, is it Ben Sass that's dying of cancer? There's some people that like they're dying of cancer, they'll go to these other countries to get treatment for cancer because they're trying things that we're not trying. Like, I think that um it's not about it's not about the government telling you, it's not about the propaganda, is what I'm saying. I'm saying that there's other cultures, other civilizations that are willing to try things that we're not willing to try in the West. Think of the COVID vaccine, right?

Shawn 42:36

But who decides but who decides what things to try and what things are good for society? Is it the select group of all powerful up at the top? Or would it be the people? No, it shouldn't be the select group of the people at the top. It should be the people.

Matt 42:50

I really don't I don't think we should trust the masses on important decisions that they don't have the capacity to understand. Rage bait. No, I'm serious. Why would I want to let the market tell me whether this brain chip is a good idea or not? Why don't I just look at the research? I've got money as a government and say, this is something worth investing in. And if we invest in this and it works out well, then we're gonna be, since we own the technology, we can make it widely available. So whether you're rich or you're poor, if you're paralyzed, we can put a chip in your brain and you can still function as a human being because we've got this technology that we own as a government. Like to me, that makes sense.

Shawn 43:31

Here's why. But if if the actual technology is actually it actually works, and the companies that are interested in making that technology for the benefit of man need it because they need a profit and they need to grow this and they want to grow this. And the market says, I'm gonna try this thing because I'm interested. I don't, I'll, you know, I have Alzheimer's or I have ALS and I want to improve this. And if the thing doesn't work, then it's not worth investing in. If the thing is more harmful than good, then it's not worth investing in. But the Research paper that these big government bigwigs are like, oh, well, the research says this is going to work. And then they push it on society. It doesn't work. It's never worked. Show me one play time that it's ever worked, that kind of a process. But the market works. I'll tell you, the vacuum is I will buy this because it's proved like this company that was incentivized by profit to make this chip work. And now they've got, for example, uh, Elon Musk and I think it's Neuralink, right? They've got five case studies right now and they're testing and they're testing. And in the end, if the lives of these five people are really improved, then this thing will skyrocket. This thing will go. Whereas if the government just comes out and says, Yeah, you need to do this, you need to do this, I'm going to be highly skeptical because the government See, this is what I'm saying.

Matt 44:42

You got you have to change your way of thinking about government. You grew up in a capitalist society. So you trust entrepreneurs and you trust business people. I don't. And they're you trust, you trust their desire to make a profit as that it's going to lead to the greater good.

Shawn 44:59

You misunderstand capitalism. It's not trusting entrepreneurs and the rich, it's understanding the people in the market. It has nothing to do with that.

Matt 45:07

You have faith in this invisible hand and the average and the behavior of the masses. Okay, but this is what I'm saying. Not even the masses, the self-interested. Okay, so in communist China, the way to become a billionaire is through the communist party. And so in some countries, they say, okay, we're gonna have the path to wealth be through the government and through the the Chinese Communist Party. And the only way you can advance in power is if the people like you and they like what you're doing. No, that's how they that's how you advance in power in China. No, if we the if we the party like you, not if the people like you, if we the party like you. Okay, but as but at some point, because you've got the masses you have to placate, if you're if you're doing things that enrich yourself and they don't benefit all of society, then society's gonna say, get rid of you, we're done with you. Just like society. That doesn't happen. It happened in Soviet Russia, right? They got rid of Gorbachev. Gorbachev ended the Soviet Union because the way he was doing things, the people didn't like it, or the party or whatever didn't like it. And yeah, you can get rid in any society, you can get rid of your government leaders. It doesn't have to be a democratic society to get rid of leaders. So I'm saying, like, you can set up a system where government is the path to wealth, government owns the technology, government owns the information, and then all of that money goes back to the people in society rather than to a few elites at the top. When has that ever happened?

Shawn 46:37

Well, it's it's happening in China right now. It's not happening in China. You think the people in China live a more happy, more fruitful, more benefited life than, say, people in America.

Matt 46:50

I think there is a fat the the middle class in China is growing faster than the middle class in the United States. Right now in the United States, the middle class is going away. The rich are getting richer, and the middle class is either jumping on that bandwagon and joining that few that are getting rich, or they're in that group that's getting poorer and poorer over time. And that's not what happened, that's not what happens in China right now. There's a growing middle class because the government is looking out for the people. Until they don't, right?

Shawn 47:18

Until they decide not to. No, no, no. That's this is important, right? Until they decide that the middle class is gaining too much power. Then, because all the control is centralized, they can do great things to squash that. They can control that. Whereas in America, that could never happen.

Matt 47:36

I think that that definitely could happen in America. It's happening right now. There was a thriving middle class in 1970 in the United States, and it's going away in the United States. No, no, no.

Shawn 47:46

That's what I'm saying. I'm saying that the if the people in the United States, if the government in the United States decided we don't like the way that our free citizens are behaving, they they're not gonna come in and squash us. They're gonna let us squander our profits, they're gonna let us maybe not, but in ch in communist China, if the middle class becomes too powerful, you know by based on history that the the Chinese government is going to hold them back. They're gonna change all elements of society so that they can maintain power. No?

Matt 48:16

I don't think so. What do you say, Mark? You studied history.

Marc 48:19

I think that any time the government is going to tell you what to do, it's already starting wrong.

Matt 48:26

You don't you just have a distrust of government. That's not a historical, like, oh, let's look historically and say, yeah, communist governments.

Marc 48:34

I have a distrust of government because of historical understanding. Oh, I think. All right. I need to find there's not been one government that has for long term been for the benefit of the people. This country was founded on that. We were supposed to be of the people, by the people, for the people, and obviously we're not. We're for ourselves in the Congress to take care of ourselves and owe the people.

Matt 49:01

So wouldn't it be nice if we had a more socialist system where they were because our government is a reflection of the people, and so we are getting what we deserve. I'm just saying, you guys, Gen Z, Gen Z likes the communists. Gen Z likes the socialists. Trust the zoomers?

Marc 49:19

Good heavens.

Matt 49:20

I'm saying that's the future of our country. And and capitalism better find a better message because it's not resonant.

Marc 49:29

The boomers will reign for a thousand years, that the zoomers may perish.

Matt 49:37

Well, I thought I would persuade you guys that China had a better approach to civilization than the West. I hoped. I hoped that if I if you read this story and you read the little intro, you'd be like, Yeah, yeah, there is something to that. I can see the value of that. But I was wrong.

Marc 49:58

Well, I'm gonna give you both a point. Sean for being more correct, Matt for being optimistic. It was cute.

Matt 50:06

Hey guys, thanks so much for joining me this week. And listeners, thanks for listening. Go ahead and write to us. If you want to uh have your message read on air, you better have something good to say. Otherwise, just write to us and I'll just enjoy reading it myself. Have a good week, everybody. Bye. It's always sad to say goodbye, but we hope you'll join us 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.