Politics For Happy People
A podcast about politics for happy people!
Politics For Happy People
Faith, Elections, and Public Trust
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Questions about election integrity are back in the spotlight after a controversial Los Angeles mayoral race saw post-Election Day ballots dramatically reshape the outcome. Joseph and Ashley unpack the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence, why public trust in elections matters, and whether current voting systems invite unnecessary suspicion. They also dive into a surprising controversy involving the Pentagon, the Mormon Church, and what happens when government agencies attempt to categorize religious beliefs.
Welcome to politics. We're happy people. We're happy people, and at some point today we may discuss politics. Ashley, good to see you.
SPEAKER_00Good to see you, Joseph.
SPEAKER_01How you doing?
SPEAKER_00Pretty good. We staying alive? We're staying alive. It's been a busy week. It's the second week of summer.
SPEAKER_01Kids are out.
SPEAKER_00Kids are out of the house. Swimming, I hope. Life looks a little different when it's the house is full of kids, but it's a lot of fun. Yeah.
SPEAKER_01Well, good. It's uh another thing this week that is happening is the World Cup on a scale of one to ten. How excited are you about the World Cup?
SPEAKER_00I was recently informed that this is taking place.
SPEAKER_01Okay. So that's not very excited.
SPEAKER_00No, no. Do you know what sport that is, actually? Yes. I'm not that lame.
SPEAKER_01Soccer? Okay.
SPEAKER_00I'm not that lame.
SPEAKER_01Okay. Well, just I, you know, I try not to assume too much about my audience. Try not to assume you're too lame, Ashley. No. That's what that is. I mean, but that that's I I grew up under the conviction that soccer was a communist sport. Okay. And that Americans did not do that. I I no longer really feel that way. I played a lot of soccer. My kids have played a ton. I've watched a ton. I enjoy the game.
SPEAKER_00I am indiscriminately unaware of sports.
SPEAKER_01You can cheer for America, right?
SPEAKER_00Well, of course. I will cheer for our team. But I mean, I just am not plugged in. I never know when it's happening. I didn't know about the Stanley Cup until all of a sudden we had lots of cars and people were posting on social media about it. Well, there's-just unaware.
SPEAKER_01There is a of the sports world. There is a kind of an America-adjacent like World Cup thing on uh I've seen it all on Twitter X. But there are now Europeans who are visiting. For those who don't know, the World Cup is a big, giant global soccer soccer tournament that's being hosted by the United States. And it's being games are being played in Atlanta and in Houston and in Dallas and in LA and even Seattle, so all over the country. And Europeans and other people, but people from all over the world have come to the U.S. And some are experiencing the U.S. for the very first time. And many of them are kind of vlogging, tweeting their journeys through America and what they discover.
SPEAKER_00Okay.
SPEAKER_01And this is actually kind of fun to see people discover America. And I'm particularly, I've watched this uh this German dude discover Buckeys. And um, you know, I think most people in our audience will know what a Bucky's is, but it is the world's largest gas station. It has to be. I don't know that that's officially the truth. But yes, it is it is quite a spectacle. Things that they do not have in Germany or any other place in the world, and watching them kind of discover Waffle Houses and Buckeys and kind of American institutions.
SPEAKER_00The things that make America America.
SPEAKER_01And the size of our trucks in Texas, right? I mean, these are like assault vehicles everywhere else in the world because you know everybody in Europe drives a fiat. And so when they see these, you know dozens and dozens of F 350s flying down the highway in Texas at 90 miles an hour, it it's disorienting for them, and they like commenting on it as they experience America. So there is kind of this fun, like that's cross-culture.
SPEAKER_00That's funny. Somebody needs to like round up a bunch of these videos and well, that's what the algorithm's for, Ashley.
SPEAKER_01You watch like two of them, and that's all you're gonna get for the rest of the month. So yeah, they are out there. They are out there. So World Cup's happening. Some of us like it, some of us don't care, but it's happening and and it's uh in some ways, I guess, helping people discover America as well. And that can only be good because despite all of the um, you know, things that we're sometimes frustrated with, it really is awesome around here. Um things that are interesting, something else I learned this week. Um the potato, Ashley. Is the potato good for you or not?
SPEAKER_00Yes. Oh yes, you think so?
SPEAKER_01Oh yeah, because I was told for a long time that it would just like your body would convert those carbs into sugar and give you diabetes. But you already know this, but some people may not. A study tracking 205,000 people for nearly 40 years found that three servings of French fries a week linked to a 20% higher risk of type 2 diabetes. So French fries gives you diabetes, it is true. But baked and boiled potatoes, we're fine. No impact. So it's not the potato itself, ladies and gentlemen. It's what you do to it. So bake it, boil it, and you're gonna be fine. Fry it, and you'll get diabetes.
SPEAKER_00You know, it always never fails to surprise me how people need studies to sell tell them very common sense things. Why is that common sense though? Well, because a French fry is little slivers of potato fried in large amounts of oil. So your ratio of fat to starch slash actual food is uh not good. Well, I would say Whereas if you've got your baked potato and it's just a potato and you put, you know, just a little bit of a reasonable amount of butter, which by the way, you do need uh some fat with your vegetables to help absorb the vitamins into your body. A little bit is good, a lot is not good. So that's why frying is worse than the other methods.
SPEAKER_01I would say everything that you just described there is not, in fact, common sense. That is knowledge. And that's why I think people are confused about it, right? I think that you know a lot of people think of potato potatoes as potatoes is potatoes, and they may not even know it's a starch, and they don't understand the difference between boiling it and soaking it in animal fats or even worse vegetable oil, which is what they've always done. So, anyway, okay, and I'm being told to speak louder. I'll try to speak louder. The whispering is done. I'm sorry, Joseph. I will scream for the rest of the show. I realize I've been dry, I've been driving people crazy. I'm told. So let's talk about some uh more serious things than potatoes, Ashley. A couple stories today we're gonna cover uh the fallout and what the significance of the LA mayor's race. A lot of people may have known this. It's a local election, but it's gotten a lot of national coverage. Want to talk about that. And then also um a really sad story, uh, also of significance. There is a YouTuber vlogger who uh announced recently the abortion of their his child quite publicly because it was diagnosed with Down syndrome. Um the arguments that he had made for that decision and subsequently made in defending that are worth understanding and processing, and we're gonna do that uh today on the show. But first, let's talk about the LA mayor's race. Did you follow this?
SPEAKER_00I really didn't, and I'm gonna need you to educate me a little bit. I have some questions. And the first one is why why are people following this race so closely? I mean, how important is why do people in North Carolina care what they are? Yeah, why is it? I mean, why do we care who the mayor of LA is? Um well that's it, it's a fairly and on and on some level we don't.
SPEAKER_01Well now, LA has gotten a lot of national attention recently because of kind of like the fixation on, I don't know, blue state decay is maybe how we'll describe this. You're seeing a lot of blue cities, and they seem to most of them seem to be on the West Coast. I'm thinking of what's happened in Los Angeles, in San Francisco, in Portland, in Seattle. These are all very, very blue cities politically that are all seem to be having serious problems with homelessness, kind of urban rot, um, a lot of drug use, people reporting feces on the street. Now, some of it is probably, you know, uh amplified a little bit just for reaction and kind of internet clickbait. But I have been to all of these cities. Well, I was gonna say, you lived out there. Yeah, well, is it true?
SPEAKER_00I mean, I haven't traveled across the country in the last couple years.
SPEAKER_01You go to a place like Seattle, which is where I'm from, but I've I've been in recent years to, you know, to Los Angeles and also to uh Portland in particular. There are still areas of these cities that are beautiful and glorious and wonderful. But there is, especially in Seattle, which is what I know best, a growing part of downtown that you don't want to walk through with your children. I mean, that's just the reality of it. And in 20 years ago, it wasn't that way. There was really no park.
SPEAKER_00That should not be the case in this country.
SPEAKER_01And you can, you know, the reality is if you're trying, you you can create any perception that you want. You can go to some homeless encampment, take a picture of it. It doesn't look good and say, oh, this is the city. And of course, that that one shot, that image does not represent everything in the city. And you can go to another block and take a beautiful picture of this beautiful, you know, neighborhood and park and say everything is fine, right? And and of course the truth lies somewhere in the middle. But yes, in many of these cities, and I can certainly testify to Portland on a on a firsthand basis as well, because that's what's kind of in my neighborhood. It did not used to be in the shape it is currently in. And there's lots of reasons why that is Portland. Portland and Seattle both got occupied during um, you know, the the summer of love in 2020. You might remember what what did they call that in uh up there on Capitol Hill? The um there there was a zone that they basically came to the city. They declared out of yes. Um the autonomous zone. There was I'm forgetting the term for it right now, but basically, they declared themselves to be an independent country inside of Seattle, and the leadership of Seattle basically granted them autonomous. They did until there were murders, right? And so back to your question, why do people care about LA's mayor's erase? Because that kind of thing was happening in Los Angeles as well, where um lots of kind of urban decay, as people would describe it, rising crime rates, a sense of like indifference from political leadership to these problems. And then in addition, uh Los Angeles recently had an entire part of their city burned down. Pacific Palisades. There was some thought that that was due in part to um neglect from leadership and in failing to do reasonable things to mitigate fires. And also the rebuild has been non-existent so far. Do they have too much bureaucracy? Is it being run by kind of earth worshippers, uh earth worshippers who really do not want these uh seaside areas to be redeveloped because they want everything to return to nature? Right. So that's some of the stuff that Los Angeles is, I think, is part of this bigger discussion about whether progressive leadership in cities is really, really destructive. Of course, the right wants to say, of course it is, the left wants to say, no, it's not. But uh Spencer Pratt, the current mayor is Karen Bass, and she is running for re-election. And a guy named Spencer Pratt, who used to be a reality TV star, full disclosure, I didn't know who he was until I saw him running for the mayor of Los Angeles, but he kind of took his reality TV star skills and created all of these online videos to critique the leadership of LA in some pretty humorous ways. And I think that is why um LA got this attention because it fit the narrative from the right's perspective. Oh, look at this terrible progressive leadership in the city, they're destroying the city, and Spencer Pratt was happy to leave it.
SPEAKER_00Yeah.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. So I think that's why we were paying attention to this. But then the vote happened, and that's where it became more of just a left-right, and and and then it kind of evolved into being useful in this ongoing conversation we have about whether we can trust election outcomes. Because I mentioned Karen Bass, who is the current mayor, and Spencer Pratt, who was this Republican challenger, saying, hey, let's just not do stupid things, and why don't we clean up crime and rebuild cities that burn down, which seemed kind of common sense. That was his theme, essentially. Let's not give drug to drug addicts, drugs to drug addicts. But there is another candidate. Her name is Nithya Raman. I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly. I'm not certain I am. But she is also a Democrat, and the reason this matters is because California has a voting situation where they will take the top two candidates from the primary regardless of their political party. Right. So it could be two Republicans, but it's California, so of course not, or it could be two Democrats. And coming out of election day, Karen Bass was in first, Spencer Pratt was in second, Yithia Rahman was in third. Now, California is also unique in the fact that they do not stop their elections on Election Day. They have these rules where they, you know, way in advance of the election, they mail a ballot to everybody and their brother, so they're just dispersed throughout the city, and the rules allow them to count ballots that are postmarked by election day. So did they get in the mail on election day? And they will count ballots for weeks after the actual election. And what happened is that Karen Bass was in first, Spencer Pratt was in third, and Nithya Raman, or sorry, Spencer Pratt was in second, and Nithya Raman was in third on Election Day. And then wouldn't you know it after election day, all of the trends changed, and Nithya Raman ended up not only surpass not only having more votes than Spencer Pratt after Election Day, but exceeding the total votes of Karen Bass, who was in first place after Election Day, which allowed her to pull into second place, and now it's going to be two Democrats on the ball.
SPEAKER_00This reminds me of 2020. When you know everyone went to sleep and they woke up the next morning and Dead of Night ballot drops. There were the situation was different.
SPEAKER_01Um Yeah, and you're you're referring to Trump's election. Trump's election in 2020. Yes.
SPEAKER_00And that's what infinitely compare this situation to.
SPEAKER_01Well, and and that and that's why it's interesting in part. That's why people are following what's going on in Los Angeles, because there's a bunch of people on the right who are super skeptical of elections in general. And the rules that allow ballots to come in long after election day, it's kind of suspect. Because, I mean, if you want to believe that everybody counting ballots is upright and just and would never ever do anything devious, then you know, okay. That's just not what I think about human nature. And if you're gonna be cynical about it, if you look at the reality is that we're gonna take a vote total on election day, we're gonna check the scoreboard, the rules allow us to count ballots indefinitely as long as they're postmarked by election day. And let's just, you know, let's just what what is a postmark on an envelope, Ashley? What is that? A little stamp? Is it is it is it like huge encrypted technology that has like holograms and like only people working for the government have access to this technology? Right. It just can't be that hard to have a machine that puts a stamp in the corner of an envelope with yesterday's date on it or two days' date, two days ago's date on it, right? That just I mean, I'm not like trying to commit crime, but if I had to commit this particular crime, I feel like I could solve that problem pretty quickly if I wanted to. I need a machine to stamp an envelope that looks like a looks like a postmark, but it can't be today. It needs to be three days ago. Is that possible? I think yes. And that's what this is allowing.
SPEAKER_00Okay, a couple of things. I mean, I obviously election integrity is of utmost importance. We need to have confidence in our democracy and the way that it operates. I think asking questions is a good thing. I also think um, I don't know. I think people may, they've gotten a little carried away in some ways, like a witch hunt always looking for, oh, you know, if they don't get the outcome they like, is this because of election fraud? I mean, here in North Carolina, you know, in our organization, election integrity, it's not like officially like one of our top issues that we work on, but it is an issue that we work on because it impacts all of our other issues. And we do have some expertise on our team with election integrity as it relates to the law. And we know people that have served on boards of elections that are working very hard to make sure that our elections here in North Carolina are um that they are fair and that they that the vote count is accurate and all of that. And so I think it's hard because I it's not that I don't think that funny business is happening. I but I think when you start being suspicious all the time um and uh and wondering, you know, was there fraud here? It's like, what's the next step? Like, what do you do? And and and with that, election law and the way in which elections are carried out is different in every single state.
SPEAKER_01It is, and it should, and and and and that's fine. And states have the authority to govern their elections the way they want. And um, you know, should there be federal standards? I mean, maybe at this point. I I don't want the federal government taking over every local election. But I mean, to your point about are people accusing their losses on fraud inappropriately? And I think the answer is sometimes yes. And let's go back to the, you know, we started off talking about soccer, right? And and when you are in youth sports for any period of time, every time you lose a game, there is a reason that has nothing to do with you, right? It's like, oh, it was the conditions, the balls weren't inflated enough, the coach was bad, the officials were terrible, everything is that the way it is in sports 100%. Yeah, okay. Hopefully not, right? You're trying to train them to take responsibility for things. But I'm just like pointing out the instinct we have to blame the circumstances beyond our control rather than take responsibility for the fact that that I got beat today, right? We don't like to say that. And so that's my way of saying yes. I think there are moments where you lost an election, you don't like the fact that you lost an election, and you want to try to blame something other than the fact that you lost the ship.
SPEAKER_00Okay, but I think that does happen. Yes. At what point though, Joseph, and this is my question for you, at what point do we start becoming suspicious? Well, I mean, like what things would make us suspicious?
SPEAKER_01Well, the things that you I think the I mean, the the the reason people are suspicious right now, and the reason I I am suspicious right now is because I believe the rules are written in such a way that they are designed to not catch people who want to cheat.
SPEAKER_00In California?
SPEAKER_01Well, it's not the only place, but it's one of them. Yeah. Right? When you take millions of ballots and just mail them indiscriminately throughout the state, you do not require voto uh an identification for somebody to vote. Right. You cannot prove that the thing did or did not happen. Right? The and and you there is no chain of custody, which, and what I mean by chain of custody is in in a system that can be trusted, you can prove every person, you know, every person who touched the ballot and how they touched it between the voter and the vote count.
SPEAKER_00And when those There's no opportunity for someone to tamper with it.
SPEAKER_01The rules now are written where in in California specifically, they allow um, they allow people to like go into homeless encampments and ask, of course, they don't have IDs. Hey, are you a citizen? Yeah. What's your name? Just put it in here and go ahead and vote. And are people have any way of knowing that when people go go um chase ballots in homeless encampments and in senior citizens' cent towns and in apartment buildings where every unit just got mailed the ballots and they're just kind of sitting around and if you're good at collecting them, did that person actually vote? Who knows? Can you prove they didn't? No. Can you prove they did? No. And that's the problem. When there's no obligation to be able to verify that the person whose ballot this is supposed to represent is actually the person that voted on it, you know, it's just it's it's a breeding ground for suspicion. Yeah. And and one of the things I want to, you know, whenever we talk about this, I always I'm very used to hearing the response from the left now is there's no evidence of that. And because there's not like these video recordings of of people running through homeless encampments and getting ballots, you know, from them or from apartment buildings or from senior centers and and um voting for them. Because there wouldn't be evidence. Of that. If you're out there committing election fraud, you wouldn't have evidence of that. Does that mean that there is no cheating? And the thing I want to highlight for people, just in the big picture, is the difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Right? And this is something that you cover in the law, and there's a really simple illustration of this that every single evidence class in law school will cover. The way they illustrate illustrate this is talk about rain. It is direct evidence. When you see it raining outside, and you can say, I saw it raining, I was standing in the rain, it got me wet. It is circumstantial evidence when you wake up in the morning and you look outside and everything is wet. Is that direct evidence that it rained? No. But can you reasonably infer that it rained? Yes, that's circumstantial evidence. And so when the left says there's no evidence of that, what they really mean is there's no direct evidence of that. But when you see voting results that are statistically unexpected after the election compared to everything that happened before the election, is that direct evidence of something? No. But is it unreasonable to infer that something changed? Not necessarily. It's circumstantial evidence. And so your mind still has to be open to the fact that, oh, take back to the LA mayor's race. Perhaps Nithi Raman, who's the third place candidate, who was third place, now she's in second place, maybe she had better resources, a better team, who was better at vote chasing, they were just better organized. So and on election day, so they able, they were able to produce more election, more ballots after the election. Is that possible? Yes. Do I have any evidence to believe she was that much better organized than Karen Bass? I don't. But is it possible? Yes. But when statistically improbable things happen, it is not unreasonable to make an inference that that change is not just random. So when you're having this conversation about elections or frankly anything else, and somebody says there's no evidence, well, if it's circumstantial evidence, that's still evidence. And people are commit convicted of crimes all the time with exclusively circumstantial evidence because it just makes sense. So the uh, you know, do I know anything shady happened in LA? I don't know it. Do I see some data that raises questions? I do. And I don't think it's crazy to ask those questions, especially because the rules there make it impossible to know.
SPEAKER_00It is really interesting thinking about it in those terms, because that is what you hear people say. There's no evidence of this, but understanding the different types of evidence and really just on a common sense level, thinking through at what point would we want to ask more questions and look into this? At what point is that prudent and wise? And and the thing is because election integrity is so important.
SPEAKER_01But it is so and if people don't trust their elections anymore, you've got big, big problems.
SPEAKER_00Yeah.
SPEAKER_01You've got you've got big problems if people do not trust uh the the results of their elections. And and you know, and a related part of this when we just talk about whether people trust their elections. One of the reasons it's important is because people have to feel like they are making that we are actually, we the people have some say in our government.
SPEAKER_00That our voice can be heard in a meaningful way. In a meaningful way, yes.
SPEAKER_01And that's what I think threatens it. And there's another thing that threatens it as well, in addition to like, can we trust the votes? And that's gerrymandering. And we've talked about that, right? And this idea that if if everyone believes that the districts have been drawn in such a way that the outcome is predetermined by the map makers, therefore, it doesn't matter what I do because the we we know who's gonna win, then people are disillusioned, disenfranchised, they and and they feel uninvested in the outcome. And that's not good when you're supposed to be a government of for and by the people.
SPEAKER_00Yeah. Well, I and I going back to my other point, my earlier point, I do think if people are constantly saying our elections aren't fair, this election was fake, this result was bogus, I think that can also deter people from being engaged and give them this malaise of, you know, the system is so broken, I'm not even gonna engage with it. When the reality is we do have a lot of good people with integrity who are working to make our elections fair and accurate, I think we also need to be aware of the fact that we live in a sinful world and people there will be funny business and there will be cheating. And when we see any kind of evidence or reason for suspicion, with some it's something to look into, you know?
SPEAKER_01I mean, it's it's the whole reason you have security at the airport and you don't just ask, hey, you got a bomb? No, great, come on board, right? It's because people intending to do bad things have to actually be prevented from doing bad things when you go to the bank and you're trying to get a loan. How much money do you make? Oh, $3.2 million. Great, you know, let's lend you some money. It's just the whole proof, right? That's it's so normal. Yeah. In every area of life, they don't just take your word for it, yet we've created election laws.
SPEAKER_00My husband is an accountant. Yes, and the whole saying is trust but verify. You know, the accountants are here to audit and they're gonna we trust, but we're gonna verify. And it's it's actually a very it's a useful uh, I think, statement because it conveys this standard of we we do need to check into this. We do need to make sure everything is the way it's supposed to be because it is such an important area of life, whether it be the finances of a you know publicly traded company or our elections, like we need to make sure that things are the way they're supposed to be.
SPEAKER_01And elections, frankly, are the only area of life where we just say trust, don't verify, do not require voter ID, do not do signature checks, have no way of knowing that this person whose name is on this ballot is actually the person who filled out the ballot. You don't need to know. That's that's why it's suspicious.
SPEAKER_00Yeah.
SPEAKER_01That's why it's suspicious.
SPEAKER_00So my husband is gonna be so proud of me for knowing that trust but trust but verify.
SPEAKER_01Well, accountants, in fairness, accountants are not the only one. Accountants are not the only ones who say trust but verify. That that that is uh that that goes beyond the accounting world, but I certainly understand why it would be in the accounting world.
SPEAKER_00So we're gonna segue.
SPEAKER_01What do we got next, Ashley?
SPEAKER_00Okay, next we're gonna talk about this little controversy that arose recently about how the Pentagon classifies different religious groups. And they set out to do this reclassification, which evidently they have for the use of the chaplains, to basically ensure that their chaplains can serve uh the population, uh, all the active duty service members and understand uh what their religious uh beliefs are and that they have that capability in their chaplaincy.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, military chaplains have been around since the beginning of the military, and and apparently this is just kind of, I don't know if it's doge chaplains, but they basically reduced the categories of chaplains from 200 down to 31.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, so they had hundreds and they wanted to simplify it for the simplify this these codes, these um classifications, uh, so that the chaplains could could better serve uh the that was what they said their reason was, so they would better serve the military. And but but when they did so, they gave uh several denominations of what we would think of as denominations of Christianity, like the classification was Christian dash Baptist, Christian dash Presbyterian, Christian-I think one of them was evangelical. And so it was basically like a tag saying the which version of Christianity? The U.S. government is designating this group as a Christian group. Well, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as Mormons, the Mormons, they did not get the tag describing them as Christian. And they were very, very, very unhappy about this. And when I say they, I mean specifically church leadership, but also members of Congress who are Mormon, such as John Curtis and Mike Lee, and other members of the House, all speaking out about this, saying, How dare the Pentagon say that we are not Christian?
SPEAKER_01They took this to the White House, and Donald Trump has tried to um mollify the situation. And basically what they did is they removed the Christian label from all of them. And so now it's just says Presbyterian, Baptist, Catholic, whatever, Latter-day Saints, right? So it there's no longer something distinguishing them from the uh other from the actual Christian denominations, they just don't have anything labeled as specifically Christian.
SPEAKER_00What do we think about this?
SPEAKER_01Well, you know, there's layers of this. I mean, because the reality is, and you know when we are dealing with public policy, the LDS Church is undoubtedly an ally. Their value for family and kind of creation order principles are in complete alignment. And, you know, I've been doing this work in various ways for 20 years. And back when I was running ballot measures on marriage and gender, the LDS church and people in it were some of our best allies for sure. So on values issues and what we want to see uh society look like, there's huge alignment. So, but are there theological differences? There absolutely are. Are they Christians? Like, you know, that that's not our job here necessarily to try to like prove that the LDS people are not Christians. But one of the reasons I wanted to talk about this today is is there's a guy named Mike Winger, who I've known for a while. He's on uh he's on Twitter, but he made this point that I just think is my question, Ashley, is why do they want, why do they insist that they are Christians? Because we know it's different, right? They they they they do their own thing, they they know they do their own thing, they're proud about doing their own thing. They have BYU as a university, which is their Mormon university. They aren't sending kids to Notre Dame and they aren't sending kids to Baylor, they want kids to go to BYU. Why do you think they want this to be the same? Because I and I'll I'll read it in a moment because Mike Winger uh makes a really good point about the fact that they didn't start out trying to say we're just like you.
SPEAKER_00Well, I think that is the exact question that came up in my mind when I saw this conversation exploding on X and I was reading articles about it. They they basically unanimously are very upset about not being designated Christian by the government, they said. And the question came up in my mind, but but why is this so it it was it seemed just so triggering? I mean, they really the statements that some made, like Mike Lee, were very honestly, they were emotional. And and this they had an emotional reaction to not being designated as Christian. This is very important to have a theory on that. I mean, I think there's a certain credibility that comes along with being called a Christian church.
SPEAKER_01It's interesting for okay. I mean, there are a lot of people who think it's a liability to be a Christian church.
SPEAKER_00I think it's still by and large, if you're going to be a religion in this country, I think by and large being a Christian being being designated as a Christian group is brings legitimacy. I do think so. That's my feeling.
SPEAKER_01The history of the Mormon church is, I mean, they certainly feel bullied, and there's reasons to believe that is true, because they got, you know, they they got star. Well, they didn't get started in New York. They got, you know, they they originally kind of like grew up in Missouri, and there was a bunch of wars, and that's where Joseph Smith got killed, and then ultimately they got chased out. That's why they're in Utah, is because they got chased out of out of Missouri into into Utah, where they really, you know, flourished and established themselves, and that's why Utah is kind of this this LDS state. But the I'm gonna read some of these things that that um Mike Winger pointed out about Mormon theology and some of their history. Um, because pretty interesting stuff. Are are Mormons historically picked on? I think the answer to that is yes, and they certainly feel like they are um today. And I think that's probably part of this reaction. The emotional reaction on us try stop trying to say we're different. But the point Mike Winger makes is you guys are the ones we're saying you're different from the beginning, and I'm gonna read some of this. That's just like food for thought, um, because we're not here primarily to make a theological argument, but here's some of his statements. He says that Mormonism rejects the very core of the Christian faith in all its essentials. Joseph Smith knew this, but nowadays they are playing mind games with their own people and real Christians. Again, those are Mike Winger's words. And he says, either they are Christians or we are Christians. It's one or the other, not both. And here's some of the evidence he support he provides in support of that statement. When asked, quote, will all be damned but Mormons? Smith replied, Yes, and a great portion of them unless they repent and work righteousness. That's a citation from the teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith on page 119. In addition, the doctrine of covenants, which is a Mormon doctrine of covenants document, citation one, verse 30, leaves no doubt to the Mormon teaching of exclusivity when it says the LDS Church is, quote, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, end quote. Additionally, Brigham Young, second only to Joseph Smith in Mormon Mormonism, said, quote, Should you ask why we differ from other Christians as they are called, it is simply because they are not Christians, as the New Testament defines Christianity, end quote. That's from the Journal of Discourses, chapter 10, verse 230. In addition, quote, this is also from the Journal of Discourses, chapter 8, verse 171, quote, the Christian world so called are heathens as to the knowledge of the salvation of God, end quote. There's more, I'm gonna stop there because I think the point has kind of been made. What Mike Winger was pointing out, and what I have just now relayed to all of you, is that at the beginning of the Mormon church, they very much tried to distinguish themselves from the rest of Christianity, saying they are the LDS Church is the only true church. Now there's this desire to say, hey, we're Christians just like you. What happened?
SPEAKER_00In my mind, I've already answered this question. I think it has to do with legitimacy. Uh that's my best that is my best answer for you, but frankly, I find it, I do find it curious that back when this group, Latter-day Saints, was started in the 1800s, they're saying, no, you don't have the way, we have the way. And they have their own documents which are in addition to the Bible. And if you're gonna take those things seriously, um, then you would think that they are making a claim of exclusivity, which now they are not they are not making. Um, so I don't know. Is it like a you're trying to have your cake and eat it too? Like we are the true way, and yet we are also just like you. I'm not really sure. Um, I do suspect that it has it has to do with a uh cultural um status and and they don't want to, they don't want to be picked on. They don't want to be this weird, like we're not a weird sect, we are Christians.
SPEAKER_01Yes, that there's no doubt that they say that and believe that. And if I'm being honest, I mean it is not the building that you sit in that gives you salvation. And I also know that perfect theology is not required for salvation because I don't believe perfect theology exists. So are there people who identify with the Mormon church who actually have a relationship with Jesus and have saving faith despite the theology that the church teaches formally? Maybe that's that you know that's that's God's thing to judge. Um but I the I would like to see a Mormon response to this, especially because when I like read through all these things that the doctrine of the church has taught in the past. Because another thing I do know about Mormonism is that their doctrines change, they get special revelations. The whole reason, the part of the history of the church, that Utah was allowed to become a state despite their beliefs about polygamy, was they got a revelation from God, wouldn't you know it, that disavowed polygamy. So we no longer believe in polygamy. And that also happens to be a condition from the United States government for us to have statehood. So we had this very convenient revelation from God that allows us to disavow something that was a fundamental tenant of our faith, and it no longer is, so now we get to be a state. Yay! Something similar happened uh with racism and with black people who would early on in the church being black was a sign that you were a descendant of Satan rather than Jesus. They got another special revelation, the the elders of the church, where that was no longer the case. So now we're not racist anymore, because of course, and and you shouldn't be, but right, they had a theological change. So there are doctrines within the church that have changed. I wonder if they would look at these things that I've just quoted from Mike Winger and say, oh yeah, we don't believe that anymore. Um, because it's it's an it's a it's a religion that evolves theologically in ways that uh the the rest of Christianity or well that Christianity has not.
SPEAKER_00Yeah. Well, and as you said, we're not at least I'm not here today to make a specific theological distinction between my faith as a Christian and what Mormons believe, although I do know that there are significant different differences for me, for what I believe about the Bible and about what it says is true. There are significant differences that frankly are incompatible with what the Mormon church teaches, significant theological differences. And that leads me to the question of though, should our government be in the position of making discriminations between uh uh theological differences between groups? And I would argue no. Well, I do not, I I the Christians and the groups claiming to be Christians can have these theological debates, but should the government be in the position of saying designating this group is Christian, this group is not, uh, Jehovah's Witnesses was one of the uh groups on the list that had the Christian tag, you know, and a lot of Christians were like interesting. Wait, why did they get it?
SPEAKER_01I think I think there was there was Christian scientists.
SPEAKER_00I think the Christian scientists was actually listed as one of the Christian denominations, which is Yeah, so it's like but so I mean Tom Cruise the government should not be waiting into but that isn't even that isn't even the there was no even allegation of differential treatment, right?
SPEAKER_01It was just the label, how are we being perceived? Because of course every religion should be treated equally, and it and it was be. It was right.
SPEAKER_00But my point is this the government should not be the arbitrar of theological truth in any sense, which is why the tag should have been left off, which is why the tags were removed. And I agree with that solution to this situation.
SPEAKER_01You think it was okay.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, yeah, I think that was the appropriate thing to do, in my opinion. Yes.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, I mean, it it it certainly is the simplest thing to do. I think it was the only thing to do. I mean, I I'm not sure. What would you do? I'm not sure I disagree with you. No, I'm not I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I'm thinking through that. Um you have to labor.
SPEAKER_00But this is part of being a pluralistic society.
SPEAKER_01What is a woman, Ashley? Can we draw boundaries and say you're wrong? That is not, you know, you're not a woman because you want to be, you're not a Christian because you want to be.
SPEAKER_00But that's those two things are totally different. They are different, those are totally different. I mean, yes and no. One has to do with internal conviction, the other has to do with external, visible, testable, understandable reality.
SPEAKER_01Because I mean, it whether you are a Christian has nothing to do with the definition of Christianity and whether something is Christian has nothing to do with internal conviction, right? Christianity is not a good idea. But you're making discriminations. God defines Christianity.
SPEAKER_00Right. But but that's man making discriminations between convictions. Yeah.
SPEAKER_01I I think where I'm where I'm going with this and where I'm trying to make the analogy to like the whole gender debate is you don't change your definition because people get sad about the definition of reality. And there is a Christian definition the Christianity, biblical Christianity excludes Mormonism. And that's that is in my perspective, and I think yours. Absolutely. A factual matter. That does not mean that we want the government being the police of those things.
SPEAKER_00Exactly.
SPEAKER_01Can they recognize that? It's it it's different. It's kind of there's some similarities, there's differences, that's what analogies are. And maybe it's instructive, maybe it's not. But it's an interesting discussion. Um, but I think it's interesting. Somebody should reach out to me and let me know how the Mormon church feels about what they used to say about their relationship to the rest of to Christianity. It would be interesting, yeah. Compared to what they're saying right now. If you know the answer to that question, please let me know. Because I'm curious. So, Ashley, I think that's what we've covered. I think we've covered it for today. Friends, thank you for joining us here on Politics for Happy People. Quick reminder that there are new episodes every Tuesday and every Friday. You can find us there and wherever you have found us today. Like and subscribe. Give us a review if you can, because that helps us find and make new friends. So glad that you're with us. We'll see you next time here on Politics for Happy People.