“F the Mormons”: Why Latter-day Saints Have No Political Home

Jacob Taylor and filmmaker Barrett Burgin return to Cwic Show to discuss "Where do Latter-day Saints fit in? Into politics and into culture. How strong are our allies? Do we go it alone?

 Raw Transcript

right where it's like we're self-reliant. We're um we're a strong uh
identity. We are set apart and we need to protect what we have. And then that's going to leave to the side some of those
other inclusive universalist principles that are fundamentally Latter-day Saint. And so it's finding a way to bring those
two together and integrate them and and and moderate between them as an individual who leans right or left, but
to say I am not all the things I am going to see pushing through this lens
of Republican or Democrat. Um I so I hope that I hope that makes sense. But
but I think I think that we really need to remember that as as members of the church and and
it like Barrett said um will naturally make us annoying to people on on either
side of the aisle of of power, which I think it already has. and and
and a a good a good example is is Latter-day Saints kind of maybe not that
they're not that they have to uphold or like these politicians um but but some
of the Latterday Saint politicians that have gone against let's say like the MAGA um movements and then and then get
lambasted and and it's like well you're you're kind of going against the coalition if if if if you're familiar
with and like the reasons that people give you know for for say like Mitt Romney or Flake being, you know, rhinos
or whatever. Like, sure, we can think whatever we want or ascribe to them whatever they want, but if you're
familiar with Jonathan Height and the righteous mind, I think that the the data is overwhelming that our political
elephant is is controlling the the the tribal kind of trust or distrust,
ingroup, outgroup uh element. And the writer makes up all kinds of justifications for like you know what
who they are or what they are or or why they did what they did when when you know a lot of these figures have been
very clear that they do they make their choices on the basis of conviction and particularly Latter-day Saints. Let's
take Mitt Romney as a as a further example that it's significant. Let's look at Romney in 2012. It's significant
that um however people have decided to feel about you know Romney now and I
mean he's out of the picture anyway as a as a sort of political force but um but if you remember when he was running in
2012 it's that it's one of the reasons I think he didn't win and and and and
there wasn't so much enthusiasm and you have Robert Jeff coming on the air and talking about this as a you know a
theological cult you know it's it's it's that they could not stomach Romney not on the basis of being moderate but on
the basis of his Mormonism. That was I mean they had they had a lower a lower
uh uh turnout for evangelicals than they had in the previous elections, right? And if if we're if we're going on
character and alone, there is no question that the Latterday
Saint identity element had a huge
impact on 2012 versus 2016. And I think that the ironies there and and the the
ways in which in which like our own sort of, you know, as Latter Day Saints, our
cultural history and like evolving and changing and and and what we were not so interested in versus what we're like,
okay, we're going to we're going to kind of become a coalition with. I'm not interested in in making some, you know,
judgment of what makes somebody a moral character, why they make their political decisions. I'm interested in pointing
out that that element is what is irkxom and that becomes the irksome element
when Romney does go against the grain singly. It's the Mormon problem. And
it's the Mormon problem that Latter- Day Saints themselves agree with and then
are bugged by and sort of sort of end up joining a coalition with until you get
figures like Tim Ballard and and his appeal to this sort of evangelical
conspiratorial deep church. The, you know, the the church is up to something. It can't be
trusted. It's it's lost its way. It's been infiltrated. And and this is on the
basis of appealing to a much older, much deeper type of anti-ormonism. And we see
Owens, we've we've talked about Mark Driscoll. Um as because the Charlie Kirk assassination happened in Utah, this is
this is getting larger and larger and larger. Um I can name, you know, like
four now. I think there have been four to five just this year different football games where the f the Mormons
chant keeps coming up, you know, and there the institutions will scramble and be like, "Oh, we're so sorry that was so
inappropriate." But like Arizona, Colorado State, Texas Tech, Cincinnati this this past week as Latter Day Saints
are here bringing food and trying to help. It's like f those Mormons. And can
you imagine if at a football game it was f the Muslims or f the Catholics or f
the Jews or f the the Baptists, f the Baptist, f the Christians. If
somebody saying f the Christians, there would be outrage. But the casual dismissal of a Latter-day Saint person
combined with these political motivations combined with the fact that we're not part of the in-roup combined
with the fact that when a Latter-day Saint goes against the in-roup on basis of conviction and this causes us to
scramble and rearrange and let our elephant, you know, let our rider do all the kind of things it needs to do, I
think is so colossal that it's it is this it is this mammoth thing that's
under all of us and it's going to escalate and I you know yeah couple things on what you guys have said first of all if you look at the if
you look at Romney Obama and the evangelical uh uh turnout for that that
you have to realize Latterday Saints should realize and again we want to be friends we we like building bridges I do
this all the time but have an awareness that Obama is above the Mormons okay the
the the decision to say well Obama might win I'm okay with that if I don't vote
because I don't want a Latter- Day Saint in there as president. That was more important for a a a swath of of
evangelicals in that election, right? So Obama's here for them even though they
are fervently right-wing, but and Latter-day Saints are a little bit below that. That's important to understand. Uh
another thing is, you know, this is a uh uh you I think James Lindsay was the
first one I heard he's been on this show. He's the first one and I talked to him about it then, but it it's the the
first one I think to coin the idea of woke right and people hated him for it. It was like what are you doing? I mean,
he lost a ton of subscribers and because he's typically been talking about wokeness on the left and we've seen uh
and I've talked about this a lot on the program as well is you've seen since about 2008 2009 with immigration issues
in Utah and the church backing a little bit more of a loose immigration policy
into Utah back then. I that was the first time I saw people on the right really questioning the church,
right? uh and and you come up to today and now it's happening more and more and more. In fact, I would say there might
be as many people on the right, maybe not there yet, but it's it's it's a growing trend that people on the right
are leaving the church because of decisions and policies of of the church.
And and this is something completely new, right? But we were always used to it's typically because of the and when I
say liberal I mean the looseness and the tolerance of certain things that don't fit into an order of God as taught by
the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints where we have had that problem and and combating from an apologist
apologist standpoint certainly the movements that are on the left and now they're coming up a lot more on the
right as an example. It's kind of interesting and I think that the church unfortunately has created a void in in
this area is with men, right? I mean, the messages are to women. You can I've tracked the church website for three
years. It is almost I would say at least 75% messaging to women, right? On on
topics and on images and and everything else. Uh there there's a little there's there's no general general priesthood.
There's no sports left. There's no Boy Scouts. you know, there there are some issues there that where where we've
loosened and and the messaging, I mean, just honestly, the messaging and I've had discussions with certain people in Salt Lake on this, but we've seen now a
an in Exodus um from Latter-day Saint men over to, for
example, the to orthodoxy. And in fact, there are websites that are LDS to Orthodoxy and and it's it's
there's this movement for the Ortho Bros, right, to to have this this they are
surging in numbers and it's almost all men, right? They're going over there. And so there's
this identitarian issue that that is coming up on the right. These are mostly right people, right-leaning men that are
saying the church is not has gone woke. It's it's, you know, etc., etc. And and
now honestly, Orthodox is going to have a major problem because they're going to have more they have more men in the pews
than they do women. They're they're politically strong in one area and they're going to run into problems. It's
not a good problem to have. But I think that the idea I used to not like
the idea of woke right the because I have fought so hard against wokeness itself.
But it's true. It it's the same type of thing. It's a matter of, as you said, Barrett, it's a matter of distrust in
authority. Uh, it is a power dynamic. It's basically adopting critical theory from
the left and and placing it over on the right. And, you know, there's always
been on the right, I would say, a distrust of authority to some degree. It's like, no, we are autonomous. It's
lean leans more libertarian uh and and we want to push off on any type of tyranny. We want liberty. We
want freedom. And to some degree, that's okay. I want smaller government. Uh but
and so we're going to push against the elites. We're going to push against uh
um the uh uh the the authority that that might be in place. And now that's
starting to bubble up. And and as you bring up uh Tim Ballard and you bring up
uh the things that are happening and the the the ridiculous accusations of this
um satanic ritual uh what do they call it? Srra abuse
uh and and and and the the push against the jab, right? Which look look I I
don't personally I didn't agree with it. I didn't agree with what was said, but that has nothing to do with my my concern about authority or sustaining or
anything. Nothing. Right. and and didn't for some people it was like a major issue and they're like how do I trust
the prophet if I can't trust the prophet? It's such a brittle way to form your testimony. It is brittle and it and it's
and it's and it's hyp hypocritical because it we we we so easily will
dismiss somebody else's issue and then to like to to to leave the the church
that is you know supposedly the core of of of your life and moral foundation and
all light and truth and you know I felt this in my bones over a vaccine over
over immigration you know like like and and it I I think it actually goes to
show I think it's a good case to be made that you know I I get that people have these deep concerns and their
ideological concerns but it goes back to Jonathan Height's thesis of the elephant in the writer that people have their
like preconceived and and this is why I think the idea of you know submission submission to God it
doesn't have to be about an authority but if you if you really believe in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints then to your point Greg we can wrestle with things and not agree with things and it's not a binary. Um, and
and it's human, you know, we're all we're all people and there are such things as priesthood and authority and
institutions and it's not all this just this one ideal. It is this it is this
blend of the good of both the both the the the the sort of right mind and the
left mind. And that's what we mean by moderate. And and to your point, there is no question as a culture we're having
an identity crisis. There's an identity crisis. But this is why Jake and I keep pointing to this is it's like it's not
that there aren't those problems as a culture internally. Absolutely. You know, but we have to understand where we
stand and what we actually are before we can look inward and go, okay, now now I
now you know, it's like if you think that you are, you know, a a a sort of version of a of
a MAGA evangelical, at least as a Latter-day Saint on the basis, you can be that if you want to be that, but like
on the basis of a Latter Day Saint identity, then according to that other identity, you're wrong. You're
incorrect. the the the go-to line. It's become a meme. Jake and I have started doing our own little discussions. And I
we don't know if it'll turn into a big channel, but we just have so much we want to share and discuss. And like like
instantaneously the response is like, "You're not Christian. You're not Christian. You're not." You could say anything. You could say something about
like science and the cosmos or you could say, "Oh my gosh, you know, like 400 members of my family were just killed."
It's like, "You're not Christian." It's like, "Oh my gosh, like what other you know, do you have another line?" But
like behind the humor of that, it's very telling that it's like you are not you are not one of us. I'm sure you're
familiar with um the the kind of you know along with this along just just how
along with kind of the left-leaning um proclivity there is a there is you know
maybe an over an overemphasis on control and institutions and just trust the
authority. On the other side, I think a a right-leaning proclivity tends toward conspiracy and and you have this now
with Candace Owens pushing this this crazy conspiracy that um let's see, let
me just share some of this that Charlie Kirk going back because he killed in Utah was killed through betrayal
thinking that there was a deep state influence driven by a Mormon cabal that there were people in text talking about
bees and because the Utah state flag is a beehive, the Latter-day Saints are in
on the deep state and are actually communists and now it's like what are we? Are we communists or are we Ezra
Taffbenson, you know, capitalists through and through? Well, to a far faright person, we're
communists, of course, because we're more moderate, right, as a history as as a as like a
historic again, I wouldn't say moderate. I would say that we're more we're we're more tempered.
I mean, what moderate means, Brett? No, no, no, no. Not not tempered in political views. We're tempered in
identity. Yes, we're tempered in identity. Now, I'm not saying the political views. I'm saying we're more tempered in
I've got a gospel anchor here. Sure. That I'm hanging on to. And I'm not blown in the wind by my collective group
of left or right. Yeah. You know, at least for some Latter-day Saints. I'm not, you know, some Latter-day Saints are the opposite. I
mean, I do believe that there are groups of Latter-day Saints that are progressive first and Latter-day Saints
second, and they they're going to mix that and those that are MAGA first and Latter-day Saints second. Right.
And I think that's kind of the discussion that we're having. That's the problem is we have inverted a value hierarchy of identity.
Yes. That that President Nelson was trying to fight against. Right. Again, that identity hierarchy of child of God,
that's everybody. Child of covenant, that's Latter- Day Saints and disciple of Christ. Everything else is down below.
It's down below. And and when you flip that, you're going
to have problems. You're you're going and that that could lead to destroying your testimony. That can lead to again a
a a victim versus oppressor type of mentality. Um
but I I think it's I I don't when I say temper, I don't mean moderate in in your political opinions. I I mean you're
tempered in your identity because you have the spirit that you're anchored to.
You have prophets and you have scripture. I actually think we're we're really saying the same thing with different
words then because when you explain what you mean by tempered, it's like, okay, that's that that actually is what I mean
when I say moderate. And maybe the word moderate just has too much semantic load and bag.
It's too neutral. Well, it's I mean it's not like I mean we could take examples on the left of of of terms keep
switching out for what is the preferred politically correct term because now this term comes with too much baggage. I
I would I would I would contest that this is a version of that because those those words are synonymous. And I would
I would do the same thing with the word centrist because it suggests that you're in the center on everything, you know, and that's that's not necessarily the
case. But I I do think that like let's use temper it because I think that's a perfectly good word. um when when you
temper your approach to ideology and politics and identity by
putting the lens of the gospel first and foremost, it does tend to temper your approach to things and and and it does
tend to to be a little bit more informed and a little bit more okay like
multifaceted, you know, this is a multifaceted issue, whatever the issue is. Um, and that doesn't, you know, that
that that's not popular for sort of populist movements. That's not popular for like really easy answers of right
and wrong, but that's not what Latter-day Saint theology is even about. It is more complex than than credo
Christianity. You have Joseph Smith talking. You have, you know, all this craziness around DNC 132. Well, what is
what is something that Doctrine Covenants 132 proposes is that is that
you know certain circumstances dictate if something is right or wrong and that context matters. What does Joseph Smith
say? He says that truth is made manifest by proving contraries. That you take things that otherwise feel opposite.
You've got the bitter and the sweet, right? And that there must needs be opposition in all things. And that by like like like
putting pushing these things against each other, you know, is is truth circumscribed. And it doesn't mean
things are not true. It doesn't mean everything's wishy-washy. It means that things are multifaceted. And it's a
multifaceted doctrine. And that just cannot stand for a, you know, a kind of
binary like you're either in the club or you're out of the club. Um, and uh,
yeah, I I I think that like, you know, to Jake's point, it's it's
it's very similar to I I think we agree on that that like it's important to put
that identity first. And I I think there is actually something holy, Greg, about a a reclamation of a pride in that
identity. And I think we are seeing that, you know, and I don't I don't mean pride in in the sense that, you know, you go around like I'm a Latter-day
Saint and but like but but like reducing the apologetic kind of shame. I will
tell you we're one of the reasons that I think it's important to do that is is that as an identity, we're at like the
the bottom of the totem pole, you know, the pecking order. If I may share a little a little anecdote um from a
different perspective. Um my wife was at uh the grocery store last week and I had
a cold and so she was picking up some Nyquil and of course Nyquil you have to have your ID checked and we haven't um
switched our IDs from from Utah to Tennessee yet. And so she's she's at the checkout line and this this trans
individual is is checking her out um and and looks at her ID, you know, and then
and then this trans person says like, "Oh, Utah, huh?" Like trying to get away from all the Mormons and you know,
Jessica looked them in the eye and was like, "Uh, I I am one." You know, and just kind of ma maintained eye contact.
This person looked away and wouldn't say anything and then, you know, kind of shuffled off. But like the height of
irony that like a a a person with an identity that is so, you know, hot
button, marginalized, rejected, however we're going to look at it from a political point of view, very casually
is like, I think I'm going to punch down on the Mormons today. You know, it is it is just the height of irony. And it and
it tells us sort of where we stand in terms of like, you know, we we're no
we don't have some home on the political left waiting for us to run to. Yeah. Jake, don't you think though that,
you know, so so in other words, we're at the bottom of the totem pole. And you see this in the in the surveys, right? That that that we are the least liked. I
I think that honestly that's more of a theological question for a lot of people. It's it's it's it's not are
these good people. It's not are these kind people. It's it's I don't want them
to be given value in in culturally. I I don't want them to have that cultural
cache because because I don't believe in them and they're a threat. That that's
what I think the survey is actually saying when it says all the other denominations have the Latter Day Saints at the bottom. But anyway,
that's interesting. Can't we just
uh h how how do we okay if I how do we
keep that identity of a of a child of the covenant because I think that's the one we're looking at. How do we keep the identity of a child
of the covenant above these other political movements and ideologies? How how do how do you say yes, I want to
join, let's say, on the Republican side on building this up because I think it's more family- centered than what they
have on the left. Okay, great. Then I can support that. How do you do that and pick and choose? Because I think that's
what you have to do. I think it is a buffet. It is a cafeteria approach with politics instead of with your religion.
You know, if you flip it the other way around and I'm political first, I'm going to have a cafeteria approach to my religion,
right? So, so I want the cafeteria approach to be to the politics. H how do you do that and say because I think you
have to be able to show people it's okay not to be in the inroup. In
fact, you might want that. You don't need to try and be popular. You don't
need to be try to be part of the pop culture secret lives of Mormon wives.
You don't have to, you know, be be a part of uh fully MAGA if there are
things you don't like about it. You don't have to be on the progressive side if there's things you don't like about it. I I think that that's so much of the
conflict and the problem is there is a little bit of a victim complex with with Latter-day Saints because we've always
been pushed to the outside. Yeah. Sometimes violently, right? And so, boy, if I can We're
coming to a new time. we can all be friends and and and be excited about being accepted into so many of these
circles. I I I don't think so.
Yeah. God, man. I mean, this is for Barrett and I, this is like the fundamental question. This is the
fundamental thing that we're talking about all the time between ourselves is like how do you as an individual but
even more importantly as a sort of collective culture like you said make
the outward decisions the buffet the the politics and the business decisions and
all of those things. How how do we make that the decision and not the decision
maker in terms of how we see the entire world? Well, what is your elephant?
What is your I mean, yeah, that's what is your elephant? What is your elephant? That is the question. How can you train the
elephant? How can you utilize the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its doctrines and rituals to train your
elephant in a certain line of thought, which is broader than anything that
anyone will take into it by default, because everybody's perspective is
limited. And if we're going to really let go of outward expressions of
politics and affiliations and things like that as our identity markers and
say I identify first and foremost as as a disciple of Christ, you know, a child of the covenant. Um I think first first
of all it is a decision. I think it is something that has to be decided uh because it is not by default and I think
that it's it's something that's always chipped away at by doing the things that speak to the elephant which are religion
which are art which are music which are being in service with our fellow brothers and sisters and um and
recognizing the beauty and the partiality
in everybody's point of view including ourselves. I I think that's that's at least what
what stands out to me is like how do we do it? I think I think that's what we have and it seems to work generally
speaking for those who like really commit to the gospel and live it is it changes their perspective and it
broadens things for them and they become more selfless. I think that's
and I think more more you know one thing it's interesting because like with
different movements that come up and different things that happen and new ideas that come up and I I'll use the polygamy denial movement here as an
example but when that first started happening and I push I was pushing against it I had a lot of listeners that
were like that that were that agreed with what
Michelle Stone was saying and others and and they're like they were so disappointed
that that I wasn't going along with it. They're like, Greg, I thought you were open-minded. You seem to be more objective. You you I thought, you know,
and it's like, well, wait a minute. Let's hold on here, right? Open-minded doesn't mean you accept
everything, right? You're not open doesn't mean I accept everything. Open is I'm going to find
truth. I'm going to look for objective truth. And wherever it's from, just like Paul says in our 13th article of faith,
right? It's like it's we need to learn and I'm certainly not
perfect at this, but I try to I try to profile it, let's say. We need to learn
to make our own decisions. How do we master our own agency? Because
I think that that muscle of of using the spirit to try and create yourself
through your own agency, not a collective, including the church,
right? I I need to know if I hear something from the prophet,
I need to I need to internalize it. I need to know it. Otherwise, I am I am
simply I'm I'm dust in the wind, right? I'm going to be dust in the wind. But if I
can internalize it and know it and see the truth myself, then that's completely different. And and I and and that's what
they say to do over and over and over again, right? And so to your point, I
think that I I think that if we've got
if we're part of a collective and we want to fight for that collective and we are we are drawing from the same
information silos over and over and over again from the world,
we are going to lose some agency. I I really believe that you're you're giving it over to a collective
instead of of of taking every issue and everything to yourself and saying I will
command myself, right? Does that make sense? I think it does. I think that makes a ton of sense. And I
think I think to your point, Greg, like we, you know, one of the things that the
prophet Joseph Smith taught was to try the spirits and and looking at that philosophically too. Try the spirits,
you know, um Alma 32 says, you know, essentially gives you this challenge to
to really test the word of God and then like, oh, then is not this real? You
know, like not not just kind of going with with with um with feelings and and
and intuition, but a combination of of of mind and heart and uh and the and you
know, reasoning and and and and studying it out and then asking the Lord. You
bring up, you know, polygamy denial. Well, where does that come from? Where does that come from? Maybe that's the
more interesting question is it's like well maybe there is something here at the core and at the root that that that
we didn't ask enough questions about and and was it necessarily done perfectly or or correctly like clearly there's a pain
point and and being willing to interrogate and understand and and seek
being seekers but seekers from the position that it's like okay I already know what's true and I believe in the
priesthood and I believe in in the church and Now I can kind of examine and
become more holistic in my understanding. I feel like the scriptures champion doing that. It's not
a it's not a don't ask questions and don't ever don't ever you know look closely at things even if sometimes
culturally we have kind of emulated that. That's not what that's not what the doctrine of the church has ever been
built around. Um but at the same time it is it is also you know not um kind of
going beyond the hedges if you will or hedging up the law or or it is this
balance right is it's this kind of paradoxical thing. I I I would never,
you know, we're probably already going to have people and and you know, I've seen it before like in the comments that
it's just maybe comes off as really arrogant or um hubristic to like be
talking about, oh, here's the problems of our culture. This is what we need to do. And you know, Jake and I may have no
idea. We're just two young guys that are are trying to kind of navigate this. So, I don't want to suggest that we have the
answers at all. um we're really just asking questions. But at least at least
from my perspective, an answer might be get, you know, to to to like what do we
do like to to reverse those things is is is politics is being vocal. Politics is
having conversations. It's what we're doing right now. you know, it is it is being more decided and vocal about
issues wherever that that that that we feel strongly about. Um, and and it's also, I
think, coupled with better education. This is sitting here right in front of me. It's something that that Jake and I were were getting ready to discuss. I
want to be really really clear that I love uh Ezra Taff Benson, President
Benson, Elder Benson, who I think kind of embodied two different uh kind of versions of him in his life. And that
also there's all kinds of history there that if you actually know where Elder
Ezra Tapbenson was situated in the context of his own first presidency and how his views changed and evolved how
he's like co-opted and you know in in Tim Ballard's latest video of course he's pulling from from Ezra Taffbenson
that like these things in context once they're better understood once
history and context and and where an idea comes from and its sort of
philosophical underpinnings are understood and then kind of tried it against like sure doctrine. I think it's
easier as a Latter-day Saint to go, okay, I can kind of like I can kind of see what's happening here and it doesn't
mean that it's wrong and it doesn't necessarily mean that it's all right, but it's like I see what President
Benson was getting at and I also see how a lot of his feelings are a product of
his time talking to his time and how it gets weaponized today. I hope that makes sense. Yeah. Yeah. That makes sense. Yeah. Jake
Jake, do you think that uh you know, I I've had uh Dan Ellsworth on
and we've talked about conspiracy theories and he was very much pushing against all the conspiracy theories and and I'm going along with him to some
degree. There are some conspiracy theories that have turned out to be true. In fact, quite a few of them as
the information age has come about and and and the wool's been pulled back a little bit on some things. However, uh
it kind of runs a muck, I think, these days and and there there's it's uh there
there are very few checks on a very democratized media that we have today, which I'm a part of. Uh
but it, you know, you read the Book of Mormon and there is a very strong, I
mean, we call it conspiracy theories, but we there's a very strong uh uh what will we call it? uh um
warning essentially about the Gadian robbers and showing that this is something
that's going to happen in the last days. It seems to me that the opening up of what of of
allowing for that type of a situation that is inevitable, I think allows the thought process to say, well,
this is everywhere, right? It's like it's like, okay, this is going to happen. We know it's going
to happen and we know it's probably happening. There are groups in cabals as as Dandis Owen says uh you know that are
that are involved in okay I want money I want power this is a a world issue or a
national issue or community or business or whatever it is. Um,
how are we supposed to distinguish between false conspiracy theories and
still hold close and understanding that we need to be careful because there are secret
combinations? It's a great question. That's like this
is a fundamental question for especially in a time with AI coming on and like
what content is even true anymore and um
this is this this really is a fundamental question. I simply I don't know I don't know what the like ultimate
answer is of how do we know whether or not we're going too far in our conspiratorial thinking or or what have
you. But I think I think having checks and balances in terms of people who you
discuss with, not getting caught up in echo chambers is always a good idea. I think reading very widely, getting your
uh information from a lot of different especially broadly reputable sources,
being very careful in this sort of anti-intellectual train of thought where it's like, oh, the the scholars just
have their agenda and I can't trust the uh I can't trust a single one of them. It's like yes, every person has an
agenda, so to speak, and certainly there are academics that have agendas worse than others, but that doesn't mean that
you just discard cart blanch the entirety of of academia because then it's like that's that's just so much
information. That's that's the pillar of a modern society is is all these these little bits of information that we've
been building for the past like 300 years. and and don't don't discard that
just because of the the sort of pluralistic post-modern tendencies of our contemporary university system. Um I
think oh man what's I had another thought and then I got caught on that tangent about academia. Um
what's another thing we can do? I don't know. Do you have any thoughts? I don't want to just like amuse of what I
thought I was thinking. I think that your answer was so well put and and it's a fantastic question because I don't
know that I know the answer. I would couple all of the what Jake just said with a within a gospel framework, right?
Don't pit don't pit broadmindedness as you put, Greg. You you did you put it
really well. Don't pit that against the faith. the the the church, you know, the scriptures say, "Seek ye out of the best
books, you know, words of wisdom and and learn of things in the earth and under the earth and and and the kingdoms." And
it's like it's like expansive education and and uh and sort of, you know,
objective to what extent you can be objective. trying to be objective in approaching um you know approaching
truth and and approaching uh you know narratives coupling that with the gospel
you know not not just because that's something that you want to do but that that's actually the gospel commission
you know that that that uh the glory of God is intelligence or in other words light and truth and that that as
Latter-day Saints we we should continue to champion that like institutions are
corruptible Absolutely. But institutions are ultimately a good thing and the
institution of the church is a good thing and that we we should reclaim that and purify and and um you know like like
couple those things rather than put them at odds. I don't know if that makes sense, but that that would be my my
thought on it at least. Yeah. You guys have any other final thoughts on this session of ours?
Oh man, I did actually remember the thing that I was trying to remember. Okay, roll with it. I don't want to lose
it. I know this is a gem. This gem is coming. I don't know about a gem. I feel like
I'm just paring a lot of other people when I say this, but I do think that something like a classical education is
remarkably helpful in sort of honing the mind and preventing against I guess like
populist ways of thinking. Um, it's um, it's like I don't think that you just
read the great book series and then now you know it all and that's it. U, but I
think that something like reading the classics introduces you, if you're a westerner,
it introduces you to this thing that's called the Western cannon. And maybe the boundaries are a little bit flexible.
It's like exactly what fits in that thing we call the cannon. But that doesn't mean that it's not real. And it
doesn't mean that it's not remarkably valuable and it puts you in touch with
your cultural heritage which is I think very useful in terms of resisting the uh
particular pathologies of thought that any you uh any specific point in history
is prone to it it you touch into something bigger than yourself and the
scriptures do the same thing you know I don't think that you can ever leave out the Bible u from the sort of western
cannon. And as a Latter-day Saint, I don't think you can leave the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine of Covenants out as well because it's all an evolution on
itself within within scripture and more and more truth being revealed. So, so
that's something that I wanted to add. Um, and then just I think to cap it off
for me, it's never never forget that this is an old trend. the the sort of
distrust of the Latter-day Saint in the broader culture and even as we see in the Book of Mormon. So it is today
people who leave the church and sort of give the church a bad name from within
bum bum bum like Tim Ballard that that can kind of harness the general societal
discontent or his own benefit too. Yes. For his own benefit for his
not the first either. unless Granfell on the other side, right? The appeal,
you know, the secular look at these crazy religious zealots and and also Greg to their own benefit. Anyway, keep
we should say exactly. So, so it's great old and like there's another thing to make sure that you
understand as a as a viewer and as us as the people talking like this is this is something that needs to
be known. You have to know it to recognize it. You have to understand the pattern to see it in other places. Does
that pattern become like I can see the webs of the conspiracies? And that's your question, Gray, is how do you know
what the limit is? Um, I think trying as best as you can to instill wisdom and good judgment in yourself by any means
necessary is always going to be a good option. Um, and and that that I think is all I have to say about that.
Barrett, last words. I mean, what gives me comfort is faith.
You know, have faith in Jesus Christ. faith. Faith is the hope for things that are not seen which are true. And I think
that that is applicable when it comes to trying to discern truth from error. Um
uh the Doctrine of Covenants, you know, talks about how basically you you thought that it would just be given to
you, but you haven't you haven't studied it out in your mind and heart. And that's sort of maybe what what Jake and
I are are are advocating for is a combination of these things and a reclamation of of of understanding where
we stand. I want to take it I want to, you know, loop it back to Truth and Treason. Like go watch Truth and Treason
and watch it with an eye open to the idea that, you know, where where would
where would you stand with Helmouth? especially if it were going against the thing that you find convenient or that
you you know that you want to believe. Um because I don't think that's partial to a any particular political movement
is it's would you um you know would would you stand for what's true even at the cost of your own life? Um or or you
know would you um uh you know condemn condemn his youth?
Um, it's it's it's it's it's first Timothy. It's like, "Let no man despise thy youth, but be thou an example of of
the believers in all of these attributes." And um and and that would
be, you know, that's my my testimony lies firm in the fact that I know that the Holy Ghost is real. I know that also
discerning spirits is important and that we have to be really careful about
feelings that reinforce what we want to be true. and that it is it is challenging and scary to go against, you
know, the grain. Um, but if we dare to stand alone, we will often find that there are there are more that are with
us than with them. And that the Lord will fight our battles if we are truly
and earnestly trying to follow him. Um, who is the ultimate revolutionary and
and radical going against the grain all by himself. and um and that if we do
that with real intent and find out that maybe we were barking up the wrong tree,
I don't see how a a just and righteous God would not show mercy for for trying
to seek him and follow him. And so and who who can who can I judge who's who's earnestly trying to do that? So
great. Those are my thoughts. All right. Well, guys, really appreciate it. Again, let's keep this going. We'll make this continue to make this a
regular thing if you guys are up for it. Um, also you guys have got a YouTube channel. Where do people find you?
Yeah, the name of the YouTube channel is Polyophical. Uh, that'll be in the description. I
don't know that I want to like spell it, but it's it's Polyophical. We'll put the link and we have great great aspirations
for our uh, as of yet very low production
ramblings, but it'll get better. It'll get better with time. Awesome. Well, we'll see if it can get you to a few subscribers. And and real
quick, it's called that because Lorenzo Snow and Eliza Snow uh began something
called the Polyophical Society, which was just their club of talking about all things like art, philosophy, history,
science, but through the lens of of a Latterday Saint perspective. And so that's kind of Yeah, that's kind of
Well, then it's a great name. Yeah, it's a great name whether you can spell it or not. Great name.
All right, guys. Thanks so much. Appreciate it. And uh we'll bring you back again. Thank you, Greg.