Matt 0:01

About 80% believe the signers of the Declaration of Independence would be disappointed with how the country has turned out. What do you think? Are you proud about the 50th birthday as the US lived up to the vision of the founders? 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. I am your host, Matt. With me as always is Sean, and we're so happy to have Levi back with us. Welcome, Levi. Me too, me too. Good to be here. Levi, give us an update on the World Cup. We're gonna go 15 seconds World Cup. What do you have for us? 15 seconds.

SPEAKER_01 0:54

Oh man, France is killing everyone, much to my chagrin. The U.S. has their best shot ever. First goals ever from Uzbekistan and some other countries. It's it's awesome. It's crazy. Winter game in Seattle. Best experience. This is the best sporting event in the world by far. Who just I saw Belgium and Egypt. They were good. Yeah, it was fun. Those are good teams, and yeah, it was fun to see. It was good enough.

Matt 1:16

And for Sean's benefit, did it feel like you were just standing around watching nothing happen for two hours?

SPEAKER_01 1:22

Well, that's the thing is people who don't know anything about soccer are like nothing happened. No, of course, tons happen, right? But it's like people who don't know how to play chess watching chess. They're like nothing happened. They're just pushing pawns. Oh, so much happened.

Shawn 1:35

You just made it so much cooler. You're like, okay, how do I persuade people to like soccer? I know. I'll compare it to chess.

SPEAKER_01 1:41

Compare it to chess. Because every because there's nothing cooler than chess. I remember the chess team.

Shawn 1:49

There's nothing cooler than watching chess.

Matt 1:51

Well said. Or movies about chess. Why do chess movies do so well? There was that Netflix show, and there was other show. All right, well, we'll get to the mailback. So one listener wrote in sounds like there was some confusion between the Shah and the Ayatollah. It's worth a brief lesson about Iran, the Shah, Mosadeg, and the 1953 coup, etc. This is my brief history about Iran. Prior to 1979, there was a Shah who was like a king. And there was a parliament and things like that. 1979, the religious leaders of Iran overthrew the Shah and set up a religious uh republic. So who we killed recently was the Ayatollah, who was both the religious leader and the political leader at the time. The Shah was uh the ruler of Iran back when it was more of a monarchy up until 1979. What do you think, Sean? Did I get that good? You want to add anything to that?

Shawn 2:46

I think Levi's the one to ask, didn't you write that comment?

SPEAKER_01 2:48

I think you've got to start one step earlier, right? You have to remind everybody that there was a democratically elected government in 1953, and the problem is they weren't friendly enough to British oil interests, so the CIA in Operation Ajax went in and overthrew Mozadek, was the prime minister. They overthrew him and installed the Shah, and that was the man who was overthrown 20 years later by the by the Islamic Revolution.

Matt 3:16

Yeah, that's true. I did leave that out that part. That's true. The United States, the United Kingdom, other Western powers have a history of meddling in foreign countries with natural resources. And we did that in Iran many times. We did it in Cuba. We do it in Venezuela. We're doing it, we do it all over the world. And we have not yet learned our lesson to stop doing that.

Shawn 3:36

I know one thing, the one thing about Persia or Iran. The 20 Persians or Iranians that I've met in my lifetime are the greatest people I've ever met. Like they are absolutely incredible people. Like the culture there, and and I mean, obviously they've all made their way to uh America, so they they are sad about the current state of Iran. Otherwise, they'd be there. But absolutely incredible people.

Matt 4:01

You know how we call Russia Russia, but they call it Russia?

Shawn 4:05

Yeah.

Matt 4:06

So Iran is Persian for Persia. So we always called it Persia, but then after a while they were like, could you call us Iran? Because that's the way we say Persia. And so we call it Iran out of respect to them. But it still is Persia. It's the same Persian Empire or Persia that has been around for thousands of years. I mean, we're about to celebrate our two birthday, and we're the greatest because we've been around 250 years. They've only been around like 2,500 years. So haha. Take that.

SPEAKER_01 4:35

Small potatoes.

Matt 4:37

I wonder, Sean, if if we were to talk to people in Iran, if they're to say, every American I've ever met is the most amazing person I've ever met. I love Americans so much.

Shawn 4:46

Why do you say that tongue in cheek like that?

Matt 4:48

No, I no, I just legitimately wonder about that.

SPEAKER_01 4:52

Sean's Iranian friends say that. They're like.

Shawn 4:54

No, probably. Why would we say probably?

Matt 4:57

I don't know.

Shawn 4:58

That's for sure. No, we were very close. We were very fond of each other.

SPEAKER_01 5:04

Well, the other thing is I just watched them playing the tide last night, right? And that and one thing that occurred to me is I thought those are like really handsome men.

Matt 5:13

Like I thought, well, those are Persian men are very attractive.

Shawn 5:17

I know. I levi watching soccer. How hey Levi, how attractive are the are the uh chess players?

SPEAKER_01 5:23

Boy.

Matt 5:24

Tell us about the men from Kuros.

SPEAKER_01 5:26

They're all like 13, so there's a What the heck?

Matt 5:29

All right, let's move on to the thought provoker.

Shawn 5:31

Hey, wait, wait a minute, wait a minute. I can't let you slide with one comment. So I will say that ever I was just I was talking with a Russian kid. This Russian, they're doing my AC, and they're a whole all all of them are Russian and Ukrainian. Every person that lived or was born and raised in a different country who now lives here, I don't know about you guys, but they have this exact same response to living in America. Oh, I love it. This place is amazing. That's what I do here all the time. So that'll relate to our one of our future uh topics here.

Matt 5:57

Yeah. You could save that comment for later, Sean, and that would make more sense in a different context. All right, let's start with the the first question. Americans increasingly recognize that government influences people's moral beliefs and behavior, whether intentionally or not. Gallup recently asked whether government policies have a significant effect on people's moral values. Recently, in 2026, 69% of Americans said yes, which is up from 58% who said that 30 years ago. But Americans are divided on whether government should shape morality. Only 45% say yes and 50% say no. So we often discuss how government shapes views about what is right and wrong, but we never discuss if it's good or bad. So that's the question. Should government be involved in promoting moral values? Please say yes, Sean. Please say yes.

Shawn 6:49

Why are you gonna argue the opposite? I would say absolutely not. You're gonna because oh, I thought you'd argue the yes.

Matt 6:54

I just want you to say that. Yeah, it seems like your shtick, Matt. Yeah, it'll make it so short if Sean says yes. We'll all agree. We'll be like, yes, yes, yes, boom, move on.

Shawn 7:02

Definitely not. Absolutely not.

Matt 7:05

Really?

Shawn 7:06

In fact, scripture is on my side with this. I mean, I mean, go ahead. Anyone want to have a Levi? You want to give your your take? Or Matt, you want to give your take?

Matt 7:12

Yeah, I'm happy to go first.

Shawn 7:14

Go for it.

Matt 7:15

So, as the United States becomes increasingly less involved in religious activities, I argue that Americans are still good, moral, religious people, but they don't participate in religious institutions as much as they used to in the past. So something has to fill that void of authority on moral values. And and if and so if a vast majority of Americans aren't going to church, then yes, the government ought to fill that role of teaching people what is right and wrong. Because if the government doesn't do it, who's gonna do it? So, yeah, the government should do it.

Shawn 7:49

Wait. Who who who should be our our almighty moral leader? Like take take someone in the last, I don't know, you've been alive for 50 years. Take someone in your lifetime who who who is worthy of being that moral government leader for us.

Matt 8:03

Someone in the government who's a good moral leader? Well, yeah, Fred Rangers, 100%.

Shawn 8:08

That's not a bad one. Yeah.

Matt 8:09

I mean, he wasn't my first choice. I was gonna say Obama.

Shawn 8:12

But that's not government.

Matt 8:13

So Levi's arguing that capitalism should be our our I'll take Barack Obama, I'll take John McCain, I'll take Mitt Romney, I'll take Jeff Flake. There's a lot of really good people in the Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter for sure. Yeah. I'll take any of them. I'll take any of them over the bozos on Instagram and TikTok who are telling kids to like swallow Tide Pods or whatever. Like there are a lot of really good people in government who can help teach us what's right and wrong. And it's okay if listeners don't agree with my my list. You can have your own, like maybe that you love Bobby Kennedy Jr., or maybe you love like you can choose your own list of people who you want it to be, but we we as a society should be seeking for the kind of people to serve in government who we would trust to help our children make moral decisions about their own.

Shawn 9:03

Okay, but that's a very, very different thing than your that's different than your question. Yeah, of course. We should absolutely strive to get moral people as politicians. Absolutely. That doesn't mean that that we need we would need or want. It's not a desirable thing for our government to be a moral authority, especially because to define what a moral is is going to change every other week by you know, depending on who's in power or who your government is.

Matt 9:27

But it should be a reflective of the people, right? So as society changes, as we become more religiously diverse, maybe what's right and wrong might change as a society, but we should still have government leaders who are a moral compass for society.

Shawn 9:42

When when have you ever, ever said that our government is a is a government for the people? You say the opposite. Why would now you change it's just why? What are you talking about?

Matt 9:52

Well, that's the that's the kind of the system we have. I'm just saying, like according to you. In its ideal form, government is a rep is of the people, by the people, for the people, and the people are choosing good moral people to fill those representative roles so that they can teach the next generation what's right and what's wrong, what's good and what's bad.

Shawn 10:12

Alright, so DNC 101 talks about and let Levi, you want to go first?

SPEAKER_01 10:17

Nope, you first.

Shawn 10:18

DC 101, 77 to 78. The Lord says he established the Constitution for a purpose, right? And it was done by the hands of wise men. And the verses talk about how it was established that every man may act according to the moral agency which I have given unto them. Moral agency which I have given unto them. You don't have any fears, Matt, that when you get a government involved trying to define what morals are, that and trying to influence what morals are, that that's an attack on agency. You're gonna have this, your statistics show that many people will treat the government as the religion, basically, as the source of what moral morals are. And and you're gonna destroy that a little bit, don't you think, when you you're gonna take away from moral agency, which is what the constitution was established for.

SPEAKER_01 11:01

Okay. What do you say, Levi? Well, but what if you didn't dictate it, right? What if you didn't say, what if you said government should not uh dictate morals? But but men and women in government should uh outwardly be moral, should outwardly encourage people to do things that are moral. Like I would love for to have more politicians. I feel like we have too many politicians that show up and say, look, I'm gonna give you the thing that you want. And I wish more politicians would stand up and say, we need to be a moral country. And here are the here are the goals that we're gonna have as a country, and I'm gonna need your help. And I'm gonna need you sometimes to say, you know what, I can sacrifice for that. I can I can take a back seat while we make things better in in this or this arena. So I I would say let's not dictate morals, but uh but let's have people that that are moral that stand up and and say what they think is moral.

Shawn 11:55

Yeah, so you're you read the question should government be involved in promoting moral values, not really government, but individual elected officials be the promoters of moral.

Matt 12:05

But that is government, those are the governments.

SPEAKER_01 12:09

And I and if you pressed me, I would say that I also don't mind if government gives a little nudge, right? So if government like doesn't dictate things but says, let's make it easy to do the right thing and marginally harder to do the wrong thing. Let's uh let's encourage where we can. Let's make it let's grease the wheels for people to make right decisions.

Shawn 12:33

And in those occasions occasions where those elected officials are are, in your view, not promoting the correct moral principle. How do you deal with that? How does society deal with that?

Matt 12:44

Vote them out.

SPEAKER_01 12:45

Well, and and resist, right? And so they've greased the wheels to do the wrong thing, and I'm still gonna do the right thing. Like they've made it easy to I feel like we do have a system that makes it easy to rip people off in business, to stick it to your workers. And I would say that's an immoral thing to do, and we do have a system that encourages that, but we don't do that. We stand up and we say, No, I'm gonna do what's right, even though it's a little bit harder.

Matt 13:13

We talked about this a little bit last week, Sean, where we're talking about Japan, but like in order for societies to function, governments rely on people obeying things that can't be enforced. If everybody in American society just says, well, it's not illegal, therefore I'm gonna do it, then our society falls apart because you can't pass enough laws to make sure that people are just gonna do the right thing based on just following the laws. They have there has to be something else inside of them that says, like, I want to have a good society, I want to do the right thing, whether it's legal or illegal.

Shawn 13:45

Okay. Okay, but your your statistics show that the opposite would happen. You're showing in your statistics that more and more people are viewing government and government officials as moral authority. Yes. So as government goes right or wrong, the people are going to sway right or wrong. In other words, you you can't rely on this man-made secular institution to be your moral authority. Otherwise, you're going to be led swayed to and fro. Like what is what does Ephesians say?

Matt 14:16

Rely on the Army.

Shawn 14:19

Well done. Every wind of doctrine and the man's doctrine. Good job, Matt.

Matt 14:22

Yeah.

Shawn 14:22

Yeah.

Matt 14:23

Well, well, but I think historically, Sean, if we say, if we go past the United States and go all the way back to ancient Israel and look at what government was there, like because I'm reading in the Old Testament right now, right? Kings and Chronicles, and it's really clear there. God chooses a king, the prophet anoints the king. So the government leaders are called of God, they're anointed by God, and they're held in this position of high regard as not just the person who makes the laws, but as the moral authority of society. And as the king goes, so goes society.

Shawn 14:57

You but you do often refer to an ancient time and try to model that for today. When clearly God, no, clearly God said, look, I'm not going to inspire a situation where we can have kings as our leaders. Instead, what he's inspired, and what the scriptures are clear on, he's inspired this constitution. And it's pretty clear. It's primarily been designed to secure liberty, to establish justice, preserve domestic tranquility, provide the common defense, and protect the rights of the citizens. There's nowhere in there that says promote the general welfare.

Matt 15:29

The general welfare.

Shawn 15:31

That's where you would say it.

Matt 15:32

I was watching the first, was a elder, no Elder Cook and Elder uh President Christofferson, their little Fifth Sunday video that they made. Yep. When they talk about promote the general welfare in the Constitution, they say it in terms of promoting good in society, promoting that which is righteous in society, seeking out the good. So my interpretation of that is just based on what like the general authorities told us.

Shawn 15:57

So if you're going to be obedient to that, would you say it's the general welfare of society to, for example, have everyone spend a little time doing genealogy and provide those names to an LDS friend or neighbor, because that is going to be by far what's best for the general welfare is if we're doing our work for our dead.

Matt 16:17

Well, so I know that I say that I want a monarch, and so that makes people think that I don't love the Constitution. But what I'm trying to say when I go back to monarchy is there are principles in monarchy that can be applied to a free society with representatives today. And just because we're agents and just because we have liberty and freedom does not mean that we should not look to or expect the government to play its traditional role in guiding the people to the moral good. And so we should expect the government to lead us morally, and we should make our decisions on who we vote into government based on that. Based on so it's empirically true that government tells people what's morally right and wrong. And I think that historically and doctrinally, that's what they should do. And it's up to us as people to make sure that we put people in office that will do a good job of that and not argue so much about policy and taxes and things that matter less than are they gonna lead us to where we ought to be? Okay. Point point.

SPEAKER_01 17:15

Well, and the way you asked the question, I I thought this is isn't even a question, right? Like you said, governments do influence people's morality, right? According to the polls. And so the question is it's a lot like your question about socialism. Like the question is not socialism or not, the question is where and how are we gonna involve socialism? And same thing here. Governments do influence people. The question is only where and how. What should we make drugs illegal or should we uh grease the wheels for genealogy? Should we put you know government resources into big genealogy libraries, right? So that could be a way to just nudge somebody without mandating genealogy.

Matt 17:56

Levi gets the points. I'm giving Levi the points for that.

Shawn 17:59

Yeah, I get I agree. Levi gets the points, especially for pointing out that Matt doesn't know how to ask a real question. He doesn't okay.

Matt 18:06

Here's the next topic. See how you like this question, John. So we're at the four-year anniversary of the courts overturning Roe v. Wade. I saw Ted Cruz recently celebrating the Dobbs decision. I remember four years ago arguing that Roe v. Wade had actually reduced abortions in the United States. And I remember we had a discussion about this where people were telling me, not exactly four years ago, but I remember talking about this with Sam, and you guys were like, no, no, the data aren't good or whatever, whatever. But now we have four years of data, and we can look and see the effect of reversing Roe v. Wade. And what we find is that abortions in the United States have increased by 21 percentage points. Now I know Sean loves the idea of states as laboratories of democracy. Federalism. Yeah, fed well, we all love federalism, but you do. You fought against it quite a bit over the years. President Oaks made me shift. I have to love federalism because President Oaks said it's divinely inspired.

Shawn 19:04

Good.

Matt 19:05

So, but but this is the question. Is it time to say that Roe v. Wade was actually good policy in preventing abortions? And all of these new state policies that have come into play since the Roe v. Wade was overturned have actually failed to restrict abortion. So that's the question. Was Roe v. Wade actually better policy than overturning Roe v. Wade? If your big picture is reducing abortions.

Shawn 19:29

Can I go first? Because I I really want Levi and you to respond to whatever research I've done. I read your big article, Matt. Okay. I mean, isn't this? Yeah, this is like welcome to federalism, right? This is a good example of federalism and maybe even capital. More so capitalism, probably. Abortion is now a capitalist endeavor, I think. Because what's happening is so as the states have moved, so the states that have are opposing or going in the opposite direction of the restrictive policies, they're passing laws to protect abortion access, right? And in some cases, they're even even subsidizing it. So in other words, if you're looking at the states that are going, okay, good, it's up to us now. Well, we are not only going to allow abortion, protect it, we're gonna promote it and subsidize it and pay for it. And so what's happening is there's an increase in these states, absolutely. Then you take what's happening.

Matt 20:20

So, like which states, Sean? Which states are seeing a big increase in abortions?

Shawn 20:24

Illinois, North Carolina, Kansas, New Mexico, California. California, for sure. California for sure. Okay, now now what you have is the other states that are saying goods.

Matt 20:34

Yeah, Kansas. Kansas is located right in this hub where a whole lot of states have made really, really strict abortion prohibitions. And Kansas is saying, hey, we can profit off of this by providing medical care to women who will drive from Texas, drive from Oklahoma, drive from Missouri. They'll all come to Kansas and it's become a big industry in the state of Kansas to provide what we call it, like neonatal care or whatever.

Shawn 20:59

So it's capitalism. So abortion has become a capitalist endeavor. But then you have on the other side, you have the states that are really strict in their bans. And again, capitalism has kicked into action, and what it's done is says, all right, well, we'll just perform abortions differently. We'll do telehealth and we'll do like medications that we can just send to your send to your your uh your home, and you can perform that own your own abortion, which is absolutely crazy and fascinating. Because what that tells me is that the abortion movement for all these years has been nothing but capitalism. Like come to the same way that it's funny, man. We had the okay, this now I'm gonna get in trouble. So this weekend, my my father-in-law, who's an Orthodontist, we were talking, and my wife let it slip that I I don't know how you both will feel about this, but I haven't been to a dentist in about 10 years.

Matt 21:48

Sean, I felt bad for you.

Shawn 21:50

They both said that. They both freaked out. And I said, Well, hang on, let me tell you the story. I have always been so scared of the dentist to the point where it drove me to be absolutely confused. Committed to taking care of my teeth obsessively, like doing a great job. So that I wouldn't have to be at a dentist, I think. So my father-in-law who's in Northern Dawn is freaked out. He's like, That's it, Sean. Tomorrow we're going in and we're gonna we're getting you an x-ray. And you're gonna have all kinds of problems if you haven't gone to the dentist because the dentist is necessary to save you. Well, so we go in, we go in, we have my x-ray. And my father-in-law goes, Wow, that's the best set of teeth I've ever seen. Good job. What you're doing is working. Now I know that's anecdotal. I know it's anecdotal, but I think it feels like based on these statistics, abortion has been the same thing. It's a business. And so they go, Yeah, yeah. So because imagine, if you can now perform an abortion by just having a telem, a 10-minute telemedicine interview, and then they send you a pill, have your own abortion. But instead you have to come into the clinic, you have to go through the process, you have to pay your money. It's a business. It's disgusting. Anyway, that's my thing.

Matt 22:54

Okay, so so I'm trying to clarify your position. You like the Federalist part of it, or you don't like the Federalist.

Shawn 23:01

I do like the Federalist part of it. I think that if the goal is to reduce abortions, what's been revealed about abortion and and society's reaction to abortion is very valuable, what we've learned. And so is that there's a machine on the one end saying we can make money on all these people and their abortions. And on the other end, people are still like, I accidentally got pregnant, I don't want that. So yeah, I mean it's revealed a whole bunch. So I think it moves us with that with so much more information, we can now move it into a direction if those of us who want to reduce abortions, yeah.

Matt 23:38

So you're glad that Roe v. Wade is gone.

Shawn 23:41

I am, and I think federalism is the right way to explore the experiment.

Matt 23:47

Abortions in your own state are up, what, like a thousand percent? Like there's so many abortions happening in California now.

Shawn 23:53

California is always gonna do things that most many of us don't agree with.

Matt 23:58

California is always gonna be But so sometimes sometimes having the federal government create a policy like Roe v. Wade was where you have this set of regulations that seem reasonable to people, it reins everybody in. And what happens, it's similar to what I my my analogy would be college sports, right? For the longest time, players couldn't make any money in college sports. Then the Supreme Court came in and said, you have to let those people make money off of name, image, and likeness. And then it just there's the wild west in college sports.

Shawn 24:29

Matt, but Roe v. Wade, the government, Roe v. Wade created the abortion industrial complex.

Matt 24:34

But that's what I'm trying to say.

Shawn 24:36

Roe v. Wade enabled the market to make huge amounts of money off of this and grow it and promote it.

Matt 24:42

But Roe v. Wade had a set of guidelines that people were all following. And when you just get rid of that, then it creates the wild, wild west scenario. Because now there's not this set of guidelines that everybody kind of agrees.

Shawn 24:54

That's not what is proving out. The stats don't show that abortions are less dangerous or more dangerous now. That's not what's proving out. That's what everyone's that's what everyone said. More people are gonna die because it's more dangerous because we don't if that's not what's happening. Instead, what's happening is it's showing that it's safer to perform. All you need is a telemedicine interview and a pill.

Matt 25:12

Well, what I said before was you're gonna have more abortions if you get rid of Roe v. Wade. Yeah, and I feel like I was right about that.

Shawn 25:19

Well, you were, yeah. What do you say?

SPEAKER_01 25:21

And abortions have gotten more. I'm just basking in Sean telling us how bad business is. I'm just basking in Sean saying, look, we need government to rein in these businesses because they are out of control.

Shawn 25:34

Good. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 25:35

I think maybe the last thing the world needs is three white dudes with vasectomies telling us about abortion.

Matt 25:42

But I think I think we're we're better qualified than anybody else to talk about abortion. Who would possibly know the intricacies of women's health than a physicist, a political scientist, and a marketing genius?

SPEAKER_01 25:54

100%, yeah. I I I do push back. I I don't think most people that I know that are involved in uh women's health are are in it mostly for the money. I think that most of the OBGYNs I've met, they didn't choose the most lucrative career they could. They they are uh they wanted to take care of women. You know, some doctors that my wife met during her research said, and these are not people who, these are people who go to extraordinary lengths to save the lives of tiny babies who have real problems. And they said, I would not practice in a state that didn't didn't let me counsel a woman to have an abortion when it was time. So they were like, I what do I do with an ectopic pregnancy? What do I do with, you know, there were lots of concerns that they had, not people who said, I don't want, I we have to keep abortion legal so I can make more money. I don't think that was even on their radar, but they they did think that. And there have been lots of cases that have been in the news about, and I don't know statistically if it's more dangerous, but there have been people who have suffered because they couldn't get the health care that they needed.

Matt 26:58

And that's yeah, it's it's the four-year anniversary, and there's a lot of talk about the Hobbes decision. And I just want to make sure our listeners know if you if what you care about is reducing abortion, the Hobbes decision did not reduce the number of abortions in the United States. And I don't think anybody would argue that women's health is safer now, especially in places like Idaho. And I don't think that they would say that women's health is more accessible now than it was in the past. And and people have to do what they feel is best when it comes to the issue of abortion. I if if you say the reason I want to get rid of Roe v. Wade is because I wanted to reduce the number of abortions in the United States, I just think it's important for people to know that that's not what happened. Roe v. Wade actually reduced abortions when it was first put into place. And after it was removed, the number of abortions increased in the United States.

Shawn 27:47

Yeah, but that's a little misleading.

Matt 27:50

But it's empirically.

Shawn 27:51

Well, overall, abortions skyrocketed after it became legal, you know, constitutionally constitutionally protected. In in general, it skyrocketed.

Matt 28:01

I don't think so. Yes, it didn't. Did Roe v. Wade reduced the number of No, it did not.

Shawn 28:05

No, that was definitely not true. We showed those studies when we talked about this in the past. I think Levi knows this topic better than I do.

Matt 28:12

Levi, didn't Roe v. Wade reduce the number of the case.

SPEAKER_01 28:13

In the 80s, there was a big bump. But like you do things like you compare Canada to the United States, and Canada has a lower abortion rate than the United States, even though there are zero restrictions on abortion. The state, right?

unknown 28:25

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 28:25

Canada pays for every abortion that happens, and the abortion rate is much lower.

SPEAKER_02 28:29

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 28:30

I mean, we know how to reduce abortion, and it is safe, free birth control. We've done so many studies on this that if you provide women the birth control that they want for free, whenever they want, abortions drop by 50% or more every time it's shown this. And Republicans will not do that because the point is not to reduce abortions, the point is to give women harsh lectures, is to demonize women, and it's gross. They want it, it costs money, right? It costs money to give people birth control, but they don't care about fetuses. They should stop pretending they do.

Shawn 29:05

Matt, Matt, so according to the pillar, that's my reference, Roe v. Wade passed in 1973, and between 73 and 1980, 80%. It was an 80% increase in abortions.

Matt 29:16

I'm okay with that.

Shawn 29:17

Yeah, but your argument is saying that that Roe v. I I think you're deleting it, misdirecting it. Roe v. Wade isn't the solution for those who want us to. That's what you're trying to paint here is hey, we had something, it was working, and then we changed it, and now it's not. No, it wasn't working. It increased abortions like crazy.

Matt 29:33

80% increased them and then it decreased them. No, it stayed. By 1985, I mean I don't remember.

Shawn 29:38

I have a look at the No It has not decreased them, it stayed steady and has slightly grown over since then.

Matt 29:43

I didn't come prepared to debate that question because I thought we already knew, I thought we had already resolved that issue. But the listeners can let us know what they think. But Sean, I'm giving you the points for that because your take on Roe v. Wade was one I have never heard before. And I really I thought it was refreshing.

Shawn 29:58

I was just trying, you gave me a set of data and I was just trying I read it, so I was trying to interpret like what are some good, what are some takeaways? It just felt like to me the takeaway was, oh my goodness, look how innovative people have become. Like you have to admit that telehealth has become a big business.

Matt 30:14

Yes.

Shawn 30:14

And it's questionable whether or not telehealth is altruistic or not.

Matt 30:20

Like it's cool. It's altruistic.

Shawn 30:22

Okay. So if the increase of abortions is enabled by telehealth, that's one of the main reasons it's enabled in all of the states that have now banned it, and it's not altruistic, then what is it? What's the motive?

Matt 30:34

No, that's why you get the points, Sean. Good job. Yeah. So you're not used to me giving you points. That is surprising.

SPEAKER_01 30:40

I'll give Sean the points for uh business ruins everything. I'll give Sean for those blood-sucking businessmen need to be reined in by big government.

Shawn 30:49

Well, no, that wasn't the solution, but Levi, I've always consistently said that capitalism has downsides. Yeah, of course. Free agency has free agency.

Matt 30:59

Levi, did you find data on abortion we need to talk about before we move on?

SPEAKER_01 31:03

If you want, in 1990, the abortion rate was it dropped by half between 1990 and 2017. But it did go up. I mean, between 73 and 1980. It sort of peaked in 1990. Big boost was in the 70s. Bam. And then it goes down in uh by 2017 to about half of what it was.

Shawn 31:23

Right. But but from 73 to today, the net growth does it say what the net growth, like what I'll just tell you this.

SPEAKER_01 31:30

It's a little bit, it's a little bit, depends on who you look at. Good mask really reports that it's higher slightly, CDC reports that it's lower.

Matt 31:37

It's really hard to find good data on the number of abortions in America, especially prior to 1973. So it's it's hard to know. But but that's also what I say to my wife every time we disagree and she says something, I say, it's unknowable whether you're right or wrong.

Shawn 31:52

And yet, and yet every question has a data set based on. Sounds like you have a lot of faith in these data sets that you provide.

Matt 32:01

All right. Americans have mixed feelings about America's 250th birthday. This is the this episode is gonna drop the week that we're celebrating America's 250th. That's why I want us to talk about it. So about four in ten Americans say they feel extremely proud to celebrate America's 250th. About three in 10 say they feel excited. About 70% say the United States has succeeded in realizing the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Yet about 80% believe the signers of the Declaration of Independence would be disappointed with how the country has turned out. What do you think? Are you proud about the 50th birthday as the U.S. lived up to the vision of the founders? Please say no, Sean. Please say no.

Shawn 32:42

I think it is interesting when we talk about are we disappointing the founders? Because clearly, I do believe, and scripture says they were inspired to install principles that were true. But I don't think that they didn't have the the I don't think they had, they were seers. I don't think they had the foreknowledge to know why and how these, you know, it's like in night in the 90s when the first presidency comes out with the proclamation of the family, and everyone's like, what? Obviously it's more relevant 30 years later. I don't think the founding fathers would be disappointed. They had no clue what society would become. So I don't think that's a good way to judge it or ask the question.

SPEAKER_01 33:18

Uh I and I think we should stop fetishizing the founders too, right? I mean, they were men of mixed moral character, slaveholders, philanderers, also courageous men. You know, it's a mixed bag there. Sorry, Sean, I interrupted.

Shawn 33:31

No, that's okay. And I agree with you, man. We and we should apply that to every, especially political or even, you know, civil rights leader, right? Same thing. They're good people, they have mistakes and sins, right? Like I've heard people talk about Martin Luther King in such negative ways, I'm like, whoa, look at the man, look at the man accomplished. Sure, there were moral personal issues, like we all have. So I agree. We don't treat them as as like perfect saviors, but but we do believe that many of them were inspired. The same way that I believe 100% that Martin Luther King was inspired by God. I think so. Scripture doesn't say so, but I believe it in my Martin Luther King or Martin Luther King Jr. Jr., thank you. What? Who'd you have to clear that?

Matt 34:09

His dad or him? I just needed to know which because Ebonizer Baptist.

SPEAKER_01 34:15

The fact checkers didn't have to follow up on that one. Okay.

Shawn 34:17

Levi, since you're my my friend in Oregon, my liberal friend in Oregon, would you say that because to answer the question, are you are we proud about the 250th anniversary? I look at, like growing up in Denver in the 90s, and I went to a school of 5,000 kids, and it was the most the most beautifully diverse situation. It was in Aurora, Colorado.

Matt 34:37

Was it Columbine High School?

Shawn 34:39

Near Columbine High School. But it was like perfectly diverse, Levi. It really was. And I look at that and go, I remember my first uh experience in high school. I remember there's a news report about this kid, I don't remember where he was, who was brutally murdered because he was gay and he came out to these two guys at a bar. And I remember being so sad about that. And now you look at today and you go, that that doesn't, I don't, I mean, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but that I don't think that happens. Right? My friends, my family who are gay, they live with agency. They live how they want to live. It doesn't matter if I agree with their morals or not. It doesn't matter. I love that they have no fear of that. So to me, the I know you're gonna argue that how good is it? Okay, it's good for the middle class and the upper class, but how good is it for the, you know, the poor and the and the minorities? Is it not better? I think it's better. Is it not better? Like there's no better time that there's ever been than today. Is that not true, or do you disagree with that?

SPEAKER_01 35:34

Well, and and this is so the 1619 project, this is the whole thesis of this, and no, maybe I shouldn't say there's a lot in there. But the 1619 project approaches it in this way is the 1619 project says, starts out with Nicole Hannah Jones talking about her black father and how he served faithfully in the military and he had this flag and he would hang it out every morning. And when the flag got tattered, he'd replace it with a new flag. And he was very, very proud to be an American. And that was kind of strange to her as she grew up learning what what America has some of the history of America. And, you know, like that that uh Thomas Jefferson, while he wrote, you know, he sits down to write the doc the Declaration of Independence and says all men are created equal, as his slave was making him breakfast. Like that's bananas, right? So the 1619 project talks about the the United States as an ongoing project, that there was a promise illustrated in those early doctrines, early documents. And here we are for the next 250 years trying to live up to that promise. And it's really beautiful the way she talks about how, yeah, we didn't have it right at the beginning, and we get it right and writer. And she says that the racial civil rights movement paves the way for people who, for the LGBTQ community to, you know, come into the open and be accepted as full Americans. And and, you know, so America is a beautiful place, but it is a work in progress.

Matt 37:04

Yeah, to the question of what would the founders think about us, I think the founders would be horrified. First of all, I don't think the founders thought about any of the questions that you guys just talked about. They were primarily concerned with executive power. And they would look at King Charles in England today, and they would look at Donald Trump as president of the United States, and they would say, We failed horribly. We were worried that the president would become a king, and we had no idea that if we just stayed British citizens over time, the monarch would have just become powerless and feckless and like not even anything to worry about at all. So I think the founders, like in terms of the big picture, would be like, we failed because what they were trying to do, they kind of failed at that, right? And in terms of like, so in a lot of ways, they failed. But uh that doesn't affect what I think about our nation. I think the other thing when I say, Am I proud to be an American? Of course, but I think we need to have like a little bit of humility. 250 years is really not that much to celebrate. 250 years, like empires rise and fall, and like 250 years is like nothing compared to other dynasties and world powers that have existed in the history of mankind. So we should have a little bit of humility. Great to celebrate. I love the freedom. I love that we're the first modern democracy, and every democracy around the world has sort of patterned themselves after principles that we came up with. But I think that 250 isn't very much. And I think that if we hope to survive, we have a lot to learn as a country about how to make democracy work.

Shawn 38:33

So, Matt's your message is a Kendrick Lamar message. Sit down, be humble. Sit down, stop.

Matt 38:40

Well, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know what to make of public opinion surveys when people say uh the death the signers would be disappointed. Like, of course they would be disappointed.

SPEAKER_01 38:50

Bunch of slavers? I don't I don't really know whether I how concerned I am about that. But like like I love this country like I love my children, not because I think they're perfect, right? Just because I see oh wait, you did you did that probably not as well as you might have, right? I love them. I love them to death, and I want great things for them. Same thing with this country. I want it to do great things and to be the best version of America that it can be, but I don't close my eyes to the problems, right? There there are problems, and that doesn't diminish my love for Yeah, there's there's two kinds of patriotism.

Matt 39:25

There's one called constructive patriotism, and there's one called blind patriotism. Constructive patriotism says, I love my country so much that I'm willing to criticize it and look for flaws so that I can make it better and make it a better country. Blind patriotism says, I love the flag, everybody should cheer, hurrah, should sing the national anthem as loud as they possibly can, and let's wave those symbols as much as we can. Both of them have their place, but I think that in these moments you see the different kinds of patriotism expressing themselves. And it typically Republicans are more on the side of blind patriotism, which is why you see them like wearing like American flag clothing and all of that sort of stuff. And typically Democrats are a little bit more on the constructive patriotism side, but both of them are important and both of them are necessary for our nation to survive. Interesting.

SPEAKER_01 40:13

So if you're and that's why it that's why you hear Republicans criticizing the way that the left, like when the left says, Oh, you know, the United States shouldn't have overthrown the Iranian government in 1953, and then the right comes back and says, but don't you love America? I mean, not all of them, right? But you do sometimes hear people saying, if you love America, why are you always criticizing it? And you know, yeah, it's because it's a different kind of it's that constructive patriotism.

Matt 40:39

Yeah.

Shawn 40:40

That's a great takeaway from this. I think Matt points to you for pointing out that there are different different ways to be a patriot. You're uh I'd be curious in a future time to hear more of your defense on why both are good. Because I'm surprised to hear you say that.

SPEAKER_01 40:54

Why both are good? You would say that blind patriotism isn't isn't great ever. Is that what you're saying, Sean?

Shawn 40:59

Well, I I can only apply this is the latter-day lens, right? I can apply that to religion. Nowhere in scripture does it say to blind to have blind faith. It's it says it says that faith, literally, the the definition is substantive. What is it? Faith is the evidence of things unseen, the substance of things unseen, the evidence of things hoped for. There's an evidence and a substance that we're supposed to base our faith in. It's abstract, it's spiritual, it's called the Holy Ghost, but nowhere does scripture teach us to be blindly committed to things. Faith is based on something. This so I think the same would apply. This is the latter lens, that our patriotism should be based on something, right? Based on uh an ideal of principles or an aspiration of a vision or something, not just but blind patriotism is super, super important at moments of crisis.

Matt 41:46

After September 11th, when the country said we were attacked as a nation, we're just going to come together and unite in opposition to this threat. Blind patriotism is really important in moments like that. And constructive patriotism has a role, but there are times in a country where you just need to unify everybody together. And blind patriotism is really important at filling that role. I've never unity.

Shawn 42:10

I've never thought about that. That's very interesting. I'm gonna think about that all week. Like, okay, there's a proper, it's a good balance. Because what you're saying is the two the divide of the two parties right now is a there's a role there. Oftentimes you say the opposite, like, no, no, that's not good. We need to unify more. You're saying that there's a place for both of those and they somehow balance.

Matt 42:29

Yeah.

Shawn 42:29

It's a yin and yang.

Matt 42:31

Constructive patriotism leads people to take certain actions, right? But you can't have everybody in society doing those things because there has to be like one person in charge or one person making the decisions. And so there's a time and place for constructive criticism, let's just say. But there's also a time for unity. And so do you agree with that? You can't have everybody doing both things at the same time. Do you agree with that?

SPEAKER_01 42:54

We're gonna we're gonna talk in a minute about you know the militant aspects of Christianity, right? And and it's sort of along those lines that there's, you know, I mean, there's a real danger to it, right? But but sometimes we do sit back and say, okay, you know what? I have my reservations. We do this in the church a lot, right? A lot in the church. I feel like it's expected of me to say, I have real reservations about that, but you know what? I'm gonna I'm gonna join the put my shoulder to the wheel and and uh do what I've been asked to do. And maybe that's dangerous, maybe that's dangerous in the church too. But because I I am a little wary, like you, Sean. Blind anything doesn't seem really great at any time.

Matt 43:37

And I can I can say, boy, I have real reservations about this, and I'm still gonna support my leaders, but well, what makes you both hesitant about it is because it can be manipulated, right? And so both of you are a little bit like afraid of people oozing stuff to manipulate other people for their own personal good. And blind patriotism can definitely. Be used as a tool by political leaders to like get what they want at the expense of freedom and other sorts of things. So there, I understand the hesitancy, but as a nation to survive, you need to have blind patriot. You have to have people that just love their country no matter what. You need that.

Shawn 44:17

Interesting. I'll be thinking about that. All right, points to you, Matt, for planting that seed that's going to annoy me for the next week.

SPEAKER_01 44:22

And for giving us some language. I like having a language to talk about stuff, right?

Matt 44:26

Well, and listeners, as you're celebrating the 250th anniversary, the 250th birthday, you're going to see people celebrate that in different ways. And I think it's important not to judge people and say, you're wrong for having like American flag plates and napkins and underwear or whatever. And you're wrong for criticizing America. Like both of them are expressions of patriotism. And it's okay for people to celebrate the 250th in the way that fits their views. Leave I do it a certain way.

Shawn 44:54

If you criticize Matt's American flag underwear, dude. Leave it alone.

SPEAKER_01 45:01

I would never.

Shawn 45:02

Okay.

Matt 45:04

I wear it when I go swimming, right? When I when I jump, I want people to know I love America as I'm about to do a cannonball in the pool. It's not technically underwear, it's more of like a speedo, but people ought to know.

SPEAKER_01 45:16

It was one patriotic cannonball.

Matt 45:19

Okay, here's the big question. In an opinion piece published on Father's Day, Will Thabot, a director at the Claremont Institute, argues that men are leaving Christian churches in the United States because they've become too therapeutic and insufficiently demanding. He argues that modern churches emphasize compassion, mercy, and emotional support while downplaying Christianity's historical emphasis on courage, sacrifice, duty, and discipleship. Ultimately, he believes that recovering a robust vision of masculine discipleship is essential not just for filling churches, but for strengthening families and passing faith on to future generations. I personally don't see the problems he's describing in our church. I see lots of men, both young and old, anxiously serving and participating. Here's the question Is this because our church never lost that masculine discipleship he describes, or is there some other reason we don't see it in our church?

Shawn 46:14

Okay, Levi, you were locked and loaded. I want to hear what you have to say on this.

SPEAKER_01 46:17

Well, but now I'm thinking about the question at the end. Do do we see, are there more men coming to are are men leaving the Mormon church? I don't know the statistics. Yeah. Actually, I just looked at this.

Matt 46:28

There was a there was a study done, it was published by BYU Studies, like within the last month, and I'll I'll explain what what they find. So you look at retention rates among men by age, and it's about 50%. Whether you're a young man or an old man, about 50% of people across all age categories that are men stay in the church. Among women, it's actually different. Young women in like the 18 to 25 year old range, only about 30% of them stay in the church. But women who are like above 60 years old, it's something like 70% of them stay in church. So there is this very different slope for age and women staying in the church. But for men, whether you're old or young, you have the same likelihood of staying in the church.

SPEAKER_01 47:14

So Mormon, the Church of U Transfattery Saints, is holding on to young men much better than young women. Than young women, and maybe better than other churches. I don't know. And so I I wouldn't say that we are a more maybe maybe there's an argument to be made that we're a more sort of militant. I mean, we are a high demand religion, that's for sure. Maybe that's maybe that's sort of what he was talking about. I read the article, he sure had a lot to say about like militancy. He was like, Yeah, he talked about we don't endure the world, we conquer the world. He said he said, Christianity has muffled the martial half that built it. Martial meaning the milit the military half that built it. He he like has this cast the spurges on this idea of the like the bride metaphor that the the church is the bride of of Jesus Christ. He's like, we've told men that now they're brides.

SPEAKER_02 48:13

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 48:13

And like like he's he's leaned on a lot of things that are not scriptural and really sort of poo-poos things that that are scriptural, right? He's sort of thrown out the scripture. So yeah, but we I agree.

Shawn 48:26

Go ahead, Matt.

Matt 48:27

Would you describe our church as a masculine church? I know that there is a priesthood and not a priesthood, but when I think of like the things that society describes as masculine, I don't see that in our church. I see a lot of the compassion, mercy, emotional support, the therapeutic things that this guy condemns in Christian churches. I see a lot of that in our church. I do too.

Shawn 48:48

I do too, 100%.

Matt 48:49

I think it makes young men want to stay because they have mentorship, they have people they can look to for guidance, for emotional support. I don't think that young men need this kind of militant masculinity. And I don't think our church has it.

SPEAKER_01 49:03

But it is a very patriarchal, like certainly a patriarchy in the ODS church.

Matt 49:08

Compared to other churches. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 49:10

It does offer men these sort of leadership roles and things. Yeah.

Shawn 49:14

Yeah, I don't agree with this guy's take. I don't at all. I I don't think that, in fact, I don't obviously there's ways to abuse the title of I'm a masculine man. I do see some of that in the evangelical world. I do, anecdotally. I don't see very much of that, honestly, in our church. And so I'm just gonna have to go as the latter-day lens to it's a doctrinal and principle-based issue. When you have right principles, it will lead you to behave more godlike.

unknown 49:45

Yeah.

Shawn 49:45

And when you have wrong principles, like Protestants do, it's gonna lead you to be more sorry, my poke. It's gonna lead. It's gonna lead you to to behave less right. Yeah. And like just go back to that Ephesians verse. When we build on the foundation, like I always talk about with this with kids, right? We sing that cheesy song, but beautiful song, the wise man built his house upon that rock, right? That foundation we build on of five principles, just four or five principles, right? Faith and humility and repentance, and then baptism and covenants, all these things, then we are on that rock. And if you're not on that rock, that that foolish man on the sand, he is henceforth uh tossed to and fro, carried about with every wind of doctrine by the slight of men and the cunning craftness whereby they lie in wait to be deceived. And I think that's what's happening with young men in our society today. They are being tossed to and fro, they have no strong foundation, they don't know who they are. And uh, yeah, they're being deceived all over the place. And it's yeah.

Matt 50:40

Where I'm gonna take this is probably also weird for three guys to talk about. But I have a few friends in the church who would prefer to pray to Heavenly Mother because I don't know, I don't understand it, but this idea of God being a man has these connotations that come along with it that they feel like a feminine or a female God kind of can relate to them better than this idea of a father figure. And and so it makes me think a lot when I say God is our heavenly father, what masculine things does that entail? What masculine things does that mean to me when it says God is a father? And I think the answer to that's going to be different for everybody. But when I think about God as a father and then what it means to be a man based on the fact that God is a man, none of that to me is this toxic masculinity. None of that is mansplaining, none of that is like being so powerful and forceful and compelling people to do what you want them to do. For me, I think that the beauty of our church is that Christ and Heavenly Father are charitable and compassionate and lead with love. And I actually think that that helps men to set aside some of this more toxic stuff and say, to be a real man actually means to be compassionate and loving. And I think that's what keeps men in our church, is because we give them something to aspire to different than what everybody else in the world is telling them they ought to aspire to. And I don't think it's weakness. There's nothing weak about trying to be a charitable, compassionate person, but I think that it's against maybe male nature. And so we we're actually asking more of them as we say to them, you actually need to stop thinking about yourself and even your family and start thinking about everybody else. I think that's what helps us retain men in the church. Well, that was awesome.

SPEAKER_01 52:29

Yeah, right. When we say no power, authority can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, but by and then a long list of very touchy-feely things by by temperance, patience, love unfeigned, persuasion, right? These are things that this is not about militancy. This is not about my way or the highway. This is somebody who who leans in, is prepared, yes, to to sacrifice and to change and to listen. And uh yeah.

Shawn 52:59

So the conclusion is the dude's just wrong. He's just wrong.

Matt 53:02

I think he's wrong, yeah. But I also don't you guys think that's beautiful in our church that you have old men in the church who've become these really Christ-like, compassionate, loving people who mentor young men. Like, I actually think that he's not just wrong, he's like really, really wrong. Like the solution for young men is not to let them have more access to like military guys or army guys or fighting stuff and a way to like express all that testosterone. What they need is really good mentors who who've lived a long life and have become the kinds of thing our church helps them to become so that they can see, oh wow, that man is deeply, truly happy, and he's not at all like the stuff I see in video games.

Shawn 53:42

Yeah, I mean, the huge flaw, the basis of the flaw of his whole, I guess, premise is that there's somehow weakness in all that, right? He's trying to he's just seeing it as a binary. Like you're either like he's he's defining masculinity in the wrong way. He's trying to say that unless you are militant and and aggressive and then then you're not masculine. He's absolutely drop dead wrong, right? The best men that I know are a combination of sure, like I love the alphas in my in my life, these men who are aggressive and competitive. But guess what? I know just as many women who are that alpha. Just as many women that are the alpha. That's not a masculine trait. That's a personality trait. The same with the compassion side. I think it's a flaw to try and design to draw these lines. There's just as much, Levi, you're gonna hate this, but I think there's just as much matriarchy as there is patriarchy. No, not as much. Sorry, I can't say that. There's also matriarchy in the in the church and uh in ways that cause us to like kind of submit to things. Not as much, of course, but but I think it's a flaw in trying to define it in those line in those terms. Toxic masculinity. There's just as much toxic femininity. Do you hate this, Levi? Do you hate this?

Matt 54:53

No, Levi doesn't look at all upset by what you're saying.

SPEAKER_01 54:56

No, no, no. I mean, so a favorite of so a book plug here. There's a book called The Will to Change. It's by Bell Hooks. And it is magnificent because it talks about uh, I mean, it it really clearly lays out what's toxic masculinity because she talks about the toxic part of toxic masculinity is equating masculinity with the ability to dominate, dominate other men, dominate women. Domination is the is the problem here. And she says, and this is why we won't let men feel their emotions, and this is why anger is the only acceptable emotion for a man. It's when we get into this mindset of dominance equals masculinity, and that's lame, and it hurts everybody. Go ahead, Sean.

Shawn 55:36

That applies. I don't I don't see why. Why don't you just call it toxic personality? I don't see why it's different. It's not different, man. Like I know plenty of toxic feminine women who do the exact thing that you just described.

Matt 55:48

But it doesn't matter. You should just embrace Levi's definition of toxic masculinity and point fingers at the gym and say, you know, friend, rather than screaming, just let some tears come out. Express that sadness.

SPEAKER_01 56:01

Let's hug it out. Hug your bros. Go to therapy. That was one thing I objected to in the question was like therapy is courage, right? Therapy is discipleship. When you sit down and you start thinking about, oh, who am I? And why do I sometimes do the things that I know are wrong? You know, that that's the beginning of therapy. And now you think, okay, if I think about some things going on in my head, I can be a better man. Better disciple.

Matt 56:29

I love it. And I do just want to just here at the end say, I hope we figure out why the curve, the slope for women is so different than it is for men. What is it that we're doing as a church that's making it so that women have such a different experience in terms of being retained and staying in the church than men do? So to me, that's the perhaps the more interesting and more important question moving forward. There wasn't a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece about it. But listeners, if you have any ideas, let us know. I'd love to talk about it because I think it is a concern. And if there's something we can do to change that, we ought to seek for those solutions.

Shawn 57:06

Make that a topic next week, man, so we can dive dive deep into it.

Matt 57:09

Okay. And we'll have to do that.

SPEAKER_01 57:11

Give me the priesthood to it. Give me the priesthood would probably help.

Matt 57:14

We'll make sure that Mark is here because he has lots of deep thoughts about these kinds of things. All right, everybody. No offense to Mark, but yeah, maybe save it for the one after. Hey, listeners, talk to you again next week. 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.