Matt 0:12

Welcome to the Latterday Lens, your home for faith promoting, unscripted discussion of current events. If you'd like to reach out to us, send us a text message at the link in the show notes, or you can email us, latterdaylens at gmail.com. If you want to know more about us or listen to all of our episodes all the way back to the beginning, you can visit our website, latterdaylens.com. We'd love to hear from you. Hi everybody, welcome to the Latterday Lens. I'm your host, Matt. With me as always is Sean, and we're so excited to have Levi with us on this um post-Pioneer Day episode. Welcome, Levi.

SPEAKER_02 0:53

Bergen totally ignores Pioneer Day.

Matt 0:55

What the heck did he just say on this what post-what? Pioneer Day, Sean. I know you guys celebrate Pioneer Day in California. You're always like the Saints never came this far.

SPEAKER_02 1:07

Wait, you telling me that beard isn't just for Pioneer Day, Sean? You got that beard all the time?

Shawn 1:13

Are you telling me that shirt isn't just for Pioneer Day?

SPEAKER_02 1:17

Does it feel like a Pioneer shirt?

Matt 1:20

I'm always bragging about how California does Pioneer Day the right way. Maybe San Diego's too rich and like selfish and something to celebrate Pioneer Day. You didn't have a stake activity with a with the primary marching and pioneer clothing? Nope. Oh, Sean. How disappointing.

SPEAKER_02 1:40

Do you guys have a Mormon battalion arrival party or anything?

Shawn 1:44

But you know what we're busy doing? Trying to do missionary work and bring people and grow our California ward. Remember, the prophets said stay out there in California. So this whole Pioneer Day thing seems frivolous.

Matt 1:56

When's the last time you were at the the Mormon Battalion Center, Sean? Two months ago. Oh. And they didn't have any advertisements for Pioneer Day. Oh, okay. All right. I have I have a hard time believing that. I think the missionaries were out and about telling people.

SPEAKER_04 2:13

Uh no, yeah.

Matt 2:14

I doubt it.

unknown 2:17

Okay.

Matt 2:17

Well, any that's not even the topic of the show. But I thought we ought to celebrate our heritage of uh what happened on July 25th?

Shawn 2:27

It was a weird way to welcome Levi to the to the podcast.

Matt 2:32

Welcome, Levi. All right. Let's open the mailbag. So one listener, this is their first time writing. Uh it says, I agree with Matt and Melanie as the reason for young women leaving the church being unrighteous dominion. As someone who has gone head to head with a stake president over the handbook and was released from my stake primary counselor calling because of that, I know firsthand of this sad reality. I took it up the chain all the way to the presiding bishopric. That stake president was released shortly after. Another reason why I think the church is losing young women is because of the plural marriage doctrine. Young women have information at their fingertips that contradict their family and religious community in which they were raised in, making them more open to different different cultural influences. I have listened to therapists talk about how the shadow of polygamy in LDS marriages always hangs over. Young women are waking up to the reality that an eternal celestial marriage might include the plurality of wives. Why would they want that? It's a valid question. Love your show. Listen to every episode. Sean's laugh is truly the best as I listen to it on 1.25 speed. It makes me want to laugh too. Good job, Sean. And thanks, listener.

SPEAKER_02 3:42

Your little chipmunk laugh there, Sean. You gotta laugh slower, so it sounds normal.

Shawn 3:54

Another thing I didn't think of. I want to know this listener, because those are deep thoughts, and that sounds like a like I'm sure it was a traumatic experience with the stake president. Right? Like she had the A stake president getting released for unrighteous dominion. Like stake presidents are just humans, and so if they're doing the wrong things, then consequences shouldn't just fall on those who are underneath the stake president, right? Like what a fascinating we don't know the details of the story, but what a fascinating story. I'm sure that is.

Matt 4:25

Sam shared with us an experience he had, I don't know if he ever shared it on the podcast, of something that happened, and it also went all the way to the presiding bishopric, which makes me wonder is that one of their jobs is the presiding bishop? Settle all of the unrighteous dominion stake president decisions that make their way up. It's like this is gonna end at the presiding bishop. Sam's a good, right?

Shawn 4:48

This was about the length of short shorts on girls. Yeah, something like that.

Matt 4:51

Yeah, that was a good one.

Shawn 4:52

Uh yeah, I don't know if you're not going to be able to do that.

SPEAKER_02 4:53

These are the critical questions that the presiding bishopric is handling is short length.

Matt 4:59

Well, if if Sam didn't share it on the podcast, I don't want to share it, but it had something to do with, yeah, some either it was uh a YSA camp or FSY or yeah, I don't know, some one of those kinds of things. And then I don't know what this uh state primary issue was, but um but now I know if they say, hey, we want you to be in the presiding bishopric, I'll be like, you know, I'm not great at resolving disputes. Maybe I'm really good at the other stuff. I don't know what else the other stuff is.

Shawn 5:25

It it does this this idea though that polygamy is potentially something that has is going to happen through eternity. I think we've debated that before, Matt. I think that's the that's not correct doctrine. But we can debate that as a different topic.

Matt 5:38

Also something we didn't think of as a reason young women were leaving the church. So I appreciate all of the women's perspectives on this issue. They're thinking of things we never thought of. And and we probably would have just dismissed polygamy as being an issue. But this listener suggests maybe we shouldn't, Sean.

Shawn 5:55

But if people truly are thinking that there's a doctrine that says the polygamy will be an eternal thing, uh yeah, I can see why that's hugely problematic. I just don't think there's doctrine to support that.

Matt 6:05

Well, we'll do a deep dive on marriage, perhaps, in the future. Today we're still doing property at the big question. So we'll have our we'll have our chance to get to more.

SPEAKER_02 6:14

Well, so quick quick comment on young women leaving the church. I I do think that the church is doing a lot of extra work because we haven't given women priesthood yet, right? That I think that there it's just a lot of extra work that we have to do to say, oh, okay, you can't serve as a bishop, but we really do listen to you. And okay, you know, these 12-year-old boys are participating in in these priesthood ordinances that you can't participate in, but they're, you know, here are these other things. I just think it'll be a lot less effort for everybody when women have the priesthood.

Matt 6:50

So well, I will say that when my wife was listening to this and my daughter said something like, 'Did you talk about women in the priesthood?' and I had said yes. She's like, No, you didn't. You guys didn't even talk about that. I'm like, Well, I did from my perspective.

Shawn 7:05

When we cover that, Matt, you ought to send share with the listeners that video that you shared with Levi and I. To me, that was extremely powerful. Describing women in the priesthood and like what it means. That was a do you remember the video you sent?

Matt 7:21

I have no idea what you're talking about.

SPEAKER_04 7:23

Okay. Well, I'll share it then. Okay, yeah, you share it.

Matt 7:26

All right. Hey listener, thanks for writing. Thanks for listening. Glad to have you as part of our show. All right, let's get to the thought provoker. So, first up this week, South Korea is frustrated with the United States for offering a nuclear energy deal to Saudi Arabia while continuing to deny South Korea the same rights. For decades, the United States has banned South Korea from making its own nuclear fuel, even though South Korea is a close ally with a large peaceful power industry. However, the Trump administration recently opened the door to Saudi Arabia to enrich uranium themselves, despite the kingdom having no existing power reactors. South Koreans view this decision as unfair, a double standard because they have to they strictly follow safety rules and they import all of their fuel and they would like to produce their own fuel to power their energy grid, build nuclear-powered submarines, and manage radioactive waste. So this is the question. Who should decide which countries do or do not get to have nuclear power plants?

Shawn 8:27

Matt, I'm excited to see how you bring in the latter-day lens to this one.

Matt 8:31

That's easy.

Shawn 8:31

Oh, it is? You don't think there's scriptures about this? I I kind of did find scriptures, but it took it into way different, like I had to like work on a tangent. But go ahead. Alright, let's hear let's hear your tangent scriptures, Sean. Okay, well, Philippians. So I to me to bring in a Latter-day lens to this, how do you look okay? Let's let's let's uh uh I don't know if Occam's razor is the right way to say it, Levi, but let's simplify it down to like Matt lives in a ward, has neighbors, right? He has people that are his allies or his friends or his ward members. And what happens, how do you what are the right ways to to to act when you have conflicting interests? Right? You love each other, you have the same goals, but every now and then you have conflicting interests. Which seems to be the relationship with South Korea, I think, right? I think so. The the conflicting interest.

Matt 9:18

I'm gonna go with that just because I want to hear it.

Shawn 9:21

Okay. So I'm trying to decide what the latter-day lens is. I mean, I've in Philippians it's uh the principle that I think is this persuasion is better than compulsion. I think that's the principle that is taught through scripture. Persuasion is always better than compulsion. Um I mean, there are lots of scriptures that talk about look look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. Which suggests that you can't just be self-interest. Like self-interest always is not going to be the best way to go. And because sometimes that will cause us to compulsion, right? That'll cause us to force our friends and allies to go the way that we want it to go. Whereas persuasion would be let's win-win, let's negotiate, let's try to work together. To me, that's okay the best principle I could come up with for Latter day Lens on this.

Matt 10:11

I think it's a good principle. Um, but yeah, you're right. It's not directly related to the topic. But I like it, Sean. I like where you went with that.

SPEAKER_04 10:20

I tried. But now I want to see how you bring it to Latter.

SPEAKER_02 10:23

I like it. I mean, I think that the there, you know, like I have this neighbor that like doesn't like my dog, like that just hates my dog. And so like we we're always having these negotiations about like, okay, you know, I'm not gonna keep my dog inside all the time, but we can, you know, we can work out a time when you know when she's out and when she's not, and and uh yeah, and so like and all of this is done, not we don't nobody calls the cops on anybody else, right? There's no hoa that has to say, thou shalt not let your dog out before 9 a.m. or whatever. But um uh yeah, so we we do work these things out, and can we do this internationally? Is there is there a way to work these out without a central authority? Because that's the first thing that occurs to me is I think, ooh, these are really big decisions, and maybe ones that that probably need a governing body, right? This is a thing the UN IEA should probably be be worrying about generally. And so, you know, they should be inspecting our our nuclear facilities and and you know, and determining making sure everybody has access to peaceful nuclear power when they need it. Yeah. All right, maybe there's a way to do this decentralized. I don't know.

Matt 11:47

Yeah, well, the reason I bring it up is because isn't that the reason that we're bombing Iran right now? Iran wants to have nuclear power, and Trump is intent on making sure they don't have nuclear power and says they're never gonna use nuclear whatever, right? And and and it seems like in a lot of ways we're we're the police of the world trying to decide who gets to have nuclear power and who doesn't. And I will point out that there's only two countries in the world that don't call themselves a democracy, and Saudi Arabia is one of them. So it's like of all the w countries in the world we could choose to say you get to have nuclear power, though we would choose like an autocracy. That seems odd to me. But the scripture that I chose, Sean, because I do like to do the latter-day lens, it's Doctrine and Covenants 98, 14, and then 16. It says, Therefore be not afraid of your enemies. And then in verse 16, therefore renounce war and proclaim peace, and seek diligently to turn the hearts of the children to their fathers and the hearts of the fathers to their children. So it's probably a little bit the same as what both you and Levi were saying, is that nobody should be in charge of deciding who gets to have nuclear power. That um our job is we go to war because we're afraid of other people. We try to stop them from getting nuclear energy because we're afraid of what they might do with it. And I think God is telling us don't be afraid of your enemies. In the end, you can't stop them with force, anyways, even if you really, really want to. And so the best thing you can do is just proclaim peace and promote peace throughout the world. And by the way, nuclear energy brings about a peaceful world. South Korea having nuclear power, Iran having nuclear power, all of that leads to a more peaceful world.

Shawn 13:25

So if we're to take Trump at face value, his reason for this, he said so. Trump claims that the reason is is a negotiation tactic to get Saudi Arabia to normalize relations with Israel.

Matt 13:36

Again, who cares? Why would we care what Saudi Arabia says about Israel?

Shawn 13:40

Well, he's trying to negotiate if you believe what he says, he's trying to persuade and negotiate for a more peaceful Middle East.

Matt 13:48

But that's but Saudi Arabia recognizing Israel doesn't lead to a more peaceful Middle East, especially if what you give them in exchange for that is nuclear power. The Middle East is a big fight between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and Jerusalem and Israel is just the rhetorical tool that they use to rally their base. Whether one state officially recognizes Israel or does not has no impact on what happens in the Middle East. It's always about Iran versus Saudi Arabia. And so by saying Saudi Arabia gets to have nuclear weapons and Iran doesn't, we're just inserting ourselves right into the middle of a fight between two countries that has nothing to do with us.

Shawn 14:27

So with you trying to keep what you're good at, keeping a theme in all these questions and being property ownership, you're saying let every country have their own property, their own nuclear property. They should have the autonomy to own their own nuclear property. There should be no governing body trying to influence that. Is that the theme you're trying to bring in?

Matt 14:43

I don't I don't know what I would say. Property.

Shawn 14:45

I don't know if it's property. But I think that having the ability to take the elements and organize it into the thing that you want it to be that you're trying, you know, that your government's trying to stop and control, right? So isn't that what you're saying? That is property. I think what I'm saying is rich uranium, that's property. I think what I'm saying is they should own it.

Matt 15:04

I'm saying countries should have a right to decide what kind of energy they want to develop in their own country. Which is property. I mean, I guess, but Sean, to you everything is property, right? The air above the tower is property. I'm trying to tie in your theme. Yeah, but the theme that I can I guess we'll have to wait to get to the property discussion. I know it's exciting, but for now I thought we'd just focus maybe a little bit on energy and nuclear power.

SPEAKER_04 15:32

Okay.

Matt 15:33

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 15:34

Sorry. But I mean there's a difference. I I think it's very uh I think it's worth parsing that there is uranium that's enriched for the purpose of nuclear power generation, and then there's uranium that's enriched for the purpose of nuclear weapons. And I think that it it is pretty tricky to try to police that line, right? That we say, okay, Iran, you can enrich this far, but not this far, but not far enough to create a nuclear weapon. That's a tough line to draw. And the same thing with Saudi Arabia, right? So and here we're very trusting of Saudi Arabia. We're saying, oh yeah, I'm sure you're not going to create a nuclear weapon. I I don't know. They probably won't. And I think that uh, you know, I think that if uh You really think they won't?

Matt 16:19

The the victims, the families of the victims on September 11th are livid about this because everybody on September 11th was from Saudi Arabia. They were Saudi nationals. And there's no reason to think that Saudi Arabia has some high moral ground that they would never develop a nuclear weapon and sell it to terrorists. Like, why would we trust that that wouldn't happen? That doesn't mean that's a good point.

SPEAKER_02 16:40

Yeah, that's a good point. If you'll uh murder and chop up a journalist, you probably will.

Shawn 16:48

So now you're arguing the opposite of your original take, aren't you?

Matt 16:51

No, what I'm saying is that we should not be afraid of our enemies. I'm saying it's a very bad, dumb choice to say Saudi Arabia and no to everybody else. That's just that's a stupid idea. But to the the question of who should be in charge, countries should get to decide for themselves. Imagine, Sean, if like Japan said to us, hey, you guys don't get to drill any more oil in your country because we think it's dangerous to us. So we'd be like, who are you to tell us what kind of energy we can have in our country?

SPEAKER_04 17:18

Yeah.

Matt 17:19

Every country gets to decide energy policies for themselves. And like of all the things we should say, that's what countries get to do without interference from other countries, energy should be high on the list. And we shouldn't worry about, well, they might hurt us sometime in the future. Some I didn't know, Matt.

SPEAKER_02 17:35

And that leaves us policing very carefully that line between nuclear power and nuclear weapons, right? So somebody policing. I don't know. Is there somebody policing? What's your proposal? Is that a UN?

Matt 17:48

It's impossible to police. That the idea that we could police nuclear power is gone. It's over. We don't live in that world anymore.

SPEAKER_02 17:55

But what about nuclear weapons? Is the idea that we could police nuclear weapons also gone?

Matt 18:00

I mean, how how good have we done at stopping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon? We haven't really stopped them. If they wanted one, they would have one by now. If they really if you really want a nuclear weapon, guess what you do? You go to Putin and say, I want a nuclear weapon, and he'll sell it to you. Or you go to Pakistan and say, I want a nuclear weapon. Or you go to North Korea and say, I want a nuclear weapon, and they'll sell it to you. The idea that we should try to stop countries from developing nuclear weapons when Pakistan, China, North Korea, Russia all have nuclear weapons, it just seems silly to me to even think that we can possibly do that. Israel, Israel allegedly has nuclear weapons, although nobody knows for sure. But they probably do. If they don't, they could get them from us if they wanted to.

Shawn 18:44

So no no standards. Every country can create whatever weapons they want, is your solution.

Matt 18:50

I I think that you I mean, I just think it's impossible to police to say to somebody a technology exists to develop a weapon, it's against some some fake law. But hasn't it just the law for you to do that?

Shawn 19:03

But isn't there a difference between trying to police it and what we originally started talking about, which is use persuasion, not coercion. Haven't we been successful in I hate to say but Ukraine is an example? We persuaded, we put a deal together with them. We didn't, you know, yeah, what could that deal do? But it did it did accomplish the intent that we've got to do that.

Matt 19:28

And by the way, the international law says it is illegal to target civilians and to blow up civilian infrastructure. Is that stopping Donald Trump from doing that in Iran right now as he blows up civilian infrastructure, power plants, bridges, and things like that? So what's the point of international law if there's no enforcement mechanism and people will break it whenever they feel like breaking it?

Shawn 19:48

But that isn't that the stance America takes, Levi? They don't they don't really recognize any international law. They just consider we're the world power, so we will be that police.

SPEAKER_02 20:02

That we we do whatever we want and then maybe use the UN to police anybody else. But yeah, would some argue, Levi?

Shawn 20:09

Would some argue that that because America is based in human rights and in you know not perfect by any means, and there's been many, but would some people argue, yeah, maybe that is the best order for 2026? A country that for the most part we're doing a great job.

Matt 20:28

Yes to Saudi Arabia, no to South Korea. That makes a lot of sense.

Shawn 20:31

Until Trump gets out of office, and then that's not gonna happen.

Matt 20:35

Well, you chose the year 2026, so that's where president is right now. Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 20:39

Well, but no, but but this is a this is a really good point. Is do we trust a country, our own, that has the potential to elect a lunatic like Donald Trump and put Pete Heggseth in charge? Like who thinks who thinks this these are the right people to to be running the world? Nobody. I mean, whatever. 70 million Americans, but but uh not not the rest of the world.

Shawn 21:04

So I don't think I don't think most of those people voted because they trust that they'll be good in these decisions. They just didn't like the alternative people that were being con they didn't trust them either.

Matt 21:12

So they well, their senators voted to confirm these morons. And I said at the time they were morons, and you said, let's give them a chance. Well I said give a chance.

SPEAKER_02 21:23

Yeah, I don't I don't know that Sean's ever been a real fan of this administration. Yeah, I don't think so.

Matt 21:29

He said let's give them a chance. I remember him saying that. Let's give them a chance.

SPEAKER_02 21:34

Okay, well, so but what about okay, so should there be an international? I mean, there is an international agency that's supposed to worry about the IAEA, right? That's supposed to worry about where the nukes are going. Do you think that there's an advantage to having nuclear fuel in fewer hands, right? Should we have a a system of enriching and distributing uranium, right? Should South Korea Not get and Saudi Arabia not get to enrich their own uranium, but should have easy, convenient access to enriched uranium for their uh domestic nuclear power.

Shawn 22:12

Interesting question.

Matt 22:13

I mean, if you give somebody a monopoly over the enrichment of uranium, you're enriching a lot of people, right? Because you're saying you are the source of enriched uranium. So I would say this is I I know it sounds weird, but this is a place where I would say capitalism is actually fine. Let people enrich uranium, reduce those regulations, and I think we can trust market forces to make sure that enriched uranium doesn't get out of hand. Yeah, and if ever there was a lot of people.

SPEAKER_02 22:42

I think the market would is a terrible idea. It is nuclear bombs. Like I just don't know why that makes any sense.

Matt 22:50

So you're you think that regulation of nuclear power is a place where strict autocracy is the place, and I say it's this is where we should have capitalism, market forces. Why is why is market control over enriched uranium bad? What's that? Why is market control over enriched uranium, why is that bad or dangerous?

SPEAKER_02 23:12

Uh because it only takes one bad actor to create a catastrophe. You know what I mean? And so if we had uh, you know, a body of whatever, eight nations, and they had very strict control over how uranium gets enriched and its distribution, and their guiding principle should be it's available to everybody at a you know at a price that makes sense, right? So South Korea should like the problem is that South Korea doesn't have access to the things that they need, and we should make we should fix that problem rather than the rather than Saudi Arabia. And Saudi Arabia too, right? We should fix that problem. You need your enriched uranium, good. Here it is, here's a a uh price that makes sense.

Matt 24:04

Okay, so I think here's where we're different. You're talking about weapons grade enriched uranium, and I agree, weapons grade enriched uranium should not be a market-based economy kind of thing.

SPEAKER_04 24:17

Okay, makes sense.

Matt 24:17

But it takes time to get from enriched uranium sufficient for fuel to weapons grade. So I agree with you because I don't think that we should put weapons in market hands and just let people sell weapons to whoever they want to sell weapons to. But I was just thinking of an enriched uranium in order to have a nuclear power plant, in order to develop in any nation in the world, if you want to have nuclear power, that should be available to you at a cheap and convenient, like that's good for the whole planet. But I agree with you if you're just talking about weapons grade enriched uranium.

SPEAKER_04 24:50

Good clarity. Good clarity. Thanks, Levi, for fixing that.

Matt 24:54

Isn't nuclear power the cleanest energy? Isn't nuclear power the cheapest energy? Like, if we really care about climate change, we really care about the fuel crisis around the world, we really don't love the idea that Iran and the Houthis uh can block the oil in the world and make everybody's prices go up. The solution to that is nuclear power anywhere you want it in the world, and then we don't have to worry about that stuff.

Shawn 25:20

Levi, go vibe code uh some technology that can easily determine the difference between weapons grade and just energy grade, and let's sell it to the market. Go vibe code, would you?

Matt 25:32

The IAEA, the IAEA already monitors that you can tell. Like, like you okay, fine, put sit put things in place that say if you're going to buy nuclear power, you have to regularly allow inspectors to come in and look at what you're doing and make sure that you're not enriching it to weapons grade.

Shawn 25:49

Like, isn't that the Iran situation? And then they stopped letting inspectors come in or they cheated the inspectors? They stopped letting them come in because Trump bombed them.

SPEAKER_02 25:59

Wait, they were following the rules. Yeah. Because we tore up the agreement that got the inspectors in, and Trump came in and said, I'm tougher than that Obama punk.

Matt 26:11

Right. Right. Like people everyone's happy to follow the rules about enriching uranium. At least they were. I don't know if they would be now. Okay, I'm giving uh Levi the points on that one. Good job, Levi. Yep, Levi gets the points. Okay, here's here's the next question. A Hilton Grand Vacations employee was fired after sending a racist slur to Las Vegas Aces guard Chelsea Gray on Instagram following a game. She shared the message publicly to draw attention to the verbal abuse athletes face, and both her team and the WNBA strongly condemned the behavior. By the way, I think everyone would condemn that behavior. The incident follows similar reports from other players, including Phoenix Mercury's Alyssa Thomas, who reported receiving death threats and racial slurs earlier in the season. But here's the question I want us to discuss Is it wrong to fire someone for sending a racist message to a public figure on something like Instagram?

Shawn 27:09

Uh it is not wrong. I mean, the freedom of speech issue here, they should be free to do it. But they should also be free to receive the consequences. I was thinking the other day about the prodigal son. I like so sure, the prodigal son repented and returned and received all the blessings of his father. But he also, because of it the the the the consequences of his actions and his sin were that he lived through famine and he lived on the streets in the mud. And I bet he lost like five, six, seven teeth. He's now toothless. Right? So there are consequences, and you have and they yeah, there's nothing wrong with being accountable for your for your stupid actions. So I don't think it's wrong that that this woman is accountable for this wrong thing that she did. Nothing wrong with a company saying you you you are misrepresenting, you're making our company look bad, you're associating your bad behavior with ours. That's violates our you know, your contract with us, you're fired. That's a great way to handle it. She should be free to say those nasty ugly things. Why are you free to do it if you get fired for doing it? You're free because you're you still have you're not going to jail, you're not being fined. You're just living with the you're living toothless now. You have the consequences of your actions in action. That's right. Levi, you agree?

SPEAKER_02 28:23

Go ahead and fire the guy. I agree that I agree that that free speech does not mean consequence free speech, right? That you can be a racist dork if you want, but I'm not gonna like you. I'm not gonna hang around you. Not gonna hire me. I'm not gonna hire you. And I suppose that those are the consequences. I don't know. Like, do we make somebody a pariah forever for that? Yes, of course. Hopefully, there's a way back.

Matt 28:52

It depends on how this person now, right?

SPEAKER_02 28:54

Are they right? That's a good question. Is some is she that famous that she's gonna go apply and somebody else is gonna say, hmm, I heard what you did.

Matt 29:03

Right.

SPEAKER_02 29:03

Of course that's gonna happen. Might be.

Matt 29:05

All right, here's my here's my latter-day lens on this. This is from 3rd Nephi 18, where he says to not let people uh take the sacrament unworthily. And then it says, Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out from among you, but ye shall minister unto him and shall pray for him unto the Father in my name. And if it so be that he repenteth and is baptized in my name, then ye shall receive him and shall minister unto him of my flesh and blood. Sure. And then if they don't repent, then you cast them out. Amen.

SPEAKER_04 29:33

I like it. It's good.

Matt 29:34

Yeah, I think the principle is we believe that anybody can change. We believe that everybody makes mistakes, and I think that firing is too strong of a consequence for sending a racist message. Everybody agrees that racism is bad, but it was a racist Instagram message that this person sent to another individual, and then that individual chose to publicize it. The person who sent it wasn't being public about it. So what you do as an employer is you say, you know what? How do you feel about that racist thing that you said to that person? And you have a conversation with them. And if the person stands by it and says, Do you know what? I'm I'm just racist and I strongly feel this way, and I'm gonna continue in doing this, then you say, Okay, there's not a lot that we can do to help you here. So what you said, Sean, okay, so fine. We can't we can't continue having a you like answer phones when there's uh people of different races if you're truly that racist. But if this is just an honest mistake, why don't we do like some kind of counseling, some kind of training? We can help you figure out how to behave better in public. What anger happened in your life that made you think that was the appropriate response? How can we correct that in the future? Like, that's the solution you have. But too much in society, a person makes a mistake or does something dumb, and we just fire them or we scream, fire, fire, fire that person. And I don't think that it helps society.

Shawn 30:57

You should be an HR. That's a beautiful stance. I'm with you 100%.

SPEAKER_02 31:00

Well, and don't you think that that customers, right? Because this is what Hilton is concerned about, is are they going to lose customers? And don't you think customers would embrace that, right? If you said that person is undergoing some training, we've had conversations, these are not our values as Hilton Garden Vacations. We're committed to changing things, and that you know, that she still works here or he still works here, but uh we're we're having a conversation.

Shawn 31:28

See now, Levi should go to PR.

Matt 31:35

But we're not business owners, Sean. So we we have no we have no power over those sorts of things.

Shawn 31:40

Did you guys see there's some some journalist who sat down with Zelensky the other day, and she started off by saying, Zelensky, I need to apologize to you because I don't know why, but I gave in to the Russian propaganda. I thought you were all Nazis. I thought that she just went this huge list of like she's like, I'm wrong, I was wrong. Like you're a I didn't even know you're Jewish, man. How can you be a Nazi? You're Jewish, right? And he just laughed and laughed and laughed. And so she repented, and I was like, good for her, good for her. That's a nice situation there, right? Can we forgive her of all the damage she did? You work, yes, we have to, right? You have to. People change, you have to.

Matt 32:16

That's the Christian way to go. Yeah. I just think that too much in society, somebody does something stupid and everybody says, fire that person. But for whatever reason, we're we're willing to let incompetent people stay in their positions forever and ever and ever. You can be incompetent, just don't be racist, and then I'm not gonna ask you to be fired. Isn't that weird? There's so many incompetent people out there who are like, whatever, they'll get better, let them keep trying.

unknown 32:46

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 32:46

I love points to Matt. I I did I loved your Latter-day Lens. I thought your proposal is a is a great one. Let's let's stop canceling people and start having more conversations. Hard conversations, but conversations. Yeah.

Shawn 33:01

Matt is bringing repentance, preaching repentance, declaring repentance to the world right now, and that's beautiful. And to the HR departments.

Matt 33:10

I'm so excited about how Sean will respond to this topic.

Shawn 33:14

It's a nice try, what you're gonna do here. Very nice try. Okay, go ahead.

Matt 33:18

Billionaire. Billionaire Mark Cuban uh believes giving every worker company stock is the best solution to rising income inequality. He highlights how employee stock ownership can transform ordinary workers' lives using former SpaceX welder, whose shares became worth nearly $900,000 after the company's public offering as an example. Cuban argues that every employee, from top executives to entry-level workers like janitors, should share in a business's financial success. By granting workers a direct stake in the company, businesses can help everyday employees build real long-term wealth. Overall, Cuban believes shifting towards broad stock ownership could fundamentally fix the growing wealth gap in the workforce. So here's the question, Sean. This is literally the most communist-aligned idea I have ever heard. Is this kind of communism morally wrong?

Shawn 34:14

For one who preaches communism, you just don't understand it at all. Not at all. This is the opposite. This is the opposite of communism. Here's why. Mark Cuban is saying companies should freely choose a better exchange with their employees, one that benefits them more. Now, I would agree with you that this would be communism if his proposal was governments by force should seize these assets, these the ownership of these companies, and share and force sharing with their employees. Then it's communism. This is not communism. This is free market.

Matt 34:49

This is absolute free market, not communism. I mean, I know that it's the latter-day lens, so I shouldn't be copying from the or quoting from the communist manifesto. But in the communist manifesto, that's specifically what he says is that the proletariat will own the means of production.

Shawn 35:06

Yeah, by means. Hang on, hang on, hang on. The proletariat owns the means of production, meaning the authoritarian official who seized power is acting in the name of the proletariat. That's what he means, and that has never happened, not once. So let's talk about.

SPEAKER_02 35:23

So there's socialist thought is a fast, it's a it's a broad topic, right? Mark there are so many Marxists in the world, and nobody hates Marxists quite as much as a different flavor of Marxists. You know what I mean? Like the Leninists hate the Maoists and the Vanguardists hate that. There's anarcho-socialists, and so there's uh there's a guy named Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, whom everyone should read, and he uh came before Marx, and all of Marx's best ideas are stolen from Proudhon.

Matt 35:56

And not all of them. Marxist critique of capitalism and the exploitation of labor.

SPEAKER_02 36:01

That's pure Marx. Good call, good call. Marx had some good things in there. But one thing that the Proudhon preached was uh was that, yeah, I mean, he talked about the the violent roots of property, right? He says, stop talking about property as a thing that is non-coercive and peaceful. All property is rooted in the threat of violence, right? To say I own a thing is just to say, if you use it without my permission, I reserve the right to act violently against you. So property is always rooted in violence. Anyway, that was one thing Proudhon said. But the other thing he said was he was really he thought that absentee ownership was a really ugly thing. He said this gets ugly, it's not ugly to make yourself a better shovel and use that shovel. What makes it really bad is when you start making a bunch of things and then you're gonna rent them to someone else. Sell it to someone else, but don't try to own their means of production. Don't try to keep a hold of that and rent it back to them. Let everybody own the tools that they that they use. And so he didn't like what he called absentee ownership.

Matt 37:14

Right. And here's Sean, this is Karl Marx. The only reason he talks about revolution, and the only reason government gets brought in at all is Lenin, right? Lenin, who wants to skip capitalism and go from the autocracy into communism without doing capital because because Marx believed history progresses through stages, and you have to go through this like serfdom stage, and after that, then comes capitalism, and then after that comes communism. But what he says is the reason that the workers are going to revolt is because they're being exploited. And communism happens when the workers own the means of production. So if you say, I want the workers to own the means of production, that is communism. That's Marx's entire communist idea in a nutshell. So first of all, workers own the means of production.

Shawn 38:09

So first of all, that is not Mark Cuban's suggestion. He's not saying that they would have to own the company. They should own the company they work for. There's a difference between owning the company and having ownership stock in the company. Mark Cuban is not saying that they should have any decision-making power or control over the means of production. Not at all is he saying that. He's simply saying they should have a portion of the profits that come from owning the company. That's all he's saying. That is zero, there's zero communism in that. But that's what Karl Marx wanted. Karl Marx just wanted worldmarks to not be exploited. Karl Marx wants that anyone just because I haven't gotten a degree, Matt, from your favorite little university, doesn't mean I can't read the Communist Manifesto. We're just talking Communist Manifesto. It is not power to the proletariat. They're saying that the proletariat should be represented, and the power should be in the hands of a centralized authoritarian government in order to represent the proletariat.

SPEAKER_02 39:06

That's what's called vanguardism, Sean. So there's a school that says that, that says we need a government that, you know, and lots of people, you know, Trotsky was back and forth on this, and he thought, oh no, we need to have a certain type of organization that it handles the transition into worker control, right? That somebody's got to sort of manage this. Right? Haven't read enough Proudhon and Kropotkin, and there are lots of thinkers that were actually anarcho-socialist. The first person to use the term anarchist was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, right? He he didn't believe you needed a strong central government to give worker give control the workers.

Shawn 39:58

But don't but don't you think with any theory or philosophy, you have to find first principles somewhere. What are the first principles of communism? I I am I wrong to think that it's the Communist Manifesto written by Marx? And if that's the case, I'll read whatever other first principle sources there could be. But when I read the first principles as stated by um the Communist Manifesto, it's definitely evidence in there that he thinks that there should be the means of production are not controlled by the proletariat, they're controlled by a centralized representative.

Matt 40:29

Well, so I'll say this. I'll say this. Like Marx and Engels co-authored the Communist Manifesto, and it is not necessarily a statement of first principles, it is a statement calling for action. It's a call for action. And so if you want to really understand what Marx believes communism is, you have to read some of his other stuff. Uh there's the critique of the Goethe program, is probably his best like critique of capitalism. But there's I can I've read almost everything Karl Marx ever wrote, Sean. I could send you lots of stuff, but I don't know that you really need to read Karl Marx. You can just believe me that Karl Marx says when the the the first the the first and probably most important principle of communism is workers should not be exploited. And how do you stop exploitation of workers? Give them ownership of the factories that they work in.

Shawn 41:20

And that's a first principle that is not founded in truth. That's not right. It's it's not true that someone that you have to own everything in order to not be exploited. That is absolutely not true. I can freely, freely enter into a non-coercive agreement with someone to rent their car, and it doesn't mean that there's violence, and it doesn't mean that someone Go ahead, Levi.

SPEAKER_02 41:43

Well, I I was gonna say that this is true in the abstract, right? But as is often the complaint about, you know, capitalists make this complaint about socialism, that's a really nice idea that never works in practice, right? In practice, as soon as you start letting other people own the means of production, you land in you land in bad places. It's the same thing with we talked about the like women having the priesthood. Yeah. In theory, we might be able to create a system where women don't have the priesthood and yet are still equal, but isn't it just easier to do it the easy way? Isn't it just easier to say, workers, you own your own means of production, and then it would all work out.

Matt 42:23

I I just I got in trouble from people for saying that Mom Donnie and that crowd is the future of the United States of America. But what I want to say, Sean, is workers in America feel like they're being exploited. Workers in America right now feel all of the angst and anger that Marx was speaking to in 1848. And communism sounds so good to those workers that even billionaire capitalist Mark Cuban is saying, we don't need communism, we just need communism.

Shawn 42:53

And he just says it in a different way. Mark Cuban is a liberal, left-thinking guy who's always liked these ideas, but he's not pitching anything that is all left-wing. This is an absolute free market, free exchange.

SPEAKER_02 43:05

No, what you're saying is that Mark Cuban is not a vanguardist. And you're right that Mark Cuban doesn't say the government needs to step in with a big hammer and fix this. Mark Cuban is saying Marx was right, workers need to own the means of production. Marx was wrong when he said we need a big government to do that.

Shawn 43:23

I definitely I concede. I remember now as you're reiterating, I'm read- I'm remembering what I'm reading in the Communist Manifesto, but again, he's that there's a big difference between owning, owning the means of production and having ownership to profit from the means of production. That's what Mark Cuban's suggesting. He's not saying that these people at all would have any control or decision making power over these assets.

Matt 43:45

Nope. He's just saying that they will get the wealth that comes when their company is sold to the highest bidder. That's right.

SPEAKER_02 43:51

That's a free exchange to enter it into. Stock ownership does entitle you to voting rights. So in that sense, they they would have that sort of democratic. Out of control. If you got enough enough for ownership, and you could elect whatever board you want.

Shawn 44:05

You think that Mark Cuban's plan would be to give employees majority ownership so that they can have decision-making power? Absolutely. No, not majority. No way he would even suggest that. No way.

Matt 44:14

But Mark Cuban did do this. Uh, his first company that he sold that made him a billionaire, right before he sold it, he gave a whole bunch of stock ownership to all of his employees. I think it was a thousand of his employees became millionaires overnight. By his own free will and choice, did he learn to be charitable?

Shawn 44:33

No one forced him to do so. He applied Christian principles and was charitable by choice. Look at that. It works. It works without coercion. Isn't that crazy?

Matt 44:42

All I wanted was for Sean to say Mark Cuban was a communist, and we almost got there. So Sean gets the points. I said the opposite. We didn't get there even close.

Shawn 44:51

I told you the opposite. No, you told me he was a radical leftist. I did not. I said he's left-leaning. Oh, right.

SPEAKER_00 44:58

Well, that's close enough.

Matt 45:01

You still get the point, Sean. Good job. Well, actually, I want to give Levi some points too. Like Levi knows his communist thought, which is why I wanted to talk about this with Levi on the show.

SPEAKER_02 45:11

Um it's a big world out there, right? People think they read the Communist Manifesto and and watched one documentary about Cuba and they know it.

Shawn 45:20

All the theories have to have their first principles that govern it. I'm just looking at the first principles. I don't think that the Communist Manifesto is the Bible of all communists or socialists.

Matt 45:29

But the first principles exist there. You're looking at the call to action. It's like looking at the Declaration of Independence as the first principles of our country. It's just a call to action.

SPEAKER_02 45:40

Yeah. And skipping all the Federalist papers. Yeah, the technology. Which I haven't read, sorry guys.

Matt 45:47

The Declaration of Independence contains one sentence that I would consider a first principle, and the rest of it is propaganda. It's all a bunch of it's like, what tyranny are you talking about?

Shawn 45:57

Sales tax? But it's a pretty important first principle that it just discussed. I mean, it's the foundation. Like that's a very important first principle.

Matt 46:04

Yes, there is one sentence in there that is an important first principle. I agree.

Shawn 46:08

Like we had an important first principle.

SPEAKER_02 46:11

And so if we boiled socialism down to one sentence, what's the sentence, Matt?

SPEAKER_04 46:17

It would be the opposite.

SPEAKER_02 46:18

All men are created equal. Socialism. Socialism. Equality. Equality. No, that's a word. Okay, right. So you wouldn't say it's workers own the means of production.

Matt 46:28

That would be communism. Socialism is government competes in the in the private space. Sort of. Sort of. Bad first principles. It's very hard to put socialism in one sentence. Socialism, again, has a lot of varieties of what socialism could be. Boil it down to the first principle. But socialism, I think the principle of socialism would be equality.

Shawn 46:50

The attempt, the misguided attempt would be equality, but it is the opposite of equality.

Matt 46:55

Levi, what would you say is the principle of socialism?

SPEAKER_02 46:58

Yeah, workers own the means of production. Oh, okay. All right. I would say, yeah, the principle is Yeah. Yeah, which is if you would with it, which is by definition the opposite of equality.

unknown 47:12

No, it's not.

Shawn 47:13

Yes, it is.

SPEAKER_02 47:15

Explain that to me. How in what way is that the opposite of equality?

Shawn 47:18

Because there are there are those that there are, let's take Levi who innovates.

SPEAKER_02 47:22

I think it's totally orthogonal to equality.

Shawn 47:26

Levi innovates, right? Levi goes out and he risks his labor and then eventually earns capital on that risk, and then he risks his capital. And if he freely chooses, like Mark Cuban, to share that, the means of production with his uh with his people, that is a free market uh engagement. But if it is if he is a free market socialist engagement, yes. Free market. But if yeah, that's a great, I'm for that. If one company decides to behave that way, that is free market and that is fair to people because it's a free exchange. But in the situation that you're talking about, where you must by all means divide out the means of the the production, the the ownership of the production, the means of labor, is given and taken away from Levi. There's no equality on Levi's part. Levi's not equal to any of those people. He was forced to give up all of what he had.

Matt 48:17

Okay, now I have to bring in the Paul Newman movie from the 1950s, A Long Hot Summer. In which Paul Newman shows up to a small town in Mississippi and he goes to the landowner and he says, he's like, Do you want a job? And he's like, No, I want to be a tenant farmer on that land that you own over there. That's nobody's working the land, nobody's doing anything, but this guy owns the land and he's like, that's fine. You can rent it. Uh are you gonna pay in cash? And he's like, No, I'll just share in my profits. He's like, Okay, I get 50% of the crops that you produce, and you have to sell all of your goods at my store. And then when he lays out the whole contract, that guy says, Okay, so that means for every dollar I earn, I keep six cents because 94 cents of it is going to you. And he's like, That's the deal. Take it or leave it. That is how capitalism often works. And socialism would say, hang on, hang on. Did he take the deal? Of course he took the deal.

Shawn 49:09

Why would he take the deal? If he chose to freely take the deal, that's how capitalism works. If he chose to do it, then he deemed that that was valuable to him and he chose to do it.

Matt 49:20

Socialism would say that the man who comes into the land and fixes it up and makes it profitable land and makes a profit should have some ownership over the things. Let's say it in Sean's words, the materials that he organized. And it shouldn't matter that this person got it through foreclosure or had it through inheritance or whatever. The person who comes to work the land should have some ownership over the land. The person who creates the product should have some ownership over it.

Shawn 49:46

Some are given four talents, some are given one. The result of the is how you do how you uh increase the talent. It's not how many talents you have, it's not who has you can't, it's not a power imbalance. Relationships are not power imbalanced. It's okay. This feels like it's okay that some people have more than others. We are put on this earth not to, the goal is not to earn more or equal to what everyone else owns. The goal is to just increase what God has blessed us with.

Matt 50:13

Okay, now Levi gets all the points. I'm taking whatever I gave to you away and I'm giving them to Levi.

SPEAKER_02 50:19

Well, but this is this is a principle that we've danced around before, and I think it's really important. When we talk about uh, well, you entered into that agreement freely, and so therefore it's a really good agreement. I think we need to understand that people show up to the negotiating table with in very different situations. Power and balance. And Paul Newman shows up and he's got nothing, and his choice is work the land or starve, you know, work for somebody else or starve. There's a power else has lots of parcels of land and sits back and says, I don't care, take it or leave it, right? Because we've talked about this before, the best alternative to negotiated agreement, right? His Batna is really great. And so he negotiates a really great agreement. So I think we need to talk about something between freedom and tyranny, right? We need to say, okay, Paul Newman in that sense is not under tyranny, but he's not quite as free as the landowner at that point, right? That landowner has more freedom.

Shawn 51:20

But but here's why I really don't like that, Levi. Here's why. Because Paul Newman, in the reality, what he does is he goes to 30 of his neighbors and says, hey, there's this power imbalance that exists. I don't have a negotiating power. But if you and I teamed up, and if you and I had a put a deal together that gives us more power, we will have more power to have a free negotiation with this guy. Now you're talking like a union leader. That's right.

Matt 51:46

Unions are great. They're great, they're absolutely the points again. They're back to Sean. Thank you.

SPEAKER_04 51:52

Back to points.

Matt 51:54

Free unions. Unions are free market. All right, here's the big question. Now, again, um, lots of principles in the scriptures about land ownership, property ownership, all of that. There's a whole lot of verses I found that I shared with Sean and with Levi in advance. But I believe that all of these verses, there's probably 20 of them, all teach this principle. Owning land comes with God-given limits that protect the poor and benefit everyone. Right? There's the one in Leviticus that says you can't harvest the whole land, you got to save some for the poor so that they can come get food. There's the stuff in Exodus that's talking about the Sabbath year, that the seventh year you have to leave the fields and not plow them so that the poor can eat. There's the scriptures from the New Testament that say that you should give to the poor. So I think that God says even if you have land, you still have an obligation to use it to help the poor. So this is the question Is that a true principle? Am I right that God places limitations on property ownership or is property ownership absolute?

Shawn 53:01

Uh both can be true. It's absolute and it also comes with a a commandment from God to share it. But it is it is both. It can be both. Like I'm gonna give you an example, right? I like how you conveniently left out certain verses in your scriptures you found.

Matt 53:17

So I'm trying to like focus scriptures around certain principles, right? So if there's are there scriptures that contradict this principle?

Shawn 53:25

Uh no, I think you're on track, but they can both be true. So read for example, in Deuteronomy 23, 24 to 25, you read this. When thou comest into thy neighbor's vineyard, then thou mayest eat grapes, thy fill at thine own pleasure. When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbor, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand. And then you made a comment and said, The general rite of passage and sustenance overriding exclusive use. You conveniently left out the following verse.

Matt 53:55

Oh, what's the next verse?

Shawn 53:56

Oh, let's read it real quick. Uh says, Um, let's see. When thou comest into thy standing corn of thy neighbor, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand, but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbor's standing corn. And it goes on to explain that okay, here's a good rule of thumb. Matt, you own some property that has corn and grapes. You own it. It's yours, you own it. I God command you to be charitable. Don't give it all away, don't make it communal. Literally, though, if someone comes in and needs some grape to fulfill their their immediate sustenance, then do it. But if they take a sickle and start chopping on all your stuff against the law, wrong and immoral. That's literally what that follow verse says.

Matt 54:39

Okay, so yeah, you can take it, you can eat it, but you can't destroy their crops. That makes sense to me.

Shawn 54:45

Not destroy, you can't steal their crops.

SPEAKER_02 54:49

So in the in the Marxist literature, this is called ushufra, usufruct, which means that you have use of something um up to the point where you damage it, right? That you can use a thing without damaging it, and nobody can say you're not allowed to use that. You can definitely say you're not allowed to damage it.

Shawn 55:10

Yeah. Okay, I just want to point out real quick, Matt, you make fun of me for using terms like the invisible hand. Levi just said you fruschta. And you're silent? You're not gonna make fun of Levi for bringing in you frushta.

Matt 55:23

Well, like Germans have a word for everything, right? Like there's a there's a German word for a dog toilet. I learned that.

Shawn 55:30

You say the Pareto principle and the invisible hand, and you go crazy. Levi just said you frushta.

Matt 55:36

Well, I don't have to like say you frot or whatever is a weird word, because I knew you would do that for me, Sean.

SPEAKER_04 55:41

Can you explain it again, Levi? Just fill it.

SPEAKER_02 55:44

Okay, you compromise is a real right found in civil law and mixed jurisdictions that unites the two property interests, usus and fructus. Use us, use, and as in according to the right, uh, is the right to use or enjoy a thing possessed directly without altering it. And fructus, such as fruit, is the right to derive profit from a thing possessed. So usually fruct is something that says in common ownership uh circles, this would mean you can exactly this, you can take the corn, you just can't damage the the stock on your way out.

Shawn 56:19

But then that's not what the scripture is saying, though. It's not saying when he says take the sheath to it, it's not saying okay, share with your neighbor, but neighbor, don't go and like be a mean guy and destroy it. What it's saying is take I should if I own X, I I need to, God commands me, says share it with the poor enough to sustain them. But the poor, you are not allowed by law to come in and steal all of it or take all of it. Bringing the sheets to it is not destroying it, it's harvesting it for yourself now that you've taken and stolen all the means of production. It's literally saying that.

Matt 56:54

But last time we agreed that since God owns everything, if He if He commands us to give something to someone else, He's not stealing from us, right? Yes, because it's His anyways. Of course, but he doesn't You don't agree that God says you can own the land, but take care of the poor. Of course I can. No matter what else you do with the land, high priority on taking care of the poor. So let's ownership, sure, but you have to prioritize taking care of the poor and the needy. Of course I can do whatever you have.

Shawn 57:23

Matt, we agree with that. But but listen, here's your very first verse you provided, Leviticus 9, 19. And when ye reap the harvest of your land, right? Clearly saying, Matt, this is your land. I've given it to you. You own it. When you reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of the field. Yeah. Right? So take the stuff that's left over and share it with it. But he's but and that's that's a little bit condescending, right? Like take the scraps, right? Like don't be wasteful. Like all the stuff you naturally waste because it just falls by the wayside. Give that stuff to the poor.

Matt 57:58

That's what it's saying. Well, I mean, in some in some places, but I'm trying to I'm trying to build, like, I want to make sure we understand everything God says about property ownership. Because oftentimes when we talk about property, we're just like, well, God says we should defect defend property rights. But I feel like there are a lot of other verses that say things like this like, remember that it's not yours, remember that everything belongs to God. It doesn't say and remember take care of the poor and the needy.

Shawn 58:22

But we're in agreements with that. But both can exist. God can say, you own it. I give you control the same way that Levi's body is made up of the same elements that apple is made up of, right? Like these are organized elements. You, I, God, give you Levi, absolute agency over it. You control it, you own it. Eventually, one day you will be resurrected and it will be fully yours. So it is with a house and a car, right? And yes, I want you to make good decisions with that body you own and with that property, that corner you own. Yeah, make good decisions, and I command you to share with the poor, take care of them. Use these assets to do that. Is that not?

Matt 59:02

Well, I think it's important on the latter-day lens, Sean, that even though we disagree about some things like perhaps Marxism, we do agree about the doctrine. We do agree that the doctrine is clear that God owns everything, and He puts a really high priority on uh whatever you own, you better make sure you take care of the poor and the needy. Yeah, yeah, we definitely agree with that.

SPEAKER_02 59:23

And and and I know that this is where Sean and I are gonna are gonna diverge, but one of my favorite taxes of all is uh a land value tax, right? It's it I I you know there's a uh economist named Henry George that wrote about land value tax. And land value tax is pretty great. You tax people according to the value of the raw land that they're controlling, right? Not the building you've built up on top of it. You can build on top of that, we don't tax that. But the the value of the raw land, we sort of tax you based on that. And this is a terrific tax because nobody made the land, right? The land was made by God. The the uh value of land goes up and down based on what happens in the community, right? And so a land value tax, anyway, is my favorite tax. You can read all about it.

Matt 1:00:13

Does anybody anywhere above a land value tax?

SPEAKER_02 1:00:17

Yeah, there are several places. Let me uh I can look them up, but we can put them on the anywhere in the United States? Yes, there was one place that had a land value tax. I mean, property taxes are try to get this, but they've they also value the house on top of it and charge it for that. So but uh yeah.

Matt 1:00:36

Do you want to know my least favorite tax as we're talking about favorite and least favorite taxes? Sales tax, income tax. My least favorite tax is the one that says it's like you tax rental cars and hotels in a community, where a community says, there's this thing we want in our community, yeah, and we don't want to pay taxes for it. Right. So we're gonna tax everyone who visits our community. Like they build stadiums using this. People in Rexburg right now want to build like a community center using this, which is basically the community's way of saying we want this, we don't want to pay for it. So everybody who comes here is gonna pay a tax on everything they do to pay for this. That's my least favorite tax.

SPEAKER_02 1:01:13

My least favorite tax is the cops in Beaver, Utah. Who are like just waiting there, just like generating revenue by pulling over college kids. Because the speed limit on the 11 miles over the over the limit there. Speed limit's 85 in beaver.

Matt 1:01:31

You should be going 100. And they should be problem.

SPEAKER_02 1:01:35

Beaver, Utah residents, get your cops in line. Stop start paying your own taxes.

Matt 1:01:42

Sean, would you like to weigh in on your least favorite tax? Sean.

SPEAKER_02 1:01:48

But we we do actually use the worst taxes. I sales tax is a terrible tax, income tax is a terrible tax, right? We should tax inheritance, we should tax land value. Those are the places we should be taxing. Why did we tax all the wrong things?

Matt 1:02:02

I don't know. Hey, good job, you guys. This was great. Sean, it's okay that we agree on things from time to time. We don't always have to disagree. Yeah. It's alright. Totally. Hey everybody, thanks for joining us. We'll talk to you again next week. We hope you enjoyed this podcast episode as much as we did. The best way to continue the discussion is with your friends and your family. So we hope you'll share it with them. Subscribe. Let us know what you think of the podcast by reaching out to us by the links in the show notes. And remember, we love you listeners. Thank you for making us one of the most listened to podcasts in the entire world. Have a great day.